ML20132B709
| ML20132B709 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 07/19/1985 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#385-979 OL, NUDOCS 8507250045 | |
| Download: ML20132B709 (209) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, . .t _o
@' UN11ED STATES o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
./
nRIG1G_ IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: r EVIDENTIARY HEARIllG STti 50-498 OL H00ST0t1 LIGHTIflG AND POWER COMPAtlY STil 50-499 OL ET AL , (SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UtilTS 1 Atl0 2) , (_ f) ' - t t.OcATION: HOUSTON, TX PA GES:012816 012024 DATE: FRIDAY, JULY 19, 1985 f '0l .
^
./ )
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Q' - pr988a888gy gm.wm 2f!lg'.'sa! 4' L_
12'816 1 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO!!!!ISSION 4 BEFORE THE ATO!!IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 ----------------------------------X 6 In the !:atter of: : DOCKET NO. 7 HOUSTOM LIGHTII?G AND POWER : STN-50-498-OL 8 CC!!PAUY, ET AL. , : STN-50-499-OL 9 (South Te::as Project Units 1 & 2 : 10 ----------------------------------X 11 Univerr.ity of Houston 12 Teaching Unit II, #215 13 Houston, Te::as < x . 14 , 15 16 Friday, 19 July 1985 17 13 The hearing in the cbove-entitled matter was 19 convened, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:12 a.m., 20 BEFORE: 21 JUDGE CHARLES EECHHOEFER, Chairman, 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. 23 JUDGE JA!!ES C. LA! B , 1:embe r , 24 htomic Safety and Licencing Board. 25 C. TATE REPORTI!'G SERVICE, 493-3442
12817 (~. 'gg 1 JUDGE FREDERICK J. SHON, Membe r, 2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. 3 4 APPEARANCES: 5 On behalf of the Applicants: 6 !!AURICE AXELRAD, Esq., 7 JACK R. ED7!!AM, Esq., 8 ALVIU CUTTER!!AN, Esq., 9 DONALD J. SILVERMAN, Esq., 10 STEVED P. FRANTZ, Esq., 11 Newr.ien & Eoltzinge r , 12 Washington, D.C. 13 / 14 On behalf cf the Mucist Rgul:toryCorE.i:sienEt:ff. 15 EDUIN J. REIS, Esq., 1G CEESTE RUES PIRPO, Esq., 17 Office of the E::ecutive Legal Director 18 19 On behalf of the Intervenor: 20 LANNY ALAN SINKIN, 21 3022 Porter St. P.M., #304 22 Ueshington, D.C. 20008 23 Representative for Citizens Concerned About 24 liuclect Power. 25 TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 438-8442
12818 E. 1 CONTENTS 2 WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS EOARD REDIRECT RECROSS 3 DR. JAliES R. SUllPTER 12822 12871 12908 4 12865 5 6 7 8 CY.HIEITS POR ID IU EVD. 9 CCAMP E::hibit 98 12681 12863 10 Applicants No. 71 12905 , 11 12 13 l p. 1.'
. ,l l
15 l 16 17 l 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 s TATE REPORTII'G SERVICE, 498-84t,2
12819 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Good morning, ladies and 3 gentlemen. Before we resume the cross-examination of 4 Dr. Sumpt er , are there any preliminary matters, not 5 including subpoenas? 6 MR. SINKIN: No, Mr. Chai rman. 7 MR. REIS: The only thing I want to inform the 8 Board, I'm going to need time to argue on the Staff 9 witnesses and I presume -- I think my argument is going 10 to take between twenty minutes and an hour. So, it is 11 not -- we need sufficient time to do that. 12 JUDGE BEC$HOEFER: Right. Well, we may well 13 do it witness by witness, by the way. 14 MR. REIS: Well, I have a general presentation 15 cn the law as well. 16 JUDGE BECHROEFER: Well, that can start. 17 We'll probably do it the same way with you. I 18 think it's easier to discuss it witness by witness. 19 MR. AXELRAD: That's fine, hk . Chairman. 20 I do have one other -- 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: But general presentations 22 will be permitted when we start out. 23 MR. AXELRAD: I do have one other matter % 24 pertaining to the sequence in which witnesses will be 25 presented. As the Board will remember, the Staff had TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12820
# 1 indicated the other day that their witness, Mr. Tapia, 2 will be leaving the country and should be -- that they 3 would prefer that he be able to testify by -- bef ore the 4 week or by the week of August 5th.
5 We also have some difficulties with some of 6 our witnesses who would not be available during the week 7 of August 5th, so we are going to rearrange the schedule 8 of our witnesses in the following f ashion. 9 When we return next Monday, we will present 10 Mr. Lawrence Stanley who was the witness who was 11 scheduled to be next. And then after Mr. Stanley, we ', 12 wduld propose putting on 14r. Bernsen and Lopez, the 13 panel from Bechtel. And then af ter they are finished, 14 we would propose putting on our panel on soils which 15 would then be immediately followed by the NRC Staff 16 witness on soils. 17 Our -- 18 MR. REIS: That's agreeable to the Staff to 19 have the soils all together then. 20 MR. AXELRAD: Our expectation would be that 21 the cross-examination of Mr. Stanley probably would not 22 take more than one day and the testimony of the panel of 23 Bernsen and Lopez probably will not take more than one w 24 or two days. So, there shouldn't be any difficulty 25 reaching the soils panel no later than Thursday, August TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12821 /' 1 lat. But if somehow our expectation is not met, we 2 would interrupt whatever is happening at that time in 3 order to take our soils panel to be followed by Mr. 4 Tapia so that the soils matter can be concluded next 5 week. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The week after next. 7 MR. AXELRAD: I'm sorry. Yeah, that's right, 8 the first week af ter the recess. 9 And then af ter our soils panel and the NRC 10 witners on soils is complete, we would then take the 11 rest of our witnesses, which would be Mr. Oprea f ollowed 12 by Mr. Frazar f ollowed by Mr. Wisenburg. - 13 I have one last preliminary matter. CCANP 14 filed a written =otion to strike testimony, portions of 15 testimony cf ce=c cf our witncases. Rather than filing 16 a written response to the motion to strike, we would 17 just as soon reply orally when each of the witnesses' 18 testimony comes up, unless the Board insists that we 19 file a written response. 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Not at all. We handled 21 some of those already. 22 MR. AXELRAD: Right. But that was in a timely 23 fashion. If we had to file a written response, the time i- 24 would be coming up. We don't want to be held in f ailure 25 of having met the time schedules. TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12822 O; 1 JUDGE BECHNOEFER: Right. No, not at all. [V 2 MR. SINKIN: I think the panel of Bernsen and 3 Lopez is -- 4 MR. FRANTZ: Taylor also, I believe. 5 MR. SINKIN: Taylor? 6 MR. FRANTZ : Yes. 7 MR. AXELRAD: I guess the Staff's response 8 would be due now also. 9 MR. REIS: We'll respond orally. 10 JUDGE BECHHOETER: Again, you're free to do 11 so. 12 MR. AXELRAD: We have no further preliminary O 13 matters, Mr. Chairman. 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That sequence sounds fine 15 to us. 16 MR. AXELRAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So, Mr. Sinkin, you can 18 resume. 19 MR. SINKIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 28 21 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Cont'd)
- 22 BY MR. SINKIN:
23 Q Good moJning, Dr. Sumpter. hv' 24 A Good morning. 25 Q Page 13 of your testimony at line 18, you _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ____ ___ _ _ _ _ T AT E R E PORT I NG _______(71_3_)__49_8-0442
I 12823 (Th 1 state that af ter May the 8th, you subsequently reviewed
\~J -
2 each of the Quadrex findings with Mr. Robertson and I 3 provided him with the benefit of your knowledge of the 4 findings and to consider again whether any of the items i 5 which should have been reported had been missed. 6 When did you meet with Mr. Robertson? 7 A The best of my recollection, that meeting 8 occurred, or series of meetings occurred in June -- I 9 think in June or July, in the summer of 1981. 18 Q And had you gained additional knowledge about 11 the findings between May the 8th, the Quadrex findings 12 between May the 8th and the first time you met with Mr. O 13 Robertcon in the summer of '817 14 A No. The purpose of the meetings with Mr. 15 Robertron, he had been -- he er head of the licensing 16 department had been given responsibility by Mr. Goldberg 17 to essentially follow-up all of the Quadrex items and 18 close them out. Since he had just joined Houston 19 Lighting & Power Company in March of 1981, he wanted to 28 get the benefit of my experience with the whole Quadrex 21 review and my understanding of each of the issues 22 involved so that he could better carry out that 23 responsibility that was given to him by Mr. Goldberg. 24 Q So, you were assisting him in trying to close 25 out all the Quadrex items? TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12824 ICs 1 A No, I was just providing him my knowledge of 2 everything that went on. I 3 Q How many of those mootings took place that you 4 remember ? 5 A I don't know the exact number. I believe we 6 met over a space of about three weeks or so. We might 7 meet for a couple days and then take off for a day and 8 than moet again. It was off and on I think, oh, around 9 three weeks or so. 10 0 When you cay meet for a couplo days, you mocn 11 you'd moot 11hc two days ctraight?
.. 12 A Ye s. Maybe a couplo days straight, maybe four
13 hours the next day.' 14 Q And to the best of your recollection, that's 15 in Juno, July,198 -- 16 A June and July,1981. 17 0 When you say to considor again whether any 18 items which chould have boon reported had boon minned in 19 our prior reviews, woro you opoeifically including the 20 gonoric findings? 21 A Yoo, wo reviewed the entire report. 22 Q Did you apacifically review the generic 23 findings na a possible separato item which might bo O t/ 24 potentially reportablo? Do you follow ny quantion? As 25 opponod to the dicciplino findings, did you look at the TATE REPORTING (713) 498-0442
) 12825
/~ l generic findings and make a determination on just the 2 generic findings as to whether they might be potentially 3 repor table?
4 A The emphasis in our meetings woro really for 5 me to explain to Mr. Stanley my understanding of each of 6 the findings based on my knowledge of what went on. The 7 reportability was an aspect of that. I mean, we were 8 consitive that if we uncovered something that wo hadn't 9 thought about on May 8th, you know, wo'd report that. 10 The gist was really just to go on what wont on. 11 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, may I have the , 12 witnoco toll me who he's mooting with again? 13 T!!E WITNESS: Mr. Robertson. 14 MR. RTIS: Mr. Robertson. Thank you. 15 A 1:r . Robertson and I did not convene a meeting 16 for the expronc purpoco of doing a reportability review 17 all over again. 18 0 (Dy Mr. Sinkin) The purposo of the mooting 19 wac really for you to give him additional inf ormation 20 sinco he was relatively now to the company? 21 A That's correct. 22 JUDJE BECilll0CTER: Whoro voro thos:o mootings? 23 In either of your officos? 4 24 Tilt WITNESS : They woro primarily hold in hin 25 offico at the Daybrook f acility where wo woro located at T/.TE REPORT 1t;G (713) 498-8442
12826 1 that timo nouth of Ilouston. 2 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) When you cay you went over 3 all the findings, did you actually go over each finding 4 in the Quadrex report with Mr. Robertson? 5 A The best of my recollection, yes, we went over 6 every ningic finding. 7 Q I can neo now why it might take two days at a 8 stretch. 9 Let me go back for a minuto, Dr. Sumpter, to 10 the mooting, the r.f ternoon -- no, lot me get thia -- 11 what did you do the morning of May Oth? 12 A I bo11cve in the morning of May 8th Mr. 13 Robertcon and I had a brief ccoting with Mr. Goldberg to 14 fill him in on what occurred at the meeting in the 15 previous evening with Brown & Root. 16 Q And how long did your mooting with Mr. 17 Goldborg last on that topic? 18 A I really can't roca11. I know wo didn't ntart 19 at 8:00 o' clock and go all the way till noon or anything 20 liko that, but it could have boon an hour or loan. 21 0 And than what timo did you and Mr. Goldborg 22 and br. Robertcon conveno your review on May the Oth? 23 A I believo wo got the Drown & Root lottor and 24 their inf ormation hand delivered to us, I think it was 25 around 12:30, uomotimo around noontimo, around there. TATE nEPORTING (713) 490-0442
12827
$-S 1 Q And that Brown & Root document was a series of
/
)
a 2 sheets that Brown & Root had prepared where each finding 3 they had said each specific -- let me -- well, Brown & 4 Root didn't review all the findings f or reportability; 5 is that correct? 6 A No, they were instructed on May 7th to review 7 the most serious discipline findings. 8 0 Okay. So, limiting my question to the most 9 serious discipline findings. The document that you 10 received at noen on l'ay the 8th were the series of 11 chects that Brown & Root had prepared, one for each 7 ,, 12 , serious discipline finding? 13 A Tnat plus a cover letter f rom Mr. Sal ta r e111 14 that addrorced the points in recponce to Mr. Goldberg's 15 letter that he wreto on May 6th. 16 Q And you and Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Robertson 17 then sat down to review that responce? 18 A No, wo sat down to go through all the findings 19 from a reportability viewpoint and we used that Brown & 20 Root inf ormation as a major source of input. 21 Q And how long did youall meet? 22 A We went all afternoon, about to 6:00 or 7:00 23 o' clock. We went on for pretty long, g c 24 Q Do you remember f rom the Quadrcx report how 25 many most corious findings there are? l l TATE REPORTII;G (713) 498-8442 )
12828
'( l A I've really never sat down and counted them J
2 all. There's a f air number. More than two or three,
- 3. let's put it that way. I don't know exactly whether 4 it's fif ty or a hundred or something like that.
'S Q As you're doing your review of. each finding, l 6 have you assigned one . person responsibility to keep 7 track of what you're deciding as you go?
8 A I believe Mr. Goldberg made some notes on 9 his -- the sheets. he had f rom Brown & Root and I'm- sure 10 one of us noted -- if we had determined that something 11 was going to be potentially reportable, we noted that. 12, Q Did you take notes?
~
. 13 A No, I didn't take notes.
14 Q To your knowledge,'did Mr. Robertson take , 15 notes? l 16 A I can't recall if he did or not. l 17 Q Let me jump back to the day before, May the 18 7th, when you were attending the Brown & Root meeting. 19 Did you take notes at that meeting? 20 A To the best of my recollection, I did not take 21 notes at that meeting. We were given I guess draf t ! 22 copies of the Brown & Root sheets and then -- I can't 23 recall whether I kept those or not. They were still a Dn 24 draft. Brown & Root was going to work on them later 25 that evening and then they were going to give us their i TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12829 f 1 final. So, I may have given those back to Brown & Root, O;CS 2 I can't recall. 3 Q Page 14, line 1, the question is, Dr. Sumpter, l 4 when prior to May the 7th did Mr. Goldberg indicate to 5 you that a copy would not be sent to the NRC Staff, copy I 6 of the Quadrex report. { i l 7 A I can't recall when during anywhere from 8 January to April we had that conversation. We did have 9 conversations a.t various times about -- or I was made le aware that he had contacted Iir. Sells in January and 11 that he had planned -- he planned to discuss the Quadrex eig 12 report with Mr. Sells during the' hearings, you know, if i N"/ 13 we met our deadline of getting it in on May the 7th. l 14 But I can't recall 'when during that time frame he 15 mentioned that his intention was to inf orn the NRC that 16 we had to report. And they had been free to look at it 17 in our offices, but he was not going to formally f 18 transmit the report to the NRC. At least relative to as f 19 far as the inf ormation he was getting f rom Quadrex and 20 myself that there may be some reportable items, but i 21 there did not appear to be a major indication there was 22 a very large flaw in the whole design process. 23 0 Let me get clear what you just said. I missed
/~'
d t 24 a little piece of the answer there. That Mr. Goldberg 25 intended to send to the NRC anything that was TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12830 $2\ l potentially reportable but not the report because the U 2 report itself didn't demonstrate -- 3 A Well, the inf ormation that I would give him, 4 whenever we'd meet he asked how are th'i ngs going and in 5 my view all the things -- Quadrex had not uncovered the 6 view that there was a major design flaw in the whole 7 design process. They were finding problems here and 8 there, but we did not have that type of situation. 9 0 Are you aware of the Quadrex reviewer having 10 the opinion that there was no well thcught out basis for 11 design? 12 A Yes, I believe that's mentioned in the ch i V 13 repor t. 14 O But you do not view the lack of a well thought 15 cut basis for 6: sign as a major flaw in the design 16 process? 17 A Well, what is -- no, I don't, because what I 18 believe is important is is the design conservative, does 19 it meet the requirements and does the design fit 20 together. 21 My understanding of that statement from 22 Quadrex -- I guess maybe you better ask Quadrex what 23 they felt their understanding was. I had my own views (- kr' 24 on that, but I did not consider that in the manner in 25 which you were -- or in the context in which you were TATE REPORTING _ (713) 498-8442 _ _
12831 (2% 1 putting it. V 2 Q You did not consider that the absence of a 3 well thought out basis for design might result in a 4 design that would not fit together? 5 A No, it doesn't necessarily lead to that 6 assumption at all. 7 Q In the conversations -- excuse me. When Mr. 8 Goldberg indicated to you that a copy would not be 9 transmitted to the NRC Staff in your testimony, page 14, 10 did he scy why it would not? You discussed the f act 11 that it would not, but did he say why it would not? r- 12 A He asked -- at some point in time during this k-) 8 13 period be would ask me, I don't remember, whether it was 14 HL&P's standard policy in our dialogue with the NRC 15 whether ue reutinely cubnitted tc the NRC consultant 16 reports whether they were required or not and I 17 indicated no, it was not. And he indicated -- and we 18 had -- I guess we had a discussion, I don't know if he 19 asked me or not, on whether it was required that we send 20 this report to the NRC under any NRC regulation and 21 concluded that it was not. 22 Q Mr. Goldberg asked you if it was required? 23 A 'Well, I don't know if he asked me \_ 24 specifically. I know we had that discussion. 25 Q Is it your view that the Quadrex report as a TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12832 1 whole did not need to be turned over to the NRC Staff on 2 May 8, 19817 3 A Yes, it is.' 4 Q Why? Or why not? 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Are you asking his view 6 today or his view then? 7 Q ( By Mr . Sinkin) I'd like to have your view 8 then. 9 A Then? 10 Q Yes. 11 A Well, I guess I looked at it f or two reasons. 7-12 One, if I'm going to report something to the NRC that
~'
)
13 meets the reportability criteria of 50.55(e), you first 14 have to identify a deficiency'. So, when you look at the 15 whol e r epor t -- I'm not going to turn in a whole 16 report. I don't turn in reports, I turn in 17 deficiencies. 18 So, I looked at is there some deficiency that, 19 if you will, this whole report is telling me. And it 20 was my opinion f rom everything that I had been involved 21 with on the Quadrex report and review that from a 22 quality viewpoint, Quadrex was not telling me that I had 23 a major breakdown in the design process that was r~N t i tf 24 resulting in defective products or that I had major 25 design flaws. By flaw I mean the design was not meeting TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12833 Q: 1 the requirements that we had committed to in the PSAR
]
2 and FSAR.- l 3 I think -- and it became very clear very 4 quickly when we started getting responses from Brown & 5 . Root that, as you recall, we met with Brown & Root in 1 6 February and we asked them, we went over the questions 7 so they could understand what the questions were and 8- Brown & Root described f or us what evidence they would 9 submit to Quadrex to support their answer. And it 10 became very clear very soon in the review that the 11 evidence Brown & Root was giving to us was evidence f rom
, 12 the '75, '76, ' 77, maybe '78 time frame. They very 13 rarely gave us calculations done in 1980, 1979. And it 14 became very clear that they were very far behind.
15 And that's the final botton line is what i 16 Quadrex told me was that Brown & Root was very far l 17 behind in the engineering of particularly what I call 18 the component end, cable trays, equipment, that sort of l 19 thing. l 20 0 Were you concerned in May -- actually, let me 21 do the f ollow-up. Is it your view today that on May the 22 8th,1981, you should have turned the Quadrex report 23 over to the NRC Staff ? s- 24 A No, my view hasn't changed at all. 25 Q Okay. l TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
)
12834 (2. 1 When you saw what Brown &' Root was providing l
) -
2 Quadrex, these calculations f rom the '75 '7 8 period, but 3 seemingly nothing f rom ' 7 9- '80, I believe that's what 4 you -- 5 I A Not nothing but very little. 6 0 Well, very little.
- Did that cause you any 7 concern as to the quality of the work that would be 8 coming out of that engineering organization?
9 A When that intelligence started to come to our 10 attention, we then looked at, well, what was the' quality 11 of the work that Brown & Root was supplying to Quadrex. 12 And, you know, with a few ' exceptions, there was no.
' ) 13 indication that there were major inadequacies in that 14 work.
15 We did, if you will, shif t the f ocus of the 16 review then to discuss with the Brown & Root individuals 17 now for work that they hadn't done, well, how do you 18 plan to approach this problem. In some cases they had 19 draft documents, in some cases they had no documents. 20 And the only way they could answer some of the questions 21 was to really verbally enunciate to Quadrex, well, this 22 is how we plan to approach this particular area. 23 Q It sounds to me like there may actually be
,rm.
(7) 24 sort of three diff erent Quadrex studies here. Study 25 number one, Quadrex goes in to ask for, if you will, the TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12835 I basic design documents to review, system descriptions, [5(. 2 one-line drawings, all that sort of thing. Then what's 3 produced is of ten old material with gaps in certain 4 years where nothing has been done so that then there is 5 a shif t to look at the quality of the work that has been 6 done. And then aware that there's a lot of work that 7 hasn ' t been done, there's a shif t to look at what hasn't 8 been done. 9 So, it seems like we have three phases, if you 10 will, of th'e Quadrex study. Is that an accurate 11 characterization of what you testified to? 12 MR. GUTTERMAN: Mr. Ch airman, I'm going to l 13 object to' the question just because it's so long and 14 involved that I can't believe an answer to that yes or 15 no would be meaningful. I think the testimony speaks 16 for itself on what his characterization was. To have 17 CCANP's representative now recast that lengthy, that 18 long story in such an involved way, I can't believe the 19 witness could f ollow it.. Certainly I had trouble 20 following everything he said. 21 JUDGE SHON: I couldn ' t follow it. 22 MR. SINKIN: Well, if Judge Shon couldn't 23 f oll ow it, I'll definitely do it again. o k-) 24 JUDGE BECHBOEFER: Yes, I wasn't sure if -- 25 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Okay. Let 's start with the TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12836 (( 9 > 1 task given Quadrex that they would be responding to by
~~#
2 writing out the questions f or Brown & Root. What are 3 they trylag to achieve in the questions they' re writing 4 out to Brown & Root? 5 A As per our discussion with Quadrex, they were 6 looking at the status of engineering and also taking a 7 look at how Brown & Root was dealing with some of the 8 more unique nuclear issues that in our experience we 9 knew other folks had to struggle with. 10 So, Quadrex asked a series of questions that 11 in their view would be able -- they would be able to 12 ascertain Brown & Root 's capabilities in those areas, NJ 13 their degree of sophistication, were they appropriately 14 handling some of these tough nuclear issues and where 15 was the design. 16 I think Quadrex goes into their rationale in 17 the beginning of the report as to -- and in each 18 discipline area as to what certain groups of questions 19 were trying to get at. 20 Q You said that Quadrex developed a series of 21 questions that in their view would ascertain Brown & 22 Root 's capability. Did you agree that those questions 23 could achieve the job? i,) 24 A HL&P commented on those questions. In the 25 final analysis, it was going to be Quadrex ' review. TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12837 (~l 1 Their experts were going to be responsible' f or the G 2 findings and were going to have to defend the findings. 3 So, while we made comments, we left the final decision 4 on what questions would be included and how they would 5 be worded up to Quadrex. 6 Q The questions are written, sent to Brown & 7 Root, responses start to flow. And this situation 8 arises where it seems that Brown & Root is producing 9 primarily evidence f rom the '75 to '78 time frame, very 10 little of the '79- '80 time f rame. And then because 11 they're finding this absence of work in that time ,
~.. 12 pe riod, Quadrex. refocuses to some extent, th ey don ' t -
') '
- 13 shift the whole study, but they refocus their attention 14 to some extent on the quality of the werk being produced 15 by the brown & Root organization?
16 MR. GUTTERMAN: If that's a question, I'm 17 going to object on the same grounds that I objected 18 before, that it's such a long wind-up to the question 19 that I'm not sure how the answer can really be taken to 20 be commenting on such a long wind-up. Who could keep it 21 all in mind? 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, were you trying to 23 ask whether Quadrex shif ted its f ocus -- / : t> 24 MR. SINKIN: I'm focusing on, I'm focusing on 25 a particular shif t. There's more than one it appears. TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12838 (Es 1 I'm trying to lineate the boundaries of the first one. b 2 The boundaries, as I understood them, were 3 that Quadrex sent in the questions, got responses, saw 4 gaps in the data and then shif ted focus to look at the 5 quality of the work. Now, that's the basic question I 6 laid out. But if there's a problem with that being 7 understood, I'll try again. 8 MR. GUTTERMAN: All I'm asking for is a simple 9 direct question. I think Mr. Sinkin's gotten his 10 wind-up fully delivered. I assume the witness -- 11 , MR. SINKIN: Okay.
. 12 MR. GUTTERRkN: -- would then be f ocused on 13* the point in time. But if the question could just be a 14 simple direct question.
15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think at this point the 16 witness probably could understand the question. 17 MR. SINKIN: Well, I -- 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: If you don't understand, 19 please say so and Mr. Sinkin can try again. 20 THE WITNESS : Well, a lot of the statements 21 Mr. Sinkin was making I'm not sure are correct relative 22 to what really went on in his lead-up to the question, 23 so I was trying to jot those down plus the question. 24 So, that's what makes it very complicated to try to 25 figure out how to answer this. TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12839 (2 1 Q ( By Mr. Sinkin) Let me try and make it (
~
2 simpler. 3 When Quadrex found that there was a 4 significant period of time with very little work, did 5 they then begin examining the quality of the actual work 6 that had been produced? 7 A No, that's not what happened. 8 Q What did happen? 9 A They always intended to look at the quality of 10 the work.
, 11 Q They always intended to look at the quality?
c ,12 A Yes. C. J . 13 Q Well, the next shift I saw was -- 14 A Well, there hasn't been a shif t yet. 15 0 I'm sorry. I did say that I saw. 16 A Oh, okay. 17 Q Okay ? 18 A And that -- well -- 19 0 We won't debate that point. Let me just ask a 20 simple question. 21 Was it always Quadrex ' intention to look at 22 what work had not been done by the Brown & Root design 23 engineering organization? Was it always their intention (~s Er/ 24 to see what had not been done? 25 A No. They were to go in and look at the l TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 l
12840 (2) 1 engineering.- We had no preconceived notions of what was b 2 or was not done. We knew from the progress reports that 3 there was supposed to be around 60 percent engineering , 4 done and that was taken into account when Quadrex wrote 5' the questions. j- 6 Q I guess what threw me off, Dr. Sampter, was 7 what I heard you to say which was they at some point had 8 shif ted f ocus to the work not done. Did that -- did the 9 work that had not been done become a more serious 4 . 10 concern in the middle of the Quadrex report than it had 11 been at-the beginning? , 12 A We had developed questions assuming chere was 13 roughly 60 percent engineering done. So, we didn't ask 14 que stions, for instance, about test results because they 15 hadn't gotten that far. 16 When we got into the review, some of the 17 questions Brown & Root was unable to produce evidence on 18 how they were going to deal with that issue because they ' ~ 19 hadn't got around to it yet and we'd expect that they 20 would have already. I didn't mean to imply there it was 21 all of a sudden we shif ted the way we were doing
, 22 business. We just said, all right, we still want to get 23 an answer to this question. If you don't have written f~)
b, . 24 documentation on how you plan to answer the question, 25 then let's talk about how you think you're going to do TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12841 Q l things in the future. N.) 2 All that happened really was we had perhaps 3 spent more time in verbal discussions than we had 4 initially anticipated. And that when Brown & Root -- in 5 the February meetings we did not identify specific 6 document numbers that Brown & Root was going to produce 7 as evidence, we identified that Brown & Root would 8 produce a document. It would probably be an SDD or a 9 , drawing or something that they would use to demonstrate 10 their answer to the question. In many cases, in the 11 review meetings Brown & Root indicated that they wer,e 12 not g'oing to be able .to supply that document, so then we 1,c,. 1 As) 13 discussed, well, what other document can you give 'us. 14 And we reached agreement on that and then those 15 documents were sent to Quadrex and that's what caused 16 the review to go on inro April. Quadrex was still 17 getting documents from Brown & Root in April. 18 Q In February you identified the type of 19 documents that Brown & Root would supply to respond to 20 the questions. 21 A Generally the type. We'd say, all right, 22 we'll give you a calculation to demonstrate this. They 23 didn ' t identify what type. , ) 24 Q But when the questions came in, Brown & Root 25 in some instances couldn 't produce that kind of TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 L ..
12842 l (3 , s 1 documentation but had other documentation? 2 A Yes. They may have had a calculation that was 3 an old one. We said do you have a more updated one? No 4 or we haven't yet done that calculation. So, then we'd 5 say, well, can we talk to the people that are going to 6 do the calculation, maybe they can explain to us how 7 they plan to do it, that type of thing. I 8 Q Okay. That's slightly different to me. But 9 there's one instance where Quadrex asked -- you agree 10 that Brown & Root's going to supply a certain kind of 11 documentation. Quadrex asked the question. That kind l
- 12 of documentation was not available, but other kind of' V' .
\
\ 13 documentation is as opposed to oral conversation, which
\
14 I think was your example. 15 A That happened. 16 Q There were instances where other kinds of 17 documentation was available? 18 A Yes. l 1 19 0 But then there were some instances where the ! 1 20 only way for Quadrex to determine was through oral , l 21 conversation with Brown & Root personnel? 22 A In some instances, yes. 23 0 In the course of that st udy , which instance j
~'
l (,/ 24 where only oral conversation was available stood out in l 25 your mind as a place where you would have expected to TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12843 [~ 1 find documentation? 2 A
~
You're going to have to give me a few minutes 3 to thumb through this report, if that's all right. 4 Q That's all right. And I'm really looking f or 5 highlights, you know, ones that stood out in your mind, 6 not every instance. 7 Dr. Sumpter, do you perceive this to be a 8 relatively long undertaking? 9 A One that comes to mind, I just wanted to 10 check, was pipe break outside containment. Brown & Root 11 had a draft document that it published in 1976 on how it 12 planned to do that. EDS was doing the pipe break inside 6m.
