ML20153B786
| ML20153B786 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/22/1985 |
| From: | Cook R NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151D196 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-583 NUDOCS 8805060079 | |
| Download: ML20153B786 (260) | |
Text
1 2 l STATE OF MICHIGAN i
3 IN Tile CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MIDLAND 4
)
5 DOW CilEMICAL COMPANY, )
)
6 Plaintiff, )
)
7 -vs- )
I ) No. 83-0022325 i
8 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY, )
)
9 Defendant. )
)
10 ------------------
11 The Continued Deposition of RONALD J. COOK, taken before me, Glenn G. Miller, CSR-2596, Registered 12 Professionc1 Reporter and Notary Public within and for the County of Wayne, State of Michigan, at 100 Brown Street, 13 Hiddletown, Pennsylvania, on Tuesday, January 22, 1985.
14 ;
15 APPEARANCES:
16 KIRKLAND & ELLIS 200 East Randolph
_ 17 Chicago, Illinois 60601 (By Carol Rice, Esq.)
18 Appearing or. behalf of the Plaintiff, i 19 BARHIS, SOTT, DENN & DRIKER l 21st Floor First Federal Building I 20 l Detroit, Michigan 48226 -
l 21 (By Eugene Driker, Esq.
I and Ellen Neering, Esq.)
i 22 l Appearing on behalf of the Defendant.
23 24 6
8805060079 880408 V PDR FOIA PDR BARAK87-563 od Pomng Sn& 399,o ,,k,,,,,,,,,,,\
Infnene l$sildin,
%te w 962 1176 % te h e Farmmaton lis!!s, \lahigan twik lirtrat, \lahigan ul2.%
i _ . _ . _ _ _ _ ___ -- -
. . - . ._=-. , . - - . . . - , . . .. ,- .
1 lAFPEARANCESCONTINUED:
2 DANIEL BERKOVITE, ESO.
Office of General Counsel 3 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Washington D. C. 20555 4
! Appearing on behalf of the United states Nuclear 5 { Regulatory Commission.
i G ;
i 7 l t
8 !
9 l
\
i 10 11 ! , . ;
i 12 13 I.
14 i
i 15 l 16 ! !
I i l I 17 l l
18 j l
19 l l l
20 l
lc l f 21 i, 22 l
(
, 23 l
24 j f.u:od Reporting Sertice , S ,(,
Infy rtte ikidme l Soaa, ny) 9 6 2. ] l 7 t> s,,,t,. L sktmr. \lockstan LC2n Farminenm II<lls, \lachieve mol'
l 1
2 U I T !! E S S INDEX i
3 l
4 Witness Examined By Page 5 RON ALD J . COOK Ms. Rice 196 6 Mr. Driker 285 7 ,
8 l
9 10 {
l 11 ! . .
e 12 13 EXHIRIT INDEX 4
14 15 l Exhibit No. Description Page i 16 PX NRC 123 Document entitled Suggested Changen 199 !
for the Midland Project 17 PX NRC 131 Letter to Consumers Power from 270 10 James Keppler, dated 3-28-83 ;
l i 19 PX NRC 124 Document entitled Denial of Fuel 276 {
License for the Midland site, !
20 l
dated 1-25-83 l 1 DPD 1662 Resume of Ronald J. Cook 286 22 DFD 1663 Remorandum from D. U. Hayeo, dated 305 August 30, 1977 23 DFD 1676 Photograph 324 !
24 i
t Iafgerte Ikaidone pelo %rthuerr , l1. ,
sue ran 9b2 11in s. .
IWtro t. \fich: tan M.'.% Furmet au lidl.,11A.gc >
- - _ _ _ - . --------------------.-.____----------------J
1 2 DXHIBIT INDEX 3
4 Eshibit No. Description Page 5 DFD 1675 Photograph 327 6 DFD 1661 Copy of Don Horn's log, dated 328 Septembe r 28, 1977 7
DFD 1678 Photograph 339
, 8 l DFD 167S Attendance List, March 21-22, 1978, 344 9 Midland Site Meeting 10 i DFD 1680 Booklet entitled Citizen's Guide 351
! to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 11 l Commirsion Information I
12 l DFD 1665 Copy of Walt Bird's Quality Assurance 375 '
log of Phone conversatioins with 13 : NRC Personnel l 14 l DFD 1666 Copy of Walt Bird's Quality Assurance 377 log of conversatilons with NRC Personnel 15 DFD 1667 Licensee Report per 10 CFR 50.55 (e) 379 16 DFC 1681 Daily Log Sheet, 10-2-78 409 17
- l DFD 137S Daily Log Sheet, 10-26-78 410 18 DFD 1396 Daily Log Sheet, 10-25-78 411 19 DFD 1682 Daily Log Sheet, 11-10-18 415 20 ,
- DPD 1672 Documents entitled December 4,1978 418 21 Meeting on Structural Settlements i' 22 DFD 1673 Document entitled Meeting held at the 427 Midland Units 1 and 2 Settlement of
- 23 Diesel Generator Building i
24 4
Lmd Reporting Sersice , , ,7 lpfsytte kidny kite hw 962 1176 k ue :;m lHrver, \faktran #92.% farmington lidis. \fahigan WlX
t i
I i 1; j t !
2 i E X !! I D I T INDEX I
3 4 Exhibit No. Description Page !
$ , DFD 1683 Newspaper article f rom the Midland 435
! Daily News, dated 12-2-78 6 i
! DPD 1664 Newspaper Article from the Midland 438 7 ! Daily News, dated 12-8-78 l
8 l D1'D 16 84 NRC Licensee Assessment, NUREXI-083 4 446 9
10 11 I - .
12 )
l 13 14 '
15 16 17
- l l
18 l 19 20 ,
21 22 23 5 ,
Lutod Reporting Service ymw wk,,,rer, nuy.
l.afa)rtte kident 9sg,)l76 hele & Suure 2.M
[Wtrat, \fschigan 882.% farmington Hdh, \takigan, m'!!R f [
1 2 Middletown, Pennsylvania 3 Tuesday, January 22, 1985 4 8:20 a.m.
5 l 6 j RONALD J. C00K 7 was thereupon called as a witness herein and, after 8 l having been first duly sworn to tell the truth, the 9 l whole truth and nothing but the truth, was examined 10 j and testified as follows:
11 i MR. BERKOVIT2: I just want to clear up for i
12 ! the record that we do reouire a subpoena for attendance '
i 13 for depositions of NRC personnel, however, once the 14 ; subpoena le issued we do appear voluntarily.
15 MS. RICE: We're beginning early this 16 morning, at 8:30, in hopes we can finish up today and I 17 hope to be able to complete my direct examination in thio 18 deposition by noon. It was my understanding that Mr.
I 19 Driker hopes to complete hic croac-examination this 20 af ternoon, but in any even) the deposition will be held 21 formally open so we can review the documents you have in 22 washington, Hr. Berkovitz.
23 EXAMIt1ATIO!!
24 BY HS. RICE: ,
" I' " "
lafayette kidmg 3mm %rthur i r Ifn ) .
Sato esw 962 1176 Sur, ,n Detroit Shchigan t8226 Farmington lidis, \bcht, an mam
1 0 Mr. Cook, let me show you a document that has been 2 previously marked as NRC 15.
3 MS. RICE: For the record, the document 4 bears Bates number N 11249 through N 11253.
5 BY MS. RICE:
6 ;0 Mr. Cook, can you identify this document?
7 A Yes. It's a memo from Mr. Norelius end Mr. Spessard to 8 Mr. Keppler. It's an NRC internal memorandum dated June 9 l 21, 1982 with suggested changes for the Midland Project.
l 10 j0 Who is Mr. Norelius and Mr. Spessard?
11 A Mr. Norelius was a director of one of the divisions that 12 l was for engineering and technical programs. These were
- i 13 primarily people that had technical expertise in a limited i !
14 j field. l 15 0 Did he have any direct responsibility for the Midland 16 Proj ect?
17 lA Looking at the date, which is June 21sb,1982, I don't I l i
18 believe he did at that time other than some of his l 19 inspectors that were technical experts did come to the 20 site to perform normal cony _ sction inspection.
21 0 Inspectors under his direction; is that correct?
22 A Yes. There's a couple of layers of management in there
(
23 underneath Mr. Norelius.
24 0 Who is Mr. Spescard?
l.ahyetre kldon W 3ttiw %rthurs ern flu ,
Suur 6M 962 1176 Su,re ;iu Iktrott. 11irhigan m2;% Farminatun Ihlls. \lahtgan wnlk
! A 1 He was a director of project and resident programs, which 2 was the big picture responsibilities for reactors that 3 '
were under construction or in operation.
4 0 And both of these men are in Region 37 5 A They're both Region 3 personnel.
I 6 Q And did Mr. Spessard have under his supervision the 7 Midland Project?
8 I believe he did at thic time. Again -- let me look at lA l
9 ! Mr. Keppler's testimony because I can' t remember when they i
10 l formed that special sections.
11 0 You're referring to NRC 130?
12 ,A NRC 130. The office of Special Cases was formed in July 13 1982. This would have boon a forerunner of that Office of 14 ! Special Cases and I would say that Mr. Spessard, as I i
15 I recollect, would have had responsibilities for the Midland' 16 ,
Plant.
l 17 0 All right. Mr. Cook, have you ever seen NRC 15 before?
18 A Yes.
19 K2 Do you remember when you received a copy of NRC .15?
20 A No, I don't, howeve r , I would imagine it would have been 21 in the summer of 1982. There were some other -- the copy 22 that I had had other attachments beer.ose one of them was a 23 memo that I believe I'd written co Mr. Harnick that was 24 attached to this. Maybe I shouldn't say that for sure. I l
d 190 isfayette ,kidung 3mIO %thuntun llu)
Sy,, wo 9 6 2. l l ib hustr 220 lktrwt, \fahigan 4R226 f**""I'"" II'lls. \lahtean SMolk
l i
1 know in the file I once had I had this document with some '
2 other notes that pertained to problems at Midland.
3 Q Mr. Cook, did eithe Mr. Norelius or Mr. Spessard ask for 4 your input when they drafted this memorandum?
5 !A No, I don' t believe they did.
6 MS. RICE: Could you please initial NRC 123.
7 j
(Deposition Exhibit No. PX HRC 123, 8 ! Document entitled suggested Changes I
9 I for the Midland Project, was marked 10 l for identification.)
11 lBY MS. RICE 12 l0 Mr. Cook, the court reporter has handed you a document 13 marked as NRC 123, bearing Bates numbers N 105401 through t.
14 l N 105407. Have you ever seen this document before, Mr.
i 15 l Cook?
i 16 jA T don't believe I have.
i 17 i0 Could you turn to the last page of this document, Mr.
I 18 Cook? Is that your handwriting under item three?
l 19 A I don't think so.
20 ~Q Do you recognize this handwriting?
21 A No.
22 0 All right. Returning you back to NRC 15, looking down the 23 page to where it says Technical Issues on the very first 24 page, number one states, "In the remedial soils area,' the a
P isfayette hidine
' '" 3Mio \orthur err; llu ,
swtr hm 962 llI6 Swtr 22a intrott. \fakugan 48226 Farmsnetun lidis, \tahigart wil8 i
1 j licensee har conducted safety-related activities in an 2 inadequate manner in several instances - removal of dirt 3 around safety-related structurec, pulling of electrical 4 cable, drilling into safety-related utilities." Do you 5 i agree that the licensee, Consumers Power, conducted 1
6 safety-related activities in the remedial soils area in an 7 i inadequate manner?
I 8 :A At this period of time, yes.
i 9 jQ What is your basis for that belief?
10 A Well, we had just given them a Category 3 in the soils 11 l area and I was asked by Mr. Keppler what their present i
12 l rating would be in the April 1982 meeting and I'd 13 indicated to Mr. Keppler that it would be probably less
(.
14 l than a Category 3, if there was leon than a Category 3 at 15 l that time, t
16 ! And that comment to Mr. Keppler was based on 17 l the history that had ex2sted at that period of time, which i
18 l all the things that had transpired I don't really recall l
19 l right now, but at the time we were in the process of
, 20 gathering data and information for public meetings and l
l 21 SALP meetings and things such as that. So the record was 22 indicating that there was several instances of doing 23 safety -- inadequate safety -- doing work in the soils
! 24 area was in an inadequate manner.
l i i a 200
- MN %thuorren lin c Is(netteIktdmg
$w,, c,y 962 1176 S wre N o intrmt. \lahitan Pt226 far"unt!^ II'll* \I'chaean Mols
1 0 And the timef rame you' re talking about here was the summer 2 of 1982; is that correct?
3 A Well, soils work had gone on for a period of time before 4 that. Again I was trying to think yesterday of what 5 period of time that some of the borings were going on that 6 Ross Landsmen and I were having some problems with, the QA l
7 envelope on the borings issues and' this kind of stuf f.
8 0 over what period of time did you believe that Consumers 9 Power's work in the remedial soils work area was 1 -
10 ! inadequate?
11 Let's see. I would imagine from an area from around say lA 12 l 1980 to maybe even before this. I'm having a hard time 13 l bracketing in a period of time. It's not just a matter of i.
14 l one or two months prior to June the 21st of 1982. It was 15 over a period of essentially a year or more than a year.
16 0 could you turn to the third page of the memorandum you 17 have in front of you, NRC 15, and direoting your attentior 18 to item number five at the top of the page where it 19 !
states, "The responses to any Region III enforcement 20 letters issued to Midland pre more lengthy and' it says 21 are' which is crossed out and written in above it "more 22 argumentative than any other responses f rom any other l
23 licensee in Region III." Did you agree that Consumers 24 Power responses to enf orcement action was more lengthy and i
lafyrtre Bwid<ng 3(RIO %rthur e n lit <>
kute Mo 962 1176 % ta 22n Iktrmt. \lahierus tR2:n Farmington fisih. \lahnzan 18nts
1 l more argumentative than any other responses in the region?
2 A Yes.
3 Q What was your basis for that belief?
4 A I had done a statistical evaluation as *.o the number of 5 responses that we had received for items of noncompliance, I
6 ,
the number of those that took objection to the enforcement 7 action and the number of times we acknowledged it was a 8 valid objection to the enforcement action and we compared 9 , that with some of the other rCactors in the Region III l
10 ! area and found that they had a reputation of being more --
l 11 I of writing rebuttals to our citations and not having the 12 rebuttal be accepted by the NRC.
13 ;0 They is Consumers Power?
(.
14 A Yes. And the numbers I don't recall now. They are in the 15 record associated with the SALP. There was this 16 statistical breakdown in some of the drafts.
17 0 over what period of time did you believe that consumers 18 Power responses were more lengthy and more argumentative 19 than other licensees in the Region III area?
20 A Well, for sure over the period of the SALP II, which ended 21 in, back on the problem with the dates again, which the 22 period ended in June -- it went from July 1, 1980 through 23 a period of June 30, 1981 and then we had the SALP 24 presentation in April of 1982 and the record through or up >
l 202
' "?
isfyrtte Iksildsne 3% W hithursterrt II" >
s,ar mo 962 1176 kaar l20 Intrat, \fschigan #2 n Farmunston lisils, \fschigan 308
1 f until the time that we had the actual SALP presentation i
2 had indicated that trend had still existed.
3 In other words, the analysis, I'm not sure 4 now, however, whether I brought it to April or stopped it 5
l in the middle of 1980,1981, but I know to make that type 6 of statement I needed a current picture and I remember 7 j doing a current picture which would have been to the 1
8 l spring of, say, 1982. And then also the fact that we had ,
the rebuttal to the SALP in our eyes was also coincident 9
10 , with that argumentative type attitude with regard to 11 i regulatory issues.
12
!O The next item, item number six, "Fiultiple requests f or 13 briefing meetings and other statements by the utility to 14 j the offeet that we should review procedures in de';elognental stages imply that Midland wants the NRC to 55 16 be a part of their construction progran rather than havincj 17 u perf orm our normal regulatory functkn." Do you agret 18 the.t Midland wanted the flRC to be part of their 19 l construction program rather than the fiRC performing their 20 normal regulatory function 7 21 A Well, that would be no different than any other licensee.
22 All licenseen would like to know exactly where the 23 regulatory issues are going to be. We were invited to sit 24 ,
in on a lot of their technical and developmental type I
lofyrtte Bwidme 3ttilo %rthurs e n lit < >
Swre Mo 962 1II6 Suar 2.'n inetroa, \lwhitan Mt22t> Farmington flills \lahogan nom I
1 i meetings, which someti,nes we felt we really didn't belong i
2 l there.- Sometimes we wrint to them. I can't give*you any 3 specifics on that right now. I just remember us -- that 4 this was an issue that we had raised. It may have been 5 over the soils issue. I'm not sure exactly, you know, 6 l what topics were discussed, but there was a tendency for i
7 l Consumers Power to want to have the NRC be almost in an 8 l approval chain for what they wanted and that is not our l
9 l 7ormal way of doing business.
10 !O And did Consumers Power show this tendency to want the NRC 11 to be in the approval chain moreso than other utilities l
12 that you had experience with?
13 A I'd have a dif ficult time answering that when you say 14 comparing one utility with another utility. That would be i
15 i unfair of me to do that becauce, you know, it was a 16 condition that existed that we didn't really appreciate 17 l and when you say this is more than other utilities, I know 1
18 j that all utilities woLid like to have that because it 19 gives them an edge on the regulatory process. Nobedy 20 likes to be caught in a regulatory enforcement action if 21 you could have an agency tell you how to stay out of it, 22 obviously. ,
i 23 0 Moving on down the same page, under Staff Observations J
^
24 where it say s , item number one states, "With regard to I i 4
204 lafyrtte llaldme 3! W %'thk"I'm Ilk)
Suite MO 9h2'IE?O bu
- U" (Wtrmt, \fschtec t Pl:26 famemgtm Hdis, \fschigan Wm I - - - . ._.- _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _
i 1 , corrective actions of identified noncompliances, the 2 ; Midland response seems to lean towards doing a partial job l
3 l and then writing up a detailed study to explain why what 4 they have done is sufficient rather than doing a more 5 complete job and assuring one hundred percent corrective 6
l: action has occurred. In the detailed writeups that are 7 l pr epa r ed, it is the staf f's view that the licensee does 8 i not always represant the significance properly and the 9 . analyses and studies often raise more questions than they 10 solves thus time appears to have been wasted in writing an l
11 l analysis rather than fixing the problem."
12 Did you agree in the summer of 1982 that the 13 Midland response seemed to be towardo leaning -- seems to 1
14 lean towards doing a partial job rather than one hundred 15 l percent corrective action?
l 16 lA I really cannot recall what our attitudes were with regard i
17 l
co the items of noncompliaace. Now it.seems to me this 18 statement has shown up on a document that I had written l
19 '
prior to this memo and I guess all I could say is when 20 they were written it would be based on looking at the l
l 21 items of noncompliance and what their responses were to l* 22 the items of noncompliance. I remember un being along 23 with the attitude of this argumentative, appearance of i
24 arguing the issues, that oftentimos that the real heart of i
Int'verre ktding
" **"# "5" nw %rihu e n 1% >
% e Mn 962 1176 % re L, >
Intrur, \1orhican P C.% Farmineta, flath, \l <hica, 2:+>1h
1 l the problem was not addressed, that it was, ycu know, more 2 peripheral-type things that were addressed in the response 3 as opposed to what actually led up to the item of 4 ; noncompliance and rectifying that solution. That's as I 5 i recall it now.
6 I think there's probably some other words I 7 ; generated in this period of time that were based on a l
8 !
review of the it' ems of noncompliance and their responses i
9 l and I just - quite honestly, I can't even remember what i
10 l all the items of noncompliance were at that time.
i i
11 ;O Did you believe that consumers Power wasted time in 12 i writing analyses rather than fixing the problem?
13 iA To go into a detailed analysis, that would be indeed a i.
14 waste of time. In other words, you can spend an awful lot 15 of time studying an issue when in actuality the issue can 16 ,
go away by just addressing the issue very 17 j straightforward 1y. If I remember righe, we had a problem 18 l because we had to wade through their analyses to see 19 whether we agreed to them. And I think we wrote them back 20 '
letters where we said we dpn't agree with your analysis or 21 you really missed what the item of noncompliance is about.
22 So that's how I recollect the attitude at the time.
t 23 Again, without comparing the items of noncompliance and 24 rehacking that which has aircady been done, why, I can 1
206 Luod Reporting Sert ic' 1.afyrtre ikIdag 3mm urresserr Itso
&lar hy) 96? llib k ar 2.m lhetrat, Wharan M226 Farmmerun lidh. \lschtean Wik
__ g 1
1 only just tell you as I remember without too many +
2 specif ics.
3 Q Did you believe that consumers Power's analyses wasted the 4 time of the NRC7 5 A It would waste a lot of time of the NRC if the issue has 6 ; not been addressed.
7 ,0 All right. Directing you down to item number three, the 8 bottom of the page where it says, "The Midland Project is 9 l one of the most complex and complicated ever undertaken l
10 within Region III.
The reason is that they are building i
11 two units of the site simultaneously and additionally have 12 an underpinning constrsction effort which in itself is 13 probably the equivalent of building a third reactor site."
i.
14 l Is the underpinning referring to the underpinning that i
15 l stemmed cut of the soils problems in the Diesel Generator' 16 l Building settlement?
i 17 ,A Yes. .
C 18 0 Do you agree today that the Midland project is one of most i l 19 ; complex and complicated ever undertaken within Region III?
I 20 A Well, put that in the context of item three here. The 21 thing that made it complex was the f act that two plants
- 22 were being built simultaneously without a delay between
(
23 units. Now, that alone is a very ambitious undertaking.
24 Many plants are built one unit first and -- let me start h
! 1
- ' ' 5' I
lAnyette Hwidme Num %rthur e n los n smie tim 962 1176 3m,,, go Intnn t. \tahitan UC.'n Farmsnetun linflu \1vh:can min
i 1 l over.
)
2 When you have a duel unit site, the one unit l
i 3 '
will lead by maybe a year or 18 months so that anything )
4 that you learn you did wrong in the one unit, that's the 5 { 1ead unit, those improvements can be incorporated in the 6
l second unit. When the workers finish up l. portion of the 7 ; lead unit then they can shif t over a id have the skills 1
8 i necessary to work on the second unit. When you take two 9 l plants that are a rather massive project and build then i
10 ! simultaneously, that means you're building a duel reactor 11 ; without that 18 months time delay between the two units
. 12 and take and superimpose on that a massive underpinning s
13 undertaking, which that in itself was a very complicated L 4 14 '
evolution.
l 15 As far as concidering the Midland plant l
16 l today, the fact there is a need to go in and having a l
17 l mining process, if you will, to remove thousands of cubic 18 ! yards of earth from underneath the buildings, support the 19 buildings while you're doing it so they do not crack or 20 have structural maladies and put the supporte in so it can 21 withstand a seismic event, I would say it would make it 22 one of the most coraplicated units to build probably in the 23 country.
24 0 Turning to the next page of Imc 15 under the title saying I I 200 IA fG)ftl9 b5WI$anS Mw 'I A * t ' IIO Sm,, a; 962 117b swre 2.'o Iktrmt. \tahtaan m2:6 farmint!"n Ildl% \lahwn" M"Ik
1 f Recommendations it states. "It appears essential that some i
2 action be taken by NRC to improve the regulatory 3 performance of the Midland facility." Did you agree in 4 the summer of 1982 that it was essential for the NRC to 5 take action to improve the' regulatory performance of '
6 Consumers Power?
t 7 ,A Provided that the plant was going to continue construction 8 j and ultimately be licensed.
9 0 What was your basis for your belief ?
10 A The basis is that there had been a history of regulatory 11 problems at the site and to ignore the regulations and to l
12 not build a plant in a manner to which has been approved, 13 if you will, and then expect it to be able to withstand 14 ! the rigors it's expected to withstand and still not have a 15 l nuclear accident just cannot be tolerated. cur business i
16 l is to license a plant that will not put the public in I
17 l j eopa rdy, that if it should have an acoloent that it has 18 i the capability of withstanding the accident.
i 19 ! Three Mile Island over here is a classic 20 case. It had a very bad accident but the reactor for all -
21 practical purposes contained the accident, if you will.
r 22 Granted, there's a terrible clean-up job but the people 23 from an exposure standpoint were not put in a lot of 24 immediate jeopardy, if you will, and we require that the l l fpfayrte Iktdan 3 etto % rthn<< r n li v saar np 962 11?b har : n ik troet. \fahigan Mt:.% Farmunttwa HJh, \fschuevu Imis
c I
1 reactors be able to do that. The NRC never guaranteed 1
2 that after an accident they would ever run again. We did f
3 try to assure the people that we would not contaminate the 4 world.
5 'O Did you believe it was essential for the NRC to take 6 increased action in order to protect the health and safety 7 at Midland?
8 ,A I need a better definition by what you mean by increased 9 act.on.
10 .0 Escalated enforcement action prior to what had been to i
11 i June of 1982.
12 Well, we were taking escalated enforcement actions at lA 13 i periodic intervals.
- t. i 14 l0 Did you believe the escalated enforcement action was 15 necessary?
16 A Obviously, yes. And then with this complicated plant that 17 was being built and finding that we could find regulatory 18 difficulties and what the attitude was, something 19 different had to be done. I think we made some pretty 20 good suggestions here. I can't remember what they were 21 now.
22 O Going down to item number two it states, 'We should i
23 question whether or not is it possible to adequately 24 manage a construction program which is as complex and
! I
"# 39180 %rthme r m lit >
lafayette ikiding
~
%tte MO 962 II?6 kre :,'o IMrat, \lahigan M:26 Farmington Hills \lahigan Mulk
I diverse as that which currently exists at Midland.' Did 2 you question whether consumers Power could adequately 3 manage a construction program as complex as it existed at 4 l Midland?
I 5 A Yes.
6 ;O What cause you to question whether Consumers Power could 7 l adequately manage the contruction program?
8 A I don't suppose it was directed mostly at Consumers Power.
9 Consumers Power just happened to be the utiltiy that was 10 ; there and when you have that amount of construction 11 activity going on it would be a difficult thing for any l
12 ! utility to manage it, and we had the regulatory problems 13 with it. There were areas that had been pointed out just 14 l months before that had showed weaknesses, that the l
15 l ultimate effects on the plant could be quite undesirable, 16 and we hold the utility, he's the license holder, so he's l
17 f ultimately responsible for the management of the project.
I 18 Granted, there's a heavy dependency on the 19 architect-engineer, which happened to be Bechtel out of l
20 Ann Arbor, and we're not so sure that that was being 21 appropriately controlled by Consumers Power at the time.
i 22 Now, I said the irony of this is Consumerc Power happened 23 to be the utility that was there. !!ad this happen,ed at 24 some other utility, well, we may be in the same s I i Iphyette Hwldme Moo %rthn n Hu ;
kar Ma 962 11I6 %or J.'o iktrse t, \fwhigan L'C2s farmmetm Hslls, \fahigan Ikolk
I 1 si tua tions, i
2 Q Was there anything about Consumers Power's past regulatory 3 performance which caused added concern whether they could ,
4 adequately manage the construction program?
I 5 A Well, there had been a history of regulatory concerns with 6 the Midland site almost, wall, from early on, and I'm not 7 s sure what early on really means without looking at the 8 ; record. It's protty well-documented. The enforcement 9
j track record, regulatory track record at Midland, you take 10 that and bring it forward -- I forgot the question. What i
11 i was the question again.
I 12 MS. RICE: Could you re-read the question?
l 13 .
(The requested portion of the 14 , record was read back as follows:
i i 15 ; "O, was there anything about consumers ,
16 Power's past regulatory performance 17 which caused added concern whether 18 they could adequately manage the 19 ! construction program?")
20 fA I was leading up to if there had been -- if there had been-21 a past history of regulatory problems, then that would ,
22 allow a regulatory agency to question their abilities to 23 handle the project. In other words, a lot of our l
24 evaluations are based on previous track records, well, i
b 212 1.uzod Reporting Settice .y y, g ,,,,,, y,, ,
I lafyrtio Liding g,, ,,y; 962 11ib % te .'.n
[Wrrot t, \fichigan M2.% fa' mint!"" Udl', \lichwan IMulk
1 because that's the only look at that we have and through 2 the history, as I recall it, we would have enforcement 3 conferences and there would be -- and Consumers Power 4 would do better. They would do better but there would 5 i still be regulatory issues and they would take steps and 6 l sometimes the steps were not as ef fective as we had wished 7 ,
they had been.
i 8 lBY MS. RICE:
9 !O Mr. Cook, when was the of fice of specf r.1 Cases 10 established?
11 !
MR. DRIKER: The question has been asked and -
12 a n swe r ed. The Mr. Keppler memo already established that 13 date.
- t. >
14 MR. BERKOVITZ: You can answer.
15 'A July of 1982 is when it was formally established but the 16 i wheels were in motion a little bit before that, which 17 would be a normal offshoot, and when the wheels went into 18 l motion would be some time, I would say, from April of 1982 ,
i !
19 ! until it was actually officially formed in July of 1982.
20 BY MS. RICE: ,
21 0 What was the purpose of the of fice of special cases?
22 A To take NRC assets, personnel asseta and dedicate them t
23 solely to the Midland Project.
24 0 Had Region III ever establich an Of fice of Special Cases l
l ,
1 J
I N "
346480 Wth e latherre ILuldant n llu >
marr ny) 9 62 11 ?b %,r Lh
- Introut, \fahnran SRL% Farmenerm listin, \la higan N1lM
l l
l 1 ; for another plant under constructior.7 l 2 A Well, there was an of fice of special Cases or under the 3 of fice of special Cases -- the Zimmer Plant fell under the 4 office of special cases, which was a division by itself.
5 -
At what time that office was formed for the Simmer Plant 6 '
I'm not really sure. And it was formed, as I understand 7 ! it, slightly different than the Midland Plant. Well, 8 l originally, that the inspectors that were dedicated to it, I
9 that was their primary job and I understood they did other 10 i things and then the NRC got better at forming these type 11 of sections so then when the Midland section was formed it 12 was to explicitly dedicate the time only to the Midland 13 , site.
I 14 l And ultimately I guess the Special Cases i
15 ! Section for the Ilmmer Plant became dedicated only to the 16 timmer Plant, similar to the Midland section. So there 17 was an evolutionary process in that peciod of time and i
18 i that I guess is what I'm stating.
I 19 l0 Are you aware of any more plants that had this dedicated 20 inspection effort? ,
21 MR. BERKCVITZ: You mean an office of 22 Special Cases?
23 BY MS. RICE:
24 .0 An Of fice of Special Cases.
214 f.afayene ILdd nr MW %"thentern liu s
%g, hp N b 0 ' $ $ n' O .% s to 2.'ll Iktrott, \fschigan L C.% farmener.m lidh, \hrhaan WM
_~ -
t 1 A No. These are the only two that I'm aware of. Now other 2 regions may have had similar type activity which I would 3 not necessarily be aware of. So I car ' t say that other 4 places in the Commission, that this didn't also happen, 5
l because I'm not knowledgeable of it. But I know there was.
6 l a lot of activities in some other plants, like South i
7 l Texas, and so how they handled that I'm not real:y sure.
i 8 0 Who was in the of fice of Special casec, Midland section, 9
l at the time it was formed?
10 l MR. BERKOVITZ That's also been asked and 11 answered, but go ahead.
12 A okay. Well, in the Of fice of Special cases, Bob Warnick 13 was the director of that division, Wayne Schaefer was the s.
i 14 section chief, Dr. Rosc Landsman was soils and structures, 15 l
Ron Gardener was primarily electrical. And bear in mind 16 l that even though that is their field of expertise they 17 were able to also function in other fields. There was 18 i myself as a senior resident at the plant. I cannot l
19 l remember what time Bruce Burgess came to the site but ho --
l :
20 this was about the time that he came so he also was a 21 portion of that office of Special cases and if he was not 22 there when it was formed then when he did get to the site 23 he was a portion of the Office of Special Cases. That was 4
24 at the time it was f ormed, t
M40 %rthe e n Hu ,
i f.efayette Iktdme
+ , . - 9se.i>rs . n.
Intru et. \larian WP ih mmrim Hdh, \fduran Ws
f l
1 l0 These people that you've jr.st listed, did they spend any 1 ,
2 j of their time on Zimmer or was it all Midland?
3 'A It was all Midland.
4 0 Prior to the formation of the of fice of special cases, how 5 many NRC personnel or inspectors dedicated all their time 6 i to Midland?
7 tA Just myself. And then earlier we had paraphrased that all i
8 l meaning that -- I can't recall whether I may have gone to I
9 another site, but that was only just token efforts, if you 10 will. In other worde, my time was dedicated to Midland.
11 :O Af ter the formation of the Of fice of Special Cases did Mr.
12 Warnick ask you to assess the Midland Plant?
13 IA Yes, he did, t.
14 ;0 Showing you a document marked NRC 16 I ask you if that was 15 your response to Mr. Warnick's request?
16 iA Yes, it is my response.
I 17 0 Could you please identify this document.?
18 !A Okay.
19 f tR. DRIKER: He just did, didn't he? We're 20 wasting an awful lot of time identifying documents which 21 by their very nature are identified. It's got a date, 22 it's got a from, it's got a to. What else do you want him i
23 to say?
i 24 A Shall I say it? okay. It's a raemo that I had written to )
216 EM d R* Porting Struce y w y,,y ,,,,, pg,, ,
16yur kline 9,sy 962 11Ib k or .'>
1% t. \fak. gen S C M f*" !"* II'll U "h** I" L'"
r _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . - -
l l 1 Bob Warnick, Director of the Enforcement and l lt 2 Investigations staff and it was from myself, Ron Cook, the 3 senior resident inspector for the Midland site, and it was 4 indicators of questionable licensee performance for the 5 Midland site. It's dated July 23rd,1982. It's a memo 6 that Bob Warnick asked me to supply information to him as I
7 to what was going wrong at the Midland site and this is as 8 a result of the comments that were made at the !3 ALP 9 I meeting and the SALP rebuttal meeting and so f orth f rom I
10 i April 1982 to, oh, this was generated probably a week or 11 so before the actual dating of the memo.
12 '
O All right.
13 A I guess it isn't because I ref erred to 'as per our
,f t.
14 l conversation of July 21, 1902'. I knew we discussed the 15 problems of the Midland site though.
16 l0 Directing your attention to the introductory paragraph in
! 17 the first page of the memorandum it says, 'As per our l
18 conversation of July 21, 1982, the following is a list of i
19 '
those items that various inspectors consider to be 20 indicatt e of question,able licensee performance." Did you I 21 get input f rom other inspectors at Region III for this 22 memorandum?
23 A Yes, I did. I was the author of the words. They did not 24 write the wordo. I composed the words but I did have I
Iphyrtre kident YW O 3tnou %ethun e n flu r swtr or 962 li ?b kaa so IWormt. \1dsten W.% Farnuncton linth, \1dican win
1 l input from them. Thereareitemsherethatwereuniquetof 2 the things that, say, Ron Gardener was looking at, items 3 unique to the things Dr. Ross Landsman was looking at.
4 There may have even been other inspectors and I just don't 5 ! recall. Those would have been the two primary contacts.
6 Bear in mind we do share all the information that -- one 7 l inspector shares with another inspector his information, i
8 i what his concerns are, and it was a matter of tabulating 9 this. And d ere were other reports and items of 10 i noncompliance and SALP inputs and all the many documents 11 and items and conversations that would go in as a basis 12 for documents such as this.
13 'O Referring down to item number two on the first page, you 14 state in your memorandum, "During the dialogue for the 15 ! underpinning and remedial soils work, a large amount of ,
16 l emphasis has been placed on the settling data for the 17 structures involved. During a meeting .in HQ on March 10, 18 1982 the need for OC requirements on remedial soils 19 < instrumentation were explicitly delineated." In this March 20 l 10th meeting, the need f or,0c requirements, are you 21 talking about the coverage of Q, what is a 0-listed area?
22 A Let me read a little more here while I kind of refresh 23 that meeting of March. In the meeting March the loth 24 Consumers Power wanted to have the o area established as 1
l l l 4 I 218 14me tsuana I' " " d " 'l' * " ' " ' # " ' " 3<ruo wea nrern i1,. .
%tle 9d0 NDS*$ ?O bude 2.U iktroa. Wh:can ACato Farmmerun lidh. %ktsae 5%'R ,
1 that area that was labeled in the FSAR, which would have, 2 or might appear to have a direct impact on safety-related 3 buildings. However, we had become aware that some of the 4 I soils activities, the borings and the test diggings and so I
5 f forth that would occur outside that boundary as defined in i
6 i the FSAR, could impact the soils that were within the 7 envelope.
8 i So at the meeting Consumers had proposed a 9
l second boundary that they intended would have OC coverage 10 but would be beyond the realm of enforceability from the i
11 NRC. And at that meeting we informed Consumers Power, and 12 this was -- well, the spokeman was the NRR personnel, but 8
13 we inforced Consumera Power that we didn't agree with that 14 .
program and that the boundaries would be established at 15 that second envelope, if I remember right, and maybe even 16 ,
beyond that envelope. Without the mark-up blueprints and 17 stuf f I'm not sure where the boundarien had ended up 18 residing at.
19 '
However, it was to expand the limits that 20 j were established in the PSAR and require work in those 21 areas and those type functions were to be covered with a 22 quality control, quality assurance umbrella.
i 1 23 0 when you' re ref erring to the boundaries you' re ref erring 24 to what would be covered --
l
' i labyrtre Italing I # '"
Mw %rthur e e llu ,
%rr nn 9 6 2 l i s' b ,% , zu IMmt, \ldis u 20.% l'amunarm H,th. \lAien M18 i
1 iA Both physical boundaries and it could all -- if I remember 2 j right, it also covered some work activity limitations as 3
I 3 well as -- like some of the instrumentation that was I
4 I proposed would not be necessary for the safe shutdown of a-l 5 l reactor but we wanted that covered under a quality i
6 envelope because the inf ormation that instrumentation i
7 I would supply would be essential to ensuring that damage 8 had not happened to the structures while the underpinning I
9 work was in progress.
10 i So, there were several items and there was a 11 l 1etter that was written by Darl Hood, and I'm not sure 12 what the date was, but it made reference to that meeting 13 and like the last page of that letter, well, in that 14 letter it specified certain requirements, delineated i
15 l certain requirements that the NRC had expected would be 16 l covered under the O envelope.
17 Did representatives f rom Consumers Power or Bechtel l0 18 i mislead you in any way at the March 10th meeting regarding 19 what materials should be 0 and non 07 20 RR. DRIKER: ,0bjection to the question as 21 leading.
22 BY MS. RICE: l 23 0 Let me back up for a second. About halfway through your 24 paragraph, item number two, you state 'that there were 220 f.afhyrtre ILsidag Mon %rthestern llu s 462-) iib .% ae l31
.%ar hm lk1rmt, \lAgen 4'L:.'n farmngtse lid!r \lAgn 1%1k
\
l 1 l strong indicetions that the licensee had misled the HRC in
}
2 telating that the work was essentially complete when 3 indeed it was not." What work were you referring to?
l 4 'A I believe that made ref erence to the installation of some 5 ! of the instrumentation.
6 :0 And in what way did the licensee mislead you with regard 7 l to instrumentation?
8 lA Could I have a conference with counsel here?
I 9 0 sure.
10 (A brief discussion was held 11 . of f the record.)
12 A Bear in mind when you go to a meeting such as that there
! t 13 ,
are representatives of the licensee that was there and we '
- t. :
14 treat thu Bechtel people or whatever people that the 15 ! licensee brings with them as if they were licensee 16 ; personnel. At that meeting when the topic of 0 coverage i 17 over the instrumentation was brought up there was the 16 indications that they would have to stop the work and tear l !
19 out all the work that had been installed because it had !
20 not been installed under a,0 envelope.
21 When we had gotten to the site we found that 22 the instrumentation really had not been very much
, 23 installed and there wasn't a live investigation into this
! 24 statenent. I just don't -- I don't know whether they ever I !
- 1 I
$A (1) efit [h rldsng % $U % rth> n et llu s
- s,,, ,, w an
- 11.s u :.6 tur m r. \ta nsaan W .% Farmeu listh, siahw no!>.
1 .
completed the investigation or what the outcome of the 2 l investigation was. I know it received emphasis f:om the 3 NRC because of the f act that we felt that we had been 4 essentially misled on an issue that we were nr. king 5 judgments on during March the loth and we didn't find the I
6 conditions at the site compatible with the words of the 7 meeting.
8 l There was also some other -- well, there was 9 a conferance call also that went with this which also 10 i stimulated the investigation into this and I just -- right 11 '
now I do not know, like I said, whether the investigation 12 ; was ever completed or what the results of the 13 l investigation were. I'm a blank on that one.
'- l 14 l0 Did you personally believe that you were misled?
15 A Yes, I did.
j 16 Onto the next page, item three, the first sentence of item l0 l
17 l three states, "Historically, one of the NRC questions has i !
i la i
been 'Who was running the jnb - Bechtel or consumers?".
19 What did you mean by this question, who was running the 20 job, Bechtel or Consumers?,
i 21 A Well, let me read on here again because it nelps to 22 refresh what the attitude was. Okay. Oftentimes the 23 basis for that statement was -- well, that was a question 24 that went on as to who was running the job. Consumers has 222 i 1 4 ,yer, u ta, e
- W* " m" \ < <t h """" II" >
1 ,g ,,, a n 9 6 2 117 e 3 w .vo twemt. Vakiess 4C.% f* "*'"* II'llk U" h * * "'
- 1 l
the license and Bechtel should be working for Consumers 2 but there were times that the inspectors felt that Bechtel l
3 was dictating to Consumers as to how Consumers should run 4 their business and I think I recite a couple of things in 5 that naragraph that were immediate happenings that had 6 gave us this impression that Consumers was not able to 7 dictate to Bechtel how they would perf orm to keep the B l licen se, u ':n was owned by Consumers, out of jeopardy.
9 (0 l
Whose re '.r..isibility was it to run the job?
I 10 A We hold the utility responsible. It's the utility that 11 has the license.
12 0 Let me refer you onto item num. four in your memorandum 13 and item number five. In item number four yvu state, t.
