ML20153B806
| ML20153B806 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/04/1985 |
| From: | Hood D NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151D196 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-583 NUDOCS 8805060083 | |
| Download: ML20153B806 (128) | |
Text
)
f, STATC OF MICHIGAN 1
2 Ill THC CI i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ RCUIT COURT FOR. THE COUI;TY OP 11IDL A11D 3
DOU CHCl!ICAL CoffPANY,
)
)
4 Plaintif f
)
)
5 vs.
l
)
Civil Action l
i
)
No. C3-002232 l CONSUI'ERS POilCR CO!!PANY,.
6
)
)
7 i
Defendant.
)
l; _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _)
e 9
0
!' was ta ke n be f or e rae, The depocition of DARL UOOD, 10 Br uce A.
Foalk RPR, ( CSR-227 9], Court I Reporter and Motary Public within and f or the County oi Oakland,g 11 (acting in the District of Colutabia) at 655.15th S tr eet !;. U.
j 1
- Hachington D.C. Monday Febr uary 4,1985 12 i
' APPC ARNICOS :
i 13 l
i l
KIRKLNID & ELLIS i
14 l
200 E.
Randolph j
Chicago, Illinois 60601 g
j 15 (By:
Willia:a Jentes, Esq.)
1, 16 Appearing on behalf of the Plaintif f.
j 17 DARRIS, SOTT, DEllu & DRIRCR 21st Ploor First Federal Duilding 10 De tr oit, Michigan 4022G (By:
J ohn Libby, E sq. )
[
19 l
U. S.
NUCLEAR RSGULATORY CO!itiISSION l
20 Of f ice of Gene r al Coun sel i
Hachington D.C. 20555 l
21 (By:
Dan Berkovitz, E cq. ) v
[
22 j
i
[
23 t
24 l
i I
i c
s 8805060083 880408 I
\\
DARhke7-D83 PDR Lafayette Buildust Lu:od Reporting Service 3mtn %.rthuestern Huy.
Suite Mn 962*11I6 9
Detrout. Uschtran 48226 Smte 220 Farmint*on Hdis. Uschtran 43018
)
q 1
II I
T N
C S
S I
1; D
C X
2 l ilitne s D E xamine d By Pa ge l Darl Hood tir. Jentec 3
j 3
l 4
)
l 5
j C
X B
I B-I T
I N
D C
X 6
' Exhibit tio.
De scription Page 7
NRC 267 Transcript of I
ASLD Proceedings 81 8
l i BCC 20 8
!)ee ting notes re s l
9 3/27/80 meeting i
a t CPCo 10 130 I
The following e hibits were previously l
x 11 l
marked and identified in this deposition l
tmC 76 t
13 CPC 525
CPC 803
DCC 1774 j
CPC 53 0 '
CPC 550 BCC 1773 14 NRC 206 BEC 033 i
DEC 57 rmC 5 8 l
.tiRC 1344/
CPC 1947 '
16 CPC 255 NRC 473 NRC 204 CPC 27 4 17 j
l8 1
19 20
}
21 i
22 i
23 1
3 24 t,
i 3
ggy.,,,, g,;tgin, Lu:od Reporting Service yo
\\.,,,9,,,
y, Swie Mo 962.]176 Suite :bo Ik troit. \\fschigan 48226 Farmintron Rdh. Michiran 2018
1 Washington D.C.
Febr uary 4,1985 3
l 9:00 o' clock a.m.
4 5
j D
A R
L H
o o
D 6
was thereupon called as a witness herein, and of ter 7
having been first duly sworn to tell the tr uth, the 8
whole truth and nothing but the tr uth, was examined i
.I 9
and teatified as f ollows:
10 EXAMINATION i
i 11 BY !!R. JENTES:
t j
I 12 O
Hould you please state your f ull name f or th e r e cor d.
j 13 lA My name is Darl Stevens Hood.
'~
i t
i 14 0
And by whom are you empicyed?
l 15 A
I'm employed by the Nucicar Regulatory Commission.
l j
16 0
What is your current title with the NRC?
17
^
l A
Pr oj ect mana ger.
l 18 O
Are you appearing here pursunt to a subpoena?
19 A
I an.
20 0
And were you also asked to bring with you some 21 documents?
d 32 A
Ye s.
23 HR. JENTES:
!!r. Berkovits, did you 24 have a ccament to make with regard to the recponse.
l O'
Lakette Building Lmd Reportine Service gg y,,
,,,,, y.,
Suite MO 962 1176 Detroit. \\hchigan 48226 Suite $0 Farmmaton Hith. Alschiran 48018
1 i
lR. BERKOVITZ:
17e' re producing -
2 these are documentti, I understand f rom your file.
I 3
TUE 17ITI1 CSS:
They are, they're from the Licencing Branch flo. 4 file and any of my own 4
5 pe r sonal recor ds.
6 MR. BERKOVITZ:
Covering.the time 7
i pe riod f rom --
l 8
'n1E l'7ITilESS :
From May 1984 to the 3
k 9
l present.
I 10 i
1R. BERKOVITZ:
And there are two l
l l'
additional documents in that file that.at this time l
11 i
12 i
we' re not producing, we' re reviewing those.
They're i
13 privilege d.
They're, I believe two one-page l
14 documents and af ter we review those we'll make a l
I 4
1 15 i
determination on whether to produce tihem or not.
1 l
16 MR. JE!!TES :
Are these extra copioc f or j
i
~
us or are those the or ginals?
li.
17 l
i 1G l
THE ITIT11ESS:
They msy have those.
l 19 FR. BERKOVITZ:
You may have these.
20 There's only one copy, but you can make one I
21 additional one and keep those.
l 22 TR. JE!!TES:
tie'll work that out with i
i l
23
!!r. Libby.
l 3
24 j EY MR. JE:ITES :
i l
0 4
Lu:od Reporting Serviee Lafayetir Buildin yo y,,,k,,,,,,, y,y_
.Sune MO 962 1176 Sune 220 IMrmt, \\fochiran 48226 Farmineron Hulls. Alachigan 48018
1 0
Mr. 11ood, you mentioned your current title wac I
2 j'
proj ect manager.
As project manager, does that i
3 include the t!idland nucioar project?
4 A
Ye s, it docc.
5 jO Are there other nuclear projects f or which you also 6
act as project managet f or the 11RC?
7 A
Ye s.
8 0
- j And what are those other projects, please ?
I f
A I'm also currently assigned to the 'llcGuire nuclear i
i 10 station in flor th Carolina.
I i
11 O
Any others?
8 l
12 A
tiot at this time.
13 l 0 For how long have you had the Midland project under I'
'x.
14 your general supervision?
15 A
Since August of 1977.
16 0
As project manager, and in particular with regard to j
~
17 the !!idland plant, what, in broad strokes, are your j
18 re spo nsibilitics ?
l t
19 A
I' manage the safety and envirormental reviews f or the 20 i
. operating licence f or the !!idland plant on behalf of 21 the linC.
22 O
Uithin the 11RC, do you wor k f or a particular branch i
{
i 23 or division of the commincion?
l 3
24 A
Yes.
i I
I l,
5 Lafayette Buildine Lu:od Reporting Service Suite tGO 962.l176 30s40 sorthueern Huy.
1)etroit. %chigan 48226 Suite 220 l
Farmineton Hills, Michiean 48018 j
1
! O And what ic that?
l l
2 lA The branch is Branch No. 4, it's called Licencing j'
I L
3 j
BranchHo.4,p4 f or shor t.
The division ic Division l
4 of Licensing.
~1 i
5 Q
What is your relationship, if any, to the Nuclear
]
l 6
i Reactor Regulation group within the NRC?
t 7
A They are the office of which I am a part.
8 O
And in broad str oke s, what doec the URR' do?
S
- A It is responsible f or the saf e operation of nuclear i
10 power plants and f or the licencing of 'nucicar power l
i 11 plants and f or the protection of the health and l
i 12 saf ety of the public.
i 13 l0 In this case, there's been considerable testimony 1
14 with regard to Region 3.
Uhat is the relationship of 15 the Region 3. organization to.your activities?
16 A
Region 3 is our inspection arm.
They over see the 17 construction operations as it's occurring at the cite 18 and are responcible f or the implementation of quality l
19 as sur ance.
URR on the other hand, is responsible i
l 20 more so f or the programmatic aspects of th e r ev i.w,
j 21 of the saf e ty review.
i 22 0
Uhat do you mean by the programmatic aspects of the 23 review ?
4 24 A
Programmatic means that we' re involved basically with 6
Lafa>rtte Building Lst:od Reporting Service 399 9 y,,,g,,,,,,, y,_
Suur 630 962 1176 Sune:i1
[Wtroa. \\fschiean 48:26 Farminaron Hills. Alichiran 48018
1 l
the establishment of prope r, programs and the, to use 1
2 l
a day-to-day wor d, the paper wor k associated.with a i
3 review.
One of the principal things we do for a
i 4
plant that's applying f or a licem ic to review 5
what' c called a Final Saf ety Analysis Repor t.
That's 6
where the applicant ~ outlines tthe' plant 'as 'it is 7
designed and we review that f or - to assure 8
conf ormance with the !!RC's. tegulations.
i 9
iO Uhat is your caucational backgrounc, Mr. 11ood?
l 10
'A I have a D.S degree in nuclear. engineering f ro::, llor th 11 l
Car olina Sta te College,1962.
And I have 12
?
consiacrable on the Job e::perience.
g 13 0
Af ter you graduated f rom fler th Carolina Sta te, did l
i 14 you go to work for the imC immediately?
15 A
11 o.
t i
16 Q
Por whom were you e= ployed bef ore you went to work i
17 for the 11RC7 4
18 l
A First six months of my career was opent with 11orf olk 19 naval shipyard in Por tcmouth, Virginia.
l 20 0
Af te r th at?
E 21 A
Then I entered cervice in United Sta tes Army.
I wac f
22 assigned to the ordnance guided misole school in 23 Huntaville, Alabama, where I was responsibic for an t
24 instr uctional tr aining unit f or micSle Spocial ties.
5 I
i I
i l
l 7
Lafayette Buildink Lu:od Reporting Service Suar MO 96 g, j ] 76 3m4n urthuenern Huy
' Detroit, \\fichiron 48226 Suar 220 farmineron Hdis. \\fichiean 48018
1 l
I asked f or and was reassigned af ter a tenure of 2
k about six months, to MAsi, who is also part of the 3
3 I
station at the Recstone arsenal base and I completed
{
4 ray military obligation with NASA in their nuclear e
5 j
propulsion division.
6
'O When did you ' leave the service? '
7 A
It would have been about 1967 sometime.
8 I O What was your next employrnent?
i S
A I wor ked f or about two. years.with the f:lectric Boa t f
i 10 i
Company in Graton, Connecticut.
5 11 O
Is that General Dynamics?
f 12 jA General Dynamics.
s e
l 13
!O Again on the nuclear aspects?
l g
14 A
Ye s, I was assigned to nuclear quality control.
[
15 0
Af ter you Icf t General Dynamics, what did you do?
i 16 4
I wor ked with the Martin-lbriotta nuc1 car division in 27 Bal tiraor e, turyland f or about two years.
j ij 0 Uhat was your work there?
I 18
)
c 19 A
I was with their nuclear division.
I was primarily 20 responsible for the review and analyses associated
)
21 with systems f or nuclear auxiliary power.
Tho se are 4
22 radioisotopic sources to produce electrical power f or 1
j i
23 such applications as satellites or unmanned creas I
i 24 j
such as the Artic.
1
.f i,
8 lafayette Buddme Lu:od Reporting Service goy y
Suisa Mo 962 1176 Detroes. Michsran n'26 Suite 22n Farrnington Hdis. \\lichiran 1801R
1
'O Uhat did you do af ter you lef t fiartin-sarietta?
2
'A I was employed by Combustion Engineering in Windsor 3
l Locks, Connecticut f or approximately eight years.
4
- 0 Uhile you were wor king f or CE, were you wor king on 5
i their nuclear reactor end of the business?
6 A
~Yes, I was.
7 0
Af ter you lef t CE, where did you go?
8 lA 2 came with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
9 0
I Wac t'nat.wnen you took on your assignment au project I
i l
10 manager in 19777
,I 11
, A I came to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a 12 pr oj e ct mana ge r.
t 13 Q
In your rolo as project manager with regard to the 14 Midland plant, has one of your activities been to s
15 analyco and review the remedi,al soils activities 3
16 l
undertaken by Consumers Power at the. plant ?
j 17 l A Yes.
I l
18 j
O Why is the NRC involved in the revicu of the remedial s
19 l
soils a ctivities?
I i
3 20 i
A 1
Because we have a responsibility for the public 21 health and saf ety associated with the review of the
{
22 Concumors Pouer Company's application f or a license l
23 1
to o pe r a te a plan t, t
24 i O And how does the remedial soils activity relate to i
i 9
jgay.,g,, ggjg,n, Lu:od Reporting Service
,9
,, y _
Suite MO 962.))i6 Detroa. \\fschsean 48226 Sun,gho Farmungton Hills. \\fichigan #1018 l
1
)
the cafety.aspectc of the plant?
2
)
tR. LIDBY:
Objection; the question is i
3 vagus and ambiguous.
4 i
!G. JEMTCS:
Do you underctand the 5
que stion?
'6 THE WITNESS:
I 'believe 1 do.
7 BY MR. JENTES:
i 8
!O Heuld you please answer it?
i l
'S A
^Tno remedial soils activities are the result of l
10 def icient soils on which the -structures are located.
11 l
The NRC is charged with assuring itself, as part of l
j t
12 i
j itc safety review to have reasonable assur ance of 12 public health and saf ety that the structures have 14 I
proper structural integrity and are -- can meet the 15 commission's. rego.lationc with respect to such k
i 16 criteria as earthquakes, to the extent that h the
, 17 l
properties of the soils raised questions as to the i
i j
l ability of structures to meet such critoria, it's 18 i
19 ne ce G Ga ry for the IIRC t o r ev iew th a t si t ua ti on t o the i
r 20 l
extent that it can have reasonabic assurance of J
l 21
}
public health and safety.
4, 22 0
Teatioony has been given in thic case by 1:r.
b 23 I
Gallagher concerning the investigation which he i
i 24 undertook into the se ttlement at the Diesel Generator i
l 10 yp,y,,,, gag,,,
Lu:od Reporting Service Suute hto 962.I176
,og,o y,,g,,,,,,, y,, _
Detroit, \\hchiran 48226 Suite 220 Farmsneton Hdh. \\fichuran 1801R
1 Duilding and I don' t intend to repeat th o s2 areac 2
except as it's necessary to deal with your particular 3
involvcaent in the review of the remedial soils o
i ef f or tc.
By way of background, however, I' d lii;c to 5
l hand you a copy of document which has been marked ac
'6
-tmC 68, which is a ' copy of a letter ant by Mr.
7 Kepler to Consumers Power on March 22, 1979, 0
enclosing the repor t of Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Philin --
1 9
and Mr. Maxwell concerning the se ttlement of the 10 Diesel Generatcr Building.
I assume that you have 11 e
l seen thin 6ocument pr evioucly ?
l 12 lA Tha t's cor rect.
)
I 13 j0 How were your activities regarding the review of the 14 coils at the !!idland plant related to Itr. Gallagher's 15 activitien? What I'm looking f or is that I've 16 noticed that you attended variouc meetingc in the
[
17 f all of 197 8 and into 197 9 concerning this subject l
anc I'll hand you copies of those documenta, uhat I b
18 19 l
was wondering about as f ar as general background in I
l 20 what was the organi::ational relationship between !!r.
i a
f 21 Gallagher and !!r. Philips and tir. tiaxwell and l
l i
22 l
yourself in this regard?
l 8
23 A
!!r. Gallagher and tir. Philips and tir. tiaxwell are i
24 part of I&C or were-at the time.
They conducted an
{
l l
I 11 lafayette Buildme Lmd Reporting Service
, 9,
,,,, y _
Suar MO 962.I176 sua, gno
. Detreut. \\hchigan 48226 Farmmaton Helh. \\behiran 48018
1 investigation into the cause of the problem, of the l
1 2
soils problem at the Midland plant and the repor t l
i 3
which we' re looking at is a repor t of -- I believe of i
4 some of the earlier investigations and the findings I
5 of the earlier reviews that they perf ormed.
At some 6
point in time and 'it was~ a point ~1ater in time ~ than 7
this time f rame, I believe, I&E asked IIRR to provide 1
8 technical suppor t f or the review of the soils problem S
at !!idland. lur called that mecnanica a technical g
l
{
10 interf ace agreement.
In that document they asked fina I
i 11 i
to review the remedial action that would ultimately l
12 be propose c by the applicant, Consumers Power Company j
13 j
to determine its technical suitability and that was
{
t i
i 14 our responsibility.
I 1
15 0
Even bef ore you became involved in the technical 16 suppor t through the interf ace agreement, isn' t it a-l l
17 l
fact that you had gone to some of the meetings with l
18 E
Consuners and Dechtel and their consultants regarding 19 the oorly investigations into the se ttlement of the I
20 g
Diesel Generator Duilding prior to the issuance of
(
21 j
!!r. Callagher 's repor t?
i 22 i
MR. LIDBY:
Objection; icading.
23
!!R. BERROVIT" You can answer.
i i
24 j DY !!R. JCUT33 :
l 4
12 lafayette Buildune Lu:od Reporting Service gg
,,, y Swor hw 962.1176 Suite 220 Decemt, \\f<chiran 48226 Farmington Huth. %chigan Rio18
1
)0 You can anover.
I 2
!Yl. LIBBY:
I don't care -if you e:: plain 3
to him why I make my objections.
4 l
f!n. JCNTES:
tio.
Yo u can e r.pl ai n i t to e
f 5
him if -you choose, but in any event, you can go ahead 6
and answer.
7
'm8 UITNESS:
That is tr ue.
8 DY I4R. jct 1TES t.
1 I
O Let me. hand you ~in that regard a document that has
~
l 10 been marked ao Defendant's Exhibit 1672 and I'll ask 11 you whether or not this is a memorandum which you 12
?.
prepared on January 12, 1979, summarizing a meeting 13 that you attended along with a number of other people 14 on De cembe r 4, 19787 s_
i 15 A
Ye s, it is such a document.
l 16 O
And if you look over to page 9051 00 of the Dates i
17 numbering system, well actually that' c not going to i
10 help be ca use it got. cut off, but in any event if you i
c 19 j
look over at enclosure one of the memor andu!! --
i 20 l'R. JCNTCS :
I think the pages are all 21 there, it's j ust that the Bates number got of f to the j
22 si de.
i I
a 23 l
!!n. LIBDY:
I t ' s pa ge 04.
I
}
f TitC UIT:! CSS:
I co e.
Yo n, I'm on 24 f
5 t
i L
a g
13 Lafaye.;r Buildme Lss:od Reporting Service go y,
Suite MO 962.))76 N
Sua,:bo
()etroa. \\fachigan 48226 Farmmeron Hulls. \\hrhiron 48n18
1 enclocure one.
l
\\
2 BY f!R. JCUTCS:
i Uere thooe the people that were in attendance at the f
3 O
}
,3 4
meeting on De cember' 4,197 8, along with your self ?
5 A
That's at leact come of th e pe ople.
Ye s, it is.
I fO Did you prepare ~the summary of the meeting based on 6
f 7
notes that you and others of the NRC kept during the 8
l cour se of the meeting?
I D
<A i
Tna t i s my pr acti ce.
In this particular instance, I
i 10
)
don' t recall.
e 11 O
Is it your normal practice to prepare a se t of minute l
i 12 noten like this on the meetingc that you attend or i
to 13 have someone else f rom the NRC prepare them?
i i
14 lA Ye s, it is.
15 0
l And do you and the 'others at the NRC, so f ar as you 16 hn ow, iake care to insure that the repor t in the i
17 minute notes in accurate?
18 A
Yes.
i 19
! O on my earlier question I acked you whether or not you 20 hadn' t become involved in the DGB se ttlement 21 investigation even earlier than the interf ace 4
22 cerangements that you coccribed and I'm wondering if i
l 23 you could explain why you were involved in thiu l
i 24 earlier ctage that dates back into the Deccaber 4, i
4 i
i 14 Lafayette Bwidung
'E*
Suite en 962 1176 30%0 %rthu estern Hux.
g l> trout, Uschiran 48:26 Su,te :h) i Farrnuteron Hills. Viehiron molk
e 1
197 0 meeting?
I k
2 13. LIDBY:
Objection; it'c 3
argume nta tive.
4
!!R. BCRKOVIT :
You may ancwer.
5 i
TUC WIT:1 CSS:
At the time the soil
'E
~
problem became know~n ~ to the 'NRC 'we had' an FSAR Ievlew
~
7 underway.
There were recognized areas of that t
8 l
problem that carried over into the review of that l
'9 FSAR, so it was obvious to me f rom the very beginning l
10 that it was an area that would involve llRR by virtue i
11 of the f act that we were conducting what uc call on i
12 OL review.
i i
13 i BY 21R. JEMTES :
~
14 I O What's an OL review?
l t
15 A
Operating license application review.
l g
16 0
Let me refer you back again to Mr. Callagher's report i
a 17 that's attached to fiRC 68, or is a part of imC 68, J
1E and I'd like to direct your attention in particular 19 to pa ge s 21 through 23, which is the section of the 20 repor t that relates to the review of the so ttlement 21 of the Adainistration Building f ootings.
I'd as):
22 that you road that through to yourocif, just to l.
23 h,
ref resh your recollection again today of what was in 24
}
th e r epo r t.
f ti I
l 4
15 Lafayette Building Lmd Reportine Sers ice
,n Sune Mo 962 1176 Sua,gho Iktroa \\hch::an 48:26 Farmington Hath. \\lichiran 48018 L
M 1
A I've read g, l
I 2
i0 Over on page 21, the repor t indica tes that. "During l
the course of the investigation it was disclosed that ll 3
4 the Administration Building a t the Midland site had 5
enperienced excessive se ttlement of the f oundation 6
. footings'" and the repor t goes on to state, "Although 7
the Administration'.Duilding is a non-safety related 8
l
'str uctur e, it is supported by plant area fill 1
9 material compacted and tested to the same I
10 requirements as materials supporting safety related 11 I
l str uctures.ano theref ore pertinent to the current l
8 12 se ttlements being experienced by the Diesel Generator 13 l
Building."
Did you agree with the conclusions of the 14 authors of the report that the Administration 15 Duilding soils problem was. pertinent to the current i
~
16 settlements being experienced by the DGB7 17
!!R. LIBBY Objection; lack of I
3 10 f oun da tion.
1 19 j
MIC ITINIESS:
I accepted the 20 t
co ncl usion.
21
. BY MR. JEllTES :
22
.O Inmediately af ter that sentence the repor t i
states 1,
l' 23 th a t, "The f ollowing are the events relating to the 24 se ttlement of the Adminictration Building f ootinga --
I i
I l
16 d Repons4 Sernce a:
Lafayeur Buildure Suna Mo 962 1176 3,,o y,,h u,,,,,,,,uy (ktroa. %chiran 48:26 Suar 2:0 Farmmeron Hills \\lichtean WiOIR
~
1 2
A Cxcuse me, cir, where are.you reading f rom?
i.
3
,O I'm on page 22 at the top, immediately af ter the 4
materials that I had previouuly quoted to you.
l 5
lA lihich paragr aph?
'6
- O Do 'you have 'it, in ~ the carry-over paragraph?
7 A
O kay.
8 l0 The final sentence says says "The f ollowing are the i
I D
events relating to the Acministration Building i
l 10 footings."
