ML20153B693
| ML20153B693 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/21/1985 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151D196 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-583 NUDOCS 8805060061 | |
| Download: ML20153B693 (194) | |
Text
?-
1 2
STATE OF MICHIG AN 3
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MIDLAND 4
)
5
,DOU CHEMICAL COMPANY,
)
)
6 Plaintiff,
)
)
7
-vs-
)
)
Po.
83-0022325 8
' CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY,-
)
)
9 Defendant.
)
)
10 11 The Deposition of RONALD J.
- COOK, taken before me, Glenn G.
Miller, CSR-2596, Registered 12 iProfessional Reporter and Notary Public within and for the County of Wayne, State of Michigan, at 100 Brown Street, l
13
,Middletown, Pennsylvania, on Monday, January 21, 1985.
i, -
i 14 15 APPEARANCES:
16 KIRKL AND & ELLIS 200 East Randolph Drive 17 i
Chicago, Illinois 60601 (By Carol Rice, Esq.)
18 Appearing on behalf of the Plaintif f, 19 BARRIS, SOTT, DENN & DRIKER 20 21st Floor First Federal Building Detroit, Michigan 48226 21 (Ey Eugene Driker, Esq.
and Ellen Neering, Esq.)
22 Appearing on behalf of the Defendant.
i 23 24 8805060061 880408 PDR FOIA f
BARhK87-583 PDR Lu:od Reporting Service
~
Islayette tiutiding 30840 Northuntern th<>
Su'ite hm 962*IIIb Suutr 231 Detront. \\fichigan 48226 Farmungton Hdh, \\lichigan 480!h
_ _ i,
1-APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
2 DANIEL BERKOVITZ, ESO.
Office of General Counsel l
3 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.
C.
20555 4
Appearing on behalf of the United States Nuclear 5
Regulatory Commission.
6 7
8 9
10 11 i
12 13 i
14 l
l 15 16 17 i
18 l
l 19 20 a
21 l
22
(
23 24 i
l 2,,g.
Lu:od Repar ing Sere ice 3,,g y,,,,,,\\,,,,
Isfa)ette Huildine Suite h30 962.))i6 Suite 2:0 IWtroet.11ochigan 48226 Formungton flills \\lichigan 18018
1 2
WITHESS INDEX 3
4 Witness Examined By Page 5
RONALD J. 000K Ms. Rice 5
6 7
9 B X !! I B IT INDEX l
10 t
11 l
Exhibit No.
Description Page 1
12 FX NBC 116 NRC Inspection Report, 24
{
13 dated October 20, 1977 l
l 14 l
PX NRC 117 NRC I1spection Report, 41 4
dated November 3,1978 4
15 FX NRC 204 Documant entitled 10 CFR 50.54 61 16 Request Regarding Plant Pill 17 PX NRC 127 Note on May 2,1980 Meet tog between 77 j
USNRC, Bechtel, zack and 3
18 Consumers Power j
4 19 PX NRC 120 NRC Investigation Deport, 104 l
dated August la,1980 0
20 PX NRC 128 NRC Document entitled Consumers 117 l
21 Power Company Recommendad Order l
l 22 PX NPC 129
!TPC Docunent to Consumers Power 138 Company, dated September 2,1982 23 l
I
[
24 Y
l I' "
""I"# ' " ' ' '
Lafyeste Iktding MIo %rthn eum II.
kire tao 962 1176 n u, 3 IWrmir. \\lichigan 1822r>
Farminetun Ihlis, \\luluev. Iw '!h
1 2
E X H I B 1: T INDEX 3
4 Exhibit Do.
Description Page 5
PX NRC 130 Testimony of James G. Keppler
(/tt
.with. respect to Quality Assurance 6
PX NRC 122 Six pages of handwritten notes
/7s 7
PX NRC 126 Typewritten notes of Ronald J.
Cook
<?u 8
9 10 l
11 12 f
I 13 l
14-15 16 17 18 19 l
20 21 t
22 1
l 23 l
24 I
l l
Lu:od Reporting Serrice
,,,,,,4,,
lafayette Hutiding
,,o \\.
962 1ii6 S,,,g, 23; i
Suite raa lhetrout, \\fichigan 18226 Farmnngton Ilills..\\lichigan 18o18 i
1 Middletown, Pennsylvania 2
Monday, January 21, 19b5 3
3:00 a.m.
4 5
RONALD J.
C0OK 6
was thereupon called as a witness herein and, after 7
having been first duly sworn to tell the truth, the 8
whole truth and nothing but the truth, was examined 9
and testified as follows:
10 EXA!!INATION 11 BY MS. RICE:
12 0
Would you state your name for the record, please?
13 A
Ronald J.
Cook.
i 14 0
Where do you live?
15 A
You want the city?
16 0
Why don't you give me your home address.
17 A
236 Harvey Road, Hershey, Pennsylvania.17033.
18 0
What is your current occupation?
19 A
Well, my occupation is engineer with the Nuclear 20 Regulatory Commission.
21 0
What position do you hold with the NRC?
22 A
I'm a senior resident inspector for TMI 2, Three Mile i
23 Island 2.
l 24 Q
How long have you held that position, tir. Cook?
0 Luzod Reporting Service m 3.g,,,,,
,7 Ipfayette Building Sugge sw 962 1176 Smte 2.M Detroit. \\fichigan 18226 Farmingsce lidh. \\fichigan 480:8
1 A
Since May of 1984.
You want the exact date?
2 0
Do you know the exact date?
3 A
I think May 14th.
4 0
Mr. Cook, did you attend an undergraduate university or 5
college?
6 A
Yes.
7 0
What college did you attend?
8 A
Ohio State University.
9 0
Did you receive a degree from Ohio State?
10 A
Yes.
11 0
What?
12 A
Bachelor of n9chanical engineering.
13 0
Mr. Cook, did you conduct any pont-graduate work?
g 14 A
Yes.
15 0
What work was that?
16 A
I got a graduate degree in, a master of science degree, ir 17 engineering, nuclear engineering.
18 0
From what institution?
19 A
Ohio State University.
20 0
Uhat year did you receive phat degree?
21 A
1974.
22 0
What year did you receive your undergraduate degree?
23 A
1967.
24 0
What did you do after you received your undergraduate
'E " '" #
lafayette Railding 30810 %rthuestern flu).
Suite Mn 962 1176 Sune 23>
Iktroit. \\fichigan 18226 Farmangton littls,.\\fichige a 4801X
1 degree in 1967?
2 A
I was the operations supervisor of the Ohio State 3
University nuclear reactor laboratory.
4 0
was that an operating reactor?
5 A
Yes, research reactor.
6 0
What was your responsibilities and dut3as in that job?
7 A
Well, to maintain and ensure that ~he laboratory was c
8 operated -in a saf e manner, to review saf ety analyses for 9
proposed research at the fccility, to sit as a member of 10 the university safety committee, advise faculty and 11 students for the limitations of the machine, do research.
12 0
Prior to beginning this job did you have any experience in 13 l
nuclear reactors, prior to your job you began in 1967?
I 14 A
Yes.
15 0
What was that?
16 A
Prior to becoming the operations supervisor of the Ohio 17 State University's reactor I had been a licensed operator i
18 there and had worked as more of a technical assistant-type 19 ca pa ci ty, fabricating experiments, operating the reactor, 20 designing equipment, doing, evaluations.
21 0
Were any of your undergraduate courses related to nuclear 22 reactors?
i i
23 A
Wow.
I can't answer that without looking at the 24 transcripts.
It's been too long.
I have had courses in i
7 Lmd Reporting Sertice
, \\.
,,, y Isfayette Buddung 962 1176 Suure 2p>
Suite 630 Detroit. \\lichigan M22t>
Farrnington Hdh. \\lichigan anik
l 1
nuclear engineering.
When you limit it to undergraduate 2
can't remember whether I took any electives or not.
I 3
kind of think I did because I did take some plasma courses 4
and study under a Professor Marion Poole, which would have 5
been nuclear physics.
6 0
How long did you hold your position as operations 7
supervisor at the Ohio State University reactor?
8
)A Let's see.
I lef t the university in April of 1971 and I 9
worked at the laboratory f rem about the summer of 1964 10 through the spring of 1971.
I was there pursuing a degree 11 in work at the laboratory for income.
12 O
What did you have to do af ter the spring of 19717 13 A
I joined the Atomic Energy Commission as I guess they 1
14 called it a reactor inspector.
It was the whole division 15 of compliance.
16 0
Operating reactors?
17 A
It was operating reactors.
18 0
Do you remember what your job title was in the spring of 19 1971 when you joined the AEC?
20 A
I think they call it react,or inspector.
21 0
Where where you based?
22 A
Out of Chicago.
23 Q
In Glen Ellyn?
i 24 A
Yes.
They may have called that a compliance inspector but Lu:od Reporting Service B
lafayette Hwidine
, y,,
,,, y
.%ite (do 962.))76 Swi, 22u IMra t, \\fichigan 18226 Farmington Hdis. \\fichaean wlR
- ~ _ - - _ - _ _._ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _._ _ _.
)
1 it was basically a reactor inspector is what we did.
2 0
How long did you hold that position as an operating 3
reactor inspector or a compliance inspector?
4 A
It sounds like I wish you had your resume in front of you.
5 I worked as a reactor inspector out of the regional office 6
but there were different groups that were created in that 7
period.
For instance, the Atomic Energy Commission became 8
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
They forged a 9
technical s9pport group so I was in that and prior to 10 coming to the Midland Plant, why, I was with a group that 11 looked at construction reactors, but that division of 12 having people that look at construction reactors was one 13 of the things that evolved in that period of time from 14 1971 to 1978 and I'm not sure when that happened.
15 0
Some time between 1971 and 197 8 did you switch over f rom 16 inspecting operating reactors to reactors under 17 construction?
18 A
Yes.
I was assigned to that group.
19 0
Then you inspected reactors under construction 20 exclusivelyl is that correce?
21 A
There may have been visits to an operating reactor during 22 that period of time.
Bear in mind I had experience to 23 inspect construction plants as well as operating plants 24 and I don' t remember whether -- there could have been l
Luzod Reporting Semce 9,,
,3 jgay,,,, y149, Suite by 962 1176 Suute 220 Iktrort. \\fichigan 4822b Farmmgion llolls, Whigan +'1018
1 trips to operating plants in that period of time.
2 0
When were you assigned to the Midland Project?
3 A
It's almost easier'to answer when did I get there.
4 Q
When did you get there?
5 A
lt got there in the summer of 1978.
We moved over the 4th 6
of July weekend and I was assigned at some period before 7
that.
Let's see.
Originally there was thoughts that I 8
would go there in late 1977 and because it being a new 9
program there was normal delays that occur and so I really 10 didn't get the position at Midland until 197 8, although,1 11 had inspected Midland out of the regional of fice during i
12 I
trips before 197 8.
13
- 0 When you were assigned to Midland in the summer of 1978 l
14 what was your position at that time?
I 15 A
I was a senior resident inspector.
16 0
For the Midland Project?
17 A
Yes.
That's provided that they had a herm called senior 18 resident inspector at that time.
I mean, it could have 19 been called resident inspector.
I'm not sure.
We change 20 all these terms as history,goes on.
21 0
What was your position immediately prior to your move to 22 Midland?
23 A
I was a reactor inspector out of the regional of fice and 1 24 was with the division that looked at plants under i
Luzod Reporting Service 10 lafayette Ikiding kuite Mo 962 1176 S,,g,so Iktroit. \\lichigan MC26 Farmungton Hith, \\lichlean 1801H
1 construction.
So primarily I was looking at plants that 2
were under construction and one of those plants was the 3
Midland site.
Bearing in mind it was intended I would go 4
to Midland so it seemed very logical I would inspect 5
Midland during that period of time as well as others 6
plants, the Zimmer plant.
7 0
What other plants?
8 A
I was at the Zimmer plant, I was at a Commonwealth Edison 9
plant -- I can't remember -- Byron plant, Braidwood plant 10 although -- I think it was the Braidwood plant, oh, Marble 11 Hill.
I went to Marble Hill in that period of time.
12 O
And all these were under construction when you were at the l
13 sites?
14 A
Yes.
You asked what construction sites had I gone to.
15 0
Mr. Cook, had there been a resident inspector at Midland 16 prior to your arrival in the summer of 1978?
17 A
No.
18 A
I was one of the first out on the street you might say.
19 0
Uhat is a resident inspector at a construction site?
What 20 functions do they perf orm?,
21 A
He only inspects the plant to ensure the licensee or 22 contractors are building the plant according to the i
23 regulatory requirements and agreements that have been made l
24 and engineering prudency every now and then gets farmed l
i 11 Ls zod Reporting Service
,3 lafayette Budding I
Suite Mo 962 1176 Swt,220 l
Iktrmt. \\fichigan 18226 Farnungton lidis \\fichigan w#
l
1 into an aspect of it.
2 0
Were you on the site everyday, Mr. Cook?
3 A
Not everyday.
4 Q
During the business days were you usually on the site of 5
the Midland Project?
6 A
Yes.
Now, there were periods of time that I went off for 7
training in Washington and stuff like that.
There were 8
times I returned to the regional office for conferences or 9
meetings or such.
By having a resident -- I don't want tc 10 give an impression that five days a week with no variance 11 I was on the site because that's not really so.
In other 12 j
words, the inspectors have to go to these other meetings.
l If there were meetings in Washington, you would leave the 13 i
14 I
site and go to the meetings and so forth.
15 0
What percent of your time were you on the site?
16 A
Let's see.
At that period -- for what period of time?
17 0
Uhen you began in the summer of 1978.
18 A
Until when?
19 Q
Say the first year.
l 20 A
Okay.
The first year I had made -- there was a 21 requirement that the regional based inspectors be, 22 figuratively speaking, on the road about 27 percent of 23 their time.
I had made a comment that I was on the road l
24 27 percent of my time.
Now that would have covered the l
Lan:od Reporting Service
,,,12,,
lxfayette Building Suar Mo 962.))76 Su,g,2:a Iktroa. \\fachlEQn 18226 farminflon l$dls, \\$ichigan 180lh i
1 first year.
Bearing in mind that there was a lot of 2
logistics that needed to be ironed out, setting up a new 3
office, getting furniture, establishing procedures.
This 4
was a very new program to the NRC.
Region III had two 5
residents out at a period of time before that as a pilot 6
program, if you will.
No resident had ever been to a 7
construction site so as a net result of starting out on a 8
new program there was a lot of interfacing necessary with 9
the other factions of the agency.
10 0
Was this a new program throughout the NRC or limited to 11 Region III?
12 A
It was a new program throughout the NRC, however, to start 13 with there were very few residents that were put in place.
14 The intentions were to escalate it year by year learning 15 from -- first you put out a few and find out what the 16 problems are and after you establish that then put out a 17 few more.
And there was an intention Sor perhaps a five 18 year period of time to bring residents in basically all of 19 the sites, particularly the operating sites.
20 Then in the, spring of 1979 we had a thing 21 called the Three Mile Island accident and that brought the 22 program into action quite a bit faster than was originally i
23 intended.
Wherever else there may have been construction 24 site inspectors I really don't know, but the intention was 1
Lutod Reporting Service
} 3,,
I.afayette Ruriding suite mo 962 1176 suar 2bo Otroa. \\fichigan M226 Farmineton Hith. \\fichigan wil8
1 across the board as an agency to do that, to place 2
inspector s.
3 0
Was the Midland site one of the first construction sites 4
to receive a resident inspector ?
5 A
Yes.
6 0
Do you know why Midland was chosen as one of the first 7
sites to receive a resident inspector?
8 A
Yes.
9 0
Uhy?
10 A
Because the director of Region III wanted to put a 11 resident inspector at a plant that had controversy and hac 12 l
a history of regulatory problems.
13
!O what do you mean by controversy, Mr. Cook?
i 14 A
There was a lot of intervener activity associated with the 15 Midland Plant.
That was in the days Dave Comie and Myron 16 Cherry were receiving a lot of notoriety.
The plant was 17 built inside the city limits.
So there was a lot of 18 public opinion associated with the Midland site.
It was a 19 unique site supplying steam to Dow.
20 0
What did you mean by history of regulatory problemc?
21 A
Well, without looking at the record there had been times 22 that the plant had had regulatory dif ficulties.
Mr.
23 Keppler made statements that there needed to be more 24 regular QA.
I guess there were periods of times that l
I 14 Lu:od Reporting Sertice
,,,, y lxfayette Ha Idme 962 11I6 Susar 2:0 Surte Mo IMrva \\lochugan M220 Farmmgton llulls, \\fschigan 3018
__________._m.-
l 1
there were show cause orders.
Again without going through 2
the dossier on these things I'm having a hard time 3
resurrecting them mentally.
4 0
You referred to a Mr. Keppler.
Who is Mr. Keppler?
5 A
He was the director of Region III.
They may have called 6
him the regional administrator, director.
7 0
Mr. Cook, you j ust referred to setting up a new office at 8
Midland.
Did you actually have an office on the site, on 9
the construction site?
10 A
Yes.
11 l0 Did you have free access to the construction site?
I' 12 iA Yes.
13 0
were there any other resident inspectors when you first 14 began in the summer of 1978, or resident inspectors at 15 Midland?
16 A
No, not at Midland.
There were other inspectors that came 17 to the site.
18 0
Were those out of Region III?
19 A
Yes.
20 0
And when did they come to the site, on a regular basis?
21 A
Yes, at periodic intervals.
22 0
And were these inspectors other inspectors or were they l
l 23 assigned particular expertise or were they just general 24 inspectors?
1.uz d Reporting Service 15,,
lafayette Building l
Suite Mo 962 1)o6 Suute :2o Detroit, \\fichigan M226 Farmington tidis, \\lechigan 48018
1 A
It depended.
The one inspector was what they call a 2
pr oj ect inspector.
He would -- you might classify him as 3
a generalist-type individual.
4 0
Who are you ref erring to speaking in the timef rame spring, 5
summer of 1978, as the project inspector?
6 A
Tom Vandel.
7 0
V-a- n-d-e-1 ?
8 A
Yes.
9 0
And were other inspectors f rom Region III assigned to 10 particular areas?
11 A
Yes.
Other inspectors would come out with, you know, with 12 l
given expertise, if you will.
l 13 0
Did any other inspectors besides yourself -- let me back 4
14 up.
Did you inspect Midland exclusively f rom 1978?
15 A
Well, when you say exclusively, do you mean that is the 16 only plant I visited f rom 1978?
17 0
Yes.
18 A
Boy.
I can't recall whether I may have been to another 19 site or not during that period of time.
My primary 20 assignment was Midland and I was not traveling as a t
21 traveling inspector, but to say there was no other site 22 visited I can't say that because I could have.
23 0
Beginning in the spring, summer of 1978 were there any 24 other inspectors besides yourself who primarily inspected i
d i
d bporung Svan
_y,, \\,,,k k,,,,},
,,,, L 6
14aytteHwldung s.,ae am 962 1176 s,sa.. s -
Iktron.11:chigan 18226 Farmington finlis, \\lahnean mal 8 i
1 Midland as opposed to other plants?
2 A
No.
Is it okay if I explain?
3 MR. BERKOVITZ:
Yeah.
4 A
Tom Vandel was a project inspector for the Midland Plant.
5 He was also project inspector for the Zimmer Plant.
So, 6
you know, he would have primary emphasis for Mid.\\and as 7
well as primary emphasis for Zimmer and he may have had 8
some other plant I'm not aware of.
So, it was not in the 9
context of the Midland site team, which eventually was 10 established.
The only plants that they went to, and again 11 that only put a clarifier on there, I don't want to say 12 may, may not have gone to another plant, but their primary 13 responsibility was strictly Midland.
14 BY !!S. RICE:
15 0
Who are you referring to?
16 A
The Midland site inspection team.
17 0
Is that out of the Of fice of Special Cases?
18 A
Of fice of Special Cases.
19 0
When was the Of fice of Special Cases established, do you l
20 know generally?
21 A
Let me backtrack.
22 0
Let me strike the question and we'll get back to it.
23 A
If you tell me I could -- I can't really remember.
It 24 seems like the middle of 1981.
l 17,,
Luzod Repor..
Sersice l
1.afayette Basiding
,, y, i
Suito MO 962 ii6
,%,te gjo l
Iktreet, \\fahigan 182:ts Farmington Hith. \\fwhigan MolR L
1 0
Is it correct that prior to the establishment of the 2
office of Special Cases besides Mr. Vandel, who split his 3
time between Midland and Zimmer, that you were the only 4
inspector who spent most of your time at Midland?
5 A
Yes.
That's a correct figurization of it.
6 0
And the other inspectors during this time period, and I'm 7
referring to the spring, summer of 197 8 through the time 8
the office of Special cases was established, how many 9
other plants were they responsible for?
10 A
That's a very difficult question to answer.
If a person 11 came to the site and his expertise was, say, in concrete 12 pouring then he would probably look at some time or 13 another probably all the plants that were under 14 construction that was having concrete poured, and if there 15 were two people in the region that understood concrete 16 pouring the two of them would split all plants that were 17 pouring concrete.
18 So to say how many numbers that was, well, 19 that would be a varying number at dif ferent times and who 20
' Tad responsibilities for which ones I do not know.
Iknoy 21 that the NRC -- that that's probably in the public 22 document room somewhere, telling where the different 23 inspectors went.
It's no big secret.
2<
0 Mr. Cook, f rom the spring, sunmer of 1978 until the l
Lne:od Reporting Sert ice 3ug,9 9,, A,,,,,f,8,,,,
Infayette ikiding
% rte Mn 962.))?6 Sugar l}o Ibetrout. \\lorhigan 18226 Formungton lidis \\lahogan 18018
1 establishment of the Office of special cases did you 2
participate in all of the NRC inspections at the Midland 3
site?
4 A
Well, I don't know.
5 0
Did you participate in the majority of the inspections at 6
the Midland site?
7 A
I would say I participated in the majority of them in some 8
fashion or other.
But bear in mind we could have had 9
environmental people that did come to the site every so 10 of ten and I may not have interf aced with them.
While I 11 was away to school or something such as that there could 12 have been inspectors come on the site that were looking at l
welding and there are times these would happen that other 13 14 inspectors would come on site, look at things, and I might 15 not be there so I would not have participated in their 16 inspe ct ion.
17 Even when they came on the site and were 18 looking at a specific area I might not participate, per 19 se, in their inspection.
We would have an interface.
I 20 would bring them to up-to-date as to what areas of their 21 interest where the most activity was on the site and we 22 did talk to one another and exchange information.
If 23 there were things on the site that I was aware about that 24 would help them in their inspection ef fort, I would relay Luzod Reporting Sersice 19,,
, 3.,,
1.afayette Buddmg suar hw 962 1176 saar 22o (Mroa, \\fichigan 18226 Farmmaton lidh, \\fichigan Polk
I that information to them.
2 0
Mr. Cook, in the normal course of your business, if you 3
were on the site, did you meet with the Region III 4
inspectors who came through to inspect the plant?
5 MR. DRIKER:
Isn't that what you just said?
6 A
I kind of think.
In the normal course of business, yes.
7 When I was on site and other inspectors would come on site 8
I would meet with them.
In fact, that was what our policy 9
was, was to notify the resident you're coming on site.
10 And even if I wasn't on site a lot of times we would still 11 have an interf ace with the other inspectors.
12 BY MS. RICE:
I 13 l0 From the summer of 1978 until the establishment of the I
14 Of fice of special Cases who was your immediate superior?
15 A
There were several in that period of time.
I'm not sure 16 when the changes were again without looking at records.
I 17 started out with a D.
Hayes, who was a*section chief, ther 18 there was a Dick Knof.
19 0
Can you spell that name?
20 A
K-n-o-f; then there was a puane Boyds.then at that time I 21 think the Of fice of Special Cases was formed and that 22 would have been Wayne Shafer.
23 0
When at the site, Mr. Cook, did you meet with Consumers 24 Power or its contractors on a daily basis?
i 20, Lnod Reporting Service lafayette Iktdine Sune mn 962 1if6 Sua, 2:a introit \\fichigan $8226 Farmung:on Ihlls, thchigan 18018
1 A
Well, if you mean daily, was it precisely everyday, I 2
couldn't answer that question, but as a regular course of 3
business, yes.
I know that there would be periods I would 4
not see them because we would be writing reports or 5
putting together other evaluations for the region.
So in 6
those days I might not have any interface with them.
7 O
Did you hold exit meetings for all the inspections you 8
personally conducted?
9 A
Yes.
That's required.
10 0
Did you also hold entrance meetings?
11 A
Not too regularly on an entrance meeting.
In other words, 12 the inspection was a continuous process so you really 13 never had an entrance.
All you ever had -- at the end of 14 periods of time then you'd say okay, that's enough of this 15 evolution or the period of time has gone by where we need 16 to generate a report and so then you have an exit.
I said 17 as f ar as the entrance -- the exit probably was like the 18 entrance, if you will.
The clock j ust kept running, if 19 you will.
So we didn't have an entrance similar to the 20 entrances that are known when region-based personnel would 21 come to the site.
When they come to the site they have an 22 interface with the management and say, hoy, we're 23 interested in looking into these different areas of 24 interest and that way the licensee then can contact the l
l 21 Luzod Reporting Service l.afayette Budding l
Suite Mn 962.))i6 Swre 2;o Iktroot. \\lithigan 2226 Farmington lidis. titchigan #01R
1 people that would be hopef ully most knowledgeable in the 2
areas the inspectors are interested in.
3 Q
Let me back up a second.
You said that your inspections 4
was a continuous process.
Are you referring to your 5
function as resident inspector; is that correct?
6 A
Yes.
7 0
And there was no set duration of an inspection?
8 A
Well, later on we got more sophisticated.
We tried to 9
ride it on a 30 day period.
We used to call it a monthly 10 report.
However, there would be periods of time the 11 monthly report would last longer than a month because 12 l
there may not have been any activity on the site.
A guy i
l may go on several weeks vacation.
So these variables 13 l
14 entered into as to what determined the break-off point.
15 0
Nr. Cook, you said that you left Midland in May of 1984; 16 is that correct?
17 A
Yes.
18 0
Who replaced you as resident inspector?
19 A
well, they made an announcement that Bruce Burgess would 20 be the senior resident inspector.
21 0
In May of 1984 was the Office of Special Cases still in 22 existence?
23 A
Yes.
24 0
In May of 1984 how many inspectors f rom Region III were 1.u:od }ieporting Service 22 Infayette hiding 962 1176 sas,ia 23, saaer ma
/>ctrm t. \\fschigan tR226 Farmington flith. \\fichigan tm18
o 1
assigned specifically to the Midland Project?-
2 A
.Let me add them up.
You want the inspectors from Region 3
III.
4 Q
Yes, that were assigned to Midland.
/
5 A
Probably two inspectors then one section chief.
6 0
Who were the two inspectors?
7 A
Ron Gardener and Dr. Ross Landsman.
8 0
Who was the section chief ?
9 A
That would be J. Harrison.
10 0
Were there any other NRC inspectors assigned specifically 11 to Hidland outside of Region III?
12
'A Not that I'm aware of or can recall.
13 10 Did Bruce Burgess inspect Midland before May of 19847 i
14 A
Yes, he had been there as a resident inspector.
15 0
How long had he been a resident inspector at Midland?
16 A
Oh, that would be a little over a year.
I can't recall 17 exactly when he got there.
18 0
were there any other inspectors assigned to the site as 19 resident inspectors at this time?
I 20
,A Yes.
There was a Patrick Highland.
21 0
Do you know how to spell his last name?
l 22 A
H-i-g-h-1-a-n-d.
l 23 0
And how long was he a resident inspector?
24 A
A few months, and again I'm not really sure when exactly I
23 Lsized Reportine Service
,,y lafayette Bwidins Slite 630 962 III6 Swir 23:
Iktrat. \\tahi.can M226 Farmington Hdb. \\fahutan molk
i there.
shere any other resident inspectors at Midland?
9 the team.
Well, there's myself, Pat Highland, i
Burgess, Ross Landsman, Ron Gardener, J.
- Harrison, Crosby, which was the secretary.
As far as I can l
Sect, that's who we had.
y of 1984 Mr. Shafer was no longer a section chief
~
l 6dland?
1 1
O B.
Harrison replace Mr. Shafer?
MS. RICE:
Could you initial this NRC 116.
(Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 116, NRC Inspection Report, dated October 20, 1977, was marked for identification.)
e MS. RICE:
Por the record, I'll try to put o Bates numbers of NRC 116.
They appear to be 666, I'm guessing 66 on the first page, through 47 5.
- cok, I' d like you to review this document and tell me
.u can identify it, please?
l it look' like an NRC inspection report f or the
)
nd site for an inspection covering a period of time i Lu:od Reporting aertice 24,,
g 4 6 2. l l ~ b
% te $1 M
Farmsneton lluth. \\lahtcan Morm
1 he got there.
2 0
were there any other resident inspectors at Midland?
3 A
That's the team.
Well, there's myself, Pat Highland, 4
Bruce Burgess, Ross Landsman, Ron Gardener, J.
- Harrison, 5
Carol Crosby, which was the secretary.
As fer os I can 6
recollect, that's who we had.
7 0
In May of 1984 Mr. Shafer was no longer a section chief 8
for Hidland?
9
'A Right.
10 0
Did Mr. Harrison replace Mr. Shafer?
11 A
Yes.
12 MS. RICE:
Could you initial this NRC 116.
13 l
(Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 116, 14 NRC Inspection Report, dated 15 October 20, 1977, was marked for 16 identification.)
17 MS. RICE:
For the record, I'll try to put 18 in the Bates numbers of NRC 116.
They appear to be 19 90131466, I'm guessing 66 on the first page, through 475.
20 BY MS. RICE:
21 0
Mr. Cook, I'd like you to review this document and tell me q
22 if you can identify it, please?
23 A
Well, it looke like an MRC inspection report for the 24 Midland site for an inspection covering a period of time i
i
,, f,,
2 Laod Reporting Sersice lafyrtte Hwiding yo Smre hw 962 II ?6 Swtr2Di Iktroit. \\fichigan M22r>
Farmungton llusts \\fichiran mots
of September the 27th -- or September 29th,1977, by Ron 2
Cook and Tom Vandel.
3 0
Did you prepare this document, NRC 116, Mr. Cook?
4 A
I probably p; cpared portions of it.
