ML20132F073
| ML20132F073 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1985 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#385-897 OL, NUDOCS 8507180250 | |
| Download: ML20132F073 (55) | |
Text
r y g
//
g OllG NAL UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: STN 50-498-OL STN 50-499-OL EVIDENTIARY HEARING HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, et al.
(South Texas Project Units 1 and 2)
O .
LOCATION: BAY CITY, TEXAS PAGES: 11730 - 11883 DATE: SATURDAY, JULY 13, 1985
/ D&
o v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Offici.ti Rcorters 090/100250(p,0dl339o 444 North Capitol Street PDH ADUCK i> pH Washington, D.C. 20001 i
(202)3474 700
a til 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 NUCLCAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 --------- ------------------------X 6 In the Matter of: : DOCKET NO.
7 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND~ POWER : STN-50-498-OL 8 COMPANY, ET AL., : STN-50-499-OL 9 (South Texas Project Units 1 & 2 :
10 ----------------------------------X 11 Matagorda County Courthouse 12 Courtroon No. 2 13 Bay City, Texas 1 14 15 16 Saturday, 13 July 1985 17 18 The hearing in the above-entitled matter was 19 convened, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:00 a.m.,
20 BEFORE:
21 JUDGE CHARLES BECHHOEFER, Chairman, 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
23 JUDGE JAMES C. LAMB, Member, 24 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. ,
25 0
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 117: '
l l
4 ,
i 'l
- JGOGE, FREDERICK J. SHON, Member,
' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
2 3
4 APPEARAl'CES:
5 Ort nehalf of the Applicants: -
r .,b
%. 6 MAURICE AXELRAD, Esq.,
k./'+
7 JACK R. NEWMAN, Esq.,
4
., i8 g , ALVIN GUTTERMAN, Esq.,
'i.
b 9 DONALD J. SILVERMAN, Esq.,
} 10 Newman & Holtzinger, 11 Washington,D.b.'
12 , i s
13 ,
( , 1 14 On bc, half of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff:
s_/ e c, 15 .{DWINJ. REIS, Esq.,
> t 16 ~ ORESTE RUSS PIRFO, Esq.,
\
W.
17 , Office of the Executive Legal Director s
'l 18 t
19 ' i f5
)
., 20 On behalf cf the Intervenor:
I
,' 21 LANNY ALAN SINKIN, t
\-
i< t 22 3022 Porter St. N.N., #304
'\ .
.f 4 2Y Washingtoa,ts.C. 20008 54 RepresentadiveforCitizensConcerned'About i
}' 25 Nuclear Power;
'( s
' ~
G :
j, i-
> TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 ggy j t_
1 A - - _ - __ - - _______ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 2 CONTENTS 3 WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS BOARD REDIRECT RECROSS 4 JERO!1E H. GOLBERG -
11733 - - -
5 6
7 8 EXHIBITS: For Id. In Evd 9 CCAMP 75 11789 10 11 12 13 x,_,.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 l 20 21 22 23 24 25
(~ ,
\ \
L/
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 49G-8442 11732
s -
733 r
1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Good morning, ladies and 2 gentlenen. In the -- on the divider between the front 3 and back of the roon, there is a pad of paper for anyone 4 uho wishes to sign up for limited appearance statement 5 for this afternoon. We've asked for both names and 6 addresses so that eventually when and if we issue an 7 initial decision, it will get sent to the people who make 8 the statements as well as others, like the parties. So 9 anyone who uishes to sign up may do so.
10 Are there any preliminary matters before we 11 resume with Mr. Goldberg? I might say that we have taken 12 care of things like checking out of our hotels so that we 13 can run somewhat later than 12:00, if need be.
14 Okay, Mr. Sinkin.
)
15 HR. SIHKIN: Thank you.
16 JEROME H. GOLDDERG 17 testified further upon his oath as follows:
18 DIRECT EXAMINATIOH COUTINUED 19 By Mr. Sinkin:
20 0 Good morning, Mr. Goldberg.
21 A Good morning.
22 O You testified yesterday that on May 7th when 23 you first saw the Quadrex report that it had a 24 significant impact on you. Did you, at that time, 25 consider whether you should turn the entire report over i
w,i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 493-8442 11733 l
l
734 1 to the HRC?
2 A You mean the instant I received the report and 3 looked at it for the first time?
4 0 At any time during that May 7th meeting, first 5 meeting review. -
6 A I van strictly trying to understand the report.
7 So at that juncture, I was concentrating or hearing 8 Quadrex's presentation, paying attention to the 9 commentary from Droun & Root, and I was awaiting the 10 results of an evaluation that started that afternoon that 11 ran through the evening and continued in my office the 12 following day, before any decisions on reportability 13 could be made.
(v; ~14 0 On May 8th, you had a meeting with Dr. Sumpter 15 and Mr. Robertson to discuss the Quadrex report. Is that 16 correct?
17 A That's my recollection. Not -- you said May 18 8th?
19 0 May 8th.
20 A Yes.
21 Q May 8th. And hou long did the meeting of the 22 review team last?
23 A Ue started in my office at noontime, as far as 24 reviewing the input from Brown & noot. But we actually 25 had an earlier review that started in the morning and I (m
J TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 g l l
J
735 1 vould estimate it was somewhere around 8:00 o' clock, 2 uhere we uere going over matters prior to receiving input 3 from Brown & Root.
4 I think the meeting started at 8:00 and then at-5 noontime, as I recall. We got our input from Brcun &
6 Root and the meeting continued until early evening to 7 something in the order of about 6:00, 6:30, at which time --
8 I think we were joined at about F,: 00 p.m. by Mike Powell 9 who was the chairman of the incident review committee.
10 And I'd like to at least call attention to the 11 fact that I think this question came up as I was reading 12 PEPll and talked about a nuclear safety -- nuclear safety 13 and licensing leader. And there was a principle engineer 14 in charge of nuclear safety and licensing by the name of I ])
15 Jacobi. But he is not or was not the chairman of the 16 incident review committee. It was Mr. Powell. So I'd 17 like to correct that small confusion.
10 So around 6:00, Mr. Powell joined the group, as 19 I recollect, and I think he made contact with the NRC 20 regarding some matters of reportability sometime around 21 6:30 that evening.
22 Q Now, if I vere to tell you that in your 23 deposition to the State of Texas, you had it at 6 :30 and 24 7:00, would that --
25 A It's appro::imately that point in time. I think l l
TATC REPORTIUG SERVICC, 490-8442 g
736 l
1 I will be careful to use the word "approximately,"
2 because uc're looking back almost five years ago and 3 these are recollections and they're not that precise.
4 O Just to get it clear, Mr. Jacobi uns a 5 licensing -- nuclear licensing engineer. Is that 6 correct?
7 A He was called a principle engineer. He is --
8 he had a supervisor role in the nuclear safety and 9 licensing group.
10 0 Well, let's talk about the first meeting at 11 8:00 o' clock. That's Dr. Sumpter'and Mr. Robertson?
12 A That's correct.
13 O And what is it you are discussing in that
( 14 coeting?
15 A Uc're starting to go over in our minds the 16 matters in the report and, I'm taking advantage of the 17 information that both Mr. Robertson and Dr. Sumpter 18 gathered in their participation in the review that took 19 place during the previous afternoon and evening, wherein 20 Brown & Root vent about the task of reviewing each of the 21 most serious discipline findings for purposes of 22 responding to my letter requesting they identify any 23 matters that might constitute matters requiring 24 reportability to the Huclear Regulatory Commission.
25 And we vere, in effect, going over on a
(~
i TATE REPORTING SERVICC, 498-8442 ggy
- -_-_- -- - - _ - _ D
q 737 1 preliminary basis their reflections on the activities of 2 that previous afternoon and evening.
3 0 And how did they characterize the Droun & Root 4 meeting to you? Uas it a meeting in which a lot of 5 people were very upset? Uas there a lot of discussion 6 going on, sharp discussion, or was it basically a 7 straightforward review uith comments?
8 A It uas my understanding that it was a fairly 9 orderly, technical review of the contents of a report. I 10 certainly don't recall any dialogue to suggest that it 11 was other than that.
12 0 And your meeting vent from 8:00 o' clock up 13 until noon?
14 A Hell, our meeting, of course, was pretty nuch a_
15 of a continuous nature, except prior to noontime, we were 16 working with the information that both Mr. Robertson and 17 Dr. Sumpter were reflecting on as as far as their 18 participation the night before.
19 The one thing that they didn't knou for sure 20 was whether or not there would be more than one 21 reportable deficiency whicu was the understanding that 22 they had developed from their activities the day before.
23 They weren't sure whether the final input from Droun &
24 Root would still contain the one deficiency that they 25 were aware of or whether it might contain others.
C/
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 493-8442 M737
t 738 '
1 0 That was the HVAC deficiency?
2 A It uas the HVAC deficiency.
3 0 During the period from the morning of May the 4 7th, at the time you were receiving the Quadrex report, 5 until the evening of May the 8th when the notifications 6 to the Huclear Regulatory Commission are made, did you 7 have any discussions with any of the attorneys for 8 Houston Lighting & Power?
9 A Hot that I can recall. f 10 0 They were present in Houston at that time, is 11 that not correct?
12 A I'm not sure.
13 Q Uell. ve're talking about five days before the
( j) 14 Phase I hearings are to open?
15 A I have no personal recollection of whether they 16 vere or they were not.
17 0 Hell, after you made the notifications to the 18 MRC on May the 8th, between that time and the first day 19 of hearinge, do you remember seeing the Houston Lighting 20 & Pouer attorneys in Houston?
21 A I recall, if my memory serves me, I thought I 22 had a dialogue with Mr. Heuman. And I further recall 23 that the same question surfaced during my deposition with 24 the State of Texas, at ubich time Mr. Gutterman inquired, 25 "Uould it surprise you if I mentioned that you had a
, ,T
?
r i l
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 ggg l
1
739 1 conversation with myself regarding the reportability?"
2 And I said, "No, that wouldn't surprice ne."
3 For some reason, I thought I had a conversation 4 with Jack, but maybe it was with you.
5 I know that there was a question. "How did the 6 review go, were there any reportable deficiencies?"
7 O So the question that you discussed was: How 8 did the revieu go and were there any reportable 9 deficiencies?
10 A There was a general inquiry about what were the 11 results of the review --
12 JUDGE DCCHHOEFER: Being what period of time 13 was this? About when was this?
[; 14 THE WITNESS: I believe, Mr. Chairman, that 15 could well have occurred within some few days after our 16 evaluation of Guadren and prior to the start of the 17 hearings. There's not much of a time in there. I think 18 it's just comewhere in that window.
19 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Did you convey to either Mr.
20 Newnan or Mr. Gutterman, whoever it was you talked to or 21 both, the reaction you had had on May the 7th to the 22 rcrart, that it was sort of a shocking report to you?
23 A Mo, because at the time, I'm sure I had any 24 conversations with one of those gentlemen, we had 25 completed the rather complete review that put' things in a p
em
'wr TATE REPORTII:G SERVICE, 498-0442 ggg 1
740 1 considerably different perspective than one would get 2 when they first open up that report.
3 Q Did you convey to them that it was the kind of I
4 report that if you read uithout any background 5 information, you would be shocked, but that if you 6 evaluated it, you'd feel better about it?
7 A I don't believe so, no.
8 0 Hou did you characterize the review to them?
9 A That we had tremendous amount of work that lie 10 ahead in completing the engineering for the South Te::as 11 Project.
12 Q Did you convey that in terms of Brown & Root 13 was very significantly behind on tasks that should have
- 14 been begun long ago?
15 A I may well have said that because that was one 16 of the most significant residual feelings that I had, 17 having read the report and having had the benefit of the 18 feedback from the review with my own personnel as well as 19 the input from Brown & Root, that there were engineering 20 activities that in my view should have been started 21 literally two or three years before the point in time 22 where the report had identified the work hadn't even 23 started.
24 Q Uou long would you say those conversations or 25 conversation lasted with the attorney?
i n
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ w
741 1 A I would only -- I would be of a mind they were 2 relatively chort, maybe in the order of ten, fifteen 3 minute convercations.
4 0 And where did they take place?
5 A I believe they were by telephone. I thinn I 6 vac talking with one of the attorneys over the phone from 1 7 ny office.
8 Q Did you, at any time between May the 8th and 9 the first day of hearings, actually meet face-to-face j 10 vith any of the Houston Lighting & Pouer attorneys?
11 A Detween May the 8th?
12 0 May the 8th when you made the notifications, 13 after that evening, up to the date of the hearingc began?
(v, 14 A Uell, the hearings I knov were here in Bay 15 City, and I'll have to try to remecber, when did I get 16 down to Bay City and did I cce anybody before the 17 hearings started. I accume that it's very likely that I 18 did see our attorneys before the hearings actually 19 conmenced.
20 0 Do you renenber any further discussionn down 21 here in Bay City about Quadre::?
22 A Ho, Except for the convercations that I had 23 vith Mr. Sells during one of the breaks, in I believe the 24 first week of the hearing.
25 0 You don't remenber any discuccions with the v
l TATC REPORTIHG SERVICC, 498-G442 117f
742 1 Houston Lighting & Power attorneys during that time? 2 A Mot that I recall. 3 JUDGE BECHIIOEFER: Iir. Goldberg, in your 4 ansvers concerning attorneys, are you including non-5 Uachington based attorneys, such as IIr. Hudson or some 6 Baker & Botts attorneys, or were your answers exclusive 7 of all those attorneys? 8 THE UITHESS: As far as I'm aware, yes, sir. I 9 wasn't sure I caught the first name that you had asked. j 10 JUDGE DECHHOEPER: I mention fir. Hudson, only 11 because he prepared some of the testimony for Phase I. 12 But he or other Baker & Botts attorneys. 13 THE UITNESS: I don't recall having any ( j 14 dialogue with any Baker & Botts attorneys about that, no, 15 sir. 16 0 (Dy Mr. Sinkin) What about during the 17 hearings, themselves. And I know there was a lot of 8 18 them, but let's try and limit it. During that first week 19 ef hearings, during that week when you met with Iir. 20 Sells, did you discuss with Houston Lighting & Power 21 attorneys, and I do mean to include either the Baker & 22 Botts attorneys or Washington licensing counsel, did you 23 discuss with any of the attorneys for Houston Lighting & 24 Power the Quadrex report? 25 A I don't recall any conversation with any of the I ! LJ TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 igg 1
743 1 attorneys during that particular time. 2 0 Did you at any time, Mr. Goldberg, approach an 3 attorney to discuss whether the Quadre:: report should be 4 turned over to the licensing board or to 1:RC staff under S 50.55 ( e) ? 6 A Not that I can recall. 7 0 Did any one of your staff, to your knowledge, 3 approach any attorneys to discuss this question? i 1 9 A I have no knowledge of that. 10 0 Back to the meeting at 8:00 o' clock in the 11 morning on the 8th, did you and Dr. Sumpter and Mr. 12 Robertson make an effort at that time to determine in 13 your own minds what should be notified to the nuclear 14 Regulatory Commission? 15 A I think the conversation at that juncture was 16 focused on putting in perspective uhat these findings 17 really signified. And I don't believe that there was any 18 meaningful discussion of reportability until ue got the 19 Droun & Root input. 20 I recollect that they were of the mind that ue 21 would likely only be receiving one recommendation from 22 Droun & Root regarding reportability, which I uns 23 personally very encouraged by that. But it remained to 24 be seen what Drown & Root's input vould finally be. They 25 did not know for sure. /3 w.) TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 117g
l 744 1 I think the real dialogue on reportability 2 started af ter we roccived the input f rom IIr. Saltarelli. 3 Q Uere you surprised when they told you that 4 Brown & Root had only found one potentially reportable 5 iten? 6 A I think the word I used previously -- I was 7 encouraged that that seemed to be Brown & Root's botton 8 line. It remained to be seen whether it would be ours. 9 Certainly if Brown & Root's preliminary findings were 10 that they were going to be 20 or 30, that would have put 11 it in a auch different perspectiv6 than if it was only 12 one. 13 0 I understand that you would be encouraged by
'i 14 that. Ily question was really, whether you were surprised J
15 that they had found only one, having seen the report, 16 yourself? 17 A Uell, you have to understand that there was a 18 considerable difference from the tine I received their 19 input and from the time I first saw the report. 20 The report at first blush characterized a 21 number of matters under the most serious category, which 22 happened to include some natters that night well be 23 reported, I believe, to the URC. It includes matters 24 that might delay licensing only because the work isn't 25 done; it identifies a host of suggestions on hou to
^ '3 O
TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 498-8442 gg
745 i 1 organize and engineering effort to accomplish the 2 required effort. 3 But those, to a large extent, represented 4 Quadren's view on how it uight best be done. You 5 couldn't make those distinctions when you first pick up 6 the report. You have to take some time to think about 7 what they say, what they mean, and have to carn 1.ugue 8 these matterc in your mind. And a lot of that had 9 transpired, clearly, from the time I received the report 10 on May 7th, until we got together on the morning of May 11 8th. 12 0 After the initial meeting on May 7th had 13 adjourned, we talked yesterday about a meeting you had 14 with Dr. Stanley and -- Mr. Stanley and Dr. Sumpter. At
])
15 that meeting, did you all attempt to go through the most 16 seriots findingc and categorize them into the variouc 17 categories you've juct nontioned? 18 A I don't believe so. I think the dialogue I 19 recall was before there had been any effort to try to get 20 a perspective; it wac a dialogue that followed early 21 impressionc of what I had ceen. And it's distinctly 22 possible, incidentally, that that dialogue could have 23 occurred the next morning uhile we uere over at Brown & 24 noot. 25 I knou I caid yesterday I thought it was in ny i J TATE REPORTIMG SERVICC, 493-0442 117,]$ 1
746 1 office on the afternoon of the 7th, but it's distinctly 2 possible it might be in Brown & Root's offices on the 3' morning of the 8th. But uhichever way it was, it was 4 before we.had the full perspective; it was the early 5 concern. 6 0 How, I need to straighten this out if we can. 7 One meeting -- that's Dr. Sumpter and Mr. Stanley. And 0 Mr. Robertson is absent at the Droun & Root review. Then 9 there's another cecting the next morning that's Dr. 10 Sumpter and Mr. Robertson and yourself, but Mr. Stanley 11 is not present. Is that correct?' 12 A Hell, unit a second. I think I've got my dates 13 mixed up. Let me start again. fl' 14 Q Okay. v 15 A Yesterday, I think I said that I had what I 16 recall was a meeting, which was between myself, I believe 17 Dr. Sumpter, and Mr. Stanley. And I thought that
.18 occurred in my of fice on the af ternoon of May the 7th.
19 It is possible that that meeting was the morning of May 20 7th; get my dates right. 21 Uhen we uere together at Brown & Root, that 22 conversation might well have occurred then. I seem to \ 23 think -- yesterday -- that it was the afternoon. It's 24 possible that it was the morning. It was early on, 25 clearly, in terms of when I had seen the report. l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 7,
l l 747 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: lir. Goldberg, did you go 2 over to Brown & Root prior to the time, on May 7th, prior 3 to the time that Quadren presented the report to Houston 4 Lighting & Power, which you said was around noontime, I 5 guess? 6 THE UITNESS: If I understand your question, 7 Mr. Chairman, is: Had I gone over do Erown & Root 8 prior to the morning of the 7th? 9 JUDGE DECHHOEFER: Ho, prior to the time on the 10 7th when the report was presented by Quadrex. 11 THE WITHESS: Oh. 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I'm trying to fit together 13 where the sequence of events -- I' ' , 14 THE UITNESS: I'm sure I was over there before x_/ 15 maybe the meeting started. For some period of time, but 16 I can't recollect with any surety whether I was there an 17 hour before the meeting started, or a half hour before 18 the meeting started. I was there for the express purpose 19 of attending the meeting. 20 I n. AXELRAD : I think there may be come 21 confusion. I think you said something about the morning -- 22 the the meeting starting around noon. The meeting on the 23 morning of May 7th was in the morning, it's started 24 earlier. I'm not sure whether -- 25 JUDGE BECHUOEFER: The meeting at which Quadren c
~_-
TATE REPORTII C SERVICE, 498-8442 117d7 l
748 1 presented its findings? 2 MR. AXELRAD: Uhy don't you ack Mr. Goldberg 3 when that meeting started. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Uhen did that meeting start 5 and also where was it? G THE UITNESS: The meeting was held at the 7 offices of Brown & Root. 8 JUDGE BECUHOEFER: I see, okay. 9 THE WITUESS: And it started in the morning and 10 I can't honestly say -- I think it ctarted early -- it 11 might have been 8:00 a.m., it might have been 9:00 a.m.; 12 it una in that general time frame. 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I see. And this other
) 14 meeting, if it occurred at Brown & Root, was prior to 15 that? The meeting between you, Dr. Sunpter and Mr.
15 Stanley? Is that prior to the formal precentation? 17 THE UITNESS: It could have been. I said 18 yesterday I thought it was in my office the afternoon of 19 May the 7th. It ic possible that maybe that conversation 20 occurred early on the came morning of the presentation. 21 I wouldn't be absolutely comfortable with 22 caying that I'm certain it was on the afternoon of the 23 7th; it might have been earlier on the 7th. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: But it was likely that after 25 you got the formal report -- o x,r TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 Jjgg {
749 1 THE UITNCSS: It was after we had the report in 2 hand and we had had an opportunity to see some of the 3 dialogue in the report, itself. 4 JUDGC BCCHHOEFER: I see. 5 Q (Dy Mr. Sinkin) The meeting uith Dr. Sumpter 6 and Mr. Stanley was after you had had a chance to review 7 the findings in the report and develop your oun reaction 8 to them, suggests to me it was more likely it was after 9 the May 7th meeting. 10 Here you given a copy of the Quadre:. report at 11 any length of time of significance prior to the May 7th 12 briefing becinning? 13 A Ho, I received my copy of the report on May
) 14 7th, just prior to the briefing. That's why I say I 15 thought it was the afternoon of the 7th.
