ML20090J603
| ML20090J603 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1981 |
| From: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17198A223 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-BOX-05, CON-BOX-5, FOIA-84-96 OL, OM, NUDOCS 8405230055 | |
| Download: ML20090J603 (81) | |
Text
.
167 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
IN THE MATTER OF:
) Docket Nos. 50-329-OL
)
50-330-OL 4
CONSUMERS POWER
)
50-329-OM COMPANY
)
50-330-OM 5
(Midland Plant,
)
Units 1 & 2)
).
6 January 16, 1981, 9:20 a.m.
8 The deposition of JAMES GEORGE FEPPLER, 9
resumed pursuant to adjournment, at Nuclear Regulatory 10 Commission Region No.
3, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois.
13 PRESENT:
14 MESSRS. ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE, (One First National Pla:a, 15 Chicago, Illinois 60603), by:
MR. RONALD G.
ZAMARIN and 16 MR. ALAN S.
- PARNELL, l'
appeared on behalf of the Consumers Power Company; 18 MR. B RADLEY JONES,
19 (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555),
20 appeared on behalf of the Nuclear 21 Regulatory Commission.
5 ALSO PRESENT:
U MR. GILBERT S.
- KEELEY, MR. BENJAMIN W.
MARGUGLIO, 24
_ Consumers Power Company; B405230055 840517 PDR FOIA
~ vVo[ft, kosenbsy and c?1sociales C$le9o, Bhois e 7ss-soss
168' I
ALSO PRESENT (CONTINUED) :
2 MR. EUGENE J.
GALLAGIIER, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
4 REPORTED BY:
ANTOINETTE M.
- HAYNES, C.S.R.
6 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1
l 24 i
1 0YOfft, h ost b t y N k AA0ciafts au.s sews, e,ss sos, l
169 1
I N DEX 2
WITNESS DX CX RDX RCX 3
JAMES GEORGE XEPPLER 4
By Mr. Zamarin 170 5
6 7
8 EXH I B I TS 9
EXHIBIT NUMBER MARKED FOR ID 10 CPCo Deposition Exhibit 11 No.
8 177 12 9
195 13 10 220 14 11 221 15 12 235 16 13 241 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 0Yoffs, kassnbsy N kssoelaks cw, newu a m.sar
170 t
I JAMES GEORGE KEPPLER, 2
called as a witness herein, having been previously duly 3
sworn and having testified, was examined and testified further as follows:
5 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) 6 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
7 0
okay.
Mr. Keppler, you understand that you 8
are still under oath from last time and sworn to tell 9
the truth?
10 A
Yes.
11 O
With. agard to the March 22, 1979 12 investigative report, 78-20, there were groups of 13 infractions or noncompliances, and there were nine such 4
14 groups, I believe; and I was wondering if you can tell 15 us if there is any scheme or guideline for grouping 16 certain things, for example, as to why there were nine 1;
infractions or noncompliances as opposed to three or 18 four or twenty.
19 A
May I see the report, please?
3 0
I am looking for a clean copy of it right 21 "0W-3 I will give you my marked up --
A That's all right.
Maybe I can answer the 3
24 question in a general way, what our policy is on this.
QVo[fs, hossnbey and 81 socials 1 au.,
seu.u
,s -sa,
171 I
O Let me let you look at this, first.
2 (WHEREUPON, the document was tendered 3
to the witness.)
4 BY THE WITNESS:
5 A
Where are they?
6 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
7 G
There were none presented in there?
8 Okay.
You may need one othe. document.
Let 9
me show you the December 6th order.
And what the 10 question really is is with regard to the information 11 and the findings in --
12 MR. ZAMARIN:
Let us go off the record a minute.
i 13 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 14 off the record.)
15 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
16 0
If you could, simply explain, then, what the 17 policy is with regard to grouping of items or how they 18 are either joined or separated out to make separate 19 instances of infractions or noncompliances.
3 A
First of all, let me ask, are you aware of t
21 the categorization of the items of noncompliance and
=
the basis for that --
u o
No.
A
-- whether they're called violations, 24 GYo[fe, cRosenbey and Associates am nu e,ss sos,
172 1
infractions, or deficiencies?
2 0
Why don't you describe that?
3 A
Okay.
Prior to September, 1980, the NRC's 4
enforcement policy required that items of noncompliance 5
be categorized according to their safety importance, 6
and three categories were identified.
These were 7
violations, infractions, and deficiencies.
8 A violation was an item of noncompliance that 9
had direct safety consequences.
An infraction was an 10 item of noncompliance which, if left uncorrected, 11 might lead to a potential safety problem.
And a 12 deficiency was an item of noncompliance with relatively 13 minor safety significance.
34 You can see from that set of definitions that 15 an infraction category was a rather broad category that 16 covered a rather broad spectrum of importance and was 37 one of the reasons why we modified our enforcement i
policy most recently.
gg 39 Now, in determiaing actual numbers of items 3
of noncompliance, what we tried to do was to look at a basic requirement, and violations of that requirement 21 represented an item of noncompliance.
And if there were multiple examples of that same basic requirement, 3
then these were treated, or are treated, generally as 24 QVo[fs, c.Rossnbsy and dssoalaiss ca., newu o rsa-sos, s
173 1
examples of an item of noncompliance, and they're not 2
additive.
4 3
For purposes of consideration where items of 4
noncompliance are allowed to occur over periods of times, 5
the law did provide for considering each d;y that that 6
item of noncompliance existed as a separate item of 7
noncompliance.
However, our practice was that only for 8
the more egregious types of problems did we use that i
9 approach.
10 Does that heip?
11 0
I thir.k so.
And I understand the principle.
12 And, actually, when I look at Appendix A to the 13 December 6th order, I can now see where the four 14 numbered items are referenced, at least to different 15 provisions in 10 CFR, Part 50.
16 A
Different criteria.
37 0
Although, if one does not look specifically to those criteria, they appear to c rerlap: so the 18 gg basis for it, then, is not that they constitute 3
actually independent actions, but that they are 21 referenced by separate criteria, is that right?
3 Different requirements, yes.
A S
In Appenlix A on Item No.
3, there is a 3
statement that 24 L GYo[fs, dowsbsy and Assoalaiss ca., sa~u e
,a.us,
174
~
l "CPCo Topical Report CPC 1-A, Policy No. 10, 2
Section 3.1, speaks, in part, that ' work 3
activities are accomplished according to approved 4
procedures or instructions which include 5
inspection hold points beyond which work does not 6
proceed until the inspection is complete or 7
written consent for bypassing the inspection has 8
been received - '" et cetera.
9 Would your understanding of that language be 10 that hold points would be effective for all work 11 activities?
12 MR. ZAMARIN:
Read the question.
13 (WHE REUP ON, the record was read 14 by the reporter as requested.)
15 BY THE WITNESS:
16 A
As I read this piece of paper, my 17 interpretation would be that it would cover those work 18 activities covered by CPCo Topical Report CPC 1-A.
19 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
i l
m 0
And all of those without exception, is.that 21 right?
m A
All of those that are safety-related.
3 0
In your opinion would it constitute bad 24 management attitude toward quality assurance if a Wolfe, e.:Rossnbsy and c$ssoalaiss am seu.
. m.ue
175 1
licensee should disagree with the judgment of an N3C 2
Region 3 inspector with regard to a certain item?
3 A
No.
4 0
And in your opinion would it demonstrate bad 5
management attitude if a licensee in a situation where i
6 there was a difference of opinion, for example, as to I
7 uhether a material should be Q-listed or not to check
)
8 with its IE to find the design basis for it and to 9
attempt to resolve that matter and present its position i
10 to the NRC inJpector in an effort to, perhaps, persuade l
11 the inspector that perhaps they are right and he might 12 be wrong?
13 A
No.
l 14 At the SALP board meeting -- I guess I have 15 heard it referred to -- where input was received from 16 the various inspectors with regard to Midland, do you 17 know whether Ron Cook had any input?
4 18 A
I believe that the SALP report shows who.the 19 board was comprised of.
And I can't answer without 4
3) looking at that.
i 21 But the list of members were on there, and I e
would certainly believe he was.
3 g
I take it, then, since you cannot recall 24 whether he was on there, that you do not recall what 0Yolfs, dosenbey and dswalaiss ew nctu, e ru.un s
176 I
precise input, if any, he had.
2 A
I did not attend the SALP board meeting.
I 3
was only briefed afterwards of the board's finding.
4 And that has been the practice on all SALP meetings.
5 g
By whom were you briefed?
6 A
Mr. Fiorelli was present, Mr. Knop was 7
present, I believe Mr. Gallagher was present, and others 8
were present.
9 0
When you say you were briefed on the board 10 findings, did the board take input from other 11 individuals and reach conclusions, or did you refer to 12 findings simply as the mass of inputs?
13 A
Basically what they come to me with is a 14 draft SALP report to work with and let me see it and 15 see if I have any major problems with it.
i 16 0
And were you provided a draft SALP report in 17 this instance?
ts A
Yes.
19 Do you have any idea where -- strike that.
3 Do you know whether that draft would have been retained after a final was produced?
21 A
I don't know.-
You'd have to ask 3
y Mr. Fiorelli or Mr. Knop.
My guess is probably not.
Simply, it was a working paper to talk from.
24 0Volfe, cRosenbsy and Assoalates au.g., seu.a e,ss sa,
177 l
It wasn't a full report.
It was the sum and substance 2
of the report, listing the items of noncompliance and 3
the reportable events on the kinds of things that are 4
in there.
5 0
You refer to a "SALP report."
Is that the 6
same as -- all I have seen that even suggested that it 7
might be a SALP report is a summary of a meeting of 8
some date, and I do not recall when it was -- of 9
November 24, 1980.
10 Is that the SALP report to which you refer?
11 And I have a copy here that I will -- here 12 let me see if I can --
13 A
You want me to get mine?
14 G
No.
That is okay.
What I will do is see if 15 you can tell without looking at the cove: sheet.
16 A
I'll tell you what I'll do.
I'll get mine.
37 (WHEREUPON, there was a short 18 interruption.)
19 MR. ZAMARIN:
Off the record.
l 3
(WHEREUPON, discussion was had 21 off the record.)
3 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 3
marked CPCo Deposition Exhibit No.
8, 24 f r identification, as of 1/16/81.)