Then there is a description of th at j
j 11 i
matter that begino, "During the end of August 1977" 6
12 and continues over onto the top of page 23 th rough g
i 13 l
the carry over. paragraph that ends "soil was i
i k
14 l
compacted to less than marinum density. "
In 15 connect' ion with y6ur activities as project manager t
16 regarding the Midland plant, had any of the eventa t
17 relating to the se ttlement of the Achinistratica 18 Duilding that are recited in those materials been 19 brought to your attention prior to the cottlement of i
20 i
the DGD in August of 197 8?
21 l
IG. LIDDY Same obj ection.
l 22 i
'nic LTIT!!ESS:
17 0, it had not.
I first 1
l i
23 learned of the se telement problem with the 24 i
achini st r a ti on -- th e gr ade be am pr obl em a t th e I
i
)
[
)
17 m ong Se mce Lafayene Buildme yng,v \\ o,,k,,,,,,,n,,u Suute Mn 96h.I1?6 sua, g,ho Detro<t, %chigan 48226 Farmington Hith. %ehiran 48018
1 Administration Building as a result of tne l
2 investigation repor ts that Una -- e::cuse me, ILE i
3 i
conducted.
4 BY llR. JCUTCS:
5
- O In addition to the oc ttlement of the se cdc beam at 6
the Administration Building, there are various otner 7
things that are referred t'o in the recitation of I
S i
caterials at 22 and 23, including the conducting of k
9 borings at the Administration Building and at the 10 i
Diesel Generator and at the Evaporator Building, by 11 way of exenple..
I want to be clear in your answer 12 that you were unaware prior to August 197 0 of all of l
I 13 l
these events that are licted on pages 22, through the 14 top of 237 15 i
L' DBY Same objection.
i MR.
I
'16 THE WITMCSSr To the best of my 5
17 knowledge, we learned of the borings as part of the 10 investigation.
I don't believe I was aware of the 19 borings prior to that time, when the investigation --
20 bef or e it came out.
j 21 I BY tiR. JCUTCS:
i r
l0 Turning to the summary memor andum that you prepared 22 23 of the De cember 4,197 0 meeting that's Def endant' c 24 Exhibit 1072, if you look at the heading two under I
r 10 Lafayette Buddone 3(s%o %rthu rsiern Hu r.
Suure MO 962 11?6 3
Detrout. \\hchaean #:2f>
5: site.5's Farneneton HJh. \\behrgan 3018
i the topic ~ hictory, there's a recitation of what the s
j 2
s Bechtel reprocentative identified an the Category 1 3
str uctures and the type of materiale suppor ting the 4
str ucture and then over on the top of page two it 5
j indicates in your memorandum that, "The se ttlement 6-
~ monitorin'g program began l'n June 197 8r to date the 7
measured se ttlements are as f ollows. "
And then 8
i there's a ref erence to the containment, Auxiliary i
I 9
- Building, service water pump house and Diesel 10 Generating Duilding.
l 11
,A You mean Diesel Generator Building.
12 0
Excuse me, Diesel Generator Building.
Do your notec 13 accurately reflect the only information concerning I
14 I
se ttlement that was conveyed to the NRC I
15 representatives a t this. December 4,197 8 oceti'ng, and s
16 to be precine, was there any other se ttlement l
a t any j
17 other buildings that was brought to the NRC's i
18 attention at that time ?
19 A
Ac be st I can recall, this was all of the ctr ucturco
~1 20 i
that were discussed at that meeting.
To be di rectly i
}
21 l
responsive to your aucation, I ca n ' t tell you for
,h 22 h
l sure that there wasn' t some acknowieccment of some of l
the str ucturos, but what I tried to do was capture k
23 24 I
the things that to no are impor tant when I write a f
l i
i 10 f.afverse Buildsne W '""' '
kare Am 962.))76 Mio \\octhu ruern Huy 9
Detrout, thchigan a:26 5,,,1, 2a Farmineron Helh. Thchtean Imis
1 l
1 1
meeting summary ~and these are the only ones I rocall.
}
2 0
Let me show you what has previously been marked as j
i 3
DEC 829, which is an interof fice memorandum of
{'
i 4
Bechtel Power Cor por ation.
It's a memorandum from l
l t
i l
5 i
tir. Ma r ti ne z, th e pr oj e ct mana ge r at that time f or 6
the Midland project to H.B. Priend of Bechtel's homo 7
office marked "co nfidential. '
And in this memor andum D
Mr. Hartinez reviews the history and cubsequent a
i 9
Dechtel actions relating to the se ttlement j
of the l
10 diesel generator f oundations-and buildings and other 11 structures placed on fill and over on page two Mr.
l 12 Mar ti ne c sta tes a t the top, "Following is a list of-a 13 l
the principal building str uctures f ound on fill
(
l TL 14 ma terial.
Those marked asterisk have se ttled 15 excessively, while those marked quection mark have l'
i
~
1G questionable material f rom borings. "
And then he 17 lists the 'variouc structures and one of them is the 10 tr ansf ormer f ounda tionc.
So f ar as you can recall, 19 was there any mention to the UP.C people at or prior f
20 i
to this De cember 4,197 8 meeting, that Dechtel felt 21 i
there had been exceccive ce ttlement at the l
i tr ansf ormer f ounda tionc?
22 i
o 22 i
MR. LIBDY:
Objection; ocked and j
t 24 i
answered, 'alco lack of f ounda tion and can we go of f i
l 20 Lafyrtte Buddanc
)
Suite hw 962'llI6 9
3(100 %rthuestern Ihn.
)
Ikttcut. 11tchigan 43:26 Saaste 2.ho l
Formuncion Hdh. Alichtran 3018
1 the recor d f c j ust a se cond, pleace.
2 l
(A bricf discussion was held of f t
f
~
3 l
the recor d. )
4 i
MIE WIT!1ESS:
Is there a question
+
5 l
bef ore me?
6'
' fin. JENTES:
Yes, therc 'is.
7 THE WITNESS:
Would you repeat it, 8
plea se.
9 9
- 12. JE!!TES :
I'll ask the repor ter to i
10 rcread it.
l 11 i
(The pending question wac read 12 by the Cour t Repor ter ac iollowc 4
13 1
O So f ar as you can recall, l
s.
14 I
was there any mention to 15 the NRC people at or prior 16 to this December 4,197 8 I
3 17 l
raee ting, that Bechtel felt j
i 10 l
there had been c::cossive i
19 se telement a t the er ansf orner
}
j f oundo tions ?)
i 20 i
21 d
a HIS UIT!!ESS:
Uhat I do know is that l
22 i
the !!RC was aware that there woro probicas with 5
1 23 l
excessive se ttlement of the te anaf otraer f oundations i
j 24 at a very early stage.
Uhether it was at thic i
- f' f
[
l 21 La.fayerre Baddent Lu:od Reportung Settict Suite MO ngy,jj7s 3msn %rchurstarn Huy 3
[ktroit, \\behiren 4&?2')
sua, 3 Farmington Hdb. \\behitan 1801R
1 particular meeting or not, I don' t romenber "
2 i BY MR. JE!!TCS :
l l
)
3 l0 Againe consistent with your testimoni a moment ago i
4 where you wrote down in your notes those matters
.i 5
5 which you f elt to be impor tant, would it be f ai r to I
6
~
conclude that if the're had -been a mention ~at the 7
December 4 meeting of the transf ormer f oundation
~
B i
se ttleme nt, that that would have been included in l
'S your notes?
i 10 j
HR. LIBDY:
Objection; Icading.
11 l
THE WITNESS:
I really don't know.
I l
t l'2 believe the notes, as I look at the recor d of summary 13 at least making reference to Category 1 structurco n
i
\\-
14 and the listing of thooe made are Category 1 15 st r uct ur es.
A tr ansf ormer is not perceived as a l
16 maj or Category 1 str ucture.
I'd also point out that 17 these are the safety related Category 1 structurec 1
10 and that's bacically what Category 1 means.
l 19 l DY MR. JCMTCS :
I 20 0
I'm not altoge ther clear f rom your answer whe ther or l
21 i
not you f elt that if the transf ormer foun6ations hou 22 l
been mentioned you would have included them or. not.
l 23 l
liR. LIBBY:
Same objection, j
24 TUC 17ITNESS:
I believe that the i
f
'.t lAfayeur Buddant Lsi:od Reporting Sernce
,,,,, y Suur MO 962 1176 Suar 250
[ktrott. \\hchtean 48:26 Farminaron Hah. thchstan Im!R
1 tr ansf ormer f oundations could have been mentioned at l
9 2
the meeting and I quite possibly would not have 3
mentioned it in the meeting summary and I say that 4
because in my mind it is not what I think of as a 3
maj or Category 1 str ucture.
i 6
l BY MR. JENTES :
7 0
I notice that one of the things.that you did mention 8
was the service water pump house.
In the Bechtel t
9
' list that appears in tir. Mar tinez ' memor andum, he l
i 10 lists as excescive se ttlement that which had occurrnd g
11
.at the service water valve pite and he also lists, 12 however, another service water item, namely the 13 l
service water structure (pa r tial), the first item in l
]
his lict.
Prom your understanding, was the service 14 15 water pump houso the same as the service water valve 1G l
pits?
e i
17 lA tio, they' re dif ferent ctr uctures.
3 i
i l
18 j0 So f ar as you can recall, using the notes that you 19 prepared at the time, was the ca:cessive co ttlement 20 j
noted by Bechtel at the service water valve pits r
i 21 mentiomd at or prior to the December 4,197 C p
22 l
meeting?
J I.
4 23
!!R. LIDBY:
Objection; lack of l
I 4
l 24
{
f ounda ti on.
I i
I i
l 23 Lafayerie Batidmr Lu:od Reporting Service Snar Mo
'962 11?6 Suar2En Ibiroa, \\bchiran M22n Farmmaton H<th. \\tnehsean nom
1
~
THC tiITNCGS:
I do kncv that I was 5
2 aware of the proble:a with the service water valvo pit I
3 at a very early stage, quito possibly at thic came 4
coeting, but I don' t remember f or cure.
5
! BY tm. JEUTcs :
I 6
lQ There's al;so a reference in the list to possible 7
questionable materials relating to the condencate 8
stor age tanks.
i Do you remember any mention of that I
9 problem during the December 4,197 0 :seeting?
j 10 A
~I can' t recall that particular item being discussed I
11 at the necting.
I do know we were aware of it as a t
12 problem very early in the review.
I know that it wac 1
i 13 one of the structures that van exhibiting excessivo l
14 i
se ttlement and the applicant -
we were concerned l
15 that the applicant be monitorincj thooe se ttlements 1
1G j
and I cannot recall if our. discussions of th at time l
l 17 were at thiu particular meeting or not.
l-l 10 0
Thert'c alco a reference in fir. Ma r tine c ' meno to i
19 i
questionable material diccioced a t the primary makeup 20 i
water stor age tank.
11ac that mentioned at the l
21 I
De ccabe r 4,197 8 me e ting?
22 I
A Basically the came answer applies here, t'e were i
23 l
aware of difficulties in that area at a very early l
3 24 ctage, pocsibly this neeting, but I ca n' t r enombe r i
l i
l l
24 Lafvette Buddme l'u:od Reporting Sert see l
Sune MO 9 6 2 < 1 1 *' 6 Smv 2.ho Detrort. \\fuchiron 4R226 femmeron HnII.. \\liehiren Wol8 i
1 for cure.
I 2
l0 In the paragraph that immediately follown the licting I
i
~
3 i
by !!r. !!ar tinez, he goes on to state that carlier 4
se ttlement problemc had occurred during the i
5 construction of the Administration Building and i
1 1
6 i
Chlorination Building f oundations.
By th(. time of i
7 the December 4,197 8 meeting, and indeed including 8
that meeting, was there any advice to you or to your 1
9 1
knowledge to the !!RC of any se ttlement problems at i
10 the Administration Duilding?
j 11
!!n. LIB 3Y:
Objection; lack of 12 l
f ounda tion.
I 13
': TIC WIT!1 CSS:
Would you repeat the lact 14 i
s part of your question, plence, was there any 15 indication what?
Would the -
j
'16
!!R. JCf7TCS :
The repor ter can road the 4
17 l
question to you, plcuse.
i 1
16 1
p (The pending question was road 19 by the Cout t Repor ter ac f olicwu:
20 j
0 By the time of the De cembe r 4, I
21 197 8 meeting, and indeed a
22
]
including that mooting, was 23 f
r' there any advice to you or f'
f l
24
}
to your knowledge to the ::nc 1
r l
[
l 25
- 1. u : d ReporIaisc Sert nce Laiv ett* Buddust
,,h u,,,,, y,n Surto M O 962 ll?6 Sune $m Detroa, thchten 4C6 fermontran Hdis, W hst e W I8
cf any se ttlement probicas at the }
2
}
Administr ation Building?)
3
!!n.' DERROVITZ:
Do you unceratand the 4
questic s?
i I
l 5
l THE WIT!1ESS:
I believe so.
I dcn't
-6
.~think I know the answer to that.
I'm suff ering f rom 7
. passa ge of time.
I don' t recall any discussion of B
the Administration Building or most of the str uctut es i
i I
9 that you've asked me about, at leart that arc listed l
}
10 in flar tines' memo.
I j ust don' t recall discussions i
)
11 i
of thooe prior to this meeting.
I 12 EY !!R. JE!!TES:
t 3
l 13 i Q Do you rocall learning that the first time the 14 Administration Duilding was disclosed to the 11RC was
- during some discussions between Mr. Galingl.er enc lit,,
1 15 Tuveson af ter this December 4,197 0 neeting?
l 16 4,
1 17 11R. LIBBY:
Objcetion; leading and j-10 argumentative.
19 l
'n!E ITITUESS:
ity understanding cf hov 20 i
the URC first became aware of the inf ormation uac i
21 e
i that during
. Gallagher's visit to Dechtel in 22 connection with the soils investigation, llr. Gordon I
23 i
Tuveson advised him of the previous event and I 1
24 believe in fact showed him some repor t, either at j
4 2G
,u, ygg,,
Lu:od Reporting Serruce
.,,,9
,,h k,u,,, y,y Suae h30 962.I176 Dr:roa. thchsan 42L4>
sua, zm Farminetan Helh, \\bchaean 48018
~
1 that time or later gave him a repor t, I'm not cur e l
2 which, regarding the Adminictration Duilding and the 3
gr ade be am pr oblem.
4 BY !!n. JCf!TES :
i 5
0 Returning assin to the list in Mr. itar ti no c '
6
- l memor andum' ' prior 'to August 197 8,' when the Dienel 7
Generator Duilding settlement was first repor ted to 8
the !!RC, did you, or to your knowledge anyone at the h
I 9
URC, have any inf orraat'.an concerning se ttlement at 10 the tr ansf ormer f ounda tions, the condensate stor age 11
. tanks, the primary makeup water storage tank, the i
12
' service water valve pits or the Chlorina tion 13 Building?
14 m
MR. LIBBY:
Objection; leading and 15
'ar gume nta tive.
i 16 l
Ti!E WITNESS:
To the best of my 1
knowledge, no, we had no such inf ormation.
17 1
i 10 DY MR. JCNTES:
19 IO l
I Did you ever have any participation in discussions
~
20 i
within the NRC about whether Conctrnerc Power should I
i 21 be concidered to have made a material falso statement f
by not dicciosing the Adminictration Duilding 22 23 problem, prior to its eventual disclosure to tir.
24 l
Callagher during his investigation f
i c
27 Lafayette B.uld.ne Lu od Reportine Sett ser
\\
Suur MO qgg,j j 76 31sto urthntern Huy j
(Mrmt. \\bchigan 432%
Suar rn farmancton Hsus. \\hchigan MolR
(_
1
'A Your question was did I have any --
I 2
0 Pa r ti ci pa tion?
l 3
A Par ticipation in determining whether or not -- maybe 4
I better have the question read back, please.
5 (The pending question was read
'6 by the Court Reporter as foll'owat 7
0 Did you ever have any participation 8
- i within the 11RC about whether I
'S i
i Consuriers Power should be 10 considered to have made a natorial I 11 i
false statement by not dicciosing l 12 i
ttle Acc:inistration Luilding 13 l
prob 1cm, prior to its eventual i
l 14 disclocure to Mr. Gallagher 15 during his investigation?)
16 TUC WIT!!ESS:
I don' t reen11 any 17 discussions with imC in a f ormal sense.
I believe I j
l 18 have come recollection of acknowledging, and I 10 l
believe it was more of an inf ormal discussion and I 1
20 really don't remember who the discuccion was with, I
i 21 but I acknowledge that it was in f act the type of 4
22 i
inf ormation that would have been helpf ul to the Imc i
1 I
i 23 l
to know at an early stage.
a 24
! BY im. JC:iTES:
3 t
t
,4 l
l 2C d
po y Smia Lafayette Buildur MHg \\o,,kw,,,,,n guy I
Swten30 962.I176 Swie :20 lborout \\lachiren 43:26 Farmineron Heliu \\lichte,n 2018 1
1 O
I'm not clear f rom your ancuer.
Do you recall who 4
I 1
2 you had those discussions with or not?
3 lA Ho, I do not.
m 4
MR. JEMTES :
Off the record.
l s
5 (A brief discussion was held off
~
'6 the recor d.)
7 BY MR'. JENTES :
6 iO
'Let me hand you a document that's previously been l
h t
-9 marked CPC 525
'Tnis is a letter f rom Consumers to I
l 10 Mr. Kepler of March 9,197 9, and it ref ers to some i
- i 11 i
meetings that were held on February 23,197 9 and l
12
.itaren 5,1979, regarding the DCD se ctionent rand tne t
13 further aspects of the invectigation.
You are chown c
k
\\-
14 i
as having some participation in this, according to 15 the third page into the document?
l
?
16 Mn. LIBBY:
Which page are wo.on now?
j 17 MR. JCNTCS:
Third page, it's ' Bates 18 l
numbe r 13 2.
I 19 l
THC itITUCSS:
Are you looking at a j
20 sheet entitled meeting summary distribution?
Ii 21 BY 11R. JCUTCS :
5 l
22 0
Ye s, about seven up f rom the bottom in D.
Hood.
1 23 l
A That's thooe who are in receipt of the docunent.
l 24 i O All right.
4 20 lakerer Budd,ne W#'"' " ' "
uma urthu.urm nu t Suure Am 962 11<'6 Iktrat. \\1 chtaas 4 C.%
suu :b>
Farmmerm HL Vocituran Mnh
1 A
That's not an attendeec list.
4 2
O Okay.
That will at least deal with my first t
3 question, which is, you did ge t a copy of CPC 5257 4
A Yeo, at lenot I have seen the document be f or e, i
5 O
Here you in attendance at the meeting on Foor uary 23,
\\
s
'6 l
19797 1
7 A
I don' t believe so.
0 O
You were in attendance, however, at the !? arch 5,197 0 9
j meeting, were you not?
10 A
'Ye s, I was.
11
- O Accor ding to tir. tiowell's cover letter, he staten
[
L 12 tha t "On Maren 5,197 9 another meeting was held at 13 l
the NRC Region 3 of fice during which Consumers Power 14
-i Company made a response to the NRC presentation of
'15 the prior week and f urnished the URC with a. document i
16 marked "Preliminary" entitled Consumer Power Company i
t 1
17 discussions -- excuse me.
Discussion of t RC I
10 inspection f act: res ul ting f rom the Mr.".nvestiga tien i
19 of Diesel Generator Duilding Settlement and dated 20 t
flar ch 3,197 9.
"During our presenta tion, or al 21 d
adj uctments were made to enis document cnd it vac i
22 l
agreed that those adjustments and others brought 23 l
abo ut by the diccuccion would be made in a revised 1
24 version of our doctaent.
Cnclosed is the reviced l
l 30 La,ia,,eur FLaldine Lu:od Reportin,e Sernce w o y,,w,,,,,,, n,,,
Sun' 6' ns; y;7s sua, su iMrat..hchee K 2h Farmmetx Udh. Unhrv WM
1 E
document dated !!ar ch 9,1D7 9 adj ustec as indica teo l
2
)
above, with the addition our conclusions as gancrally 3
sta ted or ally at the tiarch 5,197 9 meeting. " And then 4
if you turn over to Batoo number 14S, it's shown as i
5 i in the revisec !! arch 9,1979 ve.raion of i
6
'the document?
i I
7 A
Excuse me.
149, are you looking at the stan' ped 8
numbe r ?
i I
D 0
- Ye n, the ' Dates numbered stamp.
It doe cn' t tic in.
10 Im. LIDBY:
It's hard to read, I think e
11 j
ic the problem.
1; TEE WITNESS:
The eight looks like a j
k 13 ni ne.
I do see it.
1 j
i i
14 BY tiR. JENTES :
s I
i 15 0
i In general, what was the purpooe of Concumers making i
.I.
16 these presentations to the NRC, were they responding l
17 i
to inquiriec that the NRC was making to them for I
15 j
addi tional f acts or er. plana tions?
19
}
?R. LIBDY:
Objection; leading.
j\\
j 20 TUS UITNESS:
I can only characteri:e I
l 21 l
uhat's in the cover letter, which indicates to me j
o 1
y 22 that Consumere is responding to come previous input l
1 23 by the !!nC.
They' re responding to come -- Consumers 24 Power Company was given an !!RC summary of taci-l i
1 31 lxthyette Batidott kira ao 962 11ib WW %'thu ntern Hu]
3 (k rcut. \\hrhiran 482.%
Suar :20 t
Farmmerm Helh. \\t.chigan 3018 L
1-preliminary investigation findings and apparently l
2 t
Consumers at the 11 arch 5th meeting is responding to i
i 3
thooe earlier matters f rom tne previous meeting.
l 4
BY !!R. JCIT2S :
5 i 0 Hell, do you remember in a general way the Mar ch 5, l
6-1979 meeting?
7' A
In a general way, yes.
l' 0
i O And what was the purpooe of that meeting, au you l
h
'9 understood 1t?
l l
10
'A I believe it was to hear the Consumero Power Corar.cny, 11' l
.the applicant's response to the prior matters.
l 12.
O Tne prior matter was an initial draf t of tir.
l 13 Galldgher's and Mr. Philips and tir. !!axwell's repor t?
I I
14 jA Ye s.
m.
15 0
And why were you participating in the tiarch 5,1D70 I
)
16 neeting?
l}
h 17 i A My dif ficulty in answering your question ic I don' t l
1 10 remember the point in time at which the TIA was 19
)
issued and I knew at an earlier point bef ore the 20 l
paper wor k wau completed that such a request would t:e 21 made.
I con' t know if by the time of the riar ch 22
{
meeting if I knew that was an area that was going to 1
l 23 i
i be -
for which imR wac going to be asked to provide i
24 technical suppor t to the region, but what I r>o Ancu 2
32 Lafuyen* k idat Lu:od Reportsng Sert see k re M 0 n$g,jj7s 3mo y,,su rern Huy 9
&troa. \\tahigan 2.22n kar ::n Farrnineron HJh, \\lahtean M018
1 that I was aware of f rom the very beginning is that l
2 it was a matter that would be of intercat to urn with 3-respe ct to its ongoing review of the FSisR.
So, it 4
was either because we had already been asked to
.~
5 suppor t the region or it was because' I knew that it
-G was inf ormation that URR'would 'need f or its saf ety 7'
review, but I don't remember which of those matters l
6-in particular wao spurring me to attend that meeting.
ls 9
0 I'd like to direct your attention within the revised 10 version of Consumers Powerc discussion of the URC I
11~
inspection f acto that's Attachment 2 to the item l
-12 eignt, which begins at Dates number 11G0.
Item cight 13 I
is entitled 'Nonconf ormance Repor ts Identified. "
Do i
4 14 you have that?
