ML20132B704
| ML20132B704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 07/17/1985 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#385-980 OL, NUDOCS 8507250032 | |
| Download: ML20132B704 (238) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, -- - -- - - - ----- - - ORIGINAL n ! u UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: STN 50-498-OL STN 50-499-OL EVIDENTIARY HEARING HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, et al. (South Texas Project Units 1 and 2) I O ! LOCATION: HOUSTON, TEXAS PAGES: 12358 - 12590 DATE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1985 L
/ 0l o\\
o V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. CfficialFvparters 444 North Capitol Street hok kooh O!Ooo 98 Washington, D.C. 20001 T PDR (202) 34e-oM NATIONWIDE COVERACE
12358 i
/~' 1
\_)i 2 UNITED STATES OF A!! ERICA 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 ----------------------------------X 6 In the Matter of: : DOCKET NO.
7 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER : STN-50-498-OL 8 CO!! PAIN, ET AL. , : STN-50-499-OL 9 (South Texas Project Units 1 & 2 : 10 ----------------------------------X 11 University of Houston 12 Teaching Unit II, #215 13 Houston, Texas () 14 15 1G Wednesday, 17 July 1985 17 18 The hearing in the above-entitled matter was 19 convened, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:05 a.m., 20 BEFORE: 21 JUDGE CHARLES BECHHOEPER, Chairman, 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. 23 JUDGE JAMES C. LAMB, Member, 24 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. 25 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12359 1 JUDGE FREDERICK J. SHON, Member, 2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. 3 4 APPEARANCES: 5 On behalf of the Applicants: 6 MAURICE AXELRAD, Esq., i 7 JACK R. NENHAN, 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 EDt?IN J. REIS, Esq., 16 ORESTE RUSS PIRFO, Esq., 17 Office of the Executive Legal Director 18 19 20 On behalf of the Intervenor: 21 LANNY ALAN SINKIN, 22 3022 Porter St. N.W., #304 23 Washington, D.C. 20008 24 Representative for Citizens Concerned About 25 Nuclear Power. . ..() TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12360
'O 2 2 C0NTENTS 3
4 WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS BOARD RECROSS REDIRECT - 5 6 JEROME II. GOLDBERG) 12368 12535 7 12522
- 8 9
10 11 - 12 13 EXIIIBITS : FOR ID: IN EVD. ' Q 34 . 15 89 12423 12424 16 83 12381 17 ' -86 12404 12404 ( 18 90 12481 12481 l 19 91 12486 l i 20 l 21 22 23 j 24 - 25 HO TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
~ _ 12361 a 1 2 gentlemen. JUDGE BECHUOEFER: Good morning, ladies and I will confirm that if we need hearings 3 during the week of August 13 to 16, they will be held ! g i 4 here in this room. And I'm issuing a notice from ir i 5 Bethesda that spells out all the hearings, including j i 6 that one. k 7 Any preliminary matters before we resume? 8 MR. SINKIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I nave one 9 preliminary matter. Earlier in the hearing we 10 introduced CCANP 72 or had it marked for 11 identification. It was the excerpt from the quality 12 assurance manual for Brown & Root and it was called to (( ) 13 our attention that the date at the bottom was August the f 14 14th,1981, and that this revision would not have been ; I 15 in place at the time Quadrex was doing their study or 16 the decisions on reportability were made or at least th 6 ~ l 17 decisions on notification. ' 18 And I approached the Applicants about 19 providing the copy of dais quality assurance manual that 20 was in place at the time. I pointed out to them that it l 21 was produced to the State of Texas in discovery, that 22 there was only one Brown & Root quality assurance manual 23 that Texas took in discovery, and that it was almost () 24 certainly the intent of the State of Texas to get the 25 one that was in place at the time of Quadrex. TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
cg-81 12362 l () 1 Tney pointed out to me that that was done 1 2 without written pleadings and very informally and that 3 they are not sure what was asked f or and they have 4 decided not to provide me with the copy of the Brown & j 5 Root quality assurance manual in place at the time of 6 the Quadrex study. l 7 We also talked about this on the record at one i 8 point and Mr. Axelrad encouraged that we go off the 9 record. I have attempted of t the record to work this I 10 out. It hasn't worked out. 11 I think that the Brown & Root quality 12 assurance manual in place et the time une Quaorex stuuy ( ({} 13 was done is a valuable addition to the record. I't is 14 not a document that's in any way in controversy in a 15 sense it's known what it is. And that the production at 16 such a document by the Applicants for introduction into 17 the record is no great burden or any prejudice to them. l 18 I still feel personally in my own mind that 19 the State of Texas must have asked for the one in place 28 at the time of Quadrex and the one that was produced was 21 produced two months later. There would be no reason for 22 the August 1981 manual to be at issue. 23 So, I've come on the record to raise this 24 issue in hopes that the Board will encourage or direct 25 the Applicants to produce the section of the Brown & _ _ . . . . TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8448
Cg-#1 l l 12363 '() 1 Root quality assurance manual that is excerpred in 2 CCANP's Exhibit 72 that was in place in Brown & Root in 3 the period that Quadrex conducted its study. ) 4 MR. GUTTERMAN It sounds to me like what 5 CCANP is asking for is additional discovery at this 6 time. CCANP had an adequace opportunity for discovery. 7 I frankly can't remember what the State of Texas' 1 8 request was regarding that quality assurance manual. 9 The State of Texas never expressed any dissatisfaction 10 with it back then and has never expressed any 11 dissatisfaction with it since. Tne thing said on its , r^T 12 face what it was. ' (,_/ - 13 I j ust -- I cannot see the basis f or document 14 production at unis time. Tnere is an e2:nicit alreacy 15 admitted in Pnase I, Applicants' Exhibit 6, that 16 provides a description of the quality assurance programs 17 of HL&P and Brown & Root and I would think that would be 18 an adequate basis for a description of the quality 19 assurance program. I don't see any need f or anything 20 el se. 21 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, tirst of all, I 22 have not made any effort to involve the State of Texas 23 in this dispute. I certainly would be happy to approach '(s) 24 the State of Texas about providing an af fidavit as to 25 what they thought they were getting in discovery. I was TATE REPOW6tNG (713) 498-8442
Cg-91 l 12364 ) 1 !. ( } 1 hoping to avoid that. I 2 As far as Applicants' Exhibit 8 in Pnase I, l 3 that is essentially the implementing document, how the 4 various aspects of quality assurance will be 5 implemented; whereas, this quality assurance manual is 6 more the requirement document, what is required of a 7 quality assurance plan. We find that there are 8 significant differences between the two documents and 9 that this document is what we want in the record to 10 illustrate the point that we want to make and it cannot 11 be illustrated with Applicants' Enhibit 8. {} 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Does the Start nave any 13 view of this? 14 t1R. REIS: The Staff views discovery as 15 closed. Discovery closed a long time ago. I con't see 16 why there should be any reward for failure to engage in 17 discovery previously. 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, let me -- for this 19 purpose .I think we ordered CCANP to be bound by Texas' 28 discovery in this regard, so -- 21 MR. GUTTERMAN: Mr. Cnairman, could I just 22 mention something about that and that's j ust that there 23 was an extensive opportunity for discovery. Discovery I() 24 The State of Texas then asked for it to have an closed. 25 extended period for discovery since there had been a
, _ _ , TATE REPORTING __ __.__ (713) _498-8442 _
og-ih 12365 () 1 change of administration in the State of Texas and the 2 State had a renewed interest in the proceeding it hadn't 3 had during the period for discovery. 4 So, CCANP had a full opportunity for discovery 5 before the State ever took any discovery. And it's true 6 that the Board did not reopen discovery for CCANP af ter 7 that time, but there was an ample opportunity to -- 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We did, but we suojected it 9 to what Texas -- 10 MR. GUTTERMAN: To certain limitations. 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- what Texas had done. We 12 dian't want you to nave to procace the same oocuments . 13 again for CCANP that you had produced f or Texas, so -- 14 Tne Board has deciced that we will treat CCANP 15 72 as that which was in effect on the date in May '81, 16 unless we are shown to the contrary. And if the 17 Applicants want to show us to the contrary, we will l l 18 accept that. But, otherwise, we will accept CCANP 72 as l 19' what was in effect, at least the sections to which we've l l 28 had testimony about. 1 1 l 21 MR. GUTTERMAN: Mr. Chairman -- 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We will presume it was in 23 effect unless we're shown to the contrary. e0 24 MR. GUTTERMAN: Can I make an inquiry aDout 25 that? That's a document of I don't know how many pages, 1 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 j
cg-41 12366 () I but there are several pages involved, and I -- 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I was thinking mostly of 3 the sections -- Mr. Sinkin did not express an interest 4 in the whole document. i 5 Did you? 6 MR. SINKIN: A fifteen-page excerpt. 7 MR. GUTTERMAN: I was just wondering if we 8 could have some more narrow definition of what 9 particularly aoout this document the Applicant is going 10 to be bound by if it doesn' t rebut. 11 One of my proolems in discussing this issue ,- (~N 12 with Mr. Sinkin orf the recora is that he's oeen t %-) 13 unwilling to explain to me what the purpose of the 14 document is so that I can help nim find a way to 15 accomplish his purpose. And if we could Just have some 16 definition of what particular parts of this document are 17 at issue. 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I believe he 19 mentioned that section 3.2, design responsibility, and I 20 thought there were one or two others. I haven't checked 21 the specific sections. 22 HR. SINKIN: Page 3, descriptions -- page
- 23 3-14, the description of design description and
( k_3) 24 technical ref erence document. 25 In general, Mr. Chairman, the document TJH3 FTF3BT8NG * (713) 498-8442
cg-81 ! l l 12367 I O 1 demonstrates what sua11tv assurance was concerned acouc l 1 2 in the area of design and engineering and we will link ! 3 those directly to the findings of the Quadrex report and 4 demonstrate that the Quadrex report was obviously a 5 quality assurance document. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: But you are limiting it to 7 the fourteen pages? 8 MR. SIliKIli: Just this excerpt. You only have 9 fourteen? We mignt check that. 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, we have an 11 introduction. j 12 MR. SINKIN: Taere's an ,J.Heroouctory Sneet. 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And tnen tourteen pages. 14 !!R. SIllKI!!: And then tourteen pages, that's 15 correct. 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, if you can obtain or 17 if you know that there are differences in those fourteen 18 pages, it's apparently one section of the manual -- 19 MR. GUTTERMAN: At this point, Mr. Cnairnan -- 28 JUDGE BECHBOEFER: - Section 3. 21 MR. GUTTERMAN: - I don't know if I have the 22 preceeding volume. I don't know if there are 23 differences. I'll just have to check on what's tO 24 available. 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Well, I tnink we 9T4UTEsfV6PR _ N _ _. _ _ _ _ _
r-gg_gy l 12368 {_)g 1 will hold off technically admitting it into evidence 2 until later. Sometime before we adjourn we'll know 3 whether there's any differences. 4 Okay. Any further preliminary matters? 5 MR. SINKIN: No, Mr. Chairman. 6 JUDGE BECHUOEFER: I guess you may proceed 7 with your cross-examination. 8 9 JEROME H. GOLDB ERG, 10 having been previously duly sworn, testaried furtner 11 upon his oath as follcus: 12 t( ) 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Cont'd) 14 BY MR. SINKIN: 15 Q Mr. Goldberg, I would ask that you look at 16 Exhibit CCANP 83 we marked for icentification yesterday, 17 if your counsel will provide you with that. It's a 18 rather lengthy document, Mr. Goldberg, and I don't want 19 to take the time to walk through the whole tning unless 29 it's necessary. 21 At the top of this document it says 22 discussions among STP participants regarding replacement 23 While
.o of architect / engineer and construction manager.
24 the document is dated September 22nd, 1981, the first 25 line says at 1:00 p.nu on September 12th,1981, tne __ TATE REPORTING (713) 499-8442
cg-il 12369 I) 1 following representatives of the participants met to 2 discussion this subj ect, and lists tne attendees. 3 Is it your recollection that on September 12tn 4 there was a discussion among the STP participants as to 5 the replacement of Brown & Root as architect engineer 6 and construction manager? 7, A That is correct. 8 Q And does this document purport to be the 9 minutes ot that meeting? 10 A Yes, it does. 11 Q And you were in attendance at that meeting?
^' *
< 12 A Yes, I was.
- t. (v) 13 Q Calling your attention to cne second rull 14 paragraph, maybe it's the thira tull paragraph on ene 15 first page star ting "Mr. Oprea outlined, " it you would 16 just focus your attention for a moment on that 17 paragraph.
18 Did you and Mr. Oprea attena a meeting with 19 Region 4 Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials, 20 including Mr. Seyf rit, which I believe is S E Y F R I T l 21 as opposed to the spelling in this oocument, and Mr. 22 Collins? That's the end or the question, Mr. Goldberg. 23 A Yes, I did. I Delieve that was on September I (( ) 24 8th. 25 Q And a. Lhat meeting did tne NRC inform you TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
cg-91 1 12370 , l'h JO.s,/ 1 that they were leaning in the direction of a decision l 2 that the Quadrex report required a 50.55(e) report by , 3 HL&P on an engineering coptrol Dreakdown under Criterion 4 7? i 5 A As I recall the conversation, tne NRC asked 6 the question have you considered whetner or not tne 7 entire report ought to be filed as the 50.55(e) . 8 Q And who asked that question? 9 A I'm not absolutely sure. My feeling was it 10 probably was fir. Seyfrit. 11 Q Did Mr. Seyf rit or any other mescer of the NRC 12 express their view as to whetner tnat report snould oe [} 13 turded over? 14 A No, there was no discussion about turning it 15 over except in the context have you considered whetner 16 or not the entire report should be the suo]ect of a , 17 59.55 (e) . That was the question that was given to the 18 licensee at that particular meeting. 19 We indicated in response to that question enat 20 that had been considered and that should other 21 inf ormation development that would cause us to believe 22 that that's an appropriate course of action, then such 23 an action would be undertaken. !() 24 On September 8th,1981, you were still Q 25 gathering information that would influence your final
cs-VE 12371 l () 1 decision on whether to turn the encire report over to 2 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? 3 A Well, I think it's fair to characterize that 4 there were a number ot follow-up actions af ter we had 5 received the Quadrex report. Brown & Root was tasked 6 initially to go about the business of providing the plan 7 of action on addressing these issues. In the course of 8 carrying out a plan of action, it is distinctly possible 9 that certain areas that were not clear might come into 10 setter focus and mignt well support ene view tnat maybe 11 the entire report needed to be placed into the NRC under 12 4 53.55(e). 13 0 So, ycu yourself stili consicered on Septencer 14 8th the poccibility that inrormation might develop enat 15 would influence you to turn the report over to the NRC 16 staff? 17 A That was certainly in the realm of 18 possibility. 19 Q on page 2, Mr. Goldberg, down at the paragraph 28 beginning at 2-24, "Mr. Newman began," if you would 21 focus your attention for a moment on that paragraph. 22 Was this the first time on September 12th that , 23 you had heard of the possibility that replacing Brown & (O 24 Root as architect engineer might require a construction 25 permit amendment? TATE REPORTING (713) _498-8442__ ____
12372 () 1 MR. REIS : I object. It's not probative of 2 the issues here. Whether it requires a construction 3 permit change or not require a construction permit 4 change has nothing to do with the issues in this 5 proceeding. We're not going to go into -- I don't tnink 6 it's proper to go into the legal issues of when a 7 construction permit change might be required or might 8 not be required. 9 MR. SINKIN: I aidn't raise une question as a 10 legal issue, Mr. Chai rman, I was raising it to find out 4 11 Mr. Goldberg's knowledge of that as a potential 12 pr oolem. I'm not going to ask for nis opinion on ( } 13 whether a construction permit amencment was necessary, 14 I'm trying to seek out his knowledge about licensing 15 difficulties, when was he aware of certain licensing 16 difficulties as a potential, not whether rhey were real i 17 or not. 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now , how does tnat bear on 19 the issues in this proceeding? 29 MR. SINKIN: We have testimony in ene record 21 already from Mr. Goldberg that one of the questions tnat 22 came up about changeover was regulatory uncertainty. 23 And I wanted to see when he became aware of regulatory
. ((:) 24 uncertainty and this is one of those regulatory 25 uncertainties.
RTRJUWVWR GVULim-FkYA
Cg-il 12373 f) 1 MR. REIS: I don't -- I'll let the Board -- 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think we will overrule 3 the objection, even though it's rather peripheral. We 4 will let him answer. l 5 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Do you remember the question, 6 Mr. Goldberg? 7 A Yes, I do. If I could take a moment, I wanted , 8 to just kind of bencnmark my own recollection. 9 Q Could I ask what you' re using to ref resn your 10 memory? 11 A Well, I'm taking a look at the request for 12 proposal that I preparea that was issued back in July, (]} 13 and I wanted t6 see exactly how we had counseled witn 14 perspective contractors regarding matters that might 15 relate to licensing activities. 16 0 I can perhaps help you, Mr. Goldber g. I tnink 17 we're looking at the same thing. On page 3 of the 18 request for proposal on I guess the -- yes, page 3 at 19 item K. Are we looking at the same -- 29 A Yes, I nad read that. I just wanted to see 21 whether there was anything else in the document. 22 Well, in answet to your question, I believe 23 that this matter had certainly been discussed to some () 24 degree bef ore the meeting. We had met with each of the 25 perspective contractors that were being considered f or RTRDT!4T66"R U?#ULEX1-fWM
- r. cg-UE
]
12374 () 1 the work, of course, prior to this particular meeting. 2 And during the dialogue at those meetings, Mr. Newman 3 was present on a number of occasions and we certainly 4 wanted to make sure that the engineers that we were 5 talking to understood that we did not know, that we did 6 not know all the answers in terms of how tne NRC would 7 require that we go about replacing the engineer. 8 It was distinctly possible that we may have to 9 have a public hearing. It may oe possible that we have 10 to have a CP amencment. If those kinds of things migne 11 occur, it might delay the point in time that a new 12 engineer could become the engineer of record. And there
)
13 may well be a need to have the new engineer come in and 14 basically function only in theory. We vould still nave 15 to continue to use the engineering services of Brown & 16 Root. 17 So, we made it a point to explain that we 18 didn' t have all the answers, that until we had reacned l 19 the point where we had made the oecision to go forward, 29 once that decision were made, tnen we'd notify the 21 Nuclear Regulatory Commission and then we'd come to 22 understand what licensing problems we might f ace. ! l 23 Q Just so the record is clear, the request for O 24 proposal is the back part of CCANP 78. That's what you 25 were looking at? l __ _ TATE . REPORTING ... (713) __498-8442_____ __ _ _ _ _ __y
cg-41 12375 f(7 ) 1 A That is correct. 2 Q The minutes of the September 12th meeting that 3 we are looking at go on at the bottom of page 2 to state 4 that the discussion at this point drifted to the 5 possibility of a new engineer eventually having to take 6 over the construction as well. Do you rememoer tnat on 7 September 12th the question of the new engineer taking 8 over as constructor as well came up? 9 A Well, as a matter or ract, it clan't come up 10 quite as a question. I believe that I brougnt that 11 matter up. Clearly we had no way of knowing at the , 12 point in time that we would aavise Brown & Root of a l .(~'; V 13 pending change whetner or no't they would be willing to 14 stay on as a constructor. Tnat clearly was a question 15 that we couldn't answer. We had had no dialogue with 16 Brown & Root. 17 We believed, and I think Mr. Jordan mentioned 18 a few of these points in his testimcny, that Brown & 19 Root co uld do the J ob. They had certainly addressed the 20 quality concerns of the earlier phases of the Job wnich 21 led to the show cause order. We believed that witn the 22 presence of an experienced construction manager to take 23 charge of the planning of the construction work, that 7, LV' 24 Brown & Root would do a considerably good Job. 25 We were concerned that Brown & Root had a lot TATE REPOSRING (713) 498-8442
12376 '(a.j i 1 of good trained resources, people that had been on the 2 job f or many years who had been trained in the f ollowing 3 of Brown & Root construction procedures. Tnese were all 4 valued resources that were in place. We were hopef ul 5 that they'd stay on, but we had no way of knowing 6 whether they would. 7 Q over on page 3, Mr. Goldberg, the second f ull 8 paragraph starting "Mr. Jordan inquired. " Was tne 9 possibility that if Brown & Root was replaced as che 10 constructor the Job might well be shut cown in your mind 11 before you went to the September 12th meeting? 12 Ma. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I calieve we've 13 had these kinds of questions before and I believe the 14 objection has been raised and I think sustained oy the 15 Board that the question of replacing Brown & Rooc as a 16 constructor and the various considerations that migne go 17 into that are really not germane to tne issues before us 18 which involve whetner or not the company should have 19 informed the NRC of the Quadrex report and/or the 29 potential replacement of Brown & Root, and that whetner l 21 or not there were concerns about what might take place 22 if they were replaced as constructor also are not ; 1 23 pertinent here. (O 24 MR. PIRPO: I tnink this evidence is 25 cumulative, too, Mr. Chairman. To tne extent F2 . Sinkin _ _ TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 ___
09-#1 12377 ( l has been trying to prove that regulatory concern was, as 2 he used the term earlier, in the mind of Mr. Goldoerg or 3 any of these people at the September 8th meeting, he's 4 shown that fairly well by this point. 5 HR. SINKIN: September 12th. 6 HR. PIRFO I'm sorry? 7 MR. SINKIN: Seprember 12ch. 8 MR. PIRFO: September 12th. To that extenc, 9 it's cumulative. 10 HR. SINKIN: I'll withcraw the question, Mr. 11 Chairman, jQ 12 I would move CCANP 83 into evidence at tnis . 13 time, Mr. Chairman. 14 JUDGE silon: I wonder, if you're aoout to 15 leave this, I'd like to ack Mr. Goldberg at least or 16 someone - 17 MR. SINKIN: I am about to leave it. 18 JUDGE SHON: -- a couple questions about this 19 document. The first thing is it's rather like some of 20 the short stories Demon Runyon used to write, it's all 21 in the first person, but you never find out what the 22 name of the first person is. . ',n 23 Who wrote this? It's not signed. Or do you '( U 24 know who it is? It says and the writer, but -- 25 THE WITNESS: The minutes of the management
cg-41 12378
,y !.(_J. 1 committee meetings are the secretary's anc Mr. Charles 2 Thrash's. Now, to be very honest, Judge Shon, I can't 3 say with absolute certainly whether he was the one who 4 wrote these minutes, but he's generally the gentleman 5 who writes the minutes.
6 JUDGE SHON: The second thing I note as 7 strange, the second f ull paragraph, or pernaps as }k. 8 Sinkin said perhaps you should count it as the tnird,
- 9. the last sentence beginning, "Mr. Oprea reported that 10 the NRC was leaning in the direction of the decision 11 that the Quadrex report required a 50.55(e) report oy
- g ({} 12 HL&P on an," an'd then it's in quotes, " engineering 13 control br eakdown," enat's not the term of' art enat 14 anybody has been using as f ar as I know. A quality 15 assurance breakdown or something like tnat. Wnere did 16 that term come trom and what does it mean?
~ 17 MR. NERMAN: Judge Shon, may I help to adcress 18 that? 19 JUDGE SHON: Yes. 25 MR. NERMAN: I had precisely the same l l 21 difficulty in admitting the document in evidence other j 22 than as it purports to be some minutes prepared by Mr. l l 23 Thrash. It's obvious that the document cannot be l (.. 24 admitted for the truth of the matters stated therein j 25 because, as you have just pointed out, for example, the
.. . m m 1
eg~t1 12379
'L()~ 1 terminology is not accurate, even the citation to the 2 criterion involved is not accurate. And, so, I think 3 what you have is something which represents somebody's 4 best effort to capture what might have been said at a 5 meeting, but I don't believe we would be prepared to 6 stipulate that all of the matters stated therein are 7 true or have been truly reported in those minutes.
8 JUDGE SHON: Well, of course, the next thing I 9 was going to ask is what is Criterion 7. And I guess 10 the answer is we Just don't know who wrote it or what he 11 meant by some of the terminology he used, or she if it 12 was a woman. I believe that it's really ref erring co (]) 13 Appendix B, Criterion 7, which is the criterion tnat 14 extend the quality assurance to vendors and 15 subcontractors and people like that. But that isn't 16 what determines a 50.55(e) repor t, so I don't -- again, 17 it's used in a peculiar context. I 18 Anyhow, I guess the answer is we just don't 19 know, is that right, Mr. Goldberg, or you don't know? 29 THE WITNESS: I can't comment on that, Judge 21 Shon. There are some, from time to time, perceptions oy 22 . the secretary that if they get picked up and review the 23 minutes, they' re corrected; if they don't, th ey don ' t. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Does the Staff have any
~
25 view on sais document? The Board will -- CTG UTFMT63N RJIMLMYhTWVt
47VB 12380 l MR. PIRFO: I'm not sure what ene question is ({} 2 pending before the Board right now. 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: There is a motion for 4 admitting it into evidence. 5 MR. PIRFO: No objection. I have some views 6 on it, but as far as an oo3ection, no. 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The Board will tend not to - 8 admit it for the truth at tnis point. We may ask some 9 questions of Mr. Oprea when ne gets nere and ir he can 10' identify it further, possibly it will go to the trutn, 11 but I don't think at this point it can. It can De 12 ad.mitted with the qualification that it would be to 13 illustrate the matters that Mr. Goldoerg was testifying 14 about. Mr. Goldberg's answers on these questions are 15 perf eccly acceptable. 16 MR. PIRFO: Tne Stati having heard that, 17 Chairman Bechhoefer, I unink tnat -- well, in truth -- I 18 mean, what I've heard from the Applicants, that all goes 19 to weight and that can be remecieo on redirect. I don't 20 think that's any qualifier to its admission. 21 (No hiatus) 22 23 b() 24 25 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12381
.1 MR. SINKIN: I recognize the problem being 2 raised by Mr. Pirfo. If they think there's something in 3 here that is not true, they can certainly cure that on 4 redirect.
5 MR NEUMAN: Mr. Chairman, the document, if Mr. 6 Sinkin wants to get the document into evidence for the 7 truth the matter stated therein, there are many matters 8 stated in this. He should have taken the opportunity to 9 determine who prepared the minutes, produced the 10 individual. Mr. Goldberg's obviously not prepared to 11 certify the accuracy of everything contained in thoce 12 minutes. 13 As the Chair and Judge Shon and others have l() 14 pointed out, on particular matters which are germano to 15 the proceeding in which the Board or parties may wish to 16 inquire into, for example Mr. Oprea's statement, Mr. 17 Oprea will be here. To the extent that the Board or the 18 parties wish to inquire into Mr. Goldberg's statement, 19 Mr. Goldberg is here. 20 The document can't be admitted or introduced 21 into evidence for anything more than that purpose. 22 As I say, I have no objection to its admission
'23 as long as we understand what it's admitted for.
24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: At the moment, at least, we 25 will admit it but not for the truth of everything stated O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12382
- 1. That may be subject to reconsideration after
(]) therein. 2 we've heard from Mr. Oprea, depending on what he knows 3 about these minutes. 4 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, were you sent 5 the minutes of this meeting after they were generated by
- 6 Hr. Thrash?
7 A I'm not real sure. And the reason I say that 8 is for this reason. When these minutes were prepared, I 9 was known as the alternate member of the management 10 ccomitteo, not HL&P'c primary member.
; 11 From time to time, I would get them for review 12 and review them or not review them or not even get them; i 13 the primary member, of course, would get them all. And
() 14 the primary member has the option of personally reviewing 15 it ,or reviewing it and asking the alternate member to 16 review it ac weil, or delegate the review responsibility 17 to the alternate. 18 And I can't say with absolute precision whether 19 I even got them, you know, for review prior to their
- 20 issue. At this particular point in the activities of the
, 21 project, I was personally working in a rather dense and 22 tenouus area of activity. I spent many hours dealing 23 with a host of problems and I just don't know whether I 24 even found the time to bother to look at those minutes. 25 Q Who was the primary representative on September
~
(:) TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12383 e 1 12th? 2 A That would have been Mr. Oprea. 3 0 were these minutes kept as a routine thing at 4 Houston Lighting & Power; was there a file kept of these 5 minutes? 6 A There is a file that we do keep of the 7 management committee minutes, that is correct. 8 0 There is a file that you keep of the management 9 committee minutes at HL&P? 10 A That is correct. 11 MR. NEW!!AN: That's not the question, Mr. 12 Chairman. 13 MR. SINKIN: I'm sorry, that HL&P keeps of the 14 management committee -- 1 (]) ' 15 A HL&P has a file which contains the management 16 committee minutes. 17 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairnan, I think, then, that 18 this record is admissible as a business record of HL&P, 19 kept in the routine course of business -- 20 JUEGE BECHHOEFER: Let me raise one problem 21 that I see. Mr. Newman, Mr. Axelrad, will you show Mr. l 22 Goldberg -- there are a number of documents, but one I 23 pick out is like No. 12 in your first -- this is just as 24 an example, something that looks like this. My question 25 ist Don't minutes look more-like this than like the V TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
- - - - mec co a m--
12384 {) 1 2 other? I just picked up No. 12 at random. MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, you are asking he be 3 shown an example of those management committee documents 4 that are very sketchy in detail? 5 JUDGE BECHHOEPER: Right. My question is don't 6 the minutes look more like that than like CCANP 83. 7 THE WITNESS: Mr. Chairman -- may I answer that 8 question? The minutes are more in the style of this 9 exhibit. 10 MR. SINKIN: Could could you specify which? 11 THE WITNESS: 33. I personally -- the first 12 time I think I've ever seen this style was that it had 13 had come up to my attention and it was one of the matters T ( ]) 14 that was supplied to the Board in preparation for this 15 phase of the hearings. I have never seen these types of 16 . notes; they apparontly represent Mr. Thrash's rough notes 17 that he uses to later construct the minutes. !: 18 This is the style of the minutes that members 19 of the management committee are privileged to see. 20 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Goldberg, you've stated "this 21 style" and "these notes." It's not possible for the 22 record to know which document you're referring to. The 23 ones, I believe, that you meant you have seen before are 24 those which were the ones of the documents introduced to 25 the Board such as No. -- O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12385 1 THE WITNESS: Okay. This is one of our
'(])
2 exhibits. Let me -- what's our exhibit number on this 3 one? 4 MR. AXELRAD: What the witness was referring to 5 is a document, document No. 12 that was produced for the 6 Board on April 19, 1985, which later, I believe, became 7 Applicant's Exhibit No. 59. Pirfo I didn't hear you. 8 MR. AXELRAD: Applicant's Exhibit No. 59. 9 THE WITNESS: So I was contrasting that the 10 management committee minutes that are distributed to l 11 meetings of the management committee are of the form 12 represented by CCAMP Exhibit 89 as opposed to the form 13 represented by Applicant's Exhibit 59. i() 14 JUDGE BECHHOEPER: I was just picking that 15 arbitrarily. There are a number of documents that look 16 like Applicant's 59. But just to clarify my cwn mind, 17 that helps. 18 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, did Mr. Thrash l l 19 record those management committee meetings? 20 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I 21 understand what the question " record" means. ( 22 MR. SINKIN: Tape record. 23 A No. 24 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) No. 25 MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Chairman, we now have a ruling ( TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
l l .- 12386 {} l now on the limitations for the admission of the document l 2 we're ready to move on to another question. Is that 3 correct? 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes -- 5 MR. SINKIN: I believe I asked that it be 1 6 admitted as a business record and therefore would come in 1 7 for the truth of the matter. 8 MR. NENMAN: There is not the remotest 9 testimony on the record nor any stipulation that would 10 establish that that is a routine business record of the 11 company. Mr. Sinkin has not done enough to establish 12 that; there is nothing in the record to establish that. 13 JUDGE BECHROEPER: Well, our decision was made -- l(( ) 14 HR. SINKIN: I'd like to respond to that. I 15 think we have a different evidentiary argument going on 16 than the original evidentiary argument after I asked Mr. 17 Goldberg certain questions about the keeping of minutes 18 at HL&P. I thought based on those questions, there was a 19 basis for this document to come in as a business record, 20 which would mean we would not have to have Mr. Thrash 21 come and testify about this document. 22 MR. NEWMAN: This is just argumentative with 23 the Board. I think it's time to move on to another l 24 question. 25 JUDGE BECHROEFER: We have ruled. As I O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12387 l 1 mentioned, when Mr. Oprea gets here, he was obviously at {])- 2 the meeting and questions may be asked of him as to : 1 3 whether those are the proper minutes or not, or the only 4 minutes, I should say. Until then, I think we've ruled. 5 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, on the paragraph 6 on page one of CCANP 83 there is a discussion about Mr. 7 Syphert and Mr. Collins there's a reference at the of the 8 paragraph to quote " engineering control break down," 9 under criterien 7. 10 Could you give me your understanding of what 11 that phrase as applied to in terms of 50.55(e)? y 12 A I don't remember in the conversation with 13 cither Mr. Syphert or Mr. Collins any reference to this (() 14 particular statement and I haven't referenced this 15 statement, so I frankly can't begin to tell you what it 16 means. 17 0 In your view, does criterion 7 of Appendix B, 18 criterion 7 of Appendix B, apply to the control of 19 services purchased by HL&P from Brown & Root? 20 A I'd like to look at criterion 7. 21 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Sinkin, can you repeat the 22 question, please. 23 MR. SINKIN: I want to give him a chance to 24 review it rather than -- for you, Mr. Axelrad, 25 I'm asking: Is it your view that O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12308 c 1 criterion 7 applies to services purchased by HL&P from
-{}} '
2 Brown & Root. 3 A No, I believe this criteria is principally 4 focused on the purchase of goods and services usually by 5 the architect engineer. 6 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Would it apply at all, in your 7 view, to the services purchased by HL&P from its 8 architect engineer? 9 A Yes, I believe it could apply in that context. 10 Yes. 4 11 0 on page 42 of your testimony, Mr. Goldberg, if 12 you will remember yesterday we were talking about this 13 casential cooling pond finding. What I'd like to do is I() 14 turn to question N-17 in Volume III of the Quadrex report 15 . which is Applicants' Exhibit 60. 16 MR. SINKIN: It's question M-17 in the third 17 volume of the Quadrex report 18 JUDGE SHON: That's what I thought. We don't 19 have that -- 20 MR. SINKIN: You mentioned that. 21 JUDGE SHON: You mentioned an Applicants' 22 Exhibit number. 23 MR. SINKIN: 60. 24 JUDGE SHON: 60. That's right. 25 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have that. O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
l 12389 l Q (By Mr. Sinkin) On the second page of that {} 2 question, the first page is the Brown & Root response on 3 the second page is the Quadrex assessment, and I want to 4 ' call your attention to the Quadrex assessment. 5 Mr. Goldberg, have you finished? Yes, I am. I 6 thought I saw you look up. Have you read that entire 7 page or just that bottom paragraph? 8 A I read the bottom paragraph. 9 0 Oh, I'm sorry. You need to read from the top, 10 because that's Quadrex talking, too, i 11 Q All right. 12 A All right. 13 0 In your testimo'ny, at Page 42, line 14 -- well, 14 let's take answer 58 above that first. You talk about f (( ) 15 question N-17 which you have just reviewed, stating that 16 Brown & Root should have analyzed the temperatures of the 17 water in the essential cooling pond under -- and then you 18 specify two conditions. The first is conditions of 19 normal shutdown of two units, and the second is normal 20 shutdown of one unit and a loss of cooling accident in 21 the other unit.