GVo[fs, cRossnbsy and &swalaiss CR% e, Bhnou e 1st sots i
178 1
BY MR. ZAMARIN:
2 G
i am marking No.
8, a letter dated 3
December 18, 1980, to Consumers Power Company, a 4
two-page letter over the signature of James G.
Keppler.
5 And there are two enclosures to that, inspection 6
reports 50-329/80-35, 50-330/80-36, as well as what is 7
referred to as a Licensee Performance Evaluation 8
(construction), or a SALP appraisal, which is an 9
attachment to those two referencod inspection reports.
10 Mr. Keppler, is this document that I have 11 marked as Exhibit 8 what you refer to as the "SALP 12 report"?
13 A
Yes.
14 4
I notice on the very last page there is kind 15 of a chart, and it has " Functional Area" and then 13 16 items listed.
And there are some x's, and one of the 17 line items, No. 13, " Reporting," does not have an x.
18 Do you know why or where an x would go if one 19 were to be put on there?
m (WHEREUPON, the document was tendered 21 to the witness.)
g BY THE WITNESS:
A I'm assuming it's an oversight.
I did not 3
n tice this before.
But it would go in "No Change."
24 Yo[fs, <:Rossnbstg and 81socuniss CR%e, Offinas e 1se. son
q 179 1
BY MR. ZAMARIN:
2 l
4 Okay.
I also notice on the first page of 3
the inspection reports down at the bottom, it has 4
aMeeting Summary" and then "Results."
5 Do you see that?
i 6
A Yes.
7 4
And it states that "The performance at 8
Midland Unit 1 and 2 was considered to be adequate."
9 A
Yes.
10 I have seen other reports that have used j
11 both the term " adequate" and also " average."
l
- 12 Is there any difference in your mind to 13 saying that the performance was average or the 14 performance was adequate?
l 15 A
I don't believe I've seen one marked average.
4 16 0
I have got one here.
I have a report with' 17 respect to -- I do not need to identify it -- with 18 respect to another plant and another utility, and I 19 will just show you that.
3 MR. JONES:
You are speaking of the Midland Plant?
21 MR. ZAMARIN:
This is a different plant and a
different utility where --
a MRs JONES:
I thought you said you'saw the Midland
- 24 Plant referred to as both average and adequate.
e 0%[fs, cRosenbsy and Assoalains CR4, D%s e pse.soss
~
180 1
1 MR. ZAMARIN:
I am sorry.
I did not mean to 2
confuse you.
3 BY THE WITNESS:
4 A
There is no intended difference.
I guess I 5
would like to elaborate and say that the SALP 6
appraisal program whs instituted this last year as a 7
means for the Commission to set back away from the a
day-to-day activities and conduct some kind of a 9
meaningful assessment of the licensee's regulatory 1
10 performance with the idea of identifying those i
11 performers that are very strong either in terms of 12 their outstanding regulatory performance or in terms of l
13 their weak regulatory performance and to identify areas 14 that need attention.
15 And the process has been an evolving type of 16 process, but one which I viewed as being -- as trying 17 to give as much meaningful information to the license.e as possible.
If you look at the appraisals that we 18 19 have done on operating reactors, you'll find that I have used terms like "above average," "below average,"
g and " average" throughout the Various areas that we 21 inspect.
3 However, I felt, at this point in time, g
anyway, reluctant to try to give an overall grade, 3
G%ffa, aRounBay arul cauoawu am., se~u e ra.usr
f 181 I
simply because I didn't feel I knew what weight to i
2 apply to each area.
The construction program has been
)
3 a little bit more difficult for me to do 4
self-appraisals on, because there are not as many areas 5
and regulatory requirements that one can get your 6
teeth into as well, so to speak.
7 And I feel that in many ways the 3
self-appraisals in the construction program have been 9
a little bit on the bland side.
And I feel we have got i
10 to -- we will be making efforts to upgrade our 11 self-appraisals in the construction program, but, 12 generally, I did not intend any overall ranking of 13 utilities.
But I did try to list those areas where I 14 could -- that I felt they were strong or weak in.
15 Does that help?
16 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
17 0
Yes.
I also notice that on Page 2 of the 18 inspection report to which ;he SALP evaluation is
- 9 enclosed there is a particularization of significant i
3 problems.
And I believe that flows from Subparagraph c 21 where it says, "however, some problems persist."
g Do you see, then, in d it says, "These l
3 significant problems - "
I am sorry.
24 In Subparagraph d on Page 2, it says, "These Wolfa. Sosantag and assoatatas aug., n u e,sa sos,
- l
182 1
significant problems were identified during the 2
evaluation period."
3 There are three reactor pedestal anchor bolts 4
which probably originated in 1973, qualification of 5
inspectors for containment post tensioning work, and 6
the Zack HVAC activities.
7 And, to your knowledge, were those the only 8
three significant problems that were identified during 9
the SALP evaluation period?
10 A
Yes.
T2 11 4
And with regard to the qualification of QC 12 inspectors for containment post tensioning work, are 13 you familiar with the actual details of what that 14 involved?
15 A
Not really.
I recall that there were some 16 problems with the company on that, but I was not 17 present in any of the meetings, that I recall.
18 4
Do you recall that being a matter of whether--
19 a disagreement, I guess, between the Region 3 m
inspector and the licensee as to whether individuals 21 were exempted from a certain ANSI education and experience provision by virtue of training and 3
3 experience or --
24 What you say is familiar, but I don't recall A
QVo[fs, Sosenbey and d1weiates cwg., su e,sa-sos,
i l
1@3 1
the details at all.
2 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 3
off the record.)
4 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
5 G
When you were briefed on the SALP board 6
meeting, were you provided with any written materials?
7 A
Just the draft of the 8
G Of the report?
9 A
Yes.
10 0
Okay.
Were you provided with a description 11 of specific input by individual inspectors?
12 A
No.
13 0
Okay.
So, for example, nobody said that Gene 14 Gallagher has a certain position with regard to 15 attitude with respect to compliance, and he based it 16 upon --
17 A
Let me -- I guess I took your questign
""If0W1Y*
18 19 When I was briefed on the SALP appraisal, I was made aware at that time that Mr. Gallagher and 3
21 Mr. Naidu had concerns about the quality assurance 3
program, the revised quality assurance program that we discussed at our last session.
And it was at that time 3
that 24 I made that dec3cion that since we are going to YOfft, hoStnfity kkAOCOA CN%e, Ollinois e 182 SoE1
l i
194 I
have a meeting with a company, I don't want to be in a 2
position of not bringing up these issues, and we'll i
l 3
break up the meeting into two parts.
4 So I became aware of it.
I was not given any 5
memos or particular correspondence at that time to 6
it was all verbal discussions.
7 G
Okay.
Actually, it was not with regard to 8
that that I was thinking.
9 For example, I noted that we received at 10 Mr. Gallagher's deposition a copy of his memorandum 11 which had been styled to refer to as his SALP input 12 memorandum, and it has six different categories.
And what I had in mind was whether, for example, it was 13 14 his opinion that the licensee and the contractor had 15 a poor attitude in compliance, that that in particular 16 would have been related to -- someone would have said that Gene Gallagher thinks that they have got a poor 1
37 attitude in compliance.
la A
Well, I don't recall all the discussions 19 that went on, but we certainly.had a fairly lengthy g
l sessi n n things.
I did not see Mr. Gallagher's 21 j
memo.until the day before you were coming in last time.
f
(
I'm sure that some of the material was discussed.
We sat and talked about Midland for probably Mo[fe, e.:Rossnbey and Assoalaiss c%, su e
,s,. sos,
185 1
an hour that day, and -- but I don't know necessarily 2
that I guess I don't recall specifically belaboring 3
any specific comments on it.
I guess I was more taken 4
up with the concern that I was hearing for the first 5
time that we were uncomfortable with the revised QA 6
organization, and I felt very strongly that we ought to 7
get that information before the licensee as soon as 8
possible.
9 G
Have you read Gene Gallagher's deposition 10 transcript from his deposition?
11 A
No.
i 12 G
Do you plan to read it?
f 13 A
Probably not.
I guess if I get a signal that I ought to read it I probably will, but I haven't 34 15 gotten a signal that I probably ought to read it yet.
0 Okay.
16 17 I've nad enough other problems to keep me A
busy right now.
18 l
0 Okay.
19 A
For that matter, I haven't read anybody's g
depositions.
21 G
The reason I asked that is that we had gone g
through each of the six items in Mr. Gallagher's SALP g
input with Mr. Gallagher at his deposition and asked GYoffs, Sossnbsy and Assoalaiss cam.,neu.u e rsa.sar
186 I
for the basis for some of the conclusione stated 2
therein, which is information that I think you ought 3
to be aware of.
4 So you know who the signals come from, I 5
think you ought to read his transcript.
I thought I 6
should go through these with you if you had not had an 7
opportunity to read his transcript.
8 In your opinion would a situation -- strike 9
that.
10 Are you familiar with the situation where 11 Mr. Gallagher had requested the Question 23 closecut 12 packets be taken to the site for his review from Ann 13 Arbor?
14 A
something sticks in the back of my mind that 15 I heard about it, but I don't recall involving myself 16 in any way.
17 0
okay.
Mr. Gallagher had requested that the Question 23 closecut packets be brought to the site 18 19 for his review, and at least one of the reasons stated for that in a telephone conversation to Consumers QA 3
personnel was that going into Ann Arbor required a 21 3
certain amount of paperwork, because it was like going l
into a vendor.
And this request to have the packets g
brought to the site was referred to consumers l
y
~
i l
t l
(1%[fa, cRoudag ami c411oewas aug newu
. ru-sa, e
187 1
management, and they decided that they ought not to be 2
brought to the site, because they were Bechtel 3
Engineering documents and, in fact, were kept at Bechtel 4
Engineering, where all the backup for them was.
5 Would you consider that reluctance to bring 6
those closecut packets to the site evidence of a poor 7
attitude of compliance on the part of Consumers?
8 A
Based on the way you described it, I wouldn't 9
consider it a significant matter, no.
10 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 11 off the record between the witnese and 12 Mr. Gallagher outside the hearing of 13 counsel and the court reporter.)
14 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
i 0
I cannot resist asking what Mr. Gallagher 15 16 just told you.
17 A
He just reminded me that they did go to Ann Arbor and did the inspection.
