ML20153B703
| ML20153B703 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/05/1985 |
| From: | Hood D NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151D196 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-583 NUDOCS 8805060063 | |
| Download: ML20153B703 (174) | |
Text
~
l 1 STATE OP !!ICHIGAN 2 l. I TEIC CIROJIT l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _CO U_ ____ R T I'O R TilCOU!!?Y C OP f!IDLA!!D l
l 3 DOW CIC!!ICAL C011PA!:'1, )
I
' )
_, 4 i Pl aintif f ) l 1
)
5 vs. )
I Civil Action 6 l CONSUL!CRS POUER CO!! patly, .
) tio. 83-002232
) ,
I
- )
7 Defendant. )
- )
0 l -----------------
9
- s. l 10 I
The continua tion of the deposition of DARL !!OOD, was taken bef ore me, Druce A. Peal k R PR, (CSR-227 91, Cour t i Reporter and flotary Public within and for the County of Oakl anc,'
11 (acting in the District of Columbia) at 655 15 th Street 1;.1:.
' Machington D.C.,
12 !
on Tuesday, Febr uary 5,1985 !
! APPE ARA!!CES :
ks.'N ._q3 i j' m~.
KIRKLAND & CLLIS 14 l 1 000 C. Randolph
! l
. Chi ca go, Illinois 60601 15 -
(By: William Jentes, C sq . )
16 l s Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff, i
17 DARRIS, SOTT, DCMil t DRIKER i l
.\ j 16 21 st Floor First Pederal Duticing l \
De tr oi t , !!ichigan 4 0226 i '( (Ey: John Libby, Esq.) '
19 '
j
'U.S. UUCLEAR REGULATORY COP.11ISSION '
20 Office of General Counsel ;
dashington D.C. 20555 4 21 (fly: Dan- Der kovitz, E cq . )/
22 \
\\ ,
> 23
\ -
i 2
24 \N
\ -
l 'N !
4 8805060063 880408 \ j PDR FOIA $
'( BARAK87-583 PDR q pp;, yegg, ggggg, LU:00 N'Po!!iher Service gg ,,,, y Suarfdo 962 11.6 Suure 220 Detroa, \fichiran 5t226 Farmington Hslls. .\fochiran MtolR l
l t
1 U T l I !! C S S I !! D E X 2 ; Uitne ss C::amined By Page j Darl Hood !1r. Jentes
'3
' 5
' Mr . Libby 86
! Mr. Jentec 4 - 16.1
,~.
5 C X H I B I T I U D
! E X
.r s ; . 6 Exhibit No. Description Page 7 NRC 125 Le tter f r om Fk .
8 Tedesco to Mr. Cook da ted 10/14/80 6 9 i BCC.1304 Ike ting minute -notes j
f or .Bechtel/ Consumer s 10 l meeting on 4/30/E0 '
9 '
I 11 l CPC .27 5.1 i
tir . Cline ' : meeting 12 ! notec of Caccicad Forecast
' Panel visit of 7/2C & 29, 4.
1980 13 13 CPC 998 f 4
I./~ 14 I * !Wmo f rom fir. Sullivan to ,
file 1C I 15 CPC 1298 Tel'ephone converca tion record I 16 of discuscions with !!r.
Lovela ce 19 ;
17 CPC 137 0.1 . i Paco f r om !!r . Mollenkopf 4 concerning Caneload Forecast 10 j 1
visit of 8/25, 26 & 27 , 1 1901 50 4 19 [
DEC 1520 j 20 Serice of Dechtel Project Da ta j Sheets f or 1981 51
}
21 !
URC 215 Le t te r f r om !!r . Schwence r '
22 to !!r . Cook dated 6/30/80 50 l CPC 1964 ) Suacary of conver sa tion 23 between !!r. feeley and tir.
Ecod 60 !
24 ,
I l
}
i 2
lafayette Buildint Lu:od Reporting Service Suur h10 9gg,j j 7g 3m40 yo,thurstern Huy.
f)etroit, thchiran 482:6 Suae L'O Farrntneton Hdis. \lichiran 18018
1 ; UCL 3 Memo from H.M. !!or n of l
2 ;
c conversation with Prof essor .I I Hendron 3/24/81 6" I s
1 3 11RC 216 Letter f rom Mr. Repler to f
i tir . . Cook da ted 9/2 4/ G2 83 l 4 {. '
CPC 13 02 / Telephone recor d of . Mr .
5 Sullivan's conver cation with l
}
Mr. Ilood 10/5/82 84 6
D-1623 Mr. Hood's recume' 86 y
7 l D-1802 Memo f rom Thomas Ippolito 8
dated 12/13/77 99 I
9 h .D-13 23 Licensee Repor t . per 10 CPR 50.55(e) 111 t
10 { l
! D-1801 l
, 11 Document requesting technical !
suoport 113 f 12 > D-13 27 l Bechtel meeting notes of '
i 12/4/78 meeting with URC 133 i 13 !
! r- D-ll50 I suamary issued 3/20/79 !
14 by Darl nood observing '
15 pre-load coil progr am 137 h i
~ i D-17 02 Notice of ike ting 16 13 0 i
}
17 lD-1161 Document prepared by !!r.
!!ood 8/24/79 139 l l
10 l D-114 8 j
Recor d of telephone conver sa tion }
19 be tween Mr . Hood and Mr .
) Reeley 140 '
f.
20 i D-1713 Memo from L.I;. !!eller to j
' Jamec Knignt da ted 1/23/ C0 150 21 D-1616 22 URC document ca ted 3/31/ C0 152 D-17 05 ike ting notec dated 3/14/80 155 :
23 J
! D-17 31 i 24 Handwritten noto prepared by i
i
' Dar l Hood da te d 1/ 0/ E1 1G0 l , :
l t l 3
Lafayette Buildme Lu:od Reportirng Sertice
_,,9 ,, ,,,,, y Sua* h30 962 1176 Sun, :iy>
l'rtroa. \behitan 48226 ~
r armmeron Hills. \behitan 18018 L
- . 7
.s.
.l-1 i
.The f ollowing exhibits were
.proviously marked and referred l 2 I, to in this deposition '
I -
3 /CPC 1362 DCC 1527 j CPC 277 .DEC 1000 -
4 CPC B1 imC 32 l CPC 236.1 BCC 844
^5- ,
l.
. 6 .
.y .
8 ! ,
9 i l'0 l
11 i l I !
! i 12 f i i
1 13-
/~ .
Q_ 14 15 '
l 16 -
l 17 16 i
j j -
19 f; 1 I
20 i
}
21 l 22' i
- 23. I 24 i
t I l i.
4 lafayette Buddmg Lu:od Reporting Service Sune Mo 962.I176 "" " "" ll"I Detroit. \fiehiran 482:6 y,,,,,,,, pygg, gy,g;,',
1 p Uachington.D.C. I 1
2 a i Fe br uary 5 , 19 05 i, 3
S:00 o' cloch c.c. 3 4 ,
(,
l 5
- D' A R L H O O 'D t
.6 .
7 EXAtiINATION 8 . BY MR. JENTCS I
o
'O
\
' -Uhen we concluded -yecter day, .!::.. Good, I.uac asking I 10 l i
you about the gorillas in DEC 208 and I ascune over 11 l l
the . evening .that the gorillas did not come to mind uc i 12 : having shown up at' the NRC? f 1
8 13 lA I've seen no gorillas. P 14 0 on a more serious note, hosever, do you agree with 15 the statement in the memo in paragraph five that one 16 of the crucial incues that continued to require 17
.recolution in connection with the remedial coilo I 18 measures was the matter of the proper tectonic 1 i
19 l provinces, as of the spring of 19007 1
i i i
20 j A Yes, I do agree with that, so I indicated yectorday, i 21 !
- l. the review of the coisnology of the area van i I
22 proceeding in parallel with the review of the fi::e s. 3 i
23 0 As of the spring of 1980, as you recall, nad there 1 24 ;
i been any change in the position of the staff in i
i 5
Lafayeur Buildsnr Lwd Reporting Sert s ce gg , , , y Suur MO 962.))?6 Detroa. \fichigan 482:6 suar:bo Farmor.eton Hills. \lichiean 1801R v
a 1 :
regard to this questiod of 0.12 versuc 0.2? I 2 A Uhat was the cate again?
!, i 3 ,O Spring of 19807 4 A I'm having 'a little trouble with dates. The ctaff
'5 .
adopted a position at some point in time with the
.6
. issuance of .a letter f rom Robert Tedesco to James 7
Cook advising Consumers Power Company of a couple of
-8 options that could be taken to resolve the matter of 9
.the proper Jccismology, the ccismic inputt .f or :the I 10 l Midland site.
i I would say that was the point in time 11 ' I when the staf f documented _ite . position. It vac some !
t 12 '
time in the', I believe it was the '81 time frame,
! i 13 !O Hell, let me chow you a document that I'll ash the
/
~
! l
( 14 ! repor ter to mark as URC 125 !
15 (Depocition Exhibit 11RC 125 16 . j Le t te r f r om Mr . Te de sco t o l 17 1 fir . Cook dated 10/14/60 '
18 van marked f or identification.) I f
19 j BY tm. JEUTES:
20 l0 Thi s i c a l e t te r f r om Mr . Te de s co t o tir . J . U. Cook of '
21 Oct ober 14, 1980. In that the letter that you' re 1
22 referring to?
23 A Yes, it is. ~
1 l
24 ;O I'd like to nuh you to chio through the cocument i
and
!' l A
G lAfayettr Buildine Lu:od Reporting Sert sce
$u le MO 9 6 2 ' I E *~ 6 Suite 2.ht!
$)Ptrott. \{ethifQn 4822fs farmington l{tils, \[tchigQn 183][i
1 ;
while the first pageo copy is not that good, I think !
2 l
.the bacic position of the staf f i s on pa ge . tw o, whi ch j 3
ic a littic bit c1 carer. 1 4
,i
- A I have reviewed the two paragr aphs. !
~
5 !O 1 Does this letter su=marize for Consumerc Power the 6
position that the NRC staf f took <on the seismology ,
7 lasue's in October of 19807 8
fA I'm not sure pcsition is the correct word. It is a
- 9 4 letter def.ining .f or Concumert Power - Company two h
10 I methods, two approaches that could be taken to i.
.11 I resolve the matter .cf the proper ceiccology. tle l 12 t would -- its' pocition in either of thoce medthodt '
i 13 would be acceptabic to the staff.
l I
14 iO l If you direct your attention to the first page of the u 15 I letter and to the second paragraph, does that ref rech 16 your recollection that by' october ~ of 1900 the staff ;
I 17 i had f ound insufficient suppor t f or the prepo sition l 18 l d
advanced by Consumers that !!ichigan could be viewed i 2
19 l as a separate tectonic province?
i l
i 20 i A That' cor r e ct.
~
t 21 0 Sunning up in layman's terms, the optiona that were 22 f given to Concumers Power in light of the position ;
i 23 $ taken by the staff, what were they? i 24 A Dacically the two options was one, to utill e the i
7 Lafayetir Buildsne l'u~ d Reportine Service y, , ,,, y Suar en 962 11I6
[ktroa. \fschigan #:226 Sune :bn f armuncte Helh. Wheenn 18vlh
1 i standardized response spectra that's given in the i 2 !
regulatory guice 1.00 and anchor th a t a t an 3
appropriate value in this particular cace, the value j 4 i
.199 ceeraed to the staf f to te -- would be to develop l
'5 l a cite specific cpectra based on a review of real i 6
time histories of sites comparable to the :Hidland 7 cite.
8 .0 i You recall that during the deposition yesterday you o k i
tectified~about advice that .had .been 'given to 10 l Consumers Power by the IIRC back in the meetings in 11 l
, July .of 197 9 concerning the staf f' c reanalysis of the
{
12 sei smic issues. . 11ad there been any notice to '
13 t
Consumers between July of 1979 and the letter f rc:s 14 Mr . Te de sco of Octobe r 19 80, that the liRC was f
15 prepared to accept Consumers' position that !!ichigan I 16 was a separate tectonic province?
I 17 !!R. LIDDY Objection; 10 cliccharacterization.
I e 1
19 TI!E 17IT!! CSS: I don't recall any i 20 !
indication by the staff that we were likely to accept j 21 fi the previous position. fly recollection is that the t e
22 I matter was unrevicued, to the extent that our revieu !
23 hac a connotation of uncertainty of it. I l In the l l 24 '
j
.=
carlier phacco it could go either way. That vould be f i O
y(4,,,,g,ygm, Lu 'od Reportant Sertice
,, ,,,, y Suite MO 9h2 I!?6 Swte 220 (ktruit. \fichaean 48226 Farmmeton Haih. \lochuran 3018
1 the only connotation, general characterication that
+
r 2 i we might accept in the previous accamption, j 1
3 C Although Consumers and Dechtel never showed up on 4 j
._.; ' your door steps with any gorillas, did they, during 5 l
( this' period of review, attempt to convince the staf f 6
that it should accept the Michigan tectonic province -
7 as a separate basin or region? !
8 A Yes, we had several meetings with Consumers Power
-9 Company and their consultants in-whicn Concuraers 10 !
i attempted to justify their previous position that the 11 Ilichigan basin could 14 concidered as a se parate h i 12 te ctonic province. .
I )
13 10
! Let me hand you a document which I'll ask the 14 reporter to mark a3 BCC 13 04.
m f
15 (Deposition Exhibit Dec 1304 16' i flee ting minute notes f or l 17 f Bechtel/ Consumers neeting
! l 10 !
on 4/3 0/ 00 3 19 was marked f or identifica tion.) '
20 BY Hn. JE! TOS : 1 2,
21 O 1 tihi ch appe a r s to be a oc t of minute notes f or e 22 i
meeting be tween Bechtel and Consumer c on April 30, j 23 ) 1980, concerning the subject of ceicaic evalua tion 4 24 due 1 to non-recognition of flichigan casin as a e
I D
Lafayette Busidune Lu:od Reportine service Suute Mn 96g,jj7g M \<"thu rnern Huy Detroa.1Isehisan 4822n buU" r%
farmentror Hilh, \luthoten 18018
4 1 1 separate tectonic province by URC. Let me as!c you. I 2 i i
If I may, to turn over to page three of the noten and 3
you should ignore .the handwriting interlineations in 4
, the se notes. In the thi rd par agr aph on th a t pa ge i t I
5 :
l sta tec "Con ~oumer s Power Company repor ted that it had 6
consulted.a; seiamology specialist in the Pddwestern 7 '
area, Professor Ndttli of St. Louis University. De 8 ,
i concluded that the Michigan basin does not exist no a 9 h !
. separate tectonic province. " Then it goen on.and !
10 explains some of Professor Muttli's studies. So far 11 I i
as you know', was the NRC ever .ach'ised that Consumer s !
12 !
i
- had conculted with Professor Mutt 11 and that he had i i
13 g i
f ailed to suppor t the positint. being advanced by 14 l Consumers to the NRC7 15 A I do not know if the NRC technical staff vac awarc of .
16 -
that or not. I particularily don't know if~ they were 17 aware of that through the direct eff orto of Consumers !
18 Power Company.
I know I was not aware of it. i 19 iO l If you look over at the a ttacnn.ents to -- e::cuse me. .
20 i l
The Attachment No. 1 to the minute notes, it conci at e j s
21 of an evaluation of alternative approaches f or 22 i ocismic design criteria, for the !!idland Uni tt 1 and 23 ) 2 that was reviewed at thic meeting.
f I'c ast; you to 4 24 just sort of read cown through that evaluation on 007 10 lAf4)rtle Ouildmt Lmd Reportune Sen ece Susia M o 3,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,y,,,
962 11,'6 Detroit. Whiran R:2?> , yurt abn Fo r"u n ern't Holl'. Whitan wik
1 and 998, if you would, please, t 2 A I' ve read the two page:. p 3 i C-Over on the first pa ge of 997, under the heading 2.0 4
conclusion ~it's stated that "It was c~o ncluded that
]
~S alternative 3-(ny should be adopted f or the !!idland
.6 project.
The conclusion was . based on a decision 7
analysis and consideration of adverse consequences.
O A major consideration is that any alternative other .
9 than maintaining the c::isting decign .and 10 l i
'satisf actorily defending its adequacy is not i
.11 justified on the basis of project schedule demand . " t 12 I During the . period April and May of 1980, use the !!nc 13 !
)
advise d, to your knowledge, that CP and Dechtel i 1
i 14 bel'ieved that they had to stick with the 0.12 saismic I l
15 approach, or it would have an adverse effect on the 16 1 schedule f or completion of the Midland project?
17 A I believe the tinC took as a given rrom the very i 10 l beginning the f act that if redesign of existing I 1D !
l construction would be necessary, then it would hava 20 scheduler impact. I I feel quite cer tain that this 21 must have been emphasi::ed to the 1:nc probably cuch 22 mor e than once, but I can' t r er.icnber cpo cif ic 23 in sta nce s, ac I sit her e today, whe tner that's the i 24 ca se , but certainly in ny mind there was no qucction k
11 lxfayene Buddane Lu:od Repornny Sernce Suar Mn wo y,, ,,, y 962 11?6 Detroa. %chteen 4R:26 Suur ::n Farmintron Rdh. Webstan Mnig
1 that if the change in scismicity vac such that i 2 i signif icant modif ications 'of exi sting constr uction, )
3 par ticularily the maj or str uctures was necessary, 4
j then there vac no question that was likely to have a i
5 ,
I scheduler impact. However, our experience has been' '
-6 that there are substantial . margins in major 7
structures between - and that those' margins can be 8
- relied onto alleviate the necessity for major 9 i modif ica tionc. .That' c.our . experience .over cil, . base d I 10 on nu cl ea r pl ant s i n ge ne r al and 4 t ' s ba se d o n typo o 11 I of differential settlement that one typicall-j se e - t i
12 going on in constr uction.
i i
13 O Here you ever advised in the April or liay 19EO period
- f 14 !
that Dechtel felt that if the tinc went to the 0.29 15 criteria that the !!idland project could not be 15 ,
t completed with a commercial operation date f or Unit 1 i 17 ! by the end of 19847 I, 1
18 i
- 12. LIDBY: You meaning him cgain? '
19 IR. JCNTCS: Yec.
]
20 51C WITilCSS: Is your question ccaning j 21 ct any point in time was I aavised?
22 l DY im. JCUTCS :
l 23 0 f:o, I was looking first a t the pe r iod of April and 24 .
g flay of 1900, which ic the approximate the time when 12 1.afnyrtle Butiding Luod Repornne S*rt rce Swir 630 m,w ,_
962*II?O (k,*ron t. \lothstan 48:26 Sucre $0 Forminatim flills, \lachigan M018 i
1 this analysis was conducted that's reficcted in BCC 1 e
2 ; 13047 t.
3 I i
I don' t recall if we in the time f rame of 1980 --
I .
4 5 j just can' t remember if we were adviced of the 6
- I 5 !
l scheduler impact of major modifications or not.
6 Q .Do you know ~ whether_ .the possible .adver se eff ects of 7 the meismology and the seismic analysis were 8
dio' closed to' Consumer s -- excuse me, to the NRC 9
l during .the cour se' of - the Ca sel oa c Por eca st Panc1's !
i 10 ?
visit in J uly of 19 807 11 l
?>
No, I don' t .bclieve it was. 2.believe, I gue: I 12 .
(
,could chech my recor ds of the meeting and have mor e
- 13 ! confidence in this answer, but I believe that was the I
14 i meeting where we did not include the ef fect of the 15 soil pa ttienent problem in that estimate.
16 0 Let me hand you in connection with that what I'll ask I
~ ~17 the reporter to mark as CPC 275.1. l*
J 10 !
(Depocition E::hibi t CPC 27 5.1 !
19 non Kline 's meeting noter uf ;
no
- 1' URC Ca sel oao For e ca st Pa nel l 21 .
j i
vicit of 7/28 and 7/29/00 22 !
! Vac raarked f or identification.) 4 23 BY liR. JEUTCS:
24 iO It 's the se t of mee ti ng no te c pr epa r e d by !:r . Cline I
13 lafayene Bwiding la: d Reportsne Sertice Swtr Mo
, , y 962.))?6 s,,a, dy>
[h trott. \1ochigan 4822b Farmentran Holl<. \lucharan moi 8
i 1
of the DRC Caseload Forecast Panel visi t on July 20 l I 2 !
3 and 29 of 1980 In connection with thet occunent, i ,
1.
3 i \
i I'll also hand you a document that's been previously s 4 I marked as CPC 1362 The latter docunent has been '
5 previously identified by !!r. Hollenkopf of Connuacro i
6 Power as the se t of . notes that he used during the 7
course of his presentation on cost and schedule. In 8
the interest of time, I won' t asif you to try to rend h
9
.through -all of .this packet of materials. What.I !
10 I would like you to do is sor t of read through Mr. !
.11 !
Kline 's . cover memor andum and .cuamary of the meeting
+,
12 and see if that ref reshes your recollection a little 13 bit about what was discussed during the July 28 and l
14 f 29 caseload panel visit.
i 15 IR . LIBBY:
I l Is that 833, 35, 16 THE WITNESS: It's a rather long ;
17 cocument, 'do you want me to review the entire l
18 .
docume nt , or are there areas in particular that i I i 19 ; you're interestou in?
- i 20 - BY MR. JEUTCS : t
! }
I ;
21 0 Well, I guess my first ouestion f ollais up on the (
22 }
l last answer you gave on the seismology issue, and 1
l I ;
23 that is, whether by reviewing thece materiale it will l
24 help ref resh your recollection whether er not the
? l b
1 la Lafsyette Buddsne * "' "
Suite h30 3tmo %rthumicen Hu ,
9 6,? . ] ] ? 6 (wirmt. thchigan 48:26 saria d o Farmineron lidh. \hchican 18n18
1 '
seismology matter was taken into consideration during i 2 !
this f orecact panel visit or was put to the si de , as ;
1 3 you had cuggented in your answer. l 4 fA I've reviewed the text of !!r. Kline ' c' meeting s ummary
)
j 3 and did you also want me to review the -- :2.-
f
, 6 i Mollenkopf's.
7 0 l I'll come back to Mri Mo11enkopf's minutes.or- !
l B
i presentation piece in a moment. Daving now reviewed '
.9 k tre, Kline 's summary of the meeting, what ic your .bect I
10 { !
recollection as to what was discuated, if anything,
~
I I 11 '
I ct the J uly .2 8 and 29 .1980 panel visit concerning the 12 !j i,
matter of the seismic reanalysic and how it should b4 f n
13 ;
treated in connection with then panel's assessment of i
i 14 the likely completion of the units? i 15 A
~
Pr om my br ief review of tir. Kline 's document, I caw 1
16 no ref erence to the seismic review and I saw l 17 l extremely limited discuccion of the soils problem. I l
18 do see one item under agenda item 1(a), which tir. }
19
} Kline notes "!!r. Hood inquired about the Diesel 20 Generator Duilding soil problem. There wac a brief .
21 i
discussion on the status of component installation."
22 I believe this confirms my earlier ctatement that at 23 !
! thic particular casoload viait we did not incl ude in +
24 that projection the coils problem and that would lead 15 lafayette fluildsnt Lu:od Reporting Service Sutte MO n$g,jj7g ge v> %erhuesom Huy
[Jerrat, \fichigan 4C26 hurre 22t:
fnemontroc Hills \fschit<in Mbih
1 ce to believe we probably did not discucs the ceicnic I 2 !
pr obl em . at this visit. As I recall, at this point in i i 3
i1 time th'e . remedial fixes were of a ratner early 4 i conceptual nature and did not provide for a
'S meaningf ul discuccion in the caneload vicit, the 6
l possible . exception of that being the Diesel Generator 7 Building. !
0 O You've referred to the caseload visit on July,28 and 9
.2 9, .19 h0 . _Do you . recall that .there were .a cerice of 10 followup telephone discussions and a meeting with 11 i !
i Consumers .by the panel in August .of 1980, and I'm not "
12 ' I holding you to the specific dateo, but do you ' recall '
13 !
generally that there were some f ollowup discussions I 14 af ter the July 20 and 29 visit? k 15 MR. LIBBY: Coul.d you read that 3
16 question back to me, please, i 17 , (The pending question was read 16 by the Court Repor ter ao f ollowc: f 1
10 i
\
O You've referred to the j 20 l caseload visit on July 20 and 21 29, 1900. ',
Do you recall that 22 4 i
there were a series of f ollowup j a
23 $
i telephone diccussions and a raceting 24 I with Consumor s by the panel l' k
I, i
16 Lafayerre Buuldine "#
Surre mn 462.76 3mto %rthurnern Ibn S,,,,, :in \ (>rtrou t. thchtran 48:26 Formantran Hath. \hrhuran 18018
1 t in ,Tugust of 1900, and I
~2 l I'm not holding you to the }
3 } the specific dates, but oo you ' 4 , 1 recall generally that thero 5 I'
.were come f onowup discussions 6 l af ter the. July 28 and 21' visit?)
7 T!!E WITNESS: It seemed to me that this 8 l was the visit where cer tain inf ormation was 9 h reg ue ste d, either war not .provided or .was no. 10 i provided in the f orm that we requested it e.nd there I 11 1 vere f ollowup . telephone calls or meetingc, I don't j t 12 toca11 which, to acquire the f urther inf ormation we ' 13 needed to complete the assesamont. i l t 14 ' ' BY MR. JCNTES : 15 0 If you also include those f ollowup discuscions and 10 mentings, does your answer romain' the came, th a t the 17 l soils remedial of f'or t was not includod within the 10 panc1's assessn.ent of the schedule in the cuaraer of I 1 10 19807 1 20 A Ye s, it docc. To the best of my recollection the 21 additional inf ormation that was needed and cerved the 22 purpose f or the f ollwup noetings or discuccione, were 23 4 not of a soils nature er coismicity nature. } ( 24 in. BCnKOVITZ : J uc t I' ra J ust co nf use d. I 2 e 17 Lafayette Buildant " I' ' * " ' " Suite Mn 962 ))?6 hvo \orthesarrn Hu u 5,,,,,:fo (ktroit. \behiran M:26 Farmnerm Hilb. \hrhuran mn!R
4 1 + Are we talking about the seismicity or coilc. I i 2 thini there was -- .! 3 THC UITUCSS: They'rc not the came in 4 i my mind and that's why I added seismic na ture. The 5 seismic goes to the establichment of the proper 6 seismic input f or the . Midland aite. The soils 7 problem is much broader than that, but it would 8 encompass in addition to a definition of a remedial 9 3 . fi::, it would also encompasc seicnic .analycis I l 10 i i utilizing that proper seismic input to de termine~ the l 11 adequacy of that rcaedial fin. ' 12 BY ItR. SEUTES : ' 13 0 e And so we' re clear, in light of Mr. Ber kovit= 's I 14 t l l comment, is it your testimony that during the pancl's - 15 review of the schedule in the summer of 1980, .the 1 16 t whole question of the soils remedial ef f or ts, { 17 including the impact of the seismic roanalycis, were i l i i 18 l not taken into account by the panc1? ! 19 !A I believe that is the case. 20 Q Let me hand you what I'll ask the repor ter to :aark as , 21 ! CPC 998 s t 22 i (Deposition C::hibit CPC 99 0 I 23 ( ; Memo from tir. Sullivan to j 24 l file
, i 10 lafayette haddmr ' ~
5,,a, nyo 962.I17h '(*l" Wik"m*"" H") intra t. \f.chen 32:s suva ::o Fnemswm HJh. \hch:re Im19
1 was marked f'or id' e ntif ica tion. ) 2 , DY !!R. JCUTCS:
}
3 0 i Ubich is a memo f rom Mr. Sullivan to the file in l 4 ! j which he se ts out to docuu2nt some telephone i 5 l conversations involving you and Mr. Lovolace and then 6 let me also hand you what .has -- which I'll ask -the 7 : repor ter to mark as CP'C 1298. -- B (Deposition Exhibit CPC 1298 9
, ' Telephone conversa tion '
10
!- record of discu'saions with 11 I lir. Lovelace i g
12 , i was markeo f or identification.) I 13 i BY HR. JCUTCS: 1 14' 0 Uhien is another telephone conversation record of 15 some discussions with Mr. Lovelace that wac 16 ' appa rently. se t up by phone a t your r eq ue s t , and 17 lastly let me hand you whnt has previously been 10 marked as CPC 277, which is a memoranduo f rom !!r. I 19 l i 1 Sullivan to the file regarding a f ollow up meeting in 1 i 20 Bethesda on Auguct 22nc,1980, concerning the 1 j 4 21 ! Caccioad Forecant Panel's assessment of the ochtdule 22 l for the Midland uito. Again, Mr . I: cod, without 23 ge tting into all of the ce tail: of the cequence of { t 24 telephone cunverca tions and meetinga, by looi:Ing a t i 1 19
!aingtie Buildsne Lt:od Reporting Serrice suar Mn nsy,yj;s 3<mus %rthu e<rern liny intrmt, Urchison 4't:26 Suute :20 pa,,,ng,,, y,ty, y,chigan w ]H c ;- . ~
s 1 these documents, coes it ref resh your reco11cetion I i 2 that you had telephone converca tions with people at l 3 Consumers in August of 1980 on the 7 th, Oth and lith, e i 4 I and that you then requested that the Consumers people j i 5 l
! talk to Mr. Lovelace and that eventually there was 6
another meeting with representatives 'of Consuciers and 7 Bechtel on ' August 22nd,19807 8 A I have reviewed the three doct ments, 9 Could you . read .the .guention? u 0 '
-l 10 l i
(The pending question van read ! 11 '
; l.
by the Cour t Repor ter ac f c11cwc: ; I 12 0 ... doec it ref rech your 13 ; i recollection that you had l l 14 l telephone conversationc with ' 15 people at Coricumers in ' August - s' 16
- of 1900 on the 7th, fith and i
'17 1 lith, and 'that you then j .
18 requested that the Consumerc l 5 19 j people talk to I:r. Lovelace and . 20 that eventually there wac
)
21 3 another meeting with 22 ; representatives of Concumers and 1 23 l Bechtel on Auguct 22 nd, 1900 ?) f l 24 i T!!C 11IT;iCGS: 'le s , it doet. r I L I 1 L i e 20 tarayrte kidar Lu:od Reportsne Sers t<e ma y,, , ,, ,, y ; Suite h}Q De* ll?D Snile trO (Hrat. Vehstan A C 6 Farmmeron Hdis. %choran 18018
1 BY !?R. JE11TCS : 1 2 0 Were you present at the meeting on August 22no, 1900? g r 3 A Yes, I was. (
\
4 :O And !!r. Lovelace wac also there, is that cor rect ?
. i. .
=
'S jA Yes.
l 6 O And as best you can recall, were Hr. Sullivan, Hr. 7 Miller an'd Mr. Kline of Consumers and Mr. Jones of 8 i Bechtel in attendance?
