ML20090A852
| ML20090A852 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 12/05/1980 |
| From: | Heller L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17198A223 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-BOX-12, FOIA-84-96 OL, OM, NUDOCS 8101100772 | |
| Download: ML20090A852 (110) | |
Text
.
w.ap
', x= /.e w,m....,.;,..j E g....,,. q.,.,.
~..g; -f. ;g.. 7 g
.=.-m - w + N.
- :. a~=-=
=
.. y, y..- -~. ; ;: e e. ~..
< =..
1
-:=
o
.. + *. -.. _. =
e'
- '...t.'
., -, * ;** *
- Q,
...Q;,
,y
.., ~.
Transcript of Proceedings UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board a
DEPOSITION OF LYMAN WAGNER HELLER
.C6-32.9 o
i tIp n
(,
,I i-Bethesda, Maryland Friday, 5 December 1980 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS.INC.
OfAsialRepersers AM North Capitol Street.
i g'-
Washington. D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE. DAILY felesnenes (202134N7eo 1
I i
,610220_0_7%h
.(,
..s..,
- ;
- m,--jy *f *
- N_.
?"."
J.*
~? 's
,,- "Q
,~***_;
,. v.,..
i 248
- R 5759 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 5,Blo m/wb 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN 3
Before the Ato=ic Safety and Licensing Board 4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
8 5
In the matter of:
Dor:ket No.a. 50-329-CM 8
CONSCHERS PCWER COMPANY 50-330-CM 50-329-OL 7
(Midland Units 1 and 2) 50-330-OL 3
9 DEPOSITION OF LYMAN WAGNER EE W R Bethesda, Maryland 10 11 Friday, 5 December 1980
'12 Deposition of LYMAN WAGNER EE m 3 was resumed, pursuamt to adjo$::nment, 4t 8 :45 p.m., in Room P-114, Phillips 13 Building, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda',' Maryland, before 14 15 William R. Bloom, a notary public in and for the District of 16 Columbia, when were present on behalf of the respective parties 17 On behalf of the Applicant:
18 RONALD IAMARIN, Esq. and ALAU FAPNELL, Esq.,
Isham, Lincoln and Beale, one First National 18 Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 20 JAMES E'. BRUNNER, Esq., Consumers Power Company, 212 W. Michigan Avenue, Jackson, Michigan 21 22
.g
. w. :. c
=w-.
..; s..,
..:.a...,.,....m.._ _
.' g_ f( g m C^!,$d&Qby-f. *f.;Qf ifl6kN.
W..
r..
- 2,.
.v.
' &,i5l'?-lTN.**..Yt -.
- ~....
7..,,.
......w.._
.,y.,
- 2.....
.m,.
- .y
- -.. m. - ~.. -
c 249 f.[.., _',:.-- x ~.n,
s.
g a
wb 1
On behalf of the Regulatory Staff:
i
'l 2
WILLIAM D. PATON, Esq. and 3RADLEY JONES, Esq.,
office of Executive Legal Direct==,
i \\
3 United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission, y
Washington, D. C.
,\\
4 i
% f 5
4 i
7 8
9 10 t
11 12
.N\\
13
/
I,,I u
,~
N b
g
\\
^
/ +
i_',5 "Q
't o
I
,1.
16 i
i 17 a
sj J
y '[
t 9~
18
.i e
19 t
1
-(. \\
[
20 k, ; \\, r.
- f <
23 a
22 a
I l
t' l
44 i
,,)1 i i
i 3
- ,e
_v' f
- paa, a,
,(.
e., t ;
, ~j
.l',,Qs t
~) y p,
{)'f,
VW T i
W.-e.i g
,;y-7;)
14 :,";
I
,a.
.m
-, ys,_
,,..,z
.+...: w;3.5 ;..- ~,--... ;... w.-
3
- a 2n. w. - -
r py a
-u~<-
250 cb 1
_C 0 _N T.E N _T _S 2
Witness Direct Cross Redirect Recross 3
Lyman Wagner Heller 251 (Continued) 4 5
Consumers' Exhibits For Identification 8-9 261 7
10 270 8
11 288 e
12 341 10 11 e
(
12 13 o
M 14 15 16 17 18 19 3
21 4
YEN Sns t
.1
~ fg -
c w,_ ;?SSir%'tSE
.E.7%...
1-3 y'p _.
~
M@ 'LW 74.Wiqd TKg,% (.t.2 : 5-W@-:. 9.g+'
.>.m:...=
~ ' ',}$'Ql.'~7K:.Ti.?&--
.....,. = -
.n 7ts
,, 4.
_c z i-s.
- ..-.;~- -,,,,......~.,..=.
g5
- :.+.. ;;.v....r..
...,._,s.3
'y 251
%..--, ~~
. ~ -
13 p,
~
w cb 1
_P.R O.C _E E D _I N.G _S 2
Whereupon, LYMAN HAGNER HELLER 3
resumed the stand and, having been previously duly sworn, 4
was avam %ed and testified further as follows:
5 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) 4 7
BY MR. ZAMARIN:
s Q
You understand of course that you are still under e
oath.
to A
Yes, sir.
11-MR. JONES:
The' witness has a correction to make ~
12 to something he said yesterday in answer to one of your 13 questions.
J' 14 THE WITNESS:
Yesterday you asked about my ex-parience with projects in which drilling had been accomplished 15 is in order to take Jamples and perform. laboratory tests on 17 them.
I indicated that one of the projects was located in la Wyoming.
That is incorrect.
That project was located in to Montana.
20 Previous to that you had asked questions with 21 respect to the projects tha't I had reviewed since the spring 22 of 1978 and I gave you a number of projects.
I should amend j
9
- .;;-Q g y. n.;... x,.-;
- ,.;.,;_. e :.
--,pyy,
'rp- >;&.
%.:-+-
...,q.
. wa
.a.
v r.
252 ch2 1
that to say that I participated in those reviews as a super-visor in my normal role and was not the primary technical 2
3 reviewer for those projects.
4 MR. ZAMARIN:
Thank you.
~
5 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
a Q.
Were these all the clarifications that you wished 7
to make?
a A
Yes, those are all.
9 Q
Mhat is the acceptance critaria for the diesel' generator building fix required by the staff?
10 11 A
The acceptance criteria required by the staff is t
12 that information that is asked for in Regulatory Guide 1.70 13 and in Standard Review Plan Sections 2.5 and 3.7.
u 14 Q
As it relates to the diesel generator fix, tell.
15 me specifically what acceptance critaria are.
18 A
The acceptance criteria would be that body of 17 information, that body of commitments that would be suffi-1s ciently complete for a reviewer to perform. independent analyses and to arrive at a conclusion that there is reasonabl e is 20 assurance for the safety and performance of that building 21 as it relates to protection of the public health and safety.
22 Q
Tell me what information is required to constitute hEnalmel& cTna.
9v e
-w-
- m
- m m m---
.a g: N. %'l'.;.;
Q~~~~wm:3 u-
-w-
.:.2*.u.-.n....;;
- r dw_,
- F jyp#.
,., s,,......._ c =.c.
? Cm;-;p*,Wdk. x. !"?
~ W. 9..~T -~ 7.vMt.~.
' ~
' ~-
. 3 "'
G p
.-,.... ;.e s. w: n...::,.,-. w.
...,3.,
. c. v s....-
.. ~. _.....
.._.w...-
e...,,.._..,.,
g
.r 253
.1%., t,
+
that body of information and commit:nents with regard to the cb3 1
2 diesel generator building.
f 3
A The detailed information would be similar to that
~
that had been submitted at the construction permit stage and 4
on which a fina4ng - a construction permit was issued that 3
found that the plant could be constructed with =4"4 mum risk a
7 and with adequate assurance of public safety.
1 e
Q With regard to the diesel generator building fix, can you give me specific types of information that is re-e quired in order to constitute that detailed infor: nation that to 1.n your opinion is similar to that that had been submitted 11
.. r 12 at the construction pe=mit stage?
13 A
some of the items that would be considered accept-u ance criteria would be a listing of codes and s* M ards that 14 15 would be met by the resulting fix, a listing of the methods is or technical specifications that would be enforced for the 17 fix that's. wposed, a commitment to perform co.ain analyses is with a stat.d technical result, and the bounds within which that technical result would fall.
to 20 I have stopped my answer at this point since I f
21 indicated at the beginning that that would be some.of the mit.rueranexampleofesetteriameveuldbeexpected.l
=
g o
~
o
-~
~ ' ', *,.:...
w-
...,.. x ;;.. ggq.
- pg4..ii, 3
- ,r o.-
,%m a.
. v.::.
234 _
eb4 1
Q Okay.
2 Can you give me some more?
That's all I can think of off-hand.
I'm sure there 3
A 4
are others though.
l Who is it who decides what acceptance criteria are 5
Q to be required or demanded with regard to the diesel generator 8
7 building fix?
My answer would have to be it's the amorphous body 8
A called the NRC staff as that's reflected in the Regulatory 9
Guides that have been published with respect to the acceptance to
'1 criteriathathavebeenaheeduponinthe"StandardReview 1
Plan, plus whatever special requirements the reviewer of 12 that particular item might need for good reason to arrive at 13 u
a conclusion of negligible risk to the public health and 14 15 safety.
to Q
Who is the reviewer with regard to the diesel generator building who would make that determination as to 17 what he might need for good reason to arrive at a reasonable te to assurance?
Again that would be a team effort composed of 20 A
the reviewer, consultants, management staff, policy makers 21 within the NRC itself, different committee members, ACRS, 2
ai nonc.
\\
t 3
.-e
~~c =. =g
%g.2m wl7:., $=:".....
mf; '
R~
- 3.~.":-.. -. ~
- 9 t -'..
"#p.;;;,; 3. 7,.g[, A.:v.y,
'mQ.;,,ak~... 9,y,%x.g%yJ
' : a. % :). Q;,ggn5C~.._ _-,
~
v.p
.s 7-
,,,.c
..c
- - - - ~
v.
. ~,,,.,c ~:
.~ m ;..... s.:.-- ~. ~...
...r.: c; e.-
w,. 3
...,,c.,..
_,,g-
'"g
.. ; :.. s.
.i 255 f:.r-T w :,. e.n.
n
~ ~ -
m, W
ob5 1
perhaps even the Appeal Board if the case happens to be a 2
litigated case.
3 Q
Who is the reviewer to whom.. you refer with re-4 gard to the diesel generator building?
5 A
Again, it's really a staff function.
At one time t
)
s we discussed yesterday it was Mr. Gillen.
At one point in 7
time it was myself.
At this point in time it is the' Corps a
of Engineers in Detroit, assisted and bounded by their own s
management chab, and by Mr. Kane, who is conducting the over-10 all coordination of the review.
11 Q
What investigation, if any, was done on the indi-
.r 12 vidu'als in the Corpt of Engineers who were to act as this 13 reviewer to provide reasonable assurance to the staff that ss 14 they were capable and competent in conducting that review?
15 A
May I ask that the question be repeated, please?
16 MR. ZAMARIN:
Would you read it back, please?
17 (Whereupen, the Reporter read from thw record is as requested.)
to THE WITNESS:
The investigation as such in a formal i
20 manner was not conducted.
But before the review was assigned 21 to the Corps of Engineers, I and Mr. Kane discussed the-
~,
background requirements and the qualifications of persons
.$dMMdwe,8as.
' ' c. " -....
^ ~
. w,.,. x. ~.4- - ff".Q.Q 7 3. -.
g
- gq,,_ :;.{
e,}k i. '
b*n.* ~~
%~
4 s v..
- c.,. nu 256 necessary to p.rform the review and to arrive at the safety.
eb6 1
2 evaluation conclusions that were necessary with Mr. Norton e-3 of the Corps of Engineers, with Mr. Rixby Hardy of the Corps of Engineers, with Mr. William Lawhead of the Corps of 4
Engineers, and other technical supervisors in order to assure 5
that adquate competence would be assigned to the review of 6
7 this project.
At this point we trusted their management to make s
e available persons of sufficient experience and competence to to perform that review.
11 The NRC did not initiate an investigation beyond e
12 what I have stated.
d 13 3Y MR. ::AMARIN:
u WhatacceptancecriteriadikyougivetotheCorps l'
Q 15 wanagement with regard to the qualifications of personnel?
16 A
We indicated the kind of work that would be re-17 quired, the kinds of public appearances that would be neces-18 sary, the probable need for preparation of affidavits fcr appearing before the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety.
to 20 We indicated to them that a.geotechnical engineer, 21 preferably experienced, would be preferable to one more experienced in geological skills, and I believe they concurred 22 i
i
\\
8 l
...~a.+
u --...
~
.e.
,..L^ NWW RL..=.a Sk,.u...,. j,*.,,.,
,.. ;. g;1 -O =..,.T.~*~': 7."'lil~ 7.,. _.,,,,'.h...* T ti~T @ d >
- .#.- w.,. 4.- - m g y*
^..
.2..
3 v
%mqvnr."
iy.; " =>
~
- w........se= :.
., : - - x u <>n
,... - :.~., -...
- .a...-
- m..m
...m..,,.
Q.. r
~
- t.. ' v.
- n.,....,,,,,. _,,...
W 257
~
- T:
f ? "l k..-L
~-
with our judgment and agreed with us with respect to the ab7 1
qualifications of the people necessary to do the work.
2 3
Q You said a geotechnical engineer with what type of a cpestience, as opposed to geological?
4 A geotechnical engineer with appropriate experience 5
A s
and iualifications.
7 Q
And what was that appropriate experience that is part of the acceptance criteria for the corps reviewers?
a 9
A I don't know that we got into the details of We exactly what the qualifications of the person must be.
10 11 did describe what we anticipated the problems would be, what pessible fixes might be proposed for the facility itself, 12
~
andlefttheselehionofthequalificationstomeetthose 13 u
M 14 problems up to the Corps management 15 Q
Do you know if anyone has reviewed the qualifica-to tions of those individuals-And by "anyone" I'm referring to anyone within the NRC - to see if in fact they meet the 17 qualifications req"4 ed for one who is to conduct a review, is perform an independent analysis to assure the conclusion 19 20 that there is reasonable assurance that there is no risk to i
21 the health and safety of the public?
22 A
Not in a foz: mal way.
I have asked Mr. Kane from l
.AEN Sne.
O 4
~ :*.:-;: c, n..
AK
,w,,--.
x
' ~k,
'Q.[ m3, :.-u._Q f~.r:. ~ "* ':
Q'.. : yy
- ' LC' fad,:n ;a =~ ~ E*+:Q
.*O! -
258 sb8 1
time to time who was assigned to the project, the Midland i
project or the Bailly project,.and whether he had talked with l
2 3
these individuals, not in a prying manner but in a conversa-tional manner to learn what kind of experience,they had, and 4
5 he assured me that he had satisfied himself that they were 6
able to do the review.
7 Q
Did he tell you any more about what he had found out about their qualifications with regard to the reviewers a
9 working on the Midland project?
10 A
It was my impression that he was satisfied with 11 the people that had been assigned.
~
12 Q
I understand.
Did you get any further information frem him, 13 however, as to what it takes to satisfy him, or what it took 14 to satisfy him with regard to the Corps reviewers for the r
15 16 Midland project?
17 A
I didn't feel that was necessary since we had dis-ts cussed that at length with the Corps prior to their choosing 18 and assigning reviewers for the job.
20 Q
I understood you to say that you described tasks 21 that were to be performed with the Corps management and than 22 left it to the Corps management to decide which cualificatiens 1
S.
9 e summumeuum
F Y Y n ",.,- _. 4 %.j n., - r w...nw.:. n e ~
- =. _
h,...aQg-+.-h. _
!!2.$b
- ,..u. n.......... -
mm~
mjQQftf
- =L$h ~-lT[.};'~
j.*[
~g W
5. "._w.u - s-, c.. a w r-.,
- .y c,2 - v.:..a
.g-
',.. n,.,.,....s a
.,.m e.a.
y
' ; $4 L. s.-
, y..
,.:.m.m.....
f.[I~3=.$.==x~..m
~~.
7
-+ ~. m N 259 l
ob9 1
would be best suited or mere appropriate for performing those 2
tasks.
3 A
Yes, sir.
4 Q
And what I'm asking now is whether anybody in the 5
NRC then fot$.nd out what qualifications had been determined.
by the Corps management to be appropriate for performing those a
7 tasks and to see whether'in fact the reviewers'that had been assigned by the Corps did in fact possess those qualifi.:ations, a
9 A
I feel that's the same question you asked before.
10 I will try to answer it again, what was actually done.
11 Q
I understand wliat wts done.
You said it was left i
12 to the Corps management to decide what qualifications and i
4 13 therefore they presented bodies.
And then I asked you whether u
youhadhadanydiscoveryofwhatqualbicationsthepasti-14 15 cular individuals had.
16 You communicated you had asked Joe Kane on several 17 occasions and he assured you he was satisfied with the quali-18 fications of the Corps reviewers.
I then asked you what l
18 those qualifications were and whether you knew whether Joe 20 Kane had ever found out what they were, and you said they had 21 been discussed at, length with the Corps management.
22 A
okay.
i A.2JI9::
&L S,
~~
- .~- Q 3 Ly z..-[ ; 3...-
~
~j
. < p c-:-2.5~. :. 3:. :-- kt.-
f
.w.,
x j
n,.
-c.
. a,-
E 260 ob10 1
Q But I understcod you to say that just the tasks 2
were discussed with the Corps management and what we're miss-c
\\
ing are the qualifications, one, two,
+h ee, four and five.
3 4
A Thank you.
I understand the missing link you're 5
seeking, I believe.
8 When I talked with Joe I asked him who the re-7 viewers were, what their backgrounds were, what divisions 8
they worked with with the Corps, if they had been reassigned, 9
what projects they had worked on in the Corps.
I did not ask 10 for 171 or any kind of resume from the reviewers that had 11 been assigned, but I left it up to Joe to be hatisfied that r(
12 they were in fact qualified within the same general level of 13 qualifications that we had discussed prior to awarding the u
14 contract.
15 I feel that is much the same answer I gave before to but if you want an expansion I'll try again.
I 17 Q
Did Joe Kane tell you' that he tad ever seen resumes 18 of the individuals in the Corps who were assigned to the re-18 view?
20 A
No, sir.
His conversations were first-person 21 conversations with the people involved as he went over the 1
22 details of L.e review and the reports that they submitted.
f wy w
e I
e
c.