16 0 Okay. 17 A I did have come contact with them that morning, 13 so I don't want to, you know, eliminate that possibility. 19 Q Let me ask you, Mr. Goldberg, on Page 18 of 20 your testiraony -- , 21 JUDGC BECHHOEFER: May I interrupt just one 22 minute to follou through. On page 18 of your testimony, 23 you state that the May 7 briefing was held at HL&P's 24 offices, which was my impression when I asked my first 25 series of questions. That was why I was trying to get
,.r~-
i i ' TATE REPORTING SERVICC, 498-8442 IIMS l
750 1 the matter of either Brown & Root or HL&P straight. I 2 vas assuming that the briefing occurred in HLLP's 3 offices. 4 THE WITHESS: Do -- Mr. Chairman, that's an 5 error. That briefing van definitely held at the Drown & G Root offices. 7 MR. AXELRAD: It might be useful to formally 8 correct the exhibit, or the testimony, to reflect what 9 Dr. -- Mr. Goldberg just said. 10 MR. AXELRAD: That would be Brown & Root's -- 11 substituted for EL&P's at Page 2 of Line 18. ; l 12 JUDGE DECHHOEFER: Mr. Sinkin, you can proceed. 13 Q (Dy Mr. Sinkin) When you convened the meeting ( ,) 14 on May 8th at noon with Dr. Sumpter and Mr. Robertson and 15 received the report from them, from Brown & Root, and 16 indeed there was only one notification that they 17 recommended, vere you at all skeptical that Droun & Root 18 had done a thorough job to identify potentially 19 reportable findings? 20 A I think it's fair to say that we had Brown & 21 Root's input and it was our job to revicu the facts and 22 decide whether or not we agreed with that. So until we 23 complete such a review, I think by definition, there's an 24 elenent of skepticism. The ultimate responsibility for 25 reportability does fall on the licensee; we treated this
/ 1 TATE REPORTIUG SERVIC", 498-8442 IIMQ l
l
1 751 I 1 strictly as input. 2 Q Did you have any reason to believe, based on 3 their prior behavior, that Brown & Root would have tended 4 to minimice the number of items it identified? 5 A I don' t think that I would have any special 6 bacis to think that they'd minimize it any differently 7 than vould have been the case with any other contractor. 8 I think clearly an engincering organication that ic 9 revicuing matters that relate to their vork will look at 10 them very carefully and clearly, they may call certain, 11 if I can use the e::preccion, "callc" advisedly, where 12 there's a quection, they might call it in their favor. 13 That's alwayc a possibility. But I wouldn't think that ( 14 there would have been any different attitude in Brown & 15 Root's evaluation than there would have been in any other 16 architect engineer's evaluation. 17 0 In the meeting of the revieu team on May the 18 Sth, which is yourcelf, Dr. Sumpter and Ur. Robertson, 19 becidec reviewing the report, itself, and the information 20 transnitted from Drown & Root on their overnight review, 21 did you review anything else in making your 22 determinations about notification? 23 A There's nothing that clearly comes to mind. He 24 may well have. Uc might have looked at the guidelinec 25 from the MRC on reportability; I don't knou whether we m
,Y TATE REPORTIUC SERVICE, 493-8442 11751
752 1 did or ue didn't. But I can't cecm to recall anything 2 specific that ue looked at beyond the information which 3 van brought to that receting by Mr. Robertcon and Dr. 4 Sumpter and the cubcequent input from Drown & Root. 5 0 Uhen you all cat doun to begin your review, did 6 you have a prelininary diccuccion about the criteria that 7 would be applied to decide whether an iten would be 8 notified? 9 A I don't knou that we had a preliminary 10 dialogue. I think that we, in the cource of revicuing 11 these matters, f rom tirae to time would probably be 12 talking in terrac of, "Doec thic constitute a deficiency? 13 Is it a deficiency which left uncorrected might effect () 14 cafe operation of the plant? And in it designed, for 15 c:: ample , a design, for es: ample, that's been released for 16 conctruction or ic it indicative of a cignificant break 17 down in quality accurance?" 18 I think those kinds of dialoguen vent on during 19 the review. 20 0 Let me go back to the hypothetical we used 21 yecterday, and I'll lay it out in ac close a detail as I 22 can, of the design prococo having been completed for the 23 postulated break outside containment, the percon in 24 charge of that cayc, "I'n all through, uc're not going to 25 do anything more, it'c released to conctruction." The
)
v TATC REPonTIUC SERVICE, 498-8442 11752
753 1 next day comeone discoverc that thic decign which did 2 require criteria for jet impingement doec not have any 3 criteria for jet impingement. On the basic of that one 4 design, da you have a cignificant breakdown in quality 5 accurance in your vieu under 50.55 (e) ? 6 A If I knew that that uac isolated, because I had 7 accccc to other information that would chow that it was 8 icolated, it may not then be reportable. That would be a 9 judgment call. There are a nuraber of tests that have to 10 he made. Clearly, if it had been left uncorrected, and 11 it would poce a concern for the safe operation of the 12 plant, then as an individual matter, it would be 13 reportable. 14 But if it didn't fill that criteria and then we v 15 were examining the question from a standpoint of, "Uould 16 it constitute a significant breakdown in quality," 17 there's where one has to decide uhether it is a systemic 10 question or whether it is an isolated oversight. 19 0 Uhen you came to to Houcton Lighting & Power, 20 you did a review of the history of the project to come 21 extent? 22 A To corc.c small extent, yec. I unc principlly 23 focusing on the revieu of the project from the standpoint 24 of what I firct knew of the project, which started uith 25 the show cauce order. That una the root concpicuouc O TATM nCPonTInc SERVICC, 490-8442 11753
754 1 acpect of the project, at least at that point in time. i 2 That's where moct of the activity ceemed to be focuced, 3 on what actions needed to be taken to dcal uith those 4 incuen, and, of cource, it van the cubject in a hearing. 5 As a ceparate matter, the renconc that I stated 6 yecterday, I perceived that it vac very important to get 7 a handle on engineering from a ctandpoint of knowing 0 where they were, you know, hou equipped were they for the 9 job at iand and would we be able to move forward in a 10 fairly efficient fashion once we had hopefully completed 11 all the nececcary remedial actions accociated with chou 12 cauce. So that becane a parallel area of interent. 13 0 Did you revieu the previouc 50.55(e) reports (v ; 14 that had came out on the project at that time; uc're 15 talking about October 1980. 16 A I don't believe co. I think that ac matterc 17 that might have been previously reported nay have come 13 into discuccion, coacone night cay, "And that one van 19 reported to the IIuclear Regulatory Conniccion." 20 0 Did you revicu the previous IILtp quality 21 accurance auditt of Brown & Root? 22 !in. AXELnAD : Ilr. Chairman, can I have a 23 clarification? When are we talking about? 24 lin. SII:I'I!!: October 1930. 25 lin. A".CLRAD : October 1980. x'v' TATC DCPORTIt:G DDRVICC, 498-0442 1f34 l
l 755 1 CR. SIMICIM : Uhen he came to HL&P. l 9 A Mo. Not -- I made no cpecific effortc to go l ! 3 back and ntudy old audit reports. IIouever, as the iccues 4 would focuc in the hearings, for exanple, en matterc of 5 conctruction, I night well have had accecc to information 6 about prior CA auditu. Dut I didn't go through cone 7 cyatematic revieu of the old ones. 0 0 (By lit. Sinkin) After you took the job in 9 October of 1980, let's cay through 11ay 7th,1981, did you 10 routinely receive the quality aacurance audits being 11 conducted by IIouston Lighting & Pouer of Brown L Root? 12 A I believe I routinely received -- well, let me 13 backtrack. Routinely, I've been getting them for yearc. _; 14 Ucu I've got to go back to 1980. 15 0 You are caying you get then nou? 1G A I have been getting then for yearc. But I'm 17 not cure -- unc I or ucc I not getting them in 19807 I'm 10 frankly not cure. That's going bach awfully far. 19 0 You didn't specifically ask, when you came on 20 the job in October 1980, that you be routinely cent the 21 quality accurance audits of Brown a Root by !!LLP? 22 A I'm not cure I recall that either. 23 0 Returning to the May 8th revieu team necting, 24 you ctatcd that Mr. Powell came in around 6 :00 or 6 :30 25 and that he unc the chairran of the incident revicu
<m i
)
J l TAT!: DCPORTII:G nnnVICC, 498-8442 11755 i
756 1 committee. Uho called Mr. Powell and asked him to come 2 to that meeting? 3 A I'm going to 3uct cay I sucpect it wac probably 4 Mr. Rcbertson. Mr. Robertcon uac the manager of nuclear 5 licenaing and Mr. Posell was one of the employecc under 6 his charge, co I'n of the opinion it was probably Mr. 7 Robertcon, might well have been Dr. Sumpter. It'c even 8 poccible it wac mycelf. I wouldn't rule that poccibility 9 out. 10 0 Dut you don't remember -- 11 A I don't remember. 12 0 -- making the -- 13 A -- uith certainty who called, no.
' ' And when Mr. Powcll came to the aceting, was he 14 O 15 acked to do anything more than cimply call Mr. Croccman 16 or anyone at the URC he could reach and report the 17 findings that you had decided should be notified to the 18 URC7 19 A I wasn't acked to do anymore. I think we took 20 a little time to identify to him that we had gotten the 21 recults of the review, of the Quadre:: review, that Brown 22 L noot had undertaken to revieu matteru for reportability 23 and we had received their input and conducted our review 24 of thece matterc and I had told Mr. Pavell thoce matterc 25 that we believed needed to be reported to the Muclear n
( '\ NJ TATE RCPORTING SERVICC, 498-8442 7 rg
- - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
757
-1 Regulatory Commission.
2 Q. I was really looking for, did he do anything 3 other than receive that information from you and then go 4 call? Did he do any review of the Quadrex report himself 5 or discuss it with you in any way? l 6 A I said that we did give him some introduction 7 to the subject. IIe was not reviewing the report. He 8 attempted'to bring him up to date on what had transpired 9 and we identified for his information what matters needed 10 to be reported to'the nuclear Regulatory Commission. 11 0 Prior to nay the 8th, had Mr. Powell been made 12 aware that the Quadrex report was being done? i 13 A I have no way of knowing. . I am sure that there () 14 were significant numbers of personnel on the project who 15 were aware that the review was being performed. If Mr. 16 Powell uns one of them, so be it; I don't know. I think 17 there were literally hundreds of people on the project l 18 uho knew that that review was in progress. 19 0 Well, after the April 13th, 1981 briefing by-
- 20 Quadre
- :, you had in your mind that there was the 21 possibility that there would be potentially reportable 22 findings. Is that correct?
23 A Yes; as I recall, the April 13th review was a 24 shortened slide shou version of ultimately what was shown 25 in far more detail on April 30th. And it was during the O TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 498-8442 11757
q 758 1 April 13th review that I uas attempting to catalogue in 2 my mind areas that night ultimately contain potentially 3 reportable matters. And I believe that some time 4 r ii.ouing that meeting, I shared that feeling with Mr. 5 Sells that ue didn't yet have a report, but we had gotten 6 come preliminary visibility of what was going to likely 7 be in that report and that there were likely candidates 8 for reportability but we had no way of knowing which ones 9 those vould specifically be and what the numbers might 10 ultimately be. 11 Q Ectueen April 13 and May 8, you gave no 12 specific directive that Mr. Powell should be alerted that 13 there might be 50.55(e) reports coming out of Quadre::? i 14 A I don't believe so, no. 15 O On Page 24, Line 18 of your testimony, you 16 discuss the composition of the Houston Lighting & Power 17 incident revieu committee, which is abbreviated in your 18 testimony as IRC. I'd like you to identify, if you 19 would, the individuals that on May 8, 1981, filled the 20 three por>itions, I guess the two first positions that you 21 identified there; first of all the team leader nuclear 22 licensing? 23 A That would have becn nr. nichael Powell. 24 O And the project QA supervisor? 25 A I'm not sure. I think that was Mr. Tom Jordan, 4
\ _,/
TATE REPORTIMG SERVICE, 498-8442 11758 i
m, v 4 759 f 1 but I would tell you I'm not absolutely comfortable with 2 that. 3 0 Could it have been Mr. Overstreet? 4 A It could well have been Mr. Overstreet. In 5- fact, nsv that you cention his name, I know that he and fj tl Mr. Jacobi on a number of occasions were working on i 7 revising the procedure for reportability and it could 8 well have been Mr. Overstreet. 9 Q And the supervising project engineer, design g 10 engineering? 11 A I'm not absolutely comfortable on this one 12 either. I think it was Mr. John Uhite.
! 13 O Could it have been Mr. Blau?
14 A It could have been Mr. Blau or Mr. Uhite.
/
41 5 These were key people on the technical team. But as far 16 as -- it's hard to sort names and places and jobs going 17 back that far.
.18 ' Q Uell, if you think back to the review meetings 19 that were being held uith Quadren, April 13 meeting, 20 those sorts of meetings, Mr. Blau was frequently present, 21 was he not?
22 A Yes, he vac. 23 Q Does that refresh you in any sense as to , 1 24 whether he fills this position? ! 25 A I,think Mr. Blau was present, because among u t I TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 498-8442 11759
-b 3 s-
t 760 1 other things, it night well have been this reason, he was 2 one of the more knowledgeable engineers who had been on 3 that project for a considerable period of time, and he 4 had considerable personal knowledge as to the status of 5 engineering activities on the project. G Q Had he been on the project longer than Dr. 7 Sunpter? , 8 A I believe that he was on the project nore time, 9 if you will, maybe not associated overall for more time. 10 Dr. Sumpter was in charge of nuclear services when I came 11 to HL&P, and basically nuclear services constituted 12 engineering activities both on and off project. 13 Mr. Blau was one of those engineers who was on ("' 14 project, and he reported ultimately to Dr. Sumpter, but . 15 Dr. Sumpter was physically located of f project. So in 16 terms of day-to-day contact with the project and 17 knowledge of the activities, I suspect that Mr. Blau had 18 a little bit more personal knowledge on that than Dr. 19 Sumpter. 20 Q Mr. Goldberg, in the Quadrex categories, one of 21 them was the generation of reliable power. 22 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, nay I just object. 23 I think if Mr. Sinkin is going to be refer to a 24 categorisation, it should be in the precise tern that the 25 Quadrex report refers to it. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 igg i l _____________________j
761 1 Q (By !!r. Sinkin) At Page 29, Line 15, or Line 2 13 through 15 of your testimony, you state that the 3 serious findings were not reportable because they did not 4 relate to safety but only to the generation of reliable 5 power. Are you with me? 5 A Yes. 7 0 When I read Quadre:: at some point and saw the 8 term generation of reliable power, I thought about, 9 "Uell, that means the plant von't actually operate and 10 deliver electricity." That's how you understand that 11 categorie? 12 A Yes, and it constitutes the balance of the 13 plant other than the nuclear safety related portion that 14 is needed to generate the electric power. 15 Q Could there be an event at an operating nuclear 16 power plant that would cause a turbine to trip but vould 17 not be safety related? 18 A Certainly. 19 Q Did you give ne an answer to that question? 20 A I said certainly. 21 Q I didn't hear it, I'm very sorry. 22 A I beg your pardon. 23 0 And such an event would cause the flou of 24 electricity from the plant; is that not correct? 25 A That is correct. l TATC REPORTIUG SERVICE, 498-8442 11761 f
762 1 Q Uhen a turbine trips at an operating nuclear 2 power plant, are conditions created which cause a 3 heightened sence of cafety concern? Let me -- I haven't 4 ackcd that very vell. But in a routinely operating 5 reactor, you're in a certain state of mind. Uhen you 6 know that there's a turbine trip going on, you have a 7 heightened conse of a potential cafety problem? 8 A I wouldn't cay that. You have what's called an 9 upset condition for which the plant is designed. And 10 there is sufficient margines of safety under that 11 operating situation uhich is othet than normal, certainly 12 no less safe than previously. 13 0 Uac there a particular concern on thic project s
) 14 about upset conditions and how Broun & Root was dealing 15 with them?
16 A I think that there was a general interect to 17 making cure that all the cystems were being designed in 18 consideration of the normal energency upcet and faulted 19 conditionc. 20 Q Uhy don't we define that term for the record, 21 " faulted conditions." 22 c A Paulted condition is a condition accociated 23 with any postulated failure, such as a pipe break 24 failure. 25 0 So in escence, the word " faulted" is used
's, e TATE REPORTIHG GERVICC, 498-0442 117G2
)
763 1 becauce there'c some fault in the way the operation is 2 proceeding? 3 A It's usually associated with an actual 4 equipment failure. 5 Q Equipment failure? 6 On Page 31 of your testimony, Question 41, you 7 identify the three subset categories that was used in 8 their most serious findings, or at least you're asked 9 about those in the question. I'd like you to review the 10 question and your answer before I ask the quection. 11 Q, In the May 7 th review, when Quadrex presented 12 the report at the Brown & Root offices, was there an 13 effort made to have Guadre:. identify which of the three f }; 14 categories of the most serious findings each of their 15 findings fell into? 16 A No, I don't believe there was any effort in my 17 presence to have Quadrex do that. 18 0 When you met on May 8, did you and Dr. Sumpter 19 and Mr. Robertson make an effort to systematically 20 categorice the Quadrex findings into one of these three 21 most serious arcac? 22 A I think as we vent through our revieu, ue were 23 mentally putting them in these categoriec as well as one 24 other one, which, in effect, ic perhaps related to the 25 one on the subject of delay, and that is that Quadren had
/~. .
( i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 117Q 3
764 1 cuggected a number of ways that it would engineer a power 2 plant, techniquec, if you will, and clearly, I guesc the 3 theory would be that if those were efficient ways of , I 4 doing it, then you might get to the end quicker and inore 5 efficiently. 6 And I would cay that those, I guecc, are part 7 of the cet on delay of licence. But I think it's a 8 rather interesting aspect of it, becauce it really 9 representa comparing what they saw with techniques that 10 they personally were familiar with, 11 Q Ic it your understanding that the reason they 12 would differ as to the technique was cimply a matter of 13 efficiency or did they on occacion believe that their ' ') 14 technique was a cafer way of doing it? 15 A I would answer your question in this 16 way: There are lotc of ways that one can 17 accomplish a tack. Some ways are more otraightforward 18 than others. And one could make the argument that, 19 "Well, if it's more straightforward, then you are less 20 prone to make mistakec." 21 In the relm o~ choice of how an engineer gocc 22 about his bucineca, trare's no question that ccme ways 23 are better than other;. And there's no question that we 24 would say that we atriv' to get it done the best way we 25 can. Dut to take a photograph at a point in time and to i l TATC REPonTING SenVICE, 498-0442 11764
765 } l conpare what you cee uith ways that you know are better, 2 doesn't in itself suggest that uhat's there ic deficient; 3 just suggests that there's clearly an opportunity for 4 inprovenent. 5 0 On the whole, baced on the Quadrex report, vac 6 your improccion that Brown & noot more generally vac 7 using nethodology that was lecc straightforward than you 8 would have liked? 9 A I think it cuggested what I tried to 10 characterize, I believe yecterday, that Brown & Root 11 hadn't engineered enough plants to come to realize that 12 there are come ways that are better than otherc; a lot of 13 that improvement cones with experience. And what it 7, 14 cignalled to us vac that if we could infucc nore 15 experience into Drcun & Root, then we would more quickly 16 come upon thece more efficient ways of doing business. 17 Dut all of uc have cone from firns uho had to 18 lecrn very cinilarly to the way Brown & Root was 19 learning, and we can reflect on cone of the earlier uays 20 that uc did businecc, and wc were not achaned of its 21 result. 22 But quite frankly, in contract to how we would 23 do it today, it was a little archaic in ternc of being an 24 efficient organized effort that would allow you to cover 25 the ground in a short time and at lovest poccible coct m TATE REPORTING SERVICC, 498-8442 117G5
76G 1 while ctill providing a measure of quality that's 2 required. 3 0 Did you, on the whole, after reviewing Quadren, 4 view the Drown & Root effort as archaic in your sence in 5 that they were using techniques from the early '70s, G rather than late '70s and early '30c? 7 A I'd rather use the word in the context of, 8 chall ue cay, more rudimentary approaches, an oppoced to 9 archaic. 10 0 Rudimentary in the conce of -- 11 A Well, not ac cophisticated, perhaps, as comeone 12 who's been at it longer than they -- 13 Q You vere aware, as soon as you arrived at UL&P,
; 14 or perhapc even before, that thic uas Broun f: Root's 15 design and engineering contract that they had performed?