~22 Am I reading that correctly?
23 A That is correct. 24 0 In your answer 59 you say: Brown & Root had 25 performed an analysis of the ultimate heat sink that did . FO TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12390 l l consider the combinations of plant conditions identified [} 2 in the NRC guidance. 3 Are those two plant conditions identified in 4 the NRC guidance?
, 5 A Yes, they are.
6 Q Now, back to question N-17. About the middle 7 of the first paragraph of the second page of question 8 N-17, 9 is the statement by Quadrex: Brown & Root has not 10 calculated normal shutdown of one unit in combination 11 with normal operacion of the other unit. 12 That seems to be a third condition that Quadrex 13 was concerned about. Is that condition in the regulatory N() 14 guide? 15 A It is not. 1G Q Quadrex was concerned that Brown & Root had not 17 considered, if you look at the underlined sentence -- 18 Brown & Root was not concerned particularly about this 19 condition because there was no need to keep one unit at 20 full load during shut down of the other unit. 21 A As a regulatory matter, as a matter of safety, 22 that is true. There's certainly no requirement that when 23 you have one unit shut down that you must operate the 24 other at full power. Those are commercial 25 considerations, not safety considerations. l 1 O l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 i
)
12391 1 Q Is it conceivable that for commercial reasons, 2 that condition would then arise where one unit was shut 3 down and the other was operating at full power? 4 A I think in the distinct realm of possibilities, 5 Mr. Sinkin, that with one unit shut down, it would 6 potentially be very desirable to have the full 7 availability of'the other unit. 8 0 Quadrex says at the bottom of the first 9 paragraph on that page, " Brown & Root calculations show 10 that a higher heat load into the ECP for normal shut down 11 than for LOCA." 12 I assume what they're saying is that if you 13 have done the analysis, as you say in answer 58 Brown & l4 Root hsd done, normal shutdown of one unit and a loss of . i() , 15 cooling accident in the other unit, that you would have a 16 higher temperature in the first condition that you point 17 to which, is normal shut down of both units than you 18 would if the LOCA condition. Is that your understanding? 19 A I'm not absolutely sure how the numbers came 20 out. As I understand it, the two conditions create heat 21 loads that are very close. The -- I do believe that 22 there is a slightly higher heat contribution when you 23 take dciin both units into a safe shutdown on a 24 simultaneous basis versus accident conditions in one and 25 a shutdown in the other. i l ( l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12392 1 Q How, in the bottom part on page N-17, quection
-(])'
2 N-17, in the part titled Quadrex assessment, Quadrex says 3 in the second sentence, " Based on the values in B&R 4 calculations, simultaneous orderly shut down of both 5 plants," which they say has not been analyzed, you say 6 was analyzed," would violate tech spec limits. 7 How, why in your view, on May the 8th, was that 8 not a potentially reportable deficiency? 9 A Well, what are you referring to? 10 0 I'm referring to based on the values in Brown & 11 Root calculation , that second -- I mean you have to take 12 it in the context the whole paragraph, obviously. But 13 that particular conclusion by Quadrex that there could be I(} 14 a condition that would violate the technical 15 specifications, why would that not be a potentially 16 reportabic deficiency? 17 A well, the best of our knowledge, both la conditions had been anatyzed as reported in the final 19 safety analysis report. I believe that they just weren't 20 able to locate the calculations that addressed the case 21 of the safe shutdown of both units. 22 Quadrex had made an indication that they had 23 done some very preliminary numbers back in the en'velope 24 type calculations, and that had speculated that it may 25 not fall within the tech spec limit. () , TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
. _ . . . . , - - , - . , - - - _ . - - ,- - - . - , - , , . . - - - - - - _ _ _ . ,.,_,.--.n. . . . . _ - - . - _ , - , . - _ . , - - , . - . - . . , - ,- - - - , , - . _ _ - - , - -
12393 1 ((]) 1 Brown & Root was in the process of redoing the 2 analysis; it seemed to me at that juncture it would have 3 been premature to believe this to be a reportable 4 problem. 5 Q Mr. Goldberg, I'm going to call your attention 6 to a document Applicants' 57. The last page -- excuse 7 me, wrong. Applicants' 89 -- hold it, hold it. I'm 8 right the first time, Applicants' 57, the last page. 9 MR. AXELRAD: Are we still on the ECP or can we 10 put away the ECP? 11 MR. SINKIN: You can put away the ECP. 12 O (By Mr. Sinkin) Are you with me, Mr. Goldberg? 13 A Are we on the page that wasn't really part of 1() 14 that basic -- 15 0 That's correct. 4 16 A -- document? 17 0 That is correct. In your prior testimoney, Mr. 18 Goldberg, you have talked on more than one occasion about 19 weaknesses in the Brown & Root design and angineering 20 program and one of those weaknesses being an absence of 21 adequate technically skilled people. t 22 Is this a list that you prepared as to where, 23 by the title, special technical skills might be sorely 24 lacking on the STP Brown & Root team? 25 A It represents skills that I believed either I
)
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
i i 12394 [ } 1 Brown & Root didn't have sufficient in-house expertise 2 and therefore was totally dependent on outside 1 3 assistance, or areas where they had a degree of 4 capability and I felt it needed to be strengthened. 5 0 Could you just walk through relatively quickly 6 and tell me which one of these you thought they were 7 totally dependent on someone else? 8 A All right. Starting with the first item, they 9 had some degree of AS!1E 3 code expertise. We felt that 10 was an area that ought to be strenghtened.
- 11 In item two, we felt they were very week in 12 nuclear heating ventilation and air conditioning 13 technical capability. They were doing that in-house; we
(( ) 14 felt they clearly had to significantly strengthen that 15 first. 16 They vero totally dependent upon outside 17 expertise for what I call 'real solid nuclear coatings 18 knowledge." They had used a variety of consultants, and 19 we were pressing them to hire their own coatings expert. 20 Nuclear analysis, I believe, we've addressed on , 21 a number of occasions, that they had very limited 22 capability. They were heavily dependant on NUS, so much 23 so that I believe that some of the difficulties that i 24 Quadrex experienced in understanding how some of the 1 25 analysis was performed was a direct result of not having l 4 O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
.-_,____.~ _ _ _ ___..__-__--. _ ._ _____. _ ___,_.___
12395 1 some of the NUS engineers present who had performed those ({J 2 analyses. 3 Under the engineering planning and scheduling 4 and performance measurement category, they basically had 5 just gotten what I perceive was their first really 6 seasoned professional in the area of planning and 7 scheduling and performance measurement. And I don't mean 8 performance measurement here in the context of the 9 quality as much as I mean in the context of where are 10 they in terms of actual progress. 11 so that was an area that they had just gotten 12 started on building what I believe was the kind of 13 organization they needed. (() 14 Test engineering was an area they'd have to 15 build some expertise, but we were not heavily involved at 16 this particular juncture in the tests activities. To the 17 degree they needed the expertise was the degree to 18 support a test program. 19 With respect to the next comment, which is item 20 six, that's kind of a catch all, a little bit of 21 motherhood. They were very week in subcontract technical 22 administration, from a commercial standpoint. Some of 23 these subcontracts in terms of dollar value were bigger 24 than some whole contracts that Brown & Root had handled 25 in the past, and we felt they needed some stronger . O TATE REPORTDMI SERVICE, 498-8442
12396 contract administrators to handle those contracts. {) I 2 Q Thank you, Mr. Goldberg. What I'd like to do 3 is remove that page and have it marked as CCAMP 89 and 4 move that page into evidence as a separate document. 5 JUDGE BECH!!OEPER: It's already in evidence. 6 MR. SIliKIN: Well, then just have that page 7 marked. Okay, we've identified it, I'm just concerned -- 8 okay, we can do it that way. We've identified it as 9 Applicants' Exhibit 57, page six. That's fine. 10 (Discussion off the record.) 11 (No !!iatus.) 12 13 () 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 () TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 i
cg-43 12397
'( ). 1 JUDGE BECUHOEFER: Back on tue record.
2 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldoorg, turning an your 3 testimony to page 51, at line 18, you state enat when 4 you met with 12. Jordan and Mr. Oprea on May the 11ta, 5 you tolo eneu about the large amount of uesign work yet G to De perf ormed, especially the lacx of analyseu to 7 confirm tne preliminary cesign. 8 Can you tell me which -- what dic you tell 9 thc= in terne of lack of analyses to confirm tuc 10 preliminary design? 11 A I'u not sure I'll be able to recount all the 12 cienento, but certainly so:sc ot une tnings tunt were (]} 13 done, as eney are done in every design, as there are 14 preliminary auuensuunts of the MSSS loads au it berves 15 to provide input for the person who has to design ene 16 USSS supports. Now, the loads come f rom Westinguouse 17 and they have to be utilized by Brown & Root in the la cesign of equipment. Usually the first loads are very 19 conservative and further analysis is uncertanen to 20 develop that interf ace to a mucn greater degree of l 21 precision. 22 The sizing and predictions of temperatures and 23 such things like cooling ponds are of tentimes matters tO 24 that have to be reconfirmed. There was evioence tuat 25 that required f urther analysis. Brown & Root, in tact, QTn JGraTam /l51RSULMM-AYft
cg-13 12396 ! l.(/~N,) I wea in the process of doing it. 2 There was a utgnificant amount of work that 3 lie anead associatuu with tne fitting of Till items into 4 the oesign. 5 Tuere was the matter or the analysis of pipe 6 oreak outuido containment. 7 Tuere van a substantial amount of design work 8 that lie ahead which consisted of confirmation of a 9 variety of preliminary work done by Brown h Root, as 10 well as work that had not yet been started. 11 Q I van going to pcInt out, you incluced in lecE 12 of analysis to contirm tue pre 11tuinary design cou pig 13 break outside containment. You wouica't incluoe it in 14 that catescry in a conce -- 15 A That represented work that had to be 16 undertaken, but it was of an analytical nature and it 17 aust had a bearing on the total analytical work loac 18 that lie aheac. 19 Q Right. Tue first one you mentioned was the 29 NSSS loads. Were there ditficulties in the Westinghouse 21 and Brown & Root interf ace at that time in May of 19617 22 A When you say difficulties, I'm not quite sure 23 in what context you're referring. 24 Q Was the interf ace operating smootnly? 25 A Oh , I have a feeling that ene interrace was RWLFN~WRFJW N
cg-@) 12399 LO 1 overatias vroa air s1=11 r =o iate<< ces aetwe otuer 2 AE's and Westinghouse. Westingnouse had to serve the l 3 needs of many projects. To a large extent sometimes you 4 cidn' t always get the level of attention that you wished 5 and you had to persevere and continue to pursue those G 41nds of matters to make sure that your naecs were ocing 7 taken care of. I'm sure some of that problem wes 8 attencant. If it wasn't, it would be very unusual. 9 As far as soae extraordinary probleu betw=un 10 that interrace, I don't think so. I cnank that it had 11 proDably the same cnullenge as wnat is somewnat 12 commonplace in projectu. 13 Q In the neeting on by lith with b;. Ogrea anc 14 lir. Jordan, cid you discuss the potentini release of the . 15 entire Quadrex report to the public? 16 A Not at all. 17 Q But you personally oelieved that release to 18 the public would cause problems; is that correct? 19 A I think it's fair to say enat if you took a 25 document that contained a lot or preliwinary inf ormation
- 21 which had not yet been placed in proper perspective, 22 that clearly once a document of that type is made f
23 available to a broader spectrum of readers, that you're rO 24 clearly going to be inundateJ with a lot of questions 25 because there is a lot of questions tu be answered. _- . _._ __ ___ __ TATE _ REPORTING._ _ 713)_498-8442._, ( . , _,
cg-73 124Ju o ' (_) 1 Q Hore specifically, it you had flied tne encirc 2 report as a SU.55(c), was it your knowleuge on May tne 3 8th, 1981, that I was receiving 50.55(e) reports filco 4 by UL&P? 5 A Hr. Sinkin, I con't enink I nao any special 6 xnowleoge as to what you were receiving in 1981. I 7 don' t enink that was a particular issue. I think that, 8 you know, any person is capaole of asking questions 9 about a cocument. I oon't tnink I gave any special 10 attention to you. 11 0 Did you discuss in thic time period, Hay, 12 June, July, 1961, alu you discuaa wich ag. Jotuun anu ( ) 13 Ur. Oproc vnether releasa of enc Qu-drex report to the 14 tmC or to the Licensing Board woulo create a proalen 15 because it would get out to tne public? 16 A I unink I endeavored to answer that question, 17 unicas my memory serves me incorrectly. 18 0 The original quencion was tocused on llay 19 lith. Now -- 29 A I beg your pardon. 21 Q Hy original question of that type was focused 22 on the May lith meeting' of the three of you. Tais l l l 23 question said in May, June, July, did you have tnat kind 1 (_')
'~'
24 of discussion with Mr. Oprea or Mr. Jordan? l 25 A To tne best of my knowledge, Mr. Sinkin, we've TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8443
ag-43 12401 (() 1 never had that kind og discusalon, per uw. 2 Q Did you have that kind of discussion with 3 anyone else about the release of the Quadrez report 1 4 getting out to the pubile causing problems in tact May 5 period? 6 A Ou, I caink it's quite possible enac 12. 7 Robertson and I may have had some didlogue of taist u type. You know, wnen we were mocting to cecide on the 9 sun]ect of reportability, we were reviewing incivicual 10 itena cno we were also censitive to patternu of 11 probluuu. And there's no question in uy nind enct 12 12 (( ) there nad buen patternu of cigniilcant ureakcown in enu-13 design process, enac I teel reasunauly confident tuac 14 that woulu have signaled thut we had cest r11e chut 15 report. 16 Q I understand tuat. I'm really focuutng on the 17 discussion about releasing the report woulo creato 18 problems of perception out for the public. Are you 19 saying you had that kind of conversation with Mr. 20 Rober tson? 21 A That might possibly have come up in the 22 conversation occause when you start to indicate what you , 23 might do given certain information, you can always 24 somehow start reflecting on, well, you know, why con't 25 we just gratuitously do something, is there any
eg-93 12402 () 1 undesirable aspects of Just volunteering f or sometning 2 that you oon't really tnink you need to do. It's 3 possible that cauc up in conversation. I don't really 4 recollect. 5 Q Mr. Goldoerg, I'm going to show you an answer 6 provided in Applicants' answers and objections to State 7 of Texaa' titut set of interrogatories to Applicants on 0 Quadr ex. Tne answer is interrogatory 55. I'm going to 9 ack you to read into the record tne interrogatory and la the answer and then I will ask you 12 you agree witn 11 that answer. 12 It's a very discreet inquiry, Mr. Golouery. {({} 13 A Tniu is interrogatory 55. "On April 7tn, 14 19b2, Mr. Goldberg sent a letter to nr. Halligan of 15 Dechtel Power Corporation (ST-BL-YB-0507) in wnica 62. 16 Goldoorg ststed, 'In this connection, please note that, 17 although it may not be evident by reading tue Quadrex 10 report due to its lack of explicit de tail, three items 19 (line items 1, 190, 146) are also related to 28 deficiencies reported to NRC prior to the Quadrex 21 review. Please explain how each line ites is related 22 to the reported deficiency. 23 " Answers Line item 1 ref ers to a Quadrex 24 finding that the Brown & Root structural group does not 25 appear to question the reasonaoleness of the input data C~fC U Y Pif n~5n 66aM N%EVVw
es-43 12403 ([ ) 1 regarding margin. While Quadrex did not identary it 2 specifically, EL&P had previously reportec in Septemcer 3 1903 to tac NRC a condition of 'undercesigned beau 4 connections for Category 1 structural steel' which 5 resulted f rom inadequate oculgn input. 6 "Line Atom 100 relates to a Quadrex finuing 7 that refinement of the reactor cavity cooling pressure 8 drop calculation appears to be nececaary. ELwP unu 9 previously notified the NRC in Octooer 1980 of a concern 10 reistive to ' cooling of primary bhield penetrations. ' 11 " Lino itan 146 relatea to a Quaorex finding 12 that the auxiliary teecwater puup motora to oe located (]} 13 at a low elevation in ene isolation valve cuolele 'mhy 14 not be qualified fur tue curtuntly postalsted accicent 15 environment. ELbP had previously notified the NRC in 16 August 1980 of a concern relative to the auxiAlary 17 feeawater pump qualitication. " 18 Q Do you have any probleu witn that answur beiny 19 correct, Mr. Goldovrg? 20 A No. 21 Q And the letter referred to in tais 22 interrogatory is a letter that was marked for 23 identification yesterday as CCAMP 867 O 24 A Yes, that's similar to the last paragrapn in 25 ny letter which is marked as your Exhibit CCANP 86. OTRJTETnTww N
cg-#3 12404 h 1 Q The identification in the interrogatory is 2 April 7th,1982, Goldoerg to Halligan. Is thec the saue 3 as that exnibit? 4 A Yes. 5 HR. SINKIN: tir. Cnairman, I would reove CCANP 6 86 into evidence. 7 MR. AXELRAD: No obj ection, Mr. Cnalroan. 8 HR. PIRPO: No ocjection irom the scatf. 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. CCANP #G will De 10 admitted, 11 Q ( Dy !! . Sinkin) Mr. Goldccrg, on page 52, 12 question 82 at cne top. By toe woro, secret. In unut (] 13 queution du you also intend to respond to the word 14 confidential? Is unac in your mind the same as secroc7 15 A Weil, I think in my mind I would connotate 16 that either of those woros might be usco to secure 17 indiscriminate disclosure at a cocument. 18 Q Well, specifically in your answer at line 7 19 you say there was no instructions that it ce kept 29 se cr et. Would you also say that there were no 21 instructions that it ce kept confidential? 22 A To the best of my knowledge, I'm not aware of 23 any instructions to keep that document classified in 24 those categories. The only guidance that I ever 25 preocrioed was that this document would be available for N N
og-13 12405 1 1 review by the Nuclear Regulatory Cuisaission. That was 2 the information that I conveyed to Mr. Sells. l 3 In fact, I think yesteroay I conveyed the 4 notion that it was availaole for his reading at his 5 leisure. Tne connotation was meant to mean it was 6 available f or the NRC's review at whatever time the NRC 7 chose to make that review. I'm not sure I ever used she 8 words at somebody's leisure. Tnere's not much icisure 9 time in the nuclear business. la Q Okay. 11 A Dut that was the only cevcat. We had not
^
12 chosen to gratuitously tile thic report witn the Nuclear 13 Regulatory Cocusission, but we were caresul to loantify 14 that it existud, what the auo]uct of the report was, and 15 that it was available for their review at any time,, 16 incluoing the day they were inf ormed that that report 17 existeu. 18 JUDGE BECHWOEFER: Mr. Goloberg, on page 52, 19 do those - do the words individuals who would have a 20 reason to want the information contained in it indicate 21 that ML6P was putting some sort of a need to know 22 classification on the document? 23 THE WITNESS: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe 24 so. That was a very sizable document and I think that 25 the copies that were madw available were for the people N /t9WutNYWVV\R
n9-43 1240G
- ()
I wno really needed to use it. Tause were enginwers on 2 the proj ect, certainly a large numoer or engineers at 3 Brown & Root. We nad copies ava11aule in the office for 4 >2 . Sumpter, Dr. Sumpter, Mr. Robertson and myself. 5 I guess it's f air to say that we didn't 6 distribute this uocument to all the employees of tuu 7 nuclear group. We utstributed it to those people who we 6 had reason to believe had a neod to use it. I wouldn ' t 9 classity it as need to know in that context that, you 10 know, there vau nome tear that othors woulo gut to know 11 it that shouldn't get to know it. It was a pretty f~) 12 sizaDie doccuent to just run oti literally nundreus of (v '
- 13' copies.
14 Q ( Dy 12. Sinkin) Unct was 12. Darker's 15 position at this time, May of '817 16 A 12 . Barker was the HL&P South Texas Project 17 manager. la Q And was he provideo a copy or tne report at 19 that time? - 29 A I don't really know. 21 Q Do you know if at some later tiuw Mr. Barker 22 was given a copy? 23 A I f rankly don't know who exactly got all the (g V 24 copies, either the day we got the report or at any point 25 thereaf ter. cnTtnrsf~manra /tStnSutNWNvut
cg-93 12407 I 1 Q On Hay tne 8th did you alrect enat 12. 2 Overstreet roccive a copy? 3 A I don't recall directing who ought to get 4 copies. I no recall that enouga copies were mace 5 availcole to the Brown & Root engineering teLu, to the 6 BL&P engineering team, certainly to 62. Roberthon, Dr. 7 Sumpter, myself. I suspect copies were maue availaulu 8 to a host of other persons, bat I wcen't in chargo of 9 document dictribution. I didn't write out a 10 dictribution. I cion't act who all got tne report. 11 To tho best of my recollection, distrauction 12 oi the report emanated trou Dr. Sumpter's ottica. He .((]) 13 may nove some recollection as to wno all got tne 14 repo r t. I curtainly can't apcah to that. 15 Q Did you give any specific instructions that 16 the quality esaurance department be provided with a copy 17 of the Quadrex report? 18 HR. AXELRAD: I think that was asked and 19 answered, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Golouerg testified he 20 didn't direct the districution of the document anu ne 21 doesn't know who got the document. I think tais is 22 pursuing -- .
.p 23 NR. SINKIN : The questions were very much in !U 24 the line of what indivicuals. He was not f amiliar witn 25 what individuals. Tnis question is dio he direct that m m i
C9-03 12408
'( ) 1 the quality assurance depar tment ce provided witn a 2 copy, whoever got it?
3 JUDGE DECHUOEFER: I unink we'll overrule une 4 cojection. 5 A I think I was trying to explain, Hr. Sinkin, 6 that I 1 rankly didn't have any recollection because I 7 don't recall any prescription as to either organizationu 8 or people, pe r so. I think it's fair to say that the 9 general understanding was tnat copius have to oe 10 available f or those persons wno hava need to use tuat 11 document for the pursuit of their work.
~
12 O (By tu. Sinkin) On page, transcript -- I'w g (v] 13 corry, your toscimony, pago 52, line 13 -- starting at 14 line 11 you ctate there was no regulatory requireuent 15 that Quadrex be submitted to the NRC. 16 Have you ever cent reports to thu URC wnen 17 there was no regulatory requirement to co so? 16 MR. AXELRAD: That's a very broad question, 19 Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Sinkin should make that 20 question more specific and relate it in some f aanlon to 21 the subject matter of this proceeding. 22 MR. SINKIN: Well, it's alreacy related by the
,_ 23 witne ss ' testimony that one of the reasons the Quadrex i
t
/ 24 report was not sent to the NRC was there was no 25 regulatory requirement to do so. My question goes to TATEEPORTING (713) 498-8442
ug-93 12409
/
- J 1 wnether no sent reports to the NRC wuen there was no 2 regulatory requirement to do so.
3 MA. AXELRAD: And I ' ta not sure what the 4 relevance to the proceeding would be if entre were any 5 nusaber of reports that have_been submitted to the NRC 6 witnout regulatory requirement. Tuere has to be some 7 showing of relevance ot the question to the suoject 8 matter et this procevcing. 9 JUDGE BECUHOEFER: We'll overrule the 10 obj ection. It'c marginal, but we'll see where we go. 11 A Well, I'd like to put things in a frame or .; 12 refesence. W have this magic date ot, say, my the 13 7 t h, 1901. Prior to coming to Houston Lignting a Power 14 Company in various tecnnical capacities wAcn Stone h 15 Webster Engineering Corporation, I have had occasion 16 from time to time to submit various types of gwneric 17 tecnnical documenta to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 18 as it might serve to support subsequent technical 19 submittals on behalt oi a particular licensee. 20 For example, the treatment of asymmetric 21 pressure loadings between a reactor vessel and a shiela 22 wall. If my memory serves me right, we supplied a lot 23 of technical data to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 24 of a generic nature and then an suosequent transmittals 25 on behalf of certain licensees, tne common information
39-03 12410 .((r~S ,) I was called to the NRC's attention f rom tnat document. 2 Now, prior to -- 3 Q ( By lit. Sinkin) Mr. Golduerg, I think I can 4 snorten this substantially. 5 A I'd like to answer the question, if I might. 6 JUDGE BCCHBOEFER: Let han rinish. Droad 7 question, br oad answer. O MR. SINKIN: I was going to tighten up ene 9 queution to shorten it. 10 A I don't want it tigntened. I 11xe it Just tue 11 vay it is, PJ . Sinkin,
~
12 14vw , prior to (Wy cae 7cn or ath and ac cau j (v} 13 point in time that I joincc HLLP, vnica was around 14 October twenticth, 196u , I can't recall ELLP uuumiccing 15 any gratuitous reporcu to the Nuclear Regulatory 16 Commission. It's possible it happened, but I can ' t 17 recall. It certainly wasn't any matter that I would la have had a personal involvement or would have 19 undoubtedly rememoored. 29 Now, af ter Quadrex and in ene course of what 21 started to develop, once we had made the change of 22 contractor, and I think the only reason for that context
, 7_
23 was that we started to develop a lot of new programa, I. U 24 programs that we felt were very innovative, programs 25 that were designed to provido us witn some very in-depth TATE REPORTING __ (713) 498-8442
~
eg-13 12411 (( ) 1 suostantial knowledge or the perf ormhnce of our 2 contractors and of a caliber tnat seemed to address the 3 type of initiative suggestea by Cnairaan Paledino of the 4 Huclear Regulatory Commission that licensees need to ao 5 more to assure themselves that the work associated with 6 their programs or their projectu is being carried out in 7 a quality manner. And at HL&P we introcaced the 8 engineering assurance program, whicn I believe we have 9 suomitted a number of cocuments to acquainc une Boaro 10 witu. 11 And the life blood of this program is a very 12 in-depun review of tue 1 Aconwe uaing suppl aeacal
- 13 services or an outsido engineering firm to review enc 14 substance ot, in unis case, Becncel's engineering to 15 make sure that in those provocative complex nuclear 16 areas, enat Bechtei is on track with what is 17 appropriate. And we have supplied details of enat 10 program to the Nuclear Regulatory Comminston, as well as 19 providing them copies of tne reports that tais program 2B bas generated.
