ML20090A810

Transcript of JW Simpson 801119 Deposition in Chicago,Il Re Const Difficulties at Site.Pp 1-144

ML20090A810
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	11/19/1980
From:	Simpson J CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:
Shared Package
ML17198A223	List: IR 05000329/1981014 IR 05000329/1982013 IR 05000329/1983008 ML20090A052 ML20090A064 ML20090A067 ML20090A071 ML20090A076 ML20090A080 ML20090A090 ML20090A103 ML20090A106 ML20090A110 ML20090A367 ML20090A377 ML20090A397 ML20090A403 ML20090A447 ML20090A451 ML20090A456 ML20090A465 ML20090A481 ML20090A487 ML20090A491 ML20090A500 ML20090A504 ML20090A514 ML20090A517 ML20090A543 ML20090A547 ML20090A559 ML20090A590 ML20090A594 ML20090A600 ML20090A613 ML20090A614 ML20090A623 ML20090A626 ML20090A631 ML20090A637 ML20090A642 ML20090A656 ML20090A658 ML20090A673 ML20090A698 ML20090A703 ML20090A733 ML20090A741 ML20090A748 ML20090A751 ... further results
References
CON-BOX-12, FOIA-84-96 OL, OM, NUDOCS 8012180152
Download: ML20090A810 (175)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:- ,..,= :.g. f,.3 .< : 1.; Z~. _.53 2.--j G;. [7 ,.. y Q- ~ T ?'.? I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 3 IN THE MATTER OF ) Docket Nos. 50-329-OL ) 50-330-OL 4 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-329-CM (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2)) 50-330-OM 5 6 The depositi.on of JAMES WALLACE SIMPSON, 7 called by Consumers Power Company, taken pursuant 8 to the provisions of the Civil Practice Act and the 9 Rules of une Supreme Court of the State of Illinois 10 pertaining to the taking of lepositions for the 11 purpose of discovery, taken before TOBY ANN" SLUTZKY, a Notary Public within and for the County of Cook, t.... 13 State of Illinois, and a certified Shorthand Reporter 14 of said state, at Suite 4300, One First National 15 Plaza, Chicago, Illinois,.on the 19th day of 16

November, A.D.

1980, at 10:00 a.m. 17 18 'f 2 i 19 S e .i 5 E z ece <o D. 50 551' 55N cd n 9 = ma m g a "a E. G 24 .n..- m. Toh [ arsd MadMaba N A 801218015 f a-r F-~ e ra-**

...v. ,#.*****y D Mkb + j,,,,.%'.L ~~-**Q,g.., g, .gp e,m m,. . = = -,... _.. ~~

• - -~

^' " W-- ngu. - : g. ' ~. ~ ~~ yk; & @ g % g'2l.T'&r*p-%?R"?# " *;f-Qyb'~","? " ? i:3 2 ~ ~ . u a..:. ,a ~. >. _.. [Q $.,*e _. .~. a ... ~. - c.~...g..-.,.. P R E S E N Tr- - ~Y 2 MESSRS. ISHAM, LINCOLN &.BEALE, (One First National Plaza, 3 Chicago, Illinois 60603), by: MR. RONALD G. ZAMARIN and 4 MR. ALAN S. FARNELL, 5 -Aid-6 MR. JAMES E.

BRUNNER, (1945 West Parnall Road, 7

Jackson, Michigan 49201), 8 appeared on behalf of Consumers Power Company; 9 MR. BRADLEY JONES, 10 (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555), 11 appeared on behalf of the United States. Nuclear Regulatory 12 Commission. 7( 33 ALSO PRESENT: 14 MR. GILBERT S. KEELEY. 15 REPORTED BYs i~ 16 TOBY ANNE SLUTEKY, C.5.R.- 17 18 f

• 19 l

20 21 'i 22 i f I 2 l I

i..

m r Th d M N %m.- t

... ';. ~ c ~ = -.';i '_. ;;:.~..y--?g3;;,. ;: ;_~; Q : y,. ~- J, e. 7..m. -;b.. >> - W 3 1 IND' X g l 2 WITNgss EXAMINATION 3 JAMES WALLACE SIMPSON 4 By Mr. Farnell 4 86 5 6 7 8 E .X..H.I _B.I T S 9 NUMBER MARKED FOR ID 10 CPCO (Simpson) Deposition Exhibit 11 No. 1 4 12 No. 2 15 }) No. 3 35 14 No. 4 41 15 e No. 5 62 16 No. 6 69 17 No. 7 79 18 7' No. 8 96 19 Nos. 9, 10 and 11 98 20 No. 12 99 21 No. 13 100. 22 No. 14 108 m No. 15 110 i 24 No. 16 121 129 No. 17. Mof dowshsy cud d'S'A' x % ss u ,s -s a r e e a n-e -- w _ ~ ~ --

l

s. s.w,

_ _ _ _ = Aw ,7. -;.e- ^ -0. . s..- _ @ r._ ~ Y b',.. c -.e. ;.,_- l*w .u- , ~. ..s y;, p,. ~.~. p . :.,,c-.:~. 7 - MR. FARNELL: Swearthevitiessi' plea [se. p g, 2 (WHEREUPON, the witness was 3 duly sworn.) 4 JAMES WALLACE SIMPSON, 5 called as a witness herein by Consumers Power s Company, having been first duly sworn, was examined 7 and testified as follows: EXAMINATION a f 9 BY MR. FARNELL: 10 Q Please state your name for the record. 11 A James Wallace Simpson. 12 Q What is your office address? 13 A 536 South Clark Street, Chicago, Illinois, 606 0 ti. 14 MR. FARNELL: Off the record. 15 g., (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 16 CPCO(Simpson) Deposition Exhibit 37 No. 1, for identification, as y-is of 11/19/80.) 19 BY MR. FARNELL: y 1 Q I now show you what has been marked as 21 I CPCO Deposition Exhibit No. 1 for identification. g I ask you if.this is a copy of a resume that you 3 produced to us today? y w 4 %ue -. e . ~ ..~.3

r~ c, ,. x _;;. Q.3_q. -e e 9y -;,+ - n - c.- r . i s .e s f 1 A Yes. 2 Q Is this resume current? l 3 A Yes. 4 O Is the information contained here accurate to the best of your knowledge? 5 6 A To the best of my knowledge. 7 Q You have a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from Purdue University? 8 A Yes. 9 0 Is that the only formal degree you ha~e? 10 A Yes. 11 O It states here that you have had 12 numerous courses at Universities of Purdue, 33 Californit., Wisconsin, Corps of Engineers Schocis 14 and elsewhere. Could you give us a brief rundown 15 of these courses? 16 A This is after Purdue? 37 Q After you got your 35 in Engineering. gg / A In 1966 I took a course in ccmputer 19 programming at Purdue University -- a three-hour, 20 l one-semester courser in 1971, a course in construction 3 excavations at the University of Wisconsin -- this .I 3 is one weekt in 1974, a course in sta5111tv of 5 l 3 School structures -- this was in the Corps of Encineers 1 l 24 i-x %m., 9., e muut + we .a en esamee e e e, ae. gree mee > e -e e e..ea e ema +e* 'O -e e -e eum.e

-m [ 'k N[ f . 7,, ^ N I $M'.95 6 ~ y; : .f. - +

.y

.__.,,.,..m... .....,.,,.~.s_, X ~ ~.. 1.- -in vicksburg -- waterways and expe..rimentatign;.in ,..r~.-. p, .t. 2 1975, seven weeks of advanced. soil mechanics at the 3 University of California in Berkeley. 4 Q Who sponsored that course? 5 A This is sponsored by the Corps of 6 Engineers. Then I took numerous other courses at 7 different times os seepage, computer application to a technical problems, dynamic responses of earth dams. 9 And these are all different courses. 10 Q Do you want to spell that? ~ 11 A Dynamic, d-y-n-aan-i-c, responses of 12 earth dams, earthquake engineering. These are some s. u of them. Usually, we take two courses a year; two 14 weeks, three weeks. m Q I see on the first page of Exhibit 1 you y, 16 have a summary of work experience. In that page, 17 you break up your work experience into three is categories. 7 19 A Yes. l Q Is that correct? 3 A Yes. g Q What do you mean by -- I guess the first g one must be, " Soils and Materials"? g A Soils and materials? Soil mechanics, right 3 .._,. --...-- -- --- -~ QV& S asu{ f a,.ans-a a-,~. ..e - * * * = * * * - * * * - * ~P" ~ ~ -m-

~~ ~ ; 3 33 _,,g _.u:.; ;.;g,~,7.

• s:- ;. t.-

' ;;y_.:n a

3... m

. e.. I t 1 Q What type of experience does that encompass as opposed to the other two categories? 2 This would be directly related to soil 3 A mechanics and problems and the. materials used in 4 s construction. 6 Is that specific enough? 7 .Q Yes. And " Structural," is that the a second category? Structural is mostly bridge design. 9 A Yes. 10 Q Civil Engineering is the third category? 4 11 A

yes, 12 Q

hhat would' that encompass? The' Civil Engineering was mainly a field 13 A of work in -- usually quality assurance and 14 Y-equipment control and supervising the contractor 15 1 16 and building projects. 17 Q Since joining the Corps of Engineers in '/ t is 1971 -- is that when you did join? i 19 A Yes. t 'm Q All of your work experience has been in j 21-soils and materials? a 22 A Yes. J Was the majority of your experience prior l i. 25 Q 24 to 1969 in highways and bridges? Could.I classify Mol{s, cRossafrsu) and c$ssoelaiss' t ( j- %~e - e -,. ~.. - ...... ~....

9 L ym ~. ..=[%y=._*,;_,;;; _:_ =54 ~Ws '.. - ~. ..L 3 2,.........., g __ e -- ebr._ :. 2.. - ""W c. %...4.zr.~.ws.v.m::c c;y'n.g ~ , -[.,.;r;7 '.W -9 ' -* a *..~.,= v - v W ~ g w .y,.v........._..

- *a.,

.

y 7 -- 3 ( [,)-

. x..-. - -

1 it that way and be correct?, 2 A I would say in connection with the 3 soil mechanics and materials -- part of highways and bridges except for the five years in the office 4 5 when we,did the design. 6 Q Five years -- which job are you referring 7 to? 8 A That would be 1962 to '67. 9 Q There you were designing bridges? 10 A Yes. This was in the office. 11 C what were the soils mechanics: 12 relating to bridges? What type of work would you Ok' 13 do there? 14 A Bridge foundations and so forth in 15 constructing the approaches -- the embankments. (- 16 Q Did you ever have any experience during 17 that time with caissons? is A During-this -- what time are you talking }~ ~ 19 about?

D Q

During the time -- say up to the time 21 you started to work for the Corps. 22 A 1962 -- or 1969 to '71 I had quite a 23 lot of expefience with caissons. 24 Q Prior to that time, did you have? McQ A and &~W- % ~. e :,

+ -._. ;-g. m e. . ;;;. Q ; >..:. .... _-.M.,,.. g ;g. r ':;y _ % &.. 3:.:~ ,_.z _,,,.4 g < 9 1 A No. 2 Q Prior to 1969, did you have any experience with preloading or surcharging of buildings or soils? 3 4 A I would say maybe one case. 5 Q Are you sure that is the case? When you say "maybe," I did not understand that. 6 7 A Yes. One case. 8 Q could you describe that for us? 9 A This was a bridge embankment or approach 10 to a bridge in Thailand. The bridge was over a 11 canal. It was on very soft soils. 12 We preloaded the embankment in order to (- raise the strength of the soils so that it would not 13 b 14 slide into the canal. 15 Q Is this prior to the time that the bridge p. 16 was built or was it after? 17 A Prior. Is O Prior. y Did you take any soil borings after the 19 a preloading of the embankment? n A Yes. 3 Q How many borings did you take? 3 A As I recall, maybe three or four, something like that. ( 24 Wh A and &A=M %~e ~

m- ~. ....:.'~5':;:.- 4,'. _ 4 4,.: ,,,_, :: z..=" ~' __ .,,.2 m ; j j } }- Q *,-5m.m,.,x_

• * !'.fQN.y** * *.W.?-tit'-

g _ --r- :-9 f-5:.esx _ l y.g t+m:qgy;,. 1o ..g. o. :. u.- ~ ~ - - y,.. _....,_

i. f:._

.7- ..i What purpose did[y'ou take' the~b'3$1ngs ~y .~. - 1 Q 2 for? To establish the strength of the soil 3 A so we could do an are strength analysis. 4 5 Q What? So we could do a stability analysis. 6 A 7 Q Did you do tests on the borings after you 8 had taken them? 9 A Tes. Unconfined compression tests. 10 Q What? 11 A Unconfined compression tests. These tests were primarily for bearing 12 Q is capacity? 14 A Not primarily. Partly for bearing capacity, but mostly for strength for the are 15 16 stability analysis. 17 Q What type of soil was the embankment

• / ~

13 made of? 19 A Soft clay. Delta deposit of soft clay. i m .Q Did it have any random -- was it a random type of soil, or was it just clay? 21 /; 3 A Fairly homogeneous clay. 23 Q Did you make any settlement predictions l . based on the data you received from the borings? 24 l i Wo 0 and;< W a. y c%...,,, e 4 M4.Wffbe.D

• M MW' e

p ee.4W re4eee,ge .e., .g , ep e-. ge e, ,,4 ,, p 4 g,_g.,, 4, ,y,., r'- m m ed e au-r .--.v- +uir-e v +wp--m

~ .w... u. -4 5 5..: _- y;. :..,.. ;. - --Q~g.y% p .,n-O .a 7 y :.,.y... n ;-- ...x 't 1 A The borings? 2 Q After the tests. J 8 A Prior to the preload? 4 Q. After the preload. 5 A. After the preload, no. 6 Q Why didn't you? We were not primarily interested in 7 A We were interested in stability. The a settlement. highway can settle considerably and doesn't hurt 9 10

anything, Did you make any predictions of settlement u

Q prior to the time you made -- had done the preload? 12 Prior to the preload. 13 A Yes, yes. What were those predictions based on? 14 Q on the tests -- consolidation tests. 15 A You took borings-before the preload? 16 Q 17 A Sure. Then you took -- made consolidation ~ y-is Q tests on those borings and made predictions? 1 19 ) 20 A Right. i l Those were settlement predictions, you-21 Q l i 22 say? f A Yes. 23 t How did your predictions comp.are to the Q 24 Toh 8 ' and d adme=a cr, osa e.w.ue. .n ..=:.~.. ...** m e. .. +- -. e '.n.. w...--...... .o .e.

- = ... ~... ~ _%w . a N W C g g '{.3;.7 % x.:n% =..:, ..,_%. ~g];;;gq .y.. - m,_

• v m 27

.- -.c n_ & - ,,--'-a---^ s%,;%. 1 6;,y - 9:Q.= K *,L 1 ~. _.im. '-% 2 4:n., g.::,,. -.. _ :.,.. u., g ,_,_._..,~.m~......,,....._ .c 5 .o.....

"g

' A. ,a4*/' r ow s-sr W r ,, C. 1 settlement that was achieve & during the preload? 2 A If I can recall, I would say plus or 3 minus three, four inches. 4 Q How much was the total settlement? 5 A-About 15 inches or so, something like that. But again we weren't primarily interested in 6 7 settlement. g Q can you give me a date when these tests occurred? 9 A A year or what? to 0 That would be good, yes, 11 A 1960. u Q Do you have problems with taking 33 undisturbed samples? 14 A Not really, no. 3.- 15 Q Did you take unconfinec. compressive 16 tests prior to the preload? 17 A Yes. / 1a Q Did you take confined compressive tests 19 prior to preload? 3 A Would you repeat that? 3 I Q Did you take confined compress l.re tests g prior to the preload? 3 A Unconfined compressive tests 1.s what we 3 '(W& ak Q a:.fu~sa. %%e 6

~ *

• ,.. =.

.. R '...-?l 3,,,. Q *,.

• Q -~~~._

=- .r." ?Q 2 =-- - '~ -. ~. - .v-- m.g 3,yg. 'h. - he y* ** E*? ' ..a, 13 . s 2: 1 based our strengths on. Confined -- I am not sure 2 what you mean by that. 3 Q Do you recall how the unconfined 4 compressive tests before the preload compared with i 5 the unconfined compressive tests after the preload? 6 A There was a gain in strength. But it has 7 been a long time ago, I am not sure I can tell you a how much. 0 9 Q How did you make the determination how to long to keep the preload in place? i l 11 A We did it from the consolidation tests. 12 Q Consolidation tests taken after the C pre 1 ad.as taxen off7 14 A No, no. Before. u Q Can you explain to me how that would be, g a basis on which -- how you make the decision how 16 37 long to keep the preload on? A well, you run the consolidation test of 7-g samples taken before the preload. And you would 1, get your preload peak which is a void ratio and, g 3 . you have your time curves, too.- of course, And from all of this information, you can 3 figure out how much preload you have to put on and 3 how long it should be on. g <Wo @ S ou de,g and eq. m i % m

e. m.s e i

.e ,.e ,,e - -,,.., l

. ~ ~ -, o .. s ic: s, Epq;c%.qN9n %jl+4 '-.Ed o.,1hi. '- w r e.A c. w /.t.( 4 ~~_ ,~ = ,.f-M-C 22: ht.gEsqg. s l,hn'4114#: ~ ,!K.. _;. 5.. g..~ :. .-c .t... . w. _ m.,. s @.p.,. ' ; m...- ..u-. , ;.w're u-m-- l-based-.our strengths.on. Co]nfined-- ;.I am,not sure + i 2 what you mean by that. ) ? 3 Q Do You recall how the unconfined compressive tests before the preload compared with 4 i k the unconfined compressive tests after the preload? 1 5 i W l 6 A There was a gain in strength. But it has... been a long time ago, I am not sure I can teli 'ou jy ) 7 i j s how much. l 9 Q Bote did you make the determination how long to keep the preload in place? to A We did it from the consolidation tests. 11 I Q Consolidation tests taken after the ( 12 k. preload was taken off? ja \\ A No, no. Before. 14 Q Can you explain to me how that would be 15 \\ a basis on which -- how.you make the decision how 16 long to keep the preload on? 17 A Well, you run the consolidation test of gg ig samples taken before the preload. And you would 2 get your preload peak which is'a void ratio had, y of course, you have your time curves, too. g f And from a12. of this information, you can g figure out how much preload you have to put on and i l 3 how long it should be on. 3 .q . <wogs, a sas,,,a a.- - -. n,. u e.,, 9 t t n e ,~,,

o .*:3.pg499. ;. 3H3 -c- ... _ ~. x..G_,.C.jL*Q.g.3.,.--f -S,. 3, 14 . my.. c. -..r. s. 1 Q Did you use any piezometers or any other instrumentation during the preload to make it 2 3 determination on how long it should be kept on?' 4 A No. s 5 Q . Were you concerned about entering 6 secondary consolidation? 7 A We were concerned about getting through the 8 primary,'sure. 9 Q How did you make the determination that to you had gotten out of the primary? 11 A well, you predicted it in the curve, of 12 course -- precurves. Then afterwards, the main la concern was the strength. So we did take the 14 strength test. And as I remember, we didn't really correlate whether -- you know, we didn't take any is consolidation tests afterward but to correlate the 16 17 two. . la Q Did you use log-time fitting curves to j determine whether you were out of primary consolida-19 t 20 tion? 21 A Yes. \\ l i 22 Q What did you-look for in those log time curves to enable you to determine that you were out l 23 l-of primary consolidation? 24 .. _..., ~ Q Vo h / and & i O.~'- u % ~. l _,...... ~

A'N 7 f-{..k.,.3.;.gg b ~. hb5 \\bhS, ,.... J. .. p[sMm2qqg~j 2 _,z.7 y;z.y 7 ..cn-..-m..-.,..,... _.y i - 15, .- r f - m. ro, se.. _ :....s /. ' ~ * ~ *. ~~ y 7.. _ Q L. ;u c.=.,-.- _. ~ + 1 A You looked for th's curve -- let's see -- t 2 that goes this way (indicating). Then it will go 3 into this straight part. 4 Q Could you draw'us a sketch of what you 5 are talki'nq about? 6 (WREREUPON, there was a i 7 short interruption.) 8 BY THE WITNESS: 9 A You may be able to see this better on a 10 arithmetic curve rather than a log curve. 11 MR. FARNELL: Why don't we mark this as an 12 exhibit. L-(WEEREUPON, said document was marked 13 14 CPCO(Simpson) Deposition Exhibit 15 No. 2, for identification, as 16 of 11/19/30.) 17 BY MR. FARNELL: ) Is 0 The top line is pressure? 19 A Right.. 20 Q The vertical line? 21 A void ratio. You did not use settlement over time? 3 Q 23 A Yes.- This is a different curve from a. 24 settlement time curve. v f ..l Wh'0 N.'M \\. n e:.~ -

. ~ '.., Oc a. ~~_ +m.g - -; g,a 27. a 5; .2- ".K.g.Q~.r -,_. _-.33. -;-,3.g_ - 7 ;.,. - ~,- 4,,,gh- ' .,g. - -- r - 16 ..,.?- . - c r.. .x 1 Q Did you use a settlement time curve to construct -- did you construct'one? 2 3 A On this particular project? 4 Q Yes. \\ We did on the preload -- I mean befora 5 A We did before-on the 6 the preload that happens. samples -- before the preload, but we didn't after= 7 8 wards. Q Did you monitor settlement during the 9 time the preload was in place? to A Yes. 11 Q Did you construct any settlement versus n (. time charts on the basis of that information? 33 A It has been a long time ago. As I recall, 14 we did. 15 16 Q Do you recall whether you used that information to predict whether -- or to determine g7 whether you were out of primary consolidation? f 3, A I don't ree.lly recall. 19 Q Do ycu recognize the settlement versus g log time as an accepted method of determining 3 whether you have gotten out of primary consolidation? g A It's a recognized way of doing it, yes. l 3 How accurate it is, you know, is questionable in some ,j, l S \\ %~e

,, T Mh D "==m M.-7 -d._s JC. ,.. E G _... ......_. 5[.,.((, [ M A W ' 8'E' N MNh D $%;fdh 5 NI5 -'4?dM W-F G: n I ' ~ ~ - 17

• DnW.NCf.m w

m ' '~ - m -.. ~, y.~ .s .,y p.,. _ ~ ~Y to'ecarefb.Y. '~ ' ..,.,,.t; ._m .,.w_ You have b I cases. What do you have to be careful of? 2 Q 3 A Its application. Soils aren't always Sometimes this homogeneous as your samples are. s 4 prediction doesn't really come in that close. 5 By that do you mean it does not help 5 Q you determine whether you have gotten out of primary 7 a consolidation? It's an indic'ation. It's an indication 4 9 A but if you are relying 10 whether you are or are not, on it 100 percent -- I wouldn't do it. 11 i You said prev'ious1'y you believe that 12 O were not always as homogeneous as the samples la soils in answering my question. 14 u A At this one site, the soils were pretty But generally speaking, this area -- ,6 1 16 homogeneous. maybe Michigan area -- sometimes your samples don't 1 17 l' represent what is really there. 1s Bow would that relate to the settlement 19 Q versus log time curve that is based on a field test? i 1 20 It is not based on samples? 21 Well, you are talking about a field test A 22 now? 23 Q Yes. 24 (, 6 l hk and k_~'A^ ^ A n u., ~. .MN**a*' "'%?D h hi $ gP,94'. g 'WPa.7 , - - -. ~ _. _......, ,.-,y,

- ~ -

y. ' :, ;

'j >:-;ps.:.g,..A p-h ,,,.. x _;g f.g g y, {. 7 j __. -6. 18 I f f I A And what was the question again? i 2 Q The question was - I just did not see how f t your samples related to your statement that samples 3 't 4 are not always as homogeneous as soils - . soils are j 1 l 5 not as homogeneous as samples, I guess. 6 A Yes. 7 Q Right. I did not see how this related a to this field test I thought we were talking about. 9 A Well, we are in two different areas here. 10 We should separate them; field tests and preload. obtaining your curves from the sampies and obtaining 11 them from the preload is two different things. 12 13 Q Let's just confine it to field tests. 14 okay. Do you think that settlement 15 versus log time curves taken -- constructed on the basis of field tests are accurate? 16 17 A Reasonably accurate, but not -- I wouldn't i trust it altogether because there are things that is can go wrong 'even with a field test that you might i 19 net be aware of unless you go in and sample and see 20 i n what has really happened, t. j -l 3 Q Does a settlement field test and i settlement versus log time curve give a reasonably 23 accurate indication of.whether you're out of primary 24 .1 L. -~ ddaba O ( t as~s. ~. ~ .I f^ _}

.., EL._ 2-@ '9'4 ' ~ ".~.:.'.

