ML20153B709
| ML20153B709 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/08/1985 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151D196 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-583 NUDOCS 8805060064 | |
| Download: ML20153B709 (103) | |
Text
1 1
STATE OF HICIIIGAN 2
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT POR Tile COUNTY OF MIDLAND i
3
)
4 T!!E DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY,
)
)
5 Plaintiff,
)
)
6
-va-
)
No.
83-0022325
\\
)
7 CONSU1!ERS POWER COMPANY,
)
)
8 Defendant.
)
)
9 10 The Doposition of JO!!N J. HARRISON, JR.,
taken before me, Judith A. Sherman, RPR, [CSR-2964], Court 11 Reporter and Notary Public within and for the County of Wayno, State of Michigan, at Nuclear Regulatory Commincion 12 Headquarators, Glen Ellyn, Illinois, on Friday, Pobruary 8, 1985-.
)
13 APPEARANCES:
14 KIRKLAND & BLLIS 15 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, Illinoic 60601 16 (By Carol Rico, Esq.)
17 Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff, 18 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 212 W. Michigan Avenue 19 Jackson, Michigan 49201 (By James E. Brunner, Esq.)
20 Appearing on behalf of the Defendant, 21 UNITED STATES NRC 22 Office of Gonoral Counuel Washington, D. C.
20555 23 (By Daniel Berkovit=, Esq.)
l 24 Appearing on behalf of the Witneos.
(
B805060064 880408 PDR FOIA PDR BARAK07-583 Lmd Reporting Service
, 9,
~~
lafayette Building 962.Ii?6 s,a,. ;;n Suite Mo
!% ml. \\fichigan I8226 Farmineron ll1ll<, \\lichiean 18n18 tt
.~
I 1-W I T II E S S I N D E.X 2
1 3
Mitness Examined By Page 4
JOHN J. HARRISON
!!s. Rice 4
5 Mr. Brunner 82 6
Ms. Rice 101 7
Mr. Brunner 102 8
9 EXHIBIT INDEX 10
)
11 Exhibit No.
Description Pago 12 NRC 137 Chronology of Events Sinco July, 16 1981 Hearings - 1/24/84 NRC 138 Nemo from W. T. Crow to J. flarricon 25 14 6/8/83 15 MED 97 August 12, 1983, Midland Daily News 37 Clipping 16 NRC 139 Personal Notes of J.
Ilarrison of 40 17 February 8, 1983 meeting 18 CPC 1961 Construction Completion Program -
45 l
6/10/83 l
19 NRC 140 Moeting with Intervenors and GAP, 46 j
20 by J. Ilarrison, 8/11/83 1
21 NRC 141 Public Meeting, Midland Nuclear 46 l
Power Plant, by J.
Harrison, 8/11/83 22 llED 98 Clipping from Midland Daily News, 57 23 8/12/83 24
- LED 99 Clipping from the Detroit Free 59
)
Presa, 8/14/83 2
Lu:od Reporting Sert ice
,,,o y,,g,,,,,,,,._
lxfayette Buildine Suite MO 962 1176 suae 220 Detroit, \\fichigan 18226 Farmington Ihlis, \\firhican 18018
--.....n r-
,~,
1 EXHIBIT INDBX l
2 3
Exhibit No.
Description Page i
4 NRC 142 Personal Notes of J. Harrison, 62 12/7 5
CPC 1962 Memo from Nouseck to Wells, CVP 62 6
and Status Assessment Honconformance Report Generation, 9/12/83 7
NRC 143 Letter from Koppler to Cook, 68 8
Enforcement Conference, 10/11/83 9
NRC 144 Personal Notes, J. !!ar rison 68 j
Enforcement Conference, 10/11/83 j
10 NRC 145 Draft version of order requiring 73 11 a management audit i
12 NRC 146 Collection of Personal Motos of 75 l
J.
IIarrison, of conversations with 1
13 people from Consumers and Bochtel l
14 Defendant's Personal Notes of J. Harrison -
97 Harrison 7/12/84 j
15 Exhibit 1 1
1 1G NRC 147 Chronology of Events since July, 101 1981 !!carings, Revision 5, 7/26/84 17 1
18 z
EXIIIBITS IDENTIFIED:
j CPC 15 20 CPC 16 NRC 40 21 NRC 43 NRC 44 22 NRC 124 NRC 131 23 i
l 24 3
Lu:od Reporting Sertice 3,mn y,,,,,,,,,,,,
lafayette Huilding Suite h30 962 1176 sig,.?u Detroit, \\fichigan M226 Farmineton Ihll<. \\lichtenn mt>IH
1 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 2
Friday,-Pobruary 8, 1985 3
9:00 a.m.
4 5
JOHN J.
- HARRISON, JR.
6 was thereupon called as a witnoss heroin and, after 7
having been first duly sworn to tell the truth, the 8
whole truth and nothing but the truth, was examined 9
and testified as follows:
10 EXAMINATION 11 BY HS. RICE:
12 Q
Would you state your name for the record?
13 A
John J. Harrison, Junior.
14 Q
What is your current occupation?
15 A
I work for the Nuclear Regulatory Commisuion.
16 Q
What is your position with the NRC?
17 A
Chief of the Engineering Branch, Division of Reactor 18 Safety.
19 Q
How long have you held that position?
20 A
I've held this position cince November,1984 to the 21 present.
22 O
Hr. Harrison, are you appearing pursuant to a subpoona l
23 this morning?
i 24 A
Yes, I am.
4 Lu:od Reporting Service
, m,, y,,g,,,,,, y lafayette Building Suite Mo 962 1176 Smte 220 (ktroit, \\fichigan #226 Farmington Hill <. \\bchigan V
+
1 Q
Did you bring dccumsnts in response to that cubpoons?
2 A
I brought the original copies of my personal notoa.
3 MR. DERKOVITZ:
Let mo just state that the 4
NRC has not objected to the production of Mr. Harrison'a 5
personal notes, but that by not objecting to the 6
production'of these we are not waiving any possible 7
objections we may have to other personal notes of other 8
inspectors.
As I said, we are utill reviewing the 9
personal notes of Ron Cook for possible privilege, and'we 10 are doing that as quickly as possible.
Ao soon as the 11 agency makes a determination of those notes, we will 12 inform you.
13 BY MS. RICE:
1 14 Q
Have you brought all of your personal notes that are 1
15 responsive to the subpoena?
l 16 A
Yea, I havo.
17 Q
Mr. Harrison, what in your educational background?
18 A
My educational background.
I have a degroe'in Marino 1
1
}
19 Engineering from Newport News Shipbuilding Apprenticochip 20 Program that was a cooperative program with old Dominion.
l 21 Q
Did you receive a degree?
22 A
Yes.
I j
23 0
What was that?
'4 A
It's in marine engineering.
5 Lmd Reporting Service
,,o y,,9,,,,,,, _ _
~
Lafgette Building Suite MO 962.I176 si, 2;o Detrmt. \\fichigan 18226 Farmeneton llells, \\lichienn 18018
1 Q
Whet yaar did ycu recoive that degrco?
2 A
1968.
3 O
Did you do any post-graduate work?
4 A
I've done a lot of post-graduate work, but I've completed >
l 5
no post-graduate degrees.
6 Q
And where have you conducted this post-graduate work?
7 A
I took some courses at the University of Michigan.
I took:
8 some courses at University of Indi'ana, Southeast 9
Extension.
I have taken numerous cources since I've been 10 with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that provides 11 college credits.
I 12 0
Aro these courses offered by the NRC7 3
1 13 A
Yes.
14 0
What type of coarses did you take at the University of I
15 Michigan, generally?
j 16 A
I took a reactor technology course.
I don't recall the 17 exact name of it.
Fundamentals, something to do with 18 nuclear engineering.
I don't recall the exact title.
1 l
i 19 also took some coursos that were sponsored by the American 20 Society of Quality Control.
They were to do with j
i t
21 statistical sampling and quality control program 22 requirements.
I don't recall the name of the cource.
I 23 0
Is that generally what type of cources you took at the i
24 University of Michigan?
j I
i 6
Lu:od Reporting Service lxfayette Buildung
, g,,
,, y.
Suite MO 962 III6 Suite Lm Detrout, \\lichigan M226 Farmington Holl<. \\lichrean IHo*
- 1 A
Yes.
2 Q
What about the University of Indiana, generally?
3 A
I worked on some business courses and some management type 4
courses.
5 Q
And generally what type of cources have you taken from the 6
NRC7 7
A I've had a series of management courses, various types of 8
reactor technology couraeo, quality accurance couraea, 9
inspection courses, specific courses in the areas of civil 10 engineering, concrete, electrical, instrumentation and 11 control, welding, nondestructive testing.
There is a 12 program that we have to go through to take certain 13 courses, which you have to pass by exam to be qualified or 14 certified to be an NRC inapector.
And then periodically P
15 we tako refresher courses to maintain that qualification.
16 0
When you say we have to take, are you referring to NRC 17 inspectors?
18 A
NRC inspectors and managers.
l 19 Q
What did you do after you received your degree in marine 20 engineering in 19687 21 A
I worked at Newport News Shipbuilding.
In fact I worked 22 there the entire time I was going to school.
My 23 employment started there in 1963 and I worked there until j l
- 24 1973, approximately ten and a half years.
I l
7 Lu:od Reporting Service 3,mo y,,g,,,,,,, jf, 14g,,,, giggin, 962'III6 No!! 2 'u Suite Mn Iktroit, \\fichigan 13226 Formungt<wn llalls. \\fichaean IRnIX
1 0
What position did ycu hold whsn you left in 1973?
2 A
Uhen I left in 1973 I was a quality control analyst, 3
senior quality control analyst.
l 4
0 And generally, what were your duties as acnior quality 5
control analyst?
6 A
I was involved in various elements of writing, evaluating 7
and participating in various modes of quality asuuranco 8
and quality control activities in the naval ship building 9
p'rogram, which my specific area of involvement was in the l 10 reactor construction and testing.
11 0
What was your next position in 19737 12 A
I went to work for a company based out of Ann Arbor.
The l 9
13 name of the company was Townsend and Bottum Engineering j
Company,andIwasassignedtoafossilgeneratingstationl 14 4
15 that was under construction in Pennsylvania.
16 0
What position did you hold at Townsend and Bottum?
17 A
I worked as a quality engineer.
18' O
Generally, what vero your dution?
p 19 A
Well, the original intent when I was hired, they had 20 received a contract to build a plant called the Erio 21 Nuclear Plant.
It was going to be built in Ohio, and I l
22 was hired to help preparu a quality program for tho i
1 23 construction inspection and testing of that facility.
My 24' tenure at the plant in Ohio was roughly about four yearc 8
Lu:od Reporting Service Infnyeue Raildine 3,,
9,
(
Suise M n 962 1176 sua,. 22o ik trod \\luchigan 18226 Fauntnetun lluth, \\lichigan molk
1 or so, and than I was transferred up to Ann Arbor cnd 2
worked in Ann Arbor on that particular project until I 3
came. to work for the NRC in the fall of 1978.
4 Q
Did you say that you worked at the nucioar station in 5
Chio?
6 A
Noe no.
I worked at this fossil unit.
He were working on 7
the plans so that when we started the construction of this 8
facility we would have a written program, a written 9
approved program base to start construction.
It was 10 preparation for it.
This plant, in fact, never got built; 11 it was cancelled.
12 0
You're talking about which plant?
13 A
Erie Nuclear.
14 Q
But you were actually at a fossil generating station under 15 construction in Pennsylvania?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
You joined the NRC in the fall of 1978?
a 18 A
That's right.
i 19 Q
What was your position when you started?
]
20 A
When I started I worked in the mechanical engineering 21 section as an NRC inspector, and my duties consisted of I
22 looking at or inspecting mechanical piping systems for 23 plants under construction and plant operation; ovaluating 24 special process controls, such as welding installation
{
}
9 Lute 'eporting Service y,o y,,,
,,,, y lafayette Buildine S wte M O 962 1176 Suite:]o Detroit, \\lichigan -18226 Farmington Ilith, \\lichienn 4801R
-1 practicac; d2 sign, and quality conurence.
2 0
Was that Region 3?
3 A
That's right.
l 4
Q And you inspected plan'ts both under construction and in i
5 operation?
6 A.
Yes.
7 Q
Did you inspect all the plants within Region 3 or specific 8
assignments to certain plants?
9 A
I inspected at a majority of the plants in Region 3.
I 10 can't tell you I inspected all of them.
11 Q
How long were you in the mechanical engineering section at 12 Region 37 13 A
Por a little more than one year.
I 14 0
Until the end of 19797 15 A
In November of 1979 I was reausigned as the senior 16 resident inspector at the Marble 11111 Nuclear Generating 17 Station, which is located in southern Indiana.
18 Q
Were you the only resident inupector at Harble 11111 in 19 1979 when you started?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
Was there ever another resident inspector assigned to 22 Marble 11111 while you were there?
23 A
There was one assigned shortly before I left.
More or 24 loss he was my replacement, and we had a coveral month
)
i 1
10 Lu2 d ReporIing Sereice
,,go lafayette ikilding 962 Il?6 s,,ac ggo Suite MO l>etrat. \\fichigan m226 Farminetwo lidis. \\lichigan molk
4 1
overlap.
I 2
O How long were you senior resident incpector at Marble 3
Hill?
4 A
Roughly three and a half years.
5 0
Until 1903 sometimo?
6 A
Yes.
7 0
Now, going back to your previous position in the
(
8 mechanical engineering section, did you inspect Midland?
9 A
Mo, I did not inspect Midland.
10 Q
Did you ever have an opportunity to inspect Midland whilo 11 you were a senior resident inspector at Marble Hill?
12 A
No, I did not.
o 13 Q
What did you do after you were senior resident inspector 14 at Marble Hill?
15 A
I applied and was selected as the chief of the Midland j
16 section.
{
l 17 0
Within the Office of Special Cases at Region 3?
j
{
18 A
Within the Offico of Special Cases in Region 3.
That 19 assignment officially went in place in April of 1983.
20 However, my first involvement at Midland was in the early 21 part of February, 1983.
22 Q
Did you replace Wayne Shafer as Midland ucction chiof?
l 23 A
Yes, I did.
j 24 Q
How long did you hold your position as chief of the I
l 11 Lu:od Reporting Sereice
,,g \\.,,,,
1.afayene Busiding Suste MO 962 I1i6 sou, so (ktrat. \\fichigan 18226 Farminerm flulls, \\lichiean moth
1 Midisnd cact'icn?
2 A
. Officially from April of 1983 until August of 1984.
l 3
MR. BRUNNER:
Perhaps the record ought to 4
reflect that an individual just walked into the room, 5
Bruce Berson.
6 MR. BERSON:
Right.
I'm regional counsel 7
for Region 3.
8 BY HS. RICE:
9 Q
When you started in April of 1983 as Midland section 10 chief, who did you report to?
11 A
Bob Warnick, chief or the director of the Office of 12 Special Cases.
13 Q
Did you continue to report to Mr. Warnick until August of 14 19847 l
15 A
Full time, except for from a period of late March until I :
1 16 left Mr. Warnick's supervision in August.
I was accigned.
l 17 for a majority of that time to the Waterford Task Force, i
18 and really I was only in Mr. Warnick's employment P
19 part-time, if you will, during that time.
4 20 0
Was there a special assignment?
21 A
Yes.
l l
L 22 Q
Were you still rouponsible for Midland at that time?
i l
23 A
I was still responsible, that is correct.
l 1
1 24 Q
When you started in April of 1983 ac Midland section l
12 l300 NtPorting Service lafayette fluilding lBin Yorthumtern fira y.
Suite en10 96g,jj,g
$tnie r24
[k temt, \\lichigan 182:6 Farminer<wu flills, 11ichigan 13013
1 chiof, who was in the Midland section; who clso?
l i
2 A
In the Midland section, in the Region 3 offico staff, I 3
had Ron Gardner and Roso Landaman.
At the Midland sito I 4
had senior resident inspector Ron Cook, and I had rocident.
l 5
inspector Bruce Burgeou.
Now we also had support from, at!
6 the time it was called the Division of Engineering, where 7
inspectors would periodically come out and perform 4
l 8
inspections as necessary.
9 Q
During your tenure ao chief of the Midland section, did 10 these four individuals remain in the Hidland section; Ron 11 Gardner, Ross Landaman, Ron Cook and Bruce Burgeus?
12 A
They all remained in the Midland section with tho 13 exception of Ron Cook, who in, I believo, May of 1984 was I 14 transferred out.
15 0
To the Three Mile Island?
16 A
Three Mile Island.
Also I made ono little error.
In 17 Pobruary of 1984 we added an inspector by the name of Pat 18 Hiland to the Midland acetion an a resident inspector.
19 MR. BRUNNER:
Could you spell that?
20 THE WITNESS:
H-i-1-a-n-d.
21 BY MR. RICE:
22 Q
What was Bruce Burgess' position?
l 23 A
He was the resident inopoctor.
l l
24 Q
And Mr. Cook at that time was senior resident inopoctor?