') -
13 dontainment and Brcun & Root was planning to adopt 14 inhouse the computer codes and the methods that EDS was 15 using to do pipe break outside containment. 16 And to the best of my recollection at this 17 time, Brown & Root had not fully documented all that of 18 how they were planning to do that. And that was one 19 area where I -- we thought should have been already 20 taken care of, particularly at least having all the 21 computer codes inhouse, up, running and everything ready 22 to go and they were still working on that. 23 (No hiatus.) (~/ 24 25 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-6442
12844 m
- (Ti 1 Q Did the absence of the analysis on the pipe t
\
i i 2 break outside containment cause you any concern about the 3 qualifications for equipment already installed? 4 A No, not at that time, Because the -- this plant 5 was perhaps unique compared to most other pressurized 6 uater reactors in that there was not that much high 7 energy piping outside containment. 8 We had an IVC where the main steam and 9 feedwater went through which is an enclosed structure. 10 Our RER system was inside containment. Almost I think 11 every other pHR'is outside containment. 12 So there were vary few lines cutside 13 containment that needed pipe break analysis compared to is (~l x_/ 14 mest other cressurized veter reactore. Fe have alree6" - 15 reported that the auniliary feedwcter pump motore inside 16 the IVC were not qualified to the proper temperature, an6 17 that was the acjor area where we ccule run into a 18 situation of not having pipe break done, may result in 19 not -- equipment not qualified to proper temperature. 20 I can't think of any other piece of safety 21 related equipment outside containment that was close to 22 high energy lines that might be affected. I think there 23 was a let down line, maybe a CVCS line, but there is no 24 safety related equipment outside containment near high i 25 energy lines, as far as I can recollect, except possibly n ( ) , %s TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 l
12845 b 1 in the fuel handling building where they have the safety 2 injection pumps. 3 But at that time, the major area had already 4 been reported to the NRC. 5 0 I'm sorry, you said the safety injection pumps 6 in the fuel handling building? 7 A Right, the fuel handling building. 8 Q The problem in the feedwater pumps, if you 9 could elaborate that a little further, why it was 10 notified they were not qualified? 11 A As you recall, as I nentioned yesterday in my 12 testimony, in that IVC cubicle, ue and the "RC had agraed 13 that we would be required to postulate a crack break. . (;. . I ', 14 That means that the primary impact f rom that break will J 15 be pressurization of that IVC cubicle and increased 16 temperature and humidity from the steam escaping. 17 Therefore, any safety related let's say meters, 18 for instance, that are in that cubicle, have to be 19 6esigned to withstand that environment. And we 20 discovered that the auxiliary feed pump motors had been 21 qualified to a lower temperature than actually would be 22 experienced when that crack break was analyzed. 23 0 If the pipe break outside containment analysis 24 had been done before the auxiliary feeduater motors were 25 selected, would that problem have been avoided? s t/I TATE REPORTI11G SERVICE, 498-8442
12846 i O y~N 1 MR. GUTTERMAN: Objection, that calls for a 4 a 2 speculation. 3 MR. SINKIN: I don't believe -- I hope it 4 doesn't. 5 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Well, let me change the 6 question. Was there any relationship between the fact 7 that the pipe break outside containment analysis had not - 8 been done and the fact that the auxiliary feedwater, 9 motors had been installed without proper qualification? 10 A That's hard to answer that question, because I 11 normally uculd buy those motors before I had analyzed and 12 installed piping for stress analysis. So what normally 12 ic done is that early in the job, the EVAC cngineer, in ()
'*~%
14 combinerion with the nuclear analysis people, estimate 15 what the temperatures are going to be in these various 16 areas and those are put into the specifications. And
~
17 then when I do the pipe break analysis, I uill confirm if 18 in fact those are the correct numbers. 19 The fact that the preliminary data assumed for 20 the auxiliary feedwater pump motor was incorrect you 21 could trace to just an incorrect assumption uay back 22 then. It's not necessarily related to the fact that they
- 23 hadn't got around-to doing pipe break outside 24 containment.
25 0 I realize you would buy them. Uould you ( \. V l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 490-8442
12847 2: hoy 1 actually install them?
$ 4 \J
- 2. A Yes, you could install them.
3 0 You could install them even-though -- 4 A Yes.- 5 0 How did you discover that the data was 6 incorrect? 7~ A I don't recall how that deficiency was 8 discovered. 9 Q Let me-just stay with that for just a second 10 because you said that when you did your pipe break 11 cnalysic outside containment, you uculd confirm the 12 temperature of the ecuipment was cualified and that I saw
. 13 s the-ultimate process coming crcund.
But we're finding 320 - (_) 14 out Brpun & Root hadn't dono the pipe break -- I'r sorry,
- 15. pipe break analysic outside. containment, to my quection 16 is trying to get out how could they know then the 17 temperatures were right or wrong?
18 A They hadn't done it from a stress vieupoint. 19 But as you recall yesterday, I think it's mentioned in 20 the Quadrex report, NUS had analyzed a double ended break-21- in the IVC which was far more conservative than ue are 22- required by the HRC. And that could have, I'm not 23 absolutely sure, but that could have -- you know, why do 24_ that analysis. Uell, that would be to get the energy 25 release into that cubicle and therefore this temperatures l
- ()<m I' ATE REPORTIIG SERVICE, 498-8442
12848 1 and the humidity arrangements, and that could have been,
. y3 2' I'm not absolutely sure, that could have been the 3 analysis that resulted in that discovery of that 4 particular deficiency.
5 0 Once the Quadrex report was delivered to HL&P 6 and Brown & Root on May the 7th, were you responsible for 7 distributing that report to various people? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Do you remember how many copies you 10 distributed? 11 A "r. Stanley, delivered I think fif teen copies 12 to me. I can't recall hou many I distributed, or who 13 they ucre distributed to.
/m4
(_/ 14 0 Did irou make additionel copies to the fifteen? 15 A I can't -- cs I said, I can't recall uho I sent 16 them to or how many copies were sent out. 17 0 I am not -- I'm just taking about Mr. Stanley 18 delivered fifteen to_you-then do you go to the copy shop 19 and make ten more? That doesn't have to do with were 20 they go. 21 A I said before, I don't know how many I sent out 22 or who I gave them. So I don't know if it was more than 23 fifteen or less than fifteen. 24 Q I'm sure you think you're answering my 25 question. I'm not sure you are. C\
-p TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
i 12849 1 3b 1 A Try me again.
$-] 2 Without' consideration for how many you sent out O
3 or who you sent them to, when Mr. Stanley delivered the 4 report, did you have additional copies made for whatever j 5 reason? 6 A In what time frame, around this time frame? 7 0 Let's say May 8th, the next week, two weeks. 8 A I really can't recall. 9 -0 Okay. Here you given any instructions that you 10 .were to limit that, distribution to HL&P and Brown & Root 11 personnel? 12- A Limit in uhat sense? 13 Q Send it only to HLEP and 3rcun & Root personnel . s.s i () 14 as_ opposed to non-HLEP; non-Broun t: Rect i.ndividuals? 15 A My responcibility var distribution uithin HL&P. ] 16 0 Only, not nrcun Roon? 17 A I don't have responsibility for sending it to I 10 Brown & Root or anything. That has to go through the l 19 project manager. 20 Q Did you send copies to the management committee 21 of the project? l 22 A No, I did not. Again, I reiterate, my 23 responsibility was only for distribution within EL&P. 24 Uhat other copies were sent to other people outside that, 25 I had no responsibility for. () v TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12850 e 1 0 On the copies you sent out, did you include a 2 cover letter that e::plained what the report was? 3 A I really can't recall if I did or not. I'm 4 thinking about that, if that question -- that question's 5 be asked a few days earlier, and I can't recall if I 6 attached a cover memo to it or not. 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Dr. Sumpter, did you just 8 indicate that Mr. Robertson was the person who had 9 responsibility for distributing outside HL&P? 10 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't mean to imply that. 11 Tor instance, en tranrmittal cf documents to Ercun 12 Root, our procedure was that had to.So through HL&P's
,~
13 prcject managerm Mr. Barker.
~
s 14 JUPCE FFCFF0EFEP.: Okay. . 15 ?"E CIT"ESS: I'm not curc .'hc unc recponcible 16 for sending things to the manageren: committee, you know, 17 uithin ELEF. That may have been Mr. Barker; it may not 10 have. 19 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) In May, 1981, May 8th, 1981, 20 were you aware, Dr. Sumpter, of the obligation of a 21 construction permit holder under the rules of the NRC to 22 advise a licensing board of new information that could 23 affect the licensing board's decision on matters before 24 them? 25 A I'm generally aware of that requirement, yes.
'/
OATE RE?ORTING SERVICE, 498-0442 ) l l l
W 12851 r 1 Q Did you know it as the McGuire rule at that i 2 time? J' 3 A I may or may not have. I can't recall back 4 then if I knew it under that terminology. 5 0 And you have participated in preparing evidence 6 for various licensing hearings; is that correct? 7 A Some licensing hearings, yes. 8 0 Let me read a short list to you and you tell me 9 if you participated in preparing evidence for these 10 hearings. Lasalle I and II construction permit? 11 MR. GUTTERMA": I'm not rure we have an 12 'jndarstanding of what " preparing evidence for a licencing 13 hearings" neans. Obvicusly safety analysis reports come
; 14 .
in and there's a. lot of t,hings thet come into evidence in 15 proceedings. May be some rebiguity in the question. 15 0 (Ey Mr. Sinkin) Let te start by estcblishing 17 which licensing proceedings you may nave had a 18 professional relationship uith and then we'll get into 19 which professional relationship you had with other -- are 20 you following me? Okay. 21 MR. GUTTERMAli: I have one other objection to 22 this line of questioning, that's relevance. I can't see 23 uhat difference it makes. The uitness hes testified that 24 he was aware of the obligations of a -- well, I guess the 25 question was construction permit holder. I think the TATE REPORTII:G SERVICE, 498-8442
I l 12852 ( 1 obligation really goes to a party to the proceeding 2 ;ather than the licensees per se. But what difference it 3 makes, whether he was involved in the Lasalle proceeding 4 or some other proceeding seems beyond the scope of this 5 hearing to me. 6 11R. REIS : Mr. Chairman, in that connection I 7 vant to call your attention to the fact that Dr. Sumpter 8 started working for Houston Lighting & Power power in 9 1972; he was employed by Sargent & Lundy from October 10 1970 to August 1972. I'm not sure that it has any 11 probative value what he might have been doing in that two 12 year period or maybe even before that. 13 lin. sin"In,: Uell, let me cch thic one quec' tion (7 {} 14 and then we'll spe if it clicits anything. 15 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Have you at any time during 16 your involvement uith the nucicar inductry, uhon you were 17 working in utilitiec involved in nuclect power plcnts, 13 have you at any time had occasion to inform a licensing 19 board of neu infor=ation that could effect its decision 20 regarding matters under its review? 21 A You mean mycelf personally contact a licensing 22 board? 23 0 nell, you may have contacted them through an 24 attorney or otheruice, but you decided that here was come 25 new information that the licensing board needed to see. O TATE REPORTI:iG SERVICE, 498-8442
12853 f~' 1 A No, I have not. 2 HR. PIRFO: You have no recollection -- I'm 3 sorry. Pardon the interruption. 4 MR. SINKIN: You want to come over here and 5 join me on cross? 6 MR. PIHFO: It just seemed a natural follow up. l l 7 I'm sorry, I apologize. 8 THE 17ITUESS : "No" means I have no 9 recollection. 10 !!R. PIRFO: I didn't finish my question. 11 I'R . SI"MI": I'd be her77 te interrupt ry crets 12 if -- never mind. 1
*13 0 (Ey !:r. Sinkin) Did you at any time in the lh 14- Aoril 1981, Hey 1931, June 19T1, that eeriod. 616 yhu at l 1
15 any time 6iscuss with attorneys for Houston Lighting & 10 'ower whether the Guadre:. report should be given to the 17 URC L:aff? 18 A To the best of my recollection, no, I did not. 19 0 Did you at any time discuss with the attorneys 20 for Houston Lighting & Power in that same time frame, 21 whether the Outdre:: report should be given to the 22 licensing board. 23 A Do, I did not. 24 0 Did you discuss with "r. Goldgerg whether 25 Quadrex vould be given to the licensing board? m TATE R: PORTING SERVICC, 490-0442
12854 ( () r 1 A Ilo; to the best of my recollection, I did not. . i
'l 2 Q Did you discuss with anyone else in that time 3 period whether the Quadrex report should be turned over .
to the licensing board? ! 4 5 A To the best of my recollection, I did not . 6 discuss -- have that discussion with anyone. 7 0 Did it ever cross your mind that the licensing i 8- < board should see the Quadrex report? 9 A I can't recall, you know, sitting down and 10 thinking about.doing an analysis about that particular. 11 subject. 12 Licensing ues no longer ry recronribility, so 13 that really vasn't uhat I ucc primarily interested in or C (} 14 vorhing on in those days. 15 0 Uhose responsibility was licensing? 1G A :*r. Robertson'c. 17 0 Ovcrall, did you find, be.ced on the Quadrex 18 study that was done that you participated in, that Brown l 19 & Root had an understanding of the significant nuclear l 20 engineering technical issues of then current concern in j l
. 21 the industry? l l
22 A Just an understanding? 23 0 An adequate understanding. 24 A Adequate understanding. 25 0 Thank you. l l TATE REPORTI!iG SERVICE, 498-8442 L
.o 12855 IID 1 A I don't know if I can put a adjective on that, Q 2 on adequacy. The understanding I had was certair.ly.not 3 resulting in the production of inadequate designs as far r -
l 4 as meeting NRC requirements. It was clear that Brown & t p 5 noot certainly, in my view, needed some more experience, 6 and perhaps some more sophistication in their analytical j 7 methods, design methods. But there was no indication 8 that they were major inadequacies in the way they were 9 approaching things. 10 0 Overall, based on your participation in the I 11- Quadre:: study, did you find that Brown & Root understood l 12 the task before them in ne nuclear design and 1 13 engineering area? l
) '14 ?. -
That's c prett'j brecd quc tion relctive to 15 " understood the task." l l 1G Q S::cuse me, I am seeking your sort of overall l 17 view. 10 A I don't think that Brown & Root understood the 19 task relative tc hou they were going to complete this 20 project, particularly from a schedular viewpoint. I 21 think Mr. Saltare11i was bringing on some people on to 22 the project that were more experienced than those that 23 were presently there who certainly had an understanding 24 of the technical task before them. 25 But at this point in tine, it wasn't clear from
.O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 493-8442
12856
/ ; 1 a management viewpoint that they understood how to get R ,)
2 from hear to the end of the job. 3 Q To get from here to the end of the job sounds 4 to me like a planning function. Overall, did the Quadrex 5 report indicate to you that Brown.E Root was adequately 6 ' planning its design activities? 7 A I don't think Quadrex drew any conclusions 8 relative to planning. They just made observations that 9 things were not done; they didn't conclude why. 10 0 Okay. Let me rephrase the question a little 11 . bit. Based on your participation in the Quadrex study, 12 was in your view that Brown & Root was adequately 13 planning their activities? _,p; ( )y_ 1/. J. I did not c::picre and :' . ro:117 not en 'o::p rt 15 in' the area of scheduling nuclear projects. I guess ny 16 conclusion uculd be if the job isn't being done then it 17 should be, then it's not being planned correctly. 18 That's, you know, that's as far as I can go. You know, 19 I'm not an expert in scheduling out nuclear projects. 20 0 Overall, did your participation in the Quadrex 21 report indicate to you that Brown & Root was carrying out
.$ 22 an adequately controlled design process?
- 2.3 A Controlled f rom an Appendix B conte::t, yes. In 24 my view, they were carrying out an adequately controlled 25 engineering process.
TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 498-0442
L 1 l 12857
/5 1 O Outside the Appendix B conte::t, did you feel V
2 they were adequately controlling the design process. 3 MR. REIS: IIr. Chairman, -- I object do the 4 question on relevance. Can I continue? We are here 5 looking at things that the NRC controls and regulates. 1 6 Unless it's tied to some other matter within the l l 7 regulatory scheme, I don't think the question is proper. l 8 If it is asking, for instance, for non-safety related 9 equipment, whether the administrative building it STP 10 which might have general offices not of a safety related 11 kind, are'being adequately -- the building of ther is 12 adequately controlled, or other matters, it's not g - .13 relevant to this proceeding. I just think the question - i ) k/ 14 is :..uch toc br oad. And therefore I object to the 15 question. 16 HR. SIMEID: Mc11, Mr. Chairman, the witness 17 indicated to me, by hit ansuor, there were come areas he 18 thought were not adequately controlled, perhaps. I 19 uanted to find out what those areas were and that would 20 enlighten me as to the witness' application of Appendix B
~
21 to this project. 22 MR. GUTTERIIAN: Ir. Chairman, it seems to me 23 the question was " Hell, you told me there's nothing 24 relevant that you have to say, now tell me everything's 25 that's irrelevant so I can tell uhether you have a scod A () TATE REPORTING SCRVICE, 498-8442
[ 12858 [. C'j
~
1 sense of what's relevant or not." That seems outside the
. (.s .
2 bounds, to.me. 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, would you be willing 4 to limit your question to safety related engineering? 5 HR. SINKIN: I'll withdraw the question, Mr. 6 Chairman, effectively destroyed anyway. 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, the reason I mentioned 8 safety related, that may go beyond Appendix B, may or may
-9 not. .
10 MR. SINKIN: Ue will try that. 11 JUDGE EECEEOEFER: Important te safety or 12 cafety related. 13 HR. REIS: That's fine.
?
k_J 14- 0 (Ey *:r. Sinkin) Lct no try that. Er. Sumpter, 15 vere there areas to be addressed by the Brown & Root 16 design and engineering program including all 17 subcontractors, that you found vere not adequately 18 controlled and were Either safety related or important to 19 safety? 20 A Ho. That's what my previous answer meant to
. 21 cover.
22 0 Averall, did y'our participation in the Quadrex 23 report review indicate to you that Brown & Root was 24 conducting its design process in an orderly manner? I 25 A The answer to that question again I have to put
/'T Q) l TATE REPORTIMG SERVICE, 498-8442 l
1
. 12859 g',y y l' " orderly," you know, it can have many variety of v
2 definitions. " Orderly" in the context as mentioned I 3 guess in N45211, and the answer to that is yes, they were 4 conducting-their engineering design in an orderly 5 process. 6 Q Between the time EL&P received the Quadrex 7 report and the announcement of Brown & Root's removal 8 from the project, were there significant changes in Brown 9 & Root's engineering program? 10 A You what do you mean by significant changes.
. 11- 0 Changes that uould fundamental chances, real 12 changes, that uculd influence your view of their work?
13 A I really can't answer that, I wac -not over on
~
('N (-) 14 the prcject interfacing uith Drc/n 0 ncot en a daily 15 basis. My only interface with Brown & Root in that time 16 frame, other than normal interaction with my staff, uns 17 ceristing in developing their response to Quadren. 18- So I don't know if I -- I really can't answer 19 overall if there was some fundamental basic changes going 20 on over there. 21 Q Let me just clarify your role in the Quadrex 22 review. You vere the coordinator -- 23 A Yes. 24 0 -- for EL&P. You vould attend the meetings 25 between HL&P and Quadren. There uas some briefings. (3 L.) y. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12860 k... 1 A Yes.
'# 2' .You would attend -- you attended at least one Q
3 meeting were Brown & Root was~present, HL&P was present, 4 perhaps through you; Quadrex was present and there was an 5 _ effort to define how Brown & Root would answer questions 6 posed by Quadrex? 7_ A 'Yes, I think I attenced almost all of those 8 meetings,.in February. 9i .0 All of those kind of meetings? . 10 A Uh-huh. 11 Q I guess the nent level of detailed involvement 12 wpuld be when the reviewers started sitting there looking 13 ct what' Brown & Roct_had'sent; were ycu crer side by side f(~)
%./
14 with-the Quadren people while they were actually looking
~
15' at material sent by Brcun & Root? 16 A Let me explain uhat happened. He would come.in 17 in the morning and Brcun & Rect would go thrcugh their
'18 answers to the questions. And I was there, some of my 19 staff was there, Quadrex people was there and Brown &
20 Root staff was there. 21 Brown & Root would then present some of there 22 documents. He made all, at that time, cursorily go 23 through'all those; 1ater on in the day, there were 24 instances when a Quadren reviewer and a Brown & Root 25 individual may go off and look at some ec1culation. O
%J TATE REPORTIIG SERVICE, 498-8442
I 12861
~ <~.
pq 1 ne generally agreed on an approach that in s 1 -
'2 order to save duplicating costs and to help speed Quadrex 3 going through a calculation, we weren't just going to 4 send them a calculation and not have someone from Brown &
5 Root there to help lead them through it. 6 So we greed that all that kind of review as 7 much as we could do would be done in Brown & Root's 8 offices. So there were instances were a Quadrex 9 individual and a Brown & Root individual would go off 10 somewhere by themselves and go through auto calculation 11 or a drawing;.I was present at some of those but 12 certainly not all of them. 13 0 Dr. Sumpter, I'm going to show you what I ank g ~. 7 R( 14 .be raarhed as CCAiiP 98? 15 JUDGE BECHEOEFER: Mr. Sinkin, I was going to 15 ask you uhat vould be a good time for a morning break. 17 HR. SIMEIM: As soon as I in: reduce this. 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. 19 (CCAMP Exhibit 98 marked 20 .for identification.) 21 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) And ask you if you recognize 22 this document. 23 Uhat is this document, Dr. Sumpter? 24 A This appears to be a copy of the statement
.25 taken down by Mr. Driskill from the nuclear Regulatory w
TATE REPORTIliG SERVICE, 498-8442
12862 r~
- ~ - 1 Commission on February 10th, 1982.
t 2 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, I would move CCAMP 3 98 into evidence. 4 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, I have one question on 5 voir dire. 6 Dr. Sumpter, did you -- 7 you signed this report, right? This statement? 8 MR. SINKIN: The last page, Dr. Sumpter. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 MR. REIS: And this is the statement you 11 signed? 12 TEE '?ITNESS : Thir is a copy.
. 13 ;:R. REIS: The original that you sigacd, did it have C
/2' ' 14 stamp " confidential" on the top of each page? 15 THE WITNESS: No, I don't think it did. 16 ::R. REIS: Okay. tith the understanding that 17 when he signed it, did it not have the etamp l 18 " confidential," I have no objection. 19 HR. SINKIH: Fine. 20 HR. GUTTERMAN: With the same understanding, 21 Applicants have no objection. 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. CCAUP 98 will be 23 admitted into evidence, I guess without the 24 "confidentic1" stamp. 25
,m i ;
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 l
12863 v k , 1 (CCANP Exhibit No. 98 admitted J
~'
2 into evidence.) 3 MR. SIUKIN: This is good time for a break, Mr. 4 Chairman. 5 (Recess.) 6 (No Hiatus.) 7 8 9 10 11 12 . 13
,(2x .
() 14 . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
,n 'q '
TATE REPORTIEG SERVICE, 498-8442
12864 1E2 . 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on the record.
~(~ v) 2- Q (By Mr. Sinkin) I just want to clarify one.
3 point, Dr. ' Swmpter. By.the time the questions from 4 .Quadrex were submitted to Brown & Root, were you 5 ' satisfied that the areas which you and Quadrex ,had 6 agreed would be covered were adequately reflected in the
~7 . questions?
8 A I think I can answer that only in the areas 9 that maybe . I was technically cognizant of. Other areas
=le where I was not an expert in, I had to rely on Quadrex' 11 judgment. ,_
,.. 12 .
Q As f ar as the areas in which you were - (s_,/ 13 technically cognizant, were you sati'sfied that the 14 questions submitted by Quadrex adequately covered what 15 you and Quadrex had agreed would be covered? 16 A I guess I'm having trouble with what you mean 17 by the word adequately. 18 Q Did the questions. adequately reflect what you 19 wanted Quadrex to evaluate in the Brown & Root program? 20 A Yes, I think they would cover those areas. 21 There was a question in a discussion between myself and 22 Mr. Goldberg on whether they were too detailed. And 23 again, I think we made clear to Quadrex what we wanted 24 done in the review and we did not pursue that matter 25 with Quadrex. If they felt this was the kind of detail TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12865 'I 1 they needed, then so be it. 2 MR. SINKIN: That concludes my 3 cross-examination of Dr. Sumpter. 4 MR. PIRFO: Just a few questions, Mr. 5 Chai rman. 6 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Cont'd) B BY MR. PIRPO: 9 Q Dr. Sumpter, you used the term nuclear 10 analysis capability in your testimony. Could you define 11 that phrase for me? g ' 12 A On nuclear analysis -- let me take first 13 nuclear analysis as a' discipline. 14 It is in my view analysis that deals with 15 areas that are uniquely nuclear and priruarily result or 16 deal in calculations concerning accidents, pressure 17 temperature transients, transients in the plant, 18 radiological calculationss, those types of things. 19 Q Is that the same way you understand that 20 Quadrex used the terms? 21 A Yes. When we defined the discipline of 22 nuclear analysis, those are the types of areas we were 23 looking at. 24 Q To the best of your understanding, is that the 25 same way Mr. Goldberg used it in his testimony? TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12866 (~ 1 A Gee, I'd have to go back and look. 2 Q You might refer to page 4 of Mr. Goldberg's 3 testimony if you have it in front of you. If not, I'd 4 be happy to give it to you. 5 A I've got a copy of his transmittal. 6 0 He uses the phrase at line 16, page 4. 7 A In this context he's talking about discussions 8 with his engineering staff which in the nuclear analysis 9 area was primarily my responsibility and my staff's 10 responsibility. So, in those conversations, that was 11 the area that we were discussing. 12 0 It's the same term? 13 A Same term, yes. 14 0 Okay. 15 What did you think the Quadrex report meant by 16 the phrace that it was not a well thought out and 17 consistent basis for design? 18 A Let me take a second and check the context of 19 that statement. 20 Q You can refer to I believe it's 3-8 of Quadrex 21 and f ollowing that. 22 A If you look at the following sentence, I think 23 it explains what Quadrex meant by that where they say m J 24 much of the plant design basis is rooted solely in 25 engineering j udgment and the rationale for this judgment TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12867 (2l 1 has not been documented in a retrievable manner. In
~
2 other words, when Quadrex would look at the calculation 3 and there would be an input assumption, let's say, 4 normally in a calculation when you make an assumption 5 you indicate the basis for that assumption, either I got 6 it, this is a piece of input data from somewhere else 7 and here's the reference or this is why I'm making this 8 assumption. And it's perfectly permitted to indicate 9 this is my engineering j udgment as to what this 10 assumption ought to be. 11 And the question is if that person is no g7 12 longer with the company and you see a calculation and
) '
13 you question an assu::.ption, it just says engineering 14 judgment and you say, well, I don't agree with that 15 judgment, I wender what the first person was talking 16 about, I think that was the type of things Quadrex was 17 doing here. 18 Now, the Brown & Root approach, there was 19 nothing wrong with that. That's what's done in the 20 industry. If you are an engineer expert in that area, 21 someone makes an assumption he says is an engineering 22 judgment, you usually, since you are knowledgeable in 23 that area, have an understanding of that assumption and o (I 24 probably a good idea of what the judgment was. 25 0 You said in response to one of Mr. Sinkin's TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12868 [ 1 questions that given that phrase or that statement by 2 Quadrex, it does not necessarily follow that the parts 3 won't fit. Could you explain why that does not 4 necessarily follow? 5 A Well, in the context of Quadrex stating here 6 that much of the plant design basis is rooted solely in 7 engineering j udgment. If that judgment is a sound 8 judgment, then we shouldn't have any difficulties in any 9 aspects of the design, including the adequacy of 10 individual components and the adequacy of how well they 11 fit together. -, 12 Q Okay. Now, turning your focus to wh'en you c 3 13 received copies of the Quadrex report, were these copies 14 numbered to keep track of the number of copies you 15 received? 16 A I don't believe they were. 17 0 Was there any notation or direction on their 18 cover restricting distribution thereof ? 19 A From Quadrex to us? 20 Q Either. 21 A Quadrex had no markings like that and Houston 22 Lighting & Power Company didn't stamp these confidential 23 or anything like that. 24 Q Were you directed in any way to restrict 25 distribution orally? TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12869
- 61) 1 A No. I may have had discussions with Mr.
(v) 2 Goldberg on -- remember again my responsibility was only 3 within HL&P. 4 Q I understand. 5 A And I may have had discussions with him as to 6 who we would route it to in EL&P as f ar as who needed 7 this information for the conduct of their job. 8 Q But you were not directed to -- 9 A I wasn't directed to not send it to, you know, 10 anyone. 11 Q Okay. Now, turning to the point at which I , , , .. 12 surreptitiously interrupted Mr. Sinkin's 13 cross-examination, you testified that you didn't -- that 14 no information you provided to your attorneys was 15- supplied to any licensing Board that you know of. Now, 16 do you know for a f act it was not supplied or do you 17 know -- you simply don't know whether it was supplied? 18 You do not know for a f act that it was supplied? Did 19 you f ollow that? 20 MR. GUTTERMAN: I'm not sure the
- 21. characterization of the testimony is accurate.
22 Q (By Mr. Pirfo) Let me start again. 23 In response to a question from Mr. Sinkin, you 24 said that you never provided information to a licensing 25 Board. I believe that was your testimony. TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12878 (U 1 A Yes, he -- y{J
\-
2 Q Under McGuire. 3 A Be asked me that question and I asked him back 4 did he mean have I personally contacted a licensing 5 Board or I believe contacted an attorney to give 6 information to a Board. 7 Q That's right. 8 A And my answer to that was no. 9 Q Right. So, you were not the moving force in 10 any of those cases. But, now, do you know for a f act 11 that something an attorney asked for might have been 12 provided to a. licensing Board? 7. 7~
\_- '
13 Let me ask it this way. Is it possible an 14 attorney would have asked something f rom you that he 15 would have provided to a licensing Board? 16 A Well, I've reviewed testimony that's been 17 presented to licensing boards. 18 Q No, I'm thinking of something under the 19 McGuire document, something that -- what I'm getting at, 20 you would not necessarily know if an attorney needed 21 some information that he felt was important to the Board 22 under McGuire. He would have simply asked you for the 23 inf ormation, you would not have known what he was doing () 24 with it? 25 A Oh, yeah, no attorney has ever come to me and TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 l
12871 ($1 1 said because of the McGuire Rule or something like that V3 : 2 I need to supply inf ormation to a board, can you give it 3 to me. That's never happened. 4 Q Precisely. 5 MR. PIRFO: That's all the questions I have. 6 JUDGE SHON: I only have about two questions. 7 8 BOARD EXAMINATION 9 BY JUDGE SHON: 10 0 Dr. Sumpter, if you'would look at what has 11 been marked CCANP 94 and 95.