.9 .A .I believe tir . --
10 l0 U.C. Jone s of Bechtel ? 11 A I u.G. Jones of Bechtel, yec, those pe ople ucre - Y l 12 pre se nt . I 13 l rO ll Prict to this meeting, had you known fir. Jones of 14 Bechtel? 15 A I believe I had me t him bef or e. 16' 0 What I was looking more at, did you know that he was i 17 the person at 'Bechtel who was principally responsible 10 for cost and schedule 7 19 A I'm not certain at what point in time I became aware 1 i. 20 . of th a t , but as bact I can recall, I reali cd that l h 21 certainly by August 22nd. I believe th a t I var svare 22 ) of th a t during the July vicit. - 23 ;O I take it you cico were at the July 28 and 29,1900 24 visit? l n l 21 lAfyrtte thuldent klsto sw 962< II ?6 f'M" %!!hu ruar" linc.' . (Hrat, \lorhann 4S:26 Sasoir ::0 Farmnere Hath. \lahieon muiF;
-- - -. . = ~ 1 1A Ye s. 8 l 2- Q t At that visit were tnere representatives of both i 3 . Conauaers and Decntel present? i f l 4 lA 'ie s. i
.5 0 Was Mr. 1).G. Jones also present at that neoting, so 6 .f ar as you. can recall?
7 A I think he was there. S O During this period f rom the meetings in July of 1900, 9 E
.through to the final _ meeting on- August .22nd, 1980, i -
i 10 L' did you and !!r. Lovelace have a number of discuccions i , 11 ; about what should be then panel's -view concerning the g 12 foreca:ted completion date f or the tiidland units? 13 I lA Give me the time f rame again, pleoso. ! 14 I O During the period beginning with the neeting on July 15 2 0 of 1900, through the meeting on August 22nd,1900, 16 ~ 11 hat I'm nearching for is were you and Mr. Lovelace 17 having discussion throughout this period concerning ! 10 what position ought to be taken by tho tune 17 I 19 i A '?ha t is our practi ce. In the particular case whether j 20 those diccuscions were going on or were awaiting some j 21 , f ur ther inf ormation f rom Consu=er c bef or o sucn , I ' 22 1 discussions, I r eally do n' t r emembe r . l j 23 'O If you turn over to the CPC 277, which is the ) i 24 ; Sullivan note of the August 22nd, 1000 meeting and , i 5 i 22 Lafyrste %Idmp Lu:od Reporting Seruce m ,, 5 ,,,, g ,, ,,,,, , y , 5,,,,, go 962 1176 %:tse ::(i furre \lektran M::r> Form me!<* H'll'. \Ikhtee" W ik
l' 1 you turn over to page two, down near :the botto= cf ter I 2 there had been come conciderabic presentation by l 3 l Consumers and Bechtel it cays "tiever thelecc, Lovelace j' 4 I m ; said all this had led him to project a preliminary ' 5 -! 1 Uni t .2 f uel loa d da te of 5/ 04. ' Had the '5/04 da te 6 j been one that you and Mr. Lovelace had agreed .on in 7 advance of the August 22, 1900 meeting, .at least as a 8 preliminary estimate?
.9 fA I don' t know that : .can nay .it' c one that .wo agreed !
I i 10 t on. I think it would be more technically correct to l-11 cay that the information ac we understood .it at that 12 point in time, when put into our generic model, woul d 13 i cuggest to us that this would be an appropriate 14 completion date. i i It's not a matter of agreement, { 15 j it's j ust a physical catter of cranking in a cer tain 16 input and outcome a certain answer. j t. 17 0 Incidentally, in connection with the panel review in I 18 the nummer of 1980, was there another panel member i l l 19 - that was a participant in itc deliberations or was 20 there j ust you and Mr. Lovelace ? I i 21 A At the July meeting you mean? ' 22 0 3
.i Throughout thic period July through Auguct of 1900?
23 !A I don' t remember. It is a pr acti ce to include i 24 , see,cono f reu the region in casoload vicits, quite I [ 2: lAfayeno (kidsnt ga, nn 31ma \nethu niern flu y . 962 1176 Swie ::o + introa. Uschaean 48:26 fa'M'nt M Ildh. Wrhtt** 18"lh
1 possibly we had communic'ated with someone in the f, 2 region. I j ust don' t recall. 3 l0 i Af ter the ruragraph that I referenced to you on page 4 tw o , the notec go onto state "CPCo summarized again 5 ! the major points supporting our confidence in the 6 7/ 83 Uni t 2 f uel . loa d da te . " And 2en if -you look 7 over on page three in the next to the last paragraph B it says, "CPCo then reiterated confidence in a 9
\
. sustained .cabic pulling rate of .310,000 linear feet I 10 !
per nonth which lends us to a July 1983 Unit 2 fuel I 11 . loa d. " Throughout the meetings, did Consumerc Power 12 u i otate on a number of occasions its confidene: in the ! 13 l July ' 83 Unit 2 fuel load date, and I'm referring to 14 l the meetings of July 28 and 29 of 1900 and again on i 15 the August 22nd,1980 meetings? i 1 16 A ' Yes, they did. 17 )Q Hould it be f air to say that they were attempting to ( i 10 ) convince you and Mr. Lovelace that you ought to : 1 19 change the preliminary Unit 2 f uc1 load dates f rom 20 i Hay 19 04 to an earlier date? - 21 ER. LIBBY: Objection; Icading and , 22 argumentative. f' 23 THC ttI?:1 CSS: 3 l Yes, I believe that would j l ' 24 be a fair characterization. I I t . L lAfe)ttle fl.u/dtng kra n.vs 962 1176 MiV) \arth u rwin Hr> ) l>etra t, 11sch::an I3:26 %i, :b Farmmew Hills. \lichcan mois
1 p DY (G. JC11TES : ' i 2 O And in the last. paragraph of the acetinc notes of the
. i 3
August 22nd meeting on page three it says "The ( 4 i raceting then concluded with the !!nc stating that ! 5 their projected date: of October '1903 and April 1904 6 . l for Unit 2 and Unit 1 f uel load, respectively, would 7 be published in the meeting minutes. " Her e those
-8 projected dates by the NRC the dates that you and tir.
.9 i Lovelace agreed on by the end .of the August 22nd, 10 ! 1980 coeting?
i
'll !
fin. LIBDY: Objection; . leading. 12 l t
'n!C 1 TIT!1 CSS : The best I can recall, 13 I' th a t ' c t r ue . The inf ornation that we received f rem 14 !
Consumers Power Company at the August meeting, 15 ~ particularily the inf ormation with respect to the s. 16 cable pulling rates that would be sustained cauced uu 17 to shor ten the completion da te that we had prior to 18 i the meeting, that we had in mind prior to the 19 , recting, 20 DY !!a. JE!!YcS : i , 21 iO And to be precic,e , the sher tening was f ron a f uol I 22 4 i load f or Unit 2 of !!ay 1904 to a f uc1 load Ior Unit 2 e ! 23 of October ' 03? l 24 ) l'n. LIEBY: Sane cb]ection. 1
'I i
I 2f i Lafapite Baddme ~"' "# Sw Ma 952 11I6 kmo %rth euern Hn [*trert, \lachaean m:2s kar b) \ Farmmerm HJ!s, l'schiren mo1R
l 1
'n1C tiIT!! CSS: Yes, I believe thooc I t
2 would be correce dates. 3 (Drief receso in proceedingc.) 4 , i
'I11C WITt1CCC: I would like to clarify 5 my last ancwor.
l The clarification ic clong the line 6 of the working relationchip between Bill Lovelace and 7 myself in tse caneload estimate and I think you might 8 ' misconstrue f rom my last answer that perhaps it was -- 9 I
,the actual .date was something .that 'wac arrived .at by I 10 l Dill Lovelace and myself mutually and it was tr ue to 11 '
the e:: tent, the clarification in that the precice { 12 ) number that comes out of the Caseload Forocact Panel 13 i. is in f act determined by Bill Lovelace. In my rolo ! 14 ! as a project nanager I assure thct the right elemente ! 15 l are considered and !:r. Lovelace has received all the 16 information that he needs to make such a i
\
17 de termina tion. The precise number is one that ic le ! determined on the basis of his exportise and not ! 19 j mino. 20 DY liR. JC!lTCS: 21 O e 4 I'd now like to go ba ck, if I may, to the doeurac nt ' 3 22 l that's CPC 13G2, which ic !!r. !:ollent;opf' c 23 l presenta'. ion piece at the J uly 2 8 and 29,1900 panel 24 meeting. Do you have that? i 26 Lafayette kidune # " k re M n 9 6 .* . ] ] ? b M Ps % vihneurm Hu v Intrat. \behtaan s4::s ,y,gre ja Farm ne w HJis. \hchaean mois
1 p A 1302? ' i 2 O Ye s. ! { 3 A Ye c. 4 O Again, you' re f ree to look th rough the pecsonta tion i 5 i materials in their entirety, but I'm particularily 6 interested in directing your attention ) tihe . 7 materials tha ; appear as the slide presenta' tion at i 0 t 771 entitlti
- Key Project !!ilestone s. " Do .you recall that Mr. Mollenkopf reviewod with the .!mC at th e J uly 10 !
i 28th and 29 meetinga, the f act that Concuaero Power 11 ! had cut the scheduled completion datec f rom those 12 { that had been recommended ty Dochtel in it; Porecast ' 13 ! 1:o. G7 I 14 l A . I believe that's an accurate statement. I have some 4 15 recollectf.on of that, bu t i t ' s -- I' m af r ai d i t ' s not .. 10 very fresh. I l 17 O Hell, let me direct your attention ~back to !!r. 10 i Kline's notes and maybe that will freshen a little ! t 19 bit more at 831 and 032 l Maybe you can road through j 30 4 l the review of agenda item 2 (a) which covered tir . j 21 itollenkopf's procenta tion. It' c in the big f at 22 i docunent that's 275.1 on the second and tnirc paget. l 23 lA Uhich par t now of !!r. Kline 's notes. 4 i 24 Q It ' c o n pa ge tw o, beginning a t agends item 2 (a) cown 27 isiasette Buildine Suite Mn 962 11Ib Mw %rthu rstern Hr< s l~betroa. \luchigan LC:n suar .40 formoirmn Hsib. \leditan L40!R
1 at the bottom. 8 2 A Okay. l I've reviewed i t. ' 1 3 0 Does that ref resh your recollection regneding what 8 4 ' I you and the panel raembers were advised concerning the 5 cutback in the schedule, ac f orecasted by Dechtel, 6 and let .me try to be .maybe more direct, since you' re 7 pa using, Mr . . Hood. What I'm anarching f or in when 0 the panel came out to thic, meeting in July of 1980,
.9 b did it know that Bechtcl'.c .Porecast !!c. G had '
10 I projected a target f uel load date of April of 1984 2 l 11 for Unit 2, which was .very' .close to the number that ' 12 i Mr. Lovelace and you had auggestod ac tne f uel load 13 j date at the August 22nd,1900 meeting? 14 MR. LIDDY: Objection; lack of I 15 foundation. , i 16 'nis WITt!CSC: 1 What I see f rom the l 17 sliden that are being shown, there ic a previous i 10 wor king line chown, then there is a comovhat l l 19 shortened schedule which apparently is establicned at I 20 l 7/2/00 ! i I 21 ' BY 1:2. JC?:TCS : i 22 O Uell, you' re looking at the chart quite cor rectly l 1 23 that I pointed you to and I reall::e f rom your pa ucing 24 over the chart and acteriala that I may have J umpe d ; t DO e= w lafaseur Rwidme 1. d Reporting Sert ice
~
9, ,,, y, Swer ran 962 1176 Iktroa. %charan LC6 5mte :ho Farmmrum H& %ehire mik
1 i too f ar into the story. Putting .acide the chart f or i 2 ? a'monent in Mr. l'ollenkopf 's prece nta tion, and going i 3 i back to sor t of a ' bigger ilicture, did you and the ! 4 } panel know when you came out in J uly of 1 D00, th at 5 I Dechtel had projected in Forecast flo. 6 a f uel ~1oad 6 da te f or Unit 2 of April of 19 B47 I don't know.
' 7 A 8 ,O Let me help ref resh your r.ecollection in that regard 9
l ..and I'.11 move .a little bit' slower through .the I 10 l document. t If you look at CPC 275.1, the notes of Mr. I 11 ' Pline , the first thing that -wac reviewed in agenda ) 12 item one was !!r. Eccley .sor t of givec a background l l
! t 13 ,
discussion f or the conctruction completion date i f' 14 ! changes, do you see that? Tha t's down a t th e bo t t om 15 of the first page of !!r. Kline 's raemor andum, . I 16 A Yes, I do. tiny I have a moment, p. i t
'17 0 Then it says his discussion covered the background of )
t la activities including the NSTP activities Porocact 6 i i 19 ! and the activitiec which have occurred cince the 20 incuance of For ecast 6. And then if you turn to page a 21 843 in the document, you'll cee a comewhat ceratched 22 ! up version or the presentation materials that fir. 23
.. Koeley gave, it's that 043 through 845 of the I 24 do cume nt .
See the note cvor in the richt hand frcr. Isfeette ikidme Luod Reportsise Sert sce Suul hm u p , u,,;, ,, ,,,,,,, ,,,, , 962 1176 Detrott. \ldigan 43:gr> .%ar so Farmmerm lidis \larenn twas
1 li Gil necicy to Ken Kline says, "Theoe are my wor de a t I 2 i the meeting with the imC" and in *,here about half way i 3 down it cays "Forecast Mo. 6 Itsued in January 10B0 4 based on the above ectimate of scope of work 5 ne ce s sa ry. This resulted in April 1984 and Septenbor 6,
.1984 f uel load estimate, although EPC working line of 7
'Noveder
- 83 and november 1984 for planning of 8 engineeri ng, procurement and construction. " Does 9
that . help ref resh your recollection that .th'e panel ! 10 ! was adviacd that Porecast 6 had projected a Unit 2 I 11 f uel load date of April 1934, which was within c 12 i month of the Itay 1984 date that Mr. Lovelace and you , 13 !' l had arrived at at the time of the August 22nd,1900 l 14 ! meeting? l 15 A Yes, it doe s help. 16 O $ And then during the course of the meeting on July i 17 ' 20th and 29th, do you recall that in the presentation i i 18 i by Mr. Mollenkopf he reviewed the f act that that da te .i 10 i had been cut back by Consumers to a Unit 2 f uel load ! i 20 ( of July 1983, which is what is shown au the current l 21
- j proj ect schedule on the CPC 1362 docunent at page 22 l 771, the chart I was asking you to look at earlier? !
23 k MR. LIBBY: Objection; icading and 24 argumentative. t I 30 1.nfayette Bwidine * *"'"'
- n to %rt% *,im Hr .
Suar Mo 962 1176 .swer:bi Iktmi. \lochstan LC2n Formancum Hiih.11A:enrt 18nik
1
'mc WIT!iCSS : Yes, that' c what thece !
2 slide s by !!r . !!ollenkopf indi ca te . - ( 3 DY tm. JC!!TCS : l' i 4 ,0 t l' Ove r on th e nc xt pa ge , th er o ' s a ch ar t in !!r . l ! H i
'S ,
1 Hollenkopf's procentation that talks about schedule , 6 6 ! improvement rationale and he8.s got a: couple of points 7 and his conclusion at the bottom is - ! 8 A Which slide is this? 1 9 l0 The ne nt pago cf it . 14ollenkopf's prese ntation. ile ' n I j 10 I i get a slide that goes through' a couple of pointo and ~ f 11 i at the end he accerts that it resulted in "enhancec. g 12 cchedule confidence and perf ormance. "
~
De you eocc11 ? 13 1
; that !!r. I'.ollenkopf stated to the tiRC f orecast. panel 3 j
14 ! at the meeting in July, that Consumers had confidence 15 in the July ' 03 f uel load da te f or Unit 27 i (- 16 A Ye s. l 17 0 And again, sort of harking back to my earlier 18 l questions about the August 22, 1980 meeting, would i t ! 19 h be f air to say that Concusers was cocking to convey 20 to the ImC forecast panel that the company did in 21 8 fact nave conciderabic confidence in the July ' 03 s 22 : f uel load da te ? 23 l !!R . LIDBY: Objection; arguraentativo. 1 24 g Ti!C UI"!! CSS : Pro:a what I can recall, I I l l 31 lainyette Baddine ' ' Suar h10 .1t BIO \orthur<rern Hu , 962.))76 ,s,,,, ;Qt; Detra t. \hchiran 4R2.% farrnaneron HJh. \brhien, IMu!8
l 1 . believe that would be an accurate charactorication. l 2 BY !!R. JC!!TES l 3 0
!!ow, during the mootings at any time .between July 20, 4
1980 and the lact necting on August 22nd 1960, did l' 5 Constnerc ever disclose to the liRC f orocast. panci 6 l that they had conducted 1. formal review of the 7 j Bechtel Forecast 6 numbers and that the CP review - i 8 team had recommended internally that the Dechtel o { For ecast 6 .numbcr c .chould .bc . adopted by the company? I 10 l' I!R. LIDDY: Objection; leading. I 11 THC UIT:1 CSS: I don' t believe we were f 12 aware of any cuch recommenda tion, 13' ) B Y !!n . J Cri T C S : I i 14 l0 l' i Let ne show 'you in that connection a document which 15 hen previously been marked.as CPC 61. This has been- ' i i 16 identified previously as a memorandum f rom F.r. Kl ine , l l 17 I the same gentleman that prepared all these minutes at i, 10 . the meeting with you and Mr. Randolph on !!ay 5,1960 l 19 j and it encloses the Forecast !!o. 6 review repor t 20 i : l which is a rather substantial document. I'm not 21 j going to ask you to read through the document, fri l 22 ) only question in whether or not you can recall ever , 23 having received a copy of that review repor t? t I 24 j in. LIDDY: Dio personally again? 32 lafayette Rutidung Suar Mn 4 thin \arthu rstern Hu 1. 962 1I?6 lktrat. \luchstan LC6 hunte $0 Farmneton HJh. \lochutan 13018
n 1 f:R. JCNTES: That's cor rect, nim ! 2 , pe r sonally . i i a 3 - TH C. UITNCSS : No, I don' t remember ! 4 receiving this. I 5 BY.!m. JENTES : l 6 0 On the . cover memorandum in:the end of the third 7 paragraph it states *No distribution of the CPCo 8 I Porecast No. G review report is being made outside of 4 t 9 the company.. " 1To your -know1 cage,. van -c copy of thic l 10 l repor t ever given- to the Nnc? t 11 A Not that I recall. ' t 12 0 I'll only ask you one other question about the I 13 docume nt. If you look over at pages 1248 and 1249, 14 I there's a se t of introductory catorials. About half 15 way down the introductory materials there' c a 16 i pa r agr aph that sta te s "Thi s r epor t i s ba se d o n 17 f Dechtel's recommended f uel cload dates of April 1004 18 for Unit 2 and September 1904 for Unit 1 and accumes 4 19 l commercial operation will be September 1904 and March i : 20 1984 for Units 2 and 1, recpectively. " Then if you j
; i 21 -
! turn over to page two and the lact centence cays "The '
22 i conclusion and recommendation of this repor t is tnat 23 even though we take minor exception to various 24 . occtions of the cetimate ac presented, ve generally 33 Lafayette Bwidine " Swer Mn Msto %rthursrem Hu 1. 962 1176 Swer .a> Intrat. \laran LCn Far~tinem Hdis. \lAran twrik
1 agree with Dechtel both on schedule and cost, and are l' t 2 5 recommanding a total project cotimate based.on the 3 pr em ioc .
- Ucre you ever advised that there had been 4
a f ormal review repor t prepared within Consumers that' 5 i l 'had reached the conclusion and recommendation that I 6 l' .just . read to you? 1 A I don't recall ever receiving such inf ormation. 8 j 0 Earlier I acked you about your f amiliarity with 9 pr obablicti c .a naly se c. Are you also .accusinted .uith 10 ! i such probablistic analyses' in their general use in 11 i connection with schedule analycis?. { 12 A I have some limited understanding of that, yec. 13 's i 0 Within the broad category of probablistic analyses, l 1 14 are you also generally f amiliar with risk analysen? ? 15 A Ye s.
. b, 16 0 During the meetings of the panel with Consumers and
{ 17 i Dechtel f rom July through August of '1980, was it ever 1, 18 ! disclosed that a schedule risk analysis had been i fi i ft conducted by Dcchtel with input f rom Consumers and i i 20 Bechtel project peopic concerning the levels of ; 21 :. confidence thoce people had in the completion dates I, 22 l f or !!idland 1 and 27 23 h Not that I con recall, 1 g 24 0 t Let me be a little bit mere precise in that regard, { 34 Lafvette Bwidme l'md Reportsne Sern sce
,y , , , ,
Suar Mn 9b.* 11Ib (Wrtmt. %chaean tC:n Suur :bo Farmmerm lhl!.. %chrean purik
1 Let no hand you what has previously been marked as i 2 CPC 236.1. i This coeuraent has been identified as a ' e 3 i document that wac prepared by fir. .liollenkopf, the < i 4 ' ! genticman who made the precentation to you on July 28 } i 5 and 29 of 1900, concerning cchedulo. It repor ts on a
)
6 l
\
meeting of top management of both Bechtel and 7
. Consumers on June' 25, 1980 and again .I'm not going to 8
l ask you to try to read through the entiro document, I 9 but over on page two' of the document, you'll see 10 ! under hooding C, a ref erence to Mr. W.G. Jone s a s 1 11 presenting a riah' analysis -that nao been r un on the 2 10 ; pr oj e ct, and then if you turn over later in the . 13 i document to page 95 0, you'll see a chart that repor ts
! f 14 !
the resulto of the achedule risk analysis f or the 15 Path A bulks. Do you ever remember seeing this ' 16 . j q document, and I'm referring to this chart, in t 17 i connection with any of the materials that were !
' J le precented to the panel during July and August of 1 1
19 19007 20 l !R. LIDDY: Objection; lack of 21 , foundation. 22 ) Tilt UIT:! CSS: tio, I don' t recall cocing 23 such a chart. < 24 BY !1P . JCUTCG 35 Lafayene Basiding * * " Sune Mo 962 11I6 nw %rtu nwen Hs. t (Hroa. \ldtran 4Ch .si.un ::o Far w nt".m H>lls. \1A rt e w lx
1 F0 Just so I'm not f ocusing only on that chart, if you 2 - i turn over a couple of pagno to 9161, there's a l 3 I i cimilar kind of a chart, schecule risk analysia ! 4 results on Unit 2 fuel load on Path D long load-time I 5 items. Samo question, did a chart like that ever get 6
, disclosed to you in connection with the meetings in 7 July and August of 19807 8
!!R. LIBBY: D im' personally now.
.9 f !L JC11TCS: Yes.
I 10 I
'nic 11IT!! CSS r !!ct that I can recall.
I 11 BY tin. JC11TCS t ' i 12 O Plence turn bacl: tc 91C2, if you would. ' Thi 1: a 13 chart entitled "Schedule nisk Analysis" and it l 14 describes the Path A bulks and the Path D long 15 lead-time issues and the Path C operating license. 16 were you generally fentliar in co'nnection with your 17 review of Midland, of the concept of those Path A, 18 i Path B and Path C ite=c? Were those terms thct woro , 19 used in discussions that you had with Consumern about i 3 20 the project
,'}
21 i A I'm familiar with the term paths in a general se nte
! 1 22 and in caceload visite we typically had more than one 23 !
critical path to a completion schedule and there were l e ; 24 [ various path numbers uced in that conte:tt . > I den't i I i 36 gge ,,,, g,,jgu,, k& WM WW kMo %rthn enem Hu ,
% e h30 962 11Ib
[htrat. \1Airan 48:2n %re :b Fv,u n er.m Hdh \lavran Milh
s 1 . know whether that's the same conto =t here. They may 2 l have a Path A f or bulk commoditicc or they may have : 3 another path for another activity, auch as cable i y i 4
- pulling or that sor t of thing.
~ J,
~5 0 tTell, Path A and bulks, as it's described here, 6
covers schedule paths through design release and 7
' installation of key bulk commodities, system B
turnover, and preoperational tecting and startup. 9
.Did that include, oc you . understood it, the cable 10 pulling aspect of the pr oj ect ? i l
11
- 13. LIDDY Objection; lack of 12 r f ounda tion. '
13 l l W E li1TileSS: I really havo no idea. I 14 I EY tm, JE!!TES : b 15 0 i* Well, in the terminology ~ that you used in discussing 16 the project, was -- let me back up. There cecc to to ! 17 4 discussions about *bul'ks" in connection with the I 18 ! nodel that was used by the linC in arriving at tne i 19 panel 's f or eca ct . 17 hat was meant by bulks in that 20 se nse ? 21 A , Again, I go back to ny previous comment that ny 22 l expert ic Dill Loyolace and you' re getting too 23 de tailed f or my involvecient. I don't -- I'm not sure 24 if bulk would include cable pulling or cable pulling 4 07 lafayette Buddme "I *
% ite M a 9b2 Il?6 ksw %nhurstern Hu v lutrat, \! white ts: n Suar :.hr Fem new Hdh. \ laten Nilk
1 would be a co parate enti ty or not apa r t f roo tha t. l
. 2 BY HR. JCI TCS :
3 0 In any event, returning to the table that I directed 4 i you to j ust a moment ago at DIS 5, which in the risk 5 analysis of the Path A bulks, were you and the other 6 panel members informed at the meeting in July .of 1900 ' 7 that Bechtel's Forecast 6 had - - 8
, MR. BERKOVIT2: Cxcuse me. I've ,
9 i i noticed -that -j ust loohing at the witnec: and the 10 ! question are looking at different pages.
- 11 !
I T. , 30!!TCS : I don' t want that to l 12 happe n. 13 I i n1C WIT!! CSS: 9135 you caid. 14 DY MR. Jm!TES : i 15 0 I'm sorry. 91'58. The witness is looking a t the right 16 document. I'm looking at the wrong one. Let ne ge t j 17 him to the right one. : I 1 10 A 9158, 1 19 0 You got that one. That's the rich analysis results ' 20 on Pa th A bul ks ? ; i 21 , A Yeo. 22 iO During the mcot in July of 1900 and Auguct of If>CO r l 23 l with the panel, did Consumers or Bechtel ever i f 24 1 !
, discloce that the Porcesst G had como up with only a '
! ?
3C 149etre B.uht a:od %onme 5nw n ,,k , ,n,,, y, , i Sutir hE ND*'Sl*O Twinut. \tachigan 4?:2n %nte . ) Ferm ww H lls. 11aharan wm
I ton porcent confidence icyc1 in meeting the Unit 2 i 2 ! f uel lea d da te of J uly ' 23 in te rm s of th e Path A < 3 bulkc? 4 IR. LIBDY: ! Objection; argumentativo. ' 5 . THE WITNCSS: I can't recall any cuch 6 discussion as that, whether there was any confidence 7 level associated [with various numbers or not. I z 8 don't remember the inf ormation being presented to us . 9 in .such a .f achion. I
's 10 !' BY HR. JEUTCS :
l i 11 O I I'm not limiting =ycelf to j ust thic particular f orm ' 12 l i of the inf ormation. I'm looking more broadly as to 13 whether or not when Consumers and Dechtel werc 14 ! stating their confidence in the July '83 dates during 15
.the meetings, ,that they were having with the panci in 16 July and Auguct of 1980, anyone ever told you that l
17
~
internally there had been documents prepared that 18 l showed that the company and its architect / engineer ' 19 h i i only had a ten percent confidenco levul in the July 20
' 03 f uel l oa d da te ? "
21 A To the be st of my knowledge we were not aware of 22 th a t. s 23 0 And ciuilarly, just to wind it up would you look over ~ 24 g at 9161, which is the Path D lonc lead time itecc ! I I 1 6 1 3S lafayeur k idone
"~
kre sw 3 TMH 962 11ib %'ti turstern Hu) (ktru . W hean A C2s kre ::o farmnctm HJh, Whitan Wik
1 there' c a ref erence. here to what's deceribed ac the ' 2 l composite project tec= probablictic input, which the I 3 record cctabliches is th'c input f rom all of the ' i 4 proj ect people that were consulted in connection with l' 3 I thin risk analysis and it showc that that group had a 6
. ten - percent confidenee . level in a -Janunry '1984 fuel
'7 ,
load date f or Unit 2 based on the Path D long
- 8 1ead-time items. During the meetings that you had, l
9 i war .there any disclosure by Consumere or Dechtel that I 10 i l they had only a ten percent confidence level in' a J
.11 j Janua ry 1904 f uel loa d da te f or Uni t 27 '
12 MR. LIDDY: Objection; argumentative. . i 13 l
'5C WITNESS: I don' t recall any such f n'
14 , disclosure. 15 BY HR. JENTCS I i 16 0 i During the meetings that you had with Consumers and { 17 Bechtel in July and August of 1960, was there ever !, 18 discioned to you that Dechtel had continued l 19 j internally to naintain records which projected a Unit i 20 ' 2 and O' nit i f uel loa d da te e r.a ctly as nad been _, 21 i' I projected in For ocact tio. 6, nsoely April 19E4 ior 4 22 l Unit 2 and September 1984 for Unit 17 1 5 23 MR. LIDDY: Objections leading and 24 ar gumenta tive . i. 40 y ,,,, yg Lu:od Reporting Sertice
, 9 ,, ,
Sune 610 962 11?6 5,,a, so (Hrot t. \tabru K.% Farmmeu HJiu \! A rran m !e
1 BY t1R. JCIITCS : 2 O I'm not referring to any particular document at this 1 3 j un ct ur e . i 4 ;A tio. i 5 !O I I'm going to hand you a document which has been 6 l previously marked as BEC 15274 - You'.11 see on the 7 j. face.of it that it says 'Bechtel confidential O pursuant to the order of the !!idland County Circuit 9 Court" -and I believe, Mr. Dor kovit:, you're 10 I acquainted with the f act that there it such a 11 ; confidentir.lity or der 7 12 l
, tT, . DERK0VIT:: Yec. I i
13 MR. JCitTES: I only call that to your 14 m attention so that in handing this to the witness 15 might he and you understand that Dechtel asserts 4 16
, certain confidentiality with regard to the document.
17 We have advised Dechtel that these kinds of documento ! 1 18 will be used in the course of depo:itions and that we 19 l will under take to aler t the witnes:cs and their 20 ) counsel to the f act that there are cer tain 21 conficentiality limitationc. 22 i
!?. . BCn!0VITZ: Let ce ash at tnic l
23 point, we' re 9e tting a copy of all the cocuments 24 . introduced in the 6eposition, th at the r epor t.cr i c 41 Lafaptre &,ilaint Luod Reporning Sonn: Suar run
, , 9,h ,u,,y,,
96.' 11?6 %,are riv Detem t. \lochigan # C:n farmmen* Ndis. \f & r e W ik
1 t ocnding us all thoce documents. I 2 !
