ML20129H959
| ML20129H959 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1985 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#385-962 OL, NUDOCS 8507220087 | |
| Download: ML20129H959 (200) | |
Text
-
O ^^'GlfXh UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: STN 50-498-OL -'
STN 50-499-OL EVIDENTIARY HEARING HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, et al. j (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2)
O U
LOCATION: HOUSTON, TEXAS PAGES: 12128 - 12357 DATE: TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1985 0ll 9
(
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Cfficial Peporters lgO72$D00k bOOO 99 444 North Capitol Street T PDR Washington, D.C. 20001 (202)347-3700 N^"0"' C *^CE _
l 12128
(
l 1
2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I
3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l l
4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l I
5 ----------------------------------X 6 In the Matter of: : DOCKET NO.
7 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POUER : STN-50-498-OL l
C COMPANY, ET AL., : STN-50-499-OL 9 (South Texas Project Units 1 & 2 :
10 ----------------------------------X 11 University of Houston 12 Krost Hall Auditorium 13 Houston, Te::as
.J 14 15
- j. 16 Tuesday, 16 July 1985 l
l 17 1
18 The hearing in the above-entitled matter was i
19 convened, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:00 a.m.,
20 BEFORE:
21 JUDGE CHARLES BECHHOEFER, Chairman, 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
23 JUDGE JAMES C. LAMB, Member, t 24 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
25 L
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 0$.[128 L_..
12129
/ '\ l' JUDGE FREDERICK J. SHON, Member,
'J 2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.'
3 4 APPEARANCES:
5 On behalf of the Applicants:
6 MAURICE AXELRAD, Esq.,
7 JACK R. NEWMAN, Esq.,
8 ALVIN GUTTERMAN, Esq.,
9 DONALD J. SILVERMAN, Esq.,
10 Newman & Holtzinger, 11 Washington, D.C.
12 13
() 14 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff:
15 EDUIN J. REIS, Ecq.,
16 ORESTE RUSS PIRFO, Esq.,
17 Office of the Dxecutive Legal Director 18 19 20 On behalf of the Intervenor:
21 LANNY ALAN SIHKIN, 22 3022 Porter St. N.W., 0304 23 Mashington, D.C. 20008 24 Representative for Citizens Concerned About 25 Nuclear Poucr. l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 g + ;;,gg
12130 1 CONTENTS 2
3 WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS BOARD REDIRECT RECROSS 4 JERO!!E H. GOLDBERG) 12188 12131 5 60N JORDAN) 12241 6
7 8 EXHIBITS For Id In Evd 9 Applicant 69 12163 12163 10 CCANP Exhibit 83 12217 11 CCAMP Exhibit 84 12277 12284 12 CCANP Exhibit 85 12292 12329 13 CCAMP E::hibit 86 12332
,m
\_) 14 CCANP Exhibit 87 12337 12338 15 CCAMP Exhibit 88 12342 12344 16 17 18 19 20
__ 21 22 23 24 25 r
N:cI TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 0 ':130 l
J
12131 1 PROCEDDINGS 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Good morning, ladies and 3 gentlemen. Before we get into the board examination of 4 Mr. Jordan, are there any preliminary matters?
5 IIR. SINKIn: No.
6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: OI:ay, Dr. Lamb?
7 JUDGE LAIIB: I can't see Ilr. Sinkin. Can you 8 hear me all right?
9 MR. SIIKIN: I hear you fine.
10 DON JORDAN, 11 testified further upon his oath as follows:
12 EOARD E:'A!:I"ATICU 13 BY JUDGE LAIID:
14 0 Good morning, 11r. Jordan.
15 A Good uorning, Judge Lamb.
16 O This may be a repetition. but I want to be cure 17 that it ic in the racerd furt in cane it icn't, but can 18 you -- it has been testified that CLGP viewed Iir. Rice ac 19 not being fully cualified to run the STP for D&R. Could 20 you explain to us briefly the rationale for that?
21 A Yes, Judge Lamb. Iir. Rice had had a long and 22 successful career in a variety of things for Brown & Root 23 and had advanced through their organization to a high 24 ranking pocition. However, we feel and felt and feel 25 today that the cophistication that's needed and the 9
TATS REPORTI!!G SCnVICS, 498-0442 0 31
12132 1 technical knowledge that's needed to build, engineer and 2 to manage and construct a nuclear power plant of the 3 magnitude of South Texas is something that clearly 4 requires people of great experience and talent in that 5 area, and that while his general background in some 6 fields was good, that we didn't believe he could bring 7 the experience and the talent necessary to fit this 8 particular job to the proper level.
9 0 Were your concerns specifically with nuclear 10 experience?
11 A Yes. We felt that nuclear experience was 12 important and that he had none of that.
13 0 Referring to your notes for the June 29th i
ss 14 meetirIc, that's CCAMP E::hibit Ko. 79, under item 7 E,
- I'm 15 wondering if that's correctly worded. You mentioned, 16 "Probably better to keep BGR on engineering." Uas that 17 intended to be enginecring cr ccnctruction?
10 A I think Judge Lamb, as I try to go back and 19 remember that, that we were talking about -- we were 20 talking about what the -- this is the June 29th meeting, 21 I think, that I had uith Mr. Barker, Goldberg and Oprea, 22 and we were discussing hou we might go about developing 23 these options that we vented to look at. And I think the 24 statement uns made by one of these parties that if in 25 fact it was poccible and we were only going to change one 9
TATC REPORTING SCRVICC, 490-8442 O ! P .'. 9 2
12133 (r\
- \,/ -
1 piece of this, it probably would have less impact on the 2 project if Brown & Root were able to continue in 3 engineering and somebody else did the construction.
4 But that wouldn't solve the problem. We felt 5 the problem was primarily one of engineering and so that 6 kind of rationale was not one that would fly. I think 7 that -- I recall that we did in fact discuss'the issue in 8 some detail.
9 I think that note reflects somebody's comment 10 that the easiest transition would have been had Brown &
11 Root been capable of doing the engineering and somebody 12 else vould have to cone in and do the construction. But 13 that didn't fit this particular need.
(~)~
( 14 O So this is essentially correct as written here?
15 A I think the note is correct, as I wrote it.
16 But it was -- it was not one that we gave any ceasure of 17 consideration to.
18 0 How, under Item 5, you mention the engineering 19 only, perhaps positive with UnC; engineering and 20 construction, perhaps positive with Unc.
21 How much of a factor was that in your decision?
22 A Oh, it was quite a small factor in the decision 23 to cook out options that we might have on it. It clearly 24 uould be a factor if you decided to make a change.
l 25 If !!nc vere to take the position that, "Ue i !
TATC REP 0nTI!!G SEnVICE, 498-0442 012133 l
1-2134 1 won't allow you to make a change in the architect f
2 engineer or contractor at this stage," well then 3 obviously we'd be faced with a much different problem.
4 So the general question at that time uas would 5 the URC look with favor, would they look with disfavor, 6 would they have any opinion at all as to whether or not 7 we made a change ia the architect engineer contractor.
8 And it was clearly a very, very broad speculation with no 9 foundation and at all by the people who were in there.
10 0 Am I correct in my understanding that the 11 original plan was that -- HL&P's orginal plan was to 12 replace Broun & ncot Oc the architect engineer but to 13 retain them as the contracto.?
14 A Yes, sir. As we ctarted looking into this, 15 Judge Lamb, we gr,ve consideration to making a change on 16 the entire operation. By the time -- and I was refreched 17 r.,y noncry on that, on the requert for propocal; by the 18 time we got to the request for proposal, we had decided 19 to keep Brown & Root at least at that time, on 20 construction.
21 And I think we made the provision or cade the 22 statement that even that perhapo uould hrve to change 23 later but we thought Brown & Root could do the 24 construction if we had sonebody in who could do the 25 engineering and construction nanagement well.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 493-8442 01 ' ' d. 34
_w
~1 2135 1 Q Why did you wish to keep Brown & Root as the 2 constructor if you were going to let them go as the A/E?
3 A Well, I think there was two reasons we thought 4 about that. The first place, we thought Brown & Root 5 could do the construction vork. You know, they're a very 6 broad and talented, successful construction company for 7 many years, have competed to be the largest contractor in 8 the world and we knew they knew how to pour concrete, '
9 they could pull wire, they could do things that were 10 necessary to build things.
11 So we believed they probably could be 12 cucccccful as a centractor. Ue felt then cnd I still 13 believe that their primary problems were those of
? 14 engineering and managing that construction.
15 So we thought by keeping them there, we would 1G really simplify the transition that would take place, and 17 uculd make that trancitien cacier thcn it would br.*e had 10 we changed everybody off at the came time. So it was our 19 thought right or wrong at that time, that the best way to 20 handle the transition to get the project completed and to 21 be built uell vould be to have the cooperation of Broun n 22 Root in that kind of trcnsition where they would stay cs 23 a constructor and comebody cice vould do the engineering 24 und constructicn management.
25 0 Did you make any concerted effort to convince 9
TATE REPORTI::G SERVICE, 490-0442 01Ul95
I 12136 1 Brown & Root to remain on as contractor?
2 A Yes, we did.
3 0 Do you know why Brown & Root decided to 4 withdraw as contractor?
5 A Well, I guess, Judge Lamb, I could speak to 6 that from my point of view. Brown & noot may give you a 7 different answer. He asked them to stay on as 8 constructor. I asked both Mr. Feehan and Mr. Harbin 9 that. And told him that we wanted him to do that and ue 10 needed their cooperation in the transition. They agreed 11 to do that.
12 So::.etime late r , they decided that they choce 13 not to do it. They set up -- and I will perhaps not get
) 14 this e::actly right, . but I will try to chare it with you 15 as my memory serves me. They cet up some provisions 16 uhich they would like to have assurances on if they did 17 ctay as centractor.
18 We vere not able to give them all those 19 assurances, and so then they made the decision they would 20 prefer not to stay ac contractor.
21 After we had gone then through the procecs of 22 selecting Ebasco or virtually ready to avard it to 23 Ebacco, they came back again and said perhaps they would 24 be interected in ctaying as a contractor. But -- or ac 25 conctructor. Out ue had already gone far enough then a
TATE RCPORTI!?G SERVICC, 408-8442 0 3 , , .* ,) D.
l i
12137 l 1 that the die was cast.
2 How, I will share with you, as my memory serves 3 me, what those provisions were, that Brown & noot wanted 4 to have assurance on. They wanted to be relieved of any 5 obligation that they may have had for previous 6 construction or engineering problems at the plant with 7 assurances that any future kind of problems would -- that 8 they would not be held responsible for; we were not able 9 to make that concession to them. They wanted to be sure 10 that they felt that as constructor alone, they 11 would -- that their fees who would be affected and they 12 uanted to be cure their feet ucre protected.
13 And we told them we'd look at that with them
) 14 and that if their fees were e.ffected by virtue of our 15 decision to r..ake thic cnange, we vould talk with them 16 about that.
17 The third thing the'f '.': nt e d t e h e c u r e o f '..'a s 18 that they would be abic to have control over their field 19 forces, themselves, and not have a construction manager 20 directing their field forces. And I think that was 21 worked out with !*r. Goldberg as well. But we vore not 22 able to give them assurancec that there vould never be 23 any claims againct Droun & noot for pact problems or give 24 them indemnification for any future problem that might 25 occur on the plant. That'c ac the best of of my memory 8 ,
TATC DEPORTI!1G CEnVICE, 498-8442 c : - a. 67
12138 1 recalls it.
2 0 I have a question which is -- I'm not quite 3 sure how to phrase it, because it's sort of a sloppy 4 question. But let me try anyway.
5 A Okay.
6 0 In questions, your Questions 14, 15, 16 and 17, 7 you responded to specific quest..ons about why you did not 8 mention the Quadrex report in your earlier testimony.
9 A Okay.
10 0 And in going through the transcript, I find 11 that there is a long line of questioning, with lotc of 12 interruptienc, betucen Pcgoc 1224 and 1251. This line of 13 questioning relates largely to natters dealing with 14 connultanto and reports and engineering cnd several 15 things which are relcted to that area. And I wondered if 16 you could give us the came type of recponse cs to why you 17 didn't r.cntien quadre: rcrort in thet Orce cc ucil. Cn 16 you take time to look at that, if you'd like.
19 MR. GUTTERMAU: Let me see if I can find it.
20 MR. AXELRAD: I'm not cure if we have the 21 tranceripta here, do ve?
22 JUDCC LAMD: I don't vant you to recall off the 23 top of your head. I'm not cuggocting you road in it 24 grect detail, but you might unnt to thumb through it to 25 refresh your nomory. It begins at Page 1224.
TATC HDPonTIMG CEnVICE, 408-0442 01 Y .', 2 6
12139 1 MR. AXCLRAD: Just to make cure I understand, 2 Judge Lamb, these are not pages that are referenced in 3 the Board's orders, these are additional pages you're 4 asking him to refer to nou.
5 JUDGC LAMB: These vere pages not mentioned in G the direct tectimony. In other vords, there were four
/ sets of pages.
" MR. AXCLRAD: But those four sets of pages 9 dealt uith cpecific pagcc that the Board hcd identified 10 in its report cnd these are original pages.
11 JUDGC LAMB: Right.
12 A Judge L r6, hcw far ucc I te go fror 1224 to --
~
13 0 (By Judge Lceb) 1.'cll, actually the line of c
i 14 quottioning it cccttored through cbout 25 pagoc there.
15 : n. A::CLnLD. I believe you caid to P:.90 1251.
16 JUDGE LA"B. Page 1251.
17 A Oker, Judge Lanh, I heve brm'.ce6 that and if 10 ycu'll ach me the question cgain so I'm cure I underetcnd 19 wh:t it in and I'll try to encucr.
20 0 (ny Judge Lceb) My question vac cimply: You 21 sadresced in your direct toctimony why you did not montion 22 the Ducuren report and related matters with recpoct to thece 23 other pagen. And in going through the tranceript agnin, it 24 occurred to T,o thct thct cocmed to be an crea uhcre 25 logicclly, it might have been nontioned alco; and I v
TATC LCPonTIUC SCnVICC, 493-0442 p- .9'
f i .- 12140 i
i i ) I wondered why you did not.
v '
2 A I'll try to answer it and put myself back in 3 the position that I was that day. Let me go back just a 4 minute.
5 I understood at the time that we started the 6 Quadrex report that it was to be a study aimed 7 exclusively at the efficiency of the engineering, the 8 effectiveness of the the engineering coming out of Broun ,
9 & Root.
10 I also understood at the time that I vent down 11 to testify in Bay City, that that hearing was on 12 construction and on quality cccuranco. Mou, to the degree 13 that that vac properly or improperly separated in my (n) 14 mind, it uns, separated.
15 And so I uns down there talking primarily about 16 construction and quality accurance. And I folt that the 17 limited expecure I'd had which had been a quick briefing 10 a couple of days before on the Quadrox report, that it was 1D an engineering issue and something uc had to deal with on 20 quite a different bacio on schedulo and cost.
21 As I look through here, I ccn soo uhat ctrikes 22 your imagination, becauno thoro'c como questienc here 23 that do, in fact, acom to imply had thoro been 24 ctudice based on engineering.
25 Some of thoco engincoring things voro uay back TATC REPORTING SERVICC, 498-0442 0*f^:-d*JO a
12141 1 in the history of the company. I may have been zeroing 2 in on the fact that initially when Brown & Root -- we 3 went to the field, they said there was 50 or 60 percent 4 of the engineering done and we found out later that there 5 was considerably less.
6 Ac I look through these other buzz words in 7 here, there seem to be some words in there that says, 8 "Are there any studies that would indicate Drown &
9 Root's integrity or Brown & Root's truthfulnecs," or 10 something like that.
11 The only thing I can tell you is that at the 12 time I ucc giving thin tactitc.cny, I :.uct have been 13 :oroing in on comething that would go toward the word of
)
14 integrity or truthfulnecs rather than a ctudy of actual 15 performance. I had no reason not to mention the Quadrex 10 report uith the exception that I prebcbly couldn't have 17 antucred cny cpecifie quecticn cbe::t it, :n.i had no 10 reason to try to hide it. Thr.t's the bene answer I can 19 give you in terms of looking through it auickly and to my 20 knowledge, that'c a truthful ancwor.
21 0 (By Judge Lamb) tras there -- ucre you advised 22 to avoid the Quadre:: report at any tino?
23 A Mo.
24 0 -- in connection with --
25 A Mo, I had not tcihed to any of cur licensing O
%w)
/
TATE REPORTIDG SCRVICC, 490-0442 (i t o t* -%I
12142 1 lawyers about the Quadrex report; I had had the meeting 2 with Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Oprea two or three days prior 3 to that time; I hadn't seen the report at that time; the 4 question of -- the question of reportable items, Mr.
5 Oprea said they're going to be -- Mr. Goldberg said there 6 were going to be two or three of those. We said, " Fine, 7 go ahead and report whatever has to be reported."
8 He vent forward and did that in the normal 9 course of business. He had no discussion about whether 10 it ought to come up or whether it shouldn't come up. And 11 it just never occurred to me and any of those in any of 12 those questions, that that was an issue to bring forward.
13 0 ,Eac any conscious.cffort or intent on your part l 14 of avoiding the cubject?
15 A No, as I said before, when Mr. Goldberg and Mr.
16 Oprea left my office, I had the impression that there 17 ucre a number cf additional -- hcre uns additional work 18 that would have to be done on that study before they 19 would be able to come to a firm conclusion on it.
20 Decause as I said, Mr. Goldberg didn't agree uith some of 21 the cenclusions that had been reached and he felt others 22 had been reached on the basis of incomplete information.
23 And so ue Icft the office with the -- or ho 24 left my office with the clear idea that that cdditional 25 vork would be done and we would talk again. So I really, s
v f 1 TATE REPORTING C"RVICE, 498-8442 (l i n* A '= 2'
12143 1 while I didn't dismiss it from my mind, it was not an 2 item that was in the front of my mind as an issue that I 3 was going to deal with any time quickly. It was going to 4 take some time to get it solved and it was one that we 5 would save for another day.
6 So he just didn't come to me in response to any 7 of the specific questions that vere asked and I would say 8 that I probably must have been zeroing in on some of the 9 buzz words rather than some of the general broader 10 question that it may have implied, 11 Q I'm sorry, the question was so loose, but I 12 couldn't thin:: of any other uny to get that over.
13 A I hope the ansuer is not too loose. That's o '
14 about as good as I can put it together for you, Judge.
15 Q Another question, in earlier testir..ony, that is 16 bcck in '81 and '82, by you and by others, in response to 17 quentiene cbout crpability of EER and the reletionship 18 between i:LGP and LLE, ue vere told basically to 19 paraphrase it, I'll try to paraphrase it, that there were 20 problems but that these were being worked out and that 21 generally, the responses were favorable with respect to 22 DLR, or seemed to be.
23 1;ou , at the same time, you had this matter of 24 poor progress in engineering, that nay be for the sake of 25 crgument, ten percent completion as opposed to 50 percent 1
O t r, .. l TATC REPORTI"G SERVICC, 498-8442 ' ~ J '. 3, 1
e-12144 1 completion when you first started construction. And the 2 Quadrex report had just been submitted dealing with that.
3 And the company was then, at the time some of that 4 testimony, in the process of working its way into a 5 position to fire B&R from A and C work. Can you try to 6 reconcile for me in general, how these seemingly opposing 7 things could be related, can be reconciled?
8 A I know that it's been represented to you that 9 we were moving into a position to fire Droun & Root ever 10 since we had the tolling agreements signed in December 11 1979. That's just not true.
12 Uhat happened in December of 1970 wc thct come 13 of the statute of limitations were beginning to run on
) 14 the early years of that project. tind I don't think any 15 businessman vould be properly discharging his 16 responsibility if he let that happen, when in fact, you 17 ucre having come difficulty with the prcject th:t vc ucre 10 having then.
19 so it was a business decision, to say, "All 20 right, you knou, we're not interested in filing a 21 lausuit. He ucnt this project to go forward, and we 22 unnt it to go forward safely, we want it to go forward 23 properly under the jurisdiction of the Muclear Regulatory 24 Commission. But we unnt it to be built on time and on 25 cchedule to the degree that it can.
- 4 TATC REPORTIMG SERVIC2, 490-8442 0f.-
-e'=*
1 2145 1 "We've got these difficulties in the past, now 2 you can wipe those out by going forward with the project 3 and let's getting it taken care of. But if it doesn't 4 take care of it, but don't want to waive any rights that 5 ve might have simply because ue've let time expire."
6 That was the total logic behind it. Uc thought 7 that it might even be a spur to Broun & Root to move 8 forward and do the things ue felt they needed to do to 9 get the project completed.
10 If in fact, had ue let the statute run on those 11 issues, that would eliminate some of the responsibility 12 that Droun & noot had had tc the project in previous 13 engineers. So it was filed and it was agreed to for that i t. . purpore and it ucs a two year rtatut' of limitation 15 letter, and we thought that within the next two years 16 things vere going to be much better and that we could 17 fc get ebett th:t ircue of h ' ring been cigned.
10 As we vene forward, it didn't get much better ID rapidly as ue thought that it might do, but we were not 20 in the position of filing a lausuit in September 1979, 21 and if I'm not succecaful in convincing thic Board that 22 that decision in termc of changing troun & noot from that 23 job was not made until the end of June, 1931 then I'm not 24 doing a very good job of telling you the truth. Becauce 25 that decicion ucc, in fact, not made until that day to TATO R"PORTII:G CCRVICC, 400-8442 (1!- .d
- e v
1 2146 1 cearch out the options and the decision to remove them 2 wasn't made until September that year.
3 Now, I will tell you that the relations between 4 Brown & Root and Houston Lighting & Power Company during 5 that period of time uith the show cause and perhaps a 6 little earlier wasn't on the natural high that's born of 7 cuccess. The project was behind and as a result of it 8 being behind, there was concern" and frustration on the 9 parts of many of the top management of both Brown & noot 10 and Houston Lighting & Power Company, and in the lower 11 levels of our organization, where people worked every 12 day, that frustration unc probably fait even to a higher 13 degree, because they were under a concinuing and mounting
< 14 pressure to perform in those particular levels.
15 And while there could have boon even come 16 claches from time to time between individual people 17 verking en that project. Put et the level, the tcp level 10 of the Brown & Root organization and of Hou0 ton Lighting 19 & Power Company, ue were, in fact, still attempting to 20 vork those problems out and vore getting come 21 encouragement in terms of thinking that it was going to 22 happen.
23 You recall that the chow cauce had 24 already had been icaued. I felt, and I think, Mr.
25 Goldberg and Mr. Oprec felt that the Crown & Root people TATC RCPORTIUC SERVICC, 400-0442 b -
d6
12147 1 and the Houston Lighting & Power Company people pulled 2 together very well during those show cause issues and 3 addressed them accurately and well and did a good job.
4 That, in fact, did have an effect on the amount 5 of engineering they vere able to get out at the same time 6 because a number of people were deviated from that 7 accignment to handle the chou cause effort. But I felt 8 that we were seeing a renewed dedication by the top 9 leadership of Brown & noot during that period of time to 10 do what needed to be done to satisfy the nuclear 11 Regulatory Commission and the demands of this job.
12 And co during those months, it u:.c uith co:..c 13 feeling of, not satisfaction, but certainly some feeling
) 14 cf incroaced onecuragement that Broun t. noot unc going to 15 be able to get that done. And it uns not until wo 16 received, on the June 26th meeting in 1901, where Brown &
17 ncet gava ur their r.rclininer-j c: pect:ticr.c cf ubet they la were going to be able to do over the no::: 10 montha as a 19 target, that I decided in that raceting that that ac a 20 target was not adequate for un to addrecs when they, in 21 fact, had not nececcarily been cucccc:ful in reaching 22 targetc before. .
23 That targot uce to from July the firct to the 24 end of 1901, make three percent progrecs on the project 25 and for the entire year 1902, make ci:: percent TATC CCPOnTI !G SERVICE, 490-0442 01 27
12148 1 progress on the project, as I recall the numbers, which 2 was a total of nine percent over an 18 month period of 3 time. That, for a project like South Texas, just is not 4 an acceptable target. And if there's going to be a time, 5 then, to revieu the optionc to chcnge that appeared to oc 6 to be the time to revieu it. That with no expectation of 7 making more and perhaps making less than nine percent 8 over the next 18 months, if you're going to look at an 9 option to change, that's the time frame you ought to do 10 it in and that's when we decided to do it.
11 I've probably rambled a lot more than you 12 e::pcoted uc to :nd ucybe didn't cvon touch cll the 10:ee:
13 you were interected in. So if you'll re-ach it, I'll try 14 to touch none.
15 1G 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TATC DCP0n?It'C SCnVICC, 493-0442 e. ** '
sg-#2 149 12149 1 Q No, I wc0 interested in your views. I think 2 that answered my question. .
3 JUDGE LAMB : That's all I have.
4 Q (By Judge Shon) I must say, Judge Lamb asked 5 most of the questions in most of the areas that I was 6 interested in. There is perhaps one little loose end in 7 my view and that is the following: As I understand it, 8 when you were testifying in May of 1981, you really 9 didn't think of the Quadrex report and construction as 10 as QA matters; is that right?
11 A That's correct.
12 Q Or at least not as construction QA matters.
13 You were focused on Report 79-19 and the show cause 7_
t 14 order issue. But, now, you knew at that time, or I 15 tr ust you know, that a 50.55 review had been triggered 16 by the Quadrex report. Did you know that they were 17 doing something --
18 A All I knew at that time, Judge Shon, was that 19 Mr. Goldberg indicated to me there were three reportable 20 itomo in that report and he told me what they were and 21 that he was going to make thoco reports to the NRC.
22 That's what I knew about it.
23 In the normal courco of buoincon in our 24 company, Mr. Goldborg, Mr. Oproa bef oro him and now Mr.
25 Goldberg and hin people make thoso docinions. And when NN _/lSlSUi\A A O O n/V V\fL
~
- g-l'2 150 12150 1 we have a reportable deficiency that needs to be 2 reported to the NRC, they don't come in and ask me about 3 it, they go ahead and make that report -- or make the 4 report. It's done in the normal course of our business.
5 It's not screened by me or anything else. It never has 6 been.
7 So, I gave little consideration to whether the 8 report should be made or shouldn't be made. It was 9 automatically done and the details of exactly what 10 happened af ter the report was made I didn't go into at 11 all.
12 0 So, th en, you wouldn't necessarily realize or 13 have your mind focused on the notion that 50.55 in some I,_)
14 way specifically mentions QA, for exampic?
15 A No, I wouldn't know that.
16 0 I see. And it would not then serve to make 17 any kind of connection between Quadrex and QA if someone 18 deliberately told you about it; is that right?
19 A No.
20 JUDGE S!!ON: Thank you. That's all.
21 Q (By Judge Bochhoofer) Mr. Jordan, I just want 22 to wrap up a few loono ends and clarify a few things in 23 my own mind which I'm not even no sure about.
24 Back in Phano I, I recall we had testimony f 25 about you having a mooting with Mr. Foohan out on the e .
cwn nnrwunma --- ------ Asmsu- uvwvvm - -
sg-92 151 12151 1 golf c3urse somatica in August cf '81. And I wentad to 2 see if you could tie that in with -- you mentioned three -
3 meetings yesterday.
4 A The golf course?
5 MR. AXELRAD: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, did you 6 say that back in Phase I we .had testimony with respect 7 to Mr. Jordan --
8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Not by Mr. Jordan, by Mr .
9 Goldberg, I think.
10 MR. AXELRAD: Well, he testified 1982. When 11 Mr. Jordan --
12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: '82, I'm corry, yes.
13 MR. AXEL RAD: When Mr. Goldberg testified in g
kJ-14 '82, he referred to an August 1981 meeting between Mr.
15 Jordan and Mr. Feehan. Is that the question?
16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I sort of recalled that 17 they were playing golf together.
18 0 (By Judge Bechhoefer) I wondered what that 19 was and how ' hat fell in with the three that you talked 20 about yesterday.
21 A Mr. Chairman, I never have played golf with 22 Mr. Feehan, but I think I can tell you -- I think I can 23 tell you maybe how that came up. We had breakfast one 24 morning out at River Oaks Country Club and talked about 25 this project. And that's the closest I have ever been f
TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
Eg-#2 152 12152 1 to c golf courc2 in my m:mory for the time being. That 2 was very close to the golf course.
3 JUDGE SHON: It's a much better story the 4 other way.
5 Q (By Judge Bechhoefer) Well, how does that fit 6 into the context of the three meetings you talked about 7 yesterday?
8 A Well, let me tell you what happened at that 9 meeting. And I would guess that's perhaps the one Jerry 10 had in mind.
11 I met with Tom for breakfast that morning and 12 that's the morning that we had told them that they had 13 vacillated back and forth between wanting to be the
(~'s1 ss 14 contractor -- or the constructor and not wanting to be 15 the constructor and then perhaps wanting to be it 16 again. And it seems to me that was in October of 1981.
17 And, so, the purpose of the meeting was to find out just 18 exactly where they stood on that project and see if we 19 were going to be able to work anything out. And I told .
20 him that we needed to know within the next week or ten 21 days what their real choice would be on the project. 1 22 That's when we got into the discussion on 23 these requirements that I mentioned earlier to Judge 24 Lamb that Brown & Root would like to have assurances on 25 prior to the time that they gave any consideration to ;
i /
_ TATE _REPORTlfM I71'41 AQR-RAll
Ug"u73 153 l 12153 1 1 bJing the con tructor. And we want over those as I 2 relayed them a minute ago. They wouldn 't have any -
3 obligation for anything that had happened on the project l l
. 4 at that point in time and they would be indemnified for 5 anything that may happen further on in the proj ect.
6 That they would be able to have con'. . o1 over their 7 individual people in the work force and that they would 8 have their fee adjusted if, in fact, it needed to be 9 adj usted.
10 I told them fine, that we would adjust their 11 fee if, in fact, our movement off of engineering 12 justified that. That Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Pieper could 13 get t.ogether and work out the problem of the control n
a K/ 14 over their work f orce. And Jerry and Ber Pieper did get 15 together and discuss that later. But that there was not 16 any way I could offer him the possibility that any 17 problems in the past nor any problems that might occur 18 in the future would be forgiven entirely.
19 So, that's the meeting where that was 20 discussed and they later came back with the judgment 21 that if they could not work that agreement out, that 22 they wouldn't be able to be the constructor.
23 Q Now, where was the lunch that you mentioned in 24 August?
f 25 A That was a lunch at the Houston Club. And if F
t .
warumwxra cruuuwwvvm
154 12154 1 I rcen11 the converention on that lunch, it was cbout 2 three or four days prior to the time that the responses 3 to the requests for proposal were to come in and we 4 talked about generally that. I kept him informed all 5 the way through as to who the people who were going to 6 propose were, what area they were going to propose in.
7 And that was three or four days before those responses 8 came in and we told him we'd be back with him again.
9 So, it was an earlier meeting than the one at -- the 10 breakfast at River Oaks.
11 Q All right. Now, did you have any meetings in 12 the interim? Was there a meeting where you told Mr.
13 Feehan exactly what you .were going to do bef ore you told q
\_/ 14 the press?
15 A Ye c, si r. I think it was July 24th, which 16 we're kind of moving back in these meetings. On July 24 17 it was at the South Texas Proj ect. It was one of our 18 normal meetings that we held down there with the Brown &
19 Root management. And I told Mr. Feehan at that time 20 that we, in fact, were going to have to look at every 21 option that we had, that we had asked him to look at 22 every option for the last two years in terms of hiring 23 the best people he could find in the world to bring into 24 the project to do the things that needed to be done to n
() 25 keep it moving well. And that he had not been able to P
TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8411_ -
155 12155
! 1 do it and co we were going to have to take a look at 2 that ourselves. And that in so doing, we were going to -
~
! 3 send out the request for proposals. They had been i
4 prepared, they had not yet been sent out at that time. l l
5 I wanted him to know about it so he didn't hear it j 6 indirectly from some other place. And that was I think 7 July the 24th.
8 Q I'd like to show you a series of -- let's see 9 if I can get them to you. l l l 10 JUDGE BECHBOEFER: Well, I guess everybody has l 11 copies.