- 12 A Okay.
n J 13 Q They have to do with the erroneous use of this 14 3.3 -- 15 A Yes, sir. 16 0 And one of them is the Incident Review 17 Committee meeting concerning this, that's number 95, the 18 report on it by Mr. Powell; is that right? 19 A Yes, that's correct. 20 Q Is this typical of the kind of information 21 that goes into the files on something that the IRC looks 22 at and that it then decides is not r epor table, for 23 example? Does the IRC do this much for things that are n! 24 not reportable as a rule? 25 A Yes. Our procedure at that time required that TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12872
,[70; 1 the 'IRC document its deliberations, both if it decided T') 2 something was reportable and if it decided something was 3 not. So, yes, this is typical.
4 Q I just wanted to make sure that this sort of 5 thing is typical. 6 A Yes. 7 0 It's a readily retrievable thing in the form 8 of a report or a memo or something like that? 9 A Yes, that's correct. 10 0 The other question that arose in the course of 11 Mr. Sinkin's cross-examination concerns the fact that ,
- 12 these auxiliary feedwater pumps in the IVC were not h
13 qualified f or suf ficiently high temperature. 14 A Uh-huh. 15 Q He reemed to be attempting to elicit f rem you 16 the notion that this mistake, error occurred because 17 things were done out of sequence. 18 I got the impression -- first of all, I'm of 19 the impression that normally when you're conf ronted with 20 a. situation like this, no analysis has been done, you 21 use a number for design pu'rposes and for specification 22 purposes that is very conservative. In this case you
- 23 probably would have used a very high temperature; is l
/~]
t_- 24 that right? You would have hoped to use a higher 25 tempe rature? TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12873 (2( 1 A Oh, yes, that 's correct.
)
2 Q In this case that was done, but it later 3 turned out, as I understood your testimony, that that 4 high temperature was not high enough, it should have 5 been higher; is that right? 6 A That's correct. 7 Q Then the error it seems was made by the person 8 that selected the temperature on a preliminary basis and 9 did not select a high enough temperature; is that right? 10 A That's correct. The temperatures around the 11 plant were selected initially in 1973-1974. And the man 12 who made those selections had come from another , fyi 13 architect engineering firm and I knew him and 'he was -- 14 you know, he was an experienced design engineer and he 15 selected those temperatures. 16 The agreement with the NRC as to how to treat 17 a break in this cubicle was not reached until 1975 when 18 we were having discussions on closing out everything 19 having to do with the construction permit. So, that was 20 after that fact. 21 So, you're correct, that's a logical sequence 22 and the error was made by the person who selected the 23 temperatures initially.
,y
(_ ) 24 Q Had he not made that error, it wouldn ' t have 25 mattered that you didn't have the actual data until TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12874 62 I later? If he picked a high enough temperature, b;. 2 everything would have been okay; is that right? 3 A If he had picked a high enough temperature, it 4 would have not have been a deficiency, that's correct. 5 Q Tha.nk you. 6 JUDGE SHON: That's all I have. 7 Q (By Judge Lamb) Dr. Sumpter, following 8 further on Judge Shon's question about CCANP 94 and 95. 9 A Okay. 10 0 Is my understanding correct that this type of 11 documentation was not provided with respect to the items ,.. 12 in the Quadrex report? - \' 13 A Oh, you mean as far as a detailed -- 14 Q Right. 15 A -- memo f rom the IRC? 16 0 Yes. 17 A Not in this form. We did have the Quadrex 18 report and we did have the Brown & Root response which 19 included all the sheets. And in most cases, those 20 sheets contained a rationale as to why the item was not 21 reportable, which is really the function of these 22 documents, what are the facts behind the situation and 23 what is the decision of the IRC as to whether it's k 24 reportable or not. 25 0 Did those sheets contain a rationale f or each TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12875 62L 1 item in the Quadrex report?
- t. )
2 A I think in general -- there may have been a 3 couple of sheets that did not, but in general every 4 sheet had a rationale written at the bottom as to why it 5 was not repor table. 6 0 Were those other items in the Quadrex report 7 referred to the IRC, that is the ones that were viewed 8 by you and others who met with you as being 9 non-repor table? 10 A Can you clarify what you mean by referred to 11 the IRC? . _ 12 0 Okay. You and Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Robertson,
- y. , ,
> i 13 as I unders*tand it, met and decided that there were 14 three items which were reportable.
15 A Right. 16 0 And that the remainder were not r epor table. 17 A Yes. 18 0 were those items referred to the IRC for 19 investigation? 20 A No, they were not. 21 Q Was that in line with the customary procedure 22 for handling items of that type? 23 A Well, I guess I'll try to answer that this o (, 24 way. Fyself, Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Robertson I guess 25 were acting as the IRC, perf orming that function on that TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12876 l l l d[ 1 day. And, so, we perf ormed the same role. We l 1 t x - 2 determined which was reportable and what was not , 3 repor table. 4 The IRC did go back and look at the items that 5 we did report. They did not go back and look at the 6 items we determined that were not reportable I guess 7 because we were the IRC, if you will, for that one day. 8 I don't know if I answered your question or 9 not. 10 0 Okay, I think you have. But in that instance 11 where the three of you served as the IRC f or this l
. 12 particular situation, did you provide similar
)
13 documentation for the items that were not reportable?
]
'14 A I think we relied primarily on the Brown &
15 Root documentation. 16 0 In other words, you adopted, if you will, th e 17 Brown & Root documentation? 18 A I don't want to imply that we took Brown & 19 Root's documentation as the sole record on that. It had 20 a major role in our decision since they had considerably 21 more inf ormation than we did. 22 0 What I'm wondering about is do you have a 23 paper trail that could be ref erred to which gives the 24 specific reasons why each item was considered 25 non-repor table? TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 l
12877 1 A Yes, I believe in almost all cases we have 3h)x i/ 2 that paper trail documentation that's equivalent to what 3 the function or purpose of these documer.ts are, yes. 4 Q Now, what -- did_the three of you prepare that 5 documentation? 6 A No, the documentation I am ref erring to is -- 7 we have the Quadrex report which contains the 8 inf ormation which is sort of equivalent to maybe Mr. 9 Poole's memo and we also had Brown & Root's,inf ormation 10 which ' also has inf ormation in it partly that's 11 equivalent to what's in Mr. Poole's and Mr. Powell's 12 memos. And then we had the blocks that Brown & Root , 9 , , k%l 13 checked f or reportability which is a decision on 14 reportability which is similar to the inf ormation found 15 in Mr. Powell's memo. And we have the record f or those 16 items where we disagreed with Brown & Root, those were 17 reported to the NRC. So, I think we have, if you will, 18 all the paper that's sort of equivalent to what's here. 19 0 Do you have, though, the paper that documents 20 the reasons beyond Brown & Root that you ref erred to a 21 few minutes ago? You indicated a few minutes ago that l 22 there were reasons in addition to those cited by Brown & 23 Root that the three of you considered and which resulted l O) (_ 24 in your decision that it was not r epor tabl e. I'm l 25 wondering if you have documentation of that? TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12878 621 1 A Let me answer it this way. If the Brown & 2 Root reason was suf ficient, then that's the 3 documentation we have. But if we had additional reasons 4 that would also add onto that -- I didn't take any 5 notes of the meeting. Mr. Goldberg may have -- was 6 writing stuf f down on the Brown & Root sheets, but I 7 don't know if that document still exists or not and I'm 8 not -- I don' t know if Mr. Robertson kept notes at that 9 particular meeting. 10 Q Now, with respect to how much of the Quadrex 11 report should have been or should not have been reported } .. 12 to NRC under 50.55 (e), you were part of that decision 13 making process, I gather; is that correct? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Who actually ecde the decision, the final 16 decision with respect to those matters? 17 A On what would be reported to the NRC? 18 0 What would be and what would not be. 19 A The only reason I'm hesitating, I guess -- we 20 had discussions on each issue and pretty much reached a 21 consensus. So, there wasn't a need for someone to say, 22 well, I'm going to make the decision. You know, that 23 usually occurs when there is perhaps different views. s i 24 So, we all reached a consensus and I guess, 25 you know, in the final analysis Mr. Goldberg was the one TATE REPORTI!;G (713) 498-8442
<1 12879 (II: 1 who the responsibility ultimately rested with. But we '(_)
2 were in consensus, we agreed, so let's call the NRC. 3 Q In other words, you agree fully with each on 4 those decisions? 5 A Yes. There weren't any of these decisions 6 when we got done as far as I can recall that there was 7 a, if you will, a dissenting vote. 8 Q Either on the ones that you reported or the 9 ones that you did not report? le A Yes, in either case, that's correct. 11 Q Do you feel that the items discussed in the 12 7sm Quadrex report amounted to a breakdown in QA7 ( ) . 13 A No, I did do not. 14 Q What else -- 15 A As f ar as an overall view. There were two 16 items -- we did report on computer codes and shielding 17 we viewed as a breakdown in QA, yes. I 18 Q Well, what I had in mind was with respect to 19 the question of submitting the entire report as a 20 breakdown in QA. 21 A No, I don't believe that the report indicated 22 that. 23 Q What would be needed in your view in addition es h 24 in order to make you believe that? In other words, what j 25 elements were missing in the pattern that led you to i [ TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12880
#" I conclude that it was not a breakdown?
i 2 A I think there are several types of scenarios 3 that could have arisen where we may have reported the 4 whole report. One would be that there were a number of 5 deficiencies that we felt were reportable that indicated 6 there was a problem, a common problem in a large number 7 of grcups, more than just one group, let's say like 8 HVAC, with that same set of deficiencies. There was a 9 common thread in them and that common thread was 10 appeering in three, four, five groups. That might be 11 one scenario.
-s 12 I think a- I can't give an' exact number, but I 13' think if we had a considerable number of reportable 14 items, and, you know, I can't say if it wac ten, twenty, 15 fifty er wh:tever, but if we juct h d a 1crge number end 16 even though we at that point in time couldn't identify 17 chat, there may be a common cause which may indicate a 18 breakdown in QA comcwhere, but there were just by the 19 shear volume a large number, we may have reported the 20 whole report.
21 And, like I say, I can't say how many or it 22 depends on what type they were, how significant they 23 were and how many there were. It 's a number of ( l c 24 combination of f actors that would have to go into that 25 type of evaluation. But that would be another cconario. 9888 985@D8889B 1783) 498-8002
l 12881 fEj 1 I think the third type of scenario would be if
- s_/
2 I had some reportable items, and there may not be a very ; 3 large number, but we were able to identify that their 4 cause was af f ecting -- their cause may -- the , l 5 significance of those items may be so large that the j 6 ramifications could af f ect many groups. In other words, t 7 there may only be a couple, but the ramifications of 8 those were so significant that we really didn't have .an 9 idea how far that permeated into the organization and le how widespread it was. I think that would be the third l 11 scenario where we may have considered reporting the 12 whole report. 13 0 Was the question of reporting the entire 14 report discussed by the three of you? 15 A As best I can recollect, Mr. Robertron and I i 16 on May 7th, and I'm not sure if it was in the af ternoon 17 or the evening, sometime during the meeting with Brown & i 18 Root, as we were going through this ourselves and 19 listening to the information we were getting, did raise 28 the question among the two of us whether we should 21 report this whole report, is there a potential for that. 22 By the time we met with Mr. Goldberg the next 23 morning on May 8th, and both of us had I think probably
- 24 stayed up f airly late going through the whole report, we 25 both discussed it, Mr. Robertson and I, and we may have l
l TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 i
12882 ) 1 discussed it in Mr. Goldberg's presence, I can't recall, 2 but we had concluded that even though we hadn't done a 3 reportability review, there did not appear to us to be 4 any significant widespread design flaw in Brown & Root's 5 design engineering that would necessitate that the whole 6 report would go in, you know, just from that context. 7 And then af ter we had done our reportability 8 review on the afternoon of May 8th, I can't recall that 9 we, pe r se , had a conversation in the meeting along the 10 lines of what about the whole report type of thing. I 11 think in our own minds the conditions and the items we 12 discussed had not reached a level, a threshold level, if 13 you will, where that thought was any longer present in 14 our mind. We had determined earlier in the morning it 15 didn't appear to be cny majer reason to turn in the 16 whole repor t, and then in the afternoon after we'd gone 17 through all the items under additional types of 18 consideration, it didn't appear to be the case either. 19 0 To your knowledge, did the NRC staff at any 20 time suggest that it should have been reported? 21 A The only way I know that is through -- I don't 22 know if this is called hearsay or what. I was aware 23 that that conversation took place I guess in September 3 24 or August. 25 Q This was not mentioned to you? TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12883 [k 1 A It may have been. I was not present at the 2 meeting, so it wasn't a direct conversation. I was
)
3 never in any meetings where it was mentioned to me 4 directly that the NRC had made that request. 5 0 And they didn't make the request of you? 6 A No, they did not make it of me. 7 0 Do you feel now that the report should have 8 been submitted as a QA breakdown? 9 A No, I have never -- I have not changed my mind le over the intervening years that our interpretation of 11 this report was not correct. That, in fact, it did not
,. 12 indicate there was a 05 breakdown in Brown & Root's l
\.
. 1 13 design control. 14 0 Now, tl e three items that were reporte'd under 15 50.55(e) came to your attention in your meetings with l l 16 Quadrex and discussions with them and B&R Defore the 17 report was finally issued; is that correct? I 18 A Yeah, there were discussions on those areas. 19 The -- go ahead. 20 0 What I'd like to ask you is why you didn't 21 initiate the IRC procedure with respect to those 22 questions before the report was finalized? 23 A We had experts in each of these areas from l n () 24 Quadrex. They had some inf ormation. They had -- they 25 went back to Calif ornia and they were looking at a lot TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
0 12884 ([g 1 of inf ormation in detail that I did not have access or I i
'O 2 had access to it, but I didn't look at it, and they were 3 evaluating the significance of that information.
4 So, if you will, all during these meetings, 5 once the Quadrex reviewer went back to California, I 6 really was not in contact with them insof ar as what they 7 were concluding and really didn't even know there was a 8 deficiency. There were indications and observations of 9 this and that, but where Quadrex was really valuable to 10 Houston Lighting & Power was their ability to look at l 11 that infQrmation and determine its meaning and its l 12 significance. And I did not get that feedback, you l l 13 know, during all of March because they were back in 1 14 Calif ornia working on that. 15 During a large part of April they were still 16 receiving documents f rom Brown & Root and still 17 undergoing this evaluation. I did start in about 18 mid-April to -- I started to review the questions and 19 answers and assessments. But again, those were just 20 initial assessments. And putting together of all those 21 assessments and drawing conclusions and the significance 22 of that was what was discussed in volume 1. And I -- 23 you know, I didn't have access to that either. Until () 24 really the day we got the report is the first time I saw 25 all of it put together as to how Quadrex viewed TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12885 d22 1 everything, particularly relative to its significance
'# 2 and any conclusions they drew that this information 3 indicated either I did or did not have a problem type of 4 thing.
5 In the one case I did mention, that was so 6 obvious, you know. I did not f ollow-up to see if our 7 IRC ever met on that or not because I didn't know if we
. 8 had a deficiency. I just had an identification that a 9 number used in a Brown & Root spec was not the number 10 called f or in the code. That's not a deficiency until I 11 find out if the actual stress calculated is more than ,. . 12 that. If 'it's not more than' that, then there's not even v+
13 a deficiency, it's just a wrong number in the code. And 14 when I asked Brown & Root to look at that, the 15 individual came back and said we' re below that value, so 16 it wasn't even a deficiency. And I wasn ' t aware, I 17 guess, until sometime af ter Quadrex that the IRC had l 18 even gone through with their full procedure in looking 19 at that. 20 Q Were you a participant in the HL&P decision 21 not to submit the Quadrex report to NRC for their 22 information? 23 A ; was present when dialogue was held on some P) (_ 24 of that, but I was not asked my view on whether we ought q l 25 to do that or not. Mr. Goldberg asked me did we { t TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 !
12886 fyf 1 routinely send these types of reports to the NRC and he U 2 indicated to me that he would probably not gratuitously 3 send it to the NRC. But I wasn't asked my opinion on 4 that, he made that decision.
-5 Q So, this was not your decision?
6 A No, it was not. 7 Q Did you agree with that decision? 8 A Did I agree with that decision? I didn't have J 9 any problem with it. I didn't feel -- I didn't disagree 10 with it to the extent that I was going to challenge Mr. 11- Goldberg, you know. If he makes a decision and I'm
.. 12 comf ortable with that decision, .okay, we'll do it that
. (,: .
\
. 13 way. Sometimes he -- in many cases he may make a 14 decision based on information that, you know, I'm not l l
15 privy to, I may not understand why he made it. But in 16 this case I was comfortable with that decision. 17 (No hiatus.) 18-19 20 21 22 23 1( ) 24 25 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12887 F J~ < 1 Q Uith respect to turning the report over to this 2 Board, before September, were you part of that decision? 3 A I really wasn't involved in that at all. 4 Q You were not aware or were you aware that the 5 decision had been made on that? 6 A I really wasn't aware of any discussions or any 7 6ecisions made to either turn it over or not turn it over 2 to the Board at all? 9 Q Uere you aware that the URC staff either asked 10 or did not ask that it should be submitted? 11 A I'm cuare of che conversations that were held 12 in I think September, that it should be turned over. 13 0 Dut prict to chat -- ~ j 14 '
.. Prior to that, n. ,
15 Q During the period before September, before the 15 repcrt was turnce over to the Board, was there any effort 17 cr suggestien by cnyone in management cf HLGP that the 18 report should be treated as confidential or secret? 19 A It depends on how you define confidential and 20 secret. Normally, any consultant report we get is what I -- 21 is termed proprietary. In other nor6s, it's normally 22 kept uithin ELEP. And if the URC vould like a copy, they 23 can either come look at in it our office or they may 24 request that we send it to them. He don't send it out to 25 everybody in the world, if you vill. T'1at's the only vay
/ i TATE RE?ORTI"G SERVICE, 498-8442
12888 0s 1 we treated this report, that's the way we treat any
\s- )
2 report, or any memos we have within the company, are 3 pretty -- I consider what we call proprietary and we 4 don't send them out to everybody in the world. 5 0 Uhat I was really driving at is whether there 6 was any effort or any suggestion that the report should 7 be retained confidential or secret with respect to, let's 8 say, this Board? 9 A no. There was no -- as far as I'm aware, there 10 was no indications from anyone that we should keep this 11 secret, net, from the Bcard Or from the URO. 12 0 To what degree, to your knowledge, to whaa '
. 13 degree war Mr. Cprea involved in the decicion that the (Sq . '(_) li 00r d r e:: rer0rt Ohould nct 50 submitted in itr entirety (
15 under 50.55 (e) ? 16 A I uas net privy to any of the diccucciens with 17 nr. Goldberg or Mr. Oprea or -- 18 0 Did Mr. Oprea attend meetings in which this was 19 discussed? 20 A- Hot that I was at, no, he did not.
'21 0 And hou about other meetings; for es: ample, 22 questions relating to cubmitting the report to URC or 23 submitting it to this Board before September. Did you 24 have any interplay or are you aware of any involvement-25 with Mr. Oprea had in those decisions?
l
~~
(d-TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 4SS-8442 i
12889 fI 1 A Mo, I'm not personally, no.
~
2 JUDGE LAMB: Thank you. 3 0 (By Judge Bechhoefer) Dr. Sumpter, turn to 4 page 14 of your testimony. Line -- the first line. Does 5 your answer to question 27 indicate that prior to the 6 meetings that you had on May 7 and May 8, '81, the 7 decision already had been made not to furnish the entire 8 report to HRC under 55(e) ? 9 A Well, my answer meant, meant to indicate here, 10 that Mr. Goldberg indicated to me that we would not 11 gratuiteucly send the report to the UnC, cbviou:1y, if 12 because che report pointed out r.zjor deficiencies in cur 13 vieu th.at uculd nececcitare the entire' reporting to the e . i
) '4
. ""?, then .': '70uld hn 70 frne th:t. Put thf: 72 15 gratuitous, if you vill, connotation.
16 0 Se this wcsn': the -- well, shall uc ray, the 17 bacic foundation for ycur revieu en the 7th and Sth for la reportability. 19 A No. 20 Q You didn't say, "Uell, this isn't to be turned 21 over and let's justify it"? 22 A I think that's the context. If -- 23 0 Let's juctify not turn it over. 24 A Uell, start that again. I'o . 25 0 Uhen you vent into the meeting, did you have in t >
'%J TATO REPORTIUG SERVICE, 493-0442
12890 fk G-1 mind, you and the other members of the committee, that 2 you did not wish to turn the report over and you would 3 find reasons for not doing so? 4 A Ho. Definitely not. And as I indicated, in 5 fact, Mr. Robertson and I had that discussion I think on 6 Ilay 7th first, where we asked ourselves should we return 7 the.whole the report in because of what it was saying. 8 So ue were not, if you will, already prejudging 9 that no matter what ecme up, ve were not going to turn 10 this report in; definitely not.
~
11 C And thic indicatien frc "r. Gcidberg ut: 12 purely if it shculd be gratuitous? 13 A Yoc, th t:0 the centen: I understood it, th:t's . (~T . 4 (_) 14 cerrect. - 15 0 Pew, 'j et had some discucsion with Dr. Lamb 16 acout iteme which arcse prior to the 6el-ivery of the 17 Quadren report. Here you, at that time, in the spring of 18 1981, familiar with the ILE guidance on potential 19 reportability? 20 A Yes, I was. 21 O Uhat was your understanding of hou the -- when 22 I. rear to 14 day guidance, do you know what I'm talking 23 about? 24 A Yes, I do. 25 0 I could show you a copy if you uant?
/ 8 F %) .
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 490-8442
12891 fr: jL )i 1 A I know what you're talking about. 2 0 What was your understanding as to how that 14 3 day guidance was to be applied? 4 A My understanding was that -- I think they 5 delineated out in the chart in the back of that guidance, 6 that when you vent doun the tests of 50.55 (e) , and you 7 had determined that you had determined that there was a 8 deficiency, and you had determined let's say that it had 9 been released for construction and it uns significant, 10 but you needed time to do an evaluation to determine if 11 it could adversely affect the safety of operations of the 12 plant, and chat'c uhcre you had the 14 days to do that 13 evaluation, you may hive a deficiency.buc the question is O
\/ 14 ic that deficiency going te affc-et advsrrely the 15 operations of the plant.
16 That may take you so:ne time to do that. And 17 it's my understanding of that guidance uns that that'c 18 what the 14 day was, you know, roughly 14 days to do 19 that. If at the end of that time frame, you vere unable 20 to make a decision that it did or did not affect the 21 safety of operations of the plant, the IIRC then uanted 22 you to go ahead and call that in as a potential. 23 Of course if you decided it did not, then you 24 wouldn't call it in. But that -- they -- the uay I 25 . viewed that uas they were trying to, if you were going to
- ty)
TATI REPORTING SERVICS, 498-8442
12892 i i fr x 1. at least get a handle on problems that had the potential 4 s / 2 to be reportable but they were going to take you some 3 time to do the analysis to see if it would affect the 4 safety of the operations of the plant and they wanted to 5 . net let things drag out for six or nine months, you know, 6 while you were trying to perform this evaluation, so 7 that's my understanding of uhat the 14 days applied to. 8- 0 Now, at the your various contacts with Quadren 9 personnel prior to the final delivery of the report, did 10 you consider whether any of the creliminarv information,
- 11. if.you 'till, fell into that category?
12 A ::c, because uhat QuaGren, in all their 13 delibcrq icnc and evaluations was doing uct really firc: f r . (,x) 14 -i6cntif';f 7""" ether I e"br h?f ? faficiency. ? n6 I
.$ .c, .w--- . ..c
.- , u -2.-,,,,..-.,,..iw,.,.-.....e. e. w : e,
...--...e.u.4,.
- w. ,,. .. 4- -3 ...
. w e. .e : c If report came in. And the 14 daye doesn't apply to tha:. :
-. - - . - ~ c. . . . , , ,
, as ..
. .. .a. ,. .s.
..., v,.
..~.:....,. . ..u -
,.a:-.n.
s .n e e.,n ;. 18 that's the information that Quc6:en use rea,lly going to 19 be giving me in the final report as their conclusions
-20 from all their eveluations. Or at least they if they 21 didn't drau that conclusion, at least give me enough 22 information uhere I could drau a conclusion as to uhether z3 or not i even hau. cericency.
24 0 Hell, specifically, going to -- I'll just uce L 25 cne as an enample. , How do you look at Applicants' s. x,J TATE RE?CRTI"G SERVICE, 408-8442
12893 L-1 Enhibit 65? 2 MR. SINKIN: Would you identify that a little 3 further? 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: 65, it's the letter dated 5 Harch 16, 1981, from Mr. Stanley to Dr. Sumpter -- 6 MR. SINKIN: Oh, 7 JUDGE EECHHOEFER: -- on ALARA cuestions. O THE WITNESS: Okav.. 9 Q (Ey Judge Dechhoefer) As of the time you 10 received this letter, uhy would you think that this
._ .n...
euu w.
, . .c n. .- < . --.
_acu..w ,
..--.w
.2
. n u.
... .-,w.u -
vcc r w.u.
,.s, . 4 n. ,
A4 p[6cebk or CO(C) [ehorEad. 4r i
* *n
...e. v. a.. u n , . s..C . . g.wi 4
- i **
_ .SJ .e . . s . 4
?
t*. p
.e f4.J S B.N 1 . ., A 4.. e.,.v n e
. a.. j. , O .w. c.
w ..4 / s 1 .4
, . u n n.
- e. n ,n e.
. m. u. .. k. . e. . , ._i,n.n.6. 4. r. n. . .
1:
-. n. t. -2 o , . w-w3 T.,#-- e,'....
- - - k. e ,, c .s )j - ..'...
.; ..e
- s. wnw _i u- .m .
ci w . . . t u. c. .- 16 not '-hi6. that this le"ter, fOr iT'St*nce, UEr a It'aCor'
~3 r
. e. .r
.s=.>.4..,,.,
w
..... .c .~ . . . c r , . ', . a. . _ c . . ,. . .. ,
+
.... .: . ,. . . . e.. ... _,
18 to IRC, et cetera? 19 A As i e::plainec, traec ro enc. lain yesterc.a.v , as 20 far as ue were concerned, Brown & Root's ALARA revieu was 21 adequate in that they were doing uhat uns comuon or 22 norcal for nost of the rest of the industry. 23 Ue had nuc situations here; one, the design had 24 undergone a number of changes, and ALARA is a continuall.v 3O engoinc. orocess cecause as :ne tesir,n cnanges,
. 'ou need N.Y
. ;eMa S D I.sa C. O. S
*a M. T. *4 , e PT 7 7L,e ?s , .A O
. Q., O v *fr *;
A .". S w.s .C.J a .s V
12894 / "" 1 to relook again at the changed aspects for ALARA. 2 So at this point in time, there had been enough 3 changes going that had occurred in the plant that an 4 ALARA re-revieu vas going to be a major effort, that ucs 5 point one. G And Brown & Root uns going to need some 7 resource assistcnce to conduct that review in an o v e::pecitious manner. And discussions were underucy uith 9 Brown & Root for EL&? with its own staff of health 10 :hysicicts to sue.lY o that resource assistance.
-- .r . . caa:u
- - - . .t n . . , , c,..-..
. n.e n , e. c
-a-- u. e, ,.
c ,.- -. . . n. .,
, . , - -, c. w < a ,
- .,. v.c.
. . ..--.-e.:-- -..au.
. . . ..u.=
.. .-.a. . ..u.-
.: . - - . .a~--
e-.= 13 concidernbly, becture particularly as to the cperation cf le the plent for the nert 40 years. And te h?6 7ene c'n =nf 15 hired our cun hacith phyricic:c, ue'd given hir 16 responsioility for ALAEA. taost folks had not yet Gone as ,.-uu
<-m.
18 Ue had set up a whole progrcm uithin the 19 corporation for ALARA; we had an ALARA policy manual 20 signed by, I thinh, either Mr. Oprea or Mr. Goldberg, 21 that committed the corporation to ALARA in all phases of 22 desia.n cnc creration of not en1"
. 1 the nuclect rouer nlan:, - .
23 but alse our health physicc 1cboratories that ce were 24 going to have. 25 "e had then gone out and develcred uhat ue m,.
. r. A ...ve.-.U -' . d 1 b .s , a Jgv 2 *.
12895 7-I~ l called an ALARA design review manual; we looked at ALARA 2 as something that really had to be done basically by 3 every engineer who was designing a system that was in the 4 radioactive environment, that the health o.hvsicists could . 5 spot check things, but there was no way they had the 6 resources and they really weren't expert in designing, 7 let's sa.v, fluid s.ystems. 8 So the way a fluid system is laid out and uhat 9 type of valves are used and everythine- is reall.y 10 scrething that a -- a decision that's made by the design 11 cngineering and '.m necded to understand some bcsic 12 raJiacion effects, principals, so that he could do his 13 design in an ALLEA content, instead of health physicis'Cs
.- -,.4..,
- i. . i.
4....
...w ; *-.-...-.--,*...:.,
. . - -. , -u.
. . , . , . . , n e . , .,. , ,.r.. _,..a 15 tc de this; you nacd tc dc that." And thcn we havc to go 15s - - n i. -- ; s- u - . ,
n ,>-;.- e - e;6. aa.,. .
.s - w . s 6 . s. .e.'. 6. -r w m. % a
"' e. ...r a.*b. . .J b. e.re
. . . , e ..
r., -.
