ML20244A837
| ML20244A837 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/01/1984 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20097F079 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-487 NUDOCS 8906120166 | |
| Download: ML20244A837 (170) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:1 i 4 L* ., o-Kik3* 4 S .e s y ';%. .n,c &. '. Yl%y ;u ..
,5.n,u ,_
w ., mm.. ra ,m s a, _:v m, n &. nm :q .. , y 2 *.,7y , v ., my c
? t 't:s ,4 ,.-
1 o V,W.
%s -
s 1
- ?;' ; 4. a g h,n.. b n w .m
>, ; . 1 9 o b. e, n p,_ i uw;c s v y'
..<J.g;a m w;g .egi gi,.. My,4.pm na ' ;g'
+ e
- e. c. np sme.y n.s<r wsa, a . - .- eQ .a 4 : m .:.3 w 9_:,q ma. p ,o ' ~ um c
+VA ; y:yf f q@m,n 1
.ppy > p_ . qqg g agLm; , , , ., ..
g.>> e g,Q q q m 'g. a ;. p: I [ O2 M;g M d.hPE M 2 m 39915IATOS '[W FW, ( NnggopAggggk yy EY f [g . p* b ' >, L7 S m .m , ., . s ..
- . .1% .. e , ;
@,- <n ~@. - . ~ . .
m th .&. P+ [%) c d, m Ah.-
' m.yAs % .. k '
M 'q %g c:YM. Q- n > ,,
.j,%y;W f yd i4 4>g36d
, j ;
p C .:NT[ y. dg a,;; a;x 3'. e y,Wa g" ; wm n' w.; y, mp:] sh"' O* t .c b , f%;t . , ,.
.. k: . s .n f I y
,s 'e , .
d444 -. 9 A
.t- c X m t,M,e qpM; s ,. . ,Q* y4-% .W .mW . & ; h;
^
r >
+% QDp' q .1 t .q-m,- .r,.p. -ogg[LL,*r a . ,
s -- u c j ' ,' g ., .., , ..g p ' g g:l J M, m
,,' ,.,s _; faIB} A.:. i M[,a . Md[. . w. 4 f 9,,Alb d g *.Q, %. h.
n N&.Ry nW4.Q, ..
,Ms hk((M.[:U) c y f lfQ
.- e -
< im..!;. .' .W,
.,f}'. ~' ' Y M.u -(" ",d'N. ,m
.y.
~
... M S S ~ '
- BIBCTRICt, .,&ylM . 4 ,
,3,.<
d>7%f: l .- . > 2 :.
;4 "gg ..ggggg;qqg g gldhkNd M:Mk Dechet No'50-445 -2' 4
. h W 6 dNj.4%'S @ M 3p M M % h
,cf 50-446-2 Q 7 - f^ N;:Musammaha y % g s tenbem peakSm 33est*As
; a DisN2W epfhf,Q d %f S " ,W ' FF;R < & C/&@
N S y MMM m%g&.p%ss,,[.@W W
,femj,% ggMgy v q:j@g:n egh.Q;fw&:en:y# %$f
,y a%mM , . em'~ey*#j , m:y:gy
' qe w :
a e .. xpm y e$ $t~M (p9j.f z ;;w g y .pm.prfg - > a. c,ya .s a m 4
, .y u w e-gy y:p y , _ m s 0 q.9 yy y -:y+ -
jyyiM py M Nfd;h jMMQ g m}m'kMM %gg:nd@Q , / "@%Qi
, w ,' o a; :gC%yC wD 4
. ,z 4 .
my% q:wgy , fu nr ;
*: N '
Qls,3 y? yQ p%Q 4., w 3%:4w.? ;gws jsw , n J n pg
, wmm i
c, c p@.y:% w M q q}.qd. ..W?:p3 - Q, Bae .~ WM % ~^ nFw y y.fr >' . I x: op a4;3fg:qp; jke, e,g~ W ; C
' d ]y (-yi. MhSNMN@p wg g.L &
n'ya,MdfMM MME eDx ' app
&hs 3
' s.g <y yn % h dq&
. 4..%,64v%KW iO @ &V 4 a aw.; ; M;, w@j&
I
= M .on.~ p w w@df-:* M
, Jguk.5 p g y
%u g O ? ' S f:'
s.
.y wgf %, . l r
- l. :
& m:4: 27
,4o W ,;er. :cqym
- , w
. y ,% . ,, % %. se g
[y( G::/g g,4: 4 a
. af Qg i
. 3:
p4 l -
+
' g@C:p& xf,y,m.
u , N.> ;c ^m u sa x p p, m- R:w:m. 9%. s
- Qy,,7 3.. a.rWV
%g;@s 3,
ot 1u. , y
-lgy ~m;,.[; .?- u
%@g ? l .l i y.
^
- 1w.g
.na .-
m:, ;y wy: >, +
. Mg %ffy% v g'.R - Y *- mp ,
o u 4 c g7,w. - vf 4 ,? meatr 7 ><
,LL+. ': , w,. ).A.y$ . ~a
) ;.: i; .s.W, p, ,
t,vnLp. p f w/ % e .y . n
, c.; y% h
*3 s. , _ u ._., J') J?%'N .mm sms% l .
u,
, Q ,w %p %g % :3 Y "i> N.% . , *
' t .
&e% . f'); #TptNl* I: .a D %r J*
n AbY L: s yy W g%. - 3 m;3 p ~. p ],,9y yp.gy;;, p;g,;.y; qq7 ,
. wm .
, w ~ , . ! au
. qu. n,s:n a ,
y og :y:nmm.te -m.
.m v j; we f t.L W j' s .u
. .x. n,gw,. . ,, w, ,
.:u s py 9
-r b .
{ng rg:yg,,p';, y ,y - (a g , y e'}' _ . ~ 15 Aa s .-wg Y ji
,w
+ &.
- N, L A. .
ng NWT
@,o$$$n:169@hdf@wgw ..
y s w Yh;, ~f
" .n.
W<p+% &.pN, k @,w? in, h..,h:hWt m n a $w;:A_M C D,'i,' " MYs m.
\ -
e. hsw% s . 3 wm,,
,4 l5 8 eW j~ .
&m%nn, q;p; my %.~:A Q
- l. % + +Q, u .x y + y '.m! a . , . _
W D. ' > i n.gsm - \r , '[; n wyw ,
,. y??.l
- ,,- T e
awa_ ,,fw , "y,
,n
,. m,y 3 ~wn*cb:, u - n.M %g n.%' yn:qw.M w%.Vuw i+
n 7 ..
- l ~N.e ; 'wp,,a:t -
a d e. -rc ,M .js>tw gn w nu,'M f ",y + W ^
' y"{'
t .';' i-aff-f % :ed. 'y .... %; % 2
'um
- t& 51 t - W -9 t .r S.^
4 e -
+ * ' W(.- .8'l 5 , '
t W f :f' ' ? ' , ':h 6 i ,/Y .
, _ )A ':v y % ,y h
5 a
)
/
v f _I M V W._.
- . , wm[TAYLOEgTES.e , C. ,
..- g> ,
*eww s ,
. i
?ps..c1 W :n.
cean nae,nnen, ; L. 4
'~ 7 m% 7, a af C w. 1625 i Soest, N.W; Sales 136 ' @' *
'7 9:
. . /, +c m- wesemassen. D.C. ames +
. ganD 3RB 38SB -
n e s ' 4
.m.-.-4 4
. 8906120166 890607 ' PDR FOIA m - -. , HUGE 84-487 PDR .t 3 ', r
, '4:
A.c - 4 ,
75,500 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOT ,
2 ' I i I W 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD 4 I 5 ----------------- In the Matter of: : 6 - TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC : 7 COMPANY, et al. : Docket Nos. 50-445
- 50-446 8 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric :
Station, Units 1 and 2) : 9 -________________ 10 i 11 Glen Rose Motor Inn Highway 67 & FM Road 201 12 Glen Rose,. Texas l 13 - August 1 , 1984 l 14 15 Deposition of: Fre m.ddie. esLeon v Powers
., (IN CAMERA) 16 I
called for examination by counsel for Applicants l l i 17 taken before i Sandra Harden Court Reporter, !' 18 l beginning at 2:27 p.m., ! pursuant to agreement. ' f wl i 21 l' i 22 i ! i i U i 24 l i j i 2 } . i
75,501 1 APPEARANCES: 2 For the Applicants, Texas Utilities Electric Company, .et al.: 3 MARK L. DAVIDSON, ESQUIRE 4 Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, Natthwest 5 Washington, D.C. 20036 6 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff: 7 GEARY S. MIZUNO, ESQUIRE , Office of the Executive Legal Director l 8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 9 l'or the Intervenor, Citizens Association for Sound 10 Energy: 1 11 ANTHONY Z. ROISMAN, ESQUIRE Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, P.C. 12 : 2000 P Street, Northwest, Suite 611 ' Washington, D.C. 20036 13 ' 14 , 5 15 j is 5 IO r E g 19 5 j K)
~ ,
21 [1 22 23 24
\
+
25 e _ _ - - _ - i
75,502 I IND[3 2 WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 3 Freddie Leon Powers 75,504 75,557 -- -- 75,561 4 5 6 7 8 l 9 10 11 I i 12 i I _E _X _H _I _B _I _T _S 13 NUMBER FOR IDENTIFICATION 14 Powers Deposition Exhibit No. 1 75,505
, l i 4 5
15 Powers Deposition Exhibit No. 2 75,603 i
=
[ 16 Powers Deposition Exhibit No. 3 75,603 i 3 > 1 i 18 I i I ,
; 19 ~ i 1 i
20 r l
; 4 1 21 '
i I i 22 23 i i 1 24 l l
, 25 i
i i
- 1 i
- 75,'503 1-P_ R O,C_ E,b,D,I_-N,G S .
2
' 2:27xp.m.
3 MR. DAVIDSON:f For the. record, my name is-4 Mark.L. Davidson. I'm a member of ~ the . firm of Bishop, 5 _Liberman, Cook,.Purcell & Reynolds, attorneys'for Texas-
.6
. Utilities Electric Company, Applicants in these proceedings.'
<7 Appear here:tsday;to-~obtain the direct 8
testimony;of this afternoon's witness, Freddie Leon. Powers. 9 Before'we.begin the' questioning of Mr. Powers,: to however,-I would like to note that this. examination'is to-n be held en camera pursuant to a' protective order negotiated 12 between the parties of this: proceeding and entered.by 13 Chairman of the Licensing Panel, Judge Bloch. 14 And I would also like to ask;the witness 15 whether the fact.that=this testimony and his participation-16 in this hearing,,the subject of the protective order, has 17 been explained to him? 18 THE WITNESS: Yes, it'has.. 19 MR. ROISMAN: HasL the witness been sworn?: 20 MR. DAVIDSON: Will you swear;him in, please? 21 Whereupon, 22 FREDDIE LEON _ POWERS,- 23 having been first duly-sworn, was examined.and testified 24 upon his oath as follows: 2 //
75,504 1 DIRECT EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 3 Q And now, Mr. Powers, with you having been 4 sworn, may I ask you again, was it explained to your that 5 these proceedings and your testimony here are subject to 6 a protective order? 7 A Yes, they have. 8 Q And was a copy of that protective order 9 furnished to you, Mr. Powers? 10 A Yes, it was. 11 Q Mr. P3wers, I'm going to hand you a document 12 entitled " Protective Order" that consists of four pages, 13 and I'll ask you to note that the last page contains your 14 name and what appears to be your signature and yesterday's 15 date and ask you if you recognize that document. 16 A Yes, I do. 17 Q Is that the. protective order you were shown 18 yesterday, Mr. Powers? 19 A Yes, it is. 20 Q And did you execute the same? 21 A Yes, I did. 22 Q And that is your signature? 23 A That is my signature. 24 Q Did you read the protective order before you
, 25 signed it?
75,505 1 A Yes, I did. 2 Q And did you understand the obligation it 3 placed upon you-- 4 A Yes, I did. 5 0 --to maintain confidentiality? 6 A Yes, I did. 7 O And did you freely undertake to accept that 8 obligation? 9 A Yes, I did. 10 Q And do you feel bound by that obligation? 11 A Yes, I do feel bound by it. 12 MR. DAVIDSON: Ms. Reporter, I'd like to mark 13 for identification as Direct Exhibit 1 to the Powers Deposi-14 tion, the identified document, this protective order. 15 And I would like, for the convenience of the 16 Board, to have this document bound into the transcript. 17 l1 4 (The document referred to 18 1 I was identified for the record 19 as Powers Deposition Exhibit 20 No. 1.) 21 MR. DAVIDSON: Off the record. 22 (Discussion off the record.) 23 MR. DAVIDSON: In the brief moment that we-24 were off the record, we had concluded, by agreement among ( 25 the parties to this proceeding, that the protective order
. l ,
i
1 75,506 1 that will be bcund into the transcript will be a copy of 2 the original and that it will be marked Powers Exhibit 1. 3 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 4 Q Mr. Powers, would you be good enough to state 5 your full name, your current employer, and your current 6 position? 7 A My name is Freddie Leon Powers. I am 8 employed by Texas Utilities Generating Company. My present 9 position is Unit 1 Building Manager. 10 Q Mr. Powers, could you please relate to us 11 your educational background? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 I attended college at Texas A & M University. 14 I have a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering. 15 It was confirmed in 1972. 16 I also have a Master's in business administra-17 t tion from the University of Montana conferred upon me in I 18 1976. 19 Q While you were securing your-- or, pursuing 20 your Master of Business Administration course, were you 21 employed? 22 A Yes, I was. I was an officer in the 23 k United States Air Force. 'l 24 Q And what responsibilities did you hold as 25 an officer in the United States Air Force? i { I
75,507 i 1 A I was a nuclear missile launch officer. 2 O Did you receive any training-- 3 A Yes, sir. i l 4 0 --for the.t position? 5 And I would ask the witness to please let 6 me finish gy questions before answering. 7 Did you receive any training for that posi-8 tion? 9 A Yes, sir, I did. I received three intensive lo months of training at Vandenberg Air Force Base in Califor-11 nia. Each month I received recurrent. training and at least i 12 yearly was subjected to standardization testing of the 13 Standardization Division of the Missile Squadron. 14 O And when you mustered out of the Air Force 15 in 19-- Forgive me. What were the dates during which you 16 were an officer in the United States Air Force? 17 A I was an officer September 1972 through 18 June of 1976 19 ! Q And after you mustered out of the Air Force 20 in 1976, sir, what did you then do? a 21 A I was employed by Texas Utilities Services, 22 Incorporated on July the 12th, 1976. f i 23 Q Was Texas Utilities Services, Incorporated I 24 then a subsidiary of Texas Utility Generating Company,
. 25 TUGCO?
1 I I
75.508 1 A Yes, sir, i 2 O Is that company, Texas Utilities Services, ! 3 Inc. , sometilnes known as T-U-S-I or TUSI? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 O And you became employed by them on what date 6 in 19767 7 A July the 12th. 8 O And in what capacity were you employed, sir?
?
9 A I was employed as an associate electrical 10 engineer for a bag house filter project. 11 O And where was this bag house filter project, 12 sir? 1 j 13 A This was at the Monticello Steam Electric 14 Station located near Mount Pleasant, Texas. 15 Q Thank you. 16 And how long were you employed at Monticello 17 Steam Electric Station? 18 A i From July of 1976 through August of 1978 19 Q And then what did you do, sir? ' 20 A I was transferred by TUSI to the Sandow 21 Steam Electric Station located near Rockdale, Texas in 1 1
~
1 72 August of 1978. l ! 23 Q And what were your duties at the Sandow 24 Steam Electric Station, sir? 25 A I was the on-site project electrical engineer
. i
75,509 1 at Sandow. 2 O And how long were you employed at Sandow, 3 sir? 4 A I was there from August of 1978 through 5 May of 1981. 6 Q And in May of 1981, what did.you then do? 7 A I was transferred to the Comanche Steam B Electric Station located near Glen Rose, Texas. 9 Q And in what capacity were you first employed 10 there?
\
II A I was employed as an electrical engineer 12 associated with equipment qualifications. i I 13 k Q How long did you serve in that capacity? i 14 A I served in that capacity for approximately 15 three months. l 16 Q And then what did you do, sir? 17 A 1 I was promoted to area supervisor of electrical' ! t 18 , engineering, i j 19 Q Did you have any change in responsibilities i N thereafter? ! 21 A i Yes, sir. I was in.... 22 Q How long did you ser e as area supervisor 23 of electrical engineering? 24 A I served as area supervisor of electrical 25 engineering from approximately July 1981 through November
75,510 1 1983. 2 O And then what happened? 3 A I was promoted to the engineering manager 4 for the electrical and the control building. , J 5 0 How long did.you hold that position? 6 A I held that position for approximately two 7 and a half months, until January'the 10th, 1984 8 0 What happened on January the 10th, 1984, sir? 9 A I was promoted from engineering-manager of to the~ electrical control building to the building manager 11 for the electrical and control building and then had under it me some three hundred personnel. l 13 O Did you receive any promotions subsequent 14 to that, sir? l l 15 A Yes, sir. I was promoted on July the 1st ; 16 of this year, 1984 My current capacity is now Build.ing 17 Manager for the entire Unit 1 Task Force, which includes 18 the Electrical Control Building, the Safeguards Building, j 19 the Auxiliary Building, and the Reactor Building, and I l l 20 have some seven hundred people reporting to me. l 21 O Mr. Powers, are you acquainted with a 22 3 NJ _ff-I 23 A Yes, sir. 24 . ~~ 0 How did you become acquainted with
- 25 A )was assigned as a STE in the
. l l
c _m 4 75','51 0
~
.1 startup organization and'was: assigned toLsystems,;which 2
were: located in.the buildingLin1which I'was engineering. 3 manager. 4 0 When'you say "STE", sir, what do.you mean? 5 A =Startup Test ~ Engineer. 6 Q Did.you have-- ever!have any differences 7 .of opinion 1or' disagreements with I? g- A .Yes',~I did.
.- J~
g .Q: On more than one occasion? 10 A No, sir.- Just one incident. But this 11 incident occurred over a two-day time period. 12 Q Do you remember the subject matter of that 13 difference of opinion:or disagreement? 14 A Yes, sir, I did. 15 The subject matter involved an alleged-16 conflict between ES-100 and Reg' Guide 1.75. 17 ; O Doyourememberthecircumstancesunderwhichf 18 this disagreement or difference of opinion arose?- . } -. 1 1. 19 A .Yes, sir, I do. 20 0 Would you please tell us? 21 A Yes, sir. ' r p b 22 i lwould.not sign an SWA, which;is-k i r 23 a startup work authorization to allow the workingfof a d l 24 documented non-conforming condition involving electrical 25 separation with an electrical cable. 4-
75,512 1 Q Let me see if I understand you. 2 Are you saying that you attempted to secure 3 ( signature on a startup work authorization in w- s 4 order to correct a cable separation-- 5 MR. ROISMAN: Objection. You're leading this 6 witness. He's you're witness. 7 MR. DAVIDSON: Allow me to rephrase that, 8 Mr. Powers. I don't think I quite understood your answer. 9 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 10 0 Tell us how you came to speak with Mr. 11 Walter about this SWA to which you made reference. In 12 other words, what was the SWA for? 13 A Yes, sir. 1 14 The SWA was a notification to the startup 15 'i test engineer that construction was going to work a known 16 and documented cable separation violation. j 17 p Q To your knowledge, was there an outstanding ( 18 l \ NCR, that is, a non-conforming report or a report of a I i 19 non-conforming condition, filed on this cable separation l 20 violation? l 21 A Yes, sir. It was either documented by a l 22 non-conformance report or a separation violation deficiency 23 punch list. ! 24 0 Are those two the same, sir? 25 A They are different in forms, but the l l e
75,513 1 contexts are the same. 2 Q Tell me how the two are similar. 3 A The two are similar in the fact that either 4 an NCR or a separation violation deficiency is reported by 5 quality control. 6 After it is reported by quality control, 7 it must be dispositioned by an engineer. 8 Q Now, what are you talking about? Are you 9 talking about the cable separation deficiency? 10 A Yes, sir. That is reported either on the 11 NCR or the separation deficiency punch list. 12 Okay. Next, both items are tracked on the 13 master data base system. 14 And then, finally, after the item is worked 15 off, whether on the NCR or the separation violation 16 deficiency punch list, it requires quality control personnel 17 to go out 3 and verify the closure of that activity. 15 O So, in a sense, they are both treated in the 19 same way. 20 A Yes, sir, that's correct. 21 Q Did you ask to sign the startup 22 work authorization so as to permit the repair of this 23 cable separation violation that had been identified? 24 A Yes, I did. 25 O Was that normal for you to request that from
75,514 1 a startup engineer? 2 A No, sir, it was not my normal function. 1 3 Q Who would normally do that? 4 A The person in our task force called the 5 SWA Coordinator. 6 0 Who is that person? 7 A That person-- Excuse me. May I ask a 8 question? 9 0 I'm not asking for his name.- I'm asking to whether that person is a part of the engineering department-11 or whether he's a craftsperson. 12 A That person is a craftsperson assigned to 13 our paperflow group, and it is his function to hand carry 14 the piece of paper from our task force area to the STE 15 and obtain his signature. 16 Q Now, at the time we're speaking of when 17 { you were engineering manager of the electrical control 18 building, how many STE's were assigned to systems in that a j 19 building? l I 20 A i Probably a half a dozen to a dozen STE's. . ) 1 21 Q And would it be the function of the SWA { 22 h coordinator to go to any one of these affected STE's to +i 23 obtain that individual's signature on a startup work 24 authorization so that work could begin? j 2 MR. ROISMAN: i Objection. You're just leading I 1
-75,515 1
.the heck out'of him.
2 'A. (By the witness)' .That is correct. 3 Q (By Mr. Davidson) To'your knowledge,;did 7-4
-the SWA coordinator seekito secure .) signature 5-- on'the SWA.in-question?
Q .. 6 A :Yes, he'did.
.7' Q- Was he able to' secure it? ,
'8 A No,.he was'not.-
9 Q What happened then? 10 'A The SWA was given to the' cognizant engineer
~
~
11 lthat.was responsible ~for the. implementation,of>the engineering 12
. disposition'to rework the separation. violation.
13 Q And who was that individual, sir,- 14 A~ Gilbert Ramirez. 15 Q Does that engineer report to you, sir? 16 A Yes, he did. 17 ~ p Q And do you know whether Mr.,Ramirez~ asked l 18
/forhissignatureonthe-SWAtocorrecttheviolation 19 and cable separation?
{ 3 20 A Yes, he did. 21 Q ~Did he secure signature? I: 22 A No, he did not 2 Q What did he then do? 24 A He felt that he was unable to obtain _ 25 signature, and he brought the situation to.my
<---.i 4
75,516.-
, 4 . ,
1 attention, since.I was his'immediatetsupervisor.- ' 2 0 -What did he:tell you?: 3- A He. told meLtha ;would'not' sign . 4 the SWA and that 'he .could not obtain his signature and that 5 he required' my' help, because 1.was'wanting Mr.>Ramirez'.to 6 get the. work accomplished.
'7 0 Why did he feel he.needed your help?-
'8 MR. ROISMAN: Objection.-
9 MR. DAVIDSON: I withdraw that. 10 BY MR..DAVIDSON: 11 Q Why did he tell you'he~needed your help? 12 A v;
-)ouldnot' sign ~itbecauseof' 13 his alleged concerns about.Leonflicts with'ES-100iand! Reg 14 Guide 1.75.
15 Q What did you do?
-).
t 16 A I decided to handle the situation myself l'
- A 17 and go speak with, 18 Q And'did' you go to speak with I
~. i 19 A Yes,.I'did. 1 20 r O,
Q Where did you to speak wit'h him? A
' 21 A I went to}% ._
office. ad 22 O Do you remember'when this occurred? 23 A 4 Yes,.' sir,'it happened on a Thursday. 24 Q How do you know it was a Thursday? 25 A Because, as I mentioned earlier,.it-occurred 9
7515170 1 over a 'two-day ' process, and it occurred right before the
~
2 weekend'. So, it would'have had to have'been.on a Thursday. 3 Q You'say'a'"two-day. process". Dozyou mean 4 it occurred over :two days? ' 5- A -Yes,sik. 6 Q And it was two days preceding:a weekend? 7' A -That's correct.. 8 Q .That's;why you assume:it's Thursday.
~
- 9. -A - Ye s , . 'si r . .
10 0- Do.you remember what-Thursday.it was? Do. ..
-11 you remember what month it occurred in?-
12 A-The month would have'had to have'been 13 December.. . 14 0 . What year,. sir? 15 A of 1983. .I' 16 Q Do you know=when in December it might have. 17 occurred? I 18 A No, sir,'I cannotLgive you a specific date, f 19 Q I didn't ask for'a specific date; .I asked i i
' i
.1 m when in December. First week? i Second week?. Third week?
21
]
A It would have been in.the middle,. middle l 1 4 22 of December. .: l 23 Q All right. . Thank you. -
.i 24 Did you go to se
- s 2 A Yes, I did.
j i l I l 1 l 1
75,518- i 1 Q .Did.you find him in his office?- 2 A. Yes, I did. 3 0 What-did.you..say to him? g, 4 A I' asked ( if he would sign'the 5 SWA, which was, notification to him of our intention to 6 rework a documented cable separation violation in the-7 electrical and c'ontrol building. 8 Q What did f tell you? 9 .A told me of.his concerns about 10 alleged conflicts between ES-100 and Reg Guide 1.75. 11 O What did you tell him? 12 - A I told him,that any concerns.that he might 13- have was not applicable to.this situation because this was 14 a known, documented separation violation and any otheu 15 concerns he might have would have to be addressed:at allater:. 16 date, but this SWA.was required to work an existing, 17 documented violation and that I wanted his. signature of 18 notification that we were going to rework this violation. I 19 O And what did he say when you told him? 20 A He told me that his concerns would have'tio-21 be addressed before he would even consider allowing work' 22 activity in this particular: room. i 23' Q Even though.it involved a violation?
~
h 4 24 'A Yes, sir. 26 Q And what did you say to him when he insisted
- - - _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ s
75,519
- l l1_
1 that his concerns be addressed first,-rather than he. respond _
.2 to the SWA concerning the NCR problem?'
3
'A ^ I then got'a copy of ES-100 and tried'to 4-show him that the procedures that I was following.were 5
accurate and that by site procedure'I had no choice but to' 6 rework the violation and that I could not-create a violation-7 unless it were in direct conflict with_ES-100, 8 Q What is~it that was asking you.to '
'8' do to address his. concern?
10-A. He was asking me to try to invent _new; criteria 11 to apply my engineering judgment to, and'I' told him that~I 12 was not allowed.to do.that,.I had to-follow existina, site 13 procedures. 14 Q Did you try to explain'to him that you, 15 believed there was no-- Let me strike that.. 16 You say you discussed ES-100 with him?' L l-17 [i A Yes, sir, I did. 18 Q Did you. speak with him about the alleged - 19 i ! conflict that he suggested there was? ,- 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q What did you'do? 22 I l I A I showed him.that by the control design' I 23 document, ES-100, there was no' additional violation and-24 that the subject matter was closed'because ES-100 was ! a 26 very specific in that area and that I should be allowed--
]
l _ - ------- - -_-- _ - - - - - - - - - a
75,520 1 or, that I wanted to go work my existing violation and that 2 any other problems would have to be addressed in a different 3 fashion. 4 O Just so we're all clear on this, what is 5 ES-100? 6 A ES-100 is the electrical erection specifica-7 tion that governs the electrical erection of all electrical 8 items on the jobsite. It is authored by Gibbs & Hill in 9 New York, who is the architect-engineer on record for this 10 project. 11 O And what is the Regulatory Guide 1.75? 12 A Regulatory Guide 1.75 is NRC, a Nuclear i 13 Regulatory Commission Guide, which assures the independence 14 of redundant electrical circuits. 15 And ES-1 -- Yes, sir. 16 O Did you attempt to explain to' l 17 j why you believed there was no conflict between ES-100 and 0 i 18 l Regulatory Guide 1.75? f-19 A Yes, sir, I did. l 20 Q What was his response to your explanation? 21 A He would not listen to my explanation, and n he then said, based on his past experience that there was 23 a conflict between ES-100 and Reg Guide 1.75. 24 O Did he agree to sign the SWA? 25 A No, he would not sign the SWA. _ _ _ _ __ _ , _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ - -
75,521; 1 Q .Did.the discussion become heated? 2 A. Yes, sir, it did.- Because, again', I 3 emphasized that-I.was bound.tur site procedure and--I'could-4
'not change the-site 1 procedure and:that'I* required his
.5 signature-for. proper notification'so that I'could go about 6-my business of clearing the documented' separation 1 violation, rs -
7 'O What did .L then say?: iY 8 A .jthen started attacking my integ -
-9 rity.
10 Q How did you' react to that?- 11 A' Veryfviolently.. He accused me of not being 12 - concerned about quality at Comanche Peak. 13 Q Did you'take.that personally? 14 A Yes, sir, I did.: 15 Q What did you do? 16 A I immediately picked up the phone,'and I told 17 him if he thought I was impeding the quality, in any way, . 18 at Comanche Peak that I would personallyfdial the' quality' I 19 hot line number and let him report.the incident. ' . j X) Q And what did he say? 21 A He.would not take:me'up on that' offer.
