ML20004F886
| ML20004F886 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1981 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8106260130 | |
| Download: ML20004F886 (94) | |
Text
'
4110 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
BEFORE THE 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
e 5
In the Matter of:
)
H l
6 HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER
)
Docket Nos. 50-498 OL g
).
50-499 OL 7
)
South Texas Nuclear Project
)
l 8
Units 1 and 2
)
d d
9 Green Auditorium g
10 South Texas College of Law 1303 San Jacinto Street II Houston, Texas 3
N I2 Monday Jude 15, 1981 g
13 m
l 14 PURSUANT TO ADJOURNMENT, the above-entitled 2
15 matter came on for further hearing at 7:00 p.m.
5 16 APPEARANCES:
g W
g 17 Board Members:
5 18 CHARLES BECHHOEFER, ESQ., Chairman k
Administrative Judge j9 j
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Washington, D. C.
20555 21 ERNEST E. HILL, Nuclear Engineer 22 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 23 '
University of California Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, L-46 24 Livermore, California 94550 25 !
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
9/C 4, MO /30
~ 4111
- ll-1 APPEARANCES:
(Continued) i 2l DR. JAMES C. LAMB, III, Environmental Engineer Administrative Judge I
3 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 313 Woodhaven Road 4
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 e
5 For the NRC Staff:
h{
6 EDWIN REIS, Esq.
K JAY M. GUTIERREZ, Esq.
7 Office of the Executive Legal Director X
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-l 8
Washington, D.C.
20555 d:i 9
CONALD E.
SELLS, Project Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations D
10 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Washington, D.C.
20555
{ 11
'3 WILLIAM HUBACEK N
I2 Office of Inspection and Enforcement j
Region IV 5
13 Arlington, Texas 76011 m
l 14 For the Applicant, Houston Lighting & Power Company:
m
[
15 JACK R. NEWMAN, Esq.
'{
MAURICE AXELRAD, Esq.
16 ti Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad d
1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
h I7
-Washington, D.C.
20036 z
h II FINIS COWAN, Esq.
E Baker & Botts 19 l 3000 One 5%11 Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 i-20,
For the Intervenor, Citizens for Equitable Utilities, Inc.:
WILLIAM S. JORDAN, III, Esq.
22 Harmon & Weiss 2bb6 23 si o
C.
24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
~
4 4112 l
I APPEARANCES:
(Continued) 2 For the Intervenor, Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power:
3 LANNY SINKIN 838 East Magnolia Avenue 4
San Antonio, Texas 78212 e
5 MICHELLE FRAHLEY, Attorney h
5106 Casa Oro j
6l San Antonio, Texas 78233 R
I X
X 8
a6 9
i b
10 i=
j 11 u
d 12 13 m
E 14 id
'i k
2 15 U
" 16 d
- n d
17 i 5
l
!il 18 '
E 19,
a 20 l
21 22 l l
23 '
l 24 25,
f i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
'It110
'l IEEEx 2I STATEMENT OF:
PAGE 3
Richard C. Balough 4129 4,
.i BOARD
.=
5 WITNESSES:
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS EXAM.
~k 3
0 DR. KNOX M. BROOM, JR.
7l MR. RAYMOND J. VURPILLAT
'X By Mr. Reis 4132 l-8 d
d 9
3I 10 3
g 11 u
g 12
=!
13 i s
i
-l 14
=
2 15 d
y 16 e
(
(
17 a
f
=
$ '18 (
i i
g 19 i
l l-20 l
l 21 t
22 l
23l i
24 l 25; i
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
t
~
~
4114 STP 1
EVENING PROCEEDINGS L
-1 7:00 p.m.
ha 2
3 JUDGE.BECHHOEFER:
Good evening, Ladies and 4
Gentlemen.
5 During the break since our last meeting we have j
6 been reviewing certain portions of the transcript and also R
7 evaluating our own schedules.
2) 8 We would like very much to be able to finish this dd 9
whole proceeding by the end of the September session, and we i
h 10 are going to change the modus of operation slightly during the El 11 course of the procedures governing this hearing.
m y
12 First, we think that the cross-examination of the 5
g 13 last panel has worked very well, and we think the cross-a a
l l<4 examination of further panels should be as a panel.
In other E
2 15 words, one party cross-examines through all the witnesses and U
16 then another party will cross-examine all the panel's witnesses.
g m
i 17 We think that could save some time.
I don't know E
k 18 that it will, but we think it could.
5 19 Now, this would not govern, obviously, the current 20 panel.
Actually, thet has been followed, but the change would 21 govern future panels that come on.
22 We would like to have included the Oprea Panel to 23 the extent that the parties can do so.
Some part of that panel i
24 has already been completed.
25l Second, we think that the Intervenors should i
j
- I l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l l
I 4117 32-7, 1
coordinate their cross-examination even more than they have.
2 We think that the Intervenors should divide 3
witnesses by subject.
Just as an example, if one Intervenor 4
asks about a witness 2 background, that will be it.
He could 5
cover that subject.
]
6 Now, we're not limiting the subjects, but we think R
R, 7
that it would be rauch more efficient to run the proceeding in X
l 8
that way.
d 9l d
Let's see.
Next, we have found one additional week i
h 10 when we can schedule hearings, and that would be the week from ifl 'll July 20to to 24th, and this is working into our own schedules a
I 12 but that's the only week we have left, and we think an additicnal
=3g 13 week could be gotten in.
m 14 We'll have real problems if we run pasc the 2
15 September hearings.
z j
16 MR. JORDAN:
On that one, Your Honor, what would --
al i
17 I was hoping to'have a vacation at the end of that week.
E 5
18 Would you intend to go through the Saturday?
h 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
No.
We would intend to break 20 by 3:00 o' clock on Friday.
21 MR. JORDAN:
Friday.
Okay.
22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
In time so that people could 23 l fly out on Friday evenirg.
24 l MR. JORDAN:
Then I can take my backpacking gear to 25 Cslifornia and send my legal gear back to Washington.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. ~..
'~
4116 62-3 1
JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Yes.
We're doing som:e 2
interrupting of our own vacations to schedule that week, but 3'
the fall. presents much more suhstantial problems.
4 MR. JORDAN:
Where would that be, do we have it?
e 5
JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Well, we're hoping it will be h
j 6,
right in this room.
I'm not sure if the room is available yet.
E' 7
We will know by tamorrow.
Ml
-8 We do wish, as we stated before, to cut down some d(
9 of the time spent on matters.such as authenticating documents, 2
h 10 so that, as we earlier stated, and I guess the transcript cite a
j 11 is Transcript 3890 to 92 and 3898, if I ready my writing 3
y 12 correctly.
Those are just two of the places we mentioned that.
3 5
13, We do.wish that if documents are going to be brought a
h 14 up they should be shown to the counsel whose witness is on the g
15 stand beforehand, tie evening before, certainly, if possible.
s j
16 In terms of arguments on objection s, I think we will e
d 17 hear each party only once.
The person who is objecting to U
{
18 something can statc his objection.
Then each of the other Po 19 parties will have a chance to respond, and we'll just rule and l
20 that will be it.
Each party will get one chance, and that might I
21 save a little time, I can't say how much.
'Tl And finally, if it appears that cross-examination I
is going on -- is unproductive in a given area, we may well 23 24 cut it short, although we will warn you before we do so, even i
I l
25 '
though the questions may be technically relevant.
If it goes ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4117
- &2-4 1
into areas which we don't think are helping develop the record
^
2 in ways we think are beneficial, we will let you know before we 3
do that, however.
4' Now, we have also decided to hold.the September
=
5 hearings right here..The balance of the convenience, I think, 5l 6
favors that.
Most of the witnesses, and in terms of our R
-7 getting to the various hearings and maximizing the amount of Xl 8
hearing time we have, it's much more efficient to get to Houston d
So we will_ hold those hearings right here.
d 9
in. terms of time'.
i h
10 The last day of those hearings will be in another room in this 3l 11 building.
y 12 The only other preliminary matters that I have --
5 y
13 other parties may have some -- what about the Protective Order a
l 14 on the CCANP witnesses?
There were four of them, I believe.
2 15 MR. SINKIN :
Mr. Chairman, regarding tb Protective E
j 16 Order, we have spoken with the witnesses, and on Nos. 2, 11 and 13 as 6
17 they wish to remain under the Protective Order until called to E
18 testify.
E 19 On No. 12, we now have no intention of calling No. 12 g"
20 as a witness, and will probably refrain from any further contact l
21 with No. 12, or his wife, in hopes that his wife will get her
[
22,
job back.
I 23!
JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Did your witnesses express l
24l reasons?
25l MR. SINK 1N:
In the case of No. 2, he wanted ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. 4118 s2-5 i
essentially as few people to know as possible that he would be 2
a witness, and that he wanted to limit the number of contacts 3
that would be made pertaining to these proceedings.
4 I'm trying to reconstruct the conversation, Your
=
5 Honor.
b 5
6 Those are the two main reasons I can remember.
R A
7 In terms of No. ll -- I might point.out that No. 2 N-l 8
is.still down in the area of the plant working not too far away.
d d
9 In the case of No. 11, No. 11 also wished to limit Yg 10 the number of contacts and No, 11 works at the plant.
E j 'll In the case of No. 13, essentially the same m
(
12 reasoning of limiting the number of contacts, and No. 13 also 5j 13 lives in the area and works in the area of the plant.
a l
14 2
15 U
16 g
w L
g 17 E
k 18 E
19 8
i i
20 l
21 22 ;
23 !
l l
24 I I
25!
i t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. ~.
I 4119
%-1
_1 MR. SINKIN:
I'd like to point out, also, Mr. Chairman, on No.11 that there was a concern expressed pcd 2'
3 about keeping employment at the project.
4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Mr. Newman or Axelrad, e
5 do you have comments, or Cowan,-as the case may be, h
')
'6i Take your pick.
R R
7 MR. AXELRAD:
Mr. Chairman, if.I may have 1
j 8!
just a minute.
d m;
9 I'm not quite sure I understand one of the 5
i g
10 basic common grounds that Mr. Sinkin just stated.
I'm 11 not sure I understand the concept of limiting contacts, 3
$ - 12 l whatever that means; but it seems to me very clear that 1
13 we have a situation here where people are going to bc,
l 14 testifying publicly, where there is no reason at all why 5
g 15
' heir identity shoind not be made known so that -- at t
=
g 16 l least to the extent that the other participants need to M
d - 17 l know that particular name in order to prepare for the 1
3 18 j cross-examination of these individuals.
E i
{
19 l There would be no reason for the identity l.
5
\\
20l to be protected in a fashion which prevents the parties 1
21 I l
from preparing for such a cross-examination as effectively l
22 l as possible.
23
'With respect to No. 11, that particular individual i
. 24 l has been identified in this proceeding before.
25 MR. SINKIN:
I don't think that's an appropriate i
ALDERSON REPO;2 TING COMPANY, INC.
L
l
' ~ 4120 1-2 1;
remark necessarily, Mr. Axelrad.
l 2
MR. AXELRAD:
.I won't pursue it.
3l JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Well, wait until I
4 Mr. Axelrad....
5 g
MR. AXELRAD: And the particular preferences e
]
6 of any individuals with respect to limiting the nt ber R
7 of contacts, whatever that may be, can have no particular Ml 8
weight in this ~ proceeding before this particular. Board.
U:i 9
The most important consideration should be 3
i 10 -
to assure that when the individuals are called, they will Il be able to present their testimony and they will be able a
I 12 to be examined by all the other parties as effectively 4
g 13,,
as possible.
=
1 14 l Certainly,'there is no valid reason why Applicants g
15 should not be able to prepare their case as well as possible.
z j
16 It will be difficult for Applicants to prepare W
l l
h I7 '
their case without being able to discuss the particular e
18 d
individuals who are former employees and a present employee l
g I
19 l at the plant with HL&P and Brown & Root, be able to ascertain 20 the previous work experience of those particular individuals, 21 be able to discuss fully -- having Applicants' Counsel 22 be able to discuss fully with his clients whatever information 23 is available within the records of the company with respect i
24 l to these particular individuals.
25 I think there is a very good chance if the
_ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
L
41'J1 L
-3 1
names of these individuals are kept protected until~they 2l that we will not be able to cross-examine effectively
- appear, 3
at that time, that there may'ne'ed to be a recess when 4
2their identity is fully known so that we can then prepare 5'I Ifor full and effective cross-examination, and that 'will i
=
6 1
3 6l be completely contrary to the wishes that the Board has R
7 made known just before.
.g--j 8
I would add that if for some reason this ibniting a
y 9
number of contacts means that any of these individuals Eg 10 are concerned about press inquiries or anything of the E
$ _ 11 kind, that at the very least, if they are going to'be
.u.
.(
12 kept protected in any fashion, that that protection not
=
2 13 5
. limit the ability of Applicants to reveal the identity l
14 of these individuals to people within HL&P and Brown &
s
.j ' 15
. Root to whom Counsel would have to talk in order to be z
16 ti able to cross-examine these particular individuals fully, w.
h 17 MR. SINKIN:
Mr. Chairman, the Applicants E-a 18 will have three months in which to prepare their case c
- i-l9-a on three people.
M 20 l 1.m sure they are fully competent to do that.
21 They have two of their licensing personnel 22 who have access to those names.
23 l We feel that there has already been some pressure l.
24li l
on some of these witnesses and 'that the way to minimize 25
(
i that oressure is to minimize the number of people contacting i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l l
41 J'4 l
1 1j them, to limit those contacts to the people who are directly
-4 2I involved in these proceeding who will know what's to be 3.
asked and what's to be discussed, and to avoid the witnesses 4'!
being harassed or even intimidated in terms of. testifying y
5, in these proceedings.
9
-1
-]
6 -l MR. COWAN:
Mr. Chairman, I resent those remarks li M'
7 again.
M l-8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
I just have a question dd 9
to ask Mr. Sinkin.
i h
10 Would you have any objection to allowing the II -
Applicants to release the names but not permitting any 3.
. g 12,
3ther contacts or interviews, other than what would have 5g 13 been permitted under the protective order?
u I4' In other words, so that they could get background
-g kj 15 on those employees or former employees through respective z
E I6 '
Personnel Departments?
d
(
I7 l MR. SINKIN:
The only thing I can think of, 18 l Mr. Chairman, that might be appropriate is if one person A
i I9 g
in each of the Personnel Departments concerned is allowed M
' 20 to know the names in crder to cooperate with the attorneys 21 on the work record, and that those people, then, are under.