14 , "Deficiencies in materials storage conditions has 15 continually been a concern to the NRC and has resulted in 16 items of noncompliance. To the inspectors, the ability to 17 maintain quality storage is indicative of how rigorous or 18 how slipshod the constructor'n attitudo is toward 19 construction.'
20 In number flye you state, "At periodic 21 intervals, the support of cables, particularly in the 22 control room area, which are avaiting further routing i 23 termination, has met with disapproval of the NRC 24 inspector s. These discrSpancies also include cables
! )
- " " ' " ' smo %th n e II, >
Id.yv kline sa, a, vs2. tics s.s, :.m In ~ r. % h,sa< M:.% leserts H.tts WAw m x i
l 1 without covered ends being on the floor in walk areas that' l
I 2 ( are in a partially installed status. This is also another l
3 indicator of slipshod workmanship which has been brought l 4 to the constructor's attention at various times, but was 5 last noted during a recent inspection. " Did you believe 6 i that the work at the Midland Plant was slipshod?
7 A That's kind of an all-encompassing question. I'm saying 8 that these are l'ndications of slipshod work. In other 9 i words, if an inspector wants to find out how good a 10 licensee is building a plant, one of the best places for 4
11 him to go is to go to the lay-down area. . If he finds the 12 i lay-down area, that it's a neat, tidy, right type of i
13 ! storage, items are segregated, so forth and so on, then 14 l usually he will find that things in the rest of the plant 15 are probably naintained in the same type of rigor. It 16 doesn't necessarily have to be that way. I'm almost 17 afraid to give you that information. Byerybody would 18 clean up the lay-down areas and forget the rest of the 19 plant, but that's one of the things that inspectors are 20 aware of. ,
21 With regard to the coiling of wires, storage-22 of wires, this type of thing, then this -- these are very 23 vital cables to the plant and that's also, housekeeping 24 practices is what that would come under, also indicative i i
u 224 Luzad Reporting Sertice y ,o y ,,g ,,,,,,, 77, f afaytte Buildung gu,,, $w 962.1176 Suite 2 u Detroit. \lichigan M226 Farmington Ildh. \luchigan 18n18
1 of what you might find in the rest of the plant. As far 2 as addressing the topic of slipshod workmanship, we did an 3 inspection of the Diesel Generator Building and we found 4 that things were not installed in a manner to which they 5 should have been and we were also aware that other areas 6 of the plant that had the same type of discrepancies were 7 pointed out during the Diesel Generator Building 8 inspection, and that was part of the basis for the CCP 9 program, the get-well program, was to go in and do an 10 inspection and find cut how really good or bad the plant 11 was.
12 !O How prevalent was slipshod workmanchip at the Midland 13 l Plant?
14 lA I don't think I can answer that without a yardstick.
15 0 What do you mean without a yardstick?
16 A Well, you just said how prevalant. I have nothing to 17 compare it to.
- 18 0 All right. In item number seven on the next page --
l 19 A Bear in mind this memo was written because my boss wanted 4 20 to know what the inspectors f elt abnut Midland.
21 0 And this memorandum reflects what you f elt about Midland?
22 A And the other inspector s. We were in agreement with the 1
23 memo.
24 0 Item number seven, the last sentonco, "The NRC inspector s >
1 I !
t ,1 u:od p ning Smiu 5 lapyrtte Hwidene 3,,,u ,,kkrsfefnIh>
kute Mo 962 1176 swi, gfa, Iktratt. \behigan m226 Farrnington Ihll< 11ichngan mot 8
1 l treat this as indicative that slipshod workmanship is i
I 2 tolerated in the hopes that Oc will find the mistakes."
3 Did you believe that slipshod workmanship was tolerated at 4 the Midland Plant?
5 A Let me read all of seven. Yes, we believe that areas of i
6 l slipshod workmanship -- this has to do with concrete work --
7 i that slipshod workmanship did exist, as it states, in the 8 hopes that Oc will find it. In other words, we felt that 9 the successful building of a plant started at the 10 craftsmen level. If the errftsmen and foremen did not do 11 quality work in all aspects of their work, then you' re 12 relying heavily on OC to find the mistakes when the l
13 ! mistakes should have never been there in the first place.
14 i And in subsequent inspections from this we were able to indicate that indeed there were many instances where the 15 i
16 work f orce had not done quality work and it was strictly 17 up to OC to find the mistakes and OC didn't find the l
18 mistakes.
l l 19 10 i
Did you believe that Consumers Power should not rely on OC.
l 20 to find the mistakes? ,
21 A Yes, I did believe that and I do believe that. The QC is 22 not for the sole function of finding mistakes. OC is for l 23 the finding -- function of finding mistakes should they 24 exist. The ideal thing is f or QC to inspect the item and i
226
. nod Reporting Sertice 30Hto %rthurstern llo y lath i sig,yette en kidine 962 1176 % ite 2Jo Detroit. \fichipn 1A226 Farrnmpton fisils, \tuhigan 18nik
1 find nothing wrong with it.
2 O Turning to the next page, item number eleven, you state 3 that, "The licensee of tentimes does not demonstrate a 4 ' heads up' approach to their activities. The following 5 are examples of the licensee operating in an environment 6 using tunnel vision ' blinders'." What do you mean by 7 heads up approach?
8 A Well, the heads up approach is where you're cognizant of 9 the world around you, that you're not so narrow in your 10 ef forts that if you' re going out to, say, and I don't know 11 ;
what examples I used here, going out to inspect the i
12 termination of a wire, to go out and look at the i
13 termination of the wire ,ind not be aware the rest of the i
14 wire has been damaged, that would be what we call a heads 15 up approach. That the individual looking at the 16 l termination, that if he also saw decage done to the wire 17 he would say wait a second, I'm out hele to look at the 4
18 termination but I have problems with the wire also. Let l
I 19 me see what examples I may have used at this time. Okay.
20 0 In using tunnel vision - blinders, do you mean the same 21 thing when you're talking about heads up approach?
22 A Yes. Well, the heads up approach, it's jargon for
(
23 indicating that a person is very aware of his surroundings 24 and say his expertise may be in piping but he sees
! l lofayette (Lildmg Luod Reporting Sertice ,,o ,,g ,,22,,l,,
Suute Mo 962 1176 suate 22o ih timt, \fuchigan 48226 Farmington linfl<. \fichigan 18nlH
1 l something in the concrcte work activity that he knows is 1
2 not right, then he should take appropriate action to ,
3 rectify the other areas that even though he may not be a 4 concrete specialist but is aware that the transformers 5 wero leaking or something such as this, which would not 6 necessarily be compatible to pouring of good concrete, 7 that he should be cognizant of this.
8 , As far as the blinders topic, that's wnere I 9 just described where an individual goes out to do an 10 assigned task and is completely oblivious as to what 4
11 surrounds him. In other words, he goes to check a 12 termination and only looks at the termination and does not i
13 consider how well the anel is installed or anything else.
(
14 Not that he would be the Oc inspector, but if there would 15 be a discrepancy in that we felt he ought to be abin to 16 note some of those discrepancies.
17 0 And did you believe that this approach,' failure to have a 18 heads up approach or tunnel vision approach, adversely 19 impacted the the construction of the Midland Plant?
l 20 A Yes. .
I 21 0 Why was that?
22 A Well, building a nuclear plant is so.tewhat a complicated t
23 machine and it takes all the talents tnat man can muster 24 to put the pieces in place. Now, granted, if nobody ever i
228 Lnod Reporting Settice , , y lafayette Buddnng kite MO 962 1176 Swi, 23;
\ Farmmaton lidh, %chigan Viol 8 Iktemt. \lichigan 48226 l - ._. - ~ _ . _ _ , _ _ _ _ .___ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ . _ , _ _ _ _ . _
1 makes a mistake then the need for a heads up attitude or 2 removal of the blinders is not necessary, but rarely does 3 that ever happen because you' re dealing with four thousand 4 people trying to put together a large project that takes 5 many years to assemble and if people are narrowminded, 6 why, then this means that things that could be in jeopardy-7 to the plant later on are not noted and not taken care of.
8 Th'is has been part of the success of the 9 Navy nuclear program, is that the sailors go aboard ship 10 with this heads up attitude and they have to take to sea 11 and they don't worry about being narrow.. They worry about 12 I what is the overall condition of the ship.
13 fQ Turning to the seventh page of your memorandum, item 14 ! number 15, in which you state, "During the limited 15 remedial soils work which has transpired, the licensee has 16 managed to penetrate 0-electrical duct banks, a condensier 17 header drain line, an abandoned sewer rine, a non-0 18 electrical duct bank and a 72 inch circulating water line.'
i 19 !
All of these occurrences have happened because of a lack 20 ,
of control and attention to detail." Was this lack of 21 control and attention to details by Consumers Power 22 evidence that consumers Power was not adequately managing 23 the remedial soils work?
24 MR. DRIKER: Objection to the question as 1.wd Reporting Senice 9 Infayette Hudding ,,
Sua, rm 962.IJi6 Suite 22o Iktroa. \lahigan #226 Farmington Udis, Stichiean molH
1 leading.
2 THE WITNESS: Do I answer?
3 MR. BERKOVITZ: You can answer.
4 A What was the question again? i 5
BY MS. RICE:
6 Let me rephrase it. Did you believe at the time that you l0 7 wrote this memorandum that Consumers Power evidenced a 8 lack of control and attention to details in the remedial 9 soils work?
10 lA Yes.
I 11 jo Did you believe that that lack of control and attention to l
12 l details was evidence of Consumers Pcwer's poor management 13 of the remedial soils work?
14 'A Well, it was evidence of somebody's poor management.
i 15 Okay. Now, again, we' re reverting back to Consumers hac l
16 the full responsibilities for the activities on their site i 17 but they were getting, figuratively speaking, a lot of 18 help f rom Bechtel and these events that are described here 19 should not have happened.
l 20 But the location where some of the items are l
21 located is clearly defined on the blueprints.
If the 22 blueprinto had been reviewed to a great enough detail i
23 in-depth to indicate where the placement of the borings 24 should not have been, and also on one of these the person !
l t 230 I4fayette ikiden M10 %thuestern lluy Suite Mn 902'III6 Su'!' 23' Detroit, \fechigan 18226 Farmiyt<ut flills. \lichican Mnik
1 running the boring rig had stated to the -- I think it was 2 a Bechtel person that was supervising the drilling -- that 3 he was hitting something. Now to a person that has 1 4 drilled thousands of holes in his life and he says he's 5 hitting something and you don't at least question it, ;
6 well, it isn't one of the best ways in the world to go.
7 Usually these old-time drillers know when 8 they are hitting something and they may or may not be 9 hitting something but it should have baited the question 10 to let's go see if there's something underneath there a
f 11 instead of keeping the rig going until it finally drove 12 through the drain head for the condenser.
13 !O i
But you did believe these incidents in the remedial soils i.
14 work show the work was poorly managed?
15 MR. DRIKER: The items described in 16 paragraph 157 17 MS. RICE: Yes.
- l
! 18 A I couldn't say the whole plant was poorly managed on l
19 events that happened in the soils area. In other words, 20 these are things that are addressing only the soils. You 21 got to bear in mind there are many activities. As earlier 22 stated, it was like building three reactors, and to say 23 this would be a basis for saying that a whole project or 24 ! whole utility was mismanaged based on these indicators of i f
.n d Reporting Service 231 Isfayette Budding , ,
Suite rao 962.))76 Swge gp>
iktrout, \lichigan Mt2:f> Farmington Ildh. \hchigan violH
1 program, one can only wonder what would be disclosed under 2 a rigorous routine inspection and audit program." What did 3 you mean by purely reactive inspection ef fort?
4 A That was where an event would happen and we would go and 5 look at the event. You know, these are all, I guess all 6 of them anyway without studying the document, they're 7 primarily event-related aspects of our inspection effort.
8 Now, under a normal routine, as we call an 9 l inspection program, that would be where we would pull out i
10 l a given area and we would thoroughly look at all the 11 l attributes for putting in wire. We would look at all the 12 j attributes for the auditing of the OA. We might look at 13 all the attributes for controlling welding rod. We might 14 l look at many of the attributes of controlling the issuance 15 of materials.
j i
16 j We weren't doing that. We were responding 17 to things like holes in duct banks and*I think there may 18 have been some electrical things in here. We were 19 responding to these events that were happening, you know, 20 immediate action letters. ,These all took a lot of time, a 21 ,
lot of inspector time to follow up on these things, 22 misapplied grout, the lack of OA envelopes for people 23 doing drilling on site. As I said, the maay different 24 ,
topics that are contained in this document. I l t I.nfayene Buildone 3'tilu %rti.u r e n lion suite mo 962 1176 5,,a, 2p o lietnit. 11rchigan 18226 Farmington linth, t!!<higan utalk
____ -_-___ ____ ___m_
1 0 Did this reactive inspection program prevent you or the 2 other NRC inspectors f rom conducting the rigorous routine 3 inspection program?
4 A Yes, it did. l 5 0 And is that what you're ref erring to when you say that is 6 1 the most damning concept?
I 7 A Yes.
8 0 Why is it the most damning concept?
9 If you're kept busy responding to events that are lA 10 l happening on site, then you say if I am spending all my I
11 i time responding to just the events as they occur then it's 12 { telling me that there is something else underneath just l
13 i the events. So that's what's meant by the most damning
+
i.
14 l thing, was if we would ever be able to have the luxury of l
15 time and manpower to go in and do the more thorough, 16 in-depth reviews then we would anticipate that we would 17 find a lot of things wrong with it. In other words, these 18 other more basic programs are to prevent all these 19 reactive type things that were coming twofold and they 20 weren't working or didn't appear to be working.
l 21 0 Mr. Cook, did you believe that the indicators of 22 questionable licensee performance as set forth in the
(
23 memorandum NRC 16 indicated the Midland Plant was poorly 24 managed? l l
l 234 Luzod Ref>orHisg Smiu 3,g ,o s,,s ,,,,,,, f;, , _
Isfayette Building
- Su,,, ma 962 1176 Suite :b
[ktroit. thchigan 1822n Farmington littl<. \hchigan wiX
l l
1 Mr. Keppler had indicated, I think even in l 2 testimony, that if he had reason to believe that the plant 3 could not be successfully built that he would do such a 4 thing. As inapectors we knew that he had given us that 5 1ctitude, that if at any time we felt the conditions got
~6 more intolerable than what could be tolerated, if you 7 will, to give him a call, 8 0 Did you believe that the management of the Midland project 9 ,
could be trusted by itself without special NRC attention 10 to properly build the plant?
11 ,A No. In fact, I think I wrote a memo to that effect or it I
12 ! came out in a memo or words with Mr. Warnick or something l
13 : that that was one of the things that I felt that the NRC 14 j should do, is keep a heavy surveillance on the plant at 15 this point in history.
16 0 And why did you?
17 MR. DRIKER: What point tre you talk about?
18 lA 1902 and even some beyond that. I had made even testimony 19 to that effect during the ASLB hearings.
l l 20 &BY MS. RICE: .
I 21 0 What was the basis for your belief?
22 A The basis for the belief was that we kept finding things 23 that were wrong with the plant and so I felt that it 24 ,
required the NRC'o unbiased oversee to ensure that the j i !
I i
236 Imd Reporting Sertice y s.,,,g ,,,,,, y ,
lafayette Buildung Syg,, ny; 962 1176 kite :Jo Ik trm't. \hchigan 48226 Farmington Ihlh, %chigan 1801M
I 1 i plant was built according to those specifications that 2 would be ultimately relied upor. to protect the public 3 should an accident occur or to prevent an accident.
i 4 MS, RICE: I think this is a good time to 5 take a break.
6 f ( A brief recess was held during 7 the proceedings.)
8 lBY MS. RICE:
i 9 .0 Mr. Cook, I'.11 hand you a document that has been 1
10 l previously marked as NRC 37. I ask if you can identify 11 I that document?
12 This is a memo to Mr. Spessard, who is director of the lA 13 : Division of Project Resident Programs, from Ron Cook i.
14 ; through Wayne Shafer and through Bob Warnick. It's making i
l 15 ref erence to establishing a SALP III evaluation period. I 16 0 All right. And did Mr. Spessard request this memorandam?
I 17 A Let me look at it a minute. '
18 0 Sure, l
19 A I think this was written as a result that they posted a 20 SALP schedule that probably tranted the end point date, l 21 say, June the 30th of 1982, and I felt that we have just 22 finished the last -- SALP II, in fact, hadn't even really 23 finished it, and so it was a bit almost ludicrous to go 24 i ahead and put another SALP on top of the SALP we had just l
l I,u:od Reporting Sernice 231, lefa>rrie Ikildine sure n'a 962 1176 Suite 2)n Detroit. \1whigan 18226 Farmington Ihlis. \lahigan 18n18
1 ! got around to issuing to the licensee even though the i
2 dates of it were in an earlier time. So I don' t believe 3 Mr. Spessard actually asked for the meno. I think I took 4 it on that I was objecting to the schedule that had been i
5 published by Mr. Spessard and that this was an appeal to l
6 , let's be more prudent and change the schedule f rom the i
7 l ending date of June 30, 1982 until a later date, which I 8 l think at that time I was asking for December 31st, 1982.
i 9 jo Did you believe that as of August 1982 that Consumers 10 l Power would be rated the same in some areas, Category 3, 11 l as it had been in April in SALP II?
12 lA Thi s was August. Yes.
13 'O What was the basis for that opinion?
4 14 lA I probably -- you know, I state in the memo there was a I
15 l cursory review of the inspection and enforcement records I
16 and I remember looking at the tabulated data that we had 17 at the plant, which had already been looked at in 18 preparation for going into the April 1982 meeting as well 19 as the, I think it was the June 21st second meeting with 20 Cons ume r s. So we were very cognizant of what the record 21 was showing.
22 And so as I indicated here I looked at these I
(
23 records and said, hey, it looks like the conditions have 24 l not changed greatly from what we had issued in April of l
l 238 Luzod Reporting Service ,, ,,,,,, y lafayette Buddine
( SJjf, go 962 1176 Sun 1N
[ktroa, %higan 18221, Farmmgton lidh. Wheenn 18nlX
1 1982. Also bear in mind that I was having conversations 2 with the other inspectors as well, which would have 3 supplied an input to a SALP III. !
l 4 Q In August of 1982 after the formation of the office of 5 Special cases, did your section chief, Robert Warnick, 6 ask the Region III inspectors, including yourself, to 7 assess Midland and make recommendations as to what NRC 8 .
action should be taken?
9 IA Well, there was information to that effect, and I can't 10 remember who was asking who, but we did generate 11 l recommendations of things that should be done at the site I
12 i and one of the recommendations was to increase the staff, 13 ; if I remember right. I can picture the memo and I believe 14 ! it was Bob Warnick who wrote it or maybe we wrote it to 15 Bob Warnick. I think -- I want to say an August 8th memo. r 16 and I'm not sure it's the right date or not, but it was in i
17 August some time as I remember and theee was 18 recommendations that -- and I said I can't remember who l
i i 19 i wrote the memo to who or who asked for the memo, but I I
l l 20 know that I and the other inspectors had made an input to l
21 the writing of the memo.
22 O Let me show you two documents previously marked as NRC 19 l
23 and NRC 17 and ask you if those are the memorandums you'vel 24 been referring to?
Infayerre Buildme 1.utod Reporting Settice 230,,
Suure hm 962 1176 suite no Iktrorr,11ahigan 4R226 Farmmatun lidh, \lichigan mais
- m m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______
I 1 A Well, it seemed to me like there was more to the memo than 2 this. Well, this is an enclosure. Okay.
3 MR. DRIKER: You're saying NRC 19 is not the 4 complete document as you recall?
5 THE WITNESS: That's right, as I have it 6 pictured in my mind.
7 BY MS. RICE:
8 0 Let me show you a document that's previously been marked 9 i as NEC 20. I ask you to review that, i
10 A Well, the August 18th memo --
11 0 which is NRC 207 12 A NRC 20. I have a feeling there's another me=o somewhere.
13 You know, bear in mind I haven't looked at these records 14 i for cons of time.
i 15 10 NRC 18, let me show you that and see if that's one of the 16 packets that you' re ref erring to.
17 A Well, now, that's -- how about that, if has an August the 18 18th date on it. Well, I had the 8 right.
19 0 Referring back to NRC 20.
20 A Got 20. <
21 0 The second page of that document.
22 A Okay.
(
23 0 The third paragraph on that page refers to, "Although some 24 members of the Midland Section thought that stronger
! l Luzod Reporting Sers ice yo 9, , ,,
Lafyrtte fluilden suite Mo 962 1II6 suite 231 Iktroit. \fichigan M226 Farmingr<m Hills, 11ahican wl8
i 1 action should be taken, all member of the Section agreed 2 they could support an augmented NRC inspection ef fort 3 coupled with other actions to strengthen the licensee's 4 QC/0A organization and management. These recommended 5 actions are attached as Enclosure 4.* I ask you to take a 6 look at NRC 19, I believe it is in front of you, and I ask 7 you if that is, if you know, is the enclose referenced in l
i 8 l NRC 20?
4 9 A Yes, I'm pretty sure it is.
10 0 were you one of the inspectors who helped make these i -
11 ! recommendations as noted in NRC 19? .
12 lA 1
In NRC --
13 0 19.
14 jA I was one of the inspectors that was -- the Midland team 15 l was a very closely-knit team so I was one of the 16 inspectors involved in generating this information. I waa I
17 not the author of Enclosure 4. I think Wayne Shafer was l
18 ! the author of that; however, he had input f rom the members l
19 ! of the Midland site inspection team.
20 0 Did you agree with the recommendations as set forth in NRC 21 19?
22 A Probably. I may have agreed for more. -
23 ,O Could you take a look?
l 24 A Yes, I agree with these recommendations. At the time --
I' " " "# "5" Is_fayette Hailding 3mlo %rthur een lion kite mo 962 11'6 %i, .91
/>errm t, \lichigan IR22t> Formungton flash. \fichigan wil8
1 there was another sheet out, now that I read through this --
2 let me look a second here. I think we were asking for 3 five contract employees and if I remember right I had 4 reason to believe we needed more than five contract 5 employees. In other words, bearing in mind you' re 6 negotiating what you're willing to live with and --
7 MR. DRIKER: Negotiating with the NRC?
8 A Negotiating amongst ourselves. In other words, what do we 9 think would be crudent at the Midland site, and I remember 10 that in some of the a:eas, and I th. ink it was -- I just 11 j don't remember now because I don't have my working sheet, l
but that there were -- I wanted to have more than five
^
12 13 contractors because I wanted to double up in some of the 14 i disciplines because what the schedule was at the time, the 15 proposed schedule, the activity, I felt like one 16 mechanical contractor, if that was one of the areas, could 17 not cover the anticipated work load for the next, I think 18 we were talking six to 12 months or something such as 19 that.
20 BY MS. RICE: ,
21 0 When you' re talking about five contractors, you' re talking 22 about outside people to help the NRC under item number r
23 one, establish an augmented inspection effort by the NRCl 24 is that correct? j l
242
"# M l0 Y*'th u rstern llu y .
lafayette ikildsnt gg,, ma 962 1176 %ar 22o
/k trott. \fichigan 48226 Farmington ihlh. \hchigan Mnik
1 A Yes. In other words, these would be people that may come 2 from a national lab, we may go out to an organization that 3 supplies talented individuals, body shoppers, which is the 4 cliche that sometimes is used where we got the people 5
from. The idea was that we definitely wanted to have very 1
6 ! high quality people, and that was also one of the other 7 ; subtleties, that we just didn't want bodies, we wanted I
8 -
high quality bodies.
i 9 l0 Did you agree with item number two, that the NRC should i
10 !
"Require the licensee to have an independent third party i
11 ; look at the vertical slice of a safety-related system from 12 1 design through completion of construction"?
13 ,
A Yes.
14 What is meant by a vertical slice of a saf ety-related
{0 i
15 I system?
16 A well, let me see if I can explain that a little bit. It's 17 ! a technique of taking a sampling that would cover all 18 attributes of a safety-related system. This vertical 19 slice can be -- well, a safety-related system would 20 interf ace with many portions of a plant. One of the 21 characteristics that can be used is to say, well, let us 22 consider where does this system go as we look at it level 23 by level and that that will help us pull in for review 24 ,
those other things that would affect the safety-related I i i !
- 4 l kire tao 962 1176 suite 231 (ktrm t, \tahigan M2.% Farmington lidh. \tahigan wolk
__mm_____.__ ___ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,
l I
1 system.
2 Rather than looking at the entire 3 safety-related system from beginning to end and all of the 4 other subsystems that would impact upon it, is to go in 5 and take, if you will, a sampling that would cover many 6 : levels and would also include -- if it was a piping system.
l' 7 it might bring in portions of piping, portions of 8 electrical controls and power circuitry necessary to 9 control that system, portions of hangers and so forth. So 10 it's a means of describing a sampling technique.
I 11 !O And why was it necessary in your belief to have an
> 12 independent third party look at this vertical slice?
13 'A Well, because a third party, most of them, will give you a
- 1. !
14 l very unbiased opinion as to what the conditions are and we 15 were looking for that. In other words, if you bring in a 16 third party they have no f avoritism either with the 17 architect-engineer or with the utility.' Their favoritism 18 is strictly to call it the way they see it. They would i 19 attempt more than likely to be very honest and forthright 20 because they don' t want to, receive a stigma for tainting 21 their findings. So that's the reason for bringing in a l 22 third party, which in some respects that's what'the NRC 23 inspectors do. We're supposedly very unbiased people. By l
24 bringing in another agency to do this limited chore, if 244 Luzod Reporting Sersice y ,n y,g ,,,,,, y,,
Isfayette Ruildung Suore Mo 962 1Ii6 Sune 2.m l Ih trorr, \lahigan 182:6 Farmington lisih. \lwhite IRNH I
1 you will, they would act like an arm of the NRC. And the 2 reason we wanted to look at design and many other things 3 is that there were several 50.55e reports and other type 4 of indicators that allowed us to believe that we had to ga 5 in and have that review done from, if you will, from 6 conception to installation.
l 7 :O Did the NRC evet make this recommendation to have an 8 independent third party look at the vertical slice 9
i safet;y-related system to Consumers Power?
10 !A I believe we did. In fact, that was part of the -- boy, 11 that was part of the program for the CCP program that i
12 later on was instituted or required or whatever you want i
13 to call it. There may have been other times that we may 14 , have required it too. I just don't remember anymore.
15 _0 11ac there an augmented inspection ef fort ever instituted l
16 as referenced in item number one?
17 ,A Let me do some mental gyration here as to the timing. It 18 was not established as we had originally intended it would 19 be established.
20 0 Is that your answer?
21 A Yeah.
22 Q Looking on to item number six --
(
23 A Okay.
24 '
O tihere it proposed "Mr. Keppler and 11r. Denton meet with I
E 'U"' "
Infa>rtre Huulding 3mlo %rthom een lluy.
%re rao 962 11I6 kre ;;,o (kirmt, \lahrgan -m:26 Farminerun listis, \taharan moln
1 l Consumers Power Company and Bechtel top management to 2 ensure steps are taken to correct the following: A, the 3 site QA superintendent is not being given the latitude and 4 senior management support needed to perform his job 5 effectively; B, senior management is not being made aware l
i 6 of or is not dealing with QA problems; C, we are convinced l
7 ! that Bechtel has cost and scheduling as their foremost 8 consideration. Quality is taking a back seat with 9 management." Mr. Cook, did you agree that Bechtel had 10 j cost and scheduling as their foremost consideration and i
11 that quality was taking a back seat with management?
l 12 A I'll say yes, but I'm not sure why I had that attitude at 13 the time without again reviewing -- bear in mind there was l
14 ; a lot of information that was at our fingertips at the 15 time.
i 16 0 Do you still believe that Bechtel had cost and scheduling 17 as their foremost consideration and quality took a back 18 seat with management?
19 MR. DRIKER: Doce he believe that's 20 Bechtel's attitude an of today or does he believe it was 21 Bechtel's attitude in August of 19027 22 MS. RICE: The latter.
23 A Now what was the question?
24 BY MS. RICE:
l 24G Luzod Reporting Sertice m o y,,s ,,,,,, y,, ,
IAfnyette RusIdung
,gwp, ngo 962 1176 .%wre 2.'n (Wtrott. \bchigan 4R226 Farnungrun iblis, \taharan 180l8
1 0 Do you believe today that Bechtel as of August of 1982 had 2 cost and scheduling as their foremost consideration and 3 quality took a back seat with management?
4 A Yes, I do.
5 0 What is the basis for your current belief?
i 6 My current belief hasn't changed a whole lot since then.
lA 7 We had gone in and done other inspection efforts and we 1
8 ! found that indaed there were things that had been done to i
1 9 , the Diesel Generator Building and other parts of the plant i
10 l that vould have been motivated by cost and scheduling i l 11 considerations and a bit of a disregard for quality 12 ramifications.
13 0 Did you say you found examples of this in the Diesel 4
14 Generator Building inspection?
I 15 Yeah. There was as a result -- well, I was going to say lA 16 I as a result of the diesel generator inspection but that 17 l wasn't the only thing that led up to it. The attitudes i
18 l accumulated into a Diesel Generator Building inspection i
19 l and then the results of that inspection effort indicated i
20 there were problems on the, site and then from that we went t
21 into the discussions that developed the proposed CCP 22 program.
23 0 You just ref erred to events that led up to the Diesel 24 Generator Building inspection. What events are you lx(vrtie Hwidme I' W "#' ""
nio %rthe een llu >
sa;ar rao 962 1176 M ar 2 o intrat. \ldiron m:2r> Farminetun lidin. \ldican Wl8
- . _ _ _ _ . _ . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ __
=~--~n==-- __ _ - -
1 ! referring to?
2 A The fact that there had been a Category 3 in a SALP 3 meeting which was based upon regulatory performance, then 4 we h&d had the go-around with the rebuttals associated 5 with that SALP, then we had tabulated, which is in that 6 one memo of mine, some of the things that had happened in 7 j the prior six months or whatever that did not paint a good 8 picture for the licensee, then we had the topic of QC l
t 9 inspectors not being qualified that ended up ir. a public 10 '
meeting. I believe that was in September of 1982.
11 Then from that, why, the NRC felt that we l
l 12 l had to make a determination of the conditions of the plant 13 and that ended up us going into the Diesel Generator 14 i Building and then we were prepared to go into other areas 15 of the plant but the licensee had been in those areas and 16 agreed with the findings we had out of the Diesel 17 Generator Building. So as a net resule we didn't pursue 18 going into other areas with that type of depth of 19 inspection.
20 0 You just ref erred to QC inspectors, problems with l
21 qualification of QC inspectorsi is that correct?
i 22 A Yes, l (
23 Q Let me show you a document that has been previously marked 24 as NRC 50. I ask you if you can identify NRC 50?
l l 248 Luzod Reporting Sertice a g ,,,,,, if, lxfayette Rwidmz l Sw,, wo 962 1176 Swirl20 (ktrost, \fk hugen L'l:26 Farmmstm linlin. Whigan 18018
1 A Well, this letter is a letter from Mr. Keppler to 2 Consumers Power dated September 24th,1982, and we would 3 have called it either a confirmatory action letter or 4 immediate action letter and I'm not sure of term we used.
5 They' re basically the same, same type of a document, where i
6 we acknowledge steps that the licensee will take to l
7 rectify a situation that exists on site. This has to do 8 with work in the' soils area and the qualifications of the 9 QC inspectors associated with the soils work.
J 10 i0 Let me direct your attention to the top of the first page 11 and the bottom of first page where it says confirmatory l
12 action letter.'
13 A How about that, confirmatory action letter.
14 0 It's a confirmatory action letter versus immediate action 15 letter?
16 ;A Yes.
l 17 0 What exactly is the purpose of a confirmatory action 18 letter?
19 A When you have a regulatory situation arise we do have 20 conversations with the licensee and during these i
21 conversations we may insist upon the licensee taking 22 certain actions or he may even volunteer to take certain l actions during the course of these discussions and 23 24 ,
hopef ully they' re prudent type actions and we write a I
l f.ts:od Reporting Sert ice ,f, Isfayene Hauldme Nlar Mn 962 1176 kar23o l
Iktm!. \tahigan M226 Formuyton Hdh, \tahtsan Mnlk
1 l document, you know,= telling him that we acknowledge these l
2 i agreements that have been made to take steps to rectify 3 the given situation that had been previously discunscd 4 with the NRC. It's, if you will, a legal document. He is 5 . obligated to live with the conditions of the letter.
I 6 'O And they're issued in the course of official NRC duties 7 ! with regard to the licensee?
8 :A The NRC issues them, yes, in the course of our doing 9
{ business but we don't issue them all the time. It depends 10 on the situations. It's not. an everyday document. ,
11 ;Q The letter refers to remedial soils OC requalification.
i 12 Ic that the same QC requalification that you were 13 discussing as one of the events leading up to the DGB 1
I 14 inspection?
15 lA Yes, ma'am.
l 16 'O Exactly what in the subject of this confirmatory action 17 letter, NRC 50?
- i 18 MR. DRIKER: Doesn't the letter say?
19 A Well, we address it as regarding problems in the remedial 20 soils QC requalification program identified by Messrs.
21 Gardener and Landsman.
BY MS. RICE:
22 1
23 0 Had a stop-work order been issued on remedial soils?
24 A Oh, boy. I don't recall whether there was or was not. We,
' 5" 3tetIn %rs%r i e llu >
14(ayerre ikidung Suite mo 962 1176 swir.On (Wtrmt, \fuchienn UC.% Farminewn list ls. \tahauun 58o1H
4 2
1 had looked at the qualifications of QC inspectors 2 associated with the soils work and we were not happy with 3 their depth of understanding or their performance, if you 4 will, or their ability to perf orm, and right now sitting 5 here I can't recall what all the discrepancies ware. So
, 6 as a net result Consumers was going to go into a training, 7 l refamilisrization, requalification if you will, of these 8 inspectors.
i 9 Consumers notified the NRC that they had 10 their program polished enough that they felt it coul6 11 l withstand the scrutiny of the NRC. The NRC went over and 12 inspected the program, watched them requalify, examine OC f
13 inspectors and the discrepancies were such that we could 14 i not condone the activities of -- that were going on to 15 requalify these QC inspectors. So based on that we f elt I
16 there was a need to do something different and that was 17 the basis for the confirmatory action better.
18 0 And did that reflect a stop-work iri remedial soils?
19 A It would stop work because they couldn't do anything 20 without the inspectors belpg qualified. Now there was 21 j some latitude given. In other words -- let's see. The 22 freezewall was one of the things I think we let them work 23 on, and well pumping. In other words, we felt there were 24 certain activities that even though they may not have OC
)
1 Luzod Reporting Sern ice ,,ug ,k,,},fn ,,n ,
Infyrtte Ikidant kerr Mo 962 il ?b here 220 IWiroet, \lichiean 182.% Farmsngton floth, \lorksgen walk
- _ _ m__ _ _ _ - - _ _ m _____ _ _. __
' i 1 i people qualified that you didn't dare -- you would put the 3 plant in more jeopardy by stopping the activity, and one 3 would be pumping the water f rom the site and maintaining 4 the f reezewall. But basically what it would do is prevent 5 I the licensee from forging ahead and doing more work 6 without the qualified OC inspectors. ,
7 l0 Did you consider expanding the stop-work to the balance of 8 l the plant in September of 1982?
9 ;A During the whole month of September 19827 10 !O At some point in september of 1982.
I 11 lA Okay. We had a meeting, a public meeting to discuss I 12 i guess this letter and the things that went on.
i 13 O And you're referring to NRC 50 in front of you?
'- l 14 !A Yes, ma'am. And during that meeting the NRC caucussed, l
15 i which we oftentimes do. During that caucus there was 16 i discussion whether we should stop all site work.
i t
17 I O Have you completed your answer?
- 18 A Yes.
19 0 It extended beyond soils works is that correct?
20 A That's correct. ,
l l
21 0 And was the caucun limited to just the NRC?
22 A Yes.
23 0 It was private?
24 A It was a privato caucus.
l Luzod Reporting Sers ice , , , , ,, ,,, , ,
14fayette ikidung hate MO 962.))?6 %,1, ;},
Ikttcut, \fwheran 91226 Farnunct<m linflu \tahigan wik
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ 1 1 Q What was the decision of this caucus?
2 A The decision of the caucus was to allow Consumers to 3 retain their construction permit and what we would do is 4 we would pick out a given selected area of the plant and 5
that we would do a ve.y thorough examination of that 6 ! portion of the plant.
7 Q And what portion of the plant did you select?
8 lA At that time we did not select any portion. That didn't i
9 come until the following night or that night or whatever.
10 j0 And what portion did you select the following night?
11 A The Diesel Generator Building.
12 0 And did you in fact inspect the Diesel Generator Building?
13 .
A The team inspected the Diesel Generator Building.
14 !O And is that the same Dienci Generator Building inspection 15 ! you've been referring to throughout your testimony?
16 ,A Let me clarify that throughout because we've had different i
17 l inspections of the Diesel Generator Dui+1 ding. That was l
I 18 , the inspection that was a predecessor to the CCP.
I 1
19 0 Why did you select the Diesel Generator Building?
20 A Okay. This is very terrible. You're finding out how NRC 21 inspectors' minds work. I was the one that selected the 22 Diesel Generator Building because of familiarity with the i 23 site. Of course, that was with agreement of the other 24 people. The reason for picking on the Diesel Generator i
latberte %%ne I'utcd R 'Po!!it'E S'!'it' ye w u,,g ,, ,,,, if,g
% te tsy) 462 I E I6 kute 2:n (ktrout. \lichaean M22r> Farmmeron listl<, \fwhuran Mnin
. ~ _ - _ - __ _ _ _ - - . - - - - _ _ _ _ . - .
I 1 Building was that all the work that h2d gone on in the 2
l Diesel Generator Building was what we would consider as 3 new work.
4 In 1980, and I'm not sure exactly when, the 5 building had been filled with basically 20 fnet of sand 6 and so then the sand was removed and I think that that was 7 1 completed, well, maybe near the end of 1980 or early 1981.
8 So all the work of the piping systems and the mounting of 9 j the motors and installation of electrical 0quipment and 10 l such ac that would have happened within basically the last 11 i two years.
i 12 And we f elt that, or I f elt, that that would 13 be indicative of the new management. There had been a 14 l management change say early on in 1981 or late 1980 or 15 along in that time period. So it would indicate how 16 '
effective that change in management may have been. In I
17 l other words, the thought was if we went into the Diesel 18 Generator Building and we found that everything that had 19 been installed that was categorized as new work, in other l
20 words, work probably not older than two years old, that if i
I 21 everything was installed for the most part as it should be f' 22 installed then that would say that the management was
(
23 working well.
24 Now, it would not necessarily speak for the l
254 1.us d iteporting Sertice 1.afayette Busidmg 3mm %einwtern Iba Syg, sw 962 1176 Suite :.no Iktroit. \behigan M 26 Farmington Ihlh. \hchaean wik
1 condition of the rest of the plant but at least we would 2 know that what had happened in the lattcr years was 3 effective. If we fcund things not building according to 4 the requirements, built according to the requirements in 5 , the Diesel Generator Building, then it would be indicative 6 , that the management was not being effective, at least for 7 f the later equipment installed in the Diesel Generator 8 Building, and th'at we would have good reason to believe 9 that there were problems in the rest of the plant.
10 0 And in the inspection did you determine whether the 11 materials had been installed in accordance with design?
12 iA We were able to determine that we had a large number of l 13 significant items of noncompliance and in f act we did --
14 we did two inspcctions of the building. It's all l ;
l 15 contained in one inspection report. We met as a group, l
16 l compared the discrepancies. We had went back into the l
17 i building, did some more inspection worle, reconfirmed the l
18 i findings we had.
I 19 0 What do you mean by a large number of significant items of 20 noncompliance? ,
l 21 A Without looking at the report and counting up the numbers 22 of noncompliances it was enough of noncompliances to us, 23 significant enough, meaning to indicate to us there was l 24 concerne in the Diesel Generator Building we were able tog b
f.uzod Reporting Sernice ,,kuf,fn,,n lofyrtir Iktdine 3,w
% erao' 962 11Ib % re b o Ikerar. \fhhigan PC.% Farmington flills, \fichaean SMnIM
1 sort out. We weren't just dealing with an isolated event 2 or anything such as that.
3 Q Let me show you two documents previously marked as NRC 22 4 and NRC 26. I ask you if you can identify these 5 .
documents?
6 NRC 22 is a letter dated February the 8th,1983 to lA 7 Consumers Power Company from Jim Keppler and it ref ers to 8 & special inspection that was covered, well, from October 9 the 12th,1982 through November 25th,1982, and then more 10 on January 19 .ind 21,1983. 'Ihe results of the inspection 11 ! were were discussed during our enforcement conference held 12 i in the Region III office on January 18, 1983. ,
1.
13 l0 i
Is this the Diesel Generator Building inspection you've 14 '
just been referring to?
15 A This is the Diesel Generator Building inspection, or the 16 report of that inspection. :
17 0 What report number does this document bear? l 18 A 82 - 22. I don't think you'd ever forget that number.
19 0 Is OSC, is that the offico of special cases?
20 A Yes, ma'am. ,
21 0 And can you identify NRC 26?
22 A This is a letter -- I just noticed the tw the same !
l !
23 date -- letter dated February 8th,1983. It's to 24 Consumers Power fron Mr. Keppler and I believe this is a lafayette Ratiding 3mIO %rthur t r lin< y l Suute MO 962 IIIb .%ustr 23 IWtrat, \tahican ,82 n Farminston listh. \lakiran 18o1k
i 1 j notice of violation f rom the Of fice of special cases 2 referring to the same inspection that occurred then the 3 dates I've just given you for that inspection report 8222.
4 Q So let me make this clear. NRC 22 is the actual 5 inspection report for the Diesel Generator Building 6
l inspection and NRC 26 in the notice of violation resulting 7 ! from that inspectioni is that correct?
8 A Yes, and the notice of violation also has a proposed civil 9 l penalty associated with it.
10 l0 What was the proposed civil penalty resulting from the 11 Diesel Generator Building inspection?
12 A one hundred and 20 thousand dollars.
13 0 And was that proposed civil penalty in f act imposed 14 against Consumers Power?
15 Well, there was -- it seems to me there was some lA i
16 l adjustment made to it and I just don't recall -- the 17 licensee has an opportunity to contest items of 18 noncompliance and dollar values and such and if I remember 19 i right I think there was an adjustment made to that, but 20 I'm not sure what order of, magnitude.