,3 22 -l O What did he do?' l 23 .I A He then said he was going to call electrical
~
24 engineering. l 25 O. Did he'do so in your presence? l i
. l
750522. 1 A. Yes, he did.' 2 0 What did you'do? 3 .A I immediately called the-site' project 4 electrical engineer. 5 Q. .Who was that, sir? 6 A- That'is Iven-Vogelsang.4 .
. "~'1 7c Q Didyouoverhear)". 1 Iside of the 8 discussion with the eiectrical engineering department? .
9 A No. ILjust heard the-name that he asked-10 for. 11 Q Who wasithat,Lsir? 12 A "Ijaz Aman. 13 .O .What'did.you tell Mr. Vogelsang?
~
A- I told Mr. Voge1 sang that.I had been' involved'
~
14 e s is in a discussion withc that I had explained to s- -~d 16 him from an engineering standpoint'the requirements of { 17 ES-100, that as Engineering Manager;for th'e electrical and t
.' l 18 control building, it was my responsibility to act in that
~
is capacity and to explain to him how the ES-100 was to be. 1 i 20 enforced and applied in the electrical and control building 21 and-that 'was-- hadisome' alleged. conflicts'in. j L, - -a 22 his mind between ES-100 and Reg Guide 1.75 and-;that I i 23 thought that any discussion with electrical engineering: ' 24- should be held in my presence and in the presence'of the 25 project electrical engineer.- -l 4
75,523 1 Q You mean, Mr. Vogelsang-- 2 A That's correct. 3 Q --should be a party to such discussions. 4-What did Mr. Vogelsang say? 5 A He agreed that he would terminate the conver-6 sation with Mr. Ijaz Aman and that, if need be, we would 7 get back together and discuss it as a group. 8 0 You mean,T - ' 1 l 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q --Mr. Vogelsang, and yourself. 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q After you had that conversation, what did'you 13 do? 14 A I decided to leave the STE's office. j 15 Q Where did you go after that? 16 A I went to Iven Vogelsang's office to explain i l 1 1;
) to him why.I placed the call, j
18 Q And what did you do at that time? Did you ; 19 i tell him? ' 20 A I 21 Itoldhimoftheconcernsthat{ had, and we examined the ES-100 And the project electrical 22 engineer concurred with my interpretation of ES-100. 23 Q Now, when you say you examined ES-100, did 24 1 you compare ES-100 to Reg Guide 1.75 to determine whether 25 l there was a conflict? l e
L75,534' 1-A Yes, sir, we looked'at the two. 2 Q And were either you or Mr. Vogel'sangLable to-3 find such conflict-- 1 4 A No, sir, we were not. 5 Q --as alleged?
-6 A' No, sir, we.were not.
7 Q 'After you had that discussion with.Mr.-- 8 Excuse me. 9 Did you discuss anything further.with Mr. 10 Vogelsang after the two of'you reviewed ES-1007 11 A. No, I did not. 12 O What-did you then do? 13 A. I. decided to go back to my office.
~
14 Q Did you take any further action ta get'the 15 SWA signed or any further' action that. day,'on Thursday?- 16 A No,'I did not. 17 Q What happened-the following day, Friday?. 18 - A On Friday morning, I went to see' John T~. 19 Merritt, who is the assistant' project general mana,ger. 2 . Q -Why did you go to see Mr. Merritt?- 21 A I went'to see Mr.-Merritt to complain to him a c1 22 about s 23 Q And what was the substance of'your complaint? { I 24 A. I had several areas that I wanted to discuss = 'i 25 with Mr.1 Merritt. The first item, I felt e 'lshad _ _ _ _ _ ~ - _ _ _ _ _ _
~75,535; 1
acted in~aLvery unprofessional. manner. Secondly, I; felt
^
2 kin not signing the SWA'was ho1GIng up kruwn;
~
that 3 work -that was identified on the punch list that1I had an 4 obligation to work : and to correct because . it had been-5- identified'asca non-conforming condition. He was preventing 6 me from doing th'at work. 7-
'I also felt.that he was.asking1me to. change 8 my inspection criteria or my specification ES-100 without, 9
any- . on just'his.say-so, without' going through: proper 10 channels, . and I told him that1I felt like' that he. was . 11 functioning.in a capacity-- that.he was trying to function ~ 12 in the capacity of.thefengineering manager-for that building 13 and that was not his. responsibility.or' job,fthat was'my. 14 responsibility to make~those decisions and that it was-his 15 responsibility to implement his testing program for his. 16 procedures. And I felt like he was stepping out of bounds 17 and'getting into my area of expertise.. l
! l' 18 0 was it just simply.a. question of his getting 19 into.your area, or did you feel he lackedJthe experience j
.)
20 and background for that?
-1 21 A He--
I 22 MR. ROISMAN: You're leading:the witness. 'I q 23 -Come on now, Mr. Davidson. I 24 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 2 Q. Mr. Powers, feel free to answer my question. i i e
t 75,526 I 1 A. I felt like that he did not' hsve - the background. )
'2 nor the expertise to be' making' decisions in.that arena. j 3 Q- Is that what youEsaid to1Mr. Merritt? -
4 A Yes,osir, 5- Q- What did Mr. Merritt say whenlyouLbrought- i 6-. these' complaints to-his! attention? 7 MR. ROISMAN: ' Objection._ It's hearsay.- 8 MR. DAVIDSON: What did he say to Mr. Powers?. 9 MR. ROISMAN: What are you3 offering'it for, 10 lthen. It's not relevant.. 11 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 12 Q Mr .' Powers, what did Mr. Merritt say? 13 A Mr. Merritt confirmed my positionias: 14 engineering manager and told me it 'was 'my. responsibility. 15 to make decisions 1 associated with ES-100 and thatLhe would 16 hold me accountable for any~ decision that I'made'
. I 17 He also said that it was notLthe'STE's 18 responsibility to make those decisionsLfor me.
19 And he then picked up-the phone and called 20 Dick Camp. 21 ! Q Howido you know he called Dick Camp,-Mr. L -M Powers? 23 A Because I was in the; room when he called 1 24 Mr.' Camp. l j 25 Q Did Mr. Camp.come? i i
- 75s527 1 A. .Yes, he~did.
2 .Q Did there then ensue a meeting-between the 3 three of you,~Mr. Camp, Mr. Merritt and'yourself? 4 A That is-correct. 5 Q What'did Mr.-Merritt;say to Mr. Camp when 6 ho arrived?
- 7. _A He ' asked! Mr.-- ' Mr. Merritt- asked' Mr. Camp.
s .if'his STE's'were trying to' function in the role-of.an' 9 engineer. 10 ,
;Q What did Mr. Camp say?
11 'A He said, "No, it's1not our'jobsto'act as 12 engineers. We:are to'act~as startup test engineers had'get. 13 on with our test program." 14 0 -What did Mr.sMerritt say?' 15 A He then relayed the incident as I had told 16 Mr. Merritt and told Mr. Camp. that he expected.his STE's 17 to abide by the decisiens that.were made by the engineering' : 18 department. ( Ig -Q When you say "he1related.the incident"', when 20 Mr. Merritt related the incident, is this the incident that-21 you related to us just a moment ago.as to happening to you -j 1 22 wit on Thursday? 2 A That.is correct. 24 Q What did Mr. Camp say when he was advised of 1 25 this incident by Mr. Merritt? l 1 _. . _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ A
. _ . _ ~ - - . . _ _ - - _ - _ _ - - __ --
75,528 1 MR. ROISMAN: Let.the record show that all, -
.i 2
of this is hearsay and all objected to and all to be left-
'W 3
out if you.try to introduce =it as actual evidence, Mr. 4 Davidson. 5 MR. DAVIDSON:: We are merely having the-6 witness state what he heard, saw, and observed at a meeting.-
;7 It is his--
8 MR. ROISMAN: It has nothing to do with the-9 issues in the case. 10 11 MR. DAVIDSON: .It certainly-- 11 MR.~ROISMAN: What he heardiand:saw has 12 nothing to do with any issue in this' case:that.you've 13 linked it up to. 14 1 01 DAVIDSON: Mr.-Roisman, I. appreciate < 15 your desire to make an objection, but this one'is highly. 16 ill founded. i-' 17 The simple fact ~of the matter is that there1
-j 18 E has been testimony, or allegations made, regarding certain l-i.
19 of-- .regarding5 'and the. question'is how that 20 was handled and what'were the' circumstances. And this { 21' is the context in which it all occurred. 22 Mr Powers had;a~ complaint against 23 _for the incident,'and-_he is'now relating howithat-was dealt 1 24 . with. 2-Now, whether or not the facts related by'
- i. fj l
- j. :;
Y 75,529 1 Mr. Me-- There's. never been any offer. of proof here 'that ~ 2 any facts related.by Mr. Merritt occurred. All we're:testi-3 fying now about is the personal; knowledge-of Mr. Powers.- 4 You understand that,. don't you,' Mr.'Mizuno?
~
5 1MR. MIZUNO: ..Not entirely. 6 MR. DAVIDSON: ' You need.a clarification? 7 lMR. MIZUNO: Yesi to a:certainfextent;,i 8 If you.are not going-to be' offering'Mr. 9 Merritt or Mr. Camp'at some future' point to confirm-- to 10 provide the linkup between what Mr.' Powers is'now testifying, 11 it would appear that we do have some hearsay problems. 12 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm sorry,Lbut I'have.to 13 disagree with you. I think you are displaying;a certain 14
. lack of familiarity with'the rule'regarding hearsay.
15 We are not offering any. evidence as to any 16 facts which were related to Mr. Powers.: We are offering 17 his evidence as to meetings he participated in. That's not j 18 hearsay. 19 And as to whether or not Mr.' Camp confirms 20 that he also attended the' meeting, that's corroboration. 21 MR. MIZUNO: But the point is that you" L n already established that there was a. meeting. l Now, you'ra-- l 23 I think Mr. Roisman's objection was that 24 the question is now: What was the content of the meeting? 25 And you-can't prove--
75,530 1 MR ., DAVIDSON: You can't prove what was said 2 to Mr. Powers? What he heard? 3 MR. MIZUNO: Yeah, you can. You can. 4 MR. DAVIDSON: Thank.you. That's all I'm-- 5 MR. MIZUNO: Okay. I see what you're saying. 6 Okay. Fine. 7 ~ MR. DAVIDSON: I'm just saying: What did 8 you'say to Mr. Merritt and what did he say to you? And that 9 is all within the personal knowledge of this witness. 10 MR. MIZUNO: Okay. I see what you're saying. 11 MR. DAVIDSON: Perhaps, maybe, Mr. Roisman 12 similarly misunderstood what this testimony.was. 13 MR. ROISMAN: No, that's not true. In' fact, 14 that's not what the witness testified. And your question-- 15 You did not ask Mr. Powers what did Mr. Merritt say to hi.? { 16 or what did he say to Mr. Merritt as to this three-person i i meeting. 1 17 You asked him what did Mr. Merritt say to Mr. I 18 Camp and what did Mr. Camp say to Mr. Merritt. Not what j 19 either of them said to Mr. Powers. Those haven't been your ' 20 questions. ' 21 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm sorry. I thought it was 22 clear that Mr Powers was in attendance at that meeting. 23 MR. ROISMAN: He was, but there's not any 24 indication that anybody was talking to him. If you're 25 introducing-- If you want to know did he hear those ___.._._____________--__u
a 75,'531-- 1-statements, then. it's perfectly all- right to ask 'if he 2- heard,them, assuming ^there's some relevance in that. 3 MR. DAVIDSON: J All right.< I understand.- 4 MR..ROISMAli:.~If you want to know whether-
- 6. ;or not the' statements represent.any position.of?the-6 fcor'p oration- -
'7-MR. DAVIDSON:~ 'I-think.I:can helpLyour-8 problem, Mr..'Roisman.
9 I think you're being, notlmerelyLoverly 10 technical, I think you're mistaken in your objection. But
' 11 I think,.in order to. accommodate this witness.and-not to!
12
' subject him further to thisl kind of unnecessary < badinage,:
13 that what I'will do is~I'll'say: 14 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 15 Q Mr. Powers, you've. told us that you saw 16 Mr. Merritt, and_you told us of your conversat' ion with him. 17 You told us that-he called Mr. Camp. . 18 You were present at the mee' ting between Mr. 19 Camp and Mr. Merritt, were you not? N A Yes, I was. 21
.Q What did you hear Mr. Merritt say.to Mr.
22 Camp? 23 A- Mis-- 24 Q We're rephrasing the question, Mr.< Powers, 25 to accommodate Mr. Roisman. L
75,532-
- 1 A Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Camp if' his ;startup-.
2 test engineers were trying to function in the role of an 3 engineer. 4 Q And what did-you hear Mr. Camp reply to 6 Mr. Merritt? 6 'A He said, "No, John, that is not.o'ur function 7 to act as engineers. We're in.the startup business, and 8 it is our obligation to run the startup test program." 9 Q What'did'you then hear Mr. Merritt'say to 10 -Mr. Camp? 11 A Mr. Merritt then told Mr. Camp of the '
'l 12- complaints that I had agains't '
13 Q Did you hear Mr. Campj make: any reply. to; 14 that statement? 16 A Yes, sir.. He reaffirmed what Mr. Merritt 16 said, that it was not their: function to'act as engineers 17 i -- i and that they would abide by the decisions made by the ! I 18 engineering department. i i 19 Q Did you hear Mr. Camp say anything.else? rJ -~ m 20 A He said that he would speak with-21 MR., MIZUNO: Excuse me. I just have one 22 question to direct to counsel. 23 You're not offering the discussions between M Mr. Camp and Mr. Merritt to prove whether, in fact, startup [ 25 engineers have certain responsibilities or do not have^
75,533 1 certain responsibilities; is that true? 2 MR. DAVIDSON: I think that we will offer 3 another witness to establish the job descriptions since tb.e 4 witness here, albeit he may know it, is not himself a 5 startup engineer. 6 MR. MIZUNO: Right. Okay. 7 MR. DAVIDSON: No, the purpose of the con-8 l versation was merely to show what occurred on Thursday and 9 whvt action Mr. Powers took and how management responded 1 e- - l 10 to his complaint about 11 MR. MIZUNO: Thank you very much for 12 clarifying that. 13 BY MR. DAVIDSON: 14 Q Now, was there any further discussion at the 15 meeting while you were present at it? 16 A No, sir, i 17 h O Did you leave before Mr. Camp? i 18 A I can't recall the exact time. 19 0 was there any further discussion that you 20 recollect occurring at that meeting at this time? 21 A No, sir. 22 O What did yr" do after the meeting? 23 A I left and went back to my office? ! 24 O And what did you do then? 25 A I decided to wait until the afternoon to try
f
~
. 3.:. 75,534<
1 to obtain tne signature of the STE in order.to allow Mr.. r .., 2 Camp time to visit withi so as'not'to have ., 3 ~ another conflict.
'T 4 0 And did you eventually go to' g, --
5 again for the- _to get his signature on the'SWA? 6 A. .Yes,. sir. .I went sometime mid-af ternoon.
-A 7 Q. Where did you go.to see 8 A' I, again, went to joffice, 9 0 This was, again, on Friday?-
10 'A This was Friday, yes, sir. . 0 / T.
~ 11
'And what did you say to(~
r .. a 12 A I went to , and I said, "I have 13 the SWA. I require your signature' o allow us to.begin 14 work on th'e separation violation'in the electrical'and 15 control building." 16 Q And what did say to you?' 17 s- ~ A He said, "I still will.not' sign.yourLSWA." 18 0 What'did you say then?- 19 A I asked him if he'd talked'to Dick Camp.
# Q Did he reply?
21 A' He said, no, he had not talked toIDick Camp.. 22 0 'Did he say anything else?:
. 1 23 f A Yes; sir, he did.-- He said--
24 Q Would you tell us?' ! 25 A yes, sir. He said that he had call'ed Gibbs &
'75,535l 1
HillIin New York and had' talked to.afdesign reviewer that' 2 was associated with a-DCA.that was written-- A DCA is'a 3 design change authorization.. --that was writte'n against 4 ES-100 - 5 Q. :Yes. 6 A .He also'said'that the design reviewer hadI 7 a problem with'the DCA. 8 o' Were you; familiar with this DCA about-- or,.
/
9 this design change authorization.about which I 6\was} 10 speaking?- 31 A Yes, sir. 12 Q How were you familiar with it? 3 13 A I either authored the DCA or.I' reviewed the 14 DCA prior to it being issued. r i 15 o What was the purpose of that DCA? 16 A The' purpose of the DCA was to restructure 17 a paragraph in ES-100 for clarity's sake or to follow a , 18 more logical progression inLthe way that.the work was 19 actually done in the field or inspected in the. field. 20
'O Did it change any oflthe cable separation 21 criteria set forth in ES-1007.
22 A No, sir, it did not. There were no dimen-23 sional chariges. 24 r. 6 + Q Did you explain that tog ' L.- . ,s4 25 A Yes, sir, I attempted to explain that. a x__ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - - -
75,536 1 Q How did:you attempt to do.that? 2 A. I had'a. copy of ES-100, as well as a copy 3 of the DCA, and I showed him graphically, by the comparisen-
~
4 of the numbers, that the: dimensions'between the DCA.and 5 the original version of ES-100 were completely. unchanged. 6- Q What did he.tell-you.that the. design-7 reviewer at Gibbs &' Hill had told him,-if anything?. 8 A- He kept alluding to theEfact'that the Gibbs-9 & Hill design reviewer ' agreed ~with him. D'id he explain why or how?
~
10 Q 11 A No, sir, he did not. 12 Did he tell you the name of this design
~
Q 13 reviewer? 14 A No, sir. 15 O Did he~ agree to sign the SWA?. q 16 A No, sir, he.would not sign _the SWA. 17 Q Did this discussion once again become heated?- 18 A Yes, sir. It became heated because I tried j 19 to emphasize to him what. John Merritt had, emphasized to 20 Dick Camp, that it was my responsibility to interpret ES-100 21 and make the final engineering decision. , a 22 Q Did you express any concern about tb? inability 2:F to repair an NCR'd item,-- j 1 24 A Yes,-- l t 25 Q --an item that had subject to a non-conforming { \ J _______.__._____1_____.-----_-----
75,537s 1 report? i 2 A Yes,~ sir,.I did. 3
.- : "1~
-Q- What wa m . response?
4 'A .He still would not sign the SWA. 5 Q What happened..then?.
~
6 'A I then again tried to' reiterate to'him that 7 he was getting in.an area that was completely ~out of his l 8 background or expertise'and that I was the engineer and 9 that I had made that decision and=that it should be enforced. 10 Q What else did you say to'him? 11 A I told.him that.he was on shaky grounds-12 because of his lack of background in this subject, 13 Q Did you say, "You're on shaky ground"? Or, 14 perhaps, "You're treading on' thin ice"? 15 A I could have said something similar to'that. 16 0 1So , it's possible,that you might have said, 'i 17 "You're treading on thin ice." I 18 A I could have said that.. 19 0 What did you mean by saying, "You're on 20 shaky ground", or, if you did say it, "You're treating on 21 thin ice"? 22 A This STE was trying to make an engineering 23 evaluation on a matter that he did'not have the complete + 24' background, training, or expertise on and was in an area 25 'that I felt was completely out of his scope of responsibility I
, _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ a
75,538 1 or his area of expertise. 2 0 Did you mean to threaten his job?. 3 A' No, sir. 4 Q Did you mean to suggest to him.that you 5 would get him fired? 6 A- No, sir. We were talking about technical 7 matters.
- 8. O But you were. yelling at each other,-weren't; 9 you?
10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q What happened then?
, 3-12 A About that time,(
supervisor,
~~. u, 13 Art London, came into the area.
14 Q Now, you say "came'into.this area". Dofyou 15 mean came ir.to this office? 16 A Yes, that's correct. l 17 g Q And what did he do? 11 18 A' He asked what was. going on and what.wasiall 19 the noise about. 20 Q' Didyouand( answer h'im?
' . . % -- v i
21 A Yes, we did. 22 Q What did'you tell him?- 23 A We told him that there was a differing-24 opinion and thatI ould not sign an SWA that . 25 was required to do work. 4 1 _ _ _ _ _____..--_A-A-.---- -
- y. '
75,539 a 1- Q What did Mr. London respond?- 1 2 A Mr. London said, "Well,Llet's'go'into my- l,
;)
3 office: and sit down f and try to' calm -down and talk this 4 situation'over."' - h 5 -O Did you and accompany.Mr. London 6 into his office? 7 A 'Yes, we'did. 8 Q~ And what then occurred?' 9 A Again, we went through the requirements,of. 10 ES-100 I got ES-100 out. I. explained the. requirements 11 of ES-100 to Mr. Londo . . . I showed it to him in black and - 12 white.
- s. %/
khen told Mr. London that there'was 13 a DCA that was involved and that he was concerned that the 14 DCA was in conflict. 15 I then took the DCA and ES-100 and_ graphically 16 showed Mr. London that the numbers in both the original 17 document ES-100 and DCA were one and the same. 18 Q Did you also discuss with Mr.-London,'in 19 l ' presence the_ question'of any conflict between
-e ;
20 Reg Guide 1.75 and ES-100? 21 A- Yes, I told him there was no conflict. ., 22 O You told him or you' explained to him by _ l 23 showing him? 24 A I explained it by showing it to him, and he 25 concurred with my conclusions. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______ ______.______.___.._J
ij 75,540 1 Q- 'When you say "he concurred", what did.he 2 say.after.you completed your explanation?
- 3. A' He said, "I can see that the numbers-have l 4, not changed, that ES-100 is'an-improved document. I have 5 'the engineering manager telling.me there'is no~ problem.
6 I have no reason to doubt that there is a problem. There-
'7 fore, _there is no problem, now that engineering has made 8 -that decision. Now it is our responsibility to' sign:the' 9 SWA."
10 Q Now, I think you may'have misunderstood my. 11 question. First.you' explained to.Mr. London, I think,your 12 testimony was, that the DCA involved merely changed para-13 graph numbers, but didn't change the dimensions provided 14 ' for in ES-100; is that correct?- 15 A That's correct. 16 Q Did you also explain'to him why it was that 17 'you believed there was no conflict between ES-100, as written 18 or as modified by the DCA, and Regulatory Guide 1.757 19 A Yes, sir. 20 ' Q- You explained that, too. 21 'A' Yes, sir. 22 Q And-did you go;through the documents to'show 23 him that? 24 A Yes, sir.
's Q Did Mr. London say anything that suggested
~75J541 1
to you that he was' satisfied with'your explanation? 2 A- -Yes, he did. 3 Q What did-he say? 4- A He said that from.my. explanation, there~was?
~
5 no conflict between ES-100 and Reg Guide 1.75fand-that-( 6 should sign the SWA. 7 MR. ROISMAN: I assume that's been offered 8 to indicate what was said and.not'what'he believed.
~
9 MR. DAVIDSON: We're'not trying to suggest-10 what Mr. London may have meant or believed, but rather only 11 what he said in response. That's:why I asked him: What 12 did he say that indicated to you that he was satisfied? - 13 As opposed to: What satisfied him, or did you believe him 14 to be satisfied? 15 MR. ROISMAN: I' understand. 16 BY MR. DAVIDSON: i
-17 i
) Q Now, tell me, Mr. Powers, when Mr. London :-
'i f . F i 18 indicated he was satisfied and said to that it !.
19 would be all right to sign the SWA, did sign 'j 2D the SWA to allow you to do the work to repair the' cable 21 separation violation that had been outstanding? ! 22 A No, he did not. .j 23 Q What did he say? i 24 A He kept saying that he still was concerned- '! 25 that i there were still conflicts between ES-100 and Reg l I
^
75,542 1 Guide 1.75 2 Q Did he tell you what about your explar ation 3 he didn't agree with? 4 A No, sir. 5 Q What did you do then? 6 A Art London then looked at him and said that 7 he had just heard my explanation, he agreed with my 8 explanation,.that I was the engineering manager, and that 9 if yould not sign the SWA, then he said, i "I will sign 10 the SWA." 11 Q You mean, Mr. London said, "I will sign it." 12 A That's correct. 13 Q Did Mr. London then sign it? 14 A Mr. London did not sign it in my presence. 15 Q At that meeting. 16 A At that meeting.
]
17 Q Did he subsequently sign it? ; 1 i 18 A Yes, he did. 19 Q How did you learn that, sir? i
%) A Well, I left the meeting, and I did not 21 check on it the rest of the afternoon. I did not come to M work on Saturday, but'when I came to work Monday morning, 23 I checked with the cognizant engineer. And he confirmed 24 to me that the work was accomplished on Saturday, which- l
! 25 means that the SWA was signed.
75,543' 1 Q Did . you .ever 'see thei SWA ' and see 'who : had. 2 signed'it? 3 A I didn't physically.look at it. 4 Q So, you don'tEknow who signed it.. 5 A- 'I understood from subsequenticonversations 6 that: the signature on the SWA was l Art London's. 7 O Who told'you this? 8 .A. Either the cognizant engineer.or, in. 9: subsequent conversation, Art London indicated that'he'had 10 signed it. 11 Q When you say "the cognizant engineer", to 12 whom do you refer? 13- A Gilbert Ramirez. 14 - Q- Is it the same engineer who was' originally 15 involved in this' incident? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q And he told you that the workLhad'been: 18 completed. 19 A That is correct. m Q Did you determine for yourself'by'looking 21 at the work that had heen completed? 22 A No, I did not. l 23 MR. ROISMAN: I assume, counsel, that all j - 24 of that was in the nature of discovery? n // O
1 I 75,544 1 BY MR. DAVIDSON:
)
2 O Mr. Powers, did you do anything further that 3 afternoon on Friday? 'l i 4 A No, I did not. 5 Q And you told us, I think, you did not come 6 in on the weekend. 7 Did you come in on Monday morning? 8 A Yes,.I did. 9 Q Did anything further occur? 10 A No, sir, not Monday morning. 11 Q There were no further meetings or discussions 12 with respect to this incident? 13 A I did receive a telephone call Monday morning. 14 l 0 From whom, sir? 15 A I received a telephone call from Larry Popple-16 well. I 17 Q Who is he, sir? i
\ )
18 A I Larry Popplewell is the manager of engineering 19 who, at that time, was my direct supervisor, i 2 Q And what did he say to you, sir? 21 A Mr. Popplewell indicated to me that he wanted 22 to set up a meeting between engineering and startup and l 23 discuss the incident that had occurred over Thursday ' 24 af ternoon and Friday af ternoon. 25 Q Did he give you any reason? Did he state any I l r 4 l
75,545-l' reason to you.as to why he wanted to have'this meeting? 2 Yes, sir. A- He heard that' tempers-had been. 3 lost in this discussion, and he said that:we had to sit
.4
'down and talk it out withistartup so that se could conduct-5 our business ~inta more: professional manner.'
6 Q 'Was aLmeeting set'up? 7 A 'Yes, sir,_itLwas setjup for, Monday afternoon. 8 Q' -At what. time? 9 A It was either one or two:o' clock'in the'- 10 afternoon. It was after lunch. , 11 O Where did this meeting take place? 12 A- The meeting took. place'in-Dick Camp's office. 13 Q Who is Dick Camp? 14 A Dick Camp is the:startup manager. ;7-n 15 Q report to Dick Camp? Does( 16 A Well, reports to Mr. London, 17 who I previously mentioned. And Mr. London reports to Mr. 18 Luken. Mr. Luken reports to Mr. Miller.. And Mr.1 Miller-19 reports to Mr. Camp. So, yes, indirectly' . 20 Q He indirectly reports toihim. 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q Do you rememhar who was in attendance at this 23 meeting? l I 24 A 1! Yes, sir. 26 0 would you please tell us?
'l-
75,546
; ,- I -
1 A It'was myself, Larry Popplewell,' u,. 2 Mr. London, Mr. Miller. ;I think Mr. . Luken was there. And 3 Mr. Camp was most assuredly there. 4 O Can .you remember what was' discussed at that . 5 meeting? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q What did Mr. Popplewell say? 8 A Mr.;Popplewell wanted to insure that people 9 representing engineering, myself, conducted.my business-10 with startup in a most professional. manner and that'in the'
;.; l future was going to assure everyone that engineering would 12 always' conduct business at the highest lavel of professional.
13 integrity. 14 Q Did he direct any. remarks specifically_to 15 you, Mr. Powers? 16 A Yes, sir. He told me 'in the future to keep , 17 i, my cool and to not lose my temper and.not to engage in any 4 I 1 18 shouting methods-- shouting matches. l 19 Q He did this in the presence'of the other 2 ~ people, including d
./
21 A That is correct. 22 Q Did Mr. Camp say anything at this meeting? 23 A Yes, sir. He said virtually the same thing , i I 24 to that startup should conduct themselves in, l 1 25 a professional manner with engineering and that when I l _____-_--_i____ -~
175oS47 i I engineering makes an interpretation oride:ision that they , 2 . 1 are the engineering- group 'anci that it should be conformed ~. 3
.to, but . then, after.- an engineering decision is .made,- instead -
4-of engaging in a hollering match;that.if.'they still have-5
.a problem or concern that'that concern should be. written' 6
down on a piece of. paper ~and sent through. channels:and it 7 would.=be appropriate'y evaluated, but tofnot engageJin 8 . shouting matches. 9 Q What did say when Mr. Camp s d to that, if.'anything? 11 ~ A I believe he indicated that he stillI-was 12 not satisfied and would write a letter putting in:'words~his 13 concerns about what he alleged were conflicts.between ES-100' 14 and Reg Guide 1.75'. 15 Q Was there any further discussion at this 16 meeting? l ' 17 ) A Yes, sir. There was one further-' discussion. 18 Q What was that? 19 A As the' meeting was ended', Mr. Camp.also 20 ) questioned me as to any remarks that I might have made to 21
]concerning his ' further employment or threats' 22 to fire him.
