ML20244A829
| ML20244A829 | |
| 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 8906120164 | |
| Download: ML20244A829 (288) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.
;;{ifffNt &
~
VSW
^
J'?
,T., L'NITED STATES OF AMERICA '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM to ? 4, M buk c h t,'Ai ra . , ;,
, o zG 2, :'*
,. . xcts '
; 15CD j
..A %)
-- " *c j ~
ru ,#
- ? ~ a . ,, 4,g .
d' in the matter cl- ~. fEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al 7. Docke: No. 5 0-4 45 y +.. ."% ' 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam ElectrW diymCAw station, Units 1 & 2)
,. $ r
- h. l'(. .
r
&cf
^~
[4 - gr. ' wa
, y
. 3f4 #
.' w IN CAMERA SESSIONtg I
g ' 4
,,e v
yk+.. 4 s. q. gt .hy
. n a
t' ceposition of: " i
>p ,. #
$ 3:!*'s
, yt
- W e ,s, t
Q- - .
}
. Location: Gleg Rose,- Texas Pages: 339 - 564
' 'v~~
Date: Friday, July 20, 1984
*te k
Informaion in this 't t . inig;ordar.e wit hefreedom of allon
- vd. i
). w.{s5 M p-
... ., , . o - +.
- Act, exemptions '
gg. qq. y,;, [. ; ' g ,
.g) -
N. ;;<
.I T4YLoE ASSOCIATES '
' N d_ 5 DfLe Coun Reponers gg. .q, ,
- im i su.w. N w sww ions (f%q S u macea. O C. 20006 - *U -
, 1 3 p ' '
(202)33 M50 i G906120164 890607 PDR FOIA LM 7 HUGEe4-487 PDR ) u .
IN CAMERA ! l
.mgc-1 1 UNITED STATES OF' AMERICA-
\
2 NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMISSION I 3 L BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD 4
$' - - - - - - ~'- - - - - - - - - - -x In the matter of: :
6 , 7 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC : COMPANY, et_al.
- Docket Nos. 50-445-g : ~ 50-446' (Comanche Peak: Steam Electric : j 9 Station,-Units 1cand:;2) : -
._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ {
3 io 1 11 .. Glen Rose Motor Inn ' 12 Glen Rose, Texas 13 July 20,1984
'd Discovery s 15 Deposition of:
- ("'-
-(IN CAMERA),
u called for examination'by counsel for the Applicants, ' 16
)
37
.taken before J.F. Coughlin. Court Reporter, e
18 beginning at 7:36 a.m., pursuant to agreement. l( I 20 , 1[ 21 i 22 Applicants' Discovery Deposition: Volume 2. i 23 ' 1 I J 24 I 3 l 25 i a e' _____m__m __.m_____________
3401 i mgc-2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 On behalf of the Applicants Texas Utilities Electric j Company, et al. n
~
3 MARK L. DAVIDSON, ESQUIRE 4 j Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 5 1200 Seventeenth Street, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20036 6 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff: 7 CREGORY A. BERRY, ESQUIRE 1 B Office of the Executive Legal Director- 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i o Washington, D.C. 20555-On behalf of the Witness Danny Walter: 10 11 MICHAEL J. SPEKTER, ESQUIRE , Suite 1102 1717 K Street, Northwest 12 Washington, D.C. 20006 13 14 l 15 J 16 17 18 ! 19 1 l 20 21 22 23 2A 25
;d.
qq. b ~ : sfr . . g
.g {ig*.
,: ?> .s - _,
,,; dj . ,. , y 1;([ N, ge-3g' ~ q 2
g '
.l WITNESS: 'l 7 -
3
'e: ' . , ~
t
...V 5
x, .f-7 Sh cr . 1
~M, gaeg 8 3j Applicants' DisY$verffE~ ...
~
9 ed f. w..., Exhibit No. F-9A { 10 Exhibit No. F-10 ' g 9 .s ' 11 Exhibit No. F-11
. -3.v.,4
- 3.6 4h%R I'.M '
12 * , Exhibit No. F-12 ,g j g.j. - 480 ,% i 13 (Exhibit Nos. F-1 through 4
~ -
m. are , J' 14 Volume attached'to2 of the depoSitiOg this trans . ..- . 15 .
. m.r2., , g :. 'i t,* .
- n. ..
16 _ o
.y
. ' *p. "a . .( . -
' .- *'41 17 ,
- ~
"f.
',j , ';' 'j;;?
18 .p;
+
19 f, 3 g ' '
.u 20 ,
2I , i
.+ . g.'
a 22 .# " -
- " h* *
.. m W i:h' h. ' .
73 .
." ^ ~
- t. e y
dd
} k< ' ,a.d,i g y
25 E' -d4 ' '
' ', I i '*
6,.&. W) #d! ' . '
.Nihf 1. g{.g 45 t~ *
~ @. * $$
*6W .
Y $ "- T h ,~*
,,. WO in.~. : ,
> L'; M -
;Y
) ' '
t. 3 vn . . .
. f~g.
f M M;. ', ' y < P1
?x , ~#f. f.1.s - 'm{~ ~ ~ "a:~;
?
~
yp, 2 Whereupon, ,,
.- N* '
3
- wd :
d resumed the stand and, havi C been p ' ~~ ' 5
. p y .. * '. ..
~ *l was examined and testified p ~'dether f as follow
.x 6
fy MR. .DAVIDSON: Good morning, y 7 m-: I would like Mrg, Berry to ive is apRasrani:,S . c ,
- - .c .s a for the record.
T #" N 9 MR. BERRY: Gregory A. Berry for the Nuclear 10 Regulatory Commission, sitting in on behalf of the Staff. ' M MR. SPEKTER: Good morning. 12 Michael Spekter, appearing on behalf of I3 Id And with me this morning is Mr. Roisman. 15 MR. ROISMAN: And Mr. Treby from the Regulatory 16 Staff is also with this. l 17 MR. TREBY: That is correct. l q l 18 MR. ROISMAN: This is now the third day of this l 19 discovery deposition. It started sometime around 20 5:00 o' clock two days ago, having been preceded by scme-21 thing over two hours of voir dire. I ! 22 And the witness' availability for this tdiscover 'tl
, f *
23 *^ will be concluded at 2:00 o' clock this afternoon't 24 ._ . The witness has commitments that he mus O
)
I 25 ($ ." 4&p .s-. and a plane connection that he must make, as does'the *
"+2 m' :s ' ^'
~ ; ,
'd y+* =g._
1' . g y, a v.,
]
$. f ,
9' & w *; J q %, ejg. ,
,t
'(
, .,: ~ . t . .4 g.
A.f 3- h M'-
*e .
- .gg,
- 4
_y 4 i
FCj l" 1/ 2 343 I witness'. lawyer..Mr. Spekter.
~2
'Thus, it will'be.the position of CASE that:at' 3 2:00 o' clock any question that is still'in progress tolbe 4
completed and the answer given. And if ' t he' a nswer z is. s til'1 ! 5 in progress, the: answer will be completed.
-6
~The witness and the-: lawyer musbleave a t' ~ that 7
time in order to make their connections.. 8. It is further CASE's. position:that*anyLfurther 9 discovery of_this witness must be requestedofrom-the Board.- to If the parties: choose'to do it by ~ subpoena, CASE will 11 respond accordingly,and seek toiguash the. subpoena. 12 We believe that all reasonable discovery should 13 be completed by that time.- In fact, allireasonableE 14 discovery was and should have' been ' compl~eted- ~a.' number. of. 15 hours ago. 16 The witness will?bermade available'for cross-examination at the time of.the hearing on the 27th and'our , 17 l 18 position will be that whatever surprise' existed that
~
19 warranted discovery has long since.past -- in fact, passed j 20 probably two days ago -- and.that there isino~need to' l 21 continue. We've made the witness available for an: 22 extraordinary period of time and believe that~ this11s l, h 23 adequate. I' 24 l-We, in fact, imposed upon.our witness to stay i 25 I this late. His initial' plans had.been to actually:-leave. I 1 i, i k E_____..____ _ !
FCjl 1/3 344 1 on the same day that he came. l And he's extended to.the- ' 2 limit of his capability for.now. ! 3 The only. reason for making this clear on the e record at this point is so that all the parties can, if they 5 choose, so design the remainder of the discovery for today 6 so that they will be able to-get in everything that they 7 vant to get in. 8 And that's all I have to say. 9 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Roisman, insofar as the
)
10 statement you make goes -- you may be-unaware, since you , 11 have not attended these depositions, as to their exact l i 12 nature -- first of all, your statement with respect to the a 1 13 commencement of the discovery deposition is inaccurate. 14 l To start with, two days ago che witness was 15 scheduled to appear at 9:00 o' clock. He did not appear 16 until 1:00 o' clock in the af ternoon. 17 There was voir dire. It was not only the 18 voir dire that Applicant requested, but voir dire requested 19 by the Staff. Additional time was taken because before that 20 voir dire was made available to us, Mr. Roisman, you 21 insisted we call the Court and have the right to have 22 voir dire. 23 We had a pretrial telephone conference. 24 After that, at the 5:00 p.m. hour, it was 25 Mr. Spekter who commenced direct examination, which
4 J4)
-FCjl 1/4
.g
-( 4
[ d
.,M 1
continued almost for t ' N[hat day. 2 Therefor f so, pcurate time j 3 frame. the discovery dep , ne requested 4 commenced yesterday. 5* 5 II S e c o n d ly ,a( d , yesterday 6 evening, when he began his, + n. 7 specifically rese'b at some 8 future date. And th ord, sir,3 , 9 by Mr. Spekter, as cou - 10 Second1YlI, 'fiight 11 schedules of both h re was 12 ~ never any ques tion,' [about it. 13 I don't know why th
?b
.up space 14 on this record with 15 As for ime.
16 we have indicated , that 17 we're going to do _ ' 1
^
18 Mr. Spekter, to ise 19 be flexible in ch
- 5 20 But I c,a our 21 statement, in viewI e 22
. i? . -
record that is'ref ;- 23 MR.
.r
^
24 request that the j 25 position to be. 18 1
'O ;
u o I s , , p, g," '
FYjA A/d 1 earlier yesterday morning, that the entire affidavit was ; 2 ; not in evidence in this particular proceeding and that it i 3 is improper for counsel for Applicant to continually go 4 over and discover on that point. I believe that discovery 5 ha4 been completed on the appropriate areas that were l 6 surprise and that are in issue at this particular hearing 7 long ago. And I would note that for the recore. 8 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Spekter. I don't mean to 9 be contentious, but are you aware that on aore than one 10 occasion in this proceeding that you have agreed that the
^
11 l questions drawn from the affidavit submitted by j
-~
~s 12 have been relevant? !
l 13 Now, I'm very disturbed by your conduct and by 14 Mr. Roisman's conduct. 15 I normally do not chide counsel for their 16 behavior. But I have never been subjected to a situation 17 in which statements are made on the record -- agreements 18 are entered into on the record -- and then, overnight, 19 counsel come waltzing in here and, with absolutely straight 20 face and without the slightest bit of embarrassment or 21 chagrin, come in here and repudiate an agreement that they 22 had with the NRC Staff as to the right for Mr. Mizuno to l 23 continue his deposition and then repudiate, more than once, 24 a statement made by you, Mr. Spekter, on behalf of CASE, as 25 to the r e .i.e ve n c e of this examination. l
FYjl11/7
-d i
record, please-state what your reason and your position is. 2 sir. h j l _. -m ...a - 3 MR. SPEKTER: -My position is,that l~ t 1 4 has' testified to three incidents: the ES-100 incident. 4 5 which.is contained at page 10 and 11 of the-affidavit; the - ' o ferroresonant transformer incident, which,? I believe,-is \ d 7 contained on page 13 of the affidavit. 8 And in those two incidents, which have been 9 submitted.into' evidence b'y counsel for CASE, that 10 , has testified of two incidents'of harassment. 11 Another incident is contained along with that 12 particular incident and that is an incident where
- J 13 Mr. Luken called ,on the ferroresonant transformer
- . a 14 problem. q!
15 In addition to that, had testified', 16 on his direct, that he was told by Mr. London that, since .l
)
17 he had-so much free time evidently to-do work -- and I am ! J 18 not synthesizing testimony, I'm just making an argument. I'm l 19 just putting down my position on the record so:that-there's 20 a clear record of this **. that-he, Mr. London,' state'd to 21 him that since he had so much time to do other ' things, j 22 that therefore he should be given more work. i i 23 That was yet one more incident that was alluded- i i 24 to. 25 It is our position at - this time, as it was I l i = _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-347-I-
1 I would like to commence:the discovery portion. i . 2 MR. SPEKTER: 'Before you commence', I would have-one more thing that-I would like to put on the reccrd. 2 3 4 For>the record, Mr. Roisman has left. t 5 1 would like to. note that, in the direct = I 6 examination, testified-toithree' incidents of s 7 harassment and intimidation.- Those incidents'were, one, 8 an incident which related to his reporting of an ES-100 --
.9 MR. DAVIDSON:- M r '. --
I'm sorry -- for.the:
,f to first' time _in this deposition, Mr. Spekter. I'm. going.to !
t 11 interrupt.you. , 12 1 don't think it's proper-for you to'be
~
i i 13 summarizing the direct e xamina't ion a t' t his poin t . 14 MR. SPEKTER: I'am not summarizing it. I'm 15 going to make an argument ~
'and.I'd like to just place it 16 on the record and --
17 MR.-DAVIDSON: I think that I'd like to'know i 18 what the nature of that argument is. 19 This is my discovery deposition. 'You'have, so -- 20 you have rested your direct examination. 'I don't think 1- ' 21 you have the right to take th'e podium away from me except i 22 for a specific purpose addressed to my discovery deposition. l
' l, 23 MR. SPEKTER: Well. it is a specific _ purpose, t 24 and it is addressed to your discovery deposition. !
25 MR. DAVIDSON: Then, without rehashing the-
't t
._________m_ _ _ _ _ - -
'FCjl 1/5- ,
}
346 __. 1 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, 11think:that there is an 2 agreement already.'.That11s what I'm making you awarefof, 3 Mr. Roisman. And I'think that Eyou're not' reneging-on the J 4 agreement that'was made last night. 5 And I'think that before you' insist upo'n 'your 6 position, I would ask thatDyou review the transcript to-7 see the~ positions that were taken. 8 _MR. ROISMAN: 11 am statingunow on. behalf offmy 9- client, CASE, what CASE's position is. 10 MR. DAVIDSON: In other.words,.are you 11 repudiating Mr. Spekter's statement of-last night?- 12 MR. ROISMAN: l I have not read that transcript, 13 and I -- 14 MR. DAVIDSON: My suggestion is you read it. 15 MR. ROISMANs It is irrelevant-whether I ann o r 16 not. I am trying to make clear for all the parties'what 17 CASE's position is now, and that's all I intended to do, 18 not to argue it or take any'of the time that you 19 legitimately want to take for your discovery. i l 20 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Roisman, I will'say only~ i 21 this. that Applicant does not intend to obviously enforce 22 any agreements or understanding t' hat CASE lhas with the' 23 Staff that are recorded in t h'e record. But I'will certainly l i 24 inform Mr.'Mizuno of_your statement this morning, an'd the 25 record will reflect what was agreedito lest night. 2l 4 i l
, i yt-- A7 , - 4 1
Now, we fve discussed that. I've' told you.about' , 2 my good faith belief. I-So, I don't think that we need to -j . 3 spend'much more time with it. 4 But.I do want to note for'the record that I.have-5 never, in.16. years of practice, had'an about-face-and a -l-6 reneging on.the record of agreements that-I consider to be 7 binding and stipulations by. counsel in this case.- 8 And I -- I just want to note'that.I -- I am 9 distressed and concerned',-because.I have never seen that. 10
.And I'm sure that when the t ran s c'ri p t is 11 reviewed-by Mr. Roisman, as'vell as.by yourself Mr. Spek'ter[s.
12 .I think that maybe you may wish to recant ~ and recognize 13 that you can't' agree one day to relevance and then the-14 next day, when it suits your purpose, not choose.to do so -- 15 or agree one day to a procedure and'then .the next day, 16 choose.not to do so. 17 9 I'd like to continue with your , , . 18 examination. ! and 1 19 20 j 21 22 ! 23 i l 24 _ 25 l i __ __= _ -
cc4302A --- 1 1 MR. TREBY.: The staff does not want to 2 spend any time away from taking of thefdeposition now.- ' 3 We would only note _that whatever agreemnt that was 4 reached on the record would be shown in the record;and w'e j 5 intend that they be lived up to. And with that, we hope i 6 that'you can now begin taking up-your deposition at this 7 point, Mr. Davidson. 8 If it is~possible and'there is some time 9 _ remaining before~ the 2 o' clock leavetaking, Mr. Mizuno 10 indicated to me he had some very brief completion of.his 11 questions and that he.should be available from the-12 completion of his other depositions to do them at-that 13 time. 14 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Treby. than you very much. 15 I" MR. SPEKTER: Thank you very much. 16 MR. TREBY: The record.should indicate that 17 Mr. Treby is leaving at this point, that Mr. Berry is 1B is representing in this case.- 19 CONTINUED DISCOVERY DEPOSITION I 20 EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 1 F 22 Q ] I woul'dflike you to turn to
,,.- j i
23 page 3 of your affidavit and would like for you to draw. ' I 24 your attention to-the second complete sentence on.that-page1 j 25 whfah begins, "If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ' i
)
J I
'l .
l 1 I
352-I Regulatory Guide states . . ." 2 Do you see'that? Do you see it? I 3 , Why don't you. read that sentence to'yourself. and then look'up at me when you finish. 5 A I believe that starts;the third complete 6' sentence. I ~ e Q 1 think you best-look again. and 8 1 think you.besc' read the sentence and11ook~ p at'me wnen you are finished.' 10 (Witness peruses document). BY.MR.'DAVIDSON: 12
.Q Have you read the secondIcomplete sentnece 33 '
on that page, sir?
'd A (No. response.)
15 A tes. I hve. 16 Q And there it states that -- or it.is your II assertion that if the NRC' Regulatory Guide-states that a 18 certain item "should be" or "should not be" done a-certain way -- and this is the point I am interested'in'- '"TUSl 20 will usually interpret-this commitment as discretionary." 21 Do you see that? l 22 A Correct. In 23 Q What is the basis for your stat'ement 24 about their: usual practice?' 25 A In dealing with the butt splicing incident. w__ _ - _ - - _ - - . _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ - - - ' ' - ~
^'
353-jon3t 1 Q What else -sir? ..,
.I 2
A That is-the only'one1I can remember at-4
-3 this point.
4 Q Did you have any other' incident in' mind 5 _ when you'. wrote this, sir; or when you signed it? . ;: 6 A I do not remember. . 7 Q f .
. would you turn to page 4 of'
.L 8
your affidavit?- 9 I would. ask: you to look at,the.'first. 10 complete paagraph on that page-and the'second sentence
-11
~thereof.
'12 Do you-see -that 1 sir? .It says'"About ~ one
.13 month ago..this system became-my. responsibility."- Do Id you see that? '
15 A Correct. to q .All right. Sir, this' affidavit was: sworn 17 and subscribed to by virtue of the testimony you-have 18 given here on June 27, 1984; is-that correct? 19 A Correct. 20
.Q One month prior to that would be'May 27, i
21 1984; is that correct? ' 22 A Correct. 23 Q Were you employed at' Comanche Peak-at 'that' 24 time? 25 A No, I wa's not.- in
8 . ' ' 2 j o n'4 {. I Q So, 'then,fthis stated. time frame is 2 inac'c urate. the one that we?have just referred:tocon 3 p,g, 4 of your affidavit?- A ' A It'wou'ld beLinaccurate'to the d a t e - o f'- 5 l signature on,this document. -
.6 Q HI t refers.back,'doesn't.it,.to the time 7
of one'of the earlier. draf ts. of which you: spoke?: 8 A I believe it refers ~back to the: time -- either the time.of-an earlier draft or the time of-10
-my voluntary resignation'from employment.
II Well, perhaps we'can_.pinpointfthis!just-
~
Q 12 a little bit better. Do you remember when you obtained 13 or were given the responsib111ty1for the emergency 14 evacuation lighting system?- 15 A I do not remember the exact- date., 16 Q Ws it in February? I7 A I*do not remember. is 1 Q Well, you will agree.with me that you ( weren't assigned'any'new. responsibilities on the date-20 that'you turned in your resignation? 21 I A Correct. 22 Q And that date you told us was sometime - 23 between March'19 and March 23. ! 24 { A Correct.
- 25 I
- t. Q So it would be sometime earlier than that?: ,
l k l 1 l 1 i
-s.u.
355 h
.{
L "I A Correct.; 2 :l Q Now, the-question. I guess, is does that. 3 help you' remember as to how much earlier it might have 4 been? 5 A I believe it would-have.been within one..or z . 6 two months of March time limit. I 7 Q Thatwould put'it-in January or February? I 8 A At the earliest. 9 Okay. Q Thank you, r- :.. - , 10 _ your next. statement in that . It affidavit in the.same paragraph t'alks about yourfdiscovery. q 12 of an STE who.was responsible for the system,before.you; j 13 had signed off on approximately_300 testErecordsLat which
~
14 he was not present. l 15 Do you'know the.name of:that1STE? 16 A Yes, I do.- 9 17 Would you tell us?' I Q ' 18 A lt is Gary Anderson. 19 Q Yes, sir. And.you then state that.you wrote j
. i, 20 a test deficiency report against those-tests?' i a
21 A Correct.
- 22 Q Are you certain.of that, sir 9 23 A Yes, I am. '
l i 24 Q Do you have a copy'of that'TDR,' sir? l 25 A 1 do not, no. I do not remember if:I do'at.
'l I
y l 4
; joo6 i' '
I t' this time or not.
' I 2
Q But it is your;testimonyJthat you wrote. 3 it and not yourLsuccessor Mr. Becker? d A I will not -- I turned in'a: test-5 deficiency report L in my handwriting to' Art London 1 1 6 without my -- without'.an official' number assigned;'to it' 7 or so forth; whether Art' London.decidedito. reword my a test!deficinecy report or transfer.itt on to another 9 personnel. 10 As to what happened to it after that point.
~
11 [ I do not-know. I 12
'Q What_is the procedure for the preparation l' 13 l of a formal TDR or test deficiency report? ,
Id A I-was requested by Art London during 15 conversations to write up this TDR and hand it to:him;' 16 he would in turn process it.the rest - of the way.. 17 Q ,
', did you hear my.. question?
k l
...[
IB 4 ' i A 1 do not remember the exact process of TDR . 19 processing at this time. 20 Q aren't you supposed to secure.a 1 3 21 TDR number in the preparation of.a TDR? 22 A Not in the beginning tages of a TDR, no. ; 23 Q 1 see. So you are stating you' don't know 24 the procedure for a TDR2 25 A I'm saying I do not remember it. I l I 1 i 1
"Tijon; I
t 1 Q Did"you know it at the time you vere 2 employed at Comanche Peak? !- l 3 A Yes. d Q And it is your understandingLthat you don't j 5 k get a number and that,you'just. write-something up and. l 6
.give it to your supervisor and you' don't forward it?
7 That's the understanding ofE the standard pracitee? 8 MR. ~ SPEKTER: Asked and answered.. MR. DAVIDSON: I-don't believe'so.- 10 BY MR..DAVIDSON: .! II Q .But, 'you can answer it ;and hen- j 12 w gg.will be asked and answered. 1 13 A. The -- de011ng:w1Eh thisitest, defic'iency-Id report, I felt that'the test deficiency'raport should-15 i have higher information on it than whet it had'on~it. 16 Art London felt that it should not. Therefore he. requested-17 that I give the test deficinecy report: to;him. This.was 18 a common practice at Comanche' Peak'for them to-do'that. .- l 19 Q To do what, sir? 20 A lo review.that test deficiency rep, ort before ; 21 actually putting:it into the formal ~ record.- 22 ! Q When,you say reviewLit.do you~mean: review = l 23 it to determine whether your supervisor agreed'with'it: '! 24 or disagreed with.it? l 25 A To review it and make changes as necessary. ', 1 i l
- _ . = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
'jonB ' ~
-358L I
Q You mean review it_for grammar and spelling 2 and clarity? 3 A 'No. I believe-that this TDR that-I' submitted-to him. was- modified.
-5 e q .So!you don't know --
6 ' A I don't know what Art London:did'with the 7 test-d'ficiency e report. I gave him a--testEdeficiencyL 8 report handwritten .by me... signed 'at the bottom by me, and he was' expected by me to continue that~TDR W1th a 10 test' deficiency report number. II l Q Is this the prac.tice_that you alwe*.I.followed; 12 that is,,to merely write up a-test deficiency' report, not 13 secure a number and not see that it was forwarded to:any I# coordinating ~ office? 15 A Under normal circumstances .no; this was 16 personally requested by Art London to do this particular 17 matter since it being.of-high conflict through him. I8 Q So, in other words, ycu are stating that-I' this was an unusual procedure?' 20 A Yes, it was. 21 Q And'.wasn't-it your_ responsibility to follow-22 the normal procedures?- 23 A I don't believe the following'that I'did was 24 out of'line of normal procedures. I would have.to review. L 25 the_ normal procedure to be able to tell you. If'I'was-Ei__----_-----_--------_-------------------- - - -
m jon9 359 1 1 out of line it was a normal procedure. i' 2 Q But you do: know that this was not the i 3 l customary practice for filing a TDR, the manner.in which- ) you handled tnis one?
.A I do not know -- I am not willing.to make ,
j 6 l that statement that it was not -- it had not. happened 7 before, it was not~ customary at certain times. 8 Q Customary at certain times is not normal. 9 Do you understand that? You used the word throughout 4 10 your affidavit normal, usual, customary, and you seem to 11 understand it very well when you use it in your affidavit. 12 Are you having difficulty with it now? 1 A No, I am not having difficulty. 14 l$ 16 I 17 ; 18 19 , 20 1 21 i 22 23 25 l l I l i i
e El FCji-3/1 0 t 1 BY MR. DAVIDSON: / 2 'I Q , do'you know'who' Louis. Clark is? ! 3 A 1 do not remember. 4 I may have known at one time.- ILdo not 5 remember. '
.j' i o '
Q Have you ever met Mr.. Louis Clark? 7 1.do not remember at this. time. A 8 Q during your discovery-deposition-9 which commenced yesterday, we marked an exhibit Disc F-3, 10 which was a draft of.a letter addressed to Raymond-Donovan I 11 and which purported.to be a complaint-filed'in your behalf i 12 with the Department of Labor. 13 I Do you remember that? 14 A Correct. 15 Q The person whose name appears at the bottom of-16 that letter is Mr. Louis Clark. 17 Do you see that? 18 A Correct. 19 Q Does that refresh your recollection? 20 A Yes, it does. 21 Q Do you know who Mr. Louis Clark is? 22 A Mr. Louis Clark I believe is an attorney 23 associated with the GAP. organization. ; 24 i Q Have you ever met Mr. Louis Clark? 25 A No. 1.have not. 1 i
)
i ~ ! FCjl 3/2 i I I ~I Q Have you ever_ talked with Mr. Louis Clark? ' 2 A No, I have not. 3 Q 1 do you know the procedure for . processing a DCA -- that is, a design change authorization? I ; 5 A 1 have known the procedure for processing. I O will not admit to remembering the exact process now. j 7 8 Q Would you describe it for me as best as you can ff \ recollect, how a DCA is processed? f
' 1 A There are several different ways of processing 10 a DCA Il Q And please tell us each one of those that you ]
')
12 1 are familiar with. I3 A A DCA could be requested from start-up by a l'
-- it's a form of a start-up design change request form. j 15 And on that form, you would identify what' the 16 condition is now and what the condition needs to be changed '
17 ! to. I 18 i That process would go towards Engineering, f 19 ! and would thereby be possibly -- would be reviewed and a ! 20 DCA performed on it -- or written for it. l 21 Q Well, is that your understanding of what the 22 procedure is? ' 23 ' A To the best of my recollection right now. 24 Q Well, let me ask you this, who had the authority 1 25 1 to initiate a DCA? ! I t t i 4
- - _ ~ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
FCj l 3/3. 362 4
~
I A' I believe - to.name'an[ individual person, Ic 2 do not remember. 3
~'Q - But11t's your understanding that,only an d'
identifiedfindividual-had it, as opposed to an: entity?
'S' ;A No, no.
'6
.q. .Let me ask you this, who'had thesauthorityyto.
7 request a'DCA?: 8 A Requestla DCA? Or: request a-change?' 9 Q Well, request 1thatsd'DCA be. initiated.- 10
.A I believe the individ~alu start-up test en'gineers 11 did, through the paperwork which I previously testified-12 about.
13 Q So.that you could'have asked =someone to initiate' Id a DCA -- 15 A Yes. 16 Q -- on your-behalf?- -i 17 And who would.the person:have to be - what 18 position would they[have to hold-to' initiate a~DCA? 19 A They would have had to'have beenia; system-20 test engineer. 21 g In-other words, it's your impression.you could 22 initiate a DCA? You.could be the originator of'that. ' 23 document? , 24 l A Yes, originator of'the document' requesting;the. .l 25 I DCA. [, i i j l l
-_ _ _- - O
~
- FCj lL 3 /4- 363-1 I
Q' Now, : when. 'I: say that,.I.mean that.you had the 2 i authority.to actually sign:the DCA asLthe-person originating'. 3 it, as opposed to the; person who requested it. d A No, ILdo not believe I had -- - 5 Q ~I don't think'you did either. But/I1want"to-6 be clear on that. 7 ' A ,Well, I-- 8 Q. Let me. explain to.you,1so that you're noti-- 9 if you don't understand. 10 When I say-that you have the authority 1to 11 request', what I mean is that you. can ' ask ' someone to 12 initiate it. 13 When I'say " initiate the DCA,"~I mean'the' id person who actually is the first signature. the first 15 originating signature on the.DCA. That's the person who. 16 has the authority to respond to.your request. . 17 Okay? IB Now, did you have the. authority to initiate'a W DCA? 20 And to your knowledge,'do.-the start-up engineers, 21 in general, have that authority? 22 A I'do-not believe.so. 23 Q They did, however, in'your view, have thel 24 l authority and.the right to ask that someone initiate a 25 DCA? ____.._.__.._____m______._ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _
'FCji '3/5; 364'-
1 A Correct. 2 Q- Do'you know. .once a DCA -- well, do you know:by 3 whom a DCA could be initiated?' 1 4 A T do not remember.' 5 Q Could'it be: initiated.by a Quality Control-6 _inspec' tor? 7 A .I'do not remember. 8 Q- Would'it'have to-be'an engineer?- 9 A, I do not think thatzit'wouldthave'to be -- 10 Q 'I mean, someone from Engineering..a quality: , 11 engineer? 12 A It could possibly be. 13 Q But~that person would have to'be an= engineer? 14 ~That's my question. 15 .A -I do want -- know what-their -- their background' 16 requirements are in the Engineering Department. 17 Q But You don't know, generally, who has the 18 authoriry .o ;.i.e.iate a DCA at this time? 19 A .I -- Engineering initiated.several DCAs. 20 Therefore, they_must have had the authority. s But to -- 21 my recollection to identify people or other r individuals, 22 no. 23 Q All right. 24 Now, who -- was.there any review procedure-of . 25 a DCA?
1 1 A Yes. ' 2 All right. Q 3 What was the authorized route of review? j 4 A I do not remember.
)
5 Q Did you know at any time? 6 A Yes. I i 7 Q To the best of your recollection, what -- you ) i 8 just -- you mentioned Engineering. Is the review had by i 1 9 Engineering? j l 10 A I do not remember at this time.
> i 11 I've indicated to you what I do remember about !
12 the DCA process. And at this time, I do not remember the ! i ;
! {
13 remainder. Without refreshment of the DCA procedures, I do '
]
14 not remember. I i, i 15 Q All right. n . 16 how long ago was it that you were 17 employed at Comanche Peak? 18 It's less than three months ago, isn't it? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And a DCA was one of the procedures.with which 21 you were supposed to be familiar while you were employed 22 there? 23 A Yes. ' 24 Q But you've forgotten what you knew then? 25 A You have to understand that I've also gone l O
z366-FYjl 3/7-I through a retraining process, that :once- you '1 eave a site 2 and'go to another company, the procedures and all are 3 different. 4
'So, I could possibly bel confusing procedures 5
from'another company in with the company'-- with Comanche- i 6
. Peak. Without actually'looking:at Comanche Peak's-7 documentation. 1lcannot_ adequately say__I remember; exactly 8
what was in that DCA.
)
9 Q Well', you told us :you -: don ' t rememb'er atlall. 10
.Now..you didn't testify that you were. confused.-
3 II :l And you didn't propose another. procedure _thatl ultimately 12 proved'to be one of Stone & Webster. 13
~What you. told meLi s<that.youJdon't remember'at j
'd all, that you have no recollection. j 4
15 Because if there is some recollection', I'd .i 16 appreciate having it. 17 A 1 do not remember.--I have_ told you which 18 portion,I do not_ remember speicfically.-which routing'._of the' a s 19 the DCA procedure with' respect to_ Comanche' Peak. 20 Q If' I told'you that.it should be initiated by 21
;)
an engineer, reviewed'by an engineer.within that department j 22 as a secondary review, and-then ultimately. reviewed'by: 23 ! Design Engineering..would that reflect.your recollection I 24 ~ as to the proper procedure?
.i 25
-A 1 could not. without looking at the procedure, I
- - ~ -
e, 4 JA .J ys i d.xi , . . FC E ' "
# ,-y .
p.lT -4 3 .
. .% q : (
$;p . t , <
f .p , 1 1 pt believe that you are adequat. ur emination.
. pez 2
. , , , 4' - .-
1 Q To your knowla 1 frchitect-engineer the l 4 m - 3 normal path of review for a ,- . . 4 g ,. 44%.+ ' '" A I do not Yemembe 4
' '.Wr .
*f 5 .. 1 Q Do you think it, lean?
4 9 h 6 MR. SPEKTER: INi
's answered the 7 question. ,
3 .' 8 THE WITNESS! 4 ~. p: I don now -- I -~ 46 9 .
, bypy?,
BY MR. DAVIDSON: f;.
'Y 10 Q I don't want to - W 11 A Without refreshing'my t.ksl.memory --
12 Q It seems to me, that we have tried 13 to refresh your memory. You've' adamantly forgotten
,w* :
14 M -; everything. You've told us t at you've been through a i 15 process of retraining. A nd456 ' a p p.2arently.B % 4 . > e m ,. when that occurred. j 16 everything you learned at Cosanc,he . ~ . Peak, from what we ' 17 understand, left. ' J ' 18 The only thing that seems to have been retained i 19 is the grudges that you bear. 20 MR. SPEKTER: I object to counsel's. characterize-
- .c .
21
,41on. 3 .g. w .
22
. :4. .-
>rg x
MR. DAVIDSON:5'I
. s
..r e :~-
Min',t;-- I'm sorry, and I 23 _- - 3.y-apologize to you if you find the, characterization . : an fj
'n '
24 unwelcome one. ss. .
.,1,jid" t ,'l,- ? "'
25 On the other hand..I nd the lack of memory of
*sN"4r_['/h._', f$,[#N :Nk i E.' 9 V e
% .6 *n ,.
i / qhE ,, ,d #
.b. . .
t'
. n., s h i$N N
' dFCj 1 3 /9 '
75 i S W"~E ;.<'
.. e :- 36% '%b -
t , y a
.~
e._. . . yC- - #
,w
-- .4- -
,g.
; ,pc; ,. 3 , ; .. << .
.. 3 4
^
, 55kT: s $ % h x; to procedu '.
/
this witness as res?res ble,.in view of the a ny s v 2 fact that on June 27th he auf 8 ced 5E a idavit in which
^
3 h:-4}:~ he talked about his vast exp e r ie'n,@c in ethe nuclear industry d and compared his knowledge,To.. in the nuclear 5
...d.ures u
3 industry to those present at h a'nche Peak and found them 6 wanting. di.n,r:, > I MR. SPEKTER: I . bV ~ 'rgu' ment is appropriate 8 k NM %~
' ~
for the Board and not for this pro'cediare.
, g.g H , .
,MR. DAVIDSON: Well3; c'11 have an opportunity 10 to cross in the presence Y. '
of Mr. Bloch and the W II balance of the Board. 'in 12 BY MR. DAVIDSON:
'3 Q , turn't p ge 6 of your affidavit, I#
if you would please. '4 3, 15 ' And I would like turn'your attention to your 16 statement in the last complete sentence on that page. 17 ,:: . , ..w And what I'd likey{o's.'todo is read that to I8 yourself and look up at me when you're completed. nd 3 " .
'j 20 21 <
~
. $ a 22 . (. ; i , ,
s *" ;-:
;bQ .;*
23 " rTa "<' \ , J'Q, . - 24 - v%'g' f (~ ' "%jf.L .y 25 - ( - yh .._ . 4 f: -
*) ***
pr , * { jl 4 s;
~
)
a 9, , , :ri: y b r,, N
+g) # (' ' .
*- .ne. ,A-
~,.fr a ,.
4 .-
~ : :pf. -
A ft; 1
, * , .W.
MR. SPEKTER ness is reading 2 that I just wanted to n6 e , iC ndividual does 3 . %. n not have a copy of the_affi v?
'and I'do not have an a :gsj; -.
extra one that isn't marke s.,
' i n
5 MR. DAVIDSON *" g E you have any 6 difficulty following Fbei " u are. perfectly 7 i 4 -; . ;'- free to look on with.,me ,. li'e ear *a f fid avi t . MR. SPEK : 'onk.that has been 9 marked, an M . .3
'i .
extra marked o'ne,' d ' o ,4 that we could to O provide to him? " #. #5 s '" - gg ... -- t* p: ' .
~
MR. DAVIDSON:.-#. < o, and I think we will put it in front of h 3 'f
'."[
BY MR. DAVIDSON Q ,d $ tatement there7'.., 15 "The overlap is c onIs ing!'f k?# I, / i'i p M
- 16 ,.,, F _myi A Yes. -e IE, 5 17
Q When you say t ofgoumeanit is 3g ,e mer 19 confusing; to you?
- a. s -
%.h;C.
v .e. l A Yes. .fr . , . .Dnk:2.' P And you state thatNh.J 20 Q that situation of I
.ap .
confusion may lead to port [ *l : ^ 4 em being overlooked 22 , M . . . during inspection?
- 23
. -} ?. 24;h9s.
,,'.t A Yes. - %
4,.
. e .) ?
24 '3NS -
-Nb -
~
Q This discussiogg 1 g3 '
, tes"to an SWA; l ,
l that is a startup work aut'ho
=f 3 . :,, , ? "
o
'b <
y.0 ks5
. ::7 c . .
. {'. y;, . ..
- v. ~ y .e , .
* ; . . q ,,L % , ,
* ; w, \ f' . . e' .?
,,' _ , ( *
- ? s .
u *
. 4 Q.t
, ,. !' i h-? . $.
a i n
, (
! $ ... y'
, 4 geodifwi ' -
in.:t J S .,,.
. q.; --
N~ 6' dyrecollectio$$.
- e. ,
kh h - g~ 7 Q W 1 un
' ~~ [/ 4wf ;
8 b- Q " -
,g, . dff$5fN$<
upon'which you can,te(~ify.. t Ve,t'oday. ' y- 'Q 9
' y9g.,
;, s
;, ., 'kl **.
, in your'testimo~ny yest k#ay '
10 you declared that only the opinion of the NRC with 11 respect to at least one or more of the claims which you 12 raise in your affidavit would have satisfied you and 13 that responses from your superiors on various portions 14 of the Comanche Peak organization invoking construction 15 and quality engineering would not have been sufficient 16 and that the statements made by Gibbs & Hill and with 17 respect to the interpretation of the :ES-100 would not 18 have been sufficient to convince you that you would have 19 been correct? 20 Do you remember that? 21 MR. SPEKTER:
' I believe the commen: refers 22 specifically to the ES-100 incident.
- 23 &
s 1 BY MR.'DAVIDSON: 2d Q In any event. *< I believe you did state that 25 that is what you wanted; right?
~
. lc,
'x.
' A>
~
s _ j'f.W' l
.y . -
. }
# 9
.-k y ,
' q 'h -'
' g
, oh
[ N 'i [,;3/Q w;,_ sj AW ' HO-g & A s.g.,:b( W
~
v. _ mmm. - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - ' - ' ' '
M.[g T -Q j .sf} , -
. .n .l11- -
1 A Yes, I did want that information by the NRC. 2 Q You also have alleged here in your affidavit 3 that there is an inconsistency or conflict between the d procedure at Comanche Peak and a code known as ANSI 5 N45.2.6 with respect to the nature of_the supervision 6 and oversight p rovic'ed by STEs when testing and data 7 taking is underdone by qualified craft perso'nel. n Do you 8 remember that? A Correct. 10 Q Do you know whether that matter was discussed 11 t with any representati<re of the NRC? 12 i A I do not remember at this time. ' 13 ( Q My question was whether you know, not whether
\ ld you remember.
15 A There is that possibility. 16 Q And if that had been discussed with the NRC l 1 17 and you had been told of that discussion, would that 18 have satisfied your concern? W A 1 don't remember at the time if it would have i 20 . I or not. I 21 Q I see. Do you know wheth'er this issue was -- ! 22 strike tha t .- u ,. ~ 23 ... did you raise this issue with 24 25 someone at MPea Comanche , did you not, this issue of the alleged inconsistency between practice and ANSI 4 2.67 t, .e 4
* ~ '
fj G -
. .. : en l
'w ;r$ r'M' u,
g .m g dg g j !
+ , . ~ .
4 fowwwl ,
snrov , n. 4jon4 2 g ! is 1 v
) A I raised the issue with several people. I ;
2 believe. i 3 - Q Did you write a startup memo on it or any lij 4 I other kind of communique? I 5 A I do not remember. fI
! I I
6 . Q Do you know whether there was a QA ! 7 surveillance resolution of the issue? 8 A I do not remember. 9 10 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Mizuno, I see you haveDl , joined us. We have an interesting situation developing . Il this morning, as you remember, recollected 12 yesterday on his -- or the dr.y before yesterday -- vivid 13 O color, the tone of the voice and the words, the precise f
- k. m Id words that were used in various alleged incidents of f)
I I 15 harassment. Now he has a complete and utter lack of
\
b 16 memory with respect to any of the details in his 1 17 affidavit and any of the procedures that he used at 18 Comanche Peak. #
-=w. #
19 MR. SPEKTER: I would object to counsel's 20 characterization as to the tone and manner of the witness' 21 testimony. I believe it is a proper matter for argument } 22 and I believe it is improper at this particular deposition. 23 MR. DAVIDSON: I will desist, although I 24 think the record will show I did not ever characterize 25 \ the wi'1ess' tone. I think it has been perfectly acceptable ! i; l 1
.I3 1
e l i
** y p - '~.: . '2 Met: jyQA RFM .s J/J J
' v3% Ef yr-
,s
^:
l{i Q, {c, 5 a , g:~i 1 and I believe and I are having a prop 2 discussion. I with the questions, he with the answers. 3 BY MR. DAVIDSON: . I 4 Q So you do not remember whether there was any i i 5 QA surveillance resolution of the issue? i i ' f 6 A No, I do not. 7 Q Would I refresh your recollection by calling B your attention to the fact that the senior resident i I 9 inspector, Dennis Kelley of the NRC participated in the i 10 discussion of this issue? i 11 A I do not believe he participated in the 12 discussion of the issue with me. I -- l t 13 Q He may have done so with others? 3 14 A I do not know that. How do I know that? 15 1 Q Were you told that he did? 16 A I do not know. I do not remember if I was 17 told or not at this time. 18 ' Q I see. _ 1
]
19 THE WITNESS: Can we pause for a minute, if 20 possible? 21 MR. DAVIDSON: To consult with your counsel, 22 1 23 THE WITNESS: Well, I would like to take a 24 short break. 25 MR, DAVIDSON: Well, all right. You know ' l O
_4jon6 374 1 the rules we have been operating under'is that whenever 2 you need to take a break you can_take one. l 3 THE WITNESS: All right.
