ML20153B909
| ML20153B909 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/02/1984 |
| From: | Warnick R NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151D196 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-583 NUDOCS 8805060111 | |
| Download: ML20153B909 (136) | |
Text
o 227 a.' ,
N 1 STATE OF MICHIGAN )
2 ) SS:
3 COUNTY OF MIDLAND )
4 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MIDLAND 5 STATE OF MICHIGAN 6
7 THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY,)
8 Plaintiff,)
9 vs. ) File No. 83-002232-CK-D 10 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY, )
11 Defendant.)
12 s
13 May 2, 1984, 14 9:00 a.m.
15 16 The deposition of ROBERT FRED WARNICK 17 resumed pursuant to adjournment at 799 Roosevelt 18 Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois.
19 20 21 22 23 T
24
- QsofNh10B040B 1Vo[fe, 00senbey and 811ociales, ,$nc.
PDR g g BARAnO7-583 ,
228 1 PRESENT:
2 MESSRS. KIRKLAND & ELLIS, 3 (200 East Randolph Drive, 4 Chicago, Illinois 60601), by:
5 MR. LAWRENCE E. STRICKLING and 6 MS. CAROL M. RICE, 7 appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff;
-8 9 MESSRS. BARRIS, SOTT, DENN & DRIKER, 10 (1001 Woodward Avenue, 11 (Detroit, Michig an 48226), by:
12 MR. ANDREW M. ZACK, 13 appeared on behalf of the Defendant; 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
\
24 MJ 0Vo[fs, 00ssnbsy and Assoclaiss, $na.
C%e, Dhots e att> re2-soar
1 PRESENT: ~(Continued) 2 -OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 3 United States Nuclear Reg ulatory Commis sion ,
4 -(799 Roosevelt Road,
- 5 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137), by:
6 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS, 7 -and-8 OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 9 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 10 (Washington, D.C., 20555), by:
11 MR. DANIEL BERKOVITZ, 12 appeared on behalf of the Deponent.
13 14 REPORTF.D BY: MELANIE JAKUSZEWSKI, C.S.R.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 4
24 H3 0Vo[fs, 00ssnbsy & &ssoclahs, $ne.
_ _ _ _ _ c%. s.u e m2) nu-sw
230 5 1 I_N_D_E_X 2 311gggg ggggIggI1gg Fug;ggg_gggg 3 ROBERT FRED WARNICK 4 By Mr. Strickling 231 348 L By Mr. Zack 298 6
7 E_X_H_I_B_I_T_S 8 NUMBER MARKED _FOR_ID 9 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NRC 10 No. 44 234 11 No. 45 238 12 No. 46 242 13 Nos. 47 and 48 245 14 No. 49 250 15 No. 50 251 16 No. 51 255 17 No. 52 258 18 No. 53 265 19 No. 54 296 20 21 22 23 24
=
MJ 0Yo[fe, ckosenbey and 81socialz1, hnc.
l CR%o, D[linch e (312) 782 8087
_, 231 s
N 1 ROBERT FRED WARNICK, 2 called as a. witness herein, having been pr ev io u sl y 3 duly sworn and having testified, was examined and 4 testified further as follows:
5 EXAMINATION (Resumed) 6 BY MR. STRICKLING:
7 Q. Mr. Warnick, I am putting in front of you 8 Exhibit NRC 12 which was the chronology of events.
9 When we wera off the record before starting this 10 morning you ststed there was a later version of this, 11 is that right?
12 A. That's correct. There is a Revision 4.
13 Q. And do you know up to what date Revision 4 14 covers?
15 A. No. I don' t recall.
16 MR. STRICKLING: Could we have a copy of that, 17 Mr. Be rkov it z?
18 MR. BERKOVITZ: Do you know how to get ahold of 19 it?
20 THE WITNESS: Go upstairs and copy it.
21 MR. STRICKLING: We don't need it for the 22 deposition today. We made one other request 23 yesterday, and in responding to that request if we
'N 24 could also get a copy of that, that would be fine.
i MJ 0Yo[fs, Sossnbey and &ssocknis1, $nc.
_[ CA m e, Blf w s e a s2> 1st-soar
s
. 232 j% 1 MR. BERKOVITZ: Presumably that is subject to 2 the FOIA that we --
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 MR. BERKOVITZ: So it should be part of that.
5 MR. ZACK: I would like a copy of it as well.
6 MR. BERKOVITZ: If it is going to be handled 7 through the FOIA, I hope that is how it is handled.
8 THE WITNESS: Doe s n' t make any difference to 9 me.
10 MR. BERKOVITZ: If they are here rather than --
11 MR. ZACK: The FOIA request has been made for 12 counsel by Dow Chemical. Consumers Power doesn't 13 have a FOIA request outstanding as of this time. I 14 just want to make sure that I do get a copy of this 15 chronology regardless whether it is produced 16 pursuant to the request of Dow Chemical or some 17 other fashion.
18 MR. BERKOVITZ: We will give you a copy.
19 MR. STRICKLING: So our positinn is clear, I 20 am making this request in the context of the 21 deposition, and making the request in that context 22 Mr. Zack, of course, is entitled to a copy of it so 23 I would suspect that he would get one.
T 24 MR. ZACK: Thank you.
M3 0Vo[fe, kosenbey and &ssociales, .0nc.
C$tas4o, O(finals e (312) 782 8087
233 5 1 MR. STRICKLING: As a general matter you are 2 receiving copies of everything we are getting under 3 the FOIA though, aren't you?
4 MR. ZACK: That is my understanding. I have no 5 way of confirming that as of yet, but I believe that 6 is the case.
7 BY MR. STRICKLING:
8 Q. Mr. Warnick, I am handing you back Exhibit 9 NRC 43, which was the Caseload Forecast Panel 10 meeting summary that we were discussing as of the 11 break yesterday.
12 As a result of the analysis that the 13 Caseload Forecast Panel conducted in April of 1983 14 did they agree with the proposed date set out by 15 Consumers Power?
16 A. No, they did not.
17 Q. What was the disagreement that they had 18 with the dates?
19 MR. BERKOVITZ: Are you testifying as to your 20 recollection or as to what the document is saying?
! 21 THE WITNESS: I am testifying based on my 22 knowledge.
23 MR. STRICKLING: Right. That is all you can do.
T 24 THE WITNESS: And I don't know what --
there MJ 0Vo[fe, kosenbey and 811ocialz1, hnc.
C$leano, Offinots e (312) 782 8087
. 234
,'O 1 was a difference in dates, and I don't know -- I 2 don' t remember what the difference was.
3 BY MR. STRICKLING:
4 Q. Well, is it correct that as a' result of 5 the initial review the Caseload Forecast Panel 6 concluded that the earliest date the completion of 7 Unit 2 could reasonably be expected was the second s
8 quarter of 19867 9 A. I don't recall from personal memory.
10 MR. STRICKLING: Let's mark that as the next 11 exhibit.
12 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 13 marked Plaintif f's Exhibit NRC No. 44, 14 for identification, as of 5/2/84.)
15 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked 16 as Exhibit NRC 44 a two page document bearing Bates 17 numbers N 11664 to 11665.
18 (WHEREUPON, the document was 19 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
20 BY MR. STRICKLING:
21 Q. What is that document, Mr. Warnick?
22 A. It is a draft of a letter from Mr. Novak 23 to Mr. Cook of Consumers Power Company entitled, T
24 "Caseload Forecast Panel Estimate of Construction M3 GVo(fs, fossnbsy and &ssoelates, .$ne.
C4%e, Blksets e (312) 782-8087
235 e
^ l Completion Schedule."
2 Q. Okay. Do you know when this letter was 3 prepared?
4 A. No, I don' t . It has got concurrence dates 5 of May -- looks like 25th, 1983, so it had to be 6 just prior to that.
7 Q. What is a concurrence date?
8 A. The date when a memo was concurred in.
9 Q. What is the general practice regarding the 10 securing of concurrences on NRC documents?
11 Let me rephrase the question. Are s
12 concurrences required on all documents that are sont 13 out from the NRC?
14 A. Not that I know of.
15 Q. Okay. What documents generally must 16 receive concurrences before they are sent out?
17 A. Well, that is usually the author's 18 discretion as to who he wants to concur in the 19 documents he is signing.
20 Q. Okay. When you are preparing documents 21 how do you decide when to get concurrences and who 22 to get them from?
23 A. Depends on the doc um en t s , but normal l \
24 practice if we are sending a document to a licensee MJ 0Vo[fe, 00stby and 811oclaies, .0nc.
CRuaqo, B h ou e (3121 782-8087
O
. 236 3 1 for my signature I have the members of the staff 2 that are working on that particular project concur 3 in it, for instance, the section chief and the 4 project inspector. If it is a soils issue, it would 5 be Mr. Landsman concurring in it, as well as the 6 others. If I am preparing a document for Mr.
7 Keppler's signature, then it usually --
in addition 8 to those signatures it usually has legal counsel's 9 concurrence and the Deputy Di r e c to r ' s concurrence.
10 Q. Okay. Well, directing your attention to 11 the second pag e of this exhibit is it correct that 12 concurrences were received on this draft from Mr.
13 Hood, Mr. Lovelace, Mr. Harrison and Mr. Gardner?
14 A. Well, what it says is that Harrison and 15 Gardner concurred by phone, and it looks like it is 16 initialed by Darrell Hood.
17 Q. Then are there initials for Mr. Lovelace?
18 A. There is something in writing there and I 19 don't recognize what it says or I am not familiar 20 with Mr. Loyolace's signature or initials so I can't 21 testify to that.
22 Q. Has Mr. Hood initialed it under his box?
23 A. There are some initials under Mr. Hood's N
24 box.
MJ 0 Vo[ft, hosenbey and &ssociates, .0nc.
CRin g o, D h ots e (3122 782-8087
- 237
,S' 1 Q. Okay. Now, this document states, does it 2 not, in the first page that, quote, "The Panel 3 concludes that some months beyond the second quarter 4 of 1986 is the earliest date the completion of Unit 5 2 can reasonably be expected," correct?
6 A. That is what it says.
7 Q. Looking at the second page of the document i
8 it states, quote, "The Panel's estimate includes no 9 provision for delay associated with future plant 10 financing."
11 As of May of 1983 was there a concern 12 within the NRC that the ability of the utility to s
13 complete the project might be affected by financial 14 considerations?
15 A. I don't recall. I don't recall any 16 knowledge of that.
17 Q. Who would be most knowledgeable concerning 18 this statement concerning future plant financing?
19 A. I would guess the author of the memo.
20 Q. Can you tell who that is from the 21 information here?
22 A. No, I can't. It would appear to be 23 Darrell Hood, but I don't know for sure.
T 24 MR. STRICKLING: Mark this, please.
M3 0Vo[fs, 00ssnbsy and &ssoclaiss, $na, Citage. Diliuts e (312) 7s2-s0s7
238
~% 1 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 2 marked Plaintif f's Exhibit NRC No. 45, 3 for identification, as of 5/2/84.)
4 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked 5 as Exhibit NRC 45 a document dated June 15, 1983 6 bearing Bates numbers N 11677 through 11684.
7 (WHEREUPON, the document was 8 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
9 THE WITNESS: Could you go back and read the 10 question about whether or not the NRC had a concern 11 about the financial status?
12 MR. STRICKLING: Would you please read the 13 question back, please?
14 ( W H E P.E U P O N , the record was read 15 by the reporter as requested.)
16 BY MR. STRICKLING:
17 Q. Would you like to change that answer or 18 modify that answer?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Please proceed.
21 A. I answered it on the basis of was there a 22 discussion or were we worried about it affecting it 23 and there was --
we never worry about finances or T
l 24 the financial status of the plant, and so there was MJ 0Vo[fe, hosenbey and &1sociates, .0nc.
1 CRuw. Ditmes e <ss2>1stsoar
- 239
,'s 1 no concern in the Commission as to the financial 2 viability of the plant.
3 Q. Okay. Was there any discussion among --
4 A. That is what I don' t recall.
5 Q. Okay. Do you have Exhibit 45 in front of 6 you?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What is that document?
9 A. It is a draft o f -- it appears to be a 10 draft of slides for Mr. Keppler to use when he 11 briefed the Commission.
12 Q. And this was a briefing in June of 19837 13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did you participate in the preparation of 15 those slides?
16 A. I believe I participated either in the 17 organization or the review of these slides or the 18 material presented by Mr. Keppler at the hearing.
19 Q. Who else was involved in the preparation 20 and review of those materials?
21 A. It would have been the members of the 22 Midland Section, Mr. Gardnerr Mr. Harrison I believe 23 was involved at that point in time, but it may have N
24 been Mr. Shafer. I'd have to look on the dates on MJ 0Vo[ft, kosenbey and 8110:lates, hnc.
au ,. m w , e m mmva
. 240
'N 1 when we changed from Shafer to Harrison. And then 2 myself, Steve Lewis, our legal counsel, probably Mr.
3 Davis and Mr. Keppler both reviewed whatever 4 material was presented.
5 Q. Well, directing your attention to the 6 second page of the document, that page isn' t --
I'm 7 sorry, the third page. That page is entitled, 8 "Licensing Schedule," correct?
9 A. Th a t ' s correct.
10 Q. And there is a section entitled, 11 "Construction Completion." Do yo u see that?
12 A. Yes.
s 13 Q. And it has two dates under the heading, 14 "Applicant," one of 2/85 for Unit 1 a'nd one of 10/84 15 for Unit 2, correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Then for the dates supplied by the NRC it 18 has, "Uncertain" in each category, right?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. And t'c e n there is a handwritten note that 21 states, quote, "Don't we now say at least 18 months 22 later than CPCo's estimate?" Do you see that?
23 A. Yes.
T 24 Q. Do you know whose note that is?
l Ma n%(fa, <Rosentey and c41sociatz1, Dnc.
t C$teano, Ollnots n (312) 782-8087
. 241 f5 1 A. It looks like Steve Lewis' writing.
2 Q. Okay. Prior to the end of June 1983 was 3 there any discussion with Consumers Power Company as 4 to the estimates of completion provided by the NRC 5 Caseload Forecast Panel?
6 MR. ZACK: Which Caseload Forecast Panel 7 estimate are you referring to, the one that is the 8 subject of 43 and 447 9 MR..STRICKLING: 44 and 45.
10 MR. ZACK: Or 44 and 45?
11 MR. STRICKLING: 43 t h r o ug h 45, rig ht . ,
12 BY THE WITNESS:
s 13 A. I have no personal knowledge of those 14 discussions. I did not participate in any.
15 BY MR. STRICKLING:
16 Q. Well, did you hear that any discussions 17 were held with Consumers about these dates?
18 A. No. I know of no discussions other than 19 the review made by the Caseload Forecast Panel and 20 the discussions that they held with the licensee.
21 Q. Well, once the Caseload Forecast Panel has 22 reached a conclusion such as this, isn' t it a 23 general practice to discuss it with the licensee?
T 24 A. I don't know what they --
you know, what MJ 0Vo[fe, Sosenbey and 811oclates, $nc.
C M go. Difu ois e n w reseoer
- 242
.'N 1 the mechanisms are that they --
2 Q. Who in Re g ion III would be f am ilia r and 3 knowledgeable about the issues of the Caseload 4 Forecast Panel's estimates in April 1983 and any 5 discussions that might have been held with Consumers?
6 A. Those i nd iv id ua l s that participated on the 7 Caseload Forecast Panel.
8 Q. And that would be Mr. Harrison and Mr.
9 Gardner from Region III?
10 A. I believe so.
11 MR. STRICKLING: Mark that as the next exhibit.
12 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was s
13 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 46, 14 for identification, as of 5/2/84.)
15 MR. SPRICKLING: Off the record.
16 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 17 off the record.)