16 A I vac aware that thic van there first, yes. 17 0 I mean on a nuclear power plant. [ 18 A Yes. 19 0 I want to diccuse with you the term " final 20 decign." I have heard you cpeak on more than one 21 occacion as to what you would consider -- uhen you 22 concider a design final. Let'c start uith that question. 23 Uhen do you contider a design final? 24 A The design, in my parlance, in final, when all 25 the decign activitiec including final calculationc have m TATE REPORTIUG SERVICC, 490-8442 yy
767 1 been issued. 2 0 Dy final calculations, you mean the 3 verification has been done? 4 A I'm saying that in the course of the design and 5 construction of a power plant, particularly a nuclear 6 power plant, there are certain calculations that are 7 dynamic, give you an example. 8 Under the ASI1E 3 code, you do not have a final 9 stress analysis until you have finished building the 10 plant. And then you must reconcile that analysis uith 11 exactly what's done in the power plant. And until that's 12 done, design isn't finished. The designer is still at 13 vork doing analysis. Sc that you end up uith harduare 14 and analysis that natch. It's a iterative process. ' ]) 15 0 An iterative process, a process that repeats 16 itself? 17 A It can repeat itself. I!ou , I would add that le that's a little bit different in terms of talking about 19 when is it considered final for purposes of released for 20 construction. And I don't want to confuse that issue. 21 One can issue a drauing for construction before all the 22 design activities have been completed. 23 For purposes of reportability under 50.55(e), 24 once that drawing is issued, it's academic whether the 25 calculations are finished. If you build it and it's
)
TATC REPORTIIIG SERVIr1, 498-8442 117g7
}
760 1 urong, it nay well turn out to be reportable. 2 0 That ic uhere I van going. To clarify that 3 cection 50.55(c), lii statec a significant deficiency in 4 final design ac approved and released for conctruction. 5 So you are differentiating final design as you have 6 ctated it -- yes it's in hic testimony. Final design as . l 7 it'a used in 50.55(e), from the firct deceription you 8 gave me of final design? 9 A Obviously when you ask the quection, "Uhat doca 10 final design mean?", ycu have to put it perhapc in more 11 specific context. 12 0 In that context, would any document used to 13 construct the plant be a final design? 14 MR. AZELRAD: Mr. Chairman, can I have a ({ ^) 15 clarification of what is meant by "that context." 16 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) In the context of 50.55 (e), 17 excuce me, vould any document used to construct a plant 18 be a final design? 19 A Uct in that context. I think interectingly 20 enough, we had a discuccion, I think it vac early 21 yesterday, where ve were talking about certain kinds of 22 diagrammatic information which is used extensively for 23 verification of inctallation, but it isn't the basic 24 documents which one builds the installation. 25 If you would like, I can go on to perhapa -- I g ( I TATE REPORTIUG SDRVICE, 498-0442 jyg
l 769 l l 1 cee you are troubled by what I've said. 2 Q A little bit. If you'd like to elaborate. 3 A Let's take, for example, the design of a fluid 4 cystem. One of the key up front documents is a piping 5 and inctrunentation diagram. And from the information 6 contained on that document, is developed a drawing. And 7 that drawing gets released for construction and you build 8 it and then later on, there ic recogniced a mictake. 9 0 Let's clarify. Uhat kind of mictake? 10 A Uell, let's accume that the mictake ic that 11 comebody failed to take into account the requirementa of 12 a regulation that existed at the time the design vac 13 performed.
) 14 And nou you are faced -- and --
15 0 I'm corry to interrupt. But you are talking 16 about a mictake in the piping and instrumentation 17 diagram, or are we talking about a mictake in the 18 installation? 19 A Ue're talking about -- ultimately about the 20 inctallation. 21 0 okay. 22 nn. AXELRAD: I!r. Chairraan, I might cuggect 23 that councel for CCAMP not interrupt Mr. Goldberg while 24 he givec his explanation. If, when nr. Goldberg getc 25 finiched, there'c still questions, then clarifying 1 TATE REPORTING CCRVICC, 493-8442 117Cg J
770 l 1 additional questions can be asked. But I think the 2 interruption in the flou of the precentation in not 3 helpful. 4 !!R. CIUKIN: That's fine. 5 THC UITNESS: Uhat I was trying to lead to unc 6 thic, that if the character of thic mistake vere a cace 7 of having overlooked the requirements of a regulation and 8 thic vaan't -- let's uay an icolated cace, let's cay thic 9 was a fairly broader that occurred in nany inctances, a 10 cyctemic error, that that might well conctitute a 11 cignificant breakdoun in quality accurance. And if any 12 of those mictakec, which if had they gone uncorrected, 13 could have advercely affected the cafe operation of the 14 plant, then, you know, you've got the makingc of a 15 reportability matter. 16 So I'm accuming that we've got all the 17 ingredients nececcary for reportability. 18 Let'c accume it was an icolated error, it 19 ucon't cyctemic, and had it not been uncovered, it would 20 have had an adverce effect on cafe operation of the 21 plant, and it's found after the design has been releaced 22 for construction, then that would conctitute a matter of 23 reportability. 24 But one han to make a distinction between what 25 I gave an an c:: ample and what ic often timec called
-)
TATC REPORTIMG SERVICC, 490-8442 11MO I l 1 m . .
771 1 "decign development," where the complete decign is not 2 known at the time that the design is released for 3 construction. And a portion of the design in released 4 and then at a cubsequent point in time further design 5 information is released, and occasionally, doesn't always G work out, that everything that una previously releaced is 7 compatible with everything that follows. And you get 8 into what's called rework. 9 Q Okay. He began thic particular phace of the 10 discuccion when I asked you if any document used to 11 construct a plant is a final decign. And we then were 12 talking about come documents that are used for 13 construction verification as oppoced to actual
', 14 construction, cuch as a piping and inctrumentation 15 design. I want to change your hypothetical juct a little 16 bit.
17 You've done the piping and instrumentation 18 design, the drawinga been developed from that, the 19 drawing ic releaced for construction, the cyctem is 20 built; you then go with the piping and instrumentation 21 decign as a verification tool to look at the system. Ic 22 that correct? 23 A That'c used ac part of the verification 24 process, yes. 25 Q If at that time, the person using the piping i r\ TATE REPORTI!;G SERVICC, 498-8442 gg
772 1 and instrumentation design discovers a cignificant 2 deficiency in that decign as opposed to what's been 3 built, could that lead to notification under 50.55(e) ? 4 MR. AXCLRAD: Mr. Chairman, let me make cure I 5 understand tne question. 6 A The quection is, that it's not the drawing that 7 was used for construction that'a deficient, but the 8 drawing or chetch, whatever it ic that was being used for 9 verification in deficient. That's the hypothetical? 10 IIR . SIMKIn: That's correct, 11 THC UITUCSS: I'd say that now you've got a 12 weaknece in the inspection procaca, owing to a defective 13 inctrumentation document, and if that were of an isolated 14 nature and if it had gone uncorrected, if it did not pose 15 a threat to the cafe operation, it would not be 16 reportabic. 17 On the other hand, if it did pose a threat, it 18 would be. Or if it vac cyctemic, it would conceivably be 19 reported under the category, accuming it's catisfied the 20 threat to cafe operation, as a cignificant breakdown in 21 quality accurance. So it in pcacible, given the 22 appropriate circumstancec, that that could qualify for 23 reportability. 24 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) So in that first inctance of it 25 not being cystemic, you are treating the piping and v i' TATC REPORTIMG SERVICC, 498-8442 11772
m 773 1 inctrumentation diagram as falling under final design ac 2 used in 50.55(e)? 3 A I don' t think -- I'm getting a little conf used 4 with that question. I thought we had tried to chou a way 5 in which a problem in a diagran alone might poco a 6 problem, if it vere used for inspection and it uere 7 determined to be incorrect to therefore the inspection 8 uac defective. 9 JUDGE SHON: Mr. Goldberg, I think that'c not 10 quite uhat Mr. Cinkin vac driving at. If I can intercede 11 a bit, we coca to be in a bit of a knot. I think the 12 problem that he'c cet to you, really, vac one concerning 13 the piping and instrumentation diagram, which in cort of o 14 a fundanental document; it exicted in the beginning so to 15 speak and other drawings were made to it; is that 16 correct? 17 THE UITUESS: That's correct. 13 JUDGC SHON: Cou, construction has occurred and 19 thingc have been buil* 2ccording to o the other drauings 20 and comeone in the cource of using the piping and 21 instrumentation diagram to check out the equipment and co 22 on, diccoverc that it hac a fundamental error in it; you 23 can think of a lot of things, ncybe there isn't 24 cufficient redundancy or coparation or not enough 25 inctrumentation of cone cort. And it doesn't meet the TATC REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 fgg
774 1 regulatory requirementc. And it in a natter important to 2 cafety. 3 Ic that reportable now as a cingle inctance not 4 as a general breakdoun, but an a single instance in which 5 a draving namely the piping and inctrumentation diagram 6 uac in come conce releaced for construction, uac not used 7 directly for conctruction, but it vac a thing on which 8 the construction ucc ultimately baced; vould it be 9 reportable; that'c uhat you're after. 10 HR. SIMKIN: Precicely, 11 THC UITMCSS: Yec, I think given that nodel, it 12 uould be. 13 JUDGE SHOU: Thank you. () 14 0 (Dy Mr. Sinkin) And it uould be reportable under the cection that talho about a cignificant 15 16 deficiency in final decign, released for conctruction? 17 A Yes. 10 MR. AXCLRAD: Mr. Chairman, if CCA"P han coac 19 to come nature stopping point, been at it for about an 20 hour and-a-half, it might be an appropriate time for a 21 break. 22 JUDCC BCCHHOCPCR: I think that uould an good 23 idea. I had one question I wanted to follow up on, what 24 Judge Shon juct acked. If you had one of thoce decigno 25 on which construction vac baced that had only preliminary TATC RCPORTII:G DURVICC, 490-8442 gf l l m-- - o =
775 1 calculationc in it, and later calculationc turned out to 2 be different, at what -- both differed and as having an 3 effect on safety, let'c nake that assumption -- at what 4 point would that so-called final design be reportable? 5 Or first, would it be, and then at what point, if so at 6 uhat point. 7 THE UITNESS: I'm trying to ancuer your 8 question, Mr. Chairman, with a nice efficient ancuer. 9 Dut I hesitate, becauce I can think of inctances where ve 10 release piping drauings for construction and there can be 11 a change in come plant operating condition that changes 12 the temperatures, that changes the ctress levels in the 13 piping, that requires modification of piping that was, in 14 fact, released for conctruction, and we don't treat that, 15 since it's a conccious design development, ac a defect in 16 the conce of .lomebody failing to do comething that he vac 17 required by regulation to do. 18 So you really have to be careful in just taking 19 this pattern of, "I have a design and it vac releaced for 20 construction, and nou lo and behold it has to change." 21 Doec that not automatically, if it would catisfy all the 22 other conditions, constitute a reportable natter? It may 23 not. 24 JUDGC BCCHHOCFER: I var referring noctly to 25 the example or the general example you gave on Page 32,
]
j TATE REPORTING SCRVICC, 498-8442 11 M j
776 1 uhich in your answer 42, and if -- I'm just saying if the 2 preliminary assumptions turned out to be not as 3 concervative as e::pected, for instance, at what point or 4 would it become reportable assuming construction was 5 being undertaken on the basis of the preliminary design. 5 THE WITNESS: Well, ny judgment would be this: 7 If I were taking the cace, let's say, of a safety related 8 structure and I undertook to build that structure using 9 preliminary information, which more times than not ic the 10 way it happens, because co much of the intelligence isn't 11 available when people vant to get'these plants started, 12 and then at a later date, owing to the advent of the new 13 information, loado, perhaps coming from cupport systenc 14 for piping or for cable trays or a host of other plant 15 equipnent, if I ended up vith a ctructure that was no 16 longer technically adequate and it had been built and 17 there it stood and has gone uncorrected, there's just no 18 question that it would poce a threat to safe plant 19 operations. I would have to report that ac a significant 20 problem. L 21 JUDGC BUCHHOEPER: Uhat if construction had not 22 yet been completed and the neu information came forward? 23 THE WITUCSS: That would be a judgment call. I 24 think I'd call it in as a potential and we'd see whether 25 or not it uould ultimately follow to a final reportable. X TATE RCPORTIUG SERVICC, 498-8442 jjyg
k 777 1 I think that that kind of an e:: ample ic in a potential 2 gray area. "y feelings about thic kind of an incue ic 3 that come things are fairly pernanent that can't be 4 casily corrected, that they would tend to be temptation 5 for designerc to try to reduce decign targinc. 6 In the relm of design, there's not much you can 7 do to a structure once, in fact, you've poured the 8 concrete and it's there. Uhatever it taken to remedy the 9 problem is a considerable effort and I think that matter 10 should be brought to the attention of the regulatory 11 authorities, given that it vould saticfy the other 12 criteria. 13 Uhereac if it vere conething a far lecc 14 permanency, it vac a cace of, say, I calculated a heat 15 load and I iacued the drawingc to the manufacturer of, 16 cay, the cafety related and heating and ventillation and 17 air conditioning equipment and then I found that my heat 18 loads were too lou and I modified my purchace order to 19 increase capacity of the equipment, I would treat that 20 more in the relm of design development. And yet had it 21 gone uncorrected, it night well have paced a threat. 22 But that's one of the the chadec of at what 23 point is it decign development, at what point is it 24 considered a cignificant decign oversight. 25 J U D G E D C C :111 0 C P E R : To take juct another gy TATC RCPORTII G SCRVICC, 498-C442 11777
778 1 c:: ample, which I've cort of pickcG up from another case I 2 uac on, but what about rattle space criteria? 3 HR. SIURIN: I'm corry, I didn't here that. 4 JUDGE BECHUOEFER: Rattle cpace criteria, where 5 piping in and out of buildingc -- 6 MR. SIUKIU: I'n still not hearing the first 7 word. 3 JUDGC DECHUOEFER: Rattle space, r-a-t-t-1-e. 9 MR. SIMKIN: Rattle cpace. 10 JUDGC DCCUHOCPER: Okay. Yec. At least 11 Dechtel has used that in other conte::tc. I'm not cure -- 12 THE UITNESS: Hell, there has to be, when pipec 13 nove between buildings that are going to move during () 14 ground notion accociated with carth quakes, there has to 15 be cafficient fle:-:ibility built into the cysten to allow 16 the differential novenent between the tuo ctructurec. If 17 that's the connotation of rattle cpace, la JUDGE DECIIHOSPER: Hell, I was thinking uhere 19 piping through space gocu which are larger or caaller as 20 the cace maybe, to enter cafety ctructurec. 21 JUDGD SHON: I think what the chairman ic 22 talking about is the cort of cituation wherein a pipe may 23 nove with respect to a building unll, f o r e:-:a mple , what 24 you'd like to do is make cure that the notion stops chcrt 25 of direct contact uith cono solid portion of the vall co TATC nEPonTI"G SERVICC, 490-0442 g 1 1
l 779 1 that it doecn't ctrecc the pipe. And it has space to 4 2 rattle around, in other vordc. It may be covered by a 3 rubber diaphragm nor comething. 4 Tnc UITUESS: Okay, yec, sir, in that conte::t, 5 there's no question that if that's not an anchor point 6 for the piping cysten, there has to be cufficient 7 clearance space so that you do not impose excoccive 8 uovemente on the pipe as a recult of building novement. 9 JUDGC DECHHOCPER: Right. Now, accuning your 10 later calculations determine that there hac to be more 11 space than vac originally decignated on the plan under 12 which conctruction of the safety structure took place, if 13 the later calculation -- at the time the later () 14 calculationc are developed, uhat happens then? 15 THE UITUCSS: I think I'd be first looking at 16 uhat vac the character of the problen. For example, ucc 17 it a cace of where they had an incorrect prediction of 18 movement becauce of come cyctematic deficiency in the 19 method of analycic; uac thic isolated cace of where they 20 found later on they had c::ceccive movement or 10 this a 21 case where the whole decign methodology vac found to be 22 defective and this vac one of the cacualtiec of that 23 defect, then I would be looking at that hind of a 24 cituation more pointedly for reportability than juct a 25 cace of comebody having made come inappropriate first N TME ECPORTIUG SERVICC, 498-0442 Jj**f3 l
l l 780 1 calculation and then finally later on ac part of a review 2 of the calculation -- 3 JUDGE DECIlliOCPER: What I aac really driving at 4 in the later cace, whether that vot'.d fall under the 5 final decign released for conctruction criteria. G TI!E UITNESS: I'd cay that in the recponce I 7 gave, if the reason for the inadequate rattle space vac 3 determined to be a fundauental problera with how that kind 9 of decicion wac being made, co that it vac a cyctemic 10 problen in the design proceca and it vould catisfy tha 11 other criteria in terrac of had it'it gone inccrrected, 12 that would have been, under my mind, reportable. 13 JUDCC DCCHHOCPCn: That would a GA breakdown.
; 14 TIiB UITHESS: Yec, cir.
15 JUDGC EECIM!OCPER: Uhat about the icolated 1G inctance an a final design approved and released for 17 conctruction? Under that criteria -- 13 TI!S UITNESS: That tight go either way. I 19 think it would depend on et what point in the design thiu 20 particular problem curfaced. If the decign van cuch that 21 the plant vac finiabed and thought to be complete and 22 then thic problen curfaced, I think that that would be 23 the more likely place uhere it would be categotized an an 24 error, as oppoced to a decign developuent, if the decign 25 van in proccca. p TATC RCPORTIUC CCnVICC, 498-0442 J.1780 s
781 l f 1 JUDGC DECIL!!OCI'Un: Ohay, uhy don't we take our -- i 2 about a fifteen minute break. 3 (liorning rececc.) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 f) 14 Ns 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 r8 i' )i TATI: CCI'0;tTII:C SUItVICI', 490-0442 I .1 ?.O]
1 Juron DECI!!!OEPCn: Okay, bach on the record. 2 JEROMC I: COLD"ERO , 3 tentified further upon hic cath ac follcuc: 4 CnOSS E"A!!IMATIO!! COMTIMurD 5 Dy !r. Sinkin: G 0 lir. coldberg, on page three two of your 7 tectimony, cuencion and ancue r 41, I'd like you to revicu 8 thouc for a nonent and then I'll ack you a cuection. In 9 the quantion, there'c cart of tuo parta. Uc're talking , 10 about a denign that han not he connanced or a deci<jn thet 11 ha a not been cor.ple ted. 12 f.et ne ntart with a denign that hac not been 13 connanced. Yhe cuention ached va7 that would you explain 14 uhy something that bac not been connonced vould not 15 neccanarily be a deficiency in deciqn or quality 16 accurence for decigr.. And at the end oC your ant;uer, you 17 are caying that the fact that certain de:: inn activiticc la uay have not yet co.menced, or been completed, generally 19 doen not nean there'n a doficiency in a design or in - 20 cuality accurance. Can you conceptualize an event where 21 a dealgn not yet covaenced could be a deficiency in 22 decign or a deficiency in quality anuurance? 2' A In a rituation uhere the decign of a feature 24 urn totally overlooked nd thct feature vac needed ior 25 nafo operation of the plant, that would f.ulfill a s YA?" nl:I' OPT T UG " CI'N ICC , 400-3442 J.1782
2 1 uituation - a cane of a design not started ubich could 2 constituto a problen. 3 0 Uhen you vote evaluating the Guadre:. renort, 4 did you have any licting of any cort of the varioun 5 dealgn ectivitica 13roun t- noot una carrying out and wh:'t 6 ctage of developrnnt they were in? 7 A I pornonally didn't have that incight, but a 3 conciderable crount of that innight van brought to the 9 meeting by Dr. Sumpter and I'r. Pohertcon uho had opent 10 the previouc afternoon and evening vorhing at great 11 length with Orcun I: Root engineerc in trying to entablich 12 nuch natterc an th:' decign ctatun. 13 0 on page 33, quection 40, I'd like you to ravicu 14 that, if you vould. 15 0 flou did you knou on 1:ay 10, 19C1, that the 16 design activitica accociated with protection acninct 17 internal ninnlcc had not yet cour onced. 13 A I got thir infornation on !!ay 8th cn 39 diccuncions with nobertnen and cumpter, that the work 20 hadn't even been ntarted.
- 2) 0 in your vieu, chould the work have been begun
?? by that tino?
23 A I don't think Sc. 24 0 !1r . Go1&c rg , C heve , document called the
'5 Droun T. P.o o t. anceunt ont of the Ouadren derign reviou of ,a ,Y TATn nnronTIrc :mnvIcn, 49n -ar, 1.1783
3 1 the South Texas Project, dated April 1932. Let ne juct 2 ack you if you have seen that document? 3 A I ceca to recall receiving that docuacnt yearc 4 gone by. 5 0 I'n just going ach you to read into the record 6 a cmall portion of that docunent. 7 !!n. CUTTCn!!AM !!ay I coe it, plence? O !n. nCIS: Can the staff cee it, pleace? 9 IIR. GUTTER!! AN : Docc the ctaff uant to see it? 10 JUDGC BCCl!!!OCPCE: IIr. Sinkin, comething -- 11 vould you cheu uc the docunent you're coing to ask hin 12 the quection about? Are you introducing it? 13 !!n. SII KIti: I'm not introducing it, no. g ! ) 14 JUDCC BCCI:lIOCPCR- I'd like to ace at lenct the 15 context and what it looks like. 16 0 (ny lir. Cinkin) 11r. Goldberg, have vcu had a 17 chance to review that document. 18 lin. I.XCLRAD : !!r. Chairman, ve better identify 19 clcarly for the record 'that it is that tir. Cinkin has 20 anked !!r. Goldberg to look at. If !!r. Sinhin vould like 21 to <!o that. 22 fi n . S It'!: I!!- I helteve I tcad the title into 23 1.he record uhen I handad to him. 24 !!:t . AP.1:LnAP : You did not provide the entire 25 document. TAT!: PCPOCTI!!C SCRVICC, 400-844? 1178d
4 1 !!n. SI!il IN: I did not -- I juct acked him if 2 he'd revieu what he'd been handed. 3 !!R . AZELRAD: Ckay. 4 TIIC UITI1ESS : I've read what you've handed me. 5 0 (ny I:r. Sinkin) I've choun you an excerpt from 6 the nroun & Root recponse to the Quadrez report uhich 7 addrecccc Quadre): finding 4.1.2.1 (b). In that correct? 8 Iln. AXELPAD: fir. Chairman, I think that all 9 that !!r. Sinkin can do is to identify specific pages from 10 a specific document. I don't think he chould 11 characterize it is a responce or anything else. He hac a 12 title cheet and two crecific pages and that ic uhat he 13 chould iaentify for the record. 14 !!R. sit'KII!: The title cheet ac I read earlier, 15 the Droun E Root accecament of the Ouadre:. decign revieu 16 of the South Te::ac project, dated April '02. The pagec I i 17 am chouing to Mr. Goldberg are pagen 2-6 and 2-7 uhich 18 addrecc Quadre:. finding ?!o. 4.1.2.1 (b). 19 civil /ctructural technical aderluacy accecanent. 20 !!n. REIS : !!r. Sinkin, Can the staff nee the 21 introcut. ion to that document, any pagen --- can the ctaff 22 e::anine t he full document 30 that ue can cee what this is 23 taking ac part of. 24 11 n . S I t11: Ill : I don't have the full document 25 with ran at thic tine. I'd be happy to provide it on x l TATE DEPORTIt!G fiCDVICC, 490-3442 11785
5 1 Monday. Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Goldberg, on the first 2 page of the respense, assessment of finding 4.1.2.1. (b), 3 first of all is that the came finding you are discussing 4 in question 48, ansuer 43, question 49 and ancuer 49? 5 A Yes, it is. 6 0 Uuould you please read the centences beginning 7 at the word " start" that I have marked on that page and 8 ending at the word "stop." 9 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, the staff would have 10 to object. We have had no opportunity to look at the 11 beginning of the document, particularly I'd like to cee 12 the introduction of the document, particularly if there's 13 any qualifications or caveats that might influence the 14 ansver; uc'd knou uhether the quection is a fair quection 15 or not. And I haven't -- I've been shoun the title page 16 and a couple of pages from the niddle of the document 17 that I have had no opportunity and it'c not -- Mr. Sinkin 13 doecn't have today. 19 MR. SI!?KI!!: Mr. Chairman, the Applicanto have 20 a full exhibit and they've already offered it once to the 21 staff for revieu; it vac given to the ctaff for revieu, 22 the ctaff can revieu the introduction if they want. 23 nr.. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, it van simply nore
- 9. 4 difficult for anyone to take this docunent, itcelf, which 25 is, I would inagine at leact 150 pager and review the
(,
)
TATC REPORTING SERVICC, 498-8442 11786 2
-l t
< 6 1( r
,f 1 entire document, each of une particular findings and the 2 introduction deduction and the naterials that the staff e ,
3 has been referring to. I'll bc perfectly willing to shou 4 it to the staff but I'm not sure that that's going to 5" eniighten everyone with the context in which thin 6 document was produced or what the document purports to 7 , be. And certainN) nor/ enlighten the witness unless he 8 'took similar time-to review the documents.