18 19 G
That is correct, and that was, in fact, prior to the completion of Mr. Gallagher's deposition, and --
3 that is right.
He indicated that he had gone and, 7 21 believe, Mr. Gilray was there, also, and they had done 3
that.
og MR. ZAMARIN:
Off the record.
24 0Yo[fe, hosenbey and 81sociales CR%e, DLots e 782-2087
1 108 I
(WHE REUPON, discussion was had j
i off the record.)
2 3
(WHEREUPON, there was a short 4
interruption.)
5 BY THE WITNESS:
6 A
Go ahead.
I'm listening.
I l
BY MR. ZAMARIN:
8 Okay.
When you were briefed on the.SALP 9
board findings, do you recall any qualifications that 10 were provided with regard to Mr. Gallagher's input, and 11 that is either the particular items upon which he based 12 his conclusions in his memorandum or the time frame 13 for those items or anything of that nature?
14 A
The only thing I recall is that when we sat 15 down and discussed the concerns by Mr. Gallagher and 16 Mr. Naidu and thpy were brought to my attention by 17 Mr. Fiorelli in an opening presentation to me, he made 18 the point rigat then that these concerns have manifested 19 themselves outside of the SALP appraisal period.
M And my reaction to that was that I didn't in terms of -- the SALP appraisal was one thing 21 care e
that had to be dealt with, and we would do that.
But n
I felt very strongly that it was -- if our pe.ople had 24 some concerns about the company's QA program and the i
YO Lo hO Ey k1AOQkbts d$leage, $$$inois e 732 8037
189 1
company had not been made aware of these concerns, 2
that I wanted them up front as early as possible so that 3
they could be dealt with.
4 0
What I am driving at, and I will give you 5
some examples out of Exhibit 2 from Mr. Gallagher's 6
deposition, were you aware, for example, that where s
7 the statement was made -- and this is the document that 8
you indicated you reviewed just prior to the first 9
session of your deposition -- that:
10 "CPCo in conjunction with their contractor 11 has a poor attitude in compliance.
In addition, 12 CPCo has been reluctant to give the NRC requested j
13 documents without first clearing it with upper 14 CPCo management.
This has been considered as an 15 inhibiting factor in our inspection program."
16 Were you aware that the sole basis for that 1;
input was this request for the-Question 23 closeout 18 packets not being taken to the site?
19 A
At the time that I was briefed on the SALP m
appraisal, I did not have a lot of time,'and the i
I 21 briefing did not last a long time.
i 3
What it really focused on was -- we spent
~
i 3
very little time on the SALP appraisal itself.
As I l
mentioned earlier, it was somewhat nonsensational one 24 l
GYo[fs, dossnbsy and cAssoalales c %. sai,,a.
e vsa. sos,
190 1
way or the other.
2 And when I learned about the new problems or 3
became aware that we had additional concerns in the 4
quality assurance, I believe my reaction at the time 5
was, "Look, I want a meeting set up with Consumers as 6
soon as possible.
Let's tie it into the SALP meeting."
7 And for other reasons which were primarily 8
related to my schedule, I said, "Let's do the 9
Palisades and Big Rock SALP at the same time if we can 10 and get on with it."
11 And I didn't go into any details of the 12 things at that time, so -- and you were present at the 13 SALP meeting, and you recall how I handled that.
14 I just threw the thing right on the table 15 and encouraged my people and Consumers' people to get 16 together as soon as possible.
17 G
I understand that.
And perhaps I can tell la you that the reason why I am trying to probe these 19 things through you is we are faced with the situation 3
where staff counsel has indicated that you are the only 21 one here that we are able to talk to.
Their position i
is g
they are not going to allow us to talk to anybody else, so that is why I am trying to probe all of this 3
through you.
24 0Vo[fe, Sosenbey and dssociates c% mu e ra.us,
191 l
1 Well, let me ask a question about that.
i 2
Has anyone ever conferred with you as to 3
whether Mr. Naidu should be produced for his 4
deposition?
5 A
Mr. Paton asked me if I had any problem with 6
Mr. Naidu being interviewed or deposed by you people, 7
and I told him I didn't have any problem.
8 G
Well, one of the reasons why I am asking you O
9 these kinds of questions is not because I was not 10 aware of what you said or what went on.
It is just, 11 for example, that the staff counsel have refused to 12 allow us to depose Mr. Naidu.
That 18 why I am asking i
13 for all these particulars, because at least without 14 the board intervening, you are it as far as what we is are to -- I am just telling you why I am asking you 16 those questions.
Even though I understand how this 17 procedure worked, I have to get as much as I can from 18 you.
19 A
I can only say that if you have to have 3
somebody from the staff, I'm probably the best guy you 21 could have, because I'm the guy who is going to make n
the decision.
n G
Okay.
But I am just trying to explain why I 24 am trying to get these particulars.
)
l YO h0$2Yty k$iOClekt to s, new, e,ss soor
192 1
A As I told you -- and I can't recall what the 2
circumstances were, but -- the prebriefing on the SALP 3
appreisal and problems was not a lengthy session 4
because of other problems going on in the office.
I 5
0 Do you know any of the particulars with regard to the Region 3 review of answers to Qu'estion 23 6
7 of the 50.54(f) questions and in particular why it took 8
so long after those answers were submitted for them 9
to be reviewed?
10 A
Is this the 50.54 (f) letter that was 11 submitted by Licensing or written by Licensing?
12 0
No.
I am talking about the response to 13 Question 23.
In other words, responses were submitted 14 by the licensee to Question 23 to Region 3, and then 15 it took a considerable amount of time before any 16 reviews commenced for those responses.
17 MR. JONES:
Why do you mean by " considerable D
18 amount of time"?
19 MR. ZAMARIN:
That is what I am asking.
I BY THE WITNESS:
m 21 A
I have no input into it at all.
3 MR. JONES:
I thought you had a date.
3 MR. ZAMARIN:
I do.
But my question was was he --
24 GYolfs, cRossnbsy and dssoalaiss Cita9e. Diltnots e 71s.so41
193 1
BY THE WITNESS:
2 A
I was not involved in that answer in any way.
3 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
4 0
Would the review of Question 23 and the 5
direction to do that have been within Mr. Piorelli's 6
responsibility to oversee?
7 A
The 50.54(f) letter was handled by the 8
licensing people, NRR, and they would have coordinated 9
with our staff to some degree on getting input in that to answer.
11 I guess Mr. Fiore111 would have been involved 12 in that coordination.
4 13 (WHEREUPON, there was a short 14 interruption.)
15 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
16 0
I see.
The implementation of that review 17 would be up to Region 3, is that right?
18 For example, my understanding was that Question 23 had been given to someone at Region 3 for 19 3
review.
21 A
I don't know.
I am sure somebody can trace 3
that for you as to how it was handled, but I can't.
3 4
Does the NRC have a tracking system or method of closing out open inspection findings?
24 OVolfs, cRoun$sy and c11walabr1 cw, suua, e ru.sa,
194 1
A Yes.
2 0
And can you describe generally or briefly 3
what that system or method is?
I 4
A Well, there's really two types of tracking 5
systems.
One is what we call the action item tracking 6
system, which is a computerized tracking of actions 7
that are assigned from one NRC office to another or 8
within an NRC office and can even be used within a 9
region to track items that are -- for which action has to been requested.
The handling of unresolved inspection 11 matters may be a part of this system.
12 When I said there's two methods, I guess I 13 would refer to the second method as probably the 14 informal method by which inspect ~rs keep track of their uwn action items as they relate to inspection programs.
15 16 And that's some kind of a noto-keeping system to 17 themselves, if you will.
18 0
Do you believe that there is any reluctance 19 on Consumers' part to include NRC requirements or codes or standards in their QA programs when these things 3
21 are brought to their attention?
3 A
I don't have a basis for such an observation.
3 MR. 2AMARIN:
Excuse me a minute.
I g4 (WHEREUPON, there was a short interruption.)
0Vo[fs, hownbsy and Assoalaiss C M ye, D h ets e ssasosy
195 I
BY MR. ZAMARIN:
2 G
I have what is to be marked Exhibit No. 9 as t
3 of today's date.
4 (WitEREUPON, said document was marked 5
CPCo Deposition Exhibit No.
9, for 6
identification, as of 1/16/81.)
7 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
8 It is the March 15, 1979 correspondence to 9
Consumers Power Company over your signature, and to attached to it is what is styled a presentation of 11 investigation findings of the diesel generator i
12 building, et cetera.
And it is marked preliminary.
r 13 And I believe that this has been identified previously 14 1.' discovery as a preliminary document to i
j 15 Investigative Report 78-20.
1 j
16 On Page 11 of this exhibit, 9, it has -- I a
1; am going to draw a circle around a little thing to 18 direct your attention to it.
19 There is a statement that Consumers' 3
management "(Corporate Project Engineer and Manager) 21 were not properly informed of the Administration 3
Building settlement."
u And this is referring to the administration 24 building grade beam failure which preceded the GVolfs, Aowsbsy and c$swalaiss cw,.. su e ru.un
19G l
1 discovery of the other problem.
2 Were you ever made aware other than, perhaps, 3
reviewing that' investigative report of any such 4
purported finding?
5 (WHEREUPON, the document was tendered 6
to the witness.)
7 BY THE WITNESS:
8 A
I can't recall receiving input to this 9
finding as such.
I do recall that in the course of our 10 review of this problem and the discussions on it with 11 the company that concern was expressed that there 12 should have been some forewarning of this problem as 4
13 a result of experiences with the administrative 14 building.
BY MR. ZAMARIN:
T3 15 We discussed that at our previous session 16 17 as to whether there was an investigation and whether we should have "taken a clue," I think were your words, 33 39 from the administrative building failure.
A But the question was to the statement that 3
they were not properly informed.
I don't recall being 23 a party to any specific discussions on that.
3 0
okay.
I would like to know if -- what you 3
consider to be the significance or 3
GVolfs, Soun$su) and dswalaks au., n.u e m.un
i 197 1
level of significance of that statement, if, in fact, 2
you consider there to be some significance to it, if l
3 it were trae.
4 A
The significance I would attach to the 5
statement is that a problem was known or identified 6
with a nonsafety-related structure that conceivably could have ramifications for safety-related structures 8
and that the conpany was not informed of the problem, 9
If, in fact, that statement is wrong, Would to that affect any of the conclusions or findings in your 11 opinion that is contained in that exhibit, 97 12 A
The finding on this particular page?