'4 MR. MIZUNO: Staff counsel would also like-5 to take a break.
6 (Recess - 8:15 a.m.) 1 end4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I I
gajo% .,-; '1-4 l t 1 (On.the record - 8:26oa.m.) j 2 MR. DAVIDSON: I'believe~there'was'a 3 question pending, but, in any event I would like to have-4 the last question and.if.there was an, answer to?it,Ethe j i 5 answer' read'. l 6 MR. SPEKTER:. 11believe~it was about 7 a startup memo for ANSI.42.2.6'.- B MR. DAVIDSON: I-believe that was the 9 i
. general subject- matter. .
'I believe we completed'that j
10 discussion. We then moved on to page 6 wh'en we were 11 discussing a statement made by thatethe overlap; , 12 is confusing, and he is talking about.the' practice of 13 allowing one-SWA -- that is startup work authorization -- 14 be applied for reworking on more than_one system, and he 3 15 said there was an overlap that was confusing, and ILasked. 16 him to who and he said to himself, andcI asksed him whether:- 17 the SWA to which he was referring'had an'ything to.do with-18 QC inspections, and-he said because of: this confusion 19 there could be an inspection could-.be overlooked and he 1 q 20 said the SWA had noth'ing to'do with'QCfinspection and : 21 i we were going'from there. 22 MR. SPEKTER: I believe the record.will' 23 reflect what the exact testimony was. ) i 24 MR. DAVIDSON: I just want to' refresh your > l 25 recollection to make sure that-we are.both'on board of d
.-l ,s.
I j
I this. I think that actually I had at that point 2 completed my discussion of that particular page. 3 3 MR. SPEKTER: Fine. e i MR. DAVIDSON: So I guess the answer is that 5 we are ready to proceed further. 6 You are right, though, that we did plumb ' - memory as to whethee h'e knew how the ~ '~'~ matter that he raised with respect to ANSI N45.2.6 t 9 10 has been resolved and he indicated he didn't resolve it. l 11 I asked him whether he recollected that the QA surveillance had been brought into the dialogue and had l l ! 12 i been resolved in favor of the practice at Comanche Peak. 13 14 He indicated that he did not know that or did not remember it. 15 ! 16 I asked him whether he knew that Dennis !' Kelley, the senior resident inspector of the NRC had l 17 been brought into the discussion; he said he didn't know 18 that -- 19 MR..SPEKTER: I would once again state that 20 21 the record will reflect what the exact ; testimony is. MR. DAVIDSON: You are absolutely right. 22 I was more than any, thing else refreshing my own recollection. 23 MR. SPEKTER: I don't think there is a need 24 to take up the transcript with that. 25 t+ 4.,g ,
- MR. DAVIDSON: ,You are quite right. I am
.y .
N ' N, s a w * !% ~, .A s: ">Th. +
&k'* ? {q
.,9 '
.g .-
. Add $4. .$p ? !yk fr '
?
j
? a. ,
. l- '
, p. . .
. % e$ s '. s ~ 1"-
_._________.__.._____.----J
jon3 .. 9F%. j' #"
.i
, vy 5 g
' k. 1 *
/ g kjI ' , ,,.#8 m properly chastened.
2 i (Mr. Mizuno not present at this time.) 3 l%y' ' BY MR. DAVIDSON: 4 ,.... Q 1, I would}1ike to tutn your attention to page 7 an the only completed paragraph
.e W
on that page, and the first sentence thereof, and I would specifically#6 W like you to r ad that and when you 8 have completed it please lookWW up at' me. 9 (Witness perusing document.) 10 A All right. Q In that, you --- and I am going to paraphrase 12 and summarize. i es 13 g You state at Comanche Peak a computer V i4 _, ,w $4 printout of all the tests r e q:i,i re d o be performed on , 15 a system is not provided to the STE; is that correct 3 16 A Correct. Q And when you say test do you mean prereq : l 18 tests or p r e -o p e r a t i o n a .'. ? A Prereq. 20 Q Isn't the procedure for requisite section or 21 prerequisite section of the prerequisite test matrix i 22 a part of preoperational testing? b 23 A There is a section in the preoperational rest 4 24 which requires certain prerequisite Itests to be performed 25 prior to performance of that preoperational test. But that I N 3/^ ,, v.: .
*+ fkhN 4
Sjon4 378 I is derived by an individual STE and not from a computer 2 printout. ! 3 Q From what does that individual derive that? d A From information and knowledge that he 5 possibly might obtain individually. 6 Q When you say from information and knowledge 7 he might obtain. individually, what items of information, 8 that is in the way of manuals or materials provided to the STE so that he may obtain that information? 10 A Well, he obtains that information as to what II he thinks should be prerequisite test prirr to the 12 preoperational test. 13 Q Are you familiar with section 14.2 of the I" FSAR, that is the Final Safety Analysis Report? 15 A I do not -- I may be familiar with it but 16 I do not remember it at this time. I7 Q Perhaps we can refresh your recollection. 18 Isn't it a fact that section 14.2 is based on the testing requirement specified in the Regulatory Guides 20 published by the NRC? 21 A I don't remember. 22 Q And doesn't that section of the FSAR specify 23 the testing requirements? l 24 A I don't remember. I would have to review the 25 section to see what it specifies. I I
Sjon5 1 Q You' were',1howeve r , while at Comanche Peak, given. training on how to review the FSAR and. vendors' - 3 manuals and techn'ical specifications-to determine the-
^
tests that 'w'ere required? A IIdo not remember if there was exact-6 training that is'noted such that --- 7 Q Do you know whether you were ever requiredL 8 to review and reads section 14 of the FSAR'entitledi 9
" Initial Test Program"?
10 A- Most definitely. 11 Q And were you.not supposed to become familiar with it, sir? 13 A Yes. There was - now, let me say this. 14 1 do not* remember if it was exactly section 14. I do. 15 remember there is a certain amount of required reading 16 that must be'done at the beginning.of the' job site.. 17 Q And does your: recollection;now -- has'.your 18 19 recollection now been refreshed-that'that-is the:section in which the test requirements,are: set forth'for.~the 20 components in the1 systems? 21 A' I don't'-- 22 I do not' remember if that is the' exact section. 23 Q But you know -- 2e A I would have . to see-25
~
Q
- -it is set forth somewhere in the'FSAR?
- s - .. s JOw' i
1- A. LWhat is' set forth within the FSAR?. .
.t
-2 MRj DAVISON:
Please" read ths last question 3 and(_} answer and.the question thatcfollowed q N- q. - 4 and.~the answer, .
.;and then you.will.know.
i _. l' 5 _(The reporter' read the record as requested..)~ 6-BY MR. DAVIDSON: 7 Q-Now do you understand the question. 8 W J 9 A l believe so. There are several items' set 10 forth within the FSAR, one being the performance of 11 testing which if Section 14.2 is the performance of-12 testing..then that part-is probably set forth in the' 13 FSAR. >" 14 Q Is your complaint that the STE has to 15 review these materials and' prepare the test procedure from 16 those materials rather than have=a~ printout. -l 17 A I believe it is my complaint 1that J 18 l the STE is fallable as. proven in'an: example under.that' 10 paragraph and with a. computer printout 1which could be 20. reviewed by other personnel you.could possibly eliminate ; 21 the possibility of -- or the fallibility which occurred. -' i
'22 in'the next paragraph at the top of page.8. !
23 Q
)
Well, I think you.r connection of one. paragraph' 24 to the other will'not bear. scrutiny, but that's not'the ! 25 issue. ! I
-l-i-
i I i I 1
381 5jon7 1 Your complaint, then, is that an STE 2 could make a mistake and not perform tests required s 3 based on the procedures'that he was reviewing; isn't A that your point? 5 He could fail to find'it in the materials 6 that are available-to him? 7 That's what you mean by fa11 ability? 8 A Correct. Or he could fail to stipulate th'at o that test has to be performed prior to or required. 10 Q Do you know whether all the tests that are 11 in fact performed ar e inputted into a computer? 12 A Yes, they are. 13 Q So then someone can review what tests have 14 been completed?- And if he has overlooked one that he 15 should have performed based on.the FSAR' requirements, { 16 that would be noted because it would not be on the 17 computer tracking system, would it? 18 So there is a way to review it? That's my 19 point. 20 A Yes. A way to review which tests have been 21 performed. 22 1 Q T h a t. ' s right. And that was your concern, that i 23 if there was one overlooked no one would review it; that's what you told us. And I am saying that in fact your 25 understanding is that there is a way to make certain, by-l l l l
Sjon8: 383 I ~ review as to which' tests _have been1 performed? 2 . A As indicated;in the next. paragraph onopage 8 , 3 of the affidavit,.there was'approximately^100 breakers d which were overlooked and the. test'not performed on ! 5 them. And it was not'found from the computer p'rintout. 6
- q' you. ares again engaging in-7
' unresponsive argumentation with'me rather.than answering:
8 my questions. However -- 9
.MR. SPEKTER: I object.to your 10 characterization, counsel.
f t M MR. DAVIDSON: .Please, Mr./Spekter.- 12 , However,'I think if we turn'to.that next ' 13 page we can see ~ that i your own words, once again, will'not Id support you,'at least not support the testimony'here today. 15 Perhaps;- you wish to disown what is here. 16 But the statement -- the paragraph to which 17 you refer on the following page of.page 8 is.not - the 18 test was not performed, but, rather. and I quote.: ad5 l' "' had not been~ performed correctly." 20 21 22 23 24 25 .. _ _ . _ _ 1_______________ _____________._____.O
c6pbl I 1 (Pause.) I t 2 MR. SPEKTER: Was that a question? 3 MR. DAVIDSON: If he feels that an answer is i 4 appropriate to that I am perfectly prepared to receive it. 5 MR. SPEKTER: I would request that it be 6 put in a question form then. 7 MR. DAVIDSON: All right. i 8 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 9 Q You are now looking at page 8, are you not, 10 '
?
i 11 A Yes, I am. 12 Q And there you relate an incident that occurred 13 on or about March 15th. And ths alleged discovery by 14 Mr. Bill Shorter of about what I take are certain alleged 15 inaccuracies in calculations performed. 16 A Correct. i 17 Q Who was Mr. Shorter's supervising STE at ! 18 the time of this discovery? l 19 A That would be in question. I possibly had 20 some supervisory authority over him, but not total supervisor:
- i l
21 authority. 1 22 Q Were you the startup engineer assigned to the 23 system on which he was working? 24 (Pause.) 25 A I do not know exactly what work he was i L_________.________
3S4 l ;
- 6pb2' i
performing during that time period because of the fact that 2 he was undertaking specific tasks for Art London. .' 3 MR. DAVIDSON: The reporter will please read 4 back the question. ' 5 I (The reporter read the record as requested.) 6 THE WITNESS: I believe so. 7 BY MR. DAVIDSON: ! j 8 I Q In the paragraph to which we have been
'{
9 i addressing these inquiries. .the concluding sentence is, i to "A TDR should have been written." O r .i n fact, I'll read the 11 whole sentence. "A TDR should have been written against I i 12 these faulty test records." ' 13 Did you write such a TDR, sir? 14 A. No, I did not. The reason being that this l
)
15 was at the time of my termination or within-the last. week i 16 of my termination, and it was decided by Art London that it i 17 would be unfavorable for me to write a TDR that I could not 18 follow up and follow through to ensure that information was 19 correct on. Thereby. I was told to not worry about it, that. 20 they would take care of it. I
'21 Q Did you make certain that a TDR was written 22 against what you claim to be faulty test records?
23 A We were still in the research phase as to 24 l find out the existence of the number of faulty test records. 25 And by being in the research phases, a TDR cou~d not have ! I h
l i-6pb3 1 been adequately written-at.that time without having a11Lthe. l 2 information present to-write the TDR. l 3 Oj Q So you didn't have all.theEinformation'at.the~L d time to write.a IDR; is that your statement? l l. L 5 A We did not.know -- as indicated at the top. 6 it says approximately 100' breakers. I i 'We didn't know t h :- full (hd j3
-7 extent of the total. number'of breakers yet.
8
]
1
.Q .When you say you'didn't kn ow' th e .- f u lli ex ?,e n t ' . ,
- )
0 1 how did you come by the approximation of 100 breakers? -l 10 - A
,l Mr. Shorter indicated to me that it'would be= ,.
.!: y -1
'l in that neighborhood of the breakers that he:had found with.;
i 12 improper instantaneous trip settings. ! {' jN 13 i ! Q So you don't know of your own personal l 14 knowledge how many. breakers are allegedly'not -- were 1 j 15 allegedly affecteduby what'you claim to be erroneous 16 calculations? 17 A I probably reviewed at least five or ten .I 18 of those calculations to- justif y that~he was finding a .j i 19 problem. As indicated, he was-not doing.this research under:.E _ I 20 \ -, my direction.- This was something-he:found while.doing workL 'j , i 21 for Art London under.a totally unrelated subject;, yl 22 ! Q N ow {(' l'did you' indicate t h a t o t h i.s,, ; ,, , . ! 23 incident occurred on March 15th of 19847 That was more'than 24 a week before you submitted.vour. resignation, and almost 25 a month before you terminated your employment at Comanche '
'9
l 386 j 6kb6- j i--
. 1, c
l' I Peak;;isn't that correct? l-
- 2. A' Correct.
3 Q Did you follow up on'this incident during. i e i d that period and learn any of the facts underlying it? '
.I 5 A Mr.-Shorter was still reviewing during that: .
6 time period. 7 Q So as'far as you know, you.didn't learn.the 8 ultimate outcome? 9 A No, I'did.not. 10 -Q Do you'know whether'the trip settings and I 11 breakersEthat you were concerned with were prepared under - , 12 strike that. -! l2 13 You did not know .the resolution? 14 A As identified here, the only part that I do 15 know is the problem. And the reasoning for the-problem is 16 that you have two pieces of documentation which'are' supposed 17 to be associated with instantaneousJtrips on breakers and 18 dealing with these approximately1100 breakers 'only one piece' 19 l of.that documentation w'as available. 'Thereby.-you have-to- l 20 use the other piece of documentation'to calculate on the 21 first .\ on the second piece of documentation. Thereby, it' 22 was indeterminate where the calculations came from for the ; 23 first piece of document, 24 Q I'm glad you mentioned.that.
~
e l1 *
.j i
25 Perhaps 1 can refresh your recollection, although you may not! 4 _- o
6pb5 i l', i n have been aware of this information at the time. 2 Were you ever made aware of the fact that 3 there were two different methods o f calculation used over ; 4 a period of time with respect to these calculations? One i 5 that had two pieces of documentation and one that was 6 contained only in the one piece? I 7 A I do not remember at this time. I believe i 8 that the documentation that we were looking at did require 9 two pieces of paper. 10 Q perhaps 1 can refresh your
)
1 11 recollection at the time that you were looking at them, the 12 calculation method did require two pieces of paper. Do '
)
13 you know whether at an earlier date there was only a single 14 piece of paper used in the calculation? ! 15 A 1 do not remember. 16 Q You do not remember whether you were-advised i 17 on that because it was at a time when you were not then 18 employed at Comanche Peak. i I 19 A Right. I do pot remember if I was advised of 1 20 that. 21 y And did Mr. Shorter or anyone else advise you l 22 that the ultimate number determined to be suspect and which i 23 we'll review to determine whether there was an inaccuracy 24 was only 35 and not 1007 25 A This must have been after the fact. I had i ! i 1 l l i e . l l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ m
l ! 388 6pb6 1 left. 2 Q Did Mr._ Shorter advise you that the resolution 3 was premised on the fact that there were these two different 4 methods used at two different times? 5 A I do not know. 6 Q You don't know whether he advised you or 7 you don't remember that he advised you or he didn't advise 8 you? 9 A I do not think he advised me. I think the 10 information that bringing up must have occurred after I i 11 had terminated my employment. 12 Q Did you follow up on this. matter with anybody 13 at the Comanche Peak site after you terminated your 14 employment? 15 A I had no more dealings with the Comanche Peak 16 site. 17 Q So you were no longer concerned with the IB problem. 19 A I based my' concern in my affidavit. 20 Q And you made no effort before you prepared 21 this affidavit to determine whether or not this concern was 22 valid, and whether it had been resolved? 1 4 23 A With the information that I had I believed o 24 this to still be the true case. i end 6. 25 Q Fair enough. ) l l i l i l l i 1 l
Joy. l
~FCjl 7/1 L.- ,
'l BY. !!R; 'DAVIDSON: !
l -I: 2 Q jLcould I turn.your~ attention'to - 3 page 10 of your' affidavit? j d 1(Pause.) l-
- L 5
And in'the:first ' complete paragraph.on that 6 page, the concluding sentence' reads: ~"I also'believe 7 the.following examplesLfurther. indicate the breakdown of 8 .the.QA/QC program atLComanche Peak." 9 Did you see-that? 10 _(Witness peruses document.) 11 A I do not see it. 12 Will you more. clearly specify where it is-13 located at? Id Page 107 15 Yes. Q 16 The concluding sentence of the first complete 17 paragraph. 18 (Witness peruses document.)! 19 A ! Correct. 20 Q Now,-the alleged examples that-then-succeed 21 that statement -- sud the remaining pages of the.afff. davit' 7 22
'are, one, the ase=rted conflect between ES-100,: which was 23 developed by Gibbs:& Hill as the archi tec t-en gin e er ,; and - J 24-Regulatory Guide 1.75, with respectEto' separation .l 25 l-cables; two, the. concern'you raise about the propriety of j t.
I l
- ( '
4 1- _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _
FCjp7/_2' 1 using'. butt splices on.certain cables;Ithree,qthe resolut. ion 2 of the problem involving ferroresonant 't ran s f o rm e r s ;' and: 3 four.cthe' test results in what7you call PT55-11, a thermal-d expansion test on piping;- "and.I guess;five,Jan-assertion' 5
~with respect to the practice of.QC personnel" keeping. log 6
-sheets on problems.
7 Isithat an accurate summarylof wha't you believe. , 8 shows the failure of the' QC/QA~ program? 9 A- Yes. 10 Q All right. 11 With the exception of the assertions made~with 12 respect to the logging of problems by QC personnel, in 13 the testimony that we've had from you. each of the issues Id raised -- that we just mentioned -- were matters.that were 15 resolved or discussed within the context of-the Engineering 16 Department and did not involve the inspection. program. 17 So, I am wondering,'how is.it that you. relate 18 these to the QC' program -- QC personnel? ! I' A I related these incidents to: the QA/QC program 20 in the fact that all these documentation -- such as'the 21 i ES-100 andLthe. Reg Guides and.all.- ,should have been. $ 22 ! reviewed by QC or QA prior to their issuance. Even the .l 23 '! document generated;by Gibbs'& Hill, I believe, would have- . 24 q been reviewed by QA/QC representative. I 25 Thereby, if these documents were reviewed by
.1 e r t l o
I ' - .
---.__a- _ _ _ . - - - - _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ - . _ -._.---________-.__2.-_ _ - - - - . - - _ _ -
FCjl 7/3 >#4 i i I those people and the problems or inconsistencies were i I 2 not found at that time, then there would have been'a 3 cause for concern as to breakdown on the QA/QC program. , 4 Q Well, would it be fair to characterize'your 5 statement a little differently and say that if they didn't , i e agree with the way you wanted those problems resolved, 7 that you would believe that there was a breakdown in the a program? 9 If they reviewed them and they found them to satisfactory, that wouldn't necessarily indicate there j 11 was a breakdown, but only that you felt there was. i 1 A 12 If they reviewed them and indicated they were ! 13 satisfactory, they could possibly be indicating that they 14 did not have the technice.1 knowledge at the time to -- to 15 make that decision. 16 Q Whereas you did? 17 A Whereas me and, as testified, other people did., is Q No. We are talking about your technical 19 knowledge, as opposed to the people in QA/QC.. 20 A Correct. ' 21 Q You had more than they did? 22 A 1 do not know that. 23 Q But you think you did? 24 A No, 1 do not think I'did either. r 25 Q Now, , turning once again to page 10 .. L S 1
392 FCjl 7/4 1 of your affidavit and the discussion there about cable 2 separation and -- and you said that you had firmly in mind .- 3
-- and if I misstate this, please correct me --
you had 4 firmly in mind what the conflict between ES-100land the 5 Regulatory Guide was; is that not correct? 6 A 1 believe so. 7 Q Can you find, for me, in the Regulatory Guide 8 1.75, a specific passage that conflicts with-the portion G of the ES-100 that you have quoted? 10 A I would have to review the Reg Guide. 11 Q I happen to have a copy here. So, I'm going to 12 let you do that. 13 Would you please look--at these pages of the' 14 Regulatory Guide. .I have the whole section for you here. 15 including the diagrams. 16 And would you show me the exact section on 17 which you relied for your asserted comment? 18 A You would like to know the section to which I 19 relied upon in making -- 20 Q In making that statement -- 21 A In making that statement. 22 Q -- that there's an asserted conflict. 23 A Now, is this Reg Guide revision that you have 24 here concurrent with the present standard, or is it 25 noncurrent with the present standard? i h l' 1
L .
?!
,FCjl'7/5- 393'
!I
'i
'I Q lt-is.the. Regulatory Guide that was in use by )
2 , you at the time of'your employment at Comanche-Peak. 3 A Now, there is various revisions to the Reg Guide., !
. f,1j :
Q But the-only one you could-have used, 5 during your time of employment, is the one I have provided 6 you, because that is the one that was current at that. 7- i time -- unless you are telling me that you have' concluded 1 8 there was a conflict from a revision that didn't exist at 9 the time of your employment. 10 II A Well, right here, on the' front of this, it
-[]
specifies " superseded." So, therefore, how canLthis be a: - 12 current revision? 13 Q l,ifyouwant to tell:me,-from your I# best recollection, that that was not the one you.used. 15 we will be prepared - to accept that testimony. 1 I 16 A There was -- 17 Q But' find for me, in that' Regulatory' Guide, the
'8 specific section upon which you relied for your determina- '
I' tion that there was a conflict with ES-100. 20 A I would like -- 21 ' Q This is your sworn testimony, in your affidavit. 22 l' ! A 1 would like to make -- note that the' Reg Guide' l 23 that we are using is the Reg Guide Revision 1, January of 24 i 1975. 25 (Witness / attorney conference.)
^
I p i t
)
L I _r--_--__--- ___ ---__--__-- -- _ --__ _ -- = _ _ _ - - - . _ _ _ - _ . - _ _ _ - - - _ _ - - - - -
'I :
~
,n 1FCjl_7/6; 1
MR. SPEKTER: -p Based on that-assertion,.I would .; 2 ! object to him having to look.through.this;particular 3 Regulatory Guide. 4 ! 1 don't' think it's been established.that1that' {L 5 !- was, in fact,?the Regulatory. Guide that he-used at that. 1 6 time. ' 7 There's an indicat' ion that there have been-8 revisions to that-Guide and that, therefore,1any testimony' 9 elicited from this particular Guide.would not necessarily 10 be relevant in this'pcoceeding. 'I 11 MR. DAVIDSON: Actually. this-Guide is the one gjm 12 that was Xeroxed,by{ jand:accompaniedaXerox.of,,[ 13 EX-100 also prepared -- or prepared for:Mr. Walter -- and Id that were the. attachments to the. memorandum.he prepared 15 for Tom Miller's signature which he identified-earlier. 16 To raise the question with Gibbs & Hill as to whether or' 17 not there was an asserted conflict - these are-the'two - 18 documents that he had as attachments ~to the memorandum of -l 19 December 19th. 20 \ MR. SPEKTER: I would also --- ' 21 MR. DAVIDSON: That's how I came by then. l 22 .i MR. SPEKTER: I would also note for'the. record j 23 that -- i
.i 24 MR. DAVIDSON: . And this was the -- this..in' I 25 fact, was -- and I'll make that representation;tof ,
a l
'l e
l 1
-n , est
'FCjl 7/71 1
and if you subsequently. learn that'it is inaccurate'. you
?
certainly may advise us -- but this is, in fact, not only , 3 the copy.that ured,'but itiwae, in fact, the 4 . revision that was current at the time that he raisedithe 5 issue. o MR. SPEKTER: ill right. 7 I would also, at this timei-- d 8 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 9 Q Now,'would you please find'this.section.- 10 A I believe you're' incorrect..in : hat ~ this 11 Reg Guide is not the current' revision for the Nuclear i. 12 Regulatory Commission.
.r 13 There is a later revision, previous -- or after-14 . January 1975.
15 Q
- Jl is that the -- is that the Xerox 16 copy that you provided us as.an attachment: to.the memorandum 17 you prepared?
.b 18 A I do not remember'if this is the specific, copy !
19 that I used. 20 Q Do you have any reasonsto believe it is not?' .4 21 A I do notLknow if it is not. l I 22 1 It specifically statesLhere, on.the frontr-- 1 23 it looks like that -- I l 24 Q Well,
.m_ let me-help-you.
l 75 Let's:just assume, for the. time being, that the j
.j'
.i l
1
.- ]
b d , J
_ y
.FCj l .;7 /8' c396 l
1
. representation-I have made here is correct. And youtcan 2 check'your records.
. [r [,
3 MR. SPEKTER: I" don't think we 'can do: that. 4 MR. DAVIDSON: I think we can. 5 .a BY MR.'DAVIDSON: 6 Q Find for me,-in that document, where and on 7 what you relied in asserting your conflict? 8 A I'cannot find -- you're using a-documentLheref 9 that I may not even have 'used. in inserting my ; comment: here.- 10' If you'll notice, it says --- 11 Q Do you know what document you used.1 sir?- 12 -A Yes. 'I usedr Reg Guide 1.75. 13 But I possibly could have-used a revision which 14 was more recent than this:one. 15 Q Do you know whether there.was~a revision of this 16 section regarding cable separation subsequent ~ to the one-17 here? 18 A Do I -- 19 Q Do you know that for a f a c t 't 20 A I know that there is a Reg Guide 1.75-with a-21 date on it later than January 1975. 22
'Q Is there a revision of the portion upon which 23 you relied.for the purpose of your affidavit --
' subsequent l l
): 24 to the'one I have given you here? 25 A I do not remember which revision of the 1 e _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _m _ _.m..
- FCj.li 7 / 9 i 39 /[ --
. i ..
\
j'i gl 1 Reg Guide.I used.
- 2. 'Q -All right.-
-l 3- Well, q k 5
, you'will be cross-examined, , ')
W 4 live, before Judge Bloch. t ./ .' l 5 And I.ask you now,'in preparationLfor that 6 cross-examination, for'you to review all.of your;recordsL 7 and all of the-Regulatory Guides, because you'will 8 certainly be asked at that hearing if.you are capable of- ] 9 picking out the portion -in.which you'believe.there was a-10 direct conflict from.the relied-upon language in ' E S- 10 0.- l MR. SPEKTER: I-assert that's an unreasonable: 11 L-l 12 request. I l' 13 And I would' request that'we. prot'ect him from !' 14- doing that. 15 MR..DAVIDSON: f j,fyou.areperfectly j 1 16 free to not-do so. 17 But I think Judge Bloch will be interested'to. l
.j 18 know why it is that, at this ".eposition,.which.you were J
'19 advised of that you were got,g to appear-as'a witness, that j 20 you are not prepared to' respond to questions'on the' .
+
21 affidavit that you proffered. i 22 I am going-to go forward. j 23 1 don't need any further colloquy.. , 24 Mr. Berry, do you wish to make a statement?. 1 25 MR. SPEKTER: 'I want it~put on the record . that ' j.- i y I I l _____m_.--_.-----
sso ,
' FCjl[7/10.
.i 1
I wanted'to put'on before, if I may, that 3 've ~ been ' t'rying: -
'2 to for the'past'several minutes --
I've noticed that' 3
. yesterday and today' counsel has been dealing.with?a num'ber 4
of documents.that he has bound in-a book.that refer toL 2M c --
' n[a L. '
6 I'would request knowledge of how.he:came upon
)).
j _- 7 such.documer..' that refer: to -, inLlight of the 'l 8 protective order? 9- Some of these' documents deal with memoranda, 10 One yesterdai dealt;with a personnel. incident. L{ i: 11 And I would request to be made awareLand also" $ '! 12 be provided with copies of these copies, and'also.to-13 assert that. counsel's good fai'th belief that they were not' ] 14 acquired in violation of:the protective order, Land also-
~
15~ be provided with those documents as part of our-discovery 16 request and continuing discovery on both. sides. 17 MR. DAVIDSON: As you'know, Mr. Spekter. I 18 have at all times -- often at.your request and-prodding.-- 19 had marked as exhibits to the deposition the' documents-20 upon which we've relied and upon which we've had'examina-21 tion. I will continue to'do that so.that'there. won't'be 22 any problem with your discovery of documents'upon which I 23 rely. 24 As to your request that I make's good faith
'25 assertion'that the protective order has~been adheredLto i
W 't
- _ _ _ _a
m' FCjl'7/11: r i I within the best possibility and-limit that -- of'wh'ich 2 we are all capable -- I really think that that's somewhat 3 unnecessary. .But if you wish me to.make a record. statement.; 4 I will. I thought I'had already covered that.- But it is ' 5 my good faith belief that neither I nor anyone with. whom 6 I've been in contact.has been. indiscrete or has.otherwise 7 violated any of the terms of the' protective order to which 8 they are pledged. 9 MR. SPEKTER: Fine. I wanted that on the 10 record. 11 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Berry, you wished t'o say , 12 something. l 13 MR. BERRY: Yes. 14 The NRC would briefly note.that subject'to 15 counsel for Applicant's representation that -- you know. 16 that the -- 17 MR. DAVIDSON: The Reg Guide 1.75. 18 MR. BERRY: -- that Reg Guide 1.75 was, in , 19 fact, the Guide that was in effect atithe-time of l 20 employment there, .that1we have no,objecti'dns 21 and that we have no objections to answering the ,. 22 question on that basis, subject to that. condition. ! 23 If it turns out to appear'that that was not. 24 in fact, the Guide that was working with at the 25 time, then I'm sure that will show up. That will come to ! 26 light at a later time. o I j i I . _ _ _ , _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - -- - - - - ~
400-
'fc8pb1' 1
(Witness and cou'nsel conferring.) 2 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Berry, do you--want me'to 3 pursua it and ask if--he can, based on that a representation. find the section uponTwhich he. relied?. 51 MR.' BERRY: Yes. 1 - 1 6 MR. DAVIDSON: ]- ' J.~will'yo.u accom,modat< 7 Mr. Berry? 8 THE WITNESS: 'i If you had'-- j s 9 MR.-SPEKTER:
~
I believe that my client.-has I 10 aided -- 11 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. 'Spekter, fat'this-point I 12 think the answer is only, are you_ instructing the witness 13 not to answer, otherwise I think he has to' answe r the 14 question. MR.'SPEKTER: No, I'm_not instructing h'im 15 to not to answer,-but -- I understand he's already answered-17 this question. k' 18 MR. DAVIDSON: No, he's not found'the g 19 specific section. I'm going to ask,- ' that you , 20 respond by finding the specific secti'on that you believe is- I l 21 in direct conflict with ES-100. Andel'm_ going to ask you , 22 to accommodate Mr. Berry who' wishes that, question answered., 'i 23 And unless you 'a r e instructed not to answer.1 j 24 I think that you should assist in any further equivocation- 1 25 over the revision number and' find-for us the section. '! I i J f
us.
'8pb'2-
.j-1 THE WITNESS:
Reg. guides ~arewrittenbyye'arsf. 2 okay? This. January 1975 may be a later ' year than.:the one - 3 I used to make my1 determination.here.- 2 l-4
.MR. BERRY: ,fwe.u'nderstand that.- _
5 The question is.. assuming --Llet us just for the moment, q. 6 let us assume that 7this was the guide and counsel.for the l l 7 Applicant has" represented that this:was the document that'
~
8 you relied upon in making'this assertion. 9 Now, we'understrid your position that this to may not~be that document. .Well,-if it's not_that-document, 11 that will brought out at a later date. But we are going'to, , 12 and assuming that thisLis the document,'will:you please try, 13 to find the'particular passage that you relied upon'in 14 determining that,~in making..that lassertion? 15 MR. SPEKTER: 1 don't believe we can take 16 that assumption'-- 17 MR. DAVIDSON: 'We're not asking you to accept 18 it. Mr. Spekter. Now look, you have'not instructed the 19 witness not'to answer, but you've int'errupt'ed his answer.on 20 about three occasions. 'Your objection'is noted. 21 BY hR. DAVIDSON: P 22 Q I ask you_to. perform the requested 23 operation that Mr. Berry has' directed your attention 1to. 24 A. I again' identify that my assumption'in this. 25 paragraph without being able to look over the reg guides, 4 4 .
8 p b' 3'
.\,
'l .
each individual revision,1I'may not be able to specifically'y' ' 1 2
. point toLyour area in here. .You're.asking me .to make' 3
assumptions that I may'not be able to do at"thisopoint.' t 4 -You are -- 2J , js 5 Q .
',let me help'you. You don't'have ,
, .s 6 to make any assumptions. Let.us.just ask you if in thisl ;
7 document that.you now have before you asLeo which'-there-is. 8 some dispute as to whether it's the'one you used, can you: 9- find a conflict with re'spect~to-the document-inHfront of you?; .. to That is all we're asking'you.to do. 11 A In order-to 'o d that I would haveLto do a 12 full review-of this reg. guide document from page tolpage and', 13 considering that the document' :.s severallpages -- 4-
~
14
'Q , I'm sorry --
15 A Are you perfectly ready for me to perform a 16 full review of this? Is that what you're asking me~for, to , 17 review this document from page to-page-trying to fin'd where-it might possibly justify my statement.in my. affidavit? 18 j 19 (# s Q did you review anything when you s- u. ~ 20 made this affidavit? .l 21 A Yes, I revie ed Reg Guide 1.75, but at this 22 ! time I do not remember when making this statement-which ' c 23 year or Rev. of Reg Guide l.7511 used. L 1 24 l Q Fine.- 'Now you understand what we've' asked you 25 to do. We're saying this is reg guidelyou used at the. time
~
l
. L. : ,
I e I
- -.- - -- _ - O
403' z
- }: y
.8pb4' .l1 k
'1'
.you were at Comanche ' Peak'. andirais' ed' the question with-2 startup.' 'And'we're saying that-based on'that-' representation.'
3-
'which is subject to later confirmation, we're'asking;you
-4 since you apparently knew there was a conflict.jyou"made 5
quite an. issue"of, you told'us<you raised lit a half (a dozen. 6 or more' times with6three orcfouridifferentlpeople. And 7 -you ~ put'it in an affidavit i that yeu worked on itifor.two 8 months with Mr. Hadley, in which you had;15 conversations 9 'with;him. You had eight . conversa tionsz with~ Billie Garde.- 10 .You had two-face-to-face' meetings. 11 You said~you reviewed this affidavit,-you 12 reviewed revisions of it, .and'youLsigned it. Surely you! 13 did not make an. affidavit and ssear-to soeething_that?LyouL 14 didn't have a pretty good idea of what it:was a11'about.
~
And 15 I would think that in view ofEthe fact.that you've.: set . 16 yourself up as an expert'here that_knows how to develop - 17 separation criteria out of the. reg. guide thatLyou1 should be 18 able~in a very short-period of. time, provided with.the-I 19 sections that you relied upon;to find the.one that is the j 20 direct conflict. l 21 Now if you're-telling us1you can't do.any.of' J' 22 that. I will : accept that fact.- -You,are incapable ofLit. 1 i 23 But if'you're'not, I would like you to do.it. I 24 L A What 1 am'ide'ntifying to y'our isLthat'the 25
'later revision of this~ reg guide"may more. clearly define.'and .
i
._m..__E_._________'______________. ___._____.__.i_____.__._______.__.___.___'__..____m
_ _ _ _ __m.__._. _ _ _ _ _ ..___i_.__m_.______.._i______________.____i___E__'__i_.____.___.__._______ 2
- 8pb5 1
indicate my_ statement: in'here. Which means,=that: it'would' be 2-
-- just_as=iffyou;.tried - .you' laid out a reg guide-that 1 3 'was instead of January;'75.was-January.of-1970, howLcould ,
,. ; M 4 you + .1 expect'me.to;specifically be'able'to.take mylcomment-and '
5- find it in'the reg guide? j_1 6 TheLinformation from one-year's reg guide 7 could be totally changed to_the next year. - ), 8 Q.
- p you are doing' fine at filling 9
2 up the record with colloquy, but I want an answer to the to. -question. Let us just ask you, can you find the conflict 11 with this version'.of the reg'guideMand ES-100? .That11s -
-f 12 all we're asking you.. .Would'you: please fi$d the-~ conflict- F..
13 between the language you've' cited from~the ES-100 and this. ' 14 reg guide that'is now before you? We have noted what-15 revision it is. 16 A Okay.. 17 Q Would you pleaselfind it? 18 A l'11 bave to do a review through the document-17 to verify where the area'is-that there may possibly be-a, 20 conflict in this revision. 21 Q Why don't you try looking at the'sectionithat j 22 i you used when you were preparing the affidavit and see if 23 it's the same as the one -- ' 24 -) A There again.I'll review the document. { r *: 25 Q Thankeyou.g Would you like us to l
.! j
.)
~
l 1 l
,c n -8pb6L '
t i take:a break so you can do ihat? " l ~i 2 A Y e s'. 3 MR. DAVI'DSON: We're"takingfa~ break.at 9:07. q 4 MR.-SPEKTER: LI wouldenote this is an ~ Llij 5 '1 extremely long document that has'been shown'to ther client.; 6 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. S p ek t'e r , . I: would d is a g re e; t 7 with that characterization. It-is not more.than a;few pages. 8 and perhaps five or six pages, but this is a' document in. 9 which has represented to'us he-isfintimately__ 10 -familiar with. He has made -- he has carried.onia-crusade-11
.about this issue as hisLtestimony shows and he' spent two 12 months preparing this affidavit.
13 It went through three revisions.
~
H4 had.15-14 conversations with respect to'its contents with Mr. Hadley.. 15 n He had.eight conversations with Ms. Garde as to its contents. 16 He had two meetings over t h is , and he swore to it only.three-17 i weeks ago. 18 Now if you are saying'that once again that 19 he has no recollection or.that lue11s-somehow1being i 20 disadvantaged in beingr asked to justify statements he made- 'l 21 in sworn testimony that he submitted tofthis. tribunal. I -l don't believe that that is'an. appropriate' observation or 22 ' 23 objection. 24 MR. SPEKTER:- Ifthink the record will' 25 adequately reflect who was filling.up the' record.with- i
]
406 Spb7 1 colloquy. end 8. 2 (Off the record at 9:11 a.m.) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i
fe9jon1 '*'- l
'l
, i' 4
1 (On the record - 9:19 p.m.) 2 i BY MR. DAVIDSON: h#' 3 Q ], nave you located the section q d that you believe is in conflict with ES-100? ' 5 A I believe I have found a paragraph which 6 i will back up my affidavit statement and, without going i ' 7 I into further review over the whole entire document to 8 identify other areas in it that may also back it up. 9 I believe that this vill answer your question, at least-10 partially. II Q Could you tell us what that paragraph is. 12 }, i __ _F 13 A Have you already submitted this document so I# that it can be identified? 15 MR. SPEKTER. I think we should do that 16 if you are going to be testifying from it. 17 MR. DAVIDSON: I don't believe that in an 18 NRC proceeding the regulatory guide need be marked as an j I' exhibit. 20 MR. SPEKTER: I believe it does because we 21 are testifying to it in'a. deposition; it is being used 22 for examination. i 23 MR. DAVIDSON: I will provide the material 24 as requested. 25 i MR. SPEKTER: What would that be numbered as? i < l l 1
408-- 9jon2 l With the understanding, of course, it will be copied, _{- 2 returned to your book. 3 MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you, Mr. Spekter. BY MR. DAVIDSON: 5 Q Did you find a paragraph that you thought 6
.gave basis to your assertion that there- was a-direct conflict between the Regulatory Guide 1.75 and ES-1007 9
A Yes. In Reg. Guide 1.75 on Reg Guide page
'O number 1.75-5, under section 5.1.3, which is titled
" Cable Spreading Area and Main Control Room," the third 12 paragraph down deals with -- I cannot go through this I3 paragraph trying to --
14 Q Well, then, you can just refer to the 15 i paragraph and then you can summarize it for us. I don't to think we want you to read itinto the record. A Well, I would like to read it because there
'O are certain infomration pertaining off from each
i paragraph which I would like to identify,-which is basis 20 i for my statement in the affidavit.
I Q Go ahead, sir. ! 22 A It specifies that power supply feeders to ' 23 ! instrumentation and control room distribution panels _; 24 should be installed in a enclosed raceways that qualify , 25 t as barriers. I
9jon3 n409; I Number one.: that is a should1be. With a 2 anould be it is not necessarily have to be adhered-to. 3 and let's make notation that a ladder tray is not a n' d enclosed,fdoes not jusrify as a-lba'rrier duet to the
- l
.5 fact'that.a ladder trayshas'an open-bottom on'it.
6 2 Okay, the'next statement'is that the minimum'
'7 separation _ distance between redundant class 1E ' cable B
trays should be determined by.5.1.2.1.2 or.where 9 conditions of 5.1.1.3 are met 10 I havel not.actually reviewed those areasJof-
'this procedure.-again.
12 Q .Do you know whetherfthey provide for a 13 specific minimums, or 'whether- they. permit 'a: minimum to. Id be establishedTbased on an analysis?' 15 A I believe that thy may be exceptions. I am U 16 not sure. Like I saide.without -- here :is a. paragraph 37 that could possibly substantiate my statement in:the I8 affidavit without reviewing this total document in- i 19 an extensive amount of time, you.know -- 20 Q It could supporc it:but you are not c e r t a'i n ' 21 that it.does? 22 A Well. I don't know what the -- what!.I am. 23 , saying, you asked me.~to pick out a paragraph or. }. 24 '{
-4 information from'this document which could: substantiate l 25 1
my affidavit and that is why I am doing it. '! 1
.i j
h______ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ . _ - - _ . . __ J
'a'~ ,.:
l l
'l Q No. That's not exactly what I said. I i-t !