--a,. v
- 3.1%...:.......
33 Tim
.,I? T m'a g % ;av
!.3m._, _
'-9 ml..t. T.e W.q.? 7,..
,'3,_..
_.. t5754tQ [ Qil*W Q:+.,-yMi?@;.-
,m
- ~"
"K..f..;;.~ :.. 2a= =.
. n e m.n o..
m.. m
,,M g'-
.,,..,_.',m
.;T*.*,..
Yt a.t.-*,..7,a.,p,,,,.
....y,,,
.u....m m.
' lW 261
~
~.
$:,' ? h = G., n.
~.~
ebil 1
Q And did he tell you that he had learned the back-2 ground of each of the reviewers?
3 A
I had the impression that he had learned suffi-cient background to be satisfied that they were not newly 4
graduated engineers with no experience in any aspect of geo-5 a
technical engineering.
7 Q'
And in your opinion did Joe Kane communicate to you that he had conducted sufficient exploration of the back-a ground and qualifications and expertise of these reviewers s
so as to make an informed judgment as to their engineering 10 qualifications and qualifications to perform the type of re-11 view required by the staff in this kind of a situation?
12 13 A
It was my impression that he,,was satisfied.
I'm ss l'
not sure that I asked it in exactly that way.
15 Q
I'd be surprised if you did.
te (Brief recess.)
17 MR. "hN :
Back on'the record.
ts I have here a document that I am marking Consumers' 18
'Thibit Number 9 for identification as of this date.
(Whereupon, the document 21 was marked Censumers' 9 22 for identification.)
t
. emes a
- .7,=,
- 44.. ~ zz.-;-
c-
..z
..C :.:L*=, 3 3...--
- _-i,..
g.y
~~
c*.
.... s.3 262 cb12 1
MR. ZAMARIN:
It's a January 23, 1980 memorandum 2
for James P. Knight through Robert E. Jackson from L. W.
l 3
gelier.
4 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
5 Q
I would like you to take a look at this and tell me if this appears to be or is a copy of a memorandum that a
7 was prepared by you and ac=urately reflects what your con-8 clusions were with regard to the status of the geotechnical e
review of Midland by the Corps of Engineers on or about 10 January 23rd, 1980.
11 And I understand when this was prepared it is very e
likely that it didn't have the notations and the-gaily colored 12 13 markings that I have put on it.
14 Do you have my question with regard to Ixhibit 15 Number 9 in mind?
1s A
I have read Exhibit Number 9 just now.
Q Do you racall what my question was with regard to 17 18 it?
18 A
No, I do not.
23 MR. ZAMARIN:
Would you read it back, please?
21 (Whereupen, the Reporter read from the record 22 as requested.)
I AEndeml& Sne.
4 l
l i
l-
__i
f f.-
-.m.,..?. bNG:%N,- }.W%. q a,,,,.,,,.*=h5^k$__.
_h_h.... \\$. ;..:...,.g.
' Y...._Yl.5_.5..~.. 55S ~~..
.m z.4g t
.s,., - (.a.
. s.
m.-
.d, h~~ r : mT; o r. = c.-~ ~. ~..
- . c, =n 1 n.. : m..,,,,,,,,,_.
- ,g.
(
1.
,.-...s-_.
- m..
,..s.,_..,,,,..,..,_..,
.a 263 b' N,l c. =....
7 --
(
eb13 1
THE WITNESS:
Yes, it is a memorandum I prepared i
summarizing the status of the Midland and the 31 ally plants 2
i 3
at the time you indicated.
4 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
I notice on the second page it has a list of 5
Q and the last one on that 8
people to wh,om copies were sent, 7
list is T. Davison.
I think it might be misspelled.
But is that the same Davison at the University of Illinois who 8
'8 is a technical consultant with regard to underpinning at i
l 10
. Midland?
i 11 A
Yes, sir, it is.
12 g
Do you know if--
That's.not the correct spelling, 13 is it?
o M
14 A
No, sir, it is not.
i 15 Q
Have you worked with Davison with regard to to Bailly?
t7 A
.es, sir.
.ts Q
And do you have confidence in his work?
I'm confident that he will represent his client to A
20 properly, yes, sir.
Q Do you have confidence in his work?
21 i
U A
Yes, sir, I do.
YEea'=el& Sne, I
i t
e.
l
' ' c-
.h,,
,_y. (g'r v iy:
~ -
-7'-~
c --
z..
y ::p u:-g m.. A;y-- - -
. n..
-m
.;u:5 4 ;:. p y,.=4-g
- w
-n w
.a..,:a
..c 264
~
ch14 1
Q By saying you're confident he will represent his
- lient properly you're not suggesting that because he works 2
for the staff.on Bailly that he would tend to color his 3
opinions or his conclusions in any way to favor the position 4
that is being taken by the staff at all?
5 s
A No, sir.
He would represent the needs of his 7
client properly was my implication.
s Q
okay.
And you don't suggest by that that he would take 9
any position or state any conclusion other than that which he 10 11 believes is the best, based upon his best engineering judg-12 ment?
13 A
Yes, sir, for his client.
J' 14 Q
You keep adding "for his client."
And again are you suggesting that because he works for the staff on Bailly is to that he would tend to present a positien that might be dif-17 farent than that which he would present if he worked for the te licensee on Bailly?
18 A
I believe that any consultant to NRC, to any 20 employer, owes that employer his best work to support'his 21 client's case.
He's doing an excallant job for us and ?
i 22 feel he's doing an excellent job for Consumers Power.
l
'N e.
--.m a
a
-~w
%>am..
n.....v f.._
6
~?21:?-lTX."Pj-
- ~. ;.r j= ^ ~*
.q p;. Q g.;.g.;.:g? q e g 'r,._.,
. Q-f;QX.
^*
. W..
..w.,..=.,:
, m w -.
1
_,m....... _,,.,..
g,t:;
- v. -
.., ;.. w,., _
u
,,_.,,..u..,,3,..._,,,,,.
m,,,,,.
y..-
. N 265
, 3%,t '.. ; w'.ma s m-~
.~.
e cbl5 1
Q You're not suggesting that he's ccmpromising his engineering integrity or compromising any engineering decision 2
or conclusion he may reach becauss. of the identity of his 3
4 employer, though?
5 A
I'= not suggesting that, no.
6 Q
Okay.
7 A
I'm only suggesting that his work is toward the a
best interests of his client.
9 Q
And do you believe that that in any way haans that 10 he would alter an engineering judgment so as to better serve 11 the desires of his' client?
12 A
Serve the needs of his client, yes.
It doesn't necessarily mean that he would alter an engineering judgment.
13 ss 14 Certainly the requirements of the jcb would dictate the con-15 clusions he would draw.
16 MR. ZAMARIN:
Read back the question and the 17 answer, please.
1s (whereupon, the Reporter read from the record 18 as requested.)
20 3Y MR. h7:
21 Q
I guess what I'm confused with, =y question was as 22 to whether you believed be would alter an engineering judg=ent
- WW 9
eem e
e m.m. e
~
'Z. ~ =.. :,.
~j
- 3: z:g
- i:-;;
-n-
,,.,. c. y._:.2-:-;;JL Q.3- ; -
}
[
v
- cr -
.. a.a
.- a h
266 because he thought that that would better do what his clients l
ebl6 1
1 2
vant.
You said, I think, that you believed he would 3
alter an engineering judgment if he thought that would better 4
i s
serve the needs of his client.
And that to me suggests some-l a
thing dishonest, and I don't think that's at all what you were 7
intending.
And that's why I want to make sure it is abso-s lutely clear en the record as to what you say.
s A
Let me try to make the statement the way I mean to it.
It may not answer your question.
If not, please ask 11 again.
C 12 Q
oh, I will.
s 13 A
I'm not suggesting that he is in any way acting inanunethicalway,eitherforusondhaBaillyprojectof 14 15 for Consumers on the Midland project, or for any other client 1s that he has and serves as a consu1* ant.
17 My point is that a co.:sultant, any consultant, serves the needs of his client nd his judgman'a are based en te is the needs of his client, not that those judgments will be biased in any way, but they must fit the needs of his client.
1 20 21 Q
okay.
~
When you refer to "the needs of his client," with 22 l
l Gi E l t M 47, O
- - ~. -
f' -
~ ~ " ' - -
~-
E. 5 /; L,..... ~. _
b,q. ' h.;;. lhpf$
%}f-f-}QUf mh 5:1-
- m ~
- , w.:-: -c w-
.->, : c,- ~,.:..r
.....s y.e : x.......
(,. : z w., ~..
._ f,
-~ -
regard to Bailly, for example, what are the needs of the I
cb17 1
2 staff vis-a-vis Davison to which you refer?
3 A
Those needs are spelled out in the contract.
Some of the items of necessity are appearance at hearings before 4
5 the Advisory Committee for Reactor Safety.
Same of those needs are meeting with the technical staff of the applicant.
6 7
Some of those needs involve inspection specifications for 8
pile driving.
s our needs, in a nutshell boil down to having a good case that will survive intervanors, survive challenge to 11 perhaps after the plant is' built, and convince tha different
. - - ?
hearing boards that we have in fact,a foundation,that mini-12 13 mizes the risk to public health and safety of the Bailly u
14 plant.
15 Q
If in Davison's opinion you didn't have a good case, do you think that he would bend his-engineering judg-16 17 ment in any way so as to serve your needs of having a good 1s case, or your needs for having a good case?
19 A
I believe the set of circumstances that form the 20 framework of the need define the various facets of judgments 21 that can be applied to any given facet of that problem.
It i
22 does not mean that his judgments would be bent; itwouldmean~j i
M 4
\\
s m.
,_,.._..w_
- ',2:e
..r'.,,
.' ;.ge;.s.wii.. ;;.n
,,.,.,.m
,;.g. g ;y,y..... _,g:. g 3,.,9; g.y
+.-r-
. y.,
,.,. s.
%. v..
-c
.,.n 268
,o that his judgments would be tailored to the specific facets i
ob18 1
2 of the need.
I haven't the faintest idea what you just said.
s Q
4 I'm sorry.
s A
Let me trf again.
~
If I recall your question correctly, and I neglected s
to have it reread, it went to the thought that Davison would 7
band his judgments to satisfy the needs of his client.
a It didn't really go to that s
Q Let me correct you.
4 Just what I was trying to clarify was that you had to thought.
indicated that it was necessary in your mind for a consultant 11 and then in describing e
1 12 to satisfy the needs of his client, the needs of the staff at Bailly, you indicated that one of 13 uhe needs was in having a good case that would survive inter-14 ts venors' scrutiny, or any other scrutiny.
And I just. wanted to make sure that it can't be 16 inferred frca your answer that you're saying that Davison 17 in any way would give something other than what he honestly i
18 believes to be an appropriate engineering conclusion-just to 18 20 make sure that you had your good case.
In this particular instance I feel that he is not 21 A
I feel that we, by the nature of 22 bending his best judgment.
l l
U home.
N
._m
F
-. 9 g. _ W i ~m %.'Y=n.,.4.. :T:-- ~p%.:i=+
e 2.'i' ~+....,... _
w-a, ~.,.
- % 2:,n- ;-WM-
^-
~~ ~
- 4. f.
2
.i
,N.s -2
,T,;_
. x..w...
' _,
- q~ -
.,....c.
. - -..x. 7..... _..,.,..
.m.,,,,n,,,,,._,,,.
- 69 h.;.* ~.s.r...m..
s
- ,,.sc.
m our needs, may be making judg$ents that are more conservative cbl9 1
than would normally be necessary for construction projects 2
3 of lesser risk to public health and safety.
4 Q
Do you know of any instance in which he has bent 5
his judgment, since you say in this casa you don't think he s
bas?
No, because I feel his judgments and the work he 7
A is doing for us on Bailly do appropriately fit our unique e
needs of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I'm saying that s
those needs are somewhat more conservative perhaps than would '
to be appropriate for a less' sensitive structure than a nuclear 11 f*'
power plant where that sensitivity of course relates to 12 13 public health and safety.
u DohisjudgmentswithregardtoBaillyaccurately 14 Q
i and adequately reflect the standard required for adequate 15 18 assurance at Sailly?
17 A
That test is yet to come.
I don't know the answer 18 to that question.
ts Q
How about in your opinion?
Certainly Lyman Heller 20 has some thoughts about that.
21 A
In my opinion we are tailoring it to meet the 3
minimum standards that will be necessary in the future to M &.t tM L
9
_ g33. K'
.-. ~yy
~*:. p -g 2.%,.: 3m--
,..,,. g
- .QJL'3..y.._
..~...
. :-v w.,
....n
?
270 I
cb20 1
survive challenges that we know will be there.
2 Q
So in your opinion do the judgments of Davison g(
3 with regard to Bailly meet the standards of the NRC required 4
for adequate assurance?
5 A
I believe they do.
s Q
And would that ba true of his work with regard to I
7 Midland as well?
a A
I have not reviewed his work at this point.
9 Q
So you don't have any idea, as you sit here now, to of what his work on Midland is?
11 A
I' know what structure he's working cn, and I have
/*
s 12 an idea what the proposed solution is. We have not gone through-13 enough review I think to arrive at that conclusion.
2 14 MR. ZAMAR3:
I have here what I am marking as 7
15 Consumers 10 for identification as of today's date.
1e (Whereupon, the document 17 referred to was marked 18 as Consumers hhihit 10 to for identification.)
20 MR. ZAMARIN:
It is some handwritten notes dated 21 November 29th, 1979.
I'll give you a moment to locate that 22 in your files if that's what you're attempting to do, or I
-wp i
O W
w
-w,n-m--.,
ww n
s.
w n
m.
e v
-~n
-,n
-+m
\\
n..,
^
T.n, ;,
c.
. c.
_.s
,.. =..
r 3 n [q,.
!.D:@:.-.:+p-myl7.%
- ~..
7.
".B : ? h~~~~' M W
. wem.,.
.7-r ~.m:.a= =. -
, n.d, $s,t; 5.
%:.'.4.e y
..,,c:,.,.......
-u+
..n....,,,
g w..>
<-,.,.s..
-.m.e...
~
~
~ % o.%
,, cn - r m..
-/J.
~.
- cb21 1
can show you my copy.
2 (Pause. 's r...
I have located the referenced hand-3 TEE WITNESS:
4 written note.
8 3Y MR. ZAMARIN:
It refers to a meeting on Midland and it styles 8
Q 7
it "Stello's meeting."
What does that mean?
I think the brackets around the words "Stello's 8
A meeting," as I recall, was simply a note to myself that he 8
appeared to be the Person who had requested the meeting, to although I den't have personal knowledge that he's the person 11 c
12 who. requested the meeting.
Is Exhibit 10, this 11/29/79 note, in your hand?.
13 Q
I have a Ecpy of it.
14 A
Yes, sir, it is.
What was the purpose of this meeting, as you recall?
ts Q
It I'm not sure what Ste11o.'s purpose was.
to A
appeared to me that he wanted to get the involved people to-17 gather and discuss the Bailly situation with respect to the 18 Midland case and to kick around the thought that the principal 18 architectural design features may have changed at Midland f,
8 because of the changed support conditions.
21 t
22 MR. ZAMARIN:
Would you read that back for me, 32 YEN Sne.
T S
e e-
- -en es. -._
.n.
. C - Q.;,' Q. 5 5..
},*._
F*
.# ppug ;;k h ;-
m-
.g 3-m
~n.
.., ;a f
272 l
cb22 1
please?
2 (Whereupon, the Reporter sad from the record 3
as requested.)
4 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
What is the Bailly situation to which you refer?
5 Q
a A
The Bailly situation is a rather complex situation.
The principal features of it are a pile foundation that was 7
proposed at the construction permit stage and on which a a
e license was granted, and the change in those piles that was proposed and was under review by the staff, and the considera -
10 11 tions that t;he staff of the-Cermission had given to that change l
(
12 in foundation conditions with respect to the question of 13 whether the principal architectural and design features had l'
been changed for the Bailly plant.
15 Q
About in the middle of the page it says "Stello:"
to and then underneath that it says something, and then the 17 next word is "Thornburgh," underscored.
18 What's that first word?
18 A
That precedes "Thornburgh"?
20 Q
Yes.
21 A
March, M-a-r-e-h.
22 Q
Is that seneone's first name?
(
l era.
ns.
3 1
i
N
.,. y.
..- ~m-vvm w..
. :.s...
=
- .:. = ; mw.
e
,; ZQG".;1:q z< Q p y W W,
" 9.~3 Q $.7 f.:}'";{ [i y..
.,ff
^ --
. v:..
- ~
-~
,..-.;;T..I;3q ; se4/=i.:.7 - w -. j.
- x (
( : 3, c.,: a... =
u-
--...~n,s..
. m n.u, ~.. - -.
m
- p. _.
.[g. t. C..#.*.srsa ea s e.-
- >*J','
a.
ob23 t
A No, sir, that is a month of the year.
2 Q
I don't understand.
Then the sentence says:
3
" MLrch.
Thornburgh says not good foundation."
4 Can you tell me what that sentence means?
5 A
Yes, sir.
It means that'in March Mr. Thernburgh, who is a member, a ranking member of our Inspection and.
a 7
Enforcement office, had indicated that the foundations at 8
Midland left scmething to be desired.
And this note having
[
8 been written in November simply referred back to the Region l
M III determination I believe dated in March, recording this I
l situation at Midland.
~
12 Q
Do you know anything more about Thornburgh's t
if 13
(
statement that the foundations left some, thing to be desired?
s ss I
l' A
I understand why Afifi does not take notes.
l 15 (Laughter.)
l 1
The centext there is that stallo is speaking and Q
i
'7 i. he's reporting to the group that in March of 1979 a Region III
'8 investigation report indicated, and that Mr. Thcrnburgh of i
I ts I&E had told Mr. Stallo that Midland did not have the best I
of foundations.
I' Q
Do you know what was meant by that statement?
l t
22 A
It is only a recording of fact, a statement of fact
- AbN
- Sue, l
l i
i
', 'F. '..
2-sw;,~:K. ^
- f..*;k ;~-{ ~j
- . -~[,
=
- a.,'f
.,n~ -
. k_\\~, rg{4 s f. =..J.k f: y"T*~ '
s r-
-K Y.
- ..i
f 274 ob24 1
Q I know, but I'm asking you what is meant, if you know what is meant by the statement that Midland didn't have 2
e 3
the best of foundations.