19 A
Yes.
s' 1G O
I'd like to ack you to j ust sor t of skim down through ii 17 the first two pages, which discuases the 18 nonconf ormance repor t identification?
19 A
Which firct two pages are you referring to.
20 O
I'm sorry?
The one in 1160 and 1161.
3 t
i 21 A
I have reviewed itY'
!O 22 Uhy was the URC concerning itocif with the i
23 1
nonconf ermance repor ts and whether or not th o se UCR 's l
20 f had been f ollowed u; on by CP?
r e
33 f.afayrtre Buildsne Mw %rthum'ern tho v susta Mo 962 Ilib g
[wtroit, thehigan 4M:n 5,vre :b Farmme*on Ihlis \\behigan mnts
.m I
1 fR. LIBDY:
Objection; lach of 2
f ounda ti on.
(
3 THC WITNESS:
The region, and within i,
4 I&C, is concerned with the implementation of the i
l
^
f 5
quality control, quality assurance and quality 6
control-and quality control entails -
quality' 7-I assurance entails, among other things, th ese l ma tter s.
l 8
l They were effectively determining the applicant's i
I
~9 implementation of its quality assurance progran.
In i
i i
t 10 i
my opinion, that was what was haprmning.
i 11
- DY 12. JC
- ITCS :
t-i 12-0 Directing your attention over to page 1166 13 l A Did you say cight?
I 14 l 0 Ye s.
And I apologiae for the somewhat blurry 15 reproduction, but that's the best copy we have.
This lG' is a 'discuacion of OP 199, of 'that particular Mcn and 17 I'd ask you if you can road through and I'm not going i
y I
10 to get into the detaile so you don' t have to worry 3
19 l
about all these little numbero, etce tera, out j uct i
to 20 perhapc help you ref resh your recollection on this l
~
21 l
particular Mcn and the cor rective action that's l
22 I
stated to have been taken.
23 A
I really can't make it out, it's of cuch poor quality 24 i
that it' c barely 1cgible.
If I attempt to read thic, I
O NAfavet:r Bwidme Lu:od Reportung Sernce
,g Sa'ite MO 962 1176 s,,,r, bn Iktrat, \\t<chtsan 4C26 F=rwuncion Hdis. Urchiren m %
o en
.. c
. con du ing th r
yo to j
u re whathe cd.
6 e
o l
et cource r
tle or me 7
nt of not 1
Die al buil the yi r
d Ge ing -
inv 8
1 into the ner estj ato of r Buil the 9
Be h spring of ing in d
sh c tel 10 the D had 197, a
- the, 9
co
~11 ie nte
. j, sl mpleted s to i e
'i pe iod, wh r
Ge w
ne the A r Buil taking ad r
.;Wj, ? F. a -
.12 ato had en
' QF,g.jqf Q
13 occurr d
di
'y o
dministr ing ba k tio 1
l ed?
nl a
,o.
c 14 atio in bo.
r tR. L n Buil the 1 97, 7
15 r
d D:
ing s IB Y
. et DY M.J ay tlem R
MR. J 16 E11T e
yo, yo 17 k-O Et1T u
E:
S E:
WE S
W Ye.
u P
Lot ITNE c
taea S:
nh tae sho I
S ir.
10 e
ide yo w
do ' t f
ntif a
re n
u 19' Do led do r :abe.
ae nl in cume a d this nt r
20 Bo wh rn case ha ich this of Co as came s be 21
~
ns some page ura at en 1168 that s Po ote pr er n
e io v
22 s
of wer pr u ly re I'v in epa s
A ad CPC 525 dir e
r ad conne n
ed 23 Is I'd This cted ctio by Pe.
e the info ak c
yo n.wi i
24 yo stay be ur th u
0 sho l atio skin alit ette rm to u
ntio I
d lo k n
n do tle Ye, ple o
crosc
\\
w to s
at?
ed n thr ocie c
o o
r as.
ut, ugh to e
I'm is t
\\
{Afa)r goin that i, ple c.
l a
Su com e
suar MOur Ouddmg s to eth ak ing I
}
rr s
o.a V.gu yo A
u m22 whethe 6
L
\\
a r
1 od or 1
Reporting S w
not 2'E the 1l 96 omew en ic II6 eem e
m an sweemmause amen mmmwasomammamen 1
w y
F w
=n m*H g,,,,,, y,,,
arm et
\\
m====w uls u***'a-aar %"* :!"
V
\\
w c M.
O
- "" B
\\
1
\\
e
- N **"
1 I
inf ormation that was crocsed out was brought to your 2
attention.
t 3
'A I have read it over.
4
>0 In the conter column on CPC 530, the first s
5 handwritten notes note by !!r. Horn states, "In 6
Jan ua ry - " it 's on I gue s s J an ua ry' 13,197 8 "pr oj e ct 7
engineering requested that standard penetration test 0
borings 'lx obtained in the Diesel Generator e
9 Building," and two, "in the service water ptsp 10 str u ct ur e. "
Did you have any inf ormation prior to l
11 turch 9,1979, when Mr. Howell's letter wac cent l
to
)
12 you, that's CPC 525, that Consumers and Bechtel had i
13 under consideration thece additional borings at the i
14 Diesel Generator Duilding and at the service water
~
15 pump structure, back in January ofl.197 C?
\\
16 I
MR. LIDUY:
Objection; argumentativo.
i 17 Tnc iTITNESC:
In the review, in ny 10 ca pa ci ty as pr oj e ct mana ge r, I us ually con' t ge t down 19 3
to such a level as the particular borings and what 20 l
specific borings we do or don' t have and it's quite j
i l
21 y
conceivable that borings come in and I have no i
22 knowledge of it.
To the extent that I co 23 occasionally look at thoce matters, and I would have i
24 to say that I am not aware that we hac such bor ings h
(
30 I
~
Las:od Repornng Sert see (dcrtte Busidine kar MO 962 11Ib i Hmt. Uwiuru 48:.%
kste :bn Farmunews Hi l<, U.rk:en 1R018
1 in house.
Ac project manner I reclly don' t get down 2
to the level of detail that as knowing what cpecific 3
borings we do or we don' t have.
Uhat I can state 4
generally in that I'm not aware that we had l
i 5
l inf ormation regarding borings in connection with the 6
Administration. Building around that time frame, other 7
than I believe it van fivc that were taken in the 8
immediate vicinity of the Ad=inistration Building and b
I
-5
'one that-vac tanen up around the ' Evaporator Building 10 area an one j ust south of the Diesel Generator 11 Building.
Tnat was my understanding of the borings j
b p
12 i
that we had that were associated with in tha: tiac g
i 13 frame that we at some ;:oint acquired.
I said had.
I l
1 Y'
14 I
don' t know whether we had at that point but 15 ultimately we got the inf ormation on those.
16 BY P.R. JEUTDSt 17 l0 If you look down tr. rough the rest of the handwritten i
I 18 material, there is in f act testimony in this cace 1D I
that these additional borings at the DGB and at the i
i 20 service water pump str ucture were not in f act ta ke n.
f And ray q ue st i on i n a l i t ti c bi t br oa de r, theref or e, 21 6
p 22
[
to you and what I'm interested in in whether or not i
/
i 23 l
you were aware, prior to thio !! arch 9,197 9 letter I'
24 f ron !!r
!!cwell, that Bechtel had reco= mended that j
f e
i
?' ~/
IAfayene Buddote 3tNO \\nethursiern Hu t kne rtta 962 II ?6 1
Mar $0 lHrmt. \\fuchican 4Cr.
Farinarwn HJh. \\lechire MGM
1 f
additional borings be taken in connection with the
!i 2
investigation into the Adminictration Building, and l
3 that thoce borings were never taken?
4 In. LIDDYr Obj ection, argumentative 5
and also mischaracteri::ation of prior testinony.
6
..TI!E WITHESS:
Your question was, was I I
7 l
aware that Bechtel had recommended'that additional i
8 borings be taken.
1 S.
, BY'!dR. JEUTCS:
}
10
- O That was the question, yes.
i 11
,A I don't recall that.I was ever aware of that, so I
{
12 guoss the answer to your question is no, I'm not j
13 aware of that.
lO 4
I 14 Prior to my showing you this document today, were you m
15 aware that project engineering, as stated in the j
t 16 handwritten notes, had request;ed that additional j
17 I
borings be taken at the Dicoel Generator Duildine; and d
1C at the service water pump structuro in January of 19 197 8 and that those borings had not been taken?
20 A
Yoc.
21
!O And when did you first learn that?
i 22 A
t I learned that f rom newspaper accounts of !!r. ilor n ' t 23 testimony in the Dow/Consuracca lawsuit.
2 24 O
Dack when !!r. !!cwell's letter of liarch 9,197 9 van 3
30 Lafa>rtie Buddats Lss:od Reportsng Service y, y,,9
,,, y Suita rao 962.I176 Sua, 20 (ktroit. \\lakiran c 6 Forma:eron Hdh. }lthatufik
1 sent to the NRC and the attachments were cent along, l!
2.
Vac --
3 A
Day I cor rect.
Your questio.. Vac more specific than y
4 my answer was -- should have been directed.
I don't 5
know cpecific datec.
I was aware of that f rom the i
6 newspaper paper accounts that apparently some 7
previous request had been made, f,wasn' t aware that 1
0 it was by Bechtel.
I thout.;ht it was f or Consumers
[
l 9
Power Company for additional borings, but i t could i
10 have been Dechtel.
I don' t really remember.
But
.)
i 11 what I w as aw ar e of ge ne r ally f r om th e. new cpa pe r l
12 t
account was that some request had been made f or, so l
l 13 l
Mr. Ilorn testified that some request had been made
{
i I
14 for additional borings and that apparently that 15 request either was not acted upon or was under 16 concideration or something until such time as i
s' 17 i
conctruction made the taking of those borings in come
[
I la j
cpe cific area impr actical.
Tna t ' s -- I guc a s th a t ' s e
i 19 j
all I chould testify to be cauce that's all I gleaned 20 f rom the a r ti cl e.
\\
I.
f0 M 1 of that inf ormation you got f rom a precs repor t?
21 22 A
r.'na t i s cor r e ct.
23 0
Back in the spring of 197 9, when you got a copy of 24 Mr. Ucuell' c lotter and the attachments, vac it
[
i 5
i I
i 3D Lafayette L%e f.md Reportsne Sert see kar MO 9 6 2. I l I6 kar :5n Detrmi. Urcharan 4C:n Farminata, Hdl<. \\ loch:ean 4R0l%
L
1 within your area of rec;onsibility to examine whether I
2 cr not Conotraore had in f act taken the corrective i
3 action concerning nonconf ormances that they asse rted I(
4 to.have boon taken or was that comething that lay I
5 within the responsibilities of Region 37 6
'MR. LIBBY:
I obj cct ; be ca use the 7
question is vague and ambiguous.
' I 8
BY !!R. OCMTES:
E I
9 0
"Do you underctand my question, as directed?
I 10
- A My understanding of the question ic simply put is it
'J 11 the utilities responsibility to f ollow up on l
12 req ue st s.
13
'O Ho, then my quection is not clear.
Let me try again.
t 14 l
Carlice you described why the NRC as a whole was i
15 intorested in obtaining.inf oranti'on concerning UCR's q
15 and their disposition and my question now is, within i
17 the !!RC was it your job to look into that icsue or j
a 10 1
vac that 'an incue that was within the NnC Region 3 i
IS or ga ni:: a ti on ' s r espo nsibil i tic c ?
i 20 A
Is your question directed now to these specific l
i 21 i
4 coringo that were re:;ucated apparently by project
[
22 I
enginee ring?
Ic the question chould the !!RC cr ICE, 23 s
come branch, have -- is it their responcibility to l
24 f ollow up on requests that may or may not have Leon i
I, i
40
'E '""'
Lathytte kidme
%te Mo 962'Il?6 M M %rth n m Hu)
(k rmt, \\lditan scr>
kre 220 t
Farmmeron Hdh. \\lhice utnl8
1 made f or additional bor ing:?
2 0
llo, I'm not still being cicar and I would like to try 3
to be clearer, but I'm constrained a littic bit by 4
rir. Libby always objecting if I attc=pt to lead you 1
5 too much, so let no see if I can try it again.
6 l
Back in 16 arch ' of 197 9, accor. ding to P.r. '
7 Howell's letter and the attachments, he was 6
l indicating that cer tain cor rective actiotr had been i
9 taken on an impor tant t1Cn, and at least according to i
l 10 the document I' ve laid bef or e you, which is CPC 53 0, i
e e
i 11 the corrective action that is asserted in the final f
12 redraf ted version is not an accurate summary oi what 1
i 13 l
in f act happened a t the time.
Ity question is whether i
14 or not there was any concern within the !!RC over the 15 accuracy of the.inf ormation being repor ted by CP in j
16 the spring of 1979, on the subject of its correction 17 I
of nonconf ormance repor ts, and then ny second l
10 que stion it, if there was, was that something that 19 was your responsibility or Region 3 's responsibility?
20 IL LIBBY:
Is that it?
I l
21 l
MR. jct 1TES :
That's it.
Q 22 d
- 13. LIDBY:
I'm going to object b3cause 23 I think it's a mischaracteri:stion of what's in the 24 documents and it' c alco leading.
1 t
41 Laas>rtir kidine
~
Sy,,, wo 962 1176 M' \\ o"h 'r" H")
1
[wermt, %ch<ean ts: n
%or ::o Farmancron Hills. Vehican 4801X
1
?.it ti!T!iESS :
In ancwcr to your first 2
question is I really don' t know and the answer to i
3 your second question is it would be the l
4 responsibility of IoS which is nou the region, i
a
'5 followup on NCR's is their responsibility.
'6 BY MR. JE!!TCS:
7 0
In regard to your own responsibilities, you have 8
l described the f act that you have had some oversight
~9 P
I outies concerning the remedial soils of f or t.
Do you 10 also have uomo role in the activities of the Casclond 11 Por eca st Panel ?
I 12 A
Ye s.
i 13 0
And what is the Caseload Forecast Panel ?
{
14 A
It is a team of !!ac people who attempt to make 15 indepcndent determina tions of schedules.f or I
16 completion of nuclear power plants f or !!RC purposes.
17 0
And what is your role in relation to the activitics I
10 of the panc1?
k 19 A
I'm a member of the team.
20 0
Back in -- f or how long have you been a ecmber of the r
21 te em ?
22 i
- 12. LIBDY:
I'=
corry.
Are we speaking 23
!!idland now?
24
!2. JC:1TCS:
Yes.
L E
r N
1.apneneIL s z Lu:od Regionsne Sernu y, wy,m,y,t Suae hw 9 6.*. ] 1 7 6 Sune 6:
Iktroa. % chir a 4 C s Femunetw: Hb \\lachere w 8
1 n!C UI?MCSO:
Since I' ve been accignec f
2 to the !!1dland project, bacically since the firct 3
caseload vicit that would have ensued since August of 4
'77, and whether it included any prior to that, I
i 5
i don't know.
I vac with the 1:RC f or a year prior to i
6 I
th a t.
I had assignments other' than nidland.
I did 7
have some very limited ba'ckup responcibility as a 0
backup project manager to assist the exicting project i
I
'9 l
manager on the !!idland plant.
I don' t believe that I
10 l
that entailed any recponsibility with regards to l
e 11 t
Ca scloa d Por e cast Panel, but it possibly could have l
12 so the ancver. I believe is since August of '77.
1 i
13 BY MR. JCMTES:
14 0
Who is on the panel, insof ar as nidland is concerned?
15 A
The panel normally consists of a member f rom our 16 management program office, and in my tenure no f
\\
project manager on Midland that hac alucys been Bill i
17 10 Lovel a ce.
It incl udo s the pr oj e ct mana ge r and i t 19 normally entails at least one representative f rom the 1
20
}
region.
Of ten that one individual will be the 21 re si de nt i ns pe ct or, al though it could very well to l
22 l
any reprecentative from the region who is f amiliar i
23 with the project, actively involved in the project.
24 0
Let me hand you a doccaent which ha Dee n nar ke d a t l
h' 43 laiasette H.ulane Mio %rtnur< rem Hu t kar hw 9 6.". ] ] ? b 3
Maa,%,
lHroa \\hchita, st:2n Farmmatun H;!!r \\beh;ean wnh
1 IIRC 206.
It co nci at s of a tw o-pa ge men or an dum th a t 2
you ap;nrently wrote on 1:ay 15,197 9, and then near i
3 the back there's a memo of !!ay 16, apparently l
4 prepared by you correcting page two of the original i
5 document and there's also included in the package a i
6
. memorandum from Sybil Kari, chairman of the Caseload
~
7 Forecant Panel of May 11, 1979.
Did you prepare the i
8 original two page memorandum that's ll3 through 114 i
S and the cor rected version that'c reflected in 116 and l
10 177 11 iA 11ay, I have a moment, plea se.
Yes, I did.
l
)
12 O
And ic page 115 a memorandum that you had received l
13 l
f rom ?!s. Karl of !!ay 11, 1979?
i 14 lA Yes, it iS.
s t
I 15 0
tias the memor andum from Itc. Kari the basis f or your
)
t 16 l
advice to !!r. Vacsallo in the opening centence of l
17 your !*.sy 15, 1979 memor endum "The annual upda te of f.
i 10 construction completion dates by the IIRC' c ctuf f' 19 Casel oa d Por eca st Panel has projected a clip f or 20 111dland Unit 2, the first of the !!idland unitti 21 j
scheduled f or conote uction. "
22
]A co ul d I h cve th e q ue st i o n r e a d ba c k, pl e a t:,c.
23 (The pending question was reau 24 i
by the Cour t neper ter ac f allowc:
44 lainreir &aldine
~"'
kmo %ntn,mirm Huv 3
k err M O 962.])?6
%,1, fo intrat. \\laharan 4.C.%
Form >ncum HJ!\\ V <hte e 3 %,'8
1 f
Q Was the memor andum f rom Mc. Kar l 2
the, basic f or your auvice to 3
!!r. Vasuallo in the opening 4
~
sentence of your iby 15, 1079 5
memor andum7)
}
6 THE UITUCSS:
I guoso the memorandum is 7
pretty well self explanatory.
I'd any yes, it is.
O i BY 11R. JCtlTES:
I l'
9 i0 Did you originally reach the erroneous conclusion l
10 from lis, Karl's memorandum that she won suggcoting a r
j i
11 1
30 to 33 month slippage, as is indicated on page two 12 of your or.iginal draf t of the memor andum to !!r.
c 13 Vasca11o, and then conclude that in f act Ns. Kari had I
I 14 i
merely been suggesting a 32 to 33 month time period 15 from the current status v.ith the result that you sent j
1G the corrected version of page two indicating that ac 17 ct a ted a t pa ge 117, 'The attached memor andum f rom !!s.
18 S. Kari advinc o that the most r ece nt catimate the
]
!!idland Unit 2 by the tiRC ctaf f' c Caceload Porceact 19 4'
i 20 Panel sugeents a delay of twelve monthc beyond the l
21 g
applicant's estimate f or completion of constr uction. "
(
22 l
- 12. LIDDY:
Objections leading.
l 23 i
TUC UIT:7 CSS:
Thic entire matter is l
?
24 cuen a long time ago it's lino cecing it f or the
~
t i
<15 laineur kidmz 3 man %rthneuem Hu u har Mn 962 1176
%ar :b 1%:. \\1<<haras sc.%
Femmew Hill <. \\hch::an 4+118
1 first time all over and I'm relying heavily on what's I
2 in the nomorandum itself.
I' m af r ai d I ' m suf f er ing 4
l 3
terribly f rom lack of memory.
i 4
DY !!R. JENTES :
5 l0 Uell, let me help in this regard.
6~
A I can't offer you much more than what's in the 7
document itself and just reading it like I was 8
i reading it f or the first tiac,snd interpreting it.
i S
l
'I'm having a terrible time recalling the events back l
i 10 to th a t ti me.
4 i
4 11 O
The only reason I'm asking you about that particular j
12 matter is is.tnat I think that many pcopic and 13 certainly including rae who read the original version I
)
I 14 l
thought that there was a 30 to 33 month slippage.
i i
15 What I really want to confirm now is that according i
i 15 to the corrected version of your memorandum, and as 17 reflected at page 117, was the of fice of Nuclear i
18 Reactor Regulation using the pancl's estimate of 1D i
November 8,1901, f or flidland Unit 2 completion f or 20 purposes of planning and priorities as of the date of l
4 21 your tiay 15, 1979 memor andum to !!r. Vassall o ?
I 22 I:n. LIDDY:
I'u going to assin cbject I
23 t
be ca use it's leading.
l 24 THC : ITNCSS:
I'm corry.
I don't 40 Laia\\stle Nmidmt NNO N'thM9m Un \\
Swtl Ma 962 1176 s
Suor so (neemt, \\lechigan 4C.%
fe'mmirm Hdis. UAire MniR
1 under stand the que ction.
1:ayce you can chor ton it.
2 D Y t'.R. jct!TCO :
3 0
Ao a result of r~eceiving tio. Karl's memorandum, did 4
you advice Mr. Vacsallo in the corrected version of 5
4 your May 15, 1979 memor andum, that the flRR voc going 6
I to use a November 1901 Unit 2 f uel load date?
7 A
Yes, I'm advising him that f or this interim period 6
i ve'11 be using ilovember ' 81 f or our purpoacs, !!RC l
D purposes, plan on priorition.
10 lQ Dio that represent a twelve-month delay teyond i
1 11 Constraor s ectimate?
12 A
Ye s, it does, as indicated in the correction page.
j 13
! O And again directing your attention to the last s
l 14 paragraph in page two of your corrected memorandum, 15 was the new estimate of 11ovember 1981, bef ore or l
16 af ter taking into consideration the possibic impact
.f 17 of Three Mile Island and.the soils matters?
18 A
The memorandum indicaten that thoto matters had not 1D been taken into secount.
20 l
(Drief recons in proceedingc.)
{
l 21 DY MR. JC'.:TCD:
i 22
!O Directing your attention, i:r. !!ood, ba ck t o i:RC 206 1
23 and to *Ne first page of your memor andum, in the 24 second sentence you s cf or to the scheduler ectimates r
47 t.ainma kume
- d N 'I' * '" " b ' " ' '
u w urturum it,,,
%1r rm G 6 2 117 6 IM ma. %ektran L C m
%w. $n Farmmeron flo. Wh can wi8
1 by the panci a: 6 ing a "rough indication" of l
2 schedule.
What did you mean by that?
I 3
HR. LIDBY:
Where are we at?
I'm I
4 cor ry.
1 5
i DY tm. JCtlTCS
'6
!O In the second sentence on the first page of the i
I 7
document B
1
'IEE tfIT!! CSS:
I believe the intent of' i
i 9
this memor andum, tne best I recall it is a general i
10 connotetion ic that even though it's not a estimate
{
'll tnat repreacnts the completion of some process, or a l
12 mot c f crmal typa of do teemira tion, that never thelesc, 13 i
it would be of interest to the remand board, it bearc 14 on scheduler matters.
15 BY MR. JC11TCS 16 0
Ithy did you describe the projectionc by the f orecact 17 panel as being "rough *?
10 A
I j ust can' t remember the particular details around 4
19 l
this par ticular visit.
What is clear to me is that a -- i 20 I just don' t remember.
I i
21
{0 Perhaps you' re confining yourecif too uuch to the i
22
]
time of the !!ay 197 9 memor andun.
?!y quoction really i
23 is br oa de r than th at.
I'm interested as to whetner I
j 24 you f el t a s c ge ne r al ma t ter th a t the schuculo i
ar La w e,a s w e Lund Repormy S u n'v wu
,h nm, yn Suit
- Ma 9b2'EI?b
[ktrott. \\lachto 4E22n butte 2.5 fo rm m t!** UdI% \\IWhit@ Mk
1 I
calculations by the f or ecact panel were only "rougn t
2 indica tionc "?