^

~2":

[E- ['.3<~ Id;kkht .[ .y,dh? ~ ~~e s g 1 ca...,..u,,,. m. _.... i w. .,n = ~ [2;.2. :,

m. - - - -- -

T .t. '~~"2 I consolidation? ~ t 2 A Yes. But here again it should be checked. 3 Q Would there come a time on a settlement i versus log time curve where you'could be more than 4 5 reasonably certain that you were out of primary 6 consolidation? In other words, if the settlement 7 curve stretched out long enough, would that give a you reasonable assurance? 9 A It depends on your definition of 10 reasonable. I would say reasonably, but not 100 11 percent. I 12 Q Do you think that it is necessary to 13 have 100 percent assurance? 14 A on Category 1 structures, you bet. 15 Q 100 percent, you have to be absolutely i 16 certain? f 17 A As you possibly yan be on Category 1 h is structures. 19 Q Who told you that? 20 A No one. That is my own -- l 21 Q Did you ever receive any guidance when 1 .you were first involved in the Midland Project as 2r to what degrees of certainty you had to have with 25 regard to -- besides Category 1 structure 47 a 1 l A (W4 d%,69 aod Mw %m.: " ' ' ~ ,*-,e,

~ - *'.:5;p i:nf~ u h: ::7k<= .,...,.m. laf&Qq 3 - Q+ -2;. * " ~:.:~..,yi > r: - p.<.y 3, r 1 A No. This is my own engineering 2 judgment. ( 3 Q Is that the judgment you apply in reviewing the information submitted by consumers 4 s Power? 6 A Yes. 7 MR. FARNELL: Would you read back the part of the question and answer before we got into this a reasonable assurance deal. g I (WEEREUPON, the record was read 10 by the reporter as requested.) 11 BY MR. FARNELL: 12 Q Your testimony then is that there is not \\.. 33 a point in time at which a settlement versus log time 14 i curve could give you the -- by itself could give l 15 you the assurance you need with regard to whether ~ 16 you are out of primary. consolidation? j 37 A I would say on a usua3 structure you gg could reasonably depend on this log time curve. g, But on a Category 1 structure, I wouldn't put all g my eggs in one basket because things can go wrong. g And it's better to go in and check by whatever means g you can. 3 Q By " check" -- what do you mean by that? { g 9.8 = %me m.w

%M s -- ~~ ~7... ..T *.>. ^ - W i & :..... l - - 7l $w-:'.* ~:

• ~'2 "". ^

~ .v.h5T "' t:3 . a... a y' gg ---i,-x.:..- W% ^.W mrv,s W w,

• xgge.Tg-j,

,,, -,...s...wc=r.:. 1 -.- . m n, c.. ; .. r --..... :x.:,---......,.,. '21 ~ -.... 4-: ~ l ). % %,, ~ - e., ...m.. g. -e g 3,;_,, p..: ..u. : ~... n Ta.ke borings an'd.some nets consolidation 1 A 2 tests. s Q If you have a non-homogeneous fill under the preload, how would taking borings and making 4 d. consolidation tests.give you any information as to s whether you are out of primary consolidation? 6 l 7 A Do you mean you have sand and clay? s O And other materials probably. If you have something that is not 9 homogeneous, could it be classified as random? 1 I to 11 A The clay part, the test'would apply there. And the sand, you probably have to take 12 i.. relative intensity tests or density tests. Is Q Eow would you go about -- excuse me. 14 And you have to work them in conjunction I A 15 with each other. 16 i Q Eow would you go about.getting a p e representative sample 7 la A of the clay or sand? g, Q or other materials. g A Tou put the boring down and sample -- 2 turn and pull the sample out. You would have clay g and you would have sand. You would-have two y

1. 1#I'**"" *****1"1"*

24 To[h c8ams[rsty and cfssoalmiss N nu.. w ry o-e ...e-- --y g w y-es y ms.- p.g3 -,,-.,.i w--*

. 1.t,.:,. g 3.g.3.[~ .,. P.pg gf L.k :.h.. -i. -

• 'i 22

. r ~r I Q Is there any possibility that thers might i ! 'be portions of -the fill that are part sand and part 2 3 clay in one degree? 4 A Do you mean sand and clay? \\ 5 Q Yes. 6 A Right. It could be. i \\ 7 Q How many borings would you have to take \\ before you got enough representative samples? \\ s \\ For any one area, you would have to do A t 9 something -- you have to take an exploratory boring to down to find out what your materials are and figure l 21 out where you want it sampled and put another boring 12 down and take samples. (.' is Q So you want some exploratory borings and 14 then some borings after that? g, A Yes. That is if there are no borings 16 that have been taken already in this one area. If 17 there were, you could probably use them, g, Q Would you think you would have any g, problems with sample disturbances with regard to y horings? 21 i A Yes. l g I Q Any major problems? g A You would have to try and see.the extent 24 .(. k n m. ,s s, .w. -+.-,-..m.a -%s -.,,y v--% .-_s -._e. ,,, +_,,,-,_.,. ._-,._.,,,..y4* ,s

WR N Yu.%=L:-S.S.w..z.6 b .5 {h :h. 55 l ' 3Yhh apir_- % = M 5 %.. $e w :;s ym m m

q.;.;.. =.w:. a- =.. -==. =,..,. -..

23 , w. -....m. +-

a.-

= n.--., hg. y %:.n z;2= m... It coulk,be small or large. 7, _.43( ns ..i 1 of the disturbance. You would have to evaluate that after you got the 2 3 sample. 4 Q Are you familiar with Dr. Ralph Peck? 5 A

yes, 6

Q Do you know if it is his view that sample disturbances would be a major problem with regard 7 to the borings that the NRC wishes to take under 8 the diesel generator building area and other areas? 9 %} 10 A Any time you sample, this is a problem. 11 It could be a problem in there, but you have to 12 evaluate it the same as you do any other sample you la take. T2 14 , Q Do you know what Dr. Peck's view is with regard to borings that the NRC wishes to take under 15 16 the diesel genef;ator building? i 17 A Yes. is Q Do you agree with his view? t 19 A No. I agree with what he did in the l 20 preload. This is probably the best thing that could I be done under'the circumstances, but I think he 21 should go one step farther and check out what 22 \\ l 23 happened to the soils. I I i 24 Q You said, "under the circumstances." f ek.r.os.w. ,s uor ._.g s l -a.- - - - -

-- r - - - - -n. f. y[f .C_ E.jf*7.5: l 3.p3.:.

& ::q.60.-

..m 24 1 What circumstances are you talking about? i i 2 A Of fill put in with.not enough density ) I which caused settlement with the building already 3 i 4 in place. s Q Did you think that was e.he best option that consumers Power could have taken? 6 7 A Yes. I would like to qualify that. It is probably the best and the least 8 9 costly. The best option would be to take the whole to thing out -- the building -- and to start over.. This would be the best, but that would be very 11 12 costly. And what he did under the circumstances, r. again, was probably the best. \\ 33 Q During 1969 through '71, you were a 14 soils mechanic engineer for soil '.wsting Services? i 15 A Yes. '69 to '71, yes. 16 Q Did you have any experience during that 37 I time with preloading of building soil? 1, t A Yes. One more case. Yes. 3, Q More than one, you said, or one case? y ,A one. g o could you describe that to us? t A This was on the bank of the White River I 3 in Indianapolis. There was a soft area an,d they l Toh dom:8sy, asad M 1 % %..w. ~ l. r

' 2 -. # -. h.u.. m h.

ag.

• .irn~ L...,..

.D.:..

". c 2r a =- M ~.,&. y ?_ .h'.. - &%- W $U-f:%5W 3 ~. ? x,.~. l.--- -. ~. -~,.g5L. - ~= l'M-.'am-: - -, ;.... - M.::_...; iw. ~: ~' ^^" 25 .. ~ - g -r Cz. G.= ; -..x -.... .~..;_ ) Son e had I wantsd to put an industrial building in. j 2 to preload it. Did you take borings prior to the time -- 3 Q 4 A Yes. 5 Q What type of: tests did you do? Consolidation taats and confined compressioa 6 A 7 tests. Based en those tests, did you make any 8 Q 9 settlement conclusions? 10 A Yes, we did. 11 Q How did you determine how long you were 12 going to keep the p1 load on?~ (- 13 A By the time pressure curve. 14 Q Did you monitor settlement during the 15 time this preload was in place? 16 A No. We didn't follow through on this We turned in a report.that the preload 17 one case. But should be done, and I understand it was done. j is 19 someone else took over from there. And what happened

l0 other than it was successful, I am not sure.

I 21 Q So you do not know how long it was kept in place or how they made the determination to keep it I 23 on that loang? 24 A No. We gave them a recommendation on how i ogg[s, 4 s.g,W g._w... .....x 1 % b. *. 1ss. sons. 3.,.. .m. r _,q.,. r s.,,,..,.,

. ~. c .a.~ f.; C4..r t-x,... L~ T. -e!,.-- - ,-.:v. y.'n..,;y=". g y 1.;; g g -A.:e,~ A.::- h - .., -,,, c 26 ,w .c 1 long to keep it on. How long they did, I don't know. 2 How much settlement they had, I am not sure'. 4 s Q From 1971 to date, excluding the 4 Midland diesel generator building, have you had any 5 experience preloading buildings? l 6 A No. 7 Q or preloading embankments or dirt for 8 settlement? 9 A yo, 10 Q During your career, have you had any experience with remedial underpinning for buildings 11 12 that have had settlement problems? (- u a v.s. 14 Q When was the first time you were involved 15 with that? 16 A With Soil Testing Services. From 1969 l 17 to 1971, we had, I would say, several cases of l la underpinning. 19 Q Were these underpinning pilings or l 20 caissons? i 21 A They were fairly light struc.tures.

2 We used jacked-in-place piles rather than -- there 23 was another case where we used caissons.

This was 24 an apartment building.. 1 'M^ b' 's 0 dbye, h e rse seer

- % v" l !.2.? C I z : +.;..,_. - - s g,. _ .- " M :. L ; q,.-. 7. v3;.;;7 7'Ti:~.1. :-59p. y3^ ' '}:2Z~ ;i=~~ ~~ 7 WG-~ - -....: 3 F '? w n,-. %'uu qv-gf .c. Ar - -~

4..,,.5. e.-.. w a.."

. -, m....m...m.,,,..._, ~

u -c

, W f.{N. ;. n n..n-.- 3 :.,. ~~ ~p. a 1 Q Did you take borings prior to i lling i 2 caissons or pilings? 3 A Sure. 4 Q What purpose did you take those for? 5 A To see what the subsurface soil, conditions 6 were and to have some idea of the number of caissons 7 or piles necessary. 8 Q could you tell us your next experience 9 with remedial underpinning? 10 A In the same time frame? 11 Q No. It does not have to be. Go up to 12 date if you like. Have you had many experiences 4 f~ 13 with remedial underpinning? 14 A After soil Testing Services, no. Is Q You have not had any experiences? 16 A No. Not that I recall. 17 Q During 1971 through 1974, you were a civil Engineer with the Corps of Engineers, is that i la i 19. Correct? 2o A Yes. 21 Q Wha *. type of experience did you have with dans or levies? 22 t A During this period of '71 to '74, I was j ( 23 working for Chicago District. And we did all the 24 t anelaba 'N g n u.. .m

- - a?:- ~.. ~ ..... ~........ - . =L ; y-x,.p. - % - - a -m - Wi~=i.2hE_. -: .j-Q.: ;.;~&QJ, . cv...; 23 plans and special analysis computations on all of the I dams and levy projects in the chicago Distrlet. 2 3 o can you give us an idea of how many there 4 were at that time? 5 A. Dame,- there was prinef.; ally one daar 6 Oakley Dam. Levies, there were maybe two or three 7 projects. a o Do your specifications call for taking 9 record samples during the time the dams or *,.=/ies 10 were being constructed? 11 A Yes, they did. 12 Q All of them? (. 13 A There is another department that does 14 construction, you know, and I am not really familiar 15 with it -- how often they take them. But they do 16 take record samples. 17 Q In your specifications -- that was not is part of your specifications? 19 A It is part of 'c.he specifications. 20 Q And you did the specifications for theue - 21 one dam and two or three levies? Did they all have specifications that record samples shculd be taken? 22 During construction, yes. l

3 A

5 24 o Do you know whether they were taken? 1 <w,q,, go,,a,,, e,a a a.. ~ %. ~.,,,

I. : ";En... -...:.. : ..k *. M-m,:.. =w%w -w;. .a.. r ,.... _. f. g...g.p.

g.. _.-...

1 .; 1..ya. - _ _ f. c. _ ..y. e ye.;~ c:r ;. ,.,.a-- g-s g., 3.=c.::sy:g.=, y g.gpe r..... -.9 q -. g, e ,., _.,,; -,, ::..,,.m...,.,. ....c. .....v.........:..n._... ..,,.w,,.,-,.,,,.,,_,_. ~ N;... ..ki%. _.~ g 1 A I h ve no'knowledpe', but I assu N you

,w....n

.. a -.,,. a _= i 2 they were. I have no direct knowledge. 3 Q Do you know if any borings were taken at j 4 1 the dan or the two or three levies after they were ) j 4 constructed for. determining what type of soil. i 5 6 characterization -- 7 A This one dam was never built. 8 Q okay. The environmentalists knocked us out of i 9 A i 10 it. 11 Q Eow about the two or three levies? 12 A Yes. Thiy were built. la Q Do you know if borings were taken after 14 they were constructed? i 15 A This is in another department. now. 16 Should I go.on? 17 Q Go ahead. q The quality assurance people sometimes A is 4 .take borings after the projects are built to 19 establish density and strength. Whether they did l l m n or not, I have no idea. ~ Q Is that cometimes they do -- does that g-mean sometimes they do not? 3 i If they are suspicious that things right A 24 , ~. t ~.c ...,.. -.. ~- O \\ m u.,n __..a.

kF-.%.n ffy : t. 2.. n_;. g. _ f.C.3 p a-- m ; x,.-5.w3. y. v _ 3. g.g..a t. e-2.-, - %:;;p n 4 . z.;_ p. .y 30 ...w .a. . :. c~r.. a.

r I

not be correct. 2 Q Is there any instruction, do yotr know, I t or guidance within the Corps of Engineers as to 3 a when horings should be taken after a dam or 4 embankment has been constructed? s 6 A I don't believe there is. 7 Q It is just if you are suspicious, is i that what you are saying? a A If you have reason to believe that they 9 might be necessary, you take them. go ,i 11 Q Bave you ever heard anyone express any concern with borings in a dam'or embankment because 12 ( of some hydraulic fracture? We are still in this la time frame. 14 A I would like to go on to the complete 15 1 course of time frame, if I could. Okay? l 16 t Q Fine. l g7 We have maybe 40 or 50 dams, I am not 1 A i 3, g, sure, in the North Central District. The maintenance f l and stability o~f these dans -- some built years l ago -- there are problems on numerous occasions. 21 And we take horings to check these dans out, l g a especially the old ones. We now have -- I chink we y are checking out maybe three or four right at this 24 s P l Mah Aosan$sm) and ciswelains \\ l % m e H

^ .~n a L.;r ;_.. .. & 3.- y~?ot + g,...,..f _ z i., -gj, - - w. - t- .g.u.f.g q_j, - ~z .p:, : 3 g m, g ..g _ m.u;g 1 r..,. 2 - ,,,. _ ;m;... oc==. - mg,y_., m.

.m,.w.

=,.. w.- .Z ..~ .'. A 1. .,- _... w --. ,,m .... m. I ? y. s. .. _ _,~ g.L.':.klc=. a v, n.- time for stability by takind, borings.fd thesdam. + 1 l Hydraulic fracturing is a concorp. 2 You have to be aware of it. And you have to be 3 if any, sure your pressures of the mud you use, i 4 are not greater than the overburden ~ pressures. i ~ 5 You also have to be sure next to conduits or 6 abutments where there could be arching that you i 7 don't -- you have to be more careful in these 8 9 areas. About hydraulic fracturing, it is a to You have to be careful. This is something l 11 concern. that we do every days put borings in the dams. i 12 Are you aware that consumers' consultants i-Q \\.' 33 in the cooling have recommended borings not be taken 1 g4 pond embankment dike in the Midland Plant because i 15 of their concern for hydraulic fracturing? i l .t gg j In a structure,of this sise, I would say A 17 And I these concerns are needless or not valid. la think you will get Dr. Peak to say the same thing. 19 Do you have any concrete information that Q y you think Dr. Peck will say the same thing, or is it n just a guess on your part? 4 = Well, it is knowing Dr. Peck and his A 23 I would say this,would probably .i engineering judgment. 24 .y W ' Wah doma$ssy and ciuoeleins .i' ,~. _..y l .- ~ _.. -.....

• . ;v.m. :1.;

.-~ . r.,;,-m...z.Qgyy.q _. 3. f.q-;: ;e. K q 3.,_:33} '0 s'; ;:y = ba, w : k-.s::~ w - . n.. <.m 32 ._..m r 1 be his opinion, too, if -- well that is it, period. Take the "if" away and just put period. ) 2 \\ 3 Q Do you have respect for Dr. Peck's 4 engineering judgment? 5 A Yes, I do. I 6 Q Do you consider him to be an expert? 7 A I would say one of the top men in the a field. But I might also say he is not infallible. 1 Es does make mistakes. I 9 10 Q You cannot be 100 percent sure with him? ) A That's right. In t'.te soil r.echanics 11 business, it's an art. And no one is ever 100 percent 12 (. u sure. Q You said, "No one is ever 100 percent 14 sure," yet you want 100 percent assurity for the g i diesel generator building. Can you explain that? 3, A 100 percent reasonably sure. You can gy j never be exact. But you can be more sure. 1, Q Than what? g, .1 A Than not taking any more borings or g doing anything else. 3 Q From 1974 to '78, have you had any 1 3 experience with dams, dikes or levies? This is y when you were, I guess, a civil Engineer,still, right? 3 Wah omsbau) a,sd M as,m.

~- _.,,.mQ q;:.-- '~K 'g 3. n.. . id".L _..T. m _~ti &'.m..=, ' --: m t :: ~.=. p *iq q y s :."l =.m

.y.g, i

,_yh.;. 4,,mp-m. .-n w : ~..m ,. _;.,_. 7 ~... ws.== -.- m.-:. :,m. u.. n,.,.,. v. x,:.w-r.1 _ y. - 33 _g,3. ..-.,. ~. ~..

• y

.y 7.. g,,,.y,. This is when I was-[wN.h North' Ce'~nid w. M.:.=.= ::.v. A I I had considerable experie.nce with-Division. 1 2 1 dikes and levies and dans during this period. 3 Q Your earling answers with hydraulic 4 fracturing. dealt with your entire time period with., 5 the Corps of Engineers, is that right? 6 A That's right. y You are presently Chief of the Q a Geotechnical Branch, North Central Division, 9 corre of Engineers? to A Yes. 11 Your rer'sme states that you provide 0 12 (, general supervision and responsibility for all soil 33 mechanics, geology and construction materials in 14 five districts. Would you explain what you mean 33, by, " general supervision"? 16 This means we give our approval to all A 17 i are handed in from the districts e of the designs that g, before the project can be built or money is given 3, for the project.