2 said would you'please find for me that portion or'section 3 of the Regulatory Guide 1.75 that conflicts with ES-100 'l 4 and specifically with the section'you quote in your
'5 affidavit.
6 That is what I asked you to'do. i. 7 And 11 am beginning to f eel,l ' that we are' ,_ B engaged in an exercise in-futility. "' " 9 MR. SPEKTER: _I believe the witness has-10 answered the question. 11 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Spekter, you have 12 constantly believedLthat'the witness has answered 13 questions that were nevar asked of him. 14 l MR.'SPEKTER: I think'the record will 15 reflect he has answered the question. 16 I MR. DAVIDSON: 1 don't wish to be rude, 17 but I really think, Mr. Spekter, that this witness 18 is having enough difficulty finding a place in this ; 19 Regulatory Guide which~ supports him and I don't think I 20 that you should interrupt him. 21 THE WITNESS: Well, continuing on with the i 22 ! discussion here, as f ar a s the paragraph. it'says the I 23 ! separation requirement should be one foot between trays i 24 separated horizontally and three feet between trays 'j l 25 separated vertically. i I i l i
9jon5 411 l I It says when termination arrangements 2 preclude mantaining the minimum separation distance, 3 which means that if you cannot maintain that one foot d or three foot distance requirement you go to this other 5 sentence. It says the redundant circuits should be 6 ! ran in enclosed raceways to qualify as barriers. A 7 ladder tray does not qualify as a barrier; therefore 8 when the ES-100 specifies that you can runa conduit ~ of an opposite tray within one inch of the bottom of a IO ladder tray is in conflict with this statement here. II BY MR. DAV1DSON: 12 Q Well, I think there are two problems I3 you have. First of all, the statement in your affidavit
'd
'does not mention one foot and three feet; it says at 15 least five feet. And you haven't mentioned that to us.
16 A Well, 1 --
'I Q Secondly, sir, you have not mentioned I8 anything about conduit or whether conduit constitutes a barrier.
I take it that that is your testimony and 20 I would like to continue. So we will now go to the next 21 question Unless, of course, you feel there are other 22 sections upon which you wish to rely. 23 A No. 24 Q Is that the only section that you relied 25 upon in preparing your affidavit? i i
jon6 412 f 1 I 1 e ! 1 A I believe that paragraph does not i 2 i necessarily give all the information which I relied upon 1 3 but will substantiate my statement in my affidavit. l 4 Q What other paragraphs did you rely upon? j i 5 A Without reviewing the document, or without i 6 reviewing the later revisions of the reg guide I cannot j 7 give you exact information. k j B Q This document which Mr. Spekter described 9 as extremely lengthy; it is six pages long, And it is d to one that you should have had substantial familiarity 11 with because of your statements about your extensive 12 i experience in the nuclar industry, which it is applicable { 13 to/-- the statements made in your affidavit and the 14 extensive amount of time that you told us you committed 15 to the preparation of that affidavit and the care that 16 you took in making certain that that affidavit correctly 17 reflected your testimony. IB So can you -- do you still state that you 19 can't find it now? After having looked at it for nearly 20 10 minutes and an off the record examination and having 21 testified about it for a half hour? 22 A I don't believe I ever once stated that I ' 23 couldn't find it. I believe I showed you a paragraph 24 which -- 25 No, no. Q You said that was one. And I said i I l l I
7 lon7 .423 1 can you find the other ones. In other words. I want i 2 to know what other paragraphs you re31ed upon. ! 3 A It would take anextensive-amount of d time for research into that document. And possibly 5 research -- well, as indicated, that we are assuming 6 that there.was a document adhered to or used by me 7 at the time and that there was not a later revision. 1 B Q But the point is you cannot find the 9 conflict here, can you? 10 A I did find the paragraph of conflict. 11 Q Well, that is a paragraph you have 12 interpreted for us and you say it says that but it doesn't ( { 13 say what you said in your affidavit. There is no mention 14 there that a conduit separation should be at least five 15 feet from the bottom of a tray. It doesn't say and 16 nothing you read to us says that. 1 17 I A If you will go along with that same 18 i statement, it says that that five feet and three feet is l 19 from -- is in the areas outside of the able' tray. 20 The next statement is except in the cable 21 spreading room where it can be two feet from the site and 22 three feet from the bottom. 23 I Where in the paragraph, which is the third i Q ' l 24 paragraph in section 5.1.3, is there any statement, any i 25 statement at all that conduitaseparation should be at ,. 1 i i 1
.4..
9jon7 __
.i I L.
least.'five feet from the bottom'of a-tray: .Where is. l.j : 2 that statement in there? 3 A .I believe you asked me to find a statement which:sub'stantiated a paragraph. The'five. feet section 5 is possibly in~another section~of this document which I l 6 would have'to review again'. 7 Q How long would it take you to read the" .. 8 sfx pages, .f7 4 - A WeLare.not.' talking about just six.pages. ' l IO You neglected to identify that there is charts in.the
' ] .;
back and' diagrams, associated with that, and I believe gj 12 i the document is a. total of'll pages.because it is a I3 Reg; Guide 1.75 and.the final pageis page-1.1.. I# Q , LThat is' correct.. There are a series:of 15 figures accompanying it showing acceptable circuit-16 arrangements, but they don't have.anything to do with 17 the~ descriptive portions of'the guide. They don't'have I8 anything to do with established minimum criteria'with respect to cable separation. All they do is give 20 examples of acceptable circuit' arrangements and t,hst is 21 not what we are asking you to look at. .So you don't 22 have to trouble yourself with those pages.. 23 Why don't you just look at the descriptive 21 i l material that provides what you believe are.the minimum 25 requirements and show-us where the statement you make'here I i
sjono ,- 1 is borne out in the Regulatory Guide'. 2 A .Are you' requesting me to review'the "'i-3 document more in depth:to find the' additional proceeding-4 or clause that might identify the 5 feet and 3 feet: 5 portion? I
. j -.
6 I have already identified one paragraphi 7 that specifically shows.the' cable spreading room. 8 u violation problems are possible. 9 Q. No. you'have not.. sir. 10 Al That was the paragraph dealing-with the 11 cable' spread room. 12 MR.-SPEKTER: He.has answered-the question. 13 I believe we should move on. 14 MR. DAVIDSON: M r '. Berry?- - 15 ' MR. BERRY:
]'youwereasked'one -' ~'
16 qustion. I believe it was a simple question. You'were-17 asked to find where in the RegulatoryfGuide 1.75 doel IB it state explicitly that conduit separation should be at 19 least five feet from the bottom of a tray and three 20 feet from the side. The question is can you pufnt to 21
.that; can you find that ihat in the l.i57 22 MR. DAVIDSON: -Thank you, Mr. Berry. . You have's.
23 once again clarified:the issue,-and I hope that.thisitime ! I 24 1. your clarification, we are going to get an answer. i 25 J' l, _ _ _ . _ . _ _ ____. z__ __z_
9 j onir 416
],i I
BY MR. DAVIDSON: 2 0 Now, would you do that, sir? 3 A Well, .then, you are asking'me (o' d idenrify a particular portion of my statement, not my 5 statement as in general. 6 MR. BERRY: We want you to find in the 7 guide where it says conduit separation can be at least 8 five feet from the bottom, and three feet from the side. 9 THE WITNESS: All right. I'll have to 10 review the document further. II MR. . BERRY: How much more time do you think 12 you will need? 13 THE WITNESS: I do not know. Id MR.-BERRY: You have had about 10 minutes - 15 already. Will you need another two or three minutes? 16 Will that be sufficient? 37 THE WITNESS: Two o'r three minutes? 18 MR. BERRY: Yes. I' THE WITNESS: I don't know if I can.do it ) 20 within two or three minutes. Hopefully I can do it > 21 within 10 minutes. 22 MR. BERRY: Well, if you can't do it two or 23 three minutes I would suggest to counsel for the 24 i Applicant that we just note that and just move on. l 25 I THE WITNESS: Well, I believe that it is ; I 1
9jon101 ... 1 1
.in'here, but.it will:Just'take me a:few minutes.to find 2 it, i u
3 Therefis a: possibility. 'Please.
'l, I would~
d like to call for a short recess-here to allow me to 5 review
- this document again.to identify to you the 6
five feet and three' feet separation requirement. 7 MR. DAVIDSON:. 8' I think;what we willsdo is
.I we are prepared'to at-this point. offer =tha't, and let's:
9 make it eight. minutes only.because-it'will be~an even 10 point in time. It will be.9:35, and ?:a'that point 11 ' when you have reviewedithat. I'wi11 have a few questions t 12 for you. 7 All right, I. 13 We are off the record.: ' 14 , (Short recess)-
- end9- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 l' '
i
~d 22 23 24 25 5
)
_ _ _ _ _ - 1
418' i
'fc10lbl-I MR. SPEKTER:- Okay.
2 BY'MR. DAVIDSON:- 3 (- - . Q have you now located the sectign' j , that Mr. Berry requested? # i
.j 5
.A Yes, I have, i 6 I
-MR. SPEKTER: I would note that.we were -j 7 {.
back on the record'in less than two' minutes. ' 8 BY MR..DAVIDSON: Q And this is a section that is going to say 10 that conduit separation should be at least five feet?nIs J II that correct? That's th'e' question. 12 A Let us go over it and I believe it does I3 specify that conduit separations -- let us'go over that. I' part. The item is addressed in the Reg Guide 1.75,;page 15 5, beginning at Section 5.1.4, General PlantJAreas. 16 Reading from it it says "In-plant areas 17 from which potential hazards such'as missiles, externa 11 j D 38 1 fires, and piping whip are excluded, the minimum separation ' l W distance between redundant cable trays should be' determined I 20 by 5.1.2 or where the conditions of 5.1.3 are met should 21 be three feet between - " i 22 Q Wait a minute. Let's make sure. I think you . 23 dropped a word. " Conditions of 5.1.3 are met" this doesn't ' 24 seem to be the start of a sentence. 25 A May I continue? [ , d i
)
1 e
- 419-ifc10lb2 -l I
Q. Sure. 2 l A "Should be three~ feet between eays1separatedi1 3 horizontally, fivelfeet between trays separated vertically. ~ 4 ' In' addition, high~ energy el'ectrical-equipment..such'as: i 5-switchgears, transformers, _and rotating 1 equipment is 6 excluded and' power. cables-are installed 1Ln enclosed 7 raceways that qualifygas barriers." 8 There again .we're talking that the power 9 cables have to be in enclosed raceways, qualifying?as 10 barriers, which'a laddrar tray does not' qualify as'a barrier 11 withouts a protective cover on 6e' bottom.- 12 1
"OrLthere are no power cables,.the minimum 13 separation distance _may be.specified in 5.1.3. [Were'planti 14 arrangement-preclude maintaining the minimum separation-15 distance, the redundant circuits should be:run inisolid- l 16 enclosed raceways-that qualify as barriers."
17 Again,'l make the comment.that ladder' trays. IB do not qualify as enclosed barriers andtthereby runninga 19 conduit within one inch of the bottom of a-ladder tray is 20 in violation of maintaining the separation crite'ria between 21 4 the redundant trains. 22 It;says "Other barriers sh'ould beprovided l 23 t i between redundant circuits, if this is not the case." -Which I 24 a solid cover on'the bottom of'ailadder tray doesLprovide L l 25 t I an additional barrier. ; l i i
*- l j
1
420 fc10lb3 I It says -- 2 (p,y,,,) ! 3 Here again, it says "The minimum distance 4 i between these redundant enclosed raceways and.between 5 barriers and raceways should be one inch." And it references 6 figures towards the back. 7 Q Does that complete your statement? 8 A Yes, that statement there -- 9 Q There was no reference in that statement to 10 conduits and we were not. interested in what the separation 11 was between cable trays or ladder trays. 12 A I believe it's referenced in here, not 13 necessarily conduits or trays. It is referencing also Id redundant trains. 15 Q But did it reference conduits, sir, as you 16 state in your affidavit? 17 A As I indicated -- IB Q That's a yes or no question. Did it reference 19 conduits? 20 A I do not think so. 21 Q Thank you. 22 Do you know whether a conduit constitutes 23 t a barrier? 24 A Yes, a conduit -- no, I will not say that. 25 You're dealing with -- a conduit constitutes an enclosed ' l
421
'fcl0lb4- _
i raceway. 2 Q Does it include -- does it constitute a 3 barrier? ' 4 A 'I do not believe so. 5 Q All right, that's your belief. 6 You mentioned certain exceptions or other 7 alternative methods for compliance and you reference, e and they were stated to be, standards or separations 9 established pursuant to Section 5.1.12 I believe. Is to that correct? 11 In other words, you said it could be complied 12 uith by meeting those criteria or ones established under 13 5.1.27 ' 14 A Correct. 15 Q Is that -- is there a copy of 5.1.2_there 16 in this Regulatory Guide? In other.words, can you find 17 that section that you've just referred to? 18 A Yes, I can, i ( 19 (Pause.) I l 20 Q Would you read the first sentence of that { 21 section aloud, and then I will have a question for you. 'l 22 A Of which section? j 23 Q The one you just found, the 5.1.2. 24 A It says "In those areas the damage potential 25 is limited to failures or failures internal to the electrical
- I
fc10lb5 - Iy. 1 equipment.or circuits. the. minimum separation distance
~
2 can be established by analysis of. proposed. cable installation.' 3 Q Is that the complete sentence?. ! d A Yes, it is. 5 Q Do you know how such an analysis would!be I 4 6 performed? 7 A I believe you're taking'that paragraph out-B of text, in' reference to my definition here. .I.believe that' 9 paragraph references two. internal equipment separation 10 requirements, which - ;if you will note'---I specify;nothing 11 in my affidavit of. internal separation requirements. , 12 Q No, you are quite right, .although I'm not' 13 certain that I agree with your characterization that it's 14 out of context. 15 f,' c an I turn.your attention to 16 page 10 again? In that affidavit, I would like to direct .; 17 your attention to the statement where1it says " Regulatory-IB Guide 1.75 which provides that conduit separation should be 19 at least five feet." 1
~
20 You've read to us the paragraphs that you 21 say you relied upon both in making this' claim at Comanche ; 22 Peak and subsequently in honing this affidavit.through i 23 two months of revision. There was, as'you admitted, no 24 reference to conduits so I take it that this statement { 25 is inaccurate, as written? 1 i e- i i l
]
fc10lb6 1 A No, I will not take it as that because of 2 the fact that we are using reference material that could 3 possibly be superceded by another Reg Guide of a later date d that may possibly say that it should be conduit. , 5 I Q , do you stil1have, in your 6 f. possession, the copy of the Regulatory Guide you used in 7 preparing this affidavit? 8 A 1 do not, no. I-do not remember, at this 9 time, if I do. I 10 Q Will you check to see if you have it? , 11 A Yes, I will. i 12 Q Could you also procure, either from Mr. Hadley' l 13
-- who helped you prepare this affidavit --
or from any 14 other source, a copy of the Regulatory Guide 1.75 that you 15 used in preparing this affidavit of three weeks ago? 16 A Yes, I will. 17 Q No, I said could you? 18 A I could. 10 Q Would you do so and will you provide it to us 20 with the other documents you have promised to produce 21 early next week? 22 A If the document is available. 23 Q Well, you said you could get it, so therefore 1 24 it is available. 25 A Well, I do not know if it is available or I
(c10lb7 1 not.-
'I have not_ spoken with-Mr.'Hadley'and;I.have not 2
researched my files. 3
.MR, SPEKTER: I believe he said he'would1 try, as he had.in a11'other cases. ;
5 r MR.'DAVIDSON: 'Will you also obtain, for.us, 6 a copy of the Regulatory Guide.-whether or not Mr. Hadley 7 has it or whether you currently-have it in1your files, 8 that you relied upon? In other words, will-you" provide.us 9 with what you believe you relied upon, since you.are not to certain that the one we've.shown you is?' 11 MR.,.SEEKTER: I don't know if he's capable 12 of doing that at this time. 13 MR. DAVIDSON: In other words, it's.your Id testimony that he no longer is capable ofl finding the -- 15 of showing us the passage in any Regulatory Guide upon. 16 which he relied in preparing this affidavit? 17 MR. SPEKTER: I don't know if he.has the 18 resources to obtain that guide at this time. l' 4 THE WITNESS: No, I do not have the 20 resources. It would require an extensive -- if.you wish 21 to bring the Reg Guide or something. 22 MR. DAVIDSON: .. I don't we.nt to ' 23 speak for Mr. Berry, but I believe that if you will specify ! 24 to Mr. Berry the Regulatory Guide which you and Mr. Hadley 25 used ir. preparing this affidavit, and also specify to him !' l t
425' fe10lb8 3 if there is any different one.that.you used when~you 2 Prepared the December-19th memorandum -- startup memorandum *
'l
-- in which.you raised'this question.with engineering.
3 4 And it was then passed to Gibbs &' Bill'for'a response. 5 If'you willLidentify those to Mr. Berry, R e I think,he will provide them to you. And what I would'ask 7 you to do is mark'the, sections that you_ relied upon in 8 making your statements in the affidavit and-markL those i o sections upon which you relied when_you made your original-to determination that there was an inconsistency. I 11 Will'you do:that for me?'- l 12 A 'Yes, I will try to. 3 13 Q- When will you provide Mr. Berry with that 14 information? ' i us A 1 will not be able to' provide that. 16 information within.this first part of next veek, or in. 17 a short period of time. I will'have to have the Reg Guides is mailed to me --
-i 19 MR. BERRY: !
Why don't we do this. Why , don't you identify for me now 20 'l the particular portions j 21 that you relied upon. And when we return to Washington. i
-i 22 we will try to find those for you and submit to your- i l
23 counsel and counsel will forward them to you. l. 24 So if you can identify for us now'the I 25 Particular Reg Guide that you relied upon --- ' l
)
i l i l l
m fcl0lb9 1 THE WITNESS: 'l" I cannot. identify the exact. 2 date of the Reg Guide that I relied upon. -I-do know that 3 there is Reg Guides land various. Revs to those.- So if. 4 i you would, I would need the Revs' associated lwith Reg Guide 5 1.75. I believe that one was a January 1975 and I believe 6 there was a'later issue to-that,.of.an earlier'date. f-i 7 And there may even be a ptevious revision prior to even 8 that one. l 9 1 would like to have all revisions of Reg 10 Guide-1.75. ' i. 11 MR. DAVIDSON: From what-date? 12 THE WITNESS: Well, what I'm worried about 13 is that not only revisions -- o'ay, k I believe that you can 14 have a January '75 Revision 1 Reg. Guide', and you can have , 15 a January 1975 Revision.2 Reg Guide. And then all of a 16 sudden you can have a March 1980 Revison 1 Reg Guide 1.75 17 and a March 1980 Revision 2 Reg Guide, okay? 18 I believe that you can also have separate ( 19 years on a Reg Guide. 20 MR. BERRY: You want all the Reg Guides'from l 21 what date to what date? 22 .4 MR. DAVIDSON: Dealing with cable separation. . + 23 MR. BERRY: Right. 24 . " MR. DAVIDSON: Specifythedates,(, .' 25 THE WITNESS: All the Reg Guides from 1975. l l 4 4
- fc10lb10-1 forward and possibly the previous' Reg. Guide.to 1975.
.2 1 do not want to go back'into 1960 or'something, but^the 3
first few Reg Guides' previous.to the 1975. 4 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 5-5 Q With respect to cable separation, isLthat j ., 6 correct, sir? 7 A Well, Reg Guide 1.75 is with respect to 8 cable separation. . 9 MR. BERRY:'- We'll say from September 10 '74 until -- 11 MR. DAVIDSON: When do you want? 12 THE WITNESS: Well, you can't1even specify 13 September '74 because a year.date previous to.'75.may be -- 14 there may be a four year time period before'they come out 15 with a new-year on the Reg Guide. 16 MR. DAVIDSON: Correct me.if.I am wrong, 17 [_ but he wants'the version or revision that 18 immediately preceeded the one that he has been looking at 19 today? That is what you want, isn't it. .and then you 20 vant all of those subsequent to the'ones you looked at here i 21 Isn't that correct? today? 22 THE WITNESS: Correct. 23 l MR. DAVIDSON: And I think what he saidHis 24 they don't necessarily revise it.every year or every six
~
25 months. They may go four and'five and even six years 4
7 I fc10lb11 4 1 without revising a particular section. Isn't that what ll ' 2 you were just saying? 3 THE WITNESS: Correct. i 1 d MR. DAVIDSON: That is what he wants and j , 5 Mr. Berry, I almost committed you to this. But before I. l i{ 6 do that, I think I ought to ask you, are you prepared to 7 provide this material to P y [ .. i 8 MR. BERRY: I am not, at this time. I can't i j 9 really commit the Staff at this time, but I will-say that 10 we will make every effort to get that information to you. 11 Before you go, also, if Mr. Davidson has j 12 no obj.ection, I would like to ask just one question at ! 13 this time? ' 14 MR. DAVIDSON: No objection, Mr. Berry. 15 MR. BERRY: And that question is this. 16 assuming for the moment tr.at the Reg Guide 1. j 17 that you just looked at is, in fact, correct -- is the i 18 Regulatory Guide that you relied upon when you prepared 19 your affidavit, would you agree that the first statement 20 that conduit separation should be at least five feet 21 from the bottom of a tray and at least three feet from the 22 side, is inaccurate? I < 23 (P au s e . ) 24 THE WITNESS: I would not say that I could 25 not have derived that from that document. i
~~s l q.
fc10lb12 1 MR. DAVIDSON: I don't think,' L- '- 2 you've asked Mr. Berry's question, sir. You are saying -- 3 THE WITNESS: Are you saying that I 4 specifically cannot find that statement within there? 5 MR. BERRY: I'm asking a very simple 3 6 l question. It only requires a yes or no answer. The 1 7 question is, and is assuming that Reg Guide 1.75'which-8 you just reviewed for about 15 minutes in a total this 9 morning, does it state that conduit separation should be 10 at least five feet from the bottom of the tray and thr_ee _j
-- I 11 feet from the side? Does it or does it not?
12
~~ THE WITNESS: I do not know at this time.-
13 BY MR. DAVIDSON: ' *l
-1 14 Q You mean you couldn't find it?
15 A I mean -- 16 Q That's what you were looking for. 1 1 17 MR. BERRY: Did you find, for us, what you l IB reviewed the Reg Guide 1.75, did you find for us that l 19 statement that states that conduit separation should be 20 at least five feet from the bottom of the tray and three-21 feet from the side? Did you find, for us, that phrase? i j 22 THE WITNESS: No, I did not find that phrase i 1 23 i i in there. f (m 1 24 MR. BERRY: So then, assumingYAj. d 25 that ' keg Guide 1.75, that you reviewed. If that is the 1 l I l I
- I l
l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J
;4301 fc101b13-1 Reg Guide that you relied upon when'you made?this 2
. assertion,.you are now in a' position that this assertion-is 3 incorrect. !
l, 4 J1R . SPEKTER: I-believe he has already- ~ L,k 5 explained how -tut interpreted the fact.that it is? correct. 6 MR. BERRY: .Yes.-but will'you~ answer the 7 ~ question? 8 THE WITNESS: I made'the statement that I 9 have not found the sentence indicated'here in that Reg Guide. 10 I did not make a statement that I coul'd not find the 11 sentence indicated here.in that Reg Guide. And I believe 12 that is what your'second question.is asking me to state. 13 MR.. BERRY: I think the. record will reflect-i4 that we've been over'this.and will reflect'your position. 15 MR. -S PEKTER: I would-agree. end10 16 17 IB I 19 1 20 21 ) a 22 i j EO , i j l 25 I l i 1 _ = _ _ - _ _ --
~.
6 ifclipba j-1 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Berry, if I may for one ; i 2 moment. I am going to ask that you find that exactLstatement]< 3 and I'll tell you'why,' 3
-t
. ,) Because'I thinkuthere's' q 4
been a1 good deal of equivocation here'and a good deal of. j r 5 obfuscation. Now you may or may:not know1the meaning of b 6 that word, but I suspect you understand the substance. , 7 The poJnt I'm making here is that'you've B got a sworn statement here that-Regulatory Guide 1.75 provide s 9 and I quote, "That cable separation should be at least five 10 feet from the bottom of a tray, and three feet from the side.* ' 11 Tha; is what you state that it provides. -That is sworn by? 12 you. 13 And what we're trying to find out is if you 14 are mistaken in that' statement or whether you.were accurate. 15 The only way we can do that is if youican show us 1n the ~ 16 regulatory guide that we providedLto you, which we belie 17 you relied upon where is the statement. Otherwise,'we won'c' 18 ask you whether the staement is inaccurate as written. We 19 will be able to conclude it. 20 THE WITNESS: Well, I believe you're - taking 21 something out of context here. The statement made here.was 22 not in quotes.- 23 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 24 Q So this is not a. statement that you found here. 25 - It's an interpretation you have. You say which provides -- F
1 7 11pb3 1 A I believe we could say that. I 2 Q You mean which I interpret to provide. Isn't 3 that what you mean? J d 4 (Pause.) I t i 5 i MR. SPEKTER: In addition, I would point out 6 that it's a conduit separation and not cable separation. j 7 i MR. DAVIDSON: You're right. ANd the word lJ 8 conduit he pointed out was not mentioned. ! 4 9 BY MR. DAVIDSON: . k 10 Q Do you understand my question,I ? 11 A Yes. ( 12 Q You see it's one thing to say that a particular l I 13 regulatory guide provides for something. It's another thing
,.1 .
14 to say that I believe, based on my interpretation that that j l 15 is required. In other words, you're not setting.forth what i i 1 16 i it provides, you're explaining to us that you are setting 17 forth what you interpret it to mean. . l ! 18 A Using your revision of the reg guide that 1 l i 19 you have there, my statement here would have to be an 20 interpretation. 21 Q Fair enough. 22 A But using a later revision, the statement i 23 may not be an interpretation. 24 Q So that is an interpretation. 25 A No, because this would have to be an - t l e
433 11pb3 1 interpretation using that reg guide is a possibility. But 2 using a later reg guide it may not have to be interpretation. 3 Q Assuming that you did use a later reg guide 4 and it differs in any material way from this one. But based 5 on what you've been shown today which we've represented is 6 the one that you Xeroxed and sent along with your memorandum 7 you believe that this would have to be an interpretation. 8 A Yes. 9 Thank you. Q And perhaps that explains on page 10 ll, you remember we talked'about your statement, "If I am 11 correct in my interpretation." Maybe that explains why 12 you used that phrase. We were trying to find out yesterday 13 Do you remember? 14 You are nodding your head yes, but that is 15 not an answer. 16 A Well, I'm not sure as to what information 17 yesterday you were talking about. ' l 18 Q Do you remember when we asked you about that to phrase yesterday? 20 A No, I do not remember about the phrase. l 21 Q You don't remember from yesterday? i 1 22 A I do remember from yesterday. 23 Q And you don't remember when I asked you when- 1 ' 24 you used the expression, "if I am correct in my interpretation. i 25 whether that was a concession on your part that you could
43r lapb4 1 in error. You don't remember my asking you that? 2 A No, I do not remember the exact question. 3 Q It is completely gone. I 4 A I will not say that is cotipletely gone. I'm 5 saying that at this time, considering the number of questions 6 I have been asked, I do not remember that one particular 7 question. 8 MR. SPEKTER: I would note that the record 9 will reflect that there are 13 hours of tes timony yesterda:- 10 MR. DAVIDSON: That's right, and all of it 11 of this character. 12 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 13 Q Now yesterday, and maybe you don't remember 14 this, but Mr. Mizuno in his discovery deposition drew your 15 attention to a sentence about a DCA. Do you remember that? 16 A Correct. 17 Q That you remember? 18 A I remember speaking with Mr. Mizuno pertaining 19 to DCAs. 20 Q And you had testified that the DCA. I believe, 21 bore upon the issue of cable separation. And at that time 22 Mr. Mizuno said, well, that is inconsistent with what you 23 said in your affidavit. But unfortunately, I don't think 24 you ever really responded to the questions he was asking you. 25 And I just want to ask you is, is it still your testinony i r
435 11pb5 1 that the DCA referred to on the first incomplete paragraph 2 on page 11 dealt with the issue of cable separation? 3 A 1 believe it deal with the issue of cable 4 separation. 5 Q And then if that is true, may I just turn 6 your attention to the specific words used, and you say it 7 was a DCA "to change a portion of the procedure unrelated 8 to cable separation." 9 ' Do you see that statement? 10 A Correct. 11 Q Have I correctly quoted it? 12 A Yes, 13 Q And I take it now that you say that it is 14 your view that that statement is incorrect as written. 15 A 1 believe that your interpretation of that 16 statement is incorrect in the fact that when it specifies i 17 I unrelated, I believe to my memory the DCA involved something I IB similar to a typographical error which would lead me to 10 i believe that it was unrelated basically to cable separation. ' 20 But the content of it was dealing with 21 cable separation. 22 Q I believe you said yesterday, and you've I i i 23 repeated it here, that you mean to say that there was a ' ! 24 DCA written to make a typographical change in a procedure. ; 25 A I don't remember if it was j ust a typographical 1 1 1 ;
)
I l l l
1 11pb6 1 change. I said that in the category of a similar type c h a n g e, .
? Q Is it your understanding that DCAs are 3
required to correct typographical errors? 4 A I do not know if DCAs are required. I believe 5 DCAs are required to change typographical errors. 6 Q And let's just take a look at that sentence 7 again, or that phrase. You say it was to change typographical 6 errors. 9 A I don't say that it was to change a typographic, t to error. I say it was to change something similar to a j 11 typographical error. i 12 Q Let me just reiterate the quote is, "to change 13 a portion of the procedure unrelated to cable separation." 14 If in fact your testimony is that it was really to affect is a typographical change, then the statement still remains, to does it not inaccurate as written? 17 A The portion of the paragraph of change was 1B related to cable separation, is that what you're looking 10 for, or asking?
, }
20 Q k I I will have the reporter read , 21 back the question. 22 A I believe I answered the question. l 23 Q you will answer the question becaure j
~
24 we will have it reread to you. 1 25 (The reporter read the record as requested.) ! I 4
~2s l
lipb7 ! 1 THE WITNESS: I believe you are looking for 2 a yes to that question. 3 BY MR. DAVIDSON: I 4 ; Q I'll ask the reporter to reread the question. 5 A 1 will answer yes to the question. 6 Q I'm sorry. Is your answer yes? j o 7 A Yes, the answer is yes. I believe we discussed 8 that yesterday at great length and came to the same 9 conclusion. 10 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm sorry. I didn't recollect 11
- - f-that. If that is so, I apologize to you,
-- J, but 12 I recollect that was the one question you wouldn't answer 13 yesterday. And if I misrecollect, you have my apology. '
Id THE WITNESS: It's all on record. 15 MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you. By the way, I to suggest that those statements you're making as a rule are i 17 normally reserved to Mr. Spekter, i t i 18 1 ( MR. SPEKTER: is learning the rules
- {
19 very quickly. 20 l MR. DAVIDSON: Good. 21 BY MR. DAVIDSON:
??
7 l Q , turning to pare 11 of yoor
. v 23 affidavit and the second incomplete paragraph there. DO l
24 you see the first sentence? 4 ; Would you read it to yourself , l 25 and look up at me when you are through? , l l e _._ __.____________J
438 lipb8 1 (Witness reviewing document.) 2 THE WITNESS: I am through. 3 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 4 Q Do you see that you have said that you've 5 indicated that your concern is "the practice of regularly 6 using ' butt splices'"? 7 A Yes. 8 Q What do you mean by the term regularly? l 9 A 1 mean by using them more frequently than 10 1 actually required -- it was common practice that would be 11 regulated. 12 Q Common practice where, sir? 13 A Common practice in the control room to use 14 them in the aux relay racks. There's various other equipment 15 that I imagine you could find them all over the plant. 16 Q You imagine that? 17 A I imagine, yes. 1B Q You don't know that. 10 A 1 know that -- no, I will not give specific 20 incidences over the plant as to where the butt splices are 21 at, or I do not remember any specific incidences right now. 22 Q Did you survey the plant to determine the 23 location of butt splices? i 24 A I do not remember if I did or not. , 25 I Q The whole plant? I mean, that would have been l t
11pb9 1 a major undertaking. 2 A You are correct.- 3 Q That would have taken alone as an. individual 4 4 1 many.-many months, wouldn't it? ' 5 A: It sure would have. 6 Q. So if you made such a survey you would
'7 remember'it, wouldn't you?
8 A Yes, I would of the entire plant, yes. 9 Q Did;you make a survey'at the plant to determi 10 whether or not there was a regularly practice of making. i [ 11 butt splices throughout it? 12 A No, I did not. 13 Q I, can we turn to page 12 of yo[r 14 affidavit and the first sentence of the first complete 15 paragraph. 16 A I am looking at.it. 17 Q Would you read it.to yourself.and then look 18 up at me when you are completed. 19 (Witness reviewing document.)
' 20 A 1 am finished reading it.
21 Q Thank you. Now you state that it's your 22 understanding that butt splicing is specifically prohibited : l l 23 by the NRC; isn't that what that says? 24 A Correct. 25 Q On what do you base that understanding? 4
'440 11pb10 1
A. I believe in the reg. guide that it' specifies 2 a shall not or should not1under butt splicing. I believe 3 that it may possibly-be an interpretation to me by-4 information given~'to me -- or arr' J at during the course 5 of investigation'or obtaining information on these. 6 Q So this: is nn interpretation. . JYou don't.know, 7 this for a fact. B A True. .W ell, the NRC can speak for itself. 9 Q Well.,now.you do state in this paragraph 10 of the affidavit that the Regulatory Guide 1.75 specifies 11 that cable splices in raceways should be prohibited; isn't 12 that what you say? 13. (Witness reviewing document.)- 14 A Where was that reference at? 15 Q It's in the paragraph you're looking at on 16 page 12. 17 Do you see that? 18 A Yes, I do. 19 Q But'it doeslnot say that cable splices in 20 all areas should be prohibited, does. it?- 21 A Here I believe you've gotten under a 22 misconception here. 23 Q .Oh? I 24 A .If you will note that a raceway in a clear ' 25 definition of a raceway is.anything'that carries or handles ; 1
441 11pb11 1 cables. Thereby any butt splice would just about have to 2 be within a raceway. 3 Q Suppose it were in a cabinet or terminal? 4 A 1 would definitely be considered it was in 'i 5 a raceway because of the fact-that those cables are bundled ' 6 together and tied to a specific location. ANd that-is 7 considered a raceway. 8 Q In your view. 9 A I believe that NRC has a definition through to some of their reg guides as to what raceways are considered . l 11 to be. . 12 Q And did you bring this interpretation of the 13 regulations to anyone's attentidn during your tenure at 14 Comanche Peak? 15 A I believe so. 16 When did you do that? Q 17 A I do not remenber the exact times. l a 18 l Q Give us an approximate time. l 19 A I would be guessing if I gave you approximate
'/0 times.
21 Well, I take it that Q -- well, let me ask you ! 1 22 this. Do you recollect to whom you might have raised this 23 issue? 24 A I do not remember. 25 Q So you don't know the date, place, time or
442-linb12 1 persons involved when you raised this issue with anyone. 2 A No, I do not. 3 Q Did you_know it at the time you made this 4 affidavit? 5 (Pause.) 6 A 1 do not remember. 7 Q Do you know whether this matter was reviewed 8 by design change engineers or quality engineers at the 9 plant? 10 A I do not remember. Il Q You do not remember or you do not know? 12 A The issue of butt splicing, right, 1 do not 13 remember the exact documentation which is associated with 14 butt splices. 15 Q Do you know whether this matter was taken up 16 with the NRC7 i 17 A I do not remember. 18 Q You don't remember or you do not know? ) end 11. 39 A I do not know. ! 20 i 21 j 22 23 24 25 1 h_-___m.m_ __
fc 443 12jon!' I Inf MR. DAVIDSON: 2 Q .Do you know whether the matter of the 3 specific butt splices in issue here was made a part of-d the FSAR? 5 A l'do not-remember exactly, or if it was 6 made a part. 7 Q' Had Lit been taken up'with the NRC staff: 8 and theirafter made an amendment to the FSAR, would-9 you still have the concern expressed here that that to was improper? 11 A I would have the concern over butt 12 splicing at the plant, yes. 13 Q In other words, you would think that the-Id NRC's determination was not in this case. adequate for 15 you? 16 A To allow butt splicing in the numbers which 17 were going on within the plant. I would feel _'that NRC 18 was not adequate in their functioning there. I' Q What number s.1 butt splices were there? 20 A I do not know. I would be g u e s s i n g .' 21
'We are specifying-severa1' numbers, possibly;as.many 22 as 10 or 20 in each one of the aux relay' cabinets.
23 Q Do you remember whether you wereJobligated 74 to review, as a part of your indoctrination, the FSAR? 25 A I believe 1 was required to review certain
idjoni 444 1 portions cf the FSAR; the exact portions I do not 2 remember. 3 Q Do you remember when you were asked to do 4 that? I 5 A No. I do not. l 6 Q Do you remember when you signed documentation 7 attesting to the fact that you had done that? 8 A 1 don't remember the date. 9 Q But you remember signing such documentation? 10 A I remember signing documentation stated that 1 11 had reviewed information in the FSAR.
*i ..
12 Q Now. . do you wish to take a
.(
13 break to consult with counsel? ' i 14 A No. I'm waiting for your question. 15 Q Yes. I was looking for the document to attesting to your indoctrination because I thought it i i 17 might refresh us on the day, but I don't want to delay. IB l'm having some difficulty finding it here. And I want . 19 ! to move along to accommodate you as well as your counsel I' 20 and meet your flight schedles. i 21 Here it is. ' 22 Do you remember when you signed the , i 23 affidavit as to indoctrination? 24 l A No. I do not remember. l 25 l Q I am going to show you a document and see if 4
La2jon4 l 445: ' I will refresh your recollection. 2 (Witness perusing document.)' i 3 Q Do'you see ~ theLdocument, sir? ; 4 A Yes, I do. 5 Q Does that refresh.your recollection? 6 A AS indicated on the document, which has-- 7 not been entered, but as indicated that-I signed it on 8 10/7/02 and that is my signature. 9 Q Now, my question to you, sir, is does that 10 refresh your recollection? 11' In other words, do you now remember, ' ' 12 having reviewed this material and the date on which you 13 did so and the date when you attested to that fact? Id We don't want you to j ust -read the document. - 15 We want you to state what your recollection is. 16 MR. SPEKTER: I would request that it be 17 marked. 18 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 19 Q Do you have a recollection?! 20 A Do I have a recollection ~as'to the date? 21
'Well, I just had seen the date. ?
It was 10/7. 22
-MR. BERRY: You remember now having seen de 23 document?
j 24 l THE WITNESS: No,'I do not remember the 25 exact procedures that I read on that date.- Or so on.
12jon5; ..
-{'
1 MR. SPEKTER: Not the exact procedures, i 2 but do you remember now that you signed it?: 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do remember that'I-4 signed that document. 5 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 6 Q Do you remember.now when.you signed it? 7 A I remember -- no, I do:not rememb'er 8 exactly when I signed. I~have.the date on the-document. 9 Q Did you-have occasion to review the F'SAR
~
10 at any time subsequent' to the date on that indoctrination l attestation which was' 10/7/827 12 A You are stating did I review:the FSAR7: ; Q Excuse me. Yes', it was 10/7/82. 14 A You are saying did I review the FSAR after 15 10/7/827 16 Q That's right. 17 A Yes, I have reviewed the FSAR after.
}
18 Q And did you at any time review amendment 44 to the FSAR? 20 A I do not remerker. (Witness-attorney conference)' 3'" r Q Excuse me, if you want to-3 consult with counsel, do not do.it while I am conducting 24 my examination. f '
.- l 25 turn to your affidavit. Now, in I
~
e- l e
12jon6^ l preparing your statements about your. concern over butt 2 splicing and in the. period that you took'with Mr. Hadley 3 and Ms. Garde toiprepare this document.did you review-d the.FSAR'to determine whether or not that which you j 5 were complaining about was a permissible undertaking? 3 6 -l. (Pause.) 7 A You havefspecified two different areas here. 8 You have added in Mr'. Hadley and Billie Garde, asking 9 me at the same time-frame. Now,_part of an STE'sIjob IO would be to review the FSAR at'various intervals. -3 11 l~ Q Let me see if I can make this simple for j
~
q 12 . . . . . . . - . j you, r) . Y0u have stated, have you not, that you 4/ _ . . 13 brought this concern to the people's attention., this l# concern about butt splicing; right? 15 A I believe so. 16 Q I ask you when you did that and you said -- 17 A That I didn't remember. 18 Q But it was sometime-subsequent to you-I' becoming an employee there. Is it approximately the 20 same time that some of.these other1 incidents that we have 21
-been looking at were in December and January of 19847 22 A This item was' voiced by me from the_ -
23 beginning of it.being noticed. I do not remember the 24 ~
- exact date that I noticed this item, but it was addressed 25 by me. It did become more. apparent at-later dates because
~
12jon7 448 I i i 1 of me seeing more and more of it occurring. 1 2 Q But you raised this many times, though. I 3 not just once. 4 A I believe so. 1 5 Q . With many different people? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Did anyone ever respond to your concern?. . 8 A Yes. 9 Q Did they ask you to do anything about it? 10 A I do not remember. endl2 11 12 , 13 1 14
]
15 16 l i l 18
]
i 19 20 i I 21
'l 22 23 24 i 25 l
l 4
FC/jlD '13/l' 449. 1 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 2 Q Do you know whether your concern was pass'ed 3 along to a Mr. Woodlan?1 4 A I do not' remember'who Mh. Woodlan'is. 5 Q You' don't know who dir'.1Woodlan is? 6 A I didn't say I don't know. I' don't. remember who 7 Woodlan.is, s Q Do you'know whether Mr." Popplewell'-- did you-9 consult Mr. Popplewell about your concern? 10 A I do'not remember. 11 Q Do you remember'anybody that you tciked to 12 about this? 13 A No, I do not. 14 Q In your conversation with anyone with-respect 15 cc this problem, did the name Om Chopra ever-come up?- 16 And that's 0-m C-h-o-p-r-a. 17 A The name is not familiar to me. ! 18 Q You don't know who Mr. Chopra is? j to A I'do not. 1 i 20 There's'-- I do not' remember.who he is'or -- l 9 21 NI believe I do not know. ;1
)
22 Q Well, that's.the question. Do you know him?- 23 Or did you ever know him?' 24 A I do not think so. ! So, then, you don't know whether the' concern ! 25 Q i
~!
sug A 24,.