13 Luzod Reporting Sertice
,o y, Isfayette Budding Suite MO 962 1176 sna, L:o Detrout, \\fichigan 18226 Farmmerm Ildh. \\lichican 18018
1 A
Yca.
Tha difforcnco boing r0elly Bruce Burgccc wzo really 2
operations type of resident.
Ron Cook was construction.
3 Mr. Hiland was construction.
4 0
IThat about Herb Livormore, was he ever in the !!idland i
5 coction?
6 A
Yeo.
Herb Livermore came on board full time -- hic 7
assignment, I believe, was in May to Juno of 1984.
He wa 8
assigned to the !!idland site as site supervisor.
9 0
What sort of duties and responsibilities does sito 10 supervisor have?
11 A
Site supervisor would supervise the daily activities of g
i 12 the inspectors at tho site, coordinate any incoming l
13 inapectora from the region, assuring that the activition f
14 were well coordinated and that they were performing tho l
15 duties that they were assigned.
j Additionally, during this period we had somel' 16 17 contract omployees working at Midland from Argon National 13 Laboratory and Brookhaven National Laboratory, performingi i
19 inspections as they were assigned also.
These people were 20 directly under Mr. Livermoore's superviuion.
Prior to Mr.
21 Livermoore these individuals wore under Mr. Cook's 22 cupervision.
(
23 0
I believe you testified that you replaced Wayno shafar.
J 24 Did Wayne Shafor remain with the NRC7 14 Im d Reporting Service lafayette fluilding
,, g9,,,
hire MO 962 1176 suae :2o (ktemt. \\fichigan 4822h Fntmington Ihlls. \\lichigan 18n18
~_-
t' 1
A Yes.
2 Q
Did he continue to have any responsibilities with regard 3
to Midlend?
~
4 A
Mr. Shafer's responsibility changed from chief of the 5
Midland section to a branch chief's position, where he was 6
responsible for multiple plants that were in the operating 7
phcses.
When my responsibility for Midland ended, Mr.
8 Shafer picked that recponsibility back up.
This was after 9
the plant had stopped construction.
10 0
Ile picked up what responcibility?
11 A
Well, whatever action la left.
There are como --
12 periodically we monitor storage and make oito visits to 13 accure that things are being properly maintained.
Any 14 correspondence that in left that has to be clocod out, Mr.!
15 Shafor in his branch picked this responsibility back up.
16 0
This is after shutdown, that you're referring to?
'A Yes.
This is a month or so after the shutdown.
18 0
Did you continue to have any responsibility for Midland l
i 19 after the shutdown?
23 A
Prom the time that construction was halted, I believo in 21 July, until August I had responsibility.
Post August I 22 had no responsibility.
23 Q
And in your curront position you havo no rosponsibility 24 for Midland?
i l
i 15 Lund Repcrting Service
,o IAfayette Buildine 962 1Ii6 sa,t,;;o Suite Mo
[h temt. \\fichigan M226 Farmington linth. \\tahrenn mum
1 1
A I hnv0 no responsibility unicas my onginnaring branch 2
receives a request to provide como type of ausistance to 3
Midland, and then we would provide engineers as nocoscary.i 4
0 Who do you report to currently?
5 A
I currently report to Mr. Spessard.
G Q
What is his position?
7 A
Division director, Division of Reactor Safety.
I 1
8 HS. RICE:
Would the reporter mark thia ao 9
NRC 137, ploase?
10 (Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 137, 11 Chronology of Events Since July, 1981 12 Iloarings, 1/24/84, was marked for 13 for identification.)
14 BY MS. RICE:
I 15 Q
Mr. flarrison, can you identify NRC 137?
16 A
This exhibit is a chronology of events that -- one of the 17 first things I did when I took over the Midland coction 18 and continuing something that Mr. Shafer did, wo developed i
19 a chronology of evento.
The first formal chronology of 20 events is one I put together, and then periodically we 21 updated it.
This particular chronology is Revision 4, 1
22 dated 1-24-84.
It was prepared by no or under my l
23 supervision.
I 24 Q
Are thoro subsequent revisions to Rovision 4, which ic NRC 1
l i
l 16 Lmd Reportine Service IAf2yette Ratiding
,,,9,,,,,,,,,,
i Suite MO 962 ll?6 Sinre 231 l
f)etrmt. \\fichigan 18226 Farmington Ihlis. \\lichoran I3013
9 1
1377 2
A There may be.
3 Q
Do you know whether there is a revision that was afte:
4 January 24, 19847 5
A There is -- I have a copy of a Revision 5, dated 7-26-84, 6
with me.
7 MS. RICE:
Mr. Berkovitz, at this time I 8
would like to request a copy of Revit; ion 5 of the 9
chronology.
10 MR. DERKOVITZ:
Okay.
11 BY MS. RICE:
12 Q
I note on NRC 137, the last entry lu on January 19, 1904; a
13 is that correct?
14 A
That is correct.
l l
15 Q
What is the last entry on your Revision 57 16 A
7-31-84.
17 0
Mr. Harrison, after you began as Midland section chief --
18 what was the official date, April of 19837 19 A
Yec.
l 20 Q
But you actually became involved in Midland earlier?
j t
i 21 A
I became involved in Midland, I think the date was 22 February the 2nd or 3rd of 1983.
l 23 Q
Did you, after you started as Midland section chiot, 24 attend a Caseload Forocast Panel mooting in the upring of I 1
17 Luzod Reporting Service lxfayette Bustding
, 9,g,,,,,, y.
Suite hm 962 1E*'6 Sastre 2,'u Detroit, \\fichigan #1226 Farmmerm Hith, \\lichie,in Imla
4 1
19837 4
r A
Yoo, I did.
.~
3 Q
I'll show you a document that has been marked as NRC 43 i
4 and ask you if you can identify this document?
5 A
I recall seeing this document when it was losued, yes.
Da 6
you want me to identify it?
7 0
Well, yes, if you could.
8 A
It's a summary of the April, 19, 20, 21, 1983 Porecast 9
Panel meeting that was conducted concerning the Midland 10 site in Midland, Michigan.
11 Q
And this document was inaued on June 1, 1983?
12 A
That is correct.
13 Q
And was written by Darl Hood?
14 A
Yes, ma'am.
15 0
Who besides you and Darl Hood was on the Caceload Forecact t
16 Panel from the NRC7 17 A
Prom the NRC was myself, Ron Gardnor and --
18 Q.
(Interposing)
Was Mr. Lovelace on the panel?
19 A
Yes, that is who I was trying to think of; Bill Lovelace.
20 0
Let me show you a documsnt that has been marked as HRC 44,I 21 and ask you if you can identify NRC 44?
22 A
I can identify NRC 44.
I I
23 Q
And what is NRC 44?
24 A
This lu a draf t of a letter prepared by Mr. Hood from the j i
l 1
la Lu:od Reparaisse Serviu lafayette Building
_, g y, y,y,,,,,,,,,,,,, y Suste hw 962 1176 Suure :20 lb.<rmt,11uchigan 18226 Farmineton linIls. \\lichieen mots
. _. _ _.. ~.. _ _,.. _ - - _ - -
.1 NRC for Mr. Msyck'c Gignaturo, to Mr. Cock discuccing ths 2
Caseload Panel's estimated conatruction completion dates.
3 0
And did you receive a copy of this draft?
4 A
Yes, I did.
5 Q
Do you know the approximate time or when you roceived the 6
copy of this draft?
7 A
I received a copy of this draft on the name day that I a
concurrod in this document, as annotated by Mr. Hood, 9
which was, according to this document, on the 25th of May, 10 1983.
11 Q
And what does concurred by phone mean?
12 A
What it means in this case is that Mr. Hood telef axod a 13 copy of this document to me.
I reviewed it and I 14 concurred in its content over the telephone to Mr. Hood.
i 15 0
Did you agree with the content of this draft?
i 16 A
Yes, I did.
17 Q
Is that normal procedure to concur in letters that go out 18 to the licensee?
l 19 A
Yes, it is.
If the involved parties are f rom the regional!
20 headquarters, and the subject matter impacts both, or 21 involves decision making on the part of all partico, then i 22 the concurrence can either be done over the telephone or 23 it can be done in writing.
l P
24 0
Who is E. Adenaam?
l 1
19 f
Lmd Reporting Service
,go
_y l
Lafayette Rustdsne 962 1176 uite ago hte MO Iktrat \\fichitan 1822b Farmanctm Hdh. \\fsdican 1801H
1 A
E. AdInocn ic Mr. Unod's branch chiof, Elincro Adancam.
2 0
And Mr. Novak?
3 A
Hr. Novak is the assistant director of licenring whom Miss 4
Adansam reports the to.
5 0
Let me direct your attention to the first page of the 6
draft and the second full paragraph where it states, "The 7
panel concludes that come months beyond the second quarter 8
of 1986 is the earliest date that completion of Unit 2 can 9
reasonably be expected.
Unit 1 is expected to be 10 completed about six to nine months thereafter."
11 On May 25th, did you agree with those two 12 statements?
13 HR. BRUNNER:
Before you answer, I'm going l
14 to object to the reading of the document unlocs it has I
i 15 been introduced into evidence.
Not to ourden your 16 examination, I'll just make a standing objection to i
17 questions that relate to.the document unless it's firct 10 introduced into evidence.
19 A
May I answer now?
1 20 BY HS. RICE:
1 21 Q
Yes.
On May 25th did you agree with thoco statements?
j l
22 A
I agreed on May 25th with thoce statements, yes.
This was, i
23 rhe panel's estimate or conclusion.
l i
24 0
What did some monrhu beyond the second quarter of 1986 20
'M " 5 " ?
Lafayette Buildine Mith %rthurstern llu y.
hite Mo 962-1176 '-
Swte :ht Iktrmt, \\lichigan 22:n
\\
Fwmmetan Ihlis, \\hchie u w in
1 mern; what dato?
2 A
I don't recall.
1 3
0 Let me refer you down to the next paragraph, middle of tho 4
paragraph whero it states, "However, the Panel also 5
believes that Consumers forecast doca not realistically 6
account for large uncertainties in the work which must 7
procede start of critical path testing, and that this can 8
be expected to add some months to Consumers schedulo.
The i
9 Panel believes that completion of reinspections of large 10 and small bore pipe hangers and the amount of rework 11 resulting from this effort la a notable example of icomo 12 expected to delay start of critical path testing by some l
13 months."
14 on May 25, 1983 did you agree with these 15 statements?
f 16 A
Yea, I did.
i 17 0
Did you believe that the reinspection program for the pipe!
18 hangers was going to cause a lot of rework?
19 A
Yes.
20 0
tihat was your basis for your belief?
21 A
Our basis was largely based on experience at other sitoc 22 involving pipo hangers, but largely my belief was based on!
23 the status and the knowledge the NRC staff had of the 21 condition and quality of the pipe hangora ar :lidland.
l 1
l 1
21 Lu:od lieporting Service lafayette Iktdine 962 1 iib NeuiJr>
Suste rao Detrat, \\fichigan 2226 Farmincron Ihll<, \\lichrean SN118
3 1
Q Pinally let m3 direct you to tha occand ptga whero it
[
2 states, "The Panel's estimate includes no provision for 3
. delay associated with future plant financing."
At or on 4
May 25th of 1983, did you believe that plant financing 5
would delay Midland?
6 MR. BRUNNER:
I object.
The question calla 7
for speculation.
3 A
The panei discussed the possibility of possible financing 9
problems in s;.0 future, but the basis for this statement I 10 do not recall.
Evidently, in my recollection at the timo, 11 I believed this to be a true statement or I would not have.
12 concurred in the lettar.
13 BY MS. RICE:
14 Q
Did members of the Caseload Forecast Panel express their l
15 concern that financing would delay the Midland plant?
16 A
We did discuss it, yes, t
17 Q
And what was discussed?
18 A
The details I really don't recall.
In gennral I'll only 19 say that we believed that, depending on what the i
20 rainspection program identified the amount of rework l
l 1
21 involved, and the duration of the soils project, and any j 22 possible affect it may have on overall achedule, in that ;
i 23 regard we thought it might have a financial impact.
24 0
Did anyone on the Caneload Forecast Panel ever expresa rho 4
22 i
Luzad Reporting Sertsce Lafayne lhardine Swtr AM 962 117b N ate 6 )
i (ktrmt, ' ihigan M22f>
farmineton linth, \\lichigan 18013
1 c:nsorn thct future financing esuld provent'tha complotion:
2 of the plant?
3 A
I don't recall that.
4 0
And the discussionu you discucced in your prior answer 5
about potential impact, is it my understanding after 6
reading this that those concerns were not factored into 7
the Caneload Forecast Panel's estimate in NRC 447 8
A That la correct.
9 Q
Mr. Ilarrison, is there an earlier draft of this lettor?
10 A
Not that I'm aware of.
11 Q
Is there an earlier draft lotter of the result of the 12 Caseload Forecast Panel meeting in April of 1982?
13 A
You mean a letter --
i i
14 Q
(Interpocing)
Notthisletterinparticular,butadraftl 15 lo'.ter stating the Panel's estimate based on the April, l
16 1983 meeting?
j i
17 A
I don't recall.
1 18 0
If I could refer you back to MRC 43, which is the June 1, 1
19 1983 memo from Darl Hood.
Onthethirdpage,orthepagef 20 with the Bates number u 11668 -- do you have that page --
21 the second full paragraph under Auxiliary Building; do you-22 ceo that?
23 A
Yos.
24 Q
Whore it caya, "CPCo's schedula accumes NRC will approve i
23 Lu:od Reporting Service
,o f.afayette (kidine 962 11I6
% r, r20 Suite Mo (k trmt. \\fwhigan Rt22h Farmenet.m iluth. \\lichienn 18n18
1 locding of fual imm dictoly cftor tho transfer of the EPA 2
load to the permanent wall (i.e., in advance of EPA and 3
FIVP soil consolidation beneath the wall; pior lockoff and i
4 grouting; replacing of backfill beneath EPA and PIVP; and 5
structural stiffoning at critical elevation 659 foot)."
6 Did you ever personally give approval for 7
loading the fuel immediately af ter transfer of the EPA 8
load.
9 A
No, I did not.
10 Q
Did the NRC ever give approval?
11 A
Not that I'm aware of.
I don't recall.
I did not givo j
12 it.
If the staff gave it, I'm not awa;e of it.
4 i
13 0
Did you over discuss with anyone from Consumers Power 14 loading fuel immediately af ter the trancfer of the EPA i
15 load?
16 A
We discuaced it in several meetings, yes.
17 0
And in those meetings what was your personal position?
i 18 A
My perconal youltion was that they would not oring fuel l
19 into the building until the undorpinning work was i
20 completed.
j 21 Q
And this includes tho items I just road in the parons whon 22 you say "underpinning completed"?
l 23 A
That would mean that, doponding on the activities as 24 identified here, that would be in addition to transforring i
24 Lar>d Reporting Sert ice lafarr:tr Buildine
,o Suite hw 962 1176 hite ::o Iktrat, \\lichigan 18226 Farmmeron Ihlb, \\fichrem nw -
1 tha lead cnto tho permanent wc11, ccmploting the 2
backfilling operation.
l 3
Q And did you express this opinion to Consumera Power?
I s
4 A
Yea, I did.
5 0
Do you recall about when you told Consumera Power your 6
position?
7 A
This position was discussed at many meetings in 1983 and 8
1904.
I can't give you the dates, because I don't recall 9
the dates, but it was over a period of time.
10 0
Let me show you a document previously marked an NRC 124, 11 and if the court reporter would mark a second document as 12 NRC 138.
?
i 13 (Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 138, 14 Memo from W. T. Crow to J. Harrison, 15 6/8/83, was marked for identification.)
i 1G BY MS. RICE:
17 Q
I'll give you a moment to look at both of thoce.
10 A
Okay.
}
19 Q
Did you ever receive a copy of NRC 124?
20 A
Yec.
21 Q
Which is a memo from Ron Cook to Mr. Shafer.
i 22 A
Yes, I did.
23 O
About when did you roccive the copy?
24 A
When I took the duty over from Mr. Shafer, cooetime t
i 25 I'n d Repcrting Sertice
,,\\.,,,
1.afa)ette Buildine 962 1176
. suite :ss Suite hw Iktroit, \\fichigan 49226 farmtneton lidh \\lichit,n MulR
1 betw;0n Peoruary, carly part of February cnd April I 2
received a copy of this document from Mr. Shafer.
3 0
In the cocond paragraph of NRC 124, the memo by Mr. Cook, 4
Mr. Cook statos, "Historically Consumers Power Company has S
demonstrated to date, an unacceptable regulatory G
performance during the entire remedial soils related 7
activitios.