1 23 Q What did he'say to you? l 1 24 A He asked me'if I had made any threats or n / 25 .i comments to the fact that could lose his job. j q ! i i
-75,548 1
Q What did you' reply? 2 A I said, "Mr. Camp, I- think .that 's a pretty - 3 strange comment sincet
'does not work'for me or' 4
has never worked.for.me. So, how.could'I-affect his
'5 employment?"
6 Q Do you mean.to say by that that ' 7 was .,.ot'under your supervision? 8 A- That's correct. I'was in' engineering--~.I.. 9 am in' engineering, and-he was a part ~of the startup to organization. 11-O Did Mr. Camp say anythin~g further about it 12 after you responded that you didn't-- :Well, let me strike 13 that for the moment. 14 You said it.was "a pretty strange-statement", , i 15 but did you admit to having made a threat on-Mr. -- f 16 A I emphat--
~~
1 17 Q --on$ job?
.- ~,
18 I'm sorry. But,nplease, you must wait until j 19 I finish the question. 20 Did.you admit to having made a threat on 21 job? 22 A No, I did not admit it because:I:did s't make.- 1 23 a threat to' ) job.. us 24 Q Did you explain that to Mr. Camp? 25 A 'Yes, I.did. l 1
75,549 1 Q What did Mr. Camp say when you made that 2 explanation? 3 A He understood the context of what I had 4 said. 5 Q Did he say anything to fbout 6 it? 7 A Yes, he did. He toldj that he-8 never had been in a position of being threatened, that I 9 couldn't threaten his job, that he worked for startup,'and to he was in no position whatsoever of having his job threatened 11 because of this incident. 12 Q Is it your testimony.that he assured him 13 that his job was not in jeopardy over this incident? 14 A That's correct. Mr. Camp did say that. 15 0 What was said after that in the meeting? 16 A I telieve that was the concluding remarks i 17 in the meeting. - 18 Q Did you have any further meetings with { 19 respect to this incident or these discussions? \ 20 A No, I did not. i j 21 0 Did you discuss this matter further with I 22 Mr. Walter? M A No, sir. 24 i Q Did you have any further discussions with 25 Mr. Walter at any time after this meeting?
75,550 1 A No, I~did not. 2 Q- About any subject. 3-
'A About any subject.
4 MR. DAVIDSON:. That concludes my~ direct-5
- examination.
6
-(Druse.) .
7
.MR. ROISMAN: ThisLisLtheEfirst time'that'I 8
have had any exposure :to this testimony- by Mr. Powers. I've 9
..had'.no briefing.on it.
'I've'not=had any documents proffered I
to me with respect to"it. 1I did not anticipate in'any.of 11 the earlier depositions that related'to the subject. I 12 do not have access to the transcripts of those at this time, 13 and I'm.not prepared to conduct cross-examination of Mr. 14 d Powers at this-time. l 15 I should hope to be able:to do it starting: - 16 tomorrow morning, depending upon my' schedule with other 17 people. But at this time, it.would'not beipossible for'me 18 to do anything but the most cursory: examination of Mr. 19 Powers on trivial matters. i 20 1 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Roisman, obviously, if ,
.j 21 .I that is your position, I cannot compel you to take cross- .!
22 l, examination.
~l ,
ZL
.I would, however, point out the following: -l 24
,First cf all: 'While it is true that'you: I 5
were not. privy to any earlier testimony that might relate- l I e 1 i L____ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _
75,551 1 l 1 to the subject ' matter upon which 'Mr. Powers has' testified,
- 2. that there were attorneys who~appearedfon behalf of-CASE.
g 3 Secondly, I;would point out that this.is in 4-the nature of rebuttal testimony.wir.h respect: to:the! subject-- { 5 matter of his-testimony. .And, therefore, it' responds 6 directly to matters-that have been;put in controversy by 7 CASE. 8 Therefore,.there'is no surprise involved. 9 And, thus, this doesn't fall within the surprise testimony to exception. 11 As to' whether a ' transcript of any earlier . 12 testimony that would'be relevant is available to you, once . 13 again, of course, since that transcript would1 relate to 14 testimony with respect to allegations that: CASE put'in,. 15 it would seem to me that it would not be necessary to have I 1 i 16 access to that transcript so much as it would be.to-the j a 17 underlying information which has always been in CASE's. " i is possession and has been for some time. 19 Therefore, I fail to see any reason for. i
'{
N delaying cross-examination.- 1 21 Moreover, I would point out a' practical ' 22 problem. And that is, that it'is our-intention to schedule ! 23 i other witnesses tomorrow who will testify regarding aspects 24 of the same subject matter that were raised in testimony to 25 which you earlier adverted. y
-I
75',552 1 1 MR. ROISMAN: I'm-aware of the schedule, 2 and I would like to do everything I can to accommodate it. 3 But this is literally'the first~ time that I have heard what
-4. Mr. Powers was going:to say. cThis-was it. This was the-5 first time.
6 My understanding with Mr..Downey has been,, 7- and with respect.to other' witnesses it has been followed,. 8 -that prior to the' time the witnesses came on, whether ~it - 9~ was rebuttal, direct, cross, or whatever,.that there would-10 be some' opportunity for us to at least have a generalliden 11 of what the witness was going to say'and to be.able to 12 adequately at least prepare that much to marshal the 13 materials. 14 As you well know,. the' prior depositions:in-l 15 this matter were lengthy, extremely lengthy, to be-- - even - ' 16 if they were available and in my. possession'at this' moment-17 to be able to go through them and properly examine Mr. 18 Powers based upon that information woul'd be extremely' . 19 difficult. And there is no way that I will be able to a do that at this moment. j 21 I will be willing to do it at the earliest ~
)
1 22 possible time.
- .. I would be willing to~do it, if necessary,-
I 23 early tomorrow morning or even late tonight. But I'm not 24 in-a position to be able to do it at this minute. 25 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, obviously, as.I said, I l l a i _a_:___ __ - _ . - - -
I 75,553 1 can't force you to do it. .I understand your position. I 2 feel that there has been more than adequate notice when you 3 deal with a rebuttal witness and he testifies solely and .i 4 directly and limitedly as to incidents that were' testified j 5 to earlier by witnesses that were submitted in behalf of ' 1 6 CASE, so'there can possibly be no surprise that I find it 7 just simply an assertion that I don't find wholly credible,. 8 but I'm certainly prepared to accommodate if you really 9 feel that much disadvantaged. 10 MR. ROISMAN: I do. And it is now.3:30 I 11 will try to give you some indication by five o' clock of 12 whether ' think it would be possible to go this evening. 13 I would prefer to do that, both because the witness is here-- , 14 l< I know that he works out at the site, but I'm sure that he j 15 has scheduled a full day-- I hope that he's scheduled a r 16 full day of work tomorrow. 17 h; And it's not for any intention to-disadvantage I 1 18 him or to, l in any way, try to dislodge the schedule. 19 But by 5:00, I will give you some idea of j M what I will do. i 21 Now, if the Staff is going to cross at this 22 time, and I don't know what Mr. Mizuno's intent is,.I'll 23 have to stay here for that. Or, at least, I feel that I 24 should stay here for that. , If they are not and we're going 25 to adjourn, what I'm saying is that an hour and a half from _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ = _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
75,554 I when we adjourn I can, at a minimum, tell you: Yeah, I 2 think we can go ahead now, or Gee, I don't think we can 3 do anything right now. And I can tell you when I think we 4 could. 5 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, once again, without 6 agreeing that there's any necessary need for delay, I 7 certainly think that I'm prepared to indulge you in that 8 offer, and I'm perfectly prepared to accept that representa-9 tion. 10 Mr. Mizuno, how do you feel? Would you like i 11 to conduct your cross now? 12 MR. MIZUNO: I would like to conduct some 13 cross, but I would like to reserve some time to conduct 14 some cross or recross-- well, that's not true.
)
15 We normally go last, and I would like to 16 hear Mr. Roisman's cross and possibly ask further cross-17 examination questions based upon what he may ask. 18 MR. ROISMAN: I have no objection to the 19 Staff following its usual procedure. But I don't see 20 where I'm necessarily the one to make the yea or nay on 21 that, Mr. Davidson. 22 MR. MIZUNO: But the Staff'would like to go 23 forward with part of its cross, at least, at this point. 24 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, I really feel that I'd
, 2 like to make as much use of the witness's time as possible.
I __.____________.__a
p 75,5553 1 So, I think I'd be happy to have you begin 2 your' cross.. However, I will say that I'do; register an 3 objection. 1 4 I don't think.that the staff has;any grounds' 5 .for claiming any surprise-anymore thanLMr.'Roisman'.does,- 1 6 and I don't understand why everybody wants to go' seriatim. 7 I think a piecemeal deposition like this, carried on over. 8 an' extended period of time when we're dealing ~. solely with 9 rebuttal testimony limitedfspecifically-to an incident'that-to was previously testified to and all.we are doing is filling-11 in the context of what occurred that there could be any-12 grounds for any claim by any party that there~is surprise. 13 I'm just absolutely, quite candidly flabber-14 gasted.- Now, I'm prepared-- 15 MR. MIZUNO: Mr..Davidson, I'm not claiming 16 surprise. 17 MR. DAVIDSON: Oh, you're not? 18 MR. MIZUNO: No, I had said'I was going to 19 go ahead with cross now, but I wanted to reserve some cross 20 depending on the questions that Mr. Roisman has. 21 MR. DAVIDSON: I don't think that's a 22 privilege you have, Mr. Mizuno. I think that: cross is 23 limited by'the scope of direct. 24 And Mr. Roisman may do an effective job 25 of cross-exaraination,_ but he surely will not change' the 4 ~ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ - - _ _ _ -
q
, .75,5561 1
. scope of the.directcand, therefore,.whatever you cross.now 2
should properly be limited by what my examination as . direct 1 3 established as the . parameters 'of. your inquiries.' 4 MR. ROISMAN: Let me say, and'perhapsithis 5 vill help you,HMr. Mizuno,Jin making your-- j 6 401. MIZUNO: This hasn't- ' 7 MR. ROISMAN: --own' decision, but--
'8 lMR. MIZUNO:Okay.
9 MR.'ROISMAN: LRegardless of'when.I dofthe 10 cross, I: would be surprised if I spent' 1'onge'r than two hours 11 at it, if.that much. The witness has. demonstrated to be-12 very responsive to; answers.1 My questions will be very 13 direct, so that I_ don't_think overall, if we were able-to. 14 go'as soon.as five~o' clock that-there would.be any inability,. 15 ! depending on"the length of your ownz cross, thattif we 16 followed in our normal of things that we would not1 finish: 17 this witness today, admittedly, closer.to'9:00 than to 18 6:00, 19-But, nonetheless,.I see'no reason to believe 20 that we won't finish-the witness today. _. 21' MR. MIZUNO: Well,.I would like to save time l. 22 .i l by going forward now, but if it's going to be Applicant's ' 23 i, position that I will not be able to reserve some time after- ' i. 24 your cross, then I think I will wait. 1 25 The Board has not previously been strict'in , o
)
1 i 4
._____:-_2--- ._ ._ __ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . - - - ___.:-_. - : -- __. - ______._-_2-__.--- --:-----_____--
q
, .75,557
-1 restricting the Staff's cross-examination to;the scope of' 2
the direct by the' witness, but has allowed the staff'in'the 3 past to follow up on. lines'which may-- which'may have been 4 brought out by other parties. 5. And I-would.not like to deviate from that
;6 practice.
7 MR. ROISMAN:. Well, may I suggest we-not-8 fight that fight,'unless and until it becomes-necessary. 9 MR. ~ DAVIDSON:- Well, add I don't even think to that there necessarily will be one. 11 I'm.just wondering: What is the most 12 efficient way-- 13 MR. MIZUNO: The most efficient way would 14 definitely be tcr-me to go and start mine now. 15 MR.'DAVIDSON: All right, Mr. Mizuno. Why 16 don't you start now. ; i 17 MR. MIZUNO: Because-I don't have very many 18 questions. 19 MR. DAVIDSON: Frankly,EI was hoping that 20 was the case, and I was hoping that Mr. Roisman would go i 21 right ahead. ! And.I'm surprised even to hear-that he thinks. -j t 22 he has two hours' worth. !
'1 j
23 CROSS-EXAMINATION l 24 BY MR. MIZUNO: ! h - i 25 Mr. Powers, when Q.
' lfirst came to
i 1
a I75,558 1 you and expressed his belief that there.was a-conflict 2 between. ES-100 and- Regulatory Guide 1.75,. did he specifically
'3- point.out the' sections of ES-100 and Reg Guide 1.75 that he 1
4 felt were in conflict? 5 MR. ROISMAN: Objection. I believe'the'testi-6 money is that Mr. Powers.cameLto' 1and not.the - - 7 other way around. 8 MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you, Mr.'Roisman. 'You 9 were quicker on the draw than I was.- I had no objection.to
- 10 -the question, other than the fact that Mr. Mizuno had switched
.11 the position'of the people. It was, indeed, Mr. Powers, if-12 I recollect.the testimony,' who said that'a.fter'there was 13 this problem of getting his signature on SWA, he went to 3
14 see 15 -MR. MIZUNO: .Right. 1 16 BY MR. MIZUNO: 17 O With that correction,'did 1 point ,1 18 anything out? 19 A He could not point out anything to me.
\
20 Q He did not-cite any-- 'did'not read back 21 any particular.words or-- -to you? 22 A No, sir, he.could not. 23 0 You-indicated that old you thatt 24 he had talked to Gibbs & Hill and he told you that a DCA .i 25 had been written against ES-100? 1 I
- j j
75,559-1 AL Yes, sir. 2 Q- Did identify' the DCA' number to you?
. \s, s 3 A 'Yes, sir.
4 .Q' And ' can you give us that - nunber? 5 A~ I do not recall the number. 6 MR. MIZUNO:_ That's it. 7 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Mizuno, I wish I'd k'nown. a that'before.we. engaged in the colloquy. 9 _Mr. Roisman,--I'm prepared to' offer you.the 10 opportunity to ask 'a :Similar amount of' cross at this : time 11 if you feel there are some questions you'd just like.to 12 quickly get into. 13 MR. ROISMAN: No, no. I think it makes more 14 sense to do it all atLone time, and it makes-it' shorter 15 by doing it that way. 16 MR. DAVIDSON: Fine. 17 MR. ROISMAN: So, why . don' t Lwe ' leave it this - 18 way: I will call you at 5:00. 19 MR. DAVIDSON: All right. 20 MR. ROISMAN: And I'll either tell' you, let's 21 do.it right away, and as soon as Mr. Powers and Mr. Mizuno 22_ and.yourself are available. Or, I'll say: I want'a-little. i 23 more time. 24 MR. MIZUNO: I will be available for the 25 remainder of the day and the night, because I have no other
75,560 1 depositions scheduled. 2 MR. ROISMAN: All right. That's the same 3 for me. 4 MR. DAVIDSON: That is acceptable. I will 5 expect your call, Mr. Roisman. 6 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. 7 MR. DAVIDSON: With that, Ms. Reporter, I 8 think we should recess the record and will return at an 9 appropriate, agreed-upon time to commence Mr. Roisman's 10 cross. 11 (Whereupon, at 3:36 p.m., the proceedings 12 were recessed.) 13 -~- - 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e 0
75,561
-5:19 p.m .
1: MR. DOWNEY: Ms. Reporter, we are'now going 2 to reconvene this deposition to permit the cross-examination' B~ 3 of Mr. Powers, the witness, and I would remind Mr. Powers 4 that he~is under oath. 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION
~ 06 6 BY MR. QQgNJY:-
7 Q' Mr. Powers, you' testified earlier today-8 regarding.the signing of the SWA and the efforts.on your
~
r --, g part and the part of several.other people to get 10 to sign that SWA. 11 And youfalso testified that the'SWA coordinator 12 in your area had, maybe, six to twelve STE's under his 13 general jurisdiction; is that correct?' 14 MR. DAVIDSON: I think, Mr. Roisman, that 15 most of what you said is accurate. I don't believe.that 16 the testimony will show that-he indicated that the SWA 17 coordinator had anyone under his jurisdiction, but merely 18 that the SWA coordinator worked with'six to twelve STE's-- 19 MR. ROISMAN: Okay.. Tnat's fine. 20 MR..DAVIDSON: --that is, startup' test 21 engineers, who are assigned to systems in the building in 22 which he was engineering manager. 23 BY MR. ROISMAN: 24 O Okay. With that correction; is that correct? 25 A Yes, sir. The-- Yes,. sir. 8
, :j
'75.,502 1
MR. DAVIDSON: When~you_say, "Is that correct", 2 Mr. Roisman, do you mean is your: question, _together with' 3 my additional-- 4 MR. ROISMAN: Yes, correct. 1 5 MR. DAVIDSON:.:--characterization correct. 6 BY MR. ROISMAN:' ' l 7 Q ~ Was there any- requirement that 8 be the particular STE who would be asked'to sign off on 9 this SWA? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q What was that? Why did he have to.be the 12 one? 13 A was assigned ~to the system that v 14 was involved in the cable separation violation.- 15 Q Now, that's an assignment that is made by 16 e your office or by.the office that orks for?' 17 A The a)signment is made by the office that 18
)worksfor.
19 Q. And in the chain of command ~ authority that- > 20 exists, as you understand it, .in_that office, what oppotunity. 21
'did1you have, if any, to request _that a different STE bei 22 assigned to that system?-
j 23 A -i That would not be my sc 3pe of responsibility 24 or prerogative to make that type of request. i 25 Q Have you ever had occasion to ask that an
'I i
-75,5631 1
STE who was' working in an area where you had'a general 2 Jurisdiction over the~ building be changed from an assignment-i i 3 to another assignment? 4 A No, sir, I have not.. 5 Q .You testified that at the first. meeting-e ^ ~ 6 between you and y which~I-believe took place on 7 v ~) Thursday in his_ office, that at one' point'in that meeting het 8 picked.up the phone and made'a phone call,'and I believe 9
.your testimony was that he called Ijaz Enderon (sic)' and to that you picked up a phone and called-Iven Vogelsang; is 11 that correct?
12 g. The pronunciation on Mr.- Amad's.name is 13-
]
Ijaz Amad. 14 O Ijaz Amad. i 15 With that correction, it's-your understanding r~ -
. I 16 that picked up the phone and called that 17 gentleman, and you, in turn, picked'up the phone and called i 18 Mr. Vogelsang.
.k 19 MR. DAVIDSON:' I just want.to clerify, Mr.
20 Roisman, that you realize, of course, that Mr. Powers' .i 1 21 statement as to who ]calledwouldbehearsayif E y < 22 it is offered for anything, other than the fact.of what he i 23 ( overheard him say, rather than who it is he actually spoke 24 with. . 1
- 25 MR. ROISMAN: No one would know that better u_______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
175,564 1
-than I.
2 MR. DAVIDSON: That was just for the record', 3 Mr. Powers. You can answer that question. BY MR. ROISMAN: 5 ~
- Q I.just want to get that. background'so we 6.
lknowf we're talking about the same thing. 'These twoephone ~gf'. - 7 calls,Jone by you to Mr. Vogelsang and'one by
~~. /
8 to whom you believe was Mr. Ijaz .... 8 A Amad. 10 Q Amad. Thank you. 11 A. Yes, sir. That'is correct. 12 Q And'I'believe you testified that Mr. Vogelsang 13 ~ told you that he would terminate the discussion between c 1'
'his engin.eer an End that you should'all meet.
15 d' and discuss it, anditshouldn'tbe( discussing 16 it with Mr. Amad; is that correct? 17 A That'r correct. 18 Q And that subsequent to that, you went-to Mr. 18 Vogelsang's office and you and he had a discussion about r- -, N . . the disagreement that you and( }hadbeenhaving; 21 is that. correct? 22 A
- Yes, sir, that's correct.
r-l 23 L Q Did you invite L-
]toattend=that l 24 y
meeting? 25 A No, I did not. I,
~
I
~ -n--___---__-._._. . _ . - . - .
75,565f 1' Q' Did.you' invite'Mr.-Amad'to attend that 2 meeting? 3 A No, I~did not. 4 -Q 'Did.you hear Mr.Lvogelsang say'anything 5 indicating that he thoughtEthat either one or both of.th'em 6 should be there?: 7 A No, sir. 8 Q Youindicated.thatin:themeeting,'thefirst},c 9 . meeting now between you andg . that'the discussion' q- ),. 10 got' hot. 11 'can you~give me any morelof the~detailsias 12
.you remember them and what actually happened.betweenEthe-13 two of you?
14 A. I believe that my best recollection I've-15 already given that in'the deposition. 16 Q Well,'for instance,.did you shout? Would-17 you say you raised your voice above-normal conversational 18 level? 19 A Yes, I did. 20 Q And did raise his above normal 21 conversational level, as you remember it?- 22 A Yes, he did. 23 Q Did either of.you call each other names, 24 other than first name or last name?~ Serogatory names. 25 A No, we did not.
75,566-9
-O Did either of you impugn.the lineage of 2 either of you?
l 3 A- No, sir, we did'not. l 4 ^
}f Did you-say anything to p O' 'regarding:
y - s-5 'his competence?: 6 A' No,-sir.- 7 Q; Did you indicate to him whether youEthoughts 8 he knew what he was talking about or any wordsfto that. 9 effect? to A I could have.possibly questioned his area 11 of_ expertise and why.he was trying to give me an engineering" 12 evaluation.
'13 .O Did he question your competence?
14 A No, he did not._ 15 Q Other than hisLcharging you_with not being 16 -! concerned with quality, what did he say in his.words that q 17 you treated as, in any way, a_ personal Lttack? 18 A I believe thati )inferredthat 19 since I did not. agree with_his concerns concerning the { 20 i alleged conflicts between ES-100 and RegiGuide l'.75, 21 since I did not concur with his views,-therefore, I.was not l i 22 concerned about the qu'ality_of'the plant. ! 23 Q That's the way.in which.this question'of. 24 quality came in; is that' correct? i 25 'A Yes, sir. ' I - . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ __m__ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . . _
.75,567' 1'
Q' So, it was<not that'he said~that you weren't 2 ~ concerned with quality. It's that heisaid things.from 'which 3 ~you inferred that.that's what he meant.- 4 Al No, he'directly said.that because of my 5 position I was obviously not concerned ab'out-the quality 6' .of the plant. 7 Q Did you understand that to mean because of
.8 your position on the issue 'or because of yourf position in 9 the corporate structure?
10 A 'Because of.my position ~on the issue. 11 Q Now, I believe you stated that, and I think 12 you stated it several' times, that:there was a non-conforming
'13 condition that.had been reported.that this'SWA relatedLto;.
14 is that correct? 15 A That is correct. 16 Q And that you wanted to get fixing it right 17 away; is that correct? 18 A That is. correct. 19 Q And was there a safety concern that .could 20 be affected if there was a delay in the repair of that?- 21: Was that, in any way, involved here?' 22 A That possibility always existed, p 23 How? l-O How would that have existed? Assuming 24 that the SWA would, at some time, been signed and the work 25 done, why was it a problem if it was delayed in its signing 8
- J_--._ :_-____ _ ___-_._.-.- - ---- __-_=__=___.--_ _ - - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ ..___ . _ _ _ . _ - - - - - - _ - - _ _ _ , _ - . . . _ _ _ - - _ . . - _ -
75,368~ 1 in terms of. safety? 2- .A Because at that particular instant, there' 3 . was,not the required separation between the cables as-4 dictated by ES-100. 5 Q But there was no power- ini the lines, ' was - 6 there?- 7 'A Yes, there was power in the lines. 8 ~Q- The lines were live at the' time? 9 A To my _' recollection, they'probably would have-to been. 11 0 To do the work that the-SWA called for, 12 would you have had_to shut them down? 13 A 'Yes, that's correct. 14 And the safety danger that was there when
~
Q 15 they were live,'could you just tell me briefly what is: 16 the danger? What was the nature of the'non-conforming: 17 condition and why was it a dangerous condition? 18 A It was a' dangerous condition in the fact 19 that if there was a fire or a failure from one safety-20 related train cable, the other cables were-not sufficiently 21 protected by an appropriate barrier or the appropriate. 1 22 distance to insure that the-- that a mishap or. failure in !
.3 23-one train would not prevent'that failure from taking out-- i 24 or, being detrimental to the operation of the second' train.
25 Q Now, when~you say " train", are.we talking i
'i i
1
75',569 1 about groups of cables? 2' A- Yes, sir. 3 0 And were the-- By calling them " trains", 4- are;you suggesting that thefgroups of cables had similar
- 5. functions and that1that's why the damage to one trainimight' 6 affect the other' train? Is-that the soarce of the concern?.
7 A. Yes, that's-- That's--: Yes, that's correct. 8 Q -Could we use: the phrase redundant safety:- 9 systems to describe the-systems that these cables'were' to connecting? Is that why we're calling them trains and why. 11 we're concerned about the separation here? 12 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm afriad, Mr. Roisman, you. 13 may be inferring more from_his responses than~is meant. 14 - MR. ROISMAN: Well, I-- 15 MR. DAVIDSON: I'thi'nk you'd'best be careful 16 not to be putting'too many words into the witness's mouth 17 in using '.hese leading questions. 18 MR. ROISMAN: Well, we're in cross. 17 MR. DAVIDSON: No, .I'm not saying.you can't 20 use leading questions. I'm just saying that it may be 21 -best in terms of having this witnese explain his concerns 22 if you'll let him answer, rather than try to get him to .!
'l 23 respond to leading questions. He's more likely to be able-24 to give you some of the nuances and subtleties that are j 25 important here, 'l 1
i l E j
'75'45701 1
MR. ROISMAN: That seems appropriate. 'I'll 2 follow that route. 3 BY MR. ROISMAN: 4 Q
~
I'm trying'to find out now, were th'se e 5 cables connecting' redundant' safety systems? 6 A They were of~different safety related trains; 7 that is correct. 8 Q But your concern, the. safety concern'that 9 was present, that warranted the work ~that the SWA related'to
~
10 was' a concern ' that if one of these bundles of' cables . should-11 have a problem that'it might spill over'and affectithe other 12 bundle of cables and that two independent systems that were-13 designed, one to back up the other, might be both knocked 14 out; is that correct? 15 A That's correct. 16 Q Now, is this strictly-a physical separation? 17 That is, the matter.thri the SWA related--to,'was it a-18 matter of physical discance between one cable or group of is cables and another cable or group of cables?= 20 A Yes, it would have to be.related to physical-21 distance. 22 O And what was the corfection that the SWA 23 was designed to achieve? 24 A The.SWA didn't' direct any type of corrective 25 action.
4- n 75,571-;
- 1. :All right.
Q What wasLthe corrective action 2-that was to have:been' implemented once the SWA'was signed?- 3 A- 'Okay.- The corrective action was'either an-4' engineering disposition on either a non-conforming report , 5-
~
~
or on a separation violation punch list. That would havec 6 directed.the type:of' corrective. action'to be implemented.
'7. 'Q- And-do you!know what-the. corrective ' action 1 8 was that-was ultimately implemented?
9 -A I would just'have to. speculate right now.
~
10 Q No,:you'shouldn't do that. 11' MR. DAVIDSON:-- In .other words,' 'if you remember 12 what the action to be taken was,Lyou should answer Mr. 13 Roisman. He's quite right. :You shouldn't speculate, and-14 you shouldn't try to guess. It's.onlyz if you - remember. 15 A (By the witness)' To the best'of my recollec-16 tion,-- 17 Q (By Mr. Roisman)' Uh-huh. 18 A' --it was the rerouting of cables and the 19 rework of a conduit into the side of a cable tray, l 20 Q "The rework of a conduit", do-you mean the 21 addition of a conduit to a cable? - 22 A No, sir. { 1 23 Q 'What do you mean by "the rework" of it? 24 A The reorientation of the' physical' location'
.l 25 of the conduit. l
)
I 75,572 1 1 Q So that, is it fair to .say that to the best 2 of your recollection, the corrective action that was taken 3 ,w as to re-establish the separation distance required? 4 A That is correct. 5 Q Am I correct that an alternative that might 6 have been done was to better protect the cables from each 7 other and, thus, reduce the amount of separation required? 8 Is that an alternative that could have been used? g A No, the alternative, as written on the 10 disposition, was the only method that the engineers had 11 devised for the correct separation condition. 12 Q My question was: To the best of your 13 knowledge,-- And if you don't know, just say, "I don't 14 know." --was there an alternative engineering disposition 15 which could have been offered as far as you know, or do you 16 not know that? 17 MR. DAVIDSON: Let me see if I can help f 18 clarify the question, Mr. Roisman, since the witness seems l 19 to be a little puzzled. ' 20 Is your question that could the disposition I 21 Proposed, pursuant to ES-100, have been to insulate or put 1 22 up a better barrier and thereby, instead of change the 23 separation, allow the narrower dimension, but with further 24 area of protection? l 25 MR. ROISMAN: That is correct. a
._ - _- -_-_-___.___ _ - O
a 75,5735 1 MR. DAVIDSON: In other words, would'havet 2 ES-100 -- Th'is is what:he's asking you, Mr. Powers:- Would 'l 3 ES-100 have permitted a different solution,'other.than-4 forcingLthis' separation'that was required?.
