ML20090A780
| ML20090A780 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1980 |
| From: | Hood D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17198A223 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-BOX-12, FOIA-84-96 OL, OM, NUDOCS 8012090499 | |
| Download: ML20090A780 (158) | |
Text
l
.%.nn
- -- ---. ~= 8. y y n
. x.r. :.
-.; e - -
s - -...-
m.qd
. r+,... :,.,. g,. rG.';r g..r %.
g,g %, g.. i, y.
- 1. -
d'-- * *- 4"C"'Li A,
- -~*
. ;3
.a.--.
.,, m g-ag..
p.
.7-..
. c s
..4
,,.. Y....
., e., m - _.- m m.t..*,,,....-;;m...-a.-
n.
- e..u ae s
.w.W - 23,'."."~ ATORI@MCSS'*CN - -
l,M
~
.v.c-..
m.
y.
.f, y
.....u_..m m. c.
...m.._....
o-.
-t
.. s.
/
g' BEFORE TEE ATOMIC SAFETT AND LICENSING BOARD y.
a.. =
.. j *w.~
q.,, v 7
. s ;-
g_.
y'. f~,
,4 w,.
w,.
a a.
. g...
.g t
,0.,
t y. _
6 i,.-
- y
,t
....., w.
3
. e
. I '...
- = tem Mu==s:r ef: 'CCNSUMERS PCWER COMPANE : DOCKIT NCS.
50-329-OL'
~
(Midland. Plant:, Units s-50.-330 -OL
~!
d 4;.p.q.,*g......'
L.and!.2).-
' '" E 2 W.n.c... r. : -
50-329-CM 3
p 3-p.
7,
- =.,
$0-330.cs.
.. ;'; gs.. u,
{
l
< +
l.
,s.
,~
v
-~.
j
..Jv
. Deposition of DARL S. HOOD
..._3_
t en
- ~.- 3. ;
1
.m-
.s.
r P
- m.. c.:,. :n.s,w... x, u. _
sg...
4 _
a..,.-
j-a.
... ~
'~
.' 4 Cet:be:- S', 1980f '
73Gzg:
- 156' 314 '~.. :. n.c;;;y. Q.-
4
~
C N.F'.,Q.
,, e v -.
n.
8
-. %.3,,,p a.w.. :
,,. g;... y.j. '.9.. _.,.c
. yW, g,,*.,
g r
g;_.
g.
- .g
..s
&'.... '4'Js'iSWP v.R. 0 M '.
?
Ar:
Bethesda, Mar-land
,.V.WM
..., n... s. u. :.
, N<,.w...
,.m,<
m.
..:,,. a..
.r.
.. g..
p.~: t.. %. e ;..:., y.,
p,;
e, e-
.x
.a.
. w
. m.,. w ~
o J.;;r. ;..,.. s a
A
..c s _..m.m,.
.... kw s.w m
.- -ve.
...vs.,.,.,,. 9, y
?..,
t
..~. g y
. -. m =. a. t
... o
..'4 y, ~h. '., %.., ;,.
. ~., s :.,
4
- u
,w i.,. e. -
- w..
w, c :.,
%.m~..._ y -
c.,a, t.,.=
~
, ~.
. n.
..g.
..s...
s
.s,.,- -......
... v.. u'. p
.s =4.
.E i.
y-z
.<g.,,..
s r
n'..
.f-
.. n ^
. <. ;,.:... : wy m.:.[
Q,.
,;s L'
- p..
- _ ?
+
. - s-
?..
t
-.~..,!..
y
. ~
r.
~;
g g g [... %
gg l
f.
u J
..e.
-\\
n
=..
p. d.
. ' u-
- m..
- c#
..: m n.
.y.
s' a
i
--s-...:. -
,~
F W
~D O. 20024 3?
2E Jy
.; L.
.4.,44G vi_;'.".=.m. Ave /~E.
. ass.s r 3.g.,.:q.a. e,...p; : -
....2 a-7
. :* g.
- 9. -
.,g
..m.,.,-
mp..y2.., y, n.
.c -
u.
.,.,a Talsph==e:
- m.x. +. ~.
m.
v
&.. y. W W z.: %..g %y.y..n..,,m w,m.w,:,,.G,. 5..,_.k Q
..,.e...
s.
,J. )
@.4 W :n (00:7. ~ SE4--2241.
. T
..;ne 1.c n
5,Q j.i; }
%y.
~
.. s,g.. '.....
m m
ip i-.
.i...--
e...
.. s,, ~,,..,, f
..... ; ;.y
~
3,
- p
..a. 3,. -..
4
.a.~. 2..o.....,,a..,.g m
f.
~
,:s
. 0*V.s *.* [.ek ',.Q/ ( ~~)[' '.*N. ash';.}.7.,..,. g,6M..k. t.y /..j :-
...._. s,,'..'.p;M* %.'%rk ~n-./,f'$( ' jp4
- r.. '.
. . s a..,.
- j.
i '. s1
'f " M,
- . '2.i.
,M
.a., m:
. u,,
. n.,.;.
. s....,..,.
s.
+
.1
..m
.m y gu g.e "....
e+y.
.[
g
- ,, k N
ag%Ok U#
~.. ' d, h,
- 4 9
/r 8-9 QAt.. g[p~gi.._g'?@#P.6,$..pQ. #f
- y. _,: 41ffg,N~ W.iSui@'I =
. a-_.g qg...'84g T...dQ,..
m g*:
, a x.' e m + m-"u,.k. m".b. _ r..:a., w.s...: m..e w;n.u T
?*
[,e
'*77.
I.
f a
u;c ;,.: a
... ~
w
=.n
=
..b.e w h
s
.m.,y.,#.
% m-
_.. m _.x w c a..r m g ; g y. : g y I
.x x.
& e-L
/
/
j 1Le 2 yT VW9//M&b i
156 1
UNITID STATIS or AMERICA 2
NUCIIAR HIGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOHIC SAFITY AND LICINSING 80ARD 4
...........-----x s
In the Easter ofs a
6 Docket Nos. 50-329-OL CONSUMERS POWER COMPANI s
50-330-OL 7
50-329-03 e
(Hidland Plant, Units 1 and 2 4
50-130-CH 8
s
.--x D
7735 Old Georgetown Road to Bethesda, !aryland 11 Wednesday, October 9, 1980 12 Depes' elon of D ARL S. HOOD, called f or examination 13 by counsel for Consumers Power Company in the above-entitled 14 action, ;ursuant to recess, the witness being ;r eviously 15 sworn under oath, at the offices of the Nuclear Regulatory 16 Commission, 7735 Old Georgetown Road, Sethesda, Maryland, ~at 17 9 :3 0 a.m., Wednesday, October 8, 1980, and the proceedings 18 being taken dove by Stenomask by Zarilya Shockey and 19 transcribed under her direc+J.cn.
20 21 l
22 23 24 25 l
AU3ERSoM REPCRTING COMPANY,;MC.
\\
400 vtRG# eta Avt. S.W. WASMWeGTcN. D.C. 20024 (202 584 2348 I
-~
~
- b h h -- 5
. L. _..
- ~.1 4-,....
2 @-
-T.'f-_..m*_%fAMi@q.'s#q[M.. :.:jfr# f : M F, b,,
.TO"}{g[
Y,Y
-.c%,
y.,.,., _.,, c.._._ _, v _...,..
v -.
..m.....,..
{ J N:*.s L
.~:e r. :- m -.-. ~..
. - u-;, a v-
- n.
. t e 1 -.
m.
E
. (,f'y, -. a> :: ~.- -
. %.s n-m,g 3$y
- y
- ;
---. s 1 APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of Consumers Powcr Company 3
RONALD ZAZARIN, ISC.
ALAN FASNIII, ESC.
4 Isham, Lincoln & Beale One First National Plara 5
Chicago, Illinois 60603 8
JANES 3 RUNNER, ESQ.
Consumers Power Company 7
1945 W. Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 8
On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9
WIIIIAH D. PATTON, ES Q.
10 3 RAD 1II JONES, ESQ.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
11 7735 Old Georgetown Road 3ethesda, Maryland 21202 12 Also Presents 13 SHIRI7 AFITI 14 3echtel Associa tes, ?.C.
15 GI13Eg; KIIIII Consumers Power Company 18 17' I
18 19 t
m 21 22 23 24 1
i M.nemon nerosmNo cone uw me.
N 400 VWBGNA AVE. S.W, WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20034 GRD $44-23a4
..s
N g
. g i ;3u ; ~ k-.;...-) :x.~-;- -%ill~1 EL' 1.n --Q-bj.
.. --_,y-:~;.jya'
~
1 i
,Jv..
c.
/2.,
157-A 1
i 1
C _0 N_ T.E N T _S 2'
Examinatien by 3; witness:
Counsel for Censumers 1
l 4' Darl S. Eccd (Resumed).
158 3
5 2
ITER 3ITS 6
Prh ^tt N d er Identification n"
T 3,,,
7 Censumers 4
N 8
5 167 9
,,s 6
170 9
7 172 I
8 211 1
10 9
215 Z
l 10, 227 3
11 11 233 12 228 d
12 1, 13 239 z
5 14 237 N
13 15 247 i
16 258
=g 14,
17 274 j
y
! 18 282 2
15 l la 306 a
i
=
20 30 7
/ 16 ;
21 308 22 (G.rcupl 310 17 !
az 18 '
l u
19 l 1
R 2a !
21 22,
I I
i 23 i
1 I
M!
i l
l l
i
\\
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l n
I l
% w s.___.w.:w e.
- w. g.. ;
?~~ - ' -+' -
.m-, -.. -
q.
g
' * = D ::.7 ~ T.Li./ m..:,
' W n. w ::p q 3-3, W z. q,. q r 3.-
- -4
- ::.
. = :-
~n'.y.b-W :~;2= & --.
~~;^*
,ry K
,~L._
g,'
Wh:.T '.:w; - ~ -w:
,.-..m--...
..... _... n.z.-.. ~ _. w..
- f. > -.:_' w
-... -.,'. ar-w-...,,,.....1,3..
.y
- p. n :-.
=;.g..1
- =~
w-
._.y ::.
3 p.,. _
1g8 1
2gQ.gII211g1 2
M3. IA3A2I3s Before we begin, you understand you 3 were under oath yesterday and you are still under oath 4 tod a y.
You understand th a t.
5 MR. HOOD:
Yes, I understand that.
6 ER. IANARI3s Let the record show this is the i
7 contiscation of the deposition of Darl Hood, continued fres S yesterday.
9 Whereupon, 10 DAR1 S. HOOD, 11 called for exaahation by counsel for Consumers Power 12 Company, having been previously sworn, was further exasised 13 and testified as follovsa 14 IIANINAIION SI COUNSIl ICR CONSUNI2S PC7II COEPANI 15 3! 32. IA5ARI3t 16 Q
As we concluded yesterday, you had indicated that 17 Ir. Fiore111, Branch Chief of IEE, Region 3, had felt that 18 the December 6 order wasn't necessary as the most prudent 19 approach, and that he felt civil penalties would be better; 20 is that correct?
21 A
I tion't know whether that is exactly the way I 22 phrased it.
I do recall saying that he felt some other 23 approach sight have been more appropriate.
J 24 C
2 hat was that other approach, specifically?
25 A
It wasn't clear to se what other approach he had l
l l
l l
ALDERScN REPCRTWee CohePANY. INC.
g f
400 vtMe#eA AVE., S.W. WASHuseToN. C.C. 20024 (203 $44 2348
,[ " '}.i '>-u:_.
p; c.:y&- -
?W~' =~ -
w...- m v:n.: u:L-t.
L.: _~m.=j-g-
{:f.g:#
- %M->
.,a~
159 1 in sind.
I do know at the time ICI had under consideration 2 a civil penalty, and I assumed that it was something tied in i
3 with that.
Just what else was included with that, I don't 4 know.
5 C'
Apart from his perhaps f eeling some other approach
~ ',
8 sight be better or sight be more appropriate, do you know if y he had any particular objection or any particular probles t
8 with the order approach?
9 A
No, I don't know with any specificity what his to probles was.
I deduced from his comment that he had some 11 dif ficulty with it.
Ihat is all I know.
12 Q
And was, in fact, the ciril penalty approach 13 co,nsidered by ICI, Region 3, to your knowledget 14 A
Tes, it was considered by Region 3.
15 Q
Do you know whether that approach was rejected by 18 ICI, Region 37 17 A
I do not know the outcome nor the current status 18 of that decision.
I an under the impression that the 19 decision any not have been made.
It any still be a 7
20 consideration.
+
21 Q
Ihat they are still considering seeking civil 22 penalties as a result of the soil problems at Hidland?
23 A
Yes, I believe that is still a viable decision.
i 24 C,
That is it that leads you to believe that?
25 A
I attended meetings where that subject was l
l ALOGl4SoM 19olmNe CoopANY. INC.
'g 40e VWielNIA Ave. S.W. WAGNesefoN. 0.C. 20084 (303 808 23d4 l
I q
m y-~~r
, - - ~,,
n=
e
--w
,,w,--
ye
..:.w..L-.
~ L-gt-._...-
_ #-%;h M.hl t-k[E.h
'[.j.{,
' .3)$
y-,
-/--
.,~-c y n n
.. = -.. n.
g y
(
v.:. 2
.u.
, c. --..,.-,_...s
-.,o...._.
-g?.i 160 ppm. c= *.ww-w s.
m
__% s, 1 discussed.
2 Q
Do you recall the dates of any of those meetings?
3 1
No, I do not recall the exact dates.
I know 4 generalir the timeframe.
There were meetings.1ust a week or 5 two prior to the issuance of the order itself, sometis e probably in Novesber of ' 79 or thereabouts.
7 Q
Do You recall any meeting sore recent than 8 sometime around November of 1979 as which the discussion er 9 suggestion was that Region 3 was stiti considering or at 10 that time considering seeking civil penalties 7
~
11 A
No, I do not recall any specific meeting where 12 that was the topic of conversation.
13 Q
Do you recall whether there were meetine notes of 14 the seeting at which this consideration of civil penalties 15 was discussed, sometise around November of 19797 16 A
No, to the best zy knowledge I's not aware of any 17 zeeting notes that were taken.
I know I did not take any 18 such notes.
Whether someone else sight have taken notes, I 19 don 't know.
i 20 Q
Was that seeting in Glen Ellen?
21 A
No.
The meeting to which I refer was held at If.I 22 headquarters in East-West Towers here in 2ethesda.
23 Q
Do you recall who else was present at that meeting 24 besides yourself ?
25 A
I believe Nr. Keppler.
I believe Nr. Knop.
I's ALDeRSoM meroNfuse Co8dPANY.INC.
400 weesMIA Ave 3.w. wAeMeeGToN. 0.C. 20084 (203 See Staa
b
. ~3y_,u-g~. a ;;. ~. O.-
,,.g.
- . ;
- 3-e
.. =
.. g.-
A%
...,.>.3 m.
161 1 not sure of that.
I believe Er. Knop was present and Mr.
2 Fiore111 was present, and 3r. Shevnaker.
Again, I's not but !
3 absolutely certain that 3r. Shevnaker was present, 4 believe he was present.
!r. Willias 01sstead was present.
5 I as not absolutely certais, but I believe Mr. Thornberg was 6 also present at least for a part of that me e ting.
I's sure 7 there were others but I cannot recall just who at this time.
8 Q
Do you recall what the stated purpose for that 9 seeting was?
10 1
Yes. It was an internal seeting to discuss, for the purpose of cocedinating where we were on the soil 11 it settlement matter with Midland.
It was an effort to 13 coordinate the 3RR review and the review status with that cf 14 the Cffice of Inspection and Enforcement, and recocalze that 15 there was a pending decision, that which is implied by 18 5 054(f), which implies a decision as to whether or not the 17 construction persit shou 5d be modified, suspended or revoked.
18 Q
Was there a decision sede at that meeting as to 19 whether that implied action or the issuance of an order 1-20 should, in fact, he undertaken at that tise ?
21 A
Yes. That meeting was hel'd for a decision.
22 C
That decision was to issue the Cecember 6th order?
23
.A The decision was that the order was proper.
24 Q
Other than Er. Fiore111, was there anyone else at 25 that seeting, to the best of you recollection, who indicated ALDEPeoM R$PoRflNe cow 8ANY. leec, g
400 vWiesetA AWE. S.W. wad $eNefoN. o.C. 20084 (30m 984 23e4 s
i
--,.m
.n-n.-._.,m.
r "k,,,,...,2.
1% T,- ~...~.
- -b
, = -
75p.*
-g
.,,l jWJ-
. _...h
-, y* UA N"*.Z.
f
...,,-'p_
^
~ n ' ' +' % gig-y,'Q g y. g ',. 7 " g - y '-- 4 4 W. D
. :y.r.-
. xr:
.,z.
-.c-w.,,,,,,.
~-
-. c; g
G. :
u.,
.c...u..
... ~
yt i
. p.g.-_.,c,s.fc ::w,-J - --
~
F 162
.. ', t.;
-Q 1 any reservation or difficulty with issuing the order?
2 A
I do not recall any comment or ingression that I 3 had that would lead se to believe that was the case.
To the 4 best of my knowledge, I aa not aware of any others.
5 Q
Do you recall seeing anyone other than yourself at 6 the eetting taking notes?
7
-A No, I do not remember.
8 Q
Have you ever seen any notes or any minutes at any 9 tise of that seeting?
10 A
No.
11 C
resterdar we talked about the catchet with regard 12 to the acceleration value with regard to the Midland 13 Project, and the possible increase f eca.12 to some higher g 14 value.
What ! vant to ask you is whether the staff has a 15 position with regard to the application of some value in 16 excess of.12 to existing plants and existing structures 17 within the !ichigan basis.
18 ER. PATON:
'Jait a sinute..
Just a sinute.
- Ckay, 19 go ahead and answer.
20 THE WITNESS:
Could you repeat the question, t.
21 please?
22 3R. ZAHARIN:
I don't think I can.
Could the 23 reporter read the question back ?
24 (The pending question was read by the reporter.)
25 THE WIT 3I55:
I understand the question to be A4.DERSoM REPoRTwee Cohe#ANY. INC.
's 400 WieNIA Ava. 3.w. WA8NINefoN. D.C. 20034 (20lD S462344
~ ' ' '..' Gif.;..y
.~~. z : -5.,33:. - -n...=g-..
'...,. ~5;_;4 i
a.
.. ~..
-r n-.
-. r.n, ;
'" r. ~%
e t ~:n
\\
yyc.xr
.( - y N
- c..,;-.,.
.e"-'
163 f
i t direc.ed to plants other than Midland.
I as not familia:
{
/*
. 2 with any such position with regard to other plants.
3 BI 33. IAN ARIN: (2esusing) 4 Q
Do you know whether that issue has been considered
, 5 by anyone within the staff or any consultants for the staff?
A No, I do not.
7 Q
Do you know whether that position or issue has 8 been considered with regard to existing structures at 9 Midland?
to A
Now I don 't understand.
Would you rephrase the 11 question?
Iou asked se has the staff considered the is;act 12 of the new seismic design input on the structures at 13 Iidland. Is that the question?
14 Q
Ies.
i 15 A
I f eel quite certain that the staff has probably I
to at least minisally tried to make some estimate of the impact 17 of the decision.
I say s' hat because that is kind of 18 inherent in the decision process that the staff goes 19 through.
But I as not aware that it is done in any formal j
lll0 or deliberate sense.
If it has been done, I as not aware of 1
21 it.
22 Q-If such consideration were to be done,'who would 23 he responsible for initiating that consideration and for 24 actually then accomplishing that consideration?
25 1
Hy feeling is that it would have been done as a ALosason asponse coneamy, wec.
,N aos vwiewsA Avs. s.w. wasnweeTom. o.c. sons 4 (som see ases
~ % W d@55 $w., -
. ?
4
~
~. W & =+-._-.R. = &m
~ ~' % WN5 & tih.) &.lN..h T[
n
'. R *[.l' L C' Q ; [ -~~
.G..;,' Y M':
Qih y%
1%
~ = ^ ~ T Nr4 e..
- <-.: 1 m,<..., n. r.....: a. =. +:.,. a.....,,,.
p g~
,l N h "a 'w. %
.:.3,.m,.,.~
,.y.
,..__,;,7 164
_--- y.. _ y
..s p.rtm..
n = c-.-
. y :.,..
g,a rescit of communica. tion between Mr. Jackson and people under 1
2 his in their comannication with geotechnical and structural
(
5 3 engineering b ranche s.
l 4
Q 7ho would make a decision'or initiate a 5 consideration of whether a decision was to be made with' regard to whether some acceleration value of greater than 6
12 q's should be applied to other operating plants that 7
8 already existed in the Michigan Basin?
4 9
A Bef ore I answer that, let me further clarify a f
10 point that needs to be made Er understanding is the 11 decision is not the result and the decision of whether M
12 or not to appl it isg ased the expected outcome of some i
b 13 seismic.analys.
hns.::M.ical seissic Enalysis.
Rather, it 14 starts with the viewpoint of what is the expec.ed credible 15 earthquake for that region or area.
te so the decision rests la: gely with Bob Jackson.
17 It is a matter of what is the histcry and -w hat we know of -
18 the region to support and what is the sothodology to 19 support, and the results flow f rom that decision.
It is not 20 the other way arounde where you first exasine the results t
21 and then back ists whether you want to sake a decision.
22 Q
Let se perhaps clarify this.
If a decision is 23 sade that the acceleration value because of that area is t
24 greater than that which the staff had heretofore believed it i
i 25 to be,.12, would the staff's position then be that all A4.DWISoM RWofmese ColdPANY. 6MC.
400 VWeeeetA Ava. S W. WASMWeeTose. 0.C. 20034 (203 See asse
-t m n n
l
+-
r a.;.. e. p, j c <, _
.;n
..;w Eu_ :hy;: 5..-g.=g _ ;
- -;{g _
/
sl'
/
Ul.
{* --
p'-
.,,c.,
4
/
j 165 f
\\ rl'}
t 1 existing structures, even in operating plants in that area, f 'f/
had to be reexamined on.he basis if a * * ;h:: 2 cele:U.lo n 3 value?
f "4 I can see where that would be a pessible outcome A
5 of that' decision.
I as not ava:e of any consideration or e discussion of that subject.
l Q
You _
you can see that is a possible outcome.
8 Does that imply that you can also see where it is possihie 9 tha t that wouldn't happen?
to 1
res, I can see where it is possible that th a t 11 would not happen.
There are indeed differences in the 12 :equ1ations that app 1T to a plant under const:uction and a 13 plant that is opera. ting.
14 Q
Tould there be any other reason why You could see 15 the possibility of that not happening?
16 A
.Yo, I canno t.
17 Q
Ihe difference in regulations to which you refer 18 with respect to plants that a:e under construction and 19 existing plants, can you tell se what the diff e:ences in 20 regulations are that you are referring to?
21 A
I don't know the specific requiation.
It goes --
22 no, I can 't.
I would have to go back to the regulation. I 23 as just aware that there were indeed dif ferences in 24 decisions made with regard to operating plants and 25 construction plants, and indeed, that are v itten out in the ALDOoon Mt9cRTINe CCheHNY.sNo.
de vvicamA Ave. S.w. WA8McNetoN. 3.C. 20034 (203 See 23e4
~~' C$ Q..
_ s-3 k~ c:-,2%.::k a ' 31-;&->~
.g 3:.Q:gq,y...
. c
.... =
-N%
.n
,,c;.,
. s..
.r. -
166 1 regulations.
Did you say the requiations deal with 2
Q 3 decisionsaking with regard to existing plants and plants 4 under construction?
Can you give se more of an idea of what 5 kind o'f decisionsaking those regulations refer to or apply 8 to to make it easier for us to find those regulations?
i I can't offer you any guidance.
7 A
No, I'm sorry, 8
- 52. ZAIARI3s I have here what I uould like marked 9 as Consumers Izhibit 5 for identification, cf yesterday's we vill do, unless you have seae objection, is i
10 date.
What we will continue to mark exhibits for this deposition in the
(
11 11 same style as yesterday, so they will be under the date 13 10/7/1980 as opposed to marking thes with today's date.
14
- 33. PA;0N:
I don't see why you were doing that.
15 Why don't we just put today's date on it?
18
- 11. ZANA3IN4 By having the same date, it will*be 17 easier to recogni=e these as one package of exhibits, 4
18 because we are going to have a lot of dcyositions with 1
m, 18 different dates.
tohaveatranscri5t i
('
20
- 11. PATC$a Hut you are going 21 for yesterday and a transcript for today.
If you try to 22 satch up the transcript with the exhibit, it is going to be 23 easier if this says 10/8, but I don't object if you want to 24 call it 10/7.
28 II. ZAIARIN:
This say not necessarily be in a D
u a-MPostwee conseeny,wec,
'j
. - w.e s
A.:
...w a -.
j,",, WrJ:y:]-7. -._--
r.r.igf s '..~.. =O..
wb>W-__ 'r
.,- Q
' - " 'W"dQ-;g'eg{f@q.$.:... :..i. lw... b
- r..; ;_....;;. -
N#.?y ^ *W-
-1 4
-., - : <,1-. e -
n.
-; ;a.y.n. m,
o.-
g
(; {:% w
,:f
. m.--.1 s y..-
n
~.ue-s=.=
we=-
, w: -
. - ~
' ' ~ ~Q' 167
.Q,n,Q_.
.) a:
- . w n. -
,. ~ -
1 separate volume.
2
- 33. PATON:
Ch, y e s, i t will.
They are not going 3 to combine resterday's and today's.
4 NE. ZANAIII:
Why not?
5
- 23. PATON:
I have never seen it done yet.
4
- 33. PATON:
Can we go off the record?
7 (Discussion was held off the record.)
8 53 ZAHARI3s Back on the record.
9 I an having sacked as Consumers Exhibit Number 5 10 for identification as of todar's date, Hood Dep, a
11 marked-upon photocopy of a letter dated.0ctober 16, 1979, in 12 the form o'f a suanary of Ju17 18, 1979 setting.
i 13
(;he document referred to was 14 marked Consumers Exhibit 15 Number 5 for identification.)
16 ST II. Z13ARIN (Resuming) 2 17 Q
It appears on page 3 to be over the signature of 18 Darl Hood.
Would you take a look at that and tell se if to that is a sussary that was set over your signature?
\\'
20 A
Yes, I prepared this aceting sussary.
21 Q
- Jaa this seeting summary prepared from notes that 21 rou sade or took at the Ju1Y 18,1979 aceting?
23 A
Tes, it was.
1 24 Q
Do you still have the original of those notes?
28 A
No, I do not.
.l
\\
ALOWoope Astopfwee CC Albemv. sea, i
400 WIflGWAA AWE S.W. WAAMese foes. 0.o. asetA (m tee mae,
- - - _. _ ~.
i
- i., N. 2.
s ;.g., p.; 2i;,g--p-
, m,,, -- (. l (- E Q,,.. y y.--
1g_.] {
U...
S 3
.s%
.... /:.,
i 168 f
1 C
Vas this suasary prepared based upon anything l
2 other than your notes of that meeting and yourc recollection l
3 of what went on at that meeting?
4 A
3ay I refer to the aussary again?
s o
surely.
J 8
A I believe there were -
l 7
- 33. PATONa Just a sinate.
Let se look a t that.
1 I
8 THE WITNESS 4 I believe there were two other I
9 docusests that I used that were of assistance to as which to helped me recall the consents that were made at the 11 seeting.
Cae of the docuseats is a handwritten note that j
11 was received from Mr. John C11:ay.
It is consistent with 13 the consents that he made a t the seeting.
l 14 The issue in question at the time during the 19 discussion during the seeting was related to the QA aspect 14 cf the deficiency, and during the meeting, if I recall, IT 3echt 31 was giving a presentatica as to the root causes of 18 the probles in a discussion.
I 19 The point was made by Bechtel, as I recall, that
(*
30 what I will loosely call the people probles was not a root 21 cause.
I believe they were pointing out that they I
22 considered the people to be qualified and that this was not
}
i as a contriheting cause.
Staff noted its disagreement with 24 this point, and the note which I received from 3r. Gilray 26 potated this est further..Indeed, he disagreed with that i
AL8 9 0eN R W oRftse ConsNasy, pea,
\\
des vinessa M4. S.W. wassumetese. B.S. scene tage ses.ames
i
, ' + '..
._.a w : m, Mg.
~_
-rmQ.&
.i.m.,,,,
a.T.;4, z..-
m
-~ 1 ff
[
&&Q'-(
Yb-fM Mt'.*
ObN~Q [
~'
l
-~s. y.,-..,x n.,
.c._...,.,._ _, _ _
g O m
- g p.pm.
~.
F 16g p ' e,
%--- Q g;, ) A t= 7 ee=-
t statement and noted his intent to pursue that aspect further.
2 Ihat document is in the stack of documents I have 3 sade available to you as you requested se to produce 1
i 4 documents.
j 5
Another document I had in my possession at the 8 time I wrote this suasary reflects cessents by Mr. Gene 7 Gallaghet.
I believe those two comments go to subparagraph 8 anators 1 and 2 on page 3 of this suasary.
It is zy i
9 recollection that those consents were also sade at the 10 seeting, so that document was of assistance to se during I
11 preparation of the meeting sussary.
i 12 Ihat document from 3r. Gallagher is also in the -
i 13 package of documents that I made available to you.
i l
14 Q
Ton indicated that by his note to you, 3r. G11 ray 1
i 15 indicated his disagreemant with the stated position that 18 personnel qualification tas not a contributing cause of the 17 Q A probiens.
I have bef ora se a note signed " Gene -
I 18 Gallagher" dated 2/19/30.
Sttbject,.ainutes of meeting, soil 4
j 19 settlement, dated November 19, 1979 and November 26, 1979.
1
(*
20 It sayss " Attached for your info are the above two I
l 21 minutes of meetings that are of interest to Ridland 21 regarding the site settienent."
I have another handwritten j
23 note that is signed, angears to be signed "J.
G11 ray.*
Ch, 24 this is G. Gallagher.
Excuse me.
Ihis one,is Gene 28 Gallagher.
i i
ALOGISon apofm>G CoasPefeY.Wec..
\\
400 VWhoseA Ava. S.W. WAGMusefon. 0.C. 20884 (SSB OAs anas i
i
, f,. -~
p.~.;g.5'~~.
.f
~~.... Z_;)
' ; y,h ;;.R. ~,s: ;-...-
.,..,z.
s v..
.,a.;
3 170 1
With regard to the G11rar note, I have before me 2 what is sarked Consumers Exhibit Nusher 6 for identification.
3 (The docusent ref erred to was marked Consumers Exhibit 4
Number 6 for identification.)
5 6
Ihis is marked as of today's date.
y I ask you if that is what you ref erred to as being 8 the handwritten note that was provided to you by Mr. Gilray.
9 A
Yes. Ihat is the document to which I referred ou i
10 benalf of Mr. Gilray.
11 Q
7 hen you say that he indicated that he was going 12 to pursue it further, you are ref erring, I take it, to the 13 last portion of this note which says "I intend to questica 14 and challenge thes in this area."
15 A
Ios, I believ that goes to the Personnel 16 Qualifications Performance M nt, what he calls in' ty the meno the people probles 4
18 Q
Did you discuss the contents of that note with his 19 any further?
4
's
- 20 A
If I did, I do not reca11 it.
21 Q
At the time of the meeting on July 18, 1979, did 22 rou agree with his statement that is contained in that note 23 as it. relates to the people probles, as it styles it?
24 A
Ios.
I believe ay impression at.the time was that 25 I tended to agree with this observation.
ALDtR9eN RE9oRimG Coen9aNv, MC.
4 VIpe#elA Ava. S.W.WASHweeToN. 0.C. 20084 (303 See 23d4
- %
- ow5
('
Rn.,
DL- _.
---r-,-=-
-~
. P " " % M G e g p fg @ t:. =.e-yeee, e27gg @
=
'- M G.,:: x r.~m
-.,v-n:.,-,-
Q_
3
,y
_c..
c. ;
__,.,_..,,,,......u
+.
et 171 3,. s,
.. u. s,. ~Q
~n y2-1 Q
Do you know whether Mr. Gilray followed up his 2 intention to question Consumers in this area?
3 A
It is 37 impression that there is further inquiry reflected in the record on behalf of 3r. Gilray in this end, 4
5 but sy" zemory bears some checking in this case.
6 Q
When you say further inquiry, are you referring to 7 something that would have been presented to Consumers over 8 the signature of.r. Gilray?
Y 9
A I believe there are further requests to the 10 applicant -- that is what I want to check -- which go to 11 that matter, whether it is specifica11:* from Mr. Gilray or 12 whether it is from ICE,. which he is supporting.
"'here is an 13 overlap.
There is related concern, for example -- I believe
-- which 14 it is expressed in the ICI investigation report 15 reveals that at the time of the soil placement activities, 18 there was no geotechnical person on the site, and indeed, 17 the job foreman was cenducting the activities and taking 18 directions from othersy.c 'ot located on the site.
19 7hether the further municati.cn i directed fres 3r.
s/IH ofed t
the ICI inquiries, I 20 C9 7 ay or whether t is 21 am not certain at th 22 Q
What we have here, though, is a statement b y this a
23 note to you from Tr. Gilray in August or July,of 1979 that 24 he intended to question and challenge Consusers in this 25 area. I as wondering if you are aware of anything he did in ALDGMSoM REPORTUse CoedMMY, tMC.
\\
aos vweesmeA Avs. 3.w. wAsNweetoN. O.c. 20034 (203 8862344
~ " b t...
l
? py.2.v6 %:--Qn-
,,;.. x.
,;.;:. g g: Q 3._.... _ _. g -
,_- w _. - _,
3
-~
~
.-.:~.-:.
- .....: ;+=
(
-%w J.. -,g,
i 172 l'
reasonable proximity to that date with regard to pursuing 1
2 the intent of this statement.
sure of At this particular point in time I as not 3
A 4
4 what I feel.
With a quick check to the acre recent events, that indeed happened, 5 I might be able to demonstrate that i
6 but I have difficulty at this particular point, without 7 checking the record, to renesWs 1_
117 what 8 activities ensued from that conc rn g.
you can't recall i-e C
3ut as you sit here ci t a to anything in particular that Er. Gilray initiated shortir 11 after that July 18, 1979 aceting with regard to his intent 12 to question Consumers on their " people problem"?
4 i
13 A
That is correct.
14 Q
I have here what has been marked as Consumers t
15 Ixhibit Susber 7 for identification, of today's date.
(The document ref erred to' was 18 marked Consumers Exhibit 17 Number 7 f or iden tification. )
18 l
This appears to be a sene or some form of 19 It appears to be over the signature of I.J.
l
(.
20 correspondence.
r 21 Gallagher to Ir. Fiore111. I believe this also indicates at Can
.49, D. Hood, then it has the notation Phil. 116-A.
22 the 23 you tell ne what that D. Hood, Phil.116-A means?
i 24 A
D. Eco indi es that it is addressed to se to i
YOV f., s'y 25 our special sai-..
, e reuit.
It is addressed to se at 2
6 anenson nanomes cowany. wee. s
."s aos vinsseA Avu s.w. wAsMweefcse. o.c. seosa case ses.ases 1
A
]
.. =
c e
--r
...s..
s.
