ML20153B676
| ML20153B676 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/01/1984 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151D196 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-583 NUDOCS 8805060057 | |
| Download: ML20153B676 (226) | |
Text
-
1
,' 1 STATE OF MICHIGAN )
2 ) SS:
3 COUNTY OF MIDLAND )
4 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MIDLAND 5 STATE OF MICHIGAN 6
7 THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY,)
8 Plaintiff,)
9 vs. ) file No. 83-002232-CK-D 10 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY, )
11 Defendant.)
12 13 The deposition of ROBERT FRED WARNICK, 14 taken in the above-entitled cause, before MELANIE 15 JAKUSZEWSKI, a Notary Public within and for the 16 County of Cook, State of Illinois, and a Certified 17 Shorthand Reporter of said ntate, at 799 Roosevelt 18 Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois, on the 1st day of May, 19 A.D. 1984, at 9:45 a.m.
20 21 22
, 23 24 l
' Y' 68050b0057 880400 f[fe, o kokenbe and 811ocialz1, .0nc.
PDR FOIA PDR ggu gttwu , (2y2;7gg.gogy BARA%B7-503
2 1 PRESENT:
2 3 MESSRS. KIRKLAND & ELLIS, 4 (200 East Randolph Drive, 5 Chicago, Illinois 60601), by:
6 MR. WILLIAM R. JENTES, 7 MR. LAWRENCE E. STRICKLING and 8 MS. CAROL M. RICE, 9 appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff; 10 11 MESSRS. BARRIS, SOTT, DENN & DRIKER, 12 (1001 Woodward Avenue, 13 (Detroit, Michigan 48226), by:
14 MR. ANDREW M. ZACK, 15 appeared on behalf of the Defendant; 17 18 19 20 t
21 l
22
! .: 3 s
24 MJ 0Vo[fe, hosen$rsy and 81sociales, hna.
. . - - _ . 9%*. DT"*" * ( '"U" *!*' . - _ ---
i
3
"% 1 PRESENT: (Continued) 2 3 OFF.'Lt OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 5 (799 Roosevelt Road, -
6 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137), by:
7 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS, i
8 -and-9 OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 10 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11 (Washington, D.C., 20555), by:
12 MR. DANIEL BERKOVITZ, 13 appeared on behalf of the Deponent.
14 15 REPORTED BY: MELANIE JAKUSZEWSKI, C.S.R.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 H3 GVo[fs, kosen[rty and &ssoclais1, hna.
C h y *, Difuots _e _ p t2{is2sosi n
4 1
~
l I_N_D E X 2 WITNESS EXAMINATION 3 ROBERT FRED WARNICK 4 By Mr. Strickling 7 5 Resumed 109 6
7 E_X H_I_B_I_T_S 8 NUMBER MARKED _FOR_ID 9 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NRC 10 No. 1 26 11 No. 2 27 12 No. 3 35 13 No. 4 42 14 No. 5 42 15 No. 6 60 16 No. 7 79 17 No. 8 87 18 No. 9 91 19 No. 10 91 20 No. 11 91 21 No. 12 110 22 No. 13 125 23 No. 14 129 s
. 24 No. 15 135 H0 0Yo[fe, 00sen$ rey and 81soclais1, hna.
CAa.go Dttinu o est2 Dis 2 soar ,
5 1 EEEEEE v* M_SEEE_p,,F_,Q3,_I,g 2 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NRC 3 No. 16 138 4 Nos. 17 through 20 143 5 No. 21 161 6 No. 22 169 7 No. 23 170 8 No. 24 178 9 Nos. 25 and 16 180 10 No. 27 182 11 No. 28 182 12 Nos. 29 through 31 196 13 No. 32 199 14 No. 33 202 15 No. 34 204 16 No. 35 209 17 No. 36 210 18 Nos. 37 through 39 213 19 No. 40 215 20 No. 41 218 21 No. 42 219 22 No. 43 221 23 24 HJ
{}g/c[fs, Sossnbsy and &ssoelaiss, .$na.
6
% 1 N, UMBER M A, R K E_ D_ F O, R _ I,D, 2 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT CPC 3 No. 11 through 13 91 4 No. 14 133 5 No. 15 186 6 No. 16 194 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MJ G}/offe, kosen[rty and 811oclakes, hne.
C$laa4o, DUtnots e G312) 782 8087
7 N (WHEREUPON, the witness was 1
2 duly sworn.)
L 3 ROBERT PRED WARNICK, 4 called as a witness herein, having been first duly l
j 5- sworn, was examined and testifiad as follows:
l 6 EXAMINATION l 7 BY MR. STRICKLING:
8 Q. State your name, sir.
9 A. Robert Fred Warnick.
10 Q. What is your address?
11 A. 1480 Penbroke Lane, Wheaton, Illinois.
12 Q. You are employed by the Nuclear Regulatory 13 Commission, is that right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. How long have you been employed by the NRC?
16 A. Since January of 1971.
17 Q. What is your current position with the NRC?
18 A. Chief of Projects-Branch 1.
l l
19 Q. And how long have you held that position?
l 20 A. I am not sure exactly. A couple months.
21 We just had a reorganization.
22 Q. As Chief of Projects-Branch I what are 23 y.our principal duties and responsibilities?
s 24 A. I have responsibility for the plants under j l
MJ 0Vo[fe, kosen$rsy and kssociatts, hnc.
% .Am a n m ax w
8 1 construction in Region III.
2 Q. Are you respon'sible for all the plants 3 under construction currently in Region III?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. When you say you are responsible for those 6 plants what do you mean?
7 A. I supervise section chiefs who in turn 8 supervise inspectors that have the responsibility 9 for the inspection program at those sites under 10 construction.
11 0 Okay. In supervising the section chiefs, 12 what are you concerned with? What do you do?
13 A. Well, I keep up with all of the. problems 14 that are being experienced and making sure that we 15 get satisfactory resolution of those problems. In 16 addition, review the inspection reports that are 17 written, and in general keep abreast of the 18 activities at those sites, the inspection activities 19 at those sites, and then whatever problems are being 20 encountered either in our inspection or being 21 identified in our inspections or being encountered 22 by the licensees, we should be aware of.
23 Q. Okay. What is the projects branch s
24 concerned with with respect to the construction of MJ 0Yo[fe, Sosenbey and Associai:1, $na.
Oktrw, Ditmots e m2) ts2-soar , _ . _ - - . .__ _
9
,'N 1 nuclear plants in Region III?
2 A. Carrying out the i n s p e c t i o ri of those 3 plants under construction to see that they are 4 constructed safely and in accordance with rules and 5 regulations.
6 Q. As Chief of Projects-Branch 1, who is your 7 immediate superior?
8 A. Charles Norelius.
9 Q. And what is his title?
10 A. Director-Division of Projects and Resident 11 Programs.
12 Q. And as Chief of Projects-Branch 1 do you 13 presently have responsibility for the Midland 14 project?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Prior to being appointed as Chief of 17 Projects-Branch No. 1, what was your position with 18 the NRC?
19 A. Director of the Office of Special Cases.
20 Q. And how long did you hold that position?
21 A. Since July of '82.
22 Q. And you held that position up until about 23 two months ago you say?
. 24 A. Yes.
HJ 0Vo[fe, kosen[ rey and 81sociales, hnc.
CRugo, Dttiau e 012> 182 8087
10
- 1 Q. What is the Office of Special Cases?
o -
2 A. The Office of Special Cases is dissolved.
3 It was dissolved approximately two. months ago, but 4 it was created to -- so that we could place special 5 emphasis on two plants that were experiencing 6 problems, the Zimmer facility and the Midland 7 facility.- It was a concentration of manpower.
8 Q. What was the purpose of the concentration 9 of manpower, the special emphasis that you referred 10 to?
11 A. To see if we couldn't get the plants' 12 performance turned around and get things going right, 13 get the plants built correctly.
14 Q. Prior to July of '82 did the Office of 15 Special Cases exist?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Go ahead.
18 A. It was dissolved a couple months ago.
19 Q. As head of the Office of Special Cases 20 what were your duties and responsibilities?
21 A. I supervise two section chiefs, one for 22 the Zimmer facility and one for the Midland facility, 23 and then the same things that I am doing right now, N
. 24 monitor the progress of the inspection program, MJ 0Vo[fs, 00senbey and &ssociales, .0nc.
_ _ _ _ __ - - - ___- - _ _ --_-_- -___- - ____ _ l C A % *>_ Ollo wlo _ O_ R 8b K 6 G OP __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -
11
' 1 r4 follow the problems that exist at the_ plant and try
.2 to get satisfactory resolution of those problems.
3 'Q. You have referred to section' chiefs now, 4 both with respect to your work in the Office of 5 Special Cases and as Chief of Projects-Branch 1.
6 What~ is a section chief?
7 A. First line supervisor of reactor 8 inspectors.
9 Q. And what are his specific duties and 10 responsibilities?
11 A. Well, similar to mine except he has one 12 section of people to oversee whereas I have several 13 sections.
14 Q. At the present time who is the section 15 chief for Midland?
16 A. Jay Harrison.
17 Q. How long has he held that position?
18 A. I don't remember exactly. He replaced 19 Wayne Shafer, and that was --
I am guessing --
a 20 year ago, plus or minus six months.
21 Q. Could you spell "Shafer" for the record?
22 A. S-h-a-f-e-r.
23 Q. How long was M r,. Shafer section chief for x
24 Midland?
MJ (}$l[fs, o hossn$rzy and 81sociales, hnc.
\ C$te 9 o, Dllosols e (3121 782 8087
12
^ 1 A. Since July of '82 when we formed the 2 Office of Special Cases.
3 Q. Prior to July of '82 was there a sec tion 4 chief for Midland?
5 A. Section chief for Midland and other plants, 6 and I am not sure what other plants and who the 7 section chief was.
8 Q. Prior to July of '82 what position did you 9 hold with the NRC?
10 A. I was the Director of the Enforcement and 11 Investigation Staff.
12 O. Was that here in Region III?
t 13 A. In Region III.
14 Q. What were your duties and responsibilities 15 in that position?
16 A. Two principal duties were to oversee the 17 escalated enforcement actions, those were the civil 18 penalty cases; to oversee the documentation and 19 follow the flow of paperwork to see that we get them 20 out in a timely manner and that they are handled 21 consistently and appropriate with our procedures.
22 The other aspect of the work was to supervise the 23 investigations conducted by Region III, follow up on s
. 24 allegations and other things that we investigated.
MJ 0Vo[fe, hosenbey and 81sociales, hna.
l CRuyo. Dttinois e cas2> 182 soar
13 u
g' 1 Q. How long did you hold this position?
2 A'. Less than a year.
3' O. During the period of time that you were 4 Director were there any investigations conducted of 5 the Midland project?
6 A. I can't remember specifically. We had so 7 many that --
it is possible.
\
8 Q. Did you have any staff that rep'ortad to 9 you in this capacity?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. How many people?
12 A. I had one individual that worked on 13 enforcement and --
let's see. I have to count.
14 Four investigators.
15 Q. Can you remember their names?
16 A. Yes. Jerry Phillips, Jim Foster, Chuck 17 Weil, Bob Burton.
18 Q. Could you spell "Weil" for the record?
19 A. W-e-i-1.
20 Q. You indicated you also had one person 21 working in Enforcement. Who was that individual?
22 A. Bill Schultz.
23 Q. Could you spell that?
24 A. S-c-h-u-1-t-z.
HJ 0Vo[fe, 00$snbey and &ssociales, hna.
hufmWW
14
_' 1 Q. Who was your immediate superior in this 2 position as Director of Enforcement and 3 Investigations?
4 A. Mr. Keppler.
5 Q. Did you have any reporting function to the 6 NRC in Washington in this position?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Now, prior to becoming Director of 9 Enforcement and Investigations sometime in 1981 what 10 was your next prior position with the NRC?
11 A. Section Chief.
12 Q. And who did you report to in that capacity?
13 A. Heishman for a while and --
14 H-e-i-s-h-m-a-n, and previous to that Fiorelli, 15 F-i-o-r-e-1-1-i.
16 MR. LEWIS: "I."
17 THE WITNESS: "I"?
18 MR. LEWIS: I guess.
19 BY MR. STRICKLING:
20 Q. What were their titles?
21 A. Branch Chief.
22 Q. How long did you hold the position of 23 Section Chief?
s 24 A. Since approximately March of '77, March or MJ 0Vo[fe, hosenbetg and 811ociates, hna.
CRtaago, DLota e (DIR) 7m0C7
15 i
1 April.
2 Q. As Section Chief did you have any' 3 responsibility for the Midland project?
4 A. I did not.
5 Q. Prior to March or April of 1977 what was 6 your position with the NRC?
7 A. I was in Headquarters, and I was called a 8 Regional Coordinator.
9 Q. You were stationed in Washington?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. What were your duties and responsibilities 12 as Regional Coordinator?
13 A. To coordinate all the actions between 14 Region III and Headquarters regarding reactor plants S
15 and materials concerngg'. All regional actions that /(
16 were transferred to Headquarters they worked through 17 a regional coordinator, and then I sheparded in the 18 paperwork.
19 Q. What kinds of matters would be referred to 20 Washington or transferred to Washington?
21 A. Escalated enforcement action, problems.
22 Headquarters was always notified of problems or 23 unusual events, any kind of things that happened at N
24 the reactors. The bulk of the work involved reactors .
MJ 0%[fs, Sounbey and 81welates, .$nc.
16
- 1 Q. When a problem would be transferred to 2 Washington, what would happen to it?
3 A. Well, "Transfer" may be the wrong word.
4 Many times it was just a case of informing the 5 Headquarters of an event or a. problem so that they 6 were aware of what was going on. Other cases it was 7
s like escalated enforcement action. It was a matter 8 of having Headquarters review the proposed 9 enforcement action, either concurring with it or 10 modifying it, and then it is to be sent out by the 11 Region, and moving the paper back to the Region so 12 they could send it out or we send it out from 13 Headquarters, and it was getting the right 14 signatures and concurrences and having to send out.
15 Q. You have used the term "escalsted 16 enforcement" a number of times in your testimony 17 this morning. Could you explain what you mean by 18 that?
19 A. Escalated e n f r: r c em e n t action is that 20 enforcement action which is more than the normal 21 item of noncompliance. It could be one that may or 22 may not result in a civil penalty. It could result 23 in an order and not necessarily a civil penalty. It T
24 could result in both.
MJ Tofs, do d eg M disoelaki,[ne.
17
^ l O. What is the laundry list of enforcement 2 actions that the NRC can take against a project?
3 You have mentioned fines or penalties, you have 4 mentioned orders. Are there any other types of 5 enforcement actions that can be issued?
6 A. We issue items of noncompliance.
7 Q. What is meant by that?
8 A. An item of noncompliance is a case where 9 they fail to meet a rule or regulation and we write 10 it up as a --
it is a citation. Now, there is also 11 deviations, which is a failure to meet a commitment 12 as opposed to failure to meet a requirement.
13 Q. As a general matter under what 14 circumstancer would a penalty or fine be levied 15 against a utility?
16 A. Well, we have an enforcement policy which 17 gives us guidance on how to characterize items of 18 noncompliance, and then depending upon their 19 severity level then it also gives guidance as to 20 what type of civil penalties should be issued.
21 Q. Are these guidelines set out in the NRC 22 regulations?
23 A. Yes.
N 24 Q. Do you know where in tha regulations they H3 GVo[fe, kosenbey and &ssociales, .0nc.
aun. sma, . a m rencoor
18 T 1 can be found?
2 A. What is the part?
3 MR. LEWIS: Do you wish me to give you an 4 answer?
5 MR. STRICKLING: The witness can just-state he 6 doesn't remember if he doesn't.
7 BY THE WITNESS:
8 A. It is in the Code of Federal Regulations, 9 but I can't quote the exact spot.
10 BY MR. STRICKLING:
11 Q. Do you think you could find it if you <
12 refer to the regulations?
13 A. I could find it if I was at my desk drawer.
14 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 15 tendered to the witness.)
16 BY THE WITNESS:
17 A. It is Part 2 Appendix C, "General Policy 18 and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions."
19 MR. ZACK: For the sake of the record, what is 20 the more specific title number?
21 MR. STRICKLING: It is the 10 CFR, 10 Code of 22 Federal Regulations, and he said it was Part 2.
23 BY MR. STRICKLING:
. 24 Q. Apart from Part 2, Appendix C do you have MJ 0Vo[fs, hossnbsy am{ &ssoclais1, hnc.
Clu ge, Dit a e (3121 782 8087 _ _ _ _ _ _ . _. .
19
"% 1 any other written guidelines with respect to 2 escalated enforcement?
3 A. If there are, I don't recall.
4 Q. We were discussing your activities as
~~
5 Regional Coordinator in Washinaton, D.C.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. How long did you hold that position?
8 A. Since January of '75.
9 Q. Who did you report to in that position?
10 A. Gen Roy for a while.
11 Q. Could you spell that?
12 A. G-e-n R-o-y.
13 Q. Two words?
14 A. First name, last name. And prior to that 15 Harry Thornburg, T-h-o-r-n-b-u-r-g.
~
16 Q. What were their titles?
17 A. I can't remember.
18 Q. Prior to January of 1975 what position did 19 you hold in the NRC?
20 A. I was a Reactor Inspector.
21 Q. Where were you stationed?
22 A. In Region IV and prior to that Region II.
23 Q. And how long did you hold that position?
24 A. I think approximately two and a half years
'MJ 0%[fs, kossnbsy and &ssocialsi, $ne.
Cliego, D!lowls e (3121782 sost
20
_'N 1 in Region II, and then a year and a half in Region 9
2 IV. That should total up right.
3 Q. Was this your entry level position at the 4 NRC7 5 A. 'That's correct.
6 Q. What were your duties and responsibilities 7 as a Reactor Inspector?
8 A. To inspect nuclear power plants for safety 9 and for compliance with the rules and regulations.
10 Q. Were you inspecting operating plants or 11 plants under construction or both?
12 A. I was inspecting operating plants and 13 plants in the pre-operational testing and start-up 14 phases.
15 Q. Who did you report to at each of the 16 regions?
17 A. In Region IV I reported to Morris Howard, 18 and prior to Morris Howard to --
I want to say John, i
19 but I can't think of his last name. He was regional 20 director prior to Morris Howard. And then in Region 21 II I reported to Norm Moseley. And prior to Norm 22 Moseley it was John Davis.
23 Q. Could you spell Moseley's name?
T 24 A. M-o-s-e-1-e-y, I believe.
HJ GYo[fs, Sounbsy and &ssociales, .0na.
CRune, D(fiuts e ntsim-soni
1 21 N 1 Q. We have made reference here to regions in 2 the NRC. How many regions are there?
3 A. Five.
4 Q. Could you explain what the geographical 5 separation is of each of the regions?
6 A. Well, vaguely. Region I is the northeast 7 part of the United States, Region II is the 8 southeast, Region III is the midwest, Region IV is 9 central states, and then Region V would be the West l' Coast.
11 Q. Do you know what states are within Region 12 III?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Could you name them, please?
15 A. Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, 16 Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Missouri.
17 Q. Do you know ofihand how many nuclear 18 projects have either been built or under 19 construction in Region III?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Can you give a ballpark estimate?
22 A. No. I might be wrong.
23 Q. Why don't you give me your best guess?
24 A. Let's see.
MJ 0Vo[fe, 001tnbey and 81sociales, .0n.s.
cwn ca.,e, e wr> reemer
22 N 1 MR. ZACK: Are you asking for total plants?
2 MR. STRICKLING: Yes.
3 BY THE WITNESS:
4 A. I don't know. I'd guess 25, give or take 5 5.
-6 BY MR. STRICKLING:
7 Q. You mentienpd Zimmer earlier.
,1 Was Zimmer 8 within the aegis of Region III?
9 A. 'Yes.
10 Q. Was Marble Hill within Region III?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. All the Commonwealth Edison plants, are 13 they within Region III?
14 A. Yes. I can probably name them, but I 15 don't --
just don't remember the figures.
16 Q. Okay. Prior to joining the NRC in 1971 17 what did you do?
18 A. I worked at Hanford.
19 Q. Could you spell that?
20 A. H- a- n- f- o- r-d , which is located in the 21 State of Washington. I worked for Battelle 22 Northwest.
23 Q. Would you spell that?
i 's 24 A. B-a-t-t-e-1-1-e Northwest. And in General MJ 0Yo[fs, Sounbey and dswelates, .$na.
__ --_ _(5L%~n ATRL~1h n-_ B1FM FKWTT2 ---_ _-_--_--------
~ _
23
, 1 Electric prior to that.
2 Q. What is at Hanford?
3 A. Hanford is a large government-owned 4 nuclear facility --
facilities. General Electric 5 was the prime contractor, and then after they left 6 there were several prime contractors and Battelle 7 Northwest was one of them, and I worked for both 8 companies.
9 Q. Is Hanford a power plant?
10 A. There are several power plants at Hanford.
11 Well, there are several reactors at Hanford. There 12 is one power plant, the N Reactor, let'ter "N" ,
13 Reactor, and then there is some test reactors also.
14 Q. Is this primarily a research station?
15 A. Well, when I worked there it was primarily 16 a plutonium production facilities and chemical 17 separations facilities and a research center. Then 18 N Reactor was the one power plant they had.
19 Q. What was your position there?
20 A. I had several positions.
21 Q. Why don't you take them in reverse order?
22 A. Okay. Most current first?
23 Q. Yes, please.
T 24 A. I did research work for Battelle Northwest H3 G1/o[fe, kosenbsy and 81socialss, hne.
CRusy, D h ou e (312) 782 8087 _ . _ __
24 JN -1 on what we call the Jersey Nuclear Project, which 2 was the fuel fabrication facility built by Exxon
,3 Company. I participated in the design and plant 4 layout, the specification and procurement of 5 equipment for that facility approximately a year, 6 but I can't recall dates.
7 Prior to that I was an engineer at the.
8 plutonium recycle test reactor, and I worked there 9 for a number of years. Here, again, I can't even 10 recall the dates, but I was a shift supervisor 11 operating the reactor and then a senior engineer on 12 the operation staff at the reactor. All that time 13 was involved directly with reactor operations.
14 Prior to that I was a shift supervisor at 15 one of the plutonium production reactors.
16 Q. Does that summarize all your positions?
17 A. Before that it was just in training, 18 rotational assignments in training.
19 Q. What was the total length of time you were 20 employed at Hanford?
21 A. From June of 1956 until the end of 1970, 22 end of December '70.
23 Q. What did you do between the end of 1970 T
+
24 and the beginning of your employment with the NRC in 4
HJ 0Vo[fs, kosenbsy and 8ssociales, .$nc. ,
--CRu nocDiliata_a_@t83100M7
25 1 the summer of 1971?
k 2 It was January of A. '71. I traveled from 3 Hanford to Atlanta.
4 Q. Okay. Prior to July 1956 what did you do? ll 5 A. Student.
6 .Q. Where were you a student at?
7 A. University of Utah.
8 Q. Did you earn a degree at the university?
9 A. B.S., mechanical engineering.
10 Q. In the course of your various assignments 11 .with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding the 12 Midland project have you had any contact with 13 employees or officials of Dow Chemical?
l 14 A. I believe I made one telephone call to l 15 somebody in Dow Chemical.
l l
16 Q. Do you remember who you talked to?
17 A. No. I don't remember the name, but it was 18 after Dow had canceled their contract. We were l
19 considering whether or not the NRC should meet with 20 Dow officials, and I made one phone call to pursue 21 that. We never did follow up on it, never did meet 22 with them. That has been my only contact with Dow 23 Chemical.
N 24 Q. Do you recall that Dow terminated its HJ GYo[fs, kosenbsy and 81soclaiss, $ne.
_ _ _ _ . . L nu a mv rn usr . .
26
.f- 1 contract on July 14, 1983 or' July of '837 o .
2 A. No. I know they did, but I don't remember 3 the dates.
i 4 Q. This telephone conversation came-after 5 that, whatever day it was, correct?
6 A. That's correct. t 7 MR. STRICKLING: Let's mark this as the first i
8 exhibit using the NRC label. ;
9 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was ;
10 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 1, )
11 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
12 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked [
13 as PX NRC 1 a subpoena for deposition. It appears ;
14 to be dated March 23, 1984. '
15 (WHEREUPON, the document was ;
I 16 tendered to the witness.) ,
17 BY MR. STRICKLING: .
I 18 Q. Mr. Warnick, you are appearing here today [
19 pursuant to subpoena, correct?
i l
20 A. That's correct. '
21 Q. Is PX NRC 1 a copy of the subpoena that ;
i 22 you were served with?
l i.
23 A. Yes. [
's ;
24 Q. The subpoena calls for the production of
\ ,
MJ 0Vo[fs, 00ssnbsy and &ssoalaiss, hna.
% M n annwnme
27
^ 1 certain documents. Do you see that?
I 2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Are you producing any_ documents in 4 response to that?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. STRICKLING: Mark that as NRC 2.
7 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 8 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 2, 9 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
10 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked 11 as Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC 2 a document of six pages 12 in length.
13 (WHEREUPON, the document was 14 tendered to the witness.)
15 BY MR. STRICKLING:
16 Q. Mr. Warnick, what is that document?
17 A. These are notes I took at meetings with 18 Stone & Webster or Consumers Power.
j 19 Q. Are these documents being produced in 20 response to the subpoena?
21 A. That's correct.
i 22 Q. Do you have any other documents in your 23 possession responsive to the subpoena?
T 24 A. No, I do not.
MJ f1Vo(fe, 00stnbey and 81soalaiss, $na.
am., sei , , mmn.nn
28
^ 1 Q. Now, various of your files have also been 2 produced to us pursuant to a Freedom of Information ,
3 Act request, is that right?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Okay. Do you know if any document.s were 6 withheld from the files that were produced to us 7 pursuant to that request?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. Do you know which documents were 10 withheld? Could you characterize what has been 11 withheld?
12 A. I can characterize them. It is documents 13 which are relevant to things that are going on at 14 the present time.
15 Q. What kinds of thing s ?
16 A. For instance, response to a 2.206 request.
17 Q. What is a 2.206 request?
18 MR. BERKOVITZ: Excuse me for a minute.
19 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 20 off the record between the witness 21 and Mr. Berkovitz, out of the 22 hearing of other counsel and the 23 court reporter.)
\
. 24 MR. BERKOVITZ: I don't think there has been a MJ GVo[fe, 00senbetg and dssociales, .0nc.
CRuaga. Dhou e 6 12) 782-8087
- 29 1
' l. formal agency' response to your FOIA request, 2 therefore I don't think he can answer what'the 3 agency has done with your documents.
4 MR. STRICKLING: Well, he can tell me what has 5 been withheld as of-now.
6 MR. BERKOVITZ: I don't think there has been a 7 formal agency' response to your FOIA request.
8 MR. STRICKLING: Okay. Well, 'i f I understand 9 it, you are telling me that the agency has not yet 10 determined which in the stack of documents they will
~
- 11. formally withhold. But I am simply asking him what 12 has been withheld as or now recognizing the fact 13- that I am using that term differently than you are 14 using it in terms of a formal withholding by the 15 agency.
16 BY THE WITNESS:
17 A. I interpret this as what of my files they 18 haven't copied.
19 BY MR. STRICKLING:
20 Q. Right.
21 MR. BERKOVITZ: Okay. Fine.
22 BY MR. STRICKLING:
23 Q. With that clarification, proceed.
N 24 A. And it is that which we are working on at M3 GVo({s, 00ssnbs9 and &ssoelaiss, hnc.
30 NJ l the prezent time.
2 Q. Okay. You mentioned a 2.206 petition.
3 What is that?
4 A.- By Section 2.206 of the Code of Federal 5 Regulations people can request certain actions be 6 taken by the NRC, and we are preparing a response to 7 one submitted by the Government Accountability 8 Project.
9 -Q. What wac the nature of their petition?
10 A. They were seeking.three things. One was 11 increased staffing by the office or for the Office 12 of Special Cases. One was to, I believe, remove 13 Consumers Power from managing their quality function, 14 and the third one --
I haven't reviewed this for a 15 while so I can't remember. They are seeking actions 16 that were denied on our previous 2.206 request that 17 they had made, and these things are a matter of 18 public record.