- m. JCMTES: I think we've donc that in 3 .
the past and we' re hcppy to continue to ao that, yes, t 4 ,
- s. BCRr4VIT:: I assume that includos i
5 !
! all the' documents that are introducad, in that goinq 6 l to be a: problem.
7 MR. JENTES : No, I don't think co. 8 MR. BERK 0VIT3: That would include this 9 document here. i 6 10 ! BY MR. JENTES : i 11 0 l tr . 11ood, this ic a ce t of what are known by Dechtel l 12 as the active major project da ta cheets and they .are l i 13 ' l isouod monthly and they' re generally somewhero j ( 14 I between three and five or six pages long and. this is i i i 15 a compedium of all of the ones that were issued 16 during the year 1980 by Bechtel. Have you, in f 17 i connection with your duties at the TIRC, ever come ' 10 i into contact with the active major project da ta 19 sheets of Dechtc1? 8 20 , A tio, , ( 21 O 4 I'm not asking about the se pa r ti cul a r one s, but j u:t ' l > 22 ; ge ne r ally ? 6 8 23 A Ho. 24 i O Directing your attention over to the cheet that'c l f k 42 l Lafayrite Boldone Luod Reportsne Sert sce ' Sair Mo 962 1176
,t M,, y,,h ,,v,,, y, y iktrmt. \fschran C> Mar Lm Farmeerm H,th, \ldican Wls
1 - about a half way through that hac a date iscued ; 2 i 7 / 3 1/ 00 in the upper rignt-hand corner, page 1. Do l 3 you have that in f ront of you? } 1 l 4 jA Yes. I 5 'O If you look over to page two of that particular thing 6 1 under the heading schedule near the bottom, do you 7 have that? 8 A Ye s.'
, l D ) O' There it says '"Por ecast G , preoc nted to Concumer s I i
! i 10 l
Power Company on January 24, 1900, indicated an April 11 t 1984 Unit 2 f uel load da te with a 50 percent g i e 10 confidence icycl. One schedule ic engineering I 1 13 critical with the greatest potential for improvement ! 14 ! l in the timely confirmation of the project scope and 15 the translation of this scope into design and i 16 procurement. On J une '25,19 00, a j oint CPCo/De'chtel I 17 i executive review was held on the recults of the I, 10 ' current project schedule (i.e. November 1983 Unit 2 19 f uel load) . At that meeting, it was dacided and 20 agreed to advance the current project achedule by l 21 threc months. The f or ecast acheoule cates continuad 22 I to reficct Dechtel's j udsnent precented in For ecast G 23 and substantiated by the June 1980 risk analysi c. " ' 4 24 And then if you turn bacl: to the first page of thic C 43 wy ,,,, yig,, Lu:od Reportsne Sert see
, ,,, y,,
.% o Mn 9 6 .' < 1 1
- 6 (WttmL %chtten AC *> % re :m fermont m H.llr. Wrhese M ih
1 major project da ta sheet, under the tabular materialc 2 schecule actual forecact, you'll cee that Dechtel i 3 continues to chow in that column f or Unit 2 a f uel I 4 load of 4/04 and a commercial operation date -- l 5 i C. DCnt:0VITZ: We're having trouble 6 .2inding.it here. 7-
'!112 WITNESS: You said page one.
8 P1R. JEMTES : Yes. 9 7.!C't!ITt!ESS: I'.m h~aving trouble i , 10 1 finding it, actual forecact as to heading. 11 , BY MR. JCll?tS i*
' .f 12 O I'm sorry. I'll talk slower. Are you bacl: t e pa ge 13 l one ,~ please ? *s l
14 A Ye s. 15 O Under the tabular materials in the box marked 16 schedule? i 17 A Yes. i 1 18 O n l There's a set of naterials f or Unit 1 and a se t of i 3 19 ' materials f or Unit 27 ' 1 20 A Yes. ' 21 iO
# Under the Unit 2 se t of materials f or actual .
o 22 6 forecant, if you run down through the milectones - 23 you'll see that the f uel loao shown as April 1964 and 24 September 1904 f or commercial operation da te, which l l i i i
- 1. 4 Lwd Reportune Sers ner (
Lafavier Lidar , ,,,, y Suttl 930 962'EI?O (wm t, \lichigan #226 kut. $11 Farmerm Hdi. 11och:re tw
1 was the Forecast G numbers, and if you look at the ; 2 actual for ecast column f or Unit 1 tne f uci 1 cad is i 3 shown to be September 1904 and June of 1905, whien is 4 ! the, same as the Forecast 6 numt:erc. !!y qucction io, ! 5 ,
,during the nieetings that you had with consumers and !
6 Bechtel in July and J.ugust of 1980, were you ever 7 advised that Bechtel was continuing to show 8
, internally that the f uel load dates and the 9
com:nercial operation dates ~that it fcit were the 10 ! i proper ones were the same as those in Forocant 67 11 l f:n. LIDDY: Objection; leading and l
' t 12 argumentative. I 13 '
THE WIT!! CSS I really don' t remember, 14, but I don't believe we were aware of that. 15 0 Let me hand you another document which han previously ,
'16 been marked ao BEC 1089 t
This document has again I i 17 been marked as Bechtel confidential. Thic document 10 ' i has been identified in the record as e set of notes
- 19 ;
which !!r. Rutgers used in connection with a i 20 presentation to top Dechtel management in the latter 21 part of 1900 and let me ask you to turn over to the 22 } page which is aLout half way through and it's got a 23 chart on it that's entitled "Project Schedule" and j 24 it's got a Dates number 517 on it. i 45 laiapetir kidsne # Suar hm 962 1176 Mw %hevern Hv > [ktm t. % k: ten IS::n %rr :iv ferwnew HJ!. M A ran w !h
1 !A I hnve it. l 2 l 4 C I'o like to ask you to look at that char t f or a. 3 moment and ask.you whether or not you've ever ccen 4 that char t bef ore, or one liko it? 5 ,' A !!o, I've never seen this chart, to the bect of my 6 knowledge. l 7 0 You'll see that in the upper portion it shows the 1 B current project schedule, which is designated as CP0o 9 i
. direction per J une .25,19 00 mana geme nt .me e ting . a nd 10 tha t shows a Uni t 2 f uel l oa d of J uly ' 03, th e one i t
11 that was discusoed with you, and then in the lowcr 12 part of the chart it shows Bochtel asses = ment i 13 l assuming a 50 percent probability of achievement and l 14 there the Unit 2 fuel load date is shown as April of
- 15 1984. During the period af ter the f orecast panel
( 16 3 visit in July and August of 1980 and continuing
' {
17 through 'the rest of 1980, van it ever discioned to I 18 you or to your knowledge to the NRC that Dechtel's i I ' 19 i assesenent of the project, annuming a 50 percent 20 probability of achievenent, wac that the Unit 2 f uel 21 , load date chould be April of 19047 I 22 ! 13. LIBBY: 1 Objection; leading and 23 ar gumenta tivo. lt 24 ?!!C 11I7:100S: llot that I recall. t
}
4C lainetia B.a:das ~ ~ Sm,, ny;
" " %'"'~'""" li"'
96:.1176 . Mar :?> betrat. 1Lehir n L C n Ie'ut" IIsII' \hrkran t'om
_.i y. 1 y BY 13. JE!!TES : 2 i 0 If you look at the prior- page to the one I've been I 4 3 showing you, there's a set of handwritten noten which I l 4 e. are identified as those of Mr. Rutgers in which he is
. t 5
discuscing the subject iorecast schedule and I 6 recognise it's a little hard to ' read Mr. Rutgers' - 7 hanchrriting, but down at the bottom there's a summary 8 , set of materials that starts, "In auramary," do you . i
- P l
he.vc tnat? ) 10 :A Yes. 11 0 l Says "In su:amary, we' re going to pull out every l l 10 ' I rabbit we can to make 7/03 - but the outlook f or l 9
, 13 '
doing so is not optimistic at this time. Our view ic 0 A 14 that it's something less than one in ten." During the 15 latter part of 1980, f rom the meeting in Auguct of 16 1980 of the panel through the end' of 1900, wac it 17 i ever disclosed to you by Consumers or Dochtel that 18 Bechtel'c view was that they had Ices than one in ten 19 chance of caking the July 1903 date -- ! 20 !
- m. LInBY: same objections.
21 , BY tm. JCUTCS : 4 22 !O - f or Unit 2 f uel losd? , 23 A I can't recall sny such disclosure. ! I 24 0 If you turn over in the sane document t o C a tt e nur :.o r 1 47 g ,,,ufg, L *
- B rP8"8 a t Sr"8" u n s,,,,w ,,,,,,, n,,y Si,, sw 962 1176
[Mren t. \ fork;gsa scL% Mr ::o fa'"net *<m H.!!,. \lA en Wol8
1 500, it's a ont of typed natcrialc, a little cacier ' i r 2 to road.
!!eaded coils and scismic desien icaucc.
3
, There are enree topics discuused on that page, 4
- ba ckgr ound, potential impact and resolution. Under 5 i background it states at the end "NRC believes the 6
plant asianic design basis should be changed from 7 0.12 to 0.20g and has added resolution of thin issne 8 , to the soils hearing. ' And then under potential D
.impset it states *nedesign 'f or 0.20g will cause 10 l cubctantial schedule delay and cost incroace. The t
11 i contract date f or steam to Dow will not be met. ' j 12 i During the panel meetings in July cf 1000., in' July 13 l and August of 1900, I believe you said that you coulo i 14 , recall no discussion of the matter of the inpact of 15 meismic on soils and the schedule having.been 4
' 1 16 i
di scusse d. So that the record to clear, Nr. Hood, j 17 s having looked at these materials, can you state one j 10 i way or the other whether or not there wac anything 19 l caid by Consumero or Bechtel to the panel that ' 20 redesign f or 0.20 would cause substantial cchedule , 21 delay and coct incroace and that the contract ca te 22 ! for ateam to Dow would not be ne t ? I 23 MR. LIDDY: Same objections. l 24 ! TUC HITUCSS: I can ' t recall a i b
+
Lainen* B adar Lund Repunny Sen en u , 9,h ,o_ g, Smre hm 962 El.'b (went, Uwman M::s .%:e :b Fev.arw H..%. UArc 2%@
1 t statement like that being made. I thinl: it's fair to ' 2 tay that the ctaff had an appreciation that if .' , 1 3 cignificant modification of str uctures were to be 4 required, it would have an impact on ochedule. I 5 don' t believe that during the time f rame that you're 6 mentioning that we had any appreciation as to the I
' t 7 j degtee of that .impaet time-win .
B BY HR. J!2iTCS : S 'O. Af ter the August 22nd, IDEO meeting with the panel, 10
; can you recs 11 reprocentativec of Conce: acts or i
11 ; Bechtel stating that redesign f or 0.20 would cause l t 12 l substantial schedulo delay and cost incresso and that 13 the contract date f or steam to Dow would not be met? 14 i itR. LIDDY: Sarae objections.
. 15
'Ztic WITt1 CSS: I can' t remember -- lot 9 I 16 me have the question back, please.
17 (The pending question was read 16 by the Cour t Repor ter a: f ollows: I 10 Af ter the August 22nd,1900 O 20 cceting with the panel, can 21 you recall reprecentativec 22 I of Consumers or Bechtel stating l 23 , that redeisgn f or 0.20 would 4 24 . cause suustantial oclay anG r t 49
, g, Lu:od Reportme Sert ser koe sp 9, , ,
9 6 2 11 Ib twm t. \faL n 4?.:,% 5wre do Femme <+ Hb tras ce m ek j
1 ; coct incrosse and that the I, 2 ' ! contr act da to f or steam to l 3 Dow would not to met?) 4 ' TUC UIT!! CSS: !!o, I don' t renember such i 5 a statenent. 6 BY MR. OEtlTES 7 0 Let me turn to the ~ Caseload Forecast Penel visit in-
~8 l ,
August of 1981 and I'll try to shorten my discussion 9 of thic meetin5 becaure I think it'c somewhat 10 cumulative of some of the pointe that have circady l 11 been made. I'll hand you what I'll ask che reporter 6 j 12 to mark ac CPC 1370.1, which is a file actor endum ' 13 prepared by fir. Mollenkopf concerning the caseload
. 14 f or eca st panel visit of August 25, 26, and 27 of 15 1981.' Here you present during that f orecast panel 16 vicit? I might note at page 1815 this set of notes 17 has an attendee list and you're at least indicated on I 18 that attendec list.
I 19 ! (Doposition Exhibit CPC 1370.1 ! 20 ' i Memo from tir. !!allenkopf 21 conce r ning Ca coloa d I'or e co ct 1 22 vicit of 0/25, 26 and 27 1901 23 was marked f or ioentification.) 24
'7.1C UIT:1 CGS: Yec, I was, i
i f 50 Leineur LW L"* ' P * " ' "'
%te hM u to %rthuruern Hun 000'IE?O (kmt. \takses JF v> N.ur :.'o Fammerm H,iit Wr%ean In <18
1 y BY MR. JE!!TES: ,, l 2 0 In the fir:t pa ge of Mr . P.ollenhopf ' : nemor ande 3 under aranda item two it' c indicated that Mr. Feeley l 4 I introduced the CP and Dcchtol presentcru ant'. ther it l l 5 ; states 'He reiterated our project goal of ' meeting our 6 j forecasted project " excuse me. *0ur_ f or ecasted
- 7 f uel load dates of' J uly ' 83 and De cember ' 83 f or B
t) nits 2 and 1 respectively and indicated that we have 9
.a high . level of confidence that these milestone: can l
~
10 l [ be achieved.
- Do you recember Hr. Feeley ctating
- i. l 11 I l
such a high level of confidence in the July ' C3 and l 12 .! ! December 19C3 Unit 2 and 1 f uel loads? ' 13 A tty previous statement is accurate, 'yes. l 14 Q Let me hand you what I'll ask the reporter to mark as 15 Btc 1528 16 (Deposition Exhibit BEC 1528 17 Series of Major Project Data 18 1 sheets f or 1901 ! 10 : was marked f or identification.) ; 20 BY ttR. JC;:TCS: ' 21 O Agai n, I call your attention to the f set that thic ic 22 cathed Bechtel conf itiential. This to a Dories of tne l 23 I active major project data cheets f or the year 1001 l 24 i and if you look over to tt.e repor t f or July 31ct i i 51 Lainni. Buke l'* 'I' * ' " " I ' " ' ' 56, w 962 1176 u n %nu wm He > kut. \tah::an a;> Suar :.M Fewsw HA \! Aran Wih
1
] 1981, that is its date icDued, July 31st, and if :you 2-also look at the next _ one, which is August 31, 1901, 3 .!
j which are the two repor t's bridging the meeting with 4 the f orecast panel in August of 1981, you'll oce in 5 the tabular materials that I airected you 'to in the 6-earlier versions. of these, that Bechtel co'ntinues to 7
. show an actual forecast f or Unit 2 fuel load of April B
'84 and for Unit 2 and commercial operation date of 9 i
. September ' 84 for Unit .2, a f uel load f or Unit I of 10 September ' 84 and a commer ci al ope r a ti on da te f or 11 I Unit 1 of June of 1905 And you'll also notice, if i '
12 ! i . yo u t ur n t o pa ge th ree of the' J uly 31 ct 19'81 ma] or i 13 project data sheet under the heading schedule? 14 i A Say again. Where? 15 O If you turn to the third page of the July 31st, 1981 i 16 data sheet under the heading schedule - i 17 A Yes, i I 18 0 j Bechtel states that "The f or ecast completion da tec I 19 included in Forecact 6 continue to reflect De ch tol ' s l 20
- judgment and were subatantiated by the CPCo/Bechtel ~
21 project team June 1980 schedule risk analycic," i 22 ! I During the f orecast panel visits to the cite and the ! 23 { discussions that occurred in August of 1901, was it { j 24 i l l 3 dicciocod to the panol that Bechtel was continuing to l 1, \ 52 Lafayette Building Lu:od Reporting Sern ice Suito MO 3, y,, ,,, y 962.I1o'6 Detroit. \fichiran 48226 Sugi,220 Farraineron Rdh. \lochigan 18018
1 i hold to the Forecast 6 fuel lead and commercial I 2 ' operation dates that I've just referred tou to? i a 3
!!R. LIDDY: Objection; leading and 1 4 , argumentative. I
'S !
Tilt HITHESS: I do not recall any such 6 di sc1'osure. _ 7 BY MR. JCNTES 8 i l0 I notice f rom the attendee ' list f or the August 26 th,
.9 h
.1981 meeting, with .the panel that th rec i
10 l
- i. representatives of Bechtel were present, Mr. Dailey, !
.11 .Mr. Collinc and !!r. Cor chran.
So .f ar as you know, j 12 were those gentlemen f rom Bechtel in a ttendiance when h l 13 l the presentation to the panel was made? r ; This in at 14 page 1815 of the CPC 1370.1. 15 A Hr. Bailey, Mr. Corchran and what was the third name? i 16 O Collins. ' l
- 17 A Are shown as being -in attendance. I can' t say f rom la my first hand knowledge whether they were or were 19 1
l not, but this attendees list cer tainly leads rac to i 20 believe that they were, i j 21 !O I Do you at least recall that some Dechtel people were i i 22 f present during the August 1981 forecact panel vicit? j 23 A Yes. i j . 24 lC ; Let me now shif t back again, if I may, to the soils i, i I 53 Lafayetse Buildme Lu:od Reportursy Sern ice Suste MO
, , ,, ,,, ,, ,,,,,n y ,, y 962 1 iib Detroit, \lechigan 48226 Sustr ::0 Fnemuncion Heli <.11,chienn 18n1R
1 . remedial eff orts and see if I can move reasonably 2 ; expeditiously through the final stages of the 3 i remedial program with particular reference to the j 4 , Auxiliary Ltiilding. In your testimony yecterday you l i 5 ! referred to an interf ace agreement that was entered 6
. into with other agencies :of the government to help 7
the NRC in assisting - in assessing the proposed 8 fixes for the Auxiliary Building. Your testimony 4 9 indicated that you were -a little . unsure ac to when I 10 l precisely the interf ace arrangements were arrived at
'll and let me refer you back again to the prepared l ,
t 12 l I tectimony that was given in 1981 and that was marked ; 13 as NRC 267. Do you have that in f ront of vou? 14 A Ye s , I do. f' 15 0 If you turn over to page . ten, I guess it's j ust on 16 i page ten of the testimony, I'll ask you if you might 17 l 1 just read through the material 'that starts on line h 4 18 1 two, about once the staf f realized the widespread 4 19 j extent of the plant fill problem, etce tera, down l
' j 20 through the end of those materials and see if that -
21 [ helps ref resh your recollection as to when the ; t 22 interf ace arrangements with others in the goverraent 23 were arrived at? 24 A The interf ace agreement that's being referrea to on f" i
- l 1
54 lxfayette Buddine Lmd Reportine Sert iee Susie Mn 3 ,,o ,,h ,, ,,,,,n y,n , 962 1176 Su,1,:ba Detron. thchigan #226 Farmincton Hdh.11schiran Molk
1 ' page ten is in agreement between the NRC and the U.S. 2- I' Army Corps of Enginecro. This does not help me in '<
', 3 reference to the interf ace agreement that I was
-4 referring to previously in which I was referring to I
5 , i the interf ace between ILE and the NRR. 6 .Oh,
.O I misunderstood your earlier testimony. To help
.? 7 clarify your last . answer, does this mean that there B
were really two dif ferent interf ace arrangements
'9 arrived-at, one that was internal to -the URC and then i' 10 !
the second was one that was arrived at with the U.S. 11 < Corps of Engineers: ' 12 {
,A h s, that is a correct statement but the latte.
i 13 l interf ace is not limited to the U.S. Corpc of
'14 I Engineer s.
I Ne also had other technical acsictance 15 contr acto, including, the geotechnical area as well
'16 <
as the structural areas and at least one other l 17 i di scipline . 3 18 ! O l Uho el oe be side n the U . S. Army Corps of Engincors did f 19 i i the NRC wor t: with in connection with the soils j 20 , remedial activiticc? i ! 21 A Ne wor ked with a -- in the geotechnical area wo 22 I wor ke d with a Dr. Stevo Poulous I believe, who was a 23 c;>nsul tant in New Jer sey. l In the structural area, we i 24 b utili::ed the services of the naval surf ace weapons t 55 Lafayette Building Lu:od Reportsnr Sernce 9(,,,,7g ym y, y,,,s u ,,,,,,. n,,y ket ou lichiran 48:2n ,9u,,y;u f" * '"* U'U~ ""
1 1 l l 1 center and we utilized the services of !!r. Gun ter ' l 1 2 ! Harstead. In the mechanical area, such as i 3 underground piping we utilized the cervices of i i 4 n Engineering Technologies Cngineering Center or C-Tech
! l
'S !
i for chor t. I 6 O Is that -a private agency?
.7 A It's located in Canoga Park, Calif ornia. .I believe 8
l it's a subsidiary of Rockwell Interna tional, but I'm
.9 not .abcolutely . ccrtain .of that.
i I 10 ! O Referring back again to page ten of NRC 267, doec it s 11 help ref resh your recollection ac to when the > 12 ,
' inter-agency agreement with the Corps of Engineerc ,
i 4 13 was arrived at? i i l 14 i A Yes. i i 15 i 0 And when was that? 16 A The agreement was reached in' September of '7D. ! 1 1 17 0 In brief, -what was the contemplated role of the Corps
~
i 10 of Engineers? f ID They would nasiat the staf f with the technical review lA 4 20 ; in the geotechnical engineering aroaa. t Their 21 l j responsibility included the Diccel Generator Building i 22 l i and I think perhaps it included other str uctures, but 4 23 4
) I Just ca n ' t recall at the moment.
24 0 On pa ge ton it statec in the middle cf the page, "The t 5 j SG lafayette Budding Luod Reporting Sers ice
,o ,, , y Suite hw 962 1176 stagegho Detroot. \lichigan 48:26 Farmineron HJh. \lich:ean 18n1M
1 4 concensus of the !TRC staf f in late 197 9 was that, t 2 although a basic concept f or underpinning the 3 4 Auxiliary Building had been submitted in June 197 9, 4 . l there were significant design consiocrations ; 1 i 5 l important to pl~ ant cafety which had not been 1 I
;6 adequately addressed .and . acceptance criteria and' 7
their' bases had not been established for either the 8 ; installation or f or the perf ormance of the 9 .
. underpinning. .Is that an . accurate sta tement of the 10 { ctaff's position in late 1979? I 11 A 7 i
I believe it's an accurate statement, yes, and I . r 12 think it's alco concictent with one of the three a 13 ! ba se s th a t I ci te d a s a ba si c f or th e or oc r of ( 14 De cembe r 6 th, 197 9. l l 15 0 Af ter the Corps of Engineers was brought in, did they 16 assist the staf f in requesting additional inf ormation 3 j 17 from consumers concerning the proposed fix f or the 10 se ttlement problems? i 19 A Le t me hav e th a t ba ck. 20 j (The pending question was read 21 by the Cour t Repor ter as f oilosc 22 0 Af ter the Corps of Cngineer: wac 23 brought in, did they assist the 24 staf f in requecting additional I l 57 Isfvets* Buildune "' Saoretan M840 %rthve< tern flu s. 962 1176 ()<trut. 11whiron n:26 suure bo Formuneron lluth.11achiran 18018
F I 1 , inf ormation f rom consumers 8 6 \ 2 i concerning the proposed fix 3 for the se ttlement probl ems?) 4 -l THE WITNESS: Yes, they did.
-. a 5
,j; BY'MR. UCNTES:
.6 Q Let Joe thand -you what I'll ask the reporter to mark at 7 HRC 215 .
6 (Deposition Exhibit NRC 215 I
.9 letter :f rom. Mr . Schwencer 10 i
to Mr . Cook dated 6/30/80
.11 !
was marked f or identification.) g 12 ' DY MR. JEUTES: I i 13 , O Dave you seen this document bef ore?
! i I
14 i A Ye s, I have. i J l 15 0 Can you identify it as a letter sent by Mr. I 1G i Schwencer, acting chief of the L'icensing Dranch No. j 17 3, to Mr. U.W. 4 Cdok of June 30, 1990, req ue sting ! 10 I addi tional inf ormation regarding plant fill? i 1 4 19 'A Ye s , I can identify it as such. ' 20 i0 I notice in the second page of the letter that it ;i 21 < l states -- excuse me, the se cond paragr aph of the i .' 22 l first page of the letter it states "as noted in our 2_ 23 request 37 of enclocure 1 your position in previous l 24 ! g t responses to requent five and 35 not to complete , l t-58 La_fayette Buildme Lu:od Reportine Service 3, ,,9 ,,h,,,,,,,,,y,__ Swtr hy; 962 1176 su,regbo Detrcit. %chtraa 48:26 Formuncion Hith. %chicen 18nl8
i l 1 additional exploratione, sampling ~ and labor atory j 2 i tecting af ter pre-loading continues to be l 1 3 una cceptable to us. " I Had Concumorc taken the i 4 ! position that additional explor ations, sampling and i 15 ! j laboratory testing not be pursued prior to this ;
-16 letter to Mr. Cook?
.7 .A' Yes.
'8 0 And then does the material that follows in one, two 9 \
! .and three and f our of Mr. Schwencer 's ' letter ce t H 10 forth the views of the unc ctaf f as to why they felt ;
11 : additional inf ormation was required? ! 12 l A Ye s, it doe n. '
\
13 ;O
. Af ter the r eq ue st was se nt out in NRC 215, did 14 Consumors continue to oppose the f urther 15 investigations concerning the colic matter?
16 . MR. LIBBY: Obj ection; I 17 mischaracterization, argumenta tive. i i s 18 ! i TUC UITNESS Consumers continued to 1 19 ; i maintain their position that the additional boringc 20 were unneccesary and poscibly misleading and the 3 21 : answer ic yec. 5 i 22 BY !!R. JEUTES , I 23 Q k Let me show you what I'll ask the reporter to mark as l 24 CPC 1904 1 i l SD Lafayette Busidans Lu:od Reportsng Sert ice Suar Mo
,, ,o , ,, ,,
962.ll 6 5,,a, 2y, Detroa.11ichiran 48226 Formancton flith. \lichicart 1R018
1 1 1Deposi tion Cxhibit CPC 1964 l e - Stn:aary of conversa tion i 3 : be tween !!r. Keeloy. and flr. Iiood
. . , 4
- was mar ked f c,r identifica tion. )
5 ' BY tm. JC11TES : 6 0-Which purpor ts to summarize a conversation that Mr. 7 Keeley had with you on July 14, .1980 concerning the 8 request by the Corps of Engineers for additional 9 i
.inf ormation. I' d like to ask '.you to read over the 10 memorandum and tell me what you recall about the l ,
11 1 conversation between yourself and !!r. Keeley. { 12 ; A I recognice most of the content of the telecon 13 repor t. What I can remember personally is that the 14 purpose of the call was to requent that a meeting be 15 set up in regards to our June 1980 letter in which we
~26 had requested additional borings' and Consumers f
17 indicated in the phone call neveral reasons why they j 10 i l didn' t feel such additional borings were necescary 1 19 t i and that I w a s -- I f el t th a t auch a meeting should i 20
]a not take place until the !mC had issued another ;
21 ! a letter that was f or thecming which would f ur ther 22 f
; expand on the need f or thoco borings. I felt cuch a 23 i meeting would be pointless without that additional 24 inf orma tion, so I was not receptive to se tting up an 60 Lafayette Rusldine f. u d Reporting Sernce Suite' MO 962 1176 3tMn \<>rthu rstern lin t Detroit. \hchigan 48:26 Suir,gao Farminet<m lhlis. Thchaean mnis
1 r immediate meeting on thct subject, i 2 0 i Did some meetings thereaf ter take place in the latter j I 3 i half of 1900 between CP and the NRC concerning the l i 4 ! Cor ps of Enginee r s r eq ue st f or inf ormation? l 5 A Ye s, it did. 6 0 .And did top level executives f rom Consumert 7 participate in those meetings? 8 A An 'I recall, there was a meeting, at least one 9 h
. meeting, .at .a . wor king level and no resolution of the l
10 l i dif ferences of view as to the need for the borings , 11 ' was reached. e l Subj ect to that, there was an appeal 12 i meeting held in Midland. i I am not sure which of the f 13 l two meetings your question is directed to or if it's 14 both. 15 Q Nell, at either of the two meetings, did top levol 16 people f rom Consumers meet with the NRC and a ttempt 17 to corwinoe the NRC it shouldn' t go 'f orward with the { 10 borings? 19 l A I'm having dif ficulty recalling what level of 20 ! g Consumers management was present at this first 21 k 3 i wor king level necting. I believe James Cook may have 22 f l bee n prece nt, but I'm not absolutely cer tain of that. 23 ; I do recall that Mr. Gil Keeley was procent and he j i 24 cer tainly reprece nto liRC management. I don't knosi. i 61 lafayette Buildusz "'N " kito Am 3rwto %rthnestern Iba v 962.))?6 si,,1,2bo (wtroit. 11chrean K26 Farmmerm flalls. \lichiran 18o18
1 l1 O You mean CP management? h j 2 1, A Consumer s Power management. , I don't know if he's in l 3 your definition of top level or not. 4 0 1 : Uell,. insof ar as you know, did Mr. Selby or tir. I
'S j Howell ever get involved in meetings with the NRC on E .this .subj ect?
.7 A Yes, I do recall that I believe it was Mr. Howell was 8
present in the appeal meeting. I don't believe he i 9 i was present at .the working level meeting that I 10 l referred to, but he could have been and I don't knou
. i 11
, .if fir. Selby was present at the appeal meeting or .
12 ' l not. I believe he was, but I really ougnt to check ' t 13 -I l th a t. I'm just not sure. i I 14 'O Let me show you a document which I'll ask the l 15 reporter to mark as WCL 3. 16 1 (Deposition Exhibit UCL 3 i 17 ! Hemo ' f rom 'E. M. Horn of a l 1B !
' converca tion with Prof eacor !
4 19 i
! Hendron of 3/24/01 i 20 i i
was marked f or identifica tion.) [ 21 dO That f ancy oenignation refers to Woo 6 ward-Clyde i 22 ! cons ul ta nt s. l This is a memor andum f rom Mr. H.H. Horn I 23 3 of Woodward-Clyde concerning a telephone converca tion i 24 I he had with Professor Hendron at the University of .