This type of regulatory performance, and 8
similar performance in other areas, strengthen the 9
ogjoctives to Consumers Power Company being allowed to 10 receive fuel on site."
i I
11 Did you agree with Mr. Cook?
l 12 MR. BRUNNER:
I'm going to object to tho l
l 13 reading of the document.
l 14 A
Did I agree with Mr. Cook's statement?
l 1
15 3Y MS. RICE:
i i
1 16 0
Yos.
j 17 A
Initially I didn't have any basis for agracing with Mr.
la Cook's statement, but after being involved for a period of f
19 tima and understanding the purpose of Mr. Cook's 20 memorandum, I did agree with Mr. Cook, you.
1 21 Q
And both of those memorandums refer to a 10 CPR Part 70 J
5 22 licenso.
What is that7 1
23 A
A Part 70 license is a license that allows a licenseo to 24 inspect, possoas, ctore or transport special nuclear i
i 26 IAf0ffilt hl dint Ull0 NfthMfMerN llHY 9 6 2 1 I ;' o
%ta. 250 Suit! MO Iktrar. \\fichigan #226 Fa.minetm flills. \\fwhigan win
1-matoricle.
In this ccso it was in tho fora of ncw l
2 unirradiated fuel asacablies for the Midland plant.
3 Q
That does not involve loading fuel?
4 A
No.
5 0
This is merely storage, or somothing to that effect 6
on-site?
7 A
This would have allowed Consumers Power to bring the fuel 8
on-site; to receive it, inspect it, storo and maintain it 9
until it was ready for fuel load.
10 0
Let me refer you to the document that has just been marked 11 as NRC 138, which is memorandum from W. T. Crow to you, I 12 believes is that correct?
13 A
That is correct.
14 Q
And the second paragraph of that document statos, "We 15 would appreciate knowing the forecast date when Region IIIi 16 would have no objection to issuance of the Part 70 17 licenses."
Do you see that?
18 A
Yes, I do.
l 19 Q
Did you ever communicate to Mr. Crow, or Ms. Crow, when 20 RegionIIIwouldhavenoobjectiontothePart70 license?j 21 A
I had savocal phone calls with Mr. Crow and with an l
22 engineer that worked for 1Ir. Crow.
I don't recall the 23 name.
We did not ever project a date when we felt thac 24 Consumers Power would be ready to receive that licence.
j l
I l
e 27 Luzod Reporting Sertice
,, y,,
gg,pg., g;;s,,
Swee Mo 962 1176
%re m iktroit, \\fichigan At?26 Farmineran lidh. \\fwhtenn tholR
1 Q
Did you belicyo,.did ysu percanc11y balieve, that l
2 Consumero Power should receivo a Part 70 licence beforo 3
completion of the remedial soils work?-
4 MR. BRUNNER:
I'll object.
I don't think a, 5
foundation has been laid for the question.
6 A
Would you please restate the question?
7 BY MS. RICE:
8 Q
All right.
Did you personally believe that Consumers 9
Power should receive a Part 70 license before completion 10 of its remedial soils work?
11 A
No.
i l
12 Q
And why in that?
13 A
There were two problems.
One, the staff, or I personally; l
14 felt that the fuel should not be stored in a building that 1
1 15 is having its foundation reworked.
The second reason is 15 they wanted, the Consumers Power Company wanted to recoivo 17 the fuel and temporarily store it in a warehouco, and we 18 hadproblemswithenvironmentalcontrolsforthefuel,asl 1
19 well as security.
We thought the fuel should go into its; 20 normal storage area, and we did not want it to go in the !
l 21 building until the soils work was completed.
22 Q
And is the normal storage area the Auxiliary Duilding?
l 9
23 A
The normal storage area would be the fuel handling'
)
24 l
building, I bellove it's called at Midland.
I'anotsurol l
1 28 Luod Reporting service lafayette lhildiseg
,g Suste MO 962 11?6 Saaste. ;Qo Iktrat. \\fichigan 482.'%
Farmenetore lidh, \\fichigan wlR
1 of tho cxcet tsra.
2 Q
Did you ever expreso thic opinion to Consumera Power?
3 A
This opinion, or thio NRC position was discucsod with 4
Consumers Power on several occasions, yes.
5 Q
Do,you know the approximate time framo of those 6
discuacions?
7 A
I would say between mid-1983 and possibly into the fall --
8 excuse me, into the spring of 1984.
9 Q
Let me back up just a minute.
When I first started 10 questio,ing you about the Part 70 license, you said 11 initially you couldn't say whether you agreed or disagreed 12 with Mr. Cook but as you learned more you agreed with him.
13 What did you learn that made you agree with his objections, 14 to the Part 70 liconne?
15 A
Parts of the Auxiliary Building were under excavation, l
16 having the soil foundation removed; the building had l
17 certain repairo, the new foundation and so forth had to uc 18 put in place.
The objection was bringing fuel on sita and' l
19 putting or placing it, or storing it in a building that l
20 had structural modifications or repairs on-going.
l 21 The staff, or myself perconally -- I felt j
22 that the building, even though this was unieradicted fuel,I 23 was not the proper place to store the fuel, and I falt i
1 24 that the fuel would best be stored at the manufacturor's 29 Lu:od Reporting Sertice y w y,, w,,,,,,
lafayrtte Bwidine Suite ny) 962 1176 Smre :20
()etrat, \\lichigan #2.%
Farmenerm ilulls \\luchigan wila
1 fccility.
l 2
0 Until completion of the remedial soils work for the 3
Auxiliary Building?
i l
4 A
You.
5 HR. BRUNNER:
I object to the form of the 6
question.
7 A
That is correct.
8 BY MS. RICE:
9 Q
Mr. Harrison, were you on the SALP Board which rated 10 Consumers Power in its remedial soils work in other areas 11 through March of 19837 12 A
I was on the SALP Board concerning Midland from the timo ;
I 13 that I became chief of the Midland scetion.
14 Q
Let me show you a document marked as NRC 40.
Could you 15 identify NRC 407 16 A
NRC 40 is a copy of the NRC Region III SALP report.
17 Q
When you any Region III, are those innues identified just, 18 by Region III, or does it include peopic outsido of Rogion l
19 III as well?
1 20 A
All regions periodically -- genocally the time frame being one year to 18 months -- do a SALP evaluation, Systematic!
j 21 i
22 Assessment of Licencoe Performance, for eacn reactor cite,'
i 23 whether it be under construction or operation, in the j
1 24 ontire country.
This particular SALP report here is SALPi r
30 f.u : d Reporting Service
, g 9, Lafayet!r Buildin.e Suite tao 962.Ii7b Su,1, gjo (k trmt. \\fichigan s't:26 Farminete lisil<, \\fichigan molM
1 3, being tha third SALP that tha ecgian performed on 2
Hidland.
~
3 Q
And were you on the SALP Doord for SALP 37 4
A I participated as a member of the SALP Board, yes.
5 Q
Do you know who actually wrote NRC 40; who authored it?
i 6
A Wrious members of the staf f had input.
7 Q
Do you recall one primary author?
8 A
I was one of the authors, Roos Landsman was an author, Ron 9
Gardner.
Various people wrote the licensing section; Darl 10 Hood, Elinore Adensam.
But the various sections, as were !
11 inspected by various people in the office, they wrote the 12 various section inputs, and then the final product came l
13 out of the SALP Board as a synopsis opinion of the region 14 position.
15 Q
And did you concur in or approve of this particular SALP 16 report?
Ican'ttellyouthatIconcurredwiththicj 17 A
I concurred.
i' 18 writing, but before the product went out of this office I 3
l 19 did concur in it; that is correct.
20 Q
Mr. Harrison, if I could refer you to Pages 5 through 8, i
21 or the Dates Numbers 181 through 184 of the SALP report, j
t 22 that in the section on soila and foundations.
Do you ace !
I that part?
{
23 24 A
Yes.
31 Lu:od Reportine Service y,
lafayette Buildine Sulu rao 96:.]}i6
%g,.
- o Farmuneton Ihll>. %huean 58018 Iktrat, \\fichigan 482 6
4 1
Q Ceuld y u plosco rovicw that acction?
2 A
Okay.
3 Q~
If you could turn to Page 8 of the report.
At the very 4
top, the carry over paragraph, the very laut sentence 1
i 5
states, "All the preceding actions occurred at the 6
direction of the NRC and were not a result of the 7
licensee's initiative."
Which particular actions is that 8
referring to?
9 MR. BRUNNCR I'm going to object to reading' 10 the document.
I place a standing objection of reading a 11 document unless and until it's introduced into evidence.
12 BY HS. RICE:
13 0
One thing that might make it easier, do you recall what 14 actions the NRC required with regard to the remedial soils i
15 works what sort of enforcement action or corrective 16 action?
17 A
What this statement meann is that the -- as it pertains to i
18 neveral prior references, for example, as part of that i
l i
19 same paragraph, it discuases the work authorization
{
20 procedure and the work excavation permit system.
Both ofi I
21 these actions, as the sentence states, these were l
r 22 initiatives not generated by Consumers Power Company, but!
i 23 they were, in fact, thingc that occurrod at the insistance i
t 24 of the llRC.
l 1
1 32 E "'" #
l lafayette Buildm Jtetti %rthumtern flu y Suite tuo 962-l1ib Sune &
Iktrat,11ochigan 48 M Farmmet.m l11llu \\lithican Iml3
1 Q
What le tha dif ferenco betwe:n tha wack tuthorizatien and 2
the work excavation?
3 A
The work authorization-process was comething, a procedure 4
that was put in place by the NRC to assure that the staff S
was aware of what activities that we considered to be 6
critical, that we wanted to be notified when that work 7
activity was ready to proceed, and we would grant 8
concurrence and allow Consumers Power Company to proceed.
9 The work excavation permit system was a 10 procedure that when they were going to, for examplo, i
11 Consumers Power was going to drill or excavate in a given 12 area, that they would perform certain activities to inaure i
13 that, forexample,thattheyhadlocatedallburiedpipeal l
14 or electrical duct banks, or whatever, to inuure that as l
l 15 they excavated they didn't perform any damage and that 16 they had all requirementa in place before they started the 17 excavation.
l 18 0
On Page 8, in the next paragraph where it saya, "B.,
19 Conclusions,"itstates,"ThelicenseeisratedCategory3!
i 20 in this area.
Although thia in the same rating as the i
l l
21 previous assessment period, the licensee's overall l
l 22 performance in this functional area has continued to l
i 23 decline.
NRC findingo during this asacasment period 24 indicata a continued lack of attention to detail by the 33 Luod Reporting Service
,o isfayette Buildine Suite tan 962 11?6 3:<ura 2.,M Detroit. \\fichigan 48226 Farmmstm flulls \\fwhiev W18
t 1
lic:neco end tha centinuing. inability cn tho part of tho i
2 licensee to implement properly the requirements of the 3
Midland QA program."
4 Did you agree with this statement?
5 A
Yes, I did.
6 Q
And what was your bacia?
7 A
Well, the basis, as previously stated in this report, was 8
a multitude of noncompliances, where the quality 9
requirements and NRC requirements were not followed.
The 10 statement, "lack of attention to detail," refers to the 11 utility, Consumers Power Company, not causing a system as 12 required and as committed to to be properly implemented.
13 Q
And you're' referring to the quality assurance cyctem or i
14 which system?
15 A
I'm referring to any part of the program that applied to 16 the soils and foundations area, part of that being the 4
17 quality assurance syntam.
l l
18 Q
And you'll note that continuing in that came paragraph, j
l 19 Mr. Harrison, it says, "A rating of less than minimally 20 acceptable (Not rated) was conuidored by the Board; 21 however, a Category 3 rating was assigned occause of tho i
1 22 stringent controls inutituted to govern work in this area,;
l i
i 23 1.e.,
the llork Authorization Proceduro, the Work a
24 Excavation Parmit System, the indopondent third party i
t I
i 34 Luod Reporting Senice f.afayette Bwiding
,o hire hw 962.ll 6 kore gh, Iktroit, \\lichigan M22t>
Farminet.m Ildis. \\lithican MolH
1 cycrvicw, cnd cantinued corutiny by the NRC ctaff.8 2
Do you agree with that statement?
3 A
You.
4 Q
Did the Board at one time fool that Consumers Power should 5
be rated below Category 37 6
A Yes.
The Board did considor something leas than minimally 7
acceptable.
8 Q
And isn't Category 3 the lowest rating?
9 A
That is correct.
10 0
So what is the effoct of a lower than Category 3 rating?
11 A
Even to be rated as a Category 3 says one is minimally 12 acceptablo.
The criteria lays out what that rating can 13 be.
Something locs than means that even minimally 14 acceptable criteria was violated.
15 Q
And why was a Category 3 rather than below Category 3 l
16 rating eventually issued?
17 A
The Category 3 rating was given by the Board because the 18 NRC had caused tho work authorization proceduro, the work 17 excavation permit procedure to be put in placo to control 20 the activities.
Consumers Power, at the NRC's insistence,:
21 had hired an independent third party overviewer, in this 22 caso Stone and Webster, to overview the soils activities i
23 as they went forward.
And as we stato in this SALP i
i 24 report, "to continuo acrutiny by the NRC stoff."
Uc had 35 Lu: d Reponing Seniee f.afayetto ikIJme y, y, z,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, y Swie hw 452 1176 kar av iktrout, \\lichigan 48:26 Farmincton flills \\ldican mola
1 ono engincor assigned full time to watch this eno I
2 activity.
3 0
Who was that?
4 A
Dr. Landaman.
S 0
Is this increased scrutiny as compared to other plants?
6 A
Yes.
7 0
Without these stringent controls would Concumers Power 8
have received a lower than Category 3 rating?
9 MR. BRUNNER:
I object.
The question calls 10 for speculation.
11 A
Without these controls, to the best of my recollection, b
12 the SALP Board considered a rating lower than a 3.
Or i
13 without these controls they would have gotten lower than a 14 3, I should say.
l 15 DY HS. RICE:
16 i0 And were those controla required by the NRC?
17 A
Yes.
10 Q
Now we previously discuuced the work authori=ation i
19 procedure and the work excavation permit system.
What was t
l 20 an independent third party overview by Stone and Webster?
r 21 A
The independent third party overview came about because of 3
l 22 the continuing problems in the soilo area.
Thestafffold i
j 23 that an additional assurance was needed to assure the 1
24 quality of the product and adequate control.
We, the l
l 1
l
\\
36 Luzod Reportine Service lafayrtte Rutiding 3,pn o yo,,s,na,,n llu y t
Suar MO qs3,;;7g Suor 220 Detroa, \\lichizan 4R:3 rn,mnaton llulls, \\lichiean molR L
1 etaff, NRC attff, had ecvarcl meatings and diccuccione 2
with Conaumero Power Company and were insistent that a 3
third party be put in place, independent third party be 4
l put in place to verify that the program was being properly 5
implemented.
6 Q
Why did the NRC insist on an independent third party?
7 A
The staff wanted the third party effort to be independent 8
so as they would have total independonce to insure the 9
quality of the products that they would have complete 10 freedom to perform their task.
This basically came out of 11 problems that had occurred previously at Diablo Canyon, 12 and we thought the third party would be the best route to 13 go.
14 Now the third party ef fort at the Diablo i
15 Canyon was not this type of a third par'ty effort, it was l
16 somewhat different, but that was really the bacia for tho 17 otaff making the deciolon to proceed in this direction.
l l
10 11 S. RICE:
Would the court reporter mark I
19 this as MED 977 20 (Deposition Exhibit No. MED 97, 21 August 12, 1983 Midland Daily News f
l 22 Clipping, was marked for 23 identification.)
24 BY MS. RICE:
1 1
37 Laod Reportine Service
,,\\.,,,,
,,,, y Lafayette Buddsne Suure MO 9b2 1176 har.OI Detmt. thchiesn SCs Farmnnerins Hdh, \\fschiew mois
1 Q
Th3 ocurt ropartor hrs just hand:d y:u o document marked 2
HED 97, which is an August 12,1983 !!idland Daily Newa 3
clipping entitled "Consumera came close to flunking s511s 4
course."
I just wanted to direct your attention to a 5
paragraph in the first column that starts out -- well, 6
actually two paragraphs, so we can get it in context --
7 where it says, "We're still not happy"?
8 A
Yes.
9 0
It states:
We're still not happy with the way the work 10 is going in the soils area, and it's going at a snail's 11 pace because of that,' Keppler said after issuing the new 12 SALP rating for the Midland plant.
He said it will be 13 questionable 'whether this plant will ever be completod' 14 if the stringent controls fail to make the soila work l
i 15 catisfactory."
16 Did you agree in August of 1983 that it 4
17 would be questionable whether the plant would ever be 18 completed if the stringent controls failed to make the 19 soils work satisfactory?
20 A
Are you asking me did I agree with Mr. Keppler's 21 statement, or am I agreeing with the statement itself?
i l
22 0
With the statement itself as of August of 1983?
i 23 A
Personally in August of 1983 I did have doubtc, and thio I
24 Utatement Wa3 Correct at that time, yCD.
i a
1 30 Lu:od Reportine Service f.afayette Baddme
%te hw 962 1176 kre.f >
[Mrmt. \\lwhigan M226 Farmmetm Hdis. \\tahienn w ls
1 9Q Doubts ab ut ccmplotien cf tha plant; drubtc cb:ut whct?
