ML20151B324

Transcript of Jd Kane 801014 Deposition in Detroit,Mi.Vol 1. Pp 1-154a

ML20151B324
Person / Time
Site:	Midland, 05000000
Issue date:	10/14/1980
From:	Kane J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20150F172	List: ML20150F170 ML20150F806 ML20151B319 ML20151B324 ML20151B345 ML20151B447 ML20151C503 ML20151G694 ML20209B290 ML20209B331 ML20209B400 ML20209B407 ML20209B413 ML20209B419 ML20209B517 ML20210S413 ML20210S451 ML20210S469
References
FOIA-84-96 OL, OM, NUDOCS 8012100667
Download: ML20151B324 (155)

Text

,

i

e. d, . **

c1F UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

IN THE MATTER OF: ) Docket Nos. 50-329-CM

) 50-330-OM MWBrap CCNSUMERS POWER CCMPANY ) 50-329-OL jr ) 50-330-OL 02.50 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 )

)

)

The Discovery Deposition of JOSEPH D. KANE, a witness herein, taken pursuant to Notice of Taking Deposition, before Matthew W. Betz , CSR-2010, Registered Professional Reporter, a' Notary Public within and for the County of Wayne, State of Michigan, at the McNamara Building, Detroit,. Michigan on Tuesday, October 14, 1980, commencing about 10:25 o' clock in the forenoon.

VOLUME I APPEARANCES :

ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE (By Mr. Ronald ::amarin &

Mr. Alan S. Farnell)

One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 l

l l and JAMES E. BRUNNER, ESQUIRE 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Appearing on behalf of Consumers Power Company l

WILLIAM D. PATON, ESQUIRE I UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20555 -

l Appearing on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Com:nission m

\

tR

\s ^ - .. . - =

- a r4 ,

x 801 e 10 0 %7 ~/

'~~ '

T

q , ---

1 2

2 I N D E X

.3 Witness 4 JOSEPH D. KANE 5 Cross Examination by Mr. Zamarin 3 6

3 4

E X H I. B I T S Consumers Exhibit No. 1 Resume 9 i

i

Consumers Exhibit No. 2 Document 57 Consumers Exhibit No. 3 Drawing 92 Consumers Exhibit No. 4 Letter 112 64

- e e

,,..;,e.,- ,

,g.o e

r a 3

i y

Detroit, Michigan Tuesday, October 14, 1980

.About 10:25 O' clock, A.M.

3 JOSEPH D. KANE ,

was thereupon called as a witness herein, and af ter having first been duly sworn by the notary public to tell the truth, the whole truth, andn' othing but the truth, testified as

,, follows:

i MR. ZAMARIN: Let the record show that this

is the deposition of Joseph Kane taken pursuant to Notice and

,, taken pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Nuclear 3 Regulatory Commission regulations and the Federal Rules Civil 3 Procedure.

• ~

• i CROSS EXAMINATION

3 BY MR. ZAMARIN

0 Q Would you state your full name, please?

A Joseph Damien Kane.

Q Will you spell your middle name, please? '

l  ;; A D-a-m-i-e-n.

4

Q Where do you live?

t

3 A 7421 Miller Fall Road, Dervood, Maryland.

tg?- 4 *. :: $ , '.' 'd g ~4 9. N d.

.g: s tat: **:rtas :N AL 4tP.**t**

l p....n I

2 ..: .

3. . s - ** m

f t KANE 4 MR. PATON: I want to put this on the record.

You indicate that the deposition is taken in accordance with NRC rules and regulations. I would submit that the deposition is taken in accordance with our agreement. I wrote you a letter indicating that you had not complied with regulatory requirements.

MR. ZAMARIN: Well, that doesn't mean that I agree with that. You make whatever statement you want.

MR. PATON: All right.

Q (By Mr. Zamarin, continuing) : What is your present occupation or employment?

A I am a geotechnical engineer for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

9

~

Q How long have you been.a geotechnical engineer for the NRC7 A For the NRC7 Q Yes?

,. A Since October of 1975.

Q Would you describe your formal education after high school?

A I have a Bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering from l Villanova University which I obtained in 1961.

I have a Master's degree in Civil

0 Engineering which I also obtained from Villanova University in 1973.

i I have additional post degree studies in

23

-- 2 .: s.wras, s:.

s t a J*t

• g: 54;'tif 'N46 age .*ges

-s**.* ** awa2 . . *

• Te-*ts*

_.--,,,._..-..-._,,._._.__-__,,__.....-y - . _ . , , , , , , . _ , , _ , _ . _ _ ,__..._,-,.__y, , - _ , . _ . _ _ - _ , - . , . . . _ , _ . _ . .

r r 1 KANE 5 2 geotechnical or soils and foundation engineering from the 3 University of California and the University of Maryland.

Q Do you hold any degree or certification in geotechnical engineering?

A 3

I am a Registered Professional Engineer in civil engineering.

Q My question was with regard to geotechnical engineering?

3 A No, I do not hold any.

. O What was the extent of your post degree study of soils and foundation engineering at the University of California?

, A It was an eight week advanced soil mechanics course conducted by the University of California for the U.S. Army Corps of 1 Engineers.

,. Q What was the extent of your~ post graduate studies on soils i j and foundation engineering at the University of Maryland?

.: A l

I took a graduate course in soil dynamics at the University l' of Maryland.

'. 3 Q Other than the graduate course on soil dynamics and the eight week program for the Corps of Engineers at the University of California, have you had any other formal education in the area of soils and foundation engineering?

. A My Master's degree at Villanova had a large portion devoted to soil mechanics and foundation engineering.

Q What do you mean by a large portion?

A I'd say the majority of credits that I earned were within soils t : .

1 9

,n--,- - , - - - - , - - ~ ~ , , - - - - - - ,, , - ~ , , -, -

, _ _ - - - - , - - , - , , - , , - - m-_-.- - ,- , , - - - . - - - - -- - - - - - -

r i i

1 KANE 6 l

and foundation engineering.

. Q How many credits approximately would that consist of?

A Thirty. Thirty-four graduate study. How many in soils and s

foundation engineering?

i O Yes.

A My guess would be around 15 or more. -

i 'Q What is the difference batseen a principal engineer and a geotechnical engineer for the NRC7 A The distinction is made on the basis of responsibility that

. I am asked to assume in geotechnical engineering.

.; O Tell me a little more about that?

.: A Well, I think you'd have to recognize that in geotechnical

.. engineers there are levels' of experience and responsibilities i

.: depending upon what you have done in the past, what

i experience you have and your ability to accept more difficult

.- assignments.

.: Q Does that distinction also place you in any kind of a j  ::- supervisory capacity over geotechnical engineers?

l C A No.

l

O What is the difference between a geotechnical engineer and a

soils engineer for the NRC7 .

A For the NRC there is no distinction now. When I was employed in October, 1975, my job classification was soils engineer.

25 In an attempt for NRC to keep current with the new definitions ac: 2 . : s . .t v r a s , i s :-

.,3 ,. ..: ..:.c.,:.... ... .3 .,

u.. . , . , ,. ,,,, a. .. . ., .. ..,,

- - , . - . ~ - - - - - - - - --,---.-,---------.----,--,,----..-_-,---,...-,.--_,,-,----.v-----.----,.,-v,,-,-,, - - , - - - - - - , - . ,,n,m. , -- --,. -

f f i

1 I

KANE 7 2 and descriptions in our field NRC made a decision to change

our job descriptions to be recognized by the engineering profession and on that basis made the change.

3 Q How many principal geotechnical engineers are there today in 3 the NRC7 A As far as I know I am the only principal geotechnical engineer.

3 Q How many geotechnical engineers are there?

A Today in NRC?

. Q Yes?

. A Allow me to give their names. That way I can count them.

Lyman Heller, John Greves, Owen. Thompson, Dennis Gupta,

.2 Ramon Pichimnnni and there are two too,on board as geotechnical engineers in the very near future.

.. O Unless my arithmetic is faulty that means that you presently have five with two anticipated joining?

'." A And then myself.

l

'. i Q Do you work within a certain branch of the NRC?

'. ? A Yes.

'O Q What is the description of that branch?

. A The Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch.

20 Q Who is the branch leader? .

A George Lear is the chief of the branch.

24 Q Who would be next in line underneath George Lear?

23 A In line?

sc: as: s u .i .i c a s, s ':

.cr. r.c: ....s,e .s.. c. .'c..

, . . . . , . . ... .. ,...o- .

i /

KANE 8 2 Q Yes?

A Under George Lear would be Lyman Heller.

Q Does then that line of authority extend beyond Lyman?

A No, I am under Lyman Heller's supervisory capacity.

3 Q What is Lyman Heller's title, if any then within the branch?

- A Lyman Heller is Section Leader of the Geotechnical Engineering Section.

