ML20153B726
| ML20153B726 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/13/1984 |
| From: | Gallagher E NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151D196 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-583 NUDOCS 8805060067 | |
| Download: ML20153B726 (222) | |
Text
_
f
.. o . $e -
y 1
2 STATE OF MICHIG AN 3 I!! THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COU!!TY OF MIDLAND 4 -_________________
)
5 DOW CHEMICAL COMPA!!Y, )
)
6 Plaintiff )
)
7 -vs- ).
) No. 83-0022325 8 CONSUMERS POWER CO!!PANY )
)
9 Defendant. )
)
10 l
11 The Depositi on of EUGE11E J. G ALL AG HER,
,taken before me, Glenn G. Miller, CS R-2 5 96 , Registered 12 ; Prof essional Reporter and Notary Fablic within and f or the
- County of Wayne, (acting in Washington D.C.) State of Michigan, 13 at 6 55 15th Street, Suite 1200, Washington D. C., on Friday,
'J uly 13 , 19 84 . ,
14 ,
15 APPEARANCES:
16 KIRKL AND & ELLIS 200 East Randolph Drive 17 i Chicago, Illinois 60601 .
(By James Goold, Esq.)
18 Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff, 19 BARRIS, SOTT, DE::N & DRIKEP i 20 21st Floor First Federal Building Detroit, !!ichiga n 48226 21 (By Eugene Driker, Esq. and James E. Brunner, Esq.)
22
(; Appearing on behalf of the Defendant.
23 24 ALSO PRESENT: Neil Jensen, Esq., NRC i i
8"05060067 FOIA 000408 PDR PDR I.uzod Reporting Service y (ay,,,, g,,jgu,,
Su'ite MO 9 6 2 11 Ib Suar mm Detroit, \fichigan 482:n Farmineton Hills. \fichigan mots
.o e
- b ,
1 ,
. L 2 IfITNESS *INDEX !
3
- 4 1/itness Examined By Page '
5 Eu:ene J. Gallagher Mr. Goold 4 6 !
I 7 !
8 EXHIB IT INDEX 9 [
10 Exhibit No. Description Page i 11 i PX BEC 227 Inter-Of fice !!emorandum f rom 133 12 R. L. Castleberry to J. F.
Newgen, dated 1-13-77, Subj ect :
13 -
Admini stration Building Foundation Settlement Investigation - >
14 -
l PX BEC 228 Int'er-Of fice Memorandum f rom 138 lb J. B. Givens to S. S. Afifi, .
d:2ted 10-5-77, Subj ect : Midland ,
16 Units 1 & 2, job 7220-001, ;
i Structural Backfill Investigation 17 B r oi n~g s , Trip Report September 27-30, 1977 ,
18 i
, PX BEC 229 February 1,1978 letter f rom J. P. 141 i 19 Newgen to D. Edley 20 PX BEC 230 Meeting Minutos, U. S. Testing Co., 148 Inc. , Subcontract No. 7220-C-208, !
21 December 8,1977 22 PX BEC 231 Letter from J. Milandin to B. Marguglio 1 51
(', dated March 7,1978 23 '
j 24 l l
g, ,, ,
Luzad Reporting Service yg . ,3y 962 1176 '
Suur hw Suur zw Detroit. Alichman 482:6 ,
Farmvwton Hilh, Stichigan 48018 ;
t w- c* ' t) -
1 , PX BEC 232 Boring. Log for Hole Nos. B-3 1:B l and B-4, da ted 7-22-77 ',
2 .
1
~
. PX BEC1233 September (,, 1978 Bechtel Memorandum 172 3 from R. L. Castleberry to J. F. ;
,. Newgen, Subj ect : Subsurface
! 4 Investigation of Plant Area Backfill 5 PX BEC 234 Inter-office memorandum from A. S. 178 i Marshall to S. S. Afifi, Subj ect:
6 Midland Ocits 1 & 2-job 7220-001, !
Progress, Report No. 1 for week l 7 ending September 1,1978 Drilling "
. Program 8
PX CPC!S19 Set of Notes Authored by G. S. 1 92 9 Keeley on 30-30-78
, 10 PX CPC 520 Summary from D. E. Horn to B. U. 190. ,
Marguglio, dated October 31, 1978, ,
11 Subj ect : Midland Proj ect-NRC Exit I
, Interview of october 27, 1978 12 PX CPC 521 Document from Messrs. Keeley and Cooke 195 13 dated 12-4-7 8, Subj ect : Midland i 1
Pr oj ect, Diesel Generator Bldg. ,
14 Settlement Me,eting' ;
i i l 15 PX CPC 522 June 17,1981 Letter from John A. 202 Rutgers to J. W. Cook, Subj ect : !
16 Midland Plant Units ,1 & 2, Consumers '
Power Co. , Dechtel job no. 7 220, i 17 NRC Soils Hearing 18 PX NRC 57 'aecord of Inspection Conducted 203 :
)ctober 1978, entitled 78-12 i 19 . t PX CPC 523 12-16-80 Memorandum fro,m Walt Bird 207 2d to Don Horn 21 PX CPC 524 Internal correspondence from D. E. 207 :
Horn to B. W. Marguglio, dated 22 January 26, 1981
(>
23 24 gg,, g4 Luted Reporting Service ,3 3, S Wee M O 962 1176 Suar 20
. Detroit. \fichigan D226 . Farmington lidh. \fichigan MIR
o '
52
.l. ,
Washington D. C.
2' Friday, July 13, 1984 3 8:00 a.m.
4 5 EDGENE J. GALLAGHER P
6 was thereupon called as a witness herein and, after 7 having been first duly sworn 'to tell the truth, the 8 whole truth and nothing but the truth, was examined 9 and testified as f ollows:
10 MR. GOOLD: For the record, this is the '
11 doposition of Mr. Eugene Gallagher of the United States 12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, being taken pursuant to !
13 notice and subpoena in this action.
14 EXAMINATION ,
15 BY MR..GOOLD 16 0 Mr. Gallagher, would you state your name and address f or 17 ,
the record, please ? ,
18 A Eugene Gallagher. My residence is 18 Catoctin Court, 19 Silver Springs, Maryland.
4 20 0 And what is your position, current position with the NRC?,
21 A I'm senior policy analyst with the of fice of policy 22 evaluation. i 23 Q And how long have you been with the NRC? I 24 A Since 1977 l
. f Lutod Repo, sing Service 3ag,g y,,,z,n,,,f guy gg,y,gg, Sigm, 55tr MV) 962 1176 Sage :S ,
Detroa, \fi hizan 48226 Farmmeton Udis. Michigan 48018 L_
y, .
l 1 0: Let.'s go back over briefly your background with the NRC 2 and your educational background as well prior to your l 3 current position. Do you have any engineering degrees?
4 A Yes, I do. ,
5 0 What degrees do you have?
6 A I have a Bachelor of Science in civil engineering and a 7 !! asters of Science in structural engineering.
8 O And when and where did you receive those degreen?
9 A -
1973 bachelor degree f rom Villanova University and 1974 a 10 Masters degree f rom Polytechnic Institute of New York.
11 Q And did your academic studies in engineering include the 12 geotechnical area?
13 A Yes.
l 14 0 By geotechnical area I'm including soils work such as was 15 ,
done at Midland.
16 A Yes.
1 17 0 Before we go any further, let me mention that obviously 18 this litigation involves a number of engineering and
. 19 technical terms and I'm a layman and if there's any term
, 20 I've used which you find ambiguous or misused, please 21 don' t hesitate to ask f or clarification. Similarly, if 22 any question I ask is phrased in a way you have trouble
{ "
23 understanding it, let me know and I'll be happy to 24 rephrase it.
1 Lutod Reporting Service y3 ,,5 ,,
g g ,u,g,ggy, Suitr aw 962 11.'6 Su ther there was a site-wide soils problem? 11 A Well, it indicated that given the same application of the 12 testing procedures beyond the 5dministration Building onc 13 might expect that the results were also erroneous as 14 Bechtel later identified. . 15 Q Did you ever learn whether anyone f rom Consumers Power had 16 been aware of the problem at the Administration Duilding 17 bef ore the Diesel Generator Building problem was disclosed 18 to the !!RC? 19 A Could you repeat the question? l 20 0 Did you ever learn whether anyone f rom Consumers Power had 21 been aware of the Administration Building problem bef ore 22 the Diesel Generator Building problem was disclosed t'o the 23 11RC? 24 A Yes. g ,,,, gg, Luzod Reporting Service y 3.gf,7 y 962.I176 Suu, zw S sar MO Detroit, Michigan 48226 . Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018 .y . -- .. ... , q l l 1 0 What did-you . learn in that respect? l 2 A I believe we learned that Co'nsumers Proj ect Management was 3 aware of the Administration Building problems. C 4 0 Uhen you use the term Consumers Project Management, are 5 there any particular people who are encompassed by that 6 term? 7 A Well, certainly the site superintendent, Mr. Cooke, and 8 also the Consuher's Proj ect Manager, Mr. Recicy. 9 0 Is that Mr. Cooke with an E? 10 A That's cor rect. 11 0 Did you ever discuss the Administration Building problem 12 with Mr. Cooke? . 13 . A I believe we did. I don' t recall precisely what we spoke 14 about at this point. 15 Q How about Mr. Keeley? . 16 A Yes. 17 Q Uhat did he tell you? 18 A It's difficult to recall at this point in time. I would ~ j 19 have to review quite a bit of documentation. 20 Q How about Mr. Horn? 21 A I don' t remember at this point what Horn recalled of the 22 Administration Building. 23 Q Did you ever learn that borings had been taken outside the 24 Administration Building in 1977 in connection with the lafayette Building Luzod Reporting Sertice ,3 ,y ,,, S ate M O 962 11?6 Sate 220 Detrat. \fichigan 48226 , Farmineton Hsth. \fachigan t&118 1 1 . Administration Building soils problem? i Yes. 2 A-3 0 By borings I'm ref erring to also a test known as a I. 4 standard penetration test. Does that change your answer? 5 A No. 6 Q It might be helpf ul if you could describe in general terms 7 what a standard penetration test is. 8 A t's a standard test method for identifying the density of 9 the soils material by means of a f airly crude method of 10 dropoing a hammer onto a boring tube and measuring the 11 penetration depth, in terms of the number of blows per 12 foot, and then correlating that to some results of 13 densi ty . 14 0 Are there any standard procedures f or the weight of the 15 hammer to be dropped in this, in a standard penetration 16 test? l 17 A I recall that there is an ASTf! standard f or that work 18 activ ity . 19 2 Is an ASTf! stand,a :d also f or the distance the hammer 1: 1 20 supposed to be d;opped? i 21 A I believe so. l 22 -2 Do you recall what that is of f hand? i 23 A Yes, 3 0 inches. 24 Q Did you ever learn whether Consumers Power people had Luzod Reporting Service 3ag,g 3,,,g,,f,,9,, ,7,,. 74,,,,,, g;;gy, Saue hw 962 11Ib Saite :20 Detroit. .\fichigu 482:6 Farmwaton !! ills, \fichigan 48018 1 reviewed the-logs f or ,the borings taken outside the 2 Administration Building in 19777 3 A Yes. -' 4 0 And what did you learn in that respect? 5 A only that there were boring logs attached to a report that 6 Bechtel had generated regarding the Administration 7 Building proble.ms. I believe the report was at least 8 written by Bechtel in late 1977, December of 1977. 9 C And did Consumers Power personnel indicate to you that 10 they had seen that report? 11 A I don' t recall. 12 0 How about the boring logs, do you recall whether Consumers 13 Power people reviewed those? 14 A Well, I presume that the report that was issued in , 15 . December of 1977 and the boring logs that were attached to! 16 that report were seen by Consumers. 17 , MR. DRIKER: I'm going to move to strike the 18 an sw er . Mr. Gallagher, your testimony at a judicial 19 proceeding depends on personal knowledge. You have to j 20 know yourself the f acts about which Mr. Goold or I or 21 anybody else may question you on. The purpose of sworn 22 ' testimony is not to presume or to inf er, it is to testify '(~ 23 as to what you know, either what you were told or you saw. 24 And I caution you, si r , that you ought to limit your Luzod Reporting Service yo 3., }) ,, ,_ Isfayrur Buddme Suur MO 962 1176 Suar 220 l)etroa, \fichieu M2 6 FarminKlon l hlb. \IVhitGn EONA t 11 testimony to- what you. know, not what you believe or 2 surmise or infer from a set of facts. 3 THE WITNESS: I understand. - ( 4 MR. GOOLD: If you have an obj ection, you' re $ welcome to state it but I' m going to obj ect, . and we' re 6 going to have a serious problem, if you continue making 7 speeches to the witness rather than objecting. Yo u' ll - 8 have ample opportunity to cross-examine and develop 9 anything you want to develop. 10 BY MR. GOOLD: 11 Q Let me focus back on the borings again for a moment. You J2 reviewed the borings 'that were done in 1977' in the course 13 of your investigation, did you not? 14 A Yes. .- 15 Q Uhat was your understanding, if any, as to whether the 16 borings were done in accordance with ASTM standards? 17 A I understood they were done in accordance with. 18 2 If you had learned the borings were not done in accordance-19 with ASTM standards, what, if anything, would you have 20 done? 21 MR. DRIKER: Objection to the question. It 22 calls f or speculation. There's no f oundation laid. (" - 23 A Hell, I would have been f airly serious in terms of 24 providing information that might be misleading to us in Lusod Reporting Service 1 Lafayette Bmiding 3,,o ,,g,j,,,, gv,_ Suite 6M 962 11?6 Suute 2 0 Detroit. .\fichigan 48226 Farmington Udh. .\fichigan 48018 t , 1 , Mrms of our decision what to do. at that time. 2 BY MR. GOOLD: 3 Q Let's ~ turn back to NRC Exhibit 56. Is that the right / g 4 number? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Looking at the first, second, third page of this e::hibit, 7 is that your signature on the second line down in the 8 signature block? 9 A Yes. . 10 Q And is that Mr. Phillip's signature above it? s 11 A Yes. 12 0 He's the individual who worked with you on the report? i 13 A That's correct. i 14 0 Wi.o is Mr. Maxwell whose name appears below yours? . ; 1 15 A !!r. !!axwell at that time was a Region III inspector. , 16 0 Did he work with you on th.is investigation? 17 A In a limited capacity, yes. Ile participated. , 1 18 Q Mhat was his area of involvement? ! l 19 A Quality Assurance. 20 0 What was Mr. Phillip's area of involvement? : 21 A Investigation techniques. 22 Q Did he work with you? i i s 23 A Yes. , j 24 Q Did the two of you review Consumers Power documents in the f ^ . i I i 1 b Luzod Reportine Service yo, ,Q , lafnette Budding , ! Suito A30 , . 962 1176 Suite 220 > . IMroa, \fkhison #1226 farmington l{ dis, \fkhtean 18018 r 1 . course of. your _ investigation? . 2 A Yes. 3- -0 Did you work at flidland? '. 4 A Yes. 5 Q Did you review documents there? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Did you also go to Jacson, 111chigan? 8 A- Yes. s 9 Q And review documents there? 10 A Yes, 11 Q How about Ann Arbor? 12 A Yes. 13 0 Doth of'you reviewed documents there? 14 A ,Ye s . 15 0 Did you conduct interviews of Consumers Power personnel 16 for purposes of preparing your report? 17 A Yes. , 18 Q Can you recall the names of the specific Consumers Power 19 people of whoe. you conducted interviews? 20 A There was a f airly extensive list of people that we 21 interviewed f rom all the parties. I could give you some 22 of the names. I don' t know if it's going to be all 23 inclusive. , 24 Q Please give us the names that you recall. Luzod Reporting Service ywy ,,3,, y gg,pg, g,gg,, ., Sw'tr Am 962 1176 , Ssate 2.% krat. \fichigan 48226 , farminaron HJis, %hisan 48018 1 A' Well, as we. mentioned bef ore, Mr. Horn, Mr. Cooke, Mr. 2- Keeley, Mr. Marguglio, Mr. Bird, a number of other people 3 f rom the site that I j ust don' t recall at this point. ( 4 Q How did you conduct the interviews, what was the procedure 5 you used? 6 A They were f airly inf ormal discussions of what they could 7 of f er in terms of their involvement in the soils work 8 activities. , 9 0 Uho was present during the interviews apart f rom the 10 interviewee? 11 A For the most part Jerry Phillip and myself. I' m trying to 12 recall. I believe a Dect.tel attorney. I don' t recall at 13 this point whether they sat in and they wanted to sit in 14 .- and we didn' t let them sit in. I 15 0 I'm sure it was the latter. 16 A I think we asked them to not participate. 17' Q Did it ever come to your attention that a Bechtel attorney 18 was preparing witnesses bef ore you had a chance to 19 interview them? - 20 A Yes. 21 Q Did that happen with respect to Bechtel employees? 22 A Yes. 23 0 Was that a subj ect of some discussion between yourself, 24 you and Mr. Phillip and Dechtel? Lusod Reporting Service 3o8to s,thua, bra Iluy. lafayette Buildme Suno MO 9sg,j j 7s Suur 220 f)etroa, \lichigan M226 Farmington Hdis, knican 48018 o . .:- - 1 A. Yes. 2 0 17 hat was your reaction to the f act that Bechtel attorneys 3 were preparing witnesses you were interviewing? ' 4 A Well, we inf ormed them that we needed to have f ree and 5 unf ettered discussions with their employees and that we 6 viewed it as serious and that we just needed complete 7 cooperation on their part. 8 0 Did you secure that cooperation? ,9 A I believe ve did. 10 0 How about Consumers Power, did you have any problems with 11 securing their cooperation? ! 12 A lio. 13 Q Did they ever ref use to make documents available to you at 14 111dland? 15 EA There were times when it was dif ficult to get documents. 16 There were requests made and long periods of time bef ore 17 we in fact got them, and in some cases many months, and in . i 18 some cases bef ore we had to issue basically 50.54F ; 19 requests f or those documents. 20 2 11 hat is 50.54F? 21 A It's part of a regulation that provides the NRC to request ' 22 documents that are important to our review and licensing 23 considerations. 24 2 During your preparation of this report, how was it Isfayette Butiding
- Luzod Reporting Service , .Q,5 , ,
Suur Mo 962.I176 Suur 220 Detet. Stichigan M2:6 famsneton flills. Sfichigan 2018 y .. , ,. , t' ,1 determined which. Consumers Power documents would be 'maba 2 available for your review? 3 A Well, we basically in the beginning of the investigation 4 inf ormed them that we would need to review lots of records 5 and documentation and that we would ask f or them ana 6 expect that they would be turned over to us in a timely 7 manner. - t 8 Q Ilow would you determine what to ask f or? 9 A Hell, we had a general understanding of the work 10 activities and what is required in terms of documentation. 11 So it was f airly easy to know what to ask f or. t 12 Q And then how would you get the documents? 13 A ve' d request contacts'in the Quality Assurance Department ' 14 to trace them.down. > 4 15 Q Did Consumers Power open its files to you? . 16 A I'm not sure what you mean in terms of opening. 17 0 Uhat I'm trying to find out is how the process worked. . 18 Did you request specific kinds of documents then somebody j 19 would obtain them for you or were you given a chance to 20 conduct your own investigation of the -files? 21 MR. DRIKER: I obj ect. t 22 A Me did conduct our own investigation. flowever, we asked \~' 23 for 2pecific documents. They have a f airly large and ! 24 extensive record keeping system which was open to our -- : 1 a
- * "I " X8to Northurst$rn lluy 16yette Rmlding ,
Suite MO 962.))76 Sw.ef0 Iktroit, \fichisan M226 Farmington Ildir Alichigan Mola l 1 1 to be made.available to us. Not knowing precisely what 2 was in the entire records system we did ask for specific 3 things that we f elt would be related to our investigation. [ 4 BY MO.' GOOLD: 5 Q Were you depending on Consumers Power to provide you with 6 documents you requested? 7 A Both Consumers and Bechtel. 8, Q And did they provide documents within the categories you 9 specified? 10 >A Yes. 11 0 Did you have any means of determining whether they were 12 providing you with full documentation in the areas you 13 req ue sted? 14 A We expected that they would. ., 15 -2 But you had no way of verifying that? . 16 MR. DRIKER: Objection. 1 17 h Uitho'ut going through every piece of record, no, i j 18 'BY MR. GOOLD: 19 a And did you have problems with respect to the completeness 20 of the documentation Consumers Power provided to you? 21 MR. DRIKER: Obj ection, leading question. ; 22 UR. JEUSEU: I think it might be somewhat of 23 a vague question. 4 24 MR. GOOLD: Well, the witness has described ^ Lusod Reporting S'ervice , ,j,7 ,, , Smte AM 902'll?6 Suite 220 Detroit, Alichigan $82:6 Farmsnetm Hith. .%chiean 48018 ~ 1 - M 1 having _ had to file 50.54F requests, if I understand 2 correctly. I'm trying to get whether he had any concern 3 during this process about the completeness of the . 4 documentation that Consumers Power provided. I would 5 assume so because he testified a 50.54F request became 6 necessary. -1 7 !!R. DRIKER: Did the witness testify that he 8 had to file : 15.54P? 9 MR. GOOLD: . llo, 5 0. 10 MR. DRIKER: Why don' t you rephrase the 11 question and start over. 12 BY MR. GOOLD: 13 Q You've indicated it became necessary at some point to file 14 a 50.5 4F r equest. What I'm trying to find out is whether 15 that need grew from any concern of yours as to the 16 completeness of the documentation Consumers Power was 17 providing? 18' A Yes. - 19 Q And what in your understanding does a 50.54F request do? 20 A Nell, .it's a, formal mechanism f or the NRC to request a 21 responsa to matters that are important to our licensing 22 effort. We were, in general terms, having a f airly -- it 23 was an adversarial proceeding to begin with. During the 24 investigation we were not on, in general terms, the best Luzad Reporting Service 399g y,g,,,,f,Q y,,. Lafayette Building Suste hw 962 1176 Ssate 23 Detroit, \fichisan 48226 Farmsnuton Hsils. .\fichigan 48018 - - = - - - - 4 . .. e- , 1 ef terms trying to get the information and I think 2 predominantly af ter the Administration Building report not 3 being disclosed to us we then were a little bit suspect 4 about what else might not have been. 5 The licensing people themselves, Mr. Darl ; 6 Hood, was having certain difficulties in getting 7 documentation required f or their licensing ef f orts. So we 8 compiled, if I remember correctly, a f airly extensive list 9 of items that we could think of and that would be of 10 importance to us and once that was issued I believe we did 11 get the documentation that we required. 12 O Did you have any understanding as to whether compliance by ( 13 Consumers Power with your 50.54F request was compulsory? 14 A Yes, it is compulsory. 4 15 Q And did you attempt to secure better cooperation f rom , 16 , Consumers Pcwor on a voluntary basis before resorting to , . 17 the 50.54F request? f I .F 13 A I believe we did. k r 19 3 And in judgment was it necessary to resort to the 5,0.54F l 4 [ 20 requirement because of that lack of cooperation? , i l j 21 MR. DRIKER: I object to the question. 4 22 ! j A We did resort to it. I know it was necessary; otherwise ! (> 23 we wouldn' t have issued it. f ! 24 BY MR. GOOLD: f 4 Lap ptu A ddde Luzod Reporting Service yo 3.Q,9, , 5 Swr MO . 962 1176 Swtr 220 . ) Detroa, \fichigan #226 Farminton lidis, .\fithisan 2018 1 Q_ Would you t"r" to page two of this exhibit, PX NRC 56. g 2 Would you ' loch at the bottom paragraph of this page, in 3 particular subparagraph two, which states: "Corrective ! ( 4 action regarding nonconf ormances relating to plant fill 5 was insufficient or inadequate as evi6enced by the 6 repeated deviations f rom specification requirements. " Do 7 you see that language, sir? 8 A Yes. 9 0 Can you explain what you had in mind by that? 10 A There was a system of identifying deviations f rom 11 specification requirements, so-called the nonconf ormance 12 report sycten, and upon reviewing those documents there - 13 had been clearly, in our review, a f airly long history and ~ 14 repetition of soils test f ailures corrective action, which 15 , we f elt was insuf ficient in terms of precluding the 16 deficiency f rom continuing to occur. 17 0 You've ref erred in your an,swer to nonconf ormance' reportc, 4 18 Do you know whether -- are the nonconf ormance reports you i j 19 ref erred to in your answer reports prepared by Consumers 20 Power personnel? 21 A Initially they were perf ormed by the Bechtel organization 22 and reviewed by Consumers Power. 23 0 would you look at paragraph three, or subparagraph three, f 24 which appears on page three of this exhibit. There's the 1 ggg, yggu, LU200 R' Porting Sersice yg 3 y ,, Suite hw 962 Il'6 Swte 220 skimt. \fichigan 48226 Formuteton liith, \fichigan 88018 e e 1 , . statement there, "Certain design bases and construction 2 specificatlons related to f oundation type, material 3 properties and comesction requirements were not f ollowed. "
- ~ -
4 Can you explain what you had in mind by that? 5 A There was licensing inf ormation that identified compaction 6 standards and also material types that werc _ provided much , 7 earlier to the NRC, which in our investigation were not 8 . consistent with what had in f act been the cace at the 9 site. - 10 0 Okay. You ref er to information that had been provided 1 11 earlier to the 1RC. Can you identify any particular P.ind 12 of documents you have in mind by that? . 13 A These were the preliminary saf ety analysis reports and 14 also other geotechnical' reports that dealt with the soils t 15 work. . 16 Q Is one of the documents you j ust ref erred to also known as i 17 .a PSAR? 18 A Yes. 19 -Q If I may, I' d like to ra ter to it by that shorthand. You. ) i 20 also ref erred to geotechnical reports. Is there any 21 particular consultant's report you have in mind in that 22 respe ct ? 23 A It was a report written by the Dames & Moore Company. 24 2 What was that report all about, if you recall? Lu:od Reporting Seniet 51 4 .,u, gigs,, ,g 3 , y &lar MO 962 1176 saae 2x Detroit, \fichieu 482:6 , farminetm Hdis, 'fichien 48018 1 A . It -was the preliminary' soils -report f or the work - .2 - activities that would f ollow and their recommendations as 3 to how to proceed in developing specifications. Thinking in terms of MRC practice, who is responsible for-4 Q 5 preparing a PS AR? 6 A The licensee, in this case Consumers Power Company. 7 0 What relationship, if any, was there between the Dames & 8 Moore report you've ref erred to and the PSAR? l 9 A Anything cpecific? 10 Q For example, was the Dames & Moore report part of the 11 PSAR? 12 A I don' t recall if it was ref erenced er not. 1 13 0 Okay. Did you review the Dames & Moore report? Yes. 14 A ! 15 Q Did you discuss the Dames & Moore report with Consumers 16 Power people? , 17 A Yes. 18 Q Did anyone f rom Consumers Power indicate to you whether or J ~ 19 , not they were f amiliar with that repoct? 20 A From who? 21 Q Consumers Power. 22 A Yes. 23 0 Did anyone f rom Consumers . Power indicate they were 24 f amiliar with the report prior to the Diesel Generator I ' Lu od Reporting Serviee 3,,9 g,,,,,,9,2, ,7w,. lafayette Buildure Sww AM 962 III6 . Swie 2M , Detroit, \fichigan 48226 Farmington Hills. Atwhigan 48018 1 Building problem? 2 A "es. 3 0 Okay. Were people f rom Consumers Power generally f amiliar 4 with the PS AR? 5 A Some were, some weren' t. 6 0 How about Mr. Horn, was he f amiliar with the Dames & Moore 7 report? 8 A I believe he gave it to me. 9 O And did he indicate to you whether er not he had ever seen 10 a copy of that bef ore the Diesel Generator Building 11 problem came up? 12 ,A I don' t recall. 13 0 What role does the PSAR play in the licensing process f or 14 a nuclear power plant? , 15 A Well, it's the beginning document which provides the ' 16 technical details as to how the licensee will proceed in ' 17 constructing the. f acility, and is the document that 18 . controls the NRC's decision whether or not to grcnt a 19 construction permit. I 20 D Is there any obligation, to your knowledge, on a utility 21 building a plant in conf ormance with the PSA" ' 22 A Yes. 23 2 How about the Dames & Moore report, what role, if any, did , 24 4 you understand that report was supposed to play in the Luzod Reporting Service 5,,3 y,. yg ,,,, gy,, ,. Sute hw 962 1170 mae na Detroa, \fichigan Mrs Farmington Hdis, \fwhisan 48018 1 . construction of the plant? 2 A- The Dames & Moore report was a consultant's evaluation to 3 Bechtel and Consumers as to the requirements that one i '. L 3 4 should incorporate into building the f acility. I don' t t 5 recall at this point without looking f urther whether or 6 not it was directly referenced or incorporated into the 7 PSAR. Many of the statements that were in the Dames & l 8 11oore ~ report were transf erred into the PSAR. I recall 9 that it was certainly a document that was used in the ! i 10 preparation of the PSAR. l- 11 0 Did you ever review the specifications for soils work on i ~ ' , 12 the proj ect? 13 A Yes. e . t 14 0 Uhat relationship, if any,.was the relationship between f ' 15 the specifications f or the soils work and the PS AP? 16 A Mithout looking at any specific items it's -- I'm not able 17 to answer that question. t 18 0 nell, first, did you find any inconsistencies between the , 4 19 specifications for the work and the PSAR? -
- 20 A Yeah. There were some inconsistencies in terms of f i . ,
! 21 compaction standard requirements and material ; 22 recommenda tions. l ('; 23 0 Did you review the specifications for the soils work in a i 24 detail? 1 t . lafaptte Buildine Luzod Reporting Service yo ,.g,,,5 4 y '
- Sugge m o 962 1J76 Suite 220 Detrat.. \fichieu 48226 fannington Hiiis, Michigan 48018 t i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _
,- 1 A Yes. - 2 0 As an engineer, did you find anything in there that you
- . 3 considered a problem?
T' 4 A Our evaluttion of the soils specification was that it did 5 not provide a very tight control system for, you know, 1 6- very critical activities in the plant. l 7 O Do you recall you testified at the soils hearings on your-r 8 review of the soils specifications? l 9 A Fairly extensively. , 10 0 Do you recall calling the soils specifications a mess? 11 A I don' t recall that. ; 12 O' 17 ell, I'll show you testimony a little later in your 13 deposition, sir. Do you recall whether~you considered the 14 soils specifications, based on your examination of them, , 1 15 to be a mess? . 16 ilR. DRIKER: Obj ection, leading question. 17 A Can you repeat the question again? , ) 18 -BY !!R. GOOLD: 19 2 Do you recall, based on your examination of the i
- 20 specifications, whether you considered the soils 21 specifications, whether you considered them to be a mess?