18 MR. STRICKLING: We have marked as Exhibit NRC 19 46 a document dated August 9, 1983 bearing Bates 20 numbers N 11685.
21 (WHEREUPON, the document was 22 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
23 BY MR. STRICKLING:
N 24 Q. Mr. Warnick, what is that document?
MJ 0Vo[ft, hosenbty and &ssociales, hnc.
C$isa4o, $(finois e 6)12) 7(W987
<. 243 l
- 8 i
5' 1 A. It is a letter from Tom Novak of NRR to
,, f f-2 Jim Cook of Consumers Power Company concerning 3 construction completion schedule for Midland.
4 Q. Do you know if Exhibit NRC 46 was ever l 5 sent out to the licensee? I 6 A. To the best of my knowledge, it was not. ;
e i 7 sent out.
8 Q. Okay. Is Document NRC 46 the first 9 written statement sent to the licensee that you are ,
10 aware of reporting on the Caseload Forecast Panel's 11 estimates?
12 A. Yes. I 13 Q. Now, the last sentence of the second ;
l 14 paragraph of that exhibit states, quote, "These j
- 15 factors alone," referring to factors discussed in
! 16 the paragraph, "would infer that your October '84 t
17 projected completion date is optimistic by at least !
18 a year," close quote. Do you see that? f 19 A. Yes, f
20 Q. What was the reason that the Caseload j 21 Forecast Panel shortened the length of its 22 disagreement with the Consumers Power estimates? f i !
- 23 A. I don't know. i i N
24 Q. Do you read Exhibit NRC 46 as reflecting a !
t
- H3 0Vo[fe, 00ssnbs9 and Assoalaiss, .0ne.
__ _ _ _ ____ ____ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ ___._ _ ___ -- __ _ - ____ h h_n - (d99/M HM(FDP__ ___ _----_ -_ _ __ _ __ j
c 244
,'o 1 change in position from NRC 44 in terms of the 2 Casoload Forecast Panel's estimates of completion 3 dates?
4 MR. ZACK: I am going to interpose an objection 5 on the grounds of competence. I don't believe that 6 there has been any demonstration that he has any 7 particular expertise with respect to the Caseload 8 Forecast Panel, its methodology, or any of the 9 decisions that it may have made.
10 MR. STRICKLING: Well, the question stands. I 11 simply asked him if he reads it as being a 12 difference. He can answer that.
13 MR. BERKOVITZ: I will let the witness answer, 14 but I am going to agree with Mr. Zack that this is 15 just his personal opinion as to what these documents 16 soy and that the real proper person to ask these 17 questions to is someone who is very familiar with 18 the Caseload Forecast Panel.
19 But you can go ahead and answer.
20 BY THE WITNESS:
21 A. Okay.
22 BY MR. STRICKLING:
23 Q. Do you understand the question?
T 24 A. Yes.
M3 0Vo[fs, 00ssnbsy and &ssoalatts,,$ne.
Cluego. D % ets o m2)1s2 sost
245
.'5 1 Q. Fine.
2 A. Many times in the NRC in the course of us 3 doing our business we prepare draft documents for 4 the purposes of starting initial. discussions, and a 5 draft document does not always represent the NRC 6 position that is finally issued. And I look upon 7 this as an initial position and discussions followed, 8 and the NRC wrote the final position, and I see no 9 conflict in our manner of doing business or in what 10 is --
the information presented.
11 Q. I understand that, sir. My question was 12 are you aware that the position of the NRC, in fact, 13 changed between May of '83 and August of '837 14 A. I have tried to say I don't know that the 15 position of the NRC changed. The feelings of 16 certain individuals may have changed, but the 17 position of the NRC was never established until the i
- 18 document is s ig ned as final, and up to that point it 19 is up for discussion and resolution.
20 MR. STRICKLING: Mark those as the next two 21 documents.
22 (WHEREUPON, certain documents were 23 marked Plaintif f's Exhibit NRC Nos.
T 24 47 and 4 8, for identification, as of M3 0Yo[fs, 00ssnbsy mad Assoalaiss, $na.
__ Cheage. Dhets e (3122 702 s0s7
0 .
. 246
,s 1 5/2/84.)
T 2 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked 3 as Exhibit NRC 47 a one-page document dated July 21, 4 1983 bearing Bates No. 90053411 and as Exhibit NRC 5 48 a t wo- p a g e document dated July 19, 1983 with 6 Bates numbers 9005343.2 to 13.
7 (WHEREUPON, the documents were 9 tendered to counsel.)
9 BY MR. STRICKLING:
10 Q. What is E x h ib i't 47, Mr. Warnick?
11 MR. BERKOVITZ: He doesn't have 47.
12 MR. STRICKLING: Sorry.
13 (WHEREUPON, the documents were 14 tendered to the witness.)
15 BY MR. STRICKLING:
16 Q. You now have Exhibit 477 17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What is that document?
19 A. A memo from myself to Mr. Eisenhut of NRR.
20 Subject is the evaluation of Dr. La nd sm an ' s concerns
~
21 regarding the diesel generator building at Midland.
22 Q. What were Dr. La nd sm an ' s concerns l
23 regarding the diesel generator building? Let me 24 strike the question.
l l
l HJ 0Vo[fe, hossn[rsy and 81socialz1, hnc.
CA tw, Dhots e 1312ris280si
e -
247
~N
- 1 You refer in Exhibit 47 to the fact that 2 Dr. Landsman has documented in the enclosed 3- memorandum his concerno with the Midland diesel 4 generator building, correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Is the memorandum you are referring to in 7 Exhibit 47 the document we have marked as Exhibit i
8 NRC 487 9 A. I believe it is.
10 Q. Okay. Generally speaking, what was the 11 nature of his concerns concernina the diesel 12 generator building?
13 MR. BERKOVITZ: These are just his 14 understandings of the concerns of the problems of 15 the diessi generator building.
16 MR. STRICKLING: I just mean in general what 17 was the subject matter of his concerns.
19 BY THE WITNESS:
19 A. Well, at the hearing before the 20 Congressman Udall Subcommittee the subject of the i 21 diesel generator building came up.
l 22 BY MR. STRICKLING:
l l
23 Q. When was this hearing?
T
- 24 A. I believe June of '83.
l l
r MJ 0Vo[fe, 00ssnbey and &sweiales, .$na.
CAtsa:n Dhots e (312) 782 8087 _. ._. _ _ _ _
248 3 1 Q. Okay.
2 A. And at that hearing Dr. La nd sm an expressed 3 some concerns about the inadequacy of the diesel 4 generator building.
5 Q. Inadequacy in what sense?
6 A. It is in the memo, and I'd have to read it 7- to paraphrase.it. But we -~
because of the remarks .
8 made by Dr. La nd sm an at the hearing we asked Dr.
9 Landsman to document his concerns, which he has done 10 in this enclosure, 11 Q. Referring to Exhibit NRC 48?
12 A. 48. And then we forwarded this to NRR for N
13 asking them to evaluate these concerns.
14 Q. okay. Let me just interrupt yo u he r e .
15 Looking at Exhibit NRC 48, the very first paragraph 16 Mr. Landsman states, quote, "At the recent hearing 17 before Congresman Udall's subcommittee, I expressed 18 my concern regarding the structural adequacy of thc 19 diesel generator building because of numerous 20 structural cracks that have occurred th ro ug hout the 21 buiding over the years."
22 Was that the general nature of his 23 concerns, the structural adequacy of the building?
T 24 A. Yes. And he listed four specific concerns MJ 0Vo[fs, kossnbey and &ssoclais1, hosa.
CN%e, $llinois e (312) 782-8087
249
~5 1 which ar6 -further enumerated in the rest of the memo.
2 Q. After you sent Mr. Land sm a n' s memo on to 3 the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, what 4 happened next?
5 A; I believe'Mr. Eisenhut asked the Division 6 of Engineering to look into it and they obtained the 7 services of Brookhaven National Laboratory and a 8 review was made that --
the Brookhaven people have 9 issued a report and the NRC is still ev al ua t ing that 10 report. The issue is still open ar.d final 11 resolution has not been made.
12 Q. Running the risk of meeting an objection 13 from Mr. Berkovitz, can you tell me when it is 14 expected to e mplete the internal NRC review of the 15 problem?
16 A. I don't know.
17 Q. Okay. Who at Region III is most 18 knowledgeable about the study that is being carried 19 out or has been carried out?
20 A. Well, Region III ha sn' t been directly 21 involved in the study, but Dr. Landsman would be the 22 i nd iv id ual most knowledgeable about the diesel t
23 generator building problems and concerns.
T i 24 MR. STRICKLING: Mark that as the next exhibit.
M3 0Yo[fs, hosenbsy and &ssociales, hne.
CKran 9ttinois o m 2)182 soar
250
,'N 1 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 2 marked Plaintif f's Exhibit NRC No. 49, 3 for identification, as of 5/2/84.)
4 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked 5 as Exhibit NRC 49 ~a one-page document dated August 6 12, 1982 bearing Bates number N 11760.
7 (WHEREUPON, the document was 8 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
9 BY MR. STRICKLING:
10 Q. Mr. Warnick, what is that document?
11 A. It is a letter from Mr. Keppler to Jim 12 Cook of Consumers Power Company.
13 Q. What is the subject of the letter?
14 A. The stop work in the remedial soil s area.
15 O. Okay. It refers to a stop Work Order 16 FSW-24, is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And the date of the order isn' t provided, 19 but it refers to discussions with Mr. Shafer on 20 August 11, 1982, correct?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. What was the basis for that stop work 23 order?
24 A. I r eally don' t recall the details of it.
MJ 0Vo[fe, kosenbey and 811oclakes, .Yna.
CRum o. Offinois e (m12)73MYoY)7
251 5 1 Q. Would your chronology provid e you any help?
2 A'. It may.
3 No. I don' t recall the details of this.
4 MR. STRICKLING: Mark this as the next exhibit.
5 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 6 marked Plaintif f's Exhibit NRC No. 50, 7 for identification, as of 5/2/84.)
8 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked 9 as Exhibit NRC 50 a two page document dated 10 September 24, 1982, with Bates numbers N 11765 11 through 66.
12 (WHEREUPON, the document was w
13 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
14 BY MR. STRICKLING:
15 O. With respect to the document we just 16 finished with, NRC 49, would Mr. Shafer be the most 17 knowledgeable person on the particulars regarding 18 that stop work order?
19 A. No. I would think Mr. La nd sm an would.
20 Q. Okay. Do you have Exhibit NRC 50 in front 21 of yo u?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. What is that doc um en t?
T.
24 A. It is an unsigned copy of a confirmatory i
M3 0Vo[fe, Sossnbetg and &1sociales,l)nc.
CKura Diliuts e , (312)182-s097
252 N 1 action letter from Keppler to Consumers Power 2 Company dated September 24, 1982.
3 Q. Was this letter sent on or about September 4 24?
5 A. .I believe it was.
6 Q. What is a confirmatory action letter?
7 A. It is a letter that is given a special 8 designation of confirmatory action letter which 9 confirms the actions committed to by the licensee 10 because of a problem that they are going through.
11 No rm all y involves the corrective actions that they 12 are going to take on a problem or some type of 13 commitment they have made.
14 Q. Are you familiar with the term, "Immediate 15 action letter"?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What does that refer to?
28 A. Immediate action letter is the same thing 19 as a confirmatory action letter. It was the earlier 20 desigr.;Livn. We no longer have immediate action 21 letters. They are all confirmatory action letters.
22 Q. What is the subject of this document, 23 Exhibit 50?
i T 24 A. The subject is the training of the soils MJ QVo[fe, kosznbey and 81sociales, hnc.
CRica4 o, D(finais e_1392)982 M P
253 c
% l' inspectors.
2 Q. Okay. What was the problem with the 3 training of the soil s 'in spec tor s?
4 A. I don' t recall the details, but it had to 5 do with deficiencies we identified in the training 6 and requalification of QC inspectors, and I believe 7 that is what led to the stop work and the actions 8 the li~censee committed to to correct the problems.
9 Q. Okay. The first numbered paragraph of 10 this letter states that, "All work on remedial soils 11 has been stopped with the exception of those 12 continuous activities such as maintaining the freeze 13 wall and well pumping," correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 O. Is the stop work referred to in the first 16 paragraph of that letter the same stop work referred 17 to in Exhibit 497 18 ,
A. I think it is, but I just am not that 19 detail familiar with -- my recall for that period of 20 time just isn' t that good.
21 Q. Would Mr. Landsman be the most 22 knowledgeable person to talk to?
23 A. Mr. Landsman would be. Mr. Gardner was T
24 heavily involved in the review of , training and M3 0Yo[fe, 001snbey and 81sociales, .$nc.
G$lssee, fl0nois 9 (392) 982-8089 - - - - . . - -
1 254
^ l requalification of the problems t h'a t were -
2 experienced at that time.
3 Q. Do yo u know when this stop work order was 4 lifted?
5 A. Not from memory, but it is it. our 6 chronology.
7 Q. Could you check, please?
8 A. As I read the chronology, it doe sn' t 9 appear that the stop work discussed in Exhibit 50 is 10 the same as the stop work discussed in 4 9.
11 Q. They were two separate stop work ordero?
12 A. I am not sure, but it doe sn' t appear that 13 they are the same, 14 Q. Okay. Can you tell from your chronology 15 when the stop work order referred to in the 16 September letter was lifted, Septenber 24th letter?
17 A. Well, the chronology says on 9 /24 /82, "Soil s 18 stop work order issued by Consumers Power Compar.y 19 following NRC inspection. Confirmatary action 20 letter issued. QC training, requalification soils 21 area."
22 On October 28th, '82 we authorized 23 Consumers Power to start the remedial soils QC N
24 inspector requalification.
MJ 0Volfe, 001snbey and f1sociales, $nc.
i 255
% 1 I can' t tell from what I have read so far 2- when'this stop work was li f ted'.
3- MR. STRICKLING: Mark that as the next exhibit.
4 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 5 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 51, 6 for identification, as of 5 /2 /84. )
7 MR. STRICKLING: The court reporter has marked 8 as Exhibit NRC 51 a document dated October 28, 1983 9 with Bates numbers N 11795 to 117 98.
10 (WHEREUPON, the document was 11 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
12 BY MR. STRICKLING:
s
.13 Q. Do you have Exhibit 51 in front of yo u?
14 A. Yes.
15 O. What is that document?
16 MR. ZACK: Before you start your questioning, I 17 just want to place an objection on the record as to 18 the relevance of this exhibit and any questions 19 pertaining to it.
20 BY THE WITNESS:
21 A. This is a memo from Tom Novak of NRR to 22 the ASLB from Midland notifying them of nine stop 23 work orders.
T 24 BY MR. STRICKLING:
MJ 0Yo[fs, hossAsy and kssociales, hna.
C % e. Qt % T 24 Q. And what was her question referring to?
MJ GVo(Se, kou.nbey ant l 81secLates, .0nc.
- 1% m o. Dttuois e m23 7e2-sos?
275 f5 1 A. When we were going to notify the Board 2 about the crack mapping, which is one of those Board 3 notifications you previously referred to in one of 4 your exhibits.
5 Q. Well, the doc um e n t I marked that we 6 discussed earlier was NRC 52, which is dated January 7 25, 1984, right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And this meeting was held on February 9, 10 1984, correct?
11 A. Th a t ' s correct.
s 12 Q. Was there any subsequent Board 13 notification made after February the 9 th?
14 A. I don' t know. I don' t recall things like 15 that.
16 Q. Well, what Board notification was Barbara 17 S t am ir i s referring to? Strike the question.
18 Whan was she asking you in the NRC to 19 notify the Board about with respect to crack mapping 20 on February the 9th?
21 A. I don't know. She just asked when are we 22 going to notify the Board about crack mapping, and 23 apparently I d idn' t recall that we had notified the T
24 Board about crack mapping.
HJ 0Vo[fs, hosen$rsy and 8ssocialss, .0nc.
CRia go. Difus o m23 7s2-soar . . _ _ .