4 A
Well, those are my words.
"Not good foundation."
l 5
That was just my shorthand.
'8 Q
What did that mean to you?
It means to me that there's a problem with the 7
A 8
foundations at Midland.
And can you tell me what that problem of founda-8 Q
i tions is that is being referred to there, or do you know in.
10 l
11 any detail?
e 2
A Yes.
I leafed through t'ha Region III report on --
13 the QI and foundation report.
ss 14 Q
Are you referring to that Investigation Report 18 Number 78-207 Around March of 1979 it was published.
18 A
I believe that's correct, to the best of my recol-17 lection.
i ts Q
When it says " March.
Thornburgh says not good foundation," do you know if Stallo was referring to that inves-18 I
20 tigatics report, a draft of which was prepared on March 15th, 1979, and the final version of which was issued on 21 22 March 22nd, 1979, over the' signature of Mr. Thornburgh?
I j
x
- ~
=. - -. - - -
-..-.mr,,
..ypp
. n. >...
m
]}-
'(([-fM~~..-: P 7.' "O M i G $ p
- N.h f k... e.kMM
. n.... - -,. -
,.=..,.u,..,.
g,
,,,+,:
y us.m p,...u.r-a
-.m.
ob25 1
A I don't know that that is a fact, if those are 2
eae facts.
I assume that that is what Stello was talking 3
about -- was talking about at that point.
4 0
Who is vassallo?
5 A
vassallo at that time was the Acting Director of 6
the Division of Licensing in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 7
Regulation, to the best of my recollection.
s Q
And who is Showard?
8 A
Showard is the chief of the structural Engineering 10 Branch within the Division of Engineering.
11 Q
And is ther Jackson listed Robert E. Jackson?
s 12 A
That is correct.
13 Q
Who is case 7 o
M 14 A
Case is the Deputy Director of Nuclear Reactor 15 Regulation.
16 Q
Who is "plus five"?
Lawyers who didn't need to be 17 mentioned?
18 A
Unidentified people that I didn't know their first 18 names or didn't bother to continue my notes.
l Q
Are Cunningham, Liberman and Murphy all frem CE.37 20 A
I believe they are, yes, sir, or representatives 1
22 of Regional offices.
Nd=/.ru/ 8_l '
8,w.
G e.-m
~'
C. A'.. 2 J: py,-ig&-- % -Tz"-
...n.,z.a.4EsL*.~5.g-.: y..,B i;.. K *::.,T..,;W
-.. -. :,..:z -
..,.. =
a - '
. m%.:..,;c
,.,,.-e 276 cb26 1
Q Do you know if at this meeting there was any dis-cussion of civil penalties related to the Midland soils 2
3 problem?
4 A
I do not recall.
5 Q
Do you know if prior to this meeting the NRC had been considering civil penalties as a result of or related a
7 to the Midland soils problem?
s 8
A I do not have any knowledge to that effect.
When Stallo sugg*ested an order to suspend founda-f.
e Q
tion construction do you know if there was anyone who dis-10 11 agreed with him at that meeting?
12 A
I deri't recall any particular person who disagreed s
13 with that su'ggestion.
I'm sure it was discussed pro and con o
14 among the group but I can't recollect what the arguments,:
15 were.
16
.Q You don't recall any general disagreement that 17 might have been expressed?
16 A
I-don't recall any general disagreement, no, sir.
l ts Q
Do you recall what any of the lawyers said at the 20 meeting?
[.
21 MR. JONES:
I would object to going into the s
22 conversations.
I will assert the attorney-client privilege.
s t.
N l
\\
l
\\
e 5
L I
- x-y
. _-..0,,.
n
... n.<. v.
x x,.
m_..;,p'
-:., w.,=.a w
......, w..:. A $ j*-e. ?.;M
. ~.
- m... -
y., p
. m g-
.g a.:.m.:..13'.f4..~, w. w
.=..;.. m,.-.-
.,, y,- a. ;. E.JL
- C ya 7.;..
. '" W C J*-
1 T..
.. g'
.,....a y* ;-: s., T *Q r s a. =s v-s w -- 9
,. m.._,.. f.w n a.n.
.n w...
"y 277
._m.....,...y.,..,,,,.
..v..
.. g.. :
. m.
_.s.,
y.c:..u ~..-
Q eb27 1
itR. ZAMAR*N:
Let's see if he can recall.
We may
- (
not hccia tg)[ hassle about it.
2
}
j,
.4h 53E WITNESS:
I really don't recall.
{ p?. 'i 1
c w
Ff MR. ZAMARIN:
4
/t i
i t' e
3 t
t
'~
'A J$
5
>Q Kad you attended any other meetings besides this e
t~
q r
tu
.34 v /o' e11:/29'/74 caeting at which the question of an order to suspend
- j>
a foundation; construction was discussed or mentioned?
7 a
A
'I don' t remember whether I did er not.
There were s
A.
e all kinds ef amatings.
That's why I keep notes.
I have a rf
,1
, > n-I i 'l
%.,,1 to poor memory.
3 i I
Q
, thy did you attend the meeting on 11/29/79?
- 4, 11
,,r g
! \\ ' '.,
12 A
'I was asked to attendi s
q,.', ' '
Do you re. call who at that meeting might have been t.
Q u
y['
in favor sfrin uing the order to suspedd, and who might have 14 beensopps ed;to,' issuing the order to suspend?
r 15 j.-
+'
y,/
f!
r 16 d
R,.
No, sir, I cannot recall who was pro and who was v/
J 5
1*f con. ;In tMny cases one person would argue for and two minutes later t,.;vue against.
So it's dif'icult to iden*4'y the
';a 1s r -
o i., ',f_
4 1, >
,t e s 19.'. ' issues with people.
c
\\ ra
- v
.h 20 sq gow did you feel at that meeting about that?
I
- 21..
l6A
-['M felt at that point in time it was'nece'ssary to w
v.
i j '
22
-dc. Ncnet' ing,cf a positive nature to attempt to bring the
- J
')? /
~q t
$ den (e l&n Sne, A
s r
y d.
.-1f
>J a
....-..r.-
/ g:...-
=.
')
.gt x1
}..
~v
'f..fd*gs,,S ~* ' Ere: '.
_ }.l.,}.
a s.
...x.
e t' *- *.m-
.... < ;.,=;,.
,t y
~E%
s..,, g.
278 r
plant into reasonable expectations of ecmpliance with the ab23 1
2 PSAR.
g.
3 Q
How did you feel about whether to issue an order?
I'm not familiar with the legal instriments that 4
A are used to attempt to control construction, particularly 5
after the construction permits have been issued, so I can't s
7 comment.
Are you saying you really didn't have a position s
Q one way or the other in this raging debate about whether an s
order to suspend foundation construction should be issued or to I
11 not on 11/29/797
/'~
Nell, I falt that there needed to be some assurance-(
12 A
that the end product would be acceptable for those poor 13 u
devils who have to review the opera + %f license application.
14 so,with that point of view, I was in favor of supplementing 15 the docket to a point where a positive conclusion could be 1s reached, and whatever legal mechanisms or other mechanisms, 17 voluntary mechanisms were available I favored.
la 19 Q
Did you suggest at that meeting in any way that Consumers had not submitted adaquate acceptance criteria?
20 I'm not sure I had an opportunity to say anything 21 A
22 at that meeting.
If not at that meeting I'm sure I suggested i I.
)
U n Sne.
E 9
e-sem
_y
kY
.. ~.,
"?
_ m..
,q.4,.,,3_.--.Q xw :..
- x.. 7 ;_.
L L 4."
,.,.je.gr_yg j
.-. i.
=
';yd
.y.
g q.
~.
... a.-
y,.
,......... a a= c.
W, r..
..n.
..: e,.wr,,,. _.....'
. : c, : s u.
~....m..,.
f
..,, W -.. ca.,.
~..
,,. ~.,.,,.,,. _.,
.-...-.~..
p,:
279 4
~.
%.w. c:,..e.._
w suggesting there was not adequate ab29 1
it previously to someone, 2
acceptance criteria.
with regard to the statements you have made that s
o Consumers had not provided adequate acceptance critaria, tell 4
me each item of information or data that they had not pro-5 vided which you believed they should have provided.
a I can give you some of the it. ems.
Again, I cannot 7
A a
attempt to be complete.
Well, you can attempt to be complete.
But I under-9 Q
i.
stand recollection serves such that you may not be able to.
to I think the first item would be a listing of the 11 A
codes and practices that were committed to be used in arriving
^
/L 12
'at a design or interpretation of the and results of the fixes 13 2
had, to my knowledge, not been submitted at that point in 14 15 time.
I believe that criteria related to settlemen*J, 16 differential settlements, piping stresses, piping budding.,
17 placements of pipes in the plant fill area had not.seen sub-i ta mitted with respect to conditions that would be at*ained 19 20 after the fix was implemented.
2 At that time I do not believe there was any remedial actions proposed for the service water pumphouse 22 j
t 9
I e
1
'N"T' C
~ ,.:~..;,.
" p g.
}.2~ 5.*~-?-
...x _ a ;4(-[.)f*,}'?. 7,~~;' ;...-.5.,.%;,.z. ' F ^ ',..~~ } J. Q.;
g
- - - ~.
. %' Y-.
c-.. /.;.
i-non cb30 t
other than perhaps an over-all concept.
2 I believe that it had been recently - I will say 3
" discovered" that the return linesto the emergency cooling water.* pond wsre not shown on submissions in the FSAR and 4
5 questions regarding the list of safety items and the function 6
of those safety items could be expected to be incomplete.
7 We were aware from previous visits to the site a
of design construction concepts for the berated water tanks 8
that were in general variance with such concepts in con-10 struction at other nuclear power plan's.
11 And a combination of these concerns, a lack of 12 knowledge of how these concerns were to be addressed or if 13 they were to be addressed, coupled wiuh reports by our I&E andQualityAssurancepnopleinwhichh.essthanahundred 14 15 percent confidence in the ability to carry out the fixes was to expressed, this combination of circumsta.nces led me to believe 17 that we should take a pause in the review process in an is attempt to gather these essential pieces of infor: nation.
i l
to
(
I have finished my answer.
Q In the first item where you 6alked about listing 21 l
of codes and practices you indicated that none had been sub-1 22 mitted at that peint in time, and I' assume that you're l
l l
g
-..m
,--.,.v 3
_ jfL.9?b.t ;h %V...u k'-
bbN
~. ~~. $
MN I.
I-gy5 95
.r-t.emyry s
- 4. -....,. m. ;.... a==
e
- r., m.. c. a,.
.. ', e. m.- m, m.m
. g,,.
.j m. c.a,.
.._..,.__,.,m,_.
281 n.s w.
.~.
.-...s yg,q g e.v.~._
-+
referring to the time that you discussed with people the lack cb31 1
1 2
of acceptance criteria that had been submitted.
Tell me what e
3 point in time you're referring to.
4 A
oh, I would say the fall of '79, August, September, 5
some time'in that region.
e Q
And whenhad you asked for a listing of codes and 7
practices 7 8
A I didn't ask anyone.
I had leafed through the sub-mission, attempting to locate some positive, quantitative 9
criteria and was unable to find such infor: nation in the sub-mittals that had come in.
e So you didn't ask anyone at Constiners with respect 12 Q
13 to that information7 o
M l'
A No, I did not.
Q With regard to criteria related to diffarential settlement and piping stress and piping bedding and the 17 - placement of pipes, do you know if that information had been worked up by anyone at Bechtel or' Consumers?
j t
19 A
No, sir, I do not.
Did you ask anyone at Bechtel or consumers for Q
l i
l 4
I 21 i
that 4"dormation?
A No, sir.
f,
~
1 ft$.
l l
,w,
---m
.s
'-*;m..c 9 7 g s ( G % :.c -n--
....sw..... M,- E !Qg ;3.. -
=j. {.[ ] ~~, 4 { J
.mtv>
r 282 cb32 1
Q with regard to remedial actions for the service 2
water pumphouse, other than perhaps an over-all concept, do 3
you know if such remedial actions.had been in fact reduced 4
to more specific design than an over-all concept at that time?
5 A
I don't believe tliat it had been but I don't 6'
recall specifically.
7 Q
You didn't ask anybody for that, did you?
5 A
No, sir.
F 9
Q With regard to the design construction concep*J 10 of berated water tanks, did you ask for any information with-11 regard to that of either Bechtel or Consumers?
e C2 12 A
I did not ask for it.
It may h' ave been included 13 in some of the questions that may have en submitted either 14 by myself-But I did not personally ask for them verbally'.
15 I guess that's what you're referring to.
to Q
Do you know whether anyone asked for, and didn't 17 get the informad.on?
2.300 18 A
I'm sorry, could you repeat that question?
)
18 Q
Sure.
Doyouknowwhatbaranyoneaskedfor,anddidn't 20 21 get the information?
i 22 A
As I recall, at roughly that period of d.ma JMM 8
'\\
e-
,n
~--a e.
.,-e---
~ _.. -
.~-
m.
3.. =.
3.
. :=g g%,. >, _6
~
e~.-.-~-
m p,. ',2;. _u. es;;q,
~= m 'r:..-~~~'.7 m.v w
- ~
=-
. w t+r mq r.f.
...,w
.~
- ~.
., a ---,-.
.. r ~ m ;n r... :.m -,.:-~<.,,..,
- .y
... _ 9.e.
.... c,
._..,r...
m.,...
m,
-N g[.y$. h.~
?o, e
cb33 1
questions had been asked, perhaps not the same questiens tha:
,e 2
I have previously indicated, but a_ number of responses had s.
3 come back indica-dng that an answer would be supplied at some 4
point in the future.
5 In other cases an attempt to answer the question a
was submitted, but none of these answers contained any 7
what I would call acceptance criteria for the fixes that were a
being envisioned.
i 8
Q Did you communicate that to anyone at Consumers to or Bechtel?
i 11 A
By telephone or other maamm7
/
.t s
12 Q
By any means.
13 A
By any means?
sP 1'
Q Yes.
15 A
No, I did not.
1s Q
Who was it in I&E who told'you that they were isss 17 than 100 percent confident in the licensee's ability to carry 18 out remedial fixes?
18 A
I i.hink that was an impression that I got from 20 the report that I think you indicated was dated in March,
(
21
- 1979, 22 Q
Investigation Report 78-20.
l NE'/ M :8 8
l
[
.,.. =, -.
\\
., =
glJ
...-x
. :k-G.j:Q;..g; 5. _..-i ny.;.}
- 3. g d.a 2.k - Eri : ~ km
.v
. ~ a..
a,u.
.-4
~
284 d
I ob34 1
A I obtained that impression f cm meet "gs that 2
were held at NRC at which quality control issues were dis-3 cussed, and I can't recall the reviewers and the section 4
leaders and the branch chiefs involved but I think that the Quality Assurance Branch in general left me wdth that im-5 6
pression.
7 Q
Did you have any specifics upon which that im-pression was based, upon which they based the information 8
9 that they imparted to you which formed that impression, gave 10 rise to that impression?
11 A
Well, as I recall that meeting, and I think it 12 was in July of '79, there were some score of items that I&E 13 had -- rather, the Quality Assurance Branch had presented 2
14 to Consumers Power with respect to the 07./QC program.
And' 15 Consumers was reporting the results of their investigation 16 of those items.
17 And I believe one of the issues on which there 18 remained disagreement between reviewers and consumers Power l
was the matter of the **"luence that Consumers personnel 19 l
.had on the quality assurance program.
3y that I'm inferring 20 21 that Consumers contended that there was no breakdown in i
22 quality cont:cl or quality assurance with respect to M E. L.t 9 : :. 6 L.
9, e
...n.v.-,,.
\\
' 1l22.~ f.7*U66
.. W -- g. & " _
he.h
%;.e. A,..m.J.._
\\
rics
... -.. - A.. -
~ls
,. f-w:-hf&,D.-
.l c.$:QQ.?', a. -
1
~
WQg..:.:._... x=.
.y
.w.,.y :w. m :,, -...
....m.,,.,,,m_,,,,.,
O. 2,m.
.. e. u., -.
>.m,-...._....~.m.
.,. - -... ~... ~...
- M
.x ~ ~~~-
285 F
,%,w.,: u.
._..s.
1*
qualifications of inspec'. ors, actions of inspectors, and I I
cb35 1
l 2
believe it was NRC's impression that there was indeed suffi-f 3
cient evidence to question that conclusion.
4 Q
At what point in time was this alleged breakdown in quality assurance with regard to qualifications of in-5 a
spectors stated to have occurred?
Was this back at the time of soils placement in the summer of 1979, the fall of 19797 7
s A
There are others who could answer that question 9
better than I can but it is my impression that the quality control / quality assurance side'of the construction at Midland 10 11 had been found less than satisfactory very early in the con-l
..(
w 12 struction, and apparently there had been some improvements l
t 13 in that program such that construction could again proceed.
14 And I believe at some point the I&E offices and our QA people found additional breakdowns in the quality 15 16 assurance program.
So at what point-in time I really can't 17 sayr it's just my impression from the meeting that that is la the situation - was the situation.
ts Q
okay.
20 The impression that was given to you at that meet-21 ing was that there were problems with the QA/QC program that 22 existed, for example, in the spring of 1979 as opposed to l
l hren.
(
e
- *y.. -1..r.. v
. - +-, --
- w...
- g;p,:h,ae...# :' ;^-
..s.%..M.,.-~.,,.-..:wc.0-i.E'3r c y -7+y g ~
(.,g g g s
,'y.
. %'Y..
...,;;5.,
.,..,,,.s.~:'-
o 1
286 I
ob36 1
reports of problems that existed at some prior time which l
2 didn't exist currently in the spring of 1979?
3 A
The impression I had is that there had been a QA problem, that there still was a QA problem, and that it was I
4 5
not likely that whatever remedial measures were going to be 8
proposed for taking care of the. foundations, that the same 7
QA measures would be taken for the remedial actions on the 8
foundation.
9 Q
Do you know who Gene Gallagher is?
l 10 A
Yes, sir.
11 Q
Was he at the November 29th, 1979 meeting?
l
.?
t 12 A
I don't believe he was.
13 Q
Is any of your impression with regard to the QA-l u
14 discussions the result of communication from or by Gene 15 Gallagher?
18 A
No.
They primarily came from our own QA/QC staff 17 and reviewers.
I 18 Q
NRR7 19 A
Yes.