3 MR. BCREOVITZ:
You' re asking a gor t ral 4
question now.
In ge ne r al, Cacelcad For ecast Panti 5
estimates are rough estimates.
6.
MR. JOITES:
That's right, whether or 7
not he feels that they are, and then my next question 8
in going to be why do you f eel that way.
9 TUC ITIT!! CSS:
Your question to oc in 10 very 9cnctc1, d'o I feel that when the Caselcad i
~11 i
Por ecast Panel conducts a - does its visit to i
12 dotormine and arrivcc at a determination of schedulo, i
13 is that a rough indication of schedule?
Is that the j
4 14 que stion?
l l
15 BY !!R. JE:llTES:
I i
16 0
Let rae try again.
According to your nemorandum you i
l l
~
1 17 indicate that the projections as to schedule by the 1
i 10 panel are only a rough indication of what the 4
19 completion dates will be and I'm just interected in 20 l
why did you regard it as only being a rough t
21 indication, van this tccause they weren' t very 22 precice er they didn' t have enough inf ornation or 23 I
what.
That's what I'm trying to sc arch f or.
f 24
!E. LICBY:
Are we cack then to this i
O Lafeyeur kidste
'~
M ' Wih *'!*m Hu?-
har Mo 402 11in
[htroth \\fschten 48L4n har l20 femmtM Utib. \\lWhtG9 W8
1 one f or eca ct or are we ctill talking generally?
{
2
- 12. jct;TES :
I was talking now more i
3 gercrally.
4
- 13. LIEDY:
Then I'm going to object i'
5 j
because it's a mischaracterization.
6 BY HR. jet 1TES:
7 Q
Let me try to cure Mr. Libby's objection.
8 jA I have a definite problem with the word rough.
It'e I
I 9
j highly cub]ective ac to what you mean by that.
I To my --
10
,O Lot me try to cure !!r. Libby's objection.
'As of l' y i
e 11 i
'7 9 when you wrote this, did you feel that the I
n i
12 j
projections by the f orecact panel up to that timo 13 were only rough calculationc?
14 A
Apparently so.
I don' t remember the particulars m
15 surrounding this particular memorandum.
But as I 16 read this memorandum now, it appears to me that that 17 is th e ca se.
1S l 0 Again, focusing on the period up to l'.ay of 197 9, cid 3
19 you, in your wor k with the f orecact panel obtain s
20 acce ss to the f or ecact that were maoe by Dechtel for i
21 l
Consu: acts Power ?
i 22
! A It was the practico, during the Caceload Forocact L
23 Panel visit f or the applicant, Concumerc Power j
24 Company, to pr ece nt to the finC panol its own I
I sc Lafayette haddant Lu:od Reporting Sersice N>u* @
ns,yj;6 3a wri,u a,,,r, nu _,
[Weod, Verbrea 4U.%
Mr n Far,u,em Hdlu Uwhee M
n p
1 f or eencto and the basic f or arriving a t that 7
2 forocast.
In the case of f:idland, that f oroccut wac, 3
I believe was a study perf ormed f or Conctnero by 4
Dochtel.
tic would be given a presentation that was i
5 based on the applicant' c study and it was -- they had
'6 forecast numbers, Forecant No. 4 or G or 7, something 2
7 like that and it was, to the best of my recollection 8
i it was perf ormed by Consumers Powcr Company using h
D h
input, cercainly in close cooperation with Bochtel, 10 l
but I believe it was Conuumors Power Company' c stucy.
}
e 11 1 0 Mell, let me hand you a document which has previously
{
12 t
been marked in this case as BEC 57 and ident.ificd ac i
i 13 the proj e ct cost and schedule For ecast !!o. 5, da ted 14 June 197 6, as prepared by Dcchtel.
Let me direct 15 your attention specifically to that document and ask j
16 you whether or not you in your wer h f er the panel t
l actually received a copy of that document 7 I.
17 18 A
I don't know.
I do know that !!r. Lovelace was given t
19 a document like thic.
!!ow, whether it was a Dechtel 20 docunent or whether it was a Consumers docuacnt or i
21 d
th e r c oul t of some Con c unc t c ct udy ba ce d on th e 22 Dechtel input, I don' t know.
fir. Lovelace was really g
4 i
23 j
oy c:: pert who got down to this Icyc1 of detail where i
24 f
be ne e t.e d the -- I don' t use the torn raw cats, fcr t
t Cl lA [M ftl9 OwldLMZ
'k MU \\Wik k rum Uk %
Swar Mo 462 1i?6 kar so iktroa. % cksten 4 C.%
Fminene H.iis Whiec ptols,
I
(
my part I didn't got into that level of specifico and
{
2 co if the repor t wec given to uc, he would be the one 3
who would have it anci not myself and I do know that 4
i en oeveral of the visits, in f act I believe in some i
5 case s even j ust prior to our going to the vicit he l
6 was given a copy 'of the repor t -to be prepared f or the 7
l upcoming visit.'. But I don' t know that this precise 1
8 document was given to us..It may have been.
I don't i
i 9
kn ow.
10 O
Let me try to explor e that a little bit more.
i l
11 Directing your attention again back to tmC, 20G, your l
12 i
memo to !!r.. Vancallo of luy 15, 1975, un de r the g
13 heading previous estimates on page 1 you refer to an I_
14 earlier memor andum of March 0,197 6 f rom tir. Doyd and 15 then you refer to a summary of a tiarch 21 and 22nd, i
16 197 8 meeting and site visit.
Did you go on that i
17 flarch 21 and 22nd,197 0 site visit?
1 1
10 A
I believe that I did.
I think that was probably the
{
19 first time I went on a Caccioad Porecast Panel visi t.
i 20 lC Han that the first occasion when you visited the
(
21 4
g Midland ci te?
I 22 A
11 0, it was not -- I don' t r enember.
23 0
Continuing down in the next i
paragraph of !mC 206, you i
24 tcier to an evaluation of a request f or an c::tencion i
k 8.*
l,a(q)ttir [EuddtRg har wo 962-1176 k W ho'!hk tM*!n UM _1.
e
[Wrecut Uditan 452.%
kar ::o Famntw MdLu Vdige MolR
1 f
k of construction permito?
i i,
2 A
I'm sorry.
Uhcre are you now?
I 3
0 Down at the bottom of the first page of URC 206 in 4
the lact paragraph.
Do you have that?
5-A Ye s.
?
6 0
In that paragraph you refer to an evaluation of a
~
7 request f or an extension of construction permits f or 9
0 Midland 1 and 2, which accompanied tne extension I
'S orcer of Novemoer 17,'1970 And then as you carry I
.i 10 over onto the top of the next pa ge, you state that 11
- Dased upon the estimate of the time required to j
12 perf orm the remaining work Dy the Offico of
)
l 13 Incpection and Enf or cement and by the MRC ctaff's t
14 l
Caneload Forecast Panel, the applicant's carliest 15 estimate of the time to complete construction was not
)
16 unr easonable, though clightly optimistic. "
There's i
I 17 no reference in this description to there being a l
18 second vicit to the cite in connection with thic 19 l
a s se s cmo nt.
Do you remember whether or not you unde f
20 f
a visit to the site at that time?
I t
i 21 j
f tR. LIBBY:
J uct so I'm cicar, af ter 22 i
this ibrch 21st and 22nd meeting that you referenced t
s 23 ca rlict.
I I
24 In. JCUTES:
Tnat's cor rect.
i I
33 lAfsyrtir klIdlMt Lu:od Reportant S e '
kiro hw qgy,))lb
%w %riseern Ho
\\
[wimi, \\lortras LCb bu d * ~~~~ '
Far,ungue H:!\\ \\ld ea* 4^')!h
1 I
l'R. LIBOY:
Thank you.
[
2 OIC ilIT:! CSS:
I'm trying to read thic I
(
3 again and cee if it will jog my memory of the events j
4 i
around this and it doesn't.
I I
5 l DY !!n. JEtiTCS :
s
- 6 0
11 ell, let me state that we've made a search of the 7
recorde and we. haven' t: f ound any indication that 8
there was a visit to the site by the Caseload I
+
1
~9 For ecast Panel between 11 arch 21 and 22nd of 197 8 and i
1
{
the f all of 197 9.
And I ' m sur e th a t !!r.
U. bby, if 10 i
l 11 l
there was any visit will call your attention to it, l
l 12 but I'm wondering if you have any recollection of th e j
13 l
panel visiting the site between P. arch of 197 8 and the i-14 fall of 1979?
~
IS 12. LISBY:
I will object to the rorm 16 of the q ue stion be ca use I think it's testimony and I
)
I 17 will move to strike it.
18 T!!C 17I":: CSS:
I ca n' t r emembe r ::pe cif ic V
19 l
dates when I went on specific cacoload vicitc.
I do j
i 20 l
know that in connection with a CP e::tencion request i
l I
21 that a site visit was made, but it was combined with b
22 come other event which I can' t remember and whetner I
23 i
that was a first e:-: tension or a second e.Mtension, I
1 24 ca n ' t r emembe r.
ile have c:< tended the completion da te I
f l
54 lofayet e Buuldine Lu:od Reporting Service Ssar MO 962 1II6 3,,o y,,h u,,,,, y, y_
Suae 220 Detroa. \\lachiran 48:26 Farmenetm Hith, \\lichiean 18n18
1 more than oncc on this plant, oc I'm having I
i i
2 difficulty isolating events to c;ncific menos and
<i 3
i spe cific placco.
I'm corry.
i
~
4 lLYI4R. jct 1TES :
5 l0 Hell, at least as you sit here today and based on the 6
NRC 206 memorandum that you prepared, ~do you have any 7
recoll'ection of having visited the site with the 8
panel :betvcon liarch 21, 22nd,197 0 and the f all of I
9 197 9 c h
i 10
- 22. BERK 0VIT:: :
Asked and anuwered.
11 I
MIE UITNESS:
I think I've indicated if l
12 there.was such a 1.*ioit, I don' t recall.
'3 i
13 BY 11R. JC11TES :
14 0
Now, when you recite in the materials that I quoted l
15 to you a moment.ago f rom the bottom of page one and j
i l
16 the top of page two of imC 206, that there was an i
17 estima'te of the time required to perf orm the
}-
18 remaining wor k by the Office of Inspection and j
10
)
Enf or coment and by the !!RC staf f Caseload Forecoct t
i 20 l
Panel, did you participate in that estimate?
i l
21 A
Which estimate in thic again?
l i
i 22 lO The estimate that wac made at the time of the i
23 c:: tension order in tiovember of 197 87 l
j 24 A
I believe I did, one of the early acsignments when I i
i 1
l 55 l
Lafayette Buildine MIo %?thnovern Hu,
[
Suite Mo 962.))i6
%, :ho iktroa. \\lichigan 4822h Farwneton Hill <. \\lithiran 1h018
1 came on as the project manager was to act l
on a 2
request f or an extension.
It would have been around l
l 3
that time period, and as best I can recall that 4
entailed a visit and I believe hat the annual 2
l 5
l caseload visit was combined with that extoncion
-G req ue st, it served a dual purpose in that we' vere 7
determining schedule as we would normally do during B
an annual visit, but the dual purpose was that for us I
9 was that it related to the requent f or extension, as 10 one of the findings that we make associated with an l
11 6
extension or6er requires is to have come l'
12 I
understanding of schedule, what's a reasonable f
1 13 completion schedule.
I 14
'O Again, just so I'm trying to be preciac here, when 15 you participated in this estimat'e that was made in i
16 November of 197 8, was it your view that CP's i
17 forecasted completion was "not unreasonable, though 10 clightly optimistic"?
4 19 l A Yes.
That's what this letter indica tes to me.
I'm 1
20 looking a t the !!ay 15th letter.
I l0 And if you like, in the paragr aph describing the 21 22 March 0,197 0 estimate that's described on the first i
)
2 23 page of your memo, it's also described as being 1
1 24 realistic though a bit on the optimistic side.
Uas 4
~~c Lafayerre Buildene Lu:od Reportine Service Surre MO 962.I176 3agio urchu,nern Huy.
iktrott, \\lichigan 48:26 5" 22U Farrnmeron HJh. %chzean W1R
1 that also your view at the time of the 11ar ch 197 8 i
I i
2 estimate?
i i
3 11R. LIBBY:
I'm going to object; I 4
l taink the question is vaguo and ambiguous because you 5
switched between two meetings.
I' m not sure.
I j ust 6
don' t understan'd.
7 HR. JENTES :
Do yo.u unde e stand?
i 8
i THE WIT!!ESS:
No, I do not.
a 9
i DY MR. JCliTES :
i 6
10 i 0 If you look back on the first page of flRC 206, it'
,i 1
11 states in the last sentence that, "The t:RC staf f t
12 concluce d that the applicant's pro;cced constr uction i
13 schedule based on the project ctatus at that time i
v-j 14 g
appeared to be realistic and achievable c1though it 15 may be a bit on the optimistic side. '
was that your 16 j
view at that time?
I l
17 A
The boot I can recall it was.
h 1
i 18 0
!!ow, when the estimates were made in f: arch of 197 8 i
19 j
and tiovember of 197 8, is it tr ue, baced on your prior i
20 toctimony, that the !!RC had not yet been adviced of 21 the Adninistration Duilding co tt1ccont pr oblen c?
G 3
22
)
19,. LIDBY:
Objection; leading and a
)
l 23 misch ar acterization.
i i
{
l l
24
)
1 THC UIT!! CSS:
I believe that's cor rect.
k i
i
+
l 57 IAfetyrtt* Buildanc l'n d Reportung Sert ice l
.%ise A%
962.I176
,gg
,,,,,,,,,n,,,,
}
Iktroa.11rhican M226 y,,,,, so F.rrnineron Ihlh. \\behigan IM18
1
' EY MR. JEUTES :
I I
2 O
I chowed you a mome.nt ago the Forecact No. 5 of.
l
~
3 Bechtel.
Let me ash you to turn over to page DOG and I
4 l
D07 of that document, Da te c n umbe r, 1 -2 and 1-3.
And i
s i
5 I'd ask you to read to yourself the materials under 6
the -f orecast schedule synopsis and the startup 7
schedule integration.
8 A
I've read those two se ctions.
I k
D
,O You'll notice under the heading f orecast schedule i
10 synopsis that Bechtel stated that the f orecant use d
,1 11 1
the November 1980 and November 1981 f uel load da ten I
12 l
for Unito 2 and 1 respectively, and then Bechtel goes
(
g 13 on to state "The achievability of these ta r ge ts i s i
14 becoming unrealistic due to schedule ricka identified m
15 in our de tailed schedule f orecast, our startup
).
l 16 ochedule integration analynic, and latc developments pursuant to labor disruptions and potential bulk 17 18 electr ical quantity increase c. "
Here you advised in 10 connection with the estimate that you made in the 20 l
fall of 197 8 that Bechtel had told Concemers that the i
21 achievability of the ta r ge t f uel loa d da te s wer e k
22 l
"be coming unr ealisti c"?
I 23
!A I really don' t remember.
l 24
}0 Down near the bottom it indica tes under startup I
f SG IAfayene Buuldsne
\\
3rh10 \\ orth.< r<rern Hu,.
Sune MO 962 ll?6 Detroa. \\fechtean 48:26 Sesar :;O Farmeneron Hdis. %chican 18018 i
1 1.BY'MR. JENTES :
2 O
I showed you a moment ago the Forecact No. 5 of 3
Be ch tel.
Let me ask you to turn over to page D0G and 4
D07 of that document, Bates nrmbe r, 1-2 and 1-3.
And 5
I'd ask you to read to yourself the materials under 6
the f or ecast schedule synopsis and the startup 7
schedule integration.
8 A
I've read those two sections.
9
'0 You'12 noti ce under.the heading f erocast senedule I
10 synopsis that Dechtel stated that the f orecant I
use d 11 l
the November 1980 and november 1981 fuel loac dates i
k 12 l
for Unitc.2 and 1 respectively, and then Gechtel goes 13 on to state *The achievability of those targets in y
14 becoming unrealistic due to schedule ricks identified 15 p
in our da tailed schedule f orecast, our startup 1
1 16 schedule integration analysic, and late developments 17 I
pursuant to labor disruptions and potential bulk I
18 electrical quantity increaso n. "
Here you advised in 1
19 connection with the estimate that you made in the i
20 fall of 197 8 that Bechtel had told Concumors that the
)
21 achievability of the target f uel load dates were
'h 22 "be coming unr ealistic"?
1 i
23 A
I really don' t remember.
{
l 24 l0 Down near the bottom it indicates under startup l
\\-
4' 0
3 50 Myene Bui&g Suite h30 962.I176 3mo Tonkursiern Hwy.
Sua* :20 p,,mir. Vies,a s??6
' ' ' ' ' ~
l cchedule integration that Dechtel felt f rom its 1
2 l
analysic of Consuraer s testing schedule and. cyctem i
3 turnover dates that there was "a high potential for a 4
th r e e-month del ay in th e ta r ge t f uel l oa d da te s. "
)
5 Here you advised that that was Bechtel's view, in i
6 i
connection with the estimate.that you made of the~
7 fuel load dates in the f all of 1~ 7 07 9
8 A
I don' t remember.
9 0
.Let me hand you a. document which has previously boen-10 i
marked as BBC number 75 and identified as a target t
11 f uel load cchedule study perf ormed by Bechtel at 4
j 12 Consumers Power request, and dated as of July 27, g
l 4
13 1970.
l I
14 A
Did you say 20 or 27?
d 15 0
July 27,
'7 8 i
16 A
Ye s.
l l0 17 What I'm searching f or in this and a ceries of l
l' 1
18 questions that I'll ask you, l'. Ilood, as to what l
z l
19 inf orma tion, if any, was made available to you by 20 Consumers in connec? ion with these estimates in your j
21 role as -- on the Caselouf Foract:t Panel and my l
22 first question is whether or not you were advised 23 that there had been a tacget f uel load schedule i
24 l
study, such as this, that was perf ormed by Bechtel, s
j f
1-i 59 l
Lafayette Buildutz S mte M O 962 1176 30840 Northurstern Huy.
Suur 20
\\
ik' ~ ' 1f @ r ~ 18. K
^ ~
1 in connection with the estimate that you made in the f
~
2 l
fall of 197 87 i
3 liR. LIDBY:
And through this line of f
l I
4 4
j questioning you mean him personally.
l I
5 fR. JC!!T2S :
I'm talking about !!r.
6 Hood, yes.
7 l
' IRE WIT!!ESS :
I can' t r emembe r the B
specifics in connection with this particular meeting, y
i I de know it vac a practice wner we did a Caseloaa I
f i
P 10 For eca st Panel visit f or the applicant to present its j
1 11 l
own f or ecast.
i j
I 12
.' BY FIR. JEi!TCS :
l j
13 0
Its own?
i I
14 lA Its own, meaning that what I call the Consumers, the 15 applicant's f or ecast which ma' y have i. wen perf ormed j
l l
again by Bechtel or may have been based on his own
]
16 4
\\
k i
l 17 I
input,. war ked out with Dechtol.
I don' t know the 1
t l
s 1
1G i
particulars of that.
What I was implying, wo were i
j 19 l
given presentations oC the applicant's f orecast and j
l 4
20 l
there were presentations would be given to us by
]
21 members of Consumers Power Company and by Dechtel i
22 1
representativos on behalf of Consumers Power Company.
j 23 0
Your last anwor was sor t of as a general matter ?
e 24 A
i It was a ge ne r al answer.
!!y real answer to you is I I
l l
l l
l 60 Lafayette Buildine Lmd Repor ing Sert iee Suar MO 962 1116 3,,o \\,,,y,,,,,, y,,_
m.
Suar 220
1 can' t recall the specifics in regards to this 2
I particular meeting.
3 0
Hell, first off, I don't know whether or not thero i
4 wac a meeting or not and I take it you aren' t 5
al t.oge ther clear ?
l 6
A With re ga r ds. to.th is.pa r ti cula r.. -
7 Q
Event?
8 A
-- f or eca st event it may or may not have been 9
precented to us at some point.
I j uct ca n ' t i
10 l
remembe r.
I J
11 l0 All I'm asking you today is what you can recall and 12 so lot me pur sue the matter as to whether or not you 13 can recall in connection with the estimate you mada 14 in the f all of 197 8, ge tting a copy of thic target l
15 f uel load schedule study that's par t of BEC 75?
16 lla. LIBBY:
Obj ect'i on; a ske d a nd I
17 answer ed, I believe.
1 1B THC 07IM ESS:
I have no specific 19 recollection of it and as I indicated bef or e, if it 20 had given -- if it had been given to the Caceload i
21 Forecast Panel, at any timo, the member of the team 22 who would have used it and theref ore would have made t
23 a point to -- would really know if it was given or l
l
(
24 not would have been Bill Lovelace, would not have 2
i a
i 61 4.,gg, gagm, Lu:od Reportine Service
,o Suar 630 962.I176 weroa. W Menn JR226 Sun, 329 r~, in ~, n % an m._
1 i:
been myccif.
And I don' t recall being given this 2
l spe cific docume'nt.
,l 3
l BY MR. JENTES:
I I'
4 I
s O
In this study Bechtel reviewed two cases at Consumerc
~
s j
I 5
req ue st, one of which involved mainteining the
.l 1
l G
l existing target f uel load dates and the second q
. I T
7
^
consisting of an analysis' of alternative dates which 8
would be viewed as more realistic.
I'll not ask you
(
9 i
to spend.a. lot of time reviewing - the.r epor t, but I'd
'I 10 like to ask you to look over to page 595 of the 11 recort.
It ' n tv oe d i n pa ge f ive.
Under the heading I
I 12 i
synopsic Case B which vac the alternate case in the 13 i
table Bc chtel incicates that they had viewed a delay i
3 14 in Unit 2 and common of ten months as being more 15 reclictic anc a 6 clay in Unit 1 of five months as i
l 1G
{
being more realistic.
Do you recall having rece'ived l
l i
17 any inf ormation in connection with your f orecast i
18 panel estimate in the f all of 197 8, that Bechtel had l
viewed slippages of ten months in Unit 2 and five I
19 j
20 i
months in Unit 1 as being the more realistic approach 1
21 towards the f uel load?
22 i
MR. LIDBY:
Objection; d
23 mischaracterization and argumentative.
l A.
i 24 4
j Ti!C UITNCGS:
I don' t r emembe r.
i l
3 f
-j j
G2 Lafayette Buildune Lnod Reporting Serelee 39g,n
,,h u,,,,,, gw,.
Suite MO 962.I176 Detroit. \\fichiran 43226 Sune ::o Fnwem R !h \\funs, Jea'e.
I 1
DY IUt. JENTCS:
I
.i i
2 lO Let me hand you another document which has been 3
murl ed ac !!RC 1344.
This document has ~ been 4-I identified ac a summary of a meeting among top 5
executives of Consumero Power on June 22nd and 23 rd 6
of ~197 0 to discuss long-term planning f or the 7
company.
My first question to you is whether or not 8
you've ever seen thic document bef ore?
l' 9
4 A I don't recognice the document.
I have no i
l recollection of having ever seen it be f or e.
10 l
r 11
- 0 In connection with the meetings that you attendec 12 witn the iiRC f or ecast pa nel, do you ever remember j
i g
13 that Consumerc dicciosed to you any of their i
i 14 I
long-term planning documente like ti.is one, apa r t l
4 15 f rom whether you cav thic one, do you ever remember 1G seeing any of the Coacumers long-term planning j
't 17 documents being presented in connection with the 10 f or e ca ct panel meetingc?