12 MR. GUTTERMAN: Do you have extra copies for
,13 the parties? I
(")
\l 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: This is what appeared on 15 the back of the exhibit that I --
16 JUDGE LAMB : Number 7 9, I think.
17 JUDGE BECHUOEFER: I have to save enough 18 to --
l 19 MR. GUTTERMAN: Okay.
l 20 MR. PIRFO: Judge Bechhcefer, I can't hear you 21 from here. Did you say this was the back of 79, what 22 was originally the back of 79?
23 JUDGE B'ECHHOEFER: Yes.
24 MR. PIRFO: We have that.
f 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: This is just a reproduced t' .t 7
b ii _Efdl_1@X6fRRRgi R R31h Af>m-MAAM
T.g-4 2 156 12156 1 back.
2 Off the record for a minute.
3 (Discussion off the. record. )
4 Q (By Judge Bechhoefer) Mr. Jordan, would you 5 look this over? And my question first is does this 6 relate to any of your meetings, any of the various 7 meetings we've heard about with Mr. Feehan? And, if so, 8 which ones?
9 A Okay, Mr. Chairman. I have a habit, good or 10 bad I. guess, of when I'm going to have a sensitive 11 meeting, to try to sit down and outline what I want to 12 accomplish in that meeting before I go. And this is one 13 that I had done prior to the July 24th meeting that I
! )
~
N/ 14 had with Mr. Feehan at the South Texas Nuclear Project 15 when I was going to tell him about the fact that we were 16 sending out the requests for proposals and that we were 17 going to look at these other options.
18 I'd be glad to take you down through the 19 outline as to what I had in mind or answer any specific 20 questions about it that you may have.
21 Q Well, I have questions on three or four of the 22 items, but -- well, start f rom the beginning. The new 23 cost and schedule, is that the one that you had referred 24 to that Brown & Root was preparing?
25 A Ye s. I'm sure in looking at that I refer to c :
W Eert w rcrem ETc m (SULfuu m nd w o
cg-Ub 1 57 12157 1 the new cost and schedulo that was being put together 2 that was supposed to be completed sometime toward the -
3 end of that year. But that referred back to the 4 preliminary numbers that we had gotten from Brown & Root 5 at the June the 26th meeting that said the three percent 6 by the end of that year in six months and six percent in 7 1982, and that the attitude of the City of Austin, of 8 Central Power & Light Company and Houston Lighting &
9 Power Company was quite predictable in terms of how we 10 felt about a projection that would move the proj ect nine 11 percent in eighteen months. And that as a result of 12 that, we were going to be forced to look at every option 13 we had to bring the project along within the time frame I 14 that would cause it to be built with quality and built 15 also within a reasonable time f rame.
16 That we had urged him to look at these options 17 for the last two years. And that while he had done a 18 few things, he had not gone out and gotten the best 19 people in the world, which you probably get tired of 20 hearing, but that was my phrase. And I kept telling 21 everybody that, that the proj ect needed not only the 22 best people who might be on Houston Lighting & Power 23 Company's payroll at the time or the best people who 24 might be on Brown & Root's payroll at the time, but we f 25 needed to go out and search for the best people in the WSJR_T@K6R6PJGRR M I
Cg-f2 158 ,
12158 1 world who could bring this proj ect back.
8 2 3
While they had made some progress, they simply hadn't gone f'a r enough along in terms of results. And, 4 so, we had made the determination that we were going 5 forward to search those options out and we wanted him to 6 know about it before we did. That we hadn ' t told 7 anybody about it bef ore we told him, that we had not 8 made any decision --
9 Q Is that what the "no one knows this" means?
10 A Yes. That he was the first one we told so 11 that he could prepare himself for whatever questions he 12 may get about it. That no decision had been made as to C
13 whether we were going to take Brown & Root off the F1 .
\4 14 entire project or whether we were going to keep them on 15 part of it, that we were just looking at options at that 16 time and that we wouldn't make any move on that without 17 talking to him about it first.
18 _, That if anything was done, it would be done 19 after we had a great deal of discussion about it and 20 that we would do it in a way to protect the project and 21 to protect the owners and Brown & Root. And by that I 22 meant that we'd do it in a way that we would try to have 23 the smoothest transition possible so that the project 24 would not be startled by or shocked by such a
- q. j 25 transition. And that we didn't unnecessarily want to
(' si myeuwartseurs cLuutam-svvm
UU"UB 1 159 12159 1 d mcg3 the reputation of Brown & Root through any kind 8 .
2 3
of transition period. There'd be no reason for us to choose to do that and I wanted him to be assured of that 4 fact.
5 I went on to tell him that engineering was the 6 big question. That the project we felt at that time was 7 not only a concern to us as owners, but it was becoming 8 a national concern for other utility companies who were ,
9 building power plants, for manuf acturers who were 10 building equipment, and for architect engineers who were 11 designing and building nuclear power plants around the 12 country. And so that we didn' t think any of the owners 13 believed that Brown & Root could be effective in n
(/ 14 completing the engineering at that time on the basis of 15 the recent proj ections that they themselves had given us 16 as a target.
17 That the job was bigger today than it was when 18 they started it by virtue of building a nuclear power 19 plant in 1981 is just a tougher job in our opinion than 20 building a power plant in 1970 was perhaps and that's 21 what I meant by that.
22 Let's see, "probably no one will get into it 23 now, " the point I made there was I thought the job 24 was -- I thought building a power plant was infinitely (q,/ 25 more difficult in '81 than it was in '71 and I didn't p
fl TNT 4 PdT* N o G51J11_Hlff-fVMR L
Eg-#2 160 12160 1 think we'd cac any n:w architect engineering people who 2 didn't have experience in the nuclear field moving into 3 it and attempting to offer full services in it anymore.
4 Whether that's right or wrong, I don't know. I think 5 it's proved to be right thus far. It may change.
6 And I --
7 Q So, that phrase did not relate to your 8 expectations as to whether you would receive responses 9 to the proposals that you 'were about to send out?
10 A Oh, no. No. Probably no one will get into it 11 new now, no, that was simply a statement on my part, and 12 I believe it and still do, that we wouldn't see anybody 13 like Brown & Root who had made a decision to move into a k/ 14 full service type of nuclear activities which was a 15 reasonable thing for them to do in 1969 or '70 when they 16 were moving into it. But, you know, the scope of 17 building one of these plants just changed so much in 10 18 years, I doubted if anybody knew would move into it on 19 that same basis.
20 0 The word knew did not ref er to your proj ect 21 itself?
22 A No, no, that referred to knew architect 23 engineering firms without experience in nuclear 24 activities, p
(f 25 And that they just had not been able to bring f' ,
_ TATE REPORTTNG (717) a4R-Ada?
cg-#2 161 12 161 1 in the cupport that they needed. And then I said again, 2 a normal phrase I guess, that we didn't have the best -
3 people in the world working on the project.
4 Q Now, just to clarify in that item 4, 4(2) I 5 guess, the words no one, you're referring to the other 6 owners or did you have conversations with others besides 7 that as to Brown & Root's capabilities, engineering 8 capabilities?
9 A I had had some conversations with, and I 10 probably can't even -- I probably can't quote you who, 11 with different people in the industry, as well as the 12 owners who believed that -- who supported my thought at 13 least that Brown & Root was going to have a difficult g
'l
'- 14 time with the engineering part of it because it was the 15 most difficult thing to do on a plant such as this.
16 This would have taken place at an EI meeting or 17 someplace where everybody would get together and talk 18 about their collective proj ects around the country.
19 Q Were meetings of that sort also the source of 20 your statement that it was of concern to the entire 21 nuclear industry?
22 A Yes. I f elt that it was. I knew that it was 23 because every nuclear power plant that has difficulty in 24 any part of the country has a way o[ affecting in some 25 way nuclear power plants that are being built other T.A?F REPORTTNG (711) 49R-R447
sg-92 162 12162 1 plcc s. An d , to, I'm nure it was a concarn to the 2 nuclear industry broadly in the country. That's the 3 broad statement I made to him and I believed it.
4 Q Did other -- was it well known throughout the 5 industry that the South Texas Proj ect was having certain 6 problems in engineering as distinguished f rom QA/QC 7 problems and the show cause order problem?
8 A No. I doubt that that's so. It was well 9 known it was having QA/QC construction problems. It was 10 not -- it was not well known, I don't suppose, as 11 broadly that they were behind in engineering. I 12 continually stated it to all of my friends in the 13 industry that that's where we were having the
(_J 14 dif ficul ty. So, they may have gotten it f rom me for one 15 place.
16 0 I see.
17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Off the record for a 18 minute.
19 (Discussion off the record. ) l 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on the record. !
21 Does anyone have any obj ection first if this 22 document were to be put into the record?
23 MR. SINKIN: No obj ection. 1 24 MR. REIS: No obj ection.
n 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I have the extra
/V) e 4
TATE REPORTXMG (713) 498-8442
cg-i2 163 12163 1 copico.
2 MR. AXELRAD: Off the record for just one -
3 minute.
4 (Discussion off the record.)
5 MR. AXEL RAD: Mr. Chairman, if we can marked 6 for identification as Applicants' Exhibit No. 69 the 7 one-page sheet that the Board had provided to Mr. Jordan 8 previously and that has been discussed this f ar at this 9 hearing, and we then move that exhibit into evidence.
10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Assuming there won't be any 11 opposition, the Board will accept this into evidence.
12 2 (By Judge Bechhoefer) Mr. Jordan, just to 13 continue a little more on the meeting, did you ever meet F !
'/ 14 with Mr. Feehan in the period of time shortly before the .
15 September 24 date at which a replacement was announced, 16 at least to the press it was announced?
17 A Let's see, I --
18 Q Or was there some sort of a formal meeting 19 between you and Brown & Root where the final word was --
20 A Yes, on September the 15th. I can tell you 21 how that sequence took place, if you're interested, Mr.
22 Chairman.
23 0 Yes. I'm just trying to get a pretty clear 24 record of the whole procedure.
f 25 A All right. When Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Oprea W60L N W&6M N CULM NVR-DVLS l
i cg-#2 164 12164 1 cnd I mrde our final review of the evaluation, it was on 2 September the 12th,1981, and we met that morning to 3 discuss what we felt we ought to do. On September the 4 12 th , in the af ternoon or at least later that day on 5 September the 12th, we had the management committee of 6 the South Texas Proj ect being represented by -- who 7 represented each of the owners come into our offices and 8 we made that presentation to them. And we broke this 9 into two different parts because it was clear that this 10 decision was going to be made by the chief executive 11 officers eventually or by the prominent groups in San ,
12 Antonio or Austin. We wanted to give it all to the 13 management committee, get their recommendations or r
3 5/ 14 decisions on it so that they would have time to go back 15 home and discuss it with the mayors and the chairman of 16 their board and everybody else and then be able to make 17 an intelligent decision when we had the meeting for 18 them.
19 So, we'd had that meeting on the 12th and it 20 was a unanimous decision to go forward with the 21 recommendation to replace Brown & Root on the 22 engineering and construction management with 23 Bechtel. They took that message back to their various 24 principals.
25 Then on the 14th, which was January -- I mean e
anges_ss1meseva - )
cg-62 165 12165 1 which wea thct same September the 14th, I called a 2 special board meeting of Houston Lighting & Power .
3 Company's board to reflect to them the decision by the 4 management committee and to get authorization from them 5 to vote to go that direction at the meeting that we held 6 later on on the 15th, which was the next day.
7 So, on the morning of the 15th -- and our 8 Board unanimously concurred with the decision of going 9 forward in that direction.
10 The next morning then on the 15th, the primary 11 principals of each of the owners met ,in Houston in our 12 offices and we reviewed the same material that had been 13 reviewed with the management committee. They had all
) 14 been brief ed by their representative on the management 15 committee and had come there prepared to ask questions 16 and to research it thoroughly. By the time that meeting 17 was over, they voted unanimously to replace Brown & Root 18 on the engineering and construction management with 19 Bechtel.
20 That very af ternoon I went over to see Tom 21 Feehan to tell him this because I didn't want him to 22 hear it any other place and I wanted to set a meeting up 23 with Jack Harbin as quickly as possible. I was not able 24 to get to Jack until the 18th because he was out of 25 town. But I had the meeting with Tom in his offices on
(' t 6
Eg-42 166
, 12166 1 the ef tarnoon of the 15th and went to Dallas on the 18th 2 and had a meeting with Jack Harbin giving both of them 3 this information.
4 0 You didn't want to have them read it in the 5 paper first.
6 A Yes, that's the reason. We needed, Mr.
7 Chairman, the cooperation of Brown & Root in that 8 transition and we wanted to do the best job we could in 9 terms of obtaining that cooperation. And I think the 10 Board knows, but I think it's proper for me to say it 11 again, that they, in fact, were very cooperative in the 12 transition and that made it easier to do.
13 0 I want to go back to just .one or two g
/ t t/ 14 statements in your testimony itself.
15 A All right.
16 Q We discussed this a little yesterday, but on 17 page 2, line 19, your answer 6 where you said you 18 concurred with the decision of Messrs. Oprea and 19 Goldberg to hire Quadrex or to undertake a third-party 20 assessment. What basis did you have for concurrence?
21 Just their word that it was necessary or did they just 22 tell you that we're going to do this and you said okay?
23 Or did something more than that go into your 24 concurrence?
25 A No, I will tell you honestly, Mr. Chairman, I c <
@J%irLJTdRnRSERNR N
sg-82 167 12167 1 didn't kncw who tho Qutdrcx p;oplo were even. I hcd 2 never heard their name as f ar as I knew at the time they -
3 came in. George and Jerry had researched this 4 carefully. Jerry was new in our organization and 5 evaluate that for him to move forward in the best 6 manner, he needed to have an independent assessment of 7 where the engineering was. That made sense to me, so I 8 said fine.
9 Q Now, on the next page 3, approximately lines 10 18 through 21, in your discussion of the deficiencies, 11 did you -- and I guess again today you mentioned you 12 didn't discuss the reportability question with the I 13 think you used the term licensing attorneys. Did you n.
(_) 14 discuss it wit,h first any other attorneys?
15 A I said --
16 0 I'm not sure who you meant by licensing 17 attorneys.
18 A I said I discussed it with the licensing 19 attorneys?
20 Q You said you did not.
21 A Yeah, I don't think I did, that's the reason I 22 asked the question.
23 Q Now, my question was did you discuss it with 24 any other attorneys other than licensing?
() 25 A No, I discussed it --
r TATE REPORTRm2 (713) 498-8442
~
Eg-#2 168 12168 1 Q I'm not sure who ycu meant by licensing 2 attorneys, but I assume you meant the group here or 3 perhaps the Baker & Botts people.
4 A No, I talked to Jerry and to George, that 5 being Goldberg and Oprea, about it. I don't recall 6 anybody else being in that meeting.
7 And Mr. Goldberg said there were three areas
. 8 that they felt were reportable. One being the HVAC 9 problem which I had been generally familiar with. One 10 being a computer code problem which I knew nothing about 11 previous to that; and that it was very indefinite as to 12 whether that was going to be a problem or not, but it 13 had to be reported as it.was investigated. The other
( )
t> 14 being, as I recall, some shielding problem. And we 15 discussed those just very generally and he said they 16 needed to be reported and I said, well, fine, do them --
17 I said do them in the normal course of business, and, 18 so, he did.
19 Q Did your discussion ever touch on perhaps the 20 fact that other matters they were going to report may or 21 may not be reportable but that they might turn out to be 22 that way after further information was gathered? Was 23 there any discussion along that line?
24 A I can't recall it, Mr. Chai rman. Mr. Goldberg 25 is a man with great capability in terms of making f'
canari_sarwrwera aSutatArywrvvts
Ug=Ub 169 12169 1 d:ciciona in that arca with good paople working for 8 2 3
him. I certainly have no technical ability in terms of understanding what needs to be reported or not. I don't 4 second guess him on those issues. We talk about them 5 and in his judgment if they need to be reported, he 6 reports them.
7 Q He did not tell you then, I take it, that 8 possibly other matters might turn out to be reportable 9 in the future?
10 A I don' t recall him saying that, but I have 11 total confidence that if they did turn out to be 12 reportable, he would, in fact, repor t them. That's his 13 charge and he's been true to that charge.
/~T -
(/ 14 Q Now, you did not discuss reportability with 15 anyone other than Mr. Goldberg or nr. Oprea?
16 A I can't recall having any conversation with 17 anybody about that other than Goldberg and Oprea.
18 Q Turn to page 5, lines 7 and 8. You state that 19 your opinion concerning B&R's ability to perform, I want 20 to focus on that, as construction manager was not as 21 positive. What did you have in mind there when you talk 22 about construction management as distinguished from 23 engineering?
24 A Ju n that it's more of a generic term I guess 25 in my mind than a specific term. The way I view c
9VAW LfE F fBUU W N
cg-UB 1 170 12170 1 con:truction manag:m:nt is the ability to take the 2 engineered plans and get them into the field and get 3 them constructed in an orderly manner, the ability to 4 manage the sequence of installation of equipment and 5 come out to a finished point of having it done properly 6 and in the correct sequence.
7 0 In your view, does construction management 8 involve any quality assurance responsibilities or 9 duties?
10 A I think it clearly has to be done correctly 11 and well and I would say it would have some 12 responsibility in terms of that.
13 Q So that when you state your opinion that B&R 8
k / 14 was not as positive with regard to construction 15 management as, say, construction itself, would that have 16 carried over to your opinion of them to carry out a 17 successful QA program or any aspect of a QA program?
18 A The QA program had been analyzed pretty 19 thoroughly in the show cause hearings that had taken 20 place and there had been some difficulties in that. But 21 I f elt at that time that those had been addressed in a 22 way that had been satisf actory to Brown & Root and to us 23 and to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. So, while it 24 was clear in my mind there had been some difficulties n
2_)
s-25 within the past, I f elt that the QA problem was, in
['
GiPlN6t_mTJC&6EitTRR /LU LR L 1 W h KVV W
Cg-Ub 171 12171 1 fact, much improved.
2 Q So that when you mentioned construction -
3 management here, you're not really referring to the QA 4 aspects of that?
5 A I was referring to the ability to get the 6 finished drawings and to provide the, as I view it at 7 least, being a non-technical person, the transition 8 between taking the drawings and managing the movement of 9 those drawings in some sort of systematic way to get 10 them into the field and getcing the construction done in 11 a sequence that causes everything to come together 4
12 properly and at the right time.
13 0 were you aware at the time or are you aware 7.
\J 14 now that quality assurance programs do extend to the 15 design area?
16 A Yes, I understand that they do extend to 17 there. It certainly was not in my mind at the time I 18 was testifying. I thought we were talking about quality 19 assurance as it applied to construction. But I do 20 recognize that anything done on one of these nuclear 21 power plants has to be done with quality as a first 22 consideration and that's the way we attempt to approach 23 it.
/ 24 Q Turning to page 6, line 21, and it also comes 25 up on page 8, line 19.
f Can you pinpoint when the first c
RfM# T@S6685DM@ GU11 R$M
Cg-UM 172 12172 1 time it was that you suggested, you or HL&P suggested 2 that Brown & Root hire a senior nuclear executive who 3 reported directly to B&R's president?
4 A Yes, sir. Mr. Chai rman, we had suggested at 5 various levels in the organization that some highly 6 skilled and experienced people be brought in 7 previously. But at the time that, as I recall, this 8 first suggestion was made for a man to report directly 9 to Tom Feehan was at the April the 10th meeting in 10 Corpus Christi. Af ter that meeting Jerry Goldberg 11 sketched out what he felt would be an organization that 12 would work well in the Brown & Root operation to have 13 this man report directly. He sketched this out and he Q
l/ 14 talked to some of his people. And I went over to see 15 Tom Feehan with that sketch and suggested that in 16 following up the verbal discussions that we had had at 17 the April the 10th meeting, that this is a graphic type 18 of description on how it might work. The way you 19 structure your organization down below it, you know, is 20 somewhat up to you, but it ought to report directly to 21 you.
22 As I stated before, Tom never shied away from 23 the suggestion of hiring a top nuclear man in the 24 organization. The difficulty that we had in making this 25 mesh exactly was he preferred not to have him report c
T/NLrmJc6fmure CUL20tAevR-Evw2
cg-#2 173 12173 1 directly to h a office.
2 (No hiatus) -
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 em
> 25 t>
eV8LJ450116cazrsra -
i 12174 1 O (By Judge Bechhoefer) I see. So when did you 2 first find out that Brown & Root was not going to 3 implement your suggestions, at least in the manner that 4 you had suggested?
5 A They started almost immediately looking for G this high level nuclear c::ecutive; making inquiriec 7 around, and had several interviews in Houston, in search 8 of this man. And they were very close to the hiring one.
9 We vere discuscing this in the lact part, later 10 parts cf April and the first part of May, in terms of 11 negotiating, not really negotiating, just discussing how 12 the reporting chain mcy tche plcce.
13 As I said earlier, I guess while I thought Mr.
,j 14 Coldberg'c cuggcction vac : zery good one, that I think 15 he felt a little strenger about it than did I. I thought 16 if they uere to bring this man in and if they had cone 17 rctiencl reason for doing it somewhat different than cur 18 sketch vas, and if they could show that it vould uork 19 actually as well or better, then I would perhaps have 20 been agreeable to it.
21 So I uacn't hung up ouite as much on the iden 22 of saying he had to report directly to Fechan, if in fact 23 the other controls were taken ccre of in some other way.
24 0 Hell, at the point I referred to on Page 8, 25 uhere you said you veren't prepared to search for
/
TATE EEPORTIMG SERVICE, 498-0442 d'
12175 1 alternatives until you were in a position to evaluate the 2 potential effectiveness of the steps being taken by B&R, 3 it seems to me that BLR was rejecting sort of the center 4 piece of your suggestion, your earlier suggestion.
5 Neren't you somewhat skeptical about whether the steps 6 taken by BLR uould work, whether they fell short of 7 really r.eeting the centerpiece of HL&P's previous 8 suggestion?
9 A He really had never said that he absolutely 10 wouldn't do it, and we were still n'egotiating with him 11 about the merit of doing it. His preference -- and 12 probably that decision firmly uculdn't have been nc.5e 13 until such time as the selection had actually taken place j 14 ac to uhe he hired.
15 His preference was to have one of the people he 16 was familiar with, and uho he knew vell, as a cushion 17 between hir :nd the nuc1ce.r ran.
18 Our preference was to have this man who was 19 going to assist him in terms of knowing his way around 20 and have him over in a side assistant slot. It's a 21 catter of drawing sometines squares on a piece of paper.
22 You can drau it one way and a corporate organization it 23 nay actually work a different way.
24 So ve were still in the process of negotiating 25 that. And I had not concluded that we could not verk out 9
TATC RCPORTInG SERVICS, 498-8442 r
12176 (s,'J\ 1 something that would be satisfactory when we got that man 2 on board.
3 0 Well, what crucial event happened to make -- to t 4 cause the decision to be made in your late June meeting, 5 the June 26th --
6 A The crucial event, !!r. Chairman, in my mind, 1 7 was, as we pressed for some preliminary judgment in terms l
[
8 of what production was going to be at South Texas at that !
i 9 particular meeting. And when -- and they had hired a new l r
10 man uho I thought was very good in terms of being 11 accurate on what he -- what his projections were.
12 "c'd come frcm a power ';icnt Scun in Floridc, ;
13 and his reputation was good and he had raade a good '
() 14 imprescion on re. And he had not -- he had only been f i
15 with Eroun & noot a snort period of time as one of the !
16 new people they were bringing in to cause their 17 crg:nication to bc etrenccr. ,
l 10 And he stood up and made this prediction, that 19 we'd get three percent in the next six months and six '!
1 20 percent in the next 12 months, a total of 18 -- I mean 9 [
21 percent progress in 18 months. That was cuch a -- that 22 uns such a low number as a target uhen Broun & noot had 23 been falling chort of those targets, and in fact did in !
24 the next -- the next tuo months following that, for July --
l 25 for Juno and July, made less than a half a percent. :
l l
l l' <
TATE REPORTII;G SEP.VICC, 498-8442 i
i
~ _ - _ _ , , _ _ . - . _ , _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ , _ - _ - - _ _ - . _ - -
12177
()
N 1
2 I think one of the months they made only two tenths of one percent and the other month maybe one tenth 3 of one percent, that that clearly told me that if you're 4 ever going to look at an option to make a change, nou is 5 absolutely the time to do it; there's not any reason to 6 go through 18 months and then decide to do it, because 7 surely things are going to change during that period of 8 time. How is the time to do it.
9 And I left that meeting, which lacted over half 10 a day, with the full determination in my mind that that 11 was -- that now was the time to do it. And I went back 12 :nd told :*r. Oprca to en11 the meeting for Goldberg and 13 Barker and we mot three days later en the 29th.
() 14 I called them in and I said, "Okay, now is the 15 timo uo've got to think about doing comething on thio 16 project. Ubat is each of your opinionc?"
17 And they each gave me their opinions and it was 10 unanimods that now was the tin.c that vc ought to start 19 looking at our optionc and we tarted looking at them the 20 next day.
21 0 At that meeting, ucro you adding the ninc 22 percent to the GO percent which vac reportedly dono or to 23 a loscer figure which -- from CCAMP E):hibit 79, therc'c 24 coveral figures in there. I guccc I asked you some 25 quentions about that yoctorday, but would that nino
($)
TATC ECPORTIUG SCEVICC, 408-3442 r l
12178 1 percent have been added to the 50 to 52, or would it have 2 been added to the 60, or how would that work?
3 A Hr. Chairman, I don't remember what it was 4 added to, but it really didn't make any difference.
5 Uhatever you would add it to, it uouldn't be 6 catisfactory. I don't remember what base we're talking 7 about at the time of that meeting. But that's -- we 8 could not go forwcrd with that kind of projection.
9 0 Usc there any discussion at that meeting about 10 why the -- or how the 60 percent figure which you were 11 apparently -- or uhich apparently was reported to you, 12 hcu it get that u.y, hou it got that high?
13 A Are you talking about that early 60 percent?
~
~s 14 A Yor.
15 A Oh, that 50 percent complete on engineering.
16 0 Yec.
17 7. Yech, that' uhtt L:2 h:cn rerorteC, I cupr.0:0, 16 ct that meeting ao of the enc of Hay the 31ct, because we 19 had had the meetingc sometimes toward the end of the 20 month co we could have the nur.bers from the prior month 21 put together and uo could look at them.
22 At that time, there vere some changen in the 23 ccope that vere going to take pince. I think I talked 24 about thic -- maybe talked cbout thic cheet yecterdcy.
25 0 Yec, you did.
tm l
TATC EDPORTING SERVICC, 498-0442
12179 1 A That some changes in scope were going to take h
2 place and some of their manhours were off. And as I 3 recall it, we didn't have confidence that that percent 4 complete vac going to hold.
5 0 Did you have some discussion about where the 6 veaknecscs were in that 60 percent?
7 A I would guess we probably did. As I said, the 8 meeting lasted for, as they normally do, for over half a 9 day. And there are maybe 25 people who are there. The 10 principals and the management committee and the architect 11 engineers. So I'm sure there had to be something come up 12 chout it. I dcn't recall.
13 0 Uac there any discuscion to the effect that I) la Brown & Root was intentionally trying to overscete uhat 15 they reported as being complete?
16 A no, I don't think -- I don't think there vac 17 ory discuccien en thet.
13 CU GC SHOU: That's strange, becauce I notice 19 point two rpecifically mentionc Droun & Root had 20 overreported cuantities inctalled.
21 TUE UIT" CSS: Yec, that's -- but the word I 22 corood in on that ucc " intentionally."
23 JUDGE SHOU: I see.
24 THE MITUESS: And I don't know that we've ever 25 accuced Droun G Root of intentionally trying to do come 9
TATC RCPORTII:G S"RVICC, 493-3442 f
12180 1 of these things. I think some of the plans they made and 2 some of the projections they made end some of the ways 3 they reached their conclusions turned out not to be 4 valid.
5 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, before you turn to 6 next question, we've been going for over an hour 7 and-a-half. Uould this be an appropriate time to take a 8 break?
9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It's an appropriate time for 10 a break, although I don't have too much more to go. Uhy 11 don't we take a break -- or would you prefer a break 12 beferc you hcvc redirect?
13 I say vould you prefer a break before you had
~
l? redirect.
15 Un. A%ELRAD: Uould you prefer to go on?
16 Tf!E WITNESS: I just as soon go on.
17 JUDCE 'ECi"'EEPEn: I'n f:f rl" cicrc tc being 13 through. I only have a couple more questions cnd I hac 19 thought you might want to have a break before redirect.
20 0 (Ey Mr. Bechhoefer} Turning to Page 7, Answer 21 10, just *.o clarify one thing. Ecck in 1980, you 22 nontioned you had some discussions uith Bechtel and 23 EDASCO. l 24 7. Uh-huh.
25 0 Did you have discuccions uith any other N
1 TATE REPonTIUG SERVICE, 408-3442 r 3
12181 1 company?
f 2 A No, sir.
3 Q As far as you were aware, no other company had 4 expressed an interest to you in taking over any portion 5 of the responsibilities?
6 A And the Bechtel and EBASCO people didn't 7 initiate that with me either. That was initiated by me.
8 I knew both th6se organizations and I respected them; 9 EBASCO had done a lot of work for us and I knew Harry 10 Rintz as a man who had led the Bechtel Power Corporation, 11 who had built a lot of nuclear power plants, so I 12 initiated those two meetings.
13 I met with Mr. Rintz in Chicago at an EEI y
(j 14 oceting and I talked to Bob Shernan who uas chairman of 15 EBASCO by telephone. He was in Uew York; I was in 16 Houston.
17 0 But ac far ac you were aware, no ecmpanies such 18 as Stone & Uebster or a number cf others had ever 19 expressed an interest to you in taking over portion of 20 the project?
21 A Mo, none had -- none had and these two didn't 22 initiate that, either. --
l 23 A Page eleven, line 16 and 17, you said that you l 24 had not received any suggestion that Guadren report and 25 factors concerning the adequacy of B&n's engineering TATE ESPORTIDG SERVICE, 498-S442 C y
12182
, 1 effort were QA/QC matters. Did you receive any 2 suggestions or have any discussions with others about --
3 anyone other than Mr. Goldberg, about the QA/QC aspects 4 of the Quadrex report?
5 A No. I talked to Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Oprea 6 about it that day. And QA/QC question didn't come up 7 relative to it, in terms of uhether or not there was any 8 problem there. I l
9 0 Did you mention that aspect of it in any of 10 your conversations with the attorneys you were consulting 11 around that period of time? <
(
12 A no, cir. I really '..cd, ::r. Chairman, very 13 little conversation cbout the Quadrex report at all
,j 14 during that period of time. -
15 0 One final question. Before you testified 16 previously, were you advised by your attorneys to keep 17 ycur :ncuerc : ncrrou reu cs pcccible, not te volunteer 18 anything, sort of like the military? {
19 A I've heard that most of my life in terms of l
20 that is the best way to give testimony; I'm sure my i 21 attorneys are not very satisfied with me as a witness 22 because I normally am not very good at doing that. They 23 did not tell ne that prior to the time I testified, back l
24 in 1981. Dut the first time I ever testified, I was told 25 that. And I knou that's generally what lawyers i
. 1 TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 493-8442 y5 i
f
, 12183 1 yecommend. But they don' t give ne much advice anymore.
2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER': That's all. Do you have any --
l , 3 JUDGE SHOU: I have one comment, one l 4'-
/ 4 observation, and that is, Mr. Jordan, that your memory
,5 and your grasp what's happened in the past is certainly i;
G cxemplary. I was acaded at the fact that even before you
- + ;s
~
, i s 7 saa the exhibit, that was your notes for the meeting that t
'; s 8 you commented on, you had already used several of the 9 phrases therein, apparently just from your memory.
- 10 THE UITNESS
- Well, you know, I've been saying 11 things like "best people in the world' for a long time, I k 12 and still use them, i
f i 13 Mr. Chairman, uculd itibe -- uculd it be out of m s ,
i f
14 order if I were to nahe a conment;to you that I think you 15 might be interested in hearing.
I6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Hot at all.