20 Q
Who gave the Corps reviewers advice on the standard
~
21 of assurance which is required in their review work with 22 regard to the fixes at Midland?
1 t
O
_. _ _ ~.,.
,+
_7
., og
--- - : eve..-* ****..er--~
~
... m, m.
M,..
- .*~
. * *4)e.J.
31'?d:P9~n:PRt.7, ;. m M, "W#A55$Q}.
ROW %W W,",3 t
.g.
- y..
- x. m u. - a," m -
2,..,,_,,..,.m.,..m.,.m.,,..,,__
.,._,p (j
- e a.iT/c~., y _r.. e v: v + - w - + * - ' w - * * - n ir m a '** * ** ** -
h,
g,'3pi
~
~
N-
~ 'm -g 287 m-cb37 1
A with regard to QA/QC, I believe you asked.
I 2
Q No.
3 MR. ZAMARIN:
Would you read it back, please?
4 (Whereupon, the Reporter read from the record 1
l 5
as requested.)
s TEE WITNESS:
The standard of assurance is con-7 tained basically in the Code of Federal Regulatiens, Part 10.
s It's contained in Regulatory Guides that are used fer ex-e pioration, laboratory testing.
It is contained in Standard i
10 Review Plans' references, bibliographies included in that 11 Standard Review Plan.
12 It's contained I believe in the wordings of our s
13 SER's that we provided to them as examples of justifications 14 fer acceptance.
is So to answer your question I would say that we to attempted to indoctrinate the Corps r'eviewers with the prac-17 ticra that the NRR staff uses, either by example or by actual ts guidance.
's Q
What actual guidance was given to them?
20 A
Actual guidance would be the Code cf Federal 21 Regulations, Standard Review Plans and Regulatory Guides.
U Q
.In addition to giving them those Guides and Plans
{
.Q.E.s I9 : :-, &
u.--
n Im
- lw ". 2 -
J:.p;c_lg;;;&
W::~fw-
.,, v n : :;&-%L'?Z.q-5....--
yy. ~ }, G .'.3 . a,......,,,, 288 eb38 1 and Regulations and examples of SER'c, was anything at all 2 done to see that what was required to provide reasonable assurance to a reasonable staff member was in fact what was 3 4 going to be or being required in order to provide reasonable j 3 assurance to these Corps reviewers? \\ s A' Nothing other than,the general impression that we 7 would expect the resulting facility to meet Corps practice a which is part of our guidance I believe in the Standard 9 Review Plan. 10 MR. ZAMARIN: I have here what I am marking as 11 consumers' Exhibit Number 11 for identification as of today's 12 date, a June 4th, 1980 letter'from the Department of the Army, 13 Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Subject 4 14 Report of Review of Geotechnical Aspects of the Seismic 15 Safety of Midland Nuclear Power Plant. 18 (Whereupon, the document 17 referred to was marked 18 as consumers' Exhibit 11 l 1s for identification.) I 20 MR. CAMARIN: I notice a copy with enclosures t l 21 was sent to you, among others, and the enclosure is a Memo-22 randum for Recc d. l s e +
i .. n.s..n ._f.,._;_ .:..:.: y. >w+ , =.... a=.:. pt g.. %* gyy,.;',+g w %+;5g5ysN> " =.$:.:d=r~:':=t:n:L~ ~, -. c., "
- p
- s., g. y c~g
~ r M. e r 'Kh %:.'f~ r, s m ::. s r:. =~1 m ~ *.y.~; ;s
- p
(. % s ,.:;r. ,,- e. -,, -..,...,. m s.. E 289 .nh. * ~ .~. ...... ~ .....,, :.2 s <m- ~. - . w cb39 1 BY MR. ZAMARIN: 2 Q Have you located that in your documents? 3 A I'm not sure it was in the-- Was it in the package 4 I gave you? 5 Q I don't know if it was. The copy I have we got 6 from Joe Kane. 1 7 A I suspect I do not have a copy. 8 Q All right. I'll let you look at mine. 9 The one sheet, the cover sheet, is not for yout i t i 10 review. Those are my notes and it's not a part of the docu-l 11 ment, so I will fold that to the back. l 12 Take a loch at the document and tell me if in fact I 13 it's accurate and redhets that a copy was sent to you. o l o l 14 (Handing document to the witness.) 15 (Recess. ) B3 18 MR. ZAMARIN: Back on the record. 17 BY MR. _AMAruN: 1 1 is Q Can yot respond? 19 A Yes, I recall receiving the document. I think I 20 have leafed 4 ough it but not read it in detail as a reviewer 21 would. 22 Q Page two cf the Memorandum for Record that the S e ,.m_. -- s
_ = _. ,'., ~: v.. . c. g _, &. > s k p . n_... m. Wj%.;u'3Z.7 5 5.:,-- Q ~ f... _._ ;; g a* =-
- ~r--
.a c E 290 ob40 1 June 4th. letter trans=it:, that Memorand = fer Record is i e 2 dated May 30th, 1980. There's a paragraph numbered seven 3 which says, in the second sentence - Strike that - which 4 says in total: 5 "In view of the large number of borings e in the plant fill area and the conservatism adopted 4 7 in my analysis, these few isolated pockets are no a threat to plant safety. The fill area is safe 9 against liquefaction in a magnitude 6.0 earthqurke to or smaller which produces a peak ground surface 11 acceleration of 0.19g or la'ss provided the ground-12 water elevation in the fill is*kept at or below 13 elevation 610." o 14 This report, by the way, is signed by P. F. 15 Hadala, Ingineer, Acting Assistant Chief, Geotechnical 18 Laboratory, Department cf the Army, Waterways Experiment a 17 Station, Corps of Engir. ears, vicksburg, Mississippi. 18 Here, I'll show you that Paragraph 7 that I just 1 18 read. I'd ask you to look at it and tell me if you disagree 20 with what Dr. Hadala says there. l 21 A Yes, sir, it looks okay to me. 22 Q Actually you said "Yes, sir." I asked you if you 'i-i I l S d M M 8,w. i l i l I t
i ---....n.. ~ ~,,.. e, 1 -. w _
- q.5..,.f, f~k;;$~
a ' : :%M.n:~:.;w.W ....'. G, e'~~M nsm
- ~-.. ;.:.. ;w..
- y4 q7:3.
q~ u e. W+.. .s. -.. r: v,. _.m., _, w...,,,.. r G h..~....,...... ....._..~,m.,....n
- p
-~ ~ ~. m ;y >g1 Q.r>s;c-w.n .~ _a ab41 1 disagreed with it, so I guess your answer is No, you don't 2 disagree. Is that correct? 3 A I do not disagree with the conclusions Dr. Hadala 4 has stated in Paragraph 7 of his report. 5 Q Okay. a On page 4 of that same report, Paragraph Number 11 7 is a section that starts " Comments regarding seismically-a induced settlements." And in Paragraph 11 it says that: 9 "An independent apprcximate analysis 10 based upon the same references cited on pages four 11 and five of the Applicant's Responses to NRC Re-12 quests, Question 4, the same assumption of d:.7 sand 13 used in the preparation of Table 4-1A of Question d' 14 4, and Dr. Hadala's engineering judgment indicated 15 that t'he numbers for seismically-induced settlement is in that table which are 4.012g and M equals 7 eard-17 quake are also reasonable for 0.19g and a magnitude is 6.0 event." 1e It goes on to state'that: l 20 "While a course of action is probably l 21 available to the applicant at no cost, it is, in Dr. Hadala's opinion, unnecessary and in view of i 22 I I 1 bdas/em/h 8ne. i
~w- . f'.[..' y + ?.... F 7
- w. 4
-* '{.'gph A ',m e h *- "Y*." -~ -- e
- ...za.. - 3 ;; gy
,...r. ~c~n, n 292 the field data discussed in the references cited ob42 1 on pages four and five of Consumer's Answers to 2 Question 4, Dr. Badala is fully satisfied that 3 ~ capillary action provides all the conservatism 4 needed to review the seismically-induced settle-5 ments in Table 4-1A as upper-bound values for the a earthquake shaking described." 7 Do you disagree with Dr. Hadala's conclusions as i 8 contained in Paragraph 11 which I now show you? l 9 (Handing document to the witness.) 10 (Discussion off the record.) I 11 12 MR. ZAMARIN: Back on the record. Will you read the last question, please? 13 (Whereupon, the Reporter re d from the record 14 15 as requested.) 18 THE WITNZSS: I would not necessarily disagree 17 with Dr. Hadala's conclusions. If I were the reviewer of i l the details of his analyses I prebably would question the 18 18 basis for his judgments. 20 3Y MR. ZAMARIN: I And I take it from that then that after. reviewing 21 Q Paragraph 11, you would still have some question as to the [ U e l l l
. b:::::, -.=:-. h... - ~6gg ' Q w *~ n.,..eQ
- g
.3. ^, y qg j,3#s;9.;J T _ r{ - ,...,..r e - -l7, pggg,ggc "*:V Q y ~p /*.3*7 ~ ' - ' " ,....:,.,n..... :.r. s.c ..,,,,_....._~ ~.,...... ~ ~ g, ... ~... y.] ' / ;Y,;. ,.:.~-......w.,,. ., A. 3,, m.
- f..;, _ ~. ;.
v.w..- -
- c,,
~~~ ' a - -.; a 293 cb43 t basis of his judgment? e 2 A Yes. If I were the reviewer I would ask him the 3 basis for the judgments on the settlement. 4 Q Okay. Are you familiar with the information contained 8 e in the references to Question 4 and Table 4-1A, the Seed and 7 Silvdr reference? 8 A I'm vaguely familiar, yes. e Q And that info:mation doesn't indicate to you the 10 basis for Dr. Hadala's conclusions stated in Paragraph 11? 11 A It would not be clear to me. It may have been ( b 12 claar to the person who reviewed that particuls: paragraph. 13 Q Do you know if any reviewer has challenged in any 14 way Dr. Hadala's conclusion as stated in this Paragraph 117 15 A I'm not aware of any challenge to the conclusions. 1s Q In your opinion.with regard to reasonable assurance 1 17 does that require that you be 100 percent sure or certain l 18 with regard to a nuclear power plant component? I l 19 MR. PATON: At the CP stage er OL stage? 1 20 MR. " h *N: The CP stage. 21 MR. PATON: Can I ask you to say reasonable d 22 assurance of what? e>C/ t ne,
-.,,:;- +.. p .W. .. ~ = ~ - _. -
- e-*<
~
.^;.:y i <;:aa J V F* ... e % +'..n:OE..i:: ".'"'Q =;g,- ;,.,;~:Qf x . % w.. .... a.2 ~ r 294
- 1e've bee. talking a$out Isasench h
. bu 1 MR. ZAMARIN: assurance that the plant can be constructed and operated 2 without undue risk to the health and safety of the public, 3 4 and the attorneys in this proceeding. 1 l 5 (Laughter.) S MR. PATON: Thank you. 7 THE WITNESS: As I understand the question it has been modified, reasonable assurance with respect to the con-a struction per: nit application, and we're talking now about j e r PSAR criteria and commitments as opposed'to the plant as 10 11 constructed at the operating license stage. 12 MR. ZAMARIN: Yes. 13 TEE WITNESS: 2easonable assurance is a judg:nental l I ta=m that is used mainly by the Advisory Committee on Reactor j 1' Safety, having taken all of the input info:mation from the 15 i 18 staff and from the applicant in the totality of thei: l To reduce or condense " reasonable assurance" to l 17 judgments. i 18 the foundation fixes one would need to look at acceptance criteria that is used by the Accident Analysis 3 ranch to 18 dete:mine what level of risk or the probability of improper 20 engineering behavior would be likely for a' particular com-21 \\ ponent of the foundation, and that then would be factored 22 EN &m, Sne. s l s ---.y _ +, ,_.--.-.-r-.. y
.. - fd2:- .,..~-.a_..4 .~. v.>. :25.a., ?iQ...., ".'. -c g%; $., -s %.. f.1 i.:~2.: M..;.:- .h: a~.L. p ;. y.,y m...._ y l g.. . W th- :~ 7.7. # U, ,,4., g.,.. p -. ;., g y -. < :-: r m g. m. ..r. c...-.....:...,. ._.a.. . g, ,.,. _ m_.m ,-....s. .y.,,,,,,,_. f,, ;. ;'.= ca: ,7 D 295 into the total risk model for that particular plant, not cb45 1 ) necessarily in a quantitative way but at least in a judg-2 s 3 mental way. 4 BY MR. ZAMA.CN: .My question was in terms of whether one would have e Q to be 100 percent certain in order to conclude that he had e Can you either disagree or agree with 7 reasonable Assurance. a that statesmnt. one does not need 100 percent assurance; no, sir, 9 A cAt the oL stage is it your cpinien that one would j to C i need 100 percent certainty in order to have adequate assurance? 11 ( 12 MR. PATON: I'm sorry, you.say " adequate" assurancs, ~ Do you mean " reasonable" assurance? 13 2 14 MR. ZAMARIN: Yes, I meant to say " reasonable 15 assurance. 1e THE WITNESS: I believe a' goal of 99.999 percent is a worthwhile level of assurance to strive for at the 17 is operating license stage. 19 3Y MR. ZAMARIN: ( 20 Q okay, that's laudable, but is that practical and I is that in fact your opinion of what is required? l 21 e g y,,, gig, ig ig, 22 l M HG. 9
~- ' 3.. c-ga ' 3:.. - f s- - .a;.fxxg, nn....::. 296 .d Since Three Mile Island has there been a change ab46 1 Q in the approach to " reasonable assurance" within the staff? 2 e ( 3 A In my opinion there has been a change, yes. 4 Q Will you describe that change? J 5 MR. PATON: Could I ask you-- I think we dis-tinguished a while ago between OL and CP. 8 7 MR. ZAMARIN: I don't know yet. Whatever change 1 8 there is I want to know about. 9 TEZ WITNESS: I believe there has been an in-1 creasing desire to arrive at generally higher levels of to assurance than had been deemed necessary prior to Three Mile 4 11 ~ i-12 Island. l l 13 SY MR. ZAMARIT: e 14 Q Why? 15 A I don't know the reasons why. I think this is a perception and an opinion that I hold, having been subjected is to the environment in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regula-17 ta tion over the past year or so. 19 Q In your cpinion that does not indicate a conclusion that the staff had not been doing their job properly prior 20 21 to Three Mile Island, does it? j 22 A I have no opinion on that matter. Ae5Nh_l l-, Sne. N t. I ~..., _.
- * - W1'an.-w--D 5...:". B n-
-.--.%+...-.. _ W_.. %.:q .,r.m.,.y... e. p-9.,, g.:.,.3s;..,. " : w - M.. L. ~f :.,: e. n..._L. L~ ~~ ~ > p. g. . m g,g g. p m.,. ;.. c =.=. ..df.
- -
- n :.u.a.
w.,...,.. """.,..."x., ~ ~, _ - G e...,. .._.-w..~-..~-...s.,,. 3.~...
- r..
--Q 4 -JL, a?- - the staff was You have no opinion as to wheths cb47 1 Q properly doing their job before Three Mile Island? 2 i 3 A No, sir. Do you have an opinion as to whether the staff 4 Q has been doing their job properly since Three Mile Island? s I believe they have been trying much harder to s A 7 do their jobt yes, sir. From where did you obtain your perception or a Q impression that since Three Mile Island higher levels of i. i l s assurance were deemed necessary t2Lan prior to the Three Mile 10 11 Island accident? It's really an over-all impression from reading i i r's 12 A a number of Commissioners' speeches, from conversations with 13 ss my supervisors over the months. 14 15 MR. ZAMARIN: 'Would you read the answer back? (Whereupon, the Reporter read from the record 18 1 17 as requested.) l 1s BY MR. ZAMARIN: Can you be more specific about what any of these 4 1s Q l speeches or conversations consisted of as it relates to your J 20 perception or impression that a higher level of assurance is t 21 deemed necessary now than prior to TMI? 22 3,275 $EN Sns I I (
- ~ ,._ g
- .;a.3 3.
y... _ 3. - : 3.'-,z%::k a :s1,9 m- ~~
- ; q.,;. y V x.
298 I It's not possible to tie it down to any particular cb48 1 A 2 time or place. I get this impression frem words that Mr. Knight has offered to his branch chiefs from time to time. 3 They seem to be consistent with what he reports his directions 4 to be from higher management and consistent with the action s plans that have been taken by the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmis-a sion, with the actions to resolve -esolved issues, and I 7 think with speeches I have read in the bulletins that are a 9 circulated within our organization. Is the Midland site being singled out for any more 10 Q particu'lariz(d scrutiny than a general review of nuclear 11 12 projects? 13 A Not to my knowledge. Are you aware that on December 6th, 1979, there 14 Q were outstanding questions that had been asked of Consumers 15 Power Ccmpany on November 19th, 1979 that had not been due is 17 for answer as of December 6th, 19797 I don't know the answer to that question. 1s A Do you know if anybody was aware when that 1s Q December 6th, 1979 order was issued that the staff had just asked a bunch of questiens that nobody had had time to 21 U answer? Pld. '\\ e e
~^ M***
- '- l -
S.N .,.~ .. d. a ; _, - - _ 5 W ~;, -.. ; ; 7Y l-- hihQ_jfggg3 ., y.. - A g Wi'(Q,., " ?l[6?hiTr.XW?.._.~. T .,4%- - g,,g q..,. s., ' 3 3 N-r
- W.,,.