I 276 ;
f% 1 Q. Then the next sentence --
go ahead.
2 A. We write so many documents and I have got 3 so many plants it is not always easy to remember 4 what is going on and what you have done.
5 Q. That paragraph continues and refers to a 6 person named Jay, J-a-y. Who is that?
7 A. Jay Harrison.
8 Q. That is Jay Harrison. Then the last line 9 refers to a February 2 nd report on CCP findings to 10 date. Who made hat report?
11 A. I don't have any idea of what I was --
why 12 I wrote that down. It doesn' t ring any bells. I 13 suspect that I am talking about something that Stone 14 & Webster prepared on their overview of the CCP, 15 their findings to date, but I don't know.
16 Q. In the area of soils overview it has been 17 Stone & W e~o s t e r ' s practice to prepare periodic 18 reports on their activities, correct?
19 A. They prepare weekly reports both in the 20 soils area and in the CCP.
21 Q. Do their reports on the Construction 22 completion Plan include any assessment of the l
23 finding to date?
T 24 A. Yes.
MJ GVo(fe, Sosenbey and 81socialz1, .0nc.
CAleago. D%ts e (3121 782 8087
277
_T 1 O. Recognizing that yo u are not the expert' in 2 this area and that you rely on Dr. Landsman, could 3 you just state for me generally what is involved in 4 the soils remedial work?
5 ! A. Well, in general they are going to shore 6 up the foundations of the service water pump 7 structure and a part of the auxiliary building.
8 Q. And how are they going to do this?
9 A. Well, both of them are done differently.
10 Q. Okay. Take the auxiliary building. In 11 general terms what is being done to shore up those 12 foundations?
13 A. They are excav ating underneath. Then they 14 will pour temporary piers and they will place a jack 15 between the pier and the top of the building to hold 16 the load, and they have 57 of these piers. Then 17 after all the i n d i-' id u a l piers are poured, they will 18 go back in and pour the foundation which will carry 19 the we ig ht .
20 Q. How b g are each of these piers?
21 MR. BERKOVITZ: How m uch detail do you intend 22 to go into with this?
23 MR. STRICKLING: Not much. Just background.
T 24 MR. SERKOVITZ: I would appreciate it if you M3 0Vo[fe, kosenbey and 8ssociales, .0nc.
C$isyo, Ollinois e (312) 732-8087
278
, 's' 1 would keep it as short as possible.
2 MR. STRICKLING: Strike the question.
- 3 BY MR. STRICKLING:
4 Q. How complicated undertaking is this with .
5 the auxiliary building?
6 M R ., ZACK: At what time?
7 MR. ST RIC KLING : Just the entire project.
8 MR. BERKOVITZ: It is also --
9 BY THE WITNESS:
10 A. The underpinning of Midland is reported to il be the most extensive underpinning project 12 undertaken.
13 BY MR. STRICKLING:
14 Q. For anywhere, nuclear project or not?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Well, in Exhibit NRC the Norelius and 17 Spessard memo they state, quote, "The Midland 18 project is one of the most complex and complicated 19 ever undertaken within Region III. The reason is 20 that they are building two units on the site 21 s im ul t a n e o u sl y and additionally have an underpinning 22 construction effort, which in itself is probably the 23 equivalent of building a third reactor site."
s, 24 Do you agree with that characterization?
MJ GYo(fs, Sossnbsy and &ssoalates, $ne.
Clunge. Dhets e <sst)is240er
- 279
- N 1 MR. ZACK
- As of the time it was made or 2 sitting here today?
3 MR. STRICKLING: Either.
4 BY THE WITNESS: i 5 A. In general that-is not a bad assessment.
6 BY MR. STRICKLING:
7 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Warnick, that the soils l
8 remedial work has been the greatest single factor 9 that has caused delay in the completion of the 10 Midland project?
11 MR. ZACK: Okay. There has been no showing
- , 12 that he has any expertise with regard to the 13 assessment of schedule delay in this project.
14 BY MR. STRICKLING:
15 Q. You may answer the question.
- l 16 A. I don' t know.
17 Q. Well, has it been a significant factor --
l lb ,
MR. ZACK: Same oajection. ;
19 BY MR. STRICKLING:
- 20 Q. --
in explaining the delay in this plant?
l 21 A. Well, I don't know that either.
22 Q. Well, you agree that the underpinning is 23 the equivalent of building a third reactor site. As [
s '
24 you sit here today yo u hav e no assessment at all as !
I f
MJ GVo(fs, 00ssnbsy and 81soelaiss, ha.
(
CR4 , Dili w s e (312) 702 8007 _ _
280 N 1 to whether the underpinning work has been a factor 2 in delaying construction of this project' 3 MR. ZACK: Asked and answered. It is 4 cumulative.
5 BY MR. STRICXLING:
6 Q. Answer the question, please.
7 A. Yes. That's correct.
8 Q. Mr. Warnick, the Judge in Midland is going 9 to be reading this deposition.
10 MR. BERKOVITZ: Wait a minute.
11 BY MR. STRICKLING:
12 Q. You as an expert or you as an NRC 13 reg ulator watching this plant for two years have no 14 assessment at all of the effect of soils 15 underpinning work on the effects af this plant. Do 16 yo u expect the Judge to believe this?
17 MR. ZACK: This is sheer harrassment, Mr. --
18 MR. BERKOVITZ: That is not his area of 19 expertise. I also object to threats directed to the 20 witness.
21 MR. ZACK: You just made the statement on the 22 record that he wa s n' t the expert in soils in the 23 region.
's 24 MR. STRICKLING: No, but I don't need to debate MJ 0Vo[ft, hosenbey and 811ociales, hnc.
Cluyo, 9hou e (312)782 6087
281 1 this with you.
2 Please reread the question and have the 3 witness answer it.
4 MR. ZACK: My objection stands.
5 MR. STRICKLING: The objection is noted.
6 (WHERE0PON, the record was read 7 by the reporter ac reque s ted.. )
8 BY MR. STRICKLING:
9 Q. Answer the question.
10 MR. BERKOVITZ: It is a leading question. I 11 will ask you to rephase it.
12 ,M R . STRICKLING: Your objection is noted.
13 BY MR. STRICKLING: '
14 Q. Answer the question.
'S
. A.. In doing my work I look at -- .
16 Q. Answer the question, Mr. Warnick. It is a 17 yes or no question. Give me a yes or no answer. If 18 you wish to explain it, you can explain it after.
19 MR. ZACK: This is above and beyond the call --
l l
I 20 MR. BERKOVITZ: Answer it however you want to 21 answer it. If he doesn't like it, he can take it up 22 with the Judge.
23 MR. STRICKLING: I am antitled to a yes or no iN 24 answer.
H3 0Vo[fe, 00ssnbsy and 81soelaiss, $ne.
Cltarse. Db__ ts e 012)v82 8007
282
~5 1 MR. B E RKO VI'r Z : You are not entitled to ask 2 leading questions.
3 MR. STRICKLING: Your objection is noted. I am 4 entitled to a yes or no to that question and I want 5 a yes or no and he can explain it as much as he 6 wants after he answers yes or no.
7 MR. BERKOVITZ: I am going to direct him not to 8 answer yes or no if he can't answer yes or no.
9 Answer in yo ur own words.
10 BY THE WITNESS:
11 A. In doing my work I look at the work that 12 has to be done and whether or not we have got the 13 resources to do the work and whether the licensee 14 has a schedule that --
a scheduled date. If it is 15 out in the future, it doesn' t concern me. I look at 16 the work that has to be done and do we have the 17 resources to schedule that work and do it.
18 BY MR. STRICKLING:
19 Q. Mr. Warnick, I am not asking about the 20 work you have to do, and I am not asking you about 21 the scheduled date for completion of Consumers Power.
22 I am s im pl y asking you whether you have any 23 assessment at all as to whether or not the soils N
24 underpinning work has delayed the completion of this MJ GVolfe, Sosenbey and d1socialz1, $nc.
c % n o. D h ots e asu re2-soar
_ . [ o.
283 y _1 plant.
2 MR. ZACK: Asked and answered.
3 BY THE WITNESS:
4 A. The NRC --
5 BY MR. STRICKLING:
6 Q. I am not asking the NRC. I am asking you, 7 Mr..Warnick. ,
8 A. Me and my group do not make assessments of 9 the schedule and the delays or the costing schedule 10 are not in our purview and we do not concern 11 ourselven with it. We do not express opinions and -
12 we do not maku studies of it or anything like that.
13 Q. That is not my question, Mr. Warnick.
14 MR. BERKOVITZ: That is an answer to your 15 question.
16 BY MR. STRICKLING:
17 Q. I am asking yo u as an ind iv id ua l sitting 18 here as a person with particular knowledge of this 19 plant --
please be quiet and let me answer the 20 question.
21 MR. ZACK: Ask the question.
22 MR. BERKOVITZ: Ask the question.
I 23 MR. STRICKLING: Fine.
s 24 BY HR. STRICKLING:
4 MJ Wo[fs, 00Asy N ksAcelahs, $$na.
4: Clw, Dilwis_D ntnin0007
284 5 1 Q. Mr. Warnick, I am asking yo u ind iv id ua ll y 2 based on your particularized knowledge of this plant 3 are you saying as you sit here today that you have 4 no idea whether or not the soils underpinning work 5 has caused a delay in the completion of this plant?
6 MR. ZACK: This question has been asked about 7 six times.
8 MR. STRICKLING: Me has evaded it six or seven 9 times.
10 MR. ZACK: You just don't like the answer you 11 are getting.
12 MR. STRICKLING: I am not getting an answer.
13 MR. ZACK: You are badgering the witness and 14 arguing with him and that is pure harassment.
15 MR. STRICKLING: Please reread my question and 16 have him answer it.
i 17 And I would like, Mr. Warnick, a yes or no l
l 18 in response to it. If you wish to explain it beyond 19 that, please do so.
20 MR. BERKOVITZ: We are not going to sit here 21 and ask and answer the same question over and over 22 and over again. The question has been asked and l
t 23 answered.
i \
24 BY MR. STRICKLING:
MJ GVo(fe, fostnbey and 8ssociatts, hnc.
C$lsaqo. D(linals e (3021782-8089
285
,'s 1 Q. Do you understand the question?
2 MR. BERKOVITZ: Do you understand the question?
3 MR. STRICKLING: Mr. Berkovitz, you are not the 4 witness, Mr. Warnick is.
5 BY MR. STRICKLING:
6 Q. Do you underctand the question?
7 A. No. It is going to be reread, I thought.
8 MR. STRICKLING: Fine. Well, reread the 9 question.
10 (WHEREUPON, the record was read 11 by the reporter as requested.)
12 BY THE WITNESS:
s 13 A. I really don't know. It is my 14 understanding that the soils work is not limiting 15 the scheduler that the soils work will be completed 16 before the rest of the work at the plant is 17 compl e ted .
18 BY MR. STRICKLING:
19 Q. That is as yo u sit here today, correct?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Was that also the case two years ago when 22 you took over the Midland project in 1982?
23 A. When I took over the Midland project in T
24 1982 I knew nothing about the Midland project or MJ 0Vo[fs, kosznbey and ck1sociales, .$nc.
C$tmo. Ollinals e (3123 782fT7
286
~5 -1 very little.
2 Q. All right. But within -- well, come on, 3 Mr. Warnick. When you became involved in the 4 Midland project you undertook to become familiar 5 with the project, did you not?
6 A. 'Th a t ' s correct.
7 Q. And as part of that did you talk to Mr.
8 Landsman about the soils work?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. And did he fill you in as to what was ,
11 involved in the soils work? ;
12 A. Yes.
-13 Q. And Mr. Landsmen g av e yo u an estimate as 14 to how long it would take to do the soils work, 15 didn' t he? ,
16 MR. ZACK: That assumes facts not in evidence, 17 and this whole line of questioning was gone into in 18 great detail at ye s t e rd a y' s deposition session.
19 MR. STRICKLING: We did n' t discuss this. ,
20 BY MR. STRICKLING:
21 Q. Answer the question, pleae.
22 MR. ZACK: The question is also leading as 23 posed.
N 24 BY THE WITNESS: '
MJ 0Vo[fs, 00ssnbs9 and .kssoelaiss, bu.
_ _ _ __ _ __ ___ EAlase*, DUta*ls __ D __ fB90D VDCiD9_ _ - ---_-_
287
% 1 A. I believe he showed me the licensee's 2 schedule.
4 Q. Well, did he give you an estimate as to 5 how long it was going to take to complete the 6 underpinning work in July of 1982?
7 A. I doubt that. But at some point in time 8 we put a big flow chart of the soils underpinning in 9 my office and we have been keeping it up to date.
10 Q. When was that chart put up?
11 A. I don't recall.
12 Q. Well, as of any time in July, August or 13 September of 1982 did you become aware that the 14 soils work would not support the completion schedule 15 as announced by Consumers Power?
16 A. I don't recall that.
17 I have tried to say several times I have 18 not concerned mys el f --
19 Q. There is no question pending.
20 .MR. ZACK: You have said you would take hi.
21 answer.
22 MR. STRICKLING: There is no questian pending, 23 Mr. Warnick.
N 24 THE WITNESS: We have concerned ourselves with H3 0Vo[fe, kosznbey and 811ociales, hnc.
CZu n o. Dfhnou e (312) 1s2-80a 7
p, '288 9
7' I the work that is in progress and our ability to do 2 ,
that work.
t 3 MR. STRICKLING: I move to strike that comment.
4 There is no question pending..
5 BY MR. STRICKLING:
6 Q. Now, Mr. Warnick, there is a meeting 7 ' tomorrow that Mr. Keppler is going to be involved in, 8 isn' t that rig ht , regarding the Midland project? l 9 MR. ZACK: Objection as to relevance.
10 3Y THE WITNESS:
11 A. Yes. ,
, , 12 BY MR. STRICKLING: ,
13 Q. Who is Mr. Keppler going to be meeting I 14 with? ,
t 15 A. I don' t know the ind iv id ual s , but there is 16 two meetings, one with representatives of the 17 Governor's Office of the State o f Michig an who hav e 18 asked to -- or we volunteered to brief them and they 19 indicated a desire to be briefed, and then 20 representatives of the Public Utilities Commission.
21 Q. Are you going to be participating in these 22 meeting s? !
23 A. No, I am not.
l s i 24 Q. Who else from Region III will be involved !
t M3 0l'o[f's, 00ssnbssg mad Associates, $ne.
._-_--_____MM_.____-_________________*
209
]'n 1 in these meetings?
2 A. I believe our State Liaison Officer, 3 Roland-Lickus, will go with Mr. Keppler to meet with 4 representatives from the Go v e rno r ' s Office.
5 Q. You stated that the NRC volunteered to 6 brief representatives from the State of Michig an .
7 When was that offer made?
8 A. I don't recall. Within the last two i
9 months.
10 Q. Who made the offer?
11 A. Mr'. Lickus, our State Liaison Officer.
12 Q. And why was the offer made?
13 A. It is routine in his work with state 7
14 officials. We briefed the Governor of Ohio.
15 Q. How often has Mr. Keppler briefed 16 reprosentatives from the Mi chig an Governor's Office 17 on the Michigan project? ,
18 A. I don't believe we ever have since -- well, 19 we have not briefed them since I have been involved
-20 with the project.
21 Q. Well, why was the decision made to brief 22 them now?
23 A. Mr. Lickus is new in his job and 1 think !
24 he just took it upon h im s e l f as part of getting l
o$ $ $ $ & $ $ m$.
_ . _ ---__-----_------- _ ---- _ h h n -
290
,7\ 1 acquainted with all state people a'nd he may have ,
2 volunteered that with the Michigan people.