22 A Yes.
- L 23 D Do you recall whether you f ound obvious problems in the i
[ 24 soils specifications? l i Luzod Reporting Sersice 3,,o ,,g,j,,5,, y,,. Suar MO , 962.)176 Suite 220 ' Deiroit, \fichigan 48:26 Farmuneton Hdh. .\fichigan 48018 I i
- 1. !!R. DRIKER . Obj ection, ' leading question.
. 2 A Yes. i 3 BY MR. GOOLD: 4 . 4 0 By obvious I'm trying to find out whether you saw problems 5 on the f ace of the specifications j ust f rom having read 6 them? ) 7 A Yes. l 8 O Did anyone f rom Consumers Power indicate to you whether 9 they had read the soils specifications? 10 A Yes. 11 O Uho? 12 1 The people in the Quality Assurance Department, the p'cople 13 in the Field Engineer Group, Proj ect Management people. ' 14 0 Are you f amiliar with the term modified proctor?- i 15 A Yeah. 16 0 could you define it in general terms? l 17 A It's been awhile. It's basically a method of determining I 18 the density of the soil. 19 Q Do you recall whether there were conflicting standards of I ! 20 compaction in the project specifiestions? l 21 HR. DRIKER: Obj ection. 22 A Yes. By the way, let me add to that. In report 78-20 i ( 23 I have not read it, i that discussion is laid out. i ' 24 MR. DRIKER: That discussion is what? i gg,,,,,, giggg, Luzod Repo, ting Sesvier 3 g5 ,5,6 ,, 1 Suar Mo 962 1176 Suite 220 (Mrait. \fichigan 48226 Farmington flills. .\fschigan 48018 4 1 THE WITNESS: Is laid out as to the 4 2 conflicting -inf ormation in the specifications and the work 3 procedures. '4 MR. DRIKER: Off the tecord. ; i 5 (A brief discussion was held 6 of f the record.) 7 BY MR. GOOLD: 8 0 Let's back up for a second. Back to the signature page 9 for our report 78-20. Beneath the names of Messrs. 10 Phillip, Gallagher and Maxwell there are three other 11 gentlemen and the notation "reviewed Ly". Do you see 12 that? - 1. 13 A Yes. 14 , Q Did Mr. Hayes, Mr. Fiorelli and Mr. Morelius review this-15 report bef ore it was issued? 16 'A Yes. 17 Q Is that standard practice in the unC? 18 A Yes. 19 2 What was the purpose of their review, if you know? 20 A It provided the regional management to review the 21 inspectors' findings. p .. 22 -2 A little bit f urther above there's a ref erence to a number \j 23 of dates next to the notation "period of investigation". 24 What do those dates indicate? 4 Lu:od Reporting Service 57 Lafayette kildine y ,g . , y S wte M O 962 1176 Suite :w Detroit, .\fichigan 482:6 Farmingtm Hills. .\fichigan 48018 E l i f 1 . A Those were the dates that we were actually lat the various ' 2 of fices and the site, f 3 A Ue worked, you know, with documentation in our own of fices ( 4 much beyond that, but those were the specific dates we 5 were on site or in the various offices. 6 0 Uhat is the significance of the March 19, 1979 dates that 7 appear next to all of the signatures? 8 A That's the date that we all signed, physically signed the 9 report. 10 0 Is that considered the issuance date of this report? 11 A March 22nd is considered the issuance, 22nd,1979, which 12 is the cover letter date. 13 0 Mould you turn to page f our. Under the heading "details" . 14 there's the subheading "person contacted". Do you see 15 that? 16 A Yes. 17 Q A statement appears, "Approximately 50 individuals were 18 contacted." Are those 50' individuals ref erences to the 19 number of people who were interviewed by you? , 20 A No, I don' t believe so. I think it was just people that 21 provided us information, documents, just during the normal 22 course. Not all of those were f ormally interviewed. I 23 don' t recall. 24 0 Looking at the bottom sentence in that . paragraph Lutod Reporting Service 3,,o y,A,,,,y ,7,y lafayette Buildiat Suae sw 962 1176 Suar 23 Detrat. \fichigan 48226 Farmsngton flils. Stichigan 48018 t 1 (theirs/there's)' a statement, "Threw individuals employed 2 by U. S. Testing Company were also -interviewed. " Do you 3 recall whether you interviewed a Mr. Speltz, John Speltz i 4 of U. S. Testing Company?
- T.
)A I don' t remember the name at this point. l 6 O Let's look at the discussion which appears under t'ne 7 heading "identification and reporting Diesel Generator 8 Building settlement." I' d lik'e to ask you what was your 9 understanding as to the amount of settlement that had i 10 occurred before the matter was reported to the NRC, and 11 I'd invite you to review the document to ref resh your 12 ' recollection. ' 13 MR. DRIIGR : Uhat page are you on? 14 MR. GOOLD: It starts at the bottom of page
- 15 four and carries over to page six. .
16 A Uell, in the f ourth. paragraph of page five it indicates 17 that the reports were made to the NRC when the settlements 18 exceeded those values tha't were ref.l ected in, at that l t l 19 time, the final saf ety analysis report, the FS AR. 20 3Y MR. GOOLD: 21 ] Do you recall what the PSAR settlement figures represented . ? 22 in terms of what period of time for the settlement? "1 ( j 23 h That was the settlement that was expected over the life of ! ) 24 the f acility, some 40- plus or minus years. ! l i i-sa,, aw 9s2.iirs . s.,, zw ; i Faminttu Hills..%htgan al8 Qmt. %kisan 48:26 . . _ - m_ 9 ? 1 Q 1st I correct in understanding that the Diesel Genucotor 2 Building problem was reported to the MRC after the 3 lif etime settlement had been exceeded? 4 A Th a t ' ' correct. 5 0 L d that cause you any concern as to whether thece had C been a delay by Consumers Pouer in reporting this problem? 7 MR. DRIXER: Did what cause a concern? 8 MR. GOOLD: The f act the settlement uacn' t 9 reported until af ter the lif etime settlement prediccion 10 for the building had been exceeded, 11 A Mo -- ' 12 - MR. DRIKER: The report of August 13, 1970? 13 MR. GOOLD: That's right. 14 A Mo,. I don' t -- it did at that time. ,, 15 BY MR. GOOLD: , 16 0 At the time the Diesel Generator Building was reported to 17 the MRC how f ar along was construction? , 18 A It.was some place between 2 5 and 50 pr.rcent compl ete. 19 0 And at the time the building was only 25 to 50 parcent 20 completed it already exceeded the lif etime cettlement 21 predicted for the structure? 22 A That's correct. 23 0 Do you have any belief as to whether the problem should 24 have been reported sooner? ggay,,,, gu,js,, Lutod Reporting Sertice m. pg Suae 100 962 11Ib Suite 2:0 Detrat, \fichigan 49226 Farmington Hills, 3fichiean +901R 1 !!R. DRIKER: Obj ection. It's a leading 2 question, !!r. Goold. There's no f oundation l' aid. 3 A flany times the maj ority of the settlement occurs in the 4 s very .early stage of construction and completion of the ) 5 structure when the initial consolidation of the material 6 takes place, and then generally it vould level off at some 7 constant value. 8 .D'l !!R. GOOLD: 9 C Okay. Looking back over the discussion on this subject, 10 did you ever learn when the Diesel Generator Building 11 settlement was identified as a potential problem l 12 independent of when it had to be reported to the ImC? 13 - !!R. DRIKER Objection. There's no 14 foundation. What do you mean by potential problem? These i 15 questions are simply formless. You can go ahead an answer 16 them. 17 Uell, as in paragraph two we identified the- investigator l 18 and identify that in July of 1978 when the surveyers were 19 routinely monitoring the settlement there were 20 h difficulties in enclosing the survey and so much to the 21 point that they decided to take surveys more f requently 22 than the 60 day program that they had originally outlined. 23 BY 11R. GOOLD: 24 2 In the next paragraph, that is the third paragraph on page lafayetto Lidins I'usod Reportine Service 962'1II6 ,gg f1Suary 3 Suite MO '"' *~"" "" # 1 fiv e, the statement appears, "The Field Proj ect Engineer. 2 was also informed of the apparent settlement and concurred 3 with the'1ead civil field engineer's action. " By the term ( 4 "apparent settlement", were you ref erring to the 5 information discussed in the paragraph immediately 6 preceding that? 7 A Yes. 8 0 Okay. Now, did yo'u ever learn whether there were 9 settlements taking place at other structures on the site 10 at this time? 11 A Me were hware that there was in general terms a settlement 12 monitoring progr'am throughout the site and there f or 13 monitoring those settlements. 14 0 Did anyone report to you that settlement monitoring was 15 indicating problems at other structures during this time 16 period? 17 A nothing out of the ordinary. 18 0 Do you believe any such problem, if there had been one, 19 should have been reported to you? . 20 MR. DRIKER: I'll object to tne question. 21 It has no foundation, is hypothetical, leading. 22 A Yes. ( 23 BY MR. GOOLD: 24 Q Did you ever learn whether the f oundation f or the Diocel Luzod Reporting ' Service ,g f2 77,. gg,,,,,, gigs,, Suar MO 962 lis'6 Suite 2M ~ iktroit. \fichigan m Farmnaton fisils. Alichisan W18 i
- 1. ! Generator Building was consistent with what the project ;
2 - specifications called for? l 3 A When you say foundation of the building, you mean the type l t !I 4 or arrangement of the foundation? 5- h, That's right. l
- . 6 !!R. DRIKER
- Mould you kindly read the !
, 7 question back, pl ea se . - f l 8 DY !!R. GOOLD: , 9 Q Did you ever learn whether the kind of foundation used at 4 10 the Diesel Generator Building was consistent with what the 11 specifications called for? l 12 A Well, there were changes in the type of foundation that 13 were designed and called for. At one point in time the 14 , foundation at the Diesel Generator Building was what wo 15 refer to as a uniform mat foundation, and at another point : i 16 in time it was identified as a so-called spread f ooting 17 with a p,erimeter f oundation wall and independent pedectals , l 18 l for the diesels themselves. . l l 19 p Could you explain what a spread footing is?
- 20 k It's just a type of foundation in the terms of a perimecer !
\ ( 21 footing that supports the building. ; ~ 22 2 Did you ever learn whether settlement calculations f or the j 23 building had been performed on the basis of a mat 24 f ounda tion? l 1 i I ! L g .,g, pg, bM30d R! Porting Service , \,Q,3 g ,._ SuartOO 962 1ii6 suar ::o l Detroit, .\fichiesn 48226 Farmatton Hdis. %chigan 48018 1 A. Yes. 2 O - And what in f act was the type of foundation actually ! 3 built, installed at the Diesel Generator Building? 4 A Spread footing. , 5 0 Did you consider that significant in your review of the ! 6 pecblem? l 7 !!R. DRIKER: Objection, leading. 8 A Ye s. 9 BY !!n. GOOLD: - 10 0 Could you turn to page nine of report 78-20. Looking ir. 4 11 particular at the second paragraph under the heading ! j 12 "revicv of compaction . requirements f or plant ana fill. " i J 13 In particular the last sentence of paragraph ref ers to a [ i - ; j 14 95. percerat of maximum density for cohesive soils as - 1 15 determined by ASTM-1557-66T. What I'm trying to find out l 16 is, is AST!!-66T also known as a modified proctor standard? > 17' i A That's correct. 10 Q- Do yo's know what's the most commonly used compaction i
- 19 standard in civil engineering proj ects? ,
, 1 j 20 A Yes. ' i . 21 Q What is it? 22 A That one. ; (, i 23 0 And are you referring to a 95 percent of modified proctor
- 24 standard?
l 1 Luzod Reporting Service y ,g \. 9Q,7 Suae ao 962 11I6 Saar 2:0 t Qetrat. \fschien 48 6 Farmmaton Ihlis. .\fichieu 13018 [ 1 A That can be variable ^0cpending on the results that one 2 wants to get. The ASTri-D1557 is a f airly unif orm standard 3 that's used in the practice, i 4 0 Did you ever learn what the compaction standarc was for 5 cohesive soils that was actually used at I:idland? 6 A Something other than that. 7 C And are you ref erring to other than 95 percent of modified 8 proctor? 9 A Yes. , 10 0 And was the compaction standard f or cohesive soils used at 11 Midland greater or loscor than 95 percent of modified 12 ~ proctor? 13 A Lessor. 14 , Q' Okay. Did you become f amiliar with the compaction
- 15 standard used at other nuclear projects in the course of 16 your work at Region III?
17 A Yes. 18 0 Was the compaction standard at other nuclear proj ects ~ 19 greater or lessor than the compaction standard used at 20 hidland? 21 A The 95 percent value et the modified proctor was more 22 standard in -- based on what I recall. 23 2 Do you know of any nuclear power plant proj ect, other than 24 !!idland where a Bechtel modified proctor standard was Lused Reporting Service G5 , , g Sute hw 9C2 1176 - Sute 5 Detrat, Mickiesr.,48226 Formuvem Hdh. hkitan 48018 1 , used? , 2 A No. 3 0 And was a Dechtel modified proctor standard in f act used ^ 4 at Midland? ' 5 A Yes. 6 0 Did you discuss the compaction standards.that were used at 7 - the project with I:r. !!orn? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Did you ever learn whether he was aware at the time 10 construction work was being done that the nochtel modified 11 proctor standard was being used? 12 A I would have to go back and review things. I believe the 13 report points out that there was considerable confusion 14 surrounding what was supposed to be used versus what was 15 in fact used. 16 0 Did you discuss that conf usion with I:r. !!orn? 17 A Yes. , 18 0 Uhat did he tell you about it? . 19 A I don' t recall specifically, but I think the report is 20 accurate as it stands at this point. 21 0 Uhat I'm trying to find out is whether !!r. Horn told you 22 he was aware of that conf usion? 23 A Oh, yes. There were a number of people who were trying to 24 deal with the whole conf usion surrounding it. e ,,,, g yg ,, Luted Reporting Service m j,6, y So tao 962 Ei76 Suar 2;M Detroa, Vichigan 48:26 Tsmmston Udis, Whigan 48018 i f 1 0, okay. _Did you learn whether that confusion was viewed as l 2 a problem? 3 A Yes. - l 1 4 Q And did you learn whether !:r. Horn considered the f 5 confusion over compaction standards to be a problem? ! I 6 .A Yes. ; 7 0 Did he indicate whether it was an onscJ ng problem? I O A Yes. , 9 0 During construction of the plant? 10 A Yes. 11 O Okay. Did he indicate whether anything was donc to clear 12 up that' confusion? 13 A As we point out in the report, there was considerable 14 correspondence f rom the field of fice to the design of fice 15 of Dechtel attempting to clarify and clear up the whole 16 confusion. 17 .0 Did you ever learn whether the conf usion was in f act 18 resolved prior to the disclosure of the Diesel Generator 19 Building problem? - 20 A It was not. 21 2 Did you, as an engineer, consider that conf usion to be a 22 significant problem? C 23 t4R. DRIKER: Objection. 24 N Yes. Lusod Reporting Service gg yj,7 y 4p,, ugg,, Suar hw 962 lii6 suar :3) kroa. \fkhiass 482:6 Fennmeron Hills. .\fschisan 48018 t 1 BY lIR. GOOLD . 2 0 Could you explain why? - ) 3 A Well, it seems to be f airly fundamental in that work , 4 activity, which is a critical element of the overall plant I
- _ 5 foundation and under tight quality _ controls, one would i
6 have precisely what the standards and criteria vore before 1 7 one continues on. 0 0 okay. Did you ever learn whether the compaction equipment j' 9 used on the fill had been qualified before the fill va: i 10 placed? ] l 11 A At what time period now are you talking about? ! 12 Q I'm talking about during the period prior to the i 13 disclosure of the Diesel Generator Building problem. l 1 .14 A Ito, I don' t believe go. I don' t -- we got qualification 15 test results but it was af ter, af ter the whole problem I , 16 surfaced. 1 17 0 To your knowledge, wege the qualification reports you' re j 18 ref erring to prepared af ter the problem surf aced? i 19 A I believe so, t ! 20 0 Did you request qualification reports for the compaction 21 eq uipment? l 22 A Yes.
- C 23 0 Uhy?
24 A For the ongoing work. l , . 1 k ' Luzod Reporting Service m3 Q (i gg,,, yig,,, Sua, a; 962 1176 - Suar ::0 twa, whigan 482:6 Farmv# s lik Whitan M18 . .: .. L i j f l 1 , 0 Why .did you consider that desirable? , i 2' A- It made sense to know that the equipment and methods that ! 3 were being used would in f act provide the desired results and 1. fairly common and standard practice. 4 4 5 Q Did anyone ever tell you why it hadn' t been done bef ore ! G the Diesel Generator Building problem surf aced? , l j 7 A I don' t recall. 4 0 Q Okay. Did you consider it prudent that no one did that? t a 9 1:R. DnIKER: I'll obj ect to the question. [ 1 i , F ' 10 No foundation laid, leading. ! 11 A Can you repeat the question? l 12 BY 11R. GOOLD: , . i 13 O Did you find it prudent that the compaction, equipment had l 4 i 14 not been qualified up until the time? ! 1 i 15 A It was not prudent that they did not. ! 16 -Q Do you know whether compacti'on, qualification of l t 4 ( compaction equipment was done at other nuclear power plan't 17 , j I 18 proj ects? ; i 19 A I believe so, yes. , i i 20 g Do you know whether it was common at other nuclear power , 21 plant proj ects with which you became f amiliar f or f [ 4 22 compaction equipment to be qualified? ! 23 N It's a f airly common practice under any circumstances to. ! 24 Tests are perf ormed f airly inf requently and af ter a large [ k, - i 1 . ,g, Luzod Reporting Service , 3 69 , _ Suur hw 962 1176 Ser nv i Farmuuton HJh. \fickwn 48018 } . Detroa. M chian 4826 , __ _, r _r .. .'. [ q 1 l volume of material _ is placed and 'in order for one to , ~ 2 y assure that the material between tests are being I 3 adequately compacted develops, at least as one technique, - - 4 a methodology of wmpacting material so that the test 5 results are just a continuing verification that what one ! G is doing is providing the desired resultc. 7 0 Did you ever learn whether Consumers Power personnel had ! I 8 express,ed concern ebout a lack of control over compaction f 9 in the plant ill prior to the disclosure of the Diesel 10~ Generator Building problem? { ! 11 A Yes. : , + 12 ,Q What did you learn about that? 13 A The Quality Assurance Department, !!r. !!orn specifically, ! l 14 was concerned with the nonconf ormance reports that werc l 15 being generated. I don' t recall at this point whether or ! 16 not they actually stopped work or at least they identifiod j i I 17 , problems and attemoted. to get them resolved, j 10 0 And did he indicate whether the problems had been j i- 19 l resolved? [ 2 l . j 20 A I think he f elt that they were resolved, although, upon j i 21 pointing out th7 repetitiveness I think he then f elt ; t 22 otherwise. ! t l 23 Q Did I!r. Horn indicate that he had been concerned about the l 24 soil compaction problems in discussions with you? : l f l , I I I y ,a, gig, Lutod RtPorting Sernce y ,g 3 yf7 l l Sar Mo 962 1176 S a r 2:0 l l [Mroa, \fukiaan 482:6 Farmuwton flills .\fuhiean 48018 l' !!R. 'DRIKER: The question is manif estly .2 leading, Mr. Goold. 3 A He was concerned in terms of the Quality Assurance ' 4 activities, getting the desired results and in doing his 5 own :"dits and finding that they were repetitive 6 nonconforming conditions, yes, he was concerned. 7 13Y tm. GOOLD: 8 0 Did he indicate whether he had taken his concerns to his 9 superiors in Consumers Power? 10 A Yes. 11 O And what did he indicate, if anything, as to what his 12 superiors had done? 13 A I believe that they wanted him to get proper corrective 14 action from the responsible parties. 15 -0 And did he, !!r.. Horn, indicate uhether proper corrective 16 action was.ever secured f rem the responsible parties? 17 A 17 ell, again I think he believed in his own mind that they 18 were gehting responses to those inquiries; however, during 19 the investigation he was convinced that he obviously had 20 not gotten full correct.ive action. 21 ] Okay. In your investigation of the soils problems, did i 22 you conduct any review concerning moisture control in the 23 fill? 24 h Yes. l \, - Y - r Smir hw 962 11I6 Suar 2LM i Detos \tukige a:3> Femmata Hk \fkkwu wola -_...____..--._,-,_____,_,__.,.--_--.u.-_.-.,__, y . . . l -i 1 0 17 hat did you lear:: a to the. practice regarding control of l l 2 moisture at the !!ididnd Proj ect? [ t 1 3 A They were having f airly continuous problems getting tho
- t 4 material prepared properly for compaction, not being j 5 within the specification limits for moisture.
- 6 0 Do you recall uhat the specification limits vero for f
7 - moisture? ; 8 A !!ot without 'ref erring back to documents. ' , 9 Q Could you turn to page 1 of this exhibit. Let me direct [ 10 your attention to the heading "review of moisture control l 11 requirements for plant area fill" and the discession which ! 12 f ollow s. Does reviewing the paragraph beneath the heading 13' "review of moisture control requirements for plant area ] 14 fill" ref resh your recollection aa to what the 1 1 15 specifications were ,for moistute control? ! ! 4 16 A Yes.
- 17 0 17 hat vere they?
18 A Two percentage points below the optimum moisture content ; 1 i ! 19 and not more than tuo percentage points -- plus or ninus j l r
- 20 two above optimum in other words, t 21 Q From your experience as an engineer in this area, do you !
I i 22 know whether it js customary to control moisture content
- g# .
} 3 23 in compacted fills? , 24 A Yes. ! 4p, ug,, Lut0d R' Porting Service , S. ,,7,,) ,7 s a. rao 9o: tiis saar rx Detroa, \fickitan arn Fernutwo flilk \fichisan M018 1 'O Uhy? 2 A For ease of compaction and efficiency in the operation and 3 also in order to achieve the desired results. 4 0 Do you know whether, from your work at Region III, whether 5 moisture control was contro11e0 at other nucicar proj ects 6 where compacted fills were placed? 7 A I don' t recall specifically. . During the course that was a 8 characterisitic that we would routinely check. 9 Q Do you recall whether moisture control was a problem at 10 any other proj ect? 11 A I don' t recall. I I 12 -Q You don' t recall it being a problem] is that correct? l 13 A !!o. I 14 0 Uhat did you learn in the, course of your investigation a: 15 to whether. moisture was controlled, moisture content uns 16 contre 11ed at the fill at I:idland? 17 A I believe the report concludes that they di.d not have { 18 adequate control of moisture. 19 3 Did you ever discuss that subj ect with f:r. Horn? 20 Yes. , 21 Q Did he indicate whether he had had any awareness as to l i - 22 whether that was a problem? (s 23 A Yes. , 24 ) Uhat did he tell you? ! Lafhyette Ls!dsne f.uzad Reportsne Sersice ,.mg \.),3, , Suar hw 96 2. ] ] ? 6 Ssate2;% > Detrue, Whisan +t::6 Farmnetc lidh. Whican 48018 . . .. , j 1 A That theIe were numerous nonconf ormance .repor ts of that 2 same type. ' i 3 0 over what time period? (' 4 A Fairly long history of it. 5 0 Did he indicate whether he had been concerned about that 6 problem? 7 A Yes. 3 0 Did he indicate whether corrective action had over been 9 taken, to his knowledge? - 10 A From recollection I believe -- I believe he believed, as 11 the nonconformance reports indicated, that the corrective 12 action described was being done, that is preparing the .
- 13. material in accordance with the specifications.
14 0 From your own review of this situation did you reach any 15 conclusion as to whether corrective action was pver taken? 16 A Yes, that it was not. 17 Q Do you considered it a prudent engineering practice not to 18 control moisture in compacted fill? 19 A !?o , it's not. 4 20 0 Uhat problems, if any, can it cause, can f ailure to 21 control moisture cause? 22 A Well, it can give you misleading results in terms of the . 23 actuti density of the material, as is the case here at 24 !!idl a nd. 4 .,,,, g ig,, Lused Reporting Service y,3 yy kate hM 962 11?6 Sato ZM Detrat, Whigan 4C.'s , Ferminston Udh, hkiaan 48018 t l 1- l0 And you_ did in f act find that result had occurred at , 2 Midland?- l ! t 3 A Yeis. A Q Did you ever discuss with !!r. !!orn what irnpact, if any, ! 5 the f ailure to control moisture had had on the compaction l I 6' of the fill? j t 7 TI!C t!I$:!ESS: Can you read the question f 8 back? ( 4 9 (The requested portion of the , i, 10 record was read back as follouct j 11 "Q. Did you ever discuss with !!r. ! t 12 Horn what impact, if any, the l ! r l . 13 failure to co-trol moisture had ! 14 had on the compaction of the fill?") [ l 15 A Yes. ?
- 16 DY !!R. GOCLD:
1 L l 17 0 !? hat did he tell you? 1 $ i l i 18 A That it was a contributing f actor to the poor compaction ; 19 of the fill. , l t i 20 2 Did you discuss the subject with an one else f rom [ i i j 21 Consumers Power that you recall? l j ! ) 22 A Yes. I ! i-s . ]" 23 -2 Do you recall who? 1
- 24 A Other project engineers, a f ellow named Bob I! heeler, who ,
! f . i jf , ghg gg . g ',
- y,, a 962 11if kto 3 [
Dent, Whigen 4C:r> Famnton HJh, Whiten JA0!8 i I we were interacting with f rom time to time, Dechtel field 2 people, U. S. Testing inspectors, a variety of people. 3 The moisture control, a number of other things were the 4 fecuc of our investigation. 5 0 Did you learn whether noisture control was perceived by 6 people other than Mr. !!orn to be a problem? 7 A Yes. . 8 0 Dy whom? 9 A I think it was a general concern that controls were not 10 tight on an element that the specifications reflected, and 11 people f rom the test lab to the proj ect field people of i 12 Dechtel to Consumers project people to the Quality 13 Assurance people, it was a well-known issue. 14 0 Did you ever maet I:r. Sibbald, S-i-b-b-a-1-d, of Con,sumers 15 Pow er ? i 16 A I believe so. 17, O Did you ever discuss the soils problems with him7 18 A Yeah, I believe we did. I don' t recall specifically what 19 we discussed. !!e was one of the field supervisors of 20 Con s umer s. 21 0 Did you ever discuss the causes of the soils problems with 22 Mr. Wheeler? 23 A Yes. 24 0 Uhat did he tell you in that regard? lafyrtte k% Lusod Reportina Service ,, y ,, 9 6 2 117 b ~ suae am Swtr :M IMroa, \fschttu W:6 fermmaton Ildis, \fschttu Wl8 / t 1 A I- think he felt that we were f airly accurate, that we were l i 2 very accurate in identifying the contributing f actors ! i 3 dealing with the uncompacted material.
- l t
4 'O Could you summarise what you found to be the contributing i factors? 6 A Uell, it v-a a variety of reasons, everything f rom the ! [ 7- selection of the material to the specification controls, , 8 to the testing methods, to the actual cuality Control ! 9 - inspection and probably foremost the lack of field r 10 engineering supervision on a very critical element'of the 11 plant. Our general finding that there was very inf requent l r 12 engi,neering supervision of that activity p'robably was the f 13 most significant f actor that all of the other ! i . 14 characteristics were permitted to go on and.on and on for i 15 so long. l i 16 0 Did you consider the lack of control over moisture to be a i 17 contributing factor? l 18 A Yes. i i 19 g Did you consider lack of control over compaction to be a r 20 contributing problem? ! i 21 h Definitely. : 22 2 Did you consider f ailure to qualify compaction equipment 23 to be a contributing cause? 3 24 h Yes. f . r , y Lused Reporting Servier yo 7,,7 , , , { sa , sw 962.I176 suar clo [ Dema. W hieu 482:s fermntm lhlh. \takiaan 48018 ? 1 0 Just .o the record is cicar, you've also ref erred to 2 ts-ting methods as a contributing factor. Could you 1 i 3 explain that? 4 A Specifically the testing company and the field engineer in 5 tr.ic type of testing needs to select a standard f or 5 comparison of the material that was in f act ecmpacted 7 versus the material that has been tested in the lab and 8 the maximum density that one can achieve with that 9 material, and we learned that because of .the 10 non-unif ormity of the materf.a1 and the method at which 11 they were seiceting the standard, they were apparently in 12 erro* and as a result, as Bechtel concluded, their test 13 results were completely erroneous. 14 0 Did you learn when Bechtel reached that conclusion? . 15 A Uith the circumstances surrounding the Administration ! 16 Duilding in December of 1977 or earlier. 17 0 Ohay. You've also ref erred to selection of material as a 18 contributing factor to the soils problems. Can you. 19 explain what ycu mean by that? 20 A Uell, the material that was finally approved per the 21 drawir.gs f or the proj ect was, as they called it, a random 22 fill material, which was j ust what it was. That choice of 23 such a nonhomogenous materia 1 would -- it did in f act 24 creare control problems as to how one would go about Is/nette Budding 3n850 %rthurst rE Ilus v Suar h10 . 962 IIIb Swar :L% I Detma. \fwhicsn M:.'% farmastan HJh, Vaksson 201M ..c. ,.. 3 1 assuring that'the compaction and desired results was ~ achieve'd uniformally. 2 6 3 In other words, if the material is / 4 constantly changing then one needs to adjust methods and 5 test results at.J testing techniques to accommodate that. G And there really wasn' t a tight Quality Control system for
- s. 7 making those adj ustments.
3 0 Okay. Did you ever learn whether the kind of fill used at 9 the site was considered a difficult material to uork uith? 10 A Yes. 11 0 Uhat did you learn in that regard? 12 A Uell, many of 'hc people who we had contact with 13 recognized bec use of the nonhomogeneity of the material 14 , that even the most e::perienced soils people indicated to 15 us that it was a "bear of a material to deal with. Also, 16 just the randomness of the material. 17 7 Just so the record is clear, you put a quote bef ore bear 18 and then went on to say of a material to work with. Mas 19 the term "bear" specifically ref erred to as the 20 description of the material? I 21 A Yeah. I remember people, I don't remember exactly who, 22 some of the old-time soils people ref erred to the C 23 difficulty of the type of material and, you knoa, the 24 changeability of the material.- Luzod Reporting Service ,o 3 7,,9 ,, gg,,,u, giggin, suite Mo 962 1176 suite 2x Detroit, Michigan 48226 , farmington flills, Mic'higan 48018 I p b 1 Q. Were you told whether the difficulty of working with the 2 material was a problem that developed only after the 3 - Diesel Generator Building problem was disclosed?
- 4 liR. DRIKER: Obj ection to the leading 5 ' q ue sti ons.
