ML20153B904
| ML20153B904 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/04/1985 |
| From: | Lovelace W NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151D196 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-583 NUDOCS 8805060108 | |
| Download: ML20153B904 (228) | |
Text
.____
1 )
i 2 STATS OF l!IQlIGN1 3 I!! T!!E CIROJIT COURT FOR Tile COU!iTY OF HIDLN1D 4 ..................
l )
5 DOM Q1EMICAL CO!!PA!!Y, )
I
)
6 'laintiff, )
i I
7 i
- v o- )
) !!o. 83-0022325 8 CO!!SuldSRS POWER 00HPM1Y, )
)
9 Def endant. )
)
10 ------------------
11 ,
The Deposition of UILLIA!! LOVELACE, pakon bef ore me, Glenn G. Miller, CSR-2596, Registered 12 Prof essional Reporter and tiotary Public within and f or the County' of Wayne, (acting in 1:ew York), State of !!ichigan, ,
13 ht 630 Fif th Avenue, Suite 1400, liew York, llev York, on ]
yodnesday, September 4,1985, i 14 l I !
15 hPPEARMICES: '
16 KIRKLA!1D & ELLIS 1 200 East Randolph Drivo
[
17 ,
Chica go, Illinois 60601 (By William Jentes, E0q.)
18 Appearing on behalf of the Plaintif f, !
19 DARRIS, SOTT, DE!!!! & DRIKER 20 21st Floor First Federal Building Detroit, Michigan 40226 21 (Dy Andrew Zack, Esq.)
22 Appearing on behalf of the Def ondant.
23 l
24 8805060109 880408
-)g3 PDR AK Luzod Reporting Service ,mg ,,, ,,
lafayette Buildtne 962.IIi6 Sung,2:a Saire Mo Ntimt. \fichigan m:26 Farminston Hills, \fuchscan mais
l 1 J PPEARMICES CONTIliUED:
2 CH ARLCS fi1LLINS, Eoq.
ImC-Office of the Genetal Counsel 3 Washington D.C. 20555 4 Appearing on behsif of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. -
5 i.
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I
"3 'PnHng Sun'u 3,,oy,g,,,,},,,,,,_
la(c)ette RusIdsn, Suite MO 962.))i6 Suige 2:0 (ktroit, \fichigan 482:6 Farmington flills. \fichigan 48018
l l
l E ,
1 i l
2 ; EXHIBIT INDEX 3 l 4 l Exhibit No. Dercription Page 5 D-4963 Heeting tiotice Distribution 169 6 D-4964 Notice of Visit to Midland Site 171 by NRC Staff's Caseload Forecast 7 Panel, September 18-20, 1979 8 D-4965 Project Status Report-July 1979 17G 9 !>-4 96 6 Document entitled Revised Estimate 178 of Construction Completion Date f or 10 Midland, dated October 2,1978 11 D-4967 Meoting Notice Distribution 103 12 D-4968 NRC Caseload Forecast Panel Agenda, 184 Monday, July 28, 1980 13 D-496 9 Article f rom the Midland Daily tiews 197 14 D-4 97 0 Article f rom the Midland Daily tiews 202 )
15 D-4971 Meeting Notice Distribution 205 16 D-4980 Telecon Record, dated 10-5-03 209 17 18 1 1
19 20 ;
21 1
22 23 l
- 24 ,
i i
)
4 Luod Reporting Service yo s.,,,,,,, pg isfayette Ektidine Suite hil0 962 I176 Suite 220
[ktrott. \fwhigan 48226 farmintron lislls, \fichocan WIM
'l tiew York, !!ew York 2 ; Wednesday, September 4,1985 3 9:00 a.m.
4 5 WILLIAM LOVELACE 6 was thereupon called as a witness herein and, af ter 7 having been first duly sworn to tell the truth, the 3 whole truth and nothing but the truth, was examined 9 and testified as f ollows:
10 EXAMItiATI0li 11 DY MR. JENTES:
I 12 D Mr. Lovelace, would you state your full name and current 13 home address?
14 h William H. Lovelace, that's the f ull name. Currently I 15 have two home addresses. 'Ihe primary one being my 16 residence in Virginia, 8358 Surveyers Place, Springfield, 17 Virginia, 22152, and during the week 375 South Cnd Avenue, i
18 Apartment 26-S, New York, New York,10020, I think.
19 0 By whom are you currently employed?
l 20 A Merrill Lynch Capital Mortgage.
21 0 What is your capacity with Merrill Lynch?
l 22 A Dasically a consulting capacity. i l l l
> 23 0 And f or how long have you been employed by !!orrill Lynch? ;
t
\
l l '
j 24 A Since April 29th,19U4.
I
} l
! 5 1.uz d Reporting Service ,,o 3 ,, ,
l !afvette ikildsng l Swor MO 9b2 ii?6 Suite 2.X)
Desnut \fichigan 48226 Farmington fisits \lichiean 48018
1 Without getting into any details, on what matters are you 2 a consultant to Merrill Lynch?
3 A Invectment bankers f or nuclear power plant construction,
}
4 pollution control financing, prudency caseo. Basically 5 whatever calls for in the nature of nuclear power planto.
6 Q Prior to your employment by Merrill Lynch, had you worked 7 with the NRC and bef ore that with the prodocescor, AEC, 8 agency?
9 A Yes.
l 10 0 For how long had you been with the NRC or AEC?
l 11 A From July of '73 to April 27th I gueos, it was on a 12 Friday , 1984.
13 0 Are you appearing here today pursuant to a subpoena served 1 1
14 on you to testify in the Dow Chemical versus consumers ,
15 Power lawsuit? :
16 A I definitely am.
I 17 0 I'll hand to the reporter a copy of a document entitled 18 Judicial subpoena and the appended af fidavit, which I 19 vop1d ask that he make a part of the record of the 20 de posi tion.
21 Mr. Lovelace, I wonder if you could please 22 review briefly your educational background.
I 23 A I went to elementary school, high school, college, and ;
i 24 courses here and there on CPM, critical path method, i
IAfayene lkidme Luzod Reporting Service ya. , ,
Sate MO 962 1176 kar :g)
IMmt, \fwl..ean 182:6 Farmington lidis, \fichigan 13018
l 1 construction management, government conctruction 2 contracts, I can' t remember them all, courses at i
3 Georgetown, George Washington and the U. S. Department of 4 Agriculture School, graduate courses. Some I' ve taken 5 since I've been with Merrill Lynch dealing with the rate 6 cases, one with an accounting firm --
7 0 Arthur Anderson?
l 3 N Yeah, another one with -- I can' t even remember the name 9 of that course.
10 Q Uhat vaa your college?
11 A Civil engineering.
1 12 Q You received a degree in civil engineering?
l 13 A tio, I did not.
I 14 0 And the courses that you've referred to as having taken at 15 George Washington and Georgetown and these other l l
16 postgraduate coursee, have those all been related to !
17 various aspects of cost and scheduling of construction 18 prof sets?
19 A Basically, except the two here I'm taking with tierrill 20 Lynch, they are more financial.
21 0 Briefly, what has been your work or prof essional 22 experience af ter you lef t college?
i 23 k Def ore and af ter it's been conetruction, construction '
i 24 estimating, cost and schedule, change order negotiations, 1
7 Luzod Reporting Service ma y,,,w,,,, ,,
lafayette Buddhe S;a, ao 962 1176 Suar 220 Detrat, \fakitaa 48226 Farminsta lidis, \fwhiEGM h40lN
a, 1 quantity take-of f s f rom drawings, specif ica tions. It's 2 all I've ever known.
s 3 Q Did you work f or a period of time, f rom roughly 1961 or so 4
4 to 1966, with a general contractor in Virginia?
5 A Yes.
I 6 0 What was name of that contractor?
l 7 A Armac Corporation, h-r-m-a-c.
I 8 Q And in broad strokes what was your work with that 9 contractor?
10 A Commercial construction, general construction, building 11 schools, fire stations, commercial construction. I was 12 the construction engineer. I done q ua nti ty ta ke-of f s, 13 bidding jobs, change orders, preparing change orders, 14 change order negotiation, preparing schedules f or the 15 projects that we -- CPM schedules that we won the bid on, 16 draf ting, making oubnittals, submittalo f or approval for 17 various components that were used in construction of the 18 job that required submittals f or approval, 19 Q You mentioned f rom time to time CPH. What does CPM ref er 20 to?
21 A Critical path method.
22 0 Af ter your work with the Armac peopic, did you go to work ;
23 for the government of the District of Columbia? i i !
24 A Ye a, I did.
I i I i f.afayeur lkidme Lutzod Reporting Service , 0 ,,
suar h30 962 11**6 Sucre 220 IWtrm t, \fwhitan 48226 Farmsneton lidh, \fwhienn 43018
H 1 0 And f or how long were you employed by the D.C.
l 2 ; government?
3 A From '66 to July '7 3.
h 4 0 When you in turn moved over to the AEC7 5 A When I moved to the AEC.
6 0 In broad strokes what kind of work did you do with the 7 District of Columbia government?
8 A me same thing I've done with the contractor except on th,e 9 other side of the fence.
10 0 Did you continue to have intimate acquaintance with cost 11 and scheduling of construction proj ects f or the D.C.
12 government and with CPit techniques?
13 A Yes, I did. nat wac basically my job, chango order
'I 14 negotiations, conceptual estimating, cost estimating f or 15 change orders, cost estimating f or complete jobs, looking '
16 for ambiguities between drawings and specifications, 17 preparing CPM ochedules which were subsequently I
la incorporated into the government specifications, making it I 19 a requirement f or the general .:ontractor to provide a cpl!
20 schedule f or the job, be it a school, college, hocpi tal, i 21 fire station, what have you.
22 0 When you went to work for the ACC, what was your position ,
1 l 23 and your responsibilities at the outset?
I I 24 A I was basically approached asking if I would be interestod 1 l l ,
l l l Luod Reporting Service yoy , ,,
1.afayette Runidme Su),, ma 962 1176 Suite :p)
Detmt. \fschigan 48226 femmaton listir \fichstan 3018 L
1 in coming to work for the AEC to monitor the progrecs of 2 nuclear power plants that were under construction and I 3 was asked in December of 1972 and then subsequently I 4 started July lat or 4th of 1973. In the interim time you 5 had to have a security clearance, six months f or the 6 security clearance.
7 Q tihen you came on board at the AEC was there such a thing 8 as the Caseload Forecasting Panel?
9 A No, there wasn' t.
l 10 g When did the Caseload Forecast Panel come into existence?
(
11 A Formally, and I say formally, that is, I'm ref erring to a 12 document, I don' t recall the date of it, but I think like 13 in 1977, signed by the executive director of operations, 14 Lee Gossig. Prior to that it was on an inf ormal basis.
l 15 There was no meeting notices sent out, just made 16 arrangements with the utilities to come take a look and 17 discuss their schedule and so on. ;
18 O Por how long prior to the f ormal formation of the Caseload 19 Porecast Panel had there been this inf ormal arrangement?
20 since 1973.
21 0 tiould you please describe a little bit more in detail what 22 the role of the Caseload Forecast Panel was? ;
I !
23 A tiell, broadly, it was to keep the utilities honest to the 8
24 ACC and NRC. When Joe llenty was with the Imc it was l
l'uzod Reporting Sertice , 10 ,
1.afayette ikiding Suare Mt) 962.))?6 Suite ::y)
Detrmt. \lwhizan #226 Farmington flills, \lahitan liv)l3
__ _ _ _ - __. _ ,_ --. __ _ --__ ~ , _ _ . _ , _ - _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ . --
1 called make time for tiency in the licensing review because 2 of the shortage of the technical reviewers f or the 3 l different aspects of the construction permit or the OL l
4 l implica tions.
l 5 0 What does OL ref er to?
l 6 A operating license.
7 0 In perf orming its f unction, did the Panel attempt to 8 formulate an estimate as to when the nuclear plants that 9 were under construction would be ready for fuel loading 10 and in turn f or commercial operation?
11 A 'Ihat was the primary purpose of it, was to determine or I
12 make an independent assescment of when we thought they 13 would be ready to, the plant would be complete and ready 14 to load f uel and certified by the I & E, or whatever they i
15 call it, ready to load fuel. And I might add also during i 16 this period we weru - I was developing what they call tho 17 construction ctatus report, the yellcw book, which is .
, l 18 NuReg 0030, which monitored the status of construction of 19 all the plants throughout the country. It was updated on 20 a quarterly basis. It was a voluntary thing f or the 21 utilities to provide the inf ormation to update the -- it 22 started out with a CPt! network. It was a book about 11 .
l ,
23 inches long and 8 inches wide and subsequently it was j 24 completely computerized and updated by computer rather 1
l 11 lafayette 11midsne 3M50 %thmann fluy Sw,, wo 962.ili6 Swtr;L'o Detras, \fichigan 48:26 fanntatton Ihlis. \fichigan 58018
1 than manual.
2 Q From a f unctional standpoint within the NRC organization, 3 who served on the Panel?
4 A Well, the Panel was more than j ust -- it won conceived to 5 be more than j ust plants, completing construction of the 6 pl ant s. It was obvious the completion of the nuclear 7 power plants in particular practically drove everything 0 else,in the NRC. The inspections the I & E done for 9 plants, th e NMS, nuclear materials saf ety, whatever, the 10 Fema reviews, I guess the licensing of the plants, 11 # manpower-wise, drove the other aspects, majority of the 12 other aspects of the AEC. Is that the proper -- you 13 haven' t been with the AEC. At least that's my 14 understanding, but there were members of f rom NMSS, from 15 NRR, f rom I & C, I believe Research, almost every division i 16 within the NRC. !
17 0 Here you a member of the Panel?
I 18 A I was a member of the Panel.
I 19 0 And were you a member of the Panel from the inception of 20 your activities, or at least near the inception of your 21 activities with the NRC until you lef t the NRC?
22 A Yes.
l 23 0 Let me hand you a document which has been previously 24 marked as NRC 74 Can you identify this as a copy of a i
l I I Luzod Reporting Senice 12 gg' g,,,, mag,, ,w ,,
suar um 962 1176 suite :k (ktroa, \fwhigan 43226 Farm maton lidin, \tahican mots
i i
1 memorandum f rau Mr. Roger Boyd of the NRC to Mr.
2 Tourtelloto, alco of the NRC, ofMarch 7, 19707 3 A obviously it looks like it is, yee.
t 0 In the third paragraph of the first page of the document 4
5 there's a description of the f ormal establichment of the j 6 Caseload Forecast Panel and also a description of some of 7 the earlier activities dating back prior to November of 8 1977. Does that paragraph accurately summarize the
- 9 general purposes of the Caseload Forecast Panel?
10 A I guess in broad strokes yes, it does. It wasn' t set up 11 specifically for Midland here but for all plants under 12 construction.
I 13 0 In going about the estimation of the fuel load date and 14 the ultimate commercial operation date for the various 15 plants under construction, how did the Panel go about 16 coming up with this estimate? I recogni:e this 10 a f
- 17 f airly complex subject and my purpose in aaking you the I
18 quection is not to ask you to elaborate on all the details 1D but I wonder if you could, in broad strokes, summarize how 20 the Panel went about the formulation of its estimate. ,
21 A It was sort of an evolution. It started out by taking I
22 l data that we had collected through the construction status j 23 re por t, ref erred to as the yellow book, and basically 24 developing a generic curve, plotting percent complote I
' Luzod Reporting Service , , ,7 gg,,y yig,,
SuIrr sw 962 1176 susu y iktrat. \ lichi, tan M226 Farminton lidis, \lichigan 48018
1 versus time on the data we have on the plants.
2 subsequently it was directed to refine that and it was 3 refined and then as time went on the procedure for l 4 developing the completion dates were more elaborato and i
5 more refined and ended up in the procedure as in the .
4 6 document, draf t document I believe you gentlemen have on 7 caseload f orecasting or whatever.
8 Q This is the so-called procedures manual?
9 a Righ t, right, that was the way it ended up. At the very l 10 beginning we didn' t even have a -- we had the basic 11 generic curve and that was about it, other than what you L
12 observed on the site. ;
13 0 You've ref erred to the estimating process as being refined 8
14 over time. Again without getting into elaborate detail, 4
15 could you daccribe how the initial generic curve was 16 refined over time?
17 A Well, I developed ti:e first one, which was f rom I believe i
13 considered breaking of ground until fuel load, and took 19 all the data that I collected f rom the various utilities i
j 20 and through statistical analysis developed a curve of time 21 versus percent complete f or the p3 ant. The utilities had i 22 .
been providing us the percent complete on a monthly basis i
23 and then subsequently it became apparently industry l l 24 practice to, which to me was only logical also, to I i 1
l '
Luzod Reporting Service 14 l.afayette Bwidae ,3 y Swtr Mo 962.]!i6 S wie r o
. [k tmt. \fwhigan M226 Farmmaton Hdir \!ichigan 2018
1 consider start of construction as first structural 2 ; concrete rather than becaking ground because at that time i
3 i they were using LMAs and CP exemptions and various other I
i 4 l mode s.
l 5 A utility or contractor would break the 6 ground f or the plant and it may set f or a year or beo 7 years and nothing gets done then they come along and once 8 they make the commitment -- it was considered a commitment 9 once the first structural concrete was poured, that they 10 were starting to build the plant.
11 0 In this case with consumers Power and Dow there's been 12 references in a number of documents and testimony given to
- 13 the court to so-called bulks and to so-called long lead j 14 time issues and also so-called licensing issues. As you
\
15 and the Panel refined the approach towarde estimating the j i ,
16 completion date, did you take into account the status of 17 the bulk installations? i 1
! 18 A That is f or the last quite a f ew years, I don' t know how 19 many years, probably since '78, whatever, 8 77, '78, that's 20 the way we started looking at them. I had considerable l ,
21 discussions with Stone & Webster, Ebasco, Dechtel people, 22 other people that were also interected in nuclear power 23 plant construction and considered the best way to look at j 24 it in the earlier stages of construction was in the bulk 15
- 1. od Reporting Service , y,g ,,,,,, pg lafayette ikilang Sua, sw 962.lli6 %:e 2x l Dermt, \fichigan 48226 Farmintton II4 Whitan MOIR
1 mode, lineal foot of pipe, lineal Soot of cable, number of 2 terminations.
4 3 Q As the plant evolved and the Panel' o thinking evolved, did 4 you also consider the long lead time isouco on the various 5 licensing issues?
6 A That was a basic generic question in all the agenda items 7 sent out and we were particularly interested in hangers 8 because that seemed to be one of the extremely tough long 9 lead items! however, to my knowledge I never observed arr/
10 procurement items holding up the f uel loading of a plant.
11 Q In connet# tion with your refining of the estimating 12 process, did you also take into consideration as time 13 progressed the preoperational testing and startup acrecto 14 of the plant?
15 A That's correct. Obviously when you go to a plant ir goes '
16 through various stages. You go through your bulk mode and 17 into your pre-op testing or turnover mode, systems 18 turnover and your preoperational tent mode, and obviously 19 the enttasis of what you looked at was the status of where 20 the plant was.
l 21 0 And does it follow that as the plant progresced you would r l
22 look not just into the early stages of breaking ground but j 23 lator into the bulks then into the startup phason?
24 A Yes, test procedures, the startup testa themselves, th e i
i !
i
- 0 "#
1.afnette (kUma yano %rthur i rn flu, Suar MO 962 i!76 % e su lbtra t, %hisan W.'6 Farmmeran lidh, Whugen wls
1 pre-op and acceptance tests were committed to and FSAR 2
l being completed prior to loading f uel, but the emphasio 1
3 ; was put -- depending on where the plant stood with regard I 4 to the construction is what you looked at the most, where l
i 5 l you placed the most emphasis.
l 6 Q You've referred to a gelieric curve and there's alto 7 ref erences in some of the documents that have been 3 admitted in as evidence as to generic aspects of the 9 estimate then site specific aspects of the estimate.
l 10 Could you explain the difference between the generic 11 aspects of the Panel's estimate and then how that related 12 to the site specific aspects?
I 13 A The best ny mcuory serves me, I believe it was budget l
14 pur pose s. This was in the earlier stages of the game 15 before we hao a chance to get out and visit all the 16 plants, we used the generic curve and looked at the !
17 percent complete that they had reported and the remaining 1 18 duration to load f uel, f rom where the percent complete j 19 fell on the curve to the remaining duration. Then during 20 the course of the year we started trying to make cite 21 specific visito of all the plants. Several people thought
- 22 the curve, and some of them still use it, rpri still 23 ; refers to it, there's even been some write-upo on the i
! l t
24 development of it. They've gone through it and refined it ;
i f
)
17 Lutod Reporting Servier go g ,,,,, ,,
gg ,,,, m, si,, sw 962 1176 swtr L'o Iktunt. \fscMau 4CM fe m t'* II'll' \I"ht" *'018
l l g 1 some.
2 Q Let me pursue your last answer a little further. Do I 3 take it that af ter this early development of the generic 4 curve that there was some refinement of the estimate ,
5 through an actual visit to the site of the particular 6 nuclear plant under construction in order to make the :
7 estimate by the caseload Forecast Panel a little bit more !
i 8 precise?
9 a Yes, particularly if there were large discropancies noted i
10 between what fell out of the generic curve and what the :
11 applicant reported.
12 0 When you went out to L.he site to visit the plant, and I '
4 J 13 take it that you yourself wont on a ntrater of those site :
14 visits? -
15 A I went on all of them. We other nmbers of the Panel I l 1
16 were, like I said, either licensing or research, N!!S 17 people. I was the only construction type. In other i 18 words, when the Panel convened it wac my job basically to I
19 come in with the estimated f uel load dates f or the plants 20 and they would be discussed. Sometimes they would be !
j 21 discussed with people in NRR, and this was usually updated ,
t I
q 22 a couple times a year, in the earlier stages of the ' Jane. ,
t 23 g to court had heard testimony f rom Mr. Darl flood, the 24 NRC's Proj ect Manager on that Midland Project. Uhon you (
f" ' "
142)ette Bui%e' .MIO %rthur tern llu).
Suite MO 962 i!?6 suier ::o Detmt. % kitu 482:6 Farmeta flills Whien 58n18 !
1 went out to visit the Midland Plant in particular, did Mr.
2 Hood go along 'as a member of the Panel on that occasion?
3 A !!e went along as a member of the Panel, yes, as the other i
4 l project managers would on their projects.
I 5 0 You mentioned that there would be somebody t' rom I & C, the 6 inspection arm, who might also be in attendance. Did Mr.
7 Ron Cook f rom time to time also participate as a menber of 8 the Panel on the project?
I 9 A I can' t recall his actual participation in the meetingo.
10 It's been so long and I've been to so many planto. !!y 11 I recollection is he never attended any of the meetings. He 12
[
may have attended one of the earlier ones. I don' t 13 I recall. We met with him before and af ter the meetinga but l
14 l I don' t think he attended any of the public meetings that 15 I can recall. Some of the earlier ones he may have, I 16 don' t know.
17 h I'll return to that and help ref resh your recollection i!
18 f rom nome of the mir.uten of some of these earlier l 19 meetings. To the extent somebody was there f rom the I & E .
l 20 group, what was their role in the site visit by the Panel? l 21 A Well, when we sent out the agenda prior to we making up 22 the agenda and providing an agenda to the Project Manager, 23 I would call the resident inspector, or inspector of the
! 24 plant if there was no resident inspector of the riant at i l l l
19 Luzod Reporting Service m w,,,,, y; 14nette k uma sglw 962 1176 %te Lv lbtst, \faisss ML% farm mato" II'l!% \IA't** WlH
1 that tima, and try to get a feel f rom him if he knew of l
2 any hard spots, any areas that we should look at. And l 1 3 then his basic purpose at the meeting I guess was to more
- 4 or less try to keep them honest and if they were to tell 5 us something that he knew was different than what they ;
6 were telling then he would tell us.
7 0 When you had one of these site visits, and I'll come back 8 to specific ones a little bit later, so f or the moment my 9 questioning is more general in nature, but when you had 10 one of these site visits was this usually a one or two day 11 affair?
12 A Two to three days. It usually averaged two and a half 13 day s.
14 0 As a general matter, what occurred during the site visit, 1 15 or the visit to the applicant's construction project?
16 A Well, number one, wo, the Project ttanager, was more or 17 less the coordinator. He would set up the meeting with 18 the applicant then an agenda would be developed. We would 19 develop an agenda. Sometimes the Project Manager may have 20 an item or two to put on the agenda. The agenda was sent 21 to the applicant, probably three, four weeks in advance, 22 with a meeting notico and so on. The first day normally 23 was the fornal presentation of the agenda itemc. The 24 second day war a tour of the plant f rom top to bottom and i
Ln d Reporting Service ,
lafayette kidme har hy) 962+1EI6 )Ohar , $3 iktmt, \fdwan 2:26 Farmatton tidis. \lAt <n wo1R
l 1 the third day was bacically a wrap-up cession, any 2 3 questions that may have aricen f rom the inf ormation that 1
3 was presented to us during the first day presentation or f
4 l anything on the site, any questions that may have arison l
f rom something we saw out on the construction site.
l 6 Q As a result of the visit and the review, did the forecast 7 Panel then make an announcement of what its estimate of 8 the fuel load and completion dates were?
9 A We did up until -- I don' t recollect whether it was a year l
. 10 or two years bef ore I lef t that I guesa 11RR sort of put a l
i 11 i halt to it, tie didn' t make a formal announcement of what 12 our conclusions were and sometimes there was so much data i 13 l thrown at you that it took a little time to go through it,
- l i
~
14 sort it out. There just wasn't enough room and time in l
15 the day to do it. f l
i 16 Q During the period at least through 1983, did the Panel l l
17 continue to announce to the applicant what the Panel's !
18 conclusions or estimate was as to the fuel load and 1 19 commercial operation dates 7 i
20 A Woll, like I said, in the last couple years, like 1982, 21 '83, things sort of changed and if it were a six month 22 discrepancy they used the applicant's date. If it was a 1
23 length greater than six months, normal procedure was to i
, L 24 call the applicant in f or a meeting and try to reco1ve the l 21 Luzod Reporting Service ,a w,,, ,,
f.d ki,verte
, r,y) Ltdsns 962=III6 b le 2.M Detmt, \fschstan 482.% Fawntros listh, \fschtgan W18
1 differences. In como cases some reasons went out au to 2 what the Imc thought and other cases they did not.
3 h Again I'll come back to the specifics in Nidland as we 1
4 progress along here. For the moment I'm sort of ,
5 interested in the general procedures of the Panel.
6 Do I understand f rom your testimony that in 7 addition to going out to visit the Midland Plant that you 8 wculd also go out and visit, on behalf of the Panel and 9 along with the Project Manager of the other plants, each 10 of the other nuclear projects under construction?
11 A niat's correct. I can recall at least once I was at 12 tiidland, and I don' t recall whether it was af ter TMI or 13 betore TMI, I got s call at my motel roon setting up about 14 five or six trips in a row, one week right af ter another.
15 Q Approximately how of ten would you, along with other l 16 members of the Panel group, visit the individual plants? i 17 A Nyself, sometimes I f elt I was out like about every wock.
I 18 0 What I was looking f or more, was there any kind of a 19 routine procedure that you would go every year or every
- 20 six months or anything like that?
21 A He tried to go every year and then if there were a plant !
[
22 that was sutriitting an OL, operating license application,
- 23 I that was one of the critoria establiched by tmR, that we 24 go and make an assessment of their schedule bef ore they i
latyrtte kidine Vnin %the : rn H u )
Suite eda 9 6 2 l i e' 6 %te 2.M ;
iMrmt, \f.shigan AC:6 Farwneton ll.[h, \lArcan 58n18
1 ! sutraitted their CL application. In some casos they 2 l t.hought it may be too early and in f act in a couple 3
l instances it did seem to turn out to be too early and the 4 l applications were sent to the warehouse.
I 5 0 Do I take it that when you vialted a plant like Midland 6 you would only have about two or three days of time with 7 ; the applicant to review the status of the project?
i 8 A That' s . cor r ect.
I 9 0 Was the review that you conducted of the status of the 10 scheduling of the project a sort of in-depth review or 11 would you describe it as a more limited review of the j 12 ,
schedule of the proj ect?
13 MR. ZACK: I think that' a leading.
l 14 BY MR. JD1TES
. l l 15 0 Let me ask you how would you describe in torma of the j
) 16 departaont intt. which you got -- I got mumbled on my l
17 q ue stion. Let me try again. I 18 How would you describe the depth of the 19 schedule review which you and the Panel conducted when you 20 evaluated a particular project like Midland?
21 A Well, obviously we didn' t have time to do a tottoma-up 22 1 estimate. It was based on the data that was precented to 23 us by the applicant in response to the agenda that we cent !
l
- 24 and it we f elt that some of the questions on the acjenk i
! I LU300 RtPorting Senier .
4,,,, m, ,,
k ite M o 962 1176 Suite :20 IHmt, \laktunn M2.% Farmsnuton HA \hchigan #R018
i l
1 weren' t snowered we would ask f or additional inf ormation. l 2 I would say it was a general look. It van based strictly 3 , on the intormation that was provided by the applicant. tic 4
didn' t have time to go in, go o'ut and physically count 5 hangers, look at cable pull cards, look at termination
- 6 cards to see if they were telling us the truth, how many 1
7 cables have been pulled, how many terminationa have been 8 made, how many hanger packages they had bought and had 9 Q- stampe d. To do a bottoma-up estimate like that you' rc 10 talking a month or two months.
11 0 Did you rely upon what the applicant was supplying you 12 concerning the schedule information in the sense that you 13 depended upon them to give you a complete and realistic 14 schedule assessment?
15 A That's the only thing we had to rely on, is their responce 16 to our agenda.
17 0 During the course of your visits to Constners Power and la other applicants, did you and the Panel indicate to them 19 that you were relying upon the applicants f or the 20 necessary inf ormation to make a complete and realistic 21 assessment of the schedule?
i l
22 A Personally, I think that's inherent in netting the agenda a
~
i 23 with the meeting notice, that we need this inf ormation to l l ,
, 24 make the assescment and we expect it to be the best
! wn.,,n, n uma Lund Rrportine Sercer ,o 34 ,
l %'ar h10 962 ii ?6 % e ;;o Detmt, \takwas 482:6 Farmmaton Udir \fakitan 3013
1 inf ormation you' ve got. '
2 Q You referred to a "bottoms-up" estimate. What do you mean l
3 by bottoms-up estimate?
4 A That's where you literally take the drawings and 5 specifications and you go in and you do a quantity 6 take-off, physically count the lineal footage of pipe, 7 feet of concrete, number of hangers, lineal footage of 8 amall pipe, physically set down with the drawings, about 9 two or three hundred sheets of drawings, and do a detailed 10 ta ke-of f .
11 b I wasn't f ast enough in making my notes, but did you J' indicate that such a bottommup schedule estimate might 1., take two or three months?
l 14 A That's correct.
I 15 0 Let me return again to NRC 74, which is in f cont of you 16 there, the memorandum f rom Mr. Boyd of March 7,1978. It j 17 ref ars on the second page to the f act that "The Forecast l 18 Panel, using a standard model for average plant 19 construction duration, has established initially a t!ay I,
- 20 1982 fuel load date for Unit 2 It is in the process of '
21 refining this estimate, as well as estimates f or other l
22 . Plants, taking into account plant-specific f actors that j 23 would provide a more precise estimate. " When the ref erence 24 here is to the Forecast Panel, we' re talking about I
I0 Luz d Reporting Service gg , , ,,
l lafayette Building I Suite MO 962 1176 suite 2:0 Detrat, \fichigan 182:6 Farmington liilh, \fichiean 2018
1 yourself and the other individuals that you've deccribed; 2 is that correct?
3 A That's correct.
O 4 Q The ref erence here to the Panel initially having 5 established a May 1982 fuel load date for Unit 2 at 6 Midland, was that the first of the estimaten that the 7 Panel came up with concerning the Midland Plant, so for as 8 you can recall?
9 A I j ust have no recollection.
l 10 0 I recognize that you saw a lot of plants and that you've 11 now lef t the NRC so I will ask you a series of quections 12 about your best recollection and against that background I 13 hope you'll give, me whatever you can best recall. In that 14 connection let me ask you in this regard, do you recall 15 having f ormulated any estimate of a construction 16 completion date for Midland prior to the one that's 17 ref erred to in Mr. Boyd's memorandum of March 19787 18 h Well, I think it looks like -- it implies to me we woro 19 doing it in '75 at least and the Caseload Panel was l
20 torma11y established '77 or '75 -- I would say that the i l
21 ,
best I can : ecal* , what you would call in our hip pocket,
! t 22 ,
! we had our own thoughts on each plant and we used to brief l 23 Manny Muncey when he was director of licensing and l
24 aubsequently Lee Gossig when he was director of l l
Lu:od Reporting Service 26 Laftyette Ruildine '
,g 3.,, ,,,,
Suite MO 962 III6 Suite 220 (ktroit, \fichigan M226 Farmineton Ildh, \fichigan 18018
1 operations . I believe it was a monthly briefing on all 2 the plants that were under construction and the status of 3 them.
4 Q Returning to my question, do you have any recollection of 5 having f ormulated a specific estimate for Unit 2 for 6 Midland other than the May 1982 fuel load date that's -
7 ref erred to in Mr. Boyd's memorandum?
8 A I f elt sure that there probably was, but I don' t know. I 9 just don' t know.
I 10 0 You j ust can' t recall?
I 11 A I j ust can' t recall. I know for budget call we went 12 through each plant, looked at each plant and came up with
. 13 what we thought was our best estimate f or each plant. The I
14 reason this may stick out, the '75 date or whatever, '78 15 date sticks out is because of the limited resources in NRR I 16 and they had to apply their resources properly. I do n' t l 1
17 know. It's pure speculation.
i 4 18 0 Barlier in Mr. Boyd's memorandum over on the first page, l l
19 the second paragraph, there's a ref erence to an earlier :
I 20 estimate having been made by the NRC Staff and having been 21 apparently testified to during some of the hearings bef oro 22 the NRC. The ref erence there is to a date of October 1980 23 for Unit 2 at Midland and there's also a ref erence to 'the 24 rainbow books". What are the rainbow booke?
27 Luzod ReparIing Sereiee 3m,o y,,5,,,,,,, y7,7, lafayette Building suig, a o 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit, \{ichigan M226 Farmington ${il$5, \{ichigan $80l8
. ~ _ _ . - . _ . _ . _ _ _ . , , , . . . _ _ _ _ __ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ , _ ._ . _ . . _ _ _ .__ __
l 1 N The rainbow books, one of the rainbow books was the 2 construction status report, 'or the NuReg 030 that I 3 ref erred to earlier that I developed when I started with 4 the NRC. We other rainbow books is what they call the 5 blue book, which was tracking the status of the licensing 6 review. There was a butf book tracking the status of all 7 the recearch projects that were all going at the national 8 labs. %ere was a green book traching the status of all 9 the guides and regulations that were being developed in 10 what was called the Of fice of Standarda at that time.
11 There was a brown book that was a summary of all the other 12 books, the rainbow books. I probably lef t out a couple.
13 here was a tracking system for almost everything that 14 wont out at the NRC. l 15 0 Now at least we know why they were called the rainbow 16 books. Do you recall that there was at least a dif f erence <
l 17 between the estimate that the Panel had come up with in l
18 the spring of 1978 and other estimates about the Midland ,
i 19 Plant that led the Panel to conclude that it would have a i i
20 visit to the Midland site early in 19787 l 21 A The only recollection I can have, and this is speculation, j
. i 22 l that somewhere in NRR they gave testimony to the Board, or 1 1
23 i something, that one date and then when the Panel made its 24 update for budget call, or whatever, f or all the nuclear Lafayette Buildine Lu:od Reporting Service 3mto rthue tern fluy.
Suar MO 962.I176 Suite 220 Detroa. \fichigan M226 Farmington tidl<, \fichigan 18018
_ ~ _ _ . . - _ _ . _ _ . . - _ _ , . , .. ___ _ _
1 plants that were under conctruction this difference 2 evolved with the Midland Plant. I don' t roca11 whether 3 there was an earlier -- probably there was an earlier 4 estimate made, I j ust don' t recall.
S Q If you look over in the last paragraph of Mr. Boyd's 6 memorandum he talks about recognizing the variations in 7 the estimates and then he concludes by stating "We plan M 8 do a more detail plant-specific analysis of the best 9 estimate fuel load date for Midland Unit 2 and will 10 provide the results to the Forecast Panel, the utility, 11 and to you. " Do you recall that there was a decision made 12 by the Panel to make a visit to the Midland site in the 13 spring of 19787 14 I believe there was since we went there. It wz.s colder l l
15 ;
than hell, I remember that. I might say that this was 16 probably an update we had done for budget call and i 17 included all the plants and there might have been other 1 18 plants that had a considerable difference what the 1
19 applicant was reporting and what showed on the generic 20 curve also. If that be the case, there may have been 21 other plants that we were also asked to look at too.
22 j MR. ZACIO Let's take a short break here, if 23 l wo may.
I 24 ! (A brief recess was held during I
l l
- g. n.,,,o Building Lu:od Reporting Service y ,g .,, _,
1 .tr m o 962 1176 suite 220 (ktroit, \fichigar, M226 Farmington flills. \fichigan 18018
__. _ _ _ . _ _ . ____ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-._______ ~ _ _ __
4 1 the proceedings.)
1 2 BY MR. JDITES :
l 3 0 In connection with the various estimates that existed 4 concerning the completion of Midland Unit 2 in the spring 5 of 1978, Mr. Lovelace, let me hand you a document which 6 has been marked and received in evidence in this caso and 7 CPC 1121. It is a chart which actually I guess Mr. Zack 8 and I agreed on to simply summarize the various estimates 9 made by Consumers Power or by Bechtel f rom 1975 through 10 1983. I hand it to you only for the present purpose of 11 calling your attention to the estimated Unit 2 fuel load 12 date shown to have existed in February 1975 and continuing 13 thereaf ter, really until June of 1979 and November 1980 14 Does that help ref resh your recollection that Consumers 15 itself had estimated as of the spring of 1978 that it 16 would load f uel for Unit 2 at Midland in November of 19807 17 A I think that was a matter of public record. If I' m not 4
18 mistaken, I believe that's the date they reported in the 19 construction status repor t, the yellow book.