22,
the protective order limitations, as well.
23 !
(Board conference. )
24 MR. SINKIN:
We addel to licensing engineers.
25 I think we can add two Personnel Department people.
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i 4.1153 m
l i
-5 l-l MR. AXELRAD:
Mr.-Chairman, these are not.
\\
'~
2I personnel matters.
3 To the extent that'an individual was a former I
4l employee, we would need to be able to' talk to people within e
5!
g wherever the individual was employed to find out what 9
i j
- 6l he was doing at the time, what was known about his activities..
R 7
This is not the type of information that would
-s j
8 be contained within the personnel record itself.
d-Q 9
MR. REIS:
Mr. Chairman, I don't think the-I h
10 l requisite showing has been made.
5 1
4 11 The requisite showing for protection has to D
j 12 give a base for protection, not just the fact that somebody 5
a
-5 13 doesn't want to have his name bandied in public.
u 14 '
That's an obligation of a citizen, and that M.j 15 is incumbent on every quasi and quasi-judicial procedure.
l ti' 16 !
That happens all the time and that's the nature of our l
h I7 !
' legal system.
~
l 5
l 3
I8 l I don' t see that anything else -- more is s
"g ~ 19 '
said than that; therefore, I don't think a base has been n
20 l
set out.
L
- 21' There are conclusions set out, but there is i
l l
Zl.
no base and no facts on which there would be any grounds 23 '
to continue any sort of protection here.
24 l MR. JORDAN:
With all respect, Your Honor, t
25{
it seems to me Mr. Axelrad just set out what is a recognized l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
o 4124 1
-6 1!
basis for this kind of protection, and that is the contacting 2
of a new employer, or even a potential.new employer.
3 As I recall, from the preparation of the brief 4
on the in-camera proceedings that was never filed, that g
5 has'been a particular concern; not simply that an existing 3]
6l employment be threatened, but in fact, the possibility 2
7 of contacts with future employers is also a major concern.
~
.;j 8
We have here that point, really, just raised, d-y 9
and we have Mr. Sinkin's representation here of concern --
zo g
10 l as I recall, at least one of theLwitnesses'. specific concern 5j-11 for loss of job.
U~
g 12 That is precisely the kind of thing that is 5
l a
5 13 l.
at-issue here.
. u m
i 14 I might add that the question is not in this M
i l
15 protective _ order context whether eventually they will a
_y 16 not testify in camera, which indeed is the case; but that i
d i
d 17 l they be protected in the interim from the type of harassment l
N 18-or intimidation that might well occur and that is precisely l
3 l
C 19 the concern and the reason for this kind of protection 20 of witnesses.
l 21 Now, Mr. Reis asks for facts.
I suppose we l
22 j could go ahead and have an in-camera hearing and have
'l 23 the facts on why we should have the protective order, l
24 which is about the only way we could do that.
L l
25[
It doesn't seem reasonable at all to me.
l I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
f
,, -,. - +,,, -
,-,m
~
l 4 ras
.)- 7.
1 We have two licensing personnel.
- Actually,
-.2I I don't even agree with Mr. Sinkin on this point.
3
'It seems to me they have full access to the 1
4{
records of those operations and they can get --
We don't g5 need personnel people under the~ protective order.
e 6
They can.go and get the records of whatever R
2 7
the individuals are and find out what the work history j
8 is.
d 9
Thst's the reason those people were allowed zog 10 into that position, and-it seems to me at this point la 11 this proceeding that's enough.
U y
12 If there is a n'eed later on, maybe we will 5
-y 13 have to have a recess, or maybe we will have to do something
=
14 special; but the point now is to maintain this protection.
j 15 Let's see if it's needed later on.
m j
16 !
JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Mr. Axelrad, do the licensing l
l 17 i personnel have access to personnel files or not?
=
h -18 MR. AXELRAD:
Well, I believe that the licensing P"
19 g
people would, but as I tried to point out before, that l.
20 is not the basic question before us.
21 JUDGE BECEHOEFER:
No, I recognize that, but --
22 MR. AXELRAD:
I wucld like to respond to scme 23 of the things Mr. Jordan just said, because he may have 24 l misunderstood.
25,
I made no mention of contacting new employers, i
l I
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4126
.I l
9-8 1
and there is no reason for us to contact new employers.
2 What we were talking about was determining 3
when these p.ople were employed at the plant, what type 4l of work-they did and whau their relationships with their 5
jg co-workers were, for example.
-b.
4
{
6l This'has nothing to do with contacting new R
7 employers.
It would not be the type of things that would j
8 be found in a personnel file.
d q
9 And I resent, again, the remarks that both z-og 10 Mr. Sinkin~and now Mr. Jordan have made with respect to z
11 harassment and intimidation.
3 f
12 This is a continuation of the type of slanders 3
5 13 that we've heard continuously in this proceeding with a
j
=
E 14 absolutely no basis.
$j 15 After coming to this Board with lists of hundreds
=
t[
16 of people who theoretically were concerned about harassment M
I
.N 17 j and intimidation, it then turned out that not a single 3
5 18 one of the 20 people even on the protective list were P
"g 19 unwilling to testify publicly; and none of them had indicated n
20l to the Counsel for the Intervenors any desire to be protected i
' 2I '
from HL&P and Brown & Root, and they indicated a willingness 22 to testify publicly.
23 Now, again, we have these baseless remarks 24 l being made by Counsel for the Intervenors.
i 25 MR. SINKIN:
Mr. Chairman, that's a misrepresentation i
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4127 1-9 L
'of the history.of the proceedings, and I don't want to 2l get intio it.
3-JUDGE'BECHHOEFER:
Yes, I think we --
We'11
'i 4l
' rule tomorrow on this,-but I think.--
e 5~
MR. SINKIN:
I would make one final _ point, 3
0-though, on No.--11.
R il 7
- Certainly,' going to all the people that No.
X 8
11 works'with and asking about No. Il's. work history and d
i 9I performance and all that cannot help but highlight that h
10 there's something special about No. 11.
E 1
II JUDGE BECH30EFER:. Okay.
We'11 consider this it -
I
[ 12 and we'11 rule tomorrow.
3 5
13 MR. REIS:
Mr. Chairman, just one. word, a
14
-There was talk about protection of witnesses
- !!!. 15 j
and what had been the reasons for the protection of witnesses m
a[
16 )
in various cases.
i h
I7 In each case, they were government sources
=
{
18 of information and not sources for private parties or C
'II Intervenors, i.
g
=
20 MR. SINKIN:
Well, then, one final word, 2I Mr. Chairman.
22 l If you really want to hear from these witnesses, i
23l we think the protective order should stay in place.
24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
We'll discuss it tonight 25 l and rule tomorrow.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 1
l
4L11LS I jl JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
My other inquiry is to the l
2 Applicant's.
Have you investigated the Swayze Personnel File 3
and decided,- or been able to supply or come up with any 4
further documents from it, including that was on its face e
5 missing?
h 8
6 MR. AXELRAD:
We have not been able to complete a
k g
7 our review of that, Mr. Chairman. We will try to do that as M]
8 quickly as possible, and in event no later than Wednesday.
d-d 9
' JUDGE'BECHHOEFER:
Okay.
Are there any further i
o 10 preliminary matters before we recall the Broom and Vurpillat i
j 11 Panel for Staff's cross-examination?
y 12 MR. COWAN:
Judge Bechhoefer, our fellow 4:
13 I participant, the City of Austin, has its City Attorney here,
=
5 14 and he would like to be heard on a resolution passed by the Y
- 15 City Council of the City of Austin.
It is Mr. Richard Balough.
E I0 !
///
d i
N 17 l 4
{
18 fjj j
E 19
- l'
///
21 22 23 l 24 25';
)
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I
i l
I 4123 6-2 1-STATEMENT of 11 RICHARD C. BALOUGH 3
L
'4' MR. BALOUGH:
Mr. Chairman, all of this matter has
-=
5 already been disposed of by your decision.
.l.
6 For the record, my name is Richard Balough, and R
d.
7.
I am Assistant: City Attorney for the' City:of Austin.
I would
~
l 8
like to read a-resolution that the -new City Councilihas passed.
d Q
9 Before I do,.l'et ne tell you that the City of 2o u
IA' Austin, tha entire licensing procedure for the South Texas
.l 2
11 Project it's part of the duty of Houston Lighting and Power, m
jf 12 and.this is a resolution passed by the City Council.
It says:
~
S 13 "That the City Council hereby. requests 5
a
.h,I4 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 15 schedule the announced September, 1981 si ' I0 hearings in Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499 m
h _ II l in the Matter of Houston Lighting & Power x&'t Company, et al.,
(South Texas Project, s"
19 j
Units 1 and 2) in Austin, Texas, and that 20-the Board allow additional limited 21l l
appearance statements during a portion of those hearings."
23 I JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
I'm sorry.
We have ruled i
24' already.
25 MR.,BALOUGH:
I understand that, but I would like ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~ -
I 4130 1
4 -3 1
to state it for the-record.
2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Right.
It will be.
3-MR. BALOUGH:
Thank you.
4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Mr. Cowan, did you have any 5
more?
e h
3 0'
MR. COWAN:
Sir?
l g
7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:' Any more preliminary matters?
X[
8 MR. COWAN:
No, sir.
d 9
MR. SINKIN:
We have one, Your Honor.
g 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Okay.
=
k II
~ NR. SINKIN:- I would just like to note for the 3
fI record that a partner in this project has come before us and
-3 I
j asked to have hearings in their city, and apparently is to be b
E 14 1 - denied, and that the additional week of hearings that has now a
9 15 5
been scheduled for July is also to be in Houston.
Again, we z.
T 16 g
protest, and don't believe that the overwhelming amount of the d
17 l hearing should always.be in Houston.
I 5
18 l I did want to check on the schedule for the City-
=
I" 19 l g
of San Antonio as to exactly when you will begin.
Is it 20 June 22nd, and if so, what time?
21 JUDGE BECHHOEFEF.:
Off the record for a minute.
22 l
(Discussion off the record.)
23 !
JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
On the record.
24 !
MR. SINKIN:
And the last day is Friday?
25 ;
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
~ _ _
4131 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
The.last day is Friday, yes.
-4 j
2j MR. SINKIN:
And how late will be run?
l JUDGE BECHHOEFER:' I would say we would run until 3
l 4
around 4:00.
{
e 5
-3U1. SINKIN:
And the evening session, what time 5
8 6
will that. start?
Ih7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
If I' recall the schedule, it is N
3 8
from 7:30 to 9:00.
O d
9 MR. SINKIN: -Thank you.
g 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Possibly a little later.
I think Q.-
j 11 we will have to get out of the Federal Building before 10:00.
3 i
(
12 MR. SINKIN:
That concludes our preliminary matters.
E y
13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Okay.
m l
14 Do you wish to recall the Broom /Vurpillat Panel?
2 15 MR. AXELRAD:
'Yes.
x j
16 Whereupon, w
N 17 KNOX M. BROOM, JR.
i 1
M 18 RAYMOND J. VURPILLAT G-
"g 19 having been previously duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole n
20 truth and nothing but the truth, resumed the stand as witnesses I
l 5-1 herein, and were examined and testified further as follows:
{
21 t
JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Before you begin Mr. Newman or I
1 23 Axelrad, at what point, just refresh my recollection, was 24l Mr. Grogan going to be brought on?
Was he going to join this s
i 25,
i panel?
l
\\
t I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4132
-1 l'i MR. AXELRAD:
Mr. Grote?
l 2
JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Yes.
3 MR. AXELRAD:
Yes.
It was our assumption that the 4-cross-examination of Dr. J Broom 'and Mr. Vurpillat on their l
I 5
prepared-testimony.would be completed,.'and at,that point h
j 6!
~Mr. Grote-would.be put;on.
R b
7
- JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Okay.
M l-8 MR. AXELRAD:
This will be either this evening or d*
9
~.
tomorrow morning, I assume.
z O
10
_g We were in the midst of examination by Mr. Reis
=
II of Dr. Broom ar.d Mr. Vurpillat, and then we nave the Board
~
B questions.
-9 g
13 JUDGE BECHUOEFER:
Right.
a 3
14,
MR. AXELRAD:
I guess then redirect and recross.
u
$. 15 Mr. G ote is available.
s 16 j
JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Okay.
That is-satisfactory.
W d'17 Mr. Reis, are you ready to resume?
u
-3 18,
MR. REIS:
Good evening, gentlemen.
E I9 9
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)
M 20 -
BY MR. REIS:
2I G
Mr. Vurpillat, when we last met you testified that i
22 typically voiding does not occur in areas where rebar is most I
i 23 coniested because there is special efforts made to plan the 24 l placement in those areas.
Do you recall that testimony?
l 25 l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
f-
m.
1 a
4133 i
I
~
l-2 1- i BY WITNESS VURPILLAT:
)
2-
, A..
I believe I said something to'that effect,.although 3'
Ildon't believe I made the stark statement'that voiding does 4.
not occur --
5 g
I'believe you --
e.
U.
-]
6 A.
-- because of the preparation,.the extra
.g
$1 '7 preparation in areas such as you described we find that voiding Mj 8
might bcfless likely to occur.
.d
=,
9.
O Have you examined the history of voiding on this
'2og 10 project to see whether voiding occurred in those congested iE=
II
' areas?
i n
_y 12 BY WITNESS VURPILLAT:
4 5
- 13 5
A.
_I ain familiar with the voiding on this project fro:a m
b simply reviewing the records.- I was not-with Brown & Root and k
h 15 on the project at the time it occurred and-was studied.
m
./
16 i
G And the voiding here occurred in areas of heavy
=
a 37 l
3 I
congestion and where there was an angle, a horizontal eight-
=
inch bar put in; isn't that so?
l r
19 l
.///
20
///
7 t
22 I
23 i
///
l l
t l
24 l
l L
25 1 l
l i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i-
-,,....... - _ _ -... _. _. - -.,,,..,.,. - - _.,,. _., -....,.. - -.. _..... _.. -,.. -... - ~. _ _. _ _.,,..... _
4134
-3 1
BY WITNESS VURPILLAT:
2 A
Yes.
I believe that is correct.