Detroit, Do the five districts, I guesst Q

n Paul, report Chicago, Rock Island, Buffalo and St. g to you? l g A What do you mean by. " report"? They send l M \\- ~~ i I

h. S I

nu e = r .e- - s-- ,-,,w-- emn<,

---

.4 e

t M ~~ :A ~ ~ $555 ~ 5.5 *".*. j.? b Q*,. N ~ b* '*$1& $ "j, . P;g.y:4-yy a &.?-T *E~~ s.. ~;K .~ l .s* -ys. i e

analyses, t

I all of their plans and specs and documents, r And if that is what computations in for our review. 2 3 you mean by " report," yes. And you have to approve them prior to -- 4 0 l 5 A Right. l Who else is in the North central District i 6 Q 7 offise besides yourself, 3tst generally? In' the Geotechnical Branch? 8 A 9 Q Yes. One soil mechanics engineer, John Norton, 10 A t 11 and one geologist,' Terry Smith. l 12 Q Does Mr. Forton report to you? 18 A Yes. 14 Q Mr. Smith, also? l 15 A Yes. You also stated in your resume that 16 Q you act as consultant to the districts on major 17 la problems; 19 A Yes. 20 Q What do you mean by that? When there is a problem that comes up 21 A i with the dans or levies, and sometimes there are l 22 Why questions about what to do and when to do it. 23 we have conferences and meetings and iron 24

usuallir, s,,

• W

~..... .m o Sj . n,- au. n. ~

$9 0 ((/jg/ d*# 2 IMAGE EVALUATION gjffe \\+?.g> f 4

• /f(4' g, TEST TARGET (MT-3) y,,,, "+/

//44

• /i$

+ l.0 iff M E E lf !as HE hN C l,l 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm 4 6" f '44

• $;f h////

'4k<>Qg 4 =- ~

c. . -v ' ~ ~ * --...., = ~f55 W .3. $7 . w :n.c... _ m m2....2.a:,w a., n. _,,.z., 3$ .. -w. ~ s.."..' -- -w....*.w..,n,.p, p{ h,;gn a.~~.- out -- try and look at the way to attack th F 1 2 problem and what to do. 3 Q As consultant, you do not have to necessarily approve what the districts do -in.that 4 5 regard?.They are just asking your advice? :.. : c 6 A Yes. But we have to approve -- before what is finally done, we have to give our approval, 7 a

yes, 9

Q Do any of the five districts deal f with -- is there something called Tulsa District? 10 11 A Yes. This is down in the Southwestern 12 District there. <.(- 13 MR. FARNELL: Why don't we mark this as 14 an exhibit. (WEEREUPON, said document was marked 15 CPCo (simpson) Deposition Exhibit 16 No. 3, for identification, as 17 of 11/19/80.) u 19 BY MR. FARNELL: Is Exhibit No. 3 a representation of the i 3 Q districts of the Corps of Engineers? n A

Yes, m

3 o Is this the present organization? There could be minor changes. Mostly, yes. A 3 Toh dem:8svg asal M . n m .,ss,. w-m- -m. .-i-y-y sp v. ..-,,-y-.-o.--nv.o.e-, ,-w ,y- - - --

I . -:.... m.. m ,.,m ..;{. %Q;..r - ..?.3;gai-Q::k - %:q & .a. 36 .m cr a r 1 Q okay. Your responsibility is the 2 North central -- 3 A Right. 4 Q -- which you have colored in orange. ) Tulsa is the southwestern District? 5 6 A Yes. 7 Q So you do not have any direct responsibility for that office? a 9 A No, no. to Q Is there anyone in the Chicago District office besides yourself that works on Midland Project? l 11 A change that chicago District to North 12 central Division. (./ 33 Q North central Division. okay. 14 A John Norton, our soil mechanics engineer, 15 worked on it up to a point, but he was off with a 16 back injury for about the last 90 days. Prior to 37 that, he worked on it somewhat. 3, Terry Smith attended one meeting, so he 3, i is not really familiar with the problems. Q Did Mr. Norton work on the Midland Project 3 for a long time prior to his back injury? g i l A Not a long time. I would say intermittently. g Q When were you first involved with the i i j ( W o h 4 % a,sd d a-I= M % m..,,,.,,.-. -

r.,.,;-. -t.. .L,'.{ '1Q ..c- ..y yy Q. .T L3 .y ggq ; 3. ,3. g- ~. 5P 37 g - p.~. = ~ ~- _.. 4.,,gt.= .* **7 i 'T ';, s3 s.+ _m m.,g,y. , a.: r ~. u -.. _...,.. c y:,.;- - m .1 ---3 4-,.m.m.,,,_.., <=. g.xe ..-a ~ n- .y _ :, 3*'t. 1 Midland Project? I believe we came aboard in September 2 A 3 of last year, 1979. Is that when a contract was signed 4 Q 'between the Corps of Engineers and NRC7 5 6 A I believe so. Did you ha've any part in the negotiations 7 Q 8 of that contract? 9 A No. When did you first learn that the contract 10 Q 11 was signed? ? 12 A It's an agreement, not really a. contract. ..(~. I would say sometime in September. This is handled 13 at the office of the Chief of Engineers in 1 14 is Washington, D.C. 16 Q Who is that? 17 A The contract? Is Q Yes. W h o w a ar - - The man rasponsible is Rixby Hardy. 19 A Who first told you that this agreement m Q had been entered into? a A Mr. Hardy. s At that time, did he tell you you were Q m going to be involved,in working on the Midland Projac t? a l Toh d M.M n,- n.. = =... l -.w,-,. .,s. "~ "'-"F-u

'.,*- b '. a u.: y ) J': pg = x.e. - -:-:T a ~.c., w." = acL-i 2 i.- d y ?Jg..:. .;*-3 Q p S ~ 33 .m w : .4 1 A I believe so. What did he tell you your respons'ibilities 2 Q 3 would be with regard to the Midland Project? i 4 A This is hearsay, you know, telephone 5 conversations, but we were to aid in the NRC 6 Geotechnical Branch in their review of the FSART the safety records and other things that happened 7 in connection with the foundations of the Midland a 9 Plant. 10 Q Did he or anyone else tell you why the Corps was asked to aid in this revia'w? 11 12 A No. 13 Q You did not ask him? 14 A Well, because of the problems involved -- i this is hard to recall exactly .- but, you know, is we do talk about things like that -- 16 17 Q I would think so. Is A -- because of the complex nature of 19 the problems involved. And I guess the NRC people didn't have the time or the people to really study 20 the situations, so they called us in. n 22 Q What was your responsibility at the 23 beginning, say,in September of 1979. with regard to the Midland Pr7 ject? 24 l } O o % m.e..mm.:.... .._ l . ~

l N; ph .... 7. 5'_WW__ " * " +,. m. -. h. = ;L L -.-. ~ - - "Q:ypg ..:. u -. 4.gg... m 2;r,, , gy..,. ~. f " 't.i31$$p s. x.,.. n - n:.- n... =.-- --.= ..wsew,.,..m. v_. _., _ .g. 39 w. .q -n ?, :.. -.. -g W %. 2 r y.. 1 A In the beginning,- it was mainly 2 familiarization meetings and orientation lectures. r 3 Q Did you have anyone working for you at 4 that time on the Midland Project? Were you J,n.. ~,- :- - 5

• charge of the Midland Project?

Let. me start.with.that 6 A We had better get to that. We assigned 7 it to'the Detroit District. 8 Q Who is "we"? 9 A The Chief of the Engineering Division at 10 the North Central Division. 11 Q Who was that? 12 A Mr. Goodman -- Zane Goodman. Is Q Did you replace Mr. Goodman? 14 A No. He is the Chief of our -- 15 Q Chief of the entire engineering? 16 A Yes. Right. 17 Q Do you know why he assigned it to Detroit? la 19 A The district most geographically located with regard to the Midland Plant. They are

n familiar with the soils and some of the problems 21 with the soils of the area.-

so they would naturally 22 be selected to handle the problems. 23 Q-Mr. Goodman gave you your assignment of 24 .w n,. u. ,s p -,.,ye.---,..-.r-r, ,w, ,,,y._-- ,*w-4-.- ,.v_--- w e --m e

.. :: - :r: - y** --. p... - * ' ;,,-gg.} 5?-.. ,.~ [,- ' *

-c, s -,

-., ;,_.v. g. - _,.x- ~ ~ 40 . r a., 1 Midland? 2 A Gave me? Did he tell you you were going to work 3 Q J 4 on Midland? 1 ] You are talking e. bout myself? 5 A 6 Q Yes. My role -- I haven't really worked on it. 7 A sut I review what Detroit has done. a ~ Starting at the beginning, why don't you 9 Q tell us -- have your responsibilities changed at all? 10 11 A No. I 12 O They stayed the same from September to Is the present? 14 A Right. . Is Q What are your responsibilitiss? Detroit District was handed the 16 A It was up to them to review all of the 17 assignment. materials that were given them by the NRC and is They are responsive to the NRC people 19 Consumers. 2o directly. Our role is to keep on top of the ? problems and be sure that Detroit District is doing 21 i a proper job and review all of their conclusions 1' 22 and analyses. 23 Q Did you have any responsibility for 24 ...e Yoh cRossn$sy anA c8ssoelains .. n. m.,,. e 48m e en ee. p - u.-- --v--w 1- -ww -v ,y -e- -,m w.e-,--m-wyww-- w-fy--m. -g-- y s---,-a-,,--w-s en-e ww -r--

.n.,. n. Aw,7%._%;;.y-. :s;'m.7.~%~ L:;X - _m 3._ mcp, _. _ _. _ ,-m,....=

w"x-%?-:' TQ:

.pg7.: :1 sMc.,.x..n %Emm=1 y q W.-. ~-' -* m e..L :- ~, g n. W.. -%;n,_ _: ww._ 41 m.., ;,,..._. ...a.-,

s.N.c.

..., _... y ,g - ' n _., ll. _ jf DL- ~.=,.n, . determining who of the Detro'it ' Distri;ct personnel 1 2 would be working on Midland? 3 A No, no. 4 MR. FARNELL: Mark this as Exhibit 4. (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 5 CPC0(Simpson). Deposition Exhibit 6 7 No. 4, for identification, as 8 of 11/19/80.) 9 BY MR. FARNELL: to Q I show you Exhibit 4 for identification and this came from documents that your Counsel 11 e produced to us yesterday. t.~ \\ Would you tell me what that document is? is (WHEREUP')N, the document was 14 tendered to the witness.) g BY THE WITNESS: 16 A This was written for the. -- we have a 17 new commander and chief -- a General coming in. is There was a change of command, and this was really ig a briefing for him. y j BY MR. FARNELL: g f Q Is that written fairly recently? 3 A Yes. Q Was it your understanding that.as stated I QVoh Soun$sy and c$=AnM n ~.r

.C;:u she:.~. :s;,p~ .. ; ;v:-. *, -.; _. ;-.$ 3.. . _ _ __;g, - w - - f, gy - t ~.. : w.r:._. 42 m- ~ in here that geotechnical engineering aspects of the 1 the Corps was to review what Midland Project -- 2 dams? would include earth embankments and rock fill-3 I'am not aware of any. Earth embankments. A /. 4 rock fil1#.. dans at this time. But this w.ording came s l so it i out of our inner agency agreement with NRC, 6 was taken verbatim out. 7 when you first began to work on Midland Q s did you believe you had to look into the

Project, f

g dikes -- the cooling pond dikes at Midland? to well, you are getting into Detroit ( A 11 I can't really answer that because 1 District area. 12 It would be their business. b I don' t know what date. u Did you read the contract when you Q f 14 started working on this assignment? f, g I A Yes. g, Did it occur to you to request when the I O ~ i 37 Detroit people should be working on anything with g, regard to the dikes at the Midland Project? g, We gave them the contract and they took A 2 What was the question it from there. I am not sure. g / again? Read the question back. MR. FARNELL: 8 5 l } l 'i T o h. d esass8s y ased d _ " A " 1 s , m. o..:

"f"y_ _R.M gg,.$. gw,,. -+i3 7"._ .i:. IM..-. _ . gcr... - =... - M%.sp w.. -,, '- ',$, '?-g'~:.*=Wi v.ww.: r. v a== ~ '4 3 1 C T. x.w: - m or -u.s.- -. s. .., -. ~...,. -.. , ~., _.. ~.~ ~ _ _f f,[ $... xsa..,.. (WHEREUPON,,the record was read 1 t by the reporter as requested.) 1 2 3 BY MR. FARNELL: 4 Q They were beginning the assignment. They s raid the,same thing presumably. i 1 6 Do you know whether they considered at 4 the beginning that they had responsibility to look 7 into the dikes at Midland Plant? I a A I am sure that they knew they were supposed to because it is in this wording here to which is in our agreement -- in our' agency agreement. 11 1 12 Q Do you know why dikes were included b.' within that agreement? u i i A Yes. They were included -- I am not g sure why. a Q Eave you ever heard anyone speculate that 16 h it could have been for the Federal. Dan Safety Act i 17 or something like that? g, A No. I can tell you why they were 19 1 l included. g 4 Q Please. r3 g l l A Because of the problems ~with the fill g in the other plant areas -- guilt by association. 3 The other Jill was bad and maybe this could be bad, 3 I l j Th doms 8ssyad M i nu.~. I I I

~.. .e._... ~ ~r.,;. ~ c- , x, _ ;;;. q.3. g-

pg,.S. ;

_..~.-w.- 44 v. r 1 too. So this was the reason. 2 Q Is that in September of 1979 that determination or guilt by association feeling had 3 heen made within the NRC time contract or the-4 5 agreement.was assigned? 6 THE WITNESS: Read that again. 1 (WWEREUPON, the record was read 7 by the reporter as requested.) 8 9 BY THE WITNESS: 10 A It was later than September because 1 l September was really orientation and briefings and 11 not -- I don't think it had been analyzed at this 12 la time, you know. 14 BY MR. FARNELL: . 15 Q Right. Okay. My question is why was it 16 included in here. You said it might have been that guilt by association, but they had not made that 1 17 is determination. I think you are saying at the time 19 this was assigned -- 20 A This was in NRC works here. And maybe they make this guilt by association. I am not sure. 21 And they wrote it in, but for us it came later after 22 we were given 411 of the information and studied it.

s

\\ 0 Do you know if the Detroit District 24 l To g M d an.Inana %~.-. _-,.w--, ,,,,_._m._-_-# __..,_.--.,,m ,..y_ ,w_-- ....,. ~ -

~ l ,,,g .. _..m...,p...~..-~., ,3, p -- y ? $ ($

• ?.

'f ~ '~ .I a ,.m .n,,, .- *. - v i - i. -. s, w,.,,..... __7,'(. 4$ c.m. n p . --, Y. a. 'k',,".i ,?:c .e. - - =..,.,.- _ - _ _ _ .i considered at the beginning%f their assignm7nt 1 2 that they had to look into the'dikeg or was'this 3 somethinJ that just occurred.to them? l 4 A No. This was part of their agreement. 5-Oh, I imagine they knew at the beginning that they.. 6 had to look at the dikes. What they had to do -- maybe nothing -- they weren't certain at this time, 7 i a Q After the agreement was signed in' September of 1979 between NRC and the Corps of i 9 Engineers, did the Corps: immediately begin working. 10 11 on the Midland Project? 12 A Yes. 4 4 .(,' 13 Q Who at that time was working from the 14 Detroit District on that project? l 15 A Well, Bill Otto and Joe Rubinski, 16 E-i-b-i-n-s-k-i. 4 17 Q Is that -- could it be,'R-u? Is A Yes. l 19 Q X-u-b-i-n-s-k-i. l 20 A I'm sorry. That is it. 21 Q What was his position? f A' Project Manager. 22 23 Q What were his responsibilities at that 24 Point? Th d MM nu.-

..s.... .._g J.;

3. 5...

. g;S.;_ 7. ;., -.~._.3.3> c " 3y-:-g~.. :.x.-;- s- . +..; _ sg. 46 .. w. 1 I He is to receive all of she documentation i 1 A 2 data and other information from NRC, comb through it 1 and try and separate the problems and hand different 3 ' problems through other personnel in the Geotechnical 4-5 Branch. 6 Q Is he like a coordinator? 7 A That's right. Coordinator and manager. a Q Is he still there? Does he still work 9 on this project? 10 A No. I 11 Q When did he leave the project? J 12 A I am not certain, maybe two or three I la months later. 4 14 Q Any reason why? 15 A Personal reasons. The job was getting 16 to him, I guess. i 17 Q Is he still with the corps? la A Yes. 19 Q Could you give us a little bit more detail on how the job was getting to him? z ) 21 A well, these are conversations with him. He wasn't able to accumulate all of the data, and 3 he wasn't sleeping at night and, more or less,, 23 24 things like that. I w e <w.g., so as.,, e J a. w. %~..

O'9;;gk @WW.3Ac.,R.w{flglr. $$m.m /. W ,. I. ' s N._..,.?Y -5fh555N'~l-l' N:2 4w . 5- (gt .#_e.:p.g . - 47 m_ a = = - ,. s .,g+ - m ;.......,.. c _., + t. 1 ,-, --. a .-,_m._ ... ~. .y yt;7 . w. : = - Q-Do you knew if he had any prob-les.>s with 1 i any of the NRC personnel that he had to work with? 2 3 A I am not aware of any. Did.he have any problems with the 4 Q people from Consumers Power or Bechtel? 5 6 A None that I an aware of. t i i Who else besides Kubinski and Otto 7 Q 1 initially began working on the Midlar.d Project? s l Robert Erickson, Pete Kytasky. 9 A What was Kytasky's position? t 10 Q A Be is a soils mechanic engineer. I 11 believe there is also another man, Willis Reed, 12 b frca Tulsa District. u Q Willis Reed or Willis Walker? Would that' g4 be it? 15 A Walker, yes. 'That is it. 16 Q Why was someone -- Walker from the i 37 Tulsa District -- why was he involved? is They needed -- it was quite an assign-A g, ment. They needed more personnel. We put out a 3 flyer for all the other -- throughout the corps g for assistance. He was available, so he came and g helped like a limited period of time. 3 Did he come up to the Detroit District? Q 24 Ma h A & and d +' A ' %m..~.

~. >. '.a ..--fe-- 7-2;. qjg.,

s.,,

." p..r.w y.. :::-. ,q

1. ..~.a 48

.- ~.. a; 1 As Yes. 2 Q Do you know when he~ arrived? 1 3 A No. 4 Q Is he still there? 5 A No. Did he leave recently -- or sometime in 6 Q 7 19807 A I am not really sure. It could have s 9 been early in 1980. 1 10 Q , Row long was he there? 11 A I think 90 days. But I am not really sure of this either, so thereabouts. a 0 . Who did he report to when he was there? 23 A Mr. Otto -- Bill Otto. 14 Q Did the Corps immediately begin reviewing 15 information that Consumers Power submitted to the 16 NRC regarding Midland Project after the contract 17 was signed? la A I believe they did. Off the record a 19 minute. 20 MR. FARNELL: Off the record. g (WHEREUPON, discussion was l g had off the record.) y y sg l n u. na, --e 3 ens f ,.apen g, w ,__.e_,_, ,m,,. ---,y.- -,.._..,__,_p ,%-y-.,,p,.,_,, ,,,,.___w.~,,,,,,w ,y. ,_,--y--

I = ~-&;;-e--x.., - _ '..-~ ~ "& m-1 l ... i j . ::Q;;;5.:,.~: -= - [g ;.} = m. .,_ [h ' u.a.t m f;9 3

w 5x u, 21ot:-

~ ...,...a= +%,._

.y.,.

g:fgsg4y. .- 3 u _. m t 4g m ;,,,. u... 7. ..-._.,a.e.v.:..,e,.,3.,,.., t. _g 2.-D, ;. ~.. ev... ..g ...,g. p, ,/. n,, " %*lt.. ~ BY THE WITNESS: l 1 In the list of Detroit District p'ersonnel, j I 2 ) A Earry Singh should be added to the list of people 3 working on the Midland Project. 4 Was he there in the beginning after 5 Q 6 september, 1979, or did he come much.later, say,in 7 May of 19807 A Harry? 3 Q Harry Singh. 9 He came later after Joe had his A to problems -- Joe Kubinski. n Why did willis walker leave the Detroit Q 12 (_. District and go back to Tulsa -- is that where he u is? 14 He was'on what we call TDY; A Yes. 15 At the end Temporary Duty Assignment of 90 days. 16 of 90 days, why he went back to Tulsa. 37 ~Ee was a geotechnical soils engineer? O la A Yes.. 19 Did you keep familiar with the personnel Q that were working on the Midland Project at the ~ 3 same time they were putting on the information that g they were generating? A Not really. They sent us a bar diagram u l t i cy,t}(,, 4,,,4,g,,ut e4,,_w., x ch., m e u s.er l

t _.. ' e.. e.;....... . p. -, -p.- ~y g,. .r.,.3,, _._.;,.: _ ~, ,n,g,. y, ,, ~..,, ..s....._: 50

• n--

,u Whether they of all of the people involved. 1 conformed to it, I don't know -- bar graph. 2 Do you have a copy of that bar graph? 3 Q I Does one exist in the Northern Division? 4 A Yes. 5 We might as well get into that now. 6 o What is the filing system over in the Northern 7 You produced your personal filea, I take nivision? a 9 it. these are They are not personal files, A to the Midland NRC files. Any menos that I had would 11 be in there. 12 Is it your testimony that what you b Q u produced to us yesterday, approximately an inch to 14 two inches of documents, is all of the documents 15 in the Northern Division with regard to the 16 Midland Project? g7 We have several more documents, A Yes. 18 And I but these are ones that came from Detroit. g, think we were instructed as to repetitive documents, I l 3 that went from one structure to another. \\ you know, 21 Isn't that true? You didn't really need them. 4 2 MR. JONES: No. I am not sure. Off the l y I record. y t i {- YO h Sy \\ m,me,.,,,. - --_+ ,,,y -9 -y m w _g.y_ _..y.-_ry-_- w. .p g 3 .,.,-,7-

. -.1,. --h h Me 11 tN;~r,..__..r.:f.,C_- ". ~ "~ Pet %h t. %-, y-3g.5;q;g.~, q%.g:..i.=..;p<. c eg.:.y t 51 .. g ....s.. : -...:......, a. /.b.. ...m.,_. .,..s u ,g,4 F- -..r._., f f)_ a,, - (WHEREUPON, dsscussion was heti 1 2 off the record.) 3 'MR. JONES: Let me make a statenant on the 4 record. 5 There evidently was a misunderstanding of exactly what documents Mr. Simpson should produce. 6 7 There evidently is not a great deal in number to be 8 added. And he believes he can get ahold of those 9 during lunch. 10 BT MR. FARNELL: 11 Q Does Mr. Norton maintain his own file of i 12 documents with regard to' Midland Project? f\\- la 'A No. 14 Q Eow about Mr. Smith? i 15 A No. 16 Q Re did not? 17 A No. la Q Did Mr. Kubinski over tell you he attended is a NRC orientation meeting in Bethesda, Maryland,on I 3 November 7th and 8th of 19797 n A Did he ever tell me personally 7 m Q Yes. i l 23 A I don't recall, but probably he did. We have records of most of the meetings. g4 T h d esse [m y med h a,me,s - l l

..7 73x; _<7 ~ ~..,,.y ,,,.g

.-

.: g ;3.

y :.,.y. :s;... - n.- 1 ..~..a. a : 52 1 Q The recorch of the meetings, would they 2 he within your documents? 3 A No. They will be ones that I will bring 4 to you. Mr. Simpson, do you know that Mr. Kubinski 5 Q 4 did attend such a meeting? Did he tell you or not? I can't be certain that he did attend, 7 A 8 but I as sure he did. 9 Q Did he or anyone else ever tell you that it was the NRC view that with regard to Midland or i 10 i some portion of Midland the NRC had to be politically 11 i safe with regard to greater safety factors than to 12 (. he technically safe? l is 14 A I remember reading that, yes. 15 0 Did he ever tell you that? 14 A Not Personally, no. 17 Q Do you remember reading such a statement? is A Tes, I believe. 19 Q Mave you ever heard such a statement from anyplace to that same design, the fact that it 20 l had to be politically safe rather than technically 21 a safe? A No. Not that I recall. There is other g wording that was used, you know. a 6 48 8B'. n.sc %~e., L

- - ~~ Y Y T * =.d & h d N ? h % h. 5 ?: lk-->. -.

hhi.'.'.

W a- ~ YO4:1-p;rt.-"Q.

m-N"M;'._N i m.1 J.

ac==- b 53 ~2 '[j 2 -. nr .. a av g.. --_g_ .gy don' t you tell' ae the other wggding.

3..

2 A It has no political connotation to it. 3 Like it's category 1 structure. After Three-Mile Island, we can't allow anything to happen to this 4 a building. We have to be absol,uteiy sure it is right. s That is about it. 7 Q Who told you that? a A These are -- no one really told me. These are general conversations as we talked things over. to Q General conversations you had with the 11 NRC7 A No. Among myself and Detroit District 12 C ,eo,1e. 1. Q Did you tell them that, or did they tell 14 gj you that? t A I would say I might have -- I told them 14 that, but it's kind of a mutual thing. 37 Q You felt they had the same view, also? la A Yes. 19 Q Where did you get that -- how did you manage to get that view, or where did you get that 21 view from? A This is engineering judgment. g Q Did anybody from the NRC tell you after y 8 f

• ch r., m

,o m t

a \\-..,.;.,. . h. ~ t - ,w, .e_ e h 2 D i's: ~y?b;; ; .'ISOY

~.

54 Three-Mile Island that they had to be absolutely 1 2

• sure?