20 0 Prior to the deposition I arranged to deliver to you the l 1
21 documents that I expect to use during the deposition and 22 I'm going to hand them out to you as I go through the 23 deposition here. I sent them to you in advance so that 24 you would have a chance to review them and hopef ully l l
Luod Reporting Service gg .,, 3 ,,0 ,,
1.afayette Buildine '
suite Mt, 962.I1i6 Suit,gao Iktroit, thchigan 18226 Farrnington flith, Michigan 18018
1 ref resh your recollection a little bit about the various 2 meetings that occurred at Midland f rom the spring of 1978 !
l 3 through the spring of 1983. We Court is aoquainted with
. 4 I believe all or substantially all of these documents and 5 I don' t plan to spend a lot of time on the documents as I l
6 move through them except to ref er to various matters that 7 appear on some of them. If at any time, Mr. Lovelace, you 8 feel you want to take a longer look at a document to help 9 ref resh your recollection again f or the deposition, tell 10 me so and I'll stop and give you the time to re-read it 11 again. But in the interest of sort of moving along I'll 12 asstane that you had a chance to look over the document, 13 which I take it you have had a chance to look at these 14 documents, at least in a general way?
15 A Very general way. j l l 16 0 In any event, I emphasize any time you want to take a i 17 closer look at the document you let me know and you can !
18 certainly feel free to review the thing in a little more 19 de tail. De first of documents I'll give you is NRC 75.
20 These are the notes of the meeting that occurred on March 21 ! 21 and 22,197 8 between the caseload Forecast personnel l 22 and the Consumers Power personnel. The notes were l 23 prepared by Mr. Crocker of the NRC. !
24 By looking at this document does it help 31 Luod Reporting Service m 9 ,, w ,,,,, pg _
Infayette Building Su;,, ny; 9 6 2. l 17 6 Suite .!:0 fletroit. \fichigan 18226 Farmington flills, .\fichigan n)18
__ _ . _ _ . . _ ~ . , - _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ - . _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ , . _ . . , _ , . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _
1 ref resh your recollection that you did in fact go out with 2 the Panel to visit the Midland cito on March 21st and 22nd 3 of 19787
-' 4 A That's cor rect.
l 5 Q Was this the first occasion at which you had visited the 6 site?
7 h Yes, to the best of my recollection.
8 (J If you look over on the last page of die notes there's an 9 attendance list. This indicates on behalf of the NRC 10 there was yourself, Mr. Hood and Mr. Crocker and it also 11 reports that Mr. RJ Cook was in attendance on this 12 occa sion. Does that help ref resh your recollection that 13 Mr. Ron Cook was present at least during this meeting?
14 A At this meeting he was, I recollect that. He was j ust --
t i
15 I don' t believe he had moved on the sito yet as resident i
16 inspector. Like it says, he was the rooident inspector on '
17 site designe:s. lie came f rom Region III with Mr. Vandel.
! 18 0 Who was Mr. Vandel?
l l l
19 h He was a Region III project inspector, or was at that 20 time, and Mr. Lee and Mr. Naidu were also special 21 inspectors I think. Naidu la hangers and Lee is j 22 i electrical. I don' t know.
i ! '
23 0 With regard to the consumers Power parconnel, it's 24 l indicated Mr. Keoley, the Project Manager, was present and l
l i lafayette Building Luod Reporting Service 3,,g 3,,,h n,},f,n ,,,y_
Suite MO 962 1i76 Suig,g;o Iktroit, \lichigan 18226 Farmington Ilills, .\lichigan 18018 l
1 that Mr. Kenneth R. Kline, the Proj ect Control Supervisor, 2 was also in attendance. Was thin the first occasion where 3 you met those two gentlemen?
4 A To the best of my recollection, I can' t recall any 5 meetings in Washington prior to that.
6 Q Was it your understanding that Mr. Kline was the person 7 principally respo'nsible within Consumers f or cost and 8 scheduling of the Midland Project?
9 A I don' t know whether I really got that impression or not.
l 10 0 Did you come to learn that over time?
l 11 A over time I still wasn' t exactly sure what Mr. Kl ine' s l
12 responsibilities were.
13 0 During the course of the. visits that you had, did he make k I 14 1 presentations relating to the coat and achedule at the i
15 Midland Project on behalf of Consumera?
16 A He made various presentations en cost and schedule, I .
l l
17 think, and other items.
, I 18 0 There's also a ref erence to Mr. WG Jones of Bechtel being j t
19 pr e sent. What was your understanding of Mr. Jones' role?
l '
l 20 A It implies here he was a Dechtel project coat and schedule l
21 l supervisor.
I 22 0 As a general matter, during the visite to the Midland cito 23 by the Panel, did Consumers carry the ball on the 24 presentacion or what was the role or relative role of I
33 1.n d Reporting Service yo y,g ,,,,m ,,
f.afayette Building Suige rn 962 1176 Suite 2:n
[htroit. \fichigan 18226 Farmingm flills. \fichigan 1801R
1 Consumers versus Bechtel people?
2 A In this first meeting I guess I would have to say that 3 Consumers more or less ran the mooting. 'Ihey would bring 4 in or have Dechtel rvople there as necessary.
5 0 Had you had any prior dealings with Mr. Jones prior to the 6 first visit in March 19787 7 A No.
O 8 Q Directing your attention to the first page of tac 75, it 9 indicates in the second paragraph that there was a meeting 10 with the representatives of Consumers at the construction 11 site and then there was a tour then there was some 12 f ollow-up discussions. Was that the procedure that wan 13 l f ollowed, as best you can recall, on this . occasion?
14 i To the best of my recollection, yes. I do recall Mr.
l 15 l Crocker, I believe, wrote this meeting summary, he was fir. '
16 Boyd's technical assistant. I don' t know I even concurred i 17 in it bef ore it went out. l 18 0 I take it as best you can recall the notes are accurate 19 about the general scope of the review and the tour of the i
20 site?
I 21 A Ganerally, yes. A draf t -- to the best of my l l
22 i recollection, a draf t was run through and that's all I 23 l Gaw.
24 0 It was the general format of the meeting, namely the l
l 1.u:od Reporting Service 30 1afayette Busiding ,g \. 9, ,,,, y _
Suite MO 962.))i6 Su,1, 2:a iktroit. \fichigan 48226 Farmington Hills \fichigan 18018 l _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ .._._ _ __ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ -
)
1 initial presentation then the site tour then the follow-up 2 discussions, along the same lines as the procedures that 1
3 you described previously this morning, as the approach 1
4 taken by the Panel when it went out for one of these 1 5 , construction site visits?
6 A They weren' t as elaborate as we subsequently had done.
7 They weren' t as in-depth.
8 D The initial meeting at the Midland site wasn' t as in-depth 9 as some of the later visit procedures that were followed 10 by the Panel?
11 A Correct, h
12 0 Over on the last page, namely page five of the notes, 13 there's a general conclusion stated in the last paragraph 14 of !!r. Crocker's memorandum. Uas that the general 15 conclusion reached by the Penel af ter its site visit and '
16 its review of the inf ormation conveyed to it by Consumers <
17 and Bechtel?
18 A Well, the Panel -- or are you ref erring to all the !!RC i
19 people that were listed as attendees?
20 0 Well, let me direct it to the Panel. Was the general l l
21 conclusions stated in the last paragraph on page five the l
l 22 _
conclusion of the Panel?
23 A Well, to be perf ectly candid, I think it was tir. Crocker's l l
24 l conclusion because he was a little gun shy.
Luz d Reporting Service yo 3 ,,,,,,,
Infayette Buildmg Suite f30 962.))i6 Suite 220
[
th troit. \fichigan M226 Farmington lidis. \fichigan 2018
0 What do you mean by that?
1 Q ll 2 A I don' t really know how to explain it. It was the first 3 one he'd been on and I guess to say if you can' t prove
,- 4 dif f erent don' t disagree with the applicant.
5 Q On this occasion the end result, at least as exprecced in 6 Mr. Crocker's memorandum, was that the NRC staf f concluded 7 that they would accept the november 1980 fuel load date 8 for Unit 2, at least as stated in the next to last 9 sentence, "f or current planning purposes") is that 10 correct?
11 A That's correct.
I 12 Q And that was a reduction of roughly about a year and a 13 half f rom the May 1982 fuel load date that the f orecast 14 , Fanel had initially established prior to this date and 15 that was ref erred to in the Boyd menorandum, NRC 74, that 16 l I showed you a little bit ago?
I l 17 A Yes, that's correct. This is subsequent to the other one 3, 18 that was the generic date. This wao the alleged reculta 19 af ter the site visit.
20 0 Was the conclusion of NRC 75, namely the November 1980 !
l l :
21 date, arrived at ao a result of the expressions by the 22 I Consumers Power people that they felt they could make the 23 carlier November 1980 date?
24 A Well, I don' t know how to phrase it. I would say they' re i I
l '
i I'u:od Reporting Sertice gg )6 ,,
infayette Building Suste MO 962 1176 Suit,2;o r Iktrott \fichigan 48226 Farmington Ihlh. \lichiron 18018 l
1 just like all the other utilities, they will try to sell 2 you their date.
3 0 And on this occasion Consuraers I take it did attempt to 4 sell you the date?
5 h That's correct, and obviously f rom this memo we bought it.
l 6 0 Let me ask you to turn over to page three of the 7 memorandum, the next to the last paragraph it states "Work 8 is j ust now getting underway on preparation of 9 preoperational test procedures. It appears that the time 10 for procedure preparation may be a bit tight. How ev er, 11 ef forts will be based on lessons learned at other planta 12 , (e. g. TMI-2) and the Licensee anticipates no delays f rom 13 this cause. " So f ar as you know, is that an accurate 14 reflection of what the licensee, that is Consumers, told l
15 the caseload Forecast Panel on the occasion of the visit l
16 in March of 19787 17 A I would have to say frcra reading this yes, to the beat of 18 my recollection it is.
19 6 Looking over at the top of the next page there's a 20 discussion in the first paragraph about the overall site 21 construction activities and then it states near the end of 22 l that paragraph "Cable tray and electrical installation is 23 slightly behind schedule at this point, but as noted 24 earlier, the emphasis is now j ust changing to include l
0 Lu:od Reporting Service , 3.,,,9, ,,
gygg, gwigin, 962.]176 Suige 2:a
, hire 429 (Vudt. \fichigan M2:6 Farmineton Hills. \fichigan 18018
1 l
l 1
1 greater electrical ef f ort. The Licensee anticipates l 2 minimal problems in getting back on schedule in this 3 a r ea . So f ar as you can recall, is that an accurate 4 summary of what was conveyed to the NRC Panel on the 5 occasion of this visit? ,
6 A To the best of my recollection, yes, it is.
7 0 ' Let me hand you a series of documents, which again I 8 supplied to you in advance of the deposition here today.
9 The first is BEC 830, a memorandum f ra Mr. Martinez, the 10 Bechtel Proj ect Manager, to Mr. Iteeley of February 13, 11 1978; the next is CPC 2017, a memorandum f rom Mr. Cooke, 12 C-o-o-k-e, to Mr. Keeley of March 13, 1978 reporting on a 13 meeting with Dechtel on February 24 of that year; and BEC 14 1888, which is a memorandum f rom Mr. Martinez attaching 15 the Bechtel critical items action report, da ted a s of 16 March 7,1978, just bef ore the meeting; and Def endant's 17 Exhibit 2044, which is a compendium of the Bechtel major 18 project data sheets f rom January 1977 through June of 19 1978; and CPC 307, a memorandum f rom Mr. Randolph of 20 Consumers to the file of January 9,1978; and lastly, CPC I 21 91, another memorandum f rm Mr. Randolph to the file, of l 22 ! March 197 8.
23 !G. MULLI!!S On the third one, did you say 24 BEC 1888 or 13887 ;
. i infayette Railding Lu:od Reporting Sertice yo ., 3 8 ,,
Swtr 630 962 1176 Sune ::o Detroit. \fichigan 48226 Fannington flith. \lichigan IRtil8
4 1 !!R. ZACK: 10.
2 Fm. JE!!TES: It certainly looks like it's ,
3 1888, though it's j ust a little bit obscured. I think 4 it's 1888 5 MR. li.1LLIllS I' m sorry.
6 MR. ZACK: It could be DEC 1338 as well.
7 Another mystery in the case.
8 im. MULLI!!S It's a minor point. I don' t 9 mean to make a f uss about it.
10 MR. ZACK: We've seen this in the case 11 bef ore so I don' t think the j udge will be terribly 12 troubled about it.
13 BY MR. JENTES :
l 14 D A moment ago I asked you about the preoperational testing l
15 l status of the plant as reported to the Panel during the 16 March 1978 meeting and I' d like to explore that a little i L
17 bit f urther in connection with the first of the documents p i
i 18 I j ust handed you, BEC 830, 19 so f ar as you know, was BEC 830 supplied to i 20 the Panel during the course of its visit or subsequent to
(
l 21 the vicit in March of 1978?
22 a Not to my knowledge. ,
l 23 0 If you look over to the third page of !!r. Martinez's 24 letter to tir. Keeley, he talks about some probicmo that I
i 39 Luod Reporting Service 3,mo 3.w,,,, f; .,
lafayette Budding Suite h30 962*III6 Sui!! 220
[htrvt, \fichips M226 Farmington flith, \fichigan MolH
1 Bechtel saw with the startup schedule as proposed by 2 Consumers and in Item B, around the middle of the page, he
'3 says "Due to the advanced status of engineering and 4 procurement, together with the relatively tight 5 construction schedule, there is very little' capability of 6 modifying the current construction program to incorporate 7 the earlier and sequentially different turnover 0 requirements of the Consumers Project Testing Schedule as 9 presented without delaying the target f uel load date (s) 10 in the order of 3 to 6 months. "
11 So f ar as you can recall, was there any 12 disclosure to the Caseload Forecast Panel during this 13 visit in March of 1978 that Bechtel thought that there was 14 going to be a delay in the order of three to six months 15 due to preoperational testing problems?
16 h Mot to my knowledge.
l 17 0 Directing your attention to CPC 2017, was that a document 18 that you can recall seeing in connection with the visit of 19 the Panel?
20 T The only thing I can say is the Panel saw very few 21 internal documents.
22 0 And you don' t recall seeing this one?
l 23 A No, i
24 0 This ref ers to a meeting that had occurred between Bechtel l l
l l
Lumd Reporting Service 40 lafayette Railding go \. ,,,,
Suhte h o 962 1176 Suite 220 (ktroit. \fichigan 48226 Farmington liilh. \fichigan m018
1 and Consumers to diccuss the integration of the 2 construction and testing schedules on February 24, 1978 3 and down in the second paragraph under the heading 4 "Discussions" it's indicated that Bechtel advised 5 Consumers that "The Bechtel target date f or energization 6 (60 to 65 percent wire and cable) is May 1,197 9 and 7 compares to Testing's indicated turnover need date of late 8 February 1979 (ref er to meeting handout titled "Consumers 9 Power Test Schedule vs Present Construction Target 10 Dates") ." And then over on the next page, the end of the 11 carry-over paragraph, it says "Bechtel further indicated 12 that the May 1,1979 date for energization is extremely 13 tight and would likely slip, thereby using some of the 14 designated construction contingency. "
i 15 In connection with the discussion of the 16 whole pre-cp testing issue in March of 1978, do you l
17 remember any disclosure by Consumers or Bechtel about the 18 matters that I've j ust ref erred you to? I 19 % Not that I can recollect. It's obviously been seven years 20 ago. It's a very detailed question, but I don' t remember 21 receiving any inf ormation of that nature.
i l l 22 Q In the meeting notes prepared by Mr. Crocker I called your , '
l l 23 attention to some statements that apparently had been made . '
[
l 24 by Consumers Power people to the eff ect that they thought ;
l l
I Luzod Reporting Service , \.,,, ,, ,,
Isfayeur Building Suar h10 962 1176 Suar 2:0 Detrat, \fichigan 48226 Farmington flith, .\fichigan MOI 8
1 they would get on schedule concerning cable tray and 2 electrical installation. In that regard let me ask you to 3 take a look at BEC 1888, the Bechtel critical items action 4 report as sent along with !!r. !!artinez's covering 5 memorandum. I'll direct your attention particularly to 6 the Dates number 9756 where there's a discussion of cable 7 pulling and it says "The start of cable pulling operations ,
8 is currently forecast six months later than the Forecast 9 #1 schedule. This delay will result in increased 10 installation rates and electrician manpower requirements. "
11 So f ar as you .can recall, was there any 12 disclosure to the NRC concerning the f act that the start 13 of cable pulling operations was f orecast by Bechtel to be 14 some zix months behind? .
1 15 te.. ZACK: By Consumers or Bechtel or both 16 at this meeting, because an assumption of your question 17 was that Consumers had this report at that time, which has 18 been a mat.ter of dispute in this case?
19 DY MR. JENTES :
1 20 0 Was there any disclosure, as you can recall, Mr. Lovelace, ,
21 by either Consumers or Bechtel representatives concerning 22 this? ;
I 23 A I can' t recall a specific number of months. There may ,
1 24 have been an indication that it may be a hard spot in !
l i
Lu:od Reporting Service 42 lafayette Bwiding , ,o . ,,,,,
Suste MO 962 1ii6 Su,q, o (ktrost, \lichigan 18226 Farmington Ilills, \fichigan 18018
n 1 their schedule. I don' t recall. No specific months were 2 mentioned, six months or whatever.
3 Q Further along that same line let me ask you to take a look 4 at Def endant's Exhibit 2044, a collection of maj or proj ect j 5 data sheets, and ref er you over to near the back-end of 6 the document. It's got a Bates number of 01834 along the 7 right-hand of the page and it's the maj or proj ect data 8 sheet of March 31, 1978, page two of three. Do you have 9 that in f ront of you?
10 A How are these put together?
l
,11 Q Do you have the right page now? Let me ask first maybe a 12 broader question and that is, . prior to my supplying you 13 copies of these major project data sheets of Bechtel had h 14 you ever seen any of these documents in connection with 15 j your work at the NRC and on the Caseload Forecast Panel? f l
16 A There was one case, some internal documents that I had l 17 seen not provided by Dechtel or Consumers but came through U
18 the G AP, I guess it came out of this case here. Billie 19 Garde f rom GAP, when they petitioned the Board to litigate 20 the Dow issues I think some of these internal documents l 21 were incorporated in that package. That's the first time ,
i 22 I seen any of these.
23 0 Directing your attention over to page Bates number 01834, 24 it states here in the report that was issued about the 3
Luzad Reporting Service ,o 3 , ,,
7 4 ,.,,,,guay ,, '
suite Mo 962 11I6 Suite 220 '
Detroit, \fichigan Rt:26 Farminuton lidh, .\fichigan 18018
1 time that the Panel visited the Midland site that "The 2 initial review of Consumers' preliminary Unit 2 testing 3 schedule indicates a potential delay of f uel load (with
'- 4 contingency) of f rom 3 to 6 months. " Was that kind of an 5 indication of a delay of 3 to 6 months conveyed to the 6 Panel at the time of the March 1978 visit, so f ar as you 7 can recall 7 8 a Not so f ar as I can recall.
l 9 Q Directing your attention to CPC 307, which is Mr.
10 Randolph's memorandum to the file of January 9,1978, 11 you'11 note in the opening paragraph that he states that 12 the memorandum documents a meeting that had been held 13 internally within consumers on December 27, 1977 with Mr.
14 Howell and Mr. Keeley to review Bechtel's Forecast No. 4.
IS And in the last paragraph Mr. Randolph says "Included in 16 the preliminary review was the estimated eff ects of a
- i 17 delay in f uel load dates by four to seven months, 18 depending on the most reasonable startup and testing 19 schedule. It is anticipated that a recommendation in this l 20 area will be made concurrent with the issuance of this l 21 report." Initially did you see CPC 307 in connection with j 22 the Caseload Forecast Panel visit in March of 1978?
23 A No.
I '
24 0 were you advised in any way that Consumers had internally Igayette nuitdine Lu od Reporting Sersice ,q 44 ,
suae mo 962 1176 suur ::o I)etrat. \lichigan M226 Fnemington Ihth. \firhigan main
I had a review that included Mr. Howell and Mr. Keeley in 2 which there had been consideration of a delay of f our to 3 seven months as reported in the memorandum?
4 'A Not to my knowledge. I would say generally across the 5 board you' re never provided any internal inf ormation like 6 this by any utilities. You know it exists and 7 specifically asked f or it. Obviously you don' t know 8 what's going on internal in the meetings and so on.
9 Q Directing your attention to CPC 91, it establishes that 10 this is a f ollow-up memorandum prepared by Mr. Randolph in 11 March of 1978 and you'll note that it indicates that the 12 topic is "Schedule Delay Allowance. " It states "In 13 attempting to assess the impact cf a delay during the 14 startup and testing phase of construction, we have made 15 the f ollowing assumptions: 1, the delay will add 3 months ;
16 to the f uel load and commercial operation dates, making j 17 ! Unit 2 commercial on 6/1/81 and Unit 1 on 6/1/02. " Uss 8
, k' 18 this a document that was disclosed to the Panel in the 19 March 1978 visit?
20 A No, it was not.
I 21 Q Was the inf ormation that I j ust directed you to disclosed l
22 l or discussed with the Panel in connection with i'.a March 23 1978 visit?
l 24 MR. ZACK: Assuming that was indeed the l
l 0
Lsszod Reporting Service ,, ,o \.,,, , ,,,,_
1.afayette RusIding Suite h30 962 liI6 Suite 220 Detrost. \fichigan 18226 Farmington listh. \f.chigan 18018
1 assenption being made by Consonero Power at the time.
2 A Mot that I can recall. Specifically when it had dollars 3 for something we never looked r *: or talked about it in any 4 of the meetings anyway.
5 SY HR. JENTES:
h 6 Q You' re talking about dollars f or budgets?
I 7 A Yes. I see the dollar figures.
l 8 Q But I take it you did discuss quite extensively estimates 9 of schedules?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Let me hand you another document -- bef ore I hand you 12 that, let me ask one other thing and that is, in 13 sonnection with the visit of the Panel in March of 1978 14 was there any discussion, as you can recall, of any soile 15 problems at the Midland site?
16 A Not to my recollection, no. l l
l 17 0 To be precise, there's evidence in this case that there a I 18 had been a f ailure of a grade beam at the Administration 19 Building at the Midland site in the f all of 1977 that was 20 < investigated, I won' t attempt to sunmarize it, but was ;
\
21 there any discussion at all with the Panel on the occasion ,
I !
22 i of the March 1978 visit, as you can recall, of the I 23 g Administration B' (1 ding soils problems?
1 24 A No. As a matter of f act, on any of the visits until 1983 !
I i L lafayette Huuldmg l.utod Reporting Sertice , S. , 4 6 ,, ,
Swtr hw 962 1176 Suar Ly>
(ktrat, \fichisan m226 Farminston lisils. Whican m018
1 we never discussed the soils issue because there was no --
2 l
the fix wasn' t known. It was an unknown to us. So how 3 can you put a time on an unknown. We never, to my 4 knowledge, discussed soils until the 1983 visit and I 5 think at that time they had the approved NRC fix on it, 6 al th ough, it had a stop-work order on it or something. We
' never discussed the soils issue, the impact to the 8 schedule.
9 0 I'll come back to some of the later meetings and what was 10 said or not said about soils on those occasions but I do 11 want to be precise with regard to the March 1978 meeting.
12 Do I understand correctly that at least as of that time 13 you were not made aware of arty problems at the ;
14 Administration Building with soils?
15 A That's correct, riot that I can recall.
I 16 0 A little bit more broadly, was there any discussion with 17 the Caseload Forecast Panel at this March 1978 meeting of j ,
18 any problems that Consumers had run into with U. S.
19 Testing Company, which was doing soils testing at the 20 site?
i 21 MR. ZACK Assuming that Consumers had run l
22 into problems specifically with U. S. Testing. ,
23 A Not to my recollection. I don' t even know whether the NRC 24 knew that soils testing was being done there or not. Mot g 1.uzod Reporting Servic* _ ,gy Infayette Hueldina p Sui,, n; 962.I!76 suae :o Ikrait. %higan M226 Farminstm lhlls. Stichann 18018
.- . ,_ .. ,,_ _ . . ~ . ._. . ~ . . .. _
-1 to my recollection, no mention- of soils.
2 BY MR. JD1TES:
h 3 Q I' m sorry?
O 4 A Hn mention of soils anyway that I can reca'.1.
5 0 To save time I don' t need to ask you about whether or not 6 you had heard anything about soils borings being requested 7 and not being taken or whether or riot various procedures 8 had not been f ollowed concerning the compaction and 9 testing of soils, all those matters I take it your anrwer 10 is none of that subject was discussed at all with the 11 Panel on the occasion of the March 1978 visit?
12 a No, that's correct. '
l 13 Q Now let me hand you another document, which j umps f orward i
I 14 in the chronology a little over a year. This is NRC 600,
, 15 another document I arranged to --
16 MR. JD1TES: Of f the record.
17 ( A brief discussion was held 12 of f the record.)
19 hY MR. JDITES (continuing):
l 20 0 delivered to you in advance of the deposition. It's a 21 membrandum f rom Mr. Hoefling, H- o- e- f i- n- g , to members .
22 of the ASLD, dated May 21, 1979, and it attacheu a 23 memorandum and set of materials f rom Sybil Kari, K-a-r-1, ,
24 who's shown to be chairman of rho Caseload Forecast Panel. ,
l.afayett- Huildme Luted Reporting Service ,,g 3 4 0 ,,,
Suar MO 962.I1*6 Suur, g;o Iktmut, \fichigan Mt226 Farminuton Ihlh. \tahican 18018
1 FW first question is, have you previously seen NRC 600?
2 A I didn' t recall seeing it. It's very possible that I 3 could have seen it, but to my knowledge, no, I don' t think 4 I have, or not until you sent me the copies a month or two 5 ago, whatever.
6 0 Who is Sybil Kari?
l 7 A She was the chairman of the Caseload Forec.ast Panel.
l 8 0 Uhat was the relationship between her role as the chairman 9 and your role as a participant in the Panel?
10 N Well, as I explained bef ore, there were other of fices 11 involved and she was more or less the coordinator of 12 pulling everything together. In other words, if she 13 wanted an update on plants that were under construction, 14 she' d asked me to do a quarterly or annual update on the 15 plant under construction. If she wanted something f rom I i 16 & E, she can contact the member of the Panel with them f or ,
i 17 i that inf ormation. ;
1 18 O Directing your attention over to the memorandum f rom Miss 19 Kari, that's the second page in the document, it talks in 20 the opening paragraph about the preparation of the annual 21 agency case load proj ections relative to all plants under 4
22 construction and indicates that "the Panel re-examined the 1
23 estimates of construction completion date made f or Midland ,
24 at the March 1978 site visit. " Was this a re-examination l
A IU d N' Porting Service y ,g \. y lafayette Hutiding ^
swer Mo 962 1176 suurt an Iktroit, \fichigan 48226 Farmington flills \fichigan 18018
1 that you participated-in?
2 A This was a -- we updated, as I alluded to bef ore, our 3 annual proj ections on quarterly or every six months basis 4 f or budget call. No updated the status of all plants 5 based on the percent complete that they provided, that the 6 utilities provided on a monthly basis f or the construction 7 status repor t, or yellow book, rainbow book, whatever you 8 want to call it, and f or each plant the , percent complete 9 versus -- the percent complete was plotted on the curve 10 and we made a rough estimate of this is how many month 11 it's going to take to complete the plant, and that's where 12 this came f rom. I obviously had done it f or all the 13 plants that were under construction.
I 14 0 In the second paragraph of Miss Kari's memorandum it's 15 indicated that based on an analysis of recent percentage 16 , completion reports that some additional delay world be 17 entailed at Midland and that parngraph states "We 18 ther ef or e, tentatively revised our planning estimate f or 19 Midland Unit 2 to a November 1981 date and planned to do a 20 more plant-specific evaluation in April or early May. "
21 When the ref erence here is to "we", did that includo you?
1
. 22 A Yes. ,
i j 23 b In the next paragraph it's indicated "!!owever, in the t !
24 meantime other events occurred, particularly the issues I l
l lafayette llwiding 3n940 %rthwe ten, finy.
S wge m o 962 1176 Swte : o i (ktrmt. \lichigan I!!226 Farminston lluth \lvhican 18018
1 related to soil settlement and the TMI accident which will 2 no doubt aff ect the critical path of construction 3 completion. We believe it would be more usef ul to NRR 4 management to have a more precise estimate once the impact 5 of the above issues on the construction schedule can be 6 eval ua ted. If you agree, we believe a site visit would be 7 usef ul in about 3 to 6 months and in the meantime suggest 8 the November 1981 date, albeit a rough indication, be used 9 for determining NRR priority of the Midland OL review. "
10 What is the ref erence here to the issues 11 related to "soils cettlement"?
12 A I have no idea. It would be pure speculation that the 13 soils problems had surf aced with respect to the aux 14 building and where the Diesel Generator Building was and 15 they had done some dead load with sand and I guess the 1 16 soils issue had surf aced. I don' t recall the time f rame 17 that it surfaced. There wasn' t that much involved. I j 18 wasn' t involved in any of the soils aspects of it.
19 0 Do I understand correctly f rca your earlier testimony, as 20 well as Miss Kari's memorandum here, that the revised 21 estimate of November 1981 was without regard to the 22 ; "issues related to soils settlement" and any impact they 23 might have on the schedule?
24 A That's correct, soils or TMI. We specifically took the 1
51 lAf4yrtle [lutldans NIO Y!!bMl'fn llHF Suite fd0 9bA*$ b EU5I! S$0 Iktrat. \fichigan al226 Farmington Ihlls. \fichienn 18018
l 1
1 percent complete, I guesc 57 percent complete, plotted it 1
2 on the curve, showed so many months remaining to l 3 completion and took in no consideration f or soils or T!!I.
4 Q According to Miss Kari's memorandum recommendation was 5 that the site visit would be delayed f rom the spring of 6 1979 to some time in the f all of 197 9. Did there in fact 7 occur a site visit by the Panel in the f all of 1979 that 8 you went on?
9 a To the best of my recollection, there was.
I 10 Q Let me -~
11 a I went on quite a f ew in 1979 af ter TMI, almost every 12 week, because that's the time we really started 13 prioritizing the OL reviews.
14 h To help ref resh your recollection in that regard let me 15 hand you a couple of documents. '
16 A I can add, if there was one in 1979 I was there because 17 there wasn' t any place that I didn' t go on that I can 18 r e call .
19 Q Let me hand you two documents, again which I' ve previously 20 supplied you. It's NRC 76, which is Mr. !!ood's set of 21 notes on a Caseload Forecast visit to Midland of September i
22 18 and 19 of 1979, and CPC 274, which is a set of minutes
- 23 of the came meeting prepared by !!r. Kenneth Kline. If you 24 look over in !!r. Hood's minutes to enclosure two, which is i
i Isfayette &Idut,
- Poning SeMer ,, ,0 ,,A u,},f,n,,u ) .
Suite Mo 962 1176 su,re ho Iktroit. \tahigan 182:6 Farmington lidh, \lichigan I80th
1 Bates number 7372, it indicates that you were in '
2 attendance both on September 18 and on September 19, 1979.
3 Does that help ref resh your recollection that that was the 4 two dates when you went out to visit Midland again?
5 N That's correct.
6 Q On the first and second pages of the memorandum of Mr.
7 Hood under the heading Conclusion it's stated that "In the 8 judgment of the Panel, another nine months will accrue 9 bef ore sufficient system turnovers occur so as to 10 constitute start of the preoperational testing phase. The 11 tests ere estimated to require at least c 2-year duration, 12 resulting in a projected completion date of June 1982 for 13 the first unit to be cou pleted, Unit 2. "
14 When they' re talking here about the judgment 15 of the Panel, was this your j udgment as well? I 16 \ I would say most conclusions of all the plants was 17 basically my judgment af ter we had discussed it among the 18 other members. I was more or less like the catalyst. I 19 went to all the plants. Most of the people only went to 20 the plant that they visited. So I had the benefit of 21 seeing what was going on at all the plants and mentally l
22 comparing one plant to another, state of construction they 23 were in, the data I collected f rem other plants, being 4
24 able to apply it to another plant. ]
l 53 Lsusod Reportirsa Servi,e m 3.g,,,, , ._
lafayette Butiding Sa, Sy; 962.Iii6 Suur 20 l)erroit, %hyan 4926 Farmington Hills, \fichigan 2018
- .~ _
1 Is it correct, th er ef or e, that the conclusion that I've r
2 just read to you was a conclucion that you subscribed to?
3 a Yes.
l 4 Q on the second page of Mr. Hood's memorandum at the very 5 end, last sentence, it says "The estimate by the Forecast 6 Panel does not presently include provisions f or the 7 effects of TMI and open licensing issues; however, the 8 stuf f perceives these ef f ects will be quite significant to 9 the ultimate completion date. " Does this again indicate 10 that the estimate being made by the Panel and reported in 11 this memorandum was one bef ore taking into account TMI?
. 12 a It implies that we did not include TMI in this estimate 13 nor did we include the soils issue that was ref erred to as 14 a licensing issue. There wasn' t enough hard data to 15 quantify what needed to be done, what would be done. TMI 16 issues had not been settled yet. I don' t think 00 0 or 070 l 17 were issued at that time, I don' t think. Industry in scme l
l 18 cases were taking a shot at I think this needs to be done 19 and everyone doing it at their own risk.
20 Q To be clear with regard to your last answer, am I correct I 1
! i l 21 that the acf erence in Mr. Hood's memorandum to open l ,
l 22 licensing issues included among other things the soils 23 issue?
24 6 Yes, it did.
4 l 1.afaytte thidine Luzod Reporting Service ,g ., 5, 4 ,,
smw mo 962.!!?6 s mte r o Iktrmt, \lichigan 4826 Farmington Ihlis \lichigan 18018
1 1 Q And the estimate made in September of 1979 was without
} .
2 regard to any' impact of the soils problems at Midland on 3 the schedule?
4 f That's correct, as well as the TMI problems, TMI scope of 5 work.
~
6 p I' d like to direct your attention over to Appendix B of l
7 Mr. Hood's memorandum, that's at Dates number 7376, and 8 7377, and 7378, and I guess it goes on beyond that, but my 9 principle focus is on those pages. Just to help ref resh 10 your recollection on some of the questions I'm going to 11 ask, perhaps you could read over to yourself the 12 discussion that's indicated Mr. Keeley gave under item 2 13 concerning Applicant's Schedule Revisions that begins on 14 7376 and continues over on page 7377 and then the table 15 that summarizes those materials. l 16 A I think I'm generally f amiliar with it.
l l 17 0 So f ar as you can recall, do Mr. Hood's notes accurately l i
18 summarizo what Mr. Keeley had to say on the occasion of I 19 this September 1979 visit concerning the matter of this i 20 review by him of Consumers' schedule revisions? i 21 A You' re ref erring to Forecast 5, For ecast Sa, Forecast Sc 22 and Forecast 17 and so on. That got rather conf using.
23 0 My question f or the moment is limited to whether or not, 24 so f ar as you can recall, Mr. Hood accurately summarized I
1 55 y ,,,, g;,g Lu:od Reporting Service gg 3 ,,,,,,
Su,g,s;o 962.I1I6 Suurr 220 lktroa, \fichisan 48226 Fannington fisils. \fichigan PalR
1 what !!r. Keeley had to say concerning the Forecast No. 5 !
2 and the Forecast Sa and the Forecast Sb and'the revision ,
3 that was made by Consumers in the: schedule in the spring 4- 4 of 1979, all of which are contained in the notes at 737G 5 through 73787 6 J ,
To the best of my recollection I would say yes, Mr. Hood's
! 7 memorandum does generally reflect what' Mr. Keeley told us 8 and I think probably if you had the letter that had the 9 concurrence sheet on there you would probably find my 10 signature on there f or the concurrence.
. 11 0 You mean the concurrence in the minutes?
12 A Yes, in the write-up.
I 13 N For ease of ref erence on some of the documents that I'm 14 next going to show you, you might want to take a look at i 15 7378, which is the table that summarizes Mr. Keeley's 16 presentation concerning Forecast 5 and some of the i
17 follev m analyses of that. Do you have that in f cont of 18 you?
19 A Um- ha.
20 Q Let me again hand you a stack of documents which I've 21 previously given you. 'Ihe first is Bechtel's Forecast No.
22 5 of June 197 8, that's BEC 88; the next one is BEC 75, !
23 which is the Bechtel target f uel load schedule study of i
24 July 1978; the next is BEC 83, which is the Bechtel target i i
l l
l'uod Reporting Service 56 Isfayette Ruilding .py y y
%ite Mo 962 1176 Sua, gy Detmit. '.fichigan M226 Farmington Hdir thchigan malR
1 fuel load schedule assessment study of !! arch 1979; and the 2 last is BEC 204.1, a set of notes, or a draf t set' of notes 3 for an executive review session between Consumers and 4 Bechtel, which are indicated to have been reviewed with 5 Mr. Howell of Consumers on July 26, 1979.
6 om. ZACK: Bef ore we wade through that, can 7 we take a short break?
8 !G. JD;TES We certainly can.
9 (A brief recess was held during 10 the proceedings.)
l 11 BY !G. JD1TES :
l 12 0 Mr. Lovelace, the Court has become quite f amiliar with the 13 documents that I' ve j ust handed you and theref ore I won' t 14 take much time in ref erring to them unless f or any reason 15 you wish to spend a little time to look at some things, l 16 which as I indicated earlier please let me know.
17 Directing your attention, however, to the 18 table that I asked you to look at a moment ago f rom Mr.
19 Hood's memorandum, there's sort of a summary there of the 20 various documents or analyses that Mr. Keeley reviewed?
21 T Well, I think I was getting a little conf used when we were 22 talking about all these different f orecasts and tried to 23 put, surue type of perspective when the f orecast was made, 24 what you were talking about, what the quantity was and I l
57 Lwd Reporting Service gyo 3.g,, yf Infayette Buddine sua, wo 962.IIi6 Saue 2:0 Decem't. \fichigan 18226 Farmington lidh, \fichigan 2018
1 think -- I don' t recall whether there was a handout, 2 whether he put it on the blackboard. I don' t recall where 3 it came f rom.
4 0 The first of the documents that Mr. Keeley ref erred to is 5 Forecast No. 5, and that's the same BEC 88 that I handed 6 you a moment ago. Was BEC 88 provided to the Panel in 7 connection with this visit in September 1979, as you 8 recall?
