ML20137Z940
| ML20137Z940 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 12/05/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#485-490 OL, NUDOCS 8512110452 | |
| Download: ML20137Z940 (196) | |
Text
- - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ORIGINAL
(-) UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
IN THE MATTER OF: D CKET NO: STN 50-498 OL STN 50-499 OL HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, et al.
(South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2)
EVIDENTIARY HEARING -
O LOCATION: HOUSTON, TEXAS PAGES: 15388 - 15582 DATE: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1985 I
fe 0' I
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
g Official Reporters 444 North CapitolStreet 0512110452 Washington, D.C. 20001 PDR Apocv, es 05o 9g PDR (202) 34~-3700 I
NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
15388 1
3
~\ / 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 -----------------------------------x 6 In the Matter of : DOCKET NO.
7 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER : STN-50-498-OL 8 COMPANY, ET AL., : STN-50-499-OL 9 (South Texas Project Units 1 & 2) :
10 -----------------------------------x 11 AstroVillage Hotel 12 Forum Number 5
( 13 ,
Houston, Texas 14 15 16 Thursday, 5 December 1985 17 18 The hearing in the above-entitled matter was i 19 convened, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:30 a.m.,
20 BEFORE:
. 21 JUDGE CHARLES BECHOEFFER, Chairman,
~22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
23 JUDGE JAMES C. LAMB, Member,
' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
) 24 25 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15389 1 JUDGE FREDERICK J. SHON, Member, 2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. i 3
4 APPEARANCES:
5 On behalf of the Applicants:
6 MAURICE AXELRAD, Esq.,
7 JACK R. NEWMAN, Esq.,
8 ALVIN GUTTERMAN, Esq.,
9 Newman & Holtzinger, 10 Washington, D.C.
11 12 k 13 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff:
14 ORESTE RUSS PIRFO, Esq.,
- 15. WILLIAM L. BROWN, Esq.
16 ROBERT G. PERLIS
~
17 Office of the Executive Legal Director 18 19 20 On behalf of the Intervenor:
21 LANNY ALAN SINKIN, .
22 3022 Porter St., N.W., #304 23 Washington, D.C. 20008 24 Counsel for Citizens concerned About 25 Nuclear Power.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15390 1
( >~ ~
^ 2 CONTENTS 3 WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS BOARD REDIRECT RECROSS 4 D. JORDAN 15398 15401 15418 15429 15430 5 15409 15432 15431 6
15435 7
8 9 MR. THRASH 15437 15457 15483 15500 15501 10 15465 11 12 15570 k) 13 JEROME GOLDBERG 15504 15521 15554 15569 14 15543 15580 15
, 16 17 EXHIBITS: For Id. In Evd.
18 Applicants 79 15397 15397 19 Applicants 80 15397 15397 20 Applicants 81 15397 1E397 21 Applicants 82 15439 15441 22 Applicants 83 15429 15441 23 Applicants 84 15445 15450
]) 24 25 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 .
15391-1 PROCEEDINGS
^ A.>
~
2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: dood morning, ladies and i
3 gentlemen. This h, earing is the result of our granting in 4 part of the motion to reopen the Phase II record filed by 5 CCANP October 16th, 1985. Our order granting this hearing 4 1 6 was 1ssued on November 14, 1985. !
4 7 For the benefit of any newcomers, I would 8 introduce the Board. On my left is Fredrick Shon, who is 1 9 with the -- is a technical member with the Atomic Safety 10 and Licensing Board Panel. On my right, the person who 11 lacks the sign, is Dr. James Lamb, from the University of 12 North Carolina; and my name is Charles Bechhoefer, I'm an 13 employee of the Licensing Board Panel as well.
14 For the record, could the representatives of the 15 parties introduce themselves and start with my.left, Mr.
- 16. Newman or Axelrad.
17 MR. AXELRAD: Yes, Mr. Chairman, my name is 18 Maurice Axelrad, I'm in the law firm of Newman & Holtzinger 19 P.C. We are representing the Applicants in this 20 proceeding. And with me on my right, Mr. Jack Newman; and 21 on my left, Mr. Alvin Gutterman.
22 MR. PIRFO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members 23 of the Board. I am a Oreste Russ Pirfo with the OELD
f') 24 staff. To my left is Robert G. Perlis and to his left is -
L ~LJ '
25 William L. Brownj Regional Counsel of Region IV in 5 s i
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15392
'1. Arlington, Texas.
O' 2 MR. SINKIN: Lanny Sinkin, representing Citizens 3 Concerned About Nuclear Power.
4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Are there any preliminary
'S matters this morning? I'm not including the motion to 6 sequester witnesses, because I think we will have oral 7 argument on that at the outset.
8 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, as a preliminary 9 matter, I would like to report to the Board that the 10 parties have had some discussions with respect to some 11 preliminary matters including the motion to sequester, and 12 we have resolved those to the satisfaction of all three of I ) 13 the parties subject of course to the approval of the Board.
L 14 Applicants have decided that with respect to the 15 motion to sequester, we don't want to take the time this
'16 morning to argue it. We have discussed it with Mr. Sinkin 17 and Mr. Pirfo and the agreement of all three parties has 18 been that the witnesses will be sequestered, but Mr.
19 Goldberg will be the designated representative of 20 Applicants and therefore will not be sequestered. But all 21 the other witnesses will be sequestered.
22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Fine.
23 MR. AXELRAD: We also discussed one other 24 preliminary matter. Mr. Sinkin --
{ggg 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Let me ask you. Does that TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15393 1 agreement include any sort of a provision where Mr.
2 Goldberg would not discuss answers he might have given 3 -himself with other witnesses before they testify?
l 4 MR. AXELRAD: Certainly. Mr. Goldberg will not !
5 _ discuss his -- after Mr. Goldberg testifies, he will not 6 discuss his testimony with witnesses who have not yet 7 testified, but he will be present here while the other 8 witnesses testify before him.
9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay.
- 10. MR. PIRFO: Or other witnesses' testimony, 11 presumably.
i 12 MR. AXELRAD: Correct.
13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The Board will -- the Board l
14 approves that arrangement.
15 MR. AXELRAD: One other preliminary matter.
16 Among the materials that we had produced for the Board and 17 the parties, on Monday, there was a one page note which was 18 apparently the notations that Mr. Stanley had taken of an 19 earlier telephone call with Dr. Sumpter. Mr. Sinkin had 20 asked that we have Dr. Sumpter testify and we have agreed
'21 to do so with the understanding that his testimony would 22 be -- and cross examination would be limited to just that 23 one page, that one subject. He's not being brought in to lg 24 testify with respect to anything else that's being ,
25 considered at this hearing, just that one page.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15394
. 1 Mr. Sinkin has also requested that we obtain an 4
2 affidavit from Mr. Stanley as to his recollection of that 3 page, and we have agreed to do that also. That affidavit 4 will be submitted obviously after the record closes and the 5 record-will stay open for that limited purpose only. All 6 of these agreements have been reached in the hope of all 7 the parties and we t.pect the Board that we might be able 8 to complete the hearing today rather than having it 9 continue beyond today.
10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Are there -- I guess the only 11 reason -- if we finish today, the transcript probably won't 12 be available until tomorrow morning, but they will be
) 13 available at that time. Are there other preliminary 14 matters?
15 What order do you propose to present witnesses. ,
l 16 MR. AXELRAD: We propose to have Mr. Don Jordan v 17 testify first; he was at a meeting out of town yesterday 18 and had to fly in to testify this morning; would like to 19 fly back to his meeting. So we would like to have Mr.
20 Jordan testify first so he can get back to his other 21 business. We would then have Mr. Thrash testify; he would i
22 be followed by Mr. Goldberg and then by Mr. Oprea, Mr.
23 Barker and Mr. Sumpter.
JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The Board would like to note lg 24 ,
25 that there is a small portion of Board sponsored questions TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
, ,---,---..,-.----,4, --
, , , - . , . . - , ,<r- .- . - . < .. y,-n-,--,,,-, y,.r..-- - - . . , - - , - - , , ,----.m - - - , , - - - - e. --w--
15395 i i for-which we might ask Mr. Goldberg to leave the room
) 2 during'Mr. Jordan's -- while we ask those questions of Mr.
Jordan. But other than that, the order seems fine. If Mr.
3 Goldberg.had been first, the question wouldn't have arisen.
4 5 -But other than that, the questions aren't intended for Mr..
4 6 Thrash so that's not relevant. So it might be a small 7 portion of Mr. Jordan's examination.
MR. AXELRAD: That's fine, Mr. Chairman. I do 8
)
9 have one minor additional preliminary matter now that I 10 think of it. The Board had indicated in its order that it i 11 would accept into the record Mr. Thrash's notes of the ,
meetings of the Management Committee of December 4, 1980, l 12-h 13 February 19, 1981 and February 20th, 1981.
14 We have discussed with the parties, that it would 15 be useful for the record if those were admitted.into the
. 16 record. What the Board had.were the typewritten version of 17 Mr. Thrash's notes. We thought it might be useful in case s 18 any question comes up to have the handwritten notes 19 attached to that also. So the exhibit that will be 20 introduced into the record in each instance will be the 21 typewritten note with the handwritten note from which it 22 was typed. And those will be -- those three would be the 23 first three exhibits for Applicants.
F 24 Since our last exhibit was Exhibit No. 78, those
((}
25 would then become Applicants Exhibits 79, 80 and 81 i
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 d
_,-,,,m., .-..,w_,, .--.
15396 ;
1 respectively.
s 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. I take it then, no one 3 wants to designate Mr. Thrash's previous affidavit with an 4 Exhibit number?
5 MR. AXELRAD: Speaking for myself, no. That 6 affidavit is in the record.
7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Findings are filed anyway so 8 it doesn't matter .
9 MR. AXELRAD: The affidavit is in the record so I 10 don't believe there's any --
11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right, it is.
12 MR. AXELRAD: -- any need to give it an Exhibit
( ) 13 -number. -
14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We had neglected to give it a 15 number earlier. But since all the proposed findings are 16 filed, it's irrelevant. Okay, that will be satisfactory.
17 MR. AXELRAD: Unfortunately, we have not yet 18 gotten back from reproduction the exhibit with the 19 handwritten copies attached, so we cannot provide those for 20 the record, for our reporter and to the Board right now but 21 we should have those shortly.
22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. We all have copies of 23 the exhibits, for purposes of cross examination and 24 testimony . .
b 25 MA. AXELRAD: Fine. I move that those be f
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15397 l
l 1 admitted into the record as Applicants Exhibit No. 79, 80
) 2 and 81 in accordance with the agreements of the parties.
3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Would you just identify 4 briefly what each one is so that -- is 79 the December --
5 MR. AXELRAD: Certainly. Applicants' Exhibit 6 No. 79 will consist of Mr. Thrash's handwritten notes of 7 the Management committee meeting that was held on December 8 4, 1980, and the typewritten version that was subsequently 9 made of those handwritten notes.
10 Applicants' Exhibit Number 80 will consist of Mr.
11 Thrash's handwritten notes of the Management Committee 12 meeting of February 19, 1981, with the typewritten notes, ,
k) 13 typewritten version of those notes attached.
14 And Applicants' Exhibit Number 81 will be the 15 handwritten notes of Mr. Thrash of the Management Committee 16 meeting of February 20, 1981, with the typewritten version i
17 of those handwritten notes attached.
18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Fine. Applicants' Exhibits 19 79, 80 and 81 will be admitted into evidence.
20 (Applicants' Exhibit Nos. 79, 80 and 21 81 were marked for identification and 22 received in evidence.)
23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Are you prepared to bring Mr.
24 Jordan?
} ,
25 MR. AXELRAD: Yes, we are prepared to call Mr.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l 1
I 15398 i
1 Jordan at this point. Would Mr. Jordan please step to the l
(}
A- 2 witness stand.
i 3 MR. AXELRAD: I would just like -- I would just ;
4 like the record to note that none of the other witnesses i
5 are present, except Mr. Goldberg.
6 MR. D. JORDAN
~
7 called as a witness on behalf of Applicants, having been l 8 first duly cautioned and sworn, testified upon his oath as 9 follows:
10 DIRECT EXAMINATION 11 By Mr. Axelrad:
12 Q Mr. Jordan, what was your involvement in the
, 13
- decision to initiate the review of Brown & Root engineering 14 at the South Texas Project by the Quadrex Corporation?
15 A At the time that that recommendation was made, it 16 was made to me by Mr. Goldberg and by Mr. Oprea and I 17 concurred in having it done.
18 Q What was your understanding of the purpose of the 19 review of Brown & Root engineering that was being 20 undertaken?
21 A The purpose was to review the status of the 22 engineering at Brown & Root and to determine whether there 23 should be some modifications made there to improve the 24' opportunity to finish the project.
((~} ,
25 Q Did Mr. Oprea or Mr. Goldberg ever state to you TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15399 1 that the review of Brown & Root engineering should be s/ 2 undertaken in order to prepare for the NRC hearings on the 3 South Texas Project operating license?
4 A No, they did not.
5 Q Did either of them ever state to you that the 6 results of the review of Brown & Root engineering would be 7 useful if engineering questions arose at the NRC hearings?
8 A No.
9 0 In light of your knowledge of the background of 10 the Phase I NRC hearings that began in May of 1981 and of 11 the Phase I issues that were being -- to be heard at that 12 time, do you believe that the Quadrex review of engineering 7-)
' ' _) 13 was relevant to those issues?
14 A No, I didn't.
15 Q Did Mr. Oprea or Mr. Goldberg state to you that 16 the review of engineering should be performed in order to 17 deal with the Phase I issues?
18 A No, they certainly did not.
19 Q Did you regard the undertaking of the Quadrex 20 review as one of the corrective actions contemplated by the 21 show cause order or the response to the show cause order?
22 A No, I didn't.
23 Q Did Mr. Oprea or Mr. Goldberg state to you that 24 the Quadrex review of Brown & Root engineering should be
) ,
25 undertaken in order to demonstrate at the Phase I hearing TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15400 1 that HL&P was competently discharging its responsibilities 2 for engineering and had not abdicated its responsibilities 3 in that area as an NRC licensee?
4 A No,-the question of the Phase I hearings never 5 came up during our consideration of whether or not we were 6 going to go forward with this study.
7 Q On the basis of your understanding of the results 8 of the Quadrex report, do you believe that the results of 9 the Quadrex review reflected that HL&P had indicated its 10 responsibilities as an NRC licensee?
11 A No, I didn't.
12 Q Were you present at the meeting of the STP
) 13 Management Committee with the chief executive officers of 14 - the owners of South Texas Project on February 20, 19817 15 A Yes, I was.
16 Q Mr. Jordan, I have provided to you a copy of 17 Applicants' Exhibit No. 81 which is -- which consists of 18 Mr. Thrash's notes of the meeting of February ',0, 1981.
19 The first page of that document is numbered 2091 at the 20 top. And I direct your attention to about the middle of 21 the page where it says, where it shows a item of 9:35 on
- 22. the left and is an Item No. 6, engineering review,. Do you 23 recall Mr. Barker's presentation on item No. 6, the 24' engineering review?
}
25 A I don't recall that specific presentation, no, l
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
15401 1 sir, I don't. But I was certainly there and I can read his 2 notes.
3 Q Does the statement attributed to Mr. Barker under 4 that heading cause you to change your testimony, your 5 previous testimony, as to the reasons for HL&P's 6 commissioning of the Quadrex review or as to the relevance 7 of the Quadrex review to the Phase I issues?
8 A No, it doesn't. As I stated at the time we made 9 the decision to have this -- to go forward with this study, 10 Phase I questions were never even brought up. I'm aware, 11 of course, that Mr. Oprea -- Mr. Goldberg has subsequently 12 testified that he felt there was a secondary benefit if he 13 were asked any questions about the engineering. And it 14 seems to me that this is consistent with that testimony 15 that was given. But it doesn't change my testimony at all, 16 because we never considered Phase I at all at the time we 17 decided to go forward.
18 MR. AXELRAD: Those are the only questions that 19 we have for Mr. Jordan, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jordan is now 20 available for cross examination.
21 MR. BECHHOEFER: I assume the Staff will let Mr.
22 Sinkin go first.
23 MR. PIRFO: Yes, I assumed he would go first.
ll 24 CROSS EXAMINATION ,
25 By Mr. Sinkin:
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15402 1 Q Mr. Jordan, when you used the term " status of 2 Brown & Root engineering" as the purpose of the Quadrex 3 report, what do you mean by the term status of the --
4 A Well, I think I testified before, the 5 effectiveness of Brown & Root or that I went back and read 6' some of my testimony, there was another word you preferred 7 to use on it -- I considered them to be almost 8 interchangeable -- status of the engineering or the 9 effectiveness of the engineering. We wanted to know where 10 the engineering was and whether it would support the 11 project.
12 Q And when you say "whether it would support the
( 13 project," you're talking about in terms of the schedule, 14 whether you could complete the schedule?
15 A We're talking about the cost and schedule of it.
16 It's been emblazoned on my mind since we first started this 17 project that there's a clear distinction between quality 18 and cost and schedule, and we were looking at the cost and 19 schedule. There was never anything to indicate to us that 20 the engineering that had been done by Brown & Root was not 21 of a quality that would sustain that project in good form.
22 But they weren't supporting the schedule in the way that we 23 wanted it supported so it was a look at the primarily at ll 24 the cost and schedule. ,
25 Q As it was explained to you, was there a quality TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15403 1 component at all in the Quadrex study?
h"w/ 2 A As far as I'm concerned, it was aimed at cost and 3 schedule; it had never been implied to me that the specific 4 quality that had been done, such as a review of that --
5 detailed review of that engineering, was not a part of the 6 Quadrex study.
7 0 What about in terms of the qualifications of the 8 engineers performing the work?
9 A I have no idea who those people were; they were 10 selected by Quadrex, approved by Mr. Goldberg; I'm sure --
11 I don't know the names of the people who did the work at 12 all.
13 0 I'm aiming my question at whether Quadrex was 14 looking at the qualifications of the Brown & Root 15 engineers, as to whether they were adequate to perform the ,
16 task. Do you understand that that's part of Quadrex 17 charge?
18 A My understanding at the time we made that charge 19 was, very general in the form I've described it to you 20 before, those details can be given to you by Mr. Goldberg.
21 My understanding was it was going to be a review of the 22 ability of Brown & Root to support that project and the 23 qualities of the people who were selected to do with it, I 24 had nothing to do with the selecting.
[ lg 25 Q And subsequent to the time they were selected, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
f 15404 ,.
1 the minutes that were given to you to look at is rebruary ,
2 of 19817 i
3 A Yes.
4 Q Subsequent to their selection, during the process 5 of the study, was the possible impact of this study on the 6 licensing hearings ever discussed by you with Mr. Goldberg 7 or Mr. Oprea? .
l 8 A No, it wasn't. At that time, I doubt that I --
9 well, I know I had not concentrated very much on the Phase ,
10 I hearings at that point in time. I really started 11 preparation for that probably sometimes in April. I had no 12 discussion with Mr. Oprea or Mr. Goldberg in that time 13 frame about the Phase I hearings as they applied to the 14 Quadrex report. I just never thought they were a part of
! 15 that. As a matter of fact, in the extensive preparation I ,
16 made for the Phase I hearings, I spent no time at all in 17 trying to get updated on Quadrex.
18 Q Well, in the period when you were preparing for 19 the Phase I hearings in April of 1981, were you receiving 20 reports from Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Oprea as to the progress 21 of the Quadrex report?
22 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 23 object to this line of questioning. We've had extensive
{} ) 24 testimony in Phase II with respect to whether the Quadrex ,
25 report and the information that was received at briefings TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15405 1 or anything of that kind should have been reported to the 2 hearing, to the Board, and matters of that kind.
3 My understanding of the limited purpose of this 4 meeting, of this hearing, is that it was triggered by these 5 notes of meetings of the Management Committee that took 6 place in December of 1980 and January of '81 and deals with 7 the purpose of the review and whether at the time it was 8 some relationship between the Quadrex review and the 9 hearings that was in mind.
10 We are not, I believe, intending to go through 11 again what happened in April '81 and in March in '81 when 12 there were briefings by Quadrex, what those briefings meant 13 and who said what to whom and whether or not that should 14 have been reported; we have heard all that, we've filed 15 proposed findings on all that and it's not affected by 16 the -- this new information.
17 And we obviously could go through all that all 18 over again. But if we did that we're not going to get 19 through with this proceeding and that is not any 20 understanding of the very limited purpose that the Board 21 has specified. As a matter of fact, the Board did not 22 admit, for example, Document No. 4, because it dealt wit'a 23 an extraneous matter. I thought the Board had in mind a
{]{) 24 very limited hearing at this time. ,
25 ME. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, we view any TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15406 1 discussions held up until the time Mr. Jordan testified 2 about the Quadrex report that would in any way link the 3 Quadrex report with Phase I hearings as relevant to this 4 whole question of what was the purpose of the Quadrex 5 report, should it have been turned over to the Board.
6 The question prior to the question which was 7 objected to dealt with Mr. Jordan's preparation for the 8 Phase I hearings. And in his response, he said that he did 9 not even think about the Quadrex report when preparing for 10 the Phase I hearings, he didn't review it at all.
11 My question following that was were you briefed 12 by Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Jordan on the progress of that 13 report during your preparation for the Phase I hearings. I 14 think the record perhaps does reflect that he was briefed.
15 I wanted to clarify that fact based on the answer he had 16 given to the previous question that he did not look at the 3 17 progress of the Quadrex report in preparing for Phase I.
18 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I didn't object to 19 the first question because I thought, "okay, it was one 20 question, I'll let it in; it doesn't pay to argue, le t ' r.
21 get this hearing going." But if we're going to have this 22 kind of argument that because of an answer to a question 23 which was not relevant we then should pursue more and more
. 24 questions, what it's going to force me to do is every time, 25 that Mr. Sinkin raises a question which may not be TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15407 r 1 relevant, I'm just going to have to cut him off at the pass 2 immediately and I think we're going to get into a lot more 3 objections than we necessarily need. I do think the Board 4 needs to make clear to all the parties the limited purposes 5 of this resumed hearing. ;
6 MR. SINKIN: I would -- .
7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Let's hear from the Staff if
+
8 you have a comment since we haven't heard from you'on this.
9 MR. PIRFO: Well, I didn't see -- that much of a ;
I 10 problem with Mr. Sinkin's first or second question, really 11 viewed it as going to the same -- Mr. Axelrad's objection 12 is well taken, but I don't see that objection as lying with i
' i. 13 regard to the question that Mr. Sinkin asked.
I 14 Mr. Sinkin's argument however on the other hand ,
15 is incorrect in the assumption that he, because an answer, 16 because an answer is laid out to what could be an ,
17 irrelevant question this opens the door for him to enter 18 that irrelevant line of questioning is misguided at best.
19 But Staff has a little bit of a problem, we had no 20 objection to the the question Mr. Sinkin asked.
21 MR. BECHHOEFER: I think we'll overrule the 22 objection at this point. We do not agree with Mr. Sinkin's 23 argument, what the Staff just said. We do think both 24 questions are relevant to the purpose that we opened the
({lh 25 record for.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
_..r mm ..- _,w+- ..-,--,,--w----..y-m-,y-------, .--,,-y,
,-*-.. m~%m,,--y- ..rer-w.
- ,..--.--r-,__, - - - ~ .w..,,.,,--
15408 ,
j 1 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Do you remember the question, h'(_ 2 Mr. Jordan?
3 A You may ask it again.
4 Q Okay. In the time in which you were preparing 5 for the Phase I hearings, you said you began in April; you 6 testified May the 14th, I believe, in that period of time, 7 were you being updated on the progress of the Quadrex 8 report?
9 A I think I testified before, Mr. Sinkin, that I 10 got some periodic reports from Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Oprea 11 on the status of that, just as I get periodic reports about 12 a variety of things that take place in the normal course of
) 13 our business.
14 It was not given to me as a -- as part of the 15 Phase I preparations. And in the extensive work that I 16 attempted to do to look at construction and look at quality 17 assurance and the things that were attached to the show 18 cause hearings, hearing, show cause order which I took to 19 be a part of the -- to be the purpose of the Phase I 20 hearings, I did no work to prepare for any questions at all 21 or anything at all that might relate to the Quadrex report.
22 I just didn't believe then nor do I believo now that it was 23 a part of those hearings.
24 Q So then based on your testimony, you're not aware
}
25 of any difference of opinion between Mr. Goldberg and Mr.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15409 1 Oprea as to whether the Quadrex report was relevant to the 2 . Phase I hearings or not?
3 A No, I'm not.
4 MR. SINKIN: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
5 MR. PIRFO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
6 CROSS-EXAMINATION 7 By Mr. Pirfo: ;
-8 Q Mr. Jordan, when Mr. Oprea and/or Mr. Goldberg 9 came to you with regard to the advisability of doing ,
i 10 Quadrex review, how were you briefed on the advisability of '
11 doing this?- Was it by way of meetings with both of them 12 face-to-face?
k 13 A Yes, it was s meeting as I recall in my office in 14 which Mr. Oprea and Mr. Goldberg came in and made the 15 recommendation that we have such a study done. Mr.
16 Goldberg had newly been employed by us and we were looking-17 to him to get a grip on the project and do the things that 18 needed to be done to cause it to move forward. He felt he 19 needed this as a tool in order to get that job done. I 20 certainly would believe that it was not proper to deny such 21 a tool to him and I readily agreed to have a study made.
22 Q Is it your testimony today then that this tool 23 was not to be used for the Phase I hearing?
{ lg 24 A No, it was clearly an offensive decision, not a ,
25 defensive decision.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15410 1 Q So I believe you testified on direct that Phase I
% 2 hearings were never mentioned?
3 A They were never mentioned during that meeting 4 that we had when we made the decision to have this study 5 done, that's correct.
6 Q Is this the decision to have this done, the 7 Quadrex review, is it a decision that Mr. Goldberg could 8 'have made on his own and --
9 A I don't know if he could have made it on his own 10 or not. Had he made it on his own, I certainly would not 11 have objected to that. In any corporate environment, it 12 makes sense to keep people informed on what's going on and ta - 13 perhaps get agreement before decisions are made. ,
14 There was no directive to him that from my office 15 that said "If you want to do something like this, you've 16 got'to clear it with me." It's also good judgment, I 17 think, in any corporate environment, just to do as he did, 18 "we want to make this study and do you have any objections 19 to it."
20 Q Had Mr. Goldberg had gone out and hired Quadrex 21 or somebody else, it would have been within his purview of 22 powers, there would have been no --
23 A I certainly would not have, I don't think, under
[ ll 24 the circumstances done anything that would have depleted ,
25 his authority. I appreciate the fact that I was able to TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15411 1 participate in it and I think that's the proper thing he .
(?"1 2 should have done.
3 Q So then is it fair to-assume that this is a 4 decision that would not have to have been taken up with the 5 Management committee; that you viewed it as being a 6 decision that did not have to be taken up with the 7 Management Committee?
8 A I don't think I ever made a judgment on that.
9 Q Would you make that judgment now based on what 10 you knew then?
11 A The decision as to whether or not it was 12 something that should have been reviewed with the
( 13 Management Committee. I don't know whether he would have 14 had the authority to make that unlaterally or not. I 15 suspect that he would in fact talk about it to the 16 Management committee, however, and the same as he did with i 17 me.
18 Q In the same vein he came to you, he would have 19 taken to the Management Committee?
20 A Yeah, id I would would have said " Absolutely do I
21 not hire anybody to make this study," then he wouldn't have 22 done it.
23 Q But the Management committee did not have to 24 approve it much as you said you would not have to approve
) .
25 it, you would not have depleted his authority if he had --
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15412 1 A I don't know. I just can't answer that well for N> 2 you.in terms of that relationship.
3 Q I guess very basically is this a decision, the 4 decision -- strike that.
5 The decision to hire Quadrex was a decision that 6 Mr. Goldberg could have made on his own, as you said; is 7 that correct?
8 A Yeah, I said he probably -- he could have made 9 that decision without being chastised in any way.
10 Q okay, fine.
11 A But it was the proper kind of --
12 Q I know what -- I don't mean to interrupt the
() 13 witness. I know we know what he did do, I just want to 14 know what he could have done in that context. He could 15 have hired them on his own?