6 A It was a f airly routine problem, 7 BY MR. GOOLD: 8 O Throughout the construction? , 9 A Um-ha. 10 0 Throughout? 11 A Throughout, l'2 0 You've ref erred to specification controls as a 13 contributing factor in the soils problems; is that 14 ,. correct? 15 A Yes. 16 0 Uhat are you referring to in that regard? 17 A The standard for compaction, that is the Bechtel modified' l 18 versus the modified proctor; the limits that one gave on, 19 for eEample, moisture control, plus or minus tuo on 20 material that was highly variable and probably more 21 sensitive than those limits, the lack of the 22 specifications specifically requiring controls to deal ( , 23 with the variability of the material. 24 0 Mere you told by Consumers Power that those problems had 4,gg, gagging Luzod Reporting Service y3 ,y ,, Suste MO 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit Michigan 48226 Farmington flills Michigan 48018 j Q e , ... , 1 been identified prior to the disclosure of-i.ae Diesel 2- Generator Building problem? 3 11R. DRIKER: l'11 object to the question. f 4 A Yes. 'S IIR. DRIKER: Mhen you ask a question were 6 you told by Consumers Power, I don' t think Consumer s Power 7 has a voice and if you ever want to use this deposition 8 for any purpose I assure you I'm going to object to these 9 kind of vague and f ormless questions about a company 10 saying anything. 11 BY MR. GOOLD: r12 0 By Consumers Power I'm ref erring in particular to 13 empl'oyees of Consumers Power. 14 A That's right, the people in the Quality Assurance 15 Depa r tment, !!r. Horn, the people in the Proj ect i 16 Engineering Department, Mr. Wheeler, all expressed 17 dif ficulties with vorking with the soils activities. 18 2 You' ve also ref erred to OC inspection ac a ' contributing 19 cause. Can explain what you mean by that? 20 A Well, the purpose of the Quality Control inspection is to,. 4 21 on a continual basis, to verify that things are in 22 compliance with the requirements. Because of the '(' 23 conf usion around what the requirements were, in fact, the 24 Quality Control inspectors did not do a very suf ficient l l Luzod Reporting Service 30810 Nonhubiern Hwy. Suite Mo 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit.' Alichigan 48226 Farmington Hills. Afichigan 48018 . _ ~ ,. . . _. .-.-_. - . _ _ . . _ . . . _ , _ __ t4 ,t l .1 job in assuring that quality was met, plus because of tne 2 variability of materials and standards and the like it 3 required that much more attention, which during the 4 investigation I was unable to determi.1e that there wa= 5 continuous and caref ul attention by Quality Control. 6 Q Did anyone f rom Consumers Power indicate to you whether 7 there had been concern regarding QC inspection over the O soils work, as you described that term, prior to the 9 disclosure of the Diesel Generator Building problem? 10 A I don' t recall. li Q Do you recall either way on that subject? 12 A No, I don' t. 13 0 You' ve also ref erred 'to the lack of a field engineer as a 14 contributing cause. Could you explain what you mean by 15 that? . 16 :. Hell, my experiences have been, on a proj ect that hcs as i 'T 17 . much soils activity as this proj ect, both in the earth . 18 1 moving operation as well as the the compaction operaLien, 19 that it's f airly routine that the constructor and/or the 20 engineer provide supervision by a qualified geotechnical 21 engineer to monitor that that the work is being done l' 22 properly and to deal with day-to-day deficiencies that i 23 might crop up. During our investigation I was unable to 24 determine, or I was able to determine that there was Isfayette Buildina az d Repoeting Service 39g,o ,,5,,,,9,y ,7,,_ Suite MO 962 1176 Suitt 2:0 Detroit. .\fichigan 48226 Farmington flills. \fichigan 43018 .a ,4 , 1 inadequate . supervision by a qualified geotechnical 2 engineer throughout the earth work activities. 3 Q Did you discuss that subject with anyone f rom Consumers 4 "cw er ? 5 A Yes. 6 0 Uhat did they indicate? 7 A I don't recall e::actly what their reaction to that was 8 cther than acknowledging that there was not continuous 9 field engineering review. 10 Q So the record is clear, did anyone from Consumers Power 11 indicate to you that they had been aware prior to the 12 disclosure of the Diesel Generator Building problem that 13 there was a lack of someone knowledgeable in charge of the 14 soils work? ,, 15 MR. DRIKER: Leading question, obj ection. 16 A You know, at the time of our investigation, you know, they 1 17 were'becoming aware of that obviously, based on our j 18 findings, based on them reviewing the records themselves, 19 that there were inf requent or not qualified field 20 engineers reviewing this activity. I don' t recall them 12 1 bringing it up as such, but they acknowledged our finding 22 that in f act they did not have qualified soils engineers l; .23 reviewing the worx. 24 3Y MR. GOOLD: Lu2 d Reparting $ervice 3 ,,9 3 ,k,),,,n ,,,_y. lafayene Building Suite MO 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit, Michigan M226 Farmington flills, Michigan M018 1- 0 , Do you recall whether you learned that Consumers Bower 2- people had expressed concern about a lack of control over 3 the soils work prior to the disclosure of the Diesel 4 Generator Building problem? 5 A In general terms, yeah. They were identifying themselves 6 lack of controls in a variety of different aspects. I 7 don' t recall specifically whether it was a field engineer, 8 a lack of a field engineer. 9 0 I see. Let me try to make sure I'm clear on the subject 10 so pardon me if I repeat myself. Did Consumers Power 11 peopl e, empl oy ees, indicate to you that they had been 31 concerned about a lack of control prior to the disclosure 13 of the Diesel Generator Building problem? 14 MR. DRIKGR: Obj ection to the questi,on. 15 A Yes. 16 BY UR. GOOLD: 1 17 0 Okay. 18 A !!r. Horn, I believe, was continually concerned about the 19 soils work activities and the variety of controls that we 20 spoke, of earlier in the conduct of that operation. 21 0 Uhen you use the term "continually concerned", are you 22 ref erring to the period of time during which the soils was (' 23 placed? l 24 A During the period of time he was involved. l . l l lAfGyttle Buildine Luzod Reporting Service ,g 3 ,0) . Sinte M O 962 1176 Suite 2% Iktroit. \fichigan 48226 Farmington flills. Afichigan 48018 1 c.- .,.- 1 0 .U.krt -is your understanding as to the period of time the 2 soils were placed, by the way? 3 A Pr obably beginning in 1975, some time 'in 197 5 through our /' 4 -investigation. 5 0 ?.nd at the time the Diesel Generator Building problem was G disclosed to the URC, do you know approximately what t 7 percent of the soils work had been completed? 8 A There really wasn't that much left.
Dearly 95,
99 percent 9 compl e te .
10 Q Okay. You have also referred to lack of moisture contrcl 11 as a contributing f actor to the soils problem, have you 12 nat? -
13 A U m- h a .
14 i O And did anyone f ron Consumers Power indicate to you ,
15 wh. ether that ,was also a source of continuing concern while 16 the soils were being placed at the site?
17 A Yes.
18 2 Uho did that?
19 ,A Ouality Assurance people, !!r. Horn, in their revieV of 20 nonconformance reports on that same subject.
i 21 Q Did you ever learn whether the clay used as fill at the 22 !!idland Project had any particular sensitivity to moisture
(" 23 content?
24 liR. DRIKER: Objection, the question is Luzod Reporting Service 3mto Nonhuktern Huy.
Lafayette Building Sws, MO . . 962.))76 Suite 2x I)etrat. Michigan 48226 . fQrmiSKlon U5553. NiCb5KGn 40050
1- leading.
2- A Yes.
3 BY MR. GOOLD:
4 0 Uhat did you learn in that regard?
5 A Uell, upon f"rther tests, if I recall, the material 6 exhibited characteristics that were very sensitive to 7' moisture control. Going very little beyond optimum .
8 moisture cou'ld be a real serious problem because of the 9 general characteristics that the soils e::hibited.
10 0 Uhen you use the term "going very little beyond optimum",
11 can you quantify what you mean by little beyond optimum?
12 A You know, less than one percent on either side, if I .
13 remember correctly, could -- you would f all of f the 14 optimum compaction curve rather quickly.
15 ,
O And how do you determine that, wha.t is your source of 1G information for that conclusion?
17 A The proctor test, the laboratory standard test that's used 18 to develop that soils characteristics curve. .
19 0 That's what I'm trying to find out. Is that by examining 20 the proctor curve for a particular soils sample?
I 21 A Yes.
22 Q And did you have the opportunity t'o review proctor curves 23- at the Midland Proj ect?
24 A Yes.
t, fay,gg, guitgi,,
Lmd Reporting Service ,gHg y,,,kun,y,6n ,,uy.
Susto MO 962.I176 Suite 220 Detroit, \fichigan 48226 Farmington lisih, Michigan 2018
,w
.. .- ,i 1 0 Did you ever learn whether scoctor curves were regularly 2- kept, were regularly generated in the course of the soils 3 work there?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Do you know whether Mr. Horn ever examined the proctor 6 curves?
7 A Yes.
8 Q' Did you~ ever discuss the subject of the sensitivity of the 9 fill to moisture with Mr. Horn?
10 A Yes, 11 Q Uhat did he indicate to you with regard to that?
12 A He agreed that it was a concern and tha,t it was very
, 13 sensitive to moisture control, as well as the other 14 controls that we' ve discussed this morning.
l 15 Did you ever discuss the contributing f actors uith anyone O
16 from Dechtcl?
17 A Yes.
18 2 Let me backtrack for a second. Did you ever discuss or 19 did you ever learn whether f:r. Horn had any prior 20 experience on soils work?
21 A Yes, he did.
22 Q Uhat did you learn in that regard?
(
23 A That he had been on other Consumers proj ects in the area 24 of soils.
Luzad Reporting Service ,n 3, 8,,7 y ,_
igayette Building Suite hw 962 11I6 Suite 220 lktroit, Michigan 48226 . Farmington Hith. Michigan 48018
1 0 Did you ever learn f rom- Mr. Horn whether be considered 2 himself.to be experienced regarding matters such as l
3 proctor curves f or soils testing?
4
/ 4 A Yes.
5 0 Do you recall, did you ever learn whethor Mr. Hora uas 6 involved in the Ludington Pump Storage proj ect?
7 A Ye s.
8 0 Did that come up in your discussions with him?
9 A Yeah, casually.
10 0 Mhat did he tell you about that?
11 A That he was involved on soils work activities.
. 12 0 Did you learn f rom anyone else at Con.9upers Pcwe'r that 13 they had prior experience with respect to soils 14 l compaction? -
l 15 UA Mro Corley at that time, who was the site Quality 16 Assurance supervisor I believe, also wcs a civil engineer !
17 and, you know, by association had experjence in that area.
16 0 But did he indicate to you that he had had prior 19 ,
experience with soils work?
20 A I don' t recall pr6cisely.
21 0 But Mr. Horn did?
22 A He indicated he did, yes.
l #
23 0 Did.he ever indicate what his responsibilities had been at 24 the Ludington project?
Luod Reparting Service 3,,o 3,,,gu,,,Q ,7,,_
Lafayette Building l Suite hw 962 1176 , Suite 220 Detroit, Stichigan 48226 Farmington liith Stichigan 48018
1 A I don' t recall..
2 Q Did Mr. Horn ever indicate any' lack of f amiliarity with 3 concepts such as moisture content or proctor curves?
4 A No. He seemed to understand them fairly well.
5 Q Did you find him to be a knowledgeable soils enginecr?
6 A Yes. Let me correct that. I think he was a knowledgeable 7 civil engineer who had exposure in the area of soils.
8 0 Okay. You mentioned earlier that the experienced soils 9 personnel had described the fill at Midland as a "bear" to 10 work with. Do you recall whether Mr. Horn so indicated in 11 words or in substance?
12 A I believe he expressed the difficulty in working with the 13 material, yes.
14 0 Let's shif t back. I' m sorry for being sort of 15 disorganized. Did the Bechtel people indicate whether 16 they had been aware of problems with selection of I
17 material, as you describe that, as a contributing factor?
13 %, At what point in time is this?
19 2 Prior to the disclosure of the Diesel Generator Building 20 problem. l 21 A I don' t think the question is correct in terms of being --
22 Q Let me state it more generally first. Let me state the 23 question again, sir. Do you recall whether anyone f rom 24 Bechtel indicated that they had been concerned about the
~
" *' "N ' 30840 VorthuYtern lluy.
lafayette Building Suite 630 962 1176 Seite 220 Detroit. .\fichigan 48226 Farmington flilb. .\fichigan 48018
1 quality of the soils work prior to the disclosure' of the 2 Diesel. Generator. Building?
3 A Yes. -
( 4 0 Mhich Dechtel people?
5 A The Bechtel Quality people were having continuous q l
6 nonconformance reports generated and also trying to get 7 clarification of what the criteria was. As we indicate in 8 our report 78-20 ve ref er to Dechtel field engineering 9 requests and the like dealing with soils difficulties in 10 general.
11 0 Let me read you the names of some Dechtel people to see if 12 you recall whether any o'f the names I'll give you were 13 among that group. !!r . Boos, B- o- o- s ? -
14 A Yes. He was very f amillap with dif ficulty surrounding the 15 soils work.
16 0 What did he indicate to you regarding his degree of
-17 knowledge of the nroblem?
18 A That he was aware of the conf usion and aware of the 19 nonconf ormances that were being generated.
20 Q Did he indicate he had been concerned about the quality of 21 the soils work because of these f actors? I'm striking the 22 question. That's my privilege.
C 23 How about Mr. Betts, did you ever discuss 24 the subject with him?
i
, gay,,,, guigg;,,
Luzod Reporting Service yo 3 y ,, ._
Suite MO 962.I176 Suar 220 Farminston flills, .\fichigan -18018 Detroit, \fichigan M226
1
'l- A Yes..
2 0 What did he indicate to you?
3 A Generally he had also some awareness of the difficulty 4 surrounding the soils work.
5 Q Do you recall what Mr. Detts' position was?
6 A I think he was -- he worked f or Mr. Boos in the field 7 engineer group.
8 0 Mhat was Mr. Boos' position?
9 A Field Proj ect Engineer.,
10 0 Mhere did Mr. Boos stand in the Bechtel organization?
11 A He was a mid level manager on site for the field work.
12 0' Did you talk to anyone above Mr. Boos in the Bechtel 13 organization?
14 A I believe we did, the cuperintendent f,or Bechtel. I don' t 15 recall his name at thin time.
16 2 Is that Mr. Rutgers or !?r. Martinez?
17 A Rutgers was the Proj ect Engineer out of, the Ann Arbor 18 of fice over the entire proj ect. That was later on, after 19 a lot of this took place. The site superintendent that 20 Boos reported to is the person I'm referring to. I can' t 21 recall his name. He was there then they took him of f the 22 proj ect at some point af ter the soils problems.
(
^
- 23 2 Do you recall whether that was Mr. P. A. Ma r tinez ?
l 24 h could have been. I' d have to review some documents and l .
( l Lused Reporting Service 1 74 .,,,, gg, 39g,o g,,g,j,,,, ,y,,,,
. Suite MO 962 1176 Suite 2.m 6troit, Alichigan 48226 Farmington flills, Sfichigan 48018 t
t _ .g a 1 notes and things.
2 0 Do you recall whether you discussed with this individual 3 whose name you can' t recall the causes of the soils f~
4 ~ problems?
5 A You know, the causes were discussed at length with all of
-6 the parties, the Bechtel people, the Consumers people, at 7 various times, meetings, official meetings, on- si te ,
8 meetings. He were probing to understand what took place, I
9 how it extended beyond the Diesel Generator Building, if 10 it did, and j ust what fundamental root problems that uere 11 viewed that extended beyond the soils work activities so .
12 we could identify them to the UnC management and perhaps i 13 have Consumers take the necessary corrective action f rca ,
14 at least that point on. _ , [
15 0 Did you ever discuss the causes of the soils prob.<. ems with : r 16 M r . Co o ke , C- o- o- k- e , of Consumers Pcuor?
17 A Yeah. Again he was a participant in many of the meetings, i
18 the debriefings and during the investigation.
19 0 Uhat, if anything, did Mr. Cooke tell you with respect to 20 whether soils was considered by him to be a problem area 21 prior to the disclosure of the Diesel Generator Building 22 problem?
23 A I would have to go back and look at some documents. At 24 this point I don' t recall necessarily.
yggy g;jgy, Lutod Reporting Service ,3 y , ._
Suu hw 962 1176 Suin 2x
[ktroiL Michisan 49226 .
Farmington Ihlb, Michigan 48018
1 0 Okay. Did 'au talk to anyone above Mr. Cooke in the 2 Consumers Power organization?
3 A Well, again there were Consumers managers above Cooke that
[ 4 we spoke with during the course of the investigation and 5 during actual official meetings. Mr. Howell is certainly 6 above Cooke and on up.
7 0 Uhat, if anything, did Mr. Howell tell you regarding his 0 views on the causes of the soils problom?
9 A I don' t think he ever told us his views.
10 Q Uhat wa's the nature of your interaction with Mr. Howell?
11 A Just in the course of conducting MRC and Consumers Power 12 meetings and him basically chairing those meetingc. The 13 one I'm ref erring to specifically was in the Region III 14 office where we, for the first time, laid out officially 15 all of our findings and Mr. Howell was the chair of that
-16 group.
17 ,2 Did Mr. Howell have occasion during that meeting to 13 indicate his reaction to your findings?
'19 A He was noticeably tpset throughout the entire meeting.
20 Q Did you come to understand what was upsetting him?
21 A The findings we were disclosing to him.
22 Q Can you amplify what you mean?
(. 23 A Mell, I think as the party being responsible, as the 24 executive level manager for the proj ect he was certainly Lusod Reporting Sersice ,3 9,,3,y ._
lafaytte Building Suur MO 962 1176 Suae gx Detroit. Vichipn 48226 Farmington Hills. Michigan 48018
1 upset by the. disclosure' c: our findings to the company 2 and, you know, it was difficult for him to accept that all 3 of this had transpired f or this length of time, and our I, 4 findings in general.
5 Q How about Mr. Keeley, did'you have any discussions with 6 him regarding, first, the causes of the soils probicas?
7 A Yeah. Again, he was one of the participants in many of 8 the meetings, the briefings as well as we -- I believe we 9 did have an interview with him.
10 Q Uell, let's f ocus first on wnether Mr. "coley indicated 11 that he had had any concerns about the soils work prior to 12 the disclosure of the Diesel Generator Building problem. r 13 A I think I' d have to review some of my documentation to .
14 recall that. Keeley was the Proj ect Manager f or the 15 Consumers organization. I beli. eve that the quality 15 summary reports that were coming up through the Consumers 17 management chain were brought to his attention, that there i 18 were in f act difficultj es surrounding the soils work l
! 19 activities over the years, and so to that e:: tent I bel,ieve
- 20 he was aware of it. ,
21 0 Okay. Did Mr. Keeley ever indicate to you that he was 22 surprised there was a problem with settlement at the C 23 Diesel Generator Building?
l 24 A I don' t recall him expressing whether he was surprised or i
,,, y Luzod Reporting Service 3,,o 3,,,k,,y,) ,,,,.
Suite Mo 962 1176 Suur zW Detroit. Alichigan 48226 Farmingtm flills. \fichigan 48018 '
1 not.
2 0 You mentioned earlier that some of the most, if I 3 paraphrase- your testimony . correctly, but some of the most 4 experienced people worki'ng on soils at I:idland had 5 commented on the dif ficulty in working with the material.
6 Do you recall that subject generally? <
7 A Um-ha. .
8 0 Uho do you recall being, to y'our j udgment, the most 9 e::perienced soils people, which individuals do you recc11?
10 A Well, the people that I was ref erring to in that general 11 comment were people actually out in the field working the 12 ' material, some of the sort of old-time soils guys who 13 spent their life compacting material around the country..
L 14 I mean everything f rom foremen to actual people using the 15 eq uipm ent. ,
16 ;Q Did you ever speak to a I:r. Teague f rom Dechtcl?
I 17 T- e- a- g- u- e . - !
18 A I believe we did. I don' t recall in connection with what 19 ' precisely. -
! 20 Q How about IIr. Har zeck?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Pirst of all, what was his level of experience with
' (# 23 respect to soils work, if you know?
24 A Hauteck is a geotechnical engineer with the Bechtel of fice I
l
[
Lutod Reporting Service yo y,),,, 5jfg.,
' f*} 962.))76 , . Suae 220 Farmington l{ dis, Stichigan 48018 Detroit, Alichigan 48226
1 and I believe he expressed acknowledgement of diffled ty 2 with the material and surprise' that all of this could take 3 place, etcetera, etcetera.
f- 4 0 Uhat did you understand Mr. Wanzeck's responsibility to be 5 in the soils work?
6 A If I recall correctly, Hanzeck came ,in af ter the whole 7 issue surf aced as a sort of consultant within the Sechtel 8 group to get control of things af terwards, or to get 9 things under control.
10 0 Do you recall whether you spoke with Mr. J. Hook?
11 A The name certainly rings a bell. I don' t recall directly 12 -
speaking with him.
13 Q Do you recall whether you spoke with Mr. J. Hink of 14 Bechtel?
- l 15 A Again, the. name is very f amiliar as associated with this l
16 issue, but I don' t recall any contacts or if we did. I 17 0 How about I:r. Rao, R- a- o ? ,
18 A Ye. s . He spoke to Rao quite a bit. .
19 Q What was his job, if you know?
20 A He was a Bechtel design engineer located in the Ann Arbor 21 office and group supervisor for the civil work.
22 0 And what did he tell you with respect to, first, the
, '~
23 causes of the soils problems, if anything?
24 A I don' t think he told us too much regarding the causes, if Luzod Reporting Service 3ag,o 3,,,,,,p,g ,,,,.
lxfayette Building
& site hw 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit, .\fichlean 48226 Farmington flills, .\fichigan 48018
3 1 , . any thi ng. .
- w. 2 0 What were the . general subj ects you discussed'with fir. Rao?
3 A We conf ronted !!r. Rao with responses that he had made to
[ 4 the field upon their inquiring to him regarding the 5 specifications and criteria and how to generally get the 6 results that were specified.
7 0 Did you conf ront him with documents?
8 A Yes.
9 0 And did these documents concern meisture control 10 practices?
11 A A variety of characteristics, density, moisture control, 12 lift thickness, the general operations of compacting soil.
, 13 0 How did.!!r. Rao respond to your contacts with him?
e 14 A With respect to? .
15 Q First in terms of the general' tenor of his interaction I 16 with you.
17 A He was aware of the documents, he was aware of what his 18 involvement was, he acknowledged he was a major 19 participant in the operation f rom a design engineer
,20 ,
standpoint.
21 Q Did he indicate whether there had been any concern prior 22 to the disclosure of the Diesel Generator Building problem
(;'
23 regarding moisture control?
24 4 Yes, Luzod Reporting Service g,,,, ,,],,7,, ,,,,,
gg,,,, m, 3, ,g SWte MO 962 1176 Suue y o Detroit. Alichigan 48226 Farmington liith. Michigan 48018
1 0 Uhat did ne tell you, if you recall?
2 A That the field had inquired regarding the general metho'd 3 of achieving the results and that there was confusion, b 4 0 Thinking back over your interviews with Bechtel people, 5 did you generally find the Bechtel people to be open or 6 guarded in there responses to you?
7 A That's a 6ifficult question to answer.' I would pref er not 8 to answer that.
9 0 Did you ever learn f rom I:r. Horn approximately how much 10 time he had spent on the soils area?
11 A I don' t recc11. It was one of his, you know, day- t o-day 12 -
routine operations.
13 0 Did you learn what his areas of responsibility were?
14 A Um- ha . ,
15 0 Uhat were they?
16 A General Ouality Assurance for the civil activities, 17 including soils, concreto, structural steel, bolting 18 req ui rements, etcetera.
19 Q Did !!r. Horn indicate to you whether he had spent a 20 substantial amount of time on soils work in his OA i
21 capa city ?
22 A As part of his routine it was one of tne elements, maj or l .? '
23 elements of his auditing.
! 24 Q Did you learn who at consumers Power was responsible for 144,,,, guagin, Luzod Reporting Service 39,,g 9,,,,,y ,7,,_
Suite hw 962 1176 Suite 220 Deiroit, \fichigan 48226 Farmingto.n flills, .\fichigan 480l8
- c. . , ,
- _ . , _ , ,w_ , _ , , _ , , , , _
1 , OA with respect to the soils testing?
12 ' A At Consumers?
-3. 0 Yes.
/~ 4' A That was Mr. ' IIorn.
5 O Dased on your contacts with 11r. IIorn, did you develop any.
6 vieu as to his overall f amiliarity with 0. S. Tecting's
-7 . soils testing work? -
8 A He was very f amiliar with it.
9 Q Did he make any specific comments to you regarding his 10 degree of knowledge of the soils testing' work at the site? ;
11 A Other than that he was intimately involved in .the conduct 12 of his auditing and the conduct of his reviewing quality 7
13 documentation. He was very involved.
14, Q Do you know whether anyone else at Consumers Power QA had 15 been involved with U. S. Testing's soils work?
16 A I don' t recall. Ile was the principal contact.
17 1 How about Mr. Corley? ,
18 A Corley had general Quality Assurance overview of all of 19 his OA people and I believe he was, you know, quite 20 familiar with the status of nonconformance reports and 21 identification of nonconformance reports in that area.
22 Q Could you explain what caused you to believe he was quite 23 familiar with the work in these areas? L 24 B. Just in the conduct of our investigation, in discussions 0
ggay.,,te Buildug Luzod Reporting Service yo 3,,,s),,,19,;
Suite h30 9 0 E
- I E 6 Suite 220 Detroit. .\fichigan 48226 Farmingem flith, Michigan 48018
1 with him and, you know, pointing out things to him.
2 Q Did you review particular nonconf romance reports with Mr.
3 Corley?
4 A I don' t recall with him specifically. He may have becauce 5 we were jost searching.
6 Q Did Mr. Corley supervise Hr. Horn?
7 A Ye c, I believe so.
8 Q Did Mr. Corley ever indicate whether he was f amiliar with 9 fir . Horn's work?
10 A Yes. He wa: his direct supervisor.
11 Q Did you ever develop any view concerning the degree of 12 familiarity Mr. Corley had with !!r. Horn's work?
13 .A He was very f amiliar with !!r. Horn's work.
I 14 , Q Did y'ou have any problem with Mr. Corley having a lack of ,.
15 recollection of mattera such as nonconformance reports? l 16 lA Pot that I recall.
17 Q Dased on your discussions with !*r. Corley, har vould you 13 characterize his memory?
19 A I don' t recall.
20 Q Do you recall any particular problem with him f ailing to 23 recall work at the site?
22 A Mo.
23 0 How about Mr. Horn?
24 A Mo.
Lu:od Reporting Service yo 3.g ,,0,0 1 ,,.
fafayette Bwiding Swgr hw 962 1176 Suar 2LM Detrat, \fwhigan 2226 Farminton Ihlis. \fichiran 48018
1 O When you interviewed E., fiorn.did you go over.particular 2 documents with him?
3 A There was a lot of interaction with Horn throughout the
- f. 4 course of, you know, a year's time. So when you say ,
S interviewed Mr. Horn, it was a day-to-day operation that 6 we were interacting with him, getting documents,.
7 discussing the results, audit summaries, etcetera. I 8 Q Let's go back to Mr. Coricy for a second. Let ne j ust 9 first verify, in your contacts with Mr. Corley did you .
10 have occasion to sit down with him and go over Consumers 11 Power doraments that had been provided to you? L 12 A Yes. ;
13 Just so I' c clear, did you ever tun into a situation you
[]
i 14 -
can recall now where he took the position that he had no * '
l j 15 independent recollection of a document?
1G A I don' t recall so.
l 17 O Did you ever run into any problem with Mr. Co rley ' s ;
t
- 18 ability to explain the work that was being done at the ;
4 19 site?
I 20 A 'No. He was quite f amiliar with the Quality Assurance 21 activities in the soils area. Keep in mind Mr. Corley 8
l 22 again was a civil engineer as well as a Quality Assurance [
23 si:pervisor at that time and j ust by associati,on had a high 24 degree of knowledge in that area. i N
gg g s- sw 902 11 re .
. sa, 2x !
. htmt, Mickipan M226 famungseva itilh, Sivhigen M018 [
I 1 0, Did Mr. Corley ever tell you that he ..'es not familiar with. .
2 the soils work at the site?
3 A !!o.
4 Q Did !!r. Corley ever take the position with _ you that 5 Bechtel people were the only ones who knew hcw the soils 6 work-vas being done?
7 -
A Mo.
8 0 IIou about Mr. Horn?
9 A Mo. In fact, Horn was routinely auditing that work [
. 10 activity and identifying audit findings, which I believe 11 we referred to in our inspection report, 70-20.
f 12 0 Did tir. Horn or I:r. Corley ever indicate to you in words
, t 13 or substance that they had spent very little time on the !
14 soils work? ,
j 15 A Mot that I recall.
, l l
16 0 Did you ever run into any problem that you can recall uithi i
17 I r. Horn where he was t.fnable to answer questions ;
i 18 concerning how the soils work wac done? -
t 19 :. 00.
i l 20- !!R. GOOLD: Uhy don't we take a short break ,
21 here. !
22 (A brief recess was held during l
, ("~; i 23 the proceedings.) ,
t 24 DY !!R. GOOLD:
i !
979.,c,, giggi,,
Luzod Reporting Service gg 3,Q,0,2 ,7 l Suar MO 962 Ii?b Suar 2:0 Detrmt. \fichinen 182:s Farminatm flills. \fichigan 48018
~
1, . O Let me give you a couple-more Bechtel names and oc0 if you 2.- can recall to an extent discussions with them on, first,
- 3, the causes of the problem and then, secondly,. concern-I. 4 prior to the Diesel Generator Building. disclosure. Did 5 you have any discussions that you recall with I.r. Lieb, A, 6 Tom Lieb, L-i-o-b?
7 A ' Yeah.
- 8 Q Do you recall what his position was? .
9 A He seemed to kind of oversee the testing lab operation at 10 that time, at least when we came in contact with him.
11 0 Uhat, if anything, did he tell you about problems, if any, 12 at the' test lab?
13 A I think he was pretty candid with us. I think he know of
, 14 continuing problems with the test results that is.
4 15 .0 Let me make sure I understand you correctly. Are you 16 ref erring by test results to compaction test results?
17 A That's righ t. i
! l 18 h !!r. Lieb indicated he.had known there were problems with i
19 them?