[ k -... - - - - - *.._r-
.;.g {
gs^ ;,,,
gg
"" " [QP
. g.,d m..?;yl~;y~.7n!? -}7 - -- ;..;. - =-- _
Q~~GfgQT.k,"Q.}f. fy?n.+-:"g,,M,7 9
m-.y ~
.-Q,
.,w :, m...,.w..-.z,.,.,
( )... n. u.
- r ;.
s x-
~.-,-,,,...w.m...-..
- f. D... -h.,,..A- - ---
.T_$7,-
173 1
1 the Phillips Emilding in roca 116-A.
2 Q
You recall having seen a copy of this memorandus 3 on or about the date it bears, January 21, 19807 4
A I do not recall the date at which I received it.
5 Whether or not I received it about this date, January 21, I 4 do not know.
I do know that I'an in receipt of that l
7 docusent.
8 Q
It indicates in this Exhibit Number 7 that a 9 seeting was held on January 16, 1980 with Consumers and 10 Bechtel regarding the fill settlement issue, the sain 11 purpose of which was to discuss Consumers' response to 12 50.5a(f) questions, Cuestions 24 through u5.
It indicates 13 that the following observations were made during the meeting.
14 I would like to call your attention to number 2, 15 which states that since transfer of lead responsibility from 16 ILI to NER was made on Noyeaber 17, 1978, no progress has 17 been made in the technical review for the outstanding plant 18 fill saf ety issue'.
19 Do you agree with that statement or disagree with 20 that statement as of January 21, 19807 21 A
I disagree with a literal interpretation of the 22 words.
I interpret it to mean that instead of saying no 23' progress, I interpret this to sean insufficient progress is 24 being made.
I would accept that interpretation, but not as 25 it is written here to sean no progress.
4
\\
ALDEfWoM #EPoRTWee ConsPaseY,6MC, Mle VIAe8AA AVE.1.W. WAGMetafoN, 3.C. a1034'(203 See SSee r-.-
y --..,., ~ ~,,
g
=-.
i
' ~'
l
- p c bv b -' E :- f K
.l..M
.N Sh QQ 5...-.
h}
j
,i "
. v6- - /-., r.,
174 l
i l
1 Q
All right.
You say you would accept that I
2 interpretation.
Would you agree with that statement so 3 interpreted, that is, as of January 19, 1980 seeting, tha t 4 insufficient progress had been sade with regard to the 5 technical review since the t'ransfer from ICE to N331 8
A Yes, I accept that as a satisfactory l
7 chkracterizatica of the way the review progress is 8 developing.
It is not developing in a manner satisf actory 9 to the staff. I believe that is what he is trying to say, l
10 and I agree with that.
11 Q
In paragraph number 3 of Exhibit 7, he states that 1
I 12 *Since the Corps had been contracted" - he said contacted 13 by 333 -
"to review the issues on October '79, no progress 14 has been made regarding a technical review."
Do you agree 15 or disagree with that statement as of January 19807 16 A
Eay I see the c.ossent, please?
~
37 Q
Yes.
j 18 A
You are referring to subparagraph 37 I
19
-Q Tes, number 3.
N*
20 A
Ny recollection of this is at the point in time 1
21 our eff' orts were directed at the establishment of an 22 acceptable contract with the Corps of Engineers and that it 23 was at a later point in time when that effort was 24 consumenteds nevertheless, there were certain activities 25 going on in ancitigation of the final signing of the
\\
ALDeteoM IISPolmNe CoMPANT sec. 400 VIIIedNBA AVE. S.W. WAGNWeefoN. 0.C. sI0te (105 88e 3344 e.
.w u:n...
f--~,.:-r:^
f f
- $?I8E Z..
k.~5
-..Q%..
g: *
- n. - v.w..--,
r..
- y l,
I J3.
- u.. n-.
.e
.n.,..;-u.n...,7w.......~.....
, D S l e,. _
'~
~
}
'.t h -
175 1 contract.
2 I would have to disagree with a literal h
3 interpretation of the passage where it says no progress has 4 been sade. Again I believe the intent of the passage is, to i
4 i
S say that insufficient progress has been sade with regard to i
i 8 the actual perforsance of the technical review.
)
I T
Q Do you agree, then, that insufficient progress was 5
8 being made with regard to the technical review?
9 A
Tes.
At that point in tise there was insufficient
\\
l to review attention being given to the satter.
11 Q
Insufficient review attention being given to the 12 natter by whos?
j l
13 A
on the part of the staff.
We were experiencing j
14 resource difficulties, and of necessity, we are operating on 18 a priority systes relative to attention given 31diand as a
l 18 opposed to higher priorities in other plants.
I believe 17 that comment by Ir. Gallagher, that and his previous l
18 cessents, were intended ter bear that out.
The staff is 19 operating under these difficulties.
i 2D Q
Tith respect'to the Midland plant fill issue, de f
21 rou know for how long a period prior to January 20, 1980 22 that this condition that you have just described esisted?
23 A
Tes. The condition tha ou a referring to was 1
24 the condition of limited reso ce s/,
2s Q
Ios.
[
l i
6 AEpoRftse Conspessv.INC,
~
400 vioessu Ave. S.W. WAAMesefoss. 0.C. 354 i35 See Bas i
~ ' ' 'i i '.. :
...:x.
.;- C.k *.' ~ 2.}5*..: ~~
@f ["":.} : J p,~,.jx ?~.. b.:~ %
v..
..=4
,, m..
,a.,
176 1
A
- he probles originated on March 28, 1979.
2 Q
What happened on March 23, 19797 3
A Ihere was a rather severe accident at Three 311e 4 Island.
5 Q'
So, free the tise of the Three Nile Island i
4 incident, the aanpovor of the staff with respect to Midland I was such that ther were not, able to provide sufficient 8 review of the Midland fill issue, is that correct, at least 9 23 until January 21, 19807 to A
Vould you repeat the question?
11 Q
She will have to read it back.
I can't read it 12 back.
13 (The pending question was read hT the reporter.)
14
- 33. PATONa I object to the grestion specifically 18 with ref erence to the use of the word " sufficient" as being 2
1 to so indefinite as to not let the witness know what is being 17 asked for.
By that I mean it could be sufficient f or many 18 different purposes, and I don't think the question 1sts the 19 witness know for what purpose it is sufficient or 4
1+
20 insufficient.
21 3Y MI. ZANARINs (Resusing) i 22 Q
Ion can answer subject to that objection.
23 A
'I would like to add that 24 Q
lefore you add - do you seen add to a previous 25 answert ALDGMGoM NGPoempeG Coss#ddeV. Wed.
\\
400VWeGestAAve.8.w. WAsleweefo88.0.C.300B4(see $$e Mad
,%nm~~a'.;&$&g*:g:..g*;we A,g:~.
.l.'
2:L.'n...
. r 2 g-: g
...m: 7 y ~ ~ q' 4q.gggg
~g,.x.m.r,,
g G.o....
y p[C.5.:3 n,.
m.
.{[J,.
C. '_ r 177 1
1 I think it is consistent with the question.
2 C
Just the way you started out, I thought you wanted 3 to go back to something.
I's sorry.
4 A
All I was doing is providing a clarification which 5 I think is necessary to answer the question.
I feel that 8 the staff resource probles was impacted more severely in 7 some branches than in others.
In the engineer 1 C 41ts.
l a which typically deal with satters such as geotechn' alj 8 hydrology, structure and sechanical, the areas are ispa 4
10 to a lesser degree than are those branches that are systems 11 oriented, such as reactor systems branches, electrical 12 systems branches, et ceters.
13
- he staff ande the decision that it would continue 14 to apply resources to this area, the Midland review, this 18 soil settissent inster.
That decision was made, to the best 18 of my knowledge, on the basis of recognition of the severity 17 of the probles, its potential 1spect and its relationship to 18 saf ety, on those bases.
19 I f eel the point I's trying to make is that while t+
20 the ispect of the decision - while the ispect of the 21 accident makes car resources sore severe than it otherwise 22 was, the decision is made, severtheless, to proceed to give OfJ this satter high priority and to continue the review in this 24 area, although it was necessary to suspend the everall 28 review of 'the 11dland Plant and other areas an of March Isth.
usensen assentose cowent was, s
ese wesenA Ms. &W. WAAMesefen. 0.C. 20004 (SBN 90419e4
.2
? * },.; L3
,7.
s.,
.; ;; X l,' Q.q y....~.~
?:. *..
E.,: (.~
- s.. a,. a ~.
v-s v. -
c.
.,u 178 1
Q You agreed, however, with statements that as of 2 January 21st, 1980, insuf ficient progress had been sade in 3 technical review of plaat fill safety issues since the 1
i 4 ressessibility f ree If.I to NRI, and that since contact with 8 the Corps la October of 1979, insufficient progress had been 4 sade regarding technical review.
You have testified that T reu believe this instificioat review resulted from a 8 maapever, a resource prehlen, as you tersed it.
You said 8 that that researce probles resulted fres the event of.Tarch 10 23, 1979.
11 What I as asking you, then, is did this researce 12 probles exist with respect to the technical review of the,
la entstanding plant 2111 saf et; issues at tidiand fees Isrch 14 24, 1979 at least through Jaanary 21, 19401 J
14 II. PAtoss I ob3ect to the fers of the question, l
it which I will withdraw if res ask his does he agree with rear,
i 17 very leaf characterizaties of what he stated.
14
- 31. ZAIARI3s le dass well better.
It is in the 14 record from his answers.
20
- 31. PATONa And will res ask his that?
If you de, 1
i 21 I will withdrav er objection.
l i
21
- 33. ZAIARIN4 I will let the record stead.
i l
23 II. PAT 05 4 fee refuse to ash his if he agrees 24 with year leaf characterizaties of his testineart I can't 28 imagine aarthist sete fair than that.
Your characterization d
AkselteN 80Peefwee Geespamv. WeG.
's 488 wiseumA Awa. 8.W. WadMusefen, s.t. asged (aus ses. stas,
,r--
N
. L,._,,6,
- R_., A >.inpy-gy. :.yp,
. Ci.'q,.-,.
,.- d.. _- _--
-Wg.-_
y RE); g g 2h=.;.w3--
-.w.;= =-
7
- - ~ -
--,. 4.- 4;~: r, v;,,. -n......... _.._,,
p;
.ww.:.:
.w..,.
.nw-
.. _ 2.;' - Q.~
4 g7g
~.
p.Bw s.
pp c':ww.
jti c 1 vent on and on and on.
2 111 right.
I object to the question on that basis.
3 ER. Z15ARIN:
Fine.
1 4
3R. PAION:
Iou may go ahead and answer.
5 Igg 3:Tygss:
I have lost track of the question.
6 MR. ZAHARIN:
That is what I was afraid was going
~
7 to happen.
8 Could you read back the question?
9 (The pending question was read by the reporter.)
to ER. PAION:
You and I agree that my prior 11 objection remains on the record, is that correct?
12 ER. ZANARINs Of course.
13 THE WITNESS:
I do not accept tha t 14 characterization of what I said.
15 SI ER. ZAEA3 ins (Hesuming) 16 Q
Tell.se why not.
17 A
I specifically object to the reference that 18 insufficient progress resulted f=es. a staff resource 19 probles. Ihat is misleading.
I think it doesa 't really go 20 to the hearti of 'the matter.
2-4 21 O
Why don't you tell se that or what you mean when 1
21 rou say that you agree with the statement that insufficient 23 progress had been made?
I will let you have Exhibit 7
- back.
Iou can take a look at 2 and 3 and =ecall what ~you 24 s
J 5
s -
25 - testUled to a f ew minutes ago.
,1 s3 3.
t y,:
s y
'T d-i
= a==='= napommeo comemy sec.
\\
i 4co vuisena ava. s.w. wasseesTom. o.c. anos4 taan see.ases
}.,
4
'4 3+
b...'-
w-
. D,,
e
\\
w w.,
-r
- ' '5.
~n.[~.}.\\..}E
.../. x
..r..Qif*'..}*'y 3... --
< y.g.,z.a ( i;.-- LK.-
~'
.e<
- %n :...,
190 1
A The insufficient. progress is made more severe by n 1
+
2 resource probles, but that is not the cause of the 3 insufficient progress.
The insuf ficient progress that I as 4 referring to goes to our obtainment of the information we 5 need, the acceptance criteria ve need to judge the 6 acceptability of the proposed remedial actions in a tisely f -.
7 aanner before they are underta,K'en, such thut other
/
cr'1 Iterna ves are not forecloded bTfwee we.ind ourselves
,8 in k an rretrievable situati
/
So, what I as referring to goes back to the 11 inforsation that is made available to us from th e 12 applicant.
It has to be coupled with the construction 13 progress as it is planned at that time, and there is 14 increasing concern on the part of the staff that we are, 15 indeed, approaching points where those considerations become 16 real factors and we don't have the sufficient information or 17 the progress is review had-not progressed' to the extent that 18 our concerns about foreclosing alternatives or encountering 19 irretrievable situations had been resolved.
20 Q
Tell se what the Corps had done with the 21 information that it did have available and that the staff 22 had available from October 1979 to January 20, 1980, in 23 terms of a technical review, if anything.
I 24 1
Your question is what has the Corps done -
25 C
Tres Cctober '79 through the date of that Exhibit ALDW4cM REPoRmes ColdPANY. Wec. '
'N 6 VIRelNBA Awa. 3.W WASMweefrJ88. J.C. 20034'(203 354 3548 g
,a,
..,.. ~
.mm.
=_L. g._h ;.,
hWC" 1, 2.~g,,,..,,
-. 2 L.-..'-
.,. g 2,.4 t-m ; w.:. - w.-
..,,. - ~ - -
gy,;gyg,.:s y, -: :z. -+:n w,a 3g,;; M.::mck-
...v s-a=.::.
b 1:V.w.i.. :. -
ve.
- e v e..-.- s,
,, c. - r - y u. ; n a m.-=.
y.K
^
181 g.m.
v,-
.._ -.. ' - mg
- p.,,,,s. t- : u_m. wm :-
1 Number 7, to the date of the meeting to which it refers, 2 which I believe is January'16, 1980, with the infersation 3 that the staff had during that time and with regard to the 4 technical review of the fill problems at Midland.
I 5
A' At that point in time my impression was they had 6 done little or nothing with that information. They were 7 coming up to speed as of Cetober 1979 or just beginning to 8 get on board.
9 Q
Are you aware of any efforts on the part of 10 Consumers to push the staff or to request that the staff 11 hold meetings in order to obtain a timely resolution of 12 differences with respect to inf ormation that the staff 13 needed so that this technical review could progress?
14 A
Tes, there have been numerous requests by the 15 applicant dor meetings throughout the entire period on this 16 m atter.
17 Q
The period. of March 28, 1979 through January 16, 18 1980, had these requests been, in your opinion, set in a 19 tisely f ashion by the staff ?
20 1
I recall that on several occasions it was l
21 necessary to reschedule meetings.
It was for reasons of I
22 availability of central personnel who, indeed, have other 23 obligations other than 31dland. I think under the l
24 circumstances the staff response to meetings was reasonable.
25 Q
I didn't ask you whetaer it was reasonable.
That ALDEMoM RWoRTWe8 CoasPANY, peC.
'N -
' 400 VWISeelA Ava. S.W.WASHueGToN. n.C. 20034 (203 Ste 33me,
I
.s
=
- i *.. : -
}_ y.'
3$
,,.m x
',k,D j-[*
.}.
}..-.
W'
"".3pj.g1'E
' $$k ?'
- D."
x.
..n
.,.j
, "t ~ ~
- 182 1 is not the question.
I as simply asking whether the 2 requests by Consumers for meetings in order to resolve these 3 inf ormational issues that perhaps the staff felt was 4 impeding their ability to continue with their technical 5 review in the fashion they chose were complied with by the s staff on a timely basis, whether or not the reason for that 7 was reasonable.
[
8 1
I don't understand the question.
Are you saying 9 that you feel a factor in the tisely review was a staff to denial of meetings requested by the applicant?
Is that your 11 question?
12 Q
I will ask you that.
Do you feel that is the case?
13 A
No, I do not feel that that is the case.
14 Q
Ihe question I had asked was, with regard to the 15 request by Consumers for meetings to resolve the questions 16 that the staff had, is it your opision that each of those 17 requests were complied vith by the staff in a timely f ashion?
18 A
Ihe requests for meetings.
I thought I answered 19 that.
20 Q
Ion did, but you qualified it.
You said "in a 21 reasonable f ashion" at the end of your answer before.
Ihat 22 was not my question.
I don't care whether' it was reasonable 23 at this point or not.
What I want to kncv is, when a
~
24 seeting was requested, was it complied with promptly by the 2
1 25 staff ?
i m.oepson perontwoo cowany.mc.
.g l
soo vinessa Ave. s.w. was>meton. o.c. =cosa i:om 'ssa ases
,s.--,
+
s e,>
!.:=~;:% u ;
_7.:.-- '
_-ss4{ L _, l N%.12 w 2 5 ~ $~. "' N TQ_
Q g,s4*7%
~ :Q y=~.=q.y3
.; 7 ="*_
.gi;-Q 4..:Q,,,--
<>-.-t 3
. ;P ; m /:,..t i..: n --.s -. :...,.,....,
G h..a...:-
- >q r
c,.,~.,-.
~..,,..,..,.,.-v....,.
4 183
-=.
3. % n.
w,._
,- g g,, ;. pe t
~
1 1
I don't now how to answer a question that says 2 *promptly" without saying uhat it was replied in a 3 reasonable f ashion.
I think each request for a meeting by 4 the applicant was honored at some point by the staff, and in 5 zy opinion it was timely and it was not a contributing 6 factor to the rate of progress that was being sade in the T review.
s C
In the statement in Exhibit Number 7, in paragraph 9 2 thereof where you agreed with the statene.p that to insufficient progress had been sade in the technical review 11 since the transfer of lead responsi3111ty f :os ICI to N33, 12 were you ref erring to insufficient..mrow,. tr @ s technical 13 review by the staff?
14 ER. PATON I object to the fers of the question in 15 which you stated, tha t he agreed with souathing, unless you to ask his first did he in fact make that characueriration.
I 17 instruct the witness not to answer the quos tice Intil we 18 resolve the issue.
19 Are you telling his to first -- you are not going 20 to ask his i.f he agrees with you.e characterization?
21 ER. ZIEARIN No.
~
22 II. PATCIa Go ahead.
23 THE HITNESSa I don 't understand the question.
~
24
' 53. ZAHARINa Would you read it back, please?
25 (The pending question was read back by the l
\\
l
[
ALDSBoM RWofmMG COMPANY Neo.
\\
i
' M10 VIRoINGA Ave. S.W. WAmeNGToN. 0.C. 20D34 (105 $56 23e6 I-
--g-
--9 i4y-
,y-y e
-g-in
---y-
- ' Nl.:*..:...
n
. g.gg,.
x ::- A- -
. n_,, :~c m *-: ;-.-2:54 53 --~>- -- -y.-
- ~ -. -:9 j.g 2..-
=..,;c.Y,
- e * '-
. % M~
18u 1 reporter.)
2 THE WITNESSs res, I was so referring to progress 3 by the 3RR staff. I also had in sind the progress associated 4 with the quality assurance concern.
5 BY HR. ZAHARI3s (Resuming) 6 Q
Do you recall a s'eeting on September 27, 1979 in 7 Washington at which you were in attendance as well as !r.
8 Rubenstein?
9 A
Is this the meeting with the applicant?
10 Q
Tes. And in particular, I will ask if you recall 11 a meeting at which Mr. Rubeistein stated that he had trouble 12 setting technical staff to review soils.
13 A
The date of this meeting was September
'79, 14 September whati?
15 Q
September 27, 1979.
16 A
I as having difficulty in 27 notes finding 17 ref erence to that partic' lar meeting.
Do you have any 18 seeting summary or anything that would help refresh my 19 eescry?
20 Q
We have a meeting summary but we don't have it 21 with us.
~
22 1
Are you quite certain that that was the date?
23 Q
9/27/79.
24 A
That was the seeting and not the date of the 25 setting summary?
ALDWISoM REPoRTMB Conapany. :MC.
\\
l 400 VWIGINIA Ava. S.W. WASNINGToN. O.C. 20034 (20 3 586 2344
[
w
... >. we g-eq
.._ l..w_,,,s,,,
_nw
-~r 7._ _, -. -
.-. -~&yn
~; &y>. '
. %g4.TQW Q 4. g - \\y;...w.:m :.y
~:-~'.'"~; n * ~ -
,..'~;-
<>~L c
q:'
5 :.,, =.
.Ve' W ;s*;; ; a;;.e.: - -.;w.;.,. _
.4
.,,, e.-, m -, -...
- m. m. ~..._..,... ~.....
h' s
185 p s.r-
._..,. -Q s
m
[i.;.-
.._.s 7.u..g..
1 Q
I believe it is the date of the meeting, and it 2 was a meeting on general licensing issues.
3
- 33. KIIIII:
Ihat is when we had the bomb scare.
4 THE VIINISS4 Ihat is when we had the meeting, 5 when the principal subdect was not the soil settlement 6 matter, but rather that discussion in that meeting happened 7 to sention some aspect of it.
I don't recall.
Ihat 8 explains why I don 't have that particular document, that 9 particular seeting sussary in my notes.
to 3I 22. ZAHARI3s (Resuming) 11 Q
Who is Mr. Rubenstein?
12 A
3r. Lester Hub.enstein was ar branch chief at the 13 tim e.
It was at that time Licensing Branch Number 4 14 Q
Do you recall Er. Rubenstein stating at that 15 seeting that he had trouble cetting the technical staff to 16 review soils?
17 A
! don't recall the particular comment, no I
18 would not be surprised by that consent.
19 Q
Vere you aware as of the time of that meeting that 20 Ir. Rubenstein was having trouble getting his technical 21 staff to review-soils?
22 A
Ios. I an aware of the staff review difficulties 23 and the rather severe hardships within the staff that exist 24 by virtue of limited resources and other priorities.
25 Q
Referring now to Ixhibit Musber ', which is the s
M. DER $oM MEPofmNe CotdPANY.INC.
'g 400 VIRGaMIA AVE S.W.WASNINGToN. O.C. 20024 (203 SSe 23e6
=
,4 ea-a-
-te" W
e T9-
-F* * - ' '
.-, -r-j%
- }
k.K l= ' h T. '[C{'h?h A
- ~ ~
l
%% G.,;;;.
e >.H^ -
186 1 summary of the July 18, 1979 aceting, on page 2 in the first 2 paragraph it states that the staff noted tha t the response 3 to its 50.54(f) requests for acceptance criteria for 4 remedial actions had not resulted in identification of S criteria in advance of the remedial action.
8 Rather, the reply notes that the criteria vill be 7 determined during or af ter the remedial action.
In your 8 opinion, why is it insufficient that criteria be determined 9 during or after the remedial action?
10 A
Quite the contrary.
In my opinion it was to be 11 d et ermined. From our view, the need existed to determine 12 elements of that prior to undertaking of remedial action.
13 Q
thy? On what do you. base that?
14 A
Let ao first address it as a practical satter.
It 15 is prudent engineering and it is prudent regulation to think 18 about the results of your actions prior to your undertaking 17 the m.
It is really as simple as that.
In the review, 18 sufficient attention was not being given to the up-front 19 satters.
20 Tres an applicant's viewpoint you say be spending 21 a lot of money to save a building which is not worth saving 22 in the first place, or you say be subjecting a building 23 which is going along for the ride to latent effects such as i
24 f urther inducing stress that would not become obvious until 25 that structure is actually hit by an earthquake or by a ALDERSoN ASPofmNe CoMPeMY,INC.
\\
400 VWhelNIA AWF W. WASHweefoN. D.c. 20024 (203 554 2348, s
+.
w-
,w
+
-v--
i g-vryo
,,,,u
,.v,
-w,-u,,wew 4
-.v..-y
+--,.y y
v-y
.. sa.m.v l
-elw r_...._ A,.,.Nhsm
~ ~' % $ ! $u & & g*m 4, f 3 __ L.'^Y j
i_.17.4._.....
\\
- d.?'
((_-
j[ ~
~=Y jff
\\
M~S ;;p ;,m. ; x w:. :., :, : :, _.,. _._,__ _.,._
y
- - ~ -
,Y l
( }. S w.-...-;.~..:...--.,- v.. n:-.m
.r...,. ~.c
~.
K 187
\\
~~
- p.: n :,i.m. = w. -
, w.. x -- Q
';y :
g,.g.,
.~
1 tornado.
2 So, as a prudent satter, one has to give careful ought,in advance of those actions.
In our opinion, there in, i
suf icient detali to those up-front satters now being l
is4 i
5 ive to this area.
l t
6 C
'dith respect to, in the applicant's viewpoint, the T possibility of the applicant spending zoney to save a a building that night not be worth saving, that is simply 9 something the applicant does at his risk, isn't it?
10 A
'" hat is correct. It is an element to us from the 11 standpoint of selection of options.
There would have to be
.f..
12 some justified has for.the taff to even expend resources 008 13 to justify an oct, on,. oar' opt
- n verus another option.
That
\\
14 is an internai sat!
e*
.he staff.
15 For example, it would be somewhat foolish of se as
'te af projec sanager to reconsend to my management that we C
17 expjtnd taff resources directed to one option if the l
18 1-tion existed where another option sight provide a sore 19 positive fix and, indeed, would be just as cheap or no more "5 -
20 expensive.
We did pursue that line of questioning f rom the 21 standpoint of selec* don processes.
22 Q
Are you saying that the staff would make a 23 deternisation that if the applicant wanted to spend a little 24 zore money on a proposed fix than some other alternative, 25 that the staff would not allocate the zanpower to reviev n
h ca.
.o.
x 400 VmlaMIA AVE. S.W. WASHN8GToff. D.C. 20024 (20s $54 3544 s
~ d.:l =.
>.,,-,=.:.,,.s..;.14;...-
h.-
t.g. z. f d;} 33. m r:. K =._,...
.g_R-y
-e
.o w.r; -
....., - =
%% '.,. uk.
o 188 that because they felt it was a vaste of the ar.511 cant's 1
2 money?
3 A
No, I did not say that.
4 Q
Tell ne again what you said.
5 1
What I said was it was clear from the outset that 8 there were several options that could be taken for the 7 diesel generator building.
Eventually the options were 8 narrowed down to two, based on recessendations of Dr. Peck, 9 consultant to Bechtel in this case.
The question that the 10 staff had confronted to it is in view of its other priorities, should it allocate its aanpower resources 'for 11 12 the particular option that was selected by the applicant, 13 which was to fc11ov a surcharge approach as op o
14 another option, which was to remove and rep 'ce tha
}~00Ndeff0s r
15 ructur after having assured a satisfact ry tr r: d..; a Q.5 i
1 hp t of its replacement.
'" hose are the
- 12 :.Y w..
1 The staff did ask a line nf questioning inquiring 18 about the financial aspects of the various options.. That, I 19 believe, is what I said.
20
'Q I believe you added some more, but let se ask you-a: -.
21 this. Was the purpose of asking those questions was so that t
(
22 the staff could take this cost-benefit type of consideration 23 that is inherent in all this decisionsaking into account?
24 A
There is some element of that. inherent in a 25 'decisionsaking process.
I ALDWISoM fl0PofmMG CotapesY.sec.
\\
f 400 VWIGWetA AVE. S.W. WASMNGToN. O.o. 20024 (303 366 2344 I
,, a :
.. 2.u: w h-
,---M._ g.co..,is.s,.
..M*%'f&,
1.T.14.-.
c.._-
M r;-t
. %. -f)
[f % "Q. :--y 252,$t
- ^ ~
~ 7f-2?
~
&y#
? ncpv.w.n:.... =n
=..
()- 3 :a m.t.-...,.--. w,-..,.
..t.,. -.....:,,.....
189 p.w
, _ ;.; c. 2 u. = sn.- - _
> y ;;
.._.., ~ - m,g 1
Q I an asking why the staff asked f or that financial 2 inf ormation.
3 A
To determine if, indeed, it shocid expand its own
' resources to review the particular options selected by the 5 staff as opposed to another option that was available at 8 that time which required little or no staff resources, T namely, the removal and replacement options.
[
8 Q
I see. What you are srling is if the option that 9 would require little staff resources was relatively i
10 comparable in cost to the applicant as an option that would 11 require acre staff resources, that the staff would insist on 12 th
- ier option?
13 A
, Simply put, is there a reason for the staff to expfsd*ereviewresourcesforthatoptionasopposedto 14 15 the er option?
16 Q
Rather than a reason.
Again, you are kind of 17 sliding around on se on this.
i 18
- 33. PATON: I object to that consent.
19 3B. ZAHARI3s He is.
20 BY MR. ZAHARI3t (Resuming) 21 Q
I understood you to say that the reason the staff, 4
22 or at least a reason that the staff wanted that financial 23 information was to determine the relative costs of the two 24 fixes which were proposed by Dr. Peck, and because taking 25 the building down and replacing it would have required 'a i
ALDWWoM N CoedPANY.INC.
\\
400 VMeseA Awa. S.W. WASMWeGToN. Q.C. 20034 (MD 554 23a4 i
e, I
r
' '
- Ua;. g..
......;ag;5.
r 7--
nr x..
-m... - -..,..
- 5y :-y--- g.;;;.._
- . f.g
z n
..>>;3 Y
. -;yg.
.a.
." =-"'
ra:-
w.. w.
l 190 i
+
1 1 significant1T lesser resource coarttment on the part of the j
2 staff that had the two options been closer, equal and closer 3 to the applicant, the staff would have rejected the 4 surcharge because it would have required an increased 5 consitzent of resources b7 the staff as compared to renoval 6 and replace Is hat what you are saying?
7 A
No.
I rejec.
that characteriration.
1.toeld n 't.
8 I useit say hat we would have rejected that on 9 that bas This is et the sole basis for such a judgment.
10 It would have been one of several factors, in my opinion.
11 C
When you sar it would have been, the effort 11 required, the investment required bT.the staff, then, is it 13 a. f actor or one of the criteria upon which the staff 14 evaluates proposed fixes at Midland with regard to the soil 15 settlement?
Is that correct?
16 A
I think when we are confronted with a situation 17 where there are several options available to us, yes, that 18 is one of the factors to consider.
19 Q
I also asked whether that information with regard 1-20 to the financial aspects of the proposed fixes was used by 21 the staff in anY var in some kind of cost-benefit 22 consideration or analysis with respect to the proposed fixes.
23 A
I as not familiar with any such usage.
24 Q
Ion indicated that it is prudent engineering to 25 have identification of criteria in advance of remedial
$8 - RepopmNe CoteDANY, tMC,
'N l
l 400 WIGINIA Awa. 3.W. WAGNueeToN. o.C. 20024 (20lB $663344 l
l
.[,_.
,1._,,
' 6,pg. j, [- ' %=upA."
1 2.2T.i.. g - _.. _-
2:::
,-rQggg:-(** y ~,. y g..y p W --s
~..., = f
~-
'~?
~ K~ _tq.T.W73*[
a
- -- -- w ---
+
p
- 79 += *n *Q 'f s t.~.~. = -
.: n -*.y -~..s3, s _.
y 0. 2a
- .=. s ;.. m -
~
,, ~... -. -. u ya..,.. _. yw.
m,
..,,.c_a 393
- ~'27 ~~Q f, ', ;pQ =. :a m.A- - -
. r,. :;
i
- 1. action.
What do you base that statement on?
2 A
I thought I had already answered that question.
3 Q
What you have told me is you have answered it by 4 saying the staff likas to use this two-pronged approach th at 5 allows *you to look at whether you are spending soney with 6 the building or saving it.
Were these the basis for your 7 statement that it is not prudent engineering?
8 A
I don't believe I said tha t the staff likes to use 9 the tve-prong approach.
I think all of our procedures and, 10 indeed, the regulations themselves are all founded upon a J
11 two-stap licensing approach.
I think there are good, sound, 12 practical reasons for that being the case.
I an attempting to relate to you some of the more practical aspects why that 13 14 should be done.
15 Q
Iou said one of them was prudent engineering 16 dictates that two-step approach.
What I want to kncy is 17 upon what do you base your statement that prudent 18 engineering dictates that approach?
19 L
To se it is an obvious statement that one doesn 't 0-20 go out and undertake such an enterprise without giving 21 thought to.its consequence.
22-Q
! am not talking about not giving thought.
I as 23 talking about not necessarily having identification of final l
24 criteria in advance of some action that will be taken and 25 then observed through field testing.
= ma==r= napompes cosamy, usc.
\\
400 VWtesetA Ava. 3.W. WASMeeGToM. 3.c. :10034 (Em 556 23a4
- *. ~ -.-
: a-g.i;k ; 3:n, :-- LE - -
.Q..,,.:.
- ,*-jQ*L*Q. q.3..f
=i.. ~ ' ~.
~
- J-
="
N%
4.
v.
192 i
1 A
I's not surc exactly sure what it is you are 2 asking se with regard to my difficulty with the approach.
3 Q
You nade a statement. Iou said it in not prudent 4 engineering practice to not have identification of final l
l 5 e;1ter'ia in advance of the remedial action.
I as asking you 8 upon what you base that.
In other words, is there some lav
~ '
7 of engineering that says that?
Is there sorte learned 8 professor who has told you that?
I just really want to knov 9 what you base that on.
Ihat seems to se te be a somewhat 10 technical statement.
I just want to know that you base it i
11 on.
12 A
I believe I answered it by saylig I believe it is 13 an obvious statement.
14 Q
It is not to se.
I as not an ungineer, so tell se 16 what you base that on.
16 A
Ihe question of concars is aret you huilding in 17 latent effects by your actions?
That say be detrimental.
18 If it is, you need to know that in advs.nce, and by giving 19 proper attention to your at:tions before you condone those 20 actions, you say be able to detersine that in advance.
~
21 Q
Are you saying that any absence of the i
22 identification of all final criterialin advance of the 23 remedial action is the same as givirg inadequate attention 24 to what you are doing?.
25 A
No.
I think what I cs sering we inf er that ALDENStlb AEPofmNe acesAssY lHC. ?
'N 400 viftGestA AVE. 3.W. WASMeNGTott. 3.C. 20034 r 2 884 2348,
.I l
= _
s.4 L -
. -....m.v: w.
,l..,
. M,^e s -e a.
T Q..
' ^ %)*1*29.nr-l.a- _r
-R
- .t
- ^3^y.Mf =~=.a.1T$g;':k.";;:-~;*"a,y,~,-~7t)'
- - w.
_W 5
-, s== "^ '" ^ b.
~ 76.%. WW.;**.;;;i.%
a
~' W iv;.r:t 9 :
. w t--
,_.:.:.. w.
WQ :.y
.s
. r. m :,,,, m.,. -..y..
g.
(,sa.:.
- .- -,~, ~~.,..,.-., w.,,.....,,..
y.
s
.,:c c.,,_.
193
..p C27~g p,; 4gli:.rs -: -..a- -
t inadequate attention is being given to the matter from the 2 specific requests that we have made, and those specific 3 requests are oriented toward the attainment of appropriate 4 criteria.
And the fact that we don ' t get those criteria 5 lead u's to believe that the attention which should be given 8 has not ensued.
T Q
This inference is drawn notwithstanding the f act 8 that the presentation has been made to the staff setting 9 forth the reasons wh7 Consumers believes that the approach 10 ther are takina with regard to the surcharge and the field 11 testing is not only acceptable but the best approach?
12 A
That is correct.
It is made recogniring that the 13 information has been scesented to us.
14
- 33. IANARIN:
Why don't we take five minutes?