Q How does one become Section Leader of the Geotechnica'l

. Section?

. A Is your question in regards to professional qualifications ~ or l

how was he selected within NRC7

Q Both those are appropriate.

A Well, he must have demonstrated professional qualifications

.3 in soils and foundation and geotechnical engineering. He-would have to be recognized by the engineering profession for having those qualifications and his selection would be by

• 5 management of NRC in the Office of Nuclear Reactor .

. Regulations.

i l

.. Q Has the work that you have done for the NRC since October of l

1975 differed significantly from the work that you did for

the Corps from 1963 to 19757

• l

.- A l From the standpoint of the engineering field that I am in, 2;

the soils and foundation and the geotechnical engineering, it 25 has not differed substantially. What has differed is that 1

I ac: as: s . .' ., x == s . 4 :

ars ***t: **:'t:# .4 *t*:**E*8 tg**S' ) 3 ** 193t .. * *7 *t* *ta'

f f KANE 9 2

I':n involved in a new type of structure, nuclear power plants.

Q Were you with the Corps -- I note that your resume, which, l 1

by the way, has been marked Consumers Exhibit Number 1 for

identification as of today's date (Kane) indicated that

while you were with the Corps you served as a technical ,

consultant charged with construction inspections for assuring -

3 completion of structures in compliance with the design analysis and contract specs.

)

Can you tell me the kind of structures on which you served as technical consultant?

12 A I was a consultant to field personnel in those structures but I was involved in as a design engineer in the Soils Design i

j ;4 Section. It included large earth dams. It included

.I structures that are pertinent to those dams such as intake

! 'i towers, conduits, inlet and outlet works.

U I also was a consultant in the construction

'3 of disposal areas for hydraulic waste. Also in the 3 construction of bulkheads along water bodies.

~0 Q Was the work that you did while you were with the Corps T.

primarily then involved with embankment and foundation design

2 of earth and rock filled dams and their pertinent structures? .

22 A What is meant by"primarily"? I think I just have indicated li that there are other structures connected with those 25 structures with earth and rock filled dams.

arr: :- . : s.uutas. - Ni

.r2 ,r.r- . .e ,c w .... .r.:. r.,

r e- 4 3 - ,sa asu . .. t

• s es* *ta

i KANE 10

. Q I would assume that is what is meant by pertinent structures?

A Yes.

Q okay. My question was the dams. and pertinent structures, if you are primarily involved in those structures during your employment with the Corps?

-A Primarily my experience with the Corps is in those areas.

i Q Since you have been with the NRC has your involvement been primarily with a particular type or types of structures?

A I would say no, not primarily. It has been both with the evaluation of the foundation design of nuclear power plants, and I have also been involved in the foundation evaluation of i

fuel processing plants and I have also been involved in the evaluation of the stability of embankment retention systems for re*=4 n4ng uranium mill tailings waste.

Q Can you describe what your activities were as technical advisor in the development of acceptance of performance criteria?

3A Are you talking about my employment with the NRC7

.: 0 Yes, I am.

. A We have a division within NRC called the Office of Standards

Development who is charged with the writing of regulatory ,

guides which are papers to give guidance to advocates in

4 specific aspects of many fields.

25 The ones thist I have been involved in are in 3g-- . s: s .; .e .s z;s. s :.

, , 3 , 1. e . . e . m a . .cc . r..

. . . . . . , . ... 2...  :... : . . . .

- _ . _ _ . _ . , _ . _ , _ , . . _ - - _ . _ , . _ . ~ . _ . , _ _ , _ _ . . , , , . , - , _ . , _ . _ _ . , , _ , , . , . _ , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , , . _ . , _ _ , . _ _ . , _ , _ _ , , _ - . , . _ _ . _ _ . . _ . . _ _ . . - , _ _ . . . _ _ _ , . --_ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

, a i

KANE 11

geotechnical engineering. I have given input to guide by the office of Standards in liquification, in the design and construction of earth emb=nWnts, in guides on independent spent fuel facilities and in guides on laboratory testing i and subsurface investigations.

Did you say subsurface investigations?

Q

A Yes.

MR. ZAMARIN: This might be a good time to excuse our visitors.

MR. PATON: Okay.

! e (Where.upon a number of people left the deposition room.)

. Q (By Mr. Zamarin, continuing) : Is the cooling pond dike at

Midland the type of earth =*=nhat for which you provided 4

input in development of acceptance and performance criteria l

~~

l with the NRC7

A No.

i Q How does it differ?

.. A The cooling pond dike at Midland was designed and constructed before I gave my input into the regulatory guides.

2 Q Listen carefully to my question. .

I l .

Can you read the question back, please

i (to reporter) ?

M (Whereupon the reporter read back the l

3c: 2s: s u v u t w s. 9 :

.c 2 cc .c .. :.c s ., ,w .c. : r.,

i w .a - v, >. ,,,, .. . ,,......v .

4

, -- - - - , - , , ,n,,, , - --- . _ . _ _ - - . - , . , . , - - , _ -. - - - , _ , - - _ - _ . - - . , - . . - - . , . , - - . , - . _ , - . , , . , - _ _ - - . . . - - . , . - - - - - . - - - , -

KANE 12 previous question.)

Q (By Mr. Zamarin, continuing) : I am talking about the type of structure, not that particular structure. My question is is the cooling pond dike at Midland the type of structure for which you provided input for the development of acceptance and performance criteria?

A Yes, it is the type.

1 Q Are you aware of any NRC regulatory guides that call out or specify acceptance criteria for cooling pond dikes?

A There is a standard review plan that discusses slope stability of earth e=h=ak==ats which would have applicable

, criteria. There is a Reg. Guide 170, Section 25 that would have criteria and guidance on the safe design of an embankmant similar to what was constructed for the cooling l pond at Midland.

1 Q Does that Reg. Guide apply to cooling pond dikes?

A The Reg. Guide pertains to earth embankments, the stability and the design and it would be perceived to cover the type of embankment built at Midland.

O Perceived by whom to cover that type of embankment?

, A I would hope by anyone who was looking for guidance on the design of earth embankments connected with nuclear power I

plan ts .

l

J Q When was Reg. Guide 170, Section 25 written?

I .: .

.:: .r: >2: . . -

6

___.__..__,,-,.w__ , - - ~ ~ , _ _ _ _ _ , - , - _ _ _ . _ _ . _ - _ , , , , .

e.,, ----.me,.,_,_r . - - . _ _ . , - - ,--wy-------

, /

KANE 13

A Before my time in 1975. I don't know the exact date.

Q When was the standard review plan that is discussing slope

stability of earth Ankmts written?

t A It also was written before my time and has been modified 2 with recent changes.

Q Is there any diffarence in your opinion between that which .

3 is contained in the regulatory guide and that which is the customary practice of geotechnical engineers in designing structures such as the cooling pond dike at Midland?

., A Would you repeat the question, please?

.. MR. ZAMARIN: Um would you read it back, please (to reporter) ?

(Whereupon the reporter read back the

.! previous question.)

13 A In my opinion what is covered in the regulatory guides on embankment design is current good. engineering practice and

3 they are essentially similar.

Q You said " good engineering practice". I had said customary i

20 practice. Is there any difference in distinction in your

mind between the customary practice of geotechnical engineers in making these designs and good engineering practice? .

A Well, I think " customary" may have to be modified in the 2,

sense that what was customary 20 years ago may, because of 25 what we have learned, have been modified to put together the 3t: 2 ,: s su: ws. 4 :

.c r, i.c ..:.reec u . .r... ..

w... , m .,,,, ,. . , . ~ . . ,

o e

'. KANE 14 2

experience that we have learned and still I think it is

better to qualify it for its current status.

, Q Well, there is a custom in practice within every industry as to the way things are generally done or accepted as the

way things ought to be done. Really what I am talking about now is the custom and practice within the geotechnical engineering discipline with regard to design of structures at the cooling pond dike, and we are talking about custom and practice as it exists today. My question then is, in your opinion is there any difference between what is contained in the regulatory guides and the custom and practice within the geotechnical engineering discipline in t

the design of structures such as the. cooling pond dike at l .2 Midland?

.1 A It seems to me we are comparing three things. One is the customary practice, our Reg. Guide and now we have introduced

.I Midland. .

'?

The distinction I'd like to make is that our

0 regulatory guides attempt to require good customary practice 2 *. in the design of emban h nts. Now, I'am not sure how your

2 question now relates to Midland. -

3 Q My question is simply this. In your opinion is there any difftrance between that which is called out in the regulatory 25 guides and that which is the custom and practice of 3g?: 1. 'a O 5 J st '.f I ' $ . '.