3 g
Would these matters in,dicate to you anything about 4
the extent of preplacement planning of the concrete on this s
5 project, you as an expert?
lb
]_
6 BY WITNESS VURPILLAT:
_i R
k.
7 A
e s.
I think it indicates,that one of two things M.]
8 may have occurred.
d d
9 The congestion wa.s, greater and the circumstances z,
o 10 were such than what were planned for, or that the --
- Now, 5
II this is almost hypothetical, because everything that I know 3
y 12 about it is really hearsay -- or that the planning might have
-5 5
13',
been somewhat more detailed.
8 14 0,
I see.
Do you know whether they prepared models n:
15 of the rebar in place in congested areas before the beginning
' iE I0 of 19807 w
BY WITNES'S VURPILLAT:
z.
!ii 18 A
No.
I don't know that.
-r-19 j
4
_Do you know the extent?
Have you reviewed any 20 minuta.s, or reviewed the extent of preplacement meetings before s
21 '
19807 22 BY WITNESS VURPILLAT:
i 33 A
I have not reviewed the minutes of the preplacement l
24 i l
meetings before 1980.
I am aware there were preplacement 25 meetings before 1980.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4135
- -4" l
G Are you aware of the depth to which planning was 2-carried out at those meetings?
l3 BY WITNESS VURPILLAT:
4 A.
No.
Lk Were there any post-placement: meetings 'here af ter
_a
-5 g
j; 6
post-placement of concrete?
R E
.'7'.
BY WITNESS'VURPILLAT:
,X.
l-8' A.
I'have-been advised and I have read that there were d:i
-9 post-placement meetings.
g.10 Again, you are talking prior to 1980?
3=
~g 11 4
Yes.
is i
12 When you look at the constructability of pours you
.E i
1 a
'5 13 are also concerned about included in that is the,inspectability a
~ l ' 14 of the work as well.
That is a part of --
s
!E g'15 BY WITNESS'VURPILLAT:
s
[ I0 A.
Yes.
That is correct.
- d f I7 4
Now, generally, how are voids found in concrete?
If 18 l 5
you have a wall or a -- a wall and you want to tell whether there i 5
,k g
II are voids in that wall, how do you go about determining that?
20 MR. NEWMAN:
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to object to 21 that question.
It's clearly outside the scope of Mr. Vurpillat'sj
'22' direct ^ testimony, and matters affecting the situation in regard j
23 to concrete will be the subject of special testimony by i
I 24 i
+
j additional panels later in the proceeding.
I belipve it would
{
(
25 i i
l be.more appropriate to address the questions to those experts in ;
i l
l i
.i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
j-
-l
+
4l1Ch8
.that particular area.
@-5 MR. REIS:
Well, Mr. Vurpillat said he is here as 2
3 an, expert in quality assurance.
I thought.we could make.sure --
use his expertise to see how you would check the quality of 4
e 5
concrete.
E' n
j 6.!
(Bench conference.)
e I
R 2
7 MR. SINKIN:
Mr. Chairman, there is testimony in the sl 8l record about voids ~on Page 28.
In the case of concrete there is
. d d
9 no reason to suspect any additional voiding or substandard j
1 tg 10 conditions.
E 5
11 (Board examines document.)
3 y
12 MR. SINKIN:
I would also note that the question h
13' that appears.on Page'25 i's Question No. 26, and it is not a
l 14 addressed to one or the other of the panel members, so I presume Y
I 15 '
it was answered by both.
5 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
I will overrule the objection.
3 l
d l
g 17-You may answer the question.
18 BY MR. REIS:
E 19 0
loc. Vurpillat, how do you go about finding voids L
20 in a wall?
}
21 BY WITNESS VURPILLAT:
I 22 A
Are you talking about voids recognizing the fact I
t l
23 that there may be voids during the placement, or after the 24 placement is complete?
25,
g After the placement is complete.
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPAN'r, INC.
4137
-6.
j BY WITNESS VURPILLAT:
~
2 A.
'There,is one way that is relatively obvious if the 3
voids'are' surface voids, because when you strip the forms'it 4
will be apparent that-there is no concrete there.
e 5
If you suspect that there might be voiding there are g
c j '-
6 a number of rather precise tests that -can be run, and I am not E
~ 7 an expert in the area of these tests, but there are. sonic in
)
8-nature, generally.- They.can be as sophisticated as ultrasound;-
dn.
9 in some types of concrete pours lend themselves to voiding io
~
g 10 discovery by this method.
iE
( 11~
other areas it is simple sounding, hitting it with n
(: 12~
a hammer.
If you have some type of a cover that voids near the 33, 13 surface, particularly behind, for-instance, a liner plate.
m l
14
///
E 2 ~15 5
g 16' fff w(
17~
=w
'O
///
2::
. "e 19 f
20 I o
-21 l
i 22 i l
'23
(
24 25 i
I l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I i
-. -., ~.. ~....., _ -
- _ _ _.. _. _ _ _,. _ ~ _,
I
_ 4138 5-7
}
BY MR. REIS:
2 G
Do you know what percent of voids here were found
'l 3
by simply hitting the wall with a hammer?
/
4 BY WITNESS VURPILLAT:
e
.5 A
No.
I don't.
3
-6 4
Are you-aware of the size of some of the voids R
ji 7
involved in this project?
M[
8 BY WITNESS VURPILLAT:
d d
9 A
I have of the size of some of the voids, yes.
zo
,y 10 g
And were some of those voids as long as 40 feet?
j 11 BY WITNESS VURPILLAT:
I I2 l A
Mr. Reis, I don't remembering reading, or talking a
13 to anyone that was explaining a void that was 40 feet.
5
- l 14 4
What's the longest void you remember?
zj 15 MR. NEWMAN:
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to object to z-g 16 the question, really on the same basis as my earlier objection.
w
' N I7 I hope to better avail.
E
~~
8 Mr. Vurpillat is not here to testify about events I
p 19 '
8 occurring before the date of his assumption of responsibilities.
n l
20 We do. have a panel that are available and will be available to L
21 talk about voiding, and I really think we are spinning our i
wheels talking with Mr. Vurpillat about these matters.
He can't t
23 really have direct knowledge.
24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Mr. Reis --
25 MR. REIS:
Yes, sir.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
.. ~
4133
' 5 - Es '
1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
I just wondered if--you have'a 2
response?
3 MR. REIS:
Well, my response is that.if their
- direct testimony involves 'oids I think I should be able to-4 v
is 5~
probe, extent, and depth of their knowledge on the voiding in 3
. ]
61,
this project, and whether their direct tes,timony should have-
~
-t g
R 7
any weight.
X-j 8-Now, on the other panels, we'll see what the weight-
.d
=;
9 is with the'other panels, and here we will see what the weight z
o M
is with.this panel.
$'II JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Didn't he already. testify, B
p 12 though, that he didn't know the length?
S 5
13 MR. REIS:
Yes.
-m 14~
MR. AXELRAD:
Mr. Chairman, can I add one thing?
15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
I think on that basis we will id I0 sustain the objection.
w
~ h I7 MR. REIS:
Okay.
z BY MR. REIS:
C*
I 19 g
4 In preventing the formation of voids, is the j
i j
20 vibration and procedures for vibration of concrete important?
l s
21 i
BY WITNESS-VURPILLAT:
l 22 I
A In part.
s 23 I f
4 Do you know whether the procedures for the l
24 vibration of concrete were followed by Brown & Root here?
25l.
l I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
t
.. - ~.
. _....... _ -... _...,. ~ _. -. _.
I 41400 p9
.]
BY WITNESS VURPILLAT:
2' A.
- Mr. Reis, I really - don' t.
I wasn't't'here, and I J
3 have' read reports indicating one thing and another, but do I 4-iknow whether or not they were, no, I don't.
=
5-G-
Now, turning to both members of the panel as to H$6 welding, what percentage of the ASW welds were found to have
.g 7.
defects-when'they were looked.at after the Spring of 1980?
Al 8
BY WITNESS BROOM:
d-
- 9.,
A Mr. Reis, I'll try to answer that.
I don't recall i
i g
10 t e figure.
It is in our response to show cause.
If I could El 11
~ refer to that document I could refresh my memory.
3 I
12
.4 Okay.
And, similarly, the.ASME welds, those figures S
13 5
are correct in the response to the order of show cause.
.O
,g-l 14 BY WITNESS BROOM:
Ej 15 A
Yes.
That indicated _the status of the findings of a
y 16 the investigations made to that date.
Subsequently, we have w
7 filed,'I believe, some reports with the NRC to k'eep them
-E II apprised of the status of that investigation, but I do not have 19 l S"
g the statistical information at my finger tips.
20 I G
That's fine.
BY WITNESS BROOM:
- s
-j A
We could get that for you.
c j
i 23 !
a Were your welding procedures revised after the 24 l: investigative report of 79-19?
25 l l
l I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,-INC.
r.
.. _... _... _ _ _.... _,. _. _. ~ -. _
j 4141 i
i BY WITNESS BROOM:
-9 j
2i A
Yes, sir.
I think in general.
I can't comment 3.
about each and every one, but there were a substantial number 4.
of procedural changes following 79-19.
=
5 g
And after 79-19 were the procedures amended to d'
6l protect welds from adverse environmental conditions during the a
E_
7 welding process?
,f8 BY WITNESS BROOM:
d Yes, sir.
I'm not sure whether we had incorporated d
9 A
- _o N
10 some of those changes prior to that, but certainly if we had E
l 11 not they were incorporated-in the subsequent changes.
3 y
12 g
Do you know which Brown & Root procedures defined
- nd 13 radiographic processing techniques before 79-19, or if there was 3a 14
'.such procedures?
5 j
2 15 BY WITNESS-BROOM:
g 16-A.
Mr. Reis, my memory is very vague on that subject.
i M
N 17 I stand to'be corrected, but I believe for the mostipart we N
l
{
18 '
were relying upon the manufacturer's instructions of the film i
5 I9 and of the film-processing equipment to process the film.
f g
i 20 I don't know that we had a project procedures for 21 !
processing the film in the same format that we talk about our 22 quality control procedures at the site.
I might be in error, y
23 l but I believe that to be the case.
G How did you go about getting those film f
24 25 l
manufacturer's and equipment manufacturer's instruction to the I,
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- '*'-*-w*v
.-n~
L 4140 i-10 1
people who processed the film?
2 BY WITNESS BROOM:
3 A
I'm sorry, sir.
I would presume those would be 4
instruction manuals or: instructions that came with the film.
e 5
Whatever of that we had I presume that was available in'the
]
6-facility where the film was processed.
R^
7 g
On the use.cf --
Did you have any instructions on N
l
.l 8
the uses by weiding inspectors of penetrometers?
dd.
9 Bi WITNESS EROOM:
10 A
Yes, sir.
You understand I'm not a welding or an E=
II RT expert, but, yes, I believe we did.
I remember there being
.g 12
- some fiddings that there was question of the proper placement, 5
a 13 i
5
'whether it.was source side or film side use of the penetrometer.
m 14' I don't' recall the details, but I know'that we either changed r,
j 15 our procedure to clarify the proper location of the x.
g 16 penetrometer after 79-19, or if that portion of the procedure w
hI was missing we added it.
I believe the former was the case,
.x rather than the latter, but I am not positive.
Perhaps l
19 Mr. Vurpillat remembers.
BY WITNESS VURPILLAT:
f u
an l
A As I recall, the permissiveness of using film side penetrometers was in the -- the procedure as it is is a l
23 l
technique that is often used in certain circumstances.
24
\\
As I recall the revisions to the procedures indicated i
25 '
that in which cases more specifically this should be practiced i
I l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l j-l
L 4Ll43
(-11 j -
.and should not'be practiced.
l 0:
Mr.-Vurpillat, and gentlemen -- both'of you -- as
-2l 3
one skilled in QA and'QC,-is the. documentation of the results 4
of.surveillances an' accepted practice and something that should 5 :-
be done in QA/QC generally?
o
- =
'8-
.BY WITNESS BROOM:
6l
. g g7 A
The documentation of surveillances --
N.
- j
~8 g.
The results of surveillances.
d d
9-BY WITNESC BROOM:
I i
h - 10 A
Mr. Reis,. I guess I would have to answer that in j
11 two ways.
8-(
12 g
Yes, sir.
5 E
13
- BY WITNESS BROOM:
I 5
I l
14 A
First, I think in gsneral in the nuclear industry
('15 most matters related to QA activities should be documented so z
_ g 16 l that you can verify what was done, when,-by whom, and so on.
w l
N 17 l I don't know specifically if there is a requirement
(.
h.18 in Appendix B,for the documentation of surveillances.
E 19
-Surveillancec, as I think I have testified earlier is I believe g
20 i a rather subjective term, and I'm not sure there is a precise l
-i 21 l definition of surveillances accepted through the industry.
l l
I l-j.y 22 believe we've talked about what mine was, or maybe what some t
i 23 '
other witness' usage of the term surveillance might be, but I
24 certainly in some cases if a surveillance meaning some type of 25 '
watching over, or witnessing of inspections, or some activity is l
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
c
~,--
r%,,
.,,,a-r,,.,
e
-y
,.-,--c,
\\
ALL4't 5-12 to be taken credit for in complying with a portion of the 2
ANSI Standards, or Appendix B or wherever, then cartainly they 3
should be documented, and th'ose documents retained.
4 Mr. Vurpillat may have another point of view.
=
5 BY WIThSSS VURPILLAT:
5 j
6 A
No.
I think basically I agree with that.
The typc Rg 7
of documentation, the extent of documentation will differ Xl 8~
depending on the type of surveillance, and the activity actually d
d.
9 being surveilled.
i h
10 Dr. Broom, the.re came a time in this project when j
11
. safety-related welding was stopped, didn't there?
-3 lj 12 BY WITNESS BROOM:
Ej 13 A
Yes, sir.
a l
14 G
Okay.
Did that occur before or after the dicussions 5
15 with the NRC involving inspection report 79-19 and the j
16 inspection that led up to it?
w(
17 l BY WITNESS BROOM:
E 5
18 A
It came after the discussions with the NRC.
I C
I9 believe HL&P's first discussion with the NRC dited back to 20 mid to late December 1979.