21 And that's one example ot some reports that we 22 have provided to the NRC where regulations, per se, ao 23 not require. But we' re helping, we believe, to pioneer (( ) 24 what we believe will be a very usef ul practice in the 25 industry to have more substantive type reviews conducceo 93TUTFMT6ML M1#1A E M - $3 M --------------------- -- ---.
cg-e3 12412 1 1 by licensees of a caliner that will give not only the l 2 licensee confidence of the adequacy of the work, out the 3 NRC as well. - 4 We also, as I recall, sometime in mayoe it was 5 1982, possibly '83, we supplied to the Nuclear 6 Regulatory Commission, Region 4, a report dealing witu 7 the installation of tne nuclear steam supply system on 8 the Unit 1. There had been some questions raised oy 9 Becntel. These han been evaluated by Bechtel and 10 determined to be technically acceptable. But tnc 11 existence of the questions we felt were of interest to l {Q 12 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission because they related 13 to work perf ormed by a contractor who has pertormed work 14 at hnotner nuclear station. And we f elt enat while we 15 had no specific proolen of concern on Scuch Texas, tais 16 did not preclude the possibility of a concern 17 elsewhere. And we supplied that report with tne beliet 18 that it might be or some value to the NRC. Whether it 19 proved to be or not, I f rankly don't know, but we 29 supplied that report. 21 I think it is the practice of our company to 22 try to share with the NRC iniormation that we think wili 23 be usef ul either to give them confidence of the adequacy
<O ~
24 of the work at South Texas or in our view might be 25 useful as it signt influence the health and well Deing Qv0LnrFXW5Pa N
ag-DM 12413 (( ) 1 of the entire industry. 2 0 The report on the installation of the NSSS, 3 had you found discrepancies in the way Brown & Root had 4 installed the NSSS7 Is that what you reported? l 5 HR. AXELRAD Mr. Cneirman, at tais time I 6 would like to co]ect. It appears that enere was a brodo 7 question askea which we objected to which CCANP has not 8 narrowed. The witness necessarily gave a broad answer. 9 But if enere's going to ou any follow-up to any portion 10 or the answer, I oelieve tnat it nas to somehow tie to 11 the particular subj ect natter of this proceeding. {} 12 Ocnerwisa, one marginal question will Accu to a whole , 13 raf t of acditionally even less s15nificant anc relevant 14 questions. 15 MR. SINKIN: I agree, Mr. Chairman. This 16 particular deticiency was noted as the installation of 17 the NSSS system and my question was going to go to 18 whether that was potentially reportable in terms -- or 19 why that was not potentially reportable but was sent 29 anyway. 21 MR. AXELRAD: But that entire question is 22 irrelevant. We are discussing in this proceeding the 23 potential reportability of matters in the Quadrex report .(O l 24 as of 1981 -- c 25 NR. SINKIN: Arut the current competence of PE[LDEgiMi@DS G71M 098-8603
12414 , I (() 1 HL&P to make 50.55(e) reports. 2 JUDGE BECUHOEFER: I think we'll sustain that 3 obj ection. It's a little remote. 4 Mr. Goldoerg, while we're still on that one 1 5 page 52, could you clarify one thing f or ue? Wnen you 6 used the words on line 12 regulatory requirement, are 7 you ref erring only to regulations there or are you also 8 encompassing reg guides or comparablo cocumente unica 9 aren't orricially regulations, out are -- sucu as the 1S ILE guidance on reporting? 11 THE WITNESS Mr. Chai rman, to the best or ray [ 12 xnowleo*ge , botn in terms of any rugulatory influence, 13 wnctner it De by regulation or guicance, as well as 14 prac:1cu vituin the industry, I was not aware of any 15 requirement'that said to a licensee if you undertake to 16 perf orm reviews of your project -- and we do these 17 routinely in many different ways, through the use of 18 consultants as the Quadrex review would suggest. We 19 have audit type reviews conducted by quality assurance. 29 We have all these reviews on file in our company, as do 21 other licensees. We do not routinely share these 22 reports in the form of submittal. They are shared oy 23 being in our file. They are available for review by tne () 24 Nuclear Regulatory Commission as they may relate to 25 matters of interest to the Nuclear Regulatory EATB EE@DEEB 8713D 098-8002
39-93 12415 ([) 1 Coramission. We do not make it a practice to roucinely 2 send documents that prescribe reviews that we conducc. 3 Tne substance, however, of tnose documents as 4 it might relate to matters that are required to be 5 repor tect to the Nuclear Regulatory Coumission taen musc G be made available co the URC. The substance or tnose 7 matters has to be maae available. 8 Q (By 62. Sinkin) Let's go back co page 50 of 9 your testimony for a maaent, Mr. Goldberg. On page 50 10 at line 24 or starting at line 22 you distinguish 11 betwoon deficiencies representing departurcs f rom 12 regulatory requiremencs ratner cuan ene general [ 13 deficiency of the cesign process. 14 Is it your view that Appendix B does nor 15 encompass a responsibility on the part or EL&P to ensure 16 that Brown & Root's design and engineering of STNP is 17 done in an efficient manner, that Appendix B coes noc 18 apply to deticiency? 19 HR. AXELRAD: Are those two separate 20 que stions, Mr. Sinkin or just one? 21 MR. SINKIN: No, one. 22 MR. AXELRAD: Could you just restate the 23 question in one? I, 24 - (No hiatus.) 25 WTLR4W6iMW GNBh Mb-MOR
12416 () 1 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Is it your view that Appendix 2 D does not encompass whether the design and engineering ) l 3 process is being done efficiently? 4 A It's my understanding that Appendix B would . 5 bear on an orderly process but not necessarily an 6 efficient process. As a matter of fact, I don't think 7 Appendix B would care if the day after one received a 8 construction permit, did you nothing. 9 Q That's up to you. 10 A But I don't believe that it was the intent of 11 Appendix B to concern itself with the efficiency that a j 12 licensee went about the business of engineering the 13 plant. I don't think there was a prescription that it kO 14 must be done in so many years. Clearly, there a,re 15 commercial pressures that dictate that that is an 16 appropriate concern. 17 0 Is there in your view -- 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: As well as your construction 19 permit. 20 THE WITNESS: Well, certainly you have a 21 limited construction permit. When it runs out, you may 22 not be able to build it after that. 23 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Is it your view that there is ' 24 no relationship between how efficiently the design and 25 engineering process is conducted and the potential for O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12417
,O
(/ 1 deficiencies in the work produced? 2 A I gave an extreme case example, I believe, the 3 other day, where design activity wasn't carried out at 4 all, that the question of the timeliness isn't without 5 limit, that if you foreclose the opportunity to perform 6 the design activity, that that would be a concern. 7 And there are many illustrations of that. If 8 you fail to complete an analysis that requires that you 9 have a certain amount of reinforcing steel in your 10 structure and you then pour your concrete and then you go 11 about the business of finding out that you need some for 12 reinforcing steel, do you not have an orderly design 13 process. And I think that's what Appendix B is i () 14 addressing; and clearly the timeliness of your action is 15 inappropriate and I think that you then have a totally 16 different animal than just not having started something 17 that the design process has not foreclosed your ability 18 to complete in a reasonably orderly manner. 19 Q Page 53 of your testimony Mr. Goldberg, at 20 answer 83, you discuss Mr. Oprea communications with 21 Region 4 in August of 1981, if you could just familiarize 22 yourself with that answer. 23 Q Did Mr. Oprea tell you that Region 4 had 24 requested to be briefed on the Quadrex report? 25 A No. I believe the context was that HL&P
}
l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12418 () 1 suggested to Region 4 that it might be useful that we 2 provide a briefing of the Quadrex report for their ) 3 opportunity to get at least a broad acquaintance with the 4 . document. We knew that Region 4 was in the process of . 5 getting acquanted with the document. 6 0 I'm sorry, you said was in the process of -- 7 A Of getting acquainted with the document. You 8 know, we had made obviously an offer to NRR in months 9 earlier and we were affording a similar suggestion really 10 to Region 4. 11 O At page 54 of your testimony, MR. Goldberg, in 12 answer 85, you state that as of -- I assume the context 13 . of your answer is the !1ay 1981 period. Is that correct? ( ) 14 A Yes, your talking about the answer to question 15 85 16 0 -- was in the context of the May 1981 period. 17 You have participated in numerous licensing 18 hearings; is that correct, Mr. Goldberg? 19 A That's correct. 20 0 And you have prepared evidence for such 21 hearings, is that correct? 22 A I have participated in that effort, yes. 23 Q In the course of any of these proceedings, did 24 you ever have occasion to inform a licensing board of new 25 information that could affect its decision regarding TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 l 4
12419 A,( ) 1 matters under its review; in other words, I'm not talking 2 about prefiled testimony, putting together exhibits that 3 you know are going to be produced, but a proceeding is 4 underway, get new information, you provide it to the 5 licensing board? 6 A only in the context of information that the 7 licensing board identified it had an interest in wanting 8 to hear. 9 0 So the times that you have produced new 10 information were in response to an initiation from a 11 licensing board? 12 A I believe that's correct. 13 Q Did you at any time discuss with the attorney i
'0 14 who prepared you are prefiled Phase I testimony the 15 existence of the Quadrex report prior to your testifying?
16 A This was testifying when and in what period? 17 0 Well, on the 1981 phase of Phase I. 18 A And your question again was -- 19 0 Okay, let's start with the first question and 20 maybe we'll simplify it. l 21 Which attorney did you work with in preparing 22 your prefiled testimony in Phase I that was delivered 23 prior to the start of Phase I? 24 A I think I worked with Mr. Axelrad; Mr. 25 Gutterman, I'm sure I had conversations with Mr. Newman j' i () TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12420 ()~ 1 but I don't know that it was regarding the development of 2 the testimony. I think it was principally Mr. Axelrad 3 and Mr. Gutterman. 4 Q Was there any Baker & Botts attorney that you , 5 worked with in the preparation of your prefiled 6 testimony? ' 7 A I don't recall Baker & Botts attorneys involved 8 in the preparation of testimony. It may well have been 9 'that they were, but I don't recall them getting involved 10 in any preparation of nuclear testimony. It isn't clear 11 to me what the Baker & Botts attorneys were doing. 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: How about Mr. Hudson? 13 THE WITNESS: Mr. Hudson was one of those Baker I( 14 & Botts gentlemen. 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do'you have any 16 recollection? 17 THE WITNESS: No, sir. It's a total mystery to 18 me what the Baker & Botts attorneys were doing there. 19 The preparation, to the best of my knowledge, 20 of the testimony for the hearings, the conduct of the 21 hearings, themselves, was handled by the firm at that l 1 22 time which was known as Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & 23 Axelrad. I, for the life of me, couldn't figure out what 24 Baker & Botts was doing there. l l 25 MR. SINKIN: Did you have any other questions, O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
i 12421 (() 1 Mr. Chairman?
- 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER
- No.
3 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Did you at any time, May,. June, 4 July, August of 1981, seek advice from anyone on whether 5 you should turn the Quadrex report over to either the NRC 6 staff or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board? 7 A In the context of any discussions with any 8 engineers or with attorneys or with whom? 9 0 Well, I used the term seek advice. Did you 10 discuss with anyone whether you should turn over the 11 document or not? 12 A If you're talking about did I discuss with 13 anybody the possibility of filing the total report as a
- ( ( 14 50.55(e), I may have discussed that possibly with either 15 Dr. Sumpter or Mr. Robertson. I think Mr. Robertson
, 16 potentially more than Dr. Sumpter. But only may have.
,17 And the only reason why I think that that's a possibility 18 is because clearly, when I received the report, the 19 report contained a lot of information, contained a lot of 20 what I characterized earlier as provocative language. l
-21 At first blush, the report is the kind of a 22 document that does tend to cause you to pay a lot of 23 attention to an awful lot of information. And there was 1
24 a distinct possibility that that report may have 25 represented a concern as to the general character of the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 l
12422
- {} 1 engineering on the South Texas Project and it remained to 2 be seen whether or not that was going to be put in any 3 different perspective in the subsequent review.
4 So in my mind, I knew there was the chance that - 5 that document might be reportable. And I might have 6 discussed that with others. 7 0 During the time between the receipt of the 8 Quadrex report on May 7 and the beginning of the Phase I 9 hearings on May 12th, did you meet with Mr. Newman or Mr. 10 Axelrad or Mr. Gutterman? 11 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I believe that 12 question was asked and answered Friday or Saturday or 13 Monday. And my recollection is that the witness said he I-
) 14 didn't have any specific racollection but that since this 15 was a couple of days before the hearing, that it was 16 likely they did meet with and see one or more of the 17 lawyers who were going to be handling the hearing.
18 MR. SINKIN: I had remembered that, Mr. 19 Chairman, as a dialogue I had with Mr. Jordan, not as a 20 dialogue I had already had with Mr. Goldberg. 21 But if indeed that's the case, we won't go 22 browsing the transcript for it. I'll just withdraw the 23 question. 24 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, I'm going to 25 hand you a document which I ask be marked for () . TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
- - - = _ - - - -
12423 (, (J l identification as CCANP 90. 2 It's Xeroxed back and front, while the original 3 was original two pages. 4 You don't have an 897 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Off the record. 6 (Discussion off the record.) 7 MR. SINKIN: Thinks 89 that you're looking at. 8 (CCANP Exhibit 89 marked 9 for identification.) 10 0 Mr. Goldberg, are these notes that you wrote? 11 A It appears to be my writing, yes. 12 Q Do you remember when you wrote these notes? 13 A These look like an -- well, this looks like an '(( 14 outline of the material I probably used to brief Region 4 15 on September -- excuse me, not September. Let me get my 16 bearings of when that briefing was. 17 0 would that be the September 8th briefing -- 18 A The September 8th, right. This looks like the 19 notes of that review. 20 Q. Were these notes you took during the review or 21 you prepared before the review? 22 A I think I prepared these to help me with the 23 presentation I made to them. It was a stand-up 24 presentation; didn't use any visual aids, and I'm pretty 25 sure these were my notes to myself. Up to the bottom of l
.O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 1
12424 ([ ) 1 the second -- the back half of the -- up to the back half 2 of the sheet here, at the very bottom of that, there's 3 some information that was added while I was there. 4 0 The information that was added would be the . 5 words " document each finding as substantive, consider 6 broad report, 50.55 (e) "? 7 A That's correct. Those notes I jotted down 8 apparently while I was at Region 4. 9 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, I would move CCANP . 10 89 into evidence. - 11 MR. AXELRAD: No objection. 12 MR. PIRFO: No objection. 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: CCANP 89 wil,1 be admitted. (' 14 (CCANP Exhibit 89 was admitted - 15 into evidence.) , 16 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) On page 55, Mr. Goldberg 17 starting page 54, you made some grammatical changes to 18 the sentence by putting a period at line 26, by putting a 19 period after " licensing board" and beginning with a 20 capital U, "until September." 21 Do you have those reflected in the copy you're 22 looking at? 23 A Right. 24 0 Okay. Turning to page 55, you use the phrase 25 "at that time." You're referring to September 19817 (() TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 I
l 1 12425 q;d 1 A That is correct, j l 2 0 Can you specify the date in September of 1981
.3 when licensing counsel advised you that the NRC staff had 4 taken the position that the licensing board should be -
5 given the report? 6 A I don't remember the exact date. It would 7 clearly have to have coincided either the same day or 8 within a day after there was a conversation, apparently, 9 between the NRC counsel and our counsel. 10 0 But you don't know what that day is. 1 11 A I don't think I got -- I know I don't have that 12 dates in my memory bank and I don't know whether it's 13 written down someplace. ({} 10 14 0 And who specifically informed you of that 15 position-of the NRC staff? 16 A I believe Mr. Newman informed me of that. I 17 think he informed me that by phone, as I recall. 18 0 Was the date for the announcement of Brown & 19 Root's removal as architect engineer moved up so the 20 announcement would be made before the Quadrex report was 12 1 released to the Board? 22 - A The two are unrelated. The announcement on 23 Brown & Root was at the earliest possible time which had 24 to coincide with reaching a decision on which contractor 25 we felt we were going to do business with; we had to x TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12426 I() 1 receive the anproval of the management committee, the 2 chief executive officers, and our board of directors. 3 And there were a host of reviews and approvals that had ss 4 to take place. And as soon as that was finished, they .
/5 were going to go about the business of making the change.
7
- 6 0 There was no -- are you sure to get the word 7 out at the very end?
8 MR. AXELRAD: I think that question has been 9 asked and answered, Mr. Chairman. 10 MR. SINKIN: All right. That's fine. 11 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) We have talked previously 12 about the difference between capital QA, quality i-13 assurance, as in the Department of Quality Assurance and 0 14 small QA, quality assurance, as'the generalized mandate 15 of quality assurance. 16 Could you please describe the function of the 17 Quality Assurance Department as administered through the 18 Quality Assurance Department and distinguish that from 19 the function of quality assurance as administered small 20 QA, through the Engineering Department, the Design and 21 Engineering Department. 22 A Well, I think if we're going to get into a 23 discussion of what do we mean when we talk about quality 24 assurance other than an organization, but as an activity. 25 Q Is that --
,()
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12427 i \ i() 1 A It might be useful to start with the activity 2 first and then we can talk about the -- I l 3 MR. PIRFO: Mr. Chairman -- excuse me, Mr. i 4 Goldberg. ! 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: There was commenting by the 6 Board's members. I've heard this -- 7 MR. PIRFO: I was going to say I heard this 8 question before, I don't know if it was directed to lir. 9 Jordan or Mr. Goldberg, but it sounds cumulative to me to 10 the extent Mr. Goldberg has -- to the extent Mr. Jordan i 11 testified to it, it would be cumulative because I'm not 12 sure that is the distinction between Mr. Goldberg's 13 interpretation and Mr. Jordan's interpretation is of any O 14 difference;- since the CEO has already testified as' to 15 what the functions are, I can't understand why Mr. 16 Goldberg's opinion would be, if it differs from Mr. 17 Jordan's, would be of any moment. 18 I think my recollection was the same as the 19 Board's, we've heard this before. 20 MR. AXELRAD: That is my recollection, also, 21 that it came up in the first day and it would have been 22 .much more likely that it came up in more -- likely to 23 come up in Goldberg than Jordan. But I can't point to a 24 specific portion of the transcript where that took place. 25 MR. PIRFO: That's a problem I have. O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12428 (() 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: What are you leading toward? 2 MR. SINKIN: I'll go to the next question; I 3 think we can do that. 4 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) First as a foundation, Mr. .
. 5 Goldberg, can we -- it would be correct to say that the 6 quality assurance program is not just a program that 7 governs activity of the quality assurance capital QA ! 8 Department; is that correct?
9 A That is correct. 10 Q The design control activities on the project, 11 they are the province of the engineering personnel who 12 are the ones that develop the procedures and control 13 their activities and they achieve the objectives of 14 design control as identified in Criterion 3 of Appendix 15 B; is that correct? , f 16 A Mr. Sinkin, your question is rather bizzare. 17 You've lost me. 18 Q Okay. I'll try again. Criterion 3, of 19 Appendix B requires as part of a quality assurance 20 program that there be design control. If you would like 21 to take a moment to review that criterion, that's fine. 22 A Okay. 23 0 Okay. Is it the engineering personnel as 24 opposed to the Quality Assurance Department personnel who i 25 are the ones that develop the procedures for controlling L l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 l
12429 1 the design activities and thereby achieving the
'({}
2 objectives of Criterion 37 3 A It is the responsibility of the performing 4 organization to prepare the necessary tools to carry out 5 their obligations under Criterion 3. 6 0 And in your view, when 50.55(e) speaks of a 7 breakdown in quality assurance, the quality assurance 8 referred to is this broader concept of quality assurance, 9 that is broader than just the activities of the capital 10 QA Department, 11 A That is correct. 12 Q Are the safety margins present in a design a 13 quality assurance concern? ^ 14 MR. AXELRAD: I'm not sure I understand that 15 question, Mr. Chairman. 16 MR. SINKIN: Well, Mr. Goldberg understands 17 this question. Let's -- 18 MR. AXELRAD: The problem is that the record 19 has to contain questions and answers that are meaningful 20 for purposes of future review by others. l 21 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg what does the , 22 term " safety margins" in design refer to? 23 A Well, it can relate to any number of things. 24 Clearly, in the area of civil engineering area, there are 25 different kinds of margins. We use factors of safety for TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12430 (). 1 establishing a margin to deal with the possibility that 2 the things just don't come out exactly the way the 3 calculations says they're going to. 4 There's one form of a safety margin. The . 5 regulatory process, itself, may prescribe safety margins. 6 They may suggest, for example, that you will design for a 7 certain pressure, irrespective of whether the 8 calculations tell you that that's really the pressure you 9 have. 10 The difference between what you esiculate and 11 what's been prescribed by regulation could be also 12 defined as a safety margin. 13 Generally, in the broad context, safety margin 14' connotates the difference between what you really think
~
15 is going to have and what you've allowed for in terms of 16 strength or capacity or some other capability of your 17 design. 18 Q And is it common to look at safety margins from 19 the perspective of whether they are conservative or 20 unconservative? 21 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, common for what 22 purpose. Are we talking about regulatory purposes, 23 design purposes; commercial purposes? 24 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Within the context of quality 25 assurance, Mr. Goldberg, is it a concern whether safety
- (~T T U TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
_~
- . . .. . --- . . - .- .. _ _ . - . - - . - _ _ . . - -=
12431 J() 1 margins are conservative or unconservative? 2 MR. AXELRAD: Are we talking about safety 3 margins which are required by the regulatory system or n 4 the other safety margins that Mr. Goldberg has referred 5 to? He's idenPified a variety of safety margins and a 6 variety of mearings for that term. 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think you'll have to 8 sharpen this up a little bit so that -- 9- Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Let me ask you this, Mr. 10 Goldberg. The Quadrex Corporation was looking at safety 11 margins in the design of the Brown & Root program, the 12 Brown & Root design engineering program. Is that 13 correct?
} 14 A I believe the Quadrex did identify at.least in 15 the structural area, some commentary regarding safety 16 margins.
17 0 Were the safety margins that Quadrex was 18 looking at of concern in the quality assurance, 19 potentially of concern in the quality assurance area? 20 MR. AXELRAD: Are we talking about those safety . 21 margins that Mr. Goldberg referred to in his previous 22 answer or are we talking about safety margins generally. 23 MR. SINKIN: I said the safety margins looked
'24 at by Quadrex, which are the previous question and 25 answer. .
)
i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12432 ?() 1 MR. AXELRAD: But the previous question and 2 answer only identified one instance in which safety 3 margins were looked at. 4 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) You mentioned structural as - 5 one area. 6 A That is right. 7' O Do you remember any other areas? 8 A That's the one that seems to have stood out, as 9 I recollect. I think Quadrex made a number of 10 observations. I think one observation they made was that 11 this was the most conservative structural design I think 12 they had ever seen. I think their feeling was it was 13 dramatic over designed. And I think they went on to say
)
~ 14 that they weren't sure whether or not the -- that every 15 designer was conversant with exactly how much margin they 16 were working with. 17 Some question on whether or not the bookkeeping 18 of the safety margin was adequate. I seem to recall some 19 dialogue along those lines. 20 Q Moving to a different subject, Mr. Goldberg. 21 Would the presence or absence of adequately experienced 22 nuclear engineers, in your mind , be a matter of concern 1 23 in the quality assurance context? l 24 A Clearly if one attempted to conduct a design 25 using unqualified people, and the product was FO TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 w y 3 --+9 -- - - --- %s----,,---%w- - - = g-wyr -,-.+,wy,-mg y--w y---ee--ie v- + -w >wm--w-, w--- --w- - --------= p , -- -
12433 f.()- 1 unacceptable from a standpoint of satisfying the 2 commitments prescribed for that design, that would not be 3 acceptable. 4 If on the other hand, the connotation was that 5 an organization had a limited number of persons who were 6 capable of carrying out that design and in turn, to deal 7 with the particular need, they went out and hired 8 competent outsiders to do the work for them, that that 9 could be an acceptable alternative. 10 It may not be as desirable from a standpoint of 11 the commercial implication; it may end up costing you 12 more monay to design a plant with that kind of a 13 situation; but there's no reason why the results could 14 not be equally acceptable as opposed to doing it in-house 15 with your own group of qualified persons. 16 0 Did HL&P ever have occasion when they preceived 17 Brown & Root as unable to perform a particular design 18 activity and HL&P went out and hired somebody else to do 19 it as opposed to the Brown & Root subcontracting of t? 20 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, what time frame are 21 we talking about? 22 MR. SINKIN: In the time frame, let's say, 23 April, May, 1981 or before, from your knowledge of that 24 project. 25 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, does that question eO TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 l
12434 relate to any specific or generic finding in this
- ( ( ) 1 2 proceeding? I think if so, the questioner should relate 3 it to that particular finding. We're not discussing the 4 general scope of Brown & Root engineering activities at .
5 that time, nor how HL&P handled any engineering matters 6 that might have come up, other than those which are 7 brought into this proceeding by the findings under issue ! 8 in this proceeding under the Quadrex report. 9 ;MR. SIUKIN: Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Goldberg 10 correctly recognized, when I began this line of 11 questioning, we're talking about quality assurance. And 12 we're talking about how the Quadrex findings might or 13 might not relato to a quality assurance problem. 14- I am taking the generalized conditions as I 15 perceive them and we'll see if it's supported, what we do 16 with the findings. I'm presenting them to Mr. Goldberg 17 and asking him if he sees a quality assurance problem in 18 those conditions. We're already successfully dealt with 19 at least one and a partial success on another. I think 20 we can continue with Mr. Goldberg understanding what r 21 we're doing. 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Does the staff have a view 23 on this one? 24 MR REIS: Yes, the staff thinks this is beyond 25 the scope of the issues delineated by the Board.
;O j
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
4 12435 s
;(]) 1 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, it's very clear that 2 one of the issues in this proceeding is whether the 3 Quadrex report should have been viewed as a quality 4 assurance report or not. He are establishing in the 5 generalized should-the-whole-report-have-been-turned-6 over area, whether the quality -- whether the Quadrex 7 report should have been perceived as a quality assurance 8 document.
9 MR. SINKIN: And that is dependent upon the 10 findings of the Quadrex report, which are in issue in 11 this proceeding, and Mr. Sinkin can properly examine with
'12 respect to the findings in the Quadrex report.
13 UR. SINKIN: Absolutely not. The contention as 14 written says should more of the findings or the entire 15 report, or the entire report, have been turned over to f 16 the NRC. The question on whether the entire report 17 should have been turned over to the NRC is not limited to 18 the question of whether the particular findings 19 identified in the order should have been turned over to 20 the NRC. 21 MR. AXELRAD: Whatever the mat:ers of that 22- argument by Mr. Sinkin, they're still dependent upon the 23 contents of the Quadrex report and not what the 24 relationship may have been between HL&P and Brown & Root 25 with respect to quality assurance or any other subject. I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 494-8442
-..,,-.,,..,--..-.,.y y-.----.,,e . - . , . , - , , , . , . , - , -
12436 The question is: How should the matters ( (]) 1 2 contained in the Quadrex report be reported or should 3 have they been reported to the NRC, n'ot what the other 4 dealings were between HL&P and Brown & Root. . 5 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, in your May order, 6th 6 pr'ehearing conference order, the issues were further 7 limited. It was plainly indicated that the way to test 8 that was in relation to the particular named findings, 9 whether they be the engineering findings or the most 10 serious discipline findings. 11 And this proceeding was limited to that. And 12 it's true, it's a matter that may be tested but only with 13 those -- with what wac pointed out there. () s- 14 Previously, Mr. Sinkin, in discovery and not 15 only in discovery but in answer to inquiries from the 16 Board, was given an opportunity to set out which findings 17 he wanted to litigate. As a result of those -- of what 18 went on there after, after the Board gave Mr. Sinkin the 19 attempt, it issued its 6th prehearing conference order
'20 which specified the basis upon which we would test those 21 very matters. And those were the generic findings and 22 the most serious discipline findings. And I don't think 23 we can go beyond that.
24 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, I find that argument 25 to be outrageous. If the question is whether the Quadrex CO TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 e-
12437 I report should have been turned over to the NRC staff, any 1 (]) . 2 perception that Mr. Goldberg gained from that report that 3 was quality assurance related would influence the 4 decision over whether to provide that to the Nuclear 5 Regulatory Commission. 6 I am testing certain things which he has 7 already testified the Quadrex report showed him about the 8 overall operation of Brown & Root. Under the theory 9 presented by the Applicants and the staff, we could not 10 look at the overall operation of Brown & Root and come to 11 some conclusion as to whether the report should have been 12 turned over. I think that's nonsense. 13 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, if we had the 1 C
' (-) 14 . specific question read back -- .
15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I was going to suggest -- ! 16 MR. AXELRAD: A number of have arguments have 17 been made by Mr. Sinkin which I think have no 18 relationship to the particular question that we objected 19 to. 20 MR. SINKIN: If you're going to read back, you 21 need to have the question and answer before it read back 22 and then the following question; that's the context. 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's okay. Why don't we 24 do that. 25 (The last-above questions and answer were [ TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
. ._. - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
12438 i() 1 read back by the reporter.) 2 MR. AXELRAD: That was exactly the point, Mr. 3 Chairman, I did not object to the first question and its 4 answer because I thought that were Mr. Sinkin was heading . 5 as he was trying to raise a question with respect to 6 whether or not having design work done by adequately 7 trained nuclear engineers was a quality concern; and I 8 thought it was conceivable that he was going to then try 9 to link that question and and that answer to one or more 10 of the specific findings in issue in this proceeding, and 11 try to show that comehow those findings resulted in the 12 use of inadequately trained or qualified nuclear 13 engineers. ]- N/ fT 14 But then to go on to the completely unrelated 15 question of whether HL&P ever had occasion to go out and , 16 hire others for some purpose that has nothing to do with 17 this specific finding. 18 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, I think there will 19 be more than one occasion in this proceeding where my 20 line of questioning does not go precisely where Mr. 21 Axelrad is expecting it to go. I trust that would be the 22 case. 23 At the same time, if you listen to the 24 relationship of the first question to the second 25 question, particulary the answer to the first question tO TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
. _- - - _ - - . . . . - _ . -. - - . = - . _ _ - - _ _ - - _ . . _ . - - ,. .
12439 ([]) I was, we're talking about whether they have adequately 2 experienced nuclear engineers in place. 3 Mr. Goldberg's answer is that is not a problem 4 if, not a quality assurance, maybe a monetary problem, if 5 they go out and they hire outsiders to do their work for 6 them. 7 I'm moving to a variation of that theme. What i 1 8 if HL&P goes out to hire the outsider because they don't 9 have confidence Brown & Root can perform that design? Do 10 we then have a quality assurance concern? It's simply -- 11 it flows right from that first question. l 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We will sustain that 13 objection. I don't think it does flow in the context of 14 the issues which we' are examining. 15 0 (By Mr. sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, was there a 16 pattern where of Brown & Root engineers and engineering 17 managers being unable to solve technical problems? 18 A Well, I think in the context of problems 19 unsolved, those are the problems that people remember. , 20 You know, the management of a large activity such as the l i 21 engineering of a nuclear power plant is one where you 22 always focus your attention on the areas of difficulty. 23 There were selected areas where Brown & Root was
; 24 struggling to complete the engineering activities. Any 25 number of these did stand out and it identified a fact <O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
I f 12440 i ([]) I that I think we made earlier, that there were limited 2 number of seasoned resources. 3 So therefore, the ability to get through the 4 problem areas was taking longer than would have been the - 5 case had there been more qualified persons available. 6 A I think it's just an outfall of the fact that 7 there were just a limited number of really sharp people 8 who could deal with these rather special problems. l 9 0 Did Brown & Root ever satisfactorily complete 10 the design of cable trays before they left the project? 11 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, are we talking 12 about one cable tray or a hundred cable trays; all the I 13 cable trays needed for the project? Q L Q - 14 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Goldberg, let me ask a
\
l l 15 foundatior. question that might help. 16 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) You spoke about problem areas 17 where Brown & Root was struggling. Was the design of l 18 cable trays an area where Brown & Root was struggling? 19 A Well, there is a broad area of design l 20 activities associated with cable trays. You have 21 basically first the identification of cable tray routing. 22_ You have the development of a design of cable tray 23 support; you have the development of the welding 24 requirements for the attachment of the supports to the j 25 cable trays. Was there any particular area of that h TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 i
12441 i
]() 1 design, for example, that you had in mind?
2 (No Hiatus.) 3 4 5 l 6' 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 , 16 17 1 18 19 l ! 20 21 l 22 23 24 25 (O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
cg-UM 1244k44 I[( ) 1 Q Was there any particular area of that design 2 where you found Brown & Root to De struggling? 3 A Well, when I came on the project th ey wer e -- 4 they had the problem of the welding of the supports to 5 the cable trays behind them. I believe that that was 6 also wrapped up in part to some of the snow cause 7 findings. Tne routing of the caole trays, while it may 8 not have been complete, I wasn't aware of any generic 9 problem that they were having with routing, per se. 10 There was one proolem that surfaced while I 11 was on the project that represented a problem dealing 12 with the fact chat the caole cray support synceu was
}
13 identified as a guideline document which was provided to 14 construccion ano there were inscruccions to the effect 15 that construction had to comply with the guideline 16 document. Should construction choose to depart, that 17 they had a responsibility to sketen the departure, and 18 this was only permitted in areas where they may 19 encounter some local incerf erence, and they were 29 required to supply that information back to design for 21 confirmation on whether or not enat departure was 22' acceptable. 23 Apparently there were a large number of these
!& 24 departures that had stacked up and had not been getting 25 reviewed by Brown & Root in a timely manner. And, as a TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
eg-UW 12442 (( ) 1 result, it was found that some number of tne supports 2 that were actually installed in the tield were not 3, acceptable and they certainly were not consistent with 4 the design requirements. 5 Q In that -- 6 MR. AXELRAD. I was going to ask, Mr. 7 Chairman, the witness has been on for three hours except 8 for the recess that was taken before. I would suggest 9 that at an appropriate time we break for lunch. 10 MR. SINKIN: I'm very close to a breaking 11 point, Mr. Cnalrman. , 12 JUDG3 DEC3000FE2; Chay. 13 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) The way you described that 14 process of the cable trays encouncering difficulties, 15 did you say that construction would do a drawing and 16 ' send it to engineering for approval? 17 A They would do a sketch. 18 Q And those sketches were piling up and not 19 being reviewed? 29 A That's correct. 21 Q Was construction proceeding with the 22 installation anyway? 23 A That is correct. .O 24 Q Even though those drawings had not been 25 reviewed? TATE REPORTING ____ _,713) ( 498_8442
tqr-T18 12443 f.,(]) 1 A That's correct. 2 Q And the root -- 3 A As I recall, that matter was a matter of 4 reportability that was made to the Nuclear Regulatory 5 Commission. 6 Q And the root cause of why Brown & Root was not 7 reviewing those sketches and getting them resolved and 8 construction was going forward, what is the root cause 9 of that in your view? 10 A That particular pro'o lem Brown & Root failed to 11 carry out their responsio111 ties calleo for by their own 12 procedure that stated that there would be timely 13 engineering review of any departures reported from 14 construction. And they were not carrying out a timely 15 review and that matter was a reported matter.- 16 Q Did the failure to carry out a timely review 17 trace back, I'm trying to get to the root of that, trace 18 back to the same lack of inadequate number of 19 experienced personnel? 29 A There could be a connection. Tnen again, it 21 could be just a matter of someone losing sight of a 22 requirement that they had in one of their procedures. 23 You know, it is possible with a completely ,[ 24 well-staffed organization of experienced people, every 25 now and then you overlook something. It may be L TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 . _-
y 12444 1 systematic, in which case it's reviewed and it ((]) 2 represents a significant breakdown in quality and had it 3 gone uncorrected would have posed a threat to the public 4 interest, that those are matters that could well be 5 reporrable, even though you have a perf ectly large 6 technically competent organization. So, it's hard to 7 know for sure just what the connection was in this 8 particular case. 9 Q Was Brown & Root ever able to resolve 10 satisfactorily the problems that you're aware of 11 affecting the isolation valve cubicle structural design? 12 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Cnairman, we appear to be 13 . going on to a different subj ect at this point. I think 14 it would be -- 15 MR. SINKIN: Fine, it you would prefer the 16 lunch break. l i 17 JUDGE BECHBOEFER: Is this a good time for you 18 or -- 19 MR. SINKIN: It's the same subject but a 29 different example. But that's fine -- 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Are you relatively close to i 22 the end of the entire subject or not? 23 MR. SINKIN: I had this example and one l(fj~' 24 other. That was all I had. L r 25 MR. AXELRAD: I think we would prefer to l L TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12445 n
- QJ 1 discuss any examples after lunch ratner than at unis 2 time, Mr. Chairman.