. ,.._~_4e.!....-
.nE-c.
18 expediticus if the design encineers understood ALARA and 19 put features in the design which would help minimize 20 exposure to people when they operated the plant. 91 _ So we c.eveloped a design review manual and a 22 videotaped training program and our plans were to give 23 that to every single engineer working in our shop and in 24 Broun E noot's and EEASCO's shop on Allens Creek. Anc 25 have them put that in their procedures so thtt ve voul'd V
-... .,.I. . . . .
.g
. _ . a - %. , ..aO6m ..
12896 1 get this ALARA sensitivity, if you will, deep down into
.s i i 2 the' design organization.
3 Ue were the first utility in the country that i 4 had developed that type of philosophy as far as 5 implementing; we were the first people that had a G training program, the first pecple that had this design 7 manual. EEASCO, Broun & Root, and even Eechtel today 8 .have incorporated that design manual in their procedures 0 -and our training program. And . int have also given that 10 design manual'and training program the to other 11 utilities. 12 90 when i::. Stan} ey revieved this 6esign uith 13 the Ouadren pacple, it va: clear that an ZiAR.T. rsticu rac
'f~Y 14 needed, Lo;ae cf the features ucra no ALT.2A boccacc they'd %)
15_ been changed and ue were still going through an ALARA 15 revicu. 17 Erou:. & Ecc:, in-cur vicu, ucs c little clou in 18 agreeing to adept what ue 1/ anted. And,.you know, I don't
.12 vant point the finger at Brown-& Root; ue were very 20 aggressive and pushing very1hard. And so Mr. Stanley'and 21 I talked to cur health physicists and the Brown & Root 22 health physicists; we were almost ready to commence this 23 big re-revieu uith ULLP essentially going on Brown &
24 Root's staff. 25 Mr. Stanley and I agreed that he rould urite ', rm
\s-)
r TATE REPORTI"C- SERVICE, 4EG-8442 L
12897 p. 1 this letter, and I would use this letter tb meet with m 2 Brown & Root and, if you will, give them the final push 3 from here's an outside party scying you ought to do this, 4 too. And we hope that that vould be the final push 5 needed to get Brown & Root to agree to undergo this 6 program. 7 In fact, we had that meeting, and Brown & Root 8 committed in their response back to us, to do everything 9 that ue thought was necessary. That's the conte::t of 10 this. I didn't view that, Brown & Root's ALARA program 11 was defective, deficient; it was neetint, at that tine, 12 nortc1 industry standards. . 13 Really we, from HL&P, were really pushing to l l R
) i
(/ 14 cae Ltste of the Ert, we were way beyona anybody else. 15 And all this letter was trying to do, an6 I reviewed it 16 before it was sent in, I agree vinh everything that was 17 in it, wcs to use it as a =cchtnism to get Croun a noot 18 to commit to what we wanted them to to. 19 And that's really the purpose of this letter. 20 Q Did the words " inconsistency in the conduct of 21 ALARA reviews," which I gather you urete, but did that 22 signify a deficiency, which should have ct least 23 triggered further specific revieu for reportability, or 24 at least triggered the 14-day period? 25 I'.n. SINKID : E::cuse me, nr. Chairman. I
.m '/ ,
OATE REPORTIliG SERVICE, 498-S442
12898 p yx4 1 believe you've quoted some words that Mr. Stanley wrote.
-Q, 2 JUDGE SECHHOEFER: Well, Dr. Sumpter-just said 3 he drafted the letter.
4 MR. SINKIN: -I see, p 5 THE WITNE'SS: No, no, I didn't mean to imply I 6 drafted the letter. I'm not -- I reviewed -- 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: You dictated -- 8 THE UITHESS: No, the 14 day period, again, in, 9 my mind, occurs once you've identified a deficiency and 10 that deficiency's been rel' eased for. construction. And 11 the 14 day period is used to determine whether that's 12 that'c going to afverrely affect the safety of the
. 13 ~ Operations of the plant. , .
/*
/. .
V'i 14 And this, in my mind, didn't indicate there uas 1 b - 15 a deficiency, only that-come cf the design had been 1G changad cnd it had not undergone the full ALARA revier 17 and so some of the parts of the plant had ALARA features 18 in it, some of them did not. 19 And I think whether Quadre:: looked at that, 20 well, they say that's inconsistent and the reason for the
. 21 inconstistency was the sequence in timing of the review; 22 part of the plant had been changed and hadn't undergone a 23 full ALARA revision; part had pretty much stayed the same 24 and it had already begun a full ALARA review. So it was i
- 25 _that type of conte
- :t.
. (.
TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 490-8442
12899 (.
-s, 1 (By Judge Bechhoefer) Well, in terms of a QA O
e 1 2 breakdown, would that -- could the 14 day period be used 3 for that, to see uhether there was a significant QA 4 breakdown? 5 A No, it was my understanding of that guidance 6 from the NRC that the 14 days applies to the time that 7 the licensee takes to determine if the. deficiency 8 represents something that will adversely affect the 9 safety of operations. 10 I don't take 14 days to determine if I had a OA 11 breakdown; I take 14 days to deternine if the deficiency 12 uculd cdvercely ffcet safety cf Operations. 13 That's the.vay I read and interpreted their
- f, 14 ouidance.'
~
v - 15 0 !!cw , do you interpret or 6c yce interrre the 15 inconstistency referred to here in terms of a OA 17 brc:hfern, leave eff cignifican: fer th2 rc=ent, cut is 18 that a type of QA breakdown? 19 A no, I think it's -- Brown & Root had committed 20 to do an ALARA review in their procedures. And this was 21 just sgcin a question of timing; they had done the whole 22 plant initially and part of the plant had changed and 23 they were in the process of catching up and revieuing 24 that part of the plant. And then Guadre:: came in and 25 they took a snapshot, part of the plant had ALARA
/
TATE REPORTII:3 SERVICC, 498-8442
12900 .7V 1 features, part of the plant may not have had as good \ s 2 ALARA features, and that was just a timing problem, not a 3 QA breakdown. 4 JUDGE BECHBCEFER: Could your counsel show you 5 a document which was No. 1, of the documents that were 6 sent to us. 7 0 (By Judge Eechhoefer) Have you ever seen this 8 document before? 9 A Yes, I have. 10 MR. GUTTER:4AN: Mr. Chairman, maybe we ought to 11 identify -- ovue. --r-r..v u - m. en. .
,,., r_
.._,.-a t_ac &. c >u- ..c_ m.
13 Sumpter explain what it is. I:'c a One piccc, one chect ,
~
1/: focument, "hich bar ? 62tc "hich I think is erang on it , 15 cnd I wtc Ceing to ath Dr. Sumpter that. 1G F.R . SIFi:IK : Excuse me, are there extra copies 17 av-ila.tle at this tine? 13 Q (By Judge 3echhoefer) There's a note on here 19 that says that this is a note frcm you to Mr. Stanley. 20 Uhen we vere given this document, a transmittal letter 21 said that the no te was f rom : r. Stanley to you, and maybe 22 you can clarify that first. 23 A I very veil remember these notes. These were 24 notes that Mr. Stanley and I, this is my handwriting. 25 !!r . Stanley and I had a phone ccnversation and these m
, )
TATE REPORTI"G SERVICE, 4E8-8442
12901 l' ry' g 1 notes were to be, if you will, our statement at the Brown
2 & Root meeting, which we held in response to that letter 3 that ue talked about before. And this was the statement 4 we were going to make to Brown & Root, that the Quadrer 5 was going to make, if you will, to summarize this letter, 6 this opening statement. And that's what this was. He 7 and I talked about this statement over the phone and I 8 wrote it down and then when he came here fer the meeting, 9 this is the statement he made.
10 MR. GUTTERMAN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder just to 11 clarify the record, I wonder if he can, rhen he refsrred 12 tc letter he diccucred beforc, I thin' he vt: referring 13 to Applicants' Exhibit 55. . t j 14 JUDGE BECMHOEFER: Hell, ves, that's the letter v 15 I was asking about. 16 THE UITNESS: That's the March 16th, '31 17 letter. 10 JUDGE DECHHOEFER: Yes. Yes. 19 THE WITNESS: I know your next question, I 20 think. 21 JUDGE SECHEOEFEn: Try answering it, then. 22 THE WITNESS: There's a word in here 23 " breakdown." 24 Q (Ey Judge Bechhoefer) Yes. 25 A I think the sentence says: This same revieu
~,
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 490-8442
12902 fs 73- 1 would appear to indicate a breakdown in ALARA review. V ,
t 2 0 Yes.
3 A I remember that word well because nr. Stanley 4 and I discussed that word. Along the lines of, well, 5 from hist viewpoint, I shouldn't use that word because 6 that indicates a QA breakdown. And I said I want to get 7 Broun L Root's attention, I want to use provocative words 8 in your opening statement, and that will get their 9 attention. 10 And I remember that conversation, because he 11 said I shouldn't tre that ucrd becture it implies a QA 12 brc;kdown from an A_tptndia E viewpoint. And I said I 13 vant to use provocative wordc to get their attention. l 1 ', 1/ Thet's the content in which that wor 6 final)" ended e". (_/ I 15 JUDGE DECHEOEFER: That uns my question. l 16 0 (By Ju6ge Lechhoefer) In using this then, 6iO 17 you net h:v in T.ind 0.'.'rrechdcun as used in the -- in 18 5 0.55 (e) ? 19 A No, I did not. 20 Q Could you also just clarify that the date is 21 not c 1980 date but presumably a 1981 date? 22 A That's 1981, a few days before the meeting, 23 that's correct. Should be March, I guess, 13th, 1981. 24 Q Uell, was this done before the letter was 25 uritten, the letter is March 16th. And --
'_/;
x TATE REPORTIEC- SERVICE, 498-3442
12903 1 A I'm trying to recall when we had the meeting f5k u 2 with Brown & Root. 3 This was all being done concurrently, I guess. 4 I'm not -- this is not my handwriting on this date up 5 her. So I'm not sure which -- if the 13th is exactly the 6 correct date. 7 It was all done about the same time frame and 0 the meeting with Brown & Root was held shortly after the 9 16th. I don't knou the encet date. Mr. Stanley probably 10 has that -- 11 CE. CUTTEEZAU: Ecybc I ccn help. If ne ach 12 the witness to look at CCAUF Exhibit 93, that might 13 refresh his recollection. 9-J
,G 'a -
TEET !?ITHESS: O h c. ; , this ir CCA"." 93, is c 15 letter from Broun L Rect te nr. 21:u frcs Mr. Ecuhs. And 16 in the opening paragraph ecys: On March 16th, 1931, in a 17 nesting betueen EELP and aroun 1 Rect, a letter
-18 containing preliminary findings of the engineering review 19 'of Brown:& Root was presented. So that indicates to me 20 that the meeting we held with Erown & Root was on March 21 -the 16th.
22 0 (Ey Judge Bechhoefer) And these notes then, 23 T.'ere your preparation for that meeting? 24 A Preparction for that meeting, that's-correct. 25 JUDGE BECEHOEFEE: The Applicants' by any e TATE REPORTII.'G SERVICE, 4D8-8442
12904 (~. 1 chance know what the numbers of Board exhibits to date (?N >
~'
2 have been or should we just put this as Enhibit A? We 3 would like, I think, to put it either in the record or at 4 least have it along uith the record. 5 HR. GUTTERMAN: We discussed this the other 6 day, Hr. Chairman, I don't think any of us knew if there 7 were any Board enhibits in Phase I. I think we decided 8 to make the exhibit we vere discussing then an 9 Applicants' enhibit just to solve that problem. He can 10 do that with this one, too, if that would make it easier 11 fcr handling. 12 JUDGE SECE: Suits me. 13 JUDGE LECHECEFER: Okcy, uhy don't we do that. (2; ( ) 1/. There nn" not have b2cn :ny Ecarf exhibits; I'r not 2002. v 15 c
. didn't lict any, but I cert cf recollect that there 15 may have been one or tuo.
-. ~ . . . . c r.> . . r
. .. .n- . . ..
s . .r . u .,..; ..= n , - ren .< n 1. i. us.. .e e 18 would make this Applicants' Exhibit 71. And I think ue 19 have copies for the reporter. 20 JUDGE BECEHOEFER: Everybody cice has copies, 21 all the parties, at least, have copies. 22 MR. GUTTERCAU: Ue just have distributed copies 23 to the other parties, Mr. Chairman. 24 JUDGE SECHEOEFER: Okay, fine. 25 JUDGE BECHEOEFER: Does anyone have any
- )
w TATE REPORTII'G SERVICE, 498-0442
12905 75q 1 objection to this enhibit, under the nomenclature of
\_/
2 Applicants' 71, does anybody have any objection to this 3 going-into the record? 4 MR. SINRID: Ro, Dr. Chairman. 5 HR. PIRFO: The staff has no objection. 6 HR. GUTTERMAU: No objection. 7 JUDGE DECBBOEFER: Okay, this document will be 8 admitted into evidence as Applicants' 71. 9 (Applicants' Exhibit 71 10 received in evidence.) 11 Q (Oy Judge Occhheedcrl Dr. Sumpter, scing bach 12 to your discussion uith Dr. Laab about the 6ccumenchtion 13 uhich the revice of,the Guadran rapcrt received cs
@i s_/
i 14 'dictinguichef frcr 22.0 ferum:ntatien, :: - :: -- ::: "e: 15 f:milicr with cncuar 47 cf :*r. Ccidbarg's testimony, cr 15 could you look ct it? 17 A I'll loch ct it. 18 0 The first sentence of that cnswer 47, Mr. 19 Goldberg like yourself, testified'that the Brown & Root 20 responses to each finding were one of the basis but that 21 cther information went into determining whether it was or 22 was not reportable. And this coincides with uhat you 23 said. 24 Do you think it vould have been better for some 25 formal documentation syctem to have enisted or been used
]"] \~
TATE REFORTIUG SERVICE, 498-8442
12906 r 1 with respect to the Quadrex report findings? pd - t ',/ 2 A Better than what? 3 0 Well, better than what was actually used, 4 something more comparable to what the IRC would have 5 done; something which would have captured the additional 6- thoughts that the committee, the committee of you three, 7 added to the process? 8 A If Brown & noot had a reason -- like for 9 instance, it's not a deficiency, then you really don't 10 even apply any other test.c. And if we agreed with that 11 rencon, I gue:r ne felt that record rould ct:nd. 12 C nicht. Ucu I'm thinking of the things uhsre 13 you had eirher come other reason or cc=c different rencon * . g::1 la for not reocrtinc< it. k / * . s- , 15 A As best I can recall, us agreed uith at lecst 16 the reason Ercun & Root gave, you know, in noct caser., 17- encept for the the onec that we reported, that they felt 18 shculdn't have been reported. You know, I guess you 19 could say it uould be nice if we had had a detailed 20 record of everything, of all the major things we did that 21 day if there was a lot of additional information 22 supplied. I guess we didn't feel it uns necessary. 23 That's about the best I can do on that. 24 0 Did your committee ever consider uhether you 25 night send, after you made your determinations, whether t'D U TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 408-8442 s
12907 [2) 1 you might send the report to the IRC for its review, at t 2 least of the items that you determined vere not 3 reportable? 4 A Our committee did not. The IRC, since Mr. 5 Powell came to the meeting, was aware of the report. And 6 on their oun, undertook a review on the items we did 7 report. 8 Q Right. I'm aware of that. That was in nr. 9 Goldberg's testimony. 10 A Eut we.did not discuss that among ourselves of 11 directing the Inc te do :nything. 12 O Did Mr. ?cwell, to your knowledge, suggest thct 13 :he Inc might de c revieu at lecc: for purposes of pj s
. lo decunentatien?
15 I. "et thct I can recall. I dcn't think he did. 16 At least in a conversations where I was present. 17 0 Did your to::r.ittee discurs decurentation of 18 non-reported -- matters you determined to be 19 non-reportable? 20 A You mean in the conte::t should we create 21 additional documentation other than uhat he already hcd? 22 Q Yes. 23 A I!o, ue 6id not discuss that. 24 (I?o Eiatus.) 25 m i ns
. TATE DEPORTI!?G SETNICE, 498-8442
12908 1 JUDGE BECHBOEFER: I believe that's all I t64'.
~J 3 Do the Applicants have redirect? And, if so, 4 would you like to do it af ter lunch?
5 MR. GUTTERMAN: I'm not sure whether I would 6 or not, Mr. Chai rman. I would like to do it af ter 7 lunch. 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay, why don't we break 9 for lunch -- off the record. - 10 (Discussion off the record.) 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Let's aim to see if g 12' we can get back by 1:00, but it may fall a f ew minutes i 1 13 late. - 14 (Luncheon recess taken.) 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Eack on the record. 16 Mr. Gutterman, do you have redirect? 17 MR. GUTTERMAN: No, Mr. Chai rman. 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Recross, Mr. Sinkin? 19 MR. SINKIN: Yes, Mr. Ch ai rman. 20 21 RECROSS EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. SINKIN: 23 Q Dr. Sumpter, you discussed with Mr. Pirfo the n k_J 24 Quadrex finding regarding no well thought out and 25 consistent basis f or design. Do you remember reviewing TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12909 (T 1 that? It's on page 3-8 of the Quadrex report. 2 And you discussed with him this concept of 3 engineering j udgment that Quadrex ref ers to at the last 4 line on page 3-8, which says that the rationale for the 5 engineering j udgment has not been documented in a 6 retrievable manner. 7 What I wanted to do was clarify the word 8 rationale. You talked about assumptions that an 9 engineer makes while doing a calculation in the same 10 context and maybe sonebody later wants to or thinks he 11 might disagree with the assumption. 12 Is the assumption the engineer makes the p 3 i !
13 rationale or is it the basis for selecting that 14 particular assumption that is the rationale that is not 15 documented?
16 A The basis for selecting the assumption, the 17 rationale is engineering j udgment. The rationale used 18 in -- or the reason -- let me use a different word so we 19 don't get it confused with the rationale word used in 20 the Quadrex report. 21 The calculation procedure requires that you 22 identify -- 23 Q Excuse me. I didn't hear that word. J 24 A The calculational -- 25 Q Calculational, okay. TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12918 i ((( 1 A -- procedure requires you identify your A- 2 assumptions and the basis for that assumption. Now, 3 your basis may be engineering judgment. The rationale l 4 that Quadrex was referring to is what went on in the 5 engineer's mind that led him to select this number. In , l l 6 other words, how did he come up with this judgment. In i ! 7 other words, he looked at -- whatever reason he had, he i 8 may say, well, for my twenty years experience, this is a l 9 , good number to use. You know, whatever the reasons were 10 in his judgment resulted in this assumption. That's the 11 rationale that I believe Quadrex means in this co,ntext. l , 12 0 Okay. Y'h (,/ 13 In response to a question from Judge Lamb, you 14 discussed the fact that the IRC did lock at the three 15 findings that your review team, the three-person review 16 team determined should be notified to the NRC; is that 17 correct? 18 A That's my understanding, yes. 19 0 Are you aware of whether the IRC looked at 20 more than those three items in the Quadrex report af ter 21 May the 8th? 22 A I do not know -- I am not aware that they did, 23 to the best of my knowledge, look at any others other () 24 than those three. They may have. I don't have any 25 personal knowledge of that. TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12911 ((( l Q In talking about the item found in the midst
'~) 2 of the Quadrex report, the error in the code, you said 3 in response to a question I think f rom Judge Bechhoefer, 4 -I could be wrong, that af ter Quadrex you became aware 5 that the IRC looked at that particular item. Can you 6 tell me when you became aware that the IRC looked at the 7 code error item?
8 A One second. 9 The date on the memo f rom Mr. Powell to Mr. 10 Jacobi indicated the IRC had met is dated April 27th. I 11 did not receive a copy of that memo, so I really can't _, 12 tell you when I became aware of that. I know that while 13 the Quadrex review was going on all the way up till May 14 7th, I had very little time .to go back to my office and 15 check incoming mail and that sort of thing. So, I 16 really just can't recall when I became aware of that at 17 all. 18 Q You would not have received that memo 19 according to the memo; is that correct? 20 A That's correct. So, I would have heard about 21 it probably from one of my staff or somebody on the 22 pr oj ect. 23 Q So, before I showed you the IRC report itself () 24 yesterday, you had been aware that the IRC had, in fact, 25 conducted a review of that item? TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12912 P 1 A Yeah, I vaguely remember having gone through 2 both these memos at some time, but I can't recall when. 3 Q In response to questions from Judge Lamb as to 4 the turning over of the whole report, you were giving l 5 various criteria of why you might have turned over the 6 whole report. 7 Would the number of potentially reportable 8 deficiencies in a single report in and of itself be a 9 reason to turn over the report or not turn over the 10 report? 11 MR. GUTTERMAN: I think that's asked and l . 12 answered, Mr. Ch ai rman. I'll obj ect to'it.
~
13 MR. SINKIN: Well, I think the answer went on 14 to include other f actors. He'd answered, for example, 15 he would consider the number of reportable items -- oh, 16 I think you' re absolutely right. And even if he could 17 not determine a common cause, he would turn it over. 18 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) S o, you would consider the 19 number of reporN bl items as one criteria? 20 A Thct su e be a consideration. That doesn't 21 necessarily mean I would or would not turn over the 22 report. It depends on the character of those items. 23 Q Right. Have you ever seert a single report at 24 HL&P or Brown & Root during your term at this proj ect 1 25 that contained as many as three potentially reportable l l TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12913 M 1 items in it? 2 A I guess that's very difficult f or me to answer ' 3 because there have been many reports on the proj ect ever 4 since 1973 and I have a hard time off the top of my head I 5 recalling what those were.~ 6 Let me answer it this way. We had never done 7 a study of engineering of the magnitude relative to 1
-8 depth and width or broadness that Quadrex did. But as 9 far as other reports, I just can't answer it off t.he top 10 of my head. I'd really have to go back and --
11 Q Do you remember ELEP making three potentially
,_, 12 reportable findings to the NRC in one day?
D(/ 13 A Up through -- 14 Q Th r ough May S th, 1981. 15 A Well, let me answer it this way. Up through 16 1978 when really the responsibility for evaluation of 17 reportable deficiencies and notification to the NRC 18 shif ted from my direct responsibility to the project, to 19 the best of my recollection, I can't recall that at 20 least up to '78. I don't think I could give a 21 definitive answer after '78 because I wasn't in close 22 contact with, you know, day to day proj ect business. 23 Q And. if you would ref resh my memory, in '7 8 the () 24 responsibility shif ted to whom? 25 A In '7 8 we went into a matrix organization. TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12914 c? 1 Q And who had the responsibility? 2 A And responsibility for - evaluation of 3 reportable deficiencies and reporting those to the NRC 4 went to people on the proj ect, Mr. Barker, Mr. Powell, 5 those f olks. I was not in the normal loop of review for I 6 those types of decisions. 7 Let me also clarify that. l 8 Q Yes. l 9 A Up to the period of '78, I only had l 10 responsibility for design deficiencies. So, there are i, 11 things that occurred at the site I'm not in a position 12 to comment on relative to whether they had any three - (,-.
\~- 13 that occurred in one day.
14 0 I understand. 15 You testified in response to a question f rom 16 Chairman Bechhoefer that on May the 7th you and Mr. 17 Robertson had a discussion regarding whether the whole 18 report should be turned over to the NRC. Do you I 19 remember that? l 20 A Yes. 4 21 Q Did you at any time between that discussion 22 and the notification to the NRC by Mr. Powell the night 23 of the 8th, in that time period, did you talk -- did you h) 24 tell Mr. Goldberg that you and Mr. Robertson had had 25 that discussion? TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12915 [$') 1 A Yes. I believe, as I mentioned earlier, on v ' 2 the morning of May 8th, Mr. Robertson and I met with Mr. 3 Goldberg to inform him of what happened the previous 4 evening with Brown & Root. And though I'm not 5 absolutely sure, I know Mr. Robertson and I on the 6 morning of May 8th went back to that point and both of 7 us agreed at least on the face of what Brown & Root was 8 telling us there did not appear to be any major 9 breakdown in the design control process and therefore le the whole report would not be reported as indicating 11 that type of breakdcwn. . 12 I believe that was in the presence of Mr.
\- 13 Goldberc, though I'm nor absolutely sure.
14 HR. SINKIN: I think that's all I have, Mr. 15 Chairman. 16 MR. PIRFO : The Staff has none. 17 MR. GUTTERMAN: Applicants have nothing 18 further. 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Dr. Sumpter, I guess you're 20 excused. 21 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Let's go off the record f or 23 just a second. n (j' 24 (Discussion off the record. ) 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We're now going to hear TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12916 5 1 oral argument on the motions to quash particular
~
2 subpoenas with respect to the Applicants' witnesses or 3 the witnesses associated with the Applicants which CCANP 4 desires to call as witnesses, and thereafter I think 5 we'll do the same with the staff. 6 Let's start with the Applicants' witnesses. 7 We have the Applicants' motion to quash. We 8 also have CCANP's request for witnesses. I think CCANP 9 should lead off. And bearing in mind the claims of 10 cumulative testimony which the Applicants have 11 described, I think CCANP should attempr to respond to 12 the position of the. Applicants as to each w'itness. '> 13 You may, as a course, set f orth any general
~
14 position you have at the beginning and then we'll hear 15 the Applicants and the Staff if the Staff wishes to take 16 a position with the rpplicants' witnesses, 17 Applicant-associated witnesses. 18 MR. AXELRAD: If I can beg your indulgence, 19 I've lef t some papers in the next room. If I could have 20 just a moment to go get them, pl ea se. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Fine. Off the record. 22 (Discussion of f the record. ) 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on the record. p (_) 24 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Ch ai rman, we are asking that 25 three witnesses be called. But before we get into TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12917 f[) 1 discussion of that, I need to have clear in my own mind l II ) l 2 the state of the arguments we make here today in the ! 3 context of the sequestration order. 4 The sequestration order covered testimony 5 given in these proceedings, that individuals will not 6 discuss the testimony with them, they should not see the 7 transcripts, should avoid television and newspaper 8 accounts, not be brief ed by lawyers or witnesses 9 regarding what the testimony has been. At the same 10 time, the lawyers f or the Applicants are permitted to 11 talk to the witnesses.
- 12 I guess what I'm asking is what the status is
$:\ E s' 13 of anything I say today about evidence we mignt have, 14 questions we might intend to ask, any of that sort of 15 information, whether the Applicants' attorneys are free 16 to communicate that to the witness. I just need to 17 know. These are hostile witnesses, these are not 18 voluntary witnesses. 19 JUDGE BECHBOEFER: I would say the 20 sequestration order extends to what they will hear this 21 afternoon as well. But only for two witnesses, two 22 pe r sons. 23 MR. SINKIN: The two sequestered witnesses. rm () 24 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chai rman, I'm not sure that 25 I understand what that statement means. Obviously we TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12918 1 have no intention of leaving this room if the witnesses C(22
~
)
2 are to be subpoenaed and if they are sequestered and 3 telling them of any of the developments in this room or 4 what Mr. Sinkin alleges they' re going to say or things 5 of that kind. But to the extent that Mr. Sinkin might 6 mention a document or something like that which is 7 something that chose witnesses would normally review in 8 preparation for being called here, it seems to me 9 there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to do 10 that. 11 MR. REIS: Mr. Chai rman, it might interfere 12 with the attorney / client relationship to do that in this p) 13 particular case. They are employees of the corporation 14 and as employees of the corporation they' re entitled to 15 counsel from the corporation unless they are adverse to 16 the corporation in some way that has not been shown so 17 far. And I wouldn' t think that they could tell them 18 anything that was testified to, but normal trial 19 preparation of any witness, I think they can give them 20 normal trial preparation. 21 Now, it's a thin line and a hard line, but I 22 .would say that any nor .a1 trial preparation could go 23 f orw ar d. O
'u) 24 MR. AXELRAD: In addition to which I'm not 25 sure I understand even what we're talking about. Mr.
TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12919 (2'- 1 Sinkin was required under the Board's order to identify 2 ahead of time what the basis was f or his seeking to call 3 these witnesses and any inf ormation he had as to why he 4 would expect them to testify in that f ashion. 5 Presumably he's already identified that. Those were the 6 matters which I'm sure the witnesses are already aware 7 of. They knew about that inf ormation bef ore the hearing 8 even started. 9 If Mr. Sinkin has anything further to add at 10 this point, it would seem to me that that's completely 11 inappropriate and should not be , permitted because he was 12 supposed to make that showing' back on June 26th. =- 13 MR. SINKIN: No, I would disagree, Mr. l j 14 Chairmt 7, in the sense that there are matters that have l l 15 come up during this hearing, the testimony of other 16 witnesses. 17 MR. AXELRAD: Okay, I'm not going to talk to 18 them about the testimony of other witnesses. We've 19 agreed to that. That was what the sequestration order 20 said. 21 MR. SINKIN: All I'm saying is if I specify 22 that I want to ask him about a certain matter and the 23 reason I want to ask him is a certain witness testified 24 a certain way, if they then go and say you are going to 25 be asked about this matter, we want to hear your answer, TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12928 621 1 if they get into that kind of dialogue, then the witness 1)
~
2 is ~-- it almost def eats the purpose of sequestration to 3 some extent.
-4 MR. AXELRAD: We understand our obligation not 5 to inform the witnesses ,of testimony that was presented 6 in this proceeding whether or not Mr. Sinkin separately 7 specifies it. We are not going to discuss the testimony 8 presented in this proceeding with the witnesses.