4 15 (A brief recess was taken.)
16 3I 33. IA!ARIIa (2esuming).
17 Q
Hr. Hood, are you aware that on December a, 1978, 18 there was a meeting held at the Midland site at which time 19 the surcharge method with regard to the diesel generator 20 building was told to the staff?
4 21 A
Tes, I recall that meeting.
I believe I was in
.~
22 attendance.
l 23 Q
Do you recall what, if any, s;ecific. concerns with 24 regard to the surcha=ge method were expressed to Consumers 25 by the staff at that meeting?
'N Aumeon aeronTwee company, sec.
ao vuemmaa ava s.w. wameneton. o.c. seos4 isom :.se mes.
~ ' l ^:..
- ,g.vS. ; %.:q E-
..,., -.x
.. G - Sj f* Q..t 33. y.3
.;=.
- Z$I 7*
< % v....
..w.
w
.s' 194 1
A As a result of the December 4,
1978 seeting, !
2 issued a aceting sussary dated January 12, 1979.
My 3 recollection of that meeting is that it is reflected in this 4 seeting summary.
5 C
Hay I see your copy of that for a soment?
a A
I would also point out that the staff has in its 7 possession a letter from Mr. Tom Cooke, project 1 superintendent, to Mr. P.A. Hartinez of Sechtel dated 4
9 December 7, 1978, which also speaks to that meeting.
It is 10 sy understanding that this letter is also in the package 11 that I made available to you.
I as referring now to the Toa 12 Cooke letter.
13 Q
What is the date of that letter?
14 A
December 7, 1978.
15 Q
At the meeting on December 4,
1979 -- I as sorry I~
16 -- 1978, as reflected in yog summary of January 12, 1979, 17 there was a discussion of the instrumentation for the diesel 18 generator building that would include optical survey 19 sensurements as well as sonitoring of cracks using 20 electrical devices. It indicates thu location f or the 1
21 devices and it also indicates the foundation sonitoring 22 would include devices to seasure settlement and pore water 22 pressure.
24 It makes reference to Borros anchors and 25 piezoneters.
1ould that kind of monitoring and ALDepsoM 8WoRTWee ColdPANY.wec.
\\
s-de8 VIAesetA Awa. 3.W. WASMeseToN. DA 20004 (sts 384 23ee,
f
.., _ _ ~..
l
- 5 '--kess,=ws%'
h Q1Q g- &T~;>j{yW..y~m 9'ig-f. :l.---Qw., '$p.
~
. G*3'.3~, -. -
g Q. 2. T 7 M M(..-.
y991,My
.. w-n -
3-v, eEg*...
.._s==.
4-
- r.e,, v.m.. c...
- .,. r -..,,..
.. m,,,.. _.
( g e. c.u r....e......._.
m,,.
x....,.....
- .v..;
i 9,
~o s
j k. b w.s wa a -= - --
y'.x
[* ~)
s' - t w n 1 instrumentation provide any inforsation with regard to the 2 possible stresses to which the building would be subjected 3 during the preload, in year opinion?
1 4
Yes.
That instrumentation produces seasurements O
5 as they are occurring, some of which can be translated 'to 6 the stresses in the structures.
7 Q
3ased upon information obtained, would it then be 8 possible to determine or calculate the hich the 9 building 'had been' subjected?
de 4 ermina on to A
Tes.
I believe after the fact that t
11 can he made.
4 12 Q
Eculd chis then provide the sas
..pe of l
13 informatlun er results that you had indicated a little 14 earlier was required bT the staff with regard to possible i
15 eff ects to the diesel generator building as a result of the 16 preload?
i 1T A
It goes to the type of information but not the
'18 tiseliness of the information.
d 19 Q
But nevertheless it provides the same kind of 20 information, doesn't it?
21 A
30.
e 22 Q
- n what var would it not provide the same kind of 23 inf orsation?
4 24 A
Ve are still missing f rom that the certain element 25 that one needed free the outset.
Those elements are needed AullWISoM flWofmNe CoasPAfeY.psC.
N 400 v5008e4 AWE. S.W. WAmesseTole. D.C. 20034 (3088 Ste 23e8 s.
' ' ~*?<' G:.e e. %
? pgg k. E - -$O~
,,;x.
'.&-f.j[
T [ g.--
[]
r Y
. c.
.. r -
. f
.Nw-a 3,u.
196 i
1 for the basis of Judgments.
A crucial element that is still J
2 aissing from that approach is an understanding of what has 4
3 been done to the available margins of the plan, what 4 stresses have you put into the structure.
That aspect, f
5 which " stresses you have actually introduced by your actions, 6 or ande available by the technique to which you are T ceferrings and what is not ande available by that technique 8 is an understanding of what or just how much stress the 9 structure is capable of withstsading, and an understanding to as to what you have done, therefore, to the available i
11 margins.
We see that as a crucial aissing element.
12 C
are you saying that if you had had what you stTl*
13 acceptance criteria with regard to the preload progras prior 14 to the preload, that you would now have acre information 15 with regard to what happened to that building than you have 16 after having observed it and af ter having monitored and 17 seasured the stresses and settlements of pore water 18 pressures?
19 Tes.
I as saying one would then be in a position 20 to make a judgment as to the acceptability of the results.
21 Without that, you are not.
22 Q
What piece of information is missing, then?
23 A
How such settlement or differential settienent can 24 you indeed induce in the diesel generator building before it 25 f ails er before it will be incapable of fulfil 11st its l
t ALDelWoM N CotsPANY, W8C.
\\
400 vuleenA AWa. S.W. WASMWeefoN. O.C. 20034 (203 354 3See m -
A
-q
,w..m_,
p%y.-.%
.,---..r-.
p,y
,.m..,=,-_,
-n,.c-.
w4
,,e.
- a..::u,
f#w - rW._..... j.,,Q,,..
--9
--.J. %..- w.
.3,_
.__________ m W: e - ~ _.
- Q- &-Q; T,~,
Q 's:a$.7 g 9 i.[.h
^
2Q 5. _.,.
.2*"--
.,,. - = -
'
- a > +M
>HC.._......~. a.c.
~
s e
w:.,.., m, v.-..., r. e, %.,,,
( r _s ~ ca..;..... - x j:s; i
.,_...,~...u.,.;...._m,._....s.,,...
3g7
\\
~
.s
$.e: ~, sjut-u, o ~ 4 --
J
'T a ~ -g f,
1 essential function of surviving an earthquake, which is just 2
ample, to nas a specific structure.
Of course, there a:e many other struc cre and components involved in YdMedtkl 4 :;e es;;;;,1. 1 ac on.
5 C
We
.e just talking now about the diesel Are you saying that the staff to date has no 6
4'"_
7 information with regard to the extent of differential 8 settlement that the diesel generator building can withstand?
9 A
Staff does not have reasonable assurance at this to point - I* a answering your question -- at this point in 11 time that that structure in its present ecaditica can 12 f ulfill its essential function.
13 Q
That wasn't my question.
My question was are you 14 saying that the staff doesn 't have information with regard 15 to the amount of differential settlement that that building 16 can withstand?
1 i
17 A
That is correct. We do not have that information.
18 C
Ehat do you mean when you say you can't determine 19 what has been done with regard to the available zargin with
~
20 respect to the diesel generator building?
)
21 A
The preload progras has subjected the structure to l
22 stress.
The preload progras has itself induced some i
23 dif ferential stresses, of differential settlement, which is 1
24 translated to stresses in the structure.
'1"tose stresses 25 will be available when that structure is hit by the Amanson meronTwee cosemy sec.
i 400 VWhoseA Ava. 3.W. WASHosefoN. 0.c. 20024 (205 56e 2348
- ~.
~ ' N
.':.~1
.w c
,.~ r - +.e-
_.. c w
=ag...3-g...-
.5.j.... -. g a
.... ~...
. p,,,. 2,.,g.,. : ~
xx
.. :. c n' 198 1 earthquake or by the tornado.
The acceptance e.riteria that 2 you use before assessing +.he adequacy of a structure 3 involves consideration of load combinations.
4 Some consideration has to be given to " hat 5 differential settienent that is present in those load 8 coahinations.
He have received a response f rom the 7 applicant as to how he proposes to include that factor.
The 8 staff is not yet in agreement that that particular proposai 9 is sufficiant1T conservstive.
10 Q
Why not?
11 A
The combination proposed provides zero sargin in.
I 12 its consideration.
He *ad=-standing cf the disagreesent is f
13 that it centers aroun the f a t that some margin should be is,.
1' provided for that t es eed th combination of loads.
staff who is making this 15 Q
Who is it 16 detersination?
17 A
Concern comes from the structural engineering 18 branch, and the reviewer in *. hat branch is Frank Rinaldo.
19 He was p' receded hr Abdul Hafiz, who also shared that concern.
li0 C
So long as acceptance criteria are at some point 21 provided to the staff, why is it of concern to the staff
- 22. whether that is provided before or after the field. test data i
23 is obtal'ned?
24 A
The fact that You say be inducing latent effects 25 to the structures by virtue of this remedial action.
i I
T
= =- naposmas consemy. :me.
400 VIRGINIA Awa. S.W. WASMsNGToN. 0.c. 20034 (203 SS* 23a4
=
I
-- - -.. -. ~.
__..,...___,.__..-,..._,._ _,_..___~.. _..._.-_.,_.._.. _.,_ _,_-_ _
l t
._.. JMLC4y
,e p.-l L *hhMer-w9,.4 ;M _
j..w.y.*y.....
'f 2 7dil,.,,.
--.. _._ _.___,G m w g y _
kh; j'~,Y
=
I:
~~
~ ?..
- 3. ~o"
4e v
-r*
l
.. H-$'*aym. m ;.:,,r.
. -.-- w.: :.
p.y m.,,,
.ym_..,_,,._,
11 G.S... n a.w -
s.,.-
.._,,w.m....~-.,..,....
p%
s.
4 199
....s...~ "m,g p
,,,, s c.-~~== m.s
.9 u.-
1 Q
Couldn't you de te rmine tha t af ter the field test, 2 whether that had occurred, as well as before?
3 A
Regulations, are written toward detersining that in 4 a.dvance and thereby avoiding that situation.
5 g-But apart from the regulations saying that you do 8 that in advance, wouldn't you have the same information if 7 you obtained the acceptance criteria at some later time and 8 then applied that to the observations and sensurements taken 9 during the field test?
7
^
to A
Possibly that is one outcome, to eventually get y) es, 1
.he data afth **et and I
d lucky enough.,-
W 12 '{jie situation did, indeed, pan out as I had hoped. I have l
l wh p/
aen sidealthie d 4 ** 4 e-
' a-
- i...
m.5 1'
C Iou have considerable difficulty with that 15 approach for some reason apart from the f act that it is not 16 consistent with the two-step approach?
What I an asking is 17 does it give yac any data that is'less reliable than the 18 predictive data that you would get f rom the first step of 19 the two-step approach?
20 ER. PATONa I ob.1ect to the fors of that question.
21 That is not the same question you asked his before.
22
- 33. ZAHARINa Th is why v as asking v.
23 ER. PATON :
All righ g, concdM 24 THI WITNESS:
Ib le v e - '- n.;.I have is tied to 25 the two-step approach.
The fficulty I have hat I can m.osnoon nanomes cowany sec.
N-
- am wneena Ave. s.w. weenneren. s.c. noau non se sms
.. ~ -
.. ~.
' ' ~ ' * ~.'. 1
_.M&d;..-.1'D:,-*.
,.yg,
.pgJp.,;.
,' 91-V. a *O-
...,, f % ; -
a"~
E
- 2. -3 s
. n y
.:...,,.u.
.;y,,
200 1 envision myself in a number of undesirable situations at the l
l 2 point I acquired that result.
3
!! P.R. ZAHARIN: (Resuming) 4 Q
Eut yov vN 1d know it at the tise you acquired the
/
5 result, worldn't you?
/
/
8 I would know it at the point when it is too late T to do anything about it.
say find myself - let se 8 4 71 astrate my point.
9 Q
I see.
Ion'say find yourself with a structure 10 that won 't perform its intended f unction, is that right?
11 A
That is right.
And by the process, I say have 12 denied myself other alternatives that were available to se 13 at the outset. Hay I illustrate?
14 Q
Sure.
15 A
ca conceive of a situation where I de a eno n
1 cad to
.La'ca ssons that have been place under the Q UYi1\\ a !4
~
0O
- YV* b/bf
/
17 ani' '.. b ding, spe ' fically,,under the d iol....m l
A uxill*V
}
. at ;;ill._y ef tha* /
b asilding, and the re res 19 group load t ind' to se that a=":
hould have used
~
,. M r.
20 a a0-inch caisson rather than a.'30-inch diameter c
- sson.
" So 21 I ast myself at that p t, 4 now I have teen T -
o, 22 that unacceptable result, what can I do a cut it?
I have 23 denied myself, by virtue of placing the cais s, I hs 24 denied myself further access to that area, -but certainly the 25 comoval of those caissons is a considerable effort.
At that J
l l
\\
Atmenscos mapommes conspey, sec,-
l ano vunessa Ave. s.w. wasposeron. o.c. zoose caen ase ases r
l c..
,., - _ ~,
, _.. -, - - ~.. -, -,.
, _.,,, ~.,,..
~
c::
_.. m.z: w
., ;CGn.J..
-~ %dW=wM
'.k((h._; a. :..,.,,.*~[M e_
. W Q 5 E-fr N...,. u n -- w.:
3..,,.,
%II.$dyh{
% CY-yEEN-j[ *:,
a-
" ~\\
g
- m.,,
a a.~ =.-.
-. - ~ n - -. - ~....
w
\\
-E 201
~
~
n
. fp,3. ir:tw w.--
i*.f
.w
' '-- Ng 1 point there is nothing I can do.
2 Q
Can you give se a similar illustration with regard 3 to the diesel generator building and the surcharge progras?
4 1
The concern of the diesel generator building may 8 go to a latent factor that I don't know about.
They asy.
6 have induced stresses in that structure that say be present 7 and I as not aware of it until the structure is actually 8 confronted with the event, such as the earthquake or the 9 tornado.
to Q
In taking the two-step approach, however, wouldn ' t 11 rou have the same information at the end of the surcharge 12 progras as you have now.after having chserved the 13 sensurements and observing the field testing?
14 1
I think it is a question of the confidence you 15 have in what you have in those results.
"'he situation 1! hat 16 ve had before for the diesel generator building centers 17 around the question, have you indeed achieved secondary 18 conselidation.
The staff has reasonable doubt to question 19 whether that is the case.
20 Once a plant goes into operation, assuming the 21 staff is correct, the settlement will continue.
At what t,
2*, point that becomes obvious, it is speculation.
(
23 Q
Let's go back a sinute to your probles with the 24 surcharge progras.
Possibly having induced latent stress or 25 stress the effects of which are latent, assusing thet you
\\
ALDEltSoM RWoRTWee CondPANY 28C.
400 VW4eWetA AVa. 5.W. WAmteseToN. O.o. 20034 (20 3 554-2344
.~
' 9;. Q..
~ ~ '..
j
?.; ;c.;;:-My 2 "~x.r p--k.-
.., ',- m. ';.N f:} L' Q..y.._. y..-.
}..*
ae'
.%3 a.,.s.>
.s 202
)
acceptance criteria prior to the preicad 1 had the first step j
2 progras, and you still have the same resalts, the same i
l 3 seasurement, the same data that you had, as we have nov, 4 after having done the field testing and after having done 5 the preload, you wouldn 't know any more about those possible s latent effects by having taken the two-step approach than by 7 h~aving done the field testing, would you?
8 A
I think there is a considerable difference in that 9 one of the approaches say have caused se to take an entirely to different approach, but your question goes to the f act tha t had I indeed - do I arrive at a point in time later on when 11 12 I as at the sase point.
I believe I said it is one possible 13 out cose.
14 Q
For exasple, if acceptance criteria with regard to 15 the preload program or the diesel generator buildise had 16 heen to the eff ect that there were only certain excess pore 17 pressures that were allevable and there were only certain 18 strains that will be determined by the strain gauges and 19 things we talked about at that meeting that would be 20 allowable, there is only a certain amount of differential 21 settlement as indicated by these Borros anchors and so forth 22 and strains that will be allowable.
~
i 4
23 The building, in fact, after the preload prograa 24 exhibited behavior all within what the criteria would have 25 been had you had it up front.'
How could you then draw any
?
ALD85tSoM REPofmMG ColfPANY. Weo.
g 3
W VW4eW80A AVa. S.W. WASHWeeToN. D.o. 20024 (203 856 2h4
~,
A 3
.. -... -. - =.-
4--....-s.---
....x
...c
-- f _ ' ***~'* M_ 4 h y % _,;.gp,
.ep. (ip.f._3I'QRTs ac ;
._,,p, -- _ _,
Q m
- c F A K -* ? -i e'-
3 o
- -. s
- .v.,., m. ~,. :.,
g,
...2...i. w.a.w.v m..
y
,;-..m,_...%.,
m...
'o2 w
< =.
g @ g. :.., ~.
r,,,
. y...
_..._ ;.~._ 4 *v 1 distinction between whether there zicht be latcat effects 2 free the preload or any distinction between the results you 3 achieved and the reliability of those results, if you can go 4 back afterwards and look at what happened and obser-te that 5 as bei' q within whatever the criteria is that is provided a
6 here?
7
- 53. PATON:
I object to the form of the question 8 in that I think you are asking the witness to assume that he 9 could learn no acre under his suggested method of analysis 10 than he could by f ollowing your learn-ts-you-go approach.
11 If I have misconstrued the question, then I will withdrav 12 it, but that is the way.I view the question.
13 H2. IAEARI3a Ihere is no element of that in ar-14 question, 15 3Y NR. I AEARIL (Resuming) 16 C
Sculd you answer that?
17 1
I as of the opinion that one would have acre.
16 inf ormation available to his with the prior approach that 19 you referred to than with a second approach, and at this 20 later point in time to which you are ref erring, you would be 21 in a much better position to understand the result and to 22 provide the correct interpretation of it.
23 C
At the meeting we referred to a little while ago, 24 however, there was discussion of precisely what consumers 25 intended to do with regard to obtaining data.during the
==== naposmne comemy,sec. -
N 400 VWhe##4 AVE. S.W. WAsMweeToN. 3.o. 20034 (303 See.25e4,
~ ' J' l* '*:... : :
~. w.:-
..-.~...m~.....,3 3,g. -.y.=-j-.
.v-
.3g.s
..: ; ycp (, &. r-it -- A- -
, m.,,,- x --
s
..w.
204 1 preload stogras with regard to the Borros anchors, with i
1 2 regard to the piezoneters, with regard to the strain 3 ganger.
4 Ihe staff was there, you were there, Hr. Heller 5 was there.
Nobody raised any question as to whether there 8 should be additional data that were to be obtained during 7 that time, so from that one could assume that-at least to 8 the people who were present on behalf of the NRC staff, it 3
9 would provide sufficient data.
t 10 Heally, my question to you is in your opinion, 11 how in the world would it make a difference as to whether i
12 rou said all of these have to be within x range hwfore the 13 program or all of these have to be within x range af ter the 14 program, so lon as ther were a within that x range?.
Ude *sto of 15 A
or one t Lng, if I d eamsa4-*eee te I
P'tage erefa ity and c ssed,over an a-d 18 acceptah g
/T preach, T I
T 17 structure o longer be accepta2rle b one j
2:he re o.,
\\
a 18 think I would know that at the tise, certala17 h 19 ad rantages of knowing that in a timely manners wher...
..th 20 the other approach, I would not realize that and say not 21 ultisately realir,e that due to an overzicht.
22.
In the one case you are forcing an approach which 23 places you on your own without any staff review.
In the 24 other case you are providing a method which the staff can 28 follov.
y l
s
\\
ALDWisoM ArofmNo Coed 8ANY.INC.
400 vmenelA Ava. S.W. WASNIMeToN. DA 20034 (303 9461348 s
i.
~....,.
m..r.
- s. v... -
.......sa n.. ;,
<... 3.Q_._
.---w 3:.
m,-gm M
...,..as.-.
_3
. n, @ " 9.. g g q,
- ~~ ' S _ :.
- 4m;.f= ?;-..
w c%2 i~m.W4:n...,..3 -
r.
-w-,
v57
-.,v.:,,,,....s-m...,.
t >?. %
.::..x...... -... +.. _. -,,,,,,..,..,,,,,..
- y g &.c=0 v.n~
~
.j;:.,.
"rr n.,,
205 1
Q Eut in both instances, assuming no oversight that 2 is ignoring some point in data, I suppose, or failing to 3 observe that point in data, you,would end up with precisely 4 the sase information and results, wouldn't you?
S
- 51. PATOMs I instruct the witness not to answer r
8 that question. You have asked his three or four tises if 7 you have the same data free one that you have fres the 4 other, shat different data are you going to have? *he 9 question answers itself. He has given you his answer three to tises, and I as instructing his not to answer this question i
11 again.
12
- 31. ZAHA3I3t I as going to keep asking his until J
13 he answers it.
14
- 33. PA*054 7eil, I as going to instruct his not 4
18 to answer it, so we are at an impasse, then.
i 18
- 31. ZAHARI3t 3, hat is your objection?
17
- 31. PATOIS You have asked the question three f
18 times, if you have the same data f rom eiter sethod, are you 19 going to have the sase data?
The question is does 1 equal 4
20 1.
He has given you an answer three tises, and if you are
)
)
21 going to keep -
22 E1. ZAIAIIIs Let's go back and have her read it 23 back.
I have not gotten an answer to that question.
I as i
24 not asking his if 1 equais 1.
25
- 21. PATON:
Let's go eff the record.
1 M 6 N c W Afly.We.'.
\\
des VWICNNA AWa. S.W. WAmeuseToN. 0.c. sigesim see. mas s
l
8
- d,
~
p g
, y_- ;;b ; ' %;-- (q
. n_;-, m.'.:$-._lL G, q :3.-
- ..j
,.Q
- E
- i
.,c-~
- w. :...,.u.
.a f
206 1
(. Discussion was held off the reco rd.)
2 M3. ZANA3!Ns Could you read back the question, 3 please?
(The pending question was read by the reporter.)
4 5
THE WITNESSa It is clear at this point you have S asked the question three times and I have answered the a.
i 7 question each time based on ny understanding.
By the fact l
i 8 that you don't accept the answer indicates to se I don't 8 understand the question, and I would have to ask you to l
10 restate the question.
11 SI 31. ZAHARIIz (Resuming) 12 Q
3efore that, let se tell you why I have asked it j
]
13 again. Icu have added things in your answer. Ica have 4
f 1' qualified zy question.
As a deponent, you don't have a i
is right to do thats okay ?
18
- 33. PATON I disagree with that instruction.
I' t
17 don't think you can instruct sy witness how to answer 4
l 1a questions. I don't want you instructing er witness what he 1
19 can do and what he can't do.
20 31 ZAHARINs Tine. To the extent that you do f
21 that, I as going to keep asking questions and I as going to 22 keep doing that until you have answered the question within i
23 the parameters of my question.
24 MI. PATON:
I as going to instruct the witness to 28 answer the questions in reference to what he thinks is l
l l
auenson aspomme cow =w me.
\\
aos veensa me. s.w. waamusstem, o.c. sense asas see sees,
i
~ - - - - - -. -
P 4
r' 4
~~'r,....... ^.
_W _.
ag_
% w ;.:X~ # E '__._.,.. ~bIE-E d
$~~~
$d
}{W f -j W -r
- 5;fi$Nf,fy ~ y
' ?.5$.'.2 A.:.m.
Mh :.n n:m.u.-
~.-
i-m.
- c..n. r
. u-- -
-. ~ m m %.......
- p.
.i 207 s
x
+.
'-i.':~, - g f';%g-~w:
y, g g
appreipriate and not what he is instructed to do by counsel 1
1 2 f or Consumers 7ower.
MB. ZAHARIN:
He is going to answer my questions 3
4'as I ask thes.
5 BY 53. ZAHARINs (Resuming) 6 Q
That you did was you added.a qualification.
You o -
7 said you might drop or you might esit a piece of 8 infersation, and that qualified your answer.
So I as saying S that assusing that there is no point of data which is
- 10. overlooked, wouldn't you - I as going to have to have af 11 question back. 7ould you please read it back?
4 12 (The pending question was read by the reporter.)
13' Q
Assusing there is no oversight, wouldn't you end 14 up, whether you utilized the first step of the two-step 15 approach or the field testing, the learn-as-you-go approach,
18 as you ters it, with the same results and therefore the same 17 information, regardless of which method you use?
18 1
The difficulty I as having with your question is 19 it requires me to possulate whether one of those approaches, 20 name17, where you provided the information up front, would 2T possih17 have caused you to request further information or 22 change your approach.
I don't know whether or not that 1
23 would have been the case.
I can conceive of a situation 5
1 24 where you might eventual 1T wind up at the.same point in time.
25 C
37 question is if we are talking about the A4.DWISoM REPofmNe CoWPANY. WGC.
'g -
400 WWIGueA AVE. S.W. WASHINeToN. 0.C. 20034 (203 806 2344 w
m
..v.,
,,,,+,m
~y
..-e
.w..
~x,.,...,,u..,
-. - ~ -
.x
....r.-.,
s
. > yy g -;.;;p.2-x- p q A - e m,p
.[
. ;,.y =.. 3.
5 3.v-3p=;. -. - -
..g u w
.. -esy..
c.
3,.3.,
208 1 information and results that you get, we could conclude, I 2 suppose, that if that criteria later on would have raised 3 some questions, then it would raise the same quesuions if 4 you did it at a point x in time as if you had that criteria 5 at a point y in time.
6 So my question is lisited, assuming there is no T oversight, whether either of the two methods would 8 ultimately present you with the same information ana 9~therefore the same results.
to
- 33. PATON Can I ask you to clarif y what you mean 11 by results?
If you don't, I would object to the form of 12 your question.
I don't know what you mean by results.
13 THE WITNE55s That is part of my difficulty, too.
14 BY ER. ZAHA2 ins (Resuming) 15 Q
I took that out of one of your ansvers. Why don't 16 you tell se what you mean b y results.
17 58 PATONs I object to the form of that.
In what 18 context?
Do you mean 'in the context of the discussion of 19 today and yesterday?
20
- 23. IANA3 ins Yes.
21
- 31. PATON:
That is not a fair contert.
In the 1
22 context of everything, I guess.
23 THE WITNESS:
Are you vaiting for an answer f rom 24 se for what I mean by results?
Is.that where we are?
25
- 23. PATONa In the context of all the discussion.
A u m aspontmo cowamy, me.
400 vmemeA Avt. 3.w. wAsHmeToN. 0.C. 20034 (20lD $54 2348
, _ _ _ _.., _., _. ~.... _ _ _..
.....x 3 :n.
~
&f-g g,y;.;_-;
Y YES
~I ude..
' ' ^ ;.'.;
w
- ~, _ *, - ' -
..ri '7, '*
" ' " % T ; $ @ f[ (g y.}. Q,?f g f. g p il f d M, b '_,
-m
---e.
_c.
s a
- ,:3y.A T J@97
~.:
-"flqMGW
.gyf
. v.v-.,.;.;,,._n _
- Gits.;.....:: e..... -. :-- ~ - z >.:...-- - w ~.=. = ~~- ----
A4 9
..... ~.
. f 209 Q*,n. _g.: + mmm -
.) :;'
> " ~'- % L j
l 1
- 33. ZAMARIN:
He used it earlier in the context of 2 obtaining inf or: nation and having certain criteria which you 3 would then compare to see what the result of that is, what 4 the resultant effect is.
I will withdraw my question as to 5 what you understand results is.
8
- 33. PAION4 Iou are just going to make that a.
7 statement?
Iou are not going to ask his if he agrees with 8 it?
9
- 53. ZAHARI3a I as telling him that is what I mean to by results.
11 E3. PAION:
Okay.
12 E3. Z13ARIN:
There is a question pending with 13 regard to the two sethods.
Do you remember what the l' question was?
15 INE WITNESS I as sorry.
With all the jumping 16 hack and forth, I acs't remember what the question was.
17 BI 53. Z15ARI3t (Resuming) 18 Q
Here is the question.again.
Assuming that th ere 19 is no oversight, wouldn't the two methods provide you with 20 the same information?
21 A
I need a soment to think about that. I do not know 22 how to answer the question other than I already have, and I 23 ref er specifically to my reply that goes to the 24 acknowledgment that that is a possible outcome.
However, I 25 have difficulty with the acceptance of the postulation that
.i ALDWISoM ftEPofmNe COMPANY. INC.~
~
400 ViftepaA AVE. 3.W. WASNINGToN. 2.C. ll0034 (203 5561348
l
/ *W. ' ?. '.
.., _;,- x.,. -:y w,- Q 3 -- y.=g-.
r
- yg-g;a.. ' ;c,;
-n- =
3.:p
%x c.,,u
.,.-m'*
. j, 210 1 one of the approaches might have caused me to take a 2 different route.
3 I acknowledge that I. could with either approach v
s 4 posaihly arrive at the same point in time, not the same
~
5 point in time but with the same data.
6 Q
Assuming that you didn't or wouldn't have taken 7 some other approach, assuming that the same approach would 8 have been taken, would there be any difference in the 9 information obtained, and again assuming no oversight?
10 A
You are postulating that the other approach of 11 putting the matters up front would have been found to be 12 acceptable and so forth.
I think that is correct.
Having 13 ac:guired the information and agreeing with it, then we would 14 have pursued the appccach that indeed has been proposed or 15 has been taken and say have arrived with the same 16 information.
" hat is the question I as understanding you to 17 he asking.
18 Q
That is correct.
You say say have arrived.
19 A
I acknowledge that it is a possibilitT.
20 Q
Ton say say have at:17ed with that same 21 information. '4 hat would cause you, other than oversight, not 22 to have arrived at the same information?
23 A
I don't know, that is hypotheticals but I am 24 agreeing with you that if we acquired the information 25 earlier and we found it acceptable as it is, and if it was ALDEftSoM REPORTING COMPANY. IMo.
400 vWIGDetA Ava. 3.W. wASNINeToN. O.o. 20024 i202 554 3344
-~
4 'h [ *,
s....
M8 a **
4-
[ 5 " E.a. w. A ~, &a. $ r. ?. -.
4,- :,~.
W NM.-M -
W:::==. M,.:., x i x-
~-_ ~ 5 s-A
' " #~rk.'e:' '..:k. -f.*l
- R..'"Y~~.-h.~% W Y'N 7
. ~. -> :. :
., ~.m.
a v.~
r e.
~ ~ ~
'% ; :;,. - w a::.=
r v,;; - ;m..n-r.wm: : : 2.
..,xm, a
.n,..,.
g;_:
$Q. u v..u.~...
N
- - - - -w w m~~. u - ~ --"
~ ~ ~ ~
f.'ifc.,,
~.-;... _ 4.
211
....g...
,,.;.;t : u--u ~s
= --
+
1 of the character that did not cause us to change the 2 approach, we would have arrived at the same data that we 3 ultimately wound up with with the other approach.
Yes, I 4 ac=ept that as a possible outcose, as a probable outcome.
5 Q*
Are you aware of anywhere in the requistions that
+
6 this two-step approach, that is, the up-front criteria and 7 then 'the implementation and evaluation, is sandated ?
8 A
I have difficulty with the word "sandated." I 9 think it flows in a number of areas in the regulations.
10 C
Such as?
11 A
50.37 or 33.
It is the part that gces to the 12 =equired findings for issuance of a construction permit.
13 The:e there is a 50.37 that gess to the required findings --
14 excuse se, I believe it is 57 which goes to the required
/A-15 fin a for issuance of an operating license.
There are 16 other parts of tha requittien that :efer to the fset that in IT detersining whether or not to issue an asendsent to a 18 construction persit, the staff v111.he guided by this same 19 criteria that is applicable for the original issuance.
20 These are exaspies of the =equlations which refer 21 to that satter,but I don 't know that ther specifically i
4 22 sandate the approach.
23 H3. ZAHARII:
I would like to sark this Exhibit 8,
.l 24 Consusers Exhibit 8.
a.
25 (The docusent ~ referred to was i
-1 ALDERSoN REPoRTWee COMPANY tNC.
a00 VWIetNIA AVE S.W. WASN#eeToN. Q.C. 20034 i 03 See 3ks
~ ' [# $ "~4+ 1
.s
=
<_,;-.i Q:y "}
-~ q,=-> & ' X-6 2 A'~.'
. v.... - W - ~~;':~= w ; @ { j: ~~_ y. ;- g [
.e-'
A%
4-
.Ju
_,,,7.,
l 212 1
marked Consumers Ixhibit 2
3ushe: 8 for identification.)
3 4
BT HR. ZANARI3s (Besuming) 5 Q
That is Consumers Ixhibit 8 as of this date, the 6 sussary of the December 4th meeting on structural 7 settlements that you provided us a few soments ago and which
& is over you signature. In particular, it is dated December S 12, 1979,, referring to a December 4,,1978 seeting.
j 10 If you could look at that and tell se if in f act j
11 -- I's sorrT, did I say Januar7 12,1979 7 If I didn't, it 12 is dated January 12, 1979, referring to a Dececher a, 1978 13 seeting.
14 A
I would caution you the copies I as ; c71 ding you 15 for this seeting are working copies and are not necessarily 16 complete, and that ther any not include, for exaspie, the q
17 service list.
You might prefe to have a more complete copy.
18 Q
I as really concerned with the substance of the
~
19 copy rather than any service list.
This is an accurate cop 7 20 of the substance of the summary that was prepared by you.
1
=
21 A
Yes, it is.
22 Q
It it your understanding that the customarr 23 procedure for designing the building to withstand settlement 24 is to predict settlement and then ensure that the 25 structu=e's design can withstand tha t settlement?
'\\
46.oeRSoM RePoRmes CoWAN, WC.
.co vwoma ave, s.w. wae eron. o.e. noosunam u n
^2.'
L.-
c1#M'...,3 w-
' -'s.,_
-, 2.. f. _ _. _ _.
= n
.1.,_ _ __
-E NSidQ%[
-ih b $A
' 3b(!{f
>M '
~ O
'*5.,
.e w ass -m - w -.m.m.,,,
- .x,4 u
t. _~ ~.v.. m...m.-mm..._,..__m.,._,._
.',/
213 f., nx p--;-
C m x -.- =
1,
'2 2 7,.-
l 1
A Are you referring to preloading in general?
I am ref erring to th e design 2
Q No.
I as talking 3 of the structure.
When you go about designing a building, particularly when a utility goes about designing a building, 4
5 that it is designed so as to have a particular settlenent 6 predicted, and then ths design onsures that the structure 7 can withstand the predicted settlement.
8 A
I believe in the normal course of events, in the 9 two-stage licensing process one attessts to account or 10 should attempt to account for the forces to which the
~
11 structure vill be sub.iected and include those in its design i
12 eff ort and then proceed with the design ac:ordingly.
13
. Q Is it your understanding, however, that the normal 14 and customary procedure for designing the building to 15 withstand settlement is to predict a certain settlement and 4
16 then ensure that the structure as designed can-withstand J
i 17 that settlement?
i 18 A
Your question is did ther include the settlement
-i 1912 advance and then proceed with the design?
20 Q
Ihat is correct.
-+
21 '
A And your question goes to is it my understanding-22 that that should be done or was done, or what?
~
23 Q
Is it your understanding that that shculd be done?
24 A
It is my understanding that that.should be done,
j 25 res.