~
5- THE WITNESS: Ne,' sir. 6 MR. DAVIDSON: Okay. That's'the questi'on. 7 BY MR. ROISMAN: 1 8 Q Do you remember what the' relationship 1was 9 between the electrical wiring that-- the-different pieces' 10: of. electrical wiring _that caused the non-conformingEcondition: 11 to exist in theLfirstLplace? 'Can you.tell me, were they-12 a fcot' apart, five' feet apart, did they.run next'.to_eachi 13 other, parallel, perpendicular? Can trouLdescribe that?
- 14 Can you remember that?
15 A- No,isir. 16 Q Did you ever go down and.take a-look"at.the 17 actual spot? 18 A Yes, I did. 19 Q So, at one _ time, you knew that, but now you 20 don't remember it; is that correct? 21 A .Yes, sir, that's correct.
- 22 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Roisman, do you have a_
23 great deal more on this particular subject? 1 1 l 24 MR. ROISMAN: No.
-)
l 25 MR. DAVIDSON: The only reason I'ask is that
75,574 1 I think it's a little far afield from the incident, which 2 is the subject of the direct. 3 MR. ROISMAN: I think it all deals with the 4 SWA, but, in any event, I don't-- 5 MR. DAVIDSON: No. Please don't let me cut 6 you off. 7 BY MR. ROISMAN: B Q :n your first meeting with
\before 9
you had even begun to discuss any of the merits of his to concern, as you walked into that meeting, what was your 11 prime concern? 12 A My prime concern was getting the SWA signed
~ _.
13 by
~
14 Q And why was that so important to you? 15 A Because that was preventing the rework of a 16 valid separation violation. 17 Q And why did that bother you? 18 A Because that was a non-conforming condition 19 according to ES-100 20 Q And why did that matter to you that that be 21 taken care of right then? When you walked in the room the 22 first time to see what was in your mind at s 23 that time? Why did that bother you? 24 A It bothered me because he was preventing us 25 from doing identified work on our punch list. 1 I
75;575' 1 O well',-if the identified work remained-on 2 your punch list for another 48 hours, what, at that time, 3 did'you believe that made you want to get this resolved 4- 'right then? 5- A Again, I wanted to'get'the separation.violatior 6- worked and off the punch list, and I wanted ~it.done at the. 7 earliest possible-date.
-8 o But my question is: .Why was that important 9 .to.you?
10 .A Two reasons. First.of all,. safety. 11 Q .Uh-huh. 12 A And secondly, until the-items are worked 13 off the punch. list, the areas that violations are found in 14 cannot be declared complete. 15 O And is declaring them comple'te something 'that 16 is a virtue in your job? .Or, at least, in'the job'that 17 you had at that time? ' 18 MR. DAVIDSON: I have~an-objection. Obviously, 19 doing the work that is required of him'is a virtue. Clearing 1 20 up NCR's is something that is an obligation of his job and 21 all the people that work at the plant site. 22 I don't understand.the purpose of the question, >I
~ '
23 Are you suggesting that n in preventing the- f 24 clearing up of an NCR by insisting 'on having people, address i 25 unrelated matters', was somehow justified, or that they-- ] I 1 l l 1 i
75,576; 1 1 MR. ROISMAN: I'm trying to find'out-- 2 M
. R. DAVIDSON:. --should have-addressed !
3 these matters and' delayed the correction of these. identified 4 violations? 5 MR.'ROISMAN: Look, I'm trying to. find out: 6
'what was in his' head at.the' time,he1 walked into:the room.
7 It has a lot to do with what he saidLand'why he said it; 8 and why,this' incident became this incident. I think I'm-9 entitled to find that1out. 10 In fact,.I believe you had him testify'quite-11 a. bit: lwas~holdingupthe-workthatneeded'tobe: u- ~~ 12 done. And a whole lot-of csher things that were going on 13 in his head. 14 - I'm.trying to_ probe'at that. I think it's 15 (a) within-the scope of the direct, and (b) I think it's - 16 proper, and (c) I'd like to have the witnes's' answer the l 17 question. i 18 BY MR. ROISMAN: 19 Q Now,'the~auestion was: What'is'it.in your-
-M. job, if-there was anything, that made you want to get'this
~
21 thing cleared up right: then? 22 A. It was my responsibility'to assist the 23 engineers that worked for me,-in anyfway that I can, in-them 24 carrying out their. job responsibilities. 25 Again, I was concerned about the safety, and 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . . _ . .I
75,577 1 I was concerned about the timeliness in addressing these 2 NCR's. 3 0 If there were a lot of outstanding-and 4 unsigned SWA's in your shop and, thus, a lot of time was 5 passing between when the SWA was written and when it was' 6 cigned, would that timeliness factor have an impact on the 7 e"aiuation of how well you were doing your job? 8 A I think it's everybody's responsibility to 9 try to complete their work in the most time-efficient manner. 10 Q Does that mean the answer is yes? 11 MR. DAVIDSON: I think the witness answered i 12 your question, Mr. Roisman. 13 MR. ROISMAN: No, he didnt answer my question, 14 He told me he thought it was everybody's job to get finished 15 in timely manner. ic I asked him whether or not it would affect his job. 17 That is,'would he be evaluated differently if he ' i 18 had a lot of these SWA's that had not been signed off on 19 waiting for disposition in his own shop, m MR. DAVIDSON: I think there's an assumption 21 in your question that may be mistaken. 22 The SWA, which is the startup work authoriza-23 tion, Mr. Roisman, is merely a necessary notification to 24 the startup test engineer that there is to be rework done, 25 or work done, to a system to which he is assigned.
75,578' 1 i It does not deal with the' responsibility or
* ~
2
' relate.to the~d'ispositioning of any perceived; violation or
- 3
-problem found by either QC,;that:is quality control, or' 4
the engineering. staff.
.5 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Davidson, these little 6~
side lectures are interesting, but they are.not productive. 7 MR. DAVIDSON: Let mesconnect'themEfor you. 8 MR.'ROISMAN . The' witness and.I'are trying 9
.to just get at a few basieffacts here,~and'you're interfering 10 -
'with'it_in a substantial.way.
11 Now, I want;yousto stop,it. 'I want to be
.12 able to ask the witness the question.
13 He's a very; smart man.- He's'not only well' 14 educated, he's demonstrated'he's_ intelligent on.the record. 15 If he doesn't understand my question, he.can,say, "I don't 16 understand that question, Mr. Roisman." l'7 But your interruptions-- They're not 18 objections. They're simply your effort to prove, on the 19 record, I assume, without being under oath, that you-know 2 as much about this as Mr' Powers does. 21 l I'm not' interested in your' knowledge, and 22 I'd like you to please be quiet and let:the witness answer. 23 i You're making it impossible.to have a meaningful. deposition- I
'24 here , _
1 M . I don't know whether it's a tactic that you're I
.I 1
N
-75,579
.r 1,
.using deliberately, or whether you simply feel that=somehow
~
2-or another you've got'to go;on'the-platform and demonstrate
~
3 your knowledge. We' re 'not : interested Lin . it'. It's.not 4
. evidence.
5 If-you-want-to give your knowledge, let's 6 put you.under oath and we'll cross-examine _you on it. 7 otherwise, I'd like you'to-keep your. comments'_ 8 out. 9-MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Roisman, I'm going to-10 disregard what I consider'to be an unnecessary ad hominem.
' ll attack and merely e:: plain that .the reason ~I made ~that ' state-12 ment was not to, in any way, detract from the. testimony or
~
13 otherwise interrupt, but merely to state that this witness 14 is not responsible for the execution of SWA's. His-job' 15 is as the engineering-- was at that time the engineering 16 manager. 17 MR. ROISMAN: That's'for'the witness to 18 testify to, not for you to interrupt the cross-examination 19 and testify for him. 20 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Roisman, I.merely thought 21 there was a mistaken assumption on your part about the 22 nature of an SWA. 23 MR. ROISMAN: Please do not make assumptions-24 about my assumptions, Mr. Davidson. Let the witness say,
. 25 "Mr. Roisman, you're out in left field.
You've missed e
75,580 l 1 the point." 2 Don't try to do.me any favors. Okay? And 3 that'll make this move more smoothly. 4 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Roisman, based on the 5 response for doing that favor, I doubt that I will seriously 6 entertain doing you many more. 7 However, I would like to tell the witness 8 now: You heard Mr. Roisman say it, but if he's using 9 assumptions here where you think he's mistaken, Mr. Powers, 10 you' don't have to sit mutely here and have him ask you a 11 leading question, then just try to answer "yes" or "no". 12 You can respond by saying that there 's a mistaken assumption
-13 in his question and "You seem not to understand the nature 14 of an SWA, and, therefore, I can't answer the question in 15 that form."
16 Do you understand that? 17 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, i 18 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Roisman, please go ahead. ) i 19 And I apologize if you felt my interruption was, in any !
*) way, disruptive of your examination. ,j' j
J 21 MR. ROISMAN: I did, and I accept your 1 92 apology. 23 BY MR. ROISMAN: Now, Mr. Powers, 24 Q Now, Mr. Powers, let me go back 3 gain to the 25 question.
.fc 1 75',581-
-1 -The question is: Is the' evaluation of your 2
job performance'affected by whether or.not'SWA's are piling 3 up without getting signed and moving on to'whatever-the j
-j'.
4 next phase.is?- I H
$ 'A- No,csir.
6 Q Is your job affected by whether or not
.f 7 reported non-conforming conditions are corrected-in'a I
timelyLfashion in the area where you'have responsibility? 8 f 9 A No, sir.- I-i o i: 0 Is the timeliness of the. work that.;you have-10
'.1 1
11 responsibility for, that'is, getting it completed-in_a timely I
-12 fashion in any way a measure of how well you are doingLyour 13 job?
14 A No, sir. ' i
; 15 Q Now,'when you left Mr. Vogelsang's the first' '
2, . e, - l 16 time after your first meeting with as I under- i
= 1 17 stand it, that was the end of any direct involvement with I e
I 18 you with this issue on that day, on that Thursday; is that-I .
. i a
p 19 correct?
~
1 ; i j 20 j A That's correct. d i 21 Q Okay. And the next time that this came'up i
. y l :
$ 22 was on Friday when you went to Mr. Merritt; is that correct? !
l 23 A That's correct. t ' 24 Q Now, after the meeting with Mr. Merritt and l a i a then the following meeting between Mr. Merritt and Mr. 4
p
- 75,582 1
Camp and: yourself, I believe1you testified that you ' went . l 2 back to your office and decided to wait a period of. time- $[ 3 before you took the SWA backLto Mr. ; is'that corree*? 4 A- That's correct. 5 0- And-the reason for'that wait was what?. .[a. 6 .A To allow Mr. Camp adequate time'to go~and I
-7 visit with Iand,-I assume, relay the.conversat' ion
'8 that Mr. Camp and Mr. Merritt had.
[ 9-Why did you feel it was appropriate to , allow Q' j 10 ! that wait? 11 A I didn't want to have another incident ~with-12
--s 13 O And you thought that the' chance of that:
14 bappening was much greater if Mr. Camp had: not first. spoken - i 15 - with , g L - g 16 A Yes, sir. V j 17 0 When you went to see lfinally that J j 18 Friday, did you learn whether he. had or had not had the r l g 19 conversation with Mr. Camp?
-I I
E A I didn't specifically ask him'if he had, but I i
.: 21 when I asked him to sign my SWA and he refused and then made -
i i: 22 additional comments, again, I. assumed from his. comments
- 23 that Mr. Camp had not spoken to him..
24 O Why didn't.you leave at that point and wait 25 for Mr. Camp to make the communication th'a': you had hoped
.l 1
lI _____.--_-_-.___._-L- _ - - . _ . - _ - . _ _ _ - _ . _ _ . _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - . _ _ . _.-._L--___.L..- . _ - . _ - _ . . _ . _ - . - - - _ . . -- - _ . . _ - - - . . _ . . _ . . - _ - - _ _ . - _ . . _ -
75,583- } 1 would have been made before you came? 2 A Probably because'he introduced the new I 3 topic of visiting with Gibbs & Hill and about a DCA. 4 Q Explain to me, how did the introduction of . 5 that topic make you change your mind about waiting for Camp 6 to have his conversation before you and again con-7 fronted on'this? i 8 A The Thursday discussion did'not involve this l 9 DCA. It appeared to me that he was using the DCA as ! 10 additional reinforcement of his position. Again, the DCA, 11 which number I cannot recall at this time, was either authored' 12 by myself or reviewed by myself , therefore, I thought that 13 I could shed additional light on his understanding of ES-100 . 14 and how the DCA was applied to ES-100. 15 Q Given your previous contact with- ! g 16 the day before, what did you consider was the likelihood 0 17 s i that )?ur additional light on the subject would have any
; 18 impact on his position at that time?
I
; 19 MR. DAVIDSON: Do you understand the question,
; {
I 20 Mr. Powers? 3 21 THE WITNESS: Yes, i i 22 A (By the witness) I believed that at that time 23 since we were still having a very civildzed conversation , ; 24 that it did not enter into my consideration, since we were ' I 25 talking in a civilized fashion-- I I manner. I tried to . I I ' I
, I
i . . 75,584' 1; 1 explain to him the relevancy of_the DCA as applied to'ES-100 2 Q- Did he, cat any time in discussing the DCA 3 with you, _ indicate to-you that Gibbs &. Hill had expressed l 4 to him the feeling that dhe DCA was itself somehow or another 5- a problem? Was that the impression you got that he was-6 trying to give you.that'information? l 7 A Yes, sir. 1 8 Q Did he, at any time as you recolle'ct', indi-9 cate to you that'Gibbs &' Hill concern was not with the DCA 10 but with the ES-100 separation criteria, independent of x 11 the DCA? t' -; 12 A I don't believe you can_ separate the two,. ,i 13 since the DCA was written against ES-100. ! i 14
~
Q -Correct. But is it not true that the-- I 5 15 believe this is your testimony. --that the DCA was merely l
)
q 1 [ 16 an editorial modification of a portion of the separation j l { 17 and not itself a change in the actual-dimensional require-i
; 18 ments; is that correct?
r* ! s e e g 19 A That's correct. i i 20 2 i s
# Q And my question to you then is: Is it your
- 21 ! j recollection'that
; told you . that, _when he spoke f ;
v I 22 to Gibbs & Hill, they expressed a concern about the b'asic 1 : i 23 4 dimensional requirements in ES-100, completely separate h ! 24 from the DCA which apparently didn't change those dimensional I ! 25 requirements? I l
75,585 1 A No, sir, that's not correct. 2 l Q So that, it's your testimony, then, that the n - 3 only thing that focused on with the DCA was ! 4 that he was saying that according to Gibbs & Hill the DCA ' l 5 was altering the dimensional requirements that ES-100 had l 6 originally had; is that correct? ! 7 A No, sir. 8 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm sorry. I don't think 9 that's a correct characterization of the testimony. -I 10 BY MR. ROISMAN: l 11 0 Tell me again, then, in your own words, 12 o q what did you understand wa statement regarding us 13 the relationship between his conversation with Gibbs & Hill 14 and the separation issue that you and he had been disputing i 15 the preceding day. [ 16 MR. DAVIDSON: I would object to the form o
; 17 of that question.
i l 18 Mr. Powers, if you believe you understand it, r
; 19 please answer it.
t j 20 A Mr. qwas trying to use his conversa- {' 21 tion with Gibbs & Hill, stating to me that he had talked -
-..1 ;
I 22 to Gibbs & Hill and they had agreed with him that there 23 was a problem with the DCA, and somehow, in agreeing with 24 him that there was a problem with the DCA, that that was ' 25 reinforcing his position. i. P
! I l . i j
L-----_-----
m
.75,586 1
Q (By:Mr. Roisman) Did he explain.to you,. . 2: t in any way that you can~now recollect and testify to, what 3 the relationship was 'between . the pruported problem with the 4 .DCA and his origina1' concern? ~ 1 I 5 A I could give you my assumptions. 6 MR. DAVIDSON: .Well, I think that's what . he 7 asked for. 8 BY MR. ROISMAN: 9 Yeah. Q -I'm asking for what.your understanding to was at that time,.if you'had'one at' that' time?. t 11 A. No,-I.wasn't. i; 12 MR..DAVIDSON: .All right.. Mr. Powers,'maybe 13 I can help. What Mr'. Roisman,.I thi'nk, is asking is: Did' I
.i 14 he ever explain to you why it was that'he thought that what l
_$ 15 he alleged was the agreement that Gibbs & Hill had with a g is him over the problem of the so-called DCA,1somehow h'ow that ; O 17 would reinforce or reaffirm or confirm;his' view about the E 18 separation problem he said was'found in ES-100 and'its g 19 alleged conflict with 1.75? i f j 2 ' 1 f 20 Isn't that the question, Tony? { t [ 21 - MR. ROISMAN: It is . j 22
- MR. DAVIDSON: .In.other words. he's;trying j 23 to say: How did he relate the two pieces together? How 24 did he find that the statement about a DCA to relate to his i f
25 claim that there was a conflict between ES-100 and Reg Guide l i e
- i. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - __ l
T - 75,587: 1-1 1.75? Explain that to him.. 2 I
.THE WITNESS: He neverLdid explain.to me such l 3
that I could understand it. 4 BY MR. ROISMAN: 5 4 Q ' Did you think that he was trying to .do it . ! 6 but that.you just didn't. understand it? Or did he'never 7 even,.in your judgment, make.an effort to do it? -; 8 i-A I . don't believe he could do it because, whj le. ' l' 9 I he was showing me.the DCA, at the same time I was showin. i 10 him the original copy:of ES-100 to.show him that there were l-1 11 no dimensional changes from the DCA to ES-100,itherefore,: ' 12 I could not understand why.he said the~DCA supported-his 13 position, because the DCA did not change the dimensional 14 requirements of ES-100
; 15 Q
! As the: conversation continued.between you
} 16 and hhatFridayafternoon,did'youchange'your f 17 opinion as to whether you should have waited for Mr. Camp i
l 18 ta have his telephone call?' r i i g 19 A r At that point in time, it had already t -! ' [ 20 escalated, and the discussion was already becoming heated. l' i 21 I'can't recall my exact thoughts-- ! i 22 MR, DAVIDSON: No, listen - to his: question. i 23 THE WITNESS: Okay. 24 MR. DAVIDSON: Could you repeat the question, [I i 25 Mr. Roisman, because I really don't think he answered it? I 3 l
.)
l
s
-75,588 1
BY MR. ROISMAN: 2 o' The question was: At' any time during that 3' afternoon,'did you begin to have doubts about your-original 4 judgment that you didn't need to wait for Mr. Camp to make 5 the call,.and do you wish that you had? 6 A' Yes. 7 MR..DAVIDSON: Okay. j 8 4' BY MR. ROISMAN:
;9 Q You indicated just now that as things heated 10 '
upfit was a little harder for rational thought to come' 11 through? Is'that: fair to say? At least on your' side? 12 MR.'DAVIDSON: I'm going ~to object to that 13 question. I think'that's unfair. l
!, i 14' BY MR. ROISMAN: i 5 15 0 As things heated'up, did you~ feel th'at you
! 16 had less control over your rational thinking processes than i
1-z 17 you had at the beginning of the conversation? l 18 { MR. DAVIDSON: He's asking you, Mr. Powers, 1 1
) )
I t I 19 sis you lose control of yourself? Did you lose the ability i l l 20 ! i { to think? ! { 21 MR. ROISMAN: I'm not asking that. .I said i 7 , I 22 did he have "less control"- l- ~ I'm not asking did he lose. !,. L 23 control. I said,'did he have "less control". j 24 And you're doing it again. 25 t MR. DAVIDSON: I'm sorry, Mr. Roisman.. ~
m.
)
4 75,589.' l 1 A. (By the witness) :I would~probably say I 2 would havelless control, as one gets heated. 3 MR. : DAVIDSON: LessLeontrol over your' temper 4
.or less control ~over your rational? hought t processes?:
5 .MR.'ROISMAN: You have your redirect,fand3
- 6. this'isn't it, t-7 MR. DAVIDSON: Well,-the witness didn't
-{
8 understand, I think, the1 full. question. 9 RMR. ROISMAN: That's also'for-redirect. You
-10 have instructed him that--- =1 11 MR. . DAVIDSON: Mr. Roisman is a very adroit 12 cross-examiner. He knows how to ask a question.,1You are --
13 having this~as a first-time experience. :Be very careful'. 14 you understand when he asks you'if you lost' control', a you i -{
;i 15 ought to know lost control of what.
1 2 Your temperLis one thing;
.i.
[ 16 but reational ability to think isfanother. l , o ! :1 l 17 Now, is it your understanding that'you ., i
)
i 18 wanted to say that you lost control of your~ ability to .
~
I
. l j
g think rationally or you lost control'of'your temper?
~
19 ' l - l
- 20 ll '!'
MR. ROISMAN:' Mr. Davidson,l[ really object i l. l-I i 21 to this. This is all redirect., You will have your full:
! 22 opportunity to do that. I.put in those words and asked
- 4. -i-23 the witness that question. Those words were in there. < !
24 MR. DAVIDSON: Which words were.they? ' L , 35 MR. ROISMAN: I said " rational. thinking I { i 1 i I i
. . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ___.i..__.__.__'.__i________________.____._______
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . .____.__________.._.___.__.._.________________.._____.___1.__ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _____._____;___2_____.
s. 75,590' , 1 processes". I didn't say temper. . I used those.words.. I. 2 used them deliberately. . And you are manipulating: the testi-3 mony by re-emphasizing it to him or attempting.to get hir 4 to change his answer in thefmidst of a cross-examination. 5. MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Roisman, for the first 6 time, I'm going to interrupt ~you, because I think that that'
- 7. ad hominem comment is--
8 'MR. ROISMAN: No. 9 MR DAVIDSON: --totally uncalled[for. 100 MR.;ROIEMAN: Then-keep your-mouth-shut as 11 I asked you to do before. If you want to do redirect,-- 12 MR. DAVIDSON: Are you losing control of your ! 13' rational thought processes or merely your: temper? 14 MR. ROISMAN: No, what I'm losing control of-
! 15 is my ability to stay in the same room with someone like
! 16 yourself, who does'not conduct himself in a professional p
{ 17 4 i manner and has not conducted-himself, in my brief and very j { 18 unpleasant experiences with you in depositions. i-t l
} 19 e Now, I'm going to ask.you once again to do 1
$?b f 2 redirect w,4 during redirect and not to do it during my cross.
er . 21
?
And I'm not going to ask you again. . I'm going to tell you
! - 22 =i to stop putting your interpretation on my questions. '
23 This man is a very smart man. Don't under-24 estimate him. He hears my questions. He knows how to tell 25 me, "I don't understand that."
'd 75,591 l'
MR. D/..iDSON: Did'you understand his question, 2 Mr. Powers? 3
.THE WITNESS: No, sir. I would appreciate
~
4 uit if he.would re-ask the question. 5 MR.;ROISMAN: All right. Well, I.didn't J. g 6 have a , question on the table at the moment, Mr. Powers. 7 All I- had on the table 'was my dispute: with Mr. Davidson's . 1. 8 own attempt to ask questions..
]! -
9. But I.am. going to ask you,:yet again, the i
~
10 question that I was asking you before. And you,will now i l i 11 have the benefit of all of Mr. Davidson's coaching and inter - 12 jections and what have you-- 13 MR, DAVIDSON: As well as Mr. Roisman's p 14 rudeness. But'please disregard it and respond to'his I j 15 questions. " I-g 16 BY MR. ROISMAN: ; O
; 17 Q My' question had been: Did there.come a~ time i
l 18 in the course of the Friday afternoon-discussion between you i t - g 19 and" \whenyoufeltthatyouwerelosing; control l - ~ g 20 [y. %f'your rational thought process? That was my question, i
$v& eT;+ l
- 21 -k i A No, sir. I i
! l 22 (Whereupon, the afternoon session conc 1.uded.) 1 : ! 23 --- 1 24 1 25 _.____..___.____._____.________..m, _ _ . _ _ _ _ . ...m_ . .__
i j 75,592. 'l 4 1 I 1 E V E NlI-N G. SESSION '
.2 6:05;p.m.-
3 BY MR. ROISMAN: 4 ~Q So at all times ~during;that conversation,- 5 you feel that you-had complete control-of.your. rational i r
.6 thinking processes..
7 A Yes, sir. -l
;u i 8 Q Now,-- '-
O g-
-MR. DAVIDSON: ' I'd just like to take'a short f to break to talk with the-witness, Mr. Roisman.
11 MR. ROISMAN: .You're entitled to do'that. 12 (Consultation between the witness and counsel: 13 for Applicants.) 14 MR. DAVIDSON: Are we:on'the record?1
; 15 1(R. ROISMAN: You didn't~tellfher tolgo'off' 1
[. 16 the record.
; 17 MR. DAVIDSON: 'Could we please go off'the.
i
. 18 record?
I.. l i t 19 . (Whereupon,. there was a brief period off the
't
.w.
[ - 20 (lyecord. ) . -- l
%$, j en , s 21 4M MR. DAVIDSON: Let's go back.on'the4 record. !
5 ! I 22 BY MR. ROISMAN:
-t 23 _
~i Q Mr. powers, during that conversation that you i
rs y ' 24 and l i had, how did your conduct in'the conversation; l 25 I change as the discussion got more heated from how it was.
; {
I !
-l- !
4 75,593 1
. when.you first had come in the room.
2 A My. conduct would have changed from-- because . 3 -! of
'not listening to my' explanations of-the {.
.i 4
DCA and of ES-100. 5
-Q I think you' answered me why. Now I want to- [
6- -know how. In what way did your' conduct change as: the. !
.7-conversation got more heated from how it'was when:you first' 8
-i
~ came in the room?
9 A My conduct changed in the fact 1that:.I 10 raised my voice.. 1 11 O Andwhat-abouthowyou'expresss4yo'urthoughts7f 12 Did that change? Did you use different or harsher words - 13 than you would have been using earlier-in the. conversation? ; 14 A I don't know if I would use the term " harsher 'i 5 15 words". l' I might have emphasized my words or been louder I '
.) 16 in my vocabulary. t 3 ; 17 O
i And did your view of( ' ~ ~ statements 4 18 change as the~ conversation went on? r That is, did~you think. ~' i g 19 that ; they.were less rational or that you were'less willing I j lm jyofgivehimthebenefit of the doubt'as the conversation y E 21-i hent on than you were at the very beginning? Z2 A -No, sir. 23 Q Did you have the sense that his conduct- t 24 was changing in much the same way as yours was changing,. 25 as you observed it?
1 75,594- ; 1 1
'l A Yes, sir. 'l I
2 I Q Would.you.say that each of you got, as well. ~ l i 3 l' l as you could observe it now, about as' angry? i ! 4 i i A Yes, we both'became-- I ' don' t know 'if I: would j ! ' 5 use the term " angry". 6 Q All right.- What word would you use? .I'd. j 7 like to have that. . 8 _A I'd like to use the word _" excited".
- 9' Okay.
_Q Now, as I remember it, it.was during ' i 10 this second' discussion with lthatLthe' statement' ; 11 about'either being on' shaky ground or skating on thin ice. , 12 was'made by you; is that correct? That that.was the time 13 when this statement was made, not-that those were;the exact' 14 words that you used?
^.
; 15 MR. DAVIDSON: Excuse me. I'm sorry. Could-8 g 16 I hear the question repeated?
17 (Whereupon, the record was read.) l- 18 A (By the witness) Yes,fsir. ' r i g 19 Q Was.that fairly late.in.the. conversation?. t - :. M Near the end of the conversation? . ,
- 21 A .Yes, sir.
I 22- Q Assyou remember it today, do you think it was-23 possible that a person hearing that statement would have
- 24 interpreted it as being a: threat on their job, as opposed l J 25 to a comment on.their technical strength? l l.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - ---- - -- - - _ - - - - - a
75,595 l I J 1 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm going to-object to that 2 question. I think that calls for pure speculation on the 3 part of the witness. He has no way of knowing ~how any person 4 would necessarily take the comment, . other than the way he 5 thinks he intended it. 6 MR. ROISMAN: No, I don't think that's so. 7 I think he can'make an opinion as to how he thinks.someone . 8 I might take it. 9 This record is-just loaded with people giving to their opinions about whether comments were or were not taken 11 or should have been taken the way that they were taken. 12 And I think if the witness has an opinion 13 about it, it would be interesting to know whether he thinks ! t I 14 that there was a legitimate basis for a misunderstanding whatI ! t 5 15 those words meant. And that's what I'm asking him. t
* ' l ,
3 g 16 MR. DAVIDSON: I understand, Mr..Roisman. ' 1 0 v 17 All I did was object. o 3 J l 18 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. t . I g ! 19 e THE WITNESS: Would you please restate the t - j A) question so that I can properly answer it? i i 21 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. Sure. l 22 BY MR. ROISMAN: 23 Q The question is this: Based upon your recol- . l 24 lection of that conversation, do you think that it was i
, 25 possible that a person hearing those words, whichever those i
I , I w__________-__-_---
i 175,596~ j_ t I words1actually were, could have, in the context of'that J. 2 conversation, have interpreted it as; meaning that:their ,I ' 3 L jobwasindanger,ratherthanthattheirtechnicalpositionj-4 was what was shaky? 5 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Roisman, at'the risk of 6 being accused of being unprofessional,.can I.just ask.one .j 7 question? -When you say "a person",1do you mean a reasonable , 8 ! person or any specific person? l 9 MR. ROISMAN: No. - Let's take.this; person-in ' es % 10 this situation, in this' situation. M { 11 BY MR. ROISMAN: ' 12 Q As you viewed the whole' situation, and you 13 were there, what do.you think now in looking back at it? 14 A No, sir, he could-not have possibly taken i 15 that as a threat on his job.