3 Q. Did Consumers Power Company request the 4 NRC to provide this briefing?
5 A. No.
6 MR. BERKOVITZ: Is it established that you have 7 been personally involved in this whole briefing 8 matter otherwise?
9 THE WITNESS: It has been established that I 10 was involved.
11 BY MR. STRICKLING:
12 Q. What was your involvement?
13 A. Mr. Lickus discussed it with me.
14 Q. Have you had any discussions yourself with 15 representatives from the Go v erno r ' s Office regarding 16 this project?
17 A. No, I have not.
18 Q. Have you had any discussions with 19 representatives of the Michig an Public Service 20 Commission regarding the project?
21 A. Yes, I have.
22 Q. And when was the most recent of those 23 contacts?
T 24 MR. ZACK: Continuing objection as to relevance MJ G$!a(fs, fossnbsy and &ssoelaiss, $na.
cw new. , ennmm
291 4
m 1 to this line of questioning.
2 BY THE WITNESS:
3 A. Two days ago.
4 BY MR. STRICKLING:
5 Q. And who did you speak with?
6 A. Mr. Calin, Ron Calin.
7 Q. What is his position?
8 A. He is with Michig an Public Utilities 9 Commission.
10 Q. And what did you say to Mr. Calin in this 11 conversation?
12 A. He asked me if I knew who was going to be 13 at the meeting, and I told him who I th o ug h t was 14 going to be at the meeting.
15 Q. Was anything else discussed?
16 A. He asked if I knew what the pu r po s e of the I
17 meeting was, and I told him no, I did not.
18 Q. Is there any agenda for this meeting with 19 the PCS?
20 A. Not that I know of.
21 Q. Are you going to be briefing or have you 22 briefed Mr. Keppler as to what he should discuss 23 during this meeting?
T 24 A. No, I have not.
MJ 0Vo[fe, Sosenbey and 81sociales, .$nc.
C$le90, .Ollinois e P312D7Yk(X)7
4 l- 292 I
5 1 Q. Have yo u had any discussions with MPSC 2 personnel regarding the possible cancellation'of 3 this project?
4 A. With who?
5 Q. MPSC personnel, Public Service Commission.
6 MR. ZACK: Same objection as to relevance.
7 BY THE WITNESS:
8 A. I don' t recall if that subject has arisen ,
9 in the meetings we have held with them or not. f 10 BY MR. STRICKLING:
11 Q. Have yo u had any discussion with anyone 12 from Consumers-Power Company regarding possible 13 cancellation of this project?
14 hR. ZACK: Same objection.
15 BY THE WITNESS:
16 A. I believe that we have asked Consumers 17 Power if -- how it looked, and they indicated that --
18 they gave us a positive response that there was no i
19 consideration being given to a cancellation of the 20 project.
21 BY MR. STRICKLING: ,
22 Q. And when did that communication take place? [
23 A. I don't know.
- N 24 Q. Who made that communication from Consumers? ,
t t
Ma GVolfs, aRownBay and eAssociatas, Dna. .
293 f5 1 A. Well, I don' t even know that, but I am 2 thinking that we probably asked that question and it 3 may hav e been in a meeting with Ho we ll and Cook, in 4 one of these that I have supplied notes on.
b Q. That m ig ht be the meeting of March 9, 1984, 6 for instance, as re flect ed in NRC 27 .
7 A. It mig ht . I don' t see anything on my ,
8 notes to indicate it. Or it m ig h t have been the 9 month before that.
10 Q. Have you had any discussions with 11 personnel from Bechtel concerning the possible 12 cancellation of this project?
13 A. No.
14 MR. ZACK: Same objection.
15 BY MR. STRICKLING:
16 Q. Have you had any discussion with members 17 of the Midland Section of the NRC regarding possible 18 plant cancellation?
l 19 A. The topic has been discussed before.
- 20 Q. And how often has it been discussed?
21 A. Infrequently and only as a --
as 22 conversation, not as a business topic.
23 Q. Well, when was the most recent discussion?
T 24 A. Probably Monday of this week.
I MJ Gl'o[ft, Sosenbetg and &11ocialz1, .0nc.
_ _ _ _ _ - @Ausn_ Dhou __D __19@ RDOiC7
294
_"% 1 Q. And who was invcived in the discussion?
2 A. Probably Mr. Gardner.
3 Q. Anyone else?
4 A. I don' t recall. I received the newspaper 5 article which indicated -- or the Midland newspaper '
6 which indicated that Consumers Power was --
needed a 7 rate increase within the next 60 days or they would 8 file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and we discussed 9 that newspaper article.
10 Q. What did you say to Mr. Gardner and what 11 did he say to you?
12 A. Oh, I don't recall. I reiterated the 13 content that I just said of the newspaper article.
14 Q. What did Mr. Gardner say?
15 MR. ZACK: Hearsay. Calls for hearsay.
16 BY THE WITNESS:
17 A. I don' t recall.
18 BY MR. STRICKLING:
19 Q. This was a conversation you had on Monday 20 of this week?
21 A. Yes. It is like saying, " How' s the 22 weather?"
23 "It is fine," or, "It is s to rm y. " r 4
24 You know, it is that type of conversation. i i
Md 0VO 8, ho 69 kAAOClaitAe hnC.
C$4eage, $0Leoh O (312) 702 0007 . _ _ _ -
295
~5 1 Q. Who else in the Midland Section have you 2 discussed the possible plant cancellation with?
3 A. Oh, probably with Jay Harrison and Ro s s 4 Landsman.
5 Q. When did you last discuss it with Mr.
6 Harrison?
7 A. I don' t recall. He is on special 8 assignment, and I was on vacation for two weeks 9 before that, and he was on a special assignment for 10 two weeks before that, so it has been some time.
11 Q. Is he no longer assigned to the Midland 12 project?
13 A. No. He is still as s ig ned to the Midland 14 project. He is on a temporary assignment.
15 Q. What is that?
16 A. He is assisting the NRC in a special 17 inspection at Waterford Nuclear Power Plant.
18 Q. When did you last discuss this issue with 19 Mr. Landsman?
20 A. I don't recall.
21 Q. Have yo u had any discuasions with Mr.
22 Keppler about the possible cancellation of the 23 project?
T 24 MR. ZACK: Same objection.
7 MJ 0Vo[fe, hosenbey and 8110clales, hnc.
l CRuyo. Dhots e (3121 782-8087
296 N 1 BY THE WITNESS:
2 A. I expect that we have mentioned it or 3 talked about it.
4 BY MR. STRICKLING:
5 Q. When did you last discuss it with him?
6 A. I don't recall.
7 Q. Well, in the last week?
8 A. No.
9 MR. STRICKLING: Mark this as the next exhibit.
10 (WHEREUPON, a certain document was 11 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC No. 54, 12 for identification, as of 5 /2 /84. )
13 MR. STRICKLING: The couct reporter has marked 14 as Exhibit NRC 54 --
I can say this is the last 15 exhibit --
a document dated March 25, 1983 bearing 16 Bates numbers 91200821 through 0826.
17 (WHEREUPON, the document was 18 tendered to counsel and the witness.)
19 BY MR. STRICKLING:
20 Q. What is that document, Mr. Warnick?
21 A. This is supplemental testimony given by 22 Mr. Keppler before the ASLB.
23 Q. And this testimony is dated March 25th, i
24 1983?
MJ GVo[ft, 001tnbey and &ssociales, $nc.
C$ts9o, Dilinou e (312) 782 8087
297 JT 1 A. 1983, tha t's correct.
2 Q. This is testimony supplementing the 3 testimony we had in front of us yesterday from 4 October of '82?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Exhibit NRC 21, correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did you participate in the preparation or 9 review of this testimony?
10 A. Yes, I did.
11 Q. What was your involvement?
12 A. I don't recall exactly, but I probably 13 participated in either writing part of the original 14 drafts or reviewing all of the drafts and the final 15 copy.
16 Q. The next to the last page of the testimony, 17 if you could turn to that, Answer 11 states, quote, 18 "While the steps taken by CPC to improve its quality 19 assurance program are encouraging, I am not prepared 20 to place confidence in that program alone to provide 21 reasonable assurance that CPC can complete the plant 22 consistent with regulatory requir em ent s ," close 23 quote.
T 24 Did you ag ree with that assessment in M3 0Vo[ft, hosenbey and &ssocialz1, .$nc.
Cruyo. D L ou e car 2) 7s2-sost
.g: .
298 3 '
i
- N - 'l~ March of 19837 2 A. That was Mr. Ke ppl e r ' s ~ opinion and I l
3 expect I agreed with him.
4 Q. Has Mr. Keppler ever filed testimony with 5 the ASLB since this testimony in March of 1983?
6 A. No.
7 MR. STRICKLING: No further questions.
8 MR. ZACK: I do have some questions to ask of 9 the witness. I suggest that we take a three-minute 10 break, if that is agreeable to everyone.
11 MR. STRICKLING: Fine.
12 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had.)
13 EXAMINATION 14 BY MR. ZACK:
15 Q. Mr. Warnick, I represent Consumers Power, 16 as you probably know, and I am going to ask you a 17 few questions on c ro s s- ex am ination .
18 When the Office of Special cases was first 19 formed how many staff members did it contain?
20 A. I don' t recall the number, but I can give 21 you all the names.
22 Q. Why don' t we do that?
23 A. It contained a- myself and a secretary T
24 and then a Zimmer Section. Are you interested in --
Ma (TVolfa, aRowJag and c4ssociatas, Dna.
._ cwsu xewww
299
~
~5 1 Q. Le t ' s restrict it to Midland, if we could, 2 please.
3 A. Zimmer Section and the Midland Section.
4 The Midland Section consisted of Wayne Shafer, the 5 Section Ch i e f ; Ron Gardner and Ro s s La nd sm a n , Region 6 III personnel; Ron Cook, Senior Resident Inspector 7 at Midland.
8 Q. And yo ur sel f wo uld make --
9 A. And myself and the secretary I said at the 10 beginning.
11 Q. Okay. Le av ing aside the secretary, that 12 would make five NRC p e r s o rs n e l in the Office of 13 Special Cases relating to Midland, correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. You probably count me as half because I 17 had Zimmer for the other half.
i 18 Q. So four and a half to five then. Okay.
19 vid this represent an increase in Region III l
l 20 staffing for Midland at that time?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What had the prior number of Region III 23 staff members been who were oevoted to the Midland N
24 projecte MJ GVo[fe, Sosenbey and 01sociales, $ne.
C$ttyo, $bols e (312) 782 8087
300 t
f% 1 A. Ptior there wa s -- I don' t know the exact
'2 number,-but the organization tha; existed prior was 3 a section chief who had responsibility for more than 4 one plant, and I don't know --
I suspect he probably 5 had responsibility for three or four, maybe five
- 6 facilities, and one of these facilities would have 7 been Midland. And he wo ul d have had a project l '8 inspector who had responsibilities for Midland and 9 may have had additional responsibility for another 10 facility, plus the senior resident inspector at the 11 site, plus Dr. Landsman, I believe, was assig; sd 12 full time to monitor the soils before the 13 organization change occurred.
14 The main change was that we split out the 15 people and put them in a separate section, 16 identified a specific section chief with no other 17 responsibilities who reported them to me and I 18 reported to Keppler before the section chief 19 reported to a branch chief who reported to a 20 division director who reported to Mr. Keppler. So 21 it sF.ortened the reporting chain and it put 4
l 22 increased management attention on the facility.
I
! 23 Q. And those changes that yo u just described T
i 24 were enacted in order to facilitate Region III's MJ 0Vo[fs, 00ssnbsy and 81soelaiss, $ne.
CN&nD Dilowl* m 2)7828007
301 i
~1 review of the Midland plant, is that correct?
2 A. The organization change was made to place 3 more emphasis and more attention -- more management 4 attention on both Zimmer and Midland and try to get 5 licensee performance turned around.
6 Q. Let me refer you again to Exhibit 19, 7 which was int rod uc ed by counsel for Dow yesterday.
8 That exhibit reflects, does it not, a recommendation 9 that you made in consort with others for the 10 assignment of extra inspectors to overview Midland, 11 is that not correct?
12 A. Tha t ' s correct.
13 Q. Okay. And what was the purpose of your 14 request for extra inspectors for Midland?
15 A. We wanted to have more resources so that 16 we could look at more activities that were going on 17 at that site and become better f tmiliar with what 18 the problems were so that we could seek to get
~
19 resolution of those problems.
20 I need to explain the way the organization 21 existed before. Extra inspections were done by the 22 Division of Engineering inspectors. What we were 23 proposing in this recommendation was that instead of
- T I
24 using specialist inspectors from the Division of MJ 0Vo[fe, c.Rossnbsy and 81sociales, $na.
Ckse. Dhou e n12)1s2 s0s1
302
- ,,'N 1 Engineering who would go for anywhere from three to 2 five days at a time as needed, we were proposing P
3 that we get these extra one, two, three, four, five
-4 people to be on the site full time and have five 5 more pairs of eyes to do the looking for us.
6 Q. And those five pairs of eyes would have 7 helped the region in assessing the work that was 8 being done at Midland, would they have not? '
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you know whether prior to the time yo u 11 made the recommendations embodied in Exhibit 19 12 Consumers Power had ever requested that the NRC take 13 steps to facilitate its review of the' Midland plant?
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. Do you know whether Dow Chemical prior to 16 the time of the recommendations in Exhibit 19 had ;
17 made a similar request to the NRC? l 18 A. I don't know. I i
19 Q. Okay. When was the date of your first i
20 site visit to Midland? r i
, 21 A. I don' t know that either, but it was, I :
l .
22 suspect, within a few weeks after receiving the T
23 assignment to have the Midland facility.
T ;
24 Q. That would have been approximately July :
l MJ 0Volfs, ekosenbsy and 81soclaiss, $ntt.
\
C A y_ n e. D ilt u ts e (312)182. soar
' ~
I 303 f
. 3 j
% 1 19827 ;
9 -
2 A. July or August.
3 Q. Okay. Yesterday you talked brie fly about 4 work you did in the nuclear. industry in the early 5 1970s, and you specifically discussed inspection of 6 reactors while yo u we re working for both Regions II .
7 and IV of the NRC. What types of reactors did you 8 inspect for Re g ion II or for Re g io n IV?
9 A. Pressurized water reactors.
10 Q. Were those reactors similar to the reactors 11 that are being constructed at Midland?
12 A. Yes. The Oconee reactors were B & W reacto rs 13 which are same as Midland.
l 14 Q. Do you know when the construction pe rm it 15 for the Oconee reactor -- for the Oconee plant I 16 should say -- was issued?
l 17 A. No, I don't. ,
18 Q. Do you know if the Oconee plant has been 19 completed and licensed?
20 A. Yes, all three units.
21 Q. When was construction completed?
22 A. Unit I was com pl e t e d in either '70 or '71, 23 and I believe Unit 2 was completed in '71, and I N
24 don' t know when Unit 3 was completed.
M3 0Vo[fs, Sossnbsy wsd &ssoclaiss, $na.
C % e. C h ets e cs12)1s2.s001
304
.[C 1 Q. Do you know when the Oconee plant received
- 2 an operating licence from the.NRC?
3 A. When I said they were completed I was 4 talkino about the operating license, fuel load and 5 start-up.
6 MR. ZACK: Off the record.
7 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 8 off the record.)
9 BY Mi; . ZACK:
10 Q. You also testified yesterday that you ;
11 inspected one plant while it was being constructed, 12 is that not correct?
13 A. Tha t' s correct. Crystal River.
14 Q. Co ul d you compare the Crystal River plant .
15 to the Midland plant in terms af scope of 16 construction or the type of reactor that was being 17 built?
18 A. Well, Crystal Riv e r is a B & W reactor and 19 it was at the stage -- when I was involved with 20 Crystal River it was the initial construction stages.
21 They were still erecting the liner and the ,
22 containment building and installing some equipment 23 and piping. It is a single unit site. It has
's .
24 fossil units on the same site, but I was only l l
M3 Gl'o[fs, c@ossnbsy and &ssoelaiss, $na.