ALDEPeoM 8tEPofmMe COMPANY.INC.
400 VWIeenA AVE. S.W. WASMWeefoN. 3.C. 20034 (203 984 23e8 s.
~-
-+
" i.y.>. v
~..x,{;3 g,; -
.~.:,
..lL-3 _ y _.=g-..
~-
.pg.,g.w.., s :3x-W
.. n_,.: x -
<.x a_--azq
. x.
m s-
~r-
- % W -a..cu.a.
a c.
213 1
Q And is it your understanding that that is 2 customarily done?
uu tanding that that is 3
A Yes, it is 4 custosa.ily done.
.'B ut I would. ave to acknowledge that the i
5eoe,cluid.onofdiff[erent(settlement is.I is l
is not that e xplicit, and s some question of tAe/
I
^
(
4 sanner in which it is to be 8 there U
a unted for in the process.
8 Q
What do you mean by that?
9 A
Concern goes to the specificity of the codes in to accounting f or differential settlement.
It has been pointed 11 out to us by Hechtel during seetings that they have. designed 12 all of their structures for zero differential settlement.
I
- 13 believe it goes to an interpretation of wha t the codes 14 sean.
I believe it is the practice generally to include 15 differential settlement as part of the consideration of dead 16 load.
I believe the 3echtel statement to be based on a 17 litersi reading of the Code, which did not provide as part 18 of the dead load a consideration for differential settlement.
d 19 Q
Do you know of architects and engineers who use i
20 different appecaches than that which you just described 21 3echtel has used?
22 A
I cannot give you specific names. I was present at 23 acetings when this was discussed, and the comment sade by a 24 seaber of the regulatory staff led se to conclude. that it 25 was generally done this var by other firms like 3echtel, l
- l 2
unanson aecam.o cow.=v. n.c.
l 4]O viae#8A Ava. S.W. WASMNGToH. D.C. 20024 (20:D $44 3s44
. - ~..
.y.
..,,. ~
l 2.s :.y..
'QQ m
,;,p.- - *4~
- Li:;=.,......:-
+ga
' 7 {cj.?.;.c.i-ra. w
,s..
- ;--,--.v c,, w,,,(:.{,
3-er y _
%jfd{fffyyh.I,TT.:,. fs,_.,.,n.,M *W y
I-i[p7 Q
L. a.. _..
m..,....-..,
,=,c.f.w
..m...._-
,x..;
/
215
-g
__m...
y.,;..=.=-.------
1 althouuh not 3echtel.
2 Q
Iou say generally done this way.
Do you mean not 3 assuming rero differential settlement?
4 A
Ihat provision was made in the considerttion of 5 the dead load ters to provide aarpins for differential 6 s ettlement.
7 Q
Who was that individual who made that statement?
8 A
Ihat individual was Abdul Hafir.
9 Q
Do you recall when that meeting was?
10 A
No, I do not.
11 Q
Do yon recall approximately when it vas?
12 A
I believe it was a;;roximately in 1979, probably 13 in the earlier part.
14 Q
Vas the stated purpose of that seeting to discuss J
15 soil settlement issues?
16 A
I believe it was.
17
- 33. ZAEARI3 s I have here what I as marking as 18 Consumers Exhibit Nusher 9 for identification as of today's 19 date.
2D (Ihe document referred to was
+
21 marked Consumers Exhibit
/-
22 Number 9 for identification. )
a 23 BI 33. ZAHARINs (3esuming)
- i 2a Q
It is a summary of February 27 and 28, 1980 l
25 seeting and site tour, the substance cf which, excluding ALsansoN mapomme conspaNv, sec. 400 VIRelNBA AWa. S.W. WAseveNeToN. D.C. 20024 (202) $44 3344
,n.--
n
%> ' ~ p%, :l.,
- Q ~'.:L-
...;....... '.~
.,.-- : gMi~rg,,..Q,.y-g;. g.,.,, _ y..,
~...m..,,
7:..21 7.~-~,m. _ :+,
.,,y;.,_ _, -.. p. u,f4 3.-
. y ;n...,...-- : ~ ~ --,2
.e.
gq n,
.u
.. rg.,
c
., ' j e-:- - - -
~ ~:** **-
.....,,.",.,,.,'~,,,,,,,.,n~~
t js a
=.-
.- v -'~
-v.-
.y k, w t-= w. - - -
,.7
. ~__._
wwas u
-y v,
+
enclosures and serrice lists, is contained in three pages.
]
1 J
zy notes on this, I as going to hold zy 2 Since I have got hand over that portion of those notes and just ask you to 3
this is the take a quick look at this and tell se if in f act 4
out over your 5 sussary that was prepared by you and sent 6 signature.
to satisfy E2. PATOWs Take all the time you want 7
3 yourself that that is what it is supposed to be.
THE WITNESS:
I recognire the document as a 9
summary of a meeting prepared by me, yes.
4 10 BT M1., ZAH ABI3 s ( Resuming) 11 Did you prepare this document based upon your 1
12 C
meeting?
notes and your recollection of that 13 14 A
Yes, I did.
l 9 to a There is ref erence on page 3 of Exhibit
't 15 Q
16 presentation by Mr. C.H. Could.
Do you recall that l
17 presentation?
Vaquely. Hay I refer to the seating sussary?
is A
He Do we have your response to that?
I i
!R. PATOM s 19 vants to ref er to the meeting sussary.
20 l
3Y H. ZAHAR 3 a (Resuming)
I 27 22 0
3efore we do that, I want to simply indicate to
^
you what they were talking about and see if you can recall i
23 It indicates in without refreshing year recollection.
24 it of caissons here that Mr. Could had described placesent 3
)
l ALDERSoN REPofmMG COMPANY, INC.
,s 1
400 Vlm0pMA Avt, S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) See Des t
4 e
em es e *e,*. 4 3.,
-r
.n,
.. - ? qZQt.% * 'Si,T:k'
'7~
' ', w,1 - %
5'%*I_ Sk-(_Z: ~r:: ~. ' _,
~ f h [,~...., -
- ;^"%.:l'iY r --
. % r..
217 l
the ving i
beneath *he electrical penetration area, and at 1
valls of the aux building and within the feedvater isolation i
2 3 valve pit area.
I can give you now a' clean copy of this Ixhibit i
4 full paragraph on.page 2 describes Mr.
4 5 Numbet 9.
- he first 8 Gould's presentation.
Is there a question before se or where are we?
7 A
I think I asked if you recall the presentation 3
Q i
i i
made by Mr. Gould during that meeting.
1 3
1 to I believe I answered that.
I said vaguely.
I 11 Q
If that is the case, then I don't resember what 12 the next question was either.
I don't believe there is a question before me, J
13 A
1 14 which is why I askred.
19 C
OkSI*
i Number.9, After having reviewed a copy of Exhibit 18 17 do you now have a better recollection of what Mr. Gould's 13 presentation was?
13 1
Yes, I do.
on page '3 of Exhibit Xusber 9, in the second t-m Q
21 the last paragraph, you have indicated that the staff noted that the presentation by Mr. Gould included the i
22 i
,1 specification of some quantitative criteria to be applied 23 Is during the remedial action for the auxiliary building.
24 a that quantitative criteria to which you refer acceptance r
ALDettoN REPORTING CCWANY, INC.
g 400 VWIGINIA AVE, S.W.,WASMtNGToN. 0.C. 20024 (202) 884 2388 4
,e, eo-
- -, - - - - + -
e w
n
,7
-e,v w
-y
~
^ '. :. g 3.--f g+ _.,
n-
.,y._ M M
.2 3 &.-..
'--.7...._.
-/. w..... & g j f:
4m *.....e
^
g S c q q p_ W.. g r-W-M 8 & p..
fi.L-M.%.W_ ~
.,. J -. :
y y
- .g s.y,... _c==
._,4.
-..,.:.,.,,-n m
,1...,
.=.:,,...,..v.s......n.
.,, ~.N 4 : a.;..,.
..,.._._..s
":S 218
' f f R-. h L ~.a.-
^
.-.r.. a,. - g a._
1 erite ria ?
2 A
I don't know the answer to that question.
I do this paragraph is based upon a question raised 3 recall that 4 by Mr. Lysan Heller at that aeeting, at which he noted that l
during the presentation, the staff had heard, and I be'11 eve 5
for the first tise, certain quantitative aspects of the l
6 remedial action f or the caissons, and his purpose in raising 7
the question was to inquire as to whether there was also 3
inf orsation available of a quantitative nature with regard 1
3 to other proposed remedial actions, such as the piles for 10 l
11 the service water structure.
the meeting, I recall the answer that was giren at 12 i
which was a negative reply that no, the other criteria voce 13 i
14 more subjective.
In a qualitative, subjective nature is the way you 15 C
16 described it in your seso.
17 A
Ihat is correct.
'Jhat do you understand the difference to be 13 Q
between quantitative criteria and qualitative, subjective 19 natured criteria as you use them in this summary?
20 Ouantitative data would be that data encountered i'
21 A
of the 21 in an engineering approach through an assessment a
proposed action.. I can give you specific illustrations like 23 what the disseter of the caisson would have been. "' hat one 24 Neverthe5.ess, it is indicative of an 23 goes to the caisson.
AlDStSoN MEP0fmMG CuMPANY, INC.
\\
s 400 VIRGINEA AVE. S.W.,WASWtWGTON 0.C. 200241202) 584 23e8
~. - - -
- = - -, - -
,m
,-3
-,m-
.r w
.-e.c.---4
~
~
.y g,-g a ~,. ;k --
e.- - -. z --. y. y.- -
.v
.c :
'i %
..,t..,
219 4
1 4xample, what is the diameter of a caisson, on what is that based. That is a quantitative number.
2 A suhdective criterion would be we are going to j
3 4 talk about piles. A subjective criterion would be we are 5 going'to drive the pile to the till.
A quantitative of the nature of the criterion would go to the understanding 6
f 7 till to support the applied load.
3 I believe that was the thrust of the question, the I
understanding of the ability of the till in its upper 1
9 10 layers, let's say the first 5 to 10 feet, in which the pile 11 is to be located: what is the understanding of the ability 12 of that till to provide adequate support.
Does the inforsation that is available to you support an 13 understanding of the glacial till in the area of interest, 14 15 or is it at such dee per levels?
16 C
Would you tell se what the quantitative criteria that Mr. Gould presented consisted of ?
17 13 A
I do not recall what the specific inforsation given at that time by H:. Gould as ref erred to hY Er.
13 2D Heller. I submit that it night be a question you want to l
raise later to 3:. Heller. I note that he is to be descsed 21 22 following me.
I also recall that the presentations by these 22 consultants were also submitted on the record and were 24 25 documented.
I believe there is a reference in this seeting l
l l
l
'\\
ALDEt$oM REPofmMG COMPANY. 20C.
400 WIGINIA AVt. S.W WASHINGTON. o.C. 20024 (202) 984 2345
... s.. : e t
a..
. :X,.
-am69-r-y.
~#
-'&Wn
?.. :.:.. 2.u.,,,.
=
- 'p,5Q,;rc.{~.
- ,.-7-4-W.FM^.O
. J l'"-
~ ~
c;;3[.y/?Jyp 77/'&
_.2
. w.
w :
- ~ ? (. T.'se'i=~'.q - m x s==~ m ~
- .v n.s,.,
j G. m. e.c.
e,
.n.-..,a:,,.~.,v.,.:..~...
_ g[);.7$.[5.xw.,a -
-[e;
~~I'~ ~ ~T, -m,k
~
sussary, discussions by the Bechtel consultants will be 1
2 submitted as an anendment to the FSA3.
I believe that 3 discussion is on the record, and it is possible that the 4 ref erence to that sight indicate tha t information, but at 5 this point I do not recall.
I was really looking for which of the information 6
Q provided by 3r. Gould did you consider to be quantitative, 7
but I take it you sisply don't recall.
8 9
A That is correct.
!0 Q
Do you recall that the inf ormation that was this meeting on 11 presented by the Bechtel consultants at 12 February 27 and 23, 19 80 was, in ef fect, a recapitulation of information that had been provided to the staff in July of 13 1979 but was beide presented again in order to bring the new 14 i'
15 staff people up to speed?
16 A
That is correct.
Iha t is my understanding.
4 Do you recall also that the docketing with respect 17 Q
to the reports from the consultants was done shortly af ter 18 19 the July meeting than a'fter the seating to which this 3 sussary ref ers?
2 21 A
I believe that is correct.
21 C
I :!ust didn't want to confuse you.
to be In your opinion, vill the pile load test 23 performed prior to actual construction of the underpinning 24 provide the type of quantitative data that you referred -to 3
I ALDSt$oN REPORT 1NG COMPANY. INC.
\\
aos vmeseA Ave. s.w.,wAsNmatoN. 0.C. 20024 (202) Ste 2344
-y--
,w
,,w
~
--q.-
w-
,-~y
- - - - -.i, y
9,e,
..'...i.0. '. ::
V..t.
3_ P ^; ~. _,.
g
. ' p,-r _ a.dk u - 2%::'
n-
,~,.,g
- .Q.QLG.;--
r v -2:..
- .~
w:
%% a a:.;
.v.<.-
221 1 earlier in your illustration?
2 A
I would have to refer to my previous reply about 3 the timeliness of the operation, but if I understand your question to go to will it ultis'ately provide the 4
5 inforsation, yes, it will ultimately provide inf ormation.
6 Q
Inforsation of the quantitative nature, as you 7 view it?
3 A
Of a quantitative nature.
9
'O Eculd the results of the preload of the diesel 10 generator building provide quantitative criteria?
11 A
I don't know that I would say it would provide 12 quantitative criteria.
It would certainly provide data 13 which is quantitative.
t l
14 Q
Does the soil boring itself provide data which is 15 qualitative or quantitative?
i 16 A
It is-quantitative.
Is it quantita'ive with respect to what is t
17 Q
contained in the boring as opposed to the performance'of the 13 13 structure?
llD A
It is quantitative in both of those instances.
(
21 Q
How is it quantitative with respect to the 22 performance of the structure?
23 A
The results of the hering is the information 1
24 acquired from the boring, probaby from a lah test on those samples that were taken, can be used in a quantitative sense 25 I
ALDORSoM RN COMPANY, INC.
MIO VWIGIMA AVS. S.W.. WASMNGTON. 0.C. 20024 (2011984 2348 f
~
_._..,.m.
n..iar.tcei,
. = t A D==,._
b W n - m -~rm-~.. _ x e... :
M.w..
J c.
m,'. p..
. m-,..
--.*s--i..
mg;%<...pg.ae. ~ %.....ga, s.a:;.Q.
- M-b
..~~~~-.w. w s,.
s
- .t = ; i 4 - a. - -
4,,.1.;
n
.,.-. ~..... <.=.:...
, :.,:.:w. -
.,.a.
.., r.,, e-n - m......,,...,.,
r
_222 "W'.g
_ s # a..'
s._..
....1.._.
+
i py,_ps.: s, r i- -
.,, 9, :.
.. - ~- v e,., c).<.
in performance smalysis. '
1 2
Q You can predict things from those.
Is that what 3 you are saying?
i Yes, predict or understand things.
4 A
Would you expect to obtain more reliable results 5
Q with regard to prediction of future performance of the 6
diesei generator building at Eidland by taking soil herings 7
recogniring the under the diesel generster building, 4
3 heterogeneity of the fill than by actual field testing such 1
9 4
as the preload and seeing how the structure actually
~
10 performs at a particular load, and predicting f rom that 11 12 field test data?
Tour question goes to the reliability of the 13 A
methods. I have an predictions derived by the two different 14 opinion on the sub.iect and that cJinica is based on the f-15 2
I don't consider myself to be qualified to consent of experts.
I 13 to have anything other than an opinion.
17 4
13 Q
I understand.
What is your opiniont Er opinion is that the preload program would 13 A
provide a sore reliable prediction of the predicted i'
3 f
I 21 settlement.
I believe &
I would like to qualify my statasent.
i 22 To be more accurate I j
said a sore reliable prediction.
23 said would provide a sore accurate prediction.
-~
24 should have
- t.
'"here is a difference.
j
'5
'A
-3
.a.3
.A a
.?
y
')
., w M.nensoN REPoRTWee Cow &NY, WIC.
,,24 q
- s.,W ese vmenea Avd. s.w wasNwooToN. o.c. sos:4 tassi ess.ases 5
........,,f.
'. 'O$
w
.=.- :c.m--.--.- ;
- -_ g.,. y-3.
- ,,p
,- =
223 1
Q What is the difference between it being a sore I
reliable prediction as opposed to it being a more accurate 2
f 2 prediction?
4 A
teliable goes to how well you understand what you 4
5 are really deallag with. That is, for example, are you j
indeed in secondary consolidation, and therefore can you 6
l 7 rely on those results as an indicatoe that you will not a return to a point of acre rapid settlement.
To my sind, accurney goes to the techniques of 3
10 sessurement as typically would he put into tae prediction 11 process and methodology.
I think with the latter approach 12 of obtaining soil properties by sampling in borings, I think 13 clearly one is confronted with greater inaccuracies than i
14 would he provided h1 the pruloading result or approach.
I 15 Q
In teras of methodology, wouldn't the knova is existence of heterogeneity in the soil honeath the diesel 17 generator ha11 ding aff ect the reliability, the anticipated to reliability of the predictions based upon data obtained from 19 those horings?
i-3 A
yes. I recogaine that as a factor.
21
- 33. ZAHARIN Why don't we break for lunch for 50 f,
21 minutes.
i 3
(Whereupon, at 12:55 p.s., the de position recessed, to reconvene at 1:a5 p.s. the same day.)
24 3
i ALDW9aN RroRTING COMPANY. INC.
s 400 VtmoINIA Avt. S.W WASNeNGTON. o.C. 20024 i202) 804 23e8 e
1 tw,-
.v.--,m__v
.w..
e.,
s.
.___.g.p_
m.-
,.y..,
v.f..-.~
~,. ~---~.,5 g.-_
4.-
y.
y p
i
~ ? Tw *
~
_ M,.h c :
Q,,.%,w':_ ~ ~ p=.2 -l L e:.u..:
=
. 3 ;:'"C...~ ",".,.Z. W'.sj*. ~ -.
....,r-..
n~s.vw :q..
... 1
. i!?y{ ~:-E'-M &&,.,w w
c..
3.
2
~
- g; i
e===
s
..m
-: t -m
.. u..._.. r.. " u.n c m.-.
( ffv e.r.s., -.
22O m..,~.._,...,,,,
..m.
h ~N.T 3.-., a...
. 't 2:
~. -
'~ Q e..:.
ATTERNCON SISSICN 1
BY MI. ZAEARI34 (Resusing) 2 Do you know why the staff was aware that Consusers 3
C intended to surrharge the diese'l generator building in 4
5 advance of then undertaking that activity?
The staff failed 8 to subsit any 50.53(f) questions prior to them initiating 7 the surcharge progras.
I'm not sure that is a correct characteriration.
8 A
I would like to check the chronology of 9 Before I answer it 10 lt.
Do you have in sind the date of that seeting that 11 Q
12 ve were talking about just before we broke for lunch?
13 A
Ve talked about several meetings I as not sure 14 which one you are referring to.'
15 C
December 3rd and ath, 1978.
18 A
E7 notes of the chronology indicate your characterization is cordect.
Indeed, the placement of the 17 fills for the diesel generator started in Tehruary 1979, and 18 to the first 50.54(f) requests were issued by the staff on 3 March 27,1979.
I as not aware of any specific reasons other than 21 i
the f act that the decision processes entail an enormous 22 amount of tilse to arrive at.
23
)
Ihe decision process entails what amount of time?
24 Q
3 A
A certain amount of time.
f ALDEReCN AN COMPANY, INC.
400 VIeolN4A AVE. $.W., WASNeNGTON. 0.C.10034 t* Cal $44 2346
---,.---.y,.-
i--,-
5 y
2 g. c:-i..;
. :4.:~ n-3
_;;.C.y q-~
~, ~..
...,,u b &
- 2. L f~ M 2,. T c ) A p 2. 2,6,
() w g / f, y t
h /0 af
,A < fwM
)k.su
/
s T. &
/ ~ w of m $*'
2+ $
%=-
.44 iL/it/-7 7'is u-=
= W H 2Av J y ' - 1,- g 9 % /f?1 <>y h.
,% f so spn Q M y b & < &
4 m i,t-y e a & w 14 +,e c.
c- ~
/
n~ p AA J ad p-4,k4t 5
=
i A g, M d w.r e s S M n a s u y=a d w.
.3 :_h j
w & LL & p&
Qy J&
4 l
M A m Q,7h/ J,=- A+.
u
=r ~ c)~4 $h' M aj' 14
%,6m
>@k' 1
inaLi M t4 Ap <,A t ci c.
s i
- , of % /9 7l 9
W A~fv A
-y y th ~~% m-p xA A',d -f r
h '>D a A, 4 n,. p., J. y h. :'.
l 3
, f
,A s of 444 SLA.
n4 n.
f e,~ ~_ - -
j.'% pL)A
}~Le yL,-1.r; u }Cff 6g 9u.s.-4 II,/17(/s;C agj%
.&a
- &sv 4
j Jp= 5+ (f J r.) " H f__ _
L*.'
q
,= A,,/. / 2 c. 3 1,,,,
3G 1./1 c-t 3 L 2. I2.
c0 eL'e f ~,4%! 4 V*-Q. A 4 W,'G /97l, I
P --' % T.r, & & e, 0 10L L
& o f + Lt-j_3 4M Jr y/n n'l M.-
p an w-4 h & ap4, J ~'l I
- H a A/
p W.4 2.4--.
g -4.
C C, 3 G 2. / 7 /L.,.44
\\
O, o.o.o.
,_m c
.---,,_-..-,,.y.,.__,,,,_.,__v---,--7
_,--_.,7
---.,,,_,,.,,-%-_,,,,,-----,e-
,,_..w-
l n _,
-. x.,m.
-..+., ;
4.
7,.h
- p:.x[ 44 kW.,,
c.w
., W - g '. * ~.
...,. = - -
~
y,,-
~
~
%qq.qg,
- z. - ?
x..
g.,..- ;-.- u c=.=.
... _...',,,,,J._
. _....,,,,.,,.. *, _, -,,,,,,. _ ~,.
.c..
f.,
-r t m.r -
...,..m y
N. %w.u ~.J -
~
.w ~..~. m.g
-lr '::
b^ ^ -
i m
z n u j., a w - p m
~ A w.a p rw up a w.
w -
,a., 7 1 m a p ~ n.4 A b XL g M,4 s.<-Udh
u=b a n n 4 ~r y A A me
), tk / s =? y A Q w n~Jns='Xn}7A &
N 6 A. 2 ~4..
~
QWaghWWW I
+ J rM ~
w nporn l
Mirc 4;ff M r " e4 9^ $ >W%
h N,/~ _,
%ns r4 - /MLLw #A.-rT%r s
, s 3- ~! &
a+
, n J ;,,.cs r- ".. A /L urgen(
.r a r A s, w A A a g M d e
rc
,d= %s
,k, E &d
- h l#1' a=%
/AL. M [o
= *: ^ h @ 02 ?[
- th.Ah,4 h< &.f" M JA k of.4M M
m m <[ A
.3R s eh p~yn an:t-2A., s w ; Ass,b,.cPC. p s hP.
M + f Mjy 3
~
f99 p A wa zu nra p-a m4 n so. nw th,/jrm' g ' g y+ L -l 7,= A ? A n//gj g a
'\\
e
- -. * * *..ms.
.=.e a
,e---
.----.,,vn
--,------.a
.-.ac
--r--,,
yv,--,,
e
.-n
---..w-n-s
' :Jue.
g7cze.q*3 _z. ;: ; _%e %.- z
." h -..,.r-y
,x.,_
c
- -"GEmpz; X -A;;.e
"-,- J..i.Q w...
_7.. gr
. ~ ~.:
~
~
':v.%
-,... m
-- % s.., a.,,
225 Do you recall any communication within the staff 1
Q 2 between the beginning of December 1978 and Februar7 1979 with rt: gard to the intended surcharge as Consumers had 3
4 communicated it to the staff ?
5 A
Hould you give se those dates again?
It was December 4th and 5th -- I's sorry, 6
Q Ios.
3rd and ath -- of 1978, and February of 1979, when the 7
8 surcharge was in fact implemented.
Your question was was there any communication 9
A between the applicant and staff during that period?
Is that 10 11 the question?
Was there any consunication among the staff 12 C
No.
with regard to Consumers' intention to surcharge the diesel 13 14 generator buildine?
15 A
Prior to Tehruary of '79, between the seeting of December 4th and prior to February of 79.
The question-16 goes strictly to meetings among the staff.
~
17 13 C
Consunications among the staff, whether it is 13 acetings or menos, whatever.
3 A
I have difficulty recalling 1ust off the top of my heed if there was anY such consunication.
I am not aware of 21 21 any. It could be if I were to refer to documents I have given you, I might find suchs but if it exists, I cannot 23 24 recall it at this point.
l 3
Q 1re you aware of any communication by the staff to i
ALDWISoM RSPORTweG COMPANY. INC.
\\
e vtRGINIA AVS. S.W.,WA$rHNGTON. o.C. 20024 (2021804 2348 A
e e
r-
,v.,+-
,-7.
L
.-.- A ~,1 49 Cip._ -.---_,._
d4%z-._.
T.
.:..==
a.u.o.,
' = w,,.__
. : w 4..,.:.Qy([ k,,,;T*** $,)'.f-344 a%%
- n 'n:2: :-~n f W QQi.l~C.:.
..k.=..=.
_ ' ~ % '
3 p r."_
,,,. 4+i t ;- T l. s cc -... --..
s*
- .u..
c v...
...n...,.,.
'{.,';.. w._c w.
226
[,)M %= w. =---- _
,.y;.
--.7. y
(
1 Consumers between December uth, 1978 or earlier than that 1979 with regard to any 2 date and the beginning of Tehruary, reservations or concerns that the staff or any of its 3
meshers had with regard to the surcharge program for the 4
5 diesel generator building?
i From the information available to se I cannot 8
A No.
recall any such consunications which were related to the 7
expression of concern, as you framed the question.
t 3
and Obviously there was communication between the applicant i
9 staff, but not to the end which you address.
10 Do yon recall the nature or were you aware of the 11 Q
nature of any consunication between the staff and Consumers 12 l
at that time with regard to the surcharge progras?
13 14 A
Er notes resind se that there was a cosaunication -
1978.
15 from Consumers to the staff dated DecesM ~}
Whichis50.55(e$7 J
16 Q
N 17 A
Yes, in which they advised s in notifica : ion that g
3 the preload is to be the corrective ac 'on that oey intend' 13 13 to implement. Er notes 'also show se that on Decesher 14, 1978, a special prehearing conference was conducted for the 2D CL review, and I an aware that conference involved related 21 That does not remind me other than those.
22 satters.
23 Q
When you said that the 12/14 prehearing conference with regard to CL involved matters related to what, you mean 24 25 the surcharge progras?
ALDER $oN RWBORTING COMPANY, NC.
\\,
400 VIRGifeA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 884 2340 s
I
_ _ -. _. ~
,m,
f :'.
k.
- ; 3.
-y
_c,z
- .
- .gQ. g. -
- C
. - =:.
- -;yp.;m. 4 ;- >O.-
r-a n e
~2*
..y;,.
227 1
A Excuse se just a moment.
I guess by February of 79.
I see that there l
2 '79 you mean till the end of February 3 are indeed seetings --
This was to February 'of '79.
4 Q
5 A-Fine.
the s
Q Hy question was you had indicated that to the QL, that 12/1a/79 prehearing conference with regard 7
i concerned related satsers, referring to matters relating 1
3 it 9 to t$e surcharge.
10 A
Tes. *here were content $;rus a hat hearing that
/
11 go to the fill settlement s a.rter.
j preise) 12 C
Did they addres the ei..a surc!- rge at tha t k
13 time, to your recollection IA A
Ic, I don't believe that the contentions, that they are framed to go to the remedial action as such as it 15 16 does to the general concern.
17 Q
The general concern with the condition of the 18 soils.
13 A
With the condition of the soil settlement matter.
ER. ZAHARI54 I have here what I as marking as 3
i to for identification as of today's date.
21 Consusers Exhibit (The document ref erred to was 21 marked Consumers Exhibit 23 Number 10 for identification.)
l 24 3
i ALDSSoM REPORTING COMPANY. INc. -
g i.
400 vwH3tN'4 Avt. S.W WASMWsGToN O.C. 20024 (202 584 2346 l
3 9
y
+,,,y p-
-g+.-------+---------m
--w-3----m---y.,.e p.-.py_3, w
-i.,,s, a-
,y--,+4,7 pma i.*-.
-w-
~.T C -
~~'Me s c...w_
NMJE'# U
.J-1.-.e i
5, ET.'_.~C..-
~
..~. _ ~ y.,.g.,. ;; - _ s:mc;;
w.9..
@. g _ ;- 7 6
- W..,z
,.,.--: y a.r T W ' W.-- --
u
.,,.,,.g
.,-.j -._
c=u.:.
- ~.,._.,.u -_
vi-e.t.e~ q-..n~
- .: c, =........,..,,. L y ll
..A..,. -i,. m t n...,. - -. v, ;.. "
- s 22S c
. w. n.t: - -
,w,,,,,.y.,
s
~~'
. pc; n.
l N Q.= d.x w 6 _
-M.
.. s r;., - _,
+
i 3I ER. Z13ARIN: (Resuming) 1 2
Q It.is a group of documents, the first page of which is a letter dated December 7, 1979, purporting to bear 3
the signature of William J. Olmstead, the second page of 4
5 which.is a letter dated December 6, 1979, purporting t's bea r the signature of Victor Stello, Jr., and the third enrough 6
"Orde r 7 concluding pages of which contains a document styled 8 Hodif ring Construction Persits."
Had you seen that document package before in the l
9 form in which it appears there but for 27 markings on it?
10 11 A
I as familiar with the December 6th order.
1:
C Eave you ever seen that letter 7 I as not sure I as f amiliar with the forvarding i
13 A
letter dated December 6 f rom 3r. 01sstead.
14 15 Q
To the members of the licensing board?
16 A
To the aesbers of the licensing board.
17 Q
When you finish reading that, whT don't you flip 18 over to the next page and read Mr. Ste11o's letter.
I ER. ZAHARIN:
You guys are looking at it like 13 2D Tou've never seen it before.
- 33. PATO3 I have seen the order a thousand 21 times, but I have never seen this letter.
22 THE WITNESSs The question is as I f amiliar - '
zg 3Y 3R. ZA!ARI3s (Resuming) i 24 25 Q
Have you seen the letter --
l i
l As.oamsCN MGPoMMNG CoWANY, INC.
\\
e VWWenA AVE. S.W WASHINGTCN. 0.C. 2002412321554-23d4
~ '
., ~.,.
- ~ ~ ~.g.~3~.T.~~.". '.? '. N X.= ' ~ ~T ; ~ _ i ~~ui
~, - % *".
..k; ; g _-.
~y.~~._~ J Q <, v o, 229 1 1 Jointly signed by 5. Victor Stello and 3. Edson 2 Case. Yes, I as familiar with this letter. 3 Q I would like you to turn to page 2 of the order. 4 A This copf You have given se is the same as that 5 rou ha've? Is it the sase docusent? 6 Q Yes, it is, except sine has visuals. There is a 7 statement on page 2 of the order which is contained in the 3 onir full paragraph on that page, to the effect -- th* 9 statement that I as interested in begins right in the niddle 10 of that paragraph. It starts with "This statement is 11 asterial." Do you see that? 12 A Yes. Q It says "This statement is material in that this 13 14 portion of the FSAR vould have been found unacceptable 15 without further staff analysis and questions if the staff 16 had known that Catego:7'I structures had been placed, in ' 17 f act, on randos fill rather than controlled, compacted, la cohesive fill as stated in the FS AR." Can you explain to se why the staff would h' ave 19
- o further ana17:ed or questioned the use of random fill rather 21 than controlled, compacted, cohesive fill as those terms are 22 used in this paragraph of the orde:7 23 A
Let se first point out that the criteria for 24 materiality go first to not whether indeed we did do that, 25 but whether -- let ze :ephrase that - whether a: not we did ALCERSON REPORTING CoMPANv, INC. 400 V!MG;MIA AVL S.W WASHINGTON. 0.0. 20024 (2021 564 2345
l &,N.04:: zgpg,g.,R-A5.. }
- 5. _ Q 5. 5 5.-.-l) 5 & ~l~
..$-W. .<--v M& .. t g - q- .... ess'
- ,,,, 7.
ac=.e. . x em. _... _,,..,,,,. . -:-.- w... s s
- h.
230 _ :.a. .w .e_..,y,. m- . p f%.vg.
- . '/..
.,.,._. w N't g k. tr-== mn-- + 1 indeed rely on the statement, but rather the test is whether 2 or not it is of the caliber that it could have caused us to 3 do a less probing analysis. Is the question of why that is would have done a less probing analysis 4 the case and - why we if we'had relied on the statement? 5 6 C 30. I think what you did in thinking about my question, I think in part you have added a little more to it 7 3 than was there. 9 A Please restate the question. 10 Q I will have to have it read back. (The pending question was read by the reporter.) 11 You will be talking to others who are auch sore 12 A I will he qualified to answer this question than I as, but 13 happy to give you sy impression of what that position is. 14 15 Q If you would, please. It is my understanding that the use of randon fill l 16 A 17 is not a norsal practice. .:eissic Categor7 I structures are typically built in what is known in the trade as structural 13 13 fill. To my undersiianding that means something very specific to the geotechnical people, and that if they 20 understand that a structure is placed upon satorial as it is 1 21 described here or which is referred to as randon fill, ther 21 would have done a such sore probing analysis than ther 23 24 otherwise would have done. 3 C 00 You know what that such sore probing analysis i r ALDERSON ReoRTwed C08p4NY. INC. y 400 VIRepelA AVE. 5.W WASMWeG7oN, D.C. 20024 (2021984 23a0 e O ~ - - - - + -.,. - -. - ~ g,. e
e. .2- . 7.' ~,..,. y;; .,x ,; :- Q 3 3 3
- p;-a:a.;L.. :s., -- s-
- m. v.
..,n 231 1 would have consisted of? 2 A No, I do not. That is getting away fres my 3 experience. 4 Q When you say that they would ha se done a sore 5 probing analysis, are you sursising that? 6 A Yes, I as sursising that. That is my 7 understanding of what they would have done. 3 Q What is that understanding based upon? Conversations and attendance at meetiscs, that 9 A to kind of thing, where these kinds of satters were discussed. 11 Q Conversations with whos? 12 A Internal discussions with the staff. i 13 Q Who in particular? j 14 A Discussions as to the satoriality of the is statement. You have in the docusents that I have made available to you a sussary of an internal meetist that was 18 held to discuss the sateEiality of five statements presented 17 to us by our Office of Inspection and Inforcement. The 13 is sencrandus indicates the criteria that we used for :!udgment, and it indicates the decisions that were made at that point 3 21 is time. It also goes on to indicate that there are certain is time. 21 prelimina:Y aspects of that decision at that point 23 Q Do you recall, in addition to the seeting to which 24 you have referred at which the discussion was had as to 25 whether in f act the five alleged misstatements were ALDeteoM ASPoeffNG COMP &NY. INC. \\ 400 wioGumA Avt. S.W WA4MWe470N. o C. 20084 (2021964 23d4
i $. V'=~~u. %,.)a.rft'm. 2D~W,?.. n * ~. ~. ~..,,- y.. .m. ~~~ &. $: 5% ;i,1:..~ ~ r.u. w.t,,.~., ;.g.4 ,,, p..e a.rg.,. 2 .c= ,.y...... .,~:. ,,.x...,...,_ .:.m.....,.m.,...,,,,.,,.