3 MR. SINKIN: That's fine. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. 5 MR. SINKIN: What time are we coming back? 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: 1:15, I think. 7 (Luncheon recess.) 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on the record. 9 Q (Sy Mr. SAnkin) Mr. Goldberg, prior to the 10 lunch break we were in the general context of quality 11 assurance and the more speciric question of Brown & Root f r~3 12 Engineers enginaaring managara being unable to colve
*V 13 technical problems and whether you had seen any evidence 14 of that. I have a couple more examples of specific 15 problems that I wanted to address with you.
l 16 Are you aware of a problem in the isolation l 17 valve cubicle structural design that was discovered by ) 18 HL&P at the project? And we will define the time frame 19 af ter you tell me whether you're aware of the problem. I 29 A I think we've already had some testimony 21 regarding that. 22 Q Were you aware of that problem at the time of . 23 the Quadrex study? ' UD 24 A I'm not absolutely sure. I was certainly 25 aware of the fact that the construction on that TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 __ _
w . 12446 1 particular -- or the construction activities on that
}
2 particular structure had come to a halt. There was no 3 activity and the word was that Brown & Root was still 4 developing the reinforcing concept needed to take the 5 loads associated with the pipe break f or botn the main 6 steam and feedwater lines. And my own personal 7 experience in this area is that that is a very complex 8 problem and it becomes a very complex structure. 9 Q Was the cause of the isolation valve cubicle 10 problem Brown & Root's railure to' adequately understand 11 and consider regulatory requirements? 12 A I oon't tnink I recall ny uncerstanding along 13 those lines. 14 0 Was the root cause of the problem Brown & 15 Root's inexperience? 15 A I believe that Brown & Root's difricolty witn 17 the design of that structure is perhaps comparable to 18 the difficulty that other architect engineers 19 encountered when they undertook to design that structure 20 on their particular plants. It does represent a very 21 complex structure. The penetrations are large. Tne 22 forces that have to be handled in the wall, both in 23 terms of force as well as tne torsion, is quite severe. () 24 And I'd say in terms of structural design, it's pernaps 25 one of the more difficult structures that needs to be TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 _
12447 g 1 designed in a nuclear power plant. - {V 2 Q Given the level of Brown & Root's total 3 resources available to the project, would it have been 4 barder for Brown & Root than most other AE's to address 5 this complex problem? 6 A I think without some outside help it probably 7 would have been. I believe tnat the proj ect was heading 8 for a need to bring in some additional consultants to 9 assist Brown & Root in that area. 10 0 Are you aware of a problem on verifying the 11 integrity of misf abricated anchor bolts? 12 A I'm aware of a rather extensive problem O 13 regarding a mix-up of certain anchor bolc macerials. 14 Q And as a result of that mix-up, was there a 15 need to go back and verify the integrity of the bolts 16 that were in place? 17 A As part of the total investigative program, 18 there was a feature where we had to check by testing, 19_ hardness testing, a number ot anchor bolts to cetermine 20 which grade of steel the material, in tact, was. 21 Q Was Brown & Root ever aDie to actually verify, 22 complete the process of verifying the integrity of the 23 misfabricated anchor bolts? () 24 A As I recall, Brown & Root thought they had 25 completed that work. And I'm trying to recollect a true 1 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12448 1 frame. 2 Q > Let me ask you this, it signt be simpler. Did 3 they evra do it to the satisf action of tne NRC? 4 A It's my understanding that suosequent to Brown 5 & Root Delieving that they had completed the work, in
.6 fact, I think it was even sometime after we may have 7 replaced Brown & Root, the question resurfaced through 8 an inquiry by an NRC inspector.
9 Q When the question resurf aced, was the NRC 10 satisfiec with the previous veritication program? 11 Iul. DILRAD; Mr. Cnalr:acn, I would like to 12 ooject to this line of questioning. We've permitted 13 this to continue for some while. Tnere 12., yet to os any 14 identification of any relationchip of the particular 15 example that Mr. Sinkin is seeking to examine, any 16 relationship between that example and the nr.tters of the 17 specific findings of Quadrex that are in issue here. 18 It's not even clear that these particular matters are 19 engineering problems as opposed to field tactication 29 bolt problems. I don't see how this inquiry is at all 21 relevant to the issues in thic proceedin'. 22 MR. SINKIN: Well, we can certainly clarify 23 whether it's an engineering problem at all with a 'O 2.4 question to Mr. oo1doerg end dee1 witu that pere et the 25 obj ection. TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
-truv 12449 1 As far as the other part of the objection, }
2 that's precisely the same obj ection that Mr. Axelrad 3 raised in the earlier questions in this series. The 4 objection was overruled. It was explained that this was 5 a quality assurance inquiry and we were looking at a 6 particular element of quality assurance, the Brown & 7 Root engineers and engineering managers in the ability 8 to solve technical problems, that I was going to examine 9 three or four specific instances to test whether those 10 were quality assurance problems or not and that's 11 , exactly what I've been doing in this whole inquiry. 12' ,It's the same objection he made to the previous lines, O{ 13 previous questions in this series and it was overruled. 14 As far as whether it relates to design 15 engineering, I'd be happy to ask Mr. Goldberg that 16 que stion. 17 JUDGE DECHHOEFER: Why don't you do that 18 first. 19 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, was there a 20 role that design and engineering nad to play in ene 21 verification of the integrity of misf abricated anchor 22 bolts? 23 A Yes, there was.
) 24 Q Brown & Root design and engineering?
25 A Yes. And it may well be that they nad some TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 -- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _~ _____
e-12459 I help from consultants, I'm really not sure. 2 Q You stated that the -- 3 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I thought my 4 objection was still pending. Tnere were two bases to l 5 the objection. i l 6 MR. SINKIN: Right. Okay. 7 JUDGE SHON: In the matter of the anchor 8 bolts, where does it appear in the Quadrex report? 9 NR. SINKIN: . What I am doing is 10 establishing -- let me show you the whole line and how : 11 it relates because in my mind through the Applicunts' l 12 testimony and their pleadings there has been raised a j [() 13 question of whether tne Quadrex report should oe l l 14 considered a quality assurance document or not. Their 15 position seems to be it is not. 16 This whole exploration has been first to lay 17 into the record Mr. Goldberg's view of what quality 18 assurance is. Then take some specific generalized 19 observations that the Quadrex report did confirm or_ 20 actually bring forth for the first time to HL&P and see 21 if those more generalized observations of the Brown & 22 Root design and engineering program are quality 23 assurance related. () 24 Then what I have done is take specific
, 25 examples of that generalized observation and see if they TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
e-12451 1 did, in fact, occur to reinforce that it had occurred gg 2 over here, then Quadrex brought it in and said it is 3 occurring, and that you put that together, they knew 4 about things, Quadrex said yes, they' re happening and 5 you have a package of events that indicate whether it's 6 a quality assurance document that should be transmitted 7 to the NRC because it's systematic. 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: But does the area that you 9 used your examples in at least have to be covered by the 10 Quadrex report in some way? 11 HR. SINKIN: I don't -- - - 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I'm not talking about the 13 finoings cesignated ror the moment. 14 MR. SINKIN: Right. 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Doe sn ' t it hav e to be there 16 in some form? 17 MR. SINKIN: Tne question is should HL&P 18 management in looking at this report have turned it over 19 to the NRC. If they look at this report and tnis report 20 gives to them a sense of quality assurance problems, 21 widespread quality assurance problems, then they would 22 turn it over. They may perceive f rom the report what 23 tne underlying problem is that Quadrex did not maybe
) 24 even specifically address. In some cases Quadrex 25 specifically addressed an underlying problem.
_= TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 -,
r - 12452 1 For example, I think Quadrex did address the 2 inability of the Brown & Roor design engineering program 3 to solve particular engineering programs. Whether they 4 did or not, they did address the problem of an 5 inadequate level of skill and resources in the Brown & 6 Root design and engineering program, a proolem Mr. 7 Goldberg was aware of to some extent at the time that 8 Quadrex confirmed ror him. And that in our position 9 would represent a quality assurance concern tnat would le lead you to turn over the report. 11 JUDGE SHON: And the only ncxus between thi,s 12 particular problem and the Quadrex repor t is that pou [O V 13 allege or you're trying to prove tnat tne Qusarea report. 14 is a quality assurance document and this problem was a 15 quality assurance problem, is that -- 16 MR. SINKIN: Exactly. If the Quadrex report 17 was indeed a quality assurance document, then all of 18 their representations in their testimony to the contrary 19 must be seen as a measure of their competence. 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Tne Board will uphold this 21 obj ection. We don' t think that -- tne relationship is 22 just too tenuous, unless we can be shown that there is 23 something in the Quadrex report dealing specifically 24 with the anchor bolt problem. 25 I don't think that -- what makes a cocument, TATE REPORTING (713) 498-6442
QT*' 12453 1 even assuming f or the moment that it were a quality (J'T 2 assurance document, it would only be so because of 3 what's in it. So, I think that there's no relationsnip 4 to anything in the report. 5 But that's too tenuous, so the last. objection 6 we'll uphold. 7 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Cnairman, I'm not going to 8 argue the ruling, but I don't want my silence to
, 9 indicate that I agree with the tact that the document is 10 only _ quality acsurance document based on what's in it 11 as oppocea to what what's in it reveals aoout a more - 12 broad issue. But we can debate that in ene findings.
13 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, during tne 14 reporting of the Quaorex findings to you, I think we 15 diccucced vnen we were reviewing Mr. Stanley's notes the 16 idea of f riction between HL&P and Brown & Root, that 17 that kind of friction did exist. I think he even talkec 18 about bad worcs being used by Brown & Root managers and 19 things like that. Do you remember that? 28 MR. PIRPO: Excuse me. Are we talking aoout 21 the 62y 7th meeting? 22 MR. SINKIN: It came out in various meetings 23 where Quadrex was reporting that there was a high level 24 ot f riction between BL&P and Brown & Root personnel. 25 MR. AXELRAD: I don't recall any testimony TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 n-----,
w 12454 : I 1 l
.p v 1 dealing with various meetings. There may.have been 2 something in relationship to one of the meetings 3 perhaps.
4 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Well, specifically the notes 5 that Mr. . Stanley took, the handwritten notes that he 6 wrote himself prior to one of the meetings, the March 7 18th meeting, do you rememoer those notes? 8 A I recall -- 9 HR. PIRPO: I'll obj ect. I'm not sure there 10 is, for want of a better word, a legitimate question 11 pending here. I mean I heard three. I'm not sure what 12 the question is. O 13 MR, SINKIN: Tne question is ao you rememoer 14 the notes so we can get a foundation in the record. It 15 he doesn't remember the notes, we'll have to refresh his 16 memory. Taat's all. Just so we can get started. 17 MR. PIRPO: Is that the question, Mr. 18 Chairman. 19 MR. SINKIN: Does he remember the discussion 2G about those notes about the f riction between HL&P and
- 21 Brown & Root. It's CCANP Exhioit 74, if the Applicants l
< 22 would like to show it to him. I i 23 A I believe I've already tesrified to that l 24 fact. I think you asked me a couple days ago ir I was 25 f amiliar with maybe a remark along those lines and I TATE. REPORTING (713) 498-6442
12455 ,I^T 1 said it could well have been made. I unink there were U 2 from time to time problems with engineers interf acing 3 with one another. I think we've already pretty much 4 acknowledged there was some amount of that present. 5 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) What about disputes between 6 Brown & Root engineers and Brown & Roor quality 7 assurance, were you aware of that kind or probica? 8 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Cnairman, I will obj ect to 9 the relevance or that question. How does cuat pertain 10 to the particular issues in this proceeding? 11 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairtaan, I don't think the 12 question's important enough to argue over at this 7 ( 13 point. I'll just move along. 14 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) After you'came to the South 15 Texas Nuclear Proj ect, Mr. Goldber g, did you encourage 16 or otherwise suggest to the HL&P management that an 17 independent third-party review of the quality or Brown & 18 Root's design process and outputs be conducteo? 19 A No, I don't believe that that was the 20 character of my suggestion. My suggestion to the 21 management of The Light Company when I arrived was that 22 there seemed to be a considerable amount of visibility 23 as to the status of construction. Clearly the hearings
) 24 had f ocusec in on some particular problems in the 25 quality of construction, the relationship of the i
TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 -----------> 1
v 12456 1 construction personnel to the quality control 2 inspectors. It obviously had gained some national 3 prominence through the show cause order that appeared in 4 the Federal Register which I read about bef ore I had 5 ever accepted the position at HL&P. And everyone was 6 preoccupieo with dealing with getting the construction 7 problems back on track. 8 I think I testified earlier that it was the 9 expectation of Houston Lighting & Power tnat once we got 10 show cause behind us, that we would move out with a 11 fairly effective program and we'd get this project g 12 built. I frankly didn't know what tne status of O 13 engineering was. 14 I am conversant with tne ardors of nuclear 15 engineering. It's a very tough area. It became 16 exceptionally more -- or considerably more difficult in 17 the late seventies. And I wanted to understand how was 18 Brown & Root doing, where were they, where were they 19 bogged down, what kind of resources may not be in 29 sufficient supply to carry out an effective eagineering 21 program. 22 Quite f rankly, as the vice-presioent in I 23 charge of engineering as well as construction, I had to O 24 get a bencamark fair 1r suick17 Anu it 1 hed to ieeve 25 it up to my own personal observations, it woulo take me TATE REPORTIliG (713) 496-8442
e 12457 1 quite a bit of time to do so. So, that's the reason we
)
2 undertook it. 3 I had no special knowledge of any broad 4 quality problem and the only problems I was aware of 5 were problems that either came to my attention because 6 they happened to be specific issues that I had to 7 address, or they may have been mentioned by some of my 8 people as part of giving me some kind of an update as to 9 the status of the job that might have preceded my 10 arrival. 11 But the purpose of the Quadrex report was not 12 to perform a quality-related audit of Brown & Root. It O 4 13 wasn't that at all. 14 Q Setting aside the Quadrex report for a moment, 15 after you came to STNP, did you encourage or otherwise 16 suggest that an independent third-party review of the 17 quality of Brown & Root's design process and outputs be 18 conducted? 19 MR. AXELRAD: Asked and answered. Tnat was 20 the precise question he asked before. 21 MR. SINKIN: I beg your pardon. He answered 22 it as if my question had asked him was that why you 23 hired Quadrex. I wasn't asking was that why you hired
) 24 Quadr ex. I was saying other than tne Quadrex report,
, 25 was there any -- TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
e 1 l 12458 l 1 MR. AXELRAD: In the beginning of the answer 2 he said no and he then went on to explain what the 3 purpose of the Quadrex review was. l 4 MR. SINKIN: Of course, because he was 5 answering in the context of the Quadrex review. My : 6 question is not looking at Quadrex, setting Quadrex 7 aside, was there any other review tnat you encouraged? 8 That's how the question should have been worded, out it 9 was worded af ter you came to STNP, did you encourage or 10 otherwise suggest that an independent third-party review 11 of the quality of Brown & Root's design process and f, 12 outputs be conducted. And we ' re not talking about the 13 Quaurex report. 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: On that we'll overrule the 15 obj ection. 16 A I'm just trying to think bacx were there any 17 other studies that were undertaken in tnat time frame or 18 desired to be undertaken. 19 I can't recall any instance where I eitner 20 asked for one or conducted one. 21 Q Thank you. 22 Mr. Goldberg, do you remember in July of 1981 23 being contacted about Brown & Root possiuly contracting I) 24 with Gibbs & Hill to replace enem as architect engineer 25 in certain functions on the project? TATE REPORTIl1G (713) 498-8442
ucrav j 12459 f~T 1 A Well, I'm not sure of the exact time frame, G' 2 Mr. Sinkin. I am aware that Mr. Jordan brought to my 3 attention the matter of Gibbs & Hill which he asked do I 4 know what work Brown & Root is thinking of calling upon 5 Gibbs & Hill to perform. And then I proceeded to probe 6 that same question witn members of my staff Decause I 7 personally had no knowledge of it at that point. And my 8 staff indicated that, well, they think that Brown & 9 Root's been talking to Gibbs & Bill, out it wasn't 10 necessarily clear to them in what context. But we went 11 about the business of then trying to benchmark what was 12 Brown & Root talking to G1 bus F E111 about. 13 And cne understanoing enat we cerived was es . 14 follows. That Brown & Root felt they needed additional 15 technical resources to carry on the engineering 16 activities and they were looking to Giobs & Hill to do 17 the work on Unit No. 2 so Brown & Root could concentrate 18 on Unit No. 1. And we didn't at first flush find that 19 to be a very usef ul idea f rom a couple of points of 20 view. 21 Number one, we didn' t f eel that the place to 22 concentrate any extra resources was on Unit 2, we felt 23 the place to concentrate it was on Unit 1. And, 24 further, we were somewhat concerned aoout une prospect 25 of how that work was at least at that stage oeing i i TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 l
e 12460 1 considered. Gibbs & E111 was going to operate in their f-} v 2 New York office based on information that would be 3 transmitted through the mail. When you start to bring 4 in in any large degree other engineering resources, it's 5 extremely difficult to coordinate the interf ace of that 6 resource with the rest of the operation if it's done in 7 that fashion. 8 It struck us that a more usef ul relationsnip 9 would be to have those engineers in Houston where they le could work as an extension to the Brown & Root 11 organization. And clearly we icit tnat the emphasis g 12 needed to be on Unit 1, not on Unit No. 2. 13 So, there was some dialogue. And to the 14 extent that it was carrieo out, it indicated to us that 15 the program still needed a lot of work bef ore it woulo 16 nake any sense to us. l 17 Q Did you communicate that evaluation to Mr. l 18 Jordan? 19 A I'm not sure whetner I communicated tnat 20 directly back to Mr. Jordan or whether I had , 21 conversations perhaps througn Mr. Oprea on that regard. l 22 I know that we signaled back to our management ttat we 23 didn't think that this was a very usef ul idaa.
) 24 Q Hr. Oprea was involvec in this evaluation of 25 the Gibbs & Hill proposal?
TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12461 (} 1 A I don't think Mr. Oprea was involved in the 2 evaluation. I think Mr. Oprea as head of the nuclear 3 group was certainly interested in knowing what was going 4 on and I'm saying I may have communicated back to Mr. 5 Jordan possibly through Mr. Oprea, I just don't recall 6 the detail. 7 Q Did you at any time consider notifying the 8 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that Brown & Root had 9 offered to essentially withdraw as architect engineer on 10 Unit 27 11 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Cncirman, I don't think 12 unat's a correct characterization of the testiwony. 13 There is norning in enere aoout Brown & Root -- 14 MR. SINKIN: I'll rephrace'it. 15 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Did you at any time consider 16 notifying the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board unat 17 Brown & Root had done preliminary work to have Gibbs & 18 Hill assume the Unit 2 design and engineering? 19 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I don't recall any 20 testimony with respect to preliminary work. 21 MR. SINKIN: Well, it's the -- 22 Q (By F2. Sinkin) Was it not true, Mr. 23 Goldber g, let me ask a preliminary question, that tnere () 24 was a letter of intent floating oack and forth oetween 25 Gibbs & Hill and Brown & Root that haan't been signed TATE REPORTING ({} 498-8442
e 1 12462 I- 1 but had been draf ted? ( 2 A I don't think I really know one way or the 2 other, Mr. Sinkin. As I recall, Brown & Root may well 4 have conducted some almost private dialogues with Gibbs 5 & Hill bef ore the matter even came to my attention. 6 Once the matter was tne matter of a question, I think 7 the answer I gave you previously sums up my 8 understanding of the situation and where it basically 9 ended up. 10 We did not think it made much sense. Brown & 11 Root could not subcqntract any portion of tne 12 engineering job witho,uc the express consent or the , [O 13 licensee. The licensee was not aoout to enter into uny 14 relationship of tnat caliber. 15 0 Let me go back to my question and try and 16 phrase it in an unobjectionable manner. 17 Did you at that time, we're talking I think 18 June-July 1981, in that time frame, probably early June 19 of 1981 primarily, did you at that time consioer whether 20 Brown & Root's approacn to Globs & Hill cbout Globs & 21 Hill possibly doing the design and engineering of Unit 2 22 instead of Brown & Root was a matter that should be 23 inf ormed to the Licensing Board? 24 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Cnalroan, when an earlier 25 question was raised by Mr. Sinkin he askeo do you _ _ _ _ _T3 TE 8 " ET E _ _ _ _.! L13) _ 4S M " 2 ____________j
12463 1 remember in July 1981 being contacted by ' Brown & Root, ("} 2 et oetera, and Mr. Goldberg's first reply was I don't 3 recall the time f rame. I don't know where Mr. Sinkin is 4 ootaining the early June probably or July time f rame 5 that he's using. 6 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Okay. Well, I nave refresned 7 my memory by CCANP Exhibit 76 which is a memo that 8 evolved f rom Mr. Jordan. It did not involve you 9 directly, Mr. Goldberg. That's now I was able to 10 improve the time frame. 11 , MR. AXCLRAD: Is there a question presently g 12 pending? I obJ ected to tne earlier question for using a 13 time frame whicn naa not oeen cestiiled to. 14 MR. SIHKIH: Tnat's fine and I was going to 15 rephrase the question without the time frame. 16 MR. AXELRAD: All rignt. 17 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Just at about this time when 18 you were looking at the Gibos & Hill idea, did it 19 ever -- did you ever consider inf orming the Licensing 29 Board of the information you had about the Gabus & 21 Hill / Brown & Root potential relationship? 22 A Well, Mr. Sinkin, you know, I don't personally 23 understand why you would think I would inform the
\_- 24 Licensing Board because an architect engineer working 25 for me may for a moment have a notion to do something TATC REPORTING (713) 496-8442 __._ _ __,
trrses l 12464 i l 1 f~T 1 which I would tell him we're not going to do. Tne v 2 responsibility for that ultimate decision would rest i 3 with the licensee. 4 I expressed the reasons why I didn't think 5 that was a very usef ul idea. I'm not sure the Board 6 would be interested in knowing all 'of the ideas that I 7 have rejected that do not result in any work whicn would 8 be of interest to the Board. 9 Q Who besides yourself, Mr. Goldberg, evaluated
, 10 the proposals to replace Brown & Root?
11 A Tne principal -- 12 HR. AXELRAD:
; I'm sorry, I hate to interrupt.
13 Are we talking now about une proposals unst were 14 received in response to the request for proposal in July 15 of '817 We're not talking any furtner about the Gibbs & 16 Hill proposal? 17 MR. SINKIN: Yes, we are moving on f rom tne 18 Gibbs & Bill proposal to the responses to the RFP sent 19 out July 24th, I believe,1981. 29 Q ( By Mr. Sinkin) Wno besides yourself 21 evaluated the proposals to replace Brown & Root that 22 were received at that time? 23 A Tne principal persons involved in the
} 24 evaluation were myself, Mr. Jordan and Mr. Oprea and we 25 had soliciteo advice f rom Mr. Newman as it would aticct TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
I. " 12465 h 1 matters that w'e needed to consider involving what might U 2 be the kinds of issues that we will face in the 3 licensing arena should we undertake to replace Brown & 4 Root. 5 (No hiatus.) 6 7 8 9 10 - 11
,4 12 U g 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24' 25 TATE REPORTIl1G (713) 498-8442
12466 1 0 So Mr. Newman's involvement was on the question 2 of the licensing? 3 A He also assisted me in reviewing my requests 4 for proposal to assure that I had touched on those 5 matters that would be important to address from a 6 contractual point of view, and he also assisted me in 7 evaluating some of the contractual terms. It wac simply 8 to obtain counsel of an attorney on a matter of future 9 contract. 10 0 Other than licensing and contractual matters, 11 did Mr. Newman have any involvement in the selection of 12 the replacement? 13 A No, he just voiced his opinion in those '(]) 14 particular areas. 15 MR. SINKIn: I regret the delay, tir. Chairman, 16 but I don't seen to be able to find a document that I 17 know in here comovhere. 18 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, in your 19 testimony at page 69, line 18 -- 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: What page is that? 21 MR. SINKIN: Page 69, line 18. 22 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) -- you you state that 23 application of 10 CPR 50.55(e) requires engineering . 24 judgment based on specific facts." 25 You recognize, Mr. Goldberg, that others may
- Q TATE REPORTING SERVICC, 498-8442
___mm________m___._____.____________________________5
12467 1 have differing professional applications as to 50.55(e) 2 to a particular finding in the Ouadrex report? 3 A Yes, I recognize that. 4 0 Given the sheer volume of findings in the 5 Quadrex report, there are many opportunities for such a 6 differing professional opinion, were there not? 7 A Is that a question? 8 0 were there not many opportunities for such a 9 differing professional opinion given the sheer volume of 10 findings? 11 A That's certainly a possibility, yes. 12 0 In that meeting with Dr. Sumpter and Mr. 13 Robertson, were there times when you had differing , 'O 14 vrofession=1 opinions as to whether e elven item was 15 potentially reportable or not? 16 A I think this question, incidentally, is almost 17 a duplicate of one asked just a few dayc, and the answer 18 now is as ten is yes, there were occasions where, at 19 first blush, we didn't have all the same understanding. 20 You have to understand is that Mr. Robertson 21 and Dr. Sumpter had spent the previous afternoon and much 22 of the evening before working quite diligently with the 23 benefit of a lot of intelligence provided by a host of 24 Brown & Root engineers that had been convened at the 25 Brown & Root offices to review the substance of the
- O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12468 1 report. 2 I was, you might say, in the a position of 3 where I didn't have the benefit of all that knowledge and 4 a great deal of that had to be shared with me as we went 5 through the report. And sometimes, we didn't get our 6 minds focused in on all the same information at the same 7 point in time. And there were points where we may have 8 had differing opinions. 9 When we finally decided, however, on how a call 10 was being made, it was unanimous, there was no dissenting 11 opinions on each finding once we had reached a conclusion 12 as to what that finding was. 13 0 on more than one occasion, have you had a 14 different professional opinion than. members of the NRC 5() 15 staff? 16 HR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman -- 17 Q (Dy Mr. Sinhin) -- about -- 18 JUDGE BECilHOEFER: Let him finish his question, 19 first. 20 MR. AXELRAD: I'm sorry, I thought the question 21 was finished. 22 MR. AXELRAD: I apologize for the interruption. 23 MR. SINKIN: That's quite all right. 24 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) On more than one occasion, 25 have you had a different professional opinion than O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _.=,____.-_.=._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _<
12469 members of the NRC staff on technical issues at the South {) 1 2 Texas Nuclear Project? 3 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I object to that 4 question as being overly broad and not specifically 5 related to any of the issues in this particular , 6 proceeding. l 7 In the course of design of a nuclear facility, 8 there are any number of matters that are discussed l 9 between the Applicant and the NRC staff with respect to l f 10 license submittals and information which needs to be . 11 supplemented in the record an matters of that kind. And 12 I don't sco how the fact that there may have been 13 discussions of that type between the license Applicant () 14 and the Nnc staff can have any relevance to the issues 15 before this proceeding. 16 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, what I'm trying to 17 get at is the attitude of this witnoce towards the NRC 18 and its oversight as a measure of the character of the ! 19 corporation as a whole and the attitude that he would 20 bring to a review of the Quadrex report. 21 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, I support the motion 22 to -- the objection to this question. Applicants, of 23 course, before the NRC can dispute matters and they're 24 encouraged to dispute matters that are -- where they 25 think matters are net in encompassed by regulation. O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
- ----mmmmmm---m----------mm--------
l 12470 ) l l 1 There's nothing wrong with an Applicant doing that. ({) The very -- the question is overly broad and 2 3 seems to get at any time they said, 'Well, gee, the 4 regulation really says this rather than that. And we 5 object it to." 6 Further, I don't think its prbative of any of 7 the issues in this proceeding. It does not -- we're not 8 here involved with the more broad general character and 9 competence issue. We have two things that we're looking 10 at; the necessity to bring the Quadrex report forward and 11 the necessity to -- under both McGuire and under 12 50.55(c), and the further quection of whether they should t 13 have told us earlier about the plan to replace Brown &
- h 14 Root.
15 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman -- 16 MR. REIS: I -- 17 UR. AXELRAD: I'm sorry. 18 HR. SINKIN: Are you finished? 19 MR. REIS: I think if the question is read 20 again, it will be evident how broad it is. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We're going to uphold that 22 objection because the way it was asked, it would 23 encompass matters where like under a reg guide, the 24 conmission says that an Applicant may propose alternate 25 ways of doing things. And to bring all of those matters () TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
.__nnnn---------------.---.-----------------,
12471 1 under discussion, to make those matters under discussion [} 2 would be as asked that question is much, much too broad. 3 MR. SINKIN: Okay. 4 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, I believe that 5 you've testified that when you came to Houston Lighting & 6 Power, you did not go back, you did not go backwards in 7 time and review quality assurance audits that had been 8 conducted by HL&P of the Brown & Root design and 9 engineering process. Is that your recollection? 10 A Yes. 11 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask the 12 indulgence of the Board here for a coment. A document 13 that was key to my cross-examination at this point has () 14 conchou disappeared. And it is possible that the Board 15 has a copy of this document since it is at issue in the 16 proceeding. It is not introduced into evidence as yet, 17 but it was Exhibit A to CCAnP's notien to reopen the 18 transcripts from the Public Utility Commission. 19 Could I borrow your copy to use for a moment? 20 JUDGE BECHROEFER: First I have to locate it, 21 but second I've got to see if I have a lot of notes on it 22 myself. 23 JUDGE BECRHOEFER: Off the record for a moment. 24 (Discussion off the record.) 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on the record. I l l l ([) I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 l
----------m--- m--m----m_m m_______________-<
t 12472
? - 1 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, in the most 2 recent Houston Lighting & Power rate case, before the 3 Public Utility Commission of Texas, you were a witness, l
4 were you not? 5 A That is correct. 1 6 0 I'm going to show you a part of the transcript ! l 7 from that proceeding and ask you to read the questionc 8 and answers. l 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Would you identify 10 transcript page, et cetera? 11 MR. SINKIN: Yes, I will as soon as I get 12 there. 13 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Maybe to get the copy, Mr. , () 14 doldberg, we're going to have to' start fairly early. If 15 you will read starting at transcript page 1355, line 19, 16 the question, and proceed to page 1358, stopping at line 17 eleven. 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Are you asking him to read 19 all that into our transcript. 20 MR. SINKIN: Yes. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do we need it all? 22 HR. SINKIN: Yes, we do, to get the context of 23 the answer, I believe we need all of it. 24 MR. AXELRAD: Wouldn't it be better to mark it 25 as an exhibit or something? O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 __________________________ _________________c
12473 l ( 1 MR. REIS: I would object to the procedure of
),
2 him reading it all unless we first establish that-it is 3 .probative or means someth?ng in this -- in the context. 4 I object to the question in that it's not shown to be i 5 probative. 6 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Goldberg, I'll ask you to 7 review the parts that I asked you to read and then we'll 8 talk about whether it might be probative or not. 9 THE WITNESS: Where did you want this to start 10 you, now? 11 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Starting -- well, I need to 12 ask you a feu questions to satisfy Mr. Reis' objection. 13 Is this transcript dealing with the process HL&P used to I
) 14 evaluate new contractors to replace Brown & Root?
l 15 A This does address some of_the mechanics that 16 were used, yes. 17 0 The process used within UL&P to select the new 18 contractor, some of them? 19 A Yes. 20 MR. SINKIN: I'm prepared to have him read that 21 if that satisfies you, Mr. Reis? 22 MR. REIS: I don't know exactly why the 23 mechanics are relevant. I still think it's not -- 24 germane to the issue. 'We're dealing with when they were 25 chosen -~ ( TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 . f 1 t -------_---------_-__-_______________________j
12474 t ( l MR. SINKIN: That's fine. 2 MR. REIS: -- chosen, and when the Board was 3 notified. The mechanics they might h've a gone through 4 might be interesting to know, from a general point of 5 view. But I don't think it's relevant to this 6 proceeding. We have very limited issues here. 7 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, the transcript at 8 page -- I mean the testimony, Mr. Goldberg, at page 56 9 answer 888, talks about the sequence of events that led 10 to the replacement of Brown & Root as architect engineer 11 and construction manager. This is part of that sequence 12 of events. 13 I specifically asked Mr. Goldberg who, besides
) 14 himself, evaluated proposals. to replace Brown & Root.
15 And he gave an answer to that question. 16 MR. REIS: Is the purpose to impeach the 17 witnenc? 18 MR. SINKIN: Yes. 19 MR. REIS: Well, there are ways of doing that 20 and this is not the way. 21 MR. SINKIN: This is a perfectly appropriate 22 way, to have him read his previous sworn testimony. 23 MR. REIS: The way to do it is to pose the sane l l 24 questions again and ask him the questions and then l l 25 confront him with the testimony. That hasn't been done. 1 \ l' TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 ! mm m m mmmb - m- .-- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <
l 12475 l JUDGE BECHHOEPER: I think there's an awful lot i{ 2 of pages -- 3 JUDGE SHON: That has nothing to do with this. 4 He should just read those questions that you -- 5 JUDGE BECHBOEFER: Couldn't you just ask him a 6 question based on like the top paragraph on 1357 or -- 7 won't that do it? 8 MR. SINKIN: I thought the easiest way and 9 clearest way was to have him read the testimony he gave 10 in response to questions on this same subject under oath 11 before the Public Utilities Commission of Texas. The 12 answers which directly contradicts his ancworn in this 13 proceeding. . h) 14 - MR. AXELnAD: I would certalnly object to his 15 characterization of what that testimony -- 16 MR. SINKIN: Obviously it's my 17 characterization. 18 MR. AXELRAD: This subject matter is not i i 19 tangentially relevant to anything that this Board has to 20 consider in this proceeding. 21 MR. SINKIN: The essence of this proceeding 22 among other things is the credibility of HL&P's 23 management as stated in the Board's order that set forth 24 issues for thic proceeding. 25 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I guess one might -- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
-----:-----.---------_-------------------------)
12476 one of my only objections is to have Mr. Goldberg have to
!{) 1 2 go through the mechanics of reading three pages into the 3 record. If Mr. Sinkin wants to read three pages into the 4 record, let Mr. Sinkin read them in, as a prelude to any 5 question he wants to ask such as whether that was the 6 witness' previous testimony befor'e the PUC.