2 A
I had doubts about the quality of the soils work and its 3
major impact on the complotton of the plant, placing that 4
activity in question, which could impact ovorall coat, 5
schedule, et cetera.
6 MR. BRUNNER:
So the record is clear, I have l
7 a standing objection to questions relating to eventa afterg 8
the lawsuit in this proceeding was filed.
9 MR. BERKOVITZ:
Sounds like a pretty good 10 objection to me.
11 MS. RICE:
I think thin is a good time to 12 take a break.
13 (A brief recess wac held during 14 the proceedings.)
15 HS. RICE:
Back on the record.
During the 16 break Mr. Harrison provided councol for Consumers and 17 mycoif Revision 5 of the chronology.
10 BY MS. RICE:
1 19 Q
Mr. Harrison, before the break wo were talking about some ;
20 controls that the NRC had requirod for the remedial colla 21 work.
Now thoco controls woro limited to the remedial 22 soils work; is that correct?
i 23 A
The controls that we vero discuacing were limited to the 24 remedial soils worx, 709.
Q l
39 Luzod Reporting Service 3,n> s,,s,,,a,,n lyu,
Esfa)ette Buulding 5"d' ^N yy,;; s guaa. yo Ikut. \\lichigan LC6 farmneran listin, \\lichigan #13
1 Q
And did tha NRC requiro cthOr c!ntrola fCr tho balan:] cf 2
the plant, a program called the construction completion 3
plan?
4 A
That is corrects construction completion program.
I 5
Q Let me show you a document that has been previoualy marked 6
as NRC 131, and after your review I ask if you can 7
identify this document.
8 A
I'm familiar with thic document.
9 0
And is this a letter from Mr. Keppler to Mr. Jim Cook of 10 Concumera Power Company concerning the construction 11 completion program?
i 12 A
Yes, it is.
I I
13 Q
And this lottor is dated Natch 28, 1983?
14 A
That la correct.
15 Q
In the first paragraph of thia letter it reforc to a j
i 16 public meeting held in Midland on February 8, 19637
)
)
17 A
Yes.
j i
l 18 Q
Did you attend that meeting?
I 19 A
Yes, I did.
l 20 MS. RICE:
h'ould you mark this as NRC 139?
j 21 (Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 139, 22 Personal notes of J.
Unrrison of the n
l 23 Pobruary 8, 1903 aceting, was marked j
i 24 for identification.)
i i
I l
40 l'u: d Reporting Sertice lafayette Liline Saite hy) 962 1I~6 suit, zm fletrat, \\fichigan ML%
Farmenet<m listis \\fwhoenn wIs i
L
b 1
BY MS. RICC:
2 Q
Is NRC 139 your personal notus of thu February 8, 1983 3
Ecoting?
4 A
You, they are.
I i
5 Q
And were these notes provided to Dow and Consumern Power 6
pursuant to the subpoena for this deposition?
7 A
That is correct.
8 Q
Mr. Harrison, could you generally and briefly describe the i
9 construction completion program?
10 A
The ccnstruction completion program was a program that 11 would affect some program changes as necessary to 12 reinopect the plant; all of the activities excupt the 13 soils work and the HVAC work, I believe.
This included
[
14 reinspection, identifying problems, correcting those 15 problems, and completing any remaining construction 16 activities at the plant.
The program also encompassed 17 some prerequisites for beginning the implementation of the 18 construction completion program, cuch ao retraining, c
19 qualification of inspectors, approval of the written l
20 program, and so forth.
21
'O And was the construction completion program an action 22 required by the NRC7 l
1 23 A
Yes, it was.
24 Q
And why did the NRC require the CCP?
i 41 Luzod Reporting Sertice 3,e y, y,,,s aa,,,, 11u y (Ajayeur Building Suar @
9gg,yy7g sua, 20 Ikrat, \\fschigen kO Farmsautam listis \\lschigan #1R
1 A
Tho CCP wc3 primarily requircd duo to tho.fcct thot 2
problems that existod historically at Midland for a long i
3 period of time and had largely gone uncorrected, or the 4
corrective action that was put in place by Consumers did 5
not caem to sustain an adequate level of perfornance.
6 In the fall of 1982 the NRC staff conducted 7
what has been referred to as an inspection of the Diesel 8
Generator Building and found a magnitude and multitude of 9
problems, which gave the NRC the information or the 10 substantiation of its beliefs that the plant had a lot of 11 problema.
The staff then proposed that a program be 12 devised by consumers Power Company to look at these 13 problems, identify and correct those problems.
14 Q
And that program was the CCP7 I
15 A
That is correct.
16 Q
Noe at the Pobruary 8, 1983 meeting, had Consumers Power l 17 oubmitted a proposed CCP at that time 7 I
la A
I believe, yes, they had suomitted a propoued CCP.
I j
19 believe it was dated January the 10th, 1983.
l
\\
20 0
In the document previously marked as CPC 15 that submittal I
i 21 or that proposed CCP7 l
l 22 A
Yos, it is.
f I
I 23 Q
Now referring back to NRC 139, which are handwritten notes I
l 24 of the Pobruary 8th meeting, on the fifth page of thoce l
l l
42 lafyrtte Iktding
'91M10 %rthur. stern lin e kite al 962 11I6 Suor2bo Iktrat, \\lekiaan 1822n Farnunetun llolls. \\tahican im IR 1
1 notoa, Ct tho vary bottom cf tha pcgo, thoro 10 cn l
2 asterick on the one side and it says, "!!ictory"; do you 3
see that?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
"!!istory, QC offectivoness dictates 100 percent 6
reinspection.
!! anger / cable 100 percent," and then at the 7
bottom it says, "B. Warnick
'100 percent inspection -
8 cannot allow a defect.'"
9 In that what it states?
10 A
That la what it states.
11 0
Did Consumers Power at this time propone 100 percent 12 reinspection of oafety-related work?
13 A
I do not recall.
4 14 0
Was it the NRC's position as of Fobruary 8, 1983 that 100 i t
15 percent reinspection should be conducted?
16 A
Yes, it was.
?
17 0
And why did the llRC believe that 100 percent reincpection !
i 10 should be conductod?
i l
19 A
Well, simply because of the history of problems at the
]
20 plant as depicted by the NRC, culminated by the Dional l
21 Generator Building inspection and the array of problems, i
22 the depth of what we thought the problons were, we felt i
i 23 the plant had to have 100 porcent reinspection in order toj 24 verify the quality of the plant.
4 k
43 Lu:od Reporting Sernce
, 9a_,_
149,,,, ujj,,
kar Mo 962117b
%,rc L~ >
Dermt. %hieu M226 Farmmer e HJh, w h;ce two
1 Let mo -- you c0kod ab:ut did they prepoco d 2
sample.
I recall that a comple was the initial proposal 3
oy Consumern.7ower, yes, it was.
4 Q
And the NRC did not agree with this sample approach; ic 5
that correct?
6 NR. DRUNNER:
I object to the form of the i
7 question.
I don't know if there is a foundation to 8
establish that this witness can speak on behalf of the i
9
'NRC" as opposed to himself.
10 DY MS. RICE:
11 Q
Was it the NRC position, though, that they would accept a 12 sample reinspection as of February 8, 19837 4
13 MR. BRUNNER:
I object to the form of the 14 question.
l 15 A
The NRC did not or would not accept a campling inspection.'
16 DY MS. RICE:
17 0
Is NRC 131, which is the first docament I gave you after 18 the break, theMarch28thletter,ifyouwouldreferbackl 19 to that.
If you look at the firct page, Paragraph A1, 20 does that state the NRC position that 100 percent 21 reinspection of acceccible safety-related structure chould f
4 22 be conducted?
4 23 A
Yes, it doen.
24 Q
Did Conoamoro Power agroo to 100 percent roinspection I
l I
l l
44 Lu:od Reponin Sunin infvenelutama
, k,, n,,,,,.
$stte hM 9N?'$$?b
$4 tar LM iktmt. \\fickne u F C n F<umuneta llalb, \\lvkneu woIR
1 cftOr tha NRC CtCttd its p0citiCn?
2 A
Their initial rosponso was to perform a uanpling typo 3
inspection in accordance with the cocognized national 4
standard or military standard.
5 0
And did the NRC continue to insist on 100 percent 6
reinspection?
7 A
Yes, we did.
8 Q
And did Consumers Power finally agree to that 100 percent 9
reinspection?
10 A
They did finally agree, yes.
11 Q
And when was that, do you remember?
12 A
I believe June, 1983.
13 MS. RICC:
Ifould the court raporter mark l
14 this as CPC 1961.
15 (Deposition Exhibit No. CPC 1961, 16 Construction Completion Program, j
17 6/10/83, was marked for I
la identification.)
i l
19 DY HS. RICE:
i 20 Q
In CPC 1961 the Consumers Power suomittal in which they 21 agreed to a 100 percent reinspection?
i
{
l 22 A
You, it in, j
23 Q
And is that indicated in the very last paragraph of CPC 4
I 24 1961, first pago?
4 l
)
45 Lusod Reportine Serrser
- m p> utn u rm, II,,
lafnette lkidsne Suite MO qgy,jy7s sw w
{
IMmt, \\fwk.dn MC.%
Farmungtm Halls \\fwhican MolM
1 A
Yes, it 10.
2 Q
Mr. liarrison, did the construction completion program, ao 3
required by the NRC, contemplate other activities besides 4
100 percent reinspection?
l l
5 A
I don't understand your question.
6 0
all right.
Did itLinclude -- well, let me show you.
I'lll 7
have the court reporter mark these as NRC 140 and NRC 141.,
8 (Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 140, 9
Meeting with Intervenors and GAP, 10 by J. Harricon, 8/11/83, was marked 11 for identification.)
12 (Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 141, 13 Public Heeting, Midland Nuclear Power 14 Plant, by J.
Harrison, 8/11/83, was 15 marked for identification.)
16 BY MS. RICE:
17 Q
Could you review thcae documento and tell me whether you 18 can identify them?
)
l 19 A
These documents, Bxhibit 140 and 141, are two documents 20 that I prepared, that were used at a meeting with the 21 intervenors and GAP, and with the public at a public 22 meeting, that were both conducted on August 11, 1983.
23 Q
Let me direct your attention to NRC 140, which was the I
24 meeting with intervonorn and GAP, and direct your 46 P
IAfGftll! Oui lN53R 3l0 00 Y !bRf%iffR llU y.
Su'ite MO 962 1]?6 Sange :o Iktroit. \\fichiean 18226 Farminelon flill<, \\lichienn 18018
1 attention to the pago called, "CCP Proroquisitos," 4313.
2 Now you'll note that we've just been discussing 100 3
percent reinspection and that in listed as Item Number 1 4
on this page; in that correct?
5 I.
Yes, it is.
6 0
Now it also listed eight other items under the CCPr is 7
that correct?
8 A
That is correct.
9 0
Now what is Item Number 2, establishment of NRC hold 10 points?
11 A
The NRC, in order to have the control that we thought 12 necessary, elected or decided to have hold pointo injectedl i
13 into the CCP procosa, that certain phases of the program 14 would require our approval prior to Consumera Power 15 proceeding with various elements of the program.
I 16 0
And that was, again, an activity regulred by the NRC7 17 A
That is correct'.
18 Q
And Item Number 3, QA/QC reorganization, what io meant by 19 that item?
20 A
Starting sometime in 1982, but specifically, I believe, ini 21 August and September of 1982, the NRC staff found some 22 major problems with the training and qualification of 23 Dochtel QC inopoctors at Midland.
Wu didn't fool that 24 they were doing their job properly.
He didn't foci that 47 Reporting Sette :
Lafayette Buildene
\\.,,
,,, y Suite hw 962 1176
&,re ggu Detroit \\fichigan M226 Farnunston Hills. \\fichiran 18018
1 thsy ware adequately trained and qualified.
The staff i
2 also believed that the Bechtel organization was not being 3
ao responsive as it should have boon and was required by j 4
their own program, no we required that the Bechtel QC 5
organization come under the wing or the control of 6
Consumera Power MPQAD, the Midland Quality Assurance 7
Department.
8 One of the prorequisites in approving this 9
CCP was to insure that this reorganization had taken 10 place.
11 Q
And that was again required -- an action required by the 12 NRC7 13 0
Yes, it was.
1 l
14 A
And It6m Number 4 states, "Training and recertification od l
15 QC inspectors." Does that relate to the same prob 1cm with 16 Dochtel QC inspectors?
17 A
Yes.
la Q
What is mvant by Itom Number 5, general training of field b
I 19 engineers / craft?
As a result of problems in the soils area, and ao a resul5 20 A
I il of problems that we had observed in the buildings, 22 primarily the Diosel Generator Building, the staff i
23 concluded that field engineoro and crattamen had not j
j 24 received the training that they needed to understand the 48
'f" f.afayette Building 3tBIO %rthuestern lluy.
Suite hw 962 1176 surre z,n>
(ktrmt, \\fichigan #226 Farmi eton Ildis, \\lichigan mailH.
1 quality prcessa that would enable the construction of fort,
2 to develop a quality product.
So we required that some 3
training -- general training is how we termed it here --
4 of tT.e field engineers and the craftcmen at Midland take 5
place to assure that they understood the requirements; why l
6 QC was there, basically what 10 the quality program all i
7 cbout, how it affects nuclear power, construction, and 8
that they would anderstand hopefully botter how they were 9
supposed to perform their job task responsibilities and so 10 forth.
11
>Q And when you refor to "the staff" and "we requirod" or "we 12 concluded", are you referring to the NRC7 13 A
NRC.
14 Q
Item Number 6, revise PQCI's, what is a PQCI?
i 15 A
A POCI is a projece quality control instruction, and these i
16 particular PQCI's wore documents prepared by tha quality j
17 organization that would tell an inspector or instruct an 18 inspector how he was to perform a certain task.
It would 19 establish the proceduros, the spccifications, how he was 20 to go out, for example, and inspect a pipe hanger.
21 0
Written procedures for inspection; is that correct?
22 lA Yes.
I Q
And why did the NRC fool it was necessary to reviso rho
}
l 23 24 PQCI's?
49 Lu:od Reporting Service
,, g,,
,, y,
Isfayette Buildine Suite hw 962 11?6 suure in F<rmington Hulls. \\lichigan IRolR lHrmt.}!ithitany226,
1 MR. DRUNNER:
I object to th3 comp 2toncy of' 2
the tes timony.
It hasn't been established this witneos 3
can speak to that on behalf of the NRC.
4 BY MS. RICS:
5 0
Did you personally believe that the PQCI's should be 6
revised?
7 A
Yes.
8 0
Why did you believe that?
9 A
I found -- my staff found numerous errors, 10 inconsistencies, conflicts, and that the PQCI's generally 11 were inadequate to afford proper control and proper 12 inspection in a timely manner.
13 Q
Did the inadequacy of the PQCI's result in inadequate 14 inspections?
l 15 A
In some cases they may have been a cause of inadequate 16 inspection.
i 17 Q
Referring on to Item 7 it says, "CCP Team Training".
What.
18 do you mean by that?
19 A
CCP team training was a prerequisite that was required, 20 that all personnel working in the CCP would be trained, 21 know their responsibilities and duties, so that when the 22 reinspection phase and the final construction phase took i 23 place, that the requirements -- everyone would understand i
24 the flow, the program elements and could incure that the 1 b
I S0 Lu:od Reporting Service Infayette ILildine 3tmo %,thue, tern tha.
Suite MO 95g,;;7$
Suute 220 ik troit, \\fichigan M226 Farrnunetem Hull <, \\lichigan molH
1 program worked properlyo l
2 Q
Did Consumera propoco a team approach to the CCP?
j i
3 A
Yos.
U 4
0 What is meant by a team approach?
5 A
In the caso of the team approach at Midland, there were 6
various teams from the engineering, construction side of 7
the house that would perform what was called status 8
assessment.
They would go out and walk the system down to 9
determine what activities were incomplete, what activities 10 remained to be constructed.
Then the quality team, as an 11 independent entity, would go out and perform 12 reinspections.
13 The teams were assigned in aroca.
For 14 example, a particular elevation of the Auxiliary Building i I
15 would fall undar the control of a given team, no that the I 16 quality team and the status assessment team could work 17 together and provide continuity to the final product.
18 0
Let me see if I understand.
The quality team performed 19 the reinspections we were discucaing earlier; is that 20 correct?
l 21 A
Yes.
4 22 0
And tho status asseaament team was going out to check what:
l 23 was dono and what was not done on a particular, say, 24 olevation; in that correct?
l l
I 51 f
I'uz d Reporting Service
_,,a,,,
Infayette Hudding 962 1176 suit, so Suite Mo Detroit, \\fichigan 18226 Farmineton lluth. \\fichinn 18018
~
1 1
A You.