- 4-
,j, 232
- a. --
v. ....,s. ..=, (,, c..: c. ~. _ _- ~ s., M 4.- .,- g satorial, to any other conversations ce consunications that I rou had with anyone with regard to that issue? 2 I had a follow-up conversation with !r. Cat Moon, 3 A least that day on behalf of my branch 4 who was acting, at 5 chief.or at some point hence, during which there was to he a a e follow-up zoeting. The nature of that dicussion was as to whether or not he ever documented the results of that 7 3 seeting. It is my understanding that he has not, but the result of the subsequent meeting was to uphold the previous 9 decisions that were reached without change. 10 l l I as ref erring to previous decisions as they are 11 4 12 reflected in the docuneat I as referring to. I have here what, appears to be notes of a meeting 13 C 14 dated 8/1/79. This case from 17 man Heller's file. And I I see in here that there are several possible definitions or I 18 te descriptions of the ters "satorial f also statement." 1 Do you recall'having attended that meeting in 3r. i 17 le Knight's office? It says in attendance was Legal, ICE and 19 333. 3 A I have not seem the docuseet. I have not sees the 1 it Lysan Heller docuseat to which you are referring, but 21 a sounds to se like ther refer to the sese setting. 1 22 3 Q Was the subject of discussion at that meeting how l satorial false statement veuld be defined? 24 4 3 A No. The subject of the seeting was were the A4.sensoN mePontine conspany, sec. 400 vieGI8stA Avt, S.W., W44HeNGTON. O.C. 20004 1:081 tee.3See e 7 y
' ' - * ~
- [...
.,s .[. . ~ -.. s.*' '. S*
- ' ;*. y.y A,-w - Er.** * ". ' ~
.y .,,.,.'Q . N m. 233 specific statements or findings by It.E material to the 1 2 review. In order to answer that, the meeting began with a 3 definition of what material means, and in 27 summary that I 4 issued, I repeated the criteria'that were used for that 5 decision. 8 Q From where did these criteria come? 7 A They came from the dicussion that ensued from our 8 legal types at the meeting. It included 3r. Lieberman, another individual, Mr. Dick Bachman, and I believe Er. Bill 9 10 Paton was also present but I'm not sure of that. It seems 11 to se there was someone else present. I think if I could see 12 the document to which I as referring - or the document to 13 shich You are' referring -- I can better recall. 14 23'. ZAHARI3a ! vill show you the one to which you 15 are referring. I have what has been sacked as Consumers. Exhihit 16 17' 10 for identification, vitich consists of - I as sorry. 18 This is Exhibit it for identification, which bears the date 19 August 9, 1978. It is a memorandum for file from Darl Hood. ~ (The document referred to was 20 marked Consumers Exhibit 3 Number 11 f o r.id e ntificatio n. ) g BI ER. ZAHABI3s (Resuming) g 24,, Q Is that what you refer td as your summar7 of that 25 A ug ust 1st, 1979 seeting? s n.' s ALOERSoN REPCRT:NG COMPANY, INC. g 400 WAGINEA AVE. $.W.. WA$MINGTQN. D.C. 20024 (2021 554 2345
w-,~. ,,.u.. p:... b f1.. } ' g ygg .h U-C% k[ _,4: e. -e n : w ;.. w.. u --,m ..~,- :n,;. : - -..~ n.,.,- (;.. g
- w.. -..u.-.. e-
..m.,_._...sy.,....,m,,m,_., Q,% da n n.-
- [.
.3 g ~' ~ 1 A Yes, that is the document to which I refer. 2 C on that it indicates just 3r. liebernans and Mr. 3 3achman from OEID. 4 A I believe the definit' ion, while it say involve discussion by others, largely resulted free comments by Mr. 5 6 Bachman and 3r. Liebersann. ~ 7 C There is an enclosure, too, along with this 3 Exhibit Number 11. Could you look at that and tell se 9 whether that was somethise that you had prepared? 10 A Yes, it is part of t.he summary and it presents the ~ results of the decision that was reached with regard to each 11 12 cf the five specific candidate statements. 13 Q It then accurately rehlects the best of your knowledge in the determination made by the staff present at 14 15 that meeting on August 1, 19793 is that correct? 16 A Tes, it does. But ! sight point out that there vere certals qualifications raised in the memorandus itself 17 18 at that time going to the fact that some of the members present had not had an opportunit[ to review fully the 19 20 natters in question. It is my understanding that that led 21 to a follow-up zoeting at which I was not present, which was 22 attended on my behalf by 3r. Cal Noon. 23 Q At the August 1st, 1979 seeting, do you recall 24 anyone dissenting or disagreeing with the stated conclusion 25 that the candidate's statement as referred to in paragraph Acetscw marcomme company,inc. g 400 VWtGINIA AVE. 3.W., WA$MWIGToN. D.C. 20024 (2023 $54 2348 - l
e ,,.;K. ,N.* f ,;$,, +.1 +."--,,...q,
- ..,. ~,
=_. s,s
- }.. Yoy*,& *l,%
- F.*"
g.,,,. ...-r- '..v., 235 1 nusber 1, that is, with regard to the fill ty;e used, was a 2 satorial state 5ent? I 3 A No, I do not recall any differences in view on 4 that statement. 5 d In your opinion, was the fill used at the building 6 site the wrong type? 7 A I don't think I have sufficient background to 8 judge what a v=cas type and a right type is. It is just too 9 f ar removed from 27 area of ezwertise. 10 Q In your sencrandus that is marked Ixhibit 11, you 11 sar CIID. defined sa toriality of the ISAR statements. Do you 12 recall that? 13 A Tes. 14 C Do you know upon what they based the definition of 4 15 satoriality that they gave to vou? c.'s I:. a4 to A I do recall they fr
- d M several previous cases I
^ 17 Hy sencry is somewhat vag . e references to some la specific decisions have been'sade. I can't resember such 13 acre than that. 20 Q Ihe bottom of the handwritten notes that you received from Mr. Heller's file, it says, " Head the 4/3/79 21 22 s ena (Darrell vill organire)." It's spelled D-a-r-e-e-1-1. , 23 Do ycu know if that was, referring to you? 24 A 7enld you read that again? i 25 Q If icu don't have any, objection, I'll let his read l ALDERSoM REPCNTING COMPANY. iNC. 400 VIRGINEA AVE. 3.W WASHINGTON. o.C. 20024 (202) 954-2345
w,_~ - *.~ i[. _v. ~.T-y~e'~... -,: 4' _: ' ^ + '
- Z.G......
~. - p.;.a. 7: a p
- ..=.= - '-W.
m m :^.- :%.W.t:~. n
- a.,-
-m. -: g.yi -.:x;...~... : n... ... u. e ...c. - - t .w. :-. + 1 a.,.n y (..;. g rw,. ~ ,.m.-_.,,r,,.......m.,,,_m.,,_. f.( Qc aw-&- - c}:.,. -~, 3 ;, & ^' + e 1 it. I want to mark it as an exhibit here. But right there 2 it just says " Read the s/3/79 sono (Darrell vill 3 organize)." Does that have any meaning to you at all? The 4/3/79 senorandum was f om Keppler to Thornberg identifying 4 5 the five statements from the FSAR regarding the backfil1 6 deficiency at 3idland which ICI considered to be f alse. 7 A It seems to se you just answered your own question. 3 Q No. Does this "Darrell" refer to you where it S says Darrell vill organi:e? Do you know? 10 A I assume that it does. I am not sure what the refers to and what it is I as going to o:canize, but 11 comment 12 it probably refers to me. 13 Q Sut you don't recall having done anything with regard to organizing scaething in conjunction with this 14 15 April 3,1979 sesorandus? 16 A shat I organi=ed was a meeting to get a decision 17 sade .e sat iality of those five contentions or enents, and that is what is reflected in the - 18 candi to st is meeti su ar7 that I gave you. I don't recall organizing 20 anything else. 21 Q The meeting that you said you c:ganired was the 22 August 1st meeting. 23 A That is correct. Now, it is conceivable that the .O 24 consent refers to a later noe. ting that,was to ensue, which j a.,f 1 was handled for se by ".r. Hoon g I ha'd some conflict in t l y 25 / g 1 l l At.oetsoN REPor.WG COMPANY. WC. .s ano vinGuna Ava, s.w., wAsNweGToN, o.C. 20024 (202) 58d.2345 ~ >h
y:. .--ev- ";:9:.;.% h.a % :$c- ...,.x - 5 ~.:.l*Q 4r:m.,.-. K,=L.~. ^ q_~ g. g ;; _.3 w .. - v. y. .,,3., ,... :.c - . Nv.> 237 1 schedule. 2 Q 3as there any discussion, do you recall, at that seeting with regard to the civil penalties versus what is 3 4 ref erred to as second chance? 5 1 Tes, I do recall that that element was discussed. that 6 Q Can you tell se everything you recall about ~ ' 7 discussion? 8 That is vert little. In ar opinion it didn't go to the primary purpose of the meeting, which was to obtain a S resolution of those five items, and I don't know that I was 10 11 that attentive to that particular discussion. 12 Q roll me as best You can recall what you recall. 13 A There was some definition of clarification of what 14 second chance meant, and there was some case or scaething 15 was cited by 3r. Liebermann or someone from OE* D. Some 16 relevance of that matter was made to the discussion, but.! 17 :!ust don't recall the deissils. 13
- 33. ZAHARINs I have here what has been sarked 13 Consumers Exhibit ta for identification.
This is June in, 20 1979 consents. It appears to. be over the signature of 21 Harold D. Thornberg, Director of the Division of Reactor 21 Construction Inspection, ICE. (The document referred to was 23 aarked Consumers Exhibit 24 Eumber 1a for identification.) 25 ALDet$oN REPORTING COMP &Mv. INC. \\ 400 VIRGINEA AVE. S.W. WASNINGTON. o.C. 20024 (202) 564 2346 .s ._a -,,.--.-.,..,c- --.m-e.,-r
e- . 2 =a- $ r
- f _ _,,,,
~ yhly. -9 ....y
- D :, -...
'&';;f5 ~ hQ k f. j_' x.. f,4 ~ .r. m: ;.. :..a :,,.... - t. r.c. t. ~.<u. 5 23g a :s a.~.a..- ,...,......,~.,_.,;,, - %.' @r..a.%-- , y c,,.. _ 73,, j( ~' ~ + 1 3I 53. ZAHARINs ('Hesu ming ) 2 Q Could you take a look at that and tell se, is that 3 something you recall that you provided *-as your file? 4 A Ies, this is an earlier seso b.y Mr.. Ihornberg. ~ satter are the five candida/ l te
- statements, 5 Ihe subject
/ / which also includes other matters such as consideration of 6 7 civil penalties. 8
- 33. PAIONs Could I see that, please?
Could you 9 vait just a second. 10
- 33. ZAHARINs I just wanted to ask his if he 11 recalls receiving that in its own time.
12 SI'!E. ZAHARIN: (3esuming) 13 Q Does it show you being copied ? 14 A I believe I say be in possession of that seno. It 15 say be in the package that I provided to you. 16
- 53. ZAHARI3: Thst is where we got it.
17
- 33. PAION:
Could you valt just a soment? 18
- 53. ZA3ARIN:
I am laying a fundati' for it. BI ME. ZAHA2I3s (Resuming) 19 20
- Q Do you recognize Harold Ihornberg's signature on 21 it?
22 A I acknowledge his signature on it, ye.*. i
- 31. ZA312IN:
I have here what has been marked 23 24 Exhibit 12 for identification on today's date. (Ihe document referred to was
- 5
[. ALDSR$oM AEPoRTING COMPANY. INC. l 4o0 wnGiNiA Avs. s.w.. WASHINGTON. D.C. 2co24 f 2023 554-2348 2-a
M
-yor- --w -+wg w -a+
l i
- T;. ~, -
l. ~
- ;-a-
- p. ; -: %;- - u-g.3 _ ; ;g:$7..g j
.-c. -m,. ' v...:.. m., 239 marked Consumers Exhibit 1 Number 12 for iden tification.) 2 3 3! 53. ZAHARIN: (Resuming) 4 Q This also is a document that you provided us from 5 rour files on Zonday, dated Septembe= 27, 1979. It is a that also appears to be over the signature 6 two-page document 7 of Harold Thornberg. I would ask you to look at that and tell ze if you ~ g recognize that as Harold Thornberg's signature and recall 9 this as having come fres your files or having been received 10 11 by you frea Thornberg. 12 A Yes, I recognize the documen't signed by Harold D. Thornberg, and I note by my name in the upper right-hand 13 14 corner that it comes from my files. 15
- 33. ZAZARIN:
I have here what has been marked 16 Consumers Exhibit 13 for identification. 17 (The document referred to was marked Consumers Exhibit 13 Number 13 for identification.) 13 SI !3. ZAHABII (Resuming) 20 21 Q It is a sencrandus bearing the date Cetober t&, 22 1979. It appears to be over the signature of G.C. -Gover, ~ 23 G-o-v-e-:. Could you take a look at that and tell se if you recognize that as being the signature of Z:. Cover and that 24 as having come f:ca your file and as having been received by 25 ALDER $CN REPofmMG COMPANY, INC. i 410 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASMNGTCN. o.C. 20024 (2021 S$4 2345 4 m- ...-,,,,.4 ,e
.=. -.-,.a,,,..... m =., - .o.w- . _ _.av.u:y 2-k'* ~;3 [..... ~. ' ..,w.,,,. N1 I" ~- :k s7
- m:g.9 9 ;g..;y. _ [. p.y y y, c ; 4. 4j.ksk. _,
m. .YOy f*, 1 -g *. 3.- w ; - p- ~m- -. e. m.m...,.. m, m.. . ?.* Cm -- w v. e.a,,..m., w,, 4 Y;. f.s , 4 N :. rr..~.. _ ,,,.m_...,,,_,,,,. .y .y.
- 1 :
w %'t - m..sti s t 2-m., :.-- + 1 you fros Mr. Gover? from Mr. 2 A Yes, I recognize this as a document it comes feca ny file. 1 Gower, and I further recogni=e that 3 know. 1 Whether or not I received this from Mr. Gower I do not i 1 4 You are shown on the second page as being capied 5 C Do roc recall on there with a little mark around that. 6 ~ having received that sometime on or af ter the date which it 7 8 bears? l Tes, I acknowledge that I was in receipt of the 9 A 10 document. I mere 1T pestion how I came to be in receipt of 11 it. I do acknowledge that this copy case from my files. On page 3 of the order, the December 5th order, 12 C full paragraph on that about the third sentence in 'the first 13 page, it says **he information provided by the licensee 14 fails to provide such criteria," referring to acceptance 15 criteria.. Is that what you read that to say? 16 17 A !as. to the diesel genera tor building, 13 Q With respect 13 could you tell se what your underistanding is of the specific i 3efore you criterion which Consumers had failed to provide? 20 sa).e reference to the 50.54, can you answer without, 21 referring to documents? Do you have any recollection? 22 23 A Yes, I have recollection. 24 C Let me have that recollection first.
- 33. PAIONs You are entitled to look at it.
You 25 a As.oetson asPosmme courawv. inc. t A Ave. s,w wAsneNGToN. D.C. 20024. (202) $$4 2348 4co vmain -s
~ W - cc.,. 2 -- y y , t. :p. _f4 ;;- - ~ ):-. -io - g4, _ ;J i';, .-v - I n Y~ c a., I 241 l l 1 have to answer his question, but you are entitled to look at l I 2 it sometime, i 3
- 31. ZAHABIN:
That is right, after I get his i 4 present recollection. 5 IHI VIONISSs I would have to ask a question as to 6 the acceptability of that proposal, going into several ET recollection is that it was information of a 7 aspects. the extent to nature that one needs to judge at the outset 8 which the program has succeeded. It goes to concerns, 9 although it might not be explicitly stated this way, 10 concerns to what amount of settlement will be acceptable, 11 12 and on what basis is this determined. I believe there are questions that go to what is I 13 I happening to the structure under the preload program. 14 helieve there were questions as to -- not necessaril7 15 vritten formally, but as to meetings as to how one derives a 16 17 particular preload, as ti how that load was derived at, what 4 it was based upon, and there were questions as to the time 18 on for the surcharge program, how long vo ,the 1 u be left and how would you know when it!Le done what d 20 progra / you
- f 21.: e-pect it to do.
- 12. PATON I would like to instruct the witness when he gets done with his ensver that. he is entitled if he 23 7-entinue his; answer by referring to some document, 24 v.Ents to sthaThecandothat.
~ ALoER$oN REPORT.NG CoheANY, INC.- 1 doo vinGrMia Ave. s.W., WAS)HNGToN. o.C. 20024 CO215Sd-2348 .t w g ye, --.w-,,- -mw .,7g-,. -,-,,--gr ,y - m y n,,s p-m,y- =, - - -'
- 3:1%.
^.3 y.;-- - -@.g = w .j $ 'iW>s~5.- l,J. J';.u.. ,3
- ; Ql, LMG.Wy
--..g:..,+; " 2jyQfy. ;- -}?;~Q:g: -, -9.&:: ~~-"'~# ,.4., m _-._. -.,nr: sz:..~,-,w - :,,._.,,, _.,. _ _,,,. _[, g' s-: z. M G %. z..v..n.--, -m ~ ....n m.- -n.-.u.,.~, 242 >-+ m-n. ..m. .f s ~ -- Q y,.3t1=sr=:w w
- .r 1
- 11. ZAEARIN:
Not yet he is not, unless I exhaust 2 his present recollection. 3 ER. PATC3s That is why I say when he gets through 4 with his answer. 5 ER. ZAHARINs But I asked his three questions. 6 MR. PATON4 No, you asked his a question, he 7 started refe ring to a book, and you said you wanted his 8 present recollection. 9
- 13. ZAHARIIs That is right.
That is all I want 10 for now. 11
- 13. PATONs You are amending his question.
All 12 you want now is his present recollec. ion. Yo u don ' t want 13 his to give any c=aplete answer that he could give hr 14 referring to ancther document. 15
- 33. ZAHARIN:
No. I asked his what he recalled. 16 !R. PATO3: Fin e. 17 THE WIT 32SSs Those are the things that I recall. 18 SI !!B. ZAHARI34 (Resuming) 19 Q You. told us that one was the amount of settlement 20 that was acceptable and on what basis that was detersised, 21 and that was one of the acceptance criteria that the staff 22 had requested; is that co::ect? 23 A When you say one that we had =equested, I don't i 24 know that that was one we had =equested specifically in 25 v itten fo=3. My recollection goes really to a discussion l As.nenson neronymG couPANY. esc. N 400 VinGalA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (2023 584 2345 .4 r e----.. - - - -c e-
.n,: r - ~.. _ >3 . ' ;pg.a.ly. ; 3;-; ~~t.-
- y.%
3:_.ffLjf.g.q .v - m% -. .,.y.,. ..y... 243 1 1 that was held at a meeting. ! :esesbe at least on one 2 occasion the answer we got fres Dr. Peck was he vould not be surprised to see a settlement of somewhere between 5 and 16 3 4 and 18 inches, something 'of tha.t sagnitudo. It seemed to be j 5 a rather large number at the time. That was one.:eason I 6 resenhored it, I suppose. ~ 7 Q Did you take that to be a response to a request f or inf ormation? 8 9 A The response was given at meetings used by the 10 staff as a request for information. It is a verbal request 11 and you get a verbal answer'. It is something used by us in 12 decisions. 13 C Tour understancing of that consent by Dr. Peck was that was providing information in response to a staff 14 that 15 question, is that correct? 16 A I believe the reply was associated with a specific question, but again, I a's sindful of the way the question 17 was framed, that he would not be surprised, which means to 13 13 se it is not necessarily the result of any long, exhaustive 20 analysis but just a satter of his professional judgment. i 21 Q T.et se take you back a bit because my previous Consumers had 22 question was directed to the criteria that f ailed to provide in response to requests directed by the ~ 23 staff. You vent through -- let se just touch on the areas 24 25 that you vent through, and then I will ask you to direct 4 ALoansoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC. ,N 400 Vl8GINEA AVE. $.W., WASMNGTON. Q.C. 20024 (202) $5d-2348 = s -4 ~. - --- --
i - - gwp A ; ~~.. n -.~.. _.u-z.- ,~. . -... ~ - ^'.P2l'~}{_. , --.;._ J - ' '^ ~ ~D'^ Q Q,3 ;- p ; 5 'yg;3 _, " '
- gi__
n W:.Gq'w ;~- m..,...-,~..;-. ..,: c. m n.- r..
- n.._,,,
's -. i: '.-*.. : y, _..s.-.n.,, ,..c,. ,...n.,,. j ((f.. 7 9,,_ y [ ',', f.7 h m = =. - - - -- 1 your answer to the criteria that had been requested that the 2 staf f said was not provided and that therefore led up to 3 that Decesaber 6, 1979 ceder. You sentioned the amount of _ settlement acceptable 4 5 and on what basis that was determined, what was happening to the structure under the preload program, how the load f or 6 the preload as determined, the amount of the load, and how 7 would long the surcharge would be lef t in effect and how it 8 9 he known when the surcharge had done its job. ~ 10 With that zu aind, let ze ask you which of those 11 items was not criteria that was requested by the staff and 12 not provided by Consumers. 13
- 23. PATON*
Could I hear that question, please? (The pending question was read by the reporter.) 14 15 THE WITNESS: I would like to clarify my response 16 somewhat. The difficulty I as having with the question is 17 that as I sit here today', it is difficult f or me to sort out 4 the origin of the specific questions or concerns without 18 19 citing some were the result of meetings, and others may be the results of documented questions to the applicant, o-20 21 there may have been various other options, discussions or 22 whatnot. That gives se some difficulty in answering the 23 question without knowing the origin of the questions. 24 I do know that we ha v - q tions like number ..M-25 4 in our 54(f) questions, v ch g our diff culty with ALDSSON RMRTING COMPANY. INC. \\ i 400 viRGNA AVE. $.W., WASMNGTCN. 3.C. 20024 CO21554 23d8
n 3
- .;. Q.Q
~. - " ;:ryc% & a ~ sm
- O.-
. ;.g. _m...s s - N %. 245 i acceptance criteria with regard to the diesel generator 1 I know we have discussed a satter during 2 huilding. 3 seetings, as well. Tarther, I would point out that concerns and the 4 r but seed for criteria do not originate from me perso 5 f originate f rom the technical disciplines in which vhese j 6 7 eff orts I coordinate. I as sure during other epo ions / you will get more definitive responses as to what criteria 8 9 are needed. 10 3! fR. ZAXARIN: (Resuming) Are there an7 acceptance criteria, to your 11 Q 12 knowledge, that have not been documented in questions to 13 consumers? 14 A I don't know how to answer that. 'I do know that there are further requests coming from some of on: 15 16 consultants I don't know what theY contain. It say be, that ther indeed reflect' a need for acceptance criteria, but 4 17 18 I cannot judge that in advance without seeing the question. You have indicated, I guess.it was resterday, that 13 Q ETIC is one of those consultants who are putting together-2D further requests > is that right? 21 22 A Tes. I 23 Q 3etter yet, why p 't y tell se what 24 consultants, to your kno edge, are har ng further requests? &M 25 A I believe I de : :;;;;:; to .IIC, and I believe d ALDGR$oN REPOfmMG COMPANY, INC. \\ d ] 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W.. WASHINGTON. o.C. 20024 (2021 $54 2346 ? 1 O ,e .,r--
.ww. :--- *-9 s: n- ^ 'w MJib .~ 1.= r ,t ' N.*
- h ' & ~;& &.
~~~ }.;Q.W.:V..., ( ~, ' ?E?~.%5ff*'[ 3., ' ---. -
- ' n.'-
. _. + m..,,,; g.;_ _.--.. _ w. t ..-:.t. w.m...n. m..a.. r,.;".:..e:p== .m t.:.. n,,,,;.. I ( ) U'.' O '.'% r y. my c...~.. s.y,,,.....,,..,,..,,,, 246 g.4-se w =.vn n ..,.y. 3 y;. x"f. _ y_.36--. ~ m I 1 I also say have made reference to the Naval Surface Weapons 2 Center. I believe in both cases there may be further input j coming to the staf f, which is essentially requests for the J 3 4 staff to acquire information fres Consusers. 5 Q. As you sit here today, do you know whether tite 6 staff knows today what the total acceptance criteria is for 7 the remedial sensures with regard to the Zidland plant fill? 8 A That question goes to do we know all of it. It is 27 opinion that there is not in existence a composite list 3 which. I can point to and say these are the criteria, if I ~ i 10 11 had this, this would be it, and it would be nothing more. I 12 gue'ss my answer to you:f question is no, I as not at all convinced that the staff at this peint in time knows what 13 i la all of that criteria coalir is. 15 Q You say at this point in time. I take it, then, 16 at no previous point in time would the stadf in all 17 probability have had an idea of what all the acceptance 4 18 criteria issues should be. 19 A I accept that as following the statement that I 3 2D sade l 21 Q Are you aware of any acceptance criteria that the staff wants that has not been heretofore documented in a 21 l 23 vritten question? 24 A I have to think about that a soment. I know the l l 25 specific difficulties the staff is having with specific usesoM DEPofmMG CcWANY. INC. \\ 400 vtftGINIA AVE. S.W.. W ASMINGToN, D.C. *0024 12021584.:348 1 l .. - ~, - -., _ ~ _ _ _
' py-.;.g4 ~ X-n~& - .. ; - ?c .<.,._ a, 3 3 -_-._ y = q- ' ..,;.-g. w.p ~.M. - c. .s 247 1 areas of the proposal. I as trying to think as to whether 2 or not that really translates to acceptance criteria or 3 not. In my opinion, the satters of which I as aware go to 4 the acceptability of the remedial action. In somewhat of a 5 loose sonse they are acceptance criteria, or they certainly 6 are somewhs.t related to acceptance criteria. 7 Without seeing the specific framing ~ w - 1 they ( refthat 8 concern, I really can't say yes or no, 9 caliber. So, in that sense I am not aware a specific 10 criteria needed by the staff that have not been documented. 11 Q I have here what has been,sarked Consumers Exhibit
- 12. Number 15 of today's date.
13 (Sie document ref erred to was 14 sacked Consumers Exhibit 15 Number 15 for identification.) 16 BI !R. ZAE1HIN: (Resuming) 17 Q This is a photocopy that was provided us from your i 18 files. Can you tell as what in the world that is? It is a j 19 separate sheet. It say have been attached to something '20 before it was photocopied by counsel for staff. 21 A Yes, I recognire that document as a document 22 prepared mutually by myself and by 3r. Lester Rubenstein, my 23 branch chief, on preparation for a briefing to our 24 annagesset;'5a or ut sometime in late November or early December / of 1979. 25 f f 4 i ALDERSoM REPONffNG CQ8APANY. INC. 'N 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 12023 584 2348
e-.
- w.. :5...
hN -/hi .~
- n...;. f-
-: t.- m .c - w - n %.,,,,, < :.:. n. w.. 'y 2u8 th,my.;.,. ~ n.q,c u. s.-- c.. y..y-p,3 W I 1 Q iihat was the purpose of your briefing for your 2 man agement? 3 A As I recali, we were approaching a decision date 4 and the meeting was planned with the Office of Inspection and NER f or the purpose of arriv.ing at 'a 5 and Inforcement 6 decision on the 50.54(f) satter, coordinating our mutual 7 reviews with ICI and 531. 8 Q Ihis reference in Exhibit 15 to a meeting on 4 9 November 28 in which at least ICE personsei attended. Did to you attend that November 23 seeting? 11 A Har I see the reference, please? 12 Q Tes. It is in paragraph numbered 5. 13 A I recali attending a meeting in which this schject 14 satter that is atif ed here was indeed discussed and I I 15 therefore as se that/that was the November 29 seeting, and / 16 on that basis. - II in the affirmative. 17 Q Do you know whether you have any ainutes or 18 sussary of that November 28 seeting? 13 A No, I do not recall any notes or minutes that I 20 took during that meeting, j 21 Q In this paragraph number 6 you quote, "In a 22 seeting on November 28" -- I assume that refers to November t 23 28, 1979, is that correct? 24 Yes. 25 0 "-- that ICE developed a new position." Nov was l Atmensota asponfme company. ac. aos vacasA Ava, s.w., wAsMNe7CN. D.C. 20024 CO2) 554 23as
~ $, L :- ?.c.2m+2p.
- i: -6c- -
..; g _.z;-Q;L3..- g.--jy z.. 3 N% c- ., a.;. e<e 2u9 1 it developed that ICI developed a new position? 2 A May I see the statement again, please? 3 Q Surely. How was it the fact that ICE had I I 4 developed a new position cozzusicated at that seeting? 5 A-As I recall that meeting, it was a discussion 6 primarily of their findings of the overall quality assurance 7 perforsuce of this applicant. 8 Q And do you recall what their conclusion was with 9 regard to the overall quality assurance performance of to Consumers? 11 A I as having some difficulty isciating this cular se sq from other meetings. I trust that is not ) n-rf a;f' : rte,ac improper response on ar part. !! mescr7 of se i 13 Yths* m e seeting is somewhat vague. 15 Q ! as interested is the statement on Exhibit 15, 16 6.A., that describes the new ICE position as overall CA 17 performanca acesptable because it identifies QA deficiencies. 13 A That was the hottes line of the ICI decision as to 13 whether or not the quality assurance program of Consumers 2D was working. 21 Q Do you recall who stated that at that seetise? 22 A It was stated by 3r. Jim Keppler, as I recall. 23 Q At that time, what was f r. Keppler's position? 24 A I believe he was the director of 3egion 3, the 25 same as now. 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. \\ 400 VIRGINEA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTCN. 3.C. 20024 (202154d-2346 s e,., w-e -
c. .-....m :,, "%ci;rn,.._,+w&&- rsq% ;;&Y--pW6:-% ^ ia . h:3; .7-y' Ti.'}'-3-};T -^. - : ~r ' ' ~~' W ~.: $ f y Q.}$.e-g~ - M4. s-:.n r~ s. : m --- L: w... u.~. p ...u. .W 250 s ~ , N..$Mc e,= =wn - ' j., Y_': n-4 g. w-1 Q In paragraph 5 of Exhibit 15, you state that "To 2 date, utilities' five replies to 50.5Mf) have not described 3 acceptance criteria for remedial action prior to such 4 action. The applicant views the remedial actions as ' proof 4 tests' which preclude need for such criteria. Staff 5 6 decision as to acceptability of remedial action sust avait 7 completion of the program, and applicant must proceed 8 entirely at his risk.* 9 Do you recall f:ca where you got all of that ~ 10 inforsation? 11 A Yes. That is a characterization by se of our 12 difficulty with the review as it was proceeding. It results 13 from not one specific input but fros various inputs that I 14 received during the course of the review f ca a large number 15 of my technical reviewers. 16 Q Did it trouble the staff that for Consumers to 17 view the remedial actions as proof tests, that Consumers 18 would therefore be proceeding entirely at its own risk? 13 A 5o. I think the thrust of the concern is that the 20 results are rear end ionded rather than up front, and ther 21 don 't present the information to the staff that is needed up 22 front. ZI Q I as :sfe==ing specifically to your statement that 24 applicant sust proceed entirely at his risk. What was the 25 purpose of putting that statement in? A4.DeSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 'N 400 VWIGINIA AVE. S.W., WASNWeGTON. 3.C. 20024 (2021584 2348
x . ' s,.~<7 .y-- _ _w..; . y _, y.;.5;. -- ;._q-5 (( ~: _- ~:--l-,.=x .y-yG-3. - ._v n- .-:;w-. ,.c 251 1 A It was.just adding the logical result. Ihe th:ust 2 of that concern is that we are not getting the infornation 3 ve need up front. 4 Q Ubich is to say that if the renedial action is it doesn't test out 5 going ~ to be viewed as a proof test, 6 okay, and Consumers has a problem. 7 A It goes deeper than that. It goes to the question requistion and our responsibilities to that end. ~ g of prudent g Q You are saying the thing that goes to your responsibilities is somehow ref erred to in the statement 10 proceed entirely at his risk. That is 11 that applicant must 12 reany an I sa focusing on. Not the f ac. that you are p=cceeding at your isk, 13 A 14 the fact that you are proceeding in areas that say constitute significant departures from the provision of the 15 16 construction permit. The question is should such departures 17 he taken without these up front matters first being decided. When ve is[s d ignificant a:eas of de'ps 18 Q e{ i c':*-: b_. 19 A 2 hen we issue 3 j was of a structure that deriv s its support f- .he s ils 20 J. 21 underneath it, but under e proposed action we 4etr*T have a ^ / W/ ( Youj aye st=uctures *.da.5 Terive h 22 different configuration soils undernea* % t in sa 23 their support in part fro from anothE 7 esns such as through 6, 1[od coltinui 24 i / T V or caissoal 25 / ALDEPSoM ggpcRTING C:MPANY, INC. 400 VlftG1NIA AVE. S.W WASNtNGTCN. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554.*345 y' gp.m. as--,.----,---,.-- s-..
+Ni' b-h p 8^&&Q+k.Q$TW~@ W-MM#$ ,9 g ^ ' "~~' ~j - ~ : ~rK _ 3h? ~ W +. % 2 w - ec, m ;.. m. -, -,.u cu,.. y ) p4 252 \\ G de n..c u:w. ,n- -, -., w.w,.r. -w. g......n - c. M l ~. .._- na, . -{; %a cm~=,m u_= . p ' ;- " - -,.g 2 1 The question to the staff is does the reasonable 2 assurance that existed at the time of the issuance of the 3 construction permit still exist today, and we had some 4 serious questions to our mind as to whether or not that was 3 still the case. And the f act that we are asking such t 6 questions or having those kinds of doubts are troublescae 7 because those are flags to us that if we have those kinds of 8 doubts, that C? aodifications are in order. 9 C You also indicated in this-Exhibit 15 that ICI now 10 raises question as to acceptability of the design fix. When 11 did ICI first raise the question as to their acceptability 12 of the design phase? b j A 13 A ICE has been iavolved with our aceti,ngs.Sec the applicant and in review of this matter from thhte_y,i.nnin'g, 14 15 and indeed, 3I3 became involved in the natter by virtue of a 16 request from ICE to support them in this matter. That 4 i 17 support goes to the adequacy of the resedial fix, so they
- 18. ht e % W i 17ed all alon,g-s s
19 I don t know.a what point i. tise the concerns eda" t A M 'y -4 4 &'y^m 2 2D a, to the 4 9 of the fix. ~ s 4.-Exhibit 15 y.qu,ha.te t.he statement that in the c j 22 seeting of November 28, 1979, ICI developed a nov position. 23 In one of those, as you say, ICI now. raises the question as
- 24. to the acceptahility of the design fix.