___ ____ _ ___-___-__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .__ C% _D01ab _O__ raf t)?st soar
. 305 I 1 involved with the nuclear unit.
. .{S 2 Q. Could yo u e s t im at e what percentage of 3 construction of the Crystal River nuclear unit had 4 been completed during the period that you observed ,
- 5 its construction? i
~
6- A. No. I can't recall.
7 Q. Do you recall whether it was near 8 completion?
9 A. No. It was -- like I said, it was on the 4
10 other end of the spectrum where they were just 11 bringing the containment building out of the ground l 12 and erecting the liner plate and the containment
! 13 building so it had a'long ways to go. l 14 Q. Okay. Let me direct your attention to NRC 15 Exhibit 5, which was in t r od uc e d yesterday by counsel 16 for Dow. Yesterday you testified, did you not, that 17 you were involved in the first draft of this 18 document and subsequent revisions of it, is that 19 true?
4 l 20 A. Mr. Gardner prepared the first draft and ,
i ;
I 21 then I was involved in the review and the rewrites 22 and the suggestions to modify the format a little l t
r 23 bit and thing s like that.
T r i 24 Q. Yo u al so signed off on this d o c um e n t , ;
l H3 GVo[fs, c.Rossnbsy and dtucclaiss, $na.
_ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ -__ _ _ _ ____ __ _ _ __ _ - _ _- _ _ __ _ _ cW nu o mane 2-ooer
306 i;
, *s- ,
1 didn' t you? ,
2 A. Yes. Th a t ' s correct.
3 Q. And this document purports to provide a 4 breakdown o f de sig n and construction problems 5 relating to the Midland plant from the period of 6 starting with_the commencement of construction 7 through June 30, 1982, does it not?
i 8 A. Yes. Th a t ' s correct.
9 Q. Let me direct your attention to Page 11, 10 if I may. Now, on Pages 11 t h ro'ag h 14 this report 11 discusses events that occurred in 1978, does it not?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. okay. And referring ag ain to Page 11 the 14 report states that 22 inspections and 1 15 inv es tig ation were conducted during 1978 by the NRC, i
16 does it not?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. The report also states that there were 14 i 19 items of noncompliance and 1 significant 20 construction problem during 1978, does it not?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And that one s ig ni fican t construction 23 problem involved what is referred to on Page 11 as,
\ -
24 quote, "Excessive settlement of the diesel generator !
MJ GVo[fs, 00sanbsy and Associalss,,$nc.
________d4h Sllrre_O_G131020507
'307 i
- 's 1 building foundation," close quote, does it not? l 4
2 A. Yes. ,
3 Q. Let me direct your attention to Page 14 --
4 strike that for a second. ;
I 5 With respect to the other items of i
6 noncompliance listed for the year 1978, does the 7 report --
I 8 MR. STRICKLING: Other than what?
9 MR. ZACK: I will strike the question and 10 restate it.
11 BY MR. ZACK: i
, 12 Q. Le av ing aside the problem identified with 13 regard to the excessive settlement of the diesel 14 generator building foundation, the report also lists 15 various items of noncompliance for the year 1978, r 16 does it not? j r
17 A. Yes.
- 18 Q. Does the report indicate what happened to 4
19 those items of noncompliance, again, aside from the i r
20 diesel generator building settlement problem? '
1 21 A. Yes. ,
22 Q. And what happened to those it em s?
J 23 A. Well, they are either closed in an NRC N
24 report or the enclosure is indicated in each 1
P MJ 0Vo[fe, Sounbsy msd duocials1, $nc.
t 6 % _Blftob _O_ @ @l0Kh07
308 1 paragraph, and I'd have to look at each paragrr.ph to 2 refresh my memory.
3 Q. Generally speaking what does it mean when 4 an item of noncompliance is closed?
5 A. It means that the licensee has responded 6 to that item of noncompliance, has taken corrective 7 action, and we are satisfied with that correctiie 8 action, we have reviewed it and find it acceptable.
9 Q. Co uld you take as much time as yo u neet 10 and just review Pages 11 through 14 and then state 11 whether there are any items other than the diesel 12 generator building settlement problem that are not 13 reflected as having been closed?
14 MR. STRICKLING: Is that including the diesel 15 generator building?
. 16 MR. ZACK: No. It is excepting the diesel 17 generator building.
18 MR. STRICKLING: Fine.
19 BY THE WITNESS:
20 A. Item 8 indicates that it is still open.
21 The first seven items are closed and Item 9 is 22 closed.
23 BY MR. ZACK:
N 24 Q. Do you know what happened to noncompliance MJ 0Yo[fe, 001enbey and 011ocialz1, hnc.
Gump, Difu i_,
r e (312) m2.es:e 7
309
? 1 Item 8?
2 A. No. I'd have to look at our printout of 3 open items and see whether or not it is still open, 4 and if it is not, when it was closed.
5 Q. For the record, what does noncompliance 6 Item 8 refer to?
7 A. Failure to follow weld procedures i
8 pertaining to the repair welding of cracked welds on 9 the personnel air locks.
10 Q. Where would those air locks have been 11 located in the Midland plant?
12 A. In the containment buildings.
13 Q. Would that --
14 A. They are to give access --
or access in 15 and out of the containment buildings.
16 Q. When you say containment building s --
17 A. Units 1 and Unit 2.
18 Q. Do you know which unit these air locks 19 would have been associated with?
20 A. Both units. The repor*, is applicable to 21 both units, or the item of noncompliance specifies 22 both reports or both report numbers, which would 23 indicate it is applicable to both units.
T 24 Q. I take it that without having the report HJ 0Vo[fe, Sounbey and &swclates, $ne.
C % e. Difuois e nr2ne2 sosi
310 3 1 before yo u yo u can't tell us how many air locks were 2 involved in this noncompliance item?
3 A. No, but I would suspect that we are 4 talking aoout the main air lock on each of the two 5 containment buildings.
6 (, Okay. Le t's move on to --
7 h. If yo u we re talking about the equipment 8 hatch, it would say, " Eq u i pra e n t htcch."
9 Q. Okay. Le t ' s move on to 1979, if I may.
10 I'd like you to refer to Page 14. The report states, li does it not, that 30 inspection reports were issued 12 in 1979 and that there were a total of 17 items of T
13 noncompliance identified in 1979, is that not 14 correct?
15 A. Th a t ' s correct.
16 Q. Are there any significant construction 17 problems identified with respect to the year 1979 in 18 this report?
19 A. None are noted in the lead-in paragraph.
20 Q. Could you review Pages 14 through 17 with 21 respect to the year 1979 anc indicate whether there 22 are any significant construction problems indicated 23 therein, please?
T 24 A. The format we followed in this report was MJ 0Vo[fe, 00stnbey and 81sociales, hnc.
C$leaae, Ollinoh O (31217:2 8087
r 311
\
.% 1 to summarize the significant deficiencies or 2 management meetings or enforcement actions in the 3 lead-in paragraph, so I am sure there were none.
4 Q. So it is not necessary for you to review 5 the paragraphs pertaining to the noncompliance items 6 given the fact that the lead-in paragraph does not 7 contain a mention of any significant construction 8 problems in 1979, is that not correct?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Okay. Could you refer to Page 18 of this 11 exhibit, please? With respect to the year 1980 the 12 report indicates that there were 37 inspection 13 reports issued that year, does it not?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The report also indicates that there were 16 21 items of noncompliance identified during that 17 year, does it not?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. The report also indicates that there were 20 two significant construction problems identified 21 during that year, is that correct?
22 A. Tha t' s correct.
23 Q. One had to do with quality assurance N
24 problems at the Zack Company and the other one had MJ 0Vo[fe, Sosenbey and 81sociates, .0nc.
Chgo. Diliuts e m 237s2 sosi
312 6
,' 1 to do with deficient reactor vessel anchor studs, is 2 that correct?
3 A. Th a t ' s correct. !
4 Q. With regard to the roactor vessel anchor
~
5 stud s do you know how-many anchor studs were 6' actually deficient as found during that year?.
i 7 A. I'd have to read the Parag raph 8 to -- t t
8 Q. Why do n ' t you refer to Paragraph 8, please, t 9 and then answer, if you can?
10 MR. STRICKLING: Could you read back his 11 question?
12 (WHEREUPON, the record was read 13 by the reporter as requested.)
i 14 BY THE WITNESS:
15 A. The report indicates that the licensee 16 discovered and reported as a construction deficiency ;
i 17 report that there was a broken reactor vessel anchor 4
18 stud on Unit i reactor vessel, and that two other 19 studs were subsequently found to be broken, total of
, i 20 three. t 21 BY MR. ZACK:
22 Q. Do you know sitting here today and reading l
23 this report where the two other studs referred to on (
\
24 Page 20 were located?
HJ 0Vo[fs, kossnbsy and &ssociales, hna.
_._ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______ _ _ _ ________ CA % *a_ 9 f M is _0__m2) 782 30*?
.' 313 i
. . 's 1 A. Well,-based on what I read in the third'to 2 the last paragraph I would say the studs were t
3 located in Unit 1. Since the report says, "Tests 4 indicated that some studs utilized in Unit 2 5 although of dif f erent" --
well, no, I can't tell.
6 Now,'that I read that, I can't tell which unit those 7 three studs were in.
8 Q. Okay. ,
9 A. Or whether they were a combination.
I 10 Q. Do you know whether these anchor studs had 11 to be replaced? ,
j 12 MR. STRICKLING: By, "These," referring to the i
13 three broken ones?
i 14 MR. ZACK: Th a t ' s correct.
15 THE WITNESS: Would you repeat that question?
f f ,
16 (WHEREUPON, the record was read 17 by the reporter as requested.)
18 MR. ZACK: Mr. Strikling made clear that I am *
. 19 referring to the three studs referred to in that l l
20 paragraph, and I accept that clarification.
21 BY THE WITNESS: ;
i 22 A. Well, the report is not really clear, and ;
4 i
- 23 this was before my involvement in the facility, but !'
lT l 24 I believe those studs were replaced. ;
j MJ 0Vo[fe, kossnbsy aru! Associaiss, hna.
- C4 % e, Slfrab O f9f8172KE07
314
] 1 BY MR. ZACK:
2 Q. Okay. With respect to the Zack Company 3 the problem identified in 1980 --
off the record.
4 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 5 off the record.) ,
6 MR. ZACK: Could you read the first part of the 7 question, please?
8 (WHEREUPON, the record was read 9 by the reporter as requested.) !
10 MR. ZACK: Just strike that question. l 11 MR. STRICKLING: While Mr. Zack is thinking I'd i 12 like to add to the record that despite his modesty, 13 he has no relation to the.Zack Company.
14 MR. ZACK: Thank you for that clarification, !
! 15 Mr. Strickling.
16 BY MR. ZACK:
17 Q. The ACRS report also identified a 18 significant construction problem during 1980 1
! 19 relating to the Zack Company, did it not?
, 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. The problem identified in this d oc um e n t 22 relates to quality assurance problems associated 23 with that subcontractor, does it not?
T 24 A. Yes.
MJ GYo[fs, 00ssnbs9 msd Assoclaiss, $ne.
___ c%. omw. e amnum
315
.' ?
l
,5 1 Q. Do you know whether the problem that arose j 2 in 1980 with respect to the Zack Company involved :
3 any findings of defective hardware or de f ec t iv e 4 components, if you will? l 5 MR. STRICKLING: As of the investigation in 6 1980?
7 MR. ZACK: That's rig ht .
8 BY TPO WITNSSS:
9 A. W e l l. , I can' t tell from what is written in j 10 our summary, but I believe that there were hardware 11 problems. j 12 BY MR. ZACK:
w I
13 Q. Are there any hardware problems mentioned' ;
I 14 or documented in this ACRS report for the year 1980 j i
15 with respect to HVAC7 l
] r 16 A. Well, I hav en' t found it if there are. !
.t 7 Q. Okay. Do you know whether HVAC equipment i
18 was actually installed in 13807 19 A. Yes, some of it had been. I 20 Q. Had some of the HVAC equipment been 21 installed prior to that year? t
[
22 A. I believe so.
! i
, 23 Q. Do you know how much? !
!% No, I don't.
24 A. !
l 1
1 i
M3 GVo[fe, hosenbsy and &ssociales, .$na,
_ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CL. 1 Da w a no]w m .__
316 (
- N 1 Q. I'd like to direct yo ur attention to Page 2 22, if I may. With respect to the year 1981 this i 3 ACRS report indicates, does it not, that there were !
4 23 inspection reports issued that year?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. The report also indicates, does it not, f 1 7 that there were 21 items of noncompliance and one 8 significant construction problem identified during t l
9 that year, is that not correct? [
10 A. Yes. Th a t ' s correct. j 11 Q. And the one significant construction j 12 problem related to, quote, "Deficiencies in piping !
13 system installations," close quote, does it not?
14 A. Piping suspension system installations. {
i 15 Q. I stand corrected and I was attempting -- L
- i I 16 just note that I was attempting to quote from Page 2 [
17 of this exhibit. l I
18 Do you know where the deficient piping l t
19 suspension system components were installed in the j
. 20 plant during that year? f 21 A. No, I don' t . We would have to read ;
! t 22 Paragraph 4 and see what information, j 23 Q. Could you take a little bit of time and i T 24 read Paragraph 4 with a mind towards answering that ;
1 I
- ) !
i 1 MJ 0Vo[fs, 00ssnbe9 msd Oswelaiss, $ne.
L __ _ C%w DHrab _ O C9@ 7C6001
.~ .
317
~
5 1 question, if you can, please?
2 MR. S?RICKLING: While he is doing that could 3 you read me back the question before the instruction 4 to read.
5 (WHEREUPON, the record was read 6 by the reporter as requested.)
7 BY THE WITNESS:
8 A. From reading what we had written in this 9 report I suspect the problems were throughout the 10 plant in both large and small bored piping.
11 BY MR. ZACK:
12 Q. Wo u', d there have been large or small bored 13 piping in either Unit 1 or Unit 27 14 A. There would have been in both.
- 15 Q. Reading this report and based on your 1
16 knowledge as yo u sit here today can yo u apportion 17 the number of deficient piping suspension system j
18 installations as between Unit 1 and Unit 2 that 19 would have been discovered in 19817 20 MR. STRICKLING: Okay. Is there a number that j
21 you are referring to out of the report?
- 22 MR. ZACK
- No. I am just asking.
23 MR. STRICKLING: Well, I object to the form of
- T
- 24 the question.
4 Ma %Ia,f SounBay and c4uoatata1, Dna.
c%.. ati u e mansa-soar
318 "S 1 MR. ZACK: All rig ht . Well, let me restate it.
2 BY MR. ZACK:
3 Q. With respect to the defective piping 4 suspension system installations discovered in 1981 5 do you know how many of those occurred in Unit 1 and 6 how many of those occurred in Unit 2?
7 MR. STRICKLING: Objection to the foundation.
8 BY THE WITNESS:
9 A. No, I do not. The items of noncompliance 10 are written against both units, and therefore what I 11 would call generic problems, so there is probably 12 applicability to both units.
13 our inspectors normally look at only a 14 s am ple , and so I suspect that whether the s am pl e was 15 in Unit 1 or Unit 2 didn't make any difference. The 16 problem was a generic problem and needed to be 17 addressed for both units, so the citation was 18 written against both units.
19 BY MR. ZACK:
20 Q. Do you know when these defective piping 21 suspension system installations --
components rather- --
22 were installed?
23 A. No.
T 24 Q. Okay. Do you know whether there had been MJ 0Vo[fs, kosenbty and 81socialts, .0nc.
