ML20151G694
| ML20151G694 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1981 |
| From: | Kane J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150F172 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-96 OL, OM, NUDOCS 8105150153 | |
| Download: ML20151G694 (94) | |
Text
1 g-df i s
e elU ,- 1
, C 1.!AY'l 11981m '-b i
\ M u. , g,Ny,,,,,, ;j 4o7 j s,v 4
\
uloom -
R 7535 1
't[ "hg UN!"'ED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULisTORY COMMISSION f A
3 ---------------- H
- j 4 In the matter of: h
- Docket Nos.: 50-329 OM f
& CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY : 50-330 OM , p
- 50-329 0. ,
6 (Midland Units 1 and 2) : 50-330 OL ,
7 ---------------- t R
8 CONTINUATION OF DEPOSITION OF JOSEPH D. KJ4.2 l
9 Thursday, March 26, 1981.
10 Deposition of Joseph D. Kane, calle for exa:r.inatic::
r 11 by agreement of counsel, in'the Law Library, United States h 12 Nuclear Regulatory Comnission, Of fice of Executive Legal l
13 Director, 7735 Old Goergatown Road, Bethesda, Maryland, at l l
l 14 1:25 p.m., before William R. Bloom, a Notary Public in and :
[
15 for the District of Columbia, when were present on behalf of 16 the respective parties: .,
17 On behalf of the Applicant, Consuners P.;wer Company: ,
t i 18 RONicD ZAMARI!;, Esq. AND ALAN S. FARNELL , Esq., {
Isham, Lincoln and Beale, t 18 One First National Pla::a, g {
l Chicago, Illinois. I 20 ;
i i
21 j p l
12 ?
( - -
/
l
?,
-' od @ m ,
I.,810515015% e-
. * ,et.
w - l0 i
. o 408 e.
ch 1 On behalf of the Regulatory Staf f:
l 2 W::.LIAM PAWN, Esq. .and ELLEN BROWN, Esq., !
Cf fice of Executive Legal Director, )
3 United States Nuclear Regulatory Comr.cssion, Washington, D. C. ,
4 !
s 6
7 8
9 10 11 i
13
. I 14 15 16 i 17 18 19 2o I
21 ,
p
. 22 s
. L E . L .i & .,. iT- l
p 409 ob 1 g.9,E I g E g g 2 Witness Examination 3 Joseph D. Kane 410 (Continued) 4 5 Consu:ners Exhibits For Identification s 21 411 7 22 , 424 s
e 10 11
[s 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l 19 20 21 !
l
,, 22
'se < / b /
- pervers. nc.
m 410
(.
cb1 1 P R O C E, E, D_ I_ p', G S_
2 Whereupon, 3 JOSEPH D. KANE 4 resumed the stand and, having been previously duly sworn, I was examined and testified further as follows:
4 MR. ZAMARIN: This is the continuation of the 7 deposition of Joseph Kane taken pursuant to notice and pursuant a to the order of the Licensing Board in denying the staff's e motion for a protective order and granting our motions to 10 compel.
11 You understand, Mr. Kane, thatethis is a continua-12 tien of your deposition and that you are still under oath, 13 do you not? .t 14 THE WITNESS: I do.
Il MR. ZAMARIN: I have some documents here that you 18 have provided to us.
17 EXAMINATION 18 BY MR. "AMARIN :
19 Q M you have additional copies of those with you, 20 l or your original ce;:Les t. hat can be marked as exhibits?
I l
21 A I have the original copies-- I dcn't have them 22 with me . I just have that one set of copies.
nsu r .L
^
411 s..
lob2 1
MR. ZAMARIN: ,Then we'll have to use these for 2 now even though they have my notations en them.
3 What we 'll do then is we'll substitute clean copies 4
for the exhibits.
5 I have here a 12-page photocopy of a document 8 that's been marked Consumers' Exhibit Number 21 for identi-7 fication as of today's date.
8 (Whereupon, the document 8
referred to was marked as
'O Consumers' Exhibit 21
" for identification. )
{
12 BY MR. ZAHARIN:
13 0 I would like you to take a look at that and tell l'
me what that is, just very generally.
18 (Document handed to the witness.)
16 A What has been handed to me is a copy of my per-
" sonal notes in reviewing a draf t of the Corps o f Engineers '
'8 report and Amendment 85.
19 I would like to make a statement before we start.
20 What I have given you is everything current, up to 21 today, and I th:.nh it should be recognized that many of the 22 documents are marked "Draf t and therefore-- I think you c.8.d / NM.,. 8 e. 3 l
l
!" 412 ob3 1 know the process within NRC through which it will be passed 2 up to higher management level, and so what you have there .tay ,
3 not necessarily be the final copy that gets to you when it - -
4 is mailed from NRC.
5 Q You anticipated my next question but I'll ask it 8 anyway in a diffarent form.
7 Your notes that are contained in Exhibit 21, is 8 that your final compilation of review of the Corps report and 8 Amendment 85, and do you personally intend to refine or change 10 anything that is contained in here?
" A They are my first thoughts in reviewing the Corps'
(.' ,
12 draft and Amendment 85. I would suspect that there would be k 13 some refinament in working out issues that I have identified
" 6 there with the Corps and perhaps with further knowledge of ]
15 what's contained in Amendment 85. .
O 18 0 You refer to the Corps and I don't think the .
i
" Co rps ' draft is over the signature of a P. McCallister, 18 ' chief of their Engineering Division. '
Do you know whether this was pretty much the work 20 of Hari Singh?
I 21 6
' A ! don't think it has the signature of P. McCallister '
{ yet. I think it's still a draf t.
.A J.s,/ A .JL 4
l i
i l
r v1 l l
l C 1 Q Well, if it doesn't have a signature it's at least )
. 1 2 over his name, P. McCallister, Chief Engineer.
3 A I do not think Mr. McCallister has seen that
~
d report yet.
s Q Oh, I see.
8 A It's a draf t that has come from Hari Singh.
7 Q So it is your understanding then that this is .
8 primarily the work of Hari Singh?
8 A Hari Singh, William Otto and Ron Erickson.
10 e As I understand, that same report has gone to 11 James Simpson for his review comments.
12 Q Eave you had any conversation with Jim Simpson 13 with regard to his review of the draf t Corps report?
1' A I have not had any conversation with Jim Simpson 15 on the report.
18 Q When did you first begin your review of Amendnent i 17 857 18 A Can I see the exhibit? j l l' O Surely.
l M (Handing document to the witness.)
21 A What I would consider review of Amendment 85, 22
(/
s.
- . beginning shortly af ter we had rer.ponded to your
$d.danl-&m S
414 cb5 1 interrogatories at the end of February.
2 Q And I take it that you pegg it to that incident 3
because prior t- that time you were involved with preparing 4
answers to the interrogatories?
8 A 'itat 's correct.
8 Q I notice something in the documents that you gave 7
us today that indicated that Bari Singh is being reassigned a
within the Corps, that someone is going to be ta. king his place, 8 A Could you indicate to me where that is?
10 0 I can't, but if I look I probably can.
11 f
I have before me a letter dated 12 February 1981 u .
12 on the letterhead of the Department of the Ar:ny. It doesn't 13 say whose Army, Detroit District Corps of Engineers.
18 And on page 2 of the letter, under " Problems
'I Encountered or Anticipated," it says:
""he Detroit District's lead reviewer, 17 Mr. Hari Singh, is leaving the Detroit -- is leaving is the District on February 28, 1981, for another Corps is l
of Engineers' position in the Washington, D. C. area.
- I Mr . Grunds trum, the Bailly lea:1 reviewer, will assume i
21 PJ . Singh's duties. *
( A That s ta tement , when it was written, was thought
{'
'4 cEl, !th.,. 8.
415 cb6 1 to be correct but because of -- my understanding - of diffi-
~
2 culties in selling his house, Bari has decided not to go to 3 Berryville anf to remain in the Detroit District.
4 Okay.
Q 5 So he will remain the lead reviewer then for the a Corps with respect to consulting on the Midland soils problam?
7 A That 's correct.
a Q As long as we're looking at this February 12th, 8
1981 letter from the Department of the Army, I also note 10 that in that same paragraph under " Problems Encountered oc 11 Anticipated" it states that for the Midland project an SER 12 is to be completed by the end of February 1981.
13 Do you know if in fact an SER or a Draf t SER has been completed?
18 A To my knowledge it has not been. I think I under-16 stand the inten t of the writer of that letter in that it is 17 recognized that the review for ths Midland project is also 18 being af fected by the testimony preparation and so the 1
'8 information that is going into the testimony, particularly 20 nc status of review issues, will also be part of the SER.
'1 And I think f rom that s tan dpcint the two are being conf used.
22
,{ It's not that the testimony will be a big part of 1 ' 5 1 - ! - & m S.a.
i m 416
~
b7 1 the SER.
2 O In f act is it your understanding that the testi-3 mony will in f act be tantamount to an SER with regard to the 4
soils issues and t.he remedial fixes?
5 A It will not be equal. It's just that how issues 8
have been resolved and what issues still remain would be 7
similar in both documents.
d a
O You gave us some docu:nents this morning, and do j 8
those documents constitute all of the documents that you have 10 with regard to the Midland soils issue and the hearing
.I except those that would be unmarked cocies of documents in v 12 the Public Document Room or u:u.arked copies of documents that 13 have been transmitted to or from Consumers Power Company or any of its consultants or contractors for instructions with 15 regard to preparation of testimony for the upcoming hearing, i 16 or doctments that r..ight have to do with outside consultants j U J regarding inspection of underpinning construction? 5
'8 A Yes, with the addition that they are the docu:sents '
1 19 9 that are within ny possession. j 20! O Okay.
li 21 '
Are you aware of any other docu.ments that we don' t J
' H have that would fall within the same category of documents J
n~ m o _2 har-C/deo. @ cs C/as. _
W
417 cb8 1 but that are not in your possession? '
2 A With regards to my work I as not aware of othar 3 documents.
O What about with regard to work of someone like s Lyman Heller , for example?
8 A I can't answer what documents Lyman Heller has j 7 that I don't bow about, a
Q okay.
9 So you don't know of any that he has that I don't
'O have that you might suspect I might like to see?
. A That is *Torrec t.
12 MR. IAMARIN: We had had some discussion about 13 these docusants of the outside consultants. Did you reach a 18 decision on that?
l' MR. PATON: We can talk about it at the next break.
U Bi* I'.R . ".AMARIN : -
?,
is Q When do you anticipate transmttal of the final _
'i 19 'l com:nents with regard to Amendment 85 to Consumers? g 20 A I would hope within the next week I will resolve 21 cc: men t s with th e Co rps . Then that f e rnal report will come ' -
22 in f rom the Corps. '" hen there will be a period where I have
_ M < 7 d -./ c 1 pore m . $ w.
- + .
o 41 8 cb9 1 indicated in my comments it is necessary to coordinate it 2
with other bran =hes like the Structural Engineering Branch 3
and the Mechanical Engineering Branch.
8 And following that coordination it would go to 8
Consumers Power. My estimate of that, and it is something 8
not in my control, would be by the end of J.pril.
7 Q Do you know who, if anyone, other than yourself I
and the Corps are or have -- are reviewing or have reviewed 8
all of any part of Revision 107
'O A I'm aware that the Hydrologic Engineering Section 7 is also reviewing it because I,'ve had discussions with the 12 reviewer . I do not know the status of the review of the
'3 other two branches. That would be the Mechanical Engineering Branch and the Structural Engineering Branch.
15 0 Okay.
16 Do you know who in the Mechanical Engineering
'7 Branch would be dcing the review?
II A I know the one who would be coordinating it, and 19 that would be Tony Cappucci.
20 i
i O How about in Structural?
21 I I A Frank Rinaldi.
' 22 i s O It's been such a long time since you told me the l
."Lic.51~! & s sa
e 41 cb10 1 structure of the branches I've forgotten. Is each GEB now 2 the Hydrologic Branch and Geotech Branch?
. 3 A It is a branch that encompasser two sections.
4 Those are the sections .
8 Q Okay. I've got you.
8 Is it the Hydrologic Engineering Section?
7 A Hydrologic Engineering Section.
t Q Is that Mr. Gonzales who is doing the review there?
8 A That's correct.
10 Q Have you had an'y conversation or discussion with 7
11 him with regard to his review or your' review of Amendment 857 v
12 A He have had some small discussions.
13 0 Can you tell me what the gist of those discussions
" was?
'8 A I think we touched on tamporary dewatering or 16 dewatering in general . I don't recall any other areas that
'I we discussed.
g
'8 O r y, O'.a o
" Do you recall what the substance of your discussion
- ' was about tenporarv dewate ring or dewatering in general?
I 21l A Whether he had had the opportuni*y to review it l r I a s o f this date tha t I was talking to him.
O y
V b
. Soe d eces. O dapinge., C/nc
i l
420 Chil 1 Q He hadn't had the opportunity, or he had?
2 A He had looked at it. But, in t".e more recent con-3 versation I understood that he still wanted to look .'urther at l 4 it.
5 Q Was there anything else? Did he give you any a impressions or any conclusions about that information that was 7 provided with regard to dewatering?
8 A The impression that I got was that he felt that 8 the responses were attempting to give us all the information 10 we had asked for, and that he felt that the information was l
il *
, very meaningful.
L 12 0 okay.
13 Were they attempting to provide all the information 1' you were asking for successfully in his opinion, do you know?
15 A I don't think he had ccmpleted his review to make 18 that j ud gment .
i l
'I O Do you know if .tr. Gon= ales will have his review
'8 co=pisted and finalized with this within the same time f rame l
that you would opine with regard to yours, and that is around 20 the end of Apr:.l? l 2' - A ' do not know.
'2 f.. ,
O With regard to the dewatering, do you know whether
% h, D,
l l
~- 421
\
I cl2 1 the staff has a position as to whether the installation of I 1
2 wells can proceed at this time? ,
1 3 A I have seen a letter from Mr. Cook today that l
4 asked that the staff look at that and take a position. As f ar 5 as I know, it has not been looked at in detail to arrive at 8 a decision on that aspect.
7 Q Do you have an opinion as to whether that would s be an acceptable manner of proceeding or not?
e A Whether the permanent dewatering eculd now proceed?
10 Is that the correct understanding of your question?
I 11 Yes.
- Q l C
12 A There are some comments in the Corps of Engineers' 13 report on devatoring. I would like to look at the scope of 14 those before I would answer that.
15 0 The scope-- You mean refresh your recollection as 4 to what they said?
A Yes.
l 6
0 I believe in Mr. Cook's letter to which you refer,
'i j and that's James Cook, Vice President of Consumers Power ;
l 20mpany, he refers on page 3 thereof to the desire of Consumers j
,3 ;
- Power Company to install backup wells along the service water a- ,2 and circulating water buildings j n order to f acilitate w
i ce<.) d m huma.
- e
. 422 s .,
1 cb13 drawdown and recharge rat,e tests and to verify the design of 2
the remainder of the permanent system and to provide, in 3
addition , some dewatering settlement data and f acilitate 4
preparation for installing the wall under the overhang of the g s
service water structure. L a
So did you understand my question to be limited to e
I '
just those backup walls and not the entire permanent de- @
t a
watering system?
. A From a previous conversation I've had with Darl -
10 Hood following a phone call to the NRC, it was my understandini 11
/ it was not to be limited to those areas you have just read .
+
12 but it was the entire system.
13 0 okay.
e 14 Do you have an opinion as to whether installation 15
- of backup wells along the service water and circulating water to building so as to f acilitate those items that I just des-17 cribed would be acceptable?
Is 1.280 A I think I would have to look at the location of 19
, the backup wells and what monitoring would be taken when the 20 dewatering was going to be conducted, and then be able to 21 I answer your question.
22 Actually I have not spent a great deal of time in
$*a,<) dh ; w . cl,.e.
4 4
78 4.33 1
abl4 1 the review of the dewater#g in Amendment 85 for two reasons.
2 One, the bulk of the - I think the review is by 3 the Hydrologic Enginea.-ing Branet, or Section, rather, and 4 the aspects that would fall into our araa would be reviewed 5 by the Corps of Engineers and, it's my understanding, have a 8 been reviewed by them.
7 So if there are problems they have identified them j 8 in the letter you have. ?
8 Okay.
0 to If there is a problem with one of these tidal
.'g wells, for example the backup well, would there be any prob-12 lem or would there be any deleterious ef fect to the site er 13 the eventual operation of the plint if fhe well were to be 18 abandoned and grouted?
15 Assuming that the well would shut down and you A
16 grouted, I see no har=ful effect. I f I -
i
'7 You indicated earlier that before you opined as 0
- i. .
I 18 to whether you thought that would be a problem or should be i 6.t 19 3 '
a probier. with installation of backup welic that you would 4
20 i f;
.wan: to see the s: ope Of the Corps ' cc:sents with regard to I I T 21 1 J l' '
- the devaterinc.
i :
8 .
22
( If 1 were to show you Exhibit : umber 22 as of 5j _
~
o e -
n h=ctwa. r
%m , ),.e. e
424 1
obl5 today's date, which is th,e draf t Corps' report, and allowed 2 l you to take a look at that, would you then be able to respond 3
to that question, or is it unf air to ask you to do that in d
such a brief period of time?