?
g i f l G2 lafayeur Lidine Lmd Repornne Sertice
,, 9, y Swr
- Mn 962 1176 5esar 220 Detront. \lichucan 4222t>
Farminetm Hoth, \lochsean 18018
1 Illinois on March 24, 1981. Was Mr. Hendron one of ' 2 i i the -consultants f or Concuserc Power on the soils j 3 matter, insof ar as you knew? 1
. {
1 4 A tio, I believe he was -- I believe he was a concultant ' ( * 's 5 ; for Dechtcl. I 6 Q All right. I'm sorry. He was a' consul' tant f or 7 Bechtel in connection with the soils matters? 8 A Ye s, as be st I recall, Mr. Hendron and Dr. Ralph Peck 9
- were cor: of.a team.
t' 10 0 And what about Woodward-Clyde, what wac your 11 ; understanding of -their role in .this? ) t 12 lA i Uoodward-Clyde did the'investigationc of the boring: t 13 camples taken, the laboratory work. l They may have , 14 had an involvement in overseeing the actual taking of 3 15 i the borings, although I don't think they actually ! 16 i took the' borings. i That's not cicar to me, but I do j 17 i know that they were the ones who did the laboratory ! 18 analysis of the boring canples. i 19 j0 I'd like t o -- a. 20 ; A And provided the repor ts. i 21 {' G You' re f ree to read the entire memor andum, but n.y 22 k ( questioning is going to be directed colely at tne
)
23 i por tion of the repor t of the conver sa tion that star t:. l 24 1 on the firct page with "The writer called Ship i C3 Lafayetre Baildtne Lu:od Reporting Sert see Surte h10 o62 117h yev> urth,mirrn noty [ktroit. %chtenn 4R:20 S""'0 farmsnenm Hills. mchtenn M 18
1- : Hendron at the University of Illinoic" and continuing i i 2 through to end of the carryover paragraph on the 3' se cond page th a t concl u6e s "We di d not diccuns this 4 subject in detail. ' .Could you please read those
~
i'
~5 materials to yourself.
- 6 A Bef ore I do that, could I ask you who fir Horn is?.
7 0 , Be is an . employee of. Woodward-Clyde. 8 A I have read the paragraph. 9 !O Here you ever advised that.a convercation like thic L' 10 f had occurred between Professor Hendron and the 11 Moodward-Clyde people?' g 12 A
' I was aware that Concumers Pow'er ' Company was acting !
i 13 l on behalf of the' advice f rom Dr. Ralph Pech in l 14 adopting his position that the additional soil 15 borings are not needed. I don ' t know th a t I' m awar e 16 of the specific communication by which they acquired ' 17 that position. 18 0 Hell, did you ever get any report on the convercation 19 that'a referred to in this menorandum? 3 20 ; i tm. LIBBY: Objection; ached and l 21 . answered. I l 22 THE WIT!! CSS: ! l c Do you mean did I ge t ! 23 this document that you identified ac -- l i 24 [ BY !!R. JE11TES : ' f
? ?
4 64 lxfayette Buddma Lwd Reportirng Service _,,, ,, ,, y Sune 630 962 1176 si,,r,. pho herroa. \fichtran 4322t> Farmmeron Hiltu \lichiean 18tH8
1 0 Either the document, or did somebody relay the ! i 2 , contents of the conversa tion to you? j e 3 A 11ot to my knosiedge. l t
'4 ;O ~
Over on page two of the document near the top fir. I 5 ! I Ilorn states in his memorandum that he told Profencor 6 l Hendron that "We .did not -want to define the '
- l 7
l stratigtaphy with standard penetration testa f or f ear 8 that the tiRC would then, beat us to death with the 9 ' rcoults of thest te st s. .Were you ever advised by CP 10 ! that it didn' t want to define the ctratigraphy with ; 11 l standard penetration teste because of their concern . j 12 _ that the NRC would use 'those to CP' c diL.dvantage ! { 13 during the course of the investigation into the 14 I remedial ef f or ts? 15 A I don' t think those - that specific language and 16 certainly not the language suggested in this i i 17 memorandum, was use d. He were told that the 18 l ce ttlements that would be determined f rom the 19 i behavior of the structure under the influence of the 20 sur char ge , I'm referring now to the Diecci Generator u 21 ;
, Building, would provide a suf ficient me thodology for 22 i
predicting f uture perf ormance and that borings f or 23 the Diesel Generator Building were theref ore 24 ne ce nna ry . We were alco told they could be I f 65 lxfayette Building # "# " Suite Mo 3m10 %rrhuevern lluy 962 1Ii6 Surre 2:0 Derms. \fichwan st:26 Farmintron litit<. \lichienn wlR
I r micleading in the sence that the backfill material j 2 i under the structures was recognized to be highly 3 heterogeneous and that it was very difficul t, ! 4 the r ef or e, s, to obtain a realistic sample. You don't I 5 know exactly where to take a cample and if you take a 6 , sample elsewhere you may. get a highly varying sample
> 7 and theref ore it's - those are really the two 8
l reasons that we were giving f or not needing the 9 l .cample .with' respect to the . Diesel Generator Duilding 10 f I and rauch of the discussion centered around with j 11 l 1 respe ct to the Diesel Generator Duilding. There were I g 12 ! :
! also other recconc f or not taking borings in other '
13 areas like the dikes, but that is the reason we ! 14 understood that as a basis for the applicant'n 15 position, not that we would beat them to. death with i 16 the results'. But I believe I understand what is } j 17 meant by that f rora my understanding of thei r concern l 4 18 at the time. !!y understanding is they wanted us to 1D uce, again I'm talking about the Diesel Generator 20 ! : Building, they wanted us to use the results of the i 21 i behavior of the structure under the influence of the 22 sur chargo as the basic f or f uture predictions. The 23 fl staff's intent was to utili::e that inf ormation in 4 l 24 , conjunction with results of borings, so that in 66 Lafayers Bwidine Lu:od Reportine Ser sce Swie Mo , ,o 9, ,, 962.)176 s,,,,,:20 l)etroit. \hchiev. 4R:26 Farmancton Hdb. \benican IRnl8
1 > essence was the difference of view. I t 2 0 In the next sentence af ter the one I read to you on j 3 page two it's indicated that Professor Hendron and 1 4 ~
; the Hoodward-Clyde people -- well, I. mis spo ke . The j
5 : ne xt i sentence indicates that Profencor Hendron told 6 Woodward-Clyde that the. consultants "already .have - 7 trouble with the end values -determined in the earlier 8 i 1 se t of borings. * .Were you ever advised that the CP
.9
.and .Dechtel consultante had troubl' e with the end 10 values determined in the earlier se t of boringc?
g 11 ta..LL3BY: Objection; leading and 12 i f argumentative, i i :. 13 ! I T11C WITNESS: I don' t recall being 14 I I advised of difficulties the consultants were having 15 f with end values. . 1 16 BY Im. JENTES : 17 i l' 0 Did the staff continue with its position that the 10 I l boringa had to be taken? i ! e 19 iA Ye s, i t di d. 20 , l0 i Here those borings ultimately taken? 21 ?A t Yes, they were. 22 f0 s And were they part of the conprehensive saf ety review 23 that was completed by the Corps of Engineerc? 24 . A Ye s , they were. G7 Lafayette Buildut Lu:od Reportung Sert see
,mo ,, , ,
Suite MO 962 1176 Iktrott, \fuchtssn 48:26 .su rr,, :;o Formontron lidl<. \lerincan tholR
1 0 If you turn back to page ten of the preparec 8 2 ; testimony at tiRC 267 -- you can ge t rid of all those 3 other documents and. refer back to page ten. I read 4 ; l 2 you the material in the middle of the page a moment t l i 5 ! l ago, you agreed that it was the concensus of the tiRC 6 staff in late 197 9 that there vere significant design 7
' considerations that had not . beer. adequately 8 addresse d, etcetera. And then the prepared tectimony 9
goes onto state ~"The staf f' c conclusions were later i 10 i borne out by a comprehensive safety review comple'ted , 4 11 l by the corps which specifically identified the ; i t 12 unr esolved .i ccue s. " And then it goec onto state I [ 13 l
; "some of the major issues identified in the Corps' l 14 I review are subsequently discussed in responses to 15 questions eleven and twelve. " As you recall, when 16 }
was the comprehensive safety review by the staff I
'17 completed?
18 A Can I have a moment, please. I believe that thic is j 19 making reference to the enclosure that is in nober t i 1 20 k Te de sco 's let ter , I believe dated August of 1900 that i 21 , forwarded the more comprehensive questions by the 22 Corps of Engineera regarding the noed f or the 23 , borings. i l 24 g0 Did the cor pc alco conduct a review of the f 1:: that i I, l GC Lafvette Bwidung Luod Reportung Senuce
,g ,,, \ ,,,,,, ,, _,,,,,,, y,, n Swte 630 062.))i6 .s,,gre bo (Jerroa. \fichtran 49 26 Farmentim Hells. Uichtran IRolk ;
e i 1 had been propo sed f or the Auxiliary Duilding by j 2 i Conseners back on July 10, 1979, and that you've j 3 described earl.ier as the caiscon and cantileve. 4 i
.pr opo sal ?
5 A Ye s, they did. 6 0 If you turn over to page 13 .and 14 of NRC -267, does
-7 that accurately set f orth the ' Corps review commento b
concerning the July 18, ~ 197 9 caisson program, and I'm 9 i
-referring particularily to the materials that appear 10 j l
under paragraph I that .atarts near the top of page 13 11 i and carries over through the top of page 147 l 12 A i Ye s , it doen. i i i 13 0 Was the review and comments by the Corps concerning 14 } the J uly 10, 1979 caisson proposal completed bef ore 15 the applicanf cubmitted its May 5,1981 proposed fin 16 that's described at the bottom' of eleven and the top k 17 of page twelve of NRC 2677 18 A k l The question was had the Corps review of the previouc $ 19 caisson design been completed by Bay 5,1981. Ana e 20 the ansaer is no, it had not been completed, l i ! 1 l 21 0 a Did a meeting .take place be tween the imC ctaf f and i 22 l the Corpo of Enginecro and Concumers on May 5,1901, 23 at which you were procent to discuss the third of the ; t 24 fixes that's discucced at the bottom of cicven and ! I 1 t 69 Lafayeur Buddane Lu:od Reporting Service gg , ,,, y Suite Mo 962 1176 sisar : o (ktrart. \fichigan M::6 Farmir.su.n Hdb, \lorhocan MolR k j
- m. - . . . . - .
~
1 I' - the top of twelve of t:RC 2677 g 2 A ye s, i i 3 f fR . JE!:7ES :. Off . the recor d. " 4
- j. (A brief discussion was held of f 5
the r e cor d. ) 6
-{ Break in proceedings f or lunch.)
7
+
8 i 9 l - 10 l 1 I 11 l l
\ \
+
12 ! t l t 1 13 14 15 1 16 l l 17 - - i 18 l 19 i I l i 20 i 21 , i 1 22 l 1 23 24 i n l
.2 70 Ja>rtu kilding Lu:od porting Sern see (Mrmt. \lechirae 4R:26 kite 2:0 fam,ng,, pp,7; ty;,g;,,, m,yg
1 4 BY !!R. JC!TES: 2 : O Did the - or is the third of the fixes, which I'll i
\
3 refer to as the ruans concrete .suppor t fix accurately l 4 !
' summari::ed in sub paragraph C at the bottom of cleven :
I 5 and the top of twelve of Imc 2677 i 6 A Yes, it's an accurate summary of that proposed fix. 7 0. Prom your testimony just bef ore we broke f or lunch, 8 ; do . I take' it that Consumers came f orward with this 9 l third fir even bef ore it -had received the review 10 I l commento of the Corps of Engineers on the caisson 11 pr opo sal? g 12 lA I don' t have in f ront of me the ca ter that we got tt- , 13 Corps letter. ' l The best I can recall we received it 14 in June and I believe I f orwarded it to Consi.cners } 15 ! Power Company. in August, so th a t w ould have -- th t- .i 16
!!ay neeting I' guess would have preceded that study by l'
I 17 the Corps of Engineers. ! 18 [ O Turning over to page 14 of !!RC 267.
! It's the came '
19 , one of your tectimony? 20 lA 267 did you say. It 21 O It's !!nC 267. S It's the came se t of materials you've 22 l been looking at? I'm now acking you to turn over to I 23 page 14 About the middle of the page it's indicated j 24 that with regard to the third of the pr opo ac d iixe c 71 f.apryan, Basid,ng Lu:od Repornn.e Sen su y ,o y,,, , , , ,,,, ,,, , sua, sy> 962.I176 Iktroa. %hiran #226 Sriar ::n formnehm II'll'. %htevi atolk ,
~1 1 that "Consumers did not f urnish cignificant ac ci gn 1 2
inf ormacion regarding thic scheme and c:: cept f or the 3 brief verbal presentation on flay 5,1981, thic 4 l proposed solution appeared not to be seriously i 5 i I considered. ' 'Wac that an accurate statement of the 6
-view tof the staf f concerning' the May 5,1981 fix7
-7 A Ye s. If I understand what the, comment is saying is 8
; that the staf f really didn' t ge t into the review of I
.9 this concept. IIt .didn' t prevail very long.
10 0 t-Did consumers itself withdraw the third of the f 1::e s? 3 11 . A t l I have a little trouble with the wor d withdraw. It
~
12 l I was superceded by some f urther decign. ' 13 l0 $ i What I'm getting at is that Consumers itself made the ( Q 14 ! .! decision to move f rom the May 5,1981 mass concrete ' 15 . fix to still a f ourth fix? i i 16 i A Ye s, they did.
}
'17 I 0 And you'll turn back to page twelve of imC 267, was i 18 l the f ourth fix proposed in an October 1,1901 necting !,
19 l among the imC ctaff. the Corps of Cngineer s and
! {
20 i Consumers at which yoJ were in attendance? l 21 A Ye c. 22 ! lO And does the Gescription of the proposal on that date 23 i that appearn in sub paragraph D on page twelve, l 24 . l accurately sunmari::e this f our th in the fi::cc [ 72 Lafayette ikiding "
$uar ATO 962 Ii?6 3'M's %rthwiern Hun
[ktemt. \forhiran s c:6 S ar :.% Farmungton HJh. \lachtran M118
i i propo se d by CP? 2 A Ye s. , i 3 0 t Did the Corps of Engineers review and provide j 1 4 - comments concerning the October 1901 proposal?
~5 A Yes, they did, as did other consultants we had. '
G O To short cut the references to this last or f ourth
- 7 proposal, was, this the so-called underpinning.
8 propo sal? 9 A I .thinl: .that it was loosely used as - .in that 10 i context, although I would point out that caissons I
.11 could .also bc viewed as underpinning. I believe on l 12 I
i occasions once this design was catablioned it vac I 13 l referred to subsequently as underpinning, i 14 0 And was this the fix that involved the hiring of 15 tiergentime Corporation as a subcontractor te carry 16 out the bulk of the underpinning ef f or t? i 17 A Yes. 18 0 Af ter the underpinning proposal was cubmitted in l . 19 l October 1981, was testimony received f rom you and 20 } others on the imC staf f with regarc to that protocal? j 21 !A I missed the date. I'm sorry. G 22 f0 Af ter the October 1901 fix was submitted? 23
]A Ye s. I 1
24 0 And was that the testimony that comprise s a t inact in I k 73 laieyette Bwidutt Swtr MD 3W10 \nrthurstern flu ). 962.])76 Swi, :;o intron. \hrhean sce, Farmneton Ildh.1hrhienn 18018
d
- 1 i part, NRC 2677 2 .A $
Yo c. 3 0 Uhy did the 'ASLB conduct hearings on thic f our th fin? 4 A O ASLB conducted a hearing on the broad issue of tne 5 De cembe r 6 th , 197 9 cr de r .
! That order pointed out 6
that the staf f did not have suf ficient assurance 7 regarding the safety question associated with the
~B soils problem.
i There were several aspects 'of that' i 9 coll o .pr obicm. The Auxiliary Building was one of the 10 l str uctures f ounded on incompe tent backfill material. 11 The Au::iliary Building was one of the reason: the i 12 staf f did not have sufficient assurance regarding the 13 caf ety questions associated with the soils an of ! 14 De cembe r 6 th , 197 9. That's why it was relevant to 15 the hearing. i
. l 16 O t During the hearing in December of 1901, was testimony !
l ', given by the staff concerning the evaluation of the j
-1 18 i Corps of Enginocro of the Octcber 1901 underpinning i i
19 l pr opo sa17 l I 20 lA Ye s, I br:lleve it did. l 21 O If you look at pageo 14 and 15 and 16 and 17 of the .
~
22 URC 267 in response to question number 14, on the 23 l subject, Nha t is the Corps of Cngineers evaluation I 24 ! of the current plan which war precented at th e i a t 74 lefnyrur Butidme ' ~ Sua, ao 962.))76 3%IU %rthu'arr" II'O suae :po Iktrm t. \ficturu M:26 Fnemmewn llolls \1 dire Iknik
1 ; October 1,1981 meeting. " Does that se t of materials I 2
. accurately aummarize the evaluation by the Corps? !
3 A At that point in time, yes. l 4 -Q over on page 17 it indicates in answer to question 15 l 5 l I that the Corpo had not yet completed its review of ! 6 all 'of the proposal; is that correct? 7 A Yes, that's cor rect. ' 8 .0 i over on page 22 there's a question and on answer 9 ' number 20. Has this testimony that you yourself gave I 10 i in the proceeding? l 11 A Yes. _I 12 O i Was your testimony on that subj ect the view of the / l 13 j l
/
ITRC staff concerning the underpining proposal? j
\ 14 IA Ye s.
15 0 In the opening sentence of the answer number 20 you 16 say "The tinc staff is prepared to concur with the 17 1 I start of underpinning, subj ect to the successf ul j 18 completion by Consumers and approval by the staff of f 19 1 the wor k required in the f ollowing special license i 20 conditions listed in table A.20." Is the tabic that - e \ 21 then f ollows in linC 267 the se t of conditions that 22 are referred to in your testimony?
- 23 A )
It is. I would point out at the actual hearing l 24 ! se s sion, I believe there was some corrections made to i 75 Lafayette Buildint Luted Reporting S!!riC' Sune MO 9$g, j j 76 yB40 \orthsmrern Hon. Detroa. \hchigan M26 Suite m Farmington Hdis, \beharan WM
1 tho table. 2 O ~ i Dverall, did the conditions specified in the table 3 j remain the same? 4 A
! I don't know how to answer that. I'm having trouble 1
5 with that question and the - perhapo I chould 1 . 6 characterize the changes. I believe there was some 7 supplementation of the table. I believe there were 8 cer tain dates changed. For the most pa r t, if I' m 9 j interpreting your q uestion cor rectly, the basic 1 1 10 , conditions that are cpecified here as licensing l . 11 conditions, in ecoence remained the aame. There may 12 I i have been an additional condition added, the da tes i 13 I that were indicated, f or one , or perhaps two of the : I i 14 l I activitie s changed, but I believe the answer to your 15 question generally is yes. i j 16- 0 i Again in your testimony you indicate that "cach of 1 17 l the proposed license conditions 110ted f or a specific l 18
' milestone will be required to be completed and
\
19 approved prior to beginning the construction work 20 covered by that milestone. " nas the approval 21 referred to here approval by the URC ctaf f ? 22 A Ye s. 23 Q Uow , if you turn over to table A.20, the first 24 , construction milestone was to inctall ver tical cccess I 76 Lafayeur Buddene n ePoning Senice Sua, mo 962.]176 3,,o y,g , ,,,, y,,,, nr.w. \r.mee. m :s Sune 220
1 chaf t to 01cvaticn 609 cnd complots .f roc:o wc11
- 2 i inctallation. As to that, is it correct that no 3
further staff approval was required and that CP was 4 authori=ed to go forward with that milestone ?
~
j I i 5 'A I believe that's cor rect. I note f rom the table it i 6 i says there's no srecial licensing - condition of 7 proposed special licensing condition - none. 0 0 The second milestone called f or activating the 9 i treezing of soil along the f reeze hall alienment, i 10 Uas . approval given by the NRC staf f to this se cond ; i 11 milestone in the underpinning program? r a 12 A Let me firot note that the word hall should be wall, i i 13
, Yes, approval was ultimately given by the staf f with 14 ! respect to the f reeze wall milestone.
l 15 0 i can you recall approximately when that approval was t 16 , given? I 17 'A I recall there were two letters of authorization d 18 I issue d by the staf f . The first letter, which wac l, 19 with respect to the installation of the f ree:e wall 20 elements. 1 The second letter - and the first letter 21 l did not include the activation of the f ree:c wall, in 22 f act -that was specifically excluded, contingent on 23 4 submittal of additional inf ormation and the second 5 24 }' letter authorized the activation of the f ree:e wall. ' y 3 77 yfgegg,guagm, Luzod Reporting Service Suit,no y o g n ,,,,, y n.,,p. 962 11?6 Suur 220 y,,w .. , ion
- _ - _ .r-^-- " " - - - - - --
1 I don' t remember' the specif.ic da tos of those ' two 2 l letters. 3 iO i Did '.the second of the authori::ation letters occur - i 4 subseq uent to the requested startup date f or 5 ! i' milectone two of Febr uary 1,1982, that's listed in ' 6 this table? 7 A Woul'd you read that back, please. B i (The pending question was read 9 ( by the Cour t Repor ter as f ollcuc: l 10 0 Did the second of the' 11 authorication lettere occur 12 cubsequent to the requested I 13 date f or milestone two of w 14 Fe br ua ry 1, 19 82 , th'a t ' s 15 listed in this table?) ) 16 3 Tile WIT 11ESS: I don' t know if it - 17 1 occurred prior to or cubseq ue nt t o th a t da te. j 10 DY !!R. JE!!TES : ? i 19 !O Do you recall whether or not there was a delay in i i 20 activation of f ree::ing of the soil along the f ree::e l 21 wall? l 22 MR. LIDBY: Objection; the quection is 23 vague and ambiguous. I 24
' ale WIT!! CSS: It ceems to ILe that there I 4
~ t 7C Lahyeur Buildine f.n d Reporting Service Sug,Ago 962.I1?6 y o y g ,q ,,, y p...ar. 11,,1. . .. . p% Suar 220 w- "" "^
1 wss. l 2 { EY MR. JEllTES : l i 3 lQ Let ce ask you to turn to the third milectone that's j 4 on page two of the tabic. It contemplated extending l 5 l the vertical access shaf t below elevation 609 and l 6 beginning removal .of the soil foundations support 7 from beneath feed water isolation valve pits. Uns 8 l staf f approval obtained f or milestone three at any 9 - time in 1981 or th rough 19 827 I 10- !A We did approve that activity. r i I'm having troubic 11 ' i with dates as to whether or not it was within that E 12 l t time f rame or not. Did you say at any time ? 13 subsequent to - would you repeat the time f rame of i 14 the q ue stion, please . 15 )O Yea, it was at any time in 1981, or during 1902? , 16 A I j ust don't renember at what point in time 'we l 17 ! approved that activity. I 18 Q ilow about milestone f our, which was to begin the j 19 drif t excavation beneath the Turbine Building, was 20 that milestone ever approved at any time througn the I 21 end of 1982? 4 22 A '! I believe it was and I believe the other preceding f 23 . i i activities were approved bef ore the end of 1982, but I i 24 ) l'm having dif ficulty with dates. l d 79 Lafayeur Builda, Lutod Reporting Service Sune G30 962,)]76 ""'" U"T
. .c <<, , ,,, Suite 20
1
!!R. JCNTES: Off the record.
2 j (A brief discusuion was held off 3 l t the r e cor d. ) 4 i
' BY llR. JC11TCS : I 5 'O lir . Hood, do you know whether or not during 1902 i l
6 l Consumers ever actually got started.on the drif t 7 excavations beneath the '1'urbine Building that are 8 listed as milestone number four? 9 hA 1 My recollection was that tney started on .that f airly I, i 10 l soon af ter we approved it, but I do n ' t -- I don't . P 11 remember what da te -we approved it I believe it was , 12 like"I'.ar ch of ' 82 or some such time Ir.une I j ust 13 , f don' t remember. 14
!R. JCliTES:
Of f the recor d, 15 i (A brief discussion was hold off- i 16 l the recor d.) t 17 i BY !!a. JttlTES : l !
,1 18 l0 !!r. Hood, do you recall that the underpinning eff or t !
19 l Was ever described as being in a Phase I, Roman 20 i numeral one, and a Phace II, Roman numeral two, sta te i 21 of progression or that that was contemplated? 22 A Ye s. 23 C tihat was Phase I t o incl ude , as you unceratood it? 24 A
! It included excavation of the vertical accons chaf t l i :
3 l 00 Lafayeur Builduur Luzod Reporting Sernce Suig, a o 962 1176 mo ,q,,,, n...,,. na . _,ess - Suur :20
1 d:wn to olcyation 609 Phase II, I belicyo, covored 2 - the events beyond that. 3 l0 Do you recall whether the staf f gave approval to 4 Phase II activities at any time bef oro the end of . 5 1902? 6 A I can't recall the date f or our approval of the
, >, 1.
7 starting of Phase II. . 8 0 Let me hand you what has - 9 A It was March 25th, I believe. I can' t recall tho l 10 i year. l 11 0 Maybe as we progrecs I'll have a document here that
-t 12 will ref rech your recollection.
I con't have one ! t 13 l that immediately I can point you to. Let me hand you e 7_ " 14 what has previously been marked as NRC 32 Are you 15 acquainted with this cocument? 16 A Ye s. 1 17 0 And what da it? 10 A
, It's a memorandum and order issued by the Atomie. !
19 l Saf ety and Licensing Doa ra, it's designa ted 20 LBP-62-35 It impo oe s certain interim conditions 1 i r4 21 ! pending issues of partial initial decicion. 22 O In summary, what were the conditions that were I 23 , impo se d by this or de r ? ! l 24 A Gener ally cposking, the utility was to obtain prior ; r
.)
i 01 Lafayrur Buildar Lu:od Reporting Sert ier Suite MO 9gy,,,7g ymo wgun,,, nuy.
,9, ::o p-< em y \ freh uen. P226 c ,,, . ,, u o n a.-- ~<
9 1 j oxplicit apprcvel f rom tho' NRC stef f bef oro ' 2 proceeding with specific soilo remedial activitiec. $ 3 0. i How did this order relate to the earlier order that 4 hao been issued in December of 1979, the or der 1 5 ; modifying constr uction permits that I showed you 6 I yester clay? 7 A It's:very s'imilar -- it imposes the same conditions 8 l I as would have been requested by the December 6th, 9 h 1979 order with respect - with the appropriate I 10 upda. ting. I i l 11 0 i Did the staf f suppor t the entry of thic orcer by the j i 12 5 ASLB7 I 13 ( lA I'm not sure what you mean when you say did the ctaf f a r 14 support the entry. i i 15 'O Did the staf f urge the er.try of this particular order i 16 by the ASLB7 . 17 A Ye s, . I th ink i t' s f ai r to say th a t th a t i s th e ca se . 10 j our pocition is basically that indicated in the 19 December Gth,197 0 order and thic ic to the extent J 20 ! l this memorandum and order is esse ntially, f or all 5 21 , practical purpose s, is implementing that Decentrar f 22 ! 6 th , 197 9 or de r . And my ancwor is yes. f 23 O Let me ne xt direct your attention to a cocument which I 4 24 I'll ask the repor ter to mark as ? RC 210. t i i ' I C2 Lu:od Reportine Sernce
, \.,, ,, g SStl100 902'lI c' 6 n....,, ir.,o .-. .rx Suur :50 r __ -.r- " . - u-
1 t (DepoDition Cxhibit tiRC 216 2 4 Letter f rom !!r. Repler to { l 3 { Mr. Cook dated 9/24/02 I 4 i was marked f or identification.) ! 5 BY MR. JEHTES: 6 0 Is this a document which you are f amiliar with? 7 A Ye s. 8 0 i And can .you identify it an a letter f rom Mr. Ke pler S , to Mr . Coo k of Con s ume r s of Se pt embe r 2 4 , 19 E2 ? l i 10 lA Ye s, I ca n. l
! l 11 0 I Thic is described as a confirmatory action letter.
12 ! What is a confirmatory action letter ? i 13 I
!A It ic a letter that the region can issue that l 14 L'^ confirmo that a utility has or will take certain 15 actions.
. t I
16 Q-In this par' ticular letter it's stated in the third ' 17 paragraph on the' first page that' 'As ~a ~ result of our I 10 : 1 discuccions, we understand that you have iniciated or 19 l plan to initiate the f ollowing actions: All wor k on ; t 20 remedial soils has been stopped with the exception of 21 tho ce continuous activities such as maintaining the 2'
*rce:e wall and well pumpinc. ' Wac, in fact, all l
23 I wor k on remedial soils ctopped with the exception of 24 \ those continuous activitien that are described in the i i f3 Lafaptar Buildine "! " Suite MO 3mo \orthmuern Hu s. 962 1176 suar .lv) i r....,.. i r. a . . . , m,. t- r-... . r' " - a
1 j i lotter at er cbout Septcmber 2,1902? 2 A I believe that's correct. I can' t remember any E 3 ; specific exceptions to that. 4 ' O Let me hand you two documents which maybe will help 5 ; t ref rech your recollection on .the item of when the 6 Phase II of the soils program was approved. The 7 I first is CPC 1302, which I'll' ask the court repor ter 8 to mark. 9 h (Deposition Exhibit CPC 1302 l 10 Telephone record of fir. Sullivan's 11 I conversation with Mr. Dood dated i 12 , l 10/5/82 i 4 ' 13 ! was marked f or identification.) 14 BY MR. jct!TES : 15 0
' !. It appearn to be a telephone recor d prepared by tir.
16 l l , Sullivan of Consumers Power concerning a discussion i
~17 i
which he had with' you on October '5,1902. The second 10 f document in Dcc 044 which han previously been marhed i 19 k and is a copy of the remedial soils weekly schedule ' 20 i review meeting of July 9,1982, among Concumers,
! l 21 !
l
' Bechtel and !!ergentice and I direct your attention l d 22 l particularily over to page C111 under the heading l 23 ,
Auxiliary Building underpinning progress summary, i 24 cchedule cuamary. There it's indicated in the i 1 04 Lafasette Budding' Lu:od Reportsng Senice S war M O y 9,g ,,,,, , n . . . ,. , u a ... pm 962.]176 sau, _in r,- . r'- ' - -
1 cpening contance C l i Thq current ferocaat f or beginning 2 critical Phace II activition (drif t piers C/H D) in 1 3 now August 10, 1902." By looking at thoco two I ( 4 docume nt e, does it help ref resh your recollection ! r 5 i that .tlac staf f . approval for the commencement of Phase l G II activities was not given until af ter the end of
' ~
7 19827 . 8 MR. LIBBY 0.bjection; leading. k
.9 ,
TBB tlITHESS: Yes, it ooes refresh my t f 10 i l memory that Phase II approval coincided with issuance 1 l 11 of the - cupplement number 20 to the SER, which I 0 t 12 : believe was issued in, I believe it was October 'of i 13 ! ' 02, thereabout. e 14 f BY MR. JE11TES: 4 15 Q Ref erring back again to CPC 1302, does this l i 16 l memor andum .of the conversa tion be tween yourself and I
~17 I 11r. Su11'ivan accurately report that you had initially l 18 ! 1_
pr oposed a Ca neloa d For eca st Panel visit on Novent>3r 19 16 th rough 19, 1932? 20 ,A Ye a , that's accur ate. I i, 21 O d And w as th a t Ca nel oa d For eca st Panel visit held on 22 { that day? i i 23 {A 11 o . ' i i 24 , O i i And when wc3 the ne xt Ca sol oa d For oce st Panel visit? 5 s 05 u d Lafayene Butume Suar Ma ' POW f"w
*62'IIIO m m u ninn Hu y.
n,.. p a.,.. .c % hi 20 r- - "' " - ---- ' --
1 , 1 A April 19th through the 21ct of 1963. 2 O trac that af ter Consumers had announced another slip I 3 in the f uel load datos for Unita 1 and 27 4 < A Ye s. 5
- m. JEttTCS : That's all the questions t
G , that I have. 7
-(Drief recess in proceedings.)