If it's a joint 5
venture of inspectors, each one writes his fair share of 6
the document and I have to look and see which portions I 7
i may have written.
l 0
I O In the regular c'ourse of your business did you usually 9
write or participate in the writing of inspection reports 10 for which you conducted an inspection?
11 A
Yes.
i 12 MR. BERKOVITZ:
Perhaps you want to clarify 13 your answer, Mr. Cook, so we don't have to go back later.
14 The question was really a compound question.~
Miss Rice 15 asked you whether you wrote or participated in the 16 writing.
Could we find out which of those questions the 17 yes refers to?
18 A
Okay.
All of the above, depending on the report.
If it 19 would be a report such as this one chat would have my name i
l 20 and Ton Vandel's name on 1,t, then it would more than 21 likely be a part
.pation type thing.
However, there are 22 inspection reports in existence that I was the sole author i
23 of, you know.
24 MR. DRIKER:
You have te take them one by k
f.smd Reportine Sertice 3,, y,,;,,,,f,f ;;,,
lafayette Bwidane l
S;,, gy; 962 1176 Swre 2.%
\\
l'etrat, \\takiaan sv.%
Farmineton Hills. \\tahigan #nik
l' 1
one to determine which you authored and which you 2
participated in?
3 THE WITNESS:
That's true.
That would be 4
the clue.
5 BY MS. RICE:
6 0
Is there any indication on the document itself as to 7
whether you prepared it?
8
'A Well, right now you mean whether I was a single preparer 9
exclusive of Tom Vandel.
I 10 10 Is there anything on a particular inspection report, or or I
11
,f all inspection reports is there an area of the document i
12 that indicates who was the-primary author?
s 13 lA No.
I 14' O
Was the preparation of inspection reports such as NRC 116 15 part of your duties as a resident inspector?
16 A
Yes.
Well, see -- well, I was not a resident at the time 17 this report was written.
18 0
Was it part of your duties as an inspector for the NRC?
19 A
To write inspection reports?
20 0
Yes.
21 A
Yes.
E 22 Q
Wa s it pa r t of your dutico to conduct the inspections?
23 A
Yes.
24
- O Did you participate in the writing of all inspection d
- PorHng Sun'ce 2 6,,u) l.afhyette ikIdme 39g,o \\o,,Ak,,,,,,
Suite Mo 962.I176 Su,g, o
I)etrmt. \\fichigan #9226 Farmation flulls, \\fschigan wo18
__ _ _ _ _._ _ _ _ _ m _ m m m m m-
- m m-__._..__-._
1 reports concerning Midland?
2 A
No.
3 0
Were inspection reports in the normal course of NRC i-4 business written by one of the inspectors who conducted 5
the inspection?
6 A
Yes.
7 MR. DRIKER:
I take it by that -- you don' t 8
suggest by that that your prior answer is modified, that 9
is that where there was more than one inspector _ involved 10 each may have written a separate part of it?
11 THE WITNESS:
Where there's more than one i
12 l
inspector each may have written a separate part.
That l
13 l
would be the normal way of doing business.
However, Miss I
14 Rice there asked if I was involved in writing all of the 15 inspection reports.
Well, there are people thst would 16 come out of the regional of fice having a special expertise 17 and they would be the sole author of that report.
Now, we 18 may talk about it, my name may show up as being at their l
19 exit, but as far as setting out and gyrating the formal 20 words that go to the public document room, then they would l
21 be the sole author.
It depends on the nature of the l
22 report and who the authors were and the conditions and t
23 things such as that.
24 BY MS. RICE:
27 1.
d Reporting Service
,g IAfaytte Butiding 962 1176 S,,,re 23;
%:e Ma Iktrott, thchtsan M22b Farmington Ihlis, \\hchigan wik
1 0
was there any NRC policy as to when inspection reports 2
should be prepared af ter the inspection?
3 A
Yes.
There's been that policy for years.
4 0
What is that policy?
5 A
If I remember, we tried to'get them out on the street in 6
about a three-week period.
7 O
And what do you mean by out on the street?
I 8
iA Out of the regional office so they get to the licensee, i
9 l
you know, taking into account the normal delays in the 10 mail.
Now that's not saying every report gets out in that 11 period of time.
That's what we kind of shoot for and that, 12 l
number has varied through the years.
It used to be 30 13 dayc and you hire more secretarial help and so forth so 14 that tries to expedite the report a little faster.
15 MR. BERROVITZ:
Three weeks from when?
16 THE WITNESS:
From the last date of the 17 ins pection.
That is what our guidance.is.
Granted, every 18 report won't necessarily make that because of whatever the 19 conditions might be.
20 BY MS. RICE:
21 0
Did you ever give Consumers Power a draft r e por t, a draft 22 of your inspection reports?
23 A
I know we don't do it anymore.
That's for sure.
Not that 24 I recollect.
{
I' * '
Infayette Rusidene Swi0 %rthurste n fluy kura sw 962.))T6 Su,r, 3, Intnnt,11schigan 48226 Farmincron llalls \\fschaean 48aik
1 0
Did Consumers Power Company receive inspection reports 2
that went to the public document rooms?
3 A
As far as I know.
Well, they have an option that they can 4
respond back if they want to exclude information because 5
of part 2.7 90.
So there may be reports in captivity that 6
are differently worded in the public document room that 7
are different than what they had received to start with.
8 I don't know whether there are or are not, but the 9
possibility is there.
10 0
And who would make these revisions after a request by 11 Consumers Power?
I 12 jA They would be made in the regional office.
13
!O Did you ever draft such revisions?
i 14
! A No, not that I can think of anyway.
15 HR. DRIKER:
Your testimony is you don't 16 know whether any such requests were ever made by Consumers 17 Power?
18 THE WITNESS:
Yeah, I don' t kn~/, but I want i
19 to establish there is a provision there.
When you say is 20 every report in the public, document room, will that look 21 like that, rie executive report Consumers Power had 22 originally mailed to them, they' re supposed to but there e
23 are other provisions that may preclude that happening.
24 MR. DERKOVIT;:
It's j ust unclear.
You Luzod Reporting Service
,,h,,,,f,f,,,,,
3,,o pg,,, yy,,,
I
.%ite hw 962.))i6
.%a, y; Strmt, \\fid. an LC.%
Farminzion Ihlls \\tschaean 4801X
I would send them -- the revision would be made after they 2
would receive an initial copy of the report that was the 3
same as the public copy?
4 THE WITNESS:
In other words, it didn't go 5
l into the public document room ur.cil the licensee has a l
6 chance to look at the report and review the report and I
l make any changes or suggested changes that would be made 7
8 or things excluded, whatever.
The law gives them that 9
opportunity and if they would make such a request then the 10 regional office makes a determination whether their 11 request was valid or not that such and such information be 12 excluded.
Then the report that would go to the public l
13 document room may be modified reflecting their request to 14 have information excluded under Section 2.790, being 15 removed or modified.
16 MR. DRIKER:
Just to be clear, isn't that 17 ref erene in the last paragraph of page ene of NRC 116, it 18 allows the licensee to exclude proprietary inf ormation?
19 Isn't that what you' re talking about?
20 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
"If this report contains 21 information that you or your contractors believe to be 22 proprietary, you must apply in writing to this office 23 within 20 days of your receipt of this letter, to withold 24 l
such information from public disclosure.
The applicr.cion 1.alhyrne Lldune MN \\orthurne lfu ).
hite Mt) 9 6 2 ' l l *' 6 Swv 2:0 IWtrmt, W higan M ::n Farmineron HJh, Whigan wals
f must include a full statement of the reasons for which the 1
i 2
information 10 considered proprietary, should be prepared 3
so that proprietary information identified in the 4
application is contained in an enclosure to the 5
application."
{
6 MR. DRIEER:
Is that the only basis, the 7
basis for the licensee asking something be excluded, that 8
it contains prop'rietary information?
9 THE WITNESS:
As far as I know.
10 BY MS. RICE:
11 0
Mr. Cook, could you please turn to the page which the last 12 three numbers of the Bates numbers are 468.
If you look i
13 l
up at the top of the page it says Report No. 50 - 329/77 -
14 l
10; 50 - 330/77-13.
Could you tell me wnat those numbers 15 mean?
16 A
The 50 - 329 is the docket number for Unit 1.
The 77 17 af ter the slash ref ers to it was written in the year --
18 no, that the inspection was started in the year 1977.
19 There are times when an inspection will start like, say, 9
20 in the middle of December pnd doesn't complete until 21 January.
They'll still retain the previous year's number.
22 The 10 means this is the tenth sequential report number 23 r eq uest ed.
In other words, a report with a different 24 nu2nber that would look like it was not sequential could i
3 1,,
l'n d Reporting Service l.afgette R aiden
& ate M o 962 1176 Swt,22o
[ktrmt, \\bchigan 4CM Farmiuton Ihlh, \\hchwan 48n18
l i
I come out before this report.
But for all practical 2
purposes that's a sequential number.
It gives the report 3
a given name, referring to docket 50-329.
50-330 is the 4
docket number for Unit 2.
77 says again it is a 1977 5
)
inspection.
The 13 means it's the 13th requested number 6
for Unit 2, and the reason there's the dif ference in that 7
}
number is occasionally people obviously by this report 8
would come in and only look at activities associated with 9
the Unit 2 reactor.
1 10 l0 Do these report numbers apply only to inspection reports 11 or reports on other subjects, like meeting reports?
12 IA No.
A meeting can be given an inspection report number.
13 l
In fact, it is given an inspection report number.
14 10 Are there any other activities besides inspections and i
15 meetings which are given an inspection report number?
16 A
Yes.
We have our systematic assessment of licensee 17 performance report and I believe that's given an 18 inspection report number.
I know the meeting is.
19 0
Uhich meeting are you referring to, the meeting to review?
20 A
P,i g h t.
Without one of the, SALP's by hand I can' t remember, 21 if we used the cover letter or not.
There could be 22 investigations that would be given a number, unique 23 number.
There could be -- well, there could be vendor 24 inspections and it may involve things on a site that's i
l I.afayette Hwiding 3mto %rthurne n flu s swre enM 462 ilib Swar 2}ro (Hroa, \\fakiran 182.5 Farnungton flills, \\tahican woIH L.
q 1
under construction or operation.
Health physics l
2 inspections, training, licensing of operators are given, j
3 Q
Are notices of violation given separate inspection report 4
number s?
5 A
No.
6 0
Moving down on the same page there's a sign-off for you, 7
I for R. J.
Cook?
I 8
lA Let's back up on the notice of violation.
}
9
!O Sure.
i 10 lA If there was an enforcement conference or such, it could 11 happen a notice of violation could be given a unique 12 i
number by itself.
But most of the notices of violations i
13 go out with an inspection report.
14 l0 Again, Mr. Cook, moving down the page to about the middle i
15 I
of the page where it says R. J. Cook.
16 A
Yes, it appears that's a sign-of f.
Yes.
17 0
Did you sign off every inspection repoet for which you la conducted an inspection?
19 A
Yes -- well, no, because your section chief -- if you did 20 not have your report in yopt hand and they wanted to get 21 it out because you were gone, he could sign for you, and 22 that has happened.
6 23 0
Did you sign off on inspection reports for w:iich you did 24 not participate in the inspection but just met with the i
Lmd Reporting Sersace 33, 1.afyrtte Elmlding 962 E lI6 Smur2ho SmtehM Iktrat, \\fwhugan #9226 Farmneton tidls, \\lwhieu #401H
1 regional inspectors or attended the exit meeting?
lA I don't think so.
2 3
0 Below your name there's an approved by D.
W.
Hayes, chief 4
of the project section.
Did your superior have to sign 5
off every inspection report?
6
!A Or somebody acting in his behalf did.
This is quite a 7
normal cover sheet that goes with all normal inspections.
i 8
i There may be specialized cases.
l 9
0 Are you referring to page 468 we've been talking about?
10
.A Yes.
11 0
Moving down the same page, page number 46 8, where it says 12 Inspection Summary --
13
'A Yes.
14 Q
Does that indicate that you were on the site?
It says 15 inspection on September 27th through 29.
Does that mean 16 you were on the site all three days, 27, 28 and 297 17 A
No.
It means that was the date of the. inspection.
18 0
What do you mean by date of inspection?
19 A
I may have been there for the three days, I may have been 20 there for only one of those days.
As other inspectors 21 write reports, you can't tell whether each inspector 22 listed was thete for all of the days.
Looking at the i
23 report I cannot tell you that, whether I was there for one 24 day, three days, two days, last two days, on any report i
eporting Sertice
,,k, n,,fn,,u 4
u lafye re Bwidag 39g,g r
~
ka, nw 962 1176 Swr, yi Iktroa. \\tahiran #226 Farmmaton Ihlis thchigan ImlH
1 without going into perhaps other records if they would 2
exist, or travel vouchers I guess.
3 0
Do you recall what areas of the plant you reviewed on your 4
September 27 through 29, 1977 inspection?
5 A
Not without reading the report.
6 0
Why don't you take a minute to review the report?
I 7
!A Could I have the question again now?
8 0
Have you reviewed this report?
I 9
iA I gave it a cursory review.
I 10 0
Does your review of this report refresh your recollection 11 as to what areas you inspected?
12 lA I cannot identify all areas that I may have inspected in 13 this 1977 report.
There were certain things that I did 14 seem to recall looking at, okay, but there may be other 15 ones I looked at and I'm not sure whether I did or didn't 16 look at on this particular go-around.
To identify every 17 item in this report that only Ron Cook Jooked at, I cannot 18 make that statement.
19 0
can you state what physical areas of the plant you looked 20 at, or any areas of the plant during this inspection that 21 you looked at?
22 A
Well, there's some areas I was involved in and I -- let me l
i 23 talk to my councel.
i 24 115. RICE:
Let the record reflect the l
l I
i Lu:od Reporting Sers ace
, y,
,y,
lafayette Buildent S Lte M O 962 1176
&arg,%
IWtmr. \\tehigan tR2:n Farmineron linlis. \\takiran 48018
I witness is talking to his counsel.
2 A
Okay.
There are areas that are listed in this given 3
report that I had looked at.
Whether I looked at this 4
particular time or some other time I just really can't S
recall.
I looked at retesting for preparation for the 6
vessel lifting at times.
I looked at preparations for 7
placement of concrete on the dome.
Whether I did it at 8
this particular inspection or whether I did it at some 9
other inspection, I'm not really sure on the timing.
I 10 could ha e been the individual that looked at it in this 11 timeframe.
These words sort of reflect my style of 12 writing so I have a suspicion I probably did, but I have l
13 j
no way of guaranteeing beyond a shadow of a doubt that i
14 l
that is indeed what I looked at at this particular time.
15 BY HS. RICE:
16 0
You cannot identify any specific areas of the plant you 17 looked at during this particular inspeotioni is that 18 correct?
19 A
That's correct.
20 0
During this inspection do you recall seeing any drilling 21 rigs on site?
22 A
Is there any mention of it in this report?
I'll have to --
t 23 am I allowed to ask that question?
24 0
Do you independently recall seeing any drilling rigs?
l l
IAfyrtte Buddsne 30940 %rthmte n llue).
962 E li6
% e :31 kore hy)
IMitut, Whison 3:26 Farmmston lidh, \\hchiran 43018
_, - = _ -
1 A
No, not just based on the timef rame or the given 2
inspection.
If there was some mention in the report about 3
drilling rigs, being as Tom Vandel and I would work 4
closely with each other, then I would any yes, we probably 5
noted it together.
Just sitting here I don't recall.
6
,0 In your review of this report did you note any ref erence i
7 to drilling rigs?
8 A
No, but then I didn't read every word of the report 9
either.
10 0
During this inspection in September of 1977 did you 11 observe any unusual activity around the Administration 12 Building?
13
- A Maybe I ought to stop long enough to read all the words 14 that are reflected in this report, which will take awhile 15 to do that.
If there's mention in here, then I may have.
16 I don't really know just -- you're asking me during this 17 three-day period in 1977 did I notice certain things 18 happening, and I can't say I did notice it during that 19 three-day period in 1977.
I can't tell you what the heck l
20 I noticed.
21 0
You have no independent recollection during this 22 inspection that you saw any unusual activity at the i
23 Administration Building; is that correct?
j 24 A
Not just sitting here without studying the report.
- Now, I
Lenod Reporting Service 3mw bthurst r llo lxfayette kiding 962.))?6 Smte LM Sa,, sw IMrors, Whigan ML1>
Farmington Ihlis Whigan #nik
t 1
if the report makes reference in some of the words I 2
glossed over to that type of activity, then it would 3
probably be reasonable that I was cware of such activity.
4 0
You can take a minute to review the document.
5 MS. RICE:
Let the record reflect the 6
witness is conferring with his counsel.
7 A
Back to the questioning.
8 l
MR. DRIKER:
Mr. Cook, you made a statement 9
as you were flipping through the document.
10 THE WITNESS:
Yeah.
How did I word that?
11 You asked me one of those questions regarding could you 12 l
pick out those areas that I was the sole author on, or 13 something to that effect, that I made the under-handed i
14 comment that I was glad that I couldn't pick out those 15 areas because as I read through here some of the items Tom 16 vandel and I worked on together appears he was probably 17 the author of it but with each other's input.
So I the 18 guess the point is, it's very difficult for an inspector 19 to go through an inspection report and say that I was the i
20 sole individual involved in that because when the 21 inspectors go out we work closely with each other.
22 BY MS. RICE:
23 0
Does review of this document refresh your recollection as 24 to whether you noticed any unusual activity at the I
Luod Reporting Se* nice 3B
,,,, g
!pfayette Rwl%
Sui.. sw 962 1176 Swte 2:<r Iktroit, \\fditan Pt2.%
Farminton Hulls. \\1ditan wlM
~
'I 1
Administration Building?
2 A
No.
3 0
Do you recall that whether during this inspection, 4
September 27 through 29, 1977, whether anyone from 5
Consumers Power told you of the failure of the grade beam 6
at the Administration Building?
7 A
I have no recollection of being told at that period of 8
time.
9 l0 Does this inspection report reflect any reference to the 10 Administration Building?
11 A
No, it does not, not that I can pull out of it anyway.
12 0
would you have included such a report in an inspection 4
13 l
report, any reference to the failure of the grade beam at l
14 the Administration Building?
15 A
Not necessarily.
16 0
Under what conditions would you have reported it in an 17 inspection report such as URC 1167 18 A
If we had felt that it would have an impact on 19 safety-related structures or if we felt that it was of a 20 significant enough importapce that perhaps later attention 21 would need to be called to it.
22 0
Do you recall when you were first informed of the grade 23 beam failure at the Administration Building?
24 A
Mo, I do not.
Luzod Reporting Sertice 3 9,g,
IAfayette ihildung yo
% te M O 962'Ii ?6
% e Su iktrat. \\tahden M2.%
Farm <ngton tidl<. \\taharan walk
l 1
0 Do you recall whether you were informed prior to 1978?
2 A
No, I do not recall being inf ormed of it prior to 1978.
3 Let's see when was Gallagher there.
Can I be excused for 4
a moment while I'm up and about?
5 l0 Sure.
t 6
1 MS. RICE:
Shall we take a break now?
l 7
MR. DRIKER:
Sure.
8 (A brief recess was held during 9
the proceedings.)
i 10
! DY MS RICE:
11 0
To make the record clear, do you recall being informed of 12 l
the administration grade beam f ailure prior to 19787 13 iA No.
i 14 MR. BERKOVITZ:
I'm unclear on the question.
15 Does he recall being inf ormed prior to 1978 of -- does he 16 recall any time, being informed any time such and such, or 17 does he recall prior to 1978 being informed?
18 MS. RICE:
Let me rephrase the question.
19 MR. DRIKER:
When did you find out about the 20 grcdc beam failure, Mr. Cook?
21 BY MS. RICE:
22 0
I believe you already testified you don't rememberl is e
23 that correct?
24 A
Don't remember what?
I Lmd Reporting Sersice 4o lafvetro ik%g
,,,,0
,,k k,s,,rn,,g kar Mo 962 1176 yr, g;,,
Iktrmt, \\fichtsan 482:6 Farmington lidh, \\fakican Wik
1 O
When you were informed of the administration grade beam 2
failure.
3 A
That's right.
4 Q
Do you know whether you were informed prior to 19787 5
A If I don't really remember when I was informed, I couldn't 6
j say I was informed.
l0 So you don't know whether you were inf ormed prior to 1978; 7
8 is that correct?
9 A
We had it made before.
I do not -- I do not recall 10 whether I --
I do not believe I was informed prior to 11 l
1978.
I 12 l0 All right.
13 lA But no guarantees on that.
14 MS. RICE:
Could you please initial NRC 117?
15 (Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 117, 16 NRC Inspection Report, dated 17 November 3,197 8, vgs marked 18 for identification.)
19 MS. RICE:
For the record, NRC 117 bears the 20 Bates numbers 91700229 th r,ough 91700238.
21 BY MS. RICE:
22 0
can you identify this document, please?
23 A
Yes.
It's an NRC inspection report.
24 0
Can you tell by looking at this document what inspection l
l Lu:od Reporting Servic' nw %e e Ilv >
Isfayette (Luldune 962 1176 sa, 2),
Altr 6m l>tras \\fschigan W.%
Farminston IInth, \\lichigan wrik
?
l 1
report NRC 117 is?
2 A
You mean what --
3 Q
What is the inspection report number?
4 A
The inspection report number is 50 - 329/78 - 131 50 -
5 330/78 - 13, an inspection report of activities at the 6
Consumers Midland nuclear site.
7 0
And this is another example of an inspection report you I
8 l
were describing earlier in your testimony today?
i 9
! A Yes.
10 0
Does this inspection report, NRC 117, reflect an 11 inspection conducted by yourself?
12
! A Yes.
13 j0 Can you tell by looking at NRC 117 whether any other 14 inspectors participated in this inspection?
15 A
I would say that no other inspector participated in it 16 because no other inspector's name appears to be on it.
17 0
would an inspection report typically 1kst every inspector 18 participating in the inspection?
19 A
Yes, it would.
20 0
Since no other inspector participated in this inspection 21 were you the sole author of this report?
22 A
Yes.
23 0
Was it prepared in the regular course of your duties?
24 A
Yec.
l.afhyrtte Ikidme E '""#
"5" 3mto %rthuraern Huy Suur Mi>
962 11?6 Swr,:,m inerrar. \\fakipan 4822n Farmmetim Hdis \\tahnean wik
i 1
l0 Mr. Cook, could you please turn to page five of the j
i 2
inspection report, the page bearing the last f ew Bates 3
numbers of 237?
Let me direct your attention to item 4
number ten that continues onto the next page.
Do you see 5
l item number ten?
l 6
~A Yes.
7 j0 Can you tell me what a 50.55e item is?
8
,A That's f rom the ' Code of Federal Regulations, part 50.55 9
i (e), and it requires the licensee, that if he has things 10 that are wrong with the plant that could impact the safe 11 l
operation of the plant then he is obligated to notify the I
12 NRC of these conditions.
3 13 l0 Did Consumers Power Company notify you in September of 14 j
1978 pursuant to 50.55e of the settlement of the Diesel 15 I
Generator Building?
16 A
Yes.
17 0
Did they notify you personally?
18 A
Yec.
19 0
Is that standard procedure, to notify the resident l
l 20 inspector ?
l 21 A
At that time it was, 1
1 22 O
And did they notify you orally or through written form?
23 A
They would have notified me orally.
I 24 0
Was that also standard procedure?
Luod Reporting Service m a g,,f, ff lafvetteILdding Sir, wo 962.Iii6 k re 2.M lumt. %kigan 482.%
Farmington Ildis. \\ldiran #WX L
l 1
A That's standard procedure, that they are required upon 2
determining that such a condition exists of notifying the 3
NRC, which can be verbally or telegram or whatever means, 4
and then they follow it up with a written report.
I think i
5 the requirement is for 30 days later.
6 0
A written report on the same item to the NRC?
7 A
On the same item.
Without re-reading the regulations, I 8
think the time period was 30 days, but the initial 1
9 notification can be, like I said, verbally or can be by 10 mailgram or telegram or any mechanism that they can make 11 notification to the NRC.
And at that time -- let's see, 12 this is 78, yes -- at that time the residents were allowed j
13 l
to take 50.55e reports f rom the licensee and that would l
14 constitute notification to the NRC.
Later on that 15 procedure was changed and it required the licensee to 16 notify the regional officec.
Now subsequent to that most 17 of them would notify the resident inspectors.
Sometimes 18 we'd notify the regional office using my telephone 19 simultaneous.
20 0
Do you recall the date upon which Consumers Power inf ormed 21 you of the Diesel Generator Building settlement pursuant 22 to 50.55e?
t 23 A
You're looking for an exact date?
24 0
Yes.
Do you have an independent recollection of the exact Lwd Reporting Sertice 44 y,
,,,, y isfyrtw Bwldine Swre sw O b 2 117 6
.%w lm iktmt, Whigan 28:.%
Farmnston Hdh Whigan 48018
1 date?
i 2
A No, not of the exact date.
3 0
Does review of NRC 117 ref resh your recollection?
4 A
Let me read what is on the back here.
5 0
Let me clarify my question.
I'm asking about formal 6
notification under 50.55e.
1 7
!A Okay.
The formal notification under 50.55e I'm quite sure 8
I would have been on September 7th,1978 as stated.
9
,0 As stated in NRC 117?
10 A
Yes.
Now, on this particular item, as on sone other 11 items, I can't tell you which other items, it's not 12 uncommon for an NRC inspector to be aware that the 13 licensee has got a situation which he is evaluating to 14 determine whether he has to make a 50.55e report.
So on i
15 this particular one I knew about it some days before the 16 l
actual notification of 50.55e.
Now that's not to be 17 construed that they were violating the. law.
It was that 18 they had not made the complete determination to find out 19 whether it did fit the requirements of the regulation.
20 But there was an awareness,that there were things strange 21 happening to the Diesel Generator Building and the 22 significance of it had not been established.
23 0
And you do not recall the first dato upon which Consumers 24 Power told you about the Diesel Generator Building l.n d Reporting Sersier l5 y 1 fayette (Luldoue 4
962 lIIb kute 2.%
kutetan
[k~tnut, % h::an M L %
Farmington HJh, Uwksene WM
1 settlement?
2 A
Not sitting here, not the exact date.
3 0
Do you recall what Consumers Power told you when it first 4
informed you of the Diesel Generator Building settlement?
5 A
L6t me think a moment.
As I recall it, I was informed i
6 l
that the mud mat was pulling away from the duct bank in 7
I one of the Diesel Generator Building generator bay areas, 8
and I'm not sure which area it was, but I did go out and 9
l look at the gap that was existing between a mud mat and an 10 electrical duct bank, at least I think it was an 11 electrical duct bank.
12 I O Is this mud mat and the electrical duct bank at the Diesel 13 Generator Building?
i 14 lA Yes.
Those are concrete interfaces.
There was a pulling 15 away and I went down and put my hand in the crack that 16 existed and looked at it with a flashlight and stuf f like 17 this.
18 0
Do you recall anything else that Consumers Power informed 19 you of concerning the Diesel Generator Building settlement betwerenthetimetheyfirstinformedyouofthesettlementl 20 21 and when they formally notified you during that period?
22 A
Not specifically.
(
23 0
All right.
Do you recall whether during the same time 24 period Consumers Power dircussed any other soils problems Laod Reporting Serske
,,,, n,4 G,,,,
lafa)rtw [ksht
,,,9 m
Suite hk) 9 6 2 ' l l ** b Swu :ahr (Hmt. Whigan M:.%
Femmgton list!n %kugan walk
1 at the site?
2 A
Could you define what kind -- what you mean by other soils 3
problems?
4 0
Let me break it down.
Did they during this time period 5
inform you of the administration grade beam settlement?
6
!A I don't recall that.
7 l0 Do you recall when you were first informed of the Diesel 8
Generator Building settlement whether you knew about the 9
administration grade beam failure at that time?
10 A
I don' t believe that I did.
11 0
During the same time period when they initially reported i
12 the DGD settlement until when they formally notified you 13 pursuant to 50.55e, do you remember any discussion by i
14 l
Consumers Power concerning the adequacy of the fill under 15 other structures at the plant?
l 16 A
Well, I'm having a dif ficult time because I was in other 17 portions of the Diesel Generator Buildkng at about this 18 period of time.
Now I can't recall whether it was before 19 September 7th or whether it was af ter September 7th where 20 the topic of the dirt that was used in the Diesel i
21 Generator Building, the compaction underneath it, and some 1
22 of these things.
In this period of time about when the 23 NRC was becoming inf ormed of the problems with the Diesel 24 Generator Building there were conversations thet were f
ng Sudu 3,,g \\o,,kwn,f,f yk I.nfa rtre ktdone
.% ire >en 962 1176 swee $,
IMeat % hisas 482.%
Fernneton HJh. \\lvkieu sws
m m- - -
1 going on with Consumers Power.
2 I recall looking at other areas of the 3
Diesel Generator Building and being down in pits and 4
looking up under mud mats and that sort of stuff, and 5
exactly where I went and exactly, you know, what I looked 6
at I'm not really sure other than I do, you know, remember 7
being down in the pits in the Diesel Generator Building.
O Bear in mind that our emphasis would be 9
addressed primarily at the Diesel Generator Building 10 because of the direct impact on safety of the Diesel 11 Generator Building.
So if there were other areas of the
?
12 l
site that may have come up in the topic of discussion that 13 vere not associated with a safety-related structure, I l
14 don't know as we'd necessarily put a lot of emphasis on 15 that at the time.
It was later on that other areas became 16 important to us.
17 0
Do you recall during this time period whether you raised a 18 concern about the other structures at the plant, the 19 adequacy of the fill surrounding the other structures at 20 the plant?
21 A
I probably did.
That would be a natural.
If you have one 22 structure that is having structural problems or settling i
23 problens, then somewhere along this area, why, those 24 concerns were raised, what about the other areas of the i
l l
Luzod Reporting Sertice 4B lafayerre Hwlding
,,,,, g
.%are hm 962 11*'6 Swir 31 IVtm t, %kigen 482.%
Farmington Hulk, %k gan 4h018 1-
b 1
plant, and, you knew, exactly when those concerns were I
2 known, why, I j ust can't recall the exact timeframe.
It 3
was in this period of time.
Like I said, it would be a 4
normal offshoot.
If you have an inspector looking at a 4
5 building that is safety-related that has got sinking l
problems or other structural problems, then you would 6
7 inquire as to the conditions under other areas of the 4
8 plant that would directly affect safety.