3 A No. 4 Q This is just your own view -- your own s personal view? 6 A My own view and maybe Detroit District's t view, too. 8 MR. FARNELL Would you read== go back to that 9 time there about absolutely sure. (WEEREUPON, the record was read 10 by the reporter as requested.) 11 BY MR. FARNELL: 12 J (. La Q Mave you ever seen the December 6, 1979, order, Hodified Construction Permits *with =egard to 14 the Midland Plant? 1s A Yes. 14 0' Do you know if within t!.at document it g7 talks about being absolutely certain that the f l ta affected safety portions of the plant would opete. :s 19 safely? y A I don't recall reading that. It could 21 be there. y Q Do you recall -- g A I read this sometime ago, and,I am not a;ura. y %~e 4 ei$e ser mee see e see am as sa es g, a * .e-e e a e aime 4

..-_- ~ - ,., ~. _ _ -. - 1 .= P uW z . _,, g _ _ p.g y, 1 sqqu w.,, ~ _ _ _. ...p.... ~ o n ~ ? j f.*j4, l ,.Q j ~'}'& f.'";'"?,. W *-- ' gg.[,-

y. _.'

r ,,,.,.xn.:. >:e 5s w m: n. .y. g-

3. c.

p.JV r. - ;m.... .s .y e ,_ y,, m I Q Do you recall th( 5tandard'with1 M hat j 2 document of being reasonable assurance? t l 3 A .: really don' t remember the details ) 4 of this document. It was sometime ago, and I have t i 8 read a lot of documents. 6 Q Eas anyone from the NRC explained to you 7 what reasonable assurance means? l 8 A wo. I 9 Q You never asked anyone from the NRC7 1 4 i 10 A No, no. l 11 Q But you are right now operating -- you i l 12 have been operating under the assumption that you 4 i (,; have to be absolutely certain it is right after la j i j 14 Three-Mile Island? 1 1 2 A Well, I think you can connect the 1a twot reasonably sure and absolutely certain. You 17 eaa never be absolutely certain, but there is some j i reason -- they are really different playe on the. is f 19 words. And they really mean the same thing. j g Q Reasonably certain, reasonable assurance t 21 and absolutely certain are the same, just different i 3 words? I a A The meanings are more or less the same. l g Q what do you mean by, "being absolutely ~. l i I w ^ 4 t ,., m.

... ;. : <.,. 3... ,.; g._

.q

3

ga- %&. s

.~- m-56 I

1 certain"? i 2 A You have to be -- to ths best of.your i engineering ability and judgment, you have to be 3 certain with all of the steps taken -- all of.the 1 4 steps that you can that it is correct. 5 You have to take all of the steps that e Q 7 you can? A Right. s You have to get all of the information 9 Q to you probably can? A Right, right. 11 i Q Does cost enter into that factor at all? 12 4 A sure. I would say take all of the steps ( l 13 you can within reasonable cost, too, because you g4 can put a thousand borings down and that would be-i 15 1 unreasonable, you know, and very costly. i gg Q Do you recall Mr. Gurndston working on i gy the Midland Project? g, A Yes. He might have in the beginning, l g, but he was switched to the Bailly Plant. And at some point -- and I think his efforts are entirely .l n on the Bailly Nuclear Plant now. g There is another person involved, too, j y from the waterways experimentation. This is [ i Th d MM n m. ~,. ,--r-m ---m -m-- -,--w .-,-n-- ,-.-e ,.. -, -. - ~,,, - -, - - - -, - - ~ - - - --,---a -~---n,+

-.1.. ~ .. %YM2,Gi' W'h&~W~%%.fi~?:Q ~~f-Y?*i

h. -...,.

~~. $G.?Z.'~'..j .: = ~ " ~ " ':1$55&N&~fd ;? ~~~ - Q,' f' T ~= ' M. gw,'_. ; -,, - Y.. 57 ... r. .....<.m, ? y r?..,r... ~. ~, ~ . ~.... g .t...... 7, g ggg,, 2 Q Hadala? 3 A That's right. He looked at the earthquake 4 the dynamic aspects of the problem. s MR. JONES: May we take a break, please. 6 MR. FARNELL: Sure. (WREREUPON, there was a 7 short interruption.) a g BY MR. FARNELL: 10 Q According to Exhibit 4 -- turn to Exhibit 4 for the moment. Have you ever been told 11 what safety related structures are? 12 (. (WEEREUPON, the document was 33 tendered to the witness.) 14 BY THE WITNESS: 15 A In connection with the Midland Plant? 16 BY MR. FARNELL: g7 Q Yes. g, A Yes. g, Q Eave you been given a definition of that? y A Yes. g Q What is the definition? A I believe it is structures that have to 3 keep on working when the -- regardless of,the -- well, y . W a h cAo ws$ssg a d M % ~.,,.

n.., . ': q,,;y s. ~ #.. - o- ,, x _ j,. 7 ,-~,-,,; g ..g. r v. w 1 for a certain degree of earthquake. I think it's -- 2 I'm not sure what degree, but -- 3 Q Do you equate safety related structures 4 with Category 1 structures? 5 A Yes. I 6 Q They are the same to you? l 7 A Tes. Did someone within the NRC tell you this? 8 Q 9 How did you come to learn it? 10 A I believe at the orientation someone I 11 mentioned it. I what orientation are you referring to? 12 Q Several meetings we had in the beginning wi th 13 A 14 Consumers, Bechtel and their consultants. j .n Q Did you ever attend any orientation meetings where only NRC and Corps of Engineers 16 17 Personnel were involved? l i ga A Yes. We hav'e had presestings before 1 some of the meetings with the other people. [ 19 I m Q when you first became involved in the 21 Midland Project, did you have any meetings down in Bethesda or any other place with the NRC7 I 3 They were always in conjunction with the A 23 other bigger meetings as I recall. 24 ~ ' ~~ '~ < w q M e, e,,d 4 w., % m won.

,g, y . g,- -,-.u_ ~" ff ~ !~}[;5?$$ . '~-. EY ~ ~ h G Q.f;., f !;i-lh(5lT$5 . y w.x - m,,.,.. :-- -.. - -... p $9 gj

,.is. t FD;=.;._,...........

Q .c.. s.... ..m V Do you remember.'he", cooling pond 14.ike at t 1 7 ' Midland to be a safety related. structure? 2 3 A I haven't really studied it that much. 4 The Detroit District has. But if you want my 5 opinion -- 6 A Sure. i 7 Q -- I would say at least part of it near the intakes -- near the watier intakes were probably -- a in my opinion, would be safety related. The rest of 9 to it, I am not sure. 11 Q When you first began working on the Midland Project, did you think the dike -- a Portion U h of the dike was safety related? u A You put me in a position I am not in. 14 I haven't really worked on it. I have reviewed 33 what Detroit has done on it. 16 Q So if Detroit said it was safety related, 17 you said it was fine? la A No. I may or may not agree with them. 19 Q When was the first time they told you they thought it was safety related? 21 1 A I am not sure when, but this, you know, was in a general area that we talked about. I am g not sure what meeting or when it was. g l 1 l Th dMsg M c:duodessa a-, ~ e ~ ~. I

,.g. , m.

. T.g*_~

E. - a n- -- " -:.. _ %. y a .e v 3. g. e.m ^ 1 Q Was it an internal meeting with the NRC 2 and Corps of Engineers? 3 A It could -- yes. Probably one of the 4 preneetings, you know. s, Q were there meeting notes kept, do you know, of that meeting or any of these other meetings s 7 that you referred to? 1 a A I don't believe there were, no. l Q Apparently,you must have agreed with the Detroit District that at least part of it was 10 1 safety related when you authorised them to request a borings at Consumers Pcwer, is that correct? 12 l ( A T*8= la Q Eow did you go about analysing whether l g4 i the dike or portions of it was safety related? is A Row did I go about analyzing? is ) Q Eow did you go about making the decision g7 it was safety related? la l Mainly proximity to the intakes and what A t, could happen if it were to slide and block the intake s. Q Why don't you tell me exactly why you 21 J think it is safety related? A I think it just did. If the intakes g are blocked, it could shut off water which might be y ,s t <w+ % a u... .,me,s e- - + my r,_w-- y+ y

h. ~, $. g. h. f,2,.3 7 '_.. < kin ;;;

ykh..... M.. %. h,..... ~ 4,.. v ,e. .....gew9 w .> ~.. s.v-- .,.g..... 7 g g, w.: - ..:., : u....,..,, '^ y':q + 'py,,,_r needed for a safety shutdown;.1, - 'ca. u. .~ _ 1 What intakes are you tal. king about? 2 Q Intakes,of cooling water from the pond. 3 A 4 Q Now many intakes are there? 1 s A I am not sure. I a Q Do you know where they are located? I can point it out to you on the diagram. i A i l 7 s Q The different types of intakes? A I am not sure of type either. You say l are there different types? I am not sure. to Q I am saying are you talking about all 11 intakes, now, to the cooling pond or one intake 12 (. less than all? g A I am not sure that it includes all because 14 % am not sure how many there are. But I would say -- ,3 did I answer that enough?' 14 What ts your basis for requesting herings 0 g7 from consumers Power in the area of the dike g, embankments? 1 3, We have been over this one beforer guilt A by association. We have one bad fill, maybe this i i 21 is not too good either. y Q Just a maybe? You are not sure? A That's right. y 1 Weh.A & d ' '. ' ,., u e., t f e-

< ::. s..c . l. 4, 7g.q,,.g.. C. e,:; j -l -.. A, :.g. '. ;. c <2. i. ;rm - n- .,...x ., e r.rt - . n. v. 4 62 1 Q Is there anything else besides so-called 2 " guilt by association"? 3 A 1 think that is it. That is the principal 4 reason. Thate could be others. 8 0 That in your mind is auffisient to do the \\ l 4 horings? 7 A Right. 8 Q Are you aware that the dike was constructed I by a different contractor than the contrastor that 9 put down the fill in the diesel generator building? to 4 11 A Yes. I knew that, but the quality is assurance psople were the same, I believe. ( 18 Q Are you sure? 14 A It was Beohtel who had both quality is assurance for both the dike and the embankaant, I la believe. I as sure of that. 17 Ma. FARNELL: Mark this as the next exhibit. 1 (WEEAEUPOW, said doousent was marked la CPC0(Simpson) Depositism Exhibit to No. 5, for identification, as a of 11/19/00.) n s BY MR. FARNELL m 0 I will now show you what has been marked as Bahibit 5, " Discussion of the Applicant's position y 'Wef A& end.A: %~e..s,

,:.,r.ww...;.-.-Q$, ;... x

• 6, _.,

-h_.......;_-- ^ mg em__, ~

_3 4

x ':.:a.:u,.er.:.7.ly, w=a w ~. ^ - k- ' m -M..% n.=:~.7 m -th-7 - 4, m.~. g3 w ,..=.w-~e~.~w.~u.-.,m ~: m .e ja U _':. v.:.... -,.,....,...,y .m.. _._.,

• f). ;.

-:v%.-- - ' ' ,7* 1 on the need for additional borings for MidlaWa Plant Units 1 and 2," and ask if you'have read this 2 3 document. 4 (WHEREUPON, the document was 5 tendered to the witness.) 6 BY THE WITNESS: 7 A Yes. I have read it. 8' MR. JONES: Let me see it. 9 (WHEREUPON, the document was 10 tendered to counsel.) 11 BY MR. FARNELL: 12 Q Mr. Simpson, prior to requesting the borings, did you realize that heavy equipment was (-- 13

n 14 used to construct the dike,whereas,in other areas 15 around the plant small hand-held equipment was 16 utilized?

17 MR. JONES: Read the question back, please. 18 (WHEREUPON, the record was read by the reporter as requested.) t 19 I + 20 MR. JONES: By "around the plant," you are e 21 talking about the plant area? i 1 22 BY MR. FARNELL: l 23 Q Power block -- power block area. l 24 A Certainly. I read it in therer. And it 1 .,. 9 and d Moh An su.., ,'~. 'A' 3 e.m***

• emmemem-emm emune. asm e-emum.

em eemme. - wes em= .sa. ,.e..se. .aw s m e. = O.p m e.we e e ew e ,** a e .e T -= m

_..y.-- ...-~.... _. z'.c. u. i..,jg,- :.. - e.,,_ g - __o.~g,. c.r s z 3,..: k- ~ ~ e ~ ~ ,.. vig; _ g 4.'_ w ... s should have is reasonable that this is the way it 1 2 been done. what I am saying -- my question was: 3 Q Prior to the time you requested the borings, were you l 4 1 5 aware of that fact? I never -- no one told me specifically, j 6 A but it would be my engineering judgment that this is 7 l I was never probably the way it was done, you know. a i sure of the heavy equipment -- how heavy it was or t 9 anything like that. 10 That factor did not enter into your t 11 Q view regarding the need for the horings? 12 This is one falsehood of it. Any fill -- (.- A 13 if heavy equipment was used with t.he lef t of two or 14 that this would have no -- heavy equipment three feet, 15 would have no means -- you' still wouldn't have your 16 Or if the water content of the fill was not fill. 17 your heavy equipment wouldn't really help

correct, is So you could have a bad fill with the heavy 19 you.

It's how it equipment or with the hand equipment. 20 was used. 3 Do you have any evidence with regard to Q

T4 g

g-either of those two items you just pointed out? The only evidence I would have would be A 24 -w n, and l?- Mah 8% ~.,.,.,,' ~ ' A L ~ --- < -..... - - _.. _..

• • --*-*es--

,,.4 ,a,a ,...,,...-,..-m_.

. irei.=-... :.. c - ~ &N?k%C.WY .-.,....,h.. . "'%C-:i2V, s.v.$

f..=:,, 49..??0 ~ Y.

.:... v. i . ggwen w. t.mqq.3 .m. 65 c... =-.. n ..wn.,,~.......

hv -u.

.n-.-. w,....,.;. ~. . ~n. -n.~ - area where yo( did have~'ths~' @ R;,;? = 1 for the plant 'i 2 settlement. 3 Q Do you have any concrete information ~ whatsoever that the fill in the dikes was improperly 4 5 compacted or placed? 6 A No. Would it be fair to say all you have is a 7 Q e a suspicion? 9 A Yes. 10 Q That is enough for you to request i 11 borings? ~ A Yes. The borings are relatively simple 12 (. and cheap. And I think to dispel your fears, they 33 should be done. 14 Q Do you know how much it will cost to take , g3 those borings? 16 A Around the fill? g7 Q Tes. 18 A I would say under -- you know, this is 1, ) 1 off the top of my head -- under 50,000. y 1 Q Does that include testing? g A Well, I am speculating here. g Q You have been provided information 3 regarding the cost of the horings or boring program? i 3 f h annlaFen

~.

o I a,., m.. m =e. e..

• • e.

.+*=..w.- as. ee.. p om. m, e. e.- e qm 4h a p* m-w wry-, 3 mwe*-e.isrw-y-i,--_.u--*e ay,-a,,,y-- w ,==,iv. ,,q-. ++g.y-=

.e.. .. ;.... :, J c .;.:~2.;~.. s-. - O- _;.: : ;..- ~ .. :.: ?--- ~. yp.. g s. a -y... 1 A I beg your pardon? -i You have been provided with information 2 Q regarding the projected cost of the overall borings 3 4 that you requested? 5 A Yes. You consider that cost to be cheap? 6 Q Are we talking about the whole plant or 7 A 8 just the -- I am Mlking about the whole plant. 9 Q I would say it's cheap for the assurance 10 A We have our ow. you get that everything is right. 11 estimates, and I think Consumers has theirs. i 12 p g. Do you have any reason to doubt \\- 13 Q 14 Cons' users estimate? I am not sure whether they modified theirs. 15 A I think ours was maybe two or $300,000, 16 or not. I would but I believe theirs was up in the millions. 17 go along with our estimate. f is Why do you think Consumers' is so high 19 Q compared to yours? 20 I think they might have misunderstood i 21 A l They had borings l 1 what we really wanted, you know. 22 within some of the buildings that I think -. the t 3 l electrical generator building -- we didn't really 24 QVoh d owshsy and d aml=h' 1. di; % m e,,a-ser

l ~ ,,...,,.,,,.%. 7,, g,..g ~ I 5b h -..., c :- _. - - MW~%.. .ec, w . [40 ...,;n *: c :,sa. . m,.,u. - s 67 - .. r.n. me.... v....,,,,...- , 2 _,w- >. ~~' -t. i,,,_.s7', .. -- -~ :=.www. w a--- ~~.x.. 3 1 think that -- well, they cottid be there, butM t was 3 1 unreasonable to put them there. So I think'we put ours as near as possible without going to the 3 concrete of the buildings. And I believe that is it. 4 1 There could have been some disagreement i 5 orr the amount of testing, too. I think they were 6 going to test all of the samples, and we were j 7 testing just select samples. s 9 Q Have you ever communicated prior to today the fact that you think Consumers misinterpreted to 11 your request to Consumers? A Communicated to Consumers? 12 Q Yes. The fact that you think.maybe they is misunderstood what you wanted? g4 .A No. We have no relationship with 15 Consumers. It would be to NRC directly. Whether 16 NRC did -- or contacted Consumers,.I don't know. 17 I Q You don't care? gg A Sure. But it's not on.r - it's not in g,. the chain of command to tell Consumers. y Q Did you tell NRC? g I A

Yes, 2

Q Who did you tell? g A I imagine, Joe Kane. 3 1 j QVoffs, <Roun&s<g and 6"w nu..,w-a

.._....s..u... '.. M L.:.

~.

.,,. x- ,a QQ.,~~... -.- _QQQ ~, '. * '. _'~~.. :[f ~ ~: p_c~_~Q}s. ; je :. 5 O.- - .- m.2t _.,.. c 69 . vv....,:, 1 Q You imagine? You'.re not sure? 2 A No. Take the imagine out -- Joe Kane. 3 Q When did you tell him that? 4 A At one of the meetings, I think, in 5 Bethesda.. 6 Q Has the Corps of Engineers completed an 7 FSAR in draf t form or final form for the Midland a Project? 9 A They have been working on it. I am not 10 sure whether the Detroit District has completed it 11 or not. I would say no. 12 Q Does that have to be cleared by you? .-( ', 13 Do you have to read it? 14 A Yes. It will come through. i .5 Q Have you seen any drafts yet? 16 A No. 17 Q What other task is the Corps presently is working on now with regard to the Midland Project? 19 A I am not sure because they have the 'i 20 overall working -- you know -- whatever they are 21 working on right now. But I am sure it does include this within the report -- the FSAR you mentioned. 22 5 23 Other than -- I do:2't really know what other tasks 24 they have. 9 4. 'e. .-ea n m.,- I { l -------

'~~2

n j'

. '~g R.~5_jj jc-Q yjg_

:.C,

.&-Q. : ~; - G. 3 2 '- ~'M g gg.y -g ~ y,.;:5 U-f.~~.3'.V C W.k. y ....r=-- .:, W,,. n 2. m...- . y _..s.._.. 69 -g.3 . n,, m ~;.......: - -,, e. _...,.-..v._. ... _..m,,.... m.,,,.,,, _ _. _, g.. i f g 5.~. .;r m k..r.<s :..,. s g-v _... . g. 3 l 2 anything? 3 A When they are finished, usually it comes 4 up for review. MR. FARNELL: Mark this one as the next 5 6 exhibit. (WEEREUPCN, said document was marked 7 i CPCO (Simpson) Deposition Exhibit 3 No. 6, for identification, as 9 of 11/19/80.) 10 11 BY MR. FARNELL: Q I will now show you what has been marked 12 (~ ' Geotechnical Engineering as CPCO's Exhibit ~No. 6: \\_. 33 Assistance to NRC-Trip Report to NRC Office," dated 14 February 1, 1980, by Mr. Kubinski and ask you -- I 15 note also on Page 6 that your name apparently appears 16 as having concurred in the report. I ask if you t 17 i have ever seen this report before? n 3, i (WEEREUPON, the document was gg tendered to the witness.) g l 1 BY THE WITNESS: g A I don't recall specifically seeing it, g but all of these reports are funneled through our y o*fice. I am sure I read it. ,j, [ QVo[{s, crows 0ssy and & A-i %~.,. .r --e e v. -=,--.,w sw.e--- = - - v <--~e --w -i w r-*r, -s-e-w r~

l - n -, ~. -.. . ~ . 9.;.y. g. ~. 3:6;-~& - '..~.. : ~.c. ..c --.:a:; -1 qww v-2 ~~ y -?;- g __..' =.. y. g; g '. ..~....... r ..- - * = *- 70 1' v l 1-BY MR. FARNELL: 2 Q Did you look at the last page? Did you 3 concur in it? 4 A. Well, I would rather not give it a 5 blanket concurrence. I would rather you be specific 6 on what part. 7 Q What does the last page -- concurred -- 8 mean with your name thereafter? What does that mean? 9 A Well, that would mean that I probably 10 concurred on his opinion, but I would -- I am not it really sure. You know, sometimes they write these l things and every detail you don't really concur.on. 12 And there could be details in here that I"an not 13 i sure -- I don't recall what is in it even. 14 Q Page 1 of the document talks about what 15 l they consider " Meeting 1.* It indicates that you 16 i attended this meeting. Page 2, Item 6 is stated, 17 I "It is imperative that we identify concerns and l la t 1, state clearly what is needed with respect to these." Do you recall that being stated at that 4 g meeting? 3 l A I believe that is true. 2 Q By that is meant that you had - "you" 3 being the Corps -- had to identify concerns and state 3 Wh 8 a,sd & n m..,n ~.

._m.__ s. 3 .%)Mk .......q._, ~

• • i

,,, : = * .. ". =Q ' *me _ - ~. - -... '$T;x:.. :4;6$<gc', Y :- ~ ' =7 n~.5- ~ 3. 2...= - -% % 29.n;~ M e-.- g; r" - tegmqg{. ~ ' '(( ;L: ", w...--. ..:, @w-: -.::,r.~.-_.m..-~ ,p 71 ._s.-.... .....m. y-(.f _ b w. , p j. Q.gg.;, pPn ~ .q.. %1tu = g=+- I 2 with respect to this, is that right? l t 3 A We have no relationship with Bechtel or 4 Consumers. Anything we -- any of our communications a i i, 5 would go directly to NRC. 6 Q This means you have to identify concerns 7 and state clearly to the NRC7 8 A Right. 9 Q Have you, to the best of your knowledge, 10 or has the Corps, to the best of your knowledge, 11 done that? A Ye s... I believe they have. u C' \\ 33 Q So at present, you have identified -- t the Corps has identified all of their concerns with 14 regard to the Midland Project? . 15 A I believe so, yes. ) 16 Q And it's'your opinion that the Corps has 37 i i stated clearly what is needed with respect to these i is t i concerns? l 19 A I believe so, yes. t y Q Has the NRC passed on these concerns to ) g t Consumers Power? g i A I have no direct knowledge of thid.. But j y I believe our report was -- did come to consumers. 3 { Toh doms 8sy and.c:dsaoskassa ,. e-n,. n., s.s, .3 .,... -. ~.