5 (IThereupon, the document a
referred to was marked as 7
Consumers Exhibit 24 e
for identification.)
8 TEI WITNESS: I think I will look at it if you 10 w:, sh but . would indicate that if they have not identified
" any problems in there, I would not be going into further 12 review. So I would try and resolva the concern that they have 13 raised and see how that impacts on your request to do permanent dewatering.
15 BY MR. ZAMARIN :
16 0 By the way, what I have marked as Consumers 17 Ixhibit 22 as of today's date is in f act a copy of the Draf t 18 Corps Report, :.s it not? And when I say " Report" I mean 19 that's the report cf their review of A .endment 85.
20 (Handing document to the witness . )
l 21 A That 's correct.
< 22
(., MR. ZA.VARIN : Of f the record.
~!r o!'$& $ne.
L _ - - - - - - - - - -
1 l
425 1
obl6 (Discussion of,f the record. )
2 gg, ;.AMARIN : Back on the record.
l .
3 BY MR. LAMARIN: .
4 Q "here was some discussion earlier about the f act 5
that there were certain things that Consumers Power Comoany 8
was doing with regard to the soils issues or remedial fixes 7
that either you or the staff approved of.
s can you tell me what those things are? j e
A What interrogatory number is this?
10 0 I don't know, but whatever the question number is, I don' t know what this refers to.
("J -
12 A It sounds like one of the interrogatories where 3
'3 you asked us to judge the adequacy.
14 O Did you have an answer?
15 A You're correct, I have not answered you.
16 As you know, Amendment 85 contains a great deal _i l 17 of technical and engineering information. -!
In my opinion much 1 O
of it is responsive to what we thought was your design cri-19 teria that we felt is necessary. .
20 can't begin to tell you which of that criteria 1 21 .
- .n each :.ter :, s acceptable. Unfertunately the way reviews
- 22 4
gh' are set up, we don't respond to those parts that are "
.LJ.L.!@,., d7. *
]
1 i.
426 Ob17 1 accepmmle: we respond to those parts that give es proble:ns.
2 And so what you have in the draf t are the parts 3 where there are still questions.
4 If you want an idea of all the parts that we have 5 found a=:eptable, they're the parts missing in that draft 8 report.
7 Q It wasn't quite as detailed as I had hoped but I 8 guess I've got to take that as your answer.
9 Did you discuss with anyone your approach or the 10 approach to be taken in review of vanendment 857 11 A My understanding of your question is did I speah 12 to anyone about my approach to review of Amendment 85. No, 13 not directly. I'm guiding by Standard Review Plans and I'
Regulatory Guides.
15 0 When you say "not directly" is that simply because ,
16 of your reference to the Standard Review Plans and the Reg. [
17 Guides, Or did you have Some hind o f an indirect discussion i; 'i te or some :.nd:.re ct input from someone as to the approach that i
'8 you would take in re'tiewing Amendment 85?
- A Well, I've had conversat:,ons with other people on 21 Mendment 85 and so ndirectly we're discussin g the format l 22
,] ;f 23 , 7 ,,.*i e w , so in that sense I've had discussions.
a i ce ecero! " 'eq. rec.
c.
1 C318 g 3;ggy ,
2 Can you tell me, as best you can recall, what those 3 l dis cuss: cns were, when they were, and with whor.7 l
8 A I've had discussions with my superv:.scr, I.rzan 8
Heller . W the best of a:y reocliection that's the only person.
8 0 Can you recall what the substances of the conver-7 sations er discussions with Lyman Heller was?
8 A We were discussing what information had been sub-mi tted , the everall extant of the information provided, and 10 recog.izing some of the points that were identified in the c Corps' draft report.
l7 ,
12 4 0 Can you be any more specific? You've indicated 13 you discussed whatever information had been submitted, the 14 overall extent of tl.a infonr.ation that had been p.ovided and 15 recognized sone of the points that had been made :n the corps 18 repo rt. Can you be any more specific?
17 A : w:.11 try to be specific.
18f : r. ink we had discussi:ns or the horated water
's ta.9. , the se r r:ce wa ter s tructure , and the auxiliary bui' ding. .
- C 0 >: you recal' wha your discuss:.on w :t regard to "
j 21 the berated water storage tank wa s ?
22 A
q My discussions were waa: I had observed in =y site Ns.[M'-M 8.w. <,
-J,
~, 428 eh19 1 l v sit tc look at the borated water tank ring foundation.
. Ycu '
2 have in the dor =ments provided to you today an inspecticn 2 report that su:rari:es those observations which were the 4 sub]ect of =y d: srussion with *,ynan Heller. l s I've had discussions with regards to the service a water structure in the recognition that Consuners has changed 7 their design front piles to the wall system.
a Ire had discussions with regard to the scope of e information that has been submitted in design of the caissons.
la Q What about the scope of the infornation that was
- submitted with regard to the design of the caissons was 12 discussed?
U A It was for Lyman to better understand what infor-
" metion had bsen provided in Amendment 85 and what information 15 was felt was still necessarf. .
" Q What infernation is f elt still necessary? s
" A hat ts refle:ted in ey notes in the Ceros draf t -:..
-m 18 :
r e DC rt .
l $ ~
" l Q okay.
I*
So you didt.' t discuss anything wie. 4 nan lieller I '
21 l , then other d.an that whi:h would be f ound in either your '
n:tes or in the Corps reoort. Is that right?
s )
n - n
.w.-ci.4.!3w m d C
."- 429 ab20 1 A To n:y recollection, no.
2 Q My question was is that right, so your answer 3 would be yes, that is not right , no, there was nothing else 4
discussed. Is that correct?
8 A "ha t is correct.
s Q Was your review cf Araendoent 85, either the canner 7 in which you did it or the results which you reached or the e method or manner of meraorializing those results affected in 8
any way by the f act that we have the hearing coming up?
" A Yes. And the reason for that is part of what I
" f eel I'n being asked to do is to be prepared at the hearing 12 to identify those areas which are resolved and those which
" are not. ..
" Q Okay.
" Other than viewing it in that light, was there any
" other dif ference of approach or dif f erence of analysis or 17 dif ference in the way you conducted your review and memcrialize d
" your review due tc the f act that the hearing is coming up?
" A NO.
2C Q Have you had any co=u..ications with the Corps I
21 with respect to your co ments on their draft? ',
- 22 A Yes. I've had telephone discussiens v th Hari q.
m ~. , e I Mee-MM ** porters hne.
- 430 cb21 1 Singh.
2 Q Fine.
3 When was the last such conversation that you 4 recall?
5 A Today.
8 Q This morning?
7 A Yes.
8 0 What did you say and what did Hari Singh say, as 8 best you can recall?
10 A Today?
11 Y e's .
,,, Q 12 A I had a question with regard to his cc:enents, I 13 think it was on Ouestier. 42, the underpinning of the auxi-18 liary build 2ng. Specifically it had to do with the bearing 15 capacity of the ca..ssons.
18 D2 you recall exactly what you asked him, or sub-Q 17 stantially what you asked hie.?
18 A In one of the attachments to Qu'estion 42, ti.e
'8 equation is given for estimating the bearing capacity of the i
20 I caisson and the source given is Terzaghi and Peck. In the a
- t text that I had I could not ft.nd that extression, and ry
., 22 question was te hi.i had he found at in his review.
em M* #F5 M
m 431 ch22 1 And he had iniicated he had not found it in the 2 text, he had 'ound it in another book by Bowles.
3 And we also d.scussed the f a:ter for reducing the 4 skin friction in hat equation .
5 Q Okay.
8 Tell me what your discussion was with regard to 7 the factor for reducing skin friction in that equation.
8 A Actually the conversation we had was with regard 8 to his co=ments in that draft and what he's pointing out, 10 that he feels that factor for the full undrained strength 11 should not be used but the factor should be applied to it Cv 12 based on the stiffness of the soil that is estimated to be 13 there. .>
l' Q Do you agree with him?
15 A Yes.
i 16 And what do you base that conclusion upon?
Q U A What do I base my agreement on?
18 Yes.
0 18 A My r.derstanding of that expression f re:: reading 20 other technical li te rature . .
21 Q Can you be more specific about the other technical
'2 literature and what it was that you read in that technical t i h5db& Sw.
(
+ 432 eb23 ' itterature that causes you := agree with Eari Singh?
2; A 2.re.s a f= mda.1== eng:neering h - hy 3 I ' = =c t sure of the page nurber bu*
i Wintercern an d Fang.
I
' ' there is a d:,scussion en ef fect on *.he f actor to be used to 5 reduce andrained strength.
8 C Okay.
?
And that f actor was not used in the computation
' in the response to Ouestion 4 2. Is that right?
A Sat's correct.
'O Q And what e f fect would that have on the information
, , that's presented in the response to Question 42?
v 12 A If the factor were applied it would reduce the
'3 I ultimate bearing capacity of the caissona.
14 Q Do you have any idea to what extent it would re-15 duce the ulti= ate bearing capacity as presented in the res-16 pense te Question 42?
17 '
A Net 2n;ess did the conputatton.
- n your 1
1s ! 4 C pinion is it a suhstantial reduction?
19 A Yes.
20 0 A sign:f:, cant reduction?
21 A : have t understand "si:nifi: ant" neaning tf it
((v were applied would :.t new n.ske the des:.gn unacceptab'e.
HC.
[
.. 433 I
I th24 1 Q Yes.
2 A I would have to =ake the computation to look at 3 the resciting f actor of safety.
4 O You don't have an impression as you sit hare now?
5 A I have not made that caleclation.
a Q I know you haven't made it but do you have an 7 i=pression as you sit here now? .
8 A I'm trying to ramamher what the factor of safety U 8 was and how close--
ic Do you want to take a look? This is the response.
Q
- 11 (Handing document to the witness.)
t v
12 A It would appear, if that there the only correction i
13 to be =ade, it still would be acceptable. But I think the I L i 14 draf t also points out, or at least my ecmments have pointed l ,
15 out that there's some question in my mind with the loads that 18 are being used in the caissens-- They are being indicated 2
17
- working ; cad" and I'm g0ing to ask for the definition o' ' !
i1
'8
" working ; cad" in your werk.
f 19 Q This f actor that you're talking about, howeve r, 20
- wou;d that affect the bearing capacity of caissons under I
21 werking conditions or only af fect them during construction?
2' '
/ A Both.
Q.9
. se I po,+em ne.
?
~
434 g:
I b25 Q Now you indicated that you're not sure what loads q
,1 2
are included in " working loads." Is that correct? ;l 3
A Your teminology that you give in response to 42 calls it a working load, and I'm trying to understand what 8
you nuan by " working load." Is it dead load? Is it live 8
load, plus some environmental load?
7 0 Cr just dead load and live load?
A Ye s .
Q If it were just dead load and live load, how would 10 that affect your impression or your analysis or review of the response to Que,stion 427 e 12 A With regards to the end of construction- I think 13 I have to . understand what " working load *,is. If you're asking 14 me if I assumed it is just dead load and live load, then it ..
} .
15 would have no ef fect on the end of construction but it would 9 16 have one in the long term because on the long ter=, I would :
17 expect to see the maximal load that the s tructure will be L!
r M
7 18
. inposed upon and that should include your earthquake load. '
is i !
Q When you refe- to environmental load are you re-20 f erring to just the earthquake load? 3 21 1 A No, I ar. not.
22 Q Just any instantaneous environnental load? 1 k
% s.L.!c % .,. L
r 435 1
Ob26 A I think it's defined in -- I don't know -- Section 2 3.8, what constitutes the environmental loads which would 3 include wind, tornado.
l 4 I don' t know if you have finished.
Q 5 A I have finished.
- e Did you talk to Hari about anything else this Q
7 morning? .
8 A Yes.
8 Q What?
10 A He had indicated to me that there was some dis-11 cussion at the site with regard to Shelby tubes.
s-12 Q Shelby tubes?
13 A That's correct. ,
l' Q First, what's a Shelby tube?
15 A It is the undisturbed sampler that is being used is in the borings now being started at Midland.
'I Q And what did he tell you the discussion was?
18 A That the NRC inspector -- I think his name is Ross Landsman -- had identified a problem with the tubes in that i they were rusty and in his opinion, not acceptable for un-21 disturbed sampling. And I think there was a discussion with 22
( Ron Erickson who was also at the site, and both of them W
I 6-~
436 I i
ob27 1 called the Detroit Distric' l 2 What was the purpose of their call to the Detroit Q
3 District?
4 A To indicate to them
- hat there was a concern with a the tubes that were going to be : sed.
4 Q And these are the tubes that are going to be used 7 for the boring in the dike? I 8 A I'm assusting they are because it is my under-
- e standing that is where they're starting.
1 to Q Do you know whether this rusty Shelby tube matter )
11 has been resolved?
12 A I do not know if it has been resolved.
13 Q Do you know why Ross Landsman. would call Detroit?
l' A Ross Landsman, to my knowledge, did not call 18
- Detroit. He notified Ron Erickson.
l 16 g y ,,,,
'I And Ron Erickson called Detroit? i A That 's my understanding.
l Q And do you know wnat the purpose of his calling 20 Detroit was other than just to let people know what was going 21 '
on? '
22 A I think that was the purpose, k
l , ., huer.
437 C..-
cb28 1 Q It was not to get advice as to whether a rusty 2 pipe would be okay?
3 A I think it it were a rusty pipe and not a rusty 4 Shelby tube it would have been said not okay. He would not
. 5 have to call Detrcit if it were a rusty pipe.
6 Q Even he would be able to tell--
7 A That's correct. ,
s Q -- that that wasn' t good.
3 A Yes.
10 Q ,Do you know whether he had called to find out 11 whether a rusty Shelby tube was all right?
(
12 A I think-- I'm now giving you my opinion of what 13 Ron Erickson is thinking and what Hari Singh is thinking,--
18 Q I understand.
15 A -- that based on Ron Erickson's experience with 18 the Corps, a rusty Shelby tube would not be acceptable.
17 0 What did Hari Singh tell you about tha t? Did he is make any co: ment about tha t?
A The only thing he did was report to me that that f 20 had developed.
D) 21 /
C Other than that and what you have testified to l'
. d[
today, was there any other discussion you had with him er k sa- 1
}
LG.L tM L
} .
g, ass
~.
Ob29 1 did you talk to him about anything else this morning?
2 A Nothing that was meaningful.
3 I ' ll explai.n.
4 All right.
Q 5 A He said be was surprised that I was there, that he a thought I would be in deposition. That's what I'm attempting 7 not to have to go into.
8 Q And that was it? Nothing else was discussed?
8 A Not that I can recall .
12 .
O Q Did you have any other discussion with Hari or 11 anyone else at the Corps about either your review or their
(~ 12 draf t report? '
13 A As far as I know, any discuss. ions I've had with 14 regard to my review of Amendment 85 have been either with 15 Rari or Lyman Heller.
18 Have you had any other discussions with Hari about Q
" your review other than the one you described this morning?
l 18 g .e sorry, would you repeat that?
l (Whereupon, the Reporter read from the record i
20 lj as requested.)
21 '
."HI IC7 NESS : Yes.
(.:.
h a U 1
, 439 cb30 t Q All right.
2 When was that, or them, or they, or those?
3 A Could I see your exhibit again, please?
4 C Ch, c:y exhibit? Which one? Exhibit 21 are your E CoMnts.
8 A Yes. Sat's correct.
7 (Document handed to the witness.)
8 Based on looking at that document and the dates a that I had, I have probably spoken at least ten times to 10 Hari, beginning March 5th, 1981. .
11
, Q okay.
(
12 Can you tell me as best you can recall what all 13 of your discussions - and you don't need to differentiate
'd them unless you wish - with Hari about Amendment 85 have 15 consisted of?
16 A I would say all my discussions with Hari Singh
'I on Amendnent 85 are recorded in that document.
18 And that document you' re referring to is Exhibit
^
Q
'8 '
21, your handwritten paper?
{
20 !
- y,, .s eorrect. I 21 Q Cid you prepare the portion of Exhibit 21 about fs which you spcke to Hari prior to the conversation or does v
mC MC W [as.
- n. 440 i
eb31 1 this indicate something that came about af ter your conver-2 ation with Hari on a particular item?
3 A The way I have been doing my review of Amendment l 4 85 is I would review generally one specific question, try l 5 and understand what Consumers has given, try and understand a what the Corps has identified as their problem, and I have 7 listed for my convenience those items I thought were important 8 and then I would discuss those with the Corps, generally after
- .030 9 one or two questions.
10 0 Okay.
11 Did you then make any notes of your discussions
( ,
12 of the one or two questions with the Corps?
13 A The notes that I made were eit.her made before I 14 called or based on discussions, I would add to those notes 15 tha t I ha d.
l 16 Q Okay. )
i i '
17 So what I have here in Exhibit 21 represents Joe
~
18 Kane's initial cut review plus any additions or modifications 18 or deletions as a result of telephonic conversations with 2c the Corps . Is that right?
21
- A That is correct.
22
,, O I have here what appears to be a telecopied i '..-
@@ *Sd 884. 888.
n- 441 cb32 ' telephone or verbal conversation record of a telephone call 2
that apparently you made to Hari Singh. Could you tell me, 3
is that in f act what that is?