21 O But a civil penalty was imposed?
22 A A civil penalty was imposed.
(
23 Q Referring to NRC 26, the notice of violation, second 24 ,
paragraph in the letter states, "The inspection was IAthyrrre ikidung 30H m %rthuese n lion har Mo 962 11Ib % te 2.M Ik trmt, \lahigae W26 Farmmston lisih. \lahrgan wik
i 1 primarily a physical inspection of installed equipment to 2 verify conformance to approved drawings and i
3 specifications. The results of inspection indicate a 4 breakdown in implementation of your quality assurance 5 program as evidenced by numerous examples of noncompliance ;
6 ; with nine of the eighteen different criteria as set forth I 7 ! 10 CFR 50, Appendix B." Do you agree that the Diesel I
8 ! Generator Building inspection revealed a breakdown in i
9 i Consumers quality assurance program?
l 10 A Yes, I did.
11 0 What was the basis of your belief ?
12 lA When you go into a small, a limited area of the plant that 13 is new construction, new being within the last couple of
- e. ,
14 l years, and find items of noncompliance against nine of the i
) 15 l 18 criteria, that would normally be considered as an 16 indicator of breakdown in quality assurance plus the [
l 17 I numbers and significance of the items.* That was a l 18 physical inspection and the NRC inspectors deliberately j 19 attempted to avoid trivia. So as a net result there was 20 credence to the items of noncompliance.
21 0 By physical inspection you mean actually going into the 22 Diesel Generator Building and looking at installed
(
23 equipment?
24 A Yes.
258 1.sazod Reporting Se r t ic e 3 ,,o y ,,g ,,,,,, pyg Lafayette Buddent
,gw,, go 962.Ii76 Suite 22n Detrout, \fwhigan 48226 Farmington Hdis, \lahigan SNUM
i 1 0 And what did you mean when you stated the NRC tried to 2 avoid trivia?
3 A Okay. Trivia might be that if you looked at, say, welding 4 joints and you saw that each weld has been marked by the 5 welder indicating he had welded it, which is required by 6 .
the requirements, and you found, say, one weld joint that i
7 ; had the same chsracteristic, texture, as the other weld i
8 ! joints and that particular one may not have been marked, 9 l you might consider that as being an isolated event. That i
10 meant the welder, he was proud of his work, was 11 ! identifying it and so forth but he happened to miss one 12 l little piece of weld. We might not even worry about 13 pursuing that as an item of concompliance. There were 14 subtle discrecpancies in procedures that were used. We I
15 were not looking f or that type of stuf f.
16 ;O You repeatedly ref er to we. Who was on thin team i
17 I inspection f rom the NRC?
18 A Okay. There was myself, Bruce Burgess, Ron Gardener, Ross 19 Landcman. Let's see. There was another one or two that 20 came in. Paul Barrett. Then Wayna Shafer was the section 21 chief.
22 0 Who is Paul Barrett? I haven't heard his name before.
t 23 A He was one of the inspectors out of the region of fice. He 1
24 worked a number of years with the NRC. He had spent a lot l.a_fayette Bwiding 3mm %rthur e n llu) kite MO 962'll?b Swtr 2.M o Iktra t. \fahigan 18226 Farmungr<m linth,11ahican 18n18
1 of time at the Zimmer Plant but also inspected other 2 plants and we, for this endeavorment that we were going to 3 embark on, we asked the r egion to give us what help we 4 could get. Bear in mind that the inspectors are spread a 5 bit thin anyway and so we were happy to take whoever -- we 6 were happy to get at least one additional and if we could 7 have got another additional we would have taken that too.
8 0 I take it he was on special assignment and not normally 9 assigned to the Midland section?
10 A Right, he was on special assignment for this endeavor.
t 11 0 Mr. Cook, what is an IPIN?
12 lA Oh, boy. In Process Inspection Notice. It's a document 13 '
dealing with -- I think I've got the right name of it.
L i 14 l Anyway, it's one of the documents that are used to detail i
15 an inspection ef fort, QC inspection effort.
16 0 And in your Diesel Generator Building inspection did you ,
17 determine there were problems with the UPIN's as used?
18 A We determined there were problems in the handling of the 19 IPIN's.
20 0 What were the problems? ,
21 A The biggest problem is it allowed an inspection to be 22 terminated without highlighting the f act the inspection 4
(
23 was terminated and reasons for termination. That also 24 would affect the trending program.
260 Lmd Reporting Sersice 3mm %rthurstren Itu >.
, fxfayeur ikiding s',,, mg> 962 1176 kure 2.w Detrat, \fachigan 22.N> Tsernmet.m lidh. \lochigan #13
t 1
l0 Pardon?
, 2 A That also could have an effect on the trending program.
3 0 Was the IPIN system abused?
4 A We felt it wac.
5 i 0 And why is that?
6 lA i
As I recall, it allowed the inspectors to terminate an 7 , inspection that would not be highlighted and it would turn 8 an item back ove'r to construction who then could fix the 9 , few items that may have been noted in subsequent i
10 ,
inspections, but only look at those discrepancies that had 11 been looked at. And it would give the illusion that the 12 entire system was all right except for the discrepancies 13 where noted where indeed the entire system or portions of 14 the system had not even been inspected.
15 This also could be adjusted by at what point
- 16 did you want to terminate your inspection. In other 17 words, how many bad findings would you elike -- let me 18 start again. It allowed the latitude that if you had i
19 established you wanted to terminate your inrpections l
20 af ter, say, six discrepancies were noted, you could do so 21 and if later you decided you wanted to terminate 22 inspections af ter, say, three discrepancies were noted yot l (
23 could also do so. And then this could allow an adjustment l
24 of other information that would be needed by management to i
- I'# "#
lafayerre Iktdune 3(MIts %rthurs em ilu )
Swtr Mn 962 11I6 Swir 23 l Iktnu t. \tahigan M226 Farmington Hdis, \tahucan wm
1 l make determinations to the adequacy of their quality 2 control programs.
l 3 0 Did the method in which IPIN's were used at Midland allow 4 deficiencies to not be documented?
5 A Yes. Let's see. You mean known deficiencies not to be 6 ! documented?
I 7 10 To permit that some deficiencies were not documented.
8 lA Deficiencies could exist that were not documented because 9 the item had not been completely inspected.
10 !O By failing to document deficiencies, does that result in 11 failure to correct those deficiencies?
12 A If they're not identified and documented they cannot be 13 : corrected ordinarily.
14 ;0 Could the way in which the IPIN's were used at Midland 15 adversely affect the safe construction of the Midland 16 ) Plant?
17 A Yes.
- 10 0 Mr. Cook, what was the root cause of the deficiencies that 19 the NRC noted in its Diesel Generator Duilding inspection?
20 A Wow. I don't know as we eyer established the root cause.
21 0 Did the findings of the Diesel Generator Building 22 incpection reflect poorly on management of the Midland i
23 Plant?
24 MR. DRIKtni objection to the gLestion as b
i i
.ssiod Reporting Service , 2 ,,;
6 ' ,, ,
lafayette ikidene Swor MO 962 11 ?b hwre L'o Iktra t. \taktean L C.%
rarmington lidis, \lahutan DHM
1 leading.
2 A Yes, it did.
3 BY MS. RICE:
4 0 v.a stated earlier that the findings of the Diesel S Generator Building inspection indicated that the i
6 management was not effective for later installations, this 7 : new work, the work you were specifically looking at in the 8 1 DGB. Does that mean at least with regard to the later 9 work, that it had not been properly managed?
10 ! MR. DRIKER: Objection to the question as 11 leading.
12 l THE WITNESS: Do I answer that?
I 13 i MR. BERKOVITZ: You can answer.
14 ;BY MS. RICE:
15 f0 Let me back up again. What did you mean when you stated i
16 i that the management was not effective for the later 17 installations, the new work? .
18 lA There had been changes in management and changes in the l
19 l MPOAD where there was an integration of the Bechtel talent 1
20 and Consumers talent and so it was if they were -- if they 21 were effective in doing their jobs then by going into an 22 area that represented many, many disciplines of 23 construction then that would show where were they 24 t effective.
I ,
i Infyette Halduns '
3mtu %nhues e or fin )
kure Mo 962 117b Nate so Intnut. \fuchten tR22r> Farmeneton Huth, \tahuev WUM
1 ! We already new we had some regulatory 2 problems in the soils area and we wanted to say was the 3 soils area unique only to itself or did this condition I
4 exist other places. The Diesel Generator Building caused 5 us to look at electrical, instrumentation, raceways, 6 pipings, equipment mounting, gosh, and I don't know what 7 other areas, but a good cross-section of all the 8 j disciplines one would expect to find on a site. So we 9 . felt if we went in there and found there was weaknosses in 10 the OA program then it was showing the QA program was not 11 )
managing the job to the manner to which the NRC expects it 12 l to be managed.
13 0 Mr. Cook, let me show you a document that's been
15 lA I don't know as I have. I do not recall ever seeing it 16 but -- okay.
4 17 ;0 Do you recall attending a meeting on November 23 rd,1982?
i 18 lA
! Yes.
19 (O Do you recall the subject matter of that meeting?
20 A That was the enforcement ipsues of the Diesel Generator 21 Building. That was the way it started. Okay.
22 0 What do you mean by enforcement issues?
I i
23 A We had the items of noncompliance associated with the 24 Diesel Generator Duilding inspection and the licensee knew 264
- "# 3'" \ "h " ""' II" '
f.afayette Iturldene Swy, gy} 9b?*$$?b betul! 201 Iktrost \fschiev M2.% f*'m'*N"" II'll' 'I'chigan woin
-- ~~-
l 1 what our concerns were and this is one of the few places 2 that NRC people can be concerned because later on we did 3 something about our concern. So we had had a meeting with 4 them to express our concerns. I'm not sure whether this 5 was the first meeting or because there were more -- there 1
6 l was more than one meeting we had over the enforcement 7 issues of the Diesel Generator Building and I'm not sure l
i 8 which one this vas.
9 10 The fourth item down states, "Inspectors feel l
10 ! saf ety-related work should be stopped." Did the NRC tell 11 ! Consumers Power that they felt saf ety-related work should 12 be stopped at this meeting, 11-23-82?
13 lA Let me go through the notes here and see if I get a gist
- i. l 14 l of which one it was.
i 15 MR. DRIKER: Before you answer the questione, 16 Mr . Cook, I object to the question in that implicit in it 17 l 1s the notion that the inspectors speak with one voice or i
18 that the inspectors are the NRC. If you're asking him 19 what he said, that's one question; if you're asking him I
20 what various inspectors said, that's a second question; i
21 and if your asking him what position the NRC of ficially l
- 22 took, that's a third question and I think it would be l t l 23 helpful if you distinguish among the three.
24 BY MR. RICE:
l I.md Reporting Sertice 205 Igaytre Iktdo,e ,a 9, swre Mo 962 1176 swie .m skerwr. \fichigan PL'2s Farmontron lidis \fschuean wm I _ ,_ ._. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ , _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . - -
1 !O Mr. Cook, did you express an opinion that you felt l
2 safety-related work should be stopped at the 11-23 3 meeting?
4 A We're talking about an 11-23 meeting and I mentioned that 5 l there were some other meetings. I was of the opinion --
6 and even though the inspectora don't speak as one voice, 7 l it seems like in the Midland caso most of the time we did i
8 ! speak as one voice. I was one of those that was for 9 l stopping the safety-related work. Now whether -- I don't l
10 l know whether that was expressed at this particular meeting i
11 or not. It was my opinion that safety-related work should l
12 be stopped. You know, we had gone into these meetings to f
13 discuss the enforcement issues under the guise that there 14 would be no misunderstandings.
15 i Ultimately we ended up going into one of i
16 I these meetings, I'm not sure which one it was, where we '
17 l 1ef t the reeeting and then we basically told Consumers that 18 we had to have something different done and then that's 19 l when Consumers came forward with the conceptual CCP 20 program that was ultimately presented f rom a conceptual 21 standpoint and I'm not sure now exactly what did happen.
22 It caused that all work did stop and I'm not sure which
(
23 piece fell in at which point in time, but that's kind of 24 '
the scenario that had taken place.
I l i
lafayette Haddans Lmd Reportirsg Sersice 962'II ?6
, f Swte 2.M S wtr M O IWtmt, \lachien 48226 Farmngtce lidh. \lichaean SMolk
1 0 Do you recall any representatives from the NRC expressing 2 the opinion that the saf ety-related work should be stopped 3 at Midland at the November 23rd,1982 meeting?
4 A No, but that's not saying they couldn't have. Again there 5 were several meetings and ultimately we came out with a l
6 ; posture that said, hey, something different has to be done 7 here. Whether that was worded in such a way that said 8 stop all saf ety-related work, I'm not sure on that. There 9 j was more than one meeting at this period of time and what 10 i was exactly said at this particular meeting I don't 11 ;
recall. I know what happened as a result of these 12 reetings, is we ended up with a CCP.
13 0 And did the other inspectors at Region III, Midland 14 Section, believe that the safety-celated work should be 15 f stopped at Midland?
l 16 l MR. BERIOVITZ: I think he answered that, 17 but go ahead. .
18 '
A As far as my knowledge is, that is true. In fact -- well, 1
19 that was one of the reasons for going into the Diesel 20 Generator Building. The attitude of the inspectors back -
21 I'll get this straight yet. In a meeting such as that or 22 a cau:us you always have different levels of opinions 23 expressed early on. so part of the reason of going into 24 ,
the Diesel Generator Building was that some said that lAftyrtre Hwidant Ml!) %rthurs ern lla )
~..,e,.. m. i i u u, :.-
['Mrtur. \fahlgas 2:6 form 1tation l{nlis. \fwhtsan 4hfulk
1 l maybe we've had enough and maybe we ought to stop i
2 i construction now and evoke some other'get-well program, if 1
3 you will. Other inspectores said let us not be to hasty.
4 We got to go in and get a better look and if we're going 5 j to do such a thing do it with conviction, so after the l
6 ; Diesel Generator Building inspection then at that time 7 l that conviction did exist.
l 8 The conviction to stop safety-related work?
l0 9 lA Until something different could be proposed.
10 0 And was safety related work stopped at the Midland Plant 11 as a result?
12 lA Yes.
13 >
MR. DRIKER: As a result of what?
t, 14 lBY MS. RICE:
I 15 !O As a result of your discussion with consumers Power?
16 A Yes. Pardon me for answering the question before it was I
17 asked.
- 18 0 Let me shcu you a document that's previously been marked 19 a s 118C 28. And I'll ask you if this reflects the 20 stop-work order for safety-related work at the Midland 21 plant?
22 MR. DRIKER: There's been no testimony about i
23 a stor work order.
24 DY MS. RICE:
268 f.a( 3'MU W'h ""'"" U" 3 g,yrueik14me
,ay 962.))ib .%rr ::.'o imm t. Whten tRL% Fan,uncion Ibih. %h<re wolk
1 1 4 0 Mr. Cook, can you identify NRC 28?
2 A It's a letter to Consumers Power signed by Mr. Keppler, 3 dated December 30th, 1982, and it addresses that Consumere 4 would take certain actions with regard to continued 5 construction of saf ety-related work.
6 0 Was safety-related work stopped at the Midland Plant as 7 j reflected in NRC 28?
8 A Not all saf ety-related work. There was some work that was 9 allowed to proceed that was considered safety-related.
10 0 What work was allowed to proceed?
11 lA Well, we listed that in the letter.
l 12 l0 Was the amount of work stopped the majority of the 13 safety-related work?
14 j A It would be the majority of the installation of I
15 j saf ety-related work, l
16 l MR. BERKOVITZ : I'd just like to note for i
17 j the record aow it looks like a lot of trhese exhibits were 18 introduced in a deposition on 5-1-84, Bob Warnick's ;
I 19 deposition, and if they were covered in that deposition I 20 don't see the need to cover them in this deposition of Mr.
21 Cook since Mr. Warnick already testified on them.
22 MR. DRIKER: Amen.
23 BY MS. RICE:
24 0 Mr. Cook, you stated that after the Diesel Generator I.athyette lh ddies MIO %rthur r lia >
.%rr Mo 462 1 iib %rr zu ,
introa, \larhaan sc.% Farmenton lidh, \1,chuann 18n18
1 Building that Consumers Power started a construction i
2 completion program, or the CCP; is that correct?
3 A No, they proposed a CCP.
4 Q And what do you mean when you say the CCP or the i
5 construction completion program?
l 6 A That they put together the requirements that would allow 7 them to do basically a hundred percent reinspection of 8 installed equipments, or of construction at the plant.
9 ! MS. RICE: Could you read the last answer i
10 : back, please?
l .
11 (The requested portion of the i
12 record was read back as follows:
13
'O. That they put together the 14 I requirements that would allow them 15 to do basically a hundred percent 16 I reinspection of installed equipments, 17 ! or of construction et the plant.*)
18 lBY j MS. RICE:
l 19 0 Did the !!RC require one hundred percent reinspection of 20 the saf ety-related work at, the plant?
21 A I believe we did.
22 BY MS. RICE: Could you please mark this the 23 next NRC document, which would be 11RC 131?
l 24 (Deposition Exhibit lio. PX !!RC 131, !
I i
f.usod Reponiy Sen ic' 3ew %e r r Ilia ,
lafa>rrte IklJme 962 11Ib %rr lor k)tr tan (Wirar, \fichtean M :2r> Farmmer<m lislls, \fichtsan *+0X
1 Letter to Consumers Power from 2 James Keppler, dated 3-28-83, 3 was marked for identification.)
4 BY NS. RICE:
5 O Hr. Cook, I'll &sk you if you can identify NRC 1317 6 A It's a letter to Consumers Power dated March the 28th, 7 1983 f rom Jim Keppler, signed by Burt Davis for Jim 8 Keppler, and I'll have to look at the document to see what 9 it really is about.
i 10 10 Have you ever seen NRC 131 before?
I 11 A I would venture to say I have.
12 O Mr. Cook, let me direct your attention to item one on the 13 first page. It states, "Because of problems identified by 14 l the NRC during the special inspection of the Diesel i
15 j Generator Building and becauea similar problems were found l
16 I in other areas of the plant during subsequent inspections l
17 by CPCo, we believe that one hundred percent reinspection 18 of accessible safety-related structures, systems and 19 i components is warranted." Did you believe in March of 1983 20 that Consumers should reinspect one hundred percent of the 21 safety-related structuree?
22 A Yes, and I didn' t throw in the chair first. We've t
23 addressed it in hundred percent of what is accessible and 24 also the consideration that if an item was not accessible 1.md Reporting Sernice AlI l.afaytte Iktdms i
%,rr nm 962 Ilib k,re L'o introut. \ tech.gan M2.% Farmmeron lidlu \terhican skio
_ - - . . , _ . . . .- > ..:- -- a Op. m a MM 1
I then we would do some other type of evaluation to i
2 establish what confidence we would have that it was an all '
3 right system. For instance, if a piece of pipe went 4 through a wall and everything going up to the wall was 5 i considered all right and everything on the other side of 6 the wall was all right, then you might have reasonable 7 reason to believe that everything through the wall was 8 l also all right. That type of an attitude.
9 So there was some leeway, that rather thun l
10 { tearing down concrete walls where you could potentially do 11 more damage to the plant that way than your gamble factor, -
12 ! which would be making determinations as to the adequacy of 13 the stuff as it might penetrate a wall -- there were 14 ; latitudes and engineering prudency associated with the ,
l 15 l requirements. I 16 0 Barring items that were not accessible as you've just 17 described, does the one hundred percent reinspection !
l 18 requirement mean that someone or a variety of people 19 actually go out there and physically inspect each item 20 installed at the plant? ,
21 A Yes, ma'am.
22 Q And why did you f eel this one hundred percent reinspect ?,on 23 was necessary?
24 A Eecause we had discrepancies in the Diesel Generator I
i i
272 l d Repor m k n W m 9,s , ,,,, ,1, ,
tar
,&,verer
, g} IL.une 962=]}?D .% te 2.4
- I (Hrtur, *,faktgen LC.M fe'mt"E'M II'II'> \It'h4tu" I4I'%
l 1 Building and discrepancies also existed in the plant l 2 proper and the only way of sorting out those discrepancies 3 would be to go in and do a hundred percent reinspection.
4 The NRC has to again assure the public, the safety of the 5 public is maintained and the only way we felt we could 6 i give that reasonable assurance to the public at such time I
7 the plant would be licensed was to inspect the plant a 8 hundred percent.
9 Also, the inspection process also dealt with 10 other attributes of inspection, not necessarily all 11 ; physical but sone of the inspection would require ,
12 supportive documentation, validity of the prints and a few 13 things like this.
i.
14 0 Ilas Consumers Power completed the one hundred percent 15 ! reinspection progran?
l 16 !A Not to my knowledge.
17 IO !!ad they completed it when you left thee plant in May of i
18 ! 19847 19 'A No.
i 20 0 Did the CCP consist solely,of this one hundred percent 1
21 reinspection program or were there other aspects of the 22 CCP7 i~
23 A Ch, boy. It's hard to remember. If I remember right,
- 24 there were other aspects of the CCP. It's been a long 1
l I.nfyrrir Ikiding Lmd firporting Streire yg , sib,,
swre Mr> 9b2 i1e'6 su,te 2.'o Ihrro,r,11ahngan M2.% f ermangton listig \tah::an moln t
1 time since I reviewed that package.
I 2 j0 Now, is this one hundred percent reinspection, how does i i 3 ! that relate to the vertical slice by an independent I
4 contractor we were discussing earlier?
5 lA That was a design verification aspect and right now I'm 6 not sure whether that was incorporated with the CCP or 7 whether that was a separate document, but that was in a 8 l context that that would be a design verification program, 9 ! which was something different than the hundred percent 10 reinspection. What that would do is give assurance that 11 l the design intent and that the printo were manufactured in ,
12 accordance with the intentions of the engineers and within 13 the limitations of the acceptable codes and standards.
14 0 Was Consumerc Power required by the NRC to conduct this 15 design verification?
16 'A Yes, as I recall.
17 l0 Was Consumers Power required by the NRG to complete the 18 construction completion progran prior to issuance of the 19 operating license?
20 A That was my understanding.,
21 0 Let me show you a document that has be:n previously marked .
22 as NRC 35 and ask you if you can identify NRC 35, please?
i 23 A Let me look at it. This is a memorandun for the Region !
24 ,
III files f rom Mr. Keppler pertaining to a meeting held
- i 274 Luted Reporting Stru ire u p, w ,,y,,, 11, ,
$Af4) tite WOULnt q () m , y y 7 g %g, ,',% r
%te MI lhetml. \fwh; tan M2% y, ,,,,, , fjyjg yakigen 54@
! i 1 i with Mr. Selby and Howell in Bethesda with Mr. DeYoung and ;
2 Mr. Keppler.
3 Q Mave you ever seen NRC 357 4 A No, I don't believe I have. I knew such a meeting did 5 ! exist but I don't believe I'd ever seen this memo before.
6 l0 NRC 35 states the purpose of this meeting you just 7 referred to Was to discuss with CPCo the staff's 8 perception and the need to include an independent audit of 9 l CPCo management of the riidland Project as part of CPCo's 10 , corrective actione at Midland. Did you believe that there 11 was a need for an independent audit of Cpnsumers Rower 12 management? In October of 1983 did you hold that belief?
13 A I'm trying to piece together what was going on in October i.
14 i of 1983. There were times that we felt there was a need 15 l for an audit of the Consumers management and I'm trying to i
i 16 lock in on the reasons why. I probably did feel that at 17 I that time there was a need for an auditt, a management 18 audit, and that was to -- wait -- to ensure that Consumers 19 f Power was .tanaging the job. Again it would answer the 20 question who was running the job, Bechtel or Consumers 21 PWer. It seemed to me at that time that there were 22 indicators that demonstrated that a thorough review of the l i 23 management of Consumers might identify areas of weaknesses 24 that were not allowing the plant to get inspected on a ;
lafayrte ILilJme
" Mla %rthe e n H,. s M a, rao 962 1J?6 Mac go IWenu t, \takten LC.% Farmmerun Hath. \lachigan twl8
1 I timely schedule.
2 l0 Do you know whether Consumers Power ever implemented the I
i 3 l independent management audit?
I 4 !A No, I do not know. I know that there was some discussion 5 l as to who might do that and I don't believe it ever i
6 l happened. I don't recall it happening. And again bear in 7 ! mind I don't have copious amounts of records on this l
8 l either.
I 9 l0 Do you know if the NRC required an independent management i
10 l audit?
l 11 lA I believe that we were. In fact, if I remember risht, 12 there was some discussion as to who they had proposed for 13 it and I don't know if we agreed who they proposed to 14 l perform thin audit, but in my mind I remember us writing
- 15 j them a letter saying that we agreed with such and such a l
16
{ selection and T'm not sure who the company was now.
17 !O And was an independent management audit, necessary to be 18 conpleted before the issuance of the operating license?
19 A That was my understanding.
20 0 Mr. Cook, let me show you a document that has been marked 21 se NRC -- let me have the court reporter initial NRC 124.
22 (Deposition Exhibit No. PX NRC 124, i
23 Document entitled Denial of Puel 24 License for the Midland site, dated l .
276 lutod Heporting Sevsirr w, g ,,,,,, gn ,
lafa g,,,yrtir go Ltdar 962 1176 .%rr an (Wtra t. % htaan W .'6 Farminer.m lidh, %kugan 4%ih
i 1
l 1-25-83, was marked for identification.
1 2
jBY MS. RICE:
3 Q Could you please identify NRC 1247 4 A This is a memo I wrote to Wayne Snafer dated January 25, 5 ,
1983, addressing why I felt that Consumers Power ought to 6 l be denied a license for duel.
7 l0 Did Mr. Shafer request this memorandum?
1 8 .A No, I don't believe he did but -- I'm quite certain he 9 l didn't. The people in Washington -- and I might even be i
10 ! able to pick that out of here. Let me find out in a 11 second. I had a discussion with Mr. Killinger of the 12 office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards and he 13 was on a schedule based on when it was proposed that the i
I 14 plant would be completed and he has an obligation to issue 15 licenses and do the necessary reviews so as it would not 16 $ adversely impact on the scheduling of the licensee.
17 In other words, the NRC tries to avoid 18 i becoming a nuisance to the licensee that's hopef ully 19 building a plant and going to get fuel and so forth and so '
l 20 on. And some of these activities require a lead time. So 21 he had it on his, if you will, punch list that it was 22 about time for him to think about issuing a fuel license 23 to Consumers. Now this is a license just to store fuel or 24 site. And he called me up to say, hey, do I have any i
) !
i
- f* ' "5" .ps w %. the e e lir. ,
1.afa>rtte 1%IJme
~.,.,- m .'m s s,s, g intrar, \taeae N.4, Formeum Hals. \1,<kan two
1 q problems with him giving Consumers a license to have fuel 2
l and I did and so I told him about them. And, so, this was 3 a follow-up memo to my section chief describing that I had 4 this telephone call and here's the reasons why I feel that !
5 l Consumers should not at this time have a license to handle 6 ; fuel on site.
l 7 When you're referring to he that you talked to, what was l0 8 ! the name? I missed it.
9 A Mr. !(illinger. !
10 l0 Why did you feel that Consumers Power should not be given i
11 , a license to store fuel on site?
12 iA Well, mostly it was because of the extensiveness of the 13 remedial soils work and the subnequent potential for this 14 i work to impact on the Auxiliary Building, which was a i
15 proposed fuel storage location. In other words, to -- we t
16 i also knew that we were in the throes of requiring a 17 reinspection, that there might be rewor,k necessary and to l
18 ,
now have fuel stored in a plant that's under this type of j 19 condition just didn't seem to be -- well, it seemed to be i
20 adding an extra burden to the plant that the plant really i
21 didn't need at that particular time.
22 0 When you state midway through the second paragraph, 23 *1?istorically, Consumers Power Company has demonstrated to r
24 i date, an unacceptable regulatory performance during the l i l !
278
*" "'" Mm %rthntern llu s lafortte %lding
$6ste Mil 9bS'5$*0 buste l.hi Iktrar. \tAigan Ml.'s Farmenete lisI!s. \fekiean W ih
I i 1 l entire remedial soils related activities *, do you still 2 believe that, that statement?
l I
3 lA Let's brar:ket that with time.
4 0 Do you believe today that consumers Power has demonstrated 5 I an unacceptable regulatory performance during the entire 6 j remedial soils work?
7 ;A To date?
8 0 To May of 1984 when you lef t.
l 9 ;A No, in fact I think that improved, that their regulatory 10 process improved, if you will, the latter days.
11 0 And in January of 1983 when you stated that you felt that 12 Consumers Power up to that date had demonstrated an
)
13 unacceptable regulatory performance, did that mean it was 14 unsafe to put the fuel on site?
15 It was, in my opinion it was unsafe to store fuel there.
lA 16 0 Why why is that?
17 !A If you have the type of work that was proposed ot going on 18 j as tar as digging underneath buildings and the amount of l
19 ,
soil that wac going to have to be removed, Consumers had 20 shown that they could dril) holes into pipes and conduits 21 and other extraneous things -- we already looked at the 22 Diesel Generator Building and we found there was many 23 problems with that Diesel Generator Building and we didn't
'I 24 '
know what existed in the rest of the plant. My attitude '
l i
used % arung Sm W ,w ,,h nf, y ,
lafv mr Ltdme
.%a,' ma 962 1176 .%o, am Ivera, \taen M23 Farmmstm lh!!s 11Aen nat.s
1 was to store fuel on site, that you would want to store 2 that in a nice, saf e environment, if you will. My 3 knowledge of nuclear engineering says that's a very 4 prudent thing to do. So I felt that those conditions 5 l necessary for safe storage of fuel could not be met in the l
6 : power block ares, which was the plant proper.
i 7 In January of 1983 what was your belief as to when it l0 8 would be safe to bring fuel on site?
9 jA Well, if I remember right, I think that there is a second 10 memo written or -- after this time there was another 11 ! discussion that I had with folks that issue the special 12 nuclear materials licenses, which I had still the same 13 attitude at that time. I can't remember when that was, i
14 To say datewise when would be a prudent time to store fuel, 15 I on there -- it would be not a matter of date, it would be 16 a matter of condition. I can't tell you when the date 17 was. .
18 0 What state of completed construction?
l 19 A Well, you bring f uel on a site and harbor it in a safe 20 environment when -- before,the plant is necessarily a 21 hundred percent completed but you would house it when you 22 have reasonable assurance that the 85 percent completien 23 work that has been completed is of good enough quality 24 where you might not be prone to have to do a lot of repair I
280 f.uzod Reportsy Sertict 3my \wthesarrn flu ;
i.afortte Lldent gsg,))lb Suar hl0 hu'h D l>tre t. %chten AC* fornungne lhlis %chann W3
i i
1 ! work to it. So I guess that once the discrepancies would 2 have been identified as a course of business in the CCP 3 and then the proposed fix, if there were such things 4 needed, had been ef fected, then about that time I would 5 start thinking it would be time the fuel could be housed 6 l on site in a saf e manner.
7 , You know, I'm kind of giving you what 8 requirements that an individual such as I might wish to be 9 l in place to house this fuel in a safe environment in the 10 I power block area. There were other proposals of building l
11 a building removed fron the power block area, a new 12 construction, which I don't suppose I'd have too much of 13 an objection to that provided it could fulfill the 14 requirement for safe storage of fuel and for the security 1 15 ; requirements that we require in the storage of fuel. But l 16 l it was in the power block area where there appeared to be i
17 > a need for a lot of rework to be done..
l 18 '
O In January of 1983 was it your opinion that fuel could be 19 ! brought onto the power block area prior to completion of i
20 underpinning? ,
j 21 ,A No. Now , let me paraphrase that a little bit. When I say 22 no I don't mean necessarily hundred percent no. 'n other 23 words, with the underpinning you may have some peripheral 24 work that still needs to be done. If that was the case, Inv erra %!Jma sino %rthn ern ll ,
%.a. o o 962.llib Mar au Inst. \forkia n NC.% F.rw rum Hath. \1sch::a, noth
1 I where the bulk of the supporting had been done, there was l
2 l no dar.ger of cracking the Auxiliary Building, things like i
i 3 this, and maybe all that was left was to tamp the soil 4 j adjacent to where -- the valve pit areas and things like 5 this, it would be then at that time if the fuel came on I 6 probably would not have an objection. But when you had a 7 l massive amount of mining work yet to go, then I objected 1
8 to storing fuel while that type of mining work is going on 9 around the concrete structure that is used to house the 10 fuel.
11 0 Did Consumers Power ever ask you whether.they could load 3 12 ( fuel prior to completion of the underpinning?
1 13 iA Are you talk ng about loading fuel in the vessel or are
- i. j 14 l you talking about storing fuel in the Auxiliary Building?
l 15 lQ Fuel loading in the vessel.
l 16 A I don't believe so, not that I can recall anyway.
17 O In January of 1983 did you have an opinicn as to whether l 18 fuel could be loaded prior to completion of underpinning?
19 A Yes, I had an opinion that fuel could not -- say that 20 question again. .
21 0 Whether fuel could be loaded prior to the completion of l- 22 the underpinning?
l t 23 A Did I have an opinion that fuel could be loaded --
24 Q Whether fuel could be loaded.
l l 1.uz d Reporting Sert ice ,, , ,
\ Infayette Buildung Suir, .Do suute Mn 962 1Ii6 Detroit, \fichigan 18226 Farmeneton Ildh. \fichiean WIH l
^
1 A Whether fuel could be loaded prior to completion of l 2 underpinning, j 3 MR. DRIKER: She is asking whether in 1 4 .,
January 1983 you had an opinion.
5 A My opinion in January would be don't even bring fuel near 6 the place until such time as the underpinning has been 7 completed and I think that's reflected in this memo.
8 BY MS. DICE:
9 0 Did consumers Power ever disclose to you whether they were 10 assuming fuel load prior to completion of underpinning?
11 A Not fuel load but they had made an applicction for fuel.
12 i was that bef ore -- before tha underpinning work?
13 : Consumers did want to store the fuel on site because of 4
l 14 ! the cost it takes to house the fuel at some other 15 establishment. So as I recall Mr. Killinger or his office 16 had conversations with Consumers with regard to them 17 issuing a license. So they would have,made the i
18 application or the request to the NRC to grant them a -
19 license and in the normal course of business then these 20 folks would call the IllE people, the inspection people to 21 find out if there's any reason why they should not issue a l- 22 license. And I f elt there was reasons why they should 23 not.
l 24 ;O Did the NRC ever issue a license allowing Consumers Power i
l ! I
'u:od Reporting Service 283 Infayetto Huilding \.,, ,, p Suite fan 962 1176 S,,,g,gga herront. \fichigan 48226 Farrnungton listin, \fichigan 18n18 l
i 1 ! to store fuel on site?
2 A No, not that I know of anyway.
3 Q Did the NRC ever grant concurrence that Consumers Power 4 could load fuel prior to completion of the underpinning?
5 MR. DRIKER: I didn' t hear what you said.
6 BY MS. RICE:
7 0 Grant concurrence that Consumers Power could load fuel 8 prior to the completion of underpinning?
I 9 !
MR. DRIKER: I object to the question. I 10 don't know what you mean, i
11 iBY MS. RICE:
1 12 O Did the NRC ever indicate to Consumers Power that they 13 could load f uel prior to completion of the underpinning?
i i
- 14 !A I don't think so, but, you know, there are lots of people i
15 in the NRC.
16 MS, RICE: Let me take a quick break to i
review.
17 .
18 (A brief recess was held during 19 the proceedings.)
20 MS. RICE: Right now I'm through with all my 21 questions on direct, of course, barring questions on the 22 documents that Mr. Berkovitz will be producing to us and i
23 of course questions based on Mr. Driker's 24 cross-examination. a i
i l
2 84 Luzod Reporting Service 3an o 9,,s , ,,,,,, ,,,, , _
Isfayette Buuldung
,gw,, sw 962 1176 Swre 23o iktroit. \fichipn 18226 Farmington listis, \fschigan wilH l -, _, _ . . . -_ . - - . - _ _ _ ._ - . - _ - ~
____________q l
1 EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. DRIKER:
3 0 Mr. Cook, let me start with the last question Miss Rice 4 asked you, about whether the NRC ever' told Consumers that 5 it could load f uel prior to completion of the t
6 underpinning, and let me ask you whether the NRC ever told 7 ; Consumers Power it could not load fuel prior to completion l
I 8 of the underpinn'ing?
9 A Well, not that I know of.
10 'O That's all. Thank you. How old are you, sir?
11 iA Pifty.
l 12 'O Are you married?
13 lA Yes.
14 l0 !!ow long have you been narried?
l 15 lA Oh, geez, 25 years coming up on.
l 16 'O Do you have children?
17 A Yec.
- 18 ,0 How many do you have?
I 19 lA Three children.
20 0 How old are they? ,
21 HR. BERKOVITZ: Is that relevant?
Yes.
22 MR. DRIKER:
23 A Twenty-one, sixteen and seven.
24 BY MR. DRIXER:
i
' zod Reporting Sernice 285 lxfayette Huildun, 3M10 \orthstentern lluy Sutte h30 gng,jj g Nuute 22-)
Detr<nt, \1uchigan 58226 Formungton flulls. \lichigan 18018
1 0 Let me show you Deposition Exhibit D 1662 and ask if that 2 is a resume of your professional qualifications you 3 prepa red?
4 (Deposition Exhibit No. D 1662, 5 Resume of Ronald J. Cook, was 6
l marked for identification.)
7 A That's my resume as f ar as I suppose I did prepare it. It 8 looks like the standard one the NRC keeps on file for each i
I 9 of the inspectors or prof essional personnel.
10 BY MR. DRIKER:
11 l0 Do you recall any specific incidents which gave rise to I
12 l preparing this?
i 13 They may have wanted it prepared prior to the hearings at
(.
lA 14 Midland but it's also as part of the normal course of 15 busineas. Those people also have prepared resumes similar 16 ; to that that are not involved with controversial sites or i
17 others. .
18 0 The number down at the right-hand corner of this resume 19 establishes that this was produced to us during discovery 20 in this case from the Dow Chemical Company. Do you know 21 how Dow happened to get a copy of your resume?
22 A Well, the Dow Chamical Company -- they did an POIA is one 23 thing. Now I don't know what timeframe the POIA is with 24 respect to when you discovered this document over at Dow.
l 2 86
- 1. d Reporting Service ,g ,o g ,,,,,, j f, ,
Isfayerre Huilding Sw,, ma :62.I1I6 Suure 2.'o Iktroit, \lichipn 4R226 Farmineron Ildh. \lichican 18018
1 The fact that Dow has it doesn't really upset me.
2 Q I didn't suggest it would be upsetting. I just wondered 3 if you knew how they got it.
4 A No, unless they got it through that because this thing 5 could have been in my files, you know. Like I said, we 6 type them up, we send them to the region of fice. I may l
have had one in the office. It's an abbreviated resume, 8 if you will, one page that's requested by the director.
9 0 As I read your resume, am I correct on the assumption that 10 l prior to your move to Midland in July of 1978 you were 11 based in Glenn Ellyn and you traveled to reactor sites fore 12 the purpose of performing inspections?
13 ,A That is true. ,.
t.
14 0 So Midland was your first resident inspection assignment?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 0 And prior to inspecting sites under construction you were 17 an NRC inspector for operating reactore?
18 lA Primarily, although I also looked at some aspects of l'
10 construction work that was going on.
20 0 Can you describe to me generally what kinds of activities 21 you engaged in with respect to the Palisades nuclear 22 generating station?
23 A Oh, wow.
l 24 0 Generally, the period of years and --
f I I' " " *"'"# 5" infayette Huildmg 3mla \orthur er flu > .
Sune hv1 9b? 1II6 Swte 22o Iktroit, Whigan M226 Farmington lisils, \fichigan 18018 I. _ - - - -. - _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - . . - - , _ . - - _ _ _ _ . . _ . , - . _ _ - . .- . - . - - . -
1 !A That was f rom basically I want to say May of 1971, if I 2 remember right. That's when they went political critical 3 through, oh boy, well, for several years. It was during 4 the time that there were some technical problems with the 5 plant that they had moved their steam generated corrosion 6 l problems, safety valve design problems, power ascension I
7 testing associated with the plant, and let's see. I was 8
j going to say without my other more detailed resume I'm not 9 l sure exactly it was I made it into the -- what do we call i
10 it -- then the nuclear support section. At that time then l
11 I was on a -- would cover almost all the reactors in the I
12 ; Midw est, if you will, trouble-shooting problems that may l
13 '
arise at a plant and, of course, some of those problems
\
14 l were at the Midland site, I mean, Palisades.
\
I 15 O Did you actually live at the Palisades site?
16 A That was kind of a joke. I did not have a home at the 17 Palisades site but I spent a lot of time there so some 18 people used to accuse me of living at Palisades.
19 0 I see. You had mentioned some reactors that you inspected 20 in the construction stage?,
21 A Yes.
22 0 Can you tell me as carefully as you can, as precisely as 23 you can, all of the reactors under construction which you 24 inspected for the NRC7 I i
.us d Reporting Sertice , ,
lafayette Banidine Suite 630 962 II ?6 Sucre 220 (ktroit. \lichigan M226 Farmaneton listls, \lehican 18o1H
s 1 A Well, it was the Midland site, the Zimmer site, the Marble!
2 Hill site, I think it was the Braidwood site. I think 3 that's about all without -- you kind of forget all the 4 places you've been.
5 0 Zimmer has been cancelled, has it not?
6 lA Yes.
7 0 Has never received an operating license?
8 A No.
9 l0 Marble Hill has been cancelled anc has not received an l
10 l operating license?
i 11 A That's true, f
12 l0 What about Braidwood?
13 ,A If they had not received an operating license, they' re 1
14, awful close to receiving one.
l 15 l0 Were you vialting Midland, Zimmer, Marbit Hill and 16 Braidwood during the same time periods, that is, would you 17 ride circuit from one plant to anotiter?
I
, 18 ,
lA No. I would return to the of fice in between trips, i
19 rf 0 But you were involved in inspecting all of these plants !