They cico could determino, for examplo, a component 2
was installed but not inspected, and then they would, 3
through a document mechaniam, would notify quality that 4
this had not boon inspected.
Then quality could go and l
5 perform that particular inspectior..
6 Q
In Item Number 8, which is CCP approval, in that just NRC 7
approval of the Consumera Power. proposed CCP?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
And the last item, third party approval, what did you meaa 40 by that?
l 11 A
Third party approval was the NRC review and approval of 12 the third party program plan and the third party staff, 13 the independant competoney of that third party as a 14 company or of the staff participants.
15
,O When you say third party program plan, what do you moan?
1 16 A
The NRC, in requiring a third party, asked Consucora Power 17 Company to propose a third party company or companies, 13 together with a plar, i'or how that third party would be i
19 developed; how their plan, how they would implomont their 20 daily activities, what their responsibilities would bo.
t 21 It was a plan for how the third party was going to i
l l
l 22 operato, maintain its independence, any activity that thae 23 third party was going to do.
j 1
l l
24 0
And the plan you're referring to now in the plan by which 52 md Repor ing Service Infaprtte Building
,,,,o 9,, u,,,,,,,,,,_
Sour MO 962 II?6 Seite 22n Detroit. \\fichigan 18226 Farntineron Ihlis. \\lichienn 1801H
1 e third party would oversao the implementation of the i
2 construction completion program?
3 A
Yoc.
4 0
Was a third party ever selected?
5 A
Yoo, it was.
6 0
And did the NRC approve that third party?
7 A
Yoa, we did.
0 0
Who was the third party?
9 A
The third party was Stone and Webstor.
10 Q
Is that the same organization that was overaccing for the 11 remedial soils work?
12 A
It's tho same corporate organization, but at the site the 13 aoils third party Stono and Webster had a different l
14 reporting chain than the CCP third party Stone and j
15 Webster.
Same corporation, but two different reporting 1
16 chains.
17 0
tiow the CCP we have boon talking about has nothing to do 18 with the remedial soils work; is that right?
19 A
That la correct.
20 0
Let me refer you to the very last page of NRC 140, and the:
21 page is entitled, "Other Third Party," and it talks about 22 an IDCVP.
What is that?
l 1
23 A
The IDCVP was an independent design and construction 24 verification program.
53 lazod Reporting Sert ice
,,o y,,,
lafayette Building Suute hw 962 1176 sa, zm 1
IMroit, \\fichigan 18226 Farmeneron Ilills. \\fichiean 18018
-1 lQ Wan this program pcrt of the CCP?
2 A
No.
It was an independent offort by an additional MRC 3
approved third party.
4 0
Who was this third party?
5 A
This third party was a company by the name of the Tora 6
Corporation.
7 Q
And what function did the Tara Corporation perform?
8 A
The Tera function at Midland was, in the last several 9
years the NRC had required or had requested, had requestei 10 en independent design evaluation and construction 11 evaluation at some sites to establish the adequacy of the 12 design, and in the case of Midland, of the construction of' 13 selected systems to determine their adequacy.
The process 14 basically involved an independent and competent 15 organization, with independent and competenc individuals, 16 to take a vertical slice; which means that you look at alli l
17 segments of three designated systems.
In the case of 10 Midland, looking at the civil / structural, mechanical,
)
1 19 electrical implementation and control areas.
Thatis,you!
I 20 look at segments from each of those areas as related to j
21 nne system.
l i
22 0
What three segments were examined at !!idland?
23 A
The three systems were the Auxiliary feed water ayotem, l
24 the diesel generator standby electric power, and the l
.I 54 Lu:od Reporting Service (AfGyfilf OU5$ ding 3,gg Suite Mo 962 11?6 suite 22a Iktrmt, \\fichigan 18226 Farmineton flills. \\fichican 1801H
1 control room heating, ventilating, end air-conditioning 2
system.
3 0
What was the ultimate goal of this program?
4 A
The ultimate goal was for the Tera Corporation to assess 5
the designs which had been performed by Bechtel j
6 corporation.
That would include calculation bacos, 7
procedurca, drawings, specifications, any document, or ann 8
controls, or any requirements that were used to design 9
these three systems at Midland.
Then to go to the field 10 and look at the au-constructed condition versus that 11 design to assure the adequacy of the construction, to 12 determine if the construction did, in-fact, meet that 1
13 design.
)
4 14 0
And could the Tora Corporation incue NCR's or some other 15 report if it didn't comply with the design?
16 A
They lucued -- I don't recall the exact title, but it was i
17 a finding type of report, and there were various atages of 18 that.
There were preliminary findings, then after it wanti through a reiteration of confirming the finding, it became!
19 20 an actual finding.
But I'm not exactly sure what the 1
21 title was.
22 0
And was Consumero Power required to take action on thenc 23 findings?
3 4
24 A
Concumora Power, as with any third party when a design i
l l
1 55 Lu: d Reporting Service
,, g,, 9,,
,,, y 1.afayene Buildune 962 1176 smie 2.w S ute M o Detroit. \\lichigan m226 Farmineron Ihlis, \\lichiean 13nlH
1 probica surfccsd, hcd to doel with the proper resolution 2
of that problem.
3 0
Is the IDCVP which we have been discussing the same thing 4
as what has been called the QVP?
I 5
A No.
6 0
What is the QVP?
7 A
That was a quality verification program which was part of 8
the CCP.
9 Q
And what did the quality verification program entail?
10 A
The quality verification program was the. program to verify 11 the quality of construction, which was part of the l
12 construction completion program.
In the back of the CCP p 13 0
(Interposing)
You are referring to which oxhibit now?
14 A
In your exhibit.
Excuse me, Exhibit CPC 1961, the quality, 1
15 verification program is attached and is part of that l
16 document as Appendix 1.
17 Q
In this the 100 percent reinspection program we've boon a
18 discussing or is it something different?
j 19 A
This program proposed a sampling plan in its initial form, 20 and in fact one of the elements in this program, as it van modifiedlateron,didalloworcouldallowforasamplingl 21 22 plan to be brought into play or into use should the NRC i
23 achiove an adequato lovel of confidence as the CCP went l
24 forward.
56
"?
(afayette Building JtBIO %rthurstern lluy Suste MO 962.]I76 sucre 2 o lHrmt. \\fichigan #226 Farrnineton Ihlh, \\fichienn molR
1 The underatending betwson the NRC and 2.
Consumers Power was that, for example, if Unit 2 which was I
3 the lead unit, if the CCP went well, was proporly 4
implemented, that at some time in Unit 2 -- but the staff 5
was primarily looking at Unit 1 CCP -- we may have allowed 6
you a sampling plan.
That was the basis of this sampling 7
plan being in and part of Appendix 1.
8 Q
All right.
So the quality verification program is i
9 escentially the reinspection program / is that correct?
10 A
That is correct.
l 11 MS. RICE:
Would you mark thin as MED 98?
12 (Deposition Exhibit No. NED 98, 13 Clipping from the Midland Daily News, 14 8/12/83, was marked for identification.)
l 15 BY MS. RICE:
}
?
16 Q
Mr. Harrison, the court reporter has handed you a document; 17 marked MED 98, which in again a news clipping dated August 18 12, 1983, entitled "NRC almost ready to OK N-plant i
19 completion plan."
Let me direct your attention to the 20 last column on the first page where it staton in large 21 letters, "However, James G. Kopplor"; do you seu that?
22 A
Yes.
23 Q
"!!owever, James G. Koppler, the NRC's chief regional i
24 administrator, said the amount of acrutiny the Midland 1
l 57
.u: d Reporting Sertice 3,g 9, Infayette Hudding 962 1176 swre z,m Suite sw
_ Farmineron Ililly. \\fichican moin iktnit, \\fichigan M2:6
1 plant will gst during the CCP prococo wilil ba 'c1most i
2 precedent setting.'"
3 Do you know of any other plants for which a; 4
program auch as the Midland CCP was required by the NRC?
j 5
A Did you say a program?
6 0
Yes.
7 A
Yes.
8 0
And what plants were those?
9 A
A total reinspection program of this type was also 10 required at the Zimmer Plant.
11 Q.
Do you know of any other plants besideo Midland and 12 Zimmer?
13 A
A program of this magnitudo, no, I'm not aware of any.
14 Q
Now going down two paragraphs to where it it sayo, I
15 "Keppler said the NRC does not have complete confidence in 16 Consumers; that's why it insisted on the third party 17 review and on increased NRC inupections."
18 Do you agree that the reauon why the NRC 4
19 insisted on third party review and on increased NRC j
l 20 inspections was that the NRC did not have complete j
l 21 confidence in Consumers?
l 22 MR. BRUNNER:
I object to the question.
l 23 A
Yes, I agree.
24 MR. BRUNNER:
Nofoundationistheoasisofl l
l 1
58 Lmd Reporting Service
,g,,
,,g,,,,,,,,
lafayette Building Seite MO 962 1176 s,ue 22o Iktrout. \\fichigan m226 Farmsneton Ihth. \\fichaean moln
f' 1
my objection.
2 BY t1S. RICE:
3 Q
Why do you agree?
4 A
Considering the age of the project, construction had gone 5
on for many years, the lack of ability ao demonstrated by 6
the quality of the plant, the staff had lost confidence in 7
Consumers Powers' ability to construct the plant in a 8
quality manner, therefore the staff had increased its own 9
inspection attention, not only from our staff but from i
10 consultants that we had hired.
That is why we brought the!
l 11 third party in, that is why we wanted a third party, to 12 assure or provide additional assurance that the CCP was l
l 13 going to be properly implemented, that the reinspection 14 was going to provide the product that we had to have to i
}
15 licence the plant eventually.
l 16 Q
And when you say "third party" you're referring to Stone j
1 17 and Webster and Tera Corporation, or just Stone and j
18 Webster?
I
)
19 A
Stone and Webator.
20 MS. RICE:
Let me have the court reporter 21 mark this ao HED 99.
22 l
(Deposition Exhibit No. HED 99, j
l 23 Clipping from the Detroit Free Preca, j
l 24 8/14/03, was markod for l
1 i
59 Lu:od Reporting Service 3,mg 9,,
Ixfayette Buildine Suite MO 962.))?6 suit, ;;r, Iktroit, \\fichigan M22f>
Farmineron lidis. \\lichican 88tolH
1 I
1 identification.)
2 BY MS. RICE:
3 0
The court reportor has handed you a document labeled HED 1
4 99.
This is a newspaper clipping dated August 14, 1983, 5
entitled, "A-plant has last chance."
6 You'll note at the very start of this 7
article it starts out, "J.
J. Harrison, a federal 8
regulator of nuclear power plants searched a moment for a 9
proper way to describe his thoughts.
He chose a analogy 10 from baseball:
'It's like it's the last inning and you're' 11 at bat and you alcoady have two outs.
And you're behind,'-
12 he said."
13 Did you make that statement?
i 14 A
Yes, I did.
15 MR. BRUNNER:
Before you annwor, Mr.
16 Harrison, could you wait a brief instant so I can 17 interpose an objection if I desire.
18 Again, I have a standing objection to events --
19 testimony relating to events occurring aftec the filing of l
20 the lawsuit.
j i
21 MR. BERKOVITZ:
I think the objection la j
22 well taken.
Also, if we woro a party we probaoly would l
i 23 have several evidentiary objections to newspaper articloo.!
i 24 We'ro not a party, but our concern is that wo don't spend.!
)
60 Lu:od Reporting Service
, y,,
f.nfayette lhilding Suite Mn 962 1a76 su,1, 1;o Detrmt. \\fichigan 18226 Farmungton flills. \\fichigan IHolH
,~
1 too much tim 2 wrapped up in thcso dapositions, and we 2
don't want to spend too much time testifying on newspaper 3
articles; whether our people agree with statements made in 4
newspaper articles.
5 In view of the limited duration of this 6
deposition I'm not going to make a big fuss about it now.
7 However, in future depositions I would caution the partiec 8
not to make extensive use of newspaper articles because we 9
would not consent to parties seeking to go over two days 10 in deposition, certainly if the time is spent on newspapet 11 articles.
We would object to that.
But in view of the 12 limited nature of this particular deposition, it's not a 13 big issue here.
14 BY MS, RICE:
15 Q
Mr. Harrison, did you believe that the CCP was Consumers 16 Jower's last chance with the NRC?
l i
17 A
I didn't consider it was their last chance with the NRC; 18 no, I did not.
I considered the CCP to De a viable 19 alternative to identifying the problems that existed in 20 the plant and to correcting those problems.
21 O
Was the construction completion program ever finally 22 accepted by the NRC?
23 A
Yes, it was.
24 Q
Do you recall when they accepted the CCP?
If you like, l
61 Luzod Reporting Service Infaytte Building 3,,g y,g,,,,,,, y,,.
Snite h30 962 11I6 Suite 220 Dermit, \\fichigan 48226 Farmineton Hills. Alichiean 18018
1 ycu ccn refer to your chrcnology.
2 A
I believe it was in October of 1983.
The correct date was 3
October 6, 1983.
4 Q
Let me just ask you if the document that has been S
.previously marked as CPC 16 in the version that was 6
finally accepted by the NRC, if you know?
l 7
A I believe this is the final and correct version that we 8
approved.
I can't say definitely.
9 Q
And that is the August 26, 1983 submittal?
10 A
Yes, it is.
11 MS. RICE:
Would you mark this as the next 12 NRC exhibit, which would be NRC 142?
l l
13 (Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 142, 14 Personal Notes of J.
Harricon, 12-7, 15 was marked for identification.)
16 MS. RICE:
And please mark this as the next 17 CPC exhibit, which would be 1962.
18 (Deposition dxhibit No. CPC 1962, 19 Memo from Nosseck to Hella, QVP and 20 Status Assessment Nonconformance Report l
21 Generation, 9/12/83, was marked for 22 identification.)
}
i l
23 DY HS. RICC:
24 Q
Mr. Harricon, can you identify MRC 142?
l 1
62 Lwd Reporting Service f.afayette Buildine
,gy
,g,,,,,,
suite hw 962 1176 pair, 20 Detroit, \\fichigan 18226 Farminetun Ildb. \\lichigan 13 NIM
1 1
A 142 is a copy of my notes from a meeting hold on 12-7.
I 2
0 19837 3
A 1983.
4 0
And were these notes provided to Dow and Consumers Power 5
pursuant to subpoena?
6 A
I do not know.
I provided them to Mr. Berkovitz.
7 0
For this deposition; is that correct?
8 A
That is correct.
9 0
Let me direct your attention to the second page of NRC 10 142, which is your notes.
About midway through is a 11 notation entitled, "Hangers', do you see that?
12 A
Yes.
i 13 0
And it says, "90 percent NRC; 70 percent rework (moutly
.r 14 welding); and 37 percent use as is."
Do you know what you; 15 meant by this notation?
16 A
At this meeting Consumera Power was giving us a briefing 17 on what the findings of, in this case the hanger 1
18 reinspection program, were.
If I recall correctly, the l
19 5000 hangers, approximately 5000 hangers inspected as of 20 that time, 90 percent required nonconformance reporta; 70 1
21 percent required some type of rework, mostly having to 2
22 rework the welding or redo the welding; and 37 percent of 23 those wero judged use as is.
24 The numbers don't add up, but I think the G3 l
Lu:od Reporting Service
, y,,
Infayette Buildine 962 llI6
.srcure 50 Suite hw (ktrou, \\fichigan.IR226 Farmsneron llalls, \\fichigan 181HR
^
1 racconing in that they were difforent typas of defects on 2
hangers or problems on hangers that ended up with various 3
types of proposed corrective actions.
4 0
And is this hanger reinspection program that you're 5
referring to now, was that part of the CCP7 6
A Por Phase 1, which was the general reinspection of the 7
plant, it was not.
S 0
And why was hanger reinspection not part of the CCP?
9 A
At some point in time, I'm not sure of the exact dato, the 10 NRC found a lot of problems with hangers at Midland.
In 11 writing our noncompliances through the enforcement action il 12 process we had required some type of reinopection rework i
13 on the hangers.
There was a special hanger reinspection l
?
14 program instituted by Consumers Power to address this j
15 problem, and this process was already underway when the 16 Diesel Generator Building inspection took place and when 17 the CCP was approved.
18 Q
So it was a reinspection program independent of the CCP?
19 A
Independent for Phase 1, but as far as the coordination og i
20 the rework and the final incpections, that was all going, 21 or was factored into Phaco 2 of the CCP.
Phase 1 being 4
22 the reinapoetion, statua and ascesoment programs Phase 2 i
l 23 being that work required to complete the plant, including,
24 any rework.
The rework portion on those hangers was there l
l l
64 Lmd Reporting Sere ice Isfayette Huulding
,, g g Suite 630 962.I176 5,ma, so Detroit. \\fichigan 18226 Farrnineron flill<. \\lichienn molk
1 for-part of Phaso 2 of tho CCP.
2 Q
All right.
For instance, the 70 percent rework that 3
you've noted here, that would be part of Phase 2 of the 4
CCP?
5 A
That in correct.