9 A Well, I will make this comment: This obviously is what 10 the presentation was made f rom. I don' t have the package 11 that was provided to the NRC in my presence here. So I 12 can say that flipping through here maybe some of the 13 things were provided to us; whether all of them were or 14 not I don' t know. i i
15 Q Well, let me direct your attention, if I may, over to page 16 Bates number 4210 in Forecast 5. It's about seven pages ,
i 17 into the document and that page contains the f orecast i 18 schedule synopsis. As stated in the opening paragraph, 19 Dechtel advised Consumers in Forecast 5 that the 20 achievability of the target dates of November 1980 and 21 November 1981 were "becoming unrealistic" due to a number 22 of factors, and down at the bottom under Startup Schedule 23 Integration there's an indication there's a high potential 24 for a three month delay in the target f uel load dates. l 1
Luod Reporting Service 58 l.afayette Building 3 ,g ,,
Suar MO 962 1176 Sua, 20 (ktrat. \fichtean m:26 Farmington lidl<, \fichiean mala
=
1 During the presentation made by Mr. Keeley, 2 do you recall any mention by him that Bechtel thought the l
3 fuel load dates were becoming unrealistic and that there 4 was a high potential for delay?
I 5 A Not to my recollection.
6 D The next document he ref ers to is a Forecast No. 5 --
l 7 4 Does this have a date?
6 Q Yes, June of 1978. The next document ref erred to by Mr.
9 Keel ey, both f rom the text and the table, is described as 10 Forecast No. Sa and it's been previously identified in the 11 record as the second of the documents I handed you, DEC 12 75, the Bechtel target f uel load schedule study of July 13 1978. If you turn over to the page Bates number 5595, 14 it's about again eight pages into it, Bechtel states in 15 the paragraph j ust bef ore the heading "Synopsis-Case B",
16 that "we believe that the existing target f uel load dates i
17 when reviewed to current project status are unrealistic",
18 and then f urther down under the discussion of Case B on 19 that page it's indicated that Bechtel thought that a more 20 realistic date would involve a slip of some five to ten 21 months in Units 1 and 2 respectively. j 1
22 As you recall during the discussion by Mr.
23 Keeley of this Forecast Sa, was there any disclosure by j 24 him that Bechtel had concluded the existing schedule was 1
I 59 y ,, g;gg;,,
Lu:od Reporting Service 3m,o 9,,g,,,,,, 77,,,
gy,,, ny; 962 1176 State 2;m iktrdt. \fichigan 48226 Farmington flills, \fichigan 18018
i
- 1. unrealistic and that there was a more realistic schedule 2 delay of some five to ten months?
3 A Not to my knowledge, no.
l 4 d Forecast No. Sb has been identified as the next of 'the 5 documents I gave you, which is DEC 83, the Beditel target 6 fuel load schedule assessment of March 197 9. Do you have 7 that in f ront of you?
8 n Yes.
9 0 Once again, if you'll look over about eight pages into the 10 document, it's got a trped number 4 at the bottom of the 11 page. Got that one?
12 A Righ t.
l 13 0 Ignore the handwritten notes f or a moment.
I ,
14 A Can' t read them anyway. l l -
15 0 I'll come back to them in a minute. The typed materials 16 state that "Given no schedule contingencies and the 17 current testing schedule logic and durations the impact onl 18 the target f uel load dates pursuant to the recommendations 19 and evaluation of the schedule assessment ares", then t 20 there's some more probable dates listed. The more 21 probable dates show slippages of some five to eight 22 months, that's what those handwritten indications opposite 23 the dates are.
24 During Mr. Keeley's discussion of the !
l isfayette Basiding Luod Reporting Service ,w 3.g 6 0 ,,
Suite hw 962.))i6 Suite gm lktrat, \fichigan 48226 Farmineron flulls, \lichigan 48018
1 so-called Forecast No. Sb, was there any disclosure that 2 Bechtel thought that the more probable f uel load dates 3 -
entailed a five to eight month delay?
4 A No. As a matter of fact, apparently 5a and Sb were --
5 seems as though they were still digesting it and hadn' t 6 made a decision one way or the other where they stood or 7 what went on, but' there's no indications that -- well, I C think obviously if you saw the handout we got you would 9 find some of the material that's in these packages in the 10 handouts we got f or that March presentation.
11 Q And you' re ref erring, when you say these documents, to the 12 two documents I j ust went through wi.th you, BEC 75 and BEC 13 83; is that correct?
14 A Yes. You would find a package and I'm guessing it may i
15 include some of all three of these. I don' t know, but 16 there would be a package with Mr. Hood's meeting summary 17 attached to it with the handouts that we were given. I 18 may have been given additional inf ormation in my handouts.
19 0 You don' t recall anything along the lines of what I've
, 20 just directed your attention to? ,
l 21 A No. They were presented as packages like so.
I 22 O You mentioned you couldn' t read the handwriting on this j 23 one page and I brought along Mr. Kline's trial tranccript 24 f rcan transcript 5913 of the trial and he indicated that 3 l
t 61 Luod Reporting Service y s. g ,,,,,y,,
isfayette Buildine l S,;,, a 9 6 2. I 1 a' 6 Suite 220 l
Detrat, \fichigan M226 Farmington Hdh, \fichigan 18018
1 the materials that are in the margin on page four of BEC 2 83 say "20 percent of probability without licensing 3 identified, less than two percent probability with 4 licensing identified. " Was there any disclosure by Mr.
5 Keeley or the Consumers Power people that there was only a 6 two percent probability of achieving the datos that are 7 shown as near term target adj ustments?
8 MR. ZACK: Assuming that Consumers believed 9 th at.
10 A To my knowledge, there was no probabilities mentioned, eso 11 percent, ten percent or any percent of the probability.
12 SY MR. JENTES :
l 13 Q The last document I handed you in this package is BEC 14 204.1, and there's a couple of documents like this and I 15 used this only because it's at least chore. Directing 16 your attention. over to the second page of the document 17 it's indicated in the middle of the page that Bechtel felt i 18 that "A 15-month adj ustment is required to the current 19 target f uel load dates of June 1981 and November 1981 to 20 provide a realistic and attainable proj ect schedule which 21 reflects the current pr oj ect scope, quantity estimates, 22 achievability, and integrated startup program. " j 23 Do you recall any discussion by Mr. Keeley 24 when he was talking about what's listed here as the May l
l !
l 1.afaytte Rustdane 1.u:od Reportirng Sers ice , ,g ., 6 2 ,,,
%:ste hw 962 1176 &aste ::o Iktroit, \lichigan Rl226 Farmineton Hsils, \fschican 68018 1.
1 1979 or the July 1979 forecast materials that Consumers 2 had received a recommendation f rom Bechtel that they felt 3 a 15-month, or something in that order of magnitude, 4 adj ustment in the schedule was required?
5 A No, I do not.
l 6 0 In Mr. Hood's notes of the meeting there's an indication 7 that Consumers and Bechtel had the schedule under review 8 and that there would be a follow-up meeting with the Panel 9 af ter that review was completed. Do you recall that 10 during 1980 you and the other members of the Panel did in 11 f act have some follow-up meetings concerning the Consumers 12 estimates f or the f uel load of Unit 2 and Unit 1 at
. 13 Midland?
14 A To the best of my recollection, there was a meeting in I
15 Washington in the earlier part of the year, I don' t know, i 16 then we went to the site, I don' t know, prior to the !
17 meeting or bef ore the meeting in Washington. I don' t 18 recall which. I think that there was Steve Howell, Jim i
19 Cook, Mr. Selby, maybe Kline, and they talked about 20 Nov embe r , I'm j ust recalling f rom recollection now, and 21 discussed the schedule as well as the license review and 22 they were talking a November 1981 fuel load date I think, 23 to the best of my recollection, and could possibly pull it l 24 back to July of 1981 or something like that. I don' t 1.afayette Baddsng
- 0 'U"! " .n9to %rthur m flu r.
Suur hw 962 1176 Suar 233 Iktroit, \fichigan 43226 Farmington lidis, Alichiean 18018
1 remember. There was two meetings. It has to be that 2 becauce I recall that Al Schwencer was the branch chief 3 and he made a commitment that we would come back to the
- 4 site f or another site specific evaluation at the requent 5 of Consumers Power.
6 Q In order to help ref resh your recollection of the dates, 7 let me hand you CPC 1614, which is a set of notes prepared 8 by Mr. James E. Drunner, who's one of the attorneys f or 9 Consumers Power Company, concerning a meeting that '
10 apparently occurred on June 13 th,1980 in Washington 11 between various members of the NRC and Consumers Power 12 Compa ny.
13 A Yes, this is the meeting I was ref erring to --
l 14 Q That's the first of the meetings?
l 15 A A f ew moment ago. That's correct.
l 16 O This was a meeting that took place in --
l 17 B eth esda .
18 0 In Bethesda?
19 A Correct.
i 20 Q Directing your attention back to this chart I showed you l 21 some time ago, which is CPC 1121, it indicates that in j 22 January of 1980 Dechtel had come out with its Forecact 6 23 proposing a Unit 2 fuel load date of April of 1984 and a 24 Unit 1 fuel load date of September of 1984. Does that ,
l lajhyette skadsne I' M d R' Porting Service , y, 64 ,
Suite MO 962.))76 Su,g, hn lktrmt, \fichizan M2:6 Farmington tidls. \tahigan enis
1 help ref resh your recollection that by the time of the 2 j meeting that occurred in Bethesda that you and the other i
3 members of the Forecast Panel were aware that Dechtel had 4 recommended these April 1984 and September 1984 fuel load 5 -
dates?
6 A Yes. As a matter of f act, there was a letter sent f rom 7 the Consumers' attorney to the !!RC, to the Board, which 8 said -- I don' t remember the exact quotes of the letter 9 but it said this is what Bechtel recommends, however, 10 Consumers Power has not accepted theco dates yet, and I 11 believe that letter was dated in like January. I don' t --
12 recalling f rom memory again.
13 0 If you look on about the fif th page of this CPC 1614, it's 14 Bates number 24096, it's indicated who was precent at the 15 meeting and f rom Consumers it's indicated that !!r. !!owell l 16 was present along with !!r. Jim Cook and !!r. Keeley and 17 several other people. 'Ihere's no indication that Mr.
18 Selby was present on this occasion. Does this ref resh 19 your recollection that the people that were here f rom 20 Consumers are those people indicated?
21 A This was a dif f erent meeting. The meeting I'm thinking 22 about was an earlier meeting that had to do with a CP 23 extension or something. ,
24 Q On the !!RC side there's a number of people that at least 00 Luzod Reporting Service , 3.g ,, ,,
4 ,,,, g ig g
% rr M O 962.]I76 %te aw Detrat. Whigan IRzs Farmington flills. Whstan 180lR
1 don' t seem to be associated with the Forecast Panel as .
2 such. Were these other people. such as Mr. Purple and Mr.
3 I Tedesco, part of the Panel or were they people f rom other
'. 4 aspects of the NRC?
5 A They were people f rom the other aspects of the NRC. This 6 was not strictly a schedule, construction schedule 7 meeting, it had other aspects to it, licensing aspects.
I 8 Q As you understood it, what were those other aspects of the 9 meeting that is beyond the purely scheduling aspects of 10 the meeting?
11 A The best I can recollect, they were trying to acl1 the NRC 12 on an earlier date which they thought they could meet 13 rather than the April date and that the licensing review 14 for the OL needed to be moved up, and a dedicated reviewer 15 staff put to it, things of that nature. I haven' t road 16 this. I think the discussion -- whether the discussion i i
17 was on how if the reviewers weren' t put on the Midland OL !
l 18 review that the OL review was a critical path and needed 19 to get their FSAR and then we think we can better the 20 April date to November and so, therof ore, we need to get a 21 dedicated staff of reviewers. And, so, it was sort of a 22 conglomeration but I guess schedule was the meat of it, ;
23 that we get it done earlier but we need to qct our P" AR l
24 and if we don' t licensing is going to hold up complet. ion l
l.afayette Building 1.u:od Reportirsg Service ,y k ,,
suae rao 962.]176 Sua, y (Hrmt. \fuchtean 483 farrrnington listir \fichaean ohnlR '
s 1 of the plant.
2 O Had there been a f urther visit by the Panel to the site 3 between tne September 1979 visit and this meeting in June 4 j in Bethesda or did the next visit by the Panel occur af ter 5 the meeting in Bethesda?
6 A This was in -- this meeting was in June of 1980 It seems 7 to me that there was a meeting in August or September of 8 1980 at the site. No, we committed to a site visit here, 9 I didn' t, tk . S chwence r, the branch chief, Mr. Hood's
- 10 branch chief, committed to a site visit to reassecs our 11 views of their schedule.
4 12 Q So the site visit, theref ore, occurred af ter this June 13 1980 meeting?
14 h That's correct.
I 15 0 I' d like to direct your attention over to page 24097 of i 16 the CPC 1614 where there's a discussion of some comments 17 made by Mr. Cook, and I' d like to ask you to read through 18 those comments beginning at the top of page 24097 and 19 running down through the end of the third paragraph, which 20 also ref ers to some comments by Mr. Sullivan.
21 A Yeah, I' ve read it.
I 22 O In the first of the paragraphs that I directed you to it's 23 indicated that Mr. Cook "explained that the end date in !
i 24 Forecast 6 was not the result of a detailed analysis, but l
1 0
1.uzod Reporting Servier ym g
!.<4yrtte Rwidine 962 lii6 Swie gh Su hw (ktrat. \taktsen 482.% Farmmaton Hdis. \lwhigan molR
1 rather the result of a need to choose an end date f or cost 2 proj ections. " So f ar as you can recall, did Mr. Cook give 3 that explanation of Forecast 6?
4 A I don' t understand your question.
l 5 Q Let me rephrase it. I just read to you what Mr. Brunner 6 reported was said by Mr. Cook concerning Forecast G and my 7 question is whether or not, so f ar as you can recall, Mr.
8 Cook did in f act give the explanation that I've just read 9 to you concerning Forecast 67 10 A Yes, that he thought that they could better the 1984 date, 11 is that the question?
12 0 Let me try again.
l 13 A Okay.
I 14 0 According to Mr. Brunner, Mr. Cook "explained that the end 15 date in Forocaat 6 was not the result of a detailed 16 analysis, but rather the result of the need to choose an 17 end date f or cost proj ections. " So f ar as you can recall,
.18 did Mr. Cook make the statements that are ascribed to him 19 by Mr. Brunner?
20 A I can' t really say that I can recall. I can vaguely 21 recall something to that nature.
I 22 0 In the next paragraph Mr. Brunner reports that the various '
23 items regarding what Mr. Cook said, the sum and substance i
24 of which is that Mr. Cook f elt that there was "a good 1.u:od Reporting Sersice yo \. 6,,8 ,, _
IAfsyette ikddme Suite MO 962 1176 suite :;y (ktrat. \taican M22n Farminetun Ildis, \fdisan mots
1 chance of improvement" in the schedule into the stramer of 2 1983. Do you generally recall that Mr. Cook made the 3 statements that are ascribed to him by Mr. Brunner in the 4 second paragraph?
5 A I certainly do. I remember it very well.
l 6 Q And in the next paragraph there's some statements ascribed 7 to Mr. Sullivan again. Do you recall Mr. Sullivan made 8 those statements?
9 A I recall those statements, yes.
10 D Did you in f act go out to the Midland site af ter this June 11 1980 meeting along with other members of the Forecast 12 Panel, and to be precise did you visit the site on July 28 13 and 29,19807 14 A 7 believe those are the correct dates. That's what's on l l
15 the meeting summary.
16 D Let me hand you out in that connection -- i i
17 A That visit was at the request of Consumers Power and was 18 committed to by Mr. Schwencer of the NRC.
19 Q Let me hand you CPC 275.1, which has previously been 20 identified in the case as Mr. Kline's notes of a meeting 21 of the Forecast Panel with Consumers on July 28 and 29, 22 1980.
23 tiR. 2ACK: Of f the record.
24 ( A brief discussion was held 69 Lsszod Reporting Senice ,mo y,,,,,, 97,7 Isfayette Buildsne gw,, g; 962 11ib Suite 220 (Werat, \fichigan 482.M f*rm'nd*" IIill*' 'I'chigan 58018
1 of f the record.)
2 3Y MR. JENTES :
~
l 3 0 Uhile we were of f the record, Mr. Zack was kind enough to 4 call my attention to the f act that CPC 275.1 may not in 5 fact be in evidence and that the comparable exhibit, with 6 very minor exceptions, may be Def endant Trial Exhibit 7 2552 Only because the copy he has of that exhibit is a 8 little bit hard to read I'll continue with CPC 275.1 and 9 then maybe we can work out later an arrangement that will 10 hopef ully get 275.1 in evidence or substitue D-2552.
11 MR. ZACK: Sounds good.
12 SY MR. JENTES :
1 13 Q Dy looking at CPC 27 5.1 I take it, Mr. Lovelace, that does 14 confirm in your mind that there was a f ollow-up Caseload ,
15 Forecast Panel visit to Midland on July 28 and 29,1980?
16 A It does confirm that there was a visit. 1 l .
17 0 And did you have a chance to generally review the notes of 18 Mr. Kline concerning the meeting in advance of your 19 deposition here?
20 A I briefly looked at the notes. I don' t know as I can 21 recall things verbatim. j 22 0 I'll come back to a couple of things, but do you generally l 23 recall that Mr. Keeley reviewed the events leading to !
i 24 Consumers Power decision to reduce the Feiecast 6 dates l l
Luzod Reporting Sertice 10 gg,y,, uts,,,
,mg y ,, y Suite sw 962 1176 Susy :21 Detrat. \fichtean m:26 Farmington Hdh, \fichigan mai8
1 , f rom those recommended by Bechtel to a date of July 1903 2 l for Unit 2 fuel load as is reflected on CPC 11217 -
3 k I don' t recall who at the meeting lead into that. It 4 could have been Mr. Keeley, if he was running the meeting. ,
5 I j ust don
- t recall. I recall that that was the date that 6 was -- the board had adopted, or I think even prior to it, 7 our going the board has adopted that date and it was' 8 public knowledge.
9 D Whether or not it was Mr. Keeley or somebody else f rom 10 Consumers, at least that was explained to you or rather 11 was an explanation to you that consumers had adopted a 12 July 1983 Unit 2 fuel load date?
I 13 A That's correct. To the best of my knowledge, there was 14 even a press release on it.
15 0 Directing your attention to page Dates number 831 and 832, 16 which is the second and third pages in Mr. Kline's notes, 17 it's indicated that dMr. Mollenkopf addressed the schedule 18 evolution and analysis work that has proceeded f ollowing 19 Forecast 6 over the last five months. " Then there's a 20 ref erence to some view graphs that Mr. Mollenkopf used i
21 describing Path- A, Pa th-B and Pa th-C. Do you remember in 22 a general way that Mr. Mollenkopf made the presentation 23 that's described in there? i i
24 A Dest of my recollection, yes. There was three paths, !
> l i
Luted Reporting Service ,y ,,
ggn,,,, ggg,, ,, ,
Sate hw 962.!!'6 &are zw Detrat. \fschigan 48:26 Farmington lidis, \fidiaan 580lM
1 licensing was one, construction was one, procurement was 2 one. I don' t recall what they were.
3 Q Directing your attention over to page 910886, it's about 4 halfway through the package, the materials that start on 5 that page and that run through page 896 have previously 6 been identified as the overhead slide projections that Mr.
7 !!ollenkopf used. Do you remember in a general way that 8 tir. !!ollenkopf spoke f rom a series of slides in connection 9 with his presentation?
10 A To the best of my knowledge, yes.
11 4 And if you look at the second of those slides that's at 12 887, Mr. Mollenkopf's notes, or rather slide, indica tes 13 the reasons f or what he describes as the "Schedule 14 Improvement Rationale" and at the end of the slide he 15 stated that this had resulted "in enhanced schedule i
16 confidence and perf ormance. " Do you recall that Mr. I 17 !!ollenkopf did in f act indicate that Consumers had i 18 enhanced schedule confidence in the July 1983 Unit 2 fuel i
19 load date as a result of its analysis?
20 A I can recall that that's what they were trying to soll us, 21 yes, and they had a high degree of confidence in it. I 22 ,
recall that, yes.
I 23 0 And that's what they told you? l
! I 24 A In generalities. That's the message they were trying to i
1.afayrur Building l.n d Reporting Service 9, 72 ,
Suar hw 962<llI6 Suite :31 (Mrat. \takier.n *C6 Famunston Ihlis. \tahican 18013
1 convey, or did convey, whatever.
i 2 0 Do you remember that at the conclusion of the site visit t
3 in July of 1980 that the Panel did not come up with a :
4 . conclusion as to what its estimated f orecast would be but l
5 that it had a series of f ollow-up discussions with 6 Consumers during which it asked f or additional inf ormation 7 then had some additional meetings about the schedule 8 forecasts? ,
9 h certainly do.
l '
10 0 In that connection, let me hand you three documents which 11 I previously supplied you. The first is CPC 998, which is .
12 a memorandum to the file f rom Mr. Sullivan of Consumers 13 regarding some telephone conversations that he had with 14 you and Mr. Hood in August, early August of 1980 s the 15 second is CPC 1298, which is another memorandum prepared 16 by Mr. Sullivan, this time relating to a f ollow-up 17 discussion that apparently occurred between yourself and i 18 various representatives of Consumers by telephone on 19 August 18,1980 s and lastly, CPC 277, and CPC 277a, a set 20 of notes by Mr. Sullivan to the file concerning a meeting 21 that occurred on August 22nd,1980, with you and 22 representatives of Dechtel and Consumers.
23 MR. SACK Of f the record.
r i '
24 ( A brief discusaion wan held i 73 Luzod Reponing Suriu seto %nhuntern fluy.
lAfe ette Ikidine Q,)g; 962 1176 kar l20 Detmt, \fschigan 48226 Fermi"I'on II'lls. \Inhi!*n l#IR
1 of f the record.) ,
i 2 !!R. JD1TES: Back on the record.
3 While we were off the record, Mr. Zack 4 supplied me and the witnees with a document, Def endant' s 5 Trial Exhibit t>-2553, which is another version of Mr.
6 Sullivan's memorandum that I gave to the witness as CPC 7 '277 and 277s. To saye disputes, I' 11_ use Def endant's i
8 Trial Exhibit D-2533 and.I've received back f rem the 9 witness CPC 277 and 277a. .
10 SY MR. JCITES 1
11 Q Mr. Lovelace, directing your attention first to CPC 998, t
12 does that help ref resh your recollection that you and Mr. [
13 Hood had some f ollow-up telephone conversations with 14 Messrs. Keeley and Kline and a couple of other people f rom 15 Consumers Power as is reported in !!r. Sullivan's 16 memor andum?
i 17 A Yes, I do. Were were several conversations.
I 18 Q According to item two on the CPC 998, first page, it says 19 that "The NRC indicated they had misplaced their copy of 20 AR Mollenkopf's slides and would like a copy plus more 21 inf ormation on long-lead time items showing negative float 21 based on turnover dates to support a 7/83 fuel load. " Did 23 you and Mr. Hood request an additional copy of Mr.
24 Mollenkopf's slides and a little more information on these 1
1.afa>rtir thdding
- l. nod Reporting Sersice ,g 14 ,,
suar Mn 962 !!I6 suar :.m (ktemt, \fichizu M2.% Farmsneton lidis \fschttu malR
I long-lead time items as is indicated by fir. Sullivan's 2 l memorandwi?
I 3 h I don' t recall. Apparently we did. To the boot of my
- 5. 4 j recollection we did, i
5 0 Uhy were you interested in the it,ng-lead time items?
I 6 h Apparently it had something to 'Jo with the cause of 7 j negative float on systems that were to be turned over, 8 judging f rom what I'm reading here. Specifically, I can' t 9 recall.
10 0 Do you at least recall that in addition to the matters 11 relating to bulk quantities that are indicated in Item 1 12 of CPC 990 that you were also concerned about getting more 13 information concerning the long-lead time items?
14 k My memory just f ails me on this. ;
I ,
15 0 Well, don' t let me -- excuse me. i l
16 A The only thing is the anower I responded awhile ago had an 1
17 impact on system turnovers of some critical cyctema.
18 That's the only thing I can think of. !
19 Q Let me ask you to turn to CPC 1298, which is the next 1
20 document in the package I gave you. This purports to 21 report on a telephone conversation between yourself and 22 various people f rom Consumers on August 18, 1980 Do you 23 ,
recall in a general way that you had such a telephone ;
24 conversation with the Consumers people?
l 75 Luod Reporting Service m 9,w,,,, gg lafgrue Bwidine S;;,, nw 962.!!?6 Swtr :.m iktrost, \fahsaan M2.% farml*Eton II'll', \Ikkit** M018
G ,
l !
1 A Yes. I remember several conversations during that period, 1
2 as I stated bef ore, but I'm having a hard time getting --
3 trying to get through my head what was going on.
' 4 h It's indicated in the second paragraph that Mr. Keeley and 5 Mr. DB Miller stressed their ' confidence" in engineering ;
6 capability to build up a substantial backlog and pointed 7 out in some detail that historical unit installation rates 8 on the job were realistic in their view. Do you remember ,
9 that generally during this period the consuners Power 10 people continued to stress their confidence in their 11 ability to meet the various milestones that underlay the i
12 July 1983 Unit 2 fuel load date?
13 A I don' t have a second sheet if you' re talking about it.
l 14 0 No, it's only one page. I was ref erring to the second 15 paragraph.
16 A Ch, second paragraph. Well, specifically it was cable and 17 ,
terminations I think they were ref erring to.
I 18 0 on this occasion?
l 19 A Righ t, the confidence in meeting them. That was where I 20 was having my problem with their cable and termination 21 installation rates.
i 22 0 In the next paragraph it says "Lovelace stated that his 23 preliminary results indicate fuel load dates of 5/04 for i
24 l Unit 2 and 11/84 for Unit 1 based primarily on cable and l l I ;
Luzod Reporting Service 7 1.afvetor (Lalding , ,, ,
Nate hy) 962 1176 suser im iktemt \tahogan +c.'% Farmsneton flills, \twhuean Im la
1 terminations. " Did you state that that was the preliminary 2 results of your analysic?
3 A Yes, I did.
4 I 4 Q As indicated in Mr. Sullivan's memorandum?
5 A Yes.
6 0 Am I correct by ref erring you back to this stanmary chart, 7 that's CPC 1121, that your date for Unit 2 fuel load and 8 for Unit 1 fuel load was within a month or two of the 9 dates that Bechtel had forecast in its Forecast No. 67 10 h 2 hat's oorrect.
l 11 0 Continuing with the same paragraph in CPC 1298 that I I
12 ref erred you to, the last sentence says "Lovelace also 13 seemed to be looking ior an extremely high confidence date i
14 with considerable conservatism." Does that accurately 15 reflect what you indicated to the Consumers people on the '
- 16 occasion of this telephone call in August of 19807 17 A I don' t know what it's really implying there. Any plant 18 you go to you try to make your best estimate.
l 19 0 And in connection with making your bent estimate, do I 20 understand your testimony that you were looking f or a 21 confidence in the date that was being proposed for 4
22 completion of the unit?
) 23 A !!ot only confidence in the date but I had a lot of l
) 24 I hanchtritten notes that I was looking at the confidence in i
l i
I Lusod Reporting Service m, \. y IAfayrt:r .%ilding L'ite 6%) 962 1176 .%,, gy; Detrut, \fschigan 432.% Farmington Hdis. \fdigan 480lR
1 the data that was being given.
2 0 The data that you were being given by Constrnors?
i 3 a Yes.
l I
4 d Let me direct your attention to Def endant's Exhibit 2553.
5 Ris refers to a meeting in Bethesda between yourself and 6 Mr. Hood on the NRC side and !!asars. Kline and Don ililler ;
7 and Sullivan for Consumers and Mr. Jones of Bechtel on 8 August 22nd,1980 Did you have a follow-up meeting with 9 these people on August 22nd,19807 10 A If that's what this said, I guess we did. I know we had a <
11 f ollow-up meeting in Bethesda. Off the top of my head, 12 this is the only documentation to say yes that was tiw 13 date or wasn' t the date. It was in August.
I 14 h In the f ourth paragraph of Mr. Sullivan's notes, the j 15 beginning, it states that "nood pointed out past probicms i 16 which have reoulted in delays or rework on the job auch as I i
17 soils, component numbering, and changes resulting f rem Imc '
10 Staff review. He questioned whether or not we should plan 19 on accommodating these types of things in the future. " Do 20 you recall that Mr. Hood did point out these probicma that j 3 21 are ref erred to here in Mr. Sullivan' a memorandum? i i
22 A To the boat of my recollection, yes. ,
l 23 0 Mr. Su111 van' a memorandum goes on to state that he i i 24 l "em@asized" -- the ref erence here in to Mr. Sullivan I i l N
"# f*' ' inNIO %rthur i en flu y l.afayette (Luldung Suar MO 962 llI6 hunte SI Detroit, \lwhigan 4C26 Farmsneton lislir \laktesn 43018
1 enshasizing a "our confidence in the licensability of the l
2 current scope, accommodating expected regulatory l
3
- requirements over the next f ew years. " Do you recall Mr.
4 sullivan expressing the confidence that's indicated in his l
5 memorandum here?
, 6 A In general, yes. Wis was a dialogue going on between !!r.
7 Sullivan and Mr. Hood regarding licensing incues and that 8 wasn' t my primary interest although it had a side impact 9 on what we' re looking at.
10 0 over in the top of the next page, the second sentence of ;
11 the first paragraph, it states ' Hood and Lovelace 12 emphasized uncertainties such as block walls, fire 13 protection, and paat problems with anchora f or cable 18 tr ay s. " Do you remember generally you and tir. Hood 15 emphasizing uncertainties in these areas?
16 A tiell, there were a lot of areas that had problems. !!y
\
17 ,
recollection probably came f ten 50.5Se' n, the construction '
l 18 I deficiency reports.
- 19 0 As you recall, were what's ref erred to here as block walls I l 20 and fire protection long-lead time issues?
)
21 h 2e fire protection we' re ref erring to resulted in l I 22 additional requirements imposed by the llRC, in par ticular I l
23 Appendix R, if I' m not incorrect, with additional work 24 that had to be done f or fire protection. Block walla was 1
isthyrtte (kldmg 3n % 0 % wthur t ne llur 9 6'2 ' E E ? 6 Sustr 2h Suar hk)
Detrat. 11chigan M22n Farmastm Hdir \fwhiean w!R
l 1 another criteria that was imposed by the NRC regarding !
2 safety-related pipes, hangers, etcetera, on block walls l l
3 which would not meet the seismic response criteria, if I'm l not mistaken, and they either had to go back and reenf orce 4
5 the block walls or put more steel in them, take them out 6 and fill them up with concrete. l 7 Q Were these two issues of block walls and fire protection [
8 as you've just described them long-lead time issues?
9 A In certain plants they were. If they had to go back and ;
10 re-wrap cable trayw, re-wrap cable and wire, or if they 11 had to knock out block walls or replace them with 12 concrete, we knew that some of that type work had to be :
13 done at Midland. I don' t think the extent had been 14 completely identified at the time.
15 0 Further down on the same page about halfway it says that l !
16 af ter this discussion 'Lovelace then reviewed bl.a 17 perspective" then there's some discussion about what you 18 said and then cort of winds up down in the nvxt to last 19 paragraph by repor c.ing that 't ovelace said all this had 20 3 led him to project a preliminary Unit 2 fuel load date of 21 5/ 84 But the detailed data presented at this meeting on 22 design progress, cable and terminations, msnpower loading 23 and combined unit installation concept would indicate come 24 adj ustment to the preliminary date should be made. " Did k
txik>,ri, numa Lused Rr;>ordng Seniu ,,,o 9,h ,},, y, y_
s.,, a m. : m s. w (Mrmt. \fachtsee A12.% farmesm Hills, W hnzan L9018
1 you generally make the statements that I've j ust quoted 2 you?
3 A Generally, yes. I would not use the word "should". I may 4 have used the word "could".
5 Q It's then indicated at the bottom "CPCo summarized again 6 the major points supporting our confidence in the 7/83 7 Unit 2 fuel load date. " As you recall, did CPCo again 8 summarize the major points supporting its confidence in 9 its 7/83 Unit 2 fuel load date?
10 A To the best of my recollection.
l 11 Q Over on the next page in the next to last paragraph it's 12 indicated that CPCo also "reiterated confidence in a 13 sustained cable pulling rate of 310,000 linear feet per 14 month which leads us to a July 1933 Unit 2 fuel load. " As 15 best you can recall, did CPCo also reiterate its 16 confidence in its ability to get a sustained cable pulling l l
17 rate as indicated?
l k
18 A They most definitely did. I still got it beating in my l
[ I l 19 head.
i 20 0 You just ref erred to the matter beating in your head and I
21 ! what I'm wondering about is, throughout the meeting did 1
22 the Consumers Power people continually drum home to you l 23 that they had confidence in the July 1983 Unit 2 fuel lead l
i 21 l date?
i 81 l Luzod Reporting Service ,mg 3.,,,g _ ,, ,,
Infayette Rmidine Suit,r30 962.I176 Suar 220 Detroit, \fichigan 48226 Farmington lidis, \fichigan 18018
ll 1 A That's cor rect. I don' t recall whether it was Bechtel
\
2 people, the Behtel guy that was there or Consumers, that 3 had done an analysis of some other plants Bechtel had done
- 4 and others plants had sustained that rate, or they had ,
5 different exhibits they presented. Of course, I had 6 looked at the same plants and had data on the same plants 7 and I couldn' t, had a hard time agreeing with what they 1
8 were promoting, but they were saying, well, look, we' re 9 doing two plants at the same time. Where other people are t
10 only doing the first unit we' re doing two units. Thio 11 gives us more work crew and we can do more cable pulling. ,
12 If you look at the rationale, the rationale seemed 13 reasonable.
14 C At the conclusion of the meeting, according to Mr.
15 sullivan's report, the NRC stated that "Their proj ected 16 dates of October 1983 and April 1984 for Unit 2 and Unit 1 17 f uel load, respectively, would be published in the meeting i 18 minutes. " Was the result of the meeting that the Caceload l
l 19 Forecast Panel cut back your initial estimate of a May 20 1984 fuel load date for Unit 2 to an October 1983 fuel 21 load date?
l 22 A That's correct, we backed up.
23 tm. JEHTES : Of f the record.
24 (A lunch recess was held during l
l lxfayette Huilding Lmd Reporting Service ,g 3.,
82 su'ite rao 962 1176 suite 220 Iktrmt. \fichipn 2226 Farmineron Udis. \lithinn m018
1 1 the proceedings.)
2 MR. JCITES: Dack on the record. .
3 DY liR. JDiTES :
l 4 Q Once again, Mr. Lovelace, I' d like to hand you a stack of 5 doctt;ients, which I delivered to you previously in 6 anticipation of this deposition. The first of these is 7 CPC 01, which is a memorandum f rom Mr. Kline and Mr.
O Randolph of May 5,1980 sending along the Forecast tio. 6 9 review report.
10 MR. KILLINS: Of f the record.
11 (A brief discussion was held 12 of f the record.)
13 MR. JCITES: Back on the record. I i
14 BY MR. JQlTES : l l l 15 0 The second is CPC 490, which has been identified and I
16 received in evidence as a document prepared by Dnchtel 17 concerning the June 1900 ochedule risk analysis; next is !
18 Dow S1, which is a summary oocument that summari::os the l l
19 June 1980 CP and Bechtel schedule risk analysis results; 20 the next is CPC 236.1, which is Mr. Hollenkopf's typed 21 notes of the executive review meeting between Consumers 22 and Bechtel on June 25, 1980; the next is DEC 1527, which 23 is a set of the Dechtel active major project data sheeto 24 during the year 1980; next is DEC 14.2, which is a letter i
83 Luod Reporting Service 3x ,o s . ,g ,,,,,,, y,,,
f.afayette Railding S ,;,, w o 962 1176 Suite 220 Detrat. \fichigan 18226 Farmington Hills, \fichiean 48018
i 1 from Mr. Rutgers to Mr. JW Cook, transmitting- the July 10, 2 1980 Proj ect Management team minutes; the next is BEC 3 283.1, which is the advance copy of the proj ect status
/ 4 report for June 1900; the next is DEC 15, which is the 5 latter f rem Mr. Rutgers to Mr. Cook sonding along a final 6 version of the project status report f or June 1980.
7 Directing your attent' ion first to CPC 81, 8 which contains the review report prepared by consumers 9 Pcwer on the Bechtel Forecast No. 6, was a copy of the 10 review report delivered to you, Mr. Lovelace, or to the 11 Panel, so f ar as you know, in connection with the review 12 of the schedule by the NRC in the summor of 1980?
- 13. A The only thing, as I mentioned, was the schedule was still ,
14 under review. ;
15 0 You don' t recall getting a copy of this document that I 16 placed bef ore you with CPC 817 17 No.
18 0 I'll walk again through these documents f airly quickly 19 because the Court is f amiliar with them and I don' t think !
20 it's necessary to spend much time on them, but I do have a l
21 couple of questions about them.
22 I First directing your attention to the i 23 l introductory materials to the review report that are at i g
24 Bates number 1248 and 1249, the introduction to the report l l
Luod Reporting Service 04 l lofayette Buildine yo . ,,g , ,, ,_
Suite Ma 962.I176 Suite ggo Detroit. \fichigan 18226 Farminatoa lidh, \lichigan 18018
1 ref ers to Bechtel's recommended f uel load dates of April 2 1984 and September 1984 that I've ref erred you to earlior, 3 Mr. Lovelace, and concludes on the second page,1249, "The :
4 conclusion and recommendation of this report is that even 5 though we take minor exception to various sections of the 6 estimate as presanted, we generally agree with Bechtel 7 both in schedule and cost, and are recommending a total 8 proj ect estimate based on the premise."
9 During any of the discussions with Consumers 10 f rom the first meeting in Bethesda in June of 1980 through 11 August of 1980, was the Panel ever told that this was the 12 conclusion and recommendation of the review team at 13 Consumers?
14 A No, we were not. We were never even told there was a 15 review team other than Bechtel's July of '83 date was :
16 under review by Consumers, or Consumers had not accepted 17 the July 1983 date.
18 0 Directing your attention to CPC 490, the next document --
19 first of f, was this docunent given to the NRC, so far as 20 you know, in connection with the review of the situation 21 in the summer of 19807 I' m ref erring to CPC 4 90, the l
22 report on the June 1980 schedule analysia by Bechtel.
i 23 A No. The first time I saw this was in the package you sent 4
24 me last month.