20 during the same years? ,
l 21 A That was probably the year and some months prior to my l- 22 going to Hidland. So let's see. Marble Hill, oh gosh, I
(
l 23 think I was like a couple of times at Harble Hill, two or 24 three times at Braidwood, I don' t know how many times at l !
[ ,
l Ln:od Reporting Service ya 209,,
1.a(nyette Huilding l
Swte (ny) 962.))?6 Swr, 2.p r i lhetrorr, thrhienn 48226 Farmington Hdh,11ichigan molH
1 1 ! Zimmer, I don' t know how many times at Midland but a few
]
l 2 times.
3 0 Were you doing essentially the same kind of thing at each ,
l 4 plant, inspecting various stages of construction?
)
5 iA Yes, but each one were at a different stage so what I I
6 I would look at at Marble Hill was different than what I 7 would look at at Braidwood, which was dif ferent than at 8 i the Zimmer Plant.
9 lQ i Tell me how you as an inspector, before you became a 10 resident inspector, when you were still a traveling region 11 based inspector, how would you physically conduct 12 l inspections at a plant under construction? Would you have 13 l a clipboard and yellow pad you'd make notes on, would you i
14 have a dictating machine, would you have a video camera, 15 how would you record your impressions of what you saw?
16 A Well, be.ck in those days I think I was using like spiral 17 notebooks to write in the things I would look at. Before 18 we lef t we would determine what it was we were interested 19 in in checking on, if you will, and what our findings were 20 and I said in those days I,telieve I was using spiral 21 notebooks to document. I never did use tapes to document 22 what I observed in the plants.
23 0 You mean cassette tapes?
24 A Cassette tapes.
k 290 Lafayette Buslding Mm Yonhuntan flo ;
3.,g,, gy 962 1176 Suite 220 Detunt, \fichipn Mi226 Farmington Hills, \1xhienn 1801H
l 1 0 Did you ever use photographs, still or motion picture or 2 video cassettes?
3 A I never used photographs very much but it seems to me I've 4 been on sites where photographs were being tsken.
5 0 By others?
6 A Well, I've taken photographs. I'm not sure what it was I 7 took photographs of.
8 0 Did you take photographs at Midland?
9 'A I vaguely remember taking photographs. I'm not sure what 10 we took photographs of. I was not really one of those 11 that was big on photographs but we had a camera. I can't i
12 l even think what the heck we took photographs of.
13 l0 I want to be sure that when I ask you these questions 14 j about your individual activities that you understand that 15 I'm asking about you rather than about some generalized f
16 unnamed plural we.
17 A Well, of tentimes when we go to take plotures sometimes two l
18 people will be involved and it's a matter who held the l
19 camera.
I have taken pictures. I don't even know what 20 pictures I've taken, but I,have worked the camera because 21 everytime I do it I have to learn how to rework the 22 camera.
23 0 Is there any formal MRC policy on how inspectors, whether 24 ,
region-based or resident, are to conduct their inspection, f
lafayette Bwiding
'n d Reporting Sertice 3, , ,
S k etr M O 962 1176 sure 220 (k trout, \fichaean M226 l'armington litils. \fichigan Molk
1 f that is, are they supposed to keep formal notes and retain l' l
2 the notes or is it left up to the inspector to do it as he 3 or she wants? l I
4 A As he or she wants. I l
5 0 Have you retained the original notes of inspections f rom
)
6 l your years at Midland, either when you were region-based l
7 l or a resident?
0 lA Well, are you saying all? No. Right now Mr. Berkovitz 9 has got some forms of notes. We at Midland -- I had a 10 thing called a Snoopy book, so there were notes written in 11 ! that. Mr. Berkovitz has that.
12 0 What's the Snoopy book?
13 lA A little book that has Snoopy on the front. It fits in i
14 ! your pocket very nicely.
I 15 Like a little spiral notebook of some kind?
l0 i
16 lA It's not a spiral. A notebook that's, I don' t know, say !
17 four inchec wide and six inches high. ehe last one I had i
18 was at Midland. It was red colored and had a Snoopy 19 picture on the front. The one before that, it was just 20 the printed -- in the pagep of the book was a picture of 21 Snoopy.
22 0 And would you --
23 A You probably heard about my Snoopy book that's why you' re l
l l 24 asking this, i i l
l 292 Luzod Reporting Sertice , 9,, ,,,, ,,
l 1.afayette Buildsng Suite 630 962 1176 Suir,;yo (ktront. \fichigan 18226 Farmington Ildh. \lwhican 18o18
i 1 0 What did you record in your Snoopy book?
2 A Nothing that would be coherent, I'll put it to you like 3 that. I might put in there numbers of valves, a number of 4 a weld where I was.
5 0 Is it like a little walking diary, something you'd keep in 1
6 i your pocket and as you walked around and observed things 7 you'd jot something down?
8 A No, not at all.
9 0 Would you carry it around with you as you walked around 10 the site?
11 A Sure.
12 0 And you might make notes in it or might not?
13 jA I might or might not. It would never say, you know, the t.
I 14 route that I took or exactly where I was at a given time, 15 so forth and so on.
16 'O I understood from Mr. Berkovitz yesterday that you kept 17 some kind of da13v logs is that correct?
18 lA No, no, I did not keep a daily log.
l 19 0 Did you keep any type of log of your activities?
20 A Let me take that back. Yep, there ir a daily -- at a 21 period of time I had a slip -- there was a period of time 22 that I did keep a daily log.
23 0 And did that include your tour of duty as a recident 24 ; inspector at Midland?
3 m d Reporting Se rt ic e 23 In(vette Hutiding ,,
kite Mo 962 1]i6 sua, gp>
/>etrau t. \lochigan M226 Farmington Ildh, \fschigan $8alk
1 A Portions of it. Well, I kept a daily log when I first got 2 to Midland then I dispensed with keeping a daily log some 3 time in, I'm not really sure when, say 1979 because of the
+
4 inability to protect personal notes. Freedom of 5 , Inf ormation was becoming a vogue thing. The interveners 6 i were becoming active, hearings were becoming an active way
, 7 l of life. I'm not sure when the hearings started. Anyway, 8 having a daily documentation, detailed docilmentation of i
9 i the inspectors' activities became a very nuisancosome l
10 thing to the inspectors and he felt that by keeping such l
11 i detailed records would curtail our ability to inspect the 12 l plant if they were disclosed to the public. So as a net 13 ! result then that dispensed with a daily log as such.
1 i i
14 10 When you started keeping a daily log was it at your own I
i 15 1 decision?
i 1
16 Yes.
lA 17 0 And when you terminated was it at your own decision?
18 A Yes.
19 0 What did you do with the logs which you had created in the; 20 interim between starting and stopping?
21 A Right now I've given them to Mr. Berkovitz.
22 0 All of them?
i 23 A Yes.
24 0 You discarded none of them?
l 294 I,uyd RtporIing Sercice y w \. ,,,,,,,,
lafayerre Daildtng y,,, ma 962.))i6 kore 2.m l>etroit. \lahigan m226 Farmungton listis, \lahican m o m
t 1 A Well, not of the log books, the log books or such. Now 2 after that we made notations. I nad another means of 3 making notations that were reminders and I would imagine 4 that all, that all or most of that has been discarded.
5 0 What form do the log books take, are they looseleafs?
6 lA No. They're regular like ledger logs.
l 7 IQ Individual sheets for each day?
8 iA Essentially. I'm not sure. You may find two days on a 9 given sheet.
10 0 Have you ever seen Don Horn's logs at Midland, his OA i
11 logs?
12 iA I probably have but I don't recall exactly what it looks 13 : like.
L ;
14 Tell me how you in terms of a day's event, how and when l0 15 you would make entries in your logs, that in, would you do 16 it at the end of the day all at once or would you enter 17 into the log sequentially? .
18 A It was not sequentially as I went f rom one task to 19 another. Again, it would depend. I may fill it in at the 20 end of one day. I may fil) it in at lunch time. I may 21 fill it in -- if I've been out roaming the site for awhile
!" 22 I might be "up-to-date' and we may discuss something so I 23 may have to fill it in at that time. So there was no 24 ,
really set pattern.
l l.n(vette kidone 3mto \orthur e n flu) suite ao 962 1176 suae 22a Intrmt. \lahigan M226 Farmsneton lidis, \lahigan tholk
. - -- e 3
1 0 Did you make it a practice of recording telephone calls in 2 your logs?
3 A I should have read them before I give them over to Dan.
4 4 If I remember right, I think I would make notations of 5 telephone calls. Sometimes I may put what they were 6 about, sometimes I may just put a note that a call i
7 I existed, i
1 0 j0 Are your logs exhaustive; are you confident they document i
9 1 a hundred percent of telephone calls and contacts and 10 events during the day?
11 .A I'm quite sure they did not.
12 0 How did you happen to receive the assignment to become the 13 resident inspector at Midland; was it something you l l 14 j volunteered f or or were you requested to go there?
15 A I volunteered for it. The NRC was embarking on a resident; 16 inspector program and so some of the -- well, I was aware 17 of the thinking of where they wanted to put residents and
]
18 so forth. I knew that Midland was one of the slots that 19 was being considered. I myself wanted to go to Prairie 20 Island up in Wisconsin, however, that at that time was not-21 one of the available sites. Hidland was an available 22 site. I talked to Mr. Keppler and said I would be
(
23 interested in accepting that assignment.
24 .0 Uhen you talked to Mr. Keppler you had had some years of i
2 96
- 1. d Reporting Sert ice , ,, ,,
f.afayette fluildme Suar Mo 962 1176 .suar ;o Detroa, \fichigan p1226 Farmingt<m Hulh. \luchouan wak t
1 dealing with Consumers Power Company at the Palisades 2 plant, had you not?
3 A Indeed.
4 Q How long was it f rom the time you were told that you were 5 going to go to Midland until you actually moved there?
l 6
fA Well, put it to you like this: At one time Mr. Kepp'.er i
7 l wanted to have their resident located in Midland in i
8 } November of 1977' and I told Mr. Keppler that, hey, common, f
9 guy, give me a break. I have some school kids and why 10 l can't I move there in time for them to be in school for 11 j the September starting of school. So he,said that he had I
12 ! no problems with that.
13 i Now why the November date, you know, it may I. !
14 l have had something to do with budgeting, I'm not sure IS exactly why, but Mr. Keppler was amenable to me being 16 transferred to Midland so the kids could start school for 17 September of 1977. However, I don't know the reasons but 18 the wheels of the bureaucracy grind slowly sometimes. I 19 actually did not get the letter authorizing negotiations 20 f or property and moving to, Midland until May of 197 8 and 21 then arrangements were made to move in July of 1978.
22 0 was it publicly known that you were assigned to Midland
(
23 prior to the time you actually moved there?
24 ,A Well, I'd have to have you define publicly known.
f i
I# ""'"# "'
3m10 %rthun e n flu s 14fa)ette Huntdon.e l Suite mo 962 1II6 Scoute 2b>
l><trar, \fuchigan 48226 Farmineron listls,11srhigan WlX l _
1 0 Let me rephrase the question. Did Consumers Power Company 2 know in the f all of 1977 that you had been assigned to 3 become the resident inspector at Midland?
4 A Yes, they did. In fact, while I was inspecting Consumers 5 Power, you know, it was made known to Consumers. I'm not 6 sure we wrote them a letter, but it was no big secret. I 7 was looking in the area for property. I talked to people 8 in the plant that lived in the area where might be the 9 best place to look for the house, where the best school i
10 districts were, so forth and so on, the lay of the land, l
l 11 i So there was this type of conversation.
12 l0 Consumers Power people?
13 !A Consumers Power people.
t, 14 !O Were they cooperative in trying to assist you in I
15 relocating in Midland?
16 A Let's be careful of that. I work f or a regulatory agency.
l-17 They wore very amenabic and cooperativa and informative in 18 trying to give information to an individual moving newly 19 into the area, newly moving into the area.
20 0 The delay in moving f ro;n what you had anticipated would be, t
21 a f all 1977 date to what actually turned out to be a July 22 1978 date was not attributable to anything Consumers Power 23 did, was it?
24 A I don't believe so. I certainly hopo not because I lost a.'
l I
l 298 1.sotod Reporting Sertice y o z.,,,g ,,,,,, ,,
f.afayette Raildong S,,,re 630 962 1176 Swt, :Jo lietroit, \forhigan 18226 Farmington listh, \lachienn Violk
1 pile of money on property because of that period.
2 0 That is the home you had in Illinois versus the home you 3 had to buy in Midland?
4 A The property in the Glen Ellyn area tumbled, if you will, 5 in about May of 1978. Prior to that time I had people 6 l that wanted to buy my home because they knew I was being 7 j transferred but without the authorization from the 8 government you can sell your home but you do not reap the i
9 benefits for realtor costs and all this, legal fees and so 10 forth, that goes with -- as a government benefit when a 11 l person has to relocate.
12 0 Where did you wind up moving to in Midland?
j 13 ,A Well, I moved to 204 Chesterfield Ct. in the northern 14 portion of the city.
15 0 within the city limita?
16 A Within the city limits.
17 g0 Did you live there during the approximate six years you 18 were resident inspector?
19 A Yes.
20 0 Single home? ,
21 A Single home.
22 , O Did your children attend the public schools in Midland?
1 23 A Yes.
24 ;O was your wife employed at all while you were in Midland?
i infayette Hmidone I'u: d Reporting Senin 3,g ,n ,,hk,f,f,9,,n Swte mn 9 b 2 117 6 Suote 2br Iktract. \fuehrean 18226 Farmineton linlis, \fichman molk
1 A Yes. About the year or so before I lef t -- my wif e is a 2 registered nurse and had not practiced for a number of 3 years and when the younger one went to the the first grade 4 then my wife took a refresher course and then started 5 working part time at the Midland Hospital and she was 6 working there at the time that we were transf erred to 7 l Three Mile Island, i
8 0 Did you request to be transferred out of Midland?
i 9 jA Well,- that's -- not really. There was a rotation thing --
10 well, it gets a little confusing. There had been a need 11 l for rotation of resident inspectors. That had been the 12 policy in the NRC. The commission had generated a policy 13 ) that they would soften that position. I had hoped that 14 '
Mr. Keppler would have agreed to the sof tening of that 15 position, which he did not, so therefore I was basically 16 g being, if you will, forced into a relocation. So I 17 negotiated with Mr. Keppler that I might be allowed to 18 come to the Three Mile Island plant. In other words, if 19 you have to, if you' re going to be transferred you got to 20 go some place and coming to Three Mile Island was by 21 choice.
22 O Am I correct that Region III had a policy of rotating 23 resident inspectors approximately every three years?
24 A Well, that was the original policy, however, then because l I i 300
.u: d Reporting Sersice 3, ,g 9,,g ,,,,,,, ;;,
infayette ik! dung g,,,, nw 962 1176 .%te 2.11 I)etemt. \tahiren 48226 famunk ' flulls. \lahigan WilH
l 1 of the burden and the financial impact on the residents )
i 2 then that could be extended to a five year hitch, if you 3 will. l 4 Q And did you request that your tour of duty in Midland be 5 extended to the five years?
6 lA Yes, I did. I can' t remember whether I wrote a memo or i
7 l just told them. I'm not sure how that all transpired but 8 I had let it be known that I would just as soon stay at 9 Midland.
10 0 Were you satisfied with your professional assignment at 11 '
Midland?
I 12 'A Yes.
w 13 0 What was the highest level within Consumers Power i
14 Company's management that you dealt with while you were i
15 !
involved with Palisades?
16 Palisades. Hell, let's see. I went to the Jackson office lA i
17 i and had dealt with -- boy, Mr. Youngdahl, who was a 18 i Vice-President. I'm not sure when Mr. Selby, who was his l
19 predecessor, came into being. I may have touched with 20 i them during some of the coptroversial issues with 21 Palisades from a technical standpoint.
22 0 When you dealt with Mr. Youngdahl was he then a i
23 Vice-President ?
24 ,A I believe he was, i
l l
I l
to(yette Hwldung 3mlo %rthurs e n ll>< >
har tan 462*1176 kure Lm l Ik trout, 11.chigan M22t> Farmungton llull<, \takiran 18als i
1 l0 Did you ever have a circumstance when you were assigned to 2 the Palisades f acility where you sought communication with l
3 anyone within Consumers Power and was unable to get it?
4 A Where I sought communication with anyone from Consumers 5 and was unable to get it. Not that I can remember.
6 ;0 I notice your background is in the Navy. You were a 7 i sailor?
l 8 A Yes.
i 9 10 Do you believe that your experience in the Navy nuclear 10 program has assisted you in your NRC professional career?
11 jA Yes.
12 0 In what way is the Navy nuclear program beneficial to 13 someone involved in land-based nuclear power plant 14 '
construction?
15 A The Navy reactors are pressurized water reactors and the 16 techniques and quality envelopes required of those plants 17 are quite a bit similar to the present quality envelopes 18 that are required in civilian land-based plants. The Navy 19 didn't call them the 18 criteria of Appendix B but 20 basically those were part of the Navy programs for 21 construction, the testing, the power ascension, the 22 hydrostatic tests. They're quite a bit similar.
23 The kinetic aspects of the fuel is somewhat 24 different but it's still the handling of fuels. The 302
.uz d Reportirng Service ,, ,o y,,g , ,,,,,, ,,, ,
lafayette flauld.ng Su,,, wo 962 11?6 Suute 2:0 Farmmaton Ihlls, \lahagan 18018 (ktroit. \lahisen Ut226
1 l civilian-based plants use a chemical technique which the 2 Navy does not. There's certain idiosyncrasies of each 3 style of plant. The pressurized water reactors of the 4 Navy are quite a bit similar to pressurized water reactors 5 ,
of the civilian industry and the concerns that go with i
6 l them are.
i 7 l0 Miss Rice asked you about an inspection you made of I
B Midland the in f all of, September of 1977 when you looked 9 : at the liner plate bulging and some other items, and we'll 10 i look at those documents in couple of minutes. I'd like to i
11 ; ask you how many times approximately you had been to 12 Midland on visits or inspections prior to that September 13 4 1977 visit?
14 lA If you had the inspection report I might be able to tell l
15 j you better. I can tell by who I was with. I i
16 lC You should ' nave it in f ront of you as --
17 A Do I have it? .
l 18 l0 Yes, NRC 116, one of first exhibits Miss Rice handed you 19 yesterday. What I'd like to know, and let me sharpen the 20 question up, is prior to the visit which is described in 21 -
NRC 116 how many times did you visit the nuclear station 22 at Midland while it was under construction?
23 A I don't really know. I can't remember when I made the 24 transfer over into the construction side of the house at Inty rtre ikident 1.n d !teporting Sern ice ,,9 y, , 3,f3 har mo 962 1Iin har 2.*o Ik trmt, 11ahutan a:26 Farmention I1stis. \1whiron w ik
-- _ .-- _ - . . .__ . - - . _ ~
1 l
1 1 that time. I think it was that summer before September.
2 So there may have been a visit or two before this, but I'm 3 not really certain on that.
4 Q When you made the transfer over to construction from 5 operations, did you have to have some specialized 6 , training, some course werk or anything that would equip i
7 you to become a construction-based inspector rather than 8 i an operations-based inspector?
t 9 'A Well, I did go to quite a f ew of the NRC sponsored courses 10 that the construction-type people go to. As far as making 11
- the transition, as is indicated in my resume I had a bit 12 ! of construction experience before going to the Midland 13 site, But, you know, there were things I didn't know,
< t 14 '
that I was rusty on. Concrete school for example. I had 15 j not dabbled a whole lot in concrete, if you will. So 16 there were some of this training and as matter of 17 ; formality the inspectors, no matter how experienced in 18 their field, go to the prescrioed courses in the NRC.
19 Q When you visited the site on September 27 through 29 you 20 knew that, you were going to become the resident inspector 21 at Midland?
22 A That was my impression at that time, yec.
23 Q Let me show you a document that hac been marked as 24 Defendant Exhibit D 1663.
i
( l l 2 ,
304
:Vitin \.vthuntern Ilv ,
lafyette ikidme Swtr Mo 9b2 1176 Swt< So Farmmitm lidh, thchienn Ihnik Iktr<st. \lakien iM?h
1 (Deposition Exhibit No. D 1663, 2 NRC memorandum from D. W. Hayes, 3 dated August 30, 1977, was marked 4 for identification.)
5 BY MR. DRIKER:
6 0 This is a memo from Mr. D. W. Hayes of the NRC, dated I
7 August 30, 1977, reactor project assignments, and I direct 8 l your attention to the third paragraph, which states i
9 'Although R. J. Cook will have primary project 10 responsibility for Midland af ter December 1,1977, T. E.
11 i Vandel will retain some project responsibilities for this I
12 ! site." Does that accurately describe what your 13 l responsibilities were after December 1, 19777 i
14 lA Well, he goes on to and says 'This responsibility has not 15 been f ully defined as yet but will include coordination of 16 region-site inspection program activities." In actuality 17 what happened was that Tom Vandel mainbeined project 18 responsibilities for the Midland site in the region office 19 for quite a period of time after that so he and I worked 1
, 20 very closely together. ,
21 I guess this memo does say that I would 22 become the primary project responsibility and the 23 relationship that existed between Ton Vandel and myself
, 24 and our ability to work well with each other, that I guess Ipthytte lin.nidunt 3 Men %rthur> e n lion
. .% rre hm 9n2
- l l in %ar .n ik trutt. \lahton $8:26 Formongton llulls, \twhrgan wili
1 we never designated in our own minds who had the primary 2 responsibility because we just shared. He was in the 3 region. He ultimately stayed in the region-based of fice.
4 We knew that was going to happen. I was headed for 5 Midland so, like I said, we worked very closely together 6 inspite of the memo here.
7 l0 If you look at the second page of the meno where it lists i
8 j eight or ten f acilities then the assigned project i
9 }
inspector and the effective date, the last entry is I
10 l Midland, your name,12-1-77, then it identifies Mr. Vandel 11 as the previous project inspector?
12 A Yes.
i 13 l0 Does that confirm the arrangement which was ultimately l i 14 l adopted?
I 15 A No, it does not because Mr. Vandel still stayed involved 16 with the Midland Plant and it was f elt -- there was some 17 changes going on in the region at the time and it was felt 18 l that with the new resident program that there needed to be.
19 a strong individual interface in the region office. So, 20 Tom Vandel maintained, if you will, a project, a 21 responsible project assignment for the Midland site 22 working out of the region office and I maintained 23 responsibilities for the on-site activities.
I 24 So this didn't really occur as this memo .
( i 3
l l l
l 306 1.uzod Reporting Sertic' nw Wihaarstern llu,>
l Infayette ikIden 9$g,;y7s suite 2.>o
( Sutte M
(ktrost, \fwhigan M226 Farmention listis, \lahigan IhnlH
- - _ - , - . . ~ . . _ - _ _ _ _ - . - . _ - _ _ -
I would lead you to believe that it occurred and that's why 2 through -- I told you that there was a close working 3 relationship between Tom Vandel and myself and we realised 4 that it would probably end up that he would coordinate 5 efforts out of the regional office and I would coordinate 6
l efforts locally, at the site.
7 10 Is that what ultimately happened af ter July of 1978?
8 A That's ultimately what happened. And in the period from 9 j December of 1977 until I got on site in the middle of 1978 10 Tom Vandel did a lot of work at the Zimmer Plant and 11 { there, again, who picked up this magical, project inspector i
12 assignment, it is kind of hard to say which one of us did l
13 ; that because again we were working very close with each 8 j 14 l other.
15 0 When you say the magical project assignment, you' re 16 ,
talking about Midland?
l 17 That's right, and the responsibility, .In other words, it lA 18 would be difficult for you to say that this man had the 19 I ultimate authority versus this man. That division did not 20 exist. There was a close pelationship.
21 0 And there was no formal demarcation between the two of yod 22 as to who was responsible for Midland during the period 23 December 1,1977 until you moved on site in July of 19787 24 A Not really.
l' u t d Reporting Stre ice 01 Infyrtte Ltdag ,g9 ,,
kre van 962 11I6 kute 2 o lutrout. \tahugan 5822h Farmmerm flulls. \fahison 18018
1 l0 okay. What did you do to bring yourself up to speed about 2 the Midland Plant itself from the time you found out you 3 were going to go to Midland in the summer of 1977 until 4 you actually moved there? I'm not talking about taking 5 courses in concrete, I'm not talking about the trades or 6 disciplines, I'm talking about the licensing of Midland, 7 l the construction activity, things that related 8 l specifically to Midland.
i 9 'A Okay. I went into the entire record that we had in our 10 central files that pertained to Midland, went in and -- oh 11 gosh. In that period of time we used to write a report 12 i that was, you might call it, the predecessor of the SALP 13 report and that was a compilation of what did the record L
i 14 ! look like. So I was involved in generating that document, 15 I was involved in reading the previous history, involved 16 in looking at the schedules and proposed installation of 17 eq uipment s. Tom Vandel and I worked on putting together 18 what might look like a prudent inspection activity ;
19 schedule.
20 0 Did you read the PSAR? ,
21 A Not as a novel, if you will. Bear in mind I was f amiliar 22 with these pieces of literature that existed, standard a
23 PSAR's and FSAP.'s and yes, the're were uniquenesses with 24 l the Midland Plant. I did read those portions because of I
l )
308 f.usod Reportin Serme ,g y, y,,g , ,,,,,, y,g _
lafyrtte ikildme S;,ga sy; 962 1176 Swe 2.:n Iktemt. \tahitan M n Farmagtme lidh. \lochtton mom
1 having one plant that was going to dedicate steam to Dow i
2 ! and that was a unique concept. So, you know, I looked at 3 literature associated with that and now to sit here and l
4 say I started at one cover of the FSAR and read it through l
5 as a novel to the last cover of it, no, but I did read 6 portions of it depending on what we were doing and what 7 ; the emphasis was, i
8 10 Did you become aware during this, if we can call it an 9 . educational period, that the NRC was receiving copies of I
i 10 ! all nonconformance reports emanating from the Midland 11 '
Plant?
12 'A Yes, I was.
13 'O How did you become aware of that?
14 !A I knew that that was a provision that had been invoked 15 l because of a previous, a lab order, and so that would get 16 l shipped to the region and we would, as time permitted we 17 ,
would review them, look at some of them. In fact, I l
la l almost forgot they were getting those until you mentioned i
19 it but now that you mention it yes, we were looking at 20 some of the nonconformances that were coming out. We were 21 l getting them and they were storing them in Tom Vandel's 22 office and there were periods we would catalogue them.
23 0 Does that mean there were periods when they simply got 24 '
left in boxes without anybody looking at them?
l l'M0d N! Porting Sern ice 3 Infyrtte Harldar y ,y ,,
kute MO 902'llI6 kute 2)u IJ<tra t, \lorhigan IR22h formuntron Hills, \tahtaan MUM
1 lA There were periods when they simply got left in boxes. In l
2 fact, that was one of the things that, I don' t want to say 3 concerned about, but there had been an understanding 4 earlier that the NRC would review these and take follow-up 5 action, or sonething to that effect, and we were not as 6 much on top of that as we'd hope we'd been or should have 7 i been.
8 l0 How did you find out about such an understanding?
I 9 I don't know.
lA 10 1 When did the understanding come about?
l0 11 lA The understanding -- let's see. There was a person by the I
12 l name of Walt Vetter who had generated a memo to that i
13 ef f ect and I'm not sure right now without the records what i
14 l the reasoning was for that.
I 15 12 In Mr. Vandel still with the NRC?
16 A Yes.
17 0 Where is he located? .
18 A He's located out of Region III. For a period of time he 19 was the senior resident inspector at Wolfe Creek and af ter 20 his assignment there he cape back to the Region III 21 office.
22 0 Let me describe what I think you just testified to and if 23 it isn't accurate tell me. Do I understand that when you 24 became aware of your assignment as resident inspector at j l
l
'"# '" 3mtIU %rthurst r ilu< ,
I.afayette Hwldant
,% e hy> 962.))l6 swy, ;} ,
Iktrat. \fuchigan 1822n Farmington Hills %hnran 18018
l 1 ! Midland you talked with Mr. Vandel, who had previously i
2 l been involved as a region-based in;pector at Midland, and I
3 you in some fashion found out that all of the NCR's coming-4 out of Midland were sent to the region office in Glen 5 ! Ellyn and you made some effort to look at what those NCR's 6 said but that there were many of them and I take it you 7 l did not review them al.17 l
i 8 !A That is true, I did not review them all.
9 l0 Do I summarize in a fair way what you're saying?
i 10 'A That was a good characterization.
i 11 How many boxes of these NCR's were there?
l0 12 A Oh, scrud. I don't really recall. I remember them being 13 up -- we used to store them under a table in Tom Vandel's I, ,
14 office and ultimately they would find their way into our l
15 central office files.
16 0 Do you remember reading the NCR's with respect to any l
17 specific trade or discipline or time period or did you 18 just kind of peek in a few boxes and get a sense of what 19 was in them?
20 A I can't recall whether I looked at them with regard to a 21 time period or discipline. I just remember looking at 22 some of them, and I vaguely remember in fact looking at 23 some of them and having that as a basis for what we were 24 going to check on the next time we were out to the alte.
l 1.afy etre lk idme Lmd Reportine Serwin 3,, k,,f,11,g sure ao 962 1176 snie :2<o Ikerar, \taktran Mt::n Farmmatun llalls, \lwhien wik
1 j And I'm not -- I just vaguely remember that that was --
2 this is an area we ought to check into as we would put 3 together our trip plan for the next visit to the site or 4 whatever.
5 l0 Do you recall during this educational period, again before 6 moving to the city of Midland, looking at any NCR's 7 dealing with the placement of soils?
8 A No, not, you know, there -- to be honest with you, I can't 4
9 : even think what the topics were of the NCR's we were i
10 looking at at the time. It seems to me there was a good 11 ,
six of whatever.
i 12 0 Did anything ring a fire alarm in your head whatever the 13 subjects were when you looked at these NCR'ai did you say L ,
14 l oh, my God, there's a catastrophy out there we got to get
, ,15 on right away?
16 A No. I would have remembered something like that.
17 0 I assume you would have. At the time you became aware of 18 the NCR's being forwarded to the Region III office had you 19 j ever experienced any other plant under construction which 20 was required to furnish thp NCR's to the region of fice?
21 A No, I don't think any other plant was required to do that, 22 although, NCR's do arrive at the regional office from
(
23 other plants and I'm not sure how we get them. It just 24 happens. So reading NCR's was nothing new to me. I had j l
i 312
- f Mw % hurstern flu s Isfvette kidong s,,, nw 962 1176 kite 2.'o Iktroit, \lwhigan M226 Farmington Hdh. \lahican 18n18
1 read NCR's before and the inspectors we dealt daily with, 2 they would have NCR's they had brought back from the site 3 or acquired somehow, but I think Midland was only required 4 by a board order to submit all NCR's. That's not saying 5 l there may not have been plants that had similar i
i 6 l requirements imposed on them.
7 l0 Anythine vise that you can think of that you did to 8 ! prepare yourself for your resident inspector status?
9 'A We attempted to write procedures that would be the 10 interf ace between a resident inspector and regional i
11 . office.
12 'O That was something you and Tom Vandel did?
13 A Yes.
t 14 i0 As I unuerstand your testimony, the whole resident 15 inspe; tor concept was brand new, you were among the first '
i 16 i wave of those inspectors; is that correct?
17 A Yes. We had two resident insrectors on the pilot plant 18 program out of Region III. One inspector looked at the D.
19 C. Cook plant and Palisadet plant, Kenny Baker, and 20 whatever time he got put into the place was the time I 21 went over into the nuclear support group. And we also had 22 another inspector that looked at the Cawanie plant and I 23 believe it's Point Beach.
24 0 was the appointment of a resident inspector during this ,
I l
m d Reporting Sert sce 353 14faytte Hwidme 3 g Smre 630 962' LEI 6 Swtr 23 Iktroit. \forhigan 48226 Farmington Hilh, \fichigan 1801M
1 first wave when it happened in the summer of 1977, was i
2 that an indication within the NRC that the plant was a 3 troubled plant or special case or something out of the 4 ordinary?
S
{A You mean -- say that again.
G When the first wave of resident inspectors was appointed l0 7 ! in 1977, including yourself for Midland, was that viewed i
8 within Region III as nu indication that the plants who
)
9 were going to receive resident inspectors were troubled i
10 plants or special cases?
11 A The plants that were originally selected, some of them 12 were designated because there had been a history of 13 regulatory difficulties at the plant. We also wanted to 14 send inspectors to dif ferent kinds of plants and in f act 15 , one of the proposals, and it ultimately came to pass, was 16 that we really ought to send a resident to utility plants 17 that are held in good esteem by the !!RO and find out what 18 it is they are doing right. That was -- one of the 19 considered better operating plants from a regulatory 20 standpoint was Prairie Is1pnd. That was one of the 21 concepts of going to the Prairie Island plant. As it come.
22 out, a good friend of mine went to the Prairie Island 23 plant early on, if you will. The reason for sending a 24 resident to the Midland Plant was because there was a l
l l
314 Infayette Hunldung M w %rth u rstern liv > .
S;,,,mo 962 11ib S wre :.4>
(>trmt, \takiaan M22t> Farmngton flills, \lahigan wolX
1 history of questionable regulatory performance.
2 0 I sense f rom what you said yesterday in response to Miss 3 Rice's question that Mr. Keppler was also concerned about 4 the public relations aspect of Midland, the fact it was a f
5 l plant located within a city and there was a great deal of i
6 intervener activity. Was that also a reason expressed to 7 ! you as to why a resident inspector was going to be sent i
8 l there?
9 IA That's correct.
10 0 Did you review any of the pleadings or transcripts f rom 11 any of the licensing proceedings which had taken place up l
12 i to August of 1977 in the Midland case before you went to 13 i Midland?
I :
14 !A When you say 'any', I guess you're saying did I look --
15 I excuse me. I did not read a lot of that transcript. Now, 16 j I was aware that it existed. Did I read any of it, well, 17 I probably did, you know, just to get bhe gist. But I was --
18 ,
with the amount of time that a person has available, t
19 I somehow stopping to read all the intervener issues and all 20 the David Comie and Mary Sinclair verbiage and all that 21 stuf f somehow I thought I could more better use my time 22 than reading that stuff. What came out of those hearings 23 was what I was more interested in as opposed to all the 24 verbiage that went into it. And, yes, the transcripts i
1.utod Reporting Sern ice 315 1.afayette hiding ,, ,
.%uve h30 962 Elib %ue 220 Intrat, \lahutan m2.% Formungton llalls, \faharan WIlk
1 wore laying around the office and what is this so I'm sure 2 I must have read some pages of it and say I don't have 3 time enough for this.
4 3 0 one more question then we'll take a lunch break. Did you 5 know at the time you moved to Midland in the summer of 6
l 1978 that there had been a major dispute between the Dow 7 Chemical Company and Consumers Power Company over their 8 ,
contract with respect to the Midland Plant and over i
9 j Consumers' performance in constructing the plant?
)
10 lA No, I don't think I was aware there was a dispute between i
11 bow Chemical and Consumers Power over contracts.
12 0 Do you know that today?
13 jA No, I don' t, as a matter of fact.
l 14 !O All right. Okay.
I 15 iA other than what you just said.
16 0 Let me follow it up with one question. Are you saying 17 then that you do not know today that there was a dispute 18 that gave rise to so-called romand hearings and attorney 19 conduct hearings in 1976 and 1977 where Dow and Consumers 20 were questioned about claigs and lawsuits between each 21 other; is that news to you?
22 A I don't think I was f ully aware of -- I knew there was a 23 thing called a remand hearing but controversy 24 contractualwise between Consumers Power and Dow Chemical, 316 Luzod Reporting Service m ,,,,,, , n lafayette Rwiding S0te KM) 902'IIIb Sm!' 2h
[ktmt. %chigan M:y, Famington Udh. %chigan 18olk
1 O Okay. Why don't we take a break for lunch.
2 i (A brief recess was held during I
3 the proceedings.)
4 BY MR. DRIKER:
5 l0 Mr. Cook, what was the procedure by which you gained 6 l access to the Midland Nuclear Plant, physical access? Did 7 j you have to go through a guard gate, did you have to i
8 identify yourself to a security person, things of that 9 l nature?
10 A Well, there was two guard gates and there was a main gate 11 and you'd go through there and we had a site accese badge 12 ! and you would identify yourself using the site access 13 badge. A lot of times you didn't use the site access 1
14 '
badge because the individual guard knew who you were. So i
i 15 there was an identity reasoning but you did have your site 16 access badge.
17 0 Was that something issued by consumers Sower Company or 18 issued by the NRC?
19 A That was issued by Consuners Power Company.
20 0 Prior to the time you became the resident inspector did 21 you have to identify yourself at the outer gate, give your 22 name and your affiliation?
23 A We had to stop at one of the gates and I'm not sure 24 whether the access control was that sophisticated say in l
l
- i 318 "I nw %rthuntan Huy lafvette Iktdung S ,,; n y 962 1176 % te 2.M Derrmt, \brharan 48226 f*'*'^"" UdI' \b'h i'*" '""I"
l 1 late 1977, really, I said I know we stopped at one of the l
2 gates and identifled ourselves and they would' write down l
3 the license number of the car and so forth and so on, and 4 I'm not sure which gate that was at.
5 0 I take it that you had identification designating you as 6 ; an inspector for the Nuclear Regulatory Commicsion?
7 'A Yes.
8 0 From what Miss Rice asked you yesterday and your answer I 9 take it also was that that identification enabled you to j
10 ! see any part of the plant you wanted at any time?
l 11 A Yes.
12 0 In essence you had free reign of the plant site?
13 4 A Yes.
14 0 Did you ever have an occasion either before or af ter you 15 became resident inspector where you were impeded in any l
16 l way in your access to any facility you wanted to see other.
l 17 l than through physical constraints? Recognizing if there 18 was not a stairwell built maybe you couldn't walk-up to l
19 the top floor or something, but did Consumers restrain you 20 in any way from gaining access to any part of the plant 21 i you wanted access to?
- 22 A There would be those portions of the plant that because of 23 safety reasons that access would be denied, on a temporary 1
24 basis anyway, because of hazardous gases and things like I
i Lu:od Reportirug Sersice 319 l a nyrtto k idase , ,,,,,,,,g
\
%: Mn 962 11ib %re$1 l
Intrmt, \lahev 1R226 Farmmaton flillu \1whigan thulk
1 ! that. I
- 1 2 0 Did the explanation satisfy you as being a legitimate 3 safety precaution? <
4 A Yes.
5 l0 other than hazardous conditions which would block your 6 : access on a temporary basis, was there any other occasion i 7 l where Consumers or Bechtel improperly impeded your access 8 to any portion of the plant?
9 jA No, not that I can recall anyway.
i 10 I tako it that that would be something that would stand l0 11 l out vividly in your mind had it occurred?
I 12 lA Yes, it would. Now, I got to think about it because we i
13 looked - there was a regulation that requires a licensee L l 14 ! to of fer unimpeded access throughout the plant. Let ne 15 } think of the details. See, we looke'd that up. It may 16 have been because of attempting to impede the access of 17 Bruce Durgess, the resident inspector, .and it was a 18 misunderstanding ultimately, but I re 2mber us looking 19 ;
that regulation up and informing I think it was Don Miller 20 that such a regulation did, exist, and I said ultimately it 21 came out it was a bit of a misunderstand 1ng. I'm having a 22 hard time remembering the details of that.
23 0 Let's confine it to your own experience.
24 A Well, why was I looking that up and that tied me into an l 1 320 lafnette Hasiding M ' % '*'" U"Y
$;g, g} 9b?*$$?b Sustr 2.4b htroit, \lwhigan 48226 Fa nungton Hnils, \laktean M'IR 9-
1 event that did happen some time later.
(
2 0 In the six years you were on the site was your personal 3 access to anything impeded other than these temporary 4 situations you described because of saf ety precautions 7 5 A No.
I 6 'O When you visited the site in September of 1977, and we 7 made ref erence to your inspection report NRC 116, do you 8
f recall how you got around the site? Would you walk or 9 ! would you drive, how would you physically move from one i
10 place to another?
11 A lot of times we would walk and I can't -- I'd have to lA 12 ; look at that report and find out the places where we went.
13 0 would you take a look at it please?
14 jA Seems to me there was some reference to a lay-down area 15 ! here. I' m not sure on that, though.
16 . I'm going to hand you in connection with this question a l0 17 ! copy of an exhibit that's been introduoed in evidence at 18 ! trial, Def endant Trial Exhibit 291. I'm going to ask you 19 in a moment to show us based upon your review of the 20 September 1977 inspection report where you would have B
21 walked around the site?
22 A Okay. Now what was your question?
23 Q Looking at the inspection report, NRC 116, and looking 24 also at the map of the site, Defendant Trial Exhibit 291, I
I l
Lu:od Reporting Service 321 l 1.ahyette Hustd;ne Suite h10 962 11'b g,,, gy, introe t, \tachtean M226 Farmungton Hulls. \lochigan Im1H
1 1
l can you tell me where physically on the mar you would havel i
2 visited during your tour of September 27th, 28th and 29th, 3 19777 4 A I'm not sure all the areas where I would have been are 5
l represented on your map because it indicates here, and 6 ; again I remember looking at components in the storage i
7 l place -- well, let's see. I was thinking I may have been l
8 i in the storage area. I'm regressing, or being addressed, 9 i to receipt inspection records. Okay. During this 1
10 inspection you're addressing in September I'm not so sure l
t 11 that I looked at the location of where the reactor vessel 12 ; and components were physically stored. That was the 13 l reason for my first comment.
L !
14 l We have here that receipt inspection records l
15 I were reviewed by the following items and there were times 16 when I had examined the storage locations of these 17 component s. Whether I did it on this particular 18 inspection I'm not sure or whether I did it on some other l
19 inspection I'm not sure of that either. Looking at 20 records would not necessarfly mean that I would have to go 21 to the lay-down area where these components were located.
22 Now if we went to the lay-down area there were times we 23 had used a Consumers vehicle, you know, you had sedans and 24 four-wheel drive vehicles on site.
+
d 322
'E I '" 3tetw %rthu ntern IIn y .
lafayette Iktdmg I Sw,, wo 9 6 2. l l .~ 6 Swte :.m (Hrmt, Whitan L'i226 Farnungton lidis. Whigan S'io1R ,
P 1 0 where was the lay-down area in ref erence to the power 2 block?