/
9 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman. 10 JUDCC BCCHHOEFER: I think what you should do 11 is ask your quections and then if the staff, upon further 12 review of the document, doesn't'have to be today but I 13 rfceivedthedocumenta,ndI.idon'thaveitwithme,but i n (_) 14 furtherreviewoftheskafffoundsomeobjections,they LS could raise them then., 16 MR. SINKIN: My only intent, Mr. Chairman, th'e
,' 17 statements I will ask Mr. Goldberg to read are statements 18 of fact made in this particular report. And I will ask i
19' hin are those ctatements correct. And that is the extent 20 of the cross examination. 21 . MR. PIFRO: The staff will take exception to 22 Mr. Sinkin'saying they're statements of fact. The 23 documents, to the extent they cpeak, will speak for 24 themselves,jand whether.they're opinions or facts is 25 comething fop the Board to decide.
' (^\
TATE REPORTING SERVICC, 498-8442 11787 L'a
7 1 11R . AXELRAD: There's alco a problen, Mr. 2 Chairman, as to whether or not the icolated sentence or 3 centencec which 11r. Sinkin has to read, even in the 4 context of the two pages; is an accurate representation 5 of what the information conveyed in those two pages ic. 6 IIR . SINKI!!: Counsel vill have ample 7 opportunity on redirect if he feels that the information 8 provided by the uitness needs to be completed in core way 9 to ack further questionc. 10 JUDGE DECHHODFER: I think that'c either 11 redirect or rebuttal, if necessary. I think you may 12 proceed. 13 IIR . SIUKIIJ: Thank you. j 14 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) fir. Goldberg, on the first 15 page of text, not counting the cover page, there's 16 centences marked " start" by me and then "stop" my ne. 17 Uculd you please read those centencec? 18 A Defore I read the sentences, I wonder if I have 19 any rights to address thic Board. I don't knou where Mr. 20 Sinkin is going with this. Uut I would auch prefer to 21 read the entire text into the record, because I feel 22 there is vital information that bearc on pocsibly where 23 he's going with this 1.+2 of cuestioning. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think ue ought to have the 25 complete context, in terne of context, at least. t' TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11788 i
1 1 a 1 IIR. AXELEAD: Perhaps fir. Sinkin vould prefer 2 to mark those three pages for identification as a CCANP 3 exhibit, we'd have that caterial for everybody to look 4 at. 5 MR. SINKIN: Ue will mark it it as CCANP 75 for G identification only. 7 HR. PIRFO: That's fine, but we don't have even 3 copies of that. 9 MR. SINKIN: Obviously that's the problem of j 10 marking it for identification. It uas not to be 11 introduced into evidence, just to be used for the limited 12 purpose it's to be used for. 13 IIR. PIRPO: Ic's not a problen the staff i 14 created, Judge Bechhoefer. 15 IIR . REIS: I object. And further, in the 16 future, I think CCANP chould have sufficient copies to 17 give people to look at documents even if they're just to 18 refresh the witness' recollection so that the counsel can 19 be looking at it at the sane time. If he intends using 20 documents, he known ahead of tine he's prepared, they 21 ought to be aailable for distribution. It's not 22 sonething that he thought of today. 23 MR. PIRFO: This is not some arcane rule -- 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Normally that vould be good 25 practice. I'm not sure there's any specific requirenent pr TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 I J
\
9 1 to that effect. If it vould be available, it vould be 2 decirable. But we'll still let you ask the questions. I 3 do think he should be able to read into the record, if 4 the uitneac thinks that more than just uhat you 5 designated. 6 HR. SINKIP: I agree with that. Uhat I would 7 like to do, though, for the cake of the record, is have 8 him read the sentences I would like to have him read so 9 that we don't have to go back into the full content and 10 start over again, have him read those sentences I would 11 like him to read and then he can read the entire content 12 if that's what he would like to do. 13 HR. AXELnAD: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that j 14 ve're going to have it included in the record at that 15 point. It would appear to be preferable at that point 16 just to read all three pages into it and then Mr. Sinkin 17 can ack him whatever questions he wants with whatever 18 portion hac been read into the recprd, if he doesn't vant 19 to do it as an enhibit. If the entire tuo pages ic going 20 to be an exhibit, then I guess there's no problem. The 21 exhibit vill be there. 22 HR. SINI IN : nell, perhapc uhat would be 23 casier, Mr. Chairman, vould be to go forward today with 24 having him read the centences I vent him to read, I will 25 make copies before Monday, and introduce it as an
)
J TATE REPORTIliG SERVICC, 498-8442 11790
10 1 exhibit. 2 HR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, if I can make a 3 different suggestion. I don't knou how much cross 4 examination Mr. Sinkin has of Mr. Goldberg, but 5 apparently it's going to last beyond today. Why don't we 6 suggest that Mr. Sinkin go to a different subject, got I l 7 roughly another hour for cross-examine and when he has 8 the exhibit available on Honday, he can cross-examine on 9 the basis of the exhibit. I don't uant to interrupt the l l 10 orderliness of Mr. Sinkin's cross-examination, but that
)
l 11 might make it much more cacy for other counsel and for l l 12 the Board to follou his line of examination, if they have 13 the document in front of them. j 14 UR. SIUKIn: If ve're talking about and orderly 15 record for me to insert a whole section of other 16 cross-examination when I'm already introduced this 17 subject, I don't think that provides an orderly record. 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think we should just 19 proceed and let Mr. Goldberg read the whole thing into 20 the record around then you can identify which sentences, 21 uhich cspects of that you want to focus your questions on 22 and I think that uill, may not speed things up but it 23 will get things moving. Let's do it that way. 24 THE UITNESS: " Brown & Root Response To Quadrex 25 finding No. 4.1.2.1 (b). Erown & Root disagrees with the e n' TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-0442 II7bI 1
l 11 1 above finding. The first part of the finding alleges 2 that the civil structural discipline did not question the I 3 reasonableness of postulated missles. The criteria for l 4 internal missles in effect at STP vere originally issued 5 in January 1975 as report AD369RD002L ' Internal Hissles'. 6 This document uns revised and reissued as TRDlD209RQ013-A 7 in September 1975 and again in April 1979. Each time the 8 document was issued, it was reviewed by the civil 9 structural discipline. In performing a formal revieu of 10 the document, the civil structural discipline evaluated 11 the criteria, including the reasonableness of postulated , 12 nicales. 13 "Moreover, the reasonableness of postulated
!J 14 internal missles is clearly demonstrated in the TRD and 15 is based on design criteria requirements, as well as 16 design philcsophy. In the TRD, it is emphasized that, 17 uhere possible, component and system design will preclude 18 the generation of missles. This is achieved by suitable 19 choice of materials, censideration of normal and faulted 20 stress levels, and definition of systen and component 21 characteristics that avoid missle producing effects even 22 under faulted conditions.
23 "The TRD also gives the design requirements for 24 internal missle protection. Potential missle sources and 25 targets are to be determined after a revicu of the layout 7,
. r f
TATE REPORTIMG SERVICE, 498-8442 11"/92 '
_ _ ~ 12 1 of safety related structures, syctems, and components has 2 been completed. This determination will be accomplished 3 through the use of safety systen hazard analysic 4 drawings, uhich will identify nicale sources and 5 unacceptable targets as well as other hazards. 6 Protection devices will be designed for damage evaluation 7 confirms the need for them. 8 " Prevention of pump impeller missles is one 9 example of the inplementation of the TRD criteria. Motor 10 driven pumps and compressors are driven by AC induction 11 motors that condition overspeed, thus decreasing risk of 12 generating a nissle. It it should also be noted that 13 Quadrex'cG assessment of the Broun E: Root response to sJ 14 question C-9, cited in the above finding, does not in 15 fact cupport the finding. In that assessment, Guadrex - 1 16 stated: 'It is evident that the structural discipline 17 was handling the missle penetration problen in accordance 18 with industry practice and the state of the art. TRD 19 1H209RQ013-A was reviewed and found to contain 20 comprehensive design criteria for determining and 21 protecting against internally generated missles.' 22 "Quadrex also alleges in the above finding that 23 there uas no evidence that the internal missle criteria 24 had been implemented into the design. This part of the 25 finding is also clearly unfounded. A careful review of n
. J TATE REPORTI"G SERVICE, 493-8442 II7ba3
13 s-
\() l' the project design records would have disclosed that the 2 internal missle criteria had been incorporated into 3 various aspects of the STP design to minimize missle 4 generation potential. inFinal corporation of the missle 5 criteria into the design would have been accomplished 6 based on the safety systems hazards program. The timing 7 of this activity is consistent with industry practice.
8 "Given the above f acts, it is clear that Broun 9 & Root has adequately addressed the problem of postulated 10 internal missles. Accordingly, the above Quadrex finding 11 is erroneous and vill not impact plant licensability." 12 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Let me just ask you to go 13 back, Mr. Goldberg and let's put into the record at this fm (_) 14 point the particular centences from that that -- well, 15 you've read the whole thing into the record. I can work 16 from the document. 17 Having reviewed that response by Brown & Root 18 to the Quadrex finding, Mr. Goldberg, is it your position 19 that the design activities associated with protection 20 against internal missles had not yet commenced uhen 21 Quadrex looked at the Brown & Root program? 22 A I think that there vere certainly foundation 23 documents that had existed, and I think that there was 24 already some consideration clearly in the procurement of 25 equipment. .Put obviously, the total program had not been O V TATE REPORTII:G SERVICE, 498-8442 11794 I
14 1 completed. 2 0 My guention is " commenced." 3 A I said, that there are indications clearly that 4 some parts of this have started. 5 0 And Broun & Root says at one point near the end 6 that actually the criteria had been implemented in 7 certain designs. Is that not correct? 8 A That is correct. 9 0 In your ansuer to question 49 at line 38 of 10 your testimony, I'd like to you revieu that ansuer again 11 in light of our discussion and ask you if you vish to 12 make any changes or modifications or comments upon that 13 answer, as to uhy this particular deficiency was not
) 14 potentially reportable.
15 JUDGE BECHUOEFEn: Line uhat? 16 HR. SINKIN: Page 38, line 23, question and 17 ansuer 49. 18 A Mo, I do not uish to change. Uhat ue vere 19 reflecting on in this ansuer to this question dealt with 20 a hazards analysis that has to take place after you 21 basically have your plant laid out and you've nou got 22 your sources and your targets uell defined. That is the 23 part of the missle protection program that to the best of 24 our knowledge hadn't commenced. And that's uhat ue vere 25 thinking of when ue urete this answer. a TATE REPORTING SERVICS, 498-8442 11795
p _ 15 1 Q Let me ask you to turn to Applicant Exhibit 60, 2 Volume II, Question C9. Going doun to the Quadren 3 assessment. J 4 Apparently what disturbed Quadrex at the very 5 end of that assessment is that they asked the stress 6 group for a response on this issue and they were unable 7 to produce one or did not produce one for some reason. 8 Does it bother you at all that the stress grcup could not 9 produce for Quadrex what was requested? 10 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, there is no 11 foundation for that question. The question does not say 12 that they were unable to produce it. .All it says are 13 Quadrex did not receive the response. _,1 14 Q (Ey Mr. Sinkin) Hell, apparently Quadrex asked 15 the question and got no response. If there's some 16 probleu with saying that the stress group didn't produce 17 a responso, Quadrex asked the question and received no 18 response. Does it bother you at all that Quadrex could 19 did not get a response to this question? 20 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, I object to the 21 question from the point of view of relevance. What was 22 in Quadrex'c mind and what they had here, I just don't 23 see it;s relevant to the issues in either contentions 9 24 or 10 and I'd ask counsel or representative for the 25 intervenor to enlighten me as to the what the relevance TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 498-0442 IN36
i 16 l 1 in Do that we can see the relevance. 2 JUDGE BECHHOSFER: I think the Board thinks 3 it's rather clearly relevant and I might say that the 4 staff has taken the position that that matter should have 5 been reported and I uas going to follou up on that. 6 IIR. SIUKIN: You can respond to the question. 7 THE UITUESS: Uould you repeat the question? 8 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Apparently Quadrex asked a 9 question of Drown & Root and did not receive an ansver 10 and the fact that the strecs group did not produce an 11 answer led them to record that, "In particular," I'n 12 quoting now from that last paragraph, "In particular, we 13 did not receive a responce from the stress group on the _) 14 cecond part of this question concerning how internal 15 uicales that were supplied by Brcwn & Root were 16 generated. Does the fact that Quadrex could not get a 17 responce with -- from the stress group in any way disturb 18 you? 19 IIR . PIRFO: Objection just to the "could not 20 get a response." He is continuously confusing that, he 21 did not get a response. 22 O (Py !!r. Sinkin) I'll be happy to change it to 23 "did not get a response." 24 A Ac I explained the other day, I think the time 25 conctraints that ue placed on this review reculted in a (' . , a TATE REPORTIUG SERVICC, 498-8442 11797 1 l
- - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - -- ---- - --_--]
7 17
) 1 number of situations whereby Quadrex was not able to get 2 all the information.that they sought during this revieu.
3 So that situation ~I think is perhaps very much likely 4 related to the problem of the time constraints of the 5 review. 6 0 Did you find in the period that Brown & Root 7 was on the job and you were on the job that it was 8 relatively easy for Brown & Root to retrieve particular 9 design documents that vere requested by other parties 10 like HL&P? 11 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I will object to 12 that question. That question certainly is irrelevant to 13 the matters before this proceeding. There is no issue
~
() (_/ 14 with respect to the easy -- with the case with which 15 Brown & Root is able to retrieve materials from its files 16 and I do think we're getting into an area which is far 17 remote from the particular Quadrex findings which were at 18 issue here. 19 MR. SINKIU: I'll ask a foundation, Mr. 20 Chairman, and it may become more clear. 21 .Q (By Mr. Sinkin) In your view, is it necessary 22 to an orderly design process to be able to retrieve with , 23 relative case.the basic documents on which the design is 24 generated?
- 25. A I believe that that is a general feature of a (9
x_/ TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 498-8442 11736 1
18 1 design program, to be able to retrieve necessary records. 2 That's correct. 3 0 Did you find that Broun & Root had that 4 ability? 5 A I haven't had all that nuch experience in 6 testing that ability with Brown & Root, to be very frank. 7 I don't recall personally ever asking for information 8 that I wasn't able to get. As far as the tincliness, I 9 never nade any special accounting of that. I had no 10 reason, in a general sense, to believe that they were 11 difficult to obtain information from. 12 O Did you do any particular analysis of the 13 questions where Quadrer did not receive a response, to r mj 14 assess for yourself or for HL&P, whether that was a 15 result of the tine constraints or a result of an 16 inability of Brown & Root to retrieve documents? 17 MR. AZELRAD: Again, Mr. Chairnan, I will 18 object. Ue're going beyond the particular Quadrex 19 findings uhich are at issue here. The Quadrex report is 20 hundreds of pages, hundreds of findings, the Board that 21 has specifically identified some generic findings, some 22 discipline findings which are to be litigated in this 23 proceeding. And I don' t believe that CCAMP should be 24 permitted to address gonaral questions uith respect to 25 general aspects of those Quadrex report other than those t t i
\_ _. '
TATC REPORTIM SERVICE, 498-8442 11799
- - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
19 (3 \ ') 1 that pertain to the specific findings'at issue here. v 2 HR. SIUKIN: I believe the wording of the 3 contention says or the whole report so that whether the 4 entire report should have been turned over is also at 5 issue in this proceeding. 6 HR. AXELRAD: Hr. Chairman, if that particular 7 issue is to be allowed, to have exploration into every 8 generic -- every finding in the Quadrex report and to 9 every question and answer in the Quadrex report, ve've 10 three volumes to be considered here, we're never going to 11 have this hearing completed. Obviously, to put forth 12 that particular issue with is with respect to whether or 13 not the. report as a whole should have been reported g-)s (_ 14 because of its overall thrust, not as to uhether or not 15 any individual aspects such as uhether or not information 16 could be retrieved, is going to be heard in this 17 proceeding with respect to any number of these findings. 18 HR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman -- 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think we'll sustain that 20 objection. But it's a little bit remote from the -- the 21 particular findings on the report, itself. 22 HR. SINKIN: I did have a response to what nr. 23 Gutterman said but I was waiting for you all to. finish, 24 if I could but the that in the record. 25 JUDGE BECJJPEFER: Okay. Oy ,J.- TATE REPORTI"G SERVICE, 498-8442 11800
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _J
20 1 MR. SINKIN: If the question is whether the 2 entire report should be turned over and if there are 3 significant indicators in the report that the design 4 process of Brown & Root is not being conducted in an 5 orderly fashion, it would be our intention to argue that 6 that is one basis on which the entire report should have 7 been turned over. And that's precisely what I was 8 g
.etting at with this line of questioning.
9 MR. AXELRAD: But Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sinkin had 10 ample opportunity to identify what those features of the 11 report which he wanted to litigate during the time that 12 we were delineating the issues to be considered. There 13 are now delineated / ten generic findings to be litigated s_ ) 14 and I don't know -- and 16 discipline findings. 15 And Mr. Sinkin attempted to get other findings 16 included within the matters to be litigated and that was 17 denied. And with respect to the matters he's trying to 18 argue about now, he didn't even identify those and didn't 19 even argue that those should be included. Ue're not 20 going to be able to finish this hearing at any time if 21 we're going to have to go through everything that now Mr. 22 Sinkin wishes he had identified a few months ago as 23 matter to be litigated. 24 MR. SINKIN: The question was which particular 25 findings would be addressed specifically as to whether
'~
, i . 1 !