I 9
j0 Why would that be a normal offshoot of a problem with soil 10 at one building, why would it be a normal offshoot to have 11 A
Because you would be concerned that the conditions that 12 led up to having a problem in one area were the same 13 l
conditiona used in another portion of the plant.
Until l
14 you found out that that was not the case and what you were 15 looking at was a one of a kind, if you will, then you have 16 to inquire as to what the adequacy is as to other portions 17 of the plant.
18 0
Let me show you a document that's been marked as CPC 1024.
19 A
I have seen those types of documents.
Now whether I've l
20 seen this one before or not, I can't really say.
21 0
Ubat do you mean?
l 22 A
These are notes Consomero took when they would have exit j
23 meetings.
l 24 Q
Do you recall the exit meeting referred to in this l
und eporny Sun'n
,,o y,,,,,f,,9,,,,
lafa>rtto Iktdine swr, wo 9 6 2. l l ib swre am IHmt, whigan my Farmanston ll<lls. Whitan RiotR t
1
1 l
memorandum held on September 8,1978?
2 iA Not any different than I'd recall any other exit meeting 3
and I've probably been to many, many of them in the course 4
of doing business with the NRC.
Just sitting here you 5
l say, well, gee whiz, what happened in your exit meeting 6
September 8th,1978 and I'm af raid I'd have to say cripes, 7
I don't know.
Tell me something that happened there and 8
we may jingle a nerve.
9 0
Let me ref er you back to NRC 117, which is inspection 10 report 7813 we were just looking at look.
At the last 11 page under Exit Interview, does the ref erence to a i
12 September 8,1978 exit interview ref resh your recollection 13 as to the exit interview referenced in CPC 1024?
14
! A I'm reading a paragraph on page six of the inspection 15 report for an exit interview on September the 8th?
16 0
Yes.
17
'A Now --
e 18 0
Do you recall more than one exit meeting on that day?
19 A
Normally there would be only one exhibit meeting on that 20 day.
There could be -- I pould have attended two exit 21 meetings on the same day.
22 O
Looking down CPC 1024, the Consumers Power memorandum, to i
23 item number four, the last sentence, it states that 'he" 24 referencing R. J. Cook --
1.
d Reporting Sersier 50 l.afayette ILuldung yg
.%ite hm 9h2'll?b Swtr $ o i
\\laki an #C.%
fermmette lidh. \\lahsgen $Molk lhetnu t.
t
7 y
s-l 1
A Where am I at now?
2 0
Four, the last sentence, f
3 (A
Yes.
I 4
'O Does this paragraph refresh your recollection as to 5
discussions of the Diesel Generator Building settlement at 6
I the September 8,197 8 exit meeting?
- A Say that question again.
7 f0 Does this paragraph, number four, refresh your 8
9 recollection of the discussion of the Diesel Generator 10 l
Duilding settlement at the September 8,1978 exit meeting?
lA Other than that was one of the items of discussion.
11 12 l0 Do you recall expressing an NRC concern relative to other 13 structures on the site?
14
- A Not specifically, although, like I said, that would be a 15 l
normal thing, that while we had discussed it within the 16 NRC that we would be concerned about -- and I guess that I 17 have no reason to believe that on September 8th that i
18 hadn't already transpired at that time.
19 0
Do you recall whether Consumers Power recponded at thic l
20 time to your concern about,other structures on the site?
21 A
I don't recall them responding to any other structures at 22 that time.
4 23 0
Do you recall whether at this time, the September 8th, 24 197 8 meeting, Consumers Power discussed the administration, 51 Luzod Rr[>orting Senice 3mw urunwraen nu,
lafa)rtle Bulldant 962.]l76 h"d' :~
har tan lytron t, %chtsan #C.M farmagron Hb, %chtsan WW
l 1-1 grade beam failure?
2 A
I don't recall that, no.
3 0
Let me show you a document previously marked as CPC 1030 4
A Are these out of the -- are these your records?
5 0
These are our records in this litigation.
6 A
Those are not hearing record numbers?
i 7
0 They could have been used in that as well.
Can you 8
l idsntify this document, Mr. Cook?
l 9
!A It looks like another one of the memos that Consumers l
10 Power would write af ter having an exit meeting with the l
11 NRC.
I 12
- O Does this document reflect an exit meeting held by you, 13 Mr. Cook?
14 A
It reflects that, yes, on October the 19th.
15 0
Turning to the second page of this, CPC 1030 --
16 A
Second page.
17 0
Yes, the paragraph beginning "There was a brief discussior 10 on the Dissel Generator Building foundation settlement 19 probicm", could you please review that?
I 20 A
Okay.
21 0
Do you recall taising the following questions at the 22 October 19th,197 8 meeting:
"One, what caused the 23 problem; two, what were the effects on other structures; 24 and three, what was the fix"?
Lused Reportin Sere uer 52, ggy,,, uu,,,
1 s;,,..
9sa. n. s s.t,, a.,
(kttml, \\fockigen WC.%
fernstagtort lltlls, \\fschigan 4%'ll.%
1 A
I would not have recalled raising those exact questions at 2
that exact exit meeting without the help of a piece of 3
paper that kind of said -- although, those are the type of 4
questions that we would ask the licensee over a given 5
problem.
6 O
Do you recall asking these questions, whether it was that 7
particular date or not?
8 A
Not specifically.
9 0
Do you recall whether Consumers Power gave you a response 10 at this meeting with regard to question number two, what 11 were the effects on other structures?
12
- A No, I don't.
Although, they indicated in their previous 13 paragraph in their report that there would be information 14 at some later time.
15 0
Do you recall whether by October 19, 1978 you had 16 knowledge of the administration grade beam failure?
i 17 A
No, I don't have any knowledge that I would have known 18 that by October the 19th.
19 0
Do you have any reason to believe that you did know it by 20 October 19th,197 87 l
21 A
h' ell, I'm trying to place when Gene Gallagher was involved l
22 in making his inspection investigation into Diesel 23 Generator Building settlement problems and it is my i
24 recollection that was probably the time that the emphasis --
l b
Lmd Reporting Service fy l
lxfayne Rustdone I
Suut.,riy>
962 1176 s,,,u. 2:a ik troit, \\fichigan 4922r>
Farrnungton Ihlls, \\fichigan Wik
1 that I acknowledged in my own mind that there was a 2
significance to the settling of the Administration 3
Building.
Now whether somebody had mentioned it to me 4
earlier, I can't say that.
However if they had I didn't r
5 put a significance on it at that time until later on when 6
we got looking into what were the causes for the 7
settlement in the Diesel Generator Building.
As far as 8
these questions, these are normal questions that an 9
inspector would offer a licensee if this was an ongoing 10 thing.
I'm representing the NRC and I'm saying these are 11 the type of information that while you're gathering the l
12 information that we, the NRC, are going to be particularly 13 i
interested in, which would be the normal type of question 14 oa this type of event that we would ask.
Whether it be 15 settlement or welding or structural steel, the questions 16 would be quite the same.
17 Q
All right.
Let me show you a document.that has been 18 previously marked as NRC 68.
The Bates numbers cf NRC 68 19 a r e 917 01061 throuch 91701091.
Could you please identify 20 this document, Mr. Cook?
21 A
Well, it's some kind of inspection report again, to 22 Consumers Power, Midland plant.
The cover letter 23 indicates that the inspectors involved were Jerry Philips 24 and a Gene Gallagher and Maxwell, who were out of the orung Smin I.afayetar Ruihline 3mto Northuestern !!uy Suute M o 962 1176 Swte 220 Iktrmt. \\fuchigan 18226 Farmongton flulls,.\\fichigan 48018
~--
1 regional office, i
0 Can you tell f rom the document what inspection report 3
number NRC 68 is?
4 A
Yes.
It's 50 - 329/7820; 50 - 330/7820, 5
0 Does this document reflect your participation in this 6
investigation, Mr. Cook?
7 A
No, it does not.
8 0
Did you participate in this investigation?
9 A
To what extent are you asking?
10 Q
Let me back up.
Do you know what investigation NRC 68 11 refers to?
12 A
Yes.
13 0
What investigation is that?
14 A
Well, I say yes -- let me look at it a minute.
I believe 15 ic refers to the investigation into the settling of the 16 Diesel Generator Building.
17 0
Take your time if you want to.
18 A
The investigation related to the settlement of the Diesel 19 Generator Building at liidland and the adequacy of the 20 plant area fill.
So it's p document pertaining to the 21 investigation efforts of the three gentlemen I previously 22 mentioned into the settlement of the Diesel Generator 23 Building at the Midland site, 24 O
All right.
Did you participate in this investigation?
55 Lmd Reporting Sernice
, \\.,
,,, y IAfa>rtie Raildung 962 1176 Surg, 2p; Suute hw iktrout, \\lachigan 48226 Farmington Hulls, \\fichigan 4WilR
i 1
lA No, I would not nave participated in the investigation per 2
se, but bear in mind that there is interface between the 3
resident and people that come to the site and so I had 4
talke i to them and looked at some of the stuf f that they 5
were correlating during some of these investigating 6
processes.
So I have a hard time sorting out did I 7
participate at all.
It wasn't like as if I was nowhere 8
around, and we do exchange inf ormation, but this was 9
primarily the efforts of these individuals.
At least I 10 think I was on site at that time.
We had conversations 11 with them so I'm assuming that in that shuf fle that I had l
talked with them.
This is a period of time I looked at 12 i
13 some of the information they were 2 coking at.
14 0
Prior to inspectors Phillip, Gallagher and Maxwell 15 investigating the Diesel Generator Building settlement, 16 who within the NRC was investigating the Diesel Generator 17 Building settlement problem?
18 A
The only one that -- well, I looked at portions of the l
19 Diesel Generator Building settlement obviously because T l
20 mentioned that I had.
Now thst's part of the inspection.
l l
theremayhavebeenotherinspectorsthathadcometk l
21
- Now, 22 the site from the period of September until these folks 23 started their investigation in December, and I do not 24 recall when or who they would have been, but it2c highly I
i I.md Reporting Sertice 56,,
lafayette fluiltne har Mo 962 1176 Suure 2b lletroa. \\fuchtsan M226 Farmnneton linth, \\fichican M018
1 possible because I believe I remember Gallagher being out 2
in the area, if you will.
Now, whether it was bef ore this 3
time or after this time, again I'm having a hard time 4
sorting out exactly when he was there and not there.
5 0
From the time when Consumers Fower initially told you of 6
the Diesel Generator Building problem until December when i
7 this investigation reflected in NRC 68 officially began, 8
were you the principal interface between the NRC and 9
Consumers Power regarding the Diesel Generator Building 10 settlement?
11 lA Boy.
I can't really answer that because.I don't know I
12 exactly when Gallagher got involved in it.
There had been 13 conversations between me and the regional office and we 14 were in an alert mode, if you will.
15 0
What do you mean by alert mode?
16 A
Well, it isn't every day of the week that t amebody's 17 Diesel Generator Building starts sinking and se this was 18 something that was bringing concern to the NRC because of 19 the reliance on the adequacy of that building to 20 ultimately protect the plant during an accident condition 21 should it be operating.
22 0
Prior to the time Mr. Gallagher came on site, were you the 23 principal interface regarding the Diesel Generator 24 Building problem?
i d Reporting Service 3,,o y,g,,,f,f yq fofyette Building 902*III0
% 2~~
Suite MO Dettst, \\fichipn K26 Farmington Ildis, \\fichierin MH8
-_____m 1
A There again I can't answer that because I know that I was 2
on site, I know I looked at stuff, I know I talked about 3
it.
Now when you say during this given period of time was 4
I the principal one, I'm not sure what time the emphasis i
E went to people that were more expertise in this field than 6
I.
If there's no other inspection reports that indicate I
7 there was somebody else involved in it between that perio6 8
of time, then I probably was.
9
'O Prior to the time of this investigation referred to in NRC 10 68, you referred to the NRC being in an alert mode.
Did 11 they bring additional people on site regarding the Diesel 12 Generator Building settlement prior to the time of this i
13 investigation?
14 A
That I can't recall without going through and looking at 15 all the inspection reports between that period.
I know Il l
16 had talked to Gallagher about the Diesel Generator 17 Building.
I could have done it in preparation to them 18 initiating an investigation.
In fact, that would be 19 normal, to have that happen.
So without looking at what 20 inspections were perf ormed,in that given period of time, f 21 can't recall when the emphasis was shifted over to --
l 22 transition would be a better word -- transition over to 1
23 Gallagher and the soils people.
l 24 0
After this investigation referred to in NRC 68, and I see i
\\
f LU20d Reporting Sert ice 58, Lafaytte Buildm, hite Mn 962.])76 Sw,, g5, Detroit, \\lvhien Mt22b Farmington Unlis. \\tahren molti j
1 the last date mentioned officially on the title page is 2
January 25th,1979, do you see that?
3 A
Yes.
4 0
Did you have any involvement in the soils matters at the 5
Midland site?
6 A
After this date?
7 o
Yes.
t 8
A Yes.
9 Q
What was your principal involvement?
10 A
Well, again I'm having a dif ficult time with periods of 11 time, calendar times versus events.
Dr. Ross Landsman had 12 been to the site and was involved in soils work and he and 13 I worked together on some of the QA requirements for doing 14 soil borings and such as that.
I was aware of soil 15 borings being taken at different times.
I don't know 16 exactly when these times were.
Sitting here, in other 17 words, I could j ust tell you the event.but calendarwise --
18 0
Do you recall when Ross Landsman came to the Midland site?
l 19 A
Not his first visit.
20 0
Do you recall a general timeframe?
21 A
Well, the general timef rame -- oh, boy.
During the 22 borings there was a Ron Erikson from the Army Corps of I
23 Engineers, and then Ross Landsman was kind of tied in in 24 that timeframe and I think that that may have been shortly l
I imod Reporting Service
,' 9,,
lafvette lhildung 962 1176 S,at, 2p >
Suite rm iktrat. \\lichigan 18226 Farmington Ildh. \\lichsean wnX 1
I 1*
before the forming of the Midland Section for the Office 2
of Special Cases.
Bracketing and narrowing exactly that 3
time, I'm having a very difficult time.
In other words, I 4
don't have a set of records to go through inspection 5
reports and piece together chronologically what time what l
6 j
things happened, f
l0 You're referring now to the time period some time after 7
i 8
j January of 1979 and before the establishment of the Of fice 9
of Special Cases?
10 A
I think I am.
11 0
You think you are?
12 A
The Office of Special Cases involved Dr. Landsman.
Now, I 13 believe that Ron Erikson was out there with the soil i
14 borings before that period of time.
In fact, I know he 15 was.
There would have been that involvement from this 16 time period here, January of 1979, to formation of the 17 Of fice of Special Cases where Ross Landsman and Ron i
i 18 Erikson would have been on site, as far as I can 19 recollect.
l 20 0
You referred a few times hpre to borings.
What are you l
21 referring to when you talk about Ron Erikson and borings?
22 A
We had required the licensee to go in and do explorations i
l 23 of the soils in different areas of the plant that would l
24 have an impact on the plant and so we had gotten some i
l I
I Lu:od Reporting Service 60 Infayette lhilding nw %r&tr li n
.% ute M o 962.llib Suetr 22n IHroot \\lwhigan m220 Farmmeron lluth, \\fwhigan 18018
0 1
consulting expertise out of the Army Corps of Engineers 2
and one of the individuals involved was a Ron Erikson and 3
a guy by the name of Hari Singh.
So these borings were 4
going on and also in that period of time, as I recollect, 5
Ross Landsman also got involved in the conditions of the 6
soil on the site.
Now also in that same period of time 7
i Gene Gallagher took a job in Washington with the NRC.
So I
8 there, if I recollect right, there was a transitional 9
period in there and Ross Landsman ended up coming to the 10 s1%.
11 Sitting here I'm not sure when Ross Landsman 12 started work.
I'm just kind of giving you things that 13 I
were happenins historically in that period of time when 14 i
the NRC was interested in what the soil conditions were on 15 the site.
Let's see.
Somewhere in the middle of 1980 16 there was -- there was sand in the Diesel Generator 17 l
Building to cause it to settle.
The ortly reason I know 18 that is I had a secretary to start in 1980 and I was 19 showing her the sand pile.
If I could lock in on things 20 like that, then I can establish timeframes.
21 Q
Let :..e show you a document.
22 MS. RICE.
Could you please mark this NRC 23 204?
24 (Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 204, 1
l i
Lu:od Reporting Service 3,,9 9,,,n,f,f,,,,,
IAfnyette u%lding 902'II?D Sm!' 2
S wtr M O
()etimt, \\fschigan 48226 Farmington lidh. \\lichigan 48alk ll -
I 1
Document entitled 10 CFR S0.54 2
Request Regarding Plant Fill, 3
was marked for identification.)
4 MS. RICE:
For the record, NRC 204 bears 5
Bates numbers 91201745 through 7 53.
6 BY MS. RICE:
7 l0 Can you identify this document, Mr. Cook?
I 8
A Well, I can give it a name.
I wonder if I've ever seen it 9
before.
I must have.
Okay.
It's a letter from the NRC 10 to Mr.
3.
H.
Howell of Consumers Power, and it's signed by 11 Harold Denton of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 12 l
and the topic is a 50.54 request regarding plant fill.
13 0
What is a 50.54 request?
14 A
Well, a 50.54 request pertains to receiving information 15 that is pertinent to the safety reviews associated with a l
16 I
given nuclear plant, and without reading the regulations 17 again that's about as best as I can reoall the regulatory 18 requirements of 50.54.
19 0
Is it a request by the NRC for information from the 20 licensee?
21 A
Yes, it would be a requect by the -- I believe that the 22 law -- boy.
It's obvious this is a portion of the Code of 23 Fedetal Regulations I don't deal a whole lot with.
I 24 believe it's a request f rom the NRC to supply inf ormation l
I' d Reporting Sertice 62 l Aft)ette Buildsng gg
,,,, g
.sure am 962 1176 swre :31 (k troir. \\lichigan #22t>
Farmsneton H<lls \\fichigan vin 1FI
1 that is needed for their reviews as to the adequacy of a 2
plant.
There's several provisions to that 50.54 and it's 3
been awhile since I reviewed the regulatory requirements.
4 0
In any of the other plants that you've been involved with, 5
has there been a 50.54 request?
6 A
Not that I'm aware of.
i 7
'O Are you f amiliar with this particular request, Mr. Cook, 8
represented in NRC 204?
9
- A well, I'm f amili.sr to the extent that I knew that NRR was I
l going to request information from the licensee.
This was 10 11 a thing that the NRR folks would be handling by their 12 project manager moreso than I.
Although we do talk to 13 each other, their concerns and their emphasis is somewhat 14 different than mine.
So to say that I' m intimately 15 familiar with this document other than knowing that they 16 were, you know, requesting inf ormation about the plant and 17 the diesel generator problem, that's ab,out the extent of 18 i
it without reading the document.
I 19 0
Do you know why the NRR made this 10 CPR 50.54 request?
20 A
See, I talked to Darl Hood about it.
I can't remember the e
21 details of that.
I remember talking with Darl Hood about 22 it but I just don't recall the details.
23 0
You testified earlier about NRC concerns that were an 24 offshoot from the settlement of the Diesel Genera or Luzod Reporting Sertice 399,9 y,,,,,,,f,f,,u y Lafaytte Bustdsng 962 1176 Suite 22o Suite MO (ktroit, \\fichigan 18226 Farmington Hill <, \\fichigan Am1H
1 Buildingl is that correct?
2 A
Yes, pertaining to soils and soils settlement.
3 Q
Yes.
4 A
Okay.
5 0
Did that concern continue through 19797 6
A That concern has continued through the present I believe.
7 0
The NRC has continued to be concerned about the adequacy 8
of the soil through the present?
9 A
Well, I don't know if there's ever been a complete ruling 10 as to whether the Diesel Generator Building as it exists 11 will be accepted by the NRC.
I think that that's one of 12 the reasons that there was a hearing going on, which I 13 don' t believe is finished, but I don't know how they 14 finish a hearing whnn a plant is, you know, not being 15 actively worked upon or whatever.
16 0
Did the NRC concern extend to the adequacy of the fix as 17 well as the adequacy of the soils?
18 A
Yes, it did.
19 0
And what was the NRC concern regarding the adequacy of the 20 fix, or the remedial soils, work?
21 A
Well, the concerns are that we had to be assured that in 22 the event of an earthquake or any other type of natural 23 disaster that could adversely affect the plant that the 24 plant would essentially stay together long enough to bring I
Lmd Reporting Sernice 39g,g3,,,Au,,,,fng,n 4
In.fayette finildsnt Suaetan 962 1176 Sugge so Ikttml. \\fichigan M226 Farmington littls, Stichigan WIH
1 the accident under control no matter what the conditions 2
were that started the accident in the first place.
3 Now we were inspecting quite heavily the 4
remedial soils work and when we say concern, yes, that's 5
why we were there inspecting it, to be sure that a lot of 6
the work was put in such that it would support those areas 7
that didn' t appear to have adequate compaction of fill 8
under them in the first place, or even adequate fill 9
pechapc.
10 0
Let me show you a document previously marked as NRC 5.
11 MS. RICE:
For the record, NRC 5 bears Bates 12 number N 10879 through N 10910.
l 13
,BY MS, RICE:
14 0
Mr. Cook, can you identify NRC number 5?
15 A
Well, it's a letter to Darrel Eisenhut from Bob Warnick, l
l 16 Office of Special cases.
17 0
Have you ever seen NRC 5 including the, cover letter and l
l 18 its attachment?
19 A
Well, let me look right here.
I may not have seen it in 20 its final form such ao this.
I don't know whether I did l
21 or didn't.
22 0
Can you identify the attachment to the cover letter, which i
23 begins N 10881 throuth N 10910?
24 A
Yes.
It's a report on the design construction problems 1
Lmd Reporting Sertice
,,,f,5,
,3 Injhyette Building Suite hw 962 1176 Swie 2.p1 Detroit, \\fichigan 48226 Farmington Hdis. *tichigan WilH
1 from the period from start of construction through June 2
30, 1982.
3 0
And have you ever seen this document by itself, 4
independent of the cover letter, in any form?
5 A
When you say in any form, yes.
I believe that this is the 6
report that -- well, that Ron Gardener assembled the 7
information and members of the special cases team had 8
input, we worked together on and so forth and so on.
9 0
Did you assist !!r. Gardener in the preparation of this 10 report?
11 A
When you say assist, I think he was the -- that this is 12 the one where he was the prime author but then we would 13 j
supply him information.
I may have worked on some of the 14 paragraphs.
I just can't recall what my input was to it 15 exactly, other than, again, we work very closely as a 16 team.
17 0
And Mr. Gardener at this time was an inspector in the 18 Of fice of Special Cases; is that correct?
19 A
Yes.
20 0
If you could turn to page p 10882, which is the 21 introduction page of the report, the first sentence 22 states, "Tr.e following report prepared by the NRC, through I
23 its Region III of fice", do you know who participated of 24 the Region III office in the preparation of this report?
I Lu:od Reporting Sertice 3,,,o y,,k,,,,f,6,,n y l.afhytte Huilding Sa'ite Ma 962 1176 Suite 220 Iletroit. \\lachipn 48226 Formungton llulls Alichigan 1801H
1 A
Yes.
I would say it would be all the inspectors that wer 2
involved with the Midland site, at least with the of fice 3
of Special Cases.
I think you have to realize the reality 4
of the situation to put together a broad-reaching report 5
like this.
And if you have an of fice of Special cases, 6
then all peoples would contribute as much as they could in 7
certain areas to try and assemble information that a 8
report could be ~ developed of this type and nature.
9 0
Can you identify any specific areas which were your input 10 into this report?
11 A
Not just sitting here I can't.
If I took an evening to 12 study it I might reflect upon certain areas.
Also bear in i
13 mind that sone of this information may have come from 14 other reports that had been established early on 1
l 15 concerning the time period.
l l
16 0
other inspection reports are you ref erring to?
17 h
Or management reports and things like that that had been 18 generated at earlier times.
In other words, we now have a l
19 thing called a systematic assessment of a licensee's 20 performance.
We used to h, ave things called management 1
l 21 inspections or something such as that, which was the 22 forerunners of the SALP, and there would be inspection 23 reports on our files that would, and perhaps memos or --
24 geez, I don't know.
We just, you know, like a good agency
'U' 3mto Aorthurst r fin y I,afaytte Hwldane 962 III6 Swte 220 1
Sate hw Iktroot, \\tachigan m226 Formungton Ildh. \\fichigan mom l
r
I we have lots of papers and memos and reports and things.
2 0
If you could turn to page two of the report, which is N 10 3
883, 83, all right, in the second paragraph do you see 4
where it says "Significant construction problems 5
identified to date"?
6 A
Yes.
7 0
Is item number five, which is "1578 - Diesel Generator 8
Building settlement", the soils problem we've just been 9
discussing?
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
All right.
Are you familiar with item number six, which 12 is "allegations pertaining to Zack Company heating, 13 l
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) deficiencies"?
14 A
Yes.
15 0
This report ref ers you to paragraph J-7; is that correct?
16 A
Yes.
17 0
Could you please turn to J-7.
18 A
J-7 is the HVAC deficiencies?
19 0
Yeah, page 19 of your report.
20 A
All right.
See, when it came out in final type it don' t 21 look too bad and I probably did have this in my captivity 22 at some time.
23 0
Seven begins "A significant construction problem involving 24 quality assurance problems at the Zack Company, the i
i "I
IAfayette Haildung 30840 Yorthurstern llroy Suute hy>
962 1176 suae :Jo Iktroit, \\lichigan 18226 Farmsngton Ilsils..\\lichugan utiIIR
^
1 heating, ventilating and air conditioning contractor was 2
identified in 1980."
Could you briefly describe what this 3
problem was?
4 A
Not briefly.
5 0
Well, try to do it generally.
6 A
Well, we had an investigation of the Zack Company and we 7
had findings against nearly all of the Appendix B 18 8
criteria that are required for the successful construction 9
of a plant.
10 0
Excuse me.
What are the Appendix B?
11 A
10 CFR, part 50, Appendix B, there are 18 criteria that hopefully if a licensee adheres to those he'll be able to f 12 13 build a reactor plant that will be successful, be safe.
14 0
Must the licensee adhere to the 18 criteria?
15 A
To not is a violation of our regulations.
16 0
continue with the description of the HVAC.
17 A
Well, geez, what did we find wrong?
18 0
If you need time to review, go ahead.
19 A
Can I look through this?
I was going to say we were in 20 welding prob 1 cms, weld rod, control problems, quality 21 assurance documentation, for instance, and there is quite 22 a lengthy report that was written on this and it 23 ultimately ending up assessing a 38 thousand dollar, or 24 something like that, civil penalty.
These words are trues l
I md Reporting Service 09,,
lafayettr Buildant 962 1176 suit,g;u swte Mn (Mnd. \\fichigan 48226 Fannington lidis, \\fichugan 480iX
1 "The allegations dealt with material traceability, 2
violations of procedures, falsification of documents and 3
the training of quality control inspectors."
4 MR. DRIKER:
What page are you reading from?
5 THE WITNESS:
That's on page 19.
6
!!R. BERKOVITZ:
Can I suggest you review it 7
{
and say whether it's basically accurate.
8 A
well, that nicely describes briefly the quality aseurance 9
problems that existed with the Zack Company.
10 BY MS. RICE:
11 0
And why were quality assurance problems with the Zack 12 j
Company a saf ety concern?
i 13 jA Well, it pertained to a portion of the heating, 14 ventilating and air conditioning systems that were being 15 installed, that to be able to control or mitigate the 16 consequences of an accident things vere required to be 17 performed and so there was a need for quality installatior 18 in portions of the heating, ventilating and air 19 conditioning systems as well as the impact to the 20 installations on other por,tions of the plant.
And so Zack l
21 had not rigorously adhered to good quality control, good 22 quality assurance that would allow people to have f aith l
l 23 that the systems would perform as intended with regard to l
l 24 enhancing the saf e operation of the plant and the ability b
t
,,A u,,,,fn,,g 0
'u: d Reponing Seniee IAfa)ette Hinidmg 3,,,
.%nte M O 962 III6 Saute 2 o Iktrout. \\fichigan -88226 Farmmaton lidis. \\lechigan 180lH
1 to control an accident.
2 0
Is the HVAC system a safety-related system?
3 A
Some of it is, yes.
4 Q
Why are portions safety-related, portions of the KVAC 5
system?
6 A
Well, because of the need to either supply ventilstion or
- 7 secure ventilation from areas.
That gets into the myriad 8
do you want me to go through systems analysis of each room 9
by room?
I guess I'm having a hard time with the question 10 and, not only that, there are portions of it that would be 11 considered safety-related because the failure of it would 12 impact on something that would be in proximity to it.
So 13 you would not want to have the hangers themselves fall 14 down while you're having perhaps an earthquake event which 15 the plant has to be designed to withstand.
16 0
The hangers for the HVAC system you're referring to?
17 A
Yes.
That would be the canditions in the control room, 18 not that alone, but in the control room, if you had an 19 earthquake that was causing you to shut your plant down 20 that would certainly be the wrong time to have the 21 ventilation system f all down through the control pans.
If 22 Dow Chemical was having a chlorine release there and had 23 to isolate the operators in the control room and you had 24 to get them out f rom poisonous gas, the NRC might have a Luzod Reporting Service
, S.,,,g,,,f,I y isfayette Building Suste MO 962 1176 Suite 220 (ktrout, \\fechigan M226 Farmington lidh, \\fichigan wnlR
?
1 concern with regard to the ability of HVAC to perform.
2 And there are other scenarios that bring our emphasis to 3
the importance of HVAC.
4 Q
Do you agree with the description in J-7, beginning on 5
page 19 of your report going through 20, in which it says, 6
"This problem is a significant construction problem"?
I 7
'A I would call it a significant construction problem.
You 8
might note we issued a 38 thousand dollar civil penalty 9
and that was a period of time when civil penalties were 10 not as popular as they are now.
The enf orcement posture 11 was somewhat different then.
12 0
They weren't as popular at the time the penalty was 13 issued?
14
!A That's right.
We didn't give big civil penalties at that 15 time.
The enforcement posture of the NRC has changed, has 16 a dif ferent threshold than what it used to.
17 0
Why do you consider this a significant construction 18 problem?