- 20 A I think it was well-known for a long time on that site 21 that there was repetitive problems with the soils work,
- 22 There was f ew people who were near the civil activity that j 23 . was not aware of soils difficulties, whether they bo ;
24 compaction problems or quality problems or testing Lusod Reporting Sertice ,o 3, 10,,3 y gg,, ggg;,, 962 11'6 Suite 2M ;
Suite 6w Farmington Hills, Stichigan 2018 ;
Stroit. Stichigan 48226
1 problems. As our investigation report shows, it was a ,
2 long history ' of inquiries, and audits, and confusion about 3 the whole activ.ity itself, long drawn-out af f air.
(f 4 0 Did you ever discuss with Mr. Lkeb whether he had had 5 discussions with Consumers Power people on the subj ect?
6 A I don' t recall specifically.
7 0 Did you learn whether I:r. Lieb had any other ;
8 responsibilities with respect to the soils work, apart t
9 from,tecting?
10 A I don' t recall at this time.
11 0 Ilow about !!r. Ben Cheek of Bechtel?
4 12 A- The name rings a bell. He was involved certainly in the 13 soils work activities'. I don' t recall to the extent that 1 l 14 he was. . i 15 0 Do you recall whether he was lead Quality Control engineer ,
t 16 '
with respect to civil construction work?
f 17 A Yes, that does -- I d,o recall now. (
. I 18 0 Did you interview !!r. Cheek? i 19 'A I believe we did, yes. '
20 0 Do you recall what he told you with respect to knowledge 21 of soils problems?
22 A I don' t recall now at this point. I
( 23 O How about with respect to soils testing, do you recall
, l 24 whether you discussed that with him? l
\
l Luzod Reportine Service , 3.Qg ,,
74,ygg gaggy, Susw hw 902 III6 Suur 2.% l iMemt, \lichigan #226 Farmsneton lidh. \fichigan Mola l
s 1 A Uell, wich all of the peop1.e that we interviewed in the 2 ,
soils we had f airly routine. common' questions regarding 3 testing and requirements and specifications and quality '
i i 4 records and the like.
5 0 How about Gary Richardson, did you interview him?
6 A Yes.
7 0 Do you temember what his position was? ,
8 A He was Quality Control Supervisor, if I remember ;
i 9 correctly, or Quality Assurance Dechtel supervisor.
l 10 0 Did he indicate anything to you regarding knowledge of ,
l 11 soils problems prior to the Diesel Generator Building ,
12 disclosure?
13 A Yes, I believe he did. ~
l l !
, 14 0 Uhat do you recall in that regard? >
i 15 A Mell, there were certain documentation that he uns either ;
16 on, copied to and/or actually originated regarding the i 17 quality of soils. Uithout seeing thoce again I would .
10 would not recall specifically, but it seems to me he uns 19 pretty upset about the whole situation, you know, us in 20 doing the investigation. He was probably one of the moro 21 hostile Bechtel people. f 22 2 How about Austin Marshall, did you interview him?
l 23 A Yeah. Marshall again came in af ter the Diesel Generator 24 Building settlement surfaced, and was one of the field p4g,,,, g;;gu, Lusod Reporting Service m3 105,y swi, mo 962 1176 suar zn Ikroit. \fichinen 482.%
' Farmmaton Hills, \fichigan 48018
~ 1' geotechnical consultants, to try to get a handle on, you 2 know, what the state ~ of aff airs were now and then and 3 where do they go from there.
l' 4 0 Did you ever discuss with Mr. Marshall what the causes of j
l 5 u the soils problems were?
6 A Yes.
7 0 Uhat did he indicate to you?
i 8 A I believe he indicated that our assessment was accurate 9 and he agreed with and acknowledged our assessment.
10 0 Your report indicated that you spoke to people f rcm U. S.
j 11 Testing. Do you happen to recall their names?
12 A Offhand I don' t recall their names. The lead supervisor 13 or manager in the office we had quite a bit of interaction 1
14 uith.
15 'O Hould that have been Mr. Spelt:? .
- 16 A Oh, yeah, that's true.
l 17 Q Do you knm.' whether Mr. Spelt: ever approached you I la l privately to discuss the causes of the soils problem?
i 19 A I don' t recall any private discussions. He had interviews a
20 with him in private, we being Jerry Phillip and I, as part
~21 of our routine investigation.
I 22 0 Uhat, if anything, do you recall regarding that, that Mr.
23 Speltz told you regarding the causes of the soils 24 problems?
Lusod Reporting Service 3mjo y,,s,J,9,Cl, Iluy.
lafayette Buddine
$,a, sy 962 1176 Suar 2.%
(Mroa, \fschigan 48226 Farminute Hdis, Alichigan 88018
o .* ,
1,, A Well, as the testing manager of the testing agency he was ,
2 certai*nly 6 ware of the continuing f ailure of test results 3 and --
4 UR. DRIKER: I think the question was uhat 5 did he tall you.
6 A I'm telling you that he told us he was aware of the test 7 results and the f ailure of tests and identified those and 8 sent them onto Bechtel per their program of simply doing 9 the tests and rotesting a,nd the lihe.
10 EY MR. GOOLD:
11 Q Did Mr. Speltz give you any information concerning the 12 proceduros that uere f ollowed f or reworking soil for which 13 a compaction test indicated a failure? .
14 A Yes.
15 .Q Uhat was your. understanding regarding the procedure?
16 A Uell, their basic procedure, if I recall correctly, is 17 they would look f or a retest arca, or they would rework an !
18 area and then retest it and the like, or they would select 19 another standard to compare the test, the in-place field 20 test to the laboratory. standard. It was a variety of ways 21 of trying to reconcile the results.
22 HR. DRIKER: I want to be sure I understand 23 your answer as testifying as to what Mr. Speltz told you.
24 TH E MITNESS : I'm recalling what our Lutod Reporting Service yw3 10,,7 y .
ggay,,,, utg4 Suite hw 962.))?6 Suite 2N Detrut, \fichigan LC:6 Farmington Hills. .\fichigan 49018
1~ discussions with Speltz' entailed.
L2. - !!R . DEIKER: You' re ".ac testifying anything 3 you saw, just what he related to you?
, 4 THE WITi!ESS: That's right. I was not there 5 during the tests thc.nselves.
6 !!R. DRIi:ER: The question I r. Goold- ached 7 . was what did !!r. Spelt 3 tell you and I was --
O BY !IR. GOOLD:
9 Q The question is, what is your understanding as to the 10 procedures?
11 IIR. DRIKER: And that understanding comes 12 f rom what I:r. Spelt:: told you? -
That's correct and/or 13 TH E UIT11ESS :
7 14 reviewing the procedures themselves. At this point in 15 time I don' t recall, them unlos,s I review them and study 16 them again.
17 BY I:n. GOOLD:
18 Q Did you have any discussions with l!r. Afifi of Dechtel 19 concerning the sollr problems?
20 A Yes.
21 0 Did you intervimi him?
22 A I believe we did.
("
23 Q Did he give you any information concerning the causes of 24 the problems?
99,,, g;jgy, La:od Reporting Sersice 3,,o g,,k,f,9,Q y,y \
Suite MO 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit, Vichigan 48226 Farmixto Hdh, Michigan 18018 ,
y
. . . ..w ,
t 1 A Yes. :
2 0 What.did he tell you?
t
)
i 3 A He agreed with our assessment, for the most part was in I !
- 4 agreement with us.
5 q Uhen you ref er to your assessment, are you referring to [
6 report 78-20? ,
i 7 A Yes, for the most part, and other discussione in the 8 cource of meetings and the lihe. You know, if I can "
9 characterize, perhaps to safe some time, there were two i
-10 basic groups within nechtcl; one were the geotechnical l 11 engineering group, which included people like Man::ock, f i
- 12 !!arshall, Afifi, and individuale in the field group which 13 you mentioned, among other people in the Quality Assurance 14 group within Dechtel. F,or the most part the people in the 15 geotechnical engineering group agreed, or acknowledged, 16 our findings'as being correct.
- 17 People in the field were in an adversarial .
j
! l
- 18 position f or the most part, ouviously because we were l 19 investigating work they were responsible f or directly. So l' l
{- 20 Afifi's group and ours were on sort of similar ,
l 21 investigative paths, .trying to figure out what it was that i
22 happened so they could recommend to their own companies (
23 how to correct it. And in f act were not in agreement with 1
i 24 each other within Bechtel.
i i
{
l 1
I Luzod Reporting Service 3,g,g 3,,,k,Q,9,, y,y ;
,49.,,,, gjgy, 9 6 2 1 i s'6
^
l Suite MO Suite 220 l Detmt, .\fichigan 482:6 Farminston Hdis, .\fichigan 48018 l .
[
.. , c, <
(
1 O You me,ntioned .the field people .within Bechtel tock an 2 adversarial stance. Did the field people ever otfer an 3 alternate explanation _ f or the causes of the soils problem?
.# ' 4 A No, not that I recall.
5 0 !!ow about the Bechtel QA group? Mas there a group of 6 people whom you would consider the Decntel QA group f or 7 purposes o, the same kind of consensus, positions you 8 described with respect to geotechnical and field grcups? '
9 A Uell, I don' t recall precisely what their views were.
10 Q Did you learn whether there were any procedures called f or 11 in project specifications concerning subgrade protection 12 of the fill? , ,
f 13 A I dcn' t recall at this time.
, r 14 0 Let me be more specific because I may be using the wrong
~
15 term. I'm thinking of removal or recompaction.of fill 16 lef t exposed over the winter.
17 A 110w I r ecall .
18 0 Uhat did you learn first with respect to what the 19 procedures were supposed to be in that area or. the job?
20 A This is going back awhile, but I believe it was to, you 21 know, any material that had been exposed for an extended 22 period of time and weathered due to severe cold or rain or l
' l
. 23 other conditions should be removed and recompacted. ;
24 Q Let me direct your attention to page 16 of report 70-20 to l
,,, ggggg, Luzad Reporting Service 39g,g y,k,y,,9 ,7,ry. L S wtr M O 962.I176 Suite 220 Detroit. Michigan 48226 ,
Farminaton flills, Michiran 18018
1 see if that helps fill in any details. Do you recall 2 whether you reviewed any documents concerning or 3 recommending procedures f or protection of fill lef t
'C 4 exposed over the winter?
5 A Well, paragraph three of this document on page 17 6 indicates that the specifications did not provide any, 7 inscc uetions to that e:: tent.
8 0 Do you recall whether the Dames & Moore report included 9 any recommendations in that area? ;
l 10 A Yes, it did, as stated in paragraph two of that page 17 11 Q Did you review the Dames & Moore report in the course of i
12 pr e pa ring .78-20 7 13 A Yes. '
.14 0 Ue've covered your educational background and the f act you .
15 have two engineering degrees. That's correct, you have 16 two?
17 h Uc- h a . ,
18 -2 Are you alco a regi.stered engineer?
. 19 A Yes.
20 2 In what states, sir?
21 A I believe three at this time; Illinois, Florida and 22 Louisiana.
>i-23 ) Do you have any knowledge as to what good engineering 24 practice calls f or with respect to protection of fill lef t l
. t Luzod Reporting ' Service yo 3 11,,1 y,,,_ ,
S wtr M O 962 11I6 Suite 220 ,
Detroit .\fichigan 8226 Farminston Hdis. .\fichigan 48018
.e ,.
- 1. exposed over the winter? '
2 A Yes. -
3 0 Uhat is.your knowledge in that area?
'i 4 A To be removed and recoupacted.
5 0 Did you ever learn uhether such a practice was followed at G the Iidland Proj ect?
7 A Ue were not able to find that they in f act did remove it.
i 3 0 Did you ever discuss that subject with !:r. IIorn?
9 A I don' t recall cpecifically at .this point in time, 10 although, everything that's in this report was discussed 11 at length with all of the Consumers people involved in ;
4 12 this issue.
13 0 Do you know why there is a practice, as you indica ted, of ,
14 removing fill that's been exposed to f reezing conditions?
15 A At the IIidland. Plant?
16 0 t:hy is there such a prsctice in the geotechnical area?
17 A To remove it? ,
f 18 0 Yes. -
19 A Decause it does deteriorate f rom the exposure to severe 20 environment, cold, rain.
21 Q Can you explain the process by which this deterioration
) 22 takes place, what do you mean?
23 A Mell, it softens, it is disturbed, just through movement f l !
24 of equipment and other materials about. l 4,,,, yg,,
Luted Reporting Service m 3.QQ ,, [
Suar MO . 962.))i6 Sune 220 Detroit. \fichigan 1826 Farmington flik \fichigan 48018 l
1 1 0.' ,
From your. c.:9tneering background, do you .know whether -
2 frost has any impact on this procass?
3 A Yes, it does.
/ 4 0 What impact is that?
5 A It distutbs and sof tens the material.
G Q Do you know what procedures, if any, were used in thic 7 area at other nuclear projects with which you became 8 f amiliar vith unile at Region III?
9 A I don' t recall at this point.
10 0 Do you recall whether you discussed this subject with 11 Dechtel personnel?
12 A Yes.
13 0 And do you recall who?
14 ,
This was a9;ain one of the key focuses of the whole 15 circumstances surrounding the soils problems. I presume --
16 not I presume, I know that as part of our routine 17 investigation we would conf ront all of the parties about 18 this isena. -
19 2 In the ccurse of your investigation leading to the 20 preparation of report 78-20, did you observe any practice 21 of accepting "as is" soil that was subject to 22 nonconformance reports?
C- 23 h Routinely it was,a practice.
24 2 And is that ref erred to anywhere in your report 70-20?
Luted Reporting Service yo 3 11,,3, y
,,, g ygg ,
Sdie Am 962 1176 , sme ex Detmt, .\fichieu'48226 Famheton Hdis, .\fichieu 48018
1 And let 'me direct yout attention' in particular to pages '
2 17,18 and concluding at the bottom of 19.
3 A That's accurate.
I 4 O At the bottom of page 19 the statement' appears: "Based on 5 a review of the above nonconf ormance and audit reports, 6 corrective action regarding nonconformances related to 7 plant fill was insuf ficient or inadequate as evidenced by 3 the repeated deviations f rom specification requirements. "
9 Is that what you were ref erring to in your previous 10 answer ?
11 A Yes.
12 0 And did you consider that to be a violation of any federal 13 regulation?
14 A Yes.
15 0 Uhat f ederal regulation?
16 A 10 CPR 50 appendix B, criterion 16, dealing vitl.
17 corrective action, 18 0 In the course of your investigation did you become aware 19 of any problems with cal culations of settlement f or the 20 plant area? Let me ref er you to pages 20 a'nd 21 of your 21 repor t 78-20 in' particular.
22 A Yes.
23 0 Is that what is ref erred to on those pages?
24 A That's correct.
. Luzod Reporting Service m 3.Q,Q fy,.
SueAm 962 !!i6 See gav Detut, \{ichigan 4R226 Farmington $$453, b[ithitan 480E8
1 0 Did you discuss this subject with anyono f rom Consumers 2 Power ? .
3 A Just to the extent of identifying it to them as part of 4 our investigation.
5 Q Did anyone f rom Consumers Power incicate agreement with G the conclusions, if you recall, that are expressed on page 7 21 at the paragraph beginning, "based on the above 8 e:tampl e s, measures did not assure that specific design 9 bases included in design documents were translated into 10 the license application resulting in inconsistency between 11 design documents and the FS AR. "
12 A Uhat was the question again?
13 p Do you recall whether anyone f rom Consuners Pouer 14 . expressed agreement with your conclusion in this regard?
15 A Yeah.
16 , 0 t.'h o ?
17 a I don' t recall anyone who disagreed with the apparent 18 findings that were in it.
19 UR. DRIKER: I didn't haar you.
20 A I don' t recall anybody disagreeing with the apparent .
21 findings that were made in this regard.
22 liR. DRIKER: I think Mr. Jensen has a L'
23 comment.
24 MR. JEMSCM: Just in the whole type of Luzod Reporting Service 15 gwy.
,,4,),,,,
gay,,,, g;w, 3,,g u' Sate MO 962 1176 sure :x Detrat, \fichigan 482:6 Farmington Hdis. \fwhigan 18018
4 . , ,..
.l; _
questions, , I was wondering whether you were asking him 2 whether he recalled a specific individual who told him 3 that he agreed with the conclusions here or whether your 4~ question'is more general. If it's more general it calls 5 f or a lot of speculation and I don' t know whether the 6 uitness would want t'o speculate to quito that extent.
7 A Mell, they' responded to these sort of things and I don' t- '
3 recall at this point that there was a' lot of dicpute over 9 the apparent findings that were made in this report on 10 this subject without going back and looking at their e::act 11 responses.
12 DY MR. GOOLD ' '
13 0 Let's focus' next on the Administration Building. Did you 14 learn in the course of your investigation whether there 15 was any distinction between the specifications for fill ,at 16 the Administration Duilding as compared to the Diesel 17 Generator Duilding? -
18 A I don' t believe that there were any ditf erence=, no.
19 0 Did you learn whether there was any dif ferent pcocedure 20 used in the placement of fill at the Administration 21 Building as compared with the Diesel Generator Duilding?
22 A !!o.
23 0 11ow about with respect to compaction testing?
24 A "o.
Luzod Reporting Service , 3.QQ ,
g4p,,, g,yg;,,
S mte A m 962 1176 , Suit < zm iktroit, \fichigan 48226 Farminston Rdh, Stichigan MI8 -
1 Q No difference?
2 A !!ot that I'm aware of.
3 3 0 Did you become aware of any diff erences with respect to
(' 4 whether there was OA jurisdiction over the Diesel 5 Generator Building fill as compared to the Administration G Building?
7 % I was aware that it was not a c:uality 0-listed structure 3 and, therefore, the Quality Assurance application was not 9 applied the same.
10 0 It might be helpf ul if you could state for the record what 11 you mean by 0-listed.
I 12 A Dechtel has a system of identifying those system 13 structures and components that are "saf ety-related" as 14 being on the Q list and they treat those somewhat ,,
15 differently to the extent they see necessary versus other 16 items that are non-saf ety-related or non-0 17 0 'fou said that Dechtel has a system for identifying
}
18 0-listed portions of the plant. Did that also apply to j q
19 Consumers Power ?
I 20 fi At the tiidland Plant, yes.
21 J Okay. Apart from the fact that the Administration 22 Building was not 0-listed while the Diesel Generator
(' 23 Building was, did you become aware of any other dif f erence 24 regarding the fill at the dio sites?
Lu:od Reporting Service yo 11,,7 y Smte MO 962 1J*6 Suite 220 Detroit Alichigan 18226 Farmaston Udis, schigan 48018
- l A
- Mo. ,
2- 0 Did you ever make any visit to the plant site ~itself ?
l 3 'A Mhen?
" ,- 4 0 During the course of your preparation of investigation 5 report '/8-20.
6 A Yes, many times, as noted in the report.
7 Q Did you have any opportunity to observe the distance 8 between the Administration Building and the Diesel 9 Generator Building?
10 A Yes.
11 0 Are the two buildings f ar apart? .
12 A They' re j ust -- they are adjacent to each other.
13 0 In the course of your preparation of investigation report 14- 70-20, did the personnel from U. S. Test,ing give you any 15 inf ormation regarding the quality of 'the fill that was 15 observed at the Administration Building? Let me refer you 17 to page 22 of your report in particular if' that helps 13 refresh your recollection.
19 A Yes, that,'s an accurate statement on paragraph three, that 20 . the U. S. Testing personnel indicated to us during our 21 investigation that the material was not prepared properly.
22 0 Do you recall whether U. S. Testing personnel gave you any
(' 23 inf ormation regarding whether lumps of unbroken clay were 24 observed in the fill at the Administration Duilding?
ggay,,,, gjigy, Luzod Reporting Service y 3.Q,,Q y Swor hw 962 1176 Suur 2M Detroit, \fichigan 2226 Farmington Hdis, Michigan MOIR
l- .. That's what 'our report states.
~
~2 0 Uhat are'you ref erring to in particular? ;
3 A. Paragraph three of page 22 indicates U. S. Testing stated ,
. 4 that to us.
l l 5 y More you told that there were large lumps of' unbrol:en clay ,
- 6 up to three feet in diameter?
l . l l 7 lA That's correct. '
8 0 0' Did that indicate anything to you with respect to the j
- 9. guality of the earth work or the quality of the wor!: that 10 was done in placing and compacting the fill at the site? l 11 A Yes.
12 Q Uhat did it indicated to you?
l 13 A That's poor practice. ,
1 l
I 14 p Did you learn whether there were voids in the fill at th'e l a ,
15 . Adqinistration Building?
i 1G IA Yes.
- 17 Q Mhat did that indicate to you uith respect to the quality [
t
] 18 l of the fill? .
r- l 19 ,A Poor practices.
20 2 Did you ever discuss with any of the people you j :
21 interviewed in your investigation how the fill was placed ,
t
- 22 at the Diesel Generator Building? !
a ; .
~
23 A As f ar as what specifically? l' j
- 24 ) First let's f ocus on as f ar as the procedures that wero i
Luzad Reporting Service 3m,o yg,Q,,,9, 17,,, ,
. g> 8 "'~
9s2 1iie s.a. :ro t
_ , . . _ . r. - - m n n - - ;
- s. . .
WS l ;
- 9. .
li 1 used.. ::j question is awfully open-ended. First, did you l
2- ever learn whether there was any difference in the ,
3 procedures that were used in the placement of the fill at l t
4 the Administration Building as compared to 'the Diesel 5 Generutvr Building?
) 6, A I was -- I'm not aware of any dif ferences in the -
7 procedurec. Dacically the same procedures were used.'
C 0 Ohay. Did anyone ever tell you that the fill at the !
9 Diosol Generator Building had been dumped and spread but 10 not compacted? ,
i 11 :R. DRIKER: Obj ection, leading. -
[
l' 12 A I don' t recall that.
t 13 BY !:R. GOOLD: !
- 14 0 .,
trould that surprise you? i
. 15 !!R. DRI!!ER: Obj ection, ir relevant.
16 A It would certainly be a surprise that one would do that.
17 In retrospect, pt I:idland it's of no surprice.
~
18 !!R. DRIKER: I'll move t& strike that as i
19 being irrelevant and a gratuitous remark.
l 20 BY liR. GOOLO: .
1 21 Q Just so the record is clear, would it come as any surprise f f
22 to you if you learned that the fill at the Diesel [
~C 23 Generator Building had been dumped but not compacted, and l
[
. 24 let -- !
I i
i Luzod Reporting Servier ,3,Q 77 i
ggg,,,, gjgy, Swor630 962.]176 Swtr 220 t iktroit. \fickinn 48226 Farmington Ihlh, Michigan 48018 l
i
. 1 ,
. t:R. DRIK:n.:
. I..obj ect to the question. It's l 2 ' leading. ~
j i
3 1R. GOOLD: The question is not finished. ,
[
4 !IR. DRTRCR It's leading and lacks 5 foundation.
6 !!n. GOOLD: Please do the courtesy of at 4
. 7 least letting me stato the question before you object.
I 8 You haven' t even hoard the question.
L 9 11R. DRIKCR: Okay. f i
2 10 BY !!R. GOOLD:
t 11 i 0 And I invite you in particular to think back over the test i
12 results that were mede available to you in the course of 13 your investigation concerning the quality of the fill.
. . [
14 .
!!n. DR1EER: I object to the question as [
4 l
15 calling f or rank speculation. Whether this witnecson is ;
16 surprised or not surprised about something is hardly an
'l -
17 issue that is relevant to this litigation. There's no !
18 foundation laid, and I again remind the witness and his i f
19 counsel if this deposition is going to be used ~f or any 20 purpose it ought to be based on the witness' personal 21 knowledge and not on speculation or surmise or conj ecture. [
f 22 BY MR. GOOLD:
4
\
23 2 Can you ancwer? l l
24 4 Uhether I'm surprised? l j f f
- i
~
Luzod Reporting Servier 39g,g gng,Q,},, ,7,,, l Smu hw GG2.))76 Suste 2.% {
Dnreit. Whkan 48226 - Farmington Hills, hkiaan 48018 \
'e ..
1 0 Uhether you would be surprised to learn that.
2 MR. DRIKEnt To learn a f act which you've 3 testified that you have no basis f or agreeing with or an 4 asserted fact.
- 5 BY fin. GOOLD:
6 0 I don' t think !:r. Driker's statment is vorth anything, but 7 go ahead.
8 A Cased on the knowledge that I have of the compaction of 9 the material, I uould be surprised with nothing, as far as 10 how the material uas placed or tested.
11 0 I think we covered earlier that a number of standard i
12 penetration tests vore done in 1977 as a result of the 13 Administration Building problem. Did you learn 14 app'roximately how many such tests had been done?
15 A Of the Administration Building?
1G 0 As a result of the Administration Building problem.
17 A I believe there vore five, fcur or five boring test 18 results that I'm aware of that were 'part of the
,19 Administration Building Dechtel review.
20 0 And did 'anyone f rom Dechtel or Consumers Power make any 21 statements to you concerning what those borings showed 22 regarding the adequacy of the fill?
' 23 A Their assertion was that it showed the fill to be ,
24 adequate.
Luzod Reporting Service ya. Q ,,
Suste tuo 962 1 iib .
Sustr 220 Detrat, Whigan A92:r> Farmuncton Hsils. \fwhican 48018
I I 1 0 Do. you recall who spoke to you in that connection, made l 2 those statements? ,
3 A It was a general assertion by both Dechtel and the f i
4 Consumers people. !
- t 5 0 Uhat was your understanding as to whether the teste were !
6 done in accordance uith ASTU standards, if you had any 7 such understanding? I 8 A I wasn' t there during the' borings, 'however, when the f
1 9 report was provided to us our e::pectationc were that they 10 were dono properly.
i 11 Q Did anyone ever point out to you that the tents were not ,
12 -
done properly?
13 A no.
14 0 If the tests were not done properly, do you believe that 1
{ 15 chould have been disclosed to you?
16 A Definitely.
17 Q Did you learn h,ow raany standard' penetration ecsts uct,c
! . 18 done outside the Administration Building?
4 19 A of the four or five, I recall vaguely that there was two l 20 or three that vere done beyond the boundaries of the 21 Administration Duilding.
22 2 Did you have any reaction as to whether that was a 23 sufficient investigation of the quality of the fill, 24 elsewhere on the site?
.,,, y, Luzod Reporting Service 3,4o ung&,,3,, ;;,,,
Suite hw 962 1176 Swte 2M Detst. _ Alichigan 3226 Farmington Hills, Alichigan 48018
- O '
I 1 A Our reaction was that it was not suf ficient e::ploration 2 beyond the Administration Duilding.
3 0 You',ve used the term "our reaction". Uho are you 4 referring to?
5 A Myself, and in consultation with other URC geotechnical 6 people, 7 0 Uhat Mnc geotechnical people did you concult with, do you 3 recall?
9 A People from URR, Joe Kane, 10 Q C- a- n- e ?
11 .. That's correct.
12 O Uhat is Mr. Uane's position?
13 A I?e's a geotechnical engineer with the of fice of Unn.
I 14 0 Uhat is UnR?
I 15 A Muclear Reactor negulation.
l 16 0 Does Mr. Uane, to your knowledge, have any involvement 17 with the Midland Proj ect?
18 A I believe he does.
19 0 Uhat is that, if you know? i 20 A As primary reviewer, 21 0 In what area?
22 A Of geotechnical engineering.
(#
23 0 Did you raise with anyone f rom Bechtel or Consumers Power 24 your reaction as to the adequacy of the investigation at Luzod Reporting Service 3g,o9,,;,,)y,7 lafayette Bwidine Sua, rw 962 1176 Swie x Detmt, \fichigan M2:6 Farmuuton Hills, \fichigan 4801R
.c ..
.1 ,
the time?
- 2. A Yes.
3 0 And do you recall who you discussed that with?
! 4- A !:r. I:ven, lie. Keeley, others at Consumers Power. It was a 5 point of contention whether or not they had adequately 6 inve'stigated, you know, beyond the Administration 7 Builcing. It was a f airly major. point' in our findings.
O Q Uhat did !!r. Horn indicato in that discussion? 9 A I don' t recall. 10 0 How about !:r. Keeley? 11 A I don' t recall precisely. 12 Q Did ~you ever learn whether other borings had been taken on 13 the site in connection with the Administration Building 14 investigation but discardad?. l 15 A Ilo. l 16 7 And by discarded I'm ref erring to recordc of the borings. 17 A I not aware of any. . 10 ) Did you ever learn whether Bechtel personnel brought in a 19 delli rig of their own to do borings? 20 A I'm not aware of any at this point. 21 2 Okay. Did you ever learn whether there was an electrical 22 duct bank beneath the Diesel Generator Duilding? 23 A Yes. 24 2 Did you ever learn what the structural relationship of
,,,, gy, Lused Reporting Sersic' 3mm %thuNiem fluy.
y,, a 962 1176 suite Lm perms, Michigan taL% Fammaton Hals. Stichigan 48018
1 6 8 a 1 I that duct bank was to the Diesel Generator Building? 2 gA Yes. 3 0 Uhat relationship was there? s 4 A They were directly underneath the -- did you say the 5 Adminictration? 6 0 Diccol Generator cuilding. 7 A They were directly underneath the Diesel Generator - S Building. 9 Q Did you ever learn whether the duct bank was in contact 10 vith the Diesel Generator Building? 11 A If I recall correctly, they were basically an integral part of the Diesel Generator Building coming up through
~
12 13 the footings. i 14 *O Did you ever learn whether a duct bank. wac holding up~ part
.I 15 of the Diesel Generator Building?
16 A Yes. 17 0 , Did you ever learn whether that was supposed to be the 18 case? . 19 lA I don' t recall what the requirementa vere. I 20 0 Did you ever learn at what level the Administration 21 i Building problem was discussed within Consumers Peuer, how I 22 l high a level within the Consumers Power organization that 23 problem was discussed? 24 A The electrical duct bank? 4 Affl)ffl0 f$W UI , Luzoa Reporting Senice ,ayo ,,g,f,2,G, . ,7wy sua. nw 9s2.is:o s.,, 2x [Mroa. \fschigan 49226 ' farmsngton lidh, \fichigan 49018
-r ,
., .. i I
1 O' tio, n:, the Administration Building, with respect to the [ f 2 . Administration Building. l 3 A I don't recall at this point to what level it was i C' 4 discussed. > i 5 0 -Did you ever learn whether the Administration Building l 6 probica uas disclosed to any gootochnical consultante I 7 retained by Consumers Power er Bochtel of ter the Diocol 8 Gonorator Building problem was reported to the !mC? .f 9 A I' m not avaro. $ 10 tm. GOOLD: This probably would be a good 11 point for a lunch break if that's okay with you. Lot no .; 12 jus' check to see. !!ow is a good timo. ! t 13 ( A brief receas was held during !
?
14 the proceedings.) j 15 f 16 ! 17 i t 10 i 19
- l i
20 - l 21 ! t f 22 ;
\ ,'
23 24 l i .