85 Ltmd Repar ing Sereice 3, ,o 3,,,s , ,,,,,, y,,,_
lafayette Building Su,,, sw 962.))i6 Suite 220 Detroit, \fichigan 48226 Farminston flith. .\fichigan 2018
1 If you look on the second page of the document, the Bates 2 number is a little obscured, I guess it's 0980. In any 3 event, it's the second page of the document. There' a a 4 discussion of the background of the schedule analysis and 5 then a review of the plan, that's down in the second half 6 of that page, and it indicates that "a plan was 7 established to reevaluate project scope and schedule to 8 provide further definition on them in th,e July 1980 9 Consumers Power Company Board of Directors meeting. 'Ihis 10 plan consisted of the f ollowing activities:", and then 11 there's a list of activities that conclude with the 12 expectation that there would be a "more definitive 13 schedule risk analysis" perf ormed.
14 During the discussions that you had f rom 15 June through August of 1980, was there any mention made to 16 you that Consumers and Dechtel had made a schedule risk 17 analysis concerning the likelihood of meeting various Unit 18 2 and Unit 1 fuel load dates?
19 A There was no mention of a specific schedule risk analysis l
20 made. There was only mention that the schedule was still I 21 under review by Consumers.
22 Q Turning to Dow 51, which is the summary of the results of ;
1 23 the June 1980 risk analysis, were any of the results of
(
24 ! that risk analysis, such as reflected in this document, l
l i Lafayette Building Lumd Reporting Service ,,o3.,),6 ,.
Suite MO 962.I176 Suig,2:a Detroit, \fichigan 18226 Farmington liilh, .\lichienn 18018 y e n w--9---me-m- r-v ----e- e v------evy -we - -e-- m w c - s, wew-w m+m-2-+w - - > -m ---,w- ww--- - -
I disclosed to the NRC, to your recollection, in connection 2 with this set of meetings that occurred f rcan June through 3 August of 1900?
4 P. The only thing I see f amiliar on here is 11/1/83 for Unit 5 2 fuel load and 7/31/83 for Unit 2 fuel load.
6 0 You see the dates?
7 4 The dates, that's the only thing I see that's f amiliar.
8 Q The next document is CPC 236.1. Was a copy of the typed 9 notes, or for that matter any hancharitten notes of the 10 June 25,1900 executive management review meeting between 11 Consumers and Bechtel, turned over to the NRC, so far as 12 you can recall?
13 T I don' t know whether some of these view grat:hs back here 14 were or not. It could have been slipped in as part of the I 15 package we got. You would have to make a detailed l 1G page-by-page look. You know, some of the graphs may have i 17 been, some of them may not have been. It's their option 18 of what they wanted to put in for the presentation.
19 p In that regard, and without belaboring the point, let me i
20 ask you to turn over to the Bates number page 89152 It's l 21 about a third of the way through CPC 236.1. Do you have !
22 ; that?
23 A Yes.
l 24 Q And in connection with that let me --
87 Luzod Reporting Service ,gwo 3.,,g,,,,,17 ,_
lafaytte Building gu;,,$30 962.]176 Suite 220 Detrost, \fichigan 2:26 Farmington lidh, .\fichigan 18018
I 1 a That looks f amiliar but there's a word that wasn' t in our 2 pr esentation. 'Ihere's a word that looks very f amiliar.
3 Q In that regard let me place back before you CPC 275.1, 4 which is Mr. Kline's set of minutes of the Caseload 5 Forecast visit on July 28 and 29,1980, and in particular 6 I've opened the document up here for you to page Bates ,
7 number 889. A comparison of the two pagos I've ref erred 8 you to shows that whereas the materials presented to the 9 Caseload Forecast Panel in July ref or to a schedule 10 analysis in the title the materials that were actually 11 used during the June 25, 1980 executive msnagement meoting 12 ref er to a schedule risk analysis. In that the missing 13 word that you were ref erring to?
14 A Yes.
l 15 Q And indeed then in the next line of the materials that 16 were used internally thoro's a reference to the "risk 17 analysis performed" whereas that doesn' t appear in the 18 comparable chart that was put up on the screen by Mr.
19 Mo11enkopf when he made his presentation?
20 A I don' t recall him putting it up but some of these i 21 overheads look like -- I recall some of them) some of them 22 ! I don' t recall seeing.
1 23 0 In any event, looking f urther through the package where I
24 l there are some reports on the results of the schedule risk !
l :
I lxfhyette Railding Luod Reporting Sers ice yo , ,), ,,8 ,,
Suite fa0 962 1Ji6 Su,g, ggy Detroit, \lichigan 18226 Farmington Ihlh, .\fichigan 18018
1 analysis, such ac page 9150 in CPC 236.1, where l't shows 2 f or example on Path A, Bulks, that the probabilistic 3 analysis had come up with a 50 percent confidence level of 4 a February 1984 fuel load date for Unit 2, that kind of 5 confidence level number was not disclosed to the Panel in 6 the summer of 19807 7 A No, I don' t -- I think if you'll compare what was given to 8 us you won' t even find this handout in the package.
9 D Let me next ask you to turn to BEC 1527, which is the 10 collection of the Dechtel active major proj ect data 11 sheets, and direct your attention about half of the way 12 through there's one relating to July 31, 1980 It's at 13 Bates number 739 through 742. Do you have that?
14 N Yeah. This is dated 7/31/807 l 15 0 Yes.
I 16 A Okay.
l l 17 0 There's a discussion of the schedule down at the bottom of 18 page 2 of 4 and over on the top of page 3 of 4, and to l l l
- 19 save time it indicates that Bechtel continued to hold in ;
l 20 its judgment to the Forecast 6 date as of July 31, 1980 l f 21 Was anything told to the Forecast Panel in the summer of 22 1980 about the f act that Bechtel was continuing to project 23 internally the same Forecast 6 dates even af ter the CP 24 ! Board of Directors hr.d arrived at a July 1983 Unit 2 fuel I I Luod Reporting Service ,g 3 , ,,
isfnyette Building ^
suier rua 962 1176 suite 220 Detroit. \fichigan 2226 Farmington flills, \fichigan M018
\
1 loud date?
2 A No. To the best of my recollection, we were inf ormed that 3 af ter the schedule analysis f urther enhancements the 4 official fuel load date was July 1983 5 0 Directing your attention to DEC 14.2, which is the 6 transmittal letter f rem Mr. Rutgers to Mr. Cook of some 7 meeting notes of a meeting that occurred between Bechtel 8 and Consumers on July 10, 1980, prior to my sending you 9 these documents had you seen this document?
10 A No. I very seldom have a privilege to see internal 11 documents of any utility unless you specifically ask f or 12 them and know that they exist.
, 13 Q Directing your attention over to Bates number 331, which 14 is the third page in the document, there's a ref crence to, 15 and I'm ref erring to the materials that are marked with 16 the double line in the margin, the word "omit", then 17 there's come bracketed materials that states 18 "Correspondence between Bechtel and Consumers Power 19 Company and items for public consumption will list f uel 20 load dates in the current project schedule." Prior to your I
- 21 review of these materials in connection with your 4
22 , testimony here today, had you known at all that there had 23 been an understanding reached between Bechtel and !
24 Consumers that in items f or public consumption that the I
Lu:od Reporting Sert. ice 90 l.afayette Building 30810 Northurstern fluy, Suite MO 9 y,jj,g Suite 220
, Iktroit. \fichigan #1226 Farmington Hills, \fichigan 18018
1 only date listed would be the current proj ect schedule, 2 namely the July 1983 Unit 2 fuel load date?
3 A I knew it prior to seeing the documents you sent me, but 4 it was the documents that were entered into this suit 5 earlier that Billie Garde, GAP, had gotten to send to the 4
6 Board f or petition to litigate the Dow issues.
1 7 Q Prior to that?
8 A Prior to that I had not seen it.
9 Q Directing your attention to BEC 283.1 and to DEC 15, which 10 are the two versions of the project status report for 11 Midland of June 1980, had you seen those documents bef ore 12 they were submitted to you by me in connection with your 13 testimony here today?
14 4 I could say definitely the one that has BEC 283.1 I've not !
l 15 seen that one. Again, there may be a curve or two in 16 there that they've shown us, slipped in a presentation, 17 but the document as a whole, no. !
18 Q In particular there's been testimony, considerable 19 testimony to the eff ect that in the advance copy version 20 that you just ref erred to that Bechtel continued to show 21 the same current forecast dates of April 1984 and 22 j September 1984 for Unit 2 and Unit 1 fuel load as it had 23 shown in Forecast 6 I take it f rom your testimony that 24 that inf ormation was not conycyed to you in connection 91 Luz d Reporting Sereiee yo 3.,,,5,,,,,, ,,,.,_
Ixfayette Budding S ,;,, m o 962 1176 Suite 220 (ktroit. \fichigan 48226 Farmington Ihlis, \fichigan 88018
1 with those meetings in July through August of 19807 2 HR. ZACK: Assuming that Consumers Power 3 knew of that.
4 A That's correct.
5 ! ,Y MR. JDITES :
6 0 Well, in connection with Mr. Zack's last comment, th ere' s 7 also been testimony in this case by Mr. Rutgers that he 8 advised Mr. Jim Cook at this July 10, 1900 meeting that 9 Bechtel would continue to report internally the same 10 Porecast 6 numbers.
11 MR. ZACK: I dispute your characterisation 12 of it.
13 BY MR. JD1TES:
l 14 Q Let me continue my question if I may. Were you advised in '
15 connection with the meeting or meetings that occurred f rce 16 July through August of 1980 that such discussions had 17 taken place between Mr. Rutgers and Mr. Cook? !
18 A No. !
I 19 0 In connection with my examination here today, Mr.
20 Lovelace, I've shown you a number of documents that you i 21 have testified were not supplied to the Caseload Forecast 22 Panel and also I've ref erred you to a number of pieces of 23 inf ormation that you also testified were not supplied to i
24 l the caseload Forecast Panel. In your view, is the ;
tatarene auiuin, Lu:od Reporting Service ,g ., 9 2, y suae ao 962 1Ii6 suite 220 Detroit, \lichigan 2226 Farmington flills, \fichigan mola
1 inf ormation and documentation that I've ref erred you to 2 relevant to a realistic schedule assessment?
3 Im. ZACK: By the Panel or by anyone?
4 BY MR. JQlT2S 5 ) Let me state it first out more broadly, Just by anyone?
6 A I think obviously Bechtel's thoughts and some of the 7 curves f rca the experiences with the others plants that 8 they obvioucly had data on, installation rates and so on, 9 would have been very helptul.
10 0 would that also include consumers' own assessments as, for 11 example, in the Forecast 6 review report that I showed 12 you, that's CPC 81, be inf ormation that would be relevant
. 13 in your view to a realistic schedule ascesament? The 14 document I'm ref erring you to is this rather substantial 15 review report by Mr. Kline and his review team.
16 MR. ZACK: This is relevance in a general l 17 sense, not as opposed to relevance to the Panel, the
[
i 10 dichotomy that you made with respect to your first 19 question?
20 MR. JOITES: Let me ask to have the question ;
2 21 reread and I think I'll stand on the question, but let's 22 be clear. I think that's specified in the question.
23 Let's hear the question again.
24 IG. ZACK: I guess the only comment I have 1
5 93 1 u: d Repar ing Sereice ,g ,o 3,,,g ,,,,,,, y 7, ,,
Isfayette Building '
Suig, m o 962 I1I6 Suite 25 iktroit, \fichigan 48226 Farmington liilh, \fichigan 68018
1 is that I assume that your question -- that this question 2 asks f or relevance in the general sense as did the 3 previous question.
MR. JEUTES :
4 I'll state that that's what my 5 question was designed to do.
6 MR. SACK: That's all I'm interested in.
7 A I think obviously to see where Bechtel's coming f rom and 8 where Consumers was coming f:cm would obviously shed some 9 light on what we were looking at. Obviously there's a lot 10 more inf ormation here than what we were provided.
11 BY MR. JENTES:
l 12 0 To carry fouard my question a little bit f urther and to 13 pick up Mr. Zack's observation, would this inf ornation and 14 documentation that I've ref erred you to, and that you l
15 testified you didn' t cee at the time, be considered 16 significant to the Panel's and to your own analysis of 17 Midland insof ar as the schedule is concerned?
18 T That's hindsight. I would say in the first part I believo 19 when you were in 1978 and there was like a three month 20 diff erence or something, that would really be a 21 no-never-mind because when you' re three years f rcn loading 22 fuel and you got a schedule within three to six months, 23 ; people come up with a schedule of three to six months of 24 each other, you' re damn close in one of those Midland Luzod Reporting Service 94 '
lafayette Building ,g .
, y Suar MO 962 1EI6 Suste 220 Detrws. \fichigan 18220 Farmington Hith, \fichigan 88018
0 1 plant s. When you get further down the line and you get a 2 little further apart, nine months to a year, then 3 obviously additional inf ormation helps, additional 4 inf ormation, analysis helps. It certainly would have been 5 nice to know what Bechtel's thoughts were because reading 6 through some of the documents they had some of the same 7 concerns I did as f ar as electrical cable pulling and 8 terminations and engineering maintaining the building to 9 keep up with construction.
10 0 Ref erring back to the 1978 period, you talked about a 11 three month delay. '1here's also been testimony in the 12 case to the effect that there was initially a ref erence to 13 three to six months, and I showed you some documents to 14 that ef fect, and then later to a ten month delay by' the l 15 summer of 1978. By the time you get up to a ten month 16 delay, does that constitute inf ormation, in your view, 17 that would be important to a complete assessment of the l
l 18 realistic schedule by the Panel?
l 19 T In my opinion, yes, I think we tried to -- once it exceeds
! 20 a six-month limit and you' re two or three years away f rcxn 21 fuel load, once you exceed six months, yeah, it makes a l l
22 difference. If you' re within six months rar.ce, i t' s 23 really a no-never-mind because nobody can -- building ono 24 of these plants is like a moving target anyway, chango i
95 Lu:od Reporting Sereice 3og,o y,,,;,,,,,,, f 7,,,
1.afayette Buddine Suig, r30 962 1176 Suar 220 >
I)rtrat, \fichigan 48226 Farmington lidis, \fichigan W)l8
1 f rca day-teday.
2 0 During the course of Mr. Hood's testimony I covered the 3 Forecast Panel visit in 1981 and to save time with you I 4 don' t intend to go over that today. I would like to ask a 5 couple of questions about the Panel visit that occurred in 6 April of 1983. Do you recall that the Panel once again 7 returned to the site in April of 19837 8 a Most definitely.
l 9 Q In that connection let me show you what has been marked so 10 NRC 274, which is a set of minutes prepared by Mr. Hood of 11 a meeting of the Caseload Forecast Panel at the site on 12 April 19 through 21, 1983. Did you see !!r. Ilood's notes 13 at about the time they were prepared in the spring of 14 19837 15 A Did I see this mano?
l 16 Q Yes.
l 17 A I'm almost certain that I concurred in this memo. l l
18 Q It's a document that you reviewed?
l I
19 A Normally we had the procedure af ter a period of time, I 20 don' t know whether it was '78 or whenever it was, but I l 21 started concurring in all the - the project managers had 22 l me concurring in all the meeting summaries, conclusiona l 23 that went on.
I 24 Q And I may have gotten my question broken in the middle by
- f l
lafayette Buildmg Lu:od Reporting Service ,g 3. , 9 6 ,,
1 suite mo 962 1Ii6 sua, 2:o 1 Iktroa, \fichigan 18226 Farmmaton lidis \fichican 18018
l 1 your ancwer, but do you believe that NRC 274- accurately I i
2 summarison what occurred during the course of the April '
3 19th through 21st,1983 Caseload Forecast Panel meetings 4 with consumers?
5 A Yes, it briefly summarizes the happenings at the meeting 6 and the site tour and discussions, briefly describos them.
7 0 Let me hand you t#o documents, which I also previously 8 delivered to you in anticipation of this deposition.
9 First is NRC 44, a draf t of a letter to Mr. Cook 10 concerning the views of the Caseload Forecast Panel as a 11 result of its visit in April of 1983; and the second is a 12 final letter, that's NRC 46, f rom Mr. Novak to Mr. Cook of
- 13 August 9,1983 setting f orth the Panel' a views. Can you 14 identify for me what NRC 44 is? ,
15 A NRC 44 was the members of the Panel conclusion, best 16 estimate, when Midland Unit 2 would be completed and was 17 concurred in by Mr. Hood, myself, Mr. Harrison and Mr. Ron I 18 Gardner, and it went f orward to Mr. Novak's desk f or 19 signature. ,
20 Q And then was the final version of the Panel's views as '
I 21 transmitted to Consumers what is Inc 46?
22 A I didn' t quite understand the question. i l
l 23 Q Let me rephrase it. Is NRC 46 the final vorcion of the l I l 24 NRC Staf f's estimate of the expected completion date f or 97 Lastod Reporting Service yo y,,w,,, 77 lofayette Buildine Su,g, n;o 962 1176 Suste 220 Detrott, \fichigan M226 Farmington flills, \fichigan 18018
1 the !!idland unito?
2 A By NRC Staff do you mean the members that were on the site 3 visit and made the -- and concurred in the first draf t, or 4 do you mean staff decision or staff views, NRR's view 3? I 5 don' t quite -- I'll answer it like this. If you mean if 6 it was the Panel's views, I' ll say no. I never saw this 7 until af ter it went out.
8 Q That's NRC 467 9 A NRC 46, right.
I 10 d so your views are those expressed in NRC 44 and then --
11 a Mine as well as the other four members, to the best of my 12 knowledge.
13 Q Directing your attention to NRC 44, in the third paragraph I
\
14 you express the view that "Consumer's estimate of 14 '
15 months to complete preoperational and acceptance testing i
16 for both units is unduly optimistic" and you state "The 17 record f or a recent single unit to date has been about 24 18 months." Is the reference here to a particular recent 19 single unit or to a more general generic view of the unit?
t ,
20 h If I'm not mistaken, the best my memory serves me, it was 21 with regard to St. Lucie Unit 2, which was a single
, . I 22 i stand-alone unit, which has been written up quite a bit ;
23 ; about being built so f ast. i l
24 0 Did the Panel have any kind of a rule of thtab or an l
Iafayette Hustding Lu:od Reporting Service .,,l98,, ,
Suite Mn 962 1Ii6 Sust,25a Iktrout, \fichigan 48226 Farmineton flills. \fichjan 18018
1 accepted set of criteria regarding the number of tests 2 that could be conducted simultaneously in connection with 3 pre-op testing and startup?
4 A You' re ref erring to the flip-flop? I'm asking the 5 question, are you ref erring to the flip-flop type of 6 preoperational test that they were going to do which had 7 never been tried bef ore, that they were going - Don 8 Miller I believe came up with the test scheme where one 9 trails the other one and you bring on the plant?
10 0 Right, you' re on target for my question, but I was 11 wondering in connection with the evaluation of that 12 so-called flip-flop preoperational testing program, did 13 the Panel have any kind of a general rule as to how long 14 it felt it would take to do particular steps in the 15 preoperational testing and did it indicate how many could I 16 be done simultaneously or in tandem?
17 A Ch, cer tainly. We had inf ormation. You can only get so l
l 18 many operators in the control room to run the test, you 19 can -- you got to do some teats bef ore you can do another 20 test.
21 Q Were these kind of rules or practices reduced to any kind j l
22 l of a manual or did they appear in any guidelines that the 23 f Panel or the NRC issued?
24 A Not to my knowledge. Certain preoperational acceptance 99 L st d Reporting Service 3(g ,o 3,,,y ,,,,,,, y,,,
lafayette Ruslding suit, r30 962.]176 Suite 220 Detrat. \fichisan 48226 Farminston IMs. \fichigan 48018
l l
\
l tests are committed to in the PSAR, I guess, or -- and l l
l 2 they -- your initial phase is energization of the plant, 3 plant energization. Een you get on down the line, for 4 example, you can flip-flop, do your hot functional, do 5 your integrated leak rate test, or whoevor is the startup 6 manager, he develops his own schedule and lays it out.
7 There's a multitude of ways. You can do it by what they 8 call BIPS, you can do it having the project manager make 9 it mandatory a complete system is turned over before 10 startup. You can turn over partial systems. Just it's 11 whoever is running the job. In some ways you see it done 12 better than others.
13 0 I take it f rom your answer 1st there's no set of i
i 14 guidelines or procedures wit Mn the fiRC that indicates 15 what the agency feels is the duration of particular 16 preoperational tests or how many can be run 17 simultaneously?
18 !!othing in writing, no, just analysis I've done, 19 observations.
20 0 In the latter regard, in the third sentence in this third !
l 21 paragraph there's a ref erence to "a more realistic, but 22 .
slightly optimistic, duration f or two unito", can you l
l 23 recall what the duration was that you used for l 24 preoperational and acceptance testinr3 in connection with
(
Isfayette Butiding Luzod Reporting Service ,o 3. ,1 0 0 ,, ,,
Suite MO 962 1176 Sua, 2;o l Iktma. \fichigan M226 Farmington fluih, \lichigan 18018
- - - - - - - ~ _ - . - - , - . . . _ . _ . . . _ . . .. - - . - . - - - - - - . . - _ . _ . - - - - - - - _ _ -
1 this sentence that I've j ust ref erred you to? .
2 A I can' t recall the wording there. Perhaps if I had my 3 papers or notes it might be on that, but I think what we' re trying tio say here is that, you know, at the very 4
5 beginning when you first introduced this flip-flop 6 schedule and f or pre-op testing and essentially completing 7 both units before you load f uel in the first unit, there 8 wasn' t any -- no one ever tried it bef ore so there was no 9 reason to be -- you could be skeptical about it but I have 10 no reason to say no, it couldn' t be done. You may have 11 doubts.
12 I think as time progressed obviously we 13 visited more plants and more preoperational tests were 14 completed in plants loading f uel that we realized that the 15 test program may not be as good as it was cracked up to l 16 be. I realize that it was written up in -- I don' t know 17 whether it was Nuclear Engineering Magazine -- that this 18 was the type of test program that consumers was going to i
19 do back in the earlier days when they first developed it.
20 I think we got a little skeptical the further down the l
21 road we went that it didn' t look f easible.
22 h You ref er here to the realism or not of the pre-op testing l
23 program. Did you form the opinion as of NRC 44 that the 24 preoperational approach, at least within the time f rame 101 Lstsod Reporting Service go 3.,,,g ,,,,,, ,7 lafayette Bunldine l g ,,,, m a 962.)176 Suite 2.m Detrout, \ fir' m 49226 Farmianton Ihlls \fichigan 68018
1 set by Consumers, was not realistic?
2 A Yes, that's correct.
O 3 Q I notice that further on in that same paragraph it's 4 stated that "The Panel also believes that Consumer's 5 forecast does not realistically account f or large 6 uncertainties in the work which must precede start of 7 critical path testing, and this can be expected to add 8 some months to consumer's schedule." Does this mean that 9 it was also the view of you and the other members of the 10 Panel who visited the site that other aspects of 11 Consumer's f orecasted completion dates were unrealistic?
12 A That's correct, predicated on the unknown that was coming 13 out of their 01I0, their IWP and their CCP, or whatever 14 it was, and when you integrate all these things in you got. ;
15 Stone & Webster in there and they went back and donc a 16 hundred percent reinspection on the hangers, come of their 4 17 electrical work, their termination work. I don' t recall 18 what all was involved in the quality aspects there, but 19 the two inspectors, Mr. Harrison and Mr. Gardner, had some i
20 strong f eelings because a certain amount of rework was 21 going to come out that would delay system turnovers, as ,
t 22 well as myself. !
I 23 0 I recognize, Mr. Lovelace, that thero's a dif f orenco l
24 d between the expected completion date stated in t)RC 44 and lafayette Budding Lu:od Reporting Sereico ,3.,,f,2,, ,
suaetao 962 1Ii6 suae 2:0 ,
Iktroit, \lichuran M:26 Farminstvr lidh Alichigan 18018
. . - . - . _ _ - - . . . ..- , . - _ . . - . . . - . , . . , , - . - . . . - ~ _ - , . - . . . _ - - - - - . . - -
1 the one stated in MRC 46, with the one in 11RC 46 2 apparently being a little shorter. Nevertheless, NRC 46 3 concludes, and I'm reading f rom the last sentence of the 4 second paragraph, "These f actors alone would inf er that 5 your October 1984 proj ected completion date is optimistic 6 by at least a year. " Did you agree as of August of 1983 7 that Consumers' expected completion date of october 1984 8 was optimistic by at least a year?
9 A I think that's obvious f rom the the draf t that never went l
10 out.
11 D You' re ref erring to NRC 447 I
12 T !!RC 44. I have no idea where the year came f rom unicas it 13 was j ust arbitrarily selected f rom the draf t here.
14 D In connection with your various meetings or contacts with 15 the Midland Proj ect and the Dechtel people, did you over 16 have contact or come to know of a Mr. Donald Prodlund of 17 Dech te17 I i la A 'Ihe name does not ring a bell. :
I 19 Q There's been testimony in this case that Mr. Rutgers was j 20 of the view in the spring of 1983 that the dates adopted l
21 by Consumers Power as of April 1983 for the fuel load of 22 Units 2 and 1 were not realiatic. In connection with your 23 visits to the site in the spring of 1903, were you told 24 that Mr. Rutgers viewed the Consumers Power datos as i
103 L d Reporting Service y,o 5.g,,,, ff Isfarette Building gua,53a 962.I176 Suste 2.'O iktroit, \fichigan 18226 Farmington Ildb. thchienn 1801R
1 unrealistic?
2 A No, we were not.
0 3 Q Were you advised that other people at the Bechtel group 4 viewed the Consumers' dates as being unrealistic?
5 A It was conveyed to us that they were very comf ortable with 6 the fuel load date they had arrived at.
7 MR. JENTES : That's all the questions I 8 have.
9 MR. ZACK: I' d like to take a short break.
10 ( A brief recess was held during 11 the proceedings.)
12 EXAMINATION 13 BY MR. ZACK:
I 14 Q Mr. Lovelace, at the beginning of this deposition you l
15 talked about your prof essional background prior to joining l
16 the AEC and you mentioned that you had worked f or Armac in 17 connection with CPM schedules and f ollowing that you 18 worked f or the government of the District of Columbia. I 19 Correct me if I'm wrong, but with respect to your latter 20 position you were involved in looking at contractor 21 schedule estimates f or various projects that the District i
22 I was building; is that correct? i 23 A Yec, that's correct, cost and schedule.
k 24 0 Please correct me if I'm wrong because I'm going to try l l
lerayene naildana Lund bporung Sudu ,,k4 3(,, ,, , ,,,n ,,u y. suae rao 962 1176 suae :.>a Iktrmt, \fichigan M226 Farmington listl<, \firhigan 18018
1 to, in a shorthand way, characterize your testimony and 2 you tell me if I'm off base here. I believe you said your 3 perspective in the two jobs was different. Is that fair 4 to say, is that an accurate recapitulation of your 5 testimony? I 6 A In the two jobs I said I was just on the other side of the 7 fence. 8 D All right. How was your perspective different when you 9 were on the other side of the fence, i.e. , when you were 10 with the government as opposed to when you were working 11 with Armac? i
- 12 A When I was with the contractor I was on the outsido 13 looking in; when I was with the government I was on the 14 inside looking cut.
15 0 When you were with the government, was the government in
'l 16 essence analgous to the owner of a project?
17 A Yes, that's correct. l 18 0 When you were working f or the District of Colu:nbia, did 19 you try to hold contractors accountable for their cost and 20 schedule estimates? I 21 A On change orders we had them on fixed price contracts. I , l 22 Q Did you have discussions with the contractors with roupoct 23 l to schedule estimates that they had made? l ! l 24 h I reviewed their CPM cchedulos, yes. 105 Luzad Reporting Service ,m g y,g ,,,,, ,7, ,, lafayette Busiding Su,g, ao 962 1176 Suit
- 220 l I)etmt, \fichigan 48226 Farmington !! ills, \fichigan 5801R L
.)
i 1 Do those CPM schedules include proposed schedule 2 extensions that were submitted to you? 3 A obviously, yes, they came in with change order requests. O
- r. 4 Q Did you accept every one of the change order requests?
5 A If it was substantiated and j ustified, yes. l 6 Q Did you find some of the change order requests were not I 7 substantiated and theref ore you did not accept them? 8 A Can I put it in this perspective? l 9 Q Plea se. ll 10 A Referring to the District of Columbia and dealing with 11 contractors, you' re talking fixed price contracts with a 12 specified end date because the CPM schedule had already 13 been run on it and had specified the number of days for 14 completion or when the job was being completed. It also 15 had a provision in the specifications for liquidated 16 damages if the job was not completed by that date. And 17 , with respect to what you' re ref erring to, if a job had a l ' 18 hundred or two hundred dollars a day liquidated damages 19 and it ran overtime, then yes, we did go in and look at l 20 i t, the reasons f or it and how much the government was 21 going to assess the contractor. It was a negotiation-type 22 1 deal, i 1 23 0 I take it that at times you approved the change order 9 24 requests and at times you did not? ! lafayette Ruolding Luod Reporting Service yo ,)k ,, Suar 630 962 11i6 Suur 2:0 (ktrmt. \fichigan Pt:26 Farmineton listis. \fichigan 18018
1 fiA That's correct. If you had a bad winter, had bad weather and showed 150 of 200 days it rained, they couldn' t pour
~
2 3 concrete, you know, obviously that was a legitimate reason 4 for an extension. 5 0 Did contractors, to the beat of your recollection, ever i l 6 come back to you while you were involved with the District 7 and say that the schedule projection on which the coritract 8 was based had some sort of flaws in it in the sense that 9 it inaccurately forecast.ed the end date? 10 i Not to my knowledge. The only times that a schedule 11 extenolon was granted if there was ambiguity between the 12 drawings and specifications and a change order resulted 13 out of it, the scope of work increased or something, then 14 whenever the contractor would put in a claim f or 15 additional monien he would also put in a claim for l l , 16 additional time. ' f , 17 0 Dased upon your experience with the nuclear inductry, was l 18 it common f or owners, i.e. , utilities, to disagtee with 19 the construction schedule estimates made by their 20 contractors? 21 Im. JD1TES : Objection to the question
'22 unless there's come predicato f or the f act that Mr.
23 ! Lovelace would know that kind of inf ormation. i k 24 BY MR. ZACK: ) 107 Luzod Re;>nung Sndu y ,n y,,s ,,,,,, jf, ,_ inpsyeur ausuinz Sua, g; 962 1ii6 Snar 2:0 Iktrat. \fichigan 48226 Farmsneton Ildh, Alichigan 48018
E i 1 Q Pair enough. Here you aware during the cource of your 2 tenure with the Forecast Panel of disputes, if you will, 3 between a utility and its contractor with regard to the 4 proj ected duration of the nuclear plant construction? 5 h Not directly, as I can recall. I experienced, it seemed 6 to be, disputes, internal disputes, I don' t know whether 7 it would be contractor or different organizations, about 8 system turnover and the pre-op test schedule, and this was 9 human nature. Construction was heating up, they had an 10 end date or fuel load date and the construction wasn' t 11 meeting their turnover dates f or systems and consequent.ly 12 the startup people couldn' t get in there and get started. 13 6 So that was a dispute between, generically speaking, two 14 phases of construction with respect to the durations of , 15 those activities? 16 A Basically, yeah, and the startup people would always bo 17 happy to see *. hat maybe we'll get a little relief hore, i 18 these guys will extend their schedule a little bit. l \ 19 Q Getting back to my original question, were you aware, 20 perheps on a broader level or a higher level, of disputes l l 21 between a contractor with respect to the overall 22 scheduling of the plant and the utility, or a utility I 23 chould say? i
?.4 A If you ref er to WA as their engineering department being I'uz d Reporting Sert-ice infayette Haildme Suite rao 962 1Ii6 l08,, y
.% e 2:o laut. %htaan M2:6 Farmmeron Udh, %higan mo1R
I and entity from their construction department, then yes. i 2 O What was the nature of that dispute? 3 A Well, their engineering, the engineering portion, and ivA i 4 is divided into the construction group and engineering, 5 and construction was hollering at engineering that you' ro 6 holding me up because you' re not getting my cable routed, 7 you' re not getting my pipe routed, stress analysis not 8 done, things of that nature. 9 D Is it f airly frequent in your experience for thero to be 10 disputes with regard to the duration of activities among 11 variour construction disciplinos, such as the testing l 12 people, the construction people and the engineers, and 13 we' re talk.ing about nuclear plants here of course? 14 4 1 think there's dif fering of opinions, certainly. I don' t 1 15 know, as NRC people, if you went in that they were going 16 to blatantly come out and tell you, hey, we' re Bechtel and i 17 we dnn' t agree with Houston Power and Light, we think what 18 you've arrived at is wrong. You don' t want to be told 19 that, no. 20 0 That is something the NRC would not be told? { l 1 21 h No. l 1 22 0 Is that something you would expect to be told by a l 1 23 utility, i. e. , that it dif f er ed, if indeed it did, with : j 4 24 the schedulo estimate of its contractor? i l l.a.fyrtte Building Luod Reporting Service yo 3 f,, ,, Suor MO 962 1J76 Suite 2:a Iktemt. \lichigu m:26 Farmsneton llells, \ftchstu 4801X
. _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ____ ___.._,_ _ _ __ _ ~ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._.____
1 1 A If there was a review scing on and two or three dates were l 2 being looked at, normally we would be told. If there were 3 disputes, obviously a utility is not going to get up and 4 say wo don' t agree with what they' re saying or Ebasco is 5 not going to get up and disagree what the utility is 6 saying. If the NRC knows it's happening, you specifically 7 'ask the question. 8 Q Was that seinething that should have been told to the 11RC 9 Panel? 10 MR. JD1TES : I object to the question unleso 11 we specify what "that" is. 12 MR. SACK: I was trying in a shorthand way 13 to ref er to the witness' answer. I don' t want to 14 characterize his testimony because I think I probably l 15 would be somewhat inaccurate. 16 MR. JCITES: I'll withdraw my obj ection. ! 17 A What was the question? 18 HR. 2ACK: Read back the question. 19 (The requested portion of the 20 record was read back as f ollows: 21 "Q. Was that something that should ! 22 have been told to the NRC Panel?") ; l , 23 DY MR. ZACK i l 24 Q I was ref erring to your prior answer where you' re using an 1 l.afyrtte Building Luod Reportsng Service yo \. 110 ,, Sua, tan 962.)ii6 Suite 2hl IMrost, \lichigan 48226 l'armington listin, \fichigan 180)R
.o 1 Ebasco example. Rat's what the "that" ref ers to.
2 A ch, okay. I can say that the only thing you could hopo 1 3 l f or is the best inf ormation available that they would give l 4 1 you, the utility. Se constructor or che engineer is a 5 client of i.he utility. 6- Q You, meaning the Panel, was dealing with it as a client? l 7 A We were dealing with the utility. We weren' t dealing with 4 8 Ebasco or Bechtel or whoever. Our responses came f rom the 9 utility or f ran -- I' m sorry. Let me retract and start 10 over. he responses, the aganda, the meeting notice and 11 everything went to the utility. We meetings between the 12 utility and the NRC occasionally, quite of ten, the utility 13 l brought in their constructor to help them prepare the l , 14 presentation for the Nnc, but the information that is 15 provided to the NRC, or 'che request f or inf ormation 4 16 pecvided to the NRC is addressed to the utility. We 17 utility may have reasons to monitor or strike some of the ' l
- 18 inf ormation provided to them by the contractor if they so 19 de sire.
20 Q What would those reasons be? , ! i 21 Something they didn' t want the NRC to know. I i 22 0 Like what? ! l l 23 A At all points of time everybody was jockeying f er position ' 24 to get in the licensing review chain and everybody wanted l 111 Lutod Reporting Service yo w,,,, fg Lafayette Buildme S,ag, ao 962.I176 Suite 220
- Iktrat, \fichican 48226 Farrastm lhlis. \fichizan 18018
1 to be number one on priority and the prioritization was 2 set by going around the country to all the plants, making 3 independent assessments of the fuel load datos, and if the 4 guys could sell me a shorter duration or earlier date they 5 move up in the prioritization. 6 Q Was it your expectation that the utilities were trying to 7 sell you a shorter date? , 8 A In some instances, yes. I have experienced some instances 9 where the meeting would open with the utility announcing a 10 six month or year slip prior to their precentation to us 11 and I can give you two specific examples, Callaway and 12 Wolf Creek. Two times I went to two Caseload meetings at t 13 Wolf Creek and it was opened by them saying we of ficially 14 announce the fuel load date is six months. ! I j 15 0 Did the utilities at some of your visits ever announce 16 that they were in the process of making a schedule 17 evaluation that might disclose or might show additional r j 18 delay? , 19 T I would have to say yes. 20 0 Did Consumers Power do that? What I have in mind here i 1 21 specifically is the 1979 visit. Perhaps we might want to I I 22 , fish out -- yes, let's pull out NRC 76, if we may. !!r . l , j 23 Lov elace, if you could look at the second page, 360, the 24 bottom two paragraphs, without taking the time to read tho l , l [ I l.afayette Buddine Luzod Reporting Service y o 3. } ,2 ,,,_
. Suite MO 962 11?6 Suite ggo l Iktrat, \fichigan 482:6 Farmington flills. \fichigan 18018 i
1 paragraphs into the record, there is a discussion, is 2 there not, of the preparation of a revised Forecast 6, i 3 1.e., Forecast No. 6, that was going to incorporate 4 ; electrical quantities increases, TMI issues and other 5 licensing issues and that the forecast would be finalized 6 in January 1980 Do you recall a discussion or 7 presentation to that ef f ect at this meeting? 8 Yes, I think I do. If I'm not mistaken, that was the one f 9 where they came up with the 5-a, 5-b, 5 and one they 10 didn' t have a name on yet and they were -- their schedule -- 11 they just called it Schedule May '79, to the best of my 12 recollection, and it was still under review and wouldn' t 13 have the final schedule done until such and such a time. 14 D In fact, on page 378 -- l 15 A That's what I'm looking at. l < 16 0 There is a table with various forecasts, come of the onec [ l 17 which you j ust mentioned, and it says "t6, Under 18 Developuent (January 1980), resultant target fuel load 19 date to be determined". Do you ace that? 20 h Yes.
! i 21 0 Did Consumers indicate to you at this meeting that 22 Forecast 6, when it came out, was likely to show delay in
]
23 the f uel load dates? i l 24 h I can' t say that they specifically came out and said i 113 I.md Reporting Sersice gg ,,, y lafayette Buildme Suite tdo 962.))i6 Suite :20 [Mrat, \lichizu M226 Farmmeton Hills, \lichieu M018
I there's going to be a six month or nine month or 15 month : 2 delay. ; 3 Q I'm not asking f or a specific quantification, I'm j ust 4 asking whether consumers told you that their Forecast 6 5 was likely to show some delay? "
- 6 A I don' t recall specifically that they made that statement .