19 Q. What is your personal involvement in 20 preparing the response to this petition?
21 MR. ZACK: I am going to object as to tr 22 relevancy of this line of inquiry.
23 MR. BERKOVITZ: I also think that you can T
. 24 testify generally as to what you do when 2.206 HJ 0Vo[fs, 00ssnbey and &ssoclaiss, $nc.
--_------------- -- -------------------- -------_---- m n - ar m w - - -
31
~%
1 petitions are reviewed, however this particular one 2 is still under review and therefore you shouldn't 3 say exactly what you are doing on this one.
4 Generally what do you do under 2.206 5 requests, as he phrased it?
-6 BY THE WITNESS:
7 A. Okay. I will do one of two things or 8 maybe both. Sometimes I will be involved in 9 preparing either the initial draft or parts of the 10 initial draft. And then after that I will be 11 involved in a review of draft --
the draft documents 12 and modifications to that draft document.
13 BY MR. STRICKLING:
14 Q. Who has the primary responsibility to 15 prepare the response to this specific petition? Do 16 you have that responsibility?
17 MR. BERKOVITZ: Again, you can ask about 2.206 18 procedures in general, but not .ab o u t this particular 19 2.206. As a matter of fact what does the agency do 20 or how does the agency handle it.
21 MR. STRICK1ING: My question is simply who is 22 responsible for preparing this particular response.
23 MR. BERKOVITZ: He can't --
he is not going to N
, 24 answer that.
Ma n%[fa, aRosansay and c4ssaatatas, Dna.
m ___~ma - _
t 32 t
J5' 1 MR. STRICKLING: On what basis?
2 MR. BERKOVITZ: This is a matter that the 3 agency is undergoing.
l 4 MR. STRICKLING: I am not asking him anything 5 about the substance of the review. I am. simply 6 asking him who is doing it.
7 MR. BERKOVITZ: The NRC is preparing the 8 response.
- 9 MR. STRICKLING: And my question is who within 10 the NRC has got the primary responsibility for i 11 preparing this response. There is nothing i i,
12 substantive about that.
13 MR. BERKOVITZ: What do you mean? You have to 14 define what you mean by, "Primary responsibility for 15 preparing it, for responding." What do you consider, i
. I 16 whether there is a person who cigns it?
17 MR. STRICKLING: I want to know who's preparing [
1 18 it. '
19 MR.,ZACK: And I have an objection to the 20 relevancy of this inquiry 21 MR. STRICKLING: Objection is noted. '
22 MR. BERKOVITZ: I don't think he can answer it.
23 What do you mean by, "Preparing it"? A lot of T !
24 people prepare it.
MJ 0Volfe, Sosenbsy sund &ssoalais1, .0ne.
33
~% 1 BY.MR. STRICKLING:
2 Q. Do you understand the question, Mr.
3 Warnick?
4 A. I think I do.
5 Q. Fine. Please answer the question.
6 MR. BERKOVITZ: Don't answer the question.
7 MR. STRICKLING: Are you instructing him not to 8 answer?
9 MR. BERKOVITZ: Yes.
10 MR. STRICKLING: What basis?
11 MR. BERKOVITZ: This is an ongoing agency 12 petition. We are not going to say who is preparing 13 the response to the 2.206 petition while we are 14 preparing.
15 MR. STRICKLING: What is the basis for the 16 objection? Do you have some regulation you are 17 referring to?
18 THE WITNESS: Off the record.
19 MR. STRICKLING: No. Let's keep it on the 20 record.
21 MR. BERKOVITZ: Keep it on the record.
22 This is sort of a pre-decision privilege 23 that we have.
N 24 MR. STRICKLING: Well, where is it in the MJ GVo[fs, 00ssnbsy wad &sweialss, .$nc.
34 I regulation? Can you cite for me a regulation that 2 allows you to instruct him not to answer the 3 questions?
4 MR. BERKOVITZ: It is generally recognized 5 privilege, pre-decision privilege.
6 MR. STRICKLING: Well, I will move on to a 1
7 different area, but I don't see the basis for this 8 privilege.
9 BY MR. STRICKLING:
10 Q. Mr. Warnick, apart from documents relating 11 to the 2.206 petition, what other categories of 12 documents have been set aside for further review 13 before they are turned over to us pursuant to the 14 FOIA?
15 A. Well, documents which we didn't show you 16 the other day so therefore which you don't have 17 would be documents of allegations or documents 18 relative to ongoing activities.
19 Q. Okay. Apart from Exhibit NRC 2, apart 20 from the files that were produced for our review 21 pursuant to FOIA, and apart from the documents that 22 have been set aside for further review, do you have 23 any other documents in your possession or custody s
24 regarding the Midland project?
HJ 0Vo[fe, Sosenbey and 81sociales, hnc.
[ .. .
35 o
s 1 A. If you are speaking of my personal custody, 2 no. If you are speaking of the NRC, yes.
3 Q. Okay. Now, I was speaking about your 4 personal custody.
1 5 MR. STRICKLING: Mark that as the next exhibit 6 with a NRC number.
7 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 8 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 3, 9 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
10 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked 11 as Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC-3 a document dated 12 January 1st, 1984, with the title, "U.S. Nuclear 13 Regulatory Commission Functional Organization Charts.
14 Mr. Zack, do you want to look at this 15 before I give it to the witness?
- 16 MR. ZACK: Yes, I do.
17 (WHEREUPON, the document was 18 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
19 BY MR. STRICKLING:
20 Q. Mr. Warnick, what is that document?
21 A. Its title is, "U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 22 Commission Functional Organization Charts" dated 23 January 1st, 1984, carries the identification NUREG 24 0325, Rev. 6.
MJ 0Vo[fe, howsbsy wad &ssociales, hna.
~
7 36
' 1 Q.
W h'a t does the term _"NUREG" stand for?.
2 A. I would guess Nuclear Regulatory, but I am ,
3 ,only guessing. ,
4 Q. Could you open up the document to Page l?
5 A. Page 1.
6 Q. All right. What is depicted on Page l?
7 A. It is an organization chart of the Nuclear ,
8 Regulatory Commission starting with the chairman, 9 the commissioners and the major NRC offices.
10 Q. There are five commissioners for the NRC, 4
11 correct?
~
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What day-to-day involvement, if any, do 14 the commissionere have with renpect to the Midland
, 15 project?
i 16 MR. BERKOVITZ: I don't think he is competent 17 to answer that.
18 BY THE WITNESS:
19 A. I couldn't answer that. !
20 BY MR. STRICKLING:
21 Q. Well, do you know under what circumstances f 22 the Commission would get involved with the Midland 23 project?
w
. 24 MR. BERKOVITZ: I don't think he knows that.
M3 0Vo[fe, Sossnbsy and &ssoalaiss, .0na.
__ - _ - - - _ - _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ . - .--_-- A .
I p_ 37
%- 1 MR. ZACK: I think that question is vague.
2 What does, "Getting involved" mean?
3 BY MR. S T RI C KI '.N G :
, 4 Q. .a you understand the question?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q.- Can you answer it?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Why can't you answer it?
9 A. Well, because I don't know what the 10 uommissioners think.
11 Q. Are you aware of any Commission action 12 that has been taken with respect to the Midland 13 project since you have been at the NRC7 14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What action have they taken?
16 A. Well, they have issued orders and we have 17 briefed them, and some of the commissionera have 10 toured the facilities.
19 Q. How often are briefings conducted for the 20 commissioners?
21 A. There is no set frequency.
22 Q. Okay. Have they been briefed in the last 23 year on this project?
\
24 A. Yes.
HJ 0Vo[fe, kosenbey and 81sociales, .$nc.
l' 38
%- 1 Q. When was the last time they were briefed?
2 A. Last -- while I was on vacation. I don't 3 recall the date.
4- Q. Well --
5 A. Last two weeks.
6 Q. In the last two weeks. Did you 7 participate in any way in either the briefing or the 8 preparation for that briefing?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What was your involvement?
11 MR. ZACK: I am going to object on the basis of 12 relevance to this line of inquiry.
13 BY MR. STRICKLING:
14 Q. You may answer.
15 A. I made phone calls and --
you know, to get 16 things lined up, and then I helped --
participated !
17 in discussions with Mr. Keppler, who was the person 18 that would conduct the briefing of the commissioners.
19 Q. What did you discuss with Mr. Keppler?
20 MR. BERKOVITZ: I am going to object again.
21 MR. ZACK: I have a continuing objection.
22 MR. STRICKLING: Are you instructing him not to 23 answer?
T 24 MR. BERKOVITZ: Yes.
MJ 0Vo[fe, 00senbey and &ssoclaiss, .0ne.
swnfm on?-_____ _ _ - -
39 t S 1 MR. STRICKLING: On what basis?
2 MR. BERKOVITZ: Same privilege grounds.
3 MR. STRICKLING: Could you state the basis 4 again?
5 MR. BERKOVITZ: This is an ongoing agency 6 adjudication, and what he discussed with Mr. Keppler 7 concerning the adjudication, what was presented to 8
the Commission is privileged.
9 BY MR. STRICKLING: .
10 Q. Was any package of documents provided to 11 the Commission pursuant to this briefing by Region 12 III?
13 A. I don't know. Normally we do not prepare 14 a package of documents. Normally we prepare slides 15 and then give them a package of those slides when we .
16 make the presentation. I don't Know if that was 17 done in this case because I wasn't -- you know, like 18 I said, I was on vacation.
19 MR. STRICKLING: Mr. Berkovitz, could you 20 determine whether or not such a package was prepared, 1
21 and, if it was, could you provide it?
22 THE WITNESS: If it was prepared, the 23 Commission briefing was an open thing and it would
\
24 probably be part of the hearing, the proceeds of M3 GVo[fs, 00senbsy and &ssociales, $ne.
A h _n zwemvv>7 __
40 1
N 1 that briefing, Commission meeting.
L 2 MR. BERKOVITZ: Can I ask you to ask me what 3 you are asking me? What are you requesting 4
4 precisely?
5 MR. STRICKLING: If a package of slides was 6 prepared, as he has described has been done in the 7 past, I'd just like.you to produce it.
8 MR. BERKOVITZ: The Office of Secretary should 9 have that. Call the Office of the Secretary of the 10 Commission. They should have it.
11 MR. STRICKLING: No. I am asking you if you 12 will produce a copy of that to us.
13 MR. BERKOVITZ: Are you asking the Office of 14 General Counsel?
15 MR. STRICKLING: I am asking you if you will 16 give me a copy of the document. Will you determine 17 if it exists and provide me with a copy of it?
18 MR. BERKOVITZ: I can figure out if there were 19 public handouts. I can see if I can get them, i
20 MR. STRICKLING: Okay. I'd appreciate it.
21 MR. ZACK: If you find some and provide them to 22 counsel for Dow, I'd appreciate some as well.
23 MR. BERKOVITZ: Okay.
s 24 BY MR. STRICKLING:
MJ GVo[fs, kossn[isy and 81Accialts, .0na.
41
^ 1 Q. Do you recall any briefings prior to the 2 one in the last two weeks for commissioners?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q.- When was the next most recent one? t 5 A. I don't recall the date.
6 MR. ZACK: Again, I'd like to interpose an ,
7 objection based on relevance.
8 BY MR. STRICKLING:
9 Q. Directing your attention on the 10 organizational chart to the right of the box labeled, 11 "Commissioners" there is a term, "Advisory Committee ,
12 on Reactor Safeguards." Do you see that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What is the Advisory Committee on Reactor 15 Safeguards?
16 A. Well, briefly they are a committee 17 composed of people with the experience, most of them 18 from academia, some from industry, who review 19 various technical matters that are given to them, t
20 and they would make a review of each reactor before 21 it is licensed. ;
i-22 Q. Has the ACRS performed any such analysis 1
23 of the Midland project? ;
i 24 A. I don't know what their --
where they ,
M3 GYo[fs, 00ssnbs9 and 81sociates, $nc.
_ _ - _ . _ _ _ . _ - _ - - -- A __m_ - - - - - - - - - - - - -
42
% 1 stand on their reviews. We have not --
let's see.
2 Hang on. Let me think. That was Zimmer, i 3 I don't believe we have made any
-4 presentation to ACRS while I have been involved with
~
5 Midland. ,
6 MR. STRICKLING: Okay. Let's mark this as the 7 next exhibit.
8 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 9 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 4, 10 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
f 11 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked <
12 as Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC 4 a document bearing 13 Bates numbers N 10873 to 10878 and the document is 14 dated June 8, 1982.
15 Why don't you mark that one too while we 16 are waiting?
17 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 18 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 5, 19 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
20 BY MR. STRICKLING:
21 Q. Mr. Warnick, what is that document, please? l 22 (WHEREUPON, the document was 23 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
N 24 BY THE WITNESS:
MJ 0Vo[fe, 00ssnbey wnd &ssociales, hne.
1
O 43
.{, l A. It is a letter from Dr. Shewmon, who was 2 Chairman of the ACRS, to Commissioner Palladino, who 3 is Chairman of the NRC Commission. I 4 Q. Have you seen that document before?
5 A. Yes.
I 6 Q. What is this document? It states on the 7 subject that it is the ACRS interim report on 8 Midland Plant Units 1 and 2. Is that what this ,
9 document is?
10 A. That is what it says.
11 Q. For what reason was this document prepared, 12 do you know?
~
13 A. No. I am not that familiar with the 14 document. My concern with the document was one t 15 aspect where they instructed the NRC to prepare a 16 report, if I can find it.
17 Q. Well, directing your attention to Page 2.
18 A. All right.
19 Q. The fourth paragraph states, quote, "In 20 view of the overall concern about Midland quality 21 assurance the NRC should arrange for a broader 22 assessment of Midland's design adequacy and i
23 construction quality with emphasis on installed [
s L 24 electrical, control, and mechanical equipment as MJ 0Vo[fs, Sossnbsy and Associates, $nc. I
___________--_-_--_____---_--__--_-_--_----_-h.hmmmsnvmn___---__-----__---
44 N 1 well as piping and foundations. We wish to receive 2 a report which discusses design and construction 3 problems, their disposition and the overall 4 effectiveness of the effort to assure appropriate
-5 quality."
6 Is that the reference you were looking for?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Pursuant to that instruction was a report 9 prepared?
l~0 A. Yes. We prepared a report.
11 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked 12 as Exhibit NRC 5 a document with the Bates numbers N 13 10879 to 10910 dated October 29, 1982.
14 (WHEREUPON, the document was 15 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
16 BY MR. STRICKLING:
17 Q. Mr. Warnick, what is that exhibit?
18 A. That is the response to the request.
19 Q. Who prepared this report?
20 A. The Midland Section.
21 Q. Were you personally involved in the 22 drafting of this?
23 A. I was involved in reviewing the first T
24 draft, any modifications that were made and all MJ GVo(fs, c.Rossnbey and &swelates, $na.
45
%- 1 subsequent drafts and signing out the final product. r i
2 Q. Who else was involved in the actual 3 drafting of the report?
4 A. Ron Gardner was the primary compiler of' i l
5 the information in the draft.
6 Q. Who is Ron Gardner?
- 7. A. He is project inspector in the Midland 8 Section in Ragion III, works for Jay Harrison.
9 Q. Is he still a project inspector on Midland?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you know how long he has held that 12 position?
13 A. Well, at least since July of 1982, and I 14 think he was involved with the Midland project prior 15 to that, but I don't know what his title was prior 16 to that.
17 Q. We will come back to that report a little 18 later. I'd like to continue working through the 19 organizational chart.
20 on the organizational chart, Page 1 of the 21 exhibit next to the Advisory Committee on Reactor 22 Safeguards there is reference to the Atomic Safety 23 and Licensing Board Panel. Do you see that?
T 24 A. Yes.
MJ GVo[fs, Sosenbsy tund &swelates, f.Inc.
46 m
> 1 Q. What is the Atomic Safety and Licensing 2 Board Panel? i 3 A. They are a group of normally three people 4 per -- on any one case that review whatever the 5 issues are before that panel or board in regards to i 6 a specific reactor issue. t 7 Q. Is there an ASLB panel presently assigned 8 to Midland?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What is their current involvement? What i 11 is the scope of their duties at the present time?
12 A. Well, I can't answer it. You are getting 13 out of my field when we talk about their duties.
14 There is an ongoing hearing and they are presiding 15 in that.
16 Q. What is the hearing?
i 17 A. There is actually two. One had to do with l
18 soils issues, and the second one has to do with L 19 quality assurance and other issues.
20 Q. Does the ASLB have any function with 21 respect to the issuance of an operating license for 22 plants?
23 A. Yes. They have to complete their review
's 24 and be satisfied that it is okay to issue the HJ GVo[fs, Sossn$rsy and &ssociaiss, $na.
h . A n smarrrvvw--------_-__
47 4
1- license.
2 Q. Has such a review been conducted for 3 Midland?
4 A. It is in the process.
5 Q. On the second line of the organizational 6 chart there is reference to the offic4 of 7 Investigations. Do you see that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. What is the Office of Investigations?
10 A. The Office of Investigations is the NRC 11 group that has responsibility for conducting 12 official investigations.
13 Q. When are investigations undertaken, under 14 what circumstances?
15 MR. BERKOVITZ: I am not sure that Bob knows 16 exactly the policy.
17 EY THE WITNESS:
18 A. No, but generally it is when there is an 19 indication of wrongdoing.
20 BY MR. STRICKLING:
21 Q. Who is the current director of the office 22 of Investigations?
23 A. Ben Hayes.
N 24 Q. And is he located in Washington?
MJ 0Vo[fs, hossnbsy mad Associaiss, ,$nc.
I 48 JV 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Does the Office of Investigations have any s 3 employee who is assigned to-Lhe region specifically? ;
4 A. There are several.
5 Q. Is there an ir.d iv id u al assigned to Region 6 III?
7 A. Several.
8 Q. Okay. Who at the present time is assigned 9 to Region III?
10 A. Gene Pawlik, P-a-w-1-1-k, is the director, t 11 director of the field office, and then he has people 12 working for him.
l 13 Q. Does Mr. Pawlik report to Washington?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Does he also report to Mr. Keppler?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Just beneath the office of Investigations ;
18 on the chart there is a box labeled, "Executive '
19 Director for Operations." Do you see that?
i 20 A. Yes. i 21 Q. Who is the Executive Director for !
22 Operations? !
23 A. Mr. Dircks. l T !
24 Q. Could you spell that? !
MJ Gl'o({s, crows $sy and c4ssoetatss, $na.
_----- _-_- -_ _ _-_ _ n w n sa w w a l
l 49 1 l
l
'N 1 A. D-i-r-c-k-s. '
7 - .,
a 2 Q. 'What are his responsibilities?
3 A. I wouldn't begin to identify them all. f 4 Really, you are asking the wrong person that i 5 question.
6 Q. -Well, what is your understanding of what ;
7 his responsibilities are? , l
[ 8 A. Well, Mr. Keppler re iorts to him. All the 9 regional directors report to him, as well as the !
10 office directors, so he has the overall !
1 b 11 responsibility for those people underneath him to !
?
12 see that they carry out their functions. l 1 i
- 13 Q. Does he have any direct involvement with !
14 the Midland project? !
. I i 15 A. Not on a day-to-day basis. But he is [
l 16 informed periodically, just like the commissioners !
i 17 are-informed periodically. f i
18 Q. Okay. Reporting to the Executive Director ,P i
j, 19 for Operations as indicated on this chart is the I
J 20 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Do you see ;
i 21 that? !
22 A. Yes. I t
23 Q. What is the Office of Nuclear Reactor f s t
. 24 Regulation? l I
! - [
M3 0Vo[fs, Aossnbsy and &ssoalaiss, $na.
_______-.-__----__--____--______h__n->nnm-----
-l 50 L
- > 1 A. That is the group that has the O ,
2 responsibility for licensing the nuclear plants.
\
3 Q. Who is its current director?
l 4 A. Harold Denton.
5 Q. That is D-e-n-t-o-n?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What responsibilities does Mr. Denton have i 8 with respect to the Midland project?
- 9 A. I don't want to speak for Mr. Denton. i 1
10 Q. Well, just tell me your understanding of 11 what his responsibilities are. !
12 A. Well, they have the responsibility to v 13 license that plant and to conduct a review of the :
I 14 design of that plant prior to the licensing.
15 Q. Now, if you could turn to Page 35, this 16 chart provides more detail for the organization of ,
I j 17 the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And it lists at the bottom five divisions. [
l 20 Do you see that?
i 21 A. Yes. i 22 Q. Which of thoue divisions have involvement i, i
23 with the Midland project at the present time? !
.T ,
'. 24 A. I couldn't speak for them. I know !
1
< I Ma (11'offa, c. Row &ay and c%oewu, Dna.
n_-_ _- _ - - _ - - __
51 i
S 1 Division of Licensing does, I know the Division of !
2 Engineering does.
3 Q. Well, with respect to the Division of ,
4 Licensing do you know who the current director of {
5 that office is?
6 A. Darrell Eisenhut. ,
7 Q. Could you spell that?
8 A. E-i-s-e-n-h-u-t. L 9 Q. What are the responsibilities of the 10 Division of Licensing? j 11 MR. BERKOVITZ: This whole area is sort of out 12 of Mr. Warnick's expertise. He is not an expert in i
13 all areas of the NRC. Although he can give you !
14 general guidelinee as to what goes on, he can't say j 15 too much detail about these various offices.
16 MR. STRICKLING: Is that an objection?
l 17 MR. BERKOVITZ: I am just stating -- well, just l t
18 stating. Not at this point.
19 MR. STRICKLING: Well, fine.
20 BY MR. STRICKLING: !
~
21 Q. Please answer the question. [
22 A. All right. On Page 36 it says, "Directs 23 and administers the licensing process for all 24 utilization and production facilities other than 5
Ma nt'offa, cRoudag and c4swautas, Dna. .
m&_- _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
52 !
- N 1 fuel reprocessing and isotopic enrichment plants, 2 including safety and environmental evaluations of 3 power and non-power reactors required to be licensed 4 for nperation."
5 Do you want me to continue? i 6 Q. You are just reading for us the box at the i 7
top of Page 36, correct?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. What is Mr. Eisenhut's involvement with ,
10 the Midland project? [
~
11 A. I hate to answer for Mr. Eisenhut.
12 Q. Well, do you have any contact with Mr. I 13 Eisenhut as part of your duties?
4 14 A. Periodically.
15 Q. Okay. Under what circumstances do you 16 consult or talk with Mr. Eisenhut about the Midland 17 project?
18 A. We occasionally have meetings with NRR,
- 19 and he is there and I am there. '
20 Q. Under what circumstances do you hold these f
21 meetings?
f i
22 A. It varies and it depends on the need. }
i 23 They are periodic. There are no set frequency. [
N l 24 Q. Now -- [
[
f M3 0Vo[fs, Sotenbsy susd &swalalu, $na.
_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ . . _ _ ___ __ _ ___-__ _ _ _ _ - _- _ __ _--____%_W D_ fRRHWWEl - - - - -
53
^ 1 A. I don't normally have day-to-day contact 2 with Mr. Eisenhut.
3 Q. Now, on that same page you were referring 4 to, Page 36, there is a box for the Assistant 5 Director of Licensing. Do you see that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And that is Mr. Thomas Novak, N-o-v-a-k?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. What involvement does Mr. Novak have in 10 the Midland project?
~
11 A. Here, again, I really can't answer for him.
12 Q. Well, again, have you had contact with Mr.
13 Novak in the course of your duties on the Midland l
14 project?
15 A. Yes. Quite regularly.
16 Q. Okay. How often do you discuss the 17 Midland projact with Mr. Novak?
18 A. Oh, it depends, but probably averages two - -
19 two, maybe three times a month.
20 Q. What kind of matters do you discuss with 21 Mr. Novak?
22 A. Normally it is the current issues such as 23 the CCP or the Management Appraisal, whatever is the N
24 visible topic at the time.
M3 0Vo[fs, 00senbsy med Associaiss, .$nc.
54 r 5 'l Q. You just used the term CCP. Could you l
l 2 ' define what th4t is?,
I j
3 A. Construction Completion Program. i
(
4 Q. Okay.- Now, beneath Mr. Novak on the f i
5 organizational chart there is.a reference to. j i
6 Licensing Branches 1-4. Do you see that?
I 7 A. .Yes.
i 8 Q. What are the Licensing Branches? [
t 9 A. A group of people that have the
?
t 10 responsibility to perform the safety and !
t 11 environmental assessments and coordinate the !
12 licensing activities for whatever plants they have l
13 responsibility for.
14 Q. Does one of those branches have 15 responsibility for Midland? I 16 A. Elinor Adensam. i 17 Q. That is Aad-e-n-s-a-m?
18 A. Correct. f 1 t 19 Q. What is the extent of her involvement in !
l 20 the Midland project?
21 MR. BERKOVITZ: And, again, he doesn't know the [
i 22 extent of her involvement. He can speak to his L 23 involvement with her. I N
24 BY MR. STRICKLING:
I i
i NJ 0Vo[fs, howsbsy asad Assoalaiss, $ns.
____-__________ -________ K K n m
f l
l
~% I 1 Q. Fine. With that clarification, please '
2 answer.
3 A. She.follows the work of her licensing l 4 project manager, and she normally gets involved with-5 the more visible items and activities. r 6 Q. How frequently do you have discussions i 7 with her about the Midland project?
8 A. Oh, it goes in bunches, but probably at [
9 least a half a dozen times a month or more.
i 10 Q. You speak with her more frequently than 11 you do with Mr. Novak?
t 12 A. Yes. ;
13 Q. What kinds of matters do you discuss with [
14 Miss Adensam that you do not discuss with Mr. Novak?
15 MR. ZACK: What time period are you talking !
16 about here?
17 MR. STRICKLING: What?
r 18 MR. ZACK: What time period? !
~
19 MR. STRICKLING: The entire time period.
i 20 MR. ZACK: I take it that encompasses right up
(
21 to the present? l
! 22 MR. STRICKLING: Correct. f 23 MR. ZACK: To the extent that we are talking
. T i 24 about the time period post July 1982 I interpose an ;
I N3 Gl' offs, 00ssnbsy wsd &ssociaiss, $na.
A m n_suasrryvn____________ _ _
56 C
1- objection on the basis of relevance.
2 BY MR. STRICKLING:
3 Q. You may answer.
4 MR. BERKOVITZ: Go ahead and answer.
5 BY THE WITNESS:
6 A. Normally the conversations are more 7 working level conversations with Elinor, whereas 8 when I talk to Novak or any of his supariors I am 9 trying to get some action and they are slow in 10 giving us that action and I am trying to get it ,
11 moving.
~
12 BY MR. STRICKLING:
13 Q. Within the Licensing Branch that Miss 14 Adensam heads is there a particular individual that 15 devotes his attention to the Midland project?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Who is that?
18 A. Darl Hood.
19 Q. Could you spell that?
20 A. D-a-r-1 H-o-o-d.
21 Q. And what is his title?
22 A. Project manager.
23 Q. Do you have contact with Mr. Hood in his T
24 capacity as project manager?
MJ 0Vo[fs, Sosenbey aml 81welates, .0na.
57
1 A. Occasional.y.
2 Q. Okay. Under what circumstances will you 3 have discussions or contacts with Mr. . Hood?
4 A. Oh, for him to ask me questions or for me 5 to ask him questions. Usually Mr. Hood deals with 6 the people that work with me, either Mr. Harrison or 7 Mr. Gardner.
8 Q. What is the distinction between his 9 responsibility for the project and your 10 responsibility as head of the Project Branch here in 11 Chicago?
12 A. Well, we have responsibility for the 13 inspection program, they have responsibility for the 14 licensing of the plant.
15 Q. Does Mr.-Hood have any people in 16 Washington that report to him who are devoted to the 17 Midland p ro j ec t.?
18 A. He may have an assistant, but I don't know 19 who the assistant reports to.
20 Q. Do you know who the assistant is, is it 21 Melanie Miller?
22 A. I don't know. I think it is Melanie 23 Miller I occasionally dealt with.
T 24 Q. Turning back to the first page of the M3 0Vo[fe, 00senbsy and &1sociales, hna.
58 w 1 organizational chart, along with the Office of 2 Nuclear Reactor Regulation there are three other 3 offices listed, the Office of Nuclear Material 4 Safety and Safeguards, the Office of Nuclear 5 Regulatory Research and the Office of Inspection and 6 Enforcement.