., yy.,;,. t ..en..,,,,,....._,.,. .rm ..m... .y .y 299 .~.~ f, ,5.:.. m _ _ -. - E-I know that we had submitted questions from our ob49 1 A branch and our area for -- since early 1977 when we began the 2 3 operating license review. I'm not aware that the November-questions were any more complete or conclusive than the 4 5 previous questions. It was just another series of questions in different areas that needed to be addressed. a 7 MR. ZAMARIN: Could you read back the question, a please? (Whereupon, the Reporter read from the record l 9 n 10 as requested.) I.i I I would assume that everyone involvedi 11 T33 WITNESS: in the review, particularly the Project Manager, would have / 12 been aware of the issuance of those questions and the date 13 u" 14 they were actually issued. My answer attempted to put a framework around the 15 situation in which questions are continuously being generated 1s in the operating license review and in particular, with the 17 remedial actions now proposed for the foundations. l 1s 18 3Y MR. ZAMARIN: I 20 g Do you know if any of the questions asked b .i Ncvember of 1979 related to the. acceptance criteria rets red. i 21 3 in the December 6th, 1979 order? to. f i
m. " y,w%ela i :s:.r -n- . x. 3[.:qg33,3. s% -- ...a 300 I'm not sure that set of questions asked for -- 1 ob50 1 A I believe there quote - " criteria" -- quote -- specifically. 2 were questions asked prior to that submission that went to 3 the topic of acceptance criteria.- 4 Do you know whether those questions related to s Q the acceptance criteria referred to in the December 6th order? a I don't recall exactly which submission that went 7 A from Licensing to the applicant contained those pa.~.icular e 9 questions. I generally don't get copies of those submissions. . Q Did you ever have a conversation with Joe Kane to about the difficulties that could be expected in underpinning 11 t( 12 operations at Midland? I expect that I did have at some point in time, 13 A 2 primarily at the point where I was attempting to brief him 14 i on what had transpired, what I thought was being proposed for 15 4 the unde.- pinning at that time, which would be November or 16 17 December 1979. 1s Q Do you recall what the substance of that conver-19 sation was? 20 A Not explicitly. I do recall some items, *. hat I I wanted him to understand that borings had been made through 21 the service water pumpheuse floor and borings had been made i 3 I l Y N $na, (
. -... ~... - sq.,. _., ww - **' y. ._..:. a,.. s ? .pe. 55. 5-y-.g.j.g ,._ 4,,.,5..-+:....: c : =. -. - 'h.gp. gig.,.g.r.;. 7.w.s + m. 7 3 y,. pp ;. +.. . + 9).,% M T:~.7;gh
- e. a_
~ n ,-e r. - m ;.,u . c -.:.. u.. ,r.~... a-n..c-. n.,,.,.
- 4..
^g;'. 3o, ,....-u., ..__...m,.. .e y,* '
- .s..
_,,-T ., f a,1
- A- *to us. m v~
I believe at that time also in the a'txiliary building, the t cb51 1 valve chamber or auxiliary building,- I can't distinguish 2 t s which is which -- that there were some schemes for temporary 2 support that had been described.to us that appeared as i 4 though they needed to have someone give them a reasonable 5 degree of detailed review with the thought that when the fix s is finally in that we will not have damaged the st=uctures 7 a involved. 9 Q Do you recall anything else? 10 A No, I don't at this point. j l 11 Q Do you recall any discussions with Joe Kane about' i problems and how to reach resolution with regard to problems 12 1 13 of a fix for the diesel generator building? 2 14 A Not specifically, no, sir. 1s Q Do you recall any conversations with Joe Kane about i what the Corps is trying to do with regard to the cooling i-1e 17 pond dikes? I 1s A We've had many conversations on the dikes in the l' l 19 past months. If you can be explicit in terms of what the i 20 Corps.is trying to do, I could probably answs: in mere 21 detail. i l 1 22 Q I really can't be because I don't know what it is j l i 4 .. _. ~ .e
~ - . g. w.n, ~... a 3.q,a:-;4
- ib
-r-- .n .<-:..; uc,,. g. 32.: :_- q =4-- 5 .a' .,. s - s.. 1 302 that Joe Kane discussed with you. I'm t".fing to find that ob52 1 2 out. r., 3 A okay. Well, we discussed :nany topics, first of all what the dikes are supposed to do, when they were built, 4 under what conditions they were built, what the investiga-5 tions were for the dikes, the people who would need to be -a contacted for assessments of the systems review aspect, 7 meaning what the pond has to do in ter:ns of providing cool-a l ing, whether there are ways of keeping debris out of the 1 9 to pumps. I believe we discussed the method of analysis 11 that was submitted at the CP stage for seismic evaluation. 12 I do recall discussing with him the cutoff in 13 i the dike that prevents leakage through the sand lens; many 14 4 15 items here. Now with respect to what the corps is doing, we 1s discussed of course the borings that tae Corps requested 17 for confirmation of as-built conditions. ta I We discussed the location of those borings, the 18 j 20 frequency of the borings. I don't believe we discussed the laboratory tests 21 t i 22 that were going to be performed. l d EJ t& :--.L e
5.* 5 M -....
- '~ ~ ' ~ ~
^ ~ ' ' --Mc. ' @,..[ 9 QI,*1} ; .j.
- ^
' Y,i
- E;Y$-Yb**' * -
t. . ~a t+mqyg~, _ .;g; y.,....+ s- .,.,f .4...,.. c== g. . ;~:., n:...... c, m.e... 7-:.n ~ .a..,~ r. ..m,.... .Y 303 g# ~#...,m._,.. s We discussed Table 37-1 I believe that was sub-ob53 1 mitted to Consumers Power, ou*'*ndng the horings that would 2 be worthwhile, and the reasons for the borings and the uses i 3 for which the information would be obtained. 4 I don't recall any other specific topics with 5 respect to what the Corps was doing with the dikes, other e 7 than those that I've described. What did Joe Kane tell you about his understanding a Q of under what conditions the dikes were built? e 10 A Could you repeat the question? What did Joe Kane tell you about under what condi-11 Q tions it was his understanding that the dike had been built? 12 13 A I believe he was the one who, pointed out to me that the dike had been constructed at an early stage under a 14 limited work authorization issued prior to the issuance of 18 i i 18 the construction pe:mit, and that that may have been one of i the reasons that the dike was not "Q" listed or perhaps 17 1s wasn' tested as would normally be expected for a structure 18 related to a nuclear plant. to Q Did he tell you that he thought one of the reasons why the dike ought to be investigated is that the' fill matarial 21 was placed in the dike by the same contracter who placed the 22 dMh 8as. e
~ ph _ web ; ' ',G, po.- ,,_.,4,,.;- g.j'- Q. g. j.,..g .4.n,, q,;,..,, g, ~ r_.
- - *...,,,: 3 s
^ ,r n. ') { 304 ab54 1 fill material in the plant area where settlement, unusual i I .3 settlement had been observed? 3 A I think that was eventually one of the things ha raised to me, but I believe that that was prompted by the f 4 Corps of Engineers' review at some point during 1980. 3 i e Q Did he tell you that he believed that another reason why the dike should be investigated is because the 7 3 methods of placing and compacting the fill and the equipment 8 used for placing and compacting the fill in the dik? was the j s t l to same as that that was used in the plant area where unusual i 1 1 i 11 settlement,of the fill had been observed? 12 A Yes, sir, he mentioned that. l '13 Q Do you recall a meeting on October 12th, 1980, with 1 the staff and the Corps of Engineers at which you spoke and 14 ts presentied a Vu-graph? 18 A I believe the meeting to which you are referring 17 was held in Room 422 of this building for the 'r,.tiefing cf i ts Mr. Vollmer. Is.that correct? I l 18 Q I don't know. 1 20 x' That is the meeting that comes to mind when you 21 say October the 12th. 1 22 Q I believe Hari Singh was there and made some kind 's M na ,1 \\ j .\\~ 4 -.-.~.
c '
- ?
.-.~..;_ ^ K - **mKwThhf*tm=**e
- m. e... :,
i 5 _, , N_ q, p. y, _, ~ n'52Zlht~;'.7yMb.. y Q7 t*="" ~ -+^NwfQty.}jz fl g =ll-; 4 ' % ? ? ?.: > . ~ < - - - -. 3.t.;, -:, m :.,. m.,. j. c. y,.,,,.,._.., m.,,
- s...
.s 4
- .a... -.. : e,... % e.. n As, 305 _
1 w. .,.~..,,.s...,...
- f. ~, ;.
.s. .m., : a:~~.--.---- eb55 i t of a prc'anntation perhaps. 'Yes, sir, he was there at that meeting. 2 A / r '2<$. Q He showed some Vu-graphs?
- t' A' '
Yes, sir, he di.d. f4 {b ll e n ,Q okay. 8 'I. What was the purpose of that meeting? / 3 y - The purpose of that meeting was to present to ,f 7 . <fri "^ ahMr..'KniihtandMr.Vollmerareviewandabriefingofthe [,P ' reasons why the Corps felt that additional borings, sampling, and laboratory testing work was justified and nec2asa y at (,) s' 10 11 the Midland plant. f./ i > c V
- _ ;l,
~12 Q was Mr. Tedesco at the meeting? b I don't recall whether he was there or not. 13 o u 3.580 14 Q Do you recall what Bari Singh's presentation con-15 sisted of at that meeting? 7 His presentation consisted of a number of slides y to a.: / b e y f with an hxplanation of the locations of the different plant d. 17 ,g-p stru:: teres that were going to be underpinned, with the Presen- ?, .ts f. tat,ic,e of the scheme for providing remedial support, and a 19 / with the location of borings that would relate to an evalua-t y. Lv f' 'i,, 20 s 21 tion of the proposed method of support for those structures. ,, ~ 22 That's essentially the information that I recall ~ i y ~~~ l O ) p . ) + - gr t ./ N e .( y
~,
- g-.
". ;~.. gu . w.,- ?z . 5-5.j;.Q.y- - f ;qa iq & - W9 k- . r -~. --., a.t 306 r l cb56 1 he presented. 2 Q Can you recall any of that information in any more 3 detail that you just related? 4 A No, sir,.not at this time. 5 Q Do you recall what'you said at that meeting? 8 A I think that my' contribution was simply to outline 7 what was going to be presented, to indicate that we were reviewing information and attempting to come to conclusions a e and make decisions that were generally outside of the normal review process in that we were evalua*4ng fixes rather than. 10 evaluating compliance with normal engineering designs and 11 12 ccustruction. 13 I pointed out roughly the level of settlement 2 14 that is expected - that was expected, rather, when the con-15 struction permit was issued, the amount of settlement that would be normally acceptable by some authoritative people in te 17 the field, the level of settlement of the-diesel generator'-: building that had been measured at that point in time, ts indicating that we were operating in an area of uncertainty 18 20 and that to come to conclusions in an area of uncertainty 21 ige s necessary to obtain information to assure yourself that you are in fact making the correct decisions or judgments. 22 NdMeM. 8n .\\ e e i ~~ xl
~- -s
- .. g -..
^- 4 7 ~. _ ' N qd' p' T.T;"'.7~9.y.M:'H gg.yj ,a. ..,m. Jp - j,.g,g.-........ 3, ,g 1. w .s ..,.. tecq7gq __c:= = - x m.... u,,.. n. 3 ij:..-
- . a,,. w....,..
..n.,,... t.. . v.a...,., a ,*:u 30,
- 0.,*c=.,.w.-... n -
w ~ .. ~.... w ob57 1 Q Did anybody at that meeting cite any facts upon which the conclusion that the settlement prediction of the 2 diesel generator building based upon preload was inaccurate? 3 4 A I don't believe so; no, sir. I Did anyone present any evidence that that settle-i 1 5 Q ment prediction might be unreliable? a There was a presentation to indicate there could 7 A i be uncertainty in the approa.h to' predicting future settle-a 9 ment of the diesel generator building. 10 Q Tell me all you can recall about that. 34 I believe Mr. Kane made that presentation. I l 11 A .. i believe that you probably have all of the slides that ha 12 presented at that particular meeting. 13 ss I I think his presentation centered around the 14 piezemeter readings that had been obtained at various loca-15 tions, the location of the settlement monuments on the 16 structure, and perhaps also in the free field, information 17 on the levels of those piezometer readings centering around l .18 his concern that perhaps the settlement readings were not to indicative of no future settlement over the 40-year life of 20 I i 21 g3,pi,3g, of no future settlement or of no future settlemanu ;i 22 Q as-c7M [ne. 4 e [ i'
. =. ":.y.v ,. 3 . ((* ~ - " ' i" (-'.; ;r ry- -
- ~ f -
- m. O.-
t- ~'s y.e. t r.' 308 in excess of that predicted on the basis of the surcharge? cb58 1 I would assume the latter would be correct. 2 A f 3 Q okay. Joe Kane places a lot of emphasis then in that 4 Is that right? analysis of his on the piezemetric behavior. 5 He places emphasis on that part of the data which, 's A interpretation, questions the validity of 7 in his judgment, 8 other parts of the data. In other words he does not find consistency between 9 the piezemeter data and the settlement data sufficient to to allow him to judge that the settlement data is correct. 11 12 Q What is your unders~nd 8 g of the inconsistency r-13 that Joe Kane finds? u As I understand his interpretation of piezometer 14 A levels versus time, the plots that have been submitted to his 15 by consumers Power, it's the behavior of that peizemeter at 16 the time the preload was removed and at the time the ground-17 water levels were changing due to the filling of the pond. 1s Es does not find those piezemeter time readings to be con-18 sistent with his expectations for that period of time. 20 You wouldn't be able to evaluate that data with 21 Q a view toward reaching that conclusion er. verifying that 2 I M x l
",tr ^ . A.=E-m - &M - Q~. : G. ~.... ...: L _ _2 T.., vn .=+h.r .. 4tec.p;.p.p.f; y.,v.y..g, a. 9. + . ;x ; y.. T;. wr - . 1 ~-:~ w. -= '. - -w:- - ,e
- v...
....-...a= e..,..
- n...,. -..,
g.. ..z :: n m.:..,..,. - -c -..w....... y. ..,.y _ - + - .+_. ..s 30g ?- f ;g.'e -..= :: ...n-- e conclusion without knowing the type of pie:cmeter that was cb59 1 2 used, could you? 3 A Well, I believe one could interpret the general s' 4 trend of the pie:cmeter. The absolute values that the pie:cmeter gave =ay not be quantitatively useful for analysis. 5 a Q Wouldn't you expect even the trend to differ if you were using a slow-response or lagging type pie:cmeter 7 as opposed to a sensitive, more rapidly responding pie:cmeter, a especially in situations where pore pressures might be dissi-9 10 pated rapidly? 1 11 A There would be a quantitative difference. I would 12 assume that the direction of movement of the pie:cmeter would i be f airly well de'.ined by the loading and water level condi-13 14 tions at that point in time. 15 Q Is it your impression as you sit here that Mr. Kane's problem with the pie:cmeter data is more than just 1s 17 quantitative readings of the pie:ometers? .18 A Yes, that's =y interpretation. i ) 19 Q And can you be more specific then about what it is i 20 in addition to the quantitauive behavior or the quantitative measurements of the pie:cmeters that troubles Joe Kane? 21 U A I really can't recall che details cf his arguments W Tv
s ::,. -e..
- ,,2-2.. W -aq.
.,,... z - g. :T. :.>.y.y....,x ;;: - _ -W.7..-~4,.. -, -,,._.3- ..s.. .-s._. .-, y- .,.s 310 e560 1 specifically. I believe it was observed that the pia:ometers Under no charge the piezometers continued to fall 2 fell-- and then began to rise again with what is interpreted to be 3 the influx of water from the pond causing the general ground-4 5 water level to increase. I believe he feels that the pie:cmeters should not 6 have avh %ited that dip late in the - at some point in time 7 a after the preload was removed. Are you referring to some perceived dip in the 9 Q piezometer level at some point in time after the time of to \\ 11 removal of the surcharge? 12 A I believe that's correct. I could be wrong. I E i 13 have not reviewed that, u And when I say "at some point in time after re - 14 Q moval," I'm talking about some point in time removed from the 15 time of removal of the surcharge as opposed to at the time. 18 i 17 or immediately after removal of the surcharge.- It's my understanding the pattern of the piezo-l 18 A meter time behavior at removal of the sur=harge was a sharp 19 the dip in the pie:cmeter readings,and shortly thereafter 20 piezemeters rose to some essentially constant level and then 21 began to fall for the second time. 22 5 I M [ !ses, as. a. e. -. ex-me.. e em= + memoemm-e e -o mamme =*==*******o.eee
==
een e - ee--*-- m-=e emme
- w e-*
9 I - - - - - +
- ~ + ' . Qw,b$fkl~ bhf$ ?N m- ^ -. 3 :: ;-.... :. ws,7 _ __ _.. 0b&?f f - . ?f.{;. ??. ~ ' "; ~ ^ \\ s m ; s, m. c.,.....r. l 9.~ . r...... c. .g, g;- . _ c. w_... m. g .. D ' n - ~ yy. t= a..... - - -- 310_3 1 ~ ~ l cb61 1 And at that point, later point, the piezemeters i 2 again rose to agree with the ge.neral groundwater -- inter-preted to be the general groundwater regime at that piezo-3 4 meter. That's my understanding. I could be incorrect. 5 Q In your opinion would a drop in the piezcmeter 6 level upon removal or at the time of removal of the surcharge 7 be expected? 8 A Yes. ~ 9 Q And that wouldn't be inconsistent with the soil 10 beneath the building being in secondary consolidation at that 11 time, would it?. 12 A It would not be inconsistent at that point or any 13 other point in the consolidation process. 14 Q In your opinion'is Joseph Kane as objective in his 15 current review of the Midland soils issue as he, as a techni- ~ 16 cal reviewer, ought to be?, 17 A I would need to know what you mean by " objective" 18 in order to answer that. Would it be possible for you to 1s expand on what you consider to be objective? Q Sure. 21 What I mean by " objective" is someone who is 22 totally unbiased and uninfluenced by anything other than M E ' I9:- u eL e
g-- x.-
- ' 'j l_,u]
wg_'~ ,[ m a 5b ' Mt" ,-K .s~~tg' g '~-.}'_~,'~'. -fy:s. =. _ y a.
- s
.a e . i v. ._..u. 311 Gb62 1 the legitinate technical concerns with which he shocid be 2 concerned. 3 A I feel he is being completely objective in his 4 work. It's consistent with my observation of his work in 5 the past en other plants, tailings dams and what-have-you. 6 Q Are you then saying that you base your appraisal 7 of his objectivity based upon his normal conduct or on his a conduct as compared to what you believe an objective technical 9 review cught to consist'of? i 10 A
- Both, i
End c2 11 Q okay. 12 13 s, 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 i f A E ederal & c1,w. l I I
i e. ...nme. .-e.a l ..._s_.~.s. ., m g' - - - ~ .u = 9 '_ _' W l.p. ^ .. m t'C~~qT '~Ach' :. - Q.T~~'.j y;y* # un.ws{3%K*?:h??x.:. "i - L ';*n~ MT:.^..:R~'tVW - -a -~ ,W "*1 t;4:<;.-_.. y g....,..,.. 4. ,c..,w m a.c.u.,_ .m.