Wa.9 it on November 25 28, 1979 that ICI first raised that question? J I i e ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY. INC. .\\ 400 VtMGINIA AVE. S.W.. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 CO2) 554 2346 - ~ ~.
i ' "E i '.^.. - 3d ^** - ':p y_.) & a"X-:-~O-- ,. Q,..,c. ;~.-: :.;.jf:. 3.g~~- _.. 4 }; P ~% % . i,;,, g, -e .r - .y. 253 1 1 A I don't know the answer to that question, but it 2 is my impression that the concerns that ther have had 3 existed prior to that time. 4 Q Take a icok at 6.3. and tell so wht e that means. This doc y - - prepared mutually with Lester 5 A-3 Rubenstein and se lf. More ccurately, it was prepared by ),M W - l 7 Er.'Subenst 6. . e; a iscussion I had had with him. 8 To the exten ven-on is gaine to wha t time would the 9 concerns of ICE have developed, I don't know the answer to 10 that. 11 Q Do you recall June 18, 1979 segting with Consumers? 12 A What was that date again? 13 Q June 18, 1979. No, st rik e th a t. Ju17 18, 1979. 4 14 A Yes, I do recall such a meeting. i 15 Q Do you recall what the subject satter of that 16 s ee ting was? 17 A Yes. It reviewed the soil settlement satter as of 18 that date. 19 Q Do you recall what was discussed specifically at m that meeting? 21 A On October 16, 1979,. I issued a meeting summary 22 for the July 18 seeting. To the extent tha t meeting is documented in this suasary, I recall the content of that 23 24 m ee ting. 3 Q Iell se what you recall based upon reviewing that i i ALDSISoN REPORTWIo COMPANY, INC. j 400 VIRGINEA AVE. S.W. WASHINGTON O.C. 20024 (2023 54d-2348 m e v ,,m-- m
l =-- Nh-4-- 5g.m.T,is %. G. x p y y,.. Z.y. Z. ~ -..'..,_, 7. T u a.- x @ac:.. ..,--,y.. iTC J- ..x - ~6g,g. q. _... :3 =-.; w W 'o+,'. n, W. py:.,, .,g ~. 3 w A.w-:ce w. - ~- _ 4 4. m. 7... ~ m. ta,. ' -'. 7.' ~C ? L; W.**..a ;.% w e wy..., ,e
- C, - T,.. s -.m..t
-, e-., -. - L. .n.-.;. c.y.- ..w s._..,,.,.,, y., ..,y.,,,, 254 g:n.e a -:.: i>" = ** ~~~ .c :., :... ~~g. Q, t sussary. [as i 1 I ~rf I.' recall, there was a very detailed 2 A, u, 3 presentation'given on the part of the applicant by his consultants, and he in turn documented the presentations 4 5 that were given in a letter dated August 10, 1979, which was 6 forwarded to us as part of 50.55(e) notification. And 7 indeed, this is cited in the order. I further recall that there were some specific 3 9 concerns discussed by the staff at that see ting going to the r 10/ fact that th service water lines and the lines from the ' beruted torage tank pass under tracks and nay otherwise 1 te=t v f acted to stresses from trains and other such 12 13 traffic. The staff inquired as to how such lines are O 14 protected free what could be excessive loads I recall by ] 15 there was also a folliov-up question docusente Q,s/ 16 sometime af ter the meeting. I further recai.1 that there was a discussion of a 17 18 strange phenomenon occurring at the site which entailed 19 corrosion pitting of stainless steel piping. That is a strange phenomenon because stainless steel is not supposed 20 21 to corrode.
- here was an inquiry as to the status cf that 22 investigation as to what was causing that corrosion pitting.
I recall that the concern was th'at although the 23 line in question was not itself a saf ety-related line, I 24 believe specifica117 the line in question was a line from 25 i 1 i AI.DsR$oN REPORTING COMP ANY. INC. mm wRGena Avs. s.w wAsMMGToN. Q.C. 20024 (2023 554 235 --w n --e ,,..,,.+,,.~,n
W ~ ~ '
- C [ % : ;.
.-=--.,:..' -w r ~. ~.. - - , y,f .., f &.*-} W,.. ' ....,,,,..,.K
- ' <.) 3 n......g[..
.) :.~~._. <' 3, g {. g.m a -~ % '.- :.~. u y.w ..v'- v 255 i 1 the condensate storage tank, but nevertheless it was 2 indicative of concern that could exist for stainless steel 3 piping which was Category I or safety-related. Ihat was of 4 concern and that was a matter of ongoing investigation by 5 ICI as well as on the part of Consumers. f 6 There were questions raised as to the effects on 7 the soils in the tank f ars area as a result of air 8 discharged from underground pneumatic lines which had 9 broken. There was an indication, I recall, that ICE vould 10 have favored more forceful action or would have exsected a 11 acre forceful action to be taken from a proper quality 12 assurance program in regard to the resolution of that matter. 13 Shall I continue? Is this what you want to hear? 14 Q Sare. 15 A Essentially I am looking at the meeting summary 16 and telling you what I recall based on the review, as you 17 requested that I do. 18 Q In addition to the things ' that you told us about i 19 now, I think you mentioned a detailed presentation was made 2D by Consumers, and its consensus was that the hose design 21 fixes were described in detail by Consumers and its 21 consultant, is that right, at that meeting? l 23 A Ihat is correct. It was understood at that time, l 24 and it is documented in the August 10th letter by the 25 a pplican t. AtcensoN REPORTING CC8dPANY, INC. \\ aos vinoamiA Avs. s.w., wAsMINGTON. D.C. 20024 (2023 554 2346
~~5_*..i .......r._
- p. ;;......... a.x.~ - - n f.7 3.r -
.,._ ~.x...c. - ~.;,.,...y -[ 5 _.-.y. =4.... - - m,:a- ..u.-. r4.-^" .m y - . a.. 256 1 Q Sometise after that July 18, 1979 seeting, or July 1979, do you recall 'the telephone conversation with C i\\ which ' time, 3 Sati,-Keeley and 3r. Zabritski of Consumers, at '4% ng other things, the July 18, 1979 seeting was 5 discussed? g-l 6 During the meeting, %. eley said, anone other 7 things 00 3 A I recall the only discussion I had with Mr. Keeley 3 and Ir. Zabritsky related to dual reporting documentation. 10 I don't know whether that was the substance of the 11 particular discussion in question or not. 12 Q Part of that discussion sight have dealt with the 13 caseload panel and the detention, and you and your branch 14 chief and the caseload panel meshers to attend a caseload 15 panel visit the second week is Septesher at the site ? 16 1. Yes. I accept that. ./ / 4/ 17 Q And during that conversation did W Keeley 1 18 advise you that the 5055(e) report docud e.h's July 18 13 seeting would not be coming out until the end of the 20 following weeks that this was due primarily to late receip1i: 21 of consultant's.writeup in fisa11 ring the amendment? 22 A Tes, I resember that discussion. ? 23 Q Do you recall having stated to his that you could 24 use that report then? 25 A Yes, I did. ALDg4 son REPoR11NG CCMPANY. INC. g 400 vtRGINIA AVE. S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346 r-,- .-,-,y, r,. - -,,,, ,y y a. y e -.y .--.m.
.m g.,_. e- _ m: w,... .~ + y ;$.k y~%;..g.f,g,'zfy n,.,.... $~-7 )[Q " -~ -[.E I.b '. wg%... 5
- J
.a q a= =. 4g-...-,--. sN,. ' ' " ".,..., ", ", ' ", *. *,
- _ * ~ ' " * '
_ '.y - -. a..-v .~m -, m ::,,... -.,...... ~< .) L u v..;- m.. 257 ....... w .. m,,.
- e. MEm.m mai-g..
n _. - p.r % -, ..-a w m'e t.. w the staff 1 Q Do you recall also having stated that said the positive aspects of the seeting was the design 2 i 3 fixes? { t 4 A Ies. As I recall, it was a meeting in which there i were some rather significant statements made as to the' 5 l that that inforsation proposed fix, and it was our feeling 6 I believe should be documented and should be on the record. 7 as I recall, by 3 r. c a suggestion was made to that extent, .t 8 ~ 9 Knight. When you say the staff said the pcsitive aspects 10 Q of the meeting were the design fixes, who on the staff said 11 12 that? 13 A Er. Jim Knight. Do you know specifically what he meant hT that? 14 Q refers to his 15 A !!I understanding of that consent 16 statement at the end of that seeting that the information that had been given us was significant and should be 17 13 reflected on the record 13 C Didn't he also report that the principal technical solutions proposed by Consumers to the safor structures 20 appeared to be basica117 sound, such that properly 21 22 implemented, they could be ex;ected to provide for adequate structural foundations? 23 24 A I believe that was what he said, yes. MR. IAYARI5 Why don't we take a few sinutes? 25 ALDER $oM WoRTUeG COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVG. S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 0024 (2021554-2348 A e e. e- - e-.- .----r-. ~ r
l i
- ... e-L:y,;;-2.k *. ~ ~a;.p -lm- -
. g..q ,- ~.q:33.. . - -~ ; ---- .. = I ^~2- - i 258 (A b'rief recess was taken.) ~~, 1 2 BT 33. ZAHARI3s (3esuming) -o il .is; A bit earlier, you were referring to a document 1 'N 3 Q 5~-E answering questions about 'the substance of a July 18, 1979 ?j 4 .e ti seeting on soil deficiencies at the Midland plan t site. To -:3 5 that was the meeting w 6 ref resh your recollection as to that, __..w -JQ _.}41 after which you had the telephone conversation with Messrsc 7 - {id .:p Zabritzky and Keeler that we talked about, and also during 8 -. _-yi, ^' 9 which the statement br Mr. Knight that we referred to was .N 10 sade. l%S I have bef ore se what has been marked Consumers Wi' 11 to sh4 12 Exhibit Number '5 for identification, and I ;!ust want that to you and ask you if that is a copy of the document 13 14 which you were referring, and it is in facu a sussary of th 15 seeting about which we have been talking. 'b
- .X.5 16 A
Tes, it is. 7 59 I have here what has been sacked a i 17
- 13. ZA313I3
' %. g 18 Consumers Exhibit Number 16.
- x r.~.x
=; y (The document referred to vG
- -e 13
.lU sacked Consumers Exhibit. j Y_M; 2D 1 Number 16 for identificati( 7: c. ' 21 y;; 1 22 BY 23. ZAHA3INa (3esuming) -f" .o ,4 - 23 Q I would like to show you this. It appears to bq - :c q =. : :.- two-page meno with regard to an internal meeting on the ..if.f5 24 - 0. 5 status of the Midland soils status on August 16, 1979, y.-H 25 1 -y;p )IN -i MO . y.l~ $ l ...Sq) .p: t ..W. t Mk%h ALDER $oN REPoftTING COMPANY, INC. l ' '*Lg.Nf I~ 'TM'Q, 400vipGINIA AVE. S.W WASHINGTCN 3.C. 20024 (20:1554 2346 %? i ' &,N..:np% ee i I-
..x! n, ~ ..n.. 2hY/db ~ -M - =. y n~.1.w;.....-m.m. w. :.,. ,n M 259 ( f. : m --..a.,-, m,.- y,. n.,m.....,' 7e:n&c:m.- J.,. ; Z:. %.- c I containing Enclosure 1 headed "Eackground Documentation," 2 Enclosure 2 headed " Attendees," and the final sheet, which 3 is handwritte, agenda, dated October 1, 1960, which aar or 4 any not go with the foregoing sheets. 5 Could you take a look at that and t ell z e w h'at, in 6 fact, that is? 7 A This document is a memorandus to flie which I 8 prepared on August 24 concerning an internal meeting which 9 was held on August 16, 1979 involving seabers of NRR, ICE 10 headquarters, and members of CE1D. Inclosure 1 is entitled 11 "3ackground Docusentation." It lists docusents. It 12 sentions documents that are pertinent to the subject 13 matter. It is provided for background. inforsation. 14 is a list of attendees at this August 15 16th meeting. The f ollowing document is not related to the 16 seeting in question, but rather it refers to a auch later 17 aceting that was held on' October 1, 1980, which was another ^ internal meeting involving NHR and which was also attended 18 13 by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. That was a setting to discuss 3evision 8, which, among other things, includes 2D i 21 additional horings and in part includes sees of the l 21 information that was requested by our Question number 37 in l i 23 a letter dated June 30, 1980. 24 Q A bit earlier you were talking about a December 6, 25 1979 order, and I was inquiring as to what kind of ( Atssison napostwee coWANY. INC. g aosvmesma Ave.s.w wasHcNeTow o.c.2co24 (2o21ses.2sas
L. l -z'ynd2 W h :r'-O [,.x .;.,LDZ*g.pg..,... _ _, ;y x.. .,..,n '4 %.
- ..,s
,, s.- c.. 260 t acceptance criteria had been requested from Consumers, and 1 to the staff. We had which Consumers had failed to provide 2 gone through generally some of those areas with regard to 3 4 the diesel generator building. Do you recall the four sain areas that we 5 8 discussed, the amount of settlement acceptable, the basis 7 for its determination, what is happening to the structure on s preload, how the load was detersised and how long the l program would be left and how one would know when, in fact, 3 10 its purpose was accomplished? 11 A Tes, I recall that discussion and subsequent consents I made about the difficulty with the origins of 11 13 those specific items. Do you consider those four items to be items of 14 Q 15 acceptance criteria? In particular I direct your attention: the consent that what is happening to the structure under 1 I 16 the preload, how is th'at an acceptance criteria? 17 is is that particular ites is. f ramed, it is what 1s A I would have happening to the structure under the preload. 13 that is not an acceptance criterion, but rather 3 to say that in terza of the acceptance criteria, the aore apyropriato - 21 wording would be what can one reasonably expec to happen 22 ~ 3 under tho'preload? So in terms of stress or something else? ~~~ 24 Q i The question goes to what is the [ 3 A That,is right.
- 7 i
l l ALDWISoM RWofmMG COMPANY, INC. 400 VIRGusA AVS. S.W WASNINGToN. D.C. 20024 J202) 984 2346 i i .,--.n--
.' s .-y p e. _:--.r.42.,-.. gy
- g. i +:cfq m e p [3~gi[ _. F :g g...-
.p - ' M; 21Q-3 .m f '= 9. y.?"'.~ ~' D MSn. .;- p.... <-0 .y . a..,,,-_w,. -. _ _.:cx;;.:. 2 0 z-: u... ; e,v, ;.. - - ~ : ::,.z.,-. -..a.._,...:. (:, .c.-.. - ~........ - .,,,..y. .s .r-p % -r. r m';a.-. m w,6 -- +.,y,,_- .~_y.,.,.-9 tw,Q v- %>=- 1 additional weight that is being added by virtue of the surcharge and which is therefore leading to stresses in th 2 N 3 structure that would not otherwise be present? That is th doing to the available za'rgins, stress nargins in that .'] .j 4 7 5 structure, and what does it nean in terms of the ability c w ~-~".. that structure to fulfill its essential f unction ? 'O ~ ' 6 ' -j 53, ZANARIN : Would you read that answer back? TvJ)q 7 - -. -.. s, (The answer was read b7 the reporter.)
- 3 8
~ - s.; 9 SY MR. ZAZA3 int (Eesuming) _.Ij Is one of the intended purposes of the Corps' ~Y 10 Q ~ consultation to provide structural engineering consultati { 11 12 to the staff ? 13 A We get that as a b7 product. I believe your-question goes to the essential function of the Corps. I 14 15 would have to answer no. They are engaged in support in i 16 geotechnical area. 17 Q Is the e'xtertise that they are providing, then, s concentrated in the geotechnical discipline as opposed to 13 .. -f', ..f. ; 13 structural engineering discipline? ,a ll0 A That is correct. l -fri Are there ant other acceptance criteria that yc ^ 21 1 22 are aware of besides thost, 'Jhich you told us about in the 1
- 3 four areas that the s>af" had requested of Consumers and 1
9 (~ ' 24 which consumers h.d a>L ovided as indicated in the a ll5 December 5th order? ,9 s s ~.i 3.- .".'h ~ 'iD AI.nER$cN REPCATING CCMPANY. INC. ,s M x* 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W., W ASHINGTCN. Q.C. 20024 (202) 564 -345
' $@. _:. A.... 7 -- ~ s;p tieG J:- :*- f- .. ;,- M. ;;,\\ Q : L*3 g.. c .....r._. b ~* 2 - Ji.? ,e-262 L 1 M3. PATON: Are you asking his for'a recollection 2 as opposed to anything he might be able to find from some 3 other source?
- 53. ZAHABIN:
That'is what I said. 4 to THE WITNESSs In the previous question you put 5 se, you restricted the question to the diesel generater 6 7 building. Is that still the intent? BY ER. ZAHARINa (Resuming) 3 3 Q Ies, it is. And I was going to say that before 10 Bill asked for clarification. Why don't I strike that and start again with a straight-out question. 11 Are there any acceptance criteria in addition' to 12 these four that you have already told us about with respect 13 to the diesel generator building that were requested o.f 14 15 Consumers by the staff and that Consumers failed to provide as indicated on page 3 of the December 6, 1979 order? 16 17 A I would point out that I as still talking from sencry and have not ande reference to specific documents at 13 I believe some of the criteria that I have ~ 13 this point. mentioned as I defined thes in that are stated somewhat 20 hroadly and would encounter other areas of which I na 21 For example, the. concerns for the measurements to be 22 aware. taken after completion of the programs to obtain the soil 23 24 -properties, I think.it would he encompassed in one of the extent I think I four I have already covered, so to that 25 .Ii
- n
- :t
- N, (
.44.ossem mercemMG COMPANY. INC. gg emvmoen Ave.s.w wa:NeearoN.o.c.:oon. :oziss z Si =..
- a1,
-v ,~ ~ - . - -, ~ -sn-...,n p .,,w---
_ _Qywg;;c.Q: ;, e. ,i@ n-;-_-7~-.- g4 N *.I Y $ ? ' h!Nbh$$?k hh l-k.5$I50*AN ~ ' f l..l% -m.,...m._ -.. ~.<::.n.w. =.
- e. a _ c.
g b ,. ;, _. c.m... e., _. _.., rg 263 .,.. ~. ~ g 2%,,.e.. :. t m = ~ ~ c :y :.,._. 33y. f + have covered them adequately fras no tes which I as aware of. ) I 2 -Q Let se stop you there. Are you referring to 3 additional borings af ter the preload program? 4 A Ios. 9 5 .Q Had those been requested prior to December '6, 6 1979, to your knowledge? ik 7 A No, they had not been requested prior to a 8 December 6. N You sees to have about exhausted your present Q recollection with regard to the acceptance criteria for the 10 11 diesel generator building fix. I take it there is some document or documents to which you have ref erred that would 12 13 refresh your recollection that I suspect say be contained in Toluses 1 and 2 of Consusers' responses to 50.5a(f). 14 15 A Ihere have been a nusber of 50.5n(f) requests that 16 were made by the staff. " hose are the specific requests 17 that were made in the forsal sense. I believe there were 18 other requests made at meetings and during discussions, and in my prior discussion I have 'not attempted to isolate the ~ 13 concerns to just questions that say have been asked by 20 21 virtue of this 50.54(f) route. I have tried to give you an appreciation of the 22 concerns as I understand thes and not fully recogniring the 23 24 exact origin of the question. 25 C sould you refer to whatever you wish in order to ALDS% son REPoftTING COMPANY. !NC. ~# \\ 400 VtflGINLA AVE, 3,W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202! 884-2348 y o a - ~. _ -..,
h -7 .~,. .', ;.1 _ . ~... ,, :... w:5.c w m.=;g. - _.,;.y.y.e ..: =_g.g. m;y.- ......m
- .~
q '.r.. .u. \\ 26a i 2 ' I' 1 provide us with, to the best of your knowledge, those h acceptance criteria related to the diesel generator buildind .2 2 3.i the staff and which Consumers had M 3 that had been requested by , v.i. t 4 failed to snpply as of December 6, 19797 If you wish, in responding to the question you cah _r 5 You can give me acceptance criterik 6 break it down two ways. --n 7' which have been asked of Consusers and then indicate whetheq .-.x,, 4 g, 1979 or subsequent to December 6 8 that was as of December 6, o
- egh,
.55 1979, because later on I as going to ask you what has been "$t 9 .l.1.o asked af ter 1979, or December 6th. 7.I4 10 we as . ;. 3 So, as you go through, if you see some that t 11 .x..? D 12 after, don't hold off on it. Tell us what it was, but' dust say that was after December 6, 1979. 13 The record indicates that prior to December 6, 14 A 1979, there had been three sets of individual requests tha - f ~40 15 have been sade on the basis cf 50.54(f). The first set va. 16 M 17 issued April 24, 1979, and it goes from questions 1 to 22., The second set.vas issued the 9th month, 11 th day, 1979, ar. y%g ]
- W 18
-w.$ contained one question ausbered Request number 23, -M.$ 13 it 7MM 20 dealing with the subject of quality assurance. 7,m..g .3'iky The third set of 50.54(f) questions was asked on: 21 a:<v 3.;.- e and the order notes that as of December -. } 22 Noveeber 19, 1979, ~ Q,y 6th, reply had not yet been sade regarding this latter segl 23 fd%.. ~d begin with The question nosbers for the November request .2 24 25 question number 24 and end with question number 35. . e. 1-T/f w,i .-f '? y J 2 AtosmsoN REPoRTWG CoWANY. WC. .gl em vmoWiA Ave, s.w wAsHWGToN. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 ' f y %e a --,.w-, an-
"jia..;> ::.1 il GL..... ~.. _ :. J _,- -esyv.- x ~ =.~.. .e e*%~%-. - --- ...y, y'.*.,--- s.nn... +;..- r -. 7 ,.7..,.-'- - ~ %., g Q q, y,.., .: q.~ g.,,3, g.a...e ~ <
- r. gy.
. q. - qt. w-9 -- -- $ v'.', ~-, w -,.v n -= ..w -*..G'IW WW *.*r.w..- %.,.%.ya.m, ( g h..; 2;r.,. m.. _,....,'. m,..,..,..,,,,,, _ __ .T. - g y.;;c =. w 2 3:.,. ; - ~~3_. 1 So, in the sense that the question goes to these f f 2 requests that had been formally suhaitted to the applicant, 3 and in the sense that it goes to the questions that were asked prior to Decesher 6, then the appropriate questions 4 5 were questions number 1 through 35. 6 Q Would you identify the specific acceptance 7 criteria that Jere asked Consumers and which were required 8 hT staff? 9 A For the diesel generator building? - 10 Q For the diesel generator building. 11 1 I go first to question nusher a, which asks to 12 specify and justify the acceptance criteria fs 'ch you 13 vill use to judge the acceptability of the " g st etures 14 and utilities upon conclusion of the preloaWas. The 15 question also continues, and in the continuation it makes it clear that the concern is not limited to just the diesel 16 17 generator building but we vill skip that aspect because that i is is outside your question. The question asks for a comparison of those 19 criteria, that to which the satorial was to have been ll0 21 compacted by the original requirements set forth in the 22 PSAR. It asks that the response consider all areas -- That aspect is 'notq,glevant here. 23 excuse me. It asks for a desMtion of how conformance with l 24 -h 4s
- 5 these criteria vill resul in assurance that, unacceptable s
.~.. 4 AL.DERsON AGPCRTlfeG COMPANY. INC. 400 vimGINEA Avt. S.W., WASNINGToN o.C. 20024 (202) $54 2348 .n
' *l ' '.*.:... r.. >~ ~~. xv. r . - - - -.. ~ ' . ?j;;Jr 3:yg.ylu. .~Je'..~~ A *' w,, K :..<~; -g-g g :
- 'g-_._
2 I
- N W- <
4- .,y.; yr.: :' ~ w 266 1 residual settlements cannot reasonably be expected to occur 2 over the lif e of the plant, and it asks that for each such 3 area, a statement as to the extent of residual settlesent which can he perzitted and 'the basis for each limit. 4 5 Q 1et ze stop you for a aosent. Do you consider each of those elements to be acceptance criteria? By 6 elements I mean description of how conformance will result .c 7 in assurance that unacceptable settlesents cannot reasonabih 8 he expected and the extent of residual settlement which wil 9 he persitted and the basis for each one of thes. 10 No, I do not believe each element of the request 11 A 12 poes to acceptance criteria per se. ~ 13 Q That is reallr vhat I as interested in now, just the acceptance criteria that was requested of Consusers and 14 15 which theT failed to provide. ~ 16 A Then the thrust of this question is to ask,the .T 17 applicant just what its criteria is to that end. z. ?- 18 C The applicant responded that load combinations ant 'f allevable s eresses were specified in FSAR Section 3.8, and c .3 19 i 2D special load combinations including the eff ects of 21 differential settlement which are addressed in other 22 questions, questions 14 and ~ 15 with regard to structures. Vould you-consider those responses to canstitute 23 24 provision of acceptance criteria? h 25 A I do not accost your characterication of the 3 ~ n!. Q dii3 -a4 c.s $11 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. N . 7* 400 VIRGINGA AVE S.W.,WASMW6GTON. Q.C. 20024 (20215E4 234E .s'*. l
- ~
- mp 4
m
I, hb'.ho 4 AdW.. r q. M.7.q.p;g,_ ).,4 : m y 'i. . k U 5T-';.T J~.,4 2 7- =. ,... "'sp. c, -. +,
- 5 9 -.~;---W:
,. w.2.. :Mgx3 ,c
- g.pn.,r.
a- .-w....m.=~. ,9 .. w-w m u.. n :,..- w -,"...u,: ; w. -...m._...m .(, 2,, J e
- .O.'; rn
,,. y ; .,,.e ,,.,.,.3, '267 .. i.;,-,_~ ~_ _ w p r.- t s. Jt swn-,- - - ~t - 1 o 1 response as an accurate indication of that response as it 2 existed at the time. The reply as it existed at that date was provided by Revision 3 which was submitted in September ) 4 3 It notes that the criteria and the extent to which 4 of 1979. residual settlements will be permitted will be provi'ded by 5 6 December 1979. I would like to relate pertinent chronologies to 7 you to give you a better appreciation of the difficulties 1 8 9 the staff has with that. I would point out, for example, I the that in February of 1979, the fill was first placed at ^ I 10 11 diesel generator building. It began at that date. The question to which we were referring was issued 12 13 on March 27, 1979 There was a meeting held with the 14 applicant and this matter was discussed, the preload progras 15 was discussed, on July 18, 1979. That meeting was further 16 documented by the applicant's-letter cf August 10, 1979. Cn 17 August 30, 1979, the fill was completely removed. I think ~ it had commenced -- removal had commenced 15 days prior to 13 13 that date on August 15, 1979, and completion of removal 20 occurred. on August 30, 1979. + So the record reflects that the criteria that we 21 been 22 had asked for in this question number a had not provided, and indeed, the answer that we had was that it ll3 would be provided in December of '79, which is the date thatl 24 occurs after the removal of the surcharge progras. of the 25 f E ALDER $oM RWoRTING CoMPANv. INC. g ~* ~ 400 VIRGINtA AVE, S.W WASHWeGToN. 3.C. 20024 (2021554-2344
--..7,,.,, " 3 ; d-naj~. ' E..--h.- .,.x , ;;ql.3 .y.;, ;. ,,gy.a, - ~~ ;;, _._.,g.y g a..,.,, .r t.' 268 1 sand. to complete the chronology, we have received 2 Just Cf course, we this answer in 9/79, the ninth month of 1979. 3 issued the order December 6, 1979. After issuance of that 4 o rs =, c - cifically in February of 1980, we received by A L V[SI D n-6 '".1 n amended response to Question 4, which contains the information to which you just referred. 7 Does that information to which I have referred s Q to the diesel constit.ute acceptance criteria with respect 9 l 10 generator building surcharge? r 11 A Yes, it does. Does it contain or constitute all of the 12 Q 13 acceptance criteria vith respect to the diesel generator building surcharge which had been requested as of February 14 15 19807 16 A I don't know the answer to that. Your question 1 'Je got all of the 17 goes to the completeness of the response. information that we had asked for that was of an acceptance 13 I believe it does go to the heart of the 19 criteria nature. ~ I-satter as f ar as providing the applicant's response. 2D believe there sa7 have been some difficulty the staff had 4 21 22 with the response, but as far as the completeness of a ~ response tio the equest for acceptance criteria, the ~ 23 i 24 information aaT be here. 4 25 C Tou say it say be here. In all-probability is it c l ?. ALDERSON AEPQRTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VtMOWNA AVE. S.W.. WASHINGTON 0.C. 20024 (202) 984 2346 ~ ~ ~ ~ " M.
a,ag w_, .e-4 s a a --w n - +: --n $.'QyiPM, W . CTX,--.. -., =fg--.
- , _&%%.s-c' ~~
j. 'f~ ~ ~- u, + % O. is[. Q g y{ f ' '.I3 -[ [-] r; S -~ " ML.q[:a: ; -.. m :...:.- ~-, e w a.,...,_.,,.,__.,, __ __. V .{ c , 9; l ' ).3.m c. n _- _. -. .,-.~.,m.,,m-m , y...~, ..~.. 269 ~ ~
- f. :;
T21T ~
- f. & A -
~ 1 there ? 2 A I don't know if I could say that. I as not aware of the need for other criteria for the diesel generator } 3 4 building that may not be contained in this response. 3 t] - That would also be true using December 6* of 1979 ~5 5 Q February 2,1980 as the date upon which the h 6 :sther t an true? .'.~. requested acceptance criteria is sensured, is that 8 7 M I.didn't follow the question. 8 A Really what I an af ter is there were no requests 3: 9 Q 7 for acceptance criteria which were withdrawn between 10 11 December 6, 1979 sad Februa:7 1980, so therefore if this provided the scope of the acceptance criteria with regard te 12 13 the diesel generator building that had been requested as of ~~ 1980, it would also cover the scope of the 14 February acceptance criteria which had been requested as of Decembe8 15 0 16 6, 1979. Is that correct? E 3" 17 A That would seem to follow. You are quite correcG -t that we did not withdraw any of our previcus requests. I. ~. " 13 i .a Have there been any requests for additional 1 19 Q 3 acceptance criteria with respect to the diesel generator-21 building subsequent to February 19807 .a 21 A Yes, there have been requests concerning the to February of 1980. 23 diesel generator building subsequent l o ) 24 Yes, surely there had been. Let so work back starting wit. 3 the sore recent requests because I as sore familiar with l .i l
- 4
_.4 F.I
- < tR ALDetsoN REPORTING COMPANY, IV,
-g ).'"4 um vinopaA Ave. s.w.. wAsNelGTON. 0.C. 200.4 12021954 2348 fd,9 -!.4,, n -mT .-ow-- e.< w-er --y y -yw g -w y-w"= e-,-isr-g 1regymy g- --www --v7-,i,-g 3 --www' &wr--- --frv T' w 'v-
*9--
I - es e,, >:.... m.-m...%. Q-.l:Q.g5-Y~ ~ f1 h r;c igrik' 5 m & - .. s.- .Nw.- f 270 1 1 recent events. 2 On August a, 1980 and June 30, 1980, we issued a 3 request regarding additional borings. Those requests in part are concerned with the diesel generator building. 4 5 Q What specific acceptance criteria does that ask i for with regard to the diesel generator building? 6 7 A Those questions go to the understanding of the s results of the preload program, and the borings are viewed 9 by the staff as necessar7 to that end. question goes W i 10 to acceptance criteria. The question ijf raises is is that 11 acceptance criteria per se? 12 3Y reply was directed to an understanding of the ' .I ~ 13 inforsetion that is needed by the staff to approve the . -7 -A 14 remedial actions. Whethee or not, the information is needeci i is -A \\ 15 to understand the resul,ts eed characterire ace,eptance g I woulkc)er*.ainly / J:: 16 criteria is not that cle. o ae. s 17 characterize it as an 'op-front matter, and it seems to se la that it is acceptance criteria, although I think there is 19 room for debate on the sub.1ect.
- l h..
20 C When you say an up-front satter, do you mean 3 1 21 inf ormation that is in the staff scheme of things belongs in - 22 that step one process?
- j J
it' is a satter which the U 23 A 'Yes, that is relevant G u 24 staff would normally use as part of the original issuance' of l u a i 25 the construction permit, if indeed such a schose'had been .f M -S. e Y. e. .;-t .w i ALDER $oN REPoRTINa COMPANY. :NC. g avmana ave.s.w waswearoN.o.c.zoon4 cazas4 23.s j, ~ il +m---. ,,.-we-m w,,,., ,,.y- .,--w4,-#-, ,,g mv g
-.. _ m. :::s., ~ l. , ---w -gg fhy*;5Q ~ -k 5.- - ...p,&*~~ ~ s e .+- WW,..g p .; y 7- , _.,,,.,... a c .,.g n, ;~,., m -,,,. v,,,,._, _ t. p :% =c t. - c...%.,,n,.. l
- q 271
., '.rv u m:,..... _. .m.,_.,m.,,..,..,,,..,.,_,,. g p%, 3;~ ;, _ Q g,Mi= umm-
- .y :,-.
3 1 proposed in that process, or rather that step. 2 C In that step you wouldn 't have expected to have had the diesel generator building already constructed, would 3 l 4 you? l 5 .A No, you clearly would not. j 6 C Were there any other requests for acceptance 7 criteria, nases other, assusing arguendo that those i 8 additional boring requests were requests for acceptance j 9 criteria after February of 19807 10 A There voce requests issued by the staff concerning ~ 11 the devatoring sy ste s. I need to check the dates of.those I sees to recall that they were withis that f 12 Wesw. 13 'tisefras)e.I note that the request by the staff with regard V f a 14'Wdevatoring to which I just referred was issued on the 8th 15 sonth, 27th day, 1980. I see that that matter is relevant 16 to the diesel generator building and that there is sand located under the diese'l generator building, and one of the 17 la purposes of the devatoring system is to keep that sand dry' 13 so that liquefaction does not baceae a concern. The questions on devatoring are nushered number EC 2D 21 th rouqu 53.
- hey go to the adequacy of the applicant's 21 plans regarding that devatoring system, and they center 23 around inforsation that we need to judge the adequacy of 24 those plans.
So we definitely see this as an up-front Again, whether or not you wish to define this as 25 satter. t ALDWISoM R"PCRTING COMPANY, INC. g 7 400 VtMGINIA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 584-2348 ~;
l l 3
- ; :gc.;% ;y Cz:.a.:- LO-
,.. g _; q _. _.-$.f g g-- -~ .w-272 b'r.-- .c>_ 1 acceptance criteria per se, it is a satter that should be 2 given further thought. 3 I would further note, regarding my consent I previously regarding the request f or additional borings, 4 is amplified in our letter of August 8 by 5 that.that request 1 6 Question nusher a0 therein. 1 7 Q What was the year? rs-) ' The q11estion, as amplified therein, say be 8 A 198 e, I 9-broader stat d thap characterized it at this time. Would you explain? You say the 10 Q I'm ry. question as amplified therein may be broader stated than 11 12 characterired at this time. Ch, I understand; it may he' 13 broader than just the issue that you are addressing at this 14 time. That request is directed only to the diesel 15 A No. 16 generator building. 17 C Oh. 18 A But that specific request goes to a number-of which are concerns about the diesel generator building 19 termed broeder than the narrow issue I as addressing here. 3 21 Q You indicated that these devatoring questions i r 22 number 49 through 53 are of that up-front nature. Again, by 23 up-front you are ref erring to what staff styles as step one correct? of the two-step licensing process; is that 24 25 A Tes. -l l A ALDER $oN RSPORTfMG COMPANY, INC. i s .J 400 VIRGNA AVE. S.W., WASH 8NGToN. c.C. 20024 1202) 564-23a8 1 } u .,-+-w,-- ww,m. -w ,,e- -,e--r y-w-v --.--.,,w. ,-m. r.,,---y-
. g n,-- * - % u . Z:X-r ~ -. ss_ "%qay.,d%;g(,p[,.".,
- s -# M dh....[pM'/.fi
.-...a_,
- h. [,
[{ ( . ~.m....w. r. m ;.m..-- m ..u.: u.:.zc.=-= ~.w. .~, v. gi; ,2y 3 -. j,;,.--_..._.....,.--..,.