..J TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11801
[ 21 1 they should have been notified pursuant to 50.55(e). I 2 am not saying that this finding necessarily is the line 3 of questioning I'm talking about, that finding 4.1.2.1(b) 4 which is an identified finding, should be or should not 5 be reported. I'm saying what-does the fact that a f 6 question couldn't be answered when they were trying to 7 make that finding indicate about whether the process was 8 orderly or not. And that goes to the broader question of 9 should the entire report be turned over. 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Hell, the question you just 11 described when I was announcing our ruling, which will 12 stay the same, but we were saying that you could use 13 4.1.2.1(b) as the elements in that as the basis for (_j 14 questions because that is an identified finding. 15 MR. SINKIN: Then I'll do that. 16 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) In terms of 4.1.2.l(b), Mr. 17 Goldberg, did you make any effort to determine whether 18 the stress group had not provided a response to Quadrex 19 because of the time constraints or whether it was because 20 of their inability to find the documents Quadrex wanted? 21 A It's my understanding that this item, as well 22 as a number of other items, are the areas where we were 23 unable to close the gap. And I believe that the time 24 constraints were predominately responsible for that 25 problem. o
\ ,/
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-0442 11802
1 l i 22 1 0 Uhy do you feel you were unable to close the 2 gap? 3 A That Quadrex had raised a number of questions 4 for which they didn't always get answers from Brown & 5 Root. And ue believe that part of the reasons for that 6 were the facts that they were working under a rather 7 tight time constraint and the opportunities to revisit 8 with the people with whom the questions were left, were 9 few and far between. They had a lot of ground to cover t 10 and very little time in which they were trying to cover 11 the ground. 12 O But did you make any specific inquiry as to 13 whether the reason this one was not responded to? j 14 A I personally can't recall whether we made 15 specific inquiry. The reviews took place four and-a-half 16 years ago and I just can't begin to imagine exactly what 17 inquiries were made or were not made at this late stage. 18 0 Did you set up a process of identifying where 19 the gap was not closed and going and seeing if what the 20 reason was for the gap not being -- 21 A I don't believe so, no. 22 O Thank you. 23 Let me get those pages. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Are you still on four 25 4.1. 2.1. ( b) ? I have a couple of follow up questions, if I~ m TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 -1803 I _ _ _ _ _ __ _ A
23 1 you're through. 2 MR. SINKIN: I'm about to leave it so go right 3 ahead. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: fir. Goldberg, given your 5 testimony that you were lacking certain information as to 6 this particular finding -- as to this particular finding, 7 why would you not have considered that as a potentially 8 reportable finding subject to later confirmation or 9 disapproval as the case may be, t 10 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the 11 chairman to clarify that question, because you ctarted 12 off with, "Given that you did not have that information." 13 I don't think the record shows that Quadrex did not have s ) 14 the information at the time they wrote the Quadrex 15 report. 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: At the time on May 7, I'm 17 assuming that fir. Goldberg did not have full information 18 inasmuch as Quadrex also had not full information. 19 !!n. AXELRAD: Well, what I'm saying is, I'm not 20 sure that's been testified to in those terms. Perhaps -- 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: You may want to clarify 22 that, !!r. Goldberg. 23 THE UITflESS: The reason why I don't believe 24 this was potentially reportable, and apparently I'm 25 speaking, I would think, for the other two gentlemen that n ( /
)
I TbTE REPORTING SERVICE, 490-8442 IIOOd I
l l I' 24 1 participated in the review because we' worked together on 2 this, is that protection for missle generation is an l l 3 activity that more times than not occurs relatively late l 4 in the design process. 5 You must have fairly good definition of 6 machinery arrangement, because rotating machinery 7 represent sources and you then have to know where are the 8 things that could be affected by missles which we call 9 the targets. And Brown & Root's activities at that stage 10 of the design unfortunately had not progressed very.far; 11 so the absence of a missle hazards analysis at that ,
'12 juncture wasn't from my view a serious problem. It was I
13 serious from the point of view of-work remaining to be I) 14 done but I did not foresee that as any kind of an issue 15 <that would require reportability to the URC. 16 I could not envision a threat to the operation 17 of the plant for an activity that hadn't even been 18 undertaken. It wasn't a case of the activity not being 19 considered, just hadn't been accomplished. 20 JUDGD BECHHOEFER: Have you had a chance to 21 look at the staff testimony, the testimony of Mr. Taylor, 22 on this subject? 23 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 24 MR. AXELRAD: Could we show that testimony -- 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Page, 37, yes, you may, Page f'N
\m)
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11805
l 25 1 37, answer 103 on page 37. 2 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, first, I note that Mr. 4 Taylor mentions that it's a close call. Is that the kind 5 of item that you would regard as a close call? 6 THE WITNESS: I don't think it's as close to 7 the wire as obviously Mr. Taylor does. I think we have 8 some difference in judgment on this point. I don't see 9 it as a close call. I respect his judgment in the , 10 matter. These are matters that do require some judgment. , 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Is this the kind of item 12 that the -- I would have to -- I don't have this right in 13 front of me, but the staff, the I&E guidance, mentions 1_j 14 that if there are unanswered questions for more than 15 about 14 days, I think, and certain elements of 16 reportability of present, the item should nevertheless be 17 reported as a potential deficiency. Are you aware of 18 that criteria? 19 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. And I believe that the 20 threshold as to when you even have enough information to 21 start the 14 days is also a question. The mere fact that 22 you have stumbled on to a question, it follows that you 23 have to have enough substance to the matter to even begin 24 the process of an evaluation for reportability. 25 When this one was examined, and the connotation N.) TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11806
26 i 1 was that the design work associated vith missle 2 protection had not been completed, they were elements of 3 it that had not been undertaken, we did not view that, 4 given the state of design, constitute a concern of that 5 caliber. 6 There was no question in our mind that this 7 would not go unnoticed. Quadrex review in addition to 8 the existing knowledge of the people on the project 9 served to highlight that this was an area for which the 10 work had not yet been undertaken. 11 So I don't think the absence of work that has 12 yet to be performed and for which there are very 13 practical points in time where it can be performed L/ 14 constitutes the kind of a problem that would end up being 15 reported to the fluclear Regulatory Commission. 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So you don't think the 14 17 days period would have started to run on this question at 18 all? 19 THE UITNESS: No, sir. 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I guess that's all I have on 21 that. 22 0 ny fir. Sinkin) !!r. Goldberg, in the Brown & 23 Root assessment that you read into the record, it states 24 that a careful review of the project design records would 25 have disclosed that the internal missle criteria have f sm TATE REPORTIt?G SERVICE, 498-8442 } 2 07 { l
I 27 1 been incorporated into various aspects of the STP design 2 to minimize missle generation potential. Do you know 3 what aspects of the design -- 4 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Sinkin is 5 going to start asking questions again based upon the two 6 pages that he took away from the witness, I think he 7 should give him the two pages back. 8 MR. AXELRAD: And where are you reading from, 9 Mr. Sinkin. j i 10 11R. SINKIN: The sentence beginning "A careful 1 11 review" on the second page of the document, in the Page 12 2-7 in the next to the last paragraph, sentence beginning 13 "A careful review." 14 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Have you had a chance to read 15 that sentence? 16 A Yes, I have. 17 0 Can you tell me which aspects of the STP design 18 the criteria had been implemented into? 19 A As best I can determine from the Brown & Root 20 summary, its response, in this particular document, they 21 indicated that they had incorporated criteria into the 22 selection of the materials used in pumps, selection of 23 the motor drives, to minimize overspeed; they seemed to 24 have incorporated missle generation consideration in the 25 selection of the sources.
.)
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 IOO8 2
28 l O Mr. Goldberg, when you were sitting down with 2 your review team on May 8 and going through -- you went 3 through all three volumes of the Quadrex report, did you 4 not, while you were there on May the 8th? 5 A We had all three volumes, yes. 6 0 And you were making determinations on what 7 might be potentially reportable, were there times when 8 your feeling was it was a judgment call, you weren't 9 quite sure and you might come back to it later? 10 A There were some items, as I recall, that we had 11 to make sure we had all the information needed for the 12 call. Mr. Robertson and Dr. Sumpter had brought 13 considerable information back from their meeting. I i,# 14 can't say with certainty, but I think there were items 15 when we needed to make some phone calls to make sure we 16 had all the information or that we had a particular 17 question, perhaps, that someone else needed to give us 18 some insights to in order to make the call. 19 For example, I remember specifically I was 20 talking with Mr. Saltarelli on the subject that the 21 shielding calculations, and we did not agree. But 22 nevertheless, we chose to put that in the potential 23 reportability category. 24 Uhen I spoke to him with respect to the 25 potential reportability on the computer program
-s + J TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 1809
29 1 verification, he didn't agree but the strength of 2 disagreement was not quite the same as with the shielding 3 calculations. I think t.e felt we were unduly 4 conservative, but nevertheless we had that dialogue. And 5 I'm sure there were some other more detailed facts on 6 certain other issues that perhaps Dr. Sumpter or Mr. 7 Robertson may have called people to get additiorial 8 information. I'm not sure. There was a lot of activity 9 going on in that particular day. 10 0 So on an item like the shielding calculations, 11 you would interrupt your review to call Mr. Saltarelli, 12 get some information and then return to your review? 13 A No, that particular conversation occurred at x.j 14 the completion of our review when I had specific areas of 15 disagreement on matters of report reportability and I did 16 discuss those with Mr. Saltarelli. 17 0 Ar_d the computer code decision, that take place 18 in the midst of or after -- 19 A As far as the discussions with Mr. Saltarelli, 20 they also occurred after we had undertaken to review all 21 the most serious discipline findings. 22 0 Here there occasions when you would interrupt 23 the review to make other inquiries and then come back to 24 finish that particular section? 25 A Yes, there were, c 'J TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 118"40
]
30 1 Q Did you make any notations in the copy of the 2 Quadrex report you were using as to whether you had some 3 judgment call questions? 4 A I didn't make any marks that I can recall in my 5 Quadre:: report. G 0 You made no remarks at all that you recall? 7 A I believe that I -- I had a copy of Mr. 8 Saltarelli's input, and I may have made some notations on 9 that. 10 Q Do you still have the copies of Mr. 11 Saltarelli's input on which you made notations? 12 A I don't have it. As a matter of fact, I looked 13 for that document and I've moved twa separate times and I _) 14 don't have that document. Somebody else may have it but 15 I don't have it. 16 0 Dr. Goldberg, on page 41 of your testimony, I'd 17 like you to review question and answer 57. 18 Have you done that? 19 A Yes. 20 0 In the last sentence of your answer, you state 21 that since these preliminary data are carefully 22 controlled to assure they are later finalized and 23 verified, their preliminary use does not represent a 24 deficiency. An I to understand by that statement simply 25 that their use does not represent a deficiency as opposed g ( ; s TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 I21b[I.
r 31 1 to if there is a deficiency, in that preliminary data, 2 that might lead to notification? 3 Let me rephrase the question. Is it your 4 position that a defect in design data where that data has 5 been used for construction is not' reportable if a design 6 verification will be conducted later? 7 A I would answer your question by saying that if 8 you use preliminary data and it is clearly identified as 9 preliminary data, and in a subsequent analysis and 10 ultimate design, you have used that data and you have 11 issued that design for construction and it turns out that 12 that design is later found to be defective and if it had 13 gone uncorrected, it would have posed a threat or an l j 14 adverse condition to the safe operation of a plant, you 15 might well have a reportable situation. 16 0 Let's focus on that if it would have been 17 uncorrected. Is there a general presumption that design 18 verification will catch errors in data calculations? 19 A There is, as part of the design process, a 20 hardening up of those loads. Taking the case of the 21 number being a load, and when you get that final 22 information, if it establishes that you in fact have an 23 unacceptable design, then you're locked into reviewing 24 the consequences as it might -- as it might lead to a 25 reportable situation.
,~
'w/
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11812
32 i 1 O I guess what I'm after, is if for some reason 2 you learned that there was -- there were data that was 3 unconservative that ha'd been used for construction but 4 that data had not yet been verified, would there be an 5 assumption that the verification would catch that error 6 and therefore, there would be no need to notify the HRC 7 of that error? 8 A And the data that we're talking about is 9 identified as preliminary data? 10 A It's identified as preliminary data, it's been 11 issued, it's the basis of an iren constructed; through a 12 process other than the final design verification, it has 13 been identified that that data is unconservative, would ( ) 14 the fact that there's stil1 a pending final design 15 verification influence your decision on whether that 16 unconservative data should be notified to the MRC? 17 A I think the problem with the example you gave, 10 fir . Sinkin, is that at some point, the data will be 19 designated other than preliminary. And the analysis 20 performed using data other than preliminary data will 21 undergo normal design review and verification. As far as 22 trying to relate whether or not what was constructed, 23 whether what was constructed is adequate in light of 24 change to the number from preliminary to final, that will 25 have to be evaluated on a case basis as to weather it I v TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11813
33 1 will constitute a reportable problem. 2 O Perhaps I'm not stating my question clearly 3 enough to get to the point I want. Let's do point A, B, 4 C. 5 Ue know that this is data that's been 6 developed, been issued, used as the basis for 7 construction. Point A, construction is completed. Point 8 B, through a process other than final design 9 verification, the data is identified as unconservative. 10 Point C would be final design verification. Is the fact 11 that there will be a point C, that there must be a point 12 C, it's safety related, it will be verified, does that 13 influence your decision as to whether to make a . ,/ 14 notification at point E? 15 A It would not exclude the possibility that the 16 change at point B could constitute a matter for 17 reportability. 18 0 It would not exclude that possibility. 19 A It would not exclude that possibility. 20 0 But the existence of a final verification at 21 , point C might influence whether you would actually 22 notify? 23 A I say it could. I don't think you would have a 24 cituation when it would be true in either case either 25 way. J' TATS REPORTIIIG SERVICE, 498-8442 11814
w
/
5
)
/ 34 1 0 Can you postulate a case for ne where it would i 2 not be true, in other words he -- let me make that clear.
3 Can you postulate a case for me where you reached point B 4 and through some process other than final design 5 ' verification, design data had been identified as
,6 unconservative, now there's going to be a final 7 verification but at point B you make a decision not to 8 report it.
9 0 Let's take a case where an engineer has a 10 device or ne r{as a design which will create a device, for 11 which he hasn't received all the information necessary to 12 assure himself that that device will carry out its 13 intended function. Owing to the construction plan, if
,m 14 you find yourself in a situation where if ve are to 15 install the device in an efficient time frame, we need to
, 16 install it before he's completed all of his 17 deliberations.
18 If you control the r.e ess so that that device 19 is identified beforehand t y eing of final confirmed 20 adequacy and you release it for installation on what's 21 called, say, a risk release which is terminology often 22 used on these projects, and you therefore have conscious 23 control of the item that is not going to be overlooked as 24 subsequent activities ensue. 25 If at a later date it's round that you cannot
-s TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11815 I l
35 1 confirm that device to be adequate, I would not not 2 consider that to be reportable even given the other tests 3 for reportability because it was installed knowingly with 4 an uncertainty; there was a control placed on that 5 process, with a record to show that it is uncertain and 1 6 the only way that record can be cleared would be either 7 to complete the confirmation or in the absence of being 8 able to do so, replace it with another device that will 9 satisfy the service requirements. 10 0 There is an HL&P quality assurance QA 11 department, correct? 12 A That's correct. 13 0 In that department, are there engineers? q 14 A Yes, there are. 15 0 If one of those engineers was out in the field 16 looking at a device that had been installed and had a 17 question in his or her mind about whether the device was 18 adequate, and went to review the package, the design 19 package that had led to that device and found what he or 20 she considered to' be an unconservative data base that led 21 to that, even though it's got a tag on it that says " risk 22 release," would you expect the quality assurance person 23 to write a report pursuart to quality assurance 24 regulations on that discovery? 25 A It would depend. If that person had gone back TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 II816
~ . _- m 36 1 to understand the bases for the risk release and if it 2 coincided with the areas that he recognized had 3 uncertainly, chances are he would not. 4 O So the risk release tag on a given item, 5 however that tag is put on the item, will identify G certain areas of the design that still have an 7 uncertainty that will later be finished but other areas 8 may already be finished? 9 A The tag, itself, would not give you that kind 10 of detail. The tag has an identity and you'd have to go 11 back to the log for the identification as to uhat was the 12 basis for the risk. 13 0 So if the inadequate data that my hypothesized 14 quality assurance person found in the design package did 15 not relate to the specific area as identified in the risk 16 release document, then you might have a quality assurance i 17 deficiency? 18 A I'm certain that that person would probably 19 write a non-conformance report to identify the existence 20 of that concern. 21 UR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, I thought I'd check 22 with you as to how far ve go. I'm entering an area 23 that's going to be quite lengthy. I can do part of it 24 and continue later on, or I can stop now. 25 MR. AXELRAD: Uhy don't we adjourn, Mr. s TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 498-8442 IIOI7 ,
l' 37 (~h .
~h)_ 1 Chairman and let Mr. Sinkin start his new area of 2 croxx-examination up Honday afternoon I guess.
3 JUDGE EECUHOEFER: We can go either way. I do 4 have one follow up question. Hight as well finish it. 5 Of this question of 4.5.2.l(b), actually, 6 talking about which we have been talking, was there a 7 risk release tag or something comparable on the document 8 which this seems to refer to, which this finding seems to 9 refer to? The document which contains preliminary loads, 10 which were used as the basis for construction? 11 THE WITHESS: I used an example of hardware 12 that was manufactured. This particular situation is a
-13 little bit different in that EDS, as I recollect, was
( 14 designing some pipe break restraints. And they supplied 15 the loads at the connection points of the restraints, 16 .because Brown & Root was designing the structure to which 17 those restraints would attach. 18 So Brown & Root's input would show the loads 19 received from EDS and identified as preliminary loads. 20 So all the ensuing design work would have a preliminary 21 character that it could not be considered a final 22 analysis because it was still based on a preliminary 23 input. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Was there such a preliminary 25 indication on the documents that were being used? TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 IIO18 _ . _ _ _ _ . _ - . _ J
38 1 THE WITNESS: To the best of my knowledge, the 2 identification of preliminary loads was conspicuous on 3 the Brown & Root calculations. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's what I wanted to find 5 out. 6 HR. SINKIN: I have a follou up, judge. Do you 7 have a question? 8 JUDGE BECHHOEPER: That's what I wanted to find 9 out. No. 10 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Turning to question C4, in 11 volume two of the Guadrex report, Applicant Exhibit 60, 12 I've asked you to review the Quadrex assessment. 13 0 Have you had a chance to review that?
^7 '
14 A Yes. 15 0 The Quadrex states in ;his assessment that 16 typically, architect engineers have interdiscipline 17 interface aroblems with preliminary information and 18 changing design. At this point on South Texas nuclear 19 proj ect , ve're talking May of 1981, that period, January 20 to !!ay,1981, was Brown & Root doing its design and 21 engineering work that it was sending out to construction 22 to a great extent based on preliminary information and 23 changing design, and then you answer one and the other, 24 preliminary information and the changing design. 25 A I think there was a considerable amount of uork
)
I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 IIOI3
t 39 1 that was in progress based on preliminary information. 2 I would like to add one point, that anything 3 short of final, is preliminary. 4 0 That goes back to our discussion of what is a 5 final design. But for purposes of 50.55(e), I think we 6 agreed there's a different definition. 7 A well, uhen you are asking the questions, it's 8 hard for me to focus on what frame of reference you're 9 speaking. 10 Q Just so we have those two frames in mind, when 11 you just stated that anything short of final is 12 preliminary, I think you were using that original 13 definition you gave me that says until a final design is 14 signed off and no further work is going to be done, 15 that's not a final design. Is that correct? 16 A That's correct. 17 0 In this particular question, Quadrex found that 18 the -- that when they checked the design of the secondary 19 shield wall, Brown & Root had indicated the design was 20 controlled by compartment pressurization and that they 21 had received this input from MUS. It's Quadrex's 22 position on the second page of their assessment, that 23 Brown & Root should have reviewed before acceptance the 24 dynamic amplification factors supplied by UUS. Do you 25 agree that Brown & Root should have reviewed that before i
- ' 1 TATE REPORTIIG SERVICE, 498-0442 11820 l
40 1 accepting it? 2 A I would not categorically say they had to 3 review it. I would say this: NUS was under contract to 4 Brown & Root to perform certain technical services as a 5 subcontractor to Brown & Root. Brown & Root bears the 6 responsibility for the technical adequacy of the design, 7 including the work of its subcontractors. 8 Under that arrangement, Brown & Root has to 9 exercise some form of review of its subcontractors work. 10 It doesn't follow, necessarily, that the review has to be 11 a hundred percent. The fact that this particular item 12 was not reviewed by Brown & Root in itself would not make 13 a case for some form of misconduct.
) 14 Q Well, when we talked earlier about the 15 verification of design inputs, you distinguished between 16 tuo things, one if you have a design input from one 17 discipline such as electrical on the horsepower needs of 18 a particular motor, to another discipline mechanical, it 19 would not be reasonable to expect mechanical, unless it 20 was a glaring error, to go back and verify that the 21 horsepower selected by electrica] was correct. That's 22 one kind of input review. But that if in the second 23 discipline, discipline receiving the input, there were 24 personnel qualified to understand the analysis done by 25 the first discipline, then it vould not be unreasonable TATE REPORTIt!G SERVICE, 498-0442 IINI
, 41 (3
4j 1 for.them to verify that input if they perceived certain 2 problems. 3 A It would certainly not be unreasonable. I 4 think I mentioned in a response to an earlier question 5- that where a designer is in a position to review the 6 adequacy of data being supplied to him as input, to judge 7 its reasonableness before he undertakes whatever work 8 he.'s. planning to pursue, that's just good practice, 9 because clearly if he is able to discern any problem, 10 he's in a position to get that particular matter resolved 11 and avoid possibly a lot of work that will ultimately 12 perhaps have to be repeated. 13 To the extent, though, that I answered the 14 earlier question, coments before, the amount of 15 verification work on the part of Brown & Root with regard 16 to NUS would not necessarily require a hundred percent. 17 And it's hard on an isolated case basis to make the hard 18 case that they were remiss for not checking this 19 particular thing. 20 0 In your view, they were not remiss for having 21 checked this particular one or it's hard to make the case 22 that they were remiss? 23 A It's hard to make the case on the basis of a 24 single observation, that they were remiss. 25 0 Going to the last part of the Quadre:: n TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 22
42 1 assessment, the final sentence, " Brown & Root applied 2 this load for all structural steel inside containment l 3 which is a very conservative assumption, but applied it l l 4 only in the vertical direction contrary to EDS's y 5 instructions." 6 As I read that, Brown & Root failed to follow I 7 the instructions from EDS on how this load should have 8 been applied. Is that how you read that? 9 A That's what it says. 10 Q So that the containment structural -- the steel 11 inside -- the structural steel inside containment was 12 installed without following the load assumptions provided 13 by EDS; it was actually -- they went ahead and installed m ( ) 14 it. 15 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I do not see in 16 that particular sentence the foundation for Mr. Sinkin's 17 assumption that it was installed. 13 MR. SINKIN: I may be able to short circuit 19 this, maybe not. 20 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Do you know, Mr. Goldberg, do 21 you know for a fact whether Brown & Root had installed 22 structural steel inside containment following EDS's 23 instructions on the load that steel should have? 24 Let me just ask you, do we not have a picture 25 right below the finding of structural steel actually ( ( TATC REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11E23 _ _-_ -- - 4
43 1 installed inside containment? 2 MR. AXELRAD: I believe that the photograph 3 that is attached as shown in the next to the last 4 sentence at the bottom of Page 1 refers to a design of 5 the secondary shield wall. If you look at the bottom 6 three lanes on the first page of this question and 7 answer. 8 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) Is the secondary shield wall 9 inside containment, Mr. Goldberg? 10 A Yes, sir, it is. 11 0 So that if that is a picture of the secondary 12 shield wall, it's a picture of structural steel inside 13 containment, is it not? 14 A This picture is of reinforcing steel and I'm 15 just trying to get my bearings here and see if it's what 16 they're advertising in it on page one. 17 0 I don't want to get hung up in the picture, Mr. 18 Goldberg. It's not absolutely essential. The statement 19 by Brown & Root is -- by Quadrex is Brown & Root applied 20 this load for all structural steel incide containment. 21 In May of 1981, had Brown & Root installed a substantial 22 amount of structural steel inside containment? 23 MR. AXELRAD: I!r. Chairman, at this point, I 24 would like to object to the question. Ue're going well 25 beyond what the particular finding by Quadrex that we ( ) TATE REPORTItiG SERVICE, 498-8442 118,34
44 1 were discussing and is an issue in this proceeding. The 2 particular finding is: EDS did not perform a design 3 review or design verification of preliminary loads 4 transmitted to Brown & Root. These loads however have 5 been used as a basis for plant design. That particular 6 finding, although it identifies a reference to certain 7 questions, references only the portion of the questions 8 that pertain to this particular finding. It does not 9 pertain to whether or not Broun & Root used criteria 10 contrary to EDS's instructions, whether or not structural 11 steel had been installed improperly, it deals with the 12 one very specific question, whether or not EDS's design 13 review or design verification was transmitted to Crown & m I 14 Root. And we're going well beyond that by this excessive 15 questioning with respect to a portion of question C4 16 which does not relate to this finding. 17 MR. SINKIN: I think the finding, itself, 18 clearly references EDS's work, they don't review it, they 19 give it to Erown & Root, Brown & Root uses it in a design 20 and here's the results as documented in the questions 21 referenced in the finding. If we're going to be parsing 22 down to particular sentences in questions as to which 23 which ones are or are not under a given finding, it's 24 obviously relevant. 25 IIR . AMELRAD: Mr. Chairman, portion of question
/ y
_) TATE REPORTI!?G SERVICE, 499-0442 11825
45 (~~\ N j 1 C4 that's relevant to this particular finding is clear 2 andiit does not relate to that last portion of that 3 question C4. 4 JUDGE SHON: EDS was designing primarily pipe 5 supports. Is that right? 6 THE WITNESS: They were primarily involved in 7 the design of pipe whip restraints. 8 JUDGE SHON: Pipe whip restraints. there is a 9 particular. I don't have the -- We have don't have the 10 second volume. 11 THE WITNESS: All I have for a picture, Judge Shon, it is some reinforcing steel and I couldn't begin 13 to tell you where it was located. () 14 . MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, just to nake sure 15 that my objection is understood, let me just state it one 16 more time. What'ue are litigating in this proceeding is 17 whether or not HL&P should have reported under 50.55(e) a 18 specific finding, 4.5.2.l(b). And what that finding is
~
19 .that EDS did not perform a design review or design 20 verification of preliminary information transmitted to 21 Brown & Root. Our answer to that finding our discussion 22 of that finding indicates why HL&P did not believe that 23 that was a reportable matter. 24 How, the question that Mr. Sinkin is now asking 25 deals with an unrelated portion of question C4 which O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11826
( 46 1 alleges that Brown & Root applied a load differently than 2 the way EDS instructed them to. Uow, that may or may not 3 be true; it may or may not be the case. But it's not a 4 part of this particular finding and I really -- I object. 5 MR. SINKIN: I would -- 6 MR. AXELRAD: May I finish? And I really 7 object to extending this finding and a discussion of the 8 finding and a discussion of anything that's in the 9 Quadrex report including question C4 to anything other 10 than than how it supports the particular finding that's 11 under dispute here. 12 MR. SINKIN: I would like to respond. But I 13 need the volume.