7 Do you know whether any of those other 8 three offices have any involvement with the Midland 9 project?
10 A. The Office of Inspection and Enforcement 11 does.
12 Q. What is the nature of their involvement 13 with Midland?
14 A. They have overall responsibility to see 15 that the inspection program is carried out, and they 16 help in the development of the inspection program, 17 any modifications or revision to the inspection 18 program. They also have responsibility for the 19 third party independent design verification programs.
20 Q. How does their responsibility interface 21 with your responsibility as head of the Projects 22 Branch?
23 A. They more or less look over our shoulders
\
24 to see that we are doing the job correctly.
MJ GVo[fe, kosenbey and &ssociales, .0nc.
CRum, D(twa e m2D 182 8087
59
' l 'Q. Who is the current director of the Office 2 of I and E?
3 A. DeYoung, Richard DeYoung.
4 Q. Es there a particular individual in that 5 office that devotes their attention to the Midland 6 project?
7 A. Well, there used to be and there are 8 several that do now.
9 Q. Who at present spends their time on the 10 Midland project?
11 A. I don't believe anybody does as a sole 12 duty. Several do as part of their overall duties.
13 Q. Who are they?
14 A. You want all the names?
15 O. That you can remember, yes.
16 A. Well, Mr. DeYoung does at times, Jim 17 Taylor, Bob Heishman.
18 Q. Could you spell that?
19 A. H-e-i-s-h-m-a-n.
20 Q. Is that the same Mr. Heisman you referred 21 to earlier?
22 A. Yes. George Gower, G-o-w-e-r; Bill Brach, 23 B-r-a-c-h; Bill Altman, A-1-t-m-a-n. Those are the i
24 main ones. Oh, I guess Jane Ar.elrad who is in the MJ 0Yo[fs, kosen[isy and &ssociales, $nc.
arwww)
60
% 1 enforcement area which falls under Office of 2 Inspection and Enforcement.
3 0 Could you spell that name?
4 A. A-x-e-1-r-a-d.
5 c. What are her responsibilities?
6 A. She coordinates all the enforcement 7 actions that are taken by the regions or forwarded 8 from the regions to Headquarters.
9 MR. STRICKLING: Would you mark this as the 10 next exhibit?
11 (WHEREUPON, a certain document-was 12 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 6, 13 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
14 (WHEREUPON, the document was 15 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
16 BY MR. STRICKLING:
17 Q. Does the witness have in front of him 18 Exhibit NRC 67 19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What is this document?
21 A. It is a Region III organization chart out 22 of date.
23 MR. STRICKLING: Well, for the record it is 3
24 dated January 1st, 1984.
MJ 0Vo[fe, kosenbey ar..l 81sociales, hnc.
61
' 1 BY MR. STRICKLING:
-2 Q. Has there been an updated version of this 3 prepared since the Office of Special Cases was 4 dissolved?
5 A. I don't know.
6 MR. STRICKLING: Also for the record, this 7 exhibit consists of organizational charts taken from 8 the NUREG 05 booklets going back from 1984 to 1978.
9 BY MR. STRICKLING:
10 Q. Now, with respect to the construction of 11 nuclear plants could you explain what areas Region 12 III is involved in and those portions of 13 construction that Washington is concerned with?
14 What is the interface between Washington and the 15 region?
16 A. I don't understand the question.
17 Q. Well, speaking in the context of plant 18 construction in what situations is Washington, the 19 Headquarters office, involved in issues relating to 20 plant construction and what issues does Region III 21 have primary responsibility and how do the two work 22 together?
23 A. I am not sure if I understand what you are N
24 saying, but Region III has responsibility for the H3 QVo(fe, kosen[ rey and 81socbates, $nc.
e 62 N
1 inspection program at any reactor under construction.
2 If we ider..ify problems or things that we think 3 Headquarters should know about, we inform them, and 4 we have mechanisms for that, and we discussed what 5 the responsibilities of the Headquarters groups are.
6 Q. Okay. In your earlier testimony we were 7 talking about the Division of Licensing in 8 Washington and the responsibility that division has.
9 Does Region III have any responsibility 10 for involvement in licensing issues?
11 A. Some.
12 Q. All right. To what extent does the region 13 have involvement in licensing issues?
14 A. Under the regionalization concept some 15 licensing functions were transferred to the region.
16 Q. Which functions were those?
17 A. I will give you some examples.
18 Q. Fine.
19 A. Licensing of reactor operators, certain 20 changes to technical specifications, certain 21 licensing reviews, and I can't give you an example 22 of that, but it is a limited involvement.
23 Q. Apart from inspection of plant under
, T 24 construction and apart from the limited licensing MJ GYo[fe, Sosenbey and &suciales, .0nc.
63 5- 1 activities you just identified, in what other areas 2 is Region III involved with plants under 3 construction within the region?
4 A. I don't understand the question. I have 5 said we inspect the plants under construction.
6 Q. I am saying apart from the inspection 7 program and apart from the licensing activities are 8 there any other activities Region III conducts with 9 respect to plants under construction?
10 A. I guess I don't understand what --
our 11 inspection program covers a lot of things, but that 12 is all. I mean, there is nothing else that I can 13 think of, unless you are thinking of something that 14 I am not.
15 O. You are the witness.
16 A. Well, I have a hard tima understanding 17 what you are asking me.
l l 18 Q. Directing your attention to the top page 19 of this Exhibit 6 indicates that Mr. James Keppler 20 is the administrator of Region III.
21 A. That's correct.
l l
22 Q. What contact do you have with Mr. Keppler l
23 regarding the Midland project on a day-by-day or x
24 week-by-week basis?
l l
l MJ 0Yo[fe, 00sen$ rey and 811ocialz1, .$nc.
64
% 1 A. Whenever he wants to talk about Midland he 2 usually involves me in his discussions or 3 conversations.
4 Q. Does he have regular or periodic sessions 5 to discuss Midland, like once-a-week meetings or 6 anything like that?
7 A. No, nothing on a scheduled basis. Well, 8 we --
I take that back. We'have a monthly meeting 9 where we discuss the status of all plants under 10 construction. He is normally in attendance.
11 Q. Are any minutes or notes prepared of those 12 meetings?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Now, in the region according to the 15 January 1st, 1984 chart there are four divisions, is 16 that right?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. Which of those divisions, if any, have 19 involvement with the Midland project?
20 A. All of them do in some way or another.
21 Q. Okay. What is the involvement of the 22 Division of Project and Resident Programs?
23 A. That is me and my people.
l 24 Q. Okay. In fact, underneath that division i
MJ GYo[fs, Sosen$xy and 81socialzs, .0nc.
65
> 1 there is an indication of Projects Branch No. 1 and O
2 a chief, and you are the current chief replacing Mr.
3 Knop, K-n-o-p, correct?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. okay. Prior to the dissolution of the 6 office of Special Cases did this division have any 7 involvement in the Midland project?
8 A. They only had very little, if any, 9 involvement during the time that the Special Cases, 10 according to this, the Special Cases staff existed 11 or the office of Special Cases.
12 Q. At the present time with the office 13 dissolved what are the responsibilities of Mr.
14 Norelius, who is director of that division, with 15 respect to the Midland project?
16 A. Well, he sees that the two branch chiefs 17 do their work and keep on top of things, and we keep 18 him informed of what is going on. He signs out a 19 lot of the correspondence.
20 Q. How often do you discuss the Midland 21 project with him?
22 A. No set frequency except that monthly 23 meeting.
N 24 Q. Does he make site visits on occasion?
MJ 0Vo[fe, 80senbey and 81sociales, $nc.
l 66 5 1 A. I don't believe he has been to Midland 2 since we dissolved the Office of Special Cases, and 3 he did not go there while the Office of Special 4 Cases existed.
5 Q. What is the involvement of the Division of 6 Engineering with the Midland project?
7 A. The Division of Engineering provides 8 technical inspectors that perform part of the 9 inspection program. They issue their own inspection 10 reports.
11 Q. Okay. Under what circumstances would you 12 use inspectors from the Division of Engineering to 13 perform en inspection at Midland as opposed to the 14 resident inspectors?
15 A. When we need technical expertice that 16 resident inspectors or our Midland inspectors do not 17 have.
18 Q. Is there a distinction between resident 19 inspectors and Midland Section inspectors?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What is the distinction?
22 A. The distinction is that the resident 23 inspectors are full time at the site, they live near T
. 24 the area; whereas the other section inspectors live M3 QVo[fe, Sosenbey and &ssoclaiss, hnc.
67
- m. 1 in the Chicago area and are based in the Region III 2 office and make periodic inspections at the site.
3 Q. At the present time who are the resident 4 inspectors for the Midland project?
5 A. The present time Ron Cook is a Senior 6 Resident Inspector, Bruce Burgess is a Senior 7 Resident Inspector, and Pat Hiland is a Resident 8 Inspector.
9 Q. Could you spell the last name?
10 A. H-i-1-a-n-d.
11 Q. Were they all resident inspectors at the 12 time the Office of Special Cases was formed in 19827 13 A. No. Ron Cook was.
14 Q. Okay. At the present time who are Midland ,
15 Section inspectors?
16 A. Ross Landsman and Ron Gardner is the 17 Midland Project Inspector.
18 Q. Were both of them section inspectors at 19 the time the Office of Special Cases was formed?
20 A. They were both Region III-based inspectors 21 that participated in Midland inspections at the time.
22 Q. Were there any other Midland Section 23 inspectors at the time the Office of Special Cases
!N
. 24 was formed?
M3 0Yo[fe, kosenbey and &ssociales, .$nc.
68 1 A. No.
2 Q. Were there any other --
3 A. To the best of my knowledge.
4 Q. Okay. Were there any other Midland 5 Section inspectors that served between the time the 6 Office of Special cases was formed up till today?
7 A. The only other one is Wayne Shafer, who is 8 section chief prior to Jay Harrison.
9 Q. Do these individuals that you have just 10 named as resident inspectors and section inspectors 11 do they have particular areas of expertise?
12 A. . Generally they do, but not always.
13 Q. Okay. You mentioned Mr. Landsman. Does 14 he have a particular expertise?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What is that?
17 A. Soils.
18 Q. What about Mr. Shafer? Does he have a 19 particular expertise?
20 A. I don't know what his degree is in.
21 Q. Does Mr. Gardner have a particular area of 22 expertise?
23 A. Mr. Gardner is an electrical engineer.
T 24 Q. Does Mr. Burgess have a particular area MJ QVo[fe, kosenbig and &swelates, .0na.
69
^- 1 that he specializes in?
2 A. I don't know. Let me start over. He does 3 not have a college degree. He has a reactor 4 operations background, and he is more of what we 5 would call a generalist inspector.
6 Q. Does Mr. Cook have an area of 7 specialization?
8 A. He is a mechanical engineer.
9 Q. And I think the last one we mentioned was 10 Mr. Hiland.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. What is his area?
13 A. I don't know on college training. I 14 believe he is ex-nuclear Navy, and he has been a 15 quality inspector --
no, I take that back. He has 16 been an enoineer. He is an engineer, but I don't 17 know what field.
18 Q. Now, with respect to the Division of 19 Engineering, this chart at the top of the page of 20 Exhibit 6 indicates that the director is Mr.
21 Spessard, S-p-e-s-s-a-r-d?
22 A. What page?
23 Q. Page 1.
T 24 A. Oh, yes.
O , 01 Ag iMChMS , Md.
a
70
1 Q. What involvement does he have in the 2 Midland project?
3 A. He doesn't have day-to-day involvement.
4 The Division of Engineering --
some members from the 5 Division of Engineering perform the inspection on 6 the heating, ventilating and air conditioning, and 7 Mr. Spessard reviewed that report.
8 Q. When was this report issued?
9 A. Within the last few months.
10 MR. STRICKLING: Okay.
11 Off the record.
12 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had s-13 off the record.)
14 BY MR. STRICKLING:
15 Q. Apart from the documents that we discussed 16 earlier, the documents that are in your possession 17 or immediate control, what other documents are here 18 at Region III that relate to the Midland project?
19 A. We have documents in the files of Mr.
20 Landsman and Mr. Gardner, and we have what we call a 21 central file that contains documents that were put 22 in the Public Document Room such as inspection 23 reports and correspondence and licensing s
24 correspondence.
HJ 0Vo[fs, 00$snbsy and &ssoclaiss, hna.
h
71
~S 1 Q. Are documents located anywhere else within 2 Region III? I am' talking about the building here'in 3 Glen Ellyn.
4 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes. There 5 is some documents that are also kept by the Public 6 Affairs Officer, mostly inspection reports, and it 7 is public reading room.
8 Q. Does Mr. Keppler maintain any file on the 9 Midland project?
10 A. No, to the best of my knowledge.
11 Q. Does Mr. Norelius or Mr. Spessard maintain 12 a file on the project?
13 A. To the best of my knowledge, they do not.
14 Q. Well, pursuant to the FOIA request that 15 was served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was 16 any investigation made to determine whether Mr.
17 Keppler, Mr. Norelius and Mr. Spessard had files 18 relating to the Midland project?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Who conducted that investigation? Strike 21 the question.
22 Were you involved in making that :
23 determination?
N 24 A. No, I was not. t M3 GVolfs, 00ssnbsy and dssoclaiss, .$nc.
72
- 1 Q. Do you know whether there are any set of 2 documents here at Region III that have not been 3 searched or will not be searched pursuant to the 4 FOIA request served on the NRC by Dow?
5 A. Would you repeat that? Could you read 6 back the question, please?
7 (WHEREUPON, the record was read ,
8 by the reporter as requested.)
9 BY THE WITNESS:
10 A. I know of none in this building.
11 BY MR. STRICKLING:
12 Q. Do you know of documents relating to the 13 Midland project located elsewhere within Region III 14 that will not be searched?
15 A. I know of documents located outside of r.
16 this building and they will be searched.
17 Q. Okay. Are you referring to documents 18 located at the site?
19 A. I am.
20 Q. Is there any other location within the 21 geographical confines of Region III where Midland 22 documents are located?
23 A. No.
s 24 Q. Mr. Warnick, what is your understanding of MJ GYo[fe, c.Rosenbey and 81wclais1, .$na.
73
^
l the role or responsibility of the Nuclear Regulatory 2 Commission with respect to the construction of 3 nuclear plants?
4 THE WITNESS: Read that one back, would you?
5 (WHEREUPON, the record was read 6 by the reporter as requested.)
7 BY THE WITNESS:
8 A. We have responsibility to see that they 9 are constructed safely and in accordance with rulen 10 and regulations, codes and standards.
11 BY MR. STRICKLING:
12 Q. What activities does the NRC perform in
. 13 carrying out this responsibility?
14 A. Well, I can speak for what we do, but I 15 can't speak for the rest of the NRC.
16 C. Fine. Why don't we keep it in the 17 specific terms of the Midland project?
18 A. We carry out the inspection program ist 19 Midland.
20 Q. What is involved in the inspection program?
- 21 A. Looking at safety-related materials and 22 systems and components on a sampling basis, and 23 looking at records to carry out the inspection N
24 procedures that we have, and to assure ourselves H3 0Yo[fe, 001snbey and 81wciales, .$nc.
_ An _ m m_m m mvmn - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
74 w 1 that'the plant has been constructed safely and 2 according to design.
3 Q. Is the inspection program a written 4 document?
5 A. It is multiple documents.
6 Q. Do these documents define under what 7 circumstances inspections are to be performed?
8 A. The normal inspection program defines a 9 window of opportunity and specifies things that 10 should be looked at.
11 Q. Could you explain what you meant by that, 12 the reference to the window of opportunity?
13 A. Well, for instance, during the 14 installation of piping you need to look at some 15 welds while they are being made, and you need to 4 16 look at some radiographs after the welds have been 17 made. If all the piping is installed before you go 18 out to do your inspection, you can't witness a weld 19 being made, all you can look at is the radiograph of 20 the completed weld, so you have missed that window 1
21 of opportunity to witness a weld being made. That 22 is what I meant by window of opportunity.
23 Q. Who makes the decision when to conduct an s
. 24 inspection with respect to the Midland project?
6 MJ 0Vo[fs, 8o1snbey and Assoalais1, $na.
F 75
'S 1 A. Well, part of the decision is made in the 2 procedure, and then the actual people performing the 3 inspection or their supervision have some latitude 4 in priortizing the work and in seeing that t hing s 5 get done in the most efficient and the best manner.
6 Q. As a general matter how often are 7 inspections conducted at Midland?
8 A. We have resident inspectors assigned full 9 time at the site, and unless they are on vacation or 10 have to go to Washington for a meeting or to Region 11 III for a meeting they are there every day and they 12 perform inspections continually.
13 We normally issue an inspection report 14 every month covering the previous month's activities.
15 The whole Midland Section participates in that 16 inspection report so that they document their 17 activities for that previous month in the monthly 18 report.
19 The specialist inspectors from the 1
20 Division of Engineering will go out as we need them 21 or as they have assignments to go out to look at the l
22 area that they are supposed to look at and then they 23 will issue a separate report.
T 24 Q. Is it correct that as part of the MJ Gflffs, o fossnbsy and 811oclatz1, $na.
w - ----_ nnn- -
76 i
% 1 inspection process problems in construction are 2 uncovered and the NRC becomes aware of them, is that 3 right?
4 A. Yes.
,5 Q. Is there any other way by which the NRC 6 becomes aware of construction problems at the site?
7 A. Yes. The licensee is required to report 8 problems according to regulations Part 21 and 9 50.55(e). We also receive --
well, just in the 10 course of conducting inspection we talk to people, 11 and a lot of times we will receive information from 12 the people we talk to, and then occasionally an 13 anonymous or an unidentified alledger will contact 14 NRC and make allegations.
15 Q. You referred to the obligation of the 16 licensee to make notification to the NRC. Does this 17 obligation extend to the work being done at the site 18 by the licensee's contractors and subcontractors?
19 A. Yes, if it meets the requirements of those 20 reporting requirements.
21 Q. Do you have Exhibit NRC 5 in front of you?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. This was the report prepared for the ACRS
's 24 as you referred to earlier?
HJ 0Vo[fs, Sossnbsy and Oswelaiss, $na.
77 1
^
1 A. Yes.
1 2 Q. Directing your attention to the page 3 marked, "Introduction," which has the Bates number 4 N 10882, it indicates that this report covers the 5 period starting with the beginning of construction
.6 up to June 30, 1982. Do you see that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Has there been any update of this report 9 prepared since June of '02?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Now, if you could turn the page at the 12 very beginning of that section states, quote, "Since 13 the start of construction, Midland has experienced 14 some significant problems resulting in enforcement 15 action."
16 Then it skips down to state, "In spite of 17 the corrective actions taken, the licensee continues
- 18 to experience problems in the implementation of 19 quality and construction."
20 Do you agree with those statements?
21 MR. ZACK: As of when? As of the time the 22 document was written?
23 MR. STRICKLING: That's correct.
- s 24 BY THE WITNESS
MJ 0Vo[fs, 80senbs9 and Assoalaiss, .$ne.
16 1 A. Yes.
2 BY MR. STRICKLING:
3 Q. Has anything occurred since this report 4 was prepared to change your view of the project?
5 'A. Yes.
6 Q. How has your view changed?
7 A. I think the licensee has been very 8 responsive to the problems we identified in our 9 inspection in the fall of 1982. Well, in stopping 10 work and in the development of their Construction 11 Completion Program and in their attempts to solve 12 their problems and get on top of things since then, 13 I think that they have made great strides in their 14 performance since that time.
15 Q. Well, as of 1982 there were nine 16 significant construction problems that had been i
17 identified in the second paragraph. Do you see that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. No. 6 refers to allegatione in 1980 20 pertaining to the Zack Company heating, ventilating 21 and air conditioning deficiencies. Do you see that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. What was that problem?
's 24 A. I don't have the details. That was before HJ 0Vo[fe, osenbey and hswelaiss, $na.
79
_-' 1 my time. I have a general understanding, but I 2 don't have the details of it.
3 Q. Well, give me your genaral understanding.
4 A. Well, there were allegations regarding 5 quality problems with the work done by Zack Company.
6 They were investigated. There were some items of 7 noncompliance identified and a civil penalty was 8 issued. The licensee corrected those items of 9 noncompliance, he made changes in his quality 10 program. They took over --
they, Consumers Power, 11 took over the quality function previously assigned 12 to Zack and they formed the Midland -- the MPOAD, 13 Midland Plant Quality Assurance Department at that 14 time, and their performance was improved after that 15 in the HVAC area.
16 MR. STRICKLING: Would you mark that as the 17 next exhibit?
18 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 19 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 7, 20 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
21 (WHEREUPON, the document was 22 tendered to counsel.)
23 BY MR. STRICKLING:
N
. 24 Q. Mr. Warnick, what had been the M3 QVo(fs, ekossnbr.9 and &ssocialss, .0na.
80
' I deficiencies that had been identified prior to 1980 2 in the HVAC program?
3 A. I don't know.
4 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked 5 a Exhibit NRC 7 a document dated in January 7th, 6 1981 bearing Bates numbers N 11639 to 11654. We 7 will have it for you in a second.
8 (WHEREUPON, the document was 9 tendered to the witness.)
10 BY HR. STRICKLINGt 11 Q. Take a look at the document, Mr. Warnick.
12 A. Okay.
13 Q. What is that document?
14 A. This is what we call a Notice of Violation 15 and Proposed Civil Penalty.
16 Q. Is this the Notice of Violation and 17 Proposed Civil Penalty relating to the Zack HVAC 18 problems?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Okay. Who at Region III is most familiar 21 with the problems experiet.ced with the HVAC program?
22 A. In what time frame are you talking about?
23 Q. From 1980 to the present. If it is 24 different people for different times, so identify HJ 0Vo[fs, 00sonbsy and &swelates, $na.
81 l 2
- h 1 them.
2 A. The people involved in this investigation 3 and action would be the ones most knowledgeable 4 about the problems that occurred at this time.
5 Those are involved in the most recent inspection --
I 6 special inspection of the HVAC area would be 7 knowledgeable about the current conditions.
8 Q. Okay. Do you know who was involved in 9 this inspection referenced in Exhibit 7?
10 A. I know that Jim Foster --
no, I don't know ,
'i 11 either. I think Jim Foster and Chuck Weil were 12 involved in this, but I would have to get the 13 inspection report and look and see the names that 14 were on the inspection report.
15 Q. Since the issuance of this civil penalty 16 who has been involved in HVAC matters at the site on 17 behalf of the NRC?
f 18 A. I don't know who followed up on the close-out 19 of this one. Chuck --
well, the people in the 20 investigations group were involved in it, I know '
21 that, and then in this last 1983 it was members of 22 the Division of Engineering under the direction of 23 Frank Hawkins who did the work.
s
. 24 Q. Now, Zack is a subcontractor on the H3 G1/offe, fossnbsy & 81soclaiss, .$na.
n_ =
r-82
> 1 Midland project, correct?
~
2 A. Yes, that's correct.
3 Q. The fine that was imposed in 1981 was on 4 Consumers Power, correct?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. On what basis can the NRC impose a fine on 7 the licensee for problems that were caused by a 8 subcontractor?
9 MR. ZACK: I am going to object. I think that 10 calls for a legal conclusion, which is beyond his 11 competence.
12 BY MR. STRICKLING:
13 Q. You may answer.
14 A. We --
it is my understanding we do not 15 have authority to impose civil penalties on people 16 that aren't licensees, and therefore we issue the 17 civil penalty to the licensee.
18 Q. Well, does a civil penalty as r e f l e c t e'd in 19 Exhibit 7 indicate any findings with respect to
, 20 activities by Consumers as opposed to activities of 21 Zack?
22 A. It is principally activities of Zack and 23 by Zack employees.
T .
. 24 Q. Okay. Well, directing your attention to l
r M3 GVo[fe, hosenbsy and 81soclaiss, $na.
-_x- -
83 e
1 the first paragraph of Exhibit 7 it, states, quote, "W e 2 found major deficiencies in Consumers Power 3 Company's Quality Assurance Program," is that right?
4 A. That is what it says.
5 O. Okay. So the finding --
go ahead.
6 A. "As related to the HVAC cont'ractor's 7 activities," yes.
8 Q. Okay. Reference is often made to quality 9 control activities and to quality assurance 10 activities. Is there a distinction?
11 THE WITNESS: Read that one again.
12 (WHEREUPON, the record was read 13 by the reporter as requested.)
14 BY THE WITNESS:
15 A. Yes, there is a distinction.
16 BY MR. STRICKLING:
17 Q. Could you explain what is meant by quality 18 control, what is meant by quality assurance and what 19 the distinction is?
20 A. Quality control are the actions that are 21 taken on the first level to see that work is done in 22 a satisfactory manner. It is normally performed by i
23 somebody other than the person doing the work.
T 24 Quality assurance is that activity which is taken to HJ GVo[fs, hostnbsy and &ssoalaiss, $ne.
a o
84
% 1 overview the quality control work to see that it is 2 done correctly.
3 Q. As a general matter who is responsible for 4 the adequacy of a quality assurance program at a 5 nuclear construction site?
6 A. We hold the licensee responsible for all 7 the actions at their site.
8 Q. Referring back to Exhibit 5, the ACRS 9 report, in that same paragraph there is a reference 10 to reactor pressure vessel anchor stud failures.
11 Would you explain what that problem was?
12 A. No. I don't know the details of these 13 earlier problems.
14 Q. Well, what is your understanding as to 15 what the failures were that are referenced here?
16 A. I really don't --
I am not knowledgeable 17 in these earlier areas. They were matters 18 identified earlier and resolved earlier, so I didn't s
19 get involved in them.
20 Q. As you sit here today you don't know what 21 this is referring to?
22 A. I have a general --
I have some knowledge, 23 but not --
no detailed knowledge.
s 24 Q. Okay. Well, give me your understanding of M3 GVo(fs, Sossnbsy and &ssociates, $nc.
m m -
85 8
1 1 the reactor pressure. vessel anchor stud railures?
2 A. There was problem identified by the 3 licensee in regards to their --
the studs which 4 anchor the reactor vessel down, and they pursued 5 those problems and they identified a resolution to 6 the problem which the NRC balieved to be 7 satisfactory. ,
8 Q. Well, I move to strike all your comments 9 after the description of the problem.
10 I am not asking you, Mr. Warnick, for 11 speeches as to how well the licensee may have 12 responded. I simply asked for your understanding as 13 to what the problem was.
14 MR. BERKOVITZ: He said he doesn't understand 15 the problem. Why don't you ask him who understands 16 the problem?
17 MR. ZACK: Well, he actually asked for his 18 general understanding. Mr. Warnick gave it to him.
19 MR. STRICKLING: I asked him for his 20 understanding o,f the problem. It is the second 21 speech that he has made and I want i t' to end.
22 BY MR. STRICKLING:
23 Q. Who is most knowledgeable about the T
. 24 reactor vessel anchor bolt problems?
M3 GVo(fs, founbsy c.nd 8.nsociales, $nc.
86 1 MR. BERKOVITZ: Do you know who is most 2 knowledgeable about the problems?
3 BY THE WITNESS:
4 A. I'd have to identify the inspection report 5 number and I'd have to get the inspection report and 6 I'd have to find out whose name is on the inspection 7 report and that would be the person.
8 BY MR. STRICKLING:
9 Q. As you sit here today you don't know who 10 in the NRC is most knowledgeable about the problems 11 with the reactor vessel anchor bolt experiences?
12 MR. LEWIS: That is what he just said.
13 BY MR. STRICKLING:
14 Q. Yes or no?
15 MR. BERKOVITZ: Read it back, please.
16 (WHEREUPON, the record was read 17 by the reporter as requested.)
18 BY THE WITNESS:
19 A. That's correct.
20 BY MR. STRICKLING:
21 Q. Well, the next item, Item 8 in that 22 paragraph relates to piping suspension system 23 installation deficiencies in 1981. What were the s
24 deficiencies identified in 1981, Mr. Warnick?
MJ GVo(fe, Sosenbsy and &ssociales, $nc.
. a e _.
87 3 1 A. I don't know.
2 Q. Who at the NRC does know?
3 A. I am not sure. I suspect' Isa Yan.
4 Q. Could_you spell that, please?
5 A. I-s-a Y-a-n.
6 Q. Who is ' .' t . Yan?
7 A. He is our hangor and snubber specialist in 8 the Division of Engineering.
9 Q. What are hangers and snubbers?
10 A. Those are supoorts of piping or other-11 equipment to prevent movement in the event of 12
~
earthquakes or temperature changes. It is a method 13 of controlling t.h e amount of movement.