7 MR. SINKIN: If that's the objection, I'll be 8 happy to read it myself. 9 MR. PIRFO: That's not quite the staff 10 objections, Mr. Chairman. 11 MR. SINKIN: I didn't think it was. 12 MR. PIRPO: I'm sorry, Mr. Sinkin has yet to 13 establish that the testimony he would give here -- that
) 14 Mr. Goldberg would give here, differs from the prior 15 sworn testimony and he can't start from the back and say, 16 "Here's your prior sworn testimony, it's different."
17 MR. SINEIM: He's aircady given the testimony 18 which this testimony stands in my view in contradiction i 19 of. I don't need anymore testimony from him here. 20 MR. PIRPO: We're talking about testimony from 21 any one or talking about Phase II testimony? 22 HR. SINKIN: What I'm saying'is the testimony ? 23 he gave today stands in conrediction to the testimony he 24 gave before the Public Utility Commission of Texas in the 25 Houston Lighting & Power rate case. L{ TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 _. -_-________________________________s
12477 1 He has given testimony here today. I now want [ 2 to put into evidence the testimony he gave before the 3 Public Utility Commission. I would be happy to read, 4 4 have -- 5 MR. PIRPO: Which in Mr. Sinkin's view 6 contradicts what he says here. 7 MR. SINKIN: Exactly. 8 MR. PIRPO: To move things along, we'll let Mr. 9 Sinkin read it into the record. 10 JUDGE DECHROEFER: Well, should it be read or 11 should somebody make Xeroxes. 12 MR. PIRFO: I think definitely Xeroxes, but I'm 13 not offering. , ,
'( ) 14 Mn. SINKIN: I don't have a Xerox machine here, 15 Mr. Chairman, and I --
16 MR. REIS: There's one down in the library 17 downstairs. , 18 MR. SINKIN: We can provide Xeroxes at some 19 future time in the hearing, or at this point in the 20 hearing. 21 MR. PIRPO: We would prefer to have it now if l 22 it's going to be read into the record as we read along ! 23 it. 24 HR. SINKIN: You want me to go down to the 25 library and -- . . i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 n---------------------------------------------
i 12478 l 1 MR. REIS: No, read it in. 2 HR. PIRPO: Strike that if it's not going to -- 3 the reason he's going to make copies is so that he does 4 not have to be read into the record. 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's correct. 6 MR. PIRPO: So to that extent, we don't need 7 the copy now. He can move the entire record later he 8 gets it copied. 9 MR. SINKIN: Are -- where are we? Should I 10 read it into the record or not? 11 JUDGE SHON: So he can -- 12 JUDGE DECHHOEFER: Can you cch your questions 13 without reading into the record and then you could put it ( ) 14 into the record as en c hibit later? - 15 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. 16 The previous -- ! 17 JUDGE BECEHOETER: I'm corry. I 18 MR. SINKIN: This is a copy of prior sworn 19 testimony. 20 JUDGE SHON: You're not going to point out any i 21 specific questions and answers in this testimony that 22 contradict specific questions and answers and ask-him to 23 explain this or anything? l ! 24 MR. SINKIN: I'm not going to ask him to 25 explain this. If counsel, on redirect, wants to ask him i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
. _ _ _ . -------n---.------------------
12479 I to explain it, let them do so.
)
2 JUDGE BECHBOEFER: Why don't we put in it the 3 record and put the Xerox copies in when we get it. And 4 just move that way. If there's no questions -- going to 5 be further questions on this, in could be indicated that 6 we will put in it the record now and just come up -- 7 MR. PIRPO: That was the staff's assumption, 8 that th?re was not going to be anymore questions. 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I wasn't sure. 10 MR. SINKIN: No, I have no questions. Then the 11 appropriate way would be to perhaps ask that the pages be 12 in marked as a CCANP c::hibit at this time and then move 13 them into the record at this time and have argument at ( ) 14 this time over whether they come in. . 15 JUDGE BECHBOEFER: That would be the same -- 16 yes. 17 MR. SINKIN: Okay. Then I will ash -- it's all 18 attached for the moment, but the transcript pages that I 19 identified for the record, for which I will later supply 20 copies, would begin at transcript 1355, and proceed 21 through transcript 1358. I should give a beginning line. 22 1355, line 19, proceeding forward to 1358, line eleven. 23 HR. REIS: The staff has no objection with the 24 understanding that we haven't had a decent opportunity to 25 review the item now and know that it is probative at all O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
.waawaamwawwa==w=--- n------------ .-----------
I 12480 l rN 1 to what it is offered for which is to impeach the V 2 witness. But with that caveat, the staff has no 3 objection to its introduction. 4 MR. SINKIN: I should say that these pages 5 would be marked as CCANP Exhibit 90. 6 MR. AXELRAD: We have no objection to the i 7 marking or the admission. 8 JUDGE DECHHOEFER: To the marking or the 9 admission. 10 !!R. AXELRAD: Whatever is happening. 11 MR. SINKIN: I move it into evidence, just to 12 take it clear. 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. I() 14 The Board will accept those pages into 15 evidence; you could -- subject to providing three copics 16 for the court reporter. 17 MR. REIS: And the staff. 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The Board has enough copies 19 right now; the staff should have some and the Applicants -- 20 do you have with you or not? 21 MR. AXELRAD: My understanding, however, is 27 that the testimony is going in for purposes of 23 impeachment. 24 JUDGE DECHROEFER: That's correct. 25 MR. AXELRAD: And that is its sole purpose. O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 1
- -- - mmmmmm m m mm m e -.m mm_ m - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
12481 ! 1 MR. SINKIN: That's correct. 2 MR. PIRPO: To impeach his prior testimony in 3 this proceeding. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEPER: Today. 5 MR. PIRFO: Well, yes, from anything -- 6 anything that's happened before this moment. 7 MR. SINKIN: That's right. 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's correct. That will 9 be admitted and you could supply the reporter with 10 copies, 11 MR. SINKIN: I will supply the reporter with 12 copics. 13 JUDGE DECHHOEFER: I would appreciate your () 14 X'ing out the portions of the pages which are not -- put. 15 X's over them so that the casual reader will not at least 16 look at the lines that you don't have any intention of -- 17 MR. SINKIN: We will c he a firct copy, thic is 18 Judge Lamb's copies, X it and then make further copies. 19 (CCANP Exhibit 90 was marked for 20 identification and receiveed in 21 in evidence.) 22 O (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, in your 23 testimony at page 58, questions 89 and 90, and 24 particularly I would call your attention to line 18, 25 where you discuss the adequacy of Brown & Root's services 1 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 , i l l _w________________________________________q
i l I 12482 ,
\
l on STP generally. And my question will be whether in 2 that line, you were addressing only the adequacy of Brown 3 & Root's design and engineering services or their 4 services on STNP generally as it states there. 5 A I think I was referring there in the 6 engineering context. 7 0 on page 67 of your testimony, answer 98? 8 A I'd like to supplement my answer to this 9 question. 10 0 To 98? 11 A Yes. You got into the questions and answers in 12 90 that were not -- aren't ue on page 587 13 0 I'm sorry, you want to go back? tr-i 14 A I ccid I wanted to supplement my last answer. 15 0 okay. So we're back to page 58 focusing on 16 line 18. 17 A I don't think its fair to probably restrict the 18 questions about their adequacy strictly in the 19 engineering sense, because when I first joined HL&P, even 20 before I joined HL&P, I had toured the site and I saw 21 power plant that had been around for a long time that 22 wasn't very far along. And I think that a broader 23 perspective was that I had some questions about why it 24 was that the power plant hadn't been more advanced. And 25 I think it not only portended some questions about the
'O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 ;
______j
. 12483 V~3 1 status of engineering but why it was that for the amount V
2 of time that expired, why their wasn't more built. 3 Q Now turning to page 67. Question 89, answer 4 98, if you would review those for just a moment. 5 A I have read it. 6 0 You are referring.in this question and answer 7 to an answer given by Mr. Oprea in the same PUC hearings 8 that we discussed a moment ago; were you not? 9 A That is correct. 10 0 well, I should state that correctly. An answer 11 that you were talking about an answer Mr. Oprea had given 12 in Phace I of thic proceeding, you were testifying in 13 front of the PUC in the rate case. () 14 A You better try that one all over again. 15 0 You are discussing a question that was asked of 16 Mr. Oprea which he answered. Is that correct? 17 MR. AXELRAD: Are we talking about the sentence 38 that begins on line ll?
- 19. MR. SINKIN: Line 11.
20 MR. AXELRAD: We have now gone to page 67, 21 answer 98. 22 MR. SINKIN: Right. 23 MR. AXELRAD: And on line 11, there is a 24 sentence when an answer to a question on Mr. Oprea's 25 testimony before the Texas PUC. Is that the subject of O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 l m m m w -- m e-, m m o gp p g;p p ;p c; p p p g q; p c;;;p p e - --- - -
12484 1 your question? 2 HR. SINKIN: Well, the answer is worded 3 ambiguously. I'm afraid that may be part of the 4 confusion. 5 0 The testimony of Mr. Oprea under discussion was 6 not in fact before the Texas PUC, was it? It was before 7 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in Phase I, was it 8 not? 9 Perhaps that's an error in the testimony or 10 perhaps Texas PUC is meant to refer to your testimony. 11 We're not talking about Mr. Oprea's testimony before the 12 Texas PUC, are we? 13 A We're talking about a question that you raised
'( ) 14 regarding Mr. Oprea's tcstimony back in Phase I of the 15 hearings and this was raised during my testinony, or 16 testifying, excuse me, before the Texas PUC.
17 0 Right. okcy. l 18 MR. PIRPO: The staff may get a clarification -- f 19 I thought the Exhibit A to the CCANP position, I 20 apologize for not having a copy, but I was under the 21 impression that was Mr. Goldberg's testimony. That's why 22 I'm getting confused. 23 MR. SINKIN: We're getting confused. When you 24 say " Exhibit A,' you're referring to the motion to 25 reopen. () TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12485 1 MR. PIRPO: Yes. -{ ' 2 MR. SINKIN: That's Mr. Goldberg's testimony 3 before the Public Utility Commission. In that testimony 4 he discusses Mr. Oprea's testimony in Phase I of this 5 licensing procedure. 6 MR. PIRPO: Okay. 7 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) And it is that testimony by 8 nr. Oprea in Phase I that you are addressing in question 9 and answer 98. Is that correct? 10 A It is with respect to a question that you 11 raised during my testifying before the Texas Public 12 Utility Commission regarding a statement made by Mr. 13 Oprea. during Phase I hearings before the Atomic Safety () 14 and Licensing Board. ' 15 HR. PIRFO: It's now clear to me. 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Goldberg, I do thi.nk the 17 statement in your testimony is confucing. In thct it 18 seems to say -- in that it seems to say that Mr. Oprea 19 testified before the Texas PUC. I don't think that was 20 the intent of the question. 21 THE WITNESS: It was not. 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: You may we.nt to explain a 23 little bit more what that sentence means. I think I know 24 what it may mean. 25 THE WITNESS: I can explain what was intended i/ TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 _ comw_______________________________________
12486 , 1 to be meant and perhaps we may have to do something about ({ 2 it, but apparently Mr. Sinkin, during a questioning 3 session of myself when I was testifying before the Texas 4 Public Utility Commission, asked about a statement made 5 by Mr. Oprea during Phase I of the hearings. 6 So Mr. Oprea the testimoney -- that's being 7 referred to her was testimony Mr. Oprea gave in Phase I B of the hearings before your Board. That's what was 9 intended. Does that at least put in it better 10 perspective? 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I just wanted -- I think I 12 understood it in any event, but I think the record chould 13 reflect it and I think it will now.
) 14 0 (Dy Mr. Sinkin) Maybe to help clarify the 15 record, I-will distribute what I will ask be marked as 16 CCANP 91.
17 (CCAUP Exhibit 91 marked 18 for identification.) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 _ O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12487
) 1 Q ( By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, I would ask 2 that you review page 1374 of the transcript in Exhibit 3 91 through 1379.
4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: 137 9 or 13 807 Tne last 5 page here is 13807 6 MR. SINKIN: Well, se e , Judge Lamb hac a note 7 on his that he was missing page 1380. And I suspect -- 8 I hope cx1 the exhibits you have 1380 in ene one 9 distributed. Okay, then it should be through 13E). 10 JUD3E BECHHOEFER: And my other copy had 13 03 11 in it. ' ( 12 MR. SINKIN: For some reason, Judge Lamb's was 13 missing. 14 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Eave you had a cnance to do 15 that now, nr. Goldberg? 16 A Yes, I have. 17 Q Turning in the exnioit -to page 1378, looking ! l 18 at lines 6 through 17 of that particular part of this l l 19 exhibit, is that the question to Mr. Oprea that you are l 20 referring to in question 98 and answer 98 of your l l 21 testimony here today? j i 22 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I believe that 23 question is asked and answered in the question itself, 24 question 98. It specifically quotes the question and 25 quotes the answer. I _____ _.nre..astaarun _ t7u i e 921-u ct__. _______.
12488 . 1 (s-~3 I agree that it does. I just (j 1 KR. SINKIN: 2 want to be sure because there was some ambiguity in the 3 wording of the answer as to where the testimony was 4 given. See, there is Texas PUC transcript 1378. I just 5 want to be sure that we're talking, in fact, aoout tne 6 same transcript pages in the -- I mean, fine. If you 7 consider it askeo ano answered, I'll oeal with it as 8 asked and answered. Tnat's fine. 9 Q (By 12. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, in answer 98, 10 line 7, you state that you do not think it was 11 reasonable for Mr. Oprea to have understood that - ((^) 12 question, referring to the question in the exhibit, to - V 13 ask about serious discussions focused on une removal of 14 Brown & Root rather than our discussions about tne need 15 to e::plore alternatives. 16 MR. PIRPO: Obj ection. 17 MR. SINKIN: All I've done is quote the 18' testimony. 19 MR. PIRFO: No, you didn't. 29 MR. SINKIN: What did I do wrong? , 21 MR. PIRFO: You said reasonaDie. You said ! 22 reasonable instead of unreasonable. , , , 23 MR. SINKIN: Did I really? 24 MR. PIRPO: Tnat's what I heard. 25 MR. SINKIN: I'm very sorry, very sorry. __ m m-m _ _ _.I. CAT C_ RE.PQRTIBG_ _ __ _ __L2131._s 9f> _8A 12_ _ _ _ __ _ ______ _ W
Cg-47 12489 ) l Iry \J l Q (By Mr. SinKin) Let me read it again. Answer i 2 98, line 7, "I do not think it was unreasonable for Mr. 3 Oprea to have understood that question to ask about 4 serious discussions focused on the removal of Brown & 5 Root," or B&R, "rather than our discussions about the 6 need to explore alternatives. "
's My question is when did you oiscuss with Mr.
8 Oprea his understancing of what the question in Pnase I 9 meant to him? 10 UR. AXELRAD: A f oundation question is 11 necessary as to whether or not any such discussion took X 12 place. (Q . 13 MR. SINKIN: We'll do that. 14 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Did you ever discuss with Mr. 15 Oprea wnat the question asked of him in Phase I meant to 16 him? 17 A No, I don't think I recall asking Mr. Oprea 18 what it meant to him. As I testirled at tne Public -- 19 bef ore the P ilic Utility Commission, it was my view 20 then, as it is now, that whenever you ask somebocy about 21 were you involved in any discussions about the removal 22 of Brown & Root, to a person who would be in a position
- 23 to make a decision to remove Brown & Root, that doesn' t y}
24 mean anything until sucn time as that person has started 25 to undertake action associated with such a development. _ __ . __ __ ___ __ _ . TATE _RE PORTI!1G_ ___ L7131_4 0A8A 4_2_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
cg-JV 12490 () 1 It 's my view that the management of HL&P never 2 undertook to even agree to pursue alternatives until 3 June 29th of 1981. I have testified on numerous 4 occasions, which you are most f amiliar with and also 5 before this Board, that I was of the opinion that while 5 we devote our f ull energies to trying to get the project 7 on track with Brown & Root, that it is a usef ul 8 management consideration to consicer the possibility 9 that in spite of that effort, we may not be successf ul. 10 I had no way of knowing wherner we would be or we would 11 not be. 12 And I maintain that from about January of 1981 , (<'_)*
\
13 until June 29th, on occasion I might bring that 14 particular suggestion to the attention or Mr. Jordan or 15 12. Oprea, and it was strictly to remind them that it 16 would take time to even determine if tnere was an 17 alterna tive. And I f elt it was usef ul while we were 18 working to solve the problems of the project to take 19 advantage of that time window to make those 20 explorations. 21 But no one that I can think aoout ever gave me 22 any reason to believe that that was a serious 23 consiceration. And it wasn't until the meeting of June 7-i 24 29th where }k. Jordan, following the meeting that we had 25 in San Antonio tne Friday bef ore and he was taced witu t m e -- --- - m M E 1 6 U}G. m m C M $ N O U N - _ - - - _ _ - - -
sg-51 l 12491 ( ' L~) 1 some rather hard evidence that the project was not going 2 to be moving forward very expeditiously, counseled with 3 Mr. Oprea, Mr. Barker and myself to enlist our views as 4 to what we saw as the likely opportunities and likely 5 developments on the proj ect. And it was f ollowing that 6 review that he authorized Mr. Oprea and myself to 7 uncertake an exploration to fino out if tnere were any 8 contractors in the Industry that might be willing to 9 consider taking over different f acets of the pro]ect. 10 0 Hoving to line 19 on page 67, you state that 11 you think Mr. Oprea took your conversations as part of 12 discussions we had from time to tim'e about the b(_Jw ' 13 desirabilit; of exploring our optionc and not a 14 discussion about tue, quote, removal of Brown & Root, 15 unq uote, and he was right. 16 Did you ever discuss witn Mr. Oprea nas view 17 of your discussions, conversations you had as to 18 whether, in fact, this is how he viewed tnem? 4 19 A I can tell you quite f rankly that fir. Oprea 20 was not at all interested in my suggestion -- 21 O Wait, Mr. Goldbe rg, I'm sorry to interrupt, 22 out my question is really very simple, really very 23 simpl e. 24 Did you ever discuss with Mr. Oprea his view 25 of your conversations in unat period at some time after t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- SATE _2EPOP2ING____ __ _L7D i 4 93- 83 42_ ___ __ ___ _ _ _ _ _ y
12492 () I that period? , 2 A I'm just trying to make sure, is this not the 3 question you asked previously? 4 Q The question I asked previously was whether 5 you had discussed with Mr. Oprea his understanding of 6 the question Mr. Oprea had been asked in Phase I. Now 7 I'm asking if you discussed with Mr. Oprea his view of 8 the conversations you and he had that are discusseo in 9 this sentence in your testimony. 10 In other words, af ter the conversations ut 11 some point did you and Mr. Oprea sit down or stand up, l 12 whatever, have a discussion about those previous 13 conversations where he told you that he took those 14 conversations as part of discussions you had had f rom 15 time to time about the desirubility of exploring our 16 options and not a discussion about the removal of Brown 17 & Root? 18 A Mr. Sinkin, maybe I'm conf used. I am almost 19 certain that you asked previously did I ever 20 specifically ask Mr. Oprea what he meant by that 21 statement and I think I answered no, I didn't 1 22 specifically ask Mr. Oprea what I thought he meant. J 23 Taat's my perception of what I think he meant. ) 0 24 Q Okay. See, the -- do you understand the 1 25 distinction I'm making between your first sentence and i a o e~~ _ _ __- _D2fA 8.FEv.R.TJ liG _ _ _G 1.3.1. e U . M 4.2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s
cg-0W 12493 l p) i, 1 the second sentence? The first sentence addresses the 2 questions asked during Phase I of that and his 3 understanding of that question. My first question is l 4 did you ever discuss with him af ter Phase I what his 5 understanding of that question was? 6 A I don't believe so. 7 Q And my second question was did you ever 8 discuss witn nim af ter the conversations took place 9 about seeking alternatives or whatever, whether his 10 view -- did you ever talk to nia about what his view of 11 those conversations was? r# x 12 A I don' t believe so. (V 13 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chai rman, the reason I ask 14 tncse questions is I don't think enere's any basis for 15 the witness to provide testimony on either point. And { 16 at this point I would move to strike the sentence on ; I l 17 line 7 beginning "I do not think" and line 19 beginning l l 18 "I think " It's pure speculation by the witness with no 19 basis in f act. 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Axelrad? 21 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chai rm2.n, I think it's 22 perf ectly appropriate f or an individual who is an 1 23 official of a company who has had a number of 7_
%i 24 discussions f rom time to time on a relateo subject with 1 25 another official to be able to express his own view as i
! -- _ _ _2 ATE _RUPOR2IFG _ L7131 J 93-@d R___ _ _ &
y _ . _ . _. ( 12494
)
I to what he thinks those other remarks by tne otner 2 official mean. It may be entitled to whatever weight it 3 deserves based upon the basis for that particular 4 statement, but that doesn't mean that the belief itself 5 or the thoughts themselves of Mr. Goldberg are not 6 entitled to some weight.
/ MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman --
8 MR. AXELRAD: In addition to wnica there may 9 be some other basis. All he's asked about is any 10 conversations that may have taken place. It cay be on 11 redirect there can be some indication of some additional ( 12 casis -f or those. But whatever, it's a matter of weight
)
13 and not a matter of being struck. 14 MR. PIRPO: The Staff was going to say to tne 15 e:: tent, and would agree with Applicants' counsel, to the 16 extent Mr. Sinkin thinks he's been successf ul in 17 undercutting the force of his testimony, then it stays 18 in the record and he's undercut the weight ot it. But a 19 motion to strike it is totally inappro,yriate. 20 11R. SINKIN: Mr. Cnai rman, I would only 21 respond to one thing. I tnink Mr. Axelrad f 22 mischaracterized the actual statements. Tnese are not 1 I - 23 statements by Mr. Goldoerg on what he tninks something (O 24 means, they are statements by Mr. Goldberg on what he 25 thinks Mr. Oprea thinks something means. Tnat's wnat I
.__ m __ mmm__.T.ATERF20B2,TJHL_
_ CZ13)LJah-M4J_____m_
12495 () 1 found objectionable. 2 MR. PIRPO: To that extent he should have 1 3 raised his objection a long time ago. If it's obvious l 4 on its face that it was strikable, if that's a word, he l l 5 should have raised this when it was first introduced. 6 He voiced no objection at that point. l 7 So, to the extent it obviously should have 1 8 been stricken on its f ace, he's out of time. To tne 9 extent he has undercut it by his cross-examination, then 10 it simply goes to weight and it stays for whatever value 11 it's worth. ( 12 MR. SINKIN: . Taen I will with' draw nry motion to 13 strike and leave the record as is. 14 JUDGE BECHBOEFER: I was going to ack wnetner 15 there is any limitation, but I guess it's nec relevant 16 as to when a motion to strike can be asserted. I have 17 of ten let in testimony at the start with the knowledge 18 that motions to strike certain parts of it may be filed 19 later and that has never raised any real probleu 20 procedur ally. 21 MR. SINKIN: I think it is not uncommon in a 22 proceeding f or inf ormation to be elicited in
- 23 cross-examination that provides a ' basis f or a motion to (O#
24 strike that didn't exist bef or e. 25 JUDGE BECHBOEFER: I ao tnink, tn ough, that
-._ ___ _ _ _ _ __ 2 ATE _RPJK1RIING_ ___ L213_L _A 9_8 .d,_4 L2_ _ __ __ __ _ . . _ _ _ ,
U ogeM 12496
.( o) I before we would grant any such motion, we would want to 2 know further about Mr. Goldberg's source of inf ormation 3 for the two sentences in question.
4 MR. SINKIN: Well, I'm witndrawing the motion 5 to strike, Mr. Chairman, so we won't have to worry about G that. 7 Q ( By Mr . Sinkin) Mr. Goldoerg, on page 6 8, 8 question 99 in your testimony, could you identify for us 1 9 the other portions of your testimony in Phase I which 10 you reviewed regarding whether you should have raentionea 11 Qaadrex? ( 12 A Let's see if I have that with me. 13 Out in my car I've got a cook of all tne 14 per tinent sections of testimony that I may have used the 15 word engineer or engineering that went above and oeyond 16 the sections specifically cited by the Board. And I 17 reviewed all those sections basically. It's quite a 18 large book f ull of testimony. 19 HR. SINKIN: Maybe we can simplify this. 20 Perhaps counsel can provide f rom his book J ust tne page 21 number or those particular pages. 22 MR. AXELRAD: I don't believe so, Mr. Sinkin. 23 You're free to ask Mr. Goldberg any questions he can (e , 24 answer based upon his present recollection. I don't see ! 25 any need to go and find specific pages of transcript. l _ _ _ _ _ _ - ___._ _ 2.ATB RPElltTlHG- _ _ _( ~ll3W 9_S _814.2_ _ _ _ _ _ __ -- _ _ _ q
cg-U1/ 12497 1 He's described what he's looked at in his testimony. 2 You're free to ask him whatever he recalls and whatever 3 answers you get when you ask those questions will 4 determine whatever value the testimony has. 5 HR. SINKIN: Well, Mr. Chairman, there's a G very general statement by Mr. Goldberg here that he 7 reviewed other portions of his testimony and f ound no 8 answers that he believed called for mentioning Quadrez. 9 There is an ability -- it's not a ma:ter of 10 recollection, it's right out in his car. Taere is an 11 ability to have in the record what portions of the ( 12 transcript he reviewed that it is his testimony did not 13 call for him to mention Quadrex. 14 MR. PIRFO: The Stati would maintain that that 15 ability lies with Er. Sinkin to bring it out on 1 1 16 cross-examina tion.
)
l 17 JUDGE BECBBOEFER: I think you can assume that 18 he reviewed all of his testimony. 19 MR. SINKIN : Well, he apparently didn't review 20 all of his testimony, he reviewed those parts of his 21 testimony in which the, word engineer and engineering 22 appeared. , l
- 23 THE WITNESS: I think tne key words that would (O 24 have attracted my attention were words such as design or 25 engineering or engineer. Wherever there was any . . _ _ _ - _ _ _ TATE _ RPn.wT mG_ _L213LA 93 _64 G___ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ w
cg-#7 12498 O 1 connotation chat it had a reference to the de >en 2 aspects in whatever context it might have been used, in 3 many respects it had no context at all, those were the 4 sections that I reexamined to determine whether there 5 was any matter under discussion that would have been 6 appropriate to mennon Quaorex as part of whatever the 7 i.ssue was. 8 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) How many sections, separated 9 sections of the transcript do you remember reviewing? 10 A Tnere are quite a few of them, Mr. Sinkin. If 11 you ask me to give you a ballpark, why, it mignt well 12 have been forty or fif ty diff-erent sections. I'd have 13 to actually look at it again anc give you an exact 14 number. I'm just telling you that I looked at any area 15 of the tectimony that might have even by the most , 16 liberal connection suggested that we were talking about 17 engineering. 18 Q Okay. Talking only aoout une hiring of 19 Quadrex as opposed to the period subsequent to their 20 hiring, when you hired Quadrex did you want to keep the 1 1 21 fact of their hiring confidential witnin the company? l 22 A No, I would hardly characterize it that way in 23 view of the f act that I advised the Nuclear Regulatory ( 24 Commission that we had engaged an outsice consultant to 25 assist us in perf orming an overview or Brown & Root's 1
- ---- P WRRE23PT T % __ _ _CZ130_ ! EB .ti.4. 4.2__ __ _ ._. _ _ _ - -
cg-W1 12499 (,) ( 1 engineering. And I don't know whether I mentioned 2 Quadr ex. It's very possible I did. 3 Q You advised Mr. Sells that you had hired at 4 least a consultant, whether you named the consultant or 5 not? 6 A That is correct. 7 Q Other than Mr. Sells, did you advise anyone 8 outside the company that Quadrex had been nired or that 9 a consultant had been hired? 10 A I'm pretty sure it acy have come up through 11 one of our management -- one or more of our management () 12 13 committee meetings in which we would have snared that Information with our partners, the City of Austin, the 14 City of San Antonio and Central Power & Lignt Company. 15 Q Other then Mr. Sells and the management 16 committee, did you inf orm anyone else that you remember? 17 MR. PIRFO: I object to this, Your Honor. I 18 think it's been establisned that it wasn't held 19 confidential. I mean, are we going to find out it the 20 janitor of San Antonio knew? I mean, how far down this 21 line are we going to go, other than the NRC and Austin? 22 I mean, how far are we going to go.
-- 23 MR, SINKIN: We haven't --
24 HR. P!1PO : I mean, there's a lot of people 25 out there that probably were not told. That 's why I
~ _ _ _ _m .T&TE_REPORTIUG_ _ __ _ L713_L _4 9.8 - 8_4 42_ __ ____._ _s
cg-f7 12500 h"% () 1 don't understand how far are we going to keep going on 2 this. And I'm not sure that it's probative or relative 3 to, at any rate, who knew about it or who did not know 4 about it. 5 MR. SINKIN: It's a measure of how the airing 6 of Quadrex was treated who was told about it. We've 7 learned that one official of the NRC and members of the 8 management committee who are essentially the Applicants 9 for the license here, that's in my view basically within 10 ene structure of ene corporation, altnough not 11 formally. 12 HR. PIRPO: Well, it's certainly relevant to (/ } _ 13 that because that's the question, so it's relevant to 14 the question that was asked by definition. But now it's 15 relevant to tac issues in this proceeding, I have no 16 idea. 17 MR. SINKIN: Well, whether they kept tne 18 hiring of Quadrex confidential as a matter of policy 19 would give an indication whether the study itself was to 20 be viewed as a confidential report when it began. 21 MR. PIRFO: The previous three questions have 22 established that it wasn't held confidential. I don't
, 23 know how far you want to go.
(b 24 HR. SINKIN: Perhaps to you uney have 25 establisned that. _~ 2b.TL1LERQRTJJi"w J.1DL MD ~ bl 42- - -- -- --- --- a
cg-#7 ) 12501 lh 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: . I think we'll ausrain that 2 obj ection. 3 MR. SINKIN: Okay. 4 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) On July 7th,1981, Mr. 5 Goldbe r g, did Brown & Root deliver to you a 6 comprehensive response to the Quadrex finoings along 7 with a plan to address those findings? _ 8 A That was July 7th? ; 1 1 9 0 7th, 1981. i l 10 A Tnat sounas like the right time frame, 12. l 11 Sinkin. I'm just having trouble getting my fingers on ; (\_f ~] 12 th'at date. But it was in July. It sounds a, bout rignt. 13 Q I think that may even be an Applicants' 14 exhibit, now that I tnink about it. But anyway -- all 15 rignt. Pine. 16 By July 7th the determination had alreacy been 17 made within HL&P to seek alternatives to Brown & Roor; 18 is that correct? 19 MR. AXELRAD: The testimony so f ar had been to 20 seek whether or not an alternative was available. 21 MR. SINKIN: To seek alternatives. 22 MR. AXELRAD: To see whether an alternative
. 23 was available. Tnat has been the previous testimony.
(O
J 24 (By Mr. Sinkin) To see whether alternatives 0
25 were available to Brown & Root by July 7tn, that nad __ __ _. ,. __ _ _ _. _ TAT E_ RElCRTILEL _ _ L71R _A 93-8A 42_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,
12532 1 been the decision; is that right? 2 A The decision to determine if any alternatives 3 existed was made on June 29th, so that is correct. 4 Q Did you give any serious review to the Brown & 5 Root response delivered to you on or about July 7th? 6 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman -- 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Could I Just ask the 8 witness if, Mr. Sinkin as well -- one of the documents 9 that the Applicants gave us is a letter dated July 16, 10 1981. And before we start tnrowing July 7 around too 11 much, could I ask -- I don' t want to introduce this or - 12 anything like that, but could. I ask someone to identify 4 13 whether this is i: hat's being spoken of ? It's document 14 numoer 47 of the first baten. 15 Maybe I should j ust show it to the witness for 16 purposes of claritying the date. 17 Mr. Pirf o? ; l 18 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Is that tne response that we 19 should be addressing, Mr. Goldberg? 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: You might want to .1cok at 21 it too to make sure I have picked out -- 22 A That is the response. 23 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) So, we really should be (O 24 talking about July 16th. I'm corry. $ 25 All right. Let me -- _ . . _ _,_ _ _ _ __ -__ _ TATE._ RC20E11ML-_L2131_A 93-lL4 42_ _ _ - __ __ _ _ _ J
cg-67 12503 1 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, if I could make 2 just one thing clear. Tue July 16 letter is, in fact, 3 the letter that I believe Mr. Sinkin is making inquiry I 4 about. The copy that the Board has, which is obviously 5 the copy that we did produce, has attacned to it an 6 Enclosure 1 consisting of three pages which is, in fact, 7 the Enclosure 1 to the letter of July 16. 8 It also has attached a large amount of 9 material, Enclosure 1 and Enclosure 2, which were 10 enclosures from the previous May 8 letter and rer.lly 11 should not have been attachments to tnis particular
'( 12 letter. It may wel . be that when we produced it those 13 materials were attached in the copy we had in our file.