9 MR. SINKIN: I understand. I'm not even le alleging that you would. 11- I don't think you' re quite understanding what 12 I' m saying. If I say witness A testified to X and I
13 intend to ask
- witness B about X, if witness B is put on ,
14 notice that witness B is going to be asked about X, he 15 can be put on notice he's going to be asked about X ' 16 without being told witness A testified about it or said 17 anything about it, I just want to know if that's 18 permissible. I'm not saying it is or isn't, I just want , 1 19 to know before I present what I'm going to present. ) l 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think we'll give our 21 response only by way of an examp15. 22 The Board had some questions about the 23 document that once was numbered -- the document which 24 was known as number 44, I think it was, which I believe 25 involved Mr. Poston. I don't think we can preclude Mr. TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12921 h$) 1 Poston f rom reviewing that document or any other that he k 2 was involved in. I do think that he should not be 3 allowed to be brief ed on even the general subject matter 4 of the questions I asked about that or the other parties 5 asked about that in the proceeding. 6 MR. AXELRAD: Well, we would not brief him l 7 with respect to testimony that anybody else gave on that 8 subj ect, but we obviously would intend to -- document 9 number 44 was identified a long time ago. We would , l 10 fully expect that we would be able to discuss with Mr. l 11 Poston prior to the time he appears at the hearing his 12 recollection of each of the items in document number 13 44. We'd ask him what do you recall about this, what do 14 you recall about that. That's normal trial 15 preparation. 16 We would never tell him what question anybody 17 asked, nor would we tell him what answer anybody else 18 gave. We want to make sure that he refreshes his 19 recollection as to what that document was about. That's 20 standard trial preparation. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, that we are not trying 22 to preclude. But you wouldn't want to give him any 23 clues as to what about one item particularly he should 24 be particularly versed in. 25 MR. AXELRAD: No, we would just ask him TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12922 1 questions to refresh his recollection of those [O
~
2 particular documents. 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That would be okay. That's 4 the only way we can draw the line. 5 MR. SINKIN: Okay. But you didn't -- in your 6 example you really don't address the question I raised. 7 I think the question of questions asked in the midst of 8 testimony was already covered by the sequestration 9 order. I'm talking about our conversation here today. 10 If I said I intend to take document 44 and ask 11 Mr. Poston about item 12 and I expect that he's going to 12 testify Z, then he could be put on notice of exactly 13 what I'm going to tak about, exactly what I expect him 14 to testify to on that particular item and the purpose of 15 sequestration might be defeated. 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We would include you 17 couldn't tell, just for example, Mr. Poston about 18 specific questions that Mr. Sinkin says he's going to 19 put to him, but you could ask him to review the 20 particular document. 21 I would treat Mr. Sinkin's statements this 22 afternoon in the same context I'd treat testimony. 23 MR. AXELRAD: Well, I'm not sure I understand 24 that, 12. Chai rman. Mr. Sinkin's statements are not 25 testimony. I would not be telling Mr. Poston -- in this TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12923 42i 1 hypothetical I would not be telling Mr. Poston that
! )
~
2 somebody else said blankety-blank about item 12 or about 3 line 14. I would just be asking him what is it, you 4 know, what do you remember about line 14, what do you 5 remember about line 18. 6 JUDGE BECHBOEFER: As I said, the latter is 7 permissible. But to state that you are going to be 8 asked questions because Mr. Sinkin said so this 9 afternoon about line 14, that you should not tell him. 16 You should treat Mr. Sinkin's statements the same wcy 11 you would treat testimony. p 12 MR. AXELRAD: Well, Mr . , Chai rman, let me put i 13 it this way. I'm . hot sure until I know exactly what's 14 happening in his oral argument where that line is 15 possibly to be drcwn. I understand what the Be rd ic 16 saying. If there's some difficulty with it after we 17 finish the oral argument, after we decide whether or not 18 there are any witnesses to be called, then we will ask 19 the Board f or further guidance. I'm not trying to 20 unduly delay the argument. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: This discussion, of course, 22 only applies to two persons in any event. 23 MR. REIS: Mr. Ch ai rman, I'm not an expert on (> 24 sequestration. First I will say that. But it is my 25 understanding it only applies to the testimony that goes TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12924 1 on in the proceeding and not ' to the oral arguments or F] v 2 anything else. 3 MR. AXELRAD: As a matter of fact, I seem to 4 recall a case where there was an attempt to sequester a 5 witness before the' oral argument and that was explicitly 6 denied, that there was no reason why the witness 7 couldn't hear oral argument. In essence, that's what 8 we're doing here. 9 I guess I really would reiterate my obj ection 10 to what the Board proposes. 11 The whole purpose is to avoid having, in Mr. ,_s 12 Sinkin's own terms, hav'ng i one witness harmonize his 13 testimony with another witness' . Now, we would not do 14 anything that would tell one of these witnesses what 15 somebody else has said. But what kind of arguments 16 people have raised, I don't see how what Mr. Sinkin is 17 going to say today varies in quality or with substance 18 with what he's already said in his documents before. 19 He said he expected Mr. Robertson to testify 20 blankety-blank. I don't see why the f act he's decided 21 to give us some new things I don't think he's permitted 22 to say, but if he's going to say some new things, why 23 they should be in a different category than the things O> t- 24 he said on June 19 and June 26. 25 MR. SINKIN: Well, Mr. Chairman I think we' re TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12925 (E 1 pointing at precisely the problem I had and why I raised 2 the question. I considered that in the specification of 3 testimony I provided enough specification to meet the 4 guidelines of the Board. I did not go through every 5 question I intended to ask the witness or every document 6 I intended to introduce through the witness. One of the 7 reasons I did not go into even greater detail is that 8 this document would certainly not be under the 9 sequestration order. And if the witness were given this 10 document and it had all the details of what I was going 11 to ask the witness and what I expect him to answer and
.. 12 what documents I was Soing to introduce, then we .can
'~ 13 forget sequestration to a great exte'nt. It wouldn't 14 have any meaning. 15 I:R. IOCI,nAD : I r. Chairman, whct tir. Sinkin 16 has just said is that he explicitly flouted this Board's 17 order which told him to provide the identification of 18 why he expects the witness to testify the way he was 19 stating. And it seems to me that he should not have the 20 opportunity to provide any such additional information 21 to the Board today. And if he cannot do that, then it 22 seems to me we' re having a completely academic argument 23 because there is nothing else additional that would be 1> 24 brought forth at this time. 25 MR. SINKIN: There was no effort to flout the TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12926 60%. 1 Board's order. There was an effort to provide the Board () 2 with specific specification of the testimony to meet the 3 Board's need to understand whether these witnesses 4 should be called or not. 5 There was not -- the NRC Staff asked that I be 6 required to provide every question that I wanted to 7 ask. The Board didn't require that. So, there was a 8 -range of things I could provide from one blanket 9 statement everything he knows to a detailed statement of 1C everything I intended to ask him and what I expected him 11 to answer on every question and every document I g - 12 intended to introduce. I put this somewheta in between U 13 at a place where I thought gave the Board enough 14 specification that they could determine whether the 15 witness should be called. 16 MR. AXELRAD: I understand that's what Mr. 17 Sinkin did and that's exactly what his subpoena request 18 should be based on. He made his own judgment as to what 19 he was going to provide in response to the Board's 20 request. And if what he has provided is sufficient, in 21 which case the Board will keep the subpoena in eff ect; 22 and if what he provided was not sufficient, in which 23 case the subpoena should be quashed. O tr 24 This is not a second chance at answering the 25 Board's order. Mr. Sinkin completely misunderstands TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12927 1 what the purpose of today's argument is. The purpose of [$(: 2 today's argument is to be based upon the materials he's 3 already provided. 4 MR. SINKIN: Or anything that could have come 5 up in the hearings, any questions I might now have 6 be.cause of testimony I've already heard. 7 Mr. Chai rman, I have one other response. The 8 criteria for a subpoena in 10CFR2.720 is to provide a 9 showing of general relevance of the testimony of 10 evidence sought. We did that with our first pleading 11 and the Board agreed with us on the subpoenas they 12 issued we had shown general relevance. f3J ~ Then there was a special kind of requirement 13 14 that was made that isn' t a normal -- normally what would 15 have happened. Then our job's over. They file a motion 16 to quash. We get a hearing on the motion to quash and 17 at that hearing on the motion to quash we present our 18 full-blown reasons -- 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's what this is. 20 FE. SINKIN: And that's what this is. Now, 21 there was some intermediate step where you asked for 22 greater specificity than we had given on general 23 relevance and we did that.
) 24 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman I just looked at the 25 rule on 615, Federal Rules of Evidence, exclusion of TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
{ 12928 i l l 62.'. 1 witnesses. It says the court shall order witnesses (- s 2 excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other 3 witnesses. And that's what it is. 4 MR. SINKIN: Of course, I think that same rule 5 provides that sequestration is a matter of right, but 6 the NRC doesn't apply that. So, they do modify the 7 Federal Rules. 8 MR. AXELRAD: Right. But even on the 9 circumstances it was granted as a matter of right, it 10 has a limited application. 11 Mr. Ch ai rman, I'd like to add j ust one
. - 12 additional thing. What Mr,. Sinkin is asking for flirts C -J 13 very close to the inability of a witness to avail 14 himself cf the right to counsel. If the Board is 15 thinking in any way of granting anything of the type 16 that Mr. Sinkin requests, that is a very serious matter 17 and we' re not sure under no circumstances we'll be able 18 to produce those witnesses and we might very well have 19 to ask for direct certification to the Appeal Board.
20 This is not a matter to be taken lightly. ! 21 Witnesses are going to be appearing before you and if l 22 they are subpoenaed on important matters, they are 23 entitled to the proper preappearance advice of counsel l ( ') 24 in preparation. And what Mr. Sinkin is asking for is 25 completely uncalled f or. It's not consistent with TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12929 ([] ry . 1 anything either in the Federal Rules of Evidence or
\/ 2 that's been discussed here bef ore.
3 MR. REIS: Let me add to -- 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Axelrad, the Board's 5 thought is that the right of cross-examination where 6 matters of credibility are involved does not normally 7 involve the telegraphing of the cross-examiner 's 8 questions early. We don't want to issue any sort of an 9 order which would undercut the effectiveness of 10 cross-examination which Mr. Sinkin would undertake as 11 , applied to the particular witness. That is the problem 7 12 , we see. , , (cs () 13 MR. REIS: That's Mr. 'Sinkin's problem and a 14 burden he has to bear. 15 I'd like the Board, though, to keep in -- in 16 other words, that's his problem. Ths t 's the pr oblem of 17 every attorney or every representative in any trial. If 18 he goes out and he tells the newspaper, he makes a 19 statement anywhere other than where it is, that's his 20 burden. That 's j ust the way it is. And there is no way 21 to protect him against that. 22 I want to point the Board to two things, 23 though. The Upjohn case in the Supreme Court which (]) 24 extended the attorney / client relationship to other than 25 the management employees of the company, and the other TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12930 thing is the recent Appeal Board case, and I don't know g[~-[. l 2 which way it cuts but I just want to call the Board's 3 attention to it, involving the order where the Licensing 4 Board I believe issued an order that the attorneys for 5 the intervenor could not talk to any of the employees of 6 the utility during the course of the hearings. That was 7 overturned in that case. And I don't know which way 8 that cuts here and I can't remember the name of the 9 case, but it's a recent case. 10 MR. SINKIN: I think that's a rather different 11 kind of situation.
- 12 MR. REIS: Yeah, but I just want to call the L'
13 Board's attention to -- 14 JUDGE BECHEOEFER: I sort of recollect that 15 one. I can't tell you either what case it was, but I 16 have read it. 17 MR. SINKIN: That is not the situation we're e 18 in, but the situation we're in is a situation where I am 19 calling a hostile witness and one of the key elements of 20 that is to test the credibility of the other witnesses,, 21 that was the whole purpose of sequestration. 22 I don't have an opportunity to in a sense 23 prepare these witnesses because I'm not their counsel.
!m 24 That's why I raised the problem specifically.
J 25 And I understand Mr. Reis' position on the TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 1
_q 12931 Federal Rules saying that it only applies to testimony. p62} l 2 I know that it is not out of the question for the NRC to 3 apply the Federal Rules differently in their proceedings , I 4 than they' re normally applied in other proceedings. If 5 the Board wants to expand that rule to cover other 6 matters, I think they may have the discretion to do that 7 within the Administrative Procedures Act. 8 I realize it's a difficult question. I don't 9 necessarily have the answer and that's why I raised it. 10 But I think perhaps I can resolve the problem, maybe I 11 can resolve the problem --
. 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I was going to ask you, p
J , 13 could you structure your argument so that you don't have. 14 to get into the specific questions? I'm not sure you 15 can. 16 MR. SINKIN: I will do my best to structure my 17 argument to where I won't have a problem. Now, if we 18 get to the point -- 19 JUDGE BECHBOEFER: We also would like all the 20 parties to note that we are going to allow any matter 21 that appears during the course of testimony thus far to 22 form a basis perhaps for determining whether the 23 evidence either -- the testimony either is or is not () 24 cumul ativ e. We never meant to exclude that. And where 25 it has appeared that certain witnesses can't answer TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12932 ((1 1 questions or haven't been able to answer questions on 2 certain subj ects, that clearly may be taken into 3 account -- we will take it into account as to whether 4 the testimony is or is not cumul ativ e. 5 MR. SINKIN: Well, I'll go ahead and do my 6 argument and see if there arises a problem. I just 7 wanted to have the parties on notice that there might 8 be. 9 What I'd like to do is to give a general 10 overview of the three witnesses and why we are wanting 11 to call them, then focus on the first witness, Mr. , _ 12 Robertson, and perhaps then we can discuss Mr. Robertson - (= , . () 13 End come back to the witnesses one at a tim,e. 14 We are asking that Mr. Clint Robertson, Mr. 15 Michael E. Pov,ul and Mr. Jesse Poston be called as 16 witnesses f or the intervenors. We see these three 17 individuals as providing the complete picture to the 18 Board of what went on inside the Applicants' 19 organization in regard to whether the Quadrex report 20 should be turned over to the NRC or otherwise released 21 outside the confines of the partners. - 22 And I would say that, if I can lay my hands on 23 it, we do consider that the partners in the proj ect are
) 24 an integral part of the Applicants. Public Service 25 Company of Indiana, Incorporated (Marble Hill Nuclear TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12933 (ll. 1 Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) AL AB-459, 7 NRC 17 9, ( )
~ '
2 at pages 198 and 201, 198 through 201, states clearly 3 that the co-owners of a proj ect are co-Applicants so 4 that Mr. Poston, the role of the management committee, 5 that's all part of the operation of the Appl 1 cants for 6 this operating license. 7 (No hiatus.) 8 9 10 11 ,
- f. 12
(- \_J 13 - 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
!( >! 24 25 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12934 I2) 1 In the three individuals, what we do is you h . . . _. . . . . _- _ k- 2 start with Mr. Robertson, and you complete the picture of 3 the team of three that made the decisions on what would 4 or would not be notified To the Nuclear Regulatory l . 5 Commission. - 6 There are various other interactions of Mr. 7 Robertson with the Quadrex process that I will touch on 8 specifically when discussing him. But a key element is 9 that he does complete the picture of who made the 10 decision how the decision was made, why the decision was 11 made, t 12 And on that point, the Applicants have argued
. 13 in their motion to cuash a generalized argument on ,
(6}* 14 cumulative testimony.' 15 And obviously we recognize that Mr. -- in 16 saying Mr. Poston, Mr. Robertron completes the team of 17 three, that that's the same general discussions that are 18 going on among the team of three. Now, some go en with -- 19 all three, some go on with just two. Sometimes it's just 20 Mr. Sumpter and Mr. Robertson. 21 Obviously on the meeting on May the 8th, it's f 22 all three of them in the same room. But we don't think 23 that the fact that that even exists, just that one event i 24 is all three of them together, that that's cumulative, if 25 what you're tecting is credibility. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12935 1 You've had two witnesses testify where one 2 witness has had an opportunity to listen to the testimony 3 of another witness. Mr. Robertson is sequestered. He 4 doesn't know how Mr. Goldberg and Dr. Sumpter testified 5 about their joint meeting. Therefore, he provides us an 6 opportunity to test -- to test credibility that was not 7 available in our view when the two witnesses who were 8 going to testify could hear each other's testimony. 9 Then then we have Mr. Powell. Mr. Powell is 10 the chairman or was the chairman, at least, at the time 11 of the Quadrex report, of the incident review committee, 12 a committee specifically set up to make determinations en 13 whether potentially reportabi'e deficiencies should be ( , 14 sent to the Muclear Regulatory. Commission. 15 Mr. Powell has appeared in the testimony of' 16 others but the internal operations of the incident review 17 committee tre not availtble thrcuch any other vitness 18 being called in this proceeding. And the specifics of 19 what they did or did not do in the time frame of the 20 Quadrox study, the Quadrex report, the notifications to 21 the NRC, is not available thrcugh the testimony of any 22 other witness. 23 You then have Mr. Poston. 24 JUDGE DECHHOEFER: Do you have any question 25 concerning Dr. Sumpter's testimony this morning on that -- l TisTE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12936 5 ((( l some of that general topic? 2 MR. SINKIN: I prefer not to discuss that. 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I see. Okay, continue. 4 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Poston is the chairman of the 5 management committee. The management committee has 6 certain responsibilities in this project that are 7 separate and apart from those of either Mr. Goldberg's 8 team of three or the Incident Review Committee. 9 As co-applicants, they have responsibilities to 10 See that the nuclear Regulatory Commission is kept 11 informed of significcnt developments of this project, 12 they have a responsibility if they disaoree with the 13 cctions of an employee of the compeny to take action [
~
14 thenceives to see that the rules and regulati,ons and case 15 law rules of the Nuclect Regulatory Commission are 16 cnforced. 17 Sc uc thin!: thct in thecc three uitnecces, Mr. 18 Robertson, Mr. Powell and Mr. Poston, you complete the 19 picture of the entities and individuals who had 20 responsibility for the issues that are at the heart of 21 this proceeding, specifically the turning over of the 22 Quadrex report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 23 making more than one finding report, turning it over to 24 the licensing board. 25 All of those items are available through those ( TATE REPORTIFG SERVICE, 498-8442
12937 (2- 1 witnesses in a way that they're not necessarily available n) (_ 2 through any other witness that has been called in the 3 proceedings to date, or will be called, even. 4 How, to turn our attention directly to Mr. 5 Robertson, we would intend to explore with Mr. Robertson 6 his involvement with the Quadrex study, the Quadrex 7 report, the Quadrex notification to the NRC, in such 8 areas -- by the way, maybe I'll bring this up now just as 9 a suggestion. 10 Should any of these witnesses be called, I 11 think it would be useful to all parties to have a 12 background and qualifications history, pocitions held at 13 HLLP hind of document rather than have me el,1 cit that in a r~ .
- time consuming direct.' And.perhaps the Applicants can
(} 14 15 provide it as they have for other witnesses; that's just 16 a suggestion. 17 Mc vould intend to c::plore with Mr. Robertson -- 18 his involvement in the Quadrex study, the Quadrex report 19 notification from the beginning when he first found out 20 about it; his participation in the various meetings where 21 Quadrox briefed HL&P; his participation in the meetings 22 on -- with Mr. Goldberg and Dr. Sumpter; the various 23 meetings at which he's involved; discussions with Mr. 24 Goldberg about roportability; and discussions with Mr. 25 Goldberg about the briefing of Don Sells, which Mr. O %) TATE RCPORTING SERVICC, 498-8442
12938 ([' t ^ 1 Robertson apparently has some knowledge about. 2 We would also explore with Mr. Robertson his 3 involvement or knowledge of the IIRC investigation that 4 actually surfaced the Quadrex report. 5 Now, on Mr. Robertson, we know that during the 6 period from January 1, 1981 to October 1, 1981, Mr. 7 Robertson was manager nuclear licensing, HL&P. Nuclear 8 licensing is that portion of the HL&P operation that 9 clearly has the responsibility for reviewing the 10 Applicants' obligations to the NRC and assuring that 11 those obligations are met. 12 As manager of that department, Mr. Robertson, 13 in the period in question, would have had a special / " 14 responsibility to casure that any obligations to NRC vere 15 met. 16 row, until April of 1981, HL&P had no separate 17 Licensing Depcrtment. At that time, in April of 1981, 18 just prict to Quadrex delivering their final report, 19 licensing was split off from nuclear services. And 20 licensing, that was Dr. Sumpter's operction, if I 21 remember correctly, and Mr. Robertson was given a new 22 responsibility as head of this independent Licensing 23 Department at Houston Lighting & Power. 24 He was directly responsible for management of 25 the engineering group which in turn was responsible for
\
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
7,
-12939
(. 1 overall coordination of HL&P's activities in implementing A 2 10 CFR 50.55 (e) . 3 There are some unique areas of knowledge that 4 apply to Mr. Robertson, apparently, from the testimony 5 given to date. 6 For example, Mr. Goldberg had never seen the 7 memorandum on the front of CCAUP Exhibit 71, which is the 8 procedure that was in place at Houston Lighting & Power 9 during the Quadrex period, for deciding whether to report 10 potentially reportable findings to the NRC, that's the 11 PEP 11 document.
'12 MR. AXELRAD: I'm sorry, Mr. Sinkin, can you 13 repeat who you said had never seen --
14 ! R. SI!CIN : ,Mr. Goldberg haE never seen the 15 memorandum on the front which details procedural changes 16 in that -- well, ' changes in that procedure.- And as a 17 memorandum from Mr. Barker to Mr. Robertson -- Mr. Barker 18 is not being called as a witness by any party. That's ( 19 one of the reasons I seek Mr. Robertson, to explore that 20 memorandum with him. l . 21 Mr. Goldberg, in fact, stated in his testimony, f 22 that perhaps Mr. Robertson's memory would be better than 23 Mr. Goldberg's on that matter. 24 Mr. Goldberg was asked if he had had 25 discussions in the May, June, July 1981 period with Mr. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12940 l 1 Jordan and fir. Oprea, regarding whether the release of 2 the Quadrex report to the NRC or the ASLB would create a 3 problem because it would get to the public? l 4 Mr. Goldberg said he had not had such a t 5 discussion with Oprea and Jordan, but might have had such 6 a discussion with Mr. Robertson. And indeed, Mr. 7 Robertson's sworn statement given to the Nuclear 8 Regulatory Commission does reflect that such a discussion l 9 was held. 10 Now, there's one point on Mr. Robertson that 11 cimply stands as a conflict in the reccrd which I would 12 hope to resolve through Mr. Robertson. 13 1: r . Goldberg testified that the afternoon of 14 !:ay the 7th, cfter the Quadrer report was delivered to 15 EL5P and Brown E noot, thr.t on that afternoon, he met 16 uith Mr. Stanley and Dr. Sumpter. he said Mr. Robertson 17 was with the Erown & Root people at the time. 18 Now, later, I think his testinony was Mr. \ 19 Robertson was actually at the Brown & Root meeting. Now, 20 he may have meant that Mr. Robertson was over talking to 21 the Brown & Root people about what had gone on in the 22 morning while !!r. Goldberg was meeting with Dr. Sumpter 23 and Mr. Stanley. 24 Hell, there we have at least one interaction l 25 between HL&P and Broun & Root regarding the ultimate O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12941 "i l decisions about the Quadrex reported that is not
.) -
available through any other witness since they were all 2 3 elsewhere. 4 I think those are the key points I would like 5 to make on Mr. Robertson. And I would stop there and 6 give the other parties a chance to respond to Mr. 7 Robertson, or the overall presentation. 8 JUDGE BECSHOEFER: In terms of order, shall we 9 ask for the staff first and with the Applicants finally 10 responding, or do you think we should go Applicants and 11 then the staff later? l 12 MR. PIRFO: I would assume we are going next 13 since ue are responding to written motion. With respect m Iq ,) 14 to Mr. Robertson, the staff has no particular view as to 15 his being called. The case of Robertson is -- L l 'S JUDGE SECHHOEFER: You're not taking a position 17 whether it would be cumulative or whether calling him to 18 be comulative or not? l l 19 MR. PIRFO: Well, I'd later -- not with respect 1 20 to Mr. Robertson. 21 JUDGE EECUHOEFER: Okay, Mr. Axelrad? 22 First, does the staff have have any general 23 statements with regard to standards for quashing 24 subpoenas and that kind of thing that it wishes to make, 25 not as applied to staff uitnesses now. C TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12942 1 HR. PIRFO: Well, yes we do. I think clearly -- (f[.
-> 2 JUDGE BECHBOEFER: I guess this will probably 3 be the best time to do that.
4 MR. PIRFO: Well, I'll give you our general 5 response, it will take the matter of a few minutes. With 6 regard to Messrs. Robertson and Poston, we do not support 7 nor oppose the motion to quash the subpoenas. 8 With regard to Mr. Powell, however, we think 9 that the subpoena should be quashed because on its face, 10 there is nothing that Mr. Powell can add that is not 11 already in the record that's uncontraverted at this 12 point, or is of any relevance. . 13 We see nothing in the face of the subpcena or k, 14 nothing of the proffer, to specification or , LJ 15 identification that was made by CCAUP that would lead to 16 anything relevent in this proceeding. 17 JUDGE EECEHOEFER: We'll get to Powell later. 18 I meant is there anything in terms of general standards 19 you wanted to advise us of or -- 20 MR. PIRFO: Basically -- 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, let must me ask you a 22 specific question. 23 MR. PIRFO: That might be helpful. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: How different would you 25 judge testimony -- proposed testimony would have to be to p! TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12943 1 warrant saying it is or isn't cumulative. (ps 3
\> 2 MR. FIRFO: How different would it have to be?
3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Or can't you answer that in 4 the abstract. 5 MR. PIRFO: I'm afraid I can't answer in the 6 abstract. Mr. Reis feels he can answer in the abstract. 7 HR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, the first question on 8 cumulative testimony, and I haven't reserved the cases 9 the Applicants cite and they might be different. But the 10 first point on cumulative testimony is you usually look 11 to cumulative for witnesses frem the same side. 12 Here we have Mr. Sinkin choosing uitnesses that 13 'he says might not be cumulative. It is only the .
~
14 Applicant that says, "Well, they were at the meeting, too fa'5 ~ 15 'and therefore their testimony would be cumulative." 16 Therefore, we don't have the usual cumulative situation 17 where the one side wants to call the 6th witness to 18 testify to the same transaction. 19 So I'm not sure, I haven't researched the 20 cases, we didn't look back at the cases, I'm not sure 21 e::actly whether this is all cumulative and whether it 22 falls under that umbrella. 23 It may be that Applicant can educate us and 24 say, "Yes, these cases are ones where it was another side 25 trying to call the -- a uitness to a transaction or a h TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
l 12944 l l c participant to the same transaction that others had t-9 1
~' So I don't know at this point.
2 testified to." 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Would you happen to know 4 whether the circumstance that testimony might be 5 cumulative is sufficient to quash a subpoena as 6 distinguished from the fact that given a certain 7 question, an objection as to being cumulative might be 8 upheld. 9 MR. REIS: Usually the situation, if the party 10 wiching to subpoena somebody to testify to the same facts 11 that he's subpoenaed or produced other people to testify, 12 that would all be on the same side. And the problem ue 13 have here is it's on the oth'er side. So I'm.not cure (3')
- 14 wh:t the cumulrtive casec add in this rituation. And I w./ .
15 really don't know. Uc haven't looked ct it, the staff 16 hasn't looked at it. 17 JUDGE BECHROEFEP: Unfortunctely, the Boerd 18 hasn't either. 19 MR. PIRFO: I think just to -- I think 20 cumulative testimony is a little like pornography. 21 You'll know it when you see it. It's a little bit tough 22 to make that determination beforehand. 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. So then really we 24 should wait until the questions are asked of the 25 particular witnesses.
~ J' TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12945 jsg c 1 MR. PIRFO: Except whereas we said in the case
)
2 of Mr. Powell, where on its face we see no possible way 3 of getting anything relevant out of the witness and I 4 will refer to our original position, with regard to Mr. 5 Powell. 6 We would support the motion to quash, as 7 Messrs. Roberston and Poston we really don't have any 8 particular view. 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Axelrad. 10 MR. AXELRAD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 11 JUDGE SECEEOEFER: I guess general position 12 plus Robertson at the moment. 13 ::R. A.'ELRAD : Just to responc to that last f, 14 question that the Eocrd rcised of the staff. Section v 15 2.757 specifically provides that to prevent unnecessary 16 delays or unnecessarily large record, the presiding 17 officer may: A, limit the nun!ber of witnesses 18 who's testimony may be cumulative. 19 So clearly the regulations contemplate that you 20 would limit -- you can, under the appropriate 21 circumstances, limit the number of witnesses. It's not 22 that you just let the witness come in and then see if 23 you're going -- if you're going to exclude any particular 24 line of questioning. 25 It's clear that the Board can limit the number
~ ,E TATE REPORTII:G SERVICE, 498-8442
12946 4EI 1 of witnesses and limit the witness that's provided to 2 provide cumulative testimony. And even though we have 4 3 not done thorough research with respect to'the question 4 that was raised about it, Mr. Reis, as to whether that 5 principal of law has been applied in instances where 6 someone is trying to call a witness and it's held to be 7 cumulative to witnesses called by someone else, I know 8 that at least one of the cases cited on page two, the 9 Metal and Walker Drilling Company versus Phillips 10 Petroleum, that was a case where the plaintiff was 11 calling -- was offering to call -- it's not a subpoena 12 case, it was a witness case, where he was going to 13 provide testimony by e:: pert witnesses who would as - I~ 14' described give the came kind of evidence that had already a, 15 been introduced by e::pertc fcr the defendant. 16 And the Board e::cluded that tectimony as being L 17 cumulative. So there is at least one instance and maybe 18 others were a cumulative testimony is testimony which 19 somebody other than the person who introduced the 20 original testimony is going to provide. ; 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Did that case involve a 22 matter of credibility or was it just e::actly the same 23 material? 24 MR. AXELRAD: I really don't recall that in 25 particular. I would imagine that if it was the testimony 7 Q, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12947 [h 1 of expert witnesses that it might not be a matter of m- 2 credibility. I would like to get back to the basic 3 points that we are exploring here, however. 4 With respect to Mr. -- well, I think it's 5 better read than trying to discuss the general 6 principals, I can apply them just as well as we get to 7 individual witnesses. 8 With respect to Mr. Robertson, very clearly 9 there are two reasons that we have set forth why Mr. 10 Robertson should not be called. One is that his 11 testineny would be cumulative and duplicative. There 12 have been two witnecses whc have provided to you 13 information with respect to what happened on May 8th. He 14 , have felt that it was not necessary to have a third 15 witness testify to thoce same events. 16 Us believe that the testimony that's been 17 provided by those two witnesses has been e:: tensive, la they've been subject to as much cross-examination as 19 anyone wanted to provide. Mr. Goldberg in particular 20 spent many days on the witness stand testifying 21 particularly with respect to the events of May 8th. 22 How, Mr. Sinkin says, "But I will have Mr. 23 Robertson testify. And presunably he vill testify to 24 something different." 25 But the Board dealt with that type of question
%,/
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12948 1 very precisely in its order. It asked Mr. Sinkin to g[E$) - . . - 2 identify why he thought that any witness he would call 3 would give the type of testimony that he is expecting to 4 get from him. And what Mr. Sinkin said is that Mr. 5 Robertson is expected to testify that during his 6 participation in the HL&P review of the Quadrex report, 7 Mr. Goldberg made it clear that even though he thought 8 there might be a need to report many of the findings in 9 the Quadrex report and even turn over the entire report 10 to the NRC, the goal of the review was to minimize the 11 number of reports to be made. 12 Mr. Sinkin has provided not the slightest 13 amount of support for making.that statement. He simply
.?)'