CRun., "haa o e9@10N207
L 319 j i
- ,"N 1 any changes in design and/or se i sm ic , s- e s- m- i- c , ;
j
- 2 requirements that would have had an impa c t on piping f I
3 suspension system installations? I
^
4 MR. STRICKLING: As of what period of time?
5 MR. ZACK: As of 1981.
6 BY THE WITNESS: t 7 A. I know that we had been placing a
- 8 significant amount of effort in inspecting piping ,
9 and hanger suspension systems, and t'. a t our 3
10 inspector had found problems at most of the plants i 11 he had loo'4ed at, and that requirements were being i
12 upgraded and the work in this area was being
! 13' upgraded in all the plants.
1 14 BY MR. ZACK:
l 15 Q. When yo u say " requirement" --
16 A. And it is still going on.
j 17 Q. Well, we are talking about the 1981 period i
18 right here. And when you say, "Requirements were
, 19 being upgraded," are you referring to changes in the l
20 technolog y of design? Is this a question better 21 addressed to Mr. La nd sm an?
]
22 A. It is a question better addressed to Isa
- 23 Yan. He would know all the ins and outs on this
!T 24 j subject, and he really ought to be the one answering MJ GVo[fs, Aounbs9 and dssoelais1, $ne.
C%,Diks e mt> 1st-soar
320 4 . .
- ?
l
- %' 1 the technical questions. 1
?
' ?
2 O. I will move on then. 1981'was one of the ,
3 years that was encompassed within the SALP-2 report j 4 relating to the Midland, pl ant , was it not? !
t f 5 A. I believe part of 1981.
6 Q. Well, we will clarify that in a bit. I'd 7 like to direct your attention to Page 25 of this 8 exhibit, if I may. This report indicates, does it j P
9 not, that with respect to the first six months of l
10 1982 14 inspection reports were issued and 7 items I
- 11 of noncompliance were identified? f 1 :
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. The report also indicates that d uring that f a 14 time period one significant construction problem was l 15 identified relating to electrical cable l 16 misinstallations, does it no*.?
17 A. Tha t ' s correct.
l 18 Q. And referring to Paragraph 2 that appears 19 on Page 26 can you tell how many electrical cables l l 20 were misinstalled? i 21 A. In our rep 3rt we say the licensee :
1 22 submitted report to the NRC in May and June of '82
! 23 where they reported 55 cables had been misrouted out L
N 24 of 1,084 that they had reinspected. [
i MJ GVo(fs, howsbsy and c@swelatss, $ne. (
-__ 0 % *. O M
- W 2)I*2**0*? ?
321
% 1 Q. Do yo u know where the 1,084 cables were 2 located in the plant?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Do yo u know where the 55 misrouted cables 5 were located?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Do yo u know when either the 55 or the 8 1,084 electrical cables were installed?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Do you know whether the 55 misrouted 11 cables had to be replaced?
12 A. No, I don' t know that.
13 Q. Okay. Turning back to 1981 very briefly 14 do you know if Region III conducted an inspection of 15 the Midland plant during that year?
16 A. 19817 17 Q. Yes.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What month was that?
20 A. Well, there were 23 inspection reports, 21 and I --
those 23 would be spread out over the t w o- m onth 22 period.
23 Q. Well, Mr. Keppler testified before the s
24 ASLB, did he not, with resp et to one such MJ 0Vc[fs, hastnbty and &ssociales, hnc.
Cluyo. LLots e (312) 182 s0s7
o 322
,'N 1 inspection cond uc t ed by Re g ion III during that year, 2 did he not?
3 A. Yes, I believe I recall that.
4 Q. Do you recall when that particular 5 inspection took place?
6 A. No.
7 Q. You earlier referred to 21 inspection 8 reports written during that year.
9 MR. STRICKLINC: Objection. I think he said 23.
10 MR. ZACK: 2a.
11 THE WITNESS: It says 23.
12 MR. ZACK: Well, I stand corrected.
s 13 BY MR. ZACK:
14 Q. Earlier you referred to 2 3 inspection 15 reports that were issued in 1981. Do you know 16 whether they stem from this one incpection that Mr.
17 Keppler referred to in his ASLB testimony?
18 A. As I remember the testimony that Mr.
19 Keppler provided indicated that there were several 20 items of noncompliance and so they would be 21 summarized in here, and we can go to the testimony 22 and get the report number and we can come back to 23 this report and identify the specific paragraph that T
24 addresses those.
Ma (Wolfa, e.%nBay and c%oewas, Dna.
cw m.e m2> rs2.eur
~
323 ,
' -% 9
- 5- 1 Q. Okay. Would-that have been in his. october l i
2 1982 testimony? l 3 A. I believe it was that first supplemental j 4 testimony. l 5 MR. STRICKLING: 22, Exhibit 22.
6 BY MR. ZACK:
l 7 Q. Let me direct your attention to the bottom i
8 of Page 1 and the top of Page 2 of Exhibit 21 which 9 was proffered by counsel for Dow yesterday.
i 10 Does that indicate that there was an ,
11 inspection made by personnel from Region III of the -
12 Midland plant during 19817 13 A. Yes. May 18 to 22nd, 1981. [
i 14 Q. You did not participate in the inspection, 15 did you?
16 A. No, I d id not. !
i, 17 Q. Do you know what components of the plant 18 were inspected? !
19 A. No, not without reviewing the report. '
20 .Q . Who best would be able to recapitulate 21 what was inspected during that period?
22 A. The individuals who participated in the '
23 inspection, and their names would be in the front of 7 T
24 the inspection report.
i I
MJ Tofs, cko A3 Naaoelaida, N/ta.
etup om u e ammen . _ _ _ -___
324
' 1 Q. Okay. Let me direct your attention to 2 Exhibit C, if I may. How many cables were found to 3 be deficient as reflected in that exhibit?
4 A. According to our preliminary notification, 5 which is an attachment to this memo, 4 out of 500 6 were smaller in size than they should hav e been.
7 . Q. Do you know whether those four cables were 8 replaced?
9 A. Th ey we re replaced or either were or will 10 be.
11 Q. Do yo u know where they were located?
12 A. No, I do not.
13 Q. Do yo u know when they were installed?
14 A. I do know that they involved 15 safety-related equipment.
16 Q. Let me direct your attention to Exhibit 9, 17 NRC 9, that was introduced yesterday. This exhibit 18 referred to an April 1982 inspection by Region III 19 personnel of pipe hangers, does it not?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you know where the deficient hangers 22 were or are located?
23 A. No. You can't tell the location from the T
24 basis of this report, from what is in the report, MJ Gl'offt, 001enbey and &ssociates, $nc.
c w g.. m , e am innsr
325 I
t
~
- 5 1 but you can determine that it was an extensive j
?
2 problem and required 100 percent reinspection of all ;
e 3 the hangers installed in 1980 and a sample 4 reinspection of those hangers installed in '81 and '8 2, 5 and therefore whatever Isa found and whatever [
[
6 location they were, it was applicable to those that l i
7 were installed in the time frames. ,
t 8 Q. Do you know based on your knowledge today i j 9 or in reading that document when those pipe hangers !
4 10 were installed? I i
- 11 A. Some of them were in 1980 and some of them i i
12 were in 1981. He outlines that information in his 13 report.
. l
. 14 Q. As contained in that document?
l i
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Had there been prior inspections before Ii i
17 April 1982 of the pipe hangers?
18 A. Yes. l l 5 i 19 Q. Do yo u know when those occurred?
) 20 MR. STRICKLING: Could you read back his [
! i 21 question, not the last question, but the one just l !
22 before that?
23 (WHEREUPON, the record was read f
IT !
l 24 by the reporter as requested.) l
\ I
} I i
i
' M3 0Vo[ls, 00ssnbs9 and &swelaiss, hnc. l Clw Ditm o mons 240er !
326
~
_N 1 MR. STRICKLING: Is that in addition to the one 2 indicated in the ACRS report in 1981?
3 MR. ZACK: Yes. '
4 BY THE WITNESS:
5 A. During May of 1981, and the report here 6 gives references of the inspection report.
7 BY MR. ZACK:
8 Q. Let me direct yo ur attention to Exhibit 13, 9 if I may. This is the SALP-2 report, is it not?
10 A. I believe that is what we decided 11 yesterday.
12 0 Okay. Turning to section 4, which relates 13 to pe formance analyses and the section that 14 discusses quality assurance.
15 MR. STRICKLING: I'm sorry. What page?
16 MR. ZACK: I am not sure whether my pages 17 correlate to his. Well, it is Page 4.
18 MR. STRICKLING: Thank you.
19 BY MR. ZACK:
20 0 The report indicates, does it not, that, 21 quote, "The scope and depth of the inspections 22 indicated that Consumers Po we r Company had 23 established an effective organization for management T
24 of QA/QC ac t iv it ie s at the site"?
MJ GVo[fe, cfx'osenbey and 81socL1tes, $nc.
C h ago, D(b ots e d12) 782 8087
~327-
.,?
1 A. Co uld yo u tell me where you are. reading?
-2 Q. (Indicating). And continuing,with the.
- 3 quotation ~, "The inspection revealed that the overall 4 _ number and qualification of personnel 'n i the
5 licensee's QA organization were above_that normally
- 6 found at other construction sites. The QA p rog r am s -
7 and overview inspections and audit functions were 8 also above the norm."
9 MR. STRICKLING: For completeness.could yo u 10 read the next sentence as well?
-11 MR. ZACK: You can do that on --
12 MR. STRICKLING: Well, I am making a specific
'13 request for completeness of the record that you read '
14 that next sentence.
15 MR. ZACK: Mr. Strickling, yo u quo t 16 selectively from this exhibit yesterday, .d I don' t '
~
'17 feel compelled to honor yo ur request.
18 MR. STRICKLING: I didn't hear an objection l'
i 19 yesterday.
20 MR. ZACK: Because I knew I would have an i
21 opportunity to c ro s s- e x am ine and you will have a 22 similar opportunity.
l 23 Did I get an answer to the question?
!x 24 BY MR. ZACK:
l lMa %[fa, cRosan&sy and c41soatats1, Dna.
- . CR4 e, Dit m ts e me)ist soar
328
[T' 1 Q. My question was the report so indicated 2 the quotation that I read, did it not?
3 A. . Yes.
4 Q. With regard to the discussion of soils and 5 foundations one of the items of noncompliance was 6 the failure to evaluate the technical capabilities 7 of Woodward-Clyde, was it not?
-8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Was Woodward-Clyde eventually approved 10 with respect to the supplying of services for soil 11 boring activities on the project?
12 A. I don't know.
N 13 Q. Okay. With respect to the section 14 relating to support systems this report indicates, 15 does it not, that following --
16 MR. STRICKLING: What page is this?
17 MR. ZACK: I believe it is Page 10 of your 18 document.
19 MR. STRICKLING: Thank you.
20 BY MR. ZACK:
21 Q. The report indacates, does it not, that
. 22 following the imposition of the $38,000 c iv il 23 penalty ag ainst Consumers Po we r for QA deficiencies T
24 in the installation of HVAC systems that the MJ 0Vo[fe, kosenbey and Associales, .0nc.
CR4 o, Cl % ots e (3121 782 8087
.' 329 N 1 licensee had made sig ni fic an t im prov em e n t in 2 -correcting problematic weaknesses identified in the 3 civil penalty, does it not?
4 A. Yes.
i 5 Q. This report also indicates, does it not, 6 that since'the investigation, the licensee had 7 accepted c om pl e t e responsibility for HVAC system QA/QC s
8 functions, and that this aggressive action of taking 9 over the QA/QC function from the subcontractor had 10 resulted in marked improvement in the control of the 11 HVAC installations?
12 A. Tha t ' s correct.
13 Q. Okay. Turning to the section two pages 14 beyond that relating to licensing activities, make 15 that three pages, the report also indicates that the 16 licensee was considered to be techinically competent 17 and to be an experienced utility with two operating '
18 nuclear plants, does it not?
19 A. Th a t ' s correct.
20 Q. It also indicates that timely close out of 21 longstanding open items was reasonable when 22 considering the many open items on the plant, the 23 early plant design, and interrupted staff rev iew T
24 following the TMI-2 accident, does it not?
MJ 0Vo[fs. kosenbsy and dssociales, hne.
-- -. . - _ _ . - }"?$*! ?"*"
- I ) **'***
330
_N- 1 A. Yes. I'd amplify that that particular 2 paragraph is tal king about outstanding licensing 3 issues or items as opposed to speaking for Re g io n 4 III and outstanding inspection items or any 5 outstanding items we may have had.
6 Q .- So that paragraph was addressing items 7 that the Bethesda Headquarters of the NRC may hav e 8 had?
9 A. NRR, the licensing.
10 MR. STRICKLING: Off the record.
11 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 12 off the record.)
w 13 BY MR. ZACK:
14 Q. How much of an interrupted staff review 15 followed the TMI accident with respect to the 16 Midland plant, if yo u know?
17 MR. STRICKLING: In length of time or what?
18 MR. ZACK: In length of time, yes.
- 19 BY THE WITNESS
20 A. You will have to help me more on that. I 21 don' t understand the question.
22 BY MR. ZACK:
23 Q. Well, my question is based upon the i
24 language that we discussed to the effect that there MJ 0Yo[fs, kosznbsy and &ssociales, .$nc.
CK rm Dttiuts e (31217s2 8087
331 f5 1 was interrupted staff review following the TMI 2 accident. Do you know what that refers to?
3 A. I know what the TMI accident is --
4 Q. Do you know what the interrupted staff t/ 5 review was?
6 A. I suspect what it is ~saying is_that the 7 normal review of the plant design had to be 8 interrupted for the NRC staff to review certain 9 aspects involved the falling out of the TMI-2 10 accident.
11 Q. Do you know what the duration of that 12 staff review was?
13 A. No. This paragraph was written by the 14 licensing people and we incorporated their language.
15 Q. Do you know which licensing person in 16 particular would have drafted that paragraph?
17 A. I expect Darrell Hood was the author from 18 the first draft, and it was probably reviewed by 19 others within NRR such as Elinor Adensam.
20 Q. Okay. Let me direct your attention to the 21 last sentence of the paragraph just above the one we 22 have been discussing and the language that indicates 23 that, "There were recent responses establishing new N
24 seismic design criteria for the site and that those MJ 0Yo[fe, 00$snbr.9 and &ssociales, $na.
C%e, Dhou o car 2)ist sost
. i 332 9
% 1 hav e been o f hig h quality once the staf f's position 2 letter established the need."
3 Do you see that statement?
4 A. Yes.
5 O. Do you know what the new seismic d e s ig n' 6 criteria were?
7 A. No .
i 8 Q. Do you know anything about the evolution 9 of those criteria? In other words, who proposed 10 them first?
11 A. No. I know that it has been a continuing 12 thing and many of the plants are still working on it.
13 Q. Is this a question better addressed to Mr.
14 Landsman?
15 A. Mr. Yan.
16 Q. Mr. Yan. Okay. Thank you.
17 MR. STRICKLING: Are we done with this document?
18 MR.'ZACK: Yes.
19 MR. STRICKLING: IV. is 12: 00 o' clock. Do yo u 20 want to work through, or how much more do you have?
21 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 22 off the record.)
23 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had.)
N 24 BY MR. ZACK:
MJ 0Vo[fe, kosenbsy and &ssociales, .$nc.
CR4o, D0uots e (312) 782 8087
333 w 1 Q. Let me show you NRC Exhibit 14. That 2 exhibit reflects that there was a public meeting 3 held with respect to QA matter relating to the 4 Midland plant in the summer of 1982, does it not?
5 Well, I may hav e the wrong document. Let 6 me strike that question.
7 Mr. Warnick, do you recall whether there 8 was a public meeting held with respect to quality 9 assurance matters relating to the Midland plunt 10 during 1982?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Where was that meeting held? -
13 A. Well, I think there were several meetings, 14 and the only one I was involved in was held at 15 Midland, Michigan.
16 Q. What date was that meeting?
17 A. I don' t recall. It would have had to have 18 been July, August time frame of '82.
19 Q. Do you recall whether any representatives 20 of the Do w Ch em ic a l Company attended that meeting ^
21 A. I don't recall that any were there.
22 Q. I take it then that yo u don' t recall any 23 comments at that public meeting by officials of the x
24 Dow Chemical Company?
H3 0Volfe, hosenbey and 811ociates, hnc.