- 1 you've raised here has been addressed by the NRC, and'you 2
don't know whether it's been incorporated as a change to 3 the FSAR? i 4 A No, I do not. 5 Q You do not. 6 If it has been incorporated as a change to the 7 FSAR while you were employed at Comanche Pesk, would you 8 not have reason to know about it? 9 A I don't know if I would have seen the change 10 or not. 11 Q Let's turn to the last incomplete paragraph on , 12 page 12 that spills over to page 13.
'l 13 Can you find that in your affidavit and read it 14 toyourself,\ ?
M 15 (Witness peruses document.) 16 l'd like to draw your attention to that phrase 17 that says, "It is my experience that there are many fossil 18 fuel plants where butt splicing is not allowed." 19 Do you see that phrase? 20 A Yes, I do. 1 21 Q And I accurately quoted iti didnSt I? I 22 (Pause.) 23 Didn't I? 24 A i Yes, you did. J 25 Q prior to your employment at ' (~ v i l i I i i _ _- _ ___ _a
q . q 451' FCjl 13/3-1 Comanche Peak, vere you ~ever employed at a fossil fuel 2 plant? 3 A No. 1 was not. 4 Q When you-refer,- then, in your affidavit to 5 your experience with fossil fuel-plants, to what.is.itL 6 that you refer? 7 A Th'e statement.there should not;have been . "my. .( 8 experience."'It should have: been "my' knowledge. " _ . 9 Q Are you saying, sir, that this~ sworn testimony 10 is inaccurate, as . writ ten?- 11 A Well, dealing with the fact that-1 have had'not, 12 any fossil plant experience cn jobs, then,.yes, that.one i 13 ' statement must_be. 14 Q Fine.
- j 15 Now,'you say your " knowledge" of' fossil-fuel' 16 plants. Could you tell us what your knowledge of. fossil 17 fuel plants is?
18 A Yes. I had spoken with fellow. employees _over-
- 39. this, and it was indicated. !
that I was not' allowed'at 1, 20 certain fossil plants. 21 Q What fellow employees? ) i 22 A ' John McDowell.- ! 23 1 do'not remember the rest. ! 24 ! Q Can you tell us when you had a conversation -j 25 with Mr. McDowell where.this was discussed.~ fossil' fuel
-l l
1 J I l i 1
452 FCjl 13/4 1 plants? 2 A I do not remember the date. ' 3 Q Do you remember the place? 4 A It was in the start-up trailers. 5 Q Was anyone else present, to your knowledge? 6 A I do not remember. 7 Q Do you know Mr. McDowell's experience, his 8 work experience? 9 A I do not. 10 I do not remember his exact experience. 11 Q Do you know it? 12 A I believe I know some of it. 13 Q Yes. Would you t e ll u s w'c.a t his. background is? 14 A I believe that he had worked at several other 15 00ssil plants. I do not remember exactly which ones, 16 where, or how much. 17 Q So, you don't know how many plants he worked at.~ 18 A Correct. 4 19 l Q And you don't know how long he worked there? ! 20 A Correct. 21 Q Do you know in what capacity he was employed 22 there? 23 i i A Let's say that -- let's not say that I do not 24 know. Let's say that I do not remember. ! 25 Q Have it as you will. i l I 1
uns
- FCjl 13/5 I
Do you know how many -- do you know in what 2 capacity he was employed at these fossil fuel' locations? !' 3 A I do not' remember. I d Q But he -- he explained all'this in the course 5-of that conversation to you, did he? 6 It's just that you don'tfremember-it?~ 7 A Either'during the course of that conversation or t 8 previously. I'd like to get one thing clarified here, that. 10 ny do not know"'and "I do not remember," as to the~ M definition of each.- I believe it was explained to-me- . 12 earlier that I state "I do not:know," you are - specifying 13 that I had never known previously. Am'I correct in that Id assumption? 15 q y think you had best, if you want advice as to . 16 how to give your answers, to talk with your counsel. 17 18 I don't want to take any advantage of-you. i MR. SPEKTER: I'm going to go off the record 20 for a few minutes. 21 MR. DAVIDSON: We'll take a break so you can 22 consult with your counsel. 23 I i (Attorney / witness conference at 10:15-a.m.) '
'l 24 !
MR. SPEKTER: We'can go back on the record.. ! 25
.And I think the record should reflect that I had a very, l i
a 4 i e i l
454 FCjl 13/6 I very brief conference with my client. And he was concerned
.n 2
that there would be some misinterpretation about him : 3 stating either "I don't know," as opposed to "I don't d remember." 5 I indicated to him that if he does not know t 6 something, never has known it, he should state.,that.he 7 does not know. And if he does not remember something, 8 that he should state'that he does not remember. BY MR. DAVIDSON: 10 Q Do you remember last night, when Mr, Mizuno was 4-11 interrogating you, that you had a discussion about research 12 you did on ES-1007 1 13 A Yes, I remember portions. I 1d Q Who directed you to conduct that research.- 15 l ?
. .l 16 A I' don't --
I do not remember anybody personally 17 requesting me to conduct that research. 18 Q Did anyone suggest that you conduct it? 19 A I do not remember. 20 Q Do you remember why it is you undertook the
. e 21 '
research? 22 A I felt-that there was a problem existing. 23 l And due to the fact that every individual out 24 at the plant is supposedly -- a portion of his job is 25 related to quality, I felt that if there was a problem, I i
! l l
4
. - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ - - - - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ - 1
FYjl 13/7. 455 1 I that I should-research'it to bring it to light'.
~
2 \ Q Very commendable. l 3 And what research did you undertake? d A Dealing with the ES-100 specifications or -- 5 Q' That's the subject'of'this ~1ineLof questioning. 6 A Research-taking was' obtaining the ES-100 in its - 7 entirety, all?DCAs associated with it, and comparing it 8 to the documentation which it wasiderived from. 9 Q Which would be what, sir?- 10 A The Reg Guide and -- we were speaking specifically II of certain sections of the ES-100 anyway, so I pinpointed 12 my review to that. I3 Q And this research took place before the' Id incident that you related to us with Mr. Powers? 15 A Yes, portions of that research did take place 16 prior to the incident with Mr. Powers. I7 Q If you were concerned about an asserted conflict 18 between ES-100 and the Regulatory Guide, how is it you did not raise this with your supervisors..but instead had-anL 20 argument with Mr. Powers on a subsequent date?
- 2)
- A It was raised'with my supervisors.
22
- q. At that time?
23 A Previous to the time of the argument, wh'ich was I 24 outlined in the definition -- which was autlined in the i 25 ! testimony earlier as far as on harassment. l
'l i
,se-
- ]' t I
Q Well,.we won't debate that,'but I'-- I will' 7 7 ' tell you; }that I have very good reco11ection1 .l 3
- p. . - -
of the testimony, and your. testimony was'you raisedfit after you had-the fight, .you raised it with Mr. Camp -- 5 in fact, that Friday and also, again, when you came in. 6 Saturday. And that's when you discussed preparing the-7 start-up memorandum,.which you asid you prepared on Monday a the 19th and then finally submitted or sent forward later that week. to But if that's your recollection and you think Il that's consistent with your testimony, don't let me 12 dissuade you. 13 A Prior to my discussion with Fred Powers -- or I# prior to my job being insinuated by Fred Powers..I had-15 discussed with Art London the problem that' morning and' , q 16 possibly the day before and had started'my research. 17 Q On that day? I8 A No. l' j i Q Or perhaps the_ day before? l 20 A No. 21 Perhaps the time before. 22 The possible phone call to.the Gibbs & Hill 23
- employee was before the argument with Fred Powers. I !
24 . I MR. SPEKTER: I would note ~for-the record my j 25 objection to this line of questioning. I believe it was , l I I l
l 457. FYjl 13/9 l
)
I more approprite for cross-examination. And I believe 2 .! that the matter has been covered. This is a discovery ! 3 deposition, and it should not be gone into duplicatively I d here in order to try to utilize the engine of cross-5 examination at this particular time, because it's discovery. 6 MR. DAVIDSON: I understand your position, 7 Mr..Spekter. END L# 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I 18 19 20 U 21 *: 4 22 l 4 j 23 { j l 2a 25 1 I i i
458
.nge 14-1 1 BY MR. DAVIDSON:
2 Q Do I understand you correctly that ~ you 3 started this research to which you' referred either-d earlier in.the day before you had the argument with 5 Mr. Power, or perhaps even the day:before that?- 6 A I'do.not remember the' exact time that I 7 started the research. As I indicated. I received'an SWA. 8 My research started when I went out-to the field with the-9 Engineering personnel to find out the reasoning for that 10 SWA. 11 Q That was your assignment on the 16th, to take 12 that SWA and take a look at the work. 13 A No. There was a time period prior to'that. Id The 16th was when the confrontation'with Fred Powers 15 occurred. Prior to that was the SWA, and there were several-16 days.of research prior to that, even. l'7 Q Well, now, are you' stating here that you i 18 were given an SWA, but you didn't go into the field to 19 execute for some period of 6ays? 20 A I-was giv'en an SWA. There is the possibility 21 that the SWA did not get authorized or sat on my desk for 22 a day or two. I did go'into the field with the SWA to-23 research the problem. Once I found the problem, which was 24 days or possibly a week prior to the 16th, once I found i 25 the problem. I_ started research from that point, which'
)
1
459 l mgc 14-2 1 means -- and I believe the telephone conversation with the 2 Gibbs &' Hill employeeLwas prior to.the argument with. 3 Fred Powers. d Before..before I'would refuse to sign'a l 5 document, I'had.already started a'certain amount of'research i 6 into that document. 7 (Pause.) > 8 Q could I ask you to turn to ,, J 9 page 13 of your affidavit? 10 (The witness ~ complies.) . 11 Now you discuss in that affidavit, if you 12 remember, the problems that you found with the 13 ferroresonant transformers; is that correct?. 14 A Correct. 15 Q And did you tell us that_ Westinghouse's 16 response when you raised the issue of the failure 17 experience was that "We have never had any' failure before,- IB so that you must be doing something. wrong"?- j 19 A No. I believe you're misquoting the statement 20 that I made. 21 Q Correct me ,please. 22 A The statement was that, "We do not understand , 23 the reason you are having these failures, because no other ~j 24 sites are having these problems." 25 Q "No other sites are'having these' problems." : i 1
,i I
4 ' i
^
Soul j
- j ,
i l mgc 14-3 1 A Well, I won't put it - -it was. insinuated 2
'that'no other places were having this problem. -,
3 5.4' Q- And who is_ alleged to have said this? d A Westinghouse. 5 Q When you-say they said it, do you mean'that 6 they sent a memorandum? i 7 A It was'in a memorandum, yes.- 8 Q I'd like to show you a document, . , 9 to see if we can refresh your. recollection. It's dated' 10 July 11, 1983, and it's signed by an R.L. Moller, and I il think indicating he is the Westinghouse Site Manager, and 12 ask yo u quickly whether this is the memorandum to which-13 you refer when you say that Westinghouse responded in a 14 memorandum ? 15 (Document handed to witness.) 16 MR. SPEKTER: I request that it be marked 17 for identification. 18 MR. DAVIDSON: We'will mark this for 19 identification as Disc Exhibit 10. 20 MR. SPEKTER: I believe this'is e 11.$ 21 MR. DAVIDSON: Whatever the. number is, the 22 ; reporter will see to it'that it's' properly marked. ! 23 (The document referred to was 24 marked Disc Exhibit F-10 for 25 identification.) l l I l
461 l ' 1 i mgc 14-4 1 THE WITNESS: I will not testify that this 2 is the memorandum, due to the fact that there were several 3 l memorandums from Westinghouse, and the information may not d be pertained (sic) in this exact memorandum. 5 $ BY MR. DAVIDSON: 1k I 6 Q Well, let me draw your attention, /1 7 to the first sentence of the second paragraph, and could ! 8 you read that aloud for us? 9 MR. SPEKTER: I don't believe he should read 10 it aloud. It's not been identified as a document that 11 he knows -- 12 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Spekter, an objection is 13 appropriate. Your statement isn't. 14
-g Co ahead, , read it.
15 THE WITNESS: It says, "Because the same to style of invertor is used at many plants with much smaller 17 failure rates, it is our feeling there is something unique IB in the way the TBX invertors have been operated, causing 19 the transformer failures." 20 MR. DAVIDSON: 21 ! Q Does that refresh your recollection as to ! 22 what they actually said? That is. Westinghouse? ! 23 A I'm not sure, again, if that is the meno. 24 I would have to look at all the memos from Westinghouse 25 to ensure -- that eculd possibly be the statement which was -- t
'462 1
mgc 14-5 I was trying to pu11'from memory. 2
'Q Did you review --
3 A As indicated in that statement, they areL 4 suggesting that there is some reason or.some operational 6 failure that we are doing ourselves, and I.believe that 6 chat was the statement.to which started me in the 7 investigation of.how many' plants w'ere having similar; type B problems to us. 9 Q In other words..you wanted to find out what', 10 in fact, the failure rate was? Is that what'you're seying? U A No. It'would be impossible.without.large' 12 amounts of extensive research and going from site to site 13 to find out the exact failure rate. I wanted to find out Id if other sites were having similar problems with those' 15 ferroresonant transformers like.we were. 16 Q But;you didn't want to find out what their 17 failure rates were; is.that what you're.saying? 18 A I did not'want to find out.their. exact-I' failure rate. 20 Q Okay.- So that was not the; purpose of.your 21 [ survey. 22 A It was'to substantiate that we were having-23 a problem and that other people were having similar problems 24 to us. 25 Q Now I think you testified tbst you wrote
463 mgc 14-6 1 TDRs on the ferroresonant transformers. 2 A Correct. ; 3 { Q Was action taken on your TDRs? 4 A Well, the part of thie writing the TDR S usually is the system test engineer will'also write the 6 corrective action at the same time. 7 Q And did your startup test group also further 8 pursue the issue? 9 A I further pursued the issue by writing the to startup memo. 11 Q For your signature or for someone else's? 12 A I believe it went through Dick Camp's 13 signature. 14 Q And do you know where that memorandum went? 15 A It would have followed the same process 16 possibly that the other memorandums that we apuke about 17 did. IB Q In other words, it would go to Mr. McBay, 19 go to Engineering, and then he would ask Mr. Popplewell 20 and.others to look at it. 21 A (Nodding affirmatively.) 22 Q Do you know whether Mr. Vogelsang took 23 your concerns up with Westinghouse? 5 24 { A I believe he did, because I received a reply I 25 from Westinghouse.
464 mgc 14-7 1 Q Did you ever receive a copy of any - 2 memorandum.that Mr. Vogelsang wrote to Westinghouse ~ 3 bringing up the problem? 4 A I received' copies of several different 5 memorandums that were written. 6 Q 1,would'like to.s'how you a document here.. 7 and that's going to,be Disc Exhibit 11 -- B MR..SPEKTER: Disc Exhibit 12. 9 MR.'DAVIDSON: I-think.not, sir. But the 10 reporter knows the number. 11 (The document referred to was 12 marked Disc Exhibit F-11 13 for identification.) 14 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 15 Q I want to ask you, in looking.at this 16 memorandum, whether it refreshes'your recollection? Is . 17 this the memorandum that you sawrin which Mr. Vogelsang IB pressed the issue that you raised? 19 (The witness examines the document.) 20 A I believe this memorandum was in answer
- 21. , ' to or a portion of the answer to the previous memorandum.
22 Q You thinksit was in answer to? The previous 23 memorandum was dated July lith. This is dated. June 29th.. 24 But you think nonetheless it's in answer to the later one? 25 A We have to have the complete file'--
'?
/
mgc 14-8 ' - Q Why don't you read it, first, ?. i 2 Why don't you just read thismemorandum,f ) before i 3 : you make an assertion as to what you think it is, and why l don't you look up at me when you're through? J l 5 I 7,d like you to read this memorandum, l o i i Don't try to look at other pieces of paper, I because the question will be about this memorandum. 8 (The witness complies.) A There were several memos which went back 10 and forth. Without looking at all the memon together in the order in which they were derived and sent, it would be l 12 very easy to confuse one memo with a nother memo and even
'3 the timeframes associated with each one.
Id Q Well, let me ask you this. Did you ever 15 receive a copy of the memorandum you are now looking at? 16 A I believe I did. Q And does this memorandum purport to press 16 with Westinghouse -- does.this purport to be a memo from I' Mr. Vogelsang pressing with Westinghouse the issue you 20 raised with respect to the failure of the ferroresonant 21 transformers? 22 A 23 It 15 BivinS We8 tineb ouse inforrition which they requested, and also asking them to evaluate the 24 problem. 25 i Q lt doesn't make any reference to a request 4
wUQ age 14 1 for information, 'Where is that that you'found q-2 that? '
.q 3 A Okay~. What I'm saying.is, --
f.
-1 4
Q 4__. 'f_let me -- 5 A Wait a minute. 'Let me finish.here.. 6 -MR. SPEKTER: I request that-he be-allowed
- 7 to finish his answer.
8 MR. DAVIDSON:' .I'm sorry. I didn't mean. 9 to interrupt. I thought you'd answered. 10 THE WITNESS: The deal'in here.is, is that. j 11 he's specifying operational. requirements-here. j If.you'll j' j. 12 look at your previous document that you received from' ! 13 Westinghouse, one of the requirements at the top. I,believe, 14 was requesting an operational history of thefequipmen't. 15 Now it is very easy to become confused and 16 say possibly that this document is indicating or giving 17 the information for the operational history, and th'ere may IB have been a subsequent document. I do not know. 19 MR. DAVIDSON: We're going to read this 20 into the record, so that Judge Bloch, if he reads this .! i t 21 deposition, can see that you have.not read it','as I' 22 requested you to do,-because it does not contain any of 'i ! 23 the statements or implications that you've.now raised,- , i 24 rather than respond to the' question I asked. 25 Quote: "We-recently experienced failure in
)
1 l l ________.__-_~-------
~67 mge 14-10 1 three of.the four Westinghouse. instrument. power supply-2 invertors. The failure of each invertor:vas due to a e 3
grounded secondary winding of Transformer 1-T-(Drawing 4 4950C67, Sheet 4). Our investigation of-the matter shows 5 that the loading on the invertors is:40 percent to'50-percent 6
-and that power input is within acceptable limits.
7 "It appears;that the problem might be because-8 of defective t ra n s f o'rme rs . "
.The next paragraphJ reads: "Please evaluate 10 these failures and provide.a description of' corrective 11 actions that,should be taken to mitigate or reduce.
12 reoccurrence." 13 Next paragraph: "If you have any. questions Id or require additional.information, please advise." 15 That's the full text. Now I' don't'see that 16 this is in response to anyone's memorandum. I don't see 17 that this is providing any kind of operational history. - 18 THE WITNESS: If you'll notice, there were 19 several startup letters, several-TDRs generated. This-20 was generated in reference to.the ones previous. 21 MR. DAVIDSON: But that's not thecquestion, j 22 Mr. Walter. That's not my. question. . Ii 23 THE WITNESS: What I'm saying is, issthat ' 24 1 without looking at all of the memorandums step-by-step 'l 25 l in your line of questioning,_it is very easy for me'to i 1 i o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
-468-3
).
mgc 14-11 1 become confused as to'which memorandums came in at'which~ 2 times prior to which'other memorandums,'without'specifically. 3 looking at the: dates. i 4 Your-previous. statement'or previous form,- ! k1 5 without me looking at the date and.without me'looking at " 6 this form. I'do not know if that -- I'do no't'rememberJif 7 that other one came in before this: memorandum or'after> 8 this memorandum. 9 But as you've indicated-by the dates here
~
10 and the previous date, this memorandum had to be generated-11 prior to the Westinghouse reply. -
-1
,- ,2 ."
12 MR. DAVIDSON: You know,i,., you're 13 carrying.on, and I:really.think that's a problem.: 14 THE WITNESS: _You're confusing me. 15 .MR. SPEKTER: I object to the characterization, 16 and I request that-the questions be asked'and answered -- 17 MR. DAVIDSON: , I.am going to ask the question, because I think that we've all recognized that the
~
18 19 record is replete with the lack of responsiveness of.this-20 witness.- But what I want to tell you, . As tha't 21 you declared that this memorandum was in' response to a 22 Westinghouse one, and-that it indicated that it was ,
-1 23 responding to certain requests. !
i 24 The reasons -' please let me 25 put the premises down. You're so eager to testify.to what 1
. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ ~
469 mgc 14-12 1 you please and to make whatever unsubstantiated assertions 2 you can, that you don't even pay attention to the questions. 3 l'm going to tell you why you're having 4 a problem, and I hope you will take this with the 5 sincerity that's meant. 6 MR. SPEKTER: I would object to that. 7 MR. DAVIDSON: You're trying to look at 8 every piece of paper and try to figure out where we're 9 going so you don't get tripped up. I'm not trying to 10 trip you up. I'm asking you about one document, and if 11 you look at the one document and tell me what it says, 12 or tell me what you believe it says, we're going to get 13 through. 14 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 15 Q The question I asked you was, is this, { 16 to the best of your recollection, the memorandum that 17 was written by Mr. Vogelsang to Westinghouse, bringing l 18 l to their attention the problem that you had raised with ' 19 respect to the four Westinghouse ferroresonant transformers? 20 That was the question. i 21 A I do not remember if that was the first 1 22 document addressing the problem to Westinghouse or 23 subsequent documents addressing the problem to Westinghouse. I ; i 24 Q All right. But this is certainly a document 25 in which the issue you raised is being pressed with {
10 l 1 mgc 14-13 1 Westinghouse. 2 l A Yes. 3 ! Q Okay. So that action was taken in response d to your raised concerns? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And do you see that on this memorandum that 7 Mr. Vogelsang prepared, there are some "ce"'s? 8 A Yes. 9 Q ARMS is the first one. Do you know what to that stands for? II A No, I do not. 12 Q Do you see the second one? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Who is that? 15 A McBay. 16 Q And who is Mr. McBay? 17 A The title. I would have to look at the 18 directional chart to find the title. 19 Q You mean the table of organization? i 20 A Correct. i i 21 { Q But do you think he might have been head 22 aof Engineering? I 23 A I believe so. 24 Q Do you know who Mr. J.T..Merritt is? i i 25 A He would be supervisory over Dick Camp. l i 1
\
l l
471
.gc 14-14 1 Q Isn't he the Assistant Project Manager for 2 Construction? V 3 A I believe he is now, but I do not know what 4
he was then. I don't remember what he was then. 5 Q Do you see the.name Larry Popplewell? 6 A Yes, I do. 7 Q And do you know what his title was? 8 A I do not remember what his title was at,the 9 time. 10 And you see R.E. Camp as well? Q 11 A Yes. 12 Q Thank you. 13 MR. SPEKTER: I would note'that the document Id is in the record. It speaks for itself. End 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ' 23 24 ; 1 25 l
472 1 fc151b1 N- .j J 1 MR.!DAVIDSON:- ~ 1 4
. .you.are. conferring ~
a 2 with your' counsel. Do you want some time to-do that, or 3 do you'want me to raise my next question.
'j 4
MR. SPEKTER: I would. talk to him,1just ;{I 5 briefly, for a. moment. 6
.THE" WITNESS: ' Let's take a short break'for 7 that.
B MR. DAVIDSON: Certainly, I 9 (Recess.) to MR. DAVIDSON: During~our break,.Mr.1Spekter 11 brought to our' attention that we had failed to mark and 12 include in the record the copy of ithe~ Regulatory Guide ' 13 3 , . - ,. which I had represented was an ' attachment'to( 14 startup. memorandum of December 19th and accompanied his 15 copy of the ES-100. form when that issue was forwarded'to 16 Gibbs & Hill for' response. 17 And the record will reflect a number of-18 s- s' questions were asked about it, although continued 19 to insist that he had no recollection of whether that was-20 the Guide he had actually used. 21 For that reason,-at the. time, 1-did.not ask 22 l that the item be included in the record. llowever, Mr. 23 Spekter feels that it 'should be. t l And to accomodate him. -l 2d l we are now so iDCluding it. i 25 l.- And in order to accomodate the-aumbers'that ! i e
fc151b2 i i have now succeeded that particular portion of the 2 transcript, we are going to dub it Disc Exhibit F-9A. 3 (The document referred to was j d marked as Discovery Exhibit 5 No. F-9A for identification.) 6 MR. DAVIDSON: Is that satisfactory to 7 you, Mr. Spekter? B MR. SEEKTER: That's fine. My concern is 9 that I thought it had been marked as Disc Exhibit 10 to and I understand there is a difference as to Disc Exhibit 11 10. Therefore, this will straighten out the understanding 12 of the other people reading the record. 13 MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you, sir. That is fine. 14 BY MR. DAVIDSON: I 15 \ g ,
, I believe you testified earlier 16 that you recollected that Westinghouse made a request for 17 certain information from TUCCO, regarding these IB ferroresonant transformers. Is that correct?
19 (Pause.) 20 A Repeat the question. I've lost the j 21 concentration. 22 { Q Well, rather than ask you whether you remember 23 what you said, let me ask you -- you have identified here i 24 i a memorandum. You don't have exact recollection, but you. ! 25 see here a memorandum in which your concerns were pressed I l I,
474 fc151b3-I with Westinghouse. Mr. Vogelsang told you of the 2 experience,'the problem you had, what the cause seeme'd: to 3 be, and asked for an evaluation. 4 You;did, when examining lthat.-indicate that 5 you believed that Westinghouse responded by asking for 6 an. operational history of the ferroresonant transformers, ., 7 didn't'you? 8 A Corrs.ct. 9 Q Did you receive a copy of the memorandum to in which they requested that?' 11 A I believe I did. 12 Q Now we marked, as Disc Exhibit 10, a 13 July 11 memorandum from Mr. Moller, the Westinghouse' site Id manager, to TUSI Engineering with copies. I~ note : to 15 McBay, Merritt, Popplewell, Camp, and Parker. Is this the 16 memorandum to which you refer, requesting an operation'al 17 history? 18 And.when you review it, let me ask you~to look I 19 at Item 3 under Paragraph 1. 20 (Witness perusing document.) 21 Do you see it, sir? 22 A Yes, I do. 1 23 And do you see there a request for a J Q ' l L 24 detailed invertor operating history? 25 A Yes, sir. I do. 1 1 1 i
'i l
i
475 fc151b4 1 Q. Is this the memorandum to which'you refer? 2 A I believe:so. 3 Q Do you know whether -- well, let me ask < d you. . Were you'given a-copy'of that memorandum,-even though~ 5 you don't appear on the'ec-list? 6 MR. SPEKTER:- I believe he'c.alreadyl-answered 7 that. 8 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm sorry. Did.I misrecollect? 9 Did you already answer that question?- 10 THE WITNESS: I believe I' received a copy of' ~ 11 it. 12 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes. 13 BY MR. D AVID'S O N :- 14 Q. Were you' asked to do anything..in. connection ~- 15 with the preparation of-'such a history? 16 A I believe I was asked.to prepare the history. 17 Q And did you transmit.that' history'through: ! 1B engineering and through Mr. VogelsangLin engineering'to-19 Westinghouse? 20 A
~
I believe so. 1: "
~ . .
21 .. Q And what was the medium, that.'is the;means. - 22 by which you transmitted that information2 . 23 i A All informationwent through Dick Camp, 24 I believe. 25 Q Did_you prepare a startup memorandum,- . i I
. ____-____-__--.__---__A
-76 fel51b5' 1
in whi~ch*that.information was contained? ' 2 A' 1 believe so. 3 Q Do you recollect the date of that startup 4 memorandum? 5 A No, I do not. 6 Q But you recollect that you prepared one. 7 Now, we talked.about the' preparation of startup memorandum B 4 and the procedure you used. When you. prepared.th'is 9 memorandum for transmission through the chain of~ command, 10 through engineering, throegh Vogelsang, et cetera, to 11 Westinghouse, you indicated earlier that there was a-12 review process within startup engineering before such a 13 memorandum would go out. 14 Strike that. You looked a little perplexed. 15 Let me see if 1 can make this simpl'er. 16 This startup memorandum, that you recollect 17 preparing, did you have it reviewed by anyone before it was 18 transmitted? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Do you recollect by whom you had it reviewed? I 21 A It would have followed the' normal channels 22 for any startup memo. 23 Q- And what would they be, sir? 24 'I A Art London 'possibly Ken Luken and. Tom l 25 Miller to Dick Camp. .i j q l 1 __ ----.--.-m-
.1 I
fc151b6' 1 Q -And how would wecknow that that was.the 2 chain through which'it passed? j 3 A i It would be noted on the bottom of the'1etter.. 4 Q In the' lower left-hand corner there'wouldi ; 5 be a series of initials? l 6 A Correct. 7 Q' _And the most.-- all'right, well,clet's'take 8 a look. I have a document here, dated July-28th, which ..h-9 is a memorandum regarding the ferroresonant-transformers, i L to addressed to Mr. Vogelsang, and signed by. Dick Camp. 11 And the lower left-hand corner bears a series of-initials,' .3 12 capital and lower case. The first capital initials'are , is ' and they-have some handwriting above them,' initials' 4 14 above them. Is that your initials?- 15 A Correct. 16 Q And that in'dicates that'you wrote this 17 memorandum? 18 A Correct. 19 Q And the next set of initials-is'DAL.. Does ; 20 that indicate that this was reviewed'by Mr. London? 21 y.7 A ReviewedLand possibly. modified.- That is l 22
- the point at which'any modifications would be made. r 23 Q And are thoseihis initials above his
~
l 24 typewritten initials? 25 .. A And'the next set of typewritten initi'als
)
i
478 fc151b7 i are TPM. And you see: that there are some' handwritten 2 initials above the TPM. Do you know whose initials those 3 might be? 4 A That would be Mr. Miller's. 5 Q Now next to those are REC. Whose initials 6 might they b'e? They are not initial'ed. 7 A Mr. Camp. 8 Q So that he didn't initial'the typewritten-9 initials because~he also. signed the memorandum-here..where to the signature appears, Dick: Camp?. 11 A Correct.. 12 MR. SPEKTER: I~would also request'this 13 be marked and attached for identification. 14 MR. DAVIDSON: First, let me ask this one 15 question. 16 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 17 Q Is this the memorandum that you referred to-is that you wrote, providing the operational history?' 19 A I would have to read:the memorandum'to be 20 sure that that is the correct one, to find the operational j 21 history. 22 Q Let me draw your attention to the first 23 sentence, which is "Per your. request, we have compiled. 24 information which-indicates that the above-mentioned i 25 convertors were operated" et cetera.
-I l
I
fe151b8 479 I I 1 ! Does that refresh your recollection? ! 2 ! i MR. SPEKTER: I believe he stated he would 3 , like to read it. l 4 MR. DAVIDSON: Why don't you read that 5 samorandum , i . v' j
.. and look up at me when you have i J i
6 finished. 7 (Witness perusing document.) end15 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 6 i7 ' )! 18 ) 19 20 21 22 i. 23 24 25
,ov 1?
fc16pbl 1 THE WITNESS: I believe that is the memorandu n. 2 MR. DAVIDSON:- Thank you. ' 3 We will have this marked as Disc. Exhibit:F-12'. d f. m -V-And before we go on on this line,( ' )11 notice that:
%s .,
5 the memorandum from Mr. Camp which'is directed through Mr. 6
.Vogelsang in engineering to Westinghouse says at the last, I
- p. -,
7 line. "Please-feel free to contact ,__. at extension 8 790." 9 THE WITNESS: Correct. XXX 10 (The document. referred to as 11 Discovery Exhibit No. F-12 was. 12 marked for identification.) 13 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 14 Q So you were' intimately' involved in the process 15 of resolving the problem. 16 A Correct. 17 Q And indeed they were relying upon you to 18 be of some help in that matter. 1 19 A Correct. 20
]'i Q Do you know whether your memorandum was i 21 forwarded by Mr. Vogelsang to Mr. Molleh? l 22 A I believe it was, 23 Q Did you write any other or subsequent i l
24 memorandums regarding this..startup memos? I 25 A I don't remember. l i l- ! i 1 4
16pb2 l 1 Q. But you might'have?
-g 2 A Yes, I might.possibly have.
3 Q And I think you did testify here'today that. . l 4 l ;' 1 followup action was taken with respect to ferroresonant 5 transformers. They were replaced or sent back to the factory 6 for reworking;.is that correct? 7 A The initial corrective' action'was taken.and. 8 completed. I voluntarily resigned before the' completion-or 9 implementation of the permanent ' corrective action. 10 Q .I see. All right. So you were well aware 11 though that there was a process in train though from the 12 reception'of your TDRs to resolve this problem. 13 A Correct. 14 Q And you were involved..at least up unti1Lthe: 15 time you left Comanche Peak with that process. 16 A -Correct.- 17 Q And.you've already testified that as a part IB of that process, after information'was obtained about the 19 problem with the ferroresonant transformers that you then 20 began to push for the issuance of a 50.55(e) note. Is that 21 Iight? 22 A Yes, I did. 23 Q Did you.not testify that such a notice.was
'I t a 24 in fact issued?
25 A Yes, I did. 4 1
.l
)
,os
,16pb3 1
Q In the context of-this procedure working 2
.through your superiors and the through the chain of command, 1 3
were you at any time asked.as a part of the contribution 4 you were supposed to make-to'this effort to conduct an 5 informal telephone survey of nuclear. power plants? 6 A. I do not believe I was. requested.of-that'-- 7 but it_was. interpreted by Art London and Dick Camp as a good, B as good information.and good that I had done that. ,I'd 9 taken it upon myself to do that. 10 Q So in other words-they said to you, thank 11 you for this additional information,.we'll put it.into the 12 process that we start.- - 13 A Yes, they said this is very good information 14 and it will help. 15
-Q Now earlier you testified that:that survey 16 was --
strike that. 17 . You say it was an informal survey. 1B A Yes, it was. 19 /~ Q What doyoumeanbyinformal,(_, ,,. 20 A Informal meaning that I actually did not 21 obtain documentation from other sites, that it was verbal. 22 That would be the determination for informal. 23 Q Did you know the individuals to whom you 24 were speaking? 25 A They had reported their name to me. I.believe
4, 16\b4,
- 1 they also, several of them reported their positions. ;As 2 a general group I-requested to talk to Results Engineering 3
personnel or top level maintenance personne1L to get, 4 information on-the problem. 'And some of them were able to 5 pull it from documentation they had to give.me, and,some of~ 6 them could actually remember the incidents. 7 Q Did you know personally lany1of the individuals 8 to whom you spoke? 9 A No, l'did~nct. 10 Q So you don't know who they were~except1 that 11
.they stated what theic name was and what'they. contended their 12 position and capacity was.
13 A Yes. 14 Q. Do you remember the names'of any of'the y 15 individuals to whom you spoke? 16 A 1 do not remember. 17 Q Do you remember the plants at which they were j 18 employed? 19 A I do not. remember the exact plants, It 's - all j i 20 on documentation associated with this problem. 4 21 ' Q Where is that documentation,(,_ ,)? 22 l A It should be within your' file right there, j 1 23 with as much information as-you have.- ! 24 Q Do you have any documentation? 25 A 1 do not believe I have that document. I l t
- 484' 16pb5 1
'Q It is a document, one document?
2 A Well. it was -- those instances were addressed 3 in another startup letter which was1 forwarded to engineering 4 identifying additional Concerns _because offtheLfact that -- 5 well, the problem was arisen and Westinghouse origina11y' 6 felt that we really didn't have a problem. ThatLwe.were 7 dealing with a problem in the operation on-site of the 8 inverters. 9
'After doing the research, I'reidentified that 10 we had a problem. generic to the inverters, and thereby .
11 generated the memorandum which indicated.a possible <60 percen : 12 failure rate throughout various plants in the industry.. 13 And thereby forwarding it on which'automatica1Ly . 14 regenerated the concern from Westinghouse to' continue the 15 investigation as to why the failure was. occurring. 16 Q I recollect that you said however, that your: 17 survey was not assigned to determine t h e - f a i l utt e rate but IB something else, whether there were similar symptoms with 19 various ferroresonant transformers'used by other nuclear 20 power plants. 21 $' A Correct. I would not guarantee.that thai 60 22 percent failure rate is an exact failure rate of those 23 ferroresonant transformers because of the fact that the 24 information received by me was informal and without 25 documented response. But it was close enough to be able to
485 16pb6 1 say that there is another. possibility of a problem. 2 Q But you weren't.looking to find.out what the 3 failure rate experienced by'those plants were, but whether-4 there were problems at those plants. When you refer to the 5 60 percent in your affidavit what'you're talking about is 6 60 percent of the plants that.had.these-transformers-had 7 problems similarEto that of Comanche Peak? 8 A No . , I called several power plants. . Numbers 9 in excess of the ones that were listed on thisLstartup memo. to Some of them did not have specific transformers related co 11 the ferroresonant transformers. 'Thereby they were of_no use. 12 in making the. determination whether these ferroresonant 13 transformers were giving problems at other plants. 14 , 1 received'the 'information that'they were 15 giving problems and in part of'the totalling up of the 16 information it was listed that there was a 60 percent failur 17 rate. 18 Q All right. Let me ask you this sir.. Since 19 you do reference in that affidavit.at page~13.that you 20 deduced from the informal telephone survey that the event 21 was not scientific. That there was "a 60 percent failure 22 rate." How did"you determine that? 23 A'
\'
By using the information obtained from the l' 24 .l other power plants. ll l 25 Q Give'me the numbers that you used and the
186 lbpb7 1 data. 2 A Okay, the data used was that the total number 3 of transformers they had on-site, the total number of 4 ferroresonant transformer failures -- 5 Q Per plant. 6 A Per plant. 7 Q Or throughout the universe you telephoned. B A Per plant. And I indicated on the memorandum 9 that each individual failure rate or percentage of failure to per plant. And then I believe I totalled up at the end 11 by totalling the total number of ferroresonant transformers -- 12 the total number of ferroresonant transformers and then 13 the total of ferroresonant transformers which had failed. 14 At which time you can come up with the percentage of failuren . 15 Q Well, now I guess I'm confused. Is this 60 16 percent meaning that of all the plants that had ferroresonant 17 transformers, 60 percent of those plants experienced one IB or more problems similar to that experienced at Comanche Peak 19 A No. 20 Q No, it's not? 21 A Let me -- maybe I -- 22 Q Does it mean that each of the plants that 23 I you queried had ferroresonant transfers had a failure of 24 60 percent of that equipment? 25 A j Let me give you an example so that you can l l
s
,o, 14pb8 l
I understand -- q1
; s' -
~/
2 Q First answer my question, hen'yo. 3 can give me all the examples you please. ! 4 A Well, maybe this will answer your question.
$ Q No, no, I'm sorry, 6
-. -)) I'm going to explain something to you. Your counsel says myIquestioning.
7 is repetitive. It is because you' dont answerLthe questions, 8 so it has to be asked more than once. That's number one. 9 Number two, I have told your counsel on'the to record, off the record, daily, and I know you'have been told 11 on the record and off the record that you have to answer 12 the questions. Now if you want to elaborate on an answer -- H 13 A You're questioning -- 14 Q Please don't' interrupt,8 7 You're i 15 so anxious to make a statement and not anxious'to answer 16 questions, and I'm trying to help you. We're going to get 17 out of here much sooner if you do the- f ollowing. IB When a question says, did something occur, 19 the answer is yes or no. No, it didn't or yes, it did. Nov 20 you're not restricted to saying yes or no. But you see first 21 : you answer the question. You say yes, but then_you elaborate 22 and you say yes, but you have to understand Mr.;Davidson 1 4 23 that X, Y and Z also occurred. Or no. Mr. Davidson.-that 24 did not occur. And then you can either~1 eave'it at that or 25 you can say because the facts are.quite different from_what i 4
l g e O ,l 1 l ' 14pb9' 1 you believe them to"be. 2 In1other words, you can critique my question, ; , 3 you can elaborate on my question,-you can'do anything'you 4
-wish_but you have.to answer it. And what you do,is you-5 elaborate on subjects that I don't ask about andagive me l'
6 reasons why you don't want to answer the question or-give 7 me reasons why_.you would like to answer'a question I have.c , 8 asked. But.you don't answer the question. 9 Now I know that on more than one occasion Mr. 10 Mizuno told you you didn't answer the question and Mr. Berry-11 who's only been in'here.for an hour or two said the same 12 thing. And it can't be that-all of us'are laboring under'a 13 misapprehension. At this point it m e t.t be. clear to you that 14 there is a problem. And I think that as a courtesy to 15 Judge Bloch.and other' members of the Board who'may read this 16 discovery deposition that you owe them an obligation as well 17 as the rest of us to answer the question. Then if you wish 18 to make elaborations or statements here.you are free to.do 19 so. No one is going to cut you off. 20 Now with that understanding, can we go forward i 21
}
22 MR. SPEKTER: I would just. object to counsel's t 23 lecturing of the client. 3 24 I MR. DAVIDSON: Well, apparently someone must ' 25 because we're having a great deal of difficulty getting the
ikpb10 1 answers to the questions. 2 MR. BERRY:
~
Now I'm going to have the question' l 3 reread for you,
,-and I trust thatLyou understand-
~~.
4 what the proper way to' respond is. 5 (The reporter read >the record as' requested.) 6 THE WITNESS: 4 I believe, if I remember the
- 7 question correctly, you were asking whether or not.there' .
B was a 60 percent failure rate within each one of the companie n 9 I had contacted. And no, there was not. 10 The way.that I derived that a 60 percent 11
. failure' rate was to take, for example, we will use a 12 hypothetical example. You have five different companies 13 that have a different combination or number of transformers 14 each. That total number may total -- one company may have 15 three transformers; one company:may have six transformers, 16 the next one may have eight. You-take the total of those 17 five companies and come up with a total number of transformer s 18 which you have placed in question which could'possibly be, 19 say, 30 transformers.
20 Now out of those 30 transformers, out of those a 21 five companies that you questionedabouN.there.was a' certain l 22 ! amount of failures on each one of those transformers. Okay, 23 you would total up the total of failures' associated.with-24 each company and add the companies together and you would' 25 come up with another figure, which could possibly be, say, l i 1 i l l
490 liopbil 1 15 failures out of the 30 transformers. 2 Thereby, 15 over 30 would be a 50 percent 3 failure rate over the total number of transformers questioned . A BY MR~. DAVIDSON: 5 Q So in other words, the 60 percent figure is 6 of a universe of all the ferroresonant transformers in use . 7 at plants that you called. end 16 B A Correct. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 l 1 I 23 ( 24 25 i
FC17 r
\'
I I MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Berry? ! 7 MR. BERRY: Let's go back to what we were - 3 talking about just before you answered the previous ' i1 question and I want to make clear to you,( f f 5 v that the NRC -- when I am asking you a question I am 6 not trying to trip you up. 7 l THEkITNESS: I understand. 8 MR. BERRY: When I ask a question..just 9 because I have a problem, I'm just looking for an answer 10 just to find out what the facts are. So -- and I 11 think yould just bear that in mind. I know it has been 12 emphasized repeatedly here, at least this morning, and i 13 that's the only point that I would make. Id THE WITNESS: The only reason I wanted an 15 explanation on that was because Mr. Davidson said he was 16 confused as to how I derived these figures. 17 MR. DAVIDSON: You hve clarified that now, 18 k , and I appreciate it. v l' BY MR. DAVIDSON. 20 Q Can we turn in your affidavit to that 21 portion dealing with the thermal expansion test on pining? 22 Page 14. Do you recollect that? Or you have found that, 23 sir? 24 A Yes, I have. l r 25 g )you ( i state in your affidavit, l i I 0
17jon2 492 l 1 "I understand that 60 percent of the test points failed 2 the acceptance criteria"; is that correct? 3 A Corect. 4 Q What do you mean when you say "I understand 5 that 60 percent failed"? 6 A I was informed that 60 percent failed. 7 Q Who informed you of'that, sir? 8 A Dan Parker. 9 Q And when did he inform you of that, sir? 10 _A Within the last month to two months of my 11 employment at Comanche Peak. 12 Q When did the test take place to which you refer? 14 A I do not remember. 15 Q Do you know? l 16 A I might possibly have a rough timeframe 17 estimate, but -- 18 i Q Would you make it forsus? ! 19 A I believe it was in the summer or fall. J 20 Q It was in the summer of when; what year? 21
. A I would be guessing. I do not remember the !