13 0
Yes.
14 A
Let me read them.
13 (WHEREUPON, there was a short I
i 16 interruption.)
17 BY T!!E WITNESS:
is A
Let me ask this question, first, that when 19 you say if a statement were erroneous --
3 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
21 0
Yes.
m A
-- in what way should I read it to be 23 errontous, that they were informed?
24 0
Yes, if that statement -- my understanding c1l'affa, cRountag and eduoewn C h y*,
Orts u is e sto. sets
-4,-
198 I
I I
I of that statement -- and it has been testified -- is i
2 that that statement was based upon a conclusion that 3
the project manager, that Mr. Xewley, was not aware 4
of the administration building grade beam failure until 5
after the unusual settlement in the diesel generator 6
building was observed.
7 And when I say that that statement is wrong, a
we know that it was wrong and have memoranda that 9
demonstrate that that Conclusion is simply wrong, to A
okay.
So you are asking me if the statement 11 read CPCo management was informed of the admin.
12 building sett'ement, would it change any of the 13 conclusions.
i4 4
There was an impression, or there was a 35 significance that you stated to the finding in there 16 that they did not know about it, and I am really 37 trying to find out what the significance of that error in that report is, if that would change an impression is to or change a conclusion or have any impact whatsoever 3
in your opinion or as relates to you.
21 A
No.
It wouldn't change the conclusions or the findings as I read it.
It might make me think n
less of Mr. Keeley, u
0 Less of Mr. Keeley in what regard?
g4 Ol'o[fs, <:Rossnbsy and dsweiuhs ciu,.. st~u e naon
199 1
A In handling the job, because if he was aware 2
of the problem more, I guess I'd be concerned that he 3
didn't take more positive action.
4 0
Well, I think that we discussed last time, 5
a couple of weeks ago, that you really weren't that 6
familiar with what action was taken after the
?
administration grade beam failure or the investigation 8
that was undertaken in order to determine whether it 9
was an isolated problem or not, is that right?
10 A
Yes.
I guess the implication, though, that 11 I read into your question is that if consumers Power 12 management people were aware of the administrative 13 building settlement and -- it seems to me that the 14 situation makes the conclusions and findings worse, at is least in one sense, th'at it had management input into 16 it at the expense of if it didn't have management input 1;
into it.
is 0
Well, okay.
I am not sure that I understood 19 what you are saying.
It seems to me that you are m
making that -- somewhat in a vacuum.
21 Are you saying that if Consumers management m
knew about it, that you would expect them to take some a
kind of action, for example, to initiate an
- 4 investigation and to make some kind of a judgment as Woft, hossnbsy and &ssoelaigs ctuas n.<,
e ru.un
~ _ --
200 I
6 1
to whether it was a localized problem or not?
}
2 A
I'm just looking at the conclusions and i
i findings on their face value and weighing them in 3
4 light of if management input was involved to reach those same findings as opposed to no management l
i 5
]i r
involved.
i 6
i j
7 0
Do you mean the conclusion that consumers 1
i j
did not adequately investigate the extent of the soil a
i j
j 9
deficiency in the class 1 fill?
l I
A Yes.
I'm saying that if that's a finding, go I
j gg taking that finding at face value, if that conclusion, 1
i
{
that same conclusion, is reached as a result of having 12 7
l 13 management input versus not having management input, f
5 q
j g4 it doesn't speak well for the management.
i 0
You are taking as a fact that Consumers did 15 l
not adequately investigate?
16 l
A Yes.
j g7 j
l 9
So if, in fact, they did conduct an adequate g,
i j
investigation and an investigation that was consistent 3,
{
with good principles, but the result of that
]
inve8tigation eene up with the finding that it was an
- 1 isolated problem and not one that entended throughout g
1 l
the plant fill, would that then change the conclusion that you have just stated?
3 i
i Wo(s, Aosan$sy and c;4ssenlains C L ye. D b ets e sde sess
201 1
A Yes.
2 0
okay.
Were you aware, by the way, that 3
borings were taken after the grade beam failure, 4
both in and around the administration building and at s
other locatione and that the remainder of the site was 6
checked for a'ny manifestation of unusual settlement and that the procedures with regard to the grade beam were e
investigated before a determination was made, an 9
engineering determination was made that it was an to isolated situation and not one that extended throughout 11 the site?
i 12 A
I don't recall getting any significant 13 briefing on the thing, and if I was briefed, it was 14 just in a passing way on that matter.
13 0
And it was some time ago, also, wasn't it?
16 A
Yes.
It's hard to== I think I'm -- I guess 17 the best way to say it is I'm aware of the conclusion is of our people in that regard, that they felt that the 19 matter of settlement of the administrative building go was probably some kind of a precursor in terms of 21 identification of the other problem.
But I didn't 22 go into any detail on it.
a 23 0
- okay, With regard to that, of course, the 24 thing that comes to mind is a discussion that we had fil'o[{s, c@osanGay and c1ssoataus CR4, uttosets e sco.soss
l 202 I
last time, and that was there is a tendency to be more 2
bottom line-oriented, that if a problem shows up, that 3
that indicates that there was some breakdown or some l
4 deficiency earlier or some down the line, and I guess l
5 it would be easy to say that if an investigation was l
6 conducted and a conclusion was reached that it was an isolated problem, and when we later find out it was a
not an isolated problem, it is easy to say that that 9
investigation was inadequate, even though it may have 10 been conducted at the time with good engineering l
11 principles and so forth.
12 A
That's a true statement.
13 G
In your opinion has Consumers management 14 directed adequate attention to the root causes of the 15 deficiencies with reoard to OA work?
16 A
Could you repeat the question?
l 1;
MR. ZAMARIN:
Read the question.
l (WHEREUPON, the record was read is l
19 by the reporter as requested.)
3 BY THE WITNESS:
21 A
I think that's been one of their weak points e
in their quality assurance program.
l u
BY MR. 3AMARIN:
24 0
In what way?
0Vo[fs, 00sanbsy and Oswelaisi au.s.. nu, e ru.un
203 1
A Because of the time lapse that it seems to 2
take to solve the problem permanently.
3 I am thinking in terms of issues like the 4
tack problem, issues like the problems with embedmonts, 3
that things kept occurring and recurring albeit they 6
were identified by Consumers Power. But the. lasting
?
correction of the problem took a long time.
a O
Are you aware of whether root causes and 9
root cause investigation are listed on the NCR's, the to Midland NCR's?
It A,
I am not.
My statement is based strictly on 12 the fact that problems seem to recur before they are l
13 permanently corrected.
14
!!R. 2AMARIN:
Okay.
Why don't we take about five 15 minutes.
16 (WHERCUPON, a recess was had.)
g7 BY MR. 2AMARIN:
18 0
Okay.
Do you recall when prior to the 19 middle of February, 1979, you were informed in any way
- o of what the investigation with regard to the soils 23 problem was doing?
22 I know that is a while ago, and I am picking 23 a specific point in time.
24 A.
I believe that the February 15th memo OVolfe, c@osan0ssg and cAnoetselas au., cua. e m.wr 204 i
suggests that we were conducting an investigation, so I obviously was aware.
I know what investigations are 3
being conducted.
4 0
Okay.
And prior to the February 15th memo, 5
to your recollection, would you have also been aware 6
of what was being found or what the general findings of the investigation were?
8 A
could I see the memo, again, the 9
February 15th memo?
10 O
Sure.
When I say "sure," to the extant I gg can find it.
33 (WIIE REUPON, there was a short 13 interruption.)
DY T!!E WITNESS:
9 A
I think I can answer the quantion oasily if 33 I see the memo.
l g,
MR. ZAMARIN:
D you have the exhibits, Alan, 1
l from last -- I had them all clipped together.
la g,
(WilEREUPON, certain documents n
were tendered to Mr. Samarin.)
MR. ZAHARIN:
Thank you.
gg 3
I guess it was not an exhibit.
23 (WHEREUPON, there was a short interruption.)
3 0Vo[fs, c,$ossnbety and ducclains au,
ott...<. e su.un
205 1
I (WHEREUPON, a certain document 1
2 was tendered to the witness.)
3 BY THE WITNESS:
4 A
This is February 15th, isn't it?
5 BY M,R.
2AMARIN:
l 6
0 Yes.
7 (WHEREUPON, there was a short l
j a
interruption.)
9 BY THE WITNESS:
l 10 A.
I think the best way to answer that l
1 l
11 question is to say that I had major involvement and 12 input into this particular document, the l
13 February 15th document.
So, obviously, I had some 14 information on the diesel generator building I
13 settlement problem.
16 The way the memo was written suggests to me 17 that what we had at that time was some preliminary is information and that -- but our investigation was still 19 incomplete at the time, and, therefore, I didn't want
,y to draw any firm conclusions from it at that point.
But, obviously, the way it's discussed here, I knew a
something about the problems beforehand.
23 BY MR. SAMARIN:
24 0
To your recollection, during the Gl'o[{n, cRaun0nj and c9ucelain w,
on...<.
,sa.uo,
1
[
206 i
l j
t investigation of the soils at Midland, were you aware 2
or informed of whether the investigators were looking f
3 at the activities with respect to Canonie, who was 4
placing soils in the dike area, I believe?
5 A
I don't recall.
6 0
'To your knowledge did the investigation with i
7 regard to the soils point out any problems about the e
a capabilities of U.S. Testing?
i A
Well, again, I'd have to go back to the go investigation report at this particular time.
I think it we got into some of this discussion last time, and I g:
guess I would like to characterine the situation as 13 being that I participated in the significant I
34 management meetings with the company to discuss the i
a investigation findings, and all of those things were aired at that time.
And to the extent that that to 17 particular problem was discussed, I would have been aware of it.
le g,
9 Okay.
Nas anyone ever indicated to you that 3
they believed that censumers Power was withholding 21 information from the NRC with regard to the soils i
l issues?
g i
A Not that I recall.
We did leek very y
pointedly into whether er not the matter was reported y
%(fs, deuday ad cheswas ch, m e ew,
007 in a timely manner and concluded that there were no t
reporting deficiencies associt.ted with that matter.
3 0
De you know whether anyone in Region 3 has any thoughts with regard to the adequacy of the 4
proposed remedial action from a technical standpoint?