. g 3 9 't.g : eg;etti :%46 StP***t**

gg... 34 .3633 S* J ' 8' s

- , - , - - - - - - - - - _ - - . . _ - - - . . . ---n_-_--. . , , - - . - - --.- ,. _ ,----. ,,, _ --- - , - - - , - - - _ , _ _ , _ - _ . _ - - , . - - . _ - , - , , - - - - - , - , - - - ~

, r KANE 15 gootechnical engineers in designing structures like the cooling pond dike in Midland?

A No, there is no difference.

Q Does the regulatory guide to which we have been referring

, apply to Non-Category I structures?

. A There are portions that would.

O Can you tell me what portions of it apply to Non-Category I i ,

structures?

A If the interest is to be assured of safety or stability then there are certain aspects in the ' design you must follow

, whether you have labeled it Cate. gory I or Non-Category I in those portions, such as investigations for foundation materials, of the material that will make up the embankment, of the testing of those materials, of choosing appropriate design parameters from those test results and conducting an analysis that will determine the margin of safety that you have, I think would be followed for all structures concerned with safety and not necessarily labeled Category I.

l Q Tell me what in your mind the distinction then between the structure concerned for safety and the Category I structure is?

i A Category I requires that a structure be able to withstand a seismic loading equivalent to the SSE. That is that l

[

requirement of being made to be stable under that loading is

c. t: .: s- *'s *

,,...r.: .: .. .

,~,.w,,n,,- ,,...-,.,,e--,,---,,w,,, ,..n_,,_.,-,,,.---- - ~ , . , ---, . . , - , , , , , , _ _-,-----~,--,-...,,_,,------v. , , - - - - - -

. o

~

KANE 16

, the distinction between Category I and Non-Categcry I.

i Q I don't mean to cut you off?

b

A No, go ahead.

Q What is it that is peculiar to Category I structures that ,

distinguishes them in your mind from a structure for which there is a concern for safety? ,

A When we are concerned with Category I safety we are concerned with a structure being able to safely withstand the SSE and be safely shutdown after experiencing that large earthquake loading.

, Q I haven't made my question clear to you. What I want to know is what are the characteristics of the structure that j , in your mind would distinguish a Category I structure from

! a structure for which there is a concern for safety? .

A would you repeat the question, please?

You will have to read it back I

MR. ZAMARIN:

(to reporter) .

(Whereupon the reporter read back the

,, previous question.)

A The characteristics of the structure I interpret to mean

. what other properties. If we are now talking about an earth embankment I would interpret them to be those properties such as shear strength which would be developed when subjected to

a loading. Those shear strengths and other parameters are i

--  : ,  :. -

,: , r ,:: - : , .

, o KANE 17 mobilized for other than the SSE loading and so rany of the

same parameters that are concerned with the SSE loading are also concerned with such things as --

.: Q (Interposing) r Let me interrupt you here because you are making my question much more difficult than it is.

You, made a comment earlier that own if someone calls a structure a Category II structure that there

~

still may be a concern for safety or stability which would, therefore, make applicable from the regulatory guides certain provisions with regard to investigation of foundation materials and testing and choosing the appropriate design criteria, conducting an analysis and really what I am asking you is when you look, when Joe Kane looks at a structure how does he decide whether that is Category II for which there is concern for safety and stability? What would bring into play those provisions of the Reg. Guides or whether it should be a Category I. What is it about the structure in its i

i intended purpose or function that in Joe Kane's mind creates a distinction or allows him to draw a distinction between a Category I and Category II, and Category II for l

~

which there is a concern for safety or stability? -

A l .

The distinction is the need of the structure to be able to f

I withstand the SSE loading and be safely able to be shutdown after experiencing that loading.

1 .  ; : . -

sg -- , -e og- ,

_ __ _ , - , - - - - - - " - ^^ ^^~^^ ^^ ^ ^ ~ ~

KANE 18

Q Okay?

. A' Go ahead.

Q The cooling pond dike at Midland as an example, you say that

the necessity fo safoly shutdown the structure. Certainly you wouldn't be referring to shutting down the cooling pond dike? .

A I am talking about safely shutting down the nuclear power

. plant.

Q .And do you --

A (Interposing) :

Could I talk about the Midland structure?

.; Q Okay, you kind of begged the question on me though.

O MR. PATON: He asked if he could talk about

,, something. .

.3 MR. ZAMARIN: Okay, certainly. You can' talk l

'5 about it, yes, l

A The cooling pond,actually ..we have attempted to respond to

'. i the way it has been presented to us in your FSAR documents.

'3 We feel that there is a portion of the cooling pond, of the 20 ambank:nent that is Category I safety related, and the reason for that is that if there is a failure of the == Mn hent

0 there is the potential to disrupt a safety related conduit -

21 at the base of the amhankment. So there is a portion of the cooling pond that we feel is Category I. The amh=nirment 05 stability is Category I safety related. There la another gg--  ; ..  ; $ g *.1 *.t E4 S. *N O

. g , 3 *T. t: 4.te si  ?. a *!'i**"*4

t**.

• 3 2 se AME . .. . *****

, -.__. ,_ m .- _,_m,_.

, a 1

KANE 19

portion of the cooling pcmd which does not have the category 2 I conduit at its base, but there is, I would think, from 2

responsible engineers a concern for its safety, for its 3 stability so that it would not fail and release the waters 5 of the cooling pond.

Q What other portions, are you referring to? You mean every-thing else other than the portion that has the Category I

conduit under it?

- A Yes.

Q By that statement do you mean that portion of the dike in the area of the Category I conduit is in fact a Category I

'd structure that must be able to withstand an SSE7

'. i A Yes.

Q And can you tell me when prior to the occurrence of the soils issues matters, if ever, the staff has ever indicated such in their review of the FSAR7 A The SER that is written by the staff for its consultants, f

the NRC staff or its consultants back at the CP stage talks about the work that was done to show the dike was stable for h

loading equivalent to the SSE, and the SER written by the NRC staff concludes, based on the information presented in the PSAR that that portion of the dike is stable under the SSE, so the point I am trying to make is that the staff when they evaluated the cooling pond concluded that it was stable

z: . ..

~

t

- - - - - - - - , . . , , , - - , ,,,-----,--,--,-n- - - - - . - - - - - , - - , , , , - - - . , - - , - - - - - - - - - - - , - - , , - , . , , . - - - - , . - - - , -

n . , , , ,., , -,--,

KANE 20

!. under the equivalent of the SSE back at the SER stage for

the PSAR.

Q Was there any communication of indication, however, to

Consumers that the dike or portions of the dike was to be 3 considered Category I structure and was required to be able to withstand a safe shutdown event?

i A Do I know of any correspondence?

Q Communications?

. A communications?

. Q Yes?

.. A I know at the previous meeting in February of 1980 the

stability of the cooling pond where we have the Category I

.i pipe at its base was raised at a me.eting and expressed a concern that it be stable under the SSE loading.

i Q Can you recall any similar type of communications prior to l .'- December of 19797 l

.: A I had said February of 1980. ,

li Q That's right. Now I am taking you prior to December of 1979.

MR. PATON: Could I ask whether the word

. " communications" would include SER or do you mean 22 communicated in any way? .

I l

.2 MR. ZAMARIN: That's right, telepathy or anything else.

15 MR. PATON: Telepathy, whatever.

st-- s- s a '.i  : = s. .:

.t 2 . t.r :er s e : ~4 =: -'t=>

. r

, KANE 21

, A I firs't became involved in the Midland project in November

. of 1979 and I am not aware of previous correspondence.

Q If the staff felt that the cooling pond dike could withstand 3 an SSE back at the SER stage why are they raising this issus

now?

. A The reason it is being raised.now is because the fill that .

was placed in the embankment, the cooling pond embankment came from a similar source as the plant fill where we have ~

. experienced the settlement problem and so the staff in

,, attempting to be assured that the embankment was constructed properly has asked for some additional borings and testing to verify that the cooling pond was constructed as designed and approved at the PSAR stage'.

,3 0 Is there anything inherently inadequate or wrong with the

3 type of fill that you believe was used for the cooling pond dike construction?

,3 A Could you explain further your question about " inherently 3 wrong"?

-- Q Well, what I am driving at is what is it in particular about

., that fill that causes some concern in the mind of the staff?

A

, Actually it is good engineering practice to go back and take j  ; record samples and perform laboratory testing to show that i

the properties that you have in a completed structure are in 3 fact equal to or better than the original design parameters sc

as

s u v v. =s. N :.

4g3g reg; e s : rt s s' ea*E***tE*F

t**** * '** P883 ' #'

9

- - , . ~ . -

,--- , - . , - , - , , - - . - . - . , - - . , , , - _ , , , , , . , - - - , , - .-, --_-,-----,n., , ._ . , , , . , , -

\

KANE 22

that you adopted. I would have thought for the Midland project that even without the plant fill settlement problem that would have been done, but knowing we have a plant fill 3

settlement problem and knowing that poor compaction can produce soils with lower shear strengths, different permeability properties, it seems reasonable that we should investigate and assure ourselves that the dike for the cooling pond has been properly compacted and does have .

adequate strengths and other needed properties.