21 I don't know that that specific item was discussed 1
l 22 at that particular meeting, but I am sure it was discussed in 23 l that or subsequent meetings.
j 24 l
0 Gentlemen, do you'know the length of time between i
25 Lift 1 in Reactor Containment Building 1, until the time voids i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4145 5-13 were found?
i, l
2.l BY WITNESS; BROOM:
3
,A Mr. Reis, I believe you asked me tilat question 4!
before, and I-neglected to refresh.my memory. 'We will have I
5l people.who work in'the concrete area who can give you that e
k
-]
6
~information probably more accurately'than I can.
i 8,
7 However, I believe I. did comment that I am certain Xl 8i it was an extended period of time of several months of more, if L
dn 9
that will suffice.
!I
@ ' ?10 0
Thank you.
Now, on how many occasions in 1979 11 was the placement of concrete stopped?
it.j 12 BY WITNESS' BROOM:
E 13 A
Mr. Reis, I'm sorry.
I don't know.
g 14 Do you have any data on that with you?
l -15 BY WITNESS VURPILIAT:
-z j
16 A
No.
I don't have any with me.
Again, we certainly l
d l
y 17 can find that que pretty easily by researching some record.
m l
y.18 0
Was it stopped once in about September of 1979, and l
1:
19 '
i t
s stopped again in December?
i6 E
BY WITNESS BROOM:
21 A
I was to say that I recall I believe.sometime -- I 22 l
~
l w thought it was the summer.. If you say September, perhaps you l have more accurate information than I.
i 23 I remember there being a stop work associated with concrete in that timeframe.
I don't s
25 the details of whether it was all concrete or a certain j remember l
l 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4146 f-14 jj type, or whatever.
J l
2 Of course, you refreshed my memory about the 3
' stoppage of work on concrete in December, because I certainly 4
am aware of that as a result of the first conversations with
=
5 the NRC about inspection 79-19, safaty related concrete pouring h
l 6;
was stopped and I believe that stop was changed fairly shortly R
{
7 afterwards to complex pours, as opposed to all pours, but I Nl 8
certainly was aware of that, and that occurred in December d
n 9
1979.
Y 10 g
was there physical abuse on the project between E
j 11 construction personnel and QA personnel in 197'?
I 12 BY WITNESS BROOM:
b g
13 <!
A In 1977, Mr. Reis, I believe the incident between 4
8 i
l 14 I a QC inspector and a construction foreman, which involved some t
15 pushing and falling onto some rebar in which the QC inspector j
16 was injured, that did occur in 1977, and to my knowledge that t
f I7 was the first occasion on the project that we had had a I
.18 physical altercation of some type between QC and construction.
II g
4 Now, did just an incident --
t 20 BY WITNESS BROOM:
f 21 A
I don't remember another instance in 1977.
22 i
4 Did such an instance occur in 1978?
i s
I 23
///
3 1
24 I i
4 25 i
///
I l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4147
- TP 1
G
. Broom, to speed this up, are all the instances i-3 a
2 of physical abuse you are aware of on the project, are they 3
all set out, every u.e of them se.t out in your testimony?
4 BY WITNESS BROOM:
5 A
No, sir.
I'd have to review it again.
I don't j
6 know that I mentioned all of them.
I believe, to my knowledge, 7
there were three irstances of physical altercations.
I believe Xl 8
they're all mentioned in some NRC inspection report, and dd 9
that's the information I was looking in, is the NRC's testimony *.
i h.10 G
I see.
Now, in your oreparation for testimony here 3m 4
11 did you review Brown & Root reports which might have this 3
(
12 information as well as NRC reports?'
13 BY WITNESS BROOM:
g m
l 14 A
I reviewed a great deal of information.
I believe D
15 I reviewed sources of information that should have contair.ed j
16 such documentation of such instances.
A i
f 17 G
Do you believe that the records you reviewed x
h 18 should have been complete?
E I9 e
BY WITNESS BROOM:
M 20 A
Yes, sir, I believe so.
2I 4
Now, going from actual physical abuse, were there 22 instances of threats of physical violence of one type or
\\
23 !
another by construction personnel against quality assurance i
24 l personnel in 1977 on the South Texas Project?
i 25l jjjj l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4148 5-2 1
BY WITNESS BROOM:
2 A.
Mr. Reis, instances like that did occur perhaps in 3
1977.
I'd have to have time to check the chronology of events, 4
but on a few occasions there were name-callings and verbal
=
5 threats, I guess you could characterize it in that fashion.
Ej 6
G And the name-callings, did they involve also R
3,,,
7 instances of construction personnel threatening to hit quality X
j 8
assurance personnel with a shovel or a wrench, or some physical d
n; 9-implement?
z h
10 BY WITNESS BKOOM:
El 11 A.
Perhaps.
I don't recall tn instance where a shovel is
(
12 or a wrench was involved, but I'm sure there were occasions 5
13 where a construction worker said he was going to hit the 5a f
,14 inspector with his fist or with something.
!r
[
[
15 g
How about with a Magnum?
x d
14 BY WITNESS BROOM:
l as d
17 A.
I'm sorry?
E
{
18 G
How about with a pistol, a Magnum pistol?
A 19 l BY WITNESS BROOM:
20 A.
I don't recall that, but it may have occurred.
21 G
How much time did you spend reviewing the Brown &
22 Root records prior to your testimony today?
23 ;
BY WITNESS BROOM:
24 A.
All of our records, or are you talking about 25l specific records that might indicate those type of instances?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
)
~
\\
4149 1-3 1
g Records that might indicate threats, threats of 2
harassment, threats of violence.
3 BY WITNESS BROOM:
4 A
Mr. Reis, I spent a considerable amount of time.
5 I really don't know how I could quantify it in hours or days, l
6 but I expended a considerable amount of time reviewing reports R
7 like that, as well as reports that we m=de to the NRC, and NRC 2]
8 inspection reports surrounding those instances, as well as d
m; 9
Houston Lighting & Power correspondence and reports surrounding 2
h 10 instances like that.
11 g
In 1978, are you aware of a'ny threats of physical is
!j 12 abuse by construction personnel against quality assurance g
13 personnel?
m l
14 BY WITNESS BROOM:
!ii 15 A
Mr. Reis, I'd have to give you the same answer.
g 16 Probably so.
I'd have to check the chronology to make sure e
!;[-17 that I am familiar with a specific instance that happened E
h 18 during 1978, but probably so.
E 19 g
And did such instances occur during 1979?
20 BY WITNESS BROOM:
21 A
Probably so.
22 g
And during 1980?
23 l BY WITNESS BROOM:
(
24 A
Yes, sir, I'm sure that they did.
We don't like l
I 25[
any of them to happen, but that does not mean that they haven't l
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l L-
$$uU 5-4 i
happened during 1981 or they won't happen in the future.
I 2
think we've characterized that people use pretty rough language 3
around a construction site, and sometimes' tempers on the spur of 4
the moment get out of control and somebody makes. an unfortunate e
5 remark.
5-
]
6 We don't condone or like any of that kind of 7
behavior.
Xj 8
G Now, these unfortunate remarks include threats of
'd
'i 9
physical violence?
,2 h
10 BY WITNESS BROOM:
11 A.
Yes, they do.
is
(
12 0
Now, going to record falsification, sir, were there 5
13 record falsifications in quality assurance records in 1977?
l 14 B'l WITNESS BROOM:
$i 15 A.
Yes, I believe so.
I believe that the first g
inst'ance of alleged falsification occurred in 1977 with a 16 w
l 17 technician employed by Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories.
That 1
18 occurred in 1977.
I believe that was the first one, to my E
19 knowledge, on the project.
20 0
And that's recorded in Staff Exhibit No. 1; isn't 21 that so?
22 BY WITNESS BROOM:
1 23l A.
I was referring to your testimony by Mr. Hubacek 24 and others.
I don't have Exhibit No. 1 in front of me.
t 25 (Witness reviews document.)
i i
i f
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~.
4151
-s 1
BY WITNESS BROOM:
2 A
Yes, sir, that's Inspection Report 77-02 That's 3
correct.
4 4
G And were there any such instances in 19787
=
5 BY WITNESS BROOM:
5l 6
A I believe so.
I believe there was an accusation R
7 that the base. mat cad welds in Unit 1 were -- there was some X]
8 falsification in those records made du.-ing 1978.
dd 9
I'm not sure that -- you said were there instances 10 of falsification, and I'm not sure that we or the NRC concluded El 11 that this was a case of falsification, but that was certainly I
12 an instance where the subject was alleged.
5 5
13 G
Okay.
And in 1979 did such instances -arise, or l
14 lj allegations of such instances?
g 15 BY WITNESS BROOM:
s j
16 A
I believe in October of 1979 Mr. Swayze's appearance d
1
(
(
17 on television alleged that there were some, I think you could i
E j
18 characterize falsification as part of his allegations of wrong-E l
19 doings on the project.
R l
20 G
In 1979 did Brown & Root; become aware of any l
21 ;
instance where an inspector signed off on concrete pours which l
22 l had not been inspected?
t l
23 l (Witness reviews document.)
l I
24l BY WITNESS BROOM:
I 25l A
I'm familiar with an instance that occurred in i
i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4152 i-6 1
March of 1979 where -- I don't remember there being a charge 2
that a concrete pour was signed off without inspection.
Perhaps 3
that charge was made.
4 There was an inspector and a construction worker 5
who were disputing the cleanliness of a pour, and after that 5l 6
inspector left the work area, I believe the supervisor and the R
R 7
QA manager, I believe, were called to the site and some Kl 8
additional inspections were performed, and I think someone else a
q 9
signed the pour card, and that original inspector, I believe, z
h 10 said that he wasn't satisfied that the final cleanliness 2_l 11 inspections, or something to that effect, were made.
m y
12
,G Who signed the pour card?
~
c!
g 13 BY WITNESS BROCM:
a l
14 A.
I'm not certain whether it was his supervisor or y
15 whether it was the QA manager at the site.
I thought it was 16 his supervisor.
I don't recall that detail at the moment.
g I
e-17 g
Had the supervisor inspe e6 de complete z
l h
18 circumference of the pour, the complete area of the pour?
l E
19 BY WITNESS BROOM:
20 A.
I don't know that.
I'm not sure.
I think there 21 was one area being discussed, but it could have been the 22 entire pour and he may not have ordered re-inspection of all j
23 ;
of the area.
I don't know.
24 4
Do you know whether those people still work for l
25,
Brown & Root?
i f
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
L
4153 i-7 1
BY WITNESS BROdM:
2 A
I'm sorry?
3 Do you know whether those people still work for 4
Brown & Root?
5 BY WITNESS BROOM:
l 6
A The people involved in that instance, I believe that
~
.R R
7 at'least one of them is still in our employ.
I'm not certain Ll 8
of the others.
dd 9
G Did Brown & Root conduct an investigation to see h10 whether there was a record falsification at that time?
11 (Witness reviews document.)
3
. g 12 BY WITNESS BROOM:
5 13 A
Mr. Reis, I feel sure that we investigated the l
14 incident thoroughly.
I don't know whether we investigated it U
g 15 as an instance of potential or alleged falsification, but I'm z
g sure there must be reports in the file that indicate the 16 w
6 17
. actions we took, documented what occurred and what was to be 18 done in the future, but I don't recall whether it was an 5
19 investigation into falsification, per se, in that instance; 20 there may have been.
21 22 23,
24 25 l l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
t
i 4154 t-1 1,
(Document passed to witness.)
I (cd 2l BY MR. REIS:
3 g
I show you what has been introduced as Staff 4
Exhibit, or I ask your Cout.el to show you Staff Exhibit
=
5 60, which is I&E Report 80-14 5
j 6l BY WITNESS BROOM:
R 7
A Yes, sir.
I have not read this since it was M]
8 handed to me, but I'm generally familiar with 80-14.
dd 9
4 Does that involve an instance of record i
o 3
10 falsification in 19797 3
~
j 11 BY WITNESS BROOM:
l D
-l 12 A
Yes.
The allegation was made in May of 1980, 13 but it involved an incident that, I believe, happened l
14 in -- I.believe it happened in November of 1979.
15 g.
And was the allegation of a record falsification f
16 substantiated?
W N
17 ;
BY WITNESS BROOM:
5 18 A
Yes, sir.
I -- by Brown & Root or by NRC.
A 19 We were satisfied that a record had been falsified M
20 and terminated the individual involved.
21 3
How long after this time was the individual 12 terminated?
?
23 '
BY WITNESS VURPILTAT:
24l A
Mr. Reis, as I recall -- and this is recollection 25 '
only, but this individual was terminated shortly after ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4155 1
Il the NRC Report was made public, was issued.
-2 I
2 G
And when was that, sir?
Was that after this --
3 BY' WITNESS VURPILLAT:
4 A
I would have to check the exact month, but g
5 it was after -- the termination -- the report being issued, S]
6 and the termination was after I joined the company.
g.
d 7
.So it had to be somewhere after August of A]
8
.e80.
d 9
G Was it this year, in '817 zOy 10 BY WITNESS VURPILLAT:
II A
'80.
it.
p 12 !
G Did it happen in '817 5
13 BY WITNESS'VURP.ILLAT:
5a 14 I.
Mr. Reis, I'd have to check that, but I think 15 not.
I think it happened in 1980, but I'd have to check.
j 16 BY WITNESS BROOM:
A h
I7 A
The report, Mr. Reis, that I'm looking at z
{
18 was published by the NRC on October 9th, 1980, Exhibit E
i l9 i No. 60.
s 20 l G
Yes.
It was sent to Houston Lighting & Power l
I 21!
on that date.
I don't believe that date is the date l
22 j necessarily -- I don' t want tc be testifying, but I don't t
l 23 :
think that's the date necessarily that the report became 24 public.
25 L
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l
a 4156
-3 1
'BY WITNESS BROOM:
?'l A.
I'm sorry,,I' don't -- you.mean --
3 g-Was released in the Public Document Room.
4 BY WITNESS BROOM:
5 A.
It was not on October 9th?
o=
b
]
6:
G No.
c
.l 7l
'BY WITNESS VURP.ILLAT:
4 j
8 A.-
I meant made public by being-~ received and d
-q 9
we had knowledge by someone of the report other than the
!g. 10 NRC.
E=
Q Il 4
Okay.
Going to page 10 of that report, and 3
y 12
.the paragraphs that are headed, "Re-Interviews of Individuals x
'3 13 i 5
B and C,"
sir.
a h
I4 BY WITNESS BRO'CM:
]r '15 A.
I'm sorry, Mr. Reis.