19 A
I think I just related one aspect of it.
20 0
Let me show you a document,that's been previously marked 21 as NRC 7.
I ask you if you can identify this?
After you 22 take a minute to look at it, could you please identify 23 this document?
24 A
This would be -- let's see if they call it an inspection l
Lu:od Reporting Sertice
,72 lafvette Buildang Swir hy) 962 1176 Suar 2.%
lietrmt, \\fwhigan 48226 Farmington Hdl \\fahrgan m018
1 report.
This was the letter that issued the items of 2
noncompliance to Consumers Power as a result of our 3
investigation into the heating, ventilating and air 4
conditioning activities, installation activities.
5 0
Did you participate in the preparation of this document?
6 A
Yes.
7 0
Ilow did you participate?
What role did you perform?
8 lA I investigated and I authored.
9 0
You wrote this report?
10 A
I believe that a Chuck Well ended up assembling the final 11 version of it but then there are portions that I wrote and 12 portions that were based on my input.
I don't recall 13 myself writing the entire document.
I just don't recall 14 myself writing the entire document.
15 0
Was the preparation of this document in the normal course 16 of your business activities?
17 A
It would be in the normal course of the NRC's business.
18 0
Okay.
You referred to a Chuck Weil.
Do you know how to 19 spell his name?
20 A
W-e- i-1.
4 21 0
Whc is he?
22 A
He was an investigator out of Rcgion III.
23 0
What is the time period of the investigation?
24 A
It wr s 1990.
b Luzod Reporting Sernice g,,,,f,fy,q 3,,g lafayette ILulding
.%lste Mo 962.]1*6 Swr, 231
[Wtrott, \\fichigan M226 Farmaneton lislls. \\fichigan woIH
~~~mn------
1 0
What time period did the investigation cover?
2 A
Okay.
In the document it says March of 1980 through July 3
of 1980.
Those are probably the exact datec.
I'm not 4
sure.
For a timef rame those are accurate numbers.
Like 3 5
said, I had a secretary that started work in April of 1980 6
and we were in the throes of this at the time she got 7
there.
8
,Q And this document was issued on what date, can you tell?
9
'A January something 1981 it looks like.
10 0
In the first paragraph on the first page let me direct 11 your attention there.
It says, "During an investJgation i
12 l
of activities at the Midland site, which began in March 13 i
and which continued through July 1980, we found major 14 deficiencies in Consumers Power Company's quality 15 assurance program, as related to the heating, ventilation 16 and air conditioning contractor's activities." Do you see 17 that?
18 A
Yes.
19 0
Was Consumers Power Company's quality assurance itself 20 deficient?
Is that my understanding of this?
21 A
Well, the Consumers Power Company has the ultimate 22 responsibility for the programs that are used by 23 contractors and such.
Now, Consumers Power did have a 24 quality assurance group on site and it's herd to separate l
Lu:od Reporting Ser n ice 74 1.n(vette Hwiding
,o g,,
.% rre M n 962 1176 Swiegio lietmt. \\fwhigan $8226 Farmsngton Hells, \\tahoean 18018
1 who had the most deficiencies, the zack quality assurance 2
overview or the Ccasumers Power quality assurance 3
overview.
The thing is that the licensee is ultimately 4
responsible for the actions of their contractors.
5 0
And the civil penalty was levied against Consumers Power?
G A
Indeed.
7 O
And how much was that civil penalty?
8 A
Thirty-eight thousand dollars if I recollect right.
- Yeah, 9
38 thousand dolitirs.
I'm not sure if that wasn't 10 ultimately adjusted.
It seems to me there was some 11 contention on one or two points, if I recollect right.
12 There was an adjustment that was made to it, if I remember 13 right.
7 %now it was talked about and I think it was 14 ultimately made.
15 0
Did problems, Consumers Power problems with the HVAC 16 system and the zack Company continue af ter January of 1981 17 when the civil penalty was assessed?
i i
18 A
Well, let me just think.
There was a period of time which 19 may have been -- boy, what did they do then?
let me 20 think a moment.
Again I'm having a difficult time 21 bracketing exact calendar days.
After this event happened j
22 Consumers Power put an overview on zack Company in the 23 hopes that the zack Company -- and forced Zack Company in i
l 24 fact to upgrade their procedures and do all the things l
Lu:od Reporting Sert tce 5,
,3 lxfyrtte Budding Suite fan 962.]176
.snite 22tI Iwort. thchigan 48226 Farmington Hdis, \\lichigan 18018
\\
1 that would keep the place out of regulatory problems.
2 Zack Company ended up hav ng -- well, I 3
don't want to characterize it as regulatory problems, but 4
they were not performing in a manner to which Consumers 5
had hoped that they would perform.
Now, the overviews 6
that Bechtel was putting on them didn't seem to be working 7
and it lookod like the Zack Company was once again going 8
to get the licensee into regulatory problems.
I had 9
conversations with consumers about that.
I'm not sure 10 exactly when these happened.
I can't glie you the daten, 11 I can only give you the story.
12 Then consumers Power, I guess, did an audit 13 l
of Zack Company and the overview of Bechtel on Zack i
14 because, see, Zack worked as a subcontractor to Bechtel.
15 They were not happy with what they found and they removed 16 all quality control, quality assurance responsibilities of-17 Zack from the Zack Company and created.their own quality 18 control group and quality assurance group and made them a 19 quality assurance group intimate with the HVAC 20 installation work, the reinspection work that needed to bo l
21 done, the repair work that needed to be done, so forth and l
l 22 so on.
And ultimately they did that very well and in fact l
l 23 we wrote a SALP report and gave Consumers Power kudos for l
l 24 their aggressive action in taking control of the problems I
l l
Lmd Reporting Sertice 76,,
lafayerre Rwidsne Suur Mo 962 11*6 Suur 5 0 IWtrmt.1hrhigan M22b Farmington lisIh, Whigan 3018
1 that Zack -- asserting themselves on Zack.
Now what time all this happened I don' t know.
3 MR. DRIKER:
They took control.
They was 4
Consumers Power?
5 THE WITNESS:
That was Consumers Power.
And 6
there is a report, it was a SALP report, where we gave 7
them kudos for doing that.
In fact, I still say that they 8
did well in that area.
They formed that group and at that 9
time our regulatory problems seemed to go away.
Now 10 that's not saying that we couldn't find an item of 11 noncompliance every now and again, but an item of 12 noncompliance does not necessarily constitute a regulatory 13 problem.
It can, depending on the nature of the item of 14 noncompliance.
Most usually it does not, one single item.
I 15 Time out for a break yet?
16 BY MS. RICE:
17 0
Well, I've got a few more on this.
If,ycm want to break 18 now, that's fine.
If you'd like to break for lunch now, 19 we can.
I've got a few more questions on the Zack HVAC.
l l
20 It's up to you.
l 21 A
We might as well just go the HVAC.
l 22 MS. RICE:
Could you please mark this as the i
23 next NRC exhibit, which appears to be NRC 127.
24 (Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 127, lu d R' Porting Settice yg,o y,,g_,,f ff,,
IA fG)Til! OU$0ing SYtr MO 902'III0 5" 2~'"
(ktrout, %chigan 18226 fmnt'on Ildl'. \\lichigan 1801R l
_.---______=----
l l
t 1
Notes on May 2,1980 meeting 2
between USNRC, Bechtel, Zack 3
and Consumers Power, was marked 4
for identification.)
5 DY MS. RICE:
6 0
The court reporter has just handed you a document marked 7
NRC 127, bearing Bates numbers 90506844 through 90506853.
8 Can you identify this document, Mr. Cook.
9 A
Is this all there is to it?
It seems to me like there 10 should have been a cover sheet to it.
11 0
That's all this particular one has.
Whether in one form 12 or another it had a cover sheet, I don' t know.
l 13 jA Okay.
Well, as the title indicates it's notes on May 2, 14 1900 meeting between USNRC, Bechtel, Zack and Consumers 15 Power Company.
16 l0 Does NRC 127 reflect your attendance at this meeting?
17 A
Yes, it does.
18 0
Do you recall this meeting?
19 A
Let me go through and see what some of the topicc were.
20 0
Sure.
21 A
I'm quite sure if my name is there.
It looks like it's 22 the notes of an enforcement meeting.
That's why I thought i
23 there would have been another cover sheet on this.
I 24 can't remember where we're at.
I can't place this l
\\
ePorang Sun ice Isfayette Hutidm, 3mso Yorthunte n lluy sure,x 962 1176 Su,ge :;o (Hrmt. \\fichutan 48226 Farmmaton Hoth, \\tahigan Wl8
_j
1 meeting, where we're meeting on this issue, but it looks 2
like the notes from an enforcement conference -- I can't 3
recali it, really.
4 0
You don' t have any independent recollection of this May 5
2nd,1980 meeting?
6 A
Bear in mind there were several meetings at that period of 7
time and -- let me look through here more.
I'm not sure 8
which one this really was.
There was, like I said, there 9
were several meetings that had occurred and out of the 10 several meetings which one is this?
11 0
Does NRC 127 refresh your recollection about the May 2nd, 12 1980 meeting?
13
!A Yes, the topics do.
I think that we were in the regional l
I 14 office in the conference room.
That's the part I'm having 15 a hard time locking'in.
I remember the issues being 16 brought up.
I was working with Poster with regard to the 17 reactor pressure bolting problem.
The.Zack issues were 18 already -- were being known at the time and I think it was 19 in the region office and I'm having a hard time picturing 20 the room.
21 0
The thing you're uncertain about is the actual location of 22 the meeting; is that correct?
I 23 A
If I can lock-in indeed this was a neeting I was sitting 24 at a given end of a table, if that was -- if it was in Lusod Reporting Service 19, 1 fayette (kIdung 4
962 ))?6 S,,,,, ;pp Suae Mn
!%t, \\fichigan 48:26 Farmenaton listis. \\lahigan wilt
~ ~.____________________________
1 that region office, then that was the meeting.
If not, i
2 then I'm not sure which meeting it was other than the t
3 topics being discussed by Mr. Keppler, you know, we were 1
4 involved in that and I was there.
I would go to these 5
type of meetings for input and obviously being involved in 6
j both reactor pressure vessel bolting failure and the Zack.
7
'O What was your involvement in the Zack problem?
8 lA I was part of the investigation of it.
9
'O what was your involvement in the reactor bolt -- reactor 10 l
vessel anchor bolt problem?
11 A
I happened to be on site when the bolts failed and I have 12 knowledge how vessels are put together, or bolting like 13 that are put together, how they are installed, so I fed l
14 information into Foster and they went looking into the 15 type of problem, the f act it appeared to be a brittle-type 16 of failure.
These engineer type inputs.
17 0
All right.
On the first page, Mr. Cook, the paragraph, I t
la i
guess the third paragraph down that begins "With regard to l
19 the Zack Company", do you see that?
20 A
Yes.
(
21 0
It says "With regard to the Zack Company, Mr. Keppler 22 stated that Region III was concerned with the OA/0C f
l
(
23 implications.
It was Mr. Koppler's perception that the 24 problem was known ahead of time and that there was l
I' "
- 'U"?
lathyrtte llwidmg 3rmo %rthurste n fluy.
Suur Mo 962.1176 Ssate 2 'o intrmt. W hican Pt:26 Farmmaton flath. Whican 1801M
m_ _ _ _-
l 1
ineffective dealing with the problem."
Dc you see thati 2
A Yes.
3 0
Do you know what is referred to here, the problem was t
4 known ahead of time and there was ineffective de
..g with 5
i the problem?
I lA Yes, kind of.
Of course, it would be almost better to ask 6
7 Mr. Keppler, but there were a lot of deviation reports 8
that were being written against the Zack Company by 9
i Bechtel.
Bschtel was overviewing the work of Zack, and 10 that was one of the indicators, and we felt that Consumers 11 Power should have looked at that in an earlier point in 12 l
time, ao to why there was so many deviations being 13 l
written, why the work force had been able, if you will, to I
14 outstrip the cuality control peoples in the time delay.
15 Ta other words, if you have lots of people 16 working and a f ew people inspecting, the work force can 17 put in material at a much faster rate bhan it can be 18 inspe ct ed.
Therefore, if there'n something wrong with it +-
19 we felt that the 0 coverage should have been more 20 in-depth as well.
As : safd, the emphasis would have been.
21 put to the trend thet could have come from the deviation Si norts that were being generated by the Bechtel oversee i
n p, especially with the nuraber of QA people that oumerc had on site at the time, which was probably l
Lu:od Reporting Service 81,,,
!afayene Iktdine 962 1 iib Satar 2:a Suar MO IMrott \\1whigan 48226 rarn ston Hills, \\lahigan wn]H m.
l 1
l greater than anybody else had that was building a plant.
1 2
0 I' m sor ry.
You stated Consumers Power had more quality 3
assurance people on site?
4 A
Yes.
They had a quality assurance group which -- boy, I 5
just don't remember the exact numbers, but in comparison 6
to other sites that were under construction they had quite 7
a f ew people there, you know, a lot of involvement OA-wise 8
on their site, a=s compared to the Zimmer site that had 9
very few people.
10 0
Consumers Power had more quality assurance people than 11 l
Zimmer?
I 12 A
Yes.
In fact, Tom Vandel and I had talked.
He and I had 13 both had been to Midland and to the -- anyway, Tom Vandel I.
14 and I had said upon the occasion after looking at the 15 Zimmer plant and looking at the Midland plant that more 16 times than not we wished -- seme of the OA talent that had 17 come into the plant was down at the Zimmer plant.
18 0
So in this paragraph when it states the problem was known 19 ahead of time and the~e was inefiucsive dealing with the l
l 20 problem, that ref ers to Consumers Power's inef f ective 1
21 dealing with the problem; is that correct?
l 22 A
I would say so, yes.
I i
23 0
Is it also ref erring to Consumers Power knowledge ahead of
(
24 time of tbt problem?
l 1.u: d Reporting Service 82 1.afyrtte Hudding k re M O 962 1EIb kte :31 l
lhtrout \\ftchigan 482.%
Farmington Hdis Afschigan Whlh l
_ a _ _ ____._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _
1 A
Yes.
2 MR. DRIKER:
Just to be sura, you're 3
interpreting someone's notes of a third person's words; is 4
that right?
This was neither your minutes or your 5
statement?
6 THE WITNESS:
That is not my statement and I I
did not write that statement.
I 7
8 MS. RICE:
Mr. Driker, I'd wish you save 9
those questions for cross.
10 BY MS. RICE:
11 0
Nr. Cook, what is your basis for your interpretation of 12 l
these statements about the problem being known ahead of 13 time and the ineffective dealing with the problem; do you 14 have personal knowledge of these?
15 A
Yes.
Bechtel was overviewing the work of Zack because 16 they were a subcontract to Zack and indeed they had been i
17 looking at -
had been generating deviation reports l'
18 pertaining to the work that Zack was performing, and that 19 should have been an indicator.
Now, I'm trying to picture 20 the QA person f rom Consumers Powe that looked at Zack and 21 I think it was a person by the name of Zimmerman.
I'm 22 getting off the path here, e
23 I know that in the discuccions that the 24 investigators had with Mr. Keppler that we f elt there ha6 I
1 l
lafnette ikildmg 30830 %rthwt r flu >
Suite hw 962 1176 Susic 2l.m Detroit, \\fickipn 22.%
Farmuton listis, \\fichigan wols
___.__m__________,
l 1
been enough information available that Consumers should 2
have been on top of the problems at Zack.
Exactly what 3
thosa real reasons are right now and without studying all 4
the papers that might exist on Zack, I'm having a little 5
bit of a hard time deciding what was the real basis of 6
that, other than I can recall the number of deviation i
j reports thGt were being generated with regard to Zack that 7
i S
i should have been an indicator, s
9 But it seemed to me there were other things 10 l
that involved the Consumers Fower QA people, surveillance 11 of Bechtel, surveillance of Zack, that should have been 12 indicators and I just cannot lock in on those specifics at 13 this time.
There's been too much time gone by.
Mr.
1 i
14 l
Keppler makes these type of statements based on the input 15 from inspectors and investigators and so forth and se on.
16 0
And did you provide input to Mr. Keppler concerning the l
l 17 l
Zack HVAC?
18 A
Yes.
19
- O And your previous answer with the description of the QA l
20 problems was based on your,own participation and 21 investigation of Zack HVAC; is that correc c 22 A
Which previour answer?
i l
l 23 Q
TM previous answer where you were docussing about your i
l 24 basis for saying that Consumers Power should have known l
l l
Lu:od Reporting Sern see 84, j
Ig verre n, w a kure Mn 962.))i6
,y,,,,,,ny,
IWtroit. \\tachigan 4M.M Farwngton ll.lis %higan W13
Il 1
ahead of time.
2 A
Yes.
3 O
Let me show you a document that's been previously marked a
4 as NRC 29.
After you have a moment to review it, could 5
you identify that document?
6 A
Well, it's where-Tom Novak has made a notification to the 1
7 Atomic Licensing and Safety Board of identified problems 8
at the Midland site.
lQ Did you receive any portion of this document?
9 10 A
Well, yes.
I probably actually received the whole thing 11 somewhere in the shuf fle of paper that I would receive at 12 the site.
Let's look at the PN's.
13
'O You j ust ref erred to a PN.
What is a PN?
14 IA Preliminary notification.
15 l0 Notification to who?
16 A
The world.
There's a list on the bottom that tells.
17 0
All right.
18 A
It's if you have a significant event happening at a site 19 that now you are obligated to get che information out to 20 people that you would not wish to have inquired about and 21 standing there flat-footed and not being able to answer 22 their questiono, such as the commissioners.
This is an i
23 internal document that we use for alerting, you know, the 44 people with primarily -- a timely alert to the people in 3,mg 3,,,g_,f,f,,,,,
L.nzod Reporting Service lafaytr* Ekidsng SQre sw 962 1]?6 Swie 2,w
[htrat, \\twhigan M22e Farmagron lidis, \\tahtan MM
_a_.___._._._._
1 the NRC to get the information disseminated throughout the i
2 NRC primarily.
But ultimately it ends up a lot of other 3
people get it and I guess that's fine, too.
4 If you had an event at a site and you waited 5
until the inspections and investigations and relorts were 6
l written and everything like that, well, that would mean 7
that you kept, for instance, the commissioners standing ir 8
the dark trying to make rulings on stuff they don't know 9
anything about.
So this licensing board by virtue of law, i
10
]
if there's things that would impact a hearing process of i
11 l
what's going on at the site, we are obligated to notify od i
12 l
at least recommend a notification of the, you know, of the i
13 hearing board.
i 14 O
Are these preliminary notifications prepared in the 15 ordinary course of NRC business?
16 A
Yes.
17 0
And who are they usually prepared by, persons with the 18 direct knowledge, superiors?
19 A
No, it's usually the person with the direct knowledge.
20 0
Do you know who prepared this, these two PN's?
21 A
You know, I think what you got are the same.
22 O
Do you know who prepared this PN?
t 23 A
Well, I can tell you in a minute here.
24 0
Sure.
, 8 6, l' a : d Repo.-tim e Sers ice lat;uyette ikildung y,
%' ire Mo 962 1176 Saiu lJo Iktrost, \\tahogan R:.%
Farmington Hulls \\tahutan 18018
_ - - - - - - - ----- - - - - - - - - -.--..- = --....:-- - - -- - --
1 lA Probably the author was Ron Gardener and I was probably --
2 well, in fact, I know I waJ -- I instituted the 3
notification to the region.
So the PN's would have come i
4 out of a regional affice, not out -- this would have been 5
l a regional document as opposed to a recident inspector 6
i office.
So someonc in the region would farm it through 7
the system in the r eglen because they had the ability to 8
disseminate the information and such.
However, I feel --
l 9
right now I think it was Ron Gardener I was talking to.
10 It could have been Wayne Shafer, but this information 11 originated at the site and I phoned the information to the 12 l
region.
13 I can' t say, well, I did on this one, but i
14 there are times I would write the handwritten draf t 15 paragraphs, or whatever, and we start the documentation 16 process.
In other words, I realize that might be somewhat 17 inefficient, but many many people get knvolved in trying 18 to put out a preliminary notification.
19 0
What does the preliminary notification contained in NRC 29 20 deal with?
21 A
This one has to do with qualification of the welders that 22 were being qualified by the Photon Testin Company.
I 23 Q
And what was the problems with the qualifications?
24 A
Oh, boy.
l l
t "I
lafyrtte Bwidate 3Mto %rthunt r Hu ).
Swte sw 962.!!i6 Swir ;9)
Detroa, \\lahigan 4My>
Farminton lidh, \\fakiran WM
r 1
0 If you can state briefly.
2 A
Well, let me look again here.
There was some problems 3
with the control of test samples that the welders welded.
t 4
When a welder goes to qualify he's required to demonstrate 5
that he can weld so he makes test samples.
If I remember 1
6 right, there was some problem in the ability of Photon 7
Testing to shcw that the welders had indeed actually 8
I welded to the gi~ en procedures as written by the Zack v
i l
Company for that type of welding.
You know, the details 9
1 10 of it, other than a thumbnail sket;n, I just don't recall 11 all what were the problems with the program and such as
)
this.
I just don't recall any longer.
12 13 0
Does this problem with the qualification of welders relate 14 back to the Zack HVAC problems we've been previously 15 discussing?
16 A
No, this is sort of a different issue.
As a means of I
17 getting well, there was a requirement to have the welders 18 qualified and demonstrate that indeed they could weld to 19 the procedures as described by -- that are described in 20 use for the installation of the heating, ventilating, air 21 conditioning equipment.
And they were using Photon 22 Testing to qualify the procedures, if I remember right, am 1
23 well as the welders.
And so Consumers was in the process 24 of, if you will, getting well and indeed this is l
I f*'
1 feyette liwidmg 3mto %rthurstern lju s.
4 Swir hp) 962<llib Swte 5) is *rmt. \\lakwan M.%
Farmmaton lidh, %ksgan 48018
1 I
1 indicative that they went out, Consumerc' QA went out, and 2
found there were problems with Photon Testing, which then 3
would cast aspersions on the qualifications of the craf ts I
4 people that they had available to weld.
5 l
In other words, if there's something wrong l
6 l
that says there was not rigorous control of the testing of 7
the welders, then that would put the qualification of a 8
i given welder, it would cast aspersions on it.
So you I
9 wouldn't know whether he could weld or couldn't weld.
So, 10 as a net result they said, hey, we have to assune that 11 none of our welders are qualified.
I 12 f
HR. DRIKER:
When you say Consumers was 13 l
getting well, did you use the vord well or weld?
14 THE WITNESS:
They were getting well from 15 their problems they had had.
Prior to this time there was.
16 some bad problems with what wars going on at the Zack 17 Company and so when they formed the quality assurance 10 group to oversee Zack, that's what I was ref erring to as 19 they were getting well.
Getting well from the 38 thousand 20 dollar civil penalty and all the attributes that went into 21 determining that 38 thousand dollar civil penalty.
So 22 that was what I meant by get-well program.
l 23 DY MS. RICC:
24 0
was there a stop work order issued?
Is that what this Lusod Reporting Sersice
),9 lafayette Rwiding 962.))?6 Swr, Lm Suite M O IMrat, \\fichigan #L%
Farmington Hdh, \\fschigan 18alk
L i
1 preliminary notification is about?
2 lA I don' t recall whether there was a stop work or not.
3 0
What does the first paragraph ref er to then when it says, 4
'All safety-related welding on the heating, ventilating 5
and air conditioning (RVAC) was stopped November 30, 6
1972"?
7 A
That was to distinguish whether they said stop work or 8
whether they actually issued a formal stop work, and I i
9 i
don't recall.
6 10 Q
Does the 1972 appear to be an error here?
11 A
That's an error.
It's 1982.
12 l0 So in any event work was stopped on welding on RVACI is 13 i
that correct?
14 A
Yes, that's right.
15 0
In november of 1982?
16 A
Yes.
And, you know, the work was stopped.
I guess I was 17 interpreting the question you were askkng me did they 18 issue a stop work, and I just don' t recall at the time 19 whether a formal stop work was issued or just the work l
20 stopped.
I remember that being an item of discussion 21 during some of the hearing processes, and I don't remember.
22 which one.
But to us that's kind of a moot point. It was 23 identified there was problems with the welding procedures, 24 the control of it and the qualification of personnel and I
I I
i la iyrtte lhidine 3m40 %rthurarrn fin w
Suor MO 962 l!?6 Suar 22o Iktrmt. \\lahigan #9226 Farmington lidit, \\fwhigan IMIR
~
i the whole welding process put in question and Consumers, 1
2 whatever.nechanism was used caused the work to not go on 3
any further until they could find out what was going on, 4
what needed to be done to solve the problem, to get the 5
work back on again.
6 l
MR. DRIKER:
Is this a good time to stop f or I
7 lunch?
8 l
MS. RICE:
Any time is fine.
I jurt had one 9
more on HVAC, but if you want to stop, that's fine with 10 l
us.
11 Don't be deceived by the size of this.
l 12 i
THE WITNESS:
I was going to say, common, 13 lady.
i 14
! DY MS. RICE:
15 0
Let me show you a document : hat's been previously marked 16 as NRC 31.
17 A
I'm sure glad they don' t require us to, memorize this.
18 0
And could you please take a look at it and tell me if you 19 can identify this document.
20 MR. RICE:
For the record, the document was 21 used '.n the deposition of Mr. Warnick and the NRC gave us 22 copies directly and that's why it doesn't bear any Bates 23 numbers.
24 A
Well, it's an inspection report of 83-08 for a period of l
f.n d Reporting Seveice 3,,9 y,,,,,n,f, gg lafayette Buddme 962.))?6 Swr, gyo
% rte M O Detmt, \\tahigan 482.4>
Farmmeron Hah, \\lahigan wai8
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -----. _ _ - _..- - -- - i 1
May 10,1983 through February 19, 1984.
2 BY MS. RICE:
3 0
Did you participate in this inspection or investigation, 4
inspection?
5 A
I'm not even sure what it's involved with yet.
6 0
Okay.
Take a look.
7 A
This was -- let's see, I got to think.
Again we' re on 8
this clarifier participation.
Bill Rey was in our office.
9 Bill Key and I talked.
There he goes, NRC, Ron Cook, 10 senior resident inspector.
j I
11 l0 What page are you ref erring to?
12
'A That's on page two.
i 13 0
of the report?
14
'A Of the report.
15 0
Under the page entitled Details?
16 A
It says -- here's some of the people that was contacted 17 and Ron Cook was one of of the people bhat was contacted.
18 So, there was an involvement on my part because of being 19 f amiliar with the Midla: d site and what went on with the 20 original Zack investigatiop and right now I can't remember 21 any particular areas that I raay have looked at and fed 22 information back to Bill Key, although, Bill Key used our i
23 offices and he and I did talk and we did look at 24 procedures together and exactly which procedures I really t
l 92 Lu:od Reporting Serss.ce 1 fayette (Leidme yaw u, car,reen sin 4
kite hN qgy,;y*g kute.".h e IWm t. %fahttan W.%
farmmeron listin, \\luchugan Wil8
r 1
1 don't know other than, you know, there were things that I 2
have expertise in.
3 We talk with each other and work together.
4 So I'm having a hard time saying this is not my 5
investigation report or I was not a lead party to it, but l
it's obvious there was an exchange of information 6
7 pertinent to obviously come of the items in it, and which 8
items I don't know.
In fact, I wonder if we even got a 9
copy of it at the site.
10 0
Do you know what this investigation, this inspection 11 addressed?
12 lA Yes.
There were a number of allegations against the Zack i
{
Company and they were brought about because there had been 13 14 allegaticna f ror.. a person working out of the Zack 15 cor porate of fice.
Well, Zack has their corporation 16 located in I think it's Cicero, Illinois, the Chicago area 17 of Illinois somewhere.
I've never been to the place.
18 But, anyway, somebody from that organization made 19 allegations at the regional office and then some of these 20 allegations implicated somp of the things that were going 21 on at the Midland site.
22 So then the investigation team of Hawkins 23 and Key were put together to go and resolve those types of 24 allegations and I said some of the allegations brought the 93, 1.us d Reporting Sernce lafvette ILdding k re M o 962 ii?6 Suite 2.m iktroa. \\fakiga $2.%
Farmington lidis. \\fachtge WIM
_e______;_.________________
i 1
team, if you will, out to the Midland site because we were i
2 one of the people that received bits and pieces.
I mean, 3
the Midland site was one of the sites that received bits 4
and pieces out of the Cicero factory.
5 0
Is this inspection related at all to the HVAC Zack 6
problems we were discussing earlier?
7 iA No -- well, yes and no.
The issues we were discussing l
earlier were the controls only on the site.
In other 8
9 words, those were strictly a site issue.
10 0
Midland site?
fA Midland site.
Now, granted, the Midland site did receive 11 12 j
components and equipment out of the Cicero of fice but then 13 it was how those were nandled on site was what the 14 l
original investigation addressed.
This investigation 15 addressed what happened at the Cicero operation and the 16 impact on the site.
17 In other words, if the CLeero operation made 18 garbagey pieces and sent them to Midland and Midland said, 19 hey, these are garbegey pieces and sent them back to the 20 Cicero office, then that's,saying the program at Midland 21 is working.
Now if the Midland site would receive them, 22 accept them and put them in with loving care, then that i
23 would say there would be something wrong with the Midland 24 program to accept pieces that did not conform.
f.u:od Reporting Senice
,,,,9 4 3,,
y I.nkytte Budd<ne Santa Ma 962 11e'6 Suute2ba 1%t. \\tahrean 4R2.%
Farm <ntton Hdis. \\fschigan wulk
__.______n______
1 0
How did this inspection relate to Midland besides the fact 2
that --
3 A
Other than -- as I understand it, Midland was a repository 4
for the products that were coming out of the Cicero 5
controlled operation.
So this would be, figuratively 6
speaking, would be the impact on Midland from an external 7
source.
8 l0 I want you to turn to page -- we'll try to get you there 9
since they're not Bates numbered and there's several 10 different sections --
11 A
tiow, granted, you know, soma of the allegations that were 12 i
made over in the Cicero office could talk about things l
13 j
that had happened on the Midland site.
I 14 l0 Could you please, it'e about a third of the way into the 15 document, this is going to be difficult without Bates 16 numbers, and it's in section two, page 15.
I'l A
What does the page look like?
Page 15,. excessive blow 10 ho.les.
19 0
You got it.
7'.