7 other than maybe alluding to the f act that there was a 8 potential. I j ust don' t recall. 9 Q A few acaents ago you alluded to the Panel learning of I
- 10 disputes between utilities and contractors. In those 11 cases where it occurred, did that affect the type of f
12 review that the Panel made of the schedule when it met
. 13 with the utility for a given caseload Panel visit?
14 A Well, for instance, I would allude to the Fermi Plant l i 15 which j ust got a f uel license, Formi II. We went and 16 talked to the construction people and they told us one i i 17 thing, Detroit Edison I believe, and we went over and l
- 18 talked to the test and startup people, the other group, 19 and they told you a dif f erent story and obviously it had j 20 an impact on the schedule, yes, on the conclusion that we J
21 came up with. 22 0 What about the circumstance where a utility told the Panel ; 23 that it was going to try to improve the schedule or 24 improve a schedule proj ection, did that af f ect your i IAfvette Budding Luzod Reporting Service yo .)14 , , Suite Mo 962 1176 Suute 220 Iktrat, \fichigan M226 Farmington Udh, \fichigan 1801R
review? 1 2 A No, it did not and I'll give you a specific example of a i 3 plant in the northeast, still under construction, and they 4 came in the week bef ore we went up there with a big 5 presentation saying how they were going to improve their 6 schedule six months and the week af ter we went up there, 7 the f ollowing week, and our conclusion was that not only 8 did we think they wouldn' t make the date, the old date 9 they had prior to pulling back six months, but they' d be 10 eight months later than the original date they had. 11 0 We'll get into your manual and general methodology that 12 the Panel folicwed in a short while, but what was the 13 basis for your rejection of this six months improvement 14 that the utility tried to sell to the Panel? 1 15 p The status of construction. W ey were still in the bulk 16 mode, the productivity was very low, the installation i 17 rates were low, several I guess -- I don' t have the la meeting summary in f ront of me that was written f or it. f l 19 0 Whieds utility was thic by the way, if you recall? l ' l ! 20 h I definitely recall. !!ine Mile Point, Niagra !!ohawk l I 21 l Utility. I ! 22 0 A f ew moments ago you mentioned that you, as part of tho } i l 23 Panel, wanted to be provided with "the best inf ormation" 24 that was available with respect to a proj ect; is that 1 J 115 Luod Reporting Sersice yoy ,,,,, f.afvette Buildme Suae en 962 1i?6 Susie 2:0 Detmt, \fichizan M22h Farminuton lid!s, \fichigan s8018 (
I correct? 2 A We would hope to be provided with the best current 3 inf ormation available. 4 0 I want to explore a little bit about, with you, what you 5 mean by best inf ormation. In talking about the Niagra 6 Mohawk Plant, the Nine Mile Point one, you mentioned bulks 7 and other types of inf ormation. Is that what you had in 8 mind with -- 9 n When you look at a plant you look at the phase it's in, 10 whether it' e in the bulk mode, or system turnover mode or ! 11 the startup mode. Depending on what modo it's in, if 12 they' re heavy on mechanical, you look heavy at mechanical. 13 You always look a lot at pipe hangers for example, they 14 seem to be a problem in every plant, documentation of 15 them, getting the final otress analysis done. If they' to 16 heavy in pre-op testing, you look at the pre-op tosting, 17 their punch list items on their systems. 18 0 With respect to these various activities and commodities, I 19 what type of inf ormation were you looking f or, was this l 20 like raw commodity data cr what have you? 21 A Raw commodity data, so many f eet of cable, so many 22 terminations. You can see right here how it's changed as j l 23 time progressed f rom June of '78 to May of '79. i 1 24 0 So in broad stroken the Panel's task was to take that raw f l l I i 7 4~,,,, gagg,, Lutod Reporting Service yo 1, 1 6 ,, 1 Suar MO 962.I1i6 Suite :;o Detroit, \fichigan 48226 Farmington flills. \lichigan 48018
=
1 commodity data and come up with its own independent 2 , assessment of the construction schodule for a given i 3 l nuclear plants is that correct? 4 A If you had an 11RC meeting agenda here, a notice of a 5 meeting and a meeting agenda and you looked at the agenda, 6 you would see what would answer your question because the 7 standard agenda is 14,16 items on it. It has potential 8 problems, talks about delays, potential for delays, 9 contingencies built in your schedule, and I think you have 10 that book there. 'Itere may be a sample agenda in that 11 book. 12 0 I don' t want to sidetrack you. I'11 get to this, I 13 promise you, in a few minutes. I 14 h The agenda ref ers to all of these things that you were 15 asking me. 16 0 This is the agenda that was set by the Panel itcoif, 17 cor rect ? 1 13 A It's the agenda that's sent to the utility about a month, 19 four or five weeks bef ore we go to the plant in order to l 20 give then time and their contractor, if they so desire, to 21 provide answers to the agenda questions and the agenda, it 22 asks f or installation rates. l 23 0 In other words, the agenda contains a list of items that i i J ( 24 you wanted the utility to be prepared to address and i . 117 Luzod Repor:ing Sertice 39g,o y,,s ,,,,,,, yf,,, j lofayette Bwiding
, Sw,, g; 962.!)i6 Suite 2:0 Detrmt. \fuchigan K26 Farmusetcn flslls, %chieu mol8
1 provide information f or? 2 A All right. l 3 Q Mr. Lovelace, you drive a hard bargain. I think I'll mark 4 the manual as Def endant's Exhibit D-4958 5 (Deposition Exhibit No. D-4958, 6 Document entitled General Guidlines 7 for site Visits, was marked f or. 8 identif ica tion. ) 9 MR. JE1TES: Are you at the end of your 10 question? 11 im. ZACK: I'm going have him identify it. 12 MR. JDITES : I object to the 13 characterization of Mr. Lovelace as driving a hard I 14 bargain. You had a document in f ront of him and he ! i 15 obviously has seen it there and he indicated he thought it 16 might have some relevance. 17 MR. ZACK: It was meant with a degree of 18 j ocularity. 19 A Mr. Zack stated earlier he had a copy of it. 'Ihis is the i 20 best place I could t.hink of to get a copy of what a sample 21 agenda is like. I 22 BY MR. ZACK: l l 23 0 I don' t think the case will turn on this this key point, l } l 24
) !!r. Lovelace.
! l l i ; ; 1 I i lafaytte Bwidine f.uzod Reporting Sersice ,g \.)18 , S wie M a 962 1176 Suar :o [k trmt, %<higan 482:6 Farmingto, Hills, \tahigan 4801R
E 1 A I hope not. I 2 0 Can you identify what I've had marked as D-4950 as a 3 l manual used by the caseload Forecast Panel describing its I
,- 4 basic methodology for analyzing construction schedules f or 5 nuclear plants?
6 A Yes. ' l 7 Q Did you co-author this manual? l 8 A Yes, I did. , l l 9 D About when did you co-author it? < l 10 A That's a good question. '1he only thing I can recall is it 11 came as a directive f rom the EDO, I believe, or the 12 commission or one. I don' t know. I' d be guessing,
,,- 13 D Well --
l 14 h I j ust recall I was very disturbed because -- of f the i 15 record. ' l l 16 (A brief discussion was held i 17 of f the recor d. ) 18 It had to be in 1979-80 time f rame - I don' t know. 19 SY MR. ZACK: ! l l 20 Q In any event, does this manual describe the methodology , i 21 used by the Panel in the time period of approximately 1978 l l 22 through 1983 with respect to how the Panel went about 23 making schedule determinations for nuclear plants? !; 24 No. As time evolved, we got -- I would like to i 119
'l R' Porting Sers ice y ,o g,,,,, ,7 f.apyrtte Rusldinz l Suste MO 902*III0 5"d' 220 Detrat, \fschsgan 48:26 Farmington Ilsils. \lichigan 880lR i
1 characterize it so more -- sophisticated as how we went 2 about making our estimates. We first looked at percent 3 complete of the various bulk commodities, for example, 4 rather than the number of, or the amount of bulk, lineal 5 f ootago, what was inctalled versus what wasn' t installed. 6 C About the 1970 period? I 7 A 1978 period. As time goes on you get more educated I 8 guess. The nuclear industry itself is still getting 9 educated. 10 Q Let's move to the 1980 period. Was this manual generally i 11 i reflective of the methodology employed by the Panel in 12 , that year with respect to the schedule evaluations? I 13 A I would have to say not for surety, but yes. l 14 0 I take it the same is true with respect to 19017 , l l 15 A Yes. It was not used in 1978 I believe, the '78 timo 16 frame. ~ 1 17 Q You mentioned you co-authored this manual. Can you expand I i 18 a Aittle bit on what ycu actually did with respect to this 19 document? There are procedures in this manual, are there 20 not? i 21 k Yes. ' l l 22 0 Did you come up with those procedures, or many of them? l l 23 I wrote the document with the exception of the l p 24 ! introduction and I wrote the introduction and I believe l i l l l.afayrne Buildsne
" I~ " 5"# b 5" 3mto %th , t in liwy.
S wtr M a 962 1!76 Swr, ggo (kiroit, %kgu #C26 Farmington flills, Wheen 48018
1 there was changes made by one of my bosses to the 2 introduction. What they were I don' t recall. 3 0 Were the procedures, i.e. , cet forth in this manual, were i 4 they followed by the Panel regardless of the schedule l 5 methodology or the schedule estimate that was used by a 6 given utility? In other words, in this how the Panel went 7 about making its schedule estimates as described in here, 8 D-4958? 9 A Basically. Were may have maybe -- each plant is unique , 10 and this was a general methodology. 11 0 In your view, did the procedures in this manual provide a 12 reasonable basis f or enabling the Panel to make schedule 13 evaluations of nuclear plants? 14 h Did I perceive it helping the Panel? l > 15 Q Do you want the question read back? i I ! ! 16 A Yes, j l 17 MR. ZACK: Please do that, j 13 (The requested portion of the ; 19 record was read back as f ollows: ' - d 20 "O, In your view, did the procedures j 21 in this manual provide a reasonable ; 22 basis f or enabling the Panel to make 23 schedule evaluations of nuclear planto?") l l 24 A nat was the intent of this, of the manual. In other I l ! I l Luod Reporting Service ,a \., , Isfayette Iktding Sunegh; Sune MO 962.Iii6 lberoa, \fschisan 492:6 Farmington Ildh. \fichigan 49018 ,
1 1 wor ds, I think I was sick and stricken in the hospital for 2 about six weeks and then I decided if something happens to 3 this guy who is going to do the work. So that's when they . 4 say make him write proceduren. So obviously you think of 5 job protection also. So I put the procedures together, , 6 very loosely, as a general guideline for preparing an 7 estimate, all the way f rca the Proj ect P,anager making 8 contact with the utility, coordinating the meating and 9 etcetera and so forth. 10 BY MR. EACK l 11 0 If we could go to the introduction, the first paragraph 12 specifically, second sentence, there' o the text "These t 13 estimates provide an independent basis for NRC to 14 determine when a plant will be suf ficiently completed to 15 load f uel. " Itas it the intent of the Panel not to ecly on , 16 estimates made by a utility or a contractor with recpect 17 to proposed schedule completion dates f or nuclear plants? i 18 A That is a correct statement. We always f elt that they , 19 were sof t and sometimes we weren' t getting the true story , 20 or the true f acts. l 21 Q What do you mean by not getting the true f acts? I i 22 A The dates they were giving us f or completion was not a 23 hard, solid date. l I 24 I believe earlier in the deposition you used the phrase h ' i i IAfayette Bui; ding Lsmd Reporting Service ,mo \.}2 , ,, Suar MO 962.Ii*6 Suit,2;n ! Iktrost. \fiel.igan 48LM Farminston Hills. \fichigan 18018
i 1 . keeping the utilities honest? : 1 2 A Okay. I don' t recall using it but if you say I did. I 3 0 Regardless of whether you said it earlier in this 4 deposition, was that your general perspective when you 5 were with th? Panel, i.e. , in making these schedulo 6 evaluations you were attempting to keep the utilities 7 honest? 8 h I think I made the statement in making these estimates we 9 were making time for Joe Henry, for technical resources 10 for review. I believe that was the gist of this morning's 11 reasons f or making the estimates. 12 O In other words, is it true that the Panel would make an 13 estimate for various nuc1 car plants and then the staff 14 could then allocate its resources pursuant to the 15 , proj ections that the Panel had made? l 3 16 A That's correct. As a matter of fact, that was done f or ; i 17 about two years, a little before TMI and a year, year and 18 a half af ter TMI. The priorities f or the reviews and
- 19 allocations f or the resources were set by the dates that 20 the Panel came up with.
l 21 Q Incidentally, did you have any input into the so-called 22 Devel reports that the NRC filed with a congressional l 23 committee regarding licensing schedules? ; 1 24 A That was done by ?!RR, that being !!ucioar Regulatory i l 123 l'md Reporting Service yo ,,,,,,, l lofvette Budding I sua, ao 962 1176 suar 2.'o Iktrat, \fichigan 48:26 F3rmmaton Ildh, thchiean M*118 i
h l 1 Regulation, and my only input was at the very .beginning of-2 the Sevel reports they elected to put in the NRC's 3 estimate. Subsequently, a conscious decision was made by 4 NRR, I think, 'to deloto the NRC estimate in a Devel 5 Report. nat is my only input with the Devel Report. 6 Q I recall you stating earlier in the deposition that at a 7 cortain point NRR started to accept utility estimates if 8 they were within six months of the Panel estimates? 9 h That was in the latter -- well, I lef t in 1984 so that was 10 in '83 i 11 0 Is that what you were just referring to in connection with 12 your input or the Panel's input into the Bevel reports? 13 A No, it is not. Were was a coltann that had utility -- ! 14 licensee estimate, NRC estimate and a column for each l f 15 plant in the universe and each plant had two dates, l ) 16 applicant date, NRC date, based on the Forecast Panel. I s 17 Then subsequently it was decided no longer would the NRC 18 date be published, only the licensee date was being 19 published and a decision was made. nat was my only input 20 to the Bevel Report. 21 0 Who made that decision, if you know, to delete the 22 Caseload Forecast date? j 23 A To my knowledge, it was Mr. Eisenhut or Mr, Denton? 24 MR. FULLDIS: Do you know of your own l 1.afnette Budding 'M "I 5 34880 %rth I rn lluy. Suite MO 962 1ii6 Sune : o Detrat. \fickitan 482:6 Farmington Rdh, \firhigan 18018
1 knowledge who made the decision? 2 WE WIWESS: 11 0 , I don' t know of my own i 3 j knowledge. It was a management decision in the ilRC. 4 DY PR. ZACK: h 5 D Did you ever learn why that management decision was made 6 by the llRC7 7 A Not first-hand. l 8 0 What did you learn occond-hand? 9 MR. JDITES : I obj ect to second-hand 10 information. 11 DY MR. ACK h 12 h What, if anything, did you know or did you come to learn l 13 I about the basic f or the NRC decision? l 14 ( I didn' t hear the last part. i 15 Q What, if anything, did you come to learn about the basis 16 for the NRC decision? 17 A I think you' re discussing the Devel Report and that wacn' t 18 in my purview. I had no control whatsoever over it. 19 !!R. W LLIllSt I think I' d have to obj ect. 20 That would call for a little speculation on his part. 21 A I have some ideas but it would be pure speculction. And 22 to clarify that, it would be pure speculation as to why 23 the NRC dates were no longer published in the Devel 24 Report. I would be speculating to clarify that point as , 1 l 125 Luod Reporting Service , ,,, ,7 lafvette Rustdsne suae ao 962 1176 Suar u) (Mroa. \fschigan 182.N> Farmsneton lisils. \fschigan 3018
1 to why they ware deleted and not carried in the Devel 2 Repcrt. 3 BY !!R. ZACK: 0 4 Q I guess I'll recist the temptation to ask you to 5 speculate, but did you agree with the decision when you 6 learned of it? 7 A Me personally? l 8 0 Yes. I 9 A It really didn' t Inake any difference to me one way or the 10 other. 11 Q Let's sail on to page one of the manual. Pages 1 and 2 12 describe activities prior to the site visit. In the 13 ' second paragraph on page 1 you discuss coordination with 14 the congnizant tiRR licensing Project l'.anager and/or the , 15 resident inspector / regional personnel, etcetera. Do you i 16 see that ref erence? 17 A Urrha. l l r 18 Q Did you in the course of your responsibilities with the 19 Panel obtain records f rom various resident inspectors who 20 were posted at various jobs? 21 A I think if you'11 read that whole sentence, complete the ; 1 22 sentence, it' a not what it imp 1les. i 23 0 I'm just trying to get an idea of the proceduro. I 24 h The procedure was coordinating with the cogni:: ant I ( , ! I i i.afa) rue Basidine f.u: d Reporting Sers ice yo .},6 y , kreMn 962 1 iib k rr :,M [htrmt. \fakstas 482.'% Farm <neton Hith, \taktean umla
1 licensing Project Manager and to establish a mutual 2 c;reeable date for the visit. 3 D Aside f rom, or in connection with that coordination i 4 l f unction, did you have occasion to ask regional, or pardon , i 5 me, resident inspectors to obtain proj ect records f or une 6 in schedule evaluations by the Panel? , 7 A It vakled f rom project to project. Some of the proj ect 8 managers were very helpf ul, others inspectors were very 9 helpf ul, other proj ects the resident inspectors were not 10 too helpf ul. 11 0 now would you characterize Mr. Ron cook of the Midland 12 Proj ect in terms of being helpf ul or not helpf ul with
. 13 respect to getting project records?
14 A I would say he was not the most helpf ul of the resident 15 incpectors we had at various sites. 16 Q Did you indeed make requests to !!r. Cook f or him to help l 17 you obtain project records or data f or your use in making 18 caseload Panel evaluations? 19 A I had called him prior to going up to the Midland site. I 20 can remember one specific incident that was with regard to 21 the availability of electricians and he in f act called the 22 labor hall to make sure of the availability of the 23 electricians, electrical peopic, how many there were in { 24 ! the area and the f easibility of bringing them in f rom l l I i l , 127 Luzod Reporting Service y a S n ,,,,, y Infvette kidine gua, nw 962 1176 suute 2.m Detar, \lahigan 4R::s Fannistron Hals Whigan mais
1 Ca na da. I recall that specifically. 2 d That, I take it, is an example of cooperation.
}
3 A Yes. I 4 Q Uere there examples of noncooperation that you can recall? l 5 a 9e11, I can only recall him attending I believe it was the 6 1978 meeting when he was the resident inspector designee. 7 He never attended any of our presentation meetings, that I 8 can recall, subsequent to that. I guess he had his other 9 jobs to do. At times there were, I don't recall in any of l 10 these meetings specifically on Midland, but if there was 11 not a resident inspecter availabite at the job then the l 12 regional office would send an innpector or a 13 reprerentative f rom that particular region to be with us, 14 the Caseload Panel. 15 0 When you talked about the electricians, that generically
- 16 was asking the inspector to get you some inf crmation. Do i
- 17 you recall asking inspectors in general to obtain project '
i 18 records such as construction reports? I l 19 A Normally you didn' t have to ask that. % a ones that had i 20 th em, they were as interestod when the plant was going to j 21 be completed and when f uel was going to be loaded as i 22 I anybody clae in the NRC. i 1 1 l 23 0 Ye a' re talking about inspectors? I i ! j 24 A ihe Ansrerors, and they would provide inf ormation that i : I L,,pyrtte kulhag Luzad Reportine Sertice ya .}28 , kie MO 962*I E ?b % e sa \ mt % hips % Farmnneton Ihlls, Whigan 48018 I -- _ _, ,, .. ~ _ . ___ _ ._, ___ _ _ _ _ __ _
I 1 was given to them. 1 heir main dealings were with the QA,
~
2 QC people and not with the construction or schedule 3 people, l 4 Q Did the inspectors have access to project records other i 5 than QA records? 6 h Maybe via a grapevine, or had ways of getting ahold of 7 then. Not all inspectors had that. It varied f rom site 8 to site. 9 D If you could pull out NRC 76 again. Turn to page 378 10 please. Earlier in this deposition you mentioned that it 11 was the practice of the Panel to ask f or documents that 12 i you were aware of s is that correct? l
.. 13 A If you' re not aware something eFists, how can you ask f or 14 i t.
15 0 Well, on page 378 of exhibit NRC 76 there's a ref erence to 16 Forecant 5, Sa, Sb, etcetera. Did you ask f or copies of
\
17 those forecasts f rom either Consumers Power or Dechtel? l 18 Again I'm going to have to ref er to the agenda. I 19 0 I think we can dig a more complete copy of the agenda out i , 20 of Kline's notes, too, f or that meeting. 21 This agenda is a short version of what we sent. 22 0 Let me show you CPC 274, and the Dates ntraber is ; 23 unf ortunately obscured but it has to be 1045, se a mattor l 24 of f act 1045 and 1046 Can you identify the agenda that l I 129 Lusod Reparung Snda 3ag,o y,,,,,,,, f;,,_ f.afyrete Building sa, ny; 962 11i6 Suite 2.'n Mt. \fwktran 482.% Farmington tidir \twhtaan 48018
I the NRC sent to Consumers Power in connection with the 2 l September 1979 visit of the Panel? i 3 A I don' t see it anywhere. It was a f airly long agenda. I 4 Q Well, in any event, do you recall asking for Forocaat S, 5 Sa and 5b as they were ref erred to in exhibit flRC 76? 6 d To the best of my recollection, I don' t think we got their - - 7 that they bcd gone through 5, 5a, and 5b. 1:ay have. I 8 j ust don' t recall. 9 Q Hr. Jentes will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the 10 record shows that Forecast 5, Sa and Sb had all been 11 issued prior to September 1979. 12 a There was no formal, that I saw, issuance of thoco. Of 13 Porecast 5, I think there was a formal issuance of that 14 one. 15 0 Did you ask f or the f ormal issuance of that f orecast? Did i i 16 you ask f or Forecast 5, given that it hr.d been f ormally 17 ; issued? i 18 A We didn' t specifically ask f or any particular f orecast. 19 They could have had Porecast 7. We wouldn' t have known 4 20 what it was called. Again, I ref er to the agenda that we 21 sent them asking, stipulating the various questions we l I 22 wanted addressed, inf ormation we wanted, and I think to ; 23 answer your question I'd have to see tne agenda we sont l
} <
24 ; them, j l l i ! , l.afayerre (Lasidat I. Od R' Porting Servier ,. O, l kito Ma 962 1I?6 k ar 2:n i Iktnut. \fichigan M:.% Farmmerm ll:llu \f,<higan mais '
1 'o nell, I take it, though, the agenda set f or th the
! I 2 l information that you wanted f rom the utility?
3 A nat's correct. l t 4 Q So were you nocessarily interested in whatever forecasts 5 or periodic schedule evaluations that the utility and/or 7 6 its contractor made? 7 h I think certainly we would have been. l 8 D Well, for example, do you recall asking for and receiving 9 a copy of Forecast 6 prior to the July 1980 meeting of the 10 Panel with Constners Power? 11 A Again, I'11 have to say we didn' t go in with one agenda 12 item and say we want to discuss or give a presentation of 13 Forecast 6, Forecast 5 We said specific agenda items. 14 MR. ZACK: Let me mark this as Defendant's i 15 Exhibit D-4959. i 16 l (Deposition Exhibit No. D-4959,
- 17 Caseload Forecast Panel Site Visit i
18 i Meeting Agenda, July 29,1980, was 19 marked f or identification.) 20 SY MR. ZACK: 1 21 0 can you identify this as the agench f or the July 1980 t 22 Caseload Forecast Panel visit to the Midland Nuc1 car Plant ' 23 plus handouts received by the Panel at this meeting? Ard 24 let me just indicate for the record that these documente j l v 131 [ Luted Reporting Sertice ma g,,,,, y l Is(nette Rwidme [ gw,, a> 962 1176 smte :20 Detmt, \fichigan LC:6 Farmmeton Hdis \fschigan 54018
1 were obtained by my law firm f rom the tFtc pursuant to a 2 Freedom of Inf ormation Act request. 3 A This basically looks like a typical agenda, yes. Il 4 Q Do you recognize this as the agenda you sent to Consumera 5 Power in connection with the July 1980 visit of the Panel? 6 A I will correct that and say I think I recognize this as 7 the agenda the licensing project manager Mr.11ood sent to 8 Consumers Power along with the meeting notice. , 9 Q Would you have had input into that agenda? i 10 A Usually I prepared the agenda in conjunction with the 11 Project Manager and the resident inspector if he had any 12 input or new of any sof t items or problem areas. 13 0 Did you, in preparing this agenda, which Darl Hood 14 subsequently sent to Consumers Power, did you specifically 15 request Forecast 6? 16 h im. J!21' TS I only obj ect to the ' 17 characterization of an agenda he prepared. I don' t 18 believe I've seen this document previously but I notice on 1 19 page two the initials are Mr. Keeley's initials where it 20 would be indicated that the document was prepared by 21 somebody. It says GSK, which is Mr. Keeley's initials. 22 !!R. ZACK: I can see that, too, Mr. Jentes. j 23 I'm merely following up on the witness' characteri::ation 24 of the document. l I I ! l.afyrtte Ratidus 3nH10 %rth t in flu y.
% te M O 962 li?6 buar 2:0 Detrat. \fschwam 482.% Farmmaton listis. \tahican 68018
1 MR. JOITES: I think all he'a said is the
- 2 document looks like one that he thinks might have been 3 prepared by Mr. Hood. 7 hat's about all he said.
4 BY MR. ZACK: 0 5 0 If you could turn to page 8459, Mr. Lovelace, 459. There 6 are some handwritten annotations on that page. Are those 7 'your o? 8 A 'Ihey look like mine, yes.. I 9 0 All right. could you take a moment to review the exhibit l 10 to determine whether these indeed were handouts that you 11 , received f rm consumers Power at this July 1980 meeting? 12 A I trould say yes, to the beat of my knowledge. l . 13 0 okay. ' i 14 A We may have got some of them af ter the meeting. Whether 15 it be all the handouts or not, I don't know. tm. "ACX: Let's mark thic ao D-4?SO. 16 i 17 (Deposition Exhibit !!o. D-4960, I r 18 Letter f rom Hartha E. Gibbs to 19 Marshall E. Miller and Ivan W. Smith, ; 20 dated February 8,1980, was marked i 21 for identification.) - 22 BY MR. ZACK: i l 23 0 Earlier today you discussed a letter sont by Consmers 24 ! Power lawyers to the !!RC rogarding Forocaat 6. Can you 133 Luzod Repoe ine Sersice m,, yn,,,, y7,,.y lafayette Libne sg, m 962.IJ?6 hte 2:0 : Iktrat, \lakseen Ml::n Farmneton fik Uihean M*)l8
B 1 identify this document, which again I'll tell you was 2 obtained f rom the NRC pursuant to a Freedom of' Inf ormation 3 , Act request? : 4 A That's the letter I ref erred to. 5 0 That being the letter sent by the lawyers regarding 6 Forecast 67 7 A Yeah. l 8 0 so you were aware of Forecast 6, of its existence, prior 9 to the July 1980 Panel visit? , 10 A That's correct. I 11 Q If Forecast 6 had been important to the Pane 18 s 12 deliberations in your view, would you have asked f or it? 13 A I would have asked f or the agenda items. i l 14 0 I'm interested specifically in the document itself. l ! 15 A No, I wouldn' t send one agenda item and say I want you to 16 review Forecast S or Forecast 6. We never sent that to 17 any of the applicants. 10 0 Why not? i 19 A Well, not all of them have an attorney that publihes 20 letters saying we got Forecast 6 available, or we got l l l
- 21 Forecast 5 available or whatever. Some of them call them l l
22 , upda te s. Dechtel calls it forecasts. ; [ i 23 0 negardless of what the utilities or contractors callod l ; I , 24 ; their forecasts or updates, was that a package of l f I i a I 1 8 i
#" f* "# ' "
I.afayette kidme 3MIO %rth r t m fluy Suar MO 962.IEI6 Suar :;m iktnxt. \fakitan SC:6 Fawntton Iblig \takiean 18013 d 4 _..._-_m_ _ _ _ _ _ ______m_ , . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ , - , - , - - _ - . < . - _ - _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ , , _ . . _ _ _ _
i 1 inf ormation that you, as part of the Panel, had to have in ' 2 order to make your evaluation? I'm talking about the 3 j document itself an a distinction f rom raw commodity data, i 4 the nature you discussed earlier. l 5 I think using Forecast 6 inf ormation in responding to the
~
6 agenda items is what we wanted f rom thesn. 7 0 So you were looking f or the utility to give you 8 information responsive to the agenda items you had sont to 9 them, correct? , 10 % Yes, based on their best inf ormation, latest inf ormation. 11 D If you could go back to the manual for a moment. ' l 12 h I'm a little conf used that we lef t something open on the 13 agenda, but it doesn' t make any difference. 14 0 Let's clear it up, if we can. Out of the first two pages , a 15 of D-4959, tc the best of your recollection the agenda 16 which you authored and which Mr.11ood sent to consumers 17 ! Power, and in response to Mr. Jentec' cc:nment I will agree { 18 with him and say the initials at the bottom of the second 19 page are those of Gil I;eeley, who was a Consteners Power 20 official at that time. 21 h The only thing I could say is it looks like the agenda I 22 that we sent. I couldn' t say a hundred percent nure l
- f 23 whether it is or not.
]
\ l 24 0 Does it e.ddrecs the types of concerns that you l l
! ! i i 135 I lathyette Rwldat Mod %thun!!!n II"T Suite hk) 9 0 ? ' E I ** O SMI' LY) (Mmt, \fichuan W.% Farmnste linth, 'twkten 4801M
1 traditionally or normally -- l 2 A Yes. For instance, Item 2, "Detailed review of proj ect 3 setiedul e. " Do you need to put current project schedule in 4 f ront of that when you send it to the applicant or do you 5 think they would give you the project schedule that was in G I 19757 I would expect the current proj ect schedule date 7 including, it says, "Caseload Forecast Panel September 8 1979 visit, current problens, bases f or current datos, and 9 any anticipated problem areas that may impact the current 10 proj ected f uel, load date. " I think those items would be 11 addressed in Forecast 6, if I'm not mildaken. 12 Q I notice that in paragrapt two you ref er to activition l 13 with negative float, do you cee that, or someone refers to 14 it?
- 15 A 'ttoar critical items, amount of float f or various 16 activitias, the current critical path to f col loading, a
17 , methods of implementation of corrective action f or any 18 activities with negative float, and provisions f or l 19 contingencies", yes. I 1 20 0 Was it the standard operating procedure of the Par,el to ! 21 ask utilities about various schedule activitien that had 22 3 negative float associated with thcn and the correctivo 1 I 23 actions, if any, associated with them? i i i , l 24 A It was a standard agenda item. I t i t 1 J f$$f $ sn$ 0 Y$& M). u ,, - m.ms u,f zu , [Mrott, % higan K' 6 farmington l{tils, \fschigan Winl8
1 {") All right. Was it normal in your e:tperience for there to 2 be activities that had negative float associated with I 3 them? c 4 A That was the reason for asking the question. Normally 5 you'll find an activity with negative float, yes. 6 D Well, so I take it then that most utilities with schedules 7 had some activities on those schedules that did have 8 negative float associated with them; is that correct? 9 4 I wouldn' t characterize it as most. I don' t know what you 10 mean by most, whether it be 7 5 percent, hundred percent. 11 Some of them would, some of them wouldn' t. 42 0 All right. Well, did the f act that some utilitics had
. 13 activities that had negative float associated with them 14 mean that the schedules that the utilities were using ,
I l 15 necessarily were too optimistic? Again, I'm ading f or i . l 16 your view based on your experience. l 17 A Negative float would be a critical path item. If it were ! 18 negative float and if at that particular time it was l 19 negative float running through say the Turbine Building or 20 the Administration Building, it wouldn' t be of too much ! l 21 concern. I 22 0 What about the Auxiliary Building? l i 23 A But running through the aux building or the containment ' 24 building or the control building, which are other more 1
?
l 137 Luzod Reporting Service , s. ,,,,,,, isfgette Building S ite MO 962.I176 Suite 220 Detroit. \fichigan 18226 Farmington Hills.11ichienn t8018
1 difficult buildings, then yea, it would be of concern. 2 Q It is something you would look at both in termo of the 3 amount of negative float and the propeceo corrective - 4 actions, correct? 5 h Exactly, and what's causing it and what ef fect it's having 6 on other activities down the line. 7 0 And you look at that both in terms of examining the raw 8 commodity data and in terms of your observations on the 9 site tour that you would takel is that correct? 10 A The combination of both. 11 0 Could you turn to page 4 of the manual. This page is 12 entitled Status of Engincoring, Design and Procurement, 13 and the manual talks about, in the first paragraph, that 14 "It is important to know the current status of engineering 15 and design activities (by major discipline) ac they are 16 directly acsociated with the procurement activities. 17 obviously this is a key factor because design, ongineering 18 and procurement must keep ahead of construction so that 19 construction activities will not be impacted. " When you 20 . went to Midlan'd did you attempt to find out what the 21 current status of engineering and design activities were? l 22 A Again, I'll ref er to the agenda and it is a specific "Detailed review and current status and 23 agenda item. 24 forecast of design and engineering ef f ore including any lafayette Building ' Lmd Reporting Service ,yo 3.), 30 , g _ _ Suite 630 96:.11I6 Sust,69 Iktroit. \fichigan M226 Farmington Hith, \!ichigan M018
1 1 potential problems that may arise with necessary rework." 2 Q Uhat types of data did you try to gather with respect to 3 these activitics, specifically speaking? 4 A The status j ust as it says. 'Itat's the inf ormation I was 5 trying to get, how f ar ahead of engineering - you can' t 6 run some Q piping until your piping is routed in 7 engineering. You can' t put your hangers up until the 8 hangers are engineered. You want to know how f ar ahead l 9 engineering is of construction and I think in this l 10 particular case we found - I had concerns in several 11 areas that engineering, if they could maintain the l 12 construction effort that they were f orecasting l 13 instellation rates, design, if engineering could keep up 14 , with construction. I i l 15 D In the accond paragraph on page 4 you ref ce to Bechtel, 16 Stone t. Webster, Sargent and Lundy, Durns and Roe, United l 1 17 Engineers, and Gilbert Associates as various entities that i 18 were concerned with engineering and design activities. Do I 19 you know whether for the plants, the nuclear plants that i 20 these companies worked on, whether they used probabilistic l 21 risk schedule analyses? 22 I have no knowledge whether they did or did not. 1 23 0 Do you know how widespread the use in the nucicar industry a 24 was during the period f rom 1979 through 1983 of the use of I 139 Luzod Rsporting Service mn sorghuestern Ituy. lAfayette Building Suig, m o 962.))76 Suite 220 Detrmt, \hchigan 18226 Farmington Ihlls, Stichiean 18018 ,
1 probabilistic risk analyses to make schedule projoations? 2 A Mo, I do not. l 3 0 During the course of your visita to the various utilities
. 4 during the period 1979 through 1983, were you ever 5 . presented with a probabilistic risk analysis?
l 6 A Not presented with one, no. I would ask what level of 7 confidence do you have in your schedule, 8 0 Well, what I'm searching f or is the probabilictic risk 9 analysis as a scheduling technique. Were you ever told by 10 any of the utilities or their contractors that they had 11 used the probabilistic risk analysis as a scheduling 12 technique during this 1979 through 1983 period? Itakeit 13 that you yourself and the Panel did not use the 14 probabilistic risk analysis technique for making schedule 15 proj ections; is that correct? 16 A That's correct. l ' 17 0 How familiar are you with that technique? l 18 A Vaguely familiar. It's based on a random sampling of a 19 weighted value of the selected individuals within the i l 20 organization, as f ar as I know, and their thoughts. I 21 0 Did you ever recommend that the NRC use the probabilistic l l l ; 22 l risk analysis f or making schedule projections? 23 h No. I 24 0 was it your pref erence to develop a schedule proj ection on l l Isfayette Busiding Luod Reporting Servic e yo ,)48 ,, , Suite MO 962.))i6 S,,ig,gyn Detemt, \lichigan 18226 Farmington flith. \fichiean 18018 1 _.-_. ._
1 the basis of installation rates, various commodity data 2 and what you could observe on your site tour? 3 MR. JEUTES : Objection to the question unless you clarify what you mean by ' pref erence". 4 Over 5 what? 6 BY MR. ZACK: l 7 0 Preference as to the probabilistic risk analysis 8 techniq ue. 9 % Well, if I'm understanding what you're saying about the 10 probabilistic analysis, that is based on your installation 11 rates and completions of various bulk commodities and 12 sy stems, status of design, status of engineering, status i 13 of procurement. Without having the knowledge of this and 14 where this stands, how are you going to figure what a 15 probability is if you' re going to meet the schedulo if you i 16 don' t know what the status of the construction 10 ! 17 0 okay. My question was perhaps simpler than that. I take l 18 it as between the probabilistic risk analysis as a 19 scheduling technique and the methodology set forth in this , l l 20 '" l manual, your pref erence was to use the latter methodolog, ! , 21 1.e. , the one in D-4958, this manual? 22 A The only thing I'm saying is the probabilistic analysis 23 would be a ctop beyond what you would come up with here. i 24 MR. JENTES : Your reference to "here", I l IAfaffitt OU5fding Lu:od Reporting Service yo 3.) ,,g Suito MO 962 11I6 Suite 2:0 Iktroit, \fichigan 48226 Farmington Ihlis, \fichigan 18018 1 1
l 1 1 11r. Lovelace, you' re pointing to the procedurou manual, i I 2 D-49587 3 WE WITNESS: I'll clarify th'at.