,, y ' Luzod Reporting Sersier yo 12,,7; Suite tuo 962 11I6 Suur m I
1 BY !!R. GOOLD: 2 0 Did you have a view, lir. Gallagher, as to whether 3 Concumors Power should have disclosed the Administration 4 nuilding problem to you bef ore they did, betore it unc 5 disclosed to you4 6 A Yo c. 7 0 And did you c::procc that to anyone f rom Concumers Pcuer? 8 A Yes. That ucc a point of contention quite a bit during 9 the investigation and the licensing hearings. 10 0 Let's f ocus on the investigation. Did you ever get an 11 e::planation f rom anyone f rom Consumers Power as to uhy the 12 Administration D 0ilding p';oblem vasn' t dicclocod to ycu
.13 sooner? -
14 ! *R . J:::SCU: I wonder if I could ach f or a 15 clarification. Are you aching like for a specific l 1G conv er ca tion? i 17 3Y ::n. CCCLD: f 18 0 I'm leaning in 'that direction and I'm also trying to 19 e::clude the e:: amination during the actual adminictrative I 20 proceedings, trying to focus on the contacts ycu had with 21 Consumers Power consuruction personnel. 22 l '.R . CRIKER: l'aybe the reporter can read the 23 question back. 24 (The requested portion of the f.utod Reporting Seruce y y , y s ,g,,,, jf g
' {'}
${Mmt, 962.]}?b Suite 220
\fichigan 4822n f*
- M " N'O' I'O'* #
r 'O 1 record was read back as f ollows:
-2 "O. I'm leaning in that direction 3 and I'm also trying to e::clude the f 4 c:: amination during the actual 5 administrative proceedings, trying q G to f ocus on the contacts you had 7 -
with Consumers Power construction 1 3 pe r sonnel . ") i 9 A Uc11, the standard response when ne inquired about th:t 10 was that it was j ust not saf ety-related and theref cet n o '. i 11 related to our investigation. j 12 tY 1:n. COOLD:
- 13 C Uhen you say standard response, do you recall- uhich people 14 gave you that response?
15 A If I recall correctly, I believe Mr. :Meley cave bc that 15 sort of response. I think it vas pretty much the party 17 line. - 13 2 Uhich other Consumers Power penple do you have in mind? 19 A I don' t recall specificc11y. 20 7 Okay. Did you indicate in your investigation that you 21 were interested in determining what the causes of the 22 Diesel Generator Building problems were? (' 23 A That was one of our first objectives. 24 p And did you communicate that objective to Consumer s Power Luzod Reportine Servic' nw %, stem Hn Lafv etu ik W e S,, rw 962 11 6 har 23) m,, tgma o Farmattan HJ!s.1fn.eu 48'H8
1 people ? 2 A Yes. 3 0 At approximately what point in your investigation did you 4 communicate that? 5 A From the first time we fc11 owed up on the 50.3S submitting 6 by Consuncrc in September 1973 7 0 Okay. Did you ever learn whether Copsumers Power people 3 uere diccuacing the Administration Buildinc in private 9 meetings during September of 1970 to which you uctr not 10 privy? 11 A I had not known of that. 12 !O Did you over learn of that? 13 A !?o, not even to this poinc in time. 14 0 You indicated that you communicated to Concut.cra 7ever 15 that you were interected in determining what the ccuccc of 16 the Diocel Generator Duilding problem vere. Did you 17 I rcquest information on that subj ect f rom Consunerc,?cuer 13 pe opl e ?
\. .
(Afayette kidsag Lu A Repor ine Senice ,mo ,,, ,
% gr a ) 962 I1**6 Suste 2:0
[ktrat, \fschigan M.% Farmington lislls, Whigan 44018
1 DY MR.,GOOLD:. - 2 0 Did you have a view, Mr. Gallagherl as to whether 3 Consumers Pouer should have disclosed the Administration 4 Building problem to you before they did, before it ucc 5 disclosed to you? 6 A Yes. I O And did you exprocs that to anyone f rom Concutorc Pator? 0 A Yes. That uac a point of contention quito a bit during 9 the investigation and the licencing hearings. 10 0 Let's f ocus on the invectigation. Did you ever get an 11 explanation f rcm anyone f rom Consumers Pouer as to why the 12 Administration Building prob 1cm wacn' t diccioned to you
, 13 .
sooner? 14 II. JCUS,CU : I vonder if I could ask for a 15 clarification. Are you aching liho f or a specific . 15 conv er cation? 17 CY MR. GCOLD: 13 2 I'm leaning in that direction and I'm also trying to 19 c::clude the e:: amination during the actual administrative 20 proceedings, trying to focus on the contactc you had with 21 Consumers Power construction personnel. I 22 tm. DRIKER: Maybe the reporter can read the 23 question back. 24 (The requestod portion of the l N $
.'g g '""- 9s:.>>;s s.a. ::o Farnungeon Hdh, \fickttan 48018 M \fichieu 48:26
o . .. . t
, 1- , ,
record was read back as follows: j
.2 "Q. I'm leaning in that direction t
.3 and -I'm also trying to e::clude the 4 examination during the. actual 5 administrative proceedingc, trying G to fo.cus on the contacts you had l I
7 with Concuuerc Power construction ; O pe r sonnel . ") l l 9 A t?oll, the standard recponse uhen we inquired about that j 10 was that it was juct not safety-related and therefor: no* I i 11 related to our investigation. ( i 12 3Y !!R. G00I.D: f 13 - O t? hen you say standard recponse, do you recall which people i 14 gave you that response? , [ t 15 A If I recall correctly, I believe !!r. ::celey gave us that { 16 sort of responce. I think it was pretty, much the party l 17 line. 10 0 17hich other Consumers Power people do you have in mind? [ 10 A I don' t recall specifically, j 20 0 Okay. Did you indicate in your investigation that you ! 21 were interested in determining what the causes of the t 22 Diesel Generator Building problems were? ! O 23 A That was one of our first objectives. l 24 0 And did 'y.9 communicate that objective to Consumers Power ' I Luzod Reporting Service , 3,,jy ,, gg,, ytg,, l
, Suite MO 962.!]i6 Suur 220 ;
Nnnt %ckiaan m:26 , Fernunaton IMs. .\fwksess 4A018 7
1 I peopic? - 2 A Yes. 3 0 At approximately what point in your investigation did you 4 communicate thaw? 3 A From the first time we followed up on the 50.55 submitting G by Consumers in September 1973.
. 7 O Chay. Did you ever learn whether Consumers Power people e vere discuccing the Administration cuilding in private 9 meetings during September of 1970 to which you were not 10 privy?
11 A I had not known of that. 12 O Did you ever learn of that?
- 13 A no, not even to this point in time. '
14 a You indicated that you communicated to Consumers Pcwer . 15 that you were interested in determining what the causes of 15 the Diesel Generator Duilding probicm were. Did you 17 , request information on that subject from Conrumors,Peuer 13 peopic? - 1.6 A Yes. 20 2 To whom would your request have been directed? 21 A Through Don Horn as the primary contact. 22 ] Did you put any limitation on your request in terms of a
~
23 timeframe of information? 24 N Mo. l Luted Reportine Service ,a 9 1,3,0 Suu hw 962 1176 suar :.y f***'* U'lk 'Ikk*** "I8
--______-__________ ? "h _?Ih***
- 1 0 Do yeu recall whether your request vould have included any 2 intormation relating to the Administration Building, not 3 in terms of whether you specifically mentioned the 4 Administration Building but whether your request was bread 5 c..; ugh as to encompass that subject?
6 A "ell, af ter ue had learned of the Administration Duilding 7 in early 1979 ue then were curiouc about the circunctanccc 0 surrounding that. They gave uc this nechtel report, 9 Dechtel gave uc the report in Ann Arbor, and at some point 10 in time, I don't kncu if it was then or later, they gave 11 us, Consumers gave us other pieces of correspondence 12 betueen Bechtel and U. S. Testing regarding that. 13 0 Uhat I'm trying to f ocus on is the timef rame bef ore the 14 Administration Euilding was disclosed to you and to' find 15 out what you can recall regarding how videly you cact your i 1G ne t, co to cpech, in requasting information concerning th: 17 causes of the soils problem. 18 A 7 think in general terms uo communicated, I communicated 19 tc Consumers that our objective was to learn in detail the 20 causes so that we would understand the e:: tent of the r 21 problem and also be able to recommend to our management 22 what course of action the NRC might take as to continuing 23 our investigation or taking any licensing and/or 24 cnforcement action. Lafayette B.sildint Luzod Reportine Servier 3m) %AuNb Huy-htte MO 9sg,jj7s ht" 23
, Detrat. \fschtsse AC% fer m n,tton Hsilk Uschtsan MlR
- m. .. .
7 Lli , 0 '. Did. you~ request idf ormation $oncerning soils compaction ~ ' 2 ' testing. as part of your initial inquiries concerning the 3 -3 causes of the soils problem? l 4 A Yes. 5 0 Let me. show you a document, which has been marked as P0 G CPC 518, which is a letter written by Mr. Brunner here 7 with various attachments. And I vant to direct your 8 attention to the page which has been stamped serial number 9 95310874. You'll find that sequesnce of numbers. tcward 10 the bottom right-hand corner. Can you identify this 11 document? 12 A It's entitled "boring log". 13 0 Do you recall whether you were shosm this boring log 14 during the course of your investigation leading *to the 15 preparation.of report 78-207 16 & I don' t know that this -- obviously I don' t recall at i 17 f ace-value this particular boring leg, but there were, if 18 I remember correctly, some four or so attached to that 19 Bechtel Decembec report, December of i977 report, and I ( 20' only recall that because I was q'ueried recently by the
- 21 URC's Office of Investigations around this particular 22 matter.
\ (: 23 Let me make sure the point you've just covered. 1 Here you 24 asked whether the boring log, which I've put bef ore you, lafayette Budding Luzod Reporting Service ,g 3,,y,,2 , , Suite MO 962 1176 Suste 220
. Detroit, Stichigan 48226 Farmington flith. Stichiuan 18018 L* - _ _ , _ _ --, _ _ - - . . _ _ _ _
g . l. ,
. .was part of the December 1977 teport' you examined?'
2 A Was I asked by -- 3 0 In the recent inquiry you j ust ref erred to. ( 4 A Ho.. I-was ' queried by the Office of Investigations about I- 5 borings in general, about tue parameters that'one used'in
-6 taking borings and in doing so rediscovered thic December 7 12th Bechtel report in my files and-toch note that there 0 were f our or five borings attached. Uhether thic one,ic
-9 one of those, I don' t knou. I don' t have it availabic to 10 compare, but simply cent it onto the Region 3 OI people, 11 0 Let me see if I can help. Let me give you also a 12 document, which I'll ask the reporter to mark as P:: Dcc 13 227.
14 , (Deposition 2::hibi t no. P" DCC 227, 15 Inter-Office Memorandum from R. L. 16 Castleberry to J. F. Ucugen, dated
.17 ,
January 13, 1977,, subj ect : 10 Administration Dldg. Foundation 19 Settlement Investigation, was 20' ! marked f or identification.) 21 BY MR. GOOLD: 22 0- can you identify PX BEC 227, Mr. Gallagher? ( 23 A This is the report that I've been ref erring to at multiple 24 times this morning with -- the so-called December 1977
,,,, y Luzod Reporting Service 39g,g ,,g,f,}) ,,,,.
Suite sw 962 1176 Suite 2M Detroit. Alichigan 48226 Farmington liith, Stichigan 48018
e 7 l I
- 1. Bechtel report on the Administration Building.
l 2 0 ' And is this also a copy of the report you located in your f ( 3 files in response to the most recent inquiry?
~
4 A That's correct, and there are five borinos attoched to 5 that which had been given to us. 6 0 Does PX BCC 227 include the Diesel Generator Euilding 7 boring that's included in the document I' ve provisionally 3 marked as PH CPC 513, page 05316374? 9 A On quick glance it really doesn' t compare with any of the 10 five in the other document. 11 O You may well have a dif f erent version, but focusing on the 12 first f ew pages of this report, the Decemb%r 1977 report -- 13 MR. DRIKER: Uhat do you mean the witness 14 may have a different version? 15 UR. GOOLD: That's what I' m going to try to 16 sort out. 17 DY Un. GOCLD: 18 2 Let's look at the first f ew pages of PX SEC 227, 19 specifically the pages stamped M0000001-5. Fow, are those i 20 pages f rom the same report that you've been ref erring to 21 as something you've located in your files? 22 A I didn't, you know, I didn' t memorize the whole document. i' 23 I j ust located the report with the cover transmittal and 24 this first cover sheet and looked at f our borings and sent Lu:od Reporting Service ,g 5 13,,4 g 749.,,,, g,,jg;,, Suite MO 962.I176 Suite 220 Detroit, Stichigan 48226 Farmington Hills, Stichigan 48018
1- it onto OI. I didn' t have it in f ront of me and I doni t 2 have it today and I -can' t say with any degree of certainty 3 that it is in fact the same one. At least the cover page 4 and second page, which are title pages, appear to be
.$ similar, identical.
l [ 6 0 At the ' time you prepared your report 73-20, had you I 7 received any instruction in how to interpret boring logs, 8 such as the 1977 Diesel Generator Duilding boring icg? 9 A Instructions f rom -- no one gave us any instructionc. 10 0 In terms of your work, what I'm trying to do is find out 11 this and let me go straight to the source of it. In your 12 report 78-20 I noticed a statement with respect to the
~
13 Administration Building and I'll give you that ref erence 14 - in j ust a ,second, sir. On page 22 of report 70-20 the 15 statement there appears with regard to the 1977 borings, . 16 "The tuo other borings did not indicate unusual material 17 properties ,in that the blow counts ucre reasonable. " I' m j 18 trying to find out what information you drc4i on fo'r that 19 statement. 20 A Reflecting back and looking at the borings at that time 21 the results of the so-called blow counts were high 22 relative to other borings that we were aware of in the M. ([ 23 course of the investigation of the material. 24 0 Let me make sure I understand what you mean by other Lu:od Reportirag Service ,3.QQ 77 749.,,,, yigu,, Sure hw 962 1176 sgue 2:0 Detroit. \fichigan 48226 Farmungtors flith. .\fichigan 48018
L _a_ .; . 1 . Lborings.
. Are those borings that had been generated af ter the Diese1~ Generator Building investigation had begun?
2 3 A That's correct. l 4 0 "are you saying here that the 1977 borings had higher blew I i 5 counts? 6 A That's correct. 7 0 And at the time you wrote what you did on page 22 of Fhic 0 report, that the blow counts were reasonable, did you have 9 any knowledge as to whether an 18 inch drop had been used 10 for the 1977 borings? 11 A 11 o . 12 0 If you had known that an '18 inch drop had been used for 13 those tests, would you have Iiritt'en this? 14 A Uell, it would have invalidated the' boring loga 15 themselvec. . 16 0 since you prepared your report, have you received any 17 inctruction concerning what conctitutes a blow' count
-18 . indicating satisf actory compaction for clay fi_17 19 A No.
20 2 How about with respect to sand, same answer? i 21 .A Correct. 22 3 The December 1977 report you've indicated that you (' 23 received, f rom whom did you receive that? 3 24 A The 1977?
"' 3*O N h" '" II"Y' kfayette Budding Suite MO .
962 1176 Suite 220
, Detroit. 3iichigan 48226 Fannington lidk 31khigan M018
1, O December '77 . Administration Building report, do you 2 remember which person'provided you with a copy? 3 A Mr. Tuveson. ( 4 0 Did he provide you with that at the Bechtel of fice? 5 A That's correct. 6 0 Did he have it handy at the time the subject of the
- l. 7 Administration Building first came up?
0 A Uell, when you say handy, I mean when he brought it up and 9 we asked him to see it he produced it. 10 0 During the same meeting is what I'm trying to find out. 11 A Yes. 12 0 To your knowledge / who was the person at the URC uho was-13 most with the greatest degree of e::pertise in the L 14 interpretation of boring logs such as these? 15 A Uell, certainly people such as Joe Kane f rom the . 16 geotechnical engineering branch and his associates there, l 17 as well as Ifr. Lansemen in the Region 3 of fice. 4 10 0 Do you recall what the December 1977 report on the J 9- Administration Building indicated with respect to the 20 accurac'y of compaction tests in the fill? 21 A In general? 22 0 Yes. (' 23 A The report speaks for itself, but based on the information 24 we had there I didn' t have much confidence in the accuracy (Afayetto Building ' 1.uz d Reporting Service ' yo ,,g ,, ,, Saite MO 962.}}76 Suite 2M Detroit, .\fichigan 18226 Farmington flills. .\fichigan 2018
m 1- f. the test results. - 2 O Did you: speak to a Mr. Jerry Givens of Dechtel in your 3 investiga tion? I 4 A I don' t recall.
~
5 0 How about at any time since?
'G A Ho.
7 0 -Did you make any attempt to speak to the people f rca 8 Bechtel who had been. involved in the invectigation of th'e 9 1977 Administration Building problem? 10 A I don' t think we did at that time. I think we accepted 11 the report at f ace-value and utilized it to that e:: tent. 12 O Lot me shoe you a document, which I'll ask the reporter to 13 mark as pX DEC 228. . 14 (Deposition E::hibit no. PX DEC 220, . 15 Inter-Of fice memorandum f rom J. D. 16 Givens to S. S. Afifi, dated 10-5-77, 17 Subj ect : Midland Units 1 & 2, job 18 7220-001, Structural Backfill 10 Investigation Borings-Trip neport, 20 , September 27-30, 1977, was marked 21 for identification.) 22 ,BY MR. GOOLD: ('
'~
23 2 Do you recall whether you received a copy of this document 24 in the course of your investigation leading to the i lafayette Building Luzod Reparting Serviee 39g,o h8 77,_y.
,,gu,],,,,
Suue 6w 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit. Stichigan 48226 Farminston liith, .\fichigan 48018 [
1 preparation of racort 78-20?
-2' A I don' t believe so.- I l
3 0 At' the time you prepared report 78-20, did you have anyone f 4 . working with_you at the NRC whom you considered to be a-5 geotechnical c:: pert in a matter such' as interpreting 6' boring logs?
, 7 A Hot at that time.
8 0 Uhen did !!r. Kane first get involved? 9 A Probably in early 1979 when ue started having meetings 10 regarding the' findings. 11 0 Looking at the f ront page of PX BEC 228 I see a name U. R. 12 Ferris. Did you ever speak to Mr. Ferris in your 13 investigation? 14 A Yes. 15 0 Uhat was bis positio.n at Dechtel? 16 A Ee was a gootechnical engineer from the San Francisco 17 - office. 10 0 At what stage in your investigation did you have any 19 contact with Dr. Ferris? . 20 A I don' t recall. It was some time during it. I remember 21 meeting him. 22 0 Did you have any discussions with Mr. Ferris concerning 23 the causes of the soils problems? 24 A Well, he wac again -- not directly, however, he was a Luzod Reporting Service ,3 },y 77 ., g4 .,,,, g;;g4 9,ig, 5w 962 1176 Seite 220 Detroit. Afichigan 48226 Farmington lidis, Sfichigan 48018
a l 1 part1cipant in meetings .that we discussed ct _ length issues
~
2 around the soils problems.- 3' O Do you_ recall whether Mr. Ferris made any statements
~4 concerning the possible catises of the soils problems?-
5 A I don' t recall any directly. 6 0 Looking .at the same page there's also a ref erence to S. L. 7 Blue. Did you ever meet a Mr. Blue? . 8 A Yes. 9 Q Is he with Dechtel? 10 A Yes, I believe so. 11 Q Did you interview Mr. Blue in your investigation? 12 A I think ue did in Ann Arbor. I don' t remember e :actly but 13 I think we did. If I recall correctly, I think he was 14 Afifi's boss, ,but 1 may be mistaken. Lots of people are 15 . involved. . 16 0 That's f or sure. How abo ut Mr . Ca stlebe r r'y , 2. L. 17 Ca stl ebe r ry ?. . 18 A I didn' t have much contact with him. I think he was the-19 Proj ect Manager at that time in the Ann Arbor office, 20 somewhat removed from us directly. 21 a Okay. Do you recall whether you were provided with the
~
22 results of any other kinds of soils tests done at the 23 Administration Building other than the boring logs you've 24 described? Luzod Reporting Service yo3 1),0 g_ g4ay.,,,, gigg;,, Suite MO 962'llI6 Suar 2M Detroit, Michigan 48226 Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018
e
*'s s' -*
*l l
. -1L A Mot offhand. l 2 0 Let me show you a document, which I'll'ask the reporter -to 3 mark as PX DOC 2297 l 1
-[ 4 (Deposition Exhibit No. PX BEC 229, ) 1 5 February 1,1970 letcor f rom J. F. ) G Ucwgen to D. Edley, uas marked 7 for identification. ) C BY MR. GdOLD: 9 0 Do you recall rocciving a copy of this' document in the 10 course of your investigation leading to the preparation of 11 report 78-20? 11 2 A Ye s. .
,- 13 0 okay. Did you find this document of any significance in 14 your, investigation? .
15 A Y'es, very much so. . 16 0 Okay. Uhat portions, if any, in particular of the 17 document did you find significant? 18 A Particularly on page two the conclusory statement in the 19 ne::t to last paragraph. 20 0 Uhich statement is that, sir? 21 A First two lines. 22 0 Uhat was the significance cf that statement to you? ( 23 A The conclusion that Bechtel had made regarding the results 24 of their investigation or their inspeciton that concludes ggg.,,,, ggggy, Lu:od Reporting Service y 3.g},,[1, y . Saite Am 962 1176 Suite 220 Detrmt .\fichigan 48226 . Farmington Hills, ,\fichigan 48018
. 1 repeated. erro.neous selection of compaction standards uy U.
2 S. Testing. ' 3 0 - Uhat did that indicate to you, if anything, with ' respect 4 to whether there was a site-wide problem? 5 A Mell,-to us, to me at that time it directly related to a 6 problen beyond the Administration Building. Particularly-7 that when $ie discovered this ve had already known that it 8 vas a site-wide problem well beyond that. 9 0 Looking at the list of persons to whom copies went, do you 10 see anyone f rom Consumers Power listed on this document? 11 A Yes. 12 0 Uho is that? 13 A Mr. Bechtel, Mr. Cooke with an E. 14 -Q Mr. Bechtel f rom Con'sumers Power? 15 A I believe so, yeah. Mo. I understood that to be Mr. 16 Dechtel f rom Dechtcl. . 17 Q Okay. 18 /\ And Mr. Cooke from Consumers Power. 19 3 Okay, Is that the'same Mr. Cooke we've been describing 20 earlier? 21 A The site superintendent. 22 Q Did you discuss this document specifically with Mr. Cooke? (# 23 A I believe we did, yes. 24 7 Uhat did he tell you about it? 4
,,,, y Luzod Reporting Service 39g,g ,,A,1;,1,,2,n 77,,.
Snute hw 962 1176 Suise 2w Detroit, Michigan 18226 . Farmington Hith, Michigai 48018
,3
. -s ,
1 A Uith ref erence to what? 2 0 First, did he acknowledge he received a copy of it? 3 A I don' t recall the exact discussion, although, I recall 4 conf ronting him that he was on the copy and at f ace-value 5 we expected that he did. 6 0 And how did he respond, if you recall? 7 A I don' t recall. If I can add, I believe that when this 8 came up it was vicued, or at least communicated to me it 9 was vicued as a contractual matter dealing with uho is 10 responsible for the removal and investigation into the 11 Administration Building, and basically a claim f or that 12 work more than anything. 13 0 Did you learn that a claim had been made against U. s. 14 Testing f or costs associated with the removal of the fill 15 at the Administration Building? 16 A From this letter. i 17 0 Okay. Did you discucs .the letter with anycne f r6m U. S. 18 Testing, if you recall? i 19 A Yes. l 20 0 Uho was that? l i 21 A The lab manager, i 22 O Is that I:r. Speltz ? (~' 23 A I think you ref reshed my memory that it was. 24 0 Do you recall anything f rom memory what he said concerning L'uzod Repo'rting Service ,g 1 ty , 7,9n,,,, g,,tging . Suar MO 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit, Whigan 4822ri Farmington flills, Micittgan 2018
5 0
^ 9.
- 1. , this document?
2 A - At this point in time specifically I don' t. I have, I 3 guess, a general characterization of the exchange we had. Y' '4- I don' t kno.i if that's worth commenting or not, but 5 ob'viously we conf ronted people with these documents and we 5 asked f or their reasons. 7 0 Can you give us whatever.you can ' recall about your G e:: change with l'r. Spelt: on this subj ect?. 9 A Uell, U. S. Testing uns in disagreement with Dechtel in 10 terms of who was responsible for the damages or claim. 11 They felt they were -- they communicated to me that they. 12 , were taking the' tests correctly'and the like. They were 13 defensive of the action and the claim obviously. - 14 Q Let me focus back f or a second on report 78-20. !?as.this 15- document issued as a public document, if you know? 16 A Yes. 17 Q And uns this document issued as a public record of the l 18 Nuclear Regulatory Commission? 19 A Yes. 20 '2 Did you understand that that would be the case at the time i- , 21 you prepared this? 22 A Yes.
',' 23 2 And did you leave anything out of here that you thought
. 24 belonged in here? I' m sure you didn' t, but I want to l Luzod Reporting Service 3,4g 3,,,g,Q,,'g y,,, Suite AM 962 1176 Suite 220 Moit. 3fichigan 48226 Farmington Hills, 3fichigan 48018
1
.1. cerify that- for the record.
2 A I don' t recall leaving anything out. 3 0 Uhat I'm just trying to find out is that.you did your best 4 to-make this an accurato summary of the results of your ' 5 investigation, did you not? 6 A Chat's correct. 7 n Did you ever learn that there had been a problem 0 . controlling lif t thichness f or uncompacted fill at the 9 site? . 10 7. Yes. 11 Q It might be helpf ul if you could define the term lif t 12 thickness first. 13 A It's simply the thickness of the uncompacted material 14 deposited in the field prior to being compacted, i
- 15 0 To your knowledge, is there an engineering practice in the t 1G cootechnical area to control lift thickness?
t 17 A Yes. . 18 0 Uhy? 19 A Uell, depending on how thich the material is placed 20 uncompacted may dictate the type of equipment that one i 1 . l 21 uses in order to get the desired results or the amount of 22 ef fort and energy one will put into compacting the 23 material. , 24 0 can f ailure to control lif t thickness cause f ailure to [ i [ l ;
,,,, g , Luzod Reporting Service 39g,g g,,A,ff,,) y,,.
- . Suae MO . 962 1176 Suite 220 -
Detroit, Michigan 48226 Farminaton Hith Michigan 48018
, [
1 ' achieve pecect compaction? . 2' A It can:be a contributor. 3 0 , Based on your investigation, was f ailure to control lif t 4 thickness a contributing factor in the soils problems at 5 Midland? 6 A Yes. 7 C Did you discuss that subject with Mr. Horn? 8 A Yes. 9 0 Did he indicate whether there had been any problem 10 concerning control of lif t thickness? 11 A- Yes. He identified previous nonconf ormsnce reports which , 1 12 had identified this as a problem. 13 q Did you discuss control of lif t thicknesses with anyone 14 else f rom Cor.sumers Power ? - 15 A Like all the other contributing f actors it was the subject 16 of discussion at length, in public mceti ngs -- of ficial l 17
- meetings, inq ui ri,e s, interviews, . lots of peopla.
l c ! 13 2 Did anyone f rom Bechtel participate in discussions with l
- 19 you concerning how lif t thickness had been controlled, if ;
20 at all? l 21 A I don' t recall. ! i 22 :D Uhat procedures, if any, did you learn were used at the 23 proj ect in the control of lift thicknesses? Let me direct 24 your attention to page 26 in particular for any Luzod Reporting Service 10 g;g 3,,,g,),,,,
,,, y,, y,,_ {
Sia c M o 962 1176 . Sise ZM r Detroit. Michigan 48226 o f*'*i"! ton Hills, Stichigan 48018
4 1 refreshment that provideo. Also page 25. 2 A Uhat would you like with respect to this page? 3 0 I'm trying to find out what you learned with respect to i 4 the procedures, if any, by which lif t ' thickness was 5 controlled? 6 A Uell, as we stated on page 25, paragraph two, it was a 7 visual determination as to how thich the material' was 8 placed. , 9 Q Did you ever learn whether grace stakes or other 10 techniquer were supposed to be used to control lif t 11- thickness? 12 A Based on the conversations with the field personnel, 'it 13 was not a practice of having well-established elevations 14 .and grade markers and the like. 15 0 Did you discuss problems with control of lif t thickness 16 with anyone else f rom Consumers Power, if you recall ? 17 A Again I think the same response, it was a general Subject 18 of an issue that was spoken to a lot of people. 19 0 Did anyone f rom Dechtel indicate agreement that lif t 20 thicknesses were not properly controlled? 21 A I don' t recall at this point. 22 0 Do you recall whether Mr. Horn indicated that he agreed 23 lif t thicknesses had not been properly controlled? 24 A Uell, he identified to us the nonconformance reports, gg,,,,,, siggi,,, Lu:od Reporting Service y o 3 Q ,fy y . Sate hw 962 1176 Saite o Iktroit, Alichigan 48226 Farmington Hills, Alichigan 48018
~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 1 wh_ich . spoke 'for themselves, wh.ich identified those 2 deficiencies. 3 0 Let. me show you a document, which I'll ask the reporter to 4 mark as- PX Dechtel 230. I ( 5 (Deposition Exhibic Uo. PX DEC 23 0, 6 !*ecting Minutes, U. S. Testing 7 Company, Inc.,. Subcontract Ho. 8 7 220-C-208, December 8,1977, 9 was marked f er identification.) 10 BY !!n. GOOLD': 11 0 Let me suggest that you read this document, sir, and I'll 12 take a very quick break. 13 ( A brief recess was held during 14 , the ~ proceedings.) 15 BY liR. GOOLD: 16 0' Do you recall whether a copy of this document was made 17 , available to you in the course of your investigation 18 leading to the preparation of in'vectigation report 73-20? 19 A No. , 20 0 Okay. Let me direct your attention first to the . 21 statements which appear in the middle of the first page, 22 specifically, "training cannot interf ere with construction (J 23 schedule, U. S. Testing understands that the construction 24 schedule takes preference." Do you consider that, as an Luzod Reporting Service 3mto NonhuNiern Hwy, Wayene kiding Suite A30 962 1176 Suae 220 Detroit, Stichigan 48226 Farmington Hdh. Stichigan 48018
. 1 1 .
.URC inspector do you consider that a proper set of'
, <c .