(Handing document to the witness. )
5 A Yesterday I made a call to Mari Singh to indicate 8
to the Corps some of the aspects that we would want the Corps 7
to cover in their af forts at the site during the boring 8
program, and I asked Hari to record this in a telephone con-8 versation so that we would both have a record of what NRC
'8 is asking the Corps to do in their work at the site with
' regard to the borings.
7 v
12 Q Did you ask him to telecopy his notes of the tele-
'3 phone conversation back to you? . c.
A No. I asked him to send me a record but I did not l ask him to telecopy it.
O But it came back by telecopy?
17 !
A It came back this morning by telecopy. 1 18 I would assume that will be typed and formally 19 '
sent back to us, but in trying to live within the lives of i to the deposition : brought everything in my possessica.
I 21 O appreciate that. I was just wonderir g why he 22 considered it urgent enough to telecopy if ins'.ead of spending
$m5.a%!$; : . $m j
442 cb33 1 18 cents and mailing it.
2 A Perhaps he was somewhat puzzled by ry asking his 3
to send a record, but it was felt that this was the best way 4
to have an understanding of what we were asking.
5 Q Having taken hin deposition and understood every 8 third word he said, I can't disagree with that.
7 A I would like to say something about that.
8 Hari may have a problem with writing English e
correctly and speaking correctly, but that is no reflection 10 on Hari's ability. I think Hari is a very competent engineer.
i M Well, that's fine.
Q I don' t find any problem with v
12 understanding his writing. It's just his speaking that I have 13 great difficulty in understanding. ,
14 Why would the NRC expect that the Corps of 15 Engineers personnel at the Midland site would obtain a oopy 16 of the contract between Consumers Power and Woodward and .
" Clyde?
.q j
'I A be:ause I have already asked Gil Keeley in a tele- i 4
phone conversation to provide us with a copy of that , and M
, my understanding was the a Consumers' rep re senta tive ,
2:
Mr. Ramujam -- I'm having trouble like Hari does--
Q Ramanu 3 am.
r**
- f4 Ac)L.!c% &
% 443 l t.
eb34 1 A -- would have a copy available at the site.
2 Cur concern is we have an u.nderstanding, based on 3 a telephone conversation, of what work is being done. We're l 4
being told that the contract has not been finalized, or at s least it has not been finally typed. ':hore were some ques-a tions in our telephone conversacion about how you were going 7
to select specific samples for detailed testing. I a
rem hopeful that's covered in your contract or if 8
it is not covered, then we can work out resolution of that by
'O further meetings. But also you have changed our request for the borings to do something different which, in our estima-12 tion, is going to be a lot more costly because it is con-13 tinuous, undisturbed sampling and it also eliminates SPT borings which we had requested which, in some respects, gives
'8 you a good measure of g situ behavior which-- We may not 18 have that same infomation with continuous undisturbed
" sampling. I
- 'hink there 's a do:u:nent tha: I have also pro-19lvidedyoutoday, since I 've provided everything , that dis-20lcussedthat concern with Hari Singh and William Otto about SP7s versus continuous undisturbed sampling.
22 '
, Q So f ar wnat I have f rom your answer, why you want u
[ is. stL l
. 444 s .
cb35 1 a copy of the contract is simply to see if the method of 2 selection of areas for undisturbed samplings is consistent 3 or coincident with what you think ought to be done.
' Is there any other reason why you want the con-5 tract?
8 A There would be other reasons, yes.
7 What are they?
Q 8
A To attempt to better understar 1 vhy your explora-tion progr.un and testing program is going to give us the
'O information that was requested in the June 30th letter.
( C2 " Q Are you saying as you sit here now you don't know i
12 what is the nature of the intended boring program that u Consumers is going to give? .
I' A No, I do not say that as I sit here now. What I
'8 do know is based on two or three conversations with Consumers about what was going to be done.
"* We had discussions on what was going to be done it , and I think I have a good understanding, but I also know I
19 that we had made certain recommendations. One that I can
. 5 think of is to not stop on top of the till but to go a einimu of five feet into the till with SPTs.
22
(. And I would hope to find out in the contract somehow l
M J.L./ 4 .,.dL
^
. 445 i
ab36 1 being reflected that these are being incorporated into your 2 work, and in addition have from you a written record of what 3 was verbally discussed on the phone.
4 I see.
Q 5 So really what you're looking for is simply a a confirmation of what was discussed in that -- what was it? --
7 February 17th, o r something like that, telephone conversation?
8 A No. The conversation has been a lot more recent 8 than February 17th. There's my record of that conversation M in my papers.
11 All right.
g Q ,
( ,
12 The March 24th telephone conversation?
13 A That's correct. . .. ,
l' O Okay.
15 And what you want to see the contract for then is 16 to see that the matters that were stated in the conversation 17 with regard to what was going' to be done are in f act in the is contract so that you can see that they are going to be done?
" A Yes.
20 I'm sornewhat puzzled in that-- Maybe I don't look 21 l at it from your viewpoint, but what we 're attempting to do 22
(, , s -- and Consumers has of fered to do this - is to work
'/
N Or Y* $004ers. '* rac
e 446 ob37 1 closely with you so that when we get done with this work, NRO 2 is not going to have objections because they were uninformed.
3 And so our efforts are to know why you're doing it, and it also puts us in a position as being com=itted to what you're 5 doing at a better time.
8 So I'm somewhat puzzled why you feel it's not 7
. necessary, that .I would not want to see the contract.
t g g,m esking you why you want to see it.
8 A I'm scrry. I sensed you felt- I'm puzzled why to you would not think or you would not understand why I would
" not want to see it.
12 0 You mean why you would want to see it.
13 Okay. A bit earlier you made reference to I think I'
it was the March 30th lettar--
15 A It better not be.
16 Q June 30th, the June 30th request.
17 (Continuing) -- a s being one o f the tied-in or 18 related to one of the reasons for wanting to see the con-19 tract. And Just s: I understand, it the program or procedures l
20 l
that have been agreed upon, those that were described in this 21 '
March 24 th,1981 telephone call?
(
A Trom O' understanding of the call, Consumers is N M M
.T 447 f
ob38 zaking a 'arge atteset to give everr" g and perhaps even 2
, nere than what was requested i: that letter, excluding what 3I: had :ndicated to yo before v: th regard to the SPT bcrings. i l
- A
- sd I take it then that the staff has concluded
- that that's a sufficient attaumpt?
- A ! have a doc.:sent that I have given you which I
identifies two areas of concern that we have discussed with
- the Co.ps. h e two items are the size of the undisturbed 1'.
8 sampler and the omission of all SPT testing.
to O Do you know why Consumers Power Cc=pany decided e 11 to eliminate the SPTs? ,
12 A I do not know.
13 Q Do you have any idea? o 14 A well, I understand from Mru that the program is
-kat you have was worked out between Dr. Peck and Woodward-ts Oly de and : : is Dr. Peck's opi .ics that the undisturbed t7 i
-he cent: naeus .:nd.sturbed sameples woulf give us Isa:p'es, . -
is Inf:rma:::n where enere sac Id net be any do.:ts. l t
ts i j : attempted :: pcin: Out to hiru in the : n-20 l versa:;o.
- had v.:P ::= tha: :: was not the progra= we had 25 4 .
l asked f::, that we won'.d nave preferred :: nave seen SFTs,
- 22 ;
g bu* :.: is recognized that a progra -tat does =ontinuous
.$ 8E ' Oe 8,
r 3 448 s
ab39 1 undisturbed samples has the potential to give us the essen-2 tial information that we had asked for.
3 0 What is it about-- Did you say the sa=ple size 4
was another concern?
5 A The diameter of the undisturbed sampler being 8 used by Consumers to my knowledge is three inch diameter.
7 The Corps, in their experience and testing, have found to 8
have more reliable results in consolidation testing with a 8
larger diameter specimen. And there is a soils laboratory o 10 manual that discusses that which I have asked Ron Erickson r 11 to take to the site and provide to Woodward-Clyde to bring
(
12 it to their attention.
13 Q This isn' t the first time Woodward and Clyde has 14 done this kind of testing, is it?
18 A No.
18 Q Do you know if they are considered to be a top-
" notch testing outfit?
l' A Woodward-Clyde has a good reputation in engineer-ing.
- O You don't have any doubts about their ability to 21 pe rf o rr. the se te s ts, do you? ;
22 3 yt,s been my experience that I heritate saying
]
1.z a. s -1
M e 449 O
cb40 t someone is good or someone is bad. On a general basis I try 2 not to say anyone's bad. But I would like to know the indi-3 viduals involved and their background before I would comment 4 on that.
5 Q Okay, a But you don't have any reason to doubt their 7 ability to do this?
8 A I have no reason to doubt.
9 Q I have here a piece of paper dated 3/25/81, one 10 of one, J. Kane, referencing a telephone conversation with 11 Wilriam Otto and Hari Singh and Joe Kane, a call to Scottsdale, P . ,
12 Arizona.
13 Who was in Scottsdale?
14 A We do take vacations now and then. William Otto 15 was on vacation.
to 0 Oh, okay.
17 It indicates I believe- :
I 18 "Willian Otto prefers that SBT samplings '
l 18 be retained and f eels that three-inch diameter un-l 20 dis turbe d sanple si ze. . . . "
j 21 It looks like "N acceptable . "
22
' Handing document to the witne ss. )
n-c alo.a! h.awo., S,w.
'o 450 Ob41 1 Can you tell me what that says? Is that "is ,t 2 acceptable"?
j 3 A Yes , "is. " '"he word "is . "
4 "Three-inch diameter undisturbed sample-i 5 size is acceptable." ,I 1
8 Q Who is it in the Corps who doesn't think it's j f
7 a cceptable? j q
8 A In addition to Jim Simpson, I think Ron Erickson "
e also shares that f eeling. And based on my experience with '
to the Corps, I have attempted, when running consolidation tests, i
11 to take the larger diameter samplers. $
V' 12 $
So in addition to Simoson it's Ron Erickson and 13 I myself.
14 Q Did William Otto tell you why he disagrees with i
15 you and thinks that a three-inch diameter sampler is okay? '
t is A He indicated in his experience with the Navy that 17 he has found it to be acceptable.
18 0 In this telephone conversation the last Tuesday l 4 past, I believe the 24 th, do you recall any explanation as 20 to why Woodward and Clyde felt that the SPTs should not be t
21 ! done? l Was there anything in their experience that had caused 22
.. a d:,,sturbance of the undisturbed samples that uere to be taken
( ,
.%2.L.1e%. eL
,, 451 ob42 1 nead y?
2.290 2 A It's recognized-- I remember Thiru saying sore-3 thing along that line, but it's recognized that SPTs are 4 disturbed samples. The canner that we had asked you to 5
conduct the program was to do t e SPTs continuously in one 8 hele, and then cake a decision where to do your undisturbed 7
samoles in another hole.
8 May I respond to taat? I do not understand why 8
Consumers does not wish to take SPTs.
10 0 Are you aware that it is Woodward and Clyde's 11 g intention to take continuous undisturbed samples with a
( -
12 Torvane pocket penetrometer, water content and density test-13 ing in lieu of continuous SPT testing?
14 A one of the reasons we're asking for the contract 15 is to understand whether moisture conte.nt, density and 18 Torvane will be attempted on every stratification, every 17 layer that is found in the undisturbed samples. I'n sure you 18 would not use the Torvane in a granular material.
)
18 0 If in far the Torvane and water content and M
density testing were d:ne in each of the layers wherever that 2'
was f easible , would that be satisf act0ry cr acceptahle as f ar i 2
as you were concerned in lieu cf cent: nuous SPT sampling?
u
/*.m M e O N @ M, O
". 452 ob43 1 A The only problem that I see which could develop if 2 that were done is it's very dif ficult to obtain a -- quote --
3 " undisturbed" sample of a granular material, a sand, a clean 4 sand, er a clecn sandy gravel.
5 So in taking the undisturbed sample you would be a getting a measure of the density but even in taking the best 7 undisturbed samples in sands, you run the risk of disturbing 8 them. And so we have a question and it's not Consumers' i e f ault and it's r.ot ny fault, it's the nature of the art of 10 undisturbed sampling in granular material, that it's very 11 diMieult to get a good undisturbed sasple.
1
' i 12 The point I'm trying to make is with blow counts 13 in granular materials we may gt t more information with a blow 14 count than we will with an in-place density measurement of 15 a granular material.
is 0 To your knowledge is it possible in doing an SPT 17 Sampling to disturb the soil in ar. area adjacent to it where 18 one mign: then take an undisturbed sangling?
19 A It 's po s sible .
I 20 0 And would taking an undisturbed sampling and then 2' I d cing tne Tervane water content, density testing elir.inate
- ' the poss;h:.1 :y of this disturbance that I just referred to?
l U ,
w 90 ) Yw
453 Ob44 1 A Doing continuous undisturbed sampling would eli-2 minate possible disturbance from running an SPT, yes, but 3 you could also eliminate it by being f ar enough distance 4 away from where you do your SPT to eliminate the disturbance.
5 Q Well, isn't one of the purposes of doing that SPT s to decide where to take the undisturbed sample?
7 A Yes.
8 So wouldn't it be-- Strike that.
Q e A Perhaps I can answer that by saying I would think 10 a distance five feet away from where you have done your SPT 11 would not have been disturbed by your SPT.
12 0 You don't think it's possible that that would occur 1 13 A The only way I can see where .it would be possible l'
is where you had a very dense material that took quite an is amount of driving ef fort to get through it.
O And the result of that driving effort might dis-
" turt a sample five feet away?
18 A That 's correct.
" MR. :'.AMARIN : Why don' t we take a five-minute 20 break?
21 (Recess.) ;
22
(. MR. ".AMARIN :
. Back on the record, no-c ea'ma!"&m $,w.
m 454 i
ob45 1 EY m. ".AFJdCN:
2 Q Ey the way, do you remember the last line of ques-3 tioning we were on when you were spirited away last ti:ne, something about predicting settlement frc= a ec=pressive 8
index or something. Does that ring any bells?
8 MR. PATON: If forced, I can go get the deposition 7
in about three minutes.
8 MR. ZAMARIN: We have it here.
BY MR. "N :
'O '
Q In referring to Consurners Exhibit Number 21, which are your notes of your review of the Corps review and Ai:Ind-( -
12 ment 85, I note on the first page it says:
13
'Non-representative shear strength 14 parameters used. Transmittal letter, page 1."
i 15 I ass ma " Transmittal letter, page 1" refers to 16 some document.
17 A Could I see it, please?
18 Q Surely.
1e (Band;ng document to the witness. )
20 A
- ransmittal letter, page 1" refers to page 1 of 21 Exhibit 22.
22 '
0 And in your opinion have non-representative sher.:
.h M dMm. [ns.
g 455 s
ab46 1 strength parameters been used?
2 A From my discussions with P.ari Singh there are
- locations where there would be, and there are places where 4 if Consumers will identify the location and the depth of where 5 certain shear test results came from, it could be that that a information t tuld be adequate and be representative.
7 "he statements I have written there, I was attempt-e ing to summarize the Corps' position in their cover letter.
8 3 You refer to a cover letter.
1C A I'm sorry--
l 11 Q When you refer to " cover letter" you're referring o .
\
12 to Exhibit 22 in its entirety. Is that right?
13 A Yes.
14 Q All right.
15 A Yhey start out by giving general statements and 16 then go to each question. When I say " cover 'etter" I'm 17 talking about the general statements.
is Q So the tnree things you note, one is the non-18 representative shear strength parameters, another one is 20 settlenent esti=ates for the borated water storage tank, and 21
' some cf the structures have proble::s because they either 22
- f. use assumed values of Young's modulus er c mpressibil:.ty v
O "y Q M
. bse-C/ m b ferfors, C/ns.
m 456 k _ .'
ob47 1 coef ficients fro = the preload program.
2 And the third one ist 3 " n settlement evaluations , Consumers
- Power Oc=pany considered only immediate settlements 5 and not consolidation and creep settlements." l-4 Is it your opinion that the settlement estimates 7 on the borated water storage tank foundation ring,on the 8 diesel generator b '. ding,on the service water pump house e structure and reactor buildings have problems?
10 A To the extent that they are further identified 11 gn my notes on those specific structures. .
12 Q okay.
1 13 So when we get f arther into your notes then these 18 three things that are noted on the first page will be dis-15 cussed in more detail?
Is A ney are expanded and they also include efforts in 17 my review to understand what Consumers has given, and also 18 include discussions with the Corps. And I have tried to, 4
where I felt at was needed, identify in the Ccrps' letter 20 what had to be done vnere those problems =till existed.
21 Q On the third page of Exhibit 21, in your review 22 ef gg ,g;3n 39 3 3 , ., , , ,
L';
i R.., J /c 2 , w e L
ob48 1
" Problem with using constrained modulus 2
rather than Young's modulus to estimate future 3
settlement due to increased load caused by de-d watering."
8 Can you tell me what that means?
s A In the response provided by Consumers they used 7
the constrained modulus to estimate the settlement and the a
point that was being brought up by the Corps was that it was 8
actually calculated by measurements actually if I'm not mis-
'O taken, the Young's modulus was back-calculated and that was then changed into a constrained modulus.