16 A I could have hired them as opposed to getting
- 17 approval from me.
l 18 Q Right. And presumably, if he could have done 19 that, he could have hired them on his own without even 20 going to the Management Committee, if the greater assumes 21 the lesser? If he could have done it without your 22 approval, then presumabley he could have done it without 23 the Management Committee's approval?
lg 24 A Well, I don't know that I can give a proper .
25 answer on that as we sit right here today. There's some TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15413 1 political involvement in the Management committee as well 2 in terms of keeping them informed. And if he had chosen to 3 do this and they said, would have said "We absolutely don't 4 want you to do it," then he would have had to make some 5 accommodations for that.
6 There are a number of decisions that are made en 7 that project every day in terms of the management of it 8 that aren't cleared with the Management Committee. There 9 are also a number that are made on it every day that 10 certainly are not approved by me. So Jerry has to use his 11 judgment in terms.of whether he brings one of these issues
- 12. forward. And if he had chosen to do it without bringing it
() 13 forward, I suspect he could have done it. But he used the 14 judgment to bring it forward to me which I think it. that 15 case was the proper thing for him to do.
16 Q okay. rcom what I've heard you say, then, am I 17 to -- is it fair to say that perhaps the Management i
! 18 Committee collectively would have been less pleased or less 19 willing to allow Mr. Goldberg to make his decision to hire '
i l
20 Quadrex on his own than you would have been?
21 A No, I'm not trying to say that at all. I don't 22 think the Management Committee objected to his hiring I
23 Quadrex either. There was some discussion on it, I'm sure, i lg 24 but I don't think they offered any objection to it that .
25 would cause him to go over that objection.
i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15414 1 Q Would they, again, collectively or if you can
~\
(
2 break it down by individual, would the Management committee 3- expect to be apprised of this type of commissioning --
4 A I think -- I 5 Q ---at that time?
6 'A I think they would have. The Management 7 Committee is charged with the responsibility of making --
8 of helping the management manage that project. And I think 9 it's clear they would have been expected to be apprised by 10 it and that Goldberg should have been done it as he did.
'll Q Before or after the fact, they would have been 12 expected to be apprised before the fact?
f '13 A -I would say -- I would say that's a judgment 14 call. There are a number of things in which he has to 15 decide in the course of building a project of this size and 16 he talks to them in advance on a number of things I suppose 17 and he apprised them of. And he would have to make that 18 call.
19 MR. PIRFO: With the Board's indulgence a moment.
20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I would like to ask Mr. Jordan 21 within -- which may be in the record. We have a date or an 22 approximate date of the -- do we have in the record a date 23 or_an approximate date for the meeting in your office with
- lg 24 Mr. Goldberg and Oprea? ,
25 THE WITNESS: I think it was sometime in December TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15415 1 of 1980, Judge Bechhoefer. And Quadrex was employed I kl 2- think shortly after the first of the year, 1981.
3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do you know whether that 4 meeting was prior to the December 4, 1980 Management 5 Committee meeting?
6 THE WITNESS: No, I don't; I don't know. It was 7 the end of the year. I would -- could have been been in 8 November; it could have been in December. But it was 9 toward the end of the year and I don't know the exact date.
10 Mr. PIRFO: Did you have anymore, Mr. Chairman?
11 MR. BECHHOEFER: No, not at this point.
12 Q (By Mr. Pirfo) Mr. Jordan, would Mr. Goldberg
.) 13 have been expected by the Management committee to brief 14 them in the same manner and to the same extent he briefed 15 you on the reasons for the Quadrex review?
16 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to 17 interrupt the examination, but I'm not sure whether Mr.
l 18 Pirfo is operating on the right assumption in asking these l-19 questions of Mr. Jordan. Mr. Jordan is not a member of the 20 Management Committee.
21 MR. PIRFO: I understand. Let me rephrase. I am 22 aware of that, let me rephrase the question.
23 Q (By Mr. Pirfo) You mentioned their political
~
24 considerations and other considerations in dealing with tha
( { 25 Management committee. From your perspective in having TATE RLPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15416 1 dealt with-the Management Committee, would Mr. Goldberg's 4 2 preparation or marshaling of the reasons for conducting a 3 review such as the Quadrax review have been more demanding 4 before the Management committee or more demanding before i I 5 you? i 6 A I don't think there's any way to answer that i 7 effectively. The rational reason to do something should I
-8 think be pervasive information either one of those forums.
9 I'm sure there's some issues which I require more detailed l .. 10 explanation than the Management Committee does and there l- 11 are other issues that they may require more detailed i 12 explanation than do I. So I can't answer that with a
) 13 general statement that would be accurate. I'm sure it 14 moves from one side to the other, j 15 Q Assuming for the sake of this question that the 16 Quadrex review was viewed as a side benefit -- strike that.
17 Assuming for the sake of this question that a 18 side benefit of the Quadrex review was help in preparation 19 for.the Phase I hearings, would that side benefit have been i 20 more likely to have been presented to you or the Management i
- 21 Committee when Mr. Goldberg marshaled his reasons for 22 conducting the review?
23 A I don't think there could be any difference in {}g 24 terms of that statement. I can't answer it for you. I .
- 25 guess it would depend upon the number of people who were on i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i
._r..._......_..____.,_......_,___.____,,,_,-.__,,,,_._.._.,_,._,_.,._ , _ . _ . , _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ - . _ , - . , , -
15417 _ 1 the Management Committee asking a variety of questions that 2 several people may think of to ask versus what one may 3 think of to ask. But reasons, of course, have to support 4 decisions. And individual questions could vary from case 5 to case. I don't think -- I don't think there is an answer 6 that would say they would be more likely to ask a question 7 than would I or I would be more likely to ask one than 8 would they. 9 Q But it was never mentioned in your discussions? 10 A It absolutely was never mentioned in my 11 discussions at all. 12 Q And it was mentioned to the Management Committee? 13 A Not while I was around, other than on that 14 meeting that the CEO's met, and I heard some discussion 15 then, I think, at least as is indicated in the minutes that 16 Mr. Goldberg said there was a side benefit, the questions 17 were asked about that in the Phase I hearings. 18 Q So then is it fair to say you would not have 19 expected Mr. Goldberg to fully discuss all of the reasons 20 for hiring Quadrex with you? 21 A I would expect Mr. Goldberg to put on the table 22 all the reasons that he had in support of such a decision. 23 And at the time that we made it, if he was thinking about lg 24 that being a side benefit, it certainly was not one that . 25 drove that decision or one that he felt was stror.g enough TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15418 1 in his mind that he would lay that out as the rationale to : i w 2 take that action. . 3 When he came to the point of believing that it 4 was a side benefi't, I don't know. But if he believed at 5 the time that we had our meeting, he cartainly didn't 4 6 mention it. So I would assume that that was not strong in i 7 in his mind at that time if it was in his mind at all. ! 8 MR. PIRFO: Thank you, Mr. Jordan. I have no 9 more questions, Mr. Chairman. 10 BOARD EXAMINATION
- 11 By Judge Bechhoefer
' 12 Q Mr. Jordan, at the meetings of the Management ; ) 13 Committee with the chief executive officers such as the one 14 on February 20th as evidenced by Applicants' Exhibit 81, 15 what is the format of those meetings?
+ 16 A The format is one, Judge Bechhoefer, where L 17 normally the Management Committee meets the day before. 18 They go through a variety of things relative to the project j , 19 and there's generally an agenda put together which they 20 follow and they can take up items there, I suppose, that 21 are not listed on the agenda. 22 The purpose of the meeting with the CEO's the 4 23 next day is so that all of us are well informed about the I g) 24 summary things that took place in that meeting and the . I 25 status of the project. The presentation is normally made l ' a TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i . wwv w e. ,,,,,W.,wske-,_,r,_,.p.,.y,, . _ , _ _ _ _ ,, _ . , _ _ _ , , , , , , , ,. , , ,,, ,.,, ,, _,_ , _ _ _ ,
., ._- . _. _ = - _ - - -_. ..
s
- 15419l i 1 by somebody with Houston Lighting & Power Company, also by
[W 1 2 someone with Bechtel or someone with Ebasco, in those days I ji , 3 by someone with Brown & Root. 4 - So it"was a joint presentation. And the
'S presentations are normally made and we have these on a t 6 regular basi.S. As a matter of fact, the next one is
,7 scheduled, I think, for December the 20th at the site.
c 0 8 And they're normally made with overhead slides 9 where they're presented to the entire group there. That t 10 there are a variety of people representing each of the ll owners other than the chief executive officers and other 12 than the members of the Management committee. iGt Md 13 After the presentation is made, at the end of 14 each part of the presentation there's usually one on the 15 status of the project, there's one on quality assurance, ! 16 there's'one from the viewpoint of the contractors. j 17 After each of those, questions can be asked from [ 18 the floor. After all that's completed, then the general 19 procedure is for some representative, usually the chief 20 executive officer'from each of the owners, to have the 21 opportunity to make any statement he may choose to make 22 relative to what he's seen and what he's observed and the 23 kind of charge that he chooses to make for the next period 24 of construction on the project. That's generally the . I( {]} , ? 25 format that's followed. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15420 1 Q I see. Now, you mentioned the overhead slides. 2 Would you have your counsel show you this piece of paper? 3 Mr. Jordan, that's an example of one of the I 4 overhead slides that would have been shown, this one at the l l 5 -February 20, '81 meeting? ) 1 6 A Yes, it's marked that. And that's the kind of 7 slide that might be shown. But there are a number that are 8 much more detailed than this as well, with such things as 9 graphs that would follow the installation of, for instance, 10 large bore pipe hangers and wiring of different types, a 11 graph that shows the work plan plus the exact condition 12 against the work plan. So there are some that are broad
) 13 issues such as this shows on major activities and there are 14 some that are much more detailed.
15 Q Now, at this particular meeting, taking into 16 account both this document and the Applicants' Exhibit 81, 17 did Mr. Barker make a presentation -- I'm talking -- now 18 let's limit ourself to items six and seven, would Mr. 19 Barker have made a presentation on those items? 20 MR. AXE $ RAD: Mr. Chairman, before the witness 21 replies, it might be useful for you to ask the witness to 22 refresh his recollection by looking at Exhibit Number 81, 23 which contains a description of what was discussed at that 24 meeting. Where this Item No. 6 was one of the items under, (} 25 discussion. f TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15421 1 Q Right. Well, looking at Applicants' Exhibit 81, 2 does that reflect -- and limiting it to items 6 and 7, does 3 that reflect that Mr. Barker made a presentation on each of 3 4 these subjects? 5 A I would guess so, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barker at . 6 that time was one of the people who normally made 7 presentations and this would appear to be some that he did. 8 It looks likes these are the variety of items which it 9 covered and the engineering review, Item No. 6 and the , 10 operating license review, Item No. 7, were two separate 11 items which he covered. 12 Q Now, on Applicants' Exhibit 81, are the items 13 distinct -- which are distinct- f rom the topic headings? 14 A Is this 81, Mr. Chairman. 15 Q 81 is the notes of the meeting? 16 A okay. All right. 17 Q Do you remember whether the item, the 18 descriptions under each of the numbered headings, were 19 comments by Mr. Barker or were they questions raised by 20 others at the meeting or is there some other possibility? 21 I'm trying to track down the source of the 22 comments? 23 A I understand. I couldn't say for sure, Mr. (jll 24 Chairman, because during the course of these meetings, it . 25 is not unusual for somebody to ask a question during a TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15422 1 portion of the presentation. It's not to say it happened x 2 here. It could have or it could not have. That's -- this 3 is a portion of Barker's presentation and I would say that 4 he at least responded to questions or made the presentation 5 directly or it could be possible that if the question came 6 up, that he could defer and answer to Mr. Goldberg or 7 somebody else. 8 So these are not very formal type meetings down 9 there as you might appreciate. There is not a formal 10 chairman who conducts it in a way that this meeting, for 11 example, might be conducted. And there are people who look 12 for a place to speak and as soon as they have an opening, 13 they'll speak and it's followed by general discussion quite 14 often. 15 Q I see. I understand from the fact that the Item 16 No. 6, " engineering review," the fact that it was on this 17 slide, probably indicates that there was an intent to 18 discuss that topic, at least; is that not correct? 19 A Yes, sir, that's correct. And it seems to me 20 that it's recorded as two separate items and there's 21 nothing that would imply to me, at least from this, that 22 the engineering review was being done for the purpose of 23 the operating license hearings. That was never my intent (jgg 24 to have it done in that way and I don't believe the intent, 25 of anyone else. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15423' 1 Q You have no recollection, then, about how the 2 words under Item No. 6 on Exhibit 81, how the words "need 3 to have info to meet licensing hearing Q's" or questions; 4 you have no recollection how that got there or what that 5 referred to? 6 A I would say in that discussion that is very 7 consistent with what Mr. Goldberg has testified to, that he 8 felt it would have a side benefit if any questions came up 9 before the Licensing Board relative to engineering. But I i 10 would have paid personally, very little attention to a 11 something like that, because that was not the primary 12 purpose or even any purpose at all at the time that I . 13 agreed'to commission _that to go forward. That if there was 14~ a side benefit to it, then we certainly ought to use it as 15 a side benefit any time that it was appropriate to do so. 16 But I wouldn't -- that wouldn't have struck my mind very 17 hard and I don't recall any conversation about it there. 18 Q Turning to item 7 on the same list? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q Was the' discussion of the OL hearings or the 21 presentation concerning the OL hearings related at all to 22 the preparation of HL&P for those-hearings? 23 A well, these two items, according to this, Mr. 24 Chairman, took only 7 minutes to cover both items 6 and (Jgg . 25 item 7. so there could not have been very much discussion TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15424 1 about anything on those two items if the time recorded by
;g 2 Mr. Thrash is accurate and he's -- I would have to assume 3 that it is. So I don't recall any of the detail of these 4 two items and they just weren't covered in significant 5 detail to be able to have my memory jogged enough to 6 describe it to you.
7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Next series of questions is my 8 final one, I would like Mr. Goldberg to leave. They won't 9 take very long to ask. 10 (At this time Mr. Goldberg left the room.) 11 Q (By Judge Bechhoefer) Mr. Jordan, I want to read 12 you a number of statements and ask you whether you agree in (- 13 full with each one of them. 14 A Agree in full with each one of them? 15 Q In full. I will, after you answer all of them, 16 I'll give you the source. You may recognize the source l 17 anyway. The purpose of the Quadrex review was to ascertain 1 ! 18 the status of engineering at STP. 19 A May I say more than "yes" or "no" or -- 20 Q Yes. You may qualify or -- 21 A All right, I think that is the primary purpose 22 but the secondary purpose was also in helping us decide 23 what to do about it if there was something there that (jgg 24 caused us to make some decisions to improve the process. . 25 So we were going to act on it. On the results of that l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15425 , 1 status search when we determined what it was. 2 Q The next one is: The purpose of the Quadrex e 3 review was to evaluate B&R's engineering activities as they 4 reflected on B&R's ability to complete the design of STP in 5 an efficient and orderly way. 6 MR. AXELRAD: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, could you 7 repeat that again? You read that very quickly and I'd like 8 to make sure I understand the question. 9 MR. BECHHOEFER: After I get done asking them -- 10 well, actually I'll give you a copy if you want. 11 MR. AXELRAD: I couldn't hear you. 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I said, if you want, I will 13 give you a copy. 14 MR. AXELRAD: That will be very useful. 15 MR. SINKIN: Do you have perhaps further copy, 16 Mr. Chairman? 17 MR. BECHHOEFER: I do and I don't want these 18 discussed with other witnesses. 19 MR. AXELRAD: I understand, Mr. Chairman. l 20 MR. PIRFO: Thank you. 21 A Mr. Chairman, that sounded like the same thing to 22 me as the first one. I didn't -- it was said in different 23 words, but the intent sounded the same to me and perhaps if 24 you read it to me again, I can distinguish it. But it . (jll 25 sounded to me to be the same. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15426 1 Q (By Judge Bechhoefer) Okay. The purpose of the (s$ 2 Quadrex review was to evaluate B&R's engineering activities 3 as they reflected on B&R's ability to complete the design 4 of STP in an efficient and orderly way, j 5 A That sounds like the same thing to me. 6 Q Okay. The next one is: HL&P commissioned the 7 Quadrex review to obtain an objective assessment of the ) 8 status of B&R's nuclear engineering and design activities. 9 A You know, if you were -- I may have said that or 10 somebody else may have said that same thing in a variety of 11 ways. That sounds like the same thing to me, too. I think 12 that would be included in there. ,,,e il i 13 Q And the next one is: The third party assessment 14 of design activities was sought in order to judge what 15 improvements were necessary to complete the project 16 successfully as well as to provide useful information 17 regarding the status of the project for discussions with 18 HL&P management, the STP co-owners and regulatory 19 authorities. 20 A I'd say that's true. 21 Q Next one is: The underlying purposes of the 22 Quadrex review were to assess whether B&R was in the main 23 stream of nuclear engineering practice, to evaluate B&R's ( ll 24 performance in areas in which there was reason to believe , 25 that it might be experiencing difficulty, to assist in TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15427 l 1 benchmarking the status of the project and to identify 2' opportunities for improvement in B&R's engineering work. 3 A Mr. Chairman, that also sounds to me that it's an
.4 effort by either the same person or a variety of people to 5 say the same thing. And I can't distinguish as to which 6 .one of those, if I were going to sit down and draft a press 7 release or something, as to which one of those I would want 8 to use, I can't tell you which one right now. I --
9 Q Okay. The final one is: The principal focus of 10 the Quadrex report was on the sequence, stage of completion 11 and E&R management of design activities and not on design 12 QA? 13 A Yeah, I think that's true. We were interested in 14 cost and schedule on it and not a complete review of the 15 specific design that had taken place on it and their 16 ability to complete it. So I'm sorry if I haven't been 17 anymore help along with that but it really all kind of 18 sounded the same to me. 19 Q Mr. Jordan, I thank you for answering those. 20 Those statements were various positions taken by the 21 ' Applicants in their proposed findings and I just wanted to 22 see whethe'r you, in view of all the information, still ! 23 agreed with them. ( jlg 24 A That could have been me saying it in six or seven 25 different places. , l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
1 15428 1 Q Well, it wasn't you. 2 A Extemporaneously saying it differently. It 3 sounded a lot the same to me, Mr. Chairman. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay, I guess Mr. Goldberg can 5 come back in. That's all the questions the Board has. 6 Other parties may follow up. 7 (Discussion off the record.) 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on the record. Just on 9 those last six questions, Mr. Sinkin do you have any follow , l 10 up? 11 MR. SINKIN: I would like to have just a moment. 12 No, I don't have any questions on those. 11 / 13 MR. PIRFO: The Staff has no questions on those 14 Board questions. 15 MR. AXELRAD: We have no questions.
16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do you have any follow up?
17 MR. AXELRAD: Not on those six questions. Why 18 don't you let Mr. Goldberg -- while Mr. Goldberg is 19 returning, can we have just a minute to decide whether we 20 have any -- 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Maybe we should take a morning 22 15 minute break here or do we want to wait -- 23 MR. AXELRAD: No, we don't want to do that. We ll 24 would like to get Mr. Jordan off so he can catch his plane. 25 All we need is about two minutes. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15429 1 (Discussion off the record.) 2 MR. AXELRAD: If we could resume, Mr. Chairman. l 3 Mr. Chairman, before we ask Mr. Jordan just a 4 couple of questions, I would like to note two things for 5 the record. One is we have provided to the secretary and 6 the parties and the Board copies of Applicants' Exhibits 7 79, 80 and 81. 8 MR. GUTTERMAN: Yes, I've done that. 9 MR. AXELRAD: And the other thing is that the one 10 page document that Mr. -- that Chairman Bechhoefer was 11 discussing with the witness is in fact an exhibit that we 12 planned to introduce anyway so it might help for purposes h 13 of keeping the record clear at this point to mark that 1 14 document for identification as Applicants' Exhibit Number 15 83, there will be other document that will be Exhibit 16 Number 82. 17 MR. PIRFO: What happened to 82? 18 MR. AXELRAD: There will be a 82. The one-page 19 slide entitled " major activities" which was Exhibit 5 at 20 the Management Committee meeting of February 20, 1981. 21 (Applicant Exhibit No. 83 marked 22 for identification.) 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: At this stage, that will be marked for identification as Applicants 83. ( gg 24 , 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15430 1 By Mr. Axelrad: 2 Q Mr. Jordan, in the course of answering a question 3 from Mr. Bechhoefer as to weather there was ever any 4 mention to you that a side benefit of the Quadrex review 5 might be that it would be useful in answering questions if 6 questions came up at the operating licensing hearings, you 7 said that it hadn't been mentioned to you but that Mr. 8 Goldberg may have mentioned it at the meeting that you were 9 present on February 20, 1981. Have you reviewed Mr. 10 Thrash's notes of that meeting of February 20, 19817 11 A Yes, sir, I didn't mean to imply that Mr. 12 Goldberg is the one who conducted this meeting, it's clear h 13 from the minutes that Barker did. I don't recall a 14 statement that Barker made, but the minutes are accurately 15 recorded; it was Barker who made the presentation and 16 probably made the statement. 17 MR. AXELRAD: Thank you, Mr. Jordan. We have no 18 further questions, Mr. Chairman. 19 RECROSS EXAMINATION 20 By Mr. Sinkin: 21 Q Mr. Jordan, I just want to CLARIFY a little bit 22 the line of questioning pursued by the NRC Staff on Mr. 23 Goldberg's authority to commission the Quadrex report. Did ( gg 24 Mr. Goldberg have any limitations on the amount of money hp 25 could commit, for example, to a consultant without coming TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15431 1 to you first? 2 A No. 3 Q And at the December -- I'm sorry, the February 4 '81 meeting that has been discussed after this Exhibit 81, 5 you said that the normal format of these meetings was to 6 present a slide like the one that's been marked as 7 Applicants' Exhibit 83 and then often more detailed slides 8 on things like the work plan and that sort of thing. Do 9 you remember if anymore detailed slides were presented at 10 the February 21, February 20th, 1981 meeting on the 11 engineering review that was being conducted? 12 A No. I would assume not, but I don't remember the 7-xJ 13 format exactly. I know the format; I don't remember the 14 slides exactly. 15 MR. SINKIN: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. 16 MR. PIRFO: Mr. Chairman, I have one question. 17 Well, I'm going to ask it; I don't think it deals with -- 18 let me ask the question. 19 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 20 By Mr. Pirfo: 21 Q Mr. Jordan, did you view that there was a direct 22 link between the Quadrex review or the anticipated findings 23 of the Quadrex review and licensability of the plant? 24 A No. , ( 25 MR. PIRFO: That's all I have. Thank you, that's TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15432 1 all I have, Mr. Chairman. sd 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Jordan, I have one final 3 question.
~4 BOARD EXAMINATION 5 By Judge Bechhoefer:
6 Q To your knowledge, would there have been any 7 reason why Mr. Goldberg would have needed to marshal every 8 argument he could make up in order to have the Quadrex 9 review approved? L 10 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, could you repeat that 11 question, I could not hear it. 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: To Mr. Jordan's best
) 13 recollection, I guess, would there have been any reason for 14 Mr. Goldberg to have tried to marshal every argument he 15 could think up in order to get the Quadrex review, I say 16 Quadrex review but third party review, I should say that, 17 third party review authorized?
18 MR. AXELRAD: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, authorized , 19 by whom? l 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: By whoever -- authorized by 21 whoever authorizes those things within HL&P. 22 A Okay. In the case of the discussion with me, Mr. 23 Chairman, those discussions are as complete as we know how g 24 to make them normally, in discussions of items such as , 25 this. I would expect that any support that he had for TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 L __ :
15433 1 making a, recommendation like this would be presented to me 2 at the time that we discussed it. 3 He and Mr. Goldberg, Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Oprea 4 had talked about it on several occasions prior to that. 5 And when they came in to make the presentation to me, we 6 talked about why we needed it, why we ought to go forward 7 with it, what the benefits of it would be. And in my mind, 8 it was a complete and thorough discussion on it. And we 9 made the decision to go forwe rd with it ir. that particular 10 meeting. 11 It was complete enough that I didn't feel that 12 there were holes in it and there were any reason why we 13 ought to delay it and have a dec?ficutal consideration or 14 discussions on it. So I felt it was a complete discussion. 15 I felt the reasons that Mr. Goldberg had to bring forward 16 were complete and were adequate to do it. I would not 17 believe that he had any type of reason for doing it that he 18 felt was significant at all, that he would not have shared 19 with.me. 20 Q And you say he made no mention at all at that 21 time of usefulness -- c 22 A Absolutely not. We had no discussions -- 23 O' -- in terms of the hearings? (] ) 24 A No, we had no discussion about the hearing at . 25 that time at all. We just did not discuss the Phase I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15434 1 hearings at all. l 2 Q All right. Was there any discussion of the I 3 report or the review in the context of management 4 responsibility of HL&P for the project?
~5 A Could you maybe expand on that just a minute for 6 me, Mr. Chairman?
7 Q Well, was the review portrayed as a method for 8 showing that HL&P was in control of the whole project and 9 was proceeding accordingly? 10 A No, sir, that review, Mr. Chairman, was as I said 11- a minute ago, it was an offensive decision on our part, not 12 a defensive one at all. I never and I don't think oprea 13 and Goldberg did, gave any consideration to having this 14 report made to show that we were doing something well. 15 We were concerned that perhaps there were some 16 things that were going on that weren't being done as well 17 as we needed to have them done. And so it was, I think, a 18 somewhat aggressive and clearly initiated by Goldberg and 19 Oprea, a move that was somewhat aggressive in terms of 20 being an offensive move on our part to find out if anything 21 needed to be done to improve this cost and schedule on the 22 project and for that reason it made all kinds of sense to 23 do it. There was no defensive consideration in my mind nor ( ll 24 was that discussed whether we made the decision. - 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. That's all the Board j TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15435 3 1 has. Any follow up on that last question; couple of 2 questions, I guess? 3 Mr. Pirfo? 4 Mr. Sinkin? 5 MR. PIRFO: I have no questions. I can't think 6 of an unobjectionable way to ask it, so -- 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Maybe you should try and maybe 8 you won't get an objection. 9 MR. AXELRAD: Don't bet on it. 10 MR. PIRFO: I'm not sure the answer -- I'll try 11 it. 12 RECROSS EXAMINATION. 13 By Mr. Pirfo: 14 Q Mr. Jordan, you used the distinction between 15 offensive and defensive and I'm a little unclear as to what 16 the distinction of offensive or defensive is important in 17 your mind with respect to relevant and material to the 18 issues in Phase I or II. That's the problem I'm having, if 19 that's unobjectionable. 20 A I didn't think it applied to the issues in Phase 21 I. When I talk about issues of defensive or offensive, it 22 was in response to a question that seemed to imply that 23 there was some reason for doing it that would protect 24 Houston Lighting & Power Company or some other members of , ( }l) 25 the project, protect us from some criticism that might be TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15436 1 forthcoming in some way. 2 I would think a project that was put together for 3 that purpose is a defensive project. But one that's put 4 together in a way that is intended to find out information 5 that would allow you to move to a higher level, I think is 6 an offensive project. And you know, if they're words of 7 art or something that give somebody trouble, I'm certainly 8 not trying to use them that way, I'm using it as an 9 athletic term as much as anything else. 10 Q I think the words of art are " relevant and 11 material" and the problem I have is I'm having a little bit 12 of difficulty and it may be my problem, relating defensive 13 and offensive to relevant and material. I don't see how -- 14 well, let me ask it this way. Something can be relevant 15 and material in your mind irrespective of whether it is 16 offensive or defensive? Is that your -- it could be 17 relevant and material irrespective as to whether its 18 offensive or defensive? 19 A I think that's probably true. 20 MR. PIRFO: Thank you. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Anything further? 22 MR. AXELRAD: No, Mr. Chairman. 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Jordan, you're excused. THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we {I } 24 . 25 appreciate the Board being thorough in its review. We TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-71~7
15437 1 think it will be in the long term interests of the project.
. 2 Thank you.