5 6
A On the soils foundation problem?
l O
Yes.
s A
Yes, I believe we do have.
9 0
can you tell me what your knowledge of those to thoughts is?
gg A
I'm aware that Mr. Callagher and perhaps i
12 others within Region 3 have some concerns over the l
n technical adequacy of the corrective action proposed gg and implemented by Consumers Power Company.
15 They are working with the licensing people 16 with respect to these matters.
The responsibility g7 within NRC for the adequacy of the site foundation la rests with NRR.
39 0
When you refer to the licensing people, are you referring to the people within NRR7 3
21 A
Yes, and their' consultants.
y 6
1 take it, then, from that answer that with a
regard to particular concerns over uhe technical y
adequacy of the proposed times that you we not familiar l
l
@eh, g,ke ay NAM 8 c %,sku, e roo.oon,
i 208 I
with --
2 A
Specifics?
3 0
Yes.
4 A
No.
I am aware that the reason, to the 5
extent we are involved at all in this thing, is because 6
of Mr. Gallagher's and some of the other people's 7
expertise in this area.
8 0
To your knowledge ddd Region 3 review any 9
of the cost / benefit analysin in answers to the 10 50.54 (f) questions?
11 A
If we did, I'm not aware of that.
12 O
In making management decisions, does 13 Region 3 evaluate cost versus benefit?
14 A
The only time we would be involved in a 15 cost / benefit-type of analysis is if we were asked to 16 participate by the NRR people.
-}7
'O Participate in what?
.}.
In such an evaluation by the NRR people.
18 19 Our job in terms of an inspection program m
is for assuring or verifying that the activities are
~
21 being conducted in accordance with the regulations, 2;
and that doesn't address cost / benefit relationships.
$h G
To your knowledge has any Region 3 personnel.
s
^x
.,j4 ever'sxpr ssed-opinions that they did not like Bechtel
's
+
~,; s
\\,
y
%sD""
'-'0
209 l
j as a company?
2 A
No, I don't think so.
I don't think I've 3
ever heard a statement like that.
l 4
I have been personally very critical of 5
Bechtel throughout the years that I've been here, but 6
I've also been critical of a lot of other people.
7 But it's always been related toward a specific problem 8
and the handling of that specific problem.
I am not 9
aware of any derogatory-type statement made at a 10 company with no other basis other than the company --
11 the nature of our work does require us to be critical of activities, and I guess I would go so f ar as to say 12 in -- particulerly in dealings with Consumers Power 13 14 Company, I have been critical of -- used Bechtel in a critical sense in that I have felt that they have been 15 a dominating force at the site or in connection with 16 the work many times.
17 G
Have you ever been of the belief that 18 Bechtel, Ann Arbor office, has been uncooperative with 19 respect to the NRC or Region 3 in particular?
3 A
I can't recall any instance that stands out 21 in my mind as being a case that bothered me, and, 3
certainly, if there were such a case, that it wasn't 3
of any significance that I remember it.
(
3 f
cwg anu.
,sa. sos,
210 1
O Has anyone recently indicated to you that 2
they do not think that Consumers Power Company reports 3
matters pursuant to 50.55(e) as readily as they did 4
in the past?
5 A
No.
6 0
What is Region 3's opinion as to the single largest cause, primary cause, of the soils problem?
8 A
I don't know whether I'd be speaking for my 9
staff with this answer, but I'll give you my personal 10 view on it, and that is that the quality assurance 13 program related to the soils problem right from the 12 beginning was ineffective to assure that the soil 13 requirements were as they were stated to be in the 14 application.
15 That's a very broad answer, but it's, I 16 think, the gut issue involved.
17 G
As you sit here now, could you point to any 18 specific changes in the program that in your cpinion 19 would have eliminated or prevented those problems?
go A
I guess I'd have to think about that, but I 21 think the general impression I have had, right or 3
wrong, is that the soil foundation did not get the
- 3 same-initial. type of attention that other systems that are known to be more readily associated with the
(
og (Mtfa, cRous, amt ceuocuta, j
cw, nu e
,s> sos,
211 1
safety of the plant get.
2 For example, the civil work in t erms of the 3
structures and the welding work and the electrical 4
work are all recognized as being areas that need a 5
strong quality assurance program, and they sort of 6
get it from the recognition that those are very 7
important systems.
8 I am not certain that right from the 9
beginning that anybody really recognized or paid 10 attention to the fact that there was this clear 11 Possibility that the soil was going to be that 12 critical an issue.
I guess what I'm saying is that I 13 sort of got the impression that the soil aspects might 14 have been more taken for granted than the other areas.
15 Now, I have here a copy of the memorandum 16 and order in ALAB-106, and on Page 17 of that is the 17 statement that "the Board requests - " and then it is has some -- certain information, and they use the term 19
" staff."
They are requesting that certain things be 20 done by the " staff," and they reference items, 21 numbered items that appear on the two preceding pages.
3 And I would like you to take a look at that, and, if you can, tell me whether the reference there 3
3 to " staff" by the Appeals Board refers to-Region 3, for 0Yo[fe, pRownbey and Associales ch,., atu.
. 7s,-ea7
212 1
j example, or NRR, or whether you can even draw such an 2
opinion.
3 (WHEREUPON, the document was 4
tendered to the witness.)
5 BY THE WITNESS:
6 A
You are talking about this are'a, here 7
(indicating)?
8 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
9 0
Yes.
10 (WHEREUPON, there was a short 11 interruption.)
BY THE WITNESS:
12 A
okay.
I've read this.
13 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
g4 O
Then my question was, when I read that, it 15 is Somewhat general when it refers to requests that the 16 staff do certain things.
And do you read that as 37 referring to Region 3 I & E or as to NRR, Region 3 18 19 Headquarters, or do you really have a handle on what they mean by that?
3 A
I think a fair characterization when they 21 talk about " staff" is probably a coordinated effort 3
between Region 3, the'NRR people, and the legal staff.
og G
And would carrying out of Region 3's
(
3 0Volfe, Sosenbe1g and duccialz1 cu. nu.. res-sos, s
213 1
responsibilities with regards to that effort, again, 2
be something that Caston Fiorelli would have 3
responsibility of taking care of?
4 A
Yes.
5 I would add that Region 3 does not deal 6
directly with the boards without the knowledge of what 7
NRR or the legal staff is doing.
8 g
Okay.
When you say you do not deal 9
directly with the boards without the knowledge of 10 what they are doing --
11 A,
We wouldn't send anything directly to the 12 board from here without it going through Washington.
13 0
And it does not necessarily go through 14 I & E Headquarters in Washington for --
15 A
No.
I'd think you'd have to go back and 16 look at what arrangements were set up in terms of 17 dealing with these things at that particular time.
18 Q
We went through a couple of weeks ago that 19 memorandum of that possible ex parte communication, y
and I believe we had discussed what you would 21 consider to be technical errors in there.
And what a
comes to mind now as I sit here was one of them was a
the statement that I & E had discovered the soil 3
settlement problem when, in fact, it was the licensee
/
9 0Yo[fe, kosenbey and &sweiates C%e, B(fi,ots e 1sa-soss
4 214 4
1 that had: and the other one, I recall, was the I
2 statement that there had been no QA program with 3
respect to soils.
4 And I believe that you indicated that that 5
should have indicated that in your opinion there was 6
no ef OCtive QA program with regard to Soils.
7 I also note that, I believe, a copy of that 8
communication and memorandum had been provided to the 9
licensing board.
10 Do you believe that the licensing board --
11 in order to place your comments in proper perspective--
12 should also have the benefit of your corrections as 13 you describe it to us?
14 A
I would expect they will ask me it.
T4 15 4
Okay.
Actually, the reason that I asked 16 that, I have been toying with the idea of somehow 17 finding some vehicle of informing them of your explanation, now, and I have not come up with any way 18 19 to do that.
m A
Could I go-off the record a minute?
3 0
Yes.
4 m
(WHEREUPON, discussion was had 3
off the record.)
(_,
24 GYo[fs, cRossnbey and d1sociates C h g., Dtli.ois e 1sz-soss
215 s
i 1
BY MR. ZAMARIN:
l 2
O Has anyone ever indicated to you that any Region 3 inspectors may have taken a threatening 3
position with regard to Consumers Power, for example, 4
5 indicating that if they did not comply with an inspector's decision, that you would be told that the 6
7 plant should not be licensed?
8 A
I don't recall anything.
9 Let me just add that I'm the person responsible for making the recommendation from Region 3 10 to my bosses in Washington with respect 11 to licensing 37 action. The only so-called threat that I can recall 13 is the one that I made at the SALP hearing -- SALP meeting in which I told Consumers Power representatives 14 that if their operation at Palisades didn't begin to 15 show some measureable improvement, that I would not 16 37 recommend issuance of the operating license at Midland if and when this project were built.
18 39 So if you want to call that a threat --
3 0
That is not what I was referring to.
But let me ask you a question about that.
21 Are you then saying that irrespective of 3
3 that, the fact that there would be differing
(
3 operational procedures at two plants, the fact that 0Yolfe, c8ownbey and ducciatz1 CK n o. Di k e vss-soss
216 1
Consumers Power Company is ultimately responsible for 2
the operation at Palisades, therefore the performance 3
would impact your decision as to whether to recommend 4
a license at Midland?
5 A
I'm saying that the performance at the 6
Palisades plant suggests.to me that Consumers may not 7
be eble to run the Midland plant with a high degree 8
of quality in the operation and that -- and I viewed 9
the problems at Palisades as not strictly site-oriented 10 0
Okay.
Can you tell me what you mean by 11 that?
12 A
I see that -- I believe that the problems 13 are not necessarily restricted just to personnel 14 performance, but relate to the -- to issues broader 15 in the sense of procedural controls, communications 16 controls, quality of people, and so forth.
17 O
And when yo:.i say " quality of people," are 18 you referring to quality of p'eople who are actually 19-involved in the hands-on operation or quality of l
m people who should be initiating procedural controls?
21 A
I think both, I
n G
One more.;jquesti_on before I pass out of this n
area.
24 And when you refer to " procedural controls,"
l l
0Yo[fe, cRosenbey and $1sociales
?^
C ( % a, Dil w is e 7tz. sos 7 t-
217 I
can you tell me what you mean by that?
2 A
Could I go off the record a minute?
3 4
Sure.
4 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 5
off the record.)