I didn't hear you.
x
((
16 G
The paragraphs that are headed, "Re-Interviews e
h 17 of Ind'ividuals B and C."
=
5 18 In that there is a report of conversations
,c 19 with an Individual.E.
20 Can you tell me how long Individual E remained 21 on the job after you received this report?
22 BY WITNESS BROOM:
i l
23l A.
Mr. Reis, I'm sc ry.
You'll have to give 24 l me a moment.
25 '
I don' t.know who Individual E is.
!t 8
~
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4157 f.-4 1
, g Okay.
I would suggest you look at --
2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
I mir,ht. add, neither does 3
.the Board at this stage.
4' BY MR. REIS:
e 5
g I would suggest you look at page 5 and the.
~
!.]
6 interview of Individual C.
'It identifies Individual E R
2 7
.as the site QA manager.
N.l 8
BY WITNESS BROOM:
d 2
9 A
Oh, all right.
,z h 10 BY-WITNESS VURPILLAT:
. Z.5 h. 11 A
Would you repeat your question about. Individual I
f.12-l, E now?.
S 13 0
How long after you received this report did 5
8 i
l 14 '
.he remain'on the job?
9 15 BY WITNESS VURPILLAT:
z ij 16 A
As I recall --
as II MR. NEWMAN:
Mr. Reis, excuse me.
I'm sorry, E
I 3
18 I'm not clear on something.
C 19 We've indicated that Individual E was the 20.
site QA manager?
'21 MR. REIS:
Yes, sir.
1 22 MR. NEWMAN:
And on what date was he the manager?
(
t 23 We have to have a fix on the date, because it might be 24 different inclividuals, t
25l Are you aware of --
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
, _ _. -.. _.. _ _ _... ~. _ _., _.,. _.. _. _... _. _ _.. _.. _.. _. _ -. _.. _
4158
-5 1,
MR. REIS:
I'll lay a predicate.
I 2
BY MR.'REIS:
.Was be one who was site QA manager on November 3
0 4
11, 1979, still employed by Brown & Root on October 9, e
5 19807 3
0 BY WITNESS BROOM:
R 7
A.
Yes, sir..
M 0
BY WITNESS VURPILLAT:
d
' ".. 9 A.
.Yes.
You bet.
3 6
10 g
Did he still occupy the same position?
i5 h
II BY WITNESS BROOM:
' t; f
I2 A.
No, sir.
He was the site QC manager.
9 1
- 5 I3 i O
I see.
He was no longer the site QA manager; m
l 14 he had become the site QC manager?
E 15 BY WITNESS BROOM:
I d
I6 l A.
Yes, sir, I believe that's correct.
M I7 l 0
Okay.
How long after --
Is he still the
!ii 18 site QC manager?
c i
19 I b
i BY WITNESS VURPILLAT:
g
)
A.
No.
2I BY WITNESS BROOM:
22 A.
No, sir.
He left voluntarily.
I believe i
l 23 '
it was in'-- I'm not certain, but I believe February of 24 this year.
25,
fj l
l:
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1 4159 i
7-6 I.
BY WITNESS V.URPILLAT:.
-2 l A. -
I think that's right, February or March.
3 I.might point out, Mr. Reis, that in talking-
-4 about the individual who allegedly made the falsification, e
5 at the time that this became known, he was removed'from 5
j 6
all! safety-related work.
- 7 There was a matter of' illness involved shortly 3
-l 8
thereaft'er,.and I recall-being told -- and you can probably d
=;
9 check'this with the HL&P people -- but I' recall-being E
10
. told that we were specifically asked not to do anything II' final in thi,s case until the NRC Report was received, cD q
g 12,
and'it was.a considerable timespan then.
-5 l
5: 13 l During that time, he was not -,that individual
- ^'
a
- . ' I4 was not performing any safety-related work.
.j 15
- g.
Dr. Broom, in your testimony you talk about
's d
10 I
. card games at the South Texas site.
'?
l l
h I7 !
'Did you -- and allegations about card games.
I E
3 18 Are the only sources of your knowledge about c
II e
those card games from what you have heard, either directly.
i g
20
-or indirectly through Mr. Swayze?
L 2I BY WITNESS. BROOM:
22 A.
No, sir.
L 23 L 4
What other information do you have?
2k.I I
l BY WITNESS BROOM:
.(.
.25 l
A.
I have talked to some of the personnel who i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4160 1
7-7 Il were alleged to have been involved in those card games 2
by Mr.'Swayze.
3 I have heard confirming statements that cards 4
were played at periods of low work on the job when there 5l was not enough~to do by some inspectors, and in most cases, 3
6 I think, a card game at the noon hour would slop.over g.
7 until afterwards, or perhaps when there were no inspections j
8 to be performed.
d d
9 rive heard that described by, I believe, two h
10 other individuals.
=
$ "II G
At what period of time, what year and in what it f
I2
-mont[1 did these card games take place that you heard about?
3 5
13 BY WITNESS BROOM:
1 14 l A.
In late 1976 to early 1977, a period of a
- !=
b 15 couple of months.
m ij 16 g
And to your investigation, there was none d
i h
I7 '
in late 19777
!=
-h IO BY WITNESS BROOM:
C b
I9 l A. '
Mr. Swayze, I believe, said that the card n
20 games occurred during that same timeframe at one point, 2I and then at other instances has said that the card games 22 occurred as -- I don't remember -- late -- well, the summer q
23 l to fall, mid-year to late in the year, 1977; but that 24 is the only source of information that I have about card s
25 games alleged to have been played during that period of I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
t-
n 4161 l
'8 1
time.
2 Mr. Reis, you understand we're talking about 3
the card games that Mr. Swayze alleged to have occurred.
4 I'm sure-there wastprobably a noontime bridge a
5 game on the job site today somewhere, but I mean card h
j 6
games that were to have been played in lieu of going out G
7 and inspecting.
M g
8 g
Off the record, I could ask you if you are 9l d-sure they are playing only bridge?
ili 10 (Laughter.)
II BY WITNESS' BROOM:
D j
12 1 A.
Perhaps gin rummy or poker; I don' t know, iii 13 s.
g Okay.
Were there any orders issued by Brown m
E I4
& Root in the 1976 to 1978 period that all preparatory
]c 15 L work in areas of concrete pours were to be complete far
=:
- r[
16 enough in advance of the pours'to allow sufficient time as
,N 17 !
for unpressured inspections by QA inspectors?
E g
18 BY WITNESS BROOM:
C f-19 I A.
I think I understood all of your question, g
j a
20 but I lost the dates, the time period.
21 g
1976 - '78.
22
[
BY WITNESS BROOM:
23 '
3, 76 to 1978.
24 Mr. Reis, I don't believe there was anything 25 in writing to that effect.
h i
i l~
ALDERSON REPORT NG COMPAraY, INC.
4162
'9 I
I am confident that our inspection supervision
'1 2
and construction supervision was aware that that would 3
be our policy, but I don't think we had it in -- I don't 4
believe we had that in writing.
5 G
And was such a procedure issued in 1979 and 0
1 was it in writing?
R
-b 7
BY WITNESS BROOM:
Ml 8
A.
Yes,' sir, I believe so.
d-9
~.
I believe I stated that we instituted a policy o
-h 10 along about mid-1979 of a minimum period of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> for
=
5 Il preplacement inspections.
N II I believe that was in writing.
3 i
13 '
j G
Ycur direct, testimony would,be correct as m
E I4 to the date of that?
z h
15 BY WITNESS BROOM:
x i
16 A.
Can you refer me to a page?
ig
(
17 E
M 18 E
-19 20 21 1
22 23 '
l' i
24 !
t 25 l l
- 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4.L63
'TP 1
BY WITNESS BROOM:
-I a
2 A
No, I can't, cut I recall it.
I'm sure that it's
.3 in here, if you'll give me a moment.
4 On the bottom of Page 19, beginning Line 44, it 5
states that management instituted a requirement of a minimum j
6 of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, and I believe that to be correct.
R 7-O Prior to that time it was a source of friction Rl 8
between the quality assurance personnel / quality control dd 9
personnel and construction personnel?
,z h
10 MR. REIS:
Strike that question.
E h
1I BY MR. REIS:
3 y
12 G
Prior to that time, the amount of time allowed for 5=
13 concrete pours was a ' source of friction between quality control
-l 14 personnel and construction personnel, and cor} crete' inspections?
lii 2
15 BY WITNESS BROOM:
U g
_16 A.
I would state it slightly differently.
w i
i 17 We've said that there was friction between E
5 18 construction and inspection personnel, and at some times that h
19 friction was more than that which you normally expect on a 20 jobsite.
21 I would take issue with your statement of the L
22 amount of time -- did you use the word " prescribed" or
^
23
" allotted"?
a.
24 Q.
Allotted.
25 l fff I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1
. - ~ -.. _
4164 l
2-2 1
BY WITNESS BROOM:
2 A.
We had always had a clear understanding with our 3
-QC inspection personnel that they were to take as long as 4
necessary to complete their inspections.
=
5 They may have felt that they were constrained in Hl 6
the amount of time given to do that pour by some action that H
R 7
construction took or some perception on their part of actions Xl 8
that construction took, but they did not have to sign a pour card dd 9
until they finished their inspection.
10 So it's only in that respect that I would have iEl 11 stated it a little bit different.
is
{
12 4
And their perception might have been influenced by S
5 13 the fact that there-were concrete trucks standing bt ready to a
a 5
14 make the pour?
$j 15 BY WITNESS BROOM:
s g[
16 A.
Yes, sir, I'm sure that on occasion that could as h
17-create a feeling of urgency and perhaps pressure on the 18 inspector in the form of trying to complete his inspection.
E 19 0
Right.
And pressure on the quality control 20 personnel can come about by having the construction supervisor 21 stand around waiting until he can start his pour?
22
(
BY WITNESS 3 ROOM:
23,
A.
Well, it might be -- it might depend on how he M
stood around.
I think our inspection personnel were 25 comfortable with working in the presence of construction people.
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4165
-3 1
It goes on all the time.
If they were yelling at him-to hurry up, 2
maybe that's one thing.
If they were standing around trying to 3
be helpful, it might be something entirely different.
4 0
What if they were reminding the inspector that
=
5 concrete was ordered already and on its way to the pour?
El 6
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to object to R
7 the question.
X j
8 It appears to be a_ hypothetical with absolutely no c.4 ci 9
basis yet having been established in the record for posing Z
h 10 such a hypothetical.
3=
11 If my understanding of the question is correct, it is j
12 is a hypothetical question.
5 5
U MR. REIS:
I don't see any reason why I can't m.
l 14 explore as to what pressures would be on an inspector and how 15 those pressures would be there.
We can connect it up later.
j 16 But I don't understand this objection at all.
t.
- d j
l h
17 I It's a perfectly valid question.
z k
18 We're talking about pressures on an inspector.
s 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Objection overruled.
The 20 question may be answered.
21 BY WITNESS BROOM:
22 A.
Let me see if I rernember your question.
I 23 i Would the inspector feel -- I'm sorry.
Would you 24 f restate it.
I'm sorry.
25l MR. REIS:
- Okay, i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
41ii6 i-4 1
BY MR. REIS:
2 g
would there be pressures on the inspectors if,the 3
construction superintendents were reminding then that concrete
/
4 was already ordered and on the way to the site?
e 5
BY WITNESS BROOM:
$l 6
A.
I think that in some inspectors' minds that might G
7 be perceived as pressure.
Xl 8
However, I've talked QC inspectors that have said d
d 9
if anything like that occurred, probably that would just make
- 10 them drag their feet; that that kind of pressure wouldn't make i!!=
11 them hurry up their jobs, so I really think that that type of is I
12 situation is viewed differently by different people.
5 13 4
Did you inquire into how it.affected your QC g
m l
14 superintendents, how that type of pressure affected your QC IE 15 superintendents on the job?
- [
10 BY WITNESS BROOM:
as k
17 l A.
Are you using the word " superintendents" plural m!
18 or singular?
I didn't hear you.
E 19 G
I said plural; superintendents.
20 BY WITNESS BROOM:
21 '
A.
I stand to be corrected, but I don't believe there's 22 but one QC superintendent in the civil concrete area.
I don't j
i 23l know what influence it might have had on any other super-24 intendents.
25 i The one in question, yes, I talked to, and I'm sure ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l
_.=,-r
4167 1-5 1
he's felt different ways at different times, depending on the 2
circumstances.
3 If statements are made in one way by construction a
4
' people, they can be perceived.by some individuals as pressure 5
and by others at other times perhaps shrug it off as not j
6 anything serious.
7 g
Do you know whether.he has ever admitted that that Xl 8
type of pressure caused him to sign off on concrete pours where dd 9
inspection wasn't as complete as it should have been, or as 10 required?
2 h11 BY WITNESS BROOM:
3
(
12 A
Our QC superintendent?
3 13 a
Yes, sir.
5 m
l 14 BY WITNESS BROOM:
15 A
No, sir, I don't know whether he's admitted to j 16 anything like that.
He has not, to my knowledge.
d 6
17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Mr. Reis, are you going on to a 18 new subject?
E 19 MR. REIS :
Am I leaving that'particular question 10 there?
21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Yes.
22 MR. REIS:
Yes.
And I will connect it up through --
23 l JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Well, my question was, we want 24 '
to take about a ten-minute break at this point.
25!
MR. REIS:
Oh, I'm sorry.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
... - -. ~ -
4168
-6 I
JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
This is about the middle of the 2
session.
3 MR. REIS:
Yes.
That's-an appropriate time.
4
-JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Okay.
Ten minutes.
5 (A short recess was caken.)
i 6
a b
7 x
]
8 d
c 9
10 i
g 11 n
i 12 s
5 13 m
I4 9
2 15 n
j 16 as ti 17 k
18
=
19 I
21l 22 s
24 l l
l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
7 Mi163
?STP 1
JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Back on the. record.
2 Mr. Reis, you may proceed.
3
.EY MR. REIS:
4 O
Dr. Broom, previously you talked about learning
=
5 about the December 1979 meeting between EL&P and the NRC 5
g 6
personnel where they discussed the types of findings which R
7 would generally be set out in the NRC's investigative report, Ml 8
.which eventually became 79-19, isn't that so?
d:i 9.
BY WITNESS BROOM:
i
' h ' 10 A.'
Yes, Mr. Reis.