3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Why don't we take, well, 4 fifteen minute break before we -- Mr. Thrash takes the 5 stand. 6 (Recess.) 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on the record. 8 Are you prepared to present your next witness? 9 MR. AXELRAD: Yes, just one minute. Mr. i 10 Chairman, at this time we would like to call Mr. Charles G. . i 11 Thrash. 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Thrash, do you swear the i 13 testimony'that you're about to give is the truth, the whole 14 truth and nothing but the truth so help you God? 15 THE WITNESS: I do. !L 16 CHARLES G. THRASH { 17 was called as a witness by the Applicants and, having been 18 duly sworn, testified upon his oath as follows: 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 By Mr. Axelrad: 21 Q Mr. Thrash, will you please state your full name l 22 for the record? 23 A Charles Galaway Thrash, Jr. 24 Thank you. Mr. Thrash, what is your present [ gg Q . 25 occupation? TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15438 1 A I am now retired from my former position as a 2 partner in the law firm of Baker & 30tts, t 3 Q Do you presently serve as secretary of the South 4 Texas Project Management Committee? 5 A I do, yes. It requires several days each month. 6 Q And how long have you served as secretary of the i 7 Management Committee? f 8 A Since 1972. 9 Q Have you previously provided an affidavit for 10 this proceeding? 11 A Yes, in September of this year. 12 Q Does that affidavit describe among other things h 13 your process of taking handwritten notes at the Management 14 Committee meetings and then producing the formal minutes of 15 the meeting? 16 A Yes. 17 Q I hand you Applicants' Exhibits 79, 80 and 81. 18 Do those documents contain respectively your handwritten 19 notes of the meetings of the Management Committee which 20 took place on December 4, 1980 and February 19 and 20, 1981 21 plus typewritten versions subsequently made of those 22 handwritten notes? 23 A Yes. 24 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, at this point I would [ }gg 25 like to mark for identification as Applicants' Exhibit No. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15439 ' 1 82, a two-page document, the first page is marked in the 2 upper right hand corner, STP M/C4-December-80, Exhibit No 3 2; and the second page is marked in the upper right hand 4 corner, STP M/C4-December-00, Exhibit No. 3. Please have 5 that mark for identification as Applicants' Exhibit No. 82. 6 (Applicants' Exhibit No. 82 marked 7 for identification.) 8 Q (By Mr. Axelrad) Mr. Thrash, if you turn to 9 Applicants' Exhibit No. 79, which are your notes of the 10 Management Committee meeting of December 4, 1980, on the 11 first page of those notes, there are references near the 12 top of the page to an Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3. Exhibit 2 ( ) 13 agenda MC, agenda Exhibit 3 agenda Barker, 14 A Yes. 15 Q Do you see that? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Is the exhibit which has been marked for 18 identification as Applicants' Exhibit 2, does that consist 19 of those two exhibits? 20 A Would you repeat the question or have it read 21 back?. 22 Q No, I can repeat the question. I have handed you 23 Applicants' Exhibit Number 82, which is -- 24 A Right. . [{} 25 Q -- what I am asking is, is Applicants' Exhibit 82 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15440 1 Exhibits No. 2 and No. 3 as referred to in your notes of T - 2 the December 4, 1980 meeting? 3 A The first page of the Exhibit 82 which I have 4 just been handed is the Exhibit Number 2 from the December 5 4, 1980 meeting; and the second page of the Exhibit 82 that 6 you just handed me is the Exhibit 3 from the December 4, 7 1980 meeting as those are referred to as the top of Page 8 80223. 9 Q Thank you. Mr. Thrash, I hand you a one-page 10 document which has previously been identified as marked for 11 identification as Applicants' Exhibit Number 83. If you 12 would turn to Applicants' Exhibit Number 83 which are your h 13 notes of the meeting, typewritten version of your notes of 14 the meeting of the Management Committee on February 20, 15 1981, on that page, on the first page of that exhibit, at 16 the time which is marked 9:26, it states, " Barker put up 17 Exhibit 5." 18 A I see that. 19 Q Is the document which has been marked for , 20 identification as Applicants' Exhibit No. 83, Exhibit No. 5 21 as referred to in those notes of the meeting of February
- 22 20, 1981?
l 23 A Yes. M*. Chairman, I would move for
~
24 MR. AXELRAD: .
}
! 25 admission into the record, Applicants Exhibits No. 82 and i l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- ,- - - - - - . - - - - ~,,v.- --- --e-- , , , , , , - -----rw-------- ----,% -- - - - - - . -v --w-
15441 1 No. 83. 2 MR. STPHAO: No objection. 3 MR. PERLIS: S'taff has no objection. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Applicants' Exhibits 82 and 83 5 will be admitted into evidence. 6 (Applicants' Exhibit Nos. 82 and 83 7 received into evidence.) 8 Q (By Mr. Axelrad) Mr. Thrash, I would now like to 9 direct your attention to three segments of Exhibits 79, 80 10 and 81, and each in case, I would be directing your c 11 attention to the typewritten version of those -- that is 12 contained within those documents. In Exhibit No. 79, which lh 13 are your notes of the Management Committee of December 4, 14 1980, I would like you to turn to the page which is marked, 15 the second page of that which is marked in the upper right 16 hand corner 2052. And I would direct your attention to the 17 portion of that page which begins slightly below the middle 18 of the page at the time marked 3:10 and which continues 19 through to the bottom of the page. 20 I would then like to direct your attention to 21 Applicants' Exhibit Number 80, to the typewritten version 22 of the notes of the meeting of February 19, '81; and in 23 that document, I would direct your attention to the third 1 24 typewritten page which is marked in the lower right hand , i [ 25 corner 81037, and in particular, I would direct your l l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15442 1 attention to the portion which begins in the middle of the 2 page at the time marked 3:10 end and continues again to the 3 bottom of that page. 4 And finally, I would like to direct your 5 attention to Applicants' Exhibit Number 81, the typewritten 6 version of your notes of the Management Committee meeting 7 of February 20th, 1981; I would like to direct your 8 attention to the first typewritten page which is marked 9 2091 in the upper right hand corner, and there I would like 10 to direct your attention to the portion which begins 11 slightly below the middle of the page at the time marked 12 9:35, "No. 6, engineering review" and again continuing (]lh 13 until the bottom of that page. 14 Now, as to each of those three segments, do they 15 represent a verbatim transcript of statements made by the 16 individuals to whom you attribute statements in your notes? 17 A Not any of my notes as a general proposition 18 represent verbatim transcripts. There are a few rare 19 places were I've indicated by quote marks that I've tried 20 to get exact words, but in general, they are not verbatim. 21 Q Do those segments to which I referred you to 22 represent, to the best of your present recollection, the 23 essence of the discussion at the meeting? 24 A I don't have any present recollection without the [ gg 1 25 aid of notes, such as this, of the details of things that TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
1 l 15443 - 1 took place at these meetings in respect to individuals and 2 specific words and specific dates and things of that sort. ! i 3 Therefore, if your question is, how do these , ) 4 notes compare with my recollection, I really don't have a i 5 basis to compare these notes to because I don't have a 6 recollection now of details of things that happened five 7 years ago. d 8 The notes that I made here were an effort on my 9 part to capture a few words and a few ideas to hopefully 10 capture sufficient amount of the essence of what people i 11 were saying so that within a few days or a few weeks when I 12 endeavored to write up the minutes that there would be h 13 enough words there to refresh my recollection to that time 14 as to what had taken place and aid me in that writing up of 15 those minutes. 16 It's difficult, if not impossible, if you're only 17 taking down a small percentage of the things that are said 18 and a small percentage of the words that are spoken, to 19 capture.all of the key words and you certainly can't do 20 things like capture emphasis of the colorings that are put 21 on words. You just do your best to get enough so you can 22 dictate the minutes later and that's what you see here. 23 Q Do the notes capture the give and take of the 24 discussions? gg , 25 A There was no effort on my part to do that. I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15444 1 couldn't do that physically had I tried to. And since only 2 a small, very small, I would take on the average somewhere 3 between ten and twenty percent of the words spoken are 4 reflected in my notes, that it would be impossible to get 5 any sort of real sense of the give and take, nor of any -- 6 in order to try to put these notes together in any sort of 7 integgrated meaningful fashion. 8 They helped me at the time in 1980 when I was 9 dictating minutes. 10 Q Does the relative position of statements reflect 11 the give and take of discussions? 12 A Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. I h 13 would sometimes have to listen for several minutes to try . 14 to determine what people were saying and then scribble a 15 note about that while they were talking about something j 16 else, and that's where you lose that other 80 or 90 percent 17 of the detail that was being said. So I wouldn't say that 18 they purport to reflect any definitive give and take. 19 0 Should your notes be read as reflecting 20 integgrated discussion of some kind? 21 A I don't think so. 22 MR. SINKIN: Excuse me, Mr. Axelrad, I didn't 23 hear the word you used. 24 MR. AXELRAD: An integgrated discussien. gg . 25 MR. SINKIN: Thank you. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15445 1 Q (By Mr. Axelrad) Mr. Thrash, you are aware of the 4
) 2 litigation that has taken place between the two owners of 3 the south Texas Project and Brown & Root and Halliburton in
~..
y,, 4- connection with the South Texas Froject? 5 A Yes, i 6 Q In connection with that litigation, was your , j 7 depositib'n'takenconcerningyourfunctionsassecretaryof ,
..1 8; i~the South Texas Project Management Committee? -
j
' '~
i '9 A Yes, on 18 days, as I recall. i 10 - Q I hand you a three-page document -- 11 'MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have
.12. marked for identification as Applicants' Exhibit Number 84
( ) 13 a:three-page document at the bottom of which of,each page 14 is-parked respectively page 1161, page 1162, and page 1163. 15 (Applicant \s'ExhibitNo.84 #- ~ 16 marked for. identification.) 17 Q (By Mr.'Axelrad) Mr. Thrash, the document I have
-, f 18 just handed to you has just been marked jEriidentification 19 as Applicants' Exhibit Number 84. :Can you identify this D
20 document-for us, please?
.21- A I believe tthis is from one of the days of the 1
22 deposition in July of 1984 or thereabouts, when Mr. Harvin, 23 David Harvin of Vinson & Elkins, counsel for Brown & Root gg 24 was questioning me about a -- I noticed at tha top of first l 25 page'of Exhibit 84, a reference to penciled notes on page ! l
.. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 r n.,,s - , . - , , . - - . , - - - - , - . , , , , - -
~
.t
; 15446 1 80230, which is the same pages which you have handed to me
"'- 2 as a part of your Applicants' Exhibit 79.
-3 Q Thank you. In general, you have looked -- have 4 you looked at those three pages, Mr. Thrash?
5 A Yes. _4 6 _ Q And can you just repeat for us what subject you 7 were being questioned on by Mr. Harvin on those three 8 pages? 9 A Well, I think he's questioning me about the notes 10 that I took on page 80230. 11 Q Fine. Thank you. Now -- 12 A Excuse me just a moment. I'm not sure where this
..y~\
h 13 other is. 14 Yes, I believe all of the material about which he 15 was asking me is on page 80230. s 16 Q Fine. And on page 1161, line 14, he asks you to 17 drop down to 3:10. 1 1 18 A I'm having' difficulty hearing you, Mr. Axelrad. 19 Will you speak up just a little bit? t: E 20 Q Right. On page 1161 of your deposition, at line 21 14, he is questioning you -- he asks you to drop down to i 22 3:10. When he asks you to drop down to the excerpt which Iq
. 23 begins at 3:10, is that the same excerpt as to which I 24 previously directed your attention in Applicants' Exhibit
])
25 797 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l J 15447l ; 1 A Yes. The only difference is that he is referring l 2 to the page on which the original penciled notes, or a copy i 3 of the page on which the original penciled notes were made 4 which is the same, if we were successful in typing 5 accurately, the same thing which appears on page 80224 of 6 the typed up version, but they are the same. 7 Q Thank you. At page 1161,.from lines -- line 8 nine, he asks you a question with respect to comments that 9 appear in parentheses. Again, those are the same -- that 10 is the same -- part of the same excerpt that we have been 11 talking about in my previous question. 12 A Yes. 13 Q You are response appears at lines 11 threw 18. 14 Did that response provide you are reaction in July, 1984 15 when your deposition was being taken of the discussion that 16 had taken place back in December 4, 1980? 17 A He didn't ask me about any recollections when he 18 was questioning me in 1984. He asked me if I could read 19 from my notes what the sense of the comments were and 20 that's what I did. I haven't checked it here but I think I 21 just read to him as best I could from my notes. 22 Q Thank you. At.page 1163, there is a question 23 asked at line two to which you respond at line five. Did g) 24 that response provide -- I'm sorry, do you have that in , 25 front of you? TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15448 1 A I'm catching up. Just a minute here. Q.
'J 2 Q Certainly. Page 1163, which is the last page of 3 your deposition excerpt.
4 A. Okay, I'm with you now. Now, start your question i 5 again. 6 Q At line two, lines two to four, he asks you l 7 another question with respect to those, to that excerpt, 8 and you answer that question at line five. Did that answer 9 provide your recollection in July 1984 of the discussion at 10 the meeting of December 4, 19807 11 A I think the same answer that I provided to the 12 preceding question would be applicable here. He didn't ask I w~ 13 me in 1984 what I recalled about anything. He asked me 14 what I had recorded here. And I read it to him or agreed 15 with his question that I had in fact recorded there when 16 what he asked if I had re- rded. 17 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I move the 18 Applicants' proposed Exhibit 84 be accepted into the 19 record. Three-page deposition excerpt. 20 MR. PERLIS: Can I ask for what purpose their 21 document is being offered into evidence? 22 MR. AXELRAD: Certainly. Mr. Thrash is here 23 testifying with respect to three sets of notes that he took ( ll 24 at meetings of tra Management Committee. And particularly. 25 with respect to some e.rerpts that have been mentioned in TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15449 1 CCANP's motion, and which has attracted The boards' 2 attention. It happens coincidentally that he had been 3 previously asked questions with respect to that same 4 er.cerpt or one of those excerpts in his previous deposition 5 in the Brown & Root litigation. 6 We wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of 7 that. We have no strong reason for wanting to be an 8 exhibit, and we just thought that since it was being 9 mentioned that it should be in the record. It would be 10 sufficient certainly for our purposes since it's been 11 identified and it will travel with the record. Mr. Thrash 12 has been asked questions about it which will be clear with ( h 13 their document, it.will be sufficient for our purposes just 14 to let the document travel with the record. If anybody 15 does not want it to be in the record, we would not argue 16 strongly for admitting it as an exhibit. 17 MR. PERLIS: I'm not sure that is an appropriate 18 exhibit. However -- 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Sinkin. 20 MR. SINKIN: I have no objection. I was going to 21 point out, although I don't think it's necessarily an ! 22 appropriate exhibit. We don't really have an objection to 1 23 it going along with the record. There's some questions I'd gg 24 like to ask it about as well, so in that sense we are not . 25 going to object. l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
15450 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think we will admit it into 2 evidence. The Board will admit this into evidence. 3 (Applicants' Exhibit No. 84 received 4 ion evidence.) 5 MR. BECHHOEFER: The parties obviously may ask 6 question about it. 7 Q (By Mr. Axelrad) Mr. Thrash, did you attend all 8 of the meetings of the South Texas Project Management 9 Committee during the period of October 1980 through 10 February 19817 11 A Yes. 12 Q Was the subject of Brown & Root engineering 13 discussed at those meetings? 14 A Was the question -- was the subject of Brown & 15 Root engineering? 16 0 Yes. l 17 A Yes. . 18 Q Do you have a -- do you presently have a general 19 recollection of the thrust of those discussions? 20 A Yes, I have a general recollection of this period l 21 of time which was right at the end of 1980, and the problem 22 with Brown & Root engineering arose in the context of a 23 year that had been spent with almost all construction at a 24 stand still and with massive efforts by the project to . 25 respond to the NRC enforcement actions which had proceeded TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15451 1 'during 1980, and the interest of the owners was in trying
'i 2 to get the construction restarted, the welding and concrete
-3 and that sort of thing that had been held in abeyance for 4 that year.
~5 But while encouraging signs developed about the 6 ability to restart or ramp up as they called it in those
~7 days the construction from a zero level to a planned level, 8 the knawing doubts began to develop that that construction 9 performance might not be possible because of the increasing 10 number of engineering defects that were brought to the 11 owners at almost every meeting.
12 Q Do you recall any discussion in that time frame, () 13 late 1980 or early 1981, of the possibilities of 14 . undertaking a third party review of Brown & Root 15 engineering? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Do you have a general recollection of what the 18 purpose of such a review would be? l l 19 A My general recollection was that the purpose was l: l 20 to get some third party engineering group to come in and 21 see if in fact Brown & Root could support the project, 22 whether -- from an engineering standpoint, whether what it 23 had accomplished to date was total and well done and if gg 24 there were areas of which they needed help with those areas 25 of work, just needed a third party review that went beyond TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15452
- 1 the already existing efforts of Brown & Root, Houston l I) 2 Lighting & Power Company, to see what the situation of the 3 engineering was. And to try to get this plant which had 4 been in nautical language, you talk about a boat being dead 5 in.the water, well this project had been dead in the water 6 for a year and the only thing that was really ongoing was a f
7 tremendous cash flow. The owners were quite concerned 8 about that and were quite delighted when, as I recall, Mr. 9 Goldberg first mentioned that he was initiating a search 10 for these outside engineers. 11 Q Do you have any present recollection that the 12 purpose of this third party review was discussed as being
) 13 preparation for the NRC operating license hearings?
14 A There was a lot of discussion from time to time l 15 about how this engineering study might prove to be helpful 16- if the engineering questions came up at the scheduled L 17' hearings that were to take place in the spring of 1981 with 18 regard to construction errors and construction QA. But I 19 never recall -- I don't recall the subject having been 20 discussed as anything of the purpose of the study. 21 Q As indicated by the transcript of the deposition 22 that was -- that you gave.in the Halliburton and Brown & 23 Root litigation, some of your notes can be read as 24 indicating statements that the purpose of the third party , {]ggg 25 review was to prepare for the operating license hearings. I TATE REPORTING' SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15453 1 In light-of your recollection of the discussions, can you
\ .
2 explain why your notes can be read in that fashion? l 3 A Well, it's easy for me to understand how my notes 4 can be read that way because it's obvious in re-reading my 5 notes that the words " operating license" appear in a number 6 of places in close proximity to "Quadrex." 7 But to me, considering the very fragmentary type 8 of notes that I have, that's not inconsistent with my 9 general. recollection that the purpose was to try to get the 10 plant built and a recognition that the study might prove to 11 be of benefit if engineering questions were to arise at the 12 the licensing hearings.
) 13 My reaction of the situation at that time is very 14 vivid and sort of like the comparison of trying to worry 15 about getting an inspection sticker on a car if it won't 16 run. I mean, the owners were trying to get the project to j 17 run, trying to get'it to go, in both the construction and 18 engineering aspects, and the questions of licensing were 19 really not uppermost in their minds.
( 20 As a lawyer, I probably had my ears come up when 21 -people would talk about hearings because I was probably j 22 more interested than the owners' representatives were about 23 -those things.
- 24 Q Thank you, Mr. Thrash.
} .
25 At this point, I would like to hand you TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l l l 15454 1 Applicants' Exhibit No. 82, which you may already have.
) 2 The first page of that Exhibit Number 82 is entitled STP 3 Management Committee 4 December '80, Exhibit No. 2, and 4 several lines below the top appears the words " proposed 5 agenda." Within that proposed agenda, item I-G, Roman 6 numeral one capital G.
7 A I'm sorry, would you repeat that last part again 8 of your question. I didn't understand it. 9 Q Under the proposed agenda on that first page, 10 there appears item Roman Numeral I, capital G, called ASLB 11 proceedings-update. Have you refreshed your recollection 12 with respect to the notes that you have taken of the - (]h 13 Management Committee meeting on December 4, 1980? 14 A I have re-read them recently if that's what you 15 mean. . 16 Q Yes. Was that item I-G on the proposed agenda 17 namely ASLB proceedings update, was that item reached at 18 the December 4, 1980 meeting? 19 A It appeared to me when I re-read these notes, and 20 it still appears to me in looking at them again this 21 morning, that at 6:20, and I'm referring to now to Page 22 80.'27 of your Exhibit 79, it appears that at 6:20, the 23 Management Committee began what turned out to be a 24 relatively short consideration of two nuclear fuel items g . 25 which would'be Roman numeral I-D in the first page of TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
+
15455 1 Exhibit 82, and then at 6:25, briefly discussed the sending 2 of some information to Brownsville, the City of 3 Brownsville, which the City of Brownsville had requested, 4 and at that point at 6:35, adjourned the meeting without 5 taking up either item I-G -- excuse me, without taking up 6 either item I-F, the previous meeting minutes, or item I-G, 7 the ASLB proceedings. 8 Q Was it unusual at Management Committee meetings 9 that items on the proposed agenda were not discussed at the 10 meetings? 11 A Not unusual at all. The agenda that was sent out 12 usually by Mr. Poston a week or so ahead of the meeting was (]h 13 as its name implies a proposed agenda and they would often 14 skip or not get to items that were on the agenda. I 15 MR. DEFENDANT: Thank you, Mr. Thrash. Mr. 16 Chairman, that ends our examination of Mr. Thrash, he is 17 now available for cross-examination. 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Thrash, before the other 19 parties start their cross-examination, let me ask you one 20 question. Does the item that's starts out at 3:10, is that 1 21 reflected anywhere on either the proposed agenda of the ! 22 Management Committee or what I gather is an agenda prepared 23 by Mr. Barker if I'm not mistaken? l 24 gg THE WITNESS: If you will give me a moment here . 25 to re-read these and compare them with the exhibit. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15456 1 I'm referring to Page 2 of Exhibit 82, the -- 2 which was in my minutes Exhibit No. 3 for that date, but is 3 exhibit -- Page 2 of your Exhibit No. 82, referring to 4 that, I believe that the discussion in the what I would 5 describe as the last half of Page 80224 of Exhibit 79 is an 6 outgrowth of Item II-E when they began discussing the 7 reforecast schedule on what I call Mr. Barker's agenda. 8 This gets a little convoluted, but the entire 9 Exhibit 3 here is a response to Item I-A on the general 10 agenda or Mr. Poston's agenda, so-called project status 11 update. And it seems to me that everything that follows 12 there, a litt'.e after 3:02 p.m., follows the initiation of ( 13 that discussion of the reforecast schedule because of 14 course that involves both the new budget and the new 15 completion forecast and the whole problem of staffing and 16 cost. 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Was Mr. Barker's agenda 18 prepared subsequent to the preparation of the management 19 committees proposed agenda? 20 THE WITNESS: I really have no way of knowing 21 just when they were prepared. Mr. Poston, the chairman of 22 the Management committee, would usually send his agenda to 23 those on the Management Committee and alternates and to me {jgg 24 about a week ahead of time and I would not see a copy of , 25 Mr. Barker's project status update until I actually got to I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
-_ ------ 3
15457 1 the meeting. He would distribute copies to all of us at 2 the meeting. Mr. Barker's, this Page 2 of Exhibit 82. But 3 I have no idea when Mr. Barker prepared his agenda. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I guess we will go to the 5 parties now. 6 Mr. Sinkin. 7 MR. SINKIN: Just noting the time, Mr. Chairman, 8 I don't know if you had planned on lunch at about this time 9 or not. 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think we'll go a little 11 longer. Maybe we could even finish with Mr. Thrash; I'm 12 not sure.
) 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION 14 By Mr. Sinkin:
15 Q Mr. Thrash, you stated that you were a partner in 16 Baker & Botts; is that correct? 17 A Until the end of 1981, yes. 18 Q And when did you begin the practice of law? 19 A Trying to remember the exact date; in August of 20 1954. I thought I'd never forget that date, but I can't 21 remember the exact date, but we'll call it August "54. 22 Q And has it been commonplace in your practice of 23 law for you to rely on your notes for accurately reflecting 24 events that you were recording? gg . 25 A I've always done the best I could. Whether it TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15458 ; I was in school or in practice or wherever. tAnd generally h 2 I've been pretty good. 3 Q On Exhibit 81, Applicants -- 4 MR. AXELRAD: Could you speak up, please. 5 MR. SINKIN: Sure. 6 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) On Applicants' Exhibit 81, on 7 the first page it has the No. 810351 on it, Item No. 6, at 8 the fourth line of that item it has "S; April 1981." Can , 9 you explain to me the "S:"? I 10 A In my shorthand, whenever a thing is going to 11 happen has a suspense or target date, I have always used 12 that as my own shorthand to mean a suspense date, a target h 13 date for completion of something. So that's what that 14 meant to me, that the target date for completion of this 15 study was April '81. 16 Q And from looking at your notes of that item, does 17 it seem to you that it's Mr. Barker who is speaking at all 18 times that are being recorded there? 19 A You're talking from 9:35 on down? 20 Q Let's go just Item No. 6. 21 A Just Item No. 6, I believe so. The indentation 22 form that I use indicates to me now that Barker was the one 23 talking about all of these 4, 5, 6 and 7. And if I don't 24 introduce some other speaker's name in parentheses or by an [ gg 25 indentation, it usually means that that's what I try to do TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i 15459 1 anyway, that that's still Mr. Barker talking. W 2 Q So then Item No. 7, about halfway through, Mr. 3 Oprea began talking? 4 A Right. And then Mr. Hancock and then Mr. Oprea 5 again. _Those were all interjected comments in the course 6 of Mr. Barker's report. , 7 Q Going to Applicants' Exhibit 79, Page No. 80224, 8 starting at 3:10 in the afternoon, do you today have any 9 recollection of Mr. Goldberg's November report on quote, 10 " going slow" unquote, in engineering, as to what that would 11 have meant? 12 A No. h 13 0 You stated that your general recollection of the 14 subject of engineering that came up at the Management 15 Committee meetings was that there were some reports on 16 engineering defects repeatedly coming to the Management 17 committee and there was an increasing concern on the part 18 of the Management committee about Brown & Root's 19 engineering; is that correct? 20 A Perhaps'" problems" is a better word than 21 " defects." But concerns, things that were -- problems that 22 were not being solved as totally and as rapidly and 23 everybody would like. 24 Q And how in your mind, based on the discussions gg . 25 you heard at the Management Committee, did Quadrex report TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l 15460 1 relate to problems not being solved by Brown & Root in 2 engineering? 3 A Well, my reference about this increasing number 4 of problems coming before the owners committee related to 5 the time frame of 1980; that's the time that I was speaking 6 of in my answer, and if my recollection is correct, I 7 hadn't heard the name Quadrex until sometime either in the 8 late winter or spring of '81. 9 Q Perhaps I should use the term third party review, 10 how did that relate to the repeated report of engineering 11 problems that were coming to the Management Committee? 12 A Well, if I can try to say again what I said 13 awhile ago, when the members of the Management Committee 14 learned of Mr. Goldberg's initiative toward the 15 interviewing and hiring of a third party engineering 16 organization, my recollection is that they were quite i 17 pleased by that because they thought they would get another i 18 team of engineering helpers to locate these problem areas 19 and provide the corrections for them, provide the 20 corrective action, hopefully, or assistance if that was 21 what Brown & Root needed, in the problem area.
- 22 Q Turning for a moment to Applicants' Exhibit 84, 23 which is your earlier deposition, and Page 1162, at the lg 24 time -- let me just refer you to question starting at line,
[ 25 19 and your answer forward from there. It appears from TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
)
1 15461 l 1 your answer that at the time you were answering these f w 2 questions, you did have some recollection of the actual 3' discussions that took place, and I would refer particularly 4 to Line 23, 24. 5 A Yeah, I still don't have any problem recollecting 6 that. 7 Q But in terms of the statements made about the 8 relationship between the Quadrex study or this third party 9 review and the operating license hearings, you have no 10 recollection of those specific statements? 11 A When? 12 Q In 1980, let's stick with the December 4th.
) 13 A 'No, I don't have any now. I don't have any
' 14 - independent. recollection of the licensing being a subject 15 of substantial concern.