Giago, Dttinois e cs12)182 soar
334
,T 1 A. There were none.
2 Q. Okay. Let me show you Exhibit --
3 A. That meeting was Aug u s t 5th, 1982.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 Let me show yo u Exhibit 15. I'd like to 6 direct your attention to Page 3, Paragraph 6. This 7 memo indicates, does it not, that there were 8 multiple requests for briefing meetings and other 9 statements by the utility to the effect that, "We,"
10 meaning the NRC, "should review.proceduree in 11 developmental st ag e s ," does it not?
12 A. Yes.
5 13 Q. What was meant by that statement? This 14 was the Noreliu s/ Spe s sa rd memo.
15 A. Like I say, I did not participate in 16 preparation of this document.
17 Q. Did you ever discuss those comments with 18 either Mr. Norelius or Mr. Spessard?
19 A. I discussed this document as a whole, but 20 I was p r im a r il y focusing on the recommendations as 21 opposed to the particular paragraphs.
22 Q. GO I take it you did not particularly 23 focus on that particular paragraph?
24 A. No. The way the paragraph is worded is --
l MJ G1/olfe, Sosenbey and d1sociales, $nc.
1 CR a y o, Dtt w ts e (312)182 e0a7
335 f5 1 we wo ul d not be receptive to such a meeting to 2 review procedures and to more or less be part of the 3 licensee's preparation of their procedures. We do 4 not have the resources to be c o . r, u l t a n t s to the 5 licensee, and therefore when I lead that that is 6 what I got out of it and I paid no attention to that.
7 Q. Do you agree with that statement?
8 MR. STRICKLING: Which statement?
9 BY MR. ZACK:
10 Q. Do you agree with yo ur characterization of 11 that paragraph that you just made?
12 MR. STRICKLING: Objection.
13 BY THE WITNESS:
14 A. Well, I said that was what I got out of 15 what I read.
16 BY MR. ZACK:
17 Q. Okay. Well, do you agree that the NRC 18 staff doe s n' t have sufficient resources to act as 19 consultants to a licensee that is trying to build a 20 nuclear plant?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. And that is based on staff shortage 23 p robl em s?
N 24 A. Well, it is based on the philosophy that MJ 0Vo[fe, hosenbey and 811ociales, .$nc.
C$laago, Dllinois e (312) 782 8087
336 S 1 we inspect to assure safety. We are not part of the 2 licensee's staff for the design or the construction 3 or the --
you know, building the plant. We inspect 4 to see that it is done correctly.
5 Q. Okay. Let me show you Exhibit 16. I'd-6 like you to focus on paragraph --
the first line of 7 Paragraph 17 that is on Page 7.
8 MR. STRICKLING: I'm sorry, what exhibit is 9 this?
11 MR. STRICKLING: And you are on Page 7.
12 MR. ZACK: Page 7, Paragraph 17, first line.
13 BY MR. ZACK:
14 Q. This is a memo from Mr. Cook to you. It 15 states, does it not, "The licensee continually would 16 use the NRC staff as consultants and classifies a 17 regulatory and enforcement position as 18 counterproductive," does it not?
19 A. That is what it states.
20 Q. And that observation is similar to the 21 language we just discussed in the Spessard and 22 Norelius memorandum, is it not?
23 MR. STRICKLING: Objection.
T 24 BY THE WITNESS:
M3 GYo[fs, kosenbey and &ssociales, .$nc.
. - _. . . - . . ?"*$?' "_ , ? ?#? *?"U*' - --. - , - . - .
337 5 1 A. The th o ug h t appears to be similar to me.
2 BY MR. ZACK:
3 Q. And I take it that you agree with the 4 thought expressed in this particular sentence?
5 A. Well, I don't know whether I'd say that.
6 That was Mr. Cook's opinion. But I would agree that 7 the NRC staff -- we do not want to be used as 8 consultants.
9 Q. I take it that you have no personal 10 knowledge as to how many times the Consumers Power 11 may hav e tried to use the NRC staff as consultants, 12 do you?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Okay. Let me direct yo ur attention to NRC 15 Exhibit 22 relating to the inspection of the diesel 16 generator building. Do you know how much hardware 17 or components had to be replaced as a result of 18 problems identified during this inspection?
19 A. No, I do not. I know that some had --
was 20 reworked and maybe some may have to be replaced. I 21 don' t know.
l 22 Q. You don' t know quantities though?
23 A. No.
l 24 Q. Okay. Do you know when the parts that may l
I l MJ 0Vo[fe, 00sen[ rey and 81welates, $nc.
CR4o, Dhots e (312) is2-sosi
338 N 1 have to be reworked and/or replaced had been 2 installed by the licensee?
3 A.- The work was stopped at the site following 4 our inspection, and work --
safety-related 5 construction work, which would include any 6 modifications or design changes or, you know, that 7 type of thing, and new work has not been restarted.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. That is part of Phase 2 of the 10 Construction Completion Program.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. Now, when we look, we only look at a 13 sample, and then we see if there is a generic 14 problem and then we treat --
try to get a generic 15 solution to the specific sample that we identified 16 problems in.
17 Q. And this particular inspection of the 18 diesel generator building was a s am pl e type 19 inspection, was it not?
l 20 A. It was one room out of fo ur , and we looked 21 at most everything in that one room.
i l 22 Q. Okay.
I 23 A. It was a s am p l e .
T 24 Q. Let me show yo u NRC Exhibit 31 that was MJ 0Yolfs, 00ssnbey and &ssociales, $nc.
d rm Dittuu e (312)182 s087
l 339 5 introduced yesterday.
1 It relates to a recent HVAC 2 inspection cond ucted by the NRC. Do you know how 3 much hardware or components were found to be 4 defective by the NRC in this inspection?
5 A. No.
6 Q. I take it then that you don' t know how 7 many components or how much hardware will have to be 8 replaced as a result of this particular inspection?
9 MR. STRICKLING: This apart from the 40 percent 10 we talked about yesterday?
11 MR. ZACK: I'd like to have him testify, Mr.
12 Strickling.
13 MR. STRICKLING: Okay. Well, I object to the 14 form of the question.
15 BY THE WITNESS:
16 A. I really don' t know whether or not any 17 material has to be replaced.
18 MR. ZACK: Okay.
19 MR. STRICKLING: Could I h av e his question read 20 back?
21 (WHEREUPON, the record was read 22 by the reporter as requested.)
23 BY MR. ZACK:
T 24 Q. Let me direct your attention to the third MJ 0Vo[fe, Sosenbey and &ssociales, $nc.
' C k p, Ottinou e m23 7e2 soar
340
% 1 page of NRC Exhibit 33, which is part of a 2 memorandum from Mr. Landsman to Mr. Shafer 3 concerning the violation of the ASLB order of April 4 30, 1982. With respect to what apr2ars to be the 5 fourth paragraph on that pag e can yo u tell me 6 whether it is stated in the memorandum if Mr.
7 La nd sm an had a concern with the technical adequacy 8 of the work that was done by Consumers Po we r ?
9 A. Mr. La nd sm an states in his memo that he 10 had told the licensee his concern did not deal with 11 the technical adequacy of what they were doing, but s
12 rather with the Board requirement to notify and 13 re c eiv e prior staff approval before proceeding.
14 Q. Okay. Thank you. Let me show you NRC 15 Exhibit 40, which is SALP-3.
16 MR. STRICKLING: Before you ask the question, I 17 don't know that we established that with the witness, 18 but I am willing to stipulate with you now that 19 Exhibit NRC 40 is SALP-3 so that we don't have any 20 further confusion.
21 MR. ZACK: Fine. I so stipulate.
22 BY MR. ZACK:
1 23 Q. Okay. Mr. Warnick, could you look at, I T
24 believe, the section on Pages 8 and 9 referring to MJ 0Vo[fe, hosen[ tty and 811ociales, .$nc.
Claago, Dilosou e (3122782 8087
341 N 1 piping systems and supports.
2 (WHEREUPON, discussion was had 3 off the record between the witness
'4 and Mr. Berkovitz, out of the 5 hearing of other counsel and the 6 court reporter.)
7 MR. STRICKLING: Is this on the record?
8 MR. ZACK: No . He is conferring with counsel.
9 MR. STRICKLING: I think we ought to get this 10 on the record.
11 BY MR. ZACK:
12 Q. Mr. Warnick, the copy of the SALP Report 13 that is incorporated into this exhibit is designated 14 as p r e lim in a r y , is it not?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Did the final version of the SALP Report 17 issued by the NBC differ in any way from this 18 preliminary version?
19 A. To the best of my knowledge, it --
no 20 changes were made.
21 Q. Okay. Ag ain --
22 A. Except they would have added a report 23 number. We g iv e it a report number and that is the T
24 only change and it is not even typed in.
MJ 0Vo[fs, Sosen$rsy and &ssociales, hna.
CAlayo, B(finoh e (312) 782 8087
342 f% 1 Q. Would yo u turn to Pages 8 and 9, please?
2 Okay. With respect to the category rating of piping 3 systems and support can yo u tell us what that rating 4 for the SALP period was?
5 A. Safety-related components and piping 6 system and supports.
7 Q. I believe Page 9 is of interest.
i 8 A. We ra.ted them a Category 2.
9 Q. Do you recall what the rating of piping 10 systems and supports had been in SALP-27 11 A. No, I d on ' t .
12 Q. Let me brie fly fish that out so I can 13 establish that, if I may.
14 Let me show you Exhibit NRC 13, if I may, 15 ask you to look at Page 3 of the SALP Report --
of 16 the SALP-2 Report. Can you tell what the category 17 grade of piping systems and supports was for that 18 period?
19 A. Category 3.
20 Q. Okay. And so the category grade was 21 upg r ad ed from 3 to 2 between SALP-2 and SALP-3 for 22 piping supports, was it not?
23 MR. STRICKLING: Objection. The SALP-3 that l T 24 you are referring to is safety-related components MJ GYolfe, c.Rosenbetg and Associales, $nc.
1 C%p, Dttinou o m2)1e2-soar
i ,
343
_ 1 and piping systems and supports, which was two 2 categories in SALP-2.
3 BY MR. ZACK:
4 Q. Well, is there a distinction between the 5 discussion of piping systems and supports in SALP-3 6 and the discussion of s im il a r systems in SALP-2, Mr.
7 Warnick?
8 A. In SALP-3 in the summary of results we 9 have listed piping systems and supports as one item 10 and categorized it as Category 3. We listed 11 safety-related components as a separate item and 12 categorized it as Category 3. In SALP-3 we ag ain 13 listed them separately and categorized them 14 separately and they were both categorized as 15 Category 2.
16 Q. Okay. Thank you.
17 Referring once again to SALP-3 at Page 15 18 right above Paragraph C the report reflects, does it 19 not, that the licensee's threshhold for reporting of 20 construction deficiency reports is considered to be 21 appropriate and the total number of items reported 22 is not considered to be excessive.
23 A. Tha t ' s correct.
s 24 Q. Okay. Yesterday you discussed current H3 0Yo[fe, 80ssnbsy and 8ssocialss, .$ne.
CAttm Dikts e (3121 782 s087
344 I
)
_N 1 status of construction at the plant and you !
2 indicated that there is a Construction Completion 3 Program and that there is a vertic~al slide review of 4 certain systems being cond ucted by the Tera 5 Corporation, did yo u not?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Stone & Webster is also involved in 8 construction currently and is looking at the soils 9 remedial work, is it not?
10 A. Stone & Webster has two t e am s , two 11 separate and distinct organizations at the Midland 12 site. One group looks at soils remedial work and 13 overviews that and they have, I believe, seven 14 individuals involved in that work, and they have a 15 second organization which has approximately 33 16 individuals, and these are different from the other 17 seven that overview the Co n s t r uc tio n Completion 18 Program.
l, 19 Q. How long has Stone & Webster had 20 representatives on the site?
21 A. I don't recall. The information is in the 22 chronology.
23 Q. Okay. If yo u could refer to that, please.
'i 24 A. On September 20, 1982 Stone & Webster MJ GVo(fs, fossnbsy and 81soclaiss, .$ne.
C Myo, Dttuou e at2)is2 soar
.' 345
% 1 began their overview work on the soils.
2 Q. When they began their overview work in 3 September 1982 had they been approved for that work 4 for that function by the NRC?
5 A. No, they had not.
6 Q. When was Stone & Webster approved by the 7 NRC for that function?
i 8 A. On February 24, 1983.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. On April 21, 1983 Stone & Webster had 11 personnel on site to be involved in the construction ;
12 implementation overview, which is 13 overviewing the construction Completion Program.
14 Q. All right. Earlier this morning in 15 response to questions from Mr. Strickling relating 16 to NRC Exhibit 51 yo u discussed de sig n drawing s , d id r
17 you not?
18 A. I believe we talked about it.
49 Q. Okay. Is it possible for a component to l
20 be installed in a nuclear plant pursuant to a set of 21 drawings and then to have the applicable design 22 requirements embodied in the drawings changed and 23 then the second set of drawings used for the N
24 inspection of that component, if yo u understand the HJ 0Vo[fs, 00senb29 and Associalss, .$na.
CLge, Ditwts e (312)ist soar
1 '
346 9 1 question?
2 Let me withdraw that. It is ungamely at 3 best.
4 I take it when a component is installed in 5 a nuclear plant it is done pursuant to a design 6 drawing which contains certain d e s ig n requirements, 7 is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And I take it that there have been changes 10 in design requirements to various c ~.anents over 11 the last decade, for example?
12 A. Let me clarify that. Document --
the 13 drawing is a way of describing the way something 14 should be built. The design requirements --
the 15 drawing is a de s ig n requirement, but the 16 requirements are really laid out beforehand in 17 d e s ig n documents, and then they try to construct it 18 by that drawing and then they inspect by that 19 drawing. Design can change and drawings can change.
20 Q. I take it when design changes drawings 21 should be changed to reflect the d e s ig n changes?
22 A. Yes. Tha t ' s correct.
23 Q. Okay. So it is possible for a c om po n e n t 24 to have been installed at one point and then a HJ 0Vo[fs, 001snbsy and 811oclaiss, $nc.
C h y e, Diltu u e (312)782 8087
347 N 1 design change to have occurred?
2 A. Yes. That happens very frequently.
3 Q. Okay. And the drawing pertaining to that 4 component should have changed and should have 5 reflected the design change, should it have not?
6 A. Yes. And the de sig n process should be 1
7 such that it provides for f ollow- up to see that the 8 de sig n is in fact or the work --
the as-built -
-9 condition is changed to reflect the new design.
10 Q. And that uses in part the mechanism of the 11 design drawing, is that correct?
12 A. Yes, in part.
13 Q. Okay. And when I say Region III or any 14 other region-in the NRC inspects a component, it 15 will use the design drawing that contains the most 16 up-to-date de s ig n changes, will it not?
17 A. Depends on what we are inspecting and, you r 18 know, what our ob j ec tiv e of the inspection is, but 19 if we are c o nd uc ting an inspection such that we need 20 to refer to the drawing, then we make an attempt to 21 obtain the latest and most current design drawing.
22 And we also review any revisions -- you know, the 23 revisions that have occurred in the past of that T
24 drawing. But i f -- here, ag ain , it depends on the HJ 0Vo[ft, hossnbsy and 81soclaiss, $ne.
C A m e. D ili u ts e m2)is2 sosi
348
_'% 1 objective of the' inspection.
2 Q. Okay. Do yo u know whe ther officials or 3 em plo ye e s of the Dow Chemical Company have ever 4' contacted Re g ion III to get an update of the status
~
5 of construction of the Midland plant?