, s 37 THE FITFESS: Fine. I think aF a matter of e
I .. /
'18 coupany philecophy, Mr. Chairman, th.:.t the Houston i a 19 ' Lighting & Power Co.pany attempts to have a very open 20 L relationship with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 21 the people who verk with us. And I'd like to call some
! 22 e::amples of that to you as to what we' re doing in some of
. 23 this area. '
24 Ue have stayed very close to John Collins uho 25 previc.usly was the administrator in Region IV and Bob V
r.
_(, ,
j, r
. e N TATE'hSPORTING SEEVICE, 498-8442 f 4
i M m _m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _
. ' 12184 A
Ll .
1 Hartin who now has that job; we not only have visited 2 there~with them.on a regular basis, from the standpoint 3 of management, Mr. Oprea, Mr. Goldberg and myself, I took 4- the effort, made the effort, which wasn't a strong 5 . effort, but I did it, to go up and talk to !!r. Collins 6 one time alone without telling anybody in our 7 organization about it, just for the purpose of having him 8 to communicate anything to me that he might choose to if 9 it involved any of our individuals uho worked on the 10 project, that would give him an opportunity to say to me
'll anything privately that he might want to say.
12 In addition to th:t, uc have invited Mr.
13 Collins to come doun and visit with our entire board of
() 14 directors; he did that.
15 Immediately after Mr. Collins was replaced by 1
16 .Mr. Martin, we' invited him to come down and visit with l 17 cur-entire bocrd of director , and he did that. Simply a 18 general neeting not talking about any of the specifics on 19 South Te::as at all, but with the idea of having them 20 understand that if there's ever an issue about South 21 Te::as that they choose to connunicate directly with our 22 board of directors rather than to go through anybody 23 uho's in management of our company, myself or anyone 24 else, that they have a free reign to do that.
25 In addition to that, we have the South Te::as TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 498-8442 (' '
12185 1 Project as a standing item own our board of directors 2 adgenda each month and we meet the first Wednesday of 3 each month.
4 Mr. Goldberg briefs our entire board on the 5 status of South Texas and he certainly will be briefing 6 them the first Wednesday cf August about the progress of 7 this report -- this meeting as well as other things.
8 Ue have a committee, a nuclear committee of our 9 board, which that nuclear committee follows more closely 10 the progress of South Texas than does the entire board 11 and they make individual reports to the board. We felt 12 thct ce didn't have encugh nuclear c::pertise on our becrd 13 of directors and so at our last annual stockholders s
, 14 meeting uhich toch place the second Tuesday in May, vc 15 elected to the board a man uho perhaps you knou. His 16 name is Joe Henry. He used to be chairman of the old 17 Puc1ccr nsgulatory Commicsion. And
- c did :o Oc that the 18 board would have its own ability to understand and get 19 that kind of description from directly.
20 Ir. Henry was also named chairman of the 21 nuclect committee. That nuclear committee under his 22 direction is nou meeting monthly in conjunction with the 23 time frcne right around our regular board meeting. Uc 24 have four members of our board uho is on that committee.
25 And so ve've made it a point to try to communicate as TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 498-0442 I
12186 1 directly and as well with the NRC as we can and try to 2 keep not only the top management of our company by our 3 entire board acquainted with what's going on with the 4 project.
5 That type of involvement, I think, is one that 6 will allow us to keep those lines of communications open, 7 and it's the philosophy of our entire board of directors 0 as well as my cwn that the way to get this project 9 completed and cause it to cperate for the ne::t 30, 35 or 10 40 years, is to have that kind of relationship with the 11 Huclear Regulatory Commission. It's Jerry's instruction 12 fror the Scard as well cc from me to cermunicate uith the 13 board any issue that might come forward on Scuth Te::as, i 14 very quickly, to the URC.
15 For e:: ample, he and I have been to Uashington 16 to ask the UEC to conduct their next CAT review on an 17 a.ccelerated bacis rather than to put it ef f, because if 18 there are any problemL with the project, it's to our 19 advantage to find them out as early as possible to get 20 those corrected. So I think you'll never find us being 21 diligent -- I mean being less than diligent in terme of 22 trying to get thoce issues before the UnC as quickly as 23 uo can get them to the URC because it it certainly to our 24 individual and corporate, to our customer's and our 25 stockholder's, advcntage to do that.
9 TATE REPORTIMG SEEVICE, 498-8442
12187 1 I don't knov whether that's helpful or not but 2 I thought I'd add that. Thank you.
3 JUDGE EECHHOCFER: 17hy don't we take a fif teen 4 minute break.
5 (Recess.)
6 (no Hiatus.)
7 8
9 10 11 12 I 13 -
_! 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
')
(.
f o
TATO nCPORTI;iG SCRVICS, 498-8442
F 12188 1 JUDGE BECHIIOEFER: Back on the record.
h 2 I'm not sure, did the record reflect whether 3 you had any redirect?
4 !!R . AZELRAD: I assume that our redirect would 5 follow after any further questions that the parties might 6 have based upon the board's questions.
7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It usually doesn't. Because 3 the parties have further cross-e::anination rights on cny 9 redirect; usually it follows the Board questioning.
10 IIR. AXELRAD: Okay. He do :iot have any 11 redirect based upon the Board's questions, or upon the 12 previcun gecaticna.
13 JUDGE LECEEOEFER: It can be based on 14 cross-exenination.
15 HR. A%ELRA3: Or based upon previous 16 c r oss-e::anina tion .
17 JUDOE PEC""OEFER- Ohef, Mr. Sinkin.
1G COI; JORDI.:7, 19 testified further upon his oath as follows:
20 CROSS E%A! IIII. TION 21 B7 I'.R. SII!KI!!:
22 0 nr. Jordan, at the tirae you testified in Phase 23 I, you vere cuare, ucro ycu not, that the competence --
24 that competenco cnd charccter ucre also issuea before the 25 Atonic Safety cnd Licensing Docrd?
OT.TE REPORTIIC SERVICE, 490-8442 01:198
T 12189 1 A Yec, that's correct.
2 Q And those incues applied firct of all to HL&P.
3 Is that correct?
4 A They did apply to us, that's correct.
5 0 Dut given that HLLP had responcibility as the 6 construction permanent holder for the activities of Eroun 7 e noot, the character and competence iccuec cico applied 8 to the performance of Broun e noot. Is that correct?
9 I:n. UEUIAN: I object to that question,Iir.
10 Chairman. It has no foundation in the prior Board 11 questions. I ask councel to identify what specific Board 12 quecticn aCdrocccd thct :..ctter.
13 JUDGE EECHHOCFEF.- In any event, I thought our
] /. Phacc I r.nd Phree II Jerucc dem3t uith character cnd 15 competence of the Appliccntc, not of their centractors an 16 cuch.
17 **T.. TI"."'.:' ::r . C:.r i r: c.n, I Sclic./c thrre t c r-18 variouc rulingc throughout the Phase I proceedingc thnt 19 the competence of Brown & Root reflected on the 20 conpetence of I:LLP becauce of their overcight 21 responnibilitiec.
22 !?e vent into cuch things as the scheduling 23 tbility of Droun L noot.
24 Un, UCm:AU: ' lou have my cbjection,!:r.
25 Chairecn.
T.1TC RCPORTIUG SCnVICC, 400-3442 01:199
I' 12190 I i
i \
i -( 1 JUDGE BECHUOEFER: Uell, can you explain what l
2 question of the Board, because you are limited to Board --
)
3 Board questions.
1 4 !!R. SINKIN: What I'm doing, 11r. Chairman, is ,
5 the Board had raised the iscue of -- uell, in the course ,
6 of questions and ancwers, the issues uere raised as to .
t 7 what was the subject of the Phase I hearings. !!r. Jordan 8 said his view was the subject of the Phase I hearings was 9 construction and quality accurance for conctruction. I'm 10 taking that a stop further to say but weren't the issues 11 also character and competence.
12 *n. 1?D7!:A": Judge Lc=b ached quito crocific 13 questions ac to -- in the conte::t of material at pages
() 14 1224 to 1251 and if !!r. Sinkin can point to something in 15 thoso pages that raice: a comparable quection to the 16 Doard'c questione, then t'ere'u r something to follou up 17 on. Otheruice, there ic not. Tne general rt'bject riatter la and scope of this proceeding is not raiced the Deard'c 19 questions. I 20 lin. SI11EIN: Well, at pago 1225, there's a 21 uhole discuccion about the f act that the iacue thct !!r.
22 Jordan has to get before this body ic the character and !
23 competence of the utility. That's I:r. Gay speaking at 24 the tico.
25 1:n. !!CU:!I.!!: That's counsol'c ctatement, that
((
TATE REP 0nTI:1G SCnVICC, 498-0442 01:190
12191 1 is not !!r. Jordan's testinony.
2 IIR. SINKIM: That was counsel speaking as to 3 uhy Iir. Jordan chould answer his question and the chair 4 upheld that.
5 I:n. I!EUI1Atl: You have to understand that 6 councel don't testify. Lauyers don't testify. Witnesscc 7 testify.
O I:n. SI;InIII: On occasion.
9 It will take ne just a nonent, Mr. Chairnan.
10 JUDGC DECI!!IOSFER: I think at least based on 11 what we've heard nou, that the objection vill be 12 c.u s ta ine d .
13 1:?. . SIfiRIP : I'd like a ronent just to review 14 the tranceript.
15 JUDG3 DECIII:OEF:ln: We night add that judge 16 Lamb's question was beced purely on uhr the Out.dre:<
l -' report ": c act :..ention:S 13 F.n. !!C;HIAl;: That'c correct, lar. Chairman.
19 " hat's uhat ny notes shou.
20 I:n. SI!!!:I!!: It'c an obvious relationship, in 21 ry nind, uhon e question like that is raiced as to 22 uhether the competence of Droun a noot ua:: called into 23 quection by the Quadre:: report.
24 I:n. IC.'!!All: The cucution obvicucly related to 25 uhother the Guadrc:: report thould or thould not have boon TAT:: REPORTIt'G SCnVICC, 490-0442 01213d
12192 1 mentioned at that point. It was quite specific. I think h
2 Judge Lamb made that very clear to the witnecs and my 3 notes indicate that the witness recponded directly to 4 that question.
5 MR. SIUKIN: I want to don 1 with this argument 6 that it's counsel testifying, not witness toctifying.
7 ! R. NE":*.AU: !ay have a ruling on that --
8 !!n. SIUKIU: Ho, !!r. !!ewman --
9 Hn. UE'.11:AM : I believe I have a ruling. Is the 10 Chair reconcidering the ruling?
11 JUDGE LA!!B: No.
12 : n. sin::I;': T;c Ch:.ir uns givir.g rc.c time tc 13 review the transcript.
) 1/. ::R. FC"I' A" : The Chair hcd rYled, it van 15 cust:ined.
16 1:R. S I t'H II' ' Ue crid et thir tir.o if you don't
'7
. h.- r . n;th i nc f u r t'c c r , w: entif 'cpheld the objecticn end la I caid may I hcvc time to 1coh at the tranceript cnd thcy 19 grcnted ne that tir.ie. From the tranneript, Iir. Chairmam, 20 it'c obvious !:r. Jordcn it asked a qucction about thoco 21 concultant reports. :*r. Mcuman, objects repeatedly to 22 the quectionc; the councol acys that the reason that they 23 arc relevant is that the competence of Eroun & noot in ct 24 issue here and the Eoard on that bccia cays fino, lir.
25 Jordon choul6 :ncuer the quection. So obvioucly,i:r. I 1
TATC nEPORTIUG ECRVICC, 493-0442 01:192 l l
1
__ _ - - _ _ _. _ _ . _ . _ _ _ m .
12193
,s.
() 1 Jordan was answering these quentions in the context of 2 the Board ruling that competence was at icsue.
3 MR. NEUPJ.N: Mr. Chairman, my point is e::actly 4 the same. Judge Lamb's quection was quite specific, it C 5 related to why the Quadrex report should or should not 6 have been nentioned at that point in the tactimony, the ,
s 7 uitness' answer was to that effect, the quortion was no 8 broador the responce una no broador and I ask again I 9 object and ask for another ruling.
10 !!R. SINKIN: The question 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Judge Lamb's question was 12 not ha'cing anything to do vith the competence cf Drcun L 13 Root. It had to do uith uhy the Guadrc:: report unen't
() 14 montioned in that cerlec of --
15 liR. SIUZIU: ithich ic the ecsonco if you road i 1G this part of the transcript, it was the escence of uhat 17 une coing and why the questions vero enswered by the '
13 witness.
19 JUDCC BCCI!!!OEFER: In any cvont, your lact 20 quontion did not go into my matters as to which Judge j 21 Lamb asked a question. So uith rearcet to your lact 22 quection, uc will up hold the objection. Movo on, I
- 23 guaca.
'4 0 1:r. Jordan, at the eine of your toctinony cited 25 by Judge Lamb, you vore ensucring qucatione concerning an '
! TATC REPORTIt*G SURVICC, 400-8442 0121.93 '
i l.
12194 1 engineering discrepancy that had happened in Drown &
2 Root's original reprecentation to HL&P versuc uhat was 3 actually completed. Do you remember that that was the 4 question at issue?
5 A An engineering discrepancy.
6 0 The cmount of engineering they caid had been 7 co pleted uns far more than than cctually been completed?
3 A Juct uhere are you.
9 0 It'c a little difficult since there's co many 10 objections in this section to get you exactly on point 11 but I will try. Let's etart, page 1229, at line cix, in 12 the qucc icn cnd cnc.:cr.
13 A Okay. .
1/. O In terer of the problem of . engineering 15 productivity by crown 6 nooc, vac the Quadre:: report in 1G your view also about engineering productivity of Droun c 17 10ct?
16 A It una about the effectiveness of Droun t 19 Root'c cbility to turn the engineering out. So if you 20 ucnt to uce " productivity," perhapc it would be a part of 21 that.
22 0 Una the Quadre:: ctudy an ettempt to n.onitor the 23 activitice of Drcun a ncot cnd provide Iced bec': to I:L;P 24 on the nature of thece activitiec?
25 A It une cn cttempt to aenchtcrh the cngineering, e
'H.TE DC?onTI!:G CCnVICC, 400-0442 01:194
I' 12195 1 the engineering effort, as to where it wac and to 2 determine the effectiveness of their ability to produce 3 it.
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13
., 14 15 10 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Tuze nnronerve cenvrc::, 49a-av.2 01:195
Eg-#4 196 12196 1 0 I think of the word benchmark as something 2 that Bechtel did when they came onto the job. .
3 A Well, you know, if you don't want to use that 4 word, we can use a different one. It was an effort by 5 Mr. Goldberg to find out exactly where the engineering -
6 was and that was the purpose of having it done.
7 0 Well, all areas of engineering were not looked 8 into by Quadrex; is that correct?
9 A I don't know.
10 Q HL&P was -- was HL&P receiving in 1981 monthly 11 reports about the progress of Brown & Root in the 12 engineering area?
13 A Ye s, I think so.
L- ' 14 0 Was Quadrex called in to see if those monthly 15 reports were accurately reflecting the amount of 16 completed engineering?
17 A Quadrex was called in, as I say, to determine 18 where the engineering was and determine whether or not 19 they were going to be able to perf orm that engineering 20 task. If you want to say were they called in to go back 21 and check those previous reports, I don't think their 22 assignment extended to that.
23 0 I guess I was getting more at if you were 24 receiving monthly reports on the progress of (j 25 engineering, why you would hire someone to come in and D'.,:'JU
LP,JJ 197 12197 1 giva ycu o rcport en tho prcgrcca in enginacring?
2 A To give Mr. Goldberg the assurances that those 3 reports were accurate or whether or not there were some 4 things he might be able to do to do it differently. I 5 don't think the test went back to the report. I don't 6 think the assignment went back to the report. I think 7 the assignment was to give Mr. Goldberg some additional 8 insight into where that engineering was f rom an outside 9 party.
10 0 Was the Gibbs & Hill report mentioned in your 11 testimony in these pages similar in purpose to the 12 Quadrex report?
13 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the U 14 witness' attention should be given to the specific page 15 where that appears.
16 MR. SINKIN: Certainly.
17 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, I have another 18 obj ection. The ability to cross-examine on those pages 19 was, of course, in the last heating. It was only for 20 the limited purpose that Judge Lamb used those that 21 examination can now be made. And from the last question 22 it seems that -- I don't know whether we're getting into 23 a general recross-examination on those pages of that 24 testimony given on May 14th or whether we' re dealing 25 with what Judge Lamb dealt with today. But it appears O '. 2 3 7 w ru e ra m couuunwww
Eg-44 198 12198 1 to ma thct wa'ra trying to cross-examine again on what 2 happened May 14th,1981, I believe. .
3 MR. SINKIN: No. On May 14th,1981, we had no 4 knowledge of the existence of the Quadrex report, so we 5 could not have asked him to compare the Quadrex report 6 to the Gibbs & Hill report. That's what I'm asking him 7 to do now.
8 MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Chairman, I submit that that 9 question is clearly irrelevant.
10 MR. SINKIN: Well, that question is clearly 11 relevant, Mr. Chairman. If the Gibbs & Hill report was 12 a similar report to the Quadrex record and he mentioned 13 the Gibbs & Hill report but didn't mention Quadrex, it's
-l 14 obviously probative to some extent of whether or not he 15 should have mentioned Quadrex.
16 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Jordan, while they' re 17 conferring --
18 MR. NEWMAN: No. Are you on the record?
19 MR. SINKIN: I was going to give him the pages 20 in the record to look at, that's all.
21 MR. NEWMAN: Okay.
22 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Transcript pages 48 and 23 forward.
24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: On that lart question, we f 25 will overrule the objection on that one.
0l.;198 mrunmana -
EgM 199 12199 1 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) I'm corry. I think I ctort d 2 you too early -- I mean too late. Gibbs & Hill first 3 arises on page 1246, line 20. .
4 A There is something about it on line 1 on 12 --
5 oh, 12467 6 0 1246, line 20 and forward.
7 A Okay.
8 Q Let me particularly direct your attention to 9 page 1247, line 4.
10 A Okay.
11 Q Now, my question was was the Gibbs & Hill 12 report similar in purpose to the Quadrex report?
13 A I think the Gibbs & Hill report was quite r~S ks 14 different than the Quadrex report. As I recall it, the 15 Gibbs & Hill report was one that was produced to 16 determine whether or not the project had an opportunity 17 to meet the cost and schedule through construction and 18 completion that had been set for it. And the Quadrex 19 report was not like that at all.
20 0 Was one of the purposes of the Quadrex report 21 to determine if the assumptions HL&P was making about 22 Brown & Root's engineering productivity were, in fact, 23 good assumptions?
24 A I don't know what assumptions we may have been
,x (j 25 making at that time. You know, I tried to describe to 01 199
cg-i4 200 12200 1 ycu what I thought the purpose of that Quadrex report 2 was and that was with Mr. Goldberg being newly in that -
3 assignment, he wanted an outside appraisal as to where 4 engineering was.
5 Q Was that in part -- I think you've already 6 testified that you got these monthly reports, but this 7 new study gave you a different perspective at least on 8 the engineering productivity. You discussed that 9 earlier, the monthly reports on engineering which you 10 got.
11 I assume f rom -- let me ask you, is it from 12 those monthly reports that you would base -- on those 13 monthly reports would you base your assumptions about 7q Ll 14 how far you were getting and how much you had to go?
15 A You mean in terms of whether you were on or 16 not on schedule?
17 Q Just in terms of your assumption about~what 18 schedule you were on, was that based on those monthly 19 reports?
20 A Monthly reports measured against the 21 cchedule.
22 Q The monthly reports actually had a here's 23 where we're supposed to be, here's where we are kind of 24 element to them?
25 A I don't know if they were done that way then 01:200 ansuusm um -
Eg-#4 201 12201 1 cr not. They' ro don; thct way now.
2 Q But through some means, from those monthly 3 reports you could determine whether you were on 4 schedule?
5 A They should have been able to track some sort 6 of schedule by the monthly report or at least attempt 7 to.
8 Q When you were preparing to give this 9 testimony, Mr. Jordan, when you were --
10 A In 1981?
11 Q 1981.
12 A Uh-huh.
13 Q What did you do to prepare yourself for the c'")
~
14 potential cross-examination that goes on in this 15 testimony?
16 MR. NEWMAN : Mr. Chairman, I'll obj ect to that 17 question. It has no relevance to any Board question.
18 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman --
19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Which question are you 20 tying that to?
21 MR. SINKIN: My notes reflect that you asked 22 questions about discussions with attorneys regarding how 23 his answers would be given and about receiving any 24 suggestion or have discussions with any others about the 25 QA/QC aspects of Quadrex and whether he consulted with 01 201 TATE REPORTTNG (711) d4A Add?
Eg=UU 202 12202 1 Cttern3ya et thst tim 2. And ha gnvo certain answers 2 about what his discussions were with the attorneys at -
3 that time. I was following up on that. .
4 MR. NEWMAN: The Board's question, as I 5 understand it, was whether or not Mr. Jordan had 6 conferred with attorneys regarding whether or not to 7 mention the Quadrex report during his testimony. If 8 that's the point that counsel is coming back to, then 9 fine. The general quaction of Mr. Jordan's preparation 10 to appear on May 14th,1981, has no other basis.
11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think your question is a 12 little broad.
13 MR. SINKIN: Broad. ,
p(-'
14 JUDGE BECll!!OEFER: But --
15 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) You've testified that you did 16 not talk to attorneys about whether to mention Quadrex 17 or not mention Quadrex, is that correct --
18 A Yes, that 's right.
19 Q -- prior to may 14th? I'm sorry, I --
20 A That's correct.
21 Q Did you review the testimony of other 22 witnesses to see if they had mentioned Quadrex?
23 A I read the testimony of some other witnesses, 24 but I didn't do it for the purpose of seeing whether h 25 they had mentioned Quadrex.
O'.1202 l wwuwama cuaum-m i
ug-#4 203 12203 1 Q Whrn ycu wcro discussing with the Board the 2 relationships between Houston Lighting & Power and Brown 3 & Root, you brought up the problem of the order to show 4 cause and you stated that Brown & Root and HL&P pulled 5 together very well to work on responding to the order to 6 show cause. You went on to say that engineering was 7 very involved in resoonding to the order to show cause.
8 Do you remember that?
9 A I don't think I said that. I think I said 10 that as a result of that pulling together and the 11 intense ef fort that had to be put into the show cause 12 effort, that it was clear that some of the other 13 production that may have normally taken place probably 14 had to suffer a 1ittle during that time.
15 0 That the engineering production --
16 A Engineering was one of those.
17 0 Why did the engineering production suffer in 18 order to respond to the order to show cause?
19 A Well, I don't know everybody at Brown & Root 20 who was involved in the show cause effort, but I know it 21 was very, very broad and that people in the leadership 22 of that organization were devoting a great deal of their 23 time to the show cause. And if the leadership of an 24 organization devotes a great deal of time to something 25 that's unusual and dif f erent from their normal course of OL203 i marmanwa -
sg-44 204 12204 1 businesc, th:n it'a going to hcyo cn cffcet cn thcir 2 operation that reports up through that area. .
3 Q Are you saying that the leadornhip was 4 involved in responding to the order to show cause but 5 the line engineers were not?
6 A You know that's not what I said. I said I 7 don't know who all was involved in it. There were a 8 great number of people who were involved in it. I know 9 the leadership was, as well as a largo number of the 10 others, and I can't give you a definition of who they 11 were.
12 0 Did you have anything more?
13 A No.
14 .0 In recponse to a question about whether you 15 discussed reportability with any other attornoya other 16 than the liconning attorneys, you atated that you had 17 talked to Mr. Goldborg and Mr. Oprea, you didn't recall 18 talking to anyone elco. And in responce to the 19 particular findings, you said that you woro generally 20 f amiliat with the IIVAC problem when it was brought to 21 you; in that correct?
22 A We had had como discunnionn about -- it noemn 23 to me we'd had como discuncions about that ilVAC problem 24 at that timo. I know wo've boon talking about it an 25 awful long time. I don't believe that'n the firot timo 0'._204
09-04 205 12205 1 I'd h:2rd cbout it.
2 Q Do you remember at all what the convernations 3 were about prior to May lith when you were briefed on 4 Quadrex as to what the probicm was with IIVAC7 5 A I can't give you any specific daten that we 6 had those convernations really, whether it was before or 7 after. But we changed contractor on it. Wo did a 8 variety of things on !!VAC.
9 Q Do you know what the particular problems woro?
10 Were they productivity problema? Woro they too cmall 11 duct problomo?
12 A You would have to go into thono kind of 13 dotalla with ltr. Goldborg. Ilo's very familiar with it, i
L- 14 Ife probably could anrver any quection you can think to 15 ank.
16 0 I underntand Mr. c.oldborg will be very 17 f amiliar witnean. What I'm asking in what your 18 knowledge wan with the probicm.
19 A No, I'm not knowledgod with the detaila of 20 it.
21 Q You talked about the management chart that was 22 drawn at the April loth mooting chowing the nuclear 23 cxocutivo reporting directly to Mr. Fuchan that I guonn 24 Mr. Goldborg drew, but ho gava it to you and then you gy
([ 25 want and talkod to Mr. Pochan about it?
O'_;0S
s9:00 206 12206 1 A Th:t'a corrcct.
g As 2 Q At that mooting? -
3 A Yes.
4 Q Can you doacribo to me --
5 A I guono Mr. Goldberg drow it. It was a 6 hand-drawn chart and he gave it to me, co you can ask 7 him whether he drow it.
0 Q Okay. You got it from Mr. Goldborg then.
9 MR. AXELRAD: I'm not nuro I undorotand the 10 quantion.
11 MR. SINKIN: I haven't asked a quantion.
12 MR. AXULRAD: No, the preliminary that tho 13 managonont chart won drawn and discutised at the April 10 4
. 14 mooting or whether the ennagement chart van drawn and 15 discuusod attor the April 10 invoting?
16 Q (By Mr. Hinkin) April 10. Ilo drew the 17 chart --
10 A No, then that's wrong. I thought you woro 19 talking about the mooting I had with Foohan later than 20 April the 10th whon I discunced with him the ' hart.
21 Jerry drew the chart subuoquant to the April 10 mooting, 22 an I recall it. Wo had the April 10th mooting. Wo 23 talkod about doing thin. Jorry drew the chart. I took 24 it over to Tom. In a very chor t timo tramo.
f,l,h 25 0 That's more or lonu the way you had O '. :. 2 0 0 acn nn,mm asmm umwm
UfJJ 207 12207 1 t:stificd> And my imprc20icn wra thic c11 tc:k picco ct 2 the April 10 mooting, but that's not correct.
3 A No. The April loth mooting was in Corpun 4 Christi. My mooting with Tom Foohan van in his officon 5 over on Clinton Drive in llouston.
6 Q Do you remember the date? Are we very clone 7 to April 10th? You nald it was a f airly ahort timo a framo.
9 A No, I don't know the dato. There wann't too 10 much timo that expired in there. It could have boon a 11 couple of wookn.
12 Q Can you doccribu to me in a littic moro detail
,m 13 the nature of the chart 7 Arc we talking about throo 14 boxon? Are wo talking about fifteen boxon?
15 A Thoro woro a few n.oru boxon than throo and 16 probably not an many an fittoon. But it showod -- it 17 nuowed the gonoral -- it chowed Tom rochan at the top la level with the current reporting top icyc1 poople liko 19 Mr. Plopor and othora, an I recall, who wuro drawn in 20 thoro running nucicar activity coming up through them 21 and thoto was not much detail below thone top people.
22 It had a chief oxocutivo vico-prooldont or a 23 vico-pronident or como tillo, conior vico-pronident, 24 como titio nucioar oxocutivo reporting directly to Mr.
25 Poohan.
e:. ov mm - msu avwmn
sg-84 208 12208 1 0 W:o th:t th n drcwn cff to tho side c0 cpposed 2 to within the structure that existed? -
3 A No, it was within the structure.
4 0 It was added into the structure that existed?
5 A Well, it was a modification of the existing 6 structure that had the nuclear people, such as Mr.
7 Saltarelli. He was already reporting through somebody 8 olco, he would then report through the now nuclear man 9 or at least comebody in that block would report to him.
10 Whether it was Saltarelli or not doesn't make any 11 difference.
12 0 Woro there any other modifications to that o
13 managcmont chart other than the addition of this person?
14 A Not that I can recall. That wac the primary 15 purposo of doing it. The purpose was not to restructure 16 the Brown & Root organization. Aa you well know, 17 they' ro a very competent and productive worldwide 18 organization that builda a lot of thinga very well. Wo 19 had no buoinoco talking about that at all.
20 0 In rooponso to questiono from the Board, you 21 woro making it -- you gave them a clarification that you 22 did not intend to cay that Brown & Root had 23 intentionally microprononted the amount of enginocring 24 completion. Do you remember that?
fh 25 A Yo n. I said I didn't think -- I didn't know 0.!;208 I
1 WW~1 JTfMTNTil It57AftA NYbfWVt
W299 $q
$s:
-12209 1
thct wo'd cycr n de o ctatzment that they had a Tc l M intentionally done that. .
! U 9 3 %
Q In this period of April-May 1981, did you $5 4 believe that Brown & Root was oeing honest and %
h l 5 forthright with Houston Lighting & Power? 2
! y 6 A 9 I believe that Brown & Root was making the S 7 C best effort they were capable of making or at least f,S 8 %
believed they were making the best effort they were %
9 %
capable of making, but that effort in our judgment 4 y
19 t i wasn' t satisf actory.
ig 11 Q I don't know that that's directly responsive h 12 to my question.
r 13 A Okay. h I'm sorry. Would you ask it again?
G u Q- Yeah. Did you believe that Brown & Root was PJ f
15 honest and forthright with HL&P, whether or not they k 16 p
were having problems, whether or not they were trying d
I 17 hard, in their representations -- p er 18 A Are you saying did I believe they were .
19 t intentionally misrepresenting things to me that they ,
28 didn't believe?
21 Q As a general observation, were they honest and 22 forthright with you? !
23 A I don't believe they were representing things ,.
l 24 to me differently than what they thought.
O o so, it ther were wrone, it was in their own aino9 gpfyiptJypSra3na -
210 12210 1 Dind thcy w;ro wrong oc w2117 i 2 A That's my thought. Now, whether that 's -
3 accurate or not, I don't know.
4 Q Did you ever discuss with your top level 5 staff, Mr. Oprea or Mr. Jordan, as to whether they 6 perceived Brown & Root as being honest and forthright 7 with Houston Lighting & Power?
8 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairn.an, I wonder whether 9 this particular line of examination 'is stemming f rom the 10 questions that the Board has asked? It appears to me l l
)
l 11 that it's straying quite far from the questions that i 12 were asked at the time. I l
13 MR. SINKIN: I specified that at the very
,9 kJ 14 beginning f or the Board, clarified for the Board that he 15 was not intending to say Brown & Root had intentionally 16 misrepresented engineering completion. I'm taking that 17 opinion of their engineering completion and getting the 18 broader picture of did he ever feel they were being 19 dishonest or less than forthright with the company at 20 that time.
21 MR. AXELRAD: I'm not sure I understand the 22 basis for counsel or the representative of CCANP being 23 able to broaden any questions that the Board has asked.
24 It seems clearly his questioning should be limited to
(~n
(_) 25 the precise matters that the Board inquired about.
Oli210 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 __
211 1 12211 1 MR. SINKIN: Wo're in one of thos2 situations, l
1 f 2 Mr. Chairman, where if all I can ask are the questions l
. 3 that the Board asked, there would be no reason for me to 4 be here.,
l r l
! 5 .
MR. AXELRAD: Within the scope of what the l
l 6 Board asked. And if you had any questions beyond that, l l
! 7 you could hava' asked those when you had your opportunity l 8 to cross-examine.
' 4 9 KR. SINKIN:, The Board has raised the issue of
, 10 whether Brown & Root intentionally misrepresented the l 11 engineering completion. Mr. Jordan'has said he didn't l
! 12 believe they intentionally misrepresented it. I'm f
13 trying to get at .vas his approach at that time -- what
! 14 was his attitude at that time that he didn 't believe 15 they intentionally misrepresented. Had they previously 16 misrepr esented? Did he believe they were not still
+
17< misrepresenting or did he have no history of them 18 misr epr esenting?