16 Q Using the three Applicants' Exhibits, 79, 80 and 17 81, would you point me to any point where you record a 18 relationship between this third party review, what 'oecame 19 the Quadrex review, and the location and suggestion of i l 20 corrective action or problem areas in Brown & Root's 21 engineering? 22 A I've made no study of these exhibits with that l 23 sort of research project in mind. I'll be happy to do so. j[gg '24 I don't -- my recollection is not relying on anything in . ! 25 here, and therefore I would have to study these much, more 1 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
.. - . . . . - - _ . _ _ _ . ~ . . _ _ . _ , _ . - _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . . _ _ . . _ . - _ , . _ . - . _ _
15462 1 than I have. T 2 Q So you were not relying on these minutes when you 3 placed that relationship into the record? 4 A Right. 5 Q Were these Management committee minutes ever tape 6 recorded at this time? 7 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, the reference ! 8 continues to be to minutes. I assume we're referring to 9 notes. These are not minutes. 10 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Take these three meetings, for 11 example, that are recorded in your notes. Were any of 12 these meetings tape recorded? 13 A No. 14 Q And your practice of putting the time in the 15 left-hand margin, was there a particular reason why you 16 would report the time at a particular point or did you just 17 try and record it every few minutes? 18 A It's just something I've always done and I'm not 19 just sure why I started doing it, but I've found that it's 20 very helpful at times later and it's one of those practices 21 that the origin of which I'm not certain, but I've found to 22 be very useful. 23 Q But in terms of when you actually do write the { ll 24 time down, is there some event that triggers that such as a 25 change of topic or is it just you do it on a routine every TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l l 15463 l I five or six, seven minutes or so --
~
2 A No, as I recall it's usually where there's a 3 change in speakers, a change in subject or the bottom of a 4 page. 5 Q On Applicants' Exhibit 79 again, that Page 80224, 6 the last section there starting at 3:15, and the second 7 sentence for Mr. Goldberg, says he thinks the NRC may make 8 a major inspection. Do you have any recollection today 9 of -- 10 MR. AXELRAD: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, Mr. 11 Sinkin referred to Mr. Goldberg; is Mr. Sinkin referring to 12 GO? 13 MR. SINKIN: Oh, Mr. Oprea, excuse me, thank you. 14 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Mr. Oprea is recorded as 15 thinking the NRC may make a major inspection. Do you have 16 any independent recollection today of what that was about? 17 A I don't have any recollection today of what that 18 was about and apparently at the time, I had some questions 19 because these are little questions to myself, I think, 20 inspection of what "early next year" and I really didn't 21 know exactly what Mr. Oprea had reference to here. 22 Q Turning to Applicants' Exhibit 80 -- 23 MR. BECHHOEFER: Mr. Sinkin, while we're still on j } ]) 24 that one paragraph, let me ask one question. In the . 25 remarks attributed to Mr. Oprea, is the question mark that TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15464 1 appears after engineering or " engr," is that yours or is 2 that raised by Mr. Oprea? 3 THE WITNESS: It was my question to me; whenever 4 I'm not certain of exactly what somebody is saying and I 5 need to either gn a.=k them and get them to clarify, I 6 usually put a question mark in my notes like that. 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That does not reflect then 8 that Mr. Oprea is suggested that there might be a major 9 inspection of engineering by NRC. 10 THE WITNESS: I am not absolutely certain, Mr. 11 Chairman. But I think that here when Mr. Oprea made th'ta 12 statement I had a question in my own mind about what it was (] 13 they were going to inspect, and that probably that 14 engineering question mark was my question to myself. I 15 believe that's consistent with my usual note taking , 16 practice. - 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Thank you. 18 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Do you recall if you went to Mr. 19 Oprea for clarification on that point? 20 A I do not recall. 21 MR. SINKIN: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: How much approximately does 23 the staff have? Would this be a good place to have -- e g 24 MR. PERLIS: I would estimate I have at least 15 25 or 20 minutes. We can break or for lunch or -- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15465 1 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I might suggest we 2 didn't start until 9:30, I think it would be useful to 3 proceed. At least we'll have all the cross-examination 4 completed before we break for lunch and have only the 5 Board's questions left. I would appreciate it if we 6 continue. 7 MR. BECHHOEFER: Why don't we proceed then and 8 then after you're through, we will break and come back. 9 MR. PERLIS: That's fine. 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION 11 By Mr. Perlis: 12 Q Mr. Thrash, I have a few general questions about ()h 13 Applicants' Exhibit 82 which is the proposed agenda. Can 14 you tell me who prepared both pages, first document 15 entitled " proposed agenda", second one -- well, the second-16 one that's denominated Exhibit Number 3? 17 A The Page 1 of Exhibit 82, the one named " proposed 18 agenda" is prepared under the supervision of Mr. Poston of 19 the City Public Service Board in San Antonio who was and 20 still is the chairman of the Management committee, and was 21 distributed routinely a week or so prior to each meeting 22 attached to a letter signed by him. 23 Whether it was actually prepared by him or by
-g 24 someone on his staff, I do not know, but it was always ,
25 received by me attached to a letter signed by Mr. Poston. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15466 1 The second sheet was distributed by someone from the HL&P l j 2 so-called project team which at this particular time was 3 Mr. Barker was project manager, and he would usually 4 distribute these as we arrived at the meeting site, he 5 would take them around and put one on each table. But as 6 to who prepared it, I don't know. He sponsored it and I 7 always called it in my notes, "Mr. Barker's agenda." 8 Q Who actually chaired the Management Committee 9 meetings: would that have been Mr. Poston? 10 A Mr. Poston. 11 Q okay. I guess I'm a bit confused as to the 12 actual course of the meetings themselves. Did they not 13 track the proposed agenda that Mr. Poston drew up? 14 A Well, I saf in large measure they tracked the 15 agenda, at times. This meeting, for example, on December 4 16 that we've been looking at as reflected here in Exhibit 82, 17 began at 1:30 in the afternoon. And several of the people 18 at these meetings had to get back to their home bases for 19 work on Friday morning. 20 These were usually Thursday meetings, the 21 afternoon meetings, and a number of the Management 22 Committee people and alternates could not attend the Friday 23 morning meeting. So there was always a good deal of [ lg 24 pressure to try to terminate the meetings by, say, 6:30 or. 25 7:00 o' clock so there would be pressure on the agenda after TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15467 1 6:00 o' clock for that reason. 2 But by and large, they stuck pretty well with the 3 agenda. In this case, the second page of this exhibit is 4 simply an elaboration of items Roman I-A on the first page. 5 And then they did in fact take up items B, C, D and E, 6 albiet hastily. They just did not get, much to my 7 displeasure to approving the prior minutes, Item I-F or 8 Item I-G. 9 Q Is it fair to say that Mr. Barker would have been 10 responsible for the project status update portion of the 11 meeting? 12 A Yes. h]h 13 Q Could you point out to me then on Exhibit 79 14 where parts I-B and I-C for the proposed agenda were 15 discussed? Where does Mr. Barker's update end and where is 16 the next item discussed? 17 A Looking at Page 80326 of Exhibit 79, down at 5:32 18 p.m., near the bottom of the page, my notes indicate that 19 Mr. B1rker and Mr. Briskin and Mr. Beeth were excused from 20 the meeting, and that the Management committee then 21 continued with a discussion of item Roman numeral I-B, the 22 Coopers & Lyebrand financial report, and financial audit. 23 Q All right. If someone wanted to discuss gg 24 something at a meeting, wanted to bring up a subject, would 25 they be likely to contact Mr. Poston to ask them to put it TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15468; 1 on the agenda or the participants at the meeting teel free 2 to bring of materials that was not previously put on an . 3 agenda even -- 4 A Oh, yes, that was one of the purposes of sending 5 out the proposed agenda a week ahead of time, a transmittal 6 letter always solicited additional items for the agenda, 7 and it was not uncommon to get to the meeting and have a l 8 revised agenda which included those additional items that 9 other participants wanted on the adgenda. 10 Q Okay. Now just generally about the notes that 11 you took and I believe you referred to it as your personal 12 shorthand. Did you ever try to change the flavor of what 13 was said when you were using your shorthand or did you try 14 and capture the essence of what was being discussed? 15 A I tried to capture what was said. 16 Q I think you indicated earlier that you tried to 17 capture the ideas that were being discussed. Were there 18 ever ideas or issues discussed that would not be reflected 19 in your notes? 20 A You mean in this particular meeting or over the 21 whole project? 22 O In a meeting in which either of the three 23 meetings that are reflecated in Exhibit 79, 80 or 817 g) 24 A I don't recall anything at those meetings which . 25 would cause me to put my pencil down. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l 15469 l l 1 Q Now, does the placement of the items in the notes x) ("J'_8 2 indicate the order within which things were said? 3 A Yes. 4 I Q So if you could look at Exhibit 81, please. This < i I 5 would be on the first page of that document, starting at ! l 6 9:35, Item No. 6, is it fair to say then that the line 7 "need to have info to meet" what I assume is licensing 8 hearing questions, that that would have fallen under No. 6 9 and not No. 7? 10 A Yes, I mean, I just take these notes coming down 11 the path chronologically except occasionally you'll find a 12 marginal note that was supplied by someone later that () 13 refers to something previously said, and I try to connect 14 that by an arrow. 15 Q Looking now at Applicants' proposed exhibit -- 16 Applicants admitted Exhibit 84, deposition transcript, your 17 answers here, do they reflect your present recollection of 18 what was said at the meetings? 19 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, that question was 20 asked -- I'm sorry 21 MR. PERLIS: I'll rephrase the question. 22 Q (By Mr. Perlis) I believe you were asked whether 23 those answers were given, they reflected your recollection gg 24 at that time and I believe your answer was no, you were , 25 just reading what was written. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
,,,.n- , , , ~
- - ---n,--- -,,----r - - ~ - - - - - - , - - - - - - , , . .
15470 1 A That's right. They weren't asked about 2 recollection, they were asking about what I had written 3 down. 4 Q My question to you now is: Is your present 5 recollection of what is reflected in these meeting notes at 6 all different from what's reflected in your response to the 7 deposition questions? 8 A I may recollect even less now after a year 9 and-a-half. But I don't think I recollect anymore. 10 Q Do you recollect anything different than what is 11 in your answers to the deposition questions? 12 A Well, let me look over the deposition questions. ( 13 Perhaps I'm influenced by what I said then. But I seem to 14 recollect the same thing now that I recollected then, no 15 more, no less. . 16 Q Just generally, during the last half of 1980 and 17 the beginning of 1981, what was your involvement with the 18 South Texas Project? 19 A What was my involvement? 20 Q Yes, sir. 21 A I was secretary of the Management Committee as 22 these notes indicate. I was chairman of the legal 2 23 committee that was made up of the lawyers from each of the ll 24 four participants; and I generally managed the work of all, 25 the lawyers whether in the Baker Botts firm or in the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15471 1 Lowenstein Newman firm that were involved with licensing. 2 Q Okay. Rather than have me try and characterize 3 what I think I remember you said, let me ask you to repeat 4 it if you would. Could you tell me again what your 5 recollection, what your current recollection is, of the 6 purpose of the review of Brown & Root engineering? 7 A The third party review of Brown & Root 8 engineering -- 9 Q Right. 10 A -- was to determine whether Brown & Root would be 11 able to support the project's engineering requirements and 12 then that brenks down into specifics as to discovering
- ( ) 13 those areas the weakness that may not have already been 14 discovered and providing assistance in correcting those 15 areas that had been the subject of discussion for some time 16 in order to try to got the engineering up to speed and out 17 ahead of construction. Everybody wanted to start 18 construction but they were afraid they weren't going to be 19 able to even through the NRC would let them if they didn't i 20 have the engineering act together.
21 Q Can you tell me just generally upon what this 22 recollection is based? This would be from meetings that 23 you had at the time, written documents you might have read? gg 24 A well, it was sitting through so many agonizing , [ 25 Management committee meetings and hearing these tails of TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
.- ,.- -. _. , ._......,..y.,. . , . , - . _ . . . - - - - , , , . - - _ - _ ~ _ . _ , -
15472 i 1 woe about the problems they were having with the 2 engineering during -- I mean, as if the problems with the 3 construction show cause and the construction QA and the 4 massive effort that was being made to respond to the NRC j 5 during 1980 on those subjects, there were also the 6 worrisome problems that had nothing to do with 7 construction, but rather with problems of engineering. l 8 Q Would it have been based on any information other 9 than the discussions at Management committee meetings? 10 A My information wasn't based on any other. That 11 was my chief source of information about what was going on 12 with the actual project, was Management committee meetings.
] 13 Q How often were there Management committee l 14 meetings at the project?
f 15 A In this period of time, customarily there would 16 be two days back to back as is illustrated by these minutes 17 that we are -- or at least some of the minutes, we don't 18 have all of them, but for instance the December 4 meeting 19 in the afternoon was followed by December 4, as I recall, 20 because that's what it usually was, was a Thursday 21 afternoon and that would be followed Friday morning by a 22 meeting at which Brown & Root would present their side of 23 the story, a meeting on the previous afternoon, the {jgg 24 Thursday afternoon, was an owners meeting with the project. 25 manager. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
A de-
~:/ a O C',% IMAGE EVAL.UATION : ,,
yjp/
'# 9: TEST TARGET (MT-3) / ,
, ;'s g p,,,W %,f'k l.O . 'A 2 %E
~
j,l EM Ql!'8 l.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm > 4 6 > j[i .y *%i
/.; 'O# .
>< '6L ,1 0 Qt,'- ;
.y 1,* .,
~w- - - - -, ..mm ,m. -m- _
.A fe O y
O
':t: ,+" kY,,[#
, IMAGE EVALUATION /
'/ -["3 TEST TARGET (MT-3) .
Y////
\\\\\ gf/ \ /////
l.0 B
~ f' M I,l
~ "
R3 l.8 1.25 i.4 g 4 150mm > ' 4 6* > e?' ,)%, 9,7 t .
/,p 4
////A O v{t - ,t qt
. . ~
15473 1 And that was the customary procedure at this ;
)
2 particular time to have what we called a housekeeping 3 meeting and a project report meeting from the project 4 manager on Thursday afternoon, and then a meeting with the 5 contractor on Friday morning followed by a site tour. ; 6 Q How often did these meetings occur? 7 A Once a month, at least. 8 Q And there would have been Management committee 9 meetings in January for which we don't have? 10 A That is correct. 11 MR. BECHHOEFER: Let me interrupt for a minute. 12 I'm a little confused here. I thought there was a separate 13 meeting with first the Management committee and then the 14 Management Committee with chief executive officers. I 15 thought those were sort of sequence of two meetings. How 16 does the various meetings you just described fit into that 17 context or maybe you could correct my impression. 18 THE WITNESS: Mr. Chairman, the idea of a CEO's 19 meeting is something that as problems worsened and as the 20 difficulties became more numerous and more ominous, that 21 sort of developed. It was not, let's say, prior to 1980, 22 there was no such thing as a CEO's meeting. They were 23 always welcome to come; but rarely did. But as the sky gg 24 darkened and the situation got worse, they were invited to. 25 attend more and more meetings and did in fact. But it was 4 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
. .-- .- ~. , - - . . _ , . - - . -
I i 15474 1 essentially a management meeting committee meeting to which 2 the CEO's were invited and that would usually occur on the 3 Friday morning at which the Brown & Root's report would be 4 presented. I 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So that is the same meeting as j 6 what you called the Brown & Root meeting -- 7 THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm sorry I haven't made it i j 8 clearer, but in this period of time, it was a relatively j 9 simple thing. 10 Each month a Thursday afternoon meeting which we t' l 11 called a housekeeping meeting, which the CEO's generally i 12 were not interested in, going into all the details about I ) 13 nuclear fuel and insurance and Coopers & Lyebrand reports, 14 and the project report from Mr. Barker. But they were i 15 interested in coming and hearing the presentation at which
- 16 the Brown & Root people and the Brown & Root executives i
l 17 were present. But not every month. The CEO meetings j 18 where, as a rule, held quarterly, what's been called a CEO 19 meeting, it's actually the CEO coming to the Management [ 20 Committee meeting on Friday morning. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Is Applicants' Exhibit 81, for { 22 example, which is the February 20 meeting, is that an j 23 example of the CEO's meeting, is that one -- 24 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is a good example,
]) .
l 25 because if you compare Exhibits 80 and 81, they are the l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i .
15475 s 1 back to back meetings in the way that they were usually 2 held. The one on the 19th, of February, which is Exhibit 3 80 started at 1:30 in the afternoon and the meeting on the 4 next day started at 9:00 in the morning. And this was one J 5 of those months at which the CEO's were invited and which 6 they appear here attended quite well, Mr. Spruce and Mr. 7 Jordan were there for at least two of the participants , 8 CEO's. 9 MR. BECHHOEFER: You are saying that that 10 sequence was not followed every month, every time that the , 11 Management Committee -- 12 THE WITNESS: Ordinarily it was quarterly, every 13 third month is when they would do this. As the things got 14 worse, they came to more and more meetings so there was a 15 time in the middle of 1981 where I think the CEO's met with 16 the Management Committee more frequently. But I would just 17 have to look at my notes. 18 There was no standard pattern for the CEO's i 19 participation. It was a more of how bad things were. But 20 the Management Committee had these Thursday afternoon, 21 Friday morning meetings every month. 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. 23 Q (By Mr. Perlis) Mr. Thrash, when did you first gg 24 become aware of a third party review of Brown & Root , 25 engineering? TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- --_ _m _ - - - - . . ., . . , . y- - . - - - - - ~ , . . - , . , s.,y- - - . - - - , - . . . ,,__--,-.--_y - - - , _ , .
15476 1 A I really have no independent recollection of that 2 in the sense that independent of my notes, but I've spent 3 so many hours in the last two years looking at these notes 4 that I think the first time that I heard of it was at this 5 December 4 meeting that we've been looking at here. I 6 don't recall any other -- I don't recall either reading any 7 other note or having any independent recollection other 8 than that. 9 Q Can you recall whether there were any discussions i 10 of a third party review of Brown & Root engineering at 11 Management Committee meetings other than the meetings that 12 are reflected in Exhibit 79, 80 and 817 ik h 13 A After the review got -- I'm not sure this is 14 responsive to your question, but after the review got i, ! 15 underway, after -- why didn't even call them Quadrex. I , i 16 wrote up some minutes, I think I called them " Nuclear 17 Service Corporation" or something like that. After they 18 got underway, there were periodic reports on their 19 progress. and the schedule of draft reports and that sort 20 of thing, and they were later in time than Exhibit 81. Is 21 that responsive to your question? i 22 Q In part. Do you recall whether there would have 1 23 been any mention between December 4th and I think it's l l I g 24 February 20th? , l 25 MR. AXELRAD: What were those two dates? l l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
3 15477 1 MR. PERLIS: December 4th and February I guess 2 19th would be a better date. Between the times of Exhibit a 3 79 and Exhibit 80. 4 A I don't right now have any recollection of that. 5 We could just look at the notes. But I don't recall any 6 other mention. It took them a while to hire them and for 7 them to get geared up. It seems to me that it was probably 1 8 in March or so when the progress reports started coming in 9 about how they were doing and what the target dates for l 10 presentation of the report and that sort of thing. 11 Q (By Mr. Perlis) I think Mr. Sinkin asked you
- 12 this question but I'm going to try it as well. Can you h 13 point to anything in any of these notes which would reflect i
j , 14 the one of the reasons that a third party review was I 15 initiated was to provide -- to determine whether or not 16 Brown & Root could support the project engineering i , 17 requirements? ! 18 A I think the answer that I gave him was that my l 19 testimony about my recollection is not based on anything in 20 these notes, there may be something in there. I'm not 21 prepared to say there's nothing there or there is something i 22 there. But my recollection of the purpose and scope is not 23 based on anything, excuse me, in my notes. 24 Q Well, can you then please repeat for me what your
}
( 25 recollection was based on for the determination that, or l l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15478 1 for the statement that the purpose of hiring Brown & 4 W 2 Root -- Quadrex was to determine whether Brown & Root could , 3 support project engineering requirements? 4 A My recollection is based on the entire context of 5 the project's condition at that time, in the fall or winter i 6 or whenever it was, after this agonizing year of show cause 7 on construction and construction QA problems and the 8 increasing number of engineering problems that continued to
- 9 accumulate at the Management Committee meetings, that put i 10 in jeopardy the hope for ramping up, as they called it, of
, 11 construction, which would presumably occur as soon as the 12 NRC let the project go with the complex concrete and
) 13 welding, which was on hold during the entire year of 1980.
14 Q Can you recall who first mentioned the idea for 15 your knowledge, who first mentioned the idea, when you i 16 first heard about the idea of a third party review from? l 17 A My best recollection is Mr. Goldberg. And having 18 just looked at these notes, repeatedly here, I believe that 19 it was probably at that December 4 meeting. But I have no i 20 recollection in variance with that. 21 Q If you can recall, is your impression of the 22 reason for hiring the third party review one that you got i 23 from something that Mr. Goldberg specifically would have i 24 told you or is this something that you would have gotten
} ,
25 through process of deductive reasoning that there had been TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15479 1 engineering problems, they're hiring someone, and therefore 2 I think the reason they hired them related to those ! 3 problems; was there something that Mr. Goldberg l 4 specifically would have said or would you likely have 5 deduced it from your own knowledge about the project? 6 A The need for and the satisfaction that resulted 7 when the owners found out that it was going on was l 8 something that existed without regard to anything Mr. j - 9 Goldberg said. I think the thing that I seem to recall as 10 a precipitating the feeling of satisfaction that something 11 like this was going on was when Mr. Goldberg reported, I 12 think it was the first at the management committee reps had (] ) 13 heard of it, it was certainly the first I had heard of it, l 14 the best I can recall now. l 15 Q This was the December 4th meeting? 16 A I think so. i j 17 Q Can you think of any reason why it would not have 18 been mentioned at the meeting that the purpose of hiring a 19 third party review was to determine whether Brown & Root l 20 could support project engineering? 21 A It may have been. I don't know that it wasn't. 22 That's the problem with fragmentary notes like I take. The i 23 fact that something is not in my notes is not evidence that
24 it was not said.
- (
- L T 25 Q Well, if you recollect -- if you remembered TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- . , _ . . .- .__m, . . . - . ,.,.._-.....-._.,,,,.__,-...w.._,.,.. .,..m.,___,... ,, ,..,,,._.,_._,.,..~,__,__,-.,.m,_
15480 1 hearing it at the time, isn't that the type of thing that 2 you would have put in your notes? 3 A It seems to me I should have. These the kind of . 4 thing I try to get in my notes. But I don't always get in 5 my notes what I'd like to get in my notes. , 6 Q I have only one final question. Do you recall 7 whether there was ever any discussion of whether the review 8 of Brown & Root engineering should be released to either 9 the NRC, the public in general, or intervenors in 10 particular? 11 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, again I'm not sure 12 that that lies within the scope of the proceeding today. ( I 13 obviously, you know one question is not that much of a 14 problem in terms of the lengths of the proceeding. But the
- 15 purposes that we view and the relationship of the hearing 16 we view was undertaken, I thought was what we were going to
- 17 be discussing today. And if witnesses are then going to be a 18 asked questions with respect to release of the report 19 MR. PERLIS
- Mr. Chairman --
20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Could you limit it to the 21 three or -- I guess the three meetings we're talking about 22 today? 23 MR. PERLIS: I'd rather limit it to the time {} 24 period of because there are Applicant meetings that we , 25 don't have here. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
-- _ . - . . -. . . - -- .. --. - . - - l
l l 15481 i l 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Correct. i I D s/ 2 MR. PERLIS: I'm certainly just talking better -- 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: There's one meeting in the 4 following summer that I'm not sure we want to get into that 5 and to answer your question, he'd probably have to bring 6 that in. 7 MR. PERLIS: I'm talking about before anyone saw 8 the report; this would be certainly before May of 1981, 9 whether there had ever been any discussions of whether the 10 report should be become confidential or whether it would be 11 given to this agency public at large or particularly the 12 licensing intervenors. b hhk 13 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, again that question 14 is much too broad. We're talking about the time frame when 15 the Quadrex report was undertaken, the period between , 16 now -- between December 1980 and January or February 1981. 17 I think the Boards' suggestion that the question be limited 18 to that time frame really set and a appropriate frame work 19 for limiting this discussion. < 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think the question 21 resumption limited to from say late-November through 22 February. I 23 MR. PERLIS: Fine. r gg 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: November '80 through February, 25 '81. f TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15482 1 Q (By Mr. Perlis) Do you want me to repeat the 2 question? 3 A Yes, I would appreciate it. 4 Q Was there ever any discussion at these meetings 5 of whether the Quadrex report should be made public either 6 to the NRC, to the public at large, or to intervenors? 7 A By "these meetings," in your question, you're 8 referring to Exhibit 79, 80 and 81. 9 Q In any other meetings that may have taken place 10 between late November 1980 and February 19817 11 A I don't recall. The end of that question was 12 February of '81. Is that right? I don't recall any in 13 that period of time. 14 Q I'm sorry, I do have one final question. Do you 15 recall -- do you recall whether there was ever any 16 distinction drawn at these meetings between licensability 17 review -- I'll strike that. Excuse me. I 18 Did the Management Committee ever see a link 19 between the Quadrex, the work that-Quadrex was going to be 20 doing, and licensability of the plant for the NRC? 21 A Did they ever see a link? 22 Q Well, was it ever discussed at meetings at the 23 Management Committee meetings, whether there might be a l 24 link? , 25 MR. AXELRAD: Could we have the entire question 4 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15483 1 repeated? I'm not sure I got it. 2 MR. PERLIS: Sure, I'll try and rephrase it. 3 Q (By Mr. Perlis) Was the possibility of a direct 4 link between the third party review of Brown & Root 5 engineering and eventual licensability of the South Texas 6 facility ever discussed at Management Committee meetings? 7 A ch, I think it was. I think in one of these 1 8 exhibits that you have here, somebody asked Mr. Gcidberg 9 what would happen if they found some problems. And as I 10 recall he said we'll have to figure out how to solve them 11 and report it and do the best we can or words to that 12 effect. (bh 13 MR. PERLIS: I have no further questions. 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think at this point we'll 15 take a break for lunch. I think an hour and fifteen 16 minutes would be plenty. So quarter after 2:00 pretty 17 sharp. 18 (Luncheon Recess.) 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on the record. 20 BOARD EXAMINATION 21 By Judge Bechhoefer: 22 Q Mr. Thrash, I'd like to go back over the three 23 meetings that we've been talking about basically, the three gg 24 meetings that are reflected in Applicants' Exhibits 79, 80, 25 and 81. Starting with the December 4 meeting, do you know TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15484 P j[ ' who it was who would have presented item -- what appears as , l ' ' 2 item I-G on the proposed agenda? 3 A Item I-D. 4 Q G. 5 A Gun. 6 Q G as in Gorilla. 7 A I don't recall right now who would ordinarily 8 have presented that at this particular time in December of 9 1980. In later years, this was, I think, either Mr. l 10 Goldberg's, perhaps his third meeting, but soon after that i 11 he was the one who would present the licensing matters. l 12 But I don't know who was set up for it at this time. II ) 13 Q Would it have been you as chairman of the legal 14 committee? 15 A No, absolutely not. I was not that close to 16 licensing. The legal committee was more concerned with the 17 internal legal problems that affected this group of 18 co-tenants in this party where you have two municipalities ' 19 and two investor owned systems dealing with the various 20 property, insurance and the matters of a commercial nature 21 among the participants, under the participation agreement. 4
- 22 The matter of licensing was almost completely 23 beyond the scope of -- certainly beyond the scope of
- f"T 24 responsibility of the legal committee and only at certain ,
- .J 25 times would somebody like Mr. Newman be asked to attend a TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- - . , . - . -- , . - - - - - , - , - --.-----,,.,------.,m.----y- , - - .n... ,,.- - + - - - - - - . , - , . , . -
15485 1 legal committee meeting just to kind of bring people up to 2 date and so that the lawyers for the various participants 3 were a little more conversant with what was going on on a 4 day-to-day basis, largely by either -- largely through Mr. 5 Newman's firm or by some of the Baker Botts' lawyers who 6 was working with Mr. Newman on licensing. But the legal 7 committee had practically nothing to do with licensing. 8 0 Didn't you remark earlier this morning that the 9 legal committee had supervision over the -- you referred to 10 the Lowenstein Newman firm -- 11 A If I -- 12 0 -- and I wondered what that meant. (]h 13 A I regret that I said that; I may have. What I 14 intended to say was that I had responsibility as the most 15 senior partner in Baker & Botts for the legal work 16 pertaining to the South Texas Project, which included the 17 licensing work. 18 I had responsibilities for that but I was so 19 fortunate in having the very able firm of Lowenstein and 20 Newman, who, for all practical purposes, as far as I was 21 concerned, did an able job of handling that end of the work 22 without my getting involved in it, although I was happy to 23 have them doing it and tried to follow it as closely as I gg 24 could. But my time was more involved with the internal , 25 housekeeping problems among the participants in the -- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15486 1 under the South Texas Project partnership agreement which 2 had nothing to do with licensing. 3 Q Now, as of the time of that December 4 meeting, 4 were you -- were any of the members at the meeting, to your 5 knowledge, familiar with the precise issues which were 6 going to be litigated in the following spring? 7 A You mean any of the people, either the members or 8 the alternates or the others there? 9 Q Yes. Were you aware that any of those were 10 familiar with the precise issues? 11 A In looking at the list of those in attendance at 12 the top of Page 80223 of Exhibit 79, except for Mr. '( hh 13 Goldberg who was nearing having been there a month 14 and-a-half at that time, I don't really see anyone else 15 there who was close to the licensing. 16 Mr. Goldberg, of course, had on his staff people 17 who were responsible for the company's licensing effort, 18 project manager's licensing effort. So he was probably the 19 most knowledgeable man there about that. Certainly more 20 knowledgeable with the details of it than I was. 21 Q Now, we approved those issues at a prehearing 22 conference on November 19. Were you aware of them by the 23 time of the December 4 meeting? gg 24 A No. I did not follow, I simply did not have timp 25 to do all the things that -- that's what all these other TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
I 15487 1 people were doing. I attended part of the prehearing j T 2 conference on the 19th but had to leave at noon for 3 responsibilities elsewhere. But Mr. Newman and his
; 4 partners and associates as well as the one or two of the 5 people from Baker Botts were handling, I thought, very ably 6 at the time. But I did not have a day-to-day hands-on 7 acquaintanceship with the details of the licensing effort. ,
8 Q Do you know whether the members of the Management 9 committee would have been, other than Mr. Goldberg I guess, 10 would have been officially informed that certain issues had 11 been adopted or accepted for litigation? 12 A I'm sure that they all received copies of each
' pn \dL) 13 order and other documents pertaining to the licensing 14 process because that was a routine distribution procedure.