] 16 Q Now, I believe you testified.that during-0 j 17 this conversation, Mr. London came into , hoffice; l l 18
~
1s that correct? I g 19 A
- Yes, that's correct.- I I
20 .- 1 Did you and Mr. London and' Q- 4
'. .] continue !
- s. - ; i 21
; to discuss this matter after he came in the-office? l
'1 1 22 i
- A No, sir, not discuss it. We'just introduced I 23 -him to the subject-matter.
r- - 24 Q , And did you do that in l office ' O ' 25 or in Mr. London's office?
- l. -
i n :
75,597 1 1 A Just the introduction of what the conversation 2 was about was in office area.
*N
)L' 3 <
Q Did you then discuss it further elsewhere? ! 4 ! A Yes, sir. 5 0 Where else did you discuss it? The three of 6 you in that time frame at that period in the day. I 7
.A We then immediately left to go to Mr.
8 London's office and discuss it. . 9 i Q And did you ever leave Mr. London's office ! 10 1 with Mr. London and and continue to discuss it? 11 A Not in a different office, no, sir. ' 12 Q No, I didn't ask that. Did you continue to 13 discuss it anywhere? Did the three of'you leave that office { 14 and go anywhere else and continue your discussion?
~
; 15 t
A I don't recall. f l I 16 l O Did Mr. London, at any time in the discussions ' 1
; 17 i that yx weta taving, ask to see the system about which the
; 18 dispute ces.; - :od.?
r
?
i 19 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Roisman, there was no 1 1 20 dispute about a system. There was a dispute only about
~
j 21 i
- whether there was an alleged conflict between ES-100 and '
1 22 Reg Guide 1.75 and whether that.should be addressed before ' 23 an SWA was signed to correct an NCR in a system. 24 THE WITNESS: Can I visit with counsel? 25 I MR. ROISMAN: Yeah, sure.
- l l
4
-75,598
]
1 MR. DAVIDSON: We're going to go;off the , 2 record. ' 3 (Whereupon, .thereJwas a brief period off the 4 record for-the witness and counsel for' Applicants to consults) 5 MR. DAVIDSON:' We'll go back on thelrecord.- 6- Mr. Roisman, could I'ask you to repeatEthe-7 question'for the witness? i, t. t
'8
- BY MR; ROISMAN:
9 Q Did Mr. London, at any time, ask to go~and to see the particular cables that were the subject of this
~
~ a '
i 11 dispute.thatyouand"(s Jwere-having? . 12 A I won't give you a definite'yes or no. It's. 13 quite possible at that. time ha could have. asked that question, 7 14 Q And do you have'any recollection of whether :
; 15 o a you, in fact, did go with Mr. London and, to the ,
j 16 spot. in the field where the cables were located? O 17 A I don't recall if we did go or not. I had j 18 looked at it several times, so I can't. recall if-we 'I :1
. .l 19 '
t specifically did.
.~ ,
I i j 2 (Conference between the witness and counsel' ' 21 for Applicants.) { + 7
.]: 22 ' BY MR. ROISMAN: i I
> 1 During the meeting that was held-Monday 1
23 Q 24 afternoon in Mr. Camp's office, what did you understand [ i 25-Mr. Popperel-- Is that- . ; { l
'l
-i l
L. _ _ _____-_-__ _ - _
75,599 1. . 1 A That's not correct. 2 l Q All right. How do you pronounce his name? 3 A Popplewell. 4 Popperwell. Q 5 A Popplewell. 6 Q Popplewell, all right. What did you understand 7 Mr. Popplewell was saying to you? What was he telling you \ 8 about this incident? ! 9 A That in representing the engineering department to at Comanche Peak, he expected'me to conduct myself in a i i 11 professional manner at all times. l I 12 i Q Did you think he was telling you that you l 13 ! hadn't in this particular incident? l 1 14 A Yes. i 15 Q So, you would say that that was a verbal i ,
- j j l 16 reprimand of sorts? Would you consider that that? I i
l o j i 17 A It was a verbal reminder to me to act in a 1 +
; 18 g professional manner in my dealings .with the startup personnel.I <
- ! l
; 19 O Do you think that he was right that you had t
t r a not done that in this incident? , i 21 A (Pause.) I 7 He was right from the standpoint l I i 22 that I had raised my voice and-- I had raised my voice. ' 23 Q And that you shouldn't have? l 24 A That's correct. I l I
. 25 Q Now, did you understand that Mr. Camp was !
l,
' I I
75,600 O
~ > f 1
basically saying the same thing to' 3)
. ~ ,
2 A Yes, sir. - 3 Q And did.you get a suggestion in'that meeting 4 as to what.you should'do if the problem ~should occur again?
'5 I don't mean with but ifL that 6 kindLof problem should occur again.
- 7. A Yes, sir.
8 : I.
'O And that suggestion was to'do what? f 9 A Was to not engage in a~. shouting match, but to rather, the person that's having the-problem should; write 11 the problem down in: the form of a letter: submitted through ,
la his supervisor for proper disposition. i. 13 Q When the meeting was over, did you feel that : I 14 the meeting had been a fruitful meeting? ! i 15 A Yes,. sir. t j 16 Q And did-you feel it was fruitful because it i
~
; 17 had cleared the air between you and
' Is that s 1
! 18 why you thought it was fruitful?
r I , t 19 A Yes, sir. ' i , I l .E Q Did you feel it was fruitful because it had 21 re-emphasized the proper relationship that should' exist ! I .
- l. 22 between your people on the one hand and the startup 4
23 engineers on the other? l 24 A Yes, sir, i I believe-you testified.that at some point' 25 Q 1 i h L. _ - - - - - - - - - - - -
75,601'
- 1. near the end'of the~ meeting the question'was: raised as'to u
t 2: whether you had said anything that was a~ threat to Mr. J 3 Powers (sic) job? Is that what'came up near the end'of the 4 meeting? 5 A No, sir. You said, "Mr . Power s . ; ?
- n. ,
.)
.. i 6
Q 'I'm sorry'. , excuse me. ,
~4 7'
LIs that right, it'came up near the end of- , l 8 the meeting?' 9' A' Yes, that did comeLup.
~
10
.Q Do you remember who raised that point? How.
11 ' did it get into the meeting?' 12 A I believe : asked'Mr. Camp if'there
. J 13 was something else to discuss.
14 0 And did Mr. Camp then say, ".oh, yes." Or. i 15 did Mr. Camp say, "No, what? " I g 16 I mean, which.was-it?' Did Mr. Camp seem to ; s s< j 17 know what ^)wastalkingabout? i l 18 A Yes, sir, f. g 19 Q And did Mr. Camp then address something-- f j 2
.a. question directly to you on that subject?
.. r 21 A Yes, sir, i
i 22 Q And was the essence.of that:
' Did you ,
23 threaten f Q job? 24 - Was that the essence of the question, not I 25 the words?
75,602 j. , I
'li 1
A. Yes, sir. The essence. .! 2 Q And then,~after you had given the~ answer that .- ! I i 3 _you've already testified to, how did Mr. Camp have occLsion 4 to make the statement that you-- And'I believe this is,
./. , -
5 again, not verbatim. --that ) " job couldn't be 6 _ threatened by'you because, essentially what you-had'said, . 7. which is that-he didn't work for you and that his job was 8 not threatened by this incident? . 9 How did-Mr.' Camp happen tofmake that~ statement? ' S Somebody ask. him to make that,. or did he volunteer it? 10 11 A No,. sir, that was a comment immediately: 1 i 12 following my comment. 13 Q Okay. All right. I'd like to take,- if.you 14 would, the two documents that have been much discussed here, , e 2 8 15 which is a portion of ES-100 that relates'to separation j 16 criteria in front of your, and provided to me by your counsel, O j 17 .and a portion of Regulatory Guide 1.75, which I see is-- 18 my copy, anyway, has a mark on 9A, which I assume is'an 4 p 19 exhibit number ~in another en camera deposition;-is that i ( , 5 N correct? :i i
; i 21 MR. DAVIDSON: That is correct, Mr. Roisman, >
{ i - i l 22 with one erratum. And.that is, I,think that this~is the.
.1 23 full text of Regulatory Guide 1.75.
. . ~
24 MR. ROISMAN: .Okay. l ( 3 MR. DAVIDSON: You are correct, however, that t L l 1- i l :! 1 l, t
75,603-1 we did not provide-youLwith the full text of ES-100, because
-2 that is a very substantial document that deals with a great 3 'i many more' issues than just cable separation.
4 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. I would.like, for clarity 5 in this. proceeding, if we could, to simply mark these two-6 again for our proceedings. I believe this would be rowers
.7 Exhibit No. 2 would be the excerpt of'ES-100 Land Powers. :
- 8. Exhibit No. 3 would be the Regulatory Guide 1.75 I 9
If the Reporter would mark those, then we l t 10 would be able to refer to them by their exhibit numbers. 11 l-(The documents referred to 12 were marked-for identification 13 as Powers Deposition' Exhibit 14 Nos. 2 and 3.) i i 15 BY MR. ROISMAN: g 16 Q Now, Mr. Powers, my last questions to you-l 17 are really very simple, and I will give them tofyou in.any 18 form that you're most comfortable with asking'them.
.i p
e 19 I want you to tell me, using these. documents s f 1 i g 20 and your recollection, exactly what the substant.ve dispute 4
/ ^
21 was about between you and
; What did you !
_a i 22 understand was the problem? Why did you feel it wasn't a
- l 2 problem? And point me to the portions of Reg Guide 1,75, ,
.{
24 which is Powers Exhibit 3, and the portions of ES-100, which 25 is Powers Exhibit 2, that you pointed to in your various l,
75,604
,, m h' u
1 discussions with and Mr. Camp and Mr. Merritt v sa^ 2 and all the other people so that we have fully understood 3 on'the record exactly what the technical dispute.was. 4 And.I'm.really pleased to have.you do that 5 in any way you want,-if.your counsel is happy 1with that. 6 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Roisman,.I have no' problem 7 with that. l' 8 Just a clarification I would make is: What. ! 9- I-think you'reiasking is,Jyou want to find 1out what the 10 alleged conflict was, what claim was being made about-an 11 alleged conflict b involving these two documents;
--J 12 In other words, to the best of your recollec 'i 13 tion, if you remember,.what was the conflict that(
-m "
14 insisted exists between ES-100, which has been marked i 15 here-- a portion of ES-100 has been marked here, and 8 j 16 Regulatory Guide 1.757 1 0 17 Then what Mr. Roisman'wants you to do is, I having identified what you remember r' . j 18 having said j
) '
N 19 was.this conflict, how you went about explaining to him your I ' j lo view that there was no-such' conflict and what it is that
.f. 21 you tried to explain to him. '
i 22 Is that basically what you want him to do? j 23 I think that's the question. That's what l 24 he's asking you~to do. Okay? 1 j, i 25 THE WITNESS: Yes. ' 1 I l i __ - - -_ - - L
75,605 1 BY MR. ROISMAN: 2 l Q Are you comfortable with just starting off I 3 and sort of having a soliloquy, or would you rather me ask l j 4 you a question and you give me a little answer? i 5 MR. DAVIDSON: What he means by that is: 1 6 Can you tell him, just without any prompting, what was the 7 conflict, show him if there is a place that was pointed to f 8 by where he pointed, what you did? i k , 9 In other words, can you recreate what you l 10 said on, I think, more than one occasion when you explained 1
/
11 it to and explained it to other-people? Can you es - 12 replicate what you did? 13 ! A (By the witness) The dispute between-- 14 Q (By Mr. Roisman) Just tell us, if you're 2 15 going to refer to a document, say, "This is Powers Exhibit l 16 2" or " Powers Exhibit 3", or "it's the Reg Guide" or "ES-100" ~ ; C l 17 or-- l 3 3 18 { MR. DAVIDSON: Of call it ES-100 or whatever
! )
19 { is easy for you. t l M A (By the witness) In Powers Exhibit 2, which 21 is ES-100, the paragraph where
,/ 1 felt there was .
1 22 a conflict between ES-100 and Reg Guide 1.75 is paragraph Z3 4.11.3.2(2). 24 Okay. Q And can you tell me, did he indicate l 2 to you which particular part of that subparagraph (2) was , l m__________.__
l 75,606 1 the part that created the problem? l 2 A The discussion was centered around the entire 3 paragraph. I 4 0 okay. And what do you recollect was said ' I 5 about that paragraph? 7e'~ - 6 A I recall that contention was that L
- a 7
a conduit in near proximity of a cable tray had to be three , i 8 feet away in the general plant area or two feet away in the l 9 cable spreading room. 10 0 In other words, if I understand correctly, 11 he was saying that the first sentence of subparagraph (2) t 12 was applicable to the situation in which you had a cable 13 tray and a conduit near each other? . Was that his contention r 14 as you remember it? a j 15 MR. DAVIDSON: Do you understand Mr. Roisman's , 8 [ 16 question? 3 17 THE WITNESS: No. i IB Q (:By Mr. Roisman)
! I'm just trying to pin down. I l !
19 It is in the first sentence of subparagr=ph (2) that there { 5 . j 20 is a reference to two feet and three feet. And that's the ! '
- 21
; only place where those dimensions are specifically referenced.i !
i 22 So, my question to you is: Is it that ! 23 sentence that he thought chould~have been applied with l 24 respect to the cable tray that was involved in your discussion? _ 25 i MR. DAVIDSON: Now, when you said "a cable '
75,607
.1 tray involved'in discussion", weLhave to'be very carefui 2 here, Mr. Roisman.
3 The SWA controversy,,with respect to the 4-NCR condition, had nothing to do, as I understand-it,--- I 5 MR. ROISMAN: I understand-it, too., 6 MR. DAVIDSON:' --with the conflict-- the 7 alleged conflict between ES-100 and. Reg Guide.l.75 - 8 p And it-- The dispute arose because he l 9 wouldn't sign the SWA, But in the course of that, heLwas l i-f ' 10 addressing the issue'that wanted to address, 11 which was this alleged conflict. M 0 4"# .' 12 Now, I think'what we're talking about here ' 13-is just the conflict, not the NCR problem. 14 I THE WITNESS: Not related to the SWA or-- j 15 MR. DAVIDSON:--Do you understand what he ' g 16 asked you about this paragraph? -
; 17
/ q !
$ In other words, how did{ read that 18 paragraph so that he believed there was a conflict with what.
; 19
- that paragraph permitted or required and.what-is dictated - i t .
j 20 by this other exhibit,. Regulatory Guide 1.75? I n l' { 21
'In other words, how did.the two relate to I 22 f each other?
23 In other words, you can't answer the 24 question just by looking at ES-100. You have to tell me t 25 wh'y, also, Reg Guide 1.75 requires something other than ! l e _i___i___ - - - - - - -
75,608] -l' I what's there. i 2 A (By'the witness) And again,-I'm' relaying ' L 3 to you my recollection of what'he was telling me. l 4 Q (Byl Mr. . Roisman) . I understand. 5 A His opinion, he was-trying to'say that:this_< 6 paragraph dealt with the situation of a conduit near a 7 cable tray;'that if there was a conduit near a cable' tray-a that it had to be atlleast two foot awaylin the cable- : n
- 9. spread room or three' foot awayfin the general plant' area, j -
.p 10 period. '
11 Q Okay. And'what was your position on that 12 issue? 13 A I told him that was only true when the 14 conduit was run over the top of the cable tray. 5 15 -Q And the conduit in question-that.you were 3 _g te talking about,-where was-it run? o . i 17 MR. DAVIDSON: Were you talking aboutLa
; 18 specific conduit?
r g 19 THE' WITNESS: I think-- Not a specific . I I :. .1 r m conduit. I think we were talking generalities. i q
- 21 MR. DAVIDSON: In other-words, he was 7
i- 7 I 22 - talking about the. criteria, Tony,.not-- That'is,
' .I
~. . -
23 .was talking about the criteria, not a specific problem. 24 MR. ROISMAN: Mark, you 're telling me--' 4 I
- z. you're testifying.
i
75,609i 1 MR. DAVIDSON: Okay.. I'm sorry. 'ILthought 2 there was a misunderstanding. 3 MR. ROISMAN: I.know. I know. 1 i 4 Let~us work those out. It may take a little t 5 longer, but I think'it'll--- 6 MR. DAVIDSON: .I.know your. problem. It's1 7 a difficult way to get the testimony'in this. :There's no - i 8 question.- 9 BY MR. ROISMAN: 10 Q The SWA.related to a cable that was coming 11 -out of a cable tray; is.that correct? 12 A I believe that's correct, yes, sir.- 13 Q And when the cable came out of the cable 14 tray, the problem arose because of the proximity of a l j 15 cable conduit to that. cable; isn't that correct?
- I 3
l 16 A Conduit to that cable. 9 17 Q That's correct? i l 18 A Yes. {_ j k J' r 19- Q Andidid ] indicate to you that ~ t j 20 he believed that at that very place if'the cable tray was 21 closer than two feet to the conduit, the cable tray out I. i , i 22 ~ of which this cable was coming, then the cable tray had l
- i 23 to have a cover on it?
l 24 A Okay. Two feet would not have been the 25 correct dimension. !
. _ _ _ _ _._________._____________----i
75,610 a 1 Q I'm sorry. Three feet when not in the 2' spreading roow. Three feet. 3 A Yes, sir. 4- Q Excuse me.
-5' Was- that what he indicated to you?
6 A I believe that was correct. 7 Q. So, he and-you were. disputing, not-just- ' B
.the generic question about what-does ES-100 mean, but you 9
were disputing whether11t,.in fact, required thati this.
~
10 very cable tray out of.which this cable.was coming should j 11 be moved to be three feet away from the conduit or should 12 be covered; isn't that true?
.j 13 I mean, the dispute did center:down that j-14 .i specifically on a particular' tray'and a particular conduit, I 15 didn't it?-
- i. .
a -i g 16 A i In our discussions,.I don't think we-- ' o v ;u
.J 17 I don't know if we specifically-- In'my mind,-I-don't know- j l
I 18 if I was specifically talking about any one particular-- , h_ e 19 that particular tray. th3, I cannot_say that. ! 1 1
't ;
20 . Q
- Did. you' get the . impression ~ from' what he :l ,
i 'I p 21 said that he was' talking about that particular tray?- , [ 1 I - 22 A No. 1 23 Q Now, what was your response to that claim l 24 on his part with respect to Reg Guide 1.75? What Cid-you l 25-find in the Reg Guide'l.75 that you thought supported =your l l l
75,611 ; 1 view that as long as the conduit was not running over the 2 top of the cable tray, the separation requirement of the i j i 3 first sentence of this subparagraph in ES-100 didn't apply? ; 4 A At this point in the discussion-- Could ; I 5 you repeat the question? ' 6 Q Sure. And the beginning of your answer i 7 raises a point. So, I want to-- Let's-- Maybe we should 8 do it that way. 9 Let's have you answer the question-- Is 10 it possible for you to separate the discussions that you ;
/
3 11 had the first time with) 'and the second time,
%s J 12 or is it easier for you to just talk about them and not 13 Worry about whether you were talking about this point at 14 that time or this point at another time?
h 15 A It would be easier just to talk about the l 16 discussion. f 17 Q Okay. So, let's just focus on the whole i l 18 incident, whether you got into the Reg Guide on Friday or
}
19 Thursday or Monday or Thursday, whatever. Okay? , I l j 20 As you understand now, looking back at l I i 21 the whole incident, did you believe that any part of Reg ' i 1 22 Guide 1.75 supported your position? 23 That's my first question. 24 A Yes. 25 Q Okay. What part of Reg Guide 1.75 did you { l i
= 75,612-1 point to at that timefth'at supported your position?'
2' A Going to Powers Exhibit 3,1which is U.'S. 3 Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.75i I-4 . guess-that would be page'l.75-9.
- 5. Q Okay.
6~ A .Okay. . Figure l1.
-7 .
Q .I'm sorry. I don't see a Figure 1.on'here. 8' A I'm-sorry. ' Figure 5.1. . Excuse-me.- 9 Q Okay. 10 .And~can you now show me, what is'in there. 11 that you, pointed to as support to your position in1the.
.i 12 i figure?
j 13 A Okay. 14 Q Left side, right side, top, bottom.. 5- 15 A The left side.of the page.shows an-arrange . I '
! 16 ment, such that you have:two different trains'of conduit, C
{
; 17 -and if you have an acceptable barrier between the trains i i F l 18 of conduit that you can reduce the amount of separation r
I .. t 19 -to'one. inch. j
! -l j- 20 0 And what does that showiis the acceptable. ]. 21 barrier?
I 22 A This shows, fin this example, cable tray
.. 1 I
23 cover on top and a solid bottom tray as an acceptable 24 barrier.
- 25. 'O Now, in the context of a cable f tray of the
__u.._. _ _x_ _ __.____m_____mim__ m a
75,613 1 type that was present where the SWA was-- the area that 2 the SWA related to-- I know it didn't relate to the tray. 3 What kind of a cable tray was that? Was that one of the-- 4 was it like the "A" division cable tray that's shown on 5 the left side of Figure 5.17 6 A It was a cable tray with a cover on the 7 top, but it was a ladder tray at the bottom. 8 Q What does that mean? Describe a ladder 9 tray to me. 10 A It does not have a solid bottom. 11 Q And the cable conduit in question,.that was I j i 12 the-- Strike that. I 13 Going back to the SWA for a moment, the 14 cable that came out of the cable tray, what was it that c : 3 8 15 it was passing close to that caused the non-conforming g 16 condition? ? l 17 A I believe it was other conduits. i , IB r Q And is " conduit" a term of art to describe
- 1
-1
; 19 a completely enclosed cable or group of cables? ;
t
,3 2 A~ Yes, that's correct.
E 21 Q Do you remember whether that conduit was i i i 22 three feet o.way from the bottom of the cable tray that ! ! 23 we've just been talking about? I t 24 A I wouldn't know the exact dimensions. l, 2 Q Do you know whether it was less than three !
75,614: ll i feet?- l 2 A I-wouldn't know the~ dimensions, f e ,( 3 Q Was claiming that'it should~be ; , L 1 4
.at least three feet-away from the bottom of;thatitray?. .j ' I
.t -
1 5 A- He was-- ILthink the discussion'was i generically, but, yes, that'any conduit had.to:be three. 6 { i' i. 7 feet away from the tray. , It Explain to me again, in looking at;the-8 Q. [
-9 drawing, Figure ~ 5.1 in Regulatory Guide 1.75,- if. we: treat '-
10 - the "B" division.as a conduit--- ; i-11 A You'cannot do that. ! 12 0 And why can't we do that? Why is-the 13 conduit not the functional equivalent of tbe "B" division 14 on Figure 5.1? 1 5 15 A It is, : no way, shape, form, orEfashion, 2 -i l 16 the mechanica1' equivalent ~to a covered-cable tray. O s 17 Q Does ' the conduit that's around the cables
; 18 provide the same protection to the cables inside as the I ,
}~ - 19 tray. cover and tray bottom?
i i A'
, i t
20 Not . the same degree of p'rotection. 21 12 Less or more? 7-j
- n A More.
23 Q The conduit provides more. l 24 A That's absolutely correct. 25 0 And'why is that? What is there about the i-f. l
75,6151 (_ ')
'I
! I conduit? l 2 'A The conduit'is heavier.in gauge.of material q 3 in'the construction <of it.. When it's put_together, it's 4 .almost airtight. The fact that you have threaded connec-5' tions to is,_ it is ~a much superior . form of protection l i 6 and also can act as a much superior form'of possible' heat
.1 . dissipation than-a cable' tray.
8
'l So, they are not .anywhere close to being -
9 the.same. 10 Q But yet, the conduit'that contains safety-11 realted cables must. be, in the general plant area, at-least 12 three. feet from the-top of an open tray. L 13 A The top only, yes. 14 Q. Correct. 5 15 A Yes. -i. [ 16 Q And in this drawing, Figure 5.1, we don't i j 17 have any conduit involved at'all;_is that correct? i l 18 A That's absolutely correct. I 19
; O But the dispute that was between you and -
- f. 20 [ )andtheparagraphinES-100',E that focused on i 21
< separation between conduits on the one hand and,open D i
l
~
22 { trays on the other; is,that right? ' ' 23 A Between conduit and open-bottom trays. 24 That's correct.
.i 25 Q Explain to me again, then, how does Figure
___ _..__li_________________________i._..____ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
75,616 1 5.1 on the lef t side which relates to two trays and the 2 separation distance between them support-- or, strike 3 " support". --relate to the question of what the proper 4 distance is between a conduit on the one hand and open-5 bottom tray on the other. 6 A Yes, I can explain that. 7 Q Okay. Would you please? 8 A Between two trays, if you install devices 9 that constitute an acceptable barrier, i.e., solid-bottom 10 tray, solid-cover top tray, that constitutes an acceptable 11 barrier, those two adjacent raceways. The distance can I i 12 then be reduced down to a minimum of one inch. i 13 0 okay. All right. . l 14 A Now, when you apply that same philosophy ; t a I 5 15 to an open-bottom tray and a conduit, the conduit serves ! 2 ' [ 16 the same functionalpurpose as the two covers between two 0 l 17 cable trays. Therefore, the cable run in conduit, adjacent} 3 18 to or directly below a tray, serves the same function, ; i i 1 degree of protection as two covered trays. i i 19 Therefore, , j i l l l 20 since it serves the same function, you can reduce the j
- i
[ 21 distance for the guidelines of Reg Guide 5.1 with ' 3 r
! E acceptable barriers down to one inch.
i 1 23 0 Why, then, does ES-100 say that the minimum ' I 24 separation between a conduit containing safety-related 25 cables and the top of an open tray having different train ;
. I i
i
75',6171 'E 1 or channels shall be two feet in the-cable spreading room 2 and three feet in the general plant area'if the conduit-3 provides the same level of protection as the covered traysL 4 in.our Figure.5.1 where the separation is only one inch? .l 5 i, A .My last. comment said:. When the conduit. 'i 6, is run. adjacent to or directly'below a tray. 7 Q Why does'it matter whether it's1above or-l~
'8 below?
[ 9 -l A- It matters very much. 10
'O I gathered.you believe that. Why? ;
11 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Powers, he didn't ask 12 you whether it does. He asked you why it does. Why does , 13 it matter? 14 THE WITNESS: Why does it matter? I a ! i 15 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes. i
.t :b
[ 16 A (By the witness) Because of the potential o i j i 3 17 hazard of fire in a cable tray. < 18 r' Q B y Mr. Roisman) (. Are.you saying that the a 4
; 19 i
potential hazard of fire in the cable tray is only to the j j 20 things that run above the cable and not-- - Excuse me. j-21 { 1
--above the cable. tray and not those things that'are below l
') 22 the cable tray?
j l 23 A That's what I'm saying, yes. ! i i 24 Q But that is the crucial distinction, in
\
25 your judgment,-- 1
75,618 g 1 A Yes, sir. d 2 0 --that it's not so important if the fire { 1 3 starts above the conduit as it is if the fire starts 4 below the. conduit. 5 A That's correct. 6 O Okay. Is there anything in Reg Guide 1.75 7 that specifically supports that point, that acknowledges , I i 8 the distinction between whether the fire starts below the 9 conduit or above the conduit, that_you're aware of? l 10 A In my opinion-- Could you please repeat the 11 question? i 12 O Yeah. In fact, I'll withdraw it because I , 13 really want to ask it differently. 14 During the time that you had these discussions g 15 between you andg .! 3 _ jandtheothergentlemeninvolved, g 16 did you at any time point to any portion of Reg Guide 1.75 ! C
; 17 and say, "Here is where I believe the Reg Guide says that i
18 you should make this distinction between whether the fire ! I p 19 has originated below the conduit or above the conduit."? [ i I j 20 A I don't believe I went to any specific i
-[ 21 paragraph of sentence in Reg Guide 1.75 l I 22 Q At that time did you believe that Reg point-- I i i 23 that Reg Guide 1.75 contained such support for your !
24 theory?
)
! I 25 A Yes.
1
E, 4 i .i ,
~75,619
=1 .Q 'And:do:you still?
2- A Yes. 3 Q. Would;you; indicate what portion-offthe-4 ' Reg Guide containes that support', please?- 5 _MR. DAVIDSON: You may wish'to.take some.
', 6 '
; time:to'look:at the Reg Guide-in order:to. rind what you're 7- ~looking 2 for.
8 Could we:go.off.the record while.he looks 9' for it? 10 MR. ROISMAN: Sure. As long as.the record 11 _ will reflect'that we went off at-- :on-my clock 18:46. 12 (Whereupon, there was a short period off 1-13 ' the record.). b
~
j. 14 MR. DAVIDSONj Could we go'back'on'the
; 15 record, please? ,
8 16 MR. ROISMAN: The time is~18:50. l f 17 MR. DAVIDSON: My watch only shows the 7~ i I i l 18 passage of three minutes, but I don'.t-think w'e need to -
?
; 19 . quibble. '
- f. N Go ahead, Mr. Powers. Would you answer :j
{ 21 Mr. Roisman's question? 5 l 22 THE WITNESS: Could you pleasejrestata yourll 3 t l 23 e H question? I i 1 24 BY MR. ROISMAN: 25 Q Yes. My quection to you waE:: Could you l. b y I il i j 1 I' _____.__1_..___ ___._____.i___ __ J
-f 75,620' I Y
- 1
-identify. what portion of Reg Guide l' 75 supports your.-
2: theory:regarding.the' fire danger to conduits'.being.different 3-
.when the conduit;is above the fire source, as opposed-to-4 below,the fire?