. 4 A I go through and do a bottme up schedule analysis on 5 where I am in procurement, design, engineering and so on 6 and then my next step, if I wanted to do a probabilistic 7 analysis, would be af ter I found out where I stood on the 8 date that I had arrived at by doing the schedule analysis --
9 SY MR. ZACK: 0 10 0 The bottme-up analysis? 11 A The bottoms-up type analysis, and I got a date and I want 12 to know how good that dato is and I use my probabilistic 13 analysis to find out how good my date is. 14 0 Do you know how widespread the practice you just described , i 15 was in the nuclear industry during 1979 through 19837 l 16 A I know that they all went -- covered the items I asked f er 17 in the agenda. Ilow many went a step f urther and done a l l l 18 probabilistic analysis on the probability of them meeting l ! 19 their date or not, I have no idea. I don' t even know ' 20 whether some of them done it or not. I can' t answer that 21 que stion. i 22 l fG. FULLINS : We've been at this for two 23 hours. I think it's j ust time to change seats here. l 24 MR. ZACK: Let's take a break. i Iafayette Building uzo oning Suda 3,,g ,,, ,f,, ,,ny. Suite MO 962.I176 Suite 220 Detrat, \fschiran M226 Farmington tidis, Alichigan 18018
1 (A brief recess was held during 2 the proceedings.) 3 GY MR. ZACK: 4 Q On the break your attorney mentioned he thought he could 5 clear something by asking you a question or two. 6 MR. iULLINS I'm ref erring to Def endant 7 Exhibit 4959, which has just been introduced here. I 8 notice at the bottom of the second page are the initials 9 GSK/DLT, which I'm inf ormed are the initials of a 10 Consumers employee, Mr. Keeley; is that correct? 11 HR. ZACK: Yes. BLT was Mr. Keeley's 12 secretary, not to be conf used with the sandwich. 13 MR. MULLINS: I notice the dato on this in 14 July 25th,1980 and the date of the meeting was July 29th. 15 If I remembor your tectimony earlier, you said that you 16 sent these agendas out several weeks in advance of the j 17 meeting; is that correct? ! la WE WITNESS: That's corract. l l 19 MR. HULLINS: So this would appear to be 20 Consumer s' normal practice to type up their own version of 21 the agenda and attach their exhibits which they were 22 ronponding with and submit it back to you as a handout at 23 the meeting? 24 W E WITNESS : In some cases I believe that' o 143 Luzod Reporting Service y ,o 3.,,,y,,,,, 17 ., lxfayette Building Su;,, mo 962 1176 Suite 220 (ktrat,11ichigan 48226 Farmington Hills. .\fichigan 1801R t
I correct, that they would f eel that this would be a better 2 procentation or the person that wanted to make the < 3 presentation in the morning wasn' t available until the 4 aftornoon. That was common practice. 5 M. MULLINS: Did they normally reproduce 6 your agenda exactly or did they change it sometimes? 7 THE WITNESS: That I couldn' t answer of f the 8 top of my head other than sometimes the items would be 9 re-ordered or they would be changes or something omitted 10 or not. I don' t know right of f the top of my head.
.11 MR. WLLIUS: But this obviously is a 12 publication - appears to be a restatoment by consumers of 13 the agenda which you sent them; is that correct?
14 THE WITNESS: It appears to be. 15 MR. MULLIMS: It's not the original which 16 you sent them with the meeting notice? 17 THE WITNESS: I would think the original 18 would be with the meeting notice. I 19 HR. NLLINS: That's all I have. < 20 BY MR. ZACK: l 21 Q Let's proceed with our examination of this manual, if we l 22 l may. Just glancing over it in summary form, pages 7 l 23 i through 9 there's a discussion of the craf t work f orce. I l 24 l take it that another one of the inquiries that the panel i l l I l lsfayette Railding Lwd Reporting Service ,g ,g .)A4,, Suar MO 962 11If Suite 220 Detroit, \fichigan 49226 Farmington lidis, \fichigan 18018
1 would make of a utility was the status of the work forces 2 is that correct? 3 A That's correct, and I keep ref erring you to the agenda
~
4 that was sent to all the applicants. 5 0 So, in other words, the agenda, the two page agenda that j i 6 Keeley had typed up in D-4959 was a typical agenda, was it l I 7 not? 8 4 Basically. There may have been a specific item or 9 something in it added to it. I know we asked him to break 10 it down f or Unit 1 and Unit 2 and common separately, But 11 as you can see Item 5 says "Actual and proposed craf t work 12 f orce (by major craf t), craf t availability, productivity, 13 potential labor negotiations and problems. " 14 0 Section five of the manual, which goes f rca pages 10 l 15 through 11, talks about the project schedule, critical i 16 paths and network logic. Was it your practice with ! l l 17 respect to the Midland Nuclear Plant to examine the 18 project schedule in terms of what the critical path was l l 19 from time to time, what the network logic was f rcm time to 20 time and - l 21 A Again I would ref er you to Item 2 in the agenda 1 22 ; "Dotalled review of project schedule identifying critical 23 l path items, near critical items, amount of float f or l 24 various activities, the current critical path to f uel 145 Luzod Reporting Service 3ag ,o 3,,,5,,,,,,, pg,, lafayette Railding sujg, a o 962 1ii6 Suite 220 Detroit, \fichigan 48226 Farmington liilh, \fichigan 48018
i 1 loading, methods of implomentation of corrective action 2 for any activities with negative float, and provisions f or 3 contingoncies." Also under that was "Estimated percent complete for (1) Unit 2 and needed common f acility, (2) 4 5 Unit 1 and (3) total proj ect,, all as of June 30, 1900." 6 Q You've been ref erring me to the agenda associated with the 7 1980 visit. Was that also true with respect to -- 8 a 19817 9 0 19797 10 A I don't think it was as this detailed in 1978. I don' t 11 recall 197 9. 12 Q Perhaps we can glance at that agenda later. We' ll see. 13 But you f ollowed the same procedure with regard to the 14 1981 visit, did you not? I 15 A Yes. I'm sure there were more items on the 1931 visit and 16 on the 1983 visit there were maybe about 20 agenda items. , 17 0 In section 6 of the memo you state "This is one of the l , la more important areas in making an assessment of l 19 construction status and estimating a project completion 20 date when the proj ect is in the bulk moh." Did you regard 21 l an examination of bulk quantities as one of the more I < 22 l important inquiries or investigations you had to make in l 23 connection with the visit of the Panel? ; i 24 A When the plant was in the bulk mode, yes. l l l i 1.afayette Ruildag ' Lmd Reporting Service ,g . ,,} k ,, . Suite MO 962.I176 Suite 2:a Detroit, \fichigan 18226 Farmington Hdis. .\lichicon 48018
1 "O Do you recall hw long the Consumers Pwer plant was in 2 the bulk modo? 3 Did they ever get out of the bulk mode? h 4 Q I don' t know. I can' t - I dont have the expet tiso to 5 say that. In 1980 did you personally regard the Consumers 6 Power plarit as being in the bulk mode? 7 i4 Yes. 8 p !!ow about 19817 l 9 A I would characterize it as more or less a transition 10 phase. Bulk mode with selective sytems of partial 11 turnovers. 12 0 Uhen a plant was - in other words, it was starting to 13 move f ra the bulk mode to the preoperational testing 14 mode; is that correct? 15 A The flushing mode and so on. i l 16 0 When a plant such as the consumers Power plant in 1900 was 17 in the bulk mode, what did you f ocus upon in terms of the 18 f actors or activities or data that you looked at? 19 h The bulks. I I 20 Q Were any bulks more important than others? I 21 A In 1980 I think I had some handwritten notes on that some 22 i placo, it was my analysin of it. I think particularly the 23 I cable pulling and terminations. 5 24 0 !Isan' t that in f act -- l 1 47 Lu:od Reporting Service ,ggo y,g,,,,, y . lafayette Buildine S;,,,wo 962.I176 Suite 220 Dettmt. \fichigan 48226 Farminston Hulb. \lichigan M018
I 1 A And small pipe, small pipe hangers. ' 2 Q Woren' t those in f act the critical path itemo in your view 3 in 19807 4 A I believe that is correct. l 5 Q I notice in section 8, which is a one-page section on page 6 17, you state "In almost every plant, pipe hangers are a 7 critical path item *? 8 A That's correct. l 9 Q Now I take it, at the risk of being glib, that pipe 10 hangers were a critical commodity at which you would look 11 during the course of a visit to a plant that was in the l 12 bulk mode? 1 13 A one plant could be worse than any others, and again I'll I l 14 ref er you to the agenda that we send, and Item 7: 15 ' Detailed review and current status of all large and small 16 bore pipe hangers, restraints, snubbers, etc. , including l 17 design, rework, procurement, f abrication, delivery and l 18 installation, broken down f or Unit 2 and needed common , I l 19 f acilities, and Unit 1. " l 20 Q aack in Section 6 relating to bulk quantities the last two 1 I 21 paragraptis ref er to a f amily, the establishment of a 22 , f amily of curvtso, and then the establishment of an 23 additional curve f or overall construction progress using a 24 # weighted value concept. Can you briefly discuss what i lafayette Budding Lmd Reporting Service 39,,o y,,,k{,j,f,, ,,uy, Suite Mn 962.I176 Sua, 2:a Iktroit. \lichigan 48226 Farmington Ildh. \fichigan 48018
1 those curves represented in terms' of hew you went about l 2 making your schedule evaluations? , 1 3 A Do you have a whole day?
' O 4 0 Well, take the time you think is appropriate.
I 5 4 You' re referring to the sample curves in the back, back 6 here, correct? 7 D There are sample curves reflected in Attachment 5, are 8 there not? 9 A Yes. 10 D I'm ref erring specifically to the language in section 6, 11 which is two paragraphs long essentially, and to the 12 attachment, if you will. _ 13 A It's basically standard with the industry. We'll look at 14 major bulk commodities and it is considered that once they 15 reach the ten percent point the conmitment is made to ; 16 start into installing that bulk. So you look f rce ten to i 17 90 percent and there's been an analysis done f rom the 90 10 percent to f uel load date. So you know your installation 19 rates, historical data f rem other plants. 20 0 You use data f rou other plants to derive a bunch of 21 generic curves f or bulk installation; is that oorrect? 22 A You use an average installation rate f rom several plants. l 23 0 I notice in Attachment 5, for example, you've got some l' 24 curves f or bulk commodities, electrical, you got cable i l 149 Luzod Reporting Sertice y,o 3.y,,,,17 f a_fayette Huildine _ gugy a 962 1176 Suite 220 (ktrat. \fichigan M226 Farmington l{ ills \fichigan 18018
1 tray, exposed metallic conduit, cable, terminations. I 2 take it those curves were based on general industry 3 experience with those electrical commodities; is that 4 correct? 5 L Taking into consideration their previous experience and 6 supposing you were at the plant a year ago and you look 7 and see what they achieved over that year and maybe 8 they've exceeded the industry and maybe they've fallen 9 below the industry average. If they had f allen below, it 10 gives you no reason to think they' re going to exceed the 11 industry average. 12 Q I guess I'm trying to break down in a very simplistic 13 manner what you did. You took data f rom a specific plant 14 with regard to some of these key bulks and you made a 15 f amily of curves with respect to those commodities; is 16 that true? 17 A If it were in the earlier stage of construction. , l l 18 Q Let's talk about a plant that's past the ten percent level 19 you j ust ref erred to and let's talk about Consumers Power l 20 in 1980 when it was still in the bulk mode as you just 21 testified. You nade a f amily of curves -- ! 22 k Let's make a correction. I didn' t say still in the bulk 23 mode altogether. 24 h Well, it was in the bulk mode to a certain extent, l I l 1 I' d Reporting Sert ice yo 5.,,) 50 ,, Lafayette Building , l Suite fdo 962.I176 Su,ge pga l Iktroit \fichigan 4822f> Farmington flith, Alichiean 43018
.-- . ~ . ._. _ .____..._..._ _ _ _ _____.-___ _ __._..__ _ _ _ _ _ __ ____ _ _ ___ _ _ _
1 correct? 2 A I believe that's what I testified to, transitioning into 3 some partial system turnovers. 4 0 nat was in 1981 I believe. In any event, in 1980, just 5 trying to get a general understanding of the methodology 6 you followed, you had industry experience that you knew 7 about with regard to the installation of, say, electrical 8 commodities, correct? 9 This is the general industry way of approaching the 10 schedule for what you would call a rough estimate. 11 0 Okay. And did that industry experience get represented in 12 terms of a f amily of curves that you were able to take 13 f rem plant to plant in 1980 for example? 14 A No. You go into a plant, for instance a plant coming in ( 15 the docket's application for an OL review. ney had in i 16 late 1983,1982,1981 -- NRR sets up the criteria bef ore l 17 the plant would be docketed. mey would go out and do a l 10 Caseload Forecast Panel review of the schedule. 2ey go 19 out and once you review the schedule you make your 20 estimato, you develop your f amily of curves and you got a 21 baseline schedule then. You go back a year later and you , 22 look and see the progress that has been made on your l l 23 baseline schedule, either they maintain the schedule that l 24 you've estimated, exceeded it or they8 ve f allen way l 151 uz d Reporting Service y,o s.n,,,, if .. tahyette Rustding Suig,s3a 962.I1I6 Suite 220 Detrat. \fichigan 18226 Farmington Ifills, Alichigan 2018
P 1 behind. Some they may be behind. 2 Q And you would take that f amily of curves, update it and 3 you would generate an overall schedule? 4 A Correct, putting in -- if they' re going into pre-op 5 testing, putting in pro-op testing, taking into 6 consideration what you see out in the plant, what their 7 productivity is or has been, where they had problems or 8 they had a stop-work order on this or that item or what 9 have you. 10 0 In Section 7 you discuss turnovers and preoperational 11 testing, pages 14 through 16. In the first paragraph 12 towards the end you state "The first realistic assessment 13 of the project schedule is probably made at the 14 construction completion / system turnover timo f rame. " Prior j 15 to that time f rame, were schedule projections loso 16 accurate or reliable in your view? l l 17 A ITell, it' a only common sence to tell you the closer you i l 18 get to the end of the job the more accurate yo'i should be 19 able to be with your f orecasts. ! 20 Was it merely the passage of time that makes a schedule ; Q l 1 21 more accurate? ! l 22 A tiell, it's quite obvious, isn' t it, whenever you' re l l 23 l building a house and once you get your sheet rock up and l 24 ) start putting your trim on the inside you can toll more , l lxfayette Bauldin.e Lu:od ReporIing Sereice ,,9 y,,,[52 ,, ,, 1 Suite Mo 962.))i6 Suite 23) l Iktrout, \lichigan 18226 Farmington Hulls, \fochigan 18018
l { 1 when it's going to be completed than when you' re pouring 2 the f oundation. 3 0 Stands to reason, 1 \ 4 A It works the same with a nuclear plant. I 5 0 I take it it's an industry understanding that the first 6 realistic assesamont of a schedule comes during the system 7 turnover phase; is that correct? 8 MR. JE21TES : Obj ection to the -- 9 A In my opinion no, it isn' t correct. A nuclear power plant 10 is like a moving target because one thing the criteria 11 that's laid on by the NRC occupies your time. If it were 12 a short project of a year or two years to build, you I should be able to make a realistic estimate, if design 13 i l 14 I were a hundred percent. complete with a nuclear plant. 15 When you first start out your design is not a hundred ; 1 16 percent complete. Probably when you' to pouring concrete , 17 you still hadn' t even started on your electrical design ; 18 yet. 19 3Y !!R. ZACE:
\
1 20 Q It's all a guesstimate at that phase as to what's going to 21 happen in the f uture? / 22 h That's cor rect. l 23 0 And when you' re in the bulk phase it's essentially a 9 24 guesstimate as to what's going to happen in the testing 153 Lu:od Reporung Service yo 5.,,._,,,, ,, Isfayette Buildine suige tao 962.))76 Suite 2:0 Detimt. \fichigan 8226 Farmhseton l{ ills. \fahigan 18018
e 1 phase? 2 A You start in the bulk phase and maybe your electrical 3 design work is j ust getting of f the ground. And then your 4 system turnover and system need dates should be integrated 5 into your schedule in order to show you where your 6 critical paths are and what systems are behind schedule. 7 Q I believe you have the phrase on page 23, which I think in 8 similar to what you've been saying to the effect "In 0 conclusion, because of the dynamic nature and changes that 10 occur during the construction process, estimating, and 11 scheduling is not an exact and precise science, but a 12 moving target. " I take it that encapsulates your belief l 13 for schedule estimates f or nuclear plants? 14 A Yes. l 15 0 Turning bark to page 20, the first page of the section 10, i 16 your summary section, the third paragrash, you state "It i 17 is important to remember that the project schedule as 10 presented is generally in every case overly optimiotic. l 19 Never take anything at f ace-value. " Do you see that? ( 20 A Yes, i i I 4 21 0 Was that your standared operating procedure with regard to , 22 l the plants whose schedules you reviewed? ! \ i 23 A I guess that's what this implies. t
,I 24 0 Was that your procedure with regard to your review of the f
1 i (4fayette Railding' L d Reporting Service gg \.),00 , Swtr MO 962*1176 Suite 220 Iktrat, \fichigan 18226 Farmington Ildh. \lichigan 18018
1 Midland Nuclear Power Plant schedules? 2 A I' d say so.
~
l 3 Q If you continue with that paragragt, the text talks about 4 utilizing practicos common throughout the construction and 5 nuclear industries and you develop an independent actimato 6 for completing the project and readying for f uel load. I 7 take it that is what you attempted to do with the Midland 8 Huclear Power Plant schedules is that correct? 9 A Where are you reading? l 10 0 Just finishing up the third paragraph on page 20, and I 11 will grant you that I have paraphrased it. 12 IG. JDITES: Could you please re-read the i 13 question f or Mr. Lovelace only since Mr. Zack has 14 indicated that he' a rephrased - 15 10 . ZACK: Paraphrased what's in the j l 15 i document. 17 IG. JDITES: So you should understand, Mr. j 18 Lovelace, you should answer his question, not what's -- 19 A I would pref er -- if you are changing a f ew words you can l 20 change the whole meaning, so I would pref er if we' re going i I 21 to enter this into the record we put the whole paragraph ! ( 22 i into the record. , , l 23 BY tm. ZACRs 24 Q Fine, let's do that. Is paragraph 3 on page 20 of tho l l l , 155 Luod Reporting Service y g ,,,,,, y lafayette Buildine Suig, m a 962.])i6 Suite 220 Detrcit. \iichigan M226 Farmington Ihlb, \fschigan MUI8 l
1 summary in this manual a f air summation of both your 2 attitude towards utility project schedules and your 3 methodology with respect to making schedule projections 4 for nuclear power plants when you were with the Panel? 5 A No, I would not say it's my attitude. I would say it's 6 something that I have learned over time f rom visiting the
~
7 various plants across the country. 8 Q Was it your practice then, leaving aside any attitude 9 connotations, was it your practice not to take utility 10 estimates at f ace-value? 11 A It was my practice to neither believe nor disbelieve until 12 I had taken a look and made my own assessment. 13 0 At which time you would make your own independent estimate 14 of what you believed to be the duration f or the project? 15 A Exactly, then I would agree or disagree. l i l 16 0 And I take it that as set forth in the rest of the summary ; 17 section that f requently the Panel did disagree with j 18 utility estimates by as much as two years; is that i i 19 correct? 20 A That's correct; sometimes we didn' t disagree at all. Wo i 1 21 l only tried to make the best independent assessment in the l 1 I 22 time available. I 23 0 Wore you ever denied access by consumers Power to any 1 24 l project records that you requested? , I i l I 1.afyrtte Busiding Lmd Reporting Service 3, ,g ,,k{,{,f,, ,hg. Suste Mo 962 1Ii6 s,,,g, g o Detemt, \fichigan 18226 Farmington Ihlh. \fichigan 18018
1 A tione that I requested; however, there was obviously a lot 2 that existed that I didn' t know about. 3 () Are there any specific disclosure requirements under the
. 4 NRC regs that you are aware of with regard to schedule 5 projections that a utility has made or that its contractor 6 has made?
7 \ I don' t recall. We could get out 10 CPR 50 and read it 8 and see. I don' t specifically recall. I know there is a 9 subj ect in there on preoperational testing with regard to 10 schedule. I can' t recall. 11 0 Well, was it your practice when you went f rom plant to 12 plant pursuant to this f airly hectic schedule that you
. 13 described to ask f or the schedule projections and all the 14 underlying studies relating to those projections that a l l
15 utility or its contractor had made? > 16 A Again, I think I've answer this question 15 timoa. He 17 sent this agenda and the agenda was more or loos standard 18 for each plant and obviously it asked the same questions 19 of each utility. 20 Q Did you believe when you were with the Panel that a ! 21 utility had to disclose to the Panel contract or schedulo i 22 I estimates that the utility believed were invalid? 23 i IG. JE21TES : When you' re ref erring to "had I 24 i to" are you ref erring to -- 1 157 Luzod Reporting Servia 3m ,a x,,,g ,,,,,,, y, ,_ lxfayeur Ruulding s,,,,, ao 962.Ii76 Suite 2:0 Detrat. \lechigan 48226 Farmuuton Udis. \fichiran M018
I 1 $Y MR. 3ACK: l 2 Q Did it have an obligation? 3 MR. JOITES: You mean under some 11RC 4 regulation? 5 BY MR. 2ACK: 6 0 Well, either under 10 CFR whatever it is, i.e., an NRC 7 regulation, or just according to the way you f elt things 8 should operate? 9 h Well, I think it should have been an obligation to have 10 responded as truthf ully and f rankly to the agenda items as 11 possible. 12 0 Okay. Do you believe that, or did you believe when you 13 were with the Panel that either under an NRC regulation or 14 according to the way you thought things should have been 15 done that a utility had to disclose tentative conclusions 16 regarding various schedule activities that were not yet 17 resolved? 18 A Could you explain to me what you are getting at? I 19 0 I'll take my shot and you tell me whether it comports with 20 reality as you know it. Let's posit a situation where 21 there is a scheduled activity which is starting to 22 indicate negative float. Okay. And the utility and/or ; i 23 its contractor starts to evaluate both the activity and i 24 that potential negative float and the Panel comes to town. I 1 I l Infayette Buildine Luzod Reporting Service ,g . ) k ,, suite ao 962 1Ii6 sussa 22o , (>rtra t, \fichigan 49226 Farmington Ilish. \fichienn 18018
1 The contractor and/cr the utility is still in the process 2 of evaluating whether there will be float, negative float, 3 resulting f rem that activity. In my example clear to you? 4 A Okay. I'm going there and they tell me that they got 5 their schedule under review? 6 D Yes, and they have not yet completed their review of 7 certain discreet activities with potential negative float. 8 Hy question to you is, do you think that the utility is, 9 or was, under an obligation to tell you, be it pursuant to 10 an NRC regulation or the way you thought business should 11 be conducted, to tell you that - 12 A Well -- 13 HR. JDITES: Excuse me. Is that the end of 14 question? 15 MR. ZACK: No. 16 MR. JDITCS : Hold up until he finir.hes the 17 q uestion. You have to wait until he finishes the l 10 que stion. ! 19 BY tm. ZACK: ' l 20 0 To tell you that there was negative float when indeed it ! 21 ! hadn' t reached that conclusion yet? 22 !m. JD1TES : Objection to the f orm of the , r i 23 ! question. I l 24 A I obj ect too. You' re ref erring to do I expect? i 159 Infayette Huulding 3%0 Yorthustem flu y. Su,g,ngo 962.]176 Suite 220 (ktro<t. \fichigan m:26 Farmington Ihlh. \fichigan M018
R 1 SY MR. ZACK: O 2 Q Yes. O 3 A Because I think there's certain ethics about engineers and 4 estmators as well as attorneys and lawyers and everybody 5 else. c 0 I'm not quite clear what your answer is. Under those 7 circumstances you think that the negative -- 8 A If you' re not going to tell me the truth about your 9 schedule, how do I know you' re not telling me lies about 10 your FS AR. 11 0 okay. Do you regard the truth about the schedule as 12 requiring the disclosure of negati're float that has not 13 yet been accepted by the utility 7 14 A If the utility tells me - if they go in and they tell me 15 it's under review, they've not yet completed their final 16 analysis, obviously they can' t give me a date. l 17 0 Okay. I 18 A So then they tell me they will provide the inf ormation 19 when it becomes available. 20 0 Let's move a little paper here. Let me shew you
- 21 Def endant's Exhibit D-4961 Sir, can you identify this as l i !
- 22 j a copy of the Bechtel February 1978 proj ect status report ;
23 that was sent to the Panel and wound up in your handa, and 24 [ does this in f act include some of your annotations and Luzod Reporting Service l60 L,fayette Buildine nw \'wth e tem lin , Swar Mo 962 Ii76 Suite 220 Detroit, \fwhitan M226 Farminston lidh \fichiean mola
1 notes? In that regard I would r'ef er you to the last 2 couplo pages of this exhibit, 913 and 914, plus I guess 3 901. 4 (Deposition Exhibit No. D-4961, 5 Proj ect Status Report, February 6 1978, was marked f or 7 identifica tion. ) 0 A I think this came to me af ter we got back. It was 9 originally sent to Larry Crocker, if I'm not mistaken, and 10 ended up in my hands. 11 BY MR. ZACK: 12 0 This was af ter you visited the site in 19787
}
13 A Probably a month or so. I 14 Q Well, the document is a February 1978 project status l 15 repor t.
]
l 16 h To the bent of my knowledge it was given to us af tor. It l . 17 was sent to Larry Crocker, who wrote the first meeting j l l 10 summary. , l 1 i 19 Q So I take it you were aware then there were such things as l 20 Bechtel project status reports with respect to the Midland l , 21 Nuclear Plant? l 22 A There is on every Dechtel plant, not j ust on Consumers. 23 Thero's internal documents in every plant. 24 Q Hr. Jentes during his examination pulled out DEC 15, which i l i l 161 Luzod Reporting Sertice y _S.s ,,,,, pg,.,_ isfayette Bunidtng S,,,,, m 962 1Ii6 Suite 220 Detreu, \fichigan M226 Farmington Ihlh, Michigan 48018
1 is a project status report f or June 1980, and he asked you 2 whether you received a copy of that thing or were shown a 3 copy of that. ny question to you in whether you asked
's- 4 Consumers or Bechtel for a copy of any contemporaneoua 5 project status reports at the time of your 1980 visit?
6 A I don' t recall whether we asked f or it or not or whether 7 they gave us one. '! hey may have given us one. 8 Q I take it, though, that if you thought the report 9 contained important information you would have asked f or 10 its is that true? 11 MR. JENTES: I object to the f orm of the 12 question. i 13 A I think by asking ior this -- we were asking f or it by 14 using the agenda. , 15 BY MR. ZACK: l l 16 0 You said thi ,. You' re pref erring to DEC 15, correct? I 17 A Well, any of the proj ect status reports. l 13 0 So you were expecting a response to the asunda to call 19 forth -- 20 h Items out of here that we were interested in. I 21 0 Out of here, you were I.cinting to a proj ect status report? i l l 22 Ye s. 23 0 Were those indeed your notes on pagas 913 and 914 of I 24 l D-4961, and on page 901? I lafayette Buddine f.u: d Reporting Service y \.,,y, ,,2 ,7 Suae Mo 962 II?6 Suar 220 Iktrat. \fichigan 282:6 Farmington lidis, \fichigan moIR
1 Ik Which pagen? l 2 0 901 and the last two pages, which are 913 and 914. 3 A Yeah, these last two. 1 4 HR. JD1TES: In that connection, Mr. 5 Lovelace, since I' ve seen this document bef ore, I notice 6 on 8913 it says
- Midland 2, status 4-30-79", is that what 7 it says?
8 TH E WI'INESS : That's correct, 4-3 0-7 9. 9 MR. IACRs I think if you look closer you 10 can see the 9 is an 8 and if you look - I'm sorry, you' re 11 r igh t. 12 MR. JENTES : I' m only asking him. i 13 BY MR. ZACK: l 14 b If you could compare the date of the text, the notes on 15 913 and 914, does that help your idetification of tho l l 16 dates of those notes? l 17 k I'm not convinced these last two pages go with the '78 l 18 proj ect status, i l 19 0 In any event, they are in your handwriting? l 20 A Yes. l 21 Q As is 901, the cryptic figures on 9017 l 22 A Yeah, and I guess on 3-5 those little parenthesia are mino i 23 too, the circle around schedulo exposure. I would assumo -* 24 I'll volunteer that inf ornation. I don' t know. l l 163 Laod Reporting Service ,, ,o y,,,; , ,,,,,, 17, ,, Isf,yette Budding gu;,, w o 962.Iii6 Suar 220 Detroit. \fichiru M226 fQrminKlon l$dh, \fithitM $0IN
R 1 Q Which page is that? ll 2 A 3-5 3 !!R. [4]LLINS: 900. 4 BY !!R. ZACK: 11 0 5 0 okay. As a matter of fact, there are a number of circles I 6 and whatnot throughout this document? 7 A I have no idea whether they' re mine or not. l 8 Q Let's turn, if we may, to URC 75, which is the NRC 9 memorandum of the March 1978 visit of the Panel. Page 3 10 of the document, Bates number 655, the second to last 11 paragraph talks about 'wcrk j ust getting underway on 12 preparation of preoperational test procedures. " And the 13 statement continues 'It appears ths time for procedure 14 preparation may be a bit tight. " Given the f act that thin 15 was 1970 and that f uel load was about, fuel load f or the 16 first unit, Unit 2, was about two and a half years away, 17 did you expect that that - or was that a suf ficient ! l 18 duration to resolve scheduling problems associated with 19 the test schedulo in your view? i 20 A Hell, number one, we' re not talking about test schedule, l s 21 we' to talking about test procedure he::e, writing the ! 22 l proceduros, not the preoperational tests themselven. . P 23 b Hell, a -- do you want to take a break? i i 24 A Couple more questions. l Luzod Reporting Service ,o.,.),4, lat[Q)rtl* llusldme s,we rao 962 1176 sa, ire :20 Ikrott, tlichigan +92.% Fnemington Ihlh. \fichiran 18n18
1 0 Aside f rem whether the text is speaking specifically to 2 the test schedule or the draf ting of the procedureo ! 3 themselves, did you believe in, say around March 1978, 4 that with about two and a half years to go until the 5 projected f uel load date for the first unit, Unit 2, that 6 that would have been suf ficient time to resolve the 7 potential delays associated with the test schedule? 8 MR. Jf2iTES: May I ask this? Are you now 9 asking him whether or not he actually formed such an 10 opinion in 1978 or are you asking him now to hypotheci::e 11 what ho might have arrived at? 12 DY MR. 2ACK l . 13 0 I want you to draw on your experience with plartts and tell I 14 me whether two and a half years would have been enough i 15 time to resolve potential delays associated with tho k 16 testing prograra for the Midland tiuclear Plant? 17 A Prom experience, I would say today no. Most plants got 18 their f ull compliment, test enginears, pre-op test people 19 on board, writing procedures, three, tour years bef ore 20 f uel load. 21 Q Well, let's respond to Mr. Jentes' distinction. In 1978 5 22 did you believe that two and a half yeare would have been 23 ample time to resolve potential delays associated with the ! 24 testing program? 165 Luod Reporting Service y;g 3,,,g ,,,,, pg, L<fayette Building S;;,, n; 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit, \lichigan 48226 Farmington flills, \lichigan MOIS
1 MR. JENTCS : ifith regard to Midland? 2 MR. ZACK: Yes. 3 MR. JDITES : So you' re clear, ha's asking
;l . 4 you whether or not you recall actually having f ormed an 5 opinion such as that.
6 MR. EACK: That's not what I'm asking. 7 A I'm conf used too. - l 3 BY MR. 3ACK: l 9 Q All right. I want you to put yourself back in 1978 with 10 the state of knowledge that you had at that time, okay. 11 Given that state of knowledge, would two and a half years 12 have been adequate in your view to resolve potential 13 delays associated with the testing schedule at Midland? 14 MR. JD1TES: Objection to the form of the 15 question. I i . I 16 MR. HU Z DIS: Go ahead and answer, if you j 17 ca n. 18 A I'm not sure whether I understand it in the first place. 19 Are you saying was Midland at the st' age of construction in 20 '78 where had things gone on right in two and a half years 21 they could have completed their preoperational test 22 ; program, is that what you' re saying? l l l 23 BY 1% ZACK: l l f 24 0 Jell, I saked you a little bit about how long it would ! i l
"* d N' Porting Service 106 lofayure nunse _3,9 3.,, , 77 suite h30 962 1176 su,tr 2 0 two, stichigan a :n Farmineum tidh, \lichigan 18018
1 take to deal with 1:otential delaya associated with the 2 test program and you said based on what you know now, 3 j ossentially based on your experience, it would take around i 4 three years, give or take whatever, to get things in 5 or der. All I'm trying to do is ask you to make the same 6 evaluation using your state of knowledge in 1978 7 HR. JQlTES : I still obj ect to the form of 8 the question. 9 BY MR. 3ACK: 10 0 It doesn' t make sense to you? I 11 $ tio. If what you' re trying to say is in 1978 if they were 12 in the pre-op mode, they were in the systems turnover and 13 pre.-op test mode, would two and a half years have been 14 sufficient for them to complete the plant, is that what i 15 you' re sayingt if that plant had been this f at along? l , I l 16 0 I think at this point the inquiry is getting to muddled to ! i l 17 pursue so let's move on to something else. l 18 Did you make any recommendation with recpect l l
- 19 to a different conclusion f or the proj ected complotion of ,
I 20 Unit 2 than as set forth in llRC 75 when the draf t i 21 memorandum came around to you? , 22 A March the 27th, !!RC 75. l ! l 23 0 That's right. I believe you said you didn' t see this as a , 24 finished product, you saw a deaf t? 4 167 Luzod Reporting Service 3m ,o 3,,,g ,,,,,,, f 7, , _ lafayette kidine l y,, g> 962 1176 kre 220 Iktrat. \fichigan 482:6 Farminston lislls, \lichigan mms l
1 1 A I saw a draf t. l 2 Q My question is, did you make any other schedule 3 recontrendation other than what is reflected in NRC 757 4 A Not at that time, I did not. l 3 Q Can you identify Def endant's Exhibit >4962 as your notes 6 relating to a meeting in Midland held June 18,1979 and 7 also concerning the proj ected f uel load dates f or the 8 Midland Nuclear Plant? i i 9 (Deposition Exhibit No. >4962, 10 Handwritten notes of ifilliam 11 Lovelace, dated 6-18-79, was 12 marked f or identification.) 13 A I can identify this as my handwriting and it appears that 14 it was some kind of a press release or public announcement 15 that Midland had made and subsequently they made a request i 16 to the NRC to come out for a site visit and see whether I 17 they agreed with those dates or not. 18 BY MR. SACRs i 19 Q And in this announcement by Constuners Power they were 20 stating that the Unit 2 fuel load date was to be June 1981 21 and the Unit 1 was to be November 1981; is that correct? 22 A That la my interpretation. l 23 0 Then the third paragraph, if you will, states that the 24 utility would issue a public notice of the slip by June i 1.afayette Buildver Lemd Reporting Service ,,g3.)68, Suite MO 962.]1I6 Suite 220 IMrmt, \lichigan 192.% Farmeneton Hdis, Alichigan 18018
1 20, 1979, correct? ' 2 A That's correct. 'Ihis may have been in a meeting in 3 Bethesda, it may have been a telephone call to Darl llood l , 4 and he related it to me and I wrote it down. I don' t 5 know. 6 0 Let's mark this as Def endant's Exhibit D-4963. Earlier 7 'Mr. Jentes asked you whether you had any contact 8 whatsoever with schedule projections associated with the 9 aoils remedial work f or Midland. I wonder if you could 10 review this document, which was obtained f ran the files of 11 the NRC pursuant to a Freedont of Inf ormation Act request. 12 And I'll note on the first page that there is a roster of 13 names, presumably NRC employees, and your name is in the 14 coltann to the right near the bottom with a check mark 15 drawn through it. 1 16 (Deposition Exhibit No. D-4963, 17 Meeting !!ctice distribution, 18 was marked f or identification.) 19 A Where is my name?
! l 20 Y MR. ZACK 21 0 First page by the check mark.
22 MR. JDITCS Ifhat are you asking him 23 precisely to do? l i 24 BY MR. ZACK 1 169 y ,,, ggy, Lu 00 RtPorting Service yo 3.,,,g,,,,, pg.y gi,, g; 962 1176 Suite 2:a 8 Ektrat, \fichigan 48226 Farmington flills, \fichigan M018
W 1 Q Can you identify this document, first of all? O 2 A I can identify this document because I was on it for 3 distribution. Whether I attended the meeting or have any
' 4 knowledge what's in the document, I don't know.
5 Q Do you recall receiving in 1979 information pertaining to 6 schedule projections relating to the soils re:sedial work 7 at the Midland Nuclear Plant? 4 8 A From my knowledge, I can' t remember attending this meeting 9 or being aware of it. i 10 Q Aside f rom whether there was an actual meeting relating to 11 the soils remedial work, do you recall receiving 12 information in the form of projections or schedule 13 evaltr_tions associated with the Midland soils remedial 14 work in 19797 15 A Is '79 the year they put the dead load on the diesci I 16 generator ? 17 0 Yes. l 18 A I was aware, yes. I was up there in the 1979 Caseload 19 Porecast visit. Mr. Hood specifically wanted to go down 20 and look at where they had dead loaded the Diesel 21 Generator Building with sand and look at the cracks in the 22 walls. ; 23 Q Aside f ram physically inspecting the loading of sand, did
- l
! 1 i
24 l you look into whatever schedule proj ectiona, if any, had l
! l Lmd Reporting Service 0 l.a_faytte ikuldine ,\.},,,,,
Swtrran 962 1J76 Suite 250 (ktroit, \fichigan 48226 Farmington flills, \fichigan 48018
1 been made with respect to how long that work would take, 2 j the soils remedial work would tako? 3 A I have answered this question once already for Mr. Jontos I 4 and I'll answer it again. The soils, the remedial soila l 5 work was not included, to my knowledge, in any of the 11RC 6 estimates until the one we made in 1983 where quantities 7 were identified, cubic yards of earth that were going to 8 have ,to be removed, the number of piles that were going to 9 have to be put in. 10 MR. IACK Let's take a short break now. 11 (A brief recess was held during l 12 the proceedings.)