- y
, m,_.,.,,,..,,,,, _ _.
- q..d:.
sw.
- p. I ??>-~ ~2 ' = '=~~ -
.. y :.z. r;:y.~. - 1 Q Tou indicated that whether that constitutes 2 acceptance criteria as that term is used in the December 5, 3 1979 order sight be subject to further thought. What is Darl Hood's opinion as to whether that in fact constitutes 4 5 acceptance criteria as that ters is used in your December 6, 8 1979 order as it sits here today? ~' 7 A I see it not constituting acceptance criteria 8 itself but rather it is information you have to have before 9 you can accept acceptance criteria tha t is proposed. It goes, for example, to the level you propose to maintain, the 10 ^ 11 water level, and,.for exasple, is that indeed a proper 12 level. It notes, for exaspie, there are several apparent 13 inconsistencies or errors in the equations that were used 14 and questions indeed as to whether that is a proper I 15 equation, and all sorts of satters. 2 18 It goes to the capacity, the required susping 17 capacity of that systes, and it translates to a nur.ber of 18 wells that will be required. In Darl Hood's opinion these are up-front satters and they relate closely to the adequacy 19 20 of the proposed criteria. 21
- 11. PAION:
3r. Jones wanted the record to 22 indicate that he departed just prior to Mr. Hood's last 23 answar. 24
- 31. ZAHARIN:
He didn't departs he lef t the 25 deposition. { ANSoM AMM MWW, t% t s i i l aos voowas m. s.w wAswe oron. c.c. noo 4 ima see.zus ,..n e v. , ~. -- we-. .--.,-e-.-~n-.-r .,w ,a,- e- - -. - -,. -,
' SM n. n.. _mg&;% ; %:--v - .,~n. J.Qf.]23p. y : %. ~.. ~~~}}}
- c.
N% c.. g_,. , i." 27:5 1 (General laughter.) 2 HR. PATONs I would like to amend that to say he 1 3 lef t the deposition. 4 THE RITNESS: I would like to further supplement the answer to point out that you will he talking to 5 individuals more knowledgeable on this subject matter than I 6 I, and you might reserve that question for later. 7 8 HR. ZAHARINt This refers to Questions 39 through
- 1980, 53, which were presented to Consumers on August 27, 9
10 and I have what is marked Consumers Exhibit Number 17 for
- 11. identification as of today's date.
(The document referred to was 12 j marked Jonsumers Exhibit 13 Number 17 for identification.) l 14 15 SY 35. ZAMARIN: (Resusisg) 16 Q I ask you if this document constitutes what is. 4 regarded as a submittal'vish regard to devatoring, and that 17 is Questions 39 through 53 to which you just referred. 18 19 A Yes, this is the document to which I referred. t 5 2D Q Do you know who originated the request for the 21 information sought in Questions 49 through 537 21 A Tes, I do. 23 Q Who was that? 24 A I received the request from 3r. Geor7e lear, 3rmach Chief of the Hydrology and Geotechnical Branch. I as 25 1 1 ALDWISON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. \\ 400 VIRGINIA AVS. S.W., WASNtNGTON. o.C. 20024 (2021984 2348 ..~ ,-.,....-m_.,.,m,..._.
.n. ~ i c2-il-.w %.. I d.w a w~ w~k. w...'. ' g. ~~ 4h h W f . M-GTIC /',jy y--- - h. m , c. .n-; grew '=" ~ ~- ~ ~~
- b. y
....,%7..e....,-.,,.*. f. y ~(g........ _.... n. _.. m.x_,,,..,..,,,,.,_, _, ynm...wu % e Vae ,,y,: -a w e.g.. x. ~ + 1 not under the impression that Er. Lear prepared the reques-y, rather it represents the work of the :eviewer.' 2 himself but 33 the Hydrology Branch for the Midland Branch, whose name is 3 .:N':": ' " t; 4 Ray Gonzales. 4.i" $$f Q Is Ray Gonzales, to your knowledge, possessed of 5 Oy .C + Jj,.st expertise in the area of subsurface water? 6 Q f's I don ' .a p. I know he is charged with that function. . M,,!? 7 A +: I assume he is possessed of expertise, yes. 8 know. 'tl 3;,2 i [h'd S Q In that particular ares? .:2 10 A Yes That is his responsibility. Mr. Gonzales q u,.
- .G also works with ?.r. Bill Bivens, who saY have had input.
..e 11 t./,' y, 12 C When answers to questions are subsitted to 13 Questions a9 through $3, assuming that they are, who will q. { reviewing those answers and who will he determining the 14 t 15 accuracy of those answers ?
- a. n The adequacy of the answers will be detersined n.
~..s,,. 16 A W'.9) Er. lear's branch 'and will result prisarilY from the revi 17 -c;f. 't. 18 of Mr. Gonzales. F,.. ' Ul.' ' 19 Q-On Ceeeshor 11, 1979 at 12s55 p.a., it is my u-20 understanding that you had a telephone conversation, -A. - d.;.: apparent 1T a conference call, with Gil Keeler, Hr. Zabr1G f..v. 21 22 and Mr. Rutgers with regard to the soil settlement issue ~ 23 which, among other things, Hr. Keeley' asked you if the o$ I '-"'g elisisated the need to respond to the latest 50.5a(f) ~. > .JA'e 24 2B questions, and asked if there was a hearing on this issuo 4 w.,/ .M'.,.'y: . ;l..'. 4 f:>,. G?:4 , qf' e y n'.- U.M. - u-
- ~
w ALD5tScN IWofmNG CCMPANY. INC.. --1 400 v440WetA AVE. 3.W WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (2011066 2340 .'s f.9.,. y _...r.,.
yd W.n 1 1 F ,,3 .. a, ygg 46 ; ' %;- r - .,,,,.,; w, Q n [ " q. 5 3 -- - % w. m 1 and it doesn't get scheduled for a while, is everything dead 2 in the water as f ar as technical discussions go; stated that 3 it was agreed at previcus meetings on this issue that 1 4 Consusers would keep the 3RC up' dated via 50.54(f) and 5 50.550e) reports, and when the issue was resolved, put it is 6 the ISAR, and with this in sind, could the order be sodified 7 to allow this activity to go on? l You responded that you would have to discuss those 8 9 issues with your management before you could respond. Do 10 you recall that conversation? I as just giving you this I 11 hackground to refresh your recollection of the conversation. 12 A Yes, I do recall such a conversation. There are i 13 elements that you just read that are somewhat confusing to 14 se, but I do recall the conversation. 15 Q I as not going to ask you about those. I as just 1 18 trying to bring that conversation to your sind. I as also 17 of the understanding tha't 3r. Keeley asked you how such l 18 design detail, analysis detail and consitzents would be q i 19 required to satisfy the staff's order, and that yJu I 2D responded that Consumers should not get the order and tho' 21 50.54(f) questions sized up, and that the staff doesn't need 22 the complete analyis to resolve the order. 23 You elaborated by postulating the question, i 24 to-vita what if the subsurface conditions were known at the ll5 time of the PSAR review? All the staff would have asked for l l ALDWISon RroRTwe4 CoMPANv. INC. - 400 MGINLA AVE. S.W..WASHeeGTON. Q.C. 20024 (202) Sea.2346 s ~,,, - ~ ~... - - -. -., -
- % ~ +.
e :- ~-. - *g g,.
- - mPr.;; r,%. ~-.2 b h-C
+=.- M = _~ %, y' - -[ + ~.1 r( _, WielQQq y.n., {J g f*- % * % ' W ..,.,.g ~.w e.- w w,. u.w - v.-,a.w.,.,, ,,,m.,,, _,,, ~ m ,277 ( } O + s. n.- ;.n e.m, m ~. u u.
- .
- ..,,. n..... ~.
- y
- [/,,.
Z:*:.y.4 _,,k g',% b.1x m e-I was the acceptance criteria. In other words, what is our that yardstick for acceptability, and how did we arrive at 2 3 criteria? Do you recall those consents by Mr. Keeley and 4 5 those responses from you? 6 A I do have a vague recollection of such a The version of that conversation as you just 7 conversation. 8 read it is somewhat confusing. ~ 9 Q Can we hreak.it down? Did you state to 3r. Keeley that the staff does not need the complete analysis to 10 2 11 resolve the order? 12 1 I have difficulty with that question without 13 knowing what the complete analysis refers to. What it seems to refer to is a complete analysis 14 Q i 15 versus acceptance criteria. You are quoted as saying that 16 the order is asking for acceptance criteria. Therefore, i i } 17 Consusers should not get the order and the 50.5a(f) 13 questions sized up. 13 A Tour statement is not consistent with the 2D discussion that I recall. 4 21 Q Okay, why don't you tell se what you recall in I 22 that regard? I 23 A I recall it as an effort on my part to clarify to 24 Er. Keeley that not everything that *.he staff had asked for 25 in the 50.5a(f) request was relevant to the order. There I l ALDettoN RE'ORTWe4 COMPueV, INC. 400Vt#GwelA AVE S.W WASHWecTON.O.C.20024 (2022 884 2384 e l l
.c. _ y ~ _~ -3.. .g .<; y l.g k Cr.- Q - , g.:,x 3;f 3y,,3..._. __, g,. -- e c,.y
- ,...
- ;..a
.,.r: - ~2.. r.
- a.,
a I were some of the requests that go berend the C7 sodification j 1 2 issue. As I recall, I did not give any specificity to that but rather the statesent was somewhat general. 3 I sees to recall some discussion about the extent 4 I to which detailed seismic analysis would be required. 5 believe I made a reference that one would not necessarily -r 4 ~ 8 require final results of the seismic analysis for purposes .{ y 7 i 8 of the order. I believe that,is what that statement goes to. 9 I also recall during the discussion that there was an effort to clarify where we go from here in terza of i 10 I 11 documentation. Specifically, Hr. Keeler related a concern 12 that they indicated their intent to update the T511 at a i 13 later date, and ther indicated their intent to respond to i 4 14 the request at some later date. The sain thrust of the es11 was to determine the 1 15 4 ich the issuance of the order was to alter the l .)ik extent f A rs n ed / +.1 17 sint' e s sence of events, and I attempted to clariff to - ;? G of that there is the ongoing review which is b Mo y 7 19 directed both to the up-front as well as to subsequent 4 )
- r. '
E s atte r's. That is, if it entails a satter relevant to the l 21 order but it also includes satsers relevant to the ongoing 1 T noczal review, which we call the 01 ceview which is in 22 bl 23 progress. .s i 3 I believe I,related to Mr. Keeley that the order 24 M ande reference to the f act that inforsation had been
- -j 3
a'N +,- i e.E i ..?.;' 9.; l .dQ ALOWitoN RWoeftNG COMPANY, INC.. ]5 l 400 vindesa Avt. 8.W., WA4HWe4 TON. 3.C. 20034 (202) 984 2344 3. s
- g. %
$) i l
.h&i. --.1.N W W % '- - >W-5 k.,:.lA ."$,5A Hzs> % W N.;f;$+ Q ~ '=lpg - Q..;.:i?- a=.~..m v.,-..~='=..-W' " w w. T 7 .,jj 279 a;-:,. v.- s m ~2..,.-- .g. <-b, .-....c. e......,s,,,,,,,, r ,l.}..,.. -- 3._ f w ~y C = " = s*-- W U Q: + 1 requested that was not yet available to us, and in that the inf ormation was still needed. That is the essence 2 sense 3 of the conversation as I recall it. 4 Q Do you recall stating'to 3r. Keeley that the order 5 is simply asking f or acceptance criteria, giving as an-6 example that the diesel generator fuel oil tank had no 7 advanced criteria of what degree of settlement was the 8 acceptable and what Consumers needed to do was set 9 criteria, get the staff to agree to it, then go perform the 10 work and see if it meets the acceptance criteria? 11 A Yes, I believe I did cite that as an example of 12 our need. ~ 13 Q I believe that 3r. Keeley told you that Consumers 14 didn't necessarily agree with that. 15 A that is quite possible. I don't recall 16 specifically if he said that. 17 Q Ion sentioned that you had ref.ated to Mr. Keeley that in your view, something less than a f ull seismic 18 analysis would he required in order to satisfy the order. 13 Can you tell se what less than a full seismic analysis would 3 21 he required to satisfy the order? 22 A No, I real1Y cannot. It gets too f ar away from my ~ 23 level of exper'.ise. That decision will rest in the seismic 24 analysis branch. 37 consent is just based on my observation, consents that had been passed along from that 3 ALDettoN REPoWTweG COMPANY. INC. g 400 VWIowetA AVE. S.W WASHeNG?oN. o.C. 20034 (202190d 2348
vj* ,.*r s J ' ;.'p - 4 3G'!Mn9- % ,,. _. 3. _ ;.Q.g.gy.r.;...,.,_x" -g.; - w _, -- jn.z ..u ~ --
- .v. r;_
i = 280 , % V. ,a ~.,. y : ..,r 1 branch 2 Q Can you tell us what you had in sind when you sade i ^ 3 that statement? i I had in sind the kind of analyses that are done 4 A are done by at the C7 stage versus the kind of analyses that i 5 they consist - f or the PSAR 8 an TSAR. For the sost part ~ they consist of the development of the models and staff 7 agreement for the models that would be applied, and relates j 8 to the input that will go into that model and the agreement 9 by the staff that those were proper inputs. 10 11 In the typical application, the actual results of 1 required for purposes of issuance 'of a 12 the analysis are not I believe that is what I had in sind i 13 construction permit. at the time of the discussion. I believe I had comments on j 14 ] 15 this satter yesterday which indicate that this say not be 1 typical, the Midland situation say not be typical, and it is I 18 not clear to se as to' whether more by way of application .Y s 17 13 sight not be required in this case. l ~ , 7) 19 Q Do you agree with Mr. Keeley's statement in that telephone conversation on Decesher it, 1979 that it had beeE ~ ~ 20 agreed at previsas meetings between the staff and Consumers i a 21 that Consumers would keep the NBC updated by 50.5a(f), ~ 22 50.55(e)' reports, and that when the issues resolved, then 23 thes into the TSAR by amendment? ~ 24 put X-25 A car discussion, as I recall it, related to the ? 2-m?.i -.f. s e+ N .:a ALDERSON REPORT 1NG CO8dPANY. INC. aos vmosna Ave. s.w. wasNweatoN. o.c. 2co2412ott sea.asse . M.m n ~
i - C![d* - - - - M b> b ~. ~:' * & h~ n.n n:#.? & ~ .rW **WiW W. C.L,.... -. -_,..G. . ? "?. ~v :. ' f.t w' ' w _,~. w t = h-u.J.+.x w' ~w
- . ~~Kq==:n..... _..
.- e. ~ " * ~ - ~ ' <~- _ p{,.. 281 .x:..u:....,...w-...,.,,,,_'m-=--~~- -,.,, -...,_....e_,c. m._,..mm....,,_.,_, g Ph =w,- ..s -~n 7 _ %q i u.,.--- . g t. ?. 1 f act that dual reporting var - not this discussion, but ! 2 believe it had been preceded by a prior discussion -- this 2 3 probably should be checked -- but I believe at that point in 4 time we had already agreed th'at it was not necessary to 5 maintain the dual reporting by both 50.55(e) and the Sa(f) 6 documents. 7 If I as correct on that assumption, the response 8 would go only to the Sa(f) response. 9 Q Does that accurately state the understanding i 10 hetween Consumers and the staff tnat the informatio'n would ~ 11 he provided via 50.54(f) responses and then at some later a 12 time incorporate them into the FSAR? 13 A That.is correct. 14 Q What,if any,was your involvement in the 15 inspection reports cited on page 2 of the December 6, 1979 '8 order? You see that highlighted in green on my copy. 17 A !Ione. 1 18 Q 7ere you consulted before those reports were 19 issued? 20 A I don't recall, but it is not at'all unusual for se to receive a report such as this b2 fore it is issued in 21 ~ 22 final form. 23 C Do you recall whether you consented on any of then 24 prior to their issuance in final fors? 25 A 3o, I do not recall at this time. I believe to i ALoanson nepoemme cowamy, inc.
- j N
aoinnnownA Ave, s.w., wasMinatom. c.c. 2co24 2em se4-234e p --e -i-e+ e = w -t' -ev--m r-gm- --~-e +----e9 -- - - --sy.- --T-w
~.2.,....
- s...
.~ * ;g. jab J 3 y-f 0.- .., :, ri, f.QQgy_..-.
- +
- .. * *l ~~..,.- ; &
t a-"- .% v - 4. a., .e 1 give you a sore definitive answer I would need to refer to i 2 2 the latter report in particular as to whether that was the 3 case. \\ i 4 Q Why don't you identif'y the latter report? 1 ) 5 1 It was the one issued on March 19, 1979 and h 8 identified as Inspection Report Number 50-329-78-20, and 7 50-330/78-20. 3 E3. ZAHARIIs I have here what has been sarked as 9 Consusers Exhibit 18 as of today's date. (The document referred to was 10 marked Consumers Exhibit 11 Iumber 18 f or identification.) 12 t 13 BY 53. IAEARINs. (Resuming) 14 Q I ask you if this is, in f act, a copy of a i document froa your files, as I boileve it to be since we got 15 4 18 it from you on Ionday, and if in fact you did receive this 17 in the norsai course as indicated by showing you a copy with i 18 enciosures on the second page. 19 A I notice in referring to the sub.iect satter of i = El those reports that they do contain satters that we discussed ) f 21 earlier when we were discussing the materiailty of certain 22 comments. We discussed that earlier in this deposition and 23 sy involvement in that matter. 24 To the extent that that discussion goes to this \\ 25 matter, yes, I was involved in that effort. You have given Atosisen growmes cowamy, mc. x aosvmeseA Ave, s.w.,wAsMmeTom.o.c.zoose tzoa)ses.asas
%W22=^*j )). v . ~ ' ..f.~. g Qc u n' h. ). $. - ". ..^.. - l. c'.-l w _._ ~.~.t.w.yq --(- w n.. _., ~. y _e......,... f.Q 9y s,r.e.:.y.
- g. -
s c.= ::. 3 283 --q: 44;-:. -m...sc. m,..... e d.i. .'-"~.m-,---w-. ( ; .s,,1, m.w._.,_.._,...m --...-2. u
- 's I
(WL a-di =me f)., :.. -. .-g ~ se a docusent dated January'-- is that the 3rd? 1 2 Q That was produced -- 3 A It looks like January 3, 1980. 4 Q Yes. this l And you asked se a specific question about 5 A, 6 docusent? as a document 7 Q I.iust asked if you recognized that coming free the files which you received in the normal 8 9 course of business. 4 I I do recognire this as a document fres my flie. 10 A 11 as not sure how I case by it, but I will accept the fact that I received it during the course of normal husiness. 12 13 Q That is all I want to ask you about that document.
- Jho is Roger Fortuna, T-o-t-t-u-n-a?
He is to 15 identified here as Assistant Director for !nvestigation, CIA. 16 A OIA stands for the Cffice of Internal Audit. I's I need a 17 not sure whether that is the acronys or not. 18 telephone directory. I think it is Office of Internal 19 Affairs. 2D Q Office of Inspector and Auditor? 21 A fes, that is the one. To your knaviedge, why was a copy of this Exhibit 22 Q Susher 18, this January 3rd senotandum, sent by Haroid 23 24 "hornberg to, Roger Tortuna? 25 A It is my boilef that this satter has to do with an ALDWISoft RWoeTING COMPANY, INC. N des Vvt4MA AVE. S.W., WA$NINGToN. 0.C. 20024 (202) 884 2346
-:Sl.
- q.
~.- .-r ~ .m- .;g, _6:r.;:. - AM-W to :% ..e n:: w. r i E'i,3 :. O g g 1;,j iQ.f 7- . s v.. c. .,a.x 28a .e 1 1 aspect of the material fault statement as to whether or not 2 there existed willful intent, and that was a satter that was 1 3 reviewed by CIA. 4 Q Do you know if anything as a result was done? 5 I recall a prior conversation that I had with some 6 member of CIA by telephone. I do not recall his name nor 7 the date, except the f act that it was probably around the 8 day of this letter. The question was put to me, as I aware 9 of anything that leads se to believe that there was a 10 question of villful intent in regard to the satorial falso 11 statement. 12 If that my reply was no, I am not aware of i anything thaIleads' se to conclude that that was the case. 13 i 14 Q your knavledge, is CIA finished with its J l 15 investigation of this willful matter? 16 A I do not know the status of that investigation.- 17 Q On the second page of Exhibit Number 7, which is a 18 January 21, 1980 sesorandus from E.J. Callagher to 3r. 19 Tiere111, which we have talked about earlier, the last 2D paragraph states that is view of thN above, I believe that ) i i 21 sensures should be taken to preclude further construction of ) f 22 the resedial sensures of the plant fill until a technical - 23 review as to suitability is complete. ~ 24 Do you recall Ir. Gallagher as having taken that 25 position? I ALDGR9eN AWORTING COMPANY, INC. \\ 400 MAGINIA AVE. S.W.. WASMeNGToN, D.C. 20024 1202) 944 2249 . -. -.. _ ~
. =&w
- %22m -s--?]
[j3 %.Q.;
- .B
- i.7.. -
- y. ?.TG?-;Wsg.?y?i?87+MMb. } 22 ~ = o - T. -..,,, s i r - w..w. -m .w., u..,., b 1:'*a L w..;; - ,n-.- ..- ve -m -, y e a r. %.m n e %. m.-.4 hK;- 1 m w-c. i.g,.. ;M9,.- ~~ 1 A Ios, I do so recall. i 2 Q Do you recall whether the deterzination was made \\ 3 by the NRC to either accept or reject that position as 4 stated by Ir. Gallagher? i 5 A In my opinion, !r. Gallagher's concern goes to =. 6 2.20a. I see that as a f ait accompli and therefore 7 requiring little action. It goes to the issediate 8 eff ectiveness of the order and it goes to a decision that 3 l 9 had already been ande. In sy view it raises no concern for ~ 10 a departure from that previous decision. 11 C That previous decision being what? i 12 A Ihat the effectiveness of the order would rest 13 with the board pursuant to 2.20a. 4 14 Q Is the staff satisfied, to your knowledge, with 1 18 the crack analysis that Consumers has provided with regard 1 18 to the auxiliary building? ~ 17 A 2culd you repeat the question, please? ) 18 C Ies. Is the staff satisfied, to your knowledge, I with the crack analysis that Consusers has provided with 19 j i 20 regard to the auxiliary building? i 21 A No, I do not know if the staff is presently ~ 22 satisfied with that analysis. ] 23 C Do you know whether the staff is satisfied with I 24 the crack analysis provided with respect to the service 25 vater building 7 ALDstSoM REPofmMG CoAAPANY, INC. g 400 VIItGINGA AVE. S.W WASNWe4 TON. O.C. 20024 (2021964 2348 I
w... , L ~ u.' 'f I 'l .g_ g 9 3;ps:xeu ; J-. ~ -W ~ ..pg,
- &'f.g=3.,y..
,,3s g _ ~' ; --, .q
- ,....
- _ q.:3. y 4
286 %% e >., A. g., _,,,,, 1 A No, I do not. 2 Q' Do you know whether the staff is satisfied with the crack analysis that has been provided with regard to the 3 4 diesel generator building ? 5 A. No, I do' not. Do you know whether the staff is satisfied with 6 Q the crack analysis that has been provided with regard to the 7 horated water storage tank foundation? 8 9 A No, I do not. Do you know if the staff is satisfied with the 10 Q crack analysis which has been provided by consumers with 11 12 regard to the valve pit? 13 A No, I do not 14 Q Do you know if the staff is conducting an 4 i I i 15 evaluation of the analyses with respect to those J 16 structures? In other words, are they doing anything about i 17 it now? .l 18 A About the review of the crack analyses? l 4 19 Q Tes. 2D A Yes. It is sy understanding that they are @ Mf 21 reviewing it. 7 22 Q Is EUC reviewing that? g A Yes. Mg C A/@ I ( 23 Q And have you received any preiisinary response or report from EUC with regard to the crack analysis? i 25 'l ALDgtSoN Rg*CRTING COMPANY, INC. s I 400 vui48MIA AVE. S.W.. WASH 4NGTCN. 0.C. 20024 (202) 964-2346 u 1 .~
. _ - _ =.. fNarcrrw?fp,.e.p < s 2.. Y:: - 55.NSh N..,Y ..lW
- g-
- ., s.y,...._.c=- e
. ;.. y w w..., -,-. 287 .._ f ~ .v.. - .......,,..._.,..t
- s.,,., y,,,,,, _, _, _,,,
.,..- m y. m *f f.,[N% :x-.~ ~ 1 A Not to ay knowledge. I believe there zar be 2 something in-house that could possibly speak to that issue. 3 I as not aware that it does. 1 4 C What are you referring to, this thing that sight 5 be in-house 7 6 1 There sight be some recent input from our 7 consultants as a result of their review of that. I believe i 8 I made some previous references to some request for some 9 additional information that consultants would like us to 10 a,:: quire from Consumers on whether or not that goes to the 11 aspect of the crack analysis. I do not know. 12 C Are you referring now to some statements you ande D /f 13 yesterday on. ETIC maybe comparing the questions and asking 14 for additional information f res Consumers? A Tes, that is right. IT difficulty is I as d,ust Q g 15 te aware of the existence of scoething within NIC from those g tf5' f 17 consultants, and I do not knov its content. 13 C Do you know where within the NRC that document i 19 resides today7 ( 1 2 A It resides with the technical coordinator. In the 21' case of the Naval. Surf ace Weapons Center, that individual is 22 Trank Einaldi. In the case of !!EC, if such a document 23 exists it resides with Iony Cappucci. 24 Q Have you ever discussed the adequacy of the crack 25 analysis with anyone at ETIC 7 l l ALDetSoM RMRTING COMPANY. INC. s desvtftoINIA AVE 5.W.,wAsetNGTON.3.C.20024 (202)See 2340 v,, ~v ,---r -v-m.
' ' ' ?6 4.t. 2 ;., -' :p.g,j-n W ' W.?~f O - ,,,x-.,z
- f;i'GLQ.g.y._-
, k ; x~, 4 ......v._ .,,s... y <.s'- 284 -Nm 4 ~ . - ~N ) jurofordsj 1 A No, I have not. Is the approach that Consumers
- rW with 2
Q regard to the borated water storage tank and diesei f uel oil 3 tank suffi= lent for the staff to determine the acceptability 1 4 5 of those structures? 6 1 3r understanding is that it is not. ~ 7 Q Do you know why it is not? I believe the difficulty the staff is having is k + 8 A that it doesn't go to the concerns that the staff has l 9 For example, the horated water storage tank 10 expressed. i. rests on a ring-type support which is filled with soil 11 j In doing our review, questions have been raised 12 satoriais. about consequences of stresses in the tank free various 13 v l 14 sources. 15 It is sy understanding that the staff is not satisfied that that area receives sufficient amount of 16 17 support. 4 l 18 Q Mas there been any evidence of diff erential i 19 settlement in the ring support for the horated water storage 1 l 2D tank? 21 1 Yes, there has been. It is small, but it does 1 I 22 exist, particularly with regard to the tank for Unit 1. i 23 There have 'also been cracks in that ring structure. 24 Q Nave those cracks been the subject of the crack i 25 analysis that has been provided bT Consumers? 4 ) i i i ALDWISoM fWoRTwee COMPANY, INC. f i 400 VWlowelA AVG S.W.,WASNWeSTON, o.C. 20034 (2031 904 2340 4>, k
%pim., _; - Q % W _;.-...x:% . h. s F 'E %. s==. ' " W.Q4f'{y fg.,.: s:l::::::.--, R ' q ' A & W.. ......r=-- - 2,12.'..p'.g'.'y TJ&6:" .a: %.- ~ eM 9 h... s... 4.,, m... .,,3,, ., m,,,m_,j.,, ,Q G6~ : ::e....a r. n.nc - .m.. v. ~.u.---
- &4
~ p; .~'-_~3,- d g ]f]h:.d = % s ' - ~ 1 A I believe thair investigation of cracks has 2 included that st=ucture, yes. I know that they are being 3 aonitored. I know that the staff's concern with cracks 4 appeared at a very early stage, before the tank was even constructed, certainly before it was fully constructed, 5 6 before the load was applied. That is of some concern to the ' . _i 7 staff. The question also goes to the diesel generator 3 9 fuel storage tank. The staff has expressed some concerns 10 there,as well. It is my understanding that they are not satisfied with the responses they have received to date. 11 l 12 One of the more =ecent concerns that has been raised with 13 regard to that tank goes to its proxisity to a nonseismic 14 retaining vall. The staff is questioning the consequences of the failure of that nonseismic : staining vall on the tanki 15 18 and the fuel line that goes to the tank. .[ The concerns as 1 understand them go to whether or 17 m,,. 18 not the earthquake that removes the vall and which, indidentally, is presentir exhibiting an overturning noment,: 13 ~ s s-can f ail in such a var that it leads to a sliding mode of 3 the soils in which those tanks rest and therehr also affect 21 l the ability of those tanks to deliver their fuel for the 22 i 23 energency diesels. 24 C Is that concern or that question to ich ust 10 ) ref erred docusented anywhere in the submissions ed Cons ero 25 1 A 4 = r.. ALDERSoN AGPoRTING COMPANY Wec. g ',k.n s .s 400 vtRGestA Avt. S.W.,WASMeNG7DN 0.C. 20024 -t2023 544 2348 x ' ~~ $. x
~ *' *9 ..o. y.. 1';%:i:n& a E?& . n.N. x.~. V - [ G L Q. 5 ]-[ y..-- $r < $~$ s.l f.. ~).,. j f ..~. -.. ;:. %M s-. ., c,.3 1 A Yes, it is contained ih the August 4th letter. 2 Q August u, 19807 i 3 A Yes. There are other concerns associated with the 4 diesel generator storage tank. Concerns go to the possibility that differential settlesent of the tank sight 5 cause disconnection of the connecting f uel oil lines, but it + 6 7 is not clear to se whether the staff presently accepts that 8 response from the applicant. That essentially says that th e 9 fuel lines are capable of a great deal of stress and to essentially will go along f or the ride. That say he an 11 unfair characterization, but tha t is the type of response 12 that I recall. 13 I believe the staff has general difficulty with 14 the approach taken by the staff with regard to both tanks, 15 the horsted water storage tank and the diesel generator fuel 16 storage tank, from the. standpoint of criteria. Yore 17 specifically, it is the determination of the duration by 18 which the water is to be lef t in those tanks for the 19 purposes of the proposed' proof test. 20 The staff has difficulty that there is no 21 quantitative criteria as to what constitut a acceptable 21 amount of settlement. For exam ple, the borst water Gfto- ).lling it 23 storage tank were to settle six inc.M._.r.: 1_ 24 with water,would that be acceptable? Similarly, what 25 constitutes an acceptable settlement for the diesel fuel AI.DWISoN AEPoRTING COMPANY, INC. g 400 vt#GINGA AVG. S.W., WASHINGTON. o.C. 20024 (202) SSd.23a5 i .s m .w.
.... x :,-.. Y-^'-~-- ..s A - m..".eje ,N 2.e'~'_'.$-,,,.. g' " -. # '~~~ _ " ~~^ % d ),'$ Q. g,j't "' p.- g-+4 M O,.:y# ~p.gw-:.~n...,.:.,-.m. 47 291 g'; ( / ' tv r e..s. e. ..-...m y. ..,3 ~, .s , p}n}:;wvm, e --
- f; e,..7*.
'C2..:. %+_; e l 1 storage tanks? 2 These matters don't sees to have been thought out 3 in advance, but rather it is a learn-as-you-go approach. My 4 interpretation of the applicant's approach is, well, let's do it,. let's sessure the results and then tell NBC wheEs we 5 . e have difficulty from the standpoint that from a W 6 are. 7 practical matter, that doesn't seem to us to be a prudent 8 approach and is not consistent with our two-step licensing 9 process. 10 Q Recognizing that that say not be consistent with ~ 11 rour two-step licensing process, would you disagree with the 12 statement that the observation sethod of soil sechanics is 13 the best method where various kinds of soils exist? 14 A Vould you repeat that, please? 15 Q Tes. The statement is that the observational 16 method of soil mechanics is the best method where various 17 types of soils having va'rious types of properties exist. 18
- 33. PATON:
Best method? For what? You don's 19 have to answer that if you don't want to, but the question 20 seems - 21
- 33. ZAHARI3a rou have to keep is sind his answer 22 to the previous question when he talked about investment in 23 the two-step licensing process.
24 !3. PATON: let se.1ust ask hias do you understand 25 the question? e i j ALDSt$oN REPORTW8G COMPANY, INC. N de0 VIRGINtA AVE. 3.W., WASNtMGTON,3.f* 25124 (202) 564.:345-
f~_~~. j; ~ S* .:+ :[. j,,Q..y - qga.:a.e. % q kO.- .m. 292 . %. sf..
- e..... >.,
, _a.- f 1 INE WIINESSs I think I do. 2 ER. ZA!ARIN: Good. 3 THE WITNESS: I don't consider that I'm qualified I to answer the question from a substantive standpoint. 4 have opinions on the satter and they have to be recognized 5 6 as opinions. 7 BY RR. ZA!ARI3s (Resusing) 8 Q What is your opinion on the matter? ~ 9 A I accept the statement or condition on the high17 10 variable nature of the soil. I understand tha t it exists at 11 the Zidland site. I recognire the difficulty in obtaining a 12 sasple that can truly be said to be representative of a 13 given condition. Because of this, I accept the statement. 14 Q I will take you back to Janua..7 16, 1980. There was a meeting, and af ter that meeting there was a telephone 15 conversation among you and Mr. Keeler and 3r. Zabritski at 16 17 8 a15 in the morning. Th'e subject of that telecon was the that Lyman Heller made toward the end of the 18 comment 19 previous daT's meeting with regard to dewatering. Let me give You a little bit more of what I 2D 21 understand th's conversation entailed. Lyman Heller's 22 cessent at the end of the seeting that devatoring was not the preferred technical solution, and that during the 23 17th telecen with Gil Keeley asking vliat the staff 24 January 25 had in sind, since Consumers had spent considerable time and 8 ALDER $cN REPoR?tNG COMP &NY. INC. ,\\ 400 MAGINGA AVE S.W WASHINGTON. Q.C. 20024 (2021 584-348 ~
a.,a :- : ..aar ;;..
- e..
vm,, _ . y. - a.m,... --, 4~_:. - =. s.%.3;n g;c, _,. ; SP-A'.g-+n' ~ ::'SN.- yf 3W%. - ,.. I e ' "' :-A ^;L 03"3.T P >".h..i... a.: 'WWr mm" ' * - '~ g' ~ .;.:- t.m, .......m.,.,,,.::.<,.u.~.- .. w. n. ew. z., y3 > : n a.,., ,e ......-,.,,...,.u ~'
- c..