6 0
Let me direct your attention to CPC 1962.
It states:
"S.
7 Jain requested MPQAD to spread the 33,000 Nonconformance 8
Reportc (NCR's) that are. anticipated from the QVP and 9
Status Assessment activities by Bechtel against several 10 different commodities." And you'll note further down on 11 the page, "A 60 percent rework factor should be used."
12 Let me direct your attention to the next l
13 page, which is a chart that says, "Estimated NCR's," and 14 and at the bottom it says, "Say 55,000 NCR's."
15 Did Consumers Power ever disclose to you
}
16 that they estimated either 33,000 Nonconformance Reporto l
17 or 55,000 Nonconformance Reports as a result of the QVP?
18 MR. BRUNNER:
I object to the question.
The 19 question involves extensive reading of the document and is' 20 also related to events which occurred after the filing of l
21 the lawsuit.
My standing objection applica.
22 A
We discussed projected numbers of NCR'c.
Whether that l
l 23 number was 33,000 or 55,000 I can't recall.
24 BY MS. RICE:
I l
l 65 f.u : d Reporting Service 3,,
9 Isfayette Huildine Suite 630 962 1176 State 2:0 Farmancton litlls. \\lichigan mniH lktroit, \\lichigan Q:t>
1 Q
Did ycu parsenally over catimato how many NCR's would ba l
2 generated?
l 3
A No.
4 Q
Did you personally estimate how much rework would be I
5 generated by the QVP?
6 A
In numbers or percent, no.
7 Q
Did you ever estimate it in any fashion?
8 A
We felt in some areas -- I felt in some areas that there 9
was going to be considerable rework.
10 0
In what areas are you referring to?
I 11 A
For example, in tho area of pipe hanger we felt thero was 12 going to be considerable rework.
13 Q
And can you recall any other areas which you felt that i
14 there was going to be considerable rework?
15 MR. BRUNNER:
I object as calling for 16 speculation.
17 A
No.
At various meetings we talked about the amount of 10 rework that they projected and what we felt, but I don't 4
19 recall specifica or numbers.
i 20 DY MS. RICE:
21 Q
Did you ever disagree with Consumers Power's projections ;
22 or estimates of rework?
23 A
I don't recall.
1 4
24 0
Finally, Mr. Harrison, besideu the stringont controls that 66 I'u: d Reporti:tg Service lafayette lhilding Su'ite hw 962 1176 s,,aa ggo (ktrmt, \\fichigan IR226 Farmington lisils. \\fichigan IwllH
1 wa hava discussed concarning remedial soils, and ths l
2 construction completion program, and the IDCVP, in 3
addition to these three controla did the NRC alco require 4
a management audit of Conuumors Power?
5 A
Yes, the NRC did require that.
6 0
Do you know what prompted the NRC to require a management 7
audit?
8 MR. BRUNNER:
I object.
Once again ve're i
9 dealing with events after the filing of the lawsuit.
10 A
As an outcome of what appeared to the staff to be a lack 11 of proper or adequate managing over a period of timor the 12 inability of the NRC, or the lack of the NRC not being 13 able to determine why this problem persisted; and also the 14 lack of Consumers Power ability to explain why their 15 performance had not improved, the staff -- let me take 16 that back.
17 An a result of the violation of the Board 18 order, the ASLB Board order that involved some excavation 19 problems, the staff made a decision to order a management 20 audit to try and determino what the problems were, what 21 the causes were and to effect change in the company 4
22 managocent so that the performance could improve.
~
23 MS. RICC:
Would you mark this as the next 24 NRC exhibit, which la NRC 143.
i i
l G7 Luod Reporting Service Isfayette Building suite sw 962 1176
<,aezio Detroit. \\fichigan m226 Farmineron Hille, \\fichia moln
1 (Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 143, 2
Letter from Kepplor to Cook, Enforcement 3
Conference, 10/11/83, was marked for 4
identification.)
5 MS. RICE:
And this document as NRC 144.
6 (Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 144, 7
Personal Notes, J.
- Harrison, 8
Enforcement Conference, 10/11/83, 9
was marked for identification.)
10 BY MS. RICE:
11 Q
Mr. Harrison, can you identify NRC 144?
12 A
NRC 144 is my personal notes of an enforcement conference 13 that was conducted with Consumers Power on October 3, 14 1983.
15 Q
Let me refer you to NRC 143 and ask you if you can 15 identify that document?
17 A
NRC 143 is a letter from Mr. Keppler, NRC Regional 18 Administrator, to Mr. Cook at Consumers Power, identifying 19 or documenting the enforcement conference that was 20 conducted on October 11, 1983, at the Region III offices
-21 in Glen Ellyn, Illinois.
I 22 Q
These notes are the same enforcement conference?
I note 23 you stated October 3, 19837 24 A
I'm sorry.
Well, the notes are dated Octcoer 11, 1983.
68 Luzod Reporting Service i
, 3, jgay,,,, gijggn, Suite MO 962 1176 Suite 220 (ktroit. \\fichigan 48226 Farmington flills. \\fichigan w118
/
1 Q
You'ro reforring to your parsonni notes?
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
.Which are NRC 144?
4 A
Yes.
5 0
And at this enforcement conference, did the NRC and 6
Consumera Power discuss the violation of the April 30, 7
1982 Board order?
8 A
At this particular conference, the staff discussed with 9
Consumers Power the alleged violation of the Board order, 10 that board order that you referred to, yes.
11 Q
And did the NRC also discuss the possibility of the 12 requirements of an independent management audit of 13 Consumers Power?
14 MR. BRUNNER:
Once again, past the date of L
15 filing the lawsuit.
j 16 A
Yes, we diccussed the possibility of a management audit of' 17 Consumers Power, l
18 BY MS. RICE:
j l
19 0
All right.
Let me direct your attention to your personal 20 notes, and if I could direct your attention to the fourth 21 page of NRC 144.
About two-thirds of the way down the 22 page your noten state, "Cauce in attributed to poor 23 management and poor communications, one of many examplec 24 of ' misunderstanding /miscommunication.'"
i 1
69 Luwd Reporting Sertice y,o Infayette Building Swee hw 962 1176 saire z>o Detroit, \\fichigan -IR22ri Farmunernn liith. \\hchegan 18u18
1 Did you writo that statement?
2 A
You, I did.
I 3
Q What did you mean; what caused, cause of what?
4 A
The cause that led to, as the staff viewed, this potential 5
violation of the Board order.
The cause of poor 6
management and poor communication being that the Consumera 7
Power performance, as a result of poor management, had i
8 resulted in what the staff understood to be a violation of 9
the Board order.
10 Q
And the violation you're referring to, did the NRC ever 11 find that there was indeed a violation of the Board order?,
12 MR. BRUNNER:
Objection to the foundation t
13 for the question and its relevance.
14 A
The office of Investigations of the NRC formed their view I
15 of the violation of the Board order, or of the potential 16 violation of the Board order.
I don't recall the exact 17 words, but they did find that the Board order had boon
]
18 violated.
j l
19 BY MS. RICE:
l 20 Q
And when wo're discussing violation here, is that what la<
l 21 known as excavation below the deep Q duct bank?
Is that 22 the incident we are referring to?
23 A
That was part of it.
There were two parto to cho I
24 violation of the Board order.
One was what the ataff l
70 "N
lafayette Buildeng st810 %rthu e< tern flu y.
Suite Mo 962 1176 Suur g:n IMroit, \\fichigan 18226 Farmanetm lisib. \\fdigan 18n18
7 1
cancidered to be uncuthorized excavaticn balcw the doop Q l 2
duct bank, and an excavation around a fire protection 3
line, piece of pipe that was buried.
The major offense we 4
considered to be the deep Q duct bank.
5 0
And back again to the paragraph of your notes that I'm 6
referring to, when you talked about cause here, you are 7
referring to why those incidents happened; is that right?
8 A
That is correct.
9 Q
Now can I direct your attention to the next page of your 10 notes?
At the top you state, "Additionally, the staff is 11 considering requiring some type of a management audit or 12 independent appraisal / analysis via an order (show cauce or i
13 confirmatory).
The basis for such an order would be,'" andi l
14 then as Number One you list, "violation of ASLB 15 order / construction permit."
l 1
16 Is that what we've been discussing?
17 MR. BRUNNER:
I object to the reading of the 18 document.
19 A
That is correct.
20 BY MS. RICE:
1 21 Q
And Two, you said SALP 3 recommendation for soils area; isi 22 that correct?
I 23 A
That is correct.
24 0
Now the SALP 3 recommendation for soils covered -- let me {
l 71 im d Reporting Sertice
,mg.,,,,
isfayette lhildme hite MO 962 11?6 kute :)u
[htrost. \\fichigan M22b Farmur<eton llull<, \\fichucan 18o1H
F 1
back up.
2 The SALP 3 covered a period up and through 3.
March of 1983; is that correct 4
A That is correct.
5 Q
Prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case, is that 6
right?
7 A
I'm not sure of your filing date, but the SALP period is 8
from June 1, 1981 through March 31, 1983.
9 Q
And then Item Three, you state -- referring back to NRC 10 144, your personal notes -- you state, "The long list of 11 historical problems and lack of effective corrective 12 action at Midland"; is that correct?
13 A
That is correct.
14 MR. BRUNNER:
Objection to the reading of 15 the document.
Standing objection.
16 A
That is correct.
17 BY !!S. RICE:
18 Q
And when you're referring here to historical problema, how 19 far back into history, say, did those problems extend?
20 A
I don't remember the exact date, but it was in the early 21 1970's.
3 22 O
All right.
And Item Four, "The obvious communication j
i I
23 problems with NRC, with Jackson, and with Bechtel." Do j
24 these communication proole.;m that you're referring to f
1 i
i 72 lu: d Reporting Settice lafayette Buildme 3,gg 9,,,
Sutte tdo 962.))ib sua, gy; Detroit. \\fichigan M226 Farmmeron littl<, \\lahtean 18111H
r 1
oxtcnd -- were th:y only at tha time period of October, 2
1983 or did they also go back?
3 A
They were also historical in nature.
4 Q
All right.
Did the NRC ever, in fact, require a 5
management audit?
l 6
A Yes, it did.
1 7
MR. BRUNNER:
I object again that the fact 8
that the witness speaks for the NRC hasn't been shown.
9 A
Yes, the NRC required a management audit.
10 BY MS. RICE:
Wolld the court reporter mark i
i 11 this as NRC 1457 12 (Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 145, i
i 13 Draft version of order requiring a 14 management audit, was marked for 15 identification.)
16 MR. BERKOVITZ:
Mr. Brunner raised a point l
t 17 that the witness doesn't speak for the NRC.
Baalcally j
a 18 none of the witnesses speak for the NRC, the only thing I
19 that speaks for the NRC arc official NRC documentation.
20 Our witnesses cannot provide things that are not already 21 in the public record, and that la one position that the 22 NRC could take, that information on why we did and what wo i
23 did la already in the public record and our witness can be; 1
24 called only to provide informaton that la aircady in the 73 Lu:od Reporting Service lxfayrtte Buildone Suur MO 962 11?6 stia, 2;o IMrcit. \\fichigan m22f>
fnrasington flith. \\lichigan 1801R
I
^
1 public record.
That is another thing that the parties i
2 should consider of the NRC witneases they went to call.
3 He think the parties should be selective on who they're 4
calling An terms of gleaning from the witneases what in 5
not already in the public record.
6 BY MS. RICE:
7 Q
Let ne show you a dccument that has been marked as HRC 145 8
and ask you if this is a draft version of the order 9
requiring a management L: lit.
13 A
Yes, it is.
11 Q
Did you receive a copy of this vorcion?
A2 A
1 can't swear that ". received a copy of this particular 13 version, but I'm sure I did.
14 Q
And it 1:4dacates on t he first page that one was sent to i
15 you?
4 l
i 16 A
Yes, it doen.
17 0
The handwritton note here is signed Steve.
In that Stevo 10 Lewis?
19 A
That is Steve Lewis, yes.
20 Q
Now was the final order requiring a management audit in 21 written form, such as this?
Not specifically the same i
1 4
2,
' cords, bat it was in written form?
ras in this hype of form, yes.
' a do you know what date it was issued?
4 f
s i
74 Luzod Reporting Service Imfyrtte Ruilding M10 \\onhuntan tiuy Suite MO 9gy,jj7g State 220
[htrat. \\fichigan -88226 f** n.ingtent $lills. \\lachigare 830lll
s',
1 A-Mcy I cenSult ty chrcnology?
2 Q
Sure.
3 A
January the 12th, 1984.
4 Q
All right.
5 MS. RICE:
Would you mark this as the next 6
NRC exhibit, which would be NRC 1467 l
7 (Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 14G, 8
Collection 9f Personal Notes of J.
9 Harrison of conversations with people 10 from Consumers and Bechtel, was marked 11 for identification.)
12 BY MS. RICE:
13 Q
I ask you to review NRC 146 and tell me whether you can 14 identify it.
I 15 A
This exhibit is a collection of some of my notou from meetings that I had with Mr. Cook, Mr. Mooney, and others jl 16 17 of Consumers Power and Dechtel.
10 Q
Mr. Jim Cook?
r 19 A
Mr. Jim Cook.
l 20 Q
On the first page when it says "Mr. Cook", are you 21 referring to Jim Cook?
4 22 a
I'm referring to Jim Cook, that is correct.
23 0
And are these -- what la on this page, your personal nocca 24 or what tM, Cook was stating?
?
~l I
r
't 75 Laod Reporting Servi:e ufa,,,,, guitgia, 962 1176 sue :Jo Suise' nw 11troit. Stichizan 4822b Farminston flills. \\fuchican wls
~
\\
1 A
Thic.was my natos of whet I was thinking or was otating.
2 0
In the first paragraph you stated, "It is extremely i
3 obvious that CPCo attitude cannot and wiil never change.
(
l 4
Your press release of November 9, 1983, stating the
... perceived quality assurance problems.. 8 and of 5
6 course." Now what press release are you referring to?
7 MR. BRUNNER:
I object to the reading of the.
8 document into the record.
It's not in evidence, the date 9
of the notes hasn't been astablished, the relevnnce is 10 also in question.
11 A
I am referring to a Consumers Power Company news release, 12 datad November 9, 1983.
I 13 BY MS. RICE:
14 Q
Is that also included within NRC 1467 l
15 A
Yes, it is.
16 O
About the sixth page back, I oe,'ieve?
17 A
Yes.
18 0
What was the purpose of this meeting?
What date was this'i l
19 meeting hald on?
i 20 A
On November 9,1983.
l j
1 21 Q
Do you recall the purpose of this meeting?
j 22 A
Excuse me, 1984.
1983, I'm sorry.
I i
23 Q
Do you recall the purpoco of the meeting?
4 1
24 A
The purpose of this particuict meeting here was *.o discrica l
l 1
75 Luod Reporting Service lafayette ikilding
,,,,,g I
hite MO 962 1176 sae $n Iktroit, 11icMaan 4RT.M Farmineton Ihll<, thchiran mots t
1 ccvorcl things, but in thic particular cess we diccusand 2
this particular. press release.
3 0
hhencommentingonthepressreleaseinthenextparagraph 4
you state, "A entire paragraph devoted to blaming the NRC 5
the lack of CCP opproval and implementation and the 6
expanded reinspection required by the NRC and of courue 7
Dow."
8 A
Yes, that is what I said.
1 9
0 Did you believe that Consumers Power was justified in 10 blaming the NRC for the delay?
l I
11 MR. BRUNNER:
I'll object to the foundation 12 for the question and relevance.
l 13 A
The reason for my state:uent on Page 1 was when I road the 14 press release I was very upset that consumors Power l
15 Company was blaming the NRC for the delay in approving the 15 CCP, placing the total blame on the NRC.
17 BY HS. RICE:
18 Q
Why were you upset with Consumers Power?
I 19 A
Well, in the first place the NRC d.id not cause the 20 problems at Midland.
Consumers Power caused their own l
j 21 dilemma they they were in at that stage, To'me it was 4
1 22 admission od a poor attitude toward resolving this entire 23 issue.
I ob]ccted to several thin p.
That was one.
j 24 I also object.cd to the fact thattheycalledj l
l 77 Lu:od Reportine Service ggar,gge guitgi,,
,a
,,, y Suite Mo 962 1I.*b Naar, 5>
Detrat. \\lichigan 4R226 Farmington Hdis. \\fichigan molR t_
1 th3 plcn, tho CCP, a plan thnt was d3 signed to ovarccm3 1
2 perceived quality assurance problems, when in fact the NRC 3
had documented quality annurance problems.
I did not 4
understand the use of the word "perceived".
5 Q
Did you believe that the action taken by the NRC,
)
6 specifically requiring the CCP and the months that it too 7
to finally approve the CCP, was justified?
8 MR. BRUNNER:
I'll object because the 9
question is compound.
10 A
The timeliness of the approval of the NRC -- the delay la 11 the approval of the CCP by the NRC was largely cauced by 12 Consumers Power's unwillingness to commit to doing 100 13 percent reinspection.