8
, , m. LIBBY: Def ore I begin my .
t 9 cr oss-e xamina tion, I Delieve !!r. Ber kovitz has a. I i 10 st a tement. i l i l 11 } HR. BCRKOVITZ : Yes we are not waiving i 12 - i i-signaturo and we'd 'like to sign the tranactipt. 4 13 l Af ter we've made the corrections, that in.
! l 14 ! EXA!!I!1ATIO11 15 BY t1R. LIBBY: '
l 1G 0 Mr. Hood, let me begin by handing you an exhibit 4 l 17 which 'I'll ask the court repor ter to mark ac ? 10 n Defendant's Exhibit 1623 and ask if you can ioentify ' 19 l it. . 20 l (Deposition Cxhibi t D-1623 i ( 21 itt . Hood'c resume' 22 ! l was marked f or identification.) 23 THC tiITUCSS: Ye s , it' c a copy of my 24 , pe r sonal resume ' . : I 06 y ,,,, yg, Lu:od Reporting Sernice
., ,q,,,,
Swtr MO 962.]176 n ..,., , v a ; .. . g e, r. . . . . . . , r , e Sun, ::o u-_ _ u "
1
.l DY !L LIBBY:
2 f 0 And to the best of your knowledge, is it a correct 3 ; 3 3 and accurate copy of your resune'? I
-4 A It is at the time it was prepared. I 5 -O What changes would you make to update it at this l
G point?
- A On page two., covers the period of August 1976 to 8 pre se nt. Present being today's date, I would also 9 inclu6e the !!cGuire project. I 10 0 And am I correct you're the project manager f or that I
11 pr oj ect ? I i 12 A I
'ie s . 8 13 0 Are there any other changes that need to be made to I
I 7 14 this resume' ? 15 A !!o. 16 0 Turning t r the~ first pe r;e of 'your r es ume ' , I noti ce e i, 17 that you received a ' Bachelor of Science 'in nuclear 18 . engineering in 1962 from !!or th Carolins State 19 ' University, is that correct? 1 20 , A Ye s. i ;; 21 ; O And turning to what appears to t>e the sixth pave of 22 ! this exhibit Attachment 1, are thoDe the cour ce s you 23 i completed in order to obtain that de gr ee ? ' 24 ;A That's cor rect.
)
G7 Lapoyrite Bxbr '" Sgg, eaa 962 1176 3M \ orth niem Hu.v 5 rate :No n.. n . v.k . c:
'-~~ " "- * '
- 1 l. Q Did any' of those course s deal with the placement and 2
compaction or tecting of soil? i 3 ,A is No. l 4 0 Di'd any of theco courcco deal with scheduling, if you i n- : 5 l know what'I mean? 6 A No. 7 O Turning to the next. page, which appears to be i 8 attachment two, are. these additional cour se s that you 9 completed f ollowing your graduation f rom lior th I 10 i Carolina State? 11 A Yes, i f 12 O Did any of these courses involve the placement,
't 13 compaction or testing of soil?
i ! 4, 14 ;A No. i 15 !O Did any of these courses involve the scheduling of f 16 3 constr uction f or a nuclear power plant? I 17 A No.
! I 10 I O Tur ni n g ov e r t o pa ge f iv e of your r e s u:.ic ' , am I 1 19 correct that your first pocition f ollowing y'our ,
i 20 - graduation f rom Nor th Carolina State was as a marine j ] i 21 8 engineer in the ordnance and cpecial weapns branch g 22 t at the Norf olk naval chip yard? i i g 23 l jA Ye s . t l , 24 iO Did your work as a marine engineer invclve the I l , i: I 4 l ! } l l 1 GC { Lafasette kildine Lu od Repornne Sert ce Sual syn mo y,,g ,,,,, y 962.))76 .mu am
r 1 p piecemant, compaction or testing of soil? 2 A tio. ' 3 ,O i-Did i t involve the scheduling aspe cts of constr uction l 1 4 en a nucicar power plant? { S lA
; 11 o . -
i 6 0 Going up to the next paragraph, am I correct that 7 your next position was in military service and your 8 rank was as a second lieutenant in the United States 9 i Army ? I
}-
10 A Ye s. i e 11 ,O !
- And this period f rom 'G3 or February of 19G3 to April 12 .
of 1963, you were a ctudent at the United States Ar:ny i I 13 ! signal officers orientation course ? t I 14 A Ye s. 15 0 Did your . training involvo the placement, compa cti on j 16 or testing of soil? i "17 A tio. 10 -0 Did your training involve the constr uction or i' f 19 !; scheduling of conctruction on nucicar power plants? ! 20 >A 11 o . 1 21 *O E Going onto the next po si ti on i n y our r ec ucae ' , r.m I k 22 [ correct that your next pocition was as Chief of the f 23 ' Advanced Circuits Unit in the U.S. Army Ordnance ; 24 Cuidance Hiuole School? I L 89 lx(nyette Buildtne " 5;,, en 062 1176 *" \ ""b " "! U" J '
.. war ::n
1 jA Y30 2 l O A= I correct that that pouition involved the i 3 ! i supervision of a training unit? 4 'A Ye c.
! L 5 !O -And did your activitiesuas supervisor involve the '
t 6 placement, compaction or _ testing of soll? 7 A 'llo. i 8 Q Did your activities as a . supervisor involve the 9 ! i scheduling aspects of conctruction of nuclear power I 10 l plants? 11 A tio. i I 12 l i l0 Going up to your next position that's listed on your r 1 13 ' t re s tzte ' , am I cor r e ct that you' re ne xt employed as an 14 aeronautical engineer in the nuclear propulsion and 15 power -- L 16 l A Yec. l 17 0 Is that an organi::st: ion, nucicar propulsion and 10 Power, ic it part of tiASA? l j. 19 A It ' s pa r t of !!AS A, i 20 ;O And did your wor k f or !!ASA involve the placement, i 21 l compaction or tocting of coil ? ! i
- t 22 A 11 o . !
i 23 0 i Did your work at til.SA involve the ccheduling of lr , 24 , conctruction of nuclear power plants?
! l
".1 f.
J 90 Lafayne ikdding Lu:od Reportint Sert oce . Suan Mn 962.]176 " "'" "" ! r ,. ,, Nate 220
1 jA No. 2 0 Turning to your next position that's licted on your l 3 resume' , am I cor rect that 'you were ne xt employed as 4 ! -) a quality control engineer in the Electric Boct l
-5 l Division of' General Dynamics?
I 6 :A Ye s.
-7 Q In that position were you avolved with the 8
placement, compaction or testing of soil? D iA No. I 10 lO . Were you. involved with the scheduling of conctruction ' l i 11 for nuclear power plantc7 12 lA 11 0 >
! l 13 !O !
on your resume' the next position you held was as an j 14 engineer in the nuclear safety and radiation analysic m. 15 area?
?
16 A Ye s. . f
'17 0 And you were employed by tbrtin Imrietta corporation? i 10 !
lA Ye s. I 19 0 . And did your werk f or !!artin turietta corr. oration . 20 i involve the placement, compaction and testing of j 21 j soil ? 22 A po. I 23 O i Did it involve the scheduling of constr uction f or ,7 24 nuclear power plants? 01 g ,,,, gag ,, Lu:od Reporting Sertice
$ly,630 90 'll?b ,,, w u,,g ,,,, y, ,
,%dr ::1)
1 Mo. lA l 2 0 Coing to the ne xt pocition that's listed or pocitions 4 l t 3 i that are listed on your resune' f rom J une of 19G9 to 4 to August of 197G, ucre you emplohed by the 5 i combustion Engineering Corporation?. 6 lA Ye s. . 7 0 And you had two positions with that company? 8 A Ye s. t ' 9 O s And your first position was as assistant project ! 10 manager f or Duke power project? 11 ' A Ye s. e 12 0 And are your activities -- , 13 Ho, that's not cor rect. lA l 14 !O What was your first position? I 4 15 A Saf ety and licensing project engineer. 16 0 okay. And could you briefly describe what your ,
'17 .
responsibilities were as the safety and licensing le proj e ct engineer ? I i 19 fA I was involved in the perf ormance of caf ety analycl o, { 20 i j
; annociated with the applica tion f or licence s to j i
21 g constr uction and to operate a nuclear power plant, E 22 ' 3 insof ar as it represented the responcibility of a ; 23 l nuclear secam cupply system vendor. i
}
24 !Q ! And did your work involve the placonent, compa cti on ' f i 3 D2
\h S &h hfs f
.plal hy 962 1176 .
5uac lim
l' cnd tosting of toil? 2 A No. ' i 3 0 ; Did your w'.or k involve the scheduling of constr uction 4 of nuclear power plants? ! 5 .lA Not an overall' plant. It <was -- it invol'ved l G scheduling of pieces of activities that were 7 associated with. the ultimate schedule for power 8 plant s. 9 O In croad strones, or in summary, could you describe i I 10 f I to me some of the activities or scheduling activitiec 11 you engaged in? I t 12 - ; A ! It was associated with the scheduling of the input i 13 ! !
~
i that would be provided by th'e USSS vendor as part of ) 14 l hi s suppo'r t f or th e pr epa ra ti on and th e s uppo r t of a 15 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report or a Final Safety 16 Analy sis Repor t. 17 0 And then were you subsequently employed ac an 10 l assistant project manager f or Duho power project? 19 A Ye s , I was, i 20 j 0 Could yon briefly doccribe f or me your activitic as : 1 21 the assistant project manager ? i , i 22 A I was - pretty much the same as I j ust de s cr ibe d i t, j 23 i The dif f erence being that, in this ca pa ci ty I w as ! a 24 ascisned a spe cific project f or a plant being buil t t IA re Radiac "* ' " " ' """ 56;nw 3 " \* * "'"" II"' 902 1176 -
.w r# ^:0 u a ... , , , ,
tu . "- -
1 1 by Duka Pow 0r Company. I 2 0 And once you lef t combustion Engincoring, you went to i 3 i wor k f or the tmC, is that correct? 4 A That in correct. I 5 l0 when did you begin employment with the MRe? 6 . A In August of 1976.
'7 0 What was your position with the NRC when you first 8
were employed .by that agency? I 9 . A Pr oj ect mana ge r . l 10 l0 Das that poaltion remained the same? I 11 iA I I Well, I've advanced f rom the position project manager ' i 12 i to the se ni or pr oj ect mana ge r .
- 4 1
13 0 Does that have a change in your responsibilitico? 2 i i l 4, i 14 A Ye s. i i 15 0 Could you describo the changes? k
?
16 A It carries greater responsibility. A I' m e xpe cted t o i s 17 s make -- carry ' a heavier level of responcibility, for ! 18 e xam pl e, the type of plant I would be recpancible f or ' 19 ' would be a plant that f or which licencing is not
- 20 ;
routine, which in cometimes called problem plante. , 4 l 21 I'm expected to provide additional duties cuch ac a ,
- 22 ;
covering f or a branch chief in the event of his or ' l 23 ! her abse nce . I assist with the developnent of more ! r r 24 i j unior pr oj e ct mana ge r c. I typically interf aco uith ' I 04 LaGomo Buildunt Luzod Reportine Sert oce
, w, ,,,, y Suar rao 962 11 C i...,.p:.... . r e.
.%v- ::n
.1 ; othora et a high;r icvol cf rouponcibility with 2
re spe ct to interf acing with auch things as other I 3 government agencies or intervonors and I'm expe cted , 4 t to do so without lonc need f or guidance f rem my own ' 5 mana gement. f I'm expected to know better NRC policy G l and be in a' better position to implement that policy. 7 0 Turning to page two of. your resume' on the' j ob 8 description portion related to your employment with 9 the United States nuclear . Regulatory Commission, I ! 10 l notice that the first sentence ref erences previding , 11 i I planning and coordina tion of radiological saf ety j 12 1 reviews of applica tions f or licencec and ' i
'L ,
13 : authorications to constr uct or operate light water 14 ' f nuclear power plants, do you see that?
- l 15 A Yes. .
16 0 Is that known as reviewing PSAR's or is it broader I 1 17 than that. i i I 10 jA It' c broader than that. 1 19 0 Could you describe it f or no then, picace? I 20 lA I The first place, it could alco entail reviewing and , 21 j planning a Prelimina ry Saf ety Analyci c Repor t. Tne 22 review is car tainly one aspect of it and the 23 4 coordination of it means that it is en activity that l 24 is conducted by come 30 specialicts in different [ : 95 u kyear, Ltdme Luod Reportme Sert ice k r, sgn 3,y, y,,, ,,,,, g , 0h." 1176 5:v v .O. }
1 ; diccipline s and I coordinato that review, meaning 2 tnat I accure that the appropriare areas that need. to ,i 3 i be reviewed are in f act being reviewed. I make sure ! 4
.' that the inf or~mation flow both within the NRC and
'. 5 l outside - of the NRC Ils occcering and is occurring 1 6 efficiently. _ I basically direct the staf f's effor ts 7 insof ar as that particular application f or licenses 0 i or permits is concerned to its ultimate end. It is a 9 ! large part of that, the mechanism .for that is the l 10 saf ety . analysis repor t in that that is the 11 communication linh, but .it also involved ne exchange ! 12 i of inf ormation, issuance of lettero, memor anda, 3 i I 13 ;
) etoeters, it involves coordina tion with other L l
14 L agencies like a CRS, hearing, bor ings, intervenors, 15 members of the public, Congress, you name it. ' 16 i 0 Perhaps I'm going to over simplify this, but am I i
~17 correct that a Preliminary Safety Analysia Repor t ic 18 t the document that's filed by an applicant in order to I 19 l l
receive a constr uction permit f or a nuclear power ! i 20 , pl ant ?
! l 21 iA !
That's one of the document c. It's one of the i 22 ! principal documents. I i 23 0 Uhat other document: would be f iled? 24 A It would also file an environmental repor t. tie w oul o '
)
i h t 96 Lafayeur kidmz Lmd Repornne Sernice Sua, an y, ,,,, g
,,. o 962 1176 %ue in,
, n.
l 1 ; filo cn opplication which is typically a documsnt 2 that puro forward such inf ormation as his nane and i 3 who his corporate. representativos are and things like 4 th a t. ! I J3 0 And then am I correct that you would ,coordina te the 6 i technical review by the office of Nuclear Reactor 7 . Regulation, in th'at you would get that inf ormation to 8 the right technical reviewers? 9 Ye s. lA i I 10 !O Approximately how many technical reviewers, on the l 11 l average, wor k on a review of a PS AR and .an ! 12 i environmental sta tement? i i i 13 A I would say somewhere around 30, ther eabo ut. l 14 f 0 And is there a process by which communication goes 15
'from the URR to the utility concerning the review of i 16 -
the PSAR7 ' J l i 17 !A I Ye s. 10 0 Uhat's that procces? : 19 A Is your quection directed to the end product or are 20 ; you talking interim stages. 21 Interim stages? l0 22 $A i The two mechanicmc by which the in?.cri:s stage of our 23 ! review in communicated to an applicant occurs in the 1, 24 , f orm of written q ue stione, it alco occur u in the f orn i l 07 Lafarrue kidine Luod Reportine Sers'ic' Sy,;gy 3mw %ernesrern Hs.y. Ob2 11 ? b %tr 2:0
1 cf Destinga in which thoro are verbal oxchangoc of 2 inf orma tion, accociated with the staf f review. Thoce 3 ; are the tuc principal meano by which - of 4 communication during the review itcilf. 5 0
. Are your -technical reviewer s authori=ed 'to contact 6
utility representativos directly7 , 7 A It is our practice to involve a project manager in B communications with the applicant. It's my function . 9- i to be involved in communications. I 1 10 iO And once a construction permit in issued and 1 . 11 ! s constr uction beginc on a plant, is there another cr= ' f 12 of the fluelear Regulatory Commission who monitors the f i 13 ] impicuentation of the PSAR7 ~' I 14 A Yes, there is. 15 0 What's that organization? 16 A Nell, today it's called the region. He have regional 17 a&ninistration, in case of tiidland it would be Region 10 3, based in Glen Ellyn. The organi stion used to Ln i 19 called I&C, inspection and enf or cement, but today j 20 l it's regional administration. f 21 jl0 And are those two termo, Region 3 and ILE used l, I , 22 1 interchangeably for the !!idland plant? i 7 23 A tio, it reficcts the reorganization that has occurred f 24 a couple of years ago when we evolvaa the regional e 95 1.efesette ikildine L u:od Repoetine Sern ic, 3, , , ,,,,,, g s'al rao oo2 !I ~b
..,. ...i ., .e-,, Maa .+
'l l cdministration conc 3pt.
l 2 l0 ity question is a little more specific. : 3 A Pri or to th at da to i t -- the or gani:ation, that arm ) l 4 that over nav the implementation of conctruction and I" i 5 l quality assurance was under the Office of Inspection 6 and Enf or oement. 4
;c : -
{ -
- 7 0 When you've - been testifying f or the last day and a 8
i half and you referred to I&E on some occasiens and l 9 ) Region 3 on some occasions, in that the same i 10 l or ganization? I .
'll A I The intent i s to oversee .the construction f 12 , !'
implementation and the implementation of quality' ? 13 I assurance and the intent was to reflect that. In s l 14 f some of thene early dates we've been talking about, 15 that was then perf ormed by I&c. It in today 1G perf ormed by Region 3 in the case of Midland so, yes,
'17 that was the intent.
18 C Hr.11ood, now let me show you a document which I'll ' 19 , ask the cour t repor ter to identify or uark as 20 I Defendant'n Exhibit 1002 and ask if you can identify 21 : I this document. 22 j (Do posi ti on E xhibi t D-100 2 i 23 Memo 'toa Thomas Ippolito 24 ' da r~ J 12/17 M [ 90 Ldwtrr A.ddme '"' s ,; . *"""# U
- i. ,
~..m .".-
,-..a. .- - -. ,.
1 1 was narkod f or identification.) 2 TUC UIT:3CSCr I cm unable to make out 3 the year f or this document. I t ' s De ce m be r 13 , 19 -- 4 and I can' t make out the rect of it. I
.- 5 ,
BY MR. ' LIBBY: i 6 0
, I'm not really that interested .in the year. I j ust 7
want to use this f or example or to explain nome 8 te rm s. 9 iA I do see dates at the bottom of the page that would ! 10 indicate that was 1977. 11 O Onank you. i What is thic document, if you know? 12 ,A l Thic is a document by 11r. Thomas Ippolito who wa: at - 13 ' i
) the time was the chief of the instr umentation and I, 14 I !
control systems branch and Mr. Ippolito in inf orming 15 i my branch chief, Steve Varga that of the schedule ' 16 i that his branch feels they can support with respect ! 17 to the Midland application f or operating licenoon. 10 0 1 And just so I can have come terminology to wor k with, ID l OL reviewed, does that mean the review of the ' 20 i operating licence application? ! i 1 21 A Yes. 22 O > And does that include review of th e PSt.R ? , 23 A Ye s. 24 0 Uhat other docceents, other than the PSA3, are i 100 Lara,ane BwMar *' 'E*' ' ""' sual ny 46: 11~0 w o % % ruen Hu, e, i. . si n r.. .&o
1 cubmittad by tha utility during the operating licence 2 review? ' 3 A } Well, the applicant also sub.dits an environmental I
- t 4 repor t f or -- in responce to 11CPA. '
i
-5 l0 And am I correct that at thin time you were employed 6 i by the Light Water Reactors Branch llo. 4?
~7 A Ye s.
8 0 And Mr. Varga was your superior ? 9 : A Ye s. i I' 10 !O And in your role as project manager, you were 11 i l renponsible f or coor dina ting the technical review of P 12 I the PSAR and the environmental statement? I 13 A At the time this document was prepared, back in 1977, i 14 i that would not be a correct sta teme nt . : 15 0 Subsequently did you take over responsibility for 16 coordinating the technical review of the tiidland PSAR
'17 and environmental statement?
10 A I At a subsequent period I acquired responsibility for : 19 the envirorroental repor t reviev. In 1977 ref 20 re:ponsibilitien did not include the environmental ; 21 ! repor t. l 22 I l0 Did they include the PGAR? 23 (A Ye s . i 4 24 0 I notice a reference here to instrunentation and 101 p, yy, Lu:od Reportine Serner Suo,'sy gg y,,g ,,,,,, g 9b2 117b % ar ::o
4 1 ! control syntcms brench. Ic that branch one of your 2 technical reviewerc? ! 3 .A Ye c. 4 '0 And !!r. Ippolito was the chief of that branch? 5 'Ye s. jA I _ _6 Q Would he actually rev.iew thone por tions of the PSAR 7-
. dealing with instr umentation and control systems or 8 would one of his employees do that?
9 kA
~
He would have a reviewer within hic branch dedicated l 10 I l to the Midland review, at least that in 'the normal I 11 pr acci ce . l 12 0 And about approximately how many technical branchec ; I 13 l are involved in a review of an FSAR? L 14 ! i ; A I don' t know an exact number. I would ascume there's 15 somewhere around 30 That ma_y be a little high if ; 16 you j ust limit it to the PSAR. Perhaps 20 may be a ! ! l 17 more realistic number. ! 10 0 And going down to the middle of this document I 1 19 notice a reference to PSAR docheted, is that correct? ' 20 l A Ye c . 21 0 Could you deceribe f or ne what the coche ting of the 22 ! FSAR entailn? ! I , 23 lA Tha t ' c -- th at da te r efle ct s th e da te th a t the s l l 24 l applicant phycically getc the document to tne imC - i 10:' w,,,, m Lu:od Reportsne Sers see
,, ,,,9,,, ,
suar sv) 962 11.*6
, , , . mi. , re ,+ >
[ . ,,
1 i mail rcom cnd it 10 stamped by tho mail room to 2 acknowledge its roccipt.
.. That proceca is -- usually l 3
occura af ter what we call a mini review, that is a l i 4 review for completenece when a document first coccc l 5 i into the NRC f or the first time, I'.n referring now to i 6 ;
-' an PSAR or PS AR, we first revicW it f or completeness ;
7 so make sure that it is in f act - that it does in 8 fact contain the elements that are called for by the 9 standard review plan, not that the inf ormation is i l 10 technically correct or suf ficient, but in fact.that i 11 i the inf ormation is there. That's what we call a mini j I 12 i review. Tnat process typically takes 30 dayc. If a f 13 : favorable finding is made, then an applicant submits 14 the document for docketing. 15 0
. Do you recall whether the Midland. PSAR submitted by 3 4
1G Consumer,s Power was in f act docketed on or about l
' ' 17 November 10, 19777 '
10 . A I believe that's an accurnte dato, t 19 !O Do you recall when you first roccived the -- 20 A It was come time bround thero. I don' t knew if it's 21 l the pr eci so da te, but it's about right. 22 0 Do you recall when the !!RC first received the Iidland 23 ! PSAR f rom Consumero Power f or the initial review ? ' 24 [A I'm not ce r tain. I believe a neaber liko October '77
?
100 \ LarMeur Lhe Lund Reponsne Suna gy, gzq y,, us _, y, ,
.. ,, .v Gh".))?h e
M :!r ,'.b r
1 l cr so sticks in my mind, but that would havo bcon 2 abo 0t r i gh t. I'm not cortain of the date, but it vac ! 3 cometirac around - cometime in the 1act q ua r ta r of 4 , 1977. 5 ; ,0 The next item I notico. on here is a reference to 01 6
. . to LPH, could you tell me what that representa?
7 A
- 01. refers to the first set .of requests for additional 8
i inf ormation that would be issued and the LP!! stands 9 i for licensing pro]ect manager. This entry is telling i 10 l me that I would be receiving the first set of i 11 . requests f or additional inf ormation f rom the t 12 ! instr umentation and contro.\ systems branch on or 1 13 ; about liarch 20 th,197 8. - 14 0 And the next ref erenu Q1 to applicant, does that 15 mean that the first se t of questione f or additir,nal 1G l i inf ormation would be directed to 'the applicant on I, 17 that date? 10 A Yis, that would be my goal for inauinrj the letter to 19 ' the applicant. 1 ; 20 0 . M I correct then that the technical branches cupply i 3 21 j ' you with the initial draf ts of the requect f or 22 additional inf crmation? 23 Ye s. i jA I 24 , O And what's your role in tr emanitting that '
; 4 ,
t 104 y ,,,, ug,, Lu:od Reportsne Sersace m,, ,, Surte 4M b** *
%o * \ t b ~- J P '- b f' r. #
~^*~ '" ~
~
1
; inf ormaticn, those initial requects to the applicant?
2 What I'm looking f or is what hind of review you' re ! 3 involved in? 4 A l Your quoction thon is what is my responcibility once ! 5 i I receive the questions?- 1 6 Q Ye s. 7 .A Not what is my responsibility wit [h respect to 4 8 tr anamittal. 9 iO That's a better way to phrase the question. I I 10 jA tty responsibility is to screen the questions to sec, 11 I one, that they' re actually needod; two, to climinate '. 12 I reoundancy between questions of various branches that ' 13 may be receiving; three, to make sure that they are - 14 ! consistent with !!RC policy and to resolve any ) 15 , conflicts that I may have with respect to technical 16 content of the question. i ' I i
~17 0 Then the next entry I notice on here is applicant' c l
10 response c to 01. Am I correct th a t th at r epr ese nt s 19 i the date on which the licencee's recponccc to the 20 first wave of quections in to be received? J 21 lA That's cor rect. I 22 O And are you the individual within the rinc who E 23 receive:s those responsec7 I 24 lA 1 an one or cever al inetvieualc within the rine who i 105 Lakrene Building Lu:od Reporting Sernce
, , ,,,,,, m b Lir hk) IO** E*
r.. .. 4 ..t,s. 1 - S D!! . G
>~.
1 g roccive those responoco. 2 - 0 And what are your responsibilitiec, if any, so te ! 3* those IC3FonSe 37 - 4 A I check to see that the responsible individual: 1 5' l .within the NRC have in fact received copien. That 6 ,, service is perf ormed by us by .a mail room 7 organization, but I Nuble check to make sure that 8, the people I care about having respones do in fact 9 3 have it. I also check that agencies outsice the flRC i 10 that need the document have it. I also f ollow up to 11 i make sure that when a guection is answered there in i 12 l indeed a rentense and theref ore track what may be 13 outstanding by the way of subsequent responoes. 14 Deyond that, I typically confer with the individual 15 technical reviewers af ter their receipt of the \ i 1 16 response to see how they' view that response l
- 17 technically, if it resolves their need or if there's !
10 still an outstanding need. : 19 'O The ne xt r ef e r ence I sc o he r e i n 02 to L P:1, does that 20 ' repreacnt that a second wave of questions ic then , l 21 submitted to yourrelf or the project manager ? 4 22 1A I would prcfer to call them positions rather than l 23 f que sti ons, although in reality they quite f requently t 1 24 g are f ollewup questions, but ideally tho 00 should 100 Lafyrne Saldat ' 'P * * ' ~ ' ' k,6u M w %riurvem Hu, 062.I17e x ,,, ;6, tw.v , v k,n , tc )-
- r. .~ . e - uv 'L ..w c
1 ; rOficct .c staf f positico. In c case wh;re the incue 2 was not resolved by the 01, meaning that ther: 8 s < 1 3 .
, ctill a dif ference of opinion or view into the 4
technical substance of th'e issue, the staf f would at l t 5 !' thic point take a position and we would inf orm the 6
! applicant of our pocition. That's what a Q2 to
. a . c .. - -
- 7. suppo se d to be. Quite frequently the practice is 8
i l that we find that the. 01 in f act generated a request 9
) f or still f ur ther .inf ormation because of tne -- it i I
10 ' l puts the iscue perhaps in a dif ferent light. .-- 11 O And then your - then what are your responcib'ilities 12 once you receive tho 02 's? 1 13 iA . Pretty much the same as with the 01, make uure the 14 , right people have received it and I f ollow up to see 15 ! that it'a responsive r.o the need or determine. .Ii 16 whatever action, if any, is nee'ded at that point. 17 l0 And then what are your responsibilitiec as to the 10 ) applicant's responses to 02 's? t { 19 ! A I' m sor ry. I thought I j ust answered that quoction. l 20 ! Could I havo the previouc question read bacl:. ' 21 0 The first question I was interectod in ic what aro e i 22 your recponsibilitice in reviewing the Q2 's when ou . { 23 received them? s
}
24 A I did not anewer that question. ! I'm corry. The -
, j d
1 07 w,,, m, Luzod Reporting Sertice Sw,, w
- m y,,g ,,,,
96.' l176 w .. \r.s,... p~y Swt* :20 rn- ~ um n'---
"y
1 question I answered was what my responsibilitics are 2 1 with respect to r ecei pt of 02 's f rom an applicant. l 3 l To ancwcr the f ormer quection, my responcibility with 4 i l regard to review of the 02 'c is the same ac the S responsibility of 01 'S. I make sure they're i
. . . 6. f consistent ;vith your -NRC policy.
I make sure that 7 they are not redundant. I make su e that they are in 8 f act neede d. i 9 0 Ne xt ref erence I notice .is to an ICSB. Uhat doec 10 that represent? 11 A I
; Stands f or instr umenta tion and control cyctems
{ 12 : branch. _ 13 0 What is that organi=ation within the NRC7 - 14 A l That is the technicci branch in the office of MRR 15 that's responsible for the review of instr umentation ' 16 and control systems. ' 17 0 That's just the acronym for this particular branch, l 10 am I cor rect ? i d 19 lA Ye c . l 20 l0 i T'.icn I notice a reference to SSR input to L?n, what j 21 ! does that represent?
~
22 A l That means those -- that por tion of the SCR, that is ! 1 > 23 4 prepared, that is reviewed by the ICSD would bc given i 24 j to me on that date. $ l l 100 La.fayeur Buildme lu:vd Reporting Sertice
" U Suite far n .. o. _ , , ,
96:.))76 .^"""',."I kr To
l Q ! What duas SER .ctand f or ? ' 2 : A Saf ety Evaluation Rapor t. j 3 ; O i Could you briefly describe that repor t, why it's ! j: , 4 -' ge ne rated? I I S ll A That repor t . reflects the .-resulto =of the staff review j
-6 of , .in this ca se , th e FS AR.