14 Q. O k a,$, . Item No. 9 in that paragraph 15 relates to 1982 electrical cable misinstallations.
16 What were the misinsta11ations identified in 1982?
17 A. I don't know the details of that one.
18 Q. Well, you were involved in the Midland 19 project in 1982, weren't you?
20 A. Yes, and this was early '82.
21 MR. STRICKLING: Mark that as the next exhibit, 22 please.
23 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was N
24 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 8, MJ GVo(fs, 001snbsy and Associates, .0nc.
r------------------------------------
88
~5 1 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
i 2 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked 3 as Exhibit NRC 8 a document dated November 1, 1982 4 bearing Bates numbers N 11786 to 11790.
5 (WHEREUPON, the document was 6 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
7 i
BY MR. STRICKLING:
8 Q. Mr. Warnick, take a look at that document.
9 A. Okay.
10 Q. Do you recognize that document?
11 A. Yes, I do. -
12 Q. What is it?
13 A. It is a memo from me to Mr. Eisenhut, NRR, 14 recommending notification of the ASLB on some 15 problems identified during the reinspection of 16 electrical cables at Midland.
17 Q. Okay. The reinspection that is referred 18 to in that document, does it relate to the 19 misinstallation problems that had been previously 20 identified in 1982?
21 A. Yes, it does.
22 Q. What is the relation?
23 A. Well, early in '82, and I don't know when
'T 24 the date was, they identified problems or had M3 0Vo[fs, kossnbsy and Assoclaiss, $ne.
89
^ 1 allegations, I don't know the details, of !
o 2 misinstallations, and as a result of that the 3 licensee committed to reinspecting their electrical
~
'4 cables a hundred percent for some and a sampling 5 basis on others and there was criteria that 6 identified that. They had started that reinspection !
7 program. During that reinspection program they 8 identified four cables, I think that is the number 9 quoted in here, that were undersized. The licensee 10 reported that as required by regulations in a 11 50.55(e) report. We thought it was important and we 12 then issued the PN, which is the second page, and ,
13 then attached that to this memo recommending that 14 the Board be notified, which is the first page. ,
15 Q. What is the safety concern with respect to 16 undersized cables. Why is it a safety problem?
17 A. If the cable is not of the right size, it 18 could melt. If it was overloaded and the equipment 19 could then be not operable.
20 Q. Why is electrical cable misinstallation a 21 safety concern?
22 A. The equipment is needed to operate the 23 reactor, and if the equipment is not operable, then T !
, 24 it reduced the margin of safety. When I say, "Margin -
M3 G1/ offs, Sosenbsy and 81 socials 1, $nc.
a m _- _ - . . - _ - . - - -
90 Jw 1 of safety," there is normally multip).e systems and 2 multiple pieces of equipment, and if you lose one, 3 it is degraded, if you lose it all, then you got 4 another problem.
5 O. Well, how does cable misinstallation 6 relate to that? Is this a question of not having 7 one end of a wire hooked up to the right switch that 8 switches on the right piece of equipment or what is 9 involved?
10 A. The four that they are talking about here 11 were actually cable that was undersized.
12 Q. Right. But I was speaking of the more 13 ge eric problem of misinstallations.
14 A. Well, like I said before, I don't have the 15 details of the misinstallation. I have the details
~
16 of these four.
17 Q. Who at the NRC in Region III would be 18 knowledgeable about the issue of the cable 19 misinstallations in early 1982?
20 A. Ron Gardner.
21 Q. And who would be most knowledgeable about 22 the issue of the undersized cables later that year?
23 A. Ron Gardner.
24 MR. STRICKLING: Mark that as the next MJ 0Vo[fs, 001snbsy and Associates, hnc.
a
91 S 1 document.
2 (WHEREUPON, certain documents were 3 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC Nos.
4 9, 10 and ll and CPC Nos. 11, 12 and 5 13, for identification, as of 6 5/1/84.)
7 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 8 off the record.)
9 MR. STRICKLING: Exhibit NRC 9 is a document 10 dated July 15, 1982 bearing Bates numbers 9470550 11 through 9470560.
12 (WHEREUPON, the documents were 13 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
14 BY MR. STRICKLING:
15 Q. Mr. Warnick, take a look at that document.
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. What is that document?
18 A. It is an inspection report issued by 19 Region III of an inspection conducted on April 21 20 through 23 by Isa Yan.
21 Q. As part of his inspection he reviewed the 22 pipe hanger program, correct?
23 A. That's correct.
s 24 Q. And directing your attention to Page 5 of MJ 0Vo[fe, kosenbsy and &ssociales, hnc.
m
92 f% 1 the inspection report it states, quote, "In 2 discussion with the licensee management personnel 3 the inspector noted that there should be a 100 4 percent reinspection of all the hangers installed in 5 1980 and sample reinspection of hangers installed in 6 CCY 1981 and 1982." Do you see that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Was such a reinspection undertaken?
9 A. Yes. Which it leads me to correct what I 10 had said earlier about the electrical inspection.
11 This is the one that I was thinking of where there 12 was --
some was a hundred percent and some was a 13 sampling, and I think the electrical was a hundred 14 percent.
15 O. Okay. Would you take a look at Exhibit 10, 16 please, NRC 107 What is that document?
17 A. It is a letter from Consumers Power 18 Company to the NRC transmitting their report 19 entitled, "Hanger Report" of their hanger 20 overinspection or reinspection.
21 Q. Have you seen that --
go ahead.
22 A. And it says that it is --
they found that 23 it is not reportable under 50-55(e).
N 24 Q. Did you receive a copy of this letter?
HJ 0Vo[fs, ckosenbsy and dssociales, .0ne, a
93 y
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, this letter also responds to the 3 requirement by the NRC that a hundred percent 4 reinspection.be performed of the hangers, correct?
5 A. Well, no. I don't know.
6 Q. Well, take a look at Exhibit NRC 11. What 7 is that document?
8 For the record let me state it is a 9 document with Bates number N 7021 through N 7022 10 dated August 30, 1982.
11 A. Yes. This is our acknowledgment letter 12 indicating that we have received this consumers 13 Power letter and report.
14 0 For what purpose was this letter sent?
15 A. It was to put our position in the record 16 and to respond to this.
17 Q. And what was your response?
18 A. Well, we say, "While this response very 19 clearly identified the corrective actions you have 20 taken or plan to take regarding the 55 defective 21 hangers you identified in your overinspection, we 22 have no confidence that the remaining hangers have 23 been installed in accordance with the original T
24 drawings and specifications."
H3 GVo(fs, Sossnbsy and &ssociatss, $ne,
94 i
1 And then it goes on --
do you want me to 2 read?
P 3 Q. No. Let me summarize.. Your letter 4 reaffirms your position?
5 A. It says, "It is our position that you 6 shall reinspect all the supports and restraints insta lled-7 prior to 1981 and perform sample reinspection of the 8 components installed after 1981," and that is why 9 when you asked, you know, I kind of hedged on when I 10 said --
you had asked a question about a hundred 11 percent reinspection, and I said I don't know or I 12 don't think so because it is --
we weren't satisfied 13 with this (indicating). The work is still going on, ,
14 the reinspection program is still going on.
15 O. Even today?
16 A. Y'e s , that's correct.
17 Q. At the time the NRC notified Consumers 18 that it would be expected to undertake a 100 percent 19 reinspection of pipe hangers was there any 20 discussion with Consumers or to anyone within the 21 NRC as to how long it would take?
22 A. I wasn't involved in that aspect of the 23 work.
N 24 Q. Are you aware as to whether there were any HJ 0Vo[fs, 00ssn$isy and &ssociales, .$nc.
95
^
1 such' discussions to perform a reinspection of the 2 hangers?
3 A. No. I am not aware as to whether or not 4 there were such discussions 5 MR. STRICKLING: Court reporter has mark 3d as 6 Plaintiff's Exhibit CPC 11 a one-page letter dated 7 September 30, 1982 bears Bates number 947022540.
8 BY MR. STRICKLING:
9 Q. Do you recognize that document, Mr.
10 Warnick?
11 A. I acknowledged the document.
12 Q. Well, you received a copy of it, did you 13 not?
14 A. Yes. Yes.
15 Q. This letter indicates that the pipe hanger 16 reinspections were completed by June 1, 1983. Do 17 you see that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, at this point in time, September of
(
20 1982, the fuel load date publicly announced for Unit 21 2 was July 1983, is that correct?
22 A. I don't remember.
I 23 Q. Well, assume for purposes of this question s
24 that that was the publicly announced fuel load date.
MJ ,
GVo(fs, 80ssnbs9 and Associales, .$na.
+
96
,? l' Would a reinspection program that would not be 2 completed until June 1, 1983 support that 7/83 fuel 3 load date?
i 4 MR. ZACK: Objection. There has been no '
t 5 showing that he has any expertise in the schedule 6 area.
7 MR. BERKOVITZ: You can answer. r 8 BY THE WITNESS:
9 A. Well, in our inspe: tion program we really 10 don't put much stock in a licensee's statement that 11 they are going to be ready to load fuel on a certain '
12 date or they are going to go commercial operation on ,
13 a certain date. We conduct our inspections as
\
14 dictated by the ongoing work, and whether it takes !
15 the licensee one month or six months doesn't make a 16 lot of difference to us. And so because they say 17 they are going to do something in a certain time 18 frame doesn't necessarily lay one way or another 19 with us.
20 BY MR. STRICKLING:
21 Q. When you say you don't put much stock in a 22 utility's announced completion date, what do you 23 mean?
N 2% A. I mean that traditionally, and it has been MJ 0Vo[fs, 00ssnbsy wnd Associals1, $na.
n
\\ '
. 97 ;
l 7,' 1 our experience that utilities in the process of 1 2 building are always optimistic in when they think -
3 they are going to load fuel, and there has been very t
4 few plants in the history of our country that have !
t 5 maintained their schedule that they originally -
. 6 identified, most of them experienced delays. And so i 7 it is --
so we have to gear our work by what is 8 going on rather than what the licensee says.
9 In other words, if the licensee says, "We l 10 are going to be ready to load fuel in July 1st," l 11 then for them to do that we have to have all our 12 inspection programs completed and they have.to have l
l 13 their pre-operational testing program completed.
i 14 But if they are not even going to be able to start I r
15 their pre-operational testing program until after 16 July 1st, then we don't get geared up to look at the
{ f 17 pre-operational test program when they say. We take i 1 ;
- 18 it when it becomes obvious that they are going to do ,
4 .
. [
19 that. !
20 Q. Well, as of September 30, 1982, the date i
21 you received this letter, did you put much stock in
] [
J j 22 the announced completion dates that Consumers had [
23 announced at that point in time? -
N 24 MR. ZACK: Same objection. First of all, he I
. H3 0Vo[fs, hossn[rsy wnd &ssoclaiss, $na, f
_m--------- --
t i
98 ,
f 4 ;
1 has testified he doesn't even recall what the fuel f.' ~
i 2 load dates were, and there is the other objection I 3 interposed with respect to his competence as to 4_ scheduled matters.
5 BY MR. STRICKLING:
i 6 Q. Assume the date was July 1983, the r
7 announced fuel load date ,
r 8 A. Assume it was July. Okay. I assume it is i i
j 9 July '83. l 1 :
1 10 Q. In September 30, 1982, having received !
I l 11 this letter indicating pipe hanger reinspection ,
f 4
12 continuing until June lat, 1983, would you have put :
l 13 much stock in a July '83 fuel load date? i E
14 A. If that was the only thing, then I'd say j i 15 no, because they --
well, yes and no. It is l 4
16 possible that they could be doing their reinspection !
17 program right up until when they loaded the fuel.
18 They would have had to conducted their hot
(
i 19 functional test, which would have measured the ;
P
- i 20 movement of pipes and hanger supports as part of l i
- 21 that hot functional test and --
but whether they had l
t 22 completed the reinspection program before fuel load f
t
- 2. or not --
if all other things would have fallen in ,
3 :
24 line, I guess things would have worked out. I guess l L
l I
^
l i MJ GYo[fs, cRossnbsy wncl Assoalaiss, $na,
_n_ _ n _:____ - -
99 3- 1 I don't understand your question. It is possible, 2 but we knew that it wouldn't happen because of all 3 these other indicators.
4 Q. What other indicators are you referring to?
5 A. Well, the fact --
all the work that was 6 going on and just knowing the volume of work that 7 had to be done. -
8 Q. Okay. You are speaking as of September 30, 9 19827 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And at that point you knew that the July '8 3 12 fuel load date would not have been achieved?
' 13 MR. ZACK: Objection. He has never testified l
14 he knew of a July '83 fuel load date. Yod have 15 always interposed it as a hypothetical or as an 16 assumed fact.
17 MR. STRICKLING: Do you disagree with that date?
18 MR. ZACK: It is not in evidence, and I am not 19 here to testify, nor are you.
20 MR. STRICKLING: Well, it is in the record, Mr.
21 Zack. Do you disagree with that date?
22 MR. ZACK: I am not going to take a position.
23 I don't feel compelled to. The objection is a 4
24 legitimate one. You can proceed.
MJ 0Vo[fs, 00ssnbs9 and &ssociaiss, $na.
100 jN- 1 BY MR. STRICKLING:
o 2 Q. Mr. Warnick, it is a fact in the record 3 that as of September 30, 1982 the announced fuel ,
4 load date for Unit 2 was July 31, 1983.
5 As of September 30, 1982 did you believe 6 they would achieve that date?
7 MR. ZACK: That is a cumulative. You have 8 asked him this several times and I have the same 9 objection as to his competence.
10 MR. STRICKLING: Your objection is noted.
11 BY MR. STRICKLING:
12 Q. Please answer the question.
13 MR. BERKOVITZ: I want to make sure that the 14 question is clear.
15 For purposes of the question you are to 16 assume this fuel load date.
17 MR. STRICKLING: That is a fact in the record.
18 MR. BERKOVITZ: Well, but it hasn't been 19 established that as of September '82 that he knew 20 that fact, therefore for purposes of answering the 21 question he has to say if he had known that fact.
22 BY MR. STRICKLING:
23 Q. Do you understand the question, Mr.
s 24 Warnick?
MJ 0Vo[fs, 00ssnbsy and &1sociatss, .0nc.
101 l
_S 1 MR. ZACK: You can let his counsel clarify it 2 for him.
3 MR. BERKOVITZ: If you had known of the fact.
4 MR. STRICKLING: No clarification is necessary 5 unless he needs it. ,
6 MR. ZACK: Well, this is the third time you 7 have asked the question.
8 MR. BERKOVITZ: Do you understand the question?
9 THE WITNESS: I'd like to hear what you are 10 telling me.
11 MR. BERKOVITZ: Assume the fuel load date that 12 Mr. Strickling has given. If you had known in 13 September '82 of that fuel load date, would you have 14 thought they could meet it?
15 MR. JENTES: Excuse me. That is not the 16 question. I ask that the reporter reread the 17 question.
18 MR. STRICKLING: Yes.
19 MR. ZACK: First of all, let me note that under 20 the Michigan court rules only one attorney can 21 represent and speak at a deposition on behalf of the 22 parties.
23 MR. JENTES: I am extremely sorry, Mr. Zack.
N 24 I won't interpose anything so long as counsel won't MJ GVo(fs, fossnbsy wnd &ssoclaiss, $nc.
mm m__ _- -- - - _ - - _ _ - - -
102
.' 1 attempt to change the questions.
2 MR. STRICKLING: Could you read back my 3 question, please?
4 (WHEREUPON, the record was read 5 by the reporter as requested.)
6 MR. BERKOVITZ: He has testified that he 7 doesn't know that date, so how can he answer the 8 question that he would have --
9 BY THE WITNESS:
10 A. Let me try. At that time I am sure I knew I 11 the date. Today, though, I had forgotten what it 12 was back then. I am trying to go back in history i 13 and recreate, and that is why I said it the way I 14 did. At that point in time iny s el f and the people 15 that worked for me did not think that the licensee .
l 16 would be ready to load fuel at the date they were '
17 saying they were.
[
18 BY MR. STRICKLING:
19 Q. What was the basis for that belief?
20 A. Knowing the amount of work that a plant j i
21 has to do to complete construction and go through
- 22 the pre-operational testing program. Based on
! L 23 experience, in other words. '
\
24 Q. Did you ever tell anyone at Consumers 7
MJ 0Vo[fs, kossnbsy and 81soalaiss, hna.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ --_ - - - _ __-- mm m - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
103
,' 1 Power of your belief that the fuel load date would o
2 not be achieved? >
3 A. I don't-recall if I ever -- if that matter i
4 was ever discussed.
5 Q. Do you know if anyone on your staff 6 discussed with Consumers Power the belief of the NRC 7 of these individuals that the fuel load date would -
8 not be achieved?
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. As of September 30, 1982 who in addition i 11 to you believed that the fuel load date would not be 12 met?
13 A. I don't know, but I would guess that all -
t 14 of our guys felt that way.
15 Q. And could you name them for us?
i 16 A. Well, the Midland Section, Landsman, ,
17 Gardner, Shafer and myself and probably Ron Cook. ,
, 18 Q. When did you first come to the belief that 19 the fuel load date would not be achieved? i-l 20 A. I don't know. It is like I say that the '
21 fuel load date isn't a-- isn't something we really ;
L 22 focus on. It is what is going on at the site that 23 we need to inspect that we focus on. And so p T
24 everything that we do is geared to the activities at !
l i
M3 Gl' offs, Sossnbsy and Assoelait1, .$nc.
h _ h _n m rmewn
U 104 4
- 1 the site. The fuel load date is just something that 2 is in the periphery that is just a speck on the 3 horizon you might say.
4 -Q. I understand that, sir.
5 Could you please repeat my question for 6 the witness?
7 (WHEREUPON, the record was read 8 by the reporter as requested.)
9 BY THE WITNESS:
10 A. I believe I answered it. I said I don't 11 know.
12 BY MR. STRICKLING:
13 Q. Well, it is your testimony today that as 14 of September 30 you did not believe it could be 15 achieved. As of August 30, 1982 did you have a 16 belief whether or not the fuel load date could be 17 achieved?
18 A. I really don't know.
19 Q. Well --
20 A. I have testified before and I would just 21 repeat what I said. Fuel load is a speck on the 22 horizon.
23 Q. As of July 1st, 1982 did you have a belief s
24 as to whether the fuel load date of July '83 could HJ GVo(fs, 80ssnbs9 med &swelaiss, $na.
105
' 1 be achieved?
2 A. on July 1st, 1982 I wasn't involved in the 3 Midland project.
4 Q. What was the date you first became 5 involved?
6 A. It was in July.
7 Q. By the end of July 1982 had you come to a 8 belief that the fuel load date could not be achieved?
9 A. I don't know whether or not I considered 10 it.
11 MR. STRICKLING: It is 12:25. Why don't we 12 break for lunch?
13 (WHEREUPON, the deposition was 14 recessed until 1:30 p.m., 5/1/84.)
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MJ Gyoffs, Sosegbsy med &ssoelaiss, $ns, a
7.
106 1 STATE OF MICHIGAN )
?.
2 ) SS:
3 COUNTY OF MIDLAND )
4 5 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MIDLAND 6 STATE OF MICHIGAN 7 THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY,)
8 Plaintiff,)
9 vs. ) File No. 83-002232-CK-D 10 CONSUMERS POWER-COMPANY, )
11 Defendant.)
12 13 May 1, 1984, 14 1:30 p.m.
15 16 The deposition of ROBERT FRED WARNICK 17 resumed pursuant to recess at 799 Roosevelt Road, 18 Glen Ellyn, Illinois.
19 20 21 22 23 24 M3 0Vo[fs, 00ssnbsy mad &ssoelaiss, hrsa.
107
.3 i
? 1 PRESENT: ,
s 2
3 . MESSRS. KIRKLAND & ELLIS, ;
f 4 (200 East Randolph Drive, l r
5 Chicago, Illinois 6060't), by:
6 MR. WILLIAM R. JENTES,
- 7. MR. LAWRENCE E. STRICKLING and ;
8 MS. ChROL M. RICE, ,
4 9 appeared on behalf of the Plaintifft
! 10 j t
3 11 MESSRS. BARRIS, SOTT, DENN & DRIKER, 12 (1001 Woodward Avenue, 13 (Detroit, Michigan 48226), by:
14 MR. ANDREW M. ZACK, !
15 appeared on behalf of the Defendants 16 !
- 17 l 18 .-
19 -
f l-20 j i-21 {
22 [
i 23 (
s 24 ,
i I
i f
NO YO to h0 ty kibOCkhtie hne.
m m m m - ------- r
108 r
i 1 PRESENT: (Continued) 2 ,
3 OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, !
5 (799 Roosevelt Road, 6 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137), by:
4 7 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS, 8 -and- l 9 OFFICE OF GENERAL COURSEL, 10 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ;
11 (Washington, D.C., 20555), by: [
12 MR. DANIEL BERKOVITZ, !
13 l I
14 appeared on behalf of the Deponent. i 15 I 16 I t
,1
, s 17 l 18 REPORTED BY: MELANIE JAKUSZEWSKI, C.S.R. l
, 19 I r
20 i 21 i i
I 22 23 ,
T !
24
?
M3 GVo(fs, 00smsbs9 sund &ssoalaiss, hne.
- - - _ - - - - - _ - - - - - - --__w un --
109
' 1 THE WITNESS: I'd like to correct two things I 2 said this morning as I reflected on at lunchtime 1 3 thought I need to correct. One is that Jay Harrison 4 has some Midland files in his office, and I don't 5 remember if I mentioned his name or not.
6 ROBERT FRED WARNICK, 7 called as a witness herein, having been previously 8 duly sworn and having testified, was examined and 9 testified further as follows:
10 EXAMINATION (Resumed) 11 BY MR. STRICKLING:
12 0 As a follow-up to that are his files going 13 to be produced pursuant to the FOIA to the extent 14 they contain documents we asked for?
15 A. The same as all the other files we have in 16 the region, yes.
17 Q. okay.
18 A. And the second point is you had asked if I --
19 I forget how the question was worded, but I 20 responded that I had inspected plants in operation, 21 plants in pre-operational start-up phase. I also 22 was assigned to inspect Crystal River when it was 23 under construction, so I have done construction T
24 inspections.
HJ Gl'o({s, ckosen$ty and 81socialss, $na.
n -- - - --- ----- --- -- -- _ _ - _
110 [
JN. 1 Q. Okay. Anything else? :
i 2 A. No.
l 3 Q. In preparation for your deposition here ' !
4 today did you' review any documents?
5 A. Yes. '
6 Q. What did you review? 1 7 A. I reviewed a chronology that we have.
8 Q. I won't mark this unless that is the 9 document you reviewed.
10 Do you recognize that document?
11 (WHEREUPON, the document was 12 tendered to the witness.) ;
13 BY THE WITNESS:
14 A. That is the one.
l 15 MR. STRICKLING: Okay. Let's mark that as the !
16 next exhibit, please. I i
17 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked !
18 Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 12, 19 for identification, as of 5/1/84.) [
j 20 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 21 off the record.) , [
i i
22 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked 23 as Exhibit NRC 12, a document that has a cover page
\ [
. 24 entitled, "Midland Chronology of Svents" followed by [
l i l M3 GVo[fs, ckowdsuf and Assoelaiss, $ne.
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - __-- _ -_ W W x m - -- !
111 t
? I a ten-page chronology.
2 (WHEREUPON, the document was 3 tendered to counsel and the witness.) >
4 BY MR. STRICKLING:
5 Q. Is this the document you reviewed prior to ,
6 your deposition?
7 A. A, copy of the document I reviewed, I think. ;
8 . Q. Who prepared this document? r 9 A. This is prepared by Jay Harrison.
10 Q. I notice on the bottom of the first page j 11 of the chronology an indication that this version is
[t 12 Revision 3. !
t i
13 A. Yes, and that is why I said I think 14 because I don't know what revision I was looking at. '
i 15 Q. Okay. This revision is dated November 18, {
f 16 1983, correct?
l i
l 17 A. Yes.
I 18 Q. Do you know if there has been a later !
19 revision? !
t 20 A. No. I don't know.
21 Q. Do you know how Mr. Harrison prepared this 22 document? i 23 A. Yes. By just a compilation of important f N !
, 24 dates and events primarily since we had formed the !
t l
N3 GVo[fs, 00ssnbs9 msd Assoalaiss, $ns.
l j n gr;a- n mwrvm,
112 1 Office of Special Cases, but including some. dates u
2 and events preceding that. We have it in the 3 computer and we update it periodically.
4 Q. You have this document on the computer?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. 5520 System.
8 Q. Are there documents to back up each of 9 these dates do you know?
10 A. No, I don't know. I would assume there 11 are documents for most all of them.
12 Q. Okay. Did you review any other documents 13 before testifying here this morning?
14 A. I reviewed some of the latest 15 correspondence.
16 Q. Correspondence from 19847 17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did you review anything else?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did you discuss your deposition with 21 anyone prior to this morning?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Who did you discuss it with?
N
. 24 A. With Mr. Berkovitz and Mr. Lewis.
HJ QVo(fs, hosznbey and &1sociais1, hnc.
113 1 Q. With anyone else?
2 A. Only in passing that --
you know, that I 3 was going to testify with other management people in 4 the region.
5 Q. Did you have any meetings with Mr.
6 Berkovitz or Mr. Lewis regarding preparation of your 7 testimony?
8 A. We met this morning for a few minutes.
9 Q. Was anyone else present?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did you have any other meetings with 12 either Mr. Berkovitz or Mr. Lewis regarding the 13 preparation of your testimony?
14 A. I wouldn't call them meetings. Steve and 15 I had discussed it before, but it is not what I 16 would call a meeting.
17 Q. Prior to coming here this morning to give 18 your deposition had you ever testified before?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Where?
21 A. Before the Public Utilities Commission at ---
22 on Zimmer, and I think I did it twice.
23 Q. This was the Ohio PUC?
'\
24 A. Yes.
t MJ G1/offe, hosenbey and &1sociales, hnc.
m m -
114
?- 1 Q. Have you ever testified with respect to
-2 the Midland project?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Apart from the two appearances before the 5 Ohio PUC have you given any other testimony?
6 A. No.
7 Q. As part of your responsibilities both as 8 Director of the Office of Special Cases and as Chief 9 of the Projects Branch do you have occasion to make 10 visits to the Midland site?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. How often do you visit there?
13 A. I probably average once a month.
14 Q. Is that a regularly scheduled trip?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Under what circumstances will you visit 17 the site? What is it that will bring you up to 18 Midland?
19 A. Public meetings, significant things such 20 as this c om ing Friday we have a meeting with Crosap, 21 McCormick & Paget to discuss the management 22 appraisal.
23 Q. I think the court reporter may need some
. 24 help spelling that.
MJ GVo[fe, dossnbey and 81sociales, $na.
1 115 J'- 1 A. Cresap, C-r-e-s-a-p, McCormick 9
2 M-c-C-o-r-m-i-c-k, Paget, P-a-g-e-t.
3 Q. In addition --
well, at your visits to the 4 site do you have contacts with consumers officials?
5 A. Normally.
6 Q. Do you also have contact with Bechtel 7 personnel?
8 A. Sometimes.
9 Q. Apart from your visits to the site do you 10 have occasion to have meetings or other contacts 11 with Consumers or Bechtel officials?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. How often do those contacts occur?
14 A. Oh, I am guessing once a month. That is 15 ballpark.
16 Q. Have you ever had a meeting or 17 communication with Consumers or Bechtel official 18 about the schedule for completion o# the Midland 19 project?
20 A. No. I don't believe I have.
21 Q. This morning we were talking about the 22 Office of Special Cases and the fact that it was set 23 up in July of 1982. Who was involved in the s
24 decision to set up the office?
MJ Gyoffs, Sosenbey and 81socLaiss, $na.
n - -
116 O
N 1- A. Mr. Keppler.
2 Q. Was anyone else involved in discussions 3 leading up-to the. decision?
4 A. I believe Mr. Davis was, Mr. Norelius, Mr.
5 Spessard.
6 Q. Who is Mr. Davis? I don't think we 7 identified him earlier.
8 A. He is Deputy Regional Administrator.
9 Q. Okay. Apart from those four gentlemen, 10 was anyone else involved in discussions leading up 11 to the institution of the office?