15 Q Well, at the time of the meeting, our written 16 order had only been out two days, I think, but we had 17 actually adopted the contentions earlier, the issues, 18 earlier, bound them into the record and I wondered whether 19 you were familiar with any -- whether the members had been i 20 advised -- 21 A I am not. 22 0 -- of the -- 23 A I was not at that time and I am not now advised 24 whether they had at December 4 received that information. ' ((~} . 25 Q Do you have any awareness of whether that item TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15488 1 I-G was and the item to be considered in I-G was to inform 2 the membership -- the Management committee of the adoption 3 of specific issues? 4 A I have no knowledge of what was intended by Mr. 5 Poston in including that item on his proposed agenda. 6 Q Turning to Applicants' Exhibit 84, which is your 7 deposition, the question on top of Page 1163 concerning the 8 purpose of that overview, was that specifically only as you 9 read it from the notes or does that coincide with your 10 recollection either then or now? 11 A No, as . 'nderstood the question then and now, it 12 was was that what I recorded here. (] 13 Q And the purpose of the overview, as you recorded 14 here, is to provide testimony at the operating license 15 phase. 16 A Yes, the preceding question he'd asked me to, or 17 in the second preceding question, he had asked me to read 18 the sense of the comments. So it seemed to me that he was 19 asking me to read and interpret what I had written there 20 and that's certainly what I had written there. 21 Q Do you know whether at the time of the December 22 4, 1984 meeting, the third party review had actually been 23 approved and the company was starting to progress seeking a gg 24 firm to conduct that that review, do you know whether the , 25 approval had taken place by that date? TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15489 1 A You mean the approval with in the company. 2 Q Within HL&P7 3 A Absolutely no knowledge of that. I have only 4 knowledge of what Mr. Goldberg said. , 5 Q You don't remember then whether that was a 6 proposal of Mr. Goldberg or a report by Mr. Goldberg of 7 what was going to happen? 8 A I don't recall it being a proposal. I recall it 9 being a report of what he was doing. 10 Q At that time, do you know whether he cleared that 11 proposal or project with Mr. Jordan? 12 A No earthly idea. ( 13 Q Do you have any feeling whether Mr. Goldberg was 14 trying to get Management Committee approval of the project 15 as a predicate to approaching Mr. Jordan? 16 A As a general proposition, Houston Lighting & 17 Power Company as project manager didn't have to request 18 Management committee approval for matters that lay within 19 the scope of their responsibility and authority under the 20 participation agreement. And designing, licensing, 21 building and operating the plant were matters within that 22 scope of authority and responsibility. 23 So as a general proposition over the years, Houston Lighting & Power Company would always as any lll 24 , 25 partner, I suppose, even with authority, to maintain good i TATZ REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i i 15490 i i 1 relations with other partners, to take them into their 4. 2 confidence and tell them what they're doing. But it was l j 3 not -- it was not usual for Houston Lighting & Power l l 4 Company to ask the Management Committee for approval of ; 5 something the Management committee had no responsibility 6 for. j .
- 7 Q Would Mr. Goldberg perhaps have sought at least 1
j 8 an expression of approval as a means of convincing upper
- 9 management -- as a means of convincing upper management, 10 Mr. Jordan et al, that the project was a desirable one to j 11 undertake? '
. e
- 12 A I have no idea what was in Mr. Goldberg's mind in 13 that respect.
14 Q Do you think -- would it be inconsistent to read l ! 15 the notes approximately 3:10 or 3:15, as Mr. Goldberg t l l 16 trying to come up with everything but the kitchen sink, in l
~
l' ; 17 other words to justify, to convince upper management that l t ! l 18 that project should be undertaken? 19 A Would you read the first part of question back, j i l 20 please? , i j 21 (The requested material was read i 22 back by the reporter.) 23 A I suppose that -- I think it would be ! 24 inconsistent with my note that apparently indicates that . 25 Mr. Goldberg says he's~ identifying outside engineers now. j TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 !.~_.._... . . . - . . _ _ - , , _ . . . . . - _ , , - _ . _ _ . . ~ _ _ _ , . . . _ . . _ _..~,.._._,_.__.-..._._._____m
15491 1 That sounds to me, reading it now, like he's already 2 embarked upon a program which people rarely do in my 3 experience without feeling certain of their authority. 4 Your question, as I understand it, was limited to 5 the inconsistancy and I limited my answer to that. I have 6 absolutely no idea what's in Mr. Goldberg's mind about 7 kitchen sinks or -- , i 8 Q (By Judge Bechhoefer) I'm going to ask him. But 9 I thought I'd just get your recollection, your sense of the I l 10 meeting. 11 Could you explain perhaps some comments you made 12 this morning about or which appeared to indicate that there (] 13 was a relationship between the third party engineering 14 review and the holds which were in effect on complex , 15 concrete and on welding. My notes said you sort of tied 16 those together this morning. 17 A The fall of 1980 found the owners with two 18 concerns. They may have had more concerns, but as I recall 19 it, the two great concerns were first that the project had 20 been shut down for almost a year with nothing really 21 happening except a very large cash flow continuing, and 22 efforts during that year to provide responses to the NRC as 23 a result of the enforcement actions that had begun around 24 Christmas of 1979 and continued without any let up, the [jll , 25 principal effects of which were to stop all complex TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
1 15492 l concrete and welding. And this has been going on for 2 almost a year, in December of 1980. 3 Now, that first problem created a desire to get 4 back on the construction ramp, as they called it, from zero 5 level productivity, production, up to schedule level 6 production, as rapidly as possible. 7 However, during that period, particularly the 8 latter part of 1980, an increasing number of problems of 9 engineering as distinguished from construction, began to 10 emerge in the course of the Management Committee meetings, 11 I believe, 1980, that they seemed to be accumulating, 12 seemed to be more, couldn't get rid of the old ones and
] 13 then new ones would appear. And this created a second 14 problem, the spectre that even though they were ready to 15 start placing concrete and welding, that the engineering !
16 might be in such a retarded state of development that they 17 would really not be enough work there for the construction 18 people to do. 19 Q So there was a desire by the, by HL&P, to assure 20 that the engineering was progressing satisfactorily and in 21 order so that certain construction activities such as 22 concretes and welding could be undertaken? 23 A Well, not only undertaken, but gotten back up to
-g) 24 a high rate of production that would permit not only the .
25 continuation of the schedule but the recovery of some of TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
i 15493 l 1 the time that had been lost. 2 This was presented a real task of getting that 3 construction production going at such a rate that they 4 could get back on some thing close to a semblance of 5 progress curve in construction. And this required, if it's 6 going to be done, that engineering be well out ahead of 7 construction, otherwise the necessary procurement and the 8 design work particularly the the procurement and ordering 9 of engineered equipment, simply cannot proceed rapidly 10 enough to permit construction to proceed. 11 So the engineering has to come first. And it was 12 the fear, I think, that developed during 1980, that () 13 engineering really was not ahead, that caused this 14 apprehension and concern, because you can't construct 15 without the engineering and the procurement being out in 16 front. 17 Q Turning to the February 19 meeting, Applicants' 18 Exhibit 80 -- 19 MR. AXELRAD: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, what 20 Exhibit No. was that? , 21 MR. BECHHOEFER: 80. 22 Q (By Judge Bechhoefer) Firstly, the arrows that 23 appear on Page 81037 on the left-hand side, is that an lg 24 example, you mentioned that occasionally matters were . 25 placed out of order, at the 3:10 -- during the 3:10 to 3:25 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
-r., . - . . - - -,-4 . -, .
j 15494 1 time period. 2 A If you will refer to Page 81045 which is now part 3 of this,-those are the penciled notes from which the typing 4 was done, apparently the difficulty I had was that I 5 received a phone message, " unknown seriousness" and when I 6 returned the call, I left the meeting to return the call 7 and found that it was not really as serious I had feared it 8 caused me to be out of the room for about four minutes or 9 something like that. Because apparently in the how many 10 ever minutes I was out of the room, looks like about four, 11 Mr. Goldberg had started explaining whom he'd hired or at 12 least not necessarily whom he'd hired, but was discussing ( ) 13 HL&P's audit review of Brown & Root's engineering, and then 14 when Mr. Goldberg concluded about 3:25, he concluded with 15 the remark, "they will believe the people we've hired," and 16 I had -- I assume that I had missed his description of whom 4 17 they had hired in my notes up there at 3:10, is a note to 18 myself "What did Goldberg say while I was out about the 19 people hired."
- 20 Q so the arrow does not mean that "they will
! 21 believe the people we've hired" sentence should have 22 appeared at like on as the second line under 3:107 23 A That was probably an afterthought on my part, 24 j{jgg after Mr. Goldberg made the 3:25 comment about the people ,
25 and I didn't know who the people were. Looking back at my TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15495 1 notes, I realize that's what he had started talking about 2 while I was out of the room. So I just wrote a note to 3 myself to find out about whom he was talking. 4 Q During those remarks, at 3:25 remarks, was it 5 your impression that that Mr. Goldberg anticipated the -- 6 the people he's hired, and I assume that means "Quadrex," 7 as appearing as witnesses in the forth coming OL hearings? 8 A I'm not sure that that type of inference would 9 have followed in my mind at that time, because I guess I 10 was thinking more about a written report that might be 11 satisfactory without testimony. But certainly of testimony 12 as being desired in addition to the written had it been k 13 desired of it, it would have been available. 14 But I don't know what he meant there when he 15 said, "they will believe the people we've hired." 16 0 was it your impression that the report would be 17 used or was intended to be used or proposed to be used at 18 the hearings? 19 A I don't recall having any specific knowledge 20 about whether this report would be used at the Phase I 21 hearings that were scheduled in May. I certainly heard a 22 lot of conversation about if engineering questions should 23 arise and the hearings, essentially Phase I hearings as I
-g 24 recall, was essentially about construction and construction 25 QA problems, and the efforts undertaken to cure those among TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15496 1 other things. But I certainly heard and have read many 2 references in these notes to people say that if questions 3 arose in those hearings about engineering, that it would be 4 nice to have this -- there would be incidental benefits to 5 having this report. . 6 Q At that particular February 19 meeting, do you 7 recollect whether there might have been any differences of 8 opinion between Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Oprea concerning the 9 relationship with the hearings? 10 A I don't recall any now. 11 Q Do you recall what the line, the statement that 12 says, "oprea didn't think would effect May hearings." Do ]!h 13 you recall the context of that sentence? 14 A Well, it seems to me having read this several 15 tic.es recently that it follows Mr. Hancock's question about 16 the effect on the operating license hearings of an adverse 17 audit which I interpreted to mean by Quadrex, and then my 18 question mark there indicates that I thought Mr. Goldberg 19 said that "if there are adverse elements of the report, we 20 can only disclose them and explain the solution." And Mr. 21 Oprea said he didn't think that would effect the May 22 hearings. And those don't seem inconsistent to me. 23 Q So you don't read that as differing opinions as gg 24 to whether the either the forthcoming report or witnesses,. 25 a third party review, would be used at the hearing? TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15497 1 A No, sir, I don't interpret that as a difference l W 2 of opinion. 3 Q From the first -- on the 3:10 line, right at 4 3:10, do you recall whether Mr. Goldberg at that meeting 5 referred to the review as an audit, is that Mr. Goldberg's 6 words or yours, the word " audit"? 7 A Ordinarily, when I'm writing it a continuing line 8 like that without any interruption, it's usually something 9 somebody is saying. I assume he said " audit" but I think 10 that both in the exhibits to those minutes and the text of 11 the minutes that the word was later changed to " review." 12 That's just a very hazy recollection that I have.
) 13 I know some such change in nomenclature took place there 14 because there was a change. If we had the final minutes, 15 we could see what that was. But just when I went back and 16 wrote the word " review" in there, I don't know.
17 Q Turning to Page 81038, same meeting, this is the 18 typewritten version, what -- sort of in the middle of that 19 page -- what does the comment which is in parenthesis mean 20 where it says, "had NRC attorney there." was there an NRC 21 attorney at that meeting? 22 A Excuse me, let me read that just a minute and 23 refresh my memory about what this is all about.
- gg 24 That's apparently something that Mr. Oprea said,.
25 but I do not now recall the meaning of it. Where the NRC ! TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l 15498 I 1 attorney was and what it was he thought would have no 2 problem, I just have no recollection of the meanings of i i 3 those notes at this time. 4 Q Turn now to Applicants' Exhibit 81, which is the 5 February 20 meeting, at this meeting, I un3erstand that a ! 6 slide which is Applicants' Exhibit 83, was being shown at ) 7 the time, at 9:35, Item No. 6 and later 7 were discussed. 4 8 A Yes, I think that's right. I think Mr. Barker l 9 put it up at 9:26, and then proceeded to talk about l 10 personnel changes in concrete, welding, '81 work plan, I l 11 reforecast plan and then got to engineering review at No. 6 l 12 at 9:35. 13 Q When they got to No. 6, do you recall whether , 14 persons who were attending the meeting asked questions i 15 about that particular item? j 16 A About the engineering review? 17 Q Yes. j 18 A I have no recollection now, but I doubt it i , ) 19 because I think I probably would have noted it had they - 20 asked questions. 4 l 21 Q so as far as you could -- as you interpret this 22 document, all of these documents were those of Mr. Barker? ! 23 A Except insofar as Mr. Oprea and Mr. Hancock -- \ . lg 24 well, Mr. Oprea and Mr. Hancock interjected comments, down, 25 under No. 7. But the inference that I draw is that this l 1 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
-_--ee-,-e-...,v,-y---,-,.v.- .-w_--- __.,,w,,w -
,--._~,+-,--_%-----m-.%-%,,w--,-%e . .ww y e ~>-,me
15499 l l I I would -- this was all by Mr. Barker under No. 6. 2 Q Just a final question. You may have been asked 1 3 this before. You said that a number of things that were 4 discussed at these meetings generally did not make their 5 way into the notes. Is the other aspect of that true to 6 the extent that everything that is in the notes was in fact , 7 discussed at the meeting? 8 A Yes. If I could write faster, there would be 9 more in my notes. i 10 Q But each one of these notes were things that 11 actually occurred at the meeting? 12 A In general, that's true. In some places, not ( ) 13 necessarily in these notes, but there are some places where q 14 I've written notes to myself sort of like a shopping list I 15 had to do when I got back home, I mean something in the 16 minute would -- in the meeting would remind me of something P 17 that I had to do and I would just write it in the margin. 18 I don't recall any of these in these particular meetings 19 here, but over the whole number of years, there would be 20 some of those things that would just purely notes to 21 myself. But in general, anything that's in sort of the 22 middle of the page is something somebody said. 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's all the questions we gg 24 have. , 25 Mr. Axelrad. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l 15500 1 MR. AXELRAD: May we have just a couple of 2 minutes, please, Mr. Chairman. 3 MR. AXELRAD: We're ready to proceed, Mr. 4 Chairman. 5 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 6 By Mr. Axelrad: i 7 Q Mr. Thrash, in response to several questions that 8 Chairman Bechhoefer asked you, you talked about the fact 9 that back in late-1980 and early-1981, that the project ; 10 needed NRC approval to restart on the concrete and on the 11 welding and you also indicated that there were engineering 12 concerns that had to be taken care of before the project 13 could go ahead speedily. Were you suggesting that those 14 engineering matters that had to be taken care of related to 15 concrete and welding? 1 16 A I did not mean to. I may have inadvertently 17 spoken in such a way as to make it sound like that. The 18 engineering problems in 1980 were pervasive throughout the 19 entire spectrum of engineering work being done, and I don't 20 recall, as a matter of fact, any engineering problems that 21 were related to the welding or concrete. But the things 22 that were critical path items that would have prevented any 23 large amount of -- large amount of construction proceeding, 24 such as design of engineered equipment, the imbeds that had 25 to be placed so that those things can later be installed TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
15501 1 and all that sort of thing, as I understood it, were well 2 behind and some of the problems of HVAC, the containment 3 building ventilation, beam ends, all sorts of things that 4 weren't related to welding or mass concrete. 5 MR. AXELRAD: Thank you, Mr. Thrash. We don't 6 have any further questions, Mr. Chairman. 7 RECROSS EXAMINATION 8 By Mr. Sinkin: 9 Q Mr. Thrash, turning to Applicants' Exhibit 80 on 10 the first page, in terms of your discussion with the Board 11 about how there were meetings of the Management Committee, 12 CEO's occasionally attended -- 13 MR. AXELRAD: I'm sorry, Mr. Sinkin, could you 14 speak up, please, without a microphone, it's difficult to 15 hear down here. 16 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Relating to the discussion with 17 the Board about the Management committee meetings that the 18 CEO's sometimes attended, I see in Applicants' Exhibit 80 19 at 1:41, "Goldberg - next month HL&P will take charge of 20 CEO's meeting," as if by this time, there was a formal 21 CEO's meeting or is this perhaps the quarterly meeting? 22 Can you enlighten me as to the meaning of that line? 23 A When the term "CEO meeting" is used, I always (]lg) 24 understand it to mean that that is the meeting of the . 25 Management committee, at this period of time, when the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i 15502
+ 1 report from Brown & Root would be heard and at which the l
2 CEO's would be invited do attend and participate. 3 Q The question of the use of the word " audit" and ) 4 the use of the word " review," if you will look at half of 5 this Exhibit 80, your handwritten notes, on Page 81045 at 6 the top, does that refresh your recollect at all that the 7 word " review" was brought up right at that moment in the -- 8 I guess my question is: Is the addition of the word 9 " review" with a question mark above the word " audit" is 10 your addition or is that something someone said? 4 11 A I don't really know. I think, and this is what I l 12 said awhile ago, I think that there was a change on the
) 13 slide that was used in the presentation and that the hard 14 copy, the letter sized copy that I later attached to the
- 15 minutes, had the one word marked out and the other word i
! 16 inserted. But my memory of the details at which is which, 17 I don't recall right now. 18 And as I testified a few minutes ago, I don't 19 recall just whether I wrote that up there in quote with the 20 question. We could clear.it up, I think, if we had the 21 final minutes with the exhibits attached to it if it's 22 important. But I really don't remember the sequence of 23 that nomenclatural problem. []lgg 24 Q I think you're recollection is correct about the, l 25 slide. Do you remember if the slide word was changed in TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
-_ . , - . - -, ., -, --, --,--.-.- -- w 4 ,
e.. ~,.n-*= w. >+w.- w--n-y. ,. ye w , y - --ww
15503 1 the course of the meeting or was it changed before the 2 slide was put up? 3 A No, I don't remember that now. 4 MR. SINKIN: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. 5 MR. PERLIS: The Staff has no re-cross. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The Board has no further 7 questions. Does Applicants have -- 8 MR. AXELRAD: We have no further questions, Mr. 9 Chairman. 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Thrash, I guess you're 11 excused. 12 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. h 13 MR. BECHHOEFER: I must say I hated to receive 14 your affidavit before, it would have been a lot nicer to go 15 to Hawaii. I hope you had a nice vacation in spite our 16 asking you to be here. 17 THE WITNESS: I did, yes. 18 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, would it be 19 appropriate to take about a five minute break before we go 20 on with Mr. Goldberg? 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We could. 22 (Discussion off the record.) 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on the record. 24 Mr. Axelrad. ( . 25 MR. AXELRAD: At this time, Applicants call Mr. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15504 1 Goldberg who has previously been sworn, h 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: All right. 3 JEROME GOLDBERG 4 was recalled as a witness on behalf of Applicants and, 5 having been first duly cautioned and sworn, testified upon 6 his oath as follows: 7 DIRECT EXAMINATION 8 By Mr. Axelrad: 9 Q Mr. Goldberg, will you please state your full 10 name for the record? 11 A Jerome H. Goldberg. 12 Q Mr. Goldberg, when were you employed by HL&P? ll 13 A I started employment with Houston Lighting & 14 Power, I believe on October 20th, 1980. 15 0 What was your position at that time? , 16 A I was hired as the vice-president of nuclear 17 engineering and construction. 18 Q When did you decide to undertake a third party 19 review of Brown & Root engineering at the South Texas 20 project? 21 A I would say within probably the first two or 22 three weeks after coming aboard. I was reasonably 23 convinced that I needed to undertake a review. I had 24 discussed it with my staff, I believe, in November 1980 and {ggg 25 I think the decision to go forward with the review was TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15505 1 sometime in early to mid-December. 2 Q And what was the purpose of that review? 3 A The purpose of the review was to basically 4 benchmark where the engineering was on the South Texas I l 5 project. Clearly it had been a project that had been 6 around for quite a few years, I had just come aboard. I 7 was responsible for both engineering and construction and I 8 needed to get a fairly quick birds eye view of what was the 9 general state of the union on the engineering of the 10 project. 11 Q Why did you decide to undertake a third party 12 review instead of a review by HL&P personnel? 13 A Well, I felt that a third party examination would 14 give me results which I felt might prove to be more 15 reliable. People both in Brown & Root as well as Houston 16 Lighting & Power Company had been with the engineering 17 effort for a considerable period of time and while I'm sure 18 nobody would unintentionally identify a situation being 19 different than it might really be, I felt the objectivity 20 of a third party would certainly be a more reliable basis 21 for my judgment, and clearly if I were ever called upon by 22 any authorities, whether they be the owners or any of the 23 regulatory authorities to ever have to characterize the 24 status of engineering, I would certainly be in a stronger . 25 position to respond. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
4 15506 1 Q Did your Staff have all of the capabilities that s 2 you felt were necessary for the type of review you wanted , 3 to undertake? 4 4 A No. I believed that some of the aspects of the 5 engineering of the plant were of a character that I wasn't 6 at all sure at that juncture whether my staff had that 7 expertise and I felt that that would also be an important , 8 consideration. 9 Q When you joined HL&P in October 1980, did you 10 read the show cause order in the South Texas Project? 11 A Yes, I did. 12 Q Did you read the Commission's decision of s 13 September 22, 1980, that had denied intervenors request for 14 a hearing on the show cause order and agreed with the 15 Boards' intent to hold an early hearing? 16 A I think I was aware of that, yes. 17 Q Did you attend the prehearing conference on 18 November 19, 19807 19 A Yes, I did. 20 Q In light of your knowledge of the background of 21 the Phase I hearings and of the Phase I issues, did you 22 believe-that the third party review of engineering that you 23 were considering was relevant to those issues? ( gg 24 A Not at all. , 25 Q In deciding to undertake a third party review of TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
' 15507 1 Brown & Root engineering, did you have in mind that such a 2 review would be necessary to deal directly or indirectly 3 with the issues to be considered in the Phase I hearings? , 4 A No, not at all. The only relationship would be ; 5 that clearly any information that I could derive through , 6 such a review would certainly put me in a position to 7 address engineering questions should they come up which i 8 would be totally unrelated to the particular scope of a 9 Phase I. 10 Q Since you didn't consider the engineering review 11 relevant to the Phase I issues, why did you consider it i 12 conceivable that engineering questions might arise at the ( ) 13 Phase I hearing? . J 14 A Well, of course, I was vice-president of both 15 engineering and construction. It's been my experience that 16 boards have wide latitudes in the types of questions that 17 might be discussed and it was certainly not inconceivable-
- 18 that the Board might wish to explore my understanding of my 19 responsibilities.
20 Q In deciding to undertake the Quadrex review or in 21 establishing its scope, did you take into account the 22 issues that had been framed by the Board for Phase I? 23 A No. {}g 24 Q Did you suggest to Mr. Oprea, Mr. Jordan or . 25 anyone else, that the third party review should be l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l - . _ - . - - . . -..--- - - ..-_.- ---_._.._..-.-
15508 l
!r3 1 performed in order to deal with Phase I issues?
(7') D 2 A No. (b 3 Q Did you believe that unless you undertook an , 1 i 4 independent review of Brown & Root engineering, HL&P might 5 be regarded as having abdicated its responsibility as a ! 6 licensee for the engineering of the south Texas Project? l
- 7 A Not at all. As a matter of fact, when I joined j 8 HL&P, I was encouraged by the rather large number of 9 engineers that were assigned to the project, many of which 10 were degreed in nuclear engineering, and unfortunately some 11 large number of them I guess didn't have all that many 1
12 years of working experience but there was a considerable j ) 13 number of people with fine educations suitable for this i j 14 work. These engineers were located in the offices of Brown 15 & Root so they were very contiguous, if you will, to the r 16 work at hand and they seemed to be paying extremely close 17 attention to the activities of the contractor regarding the 18 engineering activities. ! 19 Q Did you regard the undertaking of the Quadrex 20 review as one of the corrective actions contemplated by the 21 show cause order or the Applicants' response to the show 22 cause order? l 23 A No. j l (]lgg 24 Q After you joined HL&P, did you begin attending , j i 25 meetings of the STP Management Committee? l
! TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l l
. - . - ,-. a
15509 (g 1 A Yes, I did. N 2 Q Did you ever suggest to the Management committee 3 that the necessity to deal with Phase I issues was the 4 motivation for the Quadrex review? 5 A No. 6 Q What did you convey to the Management Committee 7 was the basis or purpose for the Quadrex review? 8 A Basically I pointed out to the Management i 9 Committee that the status of the engineering of the project 10 was absolutely essential to be understood as it would 11 clearly identify where we might be having difficulty; where 12 we might be facing future difficulties, that would impact 1 (~. 13 our ability to go forward with an aggressive construction l 14 program, which was the focal part of the partners' interest ll l 15 at that juncture. I 16 The plant had been down for a period of time to 17 deal with the show cause issues, and having those behind 18 them, everyone looked forward to an aggressive construction 19 program. To support such a program, the engineering would 20 have to be in good shape. 21 It struck me that the way for me to get the best 22 handle on just what shape it was in was to undertake a 23 review of that character as to do it by myself or clearly ,(ggg 24 with my own staff would have taken an inordinant amount of. 25 time. And that was the real thrust of the reasons for TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15510 1 undertaking this review. 2 Q was Dr. Sumpter responsible for performing -- for 3 overseeing the performances the Quadrex review? 4 A Yes, he was assigned the role of coordinating the 1 5 review. 6 Q When you provided any instructions to Dr. Sumpter 7 in connection with the review, did you express an interest 8 in being able to respond to particular engineering 9 questions in the Phase I hearing? 10 A only to the extent that I wanted the review 11 completed at the earliest possible time and clearly before T 12 I got engulfed in the activities of the hearing process. , m(b ) 13 And to that extent, we wanted to move forward and get that 14 review behind us. 15 Q Were you present at the STP committee meeting on 4
- 16 December 4, 19807 I t
17 A I believe I was. 18 Q Do you recall any discussions at that meeting 19 regarding the scope of the issues in Phase I of the NRC 20 hearings? 21 A I do not recall any discussion on the scope of 22 those hearings. 23' Q Do you recall any discussion at that meeting of l(})gg 24 using the third party review of Brown & Root engineering as 25 a method for demonstrating at the Phase I hearing that HL&P TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15511 1 was competently discharging its responsibilities for 2 engineering and had not abdicated its responsibilities in 3 that area? 4 A No. 5 Q Do you have before you a copy of Applicants' 6 Exhibit No. 79, Mr. Thrash's notes of the STP Management 7 Coma'itee meeting of December 4, 19807 8 A Yes, I do. 9 Q I direct your attention to the second typewritten 10 page which is marked 2052 in the upper right-hand corner. 11 If you will note, at the time that's marked 3:10, slightly 12 below that, there is attributed to you, Mr. Goldberg, a lh 13 remark " Thinks construction errors will raise engineering 14 questions." Do you recall making such a remark? 15 A That certainly sounds like something I would have 16 said. 17 0 Can you explain to us what you might have said at 18 that point? 19 A well, I believe the conversation was related to 20 the subject under discussion which was item II-E, which I 21 believe was the reforecast. And of course the reforecast 22 was the efforts on the part of Brown & Root to identify 23 what level of effort and what kind of a schedule they 24 anticipated that they were going to be able to pursue and , g 25 the development of that reforecast was underway. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15512 1 And everyone was concerned about just how well 2 and how quickly Brown & Root would in fact be able to 3 perform. And Mr. Hancock, I believe, had made the i 4 commentary about my November remarks which said - 5 " engineering would be going slow." l [ 6 And in the course of discussing the things that 1 7 would control construction, I indicated that the task for 8 engineers would be to not only develop the necessary 9 drawings and specifications, do the necessary analyses
- 10 which most people recognize as part of the engineering 4 11 role, I called their attention that additionally, engineers l 12 have to deal with the technical implications of future
( ) 13 errors and when future errors occur, they burden the 14 engineers with the need to make a technical assessment on 15 how to deal with those errors. l l 16 So I was pointing out that in terms of the 17 overall abilities of Brown & Root to perform, we had to 18 carefully consider their resources that would not only 1 l 19 produce the engineering prerequisits but also be able to I 20 field the technical implications of future errors. } 21 Q on that same page, slightly below that, there is
- 22 a parenthetical expression, which includes the remark, 1
23 "then can provide strong testimony as OL hearing." Do you 24 recall making such a remark? [ gg , i
- 25 A I would surmise that we're in the discussion also TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
**=c- -re--, -m- 1.-w--ws--nr # .--,r e ee.-. % ., , - - ,-.r%--m- y -y,e,--,-w--.,e_
i 15513 1 about the use of an engineering effort, an engineering s 2 review, if you will, to find out where we are, and by using ! 3 clearly, by conducting this review, if you will, we would , 4 obtain kind of understanding of our situation that should 5 ever there arise a question regarding the engineering state 6 of the union, we certainly be more informed to be able to l 7 be responsive to such a question with that kind of j j 8 information. 9 So as a side benefit to undertaking a review and 10 determining engineering status, I would be in a position >
; 11 clearly to more knowledgeable to respond to any questions 12 from any regulatory. authority or licensing authority should
,({[hg
% 13 they arise.