- y
..,..,.,....,,...n 312 .m, .,.=--n--___~ - ~_ e
- 3 I have a page f:=m one of your files, a page from CR5759 1
WRS/jbnl like a spiral steno-notsbook, recording staff agenda of date 2 8/29/80. The page I'm looking at is the fourth page of that
- 4..r.3 0 3
little compendium. 4 1 l A Yes, sir. I believe I have the page. 5 There':s a little statement down there that.Nas a g Q number one, and then it says " Overview" which is underscored, 7 and than a colon. 8 Do you see that? g t to A Yes. The page " Staff Agenda", August 29, 19807 11 Q Right. ~ There's a 'little comment that says: ( 12 "A: Borings info are to supplement, not 13 ~s %\\ replace field data." 14 Is that a notation you put there? 15 to A Yes, it is. 17 Q And then it says: " Settlement predictions from field data .18 is have been" - somen hg or other that I can't read -- 20 "... unsuccessful at North Anna. Understanding of soil condition" -- something " considered", I 21 I I l 22 believe. l I l l i l l .-A--.-
l? n ~ -.*.h,, + ~ ~ - - -w-a j "
- j
, M M*M-*',,*% *,
- a* f. '
- yg g, *,- (
. ** y y - '9*
- e-.
s.
- - ~ L'.. g _,, &
- )
313 jbn2 1 Can you tell me what that says? 2 A I can nell you what it means better than I can 3 attempt to read it to you. Would that be satisfactory? I 4 Q Sure. 5 First tell me what it means. i 1 l s A This is notes - This is a page from some notes 7 that I prepared at a meeting in Midland, at which Consumers Power appealed the taking of borings and samplings and so forth a 9 I wanted to jot down a few statements that I wanted to make to prior to the Staff's rebuttal at that meeting. And I wanted toi 11 indicate that the borings that were being asked for were I 12 sueplemental information and were not meant to replace or j 13 supplement the settlement data that had peen obtained or the u 14 piezameter data that had been obtained or the boring data that i 15 had been obtained. la The second point I wanted to make is that in my i 17 experience settlement predictions based only on previous la settlement data and extrapolation of that data had not been i 18 successful in =y experience reviewing the North Anna applica-t 20 tion. 21 That covers points A and 3. If you have other 22 questions I will.try to answer them. YEUk u $ne. , ~.,
"_ 'Ntjfy&&Q.'(g%..;',:-~ ,h.n..,.._,,eQ$. '?:-f-; . h.'J~.:Q.. ;.. - .---e--- -t;p*: g. W'w " 7*l}y.Qi~'_WWQ _.. 3,.;,s_.... w.
- y..
s-r., c.:.. u.., z-~.r-.;. eg, p,.,.~. ' i f.
- c..
.M ..m.-.. ....,m _-m .,s..~... Y 314 ~. ..,.. ~ -., -. : :..., s. _. - -4 u jbn3 1 MR. ZAMARIN: Off the record. g (Whereupon a short discussion was held 2 3 off the record, after which the deposition was 4 again resumed.) 5 MR. ZA. m : On the record'. 6 3Y MR. ZAMARIN: 7 Q The problem with the settlement at North Anna, if 8 my recollection serves me correctly, was related to a material 9 known as a saprolite, is that correct? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q And is the beh5Lvior of the soils in the Midland 12 fill, with the glacial till typs materials in the Midland fill 13 better known and better understood than the behavior of the ss 14 saprolite? 15 A On a broad basis there probably isn't much differ-16 ence between the unde: standing of the' fill beneath the diesel generator building as a specihic area, and the understandiag of 17 18 the saprolite that existed beneath the pump house at No_".h Anna. 19 Q My cuestion was directed more toward the known 20 behavior of the type of materials. Can you answer the question, i 21 with that in sind? 22 A Yes, sir, I'll t..y. j ? .$5N&m, Sne. \\ l [ I \\
~
- 9.:.
..E, " ..]["..,;--Q"j R 7::c:f ni.k
- WQz '.
m,- m.. 4 '-Q-L*2Z.5^.35...-. .m ~....m. 315 jbn4 1 Certainly the behavior of clays, thin clays, fat clays, or what have you, has been studied in the laboratory by 2 4.200 3 many investigators throughout the world.- And there is reason-able agreement on how to engineer structures on clay materials., 4 sap =ciites are highly variable, difficult to 5 's describe. There are not well accepted methods for investiga-tion, classification and for laboratory test of the -- quote-7 8 saprolites, at least as they exist at North Anna. And I have tz: qualify that because saprolites can be as clay and as plastic 9 10 as the materials at Midland. But for North Anna that's not.the' l 11 case. 12 In idealized conditions certainly the clays at 13 Midland are better known than - quote - sap clites as' a u" 14 classification of soils. 15 Q Are the sands at Midland better known than the 16 saprolites at North Anna? 17 A The material characteristics of sands, the sands 18 as a material, whether they exist at Midland or wherever, is 18 better known in terms of engineering properties, behavior under. 20 lead and what have you than.are saprolites. 21 Q In your opinion, during the surcharge program was 1 3 the water table level beneath the diesel generator building Nd #.relM 8a. l i e l
=,r':xp.:.:~__.-l... " ~'f^ %9mw-QQ_';.z.' L. ' x 32.y.(.~C~r 7~n.y7 ,...;.. i;' % -. n,-_ ? m. " ' Q & ;' f g g..y q y. p.g >. '; g ; g : $ 9 < % y _,,,.... s s ii =
- w. ';*,se en.try? w ~~, s
- :.L s.
- c....,,.n.n.,.
.,,,... ~..,.,.,,.
- "q y
316 g,% >. n =..m -. n. w jbn5 1 brought up to elevation 625? 2 A I don't have any knowledge of the water level dur-3 ing that time. 4 Q Do you have any opinion as to whether any of the 5 soil beneath the diesel generator buil#d g is unsaturated? 8 A I don't have any personal knowledge whether it's 7 saturated or not. There is reasonable doubt in my mind as to 8 whether it is 100 percent saturated, and there's reasonable 9 doubt in my mind that the piezameters gave an accurate repre-10 sentation of the groundwater levels in that area or other 11 areas because it's not unc6mmon to have large errors in 12 piezometer readings. 13 Q By that could it be that the piezometers indicated o 14 a groundwater level that was way below'where it actaally was? 15 A Prehably not way below, but within a couple of feet 16 Q You say you have reasonable doubt that that soil 17 beneath.the diesel generator building is 100 percent saturated. l 18 Can you tell me the bases for your reasonable doubt? 18 A Well, the basis is that experience with unsaturated. 20 clays in the laboratory, attempts.to test.these unsaturated f 21 clays, requires from time to time th.7 saturation of the sample j f 22 before you begin to perform your tests on that clay. And it l ( l \\ l, [i, 76 8. ~ ....m
~ r. -.,. c 4 L.i ' 3 3.. 7 3. -. .- % ; c:s:a i&. % ::n3 n-- . ~, .m .~,.e. ..., u., 317 l l jbn6 1 takes a long time at reasonably high differential pressures 2 in order to force water through that clay sr.mple and flush 3 out the air. I would suspect that if the clays which appear not 4 5 to have been saturated when they were placed were to go through that same process in the field that it would take certainly 6 7 many months to saturate them. 8 Q To your knowledge there aren't any clays that appear not to have been saturated when t'.ey were placed in the 9 to diesel ganarator building, are there? 11 A My perception and opinion that the clays that were 12 extracted from the borrow. pit area, many of tham likely were 13 dessicated, which would mean that. hey were not saturated. o 14 And from the descriptions of how the materials were handled 15 from the borrow pit to the fill area, I doubt that they ever 18 attained saturation during placement or prior *J placement. 17 And since the water only came into that area with the filling l of the pond, I would assume that saturation had not been 1s is attained by a large part of the fill. 20 Q What do you base your statement'on that the materiac. j 21 from the borrow area was likely dessicated? l 2 A I don't know that to be a fact. It's not uncommon i YbN $na. l \\ 6 6 -y1-y y S-a e-g--W -+w f---
~. * .VI' NI?5 ~~ ~ s.,,m., t.. _g; m /,,sw. .c. ...,...._.....v.,. m..~... ..~.
- p 31g
~ p,C *.,. %J.*
- pr es w,
. ~ _. ,.p. a' '====7 ,S jbn7 1 to see the clays cracked in that area. 2 Q You're just guessing? 3 A I'm guessing. 4 Q Following the meeting on Janua:y ifg.1980, you 5 made the statement to'someone that dewatering was not the preferred technical position with regard to the diesel 6 7 generator building and liquifaction potential. Is that a correct, that you made that statement? 9 A You said after a mee*hg on Janua:.f 167. 10 Q 1980. 11 A - 19807 r ~~ t._ 12 I said dewatering was not a preferred - 13 Q Let me strike that. Let me, start over. Let me s %'6 14 start over again. 15 Did you ever say to anyone on or about January 16, 16 1980, that dewatering was not the pre.farred technical position 17 with regard to the diesel generator building? ts A I don't recall making that statement, no, sir. 18 ~ Q Eave you ever been of the opinion that dewatering 1 l l 20 was not the preferred technical position with regard to the i i l 21 diesel generator building? 22 A Not with respect to the diesel generator building l r I \\ e e e
~~ ~ .,.n . ign,wy - %?: t-W - . w,.. m .< : : = w - Q _ *L.* y -: m = 4~ g-.. , ~;.7.(g, %.m -a. 319 j 1 jbnB 1 alone, no, sir. l 2 Q Not with respect to the - 3 A Not with respect to the. diesel generator building 4 alone. 5 Q-Well, have you ever been of the opinion that it was 8 not the preferred technical position with respect to the diesel 7 generator building along with something else? s A I don't recall making the statement, but I still e hold the personal opinion that dewatering is a very cumbersome 10 way to solve the problems at Midland. 11 Q What do you think would be a less cumbersome, better J ( 12 way to do it? 13 A I've never held a very concerned opinion about 14 liquifaction of the sands incorporated in the fill at Midland 15 to begin with. I've also thought that the cost of dewatering 16 and maintaining dewatering for 40 years could have been better 17 employed by other means of support that would not require de-13 watering. 1s Q Such as? .A Such as those support methods that are being used 21 for the pump house and. for the axuiliary buildin,g.
- 2 Q
In your opinion a less cumbersome and better positic. A d M 0 -; :- -, $ m k
?.1:i Ai ' & ::.:' ~.
- j.~,.. :
.~. f S 0T'.: 55 kh ~ ~ ~ Mw.m. M Y ~ ~ ~ .e,u -. %,_ -,g' ..t e ..y-. m,
- s..,
.1 .,., f. y.,,,...,, _, _ _,, , _ '.~.c 320
- s., hu. a
,.-,,4 _ ~.. _. i m g,,. e with regard to the diesel generator building and liquifaction jbn9 1 potential would be to underpin the diesel generator building? 2 A That would be one way of alleviating any problems 3 with liquifaction and of supporting the diesel generator 4 5 building without dewatering. s Q I know that would bs one way. But in your opinion 7 is that a preferred'way of doing it? 8 A I haven't atta=pted to classify the alternatives 9 for that. But ceftainly underpinning would be one way. to Q In your opinion is there need no be concerned with 11 liquifaction potential with regard to the diesel generator ~ 12 building? 13 A Not with the dewatering in place, no, sir, s, M 14 Q What about absent dewatering or underpinning of the 15 diesel generator building? Do you think.liquifaction is a 16 problem? 17 A Not if the diesel generator was underpinned, no. 13 Q I said absent underp4-4ng and absent dewatering 18 do you think liquifaction would be a problem? 20 A I don't believe it would be a serious problem, no. 21 Q You indicated that you thought dewatering was l cumbersema and expensive to do and maintain over a 40-year 22 $5u!=rol&m, Sne. i _=
- N"L: 1~..
..a ;. g.;3 u~}h:~fD-' .,,, ;,. m:.. e p-~.;;_c5-Q* 5. ~~yg+4 g ' _g ;;,.3G &' 4 .. - e' sw .c 3 321 jbn10 1 life of the plant. Do you have an opinion as to anything else 2 that's less =umbersome that would be a better approach to the s 3 liquifaction concern? 4 A Well, I can simply repeat my answer, that to provide 5 support to the facilities such that liquifaction would not 6 'h eaten their stability would be ons way of ein-J"ating the 7 dewatering system completely. 8 Q Right. ~ s And you answer.that that would be one way of doing to it. And'I'm asking you if you are then stating that it is your! I 11 opinion that that is a better way to do it than dewatering? -( 12 A It's my opinion, based on nothing but a perception 13 of the problem, that that would be a bet,ter way, yes. Andyou'reawarethataJulh1979dewateringwas 14 Q 15 proposed -- presented as a proposed fix by Consumers power 16 Company? 17 A Yes, I'm aware.of that. Is Q And when did you first tall anyone, if you have, is a.t Consumers.2cwer Company that you believed underpinningawas a 20 better fix than dowatering? 21 A I don't believe I expressed it exactly that way. I U I think I spoke to Sherif at one point and suggested that perhap. I NJMc7; L 8= k me G GD ___.-_m___ _ _ _.__, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,, _
A '.'.s W 4ett, -,. .-*Sm.a.w e. -.. :.2 * % ..,,-r. f ; :_ W y ;t l1 Q. i. g. 4i - M.= , ' ~. L- ":.6byb";37."iq% ejp.7--9 am. _c.. c.- t#.v.:,g.g, .- 7;..... _c= :.:. q. y. 4._, 1.,m.,,,...u.,..,.. ...s: - e c. m - s..,,,_ _. g.,. o... e .,m....m,.........-. m,,.,.._..,,m,_, ( v.:1 w ww. ~ 4 g jbn11 1 u'nderpinning might be a worthwhile alternative. 2 Q When was that conversation? 3 A I think it was after a meeting we had here. I'm 4 not sure. It' as early in the review. 5 Q In 1979? 8 A I think it was after that preloading had been :Smoved 7 Q Well, was it a year after, er are you talking about some time shortly after the preloading was removed ~in August of-8 e 1979? 10 A Not too long after. 11 Q Did you review'the underpin ir.goptiontothedieseb. 12 generator building from the seismic standpoint? 13 A There has been no proposal for an underpinning o operation, so I have done no review of that, no, sir. 14 15 Q Did you give that seismic standpoint any considera-( 18 tion or serious thought with regard to your i=pression that 17 underpinning might be a better idea? 18 A oh, sure. 1 l 18 Q And with that consideration from a seismic stand-20 point you still believe that underpinning is likely to be a 21 better solution than dewatering? 22 A That's my opinion. M h 8as. e.- y-e
..v... l /:;.:p ;-)fi;;a - %:- kTz ..... n .QEG,(.'Q..[;7y..- __..G=if..} ~.'}.: .,s." . y-!.. :. o p., ir 323 jbn12 1 Q This mention to Sherif Afifi about the possibility-i j 2 of underpinning as opposed to dewatering, could that hava been i 3 on January 16, 1980, following a mes** g where you also made a i 4 comment to Walter Ferris, and th'n Sherif joined the conversa-e 5 tion? 6 A Sherif was there, yes, as well as Walt Ferris. 7 Q So does it refresh your recollection then that 8 that was after a January, 1980, meeting? 9 A It sounds about the right **me frame. It was a 10 mee d g here, I believe in the adjacent room. l 11 Q All right. 12 Why was it that this was never mentioned to 13 Consumers between July, 1970, and January, 1980? 14 A It's generally the role of NRC to review what is 15 submitted to us, and not to suggest design measures that might 16 he useful to the A-E's. As a matter of policy we do not attempt 17 to affect designs that are submitted to us. 18 Q It's my understanding that Joe Kane has stated that 19 if settlement of the diesel generator building during the' surcharge program had reached 6 to 18 inches, that he wecid hav's 20 i 21 then believed that the soil in the diesel generator building 22 was in secondary consolidation. ahU
- hne, L.
&.-~e w .,-w-e ..n,
N....~.w c ~ :, - w.. IU55dhE5 5 is .5.... '. 8 E N. ' 5 5. S 'd_y'*' ~ M 59 y '- @v- .~ *: 44mcag,(.
- ! ~ 5 -'. r.:.J.
1-- =. ?~-y- .wi~:. m r,..: m.--. ci gz_ .s_.,....-_ _1...e. _~..sr... m,w .w. . v : :,> . ?.:. :.. u..-:. .,.n ...n .,,w._,
- g y
324 ..~ , (p:d'.-.=n ., y --, +... jbn13 1 Do you agree with that stated conclusion? 2 A I think that judgment is in the right range of 3 what could have been expected there. 4 Q Based upon what? s A Based upon the kinds of settlements we see in a embankments for dams, fills of different kinds that, say, are 7 in the 60 to'70 percent standard Procter compaction. One would a guess a 40 foot fill of this kind would settle maybe a foot, e ten inches. 10 Q Total settlement, or unds: the surcharge seutlement.? 11 A Total settlement over the life **me of the embank-12 ment. 13 Q I see. o u 14 What I'm talking about is settlement under the sur-15 charge load, would you expect it to settle between six and'18 16 inches just during the surcharge load, and if it didn't then 17 be unable to conclude thi it was in secondary consolidation? 18 A Yes, under ti..a surcharge load, which is a method te of rapidly causing all of the settlement to occur over a very r all the settlement that the
- d
- s 20 short period of time l
21 capable of exhibiting, and one would expect that settlement 'a 22 be roughly in the range that we observe on other projects over. Y5m!=ml& Sne. s I
~ ' l' C ' ;..: - .. g..pd-p.im ' # :*7+'7'-; ~< :. s _ C :.-..u.....rr.;Oy.* 7 ;,- g ;.-..- w-- ..:v..e ^
- , -,,M
- -P-
-7 .ri s?.. ;;..,,y.; 325 e f 1 .he entire lifetime of that project. jbn14 2 So the analogy there I think is that the range of 3 ten inches is a reasonable expectation for a 40 foot deep fill. 4 Q And stating that you've taken into account whateve:: i 5 compactive effort there may have been with regard to the fill e as it was placed and--in your opinion, then, a prediction of 7 at least six inches was necessary with regard to the surcharge a program? 8 A I can't say that it's necessary with regard to the 10 surcharge program. I think something beyond a few inches, like 11 two or three inches,,would be expected by most people. 12 Q And do you take into ac=ount the settlemant that ha,i 13 been experienced in the diesel generate-building prior to the l' surcharge? 15 A That number is a bit evasive. I really don't know to that there is any hard measurement of the settlement since it 17 was'placed. I suspect there really isn't. 1s Q We know some =4n4=um, don't we? There may have to been some before measurements were taken. But don't we know at least what the minimum was? 21 I A Yes. 22 Q And when you're talking about the settlement to be j ( l l Il' I ,r-
<.s.. ~2'MYl~{j
- {-
-f; e..:.r-Q [ ^ %2 m C -~ g. !;i if. ^
- J % L a.-
m _-- %,1,_. . :g
- h..'A.6 hftfg'p
' M *' m:;.-,;.g. ,u, m,.,..... . e.. ,.e, w D : w. m..:..e a..,.,.,~......,,.,.u.u.a.n.,,n.. 4 .y; n....,,... n 326 f,'c..y.:= a~. ~' .x -- .. i,. ~~ * ~ T. + :% jbn15 1 expected in that fill, do you also include the set lement dat 2 we know took place prior to the surcharge, whatever it was, 3 three or four inches, prior to the surcharge, as well as the 4 settlement during the surcharge? 5 A It would take that into consideration. a There's a complicating factor and that is that the 7 fill - as I understand, much of the plant fill was placed a a number of years ago, that there was excavation into that fill, 9 the building was constructed, and then again backfill was placed 10 around the building. So this would allow some time for con-11 solidation, and certainly some *dme for rebound when the hele r'- e 12 was dug for the buildi g. Fill would then be placed adjacent s 13 to the structure. And at thr.t point one,would begin to record ss 14 the settlement of the fill.. 15 So what I'm trying to say is, forgetting all those is complexities, the total settlement that one would expect would 17 bel.in the re.nge of a foot. i' hat doesn't help? Is 18 Q No, it does. 20 And 311 base that upon geotechnical - 21 A 3ased upon what's observed, embankments and dikes, j j i 22 what have you, that are compacted perhaps not much better than i EM has,8as.