I don't recall in my first meeting 11 with HL&P how many of the ultimate findings of 79-19 were is
(
12 i discussed.
I remember that Mr. Oprea discussed his nine-E-
g 13..
-point ' action plan that he had discussed with the h IC covering 4.
l '14 improvements in actions that we were going to take in some of
!Ej 15 those areas.
z g[
16 G
And did it come to your attention at that time that w
17 i among other NRC findings were to be some that PSAR commitments
'~
E I
19 g
BY WITNESS BROOM:
n 20 i A.
Mr. Reis, I don't recall if that was part of the 21 discussion or not.
It may have been, I don't recall specifically 22 G
When was the first time that you learned that 23 !
PSAR commitments were not being met in the QA program at the i
24 i South Texas Project?
l 25 l 77 i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
.. ~
1 9-2 I
4170 1
BY WITNESS BROOM:
2 A.
It would help me if yvu could be more specific, 3
because I think, as I testified earlier, Mr. Reis, any l
4 deficiency in our program could be viewed as a failure to.do a
5 something we said we were going to do or to comply with h
j 6
. Appendix B or some code or standard.
I remember -- I don't R
R 7
recall the language of 77-19, but I believe that the failure K
j 8
to audit'the construction procedures in a formal fashion was d
m; 9
stated to be a violation of PSAR requirement.
I'm a little z
h 10 vauge about that language, I'm not sure specifically what h
11 specifically that applied to with regard to specific PSAR 3j 12 commitments.
S 13 g
Was uhat the only arearthat you're aware of?
5 m
l I4 BY WITNESS BROOM:
15 A.
No.
I'm sure that others used that language.
j 16 That's just what came to mind.
mi f
I7 0,
And was this the first instance where you became s
18 aware, the issuance of 79-19, the first instance where you i~
II became aware that you were not meeting PSAR requirements?
20 BY WINTESS BROOM:
2I A.
No, sir.
When an NRC inspector performs an 22 inspection, going back, I guess to my earliest recollections l
23f of the nuclear business, it's quite common for the inspector to l
l site a reference to a PSAR commitment in stating that some y
"f procedure or some implementation or some aspect of the program i
1 l
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
=-
S-3 4171 1
is.not in full compliance with what's committed there.
I'm 2
. familiar with failures to comply with the details, commitments, 3
in a PSAR on other occasions.
4 4
Now, turning to your testimony on page 36 of your 5
direct testimony --
h l
]
6l BY WITNESS BROOM:
7l E
A Yes, sir, I'm looking at page 36.
Al 8
4
- and going down to lines '36 and 38 --
d o}
9 BY WITNESS BROOM:
I 10 A
Yes.
E II 4
-- you talk about a failure r,a mention significant 3
j 12 evidence of HL&P and Brow'n 5 Root management awareness of key E
g 13 problem areas.
Now, there was no -- do you not?
l 14 BY WITNESS BROOM:
g 15 A
Yes, those are my words.
n
- E Ib 4
Yes.
a6 i
h II l And so at the time of the issuance of 79-19, you I
were aware of key problem areas?
C*
19 g
BY WITNESS BROOM:
20 A
Yes.
What I say here, Mr. Reis, is that we were 1
21 ;
aware of most, if not all, of the findings by the time the 22 report was issued, and that we had ccmmitted to corrective 23 actions in most, if not all, of the instances and in many of 24!
l j
the areas substantial amount of work had been done toward t
(
25 meeting the commitments we had made.
l l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4172 9-4 1
G And did these key areas-involve cad welding, 2
among others?-
l 3
BY. WITNESS BROOM:
l 4
A We had been discussing with the NRC, on several 5
occasions in the past, due to inspection finditgs, specific 6
problems in -tdut area of cad welding.
Each one was different.
R-[
_'7 Reviews of records were underway, I remember one instance in K]
8 which it was alleged that an inspector was supposed to have d
'o; 9
falsified cad weld records, and your people, as well as ours, 2o 10 had investigated that and found that that was not the case.
Il There was some misunderstanding about the work he was doing, j
12 but it.certainly was not a falsification case.
E g
13 I think that the NRC had a pretty good understanding
=
' I4 of our cad welding activities and what was going on in that
. ne
[. 11 5 area about the time 79-19 was issued.
z E
I0 I'm not sure I'm answering your question?
i 2
I7 I G
And did these key areas also include concrete II placement?
Key problem areas?
j i
9" 19 BY WITNESS BROOM:
g j
20 l' A
Well, we had stopped complex concrete placement i
21 in' December.
We had had several discussions with your people i
i 22 about tdua sources of past problems and what was being done to j
I 23 l correct any such deficiencies.
l l
l 2A' !
l G
This was a key problem area, or had been a key l
25 '
i i
problem area?
I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1
,.,. ~.. _,
m...-
_y m
4173 9-5 i
4 I'
-BY-WITNESS BROOMY 2.
A
.Is.your question what.was I referring to when I
.3
'say ' key problem areas"?
I 4
0 Yes.
I-want to see what -- which areas of 5.
construction you were referring to.
e h
-@I 6
BY WITNESS BROOM:
R 3
7<
A Well,-.we had discussed with the NRC people what Ml actions we would take with regard to welding, not in detail dy 9
by that time, but I believe the NRC was aware of many of the z.
y 10-
~ thir.gs that we were implementing and later did implement in 3=
3 11 the welding nrea.
g 12 With regard to concrete, I think the same is 3g
- true, the changes that.we effected in both probedurally and 13 t
a l
14
. training-wise 'amd other areas.-
Backfill -- I'm not certain as
]r 15 tc the timing of the issuance of that report, but I believe that a
j 16 you were aware of our interpretation of some of the findings e
h 17 j in those areas that we had some misunderstandings about the E
3 18 intent of inspectors recording observations on inspection forms.
A-I9 I know that HL&P -- or at least I believe.HL&P --
g 20 had discussed the fact that in auditing surveillances of 2I construction procedures had been maintained for a long time, 22
-q.
j but not formal audits.
You were certainly aware of the I
23 !
allegations concerning harassment and intimidation.
I had 24 personally met with NRC inspectors and described to them a 25 number of activities that were underway and were to be taken in ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
4.1.74 9-6 the fut[ure, ' as well as the findings that-ha'd been made by our 1-personnel and'our co'sultant in that. area.
.I'm not trying to 2
n g
3 minimize-the importance of any particular area, but those are-4 the type things I'had in mind when I wrote " key problem areas e
5 were;known and understood-and under-discussion with the NRC."
-3 :
8 6
4 Right. 'And thatfalso included concrete placement?
e-R 2
7 BY WITNESS BROOM:
m g
8 A. -
Yes.
I think I mentioned' concrete.
d
=i -
9 The' concrete placement had been stopped, complex i
si h
10 concrete placement had been stopped, since December, and I'm E
l-11 pretty sure'that Mr. Oprea had committed that this would not itj 12 he restarted until a full planned and programmed procedure to 5
g 13 satisfy any reservations that the NRC had in these areas was m.
l_14 developed and explored and satisfied the NRC.
As a matter of
~g f-
- 2. 15 fact, I think that was a commitment that he made even in E
.j December, when he first became aware in the original meeting i
. 35 d
l when he first became aware of some of the findings.
E 18 G
Now, you mentioned harassment, and you've testified i'? ;19 before about a survey you had done by Time Lapse on employee 20
_ perception, quality assurance personnel's perception, of 21 harassment and intimidation.
22 BY WITNESS BROOM:
1 23 A.
Yes, sir.
l.
i 24l G
When those investigations were undert2 ken by l
25 l
Time Lapse, did you start out with -- did they start out with I
li ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
~- _, _ _. _ _ _ _.. - -, _. _, _ _
_.,_.._.._._a__
4175 9 1 group interviews?
2' BY WITNESS BROOM:
3 a.
The first day that interviews were conducted, 4
Mr. Reis, I believe there w%;e a total of about thirty, plus 5
g oriminus a few, people' spoken with, both privately and in some a
j 6
groups.
I don't remember which came first, but that all happened R
7 in the first day _that the consultant was on the site.
3
_l 8-G And let me ask you this, sir:
-d q
9 What type of. anonymity can you give in a group 10 intervies?
II BY WITNESS BROOM:
3
[ 12 A.
What type of anonymity?
5.
g 13 !
G Yes.
You testified before that you took pains to s
a a
E I4-see that the people talking to Time Lapse were anonymous and
$i!
15 -
kept some anonymity.
What type of anonymity can you get in 1
=
[
I6 l group interviews?
A h
I7,
B'.' WITNESS BROOM:
E 18 -
A.
I suppose there's several things that can be done, P
"g~19 but let me hasten to add that that was not the primary thing 20 j we did to protect anonymity.
I'll get to that in a moment, i
II '
but the Time Lapse employee, I don't believe, requested names 22 or any details from the individuals he talked to.
- However, 23 I'm sure that those people were aware that our people were 24 i
around.
I'm sure that he could have identified them had he 25 chosen to.
That was not the mission I sent him on, and I don't I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i 4176
'9-8 1,
believe he tried to do that.
I 2
.My discussions with him concerning anonymity were --
3 resulted in our decision to administer this questionnaire to all 4-
. employees and to state'that we were not trying to identify who e
5 completed the questionnaire, we did not want them toLsign it, O
{
6 there were no' identifying marks on the paper, and it was n
7 administered in large groups. That's the way we approached it.
3l 8
4 When groups were interviewed, the people being d:i 9
z, interviewed, the inspectors being interviewed, they knew the o.
$ :10 identity of:the other inspectors in those groups, didn't.they?
. [ l1 BY WITNESS BROOM:
m-j
~
12 A..
Yes, sir.
You'know, I presume they did.
I think 9
5 13 most inspectors on the job know most of the other inspectors.
a
-l 14 l But I,do want to emphasize that not all of the 5
j.15 interviews were done in groups.
There were a number -- quite x
g 16
- a large number -- of one-on-one interviews and certainly that
- rs I
- 6 17,
was done with any employee that expressed an interest in U
l e
3 18 l discussing with Mr. Howell any matters in private.
-19 4
Was there any finding of a perception of a lack of 20
' support by QA management of QC personnel?
2I BY WITNESS BROOM:
22 A.
Yes, sir.
I think I've testified to that earlier.
\\
23 7 11 be glad to repeat that if you would like.
I think it's 24 in my prepared testimony, but I believe I discussed it here.
{
But I'll be glad to talk about that if you'e' like.
25 I
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l l
9 g77 1
-4 When you looked at -- when 79-19 was received by
~2-Brown & Root, did they attempt to check out the instances that 3
were set out in that report, the specific instances of happenings, i
4'
- as set out in that report?
e' 5i MR. NEWMAN:
I'm going to object to that question,.
hj-6 Mr. Chairman.- It's much too general, the reference to happenings R
R 7 -
is really not susceptible of an answer that would provide.a Xl 8
l meaningful: record.-
I think the question should be phrased to d-y 9
indicate'what part of 72-19 the question is addressed to, ig 10 because 79-19 covers so many different subjects.
E
~
11
'MR.
REIS:
I'll withdraw the question.
43 12 -!
BY MR. REIS:
.5
~
g 13 g
Looking at 79-19, and going-to the first violation.
I4~
in'the notice of violations, Appendix A, listed thereunder there g
[
15 are instances A through P, examples.
They appear on page 2 to
= :s E
I0 page 5 of that appendix.
i d
i
- h _ 17 !
Did Brown & Root attempt to --
18ll in E
MR. NEWMAN:
Mr. Reis, I --
]
-l I9 l
g MR. REIS:
Let me finish the question.
20l MR. NEWMAN:
Okay, go atead.
21 BY MR. REIS:
22,
G
-- attempt to check out the, whether those 23 happenings occurred, and I ask Counsel for the Applicant to l
24l please give the exhibit to the witness so that he may look at it.
25 '
Exhibit 46.
i,
'i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
. ~. _.,
... _ _ _,~
9 417is I
1I (Document passed to. witness.)
2 BY WITNESS-BROOMi 3
A.
Yes.
4 -
MR. NEWMAN :
Mr. Reis, could you'just repeat for g
5 a moment.the examples that you're directing.the witness' R
at'ention to?
j 6
t R
R 7
MR. REIS:
A through P.
Beginning on page.2.
Kl 8
BY WITNESS BROOM:
d-si 9
I A.
I'm looking at that list.
2 9g 10 L
Thank you.
3 h
II l BY WITNESS BROOM:
3-p 12 A.
Is your question did we attempt to investigate these 3g 13 matters?
m E
14
?
z 2
15 g
16 ;
w i
p 17 !
E l
18 5I -19
~5 20 21 22 23 l i
I i
24 i
i 25 t
L i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
9-11~
- {
1:
1 0 That's right.
2 BY WITNESS ~ BROOM:
.l 3'
, A. ~
Mr. Reis --
4
-G
- And. verify them..
.5 BY WITNESS BROOM:
.e
.g 9-j
'6
_JL Mr. Reis, to describe our actions, I have to R
R.
7.
explain something just a moment.
l
'8-These statements attribute to anonymous individuals
.- d _
2 9
who talked'~to the NRC about certain occurrences on the job site.
,2:
og: 10 This is very similar to the investigation reports we received z
-k Il in.other instances. -Ne must be ve 7 careful not to take any n
[ 12
-steps that can be viewed by the employees on the job site as 5
.a 5
13,
a witch, hunt or any other-words you can think of, that were m-i l
I
=j 4 -l trying to find 'out who's talked to the NRC.
And so, no, there
^
k
{-15' was no investigation of these matters that would have invevled
=
if 16 us doing that kind of thing.
l as N
17 Now, there are some, and-I have not read the w
-3 18 entire list, but I ramember one -- I'm sure there's more than r
-G 19
'g one if I spent time going down the list -- that described 20 instances with which we were familiar and obviously we knew l
i II the individuals involved, perhaps not the person making the 22
(
. (.
statement about it, but the individuals involved in the 23 l circumstances.
And, yes, if we had not already satisfied i
24 I i
oursevles as to the facts of that circurestance, we did t
l 25 '
attempt, in those cases, to try to find out the facts.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
9-12 i
4180 1!
'But, I have to confess, that's something we have I
2I to keep in mind at all times, and that's this verifying for 3
our ownselves or investigating for our ownselves, the 4
circumstances surrounding these or any other statements made g
5 by.anonomous individuals and yet make no moves,-make no 9
i j
6l comments or statements or take no actions that can be viewed by y
8
.7 those people as management's trying to find out who I'am.