3 A The lay-down area would be -- see, you'd go down a road, 4 down this way.
5 And you' re pointing to the west?
l0 6 A Well, but -- let me think -- because you had two ways you 7 , could go. Let me think. You go to the end of the pond, i
8 up by the pond and then over in an area over in here.
9 j0 You're marking to the southeast?
i 10 iA Probably to the southeast of the power block because there 11 '
was a road here. You'd go -- you'd leave here and there 12 was a road that went this way, went beside the pond, went 13 down a hill, went like ac if it was going to the access 14 l road. You follow it around this way and it was sort of l
15 ! down in this area here.
l 16 io You're talking about a road that is south of the power 17 block, circulating around the went side of the pond and 18 towards the main gate in the general direction?
i 19 ;A That's right, and there's also another road that went this 20 way. ,
21 0 This way, west f rom the evaporator building?
22 A West from the evaporator building. Sort of down the hill 23 before you got to the main gate you would duck to the left 24 ,
and go down there's a way and on one end of the pond on i
1.nihytte Ilmidme
'E ' " # '
31810 %rthun e n flu ,
% te M n 962 11I6 .%sa. 2} ,
Iktrout. \forhieu M22n Farmmaton llulls. \fuchien Iml>:
+
1 l the lef t-hand side you had a lay-down area. You access 2 still from Poseyville Road. So that would be one portion 3 of the lay-down area. Back in this time I think that 4 there was also some portions that were stored over in 5 l here. There was railroad tracks or something. I'm not 6 l sure.
I 7 iO Over in here near the water intake structures?
8- A Well, there was an area that could afford storage that was 9 down by the water intake structure, in this area if I 10 ,
remember right, and that was before the Diesel Generator i
11 i Building was put up. A lot of this work had not becn 12 ,
completed at that time. I kind of vaguely remember we 13 walked down over here by where the railroad tracks were 1 I 14 l and looked at stuf f by the railroad tracks.
l 15 l0 Let me show you a photograph that has been marked as 16 Def endant Deposition Exhibit 1676.
17 (Deposition Exhibit Wo. DPD 1676, 18 a Photograph, was marked f or 19 identification.)
20 A It would be easier to decepibe if you give me a whole map 21 of the place.
22 BY MR. DRIKER:
23 0 This is the bect I can do today. Defendant 1676 is a 24 construction photo dated September 27, 1977, the date you l }
324 Luzod Reporting Sernic' 3rew urosa rren Ilv ,
iskyrts* ILoldent qsg,y) s % e ;,4s
~
j er fahigan 182 t>
i 1 l began your three day inspection.
I 2 A Okay.
3 0 And you'll see the photo says that it's -- the orientation 4 of the photograph is looking east. So I take it that the 5 j reactor at the top of the photo is reactor building number 6 two, the reactor at the bottom is reactor building number i
7 i one, the partially roof ed-in structure is the Turbine i
8 Building and it appears there is some footingo near where 9 the Diesel Generator Building is located?
l 10 lA Yes.
11 !O Do you recall walking around all or any portion of the 12 -
structure as exhibited in this photograph during the three 13 days of your inspection in September of 19777 14 ;A I recall walking around the site. Now whether I actually l
15 . walked around on those particular days is what I was 16 ; trying to explain. I'm not so sure it was on those 17 precise three day periods, that three day period of 18 ,
September 27th through the 29th.
i 19 l0 Do you mean to say you remember walking but it could have 20 been at an earlier inspect $on or later inspection?
21 A It could have been.
22 0 Do you have a recollection of those three days 23 specifically?
24 ,A I have no recollection of these three specific days. Liko l.nlyene ilmldene
.D MI %rth u r e n liv >
%,1, ecys 962 ll?6 hw tr .'.D Iktrott, %kisan WM Farmungton flills Whnean imih
1 1
E 1 I said, we talked about inspection records and so forth 2 and I'm not sure -- I have no recollection sitting here l
3 now as to did I just look at the records or was that the 4 time I had physically examined the components that were in 5 l a storage state. Now of the things we do note in the 6 inspection report was that it appears that we probably --
7 4 well, there was one time I was up looking at the 8 preparations for placing the concrete on the dome. It 9 '
kind of appears like that may have happened during this 10 inspection.
11 l0 Where would you have viewed that? When you say you were 12 l up on something, were you elevated off the ground?
l 13 ;A I had gone up -- there was -- well, there was an elevator L l 14 that would take people up but there was also an outside 15 ladder that I had gone up. There was one inspection Tom ,
16 Vandel and I went on and at supper time I said I'm really 17 beat today and he says, "Yeah, the thing you don't want to 18 do is go all the way to the bottom and top in the same
- 19 day' and it was "Now you tell me" because I had been all 20 the way to the bottom and pop. Whether that was this
, 21 inspection or not I don't know. i
, 22 Q All the way to the top, you' re talking about climbing an l l 23 exterior ladder to the done of the Unit 2 containment 24 building?
l l l
326 Luzod Reponing Senin 3 ,,a y ,,g n,,,, pf , r l 14fayette Ikidmg
- Swr, as 462 117b Swtr 2.M IWrot, \laharan 182.% ferumston flills. \tahigan 180!M l
i 1 'A Yes.
2 0 Could you see the whole site f rom the dome when you were 3 up there?
4 A Pretty much. I mean, it's a 150 feet high or something 5 l such as that.
6 0 It's the highest structure on the site by a considerable P
7 l
amount?
8 Probably.
lA 9 0 How many times were you on the top of the containment 10 buildings, either of them, more than once?
11 !A Hore than once. When you say how many times, I was up 12 l there when they were pouring concrete, I was up there when 13 ! they were making preparations, I was up there when they l
14 were pulling the tendons. In fact, I may have even been l
l 15 ! up there when they were pulling the tendons.
I 16 Do you recall ever seeing the steam tunnel uncovered when f0 17 you were on the top of the containment buildings? Let me 18 show you another photograph. Let me show Deposition l
19 Exhibit D 1675, which is also a site photograph from 20 September 1977. The year has unfortunately not reproduced 21 on this copy because a looseleaf hole has chopped it of f.
22 (Deposition Exhibit No. DPD 1675, 23 a Photograph, was marked for 24 identification.)
i 1.afayerre Ikidme Luzod Reporting Sernice go ),21
, . . . - m.ms s. ,, .:., ,
lHrmt. \takiaan 4 C.% Farminetun Ihlis \taktean isolk
1 BY HR. DRIKCR 2 0 Do you ever recall seeing that site of the framing or form 3 work for the steam tunnel while you were on top of the 4 containments?
5 Well, I may have seen it. I don't recall any lA 6 peculiarities about it. In other words, I don't remember 7 standing on the containment studying the steam tunnel.
8 l0 Let me show you Deposition Exhibit D 1661, which is a copy l
9 j of Don Horn's daily log for September 28, 1977.
10 (Deposition Exhibit No. DPD 1661, 11 l Copy of Don Horn's Daily log, dated i
12 September 28, 1977, was marked for t
13 l identification.)
14 fBYMR. DRIKER:
15 lO i You know Don Horn, do you not?
16 A Yes.
17 0 Remember I asked you earlier whether you had ever seen his 18 logs and you weren't quite sure? Looking at this as a 19 sample of his handwriting and the form of his OA log, does 20 this ref resh your recollection as to whether you ever 21 looked at his logs when you were involved with Midland?
22 A No. In fact, I don't think I ever -- I may have seen them 23 but I never studied these portionr, of his logs.
24 0 On September 28, 1977 Hr. Horn's log shows under the first I
328 1.uaod ReporIing S,esice y ,,, 9,9 ,,,,,, ,7, la(n)etre llualdsng Su,,, sy; 962.I1;'6 Suure 2.M iktrort. Whstan M2.M ferrmnet<* Iltil'. % kita" # !k
1 activity "NRC (Ron Cook and Tom Vandel) were here today.
2 I went to the liner plate repair with them." Do you see e
3 that?
4 A Yes. i 5 0 Does that refresh your recollection at all that you indeed 6 went to the liner plate repair with Tom Vandel and Don 7 Horn on September 28th,1977?
8 A Well, I'll put it to you like this. I had gone to the 9 liner plate repair with Tom Vandel. Now I have no reason 10 l to say yes or no that it was september 28th when we went 11 ! there.
12 'O Where was physically, on the map, Trial Exhibit 291, where i
13 was the liner plate repair?
14 'A The liner plate repair is inside a containment.
15 l0 Which one?
16 lA I think it was Unit 2.
17 0 Where did you park your car when you visited the scene in l
18 l September of 1977? How did you get to the power block i
19 areat did you drive past the guard house in the j 20 southwesterly quadrant or pid you take a bus or did you 21 park in a parking area to the east of the guard house, do 22 you recall?
23 A Well, as I recollect I don't even remember that guard i 4 24 house being there at that particular time. 4 2
- ' 5" lafayette ILildene 36m %rthur een flu ;
%re sm 962 11'b %te L'o ,
IVtemt. \ldtgan W.% Farmngtm lislls \ldnean wls !
l
~
1 1 ; it an office area because it was a small conference room, 2 l we would use that area to, if you will, camp out. It was 3 close to where the QA people were located, which were our 4 contact type people at that point in time.
5 0 Was Mr. Corley's office in their warehouse at that time?
G !A Yes.
7 0 And Mr. Horn?
8 A Yes. Yes, I think. I think he was located somewhere 9 right close to here.
10 to Your inspection report lists the various people that you i
11 l contacted.
12 !A Let's put that in the right frame. Those were people 13 l contacted by Tom Vandel and myself.
14 'O Yes, during the three-day inspection. Would you run down 15 that list of nine licensee employees, that means Consumers 16 employees?
17 A Yes. .
18 !O Tell me how many of them were located in the warehouse 19 l building, to the best of your recollection. And I might 20 say that I believe the fourth name down is a typographical 21 error. It says D. E. Horner. I think it should be D. E.
22 Horn.
23 A Jerry Corley, Jerry Corley was located there. Don Horn 4
24 was associated with the civil work and I beliette he was i
i 1.afyrtte kidme 3'Mou %rthur e n Hw s i %te hy) 962 1E**6 %:e ;';u IWinut, \fwhigan M: r> Farmungeon finlis, \fakiean 4hn18
1 located there. Dennis Keating was there. Let's see.
2 Druce Peck was thero and Whitaker was there.
3 Q All in the warehouse building?
4 ;A I'm pretty sure that was. You know, in other words, we 5 would talk to these people in here and I'm just l
6 recollecting that if -- I'm pretty sure that those names 7 i had their offices in the warehouse building, but by the l
8 same token somebody working on soils may have had a niche 9 l over there and we talked to them in that building.
I 10 !O You used that little conference room to talk to some l
11 l people?
12 lA Not always because there was office cubicles for the 13 ,
quality assurance engineers and >e would talk to them at ;
i 14 l their desk. It wasn't we would go and camp to the 15 I conference room and bicker and talk and so forth. We 16 j mixed and mingled with the employees.
17 0 Your inspection report also shows that you and/or Mr.
18 Vandel talked to five Bechtel people, Barclay, Fester, 19 Klacking, Richardson and Stornetta. Uhere were they l
20 physically located, in what building were they located? ,
2 21 A Let's see. Barclay, I think he was down on the ground 22 floor, right about here. Ultimately he ended up there. ,
23 0 of the same warehouse building?
24 .A Yes. Poster was there, Richardson, boy, somehow I have I
wn, " m "~ e s""" , m ~, u ,'. I
- w. ii. ,
gf, ;G, j
LIrr,,,,,)
o 962 1176 '
(Hut. Whigan W.% fermin Im lidh, %hsenn w!k
1 Richardson located in another trailer complex that was l
2 . back over here, but I'm not sure that that existed at that 3 time.
4 Q West of the warehouse building?
5 A West of the warehouse building. Mentally I have him 6 , pictured some place other than in the warehouse building.
i 7 l Klacking, I'm not so sure I can recall who Klacking is any i
8 l Jonger or Stornetta.
9 !O Do you recall, Mr. Cook, looking at Trial Exhibit 291 and 10 ! the warehouse building, which you've just identified as 11 i the site of these various of fices, that there is a 12 double-door that kind of juts out in the middle of the 13 .
building on the south end and there are parking spaces t
14 : both to the east of the double door and the west of the 15 l double-door, do you recall that?
I 16 lA I recall that there was a protected area here where you 17 had entry into each side of it. ,
18 0 Yec.
I 19 A Then you went into the door and there was a stairway that 20 went up to the second floor.
21 O Is that how you gained access to that of fice building when' 22 you walked in?
23 A Not always.
24 0 How else did you get in?
l I"
- 0 P * " * ' b "' 5" n w %rth e < , Itu .
1.afnrtre ikuser s,,, as .
%,r nu 962 1176 IHrmt, 11A::an ma% Farm,ngr,m Ildts \tArgan nIs
i 1 jA Because there was a door at the other end here.
i 2 0 And you're marking a door on the northeast? '
3 A Well, the east end of the warehouse.
4 MS. RICE: Let the record show thot both Mr.
5 Driker and Mr. Cook have put markings on Exhibit --
1 6
i MR. DRIKER: It's Trial Exhibit 291 and we 7 also marked it on a Deposition Exhibit. Mine are neater 8 i than yours. We put markings on there.
9 A Yours are neater than mine and I'm an engineer. There was 10 a doorway here. '
11 ;BY MR. DRIKER:
12 0 West side?
13 :A West side but rarely did we use it. Rarely did we use the 14 i doorway on the north side. In the course of businesis we 15 primarily use this doorway here. I don't want to es:clude 16 we couldn't come in the other door because we sometimes
)
17 did or the doorway kind of in the middle of the building.
18 0 When you say primarily you used the doorway on the etast 19 side of the building or south side of building --
20 A Primarily. ,
21 0 Ever recall parking your car on the south side of the 22 building?
4 23 A Yes.
24 0 Was that the princial place you used for parking when you i
334 Luzad Reporting Serti" sw \wthorern fin la.hyer:r k idise qg,; y u si, as t or , \t A igan W .% I' '* * *#* ' ' ' ~
1 I visited the building?
f 2 l A In the period of 1977? ,
3 Q Yes.
4 A I'm not really sure on that.
5 :O Where else might you have parked?
I 6
lA I think we parked sometimes along in through here.
- 7 l0 East side?
D A East side of the warehouse building and it would depend on 9 what was happening and what roads were available and stuff l
10 ! like this. You kind of pull in and park your car and you 11 !
park your car -- and I guess I'm saying that where you 12 park a car -- I don't really remember where I park a car.
13 It's just like usually -- I don't catalogue those type 6
14 : things.
I 15 10 That's fair enough. Let me show you another exhibit.
l 16 lA There was parking placen along there and we were fully 17 capable of parking there. .
i l 18 l0 Could you park wherever you wanted to? You didn't have an 19 ; assigned parking space?
20 A Not at that time. No, there was preferred areas to park 21 and preferred areas not to park. You had other 22 subcontracts on the site and for however we knew this we 23 knew what areas were an acceptable place and what areas 24 were not acceptable places.
'"'d R 'P *"" s e n ia , 3}5 Ininreia wu..: ,,,,,,, ,, y,,
kute sk) 9b2 El?b kur ;;<r lktem t, \fwh:gan M:26 Farmnston lidh. \lachigen Ptolk
1 l0 Let's go back to Mr. Horn's log which indicates that you 2 and Tom Vandel went to the liner plate repair on september -
3 28th. Can you tell me how you would have gained access to I
4 reactor unit number two to inspect the liner plate, where 1
5 would you have walked? And you're looking now at the 6 ; photo, which is Deposition Exhibit 1676, and if the i
7 i warehouse building is at the lower end of the photo, off I
8 l the photo to the' west, then how would you have gotten to l
9 I the containment building from the warehouse?
10 lA well, I don' t know. First I want to look at something.
l 11 :O Go ahead and take a moment and look through your papers.
12 lA I gueos I was wondering where we made mention of the f act 13 l where we looked at the liner plate in thic inspection
'. l 14 l report. Okay. As I previously was stating, it appears by 15 the inspection report that we did visit the lay-down area,
, 16 or storage area. In the inspection report there are 17 several numbere that are identified and I don't know what 10 the topic is so I'm not sure that we documented that we 19 looked at that liner repair. What I'm saying is, at one 20 time I was with Vandel and,we did look at the liner 21 repair. Whether it was this particular time or not I ,
22 don't know, Don 11orn mentions that we did go and look at i i
, 23 the liner repair with him. I have no reason to say we did I 24 not on that particular time. I just can't pull it out of I
336 i 1.a(yetie ILdJm 3% W %*th Ie'" lI" '
g,,, n y, 962 1176 &ar .%
[netro,t, \lakiten L't:.m Farnuneron lidts \lah:can wih
l 1 our inspection report.
i l
l 2 0 is it possible it's one of the items that's simply listed 3 as previously closed?
4 A It is possible. Now to go back to the question as to 5 where -- how did we make access to the containment -- '
6 MR. BERKOVITZ: I forgot what the question 7 l was.
8 lBYKR.DRIKER:
9 l0 I want to know how you would have gotten to the 10 l containment building to examine the liner plate. And also 11 l your inspection report does show that you did examine --
12 concrete placement preparations for the Unit 2 containment 13 , dome area were inspected?
l.
14 i
A Yes. i 15 0 would that be in and around the Unit 2 containment?
16 A No, that would be on the dome area.
17 O Dut the dome area is at the containmenb itself. is it not?
18 A This is this area right here.
19 0 You' re showing Unit 2, the dome of Unit 27 20 A Yes.
21 0 Which sits on top of Unit 27 22 A Yes.
23 0 Given the f act that your inspection report says you 24 visited the dome of Unit 2 my quection to you is, what r
i 1.nthyrtte ILdd nz
"##' 'f* ~'" WMou %rthe e e llu r
. . . . , 9 s e .' v . s n,, n ,
lWitaN f, \flikigen W.% er w llun $$dh. \l O CGM Wl:8
1 path would you have followed to have gotten to Unit 27 2 And let me show you another construction photo of 3 September 27, 1977 showing the two containment buildings 4 with the steel work of the Auxiliary Building between 5 them, the steam tunnel in the lower right-hand corner.
6 l MS. RICE: Let the record reflect that the i
7 exhibit given to Mr. Cook har highlighting in the lower 8 right-hand corner.
9 , MR. DRIKER: Right. I haven't identified i
10 the highlighting yet.
11 lDY MR. DRIKER:
12 Let's take it step-by-step and see if you can tell ze how l0 13 you walk through thic place to get to Unit 2.
14 jA Okay. You' re asking me to tell you what route that I had i
15 ! taken September 27, 28 and 29, in that period of time in 16 1977 to go look at a bulge in the liner and I'm going to 17 have to say I'll be darned what route I would have taken.
18 i You got several ways of getting to entrances in the 19 containment. Obviously to get on top of the containment 20 you were limited to I think only one ladder, there may '
21 have been two, plus an elevator. The means of getting to
- 22 the top were very much limited so where along the line I 4
23 would have got access to one of those and whether it was 24 this inspection or not that I did walk up the outside i L 0
Luted Reporting Sertice , ,
gg,y,, nig,,
.%re hm 'o b 2 E l i b hwtr Ls IMm t, Uncan M .% Fermnstm HA, Udisan nix ,
r l
1 l ladder because the elevator did not work -- there were i
2 '
other timeo I had gone to the top of a containment, and I !
3 don't know if it was one or two using the elevator.
i 4 IQ All right. That's a f air answer. Let me now take this a I
5 step further. The record in this case shows that on l
6 September 27th and 28th of 1977 there was a drilling rig 7 ; that was drilling borings in an excavation immediately to C the east of the steam tunnel area and that is what I've 9 ,
highlighted on the picture, the photo, Deposition Exhibit l
10 ; 1670. I've circled the location of the drilling rig.
11 What I'd like to know fron you is whether or not you 12 recall seeing a drilling rig as you walked around the site 13 on September 27, 28th and 29th,19777 Recognizing that ,
14 that drilling rig would be about in the middle of the 15 ! north-south access of the Administration Building. The P
! 16 Administration Building was not there at the time but the 17 rig was there and I want to know if you recall seeing it.
la ,
(Deposition Exhibit No. D 1678, l
19 ! a Photograph, was marked for 20 identif ,1ca ti on. )
21 MS. RICE: Let the record show Mr. Driker 22 has just put an X on --
i 23 H3. DRIKER: Trial Exhibit 291.
l 24 A You indi:ated a drilling rig was adjacent to the Auxiliary
'* " " I I' " " ' ' ' 5" Natu %<rhe sp(veste Itoddent n ll>< >
sure h y> 9h2 il.*b % n :o intrar. \tA: an uc'.% iarmsnar<< lidh. \!Augen thoth
1 I Building. However --
2 BY MR. DRIKER:
3 Q No, Administration Building.
4 A Or Administration Building. I meant to say Administration 5 Building. However, you've highlighted an area on the one 1
6 1 Xerox copy of what looks like an aerial photograph that 7 I'm not no sure is in the same relative position as you've 8 put the X on the map. k'ithout a very good photograph this i
9 thing looks like this erano right here.
10 jo You're identifying the crane that's on the base of Unit 1 l
11 l adjacent --
12 lA
! That would be to the west of Unit 1.
13 10 Right.
l 14 jA The southwest of the entrance into the containuent for 15 Unit 1. The highlighted portion on exhibit whatever this 16 one ic --
17 0 1678. .
18 A 1678, seems to indicate or at least the highlighted 19 portion is a bit to the north of that location and as I 20 look at the better picture,of 9-27 I don't see the 21 drilling rig in that location.
22 Q Let me show you 1676. Do you have 1676 in front of you, a 23 copy of it? I circled the drilling rig.
24 A All right. i I
340 1.uzod Reporting Sertice gg ,, ,, ,,
f.nfayette Buildene Suite Mo 962 1176 suaa gy (ktroit. \1whigan M226 Farmington lisih. \fwhigan mol8
^i 1 0 would you agree that the drilling rig in 1676 is just east 2 of the steam tunnel?
3 A Junt east of the steam tunnel, yes -- well, it's better to 4 characterize it as being west of the Turbine Building, 5 l northwest corner of the building. You' re saying that this 6 thing here on the Xerox copy --
7 0 Is the same ac --
8 A I can agree that this looks like a drilling rig.
9 0 Why don't we then stick with 1676, which has been-10 identified as a drilling rig that was drilling borings on 11 that day.
12 A What it was doing I don't know. It does appear like the I
13 '
type of truck, and I don't have a magnifying glass to blow 14 !
it up, but it does appear to be a drilling rig there. If 15 you're asking me did I remember seeing that drilling rig l 16 on that particular day, sitting here right now I would 17 truthfully say I could not remember it. You're like l
- 18 asking me what kind of car did we drive that day and I'll ,
l 19 l be darned if I can tell you what kind of car we drove that 20 day. ,
21 O Let me ask you a little different question. Had you seen 22 a drilling rig -- walking around the site had you seen l 23 this rig would it have caused alarm bells to go off in 24 your head that something was wrong?
l I '
l Lu:od Reporting Sertice l.n_fayette Huddene Suite 69) 962 1176 l1 5,,,,, yj,,
Introut, \ftchigan Mt22r> Farmington Udh. \fschiean IwH8
1 A Probably not, not with a site that has got this much of 2 construction work and excavation work going on in the 3 site. I couldn't see any reason why I would not expect to 4 see drilling rigs there in the area. They may be putting 5 in for drainage wells. The:e's many, many construction 6 l activities when a site is at that state of development and i
7 ! to see a drilling rig would not necessarily be out of the 8 ordinary.
9 0 Just touching a moment on Mr. Donald Horn and your 10 involvement with him over the years, I take it that once 11 ,
you became resident inspector you had a good deal of l
12 j contact with Mr. Horn?
13 ;A I would say so. I mean professionally that is.
14 'O I'm just talking professionally.
15 A Yeah. We would meet, I don't want to say daily, but we 16 certainly would meet weekly, some weeks more than others.
17 0 was he in your view somebody who was competent in his 18 work?
19 A In my view. Now bear in mind he was a civil engineer and 20 I had know reason to question his capabilities as a civil 21 engineer.
22 0 Did you have any doubts about his integrity in carrying 23 out the job, his professional integrity?
24 A No, I never did. I felt he was a hard-worker and 1
342 Lu:od lleporting Sertice 3m ,o 9,g ,,,,, f f, , _
f a_fayette Build.ng Suste MO 962*11I6 Suite L41 Det *oit, \luchigan 1822f> Farmington lidh, \lorhigan IHolk
1 reasonably honest, at least in my dealings anyway, as far l 2 as I could tell.
3 0 Did you find that he was attentive to his job or was he 4 semebody when you saw him would be a goof-off and 5 sloughily in his work? !
! I 6 A I hope you're not describing the conditions of his office. !
7 i0 No. I'm talking about his personal performance. Was he 8
l i somebody who appeared to you to be dedicated and devoted 9 to his work and took it seriously?
10 i MS. RICE: Objection. Leading the witness.
I 11 !A Don Horn was an individual that would really go af ter 12 detail. That seemed to be one of his nature. So he was a.
13 l meticulous individual and worked very long hours going l.
14 after the detail. Whether that's good or bad I guess 15 ! other people would make that determination. Itdependsoq 16 what you hire an individual to do.
17 BY MR. DRIKER: .
18 0 Did you ever in your own personal experience with him find 19 him cavalier in discharging his duties, unconcerne'd about 20 his responsibilities or take them lightly or frivolously?
21 A No, sir.
22 MS. RICE: Objection, leading the witness.
23 HR. DRIKER: This is cross-examination and 24 under the Michigan Court Rules I'm entitled to lead the ,
i r
t
.md Reporting Sert ice . .go 3f3 y Lafvette Busiding Suite MO 962 1I?6 Suite. 22ro (Werest, \fichigan 18226 Formungton listh, Whigan 18018
1 l witness.
2 BY MR, DRIKER:
3 0 Go ahead and answer.
4 A No.
5 O Let's move forward to the spring of 1978 Let me show you 6 a document marked Deposition Exhibit D 1679.
7 i (Deposition Exhibit No. DFD 1679, 8 Attendance List, March 21-22,197 8, I
9 ; Midland Site Meeting, was marked 10 for identification.)
11 lBY MR. DRIKER:
l 12 ;O This document was produced to us from the files of the Dow 13 ! Chemical Company and I wonder if you can recall attending i
i 14 a site meeting at Midland on flarch 21 and 22,1978 and if 15 so what do you recall about the meeting?
16 A Well, I'll put it to you like this: I don't really know 17 what the topic of a meeting I may have 4ttended in March 18 of 197 8 would have been about, however, because there's a 19 name of W. H. Lovelace there I would venture to say it wac.
20 getting information for what they call a forecast panel.
21 In other words, where the --
l 22 O Is that the case load forecast panel?
l 23 A Case load forecast, predictions of events to happen at a 24 site, t
344
' E "'"# '"' 3ml0 %rthurnern flua ,
f.afvette Hasiding suiu zh, Susu hw 962.))i6 liet;oit. \fichigan 18226 Farmington flills. .\l <hnran Ikolk
- -- ~_ _
1 0 Why would you have participated in that?
2 A Probably because of having visited the site and being 3 lined up to be the on-site NRC representative there may i 4 have been some reason because of items I had been looking 5 j at prior to this time in the courses of our inspection.
6 l0 l
Over the course of your six years at Midland the case load-7 l forecast panel had occasion to make several visits to the 8 1 site, did it not?
9 lA Well, how many is several?
10 0 More than one.
11 fA Yes, there was more than one. There was this one and l
12 l there may have been two other ones. I'm not really sure I
13 anymore.
14 0 Did you participate at all in the activities of the case
- 15 load forecast panel when it dealt with Midland?
16 A Yes.
I 17 Q What was the natute of your participatton?
18 A Well, at what time?
19 0 At any time. At any time they visited would you be called 20 upon to give your opinion on the status of construction, 21 for example, or talk about the installation rate of bulk 22 commodities or things of that nature?
23 A Ye s, I was.
24 0 would that apply to each of the visits of the case load ,
i i
'i .4 1
IA(n)ette Hwidant Lu:od Reporting Sertice 962 ilI6
, , f
,,f Saste 630 Swte So Detrmt. thchigan 18226 Farmington Ihlis, thchigan 1801H l _
1 forecast panel?
2 A One of the latter visits I did not go to the case load 3 forecast panel meeting and, in fact, I probably didn't I 4 have a lot of conversations with Mr. Lovelace, but I'm not 5 sure on whether I did or did not, _but that was -- probably l
l 6 the last one that was ever there. I've had lessor 7 involvement in that than any of the other ones.
8 0 Can you place the date of that?
9 A No, I can't. It was the one where Ron Gardener went to 10 that one.
11 0 What brought the earlier visits of the case load forecast 12 panel?
I 13 !A A lot of those I would have direct input and would talk to i.
14 Mr. Lovelace about what he perceived would be the progress 15 of work at the plant and the input would be how f ar along 16 really are they and how are the craf ts performing, does it 17 appear that they could install systems at some given rate 18 or whatever.
19 0 would Mr. Lovelace present to you an installation rate andi 20 ask you, "Ron, can they make this rate?"?
21 A Wow. Well, it wasn't like he would make a formal 22 submittal and say here's my number, will you rule on it.
23 It was more of an exchange of information. I don' t recall 24 whether he would come up with a number or whether we would; 1
346 n ePoning Sun'a 3, ,o y,,,g , ,,,,,, ,7u y lafayette Haddong Su,,, nw 962 1176 suite : o Detrmt. \fichigan 18226 Farmington Hdis. \1uchigan I801H
1 discuss a number or whether we would discuss a number he 2 may have gotten from Consumers. So the conversations were 3 in that type of a realn.
4 Q Was it your impression !!rc Lovelace was seeking 5 information about the installation rates of bulk 6 l quantities f rom other than Consumers Power Company?
7 lA Yes.
8 0 And you provided him whatever information you had 9 available?
{
1 10 lA Yes.
11 ;0 How did you determine either the installation rate i
12 ! historically or the installation rate prospectively?
13 ,
A Well, that's a very subjective evaluation that is done and 14 my data base would be looking historically at what the 15 rates were, the problems that may have existed and whether 16 there was reason to believe those same type or similar 17 problems or additional problems wouldn'.t rear their head, 18 if you will, as other systems were installed.
19 0 Did you get progress reports of some kind that would show I
l 20 you how many feet of cable,were pulled or how many feet of l
l 21 conduit was laid?
22 A There were progress reports that were available. There s
23 was also a tabulation board that was kept at different 24 times at dif ferent places in the warehouse building.
I !
, infayette Raildune Luzod Reporting Sertice ,og,9 ,,k,,, ,f,l gu, kute Mn 962 1176 Suste :Jo
/>rtrout. \lichigan 18226 Farmington Hulk, \fichigan IXnik
1 O You mean something hanging up on the wall that anybody 2 could see? .
3 A Right. Bechtel had progress reports. It was not all that 4 dif ficult to get progress reports or to have a feel for 5 progress.
G 0 And do I understand from your statement that in evaluating 7 installation rates for bulk commodities there's some 8 intuitive judgment that goes with it beyond simply 9 totaling up some list of figures?
10 A 7es.
11 {Q And that's based upon experience and judgmental factors?
i 12 lA Yes, and what happens at other plants, which I guess that 13 ,
would be experience factors.
14 !O Okay. Let's now talk about your move to the City of 15 Midland, the physical move, and your introduction to the 16 community itself.
17 MR. BERKOVITZ: You can go ahead but I'll
- 18 make a relevance objection. I hope we can keep it short.
l 19 BY MR. DRIKER:
20 0 Did you have some kind of plan in mind either developed by.
21 yourself or pursuant to instructions given to you by your 22 superiors to announce your arrival to the community and to 23 make yourself known to the city and county fathers?
24 '
Yes, we had, well, I don't want to call it a public l
348 Luzod Reporting Serrice 3m ,o y,,,z ,,,,,, ,,,q lefayette fluildine Su,,, sw 962 1176 suute :20 Detroit. \tahiean 1822b Farmington Hills. tiichigan 18oln
l 1 Beer in mind our records at one time were closed files and 2 I'm not. sure what happened but our files became open to 13 the world and since then our life is an open book.
4 Q When did that happen?
5 A Golly. I'm not sure when that happened. Probably late l
6 j seventies, late to mid-seventies. I'm not sure.
7 0 Was there a specific event that gave rise to that change 8 in attitude?
9 A Well, I suppose that there was a legal event that caused.
10 the NRC to open up their files and I'm not sure what the 11 basis of that was. I may have known at the time but all i
12 of sudden it was ecumenically decreed that our files were 13 an open book. The policy of the government was that we '
l 14 l were going to establish public document rooms in areas 15 close to reactors and we did.
16 0 Let me show you what I've marked as Deposition Exhibit D 17 1680, a booklet which while I was strolling around this .
18 office yesterday I came upon, called citizens Guide to the 19 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory commission Information. Have you 20 ever seen that booklet befpre?
21 (Deposition Exhibit No. D 1680, 22 Booklet entitled Citizen's Guide 23 to D. S. Nuclear Regulatory 24 Commission Information, was marked 350
. ts : d Reporting Sersice ,y ,,,,, ,,
isfayette Buildung Swte tan 962.))76 Smte 220 (ktrat, %chipn 48226 Farmintron listis, %chiean $3018
1 for identification.)
2 A well, I'm going to have to say yes. Did I ever read it, 3 no. I really don't have the need to have this book.
4 BY MR. DRIKER:
5 l0 I see on the bottom of page 19 it shown this booklet was 6 l published by the U. 5. Government Printing Of fice in 1981 i
7 f and without belaboring it the entire booklet contains 8 f information on how the public can gain access about the 1
9 I NRC, its licensing proceedings, its publications, its 10 files and so on.
11 A Eut before this book we had had that open policy.
12 l0 This booklet did not create that policy?
13 A This booklet did not create that policy.
14 O All right. From the time you moved to Midland to the time 15 you lef t flidland did you subscribe to the open door policy 16 of the NRC? That is, did you try to make available to 17 those who were interested in what was going on at Midland 18 as much information as you could properly provide to them?
r 19 !A Yes.
20 0 Did you tell the city fathers that when you met with them 21 in the summer of 197 8, that you'd be available for 22 answering questions or providing information?
23 A Yes. We indicated we were setting up an of fice and we 24 f would be available if they wanted to have meetings and so; IM O Pomng S n n'u 1 infayeste Hasidana 3,,0 \o,,Au,f,fn ,,,, y Saute Mo 962.))s'6 suor,g;n Iktroit. \fschigan #226 Farmington fisits, \fichugan 18018
1 I forth. Let me go back. In some of the areas that are a 2 lessor intellectual area than, intellectually developed 3 area than Midland, many of the city f athers become very 4 nervous because the reactors are in farming communities 5 and so, therefore, there are a lot of interf ace between 6 the city f athers and the residents. In Midland we also 7 made the same offer to the city fathers that we would meet 8 with them whenever and so there was that offer although 9 the actual meeting -- there were very few meetings with 10 I the city fathers, but there was interface with the city 11 fathers.
12 j0 How would you describa interface? What do you mean by 13 that?
14 We talked to the mayor of the town there. I'd say that's lA 15 interface. His daughter went to the same school my 16 daughter went to so we would chat on the street.
17 0 Is that Mr. Goodnough? .
i 18 A Hr. Goodnough, and there were times I had talked to the 19 city manager. I can't remember his name any longer.
20 0 Cliff Miles? ,
21 A Probably.
22 0 Or Jack Poster?
23 A It was Cliff Miles I'm pretty sure. Then in some of the 24 review processes when the NRR reviewers came to the site i
i i 352
'u: d Reporting Service 3, w 9, A , ,,,,,q ,, ,,
Ixfayette Huoldone Suite MO 962 11i6 Suste 2:n (ktroit. \lochigan M226 Farmington lidis. Alichigan nom
1 we then had meetings with the county folks and city folks 2 discussing their ability to handle the emergency and 3 financial impact on the community of the plant and some of 4 these things that are considered by the NRC.
5 0 Who from the region came to the introductory meeting at i
6 the library?
7 A Well, Mr. Keppler was there. I don't remember who else 8 was there.
9 l0 was the mayor of the town there?
10 A Yeah.
11 .0 Was Robert Goodnough at that meeting?
12 :A Yes, he was. I don' t remember all the people that were 13 , there. There were several people f rom the city side of 14 the house, several people f rom the county side of the 15 house. In fact, there was one comment made that said that l 16 had been the first time in a long time that county f athers 17 had met with city fathers. .
18 !O I take it it was no revelation to you in the summer of 19 1978 that the Dow Chemical Company had a pervasive 20 influence in the City of MJdland?
21 A No, that did not come as a surprise.
22 0 Indeed, did you know at that time Mr. Goodnough, the mayor i 23 of the town, was a Dow employees?
24 A Yes, I did.
lofyrtte Rwldme im d hporHng &Mu ,,,9 9,h,f,fn3,(
s@te mo 962 1176 Swte :.m ik temt, thchigan m226 Farmmeton Ihlls.11ichuman mo18
1 0 Did you know that Joe Mann was a member of the city 2 council and Phil Schneider was a member of the city 3 council and were Dow employees?
4 A Yes.
5 0 Did you knew Herb Edwards, the former Dow employee and 6 attorney for Dow?
7 A Probably not.
8 0 Did you know Mr. Edwardo, did you meet him over the years?
9 A The name rings a bell but I can't picture the individual.
10 0 How about Phil Schneider?
11 A I wouldn't recognize him.
12 l0 Have you ever spoken to him?
l 13 A I probably have. You're bringing in names -- I made 14 myself available. I made no bones about it that I worked l
15 for the NRC in the community. So, I would talk to people.
16 It made no matter to me if they were a grocery store owner 17 or general counsel to Dow or even someone from Consumers.
18 0 And you followed that open door policy for your full six ,
19 year tenure in Midland?
20 A Yes. Let me clarify that answer based on advice. When 21 we're talking open book, we're not saying everything was 22 an open book. There are certain sensitive things that an 23 inspector could come across that we of tentimes do not want 24 to share with the general public, but ac far an being I
l 354 Luzod Reporting Se: rice y ,y ,,,,,,y, Isfayette Huddeng Su,1,s3a 962.))76 Suure 2.4r IMrort. \fwhigan 48226 Farmistaton lidh. \ledugan 18n18
1 available to talk about the concerns of individuals in thel 2 community, yes, f rom that standpoint I was amenable.
3 0 Did you ever get an inquiry from anyone that you declined 4 to answer? Did anyone ever probe you -- I'm talking 5 outside of a hearing, not a question asked to you under 6 oath, but simply a phone call or an encounter or letter 7 from a member of the public that you declined to answer 8 because of the s'ensitivity of the subject matter?
9 A Yes. I have had inquiries where people wanted to know the 10 nitty-gritty details about investigations and things that 11 sounded like they were enforcement actions on the site, 12 and I usually made it policy not to discuss those things.
13 l0 From whom did those inquiries come?
14 A I don't know anymore. I said I made myself available. I 15 worked with church groups and stuff like this and I went I
16 to the things at the high schools. I was a member of -- I; j
i 17 i was a member of the community. So ther.e were times I I
18 i would not disclose. There was also another criteria that 19 l I tried to live with and that was if I was serving in a 20 community interest group that had members of the licensee 21 or Bechtel or whatever then I had a policy that I would 22 not discuss the plant while we were embarking nn these 23 type of activities, that I would only discuss the plant at 24 l the plant, i
I.afhyette lholdine IMo Po!% hnh 3mgoy,,g,,,f,jf,L Suite ran 962 11*6 suite 2jo intrmt, 11oraean 48226 Farmington listin, \fuchigan 18018
1 0 What kind of activity are you talking about?
2 A Well, you know, a guy might say, hey, I notice the NRC is 3 in town there, what do you guys want to look at now. That 4 would be a shut off. I would refuse to talk about the 5 plant with these individuals. They could be good friends 6 with regard to church groups and such as'that and the only 7 way that you could survive was to remove the f act that 8 they work with the licensee. So the plant was never 9 discussed with those individuals other than on the plant.
10 0 And by ' hose individuals you mean Consumers and Bechtel 11 people?
12 A Yec. Well, I also had kind of a policy that if we were in 13 a Boy Scout meeting that was not the time to discuss i
14 l things that may be written in the press about the plant.
15 so I would try and avoid those things. The press would 16 write stories and obviously people would want a lot of the 17 nitty-gritty detail and even though I might know it at 18 that time it would not be appropriate to disclose it 19 because we hadn't even issued our report. So I would 20 hedge back on talking nitty-gritty details. Yes, if there 21 was a news article about some event at the plant then I 22 wouldn' t ignore it would happen.
23 0 Did you make yourself available to the media to answer 24 question: about the plant?
l i 356 Lmd Reporting Sernice .y , g ,,,,,, y, lefayette Building S,,,, ny) 962 1176 suute so Detrat, \fakiran M226 I'armingtm lidh. \hchigan #1H
1 A Oh, yes.
2 0 And did the media contact you?
3 A Yes, they did.
4 0 Did you have a series of communications with the Midland 5 Daily News over the years where they would interview or 6 ask you questions about construction?
7 A Yes.
8 0 In the summer of 1978 when you had the introductory 1
9 meeting, and I take it that was at the Grace Dow Library?
10 A Yes.
11 0 of the 11 county commissioners six of them were Dow 12 employees. Let me ask you if you know any of these i
13 j peopic Dan Ranck, R-a-n-c-k, ever meet him or know him?
14 If he was at that meeting I met him. You know, let's put lA 15 that in the right context.
16 0 How about R. James Rich?
17 A Well, the fact you gave me the name Ranck, I couldn't sit 18 here and tell you if he was at the meeting or not at the
[ 19 ,
meeting. We had a list of people that were there l
20 somewhere in captivity and,that name does not mean 21 anything to me.
22 0 flow about Mr. Rich?
23 A That doesn't mean much to me either.
l 24 ,O Ilow about Rowland Weaver? g l
I l Lu:od Reporting Sersice 3 57 Lafayette Huilding Suar h30 962 1176 Sua, gjo iktemt, \tahigan $8226 Formangr<m linth. \tahigan 48n18
1 A It doesn't.
2 0 charles Blackhurst?