~ \ 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The Doard has noted that C4 15 is referenced as just C4 and not the last sentence or the f
16 first sentence and that it all appears in one paragraph 17 of C4, as far as I can see. 18 MR. AMELRAD: You have to read the finding, Mr. 19 Chairman. There are a number of things in C4. There 20 were a number of things in MA. What Quadrex did is it 21 made certain findings and making those findings has 22 relied on portions of various questions and answers and 23 assessments. And the reference, it didn't try to pars 4C 24 one or paragraph two. It obviously referred people to 25 question C4 for the material in question C4 which is TATE REPOPTING SERVICE, 490-8442 i1b27
r 47 1 pertinent to this finding. It's not an ambiguous 2 finding, the finding is very, very clear and the finding 3 is what ue're litigating here. No one has -- well, there 4 was no suggestion that we should be litigating anything 5 else under this finding has happens to appear in volume 6 three of the report, even though it happens to be 7 referenced. 8 MR. SINKIN: Let me start with the finding, 9 itself. The finding, itself, says EDS did not perform a 10 design review or design verification of preliminary loads 11 transmitted to B&R. These loads have however been used 12 as a basis for plant design. I read that as design which 13 has been completed, is in process, has been used for i
) 14 construction. They nake no distinction between loads 15 that have been used in some other design but not -- if 16 you understand ny distinction. The design is referred to 17 as the plant design. And they reference question C4. In 18 which the loads were used not only in the design but to 19 cctually install. And state that the load for all 20 structural steel inside entainment, this design load 21 criteria was applied. But only in one direction. Not in 22 the other direction as EDS had required. We find that to 23 be directly related, it's all of a piece, with the 24 finding. There is no separation out in question C4 of 25 any particular element.
)
TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 498-8442 - ~
48 1 Secondly, I think we need to be very careful 2 with this ruling. Because the Applicants are now opening 3 up a can of vorms, where if the finding references a 4 particular question, even though Quadrex never said it 5 was only referencing part of the question, they will neu l 1 6 have the ability to argue in every question, "I!o , the 7 Quadrex finding doesn't reference that sentence." And we 8 don't think that's a good ruling to put into this 9 proceeding at this time because it is opening a can of 10 worms as to which paragraph, which sentence, which word 11 in a given question did Ouadren refer to in the finding. 12 The alternative is you don't look at the question. Ubich f 13 obviously was not the process that was pursued in ( 14 deciding whether these were potentially reportable or 15 not. 16 11R. REIS: I would just say the question is 17 whether we're opening a can of vorms or closing a can of f 18 worms. From -- I don't knou, I can't tell from the 19 photograph here, it seems to be all -- doesn't seem to be 20 structural steel, seems to be all reinforcing steel. I 21 can't tell from this, I don't think this line is 22 productive. I don't think it's relevant; I don't knowh 23 were we're going because I can't even tell whether it's 24 an economic question, because there's too much structural 25 steel or a safety factor that we're vorried about. But I 11829 TATC REPORTIIIG SERVICE, 490-8442 -
49 1 the photograph here seems to show a lot of structural, 2 from the way I can see and it's very hard to read a Xerox 3 of a photograph. 4 And I don't know what we're talking about at 5 this point. Ue're going back and forth and we just seem 6 to not be focusing on the particular issues is of what 7 was there any culpability in not calling to the staff's 8 attention this matter involving finding 4.5.2.l(b), and 9 if so what was the extent of that culpability. He seem 10 to be involving collateral issues. 11 f1R. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond 12 to that, too. Suddenly a finding that is specifically 13 identified in your order and in the direct testimony gm '_ 14 referencing questions that are specifically identified 15 has become a collateral issue, has become wandering a 16 field. All I'm reading is the actual words of the 17 Quadrex report that support the finding that Guadrex 18 made. 19 !!R . AXELRAD: 11r. Chairman, may I just Add one 20 thing before ue get to that? Finding 4.1.2.l(b) F, on 21 page 4-6 of the record which is not a finding in 22 controversy in this proceeding, states: Brown & noot use 23 of input data from EDS for pipe rupture loading may not 24 be adequate (see question C4 and C15.) !?o pipe rupture 25 loads have been determined for outside containment.
)
TATE REPORTII G SERVICC, 498-8442 11830 (
50 1 That's an example of questions C4 also being i 2 used as support for another finding and in fact, may be 3 the very portion of question C4 that Mr. Sinkin is now i 4 trying to discuss here. 5 !!R. SIHKIN: Could I have that reference, 6 please. 7 !!R. AXELRAD: 4-6, finding 4.1.2.l(b) P. Uhat 8 I'm trying to say, Mr. Chairman, is that question C4 and 9 other questions are used as support for many findings. 10 The only findings that we are litigating here are the 11 findings that have been explicitly put into controversy. 12 JUDGE SHON: Go ahead. I didn't mean to 13 interrupt.
) 14 IIR . AXELRAD: And that particular portion of 15 question C4 that fir. Sinkin is trying to get us to 16 discuss further is not part of the support for the 17 particular finding that's being litigated here.
10 I!R . SIIIKIN : I would like to respond to that. 19 4.1.2.1 F deals uith pipe rupture, it does not deal with 20 structural steel. Excuse me. It deals with -- okay. 21 Urong. !!are to the point. There's nothing that says one 22 question can't be support for more than one finding. 23 That happens throughout -- that happens throughout the 24 Quadre: report, where they will take the same information 25 found in a given question and use it to support more than
^X ,
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-5442 11831 '
51 1 one finding in the finding section. That's not unusual. 2 JUDGE SHON: Mr. Sinkin and Mr. Axelrad, it 3 seems clear to me that Mr. Axelrad's position is a pretty 4 well supported one. Now, the engineering of the thing is 5 that question C4 deals with two different things, one is 6 the 130 killipound load and unless I'm mistaken, perhaps 7 Mr. Goldberg could help on that, that is a pipe whip 8 loading, isn't it. 9 THE UITNESS: I believe it is. 10 JUDGE SHON: That 130 pipe jip loading was only f 11 applied in one direction and obviously a pipe can whip in 12 any direction and so they made a mistake. That one is 13 the finding -- supports the finding about pipe whip
, , 14 loading. The other statements in answer to the same 15 question supports the findings concerning the fact that 16 they had never verified their loadings before they turned 17 them over to Brown & Root. And Brown & Root went ahead 18 and used them anyway. They seem to me two distinct 19 things.
20 MR. AXELRAD: That's exactly the point. 21 MR. SINKIU: I can tie them together for you 22 Judge Shon. The finding is concerned with the use of 23 unrified preliminary loads in final design or in design, 24 we won't open that can. This installation of structural 25 steel without using loads is what happens when you don't rm, I TATE REPORTIUG SERVICE, 498-8442 11832 i
E 52 1 verify what you get from them. 2 JUDGE SHON: It still seems to me they're two 3 clearly
~
4 two different things: One is you didn't verify 5 .the design and we let that one into litigation here. The 6 other one is you used it wrong after you got it, and we 7 deliberately excluded that f rom litigation here. That's 8 the way it seems to me. I haven't consulted with my 9 other two colleagues here, but it just seems clear. 10 MR. SIMKIN: What the result of that is that 11 you have an example, if this ruling is going stand, you 12 have an example of the Quadrex report of a design 13 provided by a subcontractor to Brown & Root that was used () 14 inappropriately by Brown & Root to do something wrong and 15 it's clearly identified to HL&P that they did something 16 wrong, but we're not going to analyze whether that should 17 be notified to the DRC or not. 18 liR. AXELRAD: That's Mr. Sinkin's i 19 characterization and presumably he can make that same 20 characterization of the other 250 findings that we're not 21 going to be litigating here. And if he had a basis for 22 litigating those 250 findings, that was the time, before ^ 23 the Board and making that is arguments. 24 MR. SINKIP: So when we were defining.the i 25 findings that needed to be litigated, we also needed to l
~
I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11833
53 1 go into the questions cited in those findings and the 2 questions in the findings and specific paragraphs. 3 MR. AXELRAD: You're being limited to those 4 portions of the questions and annuer that is supporting 5 the particular findings and not those that support some 6 other finding. 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFDR: The staff -- 8 MR. REIS: I uns going say I think you have to 9 parse the question and see which parts of the questions -- 10 I do think that in naning particular findings, we can go 11 to the questions. I have no question about that. But I 12 don't think it's every -- we have to parse the questions 13 to see what's relevant -- 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: He're going to -- I'll 15 support my technical members, and we vill sustain the 16 objection on the basis that Judge Shon just stated. When 17 we refer to the -- well, the questions that are referred la to in the findings, it at least should relate to that 19 portion of the question or the response that relates to 20 the subject matter of the finding. Here there seems to 21 be a fairly clear differentiation. He're not putting 22 this as an overall ruling for every one because there may 23 not be as clear a differentiation in other situations. 24 Here there is. So we will uphold it for this one, nut 25 that doesn't mean that generically, we'll say that every TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 JISN J
54 1 question has to be parsed sentence by sentence. 2 MR. SIUKIN: Let ne try a different area. 3 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest -- 4 MR. SINKIn: This is one last -- 5 MR. PIRFO: The Board has ruled and I believe -- 6 we're now approaching 1:00 o' clock and this was 7 originally to a follou up to a board question. 8 MR. AXELEAD: I was just going to suggest, I 9 thought that Ilr. Sinkin was going to ask another question 10 and I would really suggest that ue have been in hearing 11 for quite a time and that it might be better to recess. 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: This is just a follow up. 13 IIR. SIHKIN: It will probably lead to 14 arguments, so let's recess. 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: He'll recess until 9:30 on 16 Monday, except for limited appearance, which we will be 17 back in session for at 2:00 o' clock. He will be in this 18 roon unless it appears that there are core people around l 19 than this room can handle and in which case ve_'.11 move : 20 next door. (Luncheon recess.) 21 22 23 24 25 g TATE REPORTII:G SERVICE, 498-0442 J I9,7 i
836 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Good afternoon, ladies and 3 gentlemen. This session of the hearing on the proposed 4 operating licenses for the South Texas facility will be 5 devoted to limited appearances by members of the public. 6 Each person who wishes is allowed to make a statement 7 concerning the plant. And normally -- and those 8 statements can be either orally, before us, or in 9 writing. 10 Those statements are not evidence as such, but 11 they can be taken into account by the Board in terms of 12 asking the parties one or more of the parties, to address 13 particular issues, if the particular issues warrant that j 14 treatment. Otherwise, the Board will take into account 15 the views of various parties. Various limited appearance 16 persons in a general -- in our generalized disposition of 17 the application. 18 We normally limit the -- each statement to 19 around five minutes. We won't stop you in the middle of a sentence, but oral statements are normally about five ! 20 l 21 minutes. And I think the persons who are going to make 22 statements should come to the -- 23 I might say you can write longer ones and those 24 statements will be put into the record as well. 25 Persons who are making oral statements should x ! TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11836
837 1 come to the table where the microphone is now present. 2 We propose to call each person in the order on 3 which they have listed their names on the sign up sheet. 4 Sign up sheet is another sheet is on the room divider. 5 And if further persons wish to make statements, they may 6 do so. They may add their names to the list. 7 We ask for your address, mainly so we can send 8 you copies of the initial decision which we finely issue. 9 First person on the list is a Mr. Vonhoy, if I 10 read it correctly. 11 MR. VO!1HOY: Gentlemen, my name is J. L. 12 Vanhoy, and I am the executive secretary of the Houston 13 Gulf Coast Building and Construction Trades Council. I 14 have held this position for the past seven years, and 15 prior to this position, I was a union representative for 16 fifteen years located in Freeport, Texas. 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Could you put your address 18 in the record. 19 MR. VANHOY: Yes. 2704 Southerland, Houston, 20 Texas, 77023. 21 During this time, I have been closely 22 associated with many of the major power plants that have 23 been constructed in the Gulf Coast area. I am very proud 24 and pleased to report today that in my opinion, the 25 safety procedures initiated by Houston Lighting & Power o
.)
TATE REPORTI!1G SERVICE, 498-8442 11837
r 838 1 and power company currently in effect at the South Texas 2 nuclear project plant are second to none that I have 3 never had the opportunity to be a part of. 4 We started this job some few years ago under 5 some very adverse conditions. Houston Lighting & Power, 6 in their wisdom, selected the two top contractors in 7 power plant construction in the world today. That being 8 the Bechtel Corporation and Ebasco Services to complete 9 this faultering project. 10 New we are pleased to be a part of this team 11 that has put together this project on schedule and within 12 budget. The thousands of people represented by my 13 counsel who are natives of this area, many who are 14 employed on this project, feel that this facility will 15 not only be a source of employment, but also an excellent 16 neighbor and an asset to this ccamunity. 17 In conclusion, I would urgo you, the members of 18 this committee, to act faverly own Houston Lighting & 19 Power's behalf so that we will all be able to complete 20 [>this project in a timely manner, thereby providing much 21 needed power to the citizens of this great state of 22 Texas. 23 I thank you for granting me this time to speak 24 out on this issue, that is so vitally and urgently important to my membership, and also the citizens of this 25
~_/
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 II836
839 1 Gulf Coast. Thank you. 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The next name is -- it's 3 hard for me to make out the first name, it's either a Ms. 4 or a Mr. Simon. 5 MR. MAYFIELD: Mr. Chairman, my name is Ely 6 Mayfield, Moe E. Simon, whose name appears on that list, 7 has become ill and left this hearing room. 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Would you like to come up to 9 the microphone? 10 MR. MAYFIELD: Thank you, 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Could you provide your name 12 and address for the record. 13 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. My name is, Mr.
) 14 Chairman, is Elle Mayfield, I live at 212 Magnuson, 15 Palacios, Matagorda County, Texas.
16 I rose after you announced the name of Mr. 17 Simon to inform you, Mr. Chairman, and mebbers of the 18 commission, that Mr. Simon is cochairman of a citizens 19 group, a loosly organized citizens group in Matagorda 20 County, Texas, that has sometimes locally been known as 21 "The Pro-Nuke Group." Really we're officially known as 22 Matagorda County citizens for the promotion of the South 23 Texas Project. 24 If I may, I would like to say for the record on 25 behalf of Mr. Simon and myself, that we know of very TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 1M39
840 1 little evidence in Matagorda County, Texas, of people who 2 are really concerned about the safety of the future 3 operation of the South Texas nuclear project. 4 In essence, our group believes that you, and 5 your commission, after your deliberations, after you have 6 heard all of the testimony and evidence that you will 7 hear about the construction of this project, will grant 8 to the applicant, the license which they so much want at 9 this time or which will granted at a later time. 10 Let me say this on behalf of myself, as an 11 individual, citizen and resident of Matagorda County, 12 Texas. I have resided with my family as the crow flies, 13 within ten miles of the present site of the South Texas _) 14 Nuclear Project. And I am not one jot or one tilt 15 concerned about the safety of the operation and/or the 16 construction of the South Texas Nuclear Project. I 17 certainly am not an expert insofar as nuclear physics is , 18 concerned, nor as to the effects of radiation. 19 But it was my duty and privilege many years ago 20 to learn a little comething about atomic energy and the 21 effects of radiation. 22 During World War II, I served as a, what we 23 called in those days, a Chemical Officer. And I cerved 24 for 33 months overseas. And then I came back and I 25 remained in the reserve of the United States Army, and at ! ) TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11810 (
841 , 1 one time was designated a rad safe officer. 2 And it was my privilege and opportunity to 3 serve and to observe the effects of nuclear radiation 4 tests that occurred on a tiny atoll in the pacific, 5 Anawetauch. 6 And we, these officers, there were about 33 of 7 us that were stationed at Treasure Island near the 8 Lawrance Rivermore Project of the University of 9 California, and we observed these battleships that were 10 subjected to these a tax, we learned a little something 11 about doseometers, film badges and geiger counters, and 12 that sort of thing. 13 And I think I can say that I have suffered, if J 14 you want to use that term, " suffered" or I experienced 15 more roentgens of radiation than any person in this room. 16 And all of that exposure was controlled, and I have 17 observed, I have not suffered any ill affects physically. 18 You know, that's just a little aside to point out to you, 19 as members of this ASLB, that really, some of us who have 20 maybe a little knowledge -- which could be dangerous, but 21 I don't think it is -- we're not all that concerned about 22 the operation of a nuclear power plant. 23 Even with TMI, and those other incidents that 24 we have observed in the United States. What I'm saying 25 is the people of Matagorda County, that I know of, the i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 118"'1
._ -_ __ ________ _____-____________________________-____J
842 1 majority of the people, are not the least bit worried 2 that Houston Lighting & Power Company is not competent 3 and does not have the character to operate this plant 4 once you give them the license. And we think that they 5 are entitled to be licensed to operate this plant. 6 I must say one more thing. I attended your 7 hearings during the last few days, sometimes, and I 8 listened to, I think, very atentively, to some of the 9 remarks made by some or one of the entervenors, 10 And I am a littic bit surprised and amazed that 11 you, as Commission Members, give so much time to people 12 who are dedicated at being entervenors in this project, 13 when'I personally think that people such as Mr. Sinkin,
,,y t !
14 the one entervenor who is hrere has one purpose in mind, 15 only, and that's a self efficient purpose. He is a 16 professional entervenor, nor, from what I can read and 17 know about him, and I think that his one and sole purpose 18 as a lawyer or an entervenor in these process, is to at 19 some time or another, be a member of the group who are 20 really what we call in the legal profession, atomic 21 litigators. 22 I do not mean to demean your atentiveness to 23 listening to Mr. Sinkin, as an entervenor; nor, I do not 24 mean to say that you should not have listened as to him. 25 I feel like that your regulations and your policy TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 II8E
843 1 requires that you do give him enough credible attention. 2 However, I do not think for one instance, nor 3 do we believe in Matagorda County, Texas, that he speaks 4 for or represents any of the plausible good opinions so 5 far as your granting this operating license to the 6 applicaat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Buckhorn. 8 MR. BUCKHORN: Mr. Mayfield, that radiation 9 changed the colored of your hair. 10 JUDGE SHON: Makes it fall out, too. 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Could you give the reporter 12 your name an'd address. 13 MR. BUCKHORN: My name is Ken Buckhorn, I live
, 14 in the Life Oaks between STP and Brzazoria, Route 1, Box 15 1684, Brazoria, Texas, 77422.