'A Just by luck.
21 0
Item number three, which you just referred to, excessive 22 blow holes in the control room duct work rather, do you i
23 see that?
24 A
Yes.
i E.
d R' Porting Struce 95,,
l,nfayet!! fktidtn, s
,9 -
9 s 2. m a s,, n.
Ikmr. \\tachtsan LC2r>
Farnung,on lidh. \\fichiene 44u!8
li 1
l0 The very last sentence of first paragraph states --
t 2
'A Where I an at?
3 Q
First paragraph under item three.
4 A
Let me read what the gist is here.
We had definitely blow 5
l holes.
Okay.
6 0
Could you tell me what item number three, excessive blow i
7 holes, what that discussion is of?
8 i A You mean you want an engineer discussion?
9 0
Let me back up.
Pirst off, what to a blow hole?
10 lA That's where when you try to weld thin gauge -- a common l
11 case is where you're trying to weld thin gauge metal to a 12 heavier component, like angle iron, and because of the 13 amount of heat that's necessary to melt the angle iron and 14 p
make the tin, if you will weld to it it creates a l
15 condition where the tin goes away, if you will, and it 16 l
creates a hole, it melts a hole into the tin because l
17 you're having a difficult time contro1 king the amount of l 18 heat necessary to fuse the angle iron to the tin metal.
l 19 i
And that would be a blow hole.
20 It could happen where -- where would they it could happen at areas where you 21 weld tin to tin?
22 weld tin to tin and what yoa do is the material gets too 23 hot and becomes molten to the degree it becomes very 24 liquidy and basically runs away from the heat source you l
l Lu:od Reporting Service
,96 Isthene %ddme
%ar hw 9 6 2, ] ] '6 g ar zpo Iktmt, % kien WC.%
formagton Udh, \\fuen n'HR i
u _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ __._ _ ___ _._ _ _ _ -._. _ _ _
1 1
j have.
2
'Q According this paragraph there were blow holes in the 3
installed HVAC duct work in the control rooms is that 5
4 correct?
5 A
- Yes, i
lQ And I believe you previously testified that this 6
7 l
inspection report 83-08, discussed the impact of quality 1
i 8
materials at the Zack office in Cicero on Midland; is that 9
correct?
10 iA Primarily.
Okay.
l lQ Is one of those impacts what is referred to in the last 11 i
12 i
sentence in this paragraph when it says, "It should be l
13 l
noted that approximately 40 percent of the duct work l
14 installed prior to the 1980 stop work order has been 15 removed and replaced"?
16
!A Okay.
The reason for replacing -- let me paraphrase this 17 a bit.
I said that this was primarily the impact of the 18 Cicero operation on sending stuff to tha plant but not 19 necessarily exclusive.
When a person makes an allegation j
20 there was excessive blow hples and duct work in the 21 control room, a person in Cicero could have knowledge of 22 that either because he came to the site, somebody told him i
23 something, you know.
So those blew holes could have been 24 created on the site.
They also could have been created at l
"I lafnerte kidag 3nkW %rthunt r flu y
%eMo 962*IiIb kor w
[k reut, W lag e W.%
Farnuncton lidis %kyu MolR t
1 the factory as piece parts and sent to the site.
1 2
0 which site are you referring to?
3 A
To the Midland site.
t 4
0 Okay.
5 A
The piece parts come f rom the cicero operation, so I 6
don't know what the exact allegation was, but the two 7
conditions is they could have been manufactured off site, l
8 sent to the site and been installed because of an 9
inadequate quality control, quality assurance program.
l0 Inadequate whose quality assurance program?
10 fA Zack's, back before we had the civil penalty.
The same 11 12 l
condition could be created on site.
In othet words, when l
13 a person sent them a good piece of duct work and while 4
14 they were welding the hangers on it to put in place they 15 could have created the same condition.
They also make i
16 some piecen of duct on site.
They could have created the 17 same condition in those piece parts.
10 Now the allegation was that they were 19 repairing them by -- if you burned a hole in the tin then 20 by putting nomething stouter there, like some extra weld 21 rod and welding over it, then that basically fills in the 22 hole except that the strength of the joint now is very i
23 week f or many good engineering reasons, which I don't know 24 if you want a two hour treatise on engineering welding w< "v~ s~~
- a.,,, A,
w.,,,,
Swr, MO 962.IlI6 Saare 22u Drtnu t. \\lah::an m2.%
Farmanston HJiu \\tak gan nr1H
- - --- x x __-_.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l 1
such as that.
Now what has happened though is that as a 2
[
result of the investigation that yielded the civil penalty 3
it required that there be a reinspection of all the duct 4
work that had been installed earlier and then control of l
5 that work which was to be repaired.
Well, as a result of l
that a large amount of the duct work had to be removed 6
7 l
from the plant and discarded and new duct work with good 8
controls fabricated and installed.
Some of that duct work 9
f abricated could have been f abricated on site or it could 10 have come from the Cicero operation.
You'd have to look 11 at the piece part to determine that, or piece parts.
12
!O And this --
l 13 l
MR. DRIKER:
I don't think the witness is l
14 done with his answer yet.
15 A
Let's see what else I can add there.
I was going to look 16 and see -- it should be noted approximately 40 percent of 17 the duct work installed prior to the 1980 stop work order 18 had been removed and replaced.
Well, the 1980 stop work 19 order was based on the fact that there was inferior 20 materials, whatever the regsons were, installed in areas 21 like the control room and other places and so the bad 22 materials was removed and good meterial went in.
23 So, therefore, this inspector said he went 24 up and looked at it and found the stuff that is there now I
1.s. od Reporting Service
[9 lafayrne Lddon
% ar h M 962 E lI6 kneLSo
~
IMrat. \\fichgar M.M farmington HJh. %kran wm
e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___._ _ _ __..----.----_. -____ _ _ _ _
l 1
is all right stuff and he says he was able to confirm --
2 well, he was able to confirm that it is good stuff that 3
was in there at the time he looked at it.
.9e probably was i
4 able to confirm that indeed blow holes did exist.
There 5
l may have been piece parts out in a junk area he looked at.
6 Some of that stuff ws6 around.
The fact there were blow 7
holes -- I'll tell you cight now there were blow holes.
I 8
Okay?
So I'm not sure which point you want.
i 9
Yes, there were blow holes; yes, they 10 l
removed 40 percent of the stuff there because it was junks 11 and, yes, they were putting in good materials; and, yes, 12 this inspector, that what was in there at the time he was 13 doing -- that this probicm no longer existed in 1984.
j 14 0
The removal and replacement of 40 percent of the duct 15 work, was that af ter the civil penalty on Zack?
16 A
Yes.
Well, I'm not sure when they started tearing this 17 stuff out, but as a result of the inspection.
It occurred 18 in 1980, you know.
Now whether they waited until the 19 civil penalty, which I think was issued in 1981 or 20 something such as that, I don' t know, you know.
They 21 would not -- Consumers would not have had to wait until 22 they actually got hit with the civil penalty bef ore they 23 would take action to rectify the condition that existed.
24 They knew of the items of noncompliance.
lafayetir Lidor 30940 Northun e n Huy Su re hw 9621E ?6 Suar :.w linimt, \\fschigan W2h Farmington finlis \\fschigan mik
1
!Q The civil penalty and the inspection you' re ref erring to i
2 are the ones in which Consumers Power's quality assurance 3
program was deficient with respect to Zack; is that 4
correct?
5 jA That's what led up to it.
In other words, there was a i
6 l
breakdown in quality assurance, quality control and 7
quality assurance that led up to the conditions that existed.
For instance, blow holes being in the duct work 8
l i
9 in the control room, that was an unacceptable condition 10 but it was there and many other conditions existed which 11 were not acceptable.
That's what we inspected and cited 12 against eventually in 1980, although, the enforcement item 13 did not come out until was it January 1981, if I may look i
j 14 l
at the date.
15 0
sure.
16 A
But, like I said, the licensee would not necessarily wait 17 until he actually got the notice of violation.
He already 18 knew there were problems.
In fact, he was already taking 19 action to rectify the situation.
Our inspection, I can't i
20 remember when we concluded, that inspection, that summer 21 anyway, if I remember right, of 1980, I think.
Should I 22 look that up?
4 23 0
sure.
24 A
July of 1980, well, summer of 1980, and it was af ter that lho lafayette ikidsnz 3f840 %rthur r
~
962'llI6 Swre Lho Swtr Mo IMrat. Whigan 48L%
Farmeneton Hstlu thchige tholk
that he tried to bring them under control and ultimately l 1
~
2 and that was by basically normal mechanisms where they 3
work with Zack to develop procedures and so forth and that 4
was not working and ultimately there was a reorganization 5
l where Consumers took away quality control and quality 6
assurance f rom the zack Company on site and that consumers 7
l did the quality control and quality assurance and we 8
basically had no further regulatory problems with them at 9
that time in this area.
10 0
In this the HVAC area?
11
!A HVAC area.
I 12 MS. RICE:
I think this is a good time to 13 break for lunch.
14 (A brief recess was held during 15 the proceedings.)
16 MS. RICE:
Ready to begin again?
17 MR. DRIKER:
Yes.
l 18 BY MS. RICE:
19 O
Mr. Cook, referring you again back to NRC 5, if you can 20 find that in your pile.
i 21 A
Give me a clue what it looks like.
I 22 0
It is the report on design and construction problems.
I 23 That's i t.
If you curn back again to page N 10883 --
24 A
Which page?
i
'f#
"? N"
3mm ythurhe,, jf,,
lafayette Huddara
.%ute M O 962. ] ] ? 6 Sw,, ;9, lWtrat, \\fwktgan IC%
Farnuncton lidh. \\fahigan IMllR n.,
c
1 1
l0 N 10883, which is page two of the report, the second i
2 paragraph.
We just finished discussing the Diesel F
3 Generator Building settlement and the Zack Company 4
heating, ventilating and air conditioning deficiencies and 5
now the next problem, item number seven, "1980 reactor 6
pressure vessel anchor stud failures."
Do you see that?
7 A
Um-ha.
8 0
It ref ers to paragraph J-8 of the report.
Could you turn 9
to that paragraph, which I believe begins on N 10902.
10
- A What page of the report is that?
11 l0 Twenty.
12
- A Okay.
13 l0 I believe you testified earlier this morning that you were-i f
14 involved with the reactor vessel anchor bolt NRC 15 inspection into that problem; is that correct?
16 cA Yes, I was involved in it.
I 17 0
Could you review J-87 18 lA Okay.
I 19 0
Does J-8 on pages 20 to 21 of the report accurately 20 summarize the reactor vessel anchor bolt problem 21 investigation?
22 A
I can't really say that because I was not intimately
(
23 involved in the investigation and without sitting at this 24 point in time and reviewing the investigation report and 103 Luzod Reporting Sernier y,
,, y gg y,gg, r ysn, Suite hk) 962 11*6 Suure g,m
[
IWtrut. %kitan 482.%
Farmangton Hstis \\hekigan 48018
1 bouncing the prose of the inspection report with the prose 2
that are here, that would be the only way I can make that 3
determination.
4 Q
Do you know what inspection report you' re ref erring to?
5 lA The inspection report that went in to looking how they 6
manufactured the studs and got the studs that were 7
installed.
Probably this 8013 and 8014.
That was Foster 8
and Erb that did that investigation.
I was on site and 9
l did talk to Foster about the significance of some of the i
10 things he was finding with regard to materials, words in i
11 the codes and stuff like that, and I just don't even 12 remember what the materials really were other than the fact that there was a much -- it was not one of the better 13 j
14 choices of materials, whatever the choice was.
l 15 l0 Okay.
16 A
I was more abreast of it at the time than I am now, but I 17 said with regard to the actual investigation and the 18 problens that they found, I wasn't involved in that l
l 19 a spe ct.
20 MS. RICE:
Cpuid you please initial NRC 120?
l 21 (Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 120, 22 NRC Investigation Report, dated i
23 August 18, 1980, was marked 24 for identification.)
l "I
lafayette %Iding Mmo %rthm e n Hu s
% )tr M O 962 Ele'b kite l}o IMrmt. \\fdstan W.%
Farmington Hdh, \\fwhigan wik
1
}BY MS. RICE:
l 2
- O The doc! ment marked as NRC 120 bears Bates numbers N I
3 003567 through N 003594.
Could you please take a minute 4
to review the document then identify it?
5 lA Take a ninute to review it.
I can identify it.
It's an 6
inspection report, well, investigation report.
I may have 7
made that mistake bef ore where I called investigation i
l reports inspection reports, but they're kind of 8
1 9
synonyrous, perf ormed by Mr. Focter and Erb for the period 10 Februar/ 22, to May 2,1980, regarding the procurement and 11 manuf acture of reactor vessel holddown studs utilized at i
12 l
the Midland Plant.
13 l0 bhat is the inspection report number?
14 A
It is 50 - 329/80-13; 50 - 330/8014.
15 0
Is this came report you were just referencing?
16 A
Yes.
It appears to be anyway.
17 0
Let me clarify.
Did you have any personal involvement in 18 this investigation?
19 A
No, other than talking with inspectors Poster and Erb with 20 some of the information they had.
In other words, as they 21 were discussing the types of materials that were used I 22 would get involved in engineering discussions on that, 23 corrosion-type phenomena that may have caused the 24 nucleation of a crack.
Those variables that are nece
- y l
Lu:od Reporting Sernce f,5,,
Isfa y tte k iding
%te rao 962 1II6 k re 2.M iktrat. \\tahigan M2.%
Farmington flills, \\lwhigan Mnil
-_____---_--____.______---_____----_._w_
1 to induce stress assisted corrosion cracking and I suppose 2
there were other type, engineer-type things.
As far as 3
going to these places, making available information at the 4
site, well, I was involved in some of that but it was S
basically their investigative efforts into this problem.
6 0
And did this investigation concern the cause of the 7
reactor vessel anchor bolt failure?
fA well, that was what the investigation was aimed at, trying 8
9 l
to determine why a naterial got on site and was installed l
l that did not appear to meet the originni specification 10 11 requirements, yeah.
12
- O Hr. Cook, I see in the several references to this it's 13 sometimes called reactor vessel holddown studs, reactor 14 pressure vessel anchor stud nail, reactor vessel anchor 15 bolt failure, are they all the same incident?
16 lA They're all the same incidents.
17 0
Did the bolts break?
18 A
Yes, the bolts broke.
The bolts are imbedded in concrete I
19 then they lower the reactor vessel down on top of the 20 bolts then the bolts are tightened.
That had already 21 transpired and, meanwhile, the rest of the plant was being' i
22 built and the pieces of pipe hooked up to the vessel and I
i 23 so forth and so on.
One of the bolts spontaneously broke l
l 24 by itself with a release of quite a bit of energy, I might l
l Lafayette ILuldanc 3MIO %rthw ern the)
.%re Mn 962 1II6 Swg, ;2o (Hrvat, thrhrgan K2b Farmsyton Ihlh, \\fschigan 301R
1 l
-add, and when they went looking into it I think there was 0
at least one other one and there may have been two other 3
ones that had failed in a similar manner.
Then when tests 4
were performed on the other unit, Unit 2, then there was 5
some discovery that the hardnesses of the material 6
probably were greater than what was desired and indeed 7
that could be a condition that might induce a failure of a
)
1 8
bolt.
Now, there were other questions of what induced the 9
corrosive environment that would nucleate the crack, if 10 that was the case.
There was a lot of engineering that 11 l
went with it.
12 0
How big are these bolts?
i 13 lA Oh, scrud.
Well, got a ruler?
I don't know.
I think 4
14 they were like three and a half in diameter, something 15 such as that.
They were rather large bolts.
They were --
16 I want to say they' re 70 inches long or so, and that's i
17 just my mental recollection.
They may.have been a little 18 less than three and a half.
19 0
!!r. Cook, ref erring you back to NRC 127, which were the 20 notes o' a May 2nd, 1980 meeting, you should have the copy 21 there.
22 A
Is that this one?
No.
i 23 0
No, 127,
24 A
Thic one,127?
I l.afayette kidme 3Wuo \\orthur a r liv >
har Ma 96 2. )) ?6 More :po
~
I)*:roo t, \\tahitan #226 Farmmeton Ildir \\lahigan Rd8
1 0
Yes.
I believe you testified earlier that this May 2nd, 2
1980 meeting concerned both the zack HVAC problem and the 3
reactor vessel anchor bolts; is that correct?
4 A
Yes.
5 0
And I believe you testified that you were at this meeting, 6
that you had input because of yout involvement in both the 7
Zack and reactor vessel anchor bolt problems is that O
correct?
9 A
Yes.
10 0
And I believe you testified that you had a particular 11 i
expertise, or knowledge rather, with regard to the reactor-12 l
vessels; is that correct?
l 13 A
Yes.
14 0
And what did you mean, if you could elaborate on your 15 particular knowledge with regard to the reactor vessel?
16 A
I hr.ve knowledge of how such bolts would have been 17 installed, the conditions that led up I was there when 18 the vessels were up-cnded and installed, a lot of 19 installation work was going on, plus my experiences with 20 NRC and other places I have dabbled in corrosion 21 engineering, the failure of bolting materials that have 22 periodically happened at other reactors.
I had firat-hand i
23 knowledge of, cay, things of -- you know, of the bolt wher 24 it broke, how it f ailed, the impact it made on the bottom I
l 1.afayerre (kIdune 308w %rthurs ern flu)
,%rr hm 962 1)*6 Su,re :31 (Wtroet, \\fichuran M22r>
FarmLNEton l{dh, UhLtQn WlN 1.
1 l
of the vessel.
So it was a lot of, I'm trying to get the I
2 right term here, a lot of hands-on worldly knowledge about 3
how the place was built, if you will.
4 0
The Mhaland Plant?
5 lA The Midland Plant, yes, plus the fact I had dabbled in l
corrosion engineering and had been involved in other 6
l bolting failures not necessarily at the Midland Plant.
As 7
8 a mechanical engineer, mechanical engineers are aware of 9
l materials.
1 10 0
Were you there when they first reported the reactor vessel 11 i
anchor bolt problem?
l 12
- A Yes.
l 13 l0 Did they report it to you?
14 lA I think first they reported it to me.
15 0
And did you physically examine the reactor vessels at that 16 time?
17 A
Yes.
18 0
Did you have occasion to physically examine the reactor 19 vessels and reactor vessel anchor bolts more than that one 20 occasion?
21 A
Yes.
22 0
How many times, do you know?
i 23 A
I can't tell you because you have activity going on like 24 when they' re tensioning the bolts and when they' re pouring I
M N \\*h "' ' '* II" >
Isfaserte Basidsne 962.))I6 kute lJo g,,,,,y Iktron t. \\fuchigan 4822t>
Farmmaton Ihlh, \\bchstan Smik
1 concrete around the bolts and taking hardness measurements.
2 of the bolts later on, and, you know, it wasn't just 3
because the bolt had failed that I went out there and i
4 looded at the bolt and said sure enough the bolt failed.
5 0
So you were physically present at the dif ferent stages of i
6 l
the erection of the reactor vessel?
7 A
Yes.
Well, the installation of the vessel, the vessel 8
comes as a unit and up-ended as installed.
9 0
Mr. Cook, why was the failure of the reactor vessel anchor l
bolt a safety concern?
10 11 fA The holddown bolts are to keep the vessel from tipping 12 over, if you will, during an accident condition that would i
13 involve pipe breakage and also would hold it in place in the event you had a seismic event that would tend to 14 15 shake, rattle and roll the plant.
The idea is to try to 16 keep some of the pieces in place.
But it served a duel 17 function of holding the vessel in placa as well as during 18 l
an accident preventing the vessel from toppling over, if 19 you will, from the teaction forces of steam, high energy l
20 fluids.
21 0
Did you consider the reactor vessel anchor bolt failure to 22 be a significant construction problem?
23 MR. DRIKER:
Objection to the question as 24 leading.
1 l
P W
l 1.afayette ikuldine 3rnw %ethun e n llu y 962.] lib Saar:po l
%,ta sy>
lutra t, \\fahnran #226 Farmsneton Ihlh. \\tahagan 3018 1
1
1 MR. BERKOVITZ:
And vague.
I 2
A I was going to ask what she meant by problem.
3 BY MS. RICE:
4 Q
Referring back to NRC 5, which is the rep
yf},))f6 httf $.DI hate @
IWtrutt, thchisan L'l2.%
Farmanst<m Hk \\hchigan Mnm
--- ---- - - --- - ~m__-m___
1 the report?
4 2
lA No.
3 Q
Was a notice of violation issued as a result of this i
4 I
r e por t, Mr. Cook?
5 A
I believe there was, t
6 jO And was that notice of violation issued f:o Consumers Power 7
Company as the licensee?
8 A
Yes.
I think.
Well, yes, it would have to be because the 9
l 1etter is addressed to Consumers Power.
10 I O Do you know what corrective action Consumers Power took l
11 with regard to the reactor vessel anchor bolt failure?
12 lA Yes -- well, I don' t know if they finished taking it or t,
13 not.
I know what they were doing, were planning on doing, r
i 14 l
and that is that they were putting -- let me just think i
I 15 what you would call it.
They were putting like blocks at 16 the top of the reactor vessel such if they had the 17 accident, it went to upend itself or roll over, that these 18 blocks would hold the vessel in place, imbed structure 19 pieces at the top.
I think we had a coined phrase for 20 that at one time.
I just pon't remember what the coined 21 phrase was, upending devices.
22 0
Is what you just described called the upper lateral i
23 support system?
24 A
Upper lateral support system.
Thank you.
You've been l
Lutod Reporting Sernice
,y6, Isfayette limidae Suite Mrs 9h2-)i ?6 Suste 2}r>
/>tra t, Whigan #226 Farmmaton HJ!1 Whigan &I!8
.m _ m _ _ _ - _ _ ____ _ _ _ _.
i 1
reviewing the documents.
It's obvious I have not.
j 2
Ms. RICE:
Could you please mark this as the 3
next NRC exhibit, which would be 128.
4 (Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 128, 5
NRC documf.nt entitled Consumers l
Power Company - Recommended Otder, 6
7 l
was marked for iden';ification.)
l 0
lMS. RICE:
9 0
Mr. Cook, could you please identify the document that the 10 Court Reporter has just handed you marked NRC 128?
11 MS. RICE:
For the record, NRC 128 bears the 12 Bates numbers N 103520 through N 103555 13 A
This is a recommendation from, well, it's a memorandum for 14 l
Dudley Thompson, executive officer for operations support, 15 dated June 27th,1980 f rom Jim Keppler, director of Region 16 III, recommending an order pertaining to the bolting 17 l
problem.
18 BY MS. RICE:
19 0
Is that the same bolt problem we've been discussing, the 20 reactor vessel anchor bolt, problem?
21 A
I believe it is and I have to look at it to be sure.
22 0
In the upper right-hand corner is written --
23 A
Yes.
24 0
Do you know if thet refers to you?
A 1.n d Reporting Service yo g,,,
y lafyrtte (Lddant S;,,, ao 962 1176
% e 2.M (ktnet. Whigan 4822fs Farmngton HJh, Whitan W!X
d l
l 1
A I'm sure it does.
2 0
Did you receive this document, Mr. Cook?
3 A
I'm quite certain that I did.
You know, you say did I 4
receive this.
I'm quite certain I did receive the 5
document.
6 0
Can you tell me what porposed order this document is 7
I referring to?
8 A
Not without re-reading it.
Okay?
9
'O You can review it.
10 lA Okay.
What was the question?
i 11 l0 Well, you stated that this NRC 128 related to a 12 recommended order?
13 A
Yes.
t 14 l0 And I was asking you what order you were referring to?
15 A
It's an order that says that the licensee sha;i cease all 16 further safety-related construction work regarding the 17 bolts in question or other construction not approved by 18 NRR to provide compensation for the unacceptable bolts 19 until such approvals as specified in the three paragraphs 20 were obtained.
That was tp "obtain approval of the Office 21 of NRR of the method of repair of the reactor vessel 22 anchor bolts for Unit 11 provide assurance that anchor 23 bolts for the Unit 2 reactor vessel and steam generators 24 meet existing criteria, obtain approval from the Office of i
3teto %rskurshehn flu,
- 0 P"'U"I b'"
lafayerre Ikildsne suur enm 962 llib Suar ;6 lytrat, \\fschstan A a%
Formungton listis \\fschigan twolk
\\
r-I Nuclear Reactor Regulation of the method of repair of 1
i 2
l these anchor bolts; and assure that other safety-related t
3 bolting and component support materials have been procured 4
according to the proper quality standards and codes and I
5 provide a written report within 30 days to the Region III 6
office as to the extent of the materials reviewed."
l 7
j0 Did you have any involvement in the reconnendation for l
8 l
this order?
9 jA I dos.'t believe so.
l 10 1 0 Do you know if this order was ever issued?
11 A
I don't think that it was, but I do not know that for l
12 I
sure.
I just -- sitting here I don't think it ever got 13 issued, but the record may show otherwise.
I 14 l0 Referring you back once again to the meeting notes of May 1
15 2nd,1980, which is NRC 127, if you could turn to the page 16 with the last three Bates numbers 852, under Section 12, 17 NRC Summary and Conclusions, do you see that section?
18 A
Yes.
19 0
RPV anchor bolts under number one, do you see that?
20 A
Yes.
21 0
The very last sentence in the first paragraph, could you 22 review the paragraph?
t 23 A
Okay.
24 0
This paragraph refers to an informal, or formal order.
Do 119 Luzod Heporting Struce y w g,,,,, pg Sir,yette (klang Isfa 962 1i?6
%:e.%u nw (Mewr, \\la hran PC.m Farmington listls, \\lwhean W !k
0 1
you see that in the last f ew sentenceu?
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
Do you know whether that reference relates to NRC 128, the l
4 document we've just been looking at, the recommended 5
order?
6 lA Where does it say that -- "CPCo/Bechtel can plan the I
7 proposed fix but nothing is to be changed and no work is 8
to be done.
This hold on work does not apply to the 9
detensioning of the anchor bolts.
Region III can request j
this informally or by order.
Not sure which method would 10 l
11 be used."
12 l0 Does that refresh your recollection?
13
.A Well, I'll put it to you like th.is:
Looking at the two 14 documents my opinion is that that statement does refer to 15 the draft order.
16 0
Do you have any personal knowledge?
17 A
No, no knowledge that I can recollect.
- 18 0
Mr. Cook, a f ew minutes ago you were talking about the 19 corrective action, the upper lateral support system for 20 the reactor vessel bolt prpblem.
Do you know if the work 21 was ever completed?
22 A
No, I do not know that it was ever completed.
I know it 23 was started and I don't know if it was ever completed.
24 0
was it still ongoing when you left the site in May of i
$Af4) ffff 04tikiRf NY$Vo NflhW 9 R Nk}
so, suo 962 llin sur :Jo IHrou t, llakstan k92:6 Farmner<m Hn!!8 \\tahtaan 44nlR
1 1984?
2
!A itell, I think that it was.
How do I -- okay.
There had 3
been work going on and I looked at some of the work and I 4
do not believe it had been completed at the time I left in i
l l
the middle of May.
Now, whether it was or was not I'll 5
6 put it to you like this:
I had not looked at the final i
7 close-out on it.
You have to realize that there are many i
8 things that were going on, including my transfer to Three i
9 Milo Island, that May 14th timeframe, i
10 0
Do you know whether the NRC had issued final approval for 11 the reactor vessel anchor bolt fix?
12 A
I believe that they did, the proposed fix, because I was t
13 of the opinion based on the corrosive aspect of it that they should not take any credit for any holddown 14 15 l
capsbilities of the bolts.
NRR was going to approve the 16 fix, wac going to, but they were going to rely on some 17 i
reduced loading of the bolts.
I guess.I would 18 characterize that by saying that was not necessarily the 19 preferred mode, however, with a large reduction in the 20 load that the bolts would be required to take and some of 21 the conservatism and design, why, they had to say all 22 right, the proposed fix, if you bless it, NRR, then that 23 would be quite all right.
24 And I think they did ultimately bless that 1
MIO %rth rr liv,
lafvette LtdiRC m.m.
~,, : ~
- 8..,e -
$ktot!. \\$dhitan W.%
feFMiniton l$sIln. \\fdhsC9R SMH?M
w e e e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.__._ _ _ _____________ _ _ _ _ _
1 fix.
Now, I don't recall actually looking at a piece of 2
i paper saying that they did.
Now, you know, I kind of 3
think they did but sitting here I don't recall looking at 4
a piece of paper that said that they had approved that 5
fix.
I know that there was conversations going on.
I 6
l talked with Darl Hood.
I vaguely remember some of the 7
i regional-based people had been An Washington discussing i
8 l
that NRR was going to approve the fix and f rom that I'm l
9 j
assuming they did approve the fix.
I fon' t know.
! O You've been ref erring to in your last answer an approval 10 11 of a proposed fix7 l
12 A
Yes.
I 13 0
Does the 1:RC have to approve the final implementation of 14 that fix7 i
15 l A No.
If the NRR approves the proposed design, you know, 16 the methodology for -- let me back up.
If the NRC 17 approves the design and they evaluate that type of a 18 design and then bless it, then at that point in time it's 19 approved.
Then the licensee can go ahead and put in his, 20 make his installations, modificationc.
Guys like me look 21 at it, make sure it goes in with what the intended design 22 limitations were.
I'm not sure so -- I'm not so sure I 23 didn't muddy the water on that.
24 0
Let me direct your attention back again to NRC 5, to paga
,mg 9,,,)}2,,g sa d Repening Seniu i,, neur kunne lai
, nio 962 1176 L ir 2.w (Hrat \\fdpn M:>
Ferminctu Hith. \\ldnsen 4M18
-mm-m________.____.--__________
l 1
number two.
2 A
NRC 5 is which?
1 3
0 The report.
4-A Okay.
5 0
Page number two, N 10883.
6 A
What page?
7 0
Page two.
8 A
Okay.
9 0
Okay.
Back to the listing of construction problems at the 10 second paragraph, to item number eight, moving on to 11 number eight, "1981 - piping suspension system 12 installation deficiencies (paragraph K.4)", do you see 13 that?
14
'A Yes.
15 0
Could you turn to paragraph K.4, which I believe starts on 16 page 23 of the report?
Are you familiar with the piping i
17 suspension system installation deficittr>ciec?
18 A
I may be.
Let me see which one this is.