' :. 4 e -. ~ ', ~_ _ . m.. . e_ g.g q,.. ; O:-p-- E ^.- .-x...;5iN21~51TW T'.@.-FM6,.' ~;i.O'OMjf 72 .c . --c. v. i 1 Q With certain modifications, I mean, with 2 requests for borings? 3 A Tas. There was another report, too. 4 Q ltas.it your testimony previously that not 5 all horings had to have tests taken after the: 6 horings were made? I 7 A I think it was my statement that we would 8 put down the two borings together and identify the 9 soils that we did want to test, and then we would 10 test them, you know, not everything from that one 11 hole, but the ones we identified that we needed 12 tests. And we could sho*"this would be selected 13 testing of material from that second boring. 14 .Q What is the first boring and the second 15 boring? 16 A The first one is exploratory to find out -- 17 Q Are you familiar with a recent request for an additional boring with regard to the Baffle is 19 Dike at the Midland Plant? 20 A Did this come through the Detroit -- you l i n will have to show me. s o I am just saying are you familiar with 2s concerns or requests for an additional boring in i I I addition to the horings you have previously requested 24 l he fg _ & ' h annL. Fen % ~.,,,.,,. ~

- "" 7.9}..;:j==jj,'y;;f .1 ' ='~:2.J.....-l-J. L ' ..=:Q.,, i ~ ' i- % w $ R. ......,.x,=cm...,..,-...,,. jfNuin.7 OA ' *W -- : n..=.J ' %fQf.)M;*n1N.W .....,,r g sq <c~. ~ a ;..,.. -.:a = =. 73 g

-

.c c..

r...;-- v.~,..,,.. .m,,, J-D.1 m.,.- -with regard to the Baffle Di$c:e._... m.~ ._. q*h_ 1 _7 at Midland? 2 A No. I am nou familiar. Detroit' District - - 3 Q,, Well, if the Detroit District were 4 concerned about that and wanted'a boring, wouldn't they have.to confirm it with you prior to submitting 5 i 6 it to the NRC7 j 7 A If ith done in writing. It wouldn't t 8 come through our organization if it was conversation. 9 It might be direct. 10 Q But that would not be in the proper chain 11 of command, would it? 12 A No. I would s'ay this probably originated (~. 13 within NRC rather than the Corps, or it would have 14 come through us because I haven't really heard about is it. There could have been a slip-up. And it didn't 16 come through. I can't be reasonably sure. 17 Q Have you ever heard anyone in the Corps is of Engineers or the NRC express an opinion as to 19 whether it was wise for Consumers Power to request 20 a hearing with respect to the December 6, 1979, 21 order concerning Midland Plant?

2 A

I have an opinion on it,.and I have

3 talked it over with --

j 24 Q Why don't you tell me your opinion. W o h h o w sbss) aond & A b=a % D L =Cs. e 2e Hro M

w.. - N e 9 6 2.- 2; E '3n - 3. $ 9 Q.i." 5,4f. Sin di'"'i .x. g . ;g y ;. 2 :M: -e- ~ 74 1 A I may have mentioned it to the other l i 2 people. I would say it was unwise. 3 Q Why is that? 4 A Because they are putting -- they are 5 really putting us in the category of intervenor, 6. and they are really handing ammunition to the wrong 7 ~ people by not complying with a reasonable request a for more information. 9 MR. FARNELL: Would you read back that ' 10 answer, please. 11 MR. JONES: Would you read back the question 12 along with it, please. -~ 13 (WEEREUPON, the record was rcad i 14 by the reporter as requested. ) 15 BY THE WITNESS: 16 A I would like to strike that answer. 17 MR. ZAMARIN: You cannot do that. I 18 BY MR. FARNELL: 19 Q That is not your prerogative. I as sorry. 20 MR. ZAMARIN: Even we cannot do that. 21 MR. JONES: You can correct it if there is 22 an error. 23 BY THE WITNESS: 24 A I think I answered it wrong. The hearing o % ~ re.. g y e - e +eeeen.* * ~ - - -.-...-- -~. - ~.

x-s.fp,_. _ _ _. - wt* .....,,. w mW. ! - - u.q;..... Asp,t. 4 s.

. m.p 7 x.<.,. m s

_,Q;,,. ~g rps-fr.'. %3,.-pF!'.=4.: p.;.gq., ,j ,, _. g..:. y c y$ .. i...wn- . ~m ;.as c... r:.:.. __ _, _ _ .~.,.~:-..,,n.. -~ ~ 4..,. ~ J.' '. JT;m...s. T..,. m.--.. k _. - -,,. rt. y : y., + itself between -- regarding the shutdown -- I really 1 2 have no opinion. What I answered was on whether people should go on and do some more exploration 3 to see whether the buildings were safe for.. operation. 5 BY MR. EARNELL: So you have no opinion as to whether it 6 Q 7 was wise or not to request -- for Consumers to 8 request.the hearing? i A No, no. l 10 MR. JONES: Which hearing are you talking 11 about? j 12 MR. SAMARIN: There is only one. 13 MR. JONES: Well, some people call the meeting 14 with vollmer a hearing. And I just want to make sure we are talking about the right -- make sure he 15 i 16 understands what you are talking about when you say 17 hearing. 18 BY MR. FARNELL: 19 Q Did you understand the hearing referred to the appeals meeting with Mr. Vollmer regarding 2 21 the -- 22 A Yes. That is what I answered.

Really, 3

I think you are talking -- My questions are referring to t'ha December 24 Q 6, 1979, order. .,,,y..,.. - n m.,- y w ---w,.,, ,,,-,ef- ,-,--wr .gw-.**-ve ,-,w.c- ,--,-,--v ,--u, -.e-.,.we .e, s. ,.y-

1 L,;. ':n.-... -. .f}.. _..:.

s. 3:ff i

-! p-.,.; - z+2k 2%K Az .. w ;.- M... S -f.j Q 5 g. y..-~ -~ ..e...~.-ye 76 ~ .. v... _. n w.- 1 A Yes. See, I have no opinion of that. Q Have you heard anyone within the NRC 2 or Corps of Engineers ever discuss whether it was 3 a good idea of Consumers to request this hearing 4 i regarding'the December 6, 1979; order? 5 A No. Not that I recall. 6 l Q Eave you ever heard anyone from the 7 1 Corps or the NRC state something to the effect that 8 they were going to be very tough on Consumers Power 9 10 during that review of Midland Project? 11 A No. I think we are all pro-Nuke, and we 12 already are very visible. But we must be firm with r / ,f 18 the safety aspects. 14 Q Eave you ever..had any experience with t I regard to a nuclear power project prior to M'idland 15 16 Project? 17 g yo, is Q Does that trouble you at all? 19 A No. 20 Q You think you can do an adequate job 21 without having any background in nuclear power? 22 A-Probleme sre basically the same with i the many large buildings and large industrial 23 24 complexes. I have done a lot of foundation 1 l. wog., % e,.s om..... n m .,s, ..-..n.

lkzwQm'$ ;.L -2.L. .O% - . :2. r,;,.. ~ - - -.. -. - =i5m'- ~..;_ W'.r$t%$$}~$ '#*?.;{74.M M "2 2 ?'T*~- } j ~ - - . - M ~ m:. n..,.-..,... _yy . 2v - _: ~~ .g. ~ ..~ Q fTE: ^ .[ 1, - ~'T- _=%,.--_ I engineering on some of the high-rise buildings 2 around Chicago even. So it doesn't bother me a bit. 3 Q Does it bother you that you are at odds, 4 as it were, with Dr. Peck and Dr. Hendron and 5 Dr. Daviseon on some technical issues? A. We are not really at all odds. We would 7 like to go -- wo more or less agree with what they 8 did and proposed--but we would like to go one step 9 further and back check the results. And here there 10 is a difference. Dr. Peck doesn't want another 11 check, and we would like to check. There is no man 12 infallible, I would think, and it would be very 13 simple to check on Dr. Peck and and the matter 14 because it is a very important building -- safety-15 related structure. And this check should be made. 16 g ~ To your knowledge, is any Corps of 17 Engineezspersonnel ever constructed a settlement is versus log time curve with regard to the preloaded 19 diesel generator building? l ll0 A Not to my knowledge. ) 21 Q Has any Corps of Engineem person reviewed

l2 a settlement versus log time curve regarding the pre-2 loaded diesel generator building?

24 A You have to ask Detroit District about this t g anselafra a, u .,s, j l ~,..

...;.~. JJ;*g..;- 3,.. _.g..g. 7 -

.. -g

.y'7.pr.p;:..- M_ n- _,.... q ..~..<. m 78 F .qg l 1 Details like this.I am not really familiar with. 2 They might have or they might not have. 3 Q Would you expect that information -- if they hadn't, would you expect that information to be 4 5 transmitt'ed to you? 6 g' Perhaps, but not necessarily. 7 Q Could you explain why you say, '"Perhaps, 8 but not necessarily"? 9 A They might transmit to me their results 10 and without curving and everything. 11 Q But you have never seen such a curve? 12 A go, Q Did you ever review a settlement versus u Q log time curve prepared by consumers Power and l 14 M Bechtel? 16 A Yes. I have seen it. You are talking 17 about the preload7 1 la Q Yes. Has any Corps of Engineerspersonnel 19 over stated that. settlement versus log time curve l 20 exhibits a standard secondary consolidation curve? 4 21 THE WITNESS: Go ahead and repeat it. 22 MR. PARNELL: Read it back. 23 (WHEREUPON, the record was read by the reporter as reques'ted.) 24 n, u., s.s, L

.: 3.q _.: --q;,g y.,.2w - 'M ~:. k.:._-.,.;;-yZfij.7lk 4&?2lG.n;MM ~ .q.-}=^'^^'^-^ . ((.g.Q. .f.gb.

y... - _. _.L.

.s s c:- r - e r u,, 1.- y m ps%.._.,.3* p

g.t w w es s.

j,.. 3 sh 1 BY THE WITNESS: 2 A The curve does exhibit secondary 3 consolidation and. primary very clearly. 4 BT MR. FARNELL 5 Q Nas any Corps of Engineers personnel 6 over indicated that the required degree of 7 consolidation was achieved during preloading? A Here we have some reservations. It may a or may not have been. Q My question was, has anyone ever stated 10 11 that the required degree of consolidation was 12 achieved during proloading? -~ 13 A 'I have never seen any or heard anyon's 14 make that statement, i 15 , MR. FARNELL: Would.you mark this the next 16 exhibit, please. 17 (WEEREUPON, said document was marked ~ IS CPC0(Simpson) Deposition Exhibit i i 18 No. 7, for identification, as 2 of 11/19/80.) f 21 BY MR. FARNELL 22 Q I now show you what has been marked as 28 Exhibit No. 7 for identification, a document entitled, 24 " Trip Report Regarding the Midland MI Nu$rlear Power (

• d"9 9

b. 4, p p a,~.-

.:.=...;..., ~ .C.C.;.,3_.g _ g.-. M.~g;,_. K*l.G..,. g : ?.-; c % F.~ a .'.n : - -c.- -..:-m.~ . +... u gn .- y.-. a ) 1 Including a Tour of the Plant and a Conference on 2 construction Difficulties," dated March 17, 1980. 4 3 It appears it went to the files, and it l l 4 war from " Chief, Geotechnical Branch, Simpson/Norton.' 5 The first page of the document is, " Facsimile Header 6 Sheet," which indicates it was from J. W. Simpson to 1 7 Neal Gearing as released by Mr. Simpson. This l 8 document came from Mr. Simpson's files. 1 1 9 Eave you seen this document previously? 10 (WEEREUPON, the document was i 11 tendered to the witness.) i 12 BY THE WITNESS: (- 13 A Tes. 14 BT MR. FARNELL: l l 15 Q Are you the co-author of this document? 16 A Yes. t 17 Q What was the purpose of this document? A It's really-a meno to files which puts is on r' cord what we saw or what transpired at this e 19 l 20 one trip. 21 Q And it is your comments on that trip? i 22 A Yes. These are mine and Mr. Norton's I I 23 comments. l 24 Q On the first page of the document, 4A deals I M o h d % eed o f u se&sena i l ,m.,, i , _ ~.. -. _, _ _ -. _ - _ _ -.. - _ _

~.., .uw,,., _ wws e { f:. l T El$:h$h

Y hh**E

'~ ' ~ ~

',1

' ' ' ~ ...~. :.,w ..r.... ..c g- .g . m..... ~. - _,. d g..,.; .,.m . with the diesel generator building. The second sentence g 1 i i 2 reads, "The information from the preload appears j 3 correct." 't What information were you referring to? 4 I 5 A .To the curves that Bechtel or Consumers 6 Presented at the meeting. 7 Q These settlement versus log time curves? 1 s A Right. g Q Were you also referring to piezameter t to data? l 11 A We saw the piezometer data, I think, i 12 here. Fersonally, I never really studied the .e j k.- is piesometer data that much. So I think it',s mainly 4 the curve here we are referring to. 14 is MR. FARNELLs Could you read that last answer back. 16 s (WEERBUPCF, the record was read 17 by the reporter as requested.) is i i 1, BY MR. FARNELL Q Do you believe the fill underneath the s diesel generator building is currently in secondary 21 consolidation? j 2. l A Yes. But we would like additional g information to ensure that it is -- backup.information 24 x r i '8 nu.. j

m i u. l j . ( 7..c g. h.g,a-- _. ',,_;.22;ry.'i'g:., p-9g'g ' g -j Q ~ c ~ 82 ~ . --z .r. 1 MR. FARNELL: Would you just read that back. / 2 (WEEREUPON, the record was read by the reporter as requested.) i ? 3 4 BT MR. FARNELL: f .Do you have any concern with regard to l 5 Q i boring capacity under the service water structures? I 6 l 7 A of boring capacity? Of what? i 8 Q of the buildings -- of the soil, excuse me. The main part of the building which is on 9 A 1 10 the fill, not really. On the cantilever portion, which is on fill, I would have some concerns. -l 11 ) 12 Q What is your concern based on? - 13 A Inadequate compaction of the fill. f b. I 14 Q On Page 2 of Exhibit 7 under C2, you said, "The pile support plan appears satisfactory." 15 Do you today agree with that statement? 1 16 If you leave o'un the word " appears," I A i 17 would agree with it. But here again, we need some is collaborating information to be sure. 19 l Q Eave you requested all of the additional ~ g information that you need from consumers Power? 21 A I believe so. We have expressed our 3 concerns to NRC. Whether they have been communicated a o'n down, I am not -- I have no knowledge.. y Teh e.8% am/.wie="- s es, u. ~..

1 a -= v T~ = z k i-n- w %w. - - 4M :::= ..,.; w. :. .,..r., ..q,ez.;'.27:,.~;;;n: .m%, llt. -tg..yy an'i.5y + cz - - ~ - - r .g.,... :. a c.= ...i....a. ....,f,.m 7 ['- g3

• i ~ - e; ;;

s........ ~- .o...

- - ~,. -

,x.4 ,_p,c. 7 .u...... p _..w Do you know if the Corps presentl'y" plans 1 Q to ask the NRC to submit to Consumers Power' additional 2 requests for information regarding Midland Project? 3 4 THE WITNESS: Would you read that back. 4 (WEEREUPON, the record was read 5 bytthe reporter as requested.) 6 7 BY THE WITNESS: 8 A It's not quite clear. All of our borings I have been requested, everything that we think is 9 We have necessary, and they have been sent to NRC. i 10 11 no plans for other borings or tests. i 12 0 Disregarding borings or tests, have any -- do you know of any other requests for information .I ~ 13 that you plan to ask the NRC to in turn ask Consumers 14 15 Power to provide? 16 A I don't know of any. This would be on the i 17 operational level of Detroit. They might have other i requests for other information which I wouldn't know is 19 about. that would have to be cleared through j 20 Q But 21 to you, wouldn't it, prior to the time they would 22 ask for it? 23 A No. They would ask directly, then the 24 results would come to.us. We were not iri the i 4%Cfs, c.Rountmj.aoul M 4 \\ es.,., m. m - ~~ .,--n- .-e-e --n p .e, p ,-.-wn.- ---wo---w.--e- - - ,,. ~-- ,-s,,n +-~sv s-

.c . ~.. -.,...~.y~. m

ppryy.

-

n:

.~ m

..-~ --. ; q: a -,._ ' y- -. w i.,. - e =:.v.y 84 . - ar... I day-to-day operation of what they do. MR. FARNELL: Let's break for lunch. 2 3 (WEEREUPON, the deposition was 4 recessed until 2:00 p.m., this i 5 data, November 19, 1980.) 6 7 i 8 9 10 4 11 /^ h g \\ 14

• 15 16 17 la j.9 20 3

( e I l n nu.-

.h55A'?.- ....y: s. emqv;.T gW..p*.3s. : 9 ~ s. v...ac=u -.' ...2.=. . > r. w. ..n...x..-. .g gg _ ..z. a m -: :. c ;,,..... : = - 5 7,, _":' ~ p p, c.7 ,, c, :. =..n,.,. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 IN THE MATTER OF ) Docket Nos. 50-329-OL 3 ) 50-330-OL CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-329-0M l 4 (Midland Plant, Units 1 a 2)) 50-329-0M 5 November 19, 1980, 6 2:30 p.m. 7

l 8

The deposition of JAMES NALLACE SIMPSON 9 resumed pursuant to recess at Suite 4300, One First 10 National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois. 1 11 PRESENT: 12 MESSRS. ISNAM, LINCOLN a BEALE, c. (One First National Plaza, \\., 13 Chicago, Illinois 60603), bys MR. RONALD G. SAMARIN and 14 MR. ALAN S. FARNELL, 15 appeared on behalf of Consumers Power Company; 46 MR. BRADLEY JONES, g7 (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555), g, appeared on behalf of the United States 19 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 20 REPORTED BY: TCBY ANNE SLUTZEY, C.S.R. l 21 d 25 E. g Y n,. ~. -

L. w gg y,, ;;f _ '. W,p. -.x e.. X-p.- e -N - ~ ;; ;,,, =. - y.y., 86 . ~v r. - v .or JAMES WALLACE SIMPSON, 1 called as a witness herein, having been previously 2 duly sworn and having testified, was examined and 3 testified further as follows: 4 EXAMINATION (Resumed) 5 6 BY MR. FARNELL: Returning to Exhibit No. 7, Page 1, 7 Q "It is Item 4A 1in the third sentence is stated, 8 suggested that additional borings" be taken. 9 10 Why did you use the word " suggested" there instead of demand or another ters? 11 It really is demand -- or my polite form. l 12 A It would be (..

• It wouldn't be a stringent demand.

g 13 If they didn't something they could think over. 14 agree, they could come back and tell us, you know, 13 because really we don't have all of the information 16 And for this reason, you know, that Detroit has. 1; you can't say do it because it may be -- maybe they 18 have other information that indicates otherwise. 19 On the same page of Exhibit 7, Item 7 20 Q " Conclusions"-- under 4A right at the bottom of the page, 21 do you see that on the first page? 22 "If consolidation numbers Stated there, 23 it would appear t ah t the are in general agreement, 24 ..... q ,,t.. n m..,a n ~ ,-w .e

---

.e--

t-, m. e+.e +.=.6 -..*-,.----tw-

i .ym. ^ ~ -- j ,.% 6.... =.-sm,,.., Mg@lW'.' % t,?f& .....,. :==*"*-M e.w ~.r=.a..lg ;,% Q :s:.2 ~,-2-y g.. g. g g -..,. twrq. t ...._.c==:. s .,_g. gy q. t - v.... m.. t...> ...,,..~.~.v.,-..,. t.

.v-.-,...

.. _,,g pA m._ g W 1 preload fix for this building is adequate." What do you mean by the term " consolidation 2 3 numbers *? 4 A Taking new borings and comparing the l new consolidation tests -- comparing them with what 5 6 was accomplished already. And if they are reasonably 7 close, why that is good. That is good. a Q so consolidation numbers are the results 9 of tests? 10 A of the new tests afters:the preload. From the borings taken after the preload. 11 Q And you said if they were reasonably 12 close, then you would consider preload to be adequate? 13 14 A Right, right. 15 Q what would your opinion be if the consolidation numbers were not in general agreement? 16 17 A Well, then we have to evaluate what happened and try and find -- make a study, you know, 18 4 19-to see that -- try and find the differences. 20 0 Find the differences between -- 21 A Between the preload curves and the new 22 test curves. 2 Q Would you use the consolidation numbers to make an independent estimate of the asiount of 24 W 9 p. =de. f AnaddEhMd -.a** y,m- ... ~

-l ~;.,.g ~ c y; ~ ,.,, z -C ;- Q.3 g. 3. y ;.;.l-3 9.. x.. - 0.- v.a ht w u~.-.. ..u <..e gg 1 l 'r I i I settlement? l 2 3 y,,, i t would you expect to get a scatter of 3 o different consolidation numbers from different 5 g,g,,,,- A You might. But I think there would be 6 enough there that you could evaluate and make -- 7 a come to some conclusions. i Based on the heterogeneity of the fille 9 Q would you expect a scatter of test results? 10 11 A There would be some scatter. How wide t i 12 the limits on it, I am not sura. i o ' ~If you did get such a scatter, would you 13 14.. apply a esse < analysis?. 15 A No, no. I would give more credence to the preload curv' s than I would to what was -- what 16 e l 17 we found out with the new borings. 18 0 Do you believe that there is an issue l. with regard to boring capacity in the diesel generator I' 20 building? 21 A It should be checked, yes. Do I believe l I 22 there is an issue? \\ 2 Q Yes. 24 A Not really. I think it's probably. i s n,. u. w s, - l I....