~
It reflects our 7 conclusions and the basis thereof and it, if the 8 review has in f act been completed, it will reflect 9 j the conclubions required, by the regulations f or the I 10 losuance of an operating license. i I 11 'Q I
; And what are your responsibilities once you receive e 12 the SER input f rom a particular branch? }
i i 13 iA I review it. I make cure that it's consistent with 14 ERC policy. I make sure that it reflects the review 15 as I understood it to be perf ormed, that the l j 16 i pertinent issues have in f act been addreased. I I 17 review it f or completeness. i I review it for ! 18 te cnni cal adeq ua cy . I resolve any differences that I I 19 find with either the individual who prepared the ' 20 l input or , bar ring that, with his manacement and I i ) l 21 l
)
l assure that the appropriate individualc associatec 1 22 i i, with adoption, either the preparation or adoption of i 23 th a t input for the NRC is acquired and that it 24 . ther ef or e doc o in f act r epr ese nt an NRC product. I l 109 Li rapite BuiHiqr u: d Reporting Service l Syyy Q) yo y,, .,,, y, 9 0*ll?b l n . ,, ua-. . c m. ?: Ile 2 0
< .-. r- " -
1 combine that input with input f rom other technical-2 4 branches. I clinina te redundancy. I assure ! 3 consi stency. i I a ssur e th a t i t f ollows th e 4 f instructions that we have for preparation of such 5 .
- documents and af ter that process ia completed .and the 6
.,a necessary signa tures are .obtained, .I see to its 7
publication in suitable f orm. 6 0 Who within the NRC is responsible for establishinc 9 4 the schedules f or reviewing an FSAR f or a project ? l 10 A The project raanager develops that schedule and he i 11 ; does so in concert with the management of the i 12 technical branches.
\
He develops, he: obtains their ! 13 ! concurrence and combine s the input f rom all of the c- 14 technical branches, makes sure it's consictent, then 15 develops an overall integrated schedule f or the . 16 review of the applica ti'on. . I 17 O And who within the NRC 'is responcible for assuring 18 that there's adequate technical reviewere to comply i 19 l with that schedule? i* i 20 lA l + It is the responsibility of the project manager to l 21 j j assure that and he does co in concert with the { 22 management of the various technical branches. a 23 fQ Did there come a time in 1979 when there were s 24 [ f inadequate technical reviewers to review the Midland ! ( ls 1 1 ( 0 110 Lafnette Buildung 1.u: d Reportine Sertice Suire' MO ,9 y,,h ,,,,,n gn) , 962-]1,~6 r u,. . u.,o._ ww Suure 220 r_ . n. n- < ,
1 j FSAR? i 2 i A Ye s. 4 3 i
; O Uba t w as th e ca use of th a t i na deq ua cy ? !
4 i A Three Mile Island. f
.5 0 i And am .2 correct that the Three Jtile Island incident i
6 received a higher priority for technical reviewers a.. . 7 .than the Midland plant? 10 A hs. S 'O And how long did that snor tage continue ? i 10 A Roughly a year or more, -as I recall. ! 11 0 was there, in fact, a moratorium on all review of i
- 12. 's operating licenses at that time ?~
13 i
, A Yes, but I have to qualify that a littic bit. Thero la 14 were certain areas of review that still occurred, f
15 even in Midland's case. There was not a t'otal 16 moratorium and the review of the soils se ttlement 17 matter was n ' notabic exception. ( 10 g 0 Mr . Dood, now let me show you a document which I'll ) i 8 19 l ask the court reporter to identify or mark as ' 20 l Def endant's Exhibit 1323 and ask if you can icentify : I 21 j that. I 22 j (De po si tion Exh ibi t D-13 23 23 j , Lice nsee Repor t pe r 10 CPn , 24 ; 50.55 (e ) l l ! 111 Lafayeur Bui&r Lu:od Reoorting Service Suite 630 962.))76 g,,, ,,,3h n~ t ra... my n n,..,,,,,,, ,, , , ,
1 i l was mathed f or identification.) 2 - I
'HlC UIT!1 CSS : What is the question? k 3 ,I DY .ita. LIBBY:
4 0 Can you identify thic document? I 5 A It's a document' entitled, "L'icensee Repor ts por 10 6 CPR 50.55 (e ) . "
'7 0 Have 'you ever seen this document bef ore today?
8 A i I'm familiar with the inf ormation that's in this 9 docume nt. i I don' t place the specific document l 10 itself, l 11 0 i Does thic ref resh your recollection that the .DGB 12 i se ttlement was repor ted oc a '50.55 (e) item on ! l 13 i Febr uary - September 7,197 0? I 14 A I'm a little bit conf used by that specific da te. I'm 15 under the impression that a verbal repor t had toen 16 provided to the 11RC August of '7 8. I . suppose the l l 17 September date 'io the date at which we' re getting a l 10 ' written repor t. g It would be about right. It would I
?
19 l be about 30 days af ter the initial verbal repor t. 20 !O And going down to the coction labeled other j i ! 21 < inf orma tion / inst r uctions, does this ref resh your 22 recollection that lead responsibility f or the review i ! 23 i of that 50.55 (o) item wac trancf erred to the NRR on j ! 24 ; or about llovem be r l ut , 1970? S
- i. -
,r 4
112 Id:yeur Buildme Lu:od Reporting Sertice Suito Mo 962.]j7s MO Yo'thu nivn Huy
~ ,. a ... .,,,
hire : n __-,a
1 lA Ya s. l 2 ! O During your direct eramina tion, I believe you ! 2 ! testified that in f act the NRR was involved prior to E 1 4 i their being f ormally given lead responsibility, is I-
.5- that -cor rect ?'
l
, 6, A I .believe that's correct. .u .
7 0
. Is that bef ore this November 'Ist,197 8 date?
8 )A I One of the earlier activities was the De cember '7 8
.9 1
.ceeting and I'm having .a .little . trouble recalling any I 10 I
specific activities that would have been involved 11 prior .to that time. f The -- we ce r tainly wer e i 12 ; ! reviewing the repor ts that .were bel'ng received by j 13 what was chen I&E and I believe that those repor ts i I
.' 14 were attached to the transf er of leo'd responsibility '
15 document that apparently is dated in Noveabor of '70. ' 16 0 Mr. Hood, let me show you another document that I'll i i 17' ask the court repor ter to mark as Defendant's enhibit 10 l 1801 and ask if you've ever seen this document , n 19 l bef or e.
! ',i 20 r (Deposition Exhibit D-1801 ..',
21 Document reque sting technical 22 suppor t 23 { wac marked f or identification.) 24 ; TUS tiITUCSS: Ye s , I' ve coon thic i 113 Labyrtte Buildute 5,a,, ny 962.]176 M \ orth""'"" II'o kor. r:n
1 j document be f or e. 2 BY MR. LIDBY: 3 l0 Could you describe f or me what the purpone of this i 4 document is?
< t 5 .A This is a . document issued by my . branch chief, i
6
. 2 undoubtedly prepared by .mo f or him, regmating the 7
geotechnical branch and the structural eng'ineering 8 k branch to provide technical support for the Midland i 9 j soils problem, i 10 f0 I notice down at the bottom -- first of all, can you i 11 tell me f rom this document on or about the date when I
~!
12 ; you prepared it? t 13 lA The document is dated flovember 27, '7 8 and was I l 14 ! prepared by me on the 22nd. 1 I l i 15 0 i I notice in the last paragraph bef ore the signature a j 16 i ref erence to targe t completion date.: "Acce pta bl e f
~17 resolution required prior' to issuance of operating 4
18 lice nce . " I Was that the target completion date given 1 i, 19 to the geotechnical branch? l I 20
]A i
And the str uctural engineering branch. The letter 21 ; that's being icaued io pretty nuch of a f orm letter. 22 ! O tir . H o o d , I'm going to ask you to go bach a t thic '
}
i l 23 [ point to the llRC's meeting notes f or the De cember i j 24 j 4th,197 8 meeting which I believe is Plaintif f's ' I; I I 114 Lafayene Buildine Lu:od Reportung Service mn 9, ,, g
$ggg,p fn]Q 0be
- Y ?b b!ill! $20 fhree;o, \f.ek,ame it ?[i T'. n. . t! '* i. - **
- 1 Exhibit BSC 02 9 l
l 2 t ~d . JEMTCS : That 's Def endant E xhibi t t 3 , 1612. a 4 3 4 l BY IIR. LIBBY: ' 5 .
!O- '
fir. ' Hood,4you were questioned about this document by l 6 Mr. Jentes. . Would you turn to page three. f or me, 7 please .
.I see a section entitled Consultants O pe r spe ctive. " Do you see. that?
9 A Yo.s .
; I 10 l0 And un de r ne a th th a t i's a st a teme n t "Dr . n. U. Pe ck i .
11 stated the f ollowing, "The compacted f ill is !
~12 I
comprised mainly of glacial till an.d wac e xcavated t f 13 f rom the cooling pond area. " In that an accurate l 14 l reflection of what -ltr. Peck stated on that day? 15 A I recall that with respect to it being excavated f ro:u j 16 the cooling pond area, that it in an accurate - i 17 sta teme nt. I have a little bit of difficulty with < i 10 recalling Dr. Peck's actual comment with respect to ' 19 : it, the fill being mainly glacial till. i The -- from ,
~
20 l l the preparation procecs of the document, I believe 21 in's an accurate statement.
~
I 22 !O Uere you aware, prior to your cite visit -- or not 23 cite visit, to this meeting of December 4 th,197 6 -- 4 24 A Ye c . i ' [ 115 Lafayette Buildsne Lu:od Reporting Service Suur Mn 0 6 2 . ] ] ," 6 mn \ orth u nie[n llu y . Ma* 2:n
B 1- l0 I
-- that the fill was comprised of material e cavated 4
2 f ro.. the cooling pond crea? \ l
.3 jA Could I have that question read back, plea se , l iI 4 !
(The pending quection was read
.5 by the Court Reporter ao follows:
6
,. 0 Wer e you . aware, prior to your-7
~
nite visit -- or not site vicit, 8 I to this ' meeting of December 4 th, 9 ! 197 8 that the fill was comprised I 10
' of material excavated f rom the ,
11 ! cooling pond area?) i 12 ! THC tiITMCSS: Yes, 13 BY MR. LIDDY.: ' h 1
. . . 14 0 Bow were you aware of that?
15 A I don' t remember the precice way I knew that. I I do' 4, 16 : know that the PSAR made .it clear that the intent was i
'17 :
to obtain the backfill material fr~om that area. I i, 18 suspect that's the way I know it. 1 i
)
19 i O l And did the PSAn also contain a geolocical otudy of ' 20 i l the type of material that was located in the cooling i i i 21 pond area? j I 22 ; A Ye s. - _I 23 . O And do you recall what that geological stucy i 24 revealed? ' I - 1 t i 116 Lafayetir Buddme Lu:od Reporting Service Suur MO r, ,, s. ,c,,, 962 1).~6 """?"""" buar 220
, 1 jA No, I don't. t ' 2 O Do you recall whether it caid all the materici there !
'3 l wac cohesive material? i l<
4 .A Do, I don't. : I don' t believe it said that. I ?
.5 bel'leve it indicated that it was come kind of a
^6 pixture of -materials.
}7 0 In that . mixture of materia.1.s also sometimes called 0
i random fill when you' re talking about the Midland D plant ? I 10 {A I don' t know' about the term random fill. i I believe l i 11 ; the PSAR . reflected the . area concicted of a ! s 12 l combina tion of sand .and clay.
} {
13 IQ fir. Hood, if you know, did the NRC personnel who 2
}
1 14 l worked for the I&E branch have access to the l 15 spe cif ica tions f or the. Midland nuclear plant curing i 16 constr uction? ^ i , 17 A Yes, they did. l a 10 0 !, I Dc you know whether they reviewed those, and let ao 19 na r row
] it down in pa r ticular, spe cifica tion C210? '
20 A You mean at any point in time? 21 5 i lO Any point prior to your notifica tion of the D3B 22 ! se ttlement ? 23 A I know the specifications were reviewed as part of i 24 the URC invcotiga tion of the oc etlement problem, l f 117 lsfayette Buildine Lu:od Reponing Sert ice Suite 610 3,mo y,,g ,,,,,, ,, 96: ]176 .% , ::11
.1 Prior to that time I know there were occasional 2 ,
vicits f rom the region that made referencoc to I i 3
; various things' vithin che specifications. I do not
\
4 ! know L .: . ! if a cystematic revieu of those specifications i 5 l was perf ormed by the region or not. 6 'O If you know, do you know how the I&C inspectors 7 . obtained accesa to the specifications they wished to '
'8 review?
9 ,A Tney would visit th e si te , i 10 0 Would they ask the personnel at the site for them? 11 'A Ye s. They were 'atall eble t 1 them at the ci te. i-12 l0 l t To your knowledge, was an liRC inspector 's request to i 13 review any specific: tion at the site ever denied? 14 A 13 0 , I don't know of any case where they were denied I 15 , review of specif ications. . 16 'O t If you would, turn to Plaintiff's Exhibit BBC 02D,
- , 17 which is 'Bechtel ' interoffice memo, appears to be f rom i I 18 } !
l P.A. Mar tines to H. B. Priend, dated September 27, 19 1970. 4 j It chould be in your pile. Do you have that i 20 } docume nt in f ront of you !!r. Hood? # s 21 )A Ye s. 22 j0
! Do you recall that you were questioned concerning .I v 23 l this document by Mr. Jentes? s I
l 24 pA Ye c.
! i i
llc lafayene Building Lu:od Reporting Sercice Suur Mo 962.))76 Detroa. \lich:ra, 9226 Suac 25o roe~ -wAnh _u . . n:n -- - --
1 jQ Turning to the occond paga of this document, I notico 2 a list .of 'what appe ars to be structures that are
- 3 j located at the Midland plant, is that correct?
f: 4 A Ye s , there was a listing of buildings, of str uctures
. ~5 which .is a , combination of Category 'l .and .Non-category:
6 1 8. s . . 7 O And do .you see the . sentence that ,immediately prece des 8
.p that . list ?
I S i A 'Yes. l 10 0 And am I correct .that the buildings that are marked h i l 11 with an asterish or maybe a star, I'm not sure, are I L 12 ! 4 indicated to have se ttled excessively? I 1 I 13 iA That is what the document indica tes, yes. 14 O And am I correct that the three buildings or three 15 i structures that are indicated are the Diesel 3 16 Generator Building and f oundation, th e ' tr ansf ormor
~
f 17 - foundations and the service water valve ' pits?' 18 , A Those are the building or structures that are i l ! 19 proceded by a star or astorish. ' I would note that , 4 20 l these two other buildings or structurec are preceded I : 21 by question marho. 1 22 Tnoce are the condensate storage tanks and the
]Q o
23 primary water makeup storage tanks? l l I 24 A Ye s. h ( 119 (*fayette Butidmc Lu:od Reporting Senice 3, \ ,, ,,,, ,9 Suite 630 962.I176 Su,1,do n n~. %w- Jow r~ ~ - ~ ~ t ' o - v~- sw 'o
1 j.O Those are indicated to hevo quest.ionablo motorial {. 2 frc:2 borings? ! 3 j A Ye s. l-4 0 So an. I cor rect that according to this list anyway: 5 the only three structures that have eexper:1enced 6
.c excessive se etlement are .the Diesel Generator 7
Building, transf ormer foundations and the service 8 water valve pits? i I 9 ,A Accor ding to this document, yes. i 10 l0 Turning over to what appears as indicated to be 11 Attachment A, which is two sheets back, does this 1 i E i 12 ) appear 'to be a rough sketch of the power block arec' h s 4 13- of the !!idland nuclear plant? l t 14 A Ye s. 15 0 And do you see in the middle there the Diesel I j 16 i Generator Building? ! 17 A Tes. k 10 0 And do you see two squares on either side that are i 19 ma r ke d SU valve pi t s ? l 1 Ii 20 A Yes. ' 21 ,) 0 And are thoce the in approximate location, and I 8, 22 ) reali::e this craving is not to scale, of the cervice 23 ' y water valve pits? l { 24 Ye s , they are. [A I r i ! 120 Lafayette Buuldsne Lu:od Reporting Senice g , , Suur Mo 962.)176 Sme, gjo n rror. W%n Jo":6 nr n -u- it n. v.x- - c
~1 i
i 0 Approximately how f ar f rom the Diesel Generator 2 Building are the cervice water valve pits? I
'3 A l They' re in close pro::imity to the Diesel Generator 4 Duil ding.
[ 5 Q -
, .Can you estimate how many - feet they are away f rom the .
G building? 7 A . Just f rom 'my own visits, I would say somewhere around 8 20 to 30 feet. I
$ ;O i
Do you xnow what the purpose of those structures are? I 10 lA The str ucture houses the valve for the underground 11 service water line. I i That's its f unction. t 12 i0 Is it a category 1 structure? !
)
l 13 ;A Ye s. l 14 I O' Is it considered to be a structural structure, if you 15 understand what my cuestion is, does the valvo pit 3 16 suppor t any building? 17 A to, 'it doe sn' t suppor t a building, i't is i tsel f a 10 ' str uct ur e. It's like a large underground box, if you 19 i will . 1 20 iO Approximately how big is the bo:(? '
! I 21 A 1 I would say roughly maybe comewhere between cight to
( 22 maybe ten feet in wioth, pe r haps a lit tle bi t oco pe r . i 23 Let me j ust cay it's about maybe a thousand cubic j I i 24 ; feet. l i l 1 21 \ (A(ey*tte Build' Lu:od Reporting Sers ice Suute 630 962 11<~6 3rmo urihweren Hu.v ry.pn. . If,A -a= F ' '# , , , u
""' 220
1 l0 Do you know if any remedial ace. ion was taken in 2 re spe ct to the cervice water. valve pitc? I 3 A h The only concern that I recall with regards to the d 4 valve pits was the indication of rattle space and 5 that concern was. associated with the .se ttlement of 4 6 the pipes. We were interested that rattle space be 7 maintaine d. I . recall questioning whether there had 8 been any visible evidence of distress. to those 9 str uct ur e s, such as cracks, and to the best of my j 10 knowledge there were none, so I believe that the 11 concern f or the valvo pits was only ascociated with' i 12 one, ! j it's protection associated with the sur charge, i 13 I the Diesel Generator Building; and two, was to assure 1' i 14 that the pipes passing through that structure did not 15 cooe into hard. contact, in other words, 'that the ( IC i cattle space in the openings did not 'close up. 17 0 ! Do you know whether there was analysis done by the 1 10 p 1 Imc regarding the rattle space or the concerns in the P l 19 j service uster valve pits? i 20 A
- That wac reviewed and the resulting rattle space was i
21 y e rovided to the 11RC. i 22 jC Do you };now whether the !!RC took any fur ther action, " 23 other than reviewing that inf ormation? 24 lA t That' a the only action that I recall. I 122 lahpur Buddune **
- Suu Mo 962+11?6 M \orthurem ilu t i
t D .., . . i t. 4,r . r w Suur bo
-__-----Ju""'-"-~---
1 j0 Then. do. you see on either side of the Diesel 2 i Generator Building something marked trans? i 3 A Ye s . ! l t 4 0 Is that the transf ormers? t
.So ;A It is.
6 O
. :; And underneath the transf ormers is that what'.s 7 : referred to as the transf ormer pads?
-8 A Ye s.
9 10 Could you deceribe . physically what a transf ormer pad i 10 l 'looks like? i I 11 A
, :It's j ust a large block of concrete that provides the 12 '
a foundation f or the tr ansf ormers.
; t 13 !
r0 And approximately how far f rem the Diesel Generator 4 14 i nuilding is the tr ansf ormer pads ? 15 A It's almost hard up against, it'.s very close 16 1 proximity, just a few feet, k
- -17 0 Are you aware of any remedial action that was taken 4 10 with regard to the transf ormer podc? ;
19 A Ye s , there was a problem with the transf ormer Fod j 20 l particularily on one side of the Diesel Generator l 21 1 Duilding. To the bect of ray knowledge it was the f. 22 l cast sido, but I'm not absolutely cer tain of that. I f 23 don' t recall if the solution was to remove the f 24 s 6 deficient material or whether it was in tne f orm of a l 4 123 hfaynte Butiduse M 5,,,, 9p 9 6 2 . ] ] >~ 6
%'0"" II"!
% ,,,_m,,, ,
Faire 220
1 surcharge or none of the above and j ust watch it. I 2 really don' t remeiaber. ! 3 l j ,Q Do you know whether -- I cut you off ? ( 4 A Mo. 5 0
.Do you' know whether .the remedial fix on the 6 I tr anaf ormer pad,.. if .an. y, had any scheduler impact?
7 'A No, it had no schedule -impact. 8 O So, am I correct, at least according to this document 9 that the three structures that have - and maybe I 10 three structures is wrong, the five structures that 11 l' i have experienced excess settlement all lie within i 12 ! i clooe proximity of the main Diesel Generator I 13 j Duilding? l 14 l i tR . JEllTCS : I object to the question, 15 only in the respect that earlier your questioning was '
?
16 directed to the list .and you accurately indicated L 17 that there were three starred items and two I 18 que sti ona ble, tiow you're referring to the document l 19 and imacdiately below the list are references to l I 20 ce ttlement problems at the Administration Duilding 21 and Chlorina tion Building. The r ef or e, I object to i 22 y the gtestion as mischaractori::ing what appears in the .A l I' l -23 document . 8 i j l ~ 24 , D Y !!R . LIBBY: l { ! 124 Lafvene Buddine Lu:od Reporting Sernce i suier ao 462.]l76 " \ ""h " "'"" H" V - to.. .m . 11;. t . .,,, .en __ , , _ , , _ ,, , Suite L'O ;
1 Q Ue ' ll ge t to that in a second. Is that correct, th at 2 accor ding to the document and the list the crructures k 3 that' are experiencing or were thought to have 1 4 e::perienced e::cens se ttlement an of September 27 th, # 5 I 197 8, including the DGB, the . service water valve . pits 6 and the tr ansf ormer pads, all which lie immediately 7 south -of - the Turbine Building? 8 A i I believe it would be accurate to say that the three S ; cocuments -- three structures identified by stato or ! 10 I asterisks in this document as having evidenced l 11 i excessive se ttlement are loca ted east of the Diecol , 12 ! Generator Building and its f oundation are, in close 13 ! proximity to that str ucture. i I I 14 } Q ! Mr. Hood, I al so noti ce , or you noticed earlier that [ 15 there are two structures that have question marks l 16 next to it which indicate there is questionable d s 4 17 material from ~ borings, in that cor rect ? la A
- I'm sorry. I didn' t hear the que stion.
19 O Let me try and repeat it and be a little more i 20 conci se . l I believe you earlier testified that the 21
! document indicates that there are two ctr uctures 22 which have questionable fill material f rom borings, ,
23 is that cor r ect ?
, ~,
24 A Ye c. i
.I I
125 Lafayette Buildene ~ " Sun, ny 962 1176 M' %!b !"n H"T-nmn:, 11 icy ., se% Y- - " ' ' Suar 220
~^
JL l0 And those are the condensate ' storage tanko .and the 2 primary makeup water storage tanks, ri gh t ? ! 3 A I believe the proper term is the condensato tank. 4 iO Here you aware at the time that you attended the 5 meeting a t the si te of De cembe r .4 th, 197 8 th at 6 borings had been taken on the sites to evaluate the
'7 condition of the fill? 4 8 A i I believe there was some indication that some limited 9 i borings had been taken. )
10 0 Do you know whether either bef ore or af ter the
}
11 i meeting that a series of borings were -taken at the i l 12 i power block a rea to evaluate the fill? ' l { 13 lA Give me that time f rame again. 14 0 At any time up to the present that a series of 15 borings were taken in the power block area to 16 evaldste the fill?
'17 A There have been many borings taken at the site to f 18 eval ua te the f ill ma terial . ;
19 'O I Do you know whether or not those coring logo or the ! 20 l boring logs f rom those borings have been filed with l
! 4 21 i the imC?
I , 22 i
.f A Ye s, they have been.
23 0 Do you know approximately when the borings were filed l I i t 24 ! ini tially ? t < l l 126 La(nyette Buddine Lmd ReporIing Seerice S Eite M o y o y,,g ,,,,,, ,,,, 962 1176 .%ar :20
%. .,,j, u.g . a c +v, "
-- -J '
1 lA Ho, I really don' t. I know that there have been j t 2 ! 1 various . stages of filing of boring logc, I don't I 2 , know when the initial boring logs were filed with us, 4 l 4 ! ! but I believe that in the original 50.54(f) que sti onc ! 5 I i that we . asked, there was -- there were come existing 6 borings that were filed in . response to some of those 7 early questions, but -- and in the discussions that 8 i we had with the applicant in response to the need f or 9 other borings that were requested by the etaff, .I E 10 l believe there were existing borings made available to l. 11 us as part of the applicant's position that the i n
'12 4 borings were not needed.
13 j0 i To your knowledge, were the borings made available to i 14 : the I&E inspectors during their investigation?
.15 :
MR JEDTES : Are.we talk'ing about the ( l 16 investigation when? i i 17 BY MR. LIBBY:
\ f 10 <0 197 8 investiga tion. i f
- 19 A i
As f ar oc I know, that inf ormation was acce sible to 20 j them. I 21 4 {Q Turning back to this chart th a t ' s -- or di agr am , 22 l that's labeled Attachment A, as I correct that the
't 23 g condencate tanks that are referred to as having '
j i 24 questionable fill are located approximately in the ! i i 127 lafayette Buildins State 610 962.))76 3DO %'th u "'"" H"T-
.. ., nr Suar 22n
- 1 j '
middlo of the document next to the diesel oil tanks ? 2 A In the middle of the what?
.3 l0 The diagram?
4 A Ye s , they' re located in a nor theast direction frca . :S the diesel oil tanks, ~yes, i G Q Dor tihcast or sou heast?
7 A Northwest. Excuse me.
8 0 Just so I'm clear - i S ,
!E. JCllTCS : The ones that have got the l 10 little arrows f rom condensate tanks.
11 DY MR. LIDDY ?
- i i
12 [Q ' Are those roughly in the area where the condensa te : 13 t' tanks are actually located? l l 14 i A The condensate tanks are located approximately in a 15 northwest direction f rotu the diesel fuel. oil tanks, 10 L i accuroing to thic diagram. I
,L 17 Q And although I'm not sure it's indicated on~ this 10 I f
diagram, where would the primary water makeup tanhs I 19 l be located at? J l i 20 A They would be located in what is eclied the tank f arm 1 21 i arca. t That area is not cepicted on this a ttachment, 22 l it would be nor th of the what is chown as the top of 23 the page as Reactor 1 and Reactor 2. i Of f th e pa ge , i 24 but in a north direction. 120 Lafapite Buddine Lu:od Reporitrug Serthe k re M O 962.I176 y ,n \ ,,, ,, ,,,,,, ,,,, y t u rn, , 11,, h . 1 t 9, k ir ;;o
1 0 Are either tha condencate tanks or the primary makaup 2 water tanha a Category 1 str uct ur e ? i
'3 A 11 o .
4 l0 And - could you pleace return to Cef endant' c Exhibit l 5 1672, please . It'.s thtt .one right .in front of you, i 6 the De cembe r 14 no te s. And turning again to page 7 three, consultants perspective sub part B, do you B recall being inf ormed by Dr. . Peck that "Evidence-9 exists f rom the Dutch cono curve that the. l oose r 1 l 10 ! i i cof ter areas are limited to local cones or lenses"? 11 'A Yes. i i j 12 f
'O Again returning to Plaintif f's Exhioit PX BBC S2 9,
' i.
13 l page two, which is that document. i And the cocond 14 f ull paragraph below the list, do you see the 15 sta tement "So f ar it appears the problem is confined
'16 I to the area south 'of the Turbine Building except f or '
i 17 nome locall:ed quectionable material in the tank f arm f 18 area and nor th of the main power bloch under the f 19 ; Class II primary makeup tank f oundation. " Ic that . 20 ! sta tement consistont with what you were told at the l 21 l De cembe r 4 th, 197 6 mee ting? s I 22
- A I'm sorry. Are you ref erring to the third f ull 23 paragraph? '
i 24 0 Ye c , I guccc. Thi r d f ull pa ragr aph. 120 Lafayette Buildust S $t* M o no \orthu rnem Hu,, . 962.]1?6 Suite ::o r u ,e., . t t,ro . 3,, feas^
1
}A I don' t r emem be r . Tha t may be the ca se.
2 'O And returning to the list that appears alec on thic ! 3 l page and the paragraph that to immediately below it 4
- do you see that thic docmaent indica tes, and I'll 5
quote, "There io ino evidence of excessive se ttlement i 6 on the other items listed. *?
'7 A Where l's that?
D O 1 The first me ntence immediately below the . list of 9 r str uct ur e s. i I 10 lA i The question is do I see that it says that. Ye s,
'll 'O And am I cor rect that the lict includes both the I i
12 l ! I Administration Buildino and the Chlorination
- 13 i Building? ?
14 I lA Ye s. I 15 0 And are either of those str uctures Category 1 16 str uctures? 1 I 17 A Neither of those are Category 1 structures. i i 10 t0 6 since your involvement in the investigation of the j 19 I I soils problems at tiidland, have you ever been I
}
20 ! inf ormed of a problem with ce ttlement of either of i l 21 those str ucturec? 1 l '
.a 22 &A At any time? 1 l j 23
{0 f. Ye s . i 24 !A Ye s , . b 3 e l 130 ' lxfayette Buildant 1.u ~ d Reportune Sert tee y, ,,,,,,g Suite Mo 962 1176 v.. , y.a. m - - - k ute 6 0
- l
1 ;O Let ma rephrase the 'q uestion. At any tims with 2 during 'your involvement with the investiga tion of 'dae ! 3 ; coils probicas at Midland, werc '.you inf ormed that . 4 ! either the Administration Building or the 1 5 l Chlorina tion Building, during your ~ involvement, -vere 6 experiencing excess se ttleme nt ? ' 7 A No, my - what I was told at some point in tir'e was 8 that there had been a problem with the Adminictration 9 j Buil ding, what in well known as the administration I 10 l gr ade be au pr obl em, but that problem wac corrected i 11 ) with respe ct to the Chlorina tion Duilding, I don't ! 12 ! recall there being 'any ctr uctural dif ficulty uith the ! 13 I l r Chlorina tion Building. 14 0 To your knowledge, was any remedial action taken to l i 15 I cither one of those structures af t2r December 4 th, ' 1G 19787 1' 3
'17 A l
Mo, I don't know that there was any remedial actions l 18 taken to the ctr uctures. I have come recollection of 10 some kind of modification that was required within ) 20 the -- I' m cor ry. i That was not in the Chlorination 4 i 21 ; Duilding. r That wac the intako str uct ure. I believe 22 the ancwer in no. I am not aware of nodificationc to I 23 , either of those str uctur oc. l 24 (0
> Are you aware of any scheduler impact f r om any ;
i 131 \ Labnette Buildme " i ,%,,; g p' ps}() 3m %rthu rsten, Hu , . 06?'}$?b ( , , , , . e r,,, . ,, . my .Still! :D
% - "> " ' ^^
i i
\
1 rcmedial work done on either of thoce structures at 2 any time during the conctr uction of the plant? l 3 ! I1n. JEUTES : Excuse me. Ue ' re now 4 . ref erring j ust to the Administration Building and the 5 Chlorina tion Building. 6
, MR. LIBBY: Yes.