19 0
You could review item number four on page 23.
t 20 A
This is item four, right?,
21 0
Yes.
t 22 A
Okay.
Go ahead.
23 0
Are you familiar with the piping suspension system 24 installation deficiencies?
i 12 3,,,,
Lusod Reportint Sertice
,o.
therre Lily kre h10 962 1II6
%> uD r IMnnt. Whitan M2s Farm,urm Hdlu %A:ge n!k
i 1
lA Reading those words there I'm not sure which episodes 2
l there were.
I. C. Yin had come to the site.
Now, in all l
3 I
that there was a confirmatory action letter that was 4
issued pertaining to handling of calculations on, boy, 5
small bore restraints I believe, and then I. C. Yin made 6
l another inspection and I think that's what some of this is 7
l referring to.
I really cannot recall all the details of 8
that inspection.'
It's lost in the shuffle.
9 l0 Are you familiar with the problem at Midland dealing with l
l 10 l
pipe hangers in general?
11 A
Well --
12 0
Strike that.
13 Are you familiar with the problem at Midlan('
l.
14 relating to small bore pipe hangers?
15 A
That was a problem tnat I. C. Yin had had.
I just --
16 without reading the reports now I just can't pull -- I 17 can't pull it out of my mind what the kasues were other 18 than there were some things that were issues and I just --
19 I can't do it.
j l
20 0
Let me show you NRC 461 ansi ask you if that's the report 21 that you're referencing?
i 22 A
This is the -- this is one of the ones that ended up where' 23 I.
C. Yin had problems with small bore and the l
l 24 calculations of it.
I think -- was Yin involved in this l
Isf,,rtir LIden
- <rtw %rtheurnIh.,
t
%rr hVs 9 6 2 1 1 ** b
% o S6
. arausrvn Hdl% \\laksen Wik IWrrett, \\fAuren M.'.M W
__n..
n_.-.
i i
1 one?
Yes.
Well, without studying the report, this is, I 2
think, one of the ones -- there's the immediate action 3
letter, May 22nd, okay.
i 4
Q All right.
5 lA This is one of the ones I was referring to I. C. Yin l
having problems with the calculations such that we wrote 6
r 7
an immediate action letter addressing that topic.
I i
8 l0 All right.
Imc 461, what inspection report number does 9
that represent?
10 A
Okay.
That would be inspection report 81-12 for both 11 docket numbers.
12
! O Okay.
All right.
Por what time period does this 13 inspection report cover?
7 t
14 lA May 18 to 22,1981.
15 0
Did you participate in this special team inspection?
16
'A Yes, I did.
17 0
And did you participate in the preparat.lon of this 18 inspection report, NRC 461?
19 A
Portions of it.
In fact, I was one of the instigators of 20 it.
I claimed to the region we needed to have an in-depth 21 QA review of the site.
I think a lot of the reasons were 22 that there were hearing issues that were upon us.
There t
23 had been a period of time since we had looked at such a 24 thing, you know, with a team-type ef fort.
There were some n
Lused Reportsng Sersice 12] g,
lafsyrtte %ldung 962 11I6
% e,S o
%te t.10
[htra t, W hicae 3:.%
farmmstm HJh. Whien w%
w_--______-.__.:__-:._____"____-
L
{
things, I don't want to call them weaknesses, but made you]
i 1
l 2
wonder are things as well as they appear.
3 so I requested that the region put together l
L 4
and do, if you will, a OA inspection, which was our mode
~
5 of business at the time.
We would do that at licensees at periodic intervals.
We went in and did a management 6
7 inspection, OA inspection, team OA inspection.
They all 8
mean the same thing.
Several individuals with different 9
varying expertise and knowledge would attack dif ferent 10 portions of the plant f rom an inspector point of view and 11 put together a summary report saying what the conditiens I
12 I
of the plant were like.
l 13 0
Were such special team inspections conducted in the 1
14 l
regular course of NRC activities?
15 A
Well, I don't know how regular they are.
They did exist 16 and at one time the plan was that you'd look at a 17 licensee, I think it was like in the 54 percent completed, 18 then you would do it again when they were being, say, 2 5 19 percent completed or something such as that, and the idea 20 was to keep abreast of the,0A things because, after all, 21 somebody was going to have to allow an operating license l
22 to be granted to a utility and so people could make good, 23 you know, objective judgments pertaining to that.
So 24 having them was not out of the ordinary.
l l
1.nfayette Iktdmr M eu %rtkun ern llu)
~
962<ll?b M ar :.M l
kor hm Iktmt. % kigen 482.%
Fermmaton Hdh, %ktaan W!M l
i
P 1
You know, it wasn't just because of Midland.
i 2
l Other plants had had such inspections before and it wasn't i
3 necessarily bad actors had such inspections.
It's were 4
things as good as tney might appear that they are.
4 l0 Mr. Cook, could you please review this document and tell 5
6 i
me whether it refreshes your recollection as to the piping 7
suspencion problems?
8 A
The problems with the suspension system are probably 9
sddressed in that immediate action letter that went with 10 this report or something shortly after that.
11
!O If I can direct your attention to page 31 of the report.
12 A
Here it is.
13
- 0 And can I also direct your attention to the last two l
14 i
pages, which I believe is the immediate action report 15 letter that you were just referring to.
16 A
Do you want to ask some questions or should I just keep l
17 l
going through this.
l 18 0
Does your review of the portions you've reviewed so f ar 1
l 19 refresh your recollection as to the nature of the piping 20 suspension problems?
21 A
No, other than it had to do with calculation things.
What l
22 I would be forced to do at this time is read the words and l
i
~
23 basically parrot the words to you as to what they meant.
24 0
Hr. Cook, are pipe hangers saf ety-related items?
Luz d Reporting Sersice 12l,,,,
Leinette Ibuldsse SE,,.m 962 1176 S,u,,,y,
intrat. \\1Aitan Sc.%
Farminatm listin, %katan 4+08
y
--- - - - - - - - - - m m m m m m m m m m - _ _
1 lA Yes.
2 Q
Why are they saf ety-related?
3 A
Well, many of the systems that -- well, two-fold.
To 4
prevent pipe f ailure that would cause an accident or to i
5 provent maybe -- or to prevent pipe f ailure that would 6
prevent you from mitigating the consequences or' an 7
accident that had already happened.
To prevent an 8
accident and help mitigate.
The hangers hold the piping i
f systems intact also during a seismic event, which may be 9
l 10 the nucleus for an accident at a plant, to hold the piping 11 l
Systems in a geometry that could be tolerated, or if 12 indeed you had a pipe f ailure to prevent that pipe I
13 failure, because of dealing with high energy fluids, from g
14 doing damage to other systems that would be vital to 15 ensure a safe shutdown.
16 0
Does this relate to, your description, relate to both 17 amall bore and large bore piping?
i 18 A
Yes.
19 0
Mr. Cook, when you were saying that the piping system 20 suspension problems related to calculations; is that 21 correct?
22 A
Yes.
23 0
Wac that large bore or sna11 bore piping?
24 A
I think in I. C. Yin's inspection he addressed just the I
i
~ ' '
Idayette ILulding 3%I0 %rthw e n Hu s
,% te M a 962 1176
.%?e.Os IHecu t. \\takigan W.%
Farmneton lidh, \\takusan.tko!M
7-1 I
small bore piping, i
2 IQ Do you know if there were problems with the large bore I
3 piping systems, suspension systems rather, at Midland?
4 A
I can' t recall.
We did have problems with some of the j
hangers that those were enlarged for, ITT grinnel hangers.
5 6
0 Nr. Cook, can I direct your attention back to NRC 461, 7
which I think is what you have in your hand?
I 8
A Okay, yes.
9 0
If you could turn back to the front, to the notice of 10 violation, page two of the notice of violation.
Take a look at item number four on page two and. item number 5 on j
11 i
12 page three, please, and I ask you if that ref reshes your l
13 recollection as to problems with the large bore piping at l
14 Midland?
15 A
Well, item four makes a reference to seven large bore pipe j
16 restraints, supports, and anchors were not installed in t
17 accordance with the design drawing and. specification l
r 18 requirements.
And the next one ref ers to quality control 19 inspectors inspected and accepted six of seven large bore 20 pipe restraints, supports,,and anchors that hed not been
{
21 installed in accordance with design drawings and j
22 specifications.
So the first one says they were not and i
23 the second one said the quality control people did not l
4 t
24 identify it, i
l W
3tatto %rthru rn H >
14bette Iktdans m.mo n, :a
- s..., -
IMrsat. \\f A ran 48226 Fernunstm Hdis \\f& gen Vuolk l
I
_ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _. _..
~.
~_
9 L
e a
1 lQ Does your review of these two sections ref resh your I
i 2
recollection as to the problems with the large bore pipe 3
hangers?
l
?
4 A
Not really specifically.
I just can't remember the 5
details of these.
I have to read the report and stuff I
6 like that.
Sitting here just talking to you I cannot 7
i recall, I cannot recall what the exact issues were, what I
t 8
the hangers were', what the problems were associated with
[
F 9
them, you know, the ones that are referenced here.
I 10
.O Do you recall whether the NRC required reinspection of f
t 11 pipe hangers?
12 lA As part of the CCP program we were requiring a l
13 reinspection of hangers.
In fact -- let me think about t
14 l
that.
The licensee did have a reinspection of pipe t
15 hangers ongoing and that was because there had been a 16 numerous amount of deficiencies in the pipe hangers that l
17 had been identified.
I not sure whethat the NRC 18 identified all of them or whether the licensee identified 19 some of them.
20 0
Let me show you a document,previously marked as NRC 11.
i l
21 A
This is a letter dated August the 3rd,1982, f rom Bob r
22 Warnick and signed by Shafer for Warnick.
It talks about 23 their response to our items of noncompliance that were in i
24 inspection report 82-07, well, it indicates that.
r
$A(Q)rtfr $lut$dtME M lU \\tMhkr rn $$u) u,,,,, v, u.ms u.,9 n.
lartrst, Wh::an 4C.%
Farweton Hith Whtsan skullt l
1
m__________._.~_._____.________.____.
b 1
MR. DRIKER:
I don't think you have to
[
2 paraphrase the letter.
What's the question?
3 A
What's the question?
Let's go back to that.
4 BY MS. RICEt 5
j0 can you identify this letter?
6
- A The letter is dated August 30th to Consumers Power f rom 7
Bob Warnick of the NRC.
8
- 0 And the third pa,ragraph in the letter states, 'It is our 9
position that you shall reinspect all the supports and
[
l 10 I
restraints installed prior to 1981 and perform sample I
11 reinspection of the components installed af ter 1991."
Is l
12 that the reinspection you were ref erring to just prior to l
13 when I showed you this document?
l i
Walt a second.
What did you show me before?
14 lA t
15 0
We were discuosing reinspection of pipe hangera at 16 Midland.
17
.A Yes.
Now that I look at that I do remember that there was 18 a requirement that they had to look at the hangers that 19 were installed prior to 1981.
In fact, some of the 20 inspection was limited before 1981.
So back in the 21 cobwebs of Midland, why, I do recollect us having the 22 licensee go back and look at pipe hangers.
t 23 Q
Do you know if Consumers Power on the Midland project ever r
24 completed reinspection of the pipe hangers at Midland?
$4[q ttl9 OM$dtRf MN &lh>9 Nk}
9 Nir,)o) 962 1176 w, gy,
(Hru t, Wktsen 225 forwnetun Hsils %k,ge sn%
7, --
-= m m a m a m m m m = = = m m mmm m m com m m m mccm-m m m m 1
!A Boy, I doubt if they got the job completed before work was 2
stoppcd on the plant.
3 Q
Wao reinspection completed at the time you lef t the 4
Midland Project in May of 19847 5
lA I don't think so.
6 MR. DRIKER:
When you're referring to the 7
l cobwebs of Midland, Mr. Cook, I take it you' re ref erring i
8 l
to your
- Memory of some of these events?
t 9
THE WITNESS:
That's right.
I wasn' t 10 casting aspersions on the plant.
l 11 MR. DRIXER:
I u'i't think you were.
12 l
THE WITNESS:
I... Midland to take a 13 sabbatical, Three Mile Island, some place where it's nice 14 and easy, uncontroversial.
15
,DY MS. RICE:
16 0
Did the reinspection of pipe hangers have to be completed 17 before issuance of an operating license et Midland?
18 A
I would say it would, 19 0
All right.
Could you go back to the NRC 5, the report on i
20 construction problems, and,to the last problem listed?
I 21 A
Five, that's this one.
22 0
Page two again, which is 883, back to the second 4
23 paragraph, the listing of the construction problems, and 24 the last one listed, item nine, *1982 - electrical cable r
Lusod Reporting Sersac' 132 i
lainets* klh"t u w %thearm H*>
.% te M) 96, j j ib
~% !' L'"
(Hrms, \\fd : pan DC.%
(sowngen Ihlis \\ld>43" 0"IM
1 misinsta11ations (paragraph L.2)",
do you see that?
2 A
Yes.
3 0
'ould you turn to paragraph L.2?
i 4
A if you could be so good as to tell me which page you have 5
- marked, 6
0 N 10908, page 26.
Are you f amiliar with what is terraed 7
here as the electrical cable misinstallations?
8 A
That was a misrouting of the electrical cable I believe.
9 That's the -- I guess I should say I was.
Let's 10 paraphrase some of this stuff.
11 0
Could you please review item two here on page 26?
12
{A Okay.
l 13 l0 Before I asked you to review it you were discussing 1
14 I
misrouting of electrical cable.
15 A
Yes.
16 0
Does section two deal with misrouting of electrical 17 cables?
18 A
Yes, it does, i
19 0
Could you briefly describe the electrical cable
(
20 misinstallation or miscout,ing?
21 A
We had a meeting in the region office about that.
When 1
22 cables are installed through a plant the i
i l
23 architect-engineer comes up with a scheme such that all 24 the cable pans are loaded, if you will, evenly, not I
oning Smiu gog,g go,,,u,f,f,f,,n,_
Isfayene Buddin; 962.))I6 Suar 220 Suite sw (Mroit \\fwhigan 48220 Farmington lidh. Alichigan #1018
_ _ m a n _ a _ _ -.-. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _.-- _ - :.-.-- - -. _ _ _.-_.
I 1
overloaded with the weight of the cables or might not be 2
overloaded because of the heat generating capacity of the 3
cables, and that tells the people installing the cables i
4 what direction these cables should take.
5 In other words, it will start at one portion 6
of the plant and end up at some other portion of the 7
plant.
It may start at, say, a switching panel, if you 8
will, and end up at a component that it must work a 9
l motor-operated valve or electric motor, something like 10 that.
The cables were not put in to follow the route that 11 was prescribed but yet they had been accepted by Oc saying i
12 that the installation was in accordance to the plan.
And i
so we required the licensee to inspect, you know, I guess 13 14 I'll say for openers a lot of the cables, then they found 15 other discrepancies and I believe that that caused us or 16 that required the licensee to inspect all of the cables 17 and again they found -- I think this said they inspected a 18 hundred percent.
I'm not sure.
19 Anyway, after they inspected a hundred l
20 percent of the cables then,they found there were other l
l 21 mistakes in the routing.
So there was some validity to 22 our concerns that the cables were not installed in a l
l 23 manner that had been prescribed by the engineers and by 24 l
the loading factors.
In the course of this, well, do I l
- 134, l
Lumd Reporting Sertice Lafayette Huild:ne
,y,w suute am 962 1176 suur 2.m iktrat. \\lichigan M220 Farrnungton Ildh, \\fichigan #1H
.- _.=- :.=-------- _- - - - - - - - -
l explain any more or just answer the question?
2 MR. BERKOVITZ:
Answer the question.
3 BY MS. RICE:
4 0
Have you finished your answer?
5 A
I finished the answer.
6 0
Why is it a safety concern when electrical cable is not 7
installed in accordance with the plans?
8 A
Well, it can be a safety concern for several reasons.
I 9
think I've already described some of them.
It could allow 10 you to overload the supporting systems of the cables, 11 supporting systems for the cables.
12 0
What do you mean supporting systems?
13 jA Cables are run in things that are called raceways and i
14 cable pans and conduits.
These are steel troughs that l
15 contain miles and miles of cable that go through a nuclear j
6 plant, or conduits, which are like the piping system that the wires go in.
So changing the direotion can overload 18 the cable pan such that a pan on the right side is 19 carrying more cables than what it was intended to because 20 some of them really belong,on the left side, if you will, 21 of a room.
That's kind of an over-simplification.
22 Then there's also the heat generating i
23 capacity of the cables, that just having power cables 24 laying in a pan, they generate so much heat and if the i
l 1
I 135 Luzod Reporting Service lafayette Huulding
,,y Suite MO 962 1I~O Suute 220 (ktrout. \\fichigan M226 Farm <ngton Ihlh \\hchigan Ptolk
1 temperature gets too high they damage the other cables.
2 Then there's also logic and circuitry concerns.
Suppose 3
we have redundancy in a pan and suppose something would i
4 happen to a raceway that had two cables that brought j
5 control to the same item.
Many items have redundant 6
controls for them.
So if both control cables are in the 7
same pan and something would happen to that pan then the 1
8 l
operators would not have the ability to have the valve 9
moved or the motor started or whatever it is.
10 We have redundant systems in a nuclear plant and these redundant systems are separated.
Like a 11 12 bursting of high energy pipe will not take out those i
13 systems that would be required to mitigate the g
i 14 l
consequences of the accident.
And if both the cables that 15 allow the redundancy to exist are laying in the same pan 16 and the cable pan gets taken out by a high energy pipe, 17 you can't mitigate the consequences of.the accident or it 18 makes it difficult.
19 From a troubleshooting standpoint, if a 20 person doing maintenance thinks a cable goes from point A 21 to point B and it doesn't, then he may get on the wrong 22 cable or he can't find the cable he's looking for.
- Gosh, 23 there's a few just off the top of my head.
I suppose if 1 24 looked at the IEE standards again I could probably come up i
Isfayette Hwidene y,
. 136,,
Luod Reporting Sern ice suite 630 962 1176 Su,1, $n IMrott, \\lichigan ML%
farmington lid!>. \\fuchugan Molk
I with a few more.
2 O
This report, NRC 5, characterizes the electrical cable 3
misinstallations as a significant construction problem.
4 Do you agree with that characterization?
5 A
Yes, I do.
6 80 Why do you consider it a significant construction problem?
7 A
Because the inability of the -- for the same reasons I 8
just gave you, that a plant that has misrouted cables 9
could ultimately have a hard time controlling a nuclear 10 accident.
Also the f act that you have misrouted cables, 11 if you find a f ew of them it makes you question where the it makes you question the qu lity of other aspects with 12 i
13 regard to the installation of cables as well as the f
I 14 termination of cables.
15 0
Is that question why the reason for the reinspection of 16 electrical cables?
17 A
Yes.
18 0
Did the NRC order reinspection of electrical cables at the 19 Midland Plant?
20 A
I don't recall.
I think we had a notice of violation.
We,
l 21 had meetings about it and I'm not sure what ultimately --
22 I'm not sure whether we ordered it or not.
I know -- I'll i
23 put it to you like this.
I know we were requiring it and 24 what mechanism was used to require it I don't know.
l i
Lu:od Reporting Sertice
- 137, lafayette kiding 962 II?6 Sainte :Jo Suiu M o Iktra t,
\\1scharan 4822t>
Farmington llath, \\hchigan IHulk
I 1
MS. RICE:
Could you please mark this as the 2
next NRC exhibit, which would be NRC 129.
3 (Depositicn Exhibit No. NRC 129, 4
NRC Document to Consumers Power 5
Company, dated September 2,1982, 6
was marked for identification.)
7 BY MS. RICE:
8 O
Mr. Cook, could you please identify the document that's 9
been marked as NRC 129?
10 MS. RICE:
For the record, NRC 129 bears 11 Bates numbers 91601495 through 496 12 A
It's a letter to Consumers Power dated, I think, September 13 i
the 2nd,1982, it looks like, from the NRC, signed by, 14 well, it's signed by Gardener for Bob Warnick.
15 BY MS. RICE:
16 0
Could you please take a look at the second page of this 17 document, Mr. Cook?
18 A
Could I take a look at the first page to find out what 19 it's about?
Okay.
20 0
Have you ever seen this document before, Mr. Cook?
l 21 A
Yes.
l 22 0
Did you receive a copy of this document, Mr. Cook?
l 23 A
Yes.
The resident office received usually documents of l
24 everything.
The flow of information was quite good to tha l
"I l
Infa>rtre Hustidone 3mto %nhues e n Hu ;
I Naar 630 9 6 2 1 1 <* 6 S,,,te 2,w Iktroa. \\fwhigan M2.%
Farmington Hulls.\\lahinan Mont
a --.--
=---------.----_
1 resident office.
2 O
Could you please turn now to the second page of the 3
document.
The first paragraph of the second page refers 4
to -- it states, "In regard to Section IV, paragraph 14 of 5
your June 4, 1982 report, we have contacted NRR and have 6
determined that an FSAR revision to allow less than one 7
hundred percent assurance that all class 1E cables are 8
installed in accordance with design will not be 9
acceptable.
We request you submit an additional response 10 which identifies the date by which you will complete a 11 hundred percent overinspection of all class 1E cables 12 installed (or partially installed) before March 15th, 13 1982."
And then it goes on to state, "In addition, we i
14 request that a sample overinspection program be developed l
for those cables installed after March 15, 1982 to ensure 15 16 their compliance with the FS AR. "
Is this the cable i
17 reinspection you were referring to?
18 A
This pertains to a cable reinspection.
They had done an 19 inspection of some of the -- of a goodly portion of the 20 cables, and I'm not sure wpat the percentages were, and 21 they came to the region and made a presentation saying 22 with a certain degree of confidence that there was this l
23 probability that the cables were not misrouted.
24 And so then the NRC took -- let's see.
We l
l 139
- f. u t d Reporting Sertice
, y Infayetu Hmidme S mte M O 962 1176 Sww so Detroa, \\lichigan M226 Farmmaton HJh. thchican wm
1 took the stand that okay, if NRR, if the reviewers in NRR 2
could buy that reduction in confidence, if you will, for 3
the routing of the safety-related cables then we would 4
ride with it.
NRR felt that they could not approve 5
anything other than a hundred percent compliance with the 6
PSAR pertaining to the routing of the cables.
And so what 7
that forced was the licensee to do a hundred percent 8
reinspection of the cables to ensure that the cables were 9
routed in the -- were routed in such a manner as to meet 10 the requirements of the FSAR.
11 i
This has to do with redundancy which we l
12 require on nuclear plants.
In other words, we were saying 13 NRR, how much confidence should the public have that 14 there's a probability that the cables are routed in a 15 manner that will fulfill the requirements and the ability 16 to shut the plant down and keep it shut down, how much of 17 a gamble factor, if you will, will you buy in on the 18 public.
And NRR said we' re not buying in on any gamble 19 factor when it comes to instrumentation and power circuits 20 that are necessary for thoce electrical aspects of the 21 plant that are required to shut the plant down and keep it 22 at a caf e shutdown condition.
23 0
Who in the NRR had the principal involvement in electrical i
l 24 cabic, the issue you've been discussing?
Luod Reporting Senice 3,,
y,,,,,,,,, 0 Infnyrtse ikilding Smte Mo 962 1176 S,are do 1)etroit, \\lichigan m:2t> Farmington littl<. \\fwhigan MolH
1 A I just don't recall now. Mr. Gardener out of the Region 2 III office, who was an electrical engineer, that was the 3 vanguard with the interface with the folks in NRR. I 4 don't know who the principal reviewer was. At the time I 5 did. I just don't recall any longer. 6 0 Would you personally accept less than one hundred percent 7 compliance with regard to the routing of the cables? 8 A No, ma'am. 9 0 Why not? 10 A I don't think the public should have to gamble, should 11 have to gamble that much, especially when I felt there was 12 no need for it because the cables could be inspected. 13 MS. RICE: This is a good breeking point if j 14 you want to take a minute. 15 (A brief recess was held during 16 the proceedings.) 17 BY MS, RICE: 18 0 Referring once again to NRC 5, which is the report on 19 construction probleus, back to page two of the report, N 20 10883. 21 A Okay. 22 0 The fourth paragraph on that page, could you please review 23 that paragraph that starts out "The Region III inspection 24 staff"? j l l i 1 l ""' "'?"""# s'"*' no us,,"* n., w,,,,, a.an, l Sun,e Mo 962 1176 S,,a,. 22o Iktrout, \\fahigan #226 Farmnne,m Hulls, \\fwhigan mnlk
1 A Okay. 2 Q All right. It states, "The Region III inspection staff 3 believes problems have kept recurring at Midland for the 5 4 following reasons" and it lists five reasons. Were you 5 part of the Region III inspection staff referred to in 6 this statement? 7 A Yes. 8 0 Did Mr. Gardener', who I believe you said was the prime 1 9 j author of this report, consult you specifically on the 10 reasons for the recurring problems? 11 A I don't believe so. I 12 l0 All right. The first problem listed is "overreliance on i 13 l the architect-engineer". Do you agree that that was the 14 reason for the recurring problems at Midland, one of the 15 reasons rather? 16 A Well, let me think about it. It's very dif ficult for me 17 to sit here right now and make the determinations as to 18 why problems existed at the Midland Plant without -- when 10 I was there many things were -- you were aware of many 20 things and they were current in your thinking and now I'm 21 going back and you're asking me to comment on words like 22 this overreliance on the architect-engineer. That i 23 definitely could cause them to have some regulatory 24 problems because the architect-engineer does not have the I' " " "5"# Ishyette Hustdung 308tn \\orthues e n Hu v suite Mo 962 1176 Suite 25o Ikte,wt. \\lahigan t8226 Formoneton Hull <,11ahrgan 18018
1 license, consumers has the license, and he's interested in 2 making money. 3 MR. DRIKER: Who is the he? ( 4 THE WITNESS The architect-engineer. 5 MR. DRIKER: Thank you. 6 A I lost my train there. There are some aspects that I can 7 think of that, you know, a heavy reliance on the 8 architect-engineer ultimately caused regulatory i 9 difficulties at the plant. 10 BY MS. RICE: 11 .O What aspects were those? lA 12 Well, the trending analysis would have been one that we i 13 had identified during the diesel generator inspection 14 i efforts that ultimately led into the CCP program. The CCP 15 I program itself was aimed at consumers taking away -- some 16 of these controls away from the architect-engineer, 17 similar to what Consumers had done to take the controls 18 away f rom the zack Company. 19 0 This report appears to have been issued in October of 20 1982? 21 A This one. This was a note to Eisenhut from Warnick. 22 0 Enclosing the report? t 23 A Right, and, in fact, we had to go talk to -- I can't even 24 remember. Let me just think a second. I left there in l i Luzod Reporting Service
- 143, lafayette Budding
,g Swte MO 962 1176 Swt, 23; Detrout, \\fichigan #1226 Farmington lidis, \\fechigan Walk
1 primary reason all by itself. That would be 2 characteristic of plants that find themself in regulatory 3 problems. Rare is it because of one, single isolated 4 event. To say as a regulator we usually don't balance -- 5 at the time that you're in the throes of making 6 evaluations and reviewing the records you've created and 7 the documents and so forth and so on you might have at 8 that time, you know, an opinion as to th?.t some aspects 9 l are causing more of an impact than other aspects, but to 10 sit here and single out which one of the five would have 11 the most significant impact, I don't, in all fairness, 12 think I could do that without doing an awful lot of 13 (
- homework, i
14 10 As you sit here today, are there any additional reasons 15 that you can think of for the recurring problems at 16 Midland? 17 A I didn't think there were anymore problems at Midland. 18 Boy. This was back in 1982 and if my memory serves me 19 right it was in January of 1983 that there was a CCP 20 program that was developed, and I'm hoping I'm not getting 21 dates mixed up. I felt that the CCP program, we 22 paraphrased it calling it the get-well program, had that 23 been aggressively pursued that that probably could have 24 gotten Consumers out of regulatory difficulties and kept l IAS Imd Reporting Service y, y lafayette Bu Idsne 962 1176 Su,ge 22o Suite 10p Iktroet, \\fichigan 18226 Farmington Hulk, \\fichigan walk .. ~ _. -.