2 . priorities f or the construction of a. nuclear power plant? 3 UR. DRIKER: I'm going to obj ect to the
. 4 question. _ There's no f oundation laid. I'm not sure what 5 the witness' answer was with respect to identifying this 6 document, but to ask him what some brief statement made by 7 some unknown author is and ask him to draw conclusions 8 about the prudence as an UnC inspector I think calls f or 9 rank speculation. I uould urge the uitness to testify as 10 to his knowledge and not to speculate or suppose or try to 11 read into the mind of an un-named author what ho meant by 12 four. w6rds on a piece of paper nine years ago.
- 13 BY MR. GOOLD: -
14 Q I'.m not asking you to speculate as to what was in the mind i 15 of the author. I'm asking you to give uc your reaction. ac 16 an Unc employee responsible during this period, the years 17 you spent at Region 3, responsible for monitoring 18 construction of nuclear plants, whether you consider a set , 19 of priorities as stated in this exhibit to be proper? 20 MR. DRIKER: You' re asking him the training 21 cannot interf ere with the construction schedule, assuming 22 we all know what that means, what construction schedule
- e. c
'~'
23 means. You' re asking the witness to fill in the blanks as 24 to what all that means, Mr. Goold. I don' t know how he l
,49.,,,, giggin_,
Lu:od Reporting Service yn3,,Q,LD,,,, Suiar hw 962 1176 %:e 220 Iktroit. Alichigan 48226 farminttk flills, Afichigan '48018 ' i .
l l 1 can do it. If he can, that's fine, .but 'I assure you I i i
, 2 have: an objection to the competency of this witness Or 3 anybody around this table to understand what those seven 4 words mean and determine whether or not they reflect good 5 practice in anything, especially writing.
6 !!n. GOOLD: Your objection is.noted. 7 A I really don' t think I have enough inf ormation to make a 8 statement. 9 'BY I:R. GOOLD: 10 0 Okay. Uould you turn to the bottom of page tro, under the 11 heading "general" the statement there appears: "It is 12 'Dechtel's f eeling that U. S. Testing is not doing a 13 satisfactory job", then the sentence goes on but I vant to 14 focus on that first part. In your contaces uith Rechtel 15 personnel were you advised in words or in substance that 16 Dochtel believed U. S. Testing was not doing a 17 satisf actory job at or about the period prior to the l 18 disclosure of the Diesel Generator Building problem? 19 A Uas I aware -- 20 ;D That Bechtel people felt that way. 21 A Prior to disclosure of the Diesel Generator Building? 22 2 That's right. (# 23 A Do. 24 ? Let me show you another document, that I'll ask the i t g,j,y,,,, g,ygg,, Luzid Reporting Service , 3.,,g l,[0,y Sate Am 962 1176 Suge zw Detroit, Michigan 48226 - Farminston Hith, Michigan Ryn8 L
- ., = , .
l~ reporter:to mark as PX BEC 231. . 2: (Deposition Exhibit No. PX BEC 231, 3- Letter from:J. Hilandin to
. I' 4 D. Ilarguglio, . March 7,197 0, 5 was marked f or identification.)
6 DY tlR. GOOLD: 7' O First, do you recall whether you were provided this 8 document in the course of your investi'gation f or the 9 preparation of report 73-20? j 10 A Mo. 11 0 You don' t recall. You mentioned earlier, I believe that ( 12 you had contact with I:r. Marguglio, did you not? ' 13 A Yes. . i 14 Q !That was his position? , g . 15 A He was the Consumers Quality Assurance manager. I 1 l , 16 0 Did he tell you whether he had concern about the quality ! ! I l 17 of the soils testing activities? ! i 18- A Mo. 19 0 Did he tell you that he had requested that !:r. I!ilandin of i i 20 , D,echtel look into U. S. Testing's activities in December
- '21 ~ of 1977 ?
l' 22 A tio. i 23 Q Do you recall whether Mr. I:arguglio gave you any l 24 indication he had concerns about U. S. Testing's soil 7 I . i ! r r Lutod Reporting Service y,o 3.,Q,,5,1, y,,_ j Lafayene lludding Suite AM 962 1176 Suur 2M t Detroa, Vichigan 48226 Fa,mington Hills, Michigan 48018 ;
F .
- e. ..
1 , testing. prior to the disclosure of the Diesel Generator 2 Building?~ 3 A Mo. (^ 4 Q Did Mr. Marguglio disclose to you that there had been a 5 practice of dispositioning all findings or variances in 5 soils work as "use-as-is" in words or in .substcnce? 7 A I missed the question. 8 0 Let me direct your attention also to paragraph four of 9 this exhibit to see if that helps ref resh your 10 recollection. 11 A Mo. 12 C Did anyone f rom Consumers Power indicate to you whether 13 there had been a particular degree of concern about U. S. 14 Testing's soil work in late 1977? , 15 . A Moj I don' t think so. 16 a Did you ever discuss uith Mr. Horn whether Consumers Powe,r 17 had ever issued a stop work order for coils work? 18 A Yes, I did. 19 2 How did that subject come up? . 20 A I, during the course of the investigation, uanted to 21 understand how Consumers was reacting to these repetitive 22 nonconf ormance situations. 23 2 Did Mr. Horn indicate he had considered seeking to have a 24 stop work order issued? g4yggg, g,jg;,, Luzod Reporting Service yo 3 1[2 y
- Suar h w . 9 6 .' 1176 Suite LW Detroit. \fichigan M226
^
. Farmington Hsils. Afichigan 48018
1 A . Yeah,. -I M11 eve' he did. Yes, one' time he mentioned that 2 to-me. 3 0 Did he indicate a decision had been made not to issue a
'. 4 stop work order?
5 A That's correct. l 6 0 Did fir. Horn indicate whether any of his superiors in the 7 Qonsumers Power organization had played a role in that O decision? 9 A Yes. They made the decision. 10 0 Did he indicate who? 11 A If I recall correctly, both his supervisor, Coricy, and 12 his supervisor, !'a r guglio. - 13 0 Did 11r. Horn indicate whether he had recommended that a 14 stop work order be issued? 15 A Yes. !*r. Ilorn was attempting f or a long time to get the 16 attention of Consumers' top manage. ment on this whole I 17 subj ect. He had concerns, reservations, facts, transit . 18 reports. or at least audit reports, he had been working on 19 for some time and really never succeeded in getting the , 1 20 right level of attention, or at least the decision that he i i l 21 felt was right. ! 22 I-IR . DRIKEIi: Your testifying based on what? (# 23 , TIIE UIT11ESS: Based on our discussions with
- 24 each other for some years time.
Luzad Reporting Service ,g Q ,y lafayette Raddin_t Suite MO 962.]176 Suit, 220 Detroit, \fichigan M226 Farminton Hith, Alichigan 2018 _ _,._m_. . . _ . , . ~ . _ _ _ - -
. l' BY !!R. GOOLD: , .
'2 Q Did !!r. Horn indicate that his superiors had decided that 3 the work should proceed regardless of I r. Horn's concerns?
. 4 !!R.. DRIKER : Objection to the question as 5- leading.
G BY MR. GOOLD: 7 O Is that in substance? 8 A I don' t know, only the f act the decision was made not to. 9 0 Did !!r. Horn tell yo'u why his recommendation was not 10 follmfed? 11 !!R. DRIKER: Objection, leading. t 12 A tio. , 13 BY llR. GOOLD: ] , 14 Q Did he ever express any thoughts on the subject? I , 15 A Frustration more than anything, trying to get something 16 done. 17 .Q Did you ever take this subject up with !!r. Coricy or !'r. l , 18 Marguglio? ! 19 A I don' t recall that if we did. 20 0 Did !!r. Horn ever indicate to you in words or in substance 21 the decision had been mace that it was too late to go back 22 and fix the problems in the soils work? 23 I1R. DRIKER: Obj ection. The question is 24 leading. Lutod Reporting Service 30640 hthu ens Huy. gap,,, gaging
$ ,;,, y o 962 1176 Suite 2.%
Otroit. Michigan 4R226 FormiMeon Hdis, Stichigan 48018
1 A , I don' t believe he did. 2 BY MR. GOOLD: 3 Q Did you ever discuss with anyone f rom Dechtel the subject 4 of whether stop work orders had been considered in the-5 soils area? 6 A I don't recall that we did. 7 0 Did Mr. Horn indicate whether he had raised that subj ect 8 with anyone f rom Dechtel? 9 A I j ust don' t recall it. 10 Q Did Mr. Horn indicate whether anybody had provided him 11 with a reason for not f ollowing his recommendation? 12 UR. DRIKER: I thinP the question has been' 13 asked and anmeered. 14' A I don' t recall. 15 BY MR. GOOLD: 16 0 Uhat was Mr. !!arguglio's position? 17 A He was head of the quality Assurance Cepartment in 18 Consumers Power,
, 19 0 Did you have any one-on-one discus: ions or tuo-on-one 20 discuss'ione. with Mr. I!arguglio? Dy two-on-one I mean you 21 and Mr. Phillip with !!r. Marguglio.
22 A- Yes, I believe we did. 23 Q Did you find Mr. !!arguglio to be knm11edgeable with regard 24 to soils work? Lmd Reparting Sernice 39g,o 3,,,,,},y ,,,y Infayetto Butidiae Swor h o 962 1176 . Suite 2x Iktroit, \fichizan M226 Farmington listis Stichigan 48018
1 A . Reasonably.so. 2 Q Did you form any impression as to the whether Mr. 3 Marguglio was knowledgeable regarding how the soils work 4 was supposed to be done? 5 A I don' t think he was that close to the specific techniques 6 or methods. 7 - MR. DRIKER: Or what? 3 THE UITHESS. Or methods. 9 3Y MR. GOOLD: 10 Q Uhat I'm trying to find out is whether I:r. "arguglio, to 11 your knowledge, was f amiliar with matters such as proctor 12 - curves? 13 A I don' t knmi that he was or wasn' t f or that matter. 14 MR. DRIKcn: You say he was or wasn' t? 15 MR. GOOLD: Uas or wasn' t, that's right. 15 'O'1 UR. GOOLD: 17 7 Did Mr. Marguglio indicate any* surprise about the soils
. 18 problems to you in your conversation with him?
19 MR. DRIESR: I' m going to obj ect to the 20 question. I don' t know what that means. 21 'MR. JEUSCU: The question seems to require 22 speculation. i' 23 BY MR. GOOLD: . 24 ) Did Mr. Marguglio state anything to you that iridicated he Luzod Reporting Service 1 3agjo y,g,f,,0,, y,,. g,q;;**< e 6 2. m 6 s.a, m w,. ,1 ., a nem us m.n- =
.1 was surprised that' there were problems with the soils
~2- work? j 3 A IIo. -
4 0 Did you ever receive any inf ormation as to whether anyone 5 at Consumers Power. had been blamed f or the soils problems? G A Can I hear that questien again? 7 (The requested portion of the 0 record was read back as fo11cus: 9 "O. Did you ever receive any 10 inf ormation as to whether anyon'c at 4 11 Consumers Power had been blamed f or . 12 the soils problems?") 13 BY I:R. GOOLDL 9 14 0 Let me be more . specific. Uhat I' m .trying to find out is 15 whether you learned anyone at consumers Pouer had been i 16 demoted or fired, f or e:: ample,' becauce of the soils 17 problems? 4 18 A There was a lot of organizational changes made as a result 19 of the soils problems. Uhether or not it was -- they were 20 just simply changes nado, organizational changes made 21 continually through this period. 22 : Q But j ust so the record is clear, you don' t know to what 23 extent those organizational changes related specifically 24 to the soils problem? Luzod Reporting Service , 5.Qy ,, lafayette Buddinz Sidte Am 962 1176. Suur 2.M l Dr.roit, \fichisan 48226 Farminton IMs. Alichisan 48018 i >
~.
Ao ...
.1 A This+ is ;in Consumers' organization?
2 0 Yes. 3 A 11 o , I'm not aware of how they related directly to it. 4 They wer e j ust simply organizational changes being made. 5 0- Let me show you a document, which I'll ask the reporter to G mark as PH OCC 232. 7 (Deposition Exhibit 170. PH ESC 232, 8 Dcring Log f or Hole nos. B-3 and D-4, 9 . dated 7-22-77, was marked f or 10 ide ntif ica tion. ) 11 !!R. GOOLD: For the record, let me state 12 that it's a single page with copies on both sides of the 13 page, bearing the serial number F0195, appears to be 6, at 14 the bot?.om right-hand corner of the page and purports to 15 be a boring log f or hole number E-3, dated 7-22-77 on the 16 first f ace of the page and on the backside of the page it 17' has got the number 701954. The document purports to be a
, 18 boring 109 f or hole number B-4.
19 BY UR. GOOLD: 20 2 Do you recall whether you were provided in the course of l
- 21 your investigation, Mr. Gallagher, with borings showing 22 soils problems at the diesel fuel tanks on the site?
1 23 A ,I don' t believe we were shown this. l 24 ) Do you know whether the diesel fuel oil tanks are l t . Lutod Reporting Service 158
, 3.,,,g , ,, y ,_
Suite MO 962 III6 Suae tw Dermt, whien 48226 Farminaton Hdh. %Alean 48018
1 0-listed? , , 2 A Yest L they 'are. 3 0 I recognise that you' re not, as you' ve indicated, an f 4 _ expert in interpretction of boring logs but do you know 5 enough to know whether;a blew count of three in sand 6 indicates satisfactorily compacted fill? 7 A Yes, I would knou. - 8 0 And uhat could you tell about the quality of cand fill in 9 which a bicw count of three is recorded? 10 A It's very loose material. 11 0 Could you look at this E::hibit and tell ne what the date 12 is,' just f or the record? ' 13 A It states it was completed on 7-22-77. I 14 C Uas it ever disclosed to you that borings had been tchen 15 on the site in 1977 with respect to a 0-listed structure 13 l that showed loose fjll? 17 A !?o. 13 ' !0 If such tests had been taken should they have been 19 , disclosed to you? 20 A Yes. 21 Q If you had received this boring log at or about the time
~
22 indicated on it, what would you have done if it had been 23 reported to you? 24 A Probably would have looked into it in much further depth Luzod deporting Service 3ag,4 y,,,ff,Q y,,, lafayette Hwidine Suite MO 962 1Ji6 Swie 220
; iktrat. Afichigan 48226 '
Farmium Utlh, Alichigan 48018
m 1 to undccriand why the material was loose and poor quality 2 and bring it to the attention of the appropriate licensing 3 reviewers. 4 0 Mhen you say bring it to the attention of the appropriate 5 licen=1.ig reviewers, what is the process by which that G would be done? 7 A "ell, the inspectors of the Office of Inspection and 8 Enf orcement would document this inf ormatien and consult 9 with the cognisant people in the UnR office uho are 10 responsible for the design bases and technical reviews of 11 this area. 12 0 Does thct process result in the isduance of any public 13 document in the normal course of such an investigation? 14 A It would, an inspectior report. ' 15 0 An inspection report. You've mentioned that a boring log I 15 such as this should be reported, ehould have been reported 17 to the URC; is that correct? A 13 A Yes. 19 2 Oy what' device should such a boring log have been 20 reported, what is the reporting mechanism? 21 A It could be of a variety of ways, but the more standard 22 way is when a licensee identifies material or quality that 23 is unacceptable or deficient it's in the f orm of a 24 so-called 50.55 E repor t, significant deficiency report. yyecte Budding Luzod Reporting Service 399,g 9,,,y,,,,0 gwy. Suite MO 962.I1?6 Suite 220 Detroit. \fichigan 48226 Farmungton Hills. .\fichigan 48018
1 O Perhaps you .should u. plain a bit more what you mean by 2 50.55E report, what coes that ref er to? 3 A Ue spoke of this this morning. There is a part of the i C- 4 regulations within 10 CFP) 50 which requires tne licensee 5 to notify the Imc c any deficiency in construction that 6 might adversely af f ect the plant.
, 7 0 To your knowledge, are CFR 50.55E reports public 3
8 documents? 91 A I don' t know if tt.cy go into the public document recms or 10 not, but if they' re submitted to us they can become public 11 documents. 12 0 If you had 1 earned that borings such as these ware taken 13 in 1977 at a Q-listed area on the site, how vould that 14 have affected your investigation? 15 A !!ow would that affect our investigation that we conducted 16 in 1970? 17 0 That's righ t. 18 A Well, I think 'we -- I know we would have looked f urther 19 into how far in advance Consumers was actually aware of 20 poor quality soils materials on site., as we did on the 21 Administration Building, follow a similar course of action 22 and perhaps would have -- it would have altered perhaps (' 23 the cptions dealing with enf orcement. - 24 0 Can you explain a bit more about what you mean by "options f.uaod Repoeting Sereiee 39g,g 3,,,g,f,Q y,_,. Lafayette Buildiae
~
Suar hw 962 Elib Suite 23) Iktroit, \fichigan 48226 Farmatton Udis, Alichiaan 48018
- J
0 t
. 1 dealing.with enf orcement"?
2 A It becomes a more serious matter, a serious matter when 3 information regarding poor quality is not disclosed to the l 4 NRC, as per the regulations. 5 0 If you had learned in 1977 that boring logs such as this G had boon taken at the diesel fuel tanks and the soil in 7 that area had been qualified as 0-listed, anyucy, uhat O action would you h5ve taken as an UnC inspector? 9 A Same as before, same action as before. 10 Q If you had learned that boring logs submitted by Cencumors 11 Power to the Nucicar negulatory Commission had been l'2 altered to indicate conf ormance with ASTM 'stundards when 13 the originals showed something to the contrary, what 14 ' action would you have taken? 13 MR. DRIKER: ~.Obj ection to the question. 16 There's no f oundation laid, alter boring logs to ASTM 17 standards and so forth. 8 18 A We would have turned it over to the investigative people 19 to look into the matter and have them recommend a course 20 of action. 21 3Y MR. GOOLD: 22 ) How, would you turn to the backside of PM DEC 232. First, 23 can you tell me what this document, this side of the page 24 purports to be? Luzod Reporting Service 39g,y g,,,,f,2,, g,,_ Suite fGO tt62.IJ76 Suite 220 I Detroit. Sfichigan 48226 . Farminston Hills, Stichigan 48018
a .. . 1 A A similar boring log of the material around thu di esel 2 fuel oil storage tanks. 3 0 And what is the date on this?
/ 4 A Same, also 7-22-77.
5 0 Can you tell me how to locate the blow counts recorded on 6 this log? 7 A Yes. There's three columns entitled "penetration blais" 8 and then three subcolumns identifying the bicu counts f or 9 the first, second and third si:: inch es. 10 0 Okay. And are there any particular columns that are 11 treated as reflecting the blev count?
. 12 A All three of those columns.
13 0 Do you add the second two columns to arrive at what's 14 known as a bicu count? , 15 A That's correct. . 16 0 Let's look at the third set of entries dein ur. der the 17 heading "penetration blows". .For the depth at , 18 appro:imately five f eet below surf ace on this log, can you 10 identify uhat the blou count was? 20 A Two. 21 0 Mhat does a blow count of two indicate to you uith respect 22 to the quality of the fill? L 23 A Generally uncompacted material, very locse material. 24 0 Looking at the coordinates on this page, the second side 4 ,,,,ygf, Luzod Reporting Serrsce _,9g,9 ,,4,f,q,) guy Suiar h30 962 1Ii6 Suste 220 Detrat, % hican n226 Farmsneton Hsils, Stichigan 2018
~~g I
i 1 of P:: DEC 23 2, do you. see that entry, si r ? 2 A Ubich page? " r 3 0 Backside of the sheet, for the hole C-4, and I'm ref erring 1 i( 4 to the designation in the upper right-hand corner of the ! l 5 page. Do you have that sheet bef ore you? 6 ;?. Yes. I 7 Q Do you see in the middic of the set of blocks fer 0 inf ormation at the t'op of the sheet a space f or the entry 0 of the coordinate numbers? 10 A Yes. l 11 0 Do you see the coordinate 5302 south, east 520? 12 !A Yes. I 13 h . Did you have occasion in your work on the I:idland Proj ect . l . I 14 to use site mapc? l 15 A Yes. . l l 1G p Could you look at P:: BEC 110 and identify where the I i l 17 j coordinates indicated f or hole number E-4 are on the site 18 map before you? I 19 /, Yes. l l 20 0 Uhere are they? ! 21 A I' m pointing to them. 22 Q Ue::t to what structures? ( 23 Emergency diesel generator f uel oil storage tanks. f I 24 0 Can you tell f rem the site map uhether the coordinates f cr Luod Reportine Service 3agg 9,g},f,f,, y,7 lafayette Bwidate Suae MO 962 I176 Suae 220 EMrmt. \fichigan 48226 Farmuneton Hslis. Alichigan 48018
l' this boring log f all within a 0-listed area on the site? 2 A They- appear to be.
~
3 Q- Does that have any implication in terms of 11RC reporting 1 - 4 requirements? 5 I:R. DRII ER: For what? G DY !:R. GOOLD: 7 0 The f act this boring purports to be within a 0-listed 3 area. 9 A I'm not sure your question is regarding the 1:RC 10 requi rement s. - 11 0 Are the 0-listed areas f or the site, the. portions of the 12 site for which 50.55C reports are required, uhere 13 significant construction deficiencies are identified? Yes. 14 A 15 0 Uould you consider a boring log such as this to indicate a 1G significant construction deficiency? . 17 A It could. It could. 18 0 Uould you consider two boring logs within the same cloco 19 proximity showing you ,uncompacted fill to indicate a 20 significant construction deficiency? 21 A They could. 22 0 How about three? (' ' 23 A They all could. 24 0 How about all four? gg,p,g, yggy, Luzod Repor:ing Service 3,,o 3,,,g,fp,,}
,7,,_
Suar MO 962 liIb Suite M
- Detroit, \fkkiaan 482.% Farmington flills .\fkhigan 48018
I 1 hA They all vould, however, it depends on the determination 2 that thic material is in f act unsatisf actory for the 3 intended use. 4 O Looking at those two logs nmi, and assuming that they were 5 in f act taken on the dates indicated, uhat the results 6 indicated, do you believe they should have been reported 7 to the MRC? , O At f ace-value it appears to be the case. 9 0 Subsequent to the issuance of report 70-20, did you learn 10 whether there was any consideration being given within the 11 NRC to whether Conseners Power's f ailure to disclose the 12 problem with the Administration sooner than it ucs 13 disclosed to you constituted a material f alsa statement? 14 I. Yes. I 15 a nas there in fact consideration given to that? 16 h. Yes. 17 l0 And una the conclusion reached that the f ailure to , l 18 disclose the Administration Duilding to you sooner 10 constituted a material f alse statement? 20 lA Yes, I believe so. 21 Q Do you know who participated in that consideration? 22 h The NRC staff responsible for enforcement and also the 23 Executive Legal Director's of fice, the attorneys who make 24 those determinations. Lu:od Reporting Service yg 166, y Lafvene Buildsne S Ure M O 962.))ib Suar gy Detrat, \fichman 482.% Farmsneton Hsils, Alichigan 48018
1 0 And da j' ou personally agree with that conclusion? 2 A Ye s. 3 0 Let me shmi you a document, which I'll ask the reporter to 4 mark as PX PSC 1. It's already been marked ac cuch in 5 hand.:riting so I'll ctate f or the record it's been so G marked in the upper right-hand corner and I'll al o 7 represent to you that this document has previously been C identified by Dr. Ralph Peck ac a copy of his notes f rca a 9 September 28, 1970 meeting at the Midland cite, 10 MR. DRIKER: Uhile you' re searching f or your 11 papers uhy don' t we take two minutes. 12 , ( A brief' recess was held during 13 the proceedir;:.! 14 DY MR. GOOLO: , 15 0 Ijy first question is whether you were ever told that Dr. 16 Peck had been briefed on the Adminictration ruilding on 17 the fir:t day of his involvement uith the proj ect? 10 A Mo. I was unauare of that. 19 0 Do you recall that you were examined on whether you had, 20 at the NRC soils hearings, on whether you had any 21 knowledge as to the existence of any deliberate plan to 22 keep the Administration Building situation f rom you? 23 A I don' t recall that exchange, but I was examined heavily 24 about the Administration cuilding, lafayette Radding Lu:od Reporting Service 3,,9 ,,k,f,q) guy S ate ny 962 1176 Suite 2x Detmt. \fichigan 48226 Farmmeton Hdis. Whigan 48018
1 0 Dy whom were you c:::.,ined on that subject; do you remember , 2 whether that was a Consumers Power lawyer? 3 A Yes. 4 0 Is that Mr. Miller? 5 A I believe so. 6 0 Of the Chicago firm Inham, Lincoln and Deale? 7 A Um-ha. 8 0 Here you told by anyone f rcn Consumers Power or rechtel O thct there vere settlement probicas at the Chlorination 10 Duilding when you began your investigation on the project? 11 A I don' t recall being inf ormed of that. 12 0 Let me ask you in rirticular uhether you trere informed 13 that the mud mat f or the Chlorination Building had 14 settled? - 15 A Mo. 16 0 Mere you inf ormed as to uhether there had bean any 17 settlement of the transformers near the Dienel Generator 13 Euilding? 19 A These questions are during our investigation? 20 2 Yes, during your investigation leading to the preparttion 21 of report 70-20, 22 A Mo, I don' t believe so. 23 2 Let me make sure I'm clear on that. I'm talhing about the 24 timef rame referred to in your report as 73-20 as the work Luzod Reporting Service 130 ggy,u, gyg ,3, Sage sw 962 1170 Suae :w
1 you did leading to the preparatisn of that repor.t. 2 A No, I don' t believe so. 3 0 Should you have been? 4 A Uell, it's certainly relative to the subject we were 5 inv estiga ting. G O How about uith respect to the Chlorination nuilding, if . 7 there had been settlement cf the mud mat there should you 3 have been inf ormed of that? D A Yes. 10 0 How about the service water valve pits, vere you inf ormed 11 that there had been any settlement of those structures? 12 A no. I 13 0 Should you have been if there had been settlement there? 14 A I uoul,d think so. 15 0 Thinking back to when you began your investigation, hee 16 precisely did it start, how did your involvement commence' 17 A ::y initial involvement was to f ollme up on the August 18 1978, 50.5SE submittal f rem Consumers Power. . Af ter 19 spending about a week and some getting preliminary 20 inf ormation about the e:: tent of the problem, the 21 significance of the problem, and bringina back that 22 inf ormation to the regional of fice the decision was made ( 23 by the director to embark on a comprehensive investigation 24 to determine and to understand all of the circumstances I Lafhyette Bwiding Lu:od Reporting Service , Qg kite hw 962.))?6 Suag gy [Mrmt. \ficki tan 48226 Farmsneton Hills, \fichigan 48018
1 and causes and even.ts that led up to the Die =e1 Generator 2 Building. 3 0 'Let's focus on that first wave of the investigntion, if I 4 may call it that. Uas that in October of 19787 5 A Yes. G. O Just to f ollow up on something else you j ust _ mentioned, 7 you indicated the director made a decision to do a more 0 intensive investigation. Uho wns that? . 9 A Er. Jim Reppler of Region III. 10 0 Uhat was his position with the 11RC7 11 A Ile was the Regional Director and is now the Regional 12 Administrator. 13 0 !!ow were you told that you had been assigned to look into 14 .- this matter, hae .did you learn that? 15 A Directly from him. 16 0 And what did~you do then? 17 A Uell, he ascisned Mr. Phillip and nycelf to bocin the la inv estiga tion. 19 2 Uas Mr. Phillip assigned to work with you f rom the start 20 of the investigation or did Mr. Phillip become involved 21 af ter the decision was made to intensify the 22 investigation? (J 23 h I'm not sure of the distinction you' re making, but when we 24 started an investigation Phillip was there. I was there Lutod Reporting Service ,3.g 17,,0,y ._ g ,,,, gy; Suite hm 962 1176 Suite zu Detrat. \fichigan y Farmoneton Hith. Alichisan 48018
,l 1
prior to.an investigation beginning but as a follow-up to 2 the 50.55E, which was more of a routine matter. ! 3 0 LSo the work you did in October of 1970 was as a follow-up 4 to the 50.55Et you don' t consider that part of the' f 5 investigation you conducted? G A Uell, a lot of that inf ormation'vas utill:cd in the
/ investigation but- it did not begin the formal 4
0 investiga tion. It vac only until af ter ue understood , 9 . onough to datormine that we needed to know more and no 10 needed to do and conduct lots of interviews vas it decided 11 . to use an investigator to dig up the f acts. l 12 0 Uho was that investigator? . l i 13 A Mr. Phillip. ; i' 14 0 I see. Sp.in October of 1978 did you go to Midland? 15 A I uns going to Midland of f and on f rom August and [ 16 , September. I don' t remember if it was precisely in- ' t i 17 October that I went or not. 1
. i 18 0 Uhen did you first go to Midland, if you rocs 11, ior the j 19 specific purpose of following up on the Diecel Generstor 20 Duilding report? ,
! i { 21 A The 50.55E report? 22 O That's righ t. 4
< . i 23 A It was probably September, early September. !
1* , I 24 O And I realize it's hard to reconstruct events f rom however 1 1 e 6 J Lund Reportions Service , \.QQ 8 yp ,u,gauu, , i s.a. nw 902 11rs a a, =w t Dnroit. \fichigan 48226 Fernmat Udh. Michigan MIR '
l , many, years ago that was, but do you recall with whom you l 2' ' met -on your initial . site visit addressed to the Diesel 1 3 Generator Building? ; 3 4 A Mell, as all routino inspections uo met with the plant i 5 management, Quality Assurance staf f and any other , 6 individuals that wo needed to have contact uith, but on a 7 the initial visit I was there by myself. 8 0 Okay. At the time of your initial visit did you roccive 9 any information as to the areas of the site that vore N
; 10 under investigation by Consumers Power for possible soils ,
- r
- 11 problems? i
~
. 12 'A !!o. 13 0 Ucre you told whether any ihvect'igation was being done : i , 14 outside the Diesel Generator Building? l
)
j 15 A 17ot at the early stago. ,j ! 16 1 Lot me shou you a document, which I'll ask the reporter to ; l > i 17 mark as PM DEC 233. .
)
18 , (Deposition 0::hibit !!o. PX DEC 233, ! l j 19 September 6,1978 Bechtel ! l i 20 memorandum from R. L. Castleberry ; 21 to J. F. 17ewgen, Subj ect : Subsurface 22 Investigation of Plant Area Backfill, ] [ j 23 was marked f or identification.) ); i ,l 24 BY liR. GOCLD: f
}
I i l gg, gag;,, Luzod Reporting Service , 3., 1} g j Suiu MO 962.))?6 Sune 220 ' IMmt, stichigan 482S Famsneton HJh, Michigan 48018
. - . - - , _ . - . , ,- _ ..- ,=--- . - , - - - _ . . _ . _ - - . - . - . - . - .