12 A. There may have been, but I don't know who 13 Mr. Keppler consulted with.
14 Q. Now, why was the office set up?
15 A. To deal with Midland and Zimmer.
16 Q. Why were Zimmer and Midland singled out?
17 A. They were felt to have unique problems and 18 needed increased inspection attention.
19 Q. Well, isn't it correct, Mr. Warnick, that 20 Zimmer and Midland were the two most troubled plants 21 in the region?
22 MR. ZACK: Objection. It is leading. No facts 23 in the record in support of that assumption either.
T 24 BY THE WITNESS:
M3 GVo[fs, hossnbsy and &ssociales, hnc.
117 7 1 A. I don't know.
2 BY MR. STRICKLING:
3 Q. Well, have you ever heard Zimmer and 4 Midland referred to as troubled plants?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do you agree with the characterization?
- 7. A. I --
yes.
8 Q. Have you heard any other phrases applied 9 to Zimmer and Midland?
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. ZACK: Objection as to relevance.
12 BY MR. STRICKLING:
13 Q. How else have you heard those plants 14 characterized?
15 A. I don't recall specifics, but I am sure I 16 have heard them --
you know, people use other words 17 to describe them.
18 Q. You can't recall any others as you sit 19 here?
20 A. Well, I would guess people have used the 21 word, "Problems," but I --
22 Q. Do you agree with the characterization 23 that these two projects are problem plants?
T 24 A. I'd say they have had problems.
MJ 0Vo[fe, 00senbey and &ssociates, $nc.
a _
I 118
)
i l
l 1 Q. Are there 'any other phrases you would use j
2 to describe the Midland project?
3 MR. ZACK: At this time? Speaking of the plant 4 at this time? I think the question is vague as 5 asked.
6 BY MR. STRICKLING:
7 Q. Well, I am looking at the history of the 8 project. Take the history in its whole as you are 9 familiar with it.
10 A. Well, I normally don't characterize plants 11 by, you know, one word or so, but they have a 12 history of problems.
13 Q. Do you have Exhibit CPC 11 in front of you?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. That is the September 30th letter we were 16 talking about this morning. As a general matter how 17 long after fuel load does it take to get up to 18 commercial operation?
19 MR. ZACK: Same objection as I interposed this 20 morning. There has been no showing that he has any 21 competence with respect to projecting a schedule, 22 durations or completion of a nuclear plant.
23 BY THE WITNESS:
T 24 A. For the record I might clarify that I do MJ GYo[fe, c@osenbey and &ssociates, $na.
m~--. . - - -
119
_? I have some expertise in scheduling in this kind of an 2 area. One of my jobs when I worked at the plutonium 3 . recycle test reactor was in charge of the plant 4 scheduling of outages and operating periods, and I 5 did that for approximately three years. In addition 6 I participated in the fuel load at Tur' key Point at 7 Oconee, at Fort Calhoun and in the pre-operational 8 testing programs at Arkansas Nuclear I, so I have 9 had some experience in these areas.
10 MR. STRICKLING: Mr. Zack will have to withdraw 11 his objection.
12 MR. ZACK: I stand on it.
13 THE WITNESS: Repeat the question.
14 BY MR. STRICKLING:
15 O. Let me rephrase the question.
16 Were you aware as to the start-up sequence 17 at the Midland project in that the sequence between 18 Unit 2 fuel load through Unit 2 commercial to Unit 1 19 fuel load to Unit 1 commercial? Were you familiar 20 with that sequence?
21 A. I guess generally.
22 Q. Okay. Do you know how long it was 23 expected to take to get from Unit 2 fuel load to N
24 Unit 1 commercial operation?
M3 0Yo[fe, hosenbey and 81soclakes, .$ne.
120 N- 1 A. No.
2 Q. Referring back to your testimony this 3 morning as to your belief as to when the plant would 4 load fuel, was it your belief in September of 1982 5 that Unit 2 would not load fuel even by the end of 6 1983?
7 A. I don't know that I had an opinion of when 8 they would load fuel.
9 Q. Well, thinking back to what you knew about 10 the plant in September 1982 as you sit here now --
11 well, strike that.
12 Looking back to the knowledge you had 13 concerning the plant in September of 1982, even if 14 you did not have a belief at that time, the 15 information that you had would it have led you to a 16 belief that Unit 2 would not have loaded fuel by the 17 end of 1983?
18 MR. ZACK: Well, I think that has been asked 19 and answered. I also think that you are asking for 20 sheer speculation on his part, and it begs a 21 question of whether he even ever entertained those 22 beliefs as a matter of course given his 23 resp.;nsibilities.
N
. 24 MR. STRICKLING: The objection is noted.
MJ 0Vo[fe, kosenbey and &1sociales, hnc.
121
% 1 MR. BERKOVITZ: Did you understand the 2 question?
3 THE WITNESS: Well, I think I do.
4 When I think of -- when I deal with a 5 reactor and think about the fuel load I am concerned 6 with how much inspection work we have to do between 7 the present and when the fuel will be loaded, and I 8 know the sequence of events we have to go through 9 and the things that enter into --
you know, the 10 physical steps you go through before you can load 11 fuel. And so I tried to plan and schedule and 12 arrange the affairs so that we can complete our 13 inspection work in a way so that we can do what we 14 are expected to do without being a bottleneck to 15 that fuel load date.
16 Now, when I see that a fuel load date is 17 in the future, I am more concerned with what is 18 happening at the present recognizing that I have got 19 to do certain things between then and the fuel load 20 date. And so it doesn't really matter to me whether 21 a licensee says, "I am going to do it in a year" or 22 "I am going to do it in two years" as long as I am 23 prepared and do the things I have to do in the right N
24 time sequence.
H3 Gyoffs, hosenbsy and 81sociales, .0nc,
122
- 1 And so when a licensee announces his fuel 2 load date, I look at it and I say, "We have got to 3 do this" and we proceed to do it, but I don't 4 question is he off six weeks, is he off two months, 5 is he off six months. I recognize that he has made 6 his best effort to schedule, and that as long as we 7 can keep up with our work load, we are not going to.
8 impact on his schedule date. And therefore there is 9 nothing that I have to do strictly based on his fuel 10 load date if he hasn't completed the prerequisites 11 for that, and so we look at how he is doing on these 12 prerequisites as opposed to the fuel load date. So 13 back then I don't know if I believed July was or the 14 end of the year was realistic. I just didn't really 15 think about it.
16 Q. Well, put yourself as an individual with 17 the information that you had as of September 30, 18 1982. I have already referred to your knowledge as 19 scheduling. You knew how much work you had to do.
20 You had an idea of how much work Consumers had to do, 21 I assume.
22 Looking at the state of the project in 23 September 30, 1982, how likely was it in your mind, N
24 looking back today, that they would finish that MJ 0%[fe, kosenbey and dssociales, hnc.
123
.? 1 project by'the end of 19847 2 MR. ZACK: Well, it has been asked'and answered'
~3 several times and'I think it is cumulative ~at this 4 point.
5 MR. STRICKLING: The objection is noted.
6 BY MR. STRICKLING:
7 Q. Please answer.
8 A. I don't know that I can make a statement ,
9 like that today.
10 Q. Are you familiar with the term or the 11 acronym SALP?
i 12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What do those letters stand for?
14 A. Systematic appraisal of licensee 15 performance.
16 Q. And what does that mean?
17 A. It is a periodic review of a licensee, the
- 18 problems they have had, the management meetings we 19 have had with them, the items of noncompliance we 20 have identified in our inspection programs, and our 21 assessment as to how the licensee is doing.
22 Q. Why is the report prepared?
23 A. It is a forcing function to have a N
24 consistent uniform review of each plant on a sec i
MJ GVoffs, 00ssnbsy and &ssoelaiss, $na.
124
> 1 periodic basis.
2 Q. Have you been involved in the preparation 3 of a SALP7 4 A. For Midland, I presume?
5 Q. Anywhere.
6 A. Yes.
7, Q. What is the process by which they are 8 prepared? I mean, how do you go about getting it on 9 paper?
10 A. Well, we prepare a draft and we meet --
we 11 have a SALP Board that meets and the various areas 12 are discussed and changes are made to the SALP 13 Report and things are documented and then it is 14 presented to the licensee.
15 Q. At this point is the report available to 16 the public or is it just presented to the licensee?
17 A. It is not available to the public until it 18 is presented to the licensee and then --
19 Q. What happens after the report is submitted 20 to the licensee?
21 A. They have a chance to respond to it and 22 then the original report and their response are put 23 into the Public Document Room.
T 24 Q. Is then a final version of the report MJ GVo(fs, fossnbsy and Associates, $na.
125 m
1 issued?
7 2 A. Normally the final version is the first 3 version with the licensee's comments.
4 MR. STRICKLING: Okay. Mark this as the next 5 exhibit.
6 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 7 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 13, 8 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
9 BY MR. STRICKLING:
10 Q. Have you had a chance to look at that 11 document?
12 A. Briefly scanned the cover letter.
13 Q. What is that document?
14 A. Transmittal letter transmitting the SALP 15 Report for the period July 1st, 1980 to June 30th, 16 1981.
17 Q. For the record the exhibit bears the Bates 18 numbers N 11217 through N 11246.
19 Now, turning to Page 3 of the SALP Report 20 itself bearing Bates Number 11227 there is a table 21 there listing 13 functional areas. Do you see that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. How are the 13 functional areas determined?
T
. 24 MR. BERKOVITZ: I am just unclear. Why are MJ 0Vo[ft, kosenbey and &ssociales, hna.
126
^
O l these 13 areas or how are the ratings determined for 2 the 13 areas?'
3 MR. STRICKLING: Strike the question.
4 BY MR. STRICKLING:
5 Q. Is there any standard format for a SALP 6 Report?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Are these 13 categories listed on Page $
9 the 13 categories under which you are expected to 10 make some assessment?
11 A. They are normally the ones that are 12 considered for plants under construction.
13 Q. Okay. Now, after each of these 13 areas 14 there are three categories listed, right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Could you explain what the categories mean?
17 A. Catecories are explained on a previous 18 page, Page 2. Category 1 is reduced NRC attention 19 may be appropriate; Category 2 is NRC attention 20 should be maintained at normal levels, and Category 21 3 is both NRC and licensee attention should be 22 increased.
23 Q. Now, for this particular SALP Report T
. 24 Consumers was rated Category 3 in 5 of the 13 MJ 0Vo[fe, hostnbsy and &ssoclaiss, hne.
I
c-127 1 categories,' correct?
2 A. Yes.
'3 Q. What is the significance of a Category 3 4 rating?
~
5 A. They need to improve.
6 Q. -Well, you indicated that Category 3 7 indicates that--- Category 3 as defined in the' 8 report states that NRC attention should be increased.
9 What is the basis for that?
10 A. -Well, the basis is in our SALP procedure, 11 which requires that we give increased inspection 12 attention to the Category 3 areas. ,
13 Q. Directing your attention to Page 16 at the 14 bottom it states, quote, "The licensee has a 15 tendency to spend too much time trying to justify 16 why a finding is not a noncompliance" --
17 A. Where are we?
18 MR. ZACK: Which section?
f 19 MR. STRICKLING: Bates number 11240, bottom of 20 the page.
21 MR. ZACK: Wait a second.
22 MR. STRICKLING: Paragraph 13.
23 MR. ZACK: Okay. Thank you.
N 24 BY MR. STRICKLING:
MJ Gyoffs, fossnbsy and &swelaiss, hna.
128 N
1 Q. Let me start again. At the bottom of Page 2 16 bearing Bates number 11240 the report states, ~
3 quote, "The licensee has a tendency to spend too 4 much time trying to justify why a finding is not a 5 noncompliance rather than devoting the time 6 correcting the basic problem."
7 Why was this a problem?
8 A. Well, I am not sure I ought to be the one 9 speaking for this SALP Report. This was a period of 10 time when I --
prior to my involvement with Midland, 11 and I was not involved in the preparation of the 12 SALP Report or the discussions that led into this.
13 Q. Well, you agree, don't you, that 14 everything in this report should stand as issued 15 with not one word changed, don't you?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Who would be more knowledgeable about the 18 SALP Report than yourself?
19 A. Jack Hind or D. C. Boyd or Ron Cook.
20 Q. Okay. I think we have some new names.
21 Who is Mr. Hind?
22 A. Mr. Hind is the director --
at the time of 23 this report he was the director of the Division of T
24 Emergency Preparedness and Operational Support. He MJ GVo[fe, Sosenbey and &ssociales, .$nc.
CRia9o, Dilinois e (312) 782 8087 ,
129 3 1 was the Chairman.of the SALP Board.
2 Q. Okay. And who was the second gentleman 3 that you mentioned?
4 A. Boyd, Mr. Boyd, B-o-y-d.
5 O. 'And who is he?
6 A. He is the one that arranged the meeting to 7 discuss the SALP Report. I assume he was section 8 chief or had an involvement in the preparation of 9 the SALP Report.
10 Q. Now, when you refer to the mee. ting to 11 discuss it, that was the meeting with Consumers 12 Power referenced on the Page 11221 of the exhibit?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, was a draft copy of this report sent 15 to Consumers Power for comment?
16 A. 'I got that feeling from something that was 17 read, but I --
like I say, I wasn't involved in it.
18 MR. STRICKLING: Okay. Well, let's mark this 19 as the next exhibit.
20 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 21 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 14, 22 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
23 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked T
. 24 as Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC 14 a document dated May MJ 0Vo[fe, 00senbey and &1sociales, hnc.
CRugo, Dthnau e m23182-soer
130 N 1 17, 1982 bearing Bates numbers N 11174 through 11211.
2 Off the record.
3 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 4 off the record.)
5 (WHEREUPON, the document was 6 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
7 MR. ZACK: Okay. Before you ask any questions 8 with regard to NRC Exhibit 14 I am going to 9 interpose an objection as to its use in this 10 proceeding pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 2240 which 11 provides in pertinent part that no report by any 12 licensee of any incident arising out of or in 13 connection with a licensed activity made pursuant to 14 any requirement to the Commission shall be admitted 15 as evidence in any suit or action for damages 16 growing out of any matter menti 6ned in such report, 17 and I believe that that is a response by Consumers 18 Power to the initial SALP Report and it fits within 19 that category and should not~be admitted into 20 evidence.
21 MR. STRICKLING: What is your cite?
22 MR. ZACK: 42 U.S.C. Section 2240. And I will 23 just put a continuing objection on the record with l T 24 regard to any questions relating to that report and MJ 0Vo[fe, hosenbey and 81sociales, hnc.
CAleago, Olfinals e (312) 782-8087
4- ,
131 1 others like it.
_]
2 B MR. STRICKLING:
3 Q. -What is this document, Mr. Warnick?
4 A. It is Consumers Power Company response to 5 draft SALP Report.
6 Q. Have you seen this document before?
7 A. I have.
8 .
Q. Following receipt of this document at the 9 NRC Region III was any activity or action undertaken 10 to respond to this document?
11 A. I wasn't involved in Midland at that time.
12 I don't know. ,
1 13 Q. Well, it is correct, isn't it, that this -
14 response took issue with a number of findings and 15 evaluations presented by the SALP Board?
16 A. Yes. !
17 Q. As a result of the comments and objections 18 raised by Consumers Power did the NRC change the 19 SALP Report in any fashion?
20 A. I don't know. I got involved later on, 21 and after I got involved I --
to the best of my 22 knowledge, we did not change any report.
23 Q. Well, you believed, did you not, that N
24 Consumers Power had not proven that the NRC had any MJ G1/ offs, Sosen$sy and c9ssoalaiss, $na.
CRu ego, Dilu o u e m2)182 0007 1
132
,' 1 of its facts wrong in the SALP Report, isn't that c
2 right?
3 MR. ZACK: Objection. He testified he had no 4 involvement with Midland at this time and he wasn't 5 involved with the SALP Report, so I don't think he 6 is competent to answer that question.
7 BY MR. STRICKLING:
8 Q. Can you answer the question?
9 MR. BERKOVITZ: In your own words.
10 BY THE WITNESS:
11 A. In my own words I --
12 MR. BERKOVITZ: I said you don't have to 13 respond exactly to the characterization of the 14 question.
15 MR. STRICKLING: I object to the coaching. Let 16 him answer the question.
17 MR. BERKOVITZ: I don't want you putting words 18 in his mouth.
19 MR. STRICKLING: He can answer the question.
20 MR. BERKOVITZ: Answer the question in your own 21 words.
22 MR. STRICKLING: Object to the coaching.
23 MR. BERKOVITZ: Object to leading questions.
'. 24 MR. ZACK: And I will second that objection.
l MJ 0Vo[fe, Sosenbsy and dssoelates, $nc.
dwan. Dilmu e (312) 182 8087 __ .-
133
' 1 MR. BERKOVITZ: In'your own words.
2 BY THE WITNESS:
3 A. I became involved in this difference of 4 opinion betveen the SALP findings later'on after I 5 became involved with the Midland project, and I 6 participated in a meeting between Consumers Power 7 and the NRC where we discussed the differences 8 between their opinion and our opinion. To the best 9 of my knowledge we did not --
we had our facts 10 correct and we did not change the report.
11 MR. STRICKLING: Mark that as the next exhibit.
12 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 13 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit CPC No. 14, 14 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
15 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked 16 as Plaintiff's Exhibit CPC 14 an article from the 17 Midland Daily News dated August 6, 1982.
18 (WHEREUPON, the document was 19 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
20 BY MR. STRICKLING:
21 Q. Have you seen that article before, Mr.
22 Warnick?
23 A. I don't recall.
T
. 24 Q. Well, let me direct your attention to the MJ -
01/o[fs, ekosenbsy and &swelaiss, $nc.
C Ri n g e, D ili u ts e a123 782-s0s7
134 N 1 third column of the article and let me quote the 2 portion, quote, "Asked if Consumers had proven that 3 the NRC had some of its facts wrong in the SALP 4 Report Warnick said," quote, "' Absolutely not. We 5 thought we had the facts correctly. I don't think 6 they had the full story on some of these things, 7 which we tried to give them,'" close quote.
8 Did you make that statement?
9 A. Sounds like a good quotation. I don't 10 know. They quoted me. I must have made it, but I 11 don't remember.
12 Q. Noti, during the summer of 1982 did Region 13 III conduct any study or analysis into the causes of 14 the construction and quality problems at Midland?
15 MR. ZACK: I object to the characterization and 16 -Te use of the term "quality problems" or --
there 17 has been no testimony that there are any generic 18 quality problems.
19 BY THE WITNESS:
20 A. I don't recall anything I would term as a 21 study.
22 BY MR. STRICKLING:
23 Q. Well, was any kind of attention given in
. 24 Region III to the causes of construction and quality HJ 0Vo[fs, 00ssnbey and Associales, $ne.
135 1 problems at Midland in the summer of 1982?
2 A. Well, certainly we gave plenty of 3 attention to Midland and the problems at Midland.
4 MR. STRICKLING: Mark that as the next exhibit.
5 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 6 Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 15 ,.
7 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
8 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked 9 as Exhibit NRC 15 a document dated June 21, 1982 10 bearing Bates numbers N 11249 to 11253.
11 (WHEREUPON, the document was 12 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
13 BY MR. STRICKLING:
14 Q. What is that document, Mr. Warnick?
15 A. This is a memo from Norelius and Spessard 16 to Mr. Keppler discussing the Midland project and 17 suggesting certain changes.
18 Q. At whose request was that document 19 prepared?
20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. Do you know why it was prepared?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Have you ever seen that document before?
s 24 A. Yes.
MJ 0Vo[fe, hosenbey and 811ociales, .0nc.
Ch yo, D(tinou o m2) is2-sosi __
136 l
' 1 Q. Now, looking at the bottom of the first 2 page under Item 1 it says, quote, "In the remedial 3 soils area, the licensee has conducted 4 safety-related activities in an inadequate maner in 5 several instances."
6 Do you agree with that statement?
7 MR. ZACK: As of June 21, 1982, or as he is 8 sitting here today?
9 MR. STRICKLING: In the context of the entira 10 project.
11 BY THE WITNESS: r 12 A. I was not involved with Midland in June 21, 13 1982, and so I hate to swear to this document at all.
14 BY MR. STRICKLING:
15 Q. Mr. Warnick, you have headed up a section 16 looking into this project for two years. Are you 17 telling me that you have not investigated or come to 18 know the problems involved in this project prior to 19 June of 1982?
20 A. I have looked at some of the problems they 21 experienced.
22 Q. Okay. Do you agree or disagree with this 23 statement concerning remedial soils activities?
T 4 24 MR. BERKOVITZ: I think he already answered MJ 0Vo[fe, 00senbsy and &$sociales, .$na.
CRuye Dilinois e (312) 182 8087 i
137
_?
~
I that question.
2 MR. STRICKLING: He evaded the question. Now, 3 I'd like an answer.
4 BY THE WITNESS:
5 A. Well, I don't know that I can answer this 6 one.
7 BY MR. STRICKLING:
i 8 Q. As you sit here today you have no 9 knowledge of the adequacy of the manner in which the 10 licensee has conducted remedial soils activities?
11 MR. BERKOVITZ: I think he has already answered 12 the question. This is the third time you have asked 13 it now.
14 THE WITNESS: And that wasn't the question that f
15 was asked first.
t 16 MR. STRICKLING: Restate my last question and 17 answer that one.
18 (WHEREUPON, the record was read 19 by the reporter as requested.)
20 MR. BERKOVITZ: Which time frame are you 21 talking about?
[
22 MR. STRICKLING: As he sits here today.
23 BY THE WITNESS:
N !
24 A. Yes. ;
MJ flVo[fe, 00senbsy and kssocials1, .0na.
138 7 1 BY MR. STRICKLING:
2 Q. Okay. What is your knowledge?
3 A. My knowledge is that there has been 4 problems in the past and their performance at the 5 present time is good.
6 ,
Q. Who would be the most knowledgeable person 7 in Region III concerning remedial soils activities 8 prior to June of 1982?
9 A. Probably Ross Landsman.
10 MR. STRICKLING: Mark that as the next exhibit.
11 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 12 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 16, 13 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
14 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked 15 as Exhibit NRC 16 a document dated July 23, 1982 16 bearing Bates numbers N 11254 to 11261.
17 (WHEREUPON, the document was 18 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
19 BY MR. STRICKLING:
20 Q. Do you recognize that document, Mr.
21 Warnick?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. What is it?
24 A. It is a memo prepared by our Senior MJ 0Vo[fs, kosenbey and &ssoclaiss, hne.
CRuage, Ottu e m2)ist-soar
139
' 1 Resident Inspector, Mr. Ron Cook, to myself 2 summarizing problems at the Midland plant that were 3 as of the time period preceding the date of this 4 memo, which is July 23, 1982.
5 Q. Did you ask Mr. Cook to prepare that memo?
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 Q. Why?
8 A. As part of my new assignment having 9 responsibility for Midland I wanted to try to find 10 out what the problems were at the plant, and so I 11 asked him to prepare this as a follow-up to whatever 12 other reviews I had done up to that point in time to 13 help me better understand Midland.
14 Q. For what purpose did you use this document?
15 A. I asked for this memo to be prepared to 16 take to a meeting we held with NRR to discJss the 17 Midland project and what actions the NRC should be 18 taking to turn things around.
19 Q. Looking at the document on Page 2, 20 Paragraph 5, the last sentence Mr. Cook refers to, 21 "Another indicator of slipshod workmanship."
22 Do you agree with Mr. Cook's statements 23 that there has been slipshod workmanship at Midiond?
, T 24 A. Yes.
MJ G1/offe, Sosenbey and c:7]1socialz1, hnc.
Citano. Offinta e a1211828087
140 JN 1 Q. And directing your attention to the top of n
ut. 2 Page 3, Paragraph 7, the last sentence, do you agree 3 with Mr. Cook's assessment that, "Slipshod 4 workmanship is tolerated in the hopes that QC will 5 find the mistakes"?
r 6 MR. ZACK: I would ask for clarification on the 7 question as to whether we are talking about the time --
8 MR. STRICKLING: We are talking as of July 1982.
9 BY THE WITNESS: .
10 A. As of July 1982 I didn't have an opinion 11 on that. That was Mr. Cook's opinion.
12 BY MR. STRICKLING:
13 Q. Well, based on what you have learned since 14 do you disagree that there was slipshod workmanship - -
15 strike the question.
16 Based on what you learned subsequent to 17 July 23, 1982 do you disagree that slipshod 18 workmanship was tolerated in the hopes that QC would 19 find the mistakes?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Now, Mr. Cook referred to this memo in the 22 title as, "Indicators of questionable licensee 23 performance." Do you see that?
T 24 A. Yes.
MJ 0Vo[fs, kosenbsy and 81sociates, .0nc.
C Riesg o, D ili a is e m2)is2-soar
141 1 Q. Has the questionable licensee performance 2 documented in Mr. Cook's memo had an adverse effect 3 on the costing schedule of the Mid l'an d project?
4 MR. ZACK: Same objections as before with the 5 sole exception of his experience with regard to 6 duration between fuel load and commercial operation.
- 7. I don't believe there has been any demonstration 8 that he has any particular competence in schedule 9 projections.
10 MR. BERKOVITZ: I am not sure he can answer 11 that question as asked. I am not sure there is 12 enough facts. I mean, first of all as --
if you 13 establish the truth of the facts in the memo, 14 assuming the facts in the memo are true, would it 15 have had an adverse effect on the schedule? You 16 could ask that.
17 BY MR. STRICKLING:
18 Q. Do you understand the question?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Can you answer the question?
21 A. I think common sense says that problems 22 would lead to an adverse impact on costing schedule.
23 Q. Do you have any estimate or belief as to lT
'. 24 the size of the impact on costing schedule caused by l
1 MJ GVo[fe, 00senbsy aid &ssociales, $na.
C % go. Ottie u e at2)is2-sos 1
-142 1
,' 1 the questionable licensee performance documented 2 here?
3 MR. ZACK: Same objection.
4 BY THE WITNESS:
5 A. No, I da not.
6 BY MR. STRICKLING:
7 Q. Was any action taken as a result of the 8 Cook memo, Exhibit NRC 167 '
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What action was taken?
11 JL. As a result of the Cook memo of the 15th?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. Of the 23rd?
14 Q. I'm sorry. Of July the 23rd.
15 A. Yes. That is what threw me.
16 We had the meeting with NRR and 17 representatives from E and I where we talked about 18 Midland project and what some of the problems were 19 and what the NRC --
you know, what were some of the 20 alternatives we could --
alternative actions we 21 could take. As a result of that we decided on doing 22 certain things. They were documented in a memo, 23 which you probably have a copy of, and subsequently s
24 I came back to the region and I thought about the M3 GVo[fe, 00senbey am{ &ssociales, $nc.
C$4o, D(linois e (312) 182 8087
F 143 S 1 memo and I decided that I didn't agree with what we 2 had decided in Headquarters, and I wrote a second 3 memo outlining a slightly different course of action.
4 And~both of these -- all of these memos that we are 5- going through now were part of our. testimony that 6 was provided to the ASLB during the hearings, I 7 guess, 1982.
8 MR. STRICKLING: Let's mark these as the next 9 four exhibits with NRC numbers.
10 (WHEREUPON, certain documents were 11 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC Nos.
12' 17 through 20, for identification, 13 as of 5/1/84.)
14 MR. STRICKLING: Court reporter has marked as 15 Exhibit NRC 17 a five-page document without a date 16 bearing Bates numbers N 11262 through 11266; Exhibit 17 NRC 18 is a one-page memo dated August 18, 1982 18 bearing Bates No. 90114835, and NRC Exhibit 19 is a 19 two-page memo bearing Bates numbers 90114836 through 20 37, and finally NRC 20 is a two-page document dated 21 August 18, 1982 with Bates numbers 90626412 through 22 13. <
23 (WHEREUPON, the documents were T
24 tendered to counsel and the witness.) ,
MJ GVo(ft, fosenbey and &swelaiss, .0nc.
, C$ls90 Ollisols e (312) 782 8087 ,
144
,' 1 BY MR. STRICKLING:
2 Q. What is Exhibit 18?
3 A. It is a memo prepared by myself to 4 document the meeting we held with representatives 5 from NRR and ELD in Headquarters to discuss the 6 Midland project and performance there.