3l
'8 We're not interested-in that.
We state that-over and over again d
l y
9l to our employees, But we 're very sensitive to' tat subject.
z h
10 We don't want our employees to feel that anything we're doing i
j 11 is in any way directed toward identifying or damaging the it
(
12 anonymity of such individuals.
-=
- 1 13-(L Did you take the same action.and treat 5
a l
14 Investigative Report 81-11 in the same way?
g-15-l BY WITNESS BROOM:
z 3[
16 A.
Yes, sir.
However, I must add that in 81-11 the ed l
6 17 circumstance was such that I believe most of the people E
w 3
18 involved in the instance were immediately apparent to everyone i:
\\
I l
g involved in the incident or looking into the incident.
I'm 19 I
n 20 sure that that may not be true with regard to every person, but sometimes it is very obvious who the people are.
If you only!
2I l
22 have one person in charge of one activity at each job site and l
{
that activity is supposed to be involved, well it's pretty 23 l
l l
24 l evident who the person involved is.
l l
t l
25 :
l~
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
9-13 4161
.),l MR. REIS:
I might point out, for the record, i
2'l that.this is 81-11 and the Applicant's report on 81-11 is 3
Appellan't -- Applicant's Exhibit 32, for identification, and 4,
32 (a).
l e
5' BY MR. REIS:
hj 6!
g Now,-looking.at Example A,' sere there. records,
'R 7
going _back to Appendix A, notice of violation 1 and example gl l8~
lA, were there records - -that appears on page 2 of Appendix A, d
q 9
Staff's Exhibit 46 --
!g 10 BY WITNESS BROOM:
j 11 A'
~I'm sorry, I'm looking at~page 2.
What was your a
j-12 question About it?
3g 13 l G
Example A -- I haven't gotten to the question yet ---
a I
l 14 BY WITNESS BROOM:
j 15 A
Excuse me.
s j
16 4
Could part of your investigation there be just w-17,
checking records without going back to interview persons?
5 18 CRitness reviews documents.)
i f
g 19 BY WITNESS BROOM:
l g
M i
1 20l A*
No, sir.
I believe that this instance, if I'm not l
l 6
l 21 confused, is the subject of an earlier NRC report, and I believe l i
l 22 that -- I think some of the people invovled, not the person l
l 23 !
who is describing the incident, but the people involved on that 24 pour were well known to everyone.
25 ;
4 I see.
So, the QC supervisor indicated in that
}
h ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l l
9-14 4dd[d 1
report, everyone knows who he is?
'2' BY WITNESS BROOM:
3 A.
Well, if it says lift-tive of Unit 2' reactor
=
4
-containment building wall, placed on_ April 27th, 1979, and 5
- on that particular pour a QCE supervisor -.that-narrows it-
[
[.
[
6 down awfully small.
R~
l
[
-7 I' don't -- you don't investigate to find out who s
j 8
that is, but that's pretty apparent to anybody who's on the d:l 9
job.
2 h
10 g
I see, E
l II Generally, in reviewit.y 71-19., you could tell it
(, 12_ '
who the supervisors and the managers were in that report,
~
5 t
.,a 13 couldn't you?
i 5
a l
14 BY WITNESS BROOM:
].r 15 3,
yes, sir.
I wouldn't say that without careful s-l ij ' 16 review.
There might have been an exception, but in general, l
85 17
'I think the descriptions of a supervisory and management lii - 18 personnel could be identified, yes.
4-39 '
i n
g In the course of that review of that report, did
[
M 20 you become aware of an instance there reported where a civil l~
II construction supervisor threatened to come across the table 22 at a QA inspector in mst-placement meeting and hit him?
q f
[
23 BY WITNESS BROOM:
?
24l A.
Yes,. sir, But I think, again, that was a well-25,
known event and I thought was covered by a prior NRC report.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
..;. ~..,.
.. u.. -
.-~.
2.
i.
9-15 4100 g
1 1-It may not have been, but yes, that' incident was well known.
-2 The~ individuals were reprimanded.
It was not anything that 3
was hard'to identify.
4 G
Okay.
Did you become aware that a QA supervisor e
5 told QA - QC inspectors, in a meeting in the f all of 1979, 5(
6 that anytime you go to the NRC, we' find out, meaning Brown &
7 7'
Root?
K
.]
8 BY' WITNESS BROOM:
d{9 A.
Yes, sir.
zo g
10 That might-have been known to others prior.to that.
E=
II I believe to me this was my first time that that instance had
.$it f
I2 been pointed out to me.
0 13 5
G Okay, did you become 8
i h 'I4 BY WITNESS BROOM:
c
.j _15 A.
And there is a good example of a case in which we a.
_ id I0 investigated that matter, because obviously ',:e knew who the e
C 17 g
individual was that was supposed to have said those words.
2 IO l We did not try to find out, in any way, who said that those s-g". 19 words were spoken.
l O
G Did you become aware that some QC inspectors 21 perceived the statement as a warning, that they would get into i
22 i
.(:
trouble if they went to the NRC?
i l
l 23,
BY WITNESS BROOM:
24 A.
Mr. Reis, I don't -- I'm not sure how to answer l'
t 25 ;
that.
f i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l l
~
9-16
$104 1
1l
' I' don't.believe we conducted an investigation to 2
determine if that was the perception of the inspectors who 3
heard the remark.
I think - I'm not looking at which item I
4l in this list that is right now -- but I believe the words in I
g-5 there were clear that', at least, whoever. talked to the NRC, O
i 6l however many that was, they' felt that.
And so our objection Ri 7
-- our' objective was to talk to the-individual who made that j
8-
-statement to' find out whether in fact he did make it, what d
o; 9
did he say, what did he intend'by the remark, was it
-E
'$.10 misinterpreted; and that was our conclusion, and he tried to E
11 rectify that situation by letting people know wha't he intended is j
12 *-
by his remark.
3 13 g
What position did this supervisor hold?
5m I4 BY WITMESS BROOM:
I 9
15 '
A.
That supervisor?
m 3[.16 g
Yes.
vs h
I7 BY WITNESS BROOM:-
2 IO l l
A.
He was the site QA manager.
k e
I9 l 4'
And how many QC inspectors did he have under his M
20 supervision?
II BY WITNESS BROOM:
l
.\\
22 A.
All of them.
(
i 23 ;
4 About how many were there?
4 BY WITNESS BROOM:
s 25 A.
How many inspectors were on the payroll --
j i
i I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
-.m.-,
e
-._,.e--
,---w-,.--~
m-,
i y
,,*ww
- 9 '
4185 1;
G Yes.
About?
I 2l BY WITNESS' BROOM:-.
3 A
f~ ore than'a hundred.
I ' don 't know the. number-t 4
offhan'd at that time.
.- e 5
4 Okay.
i
- j-6l Dr. Broom, do you think that it's important that G
6,.
7 aLQA supervisor be aware of and care about'.how his statements-
'X.l 8
.to subordinates are perceived?
dd 9
BY WITNESS BROOM:
. $ - - 10 A
Yes, I do.
2 E
j 'll G
Did you also become aware that the supervisor 3r g 12' said at the same meeting in the fall of 1979. that the NRC si
- 13
' is getting tired of all the calls, referring.to calls from-l ~ 14 people to the NRC reporting matters?
~
E 15,
BY WITNESS _ BROOM:
a[ 16 A
I believe that statement is attributed to him in w
l 17 this report, yes.
=c5 -18 BY WITNESS-VURPILLAT:
E 19-A Mr. Reis, I would like to add to that.
20 I talked to the individual who allegadly made that 21 statement, and the way you just stated it is entirely different i
22 !
from the way that he indicated to me that he said it, and 23 -
I think it can be interpreted in a different ways.
In this 24 particular case, he indicated to me that it was almost jocular
(-
in nature and certainly not intended to intimidate.
I i
l-l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I L
]
$106 9-18 i
-1 g
Do you think.that's an appropriate way.for a QA 2,'
manager who has a'QA manager's pocition to joke?
3 BY-WITNESS VURPILLAT:
4 A.
Mr. Reis, you almost have.to be there to answer that g
5 question, and you almost have to have heard it in the context in a
i j
6l which it was given.
R E
7 The way it was explained to me --
~n]
- 8 0
Were you there, sir?
d d
9 BY WIINESS VURPIIIAT:
10 A.
No, I said I talked to the individual who allegedly 5
II made the statement, and this is how he. reported it to me; and 3:
(
12 l I think I said that when I started the description.
5' 13 5
G How long after 79-19 was this -- did this individual
=
i I4 leave Brown. Root?
b 15 I
.g BY WITNESS VUhPILLAT:
=
a[
I6 A.
That individual left voluntarily, Brown & Root d
i I7 I employment somewhere in the neighborhood of February of 1981.
ii 3
IO BY WITNESS BROOM:
t-19 '
3 A.
Mr. Reis, I would like to add a comment at this point n
0.
about when he left Brown & Root.
He left, as I recall, in February, and he left of I'
21 I
22 his own volition:;.
We did not ask him to leave.
I know the i
i I
23
gentleman in question and have known him ft. some time and I 4
have absolutely no reason whatsoever to question his integrity, i-his motives, his dealings with those people, and his dedication I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
,.,>.w
.e,.wv y
-g r-<*
wy
- +
.r
--.ww
-, ~ - - - - -
--m.
v-
- +-
9-19 4107 1l to the job.
l 2l He may very well have made a comment that was taken 3:
out of. context. _He may very well have made a misstatement that, i
4
'on~ reflection, was incorrect.
But, I get the inference from e
5 your question that perhaps we should have removed him from the b
^
j 6
payroll, and I want to make it very, very clear that' we did R
2
'7
.not do that.
Ml 8
-Do you defend his making these statements?
^
d d
9 Do you think they were proper or appropriate?
10 BY WITNESS BROOM:
25 j
11 A.
No, sir. T. don't defend-this gentleman making a 3
y 12 statement that he was alleged to have made.
I don't defend 5
. g 13 l; him making a statement that created a perception in the minds m
14 l of some people that he intended remarks like that.
n
.g E
g,15 That does not mean he's not a good employee and it z
[ 16 doesn't mean he's not fully dedicated to meeting every require-as g
17 j ment ca that project.
'y i
18 g
In the review of Inspection Report 79-19, did you i:
19 become aware that a QA supervisor admitted telling a QA 20 -
inspector, during the course of that inspection that after the 1
21 NRC is finished investigating, we need to get rid of some i
I 22 !
people?
l 23 BY WITNESS BROOM:
24 i A.
Mr. Reis, I'm familiar with that statement in the t
f i
25 inspection report.
Here is a case in which I do not know which I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1
]
4188 I
- 9-20.
1
'QC supervisor.was referred to..,Some of our people may know.
2 It may be an incident that is known on the job site.
+
3 CL Did_you read all the interviews attached to 79-19?
4 BY WITNESS BROOM:
e 5
A Yes, I did.
.5 6
2 b
I X
.]
8 d6 9
zs 10 i
j 11 a
y 12
=
d 13 5
i E
14
- z 2 -15 E
g.16 as N
17 l n
5 18 5"
19 X
i 20 21 22 23' 24
{
25 t
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
w
,w
,r 9=
- -N--+
W
-v-e ere-.
-e y er
-,,-%s-e-w-e
-e--
w
' = +
4183 1
9-21]
l 1
4 nd did you redd the interview of A35, attached 2
thereto?
3.
BY WITNESS' BROOM:
1 4
A.
I reviewed all of those attached.
I g
'5 g
.Okay.
e l
.6I In your review of 79-19, were you aware that the
'R l
E 7 I
=
QA inspector to whom these remarks were directed perceived this i,
Al 8
as meaning people would be discharged who talked.to the NRC?
d i
ci 9
BY WITNESS BROOM:
z o
g 10 A.
I think.that's what the remarks say, as I recall.
.z II
-I don't have that in front'of me.
m N
I2 The attachments are not here,.are they?
=3 13
-5 G
They are.
They're in the back.
m l
I4 BY WITNESS BROOM:
lej 15 l '
3, og, yeg, yem sorry.
Um-hum.
=
l E
I0 0
The statelaent of A35 begins at page 3-14.
r3 h
II Ofitness:
- reviews document. )
x IO G
In your review of 79-19, did you become aware that 5
8 this individual whose supervisor told another inspector, "You n
20 l don't have much time left.
If you're smart, you will keep your l
21l i
mouth shut."
j BY WITNESS BROOM:
23 A.
I don't recall that.
If you could refer me to the t
i 24 :
i proper section -- I read all this material, if it's in one of i
these interviews, it might refresh my memory.
j I
l ALDERSON REPOR TING COMPANY,INC.
l
. - ~.
I 4130
<9-22 s-
.li!
(Counsel reviews file ~.}
~
.2 MR. REIS:
T(e will connect that11ater.
-3
-BY MR. REIS:
'4
- 0, _
The supervisor we're talking about, who is A35, is e
5 still-employed.on the site?
e r.
i.
. ]
6 MR. NEWMAN:
Mr. Chairman, I'm going _to object e76, ' 7 to that question.
There's no foundation for it, there's
- 3']
8 nothing to. indicate, on the record, that the witness is aware d
ci 91 of the identity of A35.
2 h
10 MR. REIS:
I think he testified before that he-
- =
11 generally knew.
3 I _ I2 MR. NEWMAN:
I think the question should be put to 5
5 13 the witness and see whether or not he does know who A35 is.
- m l.14 Otherwise, the questien is objectionable.
_ h.15 BY MR. REIS:
a si I6 Q.
Are you aware of who A35 is, sir?
es
,h II' BY WITNESS BROOM:
E 3
18 A.
I'm not sure who A35 is.
I could probably i~ -
' g" 19 -
-speculate.
20 Q.
If I tell you that he is the supervisor who, as i
2I set out on page 3-15 of his statement here, report of his f
i 22 interview, that he is the inspector iho signed off on lift five 3
1 on reactor containment building two, the shell wall, would that
}
help you identify him?
25 '
//
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
if
s.
9-23
- 4. g i
BY WITNESS BROOM:
2 A.
I think. earlier that I stated with regard to'who 3
' signed that pour card, I was not sure.