19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The subject of the Board's 20 question was either engineering completion or 21 construction completion as reflected in the' figures on 22 CCANP 79. That was the basis for the Board's question.
23 I think we shouldn't expand beyond those general subj ect 24 areas. -
ry
(.v _ / 25 MR. SINRIN: But the answer given raised this 0.~5 ,. 1 l . _ . __TSM _.M@9%32@ DAM MM-@SM
cg-#4 ,
212 1 12212 1 inaua. 1 2 l MR. NEWMAN: No, it did not, Your Honor. The -
3 answer given simply responded directly to the Board's I 4 question as to whether there was an overstatement in l
5 engineering or construction productivity. The witness 6 responded he did not think that there was any 7 intentional overstatement at that time, I zeroed in on 8 that matter.
9 MR. SINKIN: Well, Mr. Newman has relatively 10 accurately quoted my notes. I have it I don't believe 11 we accused Brown & Root of intentionally doing these 12 things.
13 MR. NENMAN: The Board's question related
('h L '# . 14 specifically to statements regarding engineering 15 production or may have included construction 16 production.
17 JUDGE EECHHOEFER: Well, I was referring to a 18 cross-reference to a document that did have 19 construction. But it did not go farther and was not 20 intended to.
21 I would be -- I don't think it would be f air 22 to ask the witness whether he knew of some misstatement 23 concerning some particular aspect of the project not 24 related to the progress of engineering or construction.
l ( j] 25 So, the questions will -- I don't recall your exact last 0 ~C12
- - 1
cg-44 213 i 12213 !
l qu ction, but at least to the extent I've indicated, the 2 objection would be sustained.
3 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Jordan, in your closing 4 comments you spoke of a nuclear committee --
5 A Yes.
6 0 -- that had been created at HL&P. Was there 7 such a committee in 1981?
8 A I don't believe so. I can't recall the exact 9 date we established it, but I don't believe it existed 10 then.
11 Q Were the board of directors -- one of the 12 functions of this nuclear committee I believe you said 13 is it includes four board members; is that correct?
r^S l I kl 14 A Yes, all outside the regulars.
15 0 And it's a way for the board to be informed 16 about what's going on on the proj ect?
17 A The coard as a whole gets informed through a 18 standing agenda item on the board each month. That 19 report is made to the board by Mr. Goldberg or by the 20 chairman of the committee.
21 We also have outside people coming in talking 22 to the board about this project. As I said, both Mr.
23 Collins and Mr. Martin have come in. But the board 24 meets -- the nuclear committee meets separate f rom the
- 25 board and goes into some of these issues in more detail O'._213 TATE REPORTTNG (7111 d4R Ada?
r Ug5UU !
214 '
12214 1 than doos the full board.
2 0 What was the mechanism in 1981 for the board .
3 to be informed of events at the project?
4 A It was through regular reports to the board, 5 to the full board without the existence of a nuclear 6 committee.
7 0 Were you the one that made those reports?
8 A Mr. Oprea normally was the one who made those 9 reports.
10 0 To your knowledge, in 19 -- in the period May 11 7, 1981 to, let 's say, August 30th, 1981, that would be 12 the June, July and August board meetings, was the board 13 ever told about the Quadrex report?
\s 14 A I can't tell you that for sure. They well may 15 have been, I j ust don' t know.
16 Q Do you remember a particular board meeting at 17 which the Quadrex report was discussed --
18 A No. .
19 0 -- in September of 1981? Do you know at what 20 point in the month those board meetings would have been 21 going on? Beginning of the month, end of the month?
22 A First Wednesday of every month.
23 Q The first Wednesday of every month. Then 24 let's skip to October 1981, the first Wednesday. Was 25 (n] the board informed about the Quadrex report at that 011214
_ _ rem swramre couu_amwa
I Cg-UU -
215 12215 1 tim 2?
2 A What would be the reason to specifically on 3 that date inform them? You know, I don' t know why 4 specifically on October the 1st, 1981, we would have 5 been talking about the Quadrex report as opposed to any 6 other time.
7 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Jordan, that in September 8 of 1981, the Quadrex report was released to the NRC, 9 formally to this Board and became a matter of front page 10 articles in the newspapers?
11 A I don't recall it being a f ront page article 12 in the newspaper. It may well have been. That is the 13 date it was released to the Board. The Board requested 14 it and we gave it to them.
15 Q Not front page, extensive publicity about 16 Quadrex that appeared in the meeting?
17 MR. NEWMAN : Mr. Chairman, I'll obj ect to 18 that. This is really getting astray. We've got to get 19 the examination back onto the subject matter of the 20 Board questions and the witness' responses. We are just 21 wandering all over the matter as to what page the 22 articles were on. That's not what this hearing is 23 about.
24 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, I have another reason 3 25 why I believe it is beyond the scope. I don't remember 01:215 msummmce muuum-2wta
Eg*JU 216 12216 1 cnything that d: alt with that light. Wa are d: cling 2 with the Quadrex report and whether it should have been -
3 brought to the Board's attention prior to when it was.
4 Now, if we go to October 1st, that's after it was.
5 That's not within the issues. For that reason, it's not 6 relevant.
7 MR. SINKIN: Well, I was trying to ref resh the 8 witness' memory as to when the Board might have been 9 first inf ormed about Quadrex.
10 MR. PIRFO: Are you talking about the board of 11 directors at HL&P?
12 JUDGE SHON: One of the issues here is the 13 fact that there is a board and another the Board and I
(-) 14 think people are getting conf used.
, 15 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) So the record is clear, I 16 trust, Mr. Jordan, we were both talking about the board 17 of directors of Houston Lighting & Power?
18 A That's what I understood.
19 JUDGE SHON: And I think what you were trying 20 to establish was whether the board of directors at HL&P 21 found out about the Quidrex report bef ore, after or when 22 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board did; is that 23 right?
24 MR. SINKIN: Yes. That time frame. That's (m)
( 25 all the question was about.
%.)
01.1216 weureemm enxum-em
Lg-#4 217 12217 1 A Okay. And I can't answer your question as to 2 when that may have been an item discussed by our board.
3 I just don't remember.
4 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Jordan, I'm going to hand 5 you a document that I'd ask be marked as CCANP 83.
6 MR. SINKIN: For some reason I'm very short of 7 copies. Let me give you this for the moment and ask you 8 to share that with Judge Lamb.
9 Oh, here they are.
10 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Jordan, in response to 11 questions from the Board, you outlined the chronological 12 sequence of meetings that took place as to who was 13 inf ormed when about the . decision to remove Brown & Root g
kl 14 from architect engineer and construction manager. And 15 you mentioned that on September 12th, you and Mr.
16 Goldberg and Mr. Oprea had briefed the participants in 17 the South Texas Nuclear Project on that decision.
18 I have handed you a document titled 19 Discussions Among STP Participants Regarding Replacement 20 of Architect / Engineer and Construction Manager, dated 21 September 22nd,1981, that says at its first line, "At 22 1:00 o' clock p.m. on September 12th,1981, the following 23 representatives of the participants met to discuss this 24 subject," and it lists who was there.
25 A Right.
0 -~ 17
_ _ TATE REPORTING (711) d4R^ Rad?
sg-84 -- ' ~1 218 12218 l i
1 Q I'd lika to give you c chanco to rcview thic 1 2 document. -
l 3 MR. SINKIN: I have. attached at the back, for l
4 some reason that I cannot now imagine, the rough notes 5 from which the document was generated. I'm not sure 6 there's any need for those to be on there.
7 As a matter of fact, I think Mr. Chai rman, 8 just to avoid any problem with this document later, I 9 would remove the notes at the back of this document. I 10 don't think they're really necessary to the document at 11 all.
12 That would be the same document beginning on 13 the page that has a number at the bottom which I can't k/ 14 r e,a d , so --
15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Are the first set of pages 16 what you want in?
17 MR. SINKIN: The first set of pages I want 18 in. Starting at the eighth page of the document, I 19 think you can just rip that off the back and we'll 20 ignore it.
21 (No hiatus) 22 23 24 lA c
1 25 Q 1&~ .' .' 3) ~
N TS MFt M TING (713) 498-8442 1
12219 1 THE WITNESS: Is there something specific about 2 this you'd like to --
3 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Certainly.
4 A You want to ask me -- it's seven pages long.
5 Rather than ask me to read the whole part, ask me a 6 question and I'll read the portion that's appropriate.
7 Q First of all, just in what you have had a 8 chance to read, does this appear to be the minutes of the 9 September 12 meeting that you attended?
10 A I don't remember who wrote them. But it looks 11 like somebody wrote them.
12 O On Page 3, Mr. Jordan, the second full 13 paragraph st.arting, "Mr. Jordan inquired"?
c
()
14 A Okay.
15 Q In deciding whether to replace Brown & Root in 16 all capacities or only as architect engineer and 17 construction manager, were the opinions ventured on 18 September 12th, that are recorded here a significant 19 factor in your decision not to remove Brown & Root as 20 constructor?
21 A Ho. I think we'd already decided -- we will --
22 I know we'd already decided to ask Brown & Root to stay 23 as constructor. These are the kind of questions I'm sure 24 you can understand get asked in a general discussion of 25 trying to get all the information you can get in terms of E.
D' ss
j TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12220 h 1 knowing the path that you're going to travel. We'd 2 already decided at that time, at least Houston Lighting &
3 Power Company had decided, that our position would be to 4 keep them as a constructor and the others agreed.
5 0 Did you have any i-lan at all for what would 6 have happened if the management committee had said no?
7 MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Chairman, I object to that 8 question. I have a couple of -- let a couple of 9 questions go on this. Clearly the response that Mr.
10 Jordan gave was in response to the Chairman's request 11 regarding chronology of events generally associated with 12 Mr. Jordan's discussion with Mr. Feehan early September.
13 The Chairman, I think, inquired about the
)
~
14 discuccienc on or about September 18th or 24.th; Mr.
15 Jordan, as I recall, gave the chronology so that the 16 Board would have a full understanding of the chronology.
17 The Eoard did not inquire as to the substance 18 of any matter in any of these specific meetings. The 19 question is clearly outside the scope of the Board 20 questions.
21 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, in asking questions 22 about CCANP 79, the Board asked whether the original plan 23 to replace Brown & Root as -- whether the original plan 24 was to replace Brown & Root as architect engineer but 25 retained as contractor.
G TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 20
.. .a 12221 1 Mr. Jordan's answer was that consideration was h
2 given to replacing Brown & Root on all parts of the 3 plant. The RFP indicated to him that they had decided to 4 keep Brown & Root at that time on construction, although 5 the RFP said they might drop them from that, that's his 6 answer.
7 That's what raises this question about how the 8 decision was made, to keep' Brown & Root as architect 9 engineer and -- I mean as constructor and release them 10 from the architect engineering and construction 11 management responsibilities.
12 MR REIS: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how it 13 relates to the issues in this proceeding. Either -- and
() 14 I must say go back to the Board question and say even, I 15 did not rush in and object to the Board question, but I 16 really don't understand.
17 The question is -- there is a question here.
18 Did HL&P, should they have come forward earlier and told 19 the Board about Brown & Root and the substitution of 20 Brown & Root.
21 But really going into the details on 22 constructor or architect engineer or what, I don't 23 understand why that's probative of the issues before this 24 Board.
25 The issues before this Board is: Did they TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 2!
12222 1 perform their duties of coming to you early enough. But 2 why are these details probative? And I don't understand 3 why they're probative.
4 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, we're trying to 5 provide in the record a complete picture of the process 6 that took place from the very beginning of a 7 consideration to remove Brown & Root to when the event 8 actually happened. The Applicants in their own pleadings 9 have repeatedly argued that it was because of where the 10 process was and how the process was being conducted that 11 there was no need for Mr. Jordan or any of the other 12 witnesses to inform the Board about what was going on in 13 terms of Brown & Root being on the project or off the 14 project. -
15 I saw in this document a possibility of filling 16 in a tiny gap in that decision taking process, where Mr.
17 Jordan had originally testified that they were going to 18 replace them in all, we thought that's what the RFP said.
19 And then it turned out it said -- not that they weren't 20 going to replace them in construction; I thought this 21 highlighted why this decision might have been made and 22 that's what I was asking him.
23 MR. NEWMAN: Again, I submit that does not, in 24 any way, relate to the purpose of the Board's request and 25 clearly can't possibly be material to any issue before V.)
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 O* '22
12223 1 the Board.
2 The Board is concerned about the chronology of 3 its information; the level -- as Mr. Sinkin would put it, 4 to close a tiny gap. I think in and of itself he's not 5 talking about anything that's material to this 6 proceeding.
7 MR. SINKIN: Well, if there are gaps in the 8 record, it certainly is material to the proceeding.
9 MR. NEW!!AN: There's some gaps that are 10 material, Mr. Sinkin, and some that are not.
11 MR. SINKIN: Our position is this is one that 12 is.
13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Without expressing any
) 14 general ruling on the entire document, we will up uphold 15 the objection to that matter on Page 3, which does go 16 beyond the scope of either my particular question or 17 coveral other questionc I acked about the subject matter 18 of the proceeding.
19 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Jordan, in discussing with 20 the Board about the keeping of Brown & Root as 21 constructor, you were asked why you felt Brown & Root 22 should be kept as constructor. And you testified that 23 Brown & Root could do the job, that they had talented 24 construction company personnel who could do the job, and 25 the second point you made, I believe, is it would ts TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 0 '23
12224 1 simplify the transition if they weren't removed from 2 everything. Is that correct?
3 A Yes.
4 0 Calling your attention to CCANP 80, do you have 5 that document before you?
6 A Yes, I do.
7 0 And these are the notes you prepared for your 8 September 18th meeting with Mr. Harbin of Halliburton?
9 A Correct.
10 0 Looking on the first page to Item 4, Item 4 11 states: " Grave errors in construction."
12 A 2-C-4.
13 0 2-C-4, I'm sorry.
b 14 A Okay.
15 0 States: " Grave errors in construction." It 16 has a Star by it. Out in the margin it says, "Perhaps 17 worst," e::clamation point, underlined.
18 A Right.
19 0 Was it your view that Brown & Root had made 20 grave errors in construction?
21 A From the standpoint of what had taken place in 22 the QA, in the show cause order, is what I had in mind.
23 That had caused us to close the project down for awhile 24 and cost us some time and other things.
25 0 As of September 18th, 1981, was there 0'
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 24 i l
12225 1 significant construction -- well, let me start -- order 2 to show cause comes out, construction at the project on 3 major safety related items essentially stops. Is that 4 correct?
5 A Yes, as I remember it.
6 0 And that's April, May,'1980.
7 By September 1981, had Brown & Root done any 8 significant amount of safety related construction at the 9 project?
10 A By September 1981? I think it had been started 11 but I can't tell you how much may have been done. Mr.
12 Goldberg can tell that you.
13 0 I realize he can. I'm just trying to see what g
C/ 14 was in your mind when you were writing this.
15 A I'll tell you what was in my mind. I was 16 writing it, telling them that why we felt the decision 17 had been made. If you'll go back up to No. C, which is 18 the headnote of that, then I tried to go down through 19 this to provide an explanation to him, as to why we were 20 going forward with this decision.
21 O Isn't it true that by September 1981, only a 22 very limited amount of restart had actually taken place 23 at this project?
24 MR. NEWMAN: That's been asked and answered and 25 is otherwise irrelevant, both grounds.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 O' gtj
12226 1 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Let me ask a separate question 2 then, Mr. Chairman. What was it you saw between May 1908 3 or April 1980 when the order to show cause came out and 4 September 1981, that convinced you that Brcwn & Root was, 5 as of September '81, not going to commit the grave errors 6 that had been committed that led to the order show show 7 cause.
8 MR. REIS: I object, that's beyond the scope of 9 this hearing. What we're dealing with here, I take it, 10 is did they have an obligation to inform the Board prior 11 to the time they did of the removal of Brown & Root or 12 that they were thinking of removing Brown & Root and was 13 any of the testimony earlier misleading in any way. The q
(_f 14 reasons for removing Brown & Root are irrelevant. And 15 he's going back and rehashing everything between the 16 order to show cause to the time of 19 -- September 1981.
17 This clearly is beyond the scope of this hearing cnd 18 beyond the scope of the Board's questions as well.
19 MR. SINKIN: I do have a response. I mean if 20 you're prepared to overrule the objection, I don't need 21 to. But I do have a response.
22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, you can respond.
23 MR. SINKIN: Okay. The problem with this kind 24 of objection is if the Board raises a matter in their 25 questions that may or may not have been outside the 9
0* d b, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12227 1 scope, I don't think this is outside the scope of this 2 hearing. fir. Reis does. But setting that aside for a 3 moment, as to whether or not it is outside the scope, if 4 the Board raises a matter in its direct questions and the 5 witness gives an answer and then I am precluded from 6 crossing on that answer because suddenly the question is 7 outside the scope, we're being denied a fundamental right 8 here and that is to be able to cross-examine the witness 9 on his answer to the Board's questions.
10 It gives the witness cart blanche to answer the 11 Board however he wants, if they can get the question 12 declared later outside the scope.
13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, the Board's question I m ) 14 think I asked was whether any crucial, particular event 15 happened in a particular period of time which caused the 16 company to decide to terminate Brown & Root. I think 17 that's a little bit different from your --
18 MR. SINKIN: I'm looking at a different 19 question you asked. The question you first asked was the 20 original plan to replace Brown & Root as architect l l
21 engineer but retain them as contractor. l l
22 He responded by saying they gave consideration 23 to replacing them on all fronts. But the RFP later only 1
24 called for removing them as architect engineer and l 25 contractor. You then asked why did you keep them as p*
, 2'/
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 l
l 12228 l
~ l 1 contractor. He said they thought Brown & Root could do l e
2 construction work, they had a broad talented construction 3 company and also it would simplify the transition if they 4 didn't remove them from everything.
- 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Would you repeat your 6 question? You question wasn't within the scope of my 7 question but the one you just referred to was within 8 Judge Lamb's question.
9 MR. SINKIN: Was that Judge Lamb's question, 10 excuse me. Yes, you were asking questions about CCAMP 11 79, Judge Lamb. The question was asked why keep them, 12 certain answers were given as to why they were kept. I 13 .am now bringing up the subject that suggests there was
() 14 reason not to keep them, that they for.some reason did 15 not make a significant part of their decision apparently.
16 I'm trying to get the full picture on why they decided to 17 keep them. That would invcive reasons why they might not 18 have kept them as well as reasons why they would keep 19 them.
20 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, that's exactly my i I
21 point. Why is not material to this proceeding. It's '
22 when. And when they did, they were late telling or in 23 any way mislead the Board. Why is not material. We're 24 going into why; we're re-trying what we tried before or 25 expanding the issues very, very greatly. Why is not
/~T
%d TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
. .. . . . -. 1
l 12229 1 material.
2 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, I think wh-f is 3 material but I would return to my earlier concern, that 4 if a member of the Board does ask a question like why 5 keep them, and there is no objection to the question from 6 any party and it is answered and then we are precluded 7 from cross-examining on that answer, then we're being 8 denied something very fundamental.
9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think we'll overrule the 10 objection.
11 MR. SINKIN: Thank you.
12 MR. NEWMAU: May I have the question read back, 13 please.
(_) 14 (The last-above question was recd back 15 by the reporter.)
16 THE WITNESS: Are you ready for answer?
17 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Yes.
18 A I think I described to you that many of the 19 things that Brown & Root had done during that period of 20 time to bring additional experience into their area and 21 to prepare themselves to handle that job better, that was 22 one thing.
23 We would, in addition, have someone with great 24 experience in construction management who would be
, 25 working along with them on the project and they convinced I^'l
\ch O' 90 TATE REPORTIDG SERVICE, 498-8442
12230 1 me that the combination of those things would cause them 2 to be successful in it.
3 Q The one you referred to was that Jerome 4 GoldgerG; is that who you were referring to?
5 You said someone with great experience in 6 construction management --
7 A We were talking to several people about the 8 possibility of taking that over as indicated in the RFP.
9 0 You are talking about the new company that was 10 coming --
11 A We were also doing more in our organization as 12 well.
13 MR SINKIN: That's all I,have, Mr. Chairman, r~'s
(,,) 14 MR. PIRPO: Mr. Chairman, would you endulge us 15 for a moment, please.
16 JUDGE EECHUOEFER: Mr. Sinkin, do you plan to 17 do anything about CCAMP 83? l 18 MR. SINKIN: Im going to leave it right where 19 it is for the moment, Mr. Chairman. !
20 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, was that even marked 21 for identification, 83 was?
l 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. l l
23 MR. REIS: No, the staff has nothing.
24 MR. NENHAN: We have nothing, Mr. Chairman. I 1
25 JUDGE BECHOEFFER: Mr. Jordan, I'm going to ask )
l gs k.b o'
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 "30 l
. 12231 1 you a question that I really was going to save for Mr.
2 Oprea, but this -- would you look at CCANP 83 for 3 identification? --
4 THE WITNESS: Is that this last one?
5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes.
6 THE WITNESS: Okay.
7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The first page, the bottom 8 of the second full paragraph, there's a statement, last 9 sentence says that, "Mr. Oprea reported that the NRC was 10 leaning in the direction of a decision that the Quadrex 11 report required a 55 (e) report by HL&P on an" and I put 12 it in quotes, "' engineering control breakdown,' under 13 Criteria 7."
~
U 14 Was there any discussion of that subject at 15 that meeting, beyond just the fact that Mr. Oprea may 16 have reported it?
17 THE UITNESS: No, sir, there wasn't. I didn't 18 recall that he made this statement and would have --
19 would have said, had I not read it, that it wasn't 20 brought up at all, in my memory at that particular 21 meeting. So I would guess that you would have to get him 22 to expand on it, but it probably was a simple report that 23 was made; it was certainly not a part of our overall 24 discussion.
25 JUDGE BECHUOEFER: All right. Well, I had J
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 31
m 12232 1 intended to wait until he got here to ask him anyway.
2 But I just thought since you were here and the document 3 was brought forth, I'd just ask you. Anybody else have 4 anything?
5 That's all the questions the Board has. Any --
6 anything -- any re-redirect or whatever it is?
7 MR. NEWMAN: No, sir.
~
8 MR. REIS: The staff has none. However, the 9 staff -- before you ask and I indicated to the Board a 10 few days ago, that I would set out the vacation plans of 11 the staff because you were looking to when you could have 12 additional hearings and I just wanted to tell you before 13 lunch that for the week of -- I guess it is,--
I J 14 JUDGE BECHUOEPER: Why don't we see if we can 15 be finished with Mr. Jordan first; we may be -- did you 16 have anything further on that one question I asked?
17 ER. SINKIU: No.
18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Jordan, I believe you 19 are excused.
20 THE WITNESS: Thank you, very much, Mr.
21 Chairman.
22 JUDGE BECHHOEPER: Now, Mr. Reis.
23 MR REIS: I'm sorry, I jumped the gun. But for 24 the week of August, I guess it's 12th, starting on the 25 12th, the staff has -- the staff witnesses have no O
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 0' 32
12233 i 1 vacation plans, although there are vacation plans the 2 followinhweekofoneofthestaffwitnesses.
3 It was just that one week that we were
{
4 inquiring about.
5 There are no vacation plans for the staff. Now 6 let me also say that Mr. Tapia is leaving ~for Korea on 7- September -- August -- ;
8 MR. SINKIN: Do we need this on the record? Go I 9 ahead, go ahead, I'm sorry. ,
l 10 MR. REIS: On August 12th, I believe it is. ;
11 And of course he would like a few days ahead of time to .
12 pack and get ready so he would like to be here certainly 13 two beginning of that week, no later than the 5th or 6th ,
O 14 of that weex of Rueuse, Rueuse sth or 6th.
15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We had desired to have our 16 soils testimony as close together as close as possibly.
17 Ue nay want to bloch out a r:egment fer both the 18 Applicant's and Staff cases on soils for that period of t
19 time. Perhaps early the week of the fifth. We're not 20 requiring anything like that, but if it could be worked
- _ 21 out so it's close together in the record, it would be
- i. 22 desirable.
l 23 !!R. SINKIN: tir. Chairman, I just want to raise l l
24 a possibility and hope that it doesn't become a reality, t
25 that the scheduling plaintiff Tapia out of sequence i i
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 O* '3;3 L
12234 1 should it interfere with the date on which we have 2 subpoenaed our witnesses to appear and changes have to be 3 made to accommodate the NRC, I hope we will in no way be 4 jeopardizing our ability to produce those witnesses.
5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I don't see why it 6 would. If I changed a date once, I can change it again.
7 MR. REIS: I just wanted to inform the Board 8 before lunch of those matters.
9 MR. AXELRAD: We will discuss with the staff, 10 our logical or appropriate date for the testimony of both 11 our source panel and Mr. Tapia and try to schedule it on 12 a one day or two days when all the people are available.
13 JUDGE BECl!HOEFER: Right. He don't have any
_) 14 strong preference, but we would like to accommodate Mr.
15 Tapia's schedule, if we could.
16 (Recess.)
17 (no Hiatus.)
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 3,1
LTg",JU 23 5 12235 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Bcck on the record.
2 The Board has made some inquiries and, if -
3 necessary, although we hope it isn't, this room is 4 available for the week of August whatever it is,12 5 through 16. We would plan that if we needed to hold 6 hearings, we would do it on Tuesday through Friday.
7 MR. AXELRAD: I can't hear a word you're 8 saying, Mr. Chairman.
9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I say, if necessary, we 10 would plan to hold hearings on the Tuesday through 11 Friday following the -- I guess that's the 13th through 12 16th of August. So, just plan to reserve those dates in 13 case it'n necessary.- We hope it isn't. And we would be x/ 14 in this same room here.
15 We will put out a general notice which will 16 say to the extent necessary, hearings will be held on 17 the following days.
18 Anything f urther bef ore we resume the 19 cross-examination of Mr. Goldberg?
20 MR. AXELRAD: Yes, Mr. Ch ai rman. Just a few 21 minor matters with respect to Applicants' exhibits.
22 As you may recall, at the end of the hearing 23 yesterday there was some question raised as to the 24 contents of Applicants' Exhibit No. 59. We have given 25 to the parties and will now give to the Board and to the gyV6LrnF;6fRRpra GRSUL_/g%m
CV5UD 236 -
12236 1 Court Rsportar a revicsd vorcion of Applicants' Exhibit _ _ _ _ _ _
2 59 which will consist of three typewritten pages and 3 three handwritten pages.
4 Applicants' Exhibit 59 had been moved into 5 evidence by CCANP, but at this time I would move without 6 objection that the version of Applicants' Exhibit 59 7 which I have just distributed to the parties o'f the 8 Board and to the Court Reporter be substituted for the 9 version of Applicants' Exhibit 59 that had previously 10 been admitted.
11 MR. SINKIN: No objection.
12 MR. PIRFO: No obj ection.
13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Without cbj ection, it is so 14 , admitted.
15 }E. AXELRAD: As a result of that change, 16 however, I would like to ask Mr. Goldberg just a couple 17 of questions. !
18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Fine.
19 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Goldber g, if you turn to 28 page 17 of your testimony where you refer, in the answer 21 to question 24, to Applicants' Exhibit 59. Is the 22 version of Applicants' Exhibit 59 which I have just 23 distributed to the parties and to you the version that's
! 24 referred to in your answer 24 to question 24?
) 25 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is, c-1 c'
l L 9VS65LJiOJCdf'&iUUYR 6
sg-86 237 1 12237 MR. AXELRAD: Do you hcyo a changa in lino 7 ___
2 of page 17 to make in your prefiled testimony in light -
3 of the revision of Exhibit 59?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. In view of the 5 addition of this third page, where I refer to the second 6 page in my answer on line 7, that should be changed to 7 read third page.
8 JUDGE LAMB : What page --
9 MR. AXELRAD: That's on line 7 -- page 17 of 10 his prefiled testimony, line. 7, the first line of the 11 question, the word second should be changed to third.
12 JUDGE LAMB: Oh.
13 MR. AXELRAD: I might explain that the version
,r -x
(-) 14 of Exhibit 59 which I provided to all the parties has 15 substituted a new second page from what was previously 16 the first page.
17 In the course of reviewing the exhibits to 18 prepare a set to be provided to the Board, we did note a 19 couple of other corrections which we'd like to make at 20 this time.
l 21 MR. AXEL RAD: Mr. Goldberg, turning to page 22 22 of your testimony, do you have a correction to make on 23 line 21 of that page?
l 24 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. Attachment B should !
f) su 25 be changed to read Enclosure (1) with parentheses around r* ,
RfATE_ PE*TKGT89 REG (713) 498-8442
g __ __ ________
238 1 the 1. 8 2 MR. AXELRAD: And was that simply an incorrect 3 reference to the portion of the document you re5 erred to 4 in your testimony?
5 THE WITNESS: That is correct. The portion of 6 the document referred to in my testimony should read l 7 Enclosure (1).
8 ER. AXELRAD: We have one last change to discuss. i 1
9 If you will please turn to page 14 of your :
1 10 testimony, Mr. Goldberg. Answer 19 of yode testimony on {
11 page 14 refers to Exhibit 57, Applicants' Exhibit 57.
12 Do you have that document in front of you?
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
/~
l-)T 14 MR. AXEL RAD: When I introduced that -- When I ,
15 described that document for identification, Mr.
16 Chairman, I identified it as consisting of six i l
17 handwritten pages. l 18 Mr. Goldberg, are the first five pages of that j 19 document your notes of the Quadrex briefing of April 13, 20 19817 l
21 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
)
22 MR. AXELRAD: Is the last page, the sixth page l 23 of Applicants' Exhibit 57, also a portion of your notes I
i 24 of that meeting? {
/
rN g/ 25 TH E WITNESS : No, it is not.
r- ;
TATE REPORTING (713) 4 98-JkW2 _ _ _ _ _
239 -
12239 1 MR. AXELRAD: Could you explcin what that page ~ ~ ~ ~
2 is? -
3 THE WITNESS : This page -- and ,apparently when 4 this page was reproduced you can see at the very bottom 5 the outline of a second page. These two documents were 6 prepared following the April 10th meeting in Corpus {
l 7 Christi to identify the particular skills that we felt i
8 Brown & Root needed to supplement on the engineering I 9 team, as well as just a small portion of the 10 organization chart that I drew up for Mr. Jordan when he had his subsequent discussions with Mr. Feehan.
11
.12 MR. AXELRAD: Okay. That is all we have, Mr.
L13 Chai rman. We don't propose to change the exhibit, but
\> 14 we just wanted to be sure that it was clear on the 15 record that that sixth page was not a portion of the 16 notes of the April 13th meeting.
17 At this time --
18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: What was the date of that 19 last page? Was that the same day?
20 THE WITNESS : I believe that both of these 21 were prepared f ollowing the April 10th meeting. I know 22 that in terms of skills I had spoken in rather I
., 23 extemporaneous terms at the meeting, but I put them down 24 on paper prior to Mr. Jordan's visit with Mr. Feehan and
(~'s
(! 25 .I shared the skills with Mr. Saltarelli and I think Mr.
r }
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ mm wremera n un ass saa2
sg-tb 240 1 Jordan focused attantion on the organization chart with 12240 _
Mr. Feehan.
8 2 3
And I believe that that probably occurred during the first week following the April leth meeting.
4 MR. AXELRAD: And by both of these, you' re 5 referring to page number 6 and the portion of some other 6 sheet which is shown on page number 6?
7 THE WITNESS: That's right. At the bottom of 8 page 6 you can see an image that apparently was another 9 piece of paper that was below it at the time that this 10 particular sheet was reproduced.
11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: A reference to Mr. Broom 12 someplace. So, there's a brief ref erence to Mr. Broom 13 at the bottom, but --
(~'h
\)
- 14 THE WITNESS: Yes, si r, he was part of the 15 organization, too.
16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I realize that.
17 MR. AXELRAD: At this point we have no further 18 preliminary matters and Mr. Goldberg is available for 19 cross-examination.
20 MR. SINKIN: We have just one minor 21 preliminary matter. Do the Applicants intend to produce 22 the documents that were attached to the back here?