's . .. ~*
I J jQ Take a moment to read that. This exhibit purports to be a 2 September 6,197 8 Bechtel memorandum f rom !!r. Castleberry - 3 to Mr. Newgen. Uero you informed when you made your -' 4 initial cite vicit that there had been indications of n possible settlements in other areas of the plant fill? 6 T. Uo. 7 Q Uere you informec that a decision had been made to conduct 8 borings at the structures indicated on this document? 9 A ?,1ct that I recall. 10 0 Looking about two-thirds down the list of buildingc 11 referred to on this I notice the reference to Raduante 12 Building. Do you see that, sir? 13 A Yes. 14 0 Uhere is the nadwaste Ouilding located? 15 A on the north side of the plant between the borated unter 16 ctorage tanks and the reactor building f or Unit 1. 17 Q Uhere is the naduaste cuilding in relation to the 18 Au::iliary Duilding? 19 A Pretty much on the other side of the plant. 20 0 I' m sorry. I'm ref erring to the Radwaste Building in 21 relation to the Auxiliary Building. 22 A It's right next to it. C' 23 Q Did there come a time when the NRC requested that 24 Consumers Power take standard penetration tests in fill at Ls.zod Reporting Service 3,,o y,g,1,7,) ,,,,_ Sure hw 962.]!?6 Ssme 2N 1%:, \fichicas 48226 Farmington Hith, Whisan 48018
1 the Au::iliary Building? . 2 A Yes. 3 0 !!cw did Consumers Power respond to those requests? I' 4 A Uell, if I recall correctly, the first time we asked them 5 to go beyond the Diocol Genotator Building it was some 6 time around I: arch of '78 -- '7 9, I'm corry, and the 7 initial reaction I recall during that meeting uns one of 8 not really wanting to go beyond that, not really wantint 9 to do them, and I don' t recall hoa we finally got them to 10 actuallytakethoseborings, specifically the ones that 11 had to go through the Auxiliary Building f oundation mat 12 itsalf. 13 0 Do you recall uhother a 50.54F r.equect had to be issued to 14 obtain borings at the Au::iliary Duilding? 15 .\ That's correct. 16 t0 And did such a requect make it compulcory for Consumerc 17 Pcuer to take thoce borings? 10 A' In practicality, yes, but I' m not sur e if they -- I 19 believe that they could have appealed that requect, 20 although, they proceeded forward. 21 Q Were you ever advised that plans had been made in 22 September of 1978 for borings to be taken at the nadwaste (' 23 Duilding? 24 h !!o. Laod Reportine hervice 174
,g w s.,g ,,, y La):nette Buddme Swtr rw 962 1176 Smte zw Detroa. Whican ACY Farmmitm Hdir %hitan k9018
c .
'o ,. .
1 0 Uere you advised that borings had been planned in 2 September 1978 tu locate possible insitu loose sand at the 3 borated water storage tank area? (. 4 A Ilo. 5 0 Should you havc been? 6 A Yes.
, 7 0 Did you receive copies of pleadings filed in the soils S hearings by Consumers Pcuer?
9 A I don' t believe so. 10 0 Just so the record is clear, let me also state by soils 11 hearings I'm ref erring to the Atomic Saf ety Licensing 12 Coard proceedings in I:idland. Does that change your 13 answer ? 14 A "hen you say piecdings -- 15 0 Submissions by Consumer s Power. 15 A Ch, yeah, yes. I 17 . O Filed in that proceeding? 10 A Yes. 19 0 Do you recall receiving any documents filed by censumers , 20 Power with respect to whether Dr. Peck had been advised of 21 the Administration Building problem in or about September 22 19787 23 A I don' t recall. 24 0 Are any tanks located on the fill, apart f rom the diesel i lA[2yrtle Nutiding Luzod Reporting Service yo. [7) ,, Swe hw 962 117b Suite :N Detroit. \fichizan 482.% Fa mington fisits Afschigan 48018 {
1? fuel . oil Ltanks, considered 0-listed structures? . 2 A Yes,.the' borated water storage tanks. 3 0 Are they subject, therefore, also to the came reporting 4 (' 4 requirements as other 0-listed structures? 5 A Yes. 6 0 In looking at -P" DEC 233 I see a ref erence to conc'.cnsate 7 unter ctorage tanks, condensate storage water tanks. O Those are different from borated vator storage tanks, cro o 0 they not? 10 A That's right. 11 Q Are condensate storage water tanks 0-listed? 12 A !!o, I don' t believe so. -
- , 13 0 Did you over learn that borings had been requested in 14 other C-listed portionc of the sito prior to the I
. 15 , disclosure of the Diesel Generator Building but not tahon?
10 A !?o. i 17 0 Is that information you should h, ave been previded ascuming i 18 it wac a fact? . 19 A I believe so. 20 2 Did you have any discussions with anyone f rom Consumers 21 Power concerning the use of a surcharge as a remedial i l 22 measure with respect to the Diesel Genera' tor Building? L
.C 23 A Uith respect to what? That was what they were proposing.
1 24 2 Uhen did you learn that Consumers Power was proposing to l Luzod Reporting Service 3,,4 9,,g,Q,,6,, y,y
- lafayene Buddise' I See MO 962 1176 Suite zW Detroit Michigan 48xM Farmington Hah. Michigan 48018 l
m 1 use.a surcharge. i 2 A Some time in 197 9. I don' t recall. 3 0 no can look at some documents that I think will reflect ( 4 the date. Did you give any advise to Consumers Pcuer 5 concerning licensing consequences or pote.aial licensing 5 consequences of a surcharge? 7 A Uell, I uould change the word advice to my opinion at that 8 tihe. 9 0 Uhat was that opinion? Uhat did you tell Consumers Peuer? 10 A You knou, in certain terms it was, I f el t , that they wou2 6 11 have a hard time selling that to the UnC. 12 Q. And with whom did you have this discussion? , 13 A Uell, it was in the context of debriefings before we left 14 the site and Consumers Project Management in general, 15 0 Uhen you say bef ore you 1cf t the sit,e, can you be more I 16 precise about which site visit you had in mind? ' 17 A I don' t recall the precise one but during a site vicit and 18 in conduct of what we called an e::it meeting the subj act 19 of remedial measures came up and I gave my opinion at that 20 time and maintained that opinion for a long time. 21 0 Uhat response, if any, did you get f rem Consumers Power? 22 A I don' t recall any response. (' 23 0 co you know whether the service water structure at the i 24 Midland Plant is Q-listed? l i Lafayette Building l'usod Reporting Service yo .j7) y Sune s w 962.))?6 Suae 23 Ektroit. \fichigan 48:26 , Farmdatm Hills. \fichigan 48018
l- A- 'Yes, it is . If ' borings were planned there to investigate possible
-- 2 0 3 settlement of plant fill, should that have been disclosed 4- to you?
5 A Yos. G Q Uas any such disclosure modo to you in connection with
/ your October 1979 cito visit?
O A I don't recall. I don' t believo so. 9 0 Let me show you a document, which I'll ash the reporter to 10 mark as PM DEC 234. 11 (Doposition Exhibit no. PM DEC 23/ , 12 Intor-offico Uomorandum from A. S. 13 Marshall to S. S. Afifi,
Subject:
14 Midland Units 1 & 2-job 7220-001, 15 Progress Report Mo. 1 for wech 16 ending September 1,1970 Drilling 17 Program, was marked f or identification.) 10 BY Un. GOOLD: 19 2 For ,the record, lot me stato that this is a Sopsember 5, 20 197 8 monorandum f rcm Mr.' A. S. Marshall of 3echtel to Mr. 21 Afifi of Bechtel ref erring to a drilling program. Let me 22 direct your attention to paragraph three of this document 23 about three-quarters 'of the way down the page. What I' d 24 like to know, si r, is whether you were advised in 6 Sate hw 962,1176 Smte LX Dnreit, Alichkan 48226 Farmvwton Hdh, %kWan 48018
's ..
1 connection with your investigation leading to the report, 2 preparation of report 78-20, that sof't clay backfill was 3 observed in the f oundation c::cavation j ust north of the
4 na dwaste cuilding?
5 A 1:o, I was not. 6 0 okay, t?cro you advised that sof t cisy backfill uns 7 obs.orved at the surf ace j ust northwest of the primary C mahoup water tank? 9 A I don' t recall that I was. 10 0 Should you have been? 11 A Yoc. 12 0 Did thero como a time when Consumers Power was requested 13 to take additional borings on the site? 14 A Yes, as I mentionud earlior. , 15 0 Did there come a time when the Corps of Engineers became 16 involved as a gootechnical consultant f or tho ::."C on this 17 pr oj ect ? - 13 A Ye s. 19 0 Do you recall appro::icately when that was? 20 A "o, I don't. Ito, I dcn' t. 21 0 Did you learn that a request was made as a result of the 22 Corps of Enginocrs' involvement that additional borings be 23 taken on the site? 24 A I don u.m ' 1. I 2idn' nave t' ' euch direct I gg,p,, mag,,, ~ nd R*P0f'liR K 5*Trict m yQLD y Suar hw 962 l!?0 Swar Lx) IMmt. \fkhyan 4C:6 Farminston Rdh, \lschiran Mol8
1 involvement with the Corps of Engineers. Joe Kane was 2 administering that work. 3 0 Did you ever learn that consumers Pe,rer was objecting to 4 compliance with the Corps of Cngineers request? 5 UR. DRIK:n: Obj ection. The question is G leading. 7 A Yes, I had heard that they were objecting to additicnal 0 borings. 9 EY Mn GCOLD: 10 0 Did you ever learn what the bacis f or Concumerr rever's 11 obj ection was? 12 , A Co. 13 A Did you participate in any discuccions within the Mnc on , la that subj ect ? .- 15 A I don' t recall being involved in that. 1G 0 You've mentioned that a surcharge was applied by Conceners 17 Power to the Diccel Generator Building and you' ve alco 13 described a conversation in which you e::presced an opinion 19 that the f-ill should be removed. Did you c::pracc that 20 opinion before the surcharco vac applied? 21 A Yes. 22 a Do you l:now if Consumers Power consulted anyone else i~ 23 within the URC bef ore proceeding with the surcharge? 24 7. So, I don' t. Luzod Rtporting Service '"O
, y, m , w ;;,,y,7 Sy, gy 9b2.!!?6 Sute 23)
Detmt, tikkigen 4822n f*'*i"d** U'II*' 'I#Ni'** *ROI#
1 "a you know whether anyonc f rom the tinC had given C. 2 Consumers Power approval to proceed with the surcharge? 3 A tio. I don' t think so. ( 4 Did you consider it prudet.t. f or Consumers Power to proceed Q 5 uith the surcharge without UnC approval? G A l'o , I didn't think it was prudent. 7 0 Had anyone f rom the 1:nc c::presced a position regarding at 0 uhose risk Consumers Power uould be if it procccded with C the surcharge? . 10 A Yes. 11 0 !! hut was Consumers Power told in that regard? 12 A !?hll, they were inf ormed that it would be at their con 13 risk. 14 0 nw about the removal of the surcharge, do you knou 15 uhether anyone f rom the UnC gave appreval for the removal 15 of tha surcharge? 17 A ::o. , 18 0 Do you know whether anyone f rom the nnc was consulted 19 before the surcharge was removed? 20 A 11 o . 21 0 11ere you? 22 A No, I don' t believe so. 23 0 Did you ever learn that the surcharge had been rencved 24 with out any acceptance by UnC that it had been a complete 4,u, ygg,, Lu:od Reporting Service y ,g 1,Q ,, Suar Mo 962 ]176 Sua, g20 Detrou, \fichian 4825 Farmmune lidis, \fichizan 4e018
n 1 remedial meas"r" for the Dicco,1 Generator Building?
- 2. A Yes.
3 jo Did you reach any viel whether.it was prudent for I , (. 4 Consumers Power to remove the surcharge uithout prior UnC 5 appr oval ? 6 A tiell, again, I e:: pressed my opinien that embarking on, you 7 know, such an endeavor chould be with concurrence f rom the 8 appropriate offices uithin the nnC. If not, it' c j uct 9 that much more difficult to try to cell that that was an 10 appropriate fi::. It was their choice. 11 -0 Did anyone f rom Consumers Pcuer ever tell you why the 12 decision had bacn made to remove the surcharge without 13 prior UnC approval? 14 A "o. ! 1 15 O Do you know whether an e::planation was given to anyone 16 within the UnC regarding that subject? 17 A "o. . 10 2 Let me show you a document,. which I'll ask the reporter to 19 mark as P:: CPC 519. ; 20 (Deposition C::hibit No. P:: CPC 519, 21 Set of notes authored by G. S. noeley 22 on 10-3 0-7 0, was marked for r r ," 23 identif ica tion. ) t 24 3Y MR. GCOLD: i I l l ua,, Luzod Reporting sortier 1
,, ,o y,,,,?,,2, ,,, , c g,,,,,
l Saa, hw 962 1176 Suar 23) Iktmt, \fichtsan 482:n Termnetun HJh. Whigan Asola
1 O For the record, I'll state that this purports to be a cet 2 of notes authorod by !!r. G. 3. Koeley on 10-30-78, 3 apparently reflecting notoc of a discuccion in which you i 4 pa r ti cipated. Let no direct your attention in partivular 5 to page two, tcp lino, th: statement there appears, 'does G not believe material was placed as is indicatod. : ave leu 7 blew counte." Do you recall a diccuccion in substance O concerning that cubj ect, Mr. Gallagher? 9 A I don' t recall the discussion. I remember the nocting. 10 0 Do you recall making any statement to that effect at the 11 meeting? - 12 A Mot cpecifically, although, it's purported to be a record 13 of what I did say, comething that I would cay I precumo. 14 0 Can you explain uhat you would have been saying in that 15 regard? 1G A I wac stating that at that time my assoscmont vac tN t the 17 material uas not placed as the specifications or the rGAn 18 had indicated they were placed. 10 0 And on what were you basing that statement? 20 A l'.y preliminary investigation or inspection. 21 0 And had you had an opportunity by this time to review bicu 22 count data concerning the fill at the Diocel Generator r 23 Building? l l+ 24 A I must have. I ref erred to having low blev counts. I l l g ,ggy, Luzod Reportung Sertser ,gg JQy k'ar MO 962'lI?6 Suar ::0 (letrat, \fschigan M:.% farmuvton Hdis, W'usan 48018
O< 1 1 don' t recall specifically to what ref er:nne I was making. 2 'O okay. Let 'me direct your attention a littic f urther down 3 the page to the statement: "neviewed plans for monitoring 4 preload. URC does not feel this is corrective action." Do 5 you recall making a statement to that ffect? 6 A I don' t recall making that statement. 7 O Moll, do you recall uhether, apart f rom the opinion you' ve S commented on a moment ago, whether you made any statemente 9 encouraging Consumers Pouer to proceed uith a proload of 10 the Diesel Generator Duilding? 11 A Mo. In fact, uhat I believe I was communicating was that 12 we had not concurred in any correctiva cation at that time 13 and,, you know, just stating that we were not in agreement, 14 , at least at that early stage, uhat the ccrrective action 15 uould be or would need to be. 15 0 And did there come any time subsequent to that uhen the 17 "nC indicated that it agreed with the use of a preload f or 18 the Diesel Generator Duilding?
- 19 A No, not that I'm aware of.
20 ? Dy the uay, I' ve been using the term "preload" ,and I' m 21 af raid mi::ing it with surcharge. Is there any dif f erence 22 between those terms? 23 h not in my mind. 24 2 Can you define uhat they mean in the conte::t of the Diesel j g yg, gjsn, Luzed Reporting Sersice ,3 1)( g Swta ry 962 1176 Swie ::m 1%t. \1disan 22:6 farnuncton Hdis. \fdisan 48018
1 Generator Building? 2 A Hell, just applying an additional load to the building's 3 weight attempting to f ully consolidate the material. 4 0 And is that in f act what uns done at the Diesel Generator 5 Duilding? 6 A Yes. 7 0 Could you look bach on page one of this document and about i a three-quarters of the way dcwn the page there's a 9 statement, or notation, "Dames & I: core 3/69 - recommends 10 one hundred percent and at or near si:: inches to eight 11 inches." Do you see that, sir? 12 A Yes. - 13 0 Did you ih fact revieu the Dames & t:ooro report in October 14 1978 in the course of your preliminary c:: amination of the 15 problem? , 15 A Yes. 17 0 And can you tell me what the ref erence to at or near si:. la inches to eight inches ref ers to? 19 A The lif t thickness. 20 0 And did you learn what lif t thickness was actually used at l 21 the proj ect? 22 A I recall it was 12 inches, or at least. 23 0 And did you comment on that in a meeting with Consumers 24 Power personnel in October 19787 suz d Reporeing Sereice mg yQ,y , f.afnette ILulding Swtr MO 902'IIIO Scur 2 0 IMmL \fahman 482:s Farmmiton th"s, Afschitah 48018
1 A Yes. 4 2 0 What was their reaction? 3 A There really vasn' t any reaction. They were simply
' 4 listening to our preliminary follou-up to the 50.55D.
5 O Looking a little further up the page the statement appears G in the second paragraph, "Pools random fille are not good 7 policy. " Did you make a statomont to that of f ect at .a O mcoting in October uith Concumors Pouer? 9 A Yoc. 10 0 Could you c:: plain what you meant? 11 A 'Tell, as I mentioned earlier, the use of, as they called 12 it random fill, being made up of a whole spectrum of 13 dif f erent typoc of materials without very caref ul and 14 tight controls on it: uco could be dicastrouc. ,, 15 0 And did it in fact prove to be dicaccrous? 16 7, It ce;tainly did. 17 C Uould you 1cok doun at the botten of thic page, second the 18 line frem the bottem, "Crack on cast vall. Does not feel 19 these are minor but are fle:: ural cracks and if so have to 20 correct to be ACI 318 Section 10.4." Did you make a 21 statement in substance as indicated there? 22 A Yoc.
~
23 2 Could you explain what you were ref erring to in regard to 24 crack on east wall? Luiod Repo, tine Se,sice ymayg,{S 1
, yn kyy';"-",' 9s .iire s ,, :u y,g .,ggy m Termmaton Hdis. %ckan 48018
r c 1 R Hell, taere were a number of cracks that ucre apparent on 2 the Diecc1 Generator Building walls and upon initial 3 vicuing of them they did not appear to be uhat vac
/
4 , purported to be chrinhage cracks. In my opinien, it use I 5 more ctructural and flo:: ural in nature. 6 0 You' ve mentioned that the ct'achs -- did comcone indicate 7 to you the cracks were chrinkage cracks? 8 A I believe that was Consumerc' ini t i al*, or Dechtel' c 0 initial reaction. 10 0 As communica ted to you? i 11 A In the field. 12 l0 Do you rencmber who communicated that to you? l 13 A Mo, I don' t. . 14 Q "as it your improccion that Concumers Power u:s attempting 15 to minimice the problem at this meeting? 16 "n. OnI:Zn: I'll obj ect to the quection, 17 uhat hic imprescion vac. "hy don' t you ach hir uhat 13 people said and didn' t cay. "c've spent most of the day 19 lictoning to vague quections asking for the uitnecc te 20 , summari:e ci>. years or seven years af ter the f acts in one I 21 cr tuo words matters which fill up hundredc and thousands 22 of pieces of paper. 23 I don' t know to what uce you' re going to put 24 this transcript, but I think it's unf air to the witnecc Luzod Reportune Sernice , g,1),7 77 I.athetto (Lddme s ,;nw 9s2 11.s s-to :x Detrat, \takten M.% Farwatm lidir \fakjen 4MlH
,, - .~. _ . .. . -. -_.
3 's . .: : , . [ ' .1 ' and to the litigants to ask him to try to inferentially
-2. .. describe impressionistic, vague f eelings aoout what 3 happened and what people f elt and whether ~ he was surprised
/
Why don' t you ask him what somebody said. 4 and'so on. 5 !!R. GOOLD: I j ust did. 6 BY IIR. - GOOLD: 7 0 Mas it your impression Consumers Power uns attenpting to 8 minimi::e the problem? 9 A Yes. 10 0 And did that continue in subsequent meetings? 11 A Yes. 12 0 At the. time of your October 1978 meeting with Consumers
'13 Power, and first let me focus on when, in point of time,
.> 4 that took place within the month. Can you be anymore - .
- 15. ,
specific? 16 A This first meeting? l 17 a Yes.
.10 A I don' t recall the exact date in October.
19 2 Okay. As of the time of this meeting had any surcharge 20 been placed on the building? 1 21 A Fo, I don' t believe so. 22 0 As of the time of this meeting had it been cut loose from n, ? 23 the duct bank? 24 1 I don' t believe so. i i-Luzod Reporting Service 1C3 l Lafayette kildirug ,3 ,, y , Suite 630 , 962 1176 Suite gao Detroit. Michigan 48226 Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018
. 2..-
4' 1 Q And was the building subsequently cut loose f rom the duct
.2 bank?
3 A Yec.
? f '~ 4 Q Did you learn what, if anything, happened to the building-5 as a result of the freeing of the duct bank?
6 A It moved. 7 0 ,U mt much ? - 8 A I don' t recall the extent of it but it had an immediate 9 settlement. In fact, scared the daylights out of one 10 worker, if I remember correctly, when it moved on him and 11 they were chopping it out. 12 Q can you expl ain more about that? - 13 A tiell, they were ir a trench chopping the electrical 14 ' concrete -- the excess concrete around the electrical duct 15 bank f rom it being in contact with the f ooting and it 16 moved rather abruptly on him. 17 C Did you ever 1 earn that a worker doing that job uas 10 actually hit on the head by the building? 19 A No, I didn't hear that story. 20 Q Did you ever learn whether the f reeing of the building 21 from the duct bank imposed any added stress on the 22 structure? 23 A I' m not f amiliar with that. 24 Q Did you ever learn whether the cracks in the east wall of Luzod Reporting Service , ,,,Qy y f4,y,gg, g,;jging Suite sw 962 1176 Sune 2 %
~ Detroit, Alichigan 48226 Farmington Hith, Stichigan 48018
l - the building became more cavere as a result, of the 2 -
-surcharge and the cutting loose of-the-duct bank?
3 A Yes.- I 4 O But even bef ore those events occurred did you concider the 5 . cracks on.the building to be minor? 6 A Mo. As the minutes of this meeting indicate, I f el t f rc= 7 the first observation that they were significant in terms 8 of structural cracks due to the cottlement. 9 0 Let me chow you another document, which I'll ask the 10 reporter to mark a s' P : CPC 520, 11 (Deposition Exhibit No. 'P;; CPC 520, 12 Sumnary f rom D. E. Horn t'o E. U.- 13 , Marguglio, dated October 3,197 8, 14 Subj ect : Midland Proj ect-URC C::it
, i 15 , Interview of October 27, 1970, !
16 was marked f or identifica tion.) 1 17 BY MR. GOOLD: 18 ) Again I'll state f or the record this is a document dated
-19 October 31, 1978, which purports to be f rom Mr. Horn to
. 20 Mr. Marguglio and purports to be a summary of an NRC c::it
- 21 interview of October 27, 1978 and includes various 22 handwritten notes in the margin, which I can at least
(# 23 represent to my own belief to be Mr. Marguglio's writing. 24 I' d like to direct your attention in LUtod Reporting Sers:iee ,g 3 19,,0 y , Lafayette Building Suite tuo 962 1I76 Suite 220 Detroit, Michigan 48226 Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018
- ~ - - -
r L . I. 1 particular to paragraph 6-A of this d::ument, uhich is at t . < 2 the bott6m of - page two. You might want to first take a
'3 moment to read it. And then I'd like to know whether you
. 4 recall making statements in substance as reflected in this 5 paragraph 6-A of the document?
6 A Yes. 7 O And did you indicate in particular. that the use of a 8 Dechtel modified proctor density standard was an 9 unconservative method? 10 A Yes. 11 0 Did you consider the use of the Bechtel modified proctor 12 standard appropriate for a nuclear pouer plant? 13 A Do. 14 Q Uhy not? 15 A It was unconservative in that respect and that wasn' t a 16 standard method in any event. 17 0 Did you ever discuss that subj ect uith Mr. Horn? 18 A Yes. 19 0 -In particular as to whether the use of the Bechtel 20 modifi'ed proctor standard was appropriate f or a nuclear 21 power plant? 22 A Mo, we didn't speak in terms of appropriateness or not. t 23 It was whether it was required or wasn' t required or a 24 design basis or not. Luzod Reporting Service 39g,g 3,,,g,f y ,,,,_ ufay,,,, wiggin, Sdie hw 962 1176 *
&ite 220 Detroit \fichigan 18226 Farminston flills, Alichigan 48018
1 Q Let me direct' your attention -- first. let me f ocus -Lc.ck on 2 paragraph 6-A again',- and did you make the statement in ' 3 substance that' the Bechtel modified proctor standard uould 4 . result in less in-place compaction than the standard ASTM 5 D15.57 method? G A' Yes. 0'
~
'7 .Looking at the han67ritten notations beside this page and 3 running across the bottem a statement there appears --
9 first let me ask you this: Uhat was your purpose in 10 discussing these subj ects at the e::it meeting in October 11 .1970? 12 - A Just to summari::e' what we had discovered as a re. ult of 13 this preliminary inspection. 14 2 Uas this part of your i,nvestigation into the causes of the 15- problem? 15 F. At this point it really ucan' t an investigation, it uas a 17 prel.ininary f act finding inspection so that I could,
. la communicate to regional management my vie.i of the .
19 significance and the implications of the settlemen" 20 problem. 21 ] Hell, as part of that f act finding process were you 22 attempting to determine what the causes of the problems t'
~
23 were? 24 4 Yeah, for at least preliminarily so that we' d know whether l \ l Luzod Reporting Service 39g,n 3,,,g,h,f,,2 g,,,,,, g;ggy, m gw,. Suite MO 962.Ii76 Suite 220 Detroit. Alichigan 48226 Farmington Hills. Sfichigan 48018
, 1.: ., .
-1 we need to pursue it m.uch further.
. 2 0 And did you indicate to Consumers Power that you were 3 interested in information on the causes of the problem?
4 A Yes, very much.
- 5. MR. DnIKER: Yes, what?
6 THE UITUESS : Yes, very much. 7 Bi' UR. GOOLD: 3 O Let me direct your attention to the handuritten note 9 across the bottom of the page, "note in this. paragraph is 10 possibility that wrong proctor was used f or Admin' Duilding ' 11 and other buildings, including DG Duilding. " Uas that 12 information disclosed to you? 13 A Do, not in that context, "w rong pr oct or . Uo, I don' t ; 14 believe so. ,. 15 0 Should it have been? I 16 A- It really didn' t matter at that point. I mean, there uns 17 an obvious conflict between the requirements.versus what 10 they had in fact done. It was sort of academic to me at 19 that point. 20 0 Uhat I'm trying to find out is this: Uo looked at Cr. 21 Peck's notes f rom September 28 indicating the 22 Administration Building was discussed then. Now ve' ve got (, 23 an apparent notation ref erring to the Administration 24 Building in the context of your exit interview of October Lafayette Buddine Luzod Reporting Service ,3QQy Suite Mo 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit, \fichiean 48226 Farmington Hills, Afichigan 48018
1
'. 1, ,
'l 1978_yet you.were never told about'the. Administration Building throughout this sequence?
2 . 3 IIR. DRIKER: Is that speech or a question? i, 4 A In terms of the statement of the Administration Building, 5 that _ point certainly wasn' t told to me and I guess in G reading it quickly and discussing the Admin and Diesel 7 Generator building all day it didn' t j ump' out at me the-8 uay it new does when you ask this other question. 'I'h a t ' e 9 literally, quite frankly, the first time. I uac unaware 10 .that, I guess, !!arguglio was aware of this in tiovember of 11 -1978, if these are I arguglio's handwritten notes. 12 BY !!R. GOOLD: 13 Q Assuming that. 14 A And, in fact, if I recall correctly, although I' d have to 15 review the transcript, I understood I:arguglio to testify 16 he was unaware of the Administration-Duilding. 17 1 Do you recall that you vere asked at the 1:nC hearings 18 whether you had any inf ormation that the Administration 19 Duilding had been deliberately withhold f rom you in your 20 investigation? Do you recall you were examined at the 21 soils hearings in !!idland on whether you had any 22 inf ormation that the Administration Building problem had 23 been deliberately withheld f rom you? 24 N Yes. Luzod Repor Ing Sereice 3og,n 3,,,k,Q,9,,os,, y,,, Lafayette kilding
. Suite MO 962 1176 Suite 220
- Detroit, }fichigan 48226 Farmington Hills. Afichigan 48018 ;
i 1 0 And do you recall- that you testificci at that time you did 2 not, havb 'any inf ormation to. indicate' that it had been 3' deliberately withheld' f rom that? 1 4 A I don' t recall. Probably.so at-that time. 5 0 Having seen the documents you've looked at today, vould 6 your testimony remain the same? 7 A Mo. , 8 Q How would it be dif ferent? 4 9 A Assuming these handwrittcn notes are f actual and the 10
~
documents are all legitimate, it's really nou clear to me 11 for the first time that the Administration Building uns 12 so'mething of an issue well bef ore I was l'nf ormed of it in E 13 January of 1979 and should have been informed of it. 14 ' 0 Let me show you a document, which I'll ask the reporter to
- 15 marl
- as PX Consumers Pouer 521.
16 (Deposition E::hibit No. P: C?C 521, 17 rocument f rem !!essrs. ::eeley and Coche, . i . 18 dated 12-4-78, Subj ect : Midland Proj ect I 19 Diesel Generator Bldg. Settlement i 20 I:eeting, was marked f or identification. ) 21 B Y J L".. GOOL D : i 22 0 This purports to be a document to the Midland file f rom 1 .r, l 23 l'e ssr s. !!eeley and T. C. Cooke, dated December 4, 1978 - l Did 24 and ref erring to a Thursday Movember 2,1973 meeting.
" ' "# 30840 Northubhrh fluy.
lafayette Busiding Suste MO 962 1176 Suar 220
~
[htroit, \fichigan 48226 . Farmington flills, .\fichigan 48018 _ _- _ _ _ ,t ,,_. _ _ _ - . .. _ _ -.-_..._._.._.__,.._..s._-, -
-_,.._.._-_-m , _ . _
~ ~ *. " -
1 you attend a meeting in' Ann Arbor on or about-that date
.:L between Dechtel and Consumers Power technical people? To 3- refresh your recollection, let me direct your attention to 4 page 94507104.