19 A
lio.
The panel had a general understanding that --
e l
('
20 and it's not at all unusual that a utility hac j
~
21 long-term planc and has thought out the enti re l
l l
22 construction project.
I don' t recall any -- being i
j 23 given any specific document though that as a j
24 i
representative result of th a t, just a ge ne r al i
l I
i I
l J
l r
63 Lafayette Builduts Luod Reportine Sert ice 3gwg
,,k w,,,, y,cy.
Sage ao 962.))?6
&,is, y o
\\
Detrott \\hchigan 48:26 Formoncton HJh. \\fichigan 48018
1 usual and it's cer tainly.-- but it cer tainly is not 2
without pr e ce de nt.
3
- DY ;iR. JCHTES
4 O
Let me next hand you what has been morhed as CPC 2044 5
and might I also suggect, tir. liood, that cince the i
6 i
documents that I gave you bef ore lunch are ones tnat I
7 I -don' t believe I'll return to, you might sor t of G
i push them off to the side so you have a little more 9
working eoom.
i 10 CPC 2044 is a letter f rom Mr. Howell.to i
4 11 f tr. Repler of June 25, 1579, enclocing what ic 12 described as Interim Repor t No. 6 providing de tailed i
13 supplemental inf ormation regarding remedial actionc 1
14 j
f or fill at the tiidland site and the ' Interim Repor t 15
-Ho'. 6 is attached to this exhibit.
Did you t'eceive a a
j 1G copy of !!r. Ilowell's letter and the attachment in the
)
i 17 co ur se. of your duties at the imC7 10 I
A Ye s.
1 l
19 0
Let me hand you, for your use in connection with CPC 20 2044, a copy of some testimony which you gave bef ore I
21 the Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Board back in 22 December of 1981, a por tion which I've handed you in 23 the prepared testimony of yourself, along with Mr.
24 I
Joseph Kane and tir. Hari Sing, bearing a date of 77 lafayetir Ikla'me Laod Reporting Service y,9
,,, y, Suar MO 962.I1i6 lktroa.11ichiran 48226 Suite 220 Farmmeton Hills. \\bchiran 48018
November 20, 1981,
'I' d ask you to j ust look quickly 2
l I
through that testimony and tell me if you can 3
identify that as the prepared testimony which you 4
gave back in December of 1901 to the ASLB7 L
5 te. LIDnY:
This is j ust.the textural 6
part of his testimony not including exhibits and that 7
sort of thing.
8 12. JEHTES:
That's corroct.
9 TIIC WITUCSS:
Yes, I recognize the 1
10 j
decument as testimony that I helped sponsor bef ore 11 l
the in the OtVOL hearing.
t 12 DY na, JCMTC3:
}
13 0
over on page nine and ten of your testimony in ensucr 14 to question ten -- you have that?
15 A
ye s, i
j
}
1G 0
The quection ten reads "Characteri::e briefly the l
t 17 earlier ef f or to and concerno of the NRC staf f
~
18 l
regarding the fill problem at the Au::iliary Duilding
)
I 19 area" and you begin your answer or really the an:ver j
i 20 of the three poople that I mentioned, "Although the 3
1 21 fill se ttlement problems at the Diesc1 Generator j
22 Building had been identified in August 1978 it was i
i not until June of 1979 that the extent of the problem 1
23 j
i 24 at the Auniliary Building wao made known to the :inc. "
l
}
l 78 La.fayeue Building Luzod Reporting Service p.
,, y Suite fu0 962.))76 Suis 220 Detroit. \\fichigan 48226 Farminrion Hills..\\fichiran 48n18
1 And then you cite to an Interim Repor t tio. 6 2
transmitted by fir. Howell.
Is the letter which I handed you as CPC 2044 the document which you b
3 l
i 4
referred to in the testimony?
5 i
!!R. -LIBBY:
Well, I'm going to object i
6 and if you allow me to m' ke a continuing objection a
7 I' d appreciate it, as I understand ~ the proceeding I
O wh'ere.three people testify in.the 14RC they adopt b
f 9
cor tain por tions and are you representing that this i
)
is the por tion that he adopted.
l 10 t
11 IR. JCITTES :
I don' t want to ge t. into I
i 12 l
that technical a matter.
I'm only trying to identify I
i I.
13 l
cer tair
<acuments that were referred to in the joint i
14 I
i tectimony of Mr. Bood and !!r. Kane and tir. Sing.
j l
15 IR. LISBY:
I don' t want to compo un d i
10 l
the r ecor d, if you'll just allow me a continuing k
17 objection I won' t raise it again.
I'm j ust comewhat
}
)
18 wha t conce r ne d be ca use I don' t have the oppor tunity 19 to go back and cee what cections he was the cponsor 20
~
of or one of the other three gentlemen.
I 21 IE. Jct 1T00 :
You' re certainly entitled i
22 to a continuing objection.
l l
l t
23 BY tiR. JCIITCS :
l 1
24
)0 To cave sono time, tir. Iood, lo the document that I
l l
79 Lafayeur Buildine Luod Reporting Service 3,,g
,,A un,,,n g,cy.
1 Suar Mo 962 1176 Su,g, 220 Detrott. \\lichiran 48:26 Farrnsneton Hdh. \\inchiran 48018
1 I've identified ac CPC 2044 the same Interim Repor t 2
i l
Do. 6 that is referred to in the testimony at the 3
~
q 3
bottom of. page 9 and the top of page ten?
g 4
<A It is.
It 5
l0 Do you agree or disagree with the statement in the 6
testimony that "It was not until June of 1979 'that i
1 7
the extent of the problem at the' Auxiliary Duilding 8
was made known to the NRC'?
i I
5 A
I believe that's an accurate statement.
10 O
Over at the bottom of page ten there's a question
(
11 that reads '*Deccribe the various steps stages of 12 denigri which have been developed by Consumers in f
i 13 i
arriving at the currently proposed remedial l
l 14 underpinning fix f or the Auxiliary Building area"?
I l
15 A
I'm sorry.. Uhere are continuing now.
I 1
i 16 0
Bottom page ten, question eleven.
Ana then over on l
17 i
page eleven in answer to that question there is a 18 description in cub paragrapho A, B, C and D of four 19 design stagoc.
I'd like to ask you to read through l
i 20 those materials and tell me whether or not that is an 2
a 21 accurate deceription of the f our stages of the de si gn j
i 22 development of the remedial ef f or t concerning the 23 Auxiliary Building, i
1 24 (Deposition Cxhibit URC 267 j
1 l
7 l
00 l
Lafayette Building Lnazod Repartiny Sers:iee 3,4g,_,,,,,,,,,,, y,y i
Suite 630 962 1a i6 Suur 220 Detrott. %chigan 48226 Farnuneton Hills, \\fichigan 48018
f Transcript of Atomic Saf ety 1
2 Licensing Bcard hearing 3
for !!idland - Interin Repor t i
4 4
11o. G was marked' f or 5
ide ntifica tion. )
4 6' ~
'~
THE WITNESS: I have read it and I 7
believe it 10 accurate.
8 BY MR. JENTES:
l 0
0 ifhile we've been waiting ior you to finish your 10 reading, Mr. Libby suggested to me that it might be i
11 advicable to mark the prepared testimony an an; i,
t 12 exhibit, so I'll ask the repor ter to mark the 13 materials that I gave you ao !!RC 267.
i 14 Directing your attention once again to 15' Ifr. Howell's letter of June 25, 1979, which is CPC 16 l
2044, in that the document which proposed to the !!RC 1
17 l
the first of the remedial measures, that is indicated l-t a
18 in the prepared testimony to be the Interin Repor t l
l tio. 6 of June 11,197 D?
I 19 g
20 A
Ye s, i t i s, i
i 21 0
tias that remedial progr am for the under -- f or the 1
b 22 Auxiliary Bel'.11ng area carried out by CP?
lt 23 A
That io not the measure tnat was ultimately adopted 3
24 l
as a solution f or the Auxiliary Building.
If your
)
l I
i 4
s G1 l
Lafayette Buildene Luzod Reporting Sertice l
Susse MO 962 11<~6
"~'"""I' Farme;rton Hilh. \\lucl.iafn Detrott, Alichigan 48226 8
1 l
guestion is to ask me did the applicant in fact co 2
some pressure grouting under the Auxiliary Building, 3
I don' t r ecall.
,I i
4 I
C My question was a broader one and that was whether or s
S not t
this initial remedial measure that's described as i
6 the Dune 11, 1979' measure carried out by Consumers 7
i Power, and as I' understood your answer, it was' that 1
0
)
that measure was not pursued by CP, is that.cor rect ?
i i
8 9
A That is cor rect.
That concept of a fix was not 10 j
uj.ti ma tely pur s te d.
I 11 j0 Do y ou kn ow why th at f ix, ac y ou ' ve de scr i be d, - it w as 12 not pursued?
l 13 A
I can' t recall why that fix was nadified and some c
14 other concept adopted.
I can ' t r emembe r.
I 15 I O Do you recall whether or not the NRC voiced any I
4' 16 opposition to this orginal remedici measure?
17 nn. LIBDY:
Objection; icading.
1 i
10 i
TUC UITNCSS:
Do, I can' t recall any l
19 l
specific statements about the adeq ua cy or ina deq ua cy i
i, i
20 of that particular remedial concept.
What was 1
21 happening as a general rule is that we were going j
2 22 f rom one fix to another.
I don' t know at what l
1 d
23 particular point we got into the mode.
I think it l
1 l
24 l
was around March of '7 9, that wo started ashing the I
l l
l l
9 j
S2 yj;,y,u, yjgm,
Lu:od Reporting Service 1
3,w
,,h u,,,,,n guy i
Suite sw 962 1176 Sune 20 i
Detroit. %chigan 48226 Farmrneton Rdh. \\behiron 480l8
i 1
50.5 4 ( f) questions and when we were in that mode we 2
would ask certain questions and.we acked c. serics of 3
l 50.5 4 ( f) questions generally what was happening, 4
instead of an answer to a concrete question on a 5
t parcicular fix, we would perhaps get a new fix 6
involved along the way' and we never really ' knew what 7
was wrong with the previous fix..
That was the 8
dif ficulty we were having in the review of trying to 9
. keep up with an evolving situation.
In the early i
i 10 phases we didn't have a final fix, we only had i.
11 concepto and as those concepts were looked at f,urther j
12 l
the concept would change and we'd have another fix i
13 and it was a bit f rustrating to us to be in an i
14 l
advanced stage of operating license review and still l
i i
15 be dealing with concepts.
Wh'at we' re accuctomed to l
t 10 dealing with at a PSAR stage.when an applicant ic 1
3 t,
17 applying f or a constr uction percit, but in the coll 18 cituation which arose at Midland, we f ound our ocivec l
J 19 l
with a plant in an advanced design phase and in i
(
20 looking at solutions to what to do about the probleo l
21 we were back in a CP mode of operation and it was --
i i
22 we find our ceives talking about conce pt ual f i::e s.
23 BY !!R. JE!!TOS :
i 24 0
In yrur last answer, when you referred at several j
l i
i n
83 Lafayette Balding Luzod Reporting Sertice gn y
Swar MO 962.))76 (ktrout, %charan 48:26 Smte :2n Farmuutton HJh. %chiran 48018
1 i
- points to the fact that a new fix would be proposed, 2
were you referring to a new fix being pro;.oced by l
l 3
Consume r s?
l 4
A Yes.
I 5
O Looking again at page eleven of what's now been l
P
-6 I
marked as NRC 267, there's ~a ' reference' to a se cond 7
design fix being presented on July 10, 1979.
As.you i
8 under stood it, did that fix contemplate using caisson I
~D supports at either end of the electrical pene tr ation i
.[i area to act as a propped cantilever on either sioe of l
10 11 the control tower, as is indica ted in the description j
'12 in the testimony?
i I
t I
13
' A Ye s.
I 14 O
Let me hand you what has been marked as CPC 386, l
15 which is a letter f rom Mr. Howell to fir. Kepict of i
16 August 10, 1979, enclosing the presentation made at 17 the J uly 18, 1979 meeting with the 1:nC at Dethesda 18 and the enclosure actually takes up most of the 19 I
exhibit.
Do you remember getting a copy of this i
20 l
1etter to Mr. Kepler and the enclosures in connection l
21 with your work on the remedial soils activities?
22 A
Ye s.
l 23
- O And without ge tting into the de tails of it, is the e
i 24 r
document that's attached here, the description, am ong i
I i
f i
l C4 Lafapur Buildsnz 30840 \\orthmirrn thq.
Suur Mo 962 1176 Suar ::o Detroa, \\tahigan sc2n Farm <neton Hath..\\hcheran 1801R
1-other things, of the propoced caiocon fix f or the k
2 Auxiliary 3uilding that was proposed on July 10, 1975 3
and that's referred to in your -
.in the prepared i
I 4
testimony?
To accist you in anwering 'I might refor 5
i you over to section 3.6 of the documents, which 6
starts at Bates number 867.
7
'A What pa ge ?
P, O
867.,
7 867.
The Bates numbers run clong the i
9 i
right-hand margin.
I 10 la. LIDBY:
It's cut off, too.
'It's 11 going to to hard for him to tell.
?
12 i BY !!n. JC!!TES :
1 13 0
The other way to get at it in to look f or the V
14 reference number 3.0 in the upper lef t-hand corner 15 and the Auxiliary Building cescription in that '
16 Dection, beginc a t page seven.
Do you have that?
I i
17 A
Ye s.
i l
1 10
)0
!!y question now ic, is the set of materials attacned l
19 to !!r. Ilowell's letter relating to the July 18, 1979 j
I i
j 20 I
meeting the second of the two fixes on the Auxiliary 21 j
Building?
l l
22 A
Ye s, it ic.
l 1
23 Q
ticr e you at the J uly 18,197 D meeting?
i 24 A
Ye 3
,f l
l 05 I
Lafayette Budding
~
Ato %ethurstern Huy 9
I Suar Mo 962 1176 Suur l20 (ktroa. \\fschttan LC26 Formuntron Hdis. \\forhuran 18n)R
1
'O
- In ' addition to the proposed fix on the Auxiliary l'
2 i
I.
Building, was there also a description by Consumers 3
Power Company of the remedial wor k in progress or 4
planne.d with regard to the other buildings that are 5
listed under item 3.0 in the meeting agenda at 055?
6 I
A I be' lieve daat's cor rect.
It seems like a lot to 7
discuss. in one day.
I was j ust looking f or the i
8 i
recor d to see if there was -- this is more than a one h
I S
(
cay meeting.
I don' t see any indication of th at.
l 10
- O As indicated in the agenda items, was one of ?.ho i
I 11
+
reports on the remedial ef f or ts eclated to the wor k f
e 12 on the diesel generator structures?
t i
13 lA The best I can recall, we included Leveral str uctures i
14 l
and the Diesel Generator Building was one of th em.
I j
l 15 believe the answer to that is yes.
16 O
As you understood it, what vac the remedial ef f or t j
17 that Consumers had undertaken concerning the Diesel 5
10 Generator Building?
1 19 i
MR. LIBDY:
I'm going to object be ca use i
I j
20 the question I think is vague and ambiguous.
I 21 4
THC UITUSSS:
At this particular i
22 meeting?
\\
j 23 BY Mn. JENTes:
d, 1
24 j O No.
Dy the time of the meeting in July of 1079, uhat l
l 1
l i
4 BC Lafayette Baildint Lu:od Reportirsg Service 3m40 s,gsun,er, nuy.
Sante W 9g;,j;,g Suite :20
[><troit %chwan 48226 Farmmeron Hilh, %chiran MOIR
1 was your understanding as to what Consumers was doing i
2 l
by way of a remedial ef f or t concerning the diesel l
3 ge no r ator se ttlement problem?
4 A
The remedial action f or the Diesel Generator 5
Building, unlike the other structures, was an area
'6 where the applicant determined very early what his
~
i 7
solution was going 'to be then provided to do that, 1
8 i
implement that action.
It was to place a sand I
9 surcharge inside and arounc the structure and leave 10 it in place for like six or seven months and the 11 l
theory is that the surcharge will compress the l
12 s
material beneath the str ucture in place and i
13 I
essentially ' compress over time, and to f orcc whotever 14 se telements are going to occur to occur early, prior 15 to licensing.
i 1
4 16 O
Referring back to your minute notes on the December 1
?
17 4,197 0 meeting that I gave you carlier and that is a
10 Def endant's Exhibit 1672, had the Constraers Power 19 Company come up with their proposed fix involving a 20 surcharge by the time of that meeting?
i g
21 A
Ye s.
22 Q
Referring over to page seven of your notes of the 23 December 4 meeting, they state in the last pa ragr aph 24 "In its closing comments, the IIRC utaf f stated that j
t m
37 Lafayeur Building Luod Reporting Sers ice 399n g.,k,,,,,,, y, n Suar MO 962.]1i6 q
Detroa, \\fuchstan 49:26 Suite 50 Farmsneton Hdh, \\lichiran L 18
1 the proposed solution is at the rior, of the applicant 4
2 and that liRC intends to reviou and evaluate thic 1
3 matter in accor dance with the originni co=pa ction i
4 requirements ac ce t f or th in the commitments in the f
5
[
PS AR. "
Uns thic statement by the liac ctaff in JW<
6:
relation "to the ' proposed solution involving 'th'e 7
surcharge of the DGB?
8 A
Ye s, it was.
3 9
Q In the next sentence of your December 4 memorandum, 10 or rather of your memorandum concerning the December 11 4 meeting you go onto say *The staf f.also stated j
i 12 I,.
while attention to remedial action in impor tant, s
I 13 detc :sination of the exact cause in also quite 14 impor tant f or verifying the adequacy of the remedial 15 action. annessing the extent of the matter relative to other structures, and in precluding repetition of l
16 j
17 i-cuch matter s in the f uture. "
Following thic cdvice
}
I 18 l
to Consumers Power, was there an investigation 19 undertaken by Constraers Power and Dechtel into the 1
20 ca uses f or the se ttlement prob 1 cms a t the !!idland 21
- i te?
22 t
- 17.. LIDDY:
Can I have that que tion 23 read back again, pleace ?
24 (The pending quection wac road 1
f I
j
)
08
- f. u : d Reporting Service l
lafayette Buildme ya y,
Suur MO 962.))*6 Suar 220 Detroit. Ahchtson 4%26 Farmneton HJh. \\hchuean 4'1018
{
by the Cour t Repor te r as f ollow s :
1 i
2-O Following this advice to 3
Consumorc Power, was there an i
- s.,
4 investiga tion under taken by 5
Consumers Power and Bechtel T
~
6-
~
~
into 'the cause s f or the 7
se ttleme nt pr o'blems a t the 8
i t!idiond site?)
k I
S IR. LIBBY:
I'm going to object be ca use l
10 the question is argumentative.
I 1
~11 i
TIE WI'TNESS:
fly my recollection in 12 j
th a t the event happened af ter this meeting, at sc=e f
i 13 l
point we asked the 50.54(f) questions and those I
14 i
questions were designed to require such f urther 15 exploration to determine the extent of the. problem.
l 16 DY ttR. JCMTcs:
17 0
I'd like to direct your attention to the cet of 1
10 materials attached to CPC 306 concerning the ueeting
)
19 I
i on July 10 of 197 9 and if you look --
l 20 A
Which reference.
21 O
I'm looking at the f at document chore.
If you look j
1 22 in the sort of agenda notes at the beginning under l
1 23 heading 7.0, it's on Date s number C56.
It's heading 24 l
7.0, do you see that?
i.
l 00 Lafa)ene Baddme Lu:od Reporting Service Suar h30 9g;,,;7g 3m;o so,isu,ur,n nuy.
t 5,,ier 2.m Detemt, %chigan 4822b fanningian HJh. \\hrhuran 18018
1 A
Ye s.
l
?
2.
O It's entitled cause investigation and then if you l
3 turn over into the body of the cocument thic 4
discussion appocrs at Datos number 7 896 and 7097.
Dy 5
i j ust sor t of skimming down through those matters and 6
by.also looking at figures 61. through-71, which wore 7
apparently used as part of the presen' tation and 8
appear at the very end of the onclosure to Mr.
1 I
9 Howell' c letter, can you tell me whether or not that i
10 cause investigation discuculon was reviewed with you l
11 and the rest of the NRC peopic at thin July lu,197 9 l'
12 mee ting?
l' 13
- A Yes, as I recall, it was.
I 14 j0 In the textural materials at page 897, there's an 15
' indica tion that "the five most probable causes 16 remaining af ter evaluating the possible causes are, 17 i
not necessarily in or der of impor tance" then there's i
18 a 'l ict of the five cause s.
Did the NRC staff ever j
19 reach an opinion as to whether or not these were or i
i 4
t 20 were not the most probable cause:7 i
21 lA The NRC's investigation into the probable cauce was 22 j
that associated with ILS' c inspection or k
j 23 l
investigation our review was somewhat limited as to 24 probabic cause of the event.
There was -- the staf f i
i 4
l
~
l 90 Lafayeur Busidme Suur MO 962'liI6 3n840 %rthur<rern Hu y n
Iktroa \\1ochiran 48:26 Suor ::0 Farmmeron HJh. \\1ochnuan 4mla I
1 position was that the overall cause was associated t
2 with a breakdown in quality assurance with respect 1
to l
3 soils placement aspects, prior to De cembe r 6 th,197 S.
4 Ultimately the applicant did not contest that. point 5
j or agreed not to contest it and that limited the i
G
~
extent' to which the NRC rev!ewed that' matter.
7 0
11ould you read that answer, please.
O l
(The _ pending answer was read 4
9 l
by the Court Repor ter as f ollows:
10 A
The imC's investigation into 3
11 i
the probable cause was that i
12 j
associated with I&E's inspection i
i I
13 l
or investigation our review was l
i l
14 somewhat limited as to probabic 15 ca use of the event.
There was -- 1 I
16 i
the staf f position was that i
4 17 5
the overall cause was accociated j
10 1
with a breakdown in quality 5
i 19 assurance with respect to j
20 soils placement aspects, prict i
21 De cembe r 6,197 9.
Ul tima tely i
22 the applicant did not contest that 1
23 point and that limited the extent {
24 o which the !ZC reviewed that t.
I I
~
t 01 lafayette Buildme l'u: d Reportung Sertice 3(,,9
,, h,,,,,,n y, r Suar Mn 962.]}76
- Detrat. \\bchigan 4C26 kra;}o Farmington Hd!% \\hchttan 4Roth i
1 matter.)
f 2
[ DY !!R. JE!!TCS :
3
<0 Did the staff conduct any invectigation of the l
i 4
probabic cause s ao r epor ted by Consumers on July 10, 5
l 19797 l
6 MR. LIDBY:' I' m go'ing to obj ec,t be ca use 7
I think it's been asked and'. answered,.- but maybe I'm C
i unclear as to what you' re asking.
1 I
9
' ale WIT!itSS :
The staff had already --
l 10 at that point had already conducted its investigation i
11 and that was the investigation we' tall:cd about 12 l
carlier that had been perf ormed by fir. Gallagher, tir.
i I
13 i
Philipc and !!r. tiaxwell.
He had an interect in the 14 quality assurance aspects and the 50.54(f) que stion 15 that we acked.
He went af ter certain - we asked i
1G certain questions, question number one and question j
l 17 23, that were directed to the quality accurance and 10 got into come of this a s t o the probable ca uce s, but f
more so about what's being done to correct the 19 20 l
problem to accure that it has been corrected f rom a 21 QA standpoint.