23 MR. AXELRAD: No, we intend to produce only 24 what we have produced as part of our direct case.
7x 25 JEROME H. GOLDBERG, (a) r' ,
TATE REPORTING (713) 698-8662
Eg-#6 241 -
12241 1 hr_ving b:en previously duly sworn, testified further ______
8 2 3
upon his oath as follows:
4 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Cont'd) 5 BY MR. SINKIN:
6 O Mr. Goldberg, turning in your testimony to 7 page 42, question and answer 59, you earlier had made a 8 change in that testimony at line 18 to correct the 9 testimony to say that Brown & Root had initiated a 10 reanalysis of the heat loads; is that correct?
11 A That's correct.
12 0 Why did Brown & Root initiate that analysis?
13 A Well, the original analysis I believe was
(~)
k/ 14 perf ormed a few years earlier, and periodically as 15 information might change, these analyses have to be 16 updated. As I understand it, the environmental 17 conditions based on environmental measurements was 18 judged to be slightly different than those used on the 19 original analysis.
20 Q Are you saying that the change was detected by 21 some physical measuring of an environmental condition 22 that was then compared to what the design had been?
23 A There is an environmental monitoring program 24 for things such as ambient air temperatures, relative 25 humidity, wind, a host of parameters. And there were i
l
cg 8 242 12242 1 coma refinamente to thct data which influenced the 2 calculation.
3 Q What particular measurement was made that 4 influenced the calculation?
5 A I f rankly don't recall what changes there 6 were, I just understood that there were some changes.
7 Q Then later Brown & Root subcontracted with NUS 8 to do further reanalysis of the heat loads for the 9 essential cooling pond?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Bef ore NUS began their reanalysis, in your 12 view did the existing work of Brown & Root represent a 13 potentially reportable deficiency?
(~'s, ,
U 14 A No.
15 0 Uhy is that?
16 A Well, Brown & Root was obligated by a reg 17 guide, I believe that -- I better be caref ul, it may be 18 1.27, I haven't looked at the numbers lately, to perform 19 the analysis for two different types of plant 20 conditions, which they had done.
21 Now, the f act that conditions might change 22 with further research that would influence the work in 23 itself would not constitute a reportable matter. In the 24 event, however, that af ter you do the analysis, if you j 25 find that you've got equipment that you've procured that
( ,,
GT)V65LJPJCW625tNa N
Cg-UO 243 12243 1 m:y not saticfy thosa conditions, then that might turn 2 out to be a reportable matter. -
3 Q Wasn't it discovered that there was a serious 4 discrepancy, as much as 80 or 90 degrees, between the 5 temperature Brown & Root had used in their design and 6 the temperature that would have to be accounted for?
7 A I don't believe so, Mr. Sinkin.
8 Q Earlier you testified about the postulated 9 pipe break outside of containment that Brown & Root had d
10 not yet begun. Do you remember that?
11 A Yes, I do.
12 0 The question I have is whether the reason the 13 beginning of that design is untimely is that it's out. of
(~')
- L> 14 sequence, it ,should have been done at some earlier point 15 in the design process and things followed af ter it that 16 should have -- are you f ollowing? Maybe I'm conf using 17 you with my question.
18 There's a certain sequence, I assume, in which 19 designs are carried out in nuclear power plants, certain 20 systems are designed before other systems; is that 21 correct?
22 A There are certain sequences that clearly are 23 more efficient than others, yes.
24 Q And the lag time of three or four years in 25 doing pipe break outside centainment, was that a problem
cg-t6 244 1 of not teing in the appropriate place in the sequence? 12244 2 A I think I commented earlier that it was just 3 plain late.
4 0 What I'm really trying to get at, what is late 5 about it? I mean, it can be late just because people 6 think you should have gotten to it earlier. It can be 7 late because there is a sequence in which things should
. 8 be perf ormed and other things had already been done 9 which should have followed af ter that.
10 A I believe it was late in the context that they 11 should have gotten the work started years before.
12 Q But not that it was out of sequence?
13 A No. .
/^'s U 14 Q Turning in your testimony to page 44, answer 15 65. You state at line 20, "The TRD was in draf t status 16 and still undergoing review. "
17 By May 7th of 1981, in your view should that 18 TRD have been beyond draf t status?
19 A Well, in the context of where the power plant 20 was, it wasn't necessarily out of sequence. The place 1
21 where this particular consideration is very important
)
22 has to do with the anchor associated with where main 23 steam and feedwater lines penetrate the main steam 24 isolation valve cubicle. That structure was in an l 25 extremely early stage of construction. They had not '
- 1 r*
- - 1
Eg-46 245 12245 1 rcach0d the point where they had designed in the anchors 2 for those two lines. As a matter of fact, that was the -
3 maj or technical area that Brown & Root was still sorting 4 out.
5 Q Was the construction in an extremely early 6 stage because they had not yet sorted out this problem?
7 A I think that there's no question that the 8 details of the reinforcing steel for that structure did 9 depend on getting this particular area sorted out. And 10 it was clearly one of perhaps other issues that had to 11 be resolved before they could complete the design of the 12 reenforcement for that structure.
13 Q Do you have some insight as to why Brown &
, \ *
/ 14 Root'had not successfully -- had not progrected as far 15 as they should have on the design of these anchors?
16 A I think that there is no question that Brown &
17 Root had not progressed very far in the- design of many 18 areas and this was .just one of them.
19 0 Well, any particular reason that you can give 20 why this particular -- I mean, it seems to me there 21 might be different reasons as to why they hadn't 22 progressed in many different areas. Do you have any 23 insight as to why they hadn't progressed in this area?
24 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to object 25 to this line of questioning. The issue again before 6 6-
ag-t6 246 .
1 thic Board ic wh thcr or not this particular finding 12246 2 should have been reported. And the answer indicates 3 that the particular document was of draf t status and had 4 not yet been prepared. Now, why Brown & Root was 5 delayed in preparing this particular document if, in 6 fact, it was delayed, does not appear to us to be 7 probative of whether or not the condition as it exists 8 on May 7 should have been reported. .
9 MR. SINKIN: Well, Mr. Chairman, the condition 10 as it exists on May 7th is what Quadrex was looking at 11 and that's -- it is precisely why the condition that 12 existed on May 7th existed that would lead you to decide 13 whether it was potentially reportable or not to come p
1/ 14 extent. Obviously, the finding itself has relevance and 15 the reason for the finding has relevance.
16 Mr. Chairman? If I -- I think maybe an 17 illustration would help you. If I said to Mr. Goldberg 18 why wasn't this design further along and he said because 19 an engineer got angry, took the drawings home and burned 20 them and those were the only drawings we had of that 21 system, we might have a serious quality assurance 22 problem there. And the fact the design hadn't been done 23 might we will be a notifiable event.
24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I'm not sure that would be f.m.
( j' 25 something at issue without putting in a new contention.
r* c, TATR REPORTTNG (711) AQA-Rad?
LkfUU 247 12247 1 MR. SINKIN: NO, but wh2t I'm Crying 10 -- __
2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I'm trying to fit it into -
3 the contentions --
4 MR. SINKIN: What I'm trying to say is whether 5 the conditions that Quadrex found on May 7th,1981 were 6 potentially reportable, part of the way you ' determine 7 that is ask why did that condition exist.
8 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chai rman, if I can add, I 9 think that Mr. Sinkin has himself explained through his 10 example why his arguments are not valid. But if we 11 could focus on the finding itself, the finding itself 12 deals not with why Brown & Root was at a particular 13 stage of design, but a specific statement with respect 14 to the Brown & Root assumptions that existed in whatever '
15 Brown & Root had done. And the answer explains that it 16 wasn't reportable because it was just a draf t document.
17 Now, whatever the reasons might have been f or 18 getting to that stage and whatever other QA deficiencies 19 Mr. Sinkin might think have existed or might have been 20 able to prove in a different proceeding if a different 21 proceeding dealt with the adequacy or inadequacy of 22 Brown & Root engineering is not an issue here. The 23 issue here is is that particular finding -- should that 24 particular finding have been reported back on May 7th.
n
/v.) 25 And the type of questions Mr. Sinkin is getting into are
- o y
(
Eg-96 248 1 12248 cc pletely irrelevant to that finding or to the reason 2 given by EL&P for not reporting that finding.
3 MR. SINKIN: Maybe I'll --
4 MR. AXELRAD: I let Mr. Sinkin ask a question 5 or two because it's simpler just to do that than to 6 obj ect, but we do have to in this proceeding make sure, 7 we have a lot of findings to go through, a lot of things 8 to explain, that we not stray beyond what the issue is 9 with respect to that particular finding.
10 MR. SINKIN: Maybe I'll ask a couple 11 preliminary questions where we can get at a possible 12 basis f or this question.
13 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, if you u/ 14 discovered that the design and engineering program was 15 being conducted out of sequence the way we discussed it 16 earlier, would that be a matter that would have quality 17 assurance implications?
18 MR. AXELRAD: May I have an explanation of 19 what "out of sequence as we discussed it earlier" means?
20 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman --
21 MR. AXELRAD: There were a number of questions 22 asked, there were a number of answers given by the 23 witness. I'm not sure which out of sequence discussion 24 we're talking about.
25 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, do you remember r* :
< c;mrt_rroemstroa -
mg-#6 249 12249 1 cur c nvcrsation cbout wh:t c:nstituted designing .,
something out of sequence?
9 2 3 A I think I characterized a day or two ago that 4 clearly if you haven't perf ormed an activity at all and 5 you thought you were completed with your work and then 6 you uncovered af ter the fact that lo and behold you had
'7 totally ignored some design feature that was needed f or 8 the power plant, if by testing that situation you were 9 to determine that it either, if lef t uncorrected, 10 constituted an adverse impact on safe plant operation or 11 it was of a systemic character and theref ore it could 12 constitute a significant breakdown in gus11ty assurance, 13 that you would have the makings of something reportable C
o l CJ 14 and clearly it's out of sequence. I think I remember a 15 discussion of that charactor.
16 0 I was really ref erring to about four minutes 17 ago you and I were talking about the pipe break analysis 18 outside of containment and whether that was out of 19 sequence.
20 A I remember, Mr. Sinkin, we had a conversation, 21 but it escapes me what out of sequence you're referring 22 to.
23 0 All right.
24 HR. AXELRAD: My recollection is the witness 25 did not say it was out of sequence, he said it was TATR DEDODPTMC (711) AOR-PAAS
sg-96 250 1 1cto. O 2 MR. SINKIN: That was his answer to the 3 question, but the question was was it out of sequence.
4 We obviously had a concept in f ront of us we were 5 dealing with.
6 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, can you 7 conceive of any deficiency that exists only in a draf t 8 document which could lead to a potentially reportable 9 item or which -- I should not say it could lead.
10 Can you conceive of any deficiency in a draf t 11 document which would be a potentially reportable item?
12 A Yes, I can.
13 0 So, the mere f act that a document is a draf t 14 does not rule out the possibility .it contains 15 potentially reportable items?
16 A Certainly if one were to take what's called a 17 draf t document and use it with the belief that it is 18 conservative and construct a saf ety-related device which 19 upon further subsequent development is shown to be 20 technically inadequate, and that failure to have 21 detected this problem would have constituted the 22 requisite tests f or reportability, then that would be 23 repor tabic.
24 If it's not a normal reiterative program and ff 25 you undertook a risk and you didn't classify it as a r* ,y cnTtnrerswm - I?1u aon-naa9
sg-86 251 1 known rick cnd it wc n't of the character that is normal 2 to design development, that could be a case where it -
3 would be reportable. But it would be very essential to 4 reach the point where that information was used to 5 construct the plant. If that information is just 6 sitting on an engineer's desk awaiting further 7 deliberation, the mere f act that it's not final and it 8 may not be correct in itself is not reportable.
9 Q Would you ever use a TRD that was still in 10 draft form for construction?
11 A I think we have to get more specific than 12 that. I think there are certain areas where that might 13 be appropriate.
()
ll 14 0 Is it possible that while Brown & Root was on 15 the job April-May 1981, that they would have used one of 16 their draft TRD's for construction?
17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Sinkin, can you change 18 the word possible to anything else? Anything is 19 po ssible.
20 MR. SINKIN: Well, I think I'd like to first 21 establish that it's simply not impossible.
22 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I'll obj ect to 23 that question anyway. I don't see what the relevance of 24 a general question of that type can have to this f 25 proceeding.
p> .
TATP RFPORPTNn (711) AQP-Raa9
T Eg-66 252 '
1 We have specific discipline findings and _
, 2 generic findings which are at issue in this proceeding.
3 Mr. Sinkin has been trying through some of the earlier 4 questions to obtain from Mr. Goldberg some explanation 5 of how draf t documents may or may not sometimes be 6 used. But to then go on to a generic question with 7 respect to whether or not that could possibly have 8 happened could not be of any probative value in this 9 proceeding.
10 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chai rman, I think the flow of 11 it is very clear. I asked about a specific document, 12 the conditions of a specific document as to why that was 13 reportable or not reportable. That was objected to, so i
O ;
to 14 I said I'd try come foundation questions. My first set 15 of foundation questions dealt with whether draf t 16 documents could be used f or construction. The answer 17 was yes. The second question was could TRD's in draf t 18 be used for construction. The answer was possibly might 19 be appropriate. The third question was would you 20 expect, I'll word it that way, would you expect to find 21 Brown & Root using draft TRD's for construction. I 22 think there's a logical flow here towards where I'm 23 going.
24 VR. AXELRAD: There is certainly not a logical g
j)'
u 25 flow with respect to the cross-examination which began
- p. .,
Lg-86 253 12253 1 with rc pect to finding 4.7.3.1(k) with a ctatcm:nt in 2 the answer that begins that the design was not released .
3 for construction. And I f ail to see how the reievance 4 of whether or not any other draf t TRD in any other 5 situation may or may not have been released for 6 construction or used for construction can have any 7 relevance to the explanation of this finding.
8 MR. SINKIN: I'm getting at the bases that Mr.
9 Goldberg is giving f or why this was not potentially 10 repor tabl e. I am trying to get some foundation 11 questions in. We will then get to the specific things 12 that are in this finding.
13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Just a second.
('T
\/ 14 JUDGE SHON: I guess the difficulty here seems 15 to be that you made an eff ort to ask a question that I 16 think then had changed in the answer in a sense. I 17 think Mr. Sinkin really meant to ask you whether it was 18 possible that a draf t still undergoing review could 19 reveal a significant breakdown in QA. Your answer had 20 been a draf t that's still undergoing review could only
- 21 represent a reportable circumstance if, in effect, it 22 had been used for construction without knowing that it 23 was simply a draf t. Isn't that correct?
24 THE WITNESS: And if -- I think the context of 25 the answer, as I recollect it, was that if you issued l' '
{
TATE REPORTTNG (711) dQR Rad?
Ug",JU 254 12254 1 f:r constructicn c document by whnt;ver chcrcctor ycu . . . _ . _ _
2 wish to call it which contained an error and resulted in 3 a situation which would be reportable, then clearly that 4 situation would be reportable.
5 JUDGE SHON: But there is another horn to the 6 dilemma, so to speak, or another edge to the sword in 7 that I think Mr. Sinkin was trying to visualize a TRD 8 which is in draf t and which has some sort of error in 9 it, but which represents a significant breakdown in 10 quality assurance. Can you envision such a thing?
11 THE WITNESS: I guess in my mind if we're 12 talking about work that is still under development and 13 if one were to take a photograph at a point in time n
( )
t/
14 before the development is completed and conclude it .
15 contains a potential error, that that in itself doesn't 16 in my mind make the case for something reportable in the 17 context of a quality deficiency. The engineering 18 process goes f ar beyond j ust capturing a segment of it 19 and looking at it and saying I see a problem without 20 regard to what other things are going to have to go on 21 before that product is finalized.
22 Apparently this whole area -- the context of 23 this particular question addressed an area which Brown &
24 Root was still in the pioneering stage. They had not ff 25 sorted out technically how they were going to handle
(' ..
Ef0UDJViW6PJ0W Nm
E g',)U 12255 1 thic cnchor problan becau:2 it was related to pipe brenk -
2 outside containment. They hadn't even addressed the -
3 pipe break outside containment. They didn't know what 4 the loads were.
5 And at that point in time, as I understand it, 6 they had a rule, I call a rule of thumb that many 7 engineers were using back in the seventies that if one 8 treated rigorously the loads on the safety-related side 9 of the anchor and then doubled those loads, that that 10 was an adequate accountability for what was happening on 11 the non-nuclear side of the anchor. Engineers came to 12 find out that that wasn't always true, that one had to 13 go to at least one anchor beyond that anchor to. ensure .
,9
\s' 14 that you quantifled those loads. And they may or may 15 not be just double. Sometimes it might be more than 16 double.
17 I think that there's no question that Brown &
18 Root would not have failed to find that out because they 19 hadn't gotten to that point in time. At the risk of 20 sounding immodest, I was on the project and Quadrex had 21 reported to me that this was an area that they hadn't 22 properly sorted out. There's no question in my mind it 23 would have been sorted out long before it got released 24 for construction.
25 JUDGE SHON: Does that sufficiently restrict v ,
6
Eg-46 256 1 the answer end cum it up for you, Mr. Sinkin? 256 2 MR. SINKIN: It 's very helpf ul, Judge Shon, 3 very helpf ul.
4 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Did Quadrex find any 5 engineers involved in this seismic to non-seismic 6 boundary anchor design group who were aware that the 7 doubling of the load was not an appropriate technique?
8 A I don't really know. The f act that it existed 9 in the document would suggest that somebody there must 10 have thought it made sense, but I f rankly don't know if 11 they interviewed people and asked was this your idea.
12 Q I want to get an idea with this example of 13 what quality assurance functions are performed before a
(~'\ '
t' 14 design is released for construction. For eyample, would 15 it have been somehow appropriate for there to be a 16 quality assurance audit of design and engineering that 17 would look at whether the B&R assumptions for seismic to 18 non-seismic boundary anchors were conservative or not?
19 A I think in the process of the design 20 activities there would be calculations performed that 21 would identify the modeling technique and assumptions 22 used. Those have to be specified by the individual 23 perf orming the analysis. And then quite independent of )
24 that individual, another individual with equal or f 25 comparable skill would have to perform an independent ,
r* ,
TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
Cg-UI3 257 i 1 dacign verification and he would hc.ve to review the
} 225]__
2 reasonableness of the modeling techniques and the -
3 reasonableness of the assumptions.
4 And that, incidentally, is precisely how this 5 same rule of thumb was challenged in another architect 6 engineering firm of f ar greater experience than Brown &
7 Root and precisely how it was determined that it was not 8 a conservative, assumption. And there's nothing to 9 suggest that that wouldn't have happened in this case as 10 well.
11 (No hiatus) 12 13 (a_) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
./
1
12258 1 Q Distinguishing between quality assurance small 2 QA, which applies to all safety related activities and 3 quality assurance big QA which refers to the department 4 that conducts that function; is that a distinction you 5 are comfortable with?
6 A Yes, I am.
7 Q Prior to the release of a design for 8 construction, is there any point where quality assurance 9 capital QA might have come in to examine the Brown & Root 10 assumptions for seismic to non-seismic boundary anchors?
11 A There's always that possibility.
12 0 If there had been such an audit and the quality 13 assure.nce personnel found thst the assumptions were 14 probably un conservative, but the design verification 15 that you just spoke of had not been done yet, would there 16 nonetheless be a non-conformance report written on the 17 fact that the cssumptions werc not conservative?
18 A No, I don't know that there would have been a 19 non-conformance report. I'm pretty sure --
20 Q I don't want excuse me. I didn't want to.get
't
__ 21 stuck in the terminology. If some other document would 22 be used by quality assurance and design engineering, 23 whatever the document would be, would they write up a )
l 24 deficiency? i i
25 A There would be clearly concerns noted if TATE REPO$ TING SERVICE, 498-8442 012:58
12259 1 somebody observed work in process that wasn't yet 2 completed and felt that they may have observed a concern, 3 an error or a potential mistake or an uncertainty, that 4 that would be highlighted.
5 Now, you use the characterization a quality 6 assurance type audit. If in fact quality assurance had 7 audited that particular area and if they made that 8 observation, they undoubtedly would have at least 9 highlighted that while the work isn't finished, "It does 10 not appear in every respect to be potentially correct, 11 somebody better take a look at this."
12 0 Would they have written an audit deficiency 13 report?
i '
14 A I don't think so.
15 Q How would they have highlighted it?
16 A As a concern.
17 Q They uculd are have uritten it as a concern in 18 their audit report?
19 A They have in audit reports an opportunity to 20 provide cogent comments that they feel would be useful to 21 the organization that they're auditing.
22 Mr. Sinkin, I'd like to perhaps use an 23 illustration, if I might, that might help in this 24 particular area. You know, if you were in the process of 25 performing an analytical work, let's say back in college, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12260 1 and you had undertaken to do the job but you hadn't 2 finished; a professor came along and looked over your 3 shoulder and noticed that you were doing it wrong.
4 I would hope that he wouldn't grado you then 5 and there until you had finished your work. It's 6 distinctly possible that you would sort it out and get it 7 right before you turned it in as find work.
8 0 Well, there's no question that we are far more 9 concerned with finished work that's being used for 10 construction than for draft work that might have to be 11 verified later but the question still remains whether the 12 deficiency in the draft before verification is a 13 potentially reportable finding.
14 "n. A"ELnAD: Thcrc'c no quection pending, I 15 assume.
16 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) In our diccussion cbout decign 17 verification, uc talked about the qualifications of the 18 verification engineer and how the verification engineer 19 would be selected by management. If I remember 20 correctly, you said that you know an engineer in 21 qualified if he has a degree in the field of engincoring 22 and in on the job at the plant, you know that he's 23 basically qualified as an engineer. In that correct?
24 !!R. A"ELRAD : I object to that characterication 25 of the testimony, Mr. Chairman. I do not have any
%/
TATE REPORTIt:G SERVICE, 490-8442 012260 L
1 I 12261 !
1 recollection of any such testimony having been given. ,
2 The best of my recollection, the testimony was that the 3 qualification of engineers are judged by their t l 4 supervisors and not that not a degree in and of itself is 5 sufficient qualification.
6 MR. SINKIN's Other than checking to see -- and l
7 I'll withdraw the question, !!r. chairman. !
8 0 (By !!r. Sinkin) Other than checking to see if l
9 an engineer is in fact degreed, how do you check whether fr l 10 an engineer is qualified?
l 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: For what purpose?
12 O (Dy I-tr. Sinkin) Hall, wo'ro talking about the 13 design and engineering group at a nuclear power plant, !
O 14 1ce'o ec:: trice le to thee group. vou wane to know t 15 whether a particular engineer in a discipline is ,
t 16 qualified, como questions como up in your mind or you're '
17 juct choching to mahc yourself comfortable. ,
18 Other than checking to see if that engineer is -
19 in fact degreed, how would you go about deciding whether 20 the engineer was qualified?
21 A In the case of engineering, and it rnay apply to 22 law, when an engineer graduates from college, ho 23 invariably has a good understanding of the basic 24 fundamentals of his chosen field of endeavor.
25 Unleno he's been fortunate enough to get a lot TATE REPORTI!!G SCRVICE, 408-8442 n t r; ,) On1A.
UA i i
.,-,,--,.,,-n - , , - - - - , - . . - - - - - . ,e,ree. ,,.p-g------,,--pem,-,,-.
. - , - - - - , - . - ,-m _ _
m-m ,--- ,-~~--m -w-
12262 j 1 of fic1d expocure, perhaps, in a co-op program, the 2 likelihood is that that engineer has not had too much 3 expocure to actual working environment where you must 4 apply those principals.
5 It's boon the practice in most of the 6 engineering projects that I've ever been associated with, 7 that brand new engineers coming out of college are 0 ucually accigned fairly low key and not too cophisticated 9 accignments where they can be more or locs chopparded by 10 more ocanoned engineers in their early development.
11 And through that procons, they do develop 12 certain working chills. And when thoso chilla are 13 recogniced by the percon rerponcibic for accigning work, 14 then that percen in given nore recponcibic vork en their 15 own.
16 Co it'c not a cimpic metter of just taking 17 ccmebody with c icbc1 and scourc.ing they're gut.lified.
la You have to have como demonctrated confidence that 19 they're ready for that particular role.
20 0 Uc11, in the iden that the cupervicor colects 21 the percon baced on their qualifications, if quality 22 accurance poraonnel, OA capital QA, unnted to come along 23 and check on whether a given engincor wac qualified or 24 not, would they have any other meanc than going to the 25 cupervicor and caying, "Ic it your opinion that that TATC ECPORTI!!G SCnVICC, 498-8442 0122G2
12263 engineer is qualified?"
h 1 2 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 3 object to this line of questioning. It's very general, 4 very broad. I don't believe that we have either the 5 training program or the qualification program for 6 engineers at issue in this proceeding.
7 If there is a particular finding which Mr.
O Sinkin wants to link this particular line of questioning 9 to, and if he can get to the point of whatever the 10 difficultiec he has with the explanation that HL&P is 11 giving for non-reportability, then perhaps we can develop 12 a useful record in this proceeding.
13 I do not con hou uc can get anywhere with this 14 broad, vague and irrelevant line of qucctioning.
15 MR. SINKIN: !!r. Chairman, I seem to be 16 generating a lot of objections from foundation questionc.
17 In the previouc prococJing, I generated a lot of 18 objections by not aching foundation questions, so I made 19 it a deliberate undertaking in this proceeding to ask 20 foundations questions. These are simply foundation 21 questions to get the general picture of how you measure 22 the competence of an engineer. They are then going to 23 move into cpecific c::ampice uhere we can talk about that 24 topic.
25 I'm trying to determine in this quection TATC REPORTIDC SCRVICC, 490-0442 012263
e 12264 1 whether there is a means by which even quality assurance 2 can know whether an engineer is qualified, other than 3 just to ask the supervisor.
4 MR REIS: Mr. Chairman, if the staff can be 5 heard. In each of these discipline findings, of course, 6 the engineering is generally not qualified or the 7 engineers are generally not qualified it might have some 8 relevance.
9 But really, it's pretty far removed. I wonder 10 from the particular matters of whether it be the seismic 11 anchors or the instruments to air piping, and the 12 question's here, or should each of these or any of these, 13 should any of these matters have been reported under x_ ' 14 50.55 (e) .
15 It isn't a question of whether the -- HL&P 16 should report that a particular Brown & Root engineer was 17 unquclified or that a group of Drcun & noot engineers la were unqualified. Even if we look at the report as a 19 whole and consider whether the report should have been 20 submitted as a whole, I still don't think that it comes 21 to a question of qualification of engineers, the 22 standards for qualifications of engineers.
23 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, I may be able to 24 make this easier. If you'll turn to Page 45, Line 20, 25 where it speaks of ALARA reviewers were selected by the 9 012284 TATE REPORTIMG SERVICC, 498-8442
12265 1 B&R project manager who was responsible to assure they 2 were qualified to perform their assigned functions.
3 Now, here's a specific instance wherein a 4 Quadrex finding, the finding addresses whether there 5 exists a procedure to define the minimum qualification 6 for ALARA reviewers.
7 The answer says: "You don't need a specific 0 procedure, because they are selected by the B&R 9 engineering project manager who is responsible to assure 10 they are qualified."
11 My question I could rephrase, the question I 12 just asked: Is there a method by which the quality 13 accurence department could determine uhether the Brown &
m s ,/ 14 Root engineering project manager ucc indeed colecting 15 people who were qualified, other than by asking him?
16 JUDGE BECEHOEFER: That's however, relating 17 this specificn11y to finding 4.G.2.l(b), and only that 18 one, because that is --
19 MR. SINKIN: We'll limit it to that for the 20 moment, fine.
21 JUDGE SHOU: Good.
22 JUDGE DECl!HOEFER: Heren't you a page,back?
23 JUDGE SHON: I thought you were on another page 24 entirely, myself.
25 liR. SIUKIN: I was. The example I was using 9
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 012265
12266 (q) I was growing out of the information I found there and I 2 was proceeding to go ahead and explore the topic, but we 3 can do it this way. I 4 MR. AXELRAD: Could we have the question 5 repeated for the witness?
6 JUDGE SHON: I think there's one other detail.
7 This thing mentioned here on Page 45, Question 68 and 69, 8 seems to discuss the minimum qualifications for ALARA 9 reviewers.
10 You were talking about the minimum 11 qualifications for engineers, while in ALARA reviewer may 12 well be an engineer. It's not clear in my mind that all 13 or either of these thin,gs are the other ones.
() 14 Mn. SINKIN: Let me clarify thct. Let's start l 15 with the basic question and we'll try this again.
16 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) can any engineer competently 17 conduct an ALARA review or are there specific 18 requirements that must be met before you qualify to 19 review ALARA?
20 A There's clearly are certain skills that would 21 be very desirable for an ALARA reviewer to have if he 1
22 were to perform his job effectively.
23 0 What would those skills be?
24 A Well, someone who has had responsibility for 25 perhaps health physics activities, at another facility; 9
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 012266
(.
'i
/ 12267 1 ALARA in itself is a program to reduce insofar as 2 practical the' radiation exposure of operators and 3 maintenance personnel in the plant as well as exposure to 4 the public in the event ot an accident. And kind of 5 skills that would serve a person well in carrying out J
6 that rule would be those of either a health physics 7 profession or a nuclear engineer who was charged with the 8 responsibility for performing radiological assessments 9 and therefore has some appreciation for the things that 10 can minimize those exposures.
11 Q Now, if the quality assurance department on its 12 audit list had a question to be checked into, "Are the
. 13 ALARA reviewers adequately qualified," and they went to
) ld the department, discipline, and wanted to determine 15 whether the ALARA reviewers were adequately qualified,
$d what would they look at as the required qualifications to 17 know whether a given ALAnA reviewer was qualified if ,
18 there was no procedure which defined these minimum 19 qualifications?
20 A They cl'early would walk up to the technical i 21 supervisor and inquire on what basis they could ask that 22 of any engineer on the project for that matter, "Is that 23 person qualified to perform the role that he is 24 performing."
25 Q Do the ALARA -- does the quality assurance rs f
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 012267
12268 1 department have its own criteria list for ALARA reviewers 2 that it takes out on the audit?
3 A No, I don't believe so. I think that they 4 would probably -- now we're going back to this point in 5 time, we're taking --
6 Q May 1981?
7 A -- May 1981. I think the way they would have 8 gone about it is just as I pointed out. They would have 9 to ask the person in technical charge, "What gives you 10 the basis to believe that engineer 'X' is qualified to 11 perform his or her particular role."
12 You know, the same will hold true if I walked 13 up to the quality escurance ma. nager and asked him what r s
't_j 14 vere the qualifications for each and overy person in the f 15 quality assurance organization itself.
I 16 Q Are you saying that in the quality assurance 17 organization, there aren't certifications in the files of 18 the person showing what their qualifications are?
i l 19 A It depends on their respective jobs. Their 20 qualifications for a quality assurance engineer is l
l __ 21 probably very similar, in his field of expertise, as it 22 would be for an engineer on the project.
23 0 When I think of quality assurance auditing, I 24 don't think of it as just simply taking someone's word 25 for something. Therp i something against which you are 8
4 nne TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 0144U0 ;
12269 ,
1 checking. The quality assurance auditor is going into 2 the department, he wants to know if aN ALARA reviewer is 3 qualified, and he asks the engineering project manager, 4 "Is this ALARA reviewer qualified?"
5 And the manager says, "Yes." And he stops 6 there; is that what you're saying; that's it?
7 A In the absence of job descriptions, which is a 8 product of far more recent technological advancement of 9 this industry, which wasn't vogue in 1981, there's a lot 10 more now going for a quality assurance auditor regarding 11 qualifications of everyone on a project, just about.
12 O So in your view, the cbsence of a document 13 which defined the minimum qualifications requirements for U' 14 AMnA revicuers did not crecto a quclity cssuranecI 15 problem.
16 !!E . REIS: Asked and answered.
17 ME. SINEIU: I'm not so sure that particular 18 question was exactly asked and answered.
19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I don't remember. I'll l 20 overrule the objection.
21 A I believe I previously stated that there were 22 no specific written documents, to the best of my 23 knowledge, that identified what were the requisite 24 qualifications for each engineering assignment on the 25 proj ect.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 012269
12270 1 But if someone questioned the qualifications of 2 an engineer, they'd have to present that concern to the 3 technical manager and identify either on what basis do 4 you believe that person is qualified or in lieu of our -
5 review of his work which has been found to be 6 consistently faulty, we believe that person is not 7 qualified.