,-~~ y C'n.2 In-- - 1 soney pursuing that option, they considered it the most 2 conservative way to go; that if devatoring wasn't i 3 acceptable, what vas? 4 You replied that it was rather un; fortunate the var the is, sue was raised, and it needs to he put in the prever 5 6 per spective. Iou had a discussion between Valter Terris of 7 Bechtel and Lyman Heller. Heller was talking as an 8 individual; that his opinion did not necessarily represent 9 staff consensus, and this type of discussion, however,, 10 should he valuable to Consumers since it indicates that 11 there vers fragmented views on the subject within the 12 staff. But you also indicated that Consumers probably had a 13 right to be concerned, since Lyman Heller was the principal 14 staff reviewer in this area. 15 Do you recall that conversation? 16 A I recall such a conservation, but there were 17 several elements 7f the conversation to which you just 18 ref erred that I do not agree with as a correct 19 characterization of that conversation. 3 C Point them out for us. 21 A You said I made a stateeent to the effect that it 22 would he of value to Consumers to know that the\\ staff was 23 fraquented. 24 Q Let se repeat that. It said that it would be 3 valuable to us since it indicated that there were fragmented i i l t ALDgtSoM REPORTING COMPANv, INC. - 400 VWIGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. 3.C. 20024 (2011 $84 2346
~ ' %:p ~.. 2 ;... ) ' : :y&h? A^
- M r v, ] :R.'.Ah&&[Q'{' T
.~=._ . Ww.. a,,;;., ggg s.r ~ n I views on the subject within the staff, us being Consumers. 2 You said valuable to Consumers. 3 A No, I do not recall making any such remark as 4 that, and I do not accept that as a statement that I made. 5 Q. What is your best recollection of the statement 6 that yon ande in that -- 7 A Before we get away from that, let me sake sy 8 second objection; not an objection, but I understand that a7 9 second point, tha t differs from that. I understood the 10 concern, the basic concern did not go to the dewatering 11 system per se but vent to the selection of the preload 12 program as the alternate as opposed to the alternate of 13 removal and replacement. That was the thrust of 3r. 14 Heller's concern that I recall discussing. 15 I believe that it was related to a discussion of f 16 the devatoring system in that the reason for the thrust of 17 Er. Heller's opinion went to the existence of sand 18 underneath that structure and the difficulty of knowing 19 where those sand pockets were and other difficulties l 2D associated with the persanent devatoring systes. i 21 fr. Heller's concerns were basically oriented te l l 22 the option selected to preload the diesel generator l 23 building. There is a certain amount of consistene t 'N 24 think the a .h 1 t of his comment was the opt on to h 25 surch ar Sm.progras and that results from the
- tha' i
ALDWISoM REPORTING COMPANY. NC. N 400 Vl#GMA Avt. S.W WASNINGToil. 3.C. 20024 (2011554.r!46 ,,,,7-
d i::d:, h t _,
- Q.ygj;. sy,.:,.., __,,..
,A. .w w,., . 3.if,...... ... ?,1.,,y.r, -...s. g3;;.',,, L',. .A #' t L m ; 1.r.. w .x 4.,..,,;_.,_.. 9.~d4 W xgT g . -y .g ~q*~~'.w- & :.V_, ..n ~ ' y. s.w.- y:.,w c.== =. $,. f: 295 t~ - n c ::,,z. m :, -..c -..,* t e.e e ~. a.m O. >,- o re..<- .m. .m.s....m,,,.,, .s 2 jp # m.,,,.. u- ~ - - - .};r: -. ~ _., ~.., ~.g s ;.ws 1 it now sust be tied to permanent devatoring systems, and 2 there are difficulties associated with that systes. 3 Q Do you recall Er. Heller having sade some type of statement that sight be construed as an insinuation that the 4 the consensus opinion of 5 devatoring option was tot 6 Consumers' consultants? That statement was - the statement that I 7 A No. 8 recall that I made to Mr. Keeley - it vent to the fact that the selection, in the opinion of Hr. Heller, to the eff ect 9 to that the option of using the surcharge program was not -- I 11 forget exactly how it was framed at the tim e. I don't want 12 to say it was a better option. Perhaps that is the way it 13 was said, it was the better option or whatever2 that that opinion did not represent staff view and should not he ta a 14 A / 15 as su:h. Again I would refer back to the decis' ions Appd 16 I l 17 development process on which I have made prior r etene is during this deposition. There was a cessent made at a 19 seeting for the first time and had not been sub:lected to the i i 2D staff decision process. That was the nature of the 21 discussion. 22 Q Do you recall during the telephone conversation of 23 January 17 with Er. Keeley and Mr. Zabritsky stating that ' 24 the soils review has been difficult for the staff from a continuity and scheduling aspect and the ' staff has not 25 AlDERSoM REPCMTUGG CoAAPAJ4Y. INC. .N b 400 VNIGINIA AVE S.W., WASNeeGToN. o.C. 20024 CO2) $94 2345. .a m m + v m
, x.,. l ..m '.Q-Qj.lQ.53-5.. -._Q.,.}?ij. :.. ?* ~ '.,. ~ J
- ; 3.- lp.a < '.h-
- km-p %. % /...,. ;. ;. ., a r ' - 296 1 provided timely f eedback to Consumers, and Consumers hac 2 taken action at its own risk in pursuing the fixes to the l 3 soils issue? 4 A No, I do not recall that element, but I will 5 accept it as part of the discussidn. 6 Q Do you also recall indicating that you understood 7 that lysan Heller felt that caissons were a acre positive 8 approach to the diesel generator fix as opposed to ~ 9 devatoring, but that you indicated that it was your opinion 10 -- excuse se -- you indicated tha t it was Lyman Heller's 11 opinion and.that you could not yourself see that that option 12 was necessarily any better than the devatoring contract? 13 A Yes, I accept that. I would further comment on 14 the telephone call. The central thrust of that call was to 15 request an immediate follow-up zoeting, and my consents were 16 by way of indicating that I did not feel that the meeting 17 had the sense of urgency' and did not share Mr. Keeley's 18 feelings on the sense of urgency for such a meeting. 19 Q Are you aware of Professor Eendren's bearf.ng 20 capacity calculations, the existence of them? i 21 A I have heard a description of that calculation 1 ~. 22 during seetings, a very recent meeting. l 23 Q A description by Professor Mendron or by someone 24 on the staff 7 25 A I believe it was Pro"essor Hendron who was giving ALDERSoM REPoRTW60 COMPANY, INC. g 400 VIRONA AVE. S.W WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 504 D48 -y_,
-Nh. a;i...,,3........ ': 2. . u :.:.c. - ~. - - -.. - _- m, t..-, - _ 4'$ O'. . q. ~ -- r '3 .'? 5&Gy
- Qffh-h$$iE?5i
.;-,w.-.u....,....-.... ,] ' ' ~4 ~ =:m..e..,._.-....m....%..,...._.,
- i; s ; _s S.
~, (sc.,n. 6 pw.mr.s . 2'*.13'. -m;'t 1 the pre ..a su n. '90 y'od 2 Cid.: P ve any previous experience with bearing 3 capacity and bearing capacity calculations? 4 A No, I have not. 5 Q. Technical reviewers of yours have, I assuse.' 6 A Yes, they have. 7 Q Who is your technical reviewer with regard to 8 bearing capacity calculations as presented by ?rofessor [ 9 Hendron? %d 'Ib 10 A lysan Heller and J e Geaa, d, of course, you 11 understand they are being sup by the Corps of 12 Ingineers. All of those to be involved. 13 Q Rave they discussed with you their views of the 14 acceptability of Professor Hendren's calculations? 15 A I have heard discussions to that end, discussions 16 which I do not fully recall. I do recall consents abcut the 17 adequacy of bearing capacity as relates to the dies /(4 )f-t 18 generator building. We know that the view of Mr. Joe Catu 19 is that bearing capacity say not be a problem in this regard. 20 Q When you say "in this regard," is,tmys d -- lll1 A Ihe diesel generator building. l$o n e's 22 Q Do you know what the basis for. c. m o nion 23 is? 24 A No, I do not. ll5 Q Are you aware of any bearing capacity failures 1 At Det$cN REPORTING CondPANY. INC. \\ 410 VmGINtA AVE. 5.W.. WASHsNGTCN. o.C. 20024 2023 554 2348 w -n ~
.e::.-. ~ .# pygi49. a %;-~h.- - ... y : n.;.z _f f:Z'Q _. q: - g -.j jii}. ~,[V:[. . :.gj ....n _ 4. , /;.i.., T- - 7 1 with regard to any nuclear power plant structures ? 2 A No, I as not. 3 Q Are hearing capacity f ailures usualir associated with very tall, narrow buildings like grain elevators and 4 5 things of that nature? 6 A I don't know. 7 Q In your opinion, is it necessary to know the 8 compaction of soil underneath the structure in order to 9 predict future performance of that structure or the behavior 4 10 of that structure with regard to the soil? 11
- 21. PATON:
I didn't hear that first part. Was it 12 necessary -- what was the start of that? 13 BI 31. ZAHARIIs (Resuming) 14 Q I think in your opinion is it necessary to know 15 the compaction of soil beneath a structure in order to 16 predict the future performance or behavice of that structure 17 on the soil? 18 A In 27 opinion -- more specifically, it is 13 necessary to know whether or not you have a primary 20 consolidation or a secondary consolidation. ] 21 Q Ihat is different than compaction, isn't it? 22 A I don't recognize the defined ters that a ) 23 geotechnical engineer may draw in that regard. To me, I 4 24 refer to it whether or not you are talking about \\ J 25 consolidation of the soil as sight he present if the soils ALDW4SoM REPORTING COMPANY. INC. N 400 VIRGIN 4A AVE. $.W. WASMcNGTCN. Q.C. 20024 (202) 954 2344 j
y':=. ..... av. w. u .:'F.K-.. ~... _ -.- r. --- -Q. %y =.;, -m-. ~ 7 _ _ _ _ _ :. 2 y.;:6:b..hs... '% m-v "- 2.t g.- % ;...;.;:= 4 e? 4, & .M ;3;~&. bt. ---- .. x-g* -s y e g .,..,. g..w. m.;.,.<,,., -.. m...,.,. 4 .g , m.,,, _,,_ (f Y%' u.'. %1:2 _.ec.== r w. s.- ev ~ * * **. se, r-* ? *"w , n e
- .
- s e
,,m o - ~. o. (fy.,;nli:z wm.-: -- w.m." - Q 9,: 1 or clays were placed such that air space existed between the 2 clumps of the soil. 3 In such a situation, I understand the concerns to 4 he primary consolidation, which' results in rather rapid 5 s et tle.nen t. That is contrasted to the kind of consolidation 6 where the individual grains, or clumps, if you will, 7 redistribute themselves such that there is some further 8 cc.'.solidation of the soil but which translates to a auch 9 slower type of settlement, gradual o'ver a long duration. 10 Q So when I asked you that question, you consider ~ 11 the term " compaction" to be synonymous with the ters 12 " consolidation"? 13 A Yes, recognizing one results from the other. That consolidation could result in compaction? 14 Q 15 A Ton compact the soils in order to achieve 16 consolidation. $qnt'S 17 Q Do you know if Lyman Heller shares Joe "Si.:."e view 18 that bearing capacit7 with respect to the diese ator 19 building is not a likelf probles? 20 1 No, I do not know 3r. He'1er's opinion on tha t 21 subject. de rl d 22 0 Do you know what Joe Cels'c. ci-- wit.L slra. to l s awa i.n no ity on other st. .tW " unde .maan.- (24 j % r b le/ly ?""- Ca'ii on fill at the F.idland site 7 s .o, I do not. ALDetSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. @ VIRolNIA AVI. S.W WASHINGTON. D.0. 20024 (202) 554 2348 a
^ ~' Q;* * ;.,. 2 - o.. ..:- a.-w e m
- 1. :?.K*;7 ~: - _- y,-Q '.- -~. ;_-:y.m.c
... ~ . : ppp:-;f9.
- rd -h
,.;u, _.j,; o' AN.- c,. /:.,. ~.<-# 30o .-y-1 Q Is it your opinion that the compaction 2 requirements of the PS AR have to be set before you would be satisfied with the prediction of performance of the diesel 3 4 generator building? would' 5 4 I would char 3cteri=e that as a decision that I be made by others more knowledgeable on the subject. 6 would certainly go along with their roccamendations rather 7 8 than make any statement syself. 9 Q Do you have an opinion as you sit here now? 10 A No, I do not. 11 Q Do you know whether the soil beneath the diesel 12 generator building could be consolidated s that is, could be ande a secondary consolidation even though the soil had not 13 been compacted according to the original PS AR specification? 14 15 A Do I know whether it could te? I have difficulty 16 with that. Sr.re, it co uld be. 17 Q I'm asking physically could. 18 1R. PAT 05: He had not finished his answer. 19 ER. ZAHARINt He had answered the question. I 20 think he thought I wanted more, and that was all I wanted. 27
- 33. P ATOM s. If you want to finish your arsver, 21 finish your answer.
23 THE EIINISS: I.was going to indicate that staff - I an also aware of the difficulties that staff has in 24 25 arriving at that conclusion. nasasoN RsPORTING CoAAPANY, INC. aco vinoiNia Ave, s.w. wAsmuoion. o.c. :co24 (2021 ss4 234s s
- -,u.
...-c... _ w.,, ..}
- b?;.;&
= ~ m:.-?: wn -- w;.,.c-. ~ . n-.a -.... wW ,301 #2***;""-'"=*~
- 5.,.._. s. ~- _
vy e.m.,_.._...,,,,..,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,.., c,,
- ---.,37._
- (5[,; pfi;__ =
.a---- 1 3I !R. ZAHARIN4 (3esusing) 2 C Not the conclusion that it could be but the 3 conclusion that it is in secondary consolidation. 4 A As it exists af ter the preload progras. + 5 Q That was the thrust of sr question. I knew that 6 is where it was going. 7 With regard to the request for additional horings around the diesel generator building, if the herings show 8 9 the wide scatter of results as a result of the heterogeneity - 10 of the fill, what would the staff do with those results? ~ 11 2ould they aspir a worst case analysis? 12 A I have difficulty with the questien fres the 13 standpoint that it goes to the relative degree of the 14 variance. But to the extent that the question refers to a 15 very wide variance f rom the expectation, I think it is 16 entirely conceivable that those results would cause the 17 staff to request -further' berings. 18 Q Is the purpose of the request for additional 19 horings with regard to the diesel escerator building in 20 order to calculate soil properties and theref ore aske 21 predictions concorsing future settlement? 22 A I do not understand the thrust of the staff 's request for additional herings to go to the prediction of 23 24 future settlement. Rather, I understand it to go to 25 understanding of the data that we now have and to go to such 1'I ALDERSoN REPofmhG CCWANY. INC. .N 400 vtRGNA AVE, S.W., WASMNGToN. Q.C. *0024 (202) 554 2345 ~
,.,...y ...~, w., .tw, .. -~ x . - ~.. : u:..... :-:.....~>...=,._. -._ :e . ;*l ..-gg ;. sn,.3 2-r ,3 +m .,4.a.. 302 1 issues as whether or not we are indeed now in secondary 4 2 consolidation. l 3 C Is that what you mean by understanding the data 4 that we now haves in other word's, to verify the data? 5 6 7 8 9 10, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 l 24 1 3 1 i l ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VWIGINGA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 1202) 554 2349
k.. ; S-W,5-Y h.5.l~7 .......,.i... tk i x ag,,,., IM.. y.y:m== -Z~ ~ ~ u.c;;- e.u c.,i.=W. , =. O c:=.=. ' - u.~sta.; x.g;7..- +s c . a., _ ;. ,. %c.g.. ~. .~ ~ --~s,.,_:-.-.c.-.,c...-....,,.. '*,**~="~~~n- ,y .,-..,..,,.n..___,, y3 (Q.f.,~. 9
- y g
,.: :=:.x m,.. u---- ~ ,7, ;; ...._...-.--,,a o-- Data would go to the results of the pierosette 1 A 2 readings, particula rly those readings at the removal of the, 1 that time, 7 3 surcharpe and the behavior the pore pressure at to the which I understand is a satter that is pertinent 4 J r;r i are in secondary consolf.dation o .s 2,}:l 5 is. sue of whether or not we i a response to a 8 whether or not we are sorely seeing ~ ' ', 7 pierometer that is being controlled by the pond level. 1Cj 8 Q of tu staff When yon refer to your understanding Ke rr d '.i is particular to Messrs. Heller a d C+4er 9 9 are you referring to views in this regard? shared by 11 A Tes, I as, but I believe it is siso -? 12 others, like the Corps of Ingineers. 13 Q Ion were going to sar "Mr." Did you have anothe8 5 1' name in sind? I almost made a reference to a Mr. Conrsles, but 15 A i 16 as I think about it, I am not sure I am sure enough about b! 17 to mention his in that regar'i. ~Y then, with regard to the so: - h 18 .J Is the sole concern, '3 19 under the diesel generator $ u11 ding a question of whether c 3 3 that soil is undergoisc secondary consolidation at thi; 20 not f: 21 time, leaving liquetaction aside? 37 consents are limited to the diesel generator 22 A -j ',J 23 building area. I don 't know that I can say it is the sole I can say it is the only one that I can recall. 7 24 concern. J 25 Q Is that to say, then, if it could be established .r .): -.35 ,~y
- h5
--V!! ALoansoM REPCWmeG CCWANY. !NC. [~'$ _ ' ' -'"h 400 VIRGINEA AVa. S.W. WAsegeneefoN. Q.C. n3014 (.023 $64 2348 I , m
- w;.,,_ 3; . y e -l-g ;p.. ' h, --& ._.,z.. _,J.:q 3 ;. p._.,___. \\ -c..<' A% :...a:. 3Jl ) the enil with regard to the diesel generator building 1 that 2 is, in fact, experiencing secondary consolidation, that that 3 would satisfy the staff's concerns in this ares? 4 A-Again, I don't know I can say it would satisf y all 5 of the, concerns. I should think it would go a long var to 6 resolving the an.1or difficulty that we are having with the 7 data. ~ 8 Q' The liquef action question aside, you are no t aware 9 of any other difficulty you are having with the data, are 10 you, other than with regard to whether it is a primary or 11 secondary consolidation? f 12 A Iy response was going to the fact that my 13 knowledge is limited to that matter, with recognition that 1' there may be some concern. 15 Q In your opinion, should the cooling pond dike have 16 been safety grade? 17 A Hy opinion is 'that at least portions of the 18 cooling pond need not be safety grade, and a high quality of 19 dike will suffice. By portions, I refer to portions of the 20 cooling pond di that are not in near proxisity to the - t. % 21 inner po de 2 hat is referred to as the energency portion 22 Q .s that? Ist se rephrase that. Shy-is it 23 that you don't feel that var about those areas that are in 24 proximity to the inner pond ? 25 A 37 response is going -- it is not that I as saying j 1 il i ALDERSoN REPCfmMG CondPANY.INC. 40 VWIGeelA AVE. S.W. WASM#eGToik 3.C. 20024 (202 See-23d4 " ' ' ~ " " ' - =--e
l ,. e W*.... _m;; 4..@.,,,c.,..g. ,q. -T..- ME_. - y;.'.!. V.w. m.m. -.,f #tP= c +,y. s ' + %.'.A.,:-.n w ;p ?.'- -....- n.c.n. 7,.. y'. :4 ai g n.4 a s m. ~. c ,.,......c=. ..-,:.mu.,y.. ~w
- n. m.,c..
. r( (>, -.,^ m e. ...x. _.. 1.,,.,., . y ,g wenm.._. _,-- - ,y, y., ~. - mg I the portion is just the inner pond. To se it is more 2 questionable. I guess as you appro h de> e vicinity of the inner pond, traditional concerns ar se that say or sar 3 in close proximit7 to that not be of concern if you are not 4 5 pond. 6 Q Tor example, what kind -- In the vicinity of the pond, in the vicinity of 7 A the energency pond, there are concerns for the f ailure mode 8 There were certain 8 which cou.ld jeopardize the inner pond. to sliding modes of failure which, if they would occur, could cause loss of the essential volume of the inner pond at the 11 12 same point that deprives you of the normal source of water. Is this concern related to plant fill? 13 Q There is a relationship to plant fill in it, 1' 1 particular mode of failure is credible 15 ther er not that s the same j e 1/ elated to the question of whether or not ficiencies that led to' the difficulties with the plant 18 fill are present in the placement of the dike.. that is What information, if any', do you have that 19 Q 20 the case? o I don't have any information that indicates to se i 21 1
- 3. that that is the case.
1et se show you what has been marked as Consumers 23 Q Number 19, perhaps for the second time, perhaps not, 24 Exhibit I 25 and ask you if you provided this to as from your files. 'l ALDEpeoM AEPolmNe COMPANY.INC. 400 VIRetNIA Ava. 3.w. WAsMineToN. 3.C. 20024 (203 884 23a4 s. .... ~,. w -e-
~- - ..., ~,, ..g = s :** ' 7" ' ..,,,3,, p.,. _ J.QML*[*M'.E 5 - ...,c: 394 <. e.- ~~"s % -. t.u. i don't believe I have showed it to you ret. 1 (The document referred to was 2 marked Consumers Exhibit ) 3 ' Number 19 for identification.) 4 5 ST NE. ZAMARIN (Resuming) i I will call your attention to a handwritten 6 Q ~ 7 notation that appears to says received from Wayne someone, 8 4/16/71 on there. What Exhibit 19 consists of is an April assorandum for Harold Thornberg from James Keppler, 9 3, 1979 action re the Midland to the subject of which is enforcement diesel generator building and plant fill area, that letter 11 heing two pages and there being several attachments to it, 12 1 consisting of four pages headed Eidland FSAB 13 Attachment Notice 1' statements, and Attachment 2 being headed Appendir A, 15 c,f Violation, consisting of eight pages, although I note 16 that the numbering on those eight pages, every other page is So they are 'only numbered up to page 4 on 17 numbered. 18 Appendix A. 19 Can you tell se if that was a document that was 20 produced for us from your flies and if you have received. this in the course of your normal business? I J 21 as a document that 22 A Tes, I recognire this document 23 I had in my possession. I notice a notation -- I as not that this was 24 sure whose notation it is, to the effect i 25 received from Wayne 3elmuth. .l 4 AADEpeoM ftEPoRTIMe COMP 46Y,INC. I ~;., 400 VIpeIMsA Ave. S.W. WAGNINeToM. 3.C. 20004 (208 8661348 ... ~
- I
E:w=.- M g.c u. ,, ~ m ^~. , u.. - q@zo.,.,.,...,g_ g;. x;. +.
- -- a-
...,,. =.-*'Wc, .u-. . - ~2.'.Z,a.. ~ a. ~. g "- ~ ~J'~d ..z--j- ,,, cg;~7 m y.g.. .e ce ,W 4F.?:p.p,-.. s. ,.__;... -.. A c. -... ~. ...e. s o n... r,.. u....., .~..m.,...n..~,.... gg 7 %,I ..,,.7 ..,....,,,m 3 k'W~'i.~x u w - C;i,7; -~...u~.. ~-- Q ~' h-' t Q Spell Zeisuth. 2 A 3 -e-i-s -u-t-h. He was with our Office of 3 Inspection and Enforcasent. 4 Q That is not your handwriting in that notation? ] The handwriting is not aine, and I don 't recognire 5 A 6 its source. I recognize this as a document which proceeded 7 an earlier internal seating which was held to discuss the 5 satoriality of five specific candidate statements. 9 3R. ZAHARIJs I have here what is marked as 10 Consumers Exhibit Number 20 for identification as of today's 11 date. (The document referred to was 12 marked Consumers Exhibit 13 Number 20 for identification.) 14 BY 53. ZANARIJ s (Resuming) 15 16 Q This appears to be a photocopy of a page from some 17 sort of diary which you keep, and I want to direct your is attention to the notation thereon following the date tg 10/2/80. I believe it says to talk to Jerry Gattel, with a 20 phone number, the Eichigan Department of Natural Resources, ) about t!reir area of responsibility f or the dikes in view of 21 l 22 our concern as to their integrity. He vill call back early 23 n ext week. Did you initiate your first contact with 51chigan 24 DCE or did they contact you? 25 m.canson mercartmo cosepwv. ac. 3..... ace vtnGINIA Ava. S.W. W ASHINGToN. O.C. 20024 (2123 2344
3 y : ya:gn.~ ; Ci).kO.-
- ,.m. ;p,} gg$3..g...
308 4.- =v... 3,m 1 1 I contacted them. with 1 Q
- dhat was the purpose of your initial contact 3 DC27 4
1 To inquire as to whether or not they had any 5 responsibility going to the integrity of the dikes. Our 8 purpose was to coordinate with other agencies so as to exists, but 7 eliminate redundancy in responsibility if it 8 really it was to inquire as to whether there were such s responsibilities so that I could determine if there was a to redundancy in responsibility. 11 Q Tou voce trying to, find out if they had any 12 information with regard to the integrity of the dike? 13 1 No. It was not doing to whether they had it was 14 inf ormation with regard to the integrity of the dike; 15 going to whether or not ther had responsibilities as an 16 agency associated with the integrity of the dikes. 17 Q Did he call you back early this week? 13 1 No, he has not. I have been preoccupied with is other matters.
- 31. ZAHARINt I.1ust want to identify a document 20 that is marked as Consumers Ixhibit Number 21 for 21 identification as of today's date.
4 22 (The-document referred to was 23 t ) marked Consumers Ixhibit 24 Number 21 for identification.) 25 1 i u - nonosmne comenny,m.c. 4ao vmenna Ava. s.w. wasaneeton. o.c. scomo:an ses.nans i n n. n.
_ m.c., g $ *.N c ,e.~~,, _ A " ' ' ~ " ~ ' ' h
- ;j.d.,, yc.
I ?f3238.b N, W -@*-I
- . --. r" Y _
~ " " % % E dd y $j g
- Y N d-J' i d N,O d
r-
- y.,;,w..----- ". w m -, u.. _.,w......~.,.,_.,._,,',,.
g,n.y w.~c n . u n *,.,.. _.,.. - - ... ~...,.,.- -.. ~.=. x .( wjgT.*1.iwm.& yy ':; .:.~ w ~ ' Q+' a m - ~. .n..:.. BY 53. ZAZA3I3s (3ssuming) 3 2 Q I ask you if this document represents your minutes 3 or meeting notes of the 10/1/80 seeting to brief R. Yellser and JafeiKnight on the results.of additional borings and m 4 This is a 5 information provided by Consumers by Volume 8. 6 four-page document. as the notes Yes, I do recognize this document 7 A of '80 for of that meeting on October 1 8 which I took as part 9 the cited purpose. therein about vaiving to Q With regard to the statement six S7Ts, do you know whether that extends beyond simply the 11 12 S?T and goes to the borings or is restricted solely to the 13 lack of necessity of certain SPTs? is restricted to the six standard penetration A It 14 h The era requested in the June 30th letter. 15 tes s tha of Ial information provided in Revision 8 ( % sdditi te s af gre ev the information includes S?Ts corresponding 17 indicates that ta to those requests for those six SPTs, and on that basis, as lisited to those six S?Ts is to that portion of the request 2 ea17ed.
- 31. ZA3A3I3a I have before se a stack of papers 21 22 that has been sacked in the aggregate Consumers Exhihit
~ as of this date. 23 Number 22 f or identification (group) (The documents referred to 24 vere marked Consumers 25 ALoERSoM REPORTING CoasPANY.WC. 400 vemeNWA Ava.$.W.WASMeseToN. 0.C..fJ024 (203 See 23e e e "-**g'F***.* * * *
- sS.*
-M .**6-m* v 4 W e D.p*
%;;.W.g 2, ' q.c.c h.x k. ','r, p - s c.- ,..g. .. ;.,.g ,,c 2,; ~r.. ....g_, 3yg Exhibit Number 22 (Group) 1 f or identificat.icn.) 2 3 BT 21. ZAHARIN: (3esuming) I will identify them and then ask if, in f act, 4 Q were produced by you 5 each of these represent documents that 6 from your files for inspection and represent copies of o 7 documents that had been accumulated by you in the course of a your normal business. There is a two-page letter in draf t to Er. J.2. 9 for the Midland to Cooke, subject, the seismological input site, over the typed name of Robert 1. Tedesco. 11 12
- 33. PATON:
You indicated a draft. You indicated 13 that is not final. You did say draf t. All right. BI 3R. ZAHARINs (Resuming) 1A 15 Q A one-page letter dated March 18, 1980, directed to to Mr. Willian lavhead, over the signature of Lyman Heller 17 for Robert I. Jackson; subjects transmittal of seismic input is for Midland review. A memorandus dated Earch 17, 1980 for Robert A. is 20 Jackson from Sandra A. Vastler, 2-a-s-t-1-e-r; subject: e, 21 seissciccical input parameters for use in Army Corps of and 2. That is a Engineers geotechnical review of Midland 1 ~ 22 1980, including a 23 two-page senorandum dated March 17, 24 one-page attachment headed "Iarthquake Recording Site and Refprence Information," and a second enclosure headed 25 ALDER 8oM REPoRTWee CcMPeMY.lNC. 400 vipesNIA AVG. $,W.WA$NINeToM. D.C. 20024 (202 584 2344 ~ ---~y,
~ y M "-~ M ik1 Q pgj[fh( &. ?*%%hh k ^ NW5*% . ML.,... ?. Q. i. - 'y.C3.5'N'~2{,f(( WE, we.: w n m.,.. n -
- ., g,,
R 311 = - - w . n ~.nw. .. ~. 2:... m.,. m l 1 ita.d '24 Consumers Poslec Company, WT;7$.' 1 "Hidland Plants, Units ,m 1 2 referencing docket numbers in geotechnical eng!neering [ /G n s. 3 review considerations, prepared by Jose W tnat being a 4 two-page enclosure, a four-page sesorsadus dated August 7, 5 1980 for Robert Jackson through Leon Heiter, R-e-i-t-e-r, 6 from Jeff Kimball, K-1-a-b-a-1-1; subjects seismological e, 7 input parameters, et cetera. 3 A two-page document dated January 19, 1979, note 9 to Darl Hood and Hellers subjects list of open items on to Hidland 1 and 2, the second page of which includes three 11 numbered paragraphs. 12 A letter dated ! arch 13,1980, to 3r. Willian 13 Lawhead, over the signature of Lyman 2. Heller for Robert I. 14 Jackson. 15 A Harch 17, 1980 sonorandum for Robert I. Jackson to through Leon Reiter, 3-e-i-t-e-r, fres Sandra Wastler, 17 W-a-s-t-1-e-e s. subjects seismological input param eters, et la cetera. 19 As an enclosure 1 to th e. 3 arch 1 198 letter 20 from Jackson to Lawhead, that enclosure 1 sisting of 21 three pages, and enclosure 2 to that letter, a document headed "Hidland Plants 1 and 2, Consumers Power Company 22 23 Document Reference." We have already identified that. Geotecho d en b ering review considerations 24 [ 4 i 25 prepared by Joseph Gets, that,being a two-page enclosure. J' ALDeRooM MWoRT1he COMPANY. tNC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE. 3.W. WASNeMGToN. Q.o. 20024 (203 384 2348
l ' ' ' 'd. ":.: 1 _,.. ,g; 9 p g -p i a i;. S c.-- , _;x, 1.r.Jy.QC,.1pf-g j. g,,.- 312 ~ ~ -~- 1 ~., - - , y.. j A semorandus dated January 23, 1980 for James P. 1 2 Knight through Robert E. Jackson from 1.W. Heller; subject 3 status of geotechnical review of Midland and 3ailey plants 4 by Corps of Engineers. As stated, a two-page seacrandus. A two-page memorandus dated January 19, 1979 for 5 6 S.A. Yarga, 7-a-r-g-a, feca J.C. Stepp, S-t-e-p-ps subject: 7 open items is the geology and seismology review of Nidland 1 8 and 2.. An executive correspondence letterhead memorandus 9 10 for Al Schwencer, S-c-h-v-e-s-c-e-c, through James Knight from Robert Jackson; subjects regulatory staff position on 11 12 seismological input parameters in relation to. Eidland 1 and 13 2, transmitting a two-page document headed "Geosciences 14 3 ranch" with the notation 361.0 and 361.8 (2.5)(RSP). 13 A two-page memorandum dated March 23, 1979 for Sol te levine, 1-e-v-1-n-e, from Harold R. Denton, D-e-a-t-o-n; 17 subjects user request f or research initiation -- 1a earthquake-induced foundation settlement. Do You recognire each of these documents that I 19 20 have described and referenced as having come from your files c and as having found their var to your files through the 21 22 normal course of business? ~ 23 A Yes, I do. 24
- 13. ZAHA173:
With that, we vill adjouru the 25 f eposition of Carl Hood sine die. ' That means without 1 ALDERSoN REPoftTwee COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRepelA AVE 5.W. WASNINeTCM. D.C. 20034 (J0: ~ 556 2344 t
.... m :,..
- x.,..ww _ _,yd. l." *- "".
=. - r'. -ea n m .%E - ',_' ' - L?"'. v - ' Rap);;'....wojn;;.g.y.g-?,:;.; ; yn:..lA.'y grq- _ - C. > --W - ... _'p.L*. M.- y n "_.f.,:.g'. ~.m.-_c=__l'[ ~; r'-- T -~~ --smg ..,e, p, r. .~.e. A :.'s~:.=; m ; w.,. n -. w.,c 4j', ,31J. .., ;..;.-m.-
- r. _a -..w. v rw
+ g. - O,,&:e u.atu-...-...m,,,;.,....._... ';~;'r y ,;y .s. .c p.:? !i=1w=~. =- a.:9 ,.a.. % e 1 specif71sq a future date, subject to resumiss the deposition 2 at some future date if, is fact, in our judgment that is 3 necessary. (Whereupon, at 74 3 5 p.m., th e deposition 4 5 concluded.) 6 T Da:1 S. Ecod, Deponent 8 9 SU3SC3:3ED AND SUCHN to before se this day of 10 1980. 11 12 Notary Public 13 37 commission expires: 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 i 23 24 25 f A4.DERSoM REPORTING COMPeNY !NC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE $.W. WAS>NNGToN. D.C.20024 (2023 S46 2345 y_ +,,,
~ ~ ' N.\\ -!.;.. c - - - - - ~ xa a;
- r
...*... a. L ,...~..---n.- _.*q*.~~*,---.v.- z.f
- e.,'
- i."l
_r =r y." ** 'b"'
- ~
9 ~ 2Q' *.. .s** ~ ~* yyg[., .a_
- w. a s-
_~ g $Y ~ = ' ' ~ % ?~- -.. M., i 1 CIETIFICATI 0F BI?ORTE3 2 UNITID STATIS OF ARIRICA l 3 STATI 0F EA2!1AND 4 5 I, Marilyn Shockey, the officer before whom the 6 foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the 7 testimony of the witness in the foregoing deposition was 8 taken by me by Stenosask and thereafter reduced to 9 typewriting under 27 direction; that I am neither counswl 10 for, related to nor employed by any of the parties to the 11 action in which this deposition was taken, and fur her that 12 I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel 13 employed by the parties thereto, nor financially or 14 otherwise interested in the outcome of the action. 15 7 12L /d 17 ( / / f Notar7 Public in' and f or the la State of Maryland to r 20 Ey commission expiress g 21 f. 22 23 24 25 l l ALnenson meremwee cowasa.uec. l 400 VWNS#elA AVE. S.W. WASMueGToN. Q.C. 20024 (202 354 2344 -}}