7- $Y .MR. . LIDBY: O Q Did you understand that? i S j A Ye s, I do understand that. And the answer is no, I
,10 don' t believe there was any -- I'm not aware that 11 ;
there was any scheduler impacts associated with thoco i i i 12 ! two str uctures, !
, j l I 13 j HR. LIDBY 8 I apologize. I've got to i
14 l take a break f or about five minutes. 25 (Drief receco in proceedings.). 16 I TBC WITNESS: I' d like to comment on my ' i i
'17 last ' r e spo n se . When I replied with response to !
h i 18 l schedules f or the Administration nuilding, I was ,l r 19 ! ref erring to the achedule f or the constr uction of I 20 ! l tha t str ucture itself. My concern is the comment -- j l I : 21
=y reply could be construed to mean that there wac no 22 l probica associated with the point at which the staf f 3
23 knew of the Acministration Building and whether or f i 24 not our knowing at come earlier point in time may 132 lxfayette Butidone " S;,g, ry) 9 6 2 - I l .' 6 m Wihuru m Huy (ktrm t. \fuehirna 48:2F Suite ::0
1 havo had scheduler impact elsewhero and that was not j 2 i the intent. l 3 l BY tin. LIBBY: i ( 4 0 !
!!r'. 11oo d, let me now show you a document which I'll !
I S. ask the : court repor ter ' to mark as Def endant's - Exhibit 6 1327. 7 (Deposition Exhibit D-1327 l 8 Bechtel meeting notes of 9 i 12/4/78 meeting with tiRC i 10
; was marked f or identifica tion.)
11 1 BY [12. LIBDY I r' i I
'12 10 And I'm going to indicate to you that thic has been
~
l 13 ! l previously identified as the Bechtel meeting notec i { 14 i f rom the De cem be r 4 th, 197 8 meeti ng wi th the liRC. 15 , Dave you ever oeen this occument bef ore? I 16 A I Jo n' t r emembe r . I may have. 17 O
~
Turning to the se cond page of the meeting notes, 18 l there's a box in there labeled cite visit. Would you < 10 : read that to your self, plea se ? ' l 20 iA Ubich page ? i f I 21 0 Page two in the block marked cite vicit. 22 lA I' ve read it. ' s 23 O 6 Do you recall that there was a site tour of the plant l 24 on De cember 3 rd, 197 C , [.f i or to th e De Combe r 4 th e ' l 133 Lafayette Buildmr Lu:od Reporting Sersice
,9, ,,, y l buIle MO bS*l $ ?b buil9 YO l vb ,,, , y,, 4 . ~ ,, , .t r * % ~
/
1 j 197 8 m3eting? 2 A Ye c , I believe that vac a Sunday. I 3 Q ! luu 4;d you participate in that site tour ? 4 A Ye s . i 5
.) -0
.And I notice in this .section that there's a number of 6
structures listed that were viewed during that site 7 tour. Do you recall viewing the Diesel Generator C Building during your tour? S > A Voguely. l I 10 j 0 I Do you recall what the stage of construction wac at 11 ! the time ? i
. I 12 - A It was about half complete. ,
I don't believe thct the 13 upper floor was in place. The best I can recall, it 14 was roughly half complete. 15
' l 0 t Do you recall seeing the service water pump houce ?
16 during your vicit? i l 4 17 A I feel quite certain we looked at it and I can't ! 10 I recall the actual incident where vc looked at it. u I j 15 l don' t doubt we looked a t it. I j ust can' t r ecall it. 20 !O Do you recall viewing the condenca te tank f ounda tions j 21 j during your tour? 22 lA 11o, I can' t recall that ei ther. He probably looke d 23 at it. I j ust don' t remember now ceeing it and what 24 ctage it was in. I j ust do n ' t remember. I 134 Lafa) ur kdding 1.ss:od Reporting Seruce g ,, ,, Sante M n 962 1J?6 htron. \forhiron 4R226 suur 250 h . .
1 1 j U i Do you have any knowledga concerning the -- whether 2 J 1 the condensa te tank f ounda tions or -- ctr ike that. $ 3 l Do you have any knowledge concerning the status of 4 1 construction of the condenaate tenha on or about 5 -
' December 4 th,197 87
! What1I' m .looking .f or , do you
' i i 6 ' renember whether the stainless steel tank was up? I 7 A I do' not believe that the ~ tank av' s in at that point. D t I think the f oundation -- no, I j ust don ' t r emembe r . 9 )O How abour the retaining walls f or the cool.ing pond, l 10 do you remember viewing those walls? i ! 11 A ! i-I believe I remember it. I hope I'c not conf using it ! 12 I i with a subsequent trip but I believe we looked at ,I 13 ! thoac walls and had cone concern about the joint 14 !' l where the segments of those walls interf aced. The -- 15 there were two sections of the wall that were of 16
. ' concern to us, one' to the east of che service water I
17 pump structure, another to the west of the I 18 )i Chlorina tion Building. Those concerns were that
}
i 19 i there was a difference in cettlement between the ! 20 ! i segments of the wall because they were on dif ferent -- ; 21 be ca use one seg=ent was 1ocated on thc 91acial til1 22 ! and the other was locate:2 primarily on tackfill and ; ! 23 'I, I theref ore there had been dif ferential ce ttlement ) 24 l c::hibited in one cace and there was evidence of an i 135 Lafayette Buildmr ~ l .Suur 630 902'II?0 3* 0 %h "'""" H" J ' l n . . .. u. a .. yp - ^ b"d' 2 0
1 overturning mortnt in the other cace. 2 0
- Do you recall viewing the tank f arm during your vicit '
3 on December 3 rd,197 07 1 4' A no, I can' t recall that. 3 - l0 Do you recall that - whether the stainless steci 6 por tionc of the tank were up a t -- strike that. T.no i 7 1 tanks in the tank f arm area were up at that point? 8 A No, I think the tanks came later. S t
)0 Do you recall whether -the f oundations were in at that i
[ 10 j time ? 11 lA My imprescion is very vague, but I seem to recall ! i 6 12 that they were in, the f oundations were in, but not 13 ! i the tanks, but I'm really not sure of that. l 14 0 And finally, do you recall seeing the or viewing the f 15 Rad. Haste. Building on December 3 rd,197 87 , 1.6 A Ye s.
! I 17 And can you tell me what the status of conctr uction l0 4 l
18 Was on that date, if you recall? l 19 I A I believe it was structurally -- believe it was i 20 pre tty much complete, bacically the shell was thoro, 21
- the concrete, k
22 !O !!r. Food, nort let me show you a docu:acnt which I'll {
- 23 ask the court reporter te mark
- aark ao Defendant's l r
i 24 Exhibit 1158. I 1 i I i 13G Lafay*tte Baddsne Luod Reportsne Sers ice 3, ,o ,,,, , ,,,,,, g n. Suite MO O6211I6 Suar:bo I%at, \fichtean JP226 Forxneton Uilh. WrhanJam
1 - (Depocitien Cxhibit D-1150 2 - I: Summary iccued 3/20/79 by j 3 Darl !!ood observing i 4 i coil pre-load program l S ,!. ' was mar.ked f or identification.) 6 BY MR. LIBBY: 7 0 And I'll ask whether you can . identify that. 8 A I'm sorry.. Is there a pending question? 9 i0 Can you identify this document? i l 10 lA Ye s , this iu a summary that I issued on :tarch the 11 i 20 th, 197 9 to do cument a Mar ch 6 th, 197 9 tri p t o t 12 { observe status of the soil pre-load progr am. i 13 !O And to the best of your knowledge is the inf ormation i 14 I me t f orth in this document true and accurate, to the [ 15 best. cf your ability?
, 's 16 A Ye s. .
i 17 0 l Including the list of participanto on the final page? l 10 lA Ye s. $ ti 19 l0 Mr. Hood, do you recall, that you also toured the cite ' 20 , in June of 19797 i l 21 A Mo. 22 IQ Let me show you on exhibit which I'll ask the i 23 ! reporter to mark as Def endant's Exhibit 1702 and ask 24 if this ref reshco your r(w lection in that matter ? t 137 Lehyette Bwiding o or Snw y , ,, y ,,hk ,,,,,, yk S wir M O 962 11I6 D*troit. \fichiran 4C26 Swie 2hi Terms rw V1?e U ewwn
1 I 1 (Deposition Exhibit D-1702 2 Notice of meeting ! 3 ! was marked f or identifica tion.) 4 A i The docwaent is a notice of meeting. It cecignate: 5 , ! intent, .not acutality. I have some question in ny 6 mind as to whether or not I actually participated i.n 7 that meeting that ultimately occurred. 8 0 I apologize to you. I can' t find' the repor t. t I 9 ; guess we'll leave it at that. i I 10 lA ly recollection is that I did not attend such a 11 ; mee ti ng. I i 12 10 I, i Do you 1:now whether or not unc officials attended a 3 13 I l alte tour on or about June 6th,19797 14 A Ye s, I do. There were members of the NRC about that 15 time that did make a visit to the cite to observe the 16 test pits.' ! 17 0 I i And would they ~ include members of the of the UnR ! 18 ! otaff? r' . 19 A Ye s , they would. j 20 l0 Mr. Hood, do you recall that nr. Jontes asked you a i l 21 j series of questiono concerning a July leth,197D ' a 22 ! meeting? l ! 23 iA Yes. 24 0 And was that the necting where the July 18th,107 C , i i i t 13S Lafayet:r Buddine " "5 ' 5" Suur MO yMo %rthurnern Un t 962 1II6 sua, do De ma. %ek *~n **.'.%
1 ; propose a f'ixe s were first presentsd to the NRC? 2 A Ye s. ! 3 0 l Do you recall whether th .i technical reviewers had any 4 - opinion as to the acceptability behind the concept I l 5 1 behind .the proposed fixes? ! i 6 !A Perbaps if I check the. documents. 7 0 Let r.t show you a document which I'll ask the court 8 reporter to mark as Defendant's Exhibit 1161.and 9 i i you're free to reat the entire document. I'm really I l'0 3 only interested in the second paragraph. i , 11 i (Deposition Exhibit D-ll61 i I, 12 i Document prepared by fir. !!ood f I 13 l dated 0/24/79 { 14 ! T i was marked f or identification.) 15 WE WITNESS: I've read the paragraph. i 16 BY MR. LIDDY: i
)
17 0 Can you identify this document? 19 A Ye c , it's a document i f prepared by ne and da ted Auguct
- i 19 2 4 th , 197 9. I 20 ;O i i
And turning to the second paragraph, I notice a : i ! 21 i ref e r e nce to tir . Knigh t. t On August 24 th 197 0, what 22 f c position was hold by Mr. l'ai gh t ? i f 23 A j That cer tain additional inf crmation was needed f rom i ! 24 f the applicant, but I believe it was hic teneral view i l f r i . 139 La 6n ett, Buhr Luod Reportirug Senke 3(g,, \ ,,,g u ,,,,,, y, ,_ Sy,, g) ri, , , , y,a. ., c w 962 11Tb Suue ::0
1 that the principal tachnical solutiona proposed at 2 th a t tirse were technically sound. I 3 ,O And was tnat generally the position of the ct:f f at 4 that point in time? t
.5 lA I .think this -pentence -can be very misleading.
1 i 6 There's a tendency to read too much into that. I 7 cer tainly was not in .a position .of acceptance of 0 positions at that point. I think lit. Knight is j ust 9 . saying that he's generally incicating that the j 10 conceptc involved seem to be basically sound, th a t ' s 11 his opinion. 12 0 k And would those concepts have been the caiocon i 13 approach that was suggected at the July 18th,197 0 I i 14 I meeting? l, 15 A I believe that was the -- that was then the proposed 16 solution f or the Auxiliary Duilding. ,
'17 !0 l
And I also notice e reference in there to applicant's i 10 ! replies not being suf ficient. Is that the -- vell, 3 10 ' strike that. I also notice in there that suf ficient . 20 I j l inf ormation had not been provided to the HRC at th at j 21 point in time, is that cor rect ? l 22 lA That is correct.
, a 23 0 And the next centence indicates various items of 1 24 I I which inf ormation is necced, is that cor r e ct ?
t i u,m p,,. wn, Lu:od Reporting Sernce kgre 630 y , y,,, ,,, y l 0DO'$$?O DetmL 1hchigan 4R:26 Natt 2 0 l
- Fnemtwron Hillt %kumuMMM i
1 ,A i It illuctratos come of the inf ormction that was 2 ne e 6e d.
'It was not intended to reflect all of it. l 3
It is a memorandum to filo. I'm j ust trying to ! 4 l record things that I felt I might car e to know a t ( 5 . some f uture point, so I was just putting cortain 6 ! things down.
- .7 0 Then the final sentence indicates that findings and 8 ,
i further requests are being documented and will be 9 completed in late August, ao you know whether those i 10 i 1 further requests were ever submitted to Consumers 11 Power company 7 E 12 !A ty underctanding to that they were. i There were ! W 13 i f ur th e r r eq ue st s i s sue d by th e staf f . i 14 iO
- Mr. Hood, if you'd return or look at Plaintiff' c 15
'Cxhibit NRC 473, which is the De cember 6 th,197 9 ,
16 or de r , plea se 7 i i 1 i 17 lA Say again. 4 10 0 It's Plaintiff'c Cahibit NRC 473 and it's the I 19 De cember G th,197 9 or dor. During your direct 20 : i examination, I Lolieve you indicated that there were i 21 j a throo reasons f or the iccuance of thic croer, in that 22 Cor t C Ct ? l 23 lA Ye c . t ! 24 0 And turning to Appendix B, does the inf ormation on 1 I . I j i 141 4',,,, Swigg Lu:od Reporting Sernice 34,9 y,,,, ,,,,, yn Suite Mn 962 1176 1)*trat. \belutan LC2n Swte :m I" "" "
i 1 h3re con:tituto what was deemed by the MRC to be a l 2 material falso statement?' l 3 A Ye c , it doec.
- 4 0 And an I correct that the material faloe statement
. S involved the use of materials other .than controlled 6 i compact .ve cohecive fill undernea th the D.iesel 7 . Generator ~Duilding? -
8 A That was an element of it. The other element was the 1 9 s indication in the PSAR, that it had been compacted to g i 10 j 1 certain criteria and when in f act it had not. i 11 iQ Is that criteria 95 percent of Bechtel modified I 12 i Pr octor ? E i ? 13 A Ye s, r j ~ 14 lQ l Mr. Hood, is 'the term material false statement a term 15 of art within the URC?- 1 16 A } Ye s. I i 17 MR. JCNTtSt ~I obj ect to the f orm of J 18 the question. l i j 19 t BY KR. LIDDY: ' i 20 0 ; And am I cor rect that f alse means j ust un tr ue ? { 21 i la. JEUTES: I don't think that's a 22
' tore of -- c technical term cf art. a 4
i 23 T!!C UITNCSS: It sounds more like a ! k, 24 term of Webster to me. Ye s, th at's what it acanc.
' i 142 Lafayrtt Buildine Lu:od Reporturne Sernice Suarrao 3 ,, , ,,,,,,y,,
9621II6 _ D*rroa. W hrre 4RL% Starr 220
., Fermtw= lhll' %& ' "
1 : DY MRo LIDBY8 i 2 0 And am I correct that material means that the untr ue
- 3 ctatomont would have been f ound unacceptable without 4
further staff analysic and quoctions? 5 l .A
'I think - I don' t think .- I think that is .an 0
accurato, but insuf ficient definition. 7 Q What's a sufficient definition of material? 8 A It's more than that. It could have -- cause us to 9 , reacn an unwarranted conclusion. It could have l 10 ca use d us to, as you say, to perf orm a less probing 11 review. i It seems to me there was another test. The 1 12 l criteria f or material ialse statement is cpelled out 1 l 13 ' i in what is called the Nor th Anna -- come Nor th Anna e 14 i occision and I can' t remember all the particulars of 15 it now. - 16 Q Better than I would do. Are you done with your 17 answer? i I la l A Ye s. ) i 19 0 Does the finding that there's been a material f also 20 sta tement involve any de termina tion of whe ther that 21 L l material f also statement was in f act intenti onal ? 22 !A The intention acpect goes to the coverity cf the 23 resulta of such a finding. It's not a criteria ior a 24 finding i tself. i 143 Lu:od Reportine Sernce Sw,, co 3,o y,,9,,,,, yn 962-))?6 Swtr ::0 D*troa. \fichietta 4R:2n
?"'"v * " H'U'- )Iht" Y'M
1
;.O In roaching the conclusion that the PGAR cutxaitted by 2
the Consumero Power Company contained a material ; 3 ! f also statement, was it nococcary to conclude that j 4 Consumers Power intentionally misrepresented the 5 ! compocition or the compaction of the fill? 6 MR. JENTES: Object to the question, 7 insof ar as you're now directing attention to an or der 8 of the ASLB and you' re asking Mr. Hood. I don't 9 [ oelieve that '!1r. Hood is qualifiod to speak ior the i 10 board.. I l 11 !BYMR. LIDBY: . 12 0 That's f ine . ! Can you answer my question? I
! i 13 lA My understanding la it is not necessary to find l 14
. intent in establishing whether or not a given . 15 statement constitutes material false statement. , 1G Q ) And I believe, Mr. Hood, you also testified that tho i, 17 1 second reason f or issuance of the order was that { 10 l insuf f icient inf ormation had been provided to the [ 19 staf f concerning the eesedial fixoc? . 20 j A Yes. 2 i s 21 i
)0 And if you could turn to page three of the crder the '
5 . 22 i se cond paragraph, could you read that and tell me 4 l ! 23 ) a whether that se ts f or th that rationale for the I i 24 incuance of the or der ? '. I 144 Lafayette Buddute Lwd Reportsrne Sertice
, , , ,,h n ,s,,,n gtn .
Sua* tao 962-1176 Artwt. thchiron 4U26 Suu, so R ,cu me, F a h to-
1 j 1 HP.. J Ct1TC S : Agai n, I object to the 2 question only in the sense that it cecks to.obtain 3 from fir. !!ood testimony about the intent or not 4 behind the boa rd's actiont.. 5 PR. LIDDY: Sure. . G
' THE WIT!! CSS: Yea, it doe s.
7 BY MR. LIBBYi . 8 Q 1 And am I correct that the inf ormation the staff vac D , looking f or was what is termed "acceptance criteria"? " 10 A You coul d ge t th is f rom the way the or de r is 11 i i i constructed, but clearly we needed more than v 12 i acceptance criteria. I 13 ;O 1 - Could you explain to me exactly what you needed? l 14 A We needed the basis f or the criteria as well in order I 15 to j udge the acceptability of that critoria and we . 16 need a proposed fix and the' details behind that ' 17 pr opo se d f ix. Our need is to arrive ~ at a reasonable ! 18 i l assurance that the af fected cafety related por tions
- 19 ; of the !!idland f acility will be const.ructed and l !
J 20 operated without undue risk to the health and saf ety ' 21 of the public. So the iniormation that we need is 22 typical of the inf ormation that one finda as called l 23 for by the standard review plan f or operating 24 i lice nce , l f 145 l.afayette Buildute f. nod Reporting Serrsce
,9 , ,,, ,,
Suur MO 962 11i6 Suute do Detroit. thchiran 4C26 Grm -m
1 j0 And am I correct that tho type of inf ermetion you' va
)
2 ! juct ocacribed is part of what come people call a 3 l i two-step analysin? f 4 i A The staff prefore that the inf ormation be given to it I i 5 ! in a f orm that it can perf orm - make a determina tion ! l 6 i up front, in .other words, prior to its
. + .. .. ..- .
7 implementa tion. As to the acceptability of the 8 outcome, that is a two-otep licensing process, when i 9 9 we review an application f or a construction permit we ! 10 attempt to layout the acceptance criteria and to f 11 i 1 obtain some level of reasonable anourance about that i 12 -l out come . Having obtaine d that, we then issue a - t 13 construction permit and the applicant goes out and 14 ! 1mplements it then in the process demonstrates to the 15 staff no part of its operating license that it han in i 16 fact implemented that design consistently with what .}l ' 17 t was reviewed at the construction Termit and that j 18 i process should lead to the findings that are required j 19 by the regaletions Ior oprrating licences. } 20 !0
\
At the time of the issuance of the order, do you know l 21 whether or not CPCo was f ollo.iing what ic tormed an ( 22 operational approach? l f i 23 A I bolicyc you might characterize the Diesel Generator i 24 : Duilding as an approach which depended upon the doing f J 146 lafaytte Buildme "' " 30MO %rthu ruern H.<> Suite en 962 1176 n,..,.. u + ,.. m:n n . - -, .- si,:s ua Smra : &:o
1 1 to ostablish the acceptability of the out come. There l 2' l l was no up f ront assurance: in the se nce tha t I have -: 3 l used it in describing the two-step procese. I' l e 4 i 1 that's what you mean by an operational approacn, ' l 5 t neani.ng that the doing is establishing the 6 i suitability of the outcome, I would say that. the 7 , Diesel Generator Duilding then constituted such an 8 appr oa ch. i 9 0 And was CPCo in f act f ollowing that approach at that l 10 l time in the issuance of the order? l 11 lA Can we agree that we' re talking about the same use of 1 12 the term operational approach? ! I
)
13 ! 0 Ye s, I accept your definition. 14 A Then yes. 15 I 0 i And do you know whether or not CPCo was pursuing that 16 j l cour se of action on the advice of Dechtel's 17 consul tants? l I b 18 A l FY understanding is that they were acting on the . 19 i l acv ice of Dr . Peck with respect to the Dicoel ! a 20 Generator Duilding and, of cour se, Dr. Hendron who 1 a l 21 was assisting Dr. Peck. 3
)
i l 22 0 And are both those gentleaen world-renowned geotechs? 23 A Ye s, espe cially Dr . Pe ck. f I
'4 1 l
IR. JEMTCS: Off the recor d. ' f1 i l l 0 i 1 47
.,,,, g yg g Lu:od Reporting Service Suur MO 96:.))76 39g,9 \,,,hw,n,,, gwy.
suae :;o Detroa. WichWan 4c2n Farmneron HJh. %chigan 48018 t
1 (A brief diccussion was hold off 2 4 the r e cor d. ) 3 BY tm. LIDDY: l 4 ,O nr. 11ood, let no show you a document which I'll ask 5 the cour t repor ter to mark as Def endant's Exhibit 6 ll48,. which.purpor ts to ;be..a record of a telephone 7 , conversa tion be tween your self and str. Keeley and ask 8 if you recall ~ this convernaticn. 9
. (De po si ti on C ahibi t D-114 0 I
( 10 l Record of telephone conversation I 11 l be tween tir. Hood and Mr. Keeley i r s 12 : was =arked f or identifica. tion.) - 13 THE WIT!iESS: I have reviewed the 14 document. ; 15 I BY tm. LIDBY , 16 0 Do you recall having~ a conversat. ion v.ith !!r. 'Reeley I s 17 l prior to CPCo's roccipt of the De cembe r G th, 197 9 i ] 18 ! or der, concerning that or dor ? i
- 19 Yes, I vaguely recall the conversation.
lA I 20 0 l And turning to the last paragraph on this page, do , l 21 you.rencaber that !!r. Keeley expresoed hic 22 disappointment at the issuance of the or der ? l 1 23 A t Ye s. While we have the document, I would point out l 24 some thing that got gatbled in the translation. l The f I i l i 14E Lafarette Buildine Luod Reporting Service
" 3a9,9 y,,h,,,,,,n pn Swte fan 962 1176 Detron, %chiran 48:2n Swt* so Fernuneton Rdh, %chtsan 48n]s i
l' s dScument says that I stated that the order callo f or i 2 an amenchent to the -- I'm sorry. That the orcer ! t 3 I call: out fcr a hearing. I think it more properly l 4 ) chould say what I said was the or der pr'ovided i 5 t oppor tunity for a hecring, 6 . jO And in fact CPCo .di~d roguest . such a hearing? 7 A Ye s. 8 i0 And that ultimately became what is known as the soils 9 -
. hearings?
( ' O 10 iA Ye's , i 11 0 l
!!r. Dood, during your examination by Mr. Jentec, you I 12 I i
ref erred to the employment of several consultante to 13 f help in the geotechnical review - 14 'A Yes. i 15 0 - is that correct? Do you recall the reason why the 16 URR requested f or outcide help in reviewing the 17 geotechnical aspects of the fill? 10 !A
\
Yes, we saw that the problem was widespread and I 19 l l complex, af fecting numerous structures and requiring 20 l high level of expertise. ' i
- 21 l0 Did the fact that you needed additional manpover also .
22 enter into that de ci cion? i 23 A Yes, I believe that was another f actor. 24 0 { Let rae show you Def endant's Cxhibit 1713 and ack if I l , , i 149 - Lafayette Buildsne Lu:od Reportsrsg Se n's e e Sustr 630 y g,,,, y
*b2'II ?O
[Mrmt. % chigan M .% Sm!' ~'% Farmtwon Hdis. %chtran IMolk l
1 yau've cver oeen this document- bef ore. l (Depocition Exhibi t D-1713 ; 3
!!emo ' f r om L.tl. Ilclier to 4
i James Knight da te d 1/23/ 00 5 wac marhod f or identification.) 6 THC tlITNESSt Yes, I received a copy of ,
.- 7 thi's upon issuance.
S + BY HR. - LIBBY1 i 9 IO Turning to the first paragraph .in the body of the i 10 letter, I notice a reference to an agreement with the 11 I Corps of cngineere to. provide or to aid and reviev i 12 l tauks f or the tiidland and Dailly plants which was ! 13 l executed on September 25 th,1979. i Does that ref resh
- 14 !
your recollection that those contracts were in f act 15 entered into in September 19797 16 A Ye s. i j
.17 0 d Turning to the third paragraph, I notice a referonce i s
10 to a meeting to be held on January 15th and 15th, i e 19 1980, do you see that r ef e r ence ? l ' 4 20 A Ye s . ' 0 a 21 Q And I also -- well, am I cor rect that the remainder l t 23 of th a t pa ragr a ph de al s w ith the pa r ti ci pa ti on of th e l 23 consultants in that meeting? i l 24 A I don't know. e I was not the author. I don't know ! l ( 150
, Lu:od Reportin. Sertice
, , ,,, y _
.%rr hw 962 E lib Detroa, %chitaa 4R2.% .8uae .%
Farmnetm HdL% %chigan 3018
1 [ wh:t the author taeant. If he meant the remainder of 1 2 ! the paragraph to reficct the need f or the Ilidland j 3 i meeting or not. I beliove, my reading of it ic he'c ' 4 .l reficcting the need ior the review of -- just a I 3 moment. t 6 IQ Sur e. 7 A That,he's reflecting the need for both tiidland and 8 ! Bailly.
! I notice he makes reference to both cites 9 -
t
.and .seyc at .leact .a .three-man review team ic needed 10 i for these plants, meaning Dailly and Itidiand, as I
- ]! I 11 read it. i 12 i0 Does he also indicate that acequate Corps raanpower to ';
13 .l accomplish the review has not yet been identif100 or i 14 l l assi gne d? l 15 A Ye s. f 16 - Q Turning to the second page of this 'oocument, do you 17 J recall being 'inf ormed that tir. 'Peller ectimated that t 18 } the review cub tasks ochedule given in the contract i 19 will be colayed by about f our conths cince the cor ps 20 j ic Just now beginning their review? 3 l 21 lA I recogni::e that' c what the docuacnt cayc. I 22 received a copy of the docu:aent, so I pr e c c.e the 23 answer is ycc. 24 O And uhu ic tit. Mc11er ? I i i 151 wg,,,, maj,,, Lu:od Reportung Sert ure
,, ,, g I
Sutre Mo 962 Il ?6 (k"trott. \fdigan 3226 5mir:ho Farmistw Hdh. \lditan W ih [
1 A 11 3 is tho section leader within the gootechnical ( 2 l engineoring ecction of, at th at time the seoccience3 j - 3 branch. In other wor dc, the ctaf f gootechnical
, 4 ,
i' reviewer in Joe Kane and the section loacer in that 5 branch, of which ' tir. Kane is a part would be Lyman
, 6 ;
Beller. 7 0 So !!r. IIeller would be Mr. Kane 's bosa? 8 !A Ye s. . t 9 50 If you want to explain, you seem troubled by the word l
- 10. boss?
l 11
;A I normally think more of a section leader oc c bocc i 12 l because it has adminictrativo connotations to it.
A f 13 i section leader has limited adminictrative 14 i re spo nsibility. , t l 15 Q 1ir. Hood, let me now show you a document which I'll 16 I ask' the court reporter to identify as Defendant's l
.17 i Exhibited 1616 -and ask .if you can identify this l0 document?
19 (Deposition Exhibit D-1616 i 20 tmC document da ted 3/31/ 00 21 w was markod f or identificstion.) g I 22 l n!C ti!OIES3: I notice there's a i i 23 i reference in this document, as I'm reviewing it, cn 24 pa ge t wo, the first partial pa ragraph, ' staff ; e 1 l 155 lphyette kid <nt Lu:od Reportune 3rre ter
~% "' "" 9 s ,e , j j ~ s 31s w u rtu w ra , Hu, *
/wroa, Erhire C.% huar .*.%
Farmistron Htlis. % hic e # Ik
1 cbaerved that this was a pr udent decision I 2 i particularily in view cf the significe.nt clip in , 3 construction completion projected by Dechtel and 4 i
~
currently under review by the applicant and Dow to ! 5 ! other causes, principally the Tt!I-2 accident. " 6
. Apparently .in early 1980 .or late .1979 the !!RC ia 7 I aware that Dechtel had. projected a slip in schedule
. D i and the applicant at that time was reviewing that
.9 Bechtel projection.