12 And the position of the Corps, which I agree with, 13 is that the modulus which should be uset is the one that has been back-calculated and not another refinement of that
'I modulus.
Q And what is wrong with refining that modulus and 17 using the refined value?
. A Because of establishing the modulus in the manner 19 that you did you were taking into effect the confining .;
.5 modulus, the constrained modulus. The measurements have that .
21 I ef fe:t already in it and so the modulus that you would come 22 f
\ out with would not be the true elastic modulus. It would be
?ka5ednolc&m $w.
458 Ob49 1 more representative cf the e situ modulus.
2 0 If you say so.
3 Your next point is:
4 " Secondary consolidation has not been 5 addressed, both before and after dewatering."
4 What do you mean by that statement?
7 A P'.ay I see it, please?
8 0 Sure.
e (Handing document to the witness.)
10 A To the best of my recollection, and what I remember
- 11 about Amendment 85 With regards to this issue which is peactor 12 settlement, the settlement estimate that was given used 13 Young's modulus to estiftate settlement and did not consider 8
secondary consolidation because of dewatering. The procedures 18 that you're using, and that would be Young's modulus, takes is care of distortion settlement and part of primary consolida-17 tion but it is not considered to be a measure of secondary is co nsolida tion . ~
O When you say it is not considered to be a measure 20 i
of secondary consolidation, is that a universally accepted 21 notion within foundation engineering, or is that Just '
22
,- c.~.;ineeria.g here at the NR;;, or ust Joe T.ane's feeling or....,
s i
.L2.sn'e% 0,.
s 459 ob50 1 A It would be my feeling that it would be universal 2
engineering.
3 Q So it is something as to which reasonable and competent engineers would not disagree?
5 A I would hope so. I can't answer for others.
6 MR. PATON:
- hat's a good enough answer.
I BY MR. UuGLRIN:
e Q What would you estimate the secondary consolidation 8
to which you refer to be in relation to this primary settle-to ment that is calculated by use of Young's modulus?
,- A We' re now talking about the :eactor building-12 g y,,,
" A -- which is founded on the glacial till?
D Tha t 's co rre ct.
" A And what would I estimate the secondary consolida- ,
" tion to be?
Q Yes.
A At most 10 to 15 percent.
19 0 of the pr:. nary conselidation?
20 A Of the prinary cons:lt dation.
21 B3 The report that w;11 coe.e to Consumers v:.11 ask you 22 I
to mak e an estir.a te o f tha t.
b e- serM per* 3 hae
460 f -
eh51 1 F.R. ' wATdN :
A Cff the record.
2 (Discussion off the racerd.)
3 MR. ".AFARIN :
. Back on the record.
4 BY MR. ZAFARIN:
5 0 You also indicate that the sentence near the end 8 of Paragraph 39 (1) -- and I assume that's emplace in the 7 Corps report, Exhibit 22, but I'll let you look for it -
e should be clarified, that consolidation settlement referred 8 to there is primary that will occur due to dewatering.
10 (Handing document to the witness.) I 11 A *here is a statement in Paragraph 39(1) that says:
u*
12 "The consolidation and the secondary 13 settlements have not been added to ,the total 14 settiement."
15 And when I read it I had some confusion whether 18 they were saying primary consolidation, and I have since, 17 in discussions with Hari Singh, resolved it that he did mean is secondary consolidation.
1 18 0 You mean he mesnt pritt.ary consolidation?
20 A No-- May I see that again?
21 What we are af ter is your estimate of secondary i 22 consc hda tion . And I think he's saying it has not been
% /
O er-C/ MM ret.
I 1
m 461 b52 1 estimated, that the primary consolidation has been estimated. l 2 It says here:
Q 3
he consolidation and the secondary settlements have not been 'added to the total settle-E ment.*
a What are the secondary settlements?
7 A May I see it, please?
3 s
(Document handed to the witness.)
8 Q Perhaps you might want to take a look at what you
'O wrota, too. .
(Document handed to the witness.)
C 12 A The statement is:
13 "The consolidation and the secondary settlements have not been added to the total settle-i
'S ment."
When I read this I thought it could be interpreted l
that it was being referred to of the reactor itself, reactor l
'I loading itself. But the statement itself is really referring i 19 to -- Just to the consclidations as af fected by dewatering, and that's wha. I was attempting to do, was to have the I 1
Corps clarify that it was only with regard to dewatering, e 0 : see. I a l
[A ER&. S.
1
462 f
ob53 1 The effect of dewatering as opposed to reactor 2 loading itself?
3 A Yes.
My coment is.
5 " Primary consolidation due to the reactor 8
building load is presented in Table 39-4."
7 I was writing for myself that it had already been a
estimated.
8 Q Under ' Action Needed to Resolve,' again this is
'O in reference to Question 39 in your Exhibit 21, you say:
~
11
" Require CPCo to discuss secondary
(- .
12 consolidation."
'3 What do you mean by that? ,
l' A The method for estinating settlement that you have 15 subtr.itted to us does not address secondary consolidation of to the till.
'I O Secondary consolidation of the till as a result of
'8 the increased load due to dewatering?
A Yes, d
0 You also go on and state that:
"CPCo should address primary consolida-
, 22 s tion and time for it to occur due to increased
= 800.
463
(
ch54 1 loading because of dewatering. Presently uncertain
~
2 whether available consolidation test results are 3 enough for additional tests or additional testing is 4 needed. Problems with using backfitted Young's modu-5 lus to estimate primary consolidation because elastic 4 theory doesn't address time dependence."
7 Can you tell me what are the problems there?
8 A When you use Young's modulus to estimate settle-e ment it will give you an estimate of distortion settlement 10 and portions of primary consolidation.
11 Many engineers will use the laboratory consolida-s 12 tion test to estimate primary consolidation and the time for U it to occur. With the Young's modulus approach you cannot 14 estimate the time for it to occur.
18 In the laboratory consolidation test you would 18 establish the relationship of settlement with time whereas U
you do not have that with Young's modulus.
18 0 Nhy are you interested in establishing the time?
A Why? .
Q Yes.
21 l A Because i: is a factor with regard to when connec- l '
l 22 tions are made to the structure and how much settlement we M.
D I y
?
l
m 464 k
ab55 1 can expect to occur after those connections are made.
2 Q Does the settlement hisotry and load history that's 3 been provided-- Strike that.
4 You indicate here that:
5 " settlement history and load history and a graphs to be provided by CPCo provide confidence 7 that future settlement will be minimal and toler-8 able."
8 What graphs are you referring to?
10 A May I see my paper, please?
11 n 0 Sure.
(
12 (Handing document to the witness.)
l 13 A Above where you have read, my recommendation is 34 that Consumers be required to update the observed settlements 15 and loadings recordings as they had indicated they would give is to us in response to question 362.9. It's my understanding 17 that the latest readings on settiment of the reactor building 18 and other buildings in this area, the turbine building, only 18 extend up to May 1980.
20 You have subsequently performed temporary de-1 21 watering in that area, and it would be of interest to see j 22 r the . settlement that occurred under that, s:.
i e*= m res.
465 l
% l eb56 1 So I have requested above where you have read that 2
Consumers provide the settlement data to the prese::t time so 3 that we can observe and determine, based on the settlement 4
curve, where we may be with regards to primary and secondary 5 consolidation.
s Q Would you agree that primary consolidation in till 7
is very rapid?
8 A I don't think I can make a general statement as to 8
that . A heavily preconsolidated clay would have very little M settlement. A till that has not been heavily overconsolidated D
and has a thick - a thickness o?an impervious clay of ;
12 significant depth may not occur very rapidly.
13 Q Is the till underlying the reactor heavily pre-l'
, consolidated?
15 A Yes.
M Q Does it have a very thick layer of impervious U
clay?
" A There would be areas where I would say yes.
Q Would it be the type of a till material in which you would expect rapid primary consolidation?
21 A I would not expect *1gnificant anounts of consoli-
- 22 l dation.
l U' l 1 t
. M* roe erb seg.
1
1 i -
466 A.
eb57 1 What is being asked for is for Consu:ners to use 2 their consolidation test re=crds of that u.aterial that can 1
3 demonstrate that.
4 0 would you expect primary consolidation in that 5 type of till material to be rapid, whether it's a significant a amount or not?
3.120 7 A In a thick deposit of impervious material, no, I woLid 8 not expect it to be rapid.
e Q When you say "in a thick deposit of impervious 8 material" you are saying then that'the till under the reactor 11
,- is a thick deposit of impervious material? ,
12 i A No, the till, as we both know, is very hetero- l 13 geneous and it has lenses and sand, and .in those areas I l'
would expect rapid consolidation.
15 In the areas where we don't have those lenses and sand, whatever prinary consolidation was going to occur I U
would expect to take over a 1:ng period.
O And that goes way tack to something we talked about
l last fall, and that ;
was because of the amount of time necessaryl for drainage and dissipation cf pere pressure? l t
'1 A That's correct. l i
22 I v
O You also have a 00cment on bearing capacity with !
g E 8eM "
Mert. seg.
f-- 467
(
ob58 1 respect to Question 39, and you state that:
2 "me method used to estimate the f actor 3 of safety against bearing f ailure is acceptable.
8 ne problem is with the acceptability of the adopted 5 drained and undrained shear strengths."
e can you tell me what you mean by that?
7 You have, in selecting shear strengths, taken an A
I average value of many test results. What we're asking you to 8
do is to take the borings where you have shear test results
" in the till near the reactor building and establish those il r strengths and compare it to the ones you used in your analy -
L 12 sis. And if they are higher or equal to then I have indicated 13 that we would drop any concern for bearing capacity because
" of the magnitude of the f actor of safety.
18 If they're lower, then I have indicated that you
'8 have an option, you should be provided an option, that option being to use those lower strengths in a bearing capacity analysis and show that' here is an acceptable margin of 18 t
safety er ;ake additional sar::ples now near the reactor 8 co ntainment , establish those strengths, and use those in the 21 analysis, f..-
C One of the berings that I believe is going to be AJa/b &
468 C.
ab59 1 taken is near the auxiliary building which I believe is also 2 in proximity to the reactor building.
3 A Itat's correct.
- 4 Q And it is intended to go 20 feet into the till.
5 A I think it is 20 feet below the bottom of the o caisson, so it's not necessarily--
7 Q Okay. .
e But it goes a good distance into the till.
8 A -- into the till.
to Q Would that boring provide this type of information 11 that you're talking about?
12 A It could, yes. We would expect that.
13 There I go again. I've been . told to speak for 14 myself and no one else.
18 Q Who told you that? Mr. Paton? You don't have to to listen to him. He's only a lawyer. Listen to us.
37 A What he has indicated is I have a tendency to say 18 something that you may construe to be the opinion of others 19 and I should be honest enough to indicate that it is my 20 opinion.
L 21 Q In what form will you report er the results of your
, 22 l
review of Revision 10 be transmitted to Consumers?
, ee Clebre! po <n han.
l 469 k l ob60 1 A That decision i.s really the decision of the Project l 2 Manager, but my guess would be it would be similar to the 3 August 4th, which is a transmittal letter from NRC trans-4 mitting the Corps ' report.
5 MR. l.AMARIN: Off the record.
e (Discussion off the record.)
7 MR. ZAMAkIN: Beck on the record.
8 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
e Q With regard to the notation that you have on to Exhibit 21, does this indicate simply those things that you
- 11 consider to be at this point your tentative position, based 12 upon your review of Amendment 85 and the Corps draft which is 13 Exhibit 22 as opposed to in addition to .the Corps draft?
18 A What I'm attempting to do is identify within the 15 Corps draf t things that could be changed to make it clearer to to Consumers what is going to be requested at the earliest U
possible date, so some of the things I have in my draf t, in 18 discussions with Hari Singh, I know will be incorporated into 19 the CCrps draft.
20 But I think in answer to your question, the answer I' 1 is Yes, about what that reflects and what the Corps report )
, 22 l re fleets.
- N , M L
l i
(T- 470 cb61 1 Q I'm not sure I understood your answer. In other 2
,rds are you saying that your review notes, Exhibit 21, 3
supp) ants the Corps report in its entirety? In other words 4
if I just take your review notes will that provide me with I at least what is now your -- the staff's tentative position 8 with regard to Am adment 857 I
A You have to take both of them because the way 8
it was written it was to supplement what the Corps has, and 8
to sank changes in the Corps draft.
10 Q Okay.
(m So there ma" be things in the Corps report that 12 aren't addressed in yours, but that would indicate that they
'3 are still the tentative position of the staff at this time?
" A I have either found them acceptable or have not 18 gotten to them yet.
M Q Have you reviewed the staff report in its entirety? ;
U A "he Corps report?
Q Yes, the Corps report in : ts entirety?
A I've read it in its entirety, yes. I've gone into more areas thoroughly than others. I think with the time 21 restraints I have I'm not going to be able to go much f urther
)
22 r yi ty g, e 89+ *13e 00 1
( 471 cb62 1 Q I notice over on page 4 of Exhibit 21, your comments
' '00
. 2 on Question 40 on preload effectiveness. You have a statement 3 tha t:
)
4 "The comparison of moisture content in 5 rigures 40-5 and 40-6 with optimum moisture content 8 does not tell you whether the fill was placed wet of I
7 optimum since the pond was raised from 608 to 622 8 in March of 1978 and the samples tested for moisture l
8 content were taken in borings completed after that to in 1978."
11 And f rom this you don't know what the placement ,
12 moisture contents were.
13 My question is: What difference does it rde as 18 long as the preload was af ter the moisture content was deter-15 mined?
18 A The statement that you're reading-- thy I see it, U please?
18 Q Yes.
(llanding document to the witness.)
20 A (Continuing) -- I think is in response to your 21 comments, to Consumers' comments about these moisture contents l 22 which were estah'ished by testing on sa:cles taken in tiovember
$n8Md; L. [
1
472 v
ob63 1 of 1979.
2 I think the statement states +h=* 4* shows that the 3 materials were placed wet of optimum and I'm saying I don't 4 agree with that. I'm saying that the way the testing was done, 5 you could not come to that conclusion. l 1
8 0 You just know that it was at least optimum or wet 7 of optimum in late 1978. Is that what you're saying? But you 8 don't know what it was when it was placed?
e A That's correct.
10 0 okay.
g 11 However, insof ar as there being any concern that 12 during the preload program that the soil might have had some 13 characteristics as a result of having been placed dry of 14 optimum, which would affect the ef ficacy of the preload, it
'8 really wouldn't matter whether it was optimum or wet of opti-1e mum when it was placed so long as we know it was optimum or
" wet of optimum orior to the preload, wouldn' t it?
18 A I think - the next s tatement there indicates that.
'8 0 Okay, t 20 You say here that -- and I think you're referring to 21
. he comparisons on Figure 4 0-5 and 40-6 s 22 do give confidence that soils below elevation 620 e, @84. flg.
l r
473 l
l sb64 ' had been significantly wetted due to the pond raising 2
to elevation 622 in March 1978 and before starting I
surcharge in late January 1979.*
Is that what you refer to?
8 A Yes.
s Q so what that is saying is that at least it does I
give confidence that the soil was not dry-8 A In my opinion was wet enough when loaded with the surcharge.
10 Q With regard to your review of Question 41, you have a note that C 12 "In view of the change from underpinning i
'3 to the wall for the service water structure -- or the piles to the wall support that review conenents with regard to Question 41 are no longer required except is for coments on adequacy of soil conditions and para- 1 17 meters.'
te Is that correct?
19 A That's correct. .
Q And what are you coments with regard to adequacy ,
21 \
l of s il conditions and parameters? l l
'2 1
^
A May I see the paper, please? i l 4.
l M.dM/8e, :*1s. ,
4 74 bs cbr5 1 0 Sure.
2 (Handing doc nt to the witness. )
3 A I have noted en page 5 of Exhibit 21 under " Action 4
Needed" that I was going to seek definite statements from the 5
Corps on the adequacy of known soil conditions and parameters.
8 I've had further discussions with Hari Singh in 7
that regard and he's indicated to me in his review he knows a
the location of the borings that would give information on the till and they are several hundred feet away.
" And so what I'm asking the Corps to do is to make
" a specific statement saying what is available is either in-12 adequate or what we need in those areas.
'3 0 Did you say " inaccurate" or " inadequate"?
" A Inadequate.
1
'I O Would the new borings that are going to be taken ' .
16 resolve this problem and provide the information in an adequate fashion?
A I'm hesitating because, i f I' m not mis taken , with the in f e rma tion tha t you had submitted in August of 1980, we
.had eliminated the SPT borings in the serv ce water structure.
I 21 '
Now do I understand that there is going to be a
( .
continuous undisturbed sample taken in the service water LE=5Ll& $~.
l 475 i
ob66 1 structure?
l 2 Q Yes.
3 A non in my estimation that will give us the inf:r-4 =ation that we seed. '
l C3 5
! 3.530 Hopefully with the Cc:ps representative at the site 4
we will stay close enough to the prof eet to understand what 7 .
e your plans are for doing the testing so that this can be a
further followed up.
s C You indicate further in your review of Question 41 to that:
( 12 "Rather than demonstrating the impact of -
the diesel f ael oil stcrage tanks due to an assumed 13 failure of the retaining walls that Consumers elected 14 to demonstrate the stability of the retaining walls."