.m:, k? f.':f f!~. .'.7 55 f: Q'&{t$y w., %,.... u.r... y.,

- z.

~~~ --- m +N fD=?--, T.,- c -- - j perfectly okay. But I would'like a check. 1 Q Why would you like a check if you think 3 it is probably perfectly okay? l well, everything you do in engineering -- A s , test, ;you run an analysis, you run -- you I have a check. You can't -- it's ainest imperative, 6 you know, that you check everything you do, 7 especially for a building of this importance -- of a Category 1. A building of lesser importance I l l 10 probably wouldn't bother checking, but this one, 1 II .l I would. 12 Q If this was not a nuclear power plant, ) (. 13 j would you check this type? 14 ) A P**obably not. i Q Is that with regard to boring capacity? is 18 A And settlement. 1 17 Q And settlement, also? Is a y.., l' Q Turping to Page 2cof the same Exhibit 7 8 under Item 2c: " service water structures," Number 1 21 stated therein: "If consolidation is not complete, j 22 scue differential settlement could occur between i 25 the pile supported sector and the remainder of the 26 building.' M _ -g 4-a %sa w ,__,,,.m._,...,._, ,..r.-.

y.; ,. p,,- 5 C;K Q' ; z.- ff;[,*:}.[.T[] 'l

• py -:a & -

s:- ;-T - O ~ .. _,.m T V.... ac, 90 l l i 1 Could you describe to me how this could 2 occur? 3 A Yes. The pile supported -- once you put 4 it on piles, it's there -- firmed up, you know. ,5 And the other end is not on piles. It's on fill j a which is,probably -- which probably can settle and, 7 therefore, cyou have one end held and the other end j s going down. i 9 0 Isn't the part of the service water l 10 structure that is not going to be unpinned on i i 11 glacial fill? 12 A It could. I think it is, but I am not D sure about this. It could be natural goils, but 14 I am not sure it's glacial till. U Q Do you consider. this a real problem or i just a. probable problem? 16 17 A A probable problem. j Is Again this is something because of the 19 safety implications of the building? You want to 20 he absolutely certain? i 21 A As reasonably close as you can be certain. 2 0 on the same page again, Exhibit 7, this 2 is under D, "Auxilliary auilding: 1, supporting - " 24 where it is stated in there, " Supporting the two i Y % %.,s w .m-. ---.w.-,-r-+-

Ag.r., L : ' %w QT.; - s :- ..}$b}}}:j(([', = =.. n - _.. ;. -.w..f R_(~~*Nf~ &RQ f;g-}n.Gfl

}yll&pg L

- S.~"af.L..L. ^ :J. L . c u s........... - r,;. ,1 _4_

g..r.u.-. _= r,.. _ - - - -

electrical penetration areas on jacked caissons and 1 the control tower footing appears feasible providing 2 the structural f.icane and the tower -- control tower 3 4 footing (also on fill) can handle it." Do you have any information to lead you 5 to believe that structural frame in the control tower s 7 footing could not handle it? 4 1 3 A No. But this should be checked. I have 9 no information. 10 Q This is a suspicion on your part? I 11 A Well, it's a lease end. It is not a 12 suspicion. It should be looked into. ( 13 Q What do you mean.by " loose end"? 14 A It is something possibly that could go 15 wrong. It should be investigated. 16 Q Is it your position that you have to look into.everything that is possible? 17 A No. If it's - the possibility was Is beyond reason, you would not look into it. But 1, if it can reasonably happen, you take a look at 3 it. 21 Q what is your criteria for "raasonably can g i happen"? g .W 1 _9* e w,* d S a f s, m e w.uor

• w-s-,-.

-.--g-.e. ,--.,w ,, +, ,v w .-,y,.-,-,.. ,---w

. g.... 4[ ~ '7].y M ~ J,.,-m _ - ; ~- 5.;- QR3,-.. . g g -g;;w .'G,r0 n - i -r -,, c. l 1 A I knew you were croing to ask that. l 2 well, if it could happen and, you know, i 3 is not ruling anythi'gg out -- but checking into this Why not do it. It's no 4 is maybe a one-day job. 5 big thing". The analysis is a.one-day job,. but.I.am 6 not sure about the piezameter test. Whether they 7 have those or not, if they don't have them, it could 8 be a little bigger. job. 9 Q Do you go through the process by thinking - l 10 do you think of everything that could possibly i l 11 happen with regard to Midland Project and then i 12 eliminate certain things, or do you just lay out u everything that could possibly happen and ask for 14 information on it? 15 A I think the engineering approach is to 16 look at everything that can happen and maybe l 17 eliminate some of them and investigate others. I i 18 Q Have you eliminated anything with regard 19 to the Midland Project that you decided could not 20 happen? i n A I don't recall, but I don't recall 22 specifically anything was eliminated; maybe the 23 boring capacity of the reactor building or something like that which more than that it would -- 24 n m. ,a s, -_,.n .,s ,.m--o. ,.w..--geww me.*- e-

---

r---

-r --re,-

• -w+-.-we--

rw p-,-* g -we.- i- -,w> ww r-

~ C: M. ~~ s * ~ e >> n., 1.g:= ;,.. e. ..,.i.214.. ;.. - .'.g.. ..g..-- r-v.,.. a.. ,a. . -..... ac== memmq7. _. y, - -p_, p.v.:.y ,.... m.,a.w :. ~9_ . e._, y -., .n. _ .,. c p,. -..-. w-:2.m.: :,.-. m..,m...__.'"1w..n=.,.-..m.&._m.,,,,.,,., .y.. 93 ^

v.:. ---

^ .j.; p.P.,. ~ 1 w. x

m..

y ;., I That has been eliminated? You are not Q 2 worried about that? But there are other things. 3 A No, no. I I don't really recall right now. You go through e your thought process, you know, in your thinking -. - 3 when you are thinking about it. 6 You do this thinking of things that could Q probably happen -- yoncdo..that tc, a greater detail 8 than you would with a non-nuclear type building? 10 With category 1 buildings I A Yes, yes. l there should be a difference there between the 11 safety-related structures and the ones that are.not. 12 The ones that are not safety-related, I3 0 you would not go through such a detailed analysis? I' 15 A Not the same detail.. 16 Q Turning'to Item E on the same page, i Exhibit No. 7 " Borated water tanks," near the i 17 i i is bottom. i j 19 g y,g, f 8 Q You say there, "Take continuous borings I i 21 as close to cracks as possible." Are there cracks i 22 in the horated water tanks? s 23 A Yes. In the ring foundation, there was t M some cracks there. i ~ u b % ~.,, i ~.

l ....~u -v. ~. - l, ?: m ;ni.%.. Fe?.T. & ., n.. m . : C. -.: ~. s:=. v- -. _. :: ^ _ W; c -yn; _ ..y., ; ....am.a.e_

• t Y - a n.:.

94 I ' i' 1 Q The next sentence is, " Compute bearing l You have an issue with capacity and settlese:lt." 2 regard to bearing capacity for the borated water 3 4 tanks? 5 A Yes. But it's no big thing. It's not 6 really a big issue. It is an issue though. It 4 7 should be looked into. It's kind of like your other thing for 8 Q 9 bearing capacity? Do you think that it is not 10 a problem? i 11 A What building? The diesel generator -- 12 Q Diesel generator building. I don't think it's a problem there ( 13 'A Yes. l' either, but you should look at it. 15 MR. SAMARIN: Off tihe record for a minute. l (wgEREUPON, discussion was had j 16 t off the record.) 17 1 {e 18 BY MR. FARNELL: Do you have any inter-office communication 19 Q with Water. Waste Experimental Station? 20 i I I 2 A Yes. l Do you communicate with them with regard l' i 22 Q to the dewatering at the Midland Plant? 23 24 A Yes. O o v. g., % a a ~ %m..

\\ c;. '. ~ F.i.UT?)7l~.T'%YD5't':- ~.y..

~ - ? ^ 2 "Q _

• ~

& w,Q - a $'.K*.';,-jj'y~:l;.-3 ..~ "'] 4,.. i._ .-p 3 ;_.. ;. ,.-.y.. c=a Qfj +'=?:im,- p e,,, p.. - ^ =- ~: ~.. n ' - y s,~:.., m... :-. ;.-- -- - -,.. .ea. w.-...,. n

w. r c

_g, ;. ~ p.9.m-' m :_ - q, g,

• 2 * :- : w s.

e I Q Are they the chief reserve? 3 A For7 3 i Q For dewatering? A Yes. Because this is seismic related; 4 5 which aspect.they handle. Q Is the Detroit Corps of Engineers also 6 7 looking at dewatering? A They are probably looking at the process 8 of dewatering, but not the basic fact, you know, 10 whether you should dewater or. not. They are j II reviewing the techniques, but not the basic need 12 of dewatering like for the seismic event which i'" 13 people at WES are doing. 14 Q Is there a communication between WES and 15 Detroit Corps of Engineers, do you know? i 16 A Yes, yes. IT Q WES does report to you? is A They send copies of their communications II to Detroit to us. Q You do not have to approve of any of 20 \\ 21 their activities before they submit them to the i l 22 NRC7 l 23 A Before they go to the NRC, yes 24 Q You do have to approve them? ( % ~.,,.

l g 2.: a %: -}u.-- %w q.. ~, :. -.-- c z;g.}= ;- ; - y=g. - .,.3g: a; .. e.g.p . v <... ;..,,,.; 96 l I A Yes. But I wouldn't say approve.because 2 Wes is the authority on this. And I would really 4 3 hesitate to find something wrong with them. They 4 all have doctors' degrees and studied this all over 5 the country. ' So it's just as a matter of routine.. 6 They do send it to us, and they may be back from 7 Detroit or however. Q They are also checking the seismic issue s with regard to Midland Project? 10 A Yes. This is th'eir thing; seismic -- i 11 Wes. 12 MR. FARNELL: Mark this as the next exhibit, 13 please. 14 (WEEREUPON, said document' was marked 15 CPCO (Simpson) Deposition Exhibit l 16 No. 8, for identification, as 17 of 11/19/80.) 18' BY MR. FARNELL: 3 19 Q I now show you a document that has been l l 20 marked as Exhibit No. 8 for identification: called ) 21 "felephone or Verbal Conversation Record dated 1 j April 22, 1980; person calling, Jim Simpson; person 22 4 23

called, N. A.

GeHring." This docraent came from the 24 Detroit Corps of. Engineers', file. 1 / <woqs, % e,a m %~.-,

M 5'

• &ir.G

-. y,+ ? g --.- m ; ~ - w. r, p; gy j

..s u...-..

2........ -.. -..w.-..

s . Y,.w 4 '.,,: L --.z . e a s-- .y '~~' ;_ ;'. - m# .s. Y i 1 I ask you if you recall calling. Mr. GeBring on or about April 22, 1980? I I (WBEREUPON, the, document was 4 tendered to the witness.) i 5 BY THE WITNESS: 6 A Yes. I as sure I did. I call him or 7 numerous occasions. 8 j BY MR. FARNZLL: Q Is the occasion of this all of the ~ 10 Northern District's comments on the interim report? ( 11 A Yes, yes. 12 Q Part of the first page of this document 13 reads, "Still under considerations otto must yet ~ 14 review willis Walker, Tulsa District, input." 15 What input was'Willis Walker giving at ( 16 that time? l 17 x ze s contained in the new documents. e Is Q could you briefly look through those 18 documents? w 20 (WEEREUPON, discussion was had i E off the record.) 22 MR. FARNELL: Will you please mark these next 23 three exhibits. 24 4 h <w.qs, a + a u %~.- - - ~

.x. .t.. ,u I'.

^ p p-j.g;., ; C

.4 p--h--

2'j.~.jgp.] -

..pG-ng,W,7.s...7..-py +.r:.c_ +. - <. . m y..

c..,.c 98 1

(WHEREUPON, said documents were 2 marked CPCO(Simpson) Deposition i 3 Exhibit Nos. 9, 10 and 11, for I i 4 identification, as of 11/19/80.) 5 BY MR. PARNELL: 6 Q I now show you Exhibit No. 9 for 7 identification; a ten-page document, handwritten, 8 entitled -- the first page is entitled, " Diesel 9 Generator Building Settlement Questions" and i 10 DepositAon Exhibit No. 10, a multi-paged handwritten 11 document, first page entitled,

• Dewatering Questions
• f 12 and Deposition Exhibit No. 11, for identification, 4'

(N 13 a five-page document, handwritten, the first page 14 entitled, " Service Water Structure-Pile Support i l 15 Questions." 16 (WWEREUPON, the documents were tendered to the witness.) 17 I la BY MR. PARNELL: 19 Q I ask you if Exhibits 9, 10 and 11 are i t j 20 documents that were in your files that you believe i 4 1 i 21 came from Mr. Willis Walker? I s A Yes. 23 Q Are those, to the best of your knowledge, 24 the only documents that you have ever seen with regard ~ W h ' A asan$sy s,nd & * % m..

WQ?$-y.j:0$4h+ _ ^% w,%, ^;~ 1~ ,ir.1r.r_,_.a ._2,_-_. -.- g g f _ W ,,. j ' :Q..,. j'&~;yy} ~ .,,.___. : ac=:.= -.. _ _...,.:-_.- y .[N..:.. z.%.s .u r.- magpA ,, ~ t.m- ; s. 7...m n,w 9' 9 .,. h... c., - ...w..... ,.,y. 3; ~ p..e c ~- -x,_ .~- ,4 I to Mr. Willis Walker? 2 A Yes. They are the only ones. There 3 could be others, though.-- like I say, which might 4 run into when you get to the Detroit District and 5 documents -- Q Would Mr. Willis Walker submit his input 6 7 to Mr. Otto? 8 A Yes, yes. 9 Q And would Mr. Otto pass that on to you, 10 or would he pass part of it on, or how would it work? 11 A I think they would send most of it on 12 unless there was something that they ironed out 13 themselves and decided it wasn't important. 14 MR. FARNELL: Make this the next exhibit. 15 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 16 CPCO(Simpson) Deposition Exhibit 17 No. 12, for identification, as 18 of 11/19/80.) 19 BY MR. FARNELL: 20I Q I now show you Deposition Exhibit No. 12 3 for identifications a May 27, 1980, cover letter and 22 enclosures from Mr. Willis Walker to Mr. Otto. 23 This document came from Detroit Corps of Engineers' 24 files. <w4, % ea m nm.,-

t

, c x

4. CdLQ,.gy...._--

Q '. '.;.} LT .1:' _y-il.g;.+. a 3:- ; :n ^ ' .m 4 .x s too j 1 I ask you if you have ever seen this 2 document previously, 3 (NEEREUPON, the document was 4 tendered to the witness.) 5 BY THE WITNESS: i 6 A No. 7 BT MR. FARNELL: 8 Q Tou have not seen this document? 9 A No, no. i 10 Q To the best of your knowledge, Mr. Otto 11 did not send you a copy of this document? M A

• No, no.

u um. FARNELt.: Mark this as the next exhibit, 14 please. 15 (WREREUPON, said document was markad 16 CPCO (Simpson) Deposition Exhibit ~ 17 No. 13, for identification, as is of 11/19/80.) f 19 BT MR. FARNELL: 20 Q I now show you a document, Deposition 21 Exhibit No. 13, a routing and transmittal slip 22 dated May 9, 1980, from Robert Erickson to 23 , Jim simpson. This document came from your file. ,m. y.... -, .+,y-. y y-m- _..,,.y...c___

l 2... ) ww-a-,- -. '%h&,'Q;,~. ';qg.~7,..y_,g. gy.~,g - g,g, y, g. __.g. ~ ?>,1:$,,,* 9. y [-. : -: 2 - > I y,- .,_ n-ef~ e;~*g ~.1. '9 101' .,. __. ~ _ s. '~'-*;'-- _ -g p ' ~.w. -. ~ 'c-. - w. e-- .,.g ~ 1 (WEEREUPON,'the document was j tendered to the witness.) 2 l 1 1 3 BY MR. FARNELL: 1 4 Q I ask you if you have seen that document? 5 A As I recall, yes. 6 Q Mr. Erickson writes -- attached is an 7 item -- it is, " comments by Willis Walker of 8 Tulsa Dis'trict." 9 Are Exhibits 9, 10 and 11 the comments 10 by Mr. Willis Walker of the Tulsa District as 11 referred to in Exhibit 137 12 A I believe so, but I am not certain. Is Q Do you know what the comments by i. 14 Willis Walker related to? Whr.t did they relate to? 15 A document? , or did they relate -- i A They related to the different features 16 i 17 of the Midland Plant, I think. I is Q Features that were proposed design specs? I 19 Is that what they related to? 20 A Right. And dewatering. .i n Q Proposed remedial fites? 3 A Right. s Q Why was he given the assignment to I' comment on these remedial fixes?. 24 h s C. L ee, M e pse. seer w-- --u-- ,----g.--,->--y--.i.--,----, w-.-g.--.--,y.--. +

. +...,. ' l }.y,'. y. :s; - h-x _.f-K;C'Q*~3.._._-- 3 .f*.'}-;.^*? w .. cv.. c 3 102 I A You would have to ask Mr. Otto in, 2 Detroit. And see, it's a little too far reinoved 3 from our office to know, you know, who the work was 4 assigned to and why. 3 Q Did you. read over Exhibits 9,10, and 117 6 A Tes. Q Do you consider Mr. Willis Walker to be 8 a competent geotechnical engineer? 9 A I can't make a statement on that, I have never met the man. .I 11 Q Based on reading E2hibits 9,10 and 11, 12 can you make a determination as toswhether he is a D competsnt geotechnical engineer? I' A I would say to a certain degree. There 15 are some things I agree with and some I don't in 18 there. I 17 Q Did you ever communicate to Mr. Walker is or Mr. Otto proposed fixes of Exhibits 9, 10 and 11 19 you dida't agree with? A These were more or less working papers, 21 and I am not sure Mr. Otto really agreed with them 22 l either entirely. The main -- our main review would 23 be the final conclusions which came out of Detroit 24

s.,

District, and it might not reflect what is in here. c}%G S Q a,ul & ~saw %m e nn. seer l

+ ~ ' ~ - . C;M.. = _ ~=.gm., _ _ _ _ _ _ _ g.a, m... = a ' fs5 5-9*<$'M, 4- ~ 7.92 :r*A55fe+ .2 e d , g-r7 4 : qg,t -{

g.... u : c==

w.

v..

\\ .. - - -., m z...,.. : m.,...*, K n' '."s.au'. t.cr m. n ey,,. ~r _ ... ~.... , a.-. gz '.u c=. = ~, a- - - --,.. g _ 3 w a W 1 Did I answer? I will put it to you another way. When l 2 Q 3 you read Exhibits 9, 10 and 11, did you call up r i Mr. Otto or did you call up Mr.' Walker and say, 4 " Hey, I think some parts of these exhibits are wrong"? s 6 A No. Did you think they were wr'ong, or you just 7 Q a didn't agree with portions of them? 9 A Well, these are background opinions. And what you really need to consider are the final 1 10 11 opinions which come out. And I didn't really communicate with him because the thing I was 12 b. interested in was the final answers which canecout, 13 not different opinions of different people. 1 14 15 Q You are not interested in different i epinions of different people? 16 17 A Yes. As background material, but making a conclusion from.them, I.would hesitate to do that to without looking at all of the other opinions, too. 19 - m Q Do you know why you were sent Exhibits 9, 10 and 117 l 21 A As background material to study in regard g I g to -- Q Did you just read them? You d'idn't do 24 1 8h nm.-

l i .-f ; y,,,. - ~, - - ;..,, - y ,m ,;;J.7. Q -sea:. -g,-c.:.g..., ;ry. - e- - - + sc. ..s.. # . -,. ~.. to4 i I anything else with them? A No, no. Q Do you recall which portions of 8 4 Exhibits 9, 10 and 11 you didn't agree with? 3 A No. That would entail studying them ~ 6 out again. 7 Nothing really strikes you right now? Q 8 A No, no. Do you know if Mr. Otto disagreed with Q 10 any portions of Exhibits 9, 10 and 117 l 11 A I don't really know. i 12 Q Do you know if Mr. Otto disagreed with 18 any conclusions that Mr. Walker may have made? 14 A I have no idea. I3 Q Would you be interested in the fact 16 that perhaps Mr. Walker had a different opinion than 17 Mr.. Otto or other people in the staff with regard is to some of the remedial fixes? I' A Sure. Any opinion I wculd be interested I 9 in and.why. 21 Q Do you know whether Mr. Walker had a different opinion from Mr. Otto or any other people 22 23 in the staff with regard to any of the proposed 24 fixes at the Midland Plant? ... -. 4 Toh d 5$ i i %me u sar -.,--,.~-,e

~- -.: 2 ; W..... . ~ .x e- 'f[_$$..~-~: r ' ?,4 t ? ts & ff.{[ f. 3.lfEll7.$$: ~' 105- .... a u

c. ~ e 3 u.....,-.,- ' --

-W v.v w-.- m. - ~ - -. j x ;....:. t 5 a . - =,. l

!M'%.a

.s.~ ,7 . ~

g..

4{ + g specifica11y',' no. i l A Not 2 Q How about generallyi i 8 A Generally, there is always differences between engineers. I would say there was probably s some diff'erences, you know. i Q Do you know of any differences of opinion 6 7 within the Corps of Engineers or the NRC with regard to ' sumers' proposed remedial fixes? a A No. I think we are in agreement that 8 1 l' the fixes are necessary; that they will do the job. i ^ I 11 If we get our investigation and they turn out -- our 12 final checks -- and if we get this, then everything Q' i should be okay or should be in agreement. 13 l l' Q Did anyone within your knowledge ever t l 15 think that the staff should not request, additional I 16 borings from Consumers Power? 17 A I have never heard that' opinion in the i f 18 Corps of Engineers. l' Q Eow about within the NRC7 T6 20 A I am not aware of any opinion like that. 21 Q Did.:anybody to your knowledge express doubts as to whether they should' express -- e 2 28 A I haven' t heard any doubts. 24 Q Everyone said it was a great idea? .~. qg/& $& as,) M n m.. ~

q 2 1^,. . n _ ;.;:..Q.Z*3 ?. r..-- u.-.QT. -i..l.4._K. ~.* l'....Qf ".. g., & :. %,.--$ r.

,,,,,;g 106

- vy-. .s v. a l A I have never heard anything n'onaf firmative. I I i Q Eow about with regard to the dike; nothing 2 nonaffirmative with regard to the dike, also? l 8 4 g y,, y,gg, 1,ge s see. We did talk over 5 some of the borings for the dike which were away ? 6 from the water int 4kes, you know. 7 Q Who is "we"? j A I think perhaps Mr. Otto and I talked it 8 over. i 10 Q. What was the substance of your discussions? 11 A If we took the other borings first near 12 the water intake,and we night be able to eliminate (' 18 some of the others if everything looked okay -- some 14 of the others, not all of them. This is in the dike 2 area. 16 Q To your knowledge, has anyone within the 17 Corps of Engineers or staff expressed any opinion that any of Consumers Power arguments set forth in la 19 Exhibit No.'5 had merit 7 4 20 MR. JONES: Can I hear that question again, i 8 l 21 please. 22 (WEEREt!PON, the record was read i l 23 by the reporter as requested.) ~ t l l Toh <8eams$ng mal spfsaoedadas.--. n m. :, s, t 4. m. 9 i

-. -... = - . u. u.._. ..mp_ _ yw m. @dtIN.'f f b.kh'.b ..,.' a -:f I'. r = t-m r.4 -.u -.w '? 107 { . ;.cv.. .-.. m,..... g y,s.v -- ~~-~~.,.4* y.+ t =. n. w _y 1 3Y THE WITNESS: 2 A It's a broad question. I have nev'r really e i 3 talked this over with anyone, but I have studied it i 4 And I have to look at it closely now to bring out 4 5 the part that had merit, and maybe there was -- if i 6 any had merit. 7 BY MR. FARNELL: 8 Q Do you recall just from looking at it right 9 now quickly whether any part of it has merit? 10 A I have to skin read. j i 11 Q Fine. Why don't you. In fact, take your time. (WEEREUPON," there was a 2 12 b short interruption.) la J 14 BY TIE WITNESS: 1 15 A well, this is a broad question. It's r 16 hard to answer, 17 Like the surcharge of the. diesel generator 4 is building, it's a good idea. There is nothing wrong 4 1, with it. l Is that what you mean by " merit *7 f z j i 21 BY MR. FARNELL: a Q Yes. This refers generally to the s agruments for not taking borings? l A .Yes. y ~ ^ "$ A \\ n~e ~ ,t , _ _ _. -.. -... - _,,. _,. _ _..... ~.., _. -., -.,,.,,... _,,. _ _..,, ~.,.. -