14 But I just wantea to avoid any conf usion if there's any 15 furrher discussion of cnis document as to what the real
. 16 enclosure of this document i s.
17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I Just wanted to bring it 18 around to clarify a date. 19 Q (Byfir. Sinkin) In order to avoic confusion, I l 20 let's 60 this, Mr. Goldberg. In July of 1981, did Brown i i 1 21 & Root deliver to you a comprehensive response to the j 22 _Q uadrex findings along with a plan to address those
. 23 findings?
(O 24 A That is correct. 25 Q By tne time they oelivered that to you, the M M.___.--_
Cg-#7 ! 12504 f~) (_e 1 determination had been made to find out -- 2 HR. SINKIN: Wnat are the words you're 3 comf ortable with, Mr. Axelrad? To -- 4 MR. AXELRAD: Whether an alternative was 5 available. 6 0 ( By Mr . Sinkin) -- to find out whether an 7 alternative was availaole to Brown & Root; 1s that 8 correct? 9 A That is correct. 10 Q In light of that determination, diu you spena 11 time reviewing that Brown & Root response and attempting 12 to verify whether Brown & Root was implementing unat f(]) 13 response ? 14 13. AXELRAD: lir. Cnaircan, that's the point 15 at whicn I sought to obj ect bef ore. Tae issue in this 16 proceeding is whether or not the Quadrex report should 17 have been provided to the NRC prior to the time that it 18 was provided, namely at the time it was received back in 19 }2y. 20 The actions taken by Brown & Root and/or HL&P 21 af ter that Fmy reportaoility time f rame with respect to 22 actions to actually deal with tne suustantive aspects of 23 the Quadrex report are not issues in this proceeding. 24 Tne actual actions that were taken with respect to that 25 are not in controversy nere and I object to the question rawa susewasw. m
cgMJV i 12505 I 1 .as dealing witn matters that are not relevant to the 2 issues, would not be probative, and it would j ust get us 3 involved in a review of additional matters which are 4 outside the scope of the proceeding. 5 MR. SINKIN: I have a response to that, Mr. 6 Chairman. 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I was going to ask you, are 6 you intending to ask tnat question to show when the 9 decision to replace Brown & Root was, in fact, made? Is . 16 that the purpose of your question? 11 MR. SINKIN: No, Mr. Axelrad is correct, I'm ( 12 dealing with tne Quadrex reportability question. From
)
13 ecrlier testimony of Mr. Goldberg -- tnere was earlier 14 testimony of Mr. Goldberg that ne was still considering 15 whether to turn tne entire report over to the NRC fcr 16 quite sometime af ter May of 1981, but he was waiting 17 until inf ormation came in f rom Quadrex to decide whetner 18 to turn the report over as a whole. 19 This question is addressing the Brown & Root 20 comprehensive response and whether, in fact, when it 21 arrived he paid any attention to it, whether he really 22 reviewea it and sought to see if they could implement 23 the changes, or whether the ract that tne decision had (O 24 already been made to see it there were alternatives 25 available influenced him not to look at it in any great _. __m-- EA)RE30RT2Fu__L2131J 9_6_S3C_.__._ _ _ _____
cg-87 12506 1 detail. That's where I'm going. 2 HR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sinkin has 3 mischaracterized tnc previous testimony. Mr. Goldberg 4 at no time said that ne was still considering whether 5 the entire report should be turned over to the NRC. Tne 6 question was asked with respect to tne meeting on 7 September 8th with Region 4 as to whether or not it was 8 possiole that as a result of auditional information 9 dev elope d, tne entire report might be provided. 10 As the Board chairman himself nas indicated in 11 previous time, anything is possible and that is ( 12 obviously tne context in which tne witness understood 13 lir . Sinkin's question. Tnere was no testimony to tne 14 effect that there was active consideration being given 15 netween May 7th and September 8tn or anytime around tnat 16 time f rame to actually -- consideration to whetner or 17 not the entire report should be turned over. If 18 anything, the testimony of the witness is to the
~
19 contrary. 20 The inf ormation which tir. Sinkin is now 21 talking about is inf ormation with respect to a 22 corrective action plan which nad nothing to do with any s 23 further review of the reportability of the Quadrex 24 report, but only actions to be taken to dcul witn the 25 substantive matters that have been raised in the Quaarex rw e - <-
cg-47 12507
) 1 report, and that has nothing to do with the question of 2 reportability. Obviously, if in the . course of doing --
3 takiag corrective action or doing additional analyses 4 any additional matters were found that would then be 5 repor table, those would be reported. But that was not 6 the purpose of the directive action plan. 7 MR. SINKIN: Let me try this, Ik. Cnairman. 8 I'll witndraw the question f or die moment. 9 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Between May 8th,1981 and 10 September 8tn,1981, lir. Goldoerg, dic you revisit la 11 your own mind your decision not to turn the entire (} 12 13 report over to the NRC? A On May the 8th I was persuaded that that 14 report was not reportable to the Nuclear Regulatory 15 Coramission and unat was in concert with tne reviews 16 conducted by Brown & Root anu tne discussions and 17 recommendations that I was receiving f rom the ocner two 18 senior experienced engineers within Houston Lignting & 19 Power Company. 26 I visited with the Nuclear Regulatory 21 Commission to give them their briefing and the NRC asked 22 the question have you considered turning in the entire . 23 report and the answer I gave was, yes, that has been (O 24 considered and they said, well, you know, don' t lose 25 sight of that. And clearly had we come upon any
- _ 3Ph?J LRdPJ@ &mJ Mr3. __ 11LM Md-$WL . . _ . _ . _ _
cg-87 12508 t/m (_) 1 inf ormation that was contrary to our understandings that 2 led to the decision that was made on May the 8th, then 3 that would be a matter that we would have to consider at 4 such time that we came upon any other information. 5 0 When the NRC asked you the question have you 6 considereo making a 50.55(e) report of tne entire report 7 and you answered yes, that nas been considered, were you 8 ref erring strictly to May the 8th,1981 or between nay 9 the 8th,1981 e.nd September the 8th,1981, did you 10 revisit the derision made on May the 8tn?
'll A I Just explained to you, Mr. Sinkin, we maoe
( 12 the decision on May the 8th. It was bas'ed on the 13 information and the reviews conducted at that point in time. Tnere was little or no doubt in our mind that 15 that matter did not require reporting as a total entity 16 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 17 It is in the realm of possibility, however 18 slight, that just maybe if there's something that nad we 19 had in f ront of us, we might have had a ditterent : 1 20 decision. We didn ' t think so then, but I certainly 21 wouldn't foreclose forevermore the possibility that 22 something might surf ace. c 23 When the Nuclear Regulatory Commission asked 24 the question during the review up in Arlington, it would 25 De a little bit presmaptuous on my part if I were to say m%nuwmove:wc Gru ANL-MAA2
- cg-4 7 l l
12509 k) 1 to them that I would never reconsider the decision. I l 2 indicated the basis of all the inf ormation available to
- 3 us, that that was our decision. I had no new 4 inf ormation between May 8th and the visit with Arlington 5 that would enange that decision and that was tne context 6 of the statement I made to them.
4 7 Q Would it be correct to characterize your 8 attitude f rom Fay 8th to September 8tn as an attitude 9 that I've made the decision; anoula something surf ace 10 tnat changes my mind, I'll tnink about it, out otnerwise 11 I've made my decision? I'"% 12 A I would hope that my answer was f airly
\~)
13 couplete. I don't know wnether that's a fair 14 characterization. It may well be. 15 Q lt . Goldbe rg, at tais tike what do you view as 16 the most significant design and engineering deficiencies 17 that have been found at the South Texas Nuclear Proj ect 18 since Brown & Root lef t the project? 19 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I'la not 'sure I
- 20 understand the relevance of that question to any of the 21 issues in this proceeding.
22 MR. SIUKIN: Well, there's going to be a 23 follow-up question, Mr. Cnairman, as to which one of 24 those have produced a notification to the Nuclear 25 Regulatory Commission of a potential'ly reportable _ _ . _ Nm Olul_Aea-AM2 __ _. - _ - _ _ . _ . -
12510 (%m i) s_ 1 finding. 2 MR. REIS: How is that probative of any issues 3 .in this proceeding? 4 MR. SINKIN: It is probative of the competence 5 of Mr. Goldberg at this point to make those 6 determinations. 7 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, there have been a 8 hundreo reports since then, so I don ' t know wher e we' re 9 going. I'm inf ormed it's about a hundred. 10 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Cnairman, mayoe we can test 11 this in the negative, whether tnere were -- 12 JUDGE BECHH,OEFER: I'm going to sustain the ('J) N 13 first one just to set the record straight because it is 14 too broad. 15 MR. SINKIN: All right. 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And covers too many things 17 that would not be probative, l 18 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, since Brown = ; 19 Root lef t the job up until today, can you tnink of three I 29 design deficiencies that were in your mind pernaps a 21 close call as to whether they were notifiaole to the NRC 22 unoer 50.55(e) ano your decision was not to notify the ys 23 NRC? I'm seeking the three that might scand out above G 24 the others. 25 A Is your question three that didn't even get _ _ _ _- sib W LJiL Rd @ 22 E L _- E LAM-Ra&L -
cg-87 12511
) I called in as potential?
2 Q Tuat's correct. Tnree where you made the 3 determination that there was not a potentially 4 reportable finding. 5 A We really have to visit the IRC records tor 6 th at, to be candia with you. Tne IRC brings to my 7 attention matters -- well, actually it's brought to my 8 attention principally througn the licensing manager, 9 matters that are potentially or reportable, as tue case 10 migh t be. 11 From time to time I'll call attention"to the 12 licensing manager, as I testified earlier, that matters
}
13 that have come to my attention need to be examined f or 14 reportability. Now, I can pernaps mayoe reflect on some 15 of those that I thougnt had some potencial and then they 16 were reviewed and uney weren't reported. l 17 Q Bef ore you head down tnat road, ny question 18 was really those that you personally made the decision 19 were not reportable and theref ore you wouldn't have 20 forwarded necessarily -- let's just take those. 21 Here are the conditions. You see sometning 22 that might be potentially reportable. You decide it is 23 not potentially reportable and you do not review -- you 7s V 24 do not send that material over to the IRC f or a review 25 of your decision, you J ust make the decision that it's GEwerLERP6a@JtA1G a ULULldWfh_ -
cg-87 12512
) 1 over with. Three in that category that stand out in 2 your mind where it was a judgment call one way or the 3 other.
4 A Well, Mr. Sinkin, you've posed a ratner 5 interesting hypothetical. Now it's comi~ng oack to what 6 did I see that my mind computed ano decided this isn't o 7 matter that I'm going to bring to tne attention of tne 8 IRC because I don't see the substance to even warrant 9 their review of the matter f or potential reportability. 10 Is that the character of the question? 11 Q Yes, but we're looking f or the tnree tnat 12 would have been a close call as to whether you would 13 make that decision or not. 14 A When you say a close call, you know, you 15 either see the potential or you don' t. Ano II you oon't 16 see it, it isn't a close call. 17 Q Well, if you -- 18 MR. PIRFO: Chairman Bechtel, I'm going to 19 ob]ect at this point. I realize that the question about 28 50.55(e) reportable in close questions is specirically 21 determined to be addressed by the Board's sixtn 22 prehearing conference order. But I think the Boarc's g- 23 direction goes to the method anc tne procedure by which V 24 this determination is made. There's nothing in enere, 25 with the exception of 83-01 I believe it was, of aM m_ arf Mf625tM GSLTULACV.t-EAAG
cg-47 12513 b AJ 1 specific examples to be addressed. And I don't tnink 2 it's appropriate to talk in terms of. pick three that you 3 think were the most important and what was important 4 about that one, but rather an overview of the 5 pr ocedure. 6 (No hiatus.) ." 7 8 9 10 11 (A \j 12 t 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 29 21 22 23 (O 24 25 ainar1 arscamsum asu1Lx mswuc
12514 (,ex 1 MR. SINKIN: Part of the the procedure, Mr. s \ v 2 Chairman, is that someone like Mr. Goldberg can make the 3 determination all by himself. We've been through that 4 before. 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Let me ask a clarifying 6 question. 7 The way I read the procedures, which have been 8 sent to us, the close call question that we posed would 9 arise after it got to the IRC. And we asked, then, for 10 some description about how such questions would be 11 handled. 12 You would not normally, or even as a matter of s 13 procedure, am I not correct, that you would not be Y~)v 14 involved in determining whether a matter should be . 15 reported to IIRC unless it had first come to the attention 16 of the IRC or unless you happened to personally see 17 something yourself you thought should be considered for 18 reportability. 19 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. 20 And if you don't mind, I'd like to just add, in case 21 there was any question about the degree of this practice, 22 that in my recollection, matters that are going to be 23 reported to the NRC, I require the IRC chairman or the 24 licensing manager, to inform me of any matters that are 25 being reported. That's strictly so I can remain current
- n)
'tv TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12515 1 on matters that have that kind of importance. v
~]
2 And I can recall dialogues where I might ask 3 questions to understand the character of the problem. I 4 don't recall any instances where I ever caused a report . S not to be made. 6 MR. REIS: I can recall one conversation where 7 the IRC chairman was going to call in, I think there were 8 three issues, and I think he had two of them classified 9 as potential and one he thought was reportable. We 10 discussed the reportable one, 11 And as I recollect, there were sufficient 12 uncertainties even on that one that it was agreed that 13 that would be called in also as a potential. 14 So it was only a question of whether it was -- ({]) 15 whether we had all the facts to be sure it was reportable 16 versus potentially reported. 17 But with th:t exception, I can't rencaber any 18 instance where I influenced a decision on whether it 19 would or wouldn't be called in. 20 But to the extent that every person charged 21 with any technical responsibility or quality 22 responsibility for the project, anyone who sees a 23 condition or facts that would cause that person to wonder 24 whether or not what they were looking at or what they 25 were considering might constitute may be a matter for h' % V TATE REPORTIliG SERVICE, 498-8442
--------.------n-----------------------------s
12516 l -(} 1 reportability, they are instructed by our procedures to 2 bring it to the attention of the engineering project 3 manager with a deficiency evaluation form, and then there 4 is a process by where that person makes an initial 5 screening and in parallel. 6 However, the IRC is also alerted to the matter 7 such that if the engineering project manager decides that 8 it is not worthy of the IRC's review, the IRC is not 9 blind sided, they have access to the same information and 10 it's possible they could call it differently and 11 undertake the review nevertheless, 12 But the responsibility that I have in regard to 13 identifying potential reportability matters is no k) 14 different than any other person in the technical or 15 quality side of the house. But if we see something that 16 looks untsual, we requect that a review be undertaken. 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: On the other side of the 18 coin, do you routinely review determinations by the IRC 19 not to report a particular matter? 20 THE WITNESS:. On the parts that I have brought 21 to the -- 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: No, just in general, first. 23 THE WITNESS: In a general sense -- 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do you routinely review 25 their determinations -- I'm not talking about matters you cD TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12517 ('N 1 raised now. N_] 2 THE WITNESS: The licensing manager routinely 3 performs that function. Mr. -- well we have a licensing 4 manager. - 5 JUDGE BECHBOEFER: I know. 6 THE WITNESS: -- that oversees the conduct of
.7 affairs of the IRC. And that gentleman reports directly 8 to me.
9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: But you do not routinely 10 review each determination not to report. 11 THE WITNESS: No, sir. The only areas where I 12 would take perhaps a personal interest is in a matter 13 that I thought I saw the potential and if the IRC's -
) 14 decision was it was not reportable, I'd be vitally 15 interested in understanding the character.
16 And when matters come to my attention which -- 17 whether I direct it to go to the IRC cr somebody cisc 18 directs it to go to the IRC, if it's a matter that 19 intrigued me and the judgment is that it's not 20 reportable, I'll want to understand those things, too. 21 It's a question of which matters am I 22 personally aware of that are going to the IRC; they are 23 usually the ones that have a high degree of provocation 24 or it's not likely I would be aware of them. 25 There are some matters that do flush up to a ( N/ TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12518 n (,_) 1 fairly high level of management and those are the ones 2 that invariably I have a lot of personal follow up on. 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The Board does not think 4 that at least your latest question or the question asking 5 Mr. Goldberg to highlight, say three design deficiencies 6 which were close calls, in the context of the way their 7 procedure works, I'm not sure that's a meaningful 8 question. 9 MR. SINKIN: I'll withdraw that and ask a 10 different question. 11 O (By Mr. Sinkin) 1r. Goldberg, you've said in 12 your answer to the charges, you seem to have set a fairly
~~s 13 low thr.eshold for whether something goes past you to the 4
)
1' 14 IRC. 15 I think the words you used were something which 16 causes a person to wonder if maybe it's potentially 17 reportabic. That's a fairly lov threcheld. Are you 18 saying that that is the threshold that generally operates 19 from your office, if something comes to your attention if 20 you sort of wonder if it might be potentially reportable, 21 then you just send it right on to the IRC? 22 A Well, you have to appreciate and try and 23 understand what would cause some( ne to wonder. Clearly, 24 we're talking about matters that would be safety related; 25 we've to be talking about matters for which there is a TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12519 ((~} l considerable degree of uncertainty; for example, and it's v 2 very difficult to talk in abstract terms when we talk 3 about these matters. 4 I think we had a case where radiographic film . 5 for a weld on a reactor vessel was missing. Now we 6 didn't know the character of that problem; the fact that 7 it was of a vital quality interest and that it was 8 missing; we didn't have any other intelligence. And it 9 struck us that that was something that had a lot of 10 potential; it night represent an isolated situation, it 11 might represent one of many. 12 So we called that in as potentially reportable. 13 I provoked the question, "What do we know about it?" We I() 14 didn't know anything about it. And we had little 15 opportunity to put in it any kind of perspective in the 16 short term. 17 It vacn't the kind of thing that you get all 18 the answers to quickly. And that got called in as a 19 potential. And one has to have an appreciation for the 20 business that you're in, and the potential character of 21 the problem. , 22 If a total stranger came in off the street, I'm 23 not sure even given the cost precise legal definition of 24 50. 55 (e) , that they'd still be able to apply it. 25 0 Because it's a judgment call that you apply (O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 490-8442
12520
-(r'S 1 your experience to; is that true?
~
2 A And you have to have knowledge of the business 3 that you're in and what kinds of things provide the very 4 potential that that regulation is attempting to address. 5 0 Who is it that routinely performs the function 6 of reviewing the decisions of the IRC? 7 A I think I indicated earlier, it is the 8 licensing manager. 9 0 And the name of the licensing manager, Mr. 10 Goldberg, the name? 11 A Mr. Mark Wisenburg. 12 JUDGE BDCHHOEFER: You're going to see him in a 13 few days. 14 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, if you had it tc f(^) 15 do over, would you do anything differently today than you t 16 did on May 8th, 1981 in terms of reporting the Quadrex 17 findings or giving the Quadrox report to the NRC staff or 18 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board? 19 A 1 wouldn't have called it any differently. I 20 don't think that what we're going through today would 21 change the fact that that judgment was predicated on 22 quite a few years of nuclear experience and not just my 23 own, but those of the other two most experienced 24 engineers in Houston Lighting & Power did input of all 25 the intelligence from Brown & Root and we have from time ((~)
\/
l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 _.-----_---mm._.,.m__________________________-
12521 i 1 to time been very critical of Brown & Root. O 2 But I would submit that the man that was in 3 technical charge of Brown & Root at the time that we were 4 reviewing the Quadrex report is a seasoned professional - 5 with almost as many years, perhaps he has maybe slightly 6 more years of experience than I, in the nuclear industry. 7 So we were not dealing with a bunch of amateurs 8 making these evaluations and I do not believe that in 9 retrospect, I would call it any different today than I 10 called it then. 11 MR. SINKIN: That concludes my cross-12 examination, Mr. Chairman? 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. 14 MR. AXELRAD: Now this might be a logical tirae 15 to take a break. 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's what I was just 17 asking. Will the staff -- is your time still what it 18 was. 19 MR. PIRFO: Yes. 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Why don't we take a , 21 fifteen minute break and be back. l l 22 (Recess.) 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay, Mr. Reis or Mr. Pirfo. 24 MR. PIRFO: I'll be doing the questions. Thank 25 you. (O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12522
) 2 CROSS-EXAMINATION 3
4 BY MR. PIRFO: 5 Q Mr. Goldberg, in the commissioning of the 6 Quadrex report, I believe yo.u testified that you sought 7 to include areas of special interest to the NRC. Is that 8 correct? 9 A I think I was principally focusing on not so 10 much -- I don't think it was areas of interest. I think 11 it was areas that constituted the more difficult nuclear 12 engineering activities. I think by definition those 13 would be of interest to the NRC. (]y 14 Q So you define the areas of special interest as 15 more difficult engineering? 16 A The two principle areas that I was generally 17 trying to get an acscssment on Brown & Root's I 18 operation was: Did they have the resources to deal with 19 that portion of the engineering activities that were 20 nuclear, because those are somewhat different than just 21 normal power plant engineering activities, and in 22 particular, were they in tune with the more difficult 23 requirements that faced the industry. 24 There were a lot of new requirements that had J 25 come along since Brown & Root took the job. And I was t. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12523 l (ggg 1 interested in understanding were they aware of what kind 2 of problems they faced. 3 Q After you were given the Quadrex report.in the 4 May 8th meetings with, I believe it was Dr. Sumpter and . 5 Mr. Stanley, did you discuss. separately each of the 6 discipline findings in those meetings or was it the just 7 simply the most serious discipline findings? 8 A It was the most serious discipline findings. 9 Q What about the generic findings? 10 A We had focused on generic findings to the 11 extent that we had each read them, we were each generally 12 aware of the areas that they addressed, and as we went 13 through the specific discipline findings, we were able to ( ) 14 start to tie together certain discipline findings that 15 might have formed the pattern that Quadrex thought they 16 saw when they wrote up their generic findings. 17 O Did you see that pattern?
, 18 A Well, in certain areas, we could see some -- we 19 could see some specifics that might have led Quadrex to a 20 generic finding. That might not necessarily, in itself, 21 confirm that the generic finding was correct. But at 22 least we could see some connection between the two.
23 Q Okay. Now, in the morning of July 12th, in 24 your testimony here, you testified that with regard to 25 the Quadrex report, you attempted on that May 7th through TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12524 1 8, '81 period, to quote, " separate the drama of the words ((]) 2 from the facts that prevailed," end quote. How was that 3 task a accomplished within the 24 hour period? 4 A Well, I think the principid mechanism by which 5 that occurred was that each of the specific discipline 6 findings was reviewed and the judgment was made on a case , 7 basis as to whether that in itself was reportable and the l 8 reasons for why that judgment was made. And once you l l 9 start to understand how it was that that matter was not 10 of the severity that one might have perceived just 11 looking at words, it started to at least provide a broad 12 indication of a number of observations. 13 One in particular'was that there was a
) 14 . substantial number of discipline findings that pointed l l
15 toward not whether or not a practice, in itself, was 16 unacceptable, but a better practice, potentially, that 17 one might have utilized to accomplish a specific task. 18 And that started to, of course, show that many 19 of the conclusions might be viewed as subjective, that 20 that's not the way I have seen it done or that's not the 21 way I would have done it, as opposed to given the way it 22 was being done. How do you know that it won't be 23 acceptable. 24 And we felt that there were a lot of 25 conclusions that fell into that category. There were a TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
i
- 12525 4
(' 1 number of observations that I wouldn't even want to 2 characterize as findings in the real sense. And I don't 3 want to demean the report, because there was a lot of 14 good information in the document. . 5 But there were suggestions that just didn't 6 seem to fit with some of the purpose of the review. A i 7 finding that Brown & Root accepted the NRC regulations 8 without question, or words to that effect. It didn't j 9 strike me that that was very useful. I didn't know what 10 to make of that. It struck me that if Brown & Root was 11 following NRC regulation that is we could be very 4 12 thankful and it wasn't clear why. I would want to be 13 particularly concerned if they were accepting them 14 without question. It might point to the fact that maybe ((]) 15 we were doing some things that if we had argued we 16 wouldn't have to do and that could portend possibly a
- 17 commercial opportunity but it wasn't clear to me that 18 that was something to be concerned about.
19 I would just say that it takes a review beyond 20 just being handed a very volumnus document which if you 21 were to add up all the findings they were literally in ! l 22 the hundreds and, at first blush, that has a considerable j 2.3 impact, until you start to look at what are they, and 24 what do they really represent. t 25 And that is really, I think, the big difference ( TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 a _ _ __._ _ _ ,. e- amo ammum ens - osum aumn emme enum ammt - amman muss ame - - eum mims ame amo e- - -- emme ese amme -- - amme mamp ese_- -- - -- emse amas - mum amma -
12526 ' (( ) 1 between the impressions you get when you first pick the 2 document up versus an impression that you would receive I
~
3 after there was a considerable amount of review. 4 Q But after that first blush, that review was 5 possible within the 24 hour period? 6 A Yes. The review started, as best I can recall, 7 sometime around early afternoon on the 7th, the 8 presentation by Quadrex was on the morning of the 7th, 9 and I remember there was a lot of dialogue the other day 10 about where the review took place. 11 And my testimony said the review was at HL&P 12 offices and then I said, " Gee, I think they were in Brown 13 & Root's offices because I know I didn't have them in my 14 o'f fice . " 15 I wanted to make it real convenient for Brown & 16 Root. He'll, I'm afraid I was a bit provincial. My 17 office at that time was located 26 miles south of 18 Houston. And when I said that I wanted to have those at 19 Brown & Root's offices, where it was more convenient, we 20 did have it in an office that was more convenient; we had 21 in it Houston Lighting & Power Company's downtown office, 22 which was within a few miles of Brown & Root's office. 23 So I think my testimony as originally stated 24 that this review was conducted at HL&P offices is 25 academically correct. It was in the HL&P main office as TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12527 (?'s 1 opposed to my office. L) 2 Q Turning your attention to the IRC members in 3 1981, do you remember who the IRC members were at that 4 point? o 5 A Well, I had a little help from Mr. Sinkin 6 earlier in the proceeding. I knew that Mr. Powell was 7 the chairman; and while I don't have -- have this from S personal recollection, I know that Mr. Overstreet was 9 very likely the QA rep. 10 0 I don't mean to interrupt you, but I want to go 11 through the -- I want to compare the qualifications of 12 the members of the IRC in re, viewing matters with regard 13 to reportability under 50.55(e) to the NRC with you, Mr. k)* 14 Robertson and Dr. Sumpter. So it might be easiest to,do 15 these one by one. 16 How -- let me ask this question this way. With 17 regard to each of the members of the IRC in experience in 18 reporting 50.55(e) matters to the NRC, I'd like to 19 compare your qualifications with each member of the IRC 20 and do the same for Dr. Sumpter and Mr. Robertson. 21 A All right. 22 Q I don't think that's a compound question, but 23 you've got the idea. 24 A If you're asking me to give you my perception 25 or understanding of the differences in the levels of (D TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
l l 12528 ; ( 1 experience between the three persons who conducted the ,
. 2 reportability review for BL&P, who were not routinely IRC l
3 members versus the IRC membership, I believe the three 4 IRC members were Mr. Powell and Mr. Blau, and Mr. 5 Overstreet. And Mr. Powell, of course, was the chairman. 6 I think Mr'. Powell had about five years 7 experience. I don't remember precisely, but I seem to 8 recall he may have had some experience in another nuclear 9 operation. 10 0 How does this compare with yours? I'm sorry, 11 had you finished? I didn't mean to --
; 12 A Well, I have to try to relate it to somebody.
l . 13 So if I were to to compare him to Jim Sumpter, or Dr. () 14 Sumpter, Dr. Sumpter -- well let's start over again. 15 I think Mr. Pool's basic educational training
; 16 certainly below the level of a doctor of engineering; I 1
17 don't honestly recall whether he has just a bachelor or
- 18 he may have a masters.
19 0 I don't want to focus too much on, you know, l 20 degrees. I'm talking in terms of strictly experience in 21 reportability of 50.55(e) and I'm not sure what sheep 22 skin you would look for for that kind of experience. But 23 if you would give us your -- 24 A Dr. Sumpter had had some number of years 25 experience working at Sargent & Lundy, before coming to l
)
! TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 i _.._.___,c:aw--------------,-----------__---.--.--------_;
l 12529 ( 1 Bouston Lighting & Power Company. He said he had been at 2 Houston Lighting & Power Company for quite a few years in 3 the role of the manager of nuclear services and J 4 licensing. . 5 And Jim Sumpter was the most senior member of
- 6 RL&P's nuclear engineering team prior to the arrival of 1
7 myself and then subsequently Mr. Robertson. 8 So by definition, he had more working ) 9 experience in the nuclear related areas than any other l 10 engineer that I'm aware of within HL&P. Mr. Robertson 11 had approximately 20 plus years of experience in 12 industry; he had a career, I think, having left the Army,
-13 starting at the power authority.of the state of New York ,
14 and then he'd gone on to Stone & Webster for a number of i 15 years as, among his other duties, a magazine manager of j 16 licensing with Stone & Webster, and he was hired in by j 17 Houston Lighting & Power Company in, I think it was April ; i i 18 of 1981 as the new manager of licensing. 19 And we broke licensing away from the previous l l 20 organization which was nuclear services and licensing, in i 21 order that the licensing activities of HL&P would receive
- 22 a higher level of att'ention and that function reported i
23 directly to my office. l l
- 24 My career started in nuclear power in 1955. I l 25 arrived to HL&P in 1980. So, that would suggest some 25 !
i ! TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 f l l
I 12530 ( 1 years of experience when I started. As far as experience l 2 in direct related activities associated with reporting 3 potential matters to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 4 my career in commercial nuclear power started in 1971, 5 and prior to that time, I spent some fifteen years in the 6 naval nuclear propulsion program as a contractor with 7 responsibility for making reports to the naval reactors 8 branch on matters which by their rules required problem 9 reporting. 10 Now, with respect to Mr. Blau's experience, Mr. 11 Blau was not a nuclear engineer, he has a mechanical 12 engineer; a very good mechanical engineer, I might add, 13 and I think in terms of applied experience, that he was 14 very capable gentlemon on engineering matters within his 15 discipline. I think the subject of reportability, Mr. I 16 Blau probably only had the amount of experience for the 17 amount of time that I was in that role which couldn't 18 have been very long, I don't think he was associated with 19 the project for more than four or five years and I doubt 20 that he was that role for more than a couple. Order of 21 magnitudet I don't have those precise numbers. Mr. Overstreet was also of about the same 22 23 amount of experience as Mr. Blau. I don't think he was a l 24 nuclear -- in fact, I don't think he was a nuclear 25 engineer. I'm not sure what his specialty was; he was in i
. l (O
i l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 j l _-m m mm m mmmmmm mm m m m m m m m m m m m m m - m e m m m m m m e m m o m ,
12531 1 the Quality Assurance Department, he was basically a 2 quality engineer. 3 Not to suggest that the IRC'was inept, but when 4 this Quadrex review report came in, it constituted a very . 5 comprehensive look at engineering practices. And the l 6 kind of expertise that was needed to be able to make an 7 evaluation struck me as a team which had significant j 8 experience in engineering processes. 9 The role of quality assurance people, for 10 example, in years gone by, in being in position to 11 perform reviews of engineering practices was not as a 12 department as it is today, and quite frankly, I didn't
*i 13 know how I could -- how far I could depend on an IRC
( 14 review of something as complex'as that report. And since , 15 I had commissioned the review, I felt that the most 16 appropriate response to dealing with the potential issues 17 was to put together the strongent and most experienced 18 team we had available in our company. 19 Q And this is why you did not send it to the IRC 20 for their judgment -- 21 A That was the only reason it was not sent to the 22 IRC. 23 Q Okay. Now turning your attention to the , f 24 meeting you had with Mr. sells at the I believe it was 25 the May 14th,15th, the meeting you had at the Holiday l; TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 _ _ _m____ m m mm m mm m00c c ,
12532 ( 1 Inn in Bay City when you first mentioned to them the fact 2 that you had received the Quadrex report, do you recall 3 that meeting? 4 A Certainly can recall -- can recall certain 5 parts of it. 6 0 That was the Holiday Inn in Bay City? 7 A It was at the Holiday Inn. We had, as I 8 recall, a couple of small conference rooms that were 9 available for our preparations for the hearing and we 10 were able to use one of the rooms that was not being 11 occupied. 12 0 You've testified that at that meeting, you had 13 at least volume one ,of the Quadrex report with you. , 14 That's -- 15 MR. AXELRAD: Could you please point to Mr. 16 Goldberg's testimony that you're referring to. 17 MR. PIRFO: Let me rephrase the question, then. 18 0 (By Mr. Pirfo) At that meeting, what part the 19 Quadrex report did you have with you? 20 A My recollection was that I thought I had the 21 whole report with me, plus some briefing notes that I 22 think were on a clipboard. And I was really addressing 23 my summation of the report from my notes on the 24 clipboard. 25 And as best my memory serves me, I thought that - (O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-0442 .____ _amamacam00-oom---000------------------------ -
12533 h() 1 Mr. Sells asked if he could just take a look at something 2 and it would have been volume one which was executive 3 summary. 4 Q Right. Can you give me an idea in the form it .. 5 was in at that time, how large volume one was? 6 A I think it was probably in the order of an inch 7 and-a-half, 8 0 Volume one? 9 A I think so, an inch, inch and-a-half. 10 Q Do you have any recollection of Mr. Sells -- 11 what is your recollection of the amount of time Mr. Sells 12 spent looking at that or if in fact he did at all? 13 A I don't think that occupied very much time. As () 14 a matter of f act, the connotation that I got was that Mr. 15 Sells viewed that we had a lot of work to do. 16 Now, I know that I pointed out to him tnat the 17 character of the report that I saw was that we lad a " l l 18 tremendous amount of work that lie ahead. And if my l 19 memory is correct, and it may not be, but if it is l '
- 20 correct, that might have just been born out of Mr. sells l 21 just thumbing through that volume of the report.