6 MR. ZAMARIN:
Strike that last question.
7 Just a second.
8 (WHEREUPON, there was a short 9
interruption.)
10 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
11 0
Do you have any knowledge with respect to 12 in what frame of mind the alleged material false 13 statement in the FSAR was made?
14 By that I mean whether it was willful or 15 deceitful, for example.
16 A
Well, if we felt it was willful or 17 deceitful, we would have suggested that the matter be 18 referred to the Department of Justice.
So we did not 19 feel there was an intention to deceive the NRC.
g g
I have here an October 4, 1979 memo for you 21 from George Gower, and it has been previously marked as Exhibit 13 at the deposition of Darl Hood on 22 October 8th, 1980.
23 24 I am going to hand this to you and ask you GYolfe, cRosenbesg and cT11ociales c% su.
,ss. sos,
\\
218 j
to take a look at it, and then I am going to ask you 2
a question.
So direct your attention to what the 3
sentence means -- actually, it is the last sentence in 4
the third paragraph.
5 (WHEREUPON, the document was 6
tendered to the witness.)
7 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
8 4
or at least to help you or me understand 9
what it means.
10 (WHEREUPON, there was a short 11 interruption.)
12 BY THE WITNESS:
13 A
Okay, Ron.
BY MR. ZAMARIN:
74 15 Okay.
I need to see it again to remember Y9 8
U 16 d
37 (WHEREUPON, the document was 18 andered to Mr. Zamarin.)
MR. ZAMARIN:
19 4
With regard to the statement in this letter gg that 73 says -- or this memorandum, it says:
" Based on the information presented, we do not believe that the four infractions to be g
included in Appendix C meet the civil penalty
>l GYolfe, Sosenbey and dssociales C hage Di k s e ssa-soss
\\
219 I
criteria, and, therefore, would not carry 2
monetary penalties."
3 And up above it talks about the three 4
appendices, Appendix A being related to the material s
false statement, Appendix B being a notice of imposed civil penalties-and I assume that would be civil 6
penalties resulting from the Appendix A material false 7
t 8
statement--and Appendix C would be another Notice of Violation specifying the four infractions found.
9 10 And, I guess, really, what I am interested in knowing is what the four infractions found refer to.
11 12 A
Those are the items of noncompliance, I
13 believe, which you asked me about earlier.
And I 14 think you called them nine, but they were numbered 15 1,
2, 3,
and 4.
16 Those are those infractions that you mentioned earlier when I discussed the nature of the 17 enforcement program and how we characterized the items 18 j
l 19 of noncompliance.
They are not the material false a
statements.
21 0
And I have here an October 29, 1979 memorandum for George Gower from you, subject, Midland-m a
recommended civil penalty, and this is marked as a
Exhibit No. 10.
p GYo[{e, c@osen$stg and dfsweiates c%, su e,u.ua
220 1
(WHEREUPON, said document was 2
marked CPCo Deposition Exhibit No. 10,
)
3 for identification, as of 4
1/16/81.)
5 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
6 0
And there is an attachment here with an 7
Appendix C, Notice of Violation.
Is that the 8
Appendix C that is referred to in that October 4, 1979 9
letter, Hood Deposition Exhibit No. 137 10 (WHEREUPON, the document was 11 tendered to the witness.)
12 BY THE WITNESS:
13 A
Yes.
14 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
15 0
Okay.
Could I see that a minute?
16 (WHEREUPON, the document was 17 tendered to Mr. Zamarin.)
4 18 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
19 0
What does XOOS stand for?
m A
Executive Officer for Operations Support, 21 I think.
a G
I notice that in this draft, Appendix C, it n
refers to the four items as infractions.
Now, is that i
3 based upon the determination that if left unresolved, l
0Yo[fe, Sosenbey and 81sociales j
am mu
. ru. sos,
\\
i
221
)
these are matters which might lead to potential safety 2
Problems?
A Yes.
3 4
(WHEREUPON, a certain document was 5
marked CPCo Deposition Exhibit 6
No. 11, for identification, as' of 1/16/81.)
BY MR. ZARARIN:
8 4
0 I have here what has been marked as 9
Exhibit No. 11 as of today's date.
It is a in November 19, 1979 memo for Harold Thornburg from j
1; Mr..
Shewmaker.
g MR. JONES:
Off the record.
13 I
MR. ZAMARIN:
Off the recrd.
g 15 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had ff the record.)
6 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
O I notice that you indicated on Page 2, which has Meeting Notice Distribution -- I would like you to 3,
take a look at that, and could you tell me, do you j
recall,-one, whether you cttended that meeting, and, g
two, what the occasion of the meeting was, in other words, the purpose.
M l
YO 2, hO ty hSAOCk$2A c% n.u
.,ss sos,
222 4
L 1
(WHEREUPON, the document was 2
tendered to the witness.)
3 (WHEREUPON, there was a short 4
interruption.)
5 BY THE WITNESS:
6 A
I believe this is the meeting notice that is put out by our staff for meetings, which was aimed 8
at the discussiens on the overall performance of the 1
9 Midland site.
The second meeting that we'd had and to this meeting, I believe, also, was the one which 11 eventually led or which led to the discussions that i
1 focused on the diesel generator building settlement 13 problem, as to the action to be taken.
14 The purpose of the meeting, again, was to 15 review the series of problems overall and to determine 16 whether Region 3's actions in this regard were t-acceptable or adequate.
BY MR. ZAMARIN:
18 19 When you say " Region 3's actions in this m
regard," do you mean recommendation --
21 A
Yes.
a G
-- for proposed action?
i A
r.s.
m 0
Now, I notice.that this is from l
3 i
y en. se...
,s..
?
s 223 1
Mr. Shewmaker.
Why was he initiating this memorandum, 2
or was he kind of running the show?
3 A
I believe he was coordinating the activities.
4 MR. ZAMARIN:
Off the record.
5 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 6
cff the record.)
7 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
8 G
I have here what has been marked 9
Exhibit No. 15, as of October 8, 1980, the Hood 10 deposition, and it is a sheet of paper with six items 11 listed on it.
12 And I would like to show this to you and ask 13 you if you recall ever having seen that before.
14 (WHEREUPON, the document was 15 tendered to the witness.)
16 (WHEREUPON, there was a short 17 interruption.)
BY MR. ZAMARIN:
gg 19 0
Our recollection is that Mr. Hood testified 20 that he and Mr. Rubenstein had prepared that document, 21 so I will put it in context.
3 Do you recall ever having seen this before?
A No.
I'm familiar with many of the items in 3
there, though.
24
-1 f
0Voft, hoYzy and 81sociales
[%e, $llunois e 762 8037
224 1
0 Good, because I an coing to ask you about a 2
couple of them.
3 In regard to the statement that in March of 4
1979 "IE recommended to URR that a show cause be 5
issued to stop construction," do you know who it was 6
within IE that made that recommendation?
7 A
I'd have to go back.to look at some of the 8
paperwork that was submitted to Washington, but I 9
believe the basis for that recommendation came fron 10 here, that we at least encouraged consideration of a 11 show cause as one possibility for dealing with this 12 problem.
13 0
Okay.
And why was that?
Does it relate to 14 what you described last time as your concern that if 15 construction, for example, continues to go on, that 16 there is some feeling that engineering judgment might 17 be affected by the fact that it is continued?
A That certainly was a consideration.
ig 19 Whether it was the total one or not, I don't know.
But I was bothered by the fact that there was no 3
21 position on the part of both the company and on the 3
part of the staff that whatever was going to be done 3
was going to be an acceptable solution to the
- problem, 24 t
Mo((a. cRowday ami cauoaatu c% m.
7s,.sa,
225 3
0 It indicates on here that it was agreed by J
2 NRR and IE that 50.54(f) as opposed to a show cause 3
to stop construction would be sufficient.
4 Do you know why it was agreed that that would be sufficient rather than stopping construction?
3 A
No.
I'm sure that decision was discussed 6
between the IE staff back there and the NRR.
7 8
Could I ask a question of Mr. Jones?
9 3
Sure, you can.
10 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 11 off the record.)
BY THE WITNESS:
12 A
Let me say that I believe, but I'm not 33 certain of this, that a consideration associated with 34 the 50.54 (f) approach was to stay out of a hearing.
15 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
6 0
okay.
The consideration of a show cause to 17 stop construction, was that to stop construction only a
with regard to soils foundation?
19 i
A Yes.
3
_.S Down in Item 6 it says, "IE now raises
~
21 question as to the acceptability of the design fix - "
was it your understanding that prior to the time of this memorandum, that IE did not raise any question at GVolfs, eRossnbey and dssociates i
Cime. 9%s e rh.scss
226 to the acceptability of the fix?
i A
No.
That has always been an issue, and I think it focused on a difference of perspective in
-3 terms of the relative importance of certain aspects 4
d as viewed by the staff.
5 Okay.
It refers here to -- there is a 6
reference at the top that 50.54 (f) was sent to 7
Consumers Power in March of 1979, and down in Item 6 a
it says, "In a meeting on November 28 - " do you know 9
if that November 28 refers to 19797 to A
Yes.
It's that same r.eeting notice that you gg referred to before.
12 4
Well, for the first time we have been able g3 to put this together with something.
So this 9
Exhibit No. 15 from the Hood deposition, to the best 15 o
y e
e n, goes together with what we P.ad 2
16 just marked as Exhibit No. 11 of this deposition, and 37 that is the forthcoming meeting, that I do see it refers to a November 28 meeting, and that is what the j
g, reference in Item 6 here is, that November 28 meeting.
3 A
Yes.
og 4
I guess what I wonder about is it says that "IE developed a new position," and that it "now raises the question - " and do you know how that dif fered from
(
5 g
am. 213. e
,sa.sa,
227 1
any old position and what it used to raise?
2 A
What it refers to -- and if you go back to 3
our previous conversations -- we had made the 4
recommendation for issuance of the civil penalty on 5
the material false statements case.
The technical I
6 adequacy of the soils foundation problem, that responsibility rested with NRR.
1 a
When we met with our management back there 9
to discuss the assessments of the Midland site and the to impact of the soils problem, my boss, Mr. Stello, 11 wanted to focus back on the adequacy of the technical aspec'ts of this problem rather than on the civil 12 13 penalty consideration, which, going back in time, was 14 the same concerns we had flagged earlier, and that was 15 going back to why we had recommended consideration of issuance of a show cause order.