. Q Okay, maybe we are getting a little closer now. You indicated earlier that the reason why the issue was raised now after having been passed at the SER stage by the staff was that the fill came fr'on similar sources as the other

(

plant fill.

That caused me at least to understand your

• answer as saying that the problem was with the inherent

.- properties of the fill itself. Is my understanding correct?

. ;- A I thought you started off by saying it was passed by the .

. staff. It was not passed by the staff. The staff at the SER stage was concerned with stability under the SSE, so it

- was n ot passed.

It was thought to have been designed --

Q (Interposing)

Well, I mean by " passed", they gave it a -

passing mark. In other words, they approved the dike in so far as its ability to withstand an SSE was concerned?

25 1

MR. PATON: Would you clarify if you mean the 1

3--- as: s u u v r = s. s-

. ,3 a c r = = c c . s. ~ ~ = < =: = t =

• n.... ... ......., n... - - > - +

a KANE 23 design or the actual work? You said they approved the dike.

Q I would assume at the SER stage that they would be talking about the design?

A That is correct. What was approved was the design. That assumes certain properties --

Q IInterposing) : Okay, let me go back.

MR. PATON:

No, no, I think you should let him finish. I think you s'hould let him finish his answer.

MR. ZAMARIN: No, I still have a question.

MR. PATON: You are not going to let him finish his answer? He was in the middle of an, answer.

MR. ZAMARIN: I don' t have a question pending.

i MR. PATON: He was in the middle of an answer. Are you going to refuse to let the man finish his answer?

MR. ZAMARIN: You take him at the end of this deposition and ask him any clarifying questions you want.

MR. PATON: Let him finish his answer. You cut the witness off and I think that is pretty poor procedure. ,

He was in the middle of an answer and I think you should let

! him complete his answer.

? MR. ZAMARIN: My question was, however, --

1 -: .  :

3 .

....,u , . -- -.

-. -- , - _ . _ . . . ~ ._ _ -

KANE 24 MR. PATON (Interposing) : Let the record shew that Mr. Zamarin refuses to allow the witness to finish his answer.

. MR. ZAMARIN: So be it then.

4 (By Mr. Zamarin, continuing) :

Q My question was whether there is sczne concern in your mind with regard to the fill itself, .

and I take it that because an earlier answer to one of my questions was that the reason that the staff is raising the

• issue now is because the fill came from a similar source as the plant fill, so really all I want to know is is there some problem with the inherent properties or characteristics of the fill itself that causes the staff concern?

A The inherent properties come from whe.ther we have attained in the field under construction the ' required densities. Soils develop their properties from obtaining the required densities. The staff's concern is in recognition of the i

problem with the plant fill did we in fact obtained the ,

required densities in the cooling pond dike and so our request for borings and laboratory testing are attempting to show that it was properly compacted and we do have the l

equivalent or better of the design properties which were .

. approved at the PSAR.

I T2 . Q Now when you said that you want to be assured that you have the proper co~mpaction now does that have anything to do e,. i+;--- t, . :- -- e

. KANE 25

. necessar!ly with the source of the fill?

A No.

O All right. Really what the staff is concerned about now is not that the fill came from similar places as the rest of the fill but the possibility that it is not adequately compacted, is that correct?

A That is correct. .

Q And is there any reason to believe that the fill in the dike is not adequately compacted?

. A The reason it is being questioned is because it is similar

. material and was compacted by the same involved people as the plant fill and so what we are attempting to do is to assure ourselves that the embankment fill is better than what has been shown to be true for the plant fill.

Q Upon what do you base your statement that the dike fill was compacted by the same people that compacted the fill in other areas of the site where there have been problems experienced?

A By the same people I am talking about the same utility who is

. constructing both types of structures.

. Q I see, you are talking about Consumers Power Company?

.. A Yes.

. Q Having compacted the fill?

. A Yes, I'm talking about Consumers Power Company having both

.- types of structures.

a:: . : ':

i~'t* * : . .

KANE 26

Q I see. Do you know who the contrcctor was who compacted the fill in the dike?

A No, I do not.

Q Do you know if the contractor who compacted the fill in the dike was the same contractor who compacted the fill in the diesel generator building area? .

A It is my understanding they were different.

Q Okay, and does the fact that they were different factor in

, any way into your preception of the likelihood of the same compaction problem existing between the two areas? -

A It factors in the likelihood, but I don't think I should have to make' a judgment on likelihood when I have available to me a means to assure myself that I have ,no questions about the properties.

Q Well, let's go back to my question and that is what is it that causes you to believe as a geotechnical engineer that the same compaction problems may exist with regarding to the cooling pond dike as it is in the plant fill area around the e

diesel generator building, for example?

A It is the same material in both places. One of the problems that has been indicated may be the cause of the plant fill ,

settlement is that it was placed dry of optimum and that same

.. problem could have been experienced in placement in the a embankment fill and so being the same type of material it could

=-: . .. c -

s: , ,* v:- --

• - a o

. o KANE 27 possibly have the same types of problems in placement and compaction.

Q What evidence do you have that it does have the same type of problem, if any?

A Would you repeat the question, please?

MR. ::AMARIN: Would you read it back, please (to reporter) ?

(Whereupon the reporter read back the previous question.)

A I do not have any evidence that.It is the same type of problem, but you do not have any evidence that it is not.

Q I see. Are you aware of the results of any observations with regard to settlement of the' cooling pond dike?

A I am aware through your reports of the settlement of the cooling pond dike.

Q And would that be some evidence of the compaction and the properties of the soil in the cooling pond dike and under the cooling pond dike?

. A It would be some evidence but the concern for the cooling pond dike is not one of settlement, it is one of having adequate shear strength under the types of loading that we could expect the cooling pond to undergo.

. O And if in fact those types of problems existed with regard to

.: the cooling pond dike would you as a geotechnical engineer 2  : 3 .  : .  :

. .-- -- s v3 9 .

sr- --

. i KANE 28 expect to see that menifested in any way through a settle-ment observation?

A It is quite possible it would not manifest itself through settlement. It may take a period of time after development of steady seepage from the full cooling pond reservoir to

~

manifest itself as .being a problem.

Q How do you postulate where and how the failure of the dike will take place?

A I don't postulate.

I have not allowed for failure to take place.

What I am after is assurance that the properties of the material in the dike are as.high or equal to the values given in the PSAR.

Q So far -

MR. PATON (Interposing): Were you finished, Mr. Kane, with your answer?

i A Yes, Q (By Mr. Zamarin, continuing) : You have indicated so far that i

there is no evidence or no fact that you can point to which 1

causes you to believe that there is a problem with the dike, but it is really the converse of that, you don't have i

evidence that there is no problem. Do I understand you ,

correctly?

A 7

There is evidence based on our experience with the plant fill that the materials may not have been properly compacted.

3 -:  : -

. . - .t- ' *- *

- -,m__ .w at - --.- -

.,g&_. -.w-- - + , , - - _

, i KANE 29

Q With regard to the dike is that statement true?

A With regard to the similarity and difficulties in compacting the same type of material.

Q Can you tell me what those were as it relates to the dike?

. A could you explain your question? Could I tell you what? I don't understand your question.

Q It seems to me as I sit here that what you're testifying to is that because there were problems with fill in some other area of the project and that those problems arose as a result of the efforts of a different contractor that somehow- this causes you to conclude that there is evidence that there may

. be problems with the dike. I think that's what you're saying, is that correct?

A No, not entirely.

Q Why don't you tell me what you have said?

A I am saying the material came from the same source that went

_ into the plant fill and to the embankment. I am saying the problems in placing the plant fill which had been given to us, that it may have been too dry and below optimum prevented it from being properly compacted. That fact, the same source

.. of material, the fact that one of the reasons it had difficulty in the plant fill is that it may have been dry, those facts made us question whether it was properly placed-1 in the embankment.

s-:  : -

4: . +--st-  :., ,t;t *-

A

l i

KANE 30

. Q When you say that it may have been dry you are referring to the fill that was placed in areas other than the dike, is l l

that right?

A That is correct.

Q And earlier I think you indicated that the fact that the fill came from a similar source or the same area really was no indication that there was likely a problem with the dike but that the problem.in your opinion was compaction?

A Well, the point I am trying to make is that it is the same material and source. We do. not know at this time whether the

. fill itself is a problem in the. dike. What we are attempting to do is to assure ourselves that the material that went in the dike was properly compa'eted and has adequate soil properties for the loading that it will be experiencing during operation of the p'lant.

l Q When you say that you are not sure that there isn' t a problem with the fill itself are you suggesting that there is some problem with the fill as a material as used in the dike?