To that extent we got into it, or 22 f acets of it, but the otaf f f or its purpose as to i
23 i
probable cauce accepted the findings of the finC'c 24 inve ctiga ti on.
t i
^L
$Af0)1tle Buildme Yui %rthue< tern Hu y State Mn 962*11I6 14trott, \\fuchreae #22s Suite 22u Farmenernn Hi!h. \\tehrte 18nin
1 BY MR. JEMTES:
i 2
O Apa r t f rcm the r epor t that was made on July 10, 1979, i
3 vere you aware of the so-called Kepler-C'rago analysis 4
of -cause s that was under taken by Consumers and i
5 i
Be chtel ?
'6'
! ' A' I've heard some discus 51on of that somewhere along 7
the way, but I think it was in connection with those 8
questions that I deciced, question one and 23, that I
S those questions were reviewed by us by a member ~ of i'
10 our quality assurance branch within NRR.
I myself l
I 11 had ver,y limited recollection of that but I think i
12 that's where I heard the discussion in che context of i
i 13 those two questions.
14
! O Mell, did you know that Constraers and Dechtel had 15 been working f or quite some. ti:ue on the analysis of 16 the probable causes bef ore they were repor ted to the 17 I
i Imc on July 10, 19797 1
l 10 l
121. LIDaY:
Objection; leading.
10 1
1 TilC UIT!!CCS:
I don' t know if we knew i
20 that f or a f act.
I think it was more of a i'
21 3
procumption on our part that a utility would to be i
1 22 doing that kind of thing if he nas a significant 23 i
problem, cer tainly we would c::pe ct him to be doing i
24 those kind of th ings.
I tmlieve that in the j
4 i
i
?
n 93 l'u: d Reportine Sertice f.afayette Rwidme y
Swor 100 96:.)176 Swi,. pho (ktra t. %hitan 48:2t>
Farmt ron Hall. \\forh.ran utnl8
1 discuccions it was cicar that there h r! been of f er to 2
to -determine earlier reasons, although I don' t know
\\
whether or not they were a cyctematic attcapt to do j
4 that er not.
5 BY !!R. JCMTCS :
I I
-6 O
Let me show you what's been marked as 'CPC 883, which 7
is a document that has beer. identified as a 1
8 i
memor andum f rom Hr. C. A. Runt to Mr. Keeley of h
'O Consumers dated Febr uary 21, 1979 on the cubject l
4 10 "Midland Plant Diecel' Generator Pounda tion Bechtcl's I
i 11 prelimina ry oeviation sta tement 2-15-7 9 (Kepler-Trago 12 analysia)" The ;1rct memorandum in the package at 13 585 9 containe d a number of comments.
I'm not l
i 2
14 S
pacticularily interested in those, but then you vill l
15 see that there's a packsoe of materials behind thic a
16 that bearc the cite manager's stamp f or Concumore und 17 containe draf ts of many of the charta that ultitactely 4i I
la I
1 chosed up in the presentation on July 18, 1979.
I'c 19 like to ask you to look through thore and in 20 l
particular at the one that has the Dates number DOCS i
21 l
that r ef ers in the upper right-hand cor ne r to I
22 l
"dcAlberato f alcification to ge t work over with s
an I
eacy."
I'd like to Ock you to look through the f ull set of charts.
4 i
94 (A[Q)ette B.sadsne Statte MO 96211Ib 30810 \\orthues: errs Hu).
Detroa. \\fschigan 4Ch Stutte :;M Farmweton Hdh. %chigan 48018
f 1
A I've look at the s2 ide: briefly, f
any. time in connection with the meeting on July 2
0 At 3
10, 1970 or the evente leading up to that meeting, 4
did you ever hear any referenco f rom persons outcide 1
l 5
j the tiRC to the suggestion that there was any
'4 falsification of the analysis by consumers Power or 7.
Bechtel in oroer te get tho' work over with eacy?
E' l
15. LIBBY Obj ecti on, it's I
l S
ar gume nta tive.
I 10 l
nic iTITUCSS:
No.
l 11
- DY ttR. JC!!TCS i
{
12 0
Uithin the 11RC, was thero ever any discuccion that f
13 Consumers had come up with it: analysis of the soilo I
14 l
problem in order to get the remedial work over with s
15 casy or words to that effcet?
1 16 MR. LIDDY:
Objection; leading and 1
'17 argumentative.
3 10 mit MIT11 Css:
tio, I don't recognize a
19 i
such a comment.
i 20
' BY tm. JCUTCS :
i 21 lC Let me hand you two documento, the first. is DCC 53f;,
2 'l which is a review of U.S.
Testing field and k
23 9'
labor atory constr uction test data on soils used a:
24 fili, a document prepared by Dochtel and dated June 1
i S5 f afayerre Buildnt d Reportine Sert ice 9
Suar h30 9b2-)i ?6 kar bo Detroa. \\fichigan 48:26 Fermmtwn Hells, \\luchwan IRnis
1 i D7 9 and a document previously markedao DEC C33, 2
menor andum of a telephone converna tion be tween !!r.
t i
k 3
Hr.rtine j and Keeley of July 10, 1979 on the subject i
4 of this same U.S. Testing soils repor t.
I' d like to l
5 ask you to read BCC S33, which is very shor t, and k
6 then j ust -sor t of take a look at DEC 55 8.
'ity first 7
question will be devoted to BCC 558 and it is whether 8
or not you ever saw this repor t by Bechtel on U.S.
'Te sting 9
i 10 jA The answer is yes.
}
11
- O Did you see the' report th at 's D EC 55 8, oe f or e the i
1 *2 i
June 15,197 9 meeting, as you recall?
j 13
!!R. LIDDY:
I think you misquoted i
14 yourself, you just said J une 10, you mean July 18.
15 BY HR. JDITCS :
16 0'
July 18,197 9 Let me start again.
Do you recall 17 seeing the July -- I'll have to try again.
Do you 18 recall veing BCC 558, either at or prior to the July l
19 l
10, 1979 meeting?
}
j 20 A
I don't remember when I first tw the document or how 21 I came to see it and I don' t remember the timo that !
J 22 first saw the docu:aents.
I bellwe it came to me i
23 through I&E and that it was a docume t that they hac.
l 24
! O Can you recall --
)
i l
2 l
l l
96 4,,,, yjg,,
Lu:od Repornny hrcice mo y,
,,,,, y Scar MO 962 1176 Detroa, \\!chiranfC26 Snae :20 Farmington Hath.11schocaqM0l8
1 1
'A
! know that it was a document that was referred to in f
2 the O!t/OL hearing.
As I recall, there vere two 3
invoutigation repor ts into U.S.
Tecting and I don' t 4
know if this in the earlier er the later.
I'n j ust 5
not that f amiliar with the repor t itself.
I-know 6
about-the repor t, not of the report.
7 l0 When are the ON/0L hearings that you just referred l
0 to?
4 D
'A
' U he n?
i 10 O
Yes, when did 'those occur ?
i 11 l Is I don' t r emembe r.
I j ust know ouring the cource of
(
12 that hearing liics Stimiris made ref erence -to tnece 13 I
1 reports and I believe it was one of her c::hibits, I f
I 14 believe it's this repor t.
There was two exhibitt and 15
'one of them. was withdrawn or sorsething.
16
, O I don't need to tect your memory quite that auch.
]
17 i
Were the hearings that you' re talking about those l.
I 10 th at be gan in 19 G17 19 in. LISDY:
I'm going to object, it's 1
20 i
ar gume nta tive.
I 21 l
Td e WIT.1tSS :
Ye s, the 0; OL hearings, 22 the hearirigs regarding the !!idland soiln natter.
23 BY tiR. JE11TCS :
24 l0 Ano wac that the first occa: ion, innof ar oc you kne.',
4 l
07 f.afayette Saldme Lu:od Reporting Sen v'e Sue, Mn 962.I176 3ma y,,,9,,,,,,, y,g _
[htrat. \\lichigan LC:t>
suae ;20 Farmneon Hills. \\luchwan utnl8
1 that you ever saw either DCC SSG or the other verston 2
of the repor t on U.S. Tecting that you j ust
+
I-3 mentiere d?
I 4
!A I don' t know.
I don't know when I first saw the 5
document or how I came by it.
I know at some point I 6
.have seen this document. -'
7 Q
All I'm trying to get.at is that you indicated, as I I
O understood your testimony, that it was at that time I
C that you had thic genecal recollection that there wac i
l 10 a reference to the U.S. Testing report and what I'm r
l 11 g
now searening f or in do you have any recollection of l
12 ever seeing the
".S. Testing repor t prior to enat se t i
j 13 of hearings?
f i
i 14 I
NR. LIBBY:
objection; acked and 15 an swer ed.
'16 l
Tuc u1Tutss:
I don' t know.
l 17 l DY MR. JENTES:
~
i 18 0
Let me hand you a document which has previously boon ii 19 marked as NRC 5 0 and I apolog. e f or not giving you 20 this earlier.
I' d f or gotten that I had the se t of i
21 notes that you had apparently prepared summari-ing 22 j
the July 10, 1979 ne c ti ng.
In any event, is MRC S G e 23 i
set of notes that you prepared on the July 16 l
24 meeting, along with --
4 l
a 90 Lafaserie Buddine Lu:od Reportsne Sers ice
_y Suur' hw 96: lli6 Suur :ba Iktrmt, \\hekiran 48:26 Farmineton Hdis.1hchien wha
1 2 7.. LIBBY:
Lookc like we have tuo 2
documents.
4 i
3 B Y P.R. JC:ITCS:
I l
4 O
'Along with the enclosure one list of. attendees and l
i 5
i
.then there appearn to be come materials that begin at 6
Bates number 1904, 'which in 'looking' through them now 7
don' t seem to have any relationship to your meeting 8
notes.
So my question is directed solely to whether I
S or not you can identity the three pages of your notes i
10 and the encionure one at being your note: of the J uly
}
k 11 i
10, 1979 meeting?
)
s 12 A
I believe the Bates numbers that begin 900 and j
i 13 continuo through 903, I note that 904 in blank, is my i
I 14 i
vercion of the July 10, '7 9 meeting.
I 15 Q
Directing your attentio' n'over to the third paragraph h
1G on page two which begins with
- Dechtel described 's 17 structural and scismic analytical investigation as 1
l 10 being perf ormed are planned f or the af fected 19 l
ctr uctures, etco ter a. "
Could you read that Ieragraph i
4 1
20 to your self, please.
l l
4 21 lA I've road it.
6 s
22 O
Uhot were you referring to when you spoke about the f
l 23 "Acceler ati on (g ) val ue. "?
}
,! A The g value or scianic accolcration value t er the 24 k
s k
i I
t 99 Lafayette Bwidint 3%In \\c"hurst+rn Hu]
Swt* MO 962 III6 Swr
- Cn Detroa. Vrhiran 48:26 Formuncton Udh. %rktean 3018
1 cite was being reviewed by the staf f as part of the 2
CL or PSAit rovicw and we wcro re-examining the b4cio j
I 3
f or a previous position that had been taken which was 4
an assumption that went into the earlier accepted I
s3,:
5.
val ue, g v ali.e by the st af f th a t th e -- f or pur po se s 6
of the const uction permit and ~ that issue' centered 7
around whethe r or not the tectonic province,f or the 6
j Midland area could be viewed as a separate bacin, i
9 whetner the '!!icnigan basin could be viewed as a 1
10 l
separate tectonic province or whether it was an j
11 integral part of another, namely the Centr al Tectonic l
12 hegion.
The connotation of the latter ascuc.ption 5
g 13 l
vould mean that more severe earthquaken like the
{
i 14
!)or th Anna earthquake would have to be considered, if 15 indeed the assumption coult'. not be ' dofended that the 16
!!ichigan basin is a separate tectonic province.
That l
i 17 was the issue we were f ocusing on in re-examining as I
10 part of our OL review and it was our opinien that the 19 previous accumption wac not adeguately suppor ted and 20 theref ore the g value associated with the Itidland i
21 cito was probably more covero than the value that the 22 staf f had accepted f or pur po se o of the conste uction 23 pe rm it, i
r' 24 0
t? hat was the origin.nl 9 value that had been acceptea?
l
}
i 100
\\
9
,yyy, Lu:od Reportine Sertice l
f yo g,,,,, y
!~ r, ma 962 1176 Suar l20 Detmt, %chiran 48:2*>
Farwcv>n &llt \\hchaean 4Rnl8
1 A-I don' t r emembe r.
2 O
Let me ach you to look back to the repor t on the July f
3 10, 1979 mooting that's attached to Mr. !!awell' c 4
letter, 306.
It's the big f at document and direct i
5 your attention over to page 07 8 I hope they chow up 6
on your version.
Under the heading'4.0 analytical 1
7 1
investigation, do y~ou have that?
8 A
Ye s.
I D
- O Talks a little bit about various items including f our l
10 j
.2 sciamic analysco, then if ; ou turn over to the l
t 11 ne xt page '07 9 in the second f ull paragraph you'll cce j
t 12 a ref erence in there to ocrtain g values.
Doe s that 13 l
help ref resh your recollection ac to what the I
14 original g values were at the Midland cite?
15 A
Ye s, it doec.
It tella me that the orginal values
{
4 16 were point.069 f or the operating basis car thquake l
g i
I 17 and.129 f or the saf e chutdown earthquake or decign l
IC ba si s ear thq uake,
h 19
!O And if it turned out that Michigan was not a ceparate i
I 20 l
tectonic bacin, but was in f act a pa r t of a br oade r j
4 l
?
21
{
bacin, did you have an underctanding as to what the l
{
I 22 i
impact would be on the.129 figuro, appro inately?
i i
i 23 A
I cidn' t myscif, but I feel th a t there were i
24 l
ceiccologiste within the URC who had come f eel for
~
f A
i l
101 Lafnytte Buddme 3m pi %nhur.riern Hu r Swir hw 962 11 6
.%urrim Derrat. %chigan M:2n formonew Hdh. Vchrean WR
1 the cutent to which it would be expected to incroace, f
2 O
And what was the expoctation, as you unceratcod it?
,i 3
A It was about double.
l 4
0 During the discuscion that took place on the seinmic 5
issue s at the J ulv 18, 1979 meeting, did you and the 6
other members oof the staf f explain 'the analysis that 7
was going on with'. regard to the potential shif t f rom 0
the Michigan tectonic. banin to a broader b'asin and 6
D what impact that might have on the g values?
i 10 lA Did we explain it to --
l 11 0
1ha CP and Dechtel?
Let oc try to help out a little
(
t 12 bit, Mr. Hood.
In the notes that you prepared that
)
i 13 i
are NRC SG, this subject la covered in a centonce or 14 When you gave your answer to my question about so.
15 what was involved, you gave a much more elaborate 16
'discuccion of the mattor and and I'm wondering how 1
i
'17 much of the inf ormation that you conveyed in your 10 answer was conveyed to Concu=ces and Bechtel as you i
j 19 i
recall, at the time of the J uly 10, 1979 meeting?
l 4
20 lA I don't knc '.
I can' t determine f rom ray notes herc 21 i
whether or not we got into a 6c tailed discussion of i
22 the progress of our PSAR review at that point er not.
23
)
I do know we had ceveral poetings with Concumerc 24 Power Company to discuts the sciumic aspects of the i
I L
\\
\\
102 yfygg, yjg,,
Lu:od Reportir<r Service
&lar M o 962. ] ] ? 6
,,,, y lbtmt, \\fichtsan 48:26 Suar,%
l Farmmvon Hills 11dican 18018
1 plan:. ancociated with the detor:aina tion of r
the pr oper
{
2-seismic g value, response f actor f or the Midland t
l 3
plant.
I don' t knou the c:: tent to which we discuscoc 4
that problem at thic particular mooting, that wac 5
your question.
6 0
Well, do you recall whether or not at the July 18, 7
l 1!T7 9 meeting the staf f at least indicated to 8
Constraces that there might in. an increase in the g p
i 9
value an a result of the reanalysis that wac going i
10 g
on?
i t
11
!!R. LIDnY:
Objection; leading.
12 l
Tt!C WIT!iESS:
I'n quite cer tain the 13 ataff understood Jrca the comments that I have here I
14 that we were looking at that again and that he i
15 understood very early why we were looking at it l
16 again.
!!e understood, as I explained, th at we wer o 4
17 re-examining the basic f or the contraption that had s
t 1
3 18 j
been uade at the construction permit stage and I'm t
19 quito corteln that he understood at that revieu it 20 I
vac likely to result in a higher g value, not a icwor t
4 21 9 val ue, so he understood f rom the beginning why ue 22 l
were looking at it again and it was -- the technical i
23 l
implicatians of that were an increase, not a i
24 y
de cr ease, not a status quo.
t t
103 jgg,u, gjgg, Lu'od Reporting Sernce
,,b n,e~t g,< t
.%ue Mo 962 1i?b lherrmL \\l.chsten 4t: n krie ::<>
l Farm:nerm HJh, \\hrhigan wil';
\\
4 1
O Could you re-read j uct the beginning of tit. Hood':
2 an ver.
I think he may have =icspoken.
i 3
i (The pending ancuer wac read f
i 1
4-
}
by the Cour t Repor ter ac f ollowc:
I 5
A I'm quito certain the S'
staf f understood f rom ~ the 7
comments that I have here B
we were looking a t that i
S l
again and that he underctood 10 very early why we vere 11 looking at it again.)
l 12
. BY tm. jet:TES :
I I
13 0
The reporter.having read to you the beginning of your i
14 answer as it wac transcribed, was there an error in s
15 the ref.erence to the taf f ?
t 1G A
Ye s, there wac.
I intended to refer to the utility's 17 technical staf f.
I 18 O
Thank you, tihy don't we take a break at thic point.
(
10 I
(Drief recess in proceecing.)
1 20 3Y 11R. JE!:TES :
21
!O Continuing with the repor t that you prepared or, the I
22 J uly lu,197 9 cec ting, which is imC 5 8, I'c like to l
23 ask you a gucation about the material: in the first f.
24 paragraph on pace two cf your cumuary.
There you 104 Lafasette Buildint 3ns10 %rthmirrn Hu,.
Suar h30 9 6 2 l l ** b Suar ::n Detroa, \\fichigan 48:26 Formarw Hulh, \\lichigan trol 8
1 I
indicato that the staf f noted that CP's recponce to l
2 the 50.5 4 req ue nt had not. resulted in identifica tion 3
of criteria in advance of_ the remedial action.
4 Rather the reply notoc that the critoria vill be 5
de termined during or af ter the remedial ~ action. Then 6
you indicate that the staf f stated th'at' "This 7
approach by the applicant-does 'not provide f or timely i
O staf f f eedback at the out'se t, hat r ather the staf f k
'l 9
must await results of cne program to deternirn wnst i
g l
10 acceptance criteria were used and if they are e'
i 11 T
acce ptable. "
.Then you conclude that "Tnus the 12 remedial action is being conducted entirely at the 13 applicant's own risk." Harking back to the comuent 1
i 1
14 that had alna been mace in the December 4,197 6 15 moeting, van there any discussion at the J uly 10, l
I l
16 197 9 oeeting about the staf f's 6esire that it chould 3
17 receive advance notice of f urther actions uith regard j-1 10 to the surcharge at the Diesel Generator Building?
i 19 l
I'm going to object be ca uce 20 the question in vague and ambiguous.
l 21 T!!C WIT;1 ESC:
I dan't underct;nd the 22 question when you mean advanco notice of -
you mean Of a conntr uction na ture?
(
23 24 BY MR. JC:ITES :
S I-I J
105 lafayette (kddme Lu od Reportsne Settice aw \\orthuraren Hur a
Sutt* MO ngy,yy7s Surre 3 (kiroa, \\bchtra" 48:2n Femneron HJ!u \\behigan wolR
1 O
Ye s, but' Ict me try to be mor e precioc.
In 2
connection with the paragraph that I ref erred to at l
i I
3 the top of page two, was there any specific 4
j discussion about whether or not the staff wanted to 5
l i
5 receive advance notice bef ore the -curcharge on she f
'DGB was ' removed?
6 7
A I don
- t know if there was a specif.ic statement made 8
i to th at.ef f e ct or not.
Our f ocus was in trying to h
9 understand what criteria the' utility was using ac a i'
10 basis f or j udgoent of acceptability or t
11 una cce pta bil ity.
What measure he would be using and j
i 1;
how he would know.whether or not he had acnieved that 10 degree of success or not.
We viewed the program as 14 i
one in which basically he' c icarning as you go.
You s.
15 are doing someth.nv to the structure and the 'way the i
16 structure is behaving is telling you whether or not l
17 you ought to be doing that or not and we had como i
10 concern about that particular modo of operation and 19 l
it is not a normal way one proccees, particulari)y 20 it's not a process that lends itccif very well te 21 l
peer review which is the througn the licencing 22 l
pr oce s s.
He prefer a method where methods are 23 thought out first, criteria are established, the road 04 capc, if you will, are thought out and everyone 10G 4,v, y;sm, Luod Reportsn. Sernte ymo y,,g,,,,,, y 5,,, sw 962 117b Swtr (Heat, \\fuchntan 48::n Farmmeron Hn!h. \\behare PsalR
4 1
[
understand: what has to te do ry.:.
Then you go aht:cd I
2 and you do it and you have all the indications there 3
and you are are able to measure as you go und. kners 4
where you are at any point in time, adj ust the 5
approach mid stream if need be, if you see deviations 6
f rom expected norms, 'which means you understand 7
what's the norms are and what you. expect to see 1
0 happen, so this was not that type of approach and I
i 9
'that's really -- it's an approach where you really 10 can' t deticemine if you've been succconf ul until 1
11 you' ve altency done i t, so that's the concern I was i
12 exprecains here.
t g
13 0
Was that concern stated gr.rerally or did it have i
i i
I 14 particular application to what was being done at the 15 i
Diesel Generator Building at the time of the meeting?
16 A
It had application in regardo to the diccol generator l
17 I
fix.
I 3
10 l0 Did you have any understanding at the time of tho l
19 I
meeting in July of 1979 as to how long the curcharge 20 I
would remain on?
I i
21 lA I believo an ecticate was given by Dr. Itek of cn 22 appr o::ims tion.
I don' t recc11 his eatina te, but !
j believe that queotion was raiced, i
23 24 l0 Let me chow you a document which nan boon marked ac f
107 tarym, Ltdae Lmd Reportsn; Sertice Suite Mn 96:.))i6 3,we ly, ik troa. \\hchuras 49:26 Farmmeton Hdh.1hrbran wts
1 CPC 1727, which hac been identified ac a memorandum 2
from I:r. T.C. Cooke, with an o, to the 'tilo of August
)
i 3
6th,1979 reporting on a meeting that had taken place j
4 l
on J une 20, 1979, with a number of people, incl uding l
t 5
the consultants to Constners on the soile issues.
6 You'll see in the introduction that Mr. Martiner 7
noted that the meeting was being hold to finali:e the 8
consultants recommendations f or inf ormation to be r
r 9
se nt to the -NRC on J uly 6 th in preparation f or cho i
j 10 l
July 18 meeting.
I'd like to ask you to j uct l
sort of g
11 cxim through the docume.it to state whether or not you i
12 ever caw this doctment bef ore?
t
'A I seem to recognize at least pieces of it, I believe 13 i
14 in connection with the hearing.
i l
15 0
Again, referring to these '01 hearings, the soile 16 remedial hearings?
l 17 A
Ye s.
I recogni::e the handwritten notes regarding the i
l 18 Dietal Generator Building.
I believe are a ttributed 19 to Dr. Pech.
He had como testimony, I believe 20 regarding that.
There's an attachment, the last two
'l pages necmc to be f amiliar in the conto::t of the 23 hearing accument, come body ' s e ;;h ibi t f.e r haps.