22 exact time frame on the -- 23 1 Q Well, you reference in your affidvit two j TDRs and you give their numbers. 25 ! A Correct. Q Do you have copies of those TDRs? i _____________m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _
17jon3 493 1 A 1 do not think I do. 2 Q Did you have copies of those TDRs when you 3 prepared this affidavit? A A 1 do not believe I had copies then. I may 5 have had copies then. 6 Q How did you recollect their numbers if you 7 did not have copies? B A 9 I either recollected it from notes or information given directly to me from Mr. Parker. 10 Q Do you still have those notes? 11 A I do not believe I do. 12 Q You do? 13 1a A I said I do not believe I do. Q Did you destroy them after you prepared this 15 affidavit? 16 A 17 I do not know if they have been destroyed or misplaced or lost. IB Q But you didn't retain them? 19 A 20 I do not believe I have retained them. I Q Did you give-them to Mr. Hadley? ) 21 A 1 do not remember if I did. 22 Q So, in other words, these were documents on i 23 which you based this > l I sworn testimony but you feel no need- ' 2a to retain copies, or you at least didn't take any care in l 25 the manner in which you preserved them? 1 4 l
-i I
I i
17jon4 s- ' i
]
l 1 A I do not remember if I gave them to 2 l Mr. Hadley to back up or substantiate some of the 3 documentation or allegations or if I kept them in my 4 files. I_do not remember exactly what is in my files. * \ lj I have not reviewed my files in the near future; therefore I could not answer exactly what information is there.
, Q I'msorry,{ .
.You have confused -
8 me. You say you have not reviewed your files inthe. 9 near future? 10 A My personal files at home I have not looked 11 at in the last week. I do not make it a point to try 12 and remember exactly what information is in there. 13 MR. SPEKTER: You mean in the near past? 14 You mean the recent past. 15 THE WITNESS: In recent past. 16 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 17 e 9 Q / did you review your files in 18 .' order to fill your attache case with the documents you l '< brought with you here today? 20 A No, I did not. 21 Q How did they get into your attache case, sir? 22 A I pulled specific documents. 23 Q And you were able to do that without going [ ; 1 24 through your files? l !' 25 A The files that I had to go through for there 3 i 9 i _ _ _ - _ - _--__-_~ l
__,a-___-_-_ were totally separate' files from what documents I am 2 speaking of here. 3 -, Q How do you organize your files,\ ? MR. SPEKTER: I object ~to the. irrelevance. 5 MR..DAVIDSON: I'think-that it goes very. 6 definitely to the basis for his: statements in this affidavit as well as'to his credibility. 8 BY MR.'DAVIDSON: q .
.i Q
{_ . there is a question pending.- 10 A My files I place information pertaining II subjects possibly in one location. But I will not' commit 12 t.o doing that all the time.
'3 I Q So then all the materials bearing on the I thermal expansion tests that you relate in.your 15 affidavit would be in one place?
16 A Not necessarily. Q Oh, okay.. 'Do you7have a file drawer in-la which you keep your files relating to Comanche Peak?
-j A 1 have papers with notes and file-information l 20 1 that could be spaced out through my files and file !
21 ! drawers and it could also be spaced out in boxes.. ! 2, ! 9 g,17, y, ,,, g,g,g.to request ( s-23 - l- ]1 that you produce whatever notes you used to replicate 24 this incident of which you.have no personal knowledge in 25 , your affidavit. And we would like copies of that. Would l l e
'17jon6: 496 1 you search your' files for us -- 2 A Yes, I will. 3 Q- -- and produce them? Andyou will do that; 4 and produce them early next week, sir? 5 A If I have them. 6 Yes, sir. Okay. Q So I take-it~from what_you 7 said you have no' personal knowledge of7 this-thermal 8 expansion test.and it occurred some substantial time 9 prior to the time Mr. Parker related.its occurrence 10 to you? 11 A Mr. Parker had worked on the thermal 12 expansion and we. associated much in depth. I believe 13 the thermal expansion occurred during the hot functional' 14 testing which he was a'very large part of and he at 15 various times has indicated'his concern to me and each time 16 time I took down information on it. 17 Q Let's try that again. 18 Did-you personally witness'the test,that 19 you relate here on this affidavit, sir? 20 A I may have seen portions of the' test while 21 fI'was out in the plant. I was not s' participant'in the 22 test.
] )
23 Q You were not a participant?' l i I j 24 A l Correct.
'/
25 Q And you were not there witnessing the test; I i i I ll
- wi .
I i that was not yout function or. assigned duty at the time?
~
2 A' Correct. 3 ' Q It was Mr. Parker:who'was present...was. it d not? Isn't that your.. testimony? 5 A I.believe Mr. Parker.was present. 6 Q Bu't you don't know for.a fact whether he 7 was. 8
. A No, I do not'.
Q And some months after.this test took place' 10 you had a conversation with Mr. Prrker and he.related II this occurrence to you? 12 A That and Mr. Parker was reviewing -- I3 Q Yes or no first,( l Then elaborate. l# A Yes. -And Mr. Parker was reviewing 15 documentation associated with this test procedure and to coming up with these problems. 17 Q Did you review the TDRs that were written I8 against these tests? 19 A I do not rememer if I did'or not.. 20 Q Then the sole basis on'which.you swear that , 21 / 60 percent of the test points failed in this affidavit 22 is that is the number you~ remember Mr. Parker saying-to l' 73 you based on his recollection from some prior period-24 as to the failure ratee? 25 A Yes, that is the number I remember. m , t i
r 17jon8 498 1 Q And you wouldn't know out of your own 2 personal knowledge what the actual failure rate, if any, . 3 was? 4 A No, I would not know what the actual failure 4 5 rate was at this time because the paperwork and /
/
6 documentation had not been completed yet and during . 7 the time of this discussion with Mr. Parker it was 8 brought up by upper level management; i.e, Tom Miller, 9 possibly Dick Camp, that the acceptance criteria of the ! 10 procedure was possibly going to be relaxed in order to . 11 prevent such numbers of failures to be indicated._____ 12 Q But that wouldn't affect the TDRs that 13 were written against it; that would affect only the 14 resolution of those TDRs; right? In other words, the 15 TDRs would show the failure rate. 16 A I'm not sure if they would or not. 17 Q So you don't know? Okay. end17 33 1 19 20 21 i 22 ! ! 23 l i 24 25 l
,ss.
fc181b1 1
,Y B MR. DAVIDSON:-
2 Q [_ are you a piping engineer? 3 A No, I'm not. 4 Q Do you have any experience in'the-field as-5 a piping engineer? 6 A No, I'm not -- I b elieve --- 7 Q ~Yes, well,,Mr. Mizuno -' , 8 A Mr. Mizuno asked that question.. 9 Q )(',isMr.' Parker a piping engineer? 10 A I do.not believe he is. Il Q Now you say these failures were due to the-12 fact that the pipe either moved too far or moved-in the 13 wrong direction. Do you see that in your affidavit? Id A Correct. 15 Q Do you know what the purpose?of~the thermal 16 expansion test is? 17 A It's to verify the pipe: movement falls within 38 the acceptance criteria set.forth. I' Q And is that test. therefore, designed 20 to determine whether a pipe moves.in.the. wrong. direction ~or 21 too far? 22 , A Yes, it is. I 23 Q So therefore this was a successful test, 24 because they found that? You' don't have tofanswer that 25 question, if you don't wish to.' l-r
00-fc381b2' ' 1 MR. SPEKTER': I believe':it ~ is a' comment of 2 counsel. 3 gg[.[ - MR..DAVIDSON: That is a conclusion that 4 I reachedLon that-point. All~I'm saying is that the.testj was designed to demonstrate something and it' demonstrated', - 6 that. So therefore it must have been fulfilled. And it ..t: 7' was not a test failure, but.rather it'was;the-information-a 8 that'they were seeking.
. But that is really explanation.
9 -- BY MR. DAVIDSON: 10 Q Nov you state:"the reason for this' movement il could be that some 260 pipe supports were not installed 12 prior to the test run." Now'on what do you base: that 13 statement? 14 A. Information from Dan' Parker. 15 Q Let me ask you this, do you know to what 16 the movement of the pipe, its direction and arc,.is 17 dependent upon? In other words.-- all right, let me 18 change it for you. 10 A I know what 20 Q Isn't it the laws of physics that determine ' 21
'the way the pipe will move? ,
22 r A Correct, but the laws of' physics do I 23 determine the direction that the pipe is going to move. 24 But if pipe supports are not adequately installed in an 25 'I area, a pipe may move in a different direction than if the l i
'j l
-jul;
')
fc181b3 1 l pipe support was insta11ed'. I-
. t, 2 t Q That might be your understanding, but I-3 understand that the laws of physics are immutable and. j.
p d whether there is a support or not, the ' pipe will moveoin I 5 that direction because the laws of physics determine . that ?- .
- I m , 4 6
Now wait a minute, .
'I'm merelp' ~
v v 7 explaining to you that -- let me ask you this. 'Do'you 8 have any training in physics? 9 A Yes, I do. 10 Q What is that training. sir? 11 A Navy Nuclear Power School does go through 12 physics formal training. 13 I Q -Do you have'any college courses at ant id accredited institution in which.you were matriculated in 15 physics? 16 A No, I do not. 17 Q Do you have any engineering courses at 18 an accredited institution-in which you were" matriculated?; 19 A No, I do not. j 20 Q So that the basis for your-statements'about 21 the laws of physics are yourhighschookeducationandone 22 or more courses you may have in the Navy as an enlisted. . 23 I' man and.an electronics technician? ' 24 i, A No, not one or more courses. An in-depth l 25 course dealing with nuclear power and heat transfer: i
]
-)
I l 8 e
. _ . ._ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . . - _ . ... - _-- __ _ _ _ _ __ _ . .b
.s.
- 502 s
fc181b4' I characteristics and so forth. 2 Q Well then let me ask you'this. Would-the 3 application of a pipe support eliminate -- no -- d
'A Yes it would.
S Q No, no. 'Let me strike that. 6 MR. SPEKTER: Wait for the question.
'7 BY MR. DAVIDSON:
8 Q ~ You villfagreefwith me that a pipe' support 9 doesn't alter the' physics of the-pipe? 10 A It will affect -- II Q It will restrain'its movements, certainly. 12 But Jt ygg't change the movement in which it pulls, will it? 13 Thedirection)inwhichit. pulls? (3 Id vA % o
, 'it possibly change the direction.in
-_/
15 which the pipe pulls. If you have a. pipe support.-- if you 16 have a pipe which has moved up against'the wall, then it is 17
'f going to take a different direction-in movement than what 18 i it normally would. I 19 i Thereby, if.you-have a pipe. support in'there 20 that would prevent it moving against the wall, then there 21 ea-would be even another, different form of movement. You --
22 Q No, it would prevent it, but if it weren't l 23 I there it would move. But the point is it doesn't' change t I, 24 < the tendancy of the pipe to make that movement, it - merely l 25 restrains it. Isn't that your point? -! i i I i i
v., . fc181b5
-l 1
MR. SPEKTER: Counsel la arguing with the. - 1 2 witness. 1b 1 1 3 MR. DAVIDSON: I think that that is.right ' 4 Mr. Spekter. lhas shown a propensity for j 5 i argumentation and I. understand it. He's.trying very:much -i 6 t to defend statements that Mr. Hadley has-prepared-for him- I 7 9 inhisaffidavitj And the laws of physics are immutable, 8 not only with respect to affidavit,-but.for V 9 the rest of us. And I think the record will reflect an l to argument can certainly be made in breathing. that whether 11 or not there is a restraint of movement.ofothe pipe or 12 where there is -- what we call a pipe support ~orLhanger 13 support -- it isn't going to change the physics of-the 14 pipe. The pipe is still going to try to move in that 15 direction. 16 The only question is whether it's restrainei 17 So therefore, if the test is designed to see 18 whether, based on engineering surveys, that the pipe l' was likely to move in one direction and they find out it 20 moves in the other, so that they need to put a different 21 i hanger support on it -then'that's what they do.. But that's ' 22 the purpose of the test. 4 , 23 l MR. SPEKTER: I submit that is a proper topic ! ( [ 24 for argument and not for deposition. 25* - l MR. BERRY: T -)assumefor the moment', ' v. i
s .s 181b6 1 if you will, that the pipe -- under the laws.'of physics -- 3 2 its natural movement would be to the left. Is it your. 3 testimony that it would move right if the hanger 4 installat_fon or the. pipe supports weren't installed 5 correctly? 6 THE WITNESS: I believe what I'm trying 7 to say is that-without the pipe supports being installed 8 correctly -- you figure if you take a system as ~ a large-9 v b me and a long run of pipe, you'could'possibly:-- 10 depending on where you put'that hanger support -- could 11 l depend on which- --~ ~let's just take a straight piece of pipe 12 in a straight line. 13 If you put that pipe in'there and you place 14 supports along that pipeline, in between those s'upports. 15 that pipe may have a tendancy to bow to the right. And 16 yet, if you put another pipe support where it bowed-'to 17
- place
_ _ _ of it, maybe the next point after the next right ...n i 18 p,ipe support may bow to the right -- or the=left -- but 19 it may do it in a llrger or hi her amount.of movement'. 20 It may not'be -- normally the two pipe i 21 supports -- 22 MR. BERRY: I understand.. 23 MR. DAVIDSON: since you did -
~
24 l not personally witness this test, sin ce all you r D ived 25 was the past recollection of.an otherwise inexperienced { _f
505'
.fc181b7 1
individual. I don't think that either1Mr. Berry or I can' 2 do much to further'thisEline of examination. 3 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 4 Q However, I'would-point out -- I woul'd ask 5 you if.the-TDRs show that a different. percentage of. 6 failure or no failure at all, then you'd be mistaken:in. 7 your-statement. 8 A I believe that you would have: to look at 9 the test procedure as a whole and all TDRs associated 10 with it. I noticed that prior to the TDRs.it says at; 11 least two TDRs. That was just two examples:given"to me.- 12 To my understanding, there.was far more_ 13 TDRs written against that procedure than just two. 14 Q. When you say your understanding .did you 15 write any of-those TDRs? 16 A No, I was told by Dan Park r, who~did 17 generate -- I believe -- several TDRs associated with that. 18 Q Did he show you copies:of those TDRs or. 19 just tell you about them? i I 20 A I do not remember if I had seen copies or'not. 1 j 21 i Q And sir, in your statement here you say.-- j 22 well, let me change that. i 23 There da a statetnent in your affidavit, at 24 page 14 "Although temperatures were'taken and: logged during .; 25 i the test, the calibration.of the test devices was'not l o g g e d . d 1
.' a
506' fc181b8 1- How do you'know that, sir? 2 lA I was-informed from Dan Parkerithat that was 3 the-case. 4 Q- - Doyou think there is any' chance he'was 5 mistaken? 6 A I do not know. 7 Q You have no personal knowledge of'.that 8 incident'do you? 9 A I am not personally -- 10 Q You?re just repeating.what you believeIDan 11 Parker said to you? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Is Mr. Parker'a witness in.these proceedings? 14 I do not know. T 15 Q Have you asked him to testify, to corroborate-16 your testimony? ! l 17 A No, I have not. 18 Q Have you asked anyone: tostestify, to 19 corroborate your testimony? i i 20 A Yes, I have. I 21 Q Who did you ask, sir? 22 A Larry Howard. 23 Q And what corroboration was he providing, sir?. 24 A The harassment incident dealing with Fred-' l 25 Powers. .l l I
'l
_-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ _ _ . - _ . - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ . ____-_=__-____-___.
'507'
_fc181b9 1
-Q But you'did not think'to ask anyone el'se-2 to corroborate any o ther o f :your ' te stimony, is that correct?
3 A I feel that I I should not involve fellow' 4 workers in these proceedings,1where there is possibilities
.5 of hay 1ng problems future in: their lifeJand~ associated ~
6 -with their work relationships. Thereby,-I-could not:see 7 submitting them:to.this type of information, and I do-B request that the names that'I have given duringLthis 9 testimony be keg,t
~ confidential and not be. brought up to-to other people such that these names.tha't.I have given could-11 have adverse. effects, or receive adverse effects. m
~~~
12 ~ MR. SPEKTER: CASE would, of' course,-take
- :_ H i
13 that position, also. ' __ i 14 MR..DAVIDSON: Thank you.!Mr. Spekter. 15 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 16 Q But-in any event, this.whole' incident that 17 you relate is one in which you have no personal.. knowledge 9 18 of, correct? 19 A ! Correct. endl8 20 oi (Recess.) 21
]
1 22 23 i 1 24 1
I don't know - or I do not. remember.
8 Q Do you have copies of.these' documents =-that5you say that you think you may-have seen but ~ don't'-remember?- 10 A I do not know. I do not remember if I do or not. 12 Q What is.the basis, then, sir, for the concluding
'3 sentence in the paragraph on page-14 that says: "I am 14 further concerned-about this test, because~ Engineering has 15 provided no justification for the 'use-as-is' determination IO on this piping"?
17 A That.was a concern generated to me'and a 18 concern, once generated to me, that I had pertaining to-documentation. 20 ^ Dan Parker told'me that they.were using,a 21 .n y,, ,, -is," with no. justification, andLthat he.was very 22 concerned in that-incident. 23 Q When you say "they were using a 'use as is,'" do-24 you mean on all of the piping involved in this? A I do not know-or do not remember how much.' piping. __.-_________._._._____.--________EE______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .____..__m ______ &.. . _ _-
- FCjl 10/5 ~^'
1 1 don't think I could say all of the piping. 2 Q Well. I mean, do you know exactly what the 3 basis for that statement is? ' 4 What is this "use-as-is" determination ~ to which 5 you refer?. 6 A I used the. statement that no justification for' 7 the "use-as-is" determination on the' piping, as indicated 8 to me by Dan Parker, which means that if Dan' Parker was 9 correct, showing -- or identifying that' no justification - 10 for the "use as is," then there was possible concern in 11 that-area. 12 Q Well, let me ask you this -- I mean, aside-from 13 this -- this chat that you had'with Dan Parker'- do you 14 have any information about what resolution there was as to 15 engineering and what thA_ ,,- the ultimate determination on 1 16 how to repair or otherwise respond to the alleged. failures j d 17 was? 18 A 1 believe I've already answered that.- I'do not- -, i 19 remember seeing documentation or information pertaining j 20 i to them. 1 21 Q I asked you a different que'tio s . j 22 I asked you whether -- not whether you had any' l 23 documentation. So that, other than what had been related. 'I l 24 to you by -- by Dan Parker, did you have any way of knowing l 1 25 what Engineering did or what justifications they supplied l I ____:--__-_______------___2. - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ . _ __ -. _ - - - _ _ - _ _ . . _ _ - _ _ _ .
513 FCjl 10/6 1 for any determination'they may have'made? 2 A Other than Dan Parker, no. 3 Q All right. 4 Now, do you know how.many: pipes or hangers were 5 involved in TDR 8537 6 A I do not remember. 7 q_ .Do you know their designations? 8 A 1 do not remember. 9 Q Do'you know what' repair authorizations were 10 issued? 11 A' I do not remember. 12 Q Do you know whether any type identified in 13 TDR 853 was was determined to be used as is? Id A I do not remember. 15 Q No, sir -- do you know? 16 See, I think you're having a problem. I think 17 that you're saying you don't remember things-I don't'think 18 you ever knew. ' 19 A I have seen TDR.-- or the one -- by looking over _ 20 your_ shoulder or across the table from you, I believe that 21 ! Lthat document.1 have seen before.
~
I believe that. 11-am l 22 not saying that'I know that. I am saying that -- that there 23 is possibility for me to have~seen information'on there and 24 which you are referencing right now. ] 25 i Q In other words, if you had the advantage that I-
kCJS ED/D ai, I do of looking at the actual TDRs, you'd know whether you 2 were mistaken or not. Is .that what you're saying? i_ 3 M A l'do not remember exactly which' documentation d I looked at with Dan Parker, other than the fact that he 5 had given me specifi_c___TDRn_which he felt had problems in 6 them and a specific procedure. ___ - %.
}., did you 7
Q Well, let me ask you this, ( 8 um . sa know all that and remember all that at_the time you"made 9 this affidavit? 30 A As I have admitted to' earlier, this affidavit'was 31 drawn up over several drafts, and there was pos sibly - no t es: 12 associated with that on my part. 13 Q And those notes have been destroyed and your' id memory with them; is that it? 15 MR. SPEKTER: That is not the testimony. 16 MR. DAVIDSON: That is the question. 17 THE WITNESS: I -- I am not -- my memory 18 supposedly is never destroyed. It just takes longer to l' recall at certain times. 20 And under these pressures, it.-is very hard to 21 recall, from memory, technical information which you are 22 requesting. 23 Paper information, yes, can be lost.or' destroyed. 24 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 25 Q Well, I guess my problem'is that you make'such' r. 4
tGji-E3/5 '#4J la 1 global and sweeping statements and you sit there.andiswear 2 to them in an affidavit you submit in these proceedings, t 3 and then say but you're not prepared, nor do you remember. l 4 nor did you try to refresh your recollection so that you 5 can substantiate or explain-those statements. 6 Was it your thought that you could merely1 report 7 the rankest hearsay and have that accepted'as sworn-8 testimony? 9 Did someone tell.you that was the case with NRC 10 proceedings? 11 MR. SPEKTER: 1 object to that. characterization. 12 ! MR. DAVIDSON: I think that the testimony is=very 13 clear, that this whole paragraph is based upon what. 14 Dan Parker told him about something that Dan Parker.may or 15 may not have witnessed some months prior. 16 MR. SPEKTER: Yoo can certainly argue that at 17 some future point. 18 MR. DAVIDSON: NO no. That's the testimony.- 19 I'm not arguing that. { 20 l THE WITNESS: I would like to talk with counse1~ j 21 for a minute. 22 MR. DAVIDSON: We'll have a' break.so.that. j
' i
.) 23 ( %
can confer with his counsel. " - 24 (Conference between witness andicounsel.) 25 ' i i 1
. _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ ._ _ _ -- - - . . - _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ - . - . _ _-___--_-____--__._--___w
>10 FCjaIq/9 1
BY MR. DAVIDSON: I 2 Q f , do you know for a fact whether or 3 not any of the plants involved in,the TDRs to which you've ' 4 made reference, numbers.853 and 855 in that' affidavit, 5 were, in fact, determined to be " acceptable'asn'use as is."' 6 without any justification"?- 7 A I'do not remember ifLtL.ere any;in there. 8 Q You don't know. l
- 9 MR. BERRY
i .I am not sure that'I understood the. l 10 answer. 11 MR. DAVIDSON: I don't think he answered the 12 question. 13 MR. BERRY: The question, as'I understood it, 14 was: Do you know whether any of the pipes'-- whether 15 there are any pipes with the determination being "use as is" to with no justification? 17 Would you answer that question? s. 18 THE WITNESS: I do not remember if there is any 10 of the pipes that had "use-as-is" determination with no 20 ~ justification. N W 21 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 22 Q When you say "no-justification " , LJ 23 2 what do you consider "no justification"? No statement of d 24
)
explanation? 25 A As related to me from Dan Parker, Dan Parker s 1
.i 1
- i e
. _ ___ -_ _ ___ =__ _ _ _ . - ._ 517 FCjl;- 1g/10 1 ' stated there was no justification, and this was related to i 2 me. 3 Considering my feelings for Dan' Parker and his 4 involvement, I believe his statements to be true. 5 Q Who would supply.the determination.and justifica-6 tion on a TDR written against a particular pipe or. hanger 7 support? 8 A I believe these were turned over for Engineering 9 evaluation..and thereby Engineering would have beenlthe ones 10 specifying what the corrective action was and the 11 justification. 12 Q So, Mr. Parker wouldn't be the one doing that? 13 A He would have review' over it. I believe. 14 Q Would they consult with him? 15 A I do not know. 16 Q Was Mr. Parker's job to review'the Engineering 17 evaluations and determine their validity? 18 A 1 don't remember if it.was his job to perform 19 that. 20 Q No. That's not a question of memory. That's 21 fa question of knowledge. i 22 Was it Mr. Parker's job toLreview Engineering ~1 1 23 evaluations? 24 MR. SPEKTER: 1 believe he stated he did not
- 3 25 know. 'i
- d j
i i
'l,
JAO I BY MR. DAVIDSON:. 2
;Q Do you know what Mr. _ Parker's' j ob responsibilities 3
'were at the time you were employed"atJComanche Peak and ^had i j d
this conversation? 5 A' No; I do not know his full' job responsibilities. 6 Q Well, what job responsibilities did you know that he had? 8 A I know that he was a system test 1 engineer. Q .He was an STE, like yourself? 10 A Of higher level.- II Q You mean more qualifications? I 12 A Yes.
'3 Q Or more experience?
I' A Both. 15 Q Is it your understanding that a part of the 16 job description of an STE is that an STE is to review the
'I Engineering evaluations ' conducted by the graduate engineers
'8 of that department?
(Pause.). 20 , A It is my understanding that ~ certain documentation 21 has final say-so by the STE;to - ~ to exactly look at those ! 22 , documentation and-say whether Mr. Parker had a:yes:.or no ! 23 1 decision on that. No, I believe that he had -- could 24 inject relevant information-to the engineers.- -! 25 i Q You didn't listen to the question,' . I.
- J I
l
FCjl 19/12' I' E l 1 I asked you'whether it is part of the. job 2 description -- 3 A I do not know. 4 -Q --
'of anJSTE. '
5 So, you don't know the job description'of an 6 STE? 7 A 1 will'not say that. e Q Well, you say you don't.know.' 9 A .I do not remember the full job ~ description of 10 .n STE. 11 Q Well, what_do you. remember of the job 12 description? 13 A I believe we've already gone'over this 14 previously -- 15 Q Yes, you didn't -- 16 A -- what I remember. 17 Q -- answer that question then, and you~ haven't 18 answered it now. 19 MR. SPEKTER: I believe he's answered;it to the-20 best of his ability. 1 21 MR. DAVIDSON: Let'him quickly answer this,~and 22 we will be done. 23 THE WITNESS: I believe I've answered-it E 24 previously and in my;best. ability. 25 _-_____2_L__-_a_--- - - -- -
FCjl 19/13 520~ I BY MR. DAVIDSON: d)# 2 Q answer the question. 3 !- A What I remember specifically of an STE's job I d responsibilities is to perform testing, generate 5 documentation ~ associated with he problems, aid in the 6 problem resolution, and so on. 7 Q And'is a graduate engineering degree' required 8 for the position of STE? 9 (Pause.) 10 A In some cases. 11 Q No, sir -- you'didn't hear my question. ] 12 Is it required? 13 A It is required to have a. graduate enginee % ring i i Id degree or an equivalency almost to that in experience and;l 15 background training. You cannot just go pick up a high' i 16 ! school student off of the grounds and. bring him in-for a i 17 start-up engineer position and say, "Here it:is." 18 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Berry, would you ask the 19 question. ' c. 20 , MR. BERRY: ;[j J
, you were employed as an ;
21 STE, were you not? 22
]
THE WITNESS: Yes. l 23 .i MR. BERRY: Are you a graduate engineer?-
~
24-THE WITNESS: No, I'm not.. ' 25 MR. BERRY: You don't have to be's graduate. 5
- - _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - - . - _ - . _ _ . _-_____::_=_________-_:
5211 FCjl 19/14 l
' engineer to be an STE?
2 THE WITNESS: t 3 Correc d.
~
MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you, Mr. Berry. From now on, when I have these difficulties, 5 would you mind coming and asking the question? 6 THE WITNESS: I believe I can understand 7 Mr. Berry a little bit better sometimes. 8 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, that's g o o d e. I am glad.. 9 end 19 I'm glad he is here then. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 l 1 20 ; i 21 l 22 ; 23 j 24 l i 25 t i 4 i i l t
'l I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._ __ _ -- - - - - - - - J
532~
'fc30pb1 1
3Y MR. DAVIDSUA: 2 Q- What we'reftrying tol determine is your. 3 understanding of the job: responsibilities'of an;STE, but 4 not.Mr. Parker,~but an.STE..in your wordsia generic: STE. And 5 is it your-understanding that people in the STE groupLare 6 supervisory -- strike that. 7 Is it'your understanding that one ofLthe 8 functions of the~startup' engineer l group is.co review .the. 9 . engineering department's evaluation? 10 (Pause.) 11 A I do not remember.if the'startup' group gets 12 involved in the review ef engineeringrevaluations. ' 13 Q L. -
-) the r'eporter will please' reread.
14 the question. 15 A I said'I do not remember.- 16 Q The reporter will please read'back the question . 17 (The reporter read the record as. requested.) 18 MR. SPEKTER: I would object. I believe 19 counsel is badgering this witness. 20 MR. DAVIDSON: 1 think that's-an unfair 21 characterization, Mr. Spekter. .I expect that fro'N~y~ou now l 22 because it is clear.that you.are not: going to help tut get 23 the witness to answer the question, , " . . ~' 24 The question is not what he remembers. it is 25 what is his understanding. .ANd.I' vill have the reporter read _____-___-~___-------------- -
523
~
20pb2
,, OV' 1
back the question and please, , if you will wait 2 until he rereads it, pernaps you will understand him and 3 then you can answer it. 4 MR. SPEKTER: Could you perhaps define that 5 semantical difference? 6 MR. DAV7DSON: The reporter will please read 7 back the question. 8 (The reporter read the record as requested.) 9 THE WITNESS: I would'have to say I do not 10 know without refreshing my memory on the documentation as 11 to what the qualifications or requirements of an STE to 12 perform is. 13 MR. DAVIDSON: I don't think that is responsive. 14 Let me try again. 15 THE WITNESS: I said I don't know; the 16 original answer to the question. 17 m MR. DAVIDSON: . I will try again. 18 MR. SPEKTER: I believe he's answered the 19 question. 20 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm going to ask another 21 question, Mr. Spekter. 22 MR. SPEKTER: Please ask another question. 23 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 2d Q What is your current understanding, that is 25 what we are asking for now, if you have any. Do.you have ; l I
524 20pb3 I any current understanding? That is what.we are now looking 2 for, and that is is'it your understanding'that the startup, 3 group had as one of its responsibilitiesnand' functions the. 4 job of reviewing the evaluations made.by the.; engineering 5 . group at Comanche Peak? 6 A I believe'they didLh' ave a portion of 7 responsibility to review engineering.- There were several 8 incidences where-an engineering evaluation would come up, 9 startup would. review it and with confrontation or explanation 10 between startup and engineering the-evaluation would'be 11 modified or changed. 12 Thereby they were exercising some' review on 13 the engineering documents. Id 's Q your view. ,
'can we. turn to the 15 V' paragraph that begins on page 15 of your affidavit. In ..
16 which you. detail what
.you believe are the QC procedures.,
17 Do you see that? 18 A Correct. 19 Q Is that an accurate characterization of the 20 purpose of that paragraph? 21 A It involves QC procedures. 22 Q What else are you trying'to state in-that 23 paragraph, if not your comment on QC procedures?
'24 i
A It is my comment on QC procedures. 25 j Q What else? Ycu'said, in part. ! l , l J I l
i 525 20pb4 1 A I see no other part right now. 2 Q Do you think there's any time in which you , 3 will see anything other than a discussion of what you believe ! 4 to be proper QC procedure? 5 A I do not know. 6 Q In other words you think you might'be able 7 to insinuate something into it, as you said earlier in this 8 deposition? 9 A No. n 10 Q , were you employed in the QC/QA 11 group at Comanche Peak? 12 A No, I was not. 13 Q Were you indoctrinated in the QC/QA program? 14 A No, I was not. 15 Q Do you consider.yourself thoroughly familiar 16 with the QC/QA procedures? 2 17 A At the time I was familiar with certain 18 procedures.
)
19 Q But you didn't know all of them, did you? 20 A No, I did not. 21 Q Let me see if you are familiar with some of the procedures that QC personnel follow. I 22 ' 23 Are you familiar with a procedure entitled 24 CP-QAP-12.1? 25 A 1 do not remember the number. l G
526-
~20pb5:
't i
\
l 1 Q_ Are you familiar-with that procedure?L Th'at' -l 2 number means :nothing to you? i 3 A No, the number means,nothing to me. 4 '! Q Are you familiar with' that procedure if known 5 by its-title which is, " inspection criteria and; documentation 6 requirements, for situations' prior to system.N-5' certification, 2.- 7 Are you familiar with that procedure? 8 A I believe,I have read'the procedure before. 9 I would have to refresh my memory by looking at the. 10 procedure. 11 Q What does that procedure,: to.the best of 12 your recollection, provide for? 13 A I do not remember at this time without 14 refreshing my memory of it. 15 Q Are you familiar, sir, with a procedure-16 known as QI-QP-ll.3-29? 17 A l'm not familiar with the number. 18 Q If I told you that that was the procedure 19 used by QC for " electrical separation deficiency reports" 20 would that tell you what the procedure was? Would-that bring 21 its recollection to you? 22 A The title would.give me.information, noted 23 information and thereby without reading the procedure"I 24 am no specifically -- I could not remember exactly.the 25 information from the procedure.
527-20pb6 i q So in other words, you don't know or;cannot 1 i Q 2 remember now what;the procedure callsi for. - . l 3 A- I'cannot remember now. . 4 Q .Are you familiar with QI-QP-11;3-407 ,
- 9 5 .A 1 do-not. remember the number.
6 Q. If -I identify thatiby?theLtitle of! that 7
. procedure, that QC' procedure do you~think perhaps;you,might 8 be able to recollect its procedural terms?-
9 A I do:not know.if I~could:or:not. 10 Q It 's i known as " post-construction deficiency: 11 reports." Are'you-familiar'with-them? 12 A 1 renember reading the, procedure. I do 13 not remember'the exact contents"of the' procedure at.'this 14 time. I 15 Q Do you-know-the procedure. relevant'to the-16 making of surveillance defiencyEreports? 17 A I do not remember if11 readLthat procedure or. 18 not. I, i 19 Q In this paragraph, sir, you state.your l 20 1 concern about the practice of QC personne1' keeping certain~ 'l 21 kog. sheets of' problems spotted'during inspections. -Do.you l 22 's e e that? 23 .A Correct. l 2d q' 1 Q Dolyou.know whether any one~ofLthe procedures i 25 that I have reviewed with you, in fact, provides for the', l 1 i I i l
l-, ' 4 1528
'20pb8 1 i
.t 1 keeping lof'such logs _or.information?'
2 'A 11 do not remember;the. exact l procedures without ~ 3 refreshing my. memory-looking'throughHthe procedures. 4 'Q bo you-know what-use is made of'those.
-5 deficiency reports and logs?- -l
\
6 A. .. -.
- I'do not~ remember.withoutLlooking through 7 the procedures;at this time.-
8 Q Did1yo'u looklthrough those procedures when 9' -you made this allegation? 10 A I had looked through'those procedures:priorj 11 to.taking my notes dhwn for1this' allegation. 12 Q When did you take your notes: down ' for' this 13 allegation? 14 .q A I.would say some time.during~the first quarter " i 15 of '84. 16 Q During the period when you were prep'aring 17 this affidavit with Mr.'Hadley? 18 A No, I prepared this affidavit-for Mr. Hadley. 19 from various information that I.had. such'as-notes of' mine 20 and such as documentation'that I had. 21 Q Did you,have copies of these procedures? 22 A I.do not remember if I did or not. l 23 $ Q Did you take copies of those procedures off
'24 the plant site with you at-any time?'
25 A I' don't remember if I-did or not. ! I
529 ) ( 20pb9 l 1 Q Were copies.of those procedures provided to I 2 you as a part of your job as an STE? 3 A I had access to those copies of the procedures . 4 Q That is not the question. Were those 5 procedures provided to you as a part of your job? 6 A Maybe if you rephrase'the question. . Are you 7 asking me, was I given those specific procedures or did I 8 use or have to receive information from those procedures? 9 Q All right, we'll take it your way. Did 10 anybody ever give you those procedures? 11 A Only reproduction facilities at the site upon 12 request. 13 Q You asked for them? 14 A Yes. 15 Q But when you.were employed and hired as an 16 STE they did not give you indoctrination into those procedure s, 4 17 did they? They gave you indoctrination into the documents - 18 relevant to the functioning of an STE, didn't they? 19 A 1 do not remember or believe that they possibly j 20 did give me those documents or ask me questions pertaining 21 to those documents. j 22 Q Do you remember the document you signed about 23 your indoctrination that we showed you here earlier? ! 24 A Yes. Well, yes I remember. 25 Q You notice it listed a number of procedures 1
__ 530-20pb10 1 and other materials. chat you were either.given or: required
- 2. to become familiar with. Do:you remember that?-
3 A Correct.: 4 MR. SPEKTER: I would once again request 5 that that document'be marked for reference;in1this' deposition , 6
.BY MR. DAVIDSON:
7 Q To the best=of your. recollection, wap that 8 indoctrination and the attestation'of~that'ind.octrination -- 9 strike that. Let me rephrase it. 10 Do you know or recollect..whether-as a~part-11 of the required indoctrination to which you had tofattest 12 that you were provided with copies ~of the. procedures.we have. 13 jnst mentioned as a part of your preparation forLemployment 14 as a startup engineer?- 15 A I.do-not. remember if they were~a part of it, 16 or'not. I believe they were not. 17 MR. DAVIDSON: They;were not. 18 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 19 Q Is it your understanding -- excuse me? .: 20 A x: I would also.like to make it known..that-even 'I 21 though documentation d 3 .- were not requeeted to'be. reviewed by . ; 22 me, startup engineers had full access.to all documentation 23 throughout the plant. I And were expected inL problemu resolutior, 24 to use that documentation to their'best ability to resolve 25 .the problems. 1 I
.l
~531 I 20pb11 I 1
Q In other words, if you wanted to yo u could f 2 get copies of these and,you.could look at them. 1 J 3
)
A Yes. l i 4 Q But you weren't required to know them as a. i 5 part of your j ob. I 6 A Correct. 7 Q Is it your understanding that QC personnel 8 were required to know these procedures? i 9 A Yes, I believe they were. 10 Q And is it your understanding they were l 11 indoctrinated into them? I 12 A Yes, I believe they were. { 13 Q What is the basis for your statement that 14 these log sheets were maintained instead of writing 15 non-conformance reports? l 16 A If I remember correctly, 'through the information 17 obtained it gave that an NCR shall be written any time a 18 non-conforming item is identified. And that is associat'ed 19 in some of the procedures associated with the QC program. 20 Also with the QC program was some type of 21 stipulation that prior to a'certain period or something i 22 that they could-maintain notes or log sheets to prevent i 23 having to write NCRs. And these log sheets were -- some of 24 the work was just performed. They~would go out and go 25 ahead and perform the work without no' documentation indicatinl;
,I l
r- - -- - - - U 532'
'30pb13~
1 that the work had.been performed', or anyjindication'tha't 2 there was actually a'non-conformance' condition existing to-3 -start with.
,w -
4 .Q l'
'. i .I'llLask you again,. what is_the, a .
5 . basis for your assertion that these log:sheetsfwere 6 maintained during inspectionsJinstead of' writing NCRs? 7 A I knew personallyfthat QC.personnelTwerej 8 writing log sheets instead of doing NCRs on non-conforming 9 items. 10 Q Were these'QC personnellun~ der your supervision 11 A No, they vere-not. 12 Q Did youfever' supervise any QC personnel?' 13 A No, I:did not. 14 Q- . Row did you know what the QC. personnel were - doing, and what-procedure they were following?.
~
15 16 A The punch list ~ items would be transmitte'd 17 over to us for possible helpingcthem.gand possibly' correcting 18 the problem. They were.also given to the field personnel and end.20. 19 said here, go fix it. 20 21 g-a 22 23 l I 24 25
fa21jon1 SN' j
'l
?
I MR.-DAVIDSON: May we:go off the. record? ! 2 MR. SPEKTER: Off the record. (+ , 3 (D'iscussion'off the record --12:02-p.m.)
~
d
-(On the~ record - 12:06'p.m.)J g
5 BY-MR. DAVIDSON: 6 2 Q [ it i's not required of QC' ~ 7 personnel tiha they. submit their.NCRs.l-to you for-8 review, is it? A. No.'it is not.' ' 10 Q Do you know whether QC) inspect'orsiare II required to turn.their NCRs:over;to anyone'for review?. 72 A I do not know. I3 <--~ ..
) let' meidraw'your attention once:
Q Id again to your affidavit, page'.15. You;make the statement' 15 "Instead of wrdting NCRs. the inspectors are instructed.to-16 keep a log of the problems they-discover'in'their I7 disposition," I8 hhat is tid. basi t; . f or that statement? z . r I' 7-A ly interpretation of thea . procedures as 'Il ' 20 read them.
~
21
- i. Q- Which procedures?.
22 A The QC procedures. 23 Q Which QC procedures? U 24 ' A. I cannot specifically ' iden tif y.' the .. QC ' 25 procedures for you. I.do not remember the'spe'cific 'ones.
.i
21jon2 53'4L I
'Q. But that's an interpretation on your part.
2
- 7g.is..not
~~__
a-specific' statement in any1 procedure.thatxyou remembet1. s A Correct.
.5 Q And.you%
vere never: indoctrinated:in"QCLQAi 6 procedures, were'you? ' 7 A Correct. 8 L , Q Did you'ever~ask.an'yone about.your 9
. interpretation -- discuss your. interpretation of the -
10 QC procedures? 11 A I may have. talked'to other.QC personnel.: 12 Q .You say other QC personnel? , 13 A I may have talked'to,QC personnel.about i its ' 14 Q 'And with whom did you discuss it?. 15 A I do'not remember. 16 Q Any name at'all come1tf mind?- 17 A No, it does.not'. 18 Q Did any of these undisclosed ~and unidentified and now unremembered individuals agree.withLyour 20
... interpretation?
y, ,R:e 33 A I do not remember.