A The problem is not with the type of material. The problem is whether it was properly compacted and has needed soil

.. properties .

Q I think that we are back to what I understood you to say earlier, that the problem is not with the material but it is with whether it is compacted, is that right?

- +--- -- :u .

- -m. -- ,_.,_,, , , . , .,_.._y,,, ,. , , - , , , _ _ _ _ , _ . . . . 7-- .,__._,*r -- - - ' - - - - - - - ' - - - - -

6 KANE 31

- A You say, "not with the material". If the material has not been properly compacted then it is with the material.

O okay. I am talking about the material itself, the fill and where it was taken from?

A The type of material is not the problem.

Q okay, then in your opinion the. problem would result from the ,

phyr,1 cal activity of placing and compacting it, is that correct? -

A It could.

Q What else could it result in?

- A If it were properly compacted there would be no problem.

Q I've got to ask,that question again then. So then what you ,

are saying is that the problem, if it exists, it would result fron~the placement and compaction and that's all, is that correct?

A That is c.orrect.

L Q You testified a little earlier about a concern associated .

I with the Category I conduit that runs under a certain portion i

l j of the dike.

l -

- A I think my words were "at the base of the structure".

. Q At the base of the structure. Have you postulated an area .

or mode of failure with regard to the dike in that area?

. A We have asked Consumers to take additional borings, run

. laboratory tests and establish the needed soil properties i::  ; e t: -  :

1- -s .u, .

KANE 32

after compaction and on the basis of that information make a slope stability analysis which will evaluate potential slides of that embankment. That is the postulated failure.

Q That is the postulated failure, did you say?

A Yes.

In what location of.the dike is that failure postulated?

Q A The location would be analyzed based on the results of the

. borings. There are some areas of the dike because of its height or because of its closeness to the category I pipe which would be more susceptable to a slide.

Q Which areas are those?

A Well, one of the areas would be with that berm that you have between the ultimate heat sink and the cooling pond . dike becomes its narrowest. The berm which would be a stabilizing influence on stability narrows as it approaches the service water pump structure and so where that berm is narrowest 2

would be one place where I'd feel it should be analyzed.

Q Is that the diversion dike area?

A Are you talking about the baffle dike? There is a portion of the baffle dike where there is no berm and we would also want to see an analysis there, but right before it goes into the I

i service water pump structure the berm narrows and it is almost '

one continuous slope from the top of the dike to the bottom i

t of the ultimate heat sink.

i iI~~  !

! 3 . I i l

av: s rer: ==ec.> ..  :- * :s-

KANE 33

, Q Have borings been reqwested in the baffle dike area?

A No.

Q Let me see if I understand what you have said. Is it true that as you sit here today there is no location and mode of failure for the dike presently postulated?

A Can you further explain what you mean by " presently postulated"?

. Q Well, postulated today. In other words, have you postulated a certain location and type of failure for the dike, because it appears to me what you are saying is you want more

, information so that you can see if such a failure will be postulated and where it will be postulated, but as you sit here today that postulation has not been done. Is my understanding correct?

A That is correct, and the' reason for that is borings which we have requested will tell us whether there are any areas where it appears to be under compacted and it is in those areas we

, would expect a stability analysis and potential slide to be evaluated.

Q Okay. Do you know if there was any difference in the type of

, equipment, heavy equipment as opposed to hand held equipment in connection with the work around the dike as compared to the diesel generator building?

i A I am aware of your reply on September 14th which makes that

I: - 2  : = -  :

,: e--v.~ , -- , _

,s s --

KANE 34

distinction between the problems that you have with hand compaction versus what you were able. to do with the cooling pond, but the size distinction 'in equipment should not be reason we don' t obtain the required information in these areas.

Q Is that significant in considering whether or not there may '

be similar compaction in the two areas?

A May I rephrase your quesrion to understand what I think you are asking? I don' t understand what your question is.

Q Why don't you go ahead and if you don't answer it I will ask

. it again.

MR. PATON: If you don' t understand his question just say so since he doesn't want you to rephrase it.

MR. ZAMARIN: No, no, I am letting him

~

rephrase it.

MR. PATON: Oh all right, fine, he is letting you rephrase his question.

. A I think what you are asking is is it more likely to have problems in areas where you hand compacted versus open areas where you can have the full movement of heavy equipment, is -

. that correct?

Q Well, I will accept that. That was my next question but you

2 can answer that one now, yes.

4 u. . - -.-  ;,+

. i KANE 35 A It is more likely to have problems in hand compacted areas.

Q Is it considered, in your opinion, good geotechnical engineering practice to take borings in dikes after they have been constructed and there is water placed behind them?

. A When properly conducted it could be done in good engineering

. practice.

O Okay. Now, you said two things in that answer that qualify it, and one is if properly conducted, and then you used the word it "could" be done consistent with good engineering practice.

, Now, are you saying then that even if it were properly done that it would not necessarily be done consistent with good engineering practice?

A It could be, yes. If not properly done I do not feel it would be good engineering' practice.

0 My difficulty is I draw a distinct difference between the use of the word "would" and "could". "Could" suggests that it is possible or as "would" indicates an outcome and your answer was that if it were properly done that it could be done consistent with good engineering. practice.

, What I am saying is if it is done properly would it be done consistent with sound geotechnecal engineering practice?

A There are concerns in a situation where in a projecc, or in a

+  :  :  : -

KANE 36 project where it may be better -- I won't even say "may",

it will be better geotechnical engineering practice to make

. the borings and resolve the issue in question rather than not take the borings because of the concern for what could happen in conducting a boring.

Q In your opinion is .there the possibility even if the borings are conducted with care and properly done of causing or inducing hydrologic fracture with regard to the dike? .

A There is a possibility depending on whether the embankment was properly compacted to begin with.

. O So is it your opinion then, based upon a reasonable degree of geotechnical engineering certainty that if the dike is properly compacted that there is no possibility of causing or inducing the hydrologic fracture or failure by imposing borings in the dike?

A It is my opinion that you can conduct your borings to where there would be no possibility of hydrologic fracturing.

Q Have you attended any meetings or reviewed minutes or memoranda of any meetings in which Bactol Consultants have stated their opinion daat there is no need for additional l . borings in the dike area?

l A I have attended meetings and I have seen reports from Bectol l

Consultants that make those statements.

1

.3 Q And do you disagree with those stated opiniens of the Sectol 1

.  ; - r :

,1 ....:- ,, .. .

k.

KANE 37

. Consultants?

A I disagree that there is no need for additional borings, yes.

O Can you point to any basis for their stated opinion, any hypothesis or any fact upon which, to your knowledge, those consultants relied which is in error or with which you disagree?

A Would you repeat the question, please?

MR. ZAMARIN: I can't. Read it back (to reporter).

(Whereupon the reporter read back the

. previous question.)

A I do not know of any area, but I do know that many of the same consultants that you have performed borings in embankments that are considerably higher, with a much higher head on the embankment andi, therefore, I'd say I would disagree that they have a problem with doing borings because

in other structures in which they have been involved in they l have permitted borings to be taken under more dangerous 1

i conditions.

I l

_ Q Isn't it really a weighing of risk that is involved in making l that kind of decision and if you really don' t hrve what in ,

sound enigneering opinion is an overriding reason to perform the borings that you really ought not to be doing it?

.! A The question is the overriding reason. We feel the safety

= -

t- .: - 1

, - - - - . , , -,.--,---,e--, , - - - - - - . , - - - , , .

1 l

KANE 38

. of the cooling pond is an overriding reason to require the

. borings and the testing.

. Q I am not talking about the safety of the cooling' pond. I don't think that in sound engineering judgment that that is one of the bases. I think rather, isn't it that there is insufficient reason to believe that there may be a problem existing that would justify what might be considered a drastic measure and that'is taking borings in a dike?

A I feel the position coming from Consumers consultants in

. their concern for hydrologic fracturing is not commensurate

. with the actual risk. In my own~ experience we have performed borings in much higher embankments and have developed no problems with hydrologic fracturing and actually one concern I have is if you are concerned that the embankment is such that you are going to introduce hydrologic fracturing, to me

~

it indicates a concern for stability that is marginal and if

.: anything I would want to do the borings just to answer that question.

Q I am going to draw an analogy and maybe it is not appropriate, l

. I will point that out, but it appears to me that if, for

.. example, you present yourself to your doctor and you are not ,

i sure whether you have a stomach ache or not, the doctor then

, has to weigh the somewhat drastic measure of a laparotomy, l .? cutting your belly open as opposed to saying there is not i

l 1 - - : .