i -.a ~ _...._., ..~.; ~n L y -~ m y.,. .,.3q q#,,r-r.

-,.c;

e kn

.~-n- ,, y los ) I Q That had not convinced you? 2 ~ A No, no. If that is what you mean, borings 3 ,,,,gggy,,,,,,,,y, 4 MR. FARNELL: Would you mark this as the next i 8 l exhibit, please. 8 (WEEEEUPON, said dooumont was marked 4 T CPco(Simpson) Deposition Exhibit a No. 14, for identification, as of 11/19/80.) I' j BY MR. FARNELL II Q I now show you Deposition Exhibit No. 14 i 12 j for identification, the first page which.'is a l 13 l Facsimile Reader Sheet from J. W. Simpson to 14 Neal Gehring, dated 5/21/80. Attached thereto is i 15 a two-page document entitled, " North, Central, Divisions 4 16 at the bottom, "Reviewert. comments, dated May 21, 1980 p 17 reviewer, James W. Simpson and John.W. Norton." t i 18 A John F. Norton. .i i l' j Q John F. i Eave you seen this document previously? 21 g y,,,- 22 Q This Fao, simile Meader Sheet indicated l 25 that you transmitted these comments to Mr. GeEring? 4 i M A Yes. $A A m,me -s.s,

gf

• 2 * -...

  *~..

.= $;;t-..

w.;qn. _ N.at?). m. G7?=W^w*. -. i., =. a. = c x:: z-- ..; ~'u--...' ' LW s.- w, 3. h l2 2 6 ~ -- . As n :: .N' 7_. *... _la= a W,r > yv;-:.um . > -u s - w-,. 109 .. J a.. -..u.. ~ .~. f,,.. w -o.u x,, m ,,,_..s,,

• 1 Q

He is in the Detroit District, is that I 2 right? 3 A Right. He is Proj ect Manager. 4 Q For Midland? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Will you point out from your documents -- show me which document this is commented on -- this 7 J s interim report is comumented on. 9 MR. JONES: Can I hear the last question again, l f 10 please. I as sorry. i 11 (WEEREUPON, the record was read 12 by the reporter as requested.) 13 BY THE WITNESS: 14 A We commented several different times, you 15 know, on the same reports. Getting the right L i le sequence might take a minute or two. I 6 17 (WWERIUPON, there was a i is short interruption.) r 19 ET TER WITNESS: 20 A Well, the dates are about right, the 21 24th of March and 21st of May. so I think this is l 21 it. Now, without studying it -- 1 j 3 MR. FARNELL Mark this as the next exhibit. ) e u i-i W h s,.Y< ^ ^ ' ' ' ' %~..

' g p:,,j-g - 3;. - r'? .g .;..Q.L3-g. -~-_, g 3 ,, f "6- . o=..... yg 110 .s c u. 1 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 2 CPC0(Simpson) Deposition Exhibit F 3 No. 15, for identification, as 4 of 11/19/80.) 5 gy Mm. yA3N3LL: 6 o I now show you Deposition Exhibit No. 15 7 of March 24, 1980. It is a multi-page document J 8 . entitled, " Interagency Agreement Midland Plant, 9 Units 1 and 2," subtask being No. 1: " Letter 10 report (interial s" J 11 I ask you if this is the document to which you just referred to which you believe 12 13 Deposition Exhibit No. 14 comments on? (WEEREUPON, the document was 14 tendered to the witness.) 15 16 BY THE VITNESS: 17 A I believe it is, but there were several sets of comments, you know, in the same report. is I 19 And I can't be sure that this is -- that this was 20 it, that they read the. comments and they go back and revise it and it would come back again. So E probably it is according to the dates, but I as 22 23 not -- 24 i,,, ...c see. <weg., m.,eed u .~ a,~e I seee .-mem ew. p e.une. g.gm.a e.. earee se e. _,e emme e, .. w w.,,, 4 .ym

-.. ~- - _. _ - ~ N,-J -_ wg-/%,- 1 = :- ga.,, ',. _ '

• ~

..;.2 . :.a.w..,,,,-

• .. pp,Ql, - -.-.

yj2.._.. r

---

7 y -

---, - 27,

'.. ( ^ Ib M'N ..... ac:; 2*. N.*i* (k' ,~{ J.T;su-m; ,w, ,,c ..* : Y.*z , :- ' u. 5.. ~. p. ',-s U f.. *,. R.. a.- n,... - - ~.. - -ve sis 1 BY MR. FARNELL: 2 Q Not 100 percent sure? 8 3 A No. I have to study it and study all of l 4 the other comments to be sure. 5. Q Turning to Page 2 of Exhibit No. *14 -- 6 I believe it is Comment No. 8, Page 4, Paragraph Cl(A) - 7 there is a note, " Don' t discount the consultant's I 8 plan until it's submitted and studied. These guys 9 are pretty sharp." to You co-authored this comment, didn' t you? j 11 A I wrote this comment here. 12 Q What did you mean by that? u A I think there were some remarks in the 14 ' report that some of the ideas that Peck and Bendron -- 15 they were criticizing them without really studying i 16 what they were doing. 17 I think probably this referred to the Is bearing capacity of some of the piles and caissons 19 and fix-up. 20 MR. JONES: Off the record. 1 i-21 (WEEREUPON, discussion was had j l 22 off the record.) l 2s BY THE WITNESS: i L, 24 A So having all of the respect.that I do r r w e g,, p e u,4 m e,,1 a. m.. 1 r,. m.,s s.e = .-c y--,

. ~ =. -. t i ~ ?: N....... l s' ggp +...b- - -n- .,6.,, a.n C.iQ.[g y - g.]~. '.'_. .g[{J .a. - 112 i . s w.. r. a.; r 1 I. 1 for Drs. Peck and Hendron and the rest, you have to 1 l 2 he careful about any adverse comments because you a 3 have.to respect-their opinion because of their } } 4 experience and education. This is what we were. I j 5 getting at. f, 6 BY MR. FARNELL: 7 Q And you were telling your reviewers? i l 8 A I was telling the people in Detroit, 1 1 9 "Take a closer look out and don't criticize them i l 10 without really studying it out." 11 Q Did they follow your advice, do you know? 1 l 12 A I hope they did. I am not sure. } ( u Q Did you ever check? i 14 A Not specifically. They mentioned the 15 remark to me a couple of times, and'I would say l 16 probably they did take it into account. 6 l 17 Q The reviewers have mentioned this remark i i is to you at a later date? 4 19 A Yes. Not reviewers, but the people ] m doi's the work in Detroit. n Q They are not -- I thought they were 2 a reviewers. t 2: A They are, but I -- when you say reviewers, 24 I am -- the bridge reviewers -- these people are i Th 8 NM I %~e 4,, -... ~ _ -. ---.-_,. -,.__.--_,--_ - - -. _ - -. - -.

. na.,.. u N - Qh ~, ta.-, .d, , E 8 e=,.- " $ !$ 9 #; { { { {7. . - r r" T _ ' * ^ h T^4fsG n 5j(; 4, % jff 9 $ W P i b, c. .~.: ... w "- vf..w m m. : -.-..y 113 = <....s.. .h ' %, e ..'. 3' - 7 j I doing most of the work, you know, but they are 2 also reviewing. ) 3 Q You review their review? Is that what ) l 4 you said? 5 A Right. Review on top of review. 6 Q Eave you had occasion to review any work 4 7 done by Mr. Harry Singh? 8 A Harry Singh is the project engineer now. 9 And I am not sure of the degree of his input and i 10 communications that come through. And I am sure l 11 he adds some of the input. So I would say yes, but i 12 I am not certain which is his and which is someone I la alse's work. l 14 Q Does he have responsibility with regard 15 to the structural aspect of. fixes at the Midland site? 16 A No. We are only concerned with foundations 17 Q You do not have any responsibilities with is regard tio structural aspects? 19 A No. l 2D Q As the Corps of Engineers, you do not d have any responsibility with regard to structural i 22 aspects? ^ I A Not when you get above ground, no. 23 4 l 24 Q Do you have any responsibilities -- do you, 1 T o h. d o w dsy nel M 1 w ,~ l _. _ _ _ _ _., _, _ _ _, _, _. l

~ ' G F. :; :.... . e p,p.g.gw O:,g-N - . -m..QG J,_33 g 3,- g.['.{.}'..gJ 4 114 .,. y. c. 4 1

neanks.the Corps, with regard to any mechanical aspect?

2 A No. I 8 Q To your knowledge, has the Corps ever 4 submitted or asked for the NRC to submit information 4 5 to Consumers Power on the structural aspect of the ] 6 proposed fixes at the Midland site? 7 A I don't know if any -- of any such requests. I think the NRC structural people have j 8 9 the structural aspects all together, you know. They 1 10 may have another consultant. 1 11 THE WITNESS: Do you know? 12 MR. JONES: It is okay. J t 13 BY MR. FARNELL: 14 Q Would the same be true with regard to 2 mechanical aspects? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Eave you ever reviewed any of { 18 Mr. Harry Singh's work? 19 A well, I think I answered this. His work 20 is incorporated in the communications between us i i 3 and Detreit. 2 22 Q You do not know? j 25 A I am not sure of his input into what l l 24 comes through. 1 o %m.% i

" ~.: :i,... ' %m a&L a m. ~ ,ll '. f L? ? $ ? ~ ~ - = -' Ni&l$. hh$${5i*i-5Y ~ -m:a.u, >--,.r m,. '3- - a w..e pp#= m.._,. i W 1 Q so you cannot identify which is his work j 2 and which is someone else's work? 3 A No. But I am sure part of it is his. 4 Q Eas anyone ever expressed an opinion to i i you as to'the quality of Mr. Singh's work? 5-J 6 A No. Not that I recall. 7 Q Do you know whether Mr. singh qualifies I 8 to do the work he is doing? t' i 9 A I would say he is. But his technical 1 i 10 involvement, I am not sure. He is project ~~ he is 11 a manager for this one; the Midland Plant, you know. 12 And I am not sure what his technical input is. .= (- 18 It depends on his degree of input whether ha'is i 1 l 14 capable, you know. q 15 Q Eave you ever had any direct communications i 16 with Mr. Joseph Kane regarding the proposed fixes t l I 17 at the Midland Plant? l l 18 A Sy directs do you mean telephone or -- i l' 19 ' Q Letters. } j 20 A Letters? Not letters. The informal l 21 communication, yes. 22 Q What was the substance of these t 23 communications 7 l! The various details of fixes an'd whether r 24 A i s. i T o h d % and ofssoedades %~.- l - _ _ _ - _ - - _ ~. - _ _, _ _ - _ _ .-,.---.-,_,.u.,-_.,.-_-_-_-

~.2- ~'.']T,[ . ::ppz.:py.. Ir-;--Ja- '.,,.. Q . 4, Z._{"J1..I; ;- y -- E -i-' .~ a.. 116 f 1 there are actually things that could be wrong with I 2 .them and things like that. o To your knowledge, do you and Mr. Kane 3 4 have any disagreements with regard to' adequate.-- ..5 say of any consumers proposed fixes at the Midland 6 site? 7 A No. I don't believe there is any 8 differences. 9 Q Do you know of any differences with regard 10 to anybody in the Corps or the NRC7 11 A No. 12 Q To your knowledge, has anyone within the 13 Corps of Engineers ever suggested that the NRC 14 ' withdraw any of its requests for information to 15 Consumers Power with regard to the proposed fixes 16 at the, Midland Plant? 17 A Not to my knowledge, no. There is really Is no disagreement with the fixes. They'are adequate,, 19 but they need to he checked and that is -- r l 2D Q That is your disagreement with Consumers 21 Power? 22 A Right. l f 2 Q You want additional check!,ng? 24 A ' Checking. l l l ec,. m.., s.er e--. .,,, ~~

..,6

• • . +
• T
• .***e

..,.,-n -m ::,,,,.u-,-..r .my 13y " ~:x,:: ~.u ~.,... n.. J:* g,, = =vn. . 3., _4* .y 1 Q okay. 2 A And so far, they have only sent us a 3 conceptual plan, you know. We want the detailed j 4 analysis to look into. t 5 g Is that with regard to pillags and 6 caissons? 7 A Filings and caissons. i 1 s MR. JONES: Do you want to take a break for

l l

9 five minutes. 1 10 MR. FARNELLt Yes. Why don't we do that. 11 (WWERIUFON. there was a 12 short interruption.) 4 ( 13 BY RR. FARNELLt j 14 Q Eave you ever heard the term "acceptancet 4 13 criteria" with regard to the December 6, 1979, order t' 1 i 16 modifying construction permits? Il 17 A I have', read thest the order. And I think it does say something about aoseptance, doesn't it? 1 is l 19 Q Yes. i, 20 A Yes. 21 Q Eas anyone told you what the acceptance criteria is with regard to the diesel generater 22 28 building at the Midland site? I e 24 A You are talking about acceptance of the -- b U. ,m.'.- I e a e-. 4 = e one e

1 l m n r. 2.;.g.^.g.s m a E* '*'== D? . sy, ' - % . E' '% 0.'.1';5 ' ';;: ~ ~,~;j,ky'g' *;. ' * ;g','f&f r . c <... - x, tgg 1 to the NRC7 2 Q Acceptance criteria with regard to the a building. 4 A I know something about NRC's asseptamoes. s I think they limit it to settlement, a half inch, 6 or something like that. I am not sure essotly 7 whether it is half an inch, but it is not very much. a Q Do you mean the NRC has to have -- has t 9 to be certain that there is going to be less than to one-half inch settlement over the 40 years lifespan 11 of the building? 12 A I think this is one of their criteria, b.- la but I am not an authority on it. 14 Q Eave you ever seen any document referring 15 to that? V 16 A No, no. 17 Q Eow did you come to gain that understanding la just impasted to me? }~ to A Do#you have the order there? It could a be written in there. 21 Q It is definitely not. 3 (WEEREUPON, the document was a tendered to the witness.) 24 %~e.* -s

. m. u s:. 5': ;..f.-.$k."

l..h.

- f... ?lf,.,.?.f....~.

• yh{it.fi h

nA.. -- ~~z.~-c :.e.-: i >} :'* a = ,y ..n... .y ..w.phg,: % :e:a n ~. 1 BY THE WITNESS: 'y.,'. '~~~ n;.n m; k. j i 2 A Appendix A, but it is on the next page, 3 I think. 4 BY MR. FARNELL: 5 Q You az? referring to Appendix A? 6 A Yes. 7 (WEEREUPON, tho' document was 8 tendered to counsel.) 9 BY MR. FARNELL: 10 Q You consider that to be acceptance 11 criteria? u A I am not sure but -- u Q That is a notice of violations. It does i 14 not -- it says, " Structure." It has here, " Structural 15 Acceptance criteria." But you do not know whether that 16 17 acceptance criteria the NRC is using today? 18 A No. Joe Kane could probably tell you. 7 i 19 Q Eave you and Joe Kane ever had any conversations with regard to acceptance criteria 20 for the proposed fixes at the Midland Plant? 21 22 A Not really. Not specifically. We have 1 talked about," you know, the fixes and things like 23 that, but I can't recall any specific, you know, y GyoQ ekassos[rsy aosd gaaa+,a %~e n .. v ._..y.7 .-,._,_e,, - _ _... _, ,.,....,aw--

" ' ' <. : :..n... 'e f. E~' lp _ _.5' m-h;-. *. ~~ '

• l=

. U, ** y l, r "^ . s'Y.~ a.,x Mo i I 1 half-inch settlement or anything like that. Q Do you know how long the preload was in 3 place on the diesel generator building? 4 A Generally, I think it went in in April '5 and came off in August, but I am not sure. 6 Q Do you have any concern for how long the 7 preload was on the diesel generator building? I 8 A Yes. I would say there is some piezometer 9 readings -- or are rather funny. They don't conform 10 to what you would expect.- And for this reason, 11 there could be a little - an element of doubt there u on whether it was on long enough or not although (~' 13 the curve looked good. 14 Q I thought you testifisd this morning E 15 that you had not read the piezometer data. 16 A I haven't really. But this is something I 17 got from Joe Kane in communications. la Q Did you'ever check the piezometer data 19 to see if Joe Kane was correct? 20 A Be showed me -- when he studied,i~ti he 21 showed me the curves and what he found out. But I at never really studied it myself. 23 Q When did he show you.the curves,and y, 24 what did he find out? 'e asq., % a m es., m. ,s sar a. ,e-- ~.w-,.w.- -,,euer-e ,wv, ,w,,,,,-e,-, e-- e ,.-~..- = w----e ew*-- -e--cvw - - - ~

l . m: :,.. "' Ob5?[-}}j.' % ~ : -r* ? ? ~ %$QGW'f....;... n.fhj[!--?$0? .- e.:;L,._..._.. h w g. 3 121 .y-M.bapw_ e,,e...,.. :.s, w- ....,m,._ g ( i f.u2 .c..,-,..,.....,..,,,o.... . T :., '~ ~;;:. ,$l. g[W= man. = ~1 A I think in one of-our meetings p_@ r to the meeting with the consumers 'and Bechtel people. 2 3 0 Do you have any concern outside of the concern that Mr. Kane may have expressed with regard 4 to pie'someters regarding how long the diesel 5 generator building preload was in place? 6 7 A Was in place? Yes. I would like to know the strength of the soil as you compress it And the 8 9 longer it is on,the stronger it gets for bearing 10 capacity. And I would like to have our horings 11 and tests runt the ones we asked for to see if we 12 do have enough strength for bearing capacity. {- 13 Q Is that the only concern you have for 14 how long it was on? N 15 A Let's see. I think I dont recall any 16 others. 17 MR. FARNELL Would you mark.this as the 'i is next exhibit. 19 (WBEREUPON, said document was marked 20 CPC0 (Simpson) Deposition Exhibit S No. 16, for identification, as i 1 of 11/19/80.) 22 23 BY THE WITNESS: i 24 A Another concern about how long-it was lef t ... 4 Woh dows [rsy arsd d'"- i .n m.,-

^. :.. 7. .c ...;..' F.] L*:..:. ,...-. 6.G. X., ~. ~ *: T.'.gQ

-Q

. ; :r.,- < - -

,,,m a.-~ - -. y.. r'g_. ,,,a 1 122 w.. .r. . m, -i.- 1 on was the water table. It was raised and lowered 2 and it could have affected.results. 3 BY MR. FARNELL 4 Q How? Well, it depends on the character of the 5 g 6 soil there and whether it was saturated or not 7 saturated before and how long the water table was up 8 in order to resaturate it and if it wasn't saturated. 9 All that went in. If it would'.have.been constant 10 during the whole preload, why it might not have been 11 that much of a concern. 12 Q Did you get that concern from conversations .y D with Mr. Kane? 14 A I wouldn't say I got it from him, but 15 we have talked it over. It may have come from him, i 16 and it may have evolved mutually in talking it 17 over. I am really not sure. I la Q could you explain the mechanics of how 19 you consider the lack of constant level of the water 20 table could have affected the soils during the 21 preload? ~ 22 A The part that is non-cohesive of the 23 sands -- the water -- to raise the water table would be good because it would take ' away the capillary 1 24 ca, h e 7s m e .,-,--------,n--- a,A am-y a ---,<m ,m- --&-y ---gsq-y e m- .s-.y,. pr. o -,,s,.--w w r e, y mo o -wq q

~5N'2d I. ? 7' .c y;l: 323_ l m: 2:a;, ~.7;~.,.. ~- -~-.,.,v. 4 ,, ~. ~~ - af ^' .:. 2 m..,., - - -- -- I attraction between particles-and allow the sand to 2 settle. And the amount of time it was up wouldn't 3 matter. You know, it would just be a matter of a 4 day or two for the sands. But when you come to their 5 class, 12.they were put in dry of optimum,.the 6 particles of clay there could be spaced between 7 different clods of clay and if the water table was a up long enough, why maybe these pieces could be 9 pushed together and there would be no void between. 10 But if it wasn't long enough, why there still could 11 be voids there, too. 12 If it was dry of optimum, you might not C-13 h' ave the normal consolidation that you would expect 14 because consolidation which was done here is I 15 squeezing the water out:of the pores of the soil. P 16 And if it were dried, you bring the water table up 1 17 and, water would have to saturate and squeez's out, 18 and it wouldn't be the normal process of consolidation.Y 19 Q Do you have any basis to believe that the 20 soil was placed dry of optimum? 21 MR. ZAMARIN: Excuse me a moment. l 22 (WREREUPON, discussion was had ~ 23 off the record.) l - 24 -q, l QVoh A anddannlab==...--- % ~. 3.,.s,

- p _,' _ . ~ ' ' .g. - ;. .s!-; c- . m. .3,. ._ = c.t Jh-. y; =y,g z; _;, g- . -:Oy.. -v 124 I BY MR. FARNELL: 2 Q Why don't we strike the last question. 3 If the clays were not placed dry of 4 optimum, would your concern regarding the water 5 table be eliminated? 6 A I can answer your previous question if 7 you want it answered. 8 Q Just answer this one first. 9 A ch, if they were wet of optimum. 10 MR. FARNELL: Why don't you read back the 11 question and answer on that one. 12 (WH7:REUPON, the record was read c'- M by the reporter as requested.) 14 BY THE WITNESS: 9 l 15 A If they were optimum -- wet of optimum is 16 largely eliminated, yese because thea you would have 17 the normal process of consolidation. I 18 BY MR. FARNELL: 4 I ) 19 Q You said you considered the process of 1 l 20 consolidation that occurred or the preload not to be 21 normal, is that correct? 22 A No. It could have not been norma!.. And 25 I rasilj don't -- I really don't know if it were 1 placed wet or dry of optimung but I did ses when we 24 T n n. ,u. -

4 ~~ %pasm+9:p95p}..=:15-n.v m .l, :.. Q h W g y

-. 3 :

^ - f ;. - a.- ~ Qgg--- , ' y 2 @y 7 2: 3_ 3 7 - = 4 w 7_ ~m:ry:.:; ::,,

n.. u

S25,

.% a.

r...- p;.i .= n. j . k p,- - w. c. ~ .. : mn,., c- . :, ; ~. - t 'I were going through Dr. Afifid s documents he $ nded l 4 2 us, I saw one document where 23 out of 48 tests 3 showed it dry of optimum. 4 Q 23 out of 48 tests of what? 5 A soil tests. 6 Q Boring tests? 7 A Compaction tests. 8 Q When were these tests taken? 9 A I have no idea. This was in his 10 documents we were given. 11 Q Do.iyou remember the date of the documents? 12 A No. 13 Q Where were the tests located? Do you 14 renamber that? 15 A No. Is Q Is that the only information you have i 17 that weu!.d lead you to believe that the fill might 18 have been placed dry of optimum? 19 A Yes.

o Q

And you are certain that these tests 21 showed soil being dry of optimum? I 22 A In this one area, it doesn't mean the l 23 whole fill or a large part of it was.. y. 24 Q What area? i [ d .C}$f & & anataFaa o % nm u o m ~......

' ~:.. .. +.. n-. . x. s.

7. p :-5.;?..-3:- q

'? ....x ..~~ -..: w 3;.y.._; L - yg=g., Q._; 126 1 A I don't know. 2 o so it might not even be under tho' 3 diesel generator building, is that right? 4 A That's correct. I skin read it,.you know. 5 Q Isn't this potential concern of yours 6 regarding the water table being soils== being 7 placed dry of optimum another one of these 8 possibilities w'hich you have talked about? I 9 A Yes. It's another fear that could be 10 disspelled by getting in there and getting some 11 samples out and testing. 12 C Even though you might not have any 13 information that indicates that the soils were 14 placed dry of optimum? m A It wouldn' t matter. It's'what is there i 16 now and it's strength and compressibility, how it 17 was originally placed, what it is now and what is n.> Is the intake. 19 Q If it is true, isn't it'true, also, how 20 they were placed? It doesn't make any difference j I~ 21 because you already had some results from the a preload tests? 23 A Preload. Only superficial measurements, 24 you know. You don't have any information from the Woh dow 9 and & A = M x %me n s.e