%:l ,
22 '4" Q' -Okay. Did some of themidisagree with you?-
~
23 A I do not remember. 2A Q The following sentence to the one we have~just; 25 been investigating says."I believe,'but-I'am not'sure.. b jf
. 21j on3 ;
'535-l
.q I
that this procedure is ceovered by . . . = . The 2 construction. procedures in the section on procedures t 3 for nonconformance reports." 4 When you stated your lack of certainty in \ 5 that sentence -- strike that. 6 Why did you state a lack of: certainty in that 7 sentence? ! 8 A I was not totally familiar with~all of.the. 9 construction QC-procedures. I would.never testify or. l 10
. justification that I am totally familiar with all QC. -
11 procedures. 12 Q So you are admitting here or conceding that' 13 you could be in error on this assertion. ! 14 A, I am conceding,that this was a concern 1to me. 1 15 Q But are you conceding-tha't'it is.possible 16 that your interpretation may be inerror? 17 A Yes, it is very possible. . I believe that 'l 18 statement all through there'is in question. , 19 1 Q When you say that statement all through 20 there, what statements do you'mean?'All of the statements I 4 ++ 21 g "the affidavit or just
.I 22 bib A No, no, in the back there-are, indications- !
i 23 through there that.1 am'not sure; that is an indication d 24 of uncertainty to me. 25 Q I see. So you are not certain about what the l 1
J21jon6' <- 1
- \
536 l 1 procedures for NCRs areEthat QC inspectors are required :) 2 to adhere ~~- ' 3 A. Correct. 4 Q 'But you have a. generalized and unfocused, ( s 5 concern that they may'not'be adequate;-is that'it?- 6 That's-what this paragraph means? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q Do you recollect in your direct. testimony-1 9 you articulated three' incidents that you claimjyou felt to were occasions-of alleged harassment intimidation and il
-threatening; do.you remember that?
12 A Correct. 13 Q Can you quickly identify:fer'us, those.three 14 that you remember testifying about?- 1.5 MR. SPEKTER: >I would just make'an' objection 16 at this point. This is beyond cross-examination. This 17 is discovery And I~believe counsel has gone.through in. 18 great length and in great depth all three' instances, 19 the backgrounds of all three incidences and much, much. 20 more, including the background on-the 16-page. affidavit 21 N precise and exact detail. 22 th l I think to go back again and go-over those, L 23 three instances at this time is improper; itLamounts: to 24 cross-examination and there.will be. time for cross-25 l' examination later on. This is.a discovery deposition'and
21jon5 537 __ 1 I.believe that discovery has been accommodated. 2 BY MR. DAVIDSON: em as + 3 Q Could. you answer the question,1 7. 4 W ~ A Please repeat the question. 5 Q What are the three_ incidents that you'believe 6 were the occasions tofwhich you were subjected to 7 harassment,-intimidation, or threatening. 8 A Three indications would have been -- 9 Three occasions, sir. Q 10 A Three occasions would have been~the 11 conflict dealing'withFredPowersovertheES-10Q$ 12 specifications. . The conflict dealing with Ivan Vo'gn sang, 13 over a phone' conversation. The conflict -- 14 Q Was.that Vogelsang conversation in 15 connection with the action taken regarding the 16 ferroresonant transfomer? 17 A Yes, it was. 18 Q Thank you. 19 A And the conflict dealing with b , w 20 dealing with the outcome of the ferroresonant problem.- 21 N j,-1;believe those are the three main incidents. 22 I f-y Q Did you not mention an occasion with 23 Mr. London? 24 A Yes, I did. 25 Q What was that all about? How do we 4
21jen6 . 538< I characterize that? 2 A There is.an incident where Mr. London 3' specified. that if.I had time.to research possible
. problems I had time to do additional work.
5 MR.; BERRY: Is that a fourth incident? 6 MR. SPEKTER: Yes. We have for convenience 7 sake basica11y'I' the two middle incidents, put'the 8 two incidents together as both applying to the ferroresonant transformer, but they were two separate 10 occurrences. II BY-MR. DAVIDSON: 12 Q Are there any other occasions on'which'you. -' I3 feel you were subjected to harassment. intimidation or
'd threatening?
j 15 I know you haven't testified to any, I' am i 16 just asking you whether1you believe there any others.- I7 A Not that I remember at this time. 18 '! (Attorney-Witness conference.) I'
)
MR. DAVIDSON: We will take a-break so that ! 20 < you can consult with your counsel. 1 2) . MR. SPEKTER: Thank you. 22 i (Attorney-Witness conference.) _ 23 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 24 Q Did I hear,' I
..that you could care
25 1,,,9 . 1 _ -___- _- - ~
21/7 539' (
'Y
'i i
t THE k'ITNESS:. -No, no, no. l. 2 MR. SPEKTER: It-has nothing to do with j< i 3 anything that'is on the record or: anything that has to ' j 4 do with anything that is in this proceeding. 5 MR. DAVIDSON:- Right. 6 MR. SPEKTER: Something totally extraneous.- 7 MR. DAVIDSON: .Yes , sir. 8 BY MR.-DAVIDSON: 9 3' Q /,. turning to your affidavit,.if we- . v 10 may for the moment, I draw your attention to page 2. 11 And I would like for you-to look'at the first' complete. 12 paragraph on page 2 and the.last sentnece thereof which 13 reads "The examples used in this affidavit to not. 14 represent an exhaustive list of my' concerns and should _l o 15 not be used to limit my allegations." I 16 A Correct. 17 Q Are there any'other' allegations ~that you' 18 would like now to make regarding practices and procedures j 19 ! at Comanche Peak or incidents add occasions which you l 20 believe you were subjected to harassment, intimidation, I i 21 or threatening? I l 22 A -i 1 do not remember any at this time. - i 23 Q And this affidavit was the.produc't of a 1 24 two-month or approximately two-month drafting process- i 25 1 with 15 conversations with lir. Hadley and eight i
.s - -:j o n B -~
1-conversations with'Ms. Garde, anditwo face.to face 2 meetings? 3
-A Yes, this procedure - was . draf ted during; lthat period.
.5 Q And'did'you_ eliminate any., alle ga tionsduring 6
t h'a 't drafting period? 7 A I do not' remember if-we-did-or not.: 8
-Q Did Mr. .Hadley-suggest,that you should eliminate any..alle ga tions ? '
10 A I do not believe-so.- 11 Q Did'he.suggest you make an'yithat.you hadn'tl 12 thought of? 13 A No, he.did not. 14 Q Did Ms. Garde suggest'that you' eliminate:any 15 allegation.s? 16 A No, she did not'. 17 Q Did she suggest you' change'or modify,those that 18 you did make? 19 A No, she did not, 0 end 2l Y I 22 - i 23 l l 9 24 \ 25 l i S
=
'l
.541 fc221b1 1
-BY MR. DAVIDSON:
2 Q So at this time, you have no further allega-3
.tions to make, with respect'to the practices and procedures 4
at Comanche Peak, or any other occasions in which you 5 believe you were subjected to harassment and intimidation 6 or threatening? 7 A None to which I can remember at this time. 8 Q Is there any means by which you'think'your 9 recollection couldbe refreshed, so that youtwould 10 subsequently wish to allege those -- makeLthose. allegations?- 11 A Not at this: time. 12 Q You can't think of anything that would 13 refresh your recollection? 14 A- No, I'cannot. 15 Q Would there be any documents in your N __ - - - ~ 16 possession or Mr. Hadley's possession or..Me 4rda's. 17 possession which might refresh your' recollection 18 enF"aientiv__for.you to erect an allegation reg ~arding an 19 X -~~~~ ' i l soccasion of harassment, intimidation, or threatening? N __. 20 A I do not believe there is.
^~
21 Q You do not believe there is?
~
22 A Correct. i 23 Q Are there.any documents in your possession 24 or Me. Garde's possession or Mr. Hadley's possession which 25 you believe might refresh.your recollection and permit you j i 4 ,. y _ . - _ - _ . - . - - _ . _ - __--- A
fc221b2 l 1 to erect new allegations-with respect to practices. 2 and procedures at Comanche Peak? j; 3- A I do not believe so. 4 Q Did you have any other allegations in- $h # H 5 s mind when you prepared this affidavit,(_ and o reviewed it in final form? 7 A I do not remember. 8 Q Why then did you ask'that the affidavit 9 not be used to limit your allegations? 10 A Memory may return upon refreshment from'any
. - . . . - - . . - - - ~
11 number of -- I couldn't say what incident.or what
- . . - - 'I.I
-..._,; ,, 1 12 information would refresh my memory. But there is still 13 those possibilities that
- -- my memory could be refre,shed.
14 Q And.you don't want to be pinned down to 15 what you've sworn to here, right? 16 MR. SPEKTER: Objection to the characterization. 17 MR. DAVIDSON: That is just a' simple question. 18 ! THE WITNESS: I do not feel like that I should 1 19 be pinned down or limit possibilities of seeing documentation 20 or other information, at future times..that coul.d possibly 21 remind'me of other incidents which occur! red. . 1 22 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 23 Q f Can I turn your attention to page 9 of your 1 l 24 affidavit, ) i 25 (Pause.) ! i f
~ 543:
.fc221b3 l I
I'd like to draw your attention to:the last-2 complete sentence 1on that page,'which reads "As I' stated-i 3 above,-the. examples cited incthis affidavit shouid not-4 be used to limit my concerns." 5 ;- A We're speaking on page'9 -- 6 Q, Yes, sir. 7 A .-- last sentence? 8 Q .Yes, sir.. 9 A Okay. to
-Q What did you have in mind at tha't' time 11 that caused you'to desire not to be' limited ~1n!your 12 concerns to that which_you swore:to in.your-affidavit?!
13 A I do not remember, at this' time s what my - 14 feelings were. 15 Q LYo'u don't recollect what you did'when you 16 reviewed this affidavit and swore to it? 'You don't 17 remember what was in your mind then? IB Did you think because of the hurried 19 preparation of this affidavit'that you might have-forgotten 20 something that you might subsequently want to' include as 21 " testimony? 22 A No, I b'elieve-that there was a possibility. 23
- for refreshment of my memory at later dates.
24 Q Did Mr. Hadley or Ms. Garde"attemptito , 25 i revive and refresh your recollection during the two month i l I __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
'544 fc221b l
1 process when you were preparing this affidavit? 2 A Did they'try to. refresh my. memory? 3 Q Yes. 4 A .No, they did'not.' S Q Why didn,'t they? 6 MR. SPEKTER: I believe he can't answer why-7 i they didn't do'whatever they didn't do. 8 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 9 Q Why do you believe they did not? 10 A I believe it would~be impractical on-them 11 or improper for them to bring up information'or something 12 trying to -- it would possibly be instilling thoughts-in my 13 mind and 1-don't believe.that'they would'do that. Id Q So you were the' sole source for the.informatio-a-15 in this affidavit? b 16 A Correct. 17 Q Although the words are Mr. Hadley's, subject' 18 to your review and revision'. 19 A Correct. 20 -( Q To page 15 of your affidavit.- _ 's . 21 MR. BERRY: 15? 22 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes. 23 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 24 .i Q -And I want to draw your attention to the. t 25 i first sentence in the affidavit, in the second incomplete u
545 fc221b5 1 paragraph on that page, where it says "I am communicating
.2 these concerns to Mr.'Hadley so that the.information 3'
contained in this affidavit can be transmitted to the NRC d for investigation." Do you see~ that? 5 A Yes,;I do. 6 Q Do you know-whether this information.has-7 been transmitted to.the NRC7' 8 'A I believe at least portions of this 9 information. I am not totally aware.of whether the full , 10 affidavit has been transmitted. 11 Q What knowledge do you have'of transmittal 12 of information contained in this affidavit,to'the NRC? 13 A .I believe'I personally requested certain 14 portions of the information to.be questioned to the NRC. 15 Q But you didn't personally transmit it?' 16 A No, I did not. 17 Q Do you know whether Mr. Hadleysdid? Were. 18 you present at a conversation he may have had. or a' meeting 19 he may have had with NRC officials?- 20 A No, I was not. 21 fk- Q Did Mr. Hadley' advise you that it,was required 22 for you to put these-concerns in-affidavit form' prior.to 23 l-his transmittal of the-information contained in the 24 affidavit to the NRC? 25 A No, he did not. b 1
- ff221b6 I l.c.
1 Q Why then.did you prepare an affidavit i 2 in order to effect the' transmittal of theEinformation to .' 3 the NRC? ' 4 A We basically wanted to get"information-down 5 in writing that'I had remembere'd;and some of my notes, and. 6 try at least to. inform some of my questioning so"that we 7 could transmit it;to NRC.to give them some information on. 8 what my concerns were, so as for 'them to possibly contact: 9 me if they needed additional information. *o go.more in-depth . 10 into these areas. 11 Q . Why did you decide to put the information in - [ 12 affidavit form,'rather than merely as a letter.orDa memorandum 1 13 MR. SPEKTER: I think you'sh'uld o ask him'first 14 whether that was his decision. 15 MR. DAVIDSON: He can tell me. 16 THE WITNESS: I do.not'believe'that it was 17 my decision. 18 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 19 Q All right, that is an answer,' .
- i
.y Whose decisionses it?
20 A 21 I do not remembe; at this. time. t l 22 Q Was it Mr. Hadley's advico?- 23 A I do not remember. ) J 24 Q Could it have been Ms. Carde? l 25 A I cannot remember which. ! I i l 1
547 fc221b7 I Q But it was one or the other? 2 A I believe so. 3 Q Did they, at that time, suggest to you 4 that the affidavit could be used for any other purpose? 5 A No, they did not. 6 Q Did they suggest to you that they would like 7 to use it for another purpose? 8 A I believe not. 9 Q Did they discuss with you the possibility to of submission of this. affidavit in the current proceeding? 11 A I do not remember if they informed me of 12 that or not. 13 Q But they might have? ( 22 14 A They may have. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 - 22 23 l 24 25
'fc231b1 1
l q 1 BY'MR..DAVIDSON: i Did:they. discuss to you or suggest to you the
~
? Q' .
3 .possibi11ty of using this affidavit in any other proceeding 4 besides this licensing-proceeding?- l 5 A .I believe they have not. 6 .Q ' They discuss or'.suggest:with'you the 7 possibility of using-this affidavit in any proceeding that 8 might be commenced before the Department of Labor? 9 A I'do.not remember if'they.have'or not~- . I 10 Q But;they could have?
!) A They could have.
12 .Q Would you turn;to'page 12 of yo'ur affidavit,.
. i 13 if you would, please?
14 . I'd like you-to look at the'only. complete 15 paragraph on that page. 16 (Witness persuing document.) 17 A I am looking at it. i 18 Yes, and do you see the second sentence Q 'l i 19 in that paragraph?' "I have confirmed this belief by-
)
20 contacting the NRC Region V office?" 21
- A Yes. ,
+
22 Q And that belief was one regarding butt l 23 splicing? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Tell us when you contacted the NRC Region V-a a
?
m________ __ __. _ __ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Iz fc231b2 l - ( 1 office? 2 I. A I believe that's already been identified j 3 on the record. 4 Q No, sir.. It has not.been asked. 5 MR. SPEKTER: I would like to make an 1 6 objection here. I believe that testimony 7 is not being submitted in this hearing for any representation 8 that the NRC was not responsive to his comments. His 9 testimony is only being offered for the proposal that he to was harassed and intimidated by personnel at. Comanche Peak, 11 not by NRC personnel. 12 MR. DAVIDSON: That was understood, Mr. Spekter, 13 but I appreciate your clarifying that. I'd-like to also 14 indicate to Mr. Spekter -- although you didn't raise the 15 point, the witness did - .that the discussion we had with 16 respect to the calls you made to the NRC' Region V office 17 had nothing whatsoever to do with butt splicing. That' 18 line of questioning, sir, dealt with your assertion not 19 contained in your affidavit about calls you made with 20 respect to others of these concerns, and in particular 21 with respect to the interpretation of ES-100.and the~ alleged 22 conflict with Regulatory Guide 1.75. 1 1 23 That's not uhat I'm asking. I asked you. 24 to look at page 12, where you raise the topic of but't' splicing . l 1 25 And now we want to talk about when you contacted the NRC _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . .l
.sv fc231b3 1
Region V office with respect to butt splicing.. That's the 2 question. l It hasn't been asked before, 3 MR. SPEKTER: I would further object that I 4 this 7' area hat.haen-covered in great depth by counsel and 5 that this is excessive at this point. I 6 ! MR. DAVILSON: Mr. Spekter, your objection is l 7 noted. I think the record will show that your recollection 8 is quite out of order. 9 BY MR. DAVIDSON: to Q would you answer the question? 11 A . I believe that the time period which I 12 contacted the Region V office requesting information, was 13 during some of the same telephohe conversations with Region 14 V concerning the ES-100 spec _ifications and -<4bl e-s.ep.a r a c ' n 15 16 Q Do you know whether you spoke to the same 17 person with respect to butt sr.licing as you did with respect 18 to your asserted interpretation of the conflict between 19 ES-100 and Regulatory Guide 1.75? 20 A I believe I did. 21 Q But you're not certain o'f that? 22 A I believe I did. I feel that I should leave 23 it at that. I'm not positive that he was the only one I 24 talked to. 25 Q If the matter of butt splicing had been taken l
551 fc231b4 1 up with the resident NRC inspectors and.also with~the 2 responsible officials at the Bethesda main office of the-3 NRR, would it be likely that an unidentified. official in 4 the NRC Region V office.,with no jurisdiction over the 5 Comanche Peak plant, be aware of that? . 6 A Yes, it would possibly be likely. l 7 Q It would possibly be likely? I think you've ] 8 rewritten.my question. 9 A It depends -- i 10 Q In other words, didn't you call the person 11 most likely to have the informationyou.wererequestingh 12 A I didn't know that you could have separate 13 NRC requirements from region to region. 14 Q And so, in other words, you were-asking for 15 his generalized opinion about what NRC requirements are, m _ 16 basea on your representations to him? 1 17 A Yes. 18 Q -You didn't have a face ~to face meeting with I 19 this individual? 20 A Correct. _j i 21 Q You didn't provide him with material to j 4 22 l review, es well as inf ormation with r espect to the plant? ! 23 You didn't take him on a plant tour, did you?. 24 A I do not know if I did mail or give him 25 material to review. 1.do not remember at this time-if I e
552 fc231b 5 ' I did give him material to review. 2 Q To the best of your recollection, what was 3 his statement to you, regarding your understanding about 4 butt splicing? 5 A My understanding about butt splicing was 6 that he felt that it was serious and it should not be being 7 performed. As stated in the Reg Guide, it specifically B states that butt splicing should not be allowed. 9 Q Does it say that flatly, or with respect to 10 only certain items? In other words, is that an absciute 11 prohibition through out the plant with respect to any and 12 all cables? 13 A Dealing with safety related cables. Id Q So there are some limitations? 15 A Yes. l 16 Q And you say that this unidentified individual 17 replied that your understanding, in his view, was correct 18 and that the matter you raised was serious? 19 A Yes, I believe so. 20 Q Did you ask him to pursue it? 21 A I do not remember if I specifically asked 22 him to pursue on this incident. As I indicated before, 23 there were times that 1 was talking to hir that I di d not 24 actually indicate a request for investigation. And then 25 there was times that I did request an investigation. 4
.553-fc331b6 1
Q Do you know whether he, in fact,.followed 2 up on your statements? 3 A I do not know. 4 Q Did you contact.him further, to determine 5 why no action hadlbeen taken?. 6 A Since the time of me terminating at'theiplant 7 no, I have not contacted.him. 8 Q Are~you still concerned'that this matter be 9 resolved by.the NRC? 10 A Yes. 11 Q The occasions during which you allege you 12 were subject to harassment, intimidation and threatening. 13 You described a dispute or a disagreement you had with 14 Mr. Powers on or about December.16th. Do you remember that? 15 A Yes. 16 Q When did you have.the conversation with 17 Mr. Vogelsang, with respect to the:ferro transformers that 18 led you to believe that you had been subjected to { 19 harassment ' intimidation and threatening? 20 MR. SPEKTER: I believe.that's been' asked 21 fEndanswerednumerous times during this procedure and 22 5 discovery. 23 BY MR. DAVIDSON: ' , 24 i Q That was on January 25 or thereabouts, 25 wasn't it, of 1984? 1
.i l
- ]
I! fc231b7 l] t A I would have to look back over that' l 2 documentation to give you that.. 3 Q 'Now, you looked at the-documentation 4 yesterday and said that your recollection had been refreshed. 5 Are you saying that you no longer.had the recollection _that 6 you had yesterday? 7 A Considering the number of dates'and time 8 frames that we have' looked at.through this whole hearing, 9 it could be any one of.the dates. . I do understand that it' 10 would be in the first quarter of '84 and possibly.in 11 January, that the date was, whether the exact date -- 12 Q Would you.like to-look at_the exhibit that 13 you relied upon in your direct examination? 14 A I feel that it's'in the record and it's 15 already. I don't really feel the need for me'to look at 16 the exact date again. 17 Q Do you understand my problem,' ? .. 18 A Not really. 19 Q Okay. Documents are not evidence of anything 20 without proper authentication. . Now you took some notes in. 21 which you.put down January 25. But that isn't-your 22 testimony. Your testimony is what you recollect. Past. 23 recollection' recorded is not evidence and it's'not
'I 24 tertimony. What a document says or does not say doesn't 25 prove its truth and doesn't constitute testimony as.to'its 1
1
'h 1
l
. . . - .j fc231b8, '
)
i p 1 truth. Only you!can tell us. l 2 Now when we ask-you whether you recollection 3 is refreshed, what we mean-is not are you able to read l. 4 to us what the document says. What it means is when you see it, does it 5 jg your memory such that it occurs.co'you j 6 >yes indeed, that happened on the date indicated.- In other 7 words -- l 8 A Yes, it did. 9 Q. --.you're-not reading!it, you're remembering. 10 That'a -- I realize it's a fine 1, but point,l-, os 11 that's the point. '~ 12 MR. S PEKTER: I would once again object to 13 this line of questioning.
~
I think it's more appropriate for 14 cross-examination. The record is replete with references 15 to this date and the' witness's testimony concerning the 16 date when the incident took place. 17 1 think to now ask him one more t i m e , ,~ i s this 18 the correct date, is proper for cross exam 1 nation but
~
to certainly improper at the time of disco very. It's7been 20 discovered already.- 21 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 22 . Q When'did the incident of alleged harassment, 23 intimidation, and. threatening occur with -- involving Mr.
~
24 Luken? l 25 MR. SPEKTER: I would answer -- I would. request
556 fc231b9 1 once again that that matter be objected-to; That's been 2 covered numerous times and it's not appropriate for , j 3 discovery anymore. It's been' discovered already. 'And he's 4 commented on it numerous times. 5 g-BY MR. DAVIDSON: 6 Q l .
, do you remember the date?
b--- v 7 A It was'after the dealing with.the B ferroresonant problem with,Ivan Vogelsang. 9
.And when.was that?
~
Q Do you remember how much to after? II A 1 would say within a two month time. period. 12 Q A two month time period? You produced a 13 note here that indicated February 8, 1984. 14 A Which is probably a month after -- 15 Q No, I think that it's exactly 14 days after. 16 MR. SPEKTER: I would object again. This is-17 cross examination not discovery. 18 BY.MR. DAVIDSON: l' L Q And just so we get the time-frame, because 20 I don't think we did establish this earlier, do,you allege 21 an occasion or an incident of claimed h'arassment intimidation - 22 and threatening involving. Art London, your. superior? And do i 23 have a date for that? 24 A 1 do not remember.an. exact date for that. 25 Q Well, did it occur.before or after.the ones.
.., i i
ass. l
. (
fc231b10 t we just discussed? 2 A 't It may have occurred in between or possibly~ , 3 before or.possibly after. l-4 Q Now, that's.not going to be satisfactory, 5 i 6 A' I believe it was between those dates,.as 7- indicated, or possibly after. That ~ would be~as-close -- 8 Q Now wait a minute. I'm listening to you. 9 Now you say it could be between the dates we just discussed ' 10 or sometime thereafter? 11 A Correct. 12 Q Well'. the earliest date we discussed is 13 December 16, 1983, so it's sometime afterSthat date? 14 A 1 believe so. 15 MR. SPEKTER: I would note my. continuing 16 objection to this-line of-questioning. 17 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 18 Q Were-you subjected to any occasions of 19 harassment, intim'idation, or threatening prior to December' 20 16, 1983, to you r knowledge? 21 . A I may have been. 22 Q Would you tell us what occasions?- 23 l A I do.not remember. - 24 MR . .JBERRY : :You~have no knowledge. l 25
. ,l t .
_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ . - _ b
558-fc231b11 1 BY MR. DAVIDSON:- 2
'Q You have'no' knowledge?
3 A The., knowledge is.there,-it just.would:have 4 to be -- 5 MR. B ERRY: When welask,you if.you~-remember or 6 have knowledge,~we.want to know-what you remember.right now.
~
7 It may be in the reces'sjof your mind somewhere,Jbut if you , 8-can',t recall-it, you don.'.t have the knowledge.. 9 THE WITNESS: I cannot recall any incidents-10 prior to.that. 11 MR.DAVIDSON: Thank you. 12 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 1 13 Q And you'are not' submitting any'other . 14 alleged occasions of harrassment, intimidation'and- ~ 1 I 15 threatening in-these proceed'ings. I-believe your. ] s 16 counsel has represented? l
-i 17 A Correct. i
.i and23 18 19
-j i
20 j i 21 lb . . n 22 7 l 23 24 25
,g .
9
i'
)
l i mgc 24-1 1 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 2 Q Mr.( ,, ,)you raised many concerns with .j- ' 3-respect.to the procedures .and practices at-Comanche Peak. d ! during'yourLemployment there, didn't -you? 5 A' Yes, I did. 6-l -Q And you raised them not only. with your ' direct. 3 ; 7
. superior but other people in the organization. .dild'T'yaut j
' ,. ~ - . . - . . .-...i_. . . ;
8 A Yes,: I did. 9 Q And youTraised each'of these concerns on more: ' 10 than one occasion? 11 A Possibly. 12 Q And.you were quite active in researching for' I 13 these problems and developing information to support:your' id concerns, weren't you?. 15 A Yes, I'believe I was active in those areas. l; 16 j i Q And you did thisnthroughout'your tenure.at. 17
' Comanche Peak, didn't you?
18 A- I believe not. Not-totally throughout1--'well, _i l' yes, I believe I did. 20 Q And you did'this because you were anxious-to' l 21 see to it that properprocedureswere'fbliowed? 22 A No, no. . I-was -- I,would.get involved'with 23 a situation where we were-handling paperwork.or something-24 like that. An incident would come up, and.it.would bring 25 a question in my mind whether the procedure was' adequate or !.
4 5560 mgc 24-2 1 there was some problem with it. Thereby:I would do.some 2-research on-it.and bring the problem, if I had it, up.to 3 my supervisors. 4 !
-Q But you would bring these probleme.up because-5
]
you were anxious.to see'that the practices and procedures 6 at Comanche Peak were appropriate and adequate. ,
'7 A Correct..
. i 8 -]
And you felt'that it was-important for you Q - j 9 to see to it that all of'the questions that occurred:'as
.]
-3 10 you did your job, as they occurred to you, vere properly 11 addressed, didn't you?-
I 12 A .i Yes, I believe-so. 13 Q And you never had'any reluctance-in raising _ j 14 these concerns, did you? :l 15 A Yes, towards the end, I did have reluctance-16 in raising those~ concerns. 17 Q You felt.that although you had been well-18 ! received prior, towards the end of your tenure you were ! 19 1 being less welcome with your questions? 20 A Well, it was even indicated at the beginning 21 part that I was less welcome with-the ind'ications. They 22 would agree to the problem, but yet -- 23 Q And they'would take action.- N 24 A Well, n hey would specify, "Yes, we agree 25 that N there is a possible problem here " but.conside
~
_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ^ ^ - ^ - - ' " " ' ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ^ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ' ' '
-561.
3
\ ?
I k{J% f
-\-? :
1 mgc 24 c the resolution or corrective; action to the problem, what /4' ; it would entail, "We do not wish to:take the corrective /-l- ' 2 " 1 3 r action at this time." - l [ d Q. heydo not wish to take "the", corrective-
~~s i l
5 i action, or they did not wish to take the corrective action- ! 6 that you wanted? 1 7 A Well,1to speak of like, .just-for an. instance,'. 8 the XCP-EE-8 problem, I identified that.to supervisory. 9 personnel, and.I was' informed that, "Yes, we seeithe i q 10 problem there. There's definitely a problem there." But 11 to change the procedures now mistream, they felt was not 12 i what they wanted to do, but that they would rather change 13 the precedure going into Unit 2. 'I 14 i My feelings.on that now ,and I did quiet them i 15 down and tone down from continuing with the issue,was that ; 16 .i if there was a problem..and if.the corrective action was ~l 17 going to be to correct-it in Unit 2, then therefore they .i 18 should also be correcting it in - Unit 1, which ne 7t r really I 19 occurred. i 20 i y Q Well, we discussed that, didn't we, earlier 21 ,\ when we said that there was the possibility that there' vere 22 two alternative ways to proceed, one of which might-be 23 better than the other, and that you might have wanted -- 24 you might have preferred.the better one, but that that-25 didn't necessarily mean that the other one, the one you l
-562 mgc 24-4 1 didn't ~ prefer was'not acceptable,.and.you agreed.
2 A It also means-that maybe.the one.thatLI'did; 3 not prefer did not adequately prevent the' problem fromE 4 still existing. 5 In your view. Q 6 A- Yes. 7 Q So I' guess the' answer is: still the same, that. I B is that they didn't'take the corrective actionfthat;you-9 wanted-at the time-you wanted it taken. But they.wer 10 prepared to consider.the. issue, and they were responsive l - 11 1 to the question you raised. 'I 12 A Yes N. 7% 13 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Berry,:if you would like 14 to ask any clarifying questions on my examination, you may. 15 Otherwise. I am. going:to pass the witness to Mr. Mizuno. 16 MR. SPEKTER: Thank'you very.much. I_would-i 17 like to make one request at this time. I would like to. j 1B request formally, as I understand the discovery procedures j 10 in this matter, we are entitled to' documents that are in 'l 20 the possession of Applicant which relate to this part1cular 21 Twitness, and I would request that any documents that are 1 22
'i'n' the' possession of Applicant at this' time 1that apply.to :
1 23 this particular witness,.whether.they've been introduce'd I 24 at this deposition or whether they are intended to be 25 produced or whether they were used for questioning, be i _._.__________i___E--
r l l e age 24-5 1 provided to us as part of the continuing discovery between i 2 parties. And I would like to make that request on the , 3 record. d MR. DAVIDSON: If you will provide a 5 written request defining exactly what it is you wish, ' 6 you will receive a response. However, as I think I earlier 7 indicated, all of the documents that have been used in 8 this examination are being -- have been marked for 9 identification and are being made a part of the transcript, 10 so there is no question but that you will have them. 11 As to whether you have a right or there is 12 any way to identify any other
, n documents that you feel may 13 be pertinent tol
_) that I can't answer. But we 1d will certainly be prepared to consider and respond to any 15 written formal request for documents 16 MR. BERRY: I have no questions. 17 MR. SPEKTER: Let us see if we can locate 18 Mr. Mizuno. It is a quarter to one right now. 19 MR. DAVIDSON: May I ask the reporter, when 20 we recommence, to conclude this transcript and to 21 recommences the separately bound transcript that was 22 provided and agreed upon for Mr. Mizuno's discovery 23 deposition. 24 I MR. SPEKTER: I would also like to put on 25 the record that I would reserve any cross-examination in 4
564 l nge 24-6 ! 1 this particular deposition for a later time and the time ! i 2 of hearing, and that counsel would inform me what portions 3 of this deposition he wishes to introduce in the l 6 4 cross-examination that he intends to conduct and identify { those portions.at the time of the hearing. 1 5 6 MR. DAVIDSON: Do you wish for me to respond? 7 MR. SPEKTER: If you would like to. 8 MR. DAVIDSON: I don't believe a response 9 is necessary. I am going to follow whatever is the ptoper 10 practice and procedure for cross-examination in a hearing 11 before the Board. l 12 At this point, I believe the proceedings ! i 13 are closed. l 14 (Whereupon, at 12:46 p.m., the taking of 15 the discovery deposition was concluded.) End 24 to 17 18 ' N 19 1 J 20 21 22 23 24 25 i I
l' CERTIFICATE OF PROCEEDINGS l,- 1 1. 2
-This is to. certify that the attached' proceedings before the- l
;I NRC COMMISSION 3
In the matter of: Texas Utilities Electric' Company.-et.al. 4 Discovery Deposition'of Danny. Walter,, Volume.2 Date of Proceeding: Friday, July'20, 1984-5 Place of Proceeding: Glen Rose, Texas, i 6 k 7 were held as herein appears, and that this-is the original Ll transcript for the file of the Commission. {' ! 9 J. F.'COUGHLIN 10 Official Reporter - Typed 11 .I.l l! 13 Official Reporter - Signature _I 14 15 f.; l . l' i 16 ' 'I
! l
. i; 17 i i II 18
- 4 ,
19 20 !!
'~l i
21 !.. 1 22 23 24 25 I 3 I s Lf, TAYLOE ASSOCIATES REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS NORFOLK. VTRCTNTA
;l
\
TDs Impell Corporation 984 2333 Waukegan Rd. f Bannockburn, Ill 60015
)
c/o Dick Camp
~ m Reference to: Resignation ofJ l 1 regretfully must notify you at this time that Friday April 6,1984 will be my last day of employment with Impell Corporation. i m Sincerely. .
l
\
k l 1 4 I DE su
- g ExHIsti n _o =
a ,, n t - O g . ,. ;. .
, a...,.-.,, . . .
Here's revised draft of affidavit. Please return it to me at; Thanks. Will talk with you soon.
~/-
l j i J
" JEPOSITION 4 1
ft. EXHIBIT 1
;, D/s c- \
l; p .1 t( e
. G .
i i i 0 EPOSITION 4 EXHIBIT $ ! Di s c. ' ! g .7 \ u June 21, 1984 The Honorable Raymond Donovan Secretary of Labor ' U.S. Department of Labor Washington, D.C. 20210 Attn
- Wage and Hour Division
Dear Secretary Donovan:
Pursuant to t he At omic Ener gg Ac t 5851 and 29 C.F.R, as amendgj. 42 U.S.C. Part 24,q Jhereby files this complaint with t h e S e c r ,e_t a r y of Labor. alleges that on or about May 21, 3984, he wa against in the terms, conditions and privilegesiscrimin]ated of his employment by the Impel) Corporation, 2333 Waukegan Road, Bannockburn, Ill. 60015, for whom he worked until April 6, 1984 Nu as a systems test engineer at the Comanche Peak [ clear Power l furtherPlant underthat alleges construction in Glen Rose. Texas. he was discriminated against fW the' terms, conditions and privileges of his employment Executive by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 3 Campus, for whom he was employed P.O. Box 5200, Cherry Hill, N.J. 08034, in the as a senior advisory operations division until June 22,engineering associate 1984.
*yhile employed by the Impe11 Corporation a't Comanche Peak, N'egulator brought a series of violations of Nuclear j Commission of his supervisors ( " H R C'" ) regulations to the attention and others.
of these violations,(, As a result of his pursuit
)was subjected t o 'seve r a l j incidents March 1984of' intimidation and harrassment. Beginning in
)became a Government Accountability Projectconfidential witness of the
(" GAP") in its i investigation into the Quality Control ("QC")/ Quality Assurance ("QA") program at Comanche Peak. ( ~l i specific was intent to have hisinallegations cooperating with the GAP investigation of Investigafien ("OIG"). transmitted to the1984, NRCGAP Office transmitted Beginning in April I allegations of other la11etations, along with ' Office of Investigation. As a Peak Comanche workers, to the NRC ! investigative unit of the O!G has pursueda s ecial result, allegations.
~~
\
~
W On or about March 19, 19 84 ,t
, w g 'was offered a L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
~
Dopartmont of Labor [ w ,, ,
.~.
pos tien with Stono & Wobotor. ]beganhis employment with Stone & WebsjerbET or_4 bout April 5, 1984 On or about April 16, 1984, ) was placed on an 11 month temporary assignment (at Project in St.'Francisville, the River Bend Nuclear Power La.- On or about April 20, assignment was cancelled. On or about April 30,- 1984,{this 1984, twas assigned to the Cherry Hill office to-the learn the s7 stems of the Big Bend Nuc133r Power Project in Tampa, Fla. On or about May 21,.1984, was called into the office of his supervisor, ]Ie Naccr'o, and questioned about a , disciplinary incident during his Navy
~
career. explained the' incident in detail to Mr. Naccro. On or about EEbMay t o 2ld( 77 1984, _)that it would not be a problem..
. supervisor's office where Mr. Naccro,)was called into his and Jack Cibelli, head of personnel, informed him that in light of the. Navy incident they were unable to place him a a nuclear project and that no fossil work was available. jwas given a Reduction-in-Force ("RIF"), effec ive June 22, .
1984. alleges that these acts of discrimination are a direct re uit of protected disclosures which he made to'his supervisors and others at the Comanche Peak Nuclear P o w e'r Plant and to the NRC through GAP.
]hereby requests relief from the illegal biacklist,ing which has caused him financial hardship, anxiety relief
,and damage to his professional reputation. . The
~7 r e q u e s t s includes an abatement of the discriminatory blacklisting, compensatory damages and legal fees as well as all other relief to which he is legally entitled. l
\
' reserves the right to add items to the complaint as they oc' cur and come to his attention. ~
j Sincerely. l 1 Louis Clark j Executive Director l l i I
CENTRAL-NORTHERN AREA HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE g r. B202 West 7 Revers Drne Crystal River, Florica 32629 June 13,1934 9 W n
's Dear)
Thank you for your interest in employment opportunities at Florida Power Corpora tion. t After carefully evaluating your background and experience, and reviewing them with the appropriate supervisor, we have determined that we do not have a suitable position available for you. Your file will re main active for one year, and will be reviewed for future - l consideration. If a suitable position develops, I will discuss employment opportunities with you at that time. t Sincerely, (
'ud M William W. Strong Professional Staffing Specialist WWS/ sac 1
EPOSITION EXHIBIT {f 4
; Disc y J F4 h
k i E C I _ F F O _ S + E . C R U O S E H N A M U H 3 rwe A E 9 R M. fa avi ra o A e26 NIvr 3 2 3 omo p R Dad RFc E Hsi T eo R v r l r ORi F, r N7 e t l, s A eRiv T a RWlts N20 y E 2 r _ CPC
O +1
&zo t M A- cs4 b._.
7 R: ~ s Oryshb S:w , Al c. . I2026 l u 4L re G . % pc 21;(.?.s qe.7g, / s.M
'[]f'dP
^
^~
]y " '*fg Ylg % "' M , N ,o v...c l~+ e- - ~l> L.
. u -b. ,46 %
,a JJ
,.. s.m ~
tyg
~L
~> ( fdl.
ch- c.d ~p~%pl~ g u .9 u, .ic g. O e a O
AFFIDAVIT i i i My name is . I am submitting this affidav1t freely and voluntar11y without any threats, inducements or coercion to Mr. Ernest Hadley, who has , identified himself as an investigator with the Government Accountability Project (GAP). i This statement covers my concerns over the breakdown ) of the Quality Assurance (QA)/ Quality Control (GC) program I at the Comanche Peak (CP) nuclear power plant under , construction in Glen Rose, Texas. j From September 1982 until April 1994, I was a principal engineer with the Impe11 Corp. (EDS Nuclear, Inc.) assigned to the Comanche Peak power' plant. Prior,to that, I worked as a start-up engineer for the Bechtel Power Corporation assigned to the, San Onofre power plant in San
~
Clemente, California from January 1982 until September 1982. From August 1931 until January 1982, I served with the Tennessee Valley Authority as an assistant steam 1 EPO5 MON - EXHlair .
* *"r' % ,
1 _ b /Sc. i
.,~~*
f-f k {$ %A ' ' . A - s
x; '
- AF k!OAVIT OF i
t .. " - s *Q . v l g vt .
\i generator plant operator assigned to the Bellefonte Nuclear power plant in Hollywood, Alabama. From September 1975 until November 1930. I served with the U.S. Navy in a variety of positions including reactor operator, renctor l
4 technician and shut down electrical operator as well as several other reactor-related jobs. Based on my previous experience, I have developed several concerns about the CP plant. My concerns over the breakdown of the QA/QC Program at Comanche Peak fall into two main categories: 1) flawed procedures which do not violate any particular regulation of which I am aware, but are not consistent with industry practices and pose potential safety ha:ardsi and 2) procedures which represent regulatory violations and pose substantial safety ha:ards. The examples'used in this affidavit do not represent an exhaustive list of my concerns and should not be used to limit my allegations., It is my belief that the flawed QA/QC inspection procedures at Comanche Peak reflect a major problem with upper-level management at the plant. The tendency of upper-level management is to relax standards whenever wo, .
,,~
6
. r/
AFFIDAVIT OF . s i management feels 1 interpretation will permit, rather than
]
1 erring on the side of caution. Final Safety Analysis i Report (F5AR) commitments are construed liberally instead i 1 of conservatively. This is not consistent with my experience in the nuclear industry. If the Nucleaar f i Regulatory Commission (NRC) Regulatory Guide states that a I certain item "should be" or "should not be" ' cone a certain - i way, TU5E will usually interpret this committment as discretionary and not follow the NRC Regulatory Guide { unless it suits the company's purpose. My own experience in the field Indicates that the trend within the industry s is to interpret such language narrowly and treat such provisions as mandatory, i An example of this liberal interpretation of commitments is apparent in the practice at CP of using Craft personnel to perform functional testing. In particular, I am personally aware of several instances of Electrical Testing Group (ETG) Craft personnel performing functional tests without a Systems Test Engineer (STE) being present during actual testing. In one test performed by ETG Cr af t it was necessary for workers to rotate two wires on an Wlarm system in order to make the alarm work. l d[ .j, m m. 3- -
' i ?.
t* gg,- e a
.g - ,.. - _ _ .
]
NI. AFFIDAVIT OF o amllal l The test was performed without an STE being present in the field to observe and supervise the testing. I also know , I I that approximately 100 percent of the breaker testing at ( the plant was performed by ETG personnel without an STE being present during testing. Another example of this practice exists in the i Emergency Evacuation Lighting System. About one month ago, this system became my responsibility. At that point. I discovered that the STE who was respons1ble for the system before me had signed off on approximately 300 tests records where Craft had performed the prerequisite testing and the STE was not present during the majority of the testing. I wrote a Test Deficiency Report (TDR) against these I tests, but I am uncertain of the number of the TOR or its disposition. I feel this practice of allowing Craft personnel to perform functional testing without an STE being present is j not consistent with ANSI 45.2.6., l which requires.that ! personnel have a certain level of qualifications in order i to perform testing. It is also not consistent with my l l expertence of the way functional testing is performed at 1
;' w- '~
. s. .
A; .