I -

4

...,--r---.-.._ _ _ . _ _ - , , - . - , - , _ . , - - --.---.--,----_4. , -

KANE 39 sufficient indication for me to have, based upcn a reasonable degree of medical certainty, cause to believe that you ought to be cutting someone open, even though I know that it is done a thousand times a day and the patients recover, I also know that once or twice a day the patients don't, and that sometimes you cause problems when you go in there and that, therefore, I'm going to require as a physician that there be some' sound evidence that there is something wrong in there even though I know that if there is something wrong that the patient may die, so there is your safety factor. In fact.if the guy has got an appendix that is ready to burst he could die, but I just don't have enough evidence that he does have an appendix that is ready to burst to justify me cutting him open and that's really what I'm talking about, and the purpose of this analogy i's to draw the distinction between the risk of the patient of dying if he does have an inflamed l

appendix and the pressing indications that he does, and you l

keep slipping me back or you keep slipping back by saying well because of the high safety factor involved with this dike that you weigh that against the possibility of causing harm by the borings and while I'm asking you is did you do 1

l any weighing of the facts which say there may be a problem with the dike against the possibility of causing the problen

.; with borings? l i =;

;  : .  :

l

- . = - - - . - - , . - - - - - . . . , --_ , - - - - . - - - - - - , .

t KANE 40

. A It was quite long and I don' t feel your example is appropriate.

O okay.

A I think you are overlooking a few things. One of them is we already have the problem with the plant fill. Okay, so we already have the initial symptom. Secondly, it is good engineering practice after completing a structure such as a retention embankment to go back and prove to yourself that you have within that embankment soils with properties equal to or better than what you thought you had in design, and so even without the plant fill settlement it would be good engineering practice to take the borings to do the laboratory testing and to show that what you have gotten in construction was what you had assumed in design and so with the additional problem of the plant fill it only reinforces the need to do that in this case.

Q So in your opinion then whenever you build a dike you ought to go take borings afterward to make sure that you got what you think you got there? .,

. A They are your words. You say "whenever". I think you have to make a judgment on the safety significance of the ,

structure you are involved with.

Q okay, so in your opinion then as a geotechnical engineer whenever you build a dike that has safety significance you

i l

KANE 41 3

. ought to go out when you have completed building it and take  :

i borings to make sure that you have there what you think you i have there, is that right?

A The one word, major significance, major safety significance.  !

Q Okay, let me try that again. In your opinion then as a [

geotechnical engineer wherever you build a dike that has t

- major safety significance you then ought to go out after it f

. is completed and take borings to make sure that you have there what you thought you had there?

i A I think it is good engineering practice.

. Q Okay. Is that to be found anywhere in a regulatory guide of the NRC7

, A Directly or indirectly? I would say indirectly you could find it.

Q Okay, tell me where?

~

A Wherever we talk about taking record samples. I don't

, specifically know what Reg. Guides. There are Reg. Guides that talk about taking record samples upon completion of l

.. construction.

. . Q Okay, but does it say to take borings and to take borings in

.. particular with regard to a dike that has been completed?

A The borings are a means of taking the record samples.

.. O And it is based upon that statement that you believe that the

.I Reg. Guides indirectly require or direct that borings be 2 .:  : .

,t. ,.t,,: . ~, .. . g 9

KANE 42

taken with regard to the dike when completed, is that right7r A Would you repeat the question again, please?

MR. ZAMARIN: Read it back, please (to reporter).

(Whereupon the reporter read back the previous question.)

. A I think the regulatory guides will give as reference other publications which encourage record sampling.

O Can you name one or some of those other publications?

- A I don't know the exact name, but I could locate Corps of

. Engineer technical publications.

O And to your knowledge do any of those other publications refer to borings of dikes or just simply to record samples?

A It talks about taking record samplings, record samples.which can be either by boring or taken in place as the structure is

~

constructed.

Q Have you worked on any project or been associated with any project either with the Corps or with the NRC in which there was a dike and no borings were taken after construction of

. the dike, and when I refer to dike I also mean an earthen

- embankment? ,

A I have been in my Corps experience connected with structures that have and have not taken record samples.

! O Can you tell me which ones -- strike that.

3 :  : .: 2 .:  :

,: s :, u ,, - .. .- --

1. 8 KANE 43 Can fou tell me how many you have been involved with where you have not taken borings after construction?

A I can't give you a number because I worked on many projects.

I could tell you the type.

Q Okay, tell me the type.

A The type would be disposal areas or a hydraulic dredge waste which may be constructed in a remote area where its consequences would not jeopardize life or economic loss.

. In those cases it was not felt necessary to take record

. samples.

Q In every case'where you have worked on that type of embankment or dike in which the failure would possibly cause economic or loss of life have you taken borings when you- '

finished building it?

A Your words are "in every case"?

Q That's right.

A I would have to say you could probably find cases where they

.. were not.

Q Would you suggest which one I might look at if I wanted to

. find those? ,

A You mean where as a geotechnical engineer that I worked on

, we did not take record samples?

.: Q That's right.

,s- r- , . - - - - .

, , , - , , . - 7 ,,, ,- , , - , - , , - - - , - - - - - - - - -.. , , , . , , , , , . , , - - , , , , , , ..,_,.-,,.-n , - ,- ,--,,, - - , - - - - -

KANE 44 A I'd much rather point to the ones where we did.

, Q But I am asking you for the ones where you didn't, I know

. what you'd like to point out. I am asking for the ones where you didn't take borings?

A We are just talking about earth embankments, is that correct?

Q Well, let's talk about earth embankments and then I will ask you about other kinds in my next question.

A Well, I would say the projects involved with retention of hydraulic waste, that is waste that which have been dredged to open a channel did not have racord samples. I would say

. all of the dams that I have been involved in in design have

~

either in construction taken record samples or if these projects were designed but'not constructed had allowed for record samples to be taken.

Q I am talking about after'the structure is completed taking borings. Have there been any on which you have worked other

. than the retention of hydraulic waste structures in which the

. borings were not taken after the structure was completed?

.. A After they were completed?

.. Q Right?

.. A Some of the projects - again, your question is those that

. were r!ot taken or were taken?

O What I want to know is if there were any projects in which you worked or were associated either with the Corps or the 3 :  : . -

t -

• 4* tt* *. ,

9

. KANE 45 NRC in w.hich no -- strike that. Let me start again.

Are there any projects on which you worked or were associated with either .with the Corps or the NRC in which borings were taken after completion of the structures?

A Borings were taken after completion?

Q Right.

A Do you want the specific name of the project?

Q Yes.

A Borings were taken on Beltsville Dam after completion of the structure.

Q Any others?

A There were dams that had been constructed before my employment with the Corps of Engineers.

Q Well --

A (Interposing) Let me finish, please. They were constructed before my employment with the Corps but while I was there we i

had directives from the Office of the Chief of Engineers to perform additional borings and install safety monitoring f

. instruments, and also installed piezometers in dams that had

. been constructed and were operating.

. O Why were the borings taken at the Beltsville Dam?

A To install additional piezometers.

Q Were they taken for any other reason?

l

.: A The record sampling that was taken, and that was a sample of  !

-i: - : .- .

i

)

KANE 46

. the material as placed in an embankment, was taken as construction proceeded.

Q Okay. What I thought you had testified to was that borings were taken after the Beltsville Dam construction was completed, is that correct?

A That l's correct. Those borings were to install piezometers..

Q ' I see , there were no other horings taken other than the horings taken for the installation of the piezometers, is that correct?

. A That's corract.

. . Q Why were the piezometers installed a'c the Beltsville Dam?

A Are you talking about the ones after? ,

Q After construction, yes?

A Because some of the piezometers originally installed no longer continued to operate and'the new piezometers were installed near those same locations to give us the information we needed.

. Q Were there any projects on which you worked or with which you were associated either with the Corps or the NRC where borings

. . were not taken after completion of the structure?

.. A I am sure there are some projects that I worked on where

. borings were not taken after completion of construction.

, Q And would any of those structures be structures other than those with regard to retention of hydraulic waste?

a: --  : e. - -

2  :

g;g :s;; .s e; , s,4 -_s-

-,gaw,. -g w-- -- - - , . - . , - , , , - - - , , , . , , _ -%. .,.-.---.,----,,,.y,,.- .-- ,,..,%.,-,p . - - - - _..u--N---'D"4 -' " " 'T' ' ' W ----""-'----"'-T

KANE 47

. A Yes.

O Can you name one or more of those structures?

A It is difficult to remember the names the ones where we didn't do the additional borings. I would think, and I am not sure of the projects, but I have been involved in perhaps maybe twelve tailings retention embankments, uranium mill tailings retention embankments and I would think there were some of those projects where additional bor4.ngs were not taken at the completion.

Q But as you sit here right now you can't recall which one or the most likely ones where that wasn't done?

A Most of the ones I can recall it was done. Additional borings were taken.

Q You really haven't answered my question. Were there any.that you can recall where it was likely that it was not taken?

~

A I thought I answered. I feel there must be some but I do not know the names.