3 A It doesn't.
4 0 Clarice Supinger?
5 A Not sitting here.
6 0 And Earl Morris?
7 A No.
8 0 Over the years did you ever receive inquiries from Mayor 9 ; Goodnough about construction at the plant or problems at 10 the plant, licensing, those kind of questions?
11 A During the years Mayor Goodnough and I would meet at 12 periodic times, not in the form of a formal meeting, but 13 { we would meet at a school function. I said he lived half l
14 a block away from where I lived, so that type of thing.
15 Sometimes we would talk about construction but I don't 16 remember talking in any great detail other than the nature 17 of how is life going at Midland, gee, I seen they're 18 getting ready to do this, did they do it type, as I 19 recollect.
20 0 How about Mr. Mann, who subsequently became mayor, did you 21 ever receive any inquiries from him?
22 A Mr. Mann came to some of the meetings later on that we 23 were holding, came to the site. I'm trying to think who
- 24 was availabic at those meetings.
l l
l l
358
.us d Reporting Service yoy ,,,,,,,,
lafayette Building 962.llin Su,re gy; Suite h30 thetrout. \fuchigan M226 Farmington listin. \fschigan 58n18 I .
j l
1 0 Was that in his capacity as mayor? ;
l 2 A In his capacity as mayor. So he and I would obviously 3 talk about what was in the meeting and I just can't come 4 in with what the context of it would be. In other words, 5 I never made an attempt to say I'm going to disclose i
6 j something other than what is laying on top of the table, 1
7 l you know, to give a company an edge or anything like thic 8
because that just isn't my nature.
9 0 Let me shift the focus a little bit and ask you whether 10 during your six year term as resident manager you every 11 ;
received any inquiry f rom the Dow Chemical Company about i
12 i anything to do with the Hidland Plant?
t 13 !A Well, let's see. We were on the Dow Company for looking l
14 at what they were going to do with the processed steam 15 that would go across the river, I remember that tour, and 16 ; they guided us around and some of that.
I 17 0 You mean you visited the Dow facility?,
18 A Sure, with several other people. I don't remember Dow 19 ever making a pointed request for information f rom the 20 NRC. ,
21 0 Does the name Jim Durroughs mean anything to you?
22 A No.
23 Q How about Bob Caldwell, do you know who he was? Now 24 deceased, the former general manager of the Michigan
! l i
n In(nyette Hwidm, utod Reporting Sert ice 3,mg 3 f,,
Smte r30 962 11I6 Suite 2.M iktrort. \forhigan M226 Farmmeton lidin. \fichigan mol8
1 Division of Dow?
l 2 A No, it doesn't. l t
3 0 Doesn't ring a bell?
4 A No.
5 0 How about Ray Gaska, doos that ring a bell?
6 'A No.
7 0 Did you have communication f rom any of the interveners in 8 the Midland licensing cases while you were the resident 9 inspector?
10 A Yes.
11 0 can you describe to me which interveners.and the f requency 12 ; and nature of your contacts?
1 13 lA Barbara Stamiris had called up and exactly which top;t --
l l 14 I can't tell you which topic was discussed, but there t: s1 15 times she called the NRC lawyers and would call me and i
16 said she had permission that she could ask questions about --
17 well, there was one series of questione about 50.55e 18 reports and what the meaning was. So there was 19 information exchanged where the wording that is used in 20 many of our documents, that I would take the more 21 technical aspects and put them in lay terms and she might 22 understand what the issue was about. So there were some 23 of those type of inquiries. Let's seo. I have talked to 24 Mary Sinclair and I don't remember what she called about.
360
- 1. ti t d Reporting Service 3, ,9 9,,g ,,,,, ,7,, , _
lafayette Buildung Suite MO 96E'III0 Sui!' 220 lktrmt. \fichigan 4R22t> farm'ntion II'll'. \f'chugan 3018
1 0 was this on one occasion you spoke with her?
2 A No. I can' t tell you how many times. It wasn't a lot of 3 times but there were occasions. There have been times 4 where she has asked if I had such and such a document that 5 might be ultimately available in the public document room 6 and I've dropped those documents off to her because they l
7 j were if not already in the public domain and were f ast 8 l approaching that'they might have.been in the H Street 1
9 office but hadn't been filed and I had no reservations, 10 because she ultimately would get this information, of 11 ;
dropping those documents off. I was very careful how to 12 ! handle that relationship.
13 !O Uell, that was consistent, was it not, with the NRC's 14 policy of trying to disseminate as widely as possible 15 I information to the public that was properly in the public 16 domain?
17 A Yes. I don't know as I wanted to create handbills and 18 deliver it to everybody that lived in Midland, but they 19 had special and particulart interests and I guess I would 20 say my attitude was one of, politeness and congeniality.
21 0 Hould you drop it off at her home?
22 A At her home I have.
23 Q She 11vec near you, does she not, when you lived in 24 , Midland?
' # "# '" 3810 %rthsm e n flu ,
lafveur Huilduna
.\uae h va 962.))?6 Suae 2,%
Detroa, \lochosan M226 Farmunetcm HJh, \fahogan molk
- - - - - - w- --
---*e-* -
I 1 A Yes.
2 Q About how far away?
3 A Block and a half.
4 0 I note in this little roladex that you invited us to take 5 a look at yesterday, or this Bates telephone log from your 6 i desk in Midland, that I see that Mrs. Sinclair is listed I
7 with a phone number. Is that your handwriting under S, 8 ., the last name?
9 jA Sure.
10 0 Would you from time to time call her about something if 11 the situation arose?
12 A She would sometimes call and leave a message on the box to i
13 : call and so of ten times she would not leave her telephone 14 l number and so that's why I put it in here, because that's 15 what that is, it's a telephone licting, and it would make ,
. l 16 it easy to get to her telephone number. That's not that 17 it was a frequently called number. I notice the one
! 18 before that was the name of Jim Snecysk and I probably 19 haven't called him ten times in my 14 or 15 years with the -
i 20 NRC. '
i
(
i 21 0 Did you have a listed phone number at home in !!idland?
22 A Yes, I did, i
23 0 I notice also under G you have listed Bob Goodnough, the 24 Midland mayor, his business phone number. Is that a Dow l
l l
362 Lnod Reporting S,rnice yo y,w,,,,, ,,,
lafayette Budding s,;,, s w 962 1176 Sate 2.4)
Iktrmt. \luchigan yt:26 Farmington Ildh, \lichigan 48018
,. . _ ~ . . , . . . , - - - . . . _ - - . -
1 1 Chemical number? !
2 A I don't know. I would imagine that is a Dow Chemical 3 number. The reason I would have written his name down 4 here is the fact he was the mayor at the time. When we 5 were trying to make contact with these people we did not 6 have a Dow directory. So some of the names that were city 7 fathers, and there may be other city fathers' names in 8 here, I don't know, but it was once we'd gone to the 9 effort to go ahead and get their telephone number then .
10 early on I felt -- I didn't know how of ten I would be 11 calling that number and I venture to say. I probably didn't 12 i call that number -- to make the arrangements for the i
13 meeting, and there may have been another time after that.
14 I don't even recall having another time after that.
15 But when you get into the Dow business phone 16 realm, and I pref erred to invite people to meetings and
- - stuff like that, that if you can avoid calling them at 13 home, just as a courtesy towards the business world, that 19 it was preferred to call them at their business. So I 20 said you may find other city fathers' names in here 21 becauso we were having a dif ficult time finding the 22 numbers.
23 0 Let me flip it around. Has your name or the NRC's name l 24 listed in the Midland phone directory once a resident l l i lafayette Huuldnne Luzod Reponing Senin 3,,o ,,,,,f,f,f,,, ,
l kite 100 962*Ii?6 % te $ o IMndt. \forhutan 4822t> Formunston linth, \fichienn 48018 i
. - . . _ . - _ - _ _ . . . , . _ - _ _ _ _ _ . , _ . - _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _._,___._,_________.__,m, _ __.,_.,.______..._m, . _
1 l office was catablished at the site?
i I
2 A My name was listed and what was very strange is that at 3 one time we had our site phone listed in the directory and 4 as time went on we no longer were listed in that 5 directory.
}
6 0 Why?
7 lA Darned if I know, because we tried time and time again to 8 i get the telephone company to acknowledge the f act that we i
9 i were a real entity in the City of Midland. I think that 10 the reason was la that our billing ultimately ended up 11 going to the Glen Ellyn office and that was the number i
12 l that they continually insisted upon writing no matter what i
13 .
we did to get them to change the phonebook. We were never i
14 successful in conquering Michigan Bell.
l 15 0 I take it you had your own phone at the NRC site office?
16 A Yes, we did.
17 0 If you just flip, open again under Mr. .coodnough's name in 18 your telephone log. I notice the name Billie Garde.
19 A Billie Garde was one of the interveners for the GAP 20 people, ,
21 0 Government Accountability Project?
22 A Yes.
t 23 0 Did you deal with her in connection with Midland?
24 A I dealt with her only when I had to. In fact, we had a l
364
- "# 3nHm %rthurern lluy lxfayette Ikidone Swtr MO 962*ll?b Suonte 2.4r (netrar, \lahutan M226 Farmanerm linth, \takiran wolk
l 1
1 very nice relationship. She said she didn't want to talk 2 to me because I wasn't nice and I liked it and it took a 3 long time to develop that. The reason her name was there 4 is because she would call the office. Bear in mind some 5 of these numbers were also used by members of the site 6 team. She would pester J. Barrison and Wayne Shafer and 7 so forth. So it was a useablo commodity. Did I ever call 8 that number, well, I really don't know. I tell you what, 9 it wasn't very often.
10 0 You mention before about the public document room. What i
11 ! is that, Mr. Cook?
i 12 A That is a room in the public library where documents that 13 ;
i are generated by the NRC are stored, information about the 14 plant. I shouldn't say generated by the NRC. The NRC 15 brought their documents that the licensee generates that 16 come to the NRC and we file them -- we don't file them, we 17 have a librarian file them in the local library and that's 18 the public document room in Midland. Now, we have a 19 public document room on H Street and I guess it has 20 everything in it. ,
21 O H Street, Washington D. C.?
22 A H Street in Washington. I've never been there.
23 0 The other public document roon is called the local public 24 document room?
La d Reporting Ser s ic e 305 Infyrtse lhaldung , ,, ,
kate Mn 962 11?6 .%: ar 23 Iktroa, \fwhngan 4R226 Farmington flills, \lahogan Molk
1 A Yes, sir.
2 0 At the time you were at Midland there was a local public 3 document room in the crace Dow Memorial Library?
4 A Yes.
5 0 Did you ever see it?
6 A Yes.
7 0 Ever use it?
8 A Yes, we did.
9 0 What was the circumstance for your using it?
10 A I think we were trying to get some information on the 11 S AL P, if I remember right, out of it. I remember my 12 .
secretary and I were over there trying to come up with 13 some documents that were missing out of our file and we l
14 said we'll go over to the public library and get those 15 documents.
16 0 Did you?
17 A I think we did. I'm not sure. I remember going to the 18 public library to get those documents. I had used it at 19 other times. I had used it in the evening time when I 20 would be doing work at home and something would come up 21 and my children would say, hey, we need to go to the 22 library and I'd say oh, goody, and I wished I had this 23 piece of information. So I had used it then. It was very 24 difficult to use I might also add, too.
I i
oning Sudu 3, ,g ,,,,,,,,,,,).
la Su)f,)ette tr hy) Iktdvsg 962 II?6 Sucre 2:n IHron t. \lahigan 48226 Farmington llalls. \luhagan tholk
1 0 Why was that?
2 A Just the way the documents are catalogued and stacked and 3 going sequentially and it would be very difficult for a 4 person thct was not f amiliar with the data or the 5 documents of the NRC to wade through the paper that's 6 l stored there.
l 7 Was it in a discreet room?
l0 l
8 !A It was in a discreet roan. And then later on they moved 9 l it to down in the basement. I believe it was in the i
10 l basement. They had moved it anyway into a different l
11 l section. I believe it was down in the basement.
I 12 0 Af ter you physically moved to Midland and took up your l
13 status as resident inspector, could you describe for me 14 your physical quarters? Where was your office, in what 15 l building or trailer?
16 A To start with I was in a room on the second level of that 17 l varehouse building, that was where Consumers had their 18 people housed, and then an of fice trailer was procured and 19 it was located south of the change houce. Now, that 20 trailer, it moved two or three different places during the 21 six year period.
22 Q Let's just look at that site map. When you first came on t
23 board in the summer of 1977 you had an of fico in what is 24 described as the warehouse building on Defendant Trial i I 1.nfy ette Banidme
'# I' " ' W 3mm %rth u rs e n ihn ,
Swte Mo 062 1176 Suure 2).o Iktroot, \lukitan m:26 Farmmgton Ihlis. \lahutan tholM
1 l Exhibit 291?
l 2 'A Yes, located about in the center of the building.
3 Q Did you 14 ave a sign on the door that said HRC?
4 A It went up on Friday and it waun't there on Monday. A 5 nice er bica, the eagle and all that stuff.
i 6 l0 How soon after that did you move into a trailes, l
7 l approximately? Was it days, weeks, months, years?
I 8 lA I think it was probably a month or two. I guess weekt
}
9 ; would be the best way of characterizing. I just can't '
i 10 l remember how long I wes in there, but say a few weeks l
11 i later then I ended up in a trailer. Let me think about 12 that. When the trailer came in the floors came up on it i
13 because it was parked in a storage area that was bitter 14 : cold. So if I got in there in the middle of 1978 then the 15 trailer didn't get blocked up until after the cold 16 weather. Go I suppose we' re defining a period either 17 during the winter thaw or some time ducing the spring when ,
18 tho trailer got there. I know from the time it went on 19 site they stored them without heat and it caused the 20 ,
floors to come up in the trailer.
21 O Was this a Consumers Power trailer or NRC trailer?
22 A The trailer itself is owned by Consumers Power, which is 23 by agreement -- I mean, this is the way the Imc said that 24 residents would be put on site. So the facilities belong I
Iu d N'Portin,r Sers ice , ,a , , ,
IAh)fff! OWident Suite Mo 962 1176 Swi,;;o ,
Ikarout. \l <higan M226 Farmington llells \lschigan 18o18
i 1 to the licensees but they're dedicated to the use by the 2 NRC. So the trailer was an "NRC trailer", as we call it, 3 but in actuality Consumers Power owned the trailer.
4 0 Would you take this black pen and just write on defendant 5 Trial Exhibit 291 where the location of the trailer was?
6 lA well, at what period of time? It was located at several 7 locations.
8 l0 Why don't we start off initially 6 i
9 IA Oh, boy. If I remember right it was first located 10 j something like this, which I don't know how to describe 11 ! that location other than being in the southeast corner of i
12 the change house.
13 0 You've put a little X there?
14 lA Put a little X there. Then it was moved over somewhere i
15 close by the Turbine Building, which was over here, then 16 ;
it was moved -- that would be south of the Admin Building I'
17 some place. -
18 0 When was that move made?
19 lA I couldn't even begin to remember that.
l l 20 j0 Why was it made? ,
21 A Becauce they wanted to, I think, do some construction work 22 under where it was originally positioned. Then it was 23 moved back over by the change house, I think in that area, 24 which would have been the southwest corner of the change d
fathyette ILalding
'"# " 3(Blu \orthurs e n flor ,
~
Suar Ma 9h2 1176 Suaar ado Ik troa, \luchigan 3226 Farmington litils \1whienn wit:
1 house, then again it was moved -- well, to more directly 2 south of the change house. And there may have been other 3
noves in there. Most of the moves were moved because of, !
4 well, having to do with construction things or digs 5 ; underneath it.
6 l0 Let me juct put some numbers and circle one, two, three 7 and four. Does that correctly show the sequence of the 8 moves of the trailer as you've drawn it on Defendant Trial 9 -
Exhibit 291?
10 A That's the sequence I put them there. You must question 11 the accuracy of my recalling as to where we were located 12 at what time. There may have been other moves I just 13 ; don't recall. It was necessary to move the trailor every l'4 i so often. No big thing, move the trailer.
15 0 Is it fair to state during the whole six year period the 16 NRC trailer was located in the general vicinity of south 17 of the change house and west of the Diesel Generator 18 Duilding?
19 A That's a fair characterization.
20 0 It never got up near the eyaporator building or the 21 combination shop or it never got to the east side of the 22 reactor buildings?
23 A No.
24 0 All in about the southwect quadrant of this diagram?
l l
370 Lu:od Reportine Sersice 3, ,o 9,,g , ,,,,, p gn ,
< lofayeur kidans Sa w 962 1176 Suure .':o ik trout, \tahigan 482.m Farmineron lidh. \fwhigan tholR
h i 1 A Southwest quadrant of the power block, yes.
2 Q Who had access to the office, to the trailer, who had a 3 key to the door?
4 A Oh, okay. I had a key to the door. And again we' re 5 talking which period of time?
6 Let me withdraw the question and ask it a little l0 i
7 l differently. Was the trailer accessible only to NRC 8 , personnel?
i 9 IA Consumers Power had a key for security reasons for the 10 t trailer. They had a set of keys for the trailer.
I 11 Other than that did anybody else have keys to the crailer?
l0 12 5A Well, it would have only been -- we had contractors f rom 13 l Oregon at one time and we had given keys to those people.
14 l Well, of course, they' re NRC people. So the intent was to '
l 15 j make sure that only NRC people had access to the trailer l
16 l other than leaving with Consumers a set of keys, which 17 ) were locked in a key box, for security acasons. In other 18 l words, if there was suspected that there might be a fire 19 '
or something going on inside the trailer, then people 20 could have access to it to, control whatever the event 21 might be. Let's see. There was one other time that --
22 maybe there was more than one time. Consumers had access 23 to the trailer when modifications were being done to the 24 ! trailer or repairs and the NRC people were not on site or i
i Infyrtte ikddont Luod Reporting Sersice ,g 311,,
% e Mo 952 1176 swtr :.m iktroot, \lahteen 48:26 Farmington listls, \1whigan 480lx
1 I remember being where a guy by the name of Johnny Strahl, 2 who was with Consumers' management, who handled that type 3 of thing.
4 0 As a matter of general practice, when you wanted to speak 5 to Consumers personnel or Bechtel personnel who were on 6 the site, did you go to their offices and buildings or 7 locations or did you have them come to the trailer' 8 IA It depended.
9 'O It could be both ways?
10 A It could be both ways.
11 0 Did you have a private office in the trailer or cubicle 12 where you could close the door and speak privately with i
13 someone?
14 Yes. The Imc were the only reciderts of the trailer. We lA 15 did not share the trailer.
16 0 But within the trailer itself was it one big room?
17 A lt was partitioned off. Well, again, which period of 18 time? He've had two trailer at one point ir. time. In 19 fact, when I left there in May there were two trailers 20 available and each one was, partitioned off with offices at 21 either end and a bay area in the middle, if you will.
22 O When you got to the site and you moved into the warehouse 23 with your office, was there some period of time during 24 which you endoctrinated yourself to either the physical l
l L 372 Lwd Reporting Sertic' 3tew %rt%niern Hu s (4(aytte Musldung 5,a, w 962 1176 suar r:n l>timt, \fwhigan LC26 Farnungton Hith. \lwhtean mum
1 course of construction or the paperwork or the people?
2 Was there some time that you can say now was a period of 3 getting acquainted, of reviewing further documents, of 4 inspecting the site, of meeting the people, or did you 5 just kind of plunge in the first day and do then what you 6 ! did months and years later?
7 !A I'm af raid I don't understand that question.
l 8 10 okay. Let me se'e if I can't restate it. When you became 9 the resident inspector and actually took up your office in 10 i the warehouse building, what did you begin to do the i
11 l morning after you moved in?
12 A I'm af raid I don' t know.
13 ,O What I'm trying to get at is, did you say to yourself I'm t
14 going to spend a month just walking around meeting the l
15 various people with whom I will have to deal with or 16 reviewing filing systems or checking out lay-down arean,
! 17 f or did you just kind of plunge in and start your 18 inspection routine right away without any kind of 19 systematic preparation?
l l 20 A I guess to answer that question I'd say all of the above.
l l 21 0 Okay.
l t 22 A You know, yes, I met people; yec. I locked at filing l
23 systems; yes, I walked on the site; yea, I talked with 24 people; yes, I had somewhat of a systematic plan, an idea l
1.a(yetre kildme l'uzod ReporIing Sern ic e ,, A k ,, ,f,,3 3, , ph)
Swtr Mo 962 11I6 Swte2?>
Intrat, \fwhitan Pt2:r> Farmington HJh, \lahican was
1 ! what we were doing. Probably the morning after was l
2 worrying about the unpacking of boxes, the creature 3 comforts more than anything, if you want to characterise 4 it a,1 the morning after. Por that initial period or first 5 period on site I guesa I would say yes, all of the above.
6 l0 Can you today verbalige what your plan of attack was in 7 terms of your initial weeks or months as resident 8 inspector 7 Did you have some specific agenda in mind I
9 where you said I'm going to concentrate on this subject or 10 . these people or this area of the plant?
11 lA Yes, there was plans. Now sitting here now I don't know i
12 ! what those plans said, but it was based on what 13 I construction activities were in progress or being I
4 14 -
tentatively proposed. Bear in mind the plant was probably 15 30 percent completed or so, more like, pardon me, the 16 plant was about 50 percent completed I would say when I 17 got to the site and that's a period of , time when
- 18 equipments were being moved into locations. So what we i
19 would inspect -- that would not be the period of time that 20 we would be interested in how raceway was perhaps going to 21 ,
be hung two years later. Our emphasis would be guided by 22 what was going on on the site and there was plans that 23 were developed.
24 0 Did you develop then yourself?
l l
l 374
- 1. d Reporting Sernice 3, w y,,s , ,,,,, if, ,
Lafvene Iktding ga, nw 962 1176 % ar :.M iktroit. \lahigan 48226 Farmington lidis, \lakiaan WiH
. . - - - - - . _ _ _ . - . . - . . _ - . ___ . = - -
1 A Some of the plans I developed myself, some of them I 2 ,
developed in conjunction with Tom Vandel.
3 Q Shortly after you took up residency you learned from 4 Consumers, did you not, about the settlement of the Diesel 5 Generator Building?
6 lA Well, you say shortly after.
7 0 Yes.
8 lA We found out about it in I think.it was very early i
9 l Se pt embe r . Well, the date of the 50.55e, if I recall, was 10 ,
September the 7th, of that notification, and there was l
11 some days before that that I had gone -- had been notified 12 and had looked at the Diesel Generator Building, the gaps j
13 l at the duct bank and stuff like that.
14 0 Actually you had received informal advice from Walt Bird 15 on August 22nd, had you not?
16 A I don't-know.
17 0 r,et me show you what's been marked as Deposition Exhibit D 18 1665. This is a copy of Mr. Bird's Quality Assurance log 19 of phone conversations with NRC personnel.
20 (Deposition rxhibit No. DPD 1665, 21 A copy of Walt Bird's Quality 22 Assurance log of phone conversations 23 with Nec per sonnel, 8-22-7 8, was 24 marked f or identification.)
l 1.nfyrtte 1%ldone
Y "'" # " 3twoo %wthsar e n Hay 3,;ar Mn 962 1I?6 h ar 2.M IHnut. \1erhugan 182% Farneunston llulls. \fachigan IMolk
1
{BYMR. DRIKER:
2 0 This shown that he had a phone call with you at 3:30 p.m.
3 on August 22nd concerning the Diesel Generator Building. '
4 A Would anybody know what day of the week this was?
5 j0 That's an interesting question. I don't.
6 lA I have no reason to believe that was not the date. I said 7 very early September and that isn't too bad missing a few 8 days after seven years of waiting or whatever it's been.
I 9 ;0 I'm not quarreling with your recollection. All I'm asking 10 is, does that help place in your mind how you first found 11 j out about the Diesel Generator Building?
12 A I did find out through Consumers.
13 !O Do you remember Mr. Bird calling you and telling you about 14 l the settlement?
15 A Not specifically.
16 0 You have no reason to deny this?
17 A I have no reason to deny that because he did call me to 18 inform me of different things. It could have been him, it 19 could have been Don Hiller. I did not know how I knew it 20 was settling, really, just, sitting here recalling, and I 21 have no reason to doubt this is how. And it was Consumers 22 that did inform us and af ter that -- that's why I asked 23 what day it was. Well, if this was a Friday I probably 24 didn't go look at the sett1 ment until the following Monday '
i l.u : d Reporting Sersice ,,,
lafgette lhilding Suite hw 962-EEIb kite lJo Iktroit, \1whigan 482.% Farmington Ildin, \lwhigan tsulR
i or Tuesday, depending.
1 2 0 Why wouldn't you have rushed right out to take a look at 3 it?
4 A It wasn't going to disappear over the weekend and 5 ,
afternoons on Friday it seems, always seem very busy on 6
l aftornoons on Friday trying to get things mopped up and so-i 7 forth.
l 8 O Let me show you Deposition Exhibit D 1666, which is G another of Mr. Bird's QA logo of conversations with the 10 l NRC, although, this one says a f ace-to-f ace conversation, 11 ; not a phone conversation. And it shows a date of i
12 September 7,1978, a meeting between yourself and Messrs.
13 ; Bird and Corley of Consumers, which reports in substance i
14 l that Consumers today decided that the problem with the 15 ! Diesel Generator Building foundation is reportable under 16 50.55e."
i l 17 (Deposition Exhibit Co. DFD 1666, 18 A copy of Walt Dird's Quality 19 Assurance log of conversations l
l 20 with NRC per sonne 11, 9-7-7 8, was 1
21 i marked f or identification.)
l l
22 BY MR. DRIKER:
l 23 0 Do you recall that f ace-to-f ace meeting?
! Yes, I do.
24 A I mean recall it, I remember, you know -- I In(v ette liutidene I' " E " ' ' "I" 318w %rthur e on ll>< >
%ar Mn 962 11Ib So,ar 2 m Introa. \f<:kitan 322r> Formunftm Huus. Whican m'olk
1 f don't recall to tell you what kind of shirts they had on i
2 or anything such as that. In fact, I think there was even 3 an exchange of information somewhere between these two 4 pieces of information.
5 0 All right.
I 6 A I don't know if that shoss up in anybody's log or not, but 7 I recall that there had been other exchanges about this 8 and what was going on during that period. After all, I 9 had gone out and looked at the settlement.
10 0 Did you inform anybody at Region III about the settlement?
11 :A Yes, I did.
i 12 l0 How did you do that? And let me show you a document --
I 13 A one thing is I called them up and the other thing is my l
14 i section chief happened to be on site during this period of 15 time and he and I both went out and looked at the 16 settlement.
17 0 Let's take it step-by-step. Who was your section chief ?
18 A D. Hayes.
19 0 When you say he was out at this time, are you talking 20 about between August 22nd when you first learned about it 21 and september 7th?
22 A Yes, and I'm not sure exactly when he was there.
23 Q I've handed you a document marked Deposition Exhibit D 24 1667.
I 378 IAlhyette Iktdmg 3%th %ethurstern llu y S;a,n3o 962.))i6 .% ar 2.m
/>trat. \fahisan M2L% farm"I'm U'lls. \fschuran Wik
i 1 j (Deposition Exhibit No. DFD 1667, l
2 Licensee reports per 10 CPR 50.55 (e),
3 was marked for identification.)
4 BY MR. DRIKER:
5 Is this a report in your handwriting?
l0 6
lA Ye a, it is. Well, not all of it's mine, just the top i
7 part.
l 8 !O Where it says section one information?
9 fA Event, date, details, person receiving R. J. Cook.
l 10 !O How about the phrase ' Diesel generator foundation and i
11 structures have settled more than anticipated - soils 12 compaction is more than originally installed"?
13 A That looks like my handwriting. The stuf f down at the 14 l bottom where it says "lead responsibility transf erred" so 15 I forth and so on, that'c somebody else's.
16 Attached to this form, Deposition exhibit 1667, is a l0 17 i type-written document entitled daily report, RIII, I take 1
18 ; it to mean Region III?
19 A Yes.
20 0 Right-hand side it says 9-8-787 21 A Yes.
- 22 Q What is this sheet of paper?
23 A It's an internal document to the NRC that when events 24 happen on a site, why, we use it too quickly disseminate 4
l lx(vette Ltdag I' " * "# Moo \orthe e n Hu >
,% ate h3t) 962 E lib kite lyo (wtrons. \lechstan tR22n Farmington Holh, \lahutan ZHulk
1 the information. We usually get this distributed by nine 2 or ten o' clock in the morning and if you get information 3 on the night before then it makes it available for 4 distribution that next morning.
5 0 Do you phone this into the region?
i 6 iA Let me look at this. This one was phoned into the region.
7 0 As I read this, and correct ne if I'm wrong, this has 8 inf ormation about a variety of plants, the Clinton Plant, 9 Tyrone Energy Plant and Hidiond 1 and 2, and it indicates i
10 i how the region was notified, what the item or event is and 11 what the action is?
12 fA Yes.
13 '0 So thin would indicate you prenumably phoned the region on t.
14 ,
September 7th, as indicated on the f ace sheet, told them 15 about this and the region added this to the item or event 16 sheet for the day; in that correct?
17 A Yes. .
I 18 0 And this goec to everybody in the region?
19 A Not everybody in the region, no, sir. It goes to -- it 20 goes to all of the regions,and it goes to headquarters and 21 I'm not sure who else is on the distribution. The idea of 22 the document is to quickly disseminate pointo of interest 23 throughout the NRC.
24 .0 All right. Uho decideo what is suppoecd go in the !
l 300 y ,ggy, Lu:od R, porting Sereire 3, ,,,,_,,,y, s,y am 962 1176 bwre .v iktrat, \tahigan LC2e, Farrnsnetas HJh. \bchigan Wih
1 right-hand column where next to the Midland 1 and 2 it 2 says 'routJne f ollowup*?
f I
3 A Probably the section chief does, although, I have to admit 4 the term routine followup a lot of times is used as a 5 ; means of filling in the blank. We call it routine 6 i followup tend we may be on the brink of an investigation l
7 but the routine followup, what it does is it means 8 something different than for information only.
9 Am I correct that at least as of September 7th you did not l0 i
10 I view the Diesel Generator Du11 ding problem as catastrohic 11 l in proportions?
12 A Hell, no, that's kind of wrong.
13 ,O Tell me how that'.c wrong.
14 The thing is at a construction site when you start lA 15 characterizing things as catastrophic the plant is not 16 ,
running at that time. So it doesn't matter, you know,
'i 17 whether the item gets fixed then or gets fixed later or 18 whatever. Now, I guess I would have recognized it of 10 havir.g serious safety implications. Everybody doesn't 20 have a Diesel Generator Building that's sinking. Okay.
21 And I probably made that determination at that time 22 because it involved the Diesel Generator Building with 23 something that you would not want to treat lightly. When 24 you talk about things called estastrophic ! guess I'm t
Lafayene fluidant
" "' 31680 %rthw e n lju r
~ ,e - m . m' s ~~r sa IWt rw t. Whigan Pt22h farmsngton Hsils. \fwhigan 18018
=
1 ! using that in the connotation of catastrophic as what l l 2 might have occurred during the Three Mile Island accident.
3 Q That's a bad choice of words then. Let me back up and ask 4 you a slightly different question. What action did you 5 take other than notifying the region about the Diesel 6 , Gentrrator Building settlement, what did you do?
7 lA I can't remember whether we wrote a PN on that or not.
8 Somewhere along here I saw a PN.- I can't remember what 9 l that was about. The thing was, during conversations with l
10 ! the region that it was one of those types of pieces of l
11 l information that we would know that we would have to get 12 i other information to determine -- to make a determination 13 of what it really means overall to the plant.
i 14 !
There was no real need on September the 7th 15 of being in a reactionary mode that you might be in like 16 when the trailers were burning on site. So then later
- 17 with the conversations with the region.then, as I recall i
18 i it, it seems like they were going to give it to or turn it ,
, 19 over to the soils type people and I think Gene Gallagher 20 was the one involved at that time, that there was some 21 talk about bringing in soils people.
22 Now, as f ar as what I would do, I would be 23 on site monitoring, if you will, what the licensee might 24 be doing about it at that particular time.
]
382 I
'""'p"'"' ''"
w , ,,,, w ,p 3 a w,a. . n.o
&p,g} 96?<$$i0 but t, 2.'1'
[ktrmt. %chigan Mt2.4, formagtm Hdh %chtte wlH i
1 0 If you'll look at D 1666, Mr. Bird's log of his l
2 f ace-to-f ace meeting with you on September 7th, it states 3 toward the end of the first paragraph "Further exploration 4 and analysic are continuing. A farmal report is due on or 5 before October 7th,1978." Were you dissatistled with this 6 preliminary indication of what the licensee was doing?
l i
7 A No. In fact, that would be the normal way something like 8 this would be handled.
9 l0 Okay.
l 10 ,
MR. DRIKER: Want to take a break for five 11 minutes?
12 '
TilB WITNESS: Sure do.
13 ,
(A brief recess was held during 14 ! the proceedings.)
15 BY MR. DRIKCRs 16 l0 Once you started working as the resident inspector and you l
17 ! went around to check data for your formal inspections that l
18 l resulted in inspection reports, did you utilize any I
19 different kind of record keeping or note taking than that 20 which you described before,we broke for lunch, that is, 21 did you record things in any more formal fashion?
l 22 A As I went around the site?
23 0 Yes.
24 A As I went around the site there I think I had a spiral l
lAji)9ftft hhtddtMR N$$0 horthM9QF 98 llN )
% rr h30 962 l1?6 ut, zm (Mrm t. \f..-htean LCn Farmmerm Ildh, \itchien wik I
)
l i
1 f notebook that I used in those days. It may have been one 2 of the original versions of the Snoopy book. I can's i
3 remember when I bought the Snoopy book, the first one, As 4 I indicated, there were logs but I didn't carry the logs 5 ; as I went around the site.
6 0 You left that back in the office?
7 ;A Sure, or at home, just depending.
l 8 0 Could you please pull from the stack of documents, which 9 f Miss Rice gave you before, your inspection report of I
10 November 3,1978, which is number NRC 1177 l
11 lA Well, I don't know if I can or not. What was the date of 12 f that?
13 !O November 3 of 197 8 14 A When we used to sit in the hearing room of Midland, 15 ;
Michigan I used to have Wayne Shafer do my filing for me. I 16 0 tras this the first inspection report you wrote af ter you 17 became the resident inspector? .
10 A Probably, although, I notice there's a date of July the 19 24th on it and if I remember right we moved during the i
20 weekend of the 4th of July. Now whether we moved and I 21 went back to the region or something such as that I'm not 22 so sure on. This is either the first one or else there is 23 another one that would cover the period f rom July the 4th 24 ,
to the 24th.
l l l
i 384 Lusod Reporting Sertice 3truo urthuraren Ilwy Lafayette Ituildsne 5""' M 9sy,jj7s Sune :Do (ktrost. \faktten 40 Farminstm lhlis \latan WIM l
1 l0 was there some specific timetable that you had to issue 2 these inspection reports, that is, did you have to conduct 3 the inspection in a certain time interval or was it up to 4 your discretion?
5 A Well, the intent was to take an approximate month long 6 period and then issue the report for a nominal month and l
7 this one is written for, you know, a nominal month, 8 basically through the month of August. Well, it went into 9 the first week of Saptember. I don't know what I was 10 l doing through some of those days there. It only had a l
11 couple of days worth in July so it basically encompassed l
12 '
about a monthly period. Now, it seems to me there was 13 some period that we went so much as two months.
14 In other wordc, if nothing profound was I
15 happening on the site or that we had not, or I had not, 16 l looked into anything profound, then there's no sense 1
17 l writing a report that says nothing profound was looked at.
I 10 So that might be the reason to extend a period of a 19 report.
20 0 This shows on the first page of the report itself, after 21 the transmittal letter, that 141 inspector hours by one 22 NP.C incpector were expended. Do you see that right above 23 the word ' result'?
24 A Yes. ,
I i
1.afvette ikiding "'"I 3mIO \arthurs een Hue >
Swtr htt) 962.))76 sua, 2:a (Wtrat, \forhigan SC26 Formunston Hills, \fichtsan 4%)H
i 1 l0 That would be you; is that cor' Ject?
2 A Yes.
3 Q You found no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations 4 in ten areas, two apparent items of noncompliance were 5 identified in two areas, and your report details that 6
l accordingly; is that correct?
7 lA Yes.
8 0 would you characterize this report as being an 9 ; exceptionally; negative report, not with respect to Midland 10 { but across the board considering the kind of inspection i
11 l reports that are written for all plants under 12 construction?
l 13 !A I'll put it like this that there were negative findings 14 , in that report.
15 l0 In this report?
16 A Yes.
17 0 Okay. .
I 18 lA There's two items of noncompliance and as I look at the 19 significance of those two itema of noncompliance I'd guess 20 I'd have to esy I would not want to treat those lightly.
21 0 Your covering letter indicates in the third paragraph "The 22 inspection showed that action had been taken to correct 23 the identified noncompliance and to prevent recurrence.
24 Consequently, no reply to the noncompliance is required i
! I l
1 306 Luzod Reporting Sertice , g g ,,,,,, if,, ,
i
' Isfayette (Lild<<r ga, go 962 1176 Lae .'.'o (Wrrat \fwkitan M22b Farnunam litik \lwhite M
1' 1 and we have no further questions regarding this matter at 2 this time." would that mean as of the time you wrote the 3 covering letter you were satistied that appropriate action 4 had been taken on the two items of noncompliance?
5 A Without studying the report I would say probably and I'd 6 have to look at the items and find out what action was 7 taken. Okay?
8 Q Sure. .
9 A I would say whenever we write an item of noncompliance we 10 require that the licensee tell what it is he's going to do 11 .
to rectify the situation, tell when it is he's going to i
12 have the remedial work done and tell what he's going to do, f
13 ; to try and preclude it ever happening again. And as I 14 read the report that the two items that were notices of 15 violations, it appeared that by the time the report was 16 being assembled or by the time the end of the reporting l 17 , period came to an and that the licensee - that the l
l 18 licensee had taken the actions that would satisfy the 19 '
enf orcement requirements and so we opted to not require 20 him to respond to something he had already responded to.
21 0 Is the form of this exhibit, NRC 117, unique to Midland or 22 does the NRC throughout its regions utilize this kind of 23 form, of inspection report and notice of violation and 24 covering letter?
l 1.af;n,tt, Iktdat l.uted Reportsng Senice 3, ,, ,u,f, ,,,g u,, - m.n u u.,, :
$ kt ttMl, \$nch tf 08 kW.Nb f0f9FWlglon }{tils, \$dhigan $Yllh
1 0 If you'll look at the second page of NRC 117 I note that 2 carbon copies go to a variety of different places, among 3 them is the local PDR. That would be the public document 4 room at the Grace Dow Memorial Library, would it not?
5 A Yes.
6 'O It is true, is it not, that all inspection reports written 7 l by the NRC with respect to the Midland Plant wound up at l
8 i the Grace Dow Memorial Library, did they not?
l 9 A Of inspection reports. There may be some investigation 10 reports that that did not happen.
11 j0 I'm talking about inspection reports. ,
12 jA Yes.
13 0 The answer to my question is yes?
i l
14 Yes, as f ar as I know. I never went into the library and lA 15 seen if they were all there and they were getting there, 16 but the intentions were that they were to get there.
i 17 Whether they did or not I don't know. .
18 0 If you'll look at the inspection report itself, af ter the 19 covering letter and notice of violation, there is a place 20 for a signature line for the inspector and then a date. ;
21 Is the date that in put down the actual date that the i 22 inspector signs the forta 7 i 23 A Yes.
24 0 so tic (n exaapt.e, ir the f ors ec are looking at Mr.
l t
a W '*? ' " Nastro %rthn een flu , t Lnf9erre kidans
. Gore Mo 9 6.* f l i t Swre ::o IVerwr. \lahisan 4C:n Farrnintu.n litlls, \tahagan theol.8
1 Vandel signed for you on November 2, 19787 2 A Yes.
3 0 If you'll look at the next page where you categorize the 4 details of the inspection, under item one where it says 5 , site tours, it is stated "At periodic intervals 6 l generalized tours of the facility were performed by thr.
7 i resident inspector. " That's you?
0 lA Yes.
9 l0 Next sentence, "These tours covered essentially every area 10 l of the site." Does that correctly indicate that you in l
11 August, July and August of 197 8 made a complete tour of 12 ! the site?
13 'A Yeah. As you read sone of my reports you may also read 14 there that there were only selected areas. When I use the 15 word these tours covered essentially every area of the 16 ! site, notice there is a clarifier called essentially.
}
17 That means during this period of time that I had been out 18 and about, you might say quite a bit, such that my 19 travels, if you will, took me to the four quandrants of 20 the power block and other places. Now there are times a 21 that the tour will be in selected areas, which means I'm 22 feccing up to the world I did not cover the whole site and 23 when you read the context of the report you might be able 24 to understand why because I may have been following 1
l 390 Luted Reporting Sertice m ,,,,y
, ,, y ,, ,
y,, e,w 9b2.llib bwtr 2.n Iktreu t. W hican W .% f*'** Udh U k4** **
1 l post-weld heat treating. He's following heat treating and!
2 we can't expect him to look at lay-down areas at the time.
3 Q The signature on the cover page of the report you 4 recognize as Tom Vandel's, do you not?
5 eA Yes.
6 'O And I take it he would not sign something without reading 7 it, would he?
8 !A I would take that. I'm quite sure that he probably read 9 this report.
10 l0 All right. Did you have any discussion with Mr. Vandel at l
11 l or about the time this report was prepared and then signed 12 ,
by him concerning the significance of item ten on page 13 ; five, the settling of the diesel generator foundations and 14 structures?
15 A I probably would have had conversations with him. You 16 .
know, I can tell you for sure that I did. It was 17 i something that was already documented Ln a daily report 18 that would have come out on the 8th, the time it took to 19 assemble the report and get it over to the region and have i 20 drafts massaged, if you will. There's no doubt in my mind 21 that Tom Vandel would have been aware of the 50.55e event 22 pertaining to settlement of the Diesel Generator Building.
23 Q When you say the reports were mascaged, do the inspection 24 reports typically become edited by sonebody at the region?