- e j - '%
- 1;o "2;iyA; <
.y&
. - ,; .1.
belltr x
- . , ; gty j AFFIDAv!T OF ,
\
other nuclear plants. An additional problem presented by this practice is that it is not apparent from looking at the documentation on the tests that they have been performed by Craft personnel without an STE being present. In fact, a review of the documentation would suggest the opposite. In order , to fully understand this problem, it is necessary for me to describe my experience of the manner in which testing is peformed at other sites. In the normal scheme of test 1ng, Craft personnel will carry out the physical testing under the direct supervision of an STE who is present in the field at the time of the testing. In this scheme, the
" performed by" block would be 51gned by the STE. However, at CP the FSAR standard is interpreted to require only that an STE review the paperwork of the testing, and not that he or she be actually present during the testing. The signature by the STE only indicates that he or she has reviewed the testing documentation and that it appears to be in order. The result is that documentation at CP appears to comply with industry practice when, in fact, it does not. \ . .
- N.jf' s,
}ki ,
, 4 ~'
>D.' Q, , ;,
s - t(>4$-
- r. 1 -
, ~4 , _
'g 4 < < -I v 4 } : % .
^ 0 y. ,
t
AFF80AV8T OF eM I am concerned that these tests performed by Craft personnel without en STE are invalid since the personnel performing the testing do not have adequate qualifications, or at least do not have supporting documentation for their qualifications. I am further concerned that, because of the manner in which these tests are documented, it $s not possible to identify which tests have been performed under the direct supervision of an STE. In fact. it may be necessary to reconduct all tests in order to ensure that they have been peformed properly by qualified personnel, e I also believe the testing procedures are flawed in I other ways. For example, it is a common practice at CP to work on more than one system with one Start-up Work Author 1 ration (SWA) and use only one system number. I am personally aware of instances where many systems were worked on in the Auxiliar).ReSay Rack, but only one system i number was used on the SWA. The result is that.different ; portions of the same system are tested by different STE's I and, by the same token, one STE is responsible for testing portions of several systems instead of testing 'o n e entire system. The overlap is confusing and may lead to portions of a system being overlooked ourIng inspection. This g I i ' s- ?.. s . c p g. ** 1
1 l l l 1 AFFIDAv!T OF j O practice is also not consistent with my experience in the industry where it 1s preferred to have o r. STE responsible 1 I for an entire system. ' l Another flaw in the testing process at Comanche Peak is that STE's are not provided with a computer printout which informs them of all tests that are required t o be performed on a system. It is my experience that the Sechtel Corp. Provides such a printout to its STE's at i nuclear sites. Essentially, the printout provides the STE with a checklist and insures the STE performs all the relevant and necessary tests. The failure to provide such ' a printout at CP, means STE's are left to determine on their own which tests are requirede and when they are i finished testing a system. The likely result is that each STE devises his or her own scheme for testing a system. This means there is no consistency in testing at the plant a and some tests may be overlooled or omitted. I
\
7 - 1 i
.- z ^gy
. p .y y 4 .-
., r AFFIDAVIT OF As an example, I am aware t r. a t on or about March 15, 1984 it was discovered that the instantaneous trip setting calculations on approximately 100 b r e al:e r s had not been performed correctly. This omission was only discovered be:ause Bill Shorter, an ETG Craft employee went beyond what he was qualified and required to do and attempted to check the calculations. Mr. Shorter was checking the paperwork related to these breakers to verify the size and attempted to check the calculations at the same time. I am not certain how it was determined that only 100 breaters were involved. I believe that there could be more, but without a computer system it is impossible to tell except by checking 01) the present test records. A TOR should have been written against these faulty test records.
Another flaw in the testing procedures occurs in the breakdown of interaction between Prerequisite Testing (Prereq.) and Preoperational Testing (Preop.). It is my expertence that at other nuclear power plants certain steps of testing performed during Prereq. are asain performed
^
during Precp. to insure they were, in 1act performed, and performed properly. This is' not the case at CP where it is assumed that Prereq. Testing has been completed and i { i performed properly. This means that, in some cases, at l Comanche Peak portions of Prereq. Tests are being used to prove FSAR commitments. 8-6 l 1
i i i I AFFIDAVIT OF 1 l eM ' l 1 l 1 CPSES Prerequisite Test Instruction XCP-EE-8, " Circuit ) Control Testing", Rev. 6. further complicates the flaw in the interaction between Prereq. and Preop. testing. Note (1) to Section 7.8 provides that "(esnersized functional I testing of control circuits is desireablei however, if the STE deems this impractical, de-energized functional testing l l will suffice." Since steps performed during Prereq. 6re i not necessarily repeated during Preop... this means that it i is possible that a system can pass through both stages of J testing without ever undergoing an energized functional
+
test. It is highly possible that this has happened with many light indicators. i I am further corcerned because the j test instruction provides no guidelines that assist an STE in determining when energi:ed functional testing 1s
" impractical", and there is no notation on test i
documentat1on ther indicates the functional testing was de- l energ12ed. , l The above paragraphs represent my concerns over what I consider to be flawed testing procedures that can lead to l errors and omissions in the testing process. As I stated above the examples cited in this affidavit should not be i used to limit my concerns. ( Rather the examples are used 3 .
y-v i AFFIDAVIT OF
- 9. Y .
l for illustrative purposes ano I believe indicate an overall failure of the QA/QC program at Comanche Peak. My second category of concerns regards procedures that I believe represent actual violations of specific regulations and, in some instances, represent substantial safety hazards. I also believe the folloMing examples further indicate the b r e al:d own of the QA/QC program at Comanche Peak. As an example. I believe that Cable Separation k- Specification 2323-E5-100, Rev. 2, is in violation of Regulatory Guide 1.75. A portion of ES-100, Section 4.11.3.2, provides, "(msinimum separation between a conduit (safety related or non safety related) and a bottom or side of a tray (solid bottom or ladder) shall be one inch." This is not consistent with the minimum separations required by Regulatory Guide 1.75, which provides that conduit separation should be at least five feet from the bottom of a tray and three feet from the side, except in the cable spreading room where it can be two feet from the side and three feet from the bottom. . I am particularly concerned about the above situation 10 - , 3
.,y, AFFIDAVIT OF pM N
w, - . k since, if I am correct in my interpretation of the
.$4, 5'
regulations, then the entire plant has been built using errant specifications. In order to correct this situation, it would be necessary to reinspect all cables and conduits at the plant to ensure proper separation. I am not the only one who believes that EE-100 1s in violation of Regulatory Guide 1.75. I am aware of one instance where a Design Change Author 1:ation (DCA) was written against ES-100 to change a portion of the procedure unrelated to cable separation. The Gibson Hill employee who was asied to author 1 e the change refused to sign off on the DCA because
'A of the violation existing in ES-100.
Another example of the violation of regulations at CP is in the practice of regularly using " butt splices" on both quality and non-quality cables. Butt splicing is used on a routine basis at Comanche Peak where cables are not long enough to reach their intended destinations. (Butt splicing is a means of physically attaching a new length of cable to an existing length of cable using a crimp to secure the attachment.) The problem with butt splicing is that, if it is not properly done, the cables can separate i posing a potential fire hazard. This potential hazard is heightened by the fact that the major 1ty of the butt 11 - 8
AFFIDAV3T OF sp11ces are in bundles of cables and the nazard e >. t e n d s beyond the cable that has been spliced to the cables that surround it. It is my understanding that' butt splicing 1s specifically prohibited by the NRC. I have conf *rmed this belief by contacting the NRC Region V Office. In particular, it is.my understanding that Regulatory Guide 1.75 specifies that cable splices 1n raceways snould be prohlbsted and further, that 11 such splices do exist, the resulting design should be Justified by analysis and submitted as part of the FSAR. However, at Comanche Peak, DCA 19264 and several other DCA's allow butt splicing of
.I' quality cables. At Comanche Peak not only do the butt splices exist, but in some casas no notation 1s made on i des 1gn drawings that the splices exist. As a result, there-may be no record of where butt splices have been made. It ;
i is my belief that it will be necessary t o 'r einspect all cables and conduits for butt splices since no records are kept of their existence or location. ! l I i l I am particularly concerned about the practice of butt ' splicing because of its potential for starting. fires, and because it is my expertence that there are many fossil fuel l 12 - l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . ._ _a
AFFIDAVIT OF m Plants where butt splicing is not allowed. Another incident which I believe shows a failure on the part of upper-level management to follow nuclear regulatory guidelines and a lack of committment on the part of management to an adequate QA/QC program involves the breakdown of ferroresonant transformers provided by Westinghouse. In February of 1983, two of the. transformers failed on same weekend and a third' transformer failed within one month of that time. There are four inverters and each inverter has its own' transformer. If any two of the transformers fail there is.an automatic scram and.the plant shuts down. Although these problems occurred in February of 1983, it was not until February of 1934.that TU5E filed a report pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.55(e) with the tJRC. This delay is particularly disconcerting since shortly after the failure I conducted an informal telephone survey of'other nuclear plants and found'the Westinghouse transformers had a 60 percent failure rate. I wrote.several Start-up Memos on this problem, which were distributed to-E r.g i n e e r i n g , the Electrical Testing Group, Impe11 and TU$E. Although the survey was not scientific, the circumstances
~
surrounding these transformer failures were similar'enough to cause me concern particularly since Westinghouse 13 - 4 u-__.-__-.___.__
AFFIDAVIT OF r. L J maintained that no other nuclear plants had reported having problems with the transformers. It is also my belief that after the transformers at Comanche Peak failed. Westinghouse discovered some defective transformers in its factory. I also feel the NRC should review the results of test . PT 55-11. This is a thermal e :: p a n s i o n test on piping where I understand that 60 percent of the test points failed the acceptance criteria. These failures were due to the fact that the p1pe either moved too far or moved in the wrong direction. The reason for this movement could be that some 260 pipe supports were not installed prior to the test run. The test was further flawed by the fact thtt temperature readings of the pipe were not properly taken. Although temperatures were taken and logged during the testi the calibration of the test devices was not logged. The result 1s that traceability of the testing devices has been lost. At least two TDR's (853 and 355) have been written against these tests. However, I am uncerta1n as to their resolution. I am further concerned about this test because Engineering has provided no justification for the "use as is" determination on this piping. i 1 14 - . ) ___ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - . _ . - _ - _ - _ - - - - - - - - - __- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - ~ '
AFFIDAVIT OF w
\ ,, /
Another area of concern exists in the practice of QC personnel keeping los sheets of problems spotted during inspections instead of writing Non-Conformance Reports (NCR). The QC procedures provide that before.. components are turned over to (UGCO, QC inspectors do.not have to write NCR's on problems they discover. Instead of writing NCR's, the inspectors are instructed to keep a los of the problems they discover and their disposition. I b e l.1 e v e e but am not sure, that this procedure is covered by.the Construction Procedures 1n the section on Procedures for Non-Conformance Reports. This informal practice of keeping logs means that no formal records are kept of many of the problems discovered by QC inspectors. I am communicating these concerns to Mr. Hadley so that the information contained in this affidavtt can be transmitted to the NRC for investigat1on. I have asked Mr. Hadley to hold my identity in confidence t', e c a u s e, I have been subjected to substantial harrassment and intimidation for bringing my concerns to the attention of my supervisors and others. I voluntarily left my employment with the Impe11 Corp. in April 1984 However. I believe that Impe11 has continued to engage in harrassment and intimidation _ p against me and have blacklisted me with other companies.. t 1 L - 15 -
.- 1
AFFIDAVIT OF 3 .s l' L ,. - I have read the above 16 page afficavit and.It'is'true and accurate to the best-of my'Lnow1' edge.
~
D I L ./ Sworn and-subscribed to be1 ore me this M day ofL k n c.
' ,'1984., .
~ . - ,.
y
! - y /' _
h .
- I Notary Public ,
.unm=. :. y cm, .. w.,
. 1 t,*g Comin .; bon ..;i.pa :2,2ggy My commission expires
-l
-1 l
.j l
1 1 I l t !. ) t l < i 1 l l
- j i
4
.____-___-__ _ _ ~
elcils:if nuo!ea.m PSITOT'ianOs System Performance Evaluation eldis((} associatee 1 ITION EXHIBIT DIS C %
. F-dA
'Me
*m8 #
E i h:':'an
.. ~,... .w.n betwee , saperv.sor and ernployee of the indivi a6 s overe 4
. i: %..
m .. incividuany complete
,n. .. h. canon Proc.rst inc form Tne c npiruet; s seis.e. !dt.enor. - .
i >t.nm:DIIW
- p. mon of Results
-g ;a, .a'uat..
Ine resu:13 cchievert m rtbter.n 13 tria resutt; woc W.; ht9r to tt.e
. en.i w..ew me. c iti
- terms
**' preparea conna this or ncemanca pmc L.st av sier..ncare
- u. p Jr" ;c : * . tyr LiHr.f te . .; ort !nt th J'.CCIW3 tti iff;" TLn;C 4 spectI:"
< w.. are i c e ne; ' .i o su:. . n n:: e.roo<ee apr -
em et um. ar. , cenman wrv iu' f anno m .nm use ADDitentlOn Of Skills and Ahiktic Tne tocus here is more M inc neroetre t:rn the pe'tcam "cs-C t!:3 :c* W s?. 7* ' . $.% ** b; <!,, Er.:.tont ine stec.t.c knowieog ,
'tfi
. t. ! - . T. ' $
6 C. Os . c ' tr'e e-;rt .6 E he.s cr.a'ytu n '.le employct : Dossible. . .!'1 t l'!'N tnL O'V: if .;**owments rn -.0c0 as coje;tively Overall Evaluation of Performance From att information availabie on empsuyee performance duren; tne review pened. tne suoer anc ine employee seoarately rate tne empeoyee's performance on this tive pomt scate. 1 PECirORfilANCE CONSISTENTLY SUPERIOR TO FDS STA14DARDS: Joo perform exceptional and consistertty exceeds expectations as outhned for the position. Employees
, ratec in this zone p.- exoected to acnieve rettect performance anc contneution which relatively few incumbents woule :
? pep *ORMANCE FREQUEf *LY EXCEEDS EDS STANDARDS: Job performance co excecar mesi of the occiuon requirements and is well above wnat is defined in tne Desition in terms et ouahty. ico scor>e and timmg as cuumeo in tne posit 3 PERFORMANCE cot 4SISTENTLY fJEETS EDS STANDARDS: Job performance c mens EDS stancaros m nit respects as measurco acamst the position specihcations. The emoloyee meets tne tu!! scoce of accountaoiuties in a comoetent manner. and is able te consistently exhibit this cerrormance over tne entire certormar.ce period.
4 PERFORMANCE USUAtt v MEETS EDS STANDARDS: Emplovees rated m tnis zone '( performmp at a ceneraov satisf actory level witn some elements of the sob reQuinng furtner improvements. reachmg fully competent Pertermance m tn:c :ene mev oc vieweo as developmental and tendmo toward ocriormance. { (
- I 5 PERFORMANCE DOES NOT MEET EDS STANDARDS:JoD performance is far Delow tnra position requirements ano is not acceptacte. Emoiovees so rated must immediately apply i corrwtive do not Qua:ity action for a to salarv increase performance to an acceptable nevel. Emotoyees rated m this zone increase..
It either person wants to elaborate on their ratmg there is a space provided for a bnef commen Development q Before the discussion. the supervisor and the employee individually note alternatives to build emDioyee skills or ado new skills. Dunno tne discussion they snoulo agree on wnal will De cone m
. the next planning period to improve employee performance. Actions can incluce support from i supervisor as well as employee ettorts. It is smoortant innt this oiscussion gets franslated mte ,
j oolectives. seCiton. The Professional. Supervisory and fAanagenal Checklists are useful supplements to t ' Comments I- Th6 section can be used bv eitner persen to record additional information appropnate to In evaluation. This might inctucc adoittunal e* Diar'allons of otner secttons, notes on nob.* Int-Ct0cussion bef formance Evaluation: went. Questioiah that conic up to! tututo consicerabort, or employee s re&ction ir tn. i i t __m, == . +4,. m-- _ _ _ _ , ,
e'os y nuotaa - ' E ds.t' associeme cob.,Hv.:N i IAL l trqplevee 'i .e . n~ N.. #.; 'i.N G., ' .!*ivet;iontyr im, C ~,) f /.l Q
- %., a. u.. w .
ow ..xiu.ja.L_ 1
...--._ , ..z._-._ = . .: .. - , . . _ .._, .
l E'.81UallOn Of ROS,UW vt !. C
. 3uf f s C9E tives and acre"..phsnments fer the penc: 1 u ; % a.;-; i b!e vt.at v.83 a0 Cort 1phshe'j mnd what v.a*. C 1. h0W Wel1 :1 WHS CO*'St'-5
- 0 an:: hc.
- t~-)ortant
- it viat t , y,,, :.s., ,s.- c>u rr;/ &ca.m,c..,- ,.5 , , , .7,, .,g. ,, ,
- k. ,,f,,c.r.-- > Ny2 T~s >s.r> al . ts<- Y s-xa:s ,,,,,.,y,,,, yg , . ,,,, S.
swas ./a .2; ostr.. J's * ' rw r"C 'f.ns s'c a r.t a //f V ava'.s ei'. B .m.v25 /s: .r'<. r . 7 1 st.ks :e: oy,A s f9 ..n snet./ N'C '#*-% N L*s. . ia; cas M.'> d m .> a n A.~<~<> Gm
.
[*'.c q Ra, s
~a1:.
.i~~<*1 4cc is.)
7"r'
- 4. '.
&rc
) %n
.c . ~ G> r# #.9 :-- c~, .s. .c 77..i < .ra: Cs 5. ~s o'~. #t *c s
rnw W >i~L as e. f** + ;~~'<"""
.sl 4 s ; <.s.i1ici-c:.s 7- *
- s. u ..Ms c ,,..c; d% O x X2 ses-r a - .:,
e sA-r~** w r'.C-y M~~ ~~4 e: ; <n. f,*/ i s. .>C cs
.c n. > . c aE.> g *
- *?<./.>.'.c-
_ ' 2 .s <r.;s , ,.g. ,.- y 1%- .c.. i .c ~R re s * ~
/e3 c Mt Tr 52 c)
- r ,.va ;o .s,. ac.c eA /f.cc i: r~ 4* G .'
- M rao 'w'
=t.;
c.: . //r c"r uk s' , .3 %i W rr:- <s- s9 ~6?c.'
*i W r1.$ 's /ro E/ '~i~'.*?n / A ofd n att~k /ds t.js .**.:'.7
s/*' 's.*v N <Y hab oves :" chwrPs.if r.C /f; acr<. -y: R,,,72 o.
Gr' Vf45.s a riav/) r7 4,./.. r,y (;;. ;; , .,, ,4.,,.
- i. ~ .- -r.r., . ,, . a .,,. -- ~.u m.,,:.h-. L g ,y, %a; ,,p _
/t'&? ;~'?r s' %"r s: '7~ 4 ~a 3.4y.c r.A 'rE .t:" . rrf a c s'. e). s b"?;~w.?
,,g ?,c.c , .:e ;, CW A*!
. , *2 W nFA'fr /vr.y' o er W / 'R4w ,
7; r. .g.,,.,,,
- ,y yy
/ der */ r o./c7*'~ e a ss ,-- gy ,,. , ,,,
A & cis yfp~r'on N*s- vc'. > ?? '#' "1 'l!" 'M C s srY1i
;r svts rcs.y /d /tk& '77 kl ~ 'e~? /lLS*r(i
~
a I* ' o W ;"est. ' .~ ~ t. a ' *. r 7'L' -i;>E VC--:
/Ini'Z' Td ?"E5 7' ,;g -- .. A S A/ iss,J 4 r. /7 s'ri. 1 M s=~ Ya Th*c.' ?.57fA *?"~ We;;. 'oa.Ek;> -
W41 dAl /h*ce sw!!< r"A rt . #d N4 7..'d'J. 7"rs4 7- t.lS./n a y# I'Os* * 's.* n; Tb C o** v ' e*lz '2 b ..':>t*g. y pr v i . Yo/4 Afeg..# ors;y m /o4* sVAs d. 7'ry rT'aze .s,.* s a>gs-/.cos
~& ;*%f**:e 's.s e .;'s s /TA/4> 6 .sf.d- W .cs,-a.,,/g*L; c7,=~,r r,/
e fiM f 7'd 77ar d, .r9~'#.) **Z'k' 't l-* JC"a's r cc; -' c'"4'g,q r g Ky p4.,,, , jg a es .'J"u ' c'*sv 4,eyfg & g4G4 l TWr.s oc.'d 3 o6% .s.;,, p, p - 7"i ' J7 4 4 7~T~dd T s saw! Zy' e
@,,.7., ,,., j;j4' ,ta g,y,, '
fif *7*:k L C:ch/asyg*,,,s.3 g a /r 7~m sL i g ,ay j7 s ff fp*i g gy,e gg ,., 44 4
.'/ '
- eT :sA c. ~7g $m.m.<,a m,,,
1 I
i, W, .. AppScat.on cf '. ill., and A..:l' '3s
. Com . ant : tre e p.evee s c:Wctiveness in o P ;
Iccome'srmer:t er ' ash 'Or%nsit" lit'es and O.
- tlW.
r, or ner s :is
d soih*4 s in sno
[ 3,,p g, , . . ,y h*s ' s,, o s..
. /t v 4 L .'*. '. / *. / * .! s. *ris * '4-a ;W,-">Cs fl s5.,~ ,/, ,s 4 5;~r+ h e **/ '7*'t: i * ~* ' l * * * * ' ~ " ' C* ' * ' a - E'
, /. .o O $s*o s1 *.* re
- I ~ s -*~~,,4 s YW I'~* / **01~s' '
' 'd* ~* *
.::.. c,av r o / ... A 2 4 ,o' XL c.*< d f. .: G /.' ..' -i < -r. **/ ~L ' ~' ~ Y' " "-
EmFCaA*ANCE NF ~; PE WOav ANCE 7EAFORMANCE ?. E
.:Es
- Of MiE t USL atu HE ETS Cotar.sSTENit y "i gts PC' t:Jt tact . '.' :J.:." >
..s s'Am:4aos . e aga 4.rt i .;cs y o n - ;. ,
c:s stANoaaos f:s stAN.1Anos E;ss r.m c;
- s ' .;;.=:3
! f
. L._ .__ .I . . . _e __ i
. 4 3 2 1 Comments on the Rating:
Development Areas i Descrit the scecific areas in wnicn development is requirec,
& M::cas r .~ d , n v w .s.et r av ,':1s,cs n 4 v n - 5 '." A .> .s. -% :s-, n :.5*.r.s~,o se.. n 4.csac .v a s 7 < .~. ; .. .v' .// s , e
./ u .s a,y,,w ,,yg,, .,,,rm da.> . <-1rr c tv a .<.s.: e ,, _ , , , ,.
& $;;sA' '
<: .s >.e. -u .5 <J. .::....--
G m m 4:..c.s/s ;c.J .7,~,c,r.a pa. : .3 p f.g,,, .
. m.4. , ,.c ca.u; s : ,,' Tm g -
SW4 ce . r} r..d . ,r.,. .
, .V, * ; O g [? /,,)c,, gge
..,.y,
,, .-H. ,s E.5 K-~
- r- g 4 g,y g , ,
> n' := ..'*q > rf.sz,ac,.v,.,a r , s ;, .s ;r .,.g,,,,,,,
W ' ?~ ^"~&. - d % ,o# . ,s, . ,, et/n'/ ll~"v- t..-har e , hw4 sP.'.rrwsc r~er,e e.4 sy,g,c, a e,; f ,< e ,,3 ~.x'qJ ~
.,,?.,, ,',#
..n, ' *
- y O .l 1h b W. - c is. .N eu n *, a res. M c6 c.~ h u.s b ~,, , 4 A c.dc p s u.) h s. e ' U
- T*' N rh e .;. ', k - Arch-.~ % ' ~.
L st ~ t- ^ - r" ~
, c.u.,.,. - -
\, ,,, 6 e..- r' rs u ru .e * - a~ *****t.".a-
* ~% s $. w .r%em>-
'l ( ~ ~ u; g.3 6 z, e.% d . %<-tr.-<**" h w'N f' ** 5 d g 'A * *4' ' "i, C s
[ .[.4.,,,,,,. L \\ vc fc.e b. L ~ <\ . S'* $ E Ne have :r.1ev,ec inis form tocetner. We born kriow its contents will be used by the Company in t. s connection wita salar administration and employee placement avid promotion. !
</ . "*
S l 1
' - ;-i
W o...* ts t' d.c N t u r e' '"" * .te . ' . . a .nw%. 6~- S..porvisor r, signature.
. -, 2- j
': O t-SeCCDD Level Supervise's i:. : trem-i l
Sigetatura
.p 4
w .
- ~ ~ ~ - - - - - " - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - '
3 Sy,. . N'
' . ). L S t L . ~; ~~ t >
Qee, j T A. -
' <t -
Think 3 bout the person's curref t acilit es and I: 4' . to ya respo9d only to the .:np t .rt i m,, c, .n folicwing statemen:s ' Onen in 3 .hir ' '. * :h.s ir . . I ti.dt L *!. <ar;t: tei' nc.s - c cf . o ,cb r------ -
' :. .ro 10b; I 1. Ccmpletes work assignments accurately, l' tr oroughly and neatly. ( '
)
j :. Meets time si:hedules for work )- g l assi;pments'under varying pressures. ; '
.l l
(
- 3. Complies with EDS and division policies and l proc 3dures. j
- 4. Defines priorities properly and makes '.
ef ficiant utilization of resources in (- comoieting a.1 responsibilities. j
- 5. Decisions mthin the scope of responsibihty l '
are executed correctly ano tnose ceyona l
)
l he.scoc3 of responsibility are appropriately ; ~(-- referred to hioner levels.- l
- 6. Verbal :i presentations are concise, retevant -l -t 1 i
!- -{
and understandable. ! . \' l l
- 7. Documentation Gi work is rtracaDie, '
unocrstandable. logically sequence 0 and \ ; comclete. ;
- 8. Quality vuritten documents are proouced - t .
that recuire little if any editing or \j - ' l rewriting. i l
- 9. Communicates anc worns effectively with , 'j- I i
clients, both on tne telephone and during V' meetings and presentations.
- 10. Antsc; pates ano fulfills expected needs of suDervisor and/or division. 'g {
j
- 11. Solves difficult technical problems l g j l j effect vely and correctly, given a minimu n g V -
amount of guidance. ; )
- 12. Generates and implements ellective new '
l , ideas and suggestions. and recommends \, l solutians for oroblem solving situattor.3. { I
- 13. Sets and meets hign performance 1 standards. j i.* j i
i j 1,4. Works cooperatively with associates anc supervisor, and accepts assignments \,- -[ i
)i i willii v. l
- 15. Aoju..s effectively to new or caanging -
l situations. g* } y l i l.
- 16. Increases knowledge of tield or work and -
i j ' keeps current with associated enances. ! (. i j
- 17. Geeks assistance wnen needed to stay on '
direct solution oath. I r , i
- 18. Maint lins high performance standards in '
\,
the at sence of it'e supervisor. t. - I
- 19. Demonstrates knowier $ and -
I
; j implementation of P *irements D noorcDrea l worn. l
_ ) , _. l
. 1 1
eldis4) nuclear l Performance System i Per"ormance Evaluation i
~
eldle @ associates l 1;ba*?"
;: 0/fc- T I;
F-7 N
i Purposa: To provide an annual communication between supervisor and employee of the individual's overall
- performance.
Both supervisor and employee individually complete this form. The employee's self evaluation is entical to the Performance Evaluation Process.
Description:
I
)
Evaluation Of ReSultS This section evaluates the results achieved in relation to the results expected. Refer to the Planning and Review forms prepared dunng this performance period. List all significant accomplishments, both planned and unplanned. Sort them according to importance. Be specific and make sure you consider the entire review period. It is helpful if supervisor and employee agree ahead of timu on a common format for filling out this section. 1 Application Of Skills and Abilities The focus here is more on the performer than the performance. Explore the specific knowledge, skills, attitudes, abilities and work habits of the employee. Note changes in tne employee's abilities possible.during this review period. Deal with strengths and improvements needed as objectively as Overall Evaluation Of Performance From all information available on employee performance during the review period, the supervisor A and the employee separately rate the employee's performance on this five point scale: $ 1 PERFORMANCE CONSISTENTLY SUPERIOR TO EDS STANDARDS: Job performance is ciearly exceptional and consistently exceeds expectat!ons as outlined for the position. Employees rated in this zone reflect performance and contnbution which relatively few incumbents would i be expected to achieve.
.l i 2 PERFORMANCE FREOUENTLY EXCEEDS EDS STANDARDS: Job performance consistently exceeds most of the position requirements and is well above what is defined in the position standards. The employee exceeds the defined performance and by EDS standards is outstanding in terms of quality, job scopc and timing as outlined in the position description or charter.
3 PERFORMANCE CONSISTENTLY MEETS EDS STANDARDS: Job performance consistently . meets EDS standards in all rerpects as measured against the position specifications. The employee meets the full scope of accountabilities in a competent manner, and is able to consistently exhibit this performance over the entire performance period. 4 PERFORMANCE USUALLY MEETS EDS STANDARDS: Employees rated in this zone are those performing at a generally satisfactory level with some elements of the job requiring further improvements. Performance in this zone may be viewed as developmental and tending toward reaching fully competent performance. 5 PERFORMANCE DOES NOT MEET EDS STANDARDS: Job performance is far below the position requirements and is not acceptable. Employees so rated must immediately apply corrective action to increase performance to an acceptable level. Employees rated in this zone do not qualify for a salary increase. if either person wants to elaborate on their rating there is.a space provided for a brief comment. Development Before the discussion, the supervisor and the employee individually note af ternatives to build employee skills or add new skills. During the discussion, they should agree on what will be done in the next planning period to improve employee performance. Actions can include support from the supervisor as well as employee efforts. It is important that this discussion gets translated into objectives. section. The Professional, Supervisory and Managerial Checklists are useful supplements to this Comments This section can be used by either person to record additional information appropriate to the evaluation. This might include additional explanations of other sections, notes on how the discussion went, questions that come up for future consideration, or employee's reaction to the Performance Evaluation. e s
ad!s@ nucle:r 3erformance Eva uation e:d:s$ associates CONFIDENTIAL 2-Employee , Title - Division / Region supervisor Y S Nh? Date- 6' E3 Evaluation of Results Review the individual's objectives and accomplishments for the period being evaluated. Note what was accomplished (and what was not), how well it was completed and how impArtant it was.
\
[&E tin)was ar.cgh.>0/ /o Ole Gkdrh/Chely d/ asynosof as.r ;d 71e,oroesre pre,r.srw4a i sedio:)- b * ,>o M e ~6 4 /ly f'yxrd #o!-02., Pr-ci- 3, i 4r-02-o3, pr-o2-s ad 4y-o2 -i4 qu/perGrmm' PPoz-c2 .
\ 4T-03-o3, PPoz-tz tfS also espidysh 2%eperdrawce s$
Pr-02 s i, & b a 6een ass, het sysk respes%A,
- 19e a// adt wfr-/ cen es eo/ at/inksr/ec sys/ews l (exe90/MF/bwr/er.r),
llNC QW/fenrdfrrmr2/y :: =hh l /ws/esaurbrijib3 Jod's and edernby mEP'r I6s. l l l l l t l l l l l .
Application of Skills and Abilities ' Comment on the employee's effectiveness in using his or her skills and obilities in the accpIDplishment of task responsibilities and objectives. hff GbY/ p n/fG gnd 4 Tkf f'ridh
/n q mg /7)Gnnt*r,
& l PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE PE RF ORM ANCE CONSISTENTLY DOES NOT MEET USUALLY MEETS CONSISTENTLY MEETS FREQUENTLY EXCEED $ SUPERIOR TO EDS $7ANDARDS EDS STANDARDS EDS STANDARDS ED$ STANDARDS EDS STANDARDS i i i i l i i II, i l i i l i ,
5 4 3 2 1 ~ Comments on the Rating: ; I l20/8 1 Development Areas l Describe the specific areas in which development is required. ' 86Y lnbfat[8 l)tS Mi$~cf 0 fl Gf/b'M 6 G ~4fC ~ Gfff n?fM u)lI/- ; Ys/nje@ses(f/dy,
- 7b be less en7amenbli4 Osd' /forn a>len d ";pOe-th * $
t</ ken dro$nj auk Sahervtbr nnd Gssocvibs. l Meede 4 adw/at&%de seg 6wdm yd:p rod Asher !
-c="*:per rmance crhv/ards and bcr zkanr'jusfowntr 14e ;
fefuiremen/S, hik tY gri tn bd/inpratica edrmeds,, go,c/ sdjGeise) l One edgcy'a:e/tocek tk.seev /s wrW d getbreiheg,0robbe eEls, We have reviewed this form together. We both know its Contents will be used by the Company in i l connection with,salagadministration and employee place en and romotion. ' N .I U .I ' w..-.. . Date Supervisors signature 4 ate / Second Level Supervisor's Comments: 9 I
. 3 I
I . Signature Date
n s f' . rTOfeSSiona uheck ist Emhyee ~ C-xl-73 Date Think about the person's current abilities and Needs to Needsto respond only to the improve in improve in following statements Does this this for this for that are relevant: well now Current job future jobs
- 1. Completes work assignments accurately, j thoroughly and neatly. V
- 2. Meets time schedules for work /
assignments under varying pressures. V
- 3. Complies with EDS and division policies and procedures.
- 4. Defines priorities properly and makes efficient utilization of resources in completing all responsibilities. /
- 5. Decisions within the scope of responsibility are executed correctly and those beyond the scope of responsibility are appropriately referred to higher levels.
- 6. Verbal presentations are concise, relevant and understandable. j
- 7. Documentation of work is readable, understandable, logically sequenced and comolete. /
- 8. Quality written documents are produced that require little if any editing or rewriting. /
- 9. Communicates and works effectivelyw' ith clients, both on the telephone and during meetings and presentations.
- 10. Anticipates and fulfills expected needs of supervisor and/or division. /
V
- 11. Solves difficult technical problems effectively and correctly, given a minimum amount of guidance. /
- 12. Generates and implements effective new ideas and suggestions, and recommends solutions for problem solving situations.
- 13. Sets and meets high performance standards.
- 14. Works cooperatively with associates and supervisor, and accepts assignments willingly. /
- 15. Adjusts effectively to new or changing f situations. V
- 16. Increases knowledge of field or work and
/
keeps current with associated changes. V
- 17. Seeks assistance when needed to stay on /
direct solution path. Y
- 18. Maintains high performance standards in the absence of the supervisor.
- 19. Demonstrates knowledge and implementation of QA requirements appropriate to work.
"~ 8 3 "8 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPAhT
) OFFICE MEMORANDUM 3
L. M. Popplewell clen Rose. Teus December 19, 1983 subi.cz ES-100 Cable Separation Questions have arisen over whether Gibbs & Hill, Inc. Specification 2323-ES-100 Section 4.11 Separation Criteria, (see attached), co= plies with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.75 (1-75) and IEEE 384-1974 The specific section which seems to conflict is 4.11.3.2 (2) which states: " Minimum separation between a conduit (safety related or non-safety related) and a bottom or side of a tray (solid bottom or ladder) shall be one inch." Figure 5.1 of liRC Reg. Guide 1.75 identifies two trays, one on tcp of the other. In order to use the one inch minimum guideline, figure 5.1 specifies a solid bottom tray. k*e question whether a conduit passing under or to the side of a tray should fall under the se=e criteria. It see=s a solid bottom tray should be used in addition to other requirements concerning the top of the tray. Per ES-100 it is per=issible to route an A Train conduit one inch from the bottom of a B Train ladder tray. However, if a cable is air dropped from that tray within 3 f t. horizontally of the A Train conduit, a separation violation exists. We feel this example show possible incensiscencies between ES-100 and the intent of
) Regulatory Guide 1.75.
Startup requests engineering evaluace the situation and respond with the design philosophy that per=its the installation of raceway as described.
/ -
i j T. P. Miller ; TPM/Ki.L/DAI gr ec: R. E. Camp M. R. McBay 1 EPOSm0N EXHIBIT d D/SC - } h F-P
) I e a
( ch CONW 4 I
l T , 4. _. " .
' ~
~
-m l
l Gibbs 2 Hill. Inc. ' l 11 Pom Plaza New trk, Now wrk 10001 l ' 212 760- 4438 Teter: Domeste:127636/968694 Intememal:425813/D4475 ' A Draw Company '
"2C5C2] 3Y 2C200Pli,2
/
/ ,9 3 - d' 9l January 23, 1984 GTN-68375 Texas Utilities Generating Company Post Office Box 1002 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Attention: Mr. J. B. George Vice President / Project Gen. Mgr.
Gentlemen: TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING C'OMPANY COMANCHE PEAK STEMi ELECTRIC STATION G&H PROJECT NO. 2323 CABLE SEPARATION SPECIFICATION 2323-ES-100 REF: SU-83968 DTD 12/19/83 In response to the questions raised in the referenced memorandum, we would like to point out the following:
- 1. IEEE 384, 1974 and Regulatory Guide 1.75 provide very specific criteria for separation between cable trays but no specific criteria is provided for separation between conduits and cable trays. In developing the { .
separation details currently in ES-100, it was recognized that conduit provides a raceway medium which effectively isolates internal events from the external surroundings. f In this regard, a conduit system provides enclosure i integrity far superior to that of enclosed tray with } covers and/or solid bottoms and splice plates between I sections. Therefore, the same criteria required by the I Standard and Regulatory Guide for trays, need not be _s j
'g> j G 1 EPOSITION l
XHI5li 1 Dravo 1 Q) S C. _ s l
. t h: N <
. . _ . . . . . . - - . . . . -- . - ---. .~. ... - . ..
1
- . . . . . . . . - - ~
,e
- Gibbo S Hill,Inc.
GTN 68375 January 23, 1984 l arbitrarily applied to' conduits. The' separation require-ments in ES-100 only pertain to those cases where potential-hazards are limited to. electrically initiated fires. ' Thus, in many instances, conduits satisfy the Standard's requirements for a barrier *. on this basis, a conduit has- ' been considered'to be an effective barrier whenever it is at least 1-inch away from circuits or. raceway'of a dissimilar train and:
- a. It contains no Class lE.or associated circuits, or,
- b. It does not traverse directly above or in front /
behind a horizontal or vertical tray, respectively, of di,ssimilar train. ' All separation details provided in ES-100 follow the above criteria.
*IEEE 384 defines a barrior as - "A device or structure
} interposed between Class 1E equipment or. circuits and a potential source of damage to limit damage to Class 13 systems to an acceptable level."
2. We find no inconsistency between ES-100 and Regulatory Guide 1.75 for the reasons stated above. Circuits in trays located above conduits pose no hazard to circuits in the conduit by virtue of their orientation (i.e., above the conduit). Conversely, circuits in the conduit j pose no hazard to the circuits in the tray due to the 1 conduit acting as a barrier.- Cables, while in raceway, maintain a spe~cific orientation with respect to external circuits and raceway. When cables are air-dropped, there is no assurance that cable separation or orientation will be maintained. Thus, effectiveness of the conduit as a barrier may be compromised. The intent of Regulatory Guide . l 1.75 is therefore criteria are observed. considered to be satisfied when these 1 . DravT . i 6
m;;.r c. .._ _ ~ . .. .. .. . - . . . . - - - - .- . - - - . - u~ jl 1 Gibbs S Hill. inc. ' I GTN48374 : January 23,-.1983 j If we'can.be of any additional. assistance, please contact this office. ' Very truly..yours, ( GIBSS-& HILL, Inc.
~
.Y.
Robert E. Ballard,-Jr. ~
' Project Manager
.W ~q, REBa-PNL-SPM:lc ,
1 Letter CC: ARMS (B&R Site) OL ' N.McBay (TUSI Site) . IL
- H. Deem .(TUSI. Site) lL.
AI.Vogelsang . (TUSI Site) .lL -(telecopied) i L.Popplewell (TUSI Site) lL
}y;,'.;,<..<-,.n1 i: o.: <
FEB 6.1954 .{ TUSI - ELEC.ENG. ; 1 i 1
)
g l Orav5 ~ i i l i 1
1 FOOT 1 FOOT
. , MIN. _, ,_ MIN. *
)
i I
. 'A' DIVISION
- v///in u o usu/u usiussw/n BARRIER ,
1 INCH MIN.
'B' DIVISION A<
1-
'A' DIVISION <.
v////////u///su/n////////A y BARRIER 1 INCH MIN. _1 FOOT MIN. FOR PAR. 5.L3 7 7
~
-3 FEET MIN. FOR PAR. 5.1.4
'B' DIVISION VIEW A.A EXAMPLE 0F ACCEPTABLE ARRANGEMENT FOR REDUNDANT CABLE TRAY CROSSINGS WHERE VERTICAL SEPARATION DISTANCE CANNOT BE MAINTAINEC Figure 5.3 1.75 11 6
e
e 1 J
~e r e
e 1 FOOT IFOOT MIN. MIN. IINCH SOLID COVER MIN.
'A* DIVISION I
'B' DIVISION e
EXAMPLE OF ACCEPTABLE ARRANGEMENT FOR REDUNDANT CABLE CROSSINGS WHERE VERTICAL SEPARATION DISTANCE CANNOT BE M Figure 5.4 l I i
. 1 e
i t ; [ i l
% 1.75 10 '
. . . . .. - ..~
J
; r 1 INCH MIN. .
l 'A' DIVISION l SDLID TRAY { _
.A. DIVISION h 1 CH
<xexwwswxs%
BARRIER T. SOLID TRAYORCOVER I I
'8' DIVISION 'S' OfVISION 6 INCH MIN.
OR TO WALL EXAMPLE OF ACCEPTABLE ARRANGEMENT WHERE VERTICAL SEPARATION DISTANCE CANNOT BE MAINTAINED Figure 5.1
') '
1 FOOT MIN. - p SQL!D TRAYS AND COVERS TO CEILING
~~
I I I I ;
'A' OfVISION 'B' DIVISION 'A' DIVISION $ 'R' DIVISION 1 INCH MIN.
4 EXAMPLE OF ACCEPTABLE ARRANGEMENT WHERE HORIZONTAL SEPARATION DISTANCE CANNOT BEM AINTAINED Figure 5.2 l l 1.*S 9 .
CLASS IE SYSTEM 1 DIVISION A #
. s
, ISOLATION f f DEVICE i -
/ -LJ CLASS lE ASSOCIATED CIRCUITS
/ N r> .
, y .
1
)
NON W SSlE " NON CLASS CIRCUITS CIRCUITS I f l MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE, BARRIER, OR DISTANCES DEMONSTRATED TO BE ADEQUATE EXAMPLES OF ACCEPTABLE CIRCUIT ARRANGEMENTS Figure 4.0 1.75-8
- e
- .~ . . . . ...
e ., he sia inches. Wherever the abave seoaration Where redundant Cass IE :nstrum:nts ars located m distances are not mamtamed. barners should be separate compartments of a smgle cabmet, attention mstalled between redundant Can IE wtrms. =ust be given to routmg of external cabies to the instrutnents to assure that cable separat2on 15 L 5.s.3 Inomes Wiring identariastion retamed. .