15 Why does that cause you a problem?
15
. A It doesn't cause me a problem. Actually what I'm l 17 18 vriting to myself is-- If you read the or:.g:.nal quest: cn, .: !
did not.ask you to de..cnstrate the stabil:.ty, it asked you 19 l 20 to deronstrate that the tanks would be unaf fe:ted. on s u=e r s 21 elected to take this approm:b and I was ;ust p: nting that :ut 22 to me, and taking that approach new raises questi0ns about
_, the s tability study that was sub=. ted. And I hate 1:.sted
)
$$U*&m S.a.
i.- 476 g .
Ob67 ' ithose.
2 g gy,y, 3 '
But for the questions with regard to the sta.bility study, do you find the approach of demonstrating the stability 5
of the retaining wall as opposed to postulating a f ailure 8
of that wall and demonstrating the impact on the tanks an 7
acceptable approach?
e A I find it acceptable, yes.
O I'm going to give you Exhibit 21, and on page 6
'O of whatever, under Question 41, Part 2-B, there's a sub-g.. paragraphiumbered 2, and I would like you to read that and s
12 then tell me what you mean.
'3 (Handing document to the witne,ss.)
A Is this where you're referring?
15 Q I just really don't understand what you're saying 16 in that entire Paragraph Number 2.
17 A You ean here?
Yes, the whole paragraph.
O 19 A
You have provided in de:nonstrating the stability 20 cf the retaining wall shear strength parasneters for the till, .
21 I and you have listed them in the table. And ry question is 22
- were these values that you have selected which are indicated I 1
A s d.-.! % G .
477 me cb68 1 te be very conservative selected to show that the bearing 2
pressures which result because of this selection just equals .
3 the values that have been imposed by the structure? That was 4
rf quos tion.
5 It's not the normal way that you would demonstrate _
e stability.
7 MR. ZAHARIN: Can I hear that back, please?
8 (Whereupon, the Reporter read from the record e
as requested.)
to BY MR. ZAF.ARIN :
" 0 C. You have a question also on the same page that says:
12 Is data acceptable based on diesel
'3 generator building area being surcharged and the retaining vall area not being surcharged?'
And than yo u go on to state:
'8 "COE does not have concern with retain-17 ing wall settlernent. Tneir con:ern is with either a bearing- type f ailure er a slepe f ailure. "
~
19 '
can you tell me what you me ar. by tha t? :
_]
70 '
? Handing doca:nent to the witness. )
' I
- t
- 4. 3: A As ; recall, the e stir. ate of settlement from the '
-s b :-ta.ning wall was based on secondary consclidaticn predictions i j .
.Lsd :ePe ii.
,- 47 E
,I ab69 1 from the surcharge program, and I was asking myself whether l-l 2 that was an acceptable procedure since one area was surcharged ;
8 3 and the other was not. ,
t 4 I have since, in discussion with Hari Singh, been 5 ccnvinced that we need not pursue the settlamant of the re- !
t 4 taining wall as being an issue. l 7 Q Okay. i 8 What about the bearing-type failure or slope t ,
_t t 8 failure. Are those still concerns? l
~
10 A Yes. j p 11 Q tihy? ;
i 12 A Because of the parameters that you have used and -
13 the questions on those which are further explained in points 18 that I have written down there. I il Q You mean if I keep reading I'll find it?
g 18 A I think so. f U Q Okay.
'8 Will info.T.ation' anticipated to be generated from ,
'8
! this new boring program take care of th.s probler., assuming 20 the results are satis f actorme?
l 21 A To my recollection there is not a boring near the l
22
,{ retain ng wall. The d:.esel cil f uel tank wall? guess.
w N %d %
~
f 479 ob70 1 The boring COE14 should provide the information 2 with regard to that retaining wall.
3 Q And when you refer to COE14 you're referring to the 4 designation of an intended boring location shown on the 5 attachment to the January 8th,1981 letter to Mr. J. W. Cook 8 from Robert L. Tedesco. Is that right?
7 A That is correct.
8 Do you know how far away from that wall, by the ;
9 way, the diesel fuel oil tanks are buried? ;
10 A I know it's over 50 feet. .
1
- 11 Q In your opinion is it likely that a failure, even j k
i 12 if it were to occur en that wall, would af fact the diesel 13 fuel oil tanks some 50 feet away? -
14 A If lef t unattended it could affect the diesel fuel 15 oil tanks.
Is Q If left unattended for how long? s 17 A If the wall to were fail and we would get wave 8
al ul ode wh e e da eet di s 20 c:1 tanks.
l 21 But if you reineh6er correctly, we started th.ts -
r 22 v 1:ne of ques:.icning by saying you elected to show the stab:,lity
. 00 <.,l poden hne.
480 ;
r 1
ob71 of the wall. .
2 But I'm asking if you think O I understand that.
9 3 it's possible, just as a direct result of the f ailure of that
' wall, for the diesel fuel oil tanks to be af fected?
I A In k estimation if .he wall were to f all, there s would be enough tine with the soil and the earth that was 7 there, to install a corrective action.
- Q I note that you note on page 7 of Exhibit 21:
'To seek agreement with Cor.sumers Power 10 Company that the dewatering system be Q listed...."
"
- And then you have a parenthetical that rays:
12 "Is safety related but not Category 1."
' '3 "
Is this your idea?
l 14 A That is my idea.
15 C Is it your idea to seek agreement that it be Q 16 listed with regart .o the entire dewatering system?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Why?
19 A You have indicated in response to one interrogatory, 20 ' I I th nk it was-- '
i l 21 l C Number 7?
l l
.s 22 A -- N umb e r 7, the reasons why the dewatering systen
$ -c 7 d w! 8 p , :8,w.
9 -
(~ -
4 El cb72 8 is not essential to safely shutting the plant down. But it 2
is also recognized that the purpose of the dewatering system 3 is to draw the water down so that potentially liquefiable 4
sands would not be in a position to liquefy under earthquake 5 loading.
s And to me a system that is being put in for that 7
- reason is safety-related.
8 0 I see.
8 So what ycu say, even though it really isn't ,
18 necessary for a cafe shutdown, because of the time involved
(-s before there would be any liquef action or liquefication 12 potential, that you still think that it should nonetheless 13 be Q listed in its entirety?
" A Yes.
4 I think there is precedent for o listing items that is are not Category 1 and I feel this is one that falls into that 4 4
" area.
0 would it be your-- Is it your feeling then that you would like the dewatering system be Q listed and therefore all cf the Appentx B criteria would aoply with regard to 21 p rocureme nt , design , construction, redundancy ?
22 A
{ In my estimation, what I know about the dewatering E CO
- 8tC
/M3rdFFT
e 482 -
- t. ,
ob73 1 system, you are dcing it essentially now. You are having x-2 redundant systems. You are designing it to good engineering .
I 3 prac tice. It seems as though we're recognizing its impact 4 on the operation of the plant. But because of the tine ele-5 ment to safely shut the plant down we're not leaving it Cate-6 gory 1 safety related.
7 In my estimation you are doing all the necessary a steps to design it as Category 1. I would take that one k 9 further step to in3ure that it was constructed.
'O O In other words just subject it to a quality ,
11 program, a quality assuranie program during construction? In a 12 other words what other step are you talking about? ,
i 13 0160 A The Q listing. The Q listing that requires with I'
it the quality assurance.
15 Are you familiar with the draf t Reg. Guide with Q
16 regard to dewatering?
y ;,
" A Yes.
'8 And if that were adhered to by Consumers would, in ',
O
" your opinion, that be suf ficient as opposed to Q listing?
20 A : think it's unfortunate that what is in the draft ,
21 position must, of necessity, because of the highly variable 22 dif ferences in site specific, could be interpreted to where u-co C esa. porters ** w
. w h
E
- 423 ob74 1 the system could or could not be Q listed.
2 I guess what I'm attempting to say is I'm not sure 3 af ter reading the staff position that I could come to a con-4 clusion that that addresses Q listing.
5 0 What do you rnean by the co:mnent with regard to 8 Question 42 review, that you need to address Consu:ners Power 7
Company's desire to complete final design by subcontractor?
8 '
A If I remember correctly, the response to Question 42 talks about a design which is based on information we know
'O now but indicates there may be changes based on recom:nendations 11
. fron the subcontractor.
12 And it seems to me that if there are major changes 13 that could affect the safety of the underpinning operation that NRC would have the responsibility to evaluate the signi-15 ficance of those changes. .
16 And so what I'm atternpting to indicate is that if 17 .
i there are major ::hanges hopefully we 'll set up the means for ,
18 ; that to be brought to our attention and have an opportunity i
19 to review.
2C !
} Q What's creep settlement? ..
i 21 !
A That's Mari S:.ngh's definitio. of secondary consoh-2 c eatiom.
O
- a.a.ww., -u f
- b. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
- . 484
(.
ob75 1 Q " tat's what : thought.
2 With regard to your response to Question 43 wnic.h 3
concerns the borated water storage tank foundation ring, there' s 4
a statement here that:
5 "Censumers Power Company's full-scale loac 8 test would not provide an accurate estimate of settle-7 ment since consolidation settlement, primary, and 8
creep settlement, secondary, are time dependent and 8
could continue during the life of plant operations."
10 A May I see it, please?
11
, O Surely.
12 (Handing document to the witness. )
13 Af ter looking at that I'd appreciate it if you'd 18 tell me what you mean by that.
15 A The heading of that is "Proolems Identified by 16 the Corps and Consumers' Re sponse. "
'I I was worried that I had used the term " creep
'8 s e ttle ra n t. "
What I am doing now is identifying to myself what 20 I the Corps sees as the problem and what the have identified i
,i
' i as the problem is that loading the tank full with full fluid i 22 e does not tell us how long it will take for primary consclidation
_ l A.E.s.J=% -L
l . .
, 485 cb76 1 to occur, and that we still may be in the time of primary 2 consolidation now.
3 Q I see.
4 And that's because it is only being loaded *a a 5 load equal to its load over its lifetime?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Do you have any suggestion on what else can be done?
a A With regard to-e Q The borated water storage tank.
to A With regard to answering the settlement problem?
11 Q e s .
s 12 A It would be helpful to look at the settlement 13 records that you have from the time the tank was loaded to see l'
the settlement behavior. Based on those records a decision 15 could be made whether it's necessary to take sar:ples to esti-16 mate future settlement.
U Q What is the purpose of the borated water storage 18 tank founda*. ion ring?
" A What is the purpose of it?
20 0 Yes. What does it do? Ifhat does it actually !
I t i at i iphysically do? ,
2
A It supports the interior soil which is supporting v ;
S,5.de-a! hawon 5,.e.
au s
1 ab77 the tank.
4.250 .
2 0 It suppcrts the interior soil which is supporting 3 the tan . which keeps that soil from being pushed away, which
- keeps the tank from rolling away in ef fect?
5 g y,,,
s You have made sone observations, have you not, of 0
7 the borated water storage tank foundation ring recently, a
within the last couple of months?
A In January.
10 0 And did you reach any conclusions about anything
" on the basis of your observations?
u ,y !
A on the basis of my observations and the information
'3 that I have obtained, the conclusion that I have reached is the cracking of the ring foundation is because of se'tlement, dif ferential settlement being impacted by the valve )it and the dif ferential settlement with the ring foundation.
O Anything elme that you conclude?
18 $
A That the long-te rn settlement and cont.nued differ- }9 19 ential settlement has to be addrecsed.
20 0 In wha t 'ashion?
21 A That we have a ocod idea of the magnitude of the 22 settlements that we can expect, w
O ~
q ,B n SM dowes, d4&ere (*,/ns, a
487 s
b78 1 Also address the cracking that has already occurred, 2 what additional cracking we can expect.
3 0 Why does the cracking cause you conce.m ?
4 A Because it could lead to structural failure of the 5 ring foundation.
8 Q In what fashion?
7 A The ring foundation would crack to such an extent a
that it wouldn't serve its intended function of keeping the 8
soil beneath the borated water tank stable.
10 Q So what you then postulate is the soil beneath
=
r 11 the tank actually moving laterally and the tank -- what? --
12 sinking or rolling over on one side?
13 A By the settlement you could also be inducing 14 stresses into the tank which could result in f ailure of the 15 ta nk .
1a Q Doesn' t the tank rest -- bear on the soil anyway?
17 A Yes. But if you allow the soil that it's resting te on to become so unstable that it leads to other uncontrolled 19 settlement because of the ring foundation failure, then you 20 m y have lost the function of the tank because of rupture of 21 fthetank.
22
- Q And tell me how this may lead te rupture of the
( ..
AJ.A.!cb J.
48P ob79 1 tank.
2 A The settlement gets to suct 2.imits that the founda-3 tion soils that are supporting the taak have allowed stresses 4 to develop in the tank because of tr e differential settlements 5 which ensue that it causes rupture of nc tank so it is over-8 stressed because of settlements.
7 Q Hat'e you discussed w! th the Corps of Engineers I whe ther , if you knew the Consu 2ers Power Company's values of a soi2 nodulus, you could accer c the theory of elasticity 10 approach to estimate primary and secondary consolidation with 11
, regard to the borated wa ter storage tank?
12 A I'm sorry, : : . m' t understand your question.
13 Q You have a nM e on page 8 that says:
l' "COE's < tatament above on theory of 15 elasticity to detarmine time-dependent settlements 18 even if we knew Censumers Power C mpany values of
" soil modulus, would we accept this approach to te est:. mate primary and secondary consolidation?"
l' A Actually what I'm responding to is the Corps in M
ther: draft has ident:.fied concern with the soil moduli values, 21 knd if renenber correctly, it was left unres:lved what we !
22 were to do about those values.
w.
= 8P FOJ 9F1 M
e 0 E
- 489
(
eb80 1 And ny cuestion that I'm identifying for myself 2 is even if we have better values, the approach that has been 3 used by Consumers, that is, the Young's modulus approach, 4 still would not tell us full primary and secondary consolida-5 tien. And so even if we get the right soil moduli values, 6 do we still have the problem of estimating further primary i
7 and secondary consolidation?
8 And so what I'm hoping to do is to have the Corps 9 or myself, when I transmit it, identify what, in addition to to what has been identified there, should be done.
11 MR. ZAMARIN : Why don't we taS about a four-minute r .
12 break.
13 (Recess.) ,
14
.375 MR. ZAMARIN : Back on the record.
15 BY MR. ZAMARIN:
16 0 With regard to Question Number 44, diesel fuel oil U tank foundation design, you have a notation that: l 18 "The Corps wants Consumers Power Company 18 -
to estirnate the amount of settlement that could occur 20 under dynamic loading in a loose sand ::one indicated I
21 in boring DT-5." l l
22 And it goes on te state that this iter is not h
.%.8.Lol M 8.
_ . E
490 b81 1 considered to be a major safety issue.
2 Okay. Tell me what that's all about.
3 A In the questions and responses that have occurred 4 before, in that I think the Corps has asked-- No, I'm sorry.
5 The response has indicated that there are no 8 problems with settlement, and I think it also indicates that 7 based on the blow count evaluation that they have made, there e is no problem with settlement.
8 I think the Corps is directing your attention to 10 DF Nud-r 5 ,thich na. r. tone of icose sand and they're saying 11 g you could expect settlement in that loose zone, so address 12 it in your response.
13 What specifically they would be looking for is 18 estimate whether or not settlement could occur in the thick-15 ness of the zone that is there, and discuss whether you 16 consider that to be significtnt or not.
17 O With regard to the response to Question 44, are 18 you sat sfied with the information provided with regard to 18 long-ter static settlement?
E A May I see it, please?
6 21 g y,,,
22 (Hanc'ing document to the witness.)
L w Of F.1, M
-- - - = -
O #
g- 491 eb82 1 There is no nention of that.
2 A My recollection is the information on the other 3 materials, particularly the blow counts, and the descriptions 4 from the logs would indicate that except for that loose. zone s there is not thought to be a problem with settlement. So I s don't think anything additional would be asked.
7 Q Can you tell me how a compression index could be a used to predict settlement with regard to the diesel generator 9 building?
10 A I thought we had discussed that previously.
11 0 No. *
, I asked that question and then Mr. Paton A' 12 instructed you not to answer any more questions.
13 A No, I meant even before then.,,
14 I'll try.
15 Q Okay.
16 A The compression index is obtained from the void j 17 ratio versus log P curve, and you would want to use the 18
! correct compressior. index and depending upon the results of ;
19 your laboratory consolidation test, it could be a compression 20 index based on being in the virgin part of the curve or it 21 could be an index based on being in recompressien af ter you I !
22
,.- have taken off your load.
s 00 vos # ft.1 M
ft 492 v
cb83 1 And so that index is actually the slope of the 2
void ratio versus log time curve, and you would use that in 3
an expression for estimating settlement, and it would give 4
you the correct compression index, and the other parameters 8
in that expression would give you the magnitude of settle-8 ment.