Q Okay. Have you worked on or been associated with any dikes l

or embankments with regard to a nuclear plant or nuclear I

l l

project other than the uranium tailings embankments and other l .. than Midland?

l

-. A Say that again.

l l .- MR. ZAMARIN: I am not sure I can. Would l

? you read it back, please (to reporter)?

:  :  :  : +  :

-- ,- ..: -. .i  :

KANE 48

. (Whereupon the reporter read back the previous question.)

A Yes.

Q And on any of those were the dikes or embankments completed?

. A Yes.

- Q And on any of those had there been an absence of borings in the dike er embankment after the structure was completed?

A I would have to go through to honestly answer your question, I would have to go through each project that I worked on and recall which one had additional. borings and which ones didn't.

.. Q Give me your best recollection as you sit here now?

A I would have to say there are probably some projects that did not have additional borings.

O And do you recall the names of any of the projects of which it is your best recollectilon that additional borings were not done upon ecmpletion of the dike or embankment structure?

A Usually my involvement is with a problem with the dike at one of these projects to where we always do additional borings.

. I do not recall the names of those projects where additional

. borings were not performed.

. O Do you know if at the time of construction of those projects where additional borings were not performed upon completion the same regulatory guides that in your opinion directed the taking of record samples by boring at the dike at Midland t,e-.- -:tir. . ,e- ,,

_ = . . - . _ _ - - - . . .- .. - . _ . _ . - _ - - _ .. - -. - . - -.

KANE 49

. were still in existence?

A I would say the regulatory guides which existed were the same as they were for Midland as those others.

Is there some reason to your knowledge, that those dikes or Q

embankments at those projects where additional borings were not taken after completion, why that was not done? -

A I would say the major reason is that we did not have a reason such as we have at' Midland t6 question the integrity of the embankment fill.

O Is that the only reason that you can think of?

A No, I am sure there are other reasons.

Other reasons such as when a new reviewer became involved with the project.

Q You are going to have to explain that one for me further.

How does that effect whether or not you take additional borings?

A Well, if a reviewer is assigned the project late in a review

~

stage there may not be the time to do all which would normally be done if he were given the full review. He would trust the results of some of the earlier work of other

. reviewers.

. Q And, therefore, not do additional borings, is that what you

. are saying? .

.. A Yes.

.. Q Is there any other reason that you can think of why there should be a distinction between those projects where no 3-: _

.:: ,- ,1- _ , : .; . -. s--,

- . - ~ . - , . _ . , . - - - - .

. KANE 50

. additionni borings were taken upon completion of the work?

A would you repeat the question, please?

Q Sure, could we have that read back, please?

(Whereupon the reporter read back the previous question.)

A The question is are there any other reasons? What other reasons have we discussed first?

Q All right, that a reviewer might be assigned late in the

, review stage and, therefore, there might not be time to do tests and he would rely on earlier reviews of other people.

You said that would be one reason why maybe it wouldn' t be done or may be distinguished one of those projects from

.i Midland, and what I want to know is are there other reasons?

. A There could be other reasons. Another reason would be that you have adequate documentation of the field control to have i

confidence that it has been properly placed and compacted.

Another reason would be that there has been

. no evidence of any problems with that type of fill.

Q Anything else?

l A Not at this time.

r

.. O Then is what you are saying that unless one of these reasons 1

that you have just cited exists that there really isn't any

. good reason to take borings at a dike after it is completed?

.i A Well, you say there are no other good reasons. If given

.. 7--  : -

o

. - - - .v-_.- , - --

KANE 51

. ample time to look at the specifies of the problem there may be a good reason, so I don't want to exclude all other reasons. ,

r Q All right, don't exclude all other reasons, but absent some reasons such as or similar to those that you have related to us just now are you saying that then there is no justification or good cause to go in and take additional borings of the dike after it is constructred? -

A Will you repeat the question, please?

MR. ZAMARIN: Read it back (to reporter) .

- (Whereupon the reporter read back the previous question.)

A To familiarize myself with those reasons can we again go over those reasons?

Q okay, you have indicated'that a reason why there might not be borings taken of a constructed dike is that perhaps a reviewer might be assigned late and there isn't time to take the test, that there may be no indication of a problem at those plants, that there may be adequate documentation in the

.. field control and that there may be an absence of evidence of any problems with the type of fill used. Those were the reasons that you gave :ne for not taking borings at a completed dike. What I am saying then in my question is in

' the absence of those or similar reasons that is is your 2-  : - - - - - -

- ,- ag: - - - - ,,r- ,

. o KANE 52

. statement that there is no good reason to go in and take additional borings of a completed dike?

A well, I am sure I could think of other reasons such as if a dike is constructed under certain conditions and those conditions change, and an example of that would be where there is a development downstream in what may have formally .

been a remote area and now has become a populated area and so the stability of that dike takes on greater importance. Its potential failure takes on greater importance so because of changed conditions such as that.you may want to assure yourself of the stability by taking additional explorations and testing to show the properties of the constructed embankment.

Q Were any of the plants upon which you worked or with which i

l 1

you were associated that didn' t have additional borings taken l "

upon completion of the dike in a populated area?

A In my own experience, no, but from reading the literature you would hope to gain by the experience of others and anticipate that in your work. In my own experience, no, but from reading of the experience of others it could become a

.. problem.

Q What others are you referring to when you say reading from

. the experience of others?

! A I am talking about the technical journals of the American s

:  : 4 . e 1 :

=t ;- er: ** sx; . e- s o

t I KANE 54

. borings, is that correct?

A Yes.

MR. ZAMARIN: Off the record.

(Whereupon there was a short recess after which the deposition again continued.)

Q (By Mr. Zamarin, continuing) : Are you aware of any generally recognized authoritative manuals or. standards within the '

engineering field that state that borings should be taken after completion of construction of a dike or earth embankment? ,

A I would say the best source for that type. of guidance that I have seen would be in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers technical manuals. .

Q And can you refer me specifically to a particular technical manual and section of that manual?

A At this time, no. I will search it out. It has been five years since I worked for the Corps. I'd have to get the number.

Q I'd appreciate if you would do that.

In your opinion can hydraulic fracture occur only in embankments with potential slope stability problems? .

A No.

Q In your opinion can hydraulic fracture resulting from or

.  : associated with borings occur only in embankments with

-  : . . t  :

, ,. r 7---~,r- ---

KANE 55

, potential slope stability problems?

A No.

It would occur in well constructed embankments if the borings were not properly conducted.

Q In your opinion can hydraulic fracture resulting from or associated with a properly boring occur only in an embankment with potential slope stability problems? ,

A Repeat the question, please.

MR. ZAMARIN: Read it back, please.

(Whereupon the reporter read back the previous question.)

A It would occur, could occur in a properly conducted boring if some unforeseen condition existed and was not a result of the embankment construction.

Q Could such a possible unforeseen condition exist and yet not affect the adequacy of construction of the dike?

A Would the unforeseen - I'm repeating the question to better understand. Could the unforeseen condition exist and not affect the adequacy of the dike?

You could have unforeseen conditions that would not affect the adequacy of the dike, yes.

Q Have you reviewed any of the information provided by Censumers with regard to the placement of fill in the pond dike and the methods and personnel who placed that fill?

A I have reviewed some of the information.

The bulk of the r: . .

+

e P

Y KANE 56 technical review in geotechnical engineering ic being conducted by NRC consultant the Corps of Engineers.

Q In the information that you reviewed was it brought to your i

attention that different personnel placed and compacted the fill and the plant fill area than in the pond dike and that different equipment and methods of compaction were used in the plant fill area than in the pond, dike?

A It was brought to my attention.

Q Cid that in any way effect your belief that because of plant I

fill problems in other areas that there would be plant fill

.. problems in the dike?

i A It is a factor that would lead you to hope that there is no .

problem with the dike fill, but it is not a significant factor in my opinion to indicate that we should not do the additional borings.

Q It doesn' t in any way allay your suspicions that there may be l

l a problem with the dike, is that correct?

A The key words are "in any way". I indicated that it is a factor, so it is in that way, but I still feel the request l

l .

for the additional borings in recognition of the difference l

l in the contractors and method of compaction, I still feel the 1

request to do those borings is a reasonable request.

Q It is just a suspicion that you have of a potential problem

.: with the dike, isn't it?

.-: ~i .

s

, , , - . , - . . . - - , , - . . , . , . . . , _ .,__,,,_-.._,,__,,,_._,,_a._ , . , , , . , , , . _ __ . . _ , , . --.,-,_.-_.,,_,,,,n..., , - _ _ - . . - - _ , . . _ _ _ . , _

l l

KANE 57

A Well, I think it is more than a suspicicn. I think I have 3 said a few times that good engineering practice would 4 encourage you to take these record samples so you know. Even 5 without the suspicion I would be encouraged to do the testing,

,3 Q I am not talking about your motivation, I am talking about your knowledge of the dike and it is really no more than a .