7 Q. Now, it indicates that you and Mr. Keppler 8 were the two representatives from Region III, is 9 that right?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. Then it has a list of names from 12 Headquarters. Some of these are new names. Who is 13 Mr. Case?
14 A. He is a deputy to Mr. Denton.
15 Q. And who is Mr. Vollmer, V-o-1-1-m-e-r?
16 A. He is the director of the engineering 17 group in this organization chart. Let me get the 18 right nomenclature. He is the Division of 19 Engineering for NRR.
20 Q. Who is Mr. Tedesco?
21 A. Don't know what his title is. He is with 22 NRP.
23 Q. Who is Mr. Paton, P-a-t-o-n?
w 24 A. He is a lawyer with ELD.
1 MJ GVo(fe, cRosenbey and d1sociatz1, $na.
CL o,4 Dtttaots e (31217s2-sost
145 j 1 0 And Mr. Rutberg?
2 A. Mr. Paton's supervisor, also a lawyer.
t 3 Q. Now, the notes indicate that there were 4 four recommendations --
5 A. Yes. l 6 Q. --
that resulted. First one indicates 7 that Region III should obtain the results of a 8 recent audit by KMC. What is KMC?
9 A. I don't know. It is the initials of a ,
10 firm.
11 Q. And Recommendation 3 is to obtain an !
12 independent design review, and Recommendation 4 is 13 to obtain an independent third party to monitor site 14 QA implementation, correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And the one I skipped, Item 2, is just a 17 schedule public meeting?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now you stated in your earlier testimony l
20 that you thought over these recommendations and had 21 a change of mind and you prepared a second memo? l
[
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Is that this document, Exhibit 207 f N
24 A. Yes. That's correct.
H3 0Vo[fe, Sossnbsy and 81 socials 1, $na. I Cluego Q L ou o m2)is2-soar
146
> 1' O. What was the basis for your disagreement 2 with the recommendations?
- 3 A. It is documented in the last paragraph 4 where I say, "My opposition was based on (1),
5 opinions expressed by the Senior Resident Inspector, 6 a Region III Branch Chief formerly responsible for 7 the NRC inspection of Midland, and a Construction 8 Section Chief who has been intimately associated 9 with inspections of Midland regarding the proposed 10 actions."
11 Q. Okay. Let me just interrupt you there.
12 What were the opinions that you are referring to 13 there?
14 A. The opinions that they had expressed to me, 15 and if you are asking what were the words that they 16 used, I can't recall.
17 Q. What was the general nature of the 18 opinions?
19 A. That the recommendations we made, namely, 20 to have a third party continuously monitor the site, 21 QA implementation and provide periodic reports 22 wasn't the way to go. !
23 Q. Okay. In your conversations with these T '
24 people identified here, why did they think that M3 GVo(fe, Sossnbey and &ssociaiss, $ne.
Cime. QLou e (312)is2-sosi ___
147 f% 1 wasn't the way to go?
~
2 A. I don't know.
3 Q. Okay. Continue then with the other bases ,
4 for your opposition.
5 A. No. 2 is my visit to the site.
6 Q. All right. Interrupting you there, what 7 about your visit to the site led you to. oppose the 8 recommendations in the August 18 memo?
9 A. I don't recall at this point in time.
10 Q. Okay. Continue.
11 A. No. 3, "The inability of Region III to 12 articulate the problems at Midland which the 13 above-referenced recommendaticas were supposed to 14 solve."
, 15 Q. What did you mean by that?
16 A. Just that when I would ask people what is 17 the problem at Midland, they couldn't tell me. And 18 I asked myself well, how in the world can we dictate 19 a solution if we can't identify the problem that we 20 are trying to solve?
21 Q. What recommendations did you make as 22 alternatives to the ones contained in the August .8
. 23 letter?
N 24 A. I think it continues in the --
the next HJ 0Vo[fs, Sossnbsy and 81soelates, $nc.
! CAmo. Diliets e m2ns240er
148 f<
y 1 paragraph says that I met with members of Midland 2 Section. "Members of the Midland Section met with 3 you to discuss my opposition to the recommendations 4 coming from the meeting with NRR. The pros and cons 5 of the recommendations together with other 6 alternatives were discussed. The meeting concluded 7 with you agreeing to give the Section until August 8 11 to determine a better proposed course of action 9 to resolve NRC concerns about Midland."
10 Q. Okay. Did the region staff provide a 11 proposed course of action before August lith?
12 A. I don't know if we did before August lith, 13 but we laid out some proposals.
14 Q. Okay. Are those proposals contained in 15 any of the exhibits before you?
16 A. I think in Enclosure 4, Exhibit NRC 19.
17 Q. What is that document?
18 A. Well, it is titled, "Midland-Actions 19 Recommended by the Midland Section, Office of 20 Special Cases."
21 Q. And who prepared that document? i 22 A. Well, I don't know that any one person did 23 everything. I think it is a compilation of the T
. 24 thoughts of myself, Shafer, Gardner, Landsman and MJ 0Vo[ft, kosenbsy and dssociates, $nc.
C%y,D%u e (31217e2-soar ._ _-_ - , _ _ _ - _ _ .
149 j% 1 Cook primarily.
2 Q. Okay. Recommendation No. 1 is to 3 establish an augmented inspection effort by the NRC.
4 This is on Exhibit 19. Do you see that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. That was nct a recommendation of the 7 August 18th meeting, correct?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. Why did you feel that that would assist in 10 solving the problems at Midland?
11 A. I thought it would help us to identify 12 what the problem was or problems were.
13 Q. What.did you have in mind in terms of an 14 augmented inspection effort at this time?
15 A. Well, it is described as the areas that I 16 thought about were the ten that are listed. The i
17 period of time is stated in Item B, 6 to 12 months, 18 and the content of the group to perform the 19 inspections as identified in Item C.
20 Q. Now, this document was prepared prior to 21 August 18, 1982, correct? It is referred to in the 22 August 18 memo.
23 A. Yes.
N 24 Q. Now, keeping in mind that the reported H3 0Vo[fs, 00$snbsy and 81sociales, .0nc.
Chgo, Dttiswu o cas2) te2-sosi
150
'N l' fuel load date was July 1983 would an inspection-2 effort that lasted from 6 to 12 months and perhaps 3 longer support a fuel load date of the end of July 4 1983?
5' MR. ZACK: Same objections as before.
6 BY THE WITNESS:
7 A. Be a little clearer in your question.
s 8 BY MR. STRICKLING:
9 0 Well, let me put it this way.
10 A. What do you mean by, "Support"?
11 O. Isn't it correct, Mr. Warnick, that as of 12 August the 18th, 1982, after you had made these 13 recommendations it was your belief that Unit 2 would 14 not load fuel as of the end of July 19837 15 A. I don't know that I gave it a thought.
16 0 Well, an inspection program that would 17 last from 6 to 12 months or even longer would be 18 inconsistent with loading fuel at the end of July i
19 1983, wouldn't it?
i 20 MR. ZACK: Leading.
21 BY THE WITNESS:
22 A. Well, my thoughts were aimed at what is 23 the problem at Midland and what are we going to do 24 about the problems at Midland as opposed to any i
MJ 0Volfe, Sosenbey and &ssocialss, $ne.
_ CAtaspo. Dilinou e (312) 782 8087
151 I consideration of a fuel loading schedule. It was 2 not a matter --
a subject of discussion or 3 consideration at that time, to the best of my 4 knowledge.
5 MR. STRICKLING: Move to strike as 6 nonresponsive.
7 Please repeat the question for the witness.
8 (WHEREUPON, the record was read 9 by the reporter as requested.)
10 BY THE WITNESS:
11 A. Not necessarily.
12 BY MR. STRICKLING:
13 Q. On Page 2 of that document, Exhibit 19, 14 what is the basis for the statement that, quote, "We 15 are convinced that Bechtel has cost and scheduling 16 as their foremost consideration. Quality is taking 17 a back seat with management"?
18 A. That was the belief o f one or more of the 19 individuals that helped author this document.
20 Q. Who had that belief?
21 A. I don't remember.
22 Q. Did you hold it?
23 A. No.
N 24 Q. Do you remember anyone else who shared HJ 0Vo[fe, Sounbey and &ssocialz1, $nc.
CAlayo, Dllinois e (312) 782 8087
152
% that belief?
1 Strike that.
2 Do you know anyone who held that belief?
3 MR. ZACK: Anyone who wrote that memo?
4 BY MR. STRICXLING:
5 Q. Participating in the preparation of the 6 memo.
7 A. It was one of the ones that I named before 8 that participated in it, but I don't recall which 9 one.
10 Q. Was it just one?
11 A. I don't know that.
12 Q. Did you ever come to a belief as to what 13 the causes of the construction problems were at 14 Midland while you wera director of the Office of 15 Special Cases? '
16 A. I think we felt- like we knew what some of 17 the problems were. I don't think it is any one 18 problem, but a very complex series of problems.
19 Q. Well, go ahead and explain.
20 A. Well, we felt like the Bechtel QC effort 21 was not doing the job they should do. They weren't -
22 finding the problems and taking adequate action to 23 get problems identified and corrected, and that was T
. 24 one of the reasons we recommended to Consumers Power M3 0Vo[fs, 00senbsy and &ssociates, hna.
CL e,9 BlMu e mens 240er
153
. t F
'N 1 that they take the QC function from Bechtel and put 2 it under their MPQAD.
3 Q. What other causes of problems did you 4 identify?
5 A. We never really did sit down and make out. '
6- a laundry list of such things, and so if I were to '
7 say anything, it is my opinion as opposed to
~8 something that we took --
9 Q. My question is related to your belief, !
10 your analysis.
11 A. I think there was some workmen that were P
12 not doing a good' job, some QC inspectors that were 13 not identifying problems and seeing that action was 14 taken and management not seeing that QC did their '
15 job, that QA did their job, and that all the rules 16 and regulations were being adhered to. -
17 Q. Did you identify any other causes of these 18 problems in your own mind?
19 A. No, I don't think so.
20 Q. Directing your attention to Exhibit NRC 17, 21 what is that document? '
t 22 A. Well, I don't know. I recognize some 23 things in it, but I --
the way it stands here I T :
. 24 can't identify what it is part of and how it was --
I N3 GVo(fs, fossnbsy and &ssociaiss, $nc. L CK%e. D%ts e (3121782 8087 l
154 S- 1 you know, it is marked, "Draft."
2 Q. What portions do you1 recognize?
3 A. Well, I recognize at least part of the 4 first page.
5 Q. Did you have any involvement in the 6 preparation of the first page? l 7 A. I don't know that I had involvement in the 8 preparation of it, but I certainly had involvement 9 in asking that it be prepared and that.
10 Q. Do you know who prepared it?
11 A. No.
12 Q. What about the second page? Are you 13 familiar with that page? ..
14 A. Well, it looks familiar, but I --
you know, 15 I just --
standing alone like this I just can't say 16 that I do identify it as something.
17 I know for one meeting we tried to r
i 18 summarize the problems that Mr. Cook had identified 19 in his memo, but I think this looks longer than that j 20 list as I remembered it, although it might be. We l 21 tried to summarize some of the inspection findings, 22 and whether or not this second page is that, I don't I
23 know, but it could be.
[
% l
. 24 Q. The third, fourth and fifth page seem to l t
i H3 GVolfe, Sossnbsg and &ssoelates, $na.
_CL e m2)
_- _ _ 9_e. Dtituu_ _ _ _7c2-s007
n 155 "S . 1 be tied together. Do you recognize that document?
2 A. No, I really don't, but it looks like it 3 is a draft of an early version of Enclosure 4.
4 Q. Meaning Exhibit 19?
~5 A. Exhibit 19. Now, you know, it is hard to 6 recall that long ago the iterations we went through 7 and what all the thinking was.
8 Q. Okay. Turning back to Exhibit 19 which --
9 MR. ZACK: Are you done with Exhibit 17?
10 MR. STRICKLING: Yes.
11 MR. ZACK: Well, I move to strike its use in 12 this case on the grounds that there is no foundation 13 .for it.
14 MR. STRICKLING: Okay. That is noted. It is a 15 little premature, but it is noted.
16 BY MR. STRICKLING:
17 Q. Exhibit 19. These were the 18 recommendations you testified earlier of the Midland 19 Section. Was any action taken with respect to these 20 recommendations?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What action was taken?
23 A. We ordered the licensee to have an N
24 independent design review, which is Recommendation N3 0Vo[fs, Sossnbsy and 81soalaiss, $nc.
CLge, DCMis e nr2)ist-soar ___ _
156 N- 1 No. 2. I don't know if "require" is the right word, 2 but we made either the requirement or the suggestion 3 that all QC inspectors be independent of Bechtel and 4 report only to Consumers Power, and except for the 5 end stamp QC work, that one was implemented.
6 on Item 4 we changed our method of holding 7 exit interviews so that all future exit interviews s
8 were held with the construction manager.
9 We instituted a procedure of Consumers 10 Power requesting release of soils work, and then we 11 would write back so that everything was in writing, 12 which was Item 5.
13 Mr. Keppler and Mr. Denton did meet with 14 Consumers Power, which is Item 6. I don't know that ,
15 anything happened on Item 6(a), 6(b) or 6(c).
16 Q. Did you attend the meeting that Mr.
17 Keppler and Mr. Denton had with Consumers?
18 A. To the best of my knowledge, I did not.
19 Q. Do you know when that meeting was held?
20 A. It is in the chronology. 8/26/1982. i 21 Q. Do you know if minutes were prepared of 22 that meeting?
23 A. No, I don't. I don't believe they were.
N 24 Q. In going through these recommendations MJ 0Vo[fs, 00ssnbsy and &ssoelais1, $na.
Ch o,_9_ _ Difisou_ _ _e- _ist2) 782 8087
157
- ^ l that were adopted you skipped over Recommendation 1, o [
2 which was to establish the augmented inspection 3 effort. 1 4 Was an augmented inspection effort 5 undertaken at the NRC level?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Why not?
8 A. We didn't have the manpower. Our 9 recommendation was to have inspectors that work for 10 Consumers Power report to us and be part of our crew, 11 and they just didn't feel like we could make that 12 one fly and so we did not institute that augmented 13 inspection effort.
14 Q. When you say, "They didn't feel like we 15 could make it fly," who are you referring to?
16 A. My supervision and on up the line to i 17 Headquarters.
18 Q. Who specifically?
19 A. Well, Mr. Keppler and I specifically.
20 Q. Now, Recommendation 2 relates to an 21 independent third party look at a vertical slice of 22 a safety-related system. That is being undertaken, 23 correct? l
\
24 A. Yes, that is in progress.
M3 GVo[fs, 00ssnbsy and 81soelaiss, .0na.
_ Cluyo,'Diltuts e (312) 182 80s7 , _
[
158 p
%; 1 Q. Who is performing that review?
2 A. Tera Corporation.
3 Q. Can you explain in general terms exactly 4 what is involved in that study?
5 A. What they do is they look at a small 6 segment of the plant and they look at it from the 7 design concepts through all the design work, 8 calculations and drawings up to the construction, 9 and then we required that they also look at the 10 completed construction. This is on a narrow segment 11 of the plant. So you take it from the bottom of 12 design clear up to the top where construction is 13 completed. And we required that in three systems, 14 auxiliary feed water, heating, ventilating and air 15 conditioning in the control room, and standby 16 emergency electrical power.
17 Q. Could you explain what is meant by the 18 auxiliary feed water system?
19 A. The reactor is cooled by a primary coolant 20 loop. The primary coolant is cooled by a secondary 21 loop. The secondary loop --
and that heat transfer 22 takes place in the steam generator. There are 23 multiple sources of supply to the steam generator, T
24 and then they have an emergency or back-up supply, nr (Wolfa, cRosadag mul canoatatas, Dna.
C L e, g D % s e ar2> 1st soor
159 i
.' 1 which is the auxiliary feed water system, to supply i
2 this secondary coolant to the steam generator in [
3 case of failure of the main coolant --
main 4 secondary coolant.
5 Q. You indicated that one of the other 6 systems chosen was the emergency standby electrical 7 system. What is that system?
8 A. Well, the emergency power is to replace 9 the normal plant power. In case the normal plant 10 power fails you keep the safety-related equipment j 11 operating. l 12 Q. Why were these three systems chosen for 13 the independent design review? -
14 A. Three systems were chosen just to give a '
15 more representative assessment of the adequacies of :
16 the plant design.
[
t 17 The auxiliary -- I am trying to remember 18 and, as I remember, the auxiliary feed water system 19 was nominated by Tera Corporation. They selected 20 that one. '
21 The emergency or the standby electrical f 22 power system was celected by NRT. or representatives 23 from NRR just '~" > s a f e; t v - r e l .ed sy 3. v m and the NRC !
s 24 made the cho' '
=
M m'.-, 4T5uM7 6W N.
H3 GVolp a : . '. , u d d urc.eia , $na. ,
ci.ve Chre e .pM: .tNV7 _ _ , , __ ._ _
160 ;
k
% 1 The heating, ventilating and air 2 conditioning --
Billie Garde of Gap had been making ,
3 a big issue about the heating, ventilating and air 4 conditioning and she thought that that would be a 5 good system to select. And NRR thought that the 6 control room aspect of it is safety-related and they j
7 thought that it would be a good way too -- a good i 8 third choice and a good way, too, considering the 9 suggestions of outside parties.
?
10 Q. Could you spell Billie Garde's name? ,
'll A. B-i-1-1-i-e G-a-r-d-e.
12 Q. What is the status of this review as of 13 today?
14 A. The design verification portion is well L
15 underway. I guess if I was to guess parcentagewise 16 I would guess 70 to 90 percent and that is only a 17 guess. The construction verification portion has ;
18 really not started.
I 19 Q. Now, you mentioned this morning that the t 20 ASLB has been conducting hearings on quality [
21 assurance La well as soils, correct? l r
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Subsequent to the meetings and discussions T
24 reflected in the exhibits we have just talked about, !
NJ 0Vo[fs, c.Rosenbsy and Assoalaiss, $na.
Cryo Cittsois e (312) 182 0081
161
}N 1 did Mr. Keppler change his testimony with respect to 2 quality assurance before the ASLB7 3 A. Yes.
4 MR. ZACK: There has been no testimony with 5 regard to any of his prior testimony -- with regard 6 to the substance of his prior testimony.
7 MR. STRICKLING: Mark that as the next exhibit.
8 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was I 9 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 21, 10 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
11 BY MR. STRICKLING:
12 -Q. Prior to this time had Mr. Keppler s
13 supplied testimony to the ASLB hearing regarding 14 quality assurance?
15 A. Prior to?
E 16 Q. August of '82.
17 L
A. Yes.
18 MR. STRICKLING: Okay. The court reporter has 19 marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC Exhibit 21 a 20 document dated October 29, 1982 bearing Bates 21 numbers 91001661 to 1666.
22 (WHEREUPON, the document was 23 tendered to counsel and the witness.) i-T
. 24 BY MR. STRICKLING:
\
MJ Gl'o(fs, hossnbsy and &ssoalaiss, hne.
CM e.
9 fM.*q _ e p_stns2 sosL__
7
162 j' 1 Q. Have you seen that document before?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What is it?
4 A. Testimony provided by Mr. Keppler.
5 Q. Did you have any involvement in its 6 preparation?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What was your involvement?
9 A. Well, I may have written some portions of 10 either this or earlier drafts and I reviewed earlier 11 drafts and this.
12 Q. How did this supplemental testimony change 13 or alter the prior testimony he had given in the 14 ASLB hearing?
15 MR. BERKOVITZ: Excuse me. You should 16 establish that he is familiar with the prior 17 testimony first.
18 BY MR. STRICKLING:
19 Q. All right. Mr. Warnick, were you familiar 20 with Mr. Keppler's original testimony --
strike that.
21 In preparing this testimony did you have 22 to refer to his original testimony?
23 A. I don't remember. I know that he had T
24 originally testified, and this document says in July MJ Gl'offe, Sosenbey and &ssociates, $nc.
CMgo, Dhots e (3st>retsost
163
.' 1 1981, and he wanted to go back and correct some 2 statements he had made in that original testimony.
3 Q. Okay. What statements were corrected?
4 A. We will have to read them. He says, "In 5 my testimony to the Board in July 1981 I testified 6 on the more significant quality assurance problems 7 that had been experienced in connection with the 8 Midland project and the corrective actions taken by 9 Consumers Power Company and its contractors. I 10 stated that while many significant quality assurance 11 deficiencies have been identified, it was our 12 conclusion that the problems experienced were not 13 indicative of a breakdown in the implementation of 14 the overall quality assurance program. I also noted 15 that while deficiencies have occurred which should 16 have been identified earlier, the licensee's QA 17 program had been effective in the ultimate 18 identification and subsequent correction of these 19 deficiencies. Furthermore, I discussed the results 20 of Region III special quality assurance inspection 21 of May 18-22, 1981, which reflected favorably on the 22 effectiveness of the Midland Project Quality 23 Assurance Department, which was implemented in s
24 August 1980. The thrust of my testimony was that I M3 0,l'offe, c@osenbey and 811ocials1, $nc.
C h eo. Dttinois e a 12 n s2.sosi
164
' 1 had confidence that the licensee's QA program both 2 for the remedial soils work and for the remainder of 3 construction would be implemented effectively."
4 Q. Right. My question was what corrections 5 did he make or what changes did he make?
6 A. Well, he went on to explain. Just what 7 the changes are I don't remember off the top of my 8 head. We can read on.
9 Q. Well, I don't see any reason to read the 10 document into the record. You testified that you 11 helped to prepare this, My queation, I think, is 12 quite a simple one which is what did Mr. Keppler do t
13 pursuant to this testimony? What were the changes 14 that were made or what was the new testimony he was 15 presenting to the Board at this time?
16 MR. BERKOVITZ: Ask him what his knowledge of 17 Keppler's changes were, not what Keppler's changes 18 were.
19 MR. STRICKLING: It is given that a witness 20 speaks from his knowledge, and it is understood in 21 every question I am asking him. He obviously can't 22 tell me anything he doesn't know.
23 MR. BERKOVITZ: He can read the document and N
24 then tell you what Keppler's changes were.
MJ 0Vo[fs, cRossnbs9 and &ssociaiss, $na.
C M ge, Ditt w s e (312)152 80s1
165
% 1 BY MR. STRICKLING:
2 Q. Do you understand the question, Mr.
3 Warnick7 The lawyers don't need to debate it.
4 MR. BERKOVITZ: Tcstify as to Koppler's changes 5 in testimony. Don't give your opinion as to what 6 the document says. Just testify as to your personal 7 knowledge.
8 MR. STRICKLING: Well, excuse me. Mr. Warnick 9 is perfectly able and allowed to refer to that 10 document in any fashion he wishes to the extent it 11 helps refresh his recollection.
12 MR. BERKOVITZ: Well, it is a waste of time for 13 us to sit here and read that document.
14 MR. STRICKLING: I agree.
15 BY MR. STRICKLING:
16 O. But you may refer to it, if you wish, in 17 order to answer the question.
18 A. I will have to read it.
19 O. Well, you may take a couple minutes and 20 read it to yourself. We don't need to read it into 21 the record though.
22 MR. JENTES: In direct violation of Michigan 23 court rules I'd like to suggest that we take a break T
24 and get a drink of water and other relief facilities MJ GVo(fe, forenbey and Oswalates, .0nc.
CRuyo. Ditm e ar2)1s2 soar
166
- . I while you are reading that.
2 MR. ZACK: For such a noble purpose I will 3 waive my objection under the court rules.
4 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had.)
i 5 BY THE WITNESS:
6 A. My memory is refreshed.
7 BY MR. STRICKLING: ,
i 8 Q. Please proceed, Mr. Warnick. '
9 THE WITNESS: Read the question again, would f 10 you? l 11 (WHEREUPON, the record was read I 12- by the reporter as requested.) !
13 BY MR. STRICKLING:
14 Q. Having read Mr. Keppler's testimony have k 15 you now refreshed your recollection as to what the 16 changes and corrections were that Mr. Keppler made 17 in his testimony in October of 19827 l 18 A. Yes. j t
19 Q. And what were they? i 20 A. In his July '81 testimony he had left the 21 impression that things were in pretty good shape and
(
i 22 he felt like based on what he had said that he would ;
(
23 have expected that the next SALP would have been a 1 :
s !
24 or a 2, and it turns out that the next SALP they Ma Gl'offa, cRowday and cassoaatas, Dna. l c% m.u o mime mr i
167 l were rated a 3 in soils. And then when Keppler had
{
2 all these meetings, which was sometime after the 3 rating period, the senior resident inspector said he 4 would still rate the licenmee a 3 in soils and 5 Keppler was really -- felt like he needed to clarify 6 the record that things weren't as good at Midland 7 that he originally testified.
8 Q. On Page 6 of his testiuony there is a 9 reference to having started an inspection of the 10 work activities accomplished by Consumers Power in 11 the last 12 months in the diesel generator building.
12 Do you see that?
~
13 A. No. Where are we?
14 Q. Just above the final paragraph.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What is that a reference to?
17 A. Well, following our failure to get the 18 augmented inspection program approved that we talked 19 about in the previous exhibit we discussed what are 20 our alternatives, and one of the alternatives we 21 came up with was going in with a rather large group 22 of our own people and conducting an inspection in 23 specific area of the plant that is representative of s
24 plant construction.
H3 GVo(fs, Sods 9 & dssoalahs, hrsa.
168 S 1 Q. Okay. If I may interrupt, when you refer 2 to, "We," who are you talking about?
3 A. The Midland Section.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. And so we --
I discussed this with Keppler 6 and he said, "Go ahead and proceed," and so we 7 started an inspection. The area we selected was the 8 diesel generator building and one room of that 9 diesel generator building and looked at components 10 and the hardware inside the building.
11 Q. Why was the DGB chosen?
12 A. The work was mostly done in there and we 13 thought it was representative.
14 Q. Was a decision to inspect the diesel 15 generator building made by the Midland Section?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. Who participated in the inspection?
18 A. I don't know that I can recall all names, 19 but Mr. Shafer, Mr. Landsman, Mr. Gardner and Mr.
20 Cook.
21 Q. Did you participate in the actual 22 inspection?
23 A. No, I did not.
T 24 Q. What was involved in the inspection? W h .1 *.
HJ 0Vofe, kosen[ rey and 01sociales, .$nc.
c%., nu e mv re2.soer
169
_' 1 exactly did they do?
2 A. They took the blueprints or the design 3 drawings that were supposed to be current and went 4 out into the building and inspected the hardware 5 against the drawings.
6 Q. Did they do anything else?
7 A. Well, they probably did, but that is it in s
8 a nutshell.
9 Q. Primarily it was to evaluate the as-built 10 condition of the plant to the design drawings?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. How long did this inspection take?
13 A. Oh, I don't recall exactly without looking 14 at the inspection report. It is documented in an 15 inspection report. It started in, I believe, in 16 October, approximately the middle of October and ran 17 into --
by the end of November we were essentially 18 done, although there may have been some follow-up 19 work in certain areas that occurred a f *. e r that.
20 MR. STRICKLING: Okay. I have a copy of what 21 purports to be the inspection report. Why don't we 22 mark it and you may refer to it.
23 Could you mark that as the next exhibit?
N 24 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked Ma (TVol[z, c90senez,9 ami c411oewz1, Dna.
c%., ma, . mvierecer
170 N 1 Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 22, 2 for1 identification, as of 5/1/84.)
3 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked 4 as Exhibit NRC 22 a document dated February 8, 1983 5 bearing Bates numbers N 11289 through 11319.
6 (WHEREUPON, the document was 7 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
8 MR. STRICKLING: Why don't you mark that, too, 9 while we.are waiting?
10 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 11 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 23, 12 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
13 BY MR. STRICKLING:
14 Q. Mr. Warnick, what is this document?
15 A. This is a report of our inspection of a 16 diesel generator building, Report No. 82-22.
17 Q. Did you participate in the drafting or 18 review of this inspection report?
19 A. I participated in the review of the report.
20 Q. What were the p r o b l.e m s that were 21 identified during this inspection in October and 22 November of 1982?
23 A. Well, there were several problems T
24 identified. In general they identified MJ GYo[fe, Sosen[ rey and 81sociales, $nc.
d$layo, $llinois e (312) 782-8087
171 1 discrepancies between the way the plant drawings 2 showed and the way the plant was built, multiple 3- examples. They identified problems with drawings, 4 problems with drawing control, problems with 5 inspections. Those are the highlights.