7 Q In the Corps report which has been tarked Exhibit 8
22 there is a statement with regard to Question 39 that says:
8 "Further, the settlement that occurred
'8 immeidately after the application of the load should
- be known and used. The applicant has not explained ,
12 how these parameters were determined."
13 Can you tell me what parameters the Corps is re-ferring to?
16 A May I see that, please?
16 0 Sure.
(Hinding document to the witness.)
A The parameters that he's referring to are the 19 Young's modulus and the Poissons ratio, and what he's indi-l 20 l
i cating in the previous sentence is that when you back l calculate Young's modulus, a factor would be what se t tlement I
, had occurred before you started to measure settlement.
l 18.l,.o!ch,-. 8,.c
t
- 493 Cb84 1 In other words while you're building your structure 2 some settlement would be occurring, and prior to your in-3 stalling the settlement marke . But if I remember correctly, 4 you had used observed settlement to back-calculate the 5 Young's modulus so there was a portion of the settlement that 4.550 8 was not recorded.
7 Q With regard to Question 40, the response thereto, a in the Corps letter there's a statement that:
8 The applicant, in its response, has done 10 too much rationalization of a complex problem."
This is with regard to andysis based on a pur- l e ,
L 12 ported warping configuration.
13 Will you take a look at that ,and tell me what your l'
understanding is of the meaning? It is kind of bracketed by 15 some yellow lines.
16 (Handing document to the witness.)
17 A May I see my notes, please?
-1
'O Q Yes.
'8 (Handing docunent to the witness.)
20 35 A I would direct your attention to my connent here 21 l l
! which is on this paragraph, and my comment is that beginning ;
I
- 2
' 1 here , this be deleted f rom the Corps' report and :.n its
. ca .r.,/ ro " wportees.
- 4 1
~
494 s.
1 cb05 place be substituted that, sentence.
2 O The sentence that says:
3
" Consumers Power Congar.y should refer to answer to Interrogatcry 8 for comments on the 5
analysis which are needed to evaluate the effects of 8
structural cracks."
7 A The purpose of doing that is that the question 8
that is being raised by the Corps has already been addressed
- in the response to that interrogatory and I think, rather
'O than having it brought u in two areas, that was my recommended
-- at solution.
s 12 Q Have you reviewed the answer to Interrogatory 87 I3 '
A I think I've read it, yes. -
l
\
14 O Did it appear satisfactory to you? l l
15 l A It was not my interrogatory nor did I evaluate the l
l 1(
adequacy of the response.
l I
1 1 0 So you have no impression or opinion as te whether 1 18 it appeared adequate?
l A I don't specifi: ally recall what Interrogatory 8 20 said, but I felt there were some resp nses that were not 21 .
resp:nsive.
("
22 O Some responses to interrogatcries generally, not r~, --
Co d eGr 4 #
a g en #jret.
e
m 495 abB6 1 necessarily Number 87 2 A That's correct.
3 Q We talked earlier about the retaining wall near 4
the diesel fuel oil tanks, and you had indicated that you 5
believed that even if there were a failure of that wall that 6
there would be sufficient time to do something before any 7
kind of -- what did you say? -- waving effect were to-8 A Wave action.
8 0 -- wave action were to erode the soil away.
10 would that be true if the distance between the
" ~
,- wall and the diesel fuel oil tanks were 30 feet? .
12
- A I could only answer chat by doing a slope stability 13 l analysis. .
i Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your question. Is 15 the question is 30 feet enough to be able to do something about 16 i.7 Q Yes. -
18 A 1 It's my opinion that a 30-foot block of soil would j
not erode that quickly that you could not do something about 20 94,..
- , I I think I would like to also point out that the
,' 22 option that you chose to show the stability of the retaining I w
I i
n 5ebmlYbpo.w, hu.
496 ob87 ' wall has benefits in that if we were going to say we would 2
allow the wall to fail and count on that 30-foot block of 3 soil to be enough cuffer to allow us to do something, then ..
we get into maybe not the problem but the ef fect of being
' willing to shut down the plant while we did something about ,
it.
7 I guess what I'm trying to indicate is that perhaps a the best solution is to show stability of the wall.
Q okay.
10 -
. With regard to the aux. building in the electrical
" penetration area and feedwater isolation valve pits, there -
12 is some notation in the Corps report, Exhibit 22, that the
'8 caissons of the electrical penetration area and the concrete fill of the feedwater isolation valve pit would not act 15 monolithically.
'O Do you agree with that?
17 A Unless it was tied into the caissons with re-inforcing : th:,nk there it a potential that it would not act 19 monolithically.
l 20 0 But if it were tied in with reinforcing then in 21 your opinion it would act nonoi:,thically?
22
- A Yes, if it were adecuately tied in. .
n ~
m e.
. 74*'
O' eeltre. W% 8'1 rtC.
.J
497 cb68 1 Q And what would it take to adequately tie it in?
2 A That would be evaluated by a structural engineer.
3 Q Turther on in that response, the Corps report d
talks about drifts. Do you know what they' re talking about?
5 A Yes.
4 Q What is that?
7 A In the excavation under the electrical penetration a
area where you're removing the soil beneath the electrical 8 penetration area, that excavation is what I understood to be
'O talled your drif t, the excavation itself.
S Aa0 " Q What is the significance of the location and g .
12 dimensions of .the drif t?
13 l A What is the significance of the location and dimensions?
16 Q Yes.
'8 A Where it is located and hev large it is impacts on 17 I the potential for loss of ground wi .h surrounding structures.
l se 0 Is that the only concern then with regard to the 19 location and dimensions of the drif t?
20 A I don't th:.nk it's the only concern. The concern 21 !
cf how you stab'll:e that, in add; tion to where it is 1ccated 1
' 2:
at and what si:e are concerns.
1 N ** e rea! p en huse.
- r 498 t
!Cb89 1 Q Are those the only concerns that ,this intends to 2
indicate?
3 A May I read that, please?
4 Q Sure.
5 (Handing document to the witness.) -
4 A My understanding of that statement by the Corps l
7 is they are concerned with loss of ground because of the s
excavation, and that is the major reason for their concern.
8 I don't knew of any other reasons they have asked that.
'O O And this concern about loss of ground is itss of
- ground during construction, before the excavation is back- i 12 filled?
'3 A That's correct. -
O There's a statement in here again on thir, Exhibit
" 22 in this Paragraph 2-B with re.spect to Question 41 which
" says the meaning of this statement is not clear. l l "
Can you tell me what your understanding is of the 18 th at is not clear, and what about it is unclear?
- statement 19 (Handing document to the witness.)
20 A I'm not clear, but I could give you what I think ;
t 21 I is being indicated. !
, Q If you will.
l F* Q /*
, .H,e,.c) w,.a! % p m tJa.
P
\ r 499 i
eb90 I A I think they' re talking about the moment about d
2 those colu:nn lines and the moment at those column lines.
3 I think what is unclear is where is the force or 4
the load being applied and what is the moment on it to give 5
you that magnitude of moment. Is it to the centroid of the 8 l caisson? l I
Q If it were indicated that the force were in fact 8
at the centroid of the caisson, would that clear up what you
' i believe the unclarity is, or the lack of clarity is? )
'O i A I think it would, but I would have to ask the one J who asked that question.
12 Q over on page 7 of Exhibit 22 under Subparagraph C
'3 it states: '
14 "The response cf the applicant for the 15 temporary support system for the valve pit is vague 14 and additional design infomation should be pro-vided."
i Can you tell me what about it is vagus, and what
' 19 additional design information should be provided?
20
'Han:hng document to the witness.)
21 Would you like your statement as well?
A w No, I don' t think I've ::ommented upon it so I don' t w fif P Od %d M R$.
500 i Ob91 ' think it would help me 1
2 (Pause.)
3 You don't have the figures here?
- No.
Q 8 A I think' I have them.
s 0 I didn't want to lug them all. j 7
A I think what he's talking about is the response a
has not given the loads which are being imposed by the feed-e water isolation valve pit onto the needle beams and I think 1
'O '
what he's looking for are more details with regard to those loadings.
12 MR. ZAMARIN: Why don't we knock of f here and pick
'3 it up in the morning.
(Whereupon, at 5:5 p.m., the taking of the deposition was recessed to reconvens the following day.)
17 l l
t 19
?O l i i l 21 !
i 22 1
. ded o. pm hns
7
- f. 501 eb 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC AND REPORTER 3
4 I, William R. Bloom, the of ficer before whom the 5 foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the 4 witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition 7 had been previously sworn; that the testimony of said witness a was taken by me by Stenomask and thereaf ter reduced to 1
e typewriting by me or under my directions that said deposition j 10 is a true record of the testimony given by said witness: l 11 that I am ..ither counsel for, related to, nor employed by s ._
12 any of the parties to the action in which this deposition l
13 was taken: and, further, that I am not a. relative or employee i l' of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, I
is nor financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of l is the action.
18 8 ex Notary Public in and f or the i
, District of Columbia
i
< 1 20 My ecmmission expires 14 August 1985.
i 1 l I 22 \
f.
1 I p. n
. w.L!#%& l
ENCLOSURE '2 s
' l ' -'
N I D L~A N D 'P R O J E C T Q A .. O R G A N I.Z A T I O N'A L' C H A N G E7 .
6 f.c(. 4-A. u,'):e9) ?
.0 j 4
U
.i cl0. ..
9 ~ ' ~
G PRESENTATI0N TO ,
~h ,
~ ~ ~
'~ ,- ,
REGI.ON III AND~N'RR QA BRANCH ,
- 6 4 ,
6 p .
' GLEN ELLYN,.' ILLINOIS .
JANUARY.12,.1982 o .
=e D
. B W.MARGUGLIO
?:
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Q:' .,-
x N
F203010270 20f29 CF ADOCK 05000329 CF \
. 1 DUTLINE OF PRESENTATION PURPOSES OF THE CHANGE
- DESCRIPTION OF THE CHANGE RESPONSES TO NRC 0UESTIONS/ CONCERNS OTHER BENEFITS FROM THE CHANGE DISCUSSION NRC POSITION i
l l
s S
l f..
l L -
\
,-w - ,- - - ,, ,.,y. .y..- .--,_ , ,w--.-,,,me,-,--w. , - - -, ,v,-,-- -, ----+w-.-- ..e---- - - - - -, , +,.--er--, ----w---e,- , --
2 i(
PURPOSES OF THE CHANGE ADD. SENIOR EXPERIENCED QA MANAGEMENT ACCOMMODATE THE GROWTH IN THE NUMBER OF QA PERSONNEL LOCATED AT THE SITE FULLY ADDRESS THE QA NEEDS OF THE JOB IN ITS FINAL STAGES
~
UPGRADE LEADERSHIP AT'THE SITE.
9 0
S J
4
. . . , - ..--. ,n, , ,n,--- _ .,,-e - , , , , , - . , -
- t s
3
~
- 1 ,
r==.
w- ese n v:n mz==:r:
m:
e' s Cent
.,o....,,,u.m mmect earns *tilfP
=c v .
es,
- c. 6.m.een,.e ciee ri
,a
,S ns&retetaet,riebi .es r!
, y a j
, .: ie u m n I
c gr.ER T,WFM
,emeie es. <.se n i
l I i 7, > u ..- -
e mic., cim e. me - .a - <
,m. - -
nm => siea era c.. .:n,.eno. s, erre ,e c., .' s =e -
c;- =,',=a,..,, -
ee.. ,me,mi
. ..eme, i
, , .e e a4 micf uef ac ifort s :s'e s? t on A *:cs O L"' ': ."1 D e la.8 ha ts 1stD16; . e m i, i Ne e F8PEPetK9 t.1 appgry180R Ol#tpf tess ...
og , , , ,
., e s ,, . . enEnr.
., S.UPENTIE3,8, e,..e < . . . aoe e ., ,,,,,,,
... r ~te ,., ,,,,,,,,,,, o unsi_ ~ =~i+>> e., , ,se .
, ,e,,,se,
,tl . ! ,.,. ,E' .. 3 e. y,7e_
- =
- -' i ~ mmi ;-; D4 3 g mete
- '::aees __
C.6
't.5 4 teveen E morpe C.S C tote
, pese13 54 , sarnens s l c.s C-8 8! b 6stene it a Yv ir , n M. . -e 2 m,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,
'?-
!" ri 3:01%j"
>r=- ==='i=
- w. , -n
'-. r t '- . !. P.ees::." M':'!",e
. t , , ces,
,. =~e. e.,
e.. ~ e n >- ~w.
. .e ., .sen
. ,es.e ste, e <a - e.g = *.4 ase "s*** I' 4.s e a assereen a g tenersa e a anasseen
.* rm art?.swtr*1 *.8 8 7 6,esseneewees NS & teene e.s e.g T peees (13/81) c' I#***' f 32estelsel Gree, t.4 e a aset fleest e.s n n . .w ee ..e N.=eeme as e e .;* e t gifryvisen
, .8 E 8 aarte tu/111 a,lt,c& SPEElab e tsatt impetr9mA e y er:te .
- f. J B tenter 99fryttsee Ne C.* B 9 heets C =, # 1 wome* e.g 9 g,,,,,
t.S T 9 Caerette ims arr-e . Cal O $ Gareiun l NS J Pese 85 9 E ,Ge& teams **8 L aseLeese M T, gemeega t seeresessee bl 4 tre e.g - As a b sienne,.g3,363 t
- Ote s . e.e=6en .a m.
e . c=*,.4 a ,aeree % fTF'18t*
J 33: NS .' t t iew..
g e 4,n,e ,ee 1 85 , sentieem 8
- ese arme* p gemeere
- . p=n3 CapeettF b5 f . anseetesenslop .orpers' o.F r anos tot e [ *T d we en t
lityeets.s Deverstes lese tetel NC a Teeeetro e . t ee -, *?
' s,esee. anta:iti
.- . n ., , , c -g NS S E ts*Jte s *9.91 l f
1 o
- e
.M
- 1 f
f ks
- a N:DLAED Pufte eFF*M TIS FRESIDENT PE6C J W Coat S!IECTOS ENTTPC5bGI*AL Asp qutLITT ASSURA3CJ 8 W margusLie MIIE4ED FRMECT Sit'.ZTT Aamih483 EErasMLyr
- DIRECTOR .
C4 5 W meradio
- C-6 3 Aramsts (See'F) m C4 W B 8174 84 L Bather 4a (See'F)
PGAR M s A 31strich sp.4 L Fetarese (See*F) .
Appr DELR e AZBLIB &
grECIAL PPOTECTS C4 D N Turstd1 l l f el-*1? AL/Ihd GA OA I flu;DS & arrrmaalCn c:Yi:. ca ,
GA gggg g gg.gggg g SET 203 EEAD SECTW EEAC ,
C4 J L he' C.8 E 4 C.8 9 I Sere C.4 N J sennetter g g p e,y SE.CTI,ON A mer EIAA i
rs 60 3 CA 3GIFEZPIDG A."*C M lf"M* IC M IE'IC# J DES gggyj gg
~O& TEMD ' E3 O DONEDIp0 3 SUFIFT!*:p o.g C Parter N e4 E 7',*,tf 3 ETP!PTISQR GROUP $UPERTISCR C.A G S feale g p,g,,,
S.4 . e.g p p ., . C4 J A mereen 9.,g
-_ F 1 wkit maar C-8 N Swtterfiele f 5-4 S Juma (See*F) e-3 S Coe -
84 T 3 Iouse '4 3 C R&rsel C4 > Sete t: _
- : t"...o. 4 3-" t-: ' 0T, : f* Q'$" ,.A y; =* -
y*e.
C C .# .ur.u .
..-A.
. uru , .e.. . , ,u,.,,.
C C T, .e. . e ....
u . .r
, , , , m .L .e-. VD131CA2;GS
" . gg.gg, ,,
^
END S-A ET' IRTISC9 S-4 3 2 See 5'M50R eA 3 t Fle$4 M"! **S
- -8 Yl# ' B4 E Sete ggygg,gge, C4 L p neve11 e.g
- M J C Sant IncOcup 3 grt in e-8 w 8r L.Anas s u.einer *-a : a s., neur *.a r t 2.oe it e g ,,, ,n,,,,,,, -
a-a s Ass ree. a.a ru.or . o e me ,i, EFIriAL Ass ;ms
..g ,g ,
- -4 ? Puset C-8 D Punala e.a p 4 EisoJesa *4 R F Masswsw C4 A 3 taarres
- g ,
C.8 D A Sett Road) e-S p Gestrase 3 1 6 C 153 e.g a gange DSP. '*M i ELTEFTIBGI e.g E 8 Derbe CI & $N16 C4 J P Beeker " Proats!TS ISOR
- 8 f W " iller C-8 5 9 tette guF!'.TISOP 84 T R Charette C4 ? 1 w ce* = ,,g 9 ggg,,
- -8 9 3 saattaes sti-1AL arri:M*-s 1 C4 3 s canna *.S J pds M C*5 F 4 &ansids
= N himan 6-4 T t Sekrementaa b *.s J Orr t.-8 3 L 8toney ,
C . CPCs ,
3 . Seestal inst , cp IP ;
- r,-==~~
e , mo, t u_.