8 But there did not exist, to the best of my 9 knowledge, at that point in time in the project, with a 10 document that formally structured qualifications of each 11 technical position on the project.
12 JUDGE SECHUOEFFER: Limiting it only to ALARA, 13 were there any such requirements with respect to persons 14 pcrticipating in the ALAnA program?
15 THE WITNESS: To the best of my knowledge, 16 there were no written prescriptions, if you will, on what 17 skills, what person required, uculd be required to have, 18 but that, in my mind, would be in the same category as 19 asking the question about any other discipline.
20 In other words, there was no written l
21 prescription to the best of my knowledge, eitner for l 22 ALARA reviewers or for civil engineers or for mechanical 23 engineers or for nuclear engineers, that we start with 1
24 certain formal training and then certain knowledge about l l
25 the ability of the person to perform certain tasks. i TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 498-8442 01'9970 l
l l
l
12271 1 And in -- I cnswered earlier, the types of 2 backgrounds that I would suspect would be useful to have 3 if were one an ALARA reviewer.
4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Here there any construction 5 commitments to develop any such standards?
6 THE WITNESS: Not that I'm aware of.
7 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Do you consider the effective 8 implementation of ALARA reviews to be a quality assurance 9 requirement?
10 A ALARA was one of the technical roles to be 11 performed by the project. ALARA review was certainly the 12 vehicle by which that wcs to the performed; they had 13 established separate engineers designated as ALARA 7,
() 14 reviewers; and the plan was to use that skill to review -
15 the work performed by other technical disciplines to 16 determine if there were opportunities to further reduce 17 in a prcctical way, the possible enpo.mure to plant 10 personnel, to radiation.
19 If that program hadn't functioned, that would 20 have constituted a breakdown in quality since that was 21 part of the plan for the design process.
22 0 At the time Quadrex conducted there study, they 23 said there is limited evidence that proper follow-up has 24 occurred to verify incorporation of ALARA specified 25 designs. That's in the finding in answer 68. If indeed 9 012271 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12272 1 there was not proper follow--up, to verify incorporation 2 of ALARA specified design, would that in your view be a 3 quality assurance breakdown?
4 A If we found a systematic failure by the project 5 team to deal with the ALARA requirements, and that that 6 usa in direct defiance of project established procedural 7 requirements, and as a result of that systematic failure 8 we were not achieving the desired objectives set forth in 9 the ALARA program that that might well have been a 10 reportable item.
11 0 In your view as of May 7, 1981, did the work of 12 Brown & Root on ALARA meet the minimum requirements in 13 your view for that kind of work?
l 14 A I think Broun & Root was litorally just getting 15 started in this ALARA program. I can't recall with 16 confidence exactly when I signed out the ALARA policy 17 manual for the South To::as project, but it uas either 18 slightly before that point in time or it may have even 19 been after.
20 I think that the project had established some 21 very lofty ALARA goals and I think they were still in the 22 process of developing the machinery to carry it out. The 23 nuclear plant design was in an extremely preliminary 24 stage of completion. I didn't perceive that the current 25 state of the union on ALARA was out of touch with the 8 012272 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12273 1 current state of the rest of the design.
2 0 On page 47, the question and answer '75, Mr.
3 Goldberg. If you would just review those for a moment.
4 Are you ready?
5 A Yes, I am.
6 Q In your view, you state that the requirement 7 for radiation zone drawings based upon accident 8 conditions was a post TMI requirement that Brown & Root 9 had not yet addressed in its design work?
10 In your view, had Brown & Root begun addressing 11 that requirement for radiation =one drawings by May of 12 19817 13 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. cchairman, I'm going to
/ 14 object to that question. Again, the finding is that the 15 drawings had not been prepared. And the answer that's 16 provided by HL&P does not contest this but simply says 17 that that fact is not reportable. I don't think that the 18 personal views cf the witness as to when work should have 19 been done affects the reportability of that particular or 20 the fact that particular work had not yet been done.
21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think we'll overrule the 22 objection at this stage and we'll have to see how get 23 into this.
24 A I don't think so. And let me explain why.
25 Sometime in this time frame, and again I can't be sure e
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 012273
12274 1 whether it was before, during, or after the Quadrex 2 review, NUREG 0637 was being promulgated by the NRC; that 3 contained a substantial portion of the TMI action plan.
4 The projects that were scrambling to try to deal with the 5 post TMI issues were units that were either very close to 6 being finished or units that may have already been 7 operating and for which the NRC was identifying selective 8 areas where backfitting would be required.
9 The fact that the project hadn't reacted 10 instantly to the post TMI requirements may well represent 11 a benefit rather than a risk, because had they reacted as 12 rapidly as some of the other utilities, particularly the 13 ones that had plants that were almost complete, they 14 vould hcve done a lot of things beforo even the NRC's 15 final feelings about it had settled down.
16 So I don't see this as a fundamental character 17 defect by Broun & Root. They were busy trying to deal 18 with issues for which they thought the regul uions were 19 firm, and I don't think I'd fault them for not rushing 20 into dealing with areas where the regulations were still 21 somewhat volatile.
22 0 Turning to page 48, finding 4.8.2.1 (g). If 23 you would just review question 77 and answer 77.
24 In your view, tir. Goldberg, should the design 25 basis for removable concrete walls been completed by May 9
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12275 1 7, 1981?
2 A I believe that portion dealing with the seismic 3 adequacy of the walls would have had to have been firmed 4 up before the walls were installed. As I understand it, 5 the portion of the standard that still hadn't been 6 addressed -- well, let's go back and talk about concrete, 7 or block walls.
8 These were put in in areas where maintenance 9 access required the ability to remove the wall for 10 maintenance access. And I think the question raised by 11 Quadrex was that what would be the shielding 12 considerations if ue tock the wall down in order to 13 provide access or maintenance.
(_) 14 And Brown & Root hadn't gotten around to 15 discussing that in their standard.
16 Now, there's a lot of different scenarios. One 17 scenario is that the vall night hcVe its most important 18 application during operation as opposed to when the 19 particular piece of equipment might be shut down.
20 Another scenario is that if it had an area of high 21 residual radioactivity and yet the wall was needed to be 22 removed for possible access for maybe pulling the tube 23 bundle of the heat exchanger, some temporary shaddow 24 shielding would have to be provided for the maintenance 25 personnel so as to limit their exposure.
9 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 012275
12276 1 So to the degree that we understand this 2 statement to be incomplete, we did not feel it 3 constituted a problem.
4 0 nell, my question was should they have done 5 this work by may the 7th, and your answer is --
6 A The portion of the work that needed to be done 7 by May 7, to the best of my knowledge, was done.
8 0 Uas done?
9 A That is correct.
10 Q Are you saying that they had done the portion 11 that dealt with whether it was a wall whose shielding was 12 more required during operation than a wall whose shield 13 wall was not required?
(_f 14 A Mo, I hope I didn't confuse you. The portion 15 that needed to be in place before walls where erected was 16 the portion dealing with the seismicity capability of the 17 wall. Some of these walls had to be designed so that 18 they would not fall down during an earthquake.
19 0 And that was the only missing piece?
20 A' Ho, that was the piece that was there.
21 0 That was the piece that was there, okay. Thank 22 you.
23 Mr. Goldberg, I'm handing you a page from a 24 report that perhaps is now familiar to you to some 25 extent, which I will ask be marked as CCAMP 85.
9 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 01~9276
12277 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: 4.
2 MR. SINKIN: I'm sorry, 84.
3 (CCANP Exhibit 84 marked 4 for identification.)
5 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Have you had a chance to 6 review this, Mr. Goldberg?
7 A Yes, I have.
8 Q This, in this document, it says that Brown &
9 Root general structural design criteria were in place at 10 the time of the Quadrex review that included a design 11 basis and required consideration of shielding 12 requirements when removable concrete walls are used. Are 13 ,
you saying that su.ch a criteria was not in place at the
) 14 time Quadrox did their study?
15 A I think what I said was that if you take the 16 wall down or if you remove a plug from the wall and you 17 create a hole where you previously hcd concrete, I don't 18 think Brown & Root had addressed in this standard how 19 they would deal with the associated radiation.
20 I said that there are different radiation 21 considerations. One deals with what needs to be there 22 routinely when the plant's operating versus what do you 23 do when the plant is being maintained and you have a need 24 to remove either the whole wall or any part of it.
25 And I think it's that facet that was S
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 01227.7
12278 1 highlighted when Quadrex performed its review and I don't 2 think that Brown & Root supplied an answer to that 3 question. But I don't see that question that that 4 question is a particularly onerous one. There are other 5 ways that you can deal with that problem given that you 6 have to provide access for maintenunce.
7 Q Had any of these walls, to your knowledge, been 8 installed?
9 A I think there were some.
10 0 So is this the sort of activity where you would 11 use preliminary documents and actually do construction, 12 do a later analysis and if the design did not meet your 13 requirements for shielding, rebuild the wall or otherwise 14 modify the uc11?
15 A I don't think that has anything to do with this 16 issue. I think the iscue here is that Brown & Root had 17 in place the necesrary technicc1 direction for the use of 18 these block walls; that they were properly addressed from 19 a standpoint of seismicity and radiation protection under 20 normal plant conditions. The question, as I understand 21 it, it was raised by Quadre::, is when you remove the 22 removable plug or you take down a wall, this does in fact 23 change the radiation environment to possible maintenance 24 personnel that are going to be in the area, and what have 25 you done to address that, and is a different kind of a i
9 012278 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12279 1 question.
2 Q That is a shielding question?
3 A That's the radiological protection question, 4 associated with maintenance operations and that would 5 invariably be something that would have to be developed 6 as a separate issue.
7 (No Hiatus.)
8 9
10 11 12 13 ,
/ \
(_/ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 012279 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
cg-#8 279 1
12279gh JUDGE BECHBOEFER: Mr. Goldbe rg, I'm not sure _ _ _ _ _
2 how that is consistent with what you said in the answer 3 to -- in answer 77.
4 THE WITNESS: It was really referring to that 5 part of the temporary walls. The structural part and 6 'the amount of concrete needed for the radiological 7 protection was settled. As I understood the point at 8 issue was what are the radiological considerations when 9 those walls have to be taken down in part or in total.
10 JUDGE SHON: In other words, you might say 11 that a better way of putting the finding was that a l'2 design basis governing the conditions when a removable 13 concrete block wall is removed in whole or in part; (m. .
(s 14 isn ' t that right? ,
15 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, sir.
16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And, normally, if you were 17 looking at a design for such walls, would you expect 18 that latter portion of the criteria to be developed 19 af ter the fact or af ter the wall is built?
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. There's no 21 question -- in my mind it's a totally separate 22 evolution.
23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, doesn't the way you 24 build the wall have some impact on what the removable l'
( )j 25 portion would be?
01;:79 TATP RE PORTTNC (711) aQA, Rad?
Eg-fe.
2 88 12280 1 THE WITNESS: Well, clearly if we're _______
2- talking -- let's take a simple example. Let's take a -
3 wall that has to have a removable section, let's say, to 4 gain access to a particular piece of machinery. And 5 maybe it's fitted with a particular set of blocks that 6 have to be removed. There has to be access to get'to 7 the blocks certainly so they can be removed. And then 8 once they have been removed, personnel have to work in 9 the area to remove the machinery. And if the use of 18 supplemental shielding, you know, will reduce their 11 whole body exposure, then that will be designed as a 12 separate, you know, effort.
13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: This is like putting the .
14 block on a hinge so that it could be taken out and put 15 back faster or something like that?
16 THE WITNESS: Well, in the context of ALARA, 17 if you're able to come up with a more efficient 18 removable device which will minimize the amount of time 19 that personnel are down there in the removal and the 20 reinstallation, that that certainly will enhance the 21 ALARA considerations.
22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, could you say that 23 the wall as built, say, and if not corrected would not 24 constitute a safety hazard?
s 25 THE WITNESS: Well, if we're talking first off 012230 weunwaws uuuveuvwn
Elg-18 1 281 -
12281 1 cbout, let'c say, the saismic competence of the wall, i f -- -- --
2 this wall was located contiguous to safety-related 3 machinery, it would be important that this wall be able 4 to withstand earthquake so that in the event of 5 earthquake it didn't topple down and compromise the 6 machinery. And that's one of the early considerations 7 for the use of block walls is to ensure that they have 8 structural integrity for earthquake motion given that 9 that's a design feature that they need.
10 The second consideration is that they be 11 constructed of sufficient material and thickness to deal 12 with whatever radiological obj ectives that wall has to 13 serve under normal plant operation because it's, in p
Es 14 effect, just a substitute for a reinforced" concrete 15 vall. And the reason for the use of the block wall is 16 to gain access with far less difficulty than trying to 17 remove a reinf orced concrete wall. I mean, that's 18 principally the application for the use of block walls.
19 But once you take the block wall down to 20 perf orm whatever the maintenance practice is that you 21 seek to do, that raises another separate question which 22 is for the persons involved in the activity, once the 23 wall is down, what additional protection might you have 24 to provide those personnel? And that's a whole separate O
(.) 25 area, design of special shadow shields for the t G&Q
.L~~J W%iPELPWJfoT-RRN5L
Eg-68 282 1
12282 particular maintonnnca operction. It usually does not _ _ _ _
2 go hand in hand with designing the block wall. -
3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, then, this doe sn ' t 4 relate to the exposure, if any, that persons outside the 5 site, the general public would receive? !
6 THE WITNESS: No, sir. This would be all 7 internal structure.
8 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Is it possible that the 9 actual thickness of the wall would determine whether it 10 would have to be removed or not?
11 A No. Usually the requirement for the wall 12 being removable is associated with needing to gain 13 access for the perf ormance of some uncommon but clearly f')
t/ 14 maybe a potentially necessary operation of the life of 15 the plant.
16 Q As I read CCANP 85, there is some shielding 17 calculation that goes into the actual wall itself.
18 A That is correct.
19 0 And that would be with the wall in place where 20 personnel have to pass by it, are they adequately 21 shielded; is that correct?
22 A That's correct.
23 Q And that's an ALARA kind of review and a 24 shield --
(~')
gj 25 A It's precisely an ALARA consideration because 012:32 mreuwmams cuuu_ m - -
cg-#8 283 12283 1 here you have a host of options. When one designs a _ _ _
2 nuclear power plant, in any given place which has some 3 potential exposure to ionizing radiation, depending on 4 what shielding is in place will define the level of 5 radiation in that particular location.
6 Now, depending on where personnel are likely 7 to reside either for plant operation activities or 8 maintenance activities will help to dictate what kinds 9 of consideration should be paid to an area that is 10 inf requently traversed by personnel. Clearly to spend 11 time and financial resources to reduce radiation levels 12 would be most inappropriate. But to the areas where 13 personnel are likely to reside for any length of time, im
'\ >) 14 either for plant operation or maintenance activities, 15 those would be the places that one should be spending 16 some effort to look for practical ways to reduce the 17 levels.
18 Q Is ALARA at all associated with accident 19 conditions?
20 A You must in the context of the TMI 21 considerations certainly examine what kinds of 22 anticipated radiation levels you're going to be facing 23 following postulated accidents in order to determine 24 whether or not locations in proximity to where personnel g0-) 25 may have to proceed to redress for recovery of the v
011:33 wwuammo. -
sg-tB 2 84 -
I cccid nt, that they can gat to thoss arecs and can 8 2 3
perf orm their associated f unctions without being exposed to undue amounts of radiation.
4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Sinkin, I think you in 5 your previous question or one of several, probably 6 several pages back, referred to CCANP 84 rather than 7 85.
8 MR. SINKIN: Excuse me. You're correct. I 9 marked it wrong.
10 MR. AXEL RAD: Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Sinkin is 11 proceeding to another subj ect, this might be an 12 appropriate time to take a short break.
13 MR. SINKIN: Just before I do that, I would
\/ 14 move CCANP 84 into evidence in the same f ashion that 15 CCANP 81 and CCANP 75 were admitted, for the limited 16 purposes as defined at that time.
17 MR. AXELRAD: No obj ection, Mr. Chairman.
18 MR. REIS: No obj ection.
19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. CCANP 84 will be 20 admitted subject to the limitations referred to.
21 MR. SINKIN: And this is a fine time for a 22 break, Mr. Chai rman.
23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Why don't we take a 24 fifteen-minute break.
25 (Rece ss. )
012:34 TATE REPORTING.
cg-UW 285 1 JUDGE BECHH0EFER: Bcck on the record. ~
2 Mr. Sinkin?
3 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, at the time of 4 the Quadrex report being delivered and you made your 5 review as to potentially reportable items, May 7th, May 6 8th, you made a preliminary decision as to which items 7 were potentially reportable on May the 8th, or your 8 committee did, and the items that you decided were 9 potentially reportable were then forwarded to the 10 Incident Review Committee for their review. Is that 11 correct?
12 A No. At that point in time we gave our p
13 conclusions to the chairman of the Incident Review k- 14 Committee, Mr. Pow ell, for his forwarding to the Nuclear 15 Regulatory Commission.
16 Q Did you subsequently send any of the Quadrex 17 findings to the Incident Review Committee for their 18 review?
19 A I don't believe so. Not in that time f rame.
20 Q I'm not sure the record will be clear on the 21 time frame. Let's pick a time frame. Between -- in the 22 May-June period, were those three potentially reportable 23 findings sent to the Incident Review Committee for their 24 review?
f 25 A I'm referring to the point in time when we 01;:35 w.muwamm evauum=nw
sg-88 286 1 m:63 report to the NRC, the Incidant Review Committee, 9 2 3
per se, had not participated. I don't recall whether they went back as a matter of routine and reviewed the 4 particular matters that we reported. I j ust don ' t 5 recall it.
6 Q Do you know if the IRC, the Incident Review 7 Committee, received the entire Quadrex report?
8 A I would have to say probably they had access 9 to it. There were a number of copies available in 10 engineering and clearly there was a member of the IRC 11 from engineering. I'm only speculating. I would 12 suspect they did only because there were a number of 13 copies floating around on the project.
(
\~/ 14 0 Was Mr. Powell given a copy on May the 8th to 15 take away with him?
16 A I don't recall.
17 Q In that time period of April-May 1981, if an 18 item came to you for review from any source, you 19 received information and conducted a review on whether ,
20 it was potentially reportable and decided it was not 21 potentially reportable, would it be your practice to 22 then send that same item, that same information to the 23 Incident Review Committee to see if they agreed with 24 your determination?
25 A It was not my practice to routinely maxe 01; 36 wmuwamre unuum-mw
^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ^ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ " ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ^
cg-UU 287 '
12287 1 daterminations of reportability. We had the Incident ______
l 2 Review Committee established for that ' purpose. If I 3 came upon any information that I thought in the routine 4 scheme of things might f all into that category, I might 5 refer it to the IRC. The Quadrex matter was a totally 6 different type of situation.
7 Q But is it possible -- let's talk about under 8 the current system at the proj ect. Is it possible that 9 information would come to you that you would decide s
le needed to be reviewed for whether it was potentially 11 reportable or not and that you would decide no and that 12 that would be the end of it, there's no required review 13 by anyone else of your decision?
14 A No.
The way we' re established in the current 15 situation I think is usef ul to review. There are 16 occasions, for example, where I may come' upon 17 inf ormation that I think needs to be reviewed by the IRC 18 for reportability and I'll bring it to the attention 19 either of the manager of licensing or the chairman in 28 the IRC and request that they undertake a reportability 21 review.
22 I've even gone as f ar sometimes as to say that 23 you ought to review it. But I will tell you that I 24 think it has very high potential, so I'll be very
() 25 disappointed that I don't get a feedback that it's going 012:37 i
Lg-48 288 12288 1 to be reported ct lenet ce c potential. Now, that may __
2 seem at times to be a little undemocratic. But since -
3 I'm responsible for how these matters are addressed, if 4 I see enough concern, I'll make sure that that concern 5 is shared with members of the IRC.
6 I have never, to the best of my knowledge, 7 ever said to the IRC that I disagree with your finding 8 and you will not make that report to the NRC. I have on 9 occasion discussed with the IRC chairman or to the 10 manager of licensing how the decision on reportability 11 was arrived at. I have never changed that decision.
12 I may have caused people to focus on other 13 matters which.would help then make a decision, but I u) 14 have never disagreed with a finding of the IRC. If they 15 cay it's reportable, it gets reported. And clearly if 16 it turns out later that they' re wrong, then the 17 appropriate information is provided to the NRC as to 18 what its true character is.
19 0 I understand, but my question went to 20 information that comes to you that you decide in your 21 own mind is not potentially reportable. Might you then 22 stop there or are you under any requirement to review 23 that information, make your determination and send it on 24 even if you don't feel it is potentially reportable?
25 A Almost every single day on a nuclear proj ect, lff 01; 38 TATE REPORTING (7131 49R-Rad 2
e Eg rJU 289 i 1 12289 Mr. Sinkin, my cyca cnd my mind consider something. I 2 might see something, I might look at it and ask myself 3 what is it I'm looking at. Is that a problem? Is that
~
4 the kind of a problem that needs to be brought to the 5 attention of the IRC? I do, in fact, make decisions 6 from time to time that say that isn't the kind of a 7 problem that needs to go to the IRC. That's kind of a 8 routine situation, not just for myself, but for every 9 other responsible manager and technical supervisor on 10 the proj ect.
11, O In terms of your current understanding of 12 50.55(e), do you have any plans to do any further 13 training of yourself, take any ,further courses, do v' 14 anything else to educate yourself any further about what 15 50.55(e) means to you?
16 MR. NEWMAN: I'm going to obj ect to that 17 question, Mr. Chairman. I can't conceive of what 18 relevance that has to the proceeding.
19 MR. SINKIN: Well, number one, the Board 20 raised the question of the competence of the Applicants 21 in terms of their current 50.55(e) reporting 22 procedures. That's an issue in the proceeding. One of 23 the people who makes a decision on information as to 24 whether it will even be considered for potential 25 reportability is Mr. Goldberg, as he has just
. 01Z39 wwuamwm cuuuum-ms
'099)U 290 i 1 tactificd, 0 So, my quaction is if for any reason his 8 2 3
competence was in question now, whether he planned any further training on the use of 50.55(e). I think it's a 4 perf ectly legitimate question.
5 MR. PIRFO: The Staff would obj ect, Your 6 Honor, in the sense that the question. is not going to ,
7 get a probative answer. If the answer is yes, then it 8 becomes a question of, well, you weren't qualified to 9 make the determination before or are not qualified now.
10 If the answer is no, then it's a question of saying, 11 well, then you' re satisfied with it and you're not going 12 to be good enough in the future. It's a no-win 13 situation he's placing the witness in.
r~s .
\-) 14 MR. SINKIN: No, ,Mr . Pirf o's assumption is 15 that the witness has already been found to lack 16 competence. I don't think that assumption is made in 17 this hearing. That's to be proven.
18 MR. PIRFO: My assumption is that the answer 19 is not probative of anything. Whether it's an 20 unqualified yes or an unqualified no, the answer will 21 not be probative of the issues in this case.
22 MR. SINKIN: What I'm trying to establish, Mr.
23 Chairman, for the purpose of this line of 24 cross-examination is whether or not Mr. Goldberg's ff 25 current view of 50.55(e) is the view he will be applying
- 012.'.' 3 0 wrummwra -
Cg-#8 291 _
1 from here on in on the proj ect. That's what I'm trying 1 2 to establish. That's why I asked if he had -- if he 3 planned any further training. .
4 MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Chai rman, I tell you, it's 5 probably faster to get -- I don't think it's probative 6 of anything, but if the witness wants to answer the 7 question, I apologize for obj ecting. I just hope that 8 we end up with a record that has some meaning for 9 somebody.
10 A Mr. Sinkin, I feel very comfortable with my 11 understanding of my requirements to make reports to the 12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission under 50.55(e). I am very
,/7 13 comfortable with the level of expertise and training and k- 14 experience that now rests within HL&P, both with the 15 manager of nuclear licensing, the proj ect technical 16 manager, and with the Incident Review Committee. I feel 17 that we have an excellent record of both orderly and 18 timely reporting of potential matters under 50.55(e) and 19 I don't think that that's a coincidence. I think that 20 we have worked hard at putting into our program both an 21 intelligent procedure and extremely competent 22 prof essional people to f unction under th'at procedure.
23 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) And you were expressing that 24 on behalf of yourself too? You feel comfortable with
('i 25 your own expertise, training and experience?
(/
011231
og"JW 2 92 ~ ~ ~ '
12292 1 A I fcol very comfortable in that. And if _ _ _ _
that's not correct, then everything else I've said isn't
~
2 -
3 correct because all of these matters obviously are as I 4 view them.
5 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chai rman, I'm going to 6 distribute what I ask be marked as CCANP 85 for 7 identification. And in order to avoid confusing the 8 witness, and I will explain this, I would ask that the 9 witness not look at all of these yet because they change 10 and it may confuse him as to his answer. So, obviously 11 he's entitled to do it, but it may confuse him when we 12 go to ask questions.
13 MR. AXELRAD: I trust the witness will not be
('b ~
\> 14 confused and that he should look at the entire document 15 before you ask cny quections based on it.
16 MR. SINKIN: That's counsel's choice 17 obviously.
18 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, let me just 19 outline for you what I trust these drawings represent.
20 And if you have any problems with what I say, please 21 stop me and, if necessary, we'll correct them or alter 22 them or whatever.
23 A Would I be permitted to look past the first 24 page?
('h (g/ 25 Q You can if you want. I was just saying that 012:32
293 12293 1 for the purposas of progressing through, there 's two ____
2 different situations created, one in the first set of 3 drawings and one in the second set of drawings. They're 4 very similar but diff erent. And I was afraid if you 5 looked at both sets, you would have that in your mind 6 and we'd have some confusion. But you're more than 7 welcome and if your counsel wishes, please go forward 8 and look at them all. .
9 MR. AXELRAD: I wish to have the witness look 10 at all of the drawings bef ore the questioning starts.
11 I believe the witness is ready, Mr. Sinkin.
s 12 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, turning to 13 drawing 1 as numbered in the upper lef t-hand corner --
l ,
\-- 14 JUDGE SHON: Drawing numbered where?
15 MR. SINKIN: Upper right-hand corner, excuse 16 me.
17 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Drawing number 1, what is 18 represented here as A is a pipe that's already 19 completely installed. The focus of this inquiry will 20 not be on that pipe. It's there and it's done right, 21 okay?
22 Item B is a beam installed on the pipe. The 23 two C's are angles dropped f rom the pipe and D is HVAC l
k 24 duct installed and supported by the angles dropped f rom
-s 25 the beam.
n .Lin3 L -m. ,0 N. /L525LRS\.__AIArb/VLA9 -
294 i 1 In thic type of construction as represented _ _ _ _ _ _ .
2 here in any way unusual to you? -
3 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, before we begin 4 this entire line of inquiry, I would obj ect unless CCANP 5 can relate this drawing and the other drawings in any 6 way to a specific finding which is at issue in this l 7 proceeding.
8 (No hiatus)
(
9 10 11 s
12 13
/7
\j 14 15 16 17 18 l 19 20 21 22 23 24 o 25 l l
Q,/
012234
_ _ _ _ _ mee samsema. mm --
12295 1 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, the purpos,e of this 2 entire inquiry is to examine Mr. Goldberg's understanding 3 of 50.55 (e) .
4 MR. A?.ELRAD: There is absolutely no reason why 5 Mr. Goldberg's understanding of 50.55 (e) could not be 6 explored within the confines of the specific findings and 7 generic findings which are at issue in this proceeding.
8 We have ten generic findings, 16 discipline l 1
9 findings. We have more than enough examples within those 10 categories that can be used and it appears to be an utter 11 weste of time to proceed with en examination into f
{
12 engineering drauing concocted by CCAMP. * !
1 13 UR. Unin:AU: Is this something he made up? I
{
14 can't believe it. .
15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Sinkin, before we permit 16 any questions along this line, we vould like an offer of j 17 proof of what you intend to use CCAMP 65 for.
18 MR. SIMKIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uhile the 1
19 Applicants point to the findings the Quadrex report as 1 20 material that can be used to testify Mr. Goldberg's
__ 21 understanding of 50.55 (e) . Those are findings that are 22 four years old and have been extensively discussed in 23 various context, what we're attempting to do with this 24 drawing is create various situations and determine from 25 those situations Mr. Goldberg's view as to whether that (10 l l
l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 0 '--4
' ' J.T rJ
12296 8 1 2
situation would be potentially reportable or not.
That's the purpose of the drawings.
3 JUDGE SHON: It is, so to speak, an examination 4 on his capacity to discover reportable situations.
5 HR. SINKIN: More his application of the 6 regulation to an identified situation, how he applies 7 50.55 ( e) today in his OWH mind.
8 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, if I might just 9 interrupt the Board's deliberation for a minute. Perhaps 10 we can all be enlightened as to how current conpetence of 11 Mr. Goldberg has any relationship to any of the issues in 12 this proceeding. The question uns rhether er not
,_, 13 findings were properly reported back in 1981.
t 1 i
'a 14 There is a separate contention with respect to 15 our current 50.55 (e) procedures uhere there is a witness 15 uho uill bc testifying as to that. I am not accre of any 17 contention that deals with the present competence of the 18 vice-president of nuclear const- ction and engineering.
19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It's my understanding that 20 Mr. Sinkin is is asking Mr. Goldberg questions on the
__ 21 issue, the issue B and D, for which you do have another 22 panel. But he is asking Mr. Goldberg this series of 23 questions on that issue rather than on Quadren report 24 issues.
25 HR. AXELRAD: Uhich issue is that?
TATE REPORTIPG SERVICE, 498-8442 c~ ~ '" "3 6
12297 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The competence iss,ues, under 2 issues B and D.
3 MR. AXELRAD: But the only thing that the board 4 admitted under that particular -- we litigated issues B 5 and D in Phase I. The only thing that's been admitted in 6 Phase II is soils; and on 50.55(e) procedure.
7 JUDGE ECCHUOEFER: That's it. You just named 8 it. That's it.
9 MR. AXELRAD: But he isn't --
10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: He think that's the source 11 of the questions.
12 MR. AXELRAD: Our current 50.55(e) procedure?
. 13 JUDGE DECHHOEFER: That's correct.
3 14 MR. AXELRAD: Eut this is a competence of a 15 particular individual.
16 MR. SICKIM: Eut he has tectified in response 17 to my cuestions that there will be times when he will 18 make the actual determination under 50.55(e) as to 19 uhether there is a potentially reportable finding and 20 that his determination may be final. That's part of your
-- 21 50. 55 ( e) reporting program.
22 MR. AXELRAD: That uas not the testimony of 23 this particular witness. He testified that just as any 24 other individual who is employed at the South Texas 25 Project, he and others are confronted every day uith any 8
TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 498-8442 1 ^37
12298 1 number of matters that they see, they see what ,the plant 2 looks like, they look at drawings, they have discussions 3 among each other and each of them have to at one point or 4 another decide whatever they see is something which is 5 then processed under the procedures to determine 6 reportability, including setting out the IRC.
7 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, so far, it does appear 8 that Mr. Goldberg is in charge of the nuclear operations 9 of HL&P and the leadership he gives and how he vieus this 10 I don't see as being beyond this proceeding. It may be 11 that as we to on, we cet loct in a marrass and that 12 things have to be cut off at a point.
13 But right now we don't really have a question
/
u s\ 14 pending, we don't kno'.r where we're going. I think it is 15 within the scope of two issues presently being looked at, 16 although uc'll have to cee ac ue go along. But right 17 now, I don't think there's any ;eason to stop this line 18 of inquiry at this point.
19 MR. AXELRAD: There is a question pending, the 20 one I objected to, and the one that the Board then asked
__ 21 for a offer of proof.
22 JUDGE SHON: It is true, Mr. Axelrad, that at 23 page 25, question 35, question and answer 35, Mr. --
24 vell, I think he did. Mr. Goldberg suggested that they 25 might use a procedure that vould even bypass the IRC and
'/
TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 498-8442 pa e m
.m J
sb
12299 1 use only his expertise and that of two others and that's 2 what they did in the Quadrex report, because of its 3 importance.