16 Here it was in December, and the staff still j
17 had no better appreciation for whether or not the 18 19 actions being taken and proposed by Consumers Power Company were going to be acceptable.
3 21 0
In the statement under Item 6 on this exhibit, 15, from Darl Hood's deposition, "In a 3
meeting on November 28, IE developed a new position,"
3 and, under a, "overall QA performance acceptable j
ej k
0Volfe, Sounbey and ducciates G% e. Aas e 182.scss
220 I
because it identifies OA deficiencies," was that 2
a new position, or had that been the position 3
all along?
4 A
That had been my position throughout.
While 5
I had a number of specific concerns with the GA 6
program, the bottom line was as stated there.
7 a
And is that bottom line also shared by IE a
headquarters in Washington, to your knowledge?
l 9
A Yes.
10 G
Who is it that has the ultimate 11 responsibility for determining whether the staff would 12 have reasonable assurance that the OA program with 13 regard to remedial fixes for the soils foundation 14 problems would be done in a fashion so as not to be a 15 danger to the health and safety of the public?
16 A
I guess I'm not sure I really understand what 17 you are gettina at.
Perhaps if I offer some thoughts 18 on the subject, it might help.
19 The NRC is to take any such action in terms o-m of an issuance of an order or anything that involves an 21 escalated enforcement action to accomplish a protection
=
of the public health and safety.
That would be done a
by the director of I & E or the director of MRR or by-i 24 the Commission itself, if they so chose.
%[fa. cRowdsy ami c4uoc.iates -
i c %.. m. e :ss sos,
229 1
I'm not sure that's the question you asked 2
me, however.
3 0
okay.
I guess the bottom line of what I am 4
trying to get to is whether the staff has reasonable s
assurance that the affected safety-related portions of 6
the Midland facility that are to have remedial fixes 4
7 done to them will be constructed in such a way that it 8
would be without undue risk to the health and safety 9
of the public; and if they do not have that reasonable 10 assurance, who is the individual that makes that 11 decision?
12 A
The quality assurance aspects of it or the 13 technical aspects of it?
14 0
For the purposes of this question, we are g3 assuming that the technical aspects -- some decision is i
16 reached somehow on acceptable technical fix, and now g7 we get to the question of how that assurance will be implemented.
18 gg A
I think it rests with me.
0 I asked you a moment ago with regard to the 3
statement in Hood Exhibit 15 that "Overall QA gi 22 perf rmance acceptable because it identifies QA deficiencies," and I asked if that was also the bottom 3
line for IE headquarters.
You indicated it was.
3 F
Rt' offs, crowd'a.g ami c411oaatas am.. ne -.,.,es.scs,
. = -
230 g
Do you know if that is all the bottom line 2
for NRR QAB?
A.
I believe so.
They certainly were at the 3
1 4
meeting in which we discussed this, and I believe they 3
accepted our bottom line position.
6 0
And the meeting you refer to is that November 28, 1979 meeting?
A.
That's correct.
And that, again, was -- one g
9 of the purposes of that meeting was to discuss the i
10 problems, not only the soils problem, but all of the 13 problems collectively, to determine that the support --
that the Region 3 positions taken on this matter were 73 13 shared by the people in Washington.
0 Okay.
I have here a memo dated March 5, 1980 14 fr m y u to Harold Thornburg suggesting that a 15 mem randum be sent to the Commission encouraging that 16 the hearing relating to soils foundations be expedited.
7 Do you know whether such a memo was ever 3
sent to the Commission?
39 Do you want to see this?
(WHEREUPON, the document was tendered to the witness.)
(WHEREUPON, there was a short j
interruption.)
l d
'll'al{s. c@aun!s.g and ciuocial 1 C % e. GlL u i, e 1ss soss
231 1
BY THE WITNESS:
2 A
I don't know, but I don't believe so.
3 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
4 0
okay.
5, A
Do you --
6 0
You have never seen on'e, so I take it, then, 7
since you are not sure that any one was, you would not 8
be aware of any reason why one was not sent, if it was 9
not sent.
i 10 A
No.
MR. ZAMARIN:
This is a good place to break.
11 I
We will break for lunch.
It is twenty-five after 12 12:00.
How about 1:157 13 (WHEREUPON, the deposition was 14 recessed until 1:15 p.m.
this 15 date, January 16, 1981.)
16 j
17 l
18 i
19 20 21 22 23 1
24 0
W a -,
a -..
u..sa, j
232 1
UNITED STATES OF A!! ERICA t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
3 IN THE MATTER OF:
) Docket Nos. 50-329-OL
)
50-330-OL 4
CONSUMERS POWER
)
50-329-OM COMPANY
)
50-330-OM S
(Midland, Plant,
)
Units 1& 2)
)
6 January 16, 1981,
?
1:30 p.m.
8 The deposition of JAMES GEORGE KEPPLER, 9
resumed pursuant to recess, at Nuclear Regulatory 10 I
Commission Region No.
3, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen 11 Ellyn, Illinois.
12 13 PRESENT:
1 14 MESSRS. ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE, (One First National Plaza, 15 Chicago, Illinois 60603), by:
MR. RONALD G.
ZAMARIN and 16 MR. ALAN S.
- FARNELL, g7 appeared on behalf of the consumers l
Power Company; 18 MR. BRADLEY JONES, (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 19 Washington, D.C.
20555),
m appeared on behalf of the Nuclear 21 Regulatory Commission.
ALSO PRESENT:
3 a,
MR. GILBERT S.
- KEELEY, MR. BENJAMIN W.
MARGUGLIO, j
consumers Power Company; 0Vo[fs, ekossnbsy and 81weiats1 CRme. Ditas e riu sess
233 1
ALSO PRESENT (CONTINUED):
2 MR. EUGENE J.
GALLAGHER, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
3 4
REPORTED BY ANTOINETTE M. HAYNES, C.S.R.
.s 6
8 S
9 10 l
11 12 13 14 1
13 16 I
17 i
18 1
19 20 21
=
3 u
\\
24 (1Mfa. d?aw&ay,u.d =%etaw aw. na.
.,ss.us,
234 1
JAMES GEORGE KEPPLER, 2
called as a witness herein, having been previously duly 3
sworn and having testified, was examined and testified 4
further as follows:
5 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) 6 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
4 I have here a copy of that December 14, 1978 8
letter that you wrote to Myron Cherry in response to 9
his claims about the rGSident inspector at Midland, 10 and I note that on the -- *here really is not any need 11 for the background.
I am not going to ask much 12 substance to this.
13 I just note that on the second page of this 14 letter in someone's handwriting, " ELD concurrence by 15 telephone --- Olmstead," "RCI concurrence by 16 telephone --- Thornburg."
1; Is that your handwriting?
is A
That's Mr. Norelius's handwriting.
No.
I 19 Wait a minute.
I take that back.
It is my a
handwriting.
21 4
Am I correct in understanding that Mr. Olmstead and Mr. Thornburg both e
were consulted with regards to the substance of that a
24 letter?
A Yes.
0Vo[fs, ckassnbsy and Associats1 a, m...
7s,.m,
235 B
And they both concurred with the statomonts I
therein?
l 2
A Yes.
3 MR, ZAMARIN:
Off the record.
4 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 5
off the record.)
6 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was j
7 marked CPCo Deposition Exhibit No. 12, 8
for identification, as of 1/16/81.)
l 9
BY MR. ZAMARIN:
10 G
okay.
I have here a January 11, 1979 l
11 memorandum for W.
A.
Hansen from D.
W.
Hayes.
The 12 subject is " Review and Evaluation Material Submitted 13 per ALAB 106 Condition 4."
14 It states here that:
15 "As I understand, the nonconformance 16 reports and other naterials submitted by 17 Consuners Power Company in accordance with Condition 4 of ALAB order 106 have not been 18 19 formally reviewed and evaluated since a
August, 1976."
21 And it goes on to state that Mr. Hayes sees a
"little value, in terms of reauired effort, in trying a
to fully backfit these reviews."
Do you know what he means by "backfit these g
u reviews"?
0Yolfs, 80wsbs9 and dswehntas c w.. m, e,u.ua
y B,
" ~'
236 p
s e
s-1 A.
I'think he means try to go back and review 2
hhes one s theit _weren ' t done, but I have not read that 3
memo, so --
e 4
0 Okay.
5 (WHEREUPON, there was a short 6
interruption.)
7 BY MR.13AMXRIN:
s 8
0
'Okay.
In here it is also stated that 9
inspectors,.NRC inspectors, " routinely review and to eYaluate audit findings and NCR's at the site for 11,, proper corrective action including trend analysis 12 now, is that a trend analysis that is performed by 13 * the N C" inspectors to which he refers?
(WHEREUPON, the document was 14 x
15' tendered to the witness.)
l 16 BY THE WITNESS:
3 17 A.
Yes.
What he means by " trend analysis" is N
3.
.Ns for any adverse trends performed by the 18 an 19 li'censees_.
s N
3 BY MR."tAMARIN:
y 21 GJ
,So yoursunderstanding is --
.s
- i. -
.-That'$ the way I would read that memo, and q
3 thats,my 'untlers ta'nding' of what we do.
23 e
i h
O And that is also your understanding of what p%
r g
,. CG%e - QL%a w ;f.
e 162 sos 7
~.
...3.
. 3
237 1
you had done, say, between 1976 and 1979, the period 2
covered in that memo?
i 3
A You are,asking me if that's what this memo
~
.s says?
5 g
No.
If that is your understanding of what --
6 A
I didn't have any understanding of what we were doing in terms of how much.
I knew our program a
called for a periodic review of nonconformance reports 9
and licensees' actions with respect to these reports, 10 but you wi?.1 recall you asked me in connection with the 11 ALAB order as to how much we did on this and who was 12 responsible for it, and that would have been handled 13 by the branch, Mr. Fiorelli.
14 And, really, what I was asking here is with 15 regard to doing this trend analysis, your understanding is that this trend analysis was done by Region 3, 16 17 for example, from 1976 through 1979.
I mean, this is not something new, is it?
Trend analysis --
18 gg A
No.
3 4
Is it a correct statement--to say that there 21 is a difference between a construction permit-type 3
review and an operating license-type review from the 1
viewpoint of the NRC7 3
A Yes.