A . Ann Arter es J Caus,no e . Deal Capacity e=8 D Sanders
- . Aemisistrat1*e Support e.s D Aus
. Det en Amea 88 0 eurses (3spected Deverstas Date) 43 3 Tewstee T . Tseusrary e.g T T.,,
' - Se*8eed 1/11/82
."r't g y' e.g l 31 Deatle }
4
= 1 5
JWC SPECIFICATIONS FOR BWM ASSIGNMENT -
DIRECT LINE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MPQAD -
THREE FULL DAYS AT SITE--MINIMUM CONTINUE TO OVERSEE PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED FUNCTICNS, BUT WITH DELE 6ATION 9
]
O
. i 6
( ,
DELEGATION
- BWM IS SENIOR QA PERSON WRB IS BWM's DEPUTY ,
BOTH BWM AND WRB HAVE LINE RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY
- TO MORE EFFECTIVELY MANAGE QA:
- ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS, THE HVAC SECTION AND THE QUALITY ENGINEERING SERVICES SECTION WILL REPORT
/ TO WRB,
,(~ ~
- ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS, THE OTHER SECTION HEADS AND THE ASSISTANT MANAGER-ADMINISTRATION AND SPECIAL PROJECTS WILL REPORT TO BWM.
- ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS, THE PGAE WILL COMMUNI-CATE AND INTERFACE WITH EITHER WRB OR BWM, DEPENDING UPON THE AB0VE-NOTED DELEGATION OF SUPERVISION.
0 (CONTINUED) 9
-_= . _ _ _ _ - , - _ . . _. . - - - . . - . . . . - _ . . , - - . . - - . . - - . , . _ _ . . , _ . .
l
~
.7 l
("
DELEGATION (continued)
- IN ADDITION, ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS, WRB WILL CONTINUE TO SUPERVISE ALL' ACTIVITIES ASSOCI-ATED WITH 50.55(e) AND PART 21 REPORTS (ie, DITERMINING REPORTABILITY, PREPARING REPORTS AND FOLLOWING-UP FOR PROBLEM RESOLUTION).
- IN ADDITION, ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS, WRB WILL
, CONTINUE TO SUPERVISE THE REMEDIAL SOILS WORK.
- IT IS~ INCUMBENT UPON EACH SECTION HEAD, THE
. PQAE AND THE ASSISTANT MANAGER TO NOTIFY EITHER WRB OR BWM 0F ANY SIGNIFICANT ITEMS IN ACCORD-ANCE WITH THE ABOVE-NOTED DELEGATION OF SUPER-VISION.
i
1
^b 8
~
FULL-TIME MANAGEMENT SITE TIME SHALL BE WHATEVER IS REQUIRED TO DO THE JOB ,
- MIDLAND PROJECT BJSINESS AT ANN ARBOR, AND JACKSON MANAGING EVEN WHEN AWAY FROM MIDLAND--
- l MANA'GING FULL TIME DELEGATING OTHER .: UNCTIONS--EXCEPT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL, SAME AS ORIGINAL RESPON-SIBILITIES e
i4 c.
9
9 4
LINES OF COMMUNICATION SAME DEGREE OF INVOLVEMENT FOR JWC l
SHORTER LINES OF COMMUNICATION FROM SITE QA SECTION HEADS T'O JWC EQUAL BWM AND WRB ACCESS TO JWC f
4 l
- t t
- . , .- -- . - - . - - - - - . - - - - , . , - . , ,,,,,,-.--------n- _.m-m,-,-, , . , e.n -, --- .-- --- ..n.- - - , . , - - - - - - - - - . - - - . , n---.---..an.--,.
10 s
.g a t
1 ORGANIZATIONAL AUTHORITY BWM IS SINGLY ACCOUNTABLE BWM HAS FULL-LINE AUTHORITY
- ASSIGNING DAY-TO-DAY SUPERVISION IS
[g
NOT DELEGATING AWAY FINAL RESPONSI- ,
BILITY AND AUTHORITY' ,,
i r
0 l .
5 t
' ' ll r.
~
OTHER BENEFITS 9
. . ADDITIONAL SENIOR EXPERIENCED QA MANAGEMENT A
CONCENTRATED / SPECIALIZED EFFORT ADDITIONAL MANAGER ,
i ADDITIONAL SITE PRESENCE--WRB CONTINUES
' TO SPEND SAME AMOUNT OF TIME AT SITE, EVEN WITH BWM's PRESENCE AT SITE 1 s a
9 9
, , , , - - , - e .-,,-r --- -,-_ ,e.,n,_.-,n--->p- ,--. - -- - - - , ,.---,.. , , ., , , ,w, - --
g.,, -- . - . , , w-- - ,.- . , - - - -+--e -
12 r .
(
- s. _
CONCLUSION STRONGER QA ORGANIZATION
/
9 l
r I
e I
l I
n m
/ m ...
~
0:U A L I T.Y P . R: 0 G R A M-. ,
F0R -
~
U li D E. R P I N N I N.G . .
A C T I.V I.T I E S -
e t *
- /
- P S
E m
W T
S
p ,. ,
2 QUALITY PLAN FOR UNDERPINNING ACTIVITIES PURPOSE
' PRESENT GUALITY PLANS, FOR THE UNDERPINNING ACTIVITIES TO HIGHLIGilT ORGA"IZATIONS INVOLVFD SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES AND THEIR INTERFACING THOSE UNIQUE ACTIVITIES OR REQUIREMENTS THAT 60 BEYOND THE ESTABLISHED QUALITY PROGRAMS ,
COMPREHENSIVE TOTAL QUALITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONTROLS ON THE ~
QUALITY RELATED ACTIVITIES PROVIDE A STATUS ON:
STAFFING OF THE QUALITY ORGANIZATIONS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE QUALITY PLAN ,
! PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FACE TO FACE COMMUNICATION ON THE UNDERPINNING QUALITY PROGRAM O
e
D. . (3 .
. w
~
l~ OUTLINE'0F THE PRESENTATION i
j CPC0 AND BECHTEL ORGANIZATIONS 4
- SUBCONTRACTOR AND CONSULTANT ORGANIZATIONS QUALITY Pl.AN CONTENT i
~
DESIGN CONTROL FOR UNDERPINNING ACTIVITIES DESIGN DOCUMENT INTERFACE FLOW CHART ,
i 4
PROCEDURE REVIEW APPROVAL / FLOW CHART l QUALITY RELATED ACTIVITIES LIST l
SUBCONTRACTOR REQUIRED "0" PROCEDURES
! STAFFING OF QUALITY ORGANIZATIONS ADDITIONAL QUALITY PROGRAM DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT. ~
! THE UNDERPINRING WORK -
i
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSION l . .
o),
3
( i
. . < :'- ~
- q .
~
1 CPC0 AND BECHTEL ORGANIZATIONAL ELEMENTS T!!E EXISTING COMPANY ORGANIZATIONS AS PROVIDED BY ORGANIZATIONAL I Cl1 ARTS AND DESCRIPTIONS IN THE TOPICAL REPORTS AND LOWER TIER DOCUMENTS REMAIN FULLY APPLICABLE
- ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN THE UNDERPINNING -
\
CPCG PROJECT MANAGEMENT ,
CPC0 DES'IGN PRODUCTION CPC0 SITE MANAGEMCNT BECHTEL PROJECT MANAGEMEllT
- BECitTEL PROJECT ENGINEERING
, BECitTEL PROJECT GE0 TECHNICAL ENGINEER
- BECilTEL CONSTRUCTION (REMEDIAL SOILS GROUP)
GE0TECil SERVICES .
RESIDENT GE0TECilNICAL ENGINEER BECllTEL QUALITY CONTROL (DC)
(1IDLAND PROJECT GUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT (MPQAD)
I .
THE QUALITY PLAN FOR UNDERPINNING ACTIVITIES PROVIDES A BRIEF SCOPE STATEMENT FOR EACH ORGANIZATION AS RELATED TO THE UNDERPINNING ACTIVITY i
l
- O .~1 ,.
s
~
ORGANIZATIONS o
j SUBCONTRACTORS AND CONSULTANTS L .
SUBCONTRACTORS / CONSULTANTS SCOPE OF DUTIES MUESER, RUTLEDGE, JOHNSON DESI$NINPUTFORTHEUNDERPINNING0FTHE AND DESIMONE SERVICE WATER P' UMP STRUCTURE UNDER A l ~
TECHNICAL SERVICE AGREEMENT j'!
ALSO, CONSULTANT FOR THE UNDERPINNING OF THE AUXILIARY BUILDING UNDER A TECHNICAL i SERVICE AGREEMENT SPENCER, WHITE AND . SUBCONTRACTOR FOR THE UNDERPINNING 0F THE PRENTIS, INC (PROPOSED) SERVICE WATER PUMP STRUCTURE
- MERGENTIME CORP /HANSON JOINT VENTURE TO PROVIDE DESIGN INPUT FOR i ENGINEERS,INC THE UNDERPINNING 0F THE AUXILIARY BUILDING UNDER A TECHNICAL SERVICE AGREEMENT NERGENTIME CONST CORP SUBCONTRACTOR FOR THE UNDERPINNING OF li THE AUXILIARY BUILDING I
l .O -
rA
, :3 .
ORGANIZATIONS i.
)-
SUBCONTRACTORS AND CONSULTANTS (CONT) l .
SUBCONTRACTOR / CONSULTANTS SCOPE OF DUTIES j WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER AND PROVIDE THE DESIGN FOR THE SETTLEMENT i ASSOCIATES, INC MONITORING EQUIPMENT, PROCURES THE MONITORING EQUIPMENT, INSPECTS THE -
j INSTALLATION OF THE MONITORING EQUIPMENT, I AND PROVIDE DATA TO PROJECT ENGINEERING
} U S TESTING COMPANY, INC SUBCONTRACTOR FOR TESTING CONCRETE I PRODUCTION MATERIALS (CEMENT, FLYASH, i WATER, AGGREGATES), S0ILS, CONCRETE, GROUT, FINES MONITORING 0F S0Il PARTICLES,
) ,
TENSILE TESTING OF REINFORCING STEEL AND REINFORCING SPLICES.
i i
j
o -
i -
d:h.
.t i
! REMEDIAL SOILS WORK QUALITY i PROGRAM -
1 i .
1 .
~
e CPCo QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM MANUAL FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
= Volume I - Policies (Topical CPC-1-A)
. Volume ll- Procedures for Design and Construction .
e BQ-TOP-1, REVISION 1 A -
- Bechtel Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual
(3 e
n -s .
d
'~ . - B. .
4 QUALITY PLAN CONTENT .
! PROVIDES ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND RELATIONSHIPS
! ESTABLISHES A SPECIFIC Q-LIST OF DESIGNATED QUALITY ACTIVITIES PROVIDES A NARRATIVE OF THE MAJOR PROGRAM ELEMENTS
~
i PROVIDES UNIQUE QUALITY PROGRAMMATIC CONTROLS WHICH ARE NOT IN THE STANDARD
- EXISTING PROJECT QUALITY PROGRAMS PROVIDES ADDITIONAL DEFINITION TO THE QUALITY REQUIREMENTS IN THE TECHNICAL i SPECIFICATIONS
~
\ .
! PROVIDES A LIST OF THE SPECIFIC SAFETY RELATED (Q) PROCEDURES THE.SUBCON-
! TRACTOR MUST PROVIDE FOR PROJECT REVIEW, APPROVAL AND RELEASE.
1 4
1 i
~
i .
^
,n .
,q .
/
l -
DESIGN CONTROL FOR UNDERPINNING ACTIVITIES
_ QUALITY. PLAN FOR UNDERPINNING ACTIVITIES PROVIDES A DETAILED DESCRIPTION 0F THE DESIGN CONTROL PROCESS AND REFERENCES THE DETAIL PROCEDURES CONTROLLING THE BECHTEL AND CPC0 DEPARTMENT PROCEDURES i QUALITY PLAN INCORPORATED IN EACH SPECIFICATION PROVIDES THE DETAIL FLOW PROCESS FOR PREPARATION REVIEW AND RELEASE OF DESIGN DOCUMENTS
'l UNDERPINNING SUBCONTRACTOR (S) WILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A PROCEDURE TO CONTROL THE PROJECT ISSUED DESIGN DOCUMENTS AND PROCEDURES .
I -
Y
=
- . /,
a /-
6 DESIGN DOCUMENT INTERFACE FLOWCllART TECHNICAL PROJECT ENGINEERING INTERFACING CONSULTANTS PROJECT ADMINISTRATION CIVluSOILS GROUP GROUPS
- 1 l
OF.lGINATEfSUBMIT LOGS IN AND :I iREVIEW l EDP14.1.1 CALCULATIONS ROUTES TO CIVIL EDP 4.37
. AND DFsAWINGS SOILS GROUP
- INTERFACING GROUPS (as defined by EDPI 4.2S.1 or approved allemale)
SS N APPROVAL e DISCIPLINE ENGINEERING GROUPS e CHIEF ENGINEER (per EDP 4.34) e GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES l e CONSULTANTS
( e OUALITY ENGINEERING (deeminge and specificallons) e MPOA(drawings and specifications)
REVISE AND 'I LOG OUT II NO APPROVED FOR RESUBMIT DESIGN INPUT I YES EDP 4.37 GENERATE DESIGN i- CALCULATIONS.
- REVIEW AND .
EDP 4.48 - DESIGN DRAWINGS, COMMENT l AND TECHNICAL EDP 4.49 - SPECIFICATIONS I
COORDINATE WITN INTERFACING EDPI 4.25.1 Gl'.OUPS 1
INCORPORATEl RESOLVE COMMENTS '
SIGN OFF AND i
~
ISSUE FOR USE .
s O
R r r'
~
, PROCEDURE REVIEWlAPPROVAL FLOWCHART 1
BECHTEL FIELD PROJECT CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PROJECT ENGINEERING ' INTERFACING SUBCONTRACTOR REMEDIAL SOILS CONTROL ADMINISTRATION EDPl 4.25.1 GROUPS GROUP FID 1.100 EDP 5.5 EDP 5.16 ORIGINATEISUBMIT DRAWINGS l
% RECEIVES he LOGS INISTAMPSt DISTRIBUTES AS * -*
LOGS INfSTAMPSt DISTRIBUTES AS
"" REVIEW AND COORDINATION 9N REVIEW AND COMMENT (MPOA PROCEDURES } SPECIF!ED SPECIFIED and OC approvel)
[ <
RESOLVEl INCORPORATE COMMENTS
! ASSIGN APPROVAL STATUS l- NO 7g3 REVISE AND NOTIFY SIC TO e LOG OUT RESUBMIT REVISE AND hM LOG OUT - ' 1. 2, 3 RESUBMIT BEFORE USE YES STATUS 31 WORK MAY l
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY PROCEEDS PROCEED. REVISE AS INDICATED % LOG OUT h LOG OUT '
STATUS 2fwORK MAY ,
- PROCEED. SUBMIT * .
FINAL DOCUMENT
! CONSTRUCTION -
ACTIVITY PROCEEDS *
. I STATUS ifWORK M AY
] PROCEED
p -
p,
- 3 Ot hizatica Rasp:nsible Fcr Preczdure-R view & A. sol
'racadures To Ba Submitted By Tha S becatractor'
-c h A. -
o a u ac -
60 o .o -4 n- -
c ceo.c a :s W u r< p. . 4 W ,u o 0$ u. * *
- sa oa uu u 4u
.e,. ve u -
o ao
.c a ocooee .c < a 0.
cy oc m -
' O. ps o m o M se & u M eo X' O ,O X' -X 0 racedure for general underpinning - This procedure hall include the overall concept of the work cyc1ved, including the interface of all the .
operations listed below.
X 0 0 X X 0 .
' recedure for load transfer.
0 X X 3 grecedure for placement of lean concrete backfill in . X . .
Jhnfto cnd tunnel.
!Precedure for installation of (including mixing) X 0 X' X . ..
and pressure grouting.
t X 0 X X .
Precedure for placement of pier concrete.
'X 0 X X -
Procedure for acquiring and maintaining calibration' of Jccko and gages. -
l .
0 X X Procedure for mechanical splicing of reinforcement? X ,
0 X X p Procedure for threading of reinforcing steel.
X .
X 0 X~ X
. Procedure for installation of anchor bolts and rock LEGEND -
~
eachora.
' REVIEW & APPROVALL.-' k.
Procedure for installation'of compressible material. X 0 1 X .
X 0 X X - REVIEW & COHNENT - O' Procedure for placing reinforcement including .
'as applicable .
bending steel reinforcement (hot and cold).' .
~
X 0 ~X X -
Procedure for core drilling. .s
-* 9
'g 'e e
- r. .
3
'ol OL. aizatica R cponiiblo Far Preccdura Review & A;
'recedurca To B2 Submitted By The Subcentractor - '
9g O
,4 o -
. o e-< c ao u o et n
,u u a ceo.c < :s .-i us eu oD u
,e u o a n<9 a .
.o e uu .B a:
,, ,< u . .c m .c e ua oaooa 4
cr oa o ee o eo e o in e . o a- .
p ee E
- p. go so o M se & u e4 o .
X 0 X X Precedure for concrete repairs.