1 them out of there, if that had been pursued forthrightly 2 and straightforward 1y. There's an answer. 3 0 My question was, as you sit here today can you think of an 4 additional reason for the problems, recurring problems as 5 discussed in your report and as discussed in your 6 testimony today? 7 A No, I can't. But you have to bear in mind a lot of things 8 stopped -- let's see -- after the diesel generator 9 inspection. So this is more historical and it's very 10 difficult to sit at this late date after all that went on 11 to develop that CCP program and our reviews necessary to, 12 if you will, get it going as such to look back and say 13 what now are all the causes that went into the regulatory 14 difficulti'es that existed at this point in history. 15 'O Let me show you a document that's been previously marked 16 as NRC 13. 17 A What am I supposed to do with it now? 18 0 I'm just showing it to you. Can you identify this 19 document, NRC 13, !!r. Cook? 20 A Yes. It's a letter that we sent to Consumers Power, dated I l July the 19th,1982, pertaining to the SALP inspection and 21 22 the comments that Consumers Power had made with regard to i 23 that SALP report and had sent to the NRC on about May 24 17 th, 1982. l 1 f 6,,,,, Lu:od Reporting Service Ip(vette Building 3,,, y9,, sate Mo 962 1176 Siore 23: Desrmt. \\tahignn M226 Farmangton linth, \\tahigan 1801H
1 0 You've just referred to a SALP report. What do you mean 2 by SALP? 3 A Systematic assessment of the licensee's performance, is 4 4 what the acronym stands for, and it is a document that is 5 generated by the inspection staf f primarily, although it 6 does have input from the NRR people that are associated 7 with the site where they make an assessment as to what S they think about the licensee. I 9 O Mr. Cook, were you part of the inspection staf f that 10 participated in the preparation of SALP reports? 11 A Yes, I an. 12 0 Are SALP's prepared periodically? 13
- A For most licensees, yes.
l 14 'O Were they prepared periodically for the Midland Plant? 15 A Yes. 16 0 Was your role in the preparation of SALP reports part of 17 your official duties with the NRC? 18 A
- Yes, i
19 'O And these reports assess Consumers Power's performance, 20 right, as licensee; is that correct? 21 A With regard to a given plant. This one happens to do with 22 the Midland Plant. In other words, it assesses the 23 utility's performance plant specific, because they could 24 look very good at one of their own plants and look very 147 Luted Reporting Service ,o.,, ,,y lxfayeror Busiding Suar Mo 962 1176 S,,,g, ;no Iktroit 11chigan #226 Farrnington Hdis, \\furhigan 3018
1 bad at another one plant and the two plants could be owne 2 by the same utility. 3 Q What period of time did this particular SALP report, NRC 4 13, cover? 5 A Well, this one says from July 1st, 1980 through June the 6 30th, 1981. 7 0 And was this the first SALP report issued Consumers Power 8 at Midland or had there been previous ones? 9 A If I remember right, we wrote two SALP's but I'm not even 10 sure on that anymore. Let me see if I can find some 11 highlight in here. I 12 MR. DRIKER: Can' t you help the witness out, 13 Miss Rice, any other SALP reports? 14 BY MS. RICE: 15 0 I don't have any with me but if I can direct your 16 attention to enclosure one, Roman numeral small 5, V. 17 A Enclosure one. 18 0 The third paragraph. 19 A You got a page number kind of like? 20 0 It would be N 11223. 21 A Okay. 22 Q If I can direct you to the paragraph that begins, "The 4 23 licensee's", the last part of that paragraph ref ers to a 24 SALP 1 previously issued. l 1 uzod Reporting Service yo yQ 4 8,,,,, lafayette fluuldung .Nuute MO 962.))76 .su,g,gjo Iktroit \\fichigan M226 Farmington ilsth. \\luhutan #1018
1 A Okay. 2 0 So this would make it the second SALP report? 3 A Okay. I was having a hard time again locking in on 4 periods of time with respect to what went on, you know. 5 It's obvious senility is taking over when I can't remember 6 things vividly that happened seven years ago. 7 ! Q Directing your attention to page N 11226, which is page 8 i two. 9 A Yes. 10 ,0 Is Consumers Power in this particular report rated one of 11 three categories in different functional areas? 12 jA Yes. We don' t rate the -- we rate them in the dif f erent i 13 i functional areas. Now, I think the earlier SALP's, when 14 they came out they rated the licensee one, two or three as 15 an overall grade, something such as that, and they caused 16 a lot of problems f rom a regulatory standpoint. So then l 17 it was broken down and we rated them on individual areas, l 18 0 Can you tell me what is meant by a Category 3 rating? I 19 HR. DRIKER: Doesn't the document really 20 speak f or itself ? 21 A Yes, it does. The Category 3 says, "Both NRC and licensee 22 attention should be increased." We have that "Licensee 23 management attention and involvement is acceptable and 24 considers nuclear safety, but weaknesses are evident; i Lu od Reporting Service 149,, Lafvette B:alding Swtr MO 962 lii6 Sara so Iktrmt. \\fachigan 18226 Farrnnneton llalls, \\fschienn mots
1 licensee resources appear to be strained or not 2 effectively used" -- it's sort of a -- at the time that 3 this was written that was considered the lowest acceptable 4 category that a licensee could reside in, if you will. i 5 0 Could the SALP board issue any lower rating for a 6 licensee? 7 A Let's see. Yes. 8 Q And what rating would that be? 9 A well, the rating becomes a not rated rating. So there are 10 several reasons. New, if you look on this tabulation one 11 of them says it's not rated. 12 l0 What page are you referring to? l 13 .A 1 11227. I 14 l0 Okay. 15 A There's a note there that says not rated. That was 16 because we -- no work was going on in that area, but a 17 licensee can be rated such that we do not give him a 18 rating because F2 falls out of that minimum acceptance 19 level. 20 0 For this SALP teport -- let me back up a minute. Did you 21 personally participate in the preparation of this 22 particular SALP report? t 23 A Yes. 24 0 were you assigned specific arena or did you participate in l 1 l I' "
- Infyrste Budding 3mto %rthen een llu).
Sune mo 962 III6 suar 220 Iktroa, \\fwhipn 48226 Farmsneton lidh, \\fichtsan walk
1 overall preparation of the SALP report? 2 A Let me look at this. I think I wrote the entire thing. 3 That happens to residents. It does look pretty, like this 4 is one of the ones I wrote, but now the fact that I wrote 5 it and composed it doesn' t -- well, I receive input from I 6 other inspectors. So which one has the responsibility for 7 I generating the base document -- and this would be what I 8 generated and that goes into the SALP board and, if you 9 will, the inspectors go and reason with the SALP board as 10 to why -- the validity of these comments. 11 That's a check and balance just in case the 12 l inspectors are, say, down on a given licensee, thct 13 l they're not letting their emotionalism get in the way, or 14 l prudency, or they think the licensee is a bunch of great i 15 people and then they're obligated to substantiate their 16 l findings. So we have quite a knockdown, dragdown, if you 17 will, in the region office. 18 0 If you could refer to the second page of your cover l 19 letter, which is N 11218. Down at the bottom there's 20 peoples names and initials. Are those sign-offs for 21 approval of this report? 22 A
- Yes, i
23 0 And who ic Mr. Tambling? 24 A He was with the group that did a statistical breakdown of 1.us d Reporting Service ,,ku,,f,f,,, 3,g,g lxfvette Iktdane 962 1176 %,te no kite mo Iktrout. \\fichigan 48226 Farmington linlis. \\fschuean 180HI
1 performance criteria and he may have been a member of the 2 SALP board at that time. See, there's another document 3 that goes with this, if I remember. Let me read here a 4 second. I was thinking that somewhere in here I was 5 thinking it labeled who the board members were when we 6 issued the report to the licensee. I'm not sure anymore. 7 It's been awhile since I put one of these together. I was 8 thinking it did label the board members. Anyway, Mr. 9 Tambling, he's a member of the Region III staf f. He may 10 l have been a member of the group. He also happens to be a i 11 l section chief in a group that supplies statistics. I 12 !0 Then I see a ref erence to Mr. Spessard and Norelius, a l 13 i Hind, a Davis and 1:eppler. Here all those men -- I don't i l know if they're all men -- 14 15 A They're all men. 16 0 Your superiors at Region III? 17 A No, not really. They were all in a sootion chief or 18 greater capacity but I worked for, geez, I don't know who 19 at this time. I may have been working through a guy on 20 the board who would be my }mmediate superior. Our agency 21 is structured such that some guy out of Region 4 calls up 22 here and says, geez, I'm a section here and how about 23 doing thic, Ron Cook, and I'll say how about sticking it 24 in your ear. I realize we inspectors get thrown to the ,,,J,5 2,,,g d ReporIiatg Sernce 1sfay este ihnidine ,, y, 902* ll ?6 .%re 2?> .%te hv) lhetrott. \\fichigan m226 Farmsneton Ihlls, \\l><higan mom
1 wolves every now and then. 2-0 And what categories was Consumers Power rated Category 3, 3 what functional areas for this SALP report? ( 4 A Let me get to the page here that tells. 5 MR. DRIKER: Is it necessary to have him read what the document seems to set forth rather plainly? 6 7 BY MS. RICE: 8 l0 You'll see that the document has soils and foundations 9 Category 3. Is soils and foundations the problem stemming 10 l out of the diesel generator problem that we discussed i 11 l earlier? lA Not that alone. I think it included some of borings and 12 j OA problems associated with it and the words in the report 13 i 14 l Vill tell you. Paraphrasing the report -- 15 HR. BERKOVITZ: I don' t think it's necessary 16 l to paraphrase it. If you have anything to add, you can 17 add it. 18 A I'd just as soon say the reasons why they are in Category 19 3 in soils are pretty well clearly defined in the report 20 itself. 1 21 BY MS. RICE: 22 0 Item functional area number four, piping systems and 23 supports, is also rated Category 3. Is that the same 24 piping systems and support problem we were discussing l
- 1. u t d Reportirsg Sert see 103,,
lafayette Builden kite h30 962 III6 Suute 22o Detrmt.11ahigan M226 Farmington IMh, \\lahigan $8o18
1 earlier this afternoon? 2 A It probably is and I -- but I would again look at the 3 report and make sure what the references were. It even 4 has a few other ones in there I think. 5 0 So this functional area extends beyond the area we were i I 6 discussing earlier this afternoon? 7
- A I think so because we were addressing primarily those 8
tr.ings that led up to giving an immediate action letter in 9 May of 1981 and I notice there are some other things in 10 here that address weaknesses that were not addressed 11 during the inspection that led up to the. IAL of 1981. 12 ,0 can you identify which areas you're referring? 13 A "Bechtel Purchase Order did not specify applicable codes 14 for purchase of 60 thousand pounds of E7018 electrode." 15 This identifies a weakness but I don't think that was 16 identified in an IAL letter. 17 0 Are you ref erring to page eight of the SALP records? 18 A Yes. 19 0 Iten number one under four A? 20 A Yes. 21 0 Are there any other of these seven listed items that were 22 not included in our discussion earlier this afternoon? 23 A I believe that number two, "Bypass of an inspection 24 holdpoint for pressurizer surging piping." I would say the I' isFoyene ikidone 3mto %rthus em liny har hus 962 1176 Suar 2:n Iktr<ar, \\fwhie n 482:n Formoneton listls, \\fwkne n malk
1 other ones are probably covered in that prose that we had 2 looked at earlier today pertaining to the piping problem. 3 Again without going through a detailed sit-in-the-corner 4 and compare one item with what is in the other documents -- - 5 0 Item number seven, functional area number seven rather, 6 electrical power supply and distribution, is also rated i 7 Categery 37 8 A Yes. 9 l0 Is that the same problem or same area as we were 10 discussing in the electrical cable misinstallation I 11 problem? 12 A I would imagine there are probably other things that go 13 l with it but I'd have to look at the report to determine 14 l that. I 15 0 Could you look at the report and see if you can identify 16 other areas? 17 MR. BERKOVITZ: I don' t quite understand the 18 purpose of that question. 19 DY HS. RICE: 20 0 Identify areas discussing the SALP report that we did not 21 discuss earlier. 22 A The areas that led up to that rating, the big areas, you 23 weigh them. Say that the ultimate evaluation based on 24 this perf ormance is a Category 3. Earlier we were talking-I' * ' " " # 1 fvette Hwidens 3thl0 %thust r ll" ) 4 s,,,,, r, y> 962 1176 swer 2.h> IMrms. \\takstan IR226 Farmungtm listis \\fichigan 48'blR
1 strictly about the misreading of electrical cable. 2 0 were there other aspects of Consumers Power's performance 3 besides the misrouting of the cables that led to the 4 Category 3 rating? d 5 A I would certainly think so. 6 0 can you identify any of those areas? 7
- A Right now I think the "Failure to establish procedures for 8
temporary support of cabic, cable coils -- and for routingg 9 l cables" was probably not discucsed earlier, i 10 iO Are you reading off page eleven, item number one; is that 11 correct? 12 A Yes. i l0 Any other of the other items? 13 14 MR. DRIKER: Are you just asking him to read 1 15 off the document? 16 MS. RICE: I'm asking him to identify the 17 items, other aspects. 18 MR. DRIKER: All he's doing is reading from 19 the document. He doesn't have any independent knowledge. 20 We can all just read from phe document. I don't know what 21 we're gaining by having him read of f a piece of paper if 22 he doesn't have any independent knowledge. i 23 A What I was doing was trying to make a determination as to 24 what of these were different from those things that went i I.u:od Reporting Service ,,km},fn,,g 6 1 thytte ktJwr ,,, u 4 Suite Mo 962 II'6 kute 2.m lktrmt. \\tochienn 822h Farmmgton llulls, 11tch::an IRnik
1 into the misrouting situation that was discussed, and the 2 words here will tell you whether they are associated with 3 that misrouting or whether they weren't. The reason for 4 the -- for my saying that I doubt if it would just be that 5 is because somehow I have a hard time believing that only 6 one thing, you know, one thing called misrouting of cables 7 would be enough to put a licensee for that given period of 8 time into a Category 3. 9 You know, some of these other categories -- 10 it may be, too, they still have items of noncompliance or 11 things of concern by the NRC but yet they ended up with an 12 evaluation which is considered a Category 2 by the NRC. 13 So I'm saying it wasn't just one thing that would lead up i 14 to a Category 3. There are probably other attributes and 15 when these are read and compared to what we discussed 16 earlier this afternoon you would make the determination 17 which ones were excluded from the othen documents l pertaining to the misrouting problem. 18 19 BY MS. RICE: 20 0 So your discussion earlier,this afternoon with regard to 21 the electrical cable misinsta11ation was limited solely to' 22 miscouting? t 23 A Yes. 24 0 And so are you saying that any other discussion within 1 51 Lutod Reporting Service y lafayette Raildme Suite Mn 962 11I6 State 231 (kremt. \\tahigan 18226 Farmmaton Hall <. \\lahira 48o1H I n,-- nw-n-- m-.- --.,-.-..----..-+g- ,y
1 this SALP report does not deal with misrouting? 2 A Say that again. 3 0 Let me strike that. What I'm trying to find out is, what 4 other aspects of Consumers Power's performance resulted in 5 a Category 3 besides misrouting, do you have any knowledge l 6 of that? 7 lA I have to go through and read each of these attributes. I 8 After all these years I don't remember for what reasons we 9 came up with them. 10 THE WITNESS: Counselor, do you want me to l go ahead and read through each one and make a comparison? 11 12 MR. BERKOVITZ: It might help if we know 13 what we' re getting at. You could do it if it's absolutely-14 l necessary. 15 BY MS. RICE: 16 0 !!r. Cook, when you described the electrical cable 17 misjnstallation this afternoon it was in a very general 18 format and I'm just trying to come up here with how that 19 problem related to the Category 3 rating here. 20 A I'm not so sure it's even included in here. Well, there's 21 one statement here that says there was essentially no 22 electrical installation work performed for more than six 23 months into the evaluation period because of the need to 24 perform re-engineering to permit routing of cable without l IAfnyette flutidmg 3%IO %rthur ern Ilv) kute ska 962 1E?0 kut 2h thetrm t, 11ahigan 18226 Farrnmpton finlis, \\lahtenn 180th
l 1 thermal and/or physical overloading of the raceways. 2 Q Do you know what that's referring to? 3 A Not really. + 4 MS. RICE: Let the record reflect the 5 witness is consulting with his counsel. 6 (A brief discussion was held 7 of f the record.) 8 MR. BERKOVITZ: On the record. We're having 9 part of the problem here is due to Mr. Cook's memory. He 10 doesn't remember. Go ahead and explain. 11 A If I was to -- if I was to be given a date sitting here 12 for this period of time and say what would I think ab'out 13 the licensee in the electrical area, I probably could not 14 conc up with reasons why they should be a level three 15 without looking at the record. Bear in mind this is a 16 compilation of the records that existed at the time for 17 that period. Even this information when it was composed 18 was composed 1 coking at many of the inspection reports and P 19 so forth and so on. 20 So to sit he,re and tell you why we came up 21 with a Category 3, I cannot, other than parroting what is 22 in the report. Now earlier we were discussing about the 23 misrouting problem and I looked at the comparison of dates 24 and I really don't see a hell of a lot of things here that 159 Lmd Reporting Sertin IAfayette Bwidans 962 1176 $wg, so S.ste M o iksrat. Whigan Pt226 Farmsngton lislls %higan violk
memmm_m__-_______________ 1 necessarily address those meetings and such. So I got 2 date problems and so forth. So I guess I'm saying take i 3 the record as it is and that tells why they got Category 4 3. I can't tell you why without reading the report, 5 though. l l 6 BY MS. RICE: l 7 jQ You have no independent recollection, is that correct, for l l 8 the basis for the Category 3 rating on electrical? 9 A Not without reading the report. 10 0 Would reviewing the report refresh your recollection? 11 A It's not a matter refreshing, it's a matter of saying 12 l okay, this is what we said at the time. I 13 lQ The last two items listed on page 3, N 11227, item number i f 14 twelve, design control and design changes, and thirteen, 15 reporting requirements and corrective action, Category 3, 16 do either of those categories relate to what we've been 17 discussing this af ternoon, significant construction 18 problems at Midland? 19 A I guess I didn't realize we were discussing significant 20 construction problems. I was pulling them out one by one.1 21 Again, I cannot say without again reading this report. 22 Sitting here and looking at the Category 3, I can' t say 23 whether that is compatibic with the words of the other 24 report that we were looking at earlier that went to I lefsyrtre L idmg 3mla %thurs em Huy .%rr Mu 962 Eli6 buar 2;m IHroa. \\tahogan tR22r> Formungton lhlh, \\tahitan 48018
1
- Eisenhut, t
2 0 Mr. Cook, when you were preparing this SALP report was 3 this your individual assesment? Did you have input from 4 other members of the board? 5 A No. It's a joint ef f 7tt. This brings in input from the 6 other inspectors. Some of them, in the areas that they l wrote or had expertise in, they would write a bit of a 7 i 8 l feeder into it. *I would take their handwritten i 9 I information. Some I would get information via a phone 10 call. I would go through all the prior inspection I 11 reports, which is the basic document, go through that, see 12 what the enforcement record looks like, inquire of other 13 inspectors about what did they think about when they 14 looked into this area, how come they had a problem with 15 the response of the licensee in this given item of 16 noncompliance, so forth and so on. 17 Then we'd spend two weeks -- somebody has to la author this. I happened to be the individual that 19 authored it. Then after it's authored we sent it around 20 to the folks that are involved, correct, add, delete, 21 mutilate, whatever. Then finally we como up with 22 something that gets close to a finished product, it's 23 submitted to the board and then the inspectors that a:e 24 involved meet with the board, including the folks from NRR i lafayette Liding 3mm % hur i r flu y kite hp) 962 11'6 s w ;po (betnut, \\fAigan M226 formanston flath, \\ldsson Wl8
= - - _ - _ _ = _ - -_ I that may have had input, and then the position t-het is l taken is then justified. 2 I 3 lQ So these ratingn as presented on N 11227, were they the 4 final consensus of the ratings that Consumers Fower sheuld 5 be given at that time? 6 fA Yes, for that period. It's stopped. 7 0 June 3 0,1981? 8 ,A Yeah, June 30, 1981. That was one of the reasens on the 9 l electrical statement I was having some problems with. 10 June 30, I?81 was close to !!ay 22, 1961. So I think the 11 reinspection issue happened at a later time than what I i i 12 l think the reporting period was, s l0 The first page of NRC 13 refers to a management meeting. 13 14 lA That's this one. 15 0 Management meeting held on April 2G and June 21st, 19827 16 A Yes. 17 0 Did you attend the April 26 management meeting on SALP? 18 A Yes. 19 0 Do you have an independent recollection of that meecing, 20 Mr. Cook? 21 A Yes. We were at a hotel in I think it was Ann Arbor, it 22 may have been Jackson, but anyway it was away from 23 Midland, and I presented the SALP. In other words, I did 24 not read these words verbatim to them but I paraphrased I E "'" # ' " Lafayerre Rwldme 3WtIO %rthun e n Hu y 962 1176 Swie zm Swtr Mo iktrost. \\fakiran tR22h Farmington iblh. Wharan IMIM ~
-_w.---=---.=.-----=.-.----==-----------.-.---q f l' each of the areas and presented the NRC's opinionated 2 statement as to what we felt was our assessment of 3 Consumers Power. -4 Q And you were the main presenter at this meeting for the 5 NRC? E 6 A I was the presenter. 7
- 0 Who else f rom the NRC was in attendance, do you recall?
8 A Yes. Keppler was there, Darl Hood was there, I think, 9 from NRR, and let's see. If Keppler was there, then I 10 would -- I'm -- well, probably Boyd because I think he was 11 the section chief at the time. I can't think who the 12 branch chief was. There were representives from the 13 licensee that also was there, representatives from the l 14 i plant, representatives from the corporate offices. Then 15 the NRC has their hierarchy, if you will, and I presented < 16 I said I didn't read each one of these, just took out the 17 big items and says, okay, here's what we think about you 18 i and somewhere in captivity, I suppose, if you got together 19 with the GAP they'd have my notes I talked from. I don't 20 have any of that stuff. 21 0 Did Consumers Power present a response at this April 26 22 meeting? l 23 A No. They presented a recponse later, on May 17th. We 24 make note of their May 17th response. md Reporting Settice
- 103, lafayette BatIdmg kite Mn 962.))?6
%,re zno i (ktrout. \\fwhiga ML% Farmmater lidir \\lat. ige 3n18
1 Q May 17th? 2 A 1982. 3 Q That's Consumers Power's response to SALP? ( 4 A Yec. 5 Q Besides a formal written response, which evidently was 6 filed on May 17th,1982, did Consumers Power respond at 7 f all to the SALP rating you presented to them at the April 8 26, 1982 meeting? Strike that. 9 Was there a discussion of your ratings with 10 the Consumers Power representatives? 11 A Yes. 12 lQ It was a formal give and take discussion or was it just a 13 presentation by you? fA You mean at the SALP meeting? 14 15 0 Yes, April 26, 1982 meeting. 16 A There was not much of a -- boy, oh boy -- I'm confusing 17 the first SALP with the second SALP and -- let me check 18 some dates here. 19 Q Sure. 20 A See, that was in April 1987 I can't remember the give 1 21 and take. I know Keppler had an input -- you d'1't happen 22 to have a copy of the first SALP, do you? t 23 Q S ALP 17 24 A Yes. ,,hn},f,4,,ur od r;>o nin g Sen w lafa)etre ikiding 30g,g har ny) 962 1176 .%re.bo IWtroa. \\fichigan 482.% Farmsngton Ildir \\tahueen tholk
{Q I do not have one with me. 1 2 A Okay. If SALP 1 had a Category 3 in soils, then this was 3 the SALP where Keppler made an input to the licensee. If 4 this SALP was the one that occurred just prior to the 5 Of fice of Special Cases -- I'm having a hard time. I'm 6 slipping years in there. I'm not sure which year what 7 happened. Anyway, this one may have been the SALP where 8 Keppler had an input. If the first SALP had had a 9 Category 3 in the soils area and then a Category 3 in this 10 area, then this is the one where Keppler was quite unhappy 11 j with the licensee. 12 l0 Hold on just a minute. I may be able to help you. l 13 MS. RICE: Do you want this marked? i 14 l MR. DRIKER: I thought I'd help him with the 15 dates. Let the record reflect I've given Mr. Cook a 16 letter from the NRC to Consumers Power Company, dated 17 December 18, 1980. We are not going to mark it or offer 18 it, but it might help him place some of these dates. 19 A I'm still missing in my mind another document. Oh, boy. i 20 MR. BERKOVITp: I don't think the witness 1 1 21 remembers. I think it's a fair statement to say the 22 witness doesn't remember. 1 23 A I guess I'll give you that back. Well, anyway, one of the 24 SALP's was more docile than another. If I recall, Keppler E' lafayette Bwidme 3M40 %rthurst r Huy Suir, g > 962.IlI6 Sune 220 ()etrat, \\fakiran 4822h Farmmeton Hdis, \\fwkwan Wik
_____._.___._______;__=%__-- 1 interjected himself because he was unhappy with -- the 2 l conditions in the soils area were not very good and so i 3 l there was one of the SALP meetings that I remember that l 4 was the nature of it. Whether this was this SALP meeting 5 I'm not certain. l 6 iBY MS. RICE: 7 0 I believe you stated it was the SALP immediately prior to 8 the establishment of the office of Special Cases? i 9 lA Yes. 10 (O Since you've used that ref erence date of ten, let's try to 11 firm up that dato for you. 12 A That would help. See, that was a milestone. 13 0 This may help some. i i i MS. RICE: Could you please mark this as the 14 i 15 next NRC exhibit, NRC 130. 16 (Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 130, 17 Testimony of James O. Keppler with 18 respect to Quality Assurance, 19 was marked for identification.) 20 BU MS. RICE: 21 0 Could you please identify the document the court r eporter 22 has just marked as NRC 130? 23 A Yes. It looks like it's testimony from James Keppler with 24 respect to Quality Assurance to the Atomic Safety and f.uted Reporting Sert ice 166 Lafayette Buildme Suar MO 9621II6 suae :po />trmt, \\fichigan 4822h Farmington Hills, \\lichuran 48018
1 t 1 vere considered Category 3. The actual SALP presentation 2 wasn' t until the spring of the following year, of 1982. 3 At that time Mr. Keppler asked me, in the presence of the 4 other inspection people, what we thought about the 5 performance of Consumers Power in the soils area in 6 particular and we'd indicated that it would be -- well, we 1 7 actually indicated it would be worse than a Category 3. 8 So that kind of bothered Mr. Keppler and if I remember 1 l 9 l right at that meeting Mr. Keppler became very emphatic and 10 l explained that this was kind of unacceptable. As far as 11 the give and take, I'm having a hard time recollecting 12 what Concumers said at that meeting. I just -- I can I 13 picture the Consumers man saying a statement we were done, l 14 l which would be normal, and I can't remember the gist of 15 it. I think it was Jim Cook. 16 0 In your prior answer you were discussing the rating of 17 Consumers Power in April of 1982 as compared to the end of 18 June 1981; is that correct? When you said they would be 19 worse than Category 3, was that presented at the SALP 20 meeting in April of 19827, 21 A I know it was presented to Mr. Keppler and I don't recall 22 whether we presented that -- I'm not sure what f orm it was i 23 presented to Consumers at the meeting. 24 0 Uhen Mr. Keppler asked you about Consumers Power's current l ,,,R8,,,, 1 Luzod Reporting Sert ser 1.afgerte Hwldme .wir hp) 9 6 2 ' l l e' 6 Swre :)*1 Intra t, \\fichigan 482.% Farmssion lidh, \\tahigan W1H
~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _.__,__ _ _ a _ ] f b' 1 l rating as of April of 1982, did you assess Consumers 2 Power's performance in other categories as well? 3 A Yes. When we were at lunch Mr. Keppler was asking this is 4 the rating that you have given them with the due date of 5 the middle of 1981 and he inquired as to what would they 6 look like now and I remember going down through the 7 categories and stating what we -- what our present opinion 8 in April was. I don't remember what those are any longer. 9 i I used to have notes on it and who knows where they are at 10 thic point in time. 11 0 So the only category you can specifically recall would be 12 soils and foundations? l l 13 A That I can remember. Now, if I think about this, when we 14 i talked we made the presentation to the licensee, I recall, 15 in some of the areas stating what the is-now condition 16 would be, but I don't remember what those are without the 17 notes that I had at that point in time, 18 O All right. fir. Cook, I'm handing you a document 19 previously labeled as NRC 14. Could you identify this 20 document, Mr. Cook? 21 A It's a letter f rom Consumers Power to the Nuclear 22 Regulatory Commission dated May the 17th,1982. It's l 23 addressed to Mr. Keppler and it's signed by Jim Cook of 24 Consumer s Power. I Lused Reporting Sersice 16 9,,, l lafayetir thalding l hire tan 962 1176 kure 2.s. IWtrat. Whigan M22n Farminut<m lhtts, Whican wl8
- - m e mmm. % e e e-e e e - - - - - m m _.__ _ _ _ _.__ _ _ L 1 l0 What is the subject matter of the letter? 2 A Their response to our SALP that we had -- it's their 3 response to our SALP for the period July 1,1980 through 4 July 3 0,1981, and the SALP meeting that we had in April 5 of 1982. 6 0 For brevity sake, can we call it SALP II? 7 A SALP II. 8 O Is that one in the same SALP report we're talking about? 9 lA Yes. i 10 MS. RICE: Could you please initial NRC 122. 11 l (Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 122, 12 l Six pages of handwritten notes, 13 l was marked f or identification.) i 14 BY tis. RICE: 15 0 Mr. Cook, can you identify the document the court reporter 16 has just marked as NRC 1227 17 A Well, well. They are handwritten notes and I'm not sure 18 whose they are. My suspicion -- am I allowed to do that? 19 MR. BERKOVITZ: Yeah. 20 A I suspect that they are handwritten notes f rom 11ayne 21 Shaf er pertaining to Consumers May 17th response to SALP 22 II. 23 0 Have you ever seen these notes before, Mr. Cook? 24 A I believe I have. l 1.uz d Reporting Sertice 110,, y, In(yette Ilmidant Swtr hw 962 1176 Swtr :,m (ktrat. \\lwhi,ean M2.% Formungton lidh. \\lahigan WlH
I h when did you see these notes? 0 2 A I don' t know. 3 Q At or about the time they were written, about the time of 4 the Consumers response? 5 .A We were getting ready for a meeting -- 1 6 MR. DRIKER: I'll object to that. There's 7 no testimony that they were written at the time of 8 Consumer s' response and there's no indication that they 9 were written at that time. 10 BY MS. RICE: 11 Q Mr. Cook, let me break up my question. Do you know if you 12 saw these notes at or about the time of Consumers Power's l response to SALP II, which was officially dated May 17th, 13 14 1982? 15 A Well, like I stated, I'b not even acre whose notes they 16 are. I think they're Wayne Shafer's notes. We were 17 preparing to have a meeting with consumers, I want to say 18 in June. One of these pieces of paper will tell me when 19 we had a second meeting with Consumers. 20 0 You may want to refer back, to NRC 13, the original SALP 21 report. 22 A We need a bigger tabic. Okay. Ref erences June the 21st. i 23 We were preparing to go into a meeting to discuss 24 Consumers' rebuttal to SALP II and I believe at was around "'Y hafayene Bwidag 3mIO \\orthurst r flu y Suire Mn 962 1176 Swre ]ro Iktrat \\hchigan M:26 Farmmaton Iblis thchienn nolk
w _ .) ' I that period of time that I saw this set of notes and I 2 believe they're the comments of Wayne Shafer. I'm pretty 3 sure they are. 4 Q At.aout June 21st? 5 A It was while we were putting together our rebuttal to 6 their report. 7 MS. RICE: Let me ask the reporter to l 8 i initial NRC 126. 9 (Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 126, 10 Typewritten notes of Ronald J.
- Cook, 11 was marked for identification.)
1.2 j MS. RICE: Por the record, NRC 126 has the 13 Bates numbers N 050258 through N 052062. i 14 BY MS. RICE: 15 0 Mr. Cook, can you identify NRC 126? 16 A Sure. 17 0 And what is this document? 18 A These,are typewritten notes of mine in preparation for the 19 June 21st meeting. They're my rebuttal to Consumers' 20 rebuttal to the SALP II. 21 0 And you're referring to Consumers Power's May 17th -- 22 A 1982 letter. And we were to go into a meeting and discuss i 23 that document. It was offensive to the NRC personnel. 24 0 What document was it? i l
- f. nod Reporting Sertice
- 172, Inhyrrie Huuldine s,we un 962 11.'6 suar 2.%
inetrmt, \\takigan 1822s Farnuneton lidh, \\lahutan 18013
1 1
- A The May 17th,1982 Consumers letter.