4 MR. AXELRAD: Yes, that is true, Mr. Chairman, 5 I mean Judge Shon.
6 JUDGE SHON: It seems then that he figures 7 properly into and has figured importantly into the 8 procedure by which the reportability of these things that 9 have been admitted, the findings that have been admited 10 was judged or determined.
11 HR. AXELRAD: Certainly in the 1981 12 determinations, that is correct. P,ut that's not what F.r.
13 Sinkin alluded to. Mr. Sinhin vanted to test hic present d 14 competence which has nothing to do -- I would say von't 15 have anything to do, but is not the same question as to 16 uhether or not the reportability deterninations were 17 correctly made in 19Gl.
18 I would add that if Mr. Sinkin wishes to use a 19 hypothetical a hypothetical should be in some fashion 20 related or have some kind of foundation that are somewhat
__ 21 related to the particular findings that vere before us.
22 This particular group of drawings, unless Mr. Sinkin can 23 relate them in some fashion, just have nothing to do with 24 the substantive matters in this proceeding. l 25 HR. SIMEIn: Mr. Chairman, I think if my TATE REPORTIDG SERVICE, 498-8442 - S30 l
l
12300 1 purpose is to test the current competence of Mr. Goldberg 2 in 50.55 (e) , there's no requirement that I use as my 3 hypothetical something that necessarily comes from the 4 Quadrex report.
5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think we will overrule the 6 objection at this stage. It isn't clearly irrelevant at 7 least at this point. He'll see where it goes.
8 0 (Ey Mr. sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, in drawing no.
9 1, is the installation as shown in any way unusual from 10 your e::perience in viewing construction?
11 A Mhy don't you tell me what I'm looking at in 12 drawing Ho. 1 and then I'll tell you if it's unusual.
13 Q I, thought I went through uhat each piece rac,
_j 14 Cr. Goldberg, but I'll be happy to do it again.
15 A Mell, you said that A is a pipe.
16 0 Right.
17 A But you didn't cay whether it ucs a fluid 18 system pipe, you didn't say whether it was 19 high-temperature fluid, you didn't tell me whether it was 20 maybe a high energy system, steam, or compressed air. I
__ 21 don't know whether these things are supposed to be 22 seismic, uhether they're safety related. You know, we're 23 starting with just a picture and there's a whole lot of 24 information that one needs to have if we're going to get 25 down to the subject of reportability, TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 498-8442 c.--30
.~.
12301 1 O What the attempt was in this drawing was to 2 provide you with a drawing in which HVAC duct has been 3 installed beneath a pipe by the use of the beam B and the 4 angles C. We can assume, for purposes of this inquiry, 5 that the type of pipe to which it is installed is 6 appropriate; there is no problem uith uhat type of pipe 7 it's installed to; the pipe will not be of concern in the S example. I guess the first question vould be: Are you 9 familiar with installing HVAC duct by the use of a pipe 10 and angles to a pipe as shown in this drawing?
11 A Uith no other support?
12 ( With with no other support.
13 A And is thir in a nuclear power plant?
q ,
..)
- 14 0 " ell, we vere going to start uith general 15 construction, but we can go right to nuclear pouer plant.
1G A Uell, I can't pretend that I've seen every 17 piece of construction that every anisted. I have to have 18 a frame of reference to understand whether this is common 19 to some frame of reference.
20 0 nave you ever seen in a nuclear power plant air
__ 21 conditioning duct installed by attaching it to a pipe 22 uith beam and angles?
23 A And no other support than what's shown here.
24 Q Yes.
25 A Mo, I'm not used to seeing it.
8 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 $. 2 31
12302 1 Q Uhat other support would be necessary,?
2 A Well, if this pipe, for example, were strictly 3 a pipe of circular beam, you know, pipes are circular 4 beams, they can been and are used for structural support, 5 not just to carry fluids; and if there was nothing but 6 dead load that I needed to uorry about, it might well be 7 that this is perfectly adequate.
8 If I had to worry about seismic, then this 9 might not been enough because I'm sure I have a 10 horizontal component and this may not be adequate to 11 handle horinental accelerations; it may not even be 12 adequate for handling vertical acceleration, it depends
, 13 on the strength of the members there. .
x) 14 0 ' lou are saying if it was dead loads you had to 15 worry about, you'd have to have a horizontal component 16 for support of the duct?
17 A 1:o , I said if it had to withstand earthquake 10 accelerations.
19 0 Okay.
20 A This IIay not been adequate for horizontal
- 21 movement.
22 0 Assuming that this pipe is a circular beam that 23 is adequate to be used for structural support, that the 24 duct uork is not seismic, needs no further support than 25 the two angles as shoun, is there anything else that TATE REPORTI"G SERVICE, 490-8442 p,<n 34n
12303 1 would trouble you about this drawing? ,
2 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, I object to this 3 point. I can't tell, since it is not seismic, I am not 4 sure that it falls under Appendix B at all and therefore 5 doesn't relate to quality assurance. And therefore, I 6 think the inquiry is immaterial and not probative.
7 MR. SINKIN: One moment, Mr. Chairman.
8 JUDGE BECEHOSFER: As asked, we'll sustain the 9 objection to that question.
10 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) What would we have to add to 11 drauing No. 1 for it to be comfortable for you that there 12 was sufficient seismic support.
13 ".R . UC:'J.r : "r. Chairman, that cuestion is E
x.) 14 absolutely incapabic of an answer that will assist in the 15 development of a sound record. I really am concerned 1G that uc're developing a rccord here thrt is totally out 17 of control.
18 MR. SINKIN: Go ahead, Mr. Reis.
19 MR. PEIS: I concur in that. The question is 20 much to general.
__ 21 MR. SINKI!? : Mr. Chairman, Mr. Goldberg 22 testified that if it was seismica, it would need a 23 horizontal component of support. My question was simply 24 where vould that horizontal component of support be, uhat 25 would have to be on this drawing.
TATS REPORTIUG SERVICE, 498-8442 e '. '. ^ J 3
12304
) 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The Board doesn't think that 2 that question is capable of --
3 JUDGE SHON: It's clear that the horizontal 4 support would have to be at least in two different 5 directions and you haven't specified what kind of 6 loadings it's got or anything else; no one can tell you 7 that.
8 JUDGE LAMD: It's just inadequate information.
9 JUDGE SHON: Totally inadequate, you haven't 10 specified the problem.
11 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Is it possible, Mr. Goldberg, 12 looking at --
13 JUDGE DECHHOEFER: You better not use the vord
/ 14 "pccsible."
15 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) What what I'm after is: You 16 uould c::pect to see come horizontal corponent cf cupport 17 on drauing Uc.1 if thic vac scismic. Could that 18 horizontal support exist at come point outside the area 19 of this drauing or would it have to be right where the 20 angles are?
21 MR. AY.ELRAD : Mr. Chairman, that's an 22 incredible --
23 Mn. SIUKIN: I tell you e::actly where I'm going 24 with the question, Mr. Chairman. I think we can get to 25 the point where the witness and I can degree that thic TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 - )
12305 1 could represent a seismic installation; it's just that 2 certain components of support are not shown in this 3 drawing but do exist at another point in the installation 4 and that does not make the drawing no longer useful.
5 MR. AXELRAD: I don't know whether that G explanation contributes anything. But I can't imagine a 7 question that will follow up that explanation which will 8 capable of being answered that would provide any useful 9 contribution to this record.
10 Mr. Sinkin is trying to take a simple drawing 11 and out of that, develop come kind of a theory of design 12 of nuclear piping that the witness can ansucr in cimple 13 terms, and that is just not possible, i Uhat the witnccc hac tried to c:: plain f rom the 16 beginning is that there is no possibility that something 1G ac cimple at thic can be anrwered without many other 17 concidcrationc, m ny other factors, uhich ycu couldn't 18 begin to guess at until you have more information with 19 respect to what's in the pipe, probably what the duct is 20 composed of, what the purpose of the installation is; 21 where it'c located, what's nearby, what's below and 22 above.
23 MR. SIUKIM: Maybe it would help, Mr. Chairman, 24 if I, as a form cf offer of proof, valked through the 25 drawings and spoke to directly what they are meant to
.)
TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 498-0442 P ' '. J5
12306 1 represent. I think if I do that, perhaps the problems 2 that have been raised will evaporate.
3 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Okay. Drawing No. 1 was meant 4 to represent duct as installed to a pipe by the use of a 5 beam and two angles. Drawing No. 3 is a side view of 6 that same installation A being the pipe. B the beam to 7 which the angles are attached two B; you now get a view ;
8 of two of them; both C's, the angles on one side of the 9 pipe; the solid box being the duct, the HVAC duct; the 10 dashed lines representing cable tray supported to the 11 floor by supports.
12 The problem 1,11uctrated in the drawing is that
,_ 13 the cable tray cannot be installed because there is an
'$ 14 interference given the existence of the already installed 15 duct.
16 That is the essence of the example. You can '
17 see it again on drawing four, where you have the pipe, 18 the beam, the angles and the ducts installed; the cable 19 tray represent bid the cable tray, itself, E, and the 20 supports F, cannot be installed because in order to do
-- 21 so, it intersects the same area already occupied by the 22 duct.
23 That's the first example in the drawings.
24 The drawing No. 5 is a just a schematic 25 of various components, A the pipe, E and P the oi TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 01:006
12307 1 cable tray and supports; and off to the right again a 2 view of the cable tray just for clarification. That is 3 the hypothetical example I've created in the drawings 4 that I wanted to use as a means of e::amining Iir. Goldberg 5 at various points in the process of this drawing, were a 6 potentially reportable finding might arise.
7 JUDGE SHON: You are not focusing entirely on 8 the facts that the cable tray interfors with the duct.
9 11R. SINKIU: Absolutely, that's all it was 10 meant to illustrate, 11 MR. AXELRAD: !!r. Chairman, I just cannot 12 imagine how CCAUP can provide sufficient detailed 13 information with respect to each of the factors that
) 14 would have te be hnoun by nny engineer before he could 15 make a rational decision on any of these questions. I 16 juct can't imagine hev I:r. Sinkin can do that in the 17 ccurce cf the ti::.c uc h:v:. r.'/ailabic today and nc::t ucch.
18 HR. SINKIN: My cuestions --
19 JUDGE BECHHOEPER: I guess you may continue for 20 the moment.
21 !!R . SIUKIN: Okay.
22 0 (By fir. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, as I walked 23 through the drawings and explained what they were 24 attempting to illustrate, a cable tray to be installed 25 but the installers find that it cannot be installed 9
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 b ' 1' 37
12308 1 because already installed duct work interferes with that.
2 Have you seen that kind of condition in a nuclear power 3 plant?
4 A I'm sure at some point in time, I've probably 5 seen every manner of interference between cable tray and 6 duct, between duct and piping, between piping and 7 structure, duct and ctructure. It is well within the 8 realm of possibilities thct almost anything might 9 interfere uith anything else.
10 (No Hiatus.)
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
)
TATE REPORT 11;G SERVICE, 498-8442 I '_ '. 7 ) 8
UFAO 309 12309 1 Q Wh;n a d20ignar ct the South Texas Nuclear
~ _ . .
2 Proj ect sits down to design, to draw an installation 8 3 diagram for cable tray in a particular area of hbe 4 plant, does that designer have a master drawing that 5 demonstrates what's already installed in that particular 6 area of the plant?
7 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, are we now talking 8 about current design efforts or are we talking about 9 design as it took place before May 1981 when Brown &
10 Root was on the proj ect?
11 MR. SINKIN: Well, let's ask both.
12 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) In 1981, would it have been 13 . common for the designer of a cable tray to be installed, p
1) 7 14 drawing -- the installation drawing j ust for the cable 15 tray, to have before him or her a master drawing that 16 would show what had already been installed in that same 17 area?
18 MR. AXELRAD: Well, I will obj ect to that 19 question because if Mr. Sinkin is trying to develop 20 inf ormation with respect to design practice bef ore May 21 1981, bef ore the Quadrex report, then certainly he has 22 to tie that question to specific findings in the Quadrex 23 report.
24 0 ( By Mr . Sinkin) Well, then, we'll just ask it r^
!_3! 25 in terms of now, Mr. Goldberg.
%a.)
01:309 anreuwreaama -
Eg=UBU 310 l 12310 1 MR. AXELRAD: And tho reason we're asking for i 2 it now is because we' re trying to test Mr. Goldberg's ,
3 present competence to evaluate 50.55(e) conditions; is 4 that the Board's ruling bef ore?
5 MR. SINKIN: Absolutely.
6 Q ( By Mr . Sinkin) Okay. Now, today, Mr.
7 Goldberg, if you were on the project --
8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The company's present 9 competence is the issue.
10 MR. AXELRAD: Yes.
11 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) -- would you expect the 12 person drawing the installation design for cable tray to 13 have a master drawing that showed what had already been (3
\j 14 installed in that area of the plant?
15 A In terms of precent, there are threc different 16 techniques that are currently in use on South Texas. In 17 heavily congested areas we have attempted to model those 18 areas showing the different types of equipment, duct 19 work, cable trays, piping. In some areas we didn't 20 model and where the congestion might be not quite as 21 severe, they have attempted to use composite drawings.
22 And more recently I think Bechtel is working 23 with some computerized equipment which can not only 24 provide a composite on a cathode ray tube type display, g '
n 25 but also has the program which can identify certain b._:
01:310 ewunasaww --
cg6 311 12311 1 intorforCnc30. But I wouldn't say that that's reached _ _ _ _ _ _
2 the point in development where it is an exclusive tool 3 that's depended upon for interference control.
4 So, we have a spectrum of tools available.
5 JUDGE LAMB : Could I ask a question for 6 clarification on that? When you say model, you're 7 referring to physical models as opposed to mathematical 8 models or some other type?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, Judge Lamb, we have a 10 plas --
11 JUDGE LAMB : Actual physical model of the 12 plant ?
13 THE WITNESS: -- an actual plastic model of i; 14 selected areas of the plant. We do not have the whole 15 plant modeled.
16 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) And does that model show 17 what's in place only or what's ultimately going to be in 18 place ?
19 A Well, the model is dynamic. It will reflect 20 the status of the design at a point in time, and then, 21 of course, as a design might progress beyond that i
22 current status of the model, the model has to be I l
23 updated.
24 0 Okay. To simplify what we' re dealing with,
(~h
! 25 let's limit it in this line of questioning to areas that D)'
012311 merunscamm -
sg-vis 312
- l 12312 1 cro n3t m d31cd end cro not yet cubject to control by . _
2 the computer modeling program so that the basic thing .
3 available to the designer is the composite drawings.
4 Are you comfortable with that?
5 A All right.
6 Q Okay. The composite drawing, if correct, 7 should show the designer what is already installed in 8 that area; is that correct?
9 A That's correct.
10 Q Okay.
11 JUDGE SHON: Mr. Sinkin, it may well be that 12 it shows him not what is already installed in the sense 13 of it being physically in place, it may show him what le 7-) ~
')_
14 proj ected so far in the design f,or installation.
15 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Is that --
16 A I appreciate Judge Shon's point there. That's 17 the more correct situation. The composite drawing is a 18 reflection of the design status, not necessarily what's 19 actually in the plant.
20 JUDGE LAMB : Another clarification. Does a 21 composite drawing include information f rom all of the 22 discipline s, the electrical, the mechanical, as 23 contrasted with being composite drawings for each?
24 THE WITNESS: It's supposed to reflect the n
25 basic structural outline for the area under discussion,
[s.v) 01:312 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
313 12313 1 C3 well c3 tho inputo f rom piping, clcctrical cnd 2 ventilation.
3 JUDGE L ANB : Including elevations as well as 4 plant layout?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
6 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) I'm sorry. You said 7 structural outline plus piping, electrical and --
8 ,
A Ventilation.
9 0 Ventilation, HVAC.
10 A And, of course, outlines of major machinery, 11 whether it be mechanical or electrical.
12 Q Well, if the designer looks at the composite, 13 are the items actually installed in any way
/^'s tJ 14 differentiated to him than any items that are projected 15 to be installed?
16 A No.
17 Q Okay. In the hypothetical as created by these 18 drawings, which again is an installation drawing calling 19 for a cable tray to be put in, but it turns out there's 20 duct in the way. Are you with me on what we're dealing 21 with?
22 MR. AXELRAD: I'm not sure I understand how 23 this hypothetical came up. We started discussing the 24 design process at STP right now. Is Mr. Sinkin now
(~)
, / 25 assuming that a designer at STP has looked at these G'
01:313 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
Ug",AU 314 .,
12314 1 c Spocito drcwing3 cnd ic purpocaly plccing cable trays ._
2 where HVAC's are presently located?
8 3 MR. SINKIN: All right. Let me ask some 4 preliminary questions. Maybe we can get it straight.
5 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) The hypothetical I'm trying 6 to present to you, Mr. Goldberg, is that for some reason 7 the installation drawing for the cable tray is sent to 8 the field. When the installation crew gets it, they 9 look at it, they turn to install the cable tray and 10 there is the duct and they can't install the cable 11 tray. Somehow that has happened. All right?
12 MR. AXELRAD: Is there any foundation for that 13 hypothetical in anything that's in this record?
C' .
ej 14 IIR . SIFKIN: It's a hypothetical precisely 15 because it's a hypothetical.
16 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman --
17 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman -- wait a minute. I 18 have to obj ect at this point, Mr. Chai rman. We have 19 made quite clear exactly what we' re trying to show and 20 that it's to be a test of Mr. Goldberg's 50.55(e) 21 knowledge. The Applicants are objecting in such a way 22 that we can't even get to the real questions.
23 I think the example is clear to everybody as 24 to what we' re dealing with. It certainly has been Mr.
lh sl_; 25 Goldberg's indication to me that he understands what I'm 01:314 wwuwarwm m
sg-vis 315 ,
1 talking cbout.
2 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman? Can I say we've gone 3 on a half an hour now with these drawings. Why don't we 4 just ask very simple direct questions. At which point 5 would you be reporting on the 50.55(e), what would be 6 the status of what is installed and what is projected to 7 be installed, and let's ask the questions directly 8 without trying to put in drawings that are incomplete, ,
9 without trying to ask questions that are incomplete.
10 Let's do this directly.
11 We've wasted now a half an hour on this. At 12 first I said, well, he could go forward and try and show 13 that, he might have a basis for chowing that. We didn't (n_) 14 have a basis at that point in the record to stop or to 15 see whether he could go forward. We now do have a 16 basis. We've gone forward for half an hour.
17 We think if there is a question of when there 18 is conflicting equipment, when it comes to be installed 19 or when in the design process, let's ask it very 20 directly. Ask the witness particularly looking at 21 50.55(e) under what conditions and when there would be a 22 necessity to report.
23 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Ch ai rman, what we're 24 attempting to do with these drawings was create a very
/'y j ! 25 specific example so we would not face objections to u
012315 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
LAJ RA) 316 1 quecticn3 thct wara tco ganerclizcd, doao any 12316 2 interf erence represent a potentially reportable .
3 deficiency. Obviously, that's not an acceptable 4 question or it gets an answer that's three hours long.
5 That's exactly why the hypothetical was created, to make 6 it a specific example.
7 All I have been attempting to do in this first 8 line of questioning is be sure that Mr. Goldberg and I 9 have the same thing in mind as to what the example is.
10 All of the objections have gone to what the example is.
11 I think Mr. Goldberg understands at this point 12 that what I'm saying is there's been an installation 13 drawing sent out to. the field f or the installation of s
) 14 cable tray and the installation crew discovers they can 15 not install the cable tray because there is duct 16 occupying the same space where the cable tray is 17 supposed to go. Thct's a very simple hypothetical 18 example that is illustrated by the drawing. And I think 19 Mr. Goldberg and I can go forward f rom there.
20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Goldberg, do you 21 understand what he's driving at at this stage?
22 THE WITNESS: I think I've got a picture of a 23 condition that Mr. Sinkin is postulating. If I f ollow 24 what he's saying, we have one or the other installed, I f 25 guess it's the duct is installed, and we're going to try 01:318
_- msnmmm m n e - m a- ---- _---------- -- -
us,Ri>
12337 1 to install tho cablo trcy and it'c trying to tako up tho 2 same real estate that's currently occupied by the duct 3 and that's the postulated problem.
4 MR. SINKIN: That's it.
5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Now --
6 THE WITNESS: And if I add a few assumptions, 7 that we're talking about something that is 8 saf ety-related to put it in the context of nuclear.
9 MR. SINKIN: Right.
10 THE WITNESS : We're talking about designs that 11 have been released for construction.
12 MR. SINKIN: Right. .
~
13 THE WITNESS: And now we have to apply the
(~n
(; 14 reportatility test.
15 Now, since I don't know whether this is the 16 only interference f ound on the projects as opposed to 17 this may be repetition of racny interf erences found on 18 the proj ect, the first test has to be is this an 19 isolated situation. Clearly if it's isolated, it 20 doesn't come under the broad categorization of a 21 significant breakdown in quality assurance.
22 It's impossibic for this matter to go 23 undetected because you can't put a cable tray inside of 24 a ventilation duct unless it's done with extreme care
[v 25 far beyond the skill level of the work f orce on a 012317
_ _ FATE [H@{D98ESB RWAFB GM-MM
~
Cg",AU 318 ,
12318 1 nuc1 car power plant ca I understand them. So, I don't 2 think that that in itself would constitute .
3 repor tability.
4 On the other hand, if I had a situation where 5 I had in place a certain design control program for 6 interf erence control and through a large number of 7 interf erences I found that the people in the design 8 organization were totally ignoring the application of 9 that program and that that was a systemic breakdown in le the quality of activities in the design organization, 11 that even though I don't have a physical deficiency 12 because I can't install things that interfere, I would 13 probably call that a reportable item because it would u- $ 14 represent a disregard f or a control process and would 15 cauce me some concern as to what were the attitudes in 16 the design organization. If they were to ignore that 17 process, it's quite possible they might be ignoring 18 other processes. So, that would be a potentially 19 reportabic matter.
20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now, what about the one 21 other possibility that I see at least of a single design 22 released for construction where we run into a barrier or 23 interference. Would or would that -- when does that 24 fall under the criteria of a deficiency in a design 25 released for construction?
{)!
+
wwummesna conuunum
Eg6 319 l
1 THE WITNESS: W211, thcrG'a no question, Mr.
2 Chai rman, that the design was released and there's no 3 question that there is a deficiency because there is an 4 interference. But you cannot leave it undetected. You 5 can't put it in the power plant. It represents a 6 physical impossibility. And I find that the rule would 7 be you can't have the kind of problem that we're talking 8 about. We have just reached a physical impossibility.
9 So, on an isolated basis, I would not treat 10 that as a breakdown. I wouldn't treat that as a 11 significant deficiency if lef t uncorrected because I 12 cannot leave it uncorrected. I can't even install it.
13 Whoever got there first owns it.
,/'
L_J 14 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) You said that if this were to 15 occur repeatedly, you would have a concern that the 16 interf erence control program was not being implemented; 17 is that --
18 A We certainly would want to investigate the 19 character of these repetitive acts to understand why do 20 ve have a repetition of this kind of a situation. And I 21 said f urther that that might well turn out that there is 22 some systemic f ailure of persons to comply with the 23 requirements of the design process.
24 Q Right.
(~b Looking f or a moment at just a single f ailure bl 25 012319 meuwmwra -
sg-115 320 1 ef thic naturo, w:uld thct cauro you to be concern:d 2 about the competence of the engineer that drew this? .
3 A I must tell you, Mr. Sinkin, that if I only 4 had one interf erence on a nuclear power plant, I would 5 believe that I had the finest project ever in the 6 history of the industry for now and all time.
7 Q And you'd probably be right.
8 Let's move it up. You have four examples of 9 this all drawn by the same engineer. Do you then have 10 concerns about the competence of that engineer?
11 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman --
12 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman -- ,
13 MR. AXELRAD: -- at this time it's going to be
'T
(~J L 14 impossible for anyone to answer a question with respect 15 to the precise numberc that cause a serious enough 16 concern to report without any significant amount of 17 information with respect to what the actual 18 interferences were, what the actual problems were, what 19 the saf ety impacts were. It is not possible to answer l
20 that question based upon only the number four. l 21 MR. SINKIN: Well, let me ask a separate 22 question.
23 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Do you have a program in 24 place, ik . Goldberg, that would tell you or any other
, 25 manager of the engineering program if a particular 01:320 TATE REPORTING f 713) A%-MA92
W 321 1 cnginent repentedly drew drcwings that could not be 12321 2 installed?
9 3 MR. REIS: Mr. Chai rman, I object to Ehe 4 question. I don't know which contention it refers to at 5 this point. I really don't think it has enough 6 materiality. I guess the contention would be is the 7 plant being properly constructed.
8 MR. SINKIN: No.
9 MR. REIS: But I don't think it's probative 10 enough of that.
11 MR. AXELRAD: In addition to which we started 12 off this line of questioning allegedly in order to 13 explore Mr. Goldberg's competence to analyze a problem r~x
(_) 14 under 50.55 (e) . And I do not see at this time how the 15 question of whether or not there is a program to review 16 the competence of engineers doing design has any 17 relationship to that question. Mr. Sinkin is going to 18 have to tie his question to some other issue bef ore this 19 Board before we go any further on this line of inquiry.
20 MR. SINKIN: As a sort of offer of proof, Mr.
21 Chai rman, the line of questioning would be do you have a 22 program that identifies engineers who repeatedly draw 23 designs that cannot be installed. If the answer is yes, 24 we do, the second question would be if you find there is
)
jl} 25 an engineer who has repeatedly drawn designs that could 012321 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 )
322 1 n*,t be inntc11cd, io that c potentially reportablo 12322 2 deficiency. Very simple. .
3 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, may I 4 be heard for a moment?
5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Unless you're going to 6 argue that we shouldn't, we're going to sustain that 7 obj ection -- -
8 MR. REIS: Okay.
9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- to that or.e. We don't 10 think the answer could be probative.
11 MR. SINKIN: All right.
12 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) If we're in the situation in 13 the field, the installation drawing has been delivered
()
14 to construction, construction looks at the drawing and 15 finds they cannot install the cable tray and a quality l
16 assurance person is at that point at that time, does the 1 l
i 17 quality assurance person in your view write up a 18 deficiency?
19 A It's not likely because the first thing that i
20 will happen is the constructor will inquire of l 21 engineering through probably a field change request 22 pointing out that I cannot install or that person could 23 not install the cable tray because it was interfering 24 with the duct. And, in effect, the constructor is
}
25 asking for engineering assistance to resolve the (
010?.22 1 \
_-_ _ 3 a w m ae m m nxm am-mans 4i
323 --
12323 1 prcbl em. Sinco thcro 10 r.o interforcnca to phycienlly _ _ _ _ _ _ _
2 install, the man couldn't proceed, quality control would 3 not have a nonconforming condition yet to report.
4 0 Bow about quality assurance as opposed to 5 quality control which monitors design and engineering as 6 well as installation?
l l 7 MR. AXELRAD: I'm sorry, Mr. Chai rman, are we 8 talking --
l 9 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Well, quality control is part 10 of quality assurance, but quality control is not. all of 11 quality assurance. There is a quality assurance l
12 department that audite design engineering, is there not?
O 1
13 A Quality assurance does from time to time audit
. (~ ;
li 14 design engineering.
15 Q Assuming the person at that point in the field 16 is a member of that team as opposed to a QC inspector, 17 would there be a deficiency?
18 MR. AXELRAD: Let me make sure I understand 1
19 the hypothetical. There is a QA audit going on by the l 20 quality assurance department and the QA auditor happens 21 to be in the field looking over drawings that have been 22 se nt to the field? Is that the hypothetical?
23 MR. SINKIN: That's a nice one.
24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I'm not sure I heard the 25 word audit.
01?323 m m -
43 JW 324 1 MR. SINKIN: I hCdn't includ3d the word audit, 2 but we'll make it that there's a QA audit going on and .
3 part of that QA audit is that someone from QA 4 engineering is out in the field looking at drawings.
5 They're standing there and here comes this drawing that 6 doesn't work. Do they write up a deficiency?
7 A On the basis of a single observation, they 8 would probably write it up as a deficiency. But tne 9 character of it would be obviously a little bit 10 different than if they had been witness to more than 11 one.
12 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) To change the hypothetical a 13 bit, what if the reason that there's an interference is 7
V 14 that the composite drawing was in error? The engineer 15 did everything right based on the composite drawing, but 16 the composite drawing is in error.
17 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman --
18 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Do you then --
19 MR. REIS: I'm sorry.
20 MR. SINKIN: Do you then have a potentially 21 reportable --
22 MR. REIS: Mr. Chai rman, I object too in that 23 it has no relation to 50.55(e). What you are talking 24 about in 50.55(e) is a def ect had it gone uncorrected, 25 had it remained uncorrected, that 's the language. We've 012324 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
wrum 325 1 had cubstantial torticony thct it could not re:mnin 2 uncorrected because you just can't construct two pieces 3 of equipment in the same physical space, theref ore it 4 cannot go uncorrected. Therefore, the hypothetical has 5 no foundation and can have no foundation in anything 6 that scientifically could be done and it's improper.
7 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, I believe that 8 specific interpretation of 50.55(e) has been rej ected 9 more than once in licensing proceedings in the NRC. I 10 don't have the cases with me today, but I'd be happy to j ,
11 provide you with citations that that particular 12 interpretation of 50.55(e) is simply not correct.
13 MR. REIS: I think that's for the Board to n
k_,) 14 decide in the matter of law. But I think the important 15 thing is that we again had a question of whether it is a 16 pattern of breakdowns -- I mean a pattern of conflicts 17 which Mr. Goldberg tectified to cr a single one.
18 I don't think we're advancing the record or 19 getting anyplace in getting in these hypotheticals. We 20 have now been on the subject for forty-five ninutes and 21 we' re still not getting anywhere. I think Mr. Goldberg 22 gave a complete statement for the record and it's there 23 and I don't see where these hypotheticals are going any l l
24 further. They certainly don't conform with the words in
) 25 the regulation.
e, 012325 TATE REPORTING (7133 498-8442
L4fU21>
326 g
1 MR. SINKIN: Woll, Mr. Chcirmcn, wh:n I 12326 2 changed the hypothetical to postulate a defect in the .
3 composite drawing, then we're no longer dealing'with the 4 problem of whether or not it can be installed, we're 5 dealing with a flaw in a more fundamental design 6 document. That's why I changed the hypothetical. We're 7 not dealing with this whole question of what 50.55(e) ,
8 means in terms of can it be installed or not. b 9 I would presume that a defect in a composite 10 drawing that is used by many different designers to do 11 different things can result in other than designs that 12 cannot be installed. It can recult in designs that 13 could be in error. So, I'm trying to get at that
(_) 14 different hypothetical now.
15 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Ch ai rman, but at this point 16 we have a hypothetical that has absolutely no bounds.
17 We don't know what type of composite drawing we're 18 talking about or what its theoretical uses were besides 19 this one example which has turned out to be not possible 20 in installation. And we, of course, don't know what 21 type of def ects Mr. Sinkin is talking about. But if the 22 only defect is a defect which caused this particular 23 installation not to be able to take place, we're back at 24 the same non-physically possible hypothetical. :
f')
U 25 So, Fr. Sinkin has not provided any kind of 0{2326 l TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
U2REU 327 1 hypothetical which ic pocaible of cnswer. 12327 2 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, I have a further 3 response when you're finished.
4 If you are at this point preparing to rule 5 that 50.55(e) cannot be triggered if a design as D.
6 released to construction cannot be installed, then we .
7 would request time to brief that question before you 8 rule because we think that is an absolutely erroneous ,
9 interpretation of 50.55(e). Presumably a design could 10 be released that called for the reactor to be installed 11 upside down and that wouldn't be a deficiency because 12 they couldn't have installed it upside down. We think 13- that's simply an erroneous interpretation of that
\,_) 14 regulation. You' re carving out a whol e new area of ~
15 deficiencies.
16 (No hiatus) 17 18 i
19
)
20 21 22 23 24 r~'s t 25 w) 012327 TATE REP @@9fXT&G GLM_Mlff-RM72
11328 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Uc will sustain the ,
2 objection only on the grounds that the answer would not 3 be probative of anything we could figure out. He will 4 not rule as a matter of law one way or the other on this 5 impossibility of performance. I don't think we have to 6 reach that. He won't. But we vill uphold the objection 7 on that question.