(_ 14 hopen that Mr. Rchartson vill rc tcctify without Cny 15 basis for that hope. He has not provided any reference 16 to any statement or memorandum or any cther document that 17 uculd lead to even an inference thct Mr. Rcbertson would 18 so testify. 19 To the extent that there is any information 20 available, there is the fact that'the URC in report No. 21 82-02 took sworn statements from three witnesses, from 22 Mr. Goldberg, Dr. Sumpter and Mr. Robertson and there is 23 no discrepancy in those statements with respect to the 24 matters that nr. Sinkin is alluding to; there is simply 25 no basis at all for Mr. Sinkin's hopes that Mr. Robertson p b TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12949 ,O 1 would contradict the testimony of other witnesses. 2 Now, he says that cumulativness should not be a 3 test if you're testing for credibility. But there is no 4 credibility question here. He has not raised any 5 question with respect to the credibility of Mr. Goldberg 6 or Dr. Sumpter. 7 If there were any reason to believe that you 8 were not getting credible testimony, then perhaps 9 additional witnesses would be appropriate. But he has 10 yet to point to any question that would lead to that. He 11 has identified in his argument a number of things that he 12 wishes to examine Mr. Robertson on. I would urge this 13 Board to note that he is new planning to go beycnd the
) 14 matters that be had identified in his rpecificetion.
15 The rpecification that he filed on June 26th 16 dealt solely uith Mr. Robertson's recollection of the 17 events surrounding HLLP's decision to report only three 18 findings from the Quadrex report to the HRC May 8, 1981 19 and to see if their recollection of events coincides with 20 the testimony to be provided by P.r. Goldberg and Dr. 21 James R. Sumpter. 22 At the oral argument that was held on July 23 lith, last Thursday, at page 11461, I made very clear in 24 cy understanding that the witnesses -- if they were to be 25 subpoenaed, would be called only on the matters that Mr. 'j TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12950 1 Sinkin has previously identified. ((2d I As I said, he is limited his scope in the 2 3 developments that Mr. Sinkin has filed, he cannot enlarge 4 upon that scope. That would be the -- even if we loose 5 the motion to quash, they would testify only with respect 6 to those subjects, those subjects identified. 7 Judge Bechhoefer says, "Yes, there were two 8 different documents." That's the identification of 9 specification, but, yes, there was documents. 10 Mr. Sinkin has now enlarging beyond that. And 11 thic i: :n improper time to either identify new witnesses 12 to be subpoenacd or to increcco upon the : cope of what he 13 had previously indicated they were to be subpoenaed on. 6) (_ 14 Now, let me turn one by one to the items he 15 identified. He intends to explore in the first place, 16 Mr. Robertson's involvement with the Quadrex study, the 17 Quadrex report notification beginning, participation from 18 beginning, discussions re reportability, and re briefing 19 of Don Sells. 20 To the extent that that-deviates from the 21 events on May 7th and tiay 8th, that is clearly beyond the 22 scope of what nr. Sells identified in his specification 23 of issues -- Mr. Sinkin identified in his specification 24 of issues. 25 Secondly, he is going to question him (J) TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
n 12951
/h Q.)
I concerning his involvement or knowledge of the NRC 2 ' investigation. That is wholly beyond and outside the 3 scope of why what he identified in his specification of 4 issues. He then wants to discuss the -- as best could I 5 gather from my notes -- his responsibilities since the 6 time he became licensing manager and his responsibilities 7 as manager for the engineering group and and his 8 responsibilities f or implementing 50.55 (e) . 9 To the extent he would plan to examine Mr. 10 Robertson on any of those matters, those are well beyond 11 uhat he identified in his specificaticn of issues. i 12 He then indicates one area.where Mr. Goldberg 13 had said he had never seen the moderandum in front of the ' (,- , (_) 14 precedure -- to 50.55 (e) precedure that identiffec the . 15 deviation and that he has said that nr. Ecbertson's 16 memory may ucil be better. 17 That may be what Cr. Gol6 berg scid but it is 18 very clear to me that Mr. Goldberg identified the types 19 of changes from the procedure which he knew were in 20 effect at that time, such as who uas -- whether Region IV 21 was notified as opposed to just the resident inspectors, 22 of 50.55(e)'s., but in any event that has nothing to do 23 with the matters that Mr. Sinkin previously indicated in 24 his specification of issue he would be examined on, Mr. 25 Robertson would be examined on, and certainly the A
=Y TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 490-8442
12952 l relevance consideration as to whether Mr. Goldberg has [}
.. g . . .. _.
2 seen or not seen a particular memorandum with respect to 3 the procedures is no basis for calling Mr. Robertson. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Isn't the awareness of 5 Houston Lighting & Power officials who have 6 responsibility at the time of May 7, 8, 1981, 7 responsibility for reviewing the Quadren report, the 8 responsibility for reviewing the Quadrex report, isn't 9 the awareness of those officials of procedures usually 10 reviewed -- usually used to review matters such as that? 11 And discrepancies, if any, frem those 12 procedures which wer,e actually followed with regard to 13 the Quadrer report; isn't that fairly rol, event both to ,
,mq .
q_) 1/. this proceeding generally and to the specification that 15 Mr. Sinkin provided earlier? 16 HR. AXELRAD : These are two different 17 questions. 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I realize that. 19 MR. AXELRAD: Certainly, knowledge of 20 gy,ocedures would be relevant. I think that the extent to 21 which the vice-president of nuclear engineering and 22 construction is specifically aware of every document and 23 every procedure as opposed to being generally familiar
- 24 with the procedures that are implemented and the general 25 objective of the procedures and the general need to
(~) q.) l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 l
12953 II' 1 satisfy NRC requirements, certainly those are relevant 2 matters. 3 And Mr. Goldberg was cross-examined at length 4 on that subject and his cross-examination is the best 5 evidence of Mr. Goldberg knows or doesn't know on that 6 subject. 7 Now, whether any infirmity, again if the Board 8 perceives it that way, any infirmity that Mr. Goldberg 9 may have had in his knowledge of those procedures, 10 whether that has -- provides any basis for having Mr. 11 Robertson testify, that I don't -- I don't perceive that 12 connection at all. 13 So certainly Mr. Robertson should not be called ez
) 't becture of that rerson. And as to what !!r. Pobertson's 15 knowledge is of the procedures bach in 1981, that is not 16 a recson fer subpeonaing hir as a witness.
17 If he, in fact, appears as a uitness for some 18 other reason, if Mr. Sinkin, putting that matter aside, 19 has an appropriate basis for calling him that's 20 consistent with the specification of issues that he 21 provided to this Soard, specification of testimony, 22 provided to this Board, then he might be questioned on 23 his knowledge of that procedure at that time. ! l 24 But that's a completely different question than l 25 whether that should provide a basis for calling him. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12954 1 Have I answered.the Chairman's questi.on? 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Not completely, because his 3 knowledge of procedures would seem to be comprehended by 4 the description that Mr. Sinkin already provided. His 5 participation in the review certainly includes his 6 participation with certain knowledge of how reviews are 7 conducted. I can't see why they're different. 8 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I understand. I'm 9 not suggesting that as to his knowledge of the procedures 10 on Hay of 1981 if he is called that he cannot be 11 questioned on that. What I am disputing at this point is 12 what I understood to be the thrust of what Er. Sinkin was l'3 . arguing, is that because he, Mr. Robertson, has a unique i t. , irca of knowledge cc to the procedurce, thct 's i a ba$1s 15 for calling him. 16 And what I'm saying is that is not the basis 17 that he sets forth in his specification of issues. He 18 didn't say we should -- I want to call Mr. Robertson 19 because I want him to testify with respect to the 20 procedures and that is a unique knowledge that he has to 21 provide that is not being provided by any other witness. 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, isn't that just sort 23 of naturally comprehended within the terms quote " events 24 surrounding HL&P's decision to report only three 25 findings" end quote? q b TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12955 I 1 MR. AXELRAD: No, I don't believe so. He is e
'- 2 calling Mr. Robertson to test his recollection of the 3 events surrounding HL&P's decision, and to see if their s 4 recollection of the events coincides with the testimony 5 provided by Mr. Goldberg.
6 It's a far stretch from those statements to say 7 that he was calling Mr. Robertson to test his knowledge 8 of the procedures and to see if that knowledge of the i 9 procedures coincides with Mr. Goldberg's knowledge of the 10 procedures. I don't.believe that at all. 11 You'll have your turn, Mr. Sinkin. 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I was going to say, why 13 don't you proceed uith proceed with ycur statement, h; 1/. because of sort ,cf interrupted you 6789. - 1_/ f, 15 MR. AZELnAD: L:t me make sure that the Ecard 16 understands, I am going through these itens-because I'm l 17 trying to explain that they are not appropriate bases for 18 not quashing the subpoena. 19 Mr. Sinkin is arguing that those are basis for 20 not quashing the subpoenas. These are the reasons why 21 this particular witness should testify. and I am 22 explaining, trying to explain to you, why these 23 statements do not provide that type of basis in light of 24 the duplicative and cumulative test and in light of the 25 narrow specification of issues which he had previously i J
)
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12956 62 1 provided. (c))>
\/ 2 Next item, if I understood Mr. correctly, was 3 whether -- Mr. Goldberg was asked if he had discu sions 4 in 1981 with Mr. Jordan or Oprea; he did not, but said he 5 mayhavehadsucbadiscussionwithMr.Robertson. And 6 Mr. Robertson's sworn statement so said.
7 Now, again, the events around May 8th do not 8 include the discussions which Mr. Goldberg did or did not 9 have with Mr. Jordan or Mr. Oprea. And if Mr. Sinkin had 10 intended to include within that the discussions with 11 respect to Mr. Robertcon as he has himself indicated, he 12 knew that all along from the sworn statement that Mr. 13 Robertson had provided in 82-02 and that would have been I 14 or should have been included in his specification of
%)
15 issues. 16 Finally, Mr. Sinkin points to an alleged 17 conflict in the record. As I understand it, Mr. Sinkin 18 recollects that Mr. Goldberg saic that in.the afternoon 19 of May 7th, he met with Mr. Stanley and Dr. Sumpter and 20 that at that time, Robertson was with Brown & Root and 21 for the life of me, I'm not sure I understand what the 22 discrepancy might or might not be. 23 But whether or not Mr. Robertson was with Broun 24 & Root in the afternoon of May 7th, Mr. Goldberg has 25 himself, in the course of his testimony, further
;m U
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 I
12957 explained that he wasn't sure whether that meeting with [hf e ; 1
> 2 Mr. Robertson -- with Mr. Stanley and Dr. Sumpter took 3 place in the afternnon or shortly after the morning 4 meeting at Brown & Root.
5 The discrepancy, if any, that exists in that is 6 surely with respect to in a relevent matter and provides 7 no basis at all for calling Mr. Robertson. 8 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, in view of the hour -- 9 I thought Mr. Axelrad was through. 10 UR. AXELRAD: I just have one -- 11 Mn. REIS: I'm sorry. 12 JUDGE BECEHOEFER: I did have a que tion to asi: 13 you, also. In making your comments, did you, or'could h; U 1/. you elaborate, whether the statement that Mr. Robertson 15 rhould testify quote "regarding his role in the decision 16 naking process regarding which items in the.Quadrex 17 report would be notified to the nuclect Regulatory 18 Comission staff, and whether the Quadrcx report has as a 19 uhole vould be turned over to the ASLB, that statement 20 there has no confining dates. Do you think, or not think 21 that that statement vouldn't be clearly covered some of 22 the additional items Mr. Sinkin menticned, even if they 23 would not be included on the Hay 7th and 8th discussions? 24 MR. AXELRAD: I'm sorry, where were you reading l 25 frem, Mr. Chairman?
)
v TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12958 g le 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I'm reading from. 2 MR. SINKIN: It's the identification of 3 iitnesses. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: CCANP identification of 5 witnesses provided to the Board and parties by letter 6 dated June 13, 1985. 7 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I regard the 8 operative document as being the specification of 9 testimony sought f rom CCANP witnesses which was filed by 10 CCANP on June 26, 1985, were the Board specifically asked 11 Mr. Sinkin to identify e::actly the testimony he was 12 seeking and the why he thought the witnesses would 13 testif y to thct e:: tent. b 14 JUDGE SECHHOEFER: Right. You quoted me to the v 15 effcet that both document uculd be taken inte account. 16 That's what I meant. That's one of the tuo, that's the 17 first of the two. 18 MR. AXELRAD: Oi:ay. But taking into account in 19 the sense that the second one was narrowing the first 20 one, the a second one had -- it's not everything in the 21 first plus everything in the second. That's my position, 22 Mr. Chairman. 23 JUDGE EECHHOEFER: Okay. 24 MR. AXELRAD: He has not provided anything in 25 the second document which provides any justification for ) } ~._/- t TATE REPORTIEG SERVICE, 498-8442
r 12959 1 anything that's in the-first document that's beyond what l -f 3 L/ - 2 was in the second document. He really has not provided 3 any justification for what's in the second document, let 4 alone for what's in the first. 5 I.would like to just briefly summarize my 6 position with with respect to Mr. Robertson, you have had 7 two people active with respect to what happened on May 8 7th and May 8th. 9 Mr. Sinkin wants to produce a third one without 10 giving you any reason to believe that you're going to 11 hear from the third one anything different than you've 12 heard from the first two and his argument was if there 13 were six them so we might as ucil as hear the third. 14 , I assume if there was six, we'd hear from six. _c 15 Obvicusly there is a record to be protected here, there 16 is a matter of how protracted you want the hearings to 17 .be; how many times you feel you need to hear the same 18 kind of evidence from additicnal people; it's obviously a 19 judgmental call; we sincerely believe thac you need to 20 hear it only from two. 21 It's obviously going to be your decision 22 whether you want to hear if from three without any 23 indication from Mr. Sinkin'as to why credibility is in 24 fact an issue or why he vould expect that the third 25 witness would testify any differently than the first two. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12960 n [;'". 1 JUDGE BECHBOEFER: Mr. Reis. 2 MR. REIS: I wanted to say in view of the hour 3 and the staff has an argument, too, on its witnesses, I 4 don't think there should be second rounds on these 5 things. And I want to make -- I want to make a very -- I 6 think that we could be here, we'll be here tomorrow 7 morning if there is going to be continued argument. I 8 think the Board has to say one round and that's it on 9 each witness. 10 MR. SINKIN: Then I think as the -- As the 11 prcponents, we get to go last? 12 UR. REIS: Hell, I mean everyone. 13 MR. SInnIn: There's another prebica with what {1 ' 14 yee've raiced, !:r. Reis, :nd that there are other items 15 that I wanted to bring up that are in the testimony today 16 which I have been reviewing. 17 MR. REIS: He had his opportunity. 18 JUDGE BECHHOPER: Mr. Sinkin, we don't think 19 you should have anything more to say on this because 20 we've decided not to quash the subpoena for Mr. 21 Robertson. So I assume you don't have to say anything 22 more about that. 23 MR. SIMKIN: That simplifies that. 24 HR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I would Ifike to 25 have one clarification, though. The testimony of the m smp TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12961 gf 1 subpoenaed witness is going to'be limited to the matters 2 covered by the specification of testimony that was filed 3 on June 26th. It was very clear in all our minds, I , 4 believe at the time, that we were providing our 5 testimony, we meaning the Applicants and the NRC staff, 6 were providing their testimony, prefiling it that day, 7 and in essence what Mr. Sinkin has to do on that day, on 8 June 26 in his specific indication of testimony, was to 9 essence identify the case he was e>:pection to draw out of 10 these people. 11 I think it's going to be incredibly unfair if 12 we'.re now going to permit Mr. Sinkin to broaden uhat he 13 can e:: amination subpoenaed witness on because he didn' t () 1/. 15 prtfile testimony. So I hoye the Eccre vill reaffirn its ruling that'the limitation of testimeny will be to wh:t 16 is specified in that document. 17 Mou, we may have arguments as to what that 18 document includes or does not include. 19 (No Hiatus.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 m (./ TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12962 ([ v l MR. SINKIN: I think we'd better do that up
'J _ 2 front rather than wait till the witness is here and 3 wrangle. The --
4 MR. REIS: Wait a second.
,5 MR. SINKIN: The specification of testimony 6 f or Mr . Robertson addresses to test his recollections of 7 the events surrounding HL&P's decision to report only 8 three findings of the Quadrex report to the NRC. Well, 9 the events surrounding that are Robertson's involvement 10 in a process by which decisions were made whether to 11 report findings to the NRC. The process began when he ,- 12 first learned about the Quadrex study. It continued
(,_ j 13 through the meetings, since one of the issues in this 14 proceeding is the drafts of the Quadrex report and 15 whether they should have been sent to the NRC, and it 16 continues through his discussions with Mr. Goldber g 17 af ter the three reports had been made on whether further 18 reports should be made and that's where it concludes on 19 that aspect. 20 There is then an investigation by the NRC 21 seeking inf ormation and a question arises will HL&P give 22 the Quadrex report to the NRC investigators. Mr. 23 Robertson plays a role in that decision and that's his 24 final act as f ar as we know in the scenario of the
])
25 events surrounding HL&P's reporting of Quadrex report TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12963 i l {g 1 findings to the NRC. That is the case we intend to ask O 2 Mr. Robertson about. 3 We have given some specific examples and I 4 would be happy to provide the Applicants with other 5 specific examples of where testimony from this 6 proceeding has raised questions we intend to ask Mr. 7 Robertson. But I think they all fall -- well, I'll save 8 those,. We'll see. Maybe we'll argue as to those as to 9 whether they fall into this ambit. 10 But that's exactly what we want from Mr. 11 Robertson, his involvement in this entire episode.
.. 12 MR. REIS: Mr. Chai rman, I think the only
(+s .
\_) 13 thing -- I agree with .the Applicant that we all were 14 proceeding on a supposition that the specifications, 15 however narrow or broad they may be, are the only thing 16 that these witnesses, whether they be staff witnesses or 17 Applicant witnesses, can be questioned about. But I 18 don't think we can deal with this in the abstract by an 19 argument now. We have to wait for the questions. And I 20 would suggest we wait for the questions.
21 The only thing I would say to the Board is, 22 yes, the test of whether they will testify, reaf firm the 23 test as to whether they will testify as to the last () 24 matters that CCANP said he would seek to have then 25 testify about. In other words, the filings of the 26th TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12964 l ($: 1 of June. 2 MR. SINKIN: I would urge the Board to resolve 3 this issue now or we're going to spend the entire 4 hearing wrangling over every question. 5 MR. REIS: It can't be resolved. 6 MR. SINKIN: The phrase is to test his 7 recollection of events surrounding HL&P's decision to 8 report only three findings on May 8th. I have defined 9 what I see as those events that Mr. Robertson was 10 involved in. I would urge the Board to say that they 11 see that as the purpose for which he's being called to .
. 12 testify as to those events, from the time he got .
> 13 involved to the time the NRC investigators came and 14 asked to see various documents.
15 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Ch ai rm an, the Board will be 16 able to make that decision and any other decision in 17 light of any testimony sought by Mr. Sinkin at that 18 time. I don't believe that we can possibly spend the 19 rest of the afternoon and get to the NRC staff witnesses 20 if we're going to be arguing matters of interpretation. 21 We can interpret it at that time. All I want to do is 22 make sure I did understand the Board that the June 26 23 document was the operative document. ( 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think the Board wants to 25 make clear that it's the two documents. I think that's TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
I i 12965 ($) I what we said at the prehearing conference. We did not VT 2 necessarily mean that the later specification would i ! 3 supersede the other. It would give some specific 4- examples which was to help us with decisions of this 5 sort. If the two documents put together -- and .I 6 thought we said that at the prehearing conference, in 7 fact, you quoted me. 8 MR. SINKIN: That is exactly what the purpose
. 9 of the document, the second document was, was to give 10 you additional information so you could decide whether 11 to quash these subpoenaes. .
12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. We have always had (?m. (-) 13 in mind and we've always lected at bcth documents to 14 determine the scope of what you hope to obtain f rom your 15 witnesses. So, we -- 16 MR. SINKIN: It would seem to me, Mr. 17 Chairman, that on each of these arguments, in document 18 one I provided a sufficient ground for the subpoena to 19 be issued. It was issued. Document two I provided a 20 greater specification to help the Board decide whether 21 it should be quashed. So, in any argument they both 22 have to be together. 23 MR. REIS : Mr. Chai rman, the Board has ruled 13 (_) 24 in Mr. Sinkin's favor. I don't know why he's still 25 arguing. i TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12966 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We've ruled in your f avor. 2 Don't shoot yourself in the foot. You've won already. 3 MR. SINKIN: I'll try not to. 4 Should I move on to Mr. Powell now? 5 JUDGE BECBHOEFER: Yes. 6 MR. SINKIN: On Mr . Powell, as I stated 7 earlier, in the period f rom January 1,1981 to October 8 1, 1981, Mr. Powell was team leader of nuclear licensing 9 for HL&P and that that is a key component of the HL&P 10 operation that interf aces with the NRC and makes sure 11 that the Applicants are complying with the requirements 12 of the NRC in their activities. {.. \_/ 13 Mr. Powell as chairman of the Incident Review 14 Committee got involved in the Quadrex report it turns 15 out now on two occasions. One was the earlier error in 16 the code problem that the Incident Review Committee took 17 up and decided was not reportable and the other is the 18 later review of the three findings. 19 Actually he meets with Mr. -- he meets with 20 the team of three reviewers on May the 8th for a brief 21 period of time, gets some inf ormation f rom them about 22 Quadrex, about the three findings and then later 23 convenes various Incident Review Committee meetings to () 24 review those findings. 25 One of the things that we note in Mr. TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12967 l k 633 1 Goldberg's testimony, Mr. Goldberg did not remember if Vh
- V 2
} the IRC reviewed three potentially reportable findings i L 3 identified on May the 8th. And it was the Chairman's l 4 question, I believe, to Dr. Sumpter, I can't find j l 5 exactly who asked it, about whether Mr. Powell suggested 6 the IRC actually review the Quadrex report for purposes 7 at least of documenting the decisions made by the team 8 of three. And Dr. Sumpter's answer was that he could 9 not recall while he was present whether that request had 10 been made. We would see that as an inquiry that would 11 be very interesting f or Mr. Powell to provide us l _ 12 information about. Relevant material, admissible and - l *(q ~ k/ 13 interesting. - 14 Fur thermor e, there is at least tangential 15 evidence available that the Incident Review Committee, 16 when they reviewed the three potentially reportable 17 findings, in fact, reviewed more than the three. And it 18 raises questions about the Incident Review Committee 19 made independent determinations on findings that, in 20 fact, were not among the three that were referred to 21 them and decided not to report those findings. 22 And again, the testimony -- as the testimony 23 of Dr. Sumpter I think now has made clear, that while we
'i3
(_) 24 may have expected Mr. Powell to testify that the IRC 25_ procedures were not -- were not followed during the TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12968 1 Quadrex review, in fact, for a period of time they were 2 follow ed. At least in the code error event they did 3 follow the appropriate procedure, but that when the 4 Quadrex report was delivered, they no longer followed 5 that procedure. We would certainly want to explore that 6 with Mr. Powell. 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Sinkin, don't we j 8 already have two witnesses saying that at least the 9 formal IRC procedures were not followed with respect to 10 the -- 11 MR. SINKIN: B ut I'm saying that in the period
- c. 12 prior to the delivery of the report they were followed 13 because they did review the error in the code event.
14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. Well, th'at is on 15 record as well. 16 MR. SINKIN: I understand. So that at some 17 point a decision was made that the procedure to refer 18 matters to the IRC would no longer be followed and we l~ 19 would like to explore that point with Mr. Pow ell. 20 JUDGE BECHBOEFER: You may continue. 21 MR. SINKIN: Those are the major items besides 22 what's in our two pleadings that we bring to you today 23 as reasons Mr. Powell should be called. (]) 24 I noted that Mr. Axelrad chose not to respond 25 to my general argument that may be an adversity to i TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12969
. 1 generic findings. I consider the general argument very ~)
2 relevant, that the purpose of the Board is to have a 3 complete record. And if they do not have in the record 4 of this hearing how the committee that was supposed to 5 deal with Quadrex findings as to whether they were 6 potentially reportable actually did deal with them from 7 the beginning through the end of the Quadrex event, then 8 they don't have a complete record. And that the 9 deliberations of the IRC are an integral part of a 10 complete record and that there is no witness being 11 called f rom the IRC. So, we called the chairman. 12 That concludes my remarks. 1 ( ^\
~
13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Does the Staff have 14 anything to add? 15 MR. FIRFO: Yes, Mr. Chai rman. I think Mr. 16 Sinkin has made a better argument for not calling Mr. 17 Powell than I can possibly make. He's pointed out, as 18 the Board has pointed out to him, everything that he 19 wants to prove is already on record, it's 20 uncontroverted. There's nothing of relevance that th e 21 IRC did at that point that is relevant to the issues in 22 this proceeding. 23 Mr. Sinkin keeps maintaining that he wants a (~'\ i> 24 complete record. Well, a complete record does not mean 25 an encyclopedia of everything that HL&P did for the last TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12970 [Z; 1 five years. There is simply no need f or Mr. Powell. k'~' / 2 What he -- his off er of proof, what he hopes to prove 3 from Mr. Powell is in the record, is uncontroverted. To I 4 the extent it's material, it's already there. i 5 Anything he's indicated he wants to -- he's ! 6 indicated it's interesting. Sure, it will be 7 fascinating for Mr. Sinkin to go down and talk about i 1 8 these things, but they're not going to be probative of 9 anything that this Board has to decide. 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Axelrad? Before you 11 start, I would like to ask you, are the Applicants going 12 to raise any objections to the weight of the testimony f.s s 13 ve have already had concerning the procedures in the IRC 14 for documenting decisions not to report an item? 15 Now, both Kr. Goldberg and Dr. Sunpter 16 testified on that matter and I believe Mr. Wisenburg 17 will later testify, but he was not the person 18 responsible back in the May 1981 time f rame. We i 19 probably don't have the best evidence of what those 20 procedures were. Will the Applicants raise any 21 objection to the evidence that we do have on that 22 subject? 23 MR. AXELRAD: I'm not sure I understand -- r) (/ 24 JUDGE :BECHHOEFER: For the reason it is not 25 best evidence. TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 . _ _ _ _ _ _
12971
$j l' We asked Dr. Sumpter whether one of the
^~' 2 particular documents which recorded an IRC determination 3 not to report was an example of how the IRC would deal 4 with such an item and he confirmed that it was. But Dr. 5 Sumpter was not directly responsible at that period of 6 time f or that function. 7 Now, will the Applicants object to our using 8 the testimony already in the record or which could be 9 provided by Mr. Wisenburg perhaps as to what the 12 procedures were in May and June, '81, IRC procedures? I 11 MR. AXELRAD: We may be talking about two 12 different things, Mr. Ch ai rman, so I'd like to make sure A ) 13 I understand. One is that my recollection is that the 14 procedures that were in effect at the time, that 's with 15 the memorandum en top of Mr. Robertson and Mr. Barker or 16 vice versa, that is an exhibit before you and that is 17 obviously the procedures that applied at that time. So, 18 there's no question about that and I assume that the 19 Board is not ref erring to that particular document. 20 What I assume you' re ref erring to is the , l 21 testimony with respect to how the IRC documented a i 22 decision of non-reportability in one particular 23 instance, the testimony that Dr. Sumpter gave with 24 respect to those two memoranda. 25 JUDGE BECHBOEFER: That's correct. We would , 1 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12972 1 like a record to show what the procedures in general 2 were f or that type of thing back in 1981, May 1981. 3 MR. AXELRAD: Yes. Mr. Wisenburg, who will be 4 testifying with respect to the current procedures and 5 how they deviate from previous procedures, will have 6 sufficiently reviewed the records of the company and 7 he'll be able to testify on the basis of his review of 8 those records what the procedure was then, how it is 9 now. So, Mr. Wisenburg will be able to testify as to 10 that subject. 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I know we asked Dr.
. 12 Sumpter. I'm not sure he's the person to provide the ~~
13 best, quote, best' evidence. He certainly was 14 knowledgeable. 15 MR. AXELRAD: You'll be able to get additional 16 inf ormation on that subject from Mr. Wisenburg. 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Now you can -- 18 MR. AXELRAD: I don't have much to add to what 19 the Staff said in response to Mr. Sinkin's argument. 20 I do think this is the classic case where a 21 record should not be burdened with additional 22 duplicative and cumulative testimony with respect to 23 uncontroverted matters. p' lo 24 On page 9 of our response we identify all of 25 the matters that we believe are in the record on that TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12973 f2f 1 subj ect and are presently uncontroverted. We would, in -Q 2 fact, be willing to stipulate to those matters. 3 There is no reason at all for any of the items 4 that Mr. Sinkin has cited as to why additional testimony 5 is needed. _ Everything that he wants to prove is in the 6 record.- The one instance when during the course of a 7 Quadrex review an item was identified with sufficient 8 specificity to be reviewed by the IRC, it was reviewed 9 by the IRC. That has nothing to do with the review that 10 was done of the Quadrex report. 11 And, in any event, the f acts are clear, the 12 IRC was not used in the review of the Quadrex report. (,,)
'~'
13 That review was conducted by a three-member review 14 team. And the facts are clear that the chairman of the
- 15. IRC reported those three items to the NRC at whose 16 direction he reported them on.