, 13 bYMR. ZACK:
1 14 0 Let me show you Def endant's Exhibit D-4964. Can you 15 identify that as materials relating to the September 1979 16 visit of the Caseload Forecast Panel to !!1dland including 17 handouts received by the Panel and some selected notes l 18 that you made during the course of that meeting or in 19 connection with that visit, and in that regard you might l 20 want to look at pages 796, 797, 7987 21 (Deposition Exhibit tio. D-4964, 22 Notice of Visit to flidland Site 23 by the 11RC Staf f's Caseload i 24 For eca st Panel, September 10-20, 1979, 171 Lund Reportine Service 3,,o y,g ,,,,,, 97, ,_ lxfnette Budding syg, sw 962 1176 Suite 220 IMroit, \fichigan 48226 Farmington Ildis, \fichigan 18018
1 was marked f or identification.) 2 4 Are you ref erring to notes that look like thin?' N 3 DY MR. 2ACK: l 4 Q No. I believe that was a handout but I'll leave that to 5 you. I'a ref erring to 796 through 790 specifically. 6 A Yeah, 7 96 I think is -- we looked at bef ore. I think I 7 copied it of f the bulletin board, the chalk board. 8 0 That ref ers to Forecast 5, Sa, $b, etcstera? 9 A Yeah. 10 ty That is your han&rriting on 7967
'I 11 A Yep.
l 12 0 oo you recall what the critical path was in your view in
. 13 l September 1979 for the H1dland Plant?
l I 14 A It would strictly be a guess without seeing a meeting l l 15 summary. l 16 Q We'll get to that in a second. I' d be glad to def er the i 17 question until then, if you like. Is 797 your handwriting 18 as well? l 19 A Yes. l 20 0 What about 798, the following page? l 21 A I believe it is, yes. I 22 O This appears to be a list of various items like the j 23 borated water storage tanks, permanent plant dewatering 24 ayatom, you go on and you mention target schedule basis, l i 1 Lafayette Buildmg "# " 3mto %rth r t rn liwy. Suite MO 962.)Ii6 Suite 2:0 Iktrat. \fichigan M226 . Farmbston lidh, \fichigan MOIR
i
)
1 schedule exposure, schedule contingency, areas of concern 2 f ra various status reports then MSS exception report, 3 February 1978 What were you trying to depict on this I 4 list, if you recall? 5 A Pre the list itself it looks like af ter we went through 6 the inf ormation presentation was made and we went back to 7 the motel room and looked at what we had gotten during the . 8 day and this was additional information that we requested 9 or asked f or. I'm not really sure. 10 0 So you don' t know whether you made these notes during the 11 meeting or af ter you caucussed with your colleagues at the 12 hotel room? 13 P. It's my inclination to think they were made af ter the 14 meeting. mis was additional inf ormation we requented. 15 Whether we got it or not I don' t recall. 1 16 Q Would you have f actored in these issues into the schedule : 1
- 17 evaluation that you made in connection with the September i l
18 1979 visit of the Panel to Midland? 19 MR. J mTES: Objection to the form of the
- 20 question. ,
21 BY MR. :ACRs l 22 0 Let me strike the question. Of what significance, to the .
- 23 extent you can recall, were these f actors in terms of the ,
i j 24 evaluation you made of the Midland schedule in September < i i
^
173
- 1. u t d Reporting Service yo. ,, y Lafayette Hwidsn.
Suite MO 962.))i6 sua,::o l Detroit, \fichigan 22:6 Farmincton Hills. \fvhiran 2018
1 19797 ' 2 !m. JDITES : You' re ref erring to this big, 3 long list of itemd 4 MR. 3ACK: Yes. 5 A I think they all may have played some part, all or some. 6 I don' t recall six years ago whether number 13 did or 7 number 2 did or all of them or what. 8 SY MR. SACK: l 9 0 Could you turn to CPC 274 please, the Kline memorandum 10 regarding this particular visit of the Panol. If you 11 could turn to the fourth page,1042, agenda Item 6 I 12 won' t bother reading the text of the first paragraph of 13 agenda item 6 into the record but auf fice it to say it 14 ref ers to a presentation made by TC Cooke regarding 15 various soils problems. Do you remember Mr. Cooke making 16 such a presentation at this meeting? J 17 A I don' t specifically recall it. Apparently he did. I 18 recall the second paragrath about the pipe fitters coming 19 in f rom Canada, which is the f ollowing paragraph. l 20 0 Well, the last sentence of the paragraph reisting to soils 21 says "In general, the investigation work is complete and i 22 solutions are being impicatented, and we can see no 23 schedule impact due to the soils compaction problems. " Do 24 you see that? Isfayetw Buddine' Luod Reporting Service ,g ,,&,, y Suiu Mo 962.]176 Suiu 2 0 (ktrmt. \fwhigan M:26 Farmington Udis \fghigan m0IR
IA 1 Yes. I 2 0 Do you recall disctissions of that nature at all? , h 3 A I have a vague memory of recalling them. We had 4 reservations of whether that was a correct statement or 5 not. I 6 Q Did you conduct any independent evaluation of the schedule 7 impact, if any, associated with the soils remedial work? 8 4 For the fourth time now for the record I'll say that the 9 1983 visit is the first time that we incorporated -- that 10 we had - the soils issue was settled enough and they knew 11 what they had to do and it was proved by the NRC that we 12 had data to incorporate the soils into an estimate. d 13 0 The reason you couldn' t or wouldn' t make a schedule I 14 evaluation of soils is because the proposed fix was too 15 unsettled f or certain periods of time? t 16 A As f ar as I know, it was still ongoing in the hearing and ; [
~
! j 17 they changed the fix 13 times so -- I r 18 0 They meaning whom? ! 19 Consumers. I don' t know which one got approval. 'Ihey had 20 three or four proposals f or the soils remedial work and l 21 ultimately one got approved and that's the one - I'm 22 sorry. ; 23 Q Def endant's Cxhibit D-4965, if you please. Can you 24 identify that as a Bechtel project status report f rom July l l 175 Lu:od %ony Mu 3, w y,,s ,,,,,,, y, ,_ f.afayette Building i Sy,,, m 962.I1 M Suste 220 Mit, \fichieu M226 Farmunston Hills. \fichigan 2018 s
1 1979 thct you cccaivcd during thet year, cnd in thEt 2 regard if you look at pages 918, and 935, are those your 3 annotations on this document? 4 (Deposition Exhibit No. I> 4965, 5 Proj ect Status Report-July 1979, 6 was marked f or identification.) 7 A 918 - l 8 SY HR. ZACK l 9 Q And 93 5. l 10 A That I can' t -- I' d have to say no. I know this isn' t my 11 writing here. l 12 0 You' te pointing to 9357 l 13 A Yes. And I would say that based on - maybe installation i 14 rates - I don' t know. This is not my writing. 15 0 918 you j ust rof erred to? 4 g 16 A Yes, the underlining on installation rates. l 17 0 Do you recall receiving, yourself or the Panel, receiving ; lo a Bechtel project status report around the same time or in 19 connection with the September 1979 visit of the Panel to I 20 Midland? 21 ife may have been given one there or subsequently one sent , 22 to us. I don' t recall. 23 0 If you could look at 949, there 8a a ref erence to a coat I
- 24 trend report at the top of the page. Did you specifically 1 F l.afayette Hutidine l'usod Reporting Service ,g \.), ,, , 6 Suurrdo 962 1ii6 Sua, ho i Detrat, %hu
- an 48:26 Farminetavn Hdin, \fichien WH8
; I ask f or cost trend reports either in 1979 or in future l
2 1 visits? I
; 3 A We have never asked f or a cost trend report. We have c- 4 .
never been interested in cost. 5 D All right. Let's see if we can just tie up the 1979 6 visit. Earlier I asked you whether you had any i 7 recollection whether during the September 1979 visit 8 Consumers indicated that there might be a potential fuel 9 load slip. In that regard I'd like to pull out CPC 274 10 and turn to page 1069, which is an attachment to these i 11 minutes. In subparagraph 2 3-1 the writer talks about i 12 Forecast 6 developments and the last sentence of that
, 13 subparagraph aays 'This resulted in f uture unachievable 14 installation rates and Target Fuel Load Dates which !
i l 15 probably cannot be met. " Do you recall a procentation to i 16 that effect at this meeting? i 17 p !;o, I do not. 18 0 Could you review Defendant's Exhibit D-4966 and identify l l 19 this as a memorandum f rem Darl Hood to Steven Varga 20 regarding a revised estimate of the construction , 21 completion date for Midland, dated around October 2, 19797 22 (Deposition Exhibit !!o. D-4966, 23 Document entitled Revised Estimate l 24 ! of Construction Completion Date
) :
177 Luzod Reporting Service y,o yg,,,, 17 ._ f.afvette Buddtne Sygg,ao 962 1176 Suite 220 Detr&t, \fichigan 48226 Farmsneton Ildis. Alichigan 48018 ___._____,_.a_.___..-_._.______._.__._.
1 for Hidland, dated October 2,1978, 2 , was marked f or identification.) 3 ,A Yes. It's an item f rom fir. Hood to Steve Varga. 4 BY MR. ZACK: 1 5 O Did you help !!r. Hood draf t this letter, or this 6 mernorandum? 7 A I would say it was normally procedure that he would -- to 8 read what he was sending. Whether I read the one he sent 9 in-house or not, I don' t know. 'Ihe ones that went out to 10 the utilities I usually concurred in. 11 0 This document sets forth a schedule projection made by the 12 Panel as being June 1982 for Unit 2. Does that comport ' 13 with your recollection as to what the Panel decided 14 following the 1979 visit to !!idland? l I 15 h I just plain don' t remember. You got the sheet around i 16 some place. ; l 17 0 I guess we can tie it up by looking at tiRC 76, which !!r. , 18 Jentes used with you. It's the NRC memo regarding the 1 19 September 1979 Case Load Forecast Panel visit. There's a ' 20 conclusion listed on the first page of tiRC 76 at page 367 l 21 and indeed the conclusion in the projected completion date 22 of June 1982 for Unit 2 of the Midland Plant? ; i 23 k That's correct. , f 24 0 Page two of the document, 368, the second paragraph talka ; l 178 Lu:od Reporting Sereiee 3m,o y,,5,,,,,,,, 77,,. lafayette Building 3,,,,, a o 962 1176 Suite 220 (ktrat, \fichigan 48226 Farmington Ihlls, \fichigan 48018
t 1 doout a revised logic for preoperational testing in which ' 2 testing of both units in completed prior to f uel load of 3 either unit. l 4 A This was the first time that this new concept was laid on 5 us. 6 D This new concept being this so-called flip-flop method? i t l 7 A I think Don Miller developed that af ter he came on board 8 between 1978 and 1979 4 9 0 Among your colleagues who visited the plant in 1979 10 there's a roster of Hood, Boyd, yourself and Rubenstein. i 11 Who among you looked at the so-called flip-flop method in 12 terms of its testing logic? 13 h It was given to us all. I guess we all looked at the i
- 14 page, i
15 0 well, you talked about f rom time to tino you were the only l l ' 16 one who went f rom plant to plant with the Panel and then i 17 you'd get various colleagues to join you and contribute 1 18 their input? 19 a Unr-ha. 20 0 Did any of the other people on the Panel, or did any of i 21 the other three people who accompanied you to Midland f or 22 this visit, have a perticular expertise in testing? l i 23 A I can't say as any of them had any particular expertise in 24 power plant construction, scheduling, testing or any of l
- i 179 -
l Lu:od Reporting Service go g,,,,, jy ;
- 74.,,,, gjgy, S ,;,, w o 962.I176 Suite 23)
Iktroit. \fichigan 48226 Farmnneta litils, \fichienn 48018 *
._ . _ - . . = . - _ _ _ . . - _, .- - _ .
1 the aspects. l 2 Q The second sentence in the paragraph I j ust ref erred to 3 - states "The staf f's preliminary review of this logic !
,- 4 during the meeting concluded that the applicant's 5 differential schedule between unit completion dates 6 appears reasonable. Se staff's review of the Unit 1 7 schedule is limited in depth, and a more thorough review r 8 will be performed once the applican' ts January 1900 9 f orecast is completed. " Do you recall that indeed was the
- 10 consensus of the group who visited the plant in September 11 19797 12 A Where were you reading? !
l 13 0 second page. , l ! 14 A The question about - I'm getting punchy. i l 15 0 Well, I'm specifically interested in the text that talks 16 about the staf f's preliminary review of the test logic, 17 the Miller flip flop, and the conclusion that the 10 differential schedule between unit completion dates i 19 appears reasonable. Do you recall that was the conclusion 20 that the Panel reached at that time? l 21 A Yes. Ref erring to the flip-flop logic and the first time 22 it had been sprung on us, yeah. 1 ' i i ! 23 0 Were you ever approached by representatives of Dow 24 Chemical prior to the start of this litigation in July 1 1 l l.a.fayene Building Lu:od Reporting Service 3, ,g n,{,f,f,n guy. Suar h30 962.!]76 Suig, gy; ; j lktroa, \fichigan 482:6 Farmington Udis. %chigan 48018
4 ___. . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ . .. . _ . _ _ , _ __ t 1 1983 for an explanation of the Panel's methodology or for - 4 2 any request f or schedule data relating to Hidland? !
~
3 A Not to my knowledge. There was always Dow representatives 4 I. 4 at the meetings we had. I was never personally 5 appe on ch ed. i 4 6 D Do you know whether anyone else associated with the Panel ) 7 was approached by Dow people f or scheduling d.ata? 8 A To my knowledge, no. I can' t speak f or anyone else. ' 9 3 You didn' t hear of any such requests by Dow people, did i you? 10 11 h I have never heard of any requests. l 12 0 Mr. Jentes used exhibit Cpc 1624 with you which relates to 4 13 the June 13, 1980 meeting between Consumers Power 14 representatives and NRC representatives, which included , 15 you. He specifically directed your attention to the ' 16 second paragraph of page 097. Incidentally, in this a i 17 document that the HRC had in its files, if you know? I 18 h To my knowledge, to the best of my knowledge this was a 19 document that was written by Consumers' attorney. Whether : 20 the NRC wrote up a document or not I don' t know, and , 21 apparently it was f orwarded back to the NRC or a copy of 22 it was f orwarded back to Mr. Hood. j 23 h Do you recall seeing this document, specifically the , ; i 24 l so-called minutes draf ted by the Consumers attorney prior i 181 Lmd Reporting Service mo ym,,,, y ._ 1.nfayette Raildsne Sai,, a o 962 1176 Suur 2:0 l Detrat. Michigan 18226 Farminston Hills. Michigan 18018 l
1 to this year? I know Mr. Jentes has said he sent various 2 documents to you prior to this deposition. I don' t recall 3 whether he sent this one specifically to you so I'm trying 4 to exclude that possibility. 5 MR. JENTES I did send this document to Mr. 6 Lovelace. 7 BY MR. ZACKs l 8 Q Prior to Mr. Jentes sending you this document, do you 9 recall over seeing a copy of these notes by this consumers 10 Power attorney with respect to this meeting? 11 A I cannot recall seeing this. It's possible that I could
- 12 have but if I have it doesn't strike me as one that would
.. 13 be sent to me anyway.
14 0 Getting back to page 097, the second paragraph 15 specifically, Mr. Jentes discussed with you some of the i 16 statements made by Jim Cook regarding the possibility of i 17 improving the schedule into the summer of 1903. Do you 18 recall any discussion on the part of, any discussion or 19 reaction on the part of the NRC representatives with 20 respect to Cook's statements? 21 A I would almost think that there would be questions as to 22 on what basis or why, a limited discussion, but I don' t
- 23 recall any specifics.
l ) i i i 24 Q Do you recall whether you had any specific remark? l 4 f.afayrue Iktding "5"#
- 30910 %rth r i en fluy.
hise Mo 962 1176 sa, :o
- iktmt. \tahigan M226 Farminets Ilills \tahican tmia i
1 A I don' t recall whether I made any specific reciarks other l 2 i than we come out -- l 3 0 I can solve one mystery, hopef ully, and that is with 4 i regard to the agenda for the 198'O meeting. Lot me show 5 you Defendant's Exhibit D-4967, and I wonder if you can 6 identify this as a notice of the July 1980 Caseload 7 Forecast Panel visit to Midland and an enclosure of the 8 meeting agenda that you in the first instance draf ted? 9 (Deposition Exhibit No. D-4967, 10 Meeting Notice Distribution, 11 was marked f or identification.) 12 A That's correct, this is the meeting notice and the agenda. l 13 i And if you read the agenda, again I will reiterate, that 14 you will find basically the items that are in the Forecast l 15 4, 5, 6, whatever it is, are covered by the agenda items. 16 B Y l'a . Z A C K : l 17 0 Take a look at Def endant's Exhibit D-4960 nese aro 18 documents that we received f rom the NRC pursuant to a 19 Preedom of Inf ormation Act request. I wonder if you could 20 review this document and identify it as material s relating 21 to the July 1980 caseload visit including among other 22 things a coster of attendees, various overheada concerning 23 design release schedules, and in f act some notes that you ! t l 24 I made with respect to the visit, and your conclusions? l 103 Lmd Reporting Service yo g,,, ,, lapyrite Buildsag
%, g; 962.i1ib Suite 2:0 (ktroa, \takiaan 48226 Farminston fisils, \fakitan #t018
1 (Deposition Exhibit tio. D-4968; 2 tmc caseload Forecast Panel Agenda, , 3 Monday, July 28, 1980, was marked 4 for identification.) 5 MR. MILLI!!S Is that the 1980 meeting? 6 HR. 2ACK: Yes, the July 1980 meeting. l 7 A Well, this is the July 1980 meeting and a continuation 8 into August. 9 Y MR. IACK 10 Q For example on page 562 - first of all, I take it the 11 answer to my question is yes, this document does include 12 the documents I described, overheads, tour roster and some
. 13 of your notes concerning the meeting itself and some of l 1
- 14 the events that took place in August of 1980 regarding the l
15 Panel' a schedule evaluation of the plant, correct? i 16 A I assume they' re all here. I seem to think that there : 17 would be more handouts than wha-, s listed here. la 0 Did you make it your practice t.o keep in your own personal 19 files every bandout that a given utility gave you? 20 A Yes, I did, but there were so many people that had been 21 through these files in the last two years that I notice, j 22 and one of these Mr. Jentes -- Mr. Strick11ng gave me a 23 copy of these documents back here and one page was missing 24 and I informed him of it and I don' t think they aver f ound i < t i i i Lu:od Reporting Senier , ), , 04 lafayette Eksidan ,, , Suite Mo 962.]176 Su,pg}v (Hrmt. \twhiev 22:n Farmington listis, Whtras w018
1 , the second page, 2 0 Did you meet with !!r. Strickling of Mr. Jentes' firm to l 3 discuss the Midland Project? i
.- 4 A A brief meeting.
I 5 0 When was that? I 6 A I have to get my calendar. Do you want the exact date? l - 7 D What year? I 8 A his year. It was an introduction meeting. i
- l 1
9 0 How long did the meeting take place? j 10 h Couple hours. 1 11 0 Was Mr. strickling accompanied by someone like a 12 stenographer or someone who took notes at the interview? 13 A tio. I fotget the other gentleman that was with him. l , 14 0 Mr. Graber? !
- l 1 l 15 A I can' t recall his name. It was a brief meeting in my ; !
4 j 16 office. We had lunch and j ust an introductory type i ] 17 meeting. ; - l 18 0 What did you discuss during the meeting? I ! 19 A Background, scheduling, background scheduling, 20 constr uction. l , 21 d Did Mr. Strickling and his colleague show you any i l 22 documents relating to the Midland !!uclear Plant? l 23 A I believe they showed me j ust a f ew. l l 1 i l 24 Q Do you recall which ones? 1 4 185 1.us d Reportine Service ymo y,g,,,,, ;; , l.afsyene lkiding 1 Sy,, g; 962 1!ib Suste 2:0 1 (ktms \fichigan 4822n Famsneton listls, \fakitan M018
l 1 A I think some of those handtritten notes. O ! 2 Q Were they notes f rem your filos? I 3 A They were notes that they had. ! l 4 Q Uhat about some of the documents Mr. Jentes has shown you,
- i 5 did they show you those?
6 A No. I
? Q Did they discuss their views and what evidence had been ,
8 presented at the trial? i 9 A No. I l 10 Q Did they discuss the possibility of employing you as an la expert witness? 12 A No, but I would have certainly been available because 13 that's my job. , 14 0 For more than 32 dollars per day I take it? l 1 15 A Yes. l l 16 0 Did they ask you what you thought of consumers Power or 17 individuals within consumers Power? t 18 A Ho. It was basically a general get acquainted raeeting. i l 19 0 We' re lawyera f rom Dow and we' re here to meet you, is that l 20 what it was? l 21 A Yes. l ! t l 22 0 Do you recall with any specificity whatsoever what you J
- 23 discussed with those gentlemen besides the sort of got I
- l
[ 24 acq uainted? ! i 1.afayette ikiding l'uzod Reportine Servier .yp,o y,,g{,},f,, ,,,, _ i
, Suite Mo 962 11*6 Suite 2:0
} Iktrat. \fichigan 49:26 Farmaeton Hdis \fvkisan 48018 >
i 1 k' Cet acquainted, basic background, how long I've been in l 2 the construction business. ( 3 0 Any contacts with Dow attorneys between that visit and the : 4 j subpoena that was served upon you that you recall? i
)
5 A tio. Se subpoena was at my request and Mr. Jentes -- I i l 6 explained to him only would I appear under subpoena. I l l 2 ' 7 was a little confused with all these attorneys going on l 8 because I had gotten - had a little pressure put on me 9 f rom Herrill Lynch's Chicago of fice by a gentleman there r
- 10 who was a senior partner in the Isham, Lincoln and seale l
1 11 law firm who wanted to discuss the Dow case with me. , i l 12 0 Did you meet with that attorney? l 13 h The attorney was Mike Miller and he had the senior l l 14 partner, who was the ex-govotnor of the state of Illinois, l j 15 make the telephone call to the manager in the Chicago l \ 16 of fice of Merrill Lynch and I never heard anymore f ran ! l : 17 them. And I went to the liRC and asked the !!RC if it was l 18 permissible and they said as long as it's an inf ormal , [' 19 meeting they have no problems with it. And Mr. Strickling 20 and the gentleman that was with him - well, they had me a j t i 21 little centused, to be perf actly honest. Apparently one ! 22 wasn' t supposed to be involved in it but they were 23 involved or something. I ; 24 0 Who told you they weren' t supposed to be involved? ! l \ , i 187 Luod Reporting Service y;o m,,,,, pg i lafgette Bwidu.e gag, g; 962 1176 Swte 2:0 ? Detrmt, \fichstan 4R:26 Farmington lislls, \tahigan 48018 -
U 1 A I don' t remenber whether it was Mr. Strickling or someone H 2
) oise.
l 3 Q Was it Mr. Strickling or his colleague who told you that? I 4 A Yes, one of the two. I don' t recall what it was. ney 5 were involved in the OL hearing or something. I don' t 6 recall. 7 6 ne so-called Dow issues were being litigated in the OL t 8 hearing, were they not? 9 A I don' t know whether the decision was ever made to 10 litigate the Dow issues or not. 11 MR. HOLLINS: I was not with the NRC at that 12 time. 13 A They never have been anyway. I know that. 4 l t 14 BY MR. 2ACK: l l ! 15 0 Let's proceed with our examination on this exhibit. l l 16 A Dut I would point out to Mr. Jentes that this page that l
)
17 you did not have, in all f airness to both sides, that' o l l l 18 the page I ref erred to that you all did not have.
, I i 19 0 That page is 5797 l
20 A 579, which is carried on to the conclusion of 578 I 21 0 I still want to get an identification of this exhibit, if a l 22 ! I can. l l j 23 A Sene are my hanchtritten notes. Roy may or may not all i i i 24 include the 1980 visit and it seems to me that there's i l t lafayette Iknldsne
'n d Iteporting Service yo y},8 ,,
Sunt, nw 962.]176 su,g, ;o Detrost, \lichigan 482:6 Farmsneton listls, \fschigan utol8 j ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . - _ _..___ _ _ __. - _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . ~ _ .
i 1 more handouts than the three or f our - the f our or five
'l that's in here, considerable more.
3 MR. JDITES: In f airness to Mr. Lovelace, I ; i '- I 4 think you'll agree, Mr. ::ack, that there's, at least 5 attached to the notes of this meeting prepared by Mr. i j 6 Kline, a larger number of presentation materials that are 7 part of D-496 8. 8 MR. 3ACK I completely agree. 9 k I can say almost with certainty there were more handouts, I 10 more pages than the five pages that were here. 11 BY MR. ACK l 12 0 By the handouts here, and I presume you' re talking about i 13 ! the documents f rom -- 14 A The overheads. 15 0 These were handouts at the meeting but they are less than i l 16 j a complete set, correct? i ; L 17 A To the best of my knowledge, these were handouts at the l i 18 meeting. < 1 19 Q Wen the materials f rom 8562 through 8593, with the 20 exception of some graphs, represent your handitritten notes ! 21 made in connection with the 1980 visit, correct? I l 22 A Yea, it's my notes. I'm trying to unscramble something I l l l ; 23 couldn' t quite figure out. '
; h :
24 0 Could you turn to 565, please, make thar 565 through 567. l l \ l ' 189 l f.uted Reporting Service y w 5.n,,,, ,, Isfneue Rwidme
$;a, w 962 1176 Suur 2:0 '
1%t, \fschigan uf2:n Farmsnzt<m listls, \lahigan 48018
1 Earlier wo talked about a f amily of curves that you did 2 f for the Hidland Nuclear Plant and other NRC plants. Is 3 i that what is depicted on these three pages, the f amily of 4 curves that you drew in connection with your July 1900 5 visit to the plant? , 6 A That's correct. l 7 Q And I notice that on 567 you have fuel load dates 8 indicated of what looks to be May and October 1984, 9 correct? 10 A Correct. ) l 11 Q Could you look at 568 please? : 1 12 A Um-ha. i J , 13 0 What is this list? 14 A The best of my recollection it is a rquent for additional 15 data. 16 0 Do you recall whether you received data in response to , i l 17 your i " ' oe nt ? I
- 18 A I can say I'm reasonably sure that we did. I don' t i
i 19 recall. 20 0 Do you recall being denied a response to any request you made to Constaners Power in 1980 in connection with the 21 1 22 Panel's visit? j j 23 A No, other than some of the data and inf ormation were a l
! i 24 , little conf using, but other than that I had problems, ao i i Lutod Reporting Service 1 90 ?
- Lafvette Bunidsne MW Muntm fluy Suute Mn ggg,jj7g Sulle (l , Detmt \fuchigan M2:6 Farmsneton lisils. .\lachtsan M018 i
I 1 i indicated on some of my notes in here, analyzing some of 2 j i t. 3 Q It took you awhile to assimilate -
. k 4 A Trying to figure out what was going on. Two and two j ust 5
k didn' t add up to be like four. It was like I was getting 6 a snow job and I didn' t know where. 7 0 You attempted to find out how you were getting snowed? 8 A liith all the figures and calculations, yes, sir. l 9 0 could you turn to 573 through 575 please. What is I 10 depicted here on these three pages? 11 A This relates to the August the 22nd meeting I believe we 12 had in Bethesda where consumers, I think along with
' i 13 ! Bechtel, came in with sustained installation rates f rom i
j 14 l Bechtel projects and this was my analysis of sustained 15 installation rates that I had compiled over the past years , I l 16 for various plants f or industry averages. j 17 0 l'f you look at 573 and 574, and please correct me if I'm i 18 wrong, isn' t it the case that the highest sustained rate 3 19 was with the Susquehanna Plant at 280,000 linear f eet per
- 20 month, correct? This is ior cable, right?
i 21 A No, no, no, that is not correct. Wat was the f orecast 22 and you see the actual was 202,500, appr oximately. 23 b okay. So I guess then that the highest actual rate that 24 had been attained was with callaway -- Pal o Ve r de , < l 1 91 Luzod Reportirg Sersice 3mo w,,,,17 1.a n g,,,yette a; (Laid <ns 962 1176 % e ::0 Degrat, \tahips 48:26 Farm'artm 11'U1 \Iwhitan 480lR
1 263,0007 2 A tio, that was f orecast. 11 ell, you see on the side it's got ! l l 3 l actual or f orecant.
.. 4 Q tiell, regardless of the highest actual value on your l l 5 chart, I take it that the amount of cable that Consumers 6 Power was telling you in July 1980 that it could and would 7 pull exceeded the ' industry rates at that tine?
8 A Dy a f actor of two to three. l 9 Q And what was your evaluation of the Consumers prediction 10 starting at the time of the visit itself in late July 11 19807 12 A I thought they were smoking pot or on cloud number nine. l 13 0 What was the critical path at the time of the July 1900 14 Panel visit in your view? And in that regard why don't 15 you 1cok at 579, which is the page that you d;'cw fir. I i 16 l Jentes' attention to. I l l 17 A I think those two pages stramarizes -- you' re ref erring to I 18 570 and 579 I take it? I think you can see my thoughts on 19 each item, small pipe, cable, conduit, exposed metal 20 conduit, cable tray, cable, terminations and you want me 21 to go through and read each one? 22 0 !!o, I don' t. liith regard to pre-op testing, f or example, : 23 ! your thoughts were that the logic of the approach eeens l 24 good but there was a very tight schedule, correct? l
) .
I (Ahyrne Buddung 3(t350 %rth a rn Hu y har hk) 962*1 lib Ruar ;l,ht [ktnn t. \lahigan AC% Farmington HJh. \fichigan imIR
/
1 IN Well, if you read the whole context of the paragraph there 2 on the pre-op testing it shows that there is some 3 skepticism. It sayo if it could be maintained, the pre-op 4 test schedule could be maintained, could engineering and 5 construction maintain system turnover needs considering 6 the congested work areas. 7 0 The critical path you identified as cable pulling, 8 terminations and system turnover to the pre-op test group, 9 righ t? 10 A Righ t. The cable had to be pulled, the conduit had to be 11 up and the cable had to be pulled and terminated bef ore 12 you could test some of these systems. It's got electrical 13 motors to it. 14 0 And there was a meeting, as Mr. Jentes established with 1 15 you, in August 1900 to discuss additional data, correct?
;i 16 A That's correct. I l.
17 0 And Consumers presented you with additional data with l l 18 respect to things such as the cable pulling rate, correct? ' 19 A Cable pulling and terminations, correct. I i 20 Q And you made a revised calculation, did you not? l - 21 A Correct. l l 22 0 Some of that is reflected in 569, 570 of this exhil~ t, i 2? correct, and I might add 5817 24 k That appears to be correct. l i 193 Luzod Reporting Service 39g,o y,g,,,,,,, jf,,_ Isfayette Building Suite MO 962.I176 Sune 220 Detroit. \fichigan 2226 Farmington flills, .\fichigan 180!R
ll 1 Q If you'll pull out D 2553 %e author of this document 2 discussed on the third page, 803, that you made a 3 preliminary calculation of Unit 2 fuel load date of !!ay
. . 4 1984, and I believe, Mr. Jentes -- I've got you on the 5 wrong page. I' m sorry. Let's turn to 802r second to lact '
6 paragraph. Mr. Jentes read you the sentence "But the 7 detailed data presented at this meeting on design B progress, cable and terminations, manpower loading, and 9 combined unit installation concept would indicate that 10 some adj ustment to the preliminary date should be made", 11 and you wanted to change the should to could. Do you 12 remember that? 13 A Une-ha. 14 0 Why did you believe that the data presented by the 15 Consumers Powtrr and Dechtel people indicated that some ! ! 16 adjusteents to your preliminary date could be made? ! 1 j 17 A I was gullible. May comts in with the story of completing l ! 10 two units, something again that never had been tried l l 19 before, completing two units prior to loading f uel in the 20 first unit, and they were putting in one and they had work i 21 areas in the second unit where they could be pulling cablo 22 { too. l 23 0 How did the proj ect perf orm in 1981 with regard to cable , 24 pulling? Lafayette Building ' Lmd Reporting Service ,g .,,y,4 , _, l Suite Mo 962 1176 Suite 220 Ikroit. \fichigan M226 Farmington flills. \fichigan mola
..__ _-_ ,_-_ _ __ _ - . ,...,_ _. _-- ~ _ _ ,._ _. _ _ _ . _ _ _ ._ _ __ __ ______ _ __ _ _ _ _ ._.. _ -
fA 1 When we went back the figures that were presented to us 2 showed that they maintained the schedule they set forth to 3 maintains however, when you looked through the plant you 4 saw the cable pulled coiled, cable trays, cable that was 5 laying on the floor, you didn't know whether that was 6 included in pulled cable or not, and in three days I 7 didn' t have time to go pull the cable pull cards, and I 8 took their word f or it. 9 0 So I take it you made r.o efforts in 1981 to determine 10 whether the statistics with regard to cable pulling were 11 accurate? 12 A It was part of the presentation of their installation 13 rates and in their presentation they showed us what they 14 had done in the prior nine months, or whai. have . 3u, and I . 15 assume that they were on the level with me and I had no i 16 reason to disbelieve it until I walked around the site. I 17 had some doubts af ter I walked around the site. I didn' t I i 18 have time to go out and pull cable pull cards and see how 19 many cable trays were overfilled and what the separation i 20 criteria were and they had gone in and pulled real fast. ! 21 Q What did you do with those doubts in terms of f actoring - l l 22 i in terms of discussing those doubts with your colleagues i 23 on the Panel in 1981? That's inartf ully phrased. J l 24 You indicated that you had some skepticism 195 l'a d ReparIing Service 3ag,o 3,,,5,,,,,,, f 7,,_ lafayette Buildint l Suit, rao 962 1Ii6 Suite 220
.netroit, Alichigan 18226 Farmington flills .\fichigan 18018
l 1 based on your site tour of what the number for. the cable 2 pulling meant. Did you condition the schedule evaluation 3 that you made in 1931 based upon that skepticism? , 4 A I don't think it was mentioned in the meeting summary. l 5 Q Well, did you draf t any proposed inriertion or version of 6 the meeting summary that would have conditioned the 7 schedule evaluation based upon what you say during your 8 tour ? 9 a Hell, I think if you had gone through an FOIA request and l 10 hit on my files in my of fice, I think in those filos 11 you'll see clippings f rcen the resident inspector, Mr. 12 Hood, saying cables is just like it was way back when and 13 they sent an instrumentation team or somebody up there, or 14 somebody, to inspect the cable and terminations and they , i 15 concluded cables and terminations wasn' t f ar enough along 16 to perf orm their inspection. 17 Q Let me show you another document that did come f rcro your I i 18 files pursuant to this Freedom of Inf ormation Act request. 19 It is an article I marked as D-4969. It's an article f rcra l i 20 the Midland Daily News of August 27, 1981, I' d like you l 21 to look at some of the quotes attributed to you. j 3 22 ' MR. JQlTES : The right-hand column of mine 23 is illogible. Doen it just keep running across the pago? [
)
24 l MR. ZACK: You'll see the column la cut-of f ! I infayette Rutiding Lmd Reporting Service yo.} ,, Suite MO 962 ]176 Suig, 20 Detroit, \fichigan 18226 Farmington Ifills, .\fichiec pso!H
1 but reproduced in its entirety o'n the second f ull page. 2 (Deposition Exhibit No. D-4969, 3 Article f rom the tiidland Daily tiews, 4 was marked f or identification.) 5 13Y MR. SACK: 6 0 Looking at the first page in the second coltaan a reporter 7 attributes certain remarks to you. Do you recall talking 8 with the press in connection with the 1981 visit with the 9 Panel? 10 L second paragrayt? 11 D Well, second coltann about midway through. I'm going to 12 ask you about that. My first question was, do you recall 13 talking to the press in connection with this 1901 visit? 14 A As little as possible. 15 0 But, nevertheless, did they manage to interview you? l l 16 . Obviously they did. 17 0 I'm specifically interested in the text before the bold i 18 f ace Wednesday Reports language. Do you see that, in the I l 19 second coltan? 20 A Um-ha.
! l 21 Q A f ew sentences above that the reporter writes 'Lovelace 22 achnitted af ter the session he had doubts about the j 23 "electrical area" of the plant prior to the evaluation. "
24 Continuing, "tie said, however, the reports show consumers 1 l Luzod Reporting Service yo 3 , y ._ Lafayette Buildurg Suite Mo 962 ))76 Suite 220 Detroit. \fichigan 48226 Farmington Hills, Michigan 18018
I work is well above industrial ef forts in that area. 2 Lovelace told consumers of ficial "you can' t ref ute what 3 you've done over the last seven months." Do you recall 4 making remarks of that nature to the press? 5 MR. JENTES : Objection to the form of the 6 que stion. 7 A I remember talking to tha press. As you well know, as 8 well ac ,, that they can turn around words any way they 9 war.t to. Whether this was my exact quote or not, now I 10 don' t know. 11 BY MR. ZACK 0 12 Q. What did you say to the press, if you recall? l
. 13 A I don' t recall. 'Ihis might be correct, I'm not saying it 14 l 1 sn' t, and it may not be an exact quote. Maybe they lef t 15 out something. I don' t know.
16 Q Hell, do you recall telling Constaners of ficials regardless 17 of this article, of what this article says, they couldn' t 18 refute what they had done over the last seven months with 19 regard to cable pulling? 20 a Mr. Hood makes the closing remarks to the applicant since ! i l 21 j he is more or less the team leader. 22 0 Aside f rom the remarks of Mr. Hood in closing, do you
)
23 recall discussing the cable pulling with Consumers Power 24 of ficials at this 1981 visit? l Luod Reporting Service ,g,g y,,,,{,},f,, ,,,,_ lafayette Building Suite MO 9621II6 Suar 220 Detroa. \fichigan 48226 Farmington liith, \fichigan m018
1 !A I think I had a discussion, I believe it was with Don 2 Hillor, about the cable that was pulled in coiled. As a 3 matter of fact, I know I did. One of the specific 4 questions was I notice - I think my question was, "I 5 noticed walking through the plant you have a lot of cable 6 pulled in coil. Ilow many feet that's pulled in coil is 7 counted as pulled?' Oh, yeah, my answer was on cable pull 8 cards. We've got the number of feet that's coiled and we 9 deducted that f rom the number that was shown that's 10 actually pulled and these are the figures that's actually 11 pulled. 12 Q When you said my answer, you' re referring to the answer
,.. 13 you got f rom Miller?