6 (WHEREUPON, the document was 7 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
8 BY MR. STRICKLING:
9 Q. Let me show you Exhibit NRC 23, which is a 10 one-page document Bates numbered N 11275. Do you 11 know who prepared that document?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Have you ever seen that before?
14 A. I believe I have.
15 Q. What is it?
16 A. Well, I believe it is a summary of the 17 problems that are documented in this inspection 18 report.
19 Q. Okay. And it identifies 13 problems, 20 correct?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Item 12 on the exhibit refers to in process 23 inspection notices (IPIN's), hide extent of p r obl era s .
T 24 Do you see that? What does that mean?
H3 QVo[fe, 001enbet4 and 81sociates, $nc.
d%e, Dthwis e is12)182 80e7
1 172
.' 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Let me back up. What is an in process 3 inspection notice?
4 A. It is a document that documents an 5' inspection.
6 Q. Now, is that a form used by the NRC7 '
7 A. No. That is a form used by the licensee.-
8 Q. Okay. What is the reference to this 9 notices hiding the extent of problems?
10 A. I don't recall the specific details, but 11 the way the document was used enabled deficiencies 12 to not be caught.
13 Q. Do you know how that happened?
14 A. Well, as I remember, they could do part of 15 the inspection and then stop the inspection, turn 16 the work back for repair of or rework and then 17 resume the inspection after that rework was done, 18 and there was no guarantee that the final inspection 19 would go back and pick up all of the inspection 20 elements. That is .t h e way I remember it now. Now, 21 I may be --
my memory may be cloudy, but that is 22 what I remember, 23 Q. Who would be most knowledgeable in Region N
24 III concerning that issue?
MJ 0Vo[fe, 00sen$rsy and &ssoclaiss, hna.
.,24Wo, $(linois e _ (312) 782-8087__ _ _ _ _
173
^
1 A. Well, Ron Gardner probably.
2 Q. Okay. Item 11 refers to, quote, "Almost 3 16,000 open inspection records in plant," close 4 quote. What does that mean?
5 A. Those were inspections that had not been 6 completed by the licensee or his delegated 7 inspectors.
8 Q. Why was that a problem?
9 A. What it indicated was that the quality 10 inspections were lagging the completion of the work 11 by a longer period of time than we felt was 12 appropriate.
13 Q. Was the concein with the fact there were 14 16,000 of these open records?
15 A. I am not sure that the concern was --
I 16 think that was part of it, but the --
mainly the 17 concern was the time delay.
18 Q. Was 16,000 a large number of open records 19 to have at this point in the plant construction?
20 A. Oh, it is a large number, but it is not --
21 it is not unusually large.
22 Q. Now, there is a reference Item 3 to design 23 control problems. What does that mean?
s 24 A. If you want details of all of this, you HJ GVo(fe, fasen$rsy and 81sociales, .$na.
ch nu e m2> r82 sosi
~
?
, 174 i' .
1 ought to ask our inspectors.
2 Q. Okay. On design control problems who 3 would be.most knowledgeable to talk to?
4 A. The men who participated in whose names 5 are in the report, but I would think Ron Gardner can 6 talk quite knowledgeably about most all of these.
7 Q. Fine. We will put him on our list.
8 Now, you did not participate in the 9 inspection itself, correct?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. Were you involved in any discussions with 12 Consumers concerning the findings of this inspection?
13 A. Yes, I was. I was involved in the exit 14 interview and in the resolution of the problems.
15 O. Okay. When did the exit interview take 16 place?
17 A. The end of November.
18 Q. Do you want to refer to the chronology?
19 A. November 23rd, 1982.
20 Q. And where did that meeting take place?
21 A. At Midland, at the site.
22 Q. Who was present?
23 A. I was, Wayne Shafer, Ross Landsman, Ron T
. 24 Gardner, Ron Cook.
M3 GVolfe, 00sen[ rey and 81sociales, .$ne.
C L w_Dj!%is a e3122 782 8087
175
, 1 Q. Who from Consumers?
4 2 A. Oh, I think Jim Cook, but I am not 3 positive.
4 Q. Was anyone else present?
5 i. Here, again, this should be documented in 6 the inspection report.
7 Q. Well, was anyone else present from 8 Consumers that you recall?
9 A. There was a fair-sized roomfull.
10 Q. Okay. Would the attendees of that meeting 11 be identified in the inspection report, Exhibit 22?
12 A. Some of them, maybe not all of them.
13 Q. Okay. Where would they be identified?
14 A. We did not identify them.
15 Q. Prior to November the 23rd, 1982, the exit 16 interview, had you had any contact with anyone from 17 Consumers or Bechtel concerning the results of this 18 inspection?
19 A. Prior to --
20 Q. Prior to the exit interview on the 23rd.
21 A. I probably had had a phone call to make 22 sure we had the right people in attendance at the 23 exit interview. The results of the inspection would N
24 not have been discussed beforehand --
MJ G1/o[fe, kosenbey and 811ociatz1, .0nc.
auw. m e mmimwr
176
_S- 1 Q. Okay.
2 A. --
by me on that telephone call.
3 Q. Okay. Apart from that phone call did you 4- have any other contact with Consumers or Bechtel?
5 A. Me? No.
6 Q. Okay. What happened at the exit interview?
7 A. As I recall, the licensee made a 8 presentation on the status of the problems that our 9 guys had identified and discussed with them 10 previously in the intermediate exit interviews, and 11 they had more or less gave us a status on how they 12 were doing on each --
you know, the resolution'of 13 each of those problems, and probably before that 14 Wayne Shafer probably summarized the findings and 15 then after that we talked about --
we, the NRC --
16 talked about the significance of the findings and 17 what we thought --
well, what we planned to do from 18 that point.
19 Q. Did you speak at this meeting?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What did you say?
22 A. I don't remember exactly, but I think I 23 conveyed the feeling that these findings were T
24 significant and that we intended to write up the l
H3 GVo[fe, Sosenbey and Associales, $na.
h '
C h r m , D itt a ts e (312)182 80e7
177 1 report and then we intended to go to other areas of 2 the plant to see if similar problems existed, and if 3 they did, then we intended to discuss those findings 4 with our regional management and recommend that the 5 work at the plant be stopped. If we could convince 6 our regional management that is what ought to happen, 7 then we would proceed to talk to Headquarters. And 8 we told the licensee they ought to treat the -- well, 9 they got the message that the findings were 10 significant and that they should proceed to correct 11 them.
12 Q. Did you or anyone from the NRC make the 13 suggestion to Consumers at this meeting that the 14 company should shut down construction on its own at 15 that point?
16 A. I don't recall.
17 Q. Well, isn't it correct, Mr. Warnick, that 18 you told Consumers Power at this meeting that they 19 should recognize the problem, shut themselves down 20 and take the credit for it? Did you make that 21 statement to Consumers at the meeting?
22 A. I may have, but I don't recall. Do you 23 have a document to refresh my memory?
24 MR. STRICKLING: Mark that as the next exhibit.
MJ QVo[fe, hosenbey and 811oclaies, .$nc.
CAle9o, L'((inois e (312) 782 8087
178
> 1 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 2 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 24, 3 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
4 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked 5 as Exhibit NRC 24 a two-page document entitled, "Note s 6 from meeting with NRC on November 23rd, '82 numbered 7 N 11287 to 11288.
8 (WHEREUPON, the document was 9 tendered to counsel.)
10 BY MR. STRICKLING:
11 Q. While we are waiting for the document to 12 come around, Mr. Warnick, at this meeting isn't it 13 correct that you also told Consumers Power that you 14 believe the quality of work at Midland rated on a 15 par with Zimmer?
16 A. I may have said some of the problems were 17 similar to the problems at Zimmer, but I don't 18 recall making the statement that you said.
19 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 24. Have you seen 20 that document before?
21 (WHEREUPON, the document was 22 tendered to the witness.)
23 BY THE WITNESS:
N 24 A. No, I don't recall seeing it before.
M3 0Vo[fe, hosenbey and &ssociales, hna.
cw newu o m23 re2-sosi
179
_3 1 BY MR. STRICKLING:
2 Q. Okay. This appears to be a document out 3 of the files of Consumers Power, although it was 4 produced to us by the NRC, but I am just directing 5 your attention to the bottom third of the page where 6 it says, quotes, "It is hard for NRC to issue an 7 order. Time consuming process, including going to i
8 the Commissioners. They want us to recognize the 9 problem, take the action and take the credit. They 10 would follow up with a C.A.L."
11 Do you see that reference?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, by, "Take the action," that is a 14 reference to shutting the plant down, isn't it?
15 A. It may or may not be. I don't know.
16 Q. Do you agree, Mr. Warnick, that the 17 results of the diesel generator building inspection 18 indicated a significant breakdown in the 19 implementation of Consumers Power Company's quality 20 assurance program?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, as a result of the diesel generator 23 building inspection was any enforcement action taken T
24 by the NRC?
M3 GVo(fe, fasen$ rey and &ssociales, hnc.
d$ lea 4o, Offinoh e (312) 782 8089
180 y 1 A. '.f e s .
2 0 Waat action was taken?
3 A. Wo proposed issuing a civil penalty which 4 was -
let's see. That was the action we took.
5 0 And was that fine levied on Consumers l
6 Power?
7 A. Yes, although I --
as I recall it was 8 mitigated or there was some reduction in it for a 9 previous overpayment.
10 MR. STRICKLING: Mark these as the next two 11 exhibits.
12 (WHEREUPON, certain documents were 13 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC Nos.
14 25 and 26, for identification, as of 15 5/1/84.)
16 MR. BERKOVITZ: Off the record for a minute.
17 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 18 off the record.)
19 (WHEREUPON, the documents were 20 tendered to counsel.)
21 BY MR. STRICKLING:
22 0 Do you have Exhibit 25 in front of you?
23 MR. ZACK: No, he doesn't.
r 'N 24 MR. STRICKLING: Oh, there they are.
MJ 0Vo[fe, hosenbey and &ssociales, hnc.
CAtemo, D. % ota e (DIR) 7P2 8587
181
(% 1 (WHEREUPON, the documents were 2 tendered to'the witness.)
3 BY MR. STRICKLING:
4 Q. Mr. Warnick, what is Exhibit NRC 25?
5 A. 25 is a press release on proposed fine.
6 Q. And it indicates that the proposed fine is 7 $120,000, is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Under what circumstances does the NRC 10 impose fines on plants under construction?
11 A. When the criteria meets our ---when the s
12 violation meets our criteria.
13 Q. And that relates back to the criterion you 14 referred to this morning in Appendix C?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. How common is a' fine of more than a 17 hundred thousand dollars on a plant that is under 18 construction?
19 A. Not very.
20 Q. What is Exhibit NRC 267 21 A. That is the proposed civil penalty.
22 Q. And this was mailed to Consumers on 23 February 8, 19837 T
24 A. Yes.
MJ G1/offe, fossnbey and 81sociales, $na.
CA rw, Bitiets e cs12)is2 soar
182
> 1 Q. Prior to the imposition of this fine had 2 Consumers Power taken any action to shut down 3 construction at the Midland site?
4 A. Yes.
5 O. What had it done?-
6 A. It had stopped work in most safety-related 7 areas, i
8 Q. Do you remember when that was accomplished?
9 A. December 2nd or 3rd.
10 MR. STRICKLING: Okay. Mark that as the next 11 exhibit.
12 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 13 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 27, l
14 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
15 MR. STRICKLING: And do this one, too.
16 (WHEREUPON, a cert'ain document w'a s i
17 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 28, 18 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
l l 19 BY MR. STRICKLING:
20 Q. At the exist interview on November the l
21 23rd had Consumers indicated whether it intended to 1
1 22 shut down construction on its own?
l 23 A. No.
T
. 24 Q. Well, how had it been left with them at t
MJ 0Yo[fe, Sosenbey and &ssociales, $nc.
\ Cho, Bihats e c312)is2-sost
183
_3 1 the end of that meeting?
2 A. I think it was left that we were going --
3 like I described earlier, we were going to go back 4 and write our report and we were going to take a 5 look at other areas of the plant to see if the 6 problems existed in other areas and we would --
if 7 they did, we would recommend stopping work.
8 Q. Did you learn prior.to December the 2nd 9 that Consumers intended to shut down construction on 10 its own?
11 A. I don't remember when I learned.
12 Q. Okay. Exhibit NRC 27 is a document dated i 13 December 3rd, 1982 bearing Bates numbers N 11267 to 14 11270.
15 (WHEREUPON, the document was 16 tendered to the witness.)
17 BY MR. STRICKLING:
18 Q. Do you recognize that document, Mr.
19 Warnick?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What is it?
22 A. It is a memo from myself to Eisenhut 23 recommending notification of the Licensing Board of 5
24 the licensee stopping most of the safety-related MJ G1/o({g, forenbey and &ssociates, $nc.
CRuage, Difinen e m s2> 1c2 a m i
184 N
1 work at Midland.
2 0 At this point in time what was your 3 understanding as to the action Consumers would take 4 to resume construction after having shut it down on 5 December 2nd? Had they proposed a program for 6 resuming construction?
7 A. They had, yes.
8 Q. Okay. As of December 3rd, 1982 had any 9 program been proposed in even broad strokes?
10 A. On December 2nd we had met with Consumers 11 Power and they laid out a program for their stopping 12 work and they --
what they had proposed to do, which 13 included the reinspection program, and then the fact 14 that they would define a program to complete 15 construction.
16 Q. Okay. What was involved in the reinspectio 1 17 proposal that was discussed on December 2nd?
18 A. Well, what they proposed on December 2nd 19 was a total program which they just talked about 20 reinspection of the accessible safety-related 21 equipment where we had stopped work.
22 Q. What do you mean by, "Accessible 23 s a f e t."- r el a t ed equipment"?
N 24 A. Well, that which you could look at and see.
MJ 0Vo[fe, Sosenbey and 811ociales, hnc.
CALe9o, Dllinois e (312) 782-8087
185 f5 1 Q. As opposed to b'ing buried in concrete, I 2 assume. Is that a yes?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you have Exhibit 28 in front of you?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What is that document?
7 A. That is the letter we sent to the licensee 8 confirming our understanding of the actions they 9 planned to take.
10 Q. Okay. Is there any discussion in this 11 letter about the reinspection proposal described on 12 December 2nd?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What is stated concerning that? i 15 A. "A reinspection program will ba developed 16 to provide a system-by-system reinspection of all 17 safety-related systems."
18 Q. Okay. Now, that is not limited to 19 accessible systems by its terms, correct?
20 A. By what is written here, that's correct.
21 Q. As of the date of this letter, December 22 30th, was the NRC in agreement with the proposal of 23 Consumers simply to inspect those accessible N
24 safety-related systems, or does this letter imply HJ GVo[fe, 80senbey and 81sociales, $nc.
C$uaesA!0 nots e_n12L782 6097
186
,?x 1 that a greater effort would be required?
2 A. No. We were in agreement.
3 Q. Now, the letter refers to the Construction 4 Completion Plan in the first page, right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did Consumers subsequently release or 7 provide to the NRC a copy of their Construction 8 Completion Plan?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. When was that?
11 A. There were several drafts before the final 12 copy was approved and I don't recall the dates.
13 MR. STRICKLING: Okay. Let's mark this as the 14 next exhibit with a CPC number.
15 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 16 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit CPC No. 15, 17 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
18 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked 19 as Exhibit CPC 15 a document dated January 10, 1983 20 bearing Bates numbers N 11338 through 11378.
21 For the record, let me state that we have 22 not used Exhibit Nos. 12 and 13 today and probably 23 will not. We skipped from 11 to 14.
'i 24 Off the record.
M3 GVo(fs, Sosenbsy and 81sociales, $nc.
Chaeae, $[lwin e (312] 782-8087
187 N 1 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 2 off the record.)
3 (WHEREUPON, the document was 4 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
5 BY MR. STRICKLING:
6 Q. What is that document, Mr. Warnick?
7 A. That is Consumers Power Company's first 8 draft or first issue of the Construction Completion 9 Program.
10 Q. Okay. Was that program approved in the 11 form presented on January the 10th?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Why not?
14 A. It didn't contain everything we wanted it 15 to say the way we wanted it said.
16 Q. Well, what were the principal areas of --
17 that you believed were deficient?
18 A. I don't recall.
19 Q. Who in Region III would be most 20 knowledgeable about that?
21 A. Well, Wayne Shafer and Jay Harrison and 22 myself probably be the most knowledgeable, maybe Ron 23 Gardner.
N 24 Q. Directing your attention to the first page MJ GVoffe, Sosenbey and 81sociales, $na.
CAua<o, Offi ,ot. e no21782 8089
188 JN 1 of the executive summary, Bates number N 11341 there 2 is some handwritten notes on that and subsequent 3 pages. Whose handwriting is that, do you know?
4 A. It looks like mine.
5 Q. What is the reference at the very bottom 6 of the page to, "Does this mean a 100 percent 7 reinspection?"
8 A. It meant I had a hard time understanding 9 what they were saying when they said, "Prepare an 10 accurate list of to-go work against a defined 11 baseline."
12 O. Well, what did you mean by, "100 percent 13 reinspection" there?
14 A. Well, I asked myself the question' does 15 what they said mean the same thing as what I said.
16 Q. Well, on the next page you also have a 17 similar marginal note to 100 percent reinspection 58 with a question mark. Do you see that?
19 A. Yes.
20 O. What is the reference there?
21 A. Well, I kept looking for the words, "100 22 percent reinspection" and I never did find them, and 23 so I kept putting question marks here and there.
s 24 Q. Well, did the program as proposed in the H3 0Vo[ft, kosenbey and Associates, .$nc.
CL%e Bitio.os e menet sosi
189
_' 1 January 10th letter include a 100 percent reinspectio 1?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Why did the NRC want a 100 percent 4 reinspection?
5 MR. ZACK: I don't think there has been 6 testimony that the NRC wanted 100 percent 7 reinspection. You asked him that five minutes ago 8 and his testimony was to the contrary.
9 MR. STRICKLING: All right. Strike the 10 question.
11 BY MR. STRICKLING:
12 Q. At this point in time ~had the NRC made a 13 decision as to whether to require 100 percent 14 reinspection of safety-related systems?
15 A. We wanted 100 percent reinspection.
16 Q. Was that 100 percent reinspection a 17 program different from the program we have discussed 18 in reference to the December 30th letter? Let me 19 rephrase.
20 The December 30th letter we talked about a 21 reinspection of all accessible safety-related 22 systems. Does a 100 percent reinspection, as you 23 are using the term in your annotations on the T
24 January 10th letter, reflect a program different in MJ 0Vo[fe, 00sen[isy and &swelates, .$nc.
cam Dittws o as93im 0007
190
% 1
_ scope than what the December letter reflected?
2 A. What we had in mind was a 100 percent 3 reinspection of accessible systems and components.
4 If problems were identified that would suggest those 5 same problems would exist in inaccessible systems, 6 then we expected the licensee to address those 7 concerns, but we were not going to arbitrarily 8 require an inspection of inaccessible things before 9 we knew whether or not a problem existed.
s 10 Q. Okay. All right. That brings me back to 11 the original question. Why did you or the NRC want 12 a 100 percent reinspection?
13 A. We felt it was better to start with the 14 philosophy --
because we knew problems existed, we 15 felt it was better to start with the attitude that 16 problems are there, let's identify them, rather than 17 start on a sampling basis and say if we find 18 sufficient number of problems, we will expand the 19 sample size and we will keep expanding it until --
20 if necessary, until we have got 100 percent.
21 Q. What was Consumers proposing along the 22 lines of a reinspection program as of January the 23 10th?
T
. 24 A. Well, I think what they --
I don't recall H3 0 Vo[ft, hosenbey and 81socialz1, hnc.
CRuapo, DLou e (312) 182 8087 __
p r
191
- ' l' what the words say, but they wanted to start with 2 less than a hundred percent, more on a sampling 3 basis.
4 Q. What was the re' son that they gave for not 5 wanting to perform a 100 percent reinspection?
6 MR. ZACK: I think that is calling for 7 speculation on his part.
8 MR. STRICKLING: I am asking what reason he was 9 given. That is not speculation.
10 BY THE WITNESS:
11 A. I don't recall.
12 BY MR. STRICKLING:
13 Q. Did Consumers finally agree to do a 100 14 percent reinspection?
15 A. I believe that those words are in the
~
l6 final draft that was approved.
17 Q. Okay. Do you recall when the final 18 version was approved?
19 A. Like about October of '83, maybe it was l
- 20 even later than that.
I 21 Q. Apart from the disagreement over the 100 l 22 percent reinspection were there any other major 23 areas of disagreement between January and October T
24 that caused the delay in getting the CCP approved?
l us (Wolfe, cRosanBa,9 and c%oewas, Dna.
m
192
'N 1 A. There probably were some smaller ones.
2 -The 100 percent reinspection was the main one, and I 3 don't recall what the other differences were.
4 Q. Have you ever_been involved on any other 5 project where a 100 percent reinspection was ordered?
6 A. At that time, no.
7 Q. Have you been since?
i 8 A. Well, yes. The Zimmer project.
9 Q. Do you have any idea how long it takes to 10 perform that type of inspection given the percent 11 completion of the Midland project?
12 A. Well, only ballpark because it would 13 strictly depend on the number of people and the 14 number of hours worked per day.
15 Q. In the course of the discussions with 16 Consumers beginning in December of '82 was there any 17 discussion with Consumers officials as to how long 18 they anticipated a 100 percent reinspection would 19 take?
20 A. I~believe the initial proposal that they 21 made included a time frame. I don't recall what the 22 time frame was. Not this, but the big size of a 23 blueprint drawing that they had laid out for us.
N
. 24 Q. Okay. You don't recall what the --
MJ GVo[fe, 80senbsy and Assoclaiss, $ne.
CRuge. Dttina e m2)182 sosi
193 y 1 A. No.
2 Q. --
estimated time was?
3 A. No. ,
4 Q. What is the current status of the 5 Construction Completion Plan today?
6 A. They have started Phase 1. We have 7 released --
I am guessing --
25, 35 percent of the 8 plant for Phase 1.
9 Q. By "Phase 1" what is involved?
10 A. Phase 1 is the reinspection program.
11 Phase 2 is the program for completing construction 12 and making modifications and repairs.
13 We have not released any Phase 2 work, 14 however, we probably will release some minor 15 portions as soon as I get through with this work and 16 can sign a letter.
17 Q. You indicated about 25 percent or so has 18 been released so far.
19 A. I am guessing, 25 to 50 percent.
20 Q. What have been the results that have been 21 reported to date on the reinspection conducted?
22 A. Well, they haven't done that much. It is 23 very limited on what has been accomplished, and they N
24 have found the number of deficiencies which they MJ 0Vo[fe, kosenbey and Associales, $nc.
CRu m o- Qttiau o m231st sost
194 JN 1 have documented.
2 Q. What deficiencies have they found?
3 A. I can't give you details, but they are the 4 kind you would expect on an inspection program like 5 this.
6 Q. Has CP indicated how much rework-they 7 expect will be necessary as a result of this 8 reinspection?
9 A. I believe they discussed that with us at 10 one of our last meetings, but I can't recall what 11 they -- you know, what they said.
12 My feeling is that anything that is being 4
13 projected based on this --
you know, the front end 14 of the program is the best information on today's 15 knowledge, and when they get through then we will 16 know the e'xtent of it.
,. 17 We have monthly meetings in Midland where 18 the third party overview organization, Stone &
19 Webster, makes a report on the findings --
the 20 problems and the findings on the projects.
i 21 MR. STRICKLING: Okay. Mark those CPC exhibits.
22 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 23 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit CPC No. 16, T
24 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
MJ GVo[fs, 80unbsy and &ssociales, hna.
195 JS 1 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked 2 as Exhibit CPC 16 document dated August 26, 1983 3 bearing Bates number N 11495 through 11612.
4 (WHEREUPON, the document was 5 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
6 MR. ZACK: Before you start questioning the 7 witness I would just like to renew that objection I 8 interposed earlier pursuant to that statutory 9 provision relating to licensee reports to the NRC, 10 and as I noted at that time there was a continuing 11 objection, but I believe this also fits within the 12 category.
13 MR. STRICKLING: That does but the draft 14 doesn't?
15 BY MR. STRICKLING:
16 Q. Mr. Warnick, do you know what document 17 that is?
18 A. This is transmittal letter from Jim Cook 19 to Jim Keppler transmitting latest version of the 20 Construction Completion Program.
21 Q. Was this the version of the plan that was 22 finally approved in October?
23 A. I believe it was.
T 24 MR. STRICKLING: Why don't we take a two-minute MJ 0Vo[fe, kosenbey a.nd &ssociales, .0nc.
1 C$teaqo, Ollinois e (392)982 8087
196
% 1 break?
2 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had.)
3 MR. STRICKLING: Mark those as the next three.
4 (WHEREUPON, certain documents were 5 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC Nos.
6 29 through 31, for identification, as 7 of 5/1/84.)
8 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked 9 as Exhibit NRC 29 a document dated December 7, 1982 s
10 with Bates numbers N 11655 to 11662; Exhibit 30 is a 11 one-page document dated August 4, 1983 with Bates 12 number N 11663, and the final document, NRC 31, is 13 the March 7, 1984 report provided us earlier today 14 by counsel for Mr. Warnick.
15 (WHEREUPON, the documents were 16 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
17 BY MR. STRICKLING:
18 Q. Do you have Exhibit 29 in front of you?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What is that document?
21 A. It is a memo from Mr. Novak to ASLB 22 notifying them of work stoppage on heating, 23 ventilating and air conditioning and major reduction
'T 24 in other safeny-related work.
MJ G Vc[fe, 001en$ rey and &11ociales, .0nc.
C$kaao, $llinois e (31G1782 8087
197 i
3 1 Q. Okay.
, And attached to tnat are two memos 2 f r c!n you, correct, one dated December 1, 1982 and 3 the other dated December 1, 1982. In fact, they are 4 the same document.
5 What was the problem that was identified 6 in this Board notification?
7 A. Well, the problem had to do with the 8 qualification of welders to certain procedures for 9 welding heating, ventilating, air conditioning 10 systems, and they stopped work while they resolved 11 those problems. And the second one is notifying the 12 Board of the Licensee's stopped work that resulted 13 from our diesel generator building inspection.
14 Q. Do you recall when HVAC work resumed, when 15 the stop work order was lifted?
16 A. In 1983 sometime, approximately June 29, 17 1983.
18 Q. So construction was stopped for 19 approximately eight months then as they resolved 20 this problem?
21 A. Seven months anyway.
22 Q. What is Exhibit 30) 23 A. A memo from Spese d to --
Director of the N
24 Division of Engineering in Region III --
to Eisenhut MJ GYolfe, Sosenbey and ci]1sociales, $na.
1 Gum. Diliuts e m2)is2 sosi
198
> 1 requesting NRR review the structural design adequacy 2 of Midland and Clinton heating, ventilating and air 3 conditioning systems.
4 Q. And was that review conducted?
5 A. It was started and I don't know if it has 6 been completed.
7 Q. Okay. You have Exhibit 31 in front of you?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. What is that document?
10 A. That is Region III inspection report of 11 the work we did to look at the heating, ventilating 12 and air conditioning system and the --
and looking 13 into the allegations that had been made regarding 14 HVAC work.
15 Q. Now, is this report, Exhibit 31, the 1- report that was being requested in Exhibit NRC 30?
17 A. No, it is not.
18 Q. And there is separate work that has been 19 conducted pursuant to the request in Exhibit 30? '
20 A. Yes. The work requested by Exhibit 30 is 21 a design review 4 Nhat we did in Exhibit 31 was to 22 pursue the allegations and look at the hardware and 23 what was installed. ;
N 24 O. What was involved in that inspection when
, H3 (]Vo[fe, 00senbey and &ssociaiss, $ne.
en.,cuw. , mm wn 1
199
.,~5 1 you say you looked at the hurdware? Was a complete 2 reinspection done of all the HVAC?
3 A. No. It was a sampling.
4 Q. Okay. Now, directing your attention to 5 Page 15 of the report under Paragraph 3 it refers to 6 excessivs blowholes. Do you know what that is a 7 reference to?
9 A. No. I am not a blowhole expert.
9 Q. Well, directing your attention further on 10 in that paragraph is it correct as stated that quote, 11 "Approximately 40 percent of the ductwork installed 12 prior to the 1980 stop work order has been removed 13 and replaced"?