5 A .My example ~does not-- that(I' picked out 6 6 does not correctly ~ deal-with conduits. . It deals with-- 7
.Oh,.well,.I'll give you this. explanation.
8 If'ycu want more, I'll-- 9 Q- Lokay. Fine. . Can you direct' us to the page?- 10 A' Okay. On page l .75- 5, paragraph 5.1.3 11 talks about physical separation ~between cable trays.and 12 horizontal distance in the cable ' spreading area. -Okay? 13' i Q All right. I 14 A .And you'll see that it shows that in the.- *
.i l-9 i
! 15 ~
I cable spreading area, there'would.be one; foot. horizontal'ly ' g 16 between cable trays and three feet.-between' trays vertically. ,
" i 17 Q All right.
i $ .i 18 : { A The_ reason this is, th'e philosophy behind g 19 this, if you'll note, paragraph 2,-- [
.{ ,
i 20 { Q I'm sorry.: There.is a paragraph here numbered' = 21
, 5.1.2. Do you mean that one?:
7- ) [. 22 A :5.1.3, excuse.me.. Ifzyou'11- . 23 t MR. DAVIDSON: The second paragraph of that 'I L 24 numbered paragraph? ' 1 i 25 -! A -(Continuing) .The second'-paragraph of that'. l h ; 1 [ -
75,621: ,
" l, 1
.' numbered . paragraph.
2 MR. DAVIDSON: Maybe it would:be. helpful if5
'3 l you referred to those as sections,frather than paragraph's.:
'4.
THE WITNESS:: Okay. 5 MR.'DAVIDSON: In other words, the section 6 is 5.1.3,~and you want toilookrat the=second paragraph of 7 that section.
~
1 8 THE WITNESS: _The second-paragraph. 9 BY.MR. ROISMAN: 10 O' Okay. Go ahead. 11 A "The cable spreading area and the main control 12 room area should not contain high energy equipment such as 13 switchgear, transformers,' rotating equipment, or potential 14 sources of missiles or pipe whip and should not be'used e, 15 for storing flammable materials. Circuits in the cable
} 16 spreading room"-- We're talking about' cables.
- "and main 17 ,
a control room should be limited to control functions,11nstru- i l 18 i r I mentation functions, and those power- circuits and facilities- l ' g 19 serving the control room and instrumentation systems." I i j j 20 You are specifically prohibited from routing 21
.!' -high energy, high voltage circuits in these areas . !
I 22 i { The philosophy being that those circuits- d i 23 can generate a fire.
.i 24 Q I'm not sure that.I-- ' Assuming that I accept i
i 25 -! L that explanation of what. is the philosophy behind that I 4 b
. l i
___.._____.a-.-- -
75,622 1 second paragraph, I'm not sure that I understand how that 2 forms the basis for the one-foot and three-foot separations 3 that's in the next paragraph or how the one-foot and three-4 foot separation relate to my basic question. 5 A Then if you go to paragraph 5.1.4, the 6 General Plant Area, you'll notice that in that area where 7 there are high voltage cables which feed high voltage switch-8 gear, transformers and other type of high energy equipments,-h 9 Q Uh-huh. 10 A
--now that separation distance horizontally 11 has now increased from one feet (sic) to three feet, and 12 the vertical distance has now increased from three feet 13 to five feet because the potential of a fire is greater ;
14 here. Therefore, you want to maximize separation where ! 1, 3 15 there's a danger of a fire. I g 16 If there is not a danger of fire, you can i j 17 decrease physical separation. i ! l 18 i r And it clearly shows that in the philosophy j f 19 in developing Reg Guide 1.75 that fire from sources was I l j m considered in the philosophy of making up_ separation l E A 21 distances. l I
! 22 Q i But how does that show whether the con @2it { f i
23 is running above or below the open tray you can change the j 24 l distance to one inch if it's below and it has to be three , j i J 25 feet if it's above if we're outside the cable spreading room?; l i
'l 4
75,623 1 A, Again, you're looking at the direction'of 2 the flame and of the heat. 3 Q' But what is it in 1.75 that says anything 4 about the direction of the flame-or the heat? 5 And look, first, if-you would, to the third 6 paragraph of 5.1.3, which says the trays shall be separated l 7 vertically by three feet and does not appear to draw any , 8 l distinction between whether you have an important tray as ! 9 ! the above tray or'an important tray as the below. tray. ' 10 So, I'm trying to understand, how does this 11 paragraph give any support to the proposition that if the 12 important tray is below the fire, we can make it closer to l 13 the source of the fire than if the important tray were above 14 the fire. I can't find that. . 2
; 15 A When you talk tray to tray-- When you're f
!. 16 talking tray to tray, there.is no distinction.
O
; 17 Q well, how do we know that it's appropriate 0
18 i to have that distinction when we're talking conduit to tray i 3 i 19 from what's said herein Reg Guide 1.75?
=- ,
4 j 20 A Okay. Again, I'm showing you that the
. I
{ 1 21 philosophy of Reg Guide 1.75 does take into consideration ; j 22 the effects of fire. If there'is a stronger effect of fire,
. \
l l 23 more distance is allowed. i, ! t 24 l If.there's not as great a chance of fire, l 25 less distance is allowed. I e l l
75,624' 1-Okay. 'That philosophy,cthat same philosophy, 2 is employed by.Gibbs & Hill.in their development'of the
~
3 criteria of ES-100, in regards-to the philosophy as demon . 4 strated in' Reg Guide 1.75.
'5 Q I understand.your statement that Reg Guide 6
1.75 considers that a fire is a dangerous thing andjthat 7 you should'have. separation-- i 8 'A That's correct.
] i 9 Q --in order to protect important: cables from. !'
10 those fires. 11 What I'm not understanding is where Reg 12
. Guide 1.75 gives us any guidance as to whether the separation;
~.
I 13 distance should be different depending upon whether the i
-t 14 important cable is running above the source of the fire or j
h 15 below the source of'the' fire. l 16 Which;I understand it is what the whole i. es '
.{ 17 dispute between you and as about,'vis a vis i .
l 18 the interpretation of this subparagraph (2) of ES-100 1 r I-i g 19 A Because if you'll notice in this paragraph 20 .(2) of ES-100, it says: Minimum separation between a
- 21 i conduit and a bottom or a side of a tray shall be one inch. .
1
~l 22 .Q. All right. And'now I'm asking.you: Where l
-3 is it in Reg Guide 1.75 that says that. that is a proper '
24 L ' distance when we're dealing with a tray without a cover and 2 a conduit? )
75,625 1 A Reg Guide 1.75 showr a one-inch distance 2 as acceptable between raceways and an acceptable barrier. 3 And ES-100 tells me that an acceptable barrier between a 4 non-between a conduit and the side or bottom of a 5 tray, that is an acceptable barrer and it can be one inch, 6
-and that reinforces the position that one inch is an 7
acceptable distance between recognized barriers. 8 Q But the one-inch separation that is mentioned 9 in the Reg Guide 1.75 deals with two covered trays;.isn't. 10 that trye? 11 MR. DAVIDSON: Certainly, the figure to which 12 Mr. -- 8 13 ( MR. ROISMAN:- Now, please. Mr. Davidson, ! 14 you just can't possibly justify why your voice is showing h 15 up at this point in transcript. It's a very clear question,
- g. 16 and I want the witness's answer. ;-
e s 17 Please, a 1 l 18 MR. DAVIDSON: 5 I'm sorry if I interrupted
} 19 you, Mr. Roisman.
j 2 would you like to hear the question again, I i l 21 Mr. Powers? ~ i
! 22 BY MR. ROISMAN:
- I 1
a i 23 Q Doesn't Figure 5.1.in Reg Guide 1.75 on the 24 left side show that a one-inch separation is okay when { 25 we're dealing with two covered trays? ' w_______
75,626 i 1 A The title says: " Example of acceptable 2 arrangement where vertical separation distance cannot be , 3 maintained". t 4 Q And what does the diagram-- , 5 A And it shows two-- I 6 Q It shows a covered tray on the bottom and 7 a solid-bottom tray on the top, correct? 8 A That's correct. 9 Q Now, that's not the situation that exists to when you have a ladder tray on the top and a conduit on 11 the bottom, right? 12 A That's correct. 13 Q Now, I want you to explain to me, as you L/' ,- 14 understand it and as you explained it to' and i 15 all the other people involved, how you go from that figure [ 16 to saying that this sentence in Reg Guide-- Excuse me. e
; 17
--in ES-100 is supported in the Reg Guide.
i 18 And the sentence, I believe, is the last-- I g 19 A
. That's correct.
i ) j 20 Q I'm sorry. The next to the last sentence, E l 21 actually, in subparagraph (2) of 4.11.3.2. : I I 22 A Again, I would have to reiterate that that 23 is a-- per ES-100, that is an acceptable arrangement of ; 24 barriers. And as Reg Guide 1.75 shows another arrangement f i ti of acceptable barriers. And you can reduce that distance l i t
J 75,627 1 down to one inch. 2 Q But they're two different sets of barriers, 3 aren't they? 4 A I Yes. 5 Q In one case, it's an open-bottom tray and 6 a conduit, and in the other case, it's a closed-bottom tray 7 and a covered tray. 8 What is it about 1.75 which makes you-believe 9 that that transposition or that change is irrelevant, that. 10' the one inch is still appropriate? 11 A I think the acceptability of suitable 12 ! barriers. i 13 Q I'm sorry? 14 A The accepteb-- The suitable barriers that ' i 5" 15 are required to attain that one-inch separation. 1 R i
! 16 Q Where does 1.75 say-- Reg Guide 1.75 say l
; 17 that the conduit is the functional equivalent of the i j
5 , 18 barriers provided by a solid-tray cover on the bottom and I j 19 solid tray bottom on the top? i i l q j 20 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Powers, the question is l { 21 addressed to you? 7 I 22 l
- THE WITNESS: Can I visit with counsel a i j
i 23 moment? i 24 MR. ROISMAN: Absolutely. 1 25 MR. DAVIDSON: May we go off the record? i i i i u _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
175,628 1 (Whereupon,_there was a.brief period off-2 the record.) 3 MR. DAVIDSON: May we go'back on the. record? 4 PO:.,Roisman, would you repeat your question?
'5 And'I thinkLthe witness would like to answer it.
6 MR..ROIPMAN: .' Ok ay . 7 BY MR.LROISMAN: 8 Q 'What I'm-asking,-Mr.' Powers, is: JWhat part 9-of Reg Guide 1.75_do'you feel supports the_ proposition that 10 where_you have a conduit running.beneata.an open-bottom 11 - tray,,you only need have one-inch separation between the-12 two, as ES-100 provides in' paragraph- 4'.11'. 3. 2 (2) , .; the next !. 13 *to the last sentence? (
]
14 i MR.'DAVIDSON: Well put,:Mr. Roisman. ; h -h 15 A (By the witness) Going back to RegfGuide t [ 16 1.75, paragraph 5.1.4 j O l 17 Q Okay. A l 18 A If you'll go-to the last1 paragraph ~in that-r b s' , g 19 subheading. N Q _Okay. .I l-
~
21 A l t It states, and I quote: "Where plantJarrange-i s 1 22 ments preclude maintaining ~the minimum separation l distance, 23 the redundant circuits should'be run in sold enclosed' . 24 raceways thatiqualify as barriers,-orfother barriers 1should 25 be provided between redundant circuits. The minimum _ c __,,___2_____zm__2h- --- --"-----" ^ - - - " ' - - - - - '
) 75,629 1
distance between these redundant enclosed raceways and 2 oetween barriers and raceways should be one inch. Figures 3 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 illustrate' examples of acceptable 4 i arrangements of barriers and solid enclosed raceways where 5 the minimum separation distance cannot be maintained." 6 Q Now, what is the--' Excuse me. What'is the 7 particular language in there that you would point to to 8 show me that one-set of the redundant circuits can be run 9 in an open bottom tray while the other is run in an enclosed to conduit? j 11 A Because the configuration of.the_ conduit
'12 qualifies as a barrier and would allow you to reduce that 3 13 distance to one inch. I I
14 i Q Well, let's look at it. Look at the first j 5 15 sentence of the last paragraph. It says- l g 16 O
"Whereplantarrangementsprecludemaintain 17 the minimum separation distance, the redundant circuits"--
l 18 And I assume that's talking about two circuits, correct? I r i 19
- "should be run in sold enclosed raceways that qualify as ^
j 20 barri ers , or other barriers should be provided between 21 redundant circuits." ! 7 l'* 22 Now, first, are we talking about sold , 23 enclosed raceways that qualify as barriers or are we talking i 24 about other barriers provided between redundant circuits? ; 1 25 Which is it that we have here? f 9
75,630.: I 1- A =We have other barriers. 2- -Q We have'other barriers..
..3 3 A That's correct.
4~
'O .And what islthe;other barrier?
5 The' conduit. A -
,6' O Wh'at is the difference between'a conduit 17-- -tadi solid. enclosed raceways that' qualify as barriers?" .
8
.l .
MR. DAVIDSON:. Mr.. Roisman,' I .think ' you:
^
9 asked- that question when we compared the enclosed raceway. 10 with a conduit. 11 Go ahead,'Mr.. Powers. 12
'THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. .I'mJsorry. . Excuse 13 me.
= 14 MR. DAVIDSON: No. . I'm - just objecting because' r
1 15 the question's been asked and~ answered, but.you can answer
! 16 it. '
h. l 17 THE WITNESS: Would you repeat the question? 18' r MR. ROISMA'M Sure, l> f f e 19 BY MR. ROISMAN: i
! i
-j M. ?
Q' What. is the difference' between solid enclosed
'{~,
21 raceways that qualify as barriers on the~one hand and. 22' conduits on'the other? l -
.o
- 23 'A .The solid enclose'diraceways-- Would1you {
24 repeat the question one more time? 2 .Q' . Yeah. I'm going to do it even a;little W d 1 [- . . .. . .. .
- 75,631 1
differently to help you focus better. 2 Is a conduit a solid enclosed raceway that 3 qualifies as a barrier? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Then what'do you make of the phrase that 6 follows the "or", which says: "or other barrier should be , 7 provided".' i, 8 Do you understand that to mean that the 9 barrier must be something other than a conduit? 10 A No, because'" solid enclosed raceways" could 11 be, in the proper configuration of Figure 5.1, two cable .! 12 trays that are solidly enclosed could then qualify as a 13 barrier. ( 14 Q But we've alse-- You've just testified that 5 15 a solid enclosed raceway that qualifies as a barrier is a i l 16 conduit; isn't that true? l l 0
; 17 MR. DAVIDSON: No, I think he actually I ,
l 18 testified to the reverse, Mr. Roisman,. He said-- l i And I j h 19 don't know whether it's true. I'm just repeating what he I . i m said. a But he said that a conduit is a solid enclosed 21 raceway. He did not say a solid enclosed raceway is a I
~
1 22 conduit. l 23 MR. ROISMAN: \ I'm sorry. ! 24 l I BY MR. ROISMAN: l 25 ! 0 You testified that a conduit is a solid i
-l
1 9 75,632 1 enclosed raceway that qualifies as a barrier, did you not? ! 2- A That is correct. 3 O And doesn't this sentence then say that 4 whatever solid enclosed raceways that quelify as barriers i 5 are, the other half of the sentence is "other barrie*s 6 should be provided between redundant circuits"-- 7 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Roisman, you've eliminated , l 8 the disjur.ctive, the "or". 9 MR. ROISMAN: I'm sorry. 10 BY MR. ROISMAN: 11 I Q (Continuing) "Or other barriers should be ; 12 provided between redundant circuits". Don't you read the ' L 13 word "other" to mean other than the barriers that are solid i L 14 enclosed barriers that qualify-- Excuse me. --solid ,
; 15 enclosed raceways that qualify as barriers? 4 I
g 16 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Roisman, I hope you'll , O 17 understand this, but I'm going to object to this semantic s l 18 exercise. The sentence speaks for itself. It's in the i I ! j
} 19 disjunctive. It says that you can either use the solid E
i
] \
3 20 enclosed raceways or you can use other barriers. i
- 21
- MR. ROISMAN: I'm trying to get the witness's l i
i 22 understanding of the paragraph that he pointed to, to find ; 23 out if the witness understands what the p uagraph says. 1 l 24 If he properly understands this Reg Guide on which he based I I 25 his opinion that this whole dispute arose from. ! l l
. , n.-
l 75,633 p < 1 I think1that's legitimate-inquiry.- 2 ' MR. DAVIDSON: I'm not saying[for a moment: '- f j. 3 that you can't inquire as;to the witness's understanding ; 4 of the paragraph. I'm just a little concerned about the t. 3 idea of pressing it quite so closely and asking what the. l 3 6 comma may mean or whether, or' not there's a disjunctivethere. > 7 That's all.- 8 BY MR. ROISMAN: 9 Q Do you need the question again? i 10 - A Yes. . 11 Q Okay. I'm trying.to'get you to focus'on 12 the word "other", and T 'm trying to ask you: Isn't.it the 13 case that if it says "other barriers", then that must-mean 14 barriers other than those that are referred to by the g 8 15 phrase " solid enclosed raceways that qualify as barriers"? [ 16 A Yes.
, J j 17 Q When you and A' ' knd the other i k l 18 gentlemen had the discussions about Reg Guide and ES-100, i
,I .
g 19 did you get down to looking at these particular paragraphs i ! that we've been looking at? Did,you point them to this 20
-l !
~
21 third paragraph of Reg ~ Guide 1.75 under paragraph-- under i . 1 22 section 5.1.47 Do you have .1 recollection.of that? , 23 MR. DAVIDSON:- I think, Mr. Roisman, that , l 24 that is the second paragraph of that section. I think'the ! 25 first part of paragraph-- .I i l l l
-1 l
75',634 1 MR. ROISMAN: I'm'sorry.- You are correct. 2' MR.'DAVIDSON: But I' understand the intent. 3 of your question, and I think, Mr.. Powers, if you understand, 4 you should answer the question. 5 Mr. Powers, do you recollect what the question 6 is? i
.7. MR. ROISMAN: Uh-huh.
8 BY MR. ROISMAN:
.)
- 9. > Q This second paragraph of Section 5.1.4 of l 9
10 Reg Guide 1.75, do you remember whether you pointed to .that a n .' 11 particular paragraph in.your discussions with
-5 12 and with the other people regarding your interpretation'of !
13 ;the Reg Guide? ; I i 14 A -Yes, sir. i 15 Q You did' ' I I 2
~f l 16 'A Yes, sir.
3
?
17 Q And did you te111them, as you have previously - i r 18 told me, that you believed that that paragraph demonstrat'es i ) 19 that if one of the redundant systems is enclosedLin a i I I 8 20 . conduit, then the other can be in an open bottom. tray? j i i
- 21 A Yes, sir. j i l '
l 22 Q And did you. indicate to them that.the portion
.i
- 23 of that paragraph that you.believelmakes.that clear is the '
~
'.i
[ 24 ' Portion that says "or other barriers should'be provided l 1 m between re'dundant circuits"? l ( i l I
I f 75,635
'I (Pause.)
2l MR. DAVIDSON: Do you understand the-question? 3 He's saying what part of'the sentence did you point-to when~
'4 you made that point?-
5 THE WITNESS: Yes,Lsir. 6 BY MR.'RCISMAN: 7 Q Mr. Powers, what is your; understanding of-. 8 the danger, if any, to safety related equipment.that's located 9 below a. cable tray that istopen on the' bottom and has a' fire-10 , in.it?' 11 . A ( In' relationship.to what?'
]p 12 O In other words , ' what- danger, if ' any, do - b 13 i safety-related electrical cables haveLfrom a fire'that 14 originates in an open-bottom cable tray that is'above-those r
- 15 safety-related cables?
3 { 16 MR. DAVIDSON . Are we talk'ing about cable'or 0 l l 17 conduit?. i 18 .i
! MR. ROISMAN:
At.this point, just cable.
] ,
19 5 A (By the witness)' You're1 strictly speaking ! E 20 l about a cable?- A. bare, fre.. wir cable that's:run above 21 an open-- 7 j 22 (By Mr. Roisman) p .- .Q Below an open bottom-l j 23 l tray that_is a ladder bottom tray. ! 24 A okay. So, you've got.an open,-free air cable 25 run below an open' bottom tray. 4-
75,636 1 Q Right. And that-- And I'm trying to get 2 from you: What is the danger that a fire in that open 3 bottom tray presents to the cable that's beneath it, that's 4 run under it? 5 A Okay. Well, there's two considerations. 6 One, you've got to consider the'effect of the fire of the 7 cable that's run below the tray and its effect on the cables . I 8 above it in the tray. l 9 Q Okay. I'm only concerned with the fire that 10 originates in the tray affecting the cable that's below it 11 for the moment. i I 12 A ~Okay, i t 13 Q And what danger, if any, is there to that i i 14 cable that's run below if there's a fire in the tray that's j
$ 15 above it?
$ i g 16 A Okay. There is no mechanical protection for i i
j 3 l 3 5 17 that cable in case any debris that's on fire that would, ! 18 you know, fall down. I It could actually fall and lay on top h 19 of that cable. You would have no degree of mechanical
=
i_ ! 20 protection for that. 1 i 21 Q You're talking about debris that is still
}
22 itself on fire, perhaps? l i 23 A Yes. or debris that's-- Yes. l 1 24 0 -If you had.that cable, the one that's run 1 { 25 } underneath, in a cable tray itself with a cover on the top, !
l1 I 75,637 l 1, I would that provide adequate protection, in your judgement, 2 from the danger that we've just been talking about? ' 3 A No, sir. 4 0 Why not? What is it about the danger that 5 makes a covered tray not adequate? ' 6 A Because, again, the covered tray, or the 7 mechanical, configuration of that tray cover is small gauge j i 8 material that does not afford the same-- or, does not 9 afford a good heat dissipation for any hot material that 1 to would fall on it. 11 And again, the configuration of that cable ; 5 12 tray is flat, and it would catch any type of debris falling 13 down and would tend to hold it, concentrate it in that.one 14 area, and, therefore, you could have damage to the cables 15 in the tray below it. 6 [ 16 Q Now, let's look at the cable running above l 0 j 17 the fire point. Are the dangers to the cable running over
'3 18 the top of the tray that's open on the top any greater than f i
i
~
19 the dangers are to the cable that's running below it? !-
)
l E
.l j 20 A Definitely. !
l- { f 7 21 O Why? What is it about the one above that's ! 'l I I 22 more dangerous, in your judgment? 4 23 A Because of the direction of the radiant 24 heat and also of the open flame that would be directed in 1 t 25 an upper direction. i i e
l, 75,638 3
)
1 Q Now, is that conceot, as far as you can d 2 tell, specifically addressed in Reg Guide 1.75? Do they 3 talk about the direction of the fire? j 4 A No, it's not specifically pointed. But 5 with my understanding of the philosophy of it, I would assume 6 that that is taken into consideration in the development l 7 of Reg Guide 1.75. I 8 Q In other words, you believe that it is built i 9 into-- it is a factor that is built into the development 10 of it. 11 A I believe that to be a true statement. I 12 MR. ROISMAN: Ckay. Thank you. Can we ! 13 take a break for just a second? 14 , Off the record. !
. s.
; 15
*. (Whereupon, there was approximately a ten-j 16 minute recess in the proceedings.) l 3
17 BY MR. ROISMAN: 1 l 18 Q I believe you testified earlier, Mr. Powers, 1 r i l 1 1 g 19 about what you understood was the Biggs & Hill theory N { behind the development of paragraph 4.11.3.2, subparagraph . { 21 (2), as in Powers Exhibit 2; is that correct? \ I 7 1 22
- MR. DAVIDSON: Objection, Mr. Roisman. I 23 don't think there is such testimony. ;
24 MR. ROISMAN: Well, we could spend an hour 1 25 trying to go back through to just find out whether that is i l 1 i l
r
.75,639 1
or is not an assumption. I'm asking him is that correct. 2 MR. DAVIDSON: In other words, do you 3 recollect having given such testimony, Mr. Powers? l I 4 THE WITNESS: No, I have not given any t 5 testimony. 6 MR. DAVIDSON: Of that character. !. 7 THE WITNESS: That's correct. , 8 BY MR. ROISMAN: 9 Q Do you have any knowledge of what was the 10 rationale that Gibbu & Hill used in developing subparagraph 11 (2) of 4.11.3.2 of Powers Exhibit 2?~ 12 A Yes, sir, I do. 13 O What's the basis of that? How do you know f 14 that? l
$ 15 A I I have discussed the paragraph with Gibbs } 16 &
Hill, and I've discussed it with the Project Electrical O
; 17 Engineer, who has discussed it with Gibbs &
i Hill. So, I 18 ! t I feel like my discussions with Gibbs & Hill and the Project
- 19 i
Electrical Engineer that I do have some understanding as i j 20 to the philosophy behind the development of this paragraph. i g l I. E 21 Q Did you discuss it with any person who you ' ? i 22 i have reason to believe actually helped develop that sub-23 paragraph? i 24 A Yes, sir. 25 0 And did that person, in your communications , I,
75,640 ;
)
i I ! with him, indicate what the basis or some of the bases were ! I 2 for the development of that paragraph? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q. And did they focus, in particulr.r, on the 5 last-- Excuse me. --the next to the last sentence sf 6 subparagraph (2) to give you ahat they_ believed was the 7 philosophy of that? 8 I A Yes, sir. 1 1 9 Q And is it your testimony today as to what 10 you believe the philosophy of that consisted of what they i 11 told you? I 12 A Yes, sir. ! l 13 Q Is it-- Does it include any factors that 14 they did not tell you? I
; 15 A No, sir.
[ 16 Q Does it exclude any factors that they did o l
; 17 tell you?
i 5 18 A No, sir. t
- I I
19 MR. ROISMAN: I have no further questions. , 20 MR. MIZUNO: l I have no questions. '
)
21 MR. DAVIDSON: Before we close the record, s i 22 I just want to take up one matter.
- ; I 23 Quite honestly, Mr. Roisman, I don't want 24 to burden the point, but I must-say I'm really rather I 25 distressed that you believe that I have offended you in !
i i I j I
s 175,641 1 some way : I want;to make certain that it doesn't stand, 2 betweensus, adversaries:though we.may be. 3-Any, unnecessary. chafing, and I'm sorry'that. 4 you feel that way.
- 5 I.would. point out,;.however, that in1this 6
deposition, you've told me:to. shut my mouth, you've-
'7' accused me of. manipulating the record', i and- you've. also 8
accusedime of unprofessional' conduct. 9 Those are fairly caustic and harsh terms, 10 and I must-tell you that-I am rather-disturbed that.you-11. 1 felt moved to make such'an.ad hominem attack. I, ' 12 ~
-However,.I am prepared to understand-that in 13 the heat,of the moment'that.we all may say something that-14
~
later would rather wish we hadn't.- i 15 i 2 And just so that we may end this record in l g 16 the spirit of amity and amicable, professional adversarial ! 0 l 17 regard, I'd like to ask you whether we both shouldn't say I i j 18 that we certainly do not mean or otherwise wish the record t , 't 19 I I' to reflect such kinds of statements because they were said i j 20 in heat and in passion. ,
. e 21
{ MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Davidson, } . I 1 I think'this !. ; I_ 22 record will speak.for itself, i I 23 -l And you have an almost irresistible knack i 24 !, of forcing the issue, 2 l I do believe that you were interrupting .
- j. '
. 11 !
a
1 75,642
)
t I unnecessarily, without provocation or justification. 2 I do believe that the.effect of that was to l 3 i interrupt the questions that I asked. ' 4 I And I do believe that your conduct was not 9 i 5 in a proper, professional manner. , 6 l I said those things because I really believed i 7 them. And I'd like to accommodate you by withdrawing it, t 8 and all I can tell you is: It's not a matter ofLpersonal ! 9 animus. It has nothing to do with that. Outside the hearin 10 room, you seem like a fine fellow. Inside the hearing room, 11 you seem to have just an irresistible urge, for. lack of a ; 12 better term, to butt in. 13 And it's very disruptive when one is asking ; i. 14 questions to have that happen. 2 15 I Now, I have no idea what the motive is for g 16 that. I'm not a mind reader. And if I indicated anything , C
; 17 about what I thought your motive was, I'll have to confess, 1
18 that would be inappropriate. Because I don't know what your
.I
; 19 motive is.
I I know what the effect was. It made it very j 20 difficult for me to ask questions of the witness, and I E i 21 believe that it made it difficult for me to get answers { !
! E from the witness.
! {
l 1 23 And that's all I can say. < 1 24 i MR. DAVIDSON: Well, I'm sorry you feel that ; 25 way. I'm sorry that you don't feel moved to recognize that i ! i
! i i
i
^
i
p ~ '
-75,643- -
b: . p 1 kir.d of'ad' hominem attack is itself very-- a very unfortunate l 2 occurrence. I
~
3' I. don't think there's anything in the record 4 that would justify what occurred. l 5
-I'm.sorry you feel that way. I certainly am {
6 prepared to extend my hand to resolve these matters. If j 7 you don't choose to shake it, either figuratively or j f l I 8 literally, obviously there's nothing I can do. !
'i 9 I guess these proceedings are closed. '
10 MR. ROISMAN: I've not said anything about i shaking your hand. 11 What I said is that the statements that j 12 I made, I saw no reason to recant.- i 1 I n 13 MR. DAVIDSON: I think the record reflects l, 1
- 14 what spirit.you've reflected here.