17 And the record is also clear that those items 18 were subsequently, two of them were subsequently found. 19 to be reportable and continued under the reportability 20 process and one of them was found to be not not 21 reportable and was withdrawn. And Mr. Sinkin had ample 22 opportunity to cross-examine anyone he wanted to on 23 those subjects and there's nothing in the record that's O h' 24 in issue on those subjects. 25 MR. SINKIN: May I reply, Mr. Chairman, TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12974
$ 1 briefly?
F[' 2 JUDGE BECHBOEFER: Yes. 3 MR. SINKIN: First of all, in the 4 specification -- the stipulation f orm of page 9, let's 5 say page 9 of the Applicants' pleading, there are two 6 items that are, in fact, in controversy which we now 7 know. Number two states the portions of the HL&P 8 procedures providing for the determination of 9 reportability of deficiencies by the IRC were not used 10 in the review of the Quadrex report. 11 Well, we know that at least in one instance 12 they were used. So, that is not an accurate statement (,
~
13 because the review was made of the computer err'or -- I 14 mean the code error. 15 Secondly, the item 6 says neither the IRC nor 16 its individual members reviewed the Quadrex report to 17 determine its reportability other than the three items 18 which were reported by the NRC -- to the NRC by Mr. 19 Powell on May 8 th,1981. 20 As I stated in my reasons for calling Mr. 21 Powell, there is tangential evidence that the IRC 22 reviewed findings other than those three findings and 23 that is one of the key things that we would like to ask uJ 24 him about. 25 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chai rman, if I could respond TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12975 R( 1 very briefly. There are two statements that Mr. Sinkin 2 has made, one of which is f alse and the second of which 3 I do not understand. 4 The first item was that the code question was 5 an item in the.Quadrex report that was reviewed by the 6 IRC. The testimony made very clear that that item, that 7 question came up before the Quadrex report was ever 8 issued. That item was not reviewed by the IRC as part 9 of the review of the Quadrex report. The facts are 10 quite clear that the Quadrex report and no portion of it 11 was reviewed by the IRC. , g= 12 And when he alludes to at least tangential 13 evidence that they reviewed something else in the 14 Quadrex report, I'd like to know what that evidence is. 15 I haven't heard any tangential evidence. 16 MR. SINKIN: Okay. I'll give it to you. 17 I'd ask that this be marked as CCANP 99 for 18 identification. 19 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman I obj ect to this 20 process. Let's move on with this thing. We've had 21 arguments from both sides.' We're going to a third 22 counter rebuttal here and it is time that the Board 23 rul e.
-- 24 MR. SINKIN: This is a critical point in the 25 argument, FI . Reis. I think it's worth a few minutes.
TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12976 fC' 1 MR. REIS: This is not critical.
~
2 MR. PIRPO: We object to his marking this f or 3 identific~ation. You don't do that in an argument on a 4 motion to quash a subpoena. 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We won't mark it at this 6 point. 7 MR. SINKIN: I wish you'd hold on to it, 8 please. I was doing that to make sure it would stay 9 around. 10 MR. AXELRAD: This is the follow-up of one of 11 the three items that were notified to the NRC. Al'1 right.
. 12 MR. SINKIN: Just a moment, Mr.
(c\ 4
-' 13 A::el rad. If we read very caref ully the second 14 paragraph, it states that, "During a recent technical 15 assessment of Brown & Root, several concerns were 16 identified regarding Brown & Root 's approach to computer 17 program code verification. These concerns are that many 18 of the Brown & Root computer codes that are presently 19 used are unverified at the present time and the 20 possibility exists that their use on STP might result in 21 an inadequate design. In addition, the verification 22 program for a particular code lacks visibility to the 23 user," we think that was the reported finding, "to the
) 24 user as to whether or not the program versions of the 25 code in use have been verified. Lastly, there are some TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12977 ([ 1 concerns as to how computer codes are controlled by p 2 Brown & Root procedures with regard to safety-related 3 applications." 4 Am I misunderstanding and do you want to 5 clarify? 6 MR. AXELRAD: Yes, this is all one in the same 7 item. He discussed the various aspects that were 8 troublesome and these are the three matters that were 9 carried through in the review of this item that was 10 notified to the NRC. 11 MR. SINKIN: Well, I would point out, Mr.
.. 12 Chairman, that the response of the IRC -- hold on one F ,J 13 second.
14 liR. PIRPO : Why is tha response of the IRC 15 relevant? That 's what I do not understand and which Mr. 16 Sinkin has f ailed to say. 17 KR. SINKIN: If the IRC reviewed other than 18 the visibility notification which is what they notified 19 the NRC about was the visibility, whereas this document 20 distinguishes three different findings, one is 21 visibility and there's two others, if the IRC reviewed 22 something other than what was notified to the NRC, then 4 23 we have a different situation. And I think this n (~ ) 24 document brings -- I 25 MR. PIRFO: What is the showing of relevance , TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 L _. .
12978 1 here? It escapes me. b(Ek 2 MR. SINKIN: If the IRC reviewed something 3 other than what was notified, then we're already at the 4 point where the decision on what should be notified to 5 the NRC is potentially reportable involves a new group 6 that wasn't previously involved and that's the IRC. 7 JUDGE BECBHOEFER: The Board has agreed that 8 we will quash this subpoena. 9 , We don't read this document, by the way, as 1C ref erring to anything other than one deficiency which 11 was reported t,o the IRC. Now, that 's not a final ruling . 12 on it if we 'should be asked to rule on that document f,8 . .
~'
But' f or -purposes of the subpoena at least, we
~
13 later. 14 don't think it would warrant -- 15 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman -- 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Anyway, we've decided that , 17 one. Why don't you proceed on the third one, Mr. 18 Poston. 19 MR. SINKIN: Okay. I do want to do something 20 as an off er of proof at this point in the record just on 21 this -- 22 MR. PIRFO: The ruling has been made. 23 MR. SINKIN: I understand. I'm not rearguing N-) 24 the ruling. I just want in the record -- 25 MR. PIRFO: This is not the point to -- we' re TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12979
.s 1 arguing a motion to quash subpoenas. We don't_have a .O 2 witness on the stand. We're not in evidentiary 3 hearing.
4 MR. SINKIN: Okay. Fine. Fine. 5 Mr. Poston, as I stated is the chairman of the 6 Incident -- yeah, I wish -- chairman of the management
-7 committee. And, as we stated, we wanted to call him 8 regarding the deliberations of the management committee 9 in relation to the Quadrex report and what was said and le by whom.
11 We already have -- we have these very sketchy minutes of Mr.' Thrash that raised certain questions 12 13 about whether Mr. Goldberg said he'd have to report all 14 of the most serious findings to the NRC, whether Mr. 15 Goldberg refused to turn over the report to the NRC. 16 And we have Mr. Goldberg saying he doesn't recall saying 17 that he was refusing to turn it over to the NRC. And we 18 don't feel that these particular documents give us -- 19 provide in the record sufficient inf ormation to know 20 exactly what Mr. Goldberg said and that the calling of 21 Mr. Poston can certainly clarify those matters. 22 He .does provide in a more general sense the 23 unique perspective of an outsider in not being inside 24 Houston Lighting & Power or Brown & Root, but rather 25 sitting on the management comm!; tee and reviewing their TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12980
/I' 1 work. But he is well-inf ormed about their work at the L
2 same time in that he did sit continuously on the 3 management committee and continues to do so. 4 Since the -- we also raised the issue earlier 5 of the management committees oversight function as it 6 relates to 50.55(e) responsibility. We know that they 7 did discuss Quadrex and whether it should be turned over 8 to the NRC, that Mr. Goldberg apparently said he was not 9 going to, but the management committee made no effort to 10 overrule him. 11 The Applicants argue that they don't have the 12 expertise to make that kin'd of decision. .I think that's (, 13 more of a finding than it is a reason not to talk to 14 them. If they lack expertise, that may reflect on their 15 competence. They ccn certainly gc cut and bring in a 16 consultant to help them understand 50.55(e) if they 17 don' t understand it now. But we may well find that they 18 do understand it and incorrectly applied it in this 19 situation. 20 The Applicants have argued on page 6 end 7 of 21 their motion that whether Quadrex was viewed as a major 22 problem by the management committee is irrelevant to 23 this proceeding. I think that will very much depend on 24 how the management committee viewed it as a major 25 pr obl em. If they viewed it as a major quality assurance i TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12981 1 problem as opposed to simply a productivity problem, you
~
2 might well have evidence that should have indicated to 3 Mr. Goldberg or others that the ' report should be turned 4 over to the NRC if the management committee itself 5 didn't have the expertise to understand that. 6 The Applicants, by the way, in their motion to 7 quash do state correctly that the minutes available 8 reflect Mr. Poston's questions whether Quadrex would be 9 turned over only once. I do remember saying that he , 10 repeatedly questioned it. And I can only imagine that I 11 momentarily confused the line of question immediately 12 'above him which is Mr. Hancock which led up to Mr. p_
-' 13 Poston, then asking Mr. Hancock cre you going to turn it 14 over to the PUC. Then he asked are you going to turn it 15 over to somebody else, I forget. He asked at least two '
16 questions as to whether it was going to be turned over 17 and then Mr. Poston asked the third question as to 18 whether it was going to be turned over. 19 That was the repetition that was in my mind. 20 We certainly do rej ect Applicants characterizing that 21 statement by CCANP at the time as a lie. I think that 22 was simply confusing Mr. Hancock's questioning with Mr. 23 Poston's questioning.
! 24 (No hiatus.)
25 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12982 w 1 By the way, we do feel very strongly that the (:24
-'~)
2 obligations of McGuire apply to this management committee 3 as well. It's not just 50.55 (e) . They are the 4 Applicants. So if tne Applicants have an obligation 5 under McGuire, the management committee does too. I 6 think I will stop there, Mr. Chairman. 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Reis. 8 MR. PIRFO: As ue've stated, we have no 9 position with regard to Mr. Poston. 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Axelrad? 11 MR. AMELnAD: nell, I kncu it's getting 1cte, 12 but I really shoulc take just : few minutes to go through 13 these items one by cne with respect to Mr. Poston. 1/. . JUDGF,BECPEO"PDP:
'f(]-)- Vou might start out bir 15 asking -- by e::plcining hou else ccn ue set the 16 information concerning the June 26, '81 management 17 cortittee where Mr. Posten is reportedly -- reportedly 18 said something chout providing copies to intervenors and 19 the uitnesses have not been able to -- and the uitnesses 20 have not been able to respond to uhat that meant.
21 It's a question I asked and the -- Mr. 22 Goldberg, at least, was not able to even remember that 23 that subject uas discussed. That is of course attributed 24 to Mr. Poston. And that is in one of the meetings, one 25 of the documents that CCAMP previously designated as one N Q.) CATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12983 , ,~~ px, ') 1 that they wished to question Mr. Poston about. So you 2 may want to address that directly. 3 MR. AXELRAD: Yes. Well, I have just two 4 answers to that. One is Mr. Goldberg did not recall but 5 he gave you his recollection of what happened at that 6 meeting; I believe Mr. Jordan was at that meeting, he 7 appeared and no one asked him. Mr. Oprea will be 8 appearing. I'm not sure whether he has any recollection 9 of what happened at the June 26th meeting, either. I 10 would urge the Board to consider whether what was in fact 11' caid cr not raid with rccpect to intervencrc ct that June 12 26 raeeting, whether that is a material matter that we 13 thct uculd justify cn efficici cf one.cf the .'.ppliccnts w-) 14 tc cppecr. - 15 It cppocrc to uc, ct lecct, to be very 16 tangentici, not to provide any retl light on the issuec 17 to be heard before thic Board, and that it's not very 18 likely that anycne else uculd have c recollection of what 19 had happened four years ago with respect to a matter 20 that's so slight in importance. 21 So I just don't believe that that particular 22 matter can form a basis for calling Mr. Poston. 23 Uith respect to the other matters as to which 24 Mr. Sinhin relies, he first argues that Mr. Poston should 25 apparently be called to testify with respect to what Mr. (3
\:]
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12984 I [d 1 2 Goldberg said at the meeting of April 27th with respect to reportability of the Quadrex report findings which had 3 not yet been received; lIr. Goldberg explained. is his 4 prefiled testimony why the changes in the definition of 5 "most serious" from what he had proposed on April 15th to 6 what they actually were in the final report would have 7 been the basis for any statement that appeared in those 8 minutes; he was available for cross-examination on that 9 subject and to the best of my recollection, Mr. Sinkin 10 did not have enough interest to even cross-e:: amine him on 11 it.
, 12 Dr. Sumpter, is also uns also available, he hr.d 13 in his testimony a diccuccion of hou the definition of. .b gd 14 "mert scricus". changed. c*.*er e period of tir<r. I t'acn't 15 in the hearing thrcughcut Dr. Sumpter'c testimony but I 16 don't reccll if he was ached about that subject.
17 And ef course !*r. Oprec can also be questioned 10 on that subject when he appears. 19 Again, to us, it would appear that calling IIr. 20 Poston would be cumulative and duplicative. As to 21 whether or not the Quadre:: report became a major problem 22 recognized by the partners, I just do not understand !!r. 23 Sinkin's argument, to uhatever entent the management 24 committee had problems with respect to the cost and 25 schedule of the project that is not a matter of any great l O TATE REPORTIKG SERVICE, 498-0442 l t
12985 I 1 interest to this Board. Quadrex report list eleven m:jor (- 2 problems, and I just don't see how that could influence 3 this Board's decision. 4 It appears to me to be completely irrelevant, 5 and that is of course a separate ground for quashing a 6 subpoena. 7 The final matter that Mr. Sinkin has raised is 8 whether the members of the management committee were 9 f amiliar with the requirements of 50.55 (e) but took no 10 steps to independently assure that the decisions 11 regarding Quadrex were appropriate, that is really an 12 argument that is uithout foundation and preposterous. 13 It i: clear that under the licence and under 9 V 14 the UnC regulations, HL;P is the only one of the 15 Applicants who has the technical staff or familiarity and 16 the re:ponsibility to make thoce judgmentc. It 1: 17 completely irrelevant to this proceeding what the other 18 Applicants may or may not have in the way of technical 19 knowicdge; it is the competence and character of HLLP 20 which is at issue here and we're really, we would really 21 be going into quite tangential, peripheral and irrelevant 22 matters to start exploring what the expertise is of the 23 other Applicants. 24 Mn. SIUKIN: Are you finished?
?.5 MR. AXCLRAD: Yes.
TATE REPORTING SERVICC, 498-8442
12986
\ f2 , 1 MR. SI!EIN:
If I could just respond very 2 briefly, Mr. Chiarman on that later point. Again, I did 3 provide the citation on the case that says co owners are 4 co-applicants. I think Mr. Axelrad's argument would 5 indicate that if a co-owner of a nuclear power plant who 6 is not the managing partner of the project had a concern 7 about safety that the management of the project was not 8 adequately responding to a particular item, that they 9 would be relieved of responsibility because they lacked 10 the e::pertise to re-evaluate the decision of the managing 11 partner. 12 I don't believe th:t th t is in any U:y in the
+
13 interest of the public he:lth and safety certainly and I (E) '- 14 don't think it is what is envionce6 in the Muclear 15 negulatory Commissien rules and regulations. 16 MR. AXELEAD: May I have just one sentence on 17 that subject. If "r. Sinkin and CCM:P had intended to 18 raise an issue in this proceeding that competence and 19 the actions of the other owners, they had ample 20 opportunity to do so many times throughout the course of 21 this proceeding. I think it is clear beyond a shaddow of 22 a doubt that throughout Phase I and throughout Phase II 23 what's been in question has been the competence of and 24 character of HLLP. There has not been a single scintilla 25 of evidence with respect to evidence with respect to
N !
(_/ TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 i
12987 1 competence and character of any of the other Applicants
;\j 5) k , -,
2 and I.think truly has Mr. Sinkin has raised a red herring 3 before this Board. 4 MR. REIS: I just want to remind the Board that 5 there are some projects where there are 30 owners and 6 some of them have two tenths of one percent of the 7 ownership, and are we going to open all URC proceedings 8 to look at what is the character and competence of each 9 of those many many owners in many other cases. 10 MR. SINKIN: Er. cept in this-particular
-11 proceeding, Mr. Cheirman, which is about the Quadre::
12 report, we know that the QuadrE: repCrt PCI,so Uns 13 di: cussed at the management concittee and that at least 14 two'mbeberc of the ranagement committee raised questions 15 about uhether that report was going to be turned over to 16 other regulatory bodies. And the minutes record Mr. 17 Goldberg as refusing to turn-it over to the nuclear la Regulatory Commission. 19 I think if a member of a management committee 20 of a project has such a question in their mind and it's a 21 sericus question, and the management of the project says 22 no, we're not going to do it, then they do have an 23 obligation. , l 24 I don't care if they only have tuo tenths of 25 one percent. If they know of something that gives them a r~
%w/
l l ! TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-0442
- - - ,. _ . - . . ~ _ - - . _ , . . - - - , . - ~ . - - - _ ~ , . . - . , - _ - . . . _ . . . _ -
1 12988 j (Nk 1 safety' concern that they don't think the managing partner v - - - 2 is handling properly, yes, they have a responsibility to 3 do something. And I would hate to see you say otherwise. 4 JUDGE DECHHOEFER: The Board has decided not to 5 quash that subpoena. Mr. Poston will be called. 6 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, may I ask that the 7 subpoena, if it's not quashed, to be modified to be 8 limited to the precise matters as to which Mr. Sinkin has 9 made any shouing of relevance and importance? I 10 understand that the Board, from previous questioning, is 11 interccted, for c::ampic, in achine Mr. ?ccten er having 12 Mr. Poston testify with respect to the events at the 13 meeting cf June 25th. ()\ x m 14 JUDGE EEC""OEFER: Thet actu:lly vac included 15 in Mr. Einhin't carlier statement. 16 MR. 1.ZELRAD: I underctand. 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: As were two other meetings. 18 MR. AXELRAD: Okay. Ucll, I would like to ask, 19 because I think it's important considering that this is 20 not even an employee of of HLLP, he's an employee of one 21 of the co-owners I would like to make cure that we have a 22 ' narrow scope that he knowc what it is he's going to be 23 testifying on. 24 Can we limit the subpoena, modify the subpoena 25 so that it applies only to the events at the meetings of O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
12989 b 1 April 27th and June 25th? b- 2 MR. SINKIN: I would object to that. I think 3 Mr. Poston can be shown what his probably already has 4 been shoun what is in CCANP's identification of witnesses 5 and specification of testimony sought from witnesses and 6 that is what we will expect him to testify about. 7 !!R. AXELEAD: I understand that's Mr. Sinkin's 8 expectation. But obviously when this there is an 9 argument with respect to a subpoena, there are two events
- 10. which can take place as result of a that. The subpoena 11 can be cutshed or the cubpcons ccn be modified. It'c not 12 an all or nothing situation and I would ccsume that the
. 13 Dourd in itc deliberations under:tood that come of the x
pb , 1/. matterc the.t "r. Sinhin ut.c reicing uere cettere chich 1 15 they thought justified having Mr. Pccten appeer. I uould 16 believe that they didn't give the sete ucight to some of l~ 17 the other matters that nr. Sinkin must have raised. And 10 I would appreciate the Doard's consideration of limiting 19 the subpoena to the subject matter of those tuo meetings. 20 11R. SInnIn: !!r. Chairman, I'm sorry to 21 interrupt. Could you delay your decision for tuo minutes 22 uhile I go to the bathroom? l 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Maybe it will take that 24 long. Off the record. l 25 (Discussion off the record.) lO TATE REPORTI"G SERVICE, 498-8442 l
12990 ,'s i
)
1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: TheBoardhiilllimititin 2 only one respect. We will delete the last item starting 3 with " finally in the June 26th memorandum," the last 4 sentence. But in deleting that, we vill nevertheless 5 permit questioning on how f amiliar with 50.55(e) Mr. 6 Poston is; we don't believe that the management committee 7 has any independent responsibility, but to the extent 8 that committee made recommendations to Mr. Goldberg or 9 others to either report or not report, we think that 10 might be relevant. 11 Oc ec vill allor questiening cleng that line 12 cnly, not to chcu thct thcre ucs any independent
- 13 recponsibility whic.h te don't think there ic. And I'm 14 erf nt I don't remanbei the liarbla Eill cere that was i ,
15 cited to uc but I don' think it holds that. But I'd 16 h.Hve to review it. 17 ?.nyucy, uc r.rc holding thr.t that sentence in 18 out, e::copt for e::ploring Mr. Ponton's bachground. 19 !!n. SIURIN: You said 50.55 (e) , are you 20 e::cluding !!cGuire, that whole doctrine of the licensing 21 board? 22 JUDGE DECHHOEFEn: You con e::plore f amiliarity. 23 l'R . SIUKIN: remiliarity, that's all I'm 24 asking. 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Ue vill not allcu to you TA"_'E REPORTIPG SERVICE , 493-8442
12991
<r -
1 explcre whether they have any independent responsibility gg 2 to they, themselves, tell us. 3 MR. SINKIn: I think that is a matter of law. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We don't think they do. So 5 now -- so we will limit it but only in that way. Shall 6 we go to the staff? 7 MR. REIS: The ctaff would like to -- We 8 received HL&P's request and we'd like to lead of f in 9 replying to it. 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:. I think that would be 11 cppropricto. 12 I would like the -- one second. 13 "n. nCIE: CCI."I'c rcquc:t. 1/. J"D00 000 ': I ric .?0ndorin? cbcut that. 15 JUDCE EECUHOEFEE: Ple: e be cure to ccver the 16 guccticn I raiced the other day about Mr. Dirche' 17 statement to Congress. 18 MR. REIS: Right. Ac far as the ctaff Uould 19 like to start off talking about it. The first thing will 20 be an analysis of the regulation, then a ecmparison to 21 the rulec of -- federal rules of civil procedure, then 22 the cases on privilege and particularly involving. 23 intra-agency raemoranda and mental procecces, then an 24 cnalysis of the actters that CCAUP wishes to seek from 25 ecch uitness in cn epplication of the leu and then the TATE REPORTIMG SERVICE, 493-0442
12992
$5" 1 procedures, if they should be called. . (k_ ~
2 How this is a very important matter to the 3 staff land the staff will reserve any rights it might have 4 to appeal these matters to ask for interlocutory appeal 5 depending upon the rulings of the_ Board. 6 MR. SIUKIN: Excuse me. i
-7 !!R. REIS: As the Board --
8 MR. SI!! KIN: Excuse me, Mr. Reis. !!r . i 9 Chairman, I think we have abcut half an hour until we 10 adjourn. And it sounded like a fairly substantive 11 presentaticn by Mr. Reit. I'm uendering if this isn't-12 more appropriate for a brief or a n:otion to be filed by 13 the NRC that we vould all respond.to the minute us
-1/ r e c on'.'ene d .
15 HR. REIS: Mo. Uc're ccming bcc!: in tuo ucc!:s. 16 I'm going to put this in the record I want to put this in 17 the record nou. 18 MR. SINKIN: Okay. 19 MR. REIS: As the Board has ruled, it is only 20 under 2.730 (h) (ii) -- 21 JUDGE BECHUOEFER: 720. 22 MR. REIS: 720, that's correct, instead of 730. 23 As a general rule, staff uitnesces cannot be deposed or 24 called for testimony unless they cre co designated by the 25 staff. TATE REPORTI!1G SERVICE, 498-0442
12993 1 However, in the regulation, itself, there's a 2 provided clause that deals with exceptional 3 circumstances. Which says that in such instances, in 4 instances -- in instances where there's a particular NRC 5 employee who has directs personal knowledge of a material 6 fact not known to the uitnesses made available by the 7 staff, the Board in its discretion could require that 8 witness to be called. 9 Now, the elements of that is that there be a 10 named employee, that ne have direct personal knowledge, 11 thus not matters learned from others and not even if 12 -hose matterc chould be learned in the course of his 13 duties, it has to be his personal knowledge of mctters 14 and the Board has no juris6iction or ability to call him 15 to cther ratters. 16 Further it muct be ac to mLierial facic and not 17 opinion; facts not -- end further it r.iust be fects not 18 kncun te others. Further, there are other limitations in 19 the regulation, itself, and that deals with matters 20 relevant and not privileged. 21 I want to outline quickly the federn1 rules of 22 civil procedure, though they deal mostly with 23 depositions, they are meaningful here because the federal 24 rules of civil procedure has very similar language to the 25 cclling of gcVernment urites and uitnesses and that's in TATE REPORTII:G SERVICE, 490-8442
12;94 / 1 rule I believe it is 26 -- 30, federal rule of civil 2 procedure 30(b)(6); which indicates that corporations or 3 government agencies may designate people for examination. 4 I'd also like to call the Board's attention in 5 considering this to rule 26C3 that limits the matters of 6 examination for deposition and recognizes that things 7 might be limited to written interrogatories. 8 Similarly, rule 32A32, the court can allow 9 depositions as evidence, and rule 33B, that the court can 10 allow the use of interrogatories as evidence and can 11 cllou peopic to proceed that way. 12 As I said, the court, these court rules and the
. 13 court c ses apply cimilcr matters cc these in rules -- in p3 1/. URC' r rulr 2.7 20 (h) (ii) , r? in en'j retion, also, va m'ct 15 kccp in mind the burden is en the mov:nt :nd in this 16 case, that vould ce CCAMP.
17 Going to the privileges themselves, there': the 10 intra-cgency privilege, there's the privilege as to the 19 mental processes of an executive, and there's a privilege 20 as to investigatucw material that may be relevant though 21 it isn't enactly clear at this point. As to 22 intra-agency, it's important that there -- that advice to 23 the executive be free frca examination so that people 24 will allow for the free flcu of communications to 25 executives; this is shown most strongly in the I;LR3 m TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-0442
12995 g;t.7 1 versus Sears Robuck case at 421 U.S. 132. 2 Then we come to mental processes of the 3 executive who decides matters or reaches a conclusion'and 4 this not only reaches what his particular mental 5 processes are, also the matters to which he might reach a 6 decision, the matters considered, contributing 7 influences, and the rule of the work of others. 8 Mone of these can be inquired to under the Fort 9 Logging case and I would particularly point the Board in i 10 that case to the Carl sykes, case -- by the way, the -- 11 for the Morgan case, is at 313 U.S. 403 and particularly 12 Page 422, the Carl Syhec is.a 40 Federal 2d -- Federal
. 13 Rules Decision, 310, page 25, affirmed on below at 304 i') 14 Fed 2d 949, certiori was denied. %/ '
15 Also, I would call, there's an excellent 16 discussion cf this whole field by Judge Weinstein which I 17 had the privilege to have for evidence, in Henry Frank 18 National Bank Securities litigation at 478 Fed Supplement 19 5777. He also has written the treatise of Weinstein on 20 Evidence, the very well knoun treatise. 21 Even if a witness is called in any event, he 22 can only testify as to facts not opinions er 23 recommendations, and that's an CPA versus Mink at 410 24 U.S. 73 and the matters must be separated out. 25 There are many other cases, one NRC case that
/-
i TATE REPORTIrG SERVICE, 490-8442
12996 [ l deals with this is the Consumers Power case an ALJ case 2 at 12 NRC 117, 3 I would also like to call the Board's attention 4 to U.S. versus Exxon at 87 Federal Rules Decision 624, 5 Universal Airlines versus Eastern Airlines,198 Fed 2d 6 993, Community Federal Savings and Loan Association, 7 versus Federal Home Loan Bank Board, 96 Federal Rule 8 Decision, 619, plus other cases. 9 Those are just some of the cases that deal of 10 the very important question that this Board has to face 11 before calling any of these witnesses uhether the matters 12 that are going to ce sought to be inquired into are l 1 13 privileged. . l
) 14* (:'c Eiatus. )
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O TATE REPORTIEG SERVICE, 498-8442
12997 jii ) 1 Now, when you call a high government official, v 2 Mr. Dircks in this case, and I'm talking mostly about 3 Mr. Dircks, we have to consider that it is particularly 4 important to show that he has personal knowledge not 5 otherwise obtainable and that's called in such cases as 6 Rykes versus Brown at 90 Federal Rules Decision 77, 7 Sweeney versus Bond, 669 Fed. 2d 542, and there again 8 certiorari was denied. You must show essential 9 inf ormation not otherwise available and an absolute need 10 for the inf ormation. 11 . Again, the key is personal knowledge of the 12 f acts,' not matters learned f rom others. W,'i 13 I might as well go directly to Mr. Dircks 14 because of the time limitations, 21though I have -- can 15 discuss each of them. And that's it is doubtful that 16 Mr. Dircks and there is no showing that Mr. Dircks has 17 direct personal knowledge of anything here. 18 Mr. Dircks,, as the Board is well aware, is 19 the executive director of operations for the Nuclear 20 Regulatory Commission. Others report to him. He wasn't ! 21 out in the field. He didn't see these things. i I think ) 22 the Franklin National Bank case which I pointed to is -- 4 23 indicates that it's on the movement to show the personal q LJ 24 knowledge of the person, relevant unique firsthand 25 knowledge, and again Sykes versus Brown, Sweeney versus TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12998 JC's 1 Bond.
\) ~
2 Obviously, Mr. Dircks in Washington acts on 3 reports to him. Intra-agency memoranda again can't be 4 gone into, and his mental processes or the judgments he 5 teaches as to those matters cannot be gone into.
- 6 Further, it must be shown that there are not 7 other people otherwise available to testify as to these 8 matters. For instance, on the congressional testimony, 9 Mr. John Collins was there at the time. Obviously, as 10 to personal knowledge Mr. Collins would know much more
. 11 than Mr. Dircks.
12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Reis, Mr. Collins is 13 another of the NRC personnel requested. 14 MR. REIS: Yes, he is. 15 JUDGE BECHHOETER: But he's not going to be I
- 16 produced either, so -- unless you're going to offer --
17 MR. REIS: Well, I'm telling the Board that if ! 18 they have to choose one, choose Mr. Collins, that he has 19 more direct personal knowledge. He was involved in more , 20 of the incidents than Mr. Dircks. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now, let me ask you, my 22 question earlier was was the Staff -- will the Staff I 23 have a witness whom they've already designated, such as l () 24 one or more of the Region IV personnel, who could 25 address the subj ect of this communication to Congress? TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
12999 jCQ 1 MR. REIS: Not directly. But Mr. -- the Q} 2 subj ect matter, the matters within it, certainly Mr. 3 Johnson and the other witnesses from the region will be 4 able to address. Mr. Sells can address the chronology 5 and what went on. The investigations that went on can 6 be addressed by Mr. Sells and Mr. Phillips. 7 Particularly as to the other two memoranda cited, the 8 matters to Congress, we can get the direct material 9 facts. 10 This communication to Congress is not the 11 direct material facts that we have here. And we are f,
'12 putting in people who know the direct material facts.