I don' t knov .if thic conflicts ! 10 : I with any of my previous tectimony or not, but I an ~ I t 11 now - l'c now aware of that f rom reading thi: 12 cocument, reviewing thic document, i 13 '! MR. JC11TES : Yes, the ref erence here, .i 14 ) 1 Itr. Bood, is to the f act that Porecast No. 6 had been 15 l
~ submitted to Consumers Power by Bechtel in January of f 16 l 1980 and was under review at that time. i, 17 MR. LIBBY: Well, I'm going to nove to 10 '
strike that on the record, but that's beside the ' 19 reint. 20 ; T!1C NIT:! CSS: Can you tell te if I i ; 21 , chould review the entire document or are there ;ur ts 22 ! of thin you're interected in, t 23 CY !!R. LIDDY: 24 ,O \ Initially all I'm interested in ic if you can , 153 Lafayrtir ikddsne Luzad Reportint 9ersact Suur MO 9g,n,y) s nu, %,s estern He Detrod Echtssa AC.% 5.wr 2:0 Farnungron Hdh, %chtenn Mlk
1 [ identify this document? I i 2 A ! Ye s , I do recogni::e the document ac ceing prepared by l 3 me and constituting a cLnmary of a Febt uary 27 and 28 4 i l'960 meeting and site tour with staff consultants to s 5 review soile se ttlement. The document in dated liarch 6 31,.1980 ' 7 !Q Mr.f Hood', in the first paragraph of the document I B notice a reference to the initial visit f or the 9 staf f's consultants. To the best of your I i 10 ! recollection, was Febt uary 27 and 20th,1980 the a , 11
, first time that the consultante hired by URR to.
12 anci st them in reviewing the ' soils' remedial vorh were i 13 on uite? l { 14 !A Ye s. ! 15 0 , And going down to the last paragraph on page 1, which i 16 goes over to page two, I notice that the reference is 1 i 17 l th a t tit . Reeley announced that consurners Power la Company han elected to defer all remedial wor k on 19 inadequately cuppor ted structurec until acceptance of 20 the wor k is received. Does that accurately reflect 3 21 the statements made by !:r. I:celey on that day. , 22 i A Yo c. 23 I
- 0 And I no ti co , if you go to the last centence in that '
e 24 paragraph, the repor t indicates "The ataf f observed ' 1 154 lA(4)etir Umldint Lu:od Repornne Sri" Saar @ Qb?.))*b wo urthuru rn Hs > perm:, %ktran 48:26 5"'" 250 Farmeron HA Whiran wnh
1
- that this was a prudent decision, particularily in 1 2
view of the significant slip in constr uction i 3 completion projected by Dechtel and currently under ! t 4
. review by the applicant and due to other causcc, i 5
principally the TMI-2 accident. " Is that an accurate 6 j statement of observations by staf f . members? 7 A Yes, 8 0 Do you remember which staff member made -- rember or
.9 5 membero made .that observation? I 10 iA Ho, quite possibly it could have been me, probably 11 was me. i But I do not r emembe r . '
f 12 .-0 lir. Hood, now let me show you a document which I'll i 13 i ask the court reporter to mark Def endant'c tuhibit 14 1795 and to shor ten things, all I'm really interested 15 in first of all is whether you recall ever seeing 16 this document prior to today. l 17 (Deposi tion Exhibit D-17 95 1B i Mee ting notes da ted 3/14/C0 l 10 was marked f or identification.) 20 TUC UITNCSS: I really don' t recognico 4 21 the document and I don't remember if I received it in 22 j the pact or not. Sometimes when these repor te -- ac , 23 a rulo I do receive repor ta f rom our consultantu if i 24 2 t they are provided to members of the NRC. In thic i 155 tah,rtte Baldme Laaod Reportsnc Sers ter har & n n,j ; s 3,1y, urth u mm n,e _, Detrou, Echtge, AU:6 sar ::o Farmmenm Hdis, Vchigan 2018
1 [ cace I j ust don' t know what the situa tion is and I l 2 don' t have any specific recollection of re ceiv ing t 3 this document. 4 BY tia. LIDDY: 5 ;O I notice the name U. A. Gerhing a t tho top of the 6 . letter. Can you . identify that person f or sie
' l-7 iA Yes, Neil Gehring is a member of the Corps of 8 Engineer s.
9 0 And . turning to the third page of thic document, under 10 i section something marked conclusions, I notice the 11 e statement - are you there. Sub section six or ' 12 paragr aph six. I notice the statecent "The pr opoce d , 13 : fixes appear to be generally acceptable ;:ending 14 i u review of these designs when they become available to f 15 tmc. Done additlonal data, borings, etcetera are s 16 likely to be required in order to f ully satiofy uc 1 17 concerning the f uture plant saf e ty. " Here you t, 10 t inf ormed during - or do you recall being inf ormoo in , 19 ; tiarch of 1900 that the Corps of Cnginocra hac 20 concluded that the pr opo se d f ixe c wer e ge ne r ally j 21 I acceptable, pending review of additional design ; 22 inf orma ti on? I 23 iA 11 0 , I don't cpecifically recall being aware of that, l l 24 v nor do I recogni:e the significance of the statement. [ l a 150 y ,,,, g gas,, LU:0d RtPo!! int 5' karr Mo 3a w _,, m 962 ii ?6 iktroa, thchigan 48:.% %te Zh Famtmeron Hk \hchsaan wals
1 - Something that's generally acceptable I:ending f ur .her i 2 I review; it docen' t strike me as terribly significant. i 3 'O ' And do you know whether the proposed fixec they' re talking about are the ones that were peccented to the i
$ [
tmc during the January 18th,1D7S meeting? 6 l'A i The time f rame of the document would seem to suggest 7 ' th at, and the document is - does make reference to B that February 27 and 28 meeting, so I presume the P f i
. answer .ie that's .what .it ic .in ref erence tc. I 10 !O In that conclusion cection tnere's a reference to I
11 t additional bor ingc. Are those the boring: that you 12 wer e q ue stione d a bout by !!r l Jentee thic morning? ! 13 A I Where is the reference you're talking about? l 14 l O In section six, conclusiona? I 15 ,
- m. DERKOVIT2: tiaybe it's j uct late .
16 ' and I'm growing tired or something. I don' t see how 4 17 he can possibly answer that. I It's not his cocument. 10 1 Who known what boringo ic meant. But go ahead. I i 10
'nlE WITtiESS: I really can' t kn ow . It 20 seems to me to be a general statement. They l
21 . t anticipa te requiring come f ur ther corings. ' 8 22 l DY tm. LID 3Y: i I 23 70 I,et ce go at it thic way. I believe you tectified on , 24 ; direct examina tion that the Imc ctef f pocition vac t I 1 57 i y ,c ,y, m , Luod Reportsat Sett ece y ,9 ,, , ,,, m , Lal Ma 9b2 11Ib Detrat. W hiten A C:s %a< a% Farnnerce HJh Wh:ro thom
1 [ that the additional borings that had been recuested ! 2 , and which CPCO van oppocing were going to to viewed
- 3 in conj unction with other cattlement inf oraction in 4
s arriving at the acceptability of the pre-load, is 5 that cor r ect? 6 ! A Yes, that was our intent with respect to the Diesel 7 ' Generator Duilding. You do understand that the 8 request for borings was broader than j ust the 9 ) vicinity .of the Diesel Generater .Duilding and there I i 10 I were other borings requested f or other purposes. For , 11 examcle, the dikcc, but with . respect to the Dienc1 12 i Generator Building, my understanding ic that wac cur 13 intent was to utilice that inf ormation in conjunction 14 ! with the inf ormation to be gained f rom the pre-load 15 re s ul ts. . 16 0 During the discussions concerning'these borings, did 17 you become aware that there was, I'll call it a { 10 misunderstanding on the part of CPCo concerning the 10 , purpoco of thoce borings? 20 A I don't know if Constraer c appreciated the pur pose f or 21 , which the staf f requested the inf ornation, nor do I l 22 believe that that is a cuf ficient reacon f or a ; 23 ) utility to deny us the requested inf ormation. I'm i 24 not sure that an applicant hac to underctand exactly l 156 y ,g ,7,, g yg,, Lu:od Reportant Snenter g 9, ,,,, kra ectu 962 11Ib (Wtroa. \bekiran # :n kae :b Farmne:on HJ!s. \lschtran 3018
i 1 wh3t we' re going to do with inf ormation we reque st in ! 2 i order to deter =in2 whetner or not to be responsive to
' 1 3 it.
4 i O itaybe I can be mor e pr e ciso . Did you learn at come d 5 point that ., CPCo believed that Joe Ranc was going to , 6 use .the borings .in what they call .a worst case
- 7 analysis?
8 A I did learn that that was their belief, yen. 9 IO .
. And .do you recall that during ~your depocition ycu ,
10 ! l I testified that their oppocition to the borings based I 11 i I
' on that belief would be renconable? ,
12 ' tR. JCNTCS: Obj ect to the question, ' 13 } unless you show Mr. Hood his deposition. t l 14 MR. LIBBY: I'll be happy to, if you 15 vant me to. I don' t have copies right now, but I'd . 16 be happy to make copies. 1 I 17 MR. JENTCS : It just seems to me he n 1C { i ought to see what his testimony is. l ' 10
- 10. LIDDY: I'm going to have to 20 withdr aw the que stion be cause I can' t find the ;
21 reference in his dopocition.
.; I' m cor ry.
22 ]BYHR. LIBBY l 23 iO lir. Hood, let me show you o cocunent now which I'll ' 24 ask the cour t repor ter to ucrk cs Def endant 's Ca* hibit i 159 , l.afuene B ddinc ' ' Sw,; ny 962 11.'6 "" \ "'! h '*"" U" ' . [hetroa, \fschigan 4C.% hw: = .'.'n c formantron Hdh, %charan 3018
1 y 1731 and ask if you can identify it, pl e ase . I 2 l (Dc;:o ci tion E xhibi t D-17 31 3, '
!!andwritten note prepared 4
~ by Darl Hood cated 1/9/81 5 wac marked ' tor identification.) 6 21!E WITNESS: .Ye s , I do. recognize. the ' 7 document as a handwr.itten note prepared by me to 12. 8 Lester Rubenntein, who at the time van my branch ' D ? chief, in which I give him .a .ctatus report and I 10 l projected schedule f or the Midland hearing. i 11 BY tm. LIDDY: i I 12 0 And did you prepare this note on or about January ! l 13 l 9th, 1900 7 14 lA Ye s. 15 0 And I notice on the first page of this it _looks like ' 16 an internal planning -- for internal planning i 17 purpones, a best estimate of the Midland hearing 10 schedul e, l is that correct? k 19 A Yo c. 20 0 And you qualify that with cer tain ctatements on the 21 se co nd pa ge , in that cor rect? 5
\
22 A Yo c. e 23 O And at the time that you wrote thic memo, was your 24 best guecs that the hearing would start in sometime [ i J 100 gp ,, g jg,, Lu:od Reportune Sert ser u ,,h , ,n,,, g,n 96.".1176 Swoe Mo lbetrat. \fschigan 4Cs 5w ,+1 Farmrneta Hdis % ch: tan Lwt!8
t 1 in Sune or Suly of 19007 i 2 A Yes, it was. : 3 0 l4 Did you believe it would take five years to complete? I 4 A !!o. 5
! MR. LICBY: I have no f urther 6 que sti ons.
7 MR. JEti?ES : Off the recor d. 8 (A brief discussion was held of f 9 !
- the recor d. )
10 ! EXA!!It1ATIo!7 i 11 ,' TY tm. JC!!TES : : I, 12 iO Let me ask you, tir. !!ood, to take another look at ! 13 I Defendant's Cxhibit 1148, the telecon of the call 14 involving you and 11r. Reeley on De cember 6 th,197 9 15 A Ye s, s 16 0 You were asked some questi'ono on cross examina tion i 17 about whether Mr. Keeley indicats' 'ais dicappointment 10 at the order, as stated at the bottom of the first l 19 pa ge . Do you remember those questionc? 20 ,A Ye c. $ 4
~
21 aO ; It's indicated in this that itr. Feeley exprecocd hic 22 } di sa ppointment on the ground that the staf f had 23 l acaertedly in past meetings and vicito been g 24 i "catisfied with the corrective action CPCo hac Wen 4 101 y ,.,, ,,, g ,g,, Lu:od Reportsne Sereser kw h3n 962~lI ?b m,, w, g ,,,,,, y g wroa, w nwes s c s S w r :LM Fernnetun Hih Whtaan W1h
-~ - - - - - -- -- - - - - ---- --
r ! i i t ta ki ng. " During the meetings and visits that had { ; 2 ! occurred prior to the issuance of the oroer on 3 De cember G th,107 9, had the ctaf f, in your view, 4 given Consumers adeq'uate o::prescion of the !!ac'c 5 ! concerns regarding the corrective action that CP wac
/ '
6 proposing? *
-'7 'A Yes, I believe we had.
I believe that it's accurate 8 . to say the utility should have understood the type of 9 i- .in*ermation the ntaf f needed to review the remedial i ' l 10 fixe s. 'This in an experienced utility. They are 11 familiar with the ctandard review plan. They know 12 that the review that the ctaf f ic required to i f 13 ! conduct. They know what the requisite findings are 14 that the staff is required to make. ; They had the 15 benefit of a question had been asked by the staf f. I g 16 'did not understand Mr. Keeley's surprise when he 17 expressed it, nor do I today. 18 0 W:xt I'd like to ask you to turn to Defendant's ! 19 ' Exhibit 1616, which in the summary of the cito visit 20 on Fe br ua ry 27 and 20,1900 l 11 hen you were reading , 21 ) the document, you made a comment regarding the 22 . ctatement at the top of page two where it was 23 indicated that 'the staff observed that this vac a 24 l pr udent decicion, particularily in view of the ' i 102 Lu:od Reportune Sert eer Lafvene kidant kr* & nsg,j j s 3<w unh-am Hn wir m [wrmi. %chtes 4C.% Farmstron HJh. Whitan 480M
1 p significant. clip in constr uction completion pro]ccted i 2 I by Bochtc1 and currently under review by the j 3 applicant . " Do you rememLer boing ocked some 4 questionc about that statement and your voluntecting .l 5 dnat this ref reshed your recollection a littic bit on 6 l the Bechtel projection? 7 A I vol unteered that. I did not know if this was 8 oontradictory to any of my previous testimony, but at 9 h least ! .am .nov aware f rom this view .that in the late 10 1970, early 19E0 time f rame that at least some slip
.11 i in conct.;uction completion had been projected by ,
i 12 Bechtel and was being reviewed by Consumero Pcwer ! 13 I f Com pany.
-l.
14 0 Do you recall during my examination that I called 15 your atten' tion to remarka made by Mr. Feeley to the 16 effect that Bechtcl had f orecasted Unit 2 and Unit 1 17 fuel loads in its Forecast tio. 6 that called f or 10 cignificant delays over those that '1ad . previoucly l 19 , be e n a ppr oved by Con s umer s Power ? ' i 20 } .\ Ye c. 21 O I also asked you about whether or not you hao acen 22 , the tornal review repor t that had been incued by 23 , Consumeru Power, and the document in question in CPC 4 i 24 81 . I want to make certain whether or not, having s 103 Lafoyrise ILaldint Lu:od Reportant Sett ter
%"' " 9s ; ; ,~ s 3, w \ win,.,,iar, Huy Ntrost \behitan O kar D Farn netm HJ!s \lkenn WHh
1 ' now reflected any fur ther, you wish to correct your l 2 l testimony, which as I understood it was that you had a 3 ! never seen the f ormal review repor t? r 4 A i No, I still don' t recall having specific recollection l 5 I of seeing this repor t. 6 0 You'll recall that I read you some materials as to 7 the f undamental' conclusion end recommendation by the 8 review team. Daving now reflected f ur ther on that 9 .
~. testimony, do you wish to make any corrcetion to your I 10 i i
earlier testimony, which wao that you. wore not l 11 i l adviscd of the formal revlew conclunions by the CP f 12 I
)
review team? . 5 i 13 l MR. LIBDY: Obj ecti on; i 14 I mischaracterization. 15 THE ITITNESS: Let me have that quastion 16 back, please . i 17 10 l (The pending question was read i 19 j by the Cour t 11epor ter as f cllowc: ? 20 y l i 0 . . . do you wish to malte any j 21 '- : l correction to your earlier tectir:ony, 22 which wac that you were not advised! i 23 i of the f ormal review conclusionc l 24 by the CP review team?) i I ! ! i E 164 Lafayette Buddir.e I.a d Reportine Sert ice 9,,g, ,,,, y l khr Mn 962 1I?6 l Decemt. Whsean 48:26 Suite so 1 Farmoreton Hdh. \lichaean 43018
1 , T!C WI?!iCSS: No, I believe that's 1 i 2 still accurate. I . don' t kn ow how tho ce pie ce s f it t j 3 toge ther or if they do. I j ust know from reviewing 4 ,
; this that we were apparently aware that there was I a j 5
some slip projected by Bechtel and it . ras undec 6 review by the applicant.- 7 BY MR. JEHTES . 8 0 And that was all that you were advised, no f ar as you 9 -can :now 4 recall? l 10 I A That's all I can recall. ' 11 0 .Let .me next ask you to take DX 1713 in'd compare 1: 12 vith DX 1616 in one respe ct. 13 lA You' re going to have to give me those numbers again. 1 14 I O' Would you keep bef ore you Defendant's Exhibit 1636, 15 which is these minute notes of the February 27 th and ' 16 i 28th meeting. And also put bef ore you Defendant's {
-17 !
8xhibit 1713, which was the memo f rom Mr. Ile11er !. J 18 abo ut the Corps of Engineers. j Do you have that? i 19 A Ye s. 20 ' 0 i i Mr. Libby asked you a couple of questions about the I 21 [r Corpo ability to get people acsigned f or the review 22 process and I j ust wanted to ask you whether you can k l 23 confirm or not that by the time of the Febr ut ty 27 24 f and 28, 1900 site visit, the Cor po had in f act bee n i l l t C 165 \ fxfnyear Buddene ""! " Suur h30 .3 @ o %nhuennn Huy 962 1176 suar 2:0 Iktrott. \hekitan 4S:26 Farnuneton lidh, .\hchaean 18018
1 ': able to accemble a teaa of eight people? I 3 2 A Tnat is correct. 1 i 3 0 i And that included tir. Lawhead, who had been indicated 4 au the recommended coor dina tor, adr.linistrator in the l
-5 l earlier Defendant's Exhibit 1713, and'Mr. GrunGtorm 6
who was listed as the geotechnical .endineer in -that 7 earlier memorandum? 8 !A Ye s.
.9 k0i .So .f ar as you .know, did the .reviev procesc by .the I 10 i corps of Engineers ever lead to any pr.oblems or i
11 ! delays on .the part of Conat=ters in f orculatine or I 12 i ! proceeding with any of itc remedial' co'ils ef for ts? ! i 13 i I l !!R . LIDBY: Objection; lack of 14 found~ r On. 15 T11E WITNESS: !!ay I have the quantion 16 again, please. ; l
.- 17
-(The pending quantion was read 10 by the Court Repor ter as follows:
19 i 0 so far as you know, did the 20 l I t review process by the Corps l
}
21 I of Engineers ever lead to i 22 l t any problemc or 6elays on the 23 i part of Consumers in f ormulating i 24 f. i or proceeding with any of ito i 1C0 Lahyette Building Lu:od Reportine Sert see Surr, mo ,,, y,, , , ,,, y , 962 11?6 51,17,, 22n (ktroit. \fuchtran 48226 Farm <ncton Hith. \bchican wilM
l I remedial soils eff or ts?) j .; 2 THE 1.'ITNCSS : 11 hen you say the review 3 3 process, are you' ref' erring t'o the process of bringing 4 i the Cor ps on boa r d, or would you include in that j
'S l .
\
specific technical positions', a document by the ! z6 Corps? . 7 BY MR'. JE!ITES : 8 0 I guess what I'm really getting at ic I think Mr. i 9 ! i Libby was .. imply.ing that aomehow -or .another the Cor pc I 10 l 1 i ability to get people on board in the process might !
+
- 11
, have had come delay.ing procecc on Consumers Power and '
I 12 my question in whether or .not, so far as you know, P I i 13 ! l there was any delay caused to Consumers Power 'because l 14 i of the personnel matters th'at are discussed in DX l 15 1713? . 16 1 . MR. LIBBY: Same objection. } 17 ' f W C WITNESS: I would cerinucly doubt j 18 3 I that there was any impact on the overall schedule I, 19 i ascociated with the initial ef f or t to bring the Corps 20 of Engineer s up to speed end get them geared up to do ; 21 the review. ' 22 E SY !!R. JEMTES : 23 , O l'.r. Libby alco asked you a couple of quections along ; l j 24 4 the same lines about the problems associated witti the ; f h I . 1G7 lafayette Buildsne Lu:od Reportint Sernce Suste MO 962.]176 3nsto \arthurstern Hoo Suute 220 iktros:. \fichstan 48226 Farmington Hith. \1schiran MWik
i 1 [ imC having enough reviewers to review the tiidland i 1
"Sta in 197 0 in connection with the THI ci tua ti on, i I
3 ' i Do you remember generally that line of questioning by 4 him? I 5' 'A Ye s. 6 O At the time I wrote down that you .said that there .was 7 4 a "notaole exception" to the HRC's . lack of revicwers 8 and that was in regard to soils. Did you ever 9 h i observe .any . problems at .the tiRC in ite . ability to I 10 review the various propocals that CP came up with for 1 11 the remedial soils activities? E 12 ! A i Are you referring now to the tiime period af ter T!P) I 8 13 O That's correct. , 14 A As I recall, even during the period when the overall 15 review of the Midland application had been 16 temporarily interrupted because of our concentration i { 17 on Tin, we did have reviewers in thoco disciplines f 10 i associated with the soils problem and I believe we ! 19 l cuppor ted that ef f or t during that cuspension pe riod. l 20 jQ Lastly, I'd like to ack you a question, which is a i 21 sor t of a lawyer 's que stien, it relatos to the l 1 22 admissibility of como exhibits in our caco and so I 23 ! don' t be surprised if it sounds a little bit 24 L E legal i cti c. During the cour se of 1.1y examina tion I I 1 i; 168 1 Lafnyttre Buddsna 1. u : d Repornn; Sertice 3,g,, , , , , , _, Suur Mo 962 1176 (ktroa, \lich.ran #226 Suur 2.% Farmentron Hdh.1hchigan 3018
1- - showed .you a number of NRC generated klocuments. ) 2 i They' re NRC 473, Def endant's Cxhibit 1672, !!RC 216, i 3 URC 32, NRC 125, NRC 215, !!nc 76, NRC 5 8, NRC 20 4, } t 4 NRC 60,11RC 207 and 1;RC 2G7. ! I My question. is whether t l'
'S l
or not these are recordo, re por t s, statements or data 6 compilations of the Huclear Regulatory LCommiscion - 7 that set f or th either, the activities of. the NRC or 8 matters observed pursuant to duty 'sposed by law as 9 i to which natters .there was ..a . duty to repor t -or .both? l 10 tm. LIBBY: I' m 9'oing to obj e ct be ca use i , 11 ' i l it eslls f cr a legal opinion, but it's okay. And I ' j 32 l would also ask you to mark that document you j ust put i I 13 in front of him if you're going to let him use that I 14 to review those documents. 15 1R. JENTES: Well, I'll let you mark it 16 if you want to. All it is is a summary of the i 17 Michigan rules of evidence provisions relating to l 10 l public records and repor ts, Rule 803(0) . ' l ' 19 !!A . BCRKOVITZ: j Let me j usc coar.:ent I 20 j that we can authenticate the documents. I don't know , l 21 ; if Mr. Hood can. l 22 FR. JC!l?CS: f Our problem ic not l 23 authenti ca ti on. Our problem ic exception to the ( ! , 1 24 hearusy rule. p; l 109 Isfayene Iktding Lu:od Reportune Service
,g , ,, y, Suste MO Q 62 . J J a~ 6 suur ::n Ikroa. \luch::an #226 Farminator. Hath. \lichaean 3018
~
1 1 TUE i;I?NCSS: I have considerable 1 2 l dif ficulty with the quencion f rom both with respect . 3 l l to my expe r ti ce and under.ctanding of the cuention. l 4 ! Por example, when you ocy that they represent 5 activities of the NRC. That' c prob 6bly a statement 6 of art, which I'm not sure I have the right 7 conno'tation. I know what it means to me, which is a - l 8 very general term and would cover a very broad range 9 lI of events. I'c.not sure it'.c the .same connotation t I I 10 that you' re seeking or not. 11 BY !(n. .JCUTCS : I 12 i 0 I would ack you in answering the question to ute the . 8 13 ! term activities in the normal connotation that a l , i
?
14 ! person employe'd by the NRC, such as yourself, would i 15 use that term? ! i 16 : MR. LIDDY: Same objection and also 17 relevancy. I i 18 l I i MR. JENTCS : I'm not trying, Mr. 11ood, 4-19 l l i to be overly legalictic and you chouldn' t regard it j
~
20 that way. j The language that I have uced in my j 21 question is cerely language that appearc in the Rules i l 7 22
- l of Evidence and I muct neet that language in my 23 questioning of you.
24 , i f:R. DER EOVITZ : I don't know if he can i' ' 170 lxfayette Raildung Lu:od Reportine Sert see Suite MO
, 9, ,,,, y,,
' 962 1170 Detroa. \hchtran #226 Senir :ht Farmington Hilh. \1tchscan 18018
1 answer that. I don' t know if he can say that these I 2 reprocent or se t f or th the activitics of f.hc !;nc. I i 3 I do think that's sor t of a -- that woulc be conf ucing 4 , to a layman and cer tainly part two calls f or a i . 5 j conclunion as to whether c3tters were observed 6 pursuant to a duty imposed .by law. That's another 7 one that would call for some : knowledge of exactly why B l all these things were written. Hr. !!ood di dn ' t write 9 i i
,all of theoc, or whatever, and ac I .scy the !!RC .can I 10 i
authenticate these- documentc.' I don't know why 11 i that's not suf ficient f or the hearsay exception, ! I 12 ;
!E. JCNTES: h i
Decause -- and I don' t i 13 i I wish to have to debate, the authentication does not i 14 deal with the hearcay objection. And at least up I 15 until now Consumera has objected on hearsay grounds I 1G to the use of large volumes of documents generated by i 17 third parties and has stood on the technical ? 18 l objections to the hoarnay and the only way I can cet i f 19 : by it is to ask a witness, cuch as !!r. Hood, to I 20 i answer my question. I:ow , if he's r7able to answer l j i i 21 it, I will rephrase. the question, but if he ca n 22 I answer it, I would appreciate an answer. 23 i n!C UITt1ESS: I am unable to un de r stand ,i 24 it. I don
- t know what matterc observed pursuant to i
171 Lafayette Butidme *"'" '"" 3%n \orthue<rern Hu , Suite 6 m 962 11I6 Siiure 2k Detrott. \lichipn 4822b Farmmeon Hdh.11echaean wil8
- r. . .
1 duty impoced tyf law means. I 2 BY I4R. JC:!TCS l I 3 O Let me try to deal with it in pie ce s. Let me focuc 4 i on the first pa r t of ny question to you and ask you 5 t whether all of the documente that 'I've listed are
; 6 re cor ds, repor ts, statements or data. compilations of 7 the Nuclear Regulatory Commistlon?
8 1R. LIDBY: Again I'm going to object 9 be ca use it : calls f or a legal opinion and conclucion. i 10 ' HIE WITNCSS : While I do recognize that i 11 ! i I all the documents -are prepared in one way or another 3 12 l i by the NRC and I use the NRC in its broader
- I "
13 i : connotation which would include, f or c:tample, the : I 14 licensing board, it would include pre-filed testimony 15 as it appears, perhaps attached to transcripts 16 ' associated with the ' soils hearing, 'if that's what you , I. 17 mean by activities of the NRC, then I guess 1t 18 qualifles under that term.
)
19 , BY 19. JEliTES : ' i 20 ;O } Do all of the documents that : have ref errec you to j e 21 2 telate to the activities of the !!ucicar Regulatory l 4 22 i Commission in the broad sence that you' ve j ust use d 0 23 it?
!j l
! i 24 !
fm. LIDEY: Ssce objections. 1 i h 172 Lafayette Bustdme '""'"' Suno Mo 9 6 .*- l 1 7 6 nto %rthu niern lion. Iktroa. \fschigan 48:a surr, }o Forminer<m Holl<. U chigan 18018
i l 1 +
' HIE 11IT!!ESS : 17 ell, to my Way of ; !
O thini:ing they are related to our activities, the ; 3 ' y activity of a licensing proccas f or the !!idland 6 3 4 I nuclear plant.
~
) !
5 MR. JE!:TES : That's all the questions I 6 .have. 7 MR. LIBBY Just ene question. For ge t 8
- it.
E f l 10 - - - i 11 I
; '(Doposition was concluded at 12
{ i 1 5: 00 p.m. ) $ 13 ! i
! f 14 I I, DARL UOOD, do hereby 15 attest to the correctnesc of the transcript upon ;
inclusion of the corrections and/or changes I have listed on the attached errata cheet. ; 17 DARL HOOD I la f l l Subscribed and sworn to bef ore me 19 this cay of , 1904 20 i i I !!otary Public, County 21 ) Hy Commission e::pires: . I 8 22 23 ) t 1 24 -
,t 173 La.fayene Buddine Lu:od Reporting Sers tce Suur h30 9g;,jj7s 3,sto unhu ner, Huy.
Detroa, \lichiran 4822b Suur 220 Farmineron Hdh. \lechiran 48018 \
1 ' STRTC OP !!ICHIGNI)
) SS. l 2 COUICY OP OAPLAliD) !
b 3 I, BRU CC PCALR, a 110tary Public within 4
; an6 f or the County of Oakland, (acting in the District of 5
Col umbia) , do ~hereby certify that the witness whose attached 6 1 deposition was taken bef ore s.e in the above-entitled matter -
'7 was by me first. duly sworn at the af orementioned time and 8 place; that the testimony given by said witness was 9
. stenographically recorded in the presence of .said witnecs t
k 10 and'af terwards transcribed upon a computer under my 11 l
; per sonal . supervision, and that caid deposition is a f ull, I
12 ' tr ue and cor rect ' tr anceript of the testimony given by the l 13 l witne ss, l j i ' 14 I I f ur ther certify that I am not connected
- 15 by blood or marriage with any of. the partico or their
)
15 i l attorneys, and that I am not an employee of either of then I, 17 aor financially interested in the action, ! i j 18 l l IN UITNCSS HIICRCOP, I have her e un t o se t my i
?
19 l hand in the City of Rochester, County of Oakland, Sta te of l 20' ) !!ichigan, this day of #'!' b u ' ' , 19 C5 t
) j 21 ;
l G ,; y L 4/Gs. l o n, /e ,e /
'< '(/ ._ . ~
! 22 j DRUC3 A. PC ALR Notary Public 1 Oakland County, tiichigan 23 , tty commission e::pires 3-12-00 24
~
174
" "I"'
lafayeur Budd:ne ' " ' Suar Ma 3164o \orthuencen Hu s 962 1176 Sun, gin, Detroa. \hchwan 48226 Farnington Ihlh. \hchiran Isnjs L _}}