,j, l
GVol{e, cRounGey aml =41scaatu c% ma
.,sa.scs,
238 1
4 And the type of review that would be 2
associated with the proposed fixes for the soils 3
foundation problems at Midland would be a conctruction 4
permit-type review in your opinion?
5 A
I don't know how I'd characterize it in terms 6
of whether it would be a construction permit review 7
or an operating license review.
My feeling is that a 8
problem of this nature that carries with it some 9
design consideration is different from that which was 10 proposed in the construction permit and which was 11 reviewed by the staff as being a design consideration 12 that was accept'able.
13 My feeling is that that kind of difference 14 or problem area should be resolved as early as is possible.
I don't know whether I'm dancing around the 16 issue.
17 g
I am not sure how that really fits into how 18 that is more like a construction permit, again, or 19 more like a --
m A
I guess if I had to distinguish o~ne way or 21 the other, I think it should be handled as a i
e construction permit review, yes.
3 I think -- let me add that I think one of 24 the purposes behind a two-stage licensing proceeding Moffe, cRounBe,g azul =%oaates c% sem
,s2. sos,.
239 such as the'hRC has is so that if there are issues 1
2 that are developed with a completed plant, that plant 3
doesn't automatically go into operation with a
.4 potential safety problem or an unreviewed question 5
existing.
6 (WHEREUPON, there was a short 1
interruption.)
8 BY MR. "AMARIN:
t 9
4 On Page 2 of the December 6th order, in the 10 first complete paragraph on the page, is a statement 11 that -- and this was with regard to the purported 12 material false statement in the FSAR -- it says:
13 "This statement is material in that this 14 portion of the FSAR would have been found 15 unacceptable without further staff analysis 16 and questions if the staff had known that g7
' Category I structures had been placed in fact la n randon fill rather than controlled compacted 19 cohesive fill as stated in the FSAR."
(
3 Could you tell me the basis for the 21 statement, if you know, that the staff would have 3
asked further questions and it would have found 3
unacceptable without those further questions --
j A-Which part are you reading from here?
74
?
i i
l' 0Yolfe, Sosenbe~g and dssociates CR4 a. Bituis e 7ss soss.
240 1
O I think it is the last -- here we go.
It 2
starts right there, somewhere (indicating).
3 A
What is the question?
4 g
In general whether you are aware of what the 5
basis of the statement that the staff would have 6
asked further questions is.
7 A
I assume the basis came from NRR, because 8
they were the people that reviewed whether the 9
Statements in fact did involve a material false 10 statement.
So that finding was theirs.
11 O
Is it your understanding that that is from 12 a technical viewpoint as opposed to a OA viewpoint, 13 for example?
14 A
Yes.
15 0
In your opinion is there any difference, 16 from a QA viewpoint, between the ongoing construction 17 activities at the Midland site and the construction 18 activities that would be involved in implementing any 19 fix with regard to the soils foundation once a fix is m
technically accepted?
21 A
The only major difference that I can see is a
that there were clear problems with the~ quality a
assurance program as they related to the soils work i
a initially and that I would want to make sure that GVolfe., eRounbey and 811ociates c%..me
. 7a. sos 7
241 1
those deficiencies had been corrected so that 1
further 2
work in that area -- that I had assurance that i t' w uld receive proper management attention, quality 3
4 assurance attention.
5 0
When you say "further work in that area,"
6 are you referring to the soils placement area?
A Yes.
7 8
g There is one thing I forgot to do.
9 (WHEREUPON, a certain document 39 was marked CPCo Deposition 13 Exhibit No. 13, for identification, 12 as of January 16, 1981.)
^
13 G
I have here what I have marked as 14 i
j Exhibit 13 as of today's date, and I just want to show la.
you that.
And I believe that this is a copy of the biographical information that you provided to us, g
is that correct?
18 g,
(WHEREUPON, the document was tendered to the witness.)
BY THE WITNESS:
A Yes, it is.
(WHEREUPON, there was a short interruption.)
0Vo[fe, ho1Aty and 811ocialts CQo, $0nois e 762 Sc67
. n 242 1
LY MR. CAMARIN:
2 4
On Page 3 of the December 6th ordes, in the 3
third line from the bottom, it indicates that without 4
resolution of certain issues, "the staff does not have 5
reasonable assurance that the affected safety-related 6
portions of the Midland facility will be constructed 7
and operated without undue risk to the health and a
safety of the public."
9 Can you tell me what your understanding of 10 the phrase " reasonable assurance" is?
11 (WHEREUPON, the document was 12 tendered to the witness.)
13 BY THE WITNESS:
14 A
" Reasonable assurance" as used in this 4
15 particular sentence, I believe, is intended to convey t
16 the thought that the staff did not have sufficient 17 information to make a conclusion that the actions 18 proposed by Consumers Power Company with respect to 19 the soils foundation problem were. adequate to assure that further differential settlement problems may not 3
exist, and on that basis that such settlement could 2,
3 conceivably affect both safety-related systems and i
3 structures, that they lacked confidence that a safety problem.would not exist if the facility were 24 1
0 L,
O Ly k$$0COkt c%
m,. ria. sos,
243 1
constructed that way.
2 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
3 g
We have touched, really, on what I am 4
trying to learn, and that is,when you say " reasonable 5
assurance" I take it that connotes something less than 6
absolute certainty.
7 A
Yes.
a g
And what I am really trying to get to is
{
9 where between having a nere suspicion and having 10 absolute certainty that falls, and can you somehow 11 help me on that?
12 A
obviously there is a subjective 13 consideration involved.
But I think the thought behind 14 it is that people of a common technical background 15 applying due conservatism to an issue would conclude 16 that the risks are very small or unlikely to occur if 17 the action were to allowed to go to completion.
18 g
would that, then, in your-opinion be the 19 same as, I suppose, if an engineer were reviewing m
plans for the foundation of this building that we are 21 sitting in, he needs to be reasonably assured that
=
that foundation is going to be adequate, or does it u
indicate something more or something less than that?
24 A
I think the intent is basically'the same.
No t,.,koitt 43 1.tocO2iti Ciuuja. DLY.au o rsz ses,
244 1
But, obviously, the safety concerns for a nuclear 2
power plant dictate' considerably more conservatism 3
than, perhaps, the same concerns for this particular 4
building.
5 g
I hope all of the tenants in here are aware 6
of that.
7 A
The basic intent is the same.
But what may a
constitute reasonable assurance that really gets 9
into the inter.ded safety function that it has to 10 perform.
I think one looks at the combinations of 11 the consequences plus the risk.
12 4
Okay.
13 A
Or the probability and the risk.
14 0
It seems to me that what you are doing is 15 you are gcing away somewhat from reasonable assurance.
16 In other words, the reasonable assurance --
17 A
Well, I think it all ties together to some 18 degree.
19 0
Okay.
Let me see if I have got it.
m With regard to the reasonable assurance that 21 a designer, a reviewer with regard to plans for a
=
structure such as we are sitting in today would have, 1
m for example, are you saying that becaust of the safety considerations associated with a nuclear power plant, s,
24 i
(1Mfa, cRowday and c%oaata cwg sa-ris.sa,
245 that there would be more factors that would be g
2 considered with regard to which he would have to have 3
reasonable assurance, or that reasonable assurance has 4
to move closer to certainty, that there is more than 5
just expertised good engineering judgment that is 6
required when you are talking about a nuclear plant?
7 A
I am saying more the former, that to obtain reasonable assurance for this building might be much g
less complicated than to obtain it --
9 go O
But that is not to say that the reasonable assurance for that engineer is closer to certainty.
13 It is just that he has other factors.
12 (WHEREUPON, there was a short 13 interruption.)
14 I
MR. ZAMARIN:
I do not have anything further.
15 t
g ess y agreement of parties you 16 j
will Xerox the exhibits and forward them to us.
g.
ave no questions.
18 MR. ZAMARIN:
Signature reserved.
gg 4
m FURTHER DEPONENT SAITH NOT.
3 S
N 24 (Wo((a, e9aunfe.g aml Associatu am.. n.-
.,ss.scs,
246 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REOULATORY COMMISSION 2
3 IN THE MATTER OF:
) Docket Nos. 50-329-OL
)
50-330-OL 4
CONSUMERS POWER
)
50-329-OM COMPANY
)
50-330-OM 5
(Midland Plant,
)
Units 1 & 2)
)
6 7
8 I hereby certify that I have read the foregoing transcript of my d-2 position given at 9
the 10 time and place aforesaid, consisting of Pages 1 to 245, 11 inclusive, and I do again subscribe and make oath that the same is a true, correct and complete transcript of 12 my deposition so given as aforesaid, and includes 13 14 changes, if any, so made by me.
.[
15 i
16 JAMES GEORGE KEPPLER 17 18 gg SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this day 3
of gg
, A.D.1981.
22 Notary Public i
24 Mdfa. cRounGa a
g., ce, y aml =4ucawu s
,ss.w,
247 i
3 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS:
- 2 COUNTY OF C O O X )
l L
,,3 I, ANTOINETTE M. HAYNES, a Notary Public l
within and for the County of Cook, State of Illinois, g
and a Certified Shorthand Reporter of said state, i
5 i
do i
6 hereby certify:
1 That previous to the commencement of the 7
I.
examination of JAMES GEORGE KEPPLER, 8
he was first duly sworn to testify the whole truth concerning the 9
1 19 matters herein; That the foregoing deposition transcript was gg reported stenographically by me, was thereafter g
reduced to typewriting under my personal direction, 1
3 and i
constitutes a true record of the testimony given and g
i
{
the proceedings hadt That the said deposition was taken before g
the time and place specified; me at J
~
That the reading and signing of said 1
is 4
l j
deposition was not waived; 1
g
)
That I am not a relative of, or employee or attorney or~ counsel for, any of the parties, i
nor a relative or employee of any attorney or. counsel for ny of the parties hereto, nor interested directly or a
I indirectly in the outcome of this action.
24
'k
~
(Wo(4. esusy a,ul c4uo<wa cw, m.e m.soss
y 248 1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I do hereunto set my 2
hand and affix my seal of office at Chicago, Illinois, 3
this 27th day of January, A.D.
1981.
4 5
Notary Public, Cook County, inois My commission expires March 12, 1984.
?
8 C.S.R.
Certificate No. 84-2258.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 02 23 l
a 24 l
Y $ $
Y
$Y$
t
-