I 23 O
But again that was later in 1901, in that merect?
l 24 A
That would have been later in ' Cl, yec.
l 100 f.daretir Lume 1.saod Reportsng Sernce Swre Mo 962 1176 S.,ar :%
krat, \\behiran AC2h Farmmeon Ihlh. \\bchican tv's
g.
3 1
O Uell, lot me dirce; your attention, if I may, to page t
i 2
two of fir. Cooke 's Auguot G th e
'7 9 memor andum unde r s
3 the subject r emoval of cur charge where he states that 4
"The consultants notoo it vould.take.appro::imately 5
eight wecks of or: curate readings prior to removal of i
6
' l the surch'arge to'obtain required evidence, even b
7 though an accurate prediction could probably be made 8
at this time by bracketing the residual settlement I
-9 e xpe ct e d.'"
Here you advised back in the summer of 10 197S that the consultants had noted that it would i
11 take approximately eight vecks of accurate readinco 12 prior to removal of tne surenarge to obtain the i
13 required evidence 7 14 i
i
- 12. LIBBY:
I'm going to object because 15 I think the question is vague and ambiguous, but it 16 aust =1 ht be me.
9 F7 l
t TBC tiI% CSS:
In one of the earlier
)
10 l
l ceetingt that we had when the sur charge was 10 di scusse d, and it may have been the '7 0 raceting vc 20 had, I think that was the meeting where Dr. peck l
21 1
briefly outlined the surcharge program, and he h
22 l
offered some idea about his projection, ac 1xst I can 1
23 f
recall, which 13 cased on some later documente that I i
24 looked a t.
It oc em s t o =c th a t I think he also t
100 La aptu Ltdane
- W"W *"
- r us*> %-:n evem Hu v Suae MO 96: 11I6 Detrar. \\hcheae as::s kur l}n Far~ancm Hdh. \\lahean MM
1 described some instrumen::ation that would be used in 2
conne ction with the surcharge program and I think it
?
l 3
was - I think that osti. mate that he of fered was in t
4 pa rt tied to in part to the readingc that he would 3
i 5
ge t.
I remember him using the wor ds like f or the j
6 time f or the sur charge to do its thing.
But I know 7
we discussed somewhat the particular instrumentation 0
l that would be used in conjunction with the surcharo.e
'S l
and I think there was some acknowledegment of the k
10 readings.and the overall connotation was that this 1:
[
11 the kind of tizac you would need to see those 1,
12 indi ca tions, so I guess the answer.ic yec.
i l
13
- BY Im. Jt!!TCS
i 14 0
Did consumers notify the flRC bef ore it removed the 15 cur charge ?
16 im. LIDDY:
Objections lack of i
i 17 f ounda tion.
10 l
TilC 11ITitCCS:
I don' t know.
I know l
19
}
that we had some appreciation of the time f rame of t
I 20 the oper ation.
If you say by did they notify, if you 21 l
nean come phone call re.ade to inf orm some individual 22 l
like the region, I don't know.
1 23 BY liR. JCtlTES :
l 24
)O Uell, let me nand you a occument wnich bac previoucly 11 0 Igneur Ladu 3m %rthu'rr. Hu >
Quy, g 0D?' S ?D Sulle ).M Detroa, % kite LS::b formmt!* d'Ih. Wh'tu WUM
1 been marked as CPC 1947 Thic is a letter f rera !!r.
l i
2 llowell to Mr. Ecpler of September 5,197 D and 1
3
' attached an enclosure one ic Management Corrective 4
Action Report No. 24 concerning the settlement of th e 5
l diesel generator f oundations and if you look over to 6
page eight of that repor t at Dates number 6569 --
7 MR. LDBBY:
Can we go off the record 8
f or j ust a se cond?
i h
'S I
!R. JCNTES :
Why don' t ~I finish my i'
10 que cti on.
11
, BY MR. JEUTCS:
10 l0 Under the heading proload operation, it sayc "Tue 13 l
proload operation has been suceeccf ully completed. "
i 14 Then j umping over a little f ur ther in the sentence 15 the paragraph it says ' removal of preload commenced I
~
e 16 l
on August 15,197 D. '
Does that help ref rech your i
17 recollection ac to whether CP notified the NRC in i
,4 advance or not regarding the removal cf the l
10
}
19 cur char ge ?
s l
20 MR. LIBBY:
Of f the r ecor d i
?
21 i
(A brief discuccion wac held att
,h
~~
the recor d.)
I 23 T;IC UITUCSS:
It containa the ctatement i
24 th at tella rae when the proload vac removed, at leact 3
s 111 lafamte Lidint "I
30840 \\nethe r<rern fin Slar Mn 962 1176 y
IHrotu %chigan 43L%
5,,g, by Farmtwon Hdh. %rhirn nom
I the start of it.
They started removing on August 15 l
2
'7 9.
'It doesn' t j og my namory at to whether or not
)
1 3
staf f were told in advance of that or not.
4 BY !!R. JCMTESS 5
0 Do you recall any discussions within the staf f in S'
l
' September or October of 1979, in which concerns were 7
expressed about the handling of the remedial soils 1
0 ef f or t by Consumers?
)
I
'9 i
HR. LIBBY:
Objection; the question in i
10 j
vague and ambiguous.
11 ItR. JEUTCS:
!!r. Libby, I've got one of-
~
12 t
two enoices, cither I can load j ust a little bit so j
i 1
13 we don' t take no long or I can ask vague ano j
4 14 i
ambiguous questions.
You object to them either way.
i 15 I'm more than happy to be mor e precise, it Would help s'
16 a lot, but every timo I do that you seem to have a 4,
17 leading objection and I'm more concerned about the I
10 icading objections, though not very much, th an I am 19 j
about the vague and a=biguous one s.
In any event, 20 i
Mr. Ilood, can you answer the question.
21 g
TUE WITUCSS:
Could I have the quaction i
22 back, pleace.
i 23 lB) !!R. JENTES:
1 24 0
Let me try again to move this along.
Let me nano you I
i 112 I.u: d Reporting Sert oce Lafaytor kidar 3,y, g,,,,, y, Sws, ay 96.* 1176 Soar * :.'o r
Intmut. Whiran 482.%
Fawcron fluih. Whrerin m'IR
1 5
what hac been merhed ac tmC 473.
Can you identify l
2 this document as the letter that was sont f rom.the l
3 tmC to Connumers on December 6 th,197 9,.
tramcmitting 4
an order modifying constr*.,07it n permits that was 5
entered the samt day?
6 A
Ye s.
This i s t.De De cembe r 6 th, 197 9 or de r i ssue d by 7
the NRC modifying construction permits with respect '
B to the soilo problem at Midland.
9
'O 1Did this -or der result f rom -input f rom the staf f -
i 10 let me stop there.
Did thic result f rom input f rom 11 the staff?
1 I
12
,A Ye s.
i 13
!O And in summary, what pocition did the staf f take in 14
'I regard to whether such an order should be entered?
15 A
The staff felt the order was proper and should bc t
1G iss ue d.
17 0
And in summary, why did thin -- why did the staf f l
10 feel that an order like thic should te iscued, which j
10 in num provided f or a stop work on a number of s
j 20 activitics, ao licted on pagcc five and six of. the 21 or de r ?
l 22 i A There are three basc o f or the or der.
One, relates to t
23 a material faloc statement in the r3An.
Another was l
i 24 i
the staf f pocition that there had been a breakdown in I
I J
113 Isfayrtir B.aldint sMa %rthuru*rn Hn kre ao 962 1176 kor :h
'\\
ikrmt. Whigan 48:26 Femnetcm Hdh. %chiran wls t
n 1
quality a:surance with respect to soils matterc pr!or 3
to December G th,197 9 and the other matter relates to 3
'the f act that the saf ety associated with the soils 4
remedial mattor was another matter for which we had
-i 5
l the proper assurance at that time.
6~
Q Tou referred to a material f alse atatement.
lus that'
~
7
- the f alse statement that's referred to in the firnt 8
f ull pa r agr aph on pa ge tw o of the or de r th a t st a r t s j
i I
9 out '"The items of noncompliance, etcet era'?
10 A
17here are you again.
In the first paragraph of two?~
f 11
{ Q Ye s, th at starts, *Tne items of noncompliance *?
f 1
A Yes, that's the item.
[
13 l0 Let me break into the soils chronology again at.this i
i 3
14 point to turn to the Caseload Forecast Panel 15 activities with which you were also' invoived, and i'n i
10 that connection ~1et me hand you two documento, CPC l
1 17 27 4, which is a nemor andm: f r om Mr. Ke n ne th ra ine o' l
18 CP reporting on a panel visit on September 10 and 10, I
10 197D and a docmaent that has been previoualy marked i
i 20 as flRC 76, a cuamary of the same aceting apparently 21 l
prepared by you under date of January 16, 1900.
!?/
i 22 first question 10 did you prepare !!RC 767 23 A
Ye s.
24 O
So for a you know, ic it an accurate sumuary of the i
t i
114 lAfayur kddat Lu:od Reportsne Sersice non u,7weem u.
Suar &
9 s,o. j j ~ s n
Sune."0 Detrat. %chien 4C.%
Far w eton Hdl% %rkte" MOIR
1 signif icant points that occurred during the panel's l
2 visit on September 10 and 19,197 97 3
A Yo r~
t 4
0 I take it you were in attendance during that visit?
5
- A Ye s.
6 0
^I'd like to ask you to take a look at the second 7
paragraph of your memorandum and there there's 8
j reference to CP's estimate f or completion of Unit 2 h
l 9
i of June 1981 and f or Unit 1 of Ilovember '1901 ano then
)
10 l
you cay The generic based ectimate by the panci g
11 prior to the visit was llovember 1981 for Unit 2 and -
i l
12 11ovember 1982 for Unit 1.
These estimates by the l
9 13 panel are based upon a generic f orecast model derived 4
14 f roci previous history of similar plants and' the 15 applicant's repor ts percentage completion. "
Is the
?
i 16 ref erence here to the generic based estimates to the a
17 estimate that I ref erred you to earlier that had been 4
3 1
10 made by !!c. Cari in l'.ay 1981 -
'7 D?
l 19 tm. LIDDY:
Could I have that question 4
back.
I lost my track.
20 J
21 (The pcnding ouestion was read 22 l'
by 'the Cour t Repor ter as f ollows:
23 4
O Ic the reference here to the
(
24 ge re r ic ca se d e :tira te s t o 3
115 t.arwue skadme Lund Reporurne 5 nun
_,w \\,,,,u,,,,,, g,n _
%re Mo 962 11'b letrmt, \\tAigan Amn
.%,ur :}o Farmmvon Hdis, \\1A;ev wth
F I
the ectimate that I referred 2
you to earlier that had been 3
i made by !!s. nari in May 107 07) l 4
l THC.UITNESS:
I really don't kn ow.
It f
I i
5 may have been.
It's clearly what it does represent 6
I here is that we had not f actored into that'model in 7
our generic based model plant at:ecific aspects, 8
whether or not that's the same basis in the Cybil i
O Eari memo, I -don' t Know.
I l
l f BY tm. JCMTCS:
.10 r
11 O
Tne nusbers at least are the came and I theref ore was l
t 12 wondering whether or not therc was any different t
13 j
catinate, so f ar as you knew, that might be referred
}
14 to by your ref erence here?
15
!A' No, the f act that they' re the same da tes ouggo ct l
to
.i 1
16 me that they' re the same, what we had a t that time 17 was a generic estimate without a plant specific l-1 18 consider a tion.
I r
19
]O Uhen you refer to a plant cpecific se t of 20 t
conci de r ations, in brief what do you mean by that?
l 21 pA The way we do our estinaten is we une ac a baci a f or 1
l prediction, a model that's been derived f rom all 22 3
23 plants having similar characteristics, for example, 24 BIR' S or whatever.
Uc catablich a generic bace f or
(
i 11G Lafayette Budd.nc Lu:od Reporting Sernce wo u,,8,,,,, nu y.
ha! W q s y, j j,. s Iktrar, WAien AC26 sar :;o Tarmmen Hais. Whiean WM
5 1
predictions.
What I mean is bacically we );now it 2
takes so long to bring a plant about to completion 3
and thun by knowing where on that generic curve a 4
plant ic in its percent completion, we can determino 5
generically the time remaining to completion and l
- 6 theref ore derive a ~ completion da te.
On a cameload 7
l visit we lock f or f actors that should be adj usted on i
8 the generic curve in terms of specific activities of h
8 9
a plant and that's what a cascloao projection in.
j I
l 10 l
What I'm aaying in the July 16, 1980 memo in-the i
l 11 second paragraph is that without those plant spe cif ic t
12 adjuatments, we would come up with a complotion date 13 l
of Novembe r ' 01, ' 82.
14 0
In fact, I take it the conclusion by the panel was k
15 the one ctated in the paragraph headed conclusion on i
1C Imc 7G on the first page?
17 A
I'm sorry.
I didn' t catch the question.
i 18 (The pending question vac read 19 by the Court Repor ter ac f ollows:
20 Q
In fact, I take it the I
21 conclucion by the panel 22 was the one stated in the 23 paragraph headed l
24 conclusion on 11RC 76 on 117 gu, yjgg, Luzod Reportin,e Servier 3,
,,,, g Suar MO 962 li?6
[Hrat. Uwhiras sP2?6 Suur :S Farmnete HJls Uwhean tsn)8
1 f
the first pa ge ?)
k 2
ttt WITUCSS:
The conclusion based on 5
3 the September 18 and 19 meeting is that stated in the 4
conelusion se etion.
l l
5
- BY nn. JCMTCS
l 6'
Q If you.look over on page two and the last paragraph 7
the statement -appears in the lant sentence The 8
i estimate by the f or ecast canel does not pr ese ntly I
9 include provisions f or the effects of TnI and open i
10 l
licensing issues; however, the staf f perceives that i
11 ef f ects will be quite. significant to the ultimate
{
h I
12 completion cate. "
In the estimate that's referred to 13 here the projected completion date f or Unit 2 of June 14 i
19827 15 I A That's cor rect.
16 0
In the last page of your memorandum you ctate; l
i 17 "Summaries of the presentation during the meetinga f
18 are Appendices A snd D enclosed hereto. "
Then you' ve 19 I
got a bunch of materiale Appendix A and B that starts I
20 at 7374 and runs through 7306.
Were these materialc 21 that were handed to the NRC during the noc'ing?
t 22 lA I don' t believe Co.
I believe Appencix A.
23 0
Excuse me?
24 A
1 dor.' t believe so.
Appendix A, the attendece lict, 11C Lafayette Buddma Lsaod Reportsnr Sert ace 3,
Suar f.30 962 11?6 (Mroa. \\behitar AC6 saa, ivi Formmeron lidts White w)lM
1 I
encl ocur t; th reo, it' c a recult of a cheet being 2
pacced around and everyone there being asked to 3
cigned and we juct typod that up ao attendoec.
4 Appendix A, which ic on your page 37 4, I believe was 5
prepared by me, whether it was f rom meeting notes or 6
i f rom the handout,' I-don' t recal1,~ but as I look a t 'it
~'
l 7
I believe it's a document prepared by me on the basic' a
of whatever I had coming out of the meeting.
S
' Appendix B -- let me nave a moment.
'I believe wcu l
10 also prepared by me maybe on the basic of notes I
.I 11 l
took or materials that were handed out or come
{
12 combina tion of that.
I l
13 3 O Let me ask you in particular about Appendix B at page 14 th ree ?
l i
15 A
All right.
16 0
Uac that a document that you prepared, baced on what 17 I
they told you a t the meeting?
l 10 A
I don't remember the sour ce of the tabic that' c e
19 precented on page three.
?
20 l0 I note the typing se u. to be the sa=e as the typing i
(
1 21 on the materialc you've identifled ac your having
}
4 i
\\
22 l
prepared.
In any event, you don' t recall ore way or f
h 23 i
the other ?
24 A
1 c, I don't.
s
,t 119 Lafayette Busidore 3that %rthu rwrru ilu 1
Suar 63n 462 1i?6
.%tedo Iktrmt, %chaean K:n Farmancton llulls. u chtean I M 18
.w 1
0 1: ell, in any event, what I'm nost interested in is f
2
.the inf ormation about that's listed as tne 3
resultane taeget f uel losd da te.
i 4
,.A Are you on p.:ce three now?
5
- 0 Ye s, I am.
See under the lef t hand column on l
I
-6 I
resultant tar.ge t f uel load date ?
~
7 A
Ye s.
8 0
Unit l'.snd Unit 2.
Ac you read the chart, ir that b
I 9
line designed to repor t on what was assortedly the 10 Unit 1 and Unit 2 target f uel load cates f ound in the l
11 i
various f orecasto across the top?
12 A
That's what the table represents f ron the headings, i
13 l
obviously.
Again, I don't rescaber the sour ce of the I
14 table, whether it was based on some clide that they 15 gave, whet.her it was based 'on our reconstr uction, l
15 based on inf ormation given us.
I Just do n' t l
4 17 remembe r.
i
~
a' 10 0
Could you j ust keep that in f ront of you and I'll ash 19 i
you to turn to CPC 27 4, these are tir. Klim's notet.
20 If you look over at the - first off, did you ever 1
21 ge t a copy of fir. Eline 's notec of the necting?
To t
22 save tioc, to avoid the hearir.gs issue, did CP supply i
23 you at or about the time of the panel meeting or 24 af ter the panel neeting with the notes that CP i
120 Lafayerre Ruddine Lmd Reportine $rreice
,,y,,
y,,9,,,,,,, y 5;,1,,y>
962 1176
%r ::n Detroa. Uschran JR::6 Fermontran Hdl'. % hte M'UR l
~
1
[
prepared on the panel visits?
l 2
A+
Quito possibly on occacionc they would co that.
I 3
don't know.
I don' t remember specifically whether or 4
not I got a copy of this particular site visit 5
writeup, but it was not unusual for them to give me 6-such a document.
~
7 0
You mean you actually got the minutes like this?
8 i A On occasions they would give :1e their vercion of the n
)
9 meeting minutes.
I 10
,O If you look over on the third page of the Eline notes l
t 11 under agenda item two, there's a reference handout
}
f 12
" (see Attactunent G) wac provided to the :inC showing l-13 developmentsd since the lact !!RC vicit i n t'a r ch
}
14 197 8 " Incidentally, I note in passing f or you that 15 their reference at' least is to the last 17aC vicit i
j 16 being over a year and a half earlier?
i I
17 A
1;here are you now?
t 18 O
Page three of !:r. Kline ' c notes.
19 A
Yo n.
20 0
Under agendo item number two?
lA Okay.
21 I' O 22 Do you have it?
i 23 A
Ye c.
24 0
"I, handout (300 At ta chraent G) was pr ov i c.e u t o t h e 'in C I.
i 121 lA fG)'!!!! NulldtMC Lu:od Reportune Seit sce 5 119 610 9gy,yj=g 3,s p> \\,,rit,u.u m Huy n
[hrtrot t,
%rhigan 4P22b
% d* r.V1 fa r, pag,.y fjrl]s, Qrhtga9 Wik
i 1
' chowing cevelopments since the lact linC vicit in I
2 turch 1078 These covelopmente were briefly I
3 discussed in a matrix (aco Attachment 7) showing the j
4 evolution of bulk materials etcetera was presented by j
S 1:r. Kl ine. "
11ow, if you turn through the document:
6 to Attachment 6 it's at page 106D.
And then there's 7
another version that's on the next page, also on 0
1070.
Futerial on 1069 seems to be o.textura1 f
D oescription of what was spoken by comebocy 'and then i
10 the handwritten version seems to be some kind of a
(
'll cnart and then if you compare that chart at 1070, it 12 l
sec=s to be very similar to the typed up veruion tiiat j
i t
13 you have in your own notes.
Does that help ref rech l
l J
14 your recollection in any regard ao to whether or not
(
15 f roo what source you got the inf ormation on these 16 i
CPCo f orecasts that appear both in your docume'nt and i
i i
17 in the Kline nt cs? Wha t I'= intorected in l
10 I
particular, was it an actual handout that you got 19 l
f rom them or is it comething that you prepared on i
20 your own, having now looke d a t these matericls?
21 J
- 13. LIDDY:
Why don' t you read it ba ck I
22 to me.
I guess I'm juct not f ocusing.
l 23 (Tno pending quection wcc ecod 24 by th e Co ur t nepor ter a: fcllcuct f
i 122 isfmtie BwMar Lund Rey >nung Set ae yw
,,h,n,,,, go, Sual hw 962 1176
%aa:iv
[utrmt. Whiron 4R:26 For m e?ne Hk. \\tahrte 1%h
0 What I'D interested in pa r ticular,- [i 2
i wa-it un actual handout that 3
you got f rom them, cr 10 it 4
{
something that you prepared on 5
your can, having now looked 6
h
~
l at these materials?)
~
7 l
TSE WITNESS:
It tells me something.
I i
0 don' t know that it tells me everything about how it S
came aDout.
What it suggests to me in that we wero l
10 both wor king f rom the same sour ce of inf orma tion.
r I
11 Probably because it was a olide or comething l
12 presented to uc.at the meeting and it would appear to j
me that I'm supplementing that clido of information 13 e
14 with other inf ormation, quite pocsibly adding to 15 inf ormation that was presented to-uc at the meeting 3
1 16 in.some, perhaps in a slido f ashion or handout, 17 some thing, but clearly there is a similarity between i,
i 18
!!r. Klinc'c tabic and my tabic.
Uhe ther that's 19 be ca use wa' re wor king -- it cugge ct o to me beca uce 20 we' re wor king f rom the came sour ce of inf ernction, t
1 21 j
probably a handout.
i P
f DY !!n. JCMTCS:
r 22 1
23
'O Now, I don' t want to make thic unduly complica ted, 24
{
out I -- this is sono rather impor tar:t inf orLa ti ert I
t I
,t i
h, 123 1.ah,etia Buddme Laod Reportune Sern see harl Ma G62 1176 sure z%
Ik:roa. \\fachigan AC%
Fnemtecum HJh, \\ldtran twik
\\
1 1
l f rom our standpoint.
Let ce ach you to look over at 2
page 7376 in your notes where you have a description 5
3 of what wao apparently ctated by Mr. Eccl ey.
Tnat's l
l 4
uhat this is, isn't it, it's a '2cceription by you of 1
i I
5 i
what Mr..wley caid on this subject under heading 6
i two?
l 7
lA You're looking at paragraph two now?
i
- '0 Ye s.
B p
S
,A
'te s, that's the intent.
a
{
t l
10
- O And you say "In J une 197 0 CPCo.ceveloped Forecast
- :c.
1 11' 5 which pro 3ceted a f uel load cate of 11ovember 1900 f
1; f or Unit 2 and !!overaber 1Dlil f or Unit 1. *?
l I
13 l
MR. LIBBY:
tihere are we an here?
i l
a 14 I
HR. JE!!TES :
Under Arabic two, s
15.
applicant' o ' schedule revisions on page 7376 se cond j
i 1G se nte nce.
17-l DY MR. JENTES:
10
! O That's what you wrote down !!r. noeley ccid on that I
i 19 cubj e ct, right7 t
i 20 lA I do n ' *. kn ow th a t -- I bel ieve th a t ' c tr ue.
Ubat I l
21 i
an really designa ting a t thic part of the f
22 presentation is being presented to the NRC by tir. Gil I
i 23 Keeley.
This is not a tranceript of what he't, 24 cay ing.
It's conctr ucted af ter th e f a ct and i
[
12.,
Lu:od Reportant Sert sce 9
g y, y,,g,,,,,,, ;;
5,; go Ob2.]1in ut :o 1)etwt, Michigan M:n I**'*!"
ll'I^ \\IA 'ev 18111 8
1 theref or e I don' t thin!: I can tell you that 2
everything that is in here is something that !!r.