16 Recent history of 28 years in the major 17 petrochemical industry, before recently retiring, and I 18 have been a member of CEU, that's Citizens for Equitable 19 Utilities, which was an entervenor nor in this proceeding 20 back in the years BG, that's before Goldberg. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think we became acquainted 22 with your wife. 23 MR. BUCKHORN: Well, by comparison with my 24 experience in highly competetive free enterprise 25 industry, the performances really of all parties to STP 'jf' TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 - 813
844 j) 1 prior to '79 was sort of incredible, to say the least, 2 compared to free enterprise system. That's significantly 3 changed. 4 Now, I make a lot of comments and kind of 5 blunt. I hope you'll take them as constructive. Because 6 when I mention all parties prior to '79, I'm talking 7 about the NRC, HL&P, the contractor and all of us. And a 8 few of comments there, they don't pertain to today, - 9 really, but in general. 10 I would hope that in the future, that the NRC 11 would come in early and try to involve some of the local 12 expertise in your impact statements, more than you did in 13 the past. And there's a lot of good local expertise ( ,) 14 along the Gulf Coast. You get companies that have 7 or 15 8,000 people, largely technical plus their contractors 16 and construction; we're there; we like to be involved and 17 like to be informed. 18 A comment on site. I would suggest to the NRC 19 insistance on a complete evaluation of the soil 20 condition, including tests, borings, coaring and 21 analyzing the soil for its suitibility for foundations. 22 Without going into it, your aware that this 23 costs a lot of time and money, and there's an internal 24 Brown & Root report which explained this thing. 25 Then another thing where you're not directly ,r \j TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 IIO'Id
845 1 involved, but maybe you should be. 2 On a project that is this critical and this 3 complex, there should be an insistance that the detailed 4 engineering should be 80 percent complete before the 5 contractor goes through the gate to get in the field. 6 The saddest sound in a nuclear power plant, I 7 believe, is the sound of a jack hammer trying to knock 8 out concrete with inch and-a-half and two inch rebar 9 steel in it. And that's a lot of cost and time, enough 10 said on that. You are familiar with the project. 11 Another thing that you did, which was most 12 informative, back in November of '83, your assistant 13 project manager was here for a caso load forecast for the 7-(_,/ 14 NRC. At that time, the status of this project was 15 carefully reviewed, the new start had been made and 16 projections had been made, and an excellent presentation 17 on the part of IIL&P and the contractors. And it would be 10 very enlightning if that was done annually. Of course, I 19 hope that the management of IIL&P has that out f ront and 20 watches it daily to see where they are on the curve on 21 the projections. 22 But that was a very good report, I think it 23 helped everybody including the project management. 24 On OA/QC coverage, I believe that you have 25 adequate personnel so that they're not holding up TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 118d5
F 846 1 progress of any job at this time. But in case that's not 2 true, this is a very important point. 3 Also, here's one for you for the future, I hope 4 that the NRC will state all of the criteria for their 5 next nuclear power plant and publish it and get the 6 president of the United States to sign it that thcy're 7 not going to make any changes for that particular plant 8 once they get started. 9 Another thing, this is not primarily your s 10 responsibility but the endorsement of rigerous 11 qualification tes' ting of personnel is requirements for 12 employment, so that you know in the construction of a 13 nuclear power plant, those people present are capable of () 14 doing the job right the first time. That's the only way, 15 because when -- if you're going to argue for, nuclear 16' power, you have to assume that the plant has been built 17 correctly. 18 And a concern of CEU, though I'm speaking for 19 myself today, I'm not authorized for the organization. 20 The concern is, that when you build a nuclear power 21 plant, that you're sure that it's safe and sound and once 22 it comes on stream, it's going to be a reliable source of 23 electric power at a price that the people can afford to 24 pay. And that's a big fact -- issue, and it hasn't been 25 easy to achieve. O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 II8d6 n
847 1 And from my comments here, involving also the 2 construction management. The site evaluation and 80 3 percent engineering completion, I think, should carry 4 through here. And in the construction of the plant, 5 fellows, the first priority in your purchasing and 6 construction ought to be the installation of elevators 7 for personnel and materials. Because without them, you 8 cannot get efficient construction, in my opinion, they 9 just spent -- you get lost going from here to there for 10 something. -- 11 Also the assurance of very rigorous testing 12 program at the site, for the qualification of personnel. 13 And I'd like to comment here at the restart, I guess, in _j 14 '82, I had an opportunity to visit in the welding, 15 testing program. And they had an excellent tight program 16 going for the qualification of welders for this project. 17 I sure -- I hope it is still in full force. 18 Again, the ability to do the job right the 19 first time; and not have a 55 percent rejection rate, 20 which essentially triples your cost and time of 21 installation and that comes from deposition by the man 22 who was running the show from '79 to '80 out here. 23 Now, one thing that's troubled me a great deal, 24 and again I'm getting away from URC business a little 25 far. But for qualified people in the field, I think
<~.
,]
TATE REPCRTIUG SERVICE, 498-8442 11837 I _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ b
848 1 there ought to be a daily log of performance. 2 A good craftsman out there doing a good job, if 3 he's a welder let's say, for example, ought to make notes 4 of what he did through that day so at the end of the day, 5 if all he's done is weld on a three inch pipe, it's going 6 to be hard to explain. But if he made the first pass and 7 then had to go look for an inspector for 46 minutes, he 8 ought to record it. And then if he made some more two 9 inch welds, he ought to record this, or if he had to sit 10 and wait for his materials, this needs to be recorded. 11 What I'm saying is, I think you have the 12 qualification of people, but what about the performance. 13 And if things are holding up a good man, it would be 1 ,. 14 helpful, not just to this man, but to his front line 15 supervisors and his supervision, to be aware of this and 16 help to get the kinks out if they exist. 17 Well I'm doing a lot of talking. But over a 18 period of time, I would like to comment, since my wife 19 was -- is the executive director of CEU, Citizens for 20 Equitible Utilities, of course I've had access to a good 21 bit of real data which comes from discovery in the files 22 of the plant, as built drawings, if you will. And so you 23 try hard to screen out emotions and reports for valid 24 data and information, try to stay objective. O 25 A comment. I made several site visits. I ( _) TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11838
849 1 mentioned the 1983 case load visit which I thought was 2 very good. I had a chance to tour the plant when 3 Chairman Palodena was down, about the end of '83. And in 4 '84 there was an independent audit conducted by HL&P, 5 where they brought in some real industry expertise and I 6 had the privilege of sitting in on their kick off meeting 7 and their wrap up meeting, I thought that was very 8 constructive. 9 Then in 1985, I think it was in April, NPOL was 10 down for their kick off meeting, and then their wrap up 11 in the following month. And as you are aware, that was a -- 12 it was a very candid and constructive exit meeting that 13 was held. That was a very good session in my opinion.
) 14 Because there was a tremendous amount of expertise from 15 the industry there, and I make no claims of understanding 16 all the that they were doing.
17 And in -- on May 2nd, '85, was the last visit I 18 made, in which Jim Williams of HL&P and Peg Buckhorn of 19 CEU and myself made a tour of the plant. 20 Now, I want to amplify a little bit on a couple 21 of comments. I feel that because of the history here, 22 this STP plant is in the spotlight of nuclear plants in 23 this nation. 24 You've got the nations best experience in 25 design and construction available, provided it is brought i i J TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 II819
m 850 1 to bear on this project. And I assume that it is. 2 Also, you have really, almost a pick of crafts 3 people with the slower construction elsewhere, the 4 ability to find some very well qualified people to work 5 on the project. And in that light, I feel like the 6 completion of this project on schedule, on time and on 7 dollars, as it's been projected becomes very important to 8 either the revival of the nuclear power industry or maybe 9 the end of it, as we've known it in the U.S.A. 10 I know it's at a mighty low ebb right now to 11 try to get somebody to invest in a new one. But what I'm 12 saying is: This project is a spotlight and performance 13 from here and it's pretty will going to spell where we're
,/-
(_,) 14 going in nuclear power in the United States. You're 15 going to make it or you're going to break it. 16 What insentive is it out here at this project, 17 to really perform. That's a tough one, because you have 18 no free enterprise competition. I think somewhere along 19 the way here, the public utility commission is going to 20 have to put a ceiling on the capital on the equity that 21 is a allowable for return on equity. Now that's a real 22 broad statement. 23 But if there was a sealing of something like 24 $2,000 per kilowatt, that PUC would consider for return 25 on equity, I believe people would really buckle down and J TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11850
851 1 go after it and I think you can do it. And that's about 2 where you end up with your projection. 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We can't do anything about 4 that. 5 MR. BUCKHORN: Well, I know you can't. I've 6 taken this opportunity for some people in the audience, 7 because I'm telling you what I believe and what I think I 8 see. 9 Let me make this one comment. On the last 10 visit out to the plant, you have a lot of people out 11 there, I know you're projections, I know that there's a 12 whale of a lot -- you are saying 80 percent complete on 13 No. 1. I hope you're right. But you go through that 1,/ 14 project, there's an awful lot of big open space in 15 containment and elsewhere, you see major pipe hangers 16 that are partly welded. You see a lot of hangers in 17 place where you know a million of feet of cable still 18 have to go in the cabic trays. And that's going to be a 19 race, especially when you see a crew out there that's 20 going inch by inch on that heavy cable, and you're 21 talking about million of feet. It's a challenge; I sure 22 hope you're right. You've got to be. 23 And one other comment I want to make here,.is 24 to the people who are the crafts and your leadership out 25 at the plant; the one thing that troubled me frankly, and /' h TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11851
852 1 I hope this is just a bad day. There were a lot of 2 people out there and a lot of motion, but very, very few 3 of those people were doing hands on constructive job at 4 the time. For every man with a welding torch in his 5 hand, there must have been fifteen of them going and 6 coming someplace. I don't know where to. Up and down 7 those long ladders. 8 Well, enough said. And then a question to all 9 of you, the industry, the NRC; if we're going any further 10 in nuclear power in the United States, how do we get the 11 qualified persons in the NRC, the utilities, the 12 contractors, to sit down together throw in a few 13 legislaters to educate them, and decide what we will have
) 14 to do to define the potential and the approach for any 15 future nuc1 car plants, in coordination with other energy 16 sources, so through in the Department of Energy, also.
17 But we're lost in the woods right now. And if 18 we can get a good example here, then somebody with 19 authority needs to pull these groups together and decide 20 what it is that we haven't been doing that we need to do, 21 because down the road, our surge of petro chemicals, 22 petroleums, natural gas and so forth is not going to last 23 forever, and let's not be so short sighted that we throw 24 this out the window before ve evaluate the long range 25 picture. i, w/ TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11852
853 1 Thank you for listening, I could talk all 2 afternoon if you'd let me, but I know you won't. 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Johnson. 4 MR. JOHMSON: My name in A.H. Johnson, Post 5 Office Box 92, Marcum, Texas, 77456. 6 And I, like Mr. Elie Mayfield, can claim no 7 area of expertise other than some service in the Navy 8 where I acquired a little bit of information about 9 kamikaze attacks on ships of the line, in World War II. 10 I'm a retired farmer and rancher. My home is 11 on land that I was born on 65 years ago. This land is 12 ten miles north down wind from the South Texas Project. 13 I have four children and seven grand children. As a () 14 result, I have an abiding interest in the safety of this 15 project. 16 I attended the environmental statement phase of 17 the licensing process that was held at the Oasis Motel in 18 the mid '70s. Much consideration was given to aligators, 19 snow geese, slaves graves in cemetarys, and to the 20 ecology, but there wasn't too much talk about 21 grandbabies. 22 And this is evident from examining table 7.1 on 23 Page 7-1 of the environmental statement of 1975. In 24 which table a Class 9 postulated accident is not 25 considered by the applicant. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11853 f
854 1 On May the 2nd, in the adjacent courtroom at a 2 meeting, I raised the following question. Since Three 3 Mile Island was attributed to a malfunctioning valve, 4 could a determined kamikaze attack on the STP Plant cause 5 another valve malfunction. 6 When I said kamikaze attack, I mean an 7 explosive laiden aircraft with a suicidal pilot at the 8 controls, a nut with a cause or someone who thought he 9 had a cause. 10 The experts at this meeting on May the 2nd did 11 not answer the question to my satisfaction. They made 12 reference to many solid feet of concrete, this type of 13 valve had been changed, made also references to acts of 14 war that they weren't responsible for acts of war, and I 15 wasn't fully satisfied with the answer that I received. 16 1 received a letter from the Nuclear Regulatory 17 Commission over the signature of Mr. William J. Derks, 18 executive direct for for operations in the NRC, in which 19 he states, 20 and I quote from this letter: " The NRC does not require 21 protection against a maximum credible threat scenario, 22 such as crashing an explosive laiden aircraft into a 23 site. 24 Protection against such levels has not been 25 required since there has been no indication that such
~ .a TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11854
855 1 -threats actually exist, and since the probability of the 2 release of radio active material of concern is low, 3 unquote." 4' I say that such a threat actually exists and 5 have occurred. I have here a newspaper clip from the 6 Victoria Advocate _of December the 20th, 1982, which goes 7 into the detail of a nuclear plant being rocked by a 8 terrorist bombing in Cape Town, South Africa. 9 I also have a Chronical story dated June the 10 25th, headlined: "U.S. Studies The Possibility Of , 11 Nuclear Terrorism." This article goes on to tell of a 12- state department deputy director, a Mr. Dave Mayberry, of i its antiterrorism office'who states, "We don't take it 13 () 14 . lightly, and we feel absolutely compelled to provide a 15 sound-contingency planning base for the State 16 Department." 17 This article continues with a quote from
, 18 retired admiral Thomas Davies, he's a former chief of 19 development of the Navy, and I quote him. "There are 20 nearly 50,000 nuclear weapons in the world spread 21 throughout hundreds of storage, storage sites, protected 22 in theory by high quality systems and personnel."
23 Davies said, "How well does military security 24 protect against terrorism. Davis note recent reports 25 that it might be possible to build a back pack nuclear 1 (~% l
\_)
i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11855
856 1 weapon with the power of 250 tons of TNT, deliverible by 2 a two-man commando team. 3 Senator Loyd Benson recently introduced 4 legitimate that would beef up the funding of FBI 5 personnnel to combat terrorism in the United States. 6 There was also an article recently printed in 7 the Daily Tribune, in which it stated that, "The 8 commissioners court of Matagorda County had recently 9 granted the applicants permission to install a warning , 10 system of sirenes surrounding the STP. These sirenes 11 were to be installed at the road right-of-ways. 12 Hy question is this: Does the Applicant plan 13 to blow the sirenes before the kamikaze plane hits or
) 14 after the kamikaze plane hits?
15 On top of the recent surge of terrorism in the 16 world, the likes of newspaper articles I have just 17 mentioned, I have to think about the S100,000 fines back 18 in 1980 due to deficiency in STP's quality control 19 program. This tends to give a layman a sense of fear 20 concerning the project. 21 If the applicant and the NRC both refuse to 22 recognize the types of threat that I have just mentioned, 23 and considered remedies, this is the cause of further 24 concern for me and mine. 25 I can understand why detailed information on b v TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 INb6
857 1 defensive structures, security equipment and security 2 plans should be withheld from the public in order to 3 prevent, compromise of their effectiveness. But I cannot 4 understand why the NRC and the applicant does not admit 5 this type of threat exists and plan accordingly instead 6 of asserting there has been no indication that such a 7 threat actually exists. 8 Paragraph 3 on Page 7-1 of the 1975 9 Environmental Report states" "The commission issued 10 guidance to the applicant on September the 1st, 1971, 11 requiring the consideration of a spectrum of accidents 12 with assuptions as realistic as the state of knowledge 13 permits. (_ ) 14 The state of knowledge at that time did not 15 include the activities of the terrorists that we are 16 witnessing today. 17 Thank you for allowing me this much time. I 18 hope my remarks will be made a part of the record and I 19 hope that they will be considered in this process. 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I might comment on Mr. 21 Johnsons' statement that the commission has newer 22 criteria than the criteria to which he referred. I do 23 not believe that they covered the type of terrorist 24 attack that he's referring to, but they do cover a 25 different spectrum of accidents, to be dealt within
-J TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11857
858 l 1 environmental statements. 2 JUDGE SHON: I don't think your microphone is 3 working. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I was saying the commission 5 has issued criteria which supersede the criteria that you 6 referred to. I do not believe they refer to terrorist 7 attacks yet they do refer to a different spectrum of 8 accidents that then was referred to in the earlier -- the 9 earlier criteria which were really draft criteria. 10 The commission, I think, issued a policy 11 statement about 1980, sometime. 12 MR. JOHNSON: This letter I have is dated 1983 13 from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (j! 14 JUDGE SHON: Mr. Johnson what the chairman 15 meant was that the spectrum of accidents has changed so 16 that the statement read from the envircnmental impact 17 statement were no longer true. 18 It's true, of cource, as Mr. Dircks told you, 19 that this size threat from an outsider is not considered. 20 You are right there. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Dr. Nocosad. I hope I'm 22 pronouncing it adequately. 23 MR. NOCOSAD: Good afternoon, gentlemen. I'm 24 Dr. Nocosad, of 214 Mayfair Circle in Wharton, Texas, 25 77488. I serve as the mayor pro tem of the City of TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 - E - m }
859 1 Uharton. And it gives me great pleasure to take this 2 opportunity to express my support and confidence in the 3 South Texas nuclear project. 4 From the very beginning of our State, Texans 5 have always met head on any difficulties and in so doing, 6 have eventually not only succeeded, but excelled in their 7 actions. I believe that this is what we are witnessing 8 at the South Texas Project. 9 The past periods of difficulty serve to 10 strengthen all of us. To maintain pace with rapid growth 11 that our state is experiencing, the electric utilities 12 have long planned for alternatives to natural gas 13 generation. _[ 14 We must continue to move forward, the vitality 15 of our land can only be assured by plenty of enery. 16 In my city alone, we presently have on the 17 commitment list, S40 million of new development. This is 18 the equivalent of one fifth value of the entire city. 19 Houston Lighting & Power is playing a major role in this 20 development. Many of are unaware or have forgotten that 21 our electric utilities began educating and encouraging 22 youth over 20 years ago ago, lhrough the Texas Atomic 23 Energy Research Foundation. I was one that benefited 24 from these intensive seminars. 25 Needless to say, we have learned much since
,~
N.--- l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 1185S
\
N 860 ())
%)
I that time. But in my mind, the South Texas project has 2 : demonstrated many things, that as a nation, we should 3 consider primarily we should standardize all our plant 4 designs in the future. And we should not delay any long 5 near finding answers to the waste disposal question. 6 In closing, I want to say that we need South 4 7 Texas nuclear project, and that I'm extremely proud of 8 the manner in which we have overcome deficiencies, that 9 'were discovered early on. 10 I have the confidence that the project partners 11 will'be commended when this plant is finished. 12 Gentlemen, thank~you. 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: State Senator Sharp. p. (_) 14 MR. SHARP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 15 mem'ers. o My name is John Sharp, I live at 707 West Power-16 Avenue in Victoria, Texas, and I'm the State Senator for 17 state senate district No. 18 which includes Bay City cnd 18 Matagorda County and streches from Sugarland and Freeport 19 to very near Corpus to about 52 and-a-half miles north of 20 Austin. I represent about 525,000 people. 21 My friend Representative Uher, I asked him 22 awhile ago what part he would like me to talk about and 23 he suggested that I talk about a minute and-a-half so 24 I'll keep this remarks in mind. 25 Having been on the receiving end of public O TATE REPORTII:G SERVICE, 498-8442 118GO
861 1 testimony, I know that inadvertently or not I have a lot i 2 of sympathy with those people who have brevity so maybe 3 you are feeling the same way. 4 What -- I think I can come before you and speak 5 with a great deal of confidence that the overwhelming 6 majority of my constituents, whether they live in Bay 7 City or whether they live in Anderson Mill or Rockport, 8 believe that this project ought to proceed as fast as 9 possible, with due timelyness and should not be 10 cancelled, any part of it, whatsoever. 11 I have never received a phone call, I have 12 never received a letter from one of my constituents as a 13 matter of fact, who expressed fear that this project is x ,x 14 not going to be safe or who has called me and asked me to 15 work for the cancellation of STP one or tuo. IIave never 16 ! heard that and as a matter of fact, to go even further, I 17 have never heard any of my constituents mention anything 18 in that vein until this hearing today when I've heard two 19 of them and I certainly respect their opinions but I 20 think although I am certainly not an expert in 21 electricity or nuclear power, I have a reasonable idea 22 that if you turn on a light switch, it's going to come 23 on. 24 I do have some idea of what my constituents are 25 thinking and the only comment up until today that I have
)
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 IIOb1
~
F- l
\
862 l 1 heard about radiation was from a farmer who lived in 2 Polacios about six months ago who expressed to me a great 3 deal of confidence that he will receive in his lifetime a 4 lot more radiation from his wrist watch than he will 5 receive great that plant out there. I think that South 6 Texas project is making excellent progress toward 7 completion, the NRC, et cetera, and other outside parties 8 have given it high marks and I'm here today to urge you 9 to consider three things, first to urge the Atomic Safety 10 and Licensing Board to act prudently and efficiently to 11 ensure that their proceedings support the completion 12 schedule of the South Texas Project; secondly, to urge 13 the board to hear only factual information and not () 14 unfounded allegations and third, I would ask that you not 15 let any single intervonor who's only goal might be the 16 cancellation of this project increase it's cost further 17 by creating unnecessary delays. 18 And I might also add that I have heard state 19 officials, public_ officials, in and around Austin or San 20 Antonio or all the high tech area, talking about the need 21 for jobs and the things that we need to have with regard 22 to the high tech MCC Corporations, et cetera, moving to 23 Texas. And I think that's wonderful, but I would suggest 24 to you that if we have the biggest high tech boom any 25 state ever had in the next five years they will not O - TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 M862
863 1 create the eleven thousand jobs we've got right here 2 Decause of this project. And I would urge you to do what 3 you can to assure its completion. Thank you. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Porter. 5 MR. PORTER: Mr. Chairman, ray porter, 6 Teamsters Local 11, Houston, Texas. I've worked out 7 there at that project since the 24th of March, 1982, 8 which is when the Ebasco first took it over. I would 9 like to comment it's the safest job I've ever worked on. 10 I've worked at several petrochemical plants up the 11 channel up there, and bar none this is the safest. 12 And of course, kamikaze pilots, I guarantee 13 you, we got more kamikaze drivers than we do pilots down
) 14 here. And some of the other stuff, it kind of reminds me 15 of someone going to Churchhill Downs for the Kentucky 16 Derby on some of this stuff they're bringing up, going in 17 there with a four year old racing form.