- ~,.:. . x, - /.?g,x:z;y. :s1.,.:- & .e ~ d.'.'.?2: [_: ~::: -Q;-h{g ; ,; -:QJ 7 ~ . s,. v..
- 7.. ;,
327 jbn16 1 the plant fill. 2 Q Do you base it on anything else? 3 A No, sir. 4 Q After the settlement problem was. discovered at the 5 North Anna pump house, what, if any, remedial actions were 6 undertaken? 7 A The remedial actions and the investigations to a determine the continus.d safety of the pu=p house and dike 9 included excavation of test pits adjacent to the pump house. 10 It included two boring programs in the dike area itself, it 11 included cutting of pipes adjacent to the pump house, installa-12 tion of flexible sleeves on four service water lines going to 13 the pu=p house. It included an assessment of the pumps that 14 were interior to the pu=p house to be assured that the settle-15 ment that tilted the pump house would not adversely affect to those. 17 Analyses of the available flexibility of the 18 varied pipes leading to the pump house was carried out. A l l 18 continuous monitoring of the settlement was carried out and i 20 eentinues to be carried out. l l 21 The limits, the acceptance criteria for the 1 W :s j i 22 of the settlement were established based on code values and the : i !A E L.I9:::- a
..m.m.,,.
- 4..;---
%.,. :,.. - mQ...%cm -_. y.c(.:=, z.g, J,Eb. =_ N ~ ",l].M.2.K...'. K.g .$. 3..,& fjdyg' j. g-'dfW.l _.. n.8..;.- u., m w.r...u --,.=.. a_...,,.,,,_,.,.._ _ _ _ g,; - I., _:.n. u. _..
- M 328
<., m,._..,.- ~ _.. m.....,,,. _..- .. ~. (p..,Nrim.=e w . ~. g ,y y, jbn17 1 technical specifications for operating the plant include 2 14-4tation on those settlements. l s 3 Q What are the limitations on the settlements as 4 contained in the tech spec? 5' A I believe the limitations now for the pu=p house s itself are broken into I believe three parts. The first 7 relates to the differential settlement between the pipes in a the fill and the pump house itself; the second relates to the 9 pipes that extend from the pump house into the spray pond; 10 the third one relates to the differential settlement of the 11 structure itself, so as to preclude the initiation of cracks (_ 12 in that structure.. 13 There may be ethers that I've forgotten at this o M 14 point. 15 Q Was there any underpinning done of the pump house i 16 at North Anna? 17 A No, sir. Is Q Was the pump house at North Anna surcharged or 18 preloaded? l 3 A No, sir, i 21 Q Is there a prediction today as to how much that 22 pump house will settle in the future? l YEN $na. l e em W ~, my,_-w-, e. + e--
.. n. u..,. . WWy ~.:.i.L . '&. u. l... ~. r & W+ M.g g y r.;.; Q~.f-,,-qg; p-,p q.@.p. '.j_i.m y wQ...: c ~"Q ~ n ~.;, .~"4 W. 2T *,.,-; .o s.a n a ... a---~;< . ;.m r,i.-. rr -,2.. = ..m.c.. m.. .*. c.-x... ;. r. y. .c...y-. n ,,.y y V 329 g, _.-%,,... _. E.... ~. - -= _ ~. ..~z.s. V'*-- jbn18 1 A I believe predictions have been made, yes. l 2 Q Do you believe those predictions are reliable? 3 A Probably not reliable enough to base the safety 4 evaluation on. The preferred method proposed by the applicant 5 is to monitor and correct if the settlement exceeds the values a prescribed in the technical specification. I think a settle-7 ment estimate still rammins somewhere in the FSAR, however. a Q Would settlement monitoring and a tech spec with 9 regard to a mavd num allowed before some further action is to ' required be an acceptable approach with regard to the diesel I I 11 generator building at Midland? 12 A I would assume at some point, probably at the OL i l 13 review, a technical specification of tha,t type would be in ordar s 14 yes, sir. 15 Q What about now? What's the difference between 16 what's being done at the North Anna pump house and applying l 17 that same type of criteria with regard to the diesel generator 1.8 building at Midland now? to A A technical specification is an item that goes 20 along with the fueling and operating of the plant itsul' I, 21 There is no real risk to public health and safety of a plant i i 22 that has no fuel in it and is not opera'4 g. So there would l I W Fan. 0 .m.,
'%,...i.l-Q{'Z-[3.g. 3,_. '{.. ? *. Q' . [gj . d'. -l: 7o.~;.2 l:*.1 ^ 5 : ~' e., ;., ~ .. ~... - - .....,.-2 330 jbn19 1 he no need for a technical specification at *k's point in 2 time. There would be no reason not to anticipate and to l 3 develop such a technical specification. And it could be t s reviewed at this time and.perhaps accepted as a proposed 4 5 technical specification during operation of the plant. 6 Q What I'm asking you is if with regard to the diesel generator building it would be any less acceptable than with 7 the pump house at North Anna to monitor settlement, have a 8 9 settlement monitoring program with specified frequencies of 10 settlement observers and a stated limit of allowable settlement.I I as an acceptance criteria for the diesel generator building? l 1 11 12 A That sounds like a useful and worthwhile effort. i 13 The amount of settlement, of course, would be expected to be 2 rationally tied to codes that would apply to the utilities'and 14 15 other functional components of the diesel generator building. 16 g If that were done, would that be an acceptable 5.040 17 solution in your opinion? 1s A It woule certainly be a part of an acceptable to solution. I really cannot speak for the revinawers who would be 20 looking at this detail. They may aither wish-more or less, i t
- 21. depenM g on what other hazards they =ight uncover with respect i'
22 to settlement alone being the eontrolling criteria. l i M w emp as ' s o. e I
t u. ....w. wm,.;. a. e.t wo ~-? ~ S 'sY ** - _ ~ 4 s M., '.S.:. .., ~ ) e _J.. "I,33.55DN@$ $ ~9 '"'-f.['y,' * '#^ W ^d @ % Tk?t" T~ 5fMpdWby ~=.?.. _.n. w. ..x.-. m....,....m.-n..,-~.... g[9
- .n ~,x z,,. :. -.. ::, -r :- :..,,. _,,., _ _, _ _ _ _..,.,.
6 '. w c. u s >Tc '~T*W -%$5 331 f,f{7cl: = ,.n a jbn20 1 Q I'm now looking at that you described < ith regard r 2' to the North Anna pump house, and I'm asking for your opinion 3 as the section Chief in your area'as to'whether you believe that a similar type of approach as th'at which is being applied 4 a to the North Anna pump house would be an acceptable approach a with regard to the diesel generator building settlement at 7 Midland? a A-I believe it could be, yes, sir. 8 Q Could be or would be? 10 A' Could be. 11 Q Why won't you.say that'it would be? ib' 12 'tA I have not reviewed the basis on which the te
- 4 cal Ihavenotreviewedwithour!
13 specifications will be developed. u 14 ' systems people'the redundancy available for the diesel 15 generator building, i is .We did have adequate redundancy available at 17 North Anna. And whether or not we.are put*A g all of our eggs in the settlement monitoring program or whether we have avail able to us alternativexways of providing safety in 'h t plant, 20 I don'u know. It would be based on these considerations that 21 the acceptability of a single criterion would be accepted. 22 l Q I,et me get the question on the record, if you please .s' t [ ftEn O e 4 4
"g a .e 4 a i < ~ - g.-. ,- - ~. s x., Ng:_gc:a. x-a,. '. ',z;,.:. sv.- , ~..,s -.. c. u w. n...;:..__p 3 f ,, s.... ~. y; . < W -M. t ... e.. A .1 . n y.. :.,,x v,. .)} 332 ,/ ji i a i b What was the redundancy that is available at North c3 chl 1 ,,,..[ ' ' 2 Anna? ,e The redundancy available at North Anna involves 3 A-h ..he availability of two Category I sources of water t at can 4 t There is a ser-he supplied to the reactors at that plant. 5 's vice water reservoir with a spray coci.ing arrangement. There is also North Anna Lake which has Category I pumps, electrical "O '( 7 n buses, flexible connections, monitoring of. hazardous settle-a r inent of the turbins building that is completely independent l ? tt 9 -r c I# 1 10 of the pumphouse itself. / And one of reasons why simply watching, monitoring i l ' 'M .ar r-y : 'l ' .hthesettlementisacceptabliisbecauseevenifthatshould 1 12 s 1 s,; not prove satisfactory there is a completely redc.ndant system 13 W ss ) 14 to supply water to that plant. '+
- q And I 5E5** answer you with respect to the diesel 15 generator builtiig:s s'*-?ther an analogous situation occurs
'. j. te A 17 there. 1 13 MR. ZAMAR.IN: Could you read the answer back, '*( 19 please? (Whereupon, the Reporter read from the record W '. 20 i 21 as requested.). d. i, ' 11.[ 22 3r gg, zxxxgry: l)I ' % -r (
- u M M ~ '., [ns.
u _\\. es e 9 w y v.- ,-e
.,e, ~ W.h ag.., t. ~ %, '.,M*- -&m;=*%x A. v.~ c .,..--m. ~~ i ...ew. :..
- n -~w9-L.
la. g.ygpgp.3, +:.c. M. .x,.... l nt ,......._.c==. .,'~.. - - - ..a.y.g=;+p:. s v. ~.- -u-: ? m......_ (,.'f. .. a.....,. c ~ '"._,,".',*,**',*M''"' -.. ~.. ...w,....,.....w_. ~ m c: wan_ << 2 - .c -.- M 3.:. Are you saying that the North Anna pumphouse cocid f eb2 1 Q j be taken completely out of service withouu any effect on the l l 2 operation of the plant? 3 It could be taken completely out of. service with-l A 4 out affecting the ability to shut that plant down under 5 earthquake conditions; yes, sir. s 13nder both OBE and SSE conditions? 7 Q a A Yes, sir. Eas the staff, to your knowledge, considered some 9 Q type of s milar monitoring program with regard to the diesel i l 10 1 1 generator building at Midland? 11 I feel the staff. is a=xiously awaiting ceit:nents l 12 A l to that effect at this time, at this po3nt in time. 13 u M Anxiously awaiting commitments to that effect? 14 Q 15 A Anxiously awaitiing commitments from consumers 16 Power to provide such monitoring. 17 Q Eas that been discussed with Consumers, to your 18 knowledge? 19 A No, sir. You're, I believe, asking my op4"4cn. 20 Q That's right, I am. I'm just asking you if you 21 know if that has been discussed with them. 22 A I don't know whether it has or not; no, sir. i $d.al.re/ hers. 8as.
,. c l g .^ pdg e.. ,23 %c.- ,. g, ; ;;_ g, ..e , v...:. n.; .c 334 cb3 1 Q By your answer do you indicate that the staff has considered a settlement monitoring program as an accep+=ce 2 criteria with regard to the settlement problem of the diesel 3 generator building? 4 If it is proposed by Cc=sumers Power we would 5 A certainly evaluate it in light of the other acceptance cri-a 7 teria; yes, sir. But beyond that it has not been, to your knowledge, a Q censidered to dale by the staff as a possible acceptance 9 10 criteria? 11 A No, sir. We just review what's submitted to us. .'.i 12 Q Do you know whether the North Anna pumphouse is the normal source of coolant to the primary system at North 13 14 Anna? 15 A Yes, I do. 16 g Ig ig7 17 A No, sir. la Q What is the primary source of coolant? l 19 A The primary source of coolant for normal plant 1 20 operation is Lake Anna. Q Is there a secondary system at Nerth Anna? What 21 22 kind of a reactor is North Anna? Gi E.L tM G, l k g v , y -c-- .--..--.-r
n-,...... a. ..x... YWW. _ ..L ;;:. 'L~ n. ,.-.5 N T x Q... .y M :f. 7...~~..-gs ~ ~.. _. ;d....w.wmg.g 5 g,q_.
- 2.gs...,,,;g.p.;.
_w. ~. _,,,..:,.3 v. ,..,,_.2,., e..~.. c.--., ~ . te .s. -;~:. m. :.. n...,..,..... n.::.. = a..,. m _.,.. n.U,3 , =,.,,.,,, -...... _ ..~-- - A4 335, t /, :..~...,.. - , 3,. ,=.w.e..... -i ' -m *m. I believe it
- s a Westinghouse PWR, a pressurized cb4 1
A 2 reactor. So it would have a secondary system; right? 3 Q. You look puzzled. 4 5 A Well, it's all in contai unent. I guess-I'm not familiar with the systems to:. ninology. a The water used to cool the condensers at North 7 Anna comes from the North Anna Lake. The pond or reservoir 8 with spray cooling is used for emergency purposes to shut the e And the pumphouse contains redundant category I to plant down. ~ pumps to supply water in case of an emergency. 11 12 Q I see. s So the only time then that the pumphouse pumps 13 would be used would be in the event of a failure of some 14 primary pumps for emergency cooling? 15 18 A I can't tell you when they're used., I think they're used as a matter of keeping them exercised from ti:ne t 17 to time in the normal cooling operation as well. 18 19 Q What is the function of the diesel generator 20 building at Midland, te your knowledge? 21 A What is.the function of it? 22 Q Yes. I I. 4 s M e--
~-- - *;c =. x " :;;;d-g:a. :% --ko.
- ,q
.Xyfggg. 3~ 8 cw .n 3,3 336 t To supply emergency power in case of a loss of off-i eb5 1 A t 2 site power. 3 Q In your opinion that would not be analogous to the use of the pumphouse at North Anna? 4 5 A No, it would not be analogous. I -6 Q .Why not? The North Anna pumphouse is located perhaps a 7 A quarter of a mile from the other Category I pumpheuse and it 8 would be difficult to imagine a problem oc=urring at one 9 pumphouse that would affect the other pumphouse. 10 I Although there are redundant diesel engines within l 11 the Midland diesel generator building itself, we don't h' ave 12 generators, we don't have bus lines or things of this kind. 13 The building itself houses both of those redundant systems. l' 15 So to me the North Anna pumphouse situation and the ability to supply water to that pumphouse is different-18 17 than the single building you have to supply emergency power ta at Midland. Q You're aware, are you not, that each of the diesel to generators are founded independently of the foundation of 20 21 the diesel generator building? 22 3 7,,, 31;, YEN Sna. \\
W.' ~ $y..::..=. .5. a.S l.....,
- .. Y. h.T-h 5.? W ~L
_..s. b Y = M s,._,.. N W.. .- ~.... .. <.:.s ..y ..g y- .4.,.,g,..~..., a c===. _.. u.g g y. g-i 7,..;.g.,
- 4.,
.m m r... u .,-..- : ::,; w : a-=, , q., s.. l u. w ..u. v. ,,.-.,.m,_,,.,,.,.,,,, . en. -/, :.. -.. m;.. g n.u. t' m. .e %-. + And that each one of the diesel generators is cb6 1 Q founded independently of each other diesel generator? 2 Each one has a pedestal on which it's mounted; 3 A 4 yes, sir. g Q Are you saying that there are two North Anna pump- ~ houses that have the identical function except that one is a a redundant system to the other, or a backup system to the 7 4 s other? I believe I can answer Yes without confusing your s A to interpretation. g i i 11 Q All right.. l And in addition to those two there is yet a third ( 12 13 source of cooling water? w ss 14 A No, sir. 1s Q All'right. i What happens if there's a need for the North Anna' 16 pumphouse that we were talking about where t a settlement 17 and the thing f.it out won't ts monitoring is going on i l to work? 20 A okay. 21 If that should be the situation there is another That pumphouse that pumps water from North Anna Lake. 22 Ne8Mh' 8a e p r y r +----*----r- - + - - * - - - - " ~ ~-E P r -w
~ ' 7' ; :
- . g{g. r....,,,,_.gg -, q _;
- .s.. g g
. Q;: z-h{a.. ' b g -c-- - ,f..,4 - -- e.:>.r:z- ..::.,--g ., g., ,.,.v. .. -:cv.. 338 l i pumpheuse and the pumps and the electrical connections are ob7 1 2 all Category I. It can pump water from a different water r source, the different water source being Lake Anna. It pumps 3 it through a different water line from a different side of the 4 i reactor into the reactor building to provide cooling for 5 6 those -- whatever is necessary. So then there are three systems for providing water, 7 Q There's the pumphouse with the settlement monitoring. There's a 8 the pumphouse you just described. And then there's seme-thing that does it under no: mal operation. Is that right? 10 Let me describe the system one more time and I 11 A s. 12 think you'll understand. 13 Q I doubt it. I'm trying really hard. ] 2 14 (Laughter.) 15 A The North Anna pumphouse that has been settling 16 contains within it redundant pumps. There are redundant water 4 17 lines to that pumphouse. But there's only one pumphouse 18 i con *=4 4ng these redundant pumps. I ts There is a second pumphouse that's located about 20 a quarter of a mile from that pumphouse. It is located en 21 the banks of Ncrth Anna Lake. It contains one Category I pump that supplies water through one pipe that goes through -- 22 AEN h.apoian, Sne. e e --e --c-, ,g- --,r-,,----er c e-r-
I n.c -.,. t L.- n n .t
- .s s.; sf f ls kr
-.....,.c. c,.wa s sw.. w.. r ... m;.w. .m....,,.. 4:.; ,r _...,._..._,;,,m.,.,....,,.,,,,,_ M' 339 . > _:v m- :.,.,..;
- f. 2h. 5mn..
goes under the turbine building and enters the reactor and ob3 1 is capable of supplying water from North Anna Lake to the 2 3 reactors in an emergency situation. 4 Q What would supply water to the reactors in a non-l emergency situation, in the normal operating situation? 5 8 A There are pumps in the pumphouse at North Anna 7 located on the banks of the North Anna Lake that supply normal cooling water for cooling condensers and normal operation of a 8 the plant, non-emergency conditions. 10 Q I see. It so if something were to happen to the pumphouse 12 on the banks of the North Anna Lake,'then all you would have 13 would be the ; aphouse-that is being monitored for settlement. o M l' Right? 15 A That's correct. Q. And wouldn't that be an analogous situation to the 18 17 diesel generator building at Midland where, if something happened to the offsite source of power, all that you would te 19 l have would be the diesel generators to supply power? A do, sir. I' I mean you're looking at two pumps within the same Q 22 building on the banks of that lake. Right? w wy 1 l e -y-- -u w -~ w =
~.~,;* G..a _
- _gq,d-2% a C Em:y?.-
, Q-.,z p.~ Q*} pr... z. _ _,y - , y - - -, g~. g l --.-.m.u.