5 A no, I wra not there. 6 G Let me direct your -attention to page two of this e::hibit, 7 paragraph si::. The statement there's appears: "B ech tel 8 says that, in some ca ses, the wrong standards could be 9 followed and this was the problem uith grade beam. " "ac 10 this inf ormation disclosed to you at or about the time of 11 the November 2,1978 meeting? 12 A Mo, I don' t believe so. - 13 0 You've neu looked at a document that was dated Septenber 14 23, 1970, e document, a notation on the minutes -- a 15 handwritten notation marked on notes of your Cetober.1970 16 e):it interview, and this document, which purportr. to be 17 notes of- a november 2,1970 meeting at which you vere not 1C present. Uhat impact would this document, P:: CPC 521, 19 have if you were asked today whether you had any basis to 20- believe that the Administration Building problem had been 21 deliberately withheld f rom you? , 22 A It appears to be a. good basis to believe that. l. 23 ) Did there come a time when the qualifications of the 24 people involved with soils work at the project became an l 1 i Luzod Repor.ing Service 3(g,n g,,k,Q,6,, y,,. i 4y,,,, gigg;n, Suur MO 962 1176 Susie 220 Detroit. Alichigan $8226 Farmington Hills, Afichigan 48018
.an. . ,
l'- issue? . 2 A Yes, many times. 3 Q Okay. And did Consumers . Power take any position in
'4 connection with responses to 50.54F inquiries ac to 5 uhether qualificatio:.: of personnel was a contributing 6 cause to the soils problems?
7 A I recall it being in there. I don' t remember what their 8 response was to it, Consumers continued to maintain that 9 that was not a big deal, whereas, and myself in particular 10 at the IIRC always f elt that was one of the maj or f actorc 11 and, in fact, testified that had a single capable and 12 e::perienced geotechni cal. engineer been on hand routinely, 13 in a11' probability none of this would have taken place.
- 14 O Do you recall what position Bechtel took, if any, on 15 whether the per sonnel who had been involved in the soils 16 work ucre qualified?
17 A Uc11, they aluays contended that they were qualified. 18 0 And do you re'c all what Consumers Pmier's position was, if 19 any, on that issue? 20- A Likewise. , 21 0 Could you look at the first page of this e::hibit, 22 paragraph I. A. and the third sentence of the second (' 23 paragraph there states, "CP Co does not f eel .that they 24 were qualified soils engineers on site (most were right Lafayette Buildine Lmd Reparting Sereiee 3y,g 3,,,g,ff,{ y,,_
. Suite hw 962 1176 Suite 2:0 Detroit, \fichigan M226 Farmington INis, .\fichigan 48018
..o ;, . .
1 out of school) ". Did CP state that in substance to.you? 2 A They never made that admonition to me.
.3 Q. Did CP ever take the c7posite position uith the 11RC?
/ 4 A Routinely.
5 0 :Let me direct your attention to pga 94507107 of this 6 c::hibi t. The statement there appecrs, "errors.in reported 7 , compaction probably resulted in selection of lower ma::imum 3 density proctors. ' See Eechtel letter to U. S. Testing 9 dated February 1,1978. " Do you see that reference? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Uhat impact, if any, does seeing that statement have on 12- your testimony concerning whether irformation regarding 13 the Administration Building wah uithhold f rom you?
, 14 A Uell, that simply confirms that in earlier Dechtc1 15 communication uith U. S. T,esting that they were )'
16 erroneously celecting the standard f or compaction. [ 17 t) "ell, as of the time of this mooting, Cov embe r 2, 197 3, 18 had that inf ormation been made available to you? 19 A No, I don' t believe so. I think it was made availabic 20 only af ter the Administration Building report, December
- 21 1977 report was made available to us. I believe it was 22 given to us first and in again January 1979 by Mr. Tuv oson
' f" 23 of Bechtel. ! 24 2 If you were asked today whether the Administration 4,,,, gggg4 Luzod Reporting Sertice yo 3,,19,3 ., y Suite MO 962 1,176 Suite 220 (. Detroit, Michigan 48226 , farmington HWs, Michigan 48018
7
. 1 Euilding problem uas deliberately withheld f rcm you, what 2 impact, if any, would seeing the ' statement on page 3 3 94507107 have on your testimony?
(_ , 4 A It would have a significant impact. It would make me P S- reverse my judgment.
~
6 0 Let m'e direct your attention no::t to page 94507106. Did 7 you participate in any contacts wit,h Consumers Power 8 regarding whether loose natural sands had been removed 9 f rom the site? 10 A' That phrase rings a bell. I can' t remember the 3 11 circumstances around it. There was a lot of loose sands. ,
, 12 .I don' t remember the conte::t that that came up. i 13 0 Do you recall whether the 1:RC ever inquired in.lS78 14 whether all natural sands underlying the fill hc6 been 15 removed?
~
16 A I nou recall that there uns an I:RR' question surrounding ; i 17 that that was sent to Consumers Pouer. 18 0 And do you recall in general terms what response, if any, 19 Consumers Power made? 20 A I remember seeing the response. I don' t remember what it 21 was, though. 1 22 Q Let me direct your attention down to the paragraph which r
- r. 23 appears under the heading "discussion" on this document.
24 Uhy don' t you take a minute to read that. ; Lafayette Building Luzod Reporting Sers: ice yo 3 Q,. Suur MO 962,1176 Suite 220 Detroit, Sfichigen 48226 Farmington Ildis, Sfienigan 48018
-1~ A Yes. -
2- 0 Let me focus on the last' sentence in particular. The 3 statement there appears, "When the note to Drawing C-44
.' 4 ' was;added it was too late to economically excavate the S 'loone sand since they had for the most part been covered 6 by backfill." Uas that inf ormation ever communicated -tc 7 you?
3 A Mo, I don' t believe* co. 9 0 Should it have boen? 10 7. Yes. 11 Q Uhat is your reaction reading that now? 12 'A I really have no reaction at this point, to toll you the , 13 . truth. 14 Q Ifyouhadlearnedthatadecisionhadbeenmabenotto 15 - e::cavate loose cadd f or economic reasons, what would your l-16 reaction have been? I 17 A It uod1d be an unacceptible e::planation f or sure. ! 10 2 Uhat, if anything, would you have done about it? I 19 A I think we vould have brought it immediately to the I 20 attention of the MRR revieders to keep them inf ormed of I 21 how their questions were being handled and the decisions i 22 being made surrounding their questions, i 23 2 Is there any regulation that would permit a saf ety-related 24 corrective measure not to be taken on economic grounds in Luzod Reporting Service 3999 y,g,Q,,0,, y,_,. Lafayene Building Suite sw 962 1176 Suite zw Detrat. Michigan 48226 Farmington Hills. Michitan 48018 { .
L
, 1 _..
i l' the construction of a nuclear plant, to your knowledge? 2 A lit's not even a consideration as .part of our regulations. 3 All decisi.ons according to our regulations are to be made ( 4 on whether or not it impacts plant saf ety and operation. 5 0 Let's go on. In your , work as an inspector with the Unc, 6 did you provide guidance to utilities regarding the 7 approptiate level of GA supervision necessary for G partic'ular aspects of construction work? 9 A Yes. 10 0 Did you become generally f amiliar with that subject? 11 A Yes, very familiar. 12 0 Uhat' degree -- is there any particular degree of CA 13 assurance that you believe -- QA supervision that is s 14 appropriate for foundation work? - 15 A You' re asking f or an opinion? 16 0 Yes, that's right. 17 A Yes. I think it's so f undamental that it deserves or.c 18 hundred percent continuous monitoring, oversight by 19 quality people. It's the foundation of the plant. 20 0 Dased on your investigation of the soils problems, did you 21 reach any view as to whether a breakdown in Quality 22 Assurance had occurred? s 23 A Yes. 24 0 Uhat was your view?
.,,,,y,,,,
L'uzod Reporting Service , 3Qg,1,, ) suur Mo 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit, Michigan 48226 Farmington ({ dis, Michigan 48018
1 On That it did. 2 0 And did that become an issue in the soils hearings? 3 A Yes. 4 p Did Consumers Pover, to your knowledge, ever indicate 5 agreement that there had been a breakdown in GA with 5 respect to soils activities? 7 A I don' t think they eyer really did. S b Let me shou you a document, as soon as I can find it, that 1 9 I'll ask the reporter to mark as P:: CPC 522, which 10 consists of a group of documents. The first page of ubich 11 is a June 17, 1901 letter f rom ::r. . Rutgers of Ecchtel to 12 y I r. Cook of Consumers Power. 13 (Deposition Exhibit 1:o. P:: CPC 522, 1 14 June 17,1981 letter from John T.. Rutgo,rs 15 I to .T. 17 Cook, Subj ect : ::idland Plant i 16 Units 1 and 2, Consumer s Pouct Company, l 17 Dechtel Job 7220, I'nC Soils I:ecrings, la was marked f or identifica tion.) 19 J'Y IIR. GOOLD: n 1 20 Let me direct your attention to page 95002432 of this 21 e::hibi t, paragraph one. I j ust uant to know if you agreed 22 with 'the statements. 23 IIR . DnII:En: Uhich paragraph? 24 in. GOCLD: Paragraph one, page 9 500243 2. Lafayette Busidine 3mo N rihur tem Huy Suite A30 962.I176 Suar 220 Detroit, \fichigan 482:6 Farmington Hills. .\fichiean 48018
1 A Yes. In #cct, it's a quote f rcm our inspection report, > 2 73-20, 3 BY MR. GOOLD: 4 O And was a stipulation subsequently entered, to your 5 knowlc o ce, in the soils hearings with respect to that G subj ect? 7 A As shown in paragraph bio. 3 0 Let's go on. Let me shmi you a document -- 9 A Ca n I -- I understood paragrcph tuo to mean they vould not 10 contest the conclusion, that paragraph one constituted 11 breakdown in Quality Assurance, never agreeing to the fact 12 that a breakdown did occur, as I understcod it, "but that 13 was a layman's vieu of legalities. 14 0 Fair encush. Let me shat you a document, which I.' ll ask 15 ,the reporter to mark as P:: URC 57. I 16 (Deposition 2: hibi t Co. 2:* liEC 57, 17 necord of inspection conducted 13 October 197 3, entitled 70-12, 19 was marked f or identification. ) l 20 DY C2. GOOLD: l 21 0 Can you identify this document? 22 A This is the record of the inspection that was conducted in (' 23 October of 197 8 and it's entitled Report 70-12, which the 24 number of documents you gave me earlier ref erred to as the Isfayette Bunlding 30%O NorthuSstN Huy. Suite h30 962 ))76 Suite 220 Detrat. \fichigan 48226 - Farmington Hills. Michigan 48018
.l .
1 summary of that inspection. 2' Of I: asked you earlier a series of questions concerning the' 3 investigation report. 73-20? 4 A Um- ha . 5 0 About the circumst:nces under which 70-20 was prepared,
'6- whether it was prepared as part of your perf ormanc.: of
^ 7 your cf ficial duties as .an 11RC employee f or e:-: ample. Do 8- you remember that? 9 A Yes. . 10 Q And whether it was a public document. Do you remember 11- that? 12 A Yes. 13 0 And whether i.t was intended to be a public document?
~
14 A Yes. - 15 Q And whether you prepared 78-20. as the best summary you 15 could of the matters you observed pursuant to your duties [ 17 as an URC employce? 18 A Um-ha.
- 19 ] Let me try to avoid burdening the rdcord f urther on thet j 20 subj ect by asking whether P
- : 11RC 57 was prepared under the i
21 same groundrules? l 22 A Yes. 23 -2. As investigation report 70-207 24 h Ye s.
- c. .
, y, Lutod Repeting Service 3m40 knhuNthen Huy.
Suite MO '!62 1176 Suite 220
, Detroit; Michinen 48226 ,
farminpon Hah, Michigan 48018
L*, : .. ,
- 1- Q. .
11ow, what' did you 'do with report 70-12 when it ,was issued,
'2 vihat happened to it within the:!!RC organizat' ion?-
3 A It was reviewed and transmitted bo Consumers Power. I. 4 0 Okay. And it was also transmitted to I.ir. Keppler, was it l. 5 not? 6 A !!r. Keppler probably signed it. You're-missing the e 7 transmittal letter from this document. ., t 0 Q And then it was decided that a more intensive . 9 investigation was necessary? 10 A That's right. ' 11 Q And who made that decision?
/ 12 A fir . Keppl e r .
13 0 Did anyone else within the 11RC organizational f rameworl; 14 have to particip' ate in that decision?
. t 15 A !!o. I 16 0 And did he tell you what in particular, if anything, 17 caused him to believe a more intensive investigation s.as 13 necessa ry ? ,
19 A The preliminary information that I had collected during . I 20 this inspection. 21 0 Is that the inf ormation that's summarized in report 78-12? , 22 A Um- ha . 23 Q t.'e've discussed a little bit the subj ect of qualification 24 of compaction equipment. Uho did you deal with in Luzod Reporting Service g g 3, 4 y ,} ,7 4y,,,, gu,jg;,, ._ Suur Mo 962 1176 Suite 220 , Detroit, \fichigan 48226 Farminston flills, Alichigm 48018 h
. . s
, ,1 Consumers' on that subj ect?
-2 A Mr. Horn.
3 0 - And- I believe you indicated that you f elt there was a [ 4 delay on the part of Consumers Pmier with providing you
.5 with .that inf ormation, but do you recall that generally?-
6 A Yes. 7 0 - Here you ever given any e::planation as to the reasons for 8 that. delay? , 9 p If I recall, it was being reviewed and had many people to 10 go .through bef ore it was provid'ed to us. 11 Q Uas that a satisf actory explanation to you? 12 A Not to me. 13 Q Did you ever learn whether there were prcblems in 14 ,. achieving proper compaction uith the equipment that ucc a 15 subject of your qualification request? 16 A Yes. 17 0 Uhat vere you told about that? 18 P. Uell, I learned that uhen the report finally did come out. 19 1 And prior to the time the report came out ver? you told 20 that that was the problem? 21 A I don' t recall if that explanation was given to me. 22 Q Do you have any recollection as to what reasons you were 23 given f or the delay? 24 A other than what I had mentioned earlier that it's down in Lutod Reporting Service 2
, 3ag,o g,,g,,f,,6 ,, y, ,.
Suite Mo 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit. Michigan 48226 Farmington Hills. Michigan 48018
g ., -4 A Ann ~ Arbor and Eechtel's massaging it and people 'have ~ to
~
1 2 review it. and j ust have . to viait.
'l 0 . Did Mr. Horn tell you he reviewed four draf ts. of the 1
s '4 report? 5 A I don' t recall. G Q .Do you recall ever making the statement to Consumers
'7 - Power, to Mr. Horn in particular, that if you had had the 8- December 1977 report on the Administraticn Building you 9 would have looked f urther into the soils problems at the 10- site?
11 3 I seem to recollect that. 12 Q Let me _ shmi you a document, tuo documents, which' i'll ask
'13 reporter to mark as Pi! CPC 523 and 524.
14 . (Deposition E::hibit !?os. P% CPC 523, 15 December 16, 1980, memorandu.n from L 16 , Ualt Bird to Don Horn; P% CPC 524, I 17 Internal Correspondence from 10 D. E. Horn to E. U Ma rguglio', 19 dated January 2G ,1981, vero j 20 marked f or identification.) I 21 BY MR. GOOLD: 22 0 P% CPC 523 purports to be a December 16, 1900 memorandum l 23 to Mr. Horn from Mr. Bird. Would you look at paragraph 24 three in particular. There's a statement that appears, , 1.uz d Reporting Service y 3.,4,2,Q y ., lafayette Bustding Suite hw 962 1176 Suite 2M Iktroit, \fichigan 4R226 Farminston Hills, .\fichiru 48018 i
1 "Gallagher made .the statement that. if he had. had Geotech's
.2' report on the Administration Building grade barrier 3 f ailure in December 1977, he would have been smart enough 4 to have looked f urther f or problems. " Do you recall 5 whether you made a statement in substance to IIr. Dird as S indicated here on or about December 1930?
7 A Yes. . 3 0 Did fir. Horn or I:r. Dird ever indicate to you that 9 discussions on thic subject were being kept confidential 10 uithin consumers Power? 11 A !!o. 12 Q Did you ever receive an'y inf ormation on whether 13 inf ormation concerning the Administration Building uns 14 being restricted, dissemination of information on that 15 subj ect vos -- whether dissemination of inf ormation on . 16 that subject was being restricted within Consumers Peucr? 7 17 % t' o . - 18 , 2 Do you know any reason why a document such as this would 19 have been marked confidential? i i 20 Probably didn' t want me to see it. [. I 21 Q But you don' t have any direct knowledge f rom I:r. Ucrn or 22 fir. Bird about that, do you? : 2 ( 23 A tio. ! 24 ] In fairness to them. Let me direct your attention to P:: i Luzod Reporting Service 5ag,o g,,g,2, f,,0,,17,,, lafayette Buildine S Wte M O 962 1176 Suite 220 . krat, Michisan 48$6 f*
*. .__ _ .-,_. _ .._ . i.. _.. _ _ . _ . _ . _ , . _ _ , _ _ . . . . . , _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _.
'*ingt n Ildis, Michigan 48018,
- . ;o . ,
, y , .-
O l' ll CPC 524. It purports to be a menorandum to tir. Ita rguglio 2 f rcm !!r. Horn dated January 26, 1901. And I want to 3 direct your attention to question number one and ancuer ( , 4 number one which e.ppear on that document. I just want to 5 know whether looking at that ref reshes your recollection 6 .as to whether you learned that draf ts were being revicwed , 7 by !!r. Horn bef ore the report was provided to you? 0 7, I don' t recall the.t -- I don' t recall that I ucc avare 9 that multiple draf ts had been reviewed by him previoucly. 10 But it seems like it's f airly accurate as to uhat my 11 comments were about the report, not getting the report. 12 IIP <. GOOLD: Let's take a short break co I 13 can wonder what e::hibits to use new and also go down the 14 m hall. 15 ( A brief recess was held during , 16 the proceedings.) 17 - DY iT.. GOOLD: 10 0 Mow, do you recall participating in a December /.,1970 19 meeting at the !idland site concerning the Diesel 1 20 Generator Building surcharge? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Did Consumers Power and/or Bechtel make a presentation g 23 regarding that surcharge? 24 A Yes. lafayette Buildinx U HinK kiee 39g,9 go,,g,j,Q,Q ,7,,. Suar M6 962.I176 Suar 220 Iktroa. Afichigan 48226 Farmington liith. %chigan 48018
4e *,, , F-l'- 0 Uere p;cple. from both companies there? - 2 A Yes. - 3 0 Do you recall who was there? 1 4- A For the most part, you know,. upper management, their 5 consultants, Unn, InE. G 0 Dy upper management you' re ref erring to people f rom 7 Consumers Power? 8 A Right. 9 Q And Dechtel? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Uhat do you recall wac the thrust of the presentation
-12 regcrding the Diesel Generator Duilding surcharge?
13 A They were attempting to make a convincing argument that 14 that uns the solution based on the inf ormation they bcd at ,
- 15 that time.
- j. 16 7 And wera you convinced by that argument?
. 17 A ::o. l ' ! 13 2 Do you knmi whether anyone f rom the 11RC was convinced by j 19 that argument? - i 20 A Yes, no one, uns convinced. 21 Q And first f ocusing on you, was your reaction to the 22 argument communicated at the meeting? ('~ ' 23 A At that time that really wasn' t my scope of work. I
- 24 I
- R. DRIKER: Scope of what, sir?
Luzod Reporting Service 3ag49 s,,s,Q,,0,, ;;,,, S,;,, $w 962.ll?6 Siite 2M Detroit. Wichigan 48226 Farminatus Hills, Michigan 48018
21 j , . 4 1 , TH,E '.'!TNESS : 11ork. - 2 BY IIR. . GOOLD: 5 3- 0 ITho had primary responsibility within the URC in this
' ', 4 conte::t ?
5 A The geotechnical Jineering branch of Unn. G G Is that !Ir. Heller? 1 e 7 A !!r. Heller and his staf f. 8 0 'Itho is on Iir. Heller's staf f incof ar as Nr. Uclier uas 9 involved on the !!idland Proj ect? 10 A At that time it was -- it uns not Joe Kane. There was 11 another member of his staff who was principal revicuer. I l 'l 12 don' t recall hir name. - 13 0 Let me show you a document which has previously been . I- 14 marked as PT BEC 105 and purports to be meeting notes frem i 15 that mee, ting prepared by Dechtel. Let me also state for ; ! i 15 the record that I uns unable to locate a claan copy so , t 17 . this one has my notations on it so I von' t introduce this j 18 as an e::hibit, but I will ask you to look it over to see { ! 19 if it ref reches your recollection regarding the substance 20 of the discussion. 21 !!R. DRIKER: If you' re going show the t 22 witness a document, we'd like the opportunity to see the t 23 same document. 24 11R. GOCLD: Oh, sure. I'm j ust telling you ; i yn 3.l2Q , . ggay.,gg, gjgy, Luzod Reporting Service Suite 630 962 1)i6 Suite 220 l Detroit. \fichigan 48226 Farmiaston flills, flichigan 18018 I
- - . _ _ _ - . _ . _ - _ , _ _ . . - _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . ~ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . . . . .
1 :the little. black ink marks on it cre mine, not any
- 2. . contemporaneous evidence.
3 DY Im. GOOLD: 4 0 l' d like to direct - your attention in particular to page 5 tuo of this document under the heading "items discussed", 6 subheading "history". Do you see that? 7 A Yes. . , 8 1 The statement there appears: "The settlement of these 9 structures are within the predicted range and did not 10 cause any problem. " Do you see that? 11 A Yes. 12 0 You testified earlier, I believe, that your impression was 1 - 13 that Consumers Pcwer people were attempting to minimise 7 14 the problem at the site and I believe your testimony was 15 , directed specifically to earlier contactc uith Consumers 1G Pover, that is' prior to December 4,197 8. Do you recall 17 that subj ect generally? , 10 A Yes. - 19 2 Did you have that same impression at the December 4, 1970 20 meeting? 21 A Yes. 22 2 Did you ever learn whether the other NRC personnel present i '. 23 had the same view? 24 h Yes. Lusod Reporting Service 3ag,o g,,g,Q,,2, n y,,, Suar MO 962.I176 Suite 220 w e, n si,an tag:s Farminate Hills, Michigan 4 dol 8
1
- , >; y. . . , , ,
1 11- 0
.Did.you have discussions yrith' other unC peopl: who were ,
2 .present on that* specific. subj ect? 3 A ,Say that again. i 4 0 Uhat I'm trying to find out is which of the other Unc 5 people shared that view? 6 A I think it was unanimous at that time. Mr. I: cod, ; 7- geotechnical people, we were all of the opinion that 3 Cbnsumers had not and was not acknowledging the real 9 e:: tent of the problem. - 10 0 Let me direct your attention to page five of this e::hibit 11' under the heading "comments from URC". Take a moment to 12 review that. ,
. 13 A Um-ha.
14 0- Does that paragraph f airly sEmmarize -the comuents made by 15 'UnC personnel at the meeting? , 16 A Ye c.
.[
17' C Let me let me f ocus your attention on the final centence f 10 of that paragraph. "It must be demonstrated that the h 19 original requirements of the construction p mit had been 20 met or exceeded." Do you know what requirements of the 21 construction permit were incorporated in substance within 22 that discussion? (,
~
23 A All of them. 24 0 Uhat I'm tr'ying to find out is whether it was your lafayette Buildine Luzod Reporting Sereiee 39g,g g,,,,ff,) ,7,,, Sate Am 952 1176 Sate 23 Detroit Wichigan JR226 , farminston flulls, Michigan J8018
0 , 1 } understanding .that the original requirements of the 2 construction permit with respect to compaction of the soil 3 would have to be met or e::eceded as a result of the 4 surcharge program? 5 A Yes, that's included. I recall that comment b?' ng G specifically made by Mr. IIc11er.
/ Q Mr. uho?'
3 A Mr. Lyman I?clier making that comment. 9 0 Just so the record is clear, uas he referring specifically 10 to the compaction requirements of the constructica permit? 11' A I believe so, and also settlement criteria. 12 Q Do you have any knowledge as to what effect, if any, the 13 surcharge would have on compaction of sand beneath the 14 Diesel Generator 30ilding? 15 A It has minimal af f ect with sand. 1G 1 And as of recember, as of the time of this meeting dc ycu 17 hnow whether icose sands had been identified as being 10 beneath the Diesel Generator Duilding? 10 A Yes 20 Did you have any understanding as to whether the 21 application of a surcharge would densify those sands? 22 A lio, they would not.
~
23 2 Uns that discussed with Consumers Power at the meeting? 24 h I vaguely remember, yeah. Luz d Reporting Service 3ag;o y,g,Q,,{ ff,y, (~fayette Bui%e Sur hw 962 1176 ..%ite 2.% Detroit. Whigan 48226 . farminKlon Hills, hkiaan 48018
O . p u.- ), . 7 1 0 What, if.anything, do you recall as to the reaction of the 2 Consumers Power personnel. to that subj ect? - 3 A. -I recall them responding that -they would deal with that .in < 4 'a different manner. 5' Q Do you recall what was meant by a "different manner"? i 5 A '"cll, I guccc they were considering alternatives like the ' 7 devatoring system to handle that liquef action problem. G 0 Let ce direct your attention to the contence innediately , a o 9 before which states, "The recultc of the concolidation-10 will be reviewed by the tinC bef ore acceptance. " Do you . 11 recall who made that stae.ement on behalf of the linC in i 12 substance? i 13 A I think the conclucory remarhc being made by, I recall the
- 14- conclusory remarks being modo by tuo peo.ple, Darl !!ood and
! 15 Lyman lieller. ! j 16 0 And did you ever learn uhether Consumcrc Power in f ac. 17 gave the NaC an ::ppor-tunity to review the results of the
- 10 consolidation before the curcharge was removed?
i [ l 19 A I don' t recall. i , 20 0 At what stage in the meeting did the URC personnel give I i 21 the comments reficcted in substance in paragraph seven on , 22 page five of this o):hibit and continuing over to page si::: !
.r .
23 was it at the end of meeting? . i ; , 24 A Right, at the end. - I ! l i y ,,, yggy, Luzad Riportirng Service m 3. Q Q 97 . . Saig, m 962.]}?6 Suite 220 Detroit. \fidisu M26 Farmheton Ifills AfiktM 48018
O Uhat reaction, if any, was there f rom the Consumers Power 2 people present at the mooting? 3 A Mothing really stands out. 4 0 How about f rom the Bechtel people?
" A Mot much reaction.
G Q Co you remember that Dr. Ralph Pech was there? 7 A Yes. O n Uhat did he do at the meeting? 9 I, He gave a brief rundown on his assescment of the situatica 10 and supported the surcharge program. 11 O Uho, if anyone, served as the principal spokesman f or
~
12 , Consumers Pcwor at the meeting'? 13 A I don' t remember to tell you the truth. Looking at the . 14 attendees, Cooke was the senior. member at the meeting. I
, 15 don' t recall who actually chaired che meeting. i 16 0 Co you recall anything f urther concerning Dr. Ioch's 17 remarks? I'm trying to find out in particular uhether Dr.l 18 Peck served as a spokesman.
19 A I think he was of fered as an authority in the area of 20 soils and, you kncu, was of f ered as a credible person. 21 2 Do you recall what inf ermation, if any, was conveyed 22 regarding whether there were problems at other -- whether 23 soils problems had been identified at other structurec on 24 the site? i Lu:od Reporti.,g Service 39g,o y,,g,,},,, 20 gy,,,, guitgy, y,.,_ c.w, gg 962 1176 Suite :3) Detrat. .\fichigan 4826 Farmkutm Hiih, .\fichigan 48018
a . 1 A At this point in December things were still pretty much 2 confined to the Diesel Generator Duilding. 3 0 Let me make sure I understand your answer. Are you 4 referring to the discussion that took place at this 5 rou ting? 6 A That's right. 7 0 Did you have any knowledge as to uhother a meeting had C been scheduled by Consumers Feuer and Dechtel 1:ersonnel 9 with respect to potential problems at other buildingc on 10 the site? 11 A Mo. 12 0 Das any mention made, to your recollection, of a follcu-up 13 meeting limited to Consumers ?cuer and techtel uith 14 respact to prob 1 cms at other buildings on the site? 15 A Do. 1G -O If such a meeting had been ccheduled, vould you have 17 vanted to know about it? . 13 A Yes. 19 UR. 'GOOI,D : This is good point to break for 20 the day. 21 (The deposition was concluded 22 at 3 : 55 p. m. ) 23 24 Isfayette Bmidsne M 'Pomng .Sndce 3(g,0 ,,ku;,}} ,,uy Suite hw . 962.))76 Sar rv Detrmt. \fichikan *C6 Farmmetan flills, \fichigan 18018
, s .
6 I
. .1 ,
[ 2 STATE OF !!ICHIG AN - ) :
) SS 3 COU11TY OF UAY:1E )
( 4 I, Gl enn G. 11111er,110tary Puolic 5 within and f or the Cvunty: of Wayne, State of Ilichigan, do - G hereby certify that the uitnecs uhose attached deposition 7 uac taken bef ore me in the above-entitled matter uns by .mo ! 3 duly sworn at the af orementioned time and place; that thu ; 9 testimony given by said uitness uso stenographically i 10 recorded in the presence of said witness and ef terwardc 4 11 transcribed by computer under my personal supervision, 4 12 and that the said depo ition is a f ull, true and correct 13 transcript of the. tectimony given by the witnesc. I 14 1 further certify that I am not connected j + 15 by blood or marriage with any of the parties or their f 1G attceneys, and that I am not an employee of either of then, j 17 mor financially interested in the action. I 10 Ill UIT11ESS ITHEREOP, I have hereunto set l l 10 my hand at the City cf Detroit, County of Hayne, State of ; 20 iichigan, this 8 day of b ., 1904. f r + . 21 i 22 b# ' (; . GLCIH1 G. IIILLCRi llotary Public 23 , Wayne County, !!ichigan
- r 24 1:y Commission E::pires: 4-22-87 i i
Luzod Reporting Service 30840 Nonhuktem Huy. , 962.I176 ' y,, g Suar 220 m ,sq;,gy m 'Farmmaton Hals, \fichieu 48018 L
, , - . ~ . - . - . - . . . . . , - . . - . - . - - - - . . - - - - . .- -
( 1-2 VERIFICATIO.1 OF DEPO!!EllT 3 I, EUGE:1E. Gt1Ltc!!ER, do hereby ( 4 attest to the correctness of the transcript upon inclucion i i i 5 of the corrections and/or enanges I have listed on the 5 attached errata cheet. 7 signature of 171tness 0 Subucribed and swern to before no 9 thic day of , 1983, 10 11 12 I?otary Public,. County ' IV Commission c::pires: . 13 - 14 , 15 16 17 10 19 20 21 22
< (.. .'
23 24 isfayette Buddine Luod Reporting Service y,3 2L9 ,7 . Suin MO 962 1176 Suite 220 Detrost, \fichigan 43226 Farmington ({dh, 3fichiean 48018
. , . - - - - _____ --- -- .}}