. I Can IE wire bundles or cables intemal to the In locating Cass IE instrument cabmets, atte'ntion control boards should be identtfied in a distract must be given to the e6ecs of all'pertmarn dem permanent rnanner at a sufr2cient number of points -- bass events. ,
to readily distingmsh between redundant Cass IE systems and between Cass IE and non.Cass IE 5.8 senans and sensoeoom: Nnemens
*Y" ' **'
Redundant Cass IE sensors and their connections to the process system should be sufficiently separated 5.6.4 Conwnon Terminscions that funcional capability of the protemion system will be. mamtamed despite any singie design basis Where redundant Cass IE circuits are terminated on event or result therefrom. Consderat on should be a common device, the provisions of paragraph 5.6.2 given to secondary effects of design basis events should be met. such as prpe whip, steam release, radiation, s.nd missiles. 5.6.5 Non. Class IE Wiring Ltrge components such as the reamor vessel can be ^ Non.Cass IE wirsc5 not separated from Cam IE considered a suitable barrier if the sensor 4o. process wirms by the rruntmum separanon distance connectmg imes are brought out at widely divergent (determmed in paraneph 5.6 :) or by a barrier . pomts and routed so as to keep the component should be treated as asoc:sted circuits in between redundans lines. Redundant pressure taps accordance with the requirements of 43. located on oppoute s2 des of a large ptpe may be consadared to be sepmtert by the ptpe, but the lines leavmg the taps must be protened agamst damage 5.6.6 Cable Entrance from a credible common cause unless other
' redundant or divene instrumen:ation is provided.
# Redundant Cass IE cables entenr:g the control board enclosure should meet the requ2rements of 5.9 Actusred Eauipment **
Secuon 5.1.3. 1.ocanons of Cass IE ac:uated equipment such as 5.7 Instrument Cabinets pump drive motors and valve operstmg motors are normally dict:ted by the location of the drn The separation requirements of 5.6 apply to eq uipment. The resultant loccuons of tL instrumentation cabtnets. In addition, redundant equipment must be Teviewed to ensure that Cass IE instruments should be located in separate separation of redundant Cass IE actuated cabinets or compartments of a cabinet. equipment is accep:able. i 9 i e - l 1 1 l l l i 1.75 7 ! i e
5.1.1.; or, wnere the ronditions cf 5.1.1.3. ire met. 5.4.2 Motsr Contree Cent:rs should be three feet 8 betwsen trays separated
. hortaontally and five 8 feet between trays separated -
vertically. If, in addition, high. energy electric Redundant Cass IE motor control centers should be equipment such as switchgear, transformers, and physically separated .in accordance with ' the -
, rotating equipment u escluded and power cables are requ rements ofSection 44.
installed in enclosed raceways that qualify as :> hamers, or there are no power ables.the mmimum *i.*r' separation distance may be as specified in 5.1.3. 5.4.3 Distribution Panets : Where p! nt arrangements preclude maintairung the muumum separation distance, the redundant Redundant Class IE distribution panels should be-circuits should be run la solid enclosed raceways physically separated in ' accordance - with . the that qualify as barriers, or other bamers should be . requirements of Semion 44. provided between redundant circus The matrium
- distance between - these redundant enclosed raceways and between barriers and raceways should-be 1 inch.' Figures 5.1, 5.2. 5.3. and 5.4 illustrate 5.5 Containment Electriest Penetrations examples of acceptable arrangements of barners and solid enclosed raceways where the . rummum Redundant Clam IE containment electrical 1 separation distance cannot be mamtsined, penetrations should be physically separated in accordance with the requirernents of Seenon 4.0.
5.2 Standby Power suppey . Compliance with 44 will generally require . that - redhndant pensuances be widely dispersed around - 5.2.1 Standby Genersting unit: , the cateumference . of the contaminernc The ; minimum - phyncal separanon . for redundant Redundant cas IE standby generating umts should penetranons should . meet the .reo.arements for ' be located in separate safety ciass structures and. cables and raceways siven an Secuan 5.1.4. should have independent aar supplies. Non.Cas IE ' circuits routed ' in. penetrations 5.2.2 Auxiliaries and Loose controis contaming Cass IE circats should be treated'as [ associated circuns in accordance w th the The auxilianas and local controls for redundant reqintements of Section 4.5. " standby generstmg urus should be located in the same safety class structure as the umt they serve or should be physically separated in accordance wnh- 5.6 Main Control Boores the requirements of Secuon 44. BJ DC System 5.5.1 1.osstaan and Arrangement 5.3.1 Saueries The main control boards should be lomtett'in'a
- control room wnhur a safety class structure. The Redundant Cass IE batteries should be placed in - control room should be protected from ar.d should separate safety clam structures. Where ventilstaan is required these safety clam structures should be not - contain lugh. energy equipment " such as served by independent ventiation systems. switchgear. transformers, 'rotaung souipment, or
. potennal sources of massdes or pipe wnip.
5.3.2 Senery Chargers 5.E.2 Internal separotion Battery chargers for redundant Cass IE batteries - should be physielly separated in ac:ordance with ~
- i. the regarements of Section 44. The minimum separation distance '. . between redundant Cam lE eqtapment and treuns miernal -
5.4 Distribution System to the control boards can be estabiashed by analysis of the proposed mstallation.Unis analyus shouid be 5.4.1 Swnsheser based on tests performed .to determme the-flame. retardant charactenstus of the wiring, wiring mater ais, equ:pment. and other r.sterials internal Reduncant Cass !E distribution swnchgear groups should be phyncally separated in accorcance with to the ' control board. Where the control board the requirements of Secuon 4D. materials are flame retardant and analyss is not performed. the mmimum separation distance should
~_.
1.75 6 *
.ncepencence of recunc:nr Cus 15 synems a The method of ident:Ecation used to ent the {
mamtamed at an accep:aole level. The ab3ve requirem:nts should readily datmgush ; separaten of Cass IE circuits and equipment between redundans Cass IE systems, assoc:sted l
~
snould make effective use of festures mherent c:rcuits assigned to redundant Cass IE divmons, and 1 in the plant design such as usmg different non.Cass IE systems. The preferred method of { rooms or opposzte sides of rooms or areas, identification is color coding. except that the use of opposite sides of rooms 's or areas does not cor:stitute separation if such 5.1.3 Cable Screadir'g Area and Main Corrtrol Room ' rooms or areas are confined or otherwise , inspable of diss:patmg the heat generated from The cable spreading area is the spac-(s) adjacent 'o a first cable tunnels are exampics of such the control room where instrumentation and I conOned areas. , control :mbles converge pner to entenng the i control, termmation, or instrument panels. Where 5.1.1.2 In those areas where the damage potential te feastble, redundant cable spreadmg areas should be limited to failures or faults internal to the utnized. electncal equipment or c:rcuits, the m:nimum separatton distance can be esublished by The cable spreading areafs) and main control room ) analyus of the proposed cable mstallation.This should not contain h2gt..ene:Ty equipment such as ' ar.afyss should be based on tests performed to switchgear, transformers, rotatmg equipment, or determme the brne. retardant charactenstics of potenttal sources of missiles or pipe wtup and the proposed cable installation c':msidermg should not be used for stonns f.ammable matenals. features such as cable msulation and jacket Circuits in the cable spreading areafs) and mam matenals. cable tray 511 and cable tray
- control room should be limited to control arrangement. functions, instrument functions, and those power supply c:rcurts and facilities servmg the control 5.1.1.3 The mmimum separation distances spe:afied m. room and mstrument systems.
5.lJ and 5.1.4 are based on open ventcated trays. Where these distances are used to provide Power supply feeders to instrument and control adequate phyncal separation: room distnbution panels should be insulled in
- a. Cable splices m raceways should be enclosed raceways that qualify as barriers. The prohibited: mmimum separat2on distance between redundant
( b. Cables and raceways mvolved should be Game retardantt Class IE cnble trays should be determmed by 5.1.1.2 or, where the conditions of 5.1.IJ are met should
- c. The design bas:s should be that the =ble be one foot 2 between trays separated hon:entally trays will not be Illied above the side rails; and three feet between trays separated vemcally, and Wh ere termination arra ng e ments preclude
- d. Hz=rds should be limited to fantes or mamtammg the minimum separation disance. the faults mtemal to the electne equipment or redundant circuits should be run in enciosed cables. raceways that qualify as barners, or other barners if lesser separation distances are used they should be provided between redundant c:rcusts.The should be established u in 5.1.1.2. minimum distance between these redundant enciosed raceways and between bansers and 5.1.2 identification raceways should be one inch. Figures SJ,5.2. 5J, and 5.4 i!!ustrate examples of ac=eptable i Exposed Cass IE raceways should be marked in a arrangements of barriers and solid enclosed distina permanent manner at intervals not to raceways where the mmimum separsuon disunce exceed 15 feet and at points of entry to and exit cannot be mamuined. !
from enclosed areas. Cass IE raceways should be . j marked prior to the installation of the:r cables. 5.1.4 General Piarea sen i t Cables instn' led in these raceways should be marked in plant areas from which potental hacards such as ' in a manner of sufficient dtcability and at a mastics, extert:a! fires, and pipe wiup are excluded, ! su Tl=ent number of pomts to facilitate fruttal the minimum se paration distance between venfication that the installation is in conformance redundant c:ble trays should be dete mmed by , with the separation entena. These cable markmss ! should be applied pnor to or during installation. 1 Cass IE cables should be identined bIa Eermanent " " "**'** *'*" " "'" " " *" * ***** " *8 #
- tray to the sde ratt of the aducent trar.' Vertical separanon as' rnarker at each end in accordance with the design musured from the bonom of the top tray to the top of the side drawmgs or c.ble schedule. rast of the bottern tray, s.
- 1.75 5 -
i,
. 1-4.1 Raouiroc Se:aranon d:cument providec n does nat assm become associated with a Class IE system, or separation should be prended to maintain the
- c. they should be analyzed or tested . ic mdependence of sufficient numoers of cremts and equipment so that the protective funcions required demonstrate that Cass IE creuits ne not degraded below an acceptable level.
durmg and followmg any design basis event can be accomphshed. The degree of separation reqmred NOTE: Preferred power supply c:rcuits fehm the vanes with the potenttal hazards m a particular area. t:3nstmsnon networic and those si6. flat power' supply c2rcuits from the.urut generator that 4.2 Equipmem and Crevits Requiring Seoaretion become assocated cremts solely. by their connemfon to the Cas IE distribution system Equipment and creuits requirms separation should input terminals are exempt from the be determmed and delineated early in the piant requirements of semion 4.5.(This exemption is desgn and should be identified on documents and drawings m a distinct ve rnanner. firmted and does not extend to other requirements such as those of General Design 4.3 Methods of Separation Cntenon 17.) 4.6 Non. cans IE creuits
- The sepassten of circuits and equipment should be achieved by safety clas structures, datance, or Non Cass IE circuns should comply with etther barners, or any combination thereof. In general. 4.6.1 or 4.6.2 locatmg redundant caremts and equrpment in separate safety clan strumures affords a gre:ter degree of amurance that a smgle event wd! not 4.6.t.a. The Non.Cass IE =rcuns should be separated .
affect redundant systems Therefore.this method of from Cass IE creuns by the mirumum separation should be used whenever fennbie and separation reqtarements spectiied in sections 5.1.3. 5.1.4. or 5.6.2. and when its use does not conflict wnh other safety obje=2ves. 4.6.1.h. The nono.aas IE cr=nts should be separated 4.4 Compatibility with Mechanical Systems from assoc 2ated circuits by the mmimum separ:tici requirements spectfled in sections
) 5.1.3. 5.1.4. or 5.6.2 or the effects of lesser The separation of Cass IE crremts and equipment should be such that the required mdependence wdl separation between t'e Non. Class IE circuns not be comprorrused by the failure of mechamesi and the anoctateri cir uns should be analyard systems served by the Casa IE systems. For to demonstrate that the can IE ciremts are not degraded below an acceptable leve!.
ext.mpie, Cass IE circuits should be routed or protectea such that failure of related mechanical 4.6.2 equipment of one redundant system cannot disable The nonc.au IE cremts should be treated es Cass IE circuits or eqtapment essential to the amocated crcuns.
~
. operation of the other redundant system (s). 4.7 Documerrsetion of Analyses 4.5 Assomated Greuim Analyses performed in accordance with 4J.c and Associated creuns should comply with one of the " 4.6.1.b. should be subnutted as part of the Safety following: Analysis Report and should uterrtify theer etrcuns
- a. they should be uniquely identtfied as such and installed in accordance with these sections.
should remam with or be sepsrated the same as those Cass IE circuns wnh which they are . 5.0 SPECIFIC SEPARATION CRITERIA amocasted! they should be subject to all 5.1 Cables and Raceweys reqintements placed on Can IE crcuits such as cable derstmg, ertvironmental quahfication. S.1.1 General flame retardance, splieng restnenons, and raceway (111. unles it can be demonstrated that the absence of such requirements could not 5.1.1.1 The routmg of Cass IE c:rcuits and loc: tion of sigmficantl equipment served by these Cass IE crcuns. IE creuns.y or reduce the availabdity of the Cass should be reviewed for exposure to potential
- b. they should be in accordance with 4.5.s from hatsrds such as high. pressure pipmg. massles, the Class IE equipment to and including an flammable matenal, flooding, and wirmg that is -
[ ) not (lame retardant. A degree of separation isolation device. Beyond the isolation device, a j c2rcuit a not suejecs to the requirements oithms commensurate with the damage potent:al of the I ha:srd should be provided such that the l'."'5 4
, a. :
j
^
I1 ~\
'.- .j
( - APPENDIX 1 TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.75 PHYSICAL INDEPENDENCE OF ELECTRIC SYSTEMS
)
[ 1.0 SCCPg a cceptable performance regarements of the structures and systems.
! The hcope of thas document is the phyncal.
j independence of the circuats and electne equipment
's I 1
compraing or asociated with the Cass IE power 3.8 Ensiosure *
.'e l synems, the protection symem. systems actuated or '
- An identifiable housmg . such as ' a cubicie,L controlled by the protection system, and auxiliary compartment, termmal box. panel, or' enclosed-or supporting systems that are essential to the raceway used for electical eqmpment or cables. :
operation of these sysems. This document. sets - j 1 forth cntena for the separation of circuits and . 17 Flame Retardant . squipment that are redundant. The determmation of which ciremts and' equipment are redundant and Capable of preventing the propagation of a ' fire the degree of redundancy reqmred is outside the beyond the area of influence of the energy source - scope of this document. that instated the fire. 3 3.0 PURPOSE 3.3 lealetion Devise The purpose of this document is to delineate A dewce m a ciremt which prevents malfunctions in n 'I acceptable methods of complymg with .the requirements of IEEE Std 791971 and General 'one r,ection of a circus l' rom causang unacceptable - I Design Cntena 3,17. and 21 with respect to th' imiuences in other sections of the caretat or other physical mdependence of the circuits and electne
. ciremta. (Interruptmg dewcas ' actuated by. fault .
equipment withm the scope of this document. . current are not considered to be isolation devicss
. withm the context of thas docannent.)
3.0 DEFINITIONS 3,3 g ,,,y
't.1 Aeoeptable
) Any channel that is designed and used expressly for Demonstrated to be adequate by the safety analyss . SupPortmg wires, cables, or. busbars. Raceways of the stauon. consi8t Pnmarily of, but are not restricted to.cabl.t trays and conduits.
3.2 Assoasted CIreuses 3.10 ' Redundant Essuipment or syneem Non Can IE circuns that share power supplis, enclosures, or raceways with Cas IE ciremts or are . An equipment or system thar duplicates the-not phyncally separated from Cass IE circats by maential funcnon of another equipmsas w symem acceptable separation distance or barners. to the emess that other may perform the respared function .regardles of the mate of operation or 2.3 Barner failure of the other. A device or structwe inte posed between Can IE 3.11 sefety Clas strueswas equipment or circuits and a potential source of damage to linus damage to Cass IE symem to an Structwas designed to protest Cam 1E equipment I. seceptable level. against the affects of the . design basa eventa. For purposes of this doeurnent, separate safety class l 3.4 Cla m it i structures can be: separate rooms in the same . j The afety classificauon of the electne equipment buzidin5. The rooms can share a comrnon wall. i j and systems that are esential to emergency reactor 3.12 Separaten Distance shutdown, containment isolauon, reactor core - cooling, and contamment and reactor heat removal. Space wahout interposir:g structures, equipment. or or are otherwas essental in preventmg sigmfacant release of radioactive metenal to the environment, matenais that couid aid in the propagation of fire or that could dissole the Cass IE system.
) 3.5 Design Basis Events 4.0 GENERAL SEPARATION CRITERIA ' '
Postulated events spectiled by the Safety Analysis of the station used in the design to establuh the a Fews 4.0 shows examples of scorpinois - cucus - arrangements.
\
1.75 3 o
. . .. v f. ,
. s.
Jamst Dir ir a loysoal attenson of the standad's 11. Secuan 5.1.2 should be supplemented as followst
, provssons. De spec #iaf mmunum acceptable separation s
durances for raceways omrrymr C7 ass IE etemts at "The method of identificanon.used should be urnple
" and should preclude the need to consult any reference-predicerad en assurnpnons related to flame retadance.
matenal to disanginsh Wtween Class (E and Non.C.'ans' cable darstar. etc. The placement of cablar of lassar IE circuiu. between Nonc. ass IE circutts associ.ated, quahflestion in' these raceweys would inallify these with different redundant Class.IE systens, and between asnamprions. redundant Class IE systems."
- 5. The " Note" foBowing Section .4.5 should be 12. Pending issuance of other acceptable criteria. those supplemented as follows: "This exempnen is lirruted and d aos not extend to other requirements such as those of peruons of Secnon 3.1J (exclustve of the: NOTE General Desip Critence 17." followmg the second paragraph) that permit the rouang of power cables through the cable spreading ares (s)and.
by implication. the contro! room, should not be
- 6. Analyses performed in accordance with Sections construed as acceptable. Also. Seccon 5.1.3 should be 4.5(3) 4.6.2. and 5.1.1.2 should be submitted as part of suppiernented as follows: **Whose fassbia, redundant the Safety Analysis Report and should identify those . cable spreadmg areas should be unlized."
circuis installed in accordance with these sections. . Assist Dis is a prudent speer/le interpretaziorr of the Basis: Extension ofAnguietary Guide 1.70 to proride sagnded's prevaions in the absence of specific pidance. the informanon neated in order for- the staff to De Reguin:ory traff _ ecognces that. sabsequent ' independastly sartfy enforweence to the saanded. invesistanon nasy- prove nur Unit &ed it too conaermanre: ' howerar. un the absence of scopornnt
- 7. NonC. ass IE lastrumentance and control ciremts - erufener to the contrey, this consarmare approa should not be exempted from the provisions of Socion desusble.
4.6.2. The use ofradundant able spreadingeens is a logical Bans: There is no firm technical basis for an extensson of the standed's prortsions '(ref. Stenon . unrestnered ersmptwn of thase circuits. Exemptiont 5.1.1.1). should bepsttfled by analysu. .
- 8. Section 5.1.1.1 should not be construed to irr. ply that 13. No significance should be attached to the different l adequate separanon of redundant crcutu ma be tray widths t!!ustrated m Figure 2.
achieved within a condned space such as a cable tunnel that is effecovely unvenulated. 14. Secnon 5.2.1 should be' supplemented :s follows:
"And should have independent att supplies."
- 9. Section 5.1.1.3 should be supplemented as follows:
"(4) Cable splices in raceways should be pronibited." 13. Where ventilanon is required, the separate safety <
Jasart Splicar here been adentr/iad nr the istiering class suuctmes requand by Secnon 5.3.1 'should be cause of several fires in raceways. Even what the served by independent ventilation systems. separataan distance is adequate to prevent a ftre in the racewers of one dirision from affecting embler in a 3g, gy , g ,,g p,,,,7,pg g 5 ,,; ,, $,y ,g ,,g4 y , ratundant dkinon. 40 practicable meant shoedd be used ' augmented as follows: "The separanon requirements of-to prerent the occurrence ofepre. Dis posstwn assusst . $,5 ,pp;, ,, g,,,7,,,,g,aa, ,,y,,,,,- splices a recewqrt is therfore prudent. Splicer me not, by thernsekes, unacceptable. If they cent. the resultmt O. supi.EMENTAT10N - i daarn skandd be jusrsflat by analyset. The aanlyses shosdd be subnuttad as part of the S.:fety Analysst i Report. . 1
. The purpose of this section'is to provide informanon
- 10. Section 5.1.2. the phrase "at a sufficient number of to applicans and licensees refarding Jhe Regulatory !
staff's plans for unlinns this regulatory guide.- poma" should be understood to mean at intervals not to i exceed 5 ft throul out h the enure esbie length. Also the - This - guide reflecu current regulatory pracuce. i Therefore. except a thces ases in wiuch the sophcant i preferred method of mariang cable is color coding. Batu: That it e logical extenswn vf the standard's proposes an acceptable alternauve method for com. 1 piymg with spea5ed poruons of the Comnusuon's ' prowsmont. A J ft marsmum maricar distaner & regulanons. this guide will be used by the Regulatorv. l
) conadsred necessary to facilitate resual rert/icanon that staff in evaluaung all constra a permit septicanons the esble mstallation as a conformance with seperation ,
cnterin. for which the issue date of the Safety Evaluacon Report ' is February 1.1974. or after. i i e 1
- t.
- _1_____________._ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _
4 Revision 1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M"'" N r( REGULATORY GUIDE
;; EPOSITION XHIBIT k
REGUI.ATORY GUIDE 1.75 l ^% PHYSICAL INDEPENDENCE OF ELECTRIC SYSTEMS A. INTRODUCTION auxthary or supporting systerns that must be operable for the protenson system and the systemsis acn:ates to Section 50.552. " Codes and Standards." of 10 CFR perform their safety.related funcnons. His ginde applies Part. 50. "Ucensmg of Produedan and Utilization to all types of nuclear power plants. Faclities." requires in paragraph (h) that protection systems meet the reqturements set forth in the Insnture c
,,. , B. DISCUS 1:ON of Decmcal and Ecctro:ues Engmeets Stac dard. 1,. :.
"Catena for Protecnon Systems for Nuclest Power Draft.IEEE Standard. "Crite=a for Separation of Generanng Stanons."(IEEE 79P. Secden 4.6 of IEEE . ; Cass IE Equipment and Creuits." dated haly 20.1973.
Std 279 1971 (also designated ANSI N42.71972) - was prepared by Ad Hoc Subcomrruttee 6 of the Nucinar requires,in part,1st channels that provide signals for - Power Engineenns Comfruttee (NPEC) of the Insatute the same prottenve function be independent and phymently separated.. General Demp Cdterion 3. "Fim of Ecenical and Sectronits Enaneers. The draft was subsequently modified by NPEC in August 1973 Protection." of Appendix A. " General Deng Critena incident to the normal process of developmg its I for Nudear Power Plants." to 10 CFR Pan 50 requires, tedmcal content. The modified draft standard provided in prt, that structures. ' systems, and components entena for the separanon of redundant Cass IE importr.nt to safety be-dengned and located to equipment and cremts mstalled at nuclear power plants. r runuce. conustent with other safety requirements the Inasmuch as there was an urgent need for expiict probaothty and effect of fires. General Demp Cntenon gtndance m the area of pnysica! independence of eiesme
- 17. "Eccmc Power Sptems." regares.in par... that the systems and in view or the considerable guidance already onnte electric power supplies, inchiding the battenes, and the onnte electne distnbunon system have svatlable from the modified IEEE drait standard. de Regulatory staff prepared a document entitled."Appen.
suffi=ent independence to perform their safety func-dix 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.75-Physicalladependencs cons assummg a smgle failure. General Demp Critenon of Bectric Systems." Dis Appendix, wnich was
- 21. "Proteccon System Reliability and Testability." e:sencally the modi 5ed f*" draft standard furier reqintes, in part, that independence designed into modified to (a) address acceptably those pornons of the proteccan systems be suff1=ent to ensure that no single failure resul:s in loss of the protecnon function. This standard on which there was not enmplete agreement.
(b) desenbe logical exte:sions of the standard's ginde desenbes a method acceptable to the Regulatory staff of complymg with IEEE Std 2791971 and Critena provtsions dat were acceptable to the Regulatory staff, 3.17. and 21 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 with and (c) provide clanfication where necessary, was endorsed by de February 1974 version of this gmde. respect to the phyncalindependence of the cremts and eiecme equipment compnang or assocated with the Subsequent to the issuance of the Febnary 1974 version of this guide, the modi 5ed IEEE draft standard Cass IE power system. the protecuon system. syste:rs upon which te guide and its Appendix were based actuated or controlled by the protecnon system, and evolved.in the normal cburse of standard development, into 1EEE Std 3841974. "!EEE Trial.Use Standard t Criteria for Separanon of Cass IE Equipment and Capes may be obtained from tne Insatute of Deemcaland Creuits." (aho designated ANSI N41.14). IEEE Std Doctrorum Enstn.ers. thna instneenng center. 345 East 47tn aB41974 has undergone balloung within Ad Hoc Sueet.New Yort.New Yort 10017. Subcommittee 6 and NPEC and was approved by de
) essae aacut.arony cuiots ca - . o. e
.. n . ,. . w.s . - . ,.oc.= mss.
. .m . ..e ,.
.. a .-o..,s. o c ,,
c.. . ,
. ... . . . . . . s c -
. vs_
..- c
.. o
. , .oc. muss. o . s .
o...a.......c
. . . . . .. n,,,,,.,,,.,,.,,.,,,,
- t. __
t an rm a v. t.
. 1 N .a.a
. . - . am . - .a. # a. o..i a a .
.-s. eu .-
i
. s. a-Specification 2323-E3-100 SEPARATION SE2TCI '3"
.ff,1980 i
Pade 4-42 i a f SCL:3 CCVER N ^
* "RA3 3 CON:UIT t _ . .
g ,y g _ , - . i s s . l M gu 3At RE C:2E5 1 yW $~ # ~ ( "SCL:3 C.MU A A r ,
]3- TEr3 dis;ANCE *3 ;
,h 3 h h .. ] U - LE33 TEAN8 0 as ~ :- (a) 3'0' in General I; a 7, &p" TRA3 A T3AT' -Pla=t A=sa m= g LaDCER CR
$E -
"~; SCL:3 BC..Ori (b) 2' 0" in Cable -
g= -* Sp=sading A=ma s" g a src=:cN "A" (c) With Solid Covahs Afrim*EIf? d, u 4' Acceptable' -
- Mis. , 6, M#iMMF% dC Prefa==ed. See l'M2ii!E ". .
. Plan f== mis.
INS $15# t: Length of Cover.
; PLAs x-1 "PA3 A T2AY Prv, M
sCL.o COVER
. ,)
O 3 c J> e t l t _ j' A PA 3 A :sAr LAccEx ca scL 3 TRAIN 3 *
- 3N ,
CONDU:T l
. RECU:235 SCL:3 COVER CN . i m musumumme:mussa TRAT U "EZ DISTANCE 23 1 LESS TEAN:
I
. (a) . 3 '-0* in General ,
Plant Arma
~
(b) 2'-0* in Cable
- Sp=sadi=g A=sa (c) With sclid e=ver -
l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ __ l
l Gibbs & E111, Inc. SEPARATION SKZTCI "A" Specifica-icn 2323-ES-100 l Revision.2 i oc cber 15, 1980 E Page 4-41 l, TRAIN 3 g TRAIN A OPEN TRAY TRA N A 1" l
.. 4
} .
J <
"AA:N 3 .
1
- gs .
S. g.* . 1" i { UD A
" RAIN C .
TPA:N 3 CONDU.7
, J (
SCL.~2 COVIR CN i TPAY REQU 2Z3 hv:N l VIRT* CAL SEPARA":C:! 23 LZSS THAN: E DER CR SCL 3 ! 30 W M RAY (a) 3'-0" *#*7 TRAIN A CR General Plant ; T3AD1 C #,"" (h) 2'-0" Cable Spreading Area j
) (c) With solid .
cover 4"
' Where practical this acceptable' '
dis.ance shall be 3 da-ke? (ye ,, ) 6' preferrad' (d) See Detail 38 , 4 en Z1-1702-0; fc: iss a13 - .
_)
)
Gibbs & Eill, Inc. Specification 2323-ES-100 Revision 2 3
, October 15, 1980 Page 4-40 (5) Minimum separation between conduits containing power cables (raceway fune:1ons 10, 20, 50, 1G, 20, SG, 1K, 2K,- and;5K) shall not be less than the outside diameter (CD) of the.
largest conduit except as defined below: "he separation criteria as explained above may be waived at ruch points where exposed conduits enter or exit _any equipment or box to 1 a point of 4'0" above or below such equipment. 4.11.3.3 Separation Distance for Cables (1) Where cables are routed in free air to exit and/or enter raceways, the separation requirements between these cables shall be the same as required for cable trays (Paragraph 4.11.3.1). Where minimum physical separation
) cannot be achieved, a barrier, approved by Engineer, shall be provided by the Contractor. EE1 (2) Separation for field run redu= dant cables wi hin equipment shall be maintained in accordance with the specification for Obe equipment, or if no specification, requirements are stated, by 5-inches or by a barrier approved by the Engineer.
)
S E
. :. _ . : .. - ,.2... .. . ....._...~.a .
4 Gibbs & Eills Inc. Specification 2323-ES-100 Revision 2 ' October 15, 1980 Page 4-39 (b) A minimum of.1 foot horizontally and 3 feet ver.ically is required between redundant trays in the cable spreading arma-and-control room. 4.11.3.2 Separation Distance for Conduits
"*he minimum separation distances given berein are'not to be us'ed as "nermal practice", but are to be applied in field routing of. condu:.t only where greater separation cannot _be ebtained.
(1) Minimum separation between conduits having differen: " raceway y* functicas" shall be one.(1)-inch. ~ (2) Minimum separation between a conduit centaining safety related cables and the cp of an open ::ay having c.:.fferen: tra:.s or channe1~ shall ,be 2 ' 0" in eable spreading room and 3'0" in general plant area. . When it is impossible' to maintain his separatics, the distance nay be reduced to 4-inch where a solid. cover is provided (see drawing s2333-El-1702-01 detail 38). When conduit above an open tray c=ntains non safety related cables, the mini =um . separation is ene (1) inch and no tray covers are required.- Minimum separation between a conduit (safety related or non safety related) and a bottom or side of a ::ay;(solid bottem or ladder) shall be one-inch. See Separation Sketches "A"'and "3". (3) Minimum separation of six feet (6'0").shall be maintained between 6.9 kV. conduit (raceway function 10, 1G and'*.K) and nuclear instrumentaiton-system (NIS) c=n:iuits or cable tray (raceway-functions 6R, 6W, 63,.and 6Y.) (4). Minimum separation of two' feet (2'0")'shall he maintained between conduits having raceway functicns 20, 2G'and 2K; 30, 3G and 3K, 50,'5G and 5K; 60, 6G and 6K; 5R, SW, 53, 5Y and nuclear inst'..: mentation system (NIS) conduits or cable tray i (raceway functions 6R, SW 65 and 6Y). Minimum separation cf six feet (6'0") shall be maintained between raceway functions I
) 20, 2G and 2K; 50, 5G and'SK and NIS cables not in cent:it (e.g., near electrical penetrations)..
O 7 e
- Gibbs & E111, Inc.
Specification 2323-ES-100 Revision 2 October 15, 1980 Page *,-3a
- k. Nuclear Inst nmentation System Conduits All exposed nuclear instrumentation system (NIS) conduits shall be installed in accordance with the location shown on the drawings and the criteria specified on drawing 2323-El-0602-03. Field routing or relocation of these conduits shall not be made without a Design Change Authorization (DCA). This requirement applies to all conduits listed in the raceway function table below:
DWG. m* T CLASS S M OL CN namCN s u- O z
~
sa u- O = su 1 u- l @ n: a iz- l c n er The " raceway function" for each conduit is shown on the electrical drawings. "his identification is prefixed by 1, 2, or 0 indicating Unit 1, Unit 2 oo Cc= men, respectively. ! 4.11.3 Separation of Cable and Raceway
. a. "he minimum separation distances regaired between raceways shall be defined as -le " clear air distance" between them.
- b. Where regaired mini =um separation cannot be maintained, barriers shall be provided according to the details shown on the drawings.
) 4.11.3.1 Separation Distance for Trays
., (a) A mininum of 3 feet horizontally and 5 feet vertically is required between redundant trays in plant areas which are free from potential hacards, i.e. =issiles, external fires and pipe whip.
Gibbs & Eill, Inc. Specification 2323-IS-100 Revision 2 october 15, 1980 Page 4-37
- e. In general, when the Contractor relocates a conduit, he shall -
use the space available to obtain the naximum reasonable separation between Class "!I" raceways having differen:
" raceway functions" and between Class "1I" raceways and Non- 4 Class "1I" raceways.
- f. For a given separation distance -(clear air distance) horicental spacing is more effective than vertical spacing.-
Wherever practical, horizontal separation between relocated conduit and other raceway shall be used.
- g. The Contractor =ay change junctica box locations shown on the drawings if interferences or nounting problems exist and also to accommodate field routed conduit locations. Jun= tion boxes, pull boxei, condud-M*
s "d--dngs,.etc., are part of the raceway or condu. system and, therefore are subject Oc the same separation criteria.
- h. Junctics bcxes providing access to e= bedded conduit which requires radiation shielding or firestop natorial shall net be relocated without a Design Change Au-derizatien (DCA) .
- j. Under no circumstances shall the separation (clear air distance) between any raceway or conduit be less than the nininun required by -le separation criteria defined herein.
t l l
,)
0 4
1
) Gibbs & Hill, Inc.
Specification.2323-ES-100 1 Revision 2 October-15,.1980 Page 4-36 Drawings showing exposed cenduits, whether =nduit-location dimensions are shown or not, shall be interpreted as-representing I the suggested conduit routing. This interpretation applies to j
- all conduits listed in the raceway function table below:
DWG. EN CA CLASS STMSCL- CEANNEL RACZWAY FUNC"'!CN **
"u" Train "A** 17,27,37,45,57,67,7J.
. ' M Associated' .
*1E' g Train "3"* 1G,2G,3G,4G,5G,6G f 7G . ,
*3 Associated" .
Ncn "lZ" NONE M ain 'C** 1K,2K,3K,4K,5X,6K,7K
) '13*
Q_ Channel I 4R and 5R
'12" ^=- el II 4W and 5W *-
"1E" @ &=~~el IM 43 4=d 53
*13"
( Channel 27 4T and 5T
]
Lighting system conduits are i=cluded.
** The " raceway function" for each conduit is shown on -le electrical drawings. This identification is prefixed by 1, 2, or 0, indicating Un?.: 1, Unit 2 or Cc=non, respectively.
- b. The contractor shall install the conduit as closely as is practical to the location shown on .he drawings.
- c. Where necessary, the Centracter may deviate from -le cenduit location shown on the drawings where interferences, supper:
difficulties, or e-ler physical problems require a change in ! conduit location. l
- d. Wherever practical, when installing a c==duit, the Contractor shall naintain -le clearances shown on the drawings between
,) the conduit and other raceways. j i
I 8 i
f
. Gibbs &'E111, I=c.
Specification 2323-ES-100 ! Revision 2 ) October 15, 1980 Page 4-35 4.11- SEPARATION CRI~IRIA . I 4.11.1 General The Engineering drawings show-the plant layout such that'it meets ,4 the separation criteria defined in- the document entitled:-
" Criteria for separation of Class II-Equipment and Circuits" submitted to the owner via GTN-2441.- This section provides.the' necessary information for assisting tho' contracto'r -in field
- ,uting the c=nduit, use of tolerancesLfor tray installation and routing of cables in free air without violating'the separation RIV.
criteria. 4.11.2 Field Routing of Exposed Conduits-T a. General Guidelines All exposed conduits, except for Nuclear Instrumentation System (NIS) conduits (raceway functions 6R,16'W, 63 and 6Y) may be field routed, provided the field selected route meets the guidelines and separation criteria defined herein. Exposed conduit for the heat tracing, fire detection and-protection, cathodic protection system, security and communication systems are not considered to be safety related and are classified as "Non II" and shall-be treated as
" raceway function"~K unless otherwise shown on the drawings. '
i
~
e 4 4 e
- s. ..
n
. (' : (.2 . s . r..;
rs 7. r - :* i ~-+ ' V **e (,*(,J .? , , ,u. . . .; '
-,,, ; . . , , 7. 3
(, *,. -nn o ,. s a
- l gvgC L:eAn .. 6. v wn ma;a. yt
- y. -r c a w a r. 7. ,- ,4 : m, . - u N ar
, TEXAS UTILITIIS SERVICIS INC.
AGENT FOR T.~.4AS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY AC*ING FOR DALLAS POWER & LIGE" COMPANY "IXAS I.*.EC"RIC SERVICE COMPANY 5.CCAS PCWER AND LIGET COMPANY CCMANCHE ?EAK S~IAM ILIC RIC STATICN UNITS 1 AND 2 . ELIC"R* CAL ERICTION SFICIFICATION 2323-ES-100 JULY 9, 1976
~
I' dCSkN 55, 598b a 3 R555bb'O N 2 O (TUSI RE: G CE 05499) hj ' En @ EERigG USE O M
""EIS SPECIFICATION INCLU"Is "EZ l INSTALLATION OF SAIITY gELA_w . !
EQUI?.CT l . ; I e- . ; .' p, e"%..(" ] '. 4 .,(.,G 23 .
', t ,s 33 ,
e--.--- e. S g 5 ,;; . ., ..
.: ..= ' :: .r;.' ...2 ,,
..+ .,
. . S [. .-, : '. . )
- _: l 1 56l*$,..q, y . ~"
*' :~
*. . . , . . , u w ,e*/9 -
4 j, _ a .m.n _., ..
' ,f [,,,,l , 'd. , N
% :i !.T't$ :** Y %' a -J j VV
~
e l 1 G .*..:. S a~ ".**.u* ,
. . . ?".~". ~
INGINZIRS, DISIGERS , CONS ~RUC"' ORS NEW YORK, NIW YCRf.t9 S iC 7 D -
@t. 'A. * ;.- @, .'. 'h ;
- 1?!
*J?;*JP I",i./ C. .'
. J .: / 6.4 m e n, % f *4 . = = ..
.r
-. i
\
gg g ggy . TBX-M-1047 ) w a ,i:.o ouss roam m e *:
]
TO CPsts wsr-tscrnttRrna
.m.
m.r.
~
voctr.si m. XLY 11, 1983 ) 71,o .. suoret 7.5 KVA IN7ERTERS * \ 1 l REF: S.O. TEX-386 / CPPA - 31.655 . ._. __ g' .4. ) M , . . _ _ . -- . _. .
. -- g [6#f :
In order to comply with your request in thi referenced letter to evaluate the three transformer failures, it is requested that TUSI provide the following: 1.) A purchase order to cover the costs of a site visit by a Service Engineer.
' - - - '~ ~~
- 2. )~ Access co' the~ f ailed transformer. ~ ~ - '" ~~ '
"~~ ~~
~~ 3.T Detailed irivertor operating history (incluiling loads, ~ ~~ '-
.- . -voltages, scheduled maintenance, etc.) prior to _. .
Because this same style of invertor is in use at many plants with ( much smaller failure races, it is our feeling that there is something
~~ -~ unique in the way the TBX inverters have been operated causing
'the transformer failures ~. -
1
. . . I
(
-- R. L.,y. Moller gg l
. . - - . CPSES ...- . . - - - .. _. . . . . ..
p- _ _ . _.,7,1 _ _._. ._ ._ REC.EIVED . _ l
-- ce;. M. R.~ McBay
' - ~ ~
JIJL 1 D 1c43 ** - J. T. Merritt i L. M. Popplevell *I R. E. Camp ELEC.ENG. j
. , , A. T. Parker C/ / . _.
1 DEPOSITION EXHitti 1
< p/J C :
- m. Comanche Peak Site N f*/0 N.O.D. R. ' . Meller
.x ~r. .m. ,. a i
i j
WNSD - CPSES S.O -?fd D E C !EIVTT g pFPgjl.6 '! TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM dE C ElV Es any Malla . % tinghnoep Site M=nacer c1.n aa T.x , June 29. 1983 gs . To 3.dj.es COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION FERRO-RESONANT TRANSFORMER FAILURES 7.5 KVA INVERTERS - S.0. 386 REF: 1) SU 83392
- 2) TDR 629
- 3) TDR 630
- 4) TDR 1217 We recently experienced failure in three of the four Westinghouse-instrument power supply inverters. The failure of each inverter was due to a grounded secondary winding of Transformer IT (drawing 4950C57, Sheet 4). Our investigation of the matter shows that the loading on the inverters is 40% to 50% and that power input is within acceptable limits. It appears that the problem might be because of defective transformers.
Please evaluate these failures and provide a description of corrective actions that should be taken to mitigate er reduce reoccurrence. 3 If you have any questions or require additional information, please
/ advise.
C/A9 3/f7 W/m W. I. Vcs) 1 sang Area Supervisor Field Electrical Engineering WIV:pg cc: ARMS M. R. McBay. r-J. T. Merritt L. M. Popplen11
. R. E. Camp i i
~
, l y:mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmq EPOSmON l Z. HIBIT
) ,
01.5 C l 1 F - // !
.l l
l BRJ s1699 3 i
~
su-83552 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICEMEMORANDUM To U T h!"l *"
- Gen Rose. Texas Tniv 74. l o R'4 Subject U**H"g W e* 7 9 YV4 T" var **?'
CPPA 31,655- ]
Reference:
CPPA 32,053 T3X-M-1047 Per your request, we have compiled infounation which indicates that the above
=entioned inverters were operated for short periods of time from July 1981 to November 1982. In November 1982, a preoperational test of the inverters was performed. After completion of the preoperational test, the inverters were placed in service supplying power to normal planc equipment. Normal operating amperage required from the inverters was approximately 20 to 35 amps (30 to 55% full lead).
Voltages applied to the inverters were within specified limits.' The 480 volt input vill vary with grid voltage, but due to the high voltage relay, internal DC bus voltage cannot exceed 142 vde without tripping the 480 volt input breaker. Battery voltage on float is maintained at approximately 132 vde and on equalize at not greater than 140 vde. Therefore, internal DC bus voltage is maintained between 132 vde to 142 vde during normal opera'cion. i Routine cleaning and inspection as equired, has been performed on the inverters. If any additional information is re<uired concerning the inverters, please feel free
- o contact Danny L' alter at ext. 790.
Dick Camp
, A REC /TPM/DAL/ 'j g f-2 DEPO 5lil0N )
'pHl8tf DM C- ,
if - Q < c-w/ l I RECEIVFD l
! JUL h 9 3
. u=i ELEC.ENG. 1
,I}}