14 BY MS. RICE:
15 Q
Did you believe the NRC was justitied in requiring 100 16 hundred percent reinspection?
j 17 A
Yes.
1 18 MR. BRUNNER:
Again I'll object that it i
19 hasn't been established the witness speaks for the NRC.
20 Unfortunately because his answer was so quick I wacn't a
21 able to place my objectjon.
j 22 BY MS. RICE:
I i
1 i
l 23 0
Referring you now to the second page of your notes.
At l
24 the top you say, "Mr. Mooney".
WhoistheMr.Mooneyyoul l
k
~
l 1
{
l
}
78 l
Lu:od Reporting Sersice
, y,,,,
gg,,,,,,, g;;g, 962 1176 s,me fro Suire' hw Detroit, \\fichigan 48226 Farmmetem lidis, \\lahican -tml3
1 heva written horo?
2 A
Mr. Mooney is Mr. Jameu Mooney, who was the executive 3
manager of Consumera Power Company who was responsible for 4
the remedial soila program and underpinning work that was I
5 in progress at Midland.
6 Q
In the first paragraph under the page that starts out "Mr.
7 Mooney", you state:
"I am going to request to NRR that 8
the NRC position for all coils work per the SSER be 9
rescinded."
Did you ever make such a request?
10 A
No, I did not.
I 11 Q
At the bottom of the page you stato, "I have lost all 12 faith in CPCo."
Had you, in fact, lost all faich in CPCo l
13 l
an of November of 19837 14 MR. DRUNNER:
I'll object to the reading of 4
1 15 the document !.nto evidence as well ao relevance.
l 16 A
The answer is yes, at that time.
I 17 BY MS. RICE:
l 18 0
And why had you lout your faith in ConLutaora Powor?
1, 19 A
Well, on this particular day there was a series of l
20 meetings with Mr. Cook.
There was a public meeting on --
21 I'm not sure if it was on November the 9th or the 10th, 22 but in that came time frame.
We had considerable 23 dicagreement on the way certain areas and proolons woro toj i
24 do approached.
I personally icit like the staff was being; 79 Lu:od Rep ?tiang Service ggy,,,, migg,,
mo y,,,g,,,,,, 17g 962 1i?6 Swte 2.'o Suite MO Detroit \\lichigan 48226 Farmineton flills. \\lehirat. w lR
/
1 duped cr nst bring fcd facts, cnd tho prebicma waro not 2
being dealt with up front.
3 0
lihen soy "the staff" yru aro referring to tho NRC staff?
s 4
A The. NRC staff, m-/ staff.
l S
Q Hr. Harrison, d.d you believe that the NRC's enforcement 6
actions were retponalble for the shutdown of the plant?
7 M1. BRUNNER:
I'll object.
The queat ion is 8
vague.
9 A
I'm not sure what NRC enforcement actions you're referring 10 to.
11 BY HS. RIC?:
12 Q
On the first page of your notes, if you'll refer back to 13 it, you are talking about -- you said you were upset abouti 14 Consumers Power blaming tha NRC for the delay.
Did you 15 feel that the NRC was to blame for the eventual shutdown i
16 of the Midland Nuclear Power Plant?
i 17 A
Before I answer that, let me make a statement.
Some of i
18 the thinga in my notes, as they appear here, tend to be a i
19 bit of emotion was involved in what I wrote down.
I do i
20 not feel that the NRC was responsible for the Midland l
21 construction being finally stopped.
I feel that that j
i 1
22 responsibility rolles, falls directly on the shoulders of1 l
23 Consumera Power Company management.
24 0
Do you believe that the Dow turmination was the cause of 80 Lmd Reporting Sertice (Afa)rne lhtid.nt
,,,, y,
Suur MO 962 11I6 Mr r;hr IMt. \\fichigan IC26 kmaneton linfl<. \\lichiean wl.s
a I
the shutdown at the Midland plant?
2 MR. BRUNNER:
I object.
I don't understand 3
how this witneus can testify on that subject.
It would be 4
speculation.
5 HR. BERKOVITZ:
I will agree with that.
6 T!!S WITNESS:
Do I answer?
7 MR. BERKOVITZ:
You may.
8 A
I have no opinion.
I have no opinion on what Dow's l
9 withdrawing or not withdrawing means.
10 BY HS. RICE:
11 Q
Why do you feel that the responsibility for the shutdown 12 of the Midland plant falls squarely on Consumers Power's 13 shoulders?
l 14 A
The problems that developed at Midland historically were i
i 15 never dealt with from a corrective action sense, that 16 allowed that action to be long-lasting.
As a result of a,
17 history of problems, eventually there wero many special 18 efforts under way at Midland to resolve the various l
l 19 problems; auch as the remedial soils program, the CCP, the' 20 third party effort, a large amount of NRC effort dedicatedj l
l 21 full time.
It's very obvious that if these things would 22 have been dealt with early on, and a correctiva action 23 would have been ef fective, that the things or the 24 situations that led to all these special tasks or rhose i
h 81 Luzod Reporting Service ggapg, g;jgy, 962 1176 sa,g,;;u Suite hw Detroit. \\fichi. tan 48226 Farminst m Iljll \\lachigan IHrjlx
'l special efforts to c:me about in tha cnd could havo been 1
2 prevented.
l 3
Q In that the end of your answer?
4 A
Yoc.
5 Q
That la the end of my questioning.
6 HR. BRUNNER:
Let's take a break.
7 (A brief recess was held during 8
the proceedingo.)
9 MR. BRUNNER:
Back on the record.
10 11 EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. BRUNNER:
l n
f 13 Q
Mr.11arrison, you testified that your first involvomont 14 with the Midland Project was in Pectuary, 1983; is that 15 correct?
i 16 A
That is correct.
i 17 0
so any knowledge which you may have concerning events l
18 relating to Hidland prior to that date was either obtained i
19 from reading a document or from someone telling you of i
l 20 events before that day; is that correct?
4 21 A
That is correct.
{
22 Q
Now you testified that you believed the CCP was a viablo j 23 program.
What did you mean by use of the word "viable"?
24 A
What I meant was the CCP in its approved form was a i
82 Lu:od Reportine Service jgayegg, sig;,,
,,a 9, Suite A m 962 Ili6 smte r<>
Detrat \\fichigan 4822e>
Farminct e lidl<, \\lichigan IM01*t
1 1
product which, when properly implemented, could provide 2
the NRC staff, Consumera Power Company and the public 3
confidence that the plant had been proporly constructed.
4 That is all problems identified and all problems 5
corrected.
It provided an adequate mechanism to 6
accomplish the job.
7 Q
Shortly prior to the shutdown of the project, did you have 8
an opinion as to whether the Midland Project could be 9
completed and licensed, assuming financing was available?
10 A
Yoa, I did.
11 Q
And what was that opinion?
12 A
The opinion was the plant could have been successfully 13 completed with a level of quality that it could have l
l 14 operated safely.
15 0
And does that also imply that it could have been licensed i
16 by the NRC?
j i
17 A
Yes, it does.
18 Q
Now you tantified earlier with respect to the application (
i 19 of Consumero Power Company for a license under 10 CFR Part' l
20 70 relating to the receipt and storage of unitradiated l
l 21 nuclear fuel; do you recall that?
22 A
Yes, I do.
f l
23 Q
What branch or office of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; i
24 has the authority to issue a license under 10 CPR Part 70?l i
33 Reporting Serrice 1.a.fayette Building
.962 Ilib har L?o S dte M O
_ Detrat. \\lichutan 18226,
Farmingt<ylldts. \\hchree mom
1 A
I naed to cencult this exhibit, b ctuso I don't recall thel 2
office title.
That responsibility falls under the 3
authority of Mr. Crow, or did at that time.
4 Q
Are you referring to Exhibit NRC 1387 5
A Yes, I believe, if I can find it.
6 Q
Just to save you some time, there is a reference there to 7
W. T. Crow, Section Leader, Uranium Process Licensing 8
Section, Uranium Puel Licensing Branch.
Is that the 9
branch of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which has the 10 authority to issues licenses under 10 CFR Part 70?
1?
A I believe that is correct.
12 0
While you werc working on the Midland Project, within what 13 branch of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were you 14 employed?
i 15 A
I worked in the NRC Region III office under the Office of 16 Special Cases, basically under the arm of the Division of 17 Inspection and Enforcement.
18 Q
And is the Division of Inspection and Enforcement the same 19 division of the NRC as the Uranium Process Licensing 20 Section of the Uranium Puel Licensing Branch?
21 A
No, it's not.
This organization comes under a separate 22 division at headquarters.
23 Q
From your general knowledge of the requirements for 24 licenses under Part 70, can you tell me whether or not 84 Luzod Reporting Service
,y
,_ y 4,,,, gigg, Suite MO 962.]1i6 suite 2:0 Detmit. \\fichigan M226 Faminston Hills. \\lichigan MIR
1 there is any difference between the requirements for a 2
licence to bring unieradiated fuel on-site under Part 70, 3
and a license to, say, operate the nuclear power plant?
4 Let me see if I can clarify that.'
Do all 5
requirements necessary to receive an operating license 6
have to be met before nuclear fuel can be brought on-site 7
under Part 70 of the regulations?
8 A
No, they do not.
9 Q
Do you know if there is any requirement under Part 70 10 which requires nuclear fuel to be stored in a building 11 which is seismically qualified, and by that I mean that it 12 meets NRC requirements with respect to operating basis on 13 safe shutdown earthquakes?
i 14 A
For temporary storage the answer is no.
1 I
t 15 Q
Just for the record -- I'm sorry, are you finished?
i 16 A
Dut I'm not sure what the requirements would be for 17 permanent storage.
l 18 I would like to clarify one thing.
4 t:
19 Earlier I testified about Mr. Crow and gave his title.
I l
20 would like to add that Mr. Crow works in the nuclear 21 materials -- he works in *.he Uranium Fuel Licensing Dranch I
22 of what the NRC calls N!!SSD, which stands for Nuclear I
i 23 Materials Safety and Safeguards Division.
{
l' a
24 MR. DERKOVITZ:
Office of Nuc1 car !!aterials ;
i r
85 Lut*d R' Porting Service a
y,g.,,,, ff gg,,,, g,jpg;,,
Su,ge ny 962.llI6 har :3I
+
Detroit. \\fichigan 4&?.%
Farminat<ws Ildis, %hiean WIM
1 Safoty cnd Scfcgu2rds, is what it's cc11cd.
I 2
BY MR. BRUllNER:
3 Q
Do you know whather the unieradiated nuclear fuel that was.
4 purchased by Consumers Power Company for use at the 5
Midland facility was stored in a coismically qualified 6
building at the time when it was fabricated by the 7
contractor?
8 HS. RICE:
Objection, calla for speculation.
9 A
I do not know.
10 DY MR. BRUNNER:
11 Q
Was there any requirement under Part 70 that the 12 unitradiated nuclear fuel that had been earmarked for the 13 Midland site be stored in the Auxiliary Building when it 14 arrived at the 'ddland site?
l 15 A
No, it was not.
Not that I'm aware of.
16 Q
So it could have been stored in a number of different i
17 locations on-site?
18 A
As far as I know, yes.
The ancwer is yes.
19 Q
Now in the first half of 1983, if an acceptable proposal 20 under Part 70 were made to bring nuclear fuel on-cite and i
21 store it in accordance with whatever regulations applied ;
1 22 at the time by Consumers Power Company -- strike the i'
23 question, it's a little diffuse.
24 Did the proposal that Consumers Power I
b i
86 l.n d Reporting Service lafayette lhilding Shte MO 962,ll 6 sur, 2pu I
(Mrat, \\fichiras 48%%
Farminetm lhlis, \\lithican wIs
.x
(
'l Comp;ny bcd ecdo to otoro nucloce fuel undor ito 2
application for a Part 70 licence includo storing the 3
nuclear fuel in a portion of the Auxiliary Building that l
4 was being underpinned?
5 A
Are you saying did Cennumers Power propose to storc it in 6
that building?
7 Q
Uo.
I'm asking whether or not consumers proposed to storo 8
the fuel in a portion of the Auxiliary Building that was 9
being underpinned?
10 A
I think the answer to that is no.
11 Q
In the early part of 1983, would you have boon open to a 12 proposal by Consumera Power Company to store the fuel in a
~
13 building other than the Auxiliary Building which met all 14 requirements of 10 CFR Part 707
)
15 A
Would I have been open to a proposal?
j 16 Q
Wasyourmindclocodtothepossibilityofauchaproposa1j 17 at that time?
18 A
I did listen to several propouals at that time.
f 19 0
Was there anything in the regulations that would have 20 prevented the storage of nuclear fuel in a building aparc j 21 f rom the Auxiliary Building, assuming that conditionc of j
l 22 the building were made to meat all conditions of the 23 regulations?
24 A
I would have considered and have been open to that.
I I
l l
l 87 I
Lmd Reporting Service
,a y lafayette Eksidsne
~
k re M o 962 1176 st. ho Detront. \\fichigan M2.%
Farmington flills, k hize w ls
.. ~.
I would not have objected to it possibly, but the decision 2
was made -- I would like to explain, if you would like, why 3
the decision was made.
4
'Q Well, what I'm really trying to get at is whether or not 5
there were other options available for the storage of fuel 6
apart from the option which was specifically rejected by 7
Mr. -- at least by Mr. Crow in his memo to Mr. Cook?
8 A
Okay.
There were other optionu.
Those options were 9
considerso and those options could have been utilized and 10 satisfactorily have stored the fuel, yes.
11 Q
Have you ever heard of the Government Accountability 12-Project?
13 A
Yes, I have.
14 Q
Could you tell us what the Government Accountability 15 Project is?
1J A
The Government Accountability Project is a public interest 17 group that is based out of Washington, D.C.
My paraonal la involvement with them at several plants has been that they 19 have flagged what they believe to be the public's interest.
1 20 as opponents of nuclear power, as opposing or bringing up l certain safety issues, being involved in allegations, and 22 in some cases being the legal counsel of the intervenors.
23 Q
And did the Government Accountability Project supply legal 24 counsel to the intovenors in the Midland licensing l
80 Luzod Reporting Service
\\.
g
, y,,,
Swe hw 962 1]*6 swe zw Farm 3teton tidis \\lichizan Molk
___ Detrmt, \\fschigan M:26 _
1 proceedingo?
2 A
Yes, they did.
They entered lato in the prococa and did 3
reprecent one of the Midland intervonors in the 4
proceedings.
5 Q
Do you recall the name of the counsel from the Government 6
Accountability Project which represented intervenors?
?
A Lynn Burnaby.
8 Q
Do you recall which intervenora Miss Burnaby represented?
9 A
She represented Barbra Stamario.
10 0
In the period of time between January of 1983 and, say, 11 mid-1933, did the Government Accountabilty Project write 12 any letters to officials cf the Nuclear Regulatory j
13 1
Commission with respect to the propoued construction i
i
\\
14 i
completion program?
l 15 A
They wrote numerous letters to the Nuclear Regulatory 1G Commission --
.17 0
(Interpocing)
And did thoaa --
10 A
-- pertaining to the construction completion program.
19 Q
Were some of those lettera addressed to Mr. Keppler?
20 A
I believe so.
I'm not sure who the addressee is, but I i
21 know the NRC received many letters.
4 i
22 Q
And who was Mr. Keppler?
i l
23 A
Mr. 1cppler is the Region III Regional Administrator.
24 0
lo he the top ranking NRC official in the Glen C11yn 89 Luod Reporting Sert ice a y,,
(,
f.afgette (Miding
~
962 Il**6
% ae :;o kite hw Iktroit, \\fschigan IC.%
Farmuntw Halh. \\lschten Iwr!H
I cffico, horo, cf tho Huclear Regulatory Commicalen?
2 A
Yes, he is.
3 Q
Do you know if Mr. Keppler ever wrote any lettern in 1
4 response to the letters that GAP sent to him?
4 5
A Mr. Kepplee issued neveral letters, to the beat of my 6
recollection, to that organization.
7 0
Did those letters relate at all to the construction 8
completion program, or did any of them relate to the i
9 construction completion program?
I 10 A
I don't recall if the final letters that went from the NRC 11 were addressed from Mr. Keppler.
I believe they were.
12 They could have come from a different authority in our 13 headquarters office in Washington, out I believe several 14 did come directly, go directly from Mr. Keppler to GAP.
15 Q
Did the Government Accountability Project write any 16 letters to officials of the NRC in Washingcon?
17 A
Yes, they did.
18 0
Was the Government Accountability Project involved in any L 19 naclear power projects other than the Midland plant?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
In particular, were they involved in the Diablo Canyon j
22 Plant?
4 23 A
I believe they were.
4 l
l 24 0
were they also involved in the Zimmer Plant?
l
)
I l
90 1
k & W * " * ""
tnfa, erie inasana seso utnu<<rern 1in,
{
Suite hk)
ONS'5$?b Salt 2hn (M.u t, \\fichigan tR:2n Farmineron lidb, \\fichaean 18013
J A
Ycs, th0y were.