- a !
i 15 Thank you, Mr. Roisman, f g 16 Mr. Mizuno, do you have anything to say? l 3 17 MR. MIZUNO: The Staff has nothing. 9
; 18 r MR. DAVIDSON: These proceedings, then, I l i
g 19 guess are closed. s - a i 20 (Whereupon, at'7:35 p.m., the testimony in i I 21 the above-entitled deposition was concluded.) l 2, - l 22 23 ' FREDDIE LEON POWERS, Deponent 24 26 ! l I
n. 3..e..:
. . . . .: .: .- ? . . : .
. g _.
a i : 8 i a ,. 3 ; This is to certify :ha: the at: sche:i proceef.;.- s be f:re :ne I {. 4 ; .. R v- - - ..u . - - - .; wWe e. *
- E O ' V 6 f i g i
f In the .atter of: Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al :
}
, Date of Proceeding: August 1, 1984 7 Place of Proceeding: Glen Rose, Texas ;
, were held as herein appears, and that this is the Original
, transcript for the file of the Commission.
io 11 Sandra Harden Official Reporter - Typed 12 _ _ .ld ,f R h -Q offleiac Reporter - Signature IS
'6 t? '
te i is I to 21 22
,I
' I l
4 2< i l 1
#5 .
t ! TAY'. CE ASSOCIATES accesitato PecressioNAL mroenTcas NCRFCLK. VIRGINIA
* ~
,, rs, . - . . .
/
s W, h 50% . f ; Revision 1 i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMP /ISSION huan ms l C% REGULATORY GUIDE REGul.ATORY CUICE 1.75 PHYSICAL INDEPENDENCE OF ELECTRIC SYSTEMS A. INTRODUCTION suxElary or supporung systems dat must bc operable for de protencon system and ce syste=* ss a::tates to Secuan 50.55a. " Codes and Standards " of 10 CFR perfonn their safety related lunemona. n:s gmde applie Part. 50. "Ucensmg of Producson and.UtiE: tion to ali types ofnuclear power plants. Faculties." reginres m parapaph (h) that protection sys:rms rneet the regt:tements set forth in the 1:sutute c
,, Pa. O!SC M ON of Ele::nral and Ele:uenses E:gmeets Standard. :-
"Catena ior Protecton Systems for Nuc! car Power Genermung Stacons."(Fr* ;79)' . Secton 4.6 of IEEE Duft .IEEE Standed. " Cast:a for Separsuon of
'~ Chs IE Equ:prnent and Cr:=:s." dated Ny 23.1973.
Std 079 1971 (also denpated ANSI N42.71972) was pepared by Ad Hoc Subcomnstae 6 of :ne Nu: lear regmres. in part, tr.at channels that prov:de sipah for - Power Engineer =g Comrrut:ee GPEC) of the Ins:tute ce same prote::ve fusc.:en be mdepencent and of Ehemer.1 ed Elecrcm= Eng eers. Le cr.it wzs phync:11y seprated. General Denp Catenon 3. " Fire Prote::en." of Appendix A. " General Denp Critena subsequently mod $s'i by NPEC in w r.st 19"3 inndent to de normal proce:s of developmg its for Nudear Power Phnts." to 10 CFR Part 50 reoutres. redmal content. De modined c:fr. s:andard ponded in part, dat s:ructures. systems, and components important to safety be- denped and located to entena for the separanon of refundant Chss !E r: rutruze, :orms:ent with other safe:y requiremen:1. the equipment and .: rem:s msta!!cd at nuciear power :h:u. goesot!ity md effect of Sres. General Deng Cntenon Inasmuch :s there was an egent need for expunt
- 17. "Elecmc Power Systems." requires.in part.1st me pdance m the area of phyn=1inoependen: of eie::n:
onnte e:e:me power supplies, includes the battenes, systems ud m new oi de : ens ders:le pdan:e tirer.cy and the ons:te ele::nc distnbunon system have sva:iaoie from de moc2ned IEEE =r:it stand:rd. :ne suffinent mcependence to perform detr tafety func. Repdatory staff pepared a .io:=ent enudec. "Appen. cons assummg a smgir fatlure. General Destp Catenon dix ! to Reguistory Gu::.: 1.75-Php=l ladspencen:=
- 21. "Protecton System Reliability and Testability " of Ele me Systems." n:s A:ye:d!x. w.:n w:s regtcres, m part. cat mdependence denped into e=entally me meni5ed F:: enit s:andard furter pote: en systems be suiDeent to ensure 1st no ungie rncdiSed to (a):d:re:s =:ep: soly 2 se por cns :f de failure results in Io:s of the proteccon func:fon. This s:andard on wi:::1 tere w:s :ot ::mple: apeement.
gutes desenbes a method ac:ep:able to the Regulatory (b) desenbe lopsi ex=:s: ens ei t:r s=n ct.rd's s:aff of :omplyng with IEEE Std 2791971 and Catena prov:ssons cat were a:: puole to be Rep!atory suff, 3.17. and 21 of Appen.iix A to 10 CFR Part 50 with and (c) provide dannsnen where ne= mary, was respect to the phyncalindepende:::e of the dremts and endorsed by de February 1974 ve:::en of tis pet. elecm: ecu2pment cor:: Subsequent to de :ssuance of de Fetrary 1974 Cass lE power rys:em.the pns:ng or assocated with the protecuan system sys: ems vernon oi this gu;de, the modined IEEE & aft s:ancard actuated or :entrolled by the protecuen system. and upon wiuch me pde and tu Appendix were based evobed. in the normal .: burse of s:andard development. into IEEE Std 38t 1974. "!EEE Inal-Use Str.n:iard Catena fer Sepur:non of Chss IE Eqmpment and
'cornes may te obtained nom tra Insatu - 4 Leem=at 2ne Ceczoru s Ennner s. Usuted Engmeenng C:nter.35 E:st 4:n b'*" " M UP8 d M N 4 J 8) E Std
.:54 19"4 has uncergone ballocr:g Mth:n Ad Ho Street. .New Yorx. New Yorx 10017.
Subcommt:tes o and !.?EC and was appoved by ::: ! 6
.- usNRc REGULAToRv Gusots ca .e
. .. . c,
. m .* u m .u- ==.n.a. m.
v.. u.c . n. i. a. v.s w ,. e c a * .a.
) .. n u. .. m. . an o.,=.. .. s. ..n c
..a. a c. sus
.. . = ac u p. .' e m. gem a. e m. a. c
=(a$. D % :.. .. . . . . . mm .
w.a..= .a ia . m.. a aa. .a
.. n.n.... . .
m . s :. * . . g;y am .m ... c.
.mc
. . we .a . - .. c. . m. .. ..
a n .. .o c.:nas.an vs.% a c,u u .. .... ,s.aa.m c s
. .. .. . a . .a. n. . se...
p% - m..um . ...u.m am , w .a. . ma. m m. .. .. w.. .c u ,.. . %,,.,,,.,,,...,,.,,,,,,,,,,. p-
...m .=.... . a . a w ==. == u nmc . a , ,.
t.,,,,.
, an vw a m iS
.s.u .ms,.
aw . , n- eo r
. . ... ~...
. . .u a . .a a e .n.
-au. . . - .
..a.
)
I 1
~-
l _ i p i i l I 3:ns: Dis is a leg:c:I errensen of the standsd's l prestswn1 De :pecified mmimum ccceptacle ser ntwn !!. Section 5.1.2 should be supplemented as fellows: l "The ineWod of idenuft; non med should be simpie 1
~'
dist nces for r:cewevs c::rryutt C".=s /E camurs : r and should pre !ude me need to :ensult any reference ! predic:ted cn ==unpnons related to lkne retadace. matenal to disungu:sh between C1ss IE zad Non C:ss c:ble der:nnt. etc. De phcement of c:bles of le=c IE at:u:u. between Ncn.Chss 5 :::ut:s 11:oc:stec; qual:fic::wn :n these racewcys wuid nuthfy :hese wts different recund2nt C=s-lE syste.~:1. :.nd bersten ' atntrnpnons redundant C:.ss LE systens."
- 5. ' Die " Note" foDowing Se:non 4.5 should be 1;. Pencng issuance of other sc:eptsbie :ntena. icse supplemented as follows: "'D:is exempoon a li=tted ar.d pornons of Se:non 5.1.3 (ex:Lusive of t .e NOTE does not ex:end to oder requ:remenu such as taose of General Design Ct: tenon 17."
fonowmg :n second paragnpn) dat permit me routng of power =bles crougn the =ble spreading ::en(s)and. 3
- 6. Analyses performed in ac:ordance with See ons by implicscon. the control room, should not be j
- enstrued as acceptacle. Also. Se: en 5.1.3 should be 4.5(3),4.6.2. and 5.1.1.0 should be submitted es part of supplemented ss foHows: "Where fensbie, reMmt be Safety Analys:s Report and should idennfy those =bie spreading stess should be unli :d."
cr:ults insuEed in accordanc with these secnons. &~ Dis is a pndent cre:fic inteprer.::mn of the 3.:s:s E: tencon ofRegui: tory Gude J. 70 to prc'rsie standard's prove orn in the:bsence of ge:rfic gui,iance. the infor~.:non needed in order for :he =cif to De Reg:datorr sr:ff recog::es that :absequent uxiependen:iy verfy conform:nce to the .M invesng:non may prere 6:t :h:2 apprecch a too k
, conserscare: however. m the :bse sce of :t:pcrt:ng
- 7. Non.Cass IE in:trumentruon md control cr=uts svadence to the conrr:ry, th.r conser==ve ::; rom !: a should not te c'sempted from me provtsions of Sec=en des.r..ble.
s.6.2. f 3.:ns- Der :s no f.rn techmc:1 b:=s for a De useofofretsnd.:nt a:en:wn the :::d.:r:'s=cie pr:rta: c?=du:t
.s tref:re:s u : 1 tic:
Sec::cn i unre:rneted aemptwn of the:e crcustt Excerpn:ns J.J.J.]). A should be ,. snfid by analys:1 B. Secton 5.1.1.1 could not be construed to imply that 13. No sicnific:nce should te nu:hed :o me diferent j sdecuate separacon of redundant ct:m:s an be t:ny wid:::s tilustrated m . igt.re 2. j ac:ueved sunts a condned space such :.s a =bie tunnel that is effec vely unvenchted. 14. Se:uon 5.0.1 should be snoriemented :s follows: '
"Anc should have incepencent alt supplies." {
- 8. Secton 5.1.1.3 should be supplemented :s follows: 1
- 15. Where ven ! acon is e:u::ed. :te sseur:te safety I
"(4) Cabie splices in raceways should be picrubtted." . ch:s stru=ures recu: red by' 5 :::= 5.O :.hould :e 3:sss: Splices h:re been dennfled :s :he vun::v:t ,,,,,g yy gg,,,ng;n, ,,ggygen ,y,,,;;,,
c:::se of seve~:1 f.res in r:ceways. Even wnere :::e *
- separ:twn di:::r:ce a :dequate to preve :t: fire m the g ,
r:cewers of one discwn from :ffecang = vies in : , ,3 ,. y y 3 redundant divmon. :11 pt:c::c:bie me:ns shouid be used auprented :s foSows: ..m.ua ssps :nen :::mrements of to prevent the oc:~.u~ence cf:f.re. Da pcss:=n at:mst .< 6 appiy to Instrum.entancn some:2. . .
- plices us r:ceways a therfore pnadent. Splices are not, by :hemselves. uru:ccept:cle. If: hey ex:::. the restitu.g 0, tupgSMEniaison desgn should be jusnfied by :alvses. De analyses should be ashm::ted as part of :he Saft:y Anatysa Report.
Da purpose of th:s se:non is to provide infor=:uon to sopiicants .nd !!= sees regatcing tne Rsr.ustory
- 10. See:ca 5.:. . me phrase ":.t a suffi :ent numeer of st:ff's pl:ns for uc!!:ng m:s rer.shtery pee.
pcms"should be ::.nde: stood :o me:n :t mtemis not to , D.:s gu:de rede::s :urrent re;ua:orv pra:::e. l ex:eed 5 ft troughout :te entre = le ler.gth. A!so the Tnerefore. e<s:ept m these =:.es m uru:n me pu=nt preferrea me: nod of marscng =oie :s :0!ct :ocmg. propcses :n se:epu ie sitern::ve me:noe fer ::=. . 3::a: Da a c lcyc:t ex:e".non vf :nr s::nd:rds' psytng s,th speuded por:cns ci me C:mm:ssion's prortssant A J ft m:runum markmg d::::nce is reguacons. 2:s guice wtil :e usea :y me Rep.u:t:rv ccnndred neces=ry :o fac: lit:te r::ual ventic:non that st:if a evalunung ul :cnstru. w:. pr=tt :::Li=uons the ::bie a:s::lkn:n a m conformance witn sep:ratton for wtu n the :ssue date of te S. tie:y Evaiu::ucn Report ente .a. a . e:ruary 1. I 9"4. or after.
.-e-
-e "
.DD
- e re =
+
. e sa#
APPENOlX 1 TO REGULATCRY GUICE 1.7S PHYSICAL INCEPENCENCE OF ELECTRIC SYSTEMS b 1.0 SCCPE a cceptable performance regmrements of the stru=ures and systems. The scope of :r.:s document is the phy=:al ,,s meependence of the =tc=ts and cie:tne equzpment 3.6 Encesure *
- e
- ompr smg or a=oc:sted with 2r Ca:s IE power sys: ems, the prote:aon sys:em.sys: cms actuated or Art identifiable housmg su:h as a cubs:le, control:ed by the protecten system, and auxiliary companment, tert =nal Mx. panei, or encieseri' or st:ppon:ng syste= that are er.sential to the racrway used for ele ===1 equ:pment er : ables.
operation of these syst:ms. Th:s document sets forth entena for the separat3on of circuits and 17 Flame Retardant equipment that are redundant. The determmation of wnich =reasts and equtpment are redundant and Capable of preventmg the prepaganon of a Gre the degree of redundancy reqwred :s outude the scope of th:s document. beyond the area of mduence of :r.e ene fy source that mniated the fire. 2.3 PURPOSE 18 liaistion Devica The purpose of th:s document is to delineate a ccept:cie methods of comeiymg with the A device m a =reme wht:h prevents maifun= ens in requ:rements of IEEE Std 279 1971 and Genersi ene :ecuon of a creun trom =usma ur:a:::ptaoie Design Crnen 3.17, and 21 wnh respe: to the influenca m other se= tons of the =r:=t or other pnysical mdspendence of the ::rcuns and ele =nc .
=r=:2ts. (Interruptmg devices scusted oy fault eqmprnent wittun the scope of th:s document. current are not :onsidered to be :soi:nca devic:s withm the context of th:s co==.ent.
3.0 DEFINIT!CNS 19 Raceway 11 Accemaple Any channel that :s dengneo :nd used exprer.=y for
/
Demons:rsted to be adecuste by the safety analys:s supponmg wires. Mes, or cur.:sts. Raceways of the station, : ens:st pr:rrattly of but :re not re:tr:c:ed t:. ::.cla tt:ys and conom:s. 3.2 Associated C rcusts l'O Redundant Estuioment or Sve:em Non.Ca:s IE ::r:uns that snare power suppiies. enclosures, er raceways wuh Cass IE =rcuits or :re An eqmpment or system the dupli=tes de not pnyst=:!y separ:ted from Cass IE =r=:sts by esental fun: con of :nother ecu:pmen: cr sy::em acceptsble separation d:stan : or barners. :o de e=e::t that :ther =2y p:-form de req =: red fun: tion regudle::s of 1: "" si operat:ca er 13 Barrier fad: e of the other. A device or stru=ure interposed between Ca:s IE 3.11 Sa'ery C:ars Str-~us equipment or =r:uns and a potem;al source of damage to km:t damsge to Cass IE systems to an ac: ptacie levei. Structures de:igned to prote:: Cr.ss IE e:mpment asamst the cife=s of the de:tgn usa events. Fcr 2.4 C: ass lE purpeses of this doc.:=ent, separate safety class stru=ures =n be separ::e rooms in de =me The safety classin= tion of the eie=nc eqmpment and systems mat :re etser.t:al to emergency reacter shutdown, cont:inment : solation. reac:or : ore 1*: Seosration Distance coo:ing. ~' eentsincerit and re:::or heat remov::1. or are othe wise enemtsi :n preven:mg s:gnn =nt Spa:e wnhout eterpesm;::ru::utes.e:wpment. cr
==er:2:s 2:t com:::c :n de pro::gauen of fire er reiesse :( radica:::ve =:tensi to :r.e env.ronment. tr.r.1 :ould drole :ne C.tss IE :ystem.
)
3.5 Cepgn Basis Events l
.t.0 GENER AL SEPAR ATICN CRITERIA 8 P:stu!sted events spe=ned by the Safety Analys:s a of me s::t::n used a de des;gn :o esuchsh the 73 to w, ,wi,, of 2ce,, 2,3, ,.,7,,
2r ar:sernents, s E.?f d 1
~
. _ . . . ~. - -
_ ~
. .1 Razuireo Seoaration document previce: . l Separation should be provided to rnanntam the c.
aces assoc:sted .with a Cass IE system.not or : gam ce mdepenaence of suffic:ent nummers of creasts and they should be analy:ed or testro : Ic .. eqtupment so that the protective funciens reqmred demons rate that Cass IE ::r::uts are not ' degraded below an acceptable level. 1 durms and followmg any design bas:s event an be accompi:shed. The degree of separation reqmred NOTE: Prefmed power stippiy :tremts (4m the ! vanes witit the potent:21 ha:ards m a parnedar area. transm:ssion networic and those si.f.hr power 4.2 Equioment and Cicuits Requiring separation supply cr:tms from the.urut generster that be:ome asso=ated cremts soiely : by thetr connection to the Cass IE distributt:n sys:em Ecu:pment and creu:ts reqtaring sep:ratton should input termmais ' are exempt from the be cete:mmed and delineated early in the plant de::gn and should be identified on documents and reqmrements of se= ton 4.5. (This exe=ption is drawtngs in a distmeuve manner. lirrured and dees not extend to other regterements such as these of General Design 4.3 Methods of Seoaration Cntenon !~.) 4.6 Non.cas IE C*rcuits The sepasation of =rcuits and equipment should be achieved by safety clam structures distance, er Non.Cass IE :n::sts snould comply with e:thee barners, or any combination thereof. In general. 1.6.1 or 4.6.2 locatmg redundant circuits and equ:pment in seperste safety :! ass strucurei afforcs a sect.ter cegree of asuran:s that a stngle event will not 4.5.1.a. The Non C2:s E =r:=ts should be separated affest redundant systems.Therefore, this method of from Can E =ir:uns by the . urumurn separation should be used whenever feasible and separanon reqturements spe :iled m seen:ns I 5.1.3. 5.1.4. or 5.62. and wr:en its use does not :enflict with other safety obje =2ves. 4.5.1.h. The non Chss E =:wn shot.id be :eparated 4.4 Comostibility with Mechanical Systems from asocated ::rcuits by the t .:n:ntrm separ: tion requ:remea.ts spe:: lied m se= cns The separanon of Criss IE c:rcuits and ecmpment 5.1.3. 5.1.4. or f.62 or the effecs of !.reser should be :ud that the reqmred mdependence wdi separ: tion eetween the Son.Cass IE. =r:uits not be :ompromised by the fa2 lure of mechame:I and the szocated =r:mts should be at:s!Ned sys: ems served by the Cass IE systems. For to demonstrate that de Cass 15 =r:=ts are not exarnpie. Cass E ciremts should be routed or degraded below an sc:eptacie level. protened sud that failure of related medamcal 4.6.2 ' equ:pment of one redundant system cannot dis: ole The non.Cs:s IE ::r:mts should be trested ss - Can E c:remts or eqmpment essent:21 to the assocated cr:mts. operstien of the other redundant system (s). 4.7 Doer.smerrurtion of Analyses 4.5 A socisted Crcuiu An:tlyses perfor: ed in a==rd:n=e with 4.5.: and Assoc:sted =r:mts should comply wth one of the 411.b. dou'd be n=m =ed as put of the Isitty follomng: Analyets Report and smould :dennfy these c:r==ts -
- a. msta!!ed m sc:ordan:e with these se= ions, they should be uruquely identified as such and snould remam with or be sepa sted the same as those Cass IE ::remts with wh:h they sre . 5.3 SPECIFIC IEPARATION CRT"'ERIA assocated: they should be sub;ect to all 5.1 Cables and Raceways regturements placed on Can IE creusts such as esble derstmg. environmental cualifi::non. 5.1.1 General Sme retardance, splieng restncnons, and r:ceway fiil, urde:s it =n be ce=onstraten that 5.1.1.1 l the absence of such regmrements could not The rounnt of Ch:s IE cr:mts and ;oc:nen of j si;nifier.ntly reduce the avadaodity oiths Cass eq uipment erved by these C:r.s IE :::ui:s '
IE :::mts.or should be rev ewed for espesure to potent:al
- b. they should be in ac:ordance with t.5.2 from h::.:::.s su:h as h:;h. pressure piping, m:ssaies.
the Chss IE equipment to and includmg an fbmm: ele = ster:al. floodmg. :nd wiring :hst :s ; not flame retare:nt. A segree cf separntzen
- solation device. Beyond the boistion device. 4 !
cremt is not suojen to the requnements of th:s :ommensur:te witn the cam:ge potent:sl of the . ha::rd shouid be provt:ed suen that the '
. l.75 t i l
~l l
.n:rpen:ence of redunc=1 Ces IE synems :s The method of :dem Sc:non usec :o n re: de mamtuned at an ac:eptsoie level. The above requirements should reac5y chs:=gn:sn j separsuon of Cass lE c:r:mts and equipment between recun=nt Chss IE systems, assncated !
' dould make effe:nve use of fe:tures mhetent c:rc:sts ass:gned to recundant Cs:s IE div:nons, and in the clant des:;n such as usmg different non.Cass IE systems. ~he prefened method of rooms or oppos:te sides of rooms or areas, idenuficanon :s color coding, i ex:ept that the use of opposite sides of rooms *
,e cr areas does not cons:itute separation if such 5.1.3 Cable Sprerding Area and Main Corr rol .Joom f i
rooms or aress are :ennned or otherwise in=pable of d:atps:mg the heat . rnera:ed frorn The :able spreading area is de space (s) ad,ia=nt to
)
a .Gre; cable tunnels ne ex:mples of such the control room wnere mstrumenunon and 1 confineri areas. . control moles converge pnor to entenng the ! contml, termmation, or =stn: ment panels. Where 1 5.1.1.2 In those areas where the damage potent:al :s fe:sible, redund:nt cole spre:cmg u= s should be j linuted to fadures or faults mternal to the utilized. j ele::ncal equ:ptr.ent or crcuits, the =mimum i separauon dis:ance can be establir.hed by The =cle spreading areaQ) and main :entrol room ! analysts of tha propesed =cle msullanon.Th:s should not :enum hzgn-energy equ:pment su:n as analys:s should be based on tests performed to switchgear, :nnsformers, rocatmg squipment, or 1 determme the fhme rentdsnt charactenstics of potential sources of rmssa!as or pipe whip and l the proposed cable mstallation considering should not be used for stonng dam =noie matenals. l ' features such as =ble ins;.auon and jacket Grcuits m the esble spread =g areats) and rnam matertals, c:ble tray n!!. and cable, tray control room should be limi:ed to :en:rol i arrangement. functions, instrument funcions, and those power supply crmuts and f2=littu serymg the =n:rol . 5.1.1.3 The :ranimum separsuon distances spe=ned m, room and as:rument sys: cms. 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 are based on open vent:iated i trays. Where these distances are ur.ed to prov:de Power suppi r feeders :o int:n:=ent =d =n:ro! I adequate phyn=1 separanon: room distnbanon panels :nould be mca!'ed in
- a. Cacle splices m raceways shoujd be en:iosed rac: ways inst qualify is barners. The l i
prchibited; m:rumum sep:rst:on d:s:ance be: ween reduncant I
, b. Cabies and ra:eways mvolved should be Cass 15 mble trays shocid be cetermmed by 5.1.1.':
flame reardant; or, where the c:ndinons of 5.1.2.3 are met,shouid ;
- c. The de::gn bas:s snould be that the =bie be one foot between trays sepante: hon:entally trays wdl not be filled above the ace rads; and three feet between trays sepstated sens::Cy.
- nd Where :er=tnation arra ng emenu pre:iuce
- d. Hz:ards should be lit:uted to failures or m:un:ammg the =mtmum sepranon dist:n=e. the faults :nternal :o the eleo:n: equipment cr celes. redundant =rcuits should be run m en:!csed raceways th:t q=iify as barr:ers, or other bstners If le:ser t.eparation dirunces are used they druid be proviced be: ween redundant = =uts.The shculd be e:.tsblished is in 5.1.11 mtnimum di:tance between treu redunnant enclose:8 rs= ways at:d be: ween barn es and 5.1.2 Idenufic:: ion neeways sncu'.i be one 2n:h. Ei;ur:s 5.1,5 1 5.2, I and 5.4 illunt:se c:s=:iss of at.::pu:le Exposed Cass IE acenys should be m:rked in a arra :gemena of barries dnd solid encosed distmc permanent manner at intervals not to raceways where :he nun 2=um separ.::en 4;:=n=
exceed 15 feet and at pomts of entry to and exit c::=ot be =s.numed. from enciosed areas. Cass IE raceways shouid be .
=srked pnor to the im:allation of the:r c:bles. 5.1.4 General P! ant Areas Cables insulled in these ra:eways should be marked In plant areas from which potent:21 ha::artis such as m a manner of suincient dt:rabill:y and at a m:ssdes, external fires. and pipe whrp are ex:!uced, sufficent number of pomts to facditate :nst:al the minimum sep: :non dis =nce between venfi= tion that the msailation is m conform.mee redun:am =cie :r:ys mou:d be determmed bv with the separation en:er:1. These =bic mark:ngs ~
should be applied pnor to or durmg :rutallation. 3 Cass In cabies shou:.d be icetused by a permanent Horcen:al se=aranon :s me:suren frem :ne s ce rail cf er.e r";arker at esca, end m acc:rcann with I;:e ce.ugn trzy to :he sace r:1 of the acucent :::y. Ve ac:t senatien :: measured from :ne tonom of '.t:e top tray to :ne t:p oi tt.: : ce drawar:gs or cole set 0uie. ::al of trie bottom ;rsy. L355
5.1.1 *. r wntre the =nentons ci f.i.1.3.re me:. E.4.2 Motor control Cant es snould be tnree feet 8 between trays separated hortzentally and Sve 3 feet between trays separated ve.:2!!y. If, m addition, high. energy eiectra: Redundant Class IE motor control : enters should be equipment such as'switchgear, transformers, and physically separated in se:ctdance wnh the rotatmg eqmpment u ca:iuded and power caoles are reqmrements of See: ion 4.0. ins: ailed in enciesed raceways that quahly as / hamers, or there are no power cables, the mmamum , r separation d:s:ance may be as spec:ned in 5.1.3. 5.4.3 Distribution Panels . Where plant arrangements preclude mata.tammg the i mm mum se:aration distance, the redundant Redundant Ch:s IE cistributien psne!s sn.ould be.
=rewts shouid be run in solid enclosed raceways physically separated m a=:resnce with the that qualify as bamers, or other bamers should be requirements of See::en 4.0.
provided between redundant caremts. The mmimum ' distance between these redundant enclosed raceways and between hamers and raceweys should be 1 inch. Figures 5.1. 5.2, 5.3. and 5.4 dia:trate 5.5 Containment Electrical Penetrations - exampies of as:eptable arrangemems of barners and solid enclosed raceways where the . rmrumum Redundant C: ass IE containment electrical separation distance annot be mamtained, penetts: ens should be phynmIly separated m - accordance wnh the regmrements of Se= ton .10. 5.2 Standby Power Supply Compliance wnh 4.0 wil generally require ti.at redbndant pene A acms be widely disper:ed around 5.2.1 Standby Cenerating Units the circumference of the contamment. The minimum phyccal separation . for reduncant Redundan: Cass :E :tandby gener: ting umts should penetrations should r. set the reewre== ts for be located :n se ar::e safety class strumures nd = oles and meeways pven m Se::::en 5.1.4. should have merpencent air suppiaes. Non.Cas IE cremts remed in ;ene:ratiens 5.2.2 Auxiliaries and I. scal Controis contammg Cats IE crem:s should be :re:ted as a ssocia ted ciremts in a::ct:an = with the The auxilianes and locs! :ontrols for redundant regmrements c(See::en 4.5.
- stancby genersteg uruts r.hould be lo sted :r. the same safety c:=s s: rue:ure as the usut tney serve or thould be pnyst:a!!y separs:ed m ac:ctdance with 5.8 Main Control Boares
- he requirements of Secion 4.0.