- ,,.... x.: S~
4 \\ e- %% ;... t.2:. .,.,..e 340 l gb9 1 A on the banks of the pond. 2 Q on the banks of the pond. j f f so if I flatten that' building all you've got left A 3 is that pumphouse that's sinking, right? 4 5 A No, sir, that is the pumphouse. The one with the two pumps in it that are redundant is the one that is sinking. ~s 7 Q I see. The one that's sinking is the one that's on the 8 a banks of the North Anna pond? i I'll distinguish between the two bodies. Let's to A i There call the small one the pond and the large onethe lake. 11 12 are two pumps on the pond in one building. That is si.sking. There is one pump in the pumphouse on the lake 13 14 that is not sinking. 15 Q Okay. so you've got a pump on a pond in a house which 1s is sinkP.g that supplies the normal cooling water or'the 17 cooling water to the reactor under normal conditions? is 19 A May I supply you with an exhibit? 20 Q Yes, please. 21 MR. ZAMARIN: I am marking Exhibit Number 12, I and this is the diagram that you have drawn with regard to 22 l ' N d slm/ 8 _,' L, 8= 8 e
..t.., ..~ w % n. _. m,- m y_. k kQ Qfgh; g.....,_,h:&$b'2$N m_,.. %5.iif,'f....2?-M.,s+.-~ti.,-s-~ g rf^~[ Y l;}~ [
- l:
~
- ~.:,.
- c..
e ws ...:..- -..,.~a. .,,.~. ,y - * ~ - Y 341 ' ;.. w _...a.. .. _.... m,_.., %....,,.,.. ..%......~... ,o,. '. .ue-cb10 1 the house on the pond and the house on the lake and the 2 pump that will sink and the pump that won't. 3 (Whereupon, the document referred to was marked 5 as Tvh4 hit Number 12 e for identificat on.) 7 MR.. ZAMARIN: I am marking as Pumphe*.Je S the one 8 that is undergoing settlement. 8 SY MR. ZAMARIN: f Q Eave I marked that correctly? That's the one that is on the spray pond *'eservoir? r ( 12 A That's ccrrect. 13 Q And then the other pumphouse is up near the top i o M l' of this, and that is shown as a red-.The emergency cooling pump within that pumphouse is shown as a red square, and f 15 that's up on the banks of North Anna Lake. Right? II A To the best of my memory, yes, sir. i i ts Q Okay. 19 If something were to take out the pumphouse on the banks of the North Anna Lake so that that pump is not
- ' available for emergency cooling water, then wouldn't you have 2 an analogous situation with regard to the pumphouse that is 6
%E.4 tM eL ~
-v " :;,;p.:.:.%::a - JW-7 -c-4 :-~ x. ;sk f y L Q.q _ 5.. 4.- - n c.. x.;;,,, settling as you would have with the diesel generator building chil 1 at Midland in the event offsite power were lost at Midland 2 e 3 with regard to a shutdown of the plant? 4 A I don't believe they are analogous because your hypothesis of loss of that pumphouse is something over which 5 6 the applicant has control. The loss of offsite power is So I feel something that the applicant has no control over. 7 that your hypothesis of loss of that pumphouse would be the 8 same as loss of the diesel generator building, period. 9 Ecw does the applicant have control over the loss to Q of the pumphouse that I just tried to wipe off here, the one 11 6 12 that's on the banks of North Anna I.ake? v 13 A well,' he has designed it for survival under all envirezunental conditions expected to ocb at that plant, 14 15 including the earthquake. 1e Q And is that structure that it's in a Category I 17 structure? 1s A Yes, it's classified in the same manner as the 1 1 to diesel generator building. Q Does it depend on offsite power? 21 A No, sir. 22 Q Where does it get its power? I heen. i \\ 1 e e I i
h, ql l2!5 rk, h~ ?f .[~
- SW 4 5.g g w m : o.z.--:.-,-rr s,.:.,,...,,,.,,,...,.,
g; ' l :. m. =..- .,-..-n.~- v,,...,...,,,,... ~..
- rs 343
~. >-% r*i u-= ev.m m . y '.;;- - m. e g.: C \\ } Cb12 1 A From the diesel generator building. 2 Q Not from the diesel generator building at Midland, . r 3 (Laughter.) 4 A I believe that section of the auxiliarf building 5 that contains the diesel generators is also Category I. It 6 is not a separate building, however; it is a continuation l 7 of a structure that-- Part of its function is to house the i s diesel generators. 9 Q Did you ever have any conversations with Joe Kane l' f 10 about what was needed with regard to the preparation of 11 testimony for the upcoming hearing? 12 A No, sir, I haven't. I honestly don't know what's 13 r @ ed for those hearings. o 14 Q Do you believe that the leve'l of the load that was applied to the diesel generator bM 1M ng in surcharging was 15 1s sufficient? 1 3 Is that the and of the question? 17 1 ts Q Yes. 18 To answer " sufficient" one must decide what is A 20 meant by " sufficient" to do what. I presume that you mean I ~t sufficient to consolidate the fill into secondary consolida- ~ I 22 tion in the time frame in which the lead was applied to that $ d M M 8am ~ i . _....,... ~.,. - -.,.
l ~, .. ~. t ny c.- ..g. r}.q;.y.g.. 1 yc.g:?. -- l3:m: - c.. l . e a......,,.; l 344 L. ebl3 1 fill. i 2 Q Yes, sir. j r 3 A I really don't know the answer to that. That would require some detailed review which I'm assuming is being 4 5 taken care of by the corps or Mr. Kane. i Does that require the kind of calculations that I a Q 7 understand Willis Walker of the Tulsa District made? a A I'm not aware of those calculations. e Q All right. I 10 Eas Joe Kane conferred with you with regard to 1 11 underpinnings at the Midland site? l 12 A We have probably discussed.it. I don't recall i { i anything specific about the discussion. 13 l' Q Do you agree with the basic philosophy or basic concept of the fix that has been proposed with regard to the 15 te service water pump structure? I I 17 A No. Q In what way do you disagree? 1s t A I disagree in the same way that I disagreed in the te previous deposition and that is that the pumphouse will not 20 be supported in the way that was anticipated when it was 21 designed, when the stresses were determined and when the 22 SEN & Sne. - ~ ~ l \\
~l~I ? 2
- A h
~~ ~3 a..; v.. N %.-,.- n.u.-..u.v. -.x. p .r.;;; a m. ~. w,. ~..,. g. s.;.. : m.=..,....m ..m.,,.......w..,,,....,.,,._.. .m, =.=<.,~ __. 3 +.. c,... ch14 1 reinforcing har layout was made, and therefore it will not be 2 supported in the same way and therefore will not have the 3 stresses that were anticipated under dead loads, live loads, 4 earthquake loads or what-have-you. 5 Q And is it your opinion then that it is not possible 8 within the limits of'the concept of the proposed fix to 7 satisfy the intent of those original design criteria? 8 A I believe there is a risk that they will not be 9 satisfied, yes, sa.r. i 10 Q And what is that risk? i -l' C4 11' A That risk is that the changed support conditions, 12 the changed response under earthquake loads wil.1: induce '13 stresses in the s m etures that are greater than those that o were anticipated or allowed by applica$le design codes. 14 I. 5.500 15 Q Would that same problem exist with regard to under 1 18 pinning the diesel generator building which I believe you 17 felt was a reasonable proposal? i A It could exist, depand4ng upon the arrangement et 18 t 18 l the underpinning, i 20 Q Would that be m e also with regard to the service i 21 water pump s m eture, that it could exist, depending upon 22 the arrangement of the underpinning? saa. 9 .wm
~ ~ W 'c, '. ' ;y,=:m,s. % 9 l n-- ,,..m. ;).Q-fG.L'q..p-:. y
- ,Zpui. - ~ ",J;,g.,-g5 3._m
.<:wg_ .e..~ v - . v~r ,,a _ 346 abl5 1 A Yes. 2 Q so then is it true that you don't have any problem l g with the basic concept of the fix, that it would simply have 3 to have an arrangement that would take fnto consideration 4 5 these concerns of yours? '6 A I interpreted " basic concept" as the scheme to support it at the cantilevered dam rather than unife=nly over 7 i a the entire plane of the structure that's in contact with the s
- gill, 4
) 10 Q Then you did interpret'my question correctly. 11 Do you agree with the basic concept cf the fix k proposed for the electrical penetration area of the auxiliary 12 I 13 building? ? 14 A I have difficulty identifying in my. mind what is t 15 an electrical penetration area versus what is an auxiliary building and a steam valve chamber. 1a i !~ 17 Let me answer by saying that the scheme that we i 18 have seen with respect to the location of the caissons would give me the same difficulty as has been discussed for the is 20 service water pumphouse. t Q Has a structural analysis been done in that regard, 21 ue your knowledge, with either the auxiliary building or the 22 - ey l o I i h
l l',' c.. --5,,g-,_ s--y k,',;jj,.$, _, ~ ~? A % 1s.n. ~..? ~; Ws.:n %:p.,w w s, w.4 ^ ~ \\ $N:::; % ~:g, y*5',- ..a - -=..n. m.-,,. v..x. ,cs. ,. q,,.- " - .'c w.:u <<. m m - w -.:.. ,.,..,m.,,,.,,., (; ':V w..: . s ...-..,-~...,.m
- .-,. u m... m..,~,. -.
- g
-
- /
347 i .. ;g: w. m.. w = I cbl6 1 service water pump structure? 2 A I don't know the answer to that. i e 2 3 Q Is that in your area of review? 4 A No, si.r. Do you agree with the basic concept of the fix 5 Q proposed for the tank farm area? a 1 7 A No, sir. a Q Why not? 3ecause the design and construction for the support 9 A of those tanks is unconservative with respect to usual means f to of support of free-standihg tanks related to other nuclear i 11 reactor applications, and also because the fill supporting 12 i those tanks has not been shown to conform to original design 1 13 u conditions and that no remedial measur$s are preposed to 14 upgrade the reliability of the foundations for those tanks. 15 Is Q Do you believe that based upon the involvement that you h. *e in the proposed fixes of the entire soils 17 settlement question at Midland that you are qualified and in 18 a position and informed enough to state a conclusion with l 1s regard to whether, based upon information provided and fixes i 20 proposed by Consumers Power Company, there exists or 21 does not exist reasonable assurance that the planu would be 1 l 22 1 MS. SumD + duuD m - .,,___-..---..m-y .,.r_.,-.,
~ ~ '.; - -.:; ": 7.:; c. a. :~ - : :r : :- k^.- ,,,,. m ..;. Sggq.5.; 3.. _.3 y.g. ~ ; --., g:.=,, e c
- m..
V~r~ ... a.;. e. 348 e constructed and operated in a manner that would not endanger eb17 1 2 the health and safety of the public? c May I ask that the question be repeated? It was 3 A 4 long. I will try to find the heart of it. MR. ZAMARIN: Would you read the question, please? 5 (Whereupon, the Reporter read from the record s 7 as requested.) s THE WITNESS: I'm not in a position at this point s in time to formulate that conclusion. I think the review is to still underway. Much has yet to be learned'about the details of the fixes and the initial conditions that are present 11 ,there, and it would be premature and presumptuous of me to 'b 12 answer in any other way than No. I am not now in a position 13 u 14 to form that conclusion. 15 BY MR. ZAMARIN: 1s Q Do you believe that on December 6th, 1979, you 17 were in a position to form that conclusion? Is A No, sir. Has there been some recent reorganization of NRR is Q I 20 that has impacted on the BGEB7 6 .By "recent" do y'ou mean within he past month, or 21 x 22 the past year? YEm!=ml0 l L, Sne. i
2. 2 3 ... -..-. _-_.:...... := q q,_ -,." -,%wQ($,',j;; "L,;. "C z : :.Ti. n. n4 -,:.m...%~ ~
- *-~ v.y.
- a. 1.. ;,e.x.-..
4;t---2 ~ ~<:% g s, Ly. r-g a y w-- ;, T g g y_ _: _t.- m :,.c: - g 4 -:---r-..,.,,
- l. ; 's......,. e. 7
..n..--. .- u n-.... n....,...
- y
'?: "n ~ m.'$b 349 J-j cb18 1 Q Since October 1979. Within the past year. 2 A Time passes so rapidly. I belfeve there has been 3 a reorganization of NRR within the past year. I can't 4 remember when the proposal and the actual effective date f 5 occurred at this t.une. s Q Do you rescall how many reviewers there were in the ] ,7 Geotechnical Engineering Section in the fall of 19797 1 a A Yes. s Q Eow many? 10 A I believe there were three or four. 11 Q Possibly three beside yourself?' [ s 12 A Yes. 13 Q And how many reviewers are there now in the u 14 Eydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch? 15 A I believe I tried to list them in my previous la deposition and I think there's in'the' neighborhood of 17, 17 g 177 1s A Yes, sir. l 1s Q Is there still a Geotechnical Engineering Section? l 20 A Yes, sir, there is. 21 Q And how many reviewers ~are there in the Geotechnical t 22 Engineering Sectien? l -bdMM 8 -O s -,e .-,-.--.,,.,.-,e..,.,e .-,=,y-- .--.w ,,.,e. -a ---m-
---:.+. -.x. -f; .,.g~g - +g.yggxa. Ci: :--Q7 - , _;;,.g. 3Q[gL3.3. ,m- .,.... z.= w..e 350 i 1 There are presently seven in the Geotechnical obl9 1 A .c. 2 Engineering Section. And is the function and the duties and responsi-3 Q bilities of the Geotechnical Engineering Section today any 4 more er Issa expansive than it was in the fall of 1979? 5 s A No, sir, it's identical. j When did the staffing of the Geotechnical 7 Q Engineering Section increase from three reviewers and you as 8 s section leader to its current seven? Some joined our section when the Office of Nuclear 10 A Reactor Regulation was reorganized, I think officially in 11 12 the spring of 1980. 13 Q Where did they come from? 14 A They came from what was then the Division cf j i 15 operating Reactors. 16 Q And they didn't ca.rry with them any responsibilities 17 that they had had prior to the reorganization, did they? I 18 A There was soms work that had to be finished, yes. 18 Q Is it all done now? A I believe we have that wrapped up. 21 Q okay. 22 A The rest of them came as a result cf recruiting l mM.wh -A 1 s e -,-..,,,,,,-m-v--. -, -,, - - --,.---------w ,--,,-,-----o e,, -, - -, ,<---+,w. -e-- r
. - +. - ~ 4-g.. -. . "..- % wren-M,c. m. a.., ?.L. "T37.'E[~[f; $.],,. " 3 -ri ; d!!M ,f,., [h,...h-hhhAEb ~w-rgx. ; ?.., x.. c.~..,.,.n-Wg. U M... a.;. .n.~.,.....~.., .-n,..,,.w.... f 357 . h;, w. '. en.wm -w: e ch20 1 actions that we have been taking for the last 18 months. .,r. 2 Q Do you believe that the current staffing of the 3 Geotechnical Engineering Section is sufficient to handle the 4 present and near-term anticipated workload of that section 5 without the need for engagement of outside consultants? 4 8 A No. I feel that outside consultants are beneficial 7 and necessary for handling the esoteric' items that come up 8 such as underpinning, dispersive clays and other areas that s require unique expertise. 1 to MR. 7.AMARIN: I have nothing further, and have r 11 concluded this deposition interrogation of Mr. Heller, with ' ts 12 the exception of one possible area that I have not inquired 13 into fully, and that has to do with coq.ain manpower issues. o 14 And my understanding is that at some time in the future if 15 we should perceive the need to go into that area, then there l 18 would be no objection to resuming interrogation of Mr. Heller, i f 17 limited to that one arsaa 18 Is that right? i l \\ 18 MR. JONES: That's my understanding. MR. ::AMARIN: With that then we're done. 20
- t Do you have any questions?
l I 22 MR. JCNES: No questions. j l i l N g .\\
...~..-..,....:_;..w.--.... ~.., e.m. s.,..e.;. .-.,: p.y,z...e - ..,+. : .~-: n.#.c . _,. s. x. s .n.u . _, _.,..,a ,. :.v:'- . :*cpro 352 i i l bb21 (Whereupon, at 1:33 p.m., the taking of,the 2 deoosition was concluded.) 3 4 5 8 G 7 8 9 10 11 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
- 0 21 p
22 b d M h 8as S O mye e e m,gume
- m=
4ee. 6 9 9+ ea
- 94 q 88 8 4Bup* *
- 88*
."f N
- " m
=. .g ....}}