Our attitude was if 2 we're going to go into a meeting then no holds barred. So. 3 we generated our own individual sets of notes in 4 preparation for that meeting. 5
- 0 Do you know if anyone else had prepared these notes in 6
response to Consumers Power's May 17th,1982 letter? 7 A Well, I would imagine that other people had because we had i 8 a meeting before that meeting so I am -- I'm not assuming, l 9 I know other people had notes in preparation for going 10 into the meeting. 11 O You're referring to a meeting, a meeting before the June 12 21st, 1982 -- 13 lA It was an NRC staff meeting. Without a calendar it's hard I 14 telling. The day before, two days before, something such 15 as that, there was an NRC meeting to discuss this 16 document. That had Wayne Shafer, as I recall Warnick was 17 there, I was there, Gardener, Landsman,. Bill Payton was 18 there, I believe Darl Hood was there. I don't know l 19 j whether Eleanor Aidenzan was there or not. So any one of 20 these were key staff members of the NRC that met in my 21 trailer, the trailer I had on site, the office trailer, 22 and we discussed this. So I had my notes, Wayne Shafer i 23 had his notes and I'm sure -- well, I'm sure the other 24 l people had their notes because I seen them making i i l Luzod Reporting Service nw %e r gg,,,, y;g ' Swre sw 962.))?O sua,1, 2 m iktroer, \\fichtgen 18226 Farmington Hdix \\fichien walk
i l reference to their own notes. 1 2 'O Let me get the timeframe straight on this. This meeting ( 3 in the !!RC in your trailer was immediatley a day or two 4 prior to the June 21st,1982 meeting? 5 A Yes, ma'am. 6 0 Directing your attention to llRC 126, the typed set of your 7 notes, are the page references and paragraph references i 1 8 j referring to llRC 14, which is consumers Powe.-'s May 17th, l 1982 response? 9 10 A Probably. Let me see how the words match up. Bear in li mind their response, the SALP report and.then you make the 12 comparison. Bear in mind these were -- these were my 13 private notes -- here they are. Somehow I got page one l point one but I can't find -- oh, there we go. All right. 14 15 flow I'm starting. 16 Yes, it looks pretty much like the page 17 numbers and paragraph numbers do make reference to the IS Consumers' May 17th report. Now, as you go through there 19 may or may not be some mistakes in the page G and the 20 paragraph G and so forth and so on. I'm not going to 21 claim they are anything other than personal notes to help 22 at a meeting. Except, the originals even had red typing 23 on it, but I think the CAP folks scounded off with them. 24 There's a lot of copying that went on for POIA and we Luod Reporting Sertice
- 174, I.afayette kidme su,s mo 962 1176 su,te 2.m (Wtrcut. \\fwhigan 482.%
Farmmeton Halls \\tahigan 18018
______________________.___.______.__.__________z 1 ended up with the copies. 2 0 The very first paragraph of NRC 126, if I can direct your 3 attention to that, under CPCo, page one - one. 4 A Yes. 5 0 Under that heading, the third sentence in that paragraph 6 states, "In fact, the demonstrated inability of CPCo to 7 manage the project has culminated in the NRC forming a 8 I separate section. " What are you referring to in forming a l 9 separate section? 10 ,A The Office of Special Cases-Hidland Section. 11 0 And what did you mean when you wrote "the demonstrated i 12 inability of CPCo to manage the project"? i 13 lA Well, there's another document that's referenced in that l 14 j paragraph which would be a lead into that and I'm not sure i 15 what that document says any longer. It says, "Read draft 16 General Statement", which would probably have been one of 17 my earlier drafts of it. 18 0 Of what? 19 A The SALP. 20 0 The SALP II report? 21 A Yes, which may or may not exist at this time. Okay. 22 0 You have no independent recollection as to what you meant? 23 My question is, as you sit here today you do not know what 24 you meant when you stated, "The demonstrated inability of i lafay.':e Iksildme 3(840 Yorthur t r lis, kate hw 962 1176 ,%,te 2_m iktemt, \\tahigae 48226 Farmmuton lidis \\1 ckueae tho!k
1 CPCo to manage the project has culminated in the NRC 2 forming a separate section"? 3 A Well, that's really right. Bear in mind that we were 4 reviewing the records that existed on the place at the 5 time that these words were generated and so out of that 6 was gleaned inf ormation that would cause that comment to 7 be written in my draft notes. You know, sitting here now 8 i without going through all the steps that go into 9 generating a SALP 1 or SALP IIs that I can't give you all 10 of the reasons that went into this demonstrated inability 11 of Consumers to manage the project. 12 j Bear in mind at that point in time we were -- i 13 we formed a section because the regulatory performance was l 14 not up to snuff. So I suppose that some of the things 15 that would go into it would be, you know, the cable 16 rerouting issues, problems with how the soils was being 17 handled, other items of noncompliance.. You know, I just 18 don't have the recollection sitting here without, as I i 19 said, going through all that stack of documents, but at 20 this point in history they,were very fresh in our minds 21 because that's what we were working with at that point. 22 I suppose that if that was going to be 23 cnallenged at that meeting I would have come back with all 24 the appropriate documents that went through that, because, l'u: d Reporting Service 176 I.nfayene kidant ,, y, Lar 6m 962 1176 ,g,, ;@,, l>trat. \\fduran 4822n Farmsneton Ildh, \\fdaran wlR
I 1 you know, this wasn't the only piece of paper to take to 2 that meeting. I had folders on this SALP. Like I said, 3 where those folders are now who knows, but like I said 4 contact the folks from GAP. I'm sure they got all that 5 j stuff. Maybe you guys got them. Like I said, there was 6 information available at the time. i 7 This wasn't the only piece of paper I was I 8 walking into that meeting with. This was a hostile 9 document to us and I'll give you a quote that I gave to my 10 bosses, that I explained how you spread manure and so I 11 l was going into that meeting with full intentions of i 12 spreading manure, if you will. How you spread manure is 13 you save it up all year long and spread it all in one day. i 14 l So it was okay if Consumers war.ted to write 1 15 a hostile document and we were going to go into a meeting 16 to discuss it. Under the attitude that we were going to 17 go irito that meeting with, then I was going to go in fully 18 prepared to say all right, let's go to the mat, if you 19 will. If you want to argue about things, you got a 20 playma te. 21 0 Did you believe at the time you wrote this document, which 22 is some time around June 21st, 1982, that Consumers Power 23 was unable to manage the project? 24 A I felt there was credence in what I wrote in that document 177 Luted Reporting Sersice 3mo yo,tsue,,,rn Ib., Infyette Iktdsng nsy,yy7s saar :.'o Ssate Mn lktrtnt, \\ficklSQM kO farmington Ihlls, \\fuchse e 4401k
m- -- e._._._._ 1 l because I was prepared to make those statements at a 2 public meeting. 3 Q But did you believe at that time that Consumers Power was 4 unable to manage the project? 5 A Well, that's what I said here, right? 6 0 You testified earlier you're not sure what you meant by 7 this statement. l 8 lA well, I thought that you were going to lead into it and 9 say what items of noncompliance, what areas were they weak 10 in. I don't have that supporting document. This is what 11 l my opinion was at that time. It was probably supported i 12 because we were going into a public meeting and I wasn't 13 i going to go make a statement at a public meeting that I t l 14 l could not substantiate at the time. If you ask me what I 15 wrote in my own notes, why, indeed I do. 16 One of the things that did come out of it is 17 the NRC did f orm a separate section whLch didn't happen a 18 any other site. It did happen at Zimmer later on. It 19 does not happen at many sites. 20 0 All right. Referring down,to I guess where it starts 21 number four, "this ic a falls statement", that paragraph -- 22 A Okay. 23 0 can you tell me what you were referring to when you stated I 24 this is a false statement? l I t I s .md Reporting Sersice },7 8 Isfayette kidme 3 Swir hp) 962 Ii ?6 Suor l} IMroa. %ingan vtl.% Farmtngton llalls, Whigan w1x
1 lA Well, I'd have to read their paragraph D and find out what i 2 they wrote. 3 0 Do you recall? 4
- A Not without comparing words.
Well, the thing -- I'm 5 having a difficult time because at one time there was a i 6 j document, their document, where these numbers down the 7 sides were incorporated into my numbering system. l 8 l Therefore, I could take number four and know which part of 9 a paragraph was number four or number five or whatever the 10 case may be. However, when I said this was a false 11 statement then there is some clarifying words as to what 12 that probably makes reference to. 13 (O Does review of appropriate portions of HRC 14 and 126 14 refresh your recollection as to what you were referring 15 to? 16 A Not without re-reading the words. 17 'O Could you review NRC 126? 18 A I think it refers to the statement that says, "While both 19 Consumerc Power and the NRC attempt to ach.'. eve this 20 objective, we believe both,of out organizations have 21 fallen short in this area." I think that that would have 22 been the location where I would have had the number four 23 where it said "This is a false statement. The NRC has 24 continually explained what the licensee is required to do. l 119 IM d RrPorting Sernce ,,y !af9ette Lidin, swer ma 962 11'6 swre 2.m I Mrat. \\lakigan M 26 Farmmetan Hdh, \\lwintan MuiH
i 1 l CPCo told to get ' seared up for aggressive cable pulling', 2 CPCo was told what QA/QC requirements are needed for the 3 soils", you know, I go through several things here that 4 substantiate some of those and why I would f eel that the 5 NRC did not f all short of our obligations, you know. In f fact, I indicate that we were benevolent and we were 6 7 trying to have an attitude of preventive inspection where l 8 l we tell the licensee at least what we' re going to expect 9 l out of them. 10 0 What did you mean in the paragraph when you state, "NRC 11 did not fall short of obligations they do not have"? 12 lA Okay. The law doesn' t tell us what we have to tell -- 13 it's stated in his construction permit in the regulatory i 14 l r equi rement s. In other words, the NRC can sit back and 15 r,ay, hey, we don' t have to tell you that you better get 16 i some QC people when you have aggressive cable pulling. We. i l 17 I don't have to tell them that. The law doesn't say the NRO 18 is obligated to do that. We can sit back here and say 19 nothing, if you will, then just establish how well did 20 they adhere to the regulatpry requirements. That's why 21 that's addressed in one of -- we're being benevolent in 22 what you're expected to do to stay out of regulatory 23 troubles and this had happened in several cases. I think 24 I listed some there and I'm reasonably sure there were 180,, 1.n d Reporting Sers ser Isfayette Huniding suite Mn 9 b 2 11 ;' b Suute 2;ro llettort. \\lwhicas 4822r> Farmington listiu \\fahnran IknlH
p 1 1 i other examples. l 2 0 Referring onto the next page, N 052059, the next page of 3 your notes, down to item number seven, you state "The NRC 4 inspectors were already scheduled to come before the SALP 5 l meeting of April 26. To have come early would have I 6 l resulted in a purely consultant role. As it was, their 7 visit was very premature." What do you mean by purely a 8 consultant role? I 9 'A Can I read what the reference is? 10 0 Sure. 11 A I'm going to have to read and do some f.orting. I can' t 12 l really recollect. One of the things that can happen is we l 13 can get into a situation where we are using our expertise 14 to tell the licensee things that his own program should be ~ 15 telling him. And then I think I'm making ref erence -- as 16 it was, we were probably already too early there anyway. 17 So let me see if I can find where these phrases would tie 18 in with where might the number seven have been on the 19 original document, you know, then we got it made. 20 The consultant comment probably deals with -- 21 one purpose of seminars would be for the NRC to review 22 their detailed quality assurance plans perhaps, or me. king 23 reference to that, and, you know, establishing that the 24 levels of review are in place bef ore -- to meet the Region i 3mta \\arthurst r flu 9 lafe)rtw klding 962 llI6 Suar J.Mi Swre hw IktrJt. \\fschipn SC.No Farminaron Ilslin. \\lichaean ++08
p e__emmm___._____________.__________._ 1 III expectations. And again there's reference to detailed i 2 l inspection plans that we could review, their detailed I 3 inspection plans, to find out whether we would be happy 4 with them. I think that paragraph addresses this but I 5 would have to take these words, look what we wrote in the 6 SALP,'and there were other document at the time. 7 l0 Do you know what you mean by purely consultant role? 8 A Yeah. That' n where we would be in a mode where we were j reviewing their detailed inspection plans. 9 i 10 l0 Does the llRC have an obligation to act as a consultant for, 11 a licensee? 12 A tio. In fact, quite the contrary. 13 ,0 Uhat do you mean quite the contrary? 14 lA Ue avoid being a consultant for the licensee. 15 0 Uhy is that? 16 A Probably because of -- let me think of the word, indemnity 17 type reasons. In other words -- it muet be getting late - 18 the response -- approval of the programs -- the taxpayers 19 don't pay a covernment agency to develop the programs for l 2C the licensee. There's a wptd that defines that. 21 0 Uhose responsibility is it to develop the programs? 22 A It's the licensee's responsibility and then what the 6 23 regulatory agency does is determine the adequacy, whether 24 it meets the regulatory requirements. i .n d Reporting Sernce 182,7 1.ainette Italdine y, 8..., m.ms
- s. :.,,
IWtm t, \\1 d ican A O > farminston tidl% \\fdnean t+Ils
t I t 1 j0 would a consultant-type role by the NRC interfere with 2 your regulatory activities? 3 A It very well could. That's one of the things we chastise 4 a licensee for, is for having the same people perform QC 5 that actually do the work. So if we were to be a 6 consultant for the licensee and turn around and inspect 7 l against a product for which we had consulted, obviously 8 it's going to be wonderful, or there might be that danger. 9 Q Did Consumers Power request the NRC to perform consultant 10 type activities on the Midland Plant? 11 A Well, I don't think that they formally requested that 12 other than there was the innuendos here, but they would 13 like us to review certain things. They didn't come 14 forward and say Mr. NRC would you be a consultant to us. 15 0 Turning now to the next page of your typed notes -- 16 A If I'd written them in hand you couldn't even read them. 17 0 Second paragraph that begins "During", and it states, i r 18 "During the April SALP I explained to you the reason for 19 Category 2 in the Preservice Inspection area was because 20 of a lack of rigor in your, technique. The fact you made 21 this comment in your response to the SALP report 22 indicates:
- 1) you do not listen well to the NRC - as I
23 stated earlier, you are prone only to strong enforcement 24 action." Do you know what you're referring to here? lafnetar lkidsng 3MN Yorthe ! rn ll" > 902 i!'b k ar :.M Saar Ma lhtrat. (forktge,n 48:3> farmington HJh. %hase MolM - _. _. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _.. - -, ~. _
l 1 lA Not without reading the words again. 2 Q Could you take a quick look and I will then ask you a 3 question? 4 A Okay. I believe it makes reference to the second 5 paragraph on page 1.3 where it says, "The rankings do not 6 l appear to be consistent. For example, no items of 7 noncompliance were identified with respect to the to the 8 l Fire Protection, Containment and other Safety-related 9 Structures, and Preservice Inspections areas. Yet Fire 10 Protection was rated a Category 1 while Containment and 11 other Saf ety-related Structure and Preservice Inspection 1 i 12 were rated a Category 2." r 13 I'm saying during the SALP I explained the 14 reason they were Category 2 was because they had sloppy 15 techniques. Our inspector, Kevan liard, who looked into 16 this area had -- he gave me examples of the techniques 17 that were considered sloppy. I remember one of them as 18 being that they were using too much -- he saw one of the 19 inspectors using too much solvent when they were washing 20 the penetrant fluid f rom a, casting or something that they 21 were looking at. And like I say without the complete file i 22 I had at the time my type-written notes were generated, l 23 I'm having a hard time telling you the other reasons. 24 I had been given reasons from our NDE Ls::od Heporting Sere ser 18,4 gg,, y;g,, kiw hw 962'llib har L% lartrut, Whitan 482.% Farmseton Halls Whican 68018
1 inspector, which at the time was Kevan Ward out of the 2 regional of fice, which stated that they were sloppy in 3 their techniques and that's why they were, or why they 4 warranted a Category 2 was not based on itams of 5 noncompliance. It was based on -- you get into an area 6 that if you, you know, I guess I'm just finding our 7 l threshold. In other words, if the criteria to warrant a 8 Category 2 -- I'm saying we're telling you why you're a l 9 Category 2 is because of your technique. l 10 I We didn't feel it was a big enough preblem 11 to make an item of noncompliance out of it. It's just 12 i saying there was some sloppiness in it so therefore it's a 13 Category 2. If indeed the licensee had only listened to 14 items of noncompliance and he was basing his rebuttal on 15 the items of noncompliance, then my attitude would have 16 been that so be it, let uc, as NRC inspectors, cite them 17 for every NIT. i 18 j We tried to avoid writing citations against 19 NIT. We tried to make citations more substantive. So 20 when you get almost to the, trigger level of a citation, 21 of tentimes if the inspector has confidence it will no 22 longer become a problem he might not address it as an item 23 of noncompliance. 24 0 What sort of enforcement action are you referring to when 1 85 Luzad Reporting Se,sice ya w,,,; y i.afayette ILtIdsng 9,,, 5w 962 1176 Swtr 2.M iktmt, \\l<ck: an 4M.% famu"!!0" U'II'. \\Ih'!** W Ik
mm-=-=~-m-m_____ you say you are prone only to items of strong enforcement?l 1 2 lA Items of noncompliance. In other words, we' re saying, 3 hey, we told you that -- we told you, Consumers, that 4 you're sloppy so therefore you rate a Category 2. Thsir 5 rebuttal says I was Category 1 in these other areas and I 6 j didn't get any items of doncompliance there. I wasn' t -- l 7 I didn't get any so it was okay. The connotat, ton brought 8 forth by their report is the only thing that they are 9 l willing to listen to are items of noncompliance. Stacking 10 up items of noncompliance then constitutes reason for 11 l strong enforcement action. t 12 0 All right. Items of noncompliance as issued by the NRCI 13 is that correct? 14 A Yes. 15 0 Going on to the next page of your typed notes -- 16 A Okay. 17 0 Uhich would be N 052061 -- 18 I A Yes. 19 0 Going down to the bottom of the page where you discuse, 20 the very bottom of the pagg says "record shews that OC 21 personnel on the site could not handle the ambitious 22 pulling schedule without getting into regulatory 23 difficulties", do you see that? 24 A Yes. n w w A *?ii~ L ""d R 'P *'""! 5 " " i s n,,,, w.a sa, w 962 1176 koe :> IWtra t. \\1whitan 4R2.% farm'"I'on Ilk \\Ikk'ta" Ik'I^
1 l0 Do you know what you were ref erring to when you made that 2 statement? What pulling schedule? 3 A I was probably referring to the miscouted cables, but I 4 again would have to read and study the first document 5 l here, whatever we call this thing. 6 l0 Take a look at the document and see if it refreshes your l 7 i recollection. I B t A I believe it's making reference to them installing cables 9 l at a faster rate than they could Oc inspect them and that 10 ultimately ended up in I think the misrouted cable l 11 problem. Somewhere in this mess I lost the SALP. I think i 22 what it makes reference to is the record that it's 13 referring to, the items that wede highlighted as 14 nonconforming out of the words of the SALP II. 15 0 What items are you referring to? 16 A The seven items and before that, the paragraph before that 17 says, "However, it appears that not enough qualified OC l 18 l personnel, rigorous OA audits and established procedural a 19 controls were invoked to avoid the following list of 20 enforcement items." So, there are several of these 21 enforcement itemr. that would come about as doing a 22 rigorouc -- installing cables very rigorously without an 4 23 adequate number of qualified and skilled OC people to find 24 the problems. Bear in mind that I think that by the time l M M** II" ) i lafayette ILddag ,;y,,,, m 962 117$ h, J.H iktm t, \\lahigan 482.% formagton HJh, \\lukarv Hnik
m - m e m e _ m _ _ m._.___________._.._.______._.__________ l 1 l we got to June of 1982 that we may have had some other I 2 regulatory difficulties with cable installations. 3 Q What page were you referring to in the SALP? 4 A Page eleven. 5 0 That was NRC 137 6 A Yes. And, like I said, without any other notes, why, l 7 l that's what it appears to be making reference to. If you i 8 have all this good coverage, then how come you have items 9 of noncompliance that seem to be based on an inadequate 10 amount of OC. i 11 0 Finally on the lart page of your type-written notes, the 12 paragraph under the heading page 1 - 5, paragraph C.2, you 13 state "If the seven items of identified noncompliances are li considered by CPCo to be 'not excessive and were of 15 j relatively low consequence' then CPCo has a much greater 16 tolerance for mediocrity than the NRC - and with this 17 attitude, it is little wonder that there are regulatory 18 diff2culties at Midland Site. This statement would 19 support removal of license until such time as a complete 20 purge of CPCo management hps transpired and an attitude 21 re-alignment has necurred to the extent that CPCo enjoys a 22 tolerance for mediocrity commensurate with the NRC.* What 23 management were you referring to when you're talking about 24 purge of CPCo management, what Ardividuals? IAf4)fllr thddnt U lO NrthkrQ9e Un\\ %urrJo 962 11?6 %ae.O n Intrwt, Whigan PLL% Terutton Rdh, %karan 18018
-____.-_._._-_.m_____._.____.=m y 1 lA Back to the individual games. I 2 Q Was it all of CPCo management at that time? 3 'A No. Thic came up in the hearing that -- there were 4 individuals who we felt were not good for the project and 5 individuals who were good for the project, and I'm not 6 sure a. what level of management I was making reference to l here, but obviously there are some people, well, 7 I I 8 l particularly the authors -- well, to give you an example, 9 l I believe it was non Marguglio that composed this document 10 and it was signed by Jim Cook and he's saying, hey, this l i 11 l isn'tallbad,wegotsevenitemsofnoncor$pliancehere. l 12 So there would be two individuals that, hey, if this -- it j 13 this 10 their threshold and it's f ar-removed f rom our t 14 l threshold than get rid of then people until -- we, the l 15 NRC, cannot tolerate much mediocrity and we have the 16 Consumers management tolerate as much mediocrity as we l 17 l could tolerate. 18 So if it requires a company to start at the 19 Board of Directors and run all the way down to the 20 janitors, well, that's the,way it goec. But I don't I 21 really believe that because there were people along the 22 Ifne there that were probably good people to have around. 23 tis. RICE: This is a good breaking point in 24 this part of the deposj tion, if we want to put about the s d E00 .n d Reportsng Settice I.afyrtt< !LIlme %a w 962 1l'h %rr :p (Hm t, WA.unn ut:.% Fermmerun IIA %Lenn nik
w___--___-----.--.--u--------;--..- 1 I documents on the record and call it a day. t t 2 MR. BERKOVITZ: Still think you can complete 3 it by tomorrow? 4 MS. RICE: It would help if we could start a S little earlier. l 6 MR. DRIKER: It's fine with us. We'll start 4 7 i as early as you like. 8 l MR. DERKOVITZ: Off the record. 9 (A brief discussion was held 10 i off the record.) 11 MS. RICE: Mr. Berkovitz informed me last l 12 week that he was unable to turn over the documentr> 13 requested by the subpoena prior to this deposition and, 14 l theref ore, he has agreed to hold the deposition f ormally 15 open until we've had such time to review those documents. 16 Is thete anything -- do you know when those are going to 17 be available? 18 MR. BERKOVITZ: No. There are a 19 considerable number of them and we' re reviewing them. 20 MS. RICE: Dp you have any idea when that's 21 going to be? Is that going to be while we're still here l 22 in Harrisburg? 23 MR. BERKOVITZ: No, that will be a couple i 24 weeks. In that deposition where you said you wanted all f Lut*d N' Porting Senner 190 ,, y gg,, ,ma sara mo 962 1176 kra ;> l IHmt, W hiese 48:.m Farwarton Ihlu. %Attu skUM
4 ) 1 documents associated with Midland, I don't have all 2 document associated with Midland, 3 MS. RICE: Of your files that were not 4 produced pursuant to FOIA it was my understanding that any 5 files you retained that were not produce pursuant to POIA- -- 6 MR. BERKOVITZ There are more documents. 7 The ones we' re reviewing are his personal notes and logs, 8 log books and diaries, and those were kept and they were 9 not subject to FOIA. However, there are more agency 10 records that we think were covered by FOIA. They should 11 have been. 12 A My office sent me five boxes of stuff when I came here in 13 l the event they wt;1d restart the licensing board hearing. i 14 It's claimed by the office in Midland that all that stuff 15 was copied under FOIA when they were copying the file 16 drawers and pulling drawers upon drawers for the FOIA 17 thing. I haven't looked in the boxes.. They're sealed. 18 They're the same way I received them. 19 The only purpose for them sending them to me 20 when they took the office, records when the resident office 21 was closed down and -- they sent them into the archives, 22 if you will. In the region office they greatly sterilize l 23 the files, if you will, and so there was information that 24 was contained in there that if they were going to have a i orHng Sudu 3mto ethuest r Ilu. y lafayette RusIdmg 962.I176 suae 23: Suae Mn Detrou, \\fichigan 18226 Fermington Udls. \\hchugan W ik
7-l 1 restart of the hearing board, somebody taking the. stand as 2 a witness for the DRC like in a licensing hearing, they 3 would need that information. So they said, hey, we'll 4 send it to you to keep in case you ever have to testify at 5 a hearing again. 6 MS. RICE: You said these have been produced 7 l pursuant to FOIA. l 8 lA Those should have been but we haven't gone through them. 9 l It wouldn't do any good anyway. I'm just relaying the 10 message as they sent them to ma. I said the boxes are 11 If still sealed. You're more than welcome to look at them. l 12 { I left Midland. I've taken a sabbatical at Three Mile 13 Island. On the site there are -- lDYMS. 14 RICE: 15 0 The Midland site? 16 A No, Three Mile Island site. I have an office over here. 17 There are some other boxes that contained the records that i 18 l were in my file cabinet that I had on site. Now there 19 were contral files on site and then there was my own file 20 cabinet. Now, everytime that we had a request for FOIA 21 that file cabinet was always open to see if there was 22 anything in it, to see if it was appropriate to FOIA. So 23 I guess I'm going to say anything that's in there, you 24 know, has been FOIA'd but I don't know what's in it. A l Luod Reporting Sereiee 39g,g 3,,,k,n},,n,,u, _ 92 Infa)ette Hwiding .saa sv> 962 1176 swie :co Detrmt. 1hchigan 18226 Farmmeron Ihlis, \\fichigan 18n18
1 lot of information I have stored over here is not unique 2 to Midland at all. In other words, it's an accumulation 3 of the type of stuf f an engineer would accumulate during a 4 career. They're studies for pipe cracks, and studies for. 5 l steam generators, and studies for safety valves and who 6 { knows what else. I 7 0 Are you saying these file cabinets at the TMI site office 8 have already been gone through pursuant to FOIA, the 9 particular FOIA in this case? 10 A I believe so. 11 0 So actually the only documents not produced pursuant to l 12 FOIA, as far as you know, are your log books and notes? fA Yeah. Then there's a box there of stuff that may or may 13 14 not have been FOIA'd, the whole box. You kncw, there's a 15 chart that says I know how to perform CPR. 16 !!R. DRIKER: I was going to say it looked 17 like your electrocardiogram. T~ at's where I did CPR on a dummy. In there there's some 18 A n 19 bits and papers and records and I don't know what's been 20 FOIA'd or what hasn't. 21 BY MS. RICE: 22 0 Where did these documents come from? I 23 A They were documents I had at my desk at Midland. 24 MR. DRIKER: Can we look at them? l 193 .uz d Reporting Service m 3.,,,g,,,,,, 17 Infayette Buildsne S,;;,, ma 962.))76 k;te 23I th troet, \\fichigan 18226 Formungton flath, \\fschigan 18018
1 THE WITNESS: Sure, look at them or copy 2 them, whatever. 3 MS. RICE: In Washington you're reviewing 4 his personal notes and logs; is that correct? 5 MR. BERKOVITZ: Yes. 6 A We know those have never been FOIA'd because I took 7 exclusion from them ander them being personal notes and 8 records and stuff like that. 9 MS. RICE: And you're reviewing them for 10 privilege I take it? I 11 MR. BERKOVITZ: Privilege. 12 MS. RICll: And in two weeks or so you' re 13 going to notify myself? 14 MR. BERKOVITZ: I expect some sort of 15 decision this week and I'm taking a week off on vacation 16 the week after so I'll be unavailable that week. 17 MS. RICE: The deposition will be, even if 18 they finish their cross-examination, will be held open 19 pursuant to review of these documents. 20 MR. BERKOVITZ: Right. 21 MS. RICE: is that it on procedure? 22 MR. BERKOVITZ: That's it. 23 (The deposition was adjourned l 24 at 5:30 p.m.) I' ' ""E "5" 1.afayette Hudding 3mIO Northun e n Hu3 .%ite MO 962 1176 Suite 220 Iktrout, Michigan 48226 Formungton HJh Alichigan Whit
1 l 2 STATE OF MICHIGAll, ) SS 3 COUNTY OF WAYNE ) 4 I, Glenn G. Miller, Notary Public 5 within and for the County of Wayne, state of Michigan, do 6 hereby certify that the witness whose attached deposition l was taken before me in the above-entitled matter was by me 7 j i 8 duly sworn at the aforementioned time and place; that the 9 testimony given by said witness was stenographically 10 recorded in the presence of said witness and af terwards 11 transcribed by computer under my personal supervision, 12 and that the said deposition is a full, true and correct 1 13 jtranscriptofthetestimonygivenbythewitness. l 14 I further certify that I am not connected I 15 by blood or marriage with any of the parties or their l 16 attorneys, and that I am not an employee of either of then, 17 nor financially interested in the action. 10 I!1 WITNESS WHEREOP, I have hereunto set 19 l my hand at the City of Detroit, County of Wayne, State of 20 Michigan, this day of 1985. 21 i l 22 l G L C.'lli G. MILLER, Notary Public 23 Wayne County, Michigan 24 !!y Commission Expires: 4-22-87 I I E95 Lu:od Reporting Service lxfayene Raildine yo Sune Mn 9!2 1176 suac 2:a Iktroit, \\fichigan.48226 Farmington Hdh, Aluchigan Ihn1H . -.. - - -,...,. - _}}