Luzod Reporting Sr!' ice 3 91 lan)ette ILalh"t 9 s , ) ] ,~ b m e u> \ m h rnern Il e kar th) k!' 2
- IMot. \labsen O Farmington Hdl% \lditan WM
i l 1
lA Yes, they do. In other words, when the inspectors write a 2 report we write it in a draft form and then other 3 reviewers get involved and perhaps sometimes removing 4 cliches, smoothing the English. There's not substantive 5 changes in the reports, but as many craf t documents that l
6 ultimately are going to be in the public domain it would 7 be reasonable to expect them to be in a draft form and 8 ; then to be reviewed and smoothed up a bit.
9 Is there somebody who is in charge of that editorial l0 10 j process? Is that a designated task within the region?
11 iA Usually the section chief. If other inspectors are l
12 l involved in a given inspection, we'll look at each other's 13 handy work. Tom Vandel was a projects inspector over in 14 the regional of fice and it would have been very nornal for l
l 15 ! him to look at draft copies of the report and smooth out 16 any of the cumbersome wording perhaps. Each person writes 17 ,
at a different level of expertise. .
l 18 l0 Is it possible in looking at a document such as NRC 117 to l
19 determine who the contributors to the editorial process l
20 were? ,
21 A No. In fact, it would be very dif ficult to.
- 22 0 so any one of thece inspection reporte may be the 23 amalgamation of the inspector such as you, your colleague
) 24 like Tom Vandel, somebody back in the region, a section 392 Lund Repormg Sudu m g ,,, ,, , ,
tspite naum
, gg g} 90?* } $ ? Nu!! $.%
larter. \tak<ran 4'C.% Famunston HJh. \lahteen MR
1 chief who may have given it to perhaps somebody else to 2 ! smooth out the language, could it be that kind of process?:
3 A Yes. To the extent you seem to be trying to, in my mind, 4 paint a picture that when the original atthor of the 5 report, that he throws it to the world to peck and tear 6 l and what have you, and that's not really the case at all.
i 7 l I referenced it as substantive changes. Well, anybody I
8 l that's a sole author of a document like this could very i
9 l easily mark the date as, this is a good time of year, it's 10 1985 but hoy many people will write in January 1984 I
11 because they were used to writing 1984 three weeks ago or 12 whatever. So the guy says that's really not 1984, that 13 should be 1985.
14 Ultimately reporto would come back to the l
i 15 ! inspector and ultimately the inspectors would look at 16 their own handy work to see how ' badly mutilated" it may 17 become. Each of the inspectors keeps a copy of what their 18 original handy work was when it went into the hopper.
19 Like I say, the changes are rarely, if ever, very 20 substantive. They're mostly of an editorial type nature 21 and not intended to change the meaning of the report.
22 0 Did you see this report before it van finally issued, 23 given the fact that Mr. Vandel signed for you?
24 A I don't know. I could have but I don't know.
1 VfhY l ERf h {f &f $ l4 1
~~.- 9sa.zi:s u,, :.s.
Ikemi. W hisa, M:Cr> Farm neron IIst!s \fo<h::a , w Is
1 {0 At least in this report you believe you authored the first l
2 draft, somebody else edited it and Mr. Vandel signed for 3 you?
4 A Yes, In fact, they may not have even edited very much 5 ! because my work they usually didn't edit very much, not 6 ! because I'm so nasty but I guess I use the right 7 bureaucratic cliches and phrases.
1 8 l0 Given the f act that this report mentions the settling of l
9 . the diesel generator foundations and structures, why 10 didn't you list that as a notice of violation?
11 !A At the time I probably didn't have information that would 12 lead me to believe it had >iolated anything.
l I
13 O This report in signed of f by Vandel on November 2nd,1970 I
14 l and it relates to an event which I think we have i
15 established you first learned about on August 22nd,1978, 16 right, little over two months before?
17 A Okay. .
18 0 Are you saying that the mere fact that there was 19 settlement of the diesel generator foundations, abnormal 20 settlement, and that there,was a continuing investigation 21 did not yet cause you in your mind to label this as a 22 violation of anything?
23 A Bear in mind the dates of the inspection were through 24 September the 8th of 197 8 If the official notification 394 lafnettethiding 3' " N'h "'"" II" V g.,,, n y; 9 6 2 . ] ] ,' 6 .% te LM iHvat. Uwhen W26 f* '""*'""' II'II U"h'" *"
1 1
l was made on september the 7th that the licensee felt there
' i 2 i was a 50.55e reportable item, then by the next day I 3 : probably -- even if there was a violation there, unless it 4 jumped out and shouted at me, I probably would not have 5 l had enough information to classify it as an item of 6 j noncompliance. And what we did classify it as, though is, 7 l I don't know we used the term unresolved at that time, but l
8 I we used a follow-up number that meant we were not going to 9 l 1et the issue lay but that we were going to come back '
10 f later and review about it. In other words, this is a 11 i tracking number that would say somebody needs to come back 12 and worry about this particular item at some later date. !
13 0 If you had concluded or Mr. Vandel had concluded on or 14 before November 2nd, the date he signed off on this l
) 15 l report, that the diesel generator foundation settlement 16 I was a violation, would the fact that the report speaks of 17 : an inspection that ended on September 8th have precluded l /
18 him or you from including a postscript, if you will, to
, 19 l say there's a violation? '
i 20 A We would not have included a postscript.
l i 21 0 You would not?
)
i i
22 A We would not have. That would have been covered in a
- 23 latter report. I guess what I'm saying is that the clock j 34 ! stopped on September the 8th.
I I
Isn,et?e Holdmc Mtin %rtha e n flu >
\ %he' e r 9h2 11Ib %ar 2,M i l Iktnu t, \fu higa, LC% farmmeton listin, \lschtsan Walk I 2
1 office with respect to the Diesel Generator Building 2 problem?
3 A No, I did not.
4 0 Do you know if he did?
5
\
'A I don't know if he did.
6 l0 Did you ever suggest to Eugene callagher or Ross Landsman 7
l that they go back and look at those NCR's to see what they 8 said?
i 9 A Not that I recall.
10 l0 Whatever happened to those boxes of NCR's?
11 lA I'll be darned if I know. I suppose they're still getting.
l 12 them over in the region. They are the type of stuff that 13 ,
we would stick in the archives so I would imagine they're 14 ! there some place. No guarantees though.
15 0 The inspection report indicates that the abnormal 16 settlement was "determined through the routine 17 surveillance survey program." Is that.an accurate 18 statement of the information you were given?
19 A As I understood it, yes.
20 0 Did you ever uncovar any different information about how 21 the abnormal settlement was discovered?
22 A I didn't do the investigation on that. The soils people 23 then pursued the actual investigation into the settlement 24 problem. There ic a requirement for surveying the I
gg,, ys, Luzed Repornnt Settice 3, b Sl nor rsta 962 11*b k or ;.n l>trar. \l A g e L'l2.% Yermit e lidh, \ fare W!h
1 buildings once they are put in place on the si u. I had 2 looked at that at different times during my tenure there 3 and that's supposedly how it was discovered that the i 4 building was settling and that seemed quite prudent of an
- 5 ! explanation, particularly at this time, and that's when 1
6 the soils people, Gene Gallagher and Dr. Ross Landsman 7 , pursued looking into the soils issue.
8 0 Is a settlement monitoring program a good engineering l'
9 practice for buildings under construction?
10 ,A It's essential.
11 O You can't tell settlement of an inch or two by the naked 12 eye? ;
13 lA I wouldn't know how to do that without putting in some i
14 l means of measuring it.
i 15 0 Put it tinis way: In your couple of months on the site you
{
16 did not notice visually that the Diesel Generator Building ;
17 had settled, did you? .
18 A Well, how about rephrasing that question a little bit.
19 0 You came on the site in mid-summer of 19787 20 A Um-ha. ,
f 21 0 Before you were told on August 22nd by Mr. Bird of the i 22 settlement of the Diesel Generator Building you did not 23 have occasion yourself to walk by the Diesel Generator j 24 Building and observe it was settling at an excessive rate, , !
l 39G Lused ReportW S* i" n w % A esternH"v 14fe)rtre ILa! ding Suar & qsy,yy7s huar 2.M
[ktron, \fschi CR t kWe% farmingu Hills \fehive F%olh
l 1 did you?
2 A No, I did not, however, once informed that it was settling!
3 when I went into the Diesel Generator Building you could 4 eee how there was structural motion underneath the duct 5 bank and the crack associated with it.
6 liow did you see that?
l0 I
7 jA Down in the bay area just underneath the duct bank, which 8 i would be -- well', let me just - you have a pedestal that i
9 the motor sets on and the level that the pedestal sits 10 there was an area that you could see settlement, a crack, 11 if you will, between an established duct bank and mud mat 12 that said something was moving relctive to something else.
13 0 When did you see that?
14 A That was after I had been notified.
15 0 Can you place a date?
16 A Well, let's sec. Some time between August 22nd and 17 September 7th. .
18 0 Did you go alone?
19 A I went with D. Hayes.
20 0 was that at grade level? ,
21 A No. You had to drop down below grade level.
22 0 This was under the pedestal?
23 A Not under the pedestal, it was where the side of the bay 24 area met with a mud mat. You know, you have structural i
Luzod Reporting Sertice , , 99,,
lofvette Buuldine Si;ar Mo 962.]176 Sune 23' Iktroit, \fichigan 4822r> Farrnington Hdis, \fichisan U1018
1 l walls inside these bay areas that will house the diesel i
2 engines and the pedestal is in the center. It was the 3 joint where the vertical wall joins up with the horisontal 4 what I call a mud mat in there and there was a gap in 5 there but the gap was by where a duct bank exists.
6 10 Did you have to go down a ladder or something to get 7 !
there?
8 A If I remember right, there was a.short ladder you dropped 9 down into because -- grade level -- the pedestal was some 10 feet below the actual grade level where you would walk 11 into and it dropped down a bit. So there was a short 12 ladder there and then there was also another area at the 13 far end, the north end of the diesel bay area, that had a l
14 dug out pit that dropped in and you could see.
l 15 0 Did you need a lantern of some kind?
16 A I took a flashlight. You always went some place with a 17 flashlight. .
18 0 Whose decision was it to bring Mr. Gallagher on board, 19 Eugene Gallagher, concerning the Diesel Generator 20 Building? ,
21 A I don't really know.
22 0 Did you request technical assistance on this?
23 A No, I did not. Although, you know, I made the information 24 known to the region and I'm not sure what transpired to 400 Lu:od Reporting Service ,n y,, , ,,,,,, y lafayette Building Sune mo 962 1176 suit, 2;u Detroa. \fuhigan 3226 Formungton Hills Starhigan skolk
1 initiate the soils people to look at it other than the 2 fact I was able to categorize it as a soils issue.
3 0 Did you pretty much stay out of it af ter Mr. Gallagher 4 came on board?
5 A Pretty much stayed out of it. I was cognizant what he was-6 doing. I looked at some of the data he had, did some of 7 the comparative calculations for supporting of compacted 8 soils, but I was mostly out of it except being cognizant 9 what he was doing. And, again, we share information and 10 discuss things and what have you but he was the lead in 11 taking the investigative role in this cnd later on it was l
l I 12 ! Dr. Ross Landsman and, in fact, they may have worked l
13 i together, 5
t !
- 14 Did you know Mr. Gallagher before he came down to conduct lQ 15 this inquiry? !
16 A Yes.
17 0 Where had you met him? .
18 'A out of the region office.
19 0 was he known to you as an expert in soils?
20 A Well, that term expert -- I'll put it to you like this, 21 that I knew that he was a civil-type engineer.
22 0 How long had he been with the NRC before he came down to 23 Midland, do you know?
24 A I'm not really sure.
l l Lmd Reporting Sertice ,y ,f,01 lxfyrtre Hwidung Sosite Mo 962 11I6 Swtr 220 l)<troer. \lichigan ut226 Farmington Ilills, \lahogan mois
1 0 Nine months sound about right?
2 'A I was going to say about a year.
3 Q How in the NRC hierarchy was he, subordinate to you or 4 superior to you or co-equal? How did he stand up in terms 5 of his relationship to you in the bureaucracy?
6 A He probably had been what I call a co-equal. He was a 7 reactor inspector out of the the regional of fice and 8 that's what I was except I happened to be a resident 9 j inspector at that time. So wo didn't establish a pecking 10 order between that type of relationship. He basically 11 wore the same kind of clothes I did except he came out of 12 ; the region of fice and I happened to be there all the time.s i l 13 j Our rolec were somewhat different because of an individual 14 staying on site would have a dif ferent role than a person 15 who comes in from a region to do a more clearly defined 16 task.
17 0 Do you know if Mr. Gallagher had had any experience with 18 soils problems prior to coming into Midland?
19 A No, I did not.
20 0 Did he seek your assistance in introducing him to 21 Consumers Power people or Bechtel people, giving him any 22 kind of explanation as to what had gone on?
23 A I don't really recall.
24 0 Did he have an office on the site?
I Lmd Reporting Sertice ,o , y IAfG)fil! OU5$$tng 962 ]176 Su,1, 23;
% te h30 Farmington Hdh. \lichigan 18o18 Iktroit. \ftchian 18226
1 A No. I had the resident office so then he would use the 2 resident office. He would also use that conference room 3 area that I mentioned earlier at the east end of the upper 4 floor of the warehouse.
5 0 What had been your involvement with U. S. Testing Company 6 prior to Mr. Gallagher coming on the scene?
7 A I don't really know. I can't remember exactly when Mr.
8 Gallagher did come on site for one thing and I knew the 9 existence of U. S. Testing. Whether it had been down when 10 I was looking at some concrete pour -- at this period of 11 ! time I had been down there I just can't place a calendar l
12 i date as to how much U. S. Testing and I had talked or 13 ; visited with each other. I couldn't do that without i
14 l looking sequentially through the inspection reports that 15 might highlight that. I knew where they were, I knew they 16 existed.
17 0 Where was their testing lab in relation to the warehouse 18 building?
19 A Well, it's kind of hard to say with respect to the 20 warehouse building. They were on that access road and 21 your little map didn't go that far away. So it would be l 22 the same access road that you would take going, well, to 23 the highway and out through the main gate and they were on --
24 if you were heading westerly, then they would be on the l '
s Lmd Reporting Sertice 403, Ix(nyeste Huulding^
,, (
Mae tao 962 1176 Suar 2bo IWtrm t. \fichienn 18226 Farmington lidis, \fichienn 18018
i 1 ! south side of the road, or if you were coming into the 2 site, they would be on the right-hand side and they were 3 located close to where at one time there was a concrete 4 plant.
5 0 Batch plant?
6 A Batch plant.
7 0 They were on the road that borders the cooling pond as 8 you're entering the plant; is that right?
9 A No, because the dike is further up. This would be more 10 before you get to the -- close to the dike wall. There 11 was a deviation from the dike wall as the road came.
12 iO As part of your acclimation to the Midland site, did you 13 tour the U. S. Testing facility at all just to see what
.i 14 they were doing and who was there?
15 A I don't know if it was part of my acclimation -- early on 16 I had been to the U. S. Testing facilities.
17 Q For anything special or just to see what it looked like?
18 A See, we' re interested in concrete pours. I can' t remenber 19 whether we went down there to look at how they -- seo how 20 they handle test cylinders,or power test cylinders. In 21 fact, I was down there with another inspector by the name
! 22 of Kamel Naidu.
23 Q Is that two words?
24 A Two words, j i i l
t 404
' Lu:od Reporting Sertice ,,o y,, ,,,,,,
Lafayette Buildmg Suite MO 902'II?6 S" 2
- Iktroit, \fichigan M226 Farminetun HJh. \lochigan Molk
1 Q Was John Speltz the head of the testing lab when you came 2 on site?
3 A Was he a very large person?
i 4 Q Yes.
5 A Probably.
6 Re was there for quite awhile.
lQ 7 A Yeah, so I don't know whether he was head of it or not.
8 0 Over the years that you were at Midland did you have 9 occasion to deal with Mr. Speltz?
10 A Yes.
11 lQ When Mr. Gallagher came on to look at the soils problem at 12 !
theDieselGeneratorBuilding,didyousuggesttohimthag 13 ! there was a site-wide soils problem?
- t. I 14 lA I don't know as I would have sugg?sted to him that there 15 was a site-wide soils problem. Somewhere along there I l
i 16 remember talking with him and we were discussing the i
17 impact on other places, other portions of the plant, other 18 safety-related structures other than just the Diesel 19 Generator Building, and I don't remember how definitive l 20 that was c1though -- I jus) remember us talking about that 21 if you have settlement at the Diesel Generator Building 22 you also have to worry about other places at the plant.
23 Q Did the discussion come up between you and Mr. Gallagher 24 , as to the availability of somebody looking at all the l
t lofayerre Raildmg Lu:od Reporting Service ,y, ,),,
0 l Swre 630 962.))76 Suite 22o Iktrat. thchigan 18226 Farmington Ihlis, \lichigan 18018
1 l NCR's that had been filed with the NRC to see what they 1
2 showed?
3 A Not that I can recall.
4 Q Do you know whether Hr. Gallagher ever sought to look at 5 all the NCR's?
6 A No, I couldn't answer that right now. I couldn' t answer 7 that sitting here. I may have known at the time but, 8 geez, I don't know.
9 0 Did you ask anyone at Consumers to keep you abreast of all 10 of the developments concerning the DGB investigation?
11 A Which investigation?
12 O The investigation that Mr. Gallagher came down to launch 13 , in October of 1978? Let'c break that up. Actually, your 14 question is a good one. There were really two parts, were 15 there not, to his inquiry? First there was an inspection ,
16 then that gave rise to an investigation, is that not so?
17 A Plus the f act Consumers was doing theis own investigative 18 work as to what might be the causes and so forth of the 19 Diesel Generator Building settling.
20 0 But from the NRC perspectivo, there was a differentiation, j 21 was there not, between phase one of the inquiry, which was l
l 22 labeled an inspection, and phase two, which became an 23 investigation?
24 A I believe so.
406 lafayette fluulding 0 !" 'U"f ""
3mto %rthuestern lluy.
l Slite h30 962 1176 Sate 2.:n l Ik trout. \bchigan 18221, Farmington Ihth, thchigan 18o1R
1 Q Laying aside the technical terms, did you yourself want to 2 be kept apprised by Consumers of the inquiry in the 3 broadest sense that was being carried on by Consumers in 4 the fall of 1978 concerning the Diesel Generator Building?
5 A Let me see if I understand your question. You want to 6 know if I had made a request of Consumers to keep me
~
7 apprised of the results of their looking into the Diesel 8 Generator Building problem.
9 0 Not the results but the activity.
10 A Their activities?
11 O Yes. Did you ask Don Horn or Corley or anybody else to 12 l 1et you know, let you see all the pieces of paper, invite i
13 i you to the meetings, let you know what the telephone calls t l 14 l were, or were you simply waiting for Mr. Gallagher to i
15 finish his work?
16 A I don't really recall making that statement but I would be 17 f ully capable of asking Consumers to keep me advised if 18 they were receiving any information. Bear in mind that a 19 Diesel Generator Building settling is a condition that the 20 NRC wnu.d be cost interested in the causes that went into 21 this occurring. If you were asking me was I asking 22 Consumers to keep me advised as to what Gallagher was 23 doing, then I would say that no, because I would just go 24 j directly to Gallagher. I would never go to a licenseo to l
6 I'usod Reportine Sertice 7 lxfyrtte ikddme ,
Sosite hy; 962 1176 S,, ige glo IWtroit. \lichigan 18226 Farmington Hdis, Alichien mom
I have them tell me what an inspector is doing.
2 0 My question is now more narrow. Did you in fact ask 3 Consumers to keep you informed as to what they were doing?
4 A I probably did. That would be very natural for me to do 5 that.
6 0 Do you have a distinct recollection that you did? Not 7 what was the nature but what in fact that you did?
8 A 1 don't have a distinct recollection that I did that.
9 10 Do you recall being told by Don Horn that meetings were I
10 going on with consultants and an effort was made to find 11 out what was the cause of the DGB problem?
12 A I don't necessarily remember being notified by Don Horn 13 although again he could have informed me. I know being 14 l aware that there was activity going on and that they were 15 looking into the surveyers logs and they were trying to 16 correlate with the surveyers logs what had transpired the 17 30 days before. I was made aware of the requirements of 18 the time period between one out of bounds measurement 19 until you have to go in and look at the equipment or the 20 building again and things puch as this. So I was being 21 advised as to sone of the things that were going on and I 22 think that there are subsequent inspection reports that --
23 I may have made notes in the inspection report that I had 24 talked to somebody or some -- where I had addressed the I i 408 Luaod Reporting Sernice , \ ,,,9 ,,,,,, ,,
lafvette ikildmg Sag, mo 962 1176 Sate ?.!n Detroit, \fichigan 48226 Farmmeton flith. .\lichigan 180th
1 soils settlement issue.
2 0 Let me show you Deposition Exhibit D 1681, a copy of Mr.
3 Horn's log f or October 2,197 8.
4 (Deposition Exhibit No. DFD 1681, 5 Daily log sheet,10-2-78, was 6 was marked for identification.)
7 BY MR. DRIKER:
8 0 Down on the bottom left-hand corner, "Informed Ron Cook 9 ( NRC) of the three soil inspection pits at 3:40." Do you 10 know what that has reference to?
11 lA They were digging soils inspection pits and doing a I
12 l probing to find out what the compaction was in those 13 areas.
14 l0 i
Any special reason Mr. Horn told you about these pits?
l 15 l Did you ask to be informed when the pite were being dug?
16 A I probably did not ask to be informed when the pits were 17 I being dug but there was interest in the soils settlement 18 and oftentimec if I was interested in it members of 19 Consumers Power would come by and let me know such and 20 such activity was going on,because the NRC had an interest 21 in that area. Now, you' re going through Don Horn's log.
22 He may put in there and say that Ron Cook asked him to i 23 tell him when they were going to do these things and I 24 could not refute that because I probably did say, hey, l f I
, Infayerre Hwidine Laod Reporting Service , ,, y, A09,,
swre ran 962.IIi6 swi, so IWrrmt. \fichigan 1822r> Farminzion Ihlb. \fichuean 18018
I we're interested and if you don't find that then he may 2 have just come on hja own volition and knew the NRC was 3 interested and informed us we could go out when these pits 4 were dug and look at them. In fact, I did go look at 5 pits.
6 (Deposition Exhibit No. DFD 137 9, 1
7 Daily Log Sheet, 10-26-7 8, was 8 marked for identification.)
9 BY MR. DRIKER:
l 10 0 Let me show you Hr. Horn's log, Deposition Exhibit D 1379, 11 j his log from October 26, 1978 The first entry says, i
12 "Gene Gallagher was at site 7 a.m. to continue l
13 fact-finding business. Gene said the U. S. Test lab 14 j appeared to be trying to do a good job. No probleras I
found."
15 Did you ever discuss with Mr. Gallagher the 16 quality or lack thereof of the U. S. Test lab at any time?
17 A Not that I can recall. .
18 0 Did Mr. Gallagher ever tell you that he discovered that 19 the U. S. Testing lab was improperly testing compacted 20 soils or had improper proctors, using improper proctors?
21 A Yec. He told me he found improper proctors had been used 22 at U. S. Testing.
23 0 When did he tell you that?
24 A I don't know, just during the throes of his looking into ;
410 Lu od Reporting Sertice ,o y,,, ,,,, y Lafayette Huildsng Su'ae M o 962 1176 s,ae 2 m lktroit. \fochigan 48226 Farmineron Hdh, \fschucan Skulk
1 it. and in f act -- the reason I can recall that is because 2 I, being a mechanical engineer, I was interested in pounds 3 per square inch of area stress type things and was trying 4 to correlate soils inf ormation into terms more compatible i 5 with mechanical engineering phenomenon and he and I were 6 in the discussion as to what the five percent, or whatever 7 it is, er;ange in proctor really means with the ability of l
8 a building to hold a given load.
l 9 jQ Was that something you had an immediate answer to? Did 10 you know based upon your own training and experience what 11 a difference in five percent compaction would do to the l
I 12 ability of soil to hold a load?
l 13 A No, I did not have that knowledge but I was interested in 14 ! the load -- what that meant in terms of how much weight a 15 l structure could stand. The five percent proctor -- I 16 .
needed Gene Gallagher to interpret that into terms of 17 ability to hold load. From that point Jn time I had some 18 familiarity with what that would mean from engineering 19 standpoint.
20 (Deposition Exhibit No. DPD 1396, 21 Daily log sheet, 10-25-7 8, was 22 marked f or identification.)
23 BY MR. DRIKER:
24 0 Let me show you Deposition Exhibit 1396, a copy of Mr.
i In(vette ikidme 1.n d Reporting Sertice , ),1I smte ao 962 1176 smte 23 IWiroct, \lithipn 2122h Farmington Hilh, \lahigan w)18
1 Horn's log of October 25, 1978, and just ask you to read 2 the first entry to yourself.
3 A 1(11 have to admit it's quite hard to read.
4 0 The part that I have particular interest in is the 5 reference that Gene Gallagher met with Jim Bettes, Austin 6 Marshall, Stan Blue, it looks like Geotech, Jim Wanzeck, 7 Bob Wheeler, one Ron Cook and myself on settlement gage 8 l locations, settlement versus time charts, FSAR differs 9 f rom specs and implementation, settlement analysis and so 10 on and so forth. Do you recall such a meeting taking 11 i place at or about this time?
i 12 jA Yes, I could remember -- again on or about this time. I 13 have no reason to doubt Don Horn's log with respect to I
14 i thic, but I remember us talking about I think the issue 15 wac the timeframe of one corner of the Diesel Generator 16 Building settling with respect to another corner or 17 something such as that. And I remembec being in a meeting 18 where that was kind of the topic of discussion. The 19 instrumentation and the details of it I know longer can 20 remember. ,
21 0 Why were you involved in this discussion, Mr. Cook?
22 A I don't know other than if they were going to place 23 measuring instruments to be aware of where they were 24 supposed to go so as being a handy individual with the NRC 412 "I 3mm %rthw'ern Ihg 1.ofyrtte Building gugge hy 902'll?D bu ttp .NI lktrott, \lechigQM 48226 farmington lldh \fschtgan ikHlH
_- ...~.,_.~- - _
1 I could look for things. And then there may have been 2 other reasons at the time.
3 0 Which you j ust don' t remember?
4 A Just don't remember.
5 0 If you look at the last page of this exhibit there's a 6 statement that says "Gene went to the U. S. Test lab by 7 !
himself at four o' clock.'
8 A I don't see that.
9 j0 Up on the top of page three of three.
10 A Okay.
11 ;0 Do you recall being advised or becoming aware of the f act i
12 l that Mr. Gallagher interviewed Mr. Speltz and/or other U.
i 13 S, Testing people and asked that he not be accompanied by l
14 anyone from Consumers Power?
15 A Now that you bring that up I kind of -- see, I was kind os 16 ! aware that there were certain peoples that Gallagher 17 wanted to talk to by himself and this must be the event.
18 Again, I'm having a hard time recalling that. I will say, 19 though, it is an inspector's perogative. He can go and 20 talk to people without the, accompaniment of the licensee.
21 0 Did he ever tell you why he did that or what the results 22 of the conversation were?
23 A Not that I can recall.
24 ,0 You have no recollection of that?
l 1.nfayette flauldsne Lmd Reporting Sertice , A 13,,,
Suar hp) 962 lii6 Sust,22o I)ctroit, \lahigan M22h Farmington flills, \fichigan Milk
1 A No. Bear in mind that Gene Gallagher was out looking for 2 information with regard to the diesel settlement issues 3 and he was a civil engineer guy and I would have no reason 4 necessary to worry about that. Although I may have known 5 at the time I don't have any recollection now. 1 I
i 6 10 Did you come to find out in the f all of 1978 that Bechtel 7 had hired some consultants to advise it on how to deal 8 with the DGB problem?
9 If you' re ref erring to the gootech people --
lA 10 'O Drs. Peck and Hendron.
11 A Yes, I was aware that they had.
12 0 In fact, you knew that Consumers was meeting with Peck and 13 l Hendron to try to develop a remedy for the DGB problem, i
14 did you not?
15 A I don't know if they were developing the remedy. I knew 16 they were meeting with Drs. Peck and Hendron to discuss 17 l the Diesel Generator Building. .
18 Q Had you ever heard of either Peck or Hendron?
j 19 A I heard of Peck.
I l
20 0 What had you heard of him?,
21 A I don't know. You know, soilo person, civil engineer 22 person.
23 0 Did you come to later know he wac a world f amous authority 24 on geotechnical matters? j l
414 Isfayerre Buildung M %rthuntern lin)
Syg, ma 962.))i6 Sate r m Detrmt. \tahitan m22n Farmineron HJh. \lichigan wi8
l 1 A Well, I guess that I just recently found that out, right !
2 now, that he was a world authority. I knew he was of l
3 renoun and what have you and I'm not sure how I happened I 4 to know of his name, but when the name camesup I said, you 5 know, and somebody's been around. Gene Gallagher may have 6 talked to me about him when he was in the region office.
7 I may have heard about him when I was at Portland Cement 8 '
monkeying around with their training program. I don't 9 , know how I know these things.
I 10 i (Deposition Exhibit No. DPD 1682, l
11 .
Daily Log Sheet, 11-10-7 8, was 12 marked f or identification.) ,
33 lBYMR. DRIKER:
14 ifould you show Mr. Cook, please, Deposition Exhibit 1682, l0 15 Don Horn's log of November 10, 1978, in which the first 16 entry states as follows: "Had long discussions with Ron
?
i 17 Cook (tiRC) about the meeting in Champaign, Illinois on 18 ,
11-7-78 with the soils consultants." Do you recall such a i
19 l conversation with Mr. Horn 7 20 A This would not be the only, conversation that I had with 21 him. I remember discussing, you know, that the folks down 22 in Illinois, that there was the consultant activities and 23 what have you.
24 0 so you knew in the f all of 1978 that Consumers and Bechtel' 4
I L
4.
'u: d Reporting Service .
l0 1.nfayette Huulding .
kite Mo 962 1176 Suji,g;o Intnut. Whiran M226 Farmnyton Ildh. %higan 3018
I 1 had engaged soils consultants and were meeting with them?
2 'A Yes, although I categorize this as almost winter.
3 0 Well, we f rom Michigan know what you' re talking about, Mr.
4 Cook, 5 jA This is only a week before deer season.
6 0 We know about deer season in Midland. All the lawyers 7 I connected with this case know about deer season in 8 Midland. In November of 1978 whether the snow was or was 9 not flying you knew Consumers and Bechtel had engaged 10 consultants who were located in Champaign, Illinois and 11 they were meeting with those consultants?
12 A Yes.
13 l0 Did you ask to attend those meetings?
14 A No, I don't think I did.
i 15 'O Did you ask to receive reinutes of the meetings?
16 A No, I don't believe I did. In fact, that's the type of 17 meeting that I don't think I would havs wanted to go to 18 because we had to be very careful. There were some 19 meetings that it was better for the NRC not to be present 20 for fear of stifling a frep flow of information between 21 the licensee and the contractor. And if you have an 22 identified problem on site that is going to require some 23 ultimate resolution sometimes it's better to be discreetly 24 excused from maybe wanting to interject yourself.
416 Lu:od Reporting Sertice 3,,9 y,,g ,,,,, ,,, y f.afayene Huildung 962.I176 suae 2.y1 Sune Mo Iktroa, \fschigan 48226 Farmington Hath. \lichigan 18018
1 0 one of the questions that the NRC was interested in having 2 answered was whether there was excessive settlement at the 3 other facilities on site, isn' t tha t so?
4 A Yes.
5 0 Actually all buildings and structures settle to some 6 extent; isn't that correct?
7 A Well, sounds like allegations from the Midland hearing.
l ~
8 10 Let me turn it around the other way. I'm not trying to 9 trick you. Let me ask it differently. The NRC would be 10 concerned not in settlement per se but in settlement which 11 l exceeded the expected tolerances or plans or 12 -
specifica tions, isn't that so?
13 A or uneven settlement.
14 l0 Differential settlement?
l 1
15 A Differential settlement.
16 0 The f act something settles is not an indication of 17 anything unless you look at the specifications to --
18 A That's right, provided the structure that is settling is l
19 '
set upon fill material. Now, if it's set upon something 20 that does not settle, then,it could cause us some 21 interest. If it was sitting on bed rock or granite that 22 would not normally settic and somebody says the building 23 settled half an inch, we might say my my.
24 0 That would be unexpected settlement?
l 1.ta d Reporting Sert ice 17 1.nfayene Hwidon: , ,
Swte Mu 962 E lin Swte 22o (ktrNt, \fichigan M226 Farmington Hath. \firhizan 1801h
1 1 A That would be unexpected settlement.
2 (Deposition Exhibit No. DFD 1672, 3 Document entitled Summary of ;
4 December 4,1**/8 meeting on 5 Structural Settlements, was marked 6 ;
for identification.)
l 7 lBY MR. DRIKER:
l 8 [0 would you look at Deposition Exhibit D 1672, which is a I
9 { document produced by the NRC entitled Summary of December l'
10 4,197 8 meeting on structural settlements, and this 11 ! document is itself dated January 12, 1979. I call your l
12 j attention to the third page f rom the end which shows that 13 l you attended the December 4th meeting together with lots i
14 i of other people. Your name is the last name on the 1Ast.
15 A I haven't got to the names yet.
16 Q Third sheet from the bottom.
17 A Okay. .
18 0 Do you see that?
19 A Sure.
20 0 Does looking at the list of names and perhaps skimming 21 through the minutes, and you can take your time to do 22 both, refrech your recollection that you took a site tour 23 on December 3,1978 with about three-quarters of the 4 24 people who are named on enclosure one and that you l
l 418 "I MKI %wthuntnn Hu).
lefayette Bwidane 962*ll?6 hw!' 2
- Snaire Mn larmit, \lechigan M22b Farmington Hdis. \inchigan 4NWt
1 attended a meeting the following day, on December 4,1978, 2 with all of those people? '
3 A Well, I remember when Lyman Heller and Gallagher and so 4 forth were on the site and we did look at some of the 5 areas on the site pertaining to the soils. Without 6 reading this I can't remember now what all the places were 7 we went and looked at and stumbled through.
8 Q Do you remember attending the meeting on December the 4th?
i 9 iA I kihd of do.
10 10 You'll see these minutes were prepared by Darl Hood, his l
11 i signature appears on page seven, and that the minutes l
12 i themselves were distributed to a number of people i
13 l including Mary Sinclair, Frank Kelley, the Michigan L !
14 l Attothey General, Myron Cherry and others. Do you see i
15 l that?
s 16 A Yes.
17 0 I'd like to direct ycur attention to the top of page two 18 of these minutes.
19 IA Okay.
20 0 Do you see a paragraph that begins with the statement, 21 "The settlement monitoring program began in June 1978; to 22 date the measured settlements are as follows " and it 23 11 cts settlements for the containment building, the 24 ,
Auxiliary Building, service water pump house, Diesel l
1.nfayrre liwldant im d Reporting Sertice yo \. f9, swr, tan 962.))?6 S,,,re 231 Iktrott. \fochigan M22n Farminatun lidis, \lichigan 18018
I 1 Generator Building and then it has some extended 2 discussion on some other structures; do you see that?
3 A Yes.
4 0 Do you recall having that information conveyed by the 5 Consumers Power and Bechtel people at the meeting?
i 6 lA Well, yes. In fact, I think it had -- some of it had at a 7 prior time been conveyed to me.
8 0 By whom?
9 A I think it was Don Miller or it could have been Don Horn, i
10 I' m not sure. See, we' re talking about a period of time, 11 this is December, and there had been interest and dialogue 12 ; and I'd been in the test pits. So, I said when we were in 13 a meeting, why, being aware of some of the differential 14 settlement -- I think some of this information had already 15 been related to me, as I recall. I think Darl Hood and I 16 had discussions about it, if I remember right.
17 0 On what structures at Midland has thers been excessive 18 soils settlement, as of the date you walked out of their 19 this past summer?
20 A Well, I guess I would consider the Diesel Generator 21 Building had excessive soils settlement. I don't know 22 what other buildings. I know that we were worried --
23 let's see -- about the strength carrying capability of the 24 structure. Now I guesc one of the areas would be the i
420 Lusod Reporting Service , ,,,,,, ,,
f afvette Buildung gay, ma 962.ll?6 suar 22n Detroit. \fwhigan M22n Farminaron Ihlh, \lwhigan molk
1 rings around the borated water storage tank that ended up 2 cracking the access valve pit to it. Now one might say 3 that, well, the technical specification said it could 4 settle a half inch or inch and it was less than that but 5 the fact remains it managed to break concrete in one of l
6 the ateas. So we would say this is an abnormal thing. So 7 to answer the question as to what other places had 8 abnormal soils settlement, we're back to what is my 9 ! yardstick and what is actually settlement and what was the 10 , ef fects of that settlement and I can't answer that sitting 11 right here.
i 12 iO Was there any remedial underpinning work required of the 13 Diesel Generator Building?
14 'A I don' t know what's going to be required of the Diesel 15 Generator Building.
16 0 Let's take it through the date you lef t the project.
17 A As of the date I left the project. As J understand it, 18 one of the reasons for the hearing was to determine what 19 to do with the Diesel Generator Building and so 20 underpinning had not gone on under the Diesel Generator 21 Building. Whether it will be required or is required or 22 whatever I don't believe that that decision has been 23 reached yet.
24 !0 on what otructures was remedial soils activity required by f
I.n d Reporting Sertice 21 Infbyette lhttIdmg yo y,,, ,
Sa' ire tao 96:.]}i6 S,,u, gjo Iktroit. \lahison 18226 Farmmaton Ildh, \fahogan Ittnik
. ~ - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ - - . . __ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . . _ , _ _ _ _ . . _ . - _
l ; the NRC?
2 'A Electrical penetration area, the valve pits. I'm trying 3 to recall the nining operation that went on. There was an 4 excavation process that went on underneath the Turbine 5 Building to get us into the -- let me think. I was trying 6 l to think how the mining shaft went there and a lot of that i
7 l was to support the electrical penetration area and work 8 underneath the valvo pits. What.was the question again?
9 0 Let me see if I can't ask it any differently.
l 10 Underpinning work was required at the cantilevered portion 11 of the service water pump structures is that correct?
12 jA Yes, that was another area.
13 :Q And underpinning work was required in portions of the 14 Auxiliary Buildingt is that correct?
15 A Yes.
16 0 Has the NRC yet required underpinning work at any other d 17 structure or building? .
18 A We have required some work at the borated storage tanks 19 i and I'm not sure exactly what form that requirement has 20 taken. ,
21 0 would it help you if I mentioned that a concrete collar 22 was placed around the borated water storage tank?
23 A Yes, it would.
24 0 To take into account the cracking in the ring beam?
422 Luod Reporting Service y n y, ,,,,,, y Isfayette Building Swt, nm 962 1176 swi ;;o (betrout \lochigan M226 Farmington Hdh, \luchiean molk
1 A Yes.
2 0 That is not an underpinning effort?
3 A No, but it's a portion of the remedial soils efforts.
4 0 But that's done, is it not, or was done when you left?
5 A I don't know if that work had been completed or not. I 6 know there had been excavation going on over there. There 7 was work going on. I just cannot recall whether that was 8 completed, like I said, at the time I left the site. Bear 9 l in mind ny transf er date was the middle of Kay, but also 10 bear in mind I was in the process of buying properties and 11 l so forth and so on so I was in a bit of a laid back area i
12 on the site there for a bit of a time before I actually 13 transferred.
i 14 'O In any event, getting back to the December 4th meeting, as 15 I understand your testimony, either Don Miller or Don Horn
! 16 had alerted you to the settlement at these other 17 structures? .
18 A Not necessarily all the structures.
19 0 But some of them?
20 A Some of them, particularly the dif ferential settlement on 1
21 the Diesel Generator Building and the cutting loose of the l
l 22 duct bank in the Diesel Generator Du11 ding, and what other 23 ones I don't know, but I don't believe all of them, but 24 there had been some discussien going on over some of theco t
I lxthyette Hwl&ng 3m40 \orthw r n flu s Swte Mt) 962.]176 Sw,,gfu Iktron t, \lichigan 4R22h Farmington linlis, \lachigan Wolk
1
! areas.
I 2 'O And finally at the December 4th meeting they had presented 3 all this information to those in attendance; is that 4 correct?
5 A Yes. In fact, they have even presented more. It was a 6 l . good exchange. There was slides and what have you, things 7 were talked about.
8 lQ What kind of guy is Don Miller, Mr. Cook?
I 9 {A I have a very high regard for Don Miller.
10 0 Did you have such a regard for him during the period of 11 time you and he worked together at Midland?
]
12 lA Yes, 13 l0 Is he a straight-shooting, honest talking guy?
14 lA I would say he's straight-shooting and honest talking. In 15 fact, there's testimony where the NRC said if Don Miller 16 l had been turned loose with the backing of Consumers that 17 he could have been a very good asset to the success of the 18 plant. And my opinion is shared by other members in the 19 NRC.
20 0 What was Don Miller's role,when you came on the site in 21 the summer of 197 8?
22 A I think they called him the plant manager at the time, 23 which would mean he would be the senior Consumers Power 24 representative on the project.
l !
Lu:od Reporting Sertice ,o , ,,
lafyrtte kidinz ,
s,1,;)u kite sw 962 1176 iktrout, \fahigan M226 Farmuncion lidis. \lahican mo1H
1 0 He -was proj ect manager, wasn' t he?
2 A All right, project manager.
3 0 If you wanted information you'd talk to Don?
4 A I talke ' to him quite regularly.
5 0 Did he give you the information you wanted?
6 lA He was always very congenial, i
7 'O Not only congenial but was he forthright and forthcoming?
8 A Yes. If we felt we were not getting information from 9 Bechtel, we could go to Don Hiller and he would get us the l 10 l information we wanted. If we indicated to him we had a [
11 problem with something, he would take care of it on our 12 : behalf to do it discreetly, if you will, and we felt he I
13 : was an individual that was interested in trying to build a '
l I
14 saf e plant.
l t l 13 0 Did you ever have occasion to deal with Steve Howell?
. i
! 16 A Yes. '
17 0 What was your experience with Mr. Howell?