14 l\ From Consumers. l 15 Q I'm trying to understand the situation in 1980 Let' a go 16 back to 1980 and 1 cave 1931. You received a masa of data ( 17 at the visit itself. You needed some time to assimilate 1 l 18 it and come up with your conclusions. Your preliminary ! l 19 conclusion was made,1984 fuel load date for Unit 2, ! i l 20 righ t? 21 A Yeah. : l 22 Q And Consumers had not yet gotten into -- well, had 23 Consumers gotten into sustained cable pulling in July 24 1980, had Consumera gotten into sustained cable pulling in 199 Luzod Reporting Service gg 3,,,5, ,,,,,, p g, ,, Lafayette Building Suite 630 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit, \fichigan M226 Farmington flills, \fichigan I80lR
1 1900 at the time of your visit? 2 A !!o. 3 0 And you mot with Consumers and Dechtel people in Bethesda E 4 about a month later? 5 L 7eah. 6 ? And I> 2553 talks about a 40 percent increase over the 7 industry rates f or pulling cable, or do you recall that 8 that'n what was at issue in the August 1980 meeting? 9 n 1982 meeting? l 10 0 1980 11 n 1980 Yes, to my knowledge it was. 1 12 0 Then you made an adj ustment to your calculations based 13 upon that 40 percent proj ection, correct? 14 A tio, not based on - the revision was made due to their 15 story about, number one, how much cable they could pull. 16 They had the statistics they had on other nechtel joba 17 versus the statistics I had on other jobs and how they 18 could work both units at the same time with more people, l l l 19 and when you think about it, if you' re pulling esble in ; I 20 the whole plant rather than just in the first unit and j 21 common f acility almost - well, the split is about 60/40 i 22 l So you can get about 40 percent of people and cable pulled i n i 23 in the second unit. Sc the logic was -- that was the 24 logic. Infayette Budding Lnod Reporting Sertice 3ng,g go,,h},},},, gwy_ suite tuo 962 1176 suite 22o Detroit, \fichigan R1226 Farmington Hills, .\fichigan 18018
l 1 h Are you done? I 2 A Yeah. ~ l 3 D And the logic made sense to you at the time, i.e. , August 4 1980? 5 A To increase the cable pulling rate based on being able to 6 work all the areas. 7 0 Did you f eel that that was a reasonable assumption f or 8 Constaners to make in August 1980? 9 A It sounded reasonable. No other plant had ever tried it, 10 to my knowledge. Wey were trying everything else new so 11 they may as well try this new. 12 Q Thore's reference to a mathematical error in D-2553, a 13 difference in calculation that leada you to either 232,400 14 or 276,700 linear feet. Do you recall that circumstance? 15 A Yeah. It was about this time in the af ternoon and we were ! 16 all tired as hell and there was - I forget whether the 17 denominator or numerator was wrong, one or the other, l 18 which made a little bit of difference. l' 19 Q Let me show you Def endant's Exhibit D-4970 nis is a 20 newspaper article f rom the Midland Daily News of August 21 26, 1980, which attributes some statements to you. I 22 l guess a few menents ago we talked about whether you gave , 23 interviews to the press in connection with the visits and , 24 you indicated that occasionally the press did indeed catch ; I Lu:od Reporting Service yo 3,,, ,,, ,7 1.afayette Building Suite ma 962.I176 Suite 220 Iktrout, \fichigan In226 Farmington lidis, \fichiean 18018
1 up to you and' have you make a few ctatements. Do you 2 recall talking to the press in connection with the 3 ultimate conclusion that you came to in August 1980 4 regarding the tddland schedule? 5 (Deposition f:xhibit No. D-497 0, 6 Article f rom the Midland Daily News, 7 was marked f or identification.) 8 A I don' t specifically recall it. It's been five yeara ago, 9 600 plants later. 10 SY MR. 2ACK: l 11 Q I'd j ust like to touch on a few points on this article. 12 If you look about midway through the first column the
; . 13 reporter attributes a statement to you zo the ef f ect that 14 several potential delaying f actors were not included in l
15 the calculation including the coils problem which was 16 unknown, theref ore, it waon' t taken into consideration. 17 That indeed is what happened in 1900, you did not f actor 18 in the soils problem into your schedule proj ection, 19 correct? 20 A For the fif th time I've said f or the record that we did i 21 not f actor the soils issue into any proj ection we made f or 22 l the Midland Plant until we were there in April 1983. I i 23 0 Do you recall telling that to a reporter in August 1980? - l ! 24 A h' hat I j ust said? Lafayette Butiding I'usod Reporting Service y ,g 3.,,[, 2, ,,,. Suite MO 962.I176 Suite 22o Detroit, \fichigan 48226 Farmington flills. \fichigan 18018
1 O Yeah. 2 A !!cw could I tell him somoching in 1980 that happened in 3 19837
^ 4 0 My question is, do you recall telling the reporter in 1980 5 that you had not f actored in t.he soils because it was 6 indefinite or uncertain?
7 i4 Apparently I did, yes. 8 Q Do you recall telling the press akin to what ts 9 represented in the bottom of the first column, that 10 Consumers pla.n to catch up on cable installation appeared 11 to be optimistic compared to general nuclear industry 12 rates? , 13 A Yes, I did, and I think that's consistent 'with my other 14 testimony and other feelings that are in these documents, i 15 0 At the top of the second column the reporter attributos a l 16 statement to you to the effect that the completion date i 17 was "based on the assumption that design will maintain 18 pace with construction, particularly in the small pipe and 19 electrical areas. It will be close but the assumption was l 20 made it could be done. " Do you recall talking to the j f 21 press along those lines? l 22 A I think probably I did and I think probably it's reflected 23 in the conclusion of some of these documents here. 24 Q Further down in the second column of this exhibit there's 1 l 203 Luzod Reporting Service , 3,,y,,,, 77 ,, lxfayette Building Suite m o 962 11I6 Suite 220 (ktrott, \fichigan 18226 Farmington flills, \fichigan 180l3
I
, '1 a reference to the secting schedule for Midland and the 2 statement is attributed to you that the simultaneous 3 testing plan was "very creative" but that you said that 4 you had been reassured by other NRC manbers with 5 experience in plant start-ups that Consumers plan looks 6 workable. Do you see that?
i 7 A Ho. Which paragrapi? 8 MR. JDITES : The question is, do you see it?, 9 A I don' t particularly remember that statement. 10 BY MR. ZACK 11 O Regardless -- 12 A very possible I a id it.
- l
.13 Q Regardless of whether you said that to a reporter in this i
14 time f rame, did that represent the Panel's view of the 15 test schedule in 19807 16 A Well, yes, and I think it also represents it over here in 17 my conclusions where I talk about testing. 1 la Q Could you look at what I've had marked as D-4071 and i I i 19 identify that, if you can, as a packet of materials that l 20 you received at the 1981 Panel visit to Midland and a i 21 document which also includes some of your notes or 22 annotations? And I'll state for the record this is a , 23 document obtained f rom the files of the NRC pursuant to a 24 Preedom of Inf ormation Act roquest, for what little aid I i infayette Buildine Lutod Reporting Service 3og,n go,,,f,f,, ,,,,_ Suite MO 962.))76 Suite 220 Detroa, \fichipn 48226 Farmington flills. \fichigan 18018
1 that can supply you. 2 (Deposition Exhibit No. D-4971, 3 Heating Notice Distribution, 4 was marked f or identification.) 5 A It looks as though it's the handout. I couldn' t say it is 6 without examining it page-by-page or with another handout' 7 or something. 8 DY }m. ZACK: l 9 Q Do you recall receiving some of these documents at the i 10 meeting in 19817 11 T Some look f amiliar, yes. 12 D Could you turn to page 792, please. This is an overhead 13 relating to design and installation curves for large pipe 14 hangers, total plant. 'Ihere's some handwriting on this 15 page stating "critical path item". Is that your writing? l 16 A It is. j l 17 0 Does the graph depict that the project schedule was ahead i 10 or behind the forecast with respect to large pipe hangers, 19 specifically installation? If you look at the legend, the 20 actual line is solid. l l l 21 A Yeah. It looks like it's behind schedule. l l l 22 Q of what significance was it to you in 1981 at the visit ; 23 what you have denominated as a critical path item wan 24 behind the schedule? i Luz d Reporting Service ,3 , ,_ Isfayette Building suite mo 962 i176' ' suite 220 Detroit, \fichigan M226 . Farminston Hills, Michigan 2018,
I 1 a That it was just ona of tho items which contributed to a 2 delay. There were others items. They f elt the electrical 3 area was the overriding i ssue. 4 0 I guess I'm conf used by the phrase critical path item 5 here. Large pipe hangers was a critical path but a more 6 important critical path was cable pulling, correct? 7 h Correct. 8 0 But nevertheless you were aware based on the materiala 9 given to you at the Panel visit in 1981 that large pipe 10 hangers, a critical path item, was behind? 11 A Yes. l 12 0 Was behind schedule? l 13 i That's correct. 14 0 I notice on page 759, if you could turn back in the 15 document, there is a construction progreca overview and l 16 under 2 there's a series of bullets. About midway it 17 states "Complete the installation of over 6 million f cet i 18 of wire and cable (58 percent of the total quantity) ." 19 This was a major milestone completed since there's a 20 question mark drawn next to that. Is that very cryptic 21 notation yours? 22 K Yes. i l , I 23 0 I take it that reflects the skepticism you had f ollowing l , 24 4 your tour of the plant? ' I 74,,.,,,, gu,jgin, Luzod Reporting Service yo 3.}6 ,, Sa'ite fa0 962.))'6 Sune 22o Detroit. \fichigan M226 Farmington listis, \fichigan 18018
I 1 A That's correct. 2 Q And on the next page, 760, there's a ref erence to current 3 problems, like the remedial soils work and long lead time 4 issues such as fire protection. Do you recall a 5 presentation to that ef fect to the Panel in 19017
~
6 A If there was a presentation, it would be under other 7 agenda items back in the back. I don' t recall whether the -- 8 what discussion was on them. Fire protection, long lead 9 items, could be under Mr. Sullivan's -- if you look on 10 9824 it says "Other licensing issues, soils, seismic, l 1 11 equipnent qualification, fire protection. " l 12 0 Were certain licensing issues such as HILBA, block volls l l 13 and fire protection generic concerns of the industry in , 14 1981? 15 '4 Yes. 16 0 And I take it by that it means that various nuclear planta ! l 17 had to deal with those specific licensing concerns with j 18 their attendant potential schedule delays? l l 19 h They were generic to the industry, /es. l l l 20 Q Could you look at 9800, please? There is ref erence to 21 long 1 cad time issue: "Use of CPM planning and scheduling , I 22 methods {P/2} ." Is that your wr1 ting, "Pr oj ect/2 " ? i 23 A That's correct. l 24 0 Did you ask f or any Project 2 networks in connection with l 1 I 0 Lu:od Reporting Service , 3,,, y l.afayette Buildine ,,, Suite Mo 962.I176 Suite 2 0 lktroit, \fichigan 48226 Farmington Hills. Alichigan m018
I this meeting? 2 A I can' t recall. It seems-to me, if my memory serves me 3 correctly, that Project 2 was used in their system 4 turnover and the pre-op testing and not in the 5 construction aspects. I don' t recall for sure. Proj ect 2 6 is a sof tware scheduling package and I think they may have 7 shown me an early start, late start, turnover schedule or 8 something. I don' t recall. 9 O Did you ask for any of than as they related to licensing 10 items? 11 a I don' t recall. l 12 0 The last two pages of this document, 9033 and 34, contains 13 some handwritten figures. Are those your notes? 14 A It looks like my handwriting, yes. 15 Q What is depicted on these two pages? l 16 A Uell, it says Quantities To Go conduit, amall bore i 17 hangers, amall bore pipe, large bore hangers and large i 18 bore pipes and to go quantities 90 percent to fuel _ load. 19 ; Q Were these calculations made in connection with your 20 , determination of the schedule projection? l-4 21 A Yes. f 22 0 Then if I haven' t established it bef ore, or if I have l 23 established it bef ore f orgive me, you' re not the only one 1 24 suf f ering f rem the heat, but did the Panel in 1981 keep i 1.afayette Buildine Lmd Reporting Sereiee 3,g,o ,,,f,},,8,, gw,. Suite fa0 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit \fichigan 18226 Farmington Hith, \fichigan 18018
i 1 l' the same, estimate as it had made for Midland in 19807 2 A That's correct. l 3 Q I'd like to show you what I've had marked as Defense 1 , 4 Exhibit IF 4980 'Ihis appears to be a Telecon record, 5 dated October 5,1982, by Terry Sullivan of Constzners 6 Power with regard to a conversation he had with Darl Hood 7 of the NRC on that day. I notice in the middle of this 8 page there is some handwriting, xc t , a bunch of names and 9 your name in the second one. Do you recall receiving this 10 document? 11 (Deposition Exhibit No. D-4900, 12 Telecon Record, dated 10-5-82, l 13 .was marked f or identification.) 14 A I think I was given a copy of this document, yes, l i 15 BY HR. ZACK: i 16 Q The second to last paragraph in thi.s page indicates that 17 "As an alternative, I" - meaning Sullivan - "indicated 18 that CPCo intends to notify the ASLB that the 7/83 fuel 19 load datre will not be met due to our inability to initiate t 20 the soils work and that the precise date is indeterminate 21 pending issuance of the SSER, NRC release of the soils l 22 work, and CPCo's detailed review of production rates, i 23 ) construction sequences, etcetera, based on the above. " Do l 24 you recall being notified in October 1982 that consumers 1 209 Lmd Reporting Service 3, 3,,,g ,,,,,, f 7,,, lafayette Building l Su;,,53o 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit. \fichigan 18226 Farmington flith. .\fichigan 48018
1 intended to declare its inability to meet the scheduled 2 f uel load date for Unit 27 3 A Well, obviously it says it does so I guess we were I 4 notified. I don' t know whether this was f ormal 5 notification or there may have been a more formal 6 notification. I don' t know. 7 Q With regard to the 1983 visit and its af termath, if you 8 look at NRC 46 you'll see a ref erence in the last 9 paragraph to a request made by Jim Cook of Consumcro Power 10 f or an opportunity to meet with the staff to review 11 various schedule material. Did Consumers Power meet with 12 the Panel in the latter part of 1983 to have additional 13 discussions regarding the status of the plant schedule? 14 A No, they did not. 'Ihere was a telephone conversation and 15 it was an attempt to set up a meeting and with the 16 interest that was now in the plant, along with GAP, Dow 17 and other people, I ref used to participate in the meeting la unless it was held as a public meeting. And it seemed 19 like it got, the meeting kept getting pushed of f f rom 20 month to month and the meeting, to my knowledge, never did ' 21 take place, that I attended. l 22 0 It hadn' t taken place at the time you lef t the agency, l 23 correct? ! 24 A If it did, I never attended one. I k l l lafayette Building Las:od Reporting Service y o 3. } , 0 ,, Suite (do 962-]176 Suite 2 0 Iktroit. \fichigan M226 Fannington Ilills, .\fichigan 18018
1 'O At these various Caseload meetings Bechtel personnel made 2 some presentations, correct? 3 k I think so, that's correct. I 4 Q Did you ever ask them specifically for their own views on 5 projected milestone dates? 6 MR. JOITES: When you say "own", are you 7 ref erring to the particular individuals' views or the 8 Bechtel Company views? I 9 3Y MR. ZACK: 10 D Let's take it both ways, first the individual views of the 11 Bechtel presenters and, secondly, the Dechtel view itself 12 to the extent it differed. 13 h If it were someone I knew, had known f or a f ew years, met l 14 at other sites or something, we' d have of f-the-record 15 discussions maybe. At consumors, no, I never asked a 16 Dechtel personnel for his specific views on the completion i 17 of Midland. On the tour I do remember asking a B & W guy, 18 I forget what his name was, but he was a superintendent or 1 , 19 something, about his f eelings of the dif ference between 20 the status nf Unit 2 and Unit 1 and he fele Unit 1 was at 21 least a year behind the Unit 2 schedule was his f eeling. 22 0 Uhen did you have that conversation with the D & N fellow? , '
}
23 A I think that was in, it may have been in 1983 I 24 0 What Bechtel representatives on the 111dland job did you ! l 211 Luzod Reporting Service y,o 3.g,,, yy lofayette Building suite Mo 962 1i76 Suite 220 ; iktroit. \fichigan 88226 Farmington lidis, \fichigan 2018
~ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . _ _ _ - - _ . _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 have prior contact with at other plants, if any? 2 A trone. 3 MR. ZACK: I have no further questions. 4 MR. JD1TES : If we could go off the record 5 for a minute. 6 (A brief discussion was held 7 of f the record.) 8 MR. JDITES: Back on the record. 9 EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. JDITES: 1 11 Q It's late, Mr. Lovelace, and - 12 MR. ZACK: What about the manual? 13 I interrupted Mr. Jentes bef ore he was about 14 to start his redirect and asked for his stipulation that { 15 the manual marked as Def endant's Exhibit D-4950 could be 16 placed on the stipulation, I believe it's Schedulo C, as j 17 an NRC business record and he agreed that we could so 18 stipulate. l 19 Correct, Mr. Jentes? IN 20 MR. JQ1TES : That's cor act. i 21 BY MR. JD1TES : i i 22 0 !!aw, Mr. Lovelace, what I was saying is, it' a lato in the 23 day and it's very hot here in this room and so I'll try to , 24 be as very brief as I can. I'll cover a couple of ! l
,, g Luzod Reporting Service gg 3.,,,} 12 ,, ,, ,,
Sr. . -30 962 1176 Suite 220 Iktrat, \fichigan #226 Farmington flills. \fichigan 2018 l
1 specific topics and then a more general one. %c first 2 topic I want to cover is the series of questions that Mr. I 3 Zack asked of you concerning meetings with Mr. Strickling 4 and other attorneys f rom our firm. 5 During the course of that interrogation you 6 said that you had received some "pressure f rom the Chicago 7 office of !!errill Lynch" to have some kind of a meeting, 8 and it's not altogether clear f rom my notes as to who the 9 Chicago of fice wanted you to meet with? 10 4 Attorneys of Isham, Lincoln and Deale, Mike Miller in 11 spe cific. 12 D And those are the attorneys that represent Consumers Power 13 bef ore the NRC; is that correct? 14 A I have no knowledge other than they represent Consumers l 15 Power in some capacity, but it was a note that I got f rem , 16 the Chicago of fice that did ref er to the Dow litigation ! ! 17 and whether it be with respect to the OL hearing or not I l 18 don' t know. 19 Q And am I correct that this former governnor of Illinois 20 that you're ref erring to is a lawyer that's associated l l 21 with Icham, Lincoln and Beale? l i l 22 a !!e was one of the senior partnors. I don' t recall his i 23 i name. I'm sure you know him. Il n 24 0 Does the name Mr. Richard Oglivio sound right?
'13 I lafayette Building Luzod Reporting Service yo 3., ",,, y l Suite h30 962.I176 Suite 220 (ktrmt. \fichigan 48226 Farminston HJh. \fichigan 18018
1 h Yes, fie made a personal telephone call to Morrill Lynch. 2 It wasn' t exactly arm-twisting type pressure, it was j ust _ 3 would you see if you could got Mr. Lovelace to talk to Mr. 4 Miller. 5 0 Did you ever ref use to talk to them? 6 h No, I never -- af ter I got the letter f rom NRC saying it 7 was okay to talk on an inf ormal basis I never heard 8 anymore. 9 Q Frcm the people at Isham, Lincoln? I 10 A Yeah. I never heard another word. 11 Q You mentioned something about a vague recollection of some 12 conversation or comment by Mr. Strickling or somebody elso
. 13 from our office about a possible conflict with Isham, 14 Lincoln, or something. Do you recall what that was all 15 about?
16 A No, I don' t. I had asked the question -- I knew that a 17 consulting firm in Washington, Technical Analysis 18 Corporation, Mr. Hanour, an ex-NRC employee, was 19 vice-president then, came and got through the Freedom of i i 20 Information Roquest all of my documents on Midland in j l 21 particular and every other plant that I had looked at, and i 22 ! I was just curious as to what they were being used f or if ; 23 they were being used in this case. t I 24 Q To cut it short, did Mr. Strickling or anyone f rem our n : ng SeMce 24 infayette Buildine 39g ,o y,,, ,, ,,,, ,,, ,. susie ao 962 1176 suite 220 Detroit, \fichigan M226 Farmington Hdis. \fichigan 18018
1 office, or f rom Dow for that matter, ever indicate to you 2 that you couldn' t or shouldn' t meet with anybody f rom 3 Consumers Power?
, 4 A tio, no. Wat was my instructions f rcm I think the !!RC, 5 that I -- well, the guidance I got finally was an inf ormal 6 meeting was fine, anything f or the record they' d like an 7 13RC attorney present.
8 Q And do I take it f rem your answer that f rom time to time 9 in connection with possible testimony in this proceeding 10 that you have consulted with the councel for the NRC? 11 4 We've had brief conversations, that's correct. 12 0 !! ave they given you advice as to what your rights and
. 13 obligations are with regard to possible testimony in this 14 proceeding?
l 15 is > That's correct. l 16 0 !!cw, Mr. Zack asked you about some contacts you had with 17 our office. Did you also have a discussion with Mr. Zack ! 1 10 prior to the testimony here today? 19 A Yes, I did. 20 Q And approximately when was that?
! 1 21 A It was while I was in Southern California Edison prior to ;
l l 22 ! J uly the 4 th. I guess it was July the 4 th week, or the 23 l week bef ore July the 4 th,1984 ,
! 1 24 Q During the course of that discussion with Mr. Zack, did --
l l l 215 Luzod Reporting Sereiee y ,o y,,w,,,, jfg., Isfayette Building Suite MO 902.))76 Suite 220 Detrmt, \fichiga:: 2226 Farminuton flills. \fichigan 18018
1 1m. !IJLLIMS: '04 or '857 2 A '85, and it was a conf erence call and Mr. Mullins was also 1 3 on the call. BY tm. JEllTES: 4 l 5 Q And did Mr. Zack ask a number of questions and did you 6 answer them? 7 h He asked questions and I answered them the beat I could. 8 I had no inf ormation there with me. I was involved in a 9 prudency inuue case going back to 1978 also and there was 1 10 a lot of pressure to get that out and my mind just really 11 wasn' t f unctioning on Midland at the time. 12 Q Did Mr. Zack ask to come back and have a further 13 discussion with you? 14 A tio, he did not. l l 15 Q Next I' d like to ask you some questions about Mr. Ron ! 16 Cook. During Mr. Zack's examination he asked you about i i 17 Mr. Cook and I thf nk you said in answer to a question that l 18 Mr. Cook was "not the most helpf ul" of the resident 19 inspector s. And thereaf ter, however, you indicated that 20 he had been helpf ul, at least in an example you cited, 21 about getting some inf ormation on some electricians. 22 I was a little unclear and I wanted the 23 record to be clear as to whether you wore implying that l 24 j Mr. Cook was not cooperative with you or you wore merely ; I l lxfayette Buildine Lutod Reporting Service ,,9 y ,, [ , 6 ,7 Sunte M O 962 1i76 Suite 220 (ktroit, \fuchigan IR226 Farmungton Ildis, \fichigan 18018
1 testifying that if you ranked all the resident inopoctors 2 he might not be the top man on the list in terms of 3 helpf ulness? 4 A It's my feeling that if I ranked all the resident 5 inspectors he would be less cooperative than some of the 6 others. If you ask something specific, he would try to 7 get it for you or make an attempt to; however, he would 8 never, appeared to me, to give too much input to any of 9 our meetings we had up there with Consumers. 10 0 But I take it if you asked him for specific things then 11 he'd get them, as f ar as you knew? 12 4 I only had had the one occasion to ask and that was with 13 respect to the electricians. 14 0 And on that occasion he did get the inf ormation you . 15 wanted? 16 A Yes. l 17 0 tiext there were a series of questions at various times . 18 during Mr. Zack's examination about, well, had you asked j 19 for .all of the Proj ect 2 networks, or had you asked f or 20 various proj ect status reports, or had you asked f or the ' l 21 fuel load studies that had been generated by Bechtel and 22 etcotera, etcetera. And in response to that you 23 indica ted, I believe, that you had not asked specifically 24 for those documents in a generic sense but that you had j l 217 Lu:od Reporting Service yo y,g,,,,, ,7 f.afvette Building ,_ Sujg, a o 962.I176 Suite 2:0 Detrout, \fichigan m216 Farmington listis, \fichigan 18018
l 1 oxpected inf ormation conc:rning the overall schedule to ) 2 come out through the responsas to the agenda items. Is 3 that a f air summary of what your testimony was in that 4 regard? 5 A The agenda items should have covered basically everything 6 that was in the Bechtel project status reports with the 7 exception probably of cash flow. 8 Q I was looking f or a broader type of inquiry and that was, 9 was it practicable, in your view, for the Panel to review 10 all of the schedule documents that were generated on a 11 nuclear plant like Midland in connection with the forecast 12 formulation of its estimation of fuel load dates and 13 commercial operation dates? 14 A I would like to go back to your prior question f or l l 15 clarification on the agenda items and so on, ref erring 16 specifically to Bechtel. Consumers PoWor put the 17 presentation together and it would be my thought that it l l 18 was their discretion as to what -- how they responded to , 19 the agenda items and not acchtcl. In other words, Dechtel l 20 could have provided them this inf ormation and said no, we ! 21 don' t want to provide them this, we'll provide them this. 22 0 carrying f erward on that, is what you' re saying is that it 23 was Consumers' responsibility, not Bechtel's, te disclose ! 24 inf ornation to the Panel? l j lxfayette Raildine Luzod Reporting Sertice , ,g .),0,, Sutte Mo 962 Ii76 Sws, g;o ()<troit. \fichiean 48226 famineton lidis, \fuchican 18013
UA 1 That's correct. Consumers was the licencee, not Bechtel. 2 Bechtel was a client of Consumers. So our dealings were 3 with Consumers Power. Concurners Power's dealings were ,
'af 4 with Dechtel. We did not deal directly with Bechtel.
S Q So you looked to Consumers to disclose inf ormation, not to 6 Dechtel to make disclosures? 7 A That' a correct, that' a correct. O 8 Q Let me return again to the question that I asked when you 9 asked for clarification, or sought to clarify your answer. 10 Hy question was, in sum, whether it was practicable for 11 the Panel to review all of the schedule documente 12 generated in a nuclear plant like Midland in connection 13 with the formulation of the Panel's estimates of fuel load 14 dates and commercial operation dates? 15 MR. ZACK: Asked and answered. ? l 16 MR. !ULLINS: Go ahead. l 17 A Depending on the nature of the beant. If we wanted to 18 look at punch list items, we' d ask f or master punch list l 19 items. If we wanted to go through their schedule and see 20 all the items with negative float, we' d ask f or a computer 21 printout. If we wanted their early start, late start, 22 pre-op test program, turnover schedule, we' d ask f or that, , i 23 I sorted by an early atart, late start. It dependa on what 24 you' re looking f or at the various plants. I l 219 I.utod Reporting Service y ,o y,g ,,,,, g, 74,,,, sig,, Siir,s30 962 11?6 Swte 2:0 Detimt. \fichigan 18226 Farminctc.n Ihth. \lichigan I8018
H 1 BYil tm. JDITES: ' Il 2 Q I'm utill searening f or something a little bit broader and 3 I'm not doing a very good job at this late dato at coming 4 up with it. What I' m searching f or, fir. Lovelace, is 5 whether or not f rom your knowledge of the itind of 6 documentation thr.c's generated in connection with the 7 scheduling of a nuclear plant, is it possible f or the
,8 Fanel to review all of those schedule documents iti 9 connection with the kind of evalbation that Panel does or 10 is that simply too big a job and too many documents?
11 tm. ZACK: Asked and answered. i 12 A It would be just a hideous job f or one person to do. It 13 would be literally impossible to go in and go through all 14 the documents they've got, read everything they've got, 15 look at all the items, count the cable pull tickets, the 4 i 16 what have you, the number of packages of pipe supports the 17 documentation han been completed on, the final stress 18 analysis has bee'n done. That's the reason you send the 19 agenda and they respond to the agenda items. It would 20 take months f or one person to go in and do an analysis i ' i 21 like that. l .
! l 22 BY 12. JD1TES : L 23 0 Is your answer to the last question related to your I
24 l earlier observation, that conducting a bottoma-up type of 9 l . lxfayette Buildine Luod Reporting Senice 3ag,o \. 220,, ,,_. I Suite MO 962 1176 su,re ::o l Iktrout. \tachigan 18226 Farmingt06 l$llh. \fichigan l8018
1 schedule analysis f or a plant like Midland would take 2 somewhere around two to three months? I l 3 A That would be my estimate, yes. 0 4 0 Let me now direct your attention to the procedures manual 5 and I have a couple of questions about that. 'ihis is 6 D-4958 As I recall, you testified that you f elt that the 7 procedures that were outlined in the manual provided a 8 "reasonable basis"' f or making a schedule evaluation by the 9 Panel. Is that a f air summary of whac you f eel the 10 procedures manual permitted you to do? 11 A That was the intent of the manual, for someone to come in l 12 and take it and read it and assuming the person has somo 13 knowledge of nuclear power plant construction and 14 licensing and regulatory agency, knowledge of 15 construction, testing and startup, he could take the i 16 manual and step-by-step what I wont through to initiating 17 e visit, making contact, settina up a date, to writing a 18 meeting summary. j 19 0 Was a necessary assursption for arriving at this schedule 20 estimate or evaluation that you would get accurate and
'! realistic data f rem the utility in responso to your l <
22 request f or data? ; 23 A That was always the intent, that the utility would respond l , 24 to the best of their ability to the agenda items with the l 1
; i 221 Luzod Reporting Service y ,g 3 ,,,, y lxfayette Building suig, a o 962.I1i6 Suke 2:0
[ktroit, \fichigan M226 Farmington Hdis, \lechiean -I8018
1 most current, best inf ormation that they had available. 2 Q You were asked about a statement made on the first page of 3 the document to the eff ect that the purpose of the set of
. 4 procedures was to arrive at an "incependent forecast". Do 5 you remember ger.erally being asked about that?
6 a Yes. l 7 Q While you were attempting to arrive at an independent P, forecast, were you interested in what was the forecast 9 that the utility itself was making? 10 MR. ZACK That's been asked and answered I 11 believe. 12 A I would say voviously, yes. rore incerested in all the 13 information that they would t.. de us. If they were 14 going through a schedule evaluation and say, hey, we don' t l l 15 think we got a good date now and in two months or three 16 months nw we'll have a new cvaluation, this is the best 17 we' ve got new, I' ve had that happen bef ore. I was just 18 going to cite a couple examples. ; l l 19 BY MR. JDITES : i l l l l 20 0 When you were asking the utility for its own assessment of j 21 the schedule, were you interested in the confidence that 22 they had in meeting that schedule? f I 23 $ Well, I think that was the basic purpose of the question, . i 24 or the agenda item. ! l l Lafayetor Buddine I.uz d Reporting Service ,og,g ,,h},},},, g,,_ Suite Ma 962.I176 Suae 250 Detroa. \lschigan 4R226 Farmatuton Hdis. .\fichiean sRola
p 1 0' If, f or example, the utility had only a ten percent 2 confidence in meeting the projected f uel load dato, was I 3 thac inf ormation that you would want to know? l I 4 A Well, typically you'd liko to hear then all say we got a 5 50/50 chance of meeting it and I think basically that's 6 what a lot of them will tell you. You do, hwever, in all 7 respects, in order to keep the contractors f eet to the 8 fire and workers feet to the fire, you do have to maintain 9 a tight schedule. 10 Q Let me return to my question, however, which was, would 11 you want to know that the utility had only a ten percent 12 confidence in meeting this date? 13 A Certainly, because that would give me less confidence that 14 they would meet it also. 15 0 You were asked a question about some materials that j i 16 appeared in the summary at page 20, and in particular ! 17 about a statement in the second sentence in the third j 18 paragraph to the ef fect that you should, Panel people, 19 , should never take anything at f ace-value. Do you remember i 20 that question? l i 21 A Yes. l l 22 Q And in connection with Midland I bellove you indicated 23 that you did in f act pursue that approach, that is, that 24 you didn' t take anything at f ace-value that was given to li il 223 Luod Reporting Service y ,o z. g ,,,, y Isfhyette Buddite Suig, w o 962 Ii?6 Suite 220 Detmt, \fichigan 48226 Farminston Hdh. \fichiean 68018
7 1 'ycu by consumers; is that correct? 2 A It is the -- it was the intent at all plants to take the 3 raw data and try to come up with our own independant date. - I 4 0 And that was the sense in which you used the term you 5 wouldn' t take it at f ace-value? 6 A Exactly. 7 Q And as part of the not taking it at f ace-value, did you 8 ask a lot of questions and seek a lot of data, as you 9 indicated on ntanerous occasions, through the agenda that 10 you sent out to the utility, and in this case to 11 Consumers, in anticipation of the Forecast Panel visits? 12 a That is the purpose of the agenda, yes. l
. 13 0 on several occasions you ref erred to the agenda item for, 4
14 ! or items for the meetings in the summer of 1980 and there 15 was some conf usion as to whether or not you had actually 16 prepared the specific document or not. Do you remember l 17 generally that line of questioning? - 18 A Yes, generally. l 19 Q You indicated that you f elt that the agenda that !!r. I 20 Keeley had apparently typed up was reflective of your i 21 views, and I'm wondering if by looking at the Appendix tio. 22 2 in the procedures manual you could identify that as the l 23 overall recommended meeting agenda that you had ; l , 24 incorporaked into the manuel for use at meetings af ter the l l l ufayene Budding Luod Reporting Sertier 3,wg 9,,k{,},,@,, y,y_ Suite MO 962 1176 suaetw (ktroa. \lichigan RC26 Farmington HJis. \tahigan wola
._- ,,.. .. - .- - - .- ~. . _ _ _ -. .
1 initial visit to the plant site? 2 A This was a typical agenda and for each plant there any or i 3 may not have been additional items added to it which were 4 plant specific. 5 D In particular I no'; ice that Item 6 is pretty close to the 6 information that you kept ref erring Mr. Zack to in 7 response to his questioning. Was the inf ormation in Item 8 6 of particular interest in connection with your review of 9 the status of the construction at the plants? 10 A The answer would be yes. 11 D Let me ask you a couple of questions about the notes that 12 are attached to D-4968 In particular let me ask you to
, 13- look over at the last page, which is Bates number 8594.
14 Are you able to be a little more precise as to when you 15 prepared this set of notes? ! I t 16 h This set of notes was prepared af ter the meeting at the i l 17 site, back at Se tesda, af ter trying to go through all the I l l 18 data and numht J and figures and phone calls and L 19 inf ormation that was provided to us. ; l ! l l 20 0 And did it reflect your then state of mind as to your 21 reaction to what you had received f rom Consumers during i 1 22 the course of the visit in July of 19807 j 23 A It reflects my ::onf usion. The data or inf ormation I was ! i 1 24 getting or not understanding or something, I was cort of l 225 - LU20d RtPorting Service gg,,,,,, g;ggy, m 3.g,,,, f7 Su;,, m 962 1176 Suite %m (ktrat, \fichigan 182:6 farmintron l{tils, \fichigan M1018
1 in a state of flux. 2 Q Down about two-thirds of the way there' a come materials 3 there that read "problems can't really determine where you 4 are. Numbers seem to be spoon f ed to us. " llave I 5 correctly read what you wrote at the time? 6 A That's correct. l 7 Q And does that accurately reflect what your viws were at 8 that time? 9 A That reflects my views of the 1980 visit. l 10 Q And in light of the documents which I showed you on direct 11 examination and the inf ormation that I ref erred to you and 12 that you testified you did not receive at that time, do 13 you believe that you were in f act spoon fed, as you 14 ref erred to it at that time? 15 A To answer that would be speculation on my part, but afror i 16 seeing the documents that I've been shown and I huon't 17 seen, it always makes me feel that the statement is more 18 correct than what I thought it was. 19 Q At the time? l 20 h At the time. To me it confirms that iP a more correct.
?
21 MR. J E21TES : That' E al l the questions I ! 1 1 22 , have. j 23 EXAMINATION 24 DY MR. ACK: l I l 1.afayette lhilden, O!O"K b!dC' 3ag40 y,,5f, , ,, jj,,. Suite MO 962 1ii6 Suite 2:a Detrat, \fichigan 18226 Farmington lidis, \fichigan 43018
1 'b In your last answer you' re ref erring specifically to the 2 documents Mr. Jentes showed you on direct examination? 3 A On the documents I've not seen are the ones that had 4 Dechtel confidential, Consumers /Dechtel internal memo, 5 schedule analysis. 6 Q I take it you don' t know, with respect to those documents 7 you've just mentioned, whether Consumers Power accepted 8 the inf ormation contained in those documents, do you? 9 MR. JDITES : When you say Consumers Power, 10 who are you referring to since some of those documents 11 were prepared by Consumers Power people? 12 MR. ZACK: The Dechtel confidential 13 documents that he ref erred to. 14 A I have nc idea other than meetings were going on j 15 apperently between Dechtel and Consumerc Power. 16 MR. ZACK: No f ur ther questions. 'Ihank you i , 17 f or your time. i i l 18 (The deposition was concluded l l ! 19 at 6 : 25 p. m. ) i 20 l 21 22 23 l 24 227 Luod Reporting Service 3ag,o y,,g ,,,,,, 17, ,_ Is(nette Buildine S;;,,go 962 1176 Suite 220 (ktrat, \fic:<ican 48226 Farmington flills. \fichigan 58018
1 2 $ TATE OF HICHIGMT ) l ) SS 3 @UNTY OF WAYNE ) 4 I, Glenn G. Fuller, Notary Public I 5 within and f or the County of Waynec State of Michigan, do 6 hereby certify that the witness whose attached deposition I 7 Was taken before me in the above-entitled matter was by me 8 duly sworn at the af orementioned time and place; that the l 9 itestimony given by said witness was stenographically l 10 tecorded in the presence of said witness a:td af terwards l 11 < transcribed by computer under my personal supervision, l 12 and that the said deposition is a f ull, true and correct l 13 }ranscript of the testimony given by the witness. 14 I f urther certify that I am not connected 15 by blood or marriage with any of the parties or their l 16 attorneys, and that I am not an employee of either of them, i l i 17 nor financially interected in the action. 18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set l 19 my hand at the City of Detroit, County of Wayne, State of ! 20 ; Michigan, thin 8d day of r C , 1985, 21 . i 22 8 ' (LENM G. MILLER, Notary Public
- 23 Wayne County, Michigan ;
l l 24 ! My Commission Expires: 4-22-07 l l Luod Reporting Service , .),Q g lafayette t%ldine Suite MO 962' E II6 Sua,:20 Detrmt \fichigan M226 Farnuneton Hills, \fichigan 49018
1 2 VERIFICATION OP-DCPONENT 3 I, WILLIAM LOVEL ACE, do hereby 4 attest to the correctness of the transcript upon inclusion 5 of the corrections and/or changes I have listed on the 6 attached errata sheet. 7 Signature of Witness 8 subscribed and sworn to betore me 9 this day of __, 1985, 10 11 12 Notary Public, County My Commission expires: . 7- 13 14 i 15 l l 16 i 17 i I 18 19 20 21 22 , j l' 23 l 24 i sn9 IA[Qytttf OU Nine Luzod Reporting Service gw 3.,",, , 962 11I6 Suite 60 Suite MO Fannington (filh. .\fichigan 48018 Detrat, \fichigan #?:6}}