4j 14 Q Further down on that page, below time 3:15, there 15 are a couple of lines which read, "Goldberg - worried about J j 16 question, how does HL&P know that Brown & Root engineering 17 correct." Do you recall making those remarks? 18 A Yeah, that also sounds like something I would , 19 have said. That's a characterization I'm sure of something 20 I said. My method of operation on engineering as well as i ! 21 construction is that I have to know with some confident 22 where I'm at. And I feel it is my responsibility, it's a
- 23 part of my job, to know where I'm at. And if I don't, I
] 24 guess in a sense I worry. I would rather use the ,
3 25 connotation that I would be concerned, concerned enough to TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i
i 15514 l 1 want to undertake those measures necessary so I would l 2 understand what kind of a situation I had. 3 0 Were you present at the Management Committee 4 meeting on February 19, 19817 5 A I believe I was, yes. 6 0 You have before you a copy of Applicants' Exhibit 7 No. 80, which are Mr. Thrash's notes of the meeting on that 8 day. I would like to direct your attention to the third 9 typewritten page which is marked 81037 in the bottom ric ' t 10 hand corner. 11 MR. PIRFO: Isn't that 817 12 MR. AXELRAD: I'm sorry. h 13 MR. PIRFO: I believe you said 80. 14 MR. AXELRAD: February 19, 1981. 15 MR. PIRFO: No, Exhibit No. 81. I'm sorry, 16 you're right. 17 MR. GUTTERMAN: You're right. 18 Q (By Mr. Axelrad) Okay. In Applicants' Exhibit 19 No. 80, in the third typewritten page which at the bottom 20 right hand corner bears the No. 81037, I would like to 21 direct your attention to a few lines that appear about 22 three quarters down on the page, where there's a reference 23 to "effect on OL hearing of adverse order" and then a 24 question mark parentheses, "Goldberg can only disclose and. gg 25 explain solution," close parentheses, do you recall any TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15515 1 such discussion? 2 A I don't know that I recall that exact discussion. l 3 I think that the substance of what might well have been 4 stid there, is Mr. Hancock, I think, inquired when you 5 undertake a review of this type and you find problems,
, 6 could that have some down side effect on the broader 7 perspective of getting the plant licensed, perhaps as 8 opposed to just an operating license hearing.
9 {} And I think my response to that was that clearly 10 when you undertake a review of~this type, you certainly do 11 expose yourself to the possibility that you're going to l 12 uncover something that will be of a problem nature and if
) 13 it is the type of problem that by regulation you're going 14 to have to report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 15 quite possibly these will become future licensing issues.
16 But the importance of knowing where you are in my view 17 outweighed those risks. 18 Q Were you expressing any expectation that those 1 4 19 kinds of -- the types of problems that might be found in 20 the Quadrex review would become the subject of the upcoming 21 licensing hearings? 22 A I had no reason to know that I would find 23 anything that would be of .tnterest to a Licensing Board. 24 Clearly, the discovery of n 50.55(e) reportable item would, 25 come to the attention of a Licensing Board as they would i , TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
15516 1 receive copies of same. And as it turned out, when we went 2 through the review, that was exactly the case. But I had 3 no reason to know that, well, no reason to expect that I 4 was going to find anything in this review that was of any 5 interest to the Board. 6 Q The line just below the remarks we were talking 7 about reads, "Oprea didn't think would effect May 8 hearings." Were there disagreements between you and Mr. 9 Oprea at that meeting, either as to the relevance of the i 10' Quadrex review to the Phase I hearings or as to the impact 11 of adverse results on such hearing? 12 A I don't think there was a disagreement at all. I
) 13 didn't relate that this review would have any bearing on 14 the Phase I hearing. Apparently that also was Mr. Oprea's 15 view so it looks like we were in agreement. ,
16 0 on the last four lines of that page, there are 17 remarks attributed to you: Goldberg - in hearing, board 18 won't believe contractor, et cetera. Do you recall the 19 statements appearing in those four lines? 20 A Well, it's harder to recall exact conversation, 21 but again the characterization there looks clearly like 22 something I would have said. 23 And again, in the context of my discussing this 24 review as a side benefit, we csrtainly do derive some g . 25 factual information that should we be queried regarding the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l 15517 1 engineering on the project, it does provide very convincing 2 information. And it turned out in earlier concerns I had ; 3 in my career, before other licensing board, the chairman 4 made the characterization that he didn't really have much 5 confidence in the licensee and he didn't have much 6 confidence in the contractor, but he surely would believe 7 the third party. 8 And while I'm not sure that that's shared by 9 every licensing board, that was an experience that I had 10 and I just couldn't divorce that possibility. So clearly, 11 having the information did occur to me could be very, very 12 he'lpful in the event that this licensing board had any I h 13 interest in the engineering status of the job. 14 Q Did this interest on your part indicate that you 15 expected that engineering questions would come up -- 16 A No. l 17 0 -- at the Phase I hearings? l 18 A I had no reason to know that any engineering 19 questions would come up. And clearly, it had no bearing 20 whatsoever in the need to do this review. 21 Q When you received the Quadrex report, did the -- 22 do you believe that its results reflected that HL&P had 23 previously abdicated its responsibilities as an NRC 24 licensee? , 25 A Not at all. I found nothing in that review that TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
, - _ . , - , - - . . , , , --n,-- - - . - . , , - - - ----.---n, - - . , ,-m gn - - _ . -----,.,n - . -
4 15518 suggested to me that HL&P had abdicated its 1 i i 2 responsibilities. As a matter of fact, as has been brought j 3 up before as part of this hearing, the very substance of 4 what we had asked Quadrex to look at was to a large extent t 5 developed by the engineering team of Houston Lighting & 6 Power Company, who identified areas where they had some i 7 misgivings and of course I added to it my experience in 1
! 8 those areas that inherently are difficult nuclear l r engineering challenges and places where other contractors 9
4 10 have had difficulty. t l 11 And I felt to develop a program of conducting a 12 review in the areas where if you were going to have
,( ) 13 difficulties, you would likely find them, suggestgd to me 14 that that was clearly consistent with HL&P carrying out its j 15 responsibilities.
l ! 16 Q was a determination to the -- to provide the 17 Quadrex report to the Board based in any way on the l 18 negative character of the results that Quadrex review had i 19 found? 20 A Not at all. We had no reason to associate the 1 21 results of the Quadrex review with in fact the issues b
^
22 ~before the Board. l 23 Q Did you and Mr. Oprea have any disagreements as I 24 to the reasons for not turning over the Quadrex report to , gg l 25 the Board? TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 aim-e-ew+---~~-w-y----w- m m5 3-,--ww+v--- v.y e wvrm 've ez e *wvm -w -== w r w w-r - e
- y w w g w w --v -e wv-- w + w---ar mg mw ww -ry
- m m * , t--e, w -v = ew' v - m w -ww-*- wer*w - m r w w =*-
15519 1 A No, we did not. We've never had any disagreement W 2 on the purpose of or the handling of that report. 3 0 I also have before you Applicants' Exhibit 81, 4 which consists of Mr. Thrash's notes of the Management 5 Committee meeting of February 20, 1981. Have you l 6 previously reviewed that document? 7 A Have I previously reviewed this particular 8 document. 9 0 Yes. 10 A I've seen this particular document, yes. 11 Q Does anything in either Applicants' Exhibits 79, 12 80 or 81, namely Mr. Thrash's notes of the meetings of
) 13 December 4, 1980, February 19, 1981 and February 20, 1981, 14 does anything in those three documents change your reaction 15 as expressed in your previous testimony as to the reasons 16 for HL&P's commissioning of the Quadrex review or the 17 relationship of the Quadrex review to the Phase I hearings?
18 A Not at all. 13 At this time I would like to hand to you a copy 20 of CCANP Exhibit No. 87, which is a copy of your February 21 9, 1982 sworn statement to the NRC and in its 82-02 22 investigation. I don't know whether the parties and the 23 Board have those copies. I think we have several extra g 24 copies we can share. . 25 I direct your attention to the third paragraph on TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15520 1 that page, the one that begins, "When I joined HL&P" and (& w 2 particularly to the second sentence which reads, "After i 3 reviewing the STP engineering program, I felt there was a 4 need to have a third party assessment conducted regarding 5 the design and engineering program of Brown & Root, Inc., 6 in order that I would be able to respond to any questions 7 regarding the status of these activities at the South Texas 8 Project." 9 CCANP in its Phase II proposed findings claims 10 that the quote " clear import" close quote of your 82-02 11 statement is that you were preparing for the licensing , i 12 hearings and sought the Quadrex investigation so that you i h 13 could quote "could testify knowledgeably at the Phase I l 14 hearings," close quote. Was that the quote " import" close , i 15 quote of your statement? 16 A Absolutely not. The import of this statement was 17 that I needed to have conscious knowledge of the status of i 18 engineering to be able to carry out my responsibilities. 19 There's absolutely no way to know where to devote my 20 attention and the attentions of my staff if I don't know 21 where I'm at. And I was new to the project and it struck 22 me that the most important first thing I needed to do was 23 to benchmark engineering. 24 Through the show cause situation, there was a gg . 25 fairly good indication of where the construction activities TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15521 1 were and I didn't feel near as knowledgeable about those as 2 I did about the engineering status. And to be able to 3 answer questions does not limit that by any stretch of the 4 imagination to any particular forum. 5 I have to be able to explain to Mr. Oprea where 6 things are, to Mr. Jordan or to any of the other owners of 7 this project. So questions in this context is the ability 8 to be able to intelligently respond to interest on where is 9 engineering on the South Texas Project. 10 Q Mr. Goldberg, I may have misheard part of your 11 answer. It sounded to me like you said, "I didn't have 12 anywhere near as much information on construction or 13 engineering as on engineering." 14 A If I said that, I didn't have anywhere near as 15 much information on engineering as I had on construction, 16 I falt through the advent of the show cause there was a lot 17 of visibility on where construction stood. 18 MR. AXELRAD: Fine, thank you very much, Mr. 19 Goldberg. We have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Sinkin. 21 CROSS EXAMINATION 22 By Mr. Sinkin: 23 Q Mr. Goldberg, turning to Applicants' Exhibit, 24 Page 80224, time 3:10, Mr. Hancock apparently asked a , 25 question about something you had said in November regarding TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15522 1 going slow in engineering. And then there's the word h 2 " reverification" question mark. Can you recall what the 3 remarks were you made at the November meeting that Mr. 4 Hancock would be referring to and in particular the use of 5 the word " reverification"? 6 A I'm not really sure exactly what that might have 7 referred to. There were in fact -- there was in progress 8 at that point in time, a reverification of engineering 9 specifications, for example, for engineered material. That 10 was a very extansive effort. I believe it was estimated in 11 the order of a hundred man years. It might have referred 12 to that, I'm not absolutely sure. 13 Does the phrase " going slow in engineering" refer (}lh Q 14 to a deliberate policy of slowing down engineering or is 15 that an observation that engineering was going slow? 16 A I'm of the opinion -- and again its very 17 difficult to resurrect these conversations -- that it was 18 more likely things were going slow in engineering. 19 Q Between October 20th when you came and the 20 December 4th meeting of the Management Committee, did you 21 make any effort to slow down Brown & Root's engineering 22 work with the anticipation that further action would be 23 necessary before they would go forward? 24 A No. I certainly was not making any effort to , 25 slow it down. If anything, I was looking to understand TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15523 1 what measures could be taken to speed it up. 2 0 And your best recollection of the next line "that 3 construction errors will raise engineering questions" is 4 that -- that was totally a future oriented observation? 5 A That's correct. 6 0 Your original conception of the Quadrex study, if 7 I remember it correctly, was a two to three week snapshot. 8 Is that correct? 9 A That is correct. 10 Q And you expected that two to three week snapshot 11 to tell you where you were at on engineering in this 12 project? 13 A In those areas which I felt would give me a 14 pretty good barometer as to just what kind of situation we 15 might have. 16 Q Did you have any idea that questions might come 17 up in the licensing hearings in those particular areas? 18 A Not at all. Quite the contrary, the areas that I 19 was attempting to get a handle on were as far as I could 20 tell just totally unrelated to anything that was of 21 interest at that point in time to this Board. 22 Q Mr. Goldberg, can you think up any reasonable 23 explanation why the notes of this Managem-nt committee 24 meeting would reflect that when you talked about your plans 25 for this engineering overview, the only purpose given in TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15524 1 the parenthetical remark is to provide strong testimony at 2 the OL hearing? 3 A I could speculate on the situation. I certainly 4 can't tell you with absolute certainty. There's just no 5 way the conversation was limited to that remark. And I 6 would just suggest that the secretary who has a lot of 7 things that he has to record and he's always talking to 8 people to see if he got things, his ears might well have 9 perked up when he heard the word " hearing" and he might not 10 otherwise have paid a whole lot of attention to what 11 preceded it and there may be a reason for that. We were 12 talking about the importance of having engineering in a (]I 13 position to support construction. That certainly wasn't 14 any news to the Management committee. 15 The idea of going out there and taking a look to 16 see what shape engineering was in, I doubt that that was 17 anything of any special significance from their 18 perspective. I think it was rather special in the sense 19 that that's not something that anybody seemed to be doing 20 in those days, but I'm not sure they understood that. But 21 what I do believe, that caught Mr. Thrash's attention was 22 the word " hearing" and I'm speculating that that's why we 23 don't see much dialog about anything else. -lg 24 Q From the beginning of the Quadrex report, the , 25 Quadrex study, did you expect that the Quadrex study was TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222 7177
15525 1 going to find numerous things wrong in Brown & Root's 2 engineering process? 3 A I had no way of knowing what it was going to 4 really find. The whole purpose of the examination was to 5 see just what the condition was. I think in earlier 6 testimony, we have gone over the fact that the original 7 purpose of the review was to get into the state of the 8 union on the difficult technical arenas that the rest of 9 the industry was struggling with, matters addressing design 10 of Category I pipe supports, pipe stress analysis, pipe 11 break restraints, these are the really difficult 12 engineering tasks. And when you walked around the job (]h 13 site, you could see structure that you couldn't find any 14 Category I cable trays and you couldn't find any pipe, and 15 you certainly couldn't find hardly a permanent pipe support 16 anyplace. 17 So it didn't take much imagination to suspect 18 that those were probably areas that Brown & Root was having 19 great difficulty. Those were the areas that we were hoping 20 the review would focus its attention on. I believe it kind 21 of mushroomed out a little bit broader but that 22 unfortunately was the character of this review. It was the 23 first review that the Quadrex corporation had ever carried gg 24 out and it was clearly the first review of that character , 25 that I'm aware of that HL&P had undertaken of that TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15526 1 particular type. So we were all learning a lot in this h 2 particular review. 3 Q Knowing that Brown & Root had not in fact 4 produced much of the kind of work you were looking for, was 5 there a possibility in your mind that Quadrex would find 6 Brown & Root was not capable of performing the work they 7 were supposed to be doing? 8 A I would truly suspect that some degree of 9 difficulty would be uncovered. Whether to put it as strong 10 as they were not capable or whether they just didn't have 11 sufficient resources, I am frankly -- I couldn't prejudge 12 that. ( ) 13 0 If you had found that Brown & Root were not 14 capable of performing the job that they'd been asked to do 15 in design engineering, would that have been a matter that 16 you would have considered should be brought to the 17 attention of the Licensing Board in Phase I? 18 A well, what do you mean by "not capable?" Are you 19 suggesting they have no skill at all in some particular 20 facet of engineering or just what? 21 Q That if Quadrex examined Brown & Root's work in 22 the area of category I cable trays and pipe supports and 23 found that Brown & Root did not adequately understand the 24 issues in those areas of design, that that is why they had. gg 25 not produced the work, would that be a matter that you TATE REP'TTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
1 1 15527 I would consider should go to the Atomic Safety and Licensing j l 2 Board in the Phase I hearings? 3 A No, I don't think so, for this reason. If they 4 were up there doing the design work and it happened to be 5 going slow because they had a limited number of resources 6 available that were able to carry out that work, the fact 7 that they were moving slow would not constitute, in my 8 mind, something necessarily for the attention of the 9 licensing Board. Certainly it is of importance to the 10 owners. And I didn't find instances where Brown & Root had 11 no capability. I found clearly a lot of evidence that they 12 didn't have enough capability in a number of areas. ( hh 13 Q And by "enough capability," are you referring 14 only to the number of engineers available or are you 15 referring also to the skill of the engineers who were , 16 available? 17 A Well, in any engineering firm, it doesn't follow 18 that you have to have every skill; it follows that you have 19 to have either the skills in your own shop or the ability 20 to acquire those skills through appropriate contract with 21 other organizations. 22 Brown & Root was, in fact, contracting services 23 from other organizations in areas were they may not have qgg 24 had have had sufficient quantity of that skill in their own .(_/ 25 shop. That in itself did not constitute a threat to the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15528 1 quality of the plant. l l 2 Q Even if the engineering work were being 3 subcontracted, it would still be the responsibility of 4 Brown & Root to review the adequacy of the subcontractor 5 work; is that correct? 6 A That's correct.. 7 Q And in turn, looking at Applicants' Exhibits 79, 8 at 80224, at the bottom, did you consider that HL&P had a 9 responsibility to verify that Brown & Root's engineering 10 was indeed correct? 11 A Yes, I believe it is the responsibility of the 12 licensee to verify that the activities of its contractors 13 are proper. 14 Q And was one of the purposes of the Quadrex study 15 to verify that Brown & Root's engineering was correct? 16 A It was to look at the activities that were going 17 on and paying particular attention to those areas as I 18 mentioned previous, are usually the areas of greatest 19 difficulty. 20 In the course of that review which was of a 21 status character, if we found anything that was incorrect, 22 that would have to be evaluated and if in fact it was a 23 matter for which we were obligated to report as a matters g 24 to the NRC, it would be reported. , 25 Q on that same page at the bottom that the remark TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15529 1 attributed to GO, George Oprea thinks the NRC may make a 2 major inspection early next year, do you have any 3 recollection of Mr. Oprea's remarks about a possible major 4 inspection by the NRC at that meeting? 5 A I don't recollect any discussion at that 6 particular meeting like that. In fact, it's difficult to 7 recognize all the things that went on at meetings that were 8 so far back. There was no major inspection that I was 9 aware of that was forthcoming in that time frame. The only 10 review that I believe the NRC conducted which I believe was 11 in early 1981, maybe around March or April, was a review 12 for the readiness of Houston Lighting & Power Company to ( h 13 operate the South Texas Project. 14 Q Turning to Applicants' Exhibit 80, at Page 15 81037 -- actually let's go first to 81038, down about a 16 third of the way on the page, it says, "Re OL - Barker re 17 'OL Hearings'" do you see that line, right after the 18 marginal note about "Borchelt, Basile, Beeth and Ford had 19 i gone" question mark. It's a marginal note, right below 20 that " Barker re OL hearings" are you with me? i 21 A No, not yet. 22 Q Are we on 8038. 23 A Well, that's one of my problems.
} 24 A All right. Now I have it where it says " Barker ,
i- 25 re OL hearings." TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (113) 222-7177
,- ,,. ----, , e --n-w , >
,,,.-,_n,-,,-n- , . , - , - . , - - . , , - , , , . , , - - - - - . , - , , . ~ - - - - -
15530 1 Q Right. In that following paragraph it talks
) 2 about an exit interview re HL&P operating capability. Is 3 that the review for readiness that you were referring to a 4 moment ago?
5 A I believe so. 6 A I think that's what it is. 7 Q Do you recall if at this meeting, on February 8 19th, 1981, there was an NRC attorney present -- 9 MR. AXELRAD: I'm sorry, Mr. Sinkin, the question 10 is -- 11 MR. SINKIN: Was there an attorney, NRC attorney 12 present at the meeting that's recorded in these notes? ( h 13 MR. PIRFO: The May lith meeting. 14 MR. SINKIN: No, these notes Applicants' Exhibit 15 80 record the February 19th, 1981 meeting. 16 MR. PIRFO: Is the question: Was there an NRC 17 attorney present at the February 19th meeting. 18 MR. SINKIN: That's the question. 19 A Not that I'm aware of. 20 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Did you attend the exit 21 interview that Mr. Oprea is referring to in this notation? 22 A I attended the presentation of the readiness of 23 HL&P for operating the plant. I was part of a large group gg 24 of key managers involved in the presentation. I don't , 25 recall attending an exit review. If there was an exit TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15531 1 review I don't think I was present. If he was referring to 2 the presentation, I was present. 3 0 At the presentation, was a booklet passed out? I 4 see on that paragraph it says, " George Oprea had passed out 5 a booklet," was there a booklet passed out at the 6 presentation you're thinking of -- 7 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, at this point I 8 would like to object to this line of questioning. I don't 9 understand how the NRC inspection with respect to operating 10 capability has anything to do with the subject of this 11 proceeding, particularly today with respect to the Quadrex 12 review and any relationship with the purpose of the Quadrex (] h 13 review to these hearings. I realize the subject that's 14 covered in these notes, but that's still has nothing to do 15 with today's hearings. 16 MR. PIRFO: The Staff will join that objecton. 17 Mr. Sinkin's motion to reopen this proceeding, and I would 18 remind the Board is a reopened proceedings, limits his 19 inquiry to certain areas and the Board did ask about this 20 specific segments of the meetings. Subject to an offer of 1 21 proof by Mr. Sinkin, we would join in that objection. 22 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, I am simply trying to 23 clarify. We have Mr. Oprea talking about hearings being l i gg 24 scheduled and Barker talking about OL hearings; I'm trying, 25 to clarify just exactly what is being discussed when. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 1
15532 1 There appears to be some confusion; there are perhaps three 2 different items in this one paragraph. I was just trying 3 to get clear what we're talking about here to see whether 4 the remarks in this particular paragraph are relevant to 5 the subject of this hearing. 6 MR. PIRFO: The problem the Staff has now, Mr. 7 Chairman, is that we don't have any problem with Mr. 8 Sinkin's offer of proof, but I guess we have a problem with 9 the way he's trying to prove it so our objection stands. 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think we'll uphold the 11 objection but the Board would like to know what the 12 reference to the NRC attorney would be, means. (] 13 MR. SINKIN: Maybe I could just ask that 14 question. 15 MR. BECHHOEFER: Its just been asked. 16 MR. SINKIN: Okay, good. 17 THE WITNESS: I don't recall who attended that 18 operating briefing. There might well have been an NRC 19 attorney there. I think I can't shed anymore light on 20 that. I don't have any idea. That's just a guess. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That refers to the operating 22 and not this particular meeting. 23 THE WITNESS: Yes sir, if there's ever been an gg 24 NRC attorney at a Management Committee meeting and I must , 25 confess that I haven't been paying attention. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l l
-h. - -
15533 1 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Turning back one page to 81037, 2 down below the time 3:10, about halfway down, you were 3 asked earlier by your counsel about some of the lines 4 there. ! 5 Is it your testimony that Mr. Hancock's question, 6 the effects on OL hearing of adverse audit was a 7 generalized question on licensability of the plant as 8 opposed to a specific question on the Phaze I hearings? 9 A I don't dispute that maybe Mr. Hancock's question 10 related to the Phase I hearing. I -- my feeling about the 11 substance of my response was in the broader context. 12 I mean, I don't question that maybe he ( ) 13 specifically said Phase I of the hearings. But my 14 response, I believe the substance of that was in a much 15 broader context. 16 Q A little further down, in discussing the study 17 being done, Mr. Oprea is recorded as saying, "as late as 18 last Friday, Brown & Root apparently tried to do an end 19 around and avoid the whole thing." Can you recall what Mr. 20 oprea was referring to as the "end around"? 21 A Again, I can only speculate. These conversations 22 transpired years ago and I haven't had any way of 23 resurrecting these beyond my own memory. I'd be guessing, 24 or speculating, I should say.