22 If his recollection is correct, then I didn't 23 have the report their, then it would have been born out 24 of statemente that I had made to him that we had a 25 tremendous amount of work. ( (I) l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 j I
12534 (f N 1 Q But you have no specific recollection of him ( %-) l 2 looking through volume one or asking questions? l
- 3 A Well, my recollection is that he perused the l
4 document, it was not extensively studied and in the l 5 course of that perusal, as my memory serves me, he got 6 the impression that this looked like it was a tremendous l 7 volume of work. i l 8 0 He did not mention 50.55(e) reportability in 9 that meeting at all? l 10 A No, sir. l 11 MR. PIRFO: May I have the Board's indulgence t ( 12 for a moment, please. l l ,13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I was going to ask Mr. (]) 14 coldberg, was the report of substantially the volume one ! 15 about that size when you showed it to him? 16 THE WITNESS: It could have been. I don't i 17 think it was a bound copy from Quadrex. I think it was a l l 18 reproduced copy that was probably in a hard -- in fact, 19 I'm pretty sure it was in hard covers. 20 Q (By Mr. Pirfo) Your statement of CCANP Exhibit 21 Number 87, you don't have that in front of you. I'll be 22 happy to give this, states that in the second page, third 23 full paragraph, that "On May 13, 1980" -- May I approach 24 the witness? - "I met with Don Sells a give an overview I 25 of the Quadrex report findings. At that time, I had TATC REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 ____a00000000000000a=eaeocceeee------ ----------_a
12535 (([) 1 either one volume or all three volumes of the Quadrex 2 report." 3 Is your recollection today any better than it 4 was on that date, 1982, when you made that made that . 5 statement? f 6 A No, sir. l 7 MR. PIRPO: I have nothing further. 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Dr. Lamb will go first. 9 JUDGE LAMB: Can Mr. Sinkin way on the left 10 hear me if I speak at this volume? 11 MR. SINKIN: Excuse me? 12 HR. LAMB: I think that answered my question.
-13 MR. SINKIN: Yes, I can hear you fine, Judge
(( ), 14 Lamb. 15 0 (By Judge Lamb) Mr. Goldberg, I have some 16 questions to ask, and unfortunately, some of them sound 17 familiar and will be, because I'm concerned, I want to 18 make certain that the diffuse record that that we have 19 over the past several days includes some answers to some 20 questions that is we need answers to which are clear and 21 unambiguous as possible. So that's what I'm trying to 22 accomplish. 23 If you could, look at page 55 of your 24 testimony, please. Lines 17 to 19, that sentences it 25 begins on line 17. You state in there that you did not l ( TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 490-8442 _. . - _ _ - - . . - - - - - - - - - - ~ _ _ -
12536 (f S 1 and do not view the Quadrex report as identifying V 2 weakness in QA. I just wanted to clarify. Did you mean 3 by that that the report did not have as a goal the 4 identification of QA problems or do you mean by that that 5 you didn't see any QA problems as a result of the report? 6 A The report did not have as a goal to evaluate 7 the Brown & Root engineering program in contrast to the t 8 licensing commitments on how that program was to be 9 carried out. That was clearly not the goal. - 10 To the extent that some matters turned out to 11 be reportable because they constituted potential l 12 significant breakdowns in quality assurance, there's no 13 question that some of that did turn up. ((]) 14 Q Thank you. Now, page 48, question and answer ! 15 70, dealing with the question of submittir.g the entire i . 16 Quadrex report to the staff under 50.55(e), which has 17 been discussed quite a bit, to be a OA breakdown, can you 18 give us any help on explaining to us what your view, in 19 your view, would have been required in addition to what 20 was in the Quadrex report to make that reportable or 21 potentially reportable item, that is the entire report? 22 A If a number of the Brown & Root concerns of the 23 Brown & Root that address such things that potential -- 24 the potential that Brown & Root did not have an adequate 25 design control program, or Brown & Root had very (oo TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
-,,wr,.,----------------~~--------------.
12537 1 extensive mistakes in calculations in spite of the fact 2 that it had a design control program, or if it had been 3 demonstrated that Brown & Root did not have any machinery 4 to ensure that system features were compatible with one - 5 another, system interaction, both within a system and 6 then between systems, if those matters had been proven 7 with fact, then that would have portrayed trade a design 8 program that was so extensively flawod that there would 9 be no potential way of knowing -- or there would be no l 10 clear way of knowing the extent of the problem, and that 11 report would have had to have boon turned in because the 12 potential would be without limit, just to pick up the
' 13, renort and read the words, and not go any further, if you rQ 'eL
- 14 accepted all that to be true.
15 That's why on first reflection, I thought this 16 looks like we've got a big problem. And had it not been 17 for the fact that the substance of that report was 18 reviewed very extensively by a lot of people and 19 engineers who had nothing to gain by minimizing the 20 importance of those problems, engineers who took no 21 direction from me to talk them out of any of their 22 conclusions, felt very strong that this report did not 23 represent what first glance and first perceptions would 24 suggest. 25 And I refer to the detailed review conducted by (O TATE REPORTING DERVICE, 498-8442 1
I l l 12538 1 Mr. Robertson, the detailed review conducted by Dr. ' (7( l 2 Sumpter in company with virtually, I guess, the cream of 3 the Brown & Root engineering team that worked all the 4 afternoon of the 7th and late into the evening of the 5 7th, and I of course didn't get their input until 6 noontime on the 8th. 7 So I wasn't substituting my judgment and 8 saying, " Hey, fellas, don't tell me it's reportable, it's 9 not reportable." It was nothing like that. 10 If I had the benefit of no further intelligence l 11 than what I had when I was handed that report, if I had ! 12 no feedback from any responsible person who participated 13 in a detailed review, I'd have no choice but to turn that I(' ' 14 report in, because it I had nothing more than just the t 15 ctrength of what the report suggests was the case, it 16 would be a matter that should have been turned in as a 17 total report. 18 (No Hiatus.) 19 20 21 22 23 24 l 25 , TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 l
.________~~~~_~_~_~_"7"~~~_~_~_~~~~__~_~_~__~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~~~~~~~~
12539 1 Q Let's see, would it be necessary for the 2 portions of the report indicating deficiencies to be 3 individually reportable or potentially reportable? 4 A I want to make sure I followed your question. 5 MR. SI!! KIN: I'm sorry, Judge, I didn't 6 understand the question. 7 0 (By Judge La:ab) What I'm wondering is there 8 were three items that you ultiraately decloed were 9 reportable or potentially reportable. In order tot it 10 to be reportaolo as a whole, would it nave oecn 11 necessary for a great nu: abor of itema to be ruportablo
- 12. or potuntially reportable or would that dccasion to 13 report it as a whole'be made on some otner baolo?
14 If that isn't clear, let uv try it swin.
- 15 A Ho, I think that is clear, Dr. La:ab.
16 Well, I tninx it coulo nave posuloiy gone 17 either way. I think, for example, and I can't ylve you 18 a precise nus4 bur, but clearly if there nad been on an 19 individual basin, without regard to any synergy between 20 Acuucc, if there had been a very broad pattern of thu 21 type of problem that required reporting, I tnink that 22 would give a person the f eeling that the probleu la 23 extunsive, that it's reacning out in lotu of dift.orent
) 24 Areau and theref ore it's very ditricult to bound thu v
} 25 pr oblem. And I think that kind of an oboarvation would TATU REICRTIl1G (713) 490-8442 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ eaaammaammaaaam~aaaaaeoceaaaeeawaaaaaaaaaan
12549 1 probably have suggested this report should be turned
%) \_ .
2 in. Or if the number of or limited number of 3 observations projected a rather broad concern about tne 4 engineering practices that could reach into a lot of 5 areau, then that might have constituted Juscirication. 6 I don't think the number of the ascues by 7 thouscivos is the critoria. I tnink it's a combination 8 of tne significance of the issues. And conceivably it 9 on an indivioual basis items may not be significant Duc 10 there was enough of them to reach out into a broao aren 11 of the design activity, then Luat could escato aluo this 12 secling that there soeun to be a large unbounced concern ( " 13 about the destga procccc. 14 So, I clan't have sumu magic number. I nuo a ; I 15 combination of the level or importance as well as thu j 16 uagnitudo of the issues. 17 Q Am I correct in interpreting what you Just 18 told me as saying that it would have been posolble that 19 you could have oecided to report that entire report even l 20 though there were no relartaple elcuents within it 21 individually? 22 A I don't think I went that tar. 23 0 Okay. 24 A If I did, than I didn't convoy uy thougnt l 25 properly. I think what I wou attempting to say in that l TATI: ILCloitTIllo (713) 490-0442 l
-- , .- ,_ _ . , . ._ -, . . _ , _ - , , ., , . c, _ _ _ ,, _ o .e e .e c. c. )
r CryaAJ 12541 1 given a few far reaching concerns that would eacn in ({]) 2 themselves be reportable, that that mignt have been 3 enough to constitute turning in a whole report because a 4 few far reaching concerns might suggest that we have sn 5 unbounded proolem and therefore tne numocr of 6 observations found by Quadrex may or may not be 7 representative of the magnitude of the proulem. Tnat 8 might be one scenario. 9 Tne other scenario might be that there were a 10 lot of individuc1 reportabic itecc that ey themcolves 11 are not anoicative og a pattern, but enc unear numour 12 might suggest that enere are a lot of potential proolems (9 13 that may be out there ir a lot of problems nave ouen 14 found and that might suggest thu twod to turn an the 15 whole report becauue it nuggocto that th er e lun ' t a 16 comfortable feeling no to the bounds tant dais may 17 ultimately reach once turther review might take place. 18 Q How, on page 14, question and answer 29. 19 A Yus, sir. 28 Q In my recollection of your testimony correct 21 that you did not initiatu in investigation of 22 retortability until you had received, tnat is on the 23 initial Quadrex criefing, but only attur the report had I(g
-) 24 been submitteu to you?
- 25 A That in correct. Tuo briefing torusrud to in TATU RCPORTIllG (713) 490-6442
12542 ir N 1 the answer to question 29 addresses the briefing that we (G 2 received on April 13th. 2nis was a slice show. There 3 was no hard copy information that was handed out. Anc 4 the Quadrex people were identifying these as some of the 5 areas that they had made some observations and some of 6 the things that they were working on in putting together ( 7 the report. And I categorized those matters that I 8 picked up during that session that might have, and tnat 9 was an important qualification, snat might have a 10 possible character of reportability. We'd have to see 11 what was in the report because that would includo a lot 12 more inf ormation than we were privileged to see aust U 13 wAtn the slaue show. 14 Q Having had these items brought to your 15 attention in a briefing bef ore receiving the report, 16 could you share with us your thinking on why you dian't 17 report these to the IRC to begin the ML&P investigation , 18 ahead of the report? 19 A Well, we had commissionou Quadrex to perf orm a 20 review and we hann't gotten the benefit of all of 21 Quadrox' input. And it only seemeo counterproductive to 22 mend off another group of people on some torm et a 23 review ot matters that we hadn't even received all the ro 24 in,o m u on on. 1, 3u,t did not m.,, . n. , t 1e t , t 25 didn't think it made any sense, to conouct that kina of 1 TATE HEPORTING (713) 490-8442 l
e , 12543 i pq q) 1 an inquiry at a point where we hadn't really received 2 all the iniormation f rom the consultant. 3 Q Coulo we look at tne next page, page 15, 4 question and answer 21. Now, in reading that, I wonder 5 with respect to your statement enat the amount of time 6 it takes a licensee to evaluate a concern bef ore 7 determining whether it should be reported is not 8 specified, I wondered what prevents an Applicant from 9 using that concept or that idea to avoid reporting 10 things indefinitely? In other words, hw much in 11 enough? 11ow do you determine hw muca is enough? 12 A' Judge Lamb, tuo guidance that the regions 13 providu licensues la enat when you have curlicient 14 inf ormation to undertake a review, that they think the 15 review should not excond f ourteen days. And onco you've 16 completed that review, you nave a windw of twenty-tour 17 hours to make an appropriate report to the llRC regatoing 18 either potential or actual reportability. 19 How, in the event that a licensee is in 29 possession of ita:ormation which af ter the lect so.auone 21 makes a judgoent, wc11, we think you had enough 22 information to 'undertaku a reviw or wo tnink you had 23 enough time to have completed a rev1w and then ((o) 24 undertaken the action to dutermine repurtability, and at 25 the matter ultimately becomes reported, once it's TATE REPORTIlla (713) 498-0442
12544 ( 1 reported, the NRC usually in the satter of its business, 2 its inspection and enforcement branch will review the 3 records of how long has the licensee had inf ormation. 4 I mean, these activities are not very secret. 5 There are a lot of records that invariably accumulate 6 regarding these matters. Ana if it's Judged that we had 7 an ites for what is perceived as more than reasonable 8 time to undertake a review or more than reasonable time 9 to have completed the review and then undertaken action le on reporting and we had not done so, then that's a 11 notice of violation for failure to make an appropriate 12 report. b.] 13 So, there is a lot of enf orcencut action to 14 discourage a licensee f rom, to use your example, taking 15 an inordinate amount of time to go about the business at 16 perf orming these evaluations. And I think we're very 17 sensitive to that. I would irankly admit we're 18 obviously more sensitive to it today than we migat have 19 been back in 1981 only because we have a much nigher 28 level of experience that is involved in this kind of 21 activity on a day to day basis. 22 Q Now, you've indicated to uh that you actively 23 considered reporting the entire Quaurex report to the 24 NRC within 58.55(e); is that correct? 25 A Yes, sir. TATC REPORTING (713) 496-8442
12545 1 Did you discuss that possibility with or turn ({) Q 2 this possibility over for investigation to the IRC7 3 A No, not to'the IRC. As I think I commented 4 earlier, I know that I was f aced with that deliberation 5 and I can't help but think that I may have ahared that 6 with Mr. Robertson and maybe even with Dr. Sumpter, tnat 7 on the strength of Just the report itself, it struck me 8 that +_his looked like a pretty awesome situation. Ana 9 it was through the feedback of the subsequent reviews le that took place that it was able to reouce ny concern. 11 I think my first concern was much more heightened than 12 it was at the point in time that ene reviews had been 13 completed. 14 Q lbw, under what category at first did you view 15 this as being possibly reportable? 16 A As a signiticant breakdown in the quality of 17 the engineering eff ort. 18 0 I'm eliminating a coupie questions which 19 you've already answered. 20 Did the NRC staff actively disagree with tais 21 as f ar as you know, with your decision on that? 22 Let me put it more accurately. Did they 23 indicate to you that they disagreed with you? I ) 24 A Well, the only conversations that we had snat 25 come to mind is there was, of course, the initial TATE REPORTING (713) 49W-8442
12546 1 dialogue with I&E Region 4 during the briefing where it (f U 2 wasn't a case of a disagreement, it was a case of asking 3 the question had you considered reporting the entire 4 aff air under 58.55(e) and we haa indicated yes. Tne 5 best of my knowledge, no one at the Nuclear Regulatory 6 commission who became aware of the existence of the 7 Quadrex report put it in the f rame of ref erence we've 8 read the report and we are absolutely certain it snould 9 have been reported under 59.55(e) and we perceive your 19 failure to do se to be a violation and your continued, 11 you know, position on that aff air will Just constitute a 12 more severe violation. I mean, it was never ever put in 13 any context of thct caliber. 14 I mean, I don't know what perspective you were 15 looking for, but I cannot recall any case where a 16 Nuclear Regulatory Commission person came right out and 17 said we think you're wrong. Now, I woulu put as a 18 possible exception this Board and you tell me, we'll 19 decide. 29 Q And if I understood your earlier testimony a 21 few rinutes ago, you indicated that in retrospect you 22 would still make that name decision not to report? 23 A On the 59.55(e) -- b 24 Q Right. 25 A -- and I thought that was tue context of the TATE REPORTING (713) 4963-8442
MT'A' . . _ . I 12547 (f')
+q 1 question --
2 Q Right. I I 3 A -- and if I misunderstood that, I think the 4 Board has ruled on the subJect of McGuire. And while I 5 might f rankly admit I'm not clear that I unoerstand why 6 the ruling was that way, I'm obliged to honor that 7 ruling. So, if I had to make the decision on turning it 8 over to the Board, assuming that the Board would never 9 change its ruling, I'd be foolharcy not to turn it over 10 to the Board. 11 Q Are you the person who ultimately made the 12 decision that the Quadrex report should not be reported 13 under 50.55(e)? Was that basically your decision in ene l l 14 final analysis? 15 A Well, I guesc -- I'd like to answer une l 16 question this ways If I hadn't had the benefit oi the ( 17 feedback that resulted f rom the reviw that was 18 conducted by Brown & Root and the input f rom the two 19 most experienced engineers working f or me, and if I hau ! 29 no input, I would have turned that report over Decause I 21 would have no way of bounding tne problem. 22 So, I wouldn ' t want to characterize that it 23 was an ultimate decision. It was a decision reacned by 24 all the members who made the review. And had there been 25 anyone who said that I think f ailure to turn tuas report TATE REIORTING (713) 490-8442
12548 ( 1 over as a total entity will constitute a violation of V 2 our obligations under 59.55(e), then I can assure you 3 the decision would have come out a lot different. So, I i 4 don't feel that it was an ultimate decision on my part. 5 I think it was a decision of three senior engineers who 6 all ultimately came to the same mind. And it there was i 7 anybody who was the last to get aboard the train, it was 8 probably myself, i 9 Q So, it was a consensus view of the three of le you who reviewed it, at least? ) 11 A Yes, sir.
. 12 Q How, did you in 1981, that is in the period 0 13 we're concerned with, did you actively consider 14 reporting the Quadrex report to the Board unoer the 15 McGuire Rule or some such rule?
16 A I was certainly conversant with rulings that 17 had been made in at least one other proceeding involving 18 the North Anna Project where I believe the Board ruled 19 that a certain matter regarding earthquake f ault abould ; 28 have been brought to the Board's attention and 21 apparently it was not. Ano there was a considerable 22 amount of dialogue in various media publications or 23 various industry publications that pointed out the tact 24 that boards must be kept informed or matters enat are 25 pending before the Board. TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12549 ( 1 So, to the extent that I was sensitive to the 2 fact that the Board was in session or snortly to be in 3 session and that there was an itinerary of issues that 4 were going to be discussed Dy the Board, I had to ask 5 myself is there anything in this report tnat is matters 6 pending Def ore the Board. I
\
7 And to the best of my knowledge, and I must 8 conf ess I'm still not any smarter today in spite of tne 9 ruling of this Board, I didn't see now a review of tne 19 Brown & Root engineering program fit in witn tne Boaro's 11 review or tne matters that were pending Detore it at 12 that point in time, whica struck me as being preoccupied
'O 13 with the amount of attention that gaality assurance 14 people were paying to construction -- I'm not even sure 15 it was that. It was concerns about construction i
16 quality. Tnere were concerns about relationships l , l 17 between construction personnel and quality control 18 personnel. Tnere was concerns about whether or not 19 Houston Lighting & Power Company had lef t too much to 20 Brown & Root. 21 And while that issue signt well have been true 22 on construction's side, I couldn ' t see that on the 23 engineering side. Houston Lighting & Power Company had 24 the largest engineering project team I hao ever 25 encountered in my career. They had more engineers TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12558 1 trying to make sure that engineering work was going to 2 get done than vaat I believe most projects have been 3 privileged to have. 4 So, I didn't see any pattern of neglect by 5 Houston Lighting & Power Company. Tae problems I saw 6 were not of a character that seemed to be pending bef ore 6 7 this Board. 8 Q Did you consider as part of your delicerations 9 on that the possibility that problems reportea to you by 10 Quadrex might bear on the competence of HL&P with 11 respect to controlling the design of STP? We'll,,there was always that possibility, Judge 12 A h 13 Lamb. But, 'you know, at the time tnat *I nad receiven 14 the Quadrex report, I had a pretty good feeling f or that 15 level of competence HL&P had. Now, I'd be the first to 16 tell you that Houston Lighting & Power Company couio not l 17 engineer or design a nuclear power plant. I think ir l l 18 they had that capability, they clearly would have 19 undertaken to do that and perhaps not aireo Brown & 28 Root. But. I felt that they had the resources in place ) l 21 of sufficient caliber to know what kind of processes and 22 prograns were usef ul. 23 I just didn't see a character and competence , 24 problem in the engineering side of tne house. And I'm ( 25 not commenting on the construction sioe. I really TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12551 1 didn't have much to say about that. It was a f ait 2 accompli when I joined the company as to what the issues 3 were. But I didn't perceive that. 4 Q Let me perhaps clarity a little bit the point 5 that I'm trying to get at and that is the question of 6 whether you considered that one of the issues enat the 7 Board was faced with, aside f rom the goal of trying to 8 resolve, had to do with the character and competence or 9 HL&P and to the degree that the Quaorex report would 10 indicate def acts in the engineering Dy B&R whica in turn i 11 is under toe control of the licensee. I wonuered
- 12 whether you viewed that or considered that as part of 'O 13 your decision process?
14 A Well, I think enar that is innerent. 15 Certainly if Brown & Root bac nad a program that was 16 substantially removed f rom the quality requirements that 17 we were committed to follow, that that could well shec 18 in an uncomplimentary way on the efforts of Houston 19 Lighting & Power Company. I believe if one were tne 28 case, the otner might very well be the case.
-21 Q Did you consider that at the time when you 1
22 were deciding whether or not the report should be 23 submitted to the Board? 24 A Yes, I think - I oon't know that I put it in 25 exactly those terms. I'm not sure whether I put it in TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 i _-_---mm--_m-mmmmm_________________<
12552 4:q 1 precisely those terms. v 2 Q Is that too a question that you discussed with 3 others, Dr. sumpter, Mr. Robertson or others 4 specifically, that is -- or with the attorneys reporting 5 this possibility or need for reporting this to the 6 Board? 7 A Well, I did not discuss that with our 8 attorneys and I can't honestly say whether I had 9 discussed that with either Dr. Sumpter or Mr. 10 Robertson. I may have, but I don't know that for 11 certain. I know that I dic ask myselt what do we have
~ 12 here and is this something that we're going to, when I P
(V 13 say we, I'm speaking f or myself represent Ang HL&P, share 14 with the Licensing Board. And,~as I say, I can't say 15 with confidence whether I may have discucced it with 16 either Dr. Sumpter or Mr. Robertson. 17 Q I gather f rom your earlier comments that your l 18 personal thinking about tnat is still in the same vein, ' 19 that that would not be something that you would view as 29 being reportable now? l 21 MR. AXELRAD: I ' m sorry, Dr. Larab, ere you l 1 22 talking about reportable or to be provided to the i 23 Licensing Board? D (Q; 24 JUDGE LAMB To be provided to tne Board, yes, 25 reportable to the Board. TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12553 (r' 1 Q (By Judge Lamb) I'm not asking f or a current 2 reflection of what you would do today in view of the 3 Board's comments on that. What I'm asking is from the 4 point of view of -- well, your feeling about the types 5 of things that normally you would, in fact, turn over to 6 the Board or inform the Board. 7 A Well, my understanding of the Board's area or 8 interest at the time seemed to focus on construction 9 quality, the quality control relationship to 10 construction, the adequacy of the construction quality 11 assurance program, selected questions on more
- 12 specirically voids in concrete, welding, bacK1111. -
D 13 I went through a review of what my 14 understanoing of the Board's Interest was at une time. 15 I didn't have anytning trigger in my mind that what we 16 had in the way of this report seemed to match up with 17 what I understood the Board's area of interest to be. 18 Clearly that Judgment could be in error. But that was 19 the Judgment that was made and it was based on my 20 understanding of what I thought the interests of the 21 Board were. 22 Q Now, were you also the responsible person who 23 actually made the decision that the report should not be
) 24 turned over to the NRC, not as part of 59.55(e), but -- l 25 well, on any basis, for intornation or for any other TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12554 l 1 reason? 2 A I guess I had certainly a role to play. I'm j l 3 reasonably confident that I may have made inquiries l 4 about has it been the practice of HL&P to provide 5 consultant reports to the Nuclear Regulatory 6 Commission. I know it's not a common practice in all 7 the other projects that I have worked on, so enerefore I 8 had no precedent in my experience that this is something 9 , that one routinely does. I had no reason to believe 10 that this was something that HL&P routinely did. And 11 since consultant reports are aust extensions of the, cay 12 to cay business of the licensee of using his own 13 resources and that oi outsiders to understend peruaps 14 the character or the level of activity associaten with 15 the project, I saw no special reason why this reporu 16 should be shared with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 17 in that it is not the common practice or either HLkP or 18 the industry. 19 Q Are you the person who maoe that decision ror l 29 HL&P or was it Mr. Oprea or Mr. Jordan? 21 A No, I believe that that decision would 22 probably more properly rest with my of fice. I was in 23 charge of the engineering for Houston Lighting & Power 24 and I didn't seek advice of either Mr. Jordan or Mr. 25 Oprea regarding that decision. TATE REPORTING (713) 490-8442
py,su .. 12555 (]) 1 Q I think you've explained earlier some of your 2 rationale behind that decision, I think, in your 3 testimony, haven' t you? 4 A I believe we touched on that point, yes, sir. 5 0 could you look at page 55 of your testimony, 6 please, the first four lines. 7 Did you in receiving this advice f rom HL&P 8 counsel receive the impression that this was something 9 which the NRC staff was essentially requiring HL&P to 10 do? What I'm looking f or, did you have the feeling that 11 the company was under pressure to do this? 12 A' If my memory . serves me, Dr. Lamb, I received a 13 call from Mr. Newman who had apparently had 14 conversations with Mr. Reis and Mr. Reis nad seen the 15 report and felt that this was a matter enat should oe 16 brought to the attention of tne Board. And he mentioned 2 17 that to Mr. Newman and Mr. Newman counseled with sydi:lf s 18 and there was no deliberation. If this was viewed as 19 something that might be of interest to the Board, a copy 29 was furnished to the Board through Mr. Newman's office. 21 Q At some point in the testimony it seems to se 22 that someone had indicated or -- well, Indicated, I i 23 guess, that Mr. Reis had told Mr. Newman that if you 24 f olks didn ' t send it, he wpula. Did you pick uig 25 anything of this type? a TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
l
)
12556 l 1 l X 1 A I got the understanding that Mr. Reis was (d 2 making it abundantly clear that ne thought this matter ; 3 needed to be brougnt to the attention of the Board. 4 Q I see. 5 A And I presume that had we not undertaken to 6 share the report with the Board, that he undoubtedly 7 would. 8 Q So, you didn't get the impression this was 9 Just idle low-level advice? 10 MR. SINKIN: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that. 11 JUDGE LAMB: Tnat unis was idle low-level 12 advice. ( 13 A Well, it was c1cstly high-1cyc1 and I don't 14 think there's - 15 Q (By Judge Lamb) Strong. 16 A -- any doubt that Mr. Reis was very definitely 17 of that opinion. 18 Q Now, in your 1981 testimony betore the Boaco, 19 did you make any conscious effort to avoid raising the 28 issue of the Quadrex report? 21 A No, sir. Tc the best of my -- 22 Q Did anybody advise you to do that? 23 A No, sir, not at all. (] 24 Q Did you advise anyone else to do that? 25 A No, sir.
. TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
_ ______ __s
e l 12557 ( 1 Q Or, for that matter, not just before this 2 Board, but in general. I mean, in other situations, 3 meetings or anywhere was this topic discussed? 4 A No, sir. As a matter of fact, I think it's 5 important to note that - there was a question earlier 6 by I think possibly Mr. Sinkin, I'm sure it was Mr. 7 Sinkin, that he wanted to know who all got the report. 8 Our partners had that report and were very knowledgeable 9 about Quadrex because they had been briefed about 1 1 le Quadrex. One of our partners is the City of Austin. 11 The City of Austin is a public entity. 12 I f rankly have no idea of how many people in h 13 Austin knew aoout Quadrex, but I have every reason to 14 believe it was not confined to the persons that we 15 shared that information with because that's generally 16 not the way business is conducted in Austin. The iact 17 that Mr. Sinkin didn't know it existed strikes me as i 18 rather strange. I think at the hearing a newspaperman 19 came up to me during one of the breaks and be asked a 20 question about tne Quadrex report, he wanted to know ) 21 what it was and I told him, i 22 So, I don't think Quadrex in itself was the 23 mystery that some people would lead the Board to 24 believe. 25 JUDGE BECUHOEFER: Was this the hearings in TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12558 (h 1 the summer of '81 that you're referring to now? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 3 Q (By Judge Lamb) In other words, to paraphrase 4 what you're saying, neither you nor anyone else as far 5 as you knew attempted to retain the report as 6 confidencial or secret or in any such classitication? 7 A No, sir. 8 HR. SIHKIN: Excuse me, Judge Lamb, I hace to , 9 interrupt at this point. le Wnat was the date you said, Mr. Chairman? 11 JUDGE BECHUDEFER: I said during the spring or 12 summer of '81. - 0 13 MR. SIIIKIN: Spring or sua:acr et '81. 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Rather than maybe a newsman 15 approached you in '82 or later, I 3ust wonoered - 16 THE WITNESS: No, sir, I believe it was -- I 17 think it was the same week that I had orief ad Mr. 18 Sells. I can't tell you what day. I haven' t the 19 foggiest idea. But a gentleman, who I don't know his 28 name but I'd recognize him if I saw him again, came up 21 to me and said something about that he was with a 22 newspaper and be made - just a question, he said I 23 understand you people have a , consultant report called j 24 the Quadrex report and I said that's right. And he said 25 when is it going to be issued and I saic it nas been TATE REPORTING (713) 498-6442
W 12559 ((] 1 issued. v 2 Q (By Judge Lamb) To what degree was Mr. Oprea 3 involved in the decision not to report the Quadrex 4 report to the NRC under 59.55(e), or was he involved? 5 A I Gon't believe Mr. Oprea was involved in any 6 matters on reportability. I inf ormed him of what 7 matters were reported. He was inf ormed, he was not 8 consulted. 9 Q And how about with respect to the question of 10 submitting the report to tne NRC on any other pasis, for 11 informational purposes? 12 A The only time that I Delieve Mr. Qprea ano I i 13 had any dialogue on that matter was at cae time enat we 14 visited the Region 4 offices. And we had criefed Region 15 4 ana Region 4 had asked the question had you considereo 16 turning in the entire report under a 59.55(e) and I 17 indicated that we had at the time. 18 And then I seem to recall that af ter the 19 ueeting I asked Mr. Oprea did he see any reason way that 29 neeued to be turned over to the NRC based on any 21 comments that he had heard at that meeting that we had 22 with Region 4. And my -- well, my recollection as that 23 he did not, but I wanted to just benchmark his point of 24 view af ter that particular meeting with Region 4. 25 Q He didn't make the decision, though. I think TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
e 12560 1 you've indicated earlier that you made those decisions; (} 2 is that correct? I kept him informed of what l , 3 A That is correct. 4 we were doing, but I did not, you know, seek his advice 5 on the decision itself. 6 Q Did he influence the decision at all? 7 A Hot in this particular matter, no. But 8 certainly from time to time if Mr. Opred had sometning 9 that he needed to bring to my attention that might 10 influence my activities, he did. 11 Q Did he participate in the decision or r 12 discussions relative to whether the report should oe 13 sunmitted to this Boaro bef ore it was? 14 A No, sir, not to my knowledge. Tnere was no 15 discussion certainly by myself and I have no reason to 16 know of any other discussions. 17 Q It just wasn't discussed with him at all? 18 A No, sir. 19 Q On to an even more general area, let me just 28 ask you one more question. 21 Is there anything else that we haven'c asked 22 you which you would like to say which would be helpful 23 to this Board in unoerstanding the rationale and the 24 thought processes and f actors which entereo into tasse 25 decisions about reporting these dif terent documents to TATE REPORTI!4G (713) 498-8442
12561 1 I the Board or to the NRC7 In other words, have we missed ( ) 2 any bases? I 3 A I don't think you've missed any bases. This 4 will give me an opportunity to at least snare with the 5 Board that certainly the matter of reportacility is a 6 matter that is very cifficult to deal with in an 7 abstract sense. 8 The tests for reportability as prescribed in ) 9 the regulations are clear, but the application of those 19 testo require more than just an academic unoerstanding 11 of the words. Tnere is a measure of experience whica
- 12 comes from working with the regulation and I believe 13 that we applied the regulation as rigorously as we 14 knew. I don't think there was any -- at any time any 15 feeling that we had any priority except to make an i 16 honest evaluation. Tnere was no attempt, to withhold 17 inf ormation f or fear of what it might be construso where 18 we were convinced the information needed to be shared.