X 0 0 X X Jrecedure for excavation "Q" structures and the Installation of lagging. .~ -
X 0 X X Precedure for protection of underground utilities s
i X G X X l'recediire for preparing, submitting, and revising .
Q procedures. .
X 0 X X Procedure for handling, storing, and controlling . .
Centractor-furnished materials. -
X 0. 0 X Procedure for design document control.
X. 0 0 0 X '
Procedures for interface and coordination - .-
between the Subcontractor and the Contractor for cctivities covered by the QA Program. ,
he,cet*~ far ennstruction of temporary supports X 0 X X 0.
including grillage.
0 X X LEGEND X
Precedure forg elding. '
I X 0 X X- REVIEW & APPROVAL.
- X Procedure for', certifying subcontractor personnel ' .
~
spacifically for A E weldine and mechanical splices.
. REVIEW & COMMENT - 0 0 X 'X as applicable X-Precedure for Training Program of subcontractor personnel for the Q-Procedures covering the subcontractor . .
ocape of work. -
t.
t' e
p ; 's 10 QUALITY RELATED (0-LISTED ACTIVITIES)
- 1. DOCUMENT SUBMITTAL, INTERFACE AND CONTROL @
- 2. PROCURING 0-LISTED ITEMS AND MATERIALS
, 3. STORAGE, HANDLING AND CONTROL 0F u-LISTED MATERIALS @
- 4. FURNISHING A.ND INSTALLATION OF LAGGING AND BRACING UNDER "Q" @
STRUCTURES
- 5. EXCAVATION LIMITS, CONTROL AND SEQUENCE UNDER "Q" STRUCTURES @
- 6. CRACK MAPPING AND EVALUATION
- 7. CALIBRATION, MAINTENANCE, CONTROL AND INSTALLATION OF GAGES AND '
SETTLEMENT MONITORING INSTRUMENTATION
- 8. MONITORING 0F BUILDING MOVEMENT INSTRUMENTATION AND PIER PRESSURE GAGES l 9. FINES MONITORING 0F DEWATERING WELLS IN "0" AREAS
- 10. LOCATION AND PROTECTION OF "0" UTILITIES @
- 11. GE0 TECHNICAL ACCEPTANCE OF SUBGRADE STRUCTURES
- 12. FABRICATION OF STEEL GRILLAGE FOR. TEMPORARY SUPPORTS FOR "0" STRUCTURES
- 13. FABRICATIONS AND INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY SUPPORTS FOR "0"
- 14. WELDING 0F TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SUPPORTS FOR "Q" STRUCTURES ,
@ SUBCONTRACTOR HAS TO HAVE PROCEDURES
@ APPLY ONLY TO AUXILIARY BUILDING UNDERPINNING ,
e
n,
,e 30 QUALITY RELATED (0-LISTED ACTIVITIES)
(CONTINUED)
- 15. FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION OF REINFORCING STEEL 1
- 16. CERTIFICATION OF PERSONNEL PERFORMING SPLICES 1
- 17. THREADING OF REINFORCING STEEL AND INSTALLATION OF MECHANICAL SPLICES @
- 18. DRILLING IN "Q" STRUCTURES FOR THE INSTALLATION 0F ANCHOR. BOLTS, ROCK ANCHORSANDDEWATERING-WELLS ~~@
- 19. INSTALLATION 01 AND INSPECTION OF ANCHOR BOLTS AND ROCK ANCHORS
- 20. COMPRESSIBLE MATERIAL CONFIGURATION AND INSTALLATION @
- 21. TESTING 0F REINFORCING STEEL AND MECHANICAL SPLICES
- 22. INSPECTION AND TESTING-0F' STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, LEAN
. INSTALLATION @
- - -- CONCRETE,' GROUT AND DRYPACK '
.23. REPAIR OF CONCRETE IN "0" STRUCTURES @
- 24. CALIBRATING, MAINTAINING, INSTALLING AND CONTROLLING 0F HYDRAULIC JACKS
.AND PRESSURE GAGES @
- 25. LOAD TRANSFER ACTIVITIES @
- 26. BACKFILLING @ AND ACCEPTANCE TESTING FOR ACCESS SHAFTS AND TUNNELS IN "Q" AREAS
@ SUBCONTRACTOR HAS TO HAVE PROCEDURES
@ APPLY ONLY-TO AUXIL-IARY BUILDING UNDERPINNING .
e 0
{
\
SUBCONTRACTOR REQUIRED ".0" PROCEDURES ,
LIST IS TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE QUALITY PLAN FOR SPECIFICATION C-195 PROCEDURE LIST PROCEDURE FOR GENERAL UNDERPINNING - THIS PROCEDURE SHALL INCLUDE THE OVERALL CONCEPT OF THE WORK INVOLVED, INCLUDING THE INTERFACE .
OF ALL THE OPERATIONS LISTED BELOW PROCEDURE FOR LOAD TRANSFER PROCEDURE FOR PLACEMENT OF LEAN' CONCRETE BACKFILL IN SHAFTS AND TUNNFlS PROCEDURE FOR INSTALLATION OF (INCLUDING MIXING) AND PRESSURE GROUTING PROCEDURE FOR PLACEMENT OF PIER CONCRETE PROCEDURE FOR ACQUIRING AND MAINTAINING CALIBRATION OF JACKS AND GAGES PROCEDURE FOR-MECHANICAL SPLICING OF REINFORCEMENT PROCEDURE FOR THREADING OF REINFORCING STEEL PROCEDURE FOR INSTALLATION OF ANCHOR BOLTS AND ROCK- ANCHORS PROCEDURE FOR INSTALLATION OF COMPRESSIBLE MATERIAL
SUBCONTRACTOR REQUIRED "Q" PROCEDURES .
(CONTINUED) .
PROCEDURE FOR PLACING REINFORCEMENT INCLUDING BENDING' STEEL REINFORCEMENT (H0T AND COLD)
PROCEDURE FOR CORE DRILLING PROCEDURE FOR CONCRETE REPAIRS PROCEDURE FOR EXCAVATION "Q" STRUCTURES AND THE INSTALLATION OF LAGGING PROCEDURE FOR PROTECTION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PROCEDURE FOR PREPARING, SUBMITTING AND REVISING Q~ PROCEDURES PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING', STORING, AND CONTROLLING CONTRACTOR-FURNISHED MATERIALS PROCEDURE FOR DESIGN DOCUMENT CONTROL PROCEDURES FOR INTERFACE AND COORDINATION BETWEEN THE SUBCONTRACTOR AND THE CONTRACTOR F.0R ACTIVITIES COVERED BY THE QA PROGRAM .
PROCEDURE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPORARY SUPPORTS [ INCL PROCEDURE FOR WELDING PROCEDURE FOR CERTIFYING SUBCONTRACTOR PERSONNEL SPECIFICALLY FOR AWS WELDING AND MECHANICAL SPLICES .
PROCEDURE FOR TRAINING PROGRAM 0F SUBCONTRACTOR PERSONNEL FOR THE 0-PROCEDURES COVERING THE SUBCONTRACTORS SCOPE OF WORK e
^ 12Af G fNy ,
ORGANIZATION CHART.0F MP0AD IN SUPPORT OF UNDERPINNING ,
MIDLAND PROJECT OFFICE
'MPQAD MANAGER W R BIRD CIVIL QA -
SECTION HEAD ,
D E HORN 1 QA ENGINEERING SUPERVIS01 R L AKERS -
M C BUTTERFIELD R C HIRZEL -1 J DONNELL 1 THOSE INDIVIDUALS IE&TV/ SUPERVISOR .WHOSE PRIMARY RE-SPONSIBILITIES AND '
R E SEVO 1
-TIME ARE FOR SUPPORT 0 " " "" "
J C SHAH 0R C E HARBOUR 1 ADMINISTRATWEW D A 1 UNDER QUALITY EN-GINEERING SERVICES DQAE - ANN ARBOR 2 SECTION L SUTi(US 1 4
- -__ _ _ _ _ ____J
jq
,q, .m s
~
BECHTEL QUALITY CONTROL CIVIL DISCIPLINE .
LEAD 2ND SHIFT (1)
I IINorRPINNING C0ATINGS' CONCRETE STRUCTURAL S0ILS, DEWATERING SETTLEMENT MONITORING (6)
(6)
(8)
BATCH PLANT / LAB
- (2)
NUMBERS IN THE BLOCKS SHOW THE. NUMBER OF QUALITY CONTROL ENGINEERS ASSIGNED AS OF JANUARY, 1982 PRESENT STAFF AS SHOWN IS ADEQUATE TO COVER NEAR FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK CERTIFICATION FOR SPECIFIC UNDERPINNING QUALITY CONTROL INSTRUCTIONS IS ACTIVITY PENDING .
1
I f
,.o; 12c p l
l ;: -
GE0 TECHNICAL SUPPORT . .
. i I
H & CF PROJECT ENGItlEERING GEOTECHNICAL. CIVIL SOILS RESIDENT E -l '
apygUP SUPERVISOR GROW SWERVISOR PROyECT ENGINEER l ._
I I- I .
l '
l i~-
i I I .! ~
E E i-E g
PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL
[
ENGINEER -
I
[
l
, g !
I j.
6 3
RESIDENT I
GEOTECHNICAL """"""E i ENGINEER r** = " PROJECT DIRECTION -
- a = =s TECHNICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION i,
p 33 m QUALITY P'ROGRAM DOCUMENTS .
QUALITY PROGRAM DOCUMENTS THAT WILL BE REVISED OR PREPARED TO IMPLEMENT PROGRAM CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO THE QUALITY PLANS EDPI_- 4.25.1 DESIGN INTERFACE CONTROL COR APPROVED ALTERNATE)~
EDPI - 2.14.8 RESIDENT G$0 TECHNICAL ENGINEER FOR MIDLAND REMEDIAL UNDERPINNING OPERATIONS
~
EDP - 5.16 SUPPLIER' DOCUMENT CONTROL FPD - 1.000 D'ESIG'N DOCUMENT AND.CDRRESPONDENCE CONTROL (0R APPROVE'D ALTERNATE)
-SPECIFICATION C-198 -
QUALITY PLAN FOR. SETTLEMENT MONITORING AND INSTRUMENTATION FINALIZE IND0CTRINATION AND PROGRAMMATIC TRAINING 0F' SUBCONTRACTOR PERSONNEL e
a g '# [ *P'e , ,9, e "*
=y,g*.J.^[,'-
, , .. g:- - - - +
Q
< 1 (i.
SUMMARY
REVIEWED THE MAJOR ELEMENTS OF THE QUALITY PLANS-l
. PROVIDED THE STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF~THESE PLANS i
EMPHASIZED THE UNIQUE ASPECTS.0F THESE ACTIVITIES AND THE WAYS THE i
' QUALITY PROGRAM RESPONDS.TO.THESE ASPECTS -
e e
g b ee 4
e 4
\, ~
.h e-
- ~
9 e e
g - - - -
..)
pa Cleuq h UNITED STATES
,8 y , 'kg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g 1l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
-. January 29, 1982 s
%, . 9...../
Docket Nos: 50-329 and 50-330 OM, OL APPLICANT: Consumers Power Company FACILITY: Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF JANUARY 12, 1982 MEETING ON QA ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES AND UNDERPINNING QA On January 12, 1982 NRC met in Glen Ellyn, Illinois with Consumers Power Company to discuss; (1) changes in the quality assurance organization for Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 and, (2) the quality program for underpinning of the Auxilairy Building area and the Service Water Pump Structures.
Meeting attendees are listed by Enclosure 1.
QA Organizational Change In November 1981, Consumers implemented certain changes in the Midland Project Quality Assurance . Department (MPQAD). The changes were identified in a December 1981 letter to the ASLB and were discussed during the December 1981 session of the OM-OL hearing. The hearing
~ '
discussions revealed that information provided the NRC on these changes was very limited and the early assessment by the NRC raised concerns regardina the acceptability of these changes. The changes were subsequently discussed in Consumers letter of Dece~mb'er 23, 1981.
The meeting on January 12, 1982, included a review of the information from the December 23 letter.
Mr. B. Marguglio described the changes in the QA organization using several viewgraph slides (Enclosure 2) during his presentation.
Slides 3 and 4 show the previous and new organization for the Midland Project Quality Assurance Department (MPQAD). The principal change is that three QA sections (Fluid Mechanical, Civil and Electrical I&C) no longer report through the superintendent of site project QA to Mr. Walt Bird, the MPQAD manager; rather they directly report to the combined B. Marguglio hPQAD director) and W. Bird (MPQAD manager) arrangement, along with several other sections.
At the conclusion of the presentation and several questions, Mr.
Keppler stated he was concerned about how much Messrs. Marguglio and Bird may be diluted with other work, and that the presentation failed to provide any convincing _ evidence that the change represents an enhancement -
of the previous organization. After a brief caucus, Mr. J. Cook returned to announce that the position of superintendent of site project QA would be reinstated after that position can be filled, and la, the three sections as before would report through this position to
.a
. 1P P h
. s
t Consumers Power Company s-Mr. Marguglio. Mr. Keppler replied that such an organization would represent a further enhancement to the previous MPQAD which he had found acceptable, and would meet the Staff's criteria for establishing '
depth in an organization.
Mr. Cook stated that this change would be documented by letter shortly and an implementation date will be provided. The responsibilities of Mr. Bird with respect to HVAC will also be addressed. Mr. Cook also announced that due to reasons of health, Mr. Gil Keeley was being replaced by Mr. Jim Mooney. ,
QA P1'an for Underpinning Mr. W. Bird reviewed the general Quality Plan and the quality plans for the activities associated with the underpinning of the service water pump structure and auxiliary building. Viewgraph slides used during the presentation are provided by Enclosure 3. The presentation consisted of a review of the information in Consumer's letter of January 7,1982.
L. W
,. Darl S. Hoo , Project Manager q Licensing Branch No. t.
(. s., Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc: See next page l
l l
l l
I l
(~,>
,.l y- - - . - . . . -
v . - - . ,-. y , ,- ,,--,-.---.------.-,.--..e.-,-- -. , . . - - - - . . - . , . . .
1 l
' MIDLAND !
l
/
Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Cogany 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 cc: Michael I. Miller, Esq. Mr. Don van Farrowe, Chief Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq. Division of Radiological Health Alan S. Farnell, Esq. Department of Public Health Isham, Lincoln & Beale P.O. Box 33035 Suite 4200 Lansing, Michigan 48909 1 First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 William J. Scanlon, Esq.
2034' Pauline Boulevard James E. Brunner, Esq. Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 Consumers Power Comany 212 West Michigan Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Jackson, Michigan 49201 Resident Inspectors Office Route 7 Myron M. Cherry, Esq. Midland, Michigan 48640 -
1 IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5795 N. River Ms. Mary Sinclair Freeland, Michigan 48623 5711 Summerset Drive ,
Midland, Michigan 48640 Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Consumers Power Company (s.l Stewart H. Freeman Assistant Attorney General 212 W. Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 State of Michigan Environmental Protection Division Mr. Walt Apley 720 Law Building c/o Mr. Max Clausen Lansing, Michigan 48913 BattellePacificNorthWestLabs(PNWL)
Battelle Blvd.
Mr. Wendell Marshall SIGMA IV Building Route 10 Richland, Washington 99352 Midland, Michigan 48640 Mr. I. Charak, Manager Mr. Roger W. Huston NRC Assistance Project Suite 220 Argonne National Laboratory 7910 Woodmont Avenue 9700 South Cass Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Argonne, Illinois 60439 Mr. R. B. Borsum James G. Kepple'r. Regional Administrator Nuclear Power Generation Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Babcock & Wilcox Region III 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 220 799 Roosevelt Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 I
Mr. J. W. Cook ..
s_.
cc: Commander, Naval Surface Weapons Center ATTN: P. C. Huang White Oak Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Mr. L. J. Auge, Manager Facility Design Engineering Energy Technology Engineering Center P.O. Box 1449 Canoga Park, California 91304
'Mr. Neil Gehring U.S. Corps of Engineers NCEED - T 7th Floor 477 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Atomic. Safety & Licensing Board ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
~
Mr. Ralph S. Decker
( ' ). '-
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Apt. B-125 6125 N. Verde Trail Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Jerry Harbour, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Geotechnical Engineers, Inc.
ATTN: Dr. Steve J. Poulos 1017 Main Street Winchester, Massachusetts 01890
-79 s.. .
w- .-.- - - - - . - . _ _ _ _ . - . , - , - . _ , - . - - _ . . . - _ _ . - - . . _ -
ENCLOSURE 1 ATTEN0ENCE SHEET CPCo - NRC MEETING W. R. Bird CPCo B. W. Marguglio CPCo J. G. Bloom Isham, Lincoln & Beak J. Cook CPCo D. C. Boyd NRC R. J. Cook NRC ,
W. D. Paton NRC D. Hood NRC M. Wilcove NRC G. Gallagher NRC R. Landsman NRC C. Noseline NRC L. Spessard NRC J. Keppler NRC D. E. Horn CPCo R. E. Sevo Bechtel 9
9 I
9
. . _ . _ . _ _ - . . . _ - , . _ , . , ,_,. . _- ,_ - . . _ _ -. _ - . _ _ _, _ . . _ ,