} I think he was referring to, 25 some effort by Brown & Root to try to perhaps convince HL&P l l
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
\
J
15534 1 that an independent review of their efforts may not be 2 warranted. 3 Q Did Brown & Root approach you on that subject? 4 A No. As a matter of related interest, when I, in 5 my mind, was convinced that a review was useful and needed, 6 I realized that that would not in itself be a very popular 7 subject with Brown & Root. S They were trying to get on with the engineering 9 of the project and any time you undertake to review an 10 activity, you do tend to impact it in some fashion, going 11 around and askiro people questions about what are you doing 12 and how are you loing it, does distract them from the (] I 13 actual performance of their work. 14 So Brown & Root would have to be a cooperative 15 partner in this review and I did, in fact, contact their 16 engineering personnel, their person in charge was a Mr. 17 Salterelli. I persuaded and persuaded Mr. Salteralli saw 18 the wisdom of that review as it would serve to help him get 19 a good handle on the status of engineering as well as 20 myself and I'm sure Mr. Salerelli really then in turn went 21 about the business of discussing it elsewhere within the 22 Brown & Root organization and I suspect there could have 23 been dialog between other levels of Brown & Root management gg 24 and Mr. Oprea. , 25 Q But you know of no approach by Brown & Root in TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15535 1 February of 1981 attempting to convince HL&P that the l l 4 2 Quadrex report was not necessary? 3 A well, I don't have any personal knowledge of l 4 that. I say I'm only speculating that maybe there was some 1 5 dialog with other representatives of Brc/n & Root and Mr. 6 Oprea. I was persuaded that Mr. Salterelli saw the wisdom 7 of doing the review and I felt I had his corporation. 8 Q Did you have occasion to discuss with Mr. Barker 9 the purposes of the Quadrex review? 10 A I'm certain that I discussed with Mr. Barker the 11 wisdom of undertaking a review. In fact, I believe very 12 early on, we were talking about undertaking a review and we (] h 13 weren't clear at the outset how we were going to undertake 14 that review, whether in fact we would do an internal 15 review, whether we had any resources within HL&P that we 16 felt comfortable could carry out that kind of a review. 17 And so there was a lot of dialog that first couple of 18 weeks, maybe the first three weeks of not only with Mr. 19 Barker but I'm sure other members of my staff. 20 Q Do you remember conveying to Mr. Barker that one 21 of the reasons the Quadrex report would be useful was to 22 provide you with a basis for answering questions in the 23 licensing hearing? gg 24 A I may well have shared that thought with him, , 25 yes, certainly as a side benefit. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15536 lf Q In terms of your decision to seek a third party W 2 review as opposed to doing it in house, was part of your 3 concern the fact that to you Brown & Root and HL&P were too 4 closely intertwined with each other to be objective with 5 each other, particularly in the engineering area? 6 A I think I had explained earlier in questions in 7 my direct testimony, it was really two facets. I believed 8 that the engineering teams of both organizations are a lot 9 closer, if you will, to the situation than an outsider and 10 I find if you want the most reliable benchmark you might do 11 well to try to get an outsider. 12 And the other is that all the skills that might (]lh 13 be needed to make that assessment were not necessarily 14 readily available within the HL&P team, and I am not sure 15 it would have been useful to ask a Brown & Root man to give 16 me an assessment of a Brown & Root effort. 17 Q You were asked by your counsel whether the 18 results of the Quadrex report indicated to you a problem of 19 HL&P abdicating their responsibility for oversight of Brown 20 & Root's engineering and your answer was not at all. Is it 21 not true that Mr. Stanley told you that in his view, HL&P 22 management had been less involved than they should have 23 been in overseeing Brown & Root's engineering? 24 A I don't recall that kind of dialog. I would be gg , 25 guessing at what he said in that respect. I guess if you TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15537 1 want to take the position that by doing the review, you 2 find out something you didn't otherwise know, so therefore 3 you should have done the review, maybe there was that 4 characterization. 5 You have to understand, though, that I'm not 6 familiar with too many people having undertaken these kind 7 of reviews prior to when I did this. I believe that to a 8 large extent, the previous company I worked for may have 9 been one of the pioneers of that type of examination. And 10 I'm not aware of any other utility that undertook to do 11 this type of review before we undertock to do this one. 12 So if the characterization possibly from Mr. 13 Stanley was, you know, "If you would have done this sooner 14 you would have found out sooner and therefore that's 15 something you might thigh about," I don't recall the 16 particular characterization that you're making. But I 17 don't believe that the failure to undertake this kind of 18 review before I did constituted any abdication of their 19 responsibility. 20 I believe that HL&P was ahead of its time and 21 started this review and now it's a matter of almost 22 standard practice in the industry to undertake these kind 23 of objective reviews. 24 Q You don't recall in an early Quadrex briefing , 25 mid-April, perhaps, Mr. Stanley expressing great concern TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15538 1 about what they were finding and specifically raising the i 2 question where HL&P management had been that such a 3 situation could exist? 4 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that Mr. 5 Sinkin's question properly chacterizes the record. My 6 recollection maybe that that might have been appeared in 7 some note that Mr. Stanley had made in preparation for a 1 8 meeting but I do not recall the record showing that he made 9 that statement. 10 MR. SINKIN: My question is whether Mr. Goldberg 11 recalls him making that statement. 12 MR. PIRFO: The staff has an objection. I don't (]) 13 see that as relevant to the issues we're about in this 14 reopened phase, reopened portions that's the problem I have 15 with it, whether it's a mischaracterization or verbatin.
- 16 MR. SINKIN
- Mr. Chairman, I guess I was in a bit 17 of a quandry myself to object to the direct examination i
18 being conducted of Mr. Goldberg as to the relevance of it 19 but it was specifically Applicants' counsel that asked the 20 question whether the results of the Quadrex report 21 indicated to Mr. Goldberg an abdication of responsibility. I 22 And I assume that the origin of that question is really the 23 Board's order which indicates that a reason the Quadrex gg 24 report might not have been turned over to the Board was , 25 that it indicated an abdication of responsibility and TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15539
, 1 Applicants' counsel was trying to clarify whether that had !
- 2 indeed been the case since the Board had laid it out as a i
3 possiblity. I'm following up on that direct question in 4 .the Applicants' case, ] j 5 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I will agree with i ! 6 what Mr. Sinkin just said. My recollection is that the l 7 Board's order laid out a hypothetical scenario that may j 8 have taken place, that included remarks of that type. The 9 testimony of Mr. Goldberg was elucidated in connection with
> 10 that hypothetical scenario.
i 11' MR. SINKIN: It would be point F on page nine of
- 12. the Board's order.
( ) 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I'm aware of that. What I'm 14 trying to see is I've got some c.! Mr. Stanley's testimony 15 here I can't recollect if your characterization is i ~ 16 correct or not. I'm not sure that's a portion of Mr. 7 i 17 Stanley's testimony that I have. ! 18 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure my 19 question depends on what is in the existing record. I 20 didn't ask if he remembered Mr. Stanley testifying to that 21 effect. I asked if he remembered Mr. Stanley telling him 22 in a meeting that he was concerned about the absence of I 23 HL&P management in their overview of Brown & Root's j gg 24 engineering because of what Quadrex was finding. I think , i 25 the question stands alone regardless of what is in the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 4 .
i l 15540 i
~
i record to date. l 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think that latter question 3 we'll allow to be answered. ] 4 A I thought I answered. I don't recall that 1 4 5 particular characterization. It's hard to imagine that 6 we're not sensitive to our responsibilities when we are 7 undertaking a review to determine just how well the
; 8 engineering is going along, and undertaking to do it in a i
9 way that no one else in the industry had ever done before. l, ! 10 It hardly strikes me that that was an abdication of our 11 responsibilities. 12 Q I want to be sure you understand my question. l ( h 13 I'm not posing in my question the idea that the i 4 14 commissioning of the Quadrex report was an abdication of 2 15 your responsibilities, but rather that in the course of the 16 Quadrex report, what Quadrex investigators found was in 17 their view an absence of HL&P's oversight of Brown & Root's 18 engineering that they thought should have been present.
- 19 MR. AXELRAD
- I'm sorry, at this point, what is i
l 20 the question. i
- 21 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Whether it was communicated to l 22 Mr. Goldberg by Mr. Stanley that the Quadrex reviewers had 4
! 23 found problems of such seriousness that they were i gg 24 questioning where HL&P management had been prior to the , 25 commissioning of the Quadrex report, why there hadn't been j TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i
15541 1 greater oversight by HL&P management?
) 2 A As I say, I'm not sure I remember that 3 characterization. And I find it a little bit of a paradox 4 that -- you know, Quadrex just didn't go down there and 5 strike gold, so to speak. Quadrex was given very clear 6 signals as to the areas that we wished them to look, 5
7 because either we had reason to feel uncomfortable with the 8 character of the work we had seen a lot of signals in 9 certain areas that it might be in difficulty, as well as 10 bringing to bear the experience from other parts of the
, 11 industry that we brought to this project, that told us that 12 these were likely areas of difficulty.
( lh 13 So to suggest that Quadrex vent down there and on 14 the strengths of their own skill and ability found all 15 these things and then to turn it around and say, " Hey, 16 HL&P, where were you," you I find that a little bit absurd. 17 We pointed Quadrex to specifically look at areas 18 that we felt were likely areas of difficulty. We knew that 19 because we were diligent and we were paying attention. 20 Q Looking at CCANP Exhibit 87, the third paragraph 21 of the first page, the first sentence refers to the 22 information prepared for the May 1981 Atomic Safety and 23 Licensing Board hearings. When you use the term 24 information, what did you mean? gg , 25 A I was really referring to the information that TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15542 1 was being developed as part of the recovery from the show W 2 cause. There were extensive engineering reports that were 3 developed and there was a significance amount of follow-up 4 going on with consultants that had been hired to help HL&P 5 address the technical aspects of show cause. And I was 6 privy to see some of the reports that had been developed by 7 these consultants. So that was my characterization. 8 Q So in preparation for the May 1981 hearings, 9 there were reports being prepared on engineering by outside 10 consultants. Is that your testimony? 11 A There were technical reports that were prepared 12 by consultants that were brought in to assist HL&P in 13 dealing with the issues of show cause. I had scene some of 14 those reports which I understood were going to be exhibits 15 in the hearing. 16 Q And some of those reports dealt with engineering? 17 A They dealt with the technical implications of the 18 errors that were apparently committed by construction. 19 Q And those technical implications included 20 engineering implications? 21 A What they represented was the technical work 22 necessary to determine whether or not the construction 23 errors were errors of a character that needed to be 24 corrected because failure to do same would render the , 25 particular features of the plant unable to perform its TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
1 15543 1 intended function or whether or not you could demonstrate 2 that even though it wasn't constructed in accordance wi,th i 3 the requirements, that what was there was more than 4 adequate to perform its intended service. 5 Q And did those reports look at the engineering 6 that had preceded the construction that was in question? 7 A Not that I'm aware of. 8 Q You stated that you and Mr. oprea did not have a 9 disagreement on whether the Quadrex report should be turned 10 over to the licensing board. Did you and Mr. Oprea ever in 11 fact discuss that question prior to May of 19817 12 A No, I don't believe so. , 13 MR. SINKIN: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. i 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We want to take a short break. 15 We have to tell the motel we need this room tomorrow. I , 16 think we will. Certainly not all day but part of the day 17 and we have to tell them before 5:00 before they shut the ! 18 office. They said if we need, it they're not going to l 19 change anything, so we can leavs the material in here. 20 (Recess.) ! 21 MR. BECHHOEFER: On the record. Mr. Perlis or -- 22 MR. PIRFO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 23 CROSS-EXAMINATION ! 24 By Mr. Pirfo , 25 Q Mr. Goldberg, you were here this morning for my TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
. .. . - - . . - - - - ~ _ - . . - . - - - . - - - - . . - - _ _ _ _ - . . . .
i 15544 2 i 1 questioning of Mr. Jordan, correct? 2 A That's correct. 3 Q And you recall during cross-examination, I asked
- 4 him a few questions about your authority to hire Quadrox.
5 A Yes, I remember that. ~ 6 I'd like to ask you the same questions. At the ! Q ) 7 time Quadrex, the decision was made to commission Quadrex i i 8 to do the review, the independent third party review, did ;
] 9 you view it as solely within your authority to do that !
10 hiring? l 11 A I'd like to answer your question, if I could, i
! 12 with more than just a simple yes or know. I could say yes
) k] ) 13 with this caveat. To undertake this review constituted 14 clearly impacting ongoing engineering work. There's no way l 15 you can conduct a review of this character without it i ! i 16 having an impact. i i 17 So I discussed with Mr. Oprea the -- what I ' l j 18 perceived as the need to do it and some of the implications 1 19 of doing it in terms of, you know, it's not a free lunch; l , l 20 we're going to actually be in a situation where while we're I j 21 doing the review, unintentionally Brown & Root will have to l j 22 spend some of its time addressin>; the needs of the review.
- 23 And this was a very innovative measure in the I
24 industry. And after Mr. Oprea had thought long and hard gg , i 25 about it and saw the wisdom of doing it, he felt it . i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
1 l 15545 1 important enough to discuss with Mr. Jordan. So the 2 decision to go forward with this review in effect was the 3 subject of discussion between the three of us. 4 I guess it is fair to say that if I had chosen to 5 just go off and do it without bothering to mention it to 6 Mr. Oprea, I don't think that would have been an 7 appropriate measure on my part. It was an important step 8 that I felt deserved the attention of the group 9 vice-president nuclear, executive vice-president, I would 10 add, at that time. 11 Q So if I can use the image that was used this 12 morning, you felt the necessity for marshaling reasons for 13 doing this report or review, at least as far as presenting 14 these to Mr. Oprea? 15 A Well, I had to point out to Mr. oprea the purpose 16 of such a review and how it would everybody the best 17 interests of myself, certainly, to carry out my 18 responsibilities, which involved making sure that we were 19 going forward with the appropriate engineering effort and I 20 didn't see how I could do that without having a fairly good 21 reliable benchmark as to just where it was. 22 Q okay. I'm not speaking of the status of 23 engineering at that point, I'm speaking in terms of 24 presenting -- you presented reasons to Mr. oprea why you , 25 wanted this independent third party review? TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15546 !- 1 A That was the reason. 2 Q once Mr. oprea was convinced of the necessity
. 3 of -- I believe you just said he thought long and hard j 4 about it -- once he was convinced of the necessity or the i
5 desirability if not necessity of doing this review then the i 6 two of you went to Mr. Jordan. 7 A well, I'm sure he shared that with Mr. Jordan. 8 And then it turned out that we had an occasion to meet with j 9 Mr. Jordan to discuss a number of related project topics. 1 10 And this just was one of the subjects that came up in that
- 11 discussion.
I 12 Q But there was in your view a necessity for you to ) ( lh 13 present reasons to marshal reasons as I said earlier this 14 morning, for doing the review, to provoke Mr. Oprea and Mr.
! 15 Jordan? ,
16 A Well, I would not normally have solicited Mr. 4 17 Jordan's agreement. It was I felt my responsibility to 18 fill Mr. Oprea in, if you will, and he in turn felt an i 19 obligation to fill Mr. Jordan in. l 20 But as dar as I was concerned, once I had my j 21 conversation with Mr. Oprea, I didn't personally feel like l 22 I needed to discuss it with anyone else. 23 Q And that "anyone else" would include the . \ 24 Management Committee? [ gg , ! 25 A The Management committee was informed as a matter i i
, TATE REPORTING SERVIC3, (713) 222-7177
I 15547 l 1 of a courtesy. Houston Lighting & Power Company, as the 2 project manageer, has the responsibility to carry out the 3 business of the project. This review was the business of 4 the project. 5 The responsibilities of the Management committee 6 in terms of things that they must specifically act on are 7 very well defined in the participation agreements and this 8 type of thing would not be the responsibility of the 9 Management committee. 10 Reasons for filling in the Management committee 11 was related to the fact that they were very much concerned 12 about the progress of the project, its ability to perform ( ) 13 in a timely way. And this represented from my view a 14 particular opportunity that would, in my mind, undoubtedly 15 help us in the future, to move the project along in a much 16 better pace. 17 So I felt it useful to point out to the 1 18 Management Committee the value of doing this as it would 1 19 serve to more or less give them some encouragement that 20 while we weren't happy with the way things were, there were 21 some opportunities if we undertook this review to make them 22 better and it was just a courtesy to fill them in. 23 Q Just a courtesy to fill them in but their stamp 24 of approval was not required but you did fill them in as to { gg 25 certain reasons for doing so? TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
-_ .---y - - _ _ . - . - - - - -wr.-w.,-- ..
. . - . - - - - - , y
--- . - . - . - . - - . - _ . _ . ~ - _ - _ - - . . - - _ _ . . . _ - - _ - . - . . -
15548 l 1 A I certainly identified to them the fundamental 1 -f l 2 reason for doing the review. I 3 Q Would you identify those again? l 4 A Specifically to benchmark the engineering status ;
- s l 5 of the project, paying particular attention to those l i i l 6 complex nuclear issues that the rest of the industry was j i
i j 7 struggling with; to pay particular attention to areas that i 8 we had reason to believe that we were having some l ]
- 9 difficulty, and with that information, we'd be in a l 10 position to understand what addtional measures we would 11 have to take to get that engineering moving along. !
I j 12 Q What was your impression of their reaction to the , ( ) 13 reasons you marshaled or offered them for commissioning j j 14 Quadrox? Did you feel, if you can -- let just finish. Did f 1 , ! 15 you feel -- were they receptive to it when you first made ; i ! } 16 your presentation; did you have to argue for it? And I ( l - l 17 realize again that you said you did not feel a need to get , 18 their stamp of approval, but you wanted their blessings it ! 19 were on this effort. What was the initial reaction when i i ! 20 you presented this to them? j 21 A That's hard to recall. I'm reasonably sure that i j 22 there were some people who thought that made a lot of sense l 23 and I can't help but suspect there were other people that l 1 24 were a little apprehensive about, you know, when we're l gg , ! 25 trying to really get going, "Is this really necessary." i l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 , i l
15549 1 I can't recall with any precision who would have 2 been at one school and would would have been at the other 3 school. But I don't think instantly everybody saw just the 4 positive side of what I wanted to do. I think there were 5 some folks that were wanting to understand, "Is this trip 6 really necessary." 7 0 The ones that were the folks as you put it that 8 were wondering whether it was really necessary, did they 9 inquire as to the, for example, the cost of such a study? 10 A No. I think the greater concern -- well, maybe 11 indirectly was a cost concern. I think they were concerned 12 about how it might serve to impede the progress of 13 engineering, since it was obvious to those that, you know, 14 do have to pay a price to do one of these reviews. But I 15 was absolutely determined to get that benchmark, and I 16 attempted to encourage those people to see the positive 17 side, and I don't have any reason to believe that I didn't. 18 Q Was there any question about concerns about 19 " airing our dirty laundry in public, or our laundry if not 20 dirty, in public; why get a third party; why not HL&P do 21 it?" 22 Were there concerns along that lines as opposed 23 to cost concerns? 24 A No, I don't recall anybody characterizing it in , 25 that way. I think there was some discussion earlier about TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
r 15550 1 Mr. Hancock's remarks where he characterized it as the i 2 hearing. 3 But in my mind, tha, as bigger, broader, at 4 least I took it as a broader perspective. 5 our partners, with a few exceptions, they don't 6 have any nuclear expertise. And I don't think at that time 7 very many of them knew much about the whole licensing 8 process in terms of hearings and recommendations from 9 hearing boards to the Commission and et cetera, et cetera. 10 so the way the question was worded by Mr. Hancock 11 was, "Well, gee, you know, if you find something wrong, 12 won't that hurt us at the hearings?" ( lI 13 And I said earlier, I treated that question as,, 14 if you find something wrong, can that hurt us in getting go 15 the plant licensed. And as I responded then, once you 16 start looking, you take the chances. But you've got to be 17 sure that you're in uood shape and that's the way I felt we 18 had to go about doing it. 19 Q So in your mind, if there was not a direct link 20 between this review and licensability, there was at least , 21 the potential for impacts upon licensability? 22 A I believe the whole process of owner surveillance 23 of the engineering and construction of a project has l gg 24 inherent in it that that surveillance could turn up issues, 25 that could become issues in the licensing of the plant. l l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15551 1 Q Mr. Goldberg, one other -- moving on to a ,~ l_) 2 different area and something which I'll be quite candid is 3 giving me trouble. 4 You stated that in your past experience, you've 5 seen that licensing boards have a wide latitude of what 6 areas they can inquire into. And given this backdrop of 7 concern by licensing boards, you felt that engineering 8 questions may como up in Phase I or the Board at least had 9 a wide latitude to delve into those questions. 10 I'm wondering how in your mind you reconcile or 11 can reconcile for me this wide latitude or this penchant 12 for licensing boards to go into tangential areas with a ()h 13 finding that the Quadrex report was not relevant and 14 material on the McGuire -- and I go back to some earlier 15 Phase II testimony you had that said you were familiar with 16 the obligations inherent under McGuire if not the term 17 McGuire itself. How do you reconcile those two things as I 18 see those as being somewhat at odds? 19 A well, let my make sure I understand the question. 20 Is it your question why would I think the Licensing Board 21 had wide latitude if I didn't belief the Quadrex report 22 required reporting to the Licensing Board? 23 Q Well, I think it's really the converse of that if g 24 I'm using the term converse correctly. The Board has wide, 25 latitude. But they would not be interested in a "Quadrox TATC REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15552 1 report" quote unquote, "the Quadrex report" quote unquote, 2 but it was not relevant and material, where I understand 3 what you viewed as wide latitude as perhaps encompassing 4 areas that are in your mind perhaps tangential or 5 irrelevant. You stated that -- let me stop my question 6 there and start another question. 7 Boards have wide latitude. You agree with me on 8 that; you testified to that? 9 A Yes. 10 Q occassionally, they get into areas which are not 11 in your view relevant and material to the issues before 12 them. If I haven't read too much in between the lines of ()lh 13 what you said. 14 A Uh-huh. 15 Q How do you reconcile that penchant by licensing 16 boards and an acknowledged penchant on your part and an 17 acknowledged penchant of a licensing board's -- on your 18 part with a decision that the licensing board would not be 19 interested in Quadrex under the McGuire doctrine as you 20 understood the McGuire doctrine at that time. 21 A I'm going to try paraphrasing my understanding of 22 the question, because if I don't understand the question 23 obviously the answer is not going to help anybody. 24 My characterization of the licensing board having gg 25 wide latitude is in the context that -- I was a new officer TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
~
15553 1 of the company. I don't think I had been in the company 2 more than a month when I was attending a prehearing, and I 3 had reason to believe that at such time as I would appear 4 before this Licensing Board, the Board might well want to 5 take a look at almost anything that I might be doing; but 6 at the same time, I have no way of knowing if a board will 7 do that; that's the uncertainty of this wide latitude 8 before a hearing starts in which you have every reason to 9 expect the board has wide latitude. It isn't clear to me 10 that you would therefore supply everything you knew about a 11 project to the board with an expectation that since they 12 have wide latitude, they'd have an interest in everything. (]lh 13 So simply stated, the judgment to what you supply 14 the Board is usually made in concert with what you think 15 the issues are before the board. But in terms of what 16 might come up once the hearing starts, that's what I'm 17 referring to as latitude. I was clearly of the mind that I 18 didn't want to be sitting in front of the Board as the 19 vice-president of engineering and construction and having 20 litt or no knowledge as to what is the status of 21 engineering. I mean, I would feel much more comfortable if 22 I knew the status of engineering. 23 MR. PIRFO Could I have a moment, judge gg 24 That you, Mr. Goldberg, I hava-no more questions,, 25 Mr. Chairman. TATE REPORTIllG SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l 15554 1 BOARD EXAMINATION 2 By Judge Lamb: 3 Q I hope this isn't too repetitive, but I have to 4 ask a question or two in this area anyway to make certain I 5 understand the situation. If I understand it, you 6 recognized when you were making your decision to go ahead 7 with this third party report the potential benefit in terms 8 of possible preparation of yourself for possible questions 9 about engineering at the hearings. Am I paraphrasing your 10 characterizing this correctly? 11 A Yeah, I saw that, Judge Lamb, if I can use the 12 expression, it was a freebie. It certainly wasn't a reason 13 for doing the review. But having done the review and 14 having derived the information that comes from such a 15 review, it certainly would put me in a more knowledgeable 16 position on the engineering status. 17 Q Did that realization play any role whatever in 18 your decision to have the third party report done? 19 A Absolutely not. There was nothing that was going 20 to stand in the way of doing this review and there was 21 nothing that was motivating it except my need to get the 22 understanding of whers was the engineering on this 23 particular project. 24 Q Now, in your discussions with Mr. Oprea, Mr. , 25 Jordan, management committee or other management people in TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15555 l 1 HL&P, and in trying to sell this idea of yours, was that 2 potential benefit part of your argument? 3 A Not as a justification for doing the review. I 4 certainly did not keep a secret of my personal opinion that 5 having done the review for the real important purpose, that 2 6 clearly I'd be in a position to be very knowledgeable about } 7 engineering should that be of interest to any regulatory l } 8 authority, whether it be the Board or whether it be the NRR I i 9 or whether it be the inspection and enforcement branch i 10 Q Did you discuss that with Mr. Oprea, that facet , l ! 11 set of it? I l 12 A I certainly would say that I had mentioned that ; ( lh 13 feeling enough times that I may well have mentioned it to i 14 Mr. Oprea.. I don't have any way of being sure who I did or i 15 didn't say that to because quite frankly, I didn't keep r a j 16 that any kind of a secret. That was a personal feeling as t 1 - l 17 to any side benefit of doing the review, but was not the 18 reason for the review and it didn't enter into the i 19 discussion of the value of the review. l l l 20 MR. AXELRAD: Dr. Lamb, I hate to interrupt, but ; 3 j 21 I'm not sure that I heard what the question was that Mr. i 22 Goldberg was responding to. i j 23 JUDGE LAME: The question was whether Mr. 1 i gg 24 Goldberg had discussed this with Mr. Oprea. ,
- 25 MR. AXELRAD: I understand but I'm not sure I :
i i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 !
- f. . ,
I I
i 15556 l
)
1 understand what "this" meant in that question.
+,
s 2 JUDGE LAMB: The freebie additional benefit of 3 preparing himself for potential being questioned at the 4 hearings about the engineering. 5 THE WITNESS: I understood the question that way 6 and I think my characterization of the answer is that it 7 was even broader than being able to respond to any 8 questions in the hearing, it would be able to intelligently 9 address any discussion about the engineering of the project 10 with any regulatory authority, weather it be a licensing 11 Board, whether it be the NRC staff, whether it be the l
. 12 inspection and enforcement branch. Clearly, knowledge of (f) 13 where things are is something that can have all kinds of 14 implications. But the need to get that knowledge, the 15 primary need was for me to carry out my responsibilities.
16 Q (By Judge Lamb) Did you discuss that aspect of 17 it with Mr. Jordan, your discussions when you and he and i 18 Mr. Oprea talked about this? 1 19 A I don't think that came up -- if -- I don't 20 recall whether that came up in the conversation. As I say, 21 I'm not clear on who I may or may not.have shared that view 22 with. I have reason to believe I did share it with Mr. 23 Oprea; I am not absolutely sure whether I shared it at the 24 meeting that we had with Mr. Jordan. gg , 25 JUDGE LAMB: Thank you. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
, , , __m. , - -
.-.. . . _ _ _ , . . - . . ._.r.. -,_m , - . _ _ ~ . -_ ,,_
i i 15557 ) 1 1 Q (By Judge Bechhoefer) Mr. Goldberg, do you 2 remember the date of the meeting you had with Mr. Jordan 3 and oprea concerning this third party review? 4 A Mr. Chairman, I don't remember the date. But my 5 feeling was that it occurred after the meeting that we had 6 with the Management Committee on the 4th of December. I 7 think it occurred sometime toward the second or third week 8 in December. 9 Q During that Management Committee meeting, I take 10 it that the project or the review had not been finally 11 determined to be undertaken. Maybe that's not a good way 12 of phrasing the words. But had a final decision by HL&P h 13 been made to undertake the review as of the December 4 14 meeting? 15 A This small portion of HL&P was pretty convincrd 16 that it was going to be undertaken. I can't speak for some 17 of the other portions. But as I said, it may sound 18 imodest, I was absolutely convinced tgat this review would 19 be carried out. 20 Q connecting this with your discussion of whether 21 you had authority on your own to undertake the review, how 22 do you construe the last sentence in the third paragraph of 23 CCANP Exhibit 87, particularly the word " authorized"? 24 A Mr. Oprea was my immediate superior. And Mr. { gg , 25 oprea gave me his blessings, so that constituted kind of TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l l
- 15558 .
i 1 the kind of authorization I was referring to.
) 2 Q so you would have thought it necessary to at 3 least contact Mr. Oprea?