6 A. To the best of my knowledge, they hav e not 7 since I have been involved with the project.
8 MR. ZACK: Okay. That is all I have. Thank 9 you.
10 FURTHER EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. STRICKLING:
12 Q. Mr. Zack asked yo u a number of questions 13 concerning the Region III staff that existed prior 14 to the Office of Special cases being ins'tituted in 15 July 1982. You indicated four individuals were 16 in v o l v e d' , Section Ch i e f , Project Inspector, Senior 17 Resident Inspector and then Mr. Landsman. Could you 18 identify by name who the other three were prior to 19 the Office of Special Cases being instituted?
20 A. No, I c ouldn' t .
i 21 Q. You don' t know who the Section Chief was?
i 22 A. No.
23 Q. Or the Project Inspector?
- T 24 A. No, I really don't MJ 0Vo[ft, ekosenbsy and 81sociates, hne.
CRiange, Dttisets e att> rst soor
349
< 1 Q. Do you know who the Senior Resident 2 Inspector was?
3 A. Ron Cook.
4 Q. That was Ron Cook?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Mr. Zack also showed yo u the ACRS report 7 and asked you about --
8 A. Can I interrupt? -
9 Q. Sure.
10 A. I believe that in looking at one of the 11 exhibits yesterday we read the name of D. C. Boyd.
12 I wo ul d guess that he was the Section Ch ie f based on 13 what I read in that one exhibit. '
14 Q. Okay. t 15 A. That may or may not be correct.
16 Q. Mr. Zack showed you the ACRS report from 17 the summer of 1982 and asked you some questions ,
18 about how to close an item or what does it mean to 19 close an item of nonconformance or noncomplianc e . ;
i 20 A. Noncompliance.
21 Q. Is it correct that all items of 22 noncompliance must be closed prior to getting an
! 23 operating license?
. s 24 A. No. Wh a t we do is we try to keep up with l
MJ 0Vo[fs, 80ssnbsy and 81soclaiss, hne.
0%* Oll' nots e (312)is2 sost
t 350
,' 1 the close -- we try to close out these items, but as 2 you draw close to the licensing at the time when a 3 plant is ready to receive an operat'ing license, we 4 make a conscious review of all outstanding items, 5 all work to be done by the NRC, all work to be done 6 by the licensee, and we make an assessment as to 7 what is required before the operating license can be ;
8 issued, what is required before fuel can be loaded, 9 what is required before they can go to low power and 10 what is required before they can go to higher power 11 levels and we may have several lists, and that which c
12 we determine to be necessary to be done before 13 issuing the operating license must be accomplished.
14 If one of those is --
a certain item of j 15 noncompliance must.be closed out, then we require 16 that to be done. Ho wev er , there may be other items !
17 of noncompliance which don' t impact on anything that i
18 is required for the issuance of the operating 19 license or for loading fuel, and so that may be on a 20 different list or no list at all.
21 Q. Well, does there come a point at which all l
i 22 items of noncompliance must be closed out? :-
l 23 A. We try to resolve or close out all items I N l
24 of noncompliance. Some take years to resolve and so t
MJ 0Vo[fs, hossnbsy and &ssoclais1, $ne.
__ ---_ __ _ _ CA%k Nll**ts O m2) ?82 8087
351 S 1 it is1-- you: know, that is a hard question to answer. ,
2 I guess I have done my best.
3 Q. Do yo u hav e the ACRS report, Exhibit 157 4 MR. ZACK: That is Exhibit 5, isn' t it?
5 MR. STRICKLING: I'm sorry, Exhibit 5.
6 MR. ZACK: Yes.
7 BY MR. STRICKLING:
8 Q. Mr. Zack asked yo u some questions about 9 the reactor vessel anchor stud failures in 1979 and 10 1980, and he asked you a question how many studs 11 were deficient to which you answered the three studs 12 were broken as reflected in this report.
13 Does the ACRS report provide any statement 14 as to how many bolts were found to be deficient as
- 15 opposed to be broken?
16 A. The report doesn' t give a number, but it 17 indicates that a review would have to be made to '
18 confirm that the low alloy steel bolting or 19 component support materials have been tempered and
. f 20 quenched and are of the r ig ht size and procured in 21 accordance with proper codes and standards. Based 22 on what that says I would think that wo uld apply to 23 probably all of the studs. l l N l 24 Q. Mr. Zack also asked yo u some questions MJ 0Vo[fs, Sossnbsy and dssoclaiss, $na.
N'"*"
- W) *2'***?
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ [?"N*
352 t
j% 1 about piping suspension systems. Is that term the 2- same ter,m as pipe hanger or is there a difference?
3 A. Well, a hanger is a suspension system.
4 There can be other forms of suspension systems.
5 MR. STRICKLING: Off the record.
6 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had )
7 BY MR. STRICKLING:
F 8 Q. Wh a t other generic types of suspension 9 syste.s are there?
10 A. Well, we talked about hangers and snubbers s
11 and they are all a part of suspension systems.
12 Q. Just as further clarification what is the 13 difference between a hanger and a anubber? -
14 A. These are the kind of questions you really t
15 ought to be directing to Mr. Yan. !
r 16 Q. Okay. '
i 17 A. A hanger just is something that is --
like 18 it says, it hangs, whereas a snubber is like the 19 shock absorber on yo ur car. It can move and it 20 snubs or dampens down the rate of movement.
21 Q. Mr. Zack also showed you Exhibit NRC 8 and
. i 22 asked you about a number of cables found to be l
- 23 deficient, and you indicated in yo ur answer that 4 ,
l N 24 out of 500 had found to be deficient. Is 4 i P
P N3 0Vo[fs, 00ssnbsy and 8ssoelaiss, $na.
_ C h m e, D h ets e (311)192-8081
353 t
% 1 misinstalled cables out of 500 an acceptable number?
2 A. If it is one --
if even one.is' wrong and 3 it involves safety-related equipment, then that is a 4- problem.
5 O. Mr . Zack asked you several questions about 6 the SALP-2 Report, Exhibit NRC 13, and he read you 7 f rom Pag e 4 some information about the' organization 8 of Consumers Power Company's QA/QC activities. Now, 9 he read yo u down to this sentence in Pa r ag r aph 4 and 10 the sentence he failed to read which I'd like to 11 read into the record is, quote, "Adverse findings in 12 piping systems and supports and electrical power 13 supply indicated a need for additional licensee
]
14 attention in these areas," close quote. Is that so i
15 stated in the exhibit at that page?
1 16 A. Tha t ' s correct.
17 Q. Mr. Zack also asked you several questions
) 18 about inspections performed by NRC staff and asked 1
j 19 you where inspectors had found problems with various l
20 Of the inspections c o nd uc t ed . As a matter of policy l
1 I. 21 or general practice does the NRC ever conduct itself
! 22 100 percent reinspections of anything?
l 23 A. No.
1 T
. 24 Q. In general yo u simply conduc t inspections MJ 0Vo[fs, howsbsy and Assoalains, $na.
C4% .,, Dilinets e 0121702 s007
354 N 1 as samples of installed equipment?
2 A. Yes, on a s am pl ing basis.
3 Q. Okay. Mr. Zack also asked you some 4 questions as to the --
how coon after installation 5 inspectiona take place. Do you have guidelines 6 detailing now ooon after a system is installed that 7 you will conduch an inspection of it if an 8 inspection is deemed n e c e s s a r y?
9 A. Well, we have the --
our procedures which 10 talk about the window of opportunity, which we 11 discussed yesterday, and that is the only 12 requirements we hav e .
13 Q. Are those written g uid eline s?
14 A. Yes. Our inspection procedures are 15 written.
16 Q. Are the inspection procedures a public 17 document?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. STRICKLING: I'd like to request a copy of 20 those as well.
21 THE WITNESS: They are av al1~ab l e . It is huge, 22 it is volumes, and they are available in the Public 23 Document Ro om , and I think you can go there if yo u
'\
24 are interested in it.
MJ GVo(fe, kosznbey and 811ocialz1, hnc.
C$taay Ollinois e (312) 782-8087
r<
- 3 4 "
355
-r j' 1 BY MR. STRICKLING:
2 Q. Just as a clarification point how are they i
3 organized? Are they organized by plant system or 4 how?
5 A. They hav e a numerical number and they are ---
6 each number series has a meaning.
7 Q. Relating to a plant system or component or s
8 something like that?
9 A. Y e s .- Or an area of an inspection.
10 Q. So you would have different procedures for -
11 different areas?
12 A. Yes. Th a t ' s correct.
13 Q. Has Consumers Po we r ever requested the NRC 14 to conduct an inspection of a system once they have 15 installed it?
^
16 A. They may hav e. I don' t really know. I do 17 know that they have requested that we keep the 18 manpower that is applicable to Midland assigned to 19 Midland, and when Mr. Harrison was given the r 20 temporary assignment they --
and this was discussed 21 in one of our meetings which is documented in this 22 exhibit of my personal notes --
they raised the ,
23 point would I object if they called Mr. Keppler or I T ,
24 others within NRC to indicate that they would like ;
a MJ 0Vo[fs, 00Asy N dssoelates, hna.
c q ,.. s u o mv inner
356 l
_'S 1 to have Jay back at Midland because of his knowledge 2 and his expertise in construction inspection 3 programs, so I think that is respo, ive to yo ur 4 question.
5 Q. Has Consumers Po we r ever complained to the 6 IIRC,that staff members waited an inordinate length 7 of time before conducting an inspection of a 8 particular system?
9 A. I don' t believe so. At least not while I 10 have been associated with the project we have had no 11 complaints like that.
12 Q. As a general proposition has any 13 regulatory activity or action of the NRC caused an 14 inordinate delay or an unjustified delay in the 15 completion schedule for the Midland project?
16 MR. ZACK: I am going to object to the form
- 1. ' with respect to the use of the words "inordinate" or 18 "unjustified," and I also have an objection on the 19 grounds of competency with respect to scheduling 20 durations as w^ have discussed previously.
21 BY THE WITN 22 A. I don' t know how to answer your question 23 with the modifier you use in your question, but when 24 we conducted the diesel generator building MJ GVo(fe, fo11nbey and 011ocialz1, hnc.
[ CRuyo. Diluou e m23 7e2-soer
357
- S 1 inspection and identified the problems there and the 2 licensee took actions based in part upon our 3 insp,ection of the diesel generator building and the 4 problems we identified, obviously that stop work ;
5 impacted on the schedule.
r 6 BY MR. STRICKLING:
7 1 Q. Well, did you believe that that was a 8 justified im pa c t on schedule in view of the results 9 of yo ur inspection?
10 A. Well, I don't know what yo u mean by 11 justified, but it is obvious that any time work is 12 stopped it is not stopped unless there is a reason T
13 to justify it being stopped, and if work is stopped, 14 it obviously im pa c t s on schedule.
15 O. Well, have you heard the charge made 16 against the NRC that if it weren't for the NRC !
l 17 overinspecting and ove rreg ulating the Midland j 18 project it wo ul d have been built and running by now?
19 MR. ZACK: That assumes facts not in evidence 20 and I think it calls for speculation.
21 MR. STRICKLING: I just asked him if he has 22 ever heard that charge. l 23 BY THE WITNESS:
24 A. No, I haven't. i M3 0Vo[fe, kossnbsy N kisociales, hnc.
C$ts9o, D(linois e (3121 782 8087 i
.' 358 i
~~
.N 1- BY MR. STRICKLING:
2 O. If that ch a'rg e had been made, would you 3 agree with it?
4 MR. ZACK: Same objections. -
l 5 BY THE WITNESS: i 6 A. No, I would not.
7 BY MR. STRICLING:
8 Q. Why not?
9 MR.'ZACK: Same objections.
I 10 BY THE WITNESS:
11 A. In our inspection program we are only ,
L c
12 inspecting on a. sample basis, and if we find t
_S .
13 problems we try to address the problems or see that f 14 the licensee addresses the problems on a specific 15 basis and also on a generic basis. If'the problems 16 are such that there are generic problems and they 17 require generic corrective actions, such as the 18 hanger reinspection or the cable --
electrical cable 19 reinspection or the CCP --
the diesel generator 20 building inspect!.on, which ended up resulting in the 21 CCP, then those -- there is a roason for those kinds 22 of things, and it is the licensee's fault whether it 23 is the indiv id ual s that did the co n s t r uc t ion or the T
24 people that oversee the construction or the M3 0Vo[fs, hossnbsy mad Associalss, $na.
CA4, D%ts e (312) 782 8087
359 !
k v
N. 1 inspectors that failed to identify the problem or l 2 whatever. We attach that responsibility to the 3 licensee. i i-4 MR. STRICKLING: Thank you, Mr. Warnick. I
.5 have no ft'ther questions. j 6 MR. 1: - ;K: I have no further questions. Thank 7 you. -
8 FURTHER DEPONENT SAITH NOT.
9 10 '
11 -
I 12
.T .
13 i
[
L
, 14
, e 15 16
- r
?
j 17 :
18 ,
19 ,
i ,
j 20 I r
21
- 22 .
i 23 l T !
. - 24 a
b MJ 0Vo[fs, 00ssnbs9 and &ssociales, $na.
CAiesgo. Ot h ets e <s12> 1st-soar
. 360 4
4
,3. 1 STATE OF MICHIGAN )
2 ) SS:
3 COUNTY OF MIDLAND )
4 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MIDLAND 5 STATE OF MICHIGAN 6 THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY,)
7 Plaintiff,)
8 vs. ) File No. 83-002232-CK-D 9 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY, )
10 Defendant.)
11 I hereby certify that I have read the 12 foregoing transcript of my deposition given at the 13 time and place aforesaid, consisting of Pages 1 to 14 359, inclusive, and I do again subscribe and make 15 oath that the same is a true, correct and complete 16 transcript of my deposition so given as aforesaid, 17 and includes changes, if any, so made by me.
18 ________________________________
19 ROBERT FRED WARNICK 20 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO 21 before me this _____ day 22 of _______________
, A.D. 198__.
23 ________________________________
l 24 Notary Public MJ 0Vo[fe, hosenbey and 81sociales, hnc.
C$le9o, Dhoh e (312) 782-8087
. 361 L
~
N, 1 STATE OF' ILLINOIS )
2 ) SS:
3 COUNTY OF C O O K )
4 I, MELANIE JAKUSZEWSKI, a Notary Public ,
5 within and for the County of Cook, State of 6 Illinois, and a Certified Shorthand Reporter of said 7 state, do hereby certify: l 8 That previous to the commencement of the 9 e x am i n a t ion of the witness, the witness was duly 10 sworn to testify the whole truth concerning the 11 matters herein; ,
12 That the foregoing deposition transcript T. .
13 was reported stenographically by me, was thereafter L
] 14 reduced to typewriting under my personal direction
]
15 and constitutes a true record of the testimony given 16 and the proceedings had; 17 That the said deposition was taken before [
18 me at the time and place specified; 19 That the reading and signing by the i
- 20 witness of the deposition transcript was agreed upon i r 21 as stated herein I 22 That I am not a relative or em pl o ye e or 23 attorney or counsel, nor a relative or employee of i T
24 such attorney or counsel for any of the parties i
MJ 0Vo[fs, 00ssnbsy and 81soelaiss, hnc. ;
CMye, Dhou e asa1st soer
n P. 362 D. I hereto, nor interested directly or indirectly in the 2 outcome of this action.
3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I do hereunto set my 4 hand and affix my seal of office at Chicago, 5 Illinois, this h [u day of__ _____,,_____,
6 1984.
7 8
9 _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _
10 Notary Public, Coo County, Illinois. I 11 My commission expires August 14, 1984.
12 T. i 13 14 C.S.R. Certificate No. 84-1733.
15 16 17 ,
18 19 4
20 21 22 a
23 1
24 MJ GVo(fs, fossnbsy and Associales, hne.
Cluye, Dduets e (312) 182 s087 ,
_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , . . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ._..._... _ , - _ _ . . . - . ,-