14 A. That is what it says. I don't know.
15 Q. You have no reason to doubt the accuracy 16 of that figure in this report, do you?
17 A. No, none whatsoever.
18 MR. STRICKLING: Mark that.
19 (WHEREUPON, a certain documant was 20 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 32, 21 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
22 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked l 23 as Exhibit NRC 32 a document dated April 30, 1982, lT 24 Bates number N 10911 through 10933 entitled, "Memoran ium MJ GVo(fe, fosenbr.9 and &1sociales, hne.
I
200
% 1 and Order" of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
2 (WHEREUPON, the document was 3 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
4 BY MR. STRICKLING:
5 Q. Mr. Warnick, what is this document?
6 A. It is a memorandum and order issued by the 7 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to Consumers Power 8 Company.
9 Q. And this order relates to the remedial 10 soils work, does it not?
11 A. I believe so.
12 Q. Okay. Turning to Page 21, Item 1 it 13 states, "Construction permits shall be amended to 14 require that the permit holder obtain explicit prior 15 approval from the NRC Staff (to the exent such 16 approval has not already been obtained) before 17 proceeding with the following soils-related 18 activities, and that thase activities, with the 19 exception of those already approved by the NRC and 20 those that the Staff agrees are not critical shall 21 be controlled by a Staff-approved Quality Assurance 22 Plan."
23 Then it goes on to list a number of T
24 activities.
MJ GVo[fe, forenbey and &ssociales, $nc.
C$laa4o, $$linois e (312) 782-8087
201
.' 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What is the practical effect of that order?
3 What does it require?
4 A. It requires approval by the NRC of the 5 soils work.
6 Q. okay. At what levels of detail is such 7 approval required?
8 A. I don't know.
9 Q. Well, let me rephrase the question. Does 10 this order require the parceling up of the soils 11 work into small little packages, each one of which 12 has to be approved by the NRC individually before ,
13 work can proceed?
14 A. Not the way it is written it doesn't.
A5 Q. Okay. Well, do you have an understanding 16 as to how this order has been implemented by the NRC?
17 A. Yes.
1 18 Q. Okay. Give me your understanding of how '
19 this order has been implemented.
20 A. Well, we started out by NRR approved the 21 design of the soils underpinning work, and then any 22 major work Mr. Landsman reviewed and approved it and ;
l l l 23 any minor work the licensee was allowed to do the
!T l 24 work and then secure his approval after the fact. i l
MJ 0Vo[fs, kosenbsy and &ssociales, hnc.
am.. mu o mm rwxr _. __
202 N
1 And when the Office of Special Cases got 2 involved one of the things that we realized is that 3 because of people talking about misunderstandings, 4 we felt things like this should be documented in 5 writing. That was one of the recommendations we 6 made and that was one of the things we instituted so 7 that there could be no misunderstanding, and that is 8 the way it is today is that they ask for increments 9 of work and we review those increments of work and 10 we write back approving those increments of work.
11 Q. You referred to misunderstandings. Had 12
~
there been any misunderstandings prior to the 13 imposition of that requirement?
14 A. I believe there had.
15 Q. Well, in fact, in the summer of 1982 16 hadn't there been some charges by Mr. Landsman that 17 the Board order had beer 'v i o l a t e d by Consumers?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What were his charges?
20 A. I may --
we may be off on the dates.
21 Q. Let me put an exhibit in front of you.
22 Could you mark that as the next document?
23 (WHEREUPON, said document was marked 24 Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 33, MJ G Vo[fe, Sosenbey and &ssocialz1, $na.
[$lepo, $((inots e (DG2) 982-8089
203
~4 1 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
2 MR. STRICKLING: Okay. The court reporter has 3 marked as Exhibit NRC 33, a three-page document.
4 The first page is an August 20, 1982 letter Bates ,
5 numbered -- take your pick, N 10934 or 90321306, and 6 _ attached to it is a two-page letter dated August 24, 7 1982 Bates number N 10935 through 36.
8 (WHEREUPON, the document was 9 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
iv BY MR. STRICKLING:
11 Q. Have you had a chance to review that 12 document?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What is that document?
15 A. That is a document Mr. Keppler sent to the 16 Acting Director of the Office of Investigation 17 requesting investigation of Mr. Landsman's concerns 18 that he had been --
that the licensee had excavated 19 between the deep "Q" duct bank and the fire line 20 work had been st,arted before approval.
21 Q. And Mr. Landsman's charges are detailed in 22 the two-page attached memo, correct?
23 A. Yes.
T 24 Q. Was an investigation conducted?
?
MJ GVo(fs, Sosenbsy and dswalaiss, $ne.
C$laye, Ollinals O (312) 782-8087 , _. . _ . . - _ _ _ - . , . . _ _ , -
204
,' 1 A. Yes, it was.
2 MR. STRICKLING: Would you mark that as the 3 next exhibit?
4 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 5 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 34, 6 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
7 MR. STRICKLING: NRC Exhibit 34 marked by the 8 court reporter is a document dated September 12, 9 1983 bearing Bates numbers N 10937 through N 11140.
10 (WHEREUPON, +he document was 11 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
12 BY MR. STRICKLING:
13 Q. Who investigated Mr. Landsman's charges, I 14 mean, what body within the NRC?
15 A. The Office of Investigations.
16 Q. Have you seen Document NRC 34 before?
17 A. Yes. I believe so.
18 Q. What is that document?
19 A. This is a report of --
I believe it is --
20 they call it a supplemental report. I was going to 21 say second investigation of Mr. Landsman's concerns.
22 Q. You say this was the second investigation?
23 A. Yes.
T 24 Q. How did it come about that there were two MJ 0Vo[fe, kosenbey and dssociales, hnc.
C$leano, Ollinois e (312) 782-8087
205
,' 1 investigations?
2 A. Well, we did an investigation --
let's see.
3 I have got to --
no. Maybe I --
we nave so many 4 things I sometimes get confused. Let me think for a 5 minute.
6 Q. Well, feel free to take your time and 7 refer to the document if you wish.
i 8 A. As I remember, they did an investigation, 9 and in our review of that investigation we found 10 that there were certain people that hadn't been 11 talked to that we thought should have been talked to 12 and so we asked them to go back and do more and so 13 they went back, and then this is their supplemental 14 report to supplement the first report.
15 Q. What was the conclusion of the 16 supplemental report?
17 A. "It is the opinion of the Office of 18 Investigations that the weight of the evidence 19 developed during.the supplemental portion of this 20 investigation supports the allegation that Consumers 21 Power Company violated the ASLB order."
22 Q. You are quoting from Page 2 of the 23 document?
T 24 A. Correct.
H3 GVo[fe, hosenbey and 81sociales, .$nc.
Cheago, Dilinots e (312) 782 8087
206 i
i 5 1 Q. And it goes on to say, does it not, quote, l
2 "It is possible that one could view CPCo's actions 3 in this matter to be sufficiently negligent to 4 constitute disregard of NRC requirements," close 5 quote?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. Was any regulatory or enforcement action 8 taken as a result of this inspection report --
9 strike that.
10 I
Was any regulatory enforcement action s
11 taken as a result of this investigation? ;
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What action was taken? L 14 A. An order was issued in, I think, 1984 15 requiring the management appraisal.
16 Q. Okay. What is entailed by a management 17 appraisal?
18 A. Well, we specified a few -- some guidance f
19 in the order, and I'd have to get that out to :
20 identify exactly what we asked them to look at, but 21 we wanted an independent competent group to come in 22 and look at the management of Consumers Power 23 Company to -- and then to get their assessment.
N 24 Q. And you say this was ordered in 19847 i
.HJ GVoffs, fossnbsy and drsociais1, $nc.
aun.. ww amrma . ,
207 1 A. Yes, sometime in -- I think.
2 Q. Are you aware of any other project in the 3 United States where the NRC has ordered a similar 4 type of management audit?
5 A. I am aware that management audits have 6 been ordered.
7 Q. What other sites?
8 A. Well, I think Cooper, Nebraska Public 9 Power, and I think an eastern plant seemed like 10 Shoreham or Seabrook or something like that, and 11 then we at Zimmer, we required a-- it wasn't 12 necessarily a management audit, but it was a third 13 party to come in and look at the corrective action 14 programs and the management organization and then 15 make recommendations. There may be other examples.
16 Q. What is the connection between the I
17 findings of the investigation and a management audit?
18 In other words, how does the punishment fit the 19 crime?
1 20 A. Well, the problems of whether or not 21 Consumers Power did the excavation without prior NRC 22 approval was somewhat of a management problem that 23 they proceeded to do the excavation without, in our s
24 view, clear, clear prior approval. So that is the i
H3 GYo[fe, Sosenbey and 81soclats1, $ne.
L__ _ __ ----__ _ -_--_--- -_ --_ -- -- .- -_-----_--- -- ---- h #St dh _ (L /MMA'W _ __ ---- --- - --
208 C 1 tie-in that because of this, because of the f
2 management that let construction go to result in the 3 diesel generator building inspection, because of the 4 management that let these other prior problems exist 5~ that were reported in that report to the ACRS. It 6 all reflects back on management.
7 Q. How expensive is this management audit 8 expected to be?
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. What is the current status of the audit?
11 A. The management appraisal?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. The licensee has submitted a proposal by 14 the firm of CMP.
15 Q. That is the cresap firm you mentioned this 16 morning?
17 A. Yes. We have reviewed their proposal. We 18 have written back to Consumers Power setting up a 19 meeting to be' held Friday, May 4th, and we gave them 20 a list of questions.that we wanted CMP to be 21 prepared to discuss --
respond to, as well as making 22 a presentation on the management appraisal that they 23 proposed. It has not been approved and it has not s
24 started.
MJ GVo(fs, Sosenbey and Assoalaiss, $na.
c%.sem n omm.se _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A
209
,' 1 Q. Have there been any prior assessments done 2 either by the NRC or at the NRC's direction of 3 Consumers Power's management?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Isn't it correct, Mr. Warnick, that while 6 you say this audit was ordered in 1984 that 7 Consumers agreed to do this audit last October?
8 A. Consumers had previously agreed to conduct 9 or have the management appraisal conduct it. The 10 dates I am not --
I can't pull them out of my head.
11 MR. STRICKLING: Let's mark this as the next 12 exhibit.
13 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 14 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 35, 15 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
16 MR. STRICKLING: Exhibit NRC 35 is a one-page 17 document dated October 31, 1983 Dates numbered 18 N 11146.
19 (WHEREUPON, the document was 20 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
21 BY MR. STRICKLING:
22 Q. What is that document, Mr. Warnick?
23 A. It is a document from --
memo from Keppler T
24 to Region III files summarizing a meeting that he M3 GVo(fe, kosenbey and 811ccic.tzs, .0nc.
C$iaaeo. D[linals e (312) 782-8087
210
- % 1 and Richard DeYoung held with Mr. Selby and Howell 2 of the Consumers Power Company.
3 O. And as it states there didn't Mr.'Selby as l 4 a result of the discussions held agree to include a 5 proposal for an independent management audit and a 6 plan of action which CPCo has been preparing for 7 submittal to the NRC, correct?
8 A. That is what it says.
9 Q. Now, at around this same time, at the end 10 of October 1983 wasn't a proposal made to fine 11 Consumers $100,000 for this violation of the Board 12 order? i 13 A. Our initial drafts of proposed enforcement 14 action talked about a civil penalty.
15 MR. STRICKLING: Mark that as the next exhibit.
16 (WHEREUPON,.a certain document was 17 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 36, 18 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
19 MR. STRICKLING: Exhibit NRC 36 is a one-page 20 document dated October 20, 1983. There does not "
21 appear to be a Bates number on it.
22 (WHEREUPON, the document was t 23 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
\%
24 BY MR. STRICKLING:
MJ GVo({s, Sosenbsy and Assoclaha, $nc.
CA%o, Bl%u- Q _ (3:21702-8087
211
'N 1 Q. Mr. Warnick, what is that document?
2 A. This is a draft enforcement notice that --
3 whenever we prepare an escalated enforcement action 4 and proposed civil penalty we will always include a 5 draft enforcement notice for notification of the 6 Commissioners.
7 Q. And this indicates a proposed civil 8 penalty of $100,000, correct?
9 A. Yes.
'10 Q. Did Region III make a recommendation 11 concerning the imposition of this penalty?
12 A. We -- yes.
13 Q. And what was your recommendation?
14 A. Well, I believe that the first draft that 15 went into Headquarters proposed a $100,000 civil 16 penalty.
17 Q. Now, this fine was not imposed, correct?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. Do you know why?
20 A. In review by Headquarters and in 21 discussions between Headquarters and Region III, we 22 decided the more appropriate enforcement action 23 would be to require the management appraisal in the i
24 form of a confirmatory order.
I HJ GVo(fe, kosenbey and &ssociates, hne.
l Cluuo. DLou e ar2) 782 sosi
r 212
,'N 1 Q. And-why was it believed that that was more 2 appropriate?
3 A. I can't speak for all parties involved.
4 Q. Well, d id you agree with the decision not 5 to impose a civil penalty?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Had you concurred in the original 8 recommendation to impose the penalty?
9 A. I don't recall if I had concurred or if I 10 did not concur. My personal opinion was that a 11 $100,000 civil penalty was not warranted.
12 Q. Now, earlier today we were talking about 13 the SALP assessment for the licensee period ending 14 in June of 1982, I think, June of 1981, the SALP-2 15 report.
16 A. Before we proceed to that question I think 17 I did end up concurring in the region's 18 recommendation for $100,000 civil penalty.
19 Now, would you repeat the next --
20 Q. Let me strike the question and start over.
21 A. Okay.
22 Q. We talked about a SALP Report this morning 23 that had been issued in 1982, which, I think --
is 24 it correct to refer to as the SALP-2 Report?
HJ 0Vo[ft, 00senbzy and &ssocialz1, hnc.
C$laago, BlLeots e (312) 782-8087
213 N 1 A. I am not positive on the nomenclature, but 2 I know the one we talked about this morning covered 3 a period from '80 to '81.
4 Q. Okay. What I'd like to do is move to the 5 most recent SALP Report which all these documents 6 refer to as SALP-3. Let me mark these documents as 7 exhibits.
8 (WHEREUPON, certain documents were 9 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC Nos.
10 37 through 39, for identification, as 11 of 5/1/84.)
12 MR. STRICKLING: Exhibit NRC 37 is a letter 13 dated August 6, 1982, Bates numbers N 11632 to 33
- 14 Exhibit NRC 38 is dated April 1, 1983, Bates numbers
17 (WHEREUPON, the document was i 18 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
I 19 BY MR. STRICKLING:
20 Q. Do you have the exhibits in front of you?
21 To speed it up, Mr. Warnick, why don't you just 32 explain for me or identify what each of these
- 23 documents are in order?
\
24 A. I am not sure on the first letter, but it MJ 0Vo[fe, 00senbey and &swelates, .0na.
l CK%e. Difws e 0123 7s2-e0s7
214 !
,'N 1 is a memo from Ron Cook through his Section Chief !
2 and the Director of the Office of Special Cases to !
3 Spessard, the Director of the Division of Project i 4 and Resident Programs documenting request to extend l 5 the SALP-3 evaluation period. i 6 The second memo is memo from Mr. Keppler t
7 to DeYoung recommending that we do not perform a 8 SALP appraisal, systematic assessment of licensee f 9 performance, for either Midland or Zimmer on that 10 go-around because we knew they had problems and ,
11 therefore an assessment was really meaningless.
12 And the third one we heard back from Mr.
13 DeYoung. And the third one documents a memo from 14 Keppler to Jack Hind, who is the Chairman of the 15 SALP Board, and myself telling us that we don't have .
! 16 to do a SALP-3 for Zimmer and we can do a limited 17 one for Midland, do one in those areas where work is 18 ongoing, i
i 19 Q. And what areas were those?
i .
l 20 A. Those were the areas that were exempted 21 from the stop work order, the heating, ven'tilating 22 and air conditioning, the remedial soils, the B & W I 23 or Babcock & Wilcox nuclear steam supply system work. ,
.s ,
l 24 MR. STRICKLING: Mark that as the next document. ,
' M3 0Vo[fs, kossnbsy sund Associales, hne.
CRuyo. Difuou e (312) 782 3037 _ -_, _ _ - .__ _ - _ - _ _ ;
215
, 1 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 2 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 40, 3 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
4 BY MR. STRICKLING:
5 Q. Were you on the SALP Board for Midland in 6 1983?
7 A. Yes.
i 8 Q. Exhibit NRC 40 dated July 21, 1983 bears 9 the Bates numbers 91906171. What is that document, 10 Mr. Warnick?
11 (WHEREUPON, the document was 12 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
13 BY THE WITNESS:
14 A. Letter from Jack Hind, the Chairman of the 15 SALP Board, to Consumers Power Company, I guess, 16 transmitting the SALP Report.
17 BY MR. STRICKLING:
18 Q. And the SALP Report is attached, correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, turning to Page 8 of the SALP Report, 21 the conclusion is stated there concerning the 22 licensee's performance in the ooils area, correct?
23 A. Yes.
N 24 Q. And in this SALP Report the licensee was M3 0Vo[fe, hosenbey and 811ocialz1, .0nc.
C$icsee Gifinois q (3121782-8087
216 5
1 rated Category 3, right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And then the report states, quote, "Althougl 4 this is the same rating as the previous assessment 5 period, the licensee's overall performance in this 6 functional area has continued to decline," close 7 quote.
8 What was the basis for the statement that, 9 "The licensee's performance had continued to decline" ?
10 A. That was Mr. Landsman's opinion, and he is 11 our expert in the soils area.
12 Q. Well, did you agree with Mr. La.nd sman ' s 13 opinion?
14 A. I am not an expert in the soils area so I 15 supported Mr. Landsman in his opinion.
16 Q. It goes on to say that, quote, "A rating 17 of less than minimally acceptable (Not rated) was 18 considered by the Board."
19 What would have been the effect of a less 20 than minimally acceptable rating?
21 A. Just wouldn't have gotten an "X" in the 22 Category 3 column. The implication being that it is <--
23 you know, it is worse than Category 3 rating.
3 24 Q. Would the fact that a licensee would be MJ 0l'o(fe, hosenbey and &ssociatz1, .0nc.
Cluyo. Dhou e (312) 182 80s7
217 1 rated below Category 3 result in any kind of 2 escalated enforcement action as a general matter?
3 A. No. There would have to be a basis in 4 violation of rules and regulations. ;
5 Q. okay. On Page 9 --
actually, let's look [
6 at Page 8. It refers to Parts 3 and 4, -
L 7 safety-related components and piping systems and d
8 supports. That is the category.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Then turn to Page 9. It has, "The Board 11 notes that subsequent to this evaluation period the f 12 NRC has indications the quality problems exist with [
13 installed components, piping and piping supports," ;
l 14 close quote. I 15 What is the basis for that statement? I 16 A. It was our inspector's opinion, and I -
17 don't know if that was based on their observations (
18 or things reported by the licensee.
t (
19 Q. Who would be most knowledgeable about the 20 quality problems identified in that paragraph? f f
- 2'1 A. Well, Isa Yan on piping supports. I don't 22 know if Ron Cook would be -- I would guess Ron Cook [
23 or Ron Gardner might know where we -- I just don't N i 24 recall whose input that was to the SALP Report. f I
i H3 0Vo[fs, 00ssnbsy and &swalaiss, $na.
_______ CAL ****x Chots O__69LDD11K301
218
- - 1 MR. STRICKLING
- Okay. Would you mark this as 2 the next exhibit?
3 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 4 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 41, 5 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
6 MR. STRICKLING: Okay. Exhibit NRC 41 is a 7 one-page document dated May 24, 1983, Bates number i-8 N 11637.
9 (WHEREUPON, the document.was 10 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
11 BY MR. STRICKLING:
12 Q. Mr. Warnick, what is Exhibit 41?
13 A. It is a letter confirming our meeting with --
14 the NRC meeting with Consumers Power Company to 15 discuss the SALP.
16 Q. Your letter is dated May 24th, correc't?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And it sets a meeting for June the 24th, 19 correct?
i 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In 1983. Now, was this meeting held? And 22 if you want to refer to the chronology, Exhibit 12, j 23 please feel free to do so.
s 24 A. I don't know by this. We held a meeting MJ 0Vo[fs, 00ssnbsy and &ssoalaiss, $na.
.. cw oun<. e me> mare
219
,' 1 with the licensee. The date is what I am not sure 2 of.
3 Q. Okay. Well, maybe this will help you.
4 Let's mark this as the next exhibit.
5 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 6 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 42, 7 for id ie n ti fi c a tio n , as of 5/1/84.)
8 MR. STRICKLING: Exhibit NRC 42 is a one-page 9 document dated August 4, 1983 with Bates number 10 N 11638.
11 (WHEREUPON, the document was 12 tendered to counsel.)
13 BY THE WITNESS:
14 A. Okay. That is when we held it.
15 BY MR. STRICKLING:
16 Q. Let's wait for the exhibit.
(
17 (WHEREUPON, the document was 18 tendered to the witness.)
19 BY MR. STRICKLING:
20 Q. Now, do you recognize NRC 42?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What is that document?
23 A. It is letter from myself to Consumers N
24 Power Company confirming our meeting to discuss the H3 GVo(fs, fossnbsy and &ssociales, .0na.
C$laste, $0inels t (312)782-8087
220 l 3 1 SALP.
2 Q. Okay. And your letter is dated August 4th I
3 and it confirms a meeting on August 12, 1983, right? j 4 A. Yes. That's correct.
5 Q. And was a meeting held on August 12, 1983 l i
6 to discuss the SALP? ;
7 A. Yes, it was. :
8 Q. And having seen Exhibit NRC 42 are you now ,
9 able to remember whether or not a meeting was held ;
i ,
, 10 on June th.e 24th as indicated on NRC 41? ,
11 A. We did not hold a meeting on June 24th, to 12 the best of my knowledge.
13 Q. Why was the meeting postponed?
14 A. I can't recall.
- 15 Q. Were you involved in the decision to 16 reschedule the meeting?
17 A. I would have been, yes.
18 Q. Who else would have been involved?
19 A. Mr. Keppler, those who were to attend, i
4 20 which would be the licensee and some of our other 21 inspectors. I don't recall why it was postponed.
22 Q. Well, isn't it correct that the meeting 23 was postponed because Consumers wanted it postponed?
, 24 A. I don't recall. The letter doesn't give HJ GVo(fs, fossnbsy and &ssoalaiss, $na.
C4uen. 0%u e m v 7st40er . ..__ -
221 I me any refresher.
4 2 0 Are you aware --
I'm sorry. Did you want 3 to say something?
4 A. No.
5 O. Are you aware that in April of 1983, a 6 year ago, Consumers announced new completion dates 7 for the Midland project?
8 A. I probably was at that time.
9 MR. BERKOVITZ: Are you aware now?
10 MR. STRICKLING: I accept his answer. That was 11 just a preliminary question. That is okay. His 12 answer was fine.
13 MR. STRICKLING: Let's mark this as the next 14 exhibit.
15 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 16 marked Plaintiff's 's i b i t NRC No. 43, 17 for identification, as of 5/1/84.)
18 MR. STRICKLING: Exhibit NRC 43 is a document 19 date June 1, 1983, numbered N 11666 through 111676.
20 (WHEREUPON, the document was 21 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
22 BY MR. STRICKLING:
23 0 You can take a look in particular at the T
24 first paragraph.
MJ Gilffe, o fostnbey and &ssociates, hnc.
CRuyo. Offcun e m21752-sost
222 t
1 What is this document, Mr. Warnick?
2 A. It is a summary of the Caseload Forecast 3 Panel meeting held between the 19th and 21st of 4 April, 1983.
5 Q. Okay. Have you read the first two t
6 paragraphs of that document?
7 A. Down below Units 1 and 27 8 Q. Just down to the detes.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Does that refresh your recollection that 11 on April 12, 1983 consumers announced new completion 12 dates for Midland?
13 A. No, it really didn't.
14 Q. Okay. But the document does state there 15 that on April 12 such dates were announced, correct?
16 A. Yes.
1 17 Q. What is the NRC Caseload Forecast Panel?
, 18 A.. The licensing group in Headquarters is the 19 group that reviews the licensing of the design and 20 the --
all of the licensing documents prior to 21 issuing a license. Because they need to --
they i
22 need to schedule their reviews to complete them 23 before the license is issued, they rely quite f
iT
- , 24 heavily in their scheduling on the licensee's fuel l
NJ GVo(fs, 00ssnbs9 and &ssoelais1, $ne.
CL4. Dt%t. e asz> rst-sont
223
^
1 load date or the date they need their operating 2 license, and therefore they formed a group to go out 3 and review the work at the site, the status of the ,
4 work at the site, and the licensee's projections and 5 dates and make an independent assessment of whether 6 or not the fuel load dates or operating license 7 dates for that particular utility.
8 Q. Are there any permanent members of this 9 Caseload Forecast Panel?
10 A. Yes. Representatives from Headquarters.
Il Mr. Lovelace was the nams I remember.
12 Q. How do you spell that, L-o-v-e-1-a-c-e?
13 A. I don't know unless this document tells us.
14 L-o-v-e-1-a-c-e. "W" is his first initial.
15 Q. Who else was on the Caseload Forecast 16 Panel that reviewed the project in 19837 17 A. Jay Harrison, Ron Gardner. Those are the 18 two names I remember.
19 Q. How detailed a review is conducted at that 20 time?
21 A. I don't know. I have never been involved 22 in one.
23 Q. Would Mr. Lovelace be the most T
, 24 knowledgeable person on the issue of how the M3 GVo(fs, 00ssnbsy wnd &ssociaiss, $ne.
c w ,.. ca u . e mv m.mr
224 h
1 Caseload Forecast Panel reviews these dates?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now, it states here in the first page of 4 the exhibit that the April '83 estimates issued by 5 Consumers Power showed a 10/84 fuel load date for 6 Unit 2 and a February '85 fuel load date for Unit 1, 7 correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. As a result of the review performed 10 by the Caseload Forecast Panel did they agree --
11 A. Excuse me just a minute.
12 Q. I'm sorry.
13 MR. ZACK: I will just note that it is 5:00 14 o' clock.
15 BY THE WITNESS:
16 A. The memo doesn't refer to these dates as 17 fuel load dates. They ray --
they talk about 18 licensee's dates and they talk about construction 19 completion, but they don't use the words, "Fuel load" 20 that I can see.
21 MR. STRICKLING: Okay. Fine. We will resume 22 here tomorrow.
23 (WHEREUPON, the deposition was T
24 adjourned until 9:00 a.m., 5/2/84.)
MJ 0Vo[fe, Sosenbey asul dssociales, .0nc.
C4ceano. D(finois e (302W82 8087
225 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
2 ) SS:
3 COUNTY OF C O O K )
4 I, MELANIE JAKUSZEWSKI, a Notary Public 5 within and for the County of Cook, State of 6 Illinois, and a certified Shorthand Reporter of said 7 state, do hereby certify:
8 That previous to the commencement of the 9 examination of the witness, the witness was duly 10 sworn to testify the whole truth concerning the 11 matters herein; 12 That the foregoing deposition transcript 13 was reported stenographically by me, was thereafter 14 reduced to typewriting under my personal direction 15 and constitutes a true record of the testimony given 16 and the preceedings had; 17 That the said deposition was taken before 18 me at the time and place specified; 19 That t,he said deposition was adjourned as 20 stated herein; 21 That I am not a relative or em pl o ye e or 22 attorney or counsel, nor a relative or employee of 23 such attorney or counsel for any of the parties T
24 hereto, nor interested directly or indirectly in the MJ 0Yo[fs, hosenbsy and swelates, hne.
% g .. s u e anneypeg _ __ _
226 1 outcome of this action.
2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I do hereunto set my 3 hand and affix my seal of office at Chicago, 4 Illinois, this [_d[_dayof__ g ___________,
5 1984.
6 7
8 . , _ _ _ _& _ _
9 Notary Public, Coo County, Illinois.
10 My commission expires August 14, 1984.
11 12 P
13 C.S.R. Ce: ficate No. 84-1733.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
) 24 M3 GVo(fe, kosenbey and &ssocialzt, hnc.
CRisage, Dhots e (312) 782 8087
_