4 A Yes, I did indicate that I felt that this matter 5 was of sufficient innovativeness and would have a temporary l l 6 negative effect on the production of engineering activities I 7 that this would not be something I'd want to undertake 8 without sharing it with the man in charge of the nuclear 4 9 activities of Houston Lighting & Power Company. 10 Q Now, construing the statements in the notes of 11 the December 4 meeting, could or did you intend to seek
- 12 Management Committee concurrence as a further ground for
(]) 13 having the review authorized by HL&P? 14 A I don't -- I know I did not look for their 15 approval. But clearly, any enthusiasm on the part of the , 16 Management committee would certainly be a favorable signal. 17 If we had any serious objections. raised by the members of 18 the Management Committee, I would certainly want to clear 19 the air so that no owner felt that we were undertaking to i l 20 do something that'wasn't in the best interests of the 21 project. 22 But as I said before, we did not require their 23 approval but was well aware of their concerns about l 24 engineering and the need for this review, and in my mind g , 25 constituted an opportunity to help the engineering process. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15559 1 So I felt it very useful to share it with them and I () 2 believe that there is no question that they were very 3 enthusiastic supporters of this undertaking. 4 Q Did you share that enthusiasm with Mr. Jordan in 5 your meeting with them on the subject? 6 A I don't recall having any discussion with Mr. 7 Jordan about any of the sentiments of the Management 8 Committee. I can't say whether Mr. Oprea did but I know I 9 didn't. 10 Q Would the side effect which you spoke about and 11 the use of the review in hearings have been a point which 12 you made to the Management Committee in order to -- or () 13 another point made to the Management Committee to favorably 14 impress them with the project . 15 MR. AXELRAD: I'm sorry, Judge Bechhoefer, a side 16 affect the hearings? 17 MR. BECHHOEFER: I'm talking about the side 18 affect which -- 19 MR. PIRFO: You mean " side benefit"? 20 Q (By Judge Bechhoefer) " Side benefit," I'm sorry; 21 the freebie. Was that a -- was that something which you 22 believed the Management Committee might be impressed with 23 as a reason -- as one reason, certainly not the only but as 24 one reason for embarking on this project? , 25 A Well, I never considered it that. I can't say TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
4 15560 1 for sure how they may have viewed that point. It was not a ; 2 reason whatsoever in undertaking the review. That's the i 4 3 characterization, "it's a freebie," for reasons totally ! 4 outside that particular point the review was necessary, i 5 But once having undertaken that review, it might prove 6 useful and that was only a potential usefulness; there was 7 no guaranty it would have any usefulness. j 8 Q Did you view the undertaking of the Quadrex I 9 review, this is back in December, as a reflection of HL&P's 10 exercising responsibility? This is sort of the obverse of 11 the question you answered earlier? f ! 12 In other words, Mr. Jordan testified that he 13 -viewed the report offensively, positively. Did you view i 14 that positively as a positive reflection of HL&P's exercize 15 of responsibility for the project? 16 A I would have to, given the choice of saying it 1 17 would indicate a negative or a positive, I certainly hope 18 that it was positive.
- 19 I think I characterize it in a broader sense,
- 20 that I accept that it is a licensee's responsibility to i 1
21 ensure that his contractors are performing. This review l 22 clearly would serve some end in that regard. So clearly it i l 23 struck me that it would be favorable. I would like to 24 think that the things that I recognized I'm supposed to do, 25 are viewed as favorable. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i 15561 1 Q Now, having attended the November prehearing l
) 2 conference and then at the December 4 meeting, I take it 3 you were familiar with the precise issues which were going 4 to be litigated in Phase I, am I correct?
5 A I think that's correct. 6 Q In that context, in the context of the 7 allegations of abdication of responsibility, would not the 4 i 8 third party review or would you not have viewed the third 9 party review as a positive method of undercutting any such 10 allegations? 11 A I wouldn't see that it would hurt that interest. 12 But you know, this particular review, if I had undertaken ([) 13 this review, for example, to impress anyone, I sure went 14 about it in a strange way. 15 This review was a very colored review. I had 16 specifically instructed Quadrex that I didn't want to know 17 anything that was good. I wanted to know what was wrong 18 with the project. If I had undertaken that for the purpose 19 of trying to impress people that we haven't vacated our 20 responsibilities, that's a strange way of doing it. If I 21 got that benefit, that's also a freebie. 22 The real value of this review was to enable me to 23 understand where my liabilities were in engineering so that g 24 I could concentrate efforts on dealing with those issues. , 25 Q Turning to the February 20th meeting, Applicants' TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15562 1 Exhibit 81, I believe -- well, the section at 9:35, the 'T ) 2 discussion of the engineering review, did I understand that 3 you -- were all of these statements ones that Mr. Barker 4 made? 5 A I don't. have any clear recollection of what was 6 or wasn't said but I assume if they appear in Mr. Thrash's 7 notes that something related to this was obviously 8 discussed. 9 Q Did you say earlier, and I think you did, but 10 that you had no recollection of any extended discussion at 11 least of the need to use the information in the report for 12 the -- of the need to use the information in the report for (f ) 13 the OL hearings, what is reflected in the -- I guess the 14 fourth line of Item No. 67 i 15 A I think Mr. Barker is probably characterizing on i 16 the 20th something that I said on the 19th. I believe that 17 I made a related statement on the 9th to members of the 18 Management Committee and Mr. Barker was conducting the 19 presentation before the CEO's on the 20th. 20 Q Doesn't'that indicate some association of 21 possibly mor.e than the freebie benefit? I 22 A Well, as I say, I made no secret when I made my 23 statement before the Management Committee as to how I saw 24 that this was a side benefit. But certainly not a reason , 25 for doing the review. And I view Mr. Barker's remarks that TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15563 1 he must have made on the 20th as a related comment.
) 2 Q Even if the licensing hearings were not one of i
3 the primary purposes of the review, do you believe that the 4 review, "or that reason, is not relevant and material to 5 the licensing hearings? 6 MR. AXELRAD: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Could you , 7 either repeat that question -- 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I said does he believe -- well 9 irrespective of whether the licensing hearings were one of 10 the primary purposes or instead maybe just a secondary 11 purpose, would the fact that it wasn't the primary purpose 12 of the review have any bearing on whether the review, j( ) 13 itself, was relevant and material to the hearings. 14 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, does your question 15 encompass that possibly it was not part of the purposes at 16 all? I'm not sure if it's primary purpose or secondary 17 or -- 18 MR. BECHHOEFER: I said because it was a l 19 secondary -- I'm sorry, because it wasn't a primary , l 20 purpose, does that really influence his view as to whether 1 21 it was relevant and material to the hearings. 22 MR. AXELRAD: That implies it was a secondary 23 purpose. That's the implication. i r's ,' f _. \ 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, assuming that it was a ' .O 25 secondary or a side benefit. t l l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l _-- - - - - - - . - ._. - - . . .. _ _ _ . - - - _ . _ - _ - .
J 15564 1 MR. AXELRAD: Those are two different things, t 2 Mr. Chairman. Perhaps you could -- I just want to make 3 sure that the witness understands what assumption you want f 4 him to make. That's the only purpose of my questioning. l 5 Q (By Judge Bechhoefer) I'm accepting for the 6 moment that the hearings were not certainly the primary 7 purpose for the Quadrex review. But assuming that the 8 review only would serve as a side benefit, let's do it that 9 way, would that necessarily mean that it was not relevant 10 and material to those hearings? 11 A I don't think that in itself would make the test. i 12 I think the right test would be whether or not the conduct ( ) 13 of that particular activity had some bearing on the issues 14 before the Board. 15 Let me give you a related aspect. In October, 16 1981, we had Quadrex undertake a review of the Allens Creek 17 Project, which was our other nuclear project which had not i 18 yet received its construction permit. And that project had 19 an engineering, general state of completion of something in 20 the order of about 85 percent. And I was facing the same I 21 problem in that project as I had with South Texas. There i 22 had been years of work that had preceded by arrival; I had 23 all kinds of indications from the contractors to how he saw 24 the shape of the world and speaking with members of Houstop , 25 Lighting & Power's team, I got the benefit of their view. ! TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177-
15565 1 And I asked myself the same question. "Am I
') 2 And I wanted s/ seeing it correctly and how can I be sure."
3 an independent review of that project as well. That was 4 carried out and we received a report. And unlike South 5 Texas, it was a very encouraging report. The engineering 6 was in very very good shape. 7 And we didn't see that as an issue before the 8 Allens Creek panel, but as it turned out there was an 9 intervenor in that proceeding and that intervenor was 10 encouraged to want to polk around at the South Texas 11 Quadrex report at which time we mentioned to the Allens 12 Creek Licensing Board, "Well, as a matter of fact, we did a (] ll 13 similar review on Allens Creek." 14 And they said, "Well, we'd like to see that 15 report," which we promptly furnished that board. So we're 16 carrying these reviews out because I need to know where 17 things are. 18 Now, each time I do that I guess there's always a 19 chance that it may ultimately become of interest to a 20 board. If it does, then of course it's a matter that will 21 be provided to the board. But I don't associate the 22 carrying out of those kind of reviews as necessarily the 23 type of thing that you would normally dish up to a board. l 24 As a matter of fact, there have been on South . 25 Texas, probably in the last three or four years, dozens of TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15566 1 very substantial technical reviews performed by outside 2 authorities at my request to give me that extra feeling of 3 certainty as to where we are. That may or may not reflect 4 favorably own HL&P's character and competence and I don't 5 routinely dish them up to the licensing boards for the 6 purpose of saying, "Look what a good boy I am." 7 But clearly, if the board said, "Each time you do 8 one of those reviews, we would like to be kept informed 9 because we see each one of these as a measure of your 10 character and competence," well then, we'd provide each one 11 of these reports to the board. 12 Q Mr. Goldberg, turn to Applicants' Exhibit 82 k]h 13 which is the proposed agenda, the front page of it, the 14 proposed agenda for the December meeting. 15 A Okay. Mine says Exhibit No. -- okay, 82, got it. 16 Q Were you the person who was going to present Item 17 I-G assuming the meeting had gotten that far? That's the 18 item related to the ASLB proceeding. 19 A Right. I honestly don't know. I can't say with l 20 certainty weather I was the person or weather we had 21 somebody from licensing that was going to come in and do 22 that. l l 23 In those particular days, these were, of course, l 24 the very early meetings that I participated in, there were, g j 25 very loosely structured. People would come in and out l l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15567 1 bringing in areas of their specialty. I frankly don't know
) 2 whether I was supposed to do that or whether we had a 3 licensing man that was going to do that.
4 0 I can't ask you what you were going to say then. 5 I might say Mr. Thrash mentioned that you might have been 6 the one to present that. 7 A I wouldn't even dispute that. I might have been. 8 But I don't know for sure that I was, and I couldn't begin 9 to tell you what I was going to say. 10 Q Mr. Goldberg, I have a few statements that I'd 11 like to read to you and what and I'd like to know is 12 whether you fully agree with each one of them. - (]lh 13 By the way, these are the ones you missed when we 14 asked you to leave. So now you'll know what you missed. 15 I'm going do read six statements and just let me know 16 whether you agree fully or in part. 17 First one is: The purpose of the Quadrex review 18 was to ascertain the status of engineering at STP. 19 A I agree with it. 20 0 Second one is: The purpose of the Quadrex review 21 was to evaluate B&R's engineering activities as they 22 reflected on B&R's ability to complete the design of STP in 23 an efficient and orderly way. 24 A I think I'd agree with that. g , 25 Q Third one is: HL&P commissioned the Quadrex TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15568 4 1 review to obtain an objective assessment of the status of t- -
! 2 B&R's nuclear engineering and design activities.
3 A I would agree with that. 4 Q Next one is: The third party assessment of 5 design activities was sought in order to judge what 6 improvements were necessary to complete the project 7 successfully as we'.1 as to provide useful information 8 regarding the status of the project for discussions with 9 HL&P management, the STP co-owners and regulatory 10 authorities. I 11 A I can agree with that. ! 12 Q Next one i,s: The underlying purposes of the () 13 Quadrex review were to assess whether B&R was in the main 14 stream of nuclear engineering practice, to evaluate B&R's 4 15 performance in areas in which there was reason to believe 16 that it might be experiencing difficulty, to assist 17 benchmarking the status of the project and to identify 18 opportunities for improvement in B&R's engineering work. 19 A That sounds like something I said. 20 Q It is. And the last one is: The principal focus 21 of the Quadrex report was of the sequence, stage of ' 22 completion and B&R management of design activities and not 23 on design QA. 24 A Would you repeat the last one, sir? gg , 25 Q The principal focus of the Quadrex report was on f j TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
=. . . . . --. - - . - .
l 15569 1 the sequence, stage of completion and B&R management of 4 2 design activities and not on design QA. 3 A I think I agree with the thrust of that. I'm not 4 sure if I would have said that but I don't disagree with 5 that. 6 Q You didn't. 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's all the Board has. 8 RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION 9 By Mr. Axelrad: 10 Q Mr. Goldberg, the acoustics in this room are not 11 excellent and I just want to clarify whether I heard i 12 something correctly. I thought that perhaps in a question 4 (]) 13 that Mr. Sinkin addressed to you or that the questioning 14 addressed to you is whether you told Mr. Goldberg -- Mr. 4 15 Barker that one of the reasons, one of the reasons for the 16 Quadrex review was that it would help answer questions at l 17 the operating licensing hearing. And I thought you said "I 18 probably did." Did he ask you that question and did you 19 answer it in that fashion?
~
20 A well, I'm not sure. But if I did answer that 3 21 question in that fashion, that's not quite correct. It was 22 not a reason.- The only reason for carrying out the review 23 was as I have stated, to benchmark the engineering. As a 24 side benefit, and not a reason, clearly we'd have 4
} ,
25 information that might prove useful in responding to any , TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15570 1 inquiry by a regulatory authority. But it wasn't a reason; 2 it was strictly a side benefit. 3 MR. AXELRAD: I have no other questions, Mr. 4 Chairman, 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Sinkin. 6 MR. SINKIN: Just one moment, Mr. Chairman. 7 RECROSS EXAMINATION 8 By Mr. Sinkin: 9 Q Mr. Goldberg, I think the first thing I'd like to 10 try and do is clarify some dates. I have gotten confused, 11 based on answers here today, with previous exhibits, and 12 other information in the record. In the minutes of the ( lh 13 December meeting, Applicants' Exhibit -- 14 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, those are notes, 15 minutes. 16 MR. SINKIN: Oh, okay. 17 0 (By Mr. Sinkin) In Mr. Thrash's notes of the 18 December 4th, 1980 meeting, Applicants' Exhibit 79 on page 19 80224, in that item at 3:10 in the afternoon, the side 20 remark with the arrow says " identifying outside engineers 21 now." But I believe you testified that in fact you had not 22' had your meeting with Mr. Jordan prior to this Management 23 Committee meeting. 24 { gg Did you in fact go out and begin identifying . 25 people who would do this study before the meeting with Mr. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15571 1 Jordan to discuss whether he approved of it or not? r7 ( km) s 2 A well, I think I made it clear that as far as I 3 was concerned, my responsibilities in terms of ensuring 4 higher management endorsed this decision was strictly with 5 Mr. Oprea. I did not solicit nor feel that I needed Mr. 6 Jordan's personal approval. 7 I had discussed this with Mr. Oprea prior to this 8 meeting with the Management Committee and we were in 9 agreement that we should undertake a review. We were in 10 the process of just identifying what potential candidates 11 were out there that could undertake it, but the discussions 12 with Mr. Jordan preceded any action on our part to actually 13 ( lh engage a contractor. The timing between this meeting and 14 the meeting with Mr. Jordan was within a week or two at the 15 most. 16 Q So you had begun the process by identifying who 17 could do the study? 18 A That's correct. 19 Q And Dr. Sumpter had primary responsibility for 20 that identification; is that correct? 21 A That is correct. 22 Q Did you personally discuss with Mr. Stanley the 23 Quadrex Corporation performing this study prior to them 24 actually being hired? , 25 A I don't recall. I'm not sure I had any TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15572 1 conversations with them before they were hired. \jn) 2 Q Let me ask you to look at the CCANP 87, your 3 statement to the NRC. The first line of the fourth 4 paragraph indicates that "in late November or early 5 December, 1980, I discussed with Loren Stanley of Quadrex 6 that I wanted an obj2ctive but quick assessment of STP," et 7 cetera. Can you help me place in the context of the dates 8 we've kind of set up here that meeting with Mr. Stanley and 9 yourself and that discussion in terms of when Quadrex was 10 hired? 11 MR. PIRFO: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to interpose ; i 12 an objection at this point because I don't see where Mr. (h 13 Sinkin is going and it looks like it's* going to take some 14 time and candidly, I don't see the relevance and I don't l 15 see it as being within the scope and maybe it may be 16 relevance for purposes of Phase II but we're beyond that 17 stage. But I don't see that within the scope of the 18 Board's questions at all,and I thought -- 19 MR. SINKIN: Is the objection that it's not 20 within the scope of the Board's questions? 21 MR. PIRFO: Yes. 22 I'm also having difficulty seeing how it's 23 relevant to the reopened Phase II but I'm sure Mr. Sinkin's _ggg 24 going to have an argument on the second one. I think he's, 25 out of luck on the first. So I'll stick on the first until TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15573 1 it looks bad, and then I'll go to the second. (i_) 2 MR. SINKIN: The Board was trying to clarify with 3 Mr. Goldberg the date of his meeting with Mr. Jordan and 4 Mr. Oprea; that was asked, when the Quadrex Corporation was 5 formally brought on board. What I have found was from the 6 answers given to both NRC questioning and Board 7 questioning, I don't -- the dates don't seem to match up. 8 I'm just trying to get clear when a specific event happened 9 in terms of the various exhibits we have before us. 10 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I don't recall any 11 discussion as to whether in response to any Board questions 12 as to when Quadrex was first contacted. And I do recall {h 13 that we went over this particular ground back in the Phase 14 II hearing and I'm not quiet sure why there's any necessity 15 to or desirability to go over these kinds of questioning 16 now. 17 MR. PIRFO: I mean there may be -- maybe the 18 dates are wrong. I just -- maybe a lot of things that Mr. 19 Sinkin now can say he views as a problem, but the record's 20 been closed on that and I can't see how that's relevant to 21 this unless he can again make an offer as to why the -- you 22 know, as we all know, there's a number of inconsistencies 23 between testimonies of witnesses in Phase II. 24 MR. SINKIN: I will accept that. We can deal gggg , l 25 with that in our findings, but what I'm trying to get at is 1 l i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l 4
15574 1 in this hearing, we have focused on what was the sequence 2 of events, when was the decision made, who made the 3 decision, when did the actual process begin. And I thought 4 I had a pretty clear picture coming into the hearings of 5 what the process was. But given the answers that we've 6 gotten today, it doesn't seem quite as clear when Mr. 7 Goldberg actually took the steps to begin the hearing -- 8 the study, when the contacts were made. This meeting with 9 Mr. Stanley referred to in his statement to the NRC seems 10 to be before the discussion with Mr. Jordan and seems to be 11 at a time when they're already defining to Quadrex what 12 they want the study to look at. I'm just trying to clarify 13 what really went on. 14 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I objegt to a number 15 of things. One, there is no discussion in that paragraph 16 of any meeting; there's no discussion -- there's a 17 statement of a possible discussion; the timing is very 18 fuzzy, late November or early December. 19 And getting back to the basic objection that the 20 Staff had raised, this is nothing which arises out of the 21 Board's questioning. The Board was interested in when 22 within HL&P there were discussions of undertaking the third 23 party review. But when in fact there were the first 24 discussions if any with the outside contractor has nothing, 25 to do, as far as I recall, with the Board's questions and TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
1 i 15575 1 is getting us into a peripheral matter of no materiality. (] 2 MR. SINKIN: Well, the Board specifically asked 3 whether during the Management Committee meeting on December 4 4th the review had been finally determined as going 5 forward. And the answer was no. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We'll overrule this objection 7 but we will only allow limited inquiry into this type of 8 area. 9 MR. SINKIN: That's fine. 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think it's relevent to the 11 context of the December 4 meeting that we talked about. 12 A Mr. Sinkin, can you help me with your question 13 again? 14 Q (By Mr. Sinkin) Sure. The statement to the NRC 15 refers to a discussion that you had with Mr. Stanley about . 16 the type of study you wanted, some particular areas that 17 you wanted studied and you stated that this discussion took 18 place in late November or early December. I'm just trying 19 to clarify, is that a discussion that's taking place after 20 you have determined that the Quadrex Corporation will do 21 the study? Let me ask that first. 22 A I told you, I can't recall with any great 1 23 precision. In fact, I couldn't tell you today whether or 24 not it was -- the statement made there at the time they , f 25 made the statement to the investigators was to the best of l l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 I
15576 l Maybe it was mid-December 1 my knowledge at that time. - 2 instead of early December. Maybc the sequence of events is 3 we met the Management Committee on the 4th and maybe I was i
; 4 discussing with Mr. Jordan and Oprea similar matters within j 5 a week after that and maybe it was within a week after that 6 I was talking to Quadrex. I can't tell you with precision 7 what the exact dates were.
I I am reasonably certain that I was not talking 8 9 with any outside contractors until after the meeting with 10 Mr. Jordan. And I, to the best of my recollection, I
; 11 thought the meeting with Mr. Jordan occurred after the i 12 management committee of the 4th of December. Those are my
) 13 best recollections.
- 14 Q Did Mr. Oprea say to you that he felt that it was 15 important that you go to Mr. Jordan before the decision be 16 made to proceed with the study?
17 A I do not recall that, not at all. 18 Q Then let me understand. You felt in your own i , j 19 mind that going to Mr. Oprea and getting his concurrence i j 20 was enough; you didn't you need to go to Mr. Jordan but you
- 21. did go to Mr. Jordan?
l 22 A I was asked to attend a meeting in Mr. Jordan's 23 office with Mr. Oprea to discuss a variety of South Texas l 24 matters, and in the course of the conversation, that , 25 subject came up. That wasn't the express purpose of the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
15577 1 meeting. I l 2 I saw it more as an information discussion with 3 Mr. Jordan to fill him in on why I felt this was a useful 4 thing for us to be doing. But I didn't see that as a 5 meeting that had to occur in order for this work to be 1 6 carried out. As far as I was concerned, if Mr. Oprea i 7 agreed with my plan of action, I was just going to go out t i and do it. 8 I !
- 9 Q In response to questions from the NRC, you talked
; 10 about a concern that doing the Quadrex study would have an 11 impact on Brown & Root's productivity because they'd be 12 involved in responding to Quadrex. My question is whether l
[( L / 13 you thought that the study as you originally envisioned it, , 14 a two to three week quick snapshot, why would that have any 15 major impacts on Brown & Root's productivity? j 16 A Any review of an activity requires that the , 17 people performing the activity are parties to the review. 18 There's a need for them to take time away from their normal 19 duties to show or explain where they are, what they're 20 doing, how they're doing it. Clearly, a two or three week ! 2 21 review would have a lesser impact than a two or three month l 22 review. l 23 But any review would constitute an impact to the l ! 1 gg 24 normal day-to-day activities and it wouldn't be something , 25 that you could undertake without appropriately identifying t ! TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177-
, - - . - . . ,-,,=-..r-,-- v- s~v- ,. w w nw---ws,
l 15578 1 your plan with the people that you want to review. And as j ! 2 I said, I did in fact discuss this with Mr. Salterelli; he l 3 was being clearly set upon by his management and our i 4 management, which included myself, to do better and by the i i 5 same token, I'm now taking time to review his work which in i 6 effect is a temporary impact. But to the extent that I 7 might have been able to do it in three weeks, it would 8 clearly have been a lesser impact than a review that took 9 two or three months. l 10 Q When you referred to the Quadrex study as very $ 11 innovative in the nuclear industry at that time, are you i
- 12 referring to the Quadrex r.tudy as performed or to the idea 13 for the two to three week snapshot review? l 14 A Concept of undertaking any type of technical i
15 reviews by outside authorities of this type was not l 16 commonplace. I'm not aware that it was being done [ i ! j 17 anyplace. And it really was a forerunner to a whole i 18 program that we have. I explained we did a similar review j 19 on Allens Creek except that one was a substantially longer i j 20 review. 21 We learned in the South Texas effort that a very 22 quick review, even one as short as two months, didn't t i 23 afford reviewers enough opportunity to follow up on many of ; 24 the kinds of questions that surface for which time at that, l 25- juncture didn't allow them to pursue to a proper I
- i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
E 15579 { i l conclusion. ! i h 2 The Allens Creek review I think took almost six 3 months if my memory serves se right. We now routinely
, 4 perform the most exhaustive substantive reviews of Bechtel i
5 engineering under a program to which we call engineering l 6 assurance which -- I think I have shared with this Board ) [ i j 7 before; we've done probably I'd say maybe eight or ten very r i 8 substantive reviews, so much so that I believe the Nuclear ; { 9 Regulatory Commission's NRR group sees this program as a 10 highly desirable alternative to the independent design ; I l 11 verifications that the NRC conducts. As a matter of fact, l 1 12 the NRC, I think this week, is reviewing that program. 13 MR. SINKIN: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. i 14 MR. FIRFO: The Staff has no questions, Mr. i 15 Chairman. ! l ' i 16 JUDGE SECHHOEFER:
~
The Board has no further 17 questions. Mr. Axelrad. l t i -f 18 MR. SINKIN: Mr. Chairman, I think that while we ! I j 19 have been indulgent in the practice in the past, I think on (
; t i r j 20 redirect, we will now object to counsel consulting with the i 21 witness prior to doing redirect . l t
l 22 MR. AXELRAD: I don't know what the basis of such j 23 an objection is, Mr. Chairman. I don't think there's any 24 reason for me not to -- , l 25 JUDGE BECHNOEFER: It's not like ; i l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- ...,--==.---.-e.vn-,-w,-.,.,r--,--y..rm-.~,m-e-.
, ,w,-..,-w--uns,. em ~,.u m . . . _ _ .
15580 1 cross-examination. 2 MR. AXELRAD: By consulting with my witness -- 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The Board will overrule the 4 objection. I overrule the objection. I think on redirect, 5 the witness' counsel can confer. 6 (Discussion off the record.) 7 RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION 8 By Mr. Axelrad: 9 Q Mr. Goldberg, I direct your attention to CCANP 10 Exhibit Number 87, and the forth paragraph that you were 11 questioned about by Mr. Sinkin previously. And your 12 answers to some questions as to timing, I believe were that ( 13 you didn't recall at this point exactly when you had a 14 discussion with Mr. Stanley on this subject. Is that 15 correct? 16 A I think the question that triggered the whole 17 thing was whether or not I had talked to Mr. Stanley before 18 Quadrex received the contract, if I remember his question 19 correctly. And I said no, I didn't recall that. And then 20 there was some question about well did you talk to him in 21 November or December of 1981, or '80, rather. Excuse me. 22 And that was the recollection I made in this statement. I 23 just wanted to review. That's my understanding of the 24 prior dialog. , 25 Q Do you now recall whether or not any discussion TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- 15581 i
1 you may have had with Mr. Stanley on this subject was held 2 before or after Quadrex was retad.nnd? l 3 A , I think it's highly unlikply I had any 1 1 4 conversations with Mr. Stanley before they got the i 5 contract. I know that Dr. Sumpter would have had to have 6 some conversations with them, certainly. l 7 Q So therefore, if doctor Sumpter's first I ~ 8 discussion with Mr. Stanley were in early January '81, your l 9 discussions with Mr. Stanley would have been after that 1 i 10 time? f 11 A If that's when he first talked to them, there's 12 no question in my mind, it would have been after that. ( ) 13 MR. AXELRAD: Thank you. I have no further 14 questions, Mr. Chairman. l 15 I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, are we waiting for j 16 anything at this point? 17 JUDGE BECHNOEFER: Follow up on re-re-direct or ! 18 whatever it is? I' 19 MR. SINKIN: No, I have no questions, Mr. { 20 Chairman. I 21 MR. FIRFO: Staff has no questions. 4 j 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The Board has no further r l 23 questions. Mr. Goldberg, you're excused, i 24 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. g , 25 JUDGE BECHNOEFER: I think we're running late TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 t
1 l 15582 1 enough so that we probably should adjourn for the day. 2 Start tomorrow at 9:00 o' clock and I guess Mr. Oprea will 3 be the first witness. 4 MR. AXELRAD: Right. If there's any desire on 5 the part of the Board to start earlier than 9:00 to make 6 sure it can accomodate flight schedules, we can do that. 7 Mr. Oprea has to fly back. He flew up from Florida to 8 testify. And he has to catch a plane tomorrow also. 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Would 8:30 seriously 10 inconvenience anybody? We won't guaranty that the hotel 11 won't know to unlock the room. 12 (Hearing adjourned at 6:17 p.m.) h 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (}gg , 25 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
I 4 1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 2 3 this is to certify that the attached proceedings before the i 4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: 5 6 NAME OF PROCEEDING: HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, et al. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2) 7 8 9 10 DOCKET NO.: STN 50-498 OL; STN 50-499 OL 11 PLACE: HOUSTON, TEXAS 12 DATE: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1985 ! () 13 14 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 15 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 16 Regulatory Commission, j ! l i 17 18 19 ' Ic
~
k I 20 R. Patrick Tate Official Reporter 21 Tate Reporting Service 22 i 23 (:) ' 25 l
. _ - - - - - . -. .. -.}}