~. _;y?.-43y _3.g* ir.E ......-.- = M* W ?.~ Q% s g. p :.= _gQ p _"'N2c.-+ T = W t -Q. ~. -. ^. 7...- '.sy 7n-4,.... - x. .m. .. q a,;-.. ~a a= =. rc~mqg3 l'27 .., ~. -:...ca...s..s.--...c. y

y..

...c... vf p; _.*%. ~

• A, t-1-r.n =.-

,.,J.. ,j I I soil directly. 4 T7 2 Q rJo you consider the preload to be i 3 superficial? Is that what you are saying? 4 A No, no. It is an excellent idea. 5. Q Do you balieve the soil -- do you believe the results of the preload tests would be.more 6 accurate than information taken from borings? 7 8 A If I weigh thou both -- if I had both 9 information--the informatica from both, I would ~ probably weigh them -- give more weight to the pre-10 11 load. 12 Q I now show you Deposition Exhibit No. 16 ( k' is for identification: a July 25, 1980, bimonthly letter with regard to the Inneragency Agreement 14 l 15 from P. McCall10ter to Mr. Robert" Jackson. This E I document came from your files. I 16 (WEEREUPON, the drJeuzent was 17 Y tendered to the witness.) t 1s 19 BY MR. FARNELL: l 2o Q I ask you if you have seen this document 21 Previously? i l A Yes. i 22 l Q Under the paragraph entitled, "Ef forts ~ 23 completed during the period 20, May to 20., July, 1980," 24 -... M c% e e g ,---,----e. -y y ,.,-..,,3

i l-i l -.';,.-=...-

g...~. ly-..1. _. 3.. M. g-6,*,,. "' ',;..,.) f.;gf

..g.g.a, 3; g-le- ..,.c .a .. v. 128 I i i I with regard to Midland states: "The seismic analysis 2 was received from the USAE Waterways Experiment 3 Station on June 3, 1980." Eave you ever seen that seismic analysis? 4 5 A Yes. 6 Q Do you have it within your documents? 7 A It should be there. 8 THE WITNESS: Did you return it? 9 MR. ZAMARIN: I did not see it. 10 Cff the record a minute. 11 (WBEREUPON, discussion was had i 12 off the record.) t' \\- 13, EY MR, TARMELL: 14 Q on reposition Exhibit No. 16, it also 15 stated that on 14, May and 20, June, 1980, " Draft { is letter reports were informally furnished to NEC and 17 our North Central District office for comument." 'I 18 Have you ever seen either or both of ~ I 19 these draf t letter reports? 20 A Yes. They should be there. n Q Were these letter reports done by the 22 Waterways Experiment Station? 2s A It[ should be in the file. 24 MR. FARNELL Off the record. s .~ N$ c8cm:8s9.ael 4-Mb ...x i ch, m. 7s swr.. a -~,,e --w-u---r-g w u. y w w __.s ,.yr a

-%;'_;; h b

h:L.,..

,y,_, %w Of;h " .l'11'$ ^, ' - ~ ; bNb$$ih.f*) v a ,qu 129 .i -~ na w..~. n--.; .-. a s.. ..w.-.. n... ?* ~.. 9 . y p;f.~,,_.., % C:.'.==3.-a.w y. _. y..,. -.. _ Q( ' - ~ ~ - ~ (WHEREUPON," discussion was had I I 1 2 off the record.) 3 MP. FARNELL: We will look through Mr. Simpson's 4 documents and if we cannot locate a copy of these ,~ 3 documents', we will make -- you can consider this a 6 formal request to furnish these documents to us. l 7 MR. JONES: Off the record.

l 8

(WHEREUPON, discussion was had 9 off the record.) 10 MR. FARNELL: Why don't we mark this as the 11 next exhibit. s 12 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked e.. I ~# II CPCO(Simpson) Deposition Exaibit 14 No. 17, for identification, es 15 og 11/19f.go,) 16 BY MR. FARNELL: 17 Q I now show you a document marked as n.# 18 Deposition Exhibit No. 17; a one-page yellow sheet 19-written in pencil, the top caption being, "Liquifaction 20 Potential," and I ask you is this document in your 21 handwriting? 22 (WHEREUPON, the document was 25 tendered to the witness.) 26 (.. Mol{n,' 2 Rows 0ssg arad cTuoetains n-,- nu e ,n san , a.. ,.-~._.-. - - -. -. -. _.... -, - ~.---.-

~

• d. ' * -.

g. 7(,,,5+ - ~ ' 2' '*.f ~*: '.,. 7. ,n. =. _ -* ~ [,. ",p**=4* . [ 9". *

• • y -]'* "I*~

r ~

,.g,.; -

,s.,,,..e._ 130 1 BY THE WITNESS: 2 A No. This was written by Mr. Norton -- 3 John Norton. 4 BY MR. FARNELL 5 Q Do you know what the purpose of the 6 document is? 7 A Yes. I told him to do a literature f 8 research on earthquake liquifaction potential. And 9 he icoked through these books and this is what he 10 found. 11 Q What is this reference, "ER 1110' 12 et cetera? ( 13 A This is our Enginsering negulations. 14 This would be one of your Corps of Engineurs' E 15 publies. cions. 4 16 Q Do you know what it is'ontitled? i i i 17 What it deals with generally? I 18 A Foundation investigations. 19 Q You cons'ider that a standard reference } j 20 work for your work on Midland Proj ect? n A No.- .This is a broad guidance for any project. Whether it applies to Midland, I really have to study" it. l 23 i 24 Q Did Mr. Kane give you -- or anybody from i .w- ) %Cfs, eRoun&sy aoul c4 ~"- x w~e m.== NMmm-lN,.,st.w.- g2... _N'.t.3; (.V,. 7 hW%-., \\ b[, J,$.a 5..@.:m.,f.'_' NE . ~... .aw -r..-- .s. a. . g., _.. e 3. ~cqAn .. a w. 1 .... g. ;,., m..,... m..,., 13y q _. ;.... '.,N-3,,.

s

~ .7. :, L.. ::'L = - u -... NRC give you -- suggest any' books or periodi'cals or ,,;.1 . = - - 1 l ' guidelines or anything along that line that~you 2 should use in your review of proposed remedial 3 l 4 fixes at Midland? 5 A Are we in the seismic area? 6 0 Just generally. 7 A Generally, no, no. Not to me. He might 8 have to people in Detroit, but not to me. _These are found. only quotes from books which he 9 10 Q Does that document referred to as ER 1110 -- can that be found in public libraries? 11 12 A No. It's one of our publicautons. j 3 I could furnish it to you. This ir. of no cenaequence. . R. 2AMARIN: Off the record. u 14 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had (- 15 cff the record.) 14 17 3Y MR. FARNELL '/ la Q Is the Corps of Engineers working on any i other nuclear projects besides Bailly or Midland? 19 The North central District is not. 'Other 20 A r 21 districts are. They have other contracts. f-Do you know whether the NRC is considering i' s Q 1 using the Corps of Engineers for any other nuclear t 23 j project in the North central Division area? C 24 1 4 =...-r: % .. v s %~.==. -n,, --e---,,,,-.,s--..a- ,w

• - *;..' # ~c. -

3- _.gy -~

• 2 J:J:.q 9 2 + - ~

.,g .;;.'_ g.. g.g. - - - .r. ...m. 132 i . ~.,. 1 1 A I don't know. We are on the Bailly l 2 Project. 3 (WEEREUPON, Mr. Eamarin left the 4 deposition proceedings.) 1 5 BY MR. FARNELL: 6 Q Eave you ever heard of the term of a " division level review by the Corps of Engineers' 7 8 standard *? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Is that applied to you? We are the division who does the reviewing. 11 A 12 And we have certain standards and documents that C' That would imply that this troald be done 13 we go by. by the standard that we have set for our projects. 14 Is the divisional level r'aview different 15 Q 16 than district level review? i 17 A The district - well, we were talking Y is about the Corps of Engineers' work.- They don't really 3, 19 review. 20 Q They do the work and then the division -- 21 A Does the review, yes. 22 Q Do you recall anyone within the NRC f or Corps of Engineers expressing concern for intake l 25 and outlet pipes at the cooling pond at Midland? L 24 '(h/,g g Qh nm.. a-e -,,.-e.+ ..-w, .n- + m ,-.-4 7... .,7--- , --,. - -,.-,,, ~ - -

.--.:w.. .. ma..+v ~. ej -- -3r f fu [:-$$bi7?5 ~ ~ K=.g - ' D.' '~' 133

%..- =,,z.

g i . e.:v .-m.- ....., m, - m...,,,. _., g+ M

.msm

~7 c.,.

-~y. :- ..,,i 1 A Yes. . ~ l 2 Q Who were those people? 3 A We talked this over with Joe Kane, I 4 believe, and Hyman Beller. 5 O Do you know who first expressed concern t 6 for these intake and outlet pipes? 7 A specifically, I don't recall who said 8 what. I 9 Q You do not recall whether it was the s 10 Corps cf Engineers or the NRC7 11 A No, no. M Q Did you ever express any concezn to the . f. 13 Detroit Corps of Engineers that they were not 14 reviewing the proposed remedial fixes at the 15 Midland site as quickly as you would'like? I 16 A I don' t recall any speed. We did talk 17 somewhat about the quality of their review. That is n.# Is it. 19 Q What did you talk about -- the quality 20 of review? l f 21 A well, the first interim report, I think, I 22 which came, which you have, we didn't really like it. 23 And we didn't like what was done. y 24 Q who was "we"? i j 'QVoQ S arula$u A n. . a n,- m e u s.e .-, -~

. ~ *.. m * :_, ~ 3,,',,., y,_ p.-c. a9:n - sn-r - 3 3 :._:,.. .+.., % ' *3.W:. Q ~~,... c .u. '~~% , 2: u .m 134 .Nw. _ -.,,,,, He is in my 1 A Myself and John Norton. . l' 2 office. What didn't you like about it? 3 Q i It wasn't really done to what we thought 4 A I think you might have 5 it should have been done. the usderlined copy marked up and everything. 6 The quality of this one report, yes. 7 But the speed -- I don't think we were concerned 8 9 about the speed. Do you recall any soecifics,why you 10 Q thought the quality was not up to Corps standards? 11 12 A Not stpecifically. But it is their approach to the whole problem. They were-- when 13 14 they started out, they approached it like NRC does. r' And their report They were asking quesuions. 15 Whereas, we reflected the questions, you know. 16 were consultants, and we should be asking questions. 17 / I think we remarked something like -- to that effect. i is Then there were numerous other items. 19 I don't really recall all of them, but they are all 2D therer all of our critiques of their work and there 21 were several of them. You have them. 22 Did the work of Detroit's Corps of l 23 Q Engineers finally and up in a document that was 24 i l (Wolfs, aRoun&s<g bad Aw u-s. { n m. n s.s,- ~ 9 )-

- l yp---. 2.. . - -"-Tv _~ .,1.3.i'L v.-_,- --gg. '* N % 7.T Q. u %( kD:{.'},gj-M..;;.; l WMO.[-p!dN66- ~ .,._.,,J:wU.."* _

• rx y.

.y p ..w. .v e.,v: -u v. we.=r. , r,. 135 l. t- .,,2.,. -> u s.e x w w

w. n. x..rw.

,<..s,...._.. y ,9e. ~ ' - ~ ~ -.. -... L'l - .:? s.cn v --- - y I~ l submitted to the !!RC7 l 2 A Yes. 3 Q Was that document then later revised a i bit by the NRC and forwarded to' Consumers Power? 4 5 A - I don't know,dow'auch they revised it, l 6 if any. They might have. I have no idea. 7 Q Did it take several months from the a time that the first draft of this report was 9 generated until the time the final project was 10 sont to the NRC7 11 A Yes, yes. 12 Q Do you know how many months that was? {. 13 A ch, I don't know. Maybe two. I am not 14 really sura. 0 15 Q Ras anyone to your knowle'dge within the Corps of Engineers ever expressed an opinion that 16 l 17 the surcharge. on the diesel generator building was 1 left in place long enough'to accomplish its purpose? l 18 19 A That it was or wasn't? 2 2D Q That it was left on long enough? 3 A There are these doubts about the way the i piezameter reacted which we have talked over between 22 And we have talked over about the wet and dry 23 us. 24 'of optimum. And we have talked over abott the lack y ) T o h c8o m 8ssy and' M ( \\ n,. u., y w r e i, w n-+ r 3

.; =.. ...- W.i,.l. ;. ~ '. '.'_ T} _2.%Q '.; 7. g.;,..~...:rw :- k - _... z ..;: {;5L':O..t... -. A .m -- a 136 3 r 1 of the soil strength to know what the real bearing 2 capacity is. So if you consider these doubts, I 3 would say yes, we have. We have these doubts which 4 we would like to disspell by a few more borings and 5 tests. i 6 MR. FARNELL: Could you read back my question, 7 please. 8 (WHEREUPON, the record was read 9 by the reporter as requested.) 10 BY THE WITNESS: 11 A The last part, I think answered it. 12 The last part of :ny answer. ,. ~. (- 13 BY MR. FARNELL 14 Q Has anyone expressed an opinion that it i 15 was left onl lone enough? j 16 A That it wasn' t lef t -- 17 Q That it was left on? I / l 18 A Yes. t 19 Q Yes? I 'A A Ch, no. We more or less all had the 1 21 same conclusions. We have these nagging doubts 22 which I just mentioned. 23 Q Do some have more nagging. doubts than l I 24 others? s-Woh dowshsy and d a~ta&== } 1 r me e s**r

..u....

i..

E.h .- a, =f _ _ p a.s --.y ... ;. u... N'2.h ,2jd{y (g y 7dN[.'I-[3.7 --{ 3, '?-% :* :;.u -...- :,,e...m -.. y

f. r. m.c yDi :

} '.;. "' * :.'. ~ w.-- 1 A I would say no. "Just no. 2 Q Has anyone within the corps of Engineers 3 or the NRC, to your knowledge, expressed the opinion 4 that the piezometer behaved in a manner as they were 5 expected to behave during the diesel generator 6 building preload? 7 MR. JONES: Can I have that question again, 8 please. 9 (WHEREUPON, the record was read 10 by the reporter as requested.) J 11 BY THE WITNESS: 12 A No. We have all talked abcut the same i l. 13 point that Joe Kans brought up about the grays in 14 some little blips in the piezometer readings. And l 2 we all were not sure wh a t happensd. I 16 BY MR. FAAN~:LL: 17 Q Even though Dr. Peck has' expressed the Y l } 1a opinion that they have behaved the way they should, 19 that does not alleviate your doubts? 20 A Dr. Peck never really explained what we n were picking up. One part of it was explained i 22 which.was the negative pore pressures as the piezomete r l 23 dipped down after taking off the load. But the 24 raise of the piezometer -- he didn't really get tu.m e n. Moh Aossnbssy and M n u.,- r__-.,___..,,--_...-....m

i ...n-. - -.. n. ..,.,. _n.u,..,g.,.. g -- .g.,.. .. ;; g. y a.- 7.. ,._,..,_.w m y.. 133 3., .y 1 1 into that. I think Dr. Afifi, on his drawings, has a question there, too, of why it was raised -- came 2 l 3 up. 4 Q Did Dr. Peck alleviate your concern'with 5 regard to' negative pore pressures? 6 A Negative? 1 7 Q Eis explanation? 8 A sure. 9 Q He did? 10 a y.,, 11 Q so the only thing you are left with now -- l 12 this raises doubt of this rise? ( The rise above the normal level. 13 A Doyouthink]r.Peckisconcernedabout 14 Q E is this? l1 16 A I d9n't icnow the degree of his concern, 17 but he didn't satisfactorily answer it. .7 la Q In your opinion? 19 A Yes. 2D Q Did anybody within the staff of the Corps of Engineers express the view that Dr. Peck 21 22 had satisfied their concerns with regard to this 23 rise? 24 A No. w i [ Wah Aownbsuy and M. n u.n ~ e a ,y e., ..mq -,.n-4 e -n a ~,. e ,-e.

n.

n. <m.

w,... f }3- $.h*+'EllAf _} k -;. -.- :.r w .L,; y3y . n: :, w w... :.., -,,-. _,.__.,,, =. t ~ _ ___ _ _,,,_,_n,,,,. . ~ -. g [.j e.:. =, :w,...=.-- - ]c.7. --t:_.._._mf[, m..~ .,.y ~ 1 Q You attended the' appeal meeting oT 2 Mr. Vollmer regarding the borings question? l 3 A I believe so. ) i 4 q After that meeting, did you have any i 5 conversations with any of the Corps or staff 6 personnel with regard to what transpired in that 7 meeting? 8 A There were conversations, I think, in a general tone. I am not sure specifically what was 9 10 talked over. 11 Q Has anyone within the Corps or the staff 12 to your knowledge. expressed any views with regard 13 to whether this litigation involving the order 14 modifying construction permits should be settled between Consumers Power and the NRC'[ E 15 15 A I have heard talk. They didn't really 17 understand why it wasn't settled. Y 1 18 Q Who said that? i 19. A I think Joe Kane. 2 Q Do you recall more specifically what i I E he said? l zt A' I think not. I think maybe I shouldn't 23 say this, but Bill Paton,'too. (,. 24 MR.-JONES: Hang on a second. 4 i % tf.,. 4.ed59 and.cf.. e. s t em., m e e mer - :..

• • *-* * * ' ~ ~ ' * ' ' * * *'

' ' g..';.,.+...

y;q

3 s

.,.. g. ny ~ -. ~. k ; y g g i ; Q. ~ t-- g .e < :y w ..+..va 140 ~ . Y W-, .L' -.,, yy, . m.c. - s. r 1 (WEEREUPON, discussion was had -i 2 off the record.') 3 MR. JONES: T am instructing the witness not to answer questions that relate to conversations 4 ) 5 between counsel and staff. i 6 MR. FARNELL: Okay. 7 BY MR. FARNELL: 8 Q With that instruction, can you answer 9 that question? 10 A I beg your pardon? i I 11 Q With Counsel's instruction, can you answer i 12 my question? ( 13 A You can put Joe Kane dowu. 14 o what I am askings cc you recall anything i 15 more specific than the general -- 16 A No. It was general, you know. 17 Q Did he suggest that the staff should 7 perhaps compromise with consumers regarding the h is 19 litigation? 20 A What do you mean by " compromise"? I, E Q Not demand all of the information that you have been seeking in exchange for consumers I i 22 e r providing some information? 2s 24 A I don't recall anything like that. a $N $ O nr m.m- ) i = I i

-n. g.; __ __ _ " " v'.. ; l ...il. Y a r ?- _.l w :x.w. r - ;;

% ; j fi p ;; g

' ~== n t~5 s.w;.=- '- ef2?.:q:. :.:g50-- ..... ;.., r =-- - - - gy*TU4Tlq$. a + g.3...,g ;+... -=....v., -..,..... :: ::. :. w..:. ..n.,,.~. 45;. 141. u v m z..c. ' I - ^"' E '. ~ m.. 'g.

r

.s

s. e:w -. :.w-

~- - yy. 4+,,.

. _w.

1 Q Eas Joe Kane indi'cated to you or anyone 2 else within the staff, excluding Mr. Paton or 3 Mr. Jones, whether you are going.to be a witness 4 at the OM hearing? 5 A No. No one mentioned that to me. 6 MR. FARNELL: okay. Let me check my notes. 7 This could be it. 8 BY MR. FARNELL: 9 Q A couple of last questions. 10 Have you reviewed the settlement data 11 at Consumers Power supplied with regard to the 12 time period after the preload of the diesel generator i l2 13 building? 14 A Yes. I think so. i 15 Q What did this data show you? 16 A As I remember, there is very little of I 17 additional settlement. I j is Q , It is a slight line? F 19 A This is after? 20 Q Yes. n A Yes. 22 Q There was a slight line? 2s A Yes. i 24 Q Did you see any evidence that there was v <%tfa, c.Rou,,Cag aoul 4-uw a,,,.s.u e. rir mr i-e y sg -wa--y-y s.ee-s y

l W.:.. : :-., 0 '. # -;fsgr.p e. E

• NE~n*Q NE**~

.. x..,,.h- [ {.}}..~." ' ' ' -...-., Q. ' ,.... f} .* <,: v x,;.. e. s. m 142 1 . --ecw.. 7,.; _ r I anything wrong? t 2 A No. l 3 MR. FARNELL: I have no further questions. 4 4 MR. JONES: Okay. Just for the record, there 3 are copies of the exhibits from this deposition. -l 6 Mr. Farnell is making copies and sending them to us. 7 Also, the original documents brought in a this afternoon, you have the only copies that exist. 9 I will request both copies for myself and the 10 originals back to Mr. Simpson. 11 MR. FARNELL: I will also keep this until I l 12 can make clear:copj.es for you. This is the document 13 produced yesterday. I will return'them all at once 14 to Mr. Simpson, 15 THE. WI"l NESS: No big hurry. Monday will be i 16 all right.. 4 17 MR.*FARNELL: Okay. Signature is not waived. I { 18 FURTHER DEPONENT SAITH NOT. 19 l 21 22 i n m., s, h4 ,, _ _ _ _ __j

r l k f "R W ' I? 'W k'. 7 a 3, -, e t, w m. m.. v, -.. _. ..m_.,,,,.,.. .,.y ) v 9.:... r. . _,.... s u..,. r. n...., ,.m...... ,.h~

m v -.-

i.h ~'7_- ' T ^ ~.'.T ' a~ 1 UNITED STATESOF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION l 1 IN THE MATTER OF: ) Docket Nos. 50-329-OL 3 ) 50-330-OL CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-329-OM 4 (Midland Plant, Units'.1 & 2)) 50-330-OM i 5 6 7 8 I 9 foregoing transcript of my deposition given at the g time and place aforesaid, consistings of Pages 1 to 142, inclusive, and I do again subscribe and make ' (,,-. oath that the same is a true, correct and complete transcript of my deposition so given as aforesaid, and includes changes, if any, so made by me. 7 15 16 17 JAMES WALLACE SIMPSON n.s 18 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO I'- before me this day A.D. 1980. of 20 21 Notary Public 9 22 23 C M l ( W h S o wnbsy and & =~laF** %.ma e,se.saer l

t .A. j '. ' ;:-c.*g.v. a ~. 3:- :;- D.- u ... x. _ ;.;: 'Qj.] *}~i. 7 y:.-. QT<;, ' _, '.***_ ~ ',,,}_'.,., ; tj ~. y a.;y.g - _,1 : 1a4 l 1 STATE OF ILLI!TOIS } } SS: 2 COUNTY OF C O O K ) 3 I, TOBT ANNE SLUTEKY, a Notary Public 4 within and for the County of Cook, State of Illinois, 5 and a certified Shorthand Reporter of said state, do 6 hereby certify: 7 That previous to the commencement of the 8 examination of the witness, JAMES WALLACE SIMPSON, 9 he was first duly sworn to testify the whole truth 10 concerning the matters herein 11 That the foregoing deposition transcript was reported stenographically by me, was thereafter 12 ( reduced to typewriting under my personal direction, la 14 and constitutes a true record of the testimony given 15 and the proceedings hadr 16 That the said deposition was taken before I 17 me at the time and place'specified; That the reading and signing by the witness 7 I is 19 of the deposition transcript was not waived; That I am not a relative _or empicyee or so attorney or counsel, nor a relative or employee of 21 such attorney or counsel for any of the parties hereto 22 nor interested directly or indirectly in the outcome 23 24 of this action. 4 I g SM A % DL* ___c._'..

l ,.~n,,,. h Xf -li.,l -&$'Ehy.fi.i .? }NY-np { ~ ~. .;,0A AM ~.~c.... g:.:;, - 1 .;qg .e.

.t.4,

..~ m. -. y $.a.mm. .e= v-* --lv-IN WITNESS WHEREOF,'I'do.hereuntogset my 2 hand and af fix my seal of o f fice at Chicago., Illinois, this j at day of November,19 80. 3 4 5 .n m _e ~ ~ ' ' ~ Notary R)1blic, Cook Couhtijd, Illinois 6 My commission expires May 14, 1983. 7 8 C.S.R. Certificate Mo. 84-2282. 9 10 11 12 .( '. 13 14 15 16 17 18 n,. 19 20 21 2: 3 24 < w. qs, u,.,a w n,. m. n O 4 ,y ,.pg., + =emm e oe, m. e = - _ _}}