2 Q
Were they also involved in the LaSalle facility?
3 A
Yoc, they were.
4 Q
What about the Waterford facility, were they involved 5
there?
6 A
To some extent; to some degree at Waterford.
7 Q
Can you think of any other facilities where the Government 8
Accountability Project became involved?
9 A
They were involved and are involved at Comanche Peak.
10 They were involved at Catalba, Calloway, 11 O
In the period betwoon January, 1983 and mid-1983, did any 12 NRC officials in Washington write letters to the l
13 Government Accountability Project in responce to lectora 14 that the Government Accountability Project had sent them? !
15 A
That is cort of a broad question.
l 16 Q
Do you recall any?
i 17 A
Between -- give ce the dates again?
18 Q
January, 1983, to mid-19837 I
19 A
Can I look at this chronology?
l 20 0
Sure.
21 A
Right off the top of my head, I can't.
I'm sui:e there waoj 1
22 come correspondence, but I really don't recall any 1
23 upecifica.
i i
24 4 0 You indicated that at least one accignment whica you had I
91 Luzad Reportine S,rrice mo u,thura,,, IIn La(nyrtte kidine S ure M 0 qsg,;j7s snar to IMrmt, \\hchieu LC.%
Farmanctaus lhlis, \\lahien WlH
I with tho NRC tock you to the WStorford Projsct dawn in I
2 Louisiana, I believe.
Is that where it is, Louisiona?
3 A
That is correct.
4 Q
And what were the dates when.you were working in 5
connection with the Waterfotd Project on behalf of the 6
NRC7 7
A I was assigned to the Waterford Project late in March of 8
1984, and I worked full time on that project from flarch, 9
1984 until probably late June, early July of 1984.
Then 10 periodically I was in this office, comewhat for limited 11 amounts of time, in July and August.
Starting in August 12 the majority of my attention until the second week in 13 December, 1984 was all applied to the Waterford Project.
14 Q
Were there any particular problems at the Waterford 15-Project, that occured at that time, that required your 16 assignment?
17 A
I'm not sure I understand your question.
18 Q
Why were you assigned to the Waterford Project at that
{
l t
19 time?
j 20 A
I was directed to proceed to the Waterford Project to be a
?
21 team leader for the quality assurance team that was 22 investigating part of the 350 allegations that the NRC had j
i
^
i 20
)
received at Hatorford.
24 Q
Did you ever learn of a crack in the foundation of a l
3 92 Lu:od Reporung Senia
,, y,,,,n,,,,,,u r
.)
lafortte Bustding i
$u le hM) 0bS*$$?b Sutte 00 IMroit. \\lichizu 48226 Farmineton lidis, \\liciaee mois
1 etructuro er otucturcs ct tho Wotorford Plant?.
2 A
I had knowledge thore were cracks, yes.
3 Q
Was the foundation for the Waterford Plant, could it be 4
described as a 10-foot thick concrete mat that extended 5
throughout the power block area site?
l 6
Mr. RTCE:
I'm going to object to the 7
relevance of this examination and as to any leading 8
quantions, since it goes beyond the scope of my i
9 examination of Mr. Harrison.
10 A
I was not involved with the concrete issue or the base mat 11 problems at Waterford.
12 BY MR. BRUNNER:
\\
13 Q
Directing your attention to Exhibit NRC 40, you previously; h
14 identified this document as a copy of a letter sent to i
I 15 Connumers Power Company relating to the NRC's systomatic 1
16 accessment of licensee performance; 10 that correct?
17 A
That is correct.
18 Q
Now there appear to be a number of opiniona expressed in
}
I 19 thic document.
Are those opinions derived from one 20 individual, or are they a compilation of the opinions of aj i
21 number of peoplo?
4 I
i l
22 A
I don't know what opinions you're referring to.
23 Q
Well, just the evaluations themselven.
Do those reprecent i
24 the opinionc of just one person, or are tney compilations I
i 93 Luted Reporting Service
. n u> w t k estern Ilso.
Isfayette liuddint Suar hK) 96g,)! 76 buur 3 (ktroit, \\lochigan M%
Farminct<m IInits. Whitan wlR
1 cf the cpinionc of tho difforent NRC insp'ctoro who woro 2
assigned to the Midland Project?
3 A
The product in its form as issued la the opinion of the 4
individuals involved at the time this thing was written, 5
but by the time this thing goes to the Review Board 6
process and is issued in its form as a report, it's then 7
the position of the SALP Board and the NRC Region as a 3
whole.
9 Q
But the SALP Doard consists of more than one person, does 10 it not?
11 A
That is correct.
12 Q
NowyoutestifiedearlierthataCategory3ratinginthol 13 SALP process is the lowest acceptable category?
j f
14 A
That is correct.
4 15 Q
While you were working on the Midland Project, did Midland 1G ever receive a rating below Category 3 for any of the J7 activition that were evaluated in the SALP procosa?
18 A
Not that I'm aware of.
19 0
You were asked earlier about the construction completion 20 program.
Do you recall that, in general, you waro asked l l
21 about that?
22 A
Yes.
23 Q
Wasn't it a fact, Mr. Ilarricon, that the so-called USSS J
24 l
System at the Ilidland Plant was excluded from the scope of 1
i i
i 94 Lu:od Reporting aers ice go y,,
f.afi yrtte lksidsse t
suste ran 962 1176 Sune ry (ktrmt, \\fichigan Ut.%
Farmington listls, \\fschten molX
1 tho c nctructicn esmplotien pregram?
2 A
Yes, it was.
3 Q
And the MSSS consisted of the reactor itself as well as 4
the main reactor related components, such as the steam 5
generator, reactor coolant pump action, and itema such as 6
that; is that a correct stacement?
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
And in addition excluded from the CCP was the soils 9
remedial work?
10 A
That's right.
11 Q
And I think you also testified that the !!VAC work at the 12 sito was excluded from the CCP7 13 A
That is correct.
14 Q
And Dy HVAC I mean heating, ventilating and 15 air-conditioning.
Was that a commonly applied acronym?
16 A
Yes, it was.
i 17 Q
Now you testified with respect to inspections that f
l 18 occurred in late 1982 at the Midland site in connection 19 with the Diesel Generator Building; is that accurate?
i i
20 A
That is cccurate.
21 0
Were you present at the Midland site when that inspection <
22 occurred?
i 23 A
No, I was not.
{
1 24 0
In fact, you were not oven assigned or had any involvementf l
l 4
95 i.uzod Reporting Service fy, y,,
,o Suar hk1 962 III6 suar So
[Hrok. \\li haan $82.%
farmmeron Ifilh.1hchtenn 18018
9 I
with Midicnd until semetime oftor thnt insp;cticn was 2
over; lon't that true?
3 A
That is true.
4 Q
Your knowledge with respect to that inspection and ita 5
results la based either on something that you've read or 6
something that you were told; is that accurate?
7 A
That is correct.
8 Q
Now you also testified with respect to the 100 percent 9
reinspection or the reinspection under the CCP, which I 10 believs you referred to na the quality verification 11 program?
i 12 A
That is correct.
13 Q
Now under the CCP as it was finally accepted by the NRC l
14 staff, was there not a provision that in the event initial 1
.I 15 inspectionc showed an acceptablo level of quality, that 4
1G the balance of the inspections could be conducted under a 17 sampling program?
I 18 A
I think I earlier testified that when an acceptable lovelj i
19 of confidence had been achieved in what Consumers Power 20 Company was attempting to accomplish under the CCP, wo had l
I 21 discussed allowing a sampling plan, such as possibly using~
22 that sampling plan on Unit 2.
i 23 Q
Are you aware of any nuclear plants other than the Midland 24 Plant that have had to conduct reinspections of work?
I 1
1 96 1.u:od Reporting Ser n ice Lafvette Rwiding
,gg kate hw 962 1176 har No Derm't, Whian M26 Farmington Udts WIvean min
1 A
R31nspectiCn3 of work, y3s.
2 Q
So the problem of having to reinspect work is not unique 3
to the Midland Plant, is it?
4 A
That 10 correct, it's not unique.
5 MR. BRUN!1SR:
Off the record.
6 (A brief recess was held during 7
the proceedings.)
8 MR. BRUNNER:
Back on the record.
I would 9
like to ask the court reporter to mark this as Defendant's 10 Harrison Deposition Exhibit Number 1.
11 (Defendant's Harrison Deposition 12 Exhibit No. 1, Personal Notes of i
13 J. Harrison, 7/12/84, was marked for j
l 14 identification.)
r
(
15 BY MR. BRUNNBRt j
1 16 Q
Could you take a moment to review that document, Hr.
i 17 Harrison?
Can you identify Defendant's Exhibit Number 1, j 18 Mr. liarrison?
t l
19 A
This is my personal notes of a meeting that was held in 20 Dethesda, Maryland on July 12, 1984.
21 Q
Who aise was in attendance at this meeting on July 12, 22 1984?
l
}
23 MR. DORKOVIT I'm going to object to that J l
l 24 question on the grounds of privilege.
It's a matter undori l
I i
I 97 Lmd Reporting Service go y,
(
lsfayette kidme 962 11ib
,sa, ;h kreMo i
Farminatau Hdin, \\tahic e w l8 Detroit, \\fichigan 49226 - _. -. -._.
1 invratigotion.
I 2
HR. BRUNNCR Well, I realize that, but the 3
document with respect to the meeting was turned over.
Do 4
you atill hold to your view that it is privileged?
5 NR. BERKOVITZ:
Yes.
6 MR. BRUNNER:
Are you instructing the 7
witness not to answer?
8 MR. BERKOVITZ:
I'm instructing the witness 9
not to answer.
10 BY MR. BRUNNER:
Q If you look four bullets down -- by bulleta I moon the g
11 12 little dota -- there la a reference there to, "Dow provided I
13 to OI for possible false statement (Also in Detroit Pree 14 Press.)"
To what does that reference refer?
l 15 A
What Dow provided or didn't provide, I do not know.
At 16 this briefing that I attended, the facts...
j 4
17 MR. BRUNNER:
The record ought to reflect 18 that the witness la consulting with his counsel.
19 A
We were at this briefing discuaning some information, and' I
l 20 if I remember correctly, certain of the inaues that are f
l j
21 being investigated we were discussing.
j l
l 22 The note here was that there varo come 23 possible falso statement, and those accusations, or 1
24 allegations, or chargen, or whatever you want to call 1
l 98
- 1. to d Reporting Sertice
,w9
,, y lafayette Rutiding l
har MO 962 IlIh so.ar 220 l
Iktma, \\fichean 1822t>
Farminetm Hills, \\fichiev mnl8 l
1 th:m, hcd cico cppeared in the Detroit Froo Prcue.
That 2
is all I can recall.
3 DY MR. DRUNNER:
4 Q
Were these allegationa or accusationa made by Dow?
5 A
I do not recall who made them.
6 Q
Do you recall any statements being made at the meeting to 7
the effect that Dow had mado allegations to the Nuclect 8
Regulatory Commission?
9 A
That Dow made allegations?
10 0
Yes.
11 A
Not that I'm aware of, or I don't recall Dow making any 12 allegations.
l 13 0
DoyouhaveanyexplanationforthereferencetoDowasitj 1
a c'
14 appears in the forrth bullet down on Defendant's Exhibit 1:[
15 A
No more than what I previously stated.
j 1
16 0
Were the notes as reflected in Defendant's Exhibit 1 taken{
}
17 contemporaneously with the meeting?
18 MR. BERKOVITZ :
I instruct the witness raot 19 to answer that question.
20 MR. BRUNNER:
what basis?
23 MR. BERROVITZ:
May harm an on-going 4
22 investigation.
Dicciosure of information other than that 4
23 that has already been disclocod may cause harm anu 1
24 prejudice to an on-going investigation.
99 I'u: d Reporting Service yg f.afayette Buildme
?
Suite MO 962 11.~6
.<uae : o
-- - -.-.. --- ?!*'L ?'?'!** # AN I"'"""# " II'II' "'O* * *"IL.
1
!!R. BRUNNER:
Wall, the question I caktd hid i
2 was simply whethor or not he took the notes reficcted in 3
Defendant's Exhibit Number 1 at the meeting.
I don't see 4
how that harms your investigation.
5 MR. BERKOVITZ :
Disclosure of additional 6
information other than that that has been disclosed could 7
harm the current investigations.
8 MR. BRUNNER:
Why don't we take a throo 9
minute break while I look through these documents to see 10 if I have any further questions.
11 (A brief recess was held during 12 the proceedings.)
13 HR. BRUNNER:
Back'on the record.
l 34 DY MR. DRUNNER:
15 0
!ir. liarrison, I previously asked you a question with 16 respect to safe shutdown earthquake and operating banis 17 earthquake, and just so the record is cleor, could you 1
l 18 define what those two terms mean in the jargon of the NRC?.
19 A
Basically a design basis earthquake is you design for the 20 effect that an earthquake would have on the plant.
Therej i
21 is a design spectrum that is included in the overall j
i 22 design analysis to assure that the plan; would be able to 23 shutdown safely during that type of event.
)
24 0
And so the implication of the term safe shutdown I
l 100 lafayette Building
.'llN oth %rthu rnern flu )
Suite Mo 962 1176
.% e 2)< >
lhrmt. \\fichigan Mt226 farmsneron linflu \\fwhre<ve moblH
1 certhqutko in thet it'o an carthqutko cgninst tho 2
possibility of which the plant must bo designed so that it' 3
can safely shut down?
4 A
That is correct.
5 Q
And what does the term operating basis earthquake mean?
6 lA I don't recall the exact definition.
You caught me, I'm 7
blank.
8 Q
Well, in general, is the, operating basis earthquake a 9
lesser earthquake or greater earthquake than safe 10 shutdown?
11 A
The design basis, I believe, is greater.
12 MR. BRUNNER:
No further questions.
l 13 14 RE-EXAMINATION I
1 l
r 1
15
'DY l1S. RICE:
16 Q
I just want to mark the chronology you gave today.
I 17 don't think we marxed that.
That would be NRC 147.
18 (Deposition Exhibit No. NRC 147, i
19 Chronology of Events Since July, 1981 20 Htarings, Revision 5, 7/26/84, was 21 marked for identification.)
22 BY MS. RICE:
23 Q
Hr. Harrison, what la NRC 1477 1
24 A
NRC 147 is 111dland Chronology, Revision S, that Drings thoj
)
I i
101 lakyetw Butidwg 3'MI'l %rthurstern fin,
9 2'5 h
NH'r U 0
.%'n it hlf) t EMrat, \\fichiran Mt22b Farmington Ihll% \\lukie n W !M
1 checnology up through July 31, 1984.
2 Q
And do you maintain this chronology in the regular course 3
of your business?
4 A
I did under my previous assignment.
5 Q
All right.
That is all I have.
6 MR. BRUNNER:
Let me just ask one more 7
question.
8 9
RE-EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. BRUNNER:
11 Q
When tiie reference is made to seismic requirements, in the 12 jargon of the NRC does that again refer to requirements 13 that the plant be ouilt to withstand certain types of 14 earthquake?
15 A
That is correct.
16 MR. DRUNNER:
That is all I have.
17 (The deposition was concluded 18 at 12:30 a.m.)
19 20 21 22 23 l
24 l
l 102 Luod Reporting Service
,,o 3 Laf,yette Building 962 1176 swte 10 Swtr sw Detrat, \\fichigan ML's Farminuton Hills. \\fichigan 68018
A o
1
- STATE OF f TIC!lIGAll )
f l
)
+
2 COU!iTY CP WAYt1B
)
3 I, Judith A. Sherman, tiotary Public 4
within and for the County of Wayno, State of Michigan, do 5
horoby certify that the witness whose attached, deposition 6
was taken before me in the above-entitled matter was by me 7
duly sworn at the aforementioned time and place; that the 8
testimony given by said witness was stenographically i
i 9
recorded in the presence of said witnosa and af terwards 10 transcribed by computer under my personal superviuion, 11 and that the said deposition is a full, true and correct 12 transcript of the testimony given by the witness.
I 13 I further certify that I am not connected j
14 by blood or marriage with any of the parties or their j
15 attorneys, and that I am not an employee of either of them, 16
'nor financially interested in the action.
j 1
17 IllWITijESSUllSREOP,Ihavohurountosot 1
I i
la my hand at the City of Detroit, County of Wayne, State of j
1 d
day of 4.-
/
i 1985.
l i
19 Michigan, this,/
s 20
>, la b Y b (! IWI
)
21 r
~
JUDITil 'N. SIIERMN, Notary Pub 1ic Nayne] County, !!ichigan 22 23 My Commission Expiros 4-26-86 24 I
i 103 U
"?
in410 %rth s< e,1, rn lha r lafayette Ruslding 962 E E ?b-State.'.'o Suite MO iktroit, \\fithigan 182?N Farmunete lhlis, \\fwhican 13n/M
_. _ _ __