19 But, quite f rankly, we saw no usef ul purpose to be 29 served in loading up the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 with a lot of unsubstantiated questions whica it's our 22 responsibility to address. And if wo see either then or 23 now the potential for reportability, those matters are 24 reported. 25 There were three senior engineers involved in 4 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
r 12562 i
+
1 the decision. There were no dissenting votes on any of 2 the decisions. It was truly a consensus of the most 3 experienced body of talent that we had available in our
; 4 company at that point in time.
5 I've been in this business most of g lire. I l 6 try to do the job to the best of g hbility. I can . 7 recall of no oecision that I have made in that history 8 that I'm ashamed of and I no not have any concern that 9 the decisions I made in tais case were made for reasons 18 other than a potential error in judgment. If I have . I 11 erred, then I am sure my peers will point out enouw , 12 errors. ( .
~
13 I think, in retrospect, the subsequcnt reviews 14 of Quadrex that have been perf ormed try not Just Brown &
- 15 Root, but Bechtel and two discerent engineers f rom the 16 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, have tended to put in a ,
A I I 17 very similar perspective where we came out in our 18 evaluation. And it just strikes me that while our ; 1 l 19 evaluation may not be perfect, it is in the proper i 28 ballpark, as has been demonstrated by these other 21 reviewa. I don't think we were out in lef t field. 22 How, in terms of turning tne report over to
- 23 the Board, that's a separate question and you gentlemen
! 24 will make those judgments, as you have. 25 Q Thank you. , TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 1- . _ _ _ _ _ - _
e 12563 ) l l g 1 JUDGE LAMB That's all for me. 2 JUDGE SHON: Well, I think you've pretty much 3 covered many of the things I've thought about. 4 I have something that's really not in the 5 nature of a question for Mr. Goldberg, but something 6 that I would like to throw out for the parties' 7 consideration. 8 As we've gone through this thing, I've found 9 it 6 little difficult to follow Just what happened le when. Is there any chance that the parties, all three, 11 coulc reach a general stipulation o,r a fairly detallea 12 chronology that would fix in tims each o1 the meetings, If}m 13 euca or this consultations, each of tue decisions, une - 14 decision to have the Quadrex report, the oecision to 15 hire Quadrex, the decision to search for otuer optionc 16 than Brown & Root, the decision finally to eliminate 17 Brown & Root, send out ene RFP's, eacn of these enings 18 and put them all down in a line tnat everyone could 19 agree really reflects their order in time? Can this ne 29 arranged do you think? 21 MR. PIRFOs The Staff would certainly endeavor 22 to do so. 23 MR. AXELRADs I believe we can do so. I don't (O 24 an -- 25 MR. SINKIN: I think it would be very usetul TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12564 1 to everybody. ( 2 JUDGE SHON: I think it would certainly be 3 usef ul. 4 MR. SINKIN: I'm not sure we could do it in a 5 very short time. 6 JUDGE SHON: I haven't set any time limit on 7 it. 8 MR. SINEIN: Okay. 9 JUDGE SHON: It would be the earlier the 10 better because the more witnesses we hear witn this in 11 viw, I think the more sense we'll be able to make out 12 of -- 13 tut. AXELRAD: We might be sole to do it over 14 the recess when the hearings reconvene the text week. 15 HR. PIRFOs To the extent I said the Staff 16 will endeavor to do so, I meant in the event the parties 17 would reach an agreement. Tne Staff would not attempt 18 to provide - 19 HR. AXELRAD: We all heard he was 20 volunteering.
'21 MR.'PIRFOs Well, I just thougnt I'd clear at 22 up.
23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We support thet. 24 I assume you do? 25 JUDGE LAMB Sure oo. Tnat would be very i TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12565 (g 1 belpf ul. 2 JUDGE SHON: I have no questions for Mr. l 3 Goldberg. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. 5 HR. AXELRAD: Mr. Cnairman, before we start 6 again, could we take a short break perhaps? 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Sur e. 8 (Recess.) 9 10 11
' 12 * *
(0 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 28 21 22 23 I 24 25 i TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
i l 12566 l () 1 0 (By Judge Bechhoefer) Mr.,Goldberg, I would 2 like to discuss with you a little bit about the criteria 1 3 for potentially reportable items. And what I'd like to l 4 do is bow in your procedures, both today -- and maybe Mr. j 5 Wisenburg will have to handle that -- but both today and 6 back in May of '81, how the procedures, themselves, 7 reflect the 14 day period which you refer to or whether 8 they reflect the 14 day period which the INE has put out 9 for guidance. 10 A The 14 days discussed by INE is a guidance type 11 of number. The way our program operaten, and Mr. 12 Wisenburg is going to testify to our current program, but
~ ., 13 in essence, once a matter is brought to the attention of
( 14 engineering, it can come from any cource in the. company 15 that becomes aware of matters that they think might'well 16 have that potential. And they're encouraged to bring it 17 to the attention of the engineering manager. 18 And that kicks off the start of a technical 19 review of the material. And our guidance is that you 20 shall take not more than 14 days, because that's the best 21 guidance we have. 22 And then at that point, it has to either go to 23 the IRC or the engineering folks have made a 24 determination it doesn't even have enough substance to be 25 considered by the IRC. (O TATE REPORTIt1G SERVICE, 498-8442
J i 12567 C 1 once it goes to the IRC, the IRC has 24 hours 2 to make reportability determination, based on input from 3 engineering. All engineering is really doing is 4 investigating; they're not making a determination of ; 5 reportability per se, they're conducting a review of the i 6 facts. 7 And if they don't even find, at the end of that ,
~
8 point in time, enough information to constitute 9 sufficient data to warrant an IRC evaluation, it ends 10 there, except the IRC is made aware that this has 11 transpired and the IRC is still at liberty to undertake 12 the review should it disagree with engineering. ' 13 So the point is that the general guidance is 14 you shouldn't take more than 14 days to decide whether or 15 not this ' matter should be considered for reportability, j 16 and then once you have sufficient information to make a ( l 17 judgment, you have 24 hours to make that judgment. l 18 0 Well, now in interpreting what happens in the ! 19 14 days, assuming at the beginning of the 14 days you i 20 don't have enough information to make the decision, and 21 assuming that at the end of the 14 days you still don't l 22 have enough information, would that under the guidance, 1 23 at least, nonetheless become reportable as a -- at least 24 as a potentially reportable item pending development of l 25 all the informatino necessary? lGD l i j TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 ; i
12568 1 A At that point, it should go to the IRC; if gg 2 engineering, after 14 days, for example, hasn't been able 3 to establish the character of the problem, it should go 4 to the IRC, nevertheless. And the IRC is at liberty to 5 review the information and within 24 hours, make the 6 report if they judge it to have the potential or, not 7 make it if they judge it not to have it. 8 O Now, on page 36 of your testimony, starting at 9 line eleven, if -- in that sentence set forth there, do 10 you equate the word "promptly" on line 12 with say *14 11 days'? Is that what that sentence is intended to state 12 in effect? 13 A Just let me read the context of the statement. k) 14 0 Right, the sentence beginning on line. eleven. 15 A Yes, I see that. In the context of starting at 16 line eleven. 17 0 Right. It runs to about line 16. 18 A Where we have a deficiency, we know we have a 19 deficiency, and we're not yet able to make the 20 determination of whether it would have an adverse impact 21 on the safe operation of the plant and clearly that 22 potential exists, then that would well be turned in as a 23 potential reportable item. 24 0 so that sentence then reflects a situation 25 where, presumably what's what's contemplated within the -
)
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
--____-________________________s
12569 1 14 day period, would already have happened in other 2 words, a deficiency was determined? 3 A The matter -- just to use the system, a matter 4 is brought to engineeringt and engineering evaluates it 5 and says, "This looks like a deficiency," and turns it 6 over to the IRC, and the IRC makes all the necessary 7 formal tests for reportability, and they would have, at 8 that point, in their mind, that we have a deficiency, it 9 does have an impact of some sort but yet to be 10 determined, happens to be in a safety related, portion of 11 the plant so it's perceived as could well have an impact 12 if a final evaluation might show that, and within 24 13 hours, they would undoubtedly call that in as a - 14 potential, because it has enough ingredients that it 15 might well become reportable. 16 The guidance that we give to our personnel to 17 help them to understand the threshold for potential 18 reportability is this understanding, and it really goes 19 back I think to a question raised by Judge Lamb, if we 20 don't turn in as a potential report a matter that is 21 later determined to be reportable, and review by the 22 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, discloses that we had had 23 information about that matter and not undertaken to call 24 it in as a potential reportable, then that's a violation. 25 so the threshold has to be set low enough that TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12570 () I 2 we are at least calling in potentials where later it turns out to be real and it can be demonstrated that we 3 reacted in a timely way to the information to at least 4 call in it as a potential. 5 0 Just perhaps to track this process on one of 6 the findings, turn to Page 42 of your testimony, tre 7 portion dealing with finding 4.6.2.1(n) . 8 0 Now, the staff, I should say Mr. Taylor from 9 the staff, in his testimony which is to be submitted and 10 it's actually on page 44 of his testimony, has stated 11 that he, at least, would have regarded this matter as an 12 unresolved item. 13 Now, in your procedures, how could or did the
) 14 handling of 4.6.2.1(n) , how did that -- how was that 15 determined not to be at least unresolved --
16 A Well, !!r. Chairman -- 17 0 -- at the time you considered this, which was, 18 I guess, May of '817 19 A Mr. Chairman, I would have to say that in a 20 sense, while we didn't call it out in that category, it 21 represented an unresolved matter to a degree for us as 22 well. 23 The problem, as I understand it, stemmed from 24 the fact that Quadren wasn't satisfied that all the 25 conditions required for analysis had been performed. O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
~
12571 1 There was information that that analysis had been 2 performed; I don't think they were able in the time that 3 Quadren was visiting the question, to find the analysis. 4 80 in a sense, it is an unresolved question, 5 because people have to find the analysis. It turns out 6 that while that was one question, the fact that the 7 re-analysis was in progress nevertheless; but we had 8 information that told us that that analysis had been 9 done. 10 It was just difficulty in finding the 11 information, the information that Quadren was looking 12 for. And it turned out that if the information was never 13 found, and it was important that you have that 14 , information to be able to demonstrate that you had an 15 - adequate system, you would undoubtedly have to perform a 16 re-analysis; and there was one in progress, and if the 17 loss of calculations was systemic and we were missing 18 many of the important calculations to support the design, 19 then that in itself might constitute a significant 20 breakdown in quality. 21 , so in practice, that was an item that is still 22 open on the books. 23 0 Well, what I was trying to figure out is how 24 does the 14 day period, time period, apply to that type 25 of situation, where you are apparently seeking to find O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
I 12572 1 further information, you haven't got it yet. l 2 A We compressed, for purposes of reportability, l 3 our window of time, from when we received the report on l l 4 May the 7th, the clock started such that by the end of l l 5 business on May the 8th, we had to have a decision on 5 reportability. I wasn't counting on 14 days. My 7 personal perception was that once we had that report, we 8 had information that had to be acted upon. And I 9 insisted on timeliness in trying to make these 10 assessments. 11 I might have said let's take 14 days. I wanted 12 an assessment in 24 hours. 13 0 Well, 24 hours later, when this matter still
. 14 apparently was not an unresolved item, why didn't your 15 company or you consider that to be potentially i
16 reportable, either at that time or at least after, if you 17 hadn't gotten the further information in 14 days, from ! 18 then, say? 19 A As far as I was concerned, Mr. Chairman, the 20 only problem that we had was that they hadn't put their 21 hands on the calculation. There was no question in the 22 minds of Brown & Root and my people that the analysis had 23 been performed. It was performed prior to the filing of 24 the appropriate section in the final safety analysis i j 25 report, that clearly stated that that condition had been i I !O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-0442 L ---m--
.- m--~ n n_--- ------t
12573 (h 1 analyzed. 2 Q Do you essentially -- I guess, you must 3 disagree with Mr. Taylor's conclusion which I guess -- 4 which is on the next page, page 45. 5 A I'm not sure I disagreed with his position. 6 0 Well, answer 134. 7 A Well, I quess this is one of those classic 0 judgments where my threshold was not quite as low as Mr. 9 Taylor's. 10 0 Do you think that the HL&P review here or the 11 current system in cufficient, the threshold in 12 sufficiently low, so that you will pick up at least 13 tign1ficant -- well, the large majority, shall we say, of
) 14 *itemc of this sort? .
15 A I believe our threshold is very low, Mr. 16 Chairman. That isn't to say that on a case bacis, that 17 there may not be a disagreement. 18 In other wordo, in spite of my perception that 19 we have a very low threshold and I believe that the 20 appropriate questions to the NRC staff will identify l 21 whether they share that view, but I believe we have a l 22 very low threshold and that isn't to say, however, that 23 there wouldn't be specific occasions where the NRC and my 24 staff might come to a disagreement on a particular item. 25 And I think that lends itself to the fact that l l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 l
i 12574-1 there is a considerable amount of judgment that does get [] 2 applied and not everyone always agrees on every point. 3 But I don't think there's a question, 4 Philosphically about where to set the threshold. We set 5 it rery low; I venture to say we set it lower than many 6 people in the industry. 7 I have a feeling that we are extremely 8 conservative in what matters do get reported. I think 9 the staff is a better judge perhaps of hev we stack up to 10 the rest of the industry since they are in a position to l 11 make that compare. l 12 But from my understanding of the way my l 13 colleagues think about these matters, I'm pursuaded that 14 HLt.P has got a very low threshold. , 15 Q Now, illustrating that threshold again, do you 16 consider that at the April -- April 13 briefing, which 17 you discussed, that none of the items there presented you 18 at that time with enough information to at least trigger 19 the process by which you would consider whether an item 20 was reportable? Is that your opinion? 21 A I would - 22 Q You were mentioning the slide show and nothing 23 in writing. But was there enough information on the 24 slides for any of those items that you might have 25 trggered the reportability process at that point? - ( TATC REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12575 f) v 1 A I don't think so. Didn't think so then and I 2 still don't have a basis to think so. The presentation 3 by Ouadrez was characterized as preliminary, that there 4 was still information that were working on; there was 5 still some interface going on with Brown & Root; and 6 there are many instances in the day-to-day design of a 7 project where information will come to somebody's 8 attention that in the absence of any confirmation, in the 9 absence of any probing, would leave you with an 10 uncomfortable feeling. , 11 But that's what precipitated the further 12 follow-up and the further probing. That's why there is 13 this 14 day recommended evaluation window, to give people h) 14 an opportunity to try to understand the character of the 15 problem. And that starts when they think they have 16 enough information to even concern themselves that they 17 may have a ptoblem.
~
18 0 Did that April 13 meeting give you enough 19 information on any item to trigger the 14 day period -- 20 A I don't believe -- 21 0 -- in retrospect now? 22 A I really don't believe so, because the 23 presentation was represented as, "Well, here's where we 24 are in the development of our information," with many 25 caveats of "This is preliminary and we're still working TATE REPORTIteG SERVICE, 498-8442 o m a c e r ,c , m a - a a m a ;
12576 [')
%/
1 on this." 2 And that's not to say that there was anything 3 defective in the Quadrex effort, but they really didn't 4 have very much of a complete picture. And they 5 characterized that this was very preliminary. And the 6 only reason for the review was that they had been working 7 on it since January and hear we were in April and I was B very interested in "Where are you fellas?" 9 I know that some consultants will take as much 10 time, perhaps, as people are willing to give them. I was 11 very anxious to try to get an understanding as to where l 12 the engineering program was, and I didn't understand why \ l, 13 it was taking quite so long to tell me. q - (it,/ 14 So this das an interim report, almost cauced by 15 my insistance to understand "Well, what's happening?" 16 And it wasn't a complete story by a wide margin, and 17 there was a considerable number of caveats introduced
~
18 throughout the presentation. 19 So I came away with a feeling like I was almost i 20 sorry I asked for the review, because I didn't get 21 anything that I felt was really of a firm character. 22 0 Would that general answer apply to such matters 23 as the HVAC matter or the computer code verification 24 matter, matters that were actually reported, but somewhat 25 more than 14 days after April 13? j TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12577 1 A Well, in the case of the HVAC, I guess the 2 record will show that there was apparently some concern 3 that HLEP had about HVAC, that dated back I think as far 4 as back as a year before, roughly; about April of 1980, 5 if my memory serves me correctly. 6 And we were ultimately held to be in violation 7 of timely reporting because it was judged, and this is an 8 interesting illustration of the test that I was trying to 9 make earlier, that once an item comes to the attention of I 10 the NRC and they look back on *When did you have 11 sufficient information to at least acknowledge it as a 12 potentially reportable item," and they see vast expanse 13 of time, then you are held in violation of the rule. b--) 14 At the time the Quadrex was reviewing RVAC, I 15 had no knowledge of any prior HL&P understanding that 16 this might be a problem to the degree that there was even 17 someone who had taken the time to write Brown & Root a
~
l 18 memorandum and explain where they thought that that 19 design might be defective. 20 I mean, that was information that I had no [ 21 knowledge of. So the record will show that that was 22 clearly a late report. But it didn't stem from the April 23 13th meeting of 1981; that went all the way back to 24 approximately a year before. 25 JUDGE BECHBOEFER: It's getting close to 6:00 h6 V TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 l t ________________.______________.________mmmm_c,- __
12578
, ( }) 1 o' clock. I guess I'll go through one more item that I 2 have. -
3 0 (By Judge Bechhoefer) Just to conclude the 4 portion on potentially reportable findings, how would you 5 apply your general philosophy which you've described to 6 the quote " potential problem findings
- of the Quadrex 7 report, which didn't identify deficiencies as such but 8 raised probabilities or raised information that might 9 lead to that? How did you -- how did did you handle the 10 potential problem findings.
11 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, are you referring 12 to the category within Quadrex that was defined potential
- 13 problem finding? - -
f 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 15 MR. AXELRAD: I don't know if the witness has 16 that particular definition before him. 17 JUDGE BECHROEFER: As referred to on page 29 of
~
18 Mr. Goldberg's testimony. l 19 MR. AXELRAD: It's referred to on page 29 of l 20 your testimony, Mr. Goldberg. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Lines 19 through 22. 22 0 (By Judge Bechhoefer) And my question is how 23 is that factored to your system for reportability, for 24 reporting, I should say. 25 A Well, I haven't revisited the Quadrex'words per l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12579 l ((} l se. But they had identified these areas as places where 2 they felt that additional attention may be warranted. 3 And that did represent one of the items that was part of 4 the follow up action plan. 5 My letter to Mr. Saltare111 addressed the facts i 6 that we had to do a number of things. No. 1, first order 7 of business was to review the most serious findings, most 8 serious discipline findings for reportability. And then 9 another part of my direction to Brown & Root was 10 requirement that we had to establish a plan of action to 11 address all the findings. 12 And in the course of addressing all the 13 i'indings, if information were to evolve that would put h() 14 some new matter into sufficient perspective that.it would 15 represent ~an area that would have to be reported, then it 16 might well be that that could become reportable. 17 At no time in the course of business, whether
~
18 we talk Quadrex or we talk other activities of the 19 project, information might surface which at a point in 20 time its character is not reportable, but internally it 21 always has the potential that more information could 22 develop which could put an item into a potential 23 reportable category. It goes to the question when does 24 an observation that in the itself could be a concern, 25 when does it become of sufficient substance to warrant O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12580 1 potential reportability report to the Nuclear Regulatory ff 2 Commission. And that does get into a subjective region. 3 You have to see enough information to be of the 4 mind that this matter needs to be investigated and 5 following that investigation, you either see sufficient 6 substance to turn it over to an IRC for evaluation or you 7 don't. But the mere fact that you made an observation 8 and you can't establish its character, doesn't instantly 9 suggest that that should be turned over to the NRC as a 10 potentially reportable item because it might turn out 11 that way. 12 In theory every time a question surfaces for 13 which someone doesn't have an answer, that might (Q(j s 14 ultimately lead to a report. But you have to have enough 15 substance to believe that it has the character for a 16 potential reportability. 17 0 Is that the context in which you viewed the 18 so-called potential problem findings -- 19 A Yes, sir. 20 0 -- of Quadrex7 l 21 A ' Yes. - 22 0 You discussed with Judge Lamb to some extent 23 and with several -- with the parties to some extent, why 24 the IRC review or why the IRC did not do the review of 25 the Quadrex report as such. In assigning the three man TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12581 I 1 committee, including yourself, to review this, what did 9 2 you have in your mind what you should do with findings 3 that you did not -- that you determined were not 4 reportable in terms of documentation? 5 It's my -- as a predecessor, it's my 6 understanding that IRC procedures required some 7 documentation of items which they consider which are not 8 reported. 9 Did you give any consideration to documenting 10 why you didn't report certain of the findings you 11 reviewed? I'm -- the reason I ask the question is 12 because of your statement on page 38, your answer 47, I 13 was wondering whether if strict IRC procedures h,ad been (]) 14 followed, you would not have had as much difficulty in 15 recollecting the reasons why you didn't report certain 16 findings. 17 A I'm sure that there's probably little less 18 rigorous records than the kind that the IRC routinely 19 keeps but what we did have was we had an input from Brown 20 & Root on each and every serious discipline findJng. And 21 that was attached to Mr. Saltare111's letter to myself, I - 22 believe, dated May the 8th. And in the course of the 23 review, if we took issue with the finding, which as it 24 turns out we did in the case of shielding calculations 25 and in the case of the computer program verification, (,/)'
\.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 ___________________._________________________j
12582 1 once those catters had been called in to the Nuclear ({ 2 Regulatory Commission, they were documented by the 3 chairman and the IRC; I mean it is practice to issue 4 telephone notes and reports made to the NRC on matters 5 that were reported. The depth of the records for the 6 non-reportability at that point in contrast to the 7 records that we now keep for the IRC, it wasn't as quite 8 as as extensive as the IRC records. 9 0 Do you consider the reasons attached to Mr. 10 Saltare111's response here -- I guess the May 8 response 11 of Mr. Saltare111, are those reasons -- are you -- are 12 you or in your testimony have you adopted essentially 13 those reasons, or have you used different reasons in p'i-) 14 explaining why you did not report certain of the findings 15 that you discuss in your testimony? 16 A I believe that they coincide with those 17 findings, and there were, in the course of our dialogue 18 among the three persons at HLEP, places were additional 19 questions were raised to make sure we had the full 20 insight. And there was internal discussion among the 21 three of us; there was some discussion with Mr. 22 Saltare111 on a couple of points. But we basically did 23 accept the Brown & Root input because I had from two 24 engineers who were part -- I mean they were present 25 during the review of these matters, we had more than just TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12583 (j [ 1 Mr. Saltare111's input, we had the understandings gained 2 by our own engineers who were present during that review 3 by Brown & Root. I
)
4 Q So I was just wondering why then it's your ) 5 statement that it's difficult to recall the precise 6 reasons. You were, in fact, were you not, relying on at 7 least the Brown & Root records? 8 A As part of the input. And as I say, there were 9 some dialogue that occurred in my office and it's 10 difficult to recall all the dialogue. I think -- I'm 11 trying to be as accurate as I can, that in all I needed 12 to do was just take Mr. Saltarelli's input and adopt it 13 as my own, then that might not have taken the amount of 6N V ,14 time that it took. 15 We worked at some length even before the input, 16 there was some discussion in my office and then we 17 received his input around noontime and worked fairly 18 diligently on a continuing basis, until approximately 19 6:00 or 6:30 that evening. 20 So I can assure you that there was a lot more 21 involvement than just reviewing the words and saying 22 "Well, that's okay." There were some probing questions 23 to assure we had all the facts needed to make those 24 judgments. 25 (No Hiatus.) ( TATE REPORTING SERVICC, 498-8442
12584 1 Q All right. Now, if the IRC had done that ( p 2 officially, though, that would have been recorded 3 separately? 4 A I believe that would have been -- 5 MR. SINKIN: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. 6 MR. AXELRAD: I didn't hear the question. 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Would that have been 8 recorded separately? 9 0 (By Judge Bechhoefer) If the IRC nad le undertaken such a review, would that adoitional dialogue 11 which went into tne determinationc have been recordeo? 12 A I believe that would be the case in the IRC (, n~' a 13 minutes, yes, sir. 14 Q Now, I have one quearlon about your prior 15 testimony. Let me find it. 16 JUDGE BECUBOEPER: Let me ask your counsel, do 17 you have a copy of Mr. Goldberg's direct testimony from 18 the earlier proceeding f ollowing transcript 996?
^
19 You're referring to Phase I now, MR. SINKIt{ 29 Mr. Chairman? 21 JUDGE BECHBOEFERs What? 22 MR. SINKIN: You' re ref erring to Phase 17
- 23 JUDGE BECUBOEFER: Phase I, yes.
24 MR. AXELRAD: Are you talking about the 25 prefiled testimony or -- , TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12585 1 JUDGE BECBBOEFER: Yes, yes. 2 MR. GUTTERMAN: Yes. , l 3 Q (By Judge Bechhoefer) I want to ask you some ! 4 questions. Tney start on page 10. 5 But before we get to the ma]or question, woula l 6 you turn to page 14? Does the name at the bottom left ! 7 refresh your recollection at all with respect to a l 8 question I asked you this morning about the 9 participation of Baker & Botts attorneys in toe review? 10 A I remember the question and the quencion was 11 did the Baker & Lotts attorneys participate in 12 preparation of my testimony. '('^7 ,~ 'J 13 Q Ano I think I mentioneu ur. Hudson's namu. 14 A That's right. And to the best of my 15 knowledge, they did not participate in the preparation 16 of my testimony. And -- 17 Q Do you know want that notation means? 18 A I under -- I'm not sure. I think our / 19 attorneys are better able to explain tnat than I am. 29 I know that Baker & Bocts' offices were the 21 location where our attorneys did their work in the 22 preparation of the testimony and it's possible that Mr. 23 Hudson's name was used f or some purpose. Taey might be b 24 able to help. 25 MR. AXELRAD: If I could explain to tne TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
e - 12586 1 Board. All of the testimony was produced through word 2 processing at Baker & Botta because that's where all the 3 witnesses were and that's where the testimony was being 4 prepared. All that notation indicates is the indivioual 5 within Baker & Botts who sent the material over to word 6 processing to have the word pr,0 cessing done. 7 JUDGE BECUHOEFERs Okay. 8 MR. AXELRAD: We were f rom Lowenstein & 9 Newman, we were not a Baker & Botts lawyer, we 10 co uldn ' t -- 11 JUDGE DECHUQCFER: No, I recognize tunt. I
- 12 was Just trying to figure .
out what tne source of enac 9 . 13 was in conjunction with answers to some questions that 14 not only I, but some other parties asked about the 15 participation of Daker & Botts attorneys. Tnat was the 16 source of my question. 17 Q (By Judge Bechhoefer) Well, turning to the 18 substance, Mr. Goldberg, in your answer to question 13, 19 but you may have to read 12 as background, but in your 20 answer to question 13, why wasn't either the Quadrex 21 report or your letter to Mr. Saltarelli of May 6, which 22 is Applicants' Exhibit 61, why wasn't that mentioned? 23 Particularly in answer to question 13. 24 MR. AXELRAD: I assume the witness can taxc a 25 few minutes to read a coupig or pages? TATC REPORTIllG (713) 498-0442
- e. .
12587 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Oh, of course. I'm not ( 2 trying to rush you. 3 A All right. Mr. Chairman, the context of the 4 questions that started on page 10 was getting into how 5 HL&P's engineering f unctions. And we got into a 6 dialogue on the day to day review, what documents do we 7 review, what kind of guidance do we provide Brown & 8 Root. And that's pretty much what I recall in looking 9 at the questions and answers on page number 10. I talk 10 about how we were act up'to carry out enat role. 11 , Then when we got to qucation 13 wnere I was
, 12 asked ror examples of action tnat HL&P has recently (U 13 take'n as part of its direction of Brown & Root 14 construction and design efforts, and again we were 15 staying into the -- at least I whs staying into the 16 context of how we instruct Brown & Root, the utilization 17 of criteria of 19CFR50, Appendix R. Tnat when we become 18 aware of pending regulatory change, that we are alerting 19 Drown & Root that we think that these are matters that 20 they have to start paying attention to, that we monitor 21 their efforts and be sure that they meet the established 22 criteria. It's getting more or less into the day to day 23 interf acing between HL&P and Drown & Root engineering.
!( I 24 Q (By Judge Bechhoef er) Do you consiace yout 25 letter to Mr. Saltare111, the one I ref erred to, TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 _ _ _
12588 1 Applicants' Exhibit 61, as somehow diff erent from what 2 you just described? This is the one where you asked 3 them to develop or come up with answers to each of the 4 findings in Quaorex. You issued this before Quadrex was 5 actually issued, but -- 6 A Well, it's certainly not a uay to day kind of 7 thing. I think it's in the realm of possibility that 8 that might be viewed as other cirection. Once we 9 received the report, had given Brown & Root a direction 10 to review it, so it in a'f orm of direction. 11 Dut in my mind that is not -- that's so tar 12 removed f rom the day to oay eclationships that nad buen 13 established and were being diccuocod. Tant's a very 14 cxtraordinary thing. It hadn't been routine, either 15 witnessed to my knowledge within the project or toe 16 industry. 17 So, rightly or wrongly, I alon't catalog tout 18 as a day to day design activity of RL&P. It was so 19 extraordinary that I didn't even think that it could be 20 handled adequately by the Incident Review Committec. It 21 was an extraordinarily unusual practice, unusual for the 22 inductry, unusual for RL&P. It certainly just didn't 23 full in the mainstream of day to day engineering l kk 24 relationships between HL&P and Brown & Root. I think it 25 was of that caliber or character that caused me to not l 1 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-0442 1 1
e 12589 1 just treat it as a routine day to day relationship. 2 Q So, in other words, if it was less 3 significant, you would have told us about it? 4 A Well, I hope I didn't say that. I think I was 5 trying to characterize it had a very unusual character 6 to it. It was not the kind of a relationship that was 7 routinely in existence between HL&P and Brown & Root. 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think those are all of at 9 least the major questions I have to ask. We tnink we'll 10 adjourn at the present. I have a number or 11 miscellaneous little things whica overnight I may decido 12 none of which are worth asking. I've madu little notes b 13 as we've gone througn ene testimony. So, cause are tau 14 only major areas that I wanted to ask about. 15 so, I think we should adjourn and when we comu 16 back I doubt if I will have very many more questions, At 17 any. And then I assume we'll have some redirect to the 18 extent you wish to. 19 MR. AXELRAD: Fine. And then Just to make 29 sure all the parties understanu, af ter Mr. Goldowrg is 21 finished tomorrow, we will then take up the testimony of 22 Dr. sumpter? 23 JUDGE DECHHOEFER: Correct. 24 HR. AXELRAD: He is the next witness. 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: . Okay. Back at 9:00 TATE REPORTIliG (713) 498-8442
12590 1 o ' cl ock. 2 (Bearing recessed at 6:22 p.m) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
,10 11 12 13 ,
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 - 22 23 24 ~ 25 TATE REPORTING (713) 490-0442
) ) I CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER l l 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 ) l 9 DOCKET NO.: STN 50-498-OL ) STN 50-499-OL 10 11 PLACE: HOUSTON, TX i 2 DATE: Wednesday, July 17, 1985 13 ) 14 were held as herein appears, and that this is the i 15 original transcript thereof for the file of the United 16 States Nuclear Regulatory Comminaion. ( 17 f 18 19 . W\M-R. Patrick Tate, CSR 20 . 21 *~% ,A r Susan R. Goldstein, CSR 22 Official Reporters 23 25 _ - - -}}