8 UR. SINKIN: I!r. Chairman, I guess in the form 9 of a motion to reconsider, I will offer one other 10 observation.
11 f:R . REIS: Mr. Chairman, the staff would object 12 to thct. It's re-arguing a ruling that has been made.
13 And whether it'c a motion to reconcider er what -- hou
_J 14 it's labled, it's still re-arguing a ruling that hac been 15 nade.
1G ::2. SIF:'I ': 7.nd I'm rpecificclly cs!;ing 17 permission to do that. I will be very short.
18 JUDGE BECEEOEFER: Okay, be very short. Ue'll 19 decide if we have to hear responses or not.
20 IIR . SIUKIn: The original hypothetical, the
__ 21 hypothetical as created is cable tray cannot be installed 22 because there's an interference with the ductwork. There 23 are tuo possible reasons, primary reasons that 24 could have happened: The engineer incorrectly dreu 25 the drawing or the composite drawing from uhich the 9 -
.a l' ! c, .3,. .J 4 Q TATE REPORTIUG SERVICC, 498-8442
11329 1 engineer worked did not accurately show where the duct
) ,
2 was.
3 We have explored one leg of that possibility 4 for potential reportability; we were attempting to 5 explore the second leg of that possibility and there were 6 a total of three questions to be asked to end the 7 cross-examination. I think two questions at this point.
8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The Board will sustain our 9 ruling; we don't think it would be probative. There are 10 many other reasons why there could be interferences. The 11 duct size could be wrong, it could be installed 12 incorrectly, too many other possibilities or 13 probabilities, potential methods for their to be ,
km ;. 14 interferences for this to be very meaningful. So that's 15 why at least that last question, we will sustain the 1G objection.
17 IIR . SIHKIN: lir. Chairman, how long did we plan 18 to go today?
19 JUDGE BECHIlOEFER: 6:00.
20 MR. SINKIN: I think,!!r. Chairman, for the
__ 21 sake of the record, I will move CCAMP 85 into evidence 22 simply to illustrate the record, itself, as to what we 23 were talking about; I'm not offering it as an accurate, 24 to scale, drawing, but simply to make the record clear 25 what it is we're talking about.
fs t s l V
l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 01bC20
11330 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Could that just travel with
\ s)
~ ~
2 the record? .
3 MR. SINKIN: It could travel with the record.
4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It could remain for b identification and travel with the record, serve that 6 same purpose.
7 MR. SINKIN: That's fine.
8 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 9 point out we have spent three hours and 20 minutes, 10 considering a short recess, in the cross examination of 11 Mr. Goldberg this afternoon. And the substantive 12 questions inquired into my CCAliP have been very limited 13 in number and have dealt only with a couple of the
) l'4 specific findings which are ct issue in this proceeding.
15 Mr. Goldberg has been on the witness stand all 16 day Friday, Saturday morning, three hours yesterday 17 afternoon, and three hcurs and 20 minutes today. I think 18 the time is drawing near for Mr. Sinkin to eitner 19 indicate that he is nearing the end of his 20 cross-examination or for the Eoard to consider imposing a 21 limit on the amount of time that such cross-examination 22 will continue. Does not appear to us that it's 23 developing a very useful record.
24 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, the staff would join 25 in that. Things are going along now, at relatively a B
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 .30
11331 I 1 snail's pace. I think the Board can judge just allow 2 productive cross-examination is becoming. I think it's 3 incumbant upon the Board at this time to set a very 4 definite time limit for cross-examination.
5 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, I think a review of 6 the record will reveal that our cross-examination was 7 going fairly expeditiously until today, the great deal of 8 time -- I didn't expect to take more than twenty minutes 9 with these drawings to explain to them what they were and 10 to ask the five or six or eight questions I had about 11 them. But it took quite a lengthy time because of the 12 Applicants' objection and the NRC's objection. I don't 13 think that filling the record uith objections is a reason s
s- ) 14 to argue that the cross-enaminer should be cut off.
15 And I think if you review the record of the 16 cross-examination of Mr. Goldberg, the questions have 17 been focused, they've been on the substance of his 18 testimony, the substance of the issues in this 19 proceeding, we've been moving along as expeditiously as 20 we can. And I don't believe there's any basis for
__ 21 cutting off my cross-examination at any time in the near 22 future.
23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Sinkin, would you like l
24 to approach the bench for a minute? l 25 (Discussion off the record.)
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 0 2231 ;
1
11332
- 1 (CCANP Exhibit 86 marked 2 for identification.)
3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay, back on the record.
4 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, I'm going to 5 hand you a document marked for identification as CCANP 86 6 and ask you to look at it and see if you recognize it. .
7 Do you recognize this as a letter that you sent 8 to Mr. Halligan of the Bechtel Power Corporation?
9 A Yes. I haven't finished reading it. I haven't 10 seen it in a long time, but it's certainly a letter 11 carrying my signature.
12 0 I would call -- direct your attention to the 13 part of the letter that uc're really going to deal with
'x ; 14 here and that is the last centence or the last tuo 15 sentences. Perhaps to be complete, we better start at 16 the sentence that has the word "such documentation vould" 17 on the recond page. Do you see that, second page, cecond 18 line, "such documentation would." If you would read tnat 19 to the end.
20 A Let me just get the context of what we're even 21 talking about.
22 All right, where vould you like me to read?
23 Q Have you read the whole letter now, Mr.
24 Goldberg?
25 A I've perused the whole letter. Where would you 9 p,-n c TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 - -- -
11333 1 like me to read?
2 0 In the last paragraph on the second page, you 3 state that in the last sentence, "Please note that 4 although it may not be evident by reading the Quadrex 5 report due to its lack of explicit detail, three items 6 (Line Items 1, 100 and 146) are are also related 7 deficiencies reported to NRC prior to the Quadrex 8 review."
9 Do you see that sentence, Mr. Goldberg?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Fas it your view on April the 7th 1982 that 12 those three line items in Bechtel Task Force report 13 related to deficiencies reported to URC prior to the l._ L J 14 Quadrex review?
15 A It was my view on April 7th 1982 that those 16 three line items were related to deficiencies reported to
, 17 the NRC prior to the Quadrex review.
18 0 Was it your view in May of 1981 that those 19 three deficiencies related to prior notifications to the 20 MRC?
__ 21 A I'd have to see what the items are.
22 O Fine.
23 MR. AXELRAD: Are you going to chuw him the 24 items?
25 MR. SINKIN: I would ask that counsel share 8
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 01:233
11334
-n with him the Applicants' exhibit that's been marked and (x,)\ 1 2 entered already, the Bechtel Task Force report.
3 MR. AXELRAD: Those aren't items in the --
4 MR. SINKIN: It hasn't been entered yet? Okay, 5 fine.
6 I don't have my copy with me, Mr. Goldberg, so 7 we'll belay that for the moment.
8 MR. REIS: Can we ask that the record -- Mr.
9 Sinkin at least state for the record where those line 10 items appear under those numbers so that the staff did 11 look at what those line items may be in relation to?
12 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Perhaps it's better for the 13 witness to, if he can, based on the letter which talks f) 14 15 about the task force report done by Bechtel, tell us whether those three line items refer to items in the task 16 force report done by Bechtel.
17 A Mr. Sinkin, ycu kner, it's been, you know, 18 almost three and-a-half years since I wrote this letter.
19 Not quite three and-a-half. But the point is it's over 20 three years. I'd have to look at both the Quadrex report 21 again and also look at the Bechtel assessment to find out 22 whether I was making reference to one or the other.
23 It appears that I may have been making l
24 reference to the Quadrex report, but I would just be !
i 25 guessing. I think we have to break out those documents l l
1 Ns n
1 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 0!2234 1
11335 A
(i 1 and look.
2 0 Okay. We won't take that time this afternoon, 3 Mr. Goldberg. We'll do that at another date.?
4 When you went to meet with Mr. Sells --
5 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 6 previous question and answer in that it's meaningless.
7 We have a reference to line items 1, 100 and 146, and 8 it's just meaningless as to what those matters are. We 9 don't have any sort of a record.
10 MR. SINKIN: You can do whatever you want, Mr.
11 Chairman.
12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Hell, the line items in this 13 report seem to be tied to specific findings; would it be
() 14 useful to identify them?
15 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Goldberg has said in order to 16 identify the items we would have to pull out the Quadrex 17 report and the Bechtel task force report and see if the 18 two match up and remind him of what his letter saidt 19 that's a process of time I'd rather not use right now.
20 We can certainly do it.
21 MR. AXELRAD: In addition to which, Mr.
22 Chairman, I do not believe those are line items in the 23 Quadrex report.
24 MR. SINKIN: I'm sorry if I said Quadrex 25 report. I meant Bechtel task force report.
^
v L.%) p, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 01:235
11336 x.
1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I was saying that the line 2 items relate to specific Quadrex findings by the Bechtel l I
3 task force report.
4 MR. SINKIN: That's correct.
5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: For instance, line item one, 6 just for example, seems to be a portion of finding 7 4.1.2. l (a) , that is; appears on page B-1 one of the --
8 task force report.
9 MR. AXELRAD: I understand. But Mr. Sinkin 10 expressed the preference and not taking the time to do
- 11. this now and I suggest we do that.
12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I don't want to rule on the-13 motion to s.trike prior to the the time that --
() 14 MR. REIS: I withdraw the motion.
15 MR. SINKIN: The motions been withdrawn.
16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay.
I 17 0 (Ey Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, when you went to 18 meet with Mr. Don Sells during the first week of 19 licensing hearings in Bay City, did you take the Quadrex 20 report to that meeting?
21 A I thought I had taken it to the meeting, yes, '
.22 sir.
23 0 You say you thought you took it to the meeting.
24 Did you take it to the meeting or did you not take it to l l
25 the meeting? 'l O
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 g(,,
11337 1 A That's my recollection, that I took the report h
2 to the meeting.
3 I'm well aware of the fact that Mr. Sells has a 4 different recollection. And on that point, we differ.
5 0 And is it you are recollection that you took 6 one volume or all three volumes?
7 A I believe I had all three with me.
8 0 And is it your recollection that Mr. Sells read 9 through those volumes while you all talked about the 10 Quadrex report?
11 A My recollection was that he perused possibly 12 only volume one, the executive summary. I do not believe 13 he looked at anything else as my memory serves me..
s_f 14 Q Did you give Mr. Sells a copy of that report to 15 read at that time to take away with him?
16 A No, I did not.
17 A I did inform Mr. Sells at the time that the 19 report would be on file within Houston Lighting & Power 19 Company and he was free to read it at his leisure.
20 Q Mr. Goldberg, I hand you a document which I 21 request be mark for identification as CCANP 87 and ask 22 that you review that document.
23 (CCAMP Exhibit 87 marked 24 for idntification.)
25 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Is this document, Mr.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 O i [' ^ 3 7' I
11338
() 1 2
Goldberg, your sworn statement to the nuclear regulatory investigator Mr. Driskill, as to the events surrounding 3 the reporting or non-reporting of the Quadrex report to 4 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
5 A Yes, it is.
6 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, I would move CCAMP 7 87 into evidence.
8 MR. AXELRAD: No objections.
9 MR. REIS: No objection.
10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Without objection, CCANP 87 11 will be admitted into evidence.
12 One inquiry. Is this the statement that would --
13 that would accompany INE report 82-02? ,
,--) .
( 14 MR. AXELRAD: Yes, I believe --
15 MR. REIS: I believe it's summarized in there.
16 MR. SINKIN: It's summarized in 82-02; it 17 vacn't actually attached to 92-02. It vac later 18 produced.
19 0 (Dy Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, I'm not going to 20 have any questions about that statement at this time. So 21 you if you will turn to page 51 of your testimony, answer 22 81 --
~
23 JUDGE LAMB: Excuse me, is that page 51?
24 MR. SINKIN: Page 51, answer 81.
25 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, when did you and 7s N_N TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 g , ,, ,, g
11339 p .
1 Mr. Oprea first discuss the hiring of a third party (w) 2 reviewer for Brown & Root's design and engineering?
3 A I would say it was either in late November or 4 early December of 1980, maybe -- let's say it was 5 somewhere from late November through the middle of 6 December of 1980.
7 0 Did you and Mr. Oprea discuss the ongoing 8 review after each of the Quadrex briefings and I have in 9 mind there was one on March the 18th, one on April the 10 13th and one on April the 30th?
11 A I'm not sure I had much dialogue if any, with 12 Mr. Oprea following the March meeting. I'm reasonably 13 certain I did after the April 13th meeting.
r's (sf 14 Q And what did you and Mr. Goldberg talk about in 15 terms of what Quadrex had to say in the April 13th 16 briefing?
17 MR. AXELEAD: I'm sorry, is that question meant 18 to be --
19 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) What did you and Mr. Oprea 20 have to discuss; what did you discuss?
21 A I think I just gave Mr. Oprea a general update 22 that the review seemed to be identifying a number of 23 areas where the engineering was potentially further 24 behind than anybody may have realized; that there was a 25 considerable amount of analysis work remained to be b
v TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 01^239
11340 1 undertaken that in certain instances hadn't been started; 2 that there may well be some matters that may prove to be 3 reportable once we've got more information from Quadrex 4 and have had a chance to evaluate the significance.
5 Q Did you go into any detail with Mr. Oprea on 6 what Quadrex was finding or did you give him basically a 7 general overview that there were things behind that 8 shouldn't be behind or did you go into detail about that?
9 A I suspect it was more of a general overview; if 10 I got into any detail, I can't recall specifically where 11 that might have been.
12 O And after the April 30th meeting, briefing, by 13 Quadrex, did you meet with Mr. Oprea again?
I' .
x,/ 14 A I did call Mr. Opres, cs I recollect, and had a 15 conversation with him to the effect that we had gotten 16 practically the whole report; ue still didn't have 17 cnewers to certain questions and we still didn't have the 18 written document in hand, 19 And I told him that we expected to get the 20 document within a matter of a week, and that we would 21 pave to undertake an expeditious review once in hand to 22 determine if there were any matters for the 23 reportability.
24 0 Was it the April 30th briefing that Quadre'x 25 used a series of overhead slides to demonstrate what they TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 e.-
-4 0
11341 1 were finding?
2 A I.believe Quadrex used overhead slides for both 3 the April 13th as well as the April 30th meetings.
4 (No Hiatus.)
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 ss 14 .
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 4
22 i 23 ,
24 25 3
1 0
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 9"r.,.,,.' d1
e 1
1 MR. SINKIN: I'd ask that this b2 mnrkad as 12342 2 CCANP Exhibit 88 for identification.
3 Q ( By Mr . Sinkin) And I would ask Mr. Goldberg 4 if you recognize these as productions of the slides that 5 were used in the Quadrex briefing on April 30th?
6 A It does appear somewhat f amiliar. There seems 7 to be any number of them that were ultimately in the 8 report, so I'd say it looks like these are the slides.
9 Q And is it your understanding that these same 10 slides were used in the briefing of Brown & Root on the 11 May the 1st?
12 A That is my understanding, yes.
13 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chai rman, I would move CCANP
) 14 Exhibit 88 into evidence subject to the Applicants 15 having time to assure themselves that this is what it 16 says it is. It was provided by them on discovery and 17 I'm sure they want to check that it is complete and 18 accurate. But subject to that, I offer it into 19 evidence.
20 ER. AXELFAD: I have no obj ection, Mr.
21 Chairman.
22 It might be useful, though, when an exhibit of 23 this type is produced and Mr. Sinkin has it marked for 24 identification if just for the record he identifies what
[^') 25 it consists of or number of pages or things of that kind e
mi (o e ,
o w TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
r e 2
1 co we won't have any difficulty in the future. 12343 2 MR. SINKI'N : Fine.
3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think you probably should 4 since these are not numbered.
5 MR. SINKIN: CCANP 88 by ny count has 6 twenty-one pages. The first page has a handwritten 7 notation in the upper right corner 8 A with a circle 6 around it. The printed material starts "B&R systems 9 level integration. " And on each page is a presentation 10 in a different area by Quadrex. Some of them seem to be 11 general presentations, others are specific discipline 12 findings that are presented.
~
13 MR. REIS: The Staff has no obj ection.
' 14 MR. AXELRAD:
('s I~think that characterization 15 perhaps went a little too f ar, but --
16 MR. SINKIN: I'm sorry.
17 MR. AXELRAD: There is a heading on the first 18 few pages and thereaf ter it is just a number such as 19 4.1. 2 .1 (a ) which may or may not be a specific finding in 20 the Quadrex rercrt.
21 MR. SINKIN: Right.
22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: For what it's worth, there 23 are some handwritten notes saying slides used and the 24 rest is unintelligble.
[^'i q) 25 MR. SINKIN: Yeah, illegible. There are some e -'33 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
wrveo 3
1 1 handwritt:n note: on the firct pag 3, but c11 I can rend 12344 2 is slides used.
3 JUDGE BECBHOEFER: In any event, CCANP Exhibit 4 88 will be admitted.
5 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Turning now, Mr. Goldberg, to 6 the meeting on May lith, you and Mr. --
7 MR. AXELRAD: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
8 MR. SINKIN: I'm sorry.
9 MR. AXELRAD: I'm sorry. I just had a 10 thought. I just want to make sure for purposes of 11 clarification, there's been no testimony with respect to 12 slides. That exhibit has been admitted only for the 13 purpose of showing that those were the slides used at a f 'j.
- t. 14 briefing on April 30th and not for the truth of any of 15 the matter stated therein. There has been no testimony 16 going to the substance of the document. I just want to 17 make sure we understand that.
18 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) All right, Mr. Goldberg, le.t 19 me deal with that a little bit thi n.
20 MR. SINKIN: The exhibit was offered as the 21 slides that were used and was accepted as the slides 22 that were used.
23 MR. AXELRAD: Right. And not for the truth of 24 the matter therein.
/ 25 JUEs:E BECHHOEFER: For what it's worth, I
' w))
c -
- 4 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
e-4 1 think I ack d Mr. Goldberg n quantion about thera slid s 12345 2 yesterday or the day bef ore. They still don't have to 3 be -- for the purposes I asked them, they don' t'have to 4 be admitted, howev er.
5 MR. AXELRAD: They have been admitted as 6 slides, but not for the truth of the matter therein.
7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right.
8 Q ( By Mr . Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, starting with 9 page 1, B&R's systems level integration, when Quadrex 10 put this slide up, however they did that when they 11 proj ected it, was there discussion of this particular 12 finding?
13 A As I recall, there was virtually little or no y\
'( )
14 discussion of any of these at that particular meeting.
15 As I recc11ect, the purpose of the slide show was to 16 show us where Quadrex seemed to be coming out.
17 There were some questions, as I recall, that 18 had been raised originally on this review which occurred 19 back on April 13th. We did talk about some of those 20 issues, many of which were still questions. And this 21 was more of a preview of the kinds of things we were 22 likely to find in the report once the report came out.
23 But there were still some caveats that Quadrex was 24 putting the report together and that things could change
~
[] 25 in certain areas. This wasn't their final report, this x;
l J s)
TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
uty,ma 5
1 wn: just parta of it. 12346 2 Q The first four pages, five pages -- I'm sorry, t
3 six pages, Mr. Goldberg, have headings on them,'whereas 4 the latter pc.ges all begin with a number. Do you note 5 that distinction?
6 A Yes.
7 0 Were the first six findings presented to you 8 as generic findings as contrasted with specific 9 discipline findings?
10 A I believe they were general observations which 11 later appeared as generic findings in the report. So, 12 for all intents and purposes, they certainly could be 13 characterized as generic.
( 14 Q Did Quadrex characterize them as generic at 15 that time?
16 A They edght well have. I'm sure the 17 connotation of it being of broader percpective than of 18 an isolated observation was our understanding. I 19 suspect the word generic could have been used. I know 20 if it wasn ' t that, it was general. It was words that 21 would have suggested a broader perspective.
22 0 In terms of the issues that were still 23 questions f rom the April 13th briefing, can you ideritify 24 whct those issues were?
,~
( ) 25 A No, I can't. As I recall, this wasn't a V
e * - ' ;g TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
wrvoo 6
1 report, thoca were parto of a report yet to be iccued. 12347 2 I couldn't begin to recall what was characterized with 3 caveats. I mean, you' re asking me to go back to a 4 verbal conversation that was held many years ago. I'd 5 be just guessing if I could tell you what exactly was 6 said about each item.
7 0 Moving along to your meeting on May the lith 8 with Mr. Oprea and Mr. Jordan at which youall, you and 9 Mr. Oprea briefed Mr. Jordan on the Quadrex report 10 findings. Do you remember that meeting?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Was that the first time that you had discussed 13 the Quadrex study with Mr. Jordan since it had begun?
/T
- (j .
14 A Yes.
That's the only briefing that I'm 15 personally faniliar with that Mr. Jordan received, at 36 least f rom myself cer tainly. I can't speak to what 17 briefings Mr. Oprea may have given him between the time 18 we talked about commissioning the study until the time I 19 made my briefing.
20 Q At the May lith meeting, did you give Mr.
21 Oprea and Mr. Jordan a copy of the report?
22 A They all, I believe, had copies there and I 23 don't recall whether they kept them or what they did 24 with them.
25 Q So, when you arriveed at the meeting, each of
- c. ~17 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
e 7
1 you had brought a report with you? 12348 2 A No, I think I had some copies of the report 9 3 there and I f rankly don't know whether they kept them or i
1 4 they lef t them. I had a report there, but I can't 5 recall whether the people actually took it away with 6 them or lef t them on the table.
7 Q Did you sit down with them and read through 8 the report highlighting certain parts of it? How did 9 you convey to Mr. Jordan what was in that report?
10 A Well, I had some agenda which I can't tell 11 whether it was right out of the report or it was in my 12 head or a combination of the two. And it was to go over 13 the high points of where I felt the report had clearly
(') 14 signaled some areas within Brown & Root's engineering 15 operation that they better be aware of as it will 16 clearly have an influence on the timely completion of 17 the proj ect.
18 Q You've looked at that agenda recently and you 19 don't know if it represents --
20 A I'm saying that agenda was either reading out 21 of the report or what I had in my head or some 22 combination of the two.
23 Q Do you still have that agenda?
24 A What was in my head?
(p 25 Q No, the piece of paper.
%d pa nn .n 20 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
8 1 A No, I caid the aganda wcs a combinntior. of 12349 2 what thoughts were retained in my mind as forer.ost 3 elements to discuss, coupled with having the report 4 available to ,go through it and pick out matters that I 5 wanted to make sure they were aware of.
6 0 When you used the term agenda, you did not 7 mean to indicate that there was a piece of paper that 8 contained agenda?
9 A I hope I was clear that the agenda was a 10 combination of what was in my head and what was on the 11 report. I didn't talk about another piece of paper.
12 Q Okay. All right.
13 Page 51, line 16 of your testimony, Mr.
r (hj 14 Gol dber g, you state that you have told Mr. Joidan about j 15 the identified weaknesses in the Brown & Root 16 engineering organization. What were the specific 17 identified weaknesses that you told Mr. Jordan about?
18 A I think the areas that I highlighted that I 19 saw as particularly significant was the f act that they I
20 had very limited inhouse nuclear analysis capability, 21 that most of the nuclear analysis that had been I
22 perf ormed on the project had been perf ormed by the NUS l 23 Cor pora tion. l And I expected that if Brown & Root was to {
{ 24 continue to perf orm nuclear analysis in any kind of
)
)
25 timely way, they would have to be very dependent on co TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
9, '
1 NUS. 12350
.2 I felt that there was a number of indications 3 that / they had too few really solid managers, given the
> 4 size of the organization, that it was going to take to
! I i
! 5 get the job done and that they were going to have to .
6 4.nfuse more seasoned, experienced persons in any number 7 of disciplines in order to enable us to go forward with i
8 any kind of a timely program. We just were working ~ith 9 too few resources to get the job done in any reasonable 10 time frame.
11 0 Were there any other weaknesses that you l
12 identified to Mr. Jordan other than the resources l
13 weakness?
j cm i ( _j 14 A Well, I certainly pointed out that I didn't 15 think they had a very good understanding of how to i
- 16 design nuclear heating ventilation and air i
17 conditioning. I highlighted the f act that there was a 18 question regarding the adequacy of the verification 19 program they had in place for verifying computer 20 progr am s, and that tl at represented a f airly substantial 21 question that had to be answered.
22 I may have -- in fact, I'm sure I probably 23 mentioned that we had some question regarding the 24 adequacy of their verification of shielding analyses. I
(~'! - 25 clearly highlighted those. The concern about the y
c ' ' ' ~j 0 o
TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
18 1 numbero. of pecple. 12351 2 I know I was very much concerned and probably ~~~ ~ ,
3 the most lasting impression that I got out of the whole 4 report was the absence of the start of the work on pipe 5 break outside containment. That struck me as a very
-6 substantial portion of work that remained to be 7 accomplished. And as I think I commented earlier, it was my feeling that that work should have probably
~
8 9 gotten started two to three years earlier. And if that le perception was correct, I didn't know what impact it 11 would have on the completion of the project, but I was 12 reasonably persuaded that it would never be finished in 13 the time frame being predicted by Brown & Root.
() 14 0 Is there anything else you conveyed to !!r. .
15 Jordan as weaknesses in the Brown & Root program that 16 you remember?
17 A I pretty much think those are the high points 18 of the conversation. There were occasional questions 19 that I'm sure were asked. I can't really recall the 29 particular questions, per se, but at least the substance 21 of what I remember of that conversation I have just 22 described.
23 0 One of the items you pointed out was that 24 Brown & Root had no good understanding of how to design 25 nuclear HVAC. Were there other areas that you perceived e' _
0 31 TLTE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
w 11 12352 1 Brown & Rott did not havo c good undarstanding of how to - .
2 do nuclear design?
3 A Well, we talked about nuclear analysis. Now, 4 nuclear analysis is kind of a broad area that involves 5 dealing with the consequences of postulated energy 6 releases inside containment, that deals with, of course, 7 consequences of pipe break outside of containment as 8 well. There are certain aspects of the radiological 9 analysis that are related to the nuclear analysis.
10 I felt that lack of resource constituted a 11 concern because unless they contracted f or these 12 services f rom the outside, then those services would not 13 be available.
( ) 14 Q Well, but my question really went to c. Acck of 15 understanding on the part of Brown & Root of how to do 16 certain things and you mentioned nuclear design and 17 HVAC. Are you saying that in these other areas of 18 nuclear analysis, the consequences of postulated energy 19 releases inside containment or the radiological 20 analysis, Brown & Root also lacked an understanding of ?
21 A They had very few people who had a good 22 understanding. They didn't have sufficient numbers of 23 people with that correct understanding, so they would be 24 very dependent upon outside resources to be able to 25 carry out the responsibilities in that particular area.
c.- aa TATE REPORTING (733) LSS-f.442
12 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Sinkin? 12353
~~
3 2 MR. SINKI'N: Yes.
3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: In current terms of the 4 current topic you' re on here, how close are you to 5 conclucion of that, it being a little af ter 6:00 right 6 now?
7 MR. SINKIN: One more question.
8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Will that be a good time to 9 break then?
19 MR. SINKIN: That will be fine.
11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay.
12 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) In the topics you list on 13 page 51 of your testimony, Mr. Goldberg, at line 18, you
() 14 include the lack of analyses to confirm the preliminary 15 design. Does that apply to the items you've already 16 mentioned or does that cover additional items?
17 A I'm sorry. Where are you reading from, Mr.
18 Sinkin?
19 Q Page 51.
I 20 A Yes.
l 21 Q Line 18. l 22 I'm sorry, strike that question. That was not 23 an identified weakness, that was a large amount of 24 design work yet to be perf ormed, so it doesn't relate to g 25 weakness. So, strike that question and I'm finished.
P ' ': " 3 3 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 )
w 13 _
1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: B: fore we break, wa think 2 we ought to set a specific time when we're going to hear 3 the argument about quashing subpoenas. I realize not as 4 much as the Applicants' case will have been completed as 5 we expect, but we would hope that by maybe the first 6 thing Friday morning we could hear those arguments. We 7 would like to hear those before we break at the end of 8 this week.
9 MR. SINKIN: First thing Friday morning you 10 said?
11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right.
12 MR. SINKIN: That's fine.
13 MR. AXELRAD: Fine. We will' try to prepare a,
( 14 if %re can, written motion to quash bl Thursday evening 15 so the Board and the parties can have the advantate of 16 that.
17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's up to you.
18 MR. AXELRAD: I understand.
19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We're not requiring it, but 20 if you submit it, we'll read it.
21 MR. AXELRAD: Is this also related to the 22 Staff witnesses or what is the status of the --
23 MR. REIS: There's still a motion outstanding 24 that we thought we were going to reply to orally down
^
( 't 25 here on compelling the testimony of Messrs. Dircks, (a>
r# ^34 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
e 14 1 Collina, S;yfrit, Driccol cnd I don' t remember -- 12355 2 MR. SINKIN: Herr.
3 MR. REIS: All right.
4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We ought to hear that, 5 too.
6 MR. SINKIN: I would think -- either way. It 7 doesn't matter.
8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We would like -- in 9 connection with the notion with respect to the staff, we 10 would like to put the Staff on notice that while we do 11 not necessarily expect Mr. Dircks to be here, we would 12 like some staff witness to be able to address Mr.
13 Dircks ' testimony to which Mr. Sinkin quoted from in (n) 14 his --
15 JUDGE SHON: His testimony bef ore Congress.
16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Bef ore Congress. And what 17 he had in mind and -- well, whatever. It does not 18 necessarily have to be Mr. Dircks, but perhaps one of 19 the staff witnesses particularly from headquarters could 20 address that. That would bear on that motion that we'll 21 deal with on Friday. We do want that subj ect cevered.
22 17. . SINKIN: Well, of course, I would be 23 rereluctant to have someone else testify to what was in 24 Mr. Dircks' mind as to what he testified in Congress.
o
( '/ 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, we'll discuss that kk' o"35 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
e-15 1 1Ctor. But wo would liko the Stnff to toll un how they 12356 2 might plan to address that question.
~'
3 With that, we'll adj ourn till -- well; wait a 4 minute. Mr. Newman?
5 MR. AXELRAD: Well, before we go off the 6 record, one of the things I would like to ask is where 7 we now stand with respect to the status of Mr.
8 Goldberg's cross-examination. He do have to plan other 9 witnesses. We had been told by the Board yesterday, I 10 believe yesterday, that possibly by Wednesday af ternoon, 11 which is tomorrow afternoon.
12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That won't happen.
13 MR. AXELRAD: That will not happen?
()T' 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We are still hoping that we 15 will finish with Mr. Goldberg by the end of tomorrow.
16 We don ' t even know that. But we have conveyed that to 17 Mr. Sinkin and that means he has to finish sometime 18 before the end of tomorrow. The Board has a number of 19 questions.
20 MR. AXELRAD: Fine. But there is a reasonable 21 expectation that Mr. Goldberg may be finished tomorrow?
22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: There's a chance. I can't 23 put any probabilities on it.
24 MR. AXELRAD: Thank you, Mr. Chai rman.
/ '/ 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It 's not likely that he'll U
r'^"~6 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
L4Fuas 16 12357 1 b2 finishcd in tima -- it's almont impossible that he'll . - _ . . _ _ _
2 be finished in time to start any other witness tomorrow, .
3 so that I can assure you of.
4 MR. AXELRAD: Thank you.
5 (Hearing recessed at 6:10 p.m.)
6 7
8 ,
9 10 11 12 13
,m (J 14 15 -
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e.,
J $
TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
) CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 2
3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before 4 the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR COMMISSION in the matter of:
5 6 NAME OF PROCEEDING: EVIDENTIARY HEARING HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, 7 ET AL (SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, UNITS 1 AND 2) 8 9 DOCKET NO.: STN 50-498-OL STN 50-499-OL 10 11 PLACE: HOUSTON, TX
^* ,
DATE: Tuesday, July 16,1985
(- )
13 14 were held as herein appears, and that this is the 15 original transcript thereof for the file of the United 16 States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
17 18 19 - c. - 4%
R. Patrick Tate, CSR 2 ~
Susan R. Goldstein, CSR "
22 Official Reporters 23 L_ J 25