I 3
noelcy has caid.
I may have put in certain phrases I
)
4 that were needed f or clarification ci something, but --
l 5
,' O That's the thruct of what he said?
6 A
I believe it's the thrust of what he said.'
7 0
And if you look at both your chart and at the chart I
8 i
in Mr. raine's notes under the number five forecast I
L heading, it snovo that -the resultant target f uel loaa I
10 k
da te f r om th e Fo r e cast N o. 5 wa s nov em be r ' 00 f or 4
L
.11 i
Unit 2 and Hovember ' 01 f or Unit 1, cor rect ?
i h
I 1;
A Ye s.
1 Q Now, you recall that I showed you carlier the Ii 13 I
f 14 i
Porecast 5 document and I'm happy to put it back in 15 front of you,and in that there was an indica tion that l
1 16 Bechtel had atated in Porecast No. 5 that there wac a l
17 l
high probability of a delay of three months and that f-i 10 l
they felt the achievability of these datec was i
19 be coming unrealistic.
Do you remember !!r. Keeley or l
20 anybody elce f rom Consumers bringing that inf ormation l
/
21 i
to the panel's attention a t this meeting back in
!y 22 september 10 and 19 of 197 D?
i
\\
23 A
H o, I can ' t r emembe r.
1, 24 fO NoW, going back to the tentural description, you'll j
t, b
125 Lafayur kidint Suar ran 9 6 2. l l ' t, Mio %rthu evern Huy l
(Werms %chtenn C::n sar : o Fa rnu nior: lidh. %<hscan IMih
1 I
see that going on in Dr. Feeley'c recitation he sayc f
2
- a labor er s st rike f rom hay 1,197 6 to J une 15, 1970' l
I 3
lod to a re-ovaluation in July 1970 (Forecact 5(a) 4 and resulted in no changen in the f uel load dates, 5
but utiliced a three month contingency in Forecast i
6 No. 5."
Than if you look at both your chart.and Mr.
7 Kline's chart there in an indication of no change in-8 i
the resultant targe t f uel load dates f rom what's S
h designa ted ac 5 (c).
Onat's correct, is it not, 10 that' c what the documents reflect was told to the 11 panci cr. this occasion 7 12 I
Mn. LIDDY:
Ob' j e ct be ca use I think it's 13 I
a mischaracterication.
i j
14 1
THE WITucSS:
The bect I can recall 15 that is an accurate reflection of what we_ were told.
t' 1
16 DY Kn. JEuTcs:
t i
e' 17
,O Mow, you'll also recall that I chowed you the Dechtel i
)
18 Targit Puel Load Study that was perf ormed in July of 19 1971 and I'm happy to put it back bef ore you again, i.
20 but in that you will recall that Bechtel concludad 21 that the Dovember ' 00 and ' 01 f uel load da ten wer e 22 1
unroalistic and that more probable cates ucre ten 23 nonths later f or Unit 2 and five months later f or i
24 Unit 1.
Ucre those vicws of Occhtel brougnt to your i
12G w,,,u. aa,
Lund Reponung Snun Suuhyn 962 1176 n, 9,n,, n,,,, y,,
Iktroa \\bcLean +C:n buar rbs Fannutrum HL \\locture Skuk
f attention at the September 10th and 19,197 9 f
I
?
2 meetingc7 3
A I don' t r emembe r.
4 0
There's also a ref erence in the tentural natorialc 5
concerning fir. Feeley's prosentation.
lic cays "in 6
March 1979, CPCo again 're-evalua ted the targe t f uel 7
load dates (Forecast 5(b) to incorporate. be tter 0'
definition of the 197 0 work ctoppace effeett on the licensing requirenents, -incroaccc. in projected
'S 10 electrical and small pipe installation, and bac% fill F
11 se ttlencnt of f ect s.
The Forecact'5(b) otuuy resul ted 12 l
in a recommendation by Bechtel of' c February 1921 I
13 fuel load f or Unit 2 and no change in Unit 1 fuel 14 loa d. "
tiew, I've not put in f ront of you the P. arch 15 197 9 Dechtel upda ted targe t f uer load ascecoment, but 10 that document actually projected a more probable f uel i
17 load clip of some eight months on the unite.
itac 10 anything said during thic coeting in September 10th 19 i
and 19th,1979 about the projections made by Bechtel I
1 20 in its f uel lead study in !: arch 197 0 that you can i
i 21 I
re call ?
s 22 rn. LIDDY:
Objection; leading and 23 ar gume nta tive.
I 24
(
cic uIT:: css:
I don' t re:nenber any cuch j
i f
127 L<fyme Buddant Lu:od h eponnte Senso y,
,9 m m y,n htl* fd0 NNe '5
? fl
%ile.
(Wirm t. \\bekige #22*,
Farmentron Hdh, \\behare molk
1
[
di scuc cion.
2 BY !!R. JCMTES:
i 3
0 Let me direct f
your attention back.ogain to page two i
4 i
of the main body of your memor andum, summaricing the i
5 neeting where you state "?he staf f also noted that l
6 the overall Midland constructiion progress f or the 7
past 18 months had averaged 1.1 percent per month, 8
l whereas an average of 1.8 percent per month hereaf ter p
9 I
would be necessary to complete the remaining 39 i
i 10 percent of plant construction within the 22 months i
l 11 loft until June 1901. "
12 A
Uhere arc you?
I 13 0
In the ac cond f ull pa ragr aph on page tuo.
Second i
I f
10 l
f ull pa ragr aph on pa ge cwo, ac cond paragraph.
Hero i
15 these numbers merely an arithmetical computation of 16 what was required or did they reflect the imC' c 17 observation of other plantc?
1 i
i 18 j
A 4
They are based on the tiRC's generic model and 19 observation of other plants and they are numbern 20 l
given to me by 11r. Bill Lovelace.
21 l0 idons the same lines in the icnedtately preceding i
22 centence it cays "Daced upon thi: hictory and 23 observationc, the staf f conclude c the applicant' n 2
24
[
cable installation pro]ection is overly optimistic. "
.l 120 Lakyme kaldone
" W"'"'""
3mits urs cran nu, L'uo Ma G62.Ei?6 IMras, Meu 4S:.%
kar &
Farmer e HJi,. W ran w%
1 E
Ucre the staf f' c view:
[
in that r ega r d al co ba se d upo n l
t 2
(
the.came modol?
I 3
A I'm sorry.
Now where are we now?
I want to make 4
1 nure I understand the question.
5 0
In the first f ull paragraph on page 'two of your I
/ '*
f men.or andum, you' ve got that?
7 A
Ye s.
\\
8 IO Thr. last sentonce there's a reference to the staf f f
I
'9
-concluding enat the applicant's cable installation 10
[
projection is "overly optimistic' And my question was j
t 11 whether the conclucion of the staf f in that regard
{
12 was bacec on thic name moucl tnat.you just referreu l
a I
13 to in your prior answer?
l t
14 A
Are you atill on the second paragraph on page two.
15 O
No.
I'm in the --
I' l'
15 A
Uhete are you?
17 0
I'm in the firct f ull paragraph on page two that l
10 ctarts, 'The staf f noted the applicant's - '
(
19
. A Ohey.
Give me a coment.
I was having trouble
}
4 20 finding where you were.
I thought we' re were utill i
21 l
in the se cond paragrcph.
It cidn ' t make any co nce.
t 22 I've read that paragraph.
Would you please repeat
\\.
23 the q uestion.
r r
24 0
Did the stafi' c conclucicn that th e ca ble i
r l
100 g,,,, w is,,
Lu:qd Reportune Sert ser
._ m, w,w,,,,,,u Su,,,' s yu 4 h 2 117 6 smu ::>
[wtrut. \\hchigan 18:2*>
Imtw liol!\\ thdste 3'!\\
1 installation propoetion was overly optinistic rect on 2
the same computer model that you a uct described?
f 3
A i
An indicated in that paragraph, :ho basic f ar our 1
l 4
position ic based on San Onef re, Grand Gulf 5
sucq uehanna, etce te r a, recent plantc, the position we I
6 I
took as to what was real]istic.
Did I ' understand your 7
question to be -
8 i
O tio, I think you may be -- ! guese maybe I'm not en b
s 9
the came wavelength.
I 10 iA
?ne basia f or our proNetion wac thoco oeneric plante 11 as to what to expect and we use as a model ano then I 12 point out what Consumere in telling un and it's not i
13 l
in line with what we're seeing on other plants.
14
'O And that's reflected in your computer model, is that 15 cor re ct ?
.k 16 A
I don't know if computer model is the right word.
17 our generic model we use as basis prediction of what 1C to expe ct.
1 19 i 0 Let me go off the record f er a moment.
l t
20 (A brief discusoion was hold off l
21 the recor d.)
22 BY tm. jct!TCS:
23 f0 Let me nw leave the Caseload Forecast Panel and cove 1
24 bacl; onto the chronology of develornents in the f
130 Lafortte Bwidme W %<thuntern Hu t 1
Suae h10 9 6.* 1 J <' b huve ry Ivemt \\tahiev. 4*.'>
femmen* Hdh.11Arv tkoik
1
{
remedial coil s ef f or t.
As ioentified a lit:10 bit l
2 carlier.in your testimony, Consumers presented a 3
second fix f or die Auxiliary Building on July 10, 4
7, 197D, that involved the caissonc and the propped 5
cantilever involving the control tower.
Did that I
,6 proposed fix present any problems one way or the 7
other in terms of its ab111 ties to withstant seismic l
8 i
events?
h 9
A Apparently it did because the applicant stated that i
10 he abandoned that fix because of increased seicnic i
i 11 as pe ct s.
The staff doesn't kn ow, I don' t think we I
12 4
were ever provided with seicnic analysis of the
,8 s
13 i
calscons, of the structure with the caisson under it i
14 so that we could determine the seismic adequacy of 15 caissons as a fix.
He just never got to that stage 1
16 in that conce pt.
17 0
You did indicate earlier, however, that at the
)
~
l 15 meeting on July 18, 1979, there was some discussion I
19 of the staf f's reanalysis of the sei smic i
i l
20 t
req ui r eme nts, is that correct?
I a
21 1 A A discussion as to what a proper g value was or unat t
22 j
is the proper seismology is f or the region, yes.
1 23 0
And was there a necting on July 10,197 0, the n2::t l
24 day, that you attended at which the sei cnic t..c t ter s i
121 1.aiwn twid.st u p? %rrwvern isn '
Swor 6Y 9 6 2. l l ib (Wtroa. \\beh: tan L C:n
,%, in fo me'm lidl% \\hdtte ik '!h'
1 were gonc into in a little note detail and in that 2
connection let ne hand you DEC 1773 to perhaps help t
I 3
your recollection in answering that question?
4 A
Yec, appa:ently there was.
I 5
0 And you were in attendance, I take it?
I 6
!A I believe so.
I lQ At least you're shown on this set of minutes?
7 O
i A I'm shown as an attendee.
)
I 9-
,O By sort of skimming through thic memorandum, and I I
10 really do nean shimming because I don' t intend to ack i
.11
{
any question beyond one or two overview memoranda, l
t I
I 12 doce the seriec of presentations that were unde,by l
13 the CP and Dechtel consultants regarding the Michigan 14 basin as a separate tectonic province within the 15 Centraf Stable Region, and there's initial caps on I
16 Central Stable Region, refer to this same incue of i
i i
17 Michigan versus a broader region that you described lE i
earlier in your testimony?
1D A
Yo u, it's the came problem, the accumption that wau 20 being re-examined by the staf f es part of its 21
(
operating license review was whether the Micnigan 22 bacin could be determined -- could be considered au a i
23 separate tectonic province er whether it had to be 24 viewcc as a part of the larger Centr al Stable Region.
12; wayna luime Lund Repa>nsu Sen su n n,,,, y,,,
hur sy>
962 Ilin (km t. \\fdigen SC:s y,a :,%
fammero. H& Uduce W:h
1 It's the came icsue.
t l
2 0
Under item 1 there's a ref erence to what l't.
3 Oabritoki of CPCo othted.
Do you know who tir.
4
- abritaki is?
?
?
5 lA Yec, he's with Consuners Power Conpany and he's with 6
their licensing staf f.
7 Q
In the last sentence or last two sentencec he's 6
repor ted to have said that 'If a higher SSE were I
9
]
1mpo se d a t this time on Midland a complete 10 re-evaluation of strengths of structures and i
11
)
qualification of all seiamic Category 1 equigaent, l
12 piping, conduite and ducts would be required.
Tnic l
13 study would be very untimely and expencive cince C0 1
14 per cent' ~ 87 pe r cent of the engineering, and 50 15 percent of the conste uction is now comp 1ete. "
4 1G Without tying you to the specific words, do you I
i l
17 remember fir. tabritski making thooe arguments agains.
10 any change in the seismic criscria?
19 l
tm. LIBDY:
Objection; I think it's s a
20 mischaracteri:ation.
'f 21
)
THE UITI;ESS:
I don't rementer I*r.
i, 22 5
tabritaki making these cWcific worcs, but i t woul d 23 be i
consistent with my over all recollection, f
24 l
ge ne r ally, th at ther e W.s -- it w as W r ecive d oy
(
131 lai<ytt* h.ddas Lutod Reportune sers are
% t* h t!)
ns,n,jj s wun wun,,,,, y,9 lVrmL %rhut@9 AN*%
M a
.'.M f amingw Hals. Ve*tran L* *Ik
1 Concunero Power Company that a enange in scicmic 5,
2 critoria wac a very cignificant devolepnent in it.:
l 3
licencing procecc becauce it was aricing quite late l
4 in the decign af ter conciderable design eff or t had 5
already been ensued.
6 BY MR. CENTES:
7 0
As you recall, did the Consumers Power people a
I indicate to the Nnc that if there were a chanoe, it i
i 9
would entail a lengthy reanalysis of the seinmic i
10 critoria and offects?
! A Ye s, that wac made quite clear there was.
If I might
[
f 12
)
cor rect my previous answer, I believo I scio that
{
l 13 considerable Gecign ef f or t had alreacy ensued and I j
14 meant to say that considerable construction had i
15 already ensued.
i 16 O
Let he hand you what has previoucly buen marked as
)
i 1
17 DCC 177 4, which is a nemor andum f rom Mr. Cur tic, the j
i 10 project engineer f or Dechtel, to 11r. Dauman of 1D Con s umo r a, da ted September 26 th,197 9 repor ting on c 20 meeting on September 10, 1979, chot tly af ter thic 21 j
ceoting in July of 1979 and a covering letter to Ur.
22
?
Cur ti s, The meeting concerned the potential ef fects
{
23 cf increasing the saf o chutdown carthquake (300) from 24 0.129 to 0.29 I take it thic t o tne asme t saue that 134 Lu:od Reportant hers ter 3 y, y,,r,,,,,, y Sw;o hy) 9 6.* ll?6
[mrott, \\lAitan 4C.%
%.'r r:n f e "u n t
- H lh. % b '* n' %
t
f you8ve just been ope aking about.
1 2
A I believo it 10.
3 C
If you look over at page 6501, there's a tablo 4
l.
dealing with the effects of increasing the SSC to 5
l 0.2, regarding the Auxiliary Duilding and it spe aks 6
there about the
- wings" and it says ' Caissons are 7
ba se d on 0.129 Capacity provided in f or 6,000 k.
8 i
Capa ci ty required.i s f or 7,000 The concrete below i
I 9
the valve pit may not have cufficient lateral loaa 10 carrying capacity. "
Ucre you made aware, back in j
11 i
September or October of 197 9, that Concuners Pouct l
t v
12 and Dechtel had been discussing the f act an of that l
l 13 time that the concrete belos the valve pite might l
not 1
14 have sufficient lateral load carrying capacity if the 15 seismic were increased to.20g?
l 16 A
You said beneath the valve pit.
17 0
I'm using the language that appears in the document.
15
- A I can' t recall o discussion about a problem ber. cath l
the valve pit in connection with the changing the 9 19 20 val ue.
If it was indicated it was, I don' t r ecall 21 it.
22 0
Do you know what the reference is to the wingu on the j
i 23 i
Aur.iliary Building?
(
24
}A Ye s.
"hat refer to what 1 called the cicetrical i
)
l 135 t,,,,, ugg,,
Lutod Reportsong Sersere m,
y Suar w 962-l1I6 ik: at. Men 4C.%
suae :.m F emmeus Halv \\lArn molR
r 1
pe ne tr ation areat.
I 2
0 This was the por tion that wac to be cantilevered 1!
I' 3
under the caicson propocal, isn' t that cor rect ?
4 A
Tha t's correct.
The southern portion of the 5
Auxiliary Building is comprised of a central por tion 6
called the conirol tower area and off of the control l
7
}
tower area there are two wing-like structures that 6
are cantilevered.
That's what I refer to as the i
9 electrical penetration area because they derive their 4
I 10 I
suppor t f rom the soil beneath them and are
'I i
11 i
structurally supported only by the control t ower 12 crea.
Tncre is no str uctural suppor t between the l
I 13 i
wings or the CPA and the adjacent structurce which 14 are the containment building and the Turbine 15 Duilding.
16 0-If you know, is the potential probice with the 17 increase in the scienic to 0.29 that although the 10 wing: might have enough cuppor t under static 4
19 conditions, that if there were a peinmic event, there i
t 20 cight be lateral novement of the caincons that woulo i
21 e
undercine the wings?
I 22 IC. LIDDY I'm going to ob]ect f or i
23 lack of f oundation be cause I think it call: ter an l
24
\\
opinion outside his c::pe r ti ce.
6 11C lafa1etu B.ddat MP %rthmestem Hu 1 kalw 962 11?b r
[wtraa. \\f A can s c.%
saa. 61 Fa rwene H. :
\\l:rk cv sw!st
1 f
TTIC UI?.000s tty under standing of that
[
2 L
matter in that the etaf f was not given the analysis, 3
seicaic analysis to determine unether or not tne 4
caissons could withstand the lateral suppor ts, i
5 lateral for ces or not, either associated with the 6
earlier FSAR seicmic analynis or the earthquake l
1 7
forces that would be associated with the increased g 8
l val ue s.
S BY tm. UC::TOS:
i i
10 C
Doco this mean that you also weren' t advised that g
11 thin wnole natter was being considered an early as
}
1 i
September 107S, within Consu:sers and Dechtcl?
.t l
13 Im. LISBY:
Objection, acked and l
l 14 an swer ed.
15 h1E WI?:lCSS:
tio, it doesn' t mean that j
16 I - we were not aware that it was being considered.
i i
i 17 In fact, the staf f had called f or sei::mic analysic of t
4 1C the str ucture I
and there were discuccienc at scae i
i i
19 Nint in timo, I don't know in connection with thic 4
20 i
particular time priod, but we discussed with the 21 t
utility what criteria vac appropriate f or the ceisuic i
2
[
cnaly ci c.
! DY Im. JENTES:
23 24
- O Did the iccue of --
i e
I 137 Lafa>rtw hv.ht
- ~
SNt* Mn D*'SE*b W" %n h 'u'm Hu.'
v (wtreut %ch. tan LC.%
.Y' r?"
f G m'9t Udb \\h'hte' 6'h
1 I -A I think both the opplice.nt c1carly understand and we 2
underctood that whatever concept use adopted would 3
entail cnalysis, acic:ne analysis of the ctructure c
4 with the fix and they would have to demonctrate I
1 5
socquacy of tne modified structure.
i 6
l0 Mid the consideration.of the appropriate seismic 7
criteria continue on into 19807 8
A Yes, I believe it did.
h D
,O Let ne show you wnat has been marked as DCC 20G.
I I
i 10 may have ciespoken.
I'll ask the repor ter to mark it j
11 au BCC 206 t
l-i 12 i
(Dopoci: ion C::hibit BEC 208 g
13 Mem o f r om !!r. nut ge r c da te d 14 3/27/SO 15 wac marked f or 16entifies tion.)
2 16 DY MR. JC?!?CS:
L 17 0
This appears to be a memoranda prepared by !!r.
18 R ut ge r e un de r da te of !!s r ch 27, 19 E0 c nd a c co r di n g t o 10 the oI.cning line are come notoc that he had of a 20 raeeting with !!r. Jiu Cook on March 27,15/f0.
Thore's
{
21 also a list of points f or discuccion f or that cecting 22 that are attached.
I'd like to ach you to loon that i
23
- over, s
i 1
24 A
I've read the docuraent.
130 g.y,,ggg, Lu:od R'Po'"9 Srtre 3,,m w,,,w,,,,,, un y,,' a 9 b.' 1 1,* b
\\
intra:, \\taL n sy,%
% :e :.N hrwem Hdh. Un hto 4+M i
1 0
On page two of the docunent under heading Roman l
l 2
numer al five, it sta te s th a t Mr. R ut ge r s "A uvice d 3
J1;C, " th at's !!r. Cook, "and ho agrees, that one of 4
the most crucial incues requiring rusolution now"
'S underline now "in tectonic provinces. J:!C and I 6
agree, subject to his confirmation that the design 7
should proccad without f urther analysis based on.129 8
and we should hire a couple of five hundred pound 9
f gorillas te deal.with.the tiRC staf f. "
l i
10 I
FR. LIBBY:
Can we go of f the record I
11 f or a moment.
I
.I l 'c THE ltICIESS:
Delp me a minute.
I've IS read paragraph Roman numeral five.
t 14 BY ttR. JCITES:
I l!.
O Did the gorillas ever chow up?
4 le A
I never saw any gorillan on the project, nor do I i
I 1
17 under stand the paragraph.
i 10 t:n. JEllTCS:
I'11 exp1or e the psragr aph i
19 f
a little bit mor e, but it's 5:00 o' clock and wo i
l t
20 agreed to stop at that time so why don' t we conclude 21 now.
f e,
22 l
23 (Depsi tion was adj ourned at l
24 5: 0 0 p. r2. )
l 130 Ld.sor:e Linser Luzod Repornne Stru sce
~
,,,,,, g, _
.%Ir hto 4 b e' ' E E ? O
.%to.*.h>
l
[krt *tu t. \\fstkagen LC.%
fe rm:M t M N E!'. \\l*rh:14M Ih'I ' h t
l 1
f I
STATC OF 11:CEIGM1)
I
~
t
) SS.
I 2
- COUNTY OF OAFLM;D) t 3
I,. BRUCC FC ALK, a Notary Public within 4
and f or the County of Oakland, (acting in the District of
\\
5 Col umbia), do hereby certify that the witness whose attached l deposition was taken bef ore me in the above-entitled matter 6*
t 7
was by asi first duly sworn at the af orementioried time and 8
i place; that the testimony given by said witness was t
9 stenograpnically recorded in the presence of said witness i
10 j and af terwards transcribed upon a computer under my l
11
! personal supervision, and that said deposition is a f ull, f
12 tr ue and cor rect tr anscript of the testimony given by the i
j 13
! witne ss.
14 I f urther certify that I am not connected 15 by' blood or marriage with any of the parties or their 16 attorneys, and that I am not an employee of either of them 17 nor financially interested in the action.
18 IN UITNCSS WHEREOF, I have hereunto se t my 19 i hand in the City of Rochester, County of Oakland, State of
+
1 i
20 itichigan, this (h,"t r-. t day of "t & m -
1985.
I 1
21
.t?
~
~*
- ..'<l
' - Q 'i, c -
-r 22 BRU CE A. FE ALK Notary Public Oakland County, !!ichigan 23 c
!!y concission expires:
3-12-08.
24 l
2 i
140
,,,, g;;,,
Lu:od Reportung Sert ue Quo Ma Gb 2. ) l ?b 3aw wg,,,,, y,, _
5 (h tma. %cktran 4C:n har l20 formmeron Hill% \\Inhtee" 4A018
.a