I think I know who
/
4 signed the pour card, and,yes, I think that means I can
=
5 recognize who A35 is.
E e
3 6l R
7 A]
8 d
d
'9' z
h ' 10 l E
i l ~ 11 m
J 12 z
5 y '13
. 2*.
E 14
- s
.i 2
15 l 5
g '16 us y
17 M
18 E
19 20 21 22 l
s 23l 24 i 25l o
l i
i l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l.
l
'l
=
410$,'
- 0-l ~
-l ed Ii JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Mr. Reisi 2l MR. REIS:
Yes.
l 3l JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
In the course of these questions, 4
it would be more than assisting, if we knew who the person g
5 was as well; and I realize that we lost before the Appeal 0
3 6
Board, but it's getting to be that we will not be able R
~7 to make a fair ruling without identifying at least some X
j 8
of these people, including the --
d 9
MR. REIS:
We might later connect A-35.
2o 10 MR. NEWMAN:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to E
II interject.
3 g
12 I have not wanted to interrupt Mr. Reis' examination
=-
3 5
13 again, because I know he husbands his time carefully.
u j
14 l T am, however, getting increasingly concer"ed 2
l
.]
15 '
about the status of the record.
=
t[
16 We are talking now about indiv: duals who may i
d i
N I7 or may not be known clearly to the witness.
- =-
l w
3 I8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
That's the trouble the P
I9,
Board ---
g M
l 20l MR. NEWMAN:
It's going to end up in a record l
21l that's just totally meaningless to the reviewer at some i
22 l later date.
23.'
It seems to me the Staff can't have it both 24 It can't cross-examine from 'using these anonymous ways.
25 individuals, and at the same time refuse to identify who f
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l4133
- 0-2' l- ?
they are.
2 Staff has got'to make a choice in these 3
circumstances.-
4 MR. SINKIN:
Mr. Chairman.
a
.5
' JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Yes.
- h
~
~
6'
- MR. SINKIN:
I.think there is some basis for r
y 7
what the.' Staff was doing in the same' sense that we talk Aj 8
about the protected witnesses by number.
d.
9 If Dr. Broom can identify a witness by -a description IE l
i
- 5 10 of an event,-that's adequate.
E 1I JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
I'm not sure it's adequate 13 g
12 ;
for us.
S g
13 l MR. NEWMAN:
I might say,'Mr. Chairman, that --
m
-l 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
I might say.that the Board E-j 15 '
.itself'from what's going on could speculate as to who
=
E 16 some of these people are, but I don't think we could write as N
17 !
a decision on this.
i 15. 18 MR. NEWMAN:
I might say at this point, Mr.
19-Chairman, that any questions that are asked along these 20 I lines I am going to object to on grounds that they call 21 for speculation on the part of the witness.
22 MR. REIS:
One moment here.
i 23 I think he's identified in Applicant's testimony.
24 (Counsel reviews document.)
25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
I think the Board, unless h
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
. ~...
1.
i 4L1Eb1 B-3' I
these witnesses.are identified, the Board will not be 2
able to-use this information.
3 Now, if they still need protection, there 4-are devices that can be used, but the Board is going to g.
have~to find out who these people are.
5
(
6i Otherwise, we couldn' t write a decision saying b
7 the witness thought the person might be so-and-so, and
%'.j.
8.
if that's the case, then something else is the_ case.
d
}
9 I just don' t think that a decision could be zg U ~ 10 written that way.
II I think we will have to sustain the objections 3
j[ 12 unless some method is made, either to reveal them in public 5
d 13 or pdrhaps there are protective devices that could be s
w l J14 used if protection is nIeeded still.
1:
2 15 But we can't have the record developing the d
10 '
-way it'is developing.
w-I-
N' I7 MR. REIS:
We will check with this individual 5
3 18 and'see whether he wishes to remain anonymous.
1:8 I9 s-BY MR. REIS:
M g
.Dr. Broom, do you have it under your authority.
20 l
l-21 !
to check and see who signed Lift 5 on Reactor Containment 22 Building 2, the pour card for that lift?
c 23f BY WITNESS BROOM:
i 24 A
Yes.
If I have it properly identified, yes, 25 i.
sir.
l l
\\
l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
r
l 4195 l
.0-4,
'l.I
.(Counsel reviews-documents.)'
'2 !
MR. REIS:
I think the other individual who
~
3 we talked'about before_with7the ot'her. statement, we. identified' 4-his' position.
5 So I don't think there was much question as k
_j
- 6 to who he;was.
-R
!R
'7
-- MR. ~NEWMAN:
Mr. Chairman,:again,'I think N
-- l 8i (now Counsel is speculating =where the witness was once.
~
d-Q
'9 called on to: speculate.-
~
,z-f 10 It's just.'not advancing the record to make
~
^s i
11 these constant-references to, "We think we both agree 3
y 12
.on who the individual is."
~
J5
.a
.5 13,
res just pure speculation on the part of.
a l
14 everybody concerned.
E
' g, ?l5 Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one statement a
g 16-for - the record in this regard, because it may 'seem peculiar vi -
E 1 17 at this time that we're raising this objection.
5a 3
18 I really want it understood that when we responded
=
19
'to the show-cause order, we deliberately determined not i
l:
M l
l 20l "to challenge the NRC with respect to Finding No. 1 by 21l seeking the identification of the specific witnesses.
l 22 We felt that that would be counter-productive
.. l
'i
[
23 j and that our best efforts were aimed at trying to address 24 the underlying problems on the assumption that certain 4
i 25,
of these circumstances might have occurred.
i i
j
- I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
~. ~
.. ~
41ss l
l
_0-5 I
Now, I think *.he use that's being made of 2I this material at this point is just really totally unjustified,
~
3
.and I' don' t think that we ought to have any more questions i
4{
based on the type of assumptions Mr. Reis is making; namely, 5
that the witness' might or might not know the identify h;
6 l of Witness A-16 or B-25.
R I
7; MR. REIS:
Mr. Chairman, we have in the record Ml 8,
that there was -- that: intimidation and harassment didn't d
- i 9-really occur or that it was light, that it wasn't important.
10 I think it's important to show the level of Il the organization _which made this type of statement, that u
(
12 created this type of atmosphere at the site.
5" 5
13 I think we have to get to it.
u j
14 I can ask, as to the last person....
$j 15 BY MR. REIS:
=
E I6 CL I asked you previously, Dr. Brcom, whether
- ss h
17 I you knew whether a QA supervisor said to a meeting of i
s.
y 18 QA inspectors that, " Anytime you go to the NRC, we find 9
t-19 out"?
20 )
Who was that supervisor?
2l BY WITNESS BROOM:
22 A.
I think I know that person's name and I'll 23 disclose it here, but I thought I was under some kind i
24 of restraint in that regard, in that these are given to l
25I us as anonymous.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4197
- 0-6
.1 I'll be happy'to do that, if I'm not violating
'2 some rule.
3 MR. REIS:
As far as I know, thejpledgelwas 4
-given thatLthe'NRC inspectors would not disclose.it to a
'5 Brown &' Root andL to HL&P.
5.(
6 If_HL&P and Brown &' Root know it --
~
3 R.
7' JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Off the record.
-Nl 8
(Discussion off the record. )
d.
9 9
. WITNESS BROOM:
Judge Bechhoefer, perhaps 2^
9
~
g_ 10 again I'm speaking out of order, but I.was asked a question i
~j 11 l and I stated that I had some confusion in my mind about 3
.I 12 whether-i_was permitted to answer it.
c I
- j. 13
. I'd.like to add, part of my.prdblem surrounds 3
.ll 14 just'a-fact that I'm confronted with.
E
=15
'Specifically with regard to some of the statements-g 16,
thatlwere made here in-this document, I can assure you
.w li 17' without any investigation on Brown & Root's part, we've am 18 had a number of our inspectors come to us af ter this investigatior,
- [
19 ;
I and-say that they were quoted out of context, that their M-20 statemsnts were misinterpreted, or whatever.
21 I'm not trying to say that these statements 22 are not in fact true; but I am saying that I have a variety 13 '
of information that's been presented to me in an area i
24l that I do not feel that I'm permitted to (and I certainly 25l have never tried to) seek the sources of this information.
3 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
.. m
4198 0-7 I
I've got some statements that say, "Some of i
2 this stuff is not exactly the way I said it," or, "That's 3
not what I meant," or'whatever.
I 4
I'm just very reluctant to attribute statements 5l g
made to individuals or by individuals that I'm not really S
1 g
6' l supposed to know who they-are under that set of circumstances.
R
$7 That's just part of the problem that I have,
~4l 8
and pardon me for interrupting.
i d
={
9' MR. NEWMAN:
Mr. Chairman, from the vantage 2o h
10 point of Counsel for the Applicant, I must say that Mr. Reis
=
i II may feel under no compunction about identifying who A-35 is
.a f
I2 or A-40, but it was my impression that it was the management, c
I 13 '
5 at least of the I&E Division, which did.not want these u
14 individuals identified, and it ill-behooves us, it seems k
j g
15 l to me, to begin that process of identification in this
=
j 16 l courtroom while the I&E position remains as it is.
d j
l h
I7 MR. REIS:
Mr. Chairman --
i E
I IO JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Let me comment on one thing.
i
~p" 19 l
g We are getting to exactly the situation that 20l the Board foresaw when it issued its order concerning I
21 j:
j the Intervenors' discovery request.
f 22 There the Intervenors were requesting it.
23 '
The Board also commented in our order that we saw a need t
24 for this information in the hearing, and we've come to 25 the stage where that time has come.
i I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
415U
,0-8 1..
Now, there are'a number of options'avhilable,,
J l
-2 but I don't think.~the record can stand the way it is developing.
3 We will have to, I think, identify a number
'4-of these people; maybe not everybody,-but-a number of e
5 persons who you wish to cross-examine with respect to'--
y
[
6 "you" being the Staff right now -- I think those people h
7' will have to be identified.
N
.]
8 Whether that has to be full public identification,.
d-9 I'm not saying at this stage, and perhaps if the Board-E 1.0 or the parties were supplied copies of the names of these
.j 11l
~
individuals, the names would not have to be put in the U
_ y.12 public record so that it will remain subject to a protective 5j-13 order.
~
L5 e
~
14-But-some method would have to be devised to 15 identify these people so the witnesses will know who they j
16 are being asked about precisely.
l 17 MR. REIS:
I think I identified -- certainly a
18 with the first one there was no question.
=
I 19 l I think the record will reflect that the person R
l 20 l was-the quality assurance manager and he had beccme the 21 l quality control manager after 79-19.
22 So I don't think there was any question that 23 : {
anybody was under any misapprehension who we were talking 24 l ab'out in answering the question.
.25,
I think there is --
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4200 0-9 I
JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Will the Staff put his 2
name on the. record?
3 MR. REIS:
Well, I see it's 9:44 now.
4 (Laughter.)-
5 MR. REIS:
I would like to get back, frankly, 3
0:
to Washington..
Rb7 There are a number of problems, of course, N
I that 'I foresee coming up that I didn't realize would come d
I up just at this time.
I thought they might come up later.
_3-I h.10 I don' t think when we talk about releasing 5
4 II names we talk about the same thing in releasing all names, b
. l 12 as when'we talk about supervisors and managers.
4 h.13 I think there are different types of requirements, b
I4 and there's also different levels.
5 15 I-don't think that a supervisor and a manager d 16 falls in exactly the same classification as a quality --
A h
I7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Well, what we're referring
=
!ii 18 to now are the names of people who you are asking questions C
l l
about.
LR. REIS:
There's also --
On the particular II j
people I'm aski:..g questions about, there is another factor 22 that I'm sure the Applicants are aware of that very much influences my questions in this regard.
I don't want to go into it today.
I think s
t l
i 25 I.will be able to go into it tomorrow morning.
2 I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
+
_..,,.,..v.
--,,,,m..
4201 9-10 1
(Bench conference.)
2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
Well, I think we will take 3
up your offer to adjourn at this stags.
4 Before we do so, I would like to comment that
=
5 the fact that a person is a manager or not a manager, l-
]
6 that may make a difference to the Staff; but to us the R
i 7ldifferenceresolvesuponwhatinformationisattempted 3]
8 to be developed in the record.
d d~
9 So we will be concerned if. questions are asked
~
5 0
10 about any of these people, to make sure that there's positive E
II identification in some way.
O g
12 So I would hope the Staff would think this 5
5 13 over by the time we get back tomorrow and --
m l
14 MR. REIS:
We are thinking it over and I am 5
g 15 in touch with --
a 10 ti JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
You may wish to contact as
.h I7 l I&E, also, about some of these people, because the persons
~.
{
18 you asked question.s about, I think we are not going to c:
4 i-1 19 l be able to leave unidentified.
l 20l There's also been statements made by the witnesses 21 l that not all of the statements in the I&E Reports are 22 necessarily completely -- at least unambiguous.
i 23 l So perhaps some explanations will have to 24 l be entered if we get into discussing what those statements l
25 l were and who made them.
}
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
_ ~,
4202 0-11 1l MR. REIS:
Well, there is a question of law I
w 2
involved the're and the application, and the Conmission's,
3 regulations and what the effect of prior admissions atte; and I don't think --
It's not an easy question.
5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
No, but I also call your
=
5 3
64 attention to the fact that there are varying degrees of R
7-making these things public, and there are a numbei of Ml 8
devices by-which perhaps their names would not have to d
c; 9
be made available completely to the public.
h 10 Anyhow, we call upon you to think about some
=
II of these questions before we get back tomorrow.
uj 12 Anything else before we adjourn?
S g
13 (No response. )
I4 JUDGE DECHHOEFER:
With that, we wi11 adjourn 15 until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.
d 16 (Wheretpon, at 9 :45 p.m., the haaring was M
.h I7 adjourned < to reconvene at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 16, l
x y
18 1981, at the same place.)
19 i R
20 21 22
(
I 23 24 !
1 25,
l 8
l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 1
This is to certify that the attache 1 proceedings before the NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION HOUSTON LIG!! TING & POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
in the matter of:
South Texas Nuclear Project Units 1 and 2 DATE of proceedi tu p,:
June 15,,1981 DOCKET Number: 50-498 OL: 50-499 OL PLACE of proceedinys:
Houston, Texas were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.
Lagailda Barnes Official Reporter (Typed) d$$
Offic.fil Repcrter (Signature)
..---. - **