13 Why should we put in someone or produce someone with a 14 little knowledge when we're putting people on with much 15 more direct knowledge en what happened. No matter what 16 we look to for whatever it is, the other people have 17 much more direct knowledge of the f acts and that's what 18 this Board is to look to is the direct knowledge of the 19 facts to make their determination of what happened. It 20 is the material facts, not only opinions and 21 recommendations. 22 Now, Mr. Dircks doesn't have direct knowledge I 23 of the facts. I mean, just from his position he !
/~3 i kr/ 24 wouldn't have direct knowledge of the facts. He doesn't )
25 go out and look at things in the field. TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
13000 /~' 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Reis, can we take \) 2 official notice of this statement to Congress? I'm 3 assuming now that this one that we've been provided -- 4 MR. REIS: You can take official notice of it 5 that it was given. There is no question that there was 6 testimony to Congress and in that sense you can take 7 official notice of it. 8 As f or the truth of the matters therein, 9 although they were certainly believed to be true at the le time and there's no question of that, the truth of the 11 matters, you have to judge what happened and that you -
,,, 12 are to judge f rom people, from normal witnesses who saw - '~'
13 it, not f rom a statement made at a time when little wcs 14 known and there was not as much known as later. 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, if we should ask -- 16 MR. REIS: And a statement made -- 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I didn't want to interrupt 18 you. I had a question, but I didn't want to interrupt 19 yours either. 20 MR. REIS: What is your further question. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: My further question is 22 could we question the witnesses f rom Region IV or indeed 23 a single witness from headquarters at least on the g ' x 24 linkage which the NRC might have drawn back in 1981 25 between the Quadrex report and the earlier QA violations TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
13001 4C) 1 which were the subject of the show cause order as is , ~ s 2 apparently drawn by this statement here? 3 MR. REIS: Yes, that's provided you could show 4 that they are the -- I mean, if they see that linkage, 5 you can ask them about it. If there was not a breakdown 6 of QA in regard to design, if that should be proven by 7 the factual matters, th en, you know, there are problems. 8 Now, there is no question -- there is also a 9 jurisdictional question, by the way, which I did not get 10 to, of whether -- and I don't know -- of whether 720 H 11 itself allows you to pull people, it applies to the
,. 12 executive director as well. It is not clear in the G-(/ 13 , regulation, in the wording of the regulation".
14 Al so, there is another question of whether NRC 15 employees -- 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I'm sorry. Would it apply 17 to Mr. Collins ? 18 MR. REIS: Oh, I think you could ask Mr. 19 Collins these questions. 20 I also think there is the very definite -- 21 there is the question, and I'm not willing to take a 22 position on this question on behalf of the Staff, but it 23 occurred to me last night that can NRC employees be y
; ,) 24 questioned in hearings on matters given in congressional 25 testimony or is there an immunity that applies to that TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
l 13002
}( 1- itself? I am not sure about that at all. And I would b 2 have to consult on that.
3 ' But at any rate, to go on, there is no 4 question the cases also show that I've cited before that 5 the higher the official, the stronger the requirement of 6 showing of need to have direct personal knowledge of the 7 facts. The cases indicate that. 8 Now, as to the congressional testimony, as to 9 the facts, we have witnesses. We have Sells, we have 10 Phillips, we have Taylor, we have Johnson, we have 11 Goldberg, we have Oprea, we have others testifying as to
. . . . 12 what happened. As to the mental processes of Mr.
hkl " 13 Dircks, you just can't inquire into it. I mean, these's 14 the Community Federal case, the Franklin National Bank, 15 Morgan 4, Carl Sykes, EPA versus Minx. Another one is 16 Montrose Chemical, case 491 Fed. 2d 63 at page 70, and 17 that is whether it be the methods considered, 18 contributing influences, the roles of others, the 19 working of his own mind, you can't go into any of that 20 with the witness. Similarly, you can't go into what 21 evidence he had before him when he gave -- that led to 22 this testimony. And that's interagency communication, 23 Franklin National Bank, NLRB versus Sears.
) 24 As I said, Mr. Collins was first deputy 25 regional administrator and then regional administrator.
TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
13003 ,'[( l Be accompanied Mr. Dircks when Mr. Dircks made this
)
2 testimony. 3 There are memos -- a memo f rom -- Mr. Sinkin 4 also wished to inquire about a memo f rom Dircks to 5 Commissioner Bradford. When we look at the matters 6 attached to those, it 's plain that either Mr. Sells, Mr. 7 Phillips or the people f rom the region can testify as to 8 all those matters to show the chronology there and the 9 truth or the lack of truth of those matters. They ref er le to these very people. 11 As to the last memo, Dircks to the
< 12 Commissioners, similarly we have the witnesses here.
'( \ "
'/ 13 The Board can get firsthand inf ormation, not thirdhand 14 hearsay. Interpretations of events in the memo is 15 ev ent s in th e memo atta ched -- f r om th at meme f rem 16 Dircks to the Commissioners is Mr. Sinkin's 17 interpretation and he is here if there is any matter 18 within his particular knowledge that the Board thinks 19 they need.
20 But those who are -- make conj ectures are not 21 the best evidence. Again, there's no personal firsthand 22 knowledge and the unique knowledge -- there has to be 23 unique knowledge of the personal facts and that's shown ( j' 24 in such cases as we've cited many times, Sykes versus 25 B r own, Sweeney versus Bond and the others. TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
13004
' T? 1 So, in sum, we . feel that under 2.720, at least
'. )'~' 2 as to Mr. Dircks, there is absolutely no basis upon 3 which you can call him because there is no matter which 4 you can inquire into as to him. The matters essentially 5 are privileged. As to any matters of fact, you have 6 better witnesses and they're being produced. They are 7 the ones with more firsthand knowledge. 8 Now, I don't know whether I should at this 9 point go on to my other witnesses. I can go on.to the 10 others and go through them quickly and spend more time 11 with that -- it will take me another five minutes to go 12 through the rest of them. (, . 13 MR. AXELPJ.D : Shouldn't we take these one at a 14 time, Mr. Chairman? 15 MR. SINEIN: Well, they will only take five 16 minutes. 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: For five minutes why don't 18 you go on. 19 MR. REIS: Okay. As to Richard Herr, CCANP in 20 its pleadings itself -- 21 MR. AXELRAD: I'm sorry. I hate to interrupt, 22 but I really think that we should take up these 23 witnesses one by one. I think the arguments to each of I > t/ 24 them are different. 25 He's now covered Mr. Dircks. I think we TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
13005 C. 1 should be able to speak on Mr. Dircks and Mr. Sinkin 2 should be able to speak on Mr. Dircks. 3 MR. SINKIN: I'd prefer h'im to go ahead and 4 finish them and then come back to Mr. Dircks and start 5 there. At least we'll have an idea in the record now -- 6 that's what he wanted to do was put into the record now 7 what the NRC position was and I think he should go ahead 8 and do that. 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think we're going to have le to adj ourn bef ore we finish all of the uitnesses, maybe 11 not. I don't know.
~
12 MR. AXELRAD: Okay. (, \ 13 MR. REIS: As to Mr. Herr, as CCANP 14 recognizes, all right, Mr. Phillips has the facts that 15 he wishes from him. It was a joint investigation that 16 he wants. No showing that there are other different 17 documents than Mr. Phillips asked for. 18 He mentions access engineering. There's no 19 showing that that 's an issue. 20 Deficiencies are covered in the report. You 21 can't go beyond the basis of those reports. It 's plain 22 there's both investigative privilege and the basis of 23 the others. () 24 Again, as to HL&P talks about whether a stop 25 work order should be issued, there's no showing that an TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
13006 1 investigator Mr. Berr has any expertise. And -{]}; (t - 2 particularly in connection with Mr. Herr, I would call 3 the Board's attention to U. S. versus Exxon. 4 Donald Sells will testify as to myself. 5 Generally, I think any knowledge I had has already been 6 brought out from Mr. Goldber g. 7 John Collins, Eric Johnson was on 8 investigative report 82-02, he would testify he had more 9 firsthand knowledge. 10 As to interagency memoranda, we don't know 11 which ones. If they haven' t been released, they are
,. 11 2 privil eged. There is also, as to some matters with Mr.
Ib) 1- 13 Collins as indicated by Mr. Sinkin, there's 14 investigative privilege. 15 Conversations with HL&P can be gotten through 16 HL&P and thus not otherwise available within the 17 confines of what is talked about in 720. 18 There was no question that the reports were l 19 turned over to the Staff when requested in August and to I l 20 the Board in September. There's j ust know facts there. 21 We know that there was an inquiry if the whole 22 Quadrex report should have been subj ect to a 50.55(e). 23 report that was asked of them. There is no question
). 24 that was asked of them. There's nothing more to be said 25 on that.
TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
13007 ,fi 1 The preliminary conclusions of Mr. Collins o x
) ~
2 have no probative value. The question is why should the 3 Board judge now on what preliminary conclusions were 4 based on little evidence when the Board is getting much 5 more know1. edge? It's on the Board to interpret the 6 regulations and the Board to make the ultimate 7 determination here, not Mr. Collins. We shouldn't be -- 8 foreclose ourselves f rom using the more knowledge here 9 and possibly looking back to the little knowledge that 10 might have been had earlier. 11 The rest of what Mr. Sinkin seeks Mr. Collins
., 12 on is only conj ectura.1 and would be based on hearsay.
2(
\_-) 13 -
I want to point out in U. S. versus Exxon, the 14 court really ruled that you can't inquire into 15 individual agency employee's interpretations of 16 regulations. 17 And this argument -- 18 MR. SINKIN: Could you say that again? You 19 cannot inquire? 20 MR. REIS: You cannot. 21 As to Seyfrit, you certainly don't need both 22 Mr. Collins and Mr. Seyfrit. Reading both of them, it 23 seems very redundant as to any matter f or Mr. Sey f rit. y. (,) 24 As to the first matter that Mr. Sinkin listed, 25 HL&P's request to proceed with saf ety-related TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
13008 g{' 1 construction, that's in the record. And the nature of v; J 2 their requests and when th'ey made them is all in the 3 record in the first hearings. 4 The fact that they knew or what they knew 5 about the Quadrex report in headquarters at that time 1 6 can come in through Mr. Phillips, Mr. Johnson and Mr. 7 Sells. l 8 Whether there was knowledge of Quadrex would 9 influence a decision could not be inquired into in any 10 event. It's privileged and it's not relevant to the . 11 issues here. ' 7 12 And as to the preliminary posi, tion of the y) \_ 13 region to turn over trie -Quadrex report, certainly the 14 arguments I made as to Mr. Collins would be the same 15 here. - 16 As to Mr. driskill, and I guess it's report 17 82-02 that they want Mr. Driskill on, Eric Johnson is 18 here as the witness to speak to that. The report speaks 19 for itself. There is investigative privilege and you 20 can't get impressions of people as to their -- the 21 workings of their mind, that's privileged. 22 Lastly, I want to.say that if there are any 23 procedures for these people, and particularly as to Mr. p) ( v 24 Dircks, the appropriate way to go is to have Mr. Sinkin 25 supply written interrogatories which we are willing to TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
13009 s
/,((, 1 answer. And I would ask you to compare Rule 26 C of the U \
K ,) 2 Federal Rules of Procedure. Although it's a discovery 3 rule, we feel that it allows a way to be used herein 4 that the answers to the written interrogatories can be 5 put into evidence then. 6 It's appropriate to use written 7 interrogatories for examination of high government 8 officials, and thab's in Kyle Engineering Company versus 9 Kleppe, 600 Fed. 2d 226, Peoples versus U. S. D. A. , 427 10 Fed. 2d 561, Capital Vending versus Barker, 36 Federal 11 Rule Decision 45, Wirts versus Leccl 30, 3 4 Federal
,,. 12 Rules Decision 13, Sykes versus Brown, 90 Federal Rule g,y N/ 13 Decision 7.7.
14 'And let me say that there are cases, and I'm 15 not going to recite them here, where this rule on 16 interrogatories of high officials even who don't have 17 firsthand knowledge even applies to the heads of 18 corporations. And I have three cases here if the Board 19 wants them on that. Not only to government officials. 20 JUDGE BECBBOEFER: Do the Applicants have any 21 view on -- 22 MR. .AXELRAD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. With respect 23 to Mr. Dircks, our position would be that as this Board
) 24 is well aware, the NRC functions in essence through 25' either its regional offices or through the working TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
13010
-[' 1 offices at headquarters, depending upon the subj ect
(/K' >i 2 matter being loof d at. 3 The Staff is providing testimony from a number 4 of witnesses f rom the region. It 's providing testimony 5 by Mr. Sells who is the NRC proj ect manager at 6 headquarters and theref ore is f ully f amiliar with the 7 reviews that were being undertaken at headquarters. It 8 appears to us that that is ample testimony with respect 9 to the subj ect matters of the reviews of EL&P's actions 10 in the Quadrex report at that time. That it's very 11 doubtful that.Mr. Dirchs has, personal knowledge, and m,., 12 that the arguments of Mr. Reis are very convincing.
> 13 . I would add only that it appears to me that
- 14 if, as in this case, a high NRC official is testifying 15 bef ore Congress on a general matter, he was testifying 16 at hearings on quality assurance in nuclear power plant 17 construction back in 1981, if the remarks that he makes 18 or whatever their base is, he has to be concerned about 19 if he says something he may be called by an intervenor 20 in one or many of the NRC proceedings all over the 21 co unt ry, that would obviously have a very chilling 22 effect on the ability of the NRC to communicate with 23 Congress. And I think this Board should be very caref ul 24 before it requires the testimony of Mr. Dircks.
25 I do want to respond just very briefly to two TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
13011 1 separate notes that have come up in the course of this p,C' - 2 conversation. One is with respect to the Board's 3 mentioning of the possibility of taking official notice 4 of Mr. Dircks' statement. We would obj ect very very 5 strongly to do that. It seems to me that there is no 6 fact as to which the Board could properly be taking 7 official notice of under these circumstances. And if at 8 any point the Board is giving serious consideration of 9 that as a possibility, we would urge that they not do so l i 1 10 before permitting all the parties to file brief s on that 11 subj ect because I think that's very very improper under
. 12 these circumstances.
fr b (-) 13 With respect to the suggestion by Mr. Reis 14 that perhaps written interrogatories may be a solution, 15 we were not aware of that as a possible proposal by the 16 Staff. We have not reviewed whether that would be 17 appropriate in these circumstances. And similarly we 18 want to preserve our position as to whether or not 19 that's an appropriate action to be taken at this time. 20 Discovery is long since over. We can live 21 with-Dircks not testifying. I think we can live with 22 Mr. Dircks testifying. I'm not sure that we can except 23 anything in between that doesn't preserve the full (
) 24 rights of the Applicants in this proceeding in this 25 licensing state.
TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
13012 9 ; ((' 1 As to various other individuals mentioned by s~/ 2 Mr. Reis, as to Mr. Herr, I would just bring to the 3 Board's attention that the specific investigation that 4 is mentioned in the request is investigation number -- 5 that was reported in I&E report 81-28, that was the 6 subj ect of litigation Phase I, that was CCANP's 7 contention 1. 8 A and B. Mr. Herr and Mr. Phillips, in 8 fact, both testified at that time and the particular 9 subj ect of that investigation which was litigated was 10 the alleged need f or a stop work order in access 11 engineering and the matters addressed at page 2276 of
.12 the opinion on a partial decisio'n. So, I really do not 13 think it's appropriate to call Mr. Herr on this subj ect.
14 With respect to Mr. Collins and Mr. Sey f rit, 15 it appears to us that since the individuals in I&E who 16 have the firsthand knowledge of the f acts will be 17 testifying, that there is no necessity for the Board to 18 call either Mr. Collins or Mr. Sey f rit. And similarly 19 with respect to Mr. Driskill, since one of the other 20 investigators is testifying, I don't believe that the 21 intervenor has made any showing that there is a need f or 22 additional testimony. 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Sinkin, can you -- in
,3 k_,/ 24 view of the -- were you finished?
25 MR. AXELRAD: Yes, I am. TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
13013 J-[', 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I'm sorry. Mr. Sinkin, you 1 1 2 don't have an awful lot of time. 3 MR. SINKIN: I know. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Are there -- 5 MR. SINKIN: Let me just try and touch a few 6 high points. 7 First of all, on Mr. Dircks, we have made 8 repeated off ers to the staff to work out something less 9 than his being called. And I had the sense that 10 probably the Applicants would find that unacceptable and 11 I'm not surprised to hear that they have expressed that
. 12 possibility now.
. i( , Al 13 . We would be happy to take the three documents 14 that we want in evidence and have Mr. Dircks specify 15 through an affidavit that he did give this testimony to 16 Congress and that he did write these two memorandums to 17 the Commission that dealt with the Quadrex report and 18 leave it at that. I don't know that that's satisfactory 19 to all the other parties. 20 Well, let me say I would like a little time to 21 respond to all of the inf ormation put forward by Mr. 22 Reis bef ore you make your ruling. This may not be the 23 time to do that. I'd certainly be happy to try and get p. ( _,) 24 you something in writing before we reconvene a week f rom 25 now or eight days f rom now in response to Mr. Reis' TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442
13014 l ?j. 1 remarks. 2 I don ' t know if Mr. Reis has -- it looks 3 handw ritten. I don't know if he intended to Xerox that 4 and distribute it or not. But we would like an 5 opportunity to review those cases and perhaps give you
'6 our insights on the calling of these witnesses.
7 (No hiatus.) 8 9 10 11
, 12 -
l( e ~
\ 13 -
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 l 21 ! 22 23
.s 24 25 TATE REPORTING (713) 498-8442 l
13015 c. T- 1 Again, we don't -- mean to inconvenince Mr. e 2 Dircks. It's just in this particula ~r event, he's'made 3 some very striking statements that seem to stand in 4 contridiction to the current position of the staff, but 5 may well represent his early understanding of and view of 6 the Guadrex report und we think that's material to this 7 proceeding because we're looking at the 24 hour period, 8 which EL&P had to make notification. 9 We're not looking at what you thought after 10 years later of evaluation. It's a case of first 11 impression: What do you think within 24 hours? And it 12 may be that Mr. Dirchs' vieus represent that -- that's 13 all I heard Mr. Reis, arguing in terms of Mr. Dirchs' c. E. j 14 level of knowledge or uhatever. I don't think Mr. Reis 15 directly represented that Mr. Dircks had never seen the 16 Cuadren repert; and that he would lack the ability to 17 mche a judgment :s to rht h:: it ras qu:lity crcurence 18 document or a quality assurance breakdown. 19 So I -- 20 MR. REIS: I can make the representation that 2' "r. Dircks never saw the Quadrex report. 22 JUDGE EECHHOEFER: Be that as it may, my 23 question to you is in vieu cf what Mr. Reis said, vould 24 you -- I'm not saying we vould rule this way, but would 25 you be as satisfied uith Mr. Collins on that subject that l ') LJ TATE REPORTIUG SEnVICE, 498-8442
13016 I ), 1 you have raised for Mr. Dircks?
',( ) . . .
~# 2 MR. SINKIN: Well, Mr. Collins might have a 3 different view than Mr. Dircks and that's --
4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, given the fact that -- 5 MR. SINKIN: I will fully expect that -- 6 JUDGE BECEHOEPER: -- that the staff has to 7 designate witnesses at least firsthand, is it not 8 appropriate at least to even though we wouldn't -- may 9 not rule right now, isn't it clear that the staff is 10 saying that if anybody testifies on this subject, Mr. 11- Collins should? 12 UR. SINF.IN: That may be what the staff is 13 saying. I uculd pcint out, "r. Chairman -- 63 14 JUDCE SECHEOEFEE: Under 720, don't they have
/({ }
15 the right to do that? 16 Un. SIrnIU: Mr. Reis focused I thinh en a 17 critical issue, testifying as to fccts. This proceeding 18 is not simply as to facts, but it also raises the 19 question do the facts reflect en the character and 20 competence of the company. Our argument with Mr. Dircks 21 is obviously, if to the executive director of operations 22 of the URC, the Quadren report revealed a potentially 23 -more serious quality assurance breakdown at this project 24 than was revealed in the investigation which led to the 25 order to show cause, that that gives you some way to 4 2s D l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 i
13017 m l 1 measure the weight that should be given if. If you do 'gju; V 2 find that it should have been turned over, your next -
~
3 cuestion is they didn't do it, what does it mean about 4 competence and character. 5 Here's the executive director of operations for 6 the NRC saying this was a very serious document, that 7 gives you some measure on competence and character. 8 So it's not just the facts, you're going to 9 have to make that second determination of what the facts 10 say about competence and character. That's one place 11 that Mr. Dircks' testimony fits. 12 JUDGE BBCEHOE?ER: Mr. Reis. 13 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, the only th'ing I can f.
';(.-rj 14 say is that ue' re nroducing people who e:iamined the 15 Quadrex report frcm appoint of vieu of what could be 15 learned within 24 hours. Mr. Dirch: didn't do that.
17 Ue're putting on the people who can give th:t testimony. 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, you're not putting on 19 nr. Collins and Mr. Collins, you caid yourself, had some 20 knowledge of Mr. Dircks' statement, at least. 21 Before ve rule on Collins, do or should we vait 22 to see uhat the other staff witnesses who knou about this
-23 subject knou about hou the statement to Congress got 24 generated?
25 MR. REIS: I don't think any of them can O TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 498-8442
13018 <f[) 1 testify as to that, any of them that I have designated. "('~') I have to say very frankly that I cannot, t$atnoneof 2 3 them would be in a position to learn how the statement - 4 was generated. 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mould you be opposed to 6 bringing Mr. Collins on to testify only to that one 7 matter. 8 HR. REIS: I would have to think very very 9 carefully of the chilling effect this would have on staff 10 testimony in Congress and whether the staff is subject to 11 enanination on matters they might bring before Congress 12 in a licencing hearing. There's a very *rery serieur 13 question. f3 'i( ) 14 MR. SIUKIN: Mr. Chairman, are you intending to 15 rule on this question today? _ 16 JUDGE DECRHOEFER: Perhaps en Er. Dirchc. 17 MR. SINKIN: Perhaps on Hr. Dirchs. 18 JUDGE EECHHOEFER: I'm not sure.ue're going to 19 rule on anything else. 20 !!R . SINKIN: Then I do have further response on 21 Mr. Dirchs that may or may not be relesent to your 22 decisien. I had sort of been holding my fire since Mr. 23 Reis presented so much material. I thought we might have 24 a chance to respond to Mr. Dircks in more detail. 25 (Discussion off the record.) O , TATE REPORTII?G SERVICE, 498-8442
13019
*i ! 1 JUDGE BECBBOEFER: The Board has decided that C . . . .
And we 2 we can reach a decision on all of them right now. 3 think the rule gives the staff a chance to designate its 4 own witnesses. And that for all of the witnesses, 5 exclude for the moment Mr. Dircks and Mr. Collins, but 6 e::cluding those for the moment, the staff is presenting 7 witnesses who can deal with all of the subjects specified 8 by Mr. Sinkin. 9 If it should turn out later that-those 10 witnesses cannot deal with those subjects, we may 11 reconsider as to particulcr witnesses. But we would give 12 the staff uitnesses a chance to addres: all cf those 13 topics. , ,
/*3 '(,) 14 With respect to Mr. Dircks, we think that the 15 staff has identified that it would prefer at least nr.
16 Collins. And that on that basic, under the rule, no 17 vould rule cut nr. Dircks. He tentatively think that Mr. 18 Collins would be necessary; we will entertain further 19 arguments from the staff why he shouldn't be called. 20 But we think that he may have information, 21 likely to have information that the other witnesses 22 l addressed do not have. And we think the staff should 23 produce either. bring nr. Collins on that one limited 24 topic, not on the linkage -- well, the general topic of 25 the statement to Congress, which the staff advises he o L] > TATE BEFORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
13020 3 dI 1 does have knouledge of; if the staff has further
~
2 objections to that, we will hear those whether we come 3 back. 4 HR. REIS: Okay. 5 JUDGE BECEHOEFER: So that's our tentative 6 conclusion, that Mr. Collins is the only one of the 7 designated witnesses who uould be necessary. 8 HR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, let ne take clear, 9 though, that I did inquire whether Mr. Collins wrote that 10 testimony, because I was looking for that. I know that 11 "r. Collins did not. I don't knou who wrote the 1; testimony. I did try and find thtt cut in prep;rttion 13 for this argunent. But Hr. Collins is the one, e, . . I ) 1/. officially. "he prob;bly coulf testify best as to the as 15 natters therein that in that -- 16 JUDGE DEC5HODFDR: I didn't hear. 17 MR. n IS: That could testify as to the natters 1G therein, because he was cost involved, the one higher 19 official. 20 JUDGE BECHEOEFER: He is the only one that we 21 see any need for cf the ones designated. 22 Mou, if it turns out just for an e>: ample, that 23 Ur. Johnson can't answer certain questions that it 24 appears that Mr. Driskill could answer, it may be 25 necessary later on to call Cr. Driskill. He don't think c i J TATE REFORTIEG SERVICE, 498-0442
13021
,G 1 that will be necessary. Mr. Driskill, I guess was the
' investigator; Mr. Johnson was the supervisor who also 2
3 signed off on the report. 4 So we will presume that he has knowledge of 5 what went on in that investigation, or inspection as the 6 case may be. I forget. But 82-02 in any event. 7 So basically, we think that is all we need to 8 knou at the moment. 9 MR. SINKIn: Mr. Chairman, I will just note for 10 the record that while the Applicants and the staff got to 11 make their arguments on the NRC witnesses other than Mr. 12 Dircks, I never got an opportunity to say a single vorc 13 about anyone but Mr. Dirchs. I think that's not fair,
,( ; 14 and I hope that if later en I ask that there people be 15 called, it vill be taken into account that I never got to 16 make en argument against the motion to not call them.
17 JUDG2 ICCEZOECCE: 17 ell, our resolution was 18 based on the fact that the staff has designated uitnesses 19 for all of the topics that you have specified. If they 20 can't deal with those topics, we have said that we will 21 consider further whether the other people should be 22 called. So I think the staff under the URC rules, under 23 720, has the right to designate witnesses for particular 24 topics. 25 That's all 17e're saying is that the st'aff has 1 i ; 8 .x _. 1 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 l l
13022
-s j* 1 done so and that we're just -- we will see if they can j
2 deal with it or not. But I think the rule ought to be 3 given a chance to work as it's written. So that's 4 basically what our ruling is. 5 So at this point, we vill -- are there further 6 natters that we have to take up before we come back; I 7 hope not. At this point, we vill adjourn -- 8 UR. SINRIN: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I did 9 have one final matter I wanted to bring up after we find 10 all of this. He uculd seek at this point for Mr. Poston 11 c cuhpoen duces tccum that Mr. Pcston be reccirsd to 12 bring with him to testify the management committee 13 minutes held by the City of San Antonio for the meetings 6: $j ~ 1.t :t "hich the Cu rtn report .':: dicc'Jssed. '?c m:Pr tPir 15 metica et thic time because the evidence h:c new cmerged 16 that uhile Mr. Thrash took notec that included Ouadrex 17 infermation, that information apparently dis not end up 18 in the final minutes of UL&P. 19 We think the -- that in itself says something. 20 Ue think that uhen Mr. Poston comes, in order that he not 21 be limited to responding to uhat Mr. Thrash might have 22 jotted doun as opposed to uritten in full, that it would 23 be, appropriate for him to bring with him the minutes that 24 the City of San Antonio has on that meeting that to that 25 he can be cuestioned about which vould not only assist I.,, j TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
13023 sm. V' -1 him in refreshing his r.emory but assist the record in . S ;1
2- getting a clear picture of what was recorded at that time p 3 as to the actual substance of the management committee.
p 4 So uhat we're seeking is a new subpoena from p _ _ 5 -Mr. Poston or just an order from the Board might be 1 1 6 appropriate. I'm not sure. l 7 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I uould urge that 8 if the intervenors have any motions to file, they be f 9 required to file them in writing, give everyone a chance p i 10 to answer them in writing and have the Board give 11 complete and thorough consideration. 12 I think it's preposterous when the intervenors 13 realize that there's a need to adjeurn this hearing en 1
/' 14 this pa'rticulcr cf ternoon, cf tcr nine hcrd Scys,, to bring-
- ({:} . .
l 15 up a neu matter. I think he should be required to file ! 15 cny moti:n in uriting. ! 17 MR. FIRPO: Furthermore, Mr. Chcirman, the 18 subpoena duces tecum may be obtained en parte, then a L-19 motien to quash can be filed. I don't understand uhy 20 he's taking our time when people are trying to leave
. 21 toun, he come up uith a motion for a request for subpoena 22 which can be issued en parte.
23 !!R . SI1!KIK: I didn't realize that, of course. 24 JUDGD EECHEOSFER: That's ccrrect. The only
'25 standard is general relevance, which I believe is fairly
?
TATE REPORTI11G-SERVICE, 498-8442
13024 , ,.m 1 clear. So off the record. We'll adjourn until 9:30, a 2 week from Monday, August 29, 1985. 3 (Hearing Adjourned at 4:20, p.m.)
' 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 J 14 , 15 16 17 18 19 20 l 21 22 23 24 25 O TATE REPORTII'G SERVICE, 498-8442
m e s-e ;* CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER [.; iV. 1 i-; '42. - 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, i
- f 7- ,
ET AL (SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, UNITS 1 AND 2) 8 .
' DOCKET NO.: STN 50-498-OL-
'9 STN 50-499-OL 19 J 11 PLACE: HOUSTON, TX f52 DATE: Friday, July 19,1985 d t I
14 were-held as herein appears, and that-this is the ! 15 foriginal transcript thereof for.the file of the United 16 States Nucltcr Regulatory Commission. 17-18 19- , Inh r.Id%
'R. P'atrick Tate, CSR
.-29 ,
i
' 21-- k D Susan R. Goldstein, CSR
-22 Official Reporters a 23 .
/
Q4 . 25 , [-' _}}