P 18 A Well, he was the -- about the time I got there I think he 19 was the Vice-President, or whatever his ranking was, in j 20 charge of the project and during the months before I f.
21 actually got there inspectionwise, and I think I dealt l 22 with Steve Howell when I was inspecting the Palisades :
1 23 plant, I can't remember what his capacity was. I think ha 24 may have been on the advisory committee or something. [
f lxhytte ikildmz *"'"# "'"
3mto \orthur e n lluy i l snuto mo 962 1176 koe 22* >
j (ktrar. \firkian 1822n Fsemmeron lidis \fichigan 18018 ,
i :
1 'O Uas he somebody you had day-to-day contact with when you 2 got to Midland?
l 3 A No.
4 Q Did you ever make an effort to -- I may have asked you 5 this this morning -- to gain access to any of the senior i
6 l of ficials of Consumers, Mr. Selby or Mr. Fallahee, or any 1
7 l of the directors, or Hr. Howell, in connection with your 8 role at Midland?
9 A I don't think that I -- say your question again.
I 10 10 Did you ever attempt while you were at the site, the 11 resident inspector at Midland, to communicate directly 12 ; with any of the senior executive of ficers of Consumers 13 ; Power Company such as selby, Fallahee, Howell, any of the i
14 j directors, people at that level?
15 A I have talked to them. I guess I'm having a hard time --
16 give me a reason to talk to them.
17 0 Because you foLrd that people at the plant site were 18 unresponsive or you were not getting cooperation or you 19 needed comebody higher up to speak to, things of that 20 nature? ,
21 A Not that I can remember. Although, some of these type of 22 communications, a lot of that is handled by the higher-ups 23 of the regional of fice, l
i 24 0 Did you ever suggest to any of the higher-ups at the l l
- t Luzod Reporting Sersice ,, 9 y, wayrte nuas,nr ,
s,lar nw 962 1176 .su ar L4:
Introa. \fdtese $8226 Farminston Rdh. \lditan skolk
-- ~ - - - - - - - _
~
1 region that you needed their assistance in communicating !
2 with the people at the level I just mentir,ed?
I 3 A There has been those communications. Now whether I 4 suggested or whether it just came out as an evolution 5 discussing a given item, why, there have been those phone 6 calls, 7 3 0 That I know of and there have been meetings with Selby and l
8 ! Howell and so on. What I'm trying to get at is, did you 9 mention to Mr. Keppler or somebody at the region that you 10 j were not getting information f rom somebody at the project?
i 11 !A Not that I was not getting information from somebody at 12 the project. J never went to that high of a level, that 1 13 l can recall anyway.
14 (Deposition Exhibit No. DPD 1673, 15 Document entitled Meeting held at the 16 Midland Units 1 & 2 Settlecent of 17 Diesel Generating Building, was 18 marked for identification.)
19 BY HR. DRIKER:
20 0 Let me show you Mr. Gallagher'a minutes of the December 21 4th meeting, marked Deposition Exhibit 1673. These are 22 quite a bit shorter than Mr. Hood's minutes and these show 23 you received a copy of the minutes. You'll see on page 24 two you' re shown as having been copied. Mr. Gallagher's l
imo aning Smia lafayette HwIding suite nw 962 1176 3,,,
,,h,mf,f,',,,ur swi 61 Intnut. Whigan 4822s Farmwu Hills, Michigan 48018
1 minutes actually contain the signature pages of those who 2 attended the December 4th meeting and I'm specifically 3 interested in page one, paragraph one, of Mr. Gallagher's 4 minutes where he indicates "Dechtel provided a review of 5 the settlement history to date and the identification of 6 Category 1 structures founded on the site fill material."
7 I Would that be the same inforrcation that Mr. Hood wrote up 8 on the top of page two?
9 lA 1 would say so.
10 0 When you were told by con Miller or Don Horn about some of 11 the settlement that had taken place, do you know if Mr.
12 Gallagher had also been informed at the same time?
13 !A No, I do not, although, they may have been sending him i
14 some settlement data because they were also working with 15 him, is my understanding.
16 'O At the top of page two of Mr. Gallagher's memo is "The 17 zeeting wac worthwhile in that it stimulated technical 18 discussion and details of the proposed resolution to the 19 problem." Do you agree with that assessment of the 20 meeting? ,
21 A I would say it was a varthwhile meeting at that point in 22 time. It was a meeting to exchango information, what 23 might be done, the preioading of the Diesel Generator 24 Duilding and what wt3 2xpected would come out of it.
428 Lu:od Ref>ornny Senia 3, m o y ,,g ,,_,,,,, ,,,L Isfayette ikidune _
5mte Mo 962 1176 %te 25 Inettst, \fwhigan E C 26 Farmnneton HJh. \lahigan WlX
1 MR. BERKOVITZt I've got one comment to 2 make, It's very difficult for us at the NRC to know 3 exactly what people are getting at. We have both on '
4 direct and on cross a lot of examination of documents with 5 many NRC people on the same document. For example, this 6 l morning we had examination of Mr. Cook on Warnick's l
7 document, an earlier deposition of Mr. Warnick, and now we l
8 l got the deposition of Mr. Cook on Gallagher's and Darl 9 Hood's documents, and there might be something the parties 10 are trying to get at, but it's very difficult for us to 11 l tell and to un it looks like it's repetitive examination.
i 12 l In f uture depositions we're going to have to 13 objecttorepetitiveexaminationonthesametopicsunlessl 14 we' re provided bef orehand with some sort of indication of 15 what you' re trying to get at otherwise we don' t know 16 what's going on or why there's this repetitivo i
17 : questioning. It would certainly help us if maybe before 18 ! the deposition parties would give us some sort of outline l
19 I about the topics that are going to be covered.
20 MR. DRIKER: ,I think that's a good 21 suggestion and we'd be happy to oblige you if our 22 colleagues across the way will do the same.
l 23 MR. BERKOVITZ: Will you consider it?
24 tis . RICE: We will consider as it as we've t
I
' E W "
l.athyette ikidane 3@0 %rthur e n llu y.
%te Mtl 96 ? 1II6 Suur 2:a Iktrmt, \fichigan 48:26 Farrntneton fiells, \l,chigan wIlh
1 ! discussed before.
l 2 'DY MR. DRIKER:
3 0 In the agenda to th? December 4th meeting, page three of 4 Mr. Gallagher's minutes, it indicates that, under IV, "The 5 q consultants were going to make a recommendation" and under
> i 6
l suo A it says "preload". It's correct, is it not, that 7 Dr. Peck on behalf of Bechtel recommended that a sand 8 surcharge or preload be put in the Diesel Generator 9 Duilding?
1 10 !A Yes.
l 11 !Q To consolidate the soil rapidly?
12 That was part of the intent, as I remember.
lA 13 0 And the 1:nc in essence said to Consumers if you do it it's 14 1 at your own risk?
15 A That's what we said, yes.
16 0 Did you ever tell Consumers not to put the proload on, you:
17 individually? I mean order them. .
i 18 A I would not have told Consumers not to put the preload on.
19 0 Does the resident inspector at the site have authority to 20 stop safety-related work? ,
21 A Well, now you' re getting into a conditional type thing ac 22 to what our limitations are. In actuality, no. The 23 licencee stops his own work. If the licensee will not 24 take appropriate action, thentheseniorresidentcantakej I l
- J 430 Lmd Reporting Sers ice Sww %rthuraern Ilv I,afayette Munidsae S,,,,, nw 462.!]i6 suei, L'<o IWtrat. \lahigan +Cs Farmuneton HA \lahnean wik
1 action with regard to the licensee. However, this is 2 usually with the backing of the higher levels of 3 management in the NRC. You know, there needs to be 4 clarification of the gravity of the situation.
5 Let's suppose you had a very grave situation during jQ 6
l construction where there was an emergent condition. Did i
7 j you as a senior resident inspector have the authority 1
8 l under the Code of Federal Regulations and the rules and 9 ! regulations of the NRC to immediately stop construction i
10 without asking anybody else?
11 Probably not.
lA 12 !O Are you unsure?
13 A Well, I'll put it to you like this: I would not do it 14 l that way.
15 0 Laying aside the --
i 16 lA Other than accepting responsibilities -- I guess I'll put l
l 17 i it to you like this: Suppose that I knew that the i
18 planking on some place was going to allow workmen carrying
! I 19 ! a heavy valve to fall 120 feet down to the bottom of the i
20 containment. Would I stop. work and stop them from 21 carrying the 120 pound valve over planking that was going 22 to jeopardize, well, I would attempt to. Later on l
l 23 Consuners may come back and say you held up the job and I 24 guess my comment would be tough. So a person accepts the j i !
i
).nlyrare Rwidme I' " "#
3n%0 %rthun n the >
%rr Mel 962 11I6 %r.- l} o Intnnt, \fichigan 48:26 Farmington Ihth. \taharan 18o18 l _ .. _ _ - . . _ . . . _- . . . .
E 1 ) responsibilities commensurate with what the needs happen ,
\
2 to be.
3 0 What I want to know is what your understanding is of your I
4 legal authority. Does the resident, senior resident 5 inspector have the legal authority to shut the work down?
t 6
l Laying aside the wisdom of it, the politics of it, can he 7 do it as a matter of law and regulation?
8 A I'm not real.ly sure of that. .
9 0 okay.
10 A I know that usually we do not.
1 11 l0 Next question. Did you as the senior resident inspector 12 at Midland ever recommend to your supericts at the region 13 f or in Washington or anyplace that the remedial soils, that l
14 the sand surcharge at the Diesel Generator Building not be 15 allowed to continue?
16 A Not be allowed to continue?
17 0 or not be permitted at all? .
18 A I had raised a question, and I don't know wr.o the audience l 19 was at the time, that would it not be right, to be fair, 20 to consider dismantling the Diesel Generator Building 21 entirely. In other words, was this a prudent action to 22 put sand in it? But being it was the gamble of the 23 licensee, that's fine. But I remember questioning the 24 prudency of going on with questionabic fill underneath the i
432 l
Lu:od Reporting Sersice nw %ntern th ,
is):nette lhildme bull
- hN NbS'SS?D butte Uhl lirtrott. \fschigan 4?.226 Farmmeton HJh. %)ugan wm
1 1 building and putting a surcharge on it and would it not 2 have been more prudent, like I said, to dismantle the 3 building. I do not remember who the audience was, other 4 than I remember discussing that.
5 0 My question is a little different. Did you ever recommend 6 to your superior in any branch or division or part of the l
7 NRC that Consumers not be allowed to go forward with the l
1 8 preload or surcharge at the Diesel Generator Building?
9 A No, I did not.
10 30 Did you ever recommend to anyone at the NRC that Consumers 11 i not be allowed to remove the surcharge when it was i
12 ultimately removed?
l 13 'A No.
14 0 Is there any OA problem with the dikes at the Midland 15 Plant you're aware of?
16 A The dikes around the pond area you're saying?
17 lO
! The dikes either around the pond area at the dikes which i
18 ! surround the power block.
19 !A tie had a OA problem with the rip rap on the dikes close to 20 the power block area. The, concern was would the non-0 rip 21 i rap f all into the reservoir that would be needed f or saf e 22 shutdown of the plant. The inspectors had found that the 23 rip rap was relatively easily destroyed, if you will, and 24 that there had not been very rigorous control over the i
1.nfayette Hutiding Luod Reporting Sernice , 433, here hit) 962 1176 g,,, 7;,,
1)etra t, \bkhtaan M22b Farmungton Ihlb, Whera,18018
1 kind of rock that was purchased to put in against the bank 2 i in those areas close to where they could have an impact on 3 the ultimate heat sink capabilities of the pond.
4 0 Ultimate what?
5 A Ultimate heat sink capability of the pond.
6 0 Is that the only QA problem with any of the dikes?
7 A I don' t know if that's the only one. That's the only one 8 I can recall right now.
9 'O Was that problem solved? Wasn't t.hr, defective rip rap 10 removed and replaced?
11 lA Yes. There was an item of toncompliance and I think that 12 was the resolution, specifications developed to insure i
13 l reasonably good rip rap would be purchased and put in 14 place at the appropriate areas.
15 0 Once the settlement problem of the Diesel Generator '
16 Building surf aced in late summer and f all of 1978 there 17 was a good deal of publicity about that in the Midland 18 community, was there not?
19 A Well, I don't recall when the publicity hit. I don't 20 think it hit right away. I think, as I recall it, there 21 may have been something right then, but as I recall it was 22 a Johnny-come-lately attention in the Midland area and I'm 23 not so sure how that became known by the general public.
24 In other words, we were making notifications around the l
i i I' u : d Reporting Sernice , ,
I.afverte kid <nz suure MO 962 !!?6 kerr L%
IWtrms, \tahigan M22n Farm <nuton Hills. \fichigan isolk
I 1
l early part of September and it seemed to me like there waq 2 a period of time before, if you will, the story broke.
3 Now, you may have news articles that refute that but it 4 seems to me that I --
5 iO Not so much refute it. These are articles that have been I
6 l identified betore. Let me just show them to you to see if 7 it helps place these events.
8 ! (Deposition Exhibit No. DPD 1683, i
9 Newspaper article from the Midland 10 l Daily News, dated 12-2-78, wac l
11 l marked for identification.)
12 BY MR DRIKER:
13 0 I hand you a document marked Deposition Exhibit 1683, 14 which is a clipping from the Midland Daily News of l
l l 15 December 2,197 8. This happens to come f rom Dow's files.
l 16 Is Starr Eby a reporter with whom you had dealings?
17 'A Yes, I had dealings with Starr Eby. .
18 0 On a regular basis?
19 ,A Only when she'd call me up and that was more regular than I
i 20 what I cared for. As a technical reporter, I have a low l
1 21 opinion of her ability to accurately transcribe technical 22 data. With that let us continue questioning.
23 0 Does this refresh your recollection, this article, that l
l 24 story, about the settling of the Diesel Generator Duilding l
l e (ph>rrre Huuldine
- "# " 3MIO %rthur e n Hu ,
Swe mo 962 11I6 %:e bo (Wrmt, \tahigan MC2r> Farmington Hith, \tahiga, wi8
1 started appearing in the local newspapers in Midland and 2 -
Saginaw and Bay City in early December?
3 A Right. That is compatible with what I eaid. If I recall, 4 it was a period of time bef ore, if you will, the story 5 broke.
6 l0 The story remained a media item for some years after l
7 ! December 1978, did it not?
i 8 A Probably through the f all of 1984 if I was to -- you know, 9 it was a perpetual story.
10 !O Did people ask you about this on the street corner or the 11 church or Boy Scouts, at the supermarket, whether you i
12 i answered them or not?
t 13 ;A Yes. Some people acked about the settlement of the Diesel 14 Generator Building particularly.
I 15 0 Do you recall that the interveners made claim that 16 Consumere knew about a site-wide soils problem and had 17 ,
hidden it from the NRC7 .
18 Do you want to try and supply some more words?
lA l 19 0 Do you remember Barbara Stamiris making an allegation in 20 1979 that Consumers Power Company knew that there was a l
l 21 site-wide soils problem back in 1977 and hid it, in l
22 escence suppressed the information?
23 A Was that when her basis -- when she uses a basis the 24 settlement of the Auxiliary Building, that it was found
! i 436 jg, , g,js,,
Lu:od Reporting Sertice ,, , ,
Sure,hp) 962.))76 sury };
iktroit. % chigan 48:26 Farmmeron lidir %chgan Sml8
I 1 that during Gallagher's investigation or inspection or l
2 whatever that or in -- I guess I don't know as I want to 3 necessarily give Gallagher all the credit, but during the 4 investigations into that it was found that the Auxiliary 5 Building had been settling prior to discovery more than an 6 anticipated rate and prior to the settlement was 7 discovered in the Diesel Generator Building. Is that what 8 you're referring to? -
9 0 Yes, sir. The grade beam at the Administration Building 10 as being indicative of knowledge by Consumers of a l
11 l site-wide soils problem?
l 12 lA If what I have recited back to you is what you're making 13 e ref erence to I guess I'll say yes, I'm aware there were 14 ! these type of allegations being made, i I c
l 15 IQ Did you yourself ever launch an investigation or l
i 16 participato in an investigation as to the truth or f alsity i
l 17 of that accusation? .
18 lA No, I did not.
19 l0 So you have no way of knowing one way or another whether 1
20 that's true or false?
l 21 A I never dug into it. The only thing I know -- the only 22 thing I'm inforned of is that indeed -- that the l
l 23 Administration Building was settling at an earlier tide l
l 24 than the Diesel Generator Building. I'm not sure who made
> I, i
lafnet:e Hwidore 3M40 %rthue e n flu) l swie mn 962 III6 Swn 2m i Ikermt, \fwhigan L92.% Farmmatun lidh, \tahigan Wdk
1 ! me aware of it, but it was during the looking into the 2 settlement problem that that came to light. I'm not even 3 sure when I became informed of such a thing, but I never 4 looked into that aspect of it.
5 l0 Okay.
)
6 (Deposition Exhibit No. DFD 1664, 7 Newspaper Article f rom the Midland l
8 Daily News, dated 12-8-78, was 9 marked for identification.)
10 BY MR. DRIKER:
11 0 Let me show you a photograph of yourself when your hair 12 was darker.
13 !A Geez, I was even younger then.
l 14 10 A clipping from the Midland Daily News of December 8, 15 1970, which we've marked as Deposition Exhibit D 16G4, 16 another article by Starr Eby, and I assume since the lead 17 paragraph says you work long hours you'.re not going to 18 quarrel with the accuracy of the author's writing in this i
19 article?
l 20 A As long as she stays away from technical information.
21 This first article you gave me she tries to make a 22 technical explanation in there. Later on Mary Sinclair i
23 wrote a letter to the editor saying how could non Cook 24 make such gross statements. I took the blueprints over to
\
l l Luzod Reporting Sertic, , ,,,,
\ lafayette Iktdme kite hw 962 1176 &,te :6o Intmt, \fichigan 48226 Farmmet<m Hdh, \twhatan 28vi8
1 ; explain to Starr Eby because she didn't trust consumers 2 Power to explain what was happening and after it was all 3 said and done her ability to write a technical article 4 based on someone showing her what was happening just 5 didn' t seem to be there and -
6 jQ Are you done?
7 A I was going to say I guess she's out studying history some I
8 place and that might be a better. role.
i 9 0 Could you take back the December 2,1978 article and tell i
10 i me precisely what portion is technically inaccurate?
11 A I shouldn' t have said that. Well, she says that the "NRC l
12 resident inspector, Ronald J. Cook, explained that the 13 ! rise in the water table is just within the bounds of the 14 plant and that is desirable because it helps the soil fier ,
15 l up.* Well, that in itself is not really true, just taken 16 by itself. And she was worried about the water getting l
17 l into the peoples basements and I don't know. I would havo l
18 i to go through here step-by-step and re-analyze the l
19 i articles. I just remember the article and some of things i
20 she kind of -- in this series of articles she did not 21 reflect what it was, that I explained to her what the real 22 situation was at the plant. Is that enough?
23 Q That's enough. I shan't take you through anymere. Now 24 let's go to the article about you. Let ne ask you a i
I.afvett* kidmr 3tmo %rthues e n flu s Moe Ma 962 11?6 se, :),,
IWtrat. \behigan M226 Farminatun lidh, \tahuge wik
1 l couple of questions. About two-thirds of the way down the I
2 l first column is a statement although not in quotat. ion 3 marks appears to be attributed to you and that is 4 "noncompliance forms simply provide motivation for the 5 licensee to spot and correct its own errors, ho 6 explained." In that an accurate statement of your view of 7 noncompliance reports?
8 A Let me see where that paragraph is at.
9 ,0 Okay.
10 A Well, that probably is not a fair characterization of the 11 way I treated noncompliances. In other words, she's 12 l giving the credit that this -- what does she say here --
13 l that the only way you're going to be motivated in if I l
14 write items of noncompliance, that's the only way you can 15 spot and correct your own errors. Well, as I remember, on 16 this whole article she said well, gee, you write items of 17 noncompliance like you write speeding t,1ckets. It was 18 that type of an understanding of the regulatory process, 19 which it really isn't quite like that.
20 So I remember trying to explain to her how 21 noncompliances are used to try to correct the situation 22 and that they -- I think I probably was at that time 23 explaining things that we addressed as preventive 24 , inspection where we did go af ter nitpicks, if you will, to, l
440 laf9ette Huddon' 3mlu %rthurstern liv >
Suute MO 9h2 11I6 Suote 2.no Detrat. %higan 4t:26 Farminatan Hdh. %kiean $8nts
i 1 j try and get the issues and I don't know how -- I don't 2 know what construed these words here. I've already given 3 you my opinion of starr Eby's attributes as a reporter.
4 0 In the right hand column beneath your photo is ref erence 5 to the fact you walk the site with an NRC hat on and that 6 i you talk to the workers about their jobs but you have yet 7 to receive an anonymous phone call pinpointing out 8 problems in the plant. Is that an accurate statement?
9 A At that time it was.
10 IQ Did you thereatter receive anonymous communications about i
11 l problemc at the plant?
12 A About pinpointing some problems at the plant?
13 0 Yes.
14 [A I received anonymous phone calle. I'm trying to think i
15 what the nature of them were. I've also received 16 threatening phone calls, but I can't recall the nature, i
17 but I have received anonymous phone cal.ls in the form of 18 l allegations, if you will, kind of in the form of i
19 allegations. I remember. one phone call I got that was l
20 sort of like incoherent, if you will, and I've had phone 21 calls where the individuals identified themselves and they 22 were also incoherent. As an agency we receive that type 23 of information and we're obligated to look at it, assess 24 the merit of it and do whatever. At the time this was
' "# " 3te3to %thurs e n Hu s lafayene Hmlding Swtr h30 9 6 2 1 i ;* b Suar 2b Inetrmt. \takuran #922n Farmington Hdin, \lwhigan +401H
1 written I probably hadn't received any phone calls at that 2 time yet.
3 0 I want to talk to you for a couple of minutes about the 4 '
SALP process. As I understand your testimony, the SALP 5 i report is really an evaluation of a lot of other 6 l documentation that may have been created by lots of 7 different people at dif ferent times; is that correct?
I 8 lA Yec. It's a summary of that record that exists.
9 l0 It's an evaluation by somebody who ic reading underlying i
10 j documents and trying to draw it altogether and give grades 11 for different categories of constraction work?
12 Plus you also have input with the other inspectors that
{A 13 had generated those documents.
14 l0 So it's an amalgamation of the views of a variety of 15 people?
16 'A Yes, 17 0 Who authors, who actually writes the SALP report or can't 18 that be determined f rom looking at the report itself ?
19 A You could not determine looking at the report itself, you 20 or anybody. ,
21 0 Anybody just reading it --
22 A Probably could not tell who the author is unless they were 23 f amiliar with an individual style of writing and then they 24 might be able to say this is - you can always recognize l I l
442 Luzod Reporting Sersic' 30sw %rth e> tern ll<. y lAfa>rtre ikidsng 5"'" " U 9(y,yy7s gu,1, ;,.o
[k"trmt. \ldhttan N?!) Farminaron Hilh. \tahutan W!h
i 1 Shake spearc.
2 0 Even if one could identify the author, the author himself 3 may not necessarily be the source of the original 4 observations or conclusions that go into the document; is 5 that right?
6 That is true, lA i
7 l0 So when you said yesterday I believe that you wrote a i
8 large portion of I think SALP II, I don't remember which 9 one --
10 A I claim I was the author of that paper as it sat on the 11 i table, the primary author.
12 l0 f
What you really meant is that you looked at a lot of 13 reports that other people report and tried to draw 14 together in your mind an evaluation or distillation of l
. 15 l what other people said about the plant?
\ )
16 lA i Plus I had conversations with them, plus they also 17 submitted a rough draf t submittal of what certain areas 18 I may look like to them, and so I take all this information 19 together and their submittal to the author, the primary 20 author, follows certain guidelines and so then the author 21 then takes all of the information and comes up with the 22 evaluation, or at least the draf t evaluation as it appeara 23 in the SALP report, and then that is sent to the review 24 board f or, if you will, defense, not at all unlike the l
l l ra rv ir, nwti a k d M*"i"! S"" 3m:0urtau,,$,?,itn swr nw 962 llo'b swi :po inmur. \tahigan 5U.% Farmuuton Hstis \lahican Iml?t
1 l group of inspectors defending their thesis, if you will.
l 2 'O And might that board add its own, make its own 3 contribution to the report?
4 A It could. In fact, there is a section there that's 5 reserved for board comment.
6 l0 How are the grades fixed, the one, two and three grades, l
7 i who does that?
I 8 'A Those grades are fixed -- the grade is fixed by the prime 9 author in collaboration with an individual that might have 10 i the most knowledge in that area. In other words, the 11 ; primary author would not necessarily fix.a grade for NDE 12 work when it was shown they didn't do the NDE work. The 13 primary author might call it the mutually agreed upon i
14 grade on the report then when it goes to the board that
- 15 grade is subject to change at the time of meeting with the i
16 board memberc.
17 0 And the board members may not necessarkly be the people i
18 and indeed are not likely to be the people that did the 19 actual investigation in that substantive area?
20 A That is true. ,
1 21 0 They may be people simply reading other people's reports 22 and basing the grade on what somebody else wrote?
23 A Well, it's not so much reading but, yea, they do read the 24 dialogue that goes with the SALP report, but you have a r
l I lafayette flusidmg
' "I 3%40 %rthest r flu )
962 11*6 Suste hw .%re :p iktrott. %chigan 4822h Farmingts linlis. %chican 1kul3
1 meeting and basically -- the easy way out was to make 2 everything two because that's nice and middle of the 3 streamish. So if a person says it was given a one or it 4 was given a three the previous time or low grade the 5 previous time, then the inspection force is obligated to 6
l defend that position in the eyes of the board, which, you i
7 l know, they have access to the documents, and they say, i
8 !
well, yes, the reasons why you have given -- that this is i
9 a Category 1 and based on what this record is laid before f
10 ! me and based on what I have reaa before I got here and I
11 I based on the agreement of these other inspectors and based I
12 '
upon the fact I cannot find any inconsistency in your 13 judgment then so be it, it shall be one and in a like 14 manner so be it shall be three. So I say the review I
15 process ic very protective, if you will, by demonstrating 16 an ability to remove personality biases f rom the 17 individuals that might be authoring the base document.
10 0 Stated differently then the ultimate grades in these 19 areas, categories, are very much a judgnental result l
i 20 rather than simply selecting a column of numbers and 21 summing them up, isn't that so?
22 A That's right. It's a bit subjective. Early on we did 23 have columns of numbers that we tried aosessing. I don't 24 know if I remembet right. We had like pointe for !
I spfverte kidune XMtu %rthe e n Ih )
ka en 962.))76 s a, ;;o lHrmt. 1hchigan tR LM Farmington Ihlls, thchican skolM
I 1 noncompliance and I'm not sure all that went into it.
2 That did not work out very well because a licensee could 3 i be a good actor. He could have lots of insignificant 4 items of noncompliance and then because he had lots of S i insignificant items of noncompliance it would paint him as -
6 being a bad actor when in actuality you might not be all 7
l that bad. It brought in that the present state of the art I
O i with regard to the SALP's is to indeed make them 9
l subjective and we announced this to the world. He tell 10 the world that we're making this evaluation.
11 !O Let me hand you a NURDG-0834 --
12 A How about the chance of a little break here?
13 0 Sure.
14 I (A brief recess was held during l
15 ! the proceedings.)
16 BY MR. DRIKER:
17 0 It's been a long day for you. Why don'.t we wrap up a f ew 18 questions and we'll come back a new time.
19 (Deposition Exhibit No. DPD 1684, 20 NRC Licensee Accessments, NURDG-083 4, 21 was marked for identification.)
22 BY MR. DRIKER:
23 0 Mr. Cook, the document that I've placed in front of you, 24 which is labeled Deponition Exhibit 1684, is an of ficial 446 f.afayette ikidsnt 3B W \'*lk '*'" II" )
syg, nw 962 1176 hwir :>
iktrat, \1whigan SW6 Farmagte Hnlis \lahican Wik
I 1
{ document of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2
attendant to NRC Licensee Assessmentc?
3 A It's one of our NUREG publications which give guidances to 4 i the licensees.
I 5 Is thic-a document which you utilized in connection with l0 6 ; your SALP activities?
7 Not necessarily.
lA i
8
- O Did you read it? -
9 lA As a matter of fact, no.
l 10 0 Have you ever seen it before?
11 I probably have seen it as a document but I never studied lA 12 '
this particular document. He had other guidances that 13 were paraphrased tron that. That was the format we 14 f ollow ed.
j 15 l!0 You mean something distilled from this document?
I 16 'A If not distilled from that document it probably had the 17 ! same attributes and I'm saying that without reading the 18 l document, so I can' t really say that.
i 19 Q The SALP process, SALP 1, ao far ao Hidland was concerned,.
20 was f rom the period of mid,1979 through mid 19807 21 A I believo so.
I 22 0 Was that the genesic, was that time period, the genesis of 23 SALP f or all licenseec?
l 24 A That was the commission's first cut at what we call I
Luzod Reporting Sern ice latkyrtw Ltdat s-,; ,,,
3, , {Al ,
9s:.ii.s 8. x-1 % r, \funagan s c o Fermneton Hdis \takuen, mis
1 l systematic assessment of a licensee's perf ormance and -
2 call it that. However, there was documents that were 3 predecessors to that that we gave other terms to.
4 0 Let's stick to -- the formal SEP process began in 1979; 5 l 1s that correct?
6 A I would say no. I would say the formal SEP started 7 probably in 1900 and looked at the record of a previous 8 j period. -
9 l0
- In any event by this document dated in 1981 the commission 10 ,
apparently wanted to refine the SEP process and there are i
11 some statements in it which I would like to ask you about. ;
12 The first is on page two of the covering letter. By the 13 way, is it possible that the portion of this document 14 ! starting at Bates number 91903964 through 966 is the 15 summary that you talked about?
16 A I can't really cay without looking at our guidance on
- 17 providing SEP's. The thing I'd like t,o point out is the la date on thic is October the 20th,1981 and the SALP II was i
19 written through a period -- I have to look at that date, t 1
20 It seemed to me like it wap November of 1981.
I can't 21 remember if we can even find it in here.
l 22 0 You're looking for SALP 1?
23 A No, I was looking f or SEP II and the dates of the SEP
(
j 24 II. ;
t I
448 nod Reponing Senier 3,,no y,,g,,,, yH Larnet!< Lums ,
k g,p g ) 90?'$$?a kit! 2.h l '
IWtrat, %ktran SC2n f*'MmthA UdI5 UhltGM OUN
i t
1 l MS. RICE: SALP II was NRC 13.
I 2 A I know what's happening, the pile got shifted. Okay. It ;
3 was f rom -- wait a second though. We had the meeting in 4 April of 1902 but that was -- the period was f rom July 5 1st, 1980 through June 30th of 1981. So thic NURCG 6 document would not have been in our possession at that i
7 l particular time so I had no reason to even worry about it.
8 lO
- The report was written quite a bit af ter the SALP period, 9 wasn't it?
10 A The report was written at a time earlier than that. The 11 meeting was not held until April.
l 12 !O When was the report written?
13 A The report was probably written in tiovember.
14 f0 Of 1901?
15 A Of 1901. That would be about the right timeframe as I 16 look at the ending date of being basically July the 1st of 17 1981. We would have started assembling inf ormation about 18 the plant. In those days they gave us a little more time 19 so it may have even been the f all of 1901. So I suppose 20 between the f all and November of 1981 was when the actual 21 report was written and evaluationc made and so forth and 22 so on. Then we did not present that to the licensee until 23 April of 1982, but we would not have gone back and looked 24 especially at a liURD3 document that was signed in October 1
lathyrrte LIdung X6 m %rth e e n Hu >
Mar hw 9b21I ?6 kure 2;u Iktr<u t. \fwhjan SC.% Farmington Hdh, \lakteon tvns 1
1 of 1981.
2 10 Why don't you look at the inside page of the NRC licensee :
3 assessment. It says manuscript completed August 1981, 4 date published August 1981.
5 A This would not get into our assecament processes until 6 l some months after that.
7 l0 would you look at page 91903968, the foreword. And would I
you read the third paragraph to yourself from the 8
9 foreword.
10 A All right.
11 0 Do you agree with that statement?
12 A Yes.
13 [0 would you look at the page with the last four digits 3976.
14 j The statement toward the bottom of the page says "The i
15 responsibility for the final national ratings of 16 f acilities as either above average, average, or below i 17 l average is vested in the SALP Review Gooup." Is that an 18 accurate statement?
l 19 A Yes.
20 Q And does that hold true for the SALP reports issued to 21 Consumers Power Company with respect to the Midland Plant?
22 A Yes, it does. In fact, I think that's in agreement with 23 the process I just described to you some moments before. ,
i 24 0 Could you turn back to the cover sheet, page two of the l l
- P*"'"! " 3mio %rthu rr flu ,
lafgetto Ikildang kure hm 9 6 2 l l ** 6 kore :3 l IWtrar, \tachigan 48:26 Farmonet<m linlis, \fschigan wlR l
1 i covering memorandum?
2 A Page two.
3 0 Bates number the last f our digits are 396 5 There's a 4 statement at the top of the page "The staf f should ensure 5
{ the existence of a process for taking licensee responses 6 l into account. Specifically, a licensee n.ust have the i
7 f opportunity to comment on assessment results before they 8 l
- are made final and the licensee is characterized, e.g., as I
9 needing to improve perf ormance." Is that the process you 10 l f ollowed in connection with the Midland SEP's?
11 lA Yes, we did.
i 12 0 And do you agree that is one of the purposes of a SEP, 13 was to take licensee responcen into account?
l 14 jA lie certainly did take the licensee's response into 15 account.
16 l0 without necessarily agreeing with them?
17 A Hithout necessarily agreeing with them 18 !O Indeed I believe it's fair to state, is it not, that you 19 and perhaps sore of your colleagues were quite unhappy 20 with Consumers' response to SEP II, isn't that so?
l 21 A h'e were under -- yec, we were unhappy with their response.4 22 Their reasons -- their response became a very aggressive 23 document, a very abracivo document to us and we also felt 24 it was unsupported.
i l
l.afayette Italdme MW %tk v.s ern Ifu >
kre hm 4h 2 1 iib %e :.%
(Hnut. \tahitan LC.% Furmmet
- lidis. \lah::an +%I'i
1 ,0 Is it fair to state that you got a little hot about the 1
2 Consumers response to SALP II?
3 MR. BERKOVITZ: I think he just answered the i
4 question.
5 !BY MR. DRIKER:
I 6 l0 You testified about the SALP II response and the staf f's 7 rebuttal in a licensing hearing in 1983, did you not?
8 ,A Yes. I guess that's when I was sitting on the stand.
9 l0 And do you remember questions were asked of you about what i
10 you meant by purging and thingc of that nature, purging l 11 l executives, and you indicated that you did not suggest an 12 off with their heads approach, that you were talking l
13 '
different language than that? ,
14 !A Indeed.
4 15 0 Is it f air to state that the document which you prepared, 16 NRC 126, and your handwritten notes, NRC 122 -- I'm sorry.
17 lA The handwritten notec, I did n' take credit for those.
18 That shows I was not the only independent individual that 19 was unappreciative of Consumers Power's response to SALP '
20 II. ,
I 1 21 0 In any event, the typewritten notes, NRC 126, vert.
22 prepared shortly af ter you received Consumers' response to 23 SALP II and indicated a rather strong f eeling on your part i i 24 that Consumers had been too aggreceive in its responne?
I t
l
- 452 I'used Reponing Sen iu 3,w ,,,,,,y,,,
149ette Ikling suure Mo 962 II.'b .s ra su r l
IWirwe, \twh;ran a:.% Fermanerse lid!u \tahigan twm
1 well, quite f rankly my typewritten notes also showed areas lA 1
2 a where I don't believe what they said was necessarily 3 absolutely true, that it was being tainted to paint a 4 dif ferent picture than what really was the case, and we 5
j were working up to go into a public meeting and that was 6 i the basis for those type-written notes and how those notes
, l 7
l would have been present.ed. Bear in mind that they have 8
been presented in many different forms other than what 9 :
their original intent was. Like I said, they were 10 i type-written personal notes for me to carry into a meeting i
11 +
and depending on the attitude in that meeting would depend 12 on what portionc of those notes that I might disclose to 1
13 Consumers while we discussed the reasons why we f elt some 14 of their statements regarding our SALP were not f air f
l 15 !
statements.
l 16 10 You did not write those notes I take it with a view i
17 l towards there becoming widely publicized as your i
18 I considered judgment in a more reflective moment about the I i 19 SA!,P response?
20 A I did not write those noten with the intention that they 21 would ever be in the public domain. I wrote them strictly,
- 22 as r.y naximum level of rebuttal. In other words, if the l 23 licensee warted to go into that meeting with an l
l l 24 argumentative chip on their shoulder attitude, well, I was i t latyrtto k idst k k) %rth r n lin s
%rr M1 9 6 2 I l ** b %;te Os IWtreur. \lah:en SC.% l'armmata lhlis. \fwh;;n b+ @
L c
1 ! more than ready for it and it was ."- you know, bear in i
2 l mind there was also more information that was also -- than 1
3 I what was written in those typed notes. I think I 4 mentioned in this testimony that if you're going to spread 5 manure you spread manure like a good old f arm boy might.
6 } Now the thing that also -- I lost that train of thought.
7 , I guess I explained the intent of those type-written I
8 notes.
9 f0 By the time you got to the meeting you found it
. 10 unnecessary to use some of the strong language you had put 11 in this document, which you had intended for your private i
12 ; use; isn't that so?
i 13 'A That is true, 14 l0 And you didn't use all the phrases and concepts in the 15 f public meeting?
16 A I didn't use any of them.
17 lo Is that because Consumers had changed Lts views prior to 18 l the meeting? l 19 A Yes, it was. It was related to us that Consumers had, if 20 you will, listened to some,of the people at the plant and l 21 had advised there upper management that don't lock horns 22 with the NRC becauae it may be an embarrassment to all t l 23 parties concerned. So Consumers changed their posture, l l :
24 ,
went to the meeting and as a net result none of that
(
i
! 454 l Idaytw InWe
""0 " " " ' b"'" M W %'th ~r" 1 % >
t
%4y hm 9 0.* * $ $ ? O %IM :.%
IWtra t, \f d ican # :.% farm *Eton Uh \Iain W^
1 information was disclosed to the public until we had e 2 mechanism of FOIA and they did not fall into the 3 protection of hand written notes because obviously 4 somebody had seen them because I do not type.
5 'O Let me ask you one more question for this evening. We're 6 going to have to come back and I think the best course is 7 to wait until we've gotten your logs so we only have to 8 inconvenience you I hope on one more day. I have one 9 question I'd like to end with today and that is, when you l
10 lef t Midland in May of 1984, up to the time you lef t had 11 you made any recommendation to your superiors that the 12 construction permits for the Midland Plant be revoked?
i l 13 A No, I have not. In fact, I have made statements 14 somewhere, and you probably got somebody's handwritten 15 record of it, that the salvation of the Midland Plant was i
16 the fact that none of the members of the Midland sito 17 inspection team had gone to Mr. Keppler, and asked him for l
18 the construction permit. Mr. Keppler had gone on record 19 saying if he had reason to believe that there was a need 20 to revoke the license to construct the plant that he would i 21 act accordingly, words to that effect, and he was relying l 22 on the input of his inspectors to f eed him inf ormation.
23 And there was little doubt in my mind that if the 24 inspectors, particularly that inspection tean, had gone to 1
Lmd Reporting Sertice A50 lxfsyene Hutiding , ,
l Suar Mo 962 IIIb Suar 23)
Iktroit. \lithigan 2226 Farmington Udh, \fichigan 2118
pa-. ,
1 Keppler and voiced an opinion that they felt it should be 2 removed, the permit, for whatever reasons they may be, 3 that I believe he would have taken some action in that 4 regard.
5 0 And the inspectors never did it and therefore Mr. Keppler 6 never did it?
7 A The inspectors never did it.
8 0 Is it your judgment based on more than six years 9 involvement with Midland that the plant could have been 10 completed and licensed?
11 A I feel that the plant could have been completed and 12 licensed, putting in the clarifiers of the reinspection i
j 13 program, so forth and so forth, not just carte blanche i .
l 14 give them a license. There were things that needed to be 1
15 done to the plant but I felt doing these things the plant ;
i 16 could be completed and could be licensed f rom what we knew!
I 17 at the time I Jeft Midland. .
18 'O Tnank you for your patience, Mr. Cook. I'd like to join 19 with counsel for Dow and adjourn the deposition to another.
20 mutually convenient date. ,If you want to come back to 21 Midland, the weather is beautiful in Michigan.
22 A I don't mind. Should have had this during deer season.
l 23 (The deposition was adjourned 24 at 5:50 p.m.)
i O
Luzod Reporting Sertice ,5 , y isfayette Buildung 962.))i6 suit, 2.>o Suite hm
[ktroit, \fichigan #226 Farmington Hills, \lichigan Miln
- _ _ ~= --
e 1
2 STATE OF MICHIGAN )
) SS 3 COUNTY OF WAYNE )
4 I, Glenn G. Miller, Notary Public 5 within and for the County of Wayne, State of Michigan, do 6 hereby certify that the witness whose attached depositien 7 was taken before me in the above-entitled matter was by me 8 duly sworn at the aforementioned time and place; that the 9 testimony given by said witness was stenographically i
10 recorded in the presence of said witness and afterwards 11 transcribed by computer under my personal supervision, 12 and that the said deposition is a full, true and correct
, 13 transcript of the testimony given by the witness.
- i !
14 I further certify that I am not connected 15 by blood or marriage with any of the parties or their 16 j attorneys, and that I am not an employee of either of them, i
17 l nor financially interested in the action. ,
18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set 19 f my hand at the City of Detroit, County of Wayne, State of 20 ,
Michigan, this 7 day of ,, , 1985.
21 22' l ULENN G. MILLER, Notary Public 23 Wayne County, Michigan
, 24 My Commission Expires 4-22-87 l
l las d Reporting Service ,mg 3.,, 07 ,,
lafayette Huuldung 962.))I6 suite 2,>u Suite Mo 1
iktrmt, \tahigan M22b Farmington Ildh, \tahigan wi8
\
._ _ - . - - I