5.3 OC Svetam 5.6.1 Location and Arrangement 5.3.1 Barteries The main :ontrol boards snou'd be lccts:t in : cor.:rol room wnnan a s:le:y :i=s stru=:re. The i Redundant Cass IE batter:es should be pia:ed in c:ntrol room shouid be pr=te=ed f::m ar.d :nould separate safety c!:ss s:ru::ures. Where ve:::dation :s recutred these sa.fety class strue:ures should be not c=ntam h:sh. energy equipment s.u:h as served by mdependent ventil:rion systems. swnchgear, transformers, :::stmg rou:pme :t, or potential sources of m:ssnes or pipe wrnp. 5.3.2 Battery Chargers 5.S.: Internal Senaretion Banery dargers for redundant Casa IE batteries should be phym=lly separated m a:=rdance wnh The minimum separ:non distan: the requirements of Sec: ion 4.0. between reduncant Cass IE eqmpment 2nd ::r:n:ts .nternal 5.4 Distribution Svetem to the control beards :sn be es: sci:sned :y :naiyns of the proposed ms:sila: en. '"h:s 2n:ayts shouid be 5.4.1 Switchgear based on tes:s performed to determ:ne :he flame. ret:rdant chst:c:er::as of :nc winng, utreg , ns:r-:is. equ:pmem. : rid Other m::er::is internsi : Redunennt Chs: IE distribution swit:he :t groups shoma be pnyster.11y separated m ar=re:nce with to tae control board. Where the :cetrol beard ! the requirements of Secuen .t.0. muer:sb are ihrne re::rdant and :nain:s is not I perform d.ge mirumum separ:non dis::nce snould l . 1.75 6 l 1 l l l ? l < 1 l 0 L ,
he um mehes. Wherever the scove sepuanon --
%11ere redun= ant Can IE m:trume :ts sre locate: m dist3nces are not mamtamed, barners snould be separate compartments of a single caomet.attenuun mnailed between redun= ant C::: IE wirms. must be given to routmg of external cabies to the
- instruments to suure that m:ie separauon is I 5.5.3 Intsmal Wiring identrfisseson rnained.
Cass IE wire bundles or cables 'inte=al to the In locatbg C:ss IE instrument cabmets. atte'.rion r control boards should be identtfied in a distmet must be given to the dems of an'penment cc::gn w be ss evems. , per=anent manner at a suffi::ent numoer of pomts to readily disungtush between redundant Cass IE . sycems and between Cass IE and non.Cass IE 5.8 5ensors ad Semor tecoms Connecions sysems. Redundant Cas IE sensors and their connections to - the process system should be suinciently sep:r:ted 5.8.4 Common Terminations that funcional capabi'i:y
- of the protection system will be maintamed despite any singic des:gn bas:s Where redundant Cass IE crcuit: sre termmated on . event or result therefrom. Consideration shou:d be a commen cevice, the provisions of paragraph 5.6.2 given to second:ry effe :s of des:gn basis evems should be met. such as prpe wmp, steam reiesse, r:diancut. and missiles.
5.8.5 Non C: ass IE Wiring Ls:Te components su:n ns the recctor ve=el =n be Non.Cass IE winns not sapatsted from Cass IE :ensidered a surmble =rner if the sensoNo.gole s winns by the mmimum separanon distan:e c:nnect:ng imes are brou;nt out at widely divergent . (determmed in paratraph 5.6.0) or by a barner . pom s and routed so as to keep tne compenent thould be trested' as . asoc:sted circuits :n between redunciant lines. .'tedun& int pres::re t:ps acecresn with the requ:re=tnts of 4.5. located on oppos:te udes of a 5- .o ,c pipe may be consde ed to be sermd by tae ptoe. but the ht lesvtag the taps must oc proteced ass =st dern:ge 5.6.6 Cable Entrance from a credible common a n:e unie:s ottee redundant or diverte :nstrumentatt:n is provided. Redundant Cass IE csbles entenng tne control bcard enclosure should meet the requ:rements of '
, 5.9 Ac usted Enuioment Secuon 5.1.3.
L:, cations of C:n IE ::t.:sted epuiprnent :u.:h as 5.7 Instrument Cabinets purnp enve motors and vaive operating motors ce normally dict:ted by the io:stion of the dra The separanon recutrements of 5.6 spply to e q uipment. The . resa:tsnt loc:uons of 1 innrumentation :ncmets. In addition. redundant equipment =ust be :eviewed to ensure tnat Cass IE mstruments should be located in separate se paration of redundam Ca:s !E sctuat d cabmets or :ornpartments of a escinet. equ:prnent is ac :p:r.:le. 1 i I l i 1.75 7 i
'l
.j i
- i CLASS IE SYSTEM I
~ i DIVISION A -
s
, 'fSOLATION j y y 0EVICE i
- i t
_- U I CLASSIE CIRCulT N ASSOCIATED CIRCUlTS
~
i '- L_ - t 4 W W
,- NON CLASS IE NON CLASS .
CIRCUITS CIRCulTS I t l l
]
MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE, BARRIER. OR DISTANCES DEMONSTRATED TO BE ADEQUATE EXAMPLES OF ACCEPTABLE CIRCUIT ARRANGEMENTS Figure 4.0 1 -- 1.75 8 1 l L_-_-____________-___
5
.. ' r 1 INCH MIN. -
l 'A' DIVISION l SOLID TRAY- l l .A. DIVISION , h' I "
-~_ %
,, BARRIER SOLID TRAY COVER I
T OR l
'B' DIVISION l 'B' DIVISION l l
l s 6 INCH MIN. OR TO WA1 L EXAMPLE OF ACCEPTABLE ARRANGEMENT WHERE - VERTICAL SEPARATION DISTANCE CANNOT DE MAINTAINED Figure 5.1 s-1 FOOT MIN. ~ = SOLID TRAYS AND COVERS TO CEILING. l i i i i :
'A' DIVISION 'S' DIVISION 'A' DIVISION j *B' DIVISIOff 1 INCH MIN.
EXAMPLE OF ACCEPTABLE ARRANGEMENT WHERE HORIZONTAL SEPARATION DISTANCE CANNOT BEMAINTAINED Figure 5.2 l l l 9 l.75 9 4 _.._____m..._____________m_ _ - -
T
, i
~
i 1 FOOT IFOOT MIN. MIN. 1 INCH SOLfD COVER MIN. A DIVISION 4 _ _ _ ._ I s civ!SloN 1 6 EXAMPLE OF ACCEPTABLE ARRANGEMENT FOR REDUNDANT CABLE T CROSSINGS WHERE VERTICAL SEPARATION DISTANCE CANNOT BE M Figure 5.4 1.75 10 l
1 FOOT 1 FOOT
,. , , MIN. , ,_ MIN. g
'A' DIVISION
- vn/ uni /o //o ///u u/n a run BARRIER .
1 INCH-MIN.
'B' DIVISION
. Am i
[ 'A' DIVISION l vs/ n / /// ////qu /u /s/// //y ; I BARRIER 1 INCH l-MIN. .
._1 FOO's MIN. FOR
- j. g P AR. 5.L3 -
-3 FEET MIN. FOR P AR. 5.1.4
'B' DIVISION VIEW A.A EXAMPLE OF ACCEPTABLE ARRANGEMENT fir REDUNDANT CABLE TRAY l CROSSINGS WHERE VERTICAL SEPARATION DISTANCE CANNOT BE MAINTAINED Figure 5.3
,_ 1.75 11 ~2-
l i g .,,..,*2.*** .# - A * * *. = % * * , A .. .. ., .- - I ( n. )
- p,' U . & .: '. s . v . s ! ' . . , ; . . . T. 3 r= ci * * -
- a 4
\ e g s== [.
Q. b n.
. t,s ;. 6. . . ... .", , I. - a. P .n.
w : ; d. ga
.i s f. - .- c , ;- s
.i :.7 '
,a - %. A. 4
- A . .-4 a,s.( s rt t /r5r) 4 i i
l 1
"I~C .s.,., vu . . .A..s . , 3 a-. r.s.-..,
< . C_.S ,.1e .. 1 AGEN" FOR
_.f
. a v.. ,.....r-.. a gg3 4,g. w..~ c . y,. s .., ,
AC"IN~ FCR
.,....S r.n :C%: R a. .r., w ..- - ..- y., W.,
c
.sy. s .v.. r_c...wa.. - a.rRt. . .e-_ ,.-v
... s.a_wTY
"'rC.s3 .*CWER A C I.:GII:' CO:CJAh".*
i C**. .At h".~~.". . .>.T 'd*. .*.*.*.* '.'4 ** ? .". s .* .* . .. '. N * * ' * ' ' ' UN!"S 1 A C 2 . _. _ C".~.t C<. .u.,:.si-..CN
- e .
.e..r..
.:. .. . . . w.....a .,sI ..a . ..C w,
.v.,..,. v , . . .
.2.o RIV!S:CN 2 - CC"'CSIR 15, 198C
.a c _.:_.-:_ a m.-e ..) n,, hwl,U
-Ult U ,IL i (. ... .e .:y r- n ,
6 EnNMEER\MG usE O
. . .. S .e.~ -.:. _ - ... - . . ..sr . . -.
,..,i 5 . . . . . . . . i , =
.. . =. . ,..
. . .n. n, _ ..._ ,. w. .=
_ _, , n_ .
- l
_....._____.. i _ . . , 7 s _.. , ,. ,. s....e. 3 i ys . . ,. .. 8-
..g ....., ,
Id 1. .
*** *\ *
.. e,
, , . , . I
/ .
%'. ' .. **. .*. *4fe j
- , .. =
i 1
~~ *
' j.f'$~l/Y ,' !
t - *
/.,, /C/
l
,. . . A . / ST re*r .0,
\
,. A -m ., =*
. s /
/ .,
. ', . y . . ..
r .: s l
~
d n %.; ' . i . (,/ v
.- __ 5 =. =. . _, .. . , .
n_.h., . . . . ..e , -.
..s. . - - . ,. ,. .::_. .. , C .. .. .... : .--. . . . . .e.
y ggygggy ._.g......; :.h , sr
.s: g s.sr.:y . ..
- '* . ~* -1,,- i --.s *
- s ,,_;
PowJA g ,T i s.s. '. ' ... s j d 'i.*. t I*,, ,' k..)* J .: " -- j, yyy ,,L.,
. _. 4 I
.- l i
G .C..".s . a* - * Specification 2323-EE-100 , Revision'2. -) Oct=her 15, 1980 Page 4-a..s .
,.4., s ... .,A~..CN C2.rm. s..A 4.11.1 General
'"he Engineering drawings show the plant layou: - such that it nee:s i 2.e.separati n criteria defined in the dec.u:ent entitled:
"Ori'teria for separation of Class' II It.tipment and Circuits" submitted Oc 2.e owner via G'"N-2441. ""his 'section pr vides he '
l- necessary infernatien for assisting e.e centrac:=r in field
- ing.e.e c=nduit, use of tolerances for tray installa:.:n and . .
- uting of cables in free air'without' violating the separa::. n - ?.I7.
criteria. 4.11.2' Tield Routing.of Expcsed Conduits
- a. General Guidelines All-expcsed ==0.duits, except for Nuclear'*nst: =entati:n
'Systen (NIS) cenduits (raceway fu==tiens SR, SW, 53 and 5?)
nay be field routed, provided the field selected ::ute nests e.e guidelines and separat:.:n criteria defined herein. l Exposed enduit for the hea: :: acing, fire detect.:n and pr=: action, cae. dic prete::1:n systen, security and
- ==unica:1:n systems are not c=nsidered :s he safety related and are classified as "S n II" and shall he reated as
" raceway functien" K unless e he: vise shewn :n e.e drawings.
I 1
G.e .u. m s e.n _.n .1 , , ,. .. Speci'ica ica 2323.E5-1C0 Revisics 2 oc:cher 15, 1960 Page 4-36 p, sy4. ..,, gu ,v4.
. ~, e.e.,c s ed. .-...-
d"d*- .s, v.". . ".e .- .- . ..d." .' ' . c a .' .. . dimensiens are shewn er =_ct, shall be interpreted as representing
._. 6a su,gges.ed .- -a,4.. . .u, .4 . g . . w 4.,s .4 . e. g . e . ,.4 e n , ,. .4 . s . . _. . . .
all conduits-listed'in he racsway #.*.nenien table belcw: 1 DWG. 1 ".'.*3.A.V. CR. c:. Ass I s cascL i cEA2 ins .'. RAc2VAY F M0"*0N **
'u' g T==d- "A** 17,27,37,45,57,67,75-
.
- 2 Assec12:ad' .
. , ;.a .. .a a .3., G,.e .
. . G , 4 w ,.n. u. , c ..wfeG-Eq
'3 Asscciatad" ,
= .
.,, n , a . , . . , s , . .~.s , .3, , 4^ , w. .. -
,ics I E. . e. .. . . . , 3 a,. , -.e. 4.
u- l o ~ ,1 : l 4x and n
'3" l @ Channal.n 4W and 5W '
e*,. es ,-. ._ s
~
l' Q7 . . . . ,.3 .-d 53 q
*2* l @ l Cha=nal :7 l 47 and 57
, v 4
. .u. 4 .. , s y ,.. . es c - -'~~* .s . a.-= ' .' .. .' ..'.e. - d .
=_=.w.. n ac eyay . -. .c.4 s..
. i, .s... . c a ,.s. c. 4. .. 4. s ..w v .
_ w ,, j 4 e _' e . ...- d . a .' d aw'. ..gs . '.... e.. _ _ ..a ..d . n .d .e. --=#'xad
.*, 1
' dn..4 .. ' , '
- c. -
4
-, e .- o , .4 ..a_4 n .4 .. ., n4 ..'.' s .
., n c . . . ., ...,,-. . . .. _,,.
4 a
- b. "'he centrac=cr shall install 2.e condui _as cicsely as is d practical to 2.e locat:.cn shown en e.e drawings.
. . Whe.e .ecessa-v., '.e ,....ac...-.- av. .ev.
d a . a . '.- . .t '.e.....""-_".' ! . a c a ..d. ... s*.m. .. . .. '. e d. aw.d .. , s ". .".e .- = .' .. . .= .' * - =. .. =. s , s" ,.--. a.<<4
----. ..-.'..'es,
" =.-
..'.v.e....a.'
. ,--.'.'....s.-=.s-.'-=.
a..'.....'.. ,- 4.
. . ,.ca... , .. s i
a.
- ww.. .. , .. v = .- e. a c .' .. a _' , ". .. e.. ." ..s a ' ' .' .. , a -... ...d" .' . . ' . =... .- ...=.- ....
s' a' .' . a .d .. . A... d
' . = . . .' e a. ar. e s .=..' . .".. . .. '. e d. a". . .. , s '- a. "a. e..
2.e conduit and ct..er raceways. i i l I i
G .* .* s =* _= " .' ' , * - ~ * ~ . Specification 1323-E5-100 Revisien 2 oc :be 15, 19E3
.? age'4-37 1
- e. In general, when the Centrac:=r relocates a conduit, he;shall use the space available to obtain- he maxi =un reasenable separa.1:n between Class "1I" raceways having differen:
" raceway functicas" and between Class "1E" racewtys and Nen-Class "1I" raceways.
,f. . Tor a given separatien distance'(clear air distance)-
heri ental spacing is more effective han vertical. spacing. Wherever practical, hori ental caparation be:veen relocated - c=nduit and other raceway shall be used.
- g. "".e Centrae :: =ay change juncti n box locatiens shown en e.e drawings if interferences er =cunting pr:ble=c c:cist and also ,
to ac: m odate field reuted ec=duit locati ons . . Jun ica #1 bcxes, pull bcxes, c =duit-fittings, e :,, are' par: c f . e.e - raceway or cenduit systen and,._heref=re are subject :: 9.e sane separati== criteria.
- h. Juncti:n bc:ces providing access :s e:. bedded ::ndu : whi:h regaires radiation shielding er firestep =aterial shal1~n::
he rel cated wi e. cut a Design Change Au herinatica (OC;). 4
- j. Under no circumstances shall the separation ( lear air distance) between any raceway or c:nduit be less than the n:.ninun eegaired by e.e separatics criteria defined harein.
i . 4
)
l i
G .d.*. s & *
- 1 .' , '.~.c .
Specification 2323-I5-100-Revis:.:n 2 oct:bar 15, 1950
. age -aa
- k. Nu= lear Instrumentation System C=nduits All expcsed nuclear ' inst: mentati:n system (N!S) conduits shall be installed in ac =rdance wi h. he. location shown en the drawings and the criteria specified on drawing 2323.II.0602-03. iald':=uting or relocatien of these
===duits shall not be made with=ut a Oasign Change Autheri a:1:n (DCA). L".his regairement applies to;all conduits listed in the~ raceway ~functi:n table below:
CMG. . CLASS l. 3.?c:.cJ = ~- STMBCL Cnmtv*, I ?" N::!!::N
- w. ,. -
. 6."t m ., .,. .. -.
. im
'13" l h l '!!!
l 63 s u..., . 4 i i
*wk.e
.. # ac epg.y. .#.. 4 . U......sg e a .k.. .. ,. .
t 3.4 . .ds .,,..b. .....b.. . . . e .' e . .. .' c a.' .. d aw.d -~ ., s . '.. d sdd e.n ..d .#.' . a ..d... - .. -..#.d.c.*d
- c o .a a.s o.n.a .. . ..., ..a.v ... . ., na.
, , ..'s .
' v. .,
., w. . .. . c . . . . . . , .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. , . . , , .
4.11.3 Separation of :'able and Raceway
. a. ""he nisimum separation distances regaired between raceways shall be defined as he " clear air distance"'between he=. i o
l
- b. *@.are reTaired =in:.=*.:n separati:n cann= he =rl..: mined, 1
I barr.ers the nraw:.ngs. shall be pr:vided acc rding. = the de:sils sh:wn.:n ! i 4.11.3.1 Separation Distan=e for 'rsys i (a) A mini =u= cf 3 feet heri entally a .d 5 feet re:: :i=a *.1v. is . rera:. red between redu . dant rays in plant areas whi:h are free fr:m potential hazards, i.e. =issiles, externa'. fires and p:.pe whip.
-. . . . . . j G.< .i x.s a. m .33, ...
Specificati:n 2323-IS-100 Revision 2 ' cc:cher 15, 1920
? age 4-39 i (b) A . d.d...um ..' ~ . .'a c . " . .d.. . ...a .' .' f and 3 .# e . v a..- .d. a.' .' v. .ds required between redundant trays in .he cable spreading area and control recm.
- 3. ., . 3 . .e. .e.e a a 4 .~ . m.s.a . . ca .s .. C .a ...4.s he =i=inum separatien distan=es given herein are not
.c w.e sed as " .e . .a .' . . s e . .d . e " , .'.u. a.e .o '-e a--r, .'.e d
.d.. .# .da .' .d.
==ut: ng ei cencut.: enly vbere greater se=. ara-1:n ca net .b.e. .
e.w,.. ., .4 e, a . , (1) Mini =*.t.m separati:n be:veen. conduits having didferen: " raceway .,..y *
- r. . . ~ .. e s H ,ha.3. 3 w e.e 4
.. 3.
( .' ) .v' _.um se,a.a-d-.. .e. wee.. a c.-..d. d.
. c... =d d-e sa'etv related cables and the ::p of an cpen ::ay having e .,,,.s r . . . ........3. .. .. . ..a... e.' s '.a .' .' . b e .* ' O " .d ..- ..= '. .' =. -e-e .-= a d .. , .
reem and 3 ' C" in gene al plant area. When 1. is inpcssible
.o - a .d .. .a.d .. -'- - d s s e,., a. a ..d .- 2 . ' . a. dd.s.=..e .
a*] 'e .ad"..a.d .' o 4-inch where a solid :=ver :.s pre rided (see drawing i s2333-El-17C2-01 detail 38). When condui. above an Ope ::av.
- . a.d ..s ..e . s a .# = .-/ . =. ' a . _= d. . ab .' a s , ' . a. . *d.d.um ,e,.a.-...". .ds
... e ( '. ) .d .. - 4 . ..' . .. o .. n f .. . v e . s a.- =. - .a. .. .". .- =. d . .v..' . d .. " -
separatien between a c==duit (sade:y related or =n safety related) and a bert:m er side of a tray (selid bet :m er ladder) shall be one-inch. See separs.tien Ske::hes "A" and n .: n . (-) J v.4. 4
.. .m Se ea a a..,
. . . . C.e e
.c.X -s.e .,.(c.*Cn) ,
.s.1.3. 3 we. ..a......
,4 .,. .a se.see . . c . c. a e,o .~c..a 4.
.. ( acew.ay .s.._ . .. ... 4 m.0 , a-
.v .
a;.. - .C ) aa . nuclear instr.:.=entait:n system (N 5) c:nduits er cable trav. (raceway fun: icns SR, 6W, 63, and 6Y.) i (2) .m..s. _a .,;,2 , , ,rg a.a . . c. . .. . . e z .,.s.. (,c on ) .e. g .. u, .g.a . .,..as. . . . .
- s. e .a .g e . . .. ... .a .4 .3 .s. r.. u.
.. .a..wa.y . .s . .._...s
.e, v
R ..a. ...,. Jc,
- - . aa. .=.~A. 0. , Du .. .~h . : .., d, .,
% .a
. w a..C ..~s, t . 6, , .v ,
- :- . .r aa 9
.....gg
. g
.d . .. . g .. 4
...a.. .. gyg.g3 . (q.=g)
. g .a. 4.,a
_v. ..._,.y ( g .y . a. .f .s.
. ..... .. ...4 3 .z. e. . . , :p . :c ga . : .f
. g .
, .y 4 4 .~..., ,,.e g ,.4 . . . ..
.e.
s.x .#ee. (6'0")' : .C..a .'~.' .". e n... a.d .. ed. ' 4. ve a.. . a c .a va
. v .'" ..- .. . ...
_O, .e. r , a..a .e.v. . ,. O, .=. v . ; =~ .A a . a. si. . S ,.a w. .t , , o4. ..
. ....a..
( e . ., . , .=. a. e.' e c . . . a.'
. . f =..=. *. . . a ..d ... .s ^) .
e
. . + . . . ~ . ..-_..;_... .,
j
.I Gibbs & E111, Inc. . .
Specifica:ica.2323-ES-100- i Revisien 2 Cc cher 15,.1950-Page 4-40 (5)-Mi.rJnum separatien between cenduits centaining power-cables (raceway fune:1cns 10, 20,-50,.1G, 2G, SG, 1K, 2K, and 5K) shall net be less than he cu: side' diameter (CD) of he largest cenduit execpt as defined below: . "'he separatien critaria as explained above may be waived at such points where exposed conduits enter er: ext: any eccipment er box te a pein cf 4'0" above er below such agaip=ent. i 4.11.3.3 Separatien Distance for Cables (1)- Enere esbles are rcuted in free air Oc exit and/cr enter raceways, the separa:1cn revoirements be seen hese cables shall be the same as regaired fer cable trays (?aragraph 4.11.3.1). . Where eininum physical separa:1cn-cannet be achieved, a barr:.ar, approved by Engineer, shall be .,, previded by the Centracecr. * (2) Separatics fer field ean redundant cables within egaipment shall be maintained in acccrdance wi.h e.e-specifica:ica fer the agaipment, er if-ne specification,rera:.renents are stated, by ' 5-inches er by a barrier appreved by e.e Engineer. l
]
l l a I j 1 i
- I
\
1
'l l
1 i d
G .e _s.,.s a. =433, .v- . c . SUAI7 TAT:CN 3:CTCH "A" Specifica:1cn 2023-IS-100 Revision 2 . Cc:cbe: 15, 1980 *** Page 4-41 j T3A.~27 3 TRA.~2T A CPI:i SX1 T LS."'.i A 1*.,, l T7.A*N 3
- s' -
1 . i (I
"3A N A !
\ ..
"?.*Cf C .
T3AIN 3 CONDU.T l O
^
i- i .
) ~ . . . ... . ., .. .,i .
...,s. n .r
, .%. . C.. e ...r.:.'.3
.s.,. .,. .
.a . .
.e. . ..n. ,1 AO::IR CR SC!.23 s e....g ,y.
, (a) 3'-0" #
gg . .. 3 . . 3 ., .,.. ., ,
.. ,~. 1 .
r-. es (s)
- e .,. r,..a 3;::madi..g Arca
(). .n.. , . a. s ,.--. . , , a. .
- 7e: 4*
* 're.c:a ;:::tical this acca= 2bla *
(.u.1. , ) v istan=3 shall be 3 '--kes 5" c. - s'n nd (d) See retail 33
.. ~ .
. . . .'s. .,..%d da ",w, es, f:.: 1.~.stal; -
i 1 I _ I
- w. , . . . . .
Spe fi=a - .c 23:3-E3 *.00
. . - 1
~ -
59 ARA 05 SCTCZ '3'
~.".'**.,5, oc.,ba. . . .e.60 i
Page 4-42
. F - - -- SCLIU CCYZ3, '
i
.g:Wt;.
?->
.-u.<wf2:. :
ee f. mD %d7 a j "3AIN 3 CON:U 0
.m. <. .e. . t,e.-#
n'.I.T *-
- =
u
-/.@v' g .
>u .f.,.r,.sR .
, ~,. ~~vS ,
r' .;
-. . e. 4
( e..uv. ..,~,,:.
.w -e s e2 W
m :.< , [ I.b A k,s. A L' 1 i "'5~5 DISTAMCZ *3 qn ca*. - g .... ::- h . j *
. ga- a.gAn
... s .k'..
C% a
;, ..e u.x.g:
..e m "-w' A **gy '
(n) 3*3* L:'GESC:11 m y# .;':c:.4
?1As*. s.el"8.".
w LAO:Z2 CR 5g f M; 54 SCLID 3CTTC.M (b) 2'O" is C 21e
> c M,. t S2ndi:7 Arou f ** -
- T%$]
- SIO'":CN "A" (c) Wie Sclid Crvers.1
, m:tr $0e.
, . ,,.w..c m. . . . . w. > .
4",Accer.21e-(.u-.s, 6 bWMMM si fa ?:afarrad. Ses C. ? 1.1: f:: Mis. l.f$
!&f5? k %@; I, - LEDV*& Cf 007" .
j 1 i I
? A3 "A"
"?.C.1 A "*?.A? . .n 1.
e i M SCL D l C ,.. .v c .s t-~: -- J m
. e.4 O. . :
l 3 )n 3- . w.. . l
,,,,. .t _} f . :a .. a .:a. v. ,
.. - . , . ~ , - , i
+ -
3.. ...w --
-i
--- " j ",*F
.. s,
- i
"'".3.ACM 3 C.. -. %- . J ,,
- . .a
.e. w . .D ..
- v. . n...
...,A,
- . . ........ s. .-a .
,a- . m,h <
-" m .3 (a) 2'-0* 1: General
?las: Arma
(). , . -,3 <
- ,wa .
Spreading Area h:) 1?i d .-c l i d . e: ; 4 I i ,r
UNITED STATES OF I,MERICA MUCLEAR REGULATCRY CO:CiISSION BEFCPE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICESSING EOARD In the Matter of )
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) Dochet Nos. 50-445-2 COMP ANY, et al. l ) and 50-446-2
)
(Conanche Peak Steam Electric ) Station, Units 1 and 2) P30TECTIVE ORDER It has core to the attention of the Board that sevaral pctential witnesses and other individuals who may have knowicdge of issues in this proceeding have been granted pledges of confidentiality by the Applicants and the Intarvenor. Applic..ts have interviewed or otherwise recuested information frca th3ir erpicyces regarding certain matters and in doing so have raf a pledges of confidentiality to them not to release the'.r identi: . Intervenor has advised Applicants of various witnesses, tha l identities of whom it feels bound not to disclose herause it h:s obtained information from them en a confidential basis. Both parties feel bound by their pledges of confidentiality even th:cgh release of the identities of these individuals may he necessary for the de rel:; ment of a full record. In view of the fore; ing and at the re::uest cf the Parties, ; it is hereby ORDERES that: !
; EXHIBIT
' /%ss.>
_ Aff / b!ry &
. \
1 i
l,
- 1. The party who made a pledge of 1 1
confidentiality shall reveal to the other ! parties in this proceeding the identity j of an individual to whom the pledge was race, provided those parties sign :h 2 Statement of Non-disclosure attachad to this Order, or is an NRC employee subject j to the internal requirements of SEC Manual Appendix 2101, concerning the 4 l treatment of protected information; .
- 2. The party on whose behalf a Statement of k Non-disclosure is executed shall, prior to the execution of that Statement, notify the party that pledged confidentiality of its intention to e::ecute such a Statement, including'in this notice the identity of the individual intending to execute the Statement. The party so notifiad shall have the opportunity to cbject to the .
i execution of the Statorent of.Nen-disclosure, provided such objection is made as quickly as possible, but in any event, no later than 48 hours after receipt of such notice; j
- 3. The parties to whom disclosure is made shall not disclose the identity of the individual, unless required by law, axcept for purposes of preparing their case in this proceeding and then only when the persen to whom disclosure is made acknowledges his obligation to te beund !y the terms of this Protective CrJar by executing the attached Statement of Ncn-disclosure;
- 4. The parties shall maintain a separate service list identifying the individuals who receive documents subject to this Protective Order. These documents shall be identified as subject to this Protective Order; 5.
Persons who receive information subfact to this Protective Order shall use it solely in connectica l with this proceeding;
{ i 3- s I' s
- 6. Any persen who has reason to believe that documents !
including protected information hr.ve :2en lcat or { misplaced or any person who has reasci to believe ) j that the terms and conditions of this Protective l Crd2r have been violated shall notify the 3:ard. J It-is so 0.1 CERED. PETER 3 LOCH j i
)
I i 1 1 l 1 l J l l e 4 i j
STATEME::T OF NON-DISCLCSURE 1, _.E e M ,i (ceiv k w p A s a have been infor:ed of a ?rotectiva Order issued by the Licensing Board in the Conanche Peak cperating license proceeding (Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-445). I understand that this order guarantess confidentiality to potential witnesses and others sho have disclosed information en a confidential basis to Ir.tervenor or Applicants. I agree to te taund by the terns and conditicns of that 7:ctectiva Ordar _nce the identity of any such individual is revealed to =2. .. cm,0y of ' the Ordar has been provided to me. t
,v
- . f i/r2, /
'7 f f DATE 1
1 I I _ _ _ _ _ _ .}}