18 We've got a competent professional bunch of 19 workmca out there, we're doing that job right, we're 20 going to continue doing it right and we're going to build 21 it and we're going to get light out of that plant. Thank 22 you. 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Reese. 24 MR. REESE: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, 25 I am Bill Reese and I'm superintendent of the schools for (- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 118G3
r 864 1 Palacios Independent School District, 1209 Twelfth 2 Street, Palacios Texas. 3 I'm here today to offer our statement, 4 representing our Board and myself, to convey our support 5 for licensing of the South Texas Project. I probably 6 need to say for the record, that I am only recently in my 7 assignment. I've been there six weeks. However, during 8 that time, I have had opportunity to be briefed on the 9 status of the project in terms of the construction, and I 10 have had opportunity to review the safety and security 11 provisions that HL&P and others have have planned for the 12 pr oj ect. 13 And so I do -- and I have had occasion also to Ij 14 speak with individual members of our Board and members of 15 our administration and folks in the community. So I feel 16 like while I'm not fully enlightened on the subject as of 17 this date, it has, because they are a major entity in our 18 school district, I have had occasion to educate myself 19 somewhat on the project. 20 Returning now to the statement. Our school 21 district, of course, has benefited both materially and we 22 believe qualitatively from the project. In our dealings 23 with the officials associated with the project, we found 24 that they held themselves in extremely professional 25 manner. We feel that in addition to that, the project (./ 1 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 INCd l I
l 865 i 1 reflects a thorough, as of this date, a thorough j f 2 consideration for the safety, security of our community. 3 Our school district and our community has 4 benefited from their efforts to try to educate those 5 persons in the community who wish to be enlightened, and 6 further, I believe that we have benefited from the 7 security and safety provisions that they've implemented. 8 In short, we believe that the project has 9 brought many fine and constructive citizens to our 10 community, it's provided a foundation for future 11 industrial growth, promoting greater employment 12 opportunities and enhanced community services and we 13 believe ultimately a greater quality of life for N (,! 14 Palacios. Thank you, 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Representative Uher. 16 MR. UHER: I'm state representive Bob Uher, I 17 live here in Bay City. My address is 700 Forth Street. 18 Matagorda County has been my home town, my residence all 19 my life. I was born 47 years ago, my legislative 20 district includes Matagorda County, includes Wharton 21 county and it includes the northwest portion of Brazoria 22 County. 23 I've been familiar with this project since it 24 started, and I've had the opportunity to visit the plant 25 site on numerous occasions, both prior to the current
'~~'
J TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 118G5
t A 866 3 1 contractor and. engineering firms where they're, and under 2 the present builders and the engineering group there; and _. 3 have had the opportunity to examine the operation of the 4 plant, from the-construction of,it, firsthand. And I've had the opportunity to get to know many of the people who 5 6 work on both the lowest level to the highest level with '$ 7 the various firms that are involved and I can tell you 8 that I've been most liapressed by the quality of the 9 people that we have on the site today. ,
- 10 I'm impressed by the quality of the 11 construction, if we were to build every plant or every 12 facility we tried to build whether it was public 13 buildings or whether it was highways as we were building
() . , J14 this nuclear plant down here, we would leave a legacy for 15 the people of the future that would go probably into the > 16 year 3000. 17 It's well construced., I'm pleased with the 184 progress that I'm seeing. I'm pleased with the type of 19 engineering. 20 You folks have had a tough job. You've gone 21 from a program that started probably altogether different 22 than it was when it was first started back in 1973, '74, 23 to the current level.
.24 The people that we have here today, that are 25 involved in this plant and its construction, I believe O
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-0442 11ggg
L'
\_.
867 1 are doing an excellent job. I can only say that in 2 talking to my constituents and listening to people around 3 the county and'the nearby counties, I've had nothing but 4 total support. .There's been a few exceptions to that, 5 but have been very few people who have been opposed to 6 it. But I would say that probably 90 percent of my 7 district supports the construction of this project. 8 I would ask that you expedite the hearing and 9 that you would expedite your decision so that in the near L- 10 future that we will have electricity coming from this 11 operation. 12 And let me say in closing.that while we appear 13 to have today a bubble of oil and gas, natural gas, I () 14 believe that we're going to see by the year 1990, a 15 shortage again as we experienced in the '70s and early 16 '80s, And that this nuclear plant is going to be very 17 vital. 18 This area is growing population-wise. Two 19 years ago I chaired the committee on reapportionment in 20 Texas, had the opportunity to see the demographics of our , 21 state, how we're changing, how new people are coming to 22 Texas,- the new type of techniques that are being used 23 today in constructing of many different things. And I 24 can tell you that Texas will continue to grow, and the 25 projection is that Texas will be the second largest state O TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11867
868 1 next to California by the year 1990. 2 That means we're going to need more energy, 3 Texas moves on energy; this country moves on energy. And 4 we're going to need this nuclear plant. I solute what 5 you try to do. I've been in your shoes many, many times 6 over 17 years as a member of the legislature. And 7 sometimes these hearinga get very long and I admire you. 8 Thank you. 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Judge O'Connel. 10 JUDGE O'CONNEL: My name is Bert O'Connel, I'm 11 the county judge, Matagorda County, have served in that 12 capacity for the past seven years. I believe you have my 13 address, there, Mr. Chairman, I put it on your yellow ( 14 sheet. My address is the courthouse, Bay City Texas, 15 77414. This project has been, as you knew, you heard Mr. 16 Uher and Mr. Sharp have said, have stated, it started in 17 the year approximately 1973, there's been several more 18 than one contractor on the job, we've seen the change 19 that occurred from one contractor to the next. We've had 20 full cooperation, speaking for the county, commissioner's 21 court from the operator -- or the manager of the project, 22 Houston Lighting & Power Company and their people; 23 Central Power & Light Company is the territory which the 24 plant's being build, it's their service area, and they've 25 been very cooperative. w,- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11868
869 1 And of course, we've seen -- we don't see too l 2 much of San: Antonio and the City of Austin; I don't think 3 I know any of their representatives. Any of those people 4 here today? 5 There's one that we don't tax; they're tax free 6 in this project. Houston and the Central Power & Light ,, l 7 are picking up the tax load on this project and that's 8 one thing that sticks in my craw as being unfair for the 9 whole project from the county level and the school 10 district level, Palacios School District. We assess no 11 taxes against the share that are owned by the City of San 12 Antonio and the City of Austin. I don't know uhether 13 that that has any place here in this hearing or not,
/~T
( ,) i ~ 14 But you might say that the other taxpayers in 15 this county, property owners, are subsidizing that part l, 16 of the plant, 44 percent of it that is not being taxed 17 that's owned by municipalities. We spent a little money , 18 on that perceding, pursuing that in the courts, and I 19 guess the law-of the land said that municipalities are 20 not taxed. But I don't believe that when those laws were 21 written, they meant for a remote owned f acilit'r of this 22 magnitude'from the cities involved would go tax free and 23 be a burden on the rural. county down in South Texas. So 24 be it. 25 We appreciate the cooperation we've had with
- O TATE REPORTIt:G SERVICE, 498-8442 II86b
r 870 1 Houston Lighting & Power Company. They are the managers 2 of the project, they're the ones that set up the safety 3 rules and regulations.that were required in this -- in 4 order to receive an operating license. The warning 5 system that Mr. Johnson speaks of and I respect what Mr. 6 Johnson said here, and he's an informed person in our f 7 county, and he comes to our court and we talk to him, he 8 knows what's going on here and he has a concern. I 9 appreciate that. 10 Other folks, I'm sure this is not a hundred 11 percent popular project within the county. But like Mr. 12 Uher said, Mr. Sharp said, most of the people don't seem 13 to be concerned about the safety because they rely on the 14 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, through the efforts of 15 Houston Lighting & Power Company, the operators of -- or 16 the builders of this project, to build u safe and sound 17 electric generating facility which is fueled by nuclear 18 fuel out there. 19 The only thing they're trying to do is heat 20 water a little different than most other power plants 21 are. And of course that makes some complicated 22 procedures. But we do -- I'm here today to -- we have 23 the plant here, it's been here since '73, it's part of 24 our tar. base. 25 As part of our citizenry here, the people that k_ TATE RSPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 II@Q
f 871 1 operate the plant or going to operate it, the people that 1 2 are here working at the plant, which is somewhere around 3 10 000 craftsmen here at the plant, managers and 4 engineers and people who are building the plant, and I 5 hear that probably will be around a 1000 or 1,200 people 6 operating the' plant after it's constructed. So we're 7 proud to have an industry of that size in this county. [ 8 The only thing we would be concerned with is 9 the safety and the operation of it, and we're relying on 10 the good judgment of you folks and Houston Lighting & 11 Power Company and we feel comfortable that that end will
, 12 . be me,t with the safe operating nuclear plant to provide
~
13 nuc1 car' energy in massive amounts for a price that the 14 folks along the Gulf Coast can afford to keep the good 15 industry soing that we have here along the Gulf Coast. 16 I just wanted to get said one thing, that it's r 17 stuck in my, craw a little bit about the way the tax setup
/
1 ,18 is on this. I wanted you all to know that. 19 JUDGE BECUHOEFER: I don't think we could do 20 much about taxes, but our -- I don't think we could do e 21 much about the taxes one way or the other. 22 JUDGE O'CO!!NELL: I was the county attorney up 23 here for 30 yers before my successor, and he says to to
- 24 me, " Boy, if we win the suit, we are going to change the 25 law of the land; you know that don't you?" I don't think i T
)
4 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 1 4 o g-
- 1G 1
~~-
872 1 the framers of the Constitution or the persons who l~ 2 enacted legislation since meant for that situation to 3 occur in this magnitude. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: In any event, I know our 5 licensing board would like to thank Judge O'Connell for 6 the use of this facility which we've found very 7 satisfactory. So we will thank him for that as well. 8 Mr. Reis, are there further names on the last 9 behind you? 10 MR. REIS: There's one name, S. D. Lapella 11 A VOICE: He had to leave. 12 MR. BUCKHORN: May I make one additional brief 13 comment to my comments? l 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I guess so. 15 Are there other people here who want to make 16 comments as well, because we will invite you to do so. 17 You may return for a minute. 18 MR. BUCKHORU: I'm Ken Buckhorn, and from what 19 I had to say you can understand my for eagerness to see 20 this project keep on keeping on and doing good. And I 21 don't want to by doing that, I think maybe I overlooked a 22 little bit some of the real good improved things that we 23 do see. I just wanted to make the comment, compared to 24 just a few years back, it's night and day. The personnel 25 at the plant, performance, the quality, and attitudes, 4 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11872
873 1 you name it. All I wanted to be sure is you realize 2 that. It's very good. 3 And I'm just commenting, though, that it's 4 important to this plant and to future plants that they
~
5 keep on keeping on and come out on projection so we have 6 a future so there will be some more jobs after these jobs $ 7 are done, so to speak. 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Thank you. 9 MR. BUCKHORN: I have to say it's looking good, t 10 except that I have reserved optimism until it's on 11 stream. But yes, sir, it's a completely different story 12 from what it was. 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Is there anyone else who s 14 would like to make a statement? Come on up here. Give 15 your name and address for record. 16 KEN BARNETT: My name is Ken Barnett, and my 17 address is 1413 Linwood, Wharton, Texas, 77488. I am the 18 president of the Wharton chamber of commerce and 19 agriculture. I serve in other capacities in the City of 20 Wharton, such as a member of the city planning commission 21 and on other various boards and public and private 22 sectors of our community. I am self employed as a real 23 estate broker. I have been a resident of Wharton County 24 practically all of my life. I have roots that stem from 25 Matagorda County; my parents, my father's side of the ( v TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11873
874 i ("x L\j) 1 family was raised in Palacios which is a few short from 2 this project. So I have been here and I've been around 3 the project ever since its conception. 4 4 With the idea in mind that this area is growing 5 and the business that I'm in, I see the growth that takes 6 place, I'm here to speak in favor of the project and to 7 ence':; age you to proceed forward in the licensing so this 8 project can open up. The things that have happened as 9 far as the contracting and the things that have happened 4 10 in regard to the problems that have occurred, I feel 11 confident from the information that I have been given and 12 the. reviews of the site, that the problems have been 13 solved and are being worked out and the completion of the
) 14 project is taking place in an orderly professional 15 manner. So from that standpoint, I would like to urge 16 this commission to proceed forward as fast as possible 17 for the licensing of this_ project. And that's all I 18 would have to say to you. Thank you very much.
19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Is there anyone else who 20 wishes to make a statement? 21 A VOICE: We just received a call. We think 22 Congressman McSweeny is on his way and I was asked to 23 advise you of this. We think he's in town but we don't 24 know. 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Why don't we take about a
/~h V
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11874
875 1 fifteen minute break and then we'll take cnybody else 2 who's here, including the Congressman if he's here. 3 (Brief recess.) 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on the record. We understand the Congressman is not going to appear. Are
- 5 6 there others, though, who would wish to make a statement, 7 others in the audience? If so come on up and make the 8 statement.
9 MR. LAMAR: Okay, where do I go. t 10 JUDGE BECUHOEFER: Just around there and give 11 your name and address to the court reporter. 12 THE WITNESS: Okay. I'm Leonard Lamar, the 13 mayor of Palacios. You all have to excuse my appearance m 14 because we're having a 4th of July celebration on the 15 13th in Palacios, our Lions Club. So I had to run over 16 here. 17 I did think it was important enough though to 18 come over here today to express Palacios' feelings 19 towards the South Texas Nuclear Project. We support it, 20 will continue to support.it, and if there's anything that 21 Palacios can do to add any information to the project, 22 we'd be glad to do it. We really are behind the project. 23 He don't express it quite as much as Bay City does, but 24 we're there, and we'll always be behind the project. 25 That's really all I had to say, except these
)
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11875
876 1 people that are paid by the federal government to protest 2 the project, if they would get educated as much as I am 3 on nuclear power, I think they would cut off their hair, 4 shave their beards, take a bath and get on our side of - 5 society and support the project. Thank you. 6 JUDGE BECHIIOEFER: I don't know if the 7 government is paying anybody to protect it. 8 MR. LAMAR: Yes, sir, they are. It's a law, 9 state -- they're required to. Anybody that wants to -- 10 am I wrong? 11 JUDGE SHON: Actually, sir, quite the opposite. 12 Congress has passed an appropriations act for the !TRC 13 that specifically forbids the lluclear Regulatory i ) 14 Commicsion to fund intervenors in any way. I'm not the 15 lawyer, the lawyers are here. But that's -- i 16 JUDGE CECHHOEFER: That's what I was referring 17 to. f 18 MR. LAMAR: Let me clear this up because when I 19 appeared before the Commission in Austin and everyplace 20 else, and I've always been told that we as pro, we as pro I 21 nuclear advocates, cannot be paid or I wouldn't want to 22 be paid to support the project. But that there are by 23 law, people that are paid to, that they can go around our 24 country and protest this nuclear power. Am I wrong? 25 MR. REIS: Yes, you are wrong. m x. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11876
877 1 THE WITNESS: Okay. Then I have been advised 2 by people in the -- not with the nuclear power plant, but 3 I've been advised by people that I'm associated with that 4 there are laws that say that people are paid, there is 5 money available for anyone who wants to protest against 6 this type of establishment. And you all are saying this 7 is wrong? 8 MR. REIS: I am saying it's wrong. 9 THE WITNESS: Is there anyone in this room that 10 can give any light on this? I'd like to know. I have 11 been told ever since I'd been in city government, and as 12 I said, I've appeared before council here in Bay City, in 13 Austin, anyplace I was asked to appear to support this t 14 pr oj ect , that protestors are financed through the -- 15 well, it's the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or however 16 they define it, but there is a federal law that any time, 17 that there is money available; there is not? 18 MR. REIS: No, if I could -- 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I see Mr. Sinkin. I was 20 going to say you ought to tell Mr. Sinkin about it. 21 THE WITNESS: We better get it cleared up now, 22 because this is what I've been told and if it's wrong, I 23 will not say the statement again. 24 MR. REIS: May I suggest you write to your 25 Congressman. Who's the Congressman from this district, ( TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11877
878 I 1 Mr. Sweeny? 2 MR. LAMAR: Yes. 3 MR. REIS: Write to Mr. Sweeny, ask him to 4 check it out with congressional legislative services, the , 5 Library of Congress, to see whether there is any. To my 6 knowledge and I'm an attorney for the Muclear Regulatory 7 Commincion, there is no funding for intervenors, none 8 whatsoever. 9 MR. PIRFO: I might give an example, in this 10 particular case, Mr. Sinkin or me, this is a personal 11 anecdote, for a copy of the transcript and I refused to 12 give him a copy of that transcript on that basis that I'm 13 prohibited by law from offering him any aid and g) L 14 assistance and I read giving him a copy of a transcript, 15 which he would otherwise have to go out and buy for a 16 relatively small amount of money, maybe $50 or $60, 17 whatever, I refused to give it to him on the basis of 18 that law. So for what it's worth, that's an example of 19 no funding. 20 MR. LAMAR: Well, two years ago, two years ago 21 over here in Bay City, that was brought up. And I, you 22 know, I've been misled or it's a false statement. 23 I'll talk to Congressman Sweeny also, I thought ; 1 24 he was supposed to be here today, i 25 JUDGE SHOM: There is a thing called the Equal i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11878
879 1 Access to Justice Act, wherein, after having sued the 2 government for various things or carried out various 3 activities against the government, one can apply for and 4 perhaps get money. I'll let Mr. Reis talk about that. 5 MR. PIRFO: I know a little bit about the Equal 6 Access of Justice Act and holding in mind the caveat that 7 a little bit of knowledge is dangerous, it would not 8 apply in these circumstances. The Equal Access to 9 Justice Act applies in a case where the government brings 10 an action against an individual and the individual 11 ultimately prevails, then they can get recompensed for 12 the attorney's fees they spent and other costs associated 13 with defending themselves against the government. But it n 14 would apply in the context here of the Nuclear Regulatory 15 Commission. 16 JUDGE LAMB: One other possibility that occurs 17 to me, is that in some unusual circumstances, there may 18 be private support for people who do this. But if you're 19 talking about federal government support, it's not there. 20 MR. LAMAR: I'm talking about federal 21 government support, I'm not talking about private support 22 because I know we have private support. 23 MR. SINKID: And I will tell you, sir, that I 24 an $25,000 in debt because of this proceeding. 25 MR. LAMAR: Okay, well thank you. I apologize
~_
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 11879 f
. 880 ,
1 to the Commission if this is a falso statement that I 2 made, but this is what I had been told and that I've been 3 thinking, and I'll talke to Congressman Sweeny and I'll 4 get it straight. 5 JUDGE LAMB: Good to be cleared up. 6 MR. LAMAR: Because it's always been in my 7 feeling that, you know, because I see a lot of the same 8 people every place I go, and I'm glad to know that he's l 9 financed it himself, I hate to see him out $25,000, but I 10 feel as strongly for the prcject as you do against it. 11 MR. SIMKIN: Fine. 12 MR. LAMAR: Thank you. 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Thank you.
) 14 Anyone else wish to make a statement? Come on 15 up here. I didn't see your hand.
16 MR. BELL: Should I sit down or stand up? I'm 17 tired, I'll sit down. 18 Bill Bill, Mayor of Bay City. And I did leave 19 some festivities, too, like Mayor Lamar, but I'm here. 20 And I've been all over Matagorda County, and especially 21 throughout Bay City, and I have never run into opposition 22 to the nuclear project. And that's about all I can say. 23 Ue're pro nuclear plant, we like to see it continue, be 24 fueled and get underway. 25 We've been a long time. I was on the city (~ ') TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 1:1890 N _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
881 1 council back in 1971 through '75, and we were, in various 2 beginning -- when they started just even talking about 3 it, and today, when I hope I'll still be mayor when they 4 fuel it, and we look forward to great things coming from 5 STP project. Thank you. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Thank you. 7 Anyone else? 8 MR. IRVIN: My name is Isiah Irvin; I'm county 9 judge of Wharton county. And I'd like to say that I'm 10 pronuclear, and I agree with these gentlemen who are 11 saying that this is vital to the economy of our country. 12 My friends from the Light Company and Wharton 13 are, I of ten tell : hem that all these people should have 14 an opportunity to live in an area with a brown out or a 15 black out and see what happens when we have a power 16 failure. I've had that unique experience, and it's not 17 fun. , 18 I've also had the opportunity to serve on the 19 Atomic Energy, DOD Safeguards Commission, looking into 20 the safeguards of nuclear, you know, weapons grade 21 material, and been in most commercial and military 22 nuclear installations in the United States. And my hair 23 is a little sparse, but other than that I don't think 24 there's been any ill effects from being around it. Thank 25 you very much. t ; TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-0442 i1891
882 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Thank you. Any others who 2 wish to make a statements? Anyone else? Come on up. 3 Give the reporter your name and address. 4 MS. SHERAM: My name is Patsy Sheram, my 5 address is 1821 Sycamore. I noticed that that everyone 6 has spoke today has been a man, and I thought I'd give 7 you a woman's point of view. 8 I'm a mother and a grandmother of ten and we've 9 lived around this area since 1952. I have been on the 10 plant site, in the containment buildings and examined it. 11 I am also in the real estate business. I talk to an all 12 lot of people in Day City. Everyone I have talked to has 13 supported the plant, been for it, and we are behind it a
) 14 hundred percent, we'd like to see it completed and on 15 line.
16 JUDGE BECIIHOEFER: Thank you. 17 MS. SHERAM: Thank you. 18 JUDGE BECHi!OEFER: Anyone further? If so, step 19 up. 20 MR. BUCKHORM: Mr. Chairman, may I ask you a 21 what if? This is hopefully way out. But what if a 22 Japanese management with Arab financing came to you for 23 an application to build a nuclear plant in the United 24 States. 25 JUDGE SHON: It cannot be done; it's illegal.. g 1"1099
^
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442
)
883 1 Plant's are supposed to be owned by U.S. citizens. That 2 one they've covered already. 3 JUDGE BECIII!OEFER: Any further statements? Not 4 seeing any, I guess we'll call the session adjourned, and 5 we thank for all coming. 6 (IIcaring adjourned at 3:40 p.m.) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
- i 14 15 16 17 18 -
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 498-8442 iI
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: NAME OF PROCEEDING: EVIDENTIARY IIEARING IIOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, ET AL (SOUTII TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 AND 2) DOCKET NO.: STN 50-498-OL STN 50-499-OL PLACE: BAY CITY, TX SATURDAY, JULY 13, 1985 t_l DATE: were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (sigt) (TYPED) Official Repor Ace-Fiderd ders;Zic. Reporter's Aff ion
)
'w -)}}