3 suspicion that you have that there might be problems?

A That's correct.

- Q I have a document that is dated June 18, 1980, one of one, 1

and it has "J. Kane" on it and I'm going to mark it as

Consumers Exhibit Number 2 with today's date (Kane), and I

2 will substitute a clean copy of this as an exhibit because

,4 this has some notes on it unless you want to dig through

Mr. Kane's records and pull it out.

.: MR. PATON: Well, wait a minute. I don't

'.- want you to cross examine him until I can see what it is you

3 have got there.

!  ;? MR. ZAMARIN : Well, you better pull it out.

MR. PATON: I don't have them here.

2. MR. ZAMARIN: You didn't bring his documents

with you?

. A Part of the reason I objected to doing it here was that my

. records were not available. It was indicated to me that you

.- would have them.

2 - :  : 7 . ' '. *

>- :: v-  ?. . --v-e

- _ - . _ ._ y. . _ _ , , , _ . - _ , _ . _ . . . _,,,,y _ .._,_ _ . . ~ . ..y..-.,-, , . - - . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ . , _ _ _ , . . . - , , - . , , , , , - - . - , - . - . . . - , , , , , - . .

1 KANE 58 2 MR. ZAMARIN: Rig.h t. There are certain 3 records which were produced for the purpose of the deposition 4 that I had assumed you'd bring with you, Bill.

j >

5 MR. PATON: Off the record.

3 (Whereupon there was a short discussion held

off the record.)

3 Q (By Mr. Zamarin, continuing) : First of all you have had an

. opportunity to glance at least at what has been marked as -

1: Constrmers Exhibit Number 2 for identification. Do you

. recognize that document?

12 A Yes.

Q And is that in fact a photo copy of the document that was

, prepared and written in your hand?

U A I'm not quite sure it would qualify as a document. It is

.! something that I papared. Does a document mean that it is i

. for others to view?

l U Q No, a document means it is a piece of paper.

19 A Yes.

E Q Why was this piece of paper or document prepared by you?

2 '. A The Corps in fulfilling the assignment that NRC has given to 2 them and as consultants identified certain concerns with the .

cooling pond. There were questions with the Corps and within NRC on particularly which portions of it were Category I 25 safety related and which portions may not be, in that document c:  : .  : 5.v  : : : .

-~ .s-*- -

.e- aa,,

P f

, , . - , . , - - , - - - - , _ - . - - , , . , , , . , , , , _ , , _ , , , , - - , , ,n- - , , - . ,,,_,.,-n__,.. , - , _ . - - , , . -, . , , , , ,___-,,,me,------

l I

, KANE 59 that you have I prepared to try and recall the considerations relative to safety about the cooling pond.

Q It indicates on here that the concern the corps has and it is

, indicated on here certain reasons for their request for additional borings, and who in particular do you refer to, if anyone, when you say the Corps has indicated reason for?

. A he geotechnical engineering reviewers which at that time I wrote that I think were Hari Singh, Ron Erickson and Bill Otto.

Q You said that at the time that you wrote that it was Hari

,, Singh, Ron Erickson and Bill Otto. Who are the geotechnical

, reviewers today?

A Bill Otto, Mari Singh and Jim Simpson.

Ron Erickson is a 3 geologist who had input into evaluating the adequacy of the subsurface exploration program at Midland.

j ,- Q You mean the boring program?

.. A Yes. Well, it is more than borings.

,3 Q Oh, what is involved in the subsurface exploration at Midland?

,- A Test pits, field testing such as seismic.

Q It says in this Exhibit Number 2, within the paragraph that the fill constitutes the same type and probably received the same compaction as the plant fill containing the settlement problems.

It was with regard to that that there is a concern n for dike adequacy and a chance to increase knowledge on the

,t-- .

3.v4 : s

.z3q=get- es: rte, ., **' *****

au

• 3

KANE 60

i

problem of plant fill, and in your mind are one er both of those legitimate reasons from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint for conducting borings in the dike?

. A only remotely do I feel that we could gain useful information by investigating the fill in the plant.

Q Okay. Do you know whethtr'the technical reviewers in the .

Corps who had this concern and who apparently believed that the fill t%at constituted the dike was the same type and probably received the same compaction effort as the fill in other areas, did they know that the fill had been placed in i . and compacted by a different contractor than had done the work in other areas?

. A The note, or that document was written by myself. I don't i

recall having discussed with the Corps whether it was the

. same contractor and the same compaction. It was my under-standing at that time that I wrote that, and subsequent documnts that I have seen have indicated that it was not the 1

same contractor nor compacted in the same way.

.. Q Were you aware that a different contractor had -) laced the fill and compacted the fill in the pond dike and that different

. . compaction procedures had been used in the pond dike than in l

the areas of the plant which were experiencing settlement f

problems at the time the additional borings were requested in

.  : August of 19807 s:: -

<: ~ .c?: t

,n+-.-- ----,

.v-..,.w--. - - , , , - - .

, - . , - , , - -,, , , , , , _ , - . - , , _ . n,._.,--,-- . _ _,, n,---,_- ,- - - . , . ,. . - . , , - - . _ , , - , . - - . - - - - .

KANE 61 A Yes. I think I was aware of the different contractors as far back as February.

Q Well, this piece of paper, Exhibit Number 2 is dated --

A (Interposing) : Can I finish?

Q All right, I'm just trying to help you out because that is dated June 18th.

A Okay. There are two things I am trying to make a distinction on. One' of them is the contractor and the other the compaction, so I think as far back as February, I think at a meeting that we attended in February, it was indicated that it was a different contractor. ' Whether it was indicaced it was a different compaction effort or not I don't think I was aware at the time of June, 1980. I was aware when the additional borings were asked.

Q You were aware that there was a different compaction effort at l

l the time the borings were requaisted?

l A From you directly, yes.

O Do you know if at the time that Corps conveyed to you or the staff their request for additional borings they were aware

(

that there had been a different contractor and different

! , , , compaction effort between the pond dikes and the other plant l fill areas?

I A Your question is asking me whether the Corps is aware?

l

,e Q Well, not whether they are aware, whether they were aware at

, . .. .. 4 , .

I t

t

KANE 62 the time they communicated to you their desire for additional borings?

A I don' t recall any specific discussions prior to them requesting the borings on whether they were aware, but I think the answer on whether they were aware should be answered by them.

O Do you have any knowledge of whether they were aware by

~

specific discussion or by intuitive feeling?

A By intuitive feeling I would say that they should have been aware.

. O Is there anything that you base that intuitive feeling on?

A Yes.

O What?

A The fact FSAR and other documents indicate that that was the case.

Q Do you recall when the Corps first communicated to you their desire for additional borings?

A I don't recall the exact date. I know it was likely to be several months prior to officially receiving their letter.

Q When did you first become involved with the Midland project?

i A

I think in October of 1979 I was first told that I was going to ,

pick up on the review of Midland, and I think in October of 1979 I became involved te the extent where I wrote the work for the contract for the Corps of Engineers, the scope of work.

! **- * 't . ** ' '

l ,

KANE 63 I don't think I became involved in any review of documents until late December of 1979.

Q You said that one of the bases for your intuitive feeling that the Corps was aware that a different contractor had placed and compacted the fill and that there had been different compaction efforts with regard to the fill in the pond dike as opposed to the other plant fill areas was because that was in the FSAR, is that correc,t?

A If I recall correctly there is a discussion on test fills that were conducted to establish the compactive effort for the dike fill. '

O But yet you had the FSAR available to you and there was a period of time in which you weren't aware of those factors, inn' t that right?

A That's correct. The reason for that is the technical reviewers for the Midland project are essentially the Corps and I have to give guidance to them from the standpoint of NRC regulations and the way business is conducted.

O Who was it that made the final decision to request additional borings from Consumers Power Company?

A The final decision?

Q Yes. Was that your decision?

A No.

. , O Who made it?

- . . - - - - - , ,,.c-- --.--,--,- --- _-.-.. . , .-,. -... .,.- - - . - ---_ - -.. _,...--. . . - - - . .-

KANE 64 A Actually I think it is still being made.

Q Are you referring to the appeals?

l A Yes. Excluding that, the final decision, I would say the final decision would have been James Knight.

. Q Do you know of anyone who disagreed or disagrees with the proposition that additional borings that have been requested.

are needed and when I say"anyone" I am referring to within the NRC or the Corps of Engineers?

A From a geotechnical engineering standpoint I don't know anyone who disagrees with the additional borings.

,, Q What about any standpoint? Do you know of anyone who disagrees within NRC with the need for additional borings?

A I don't think disagree is the proper word that I would like to answer it with. There are people within NRC who are questioning the need for borings in areas that are not

.l Category I safety related.

, O Who are those people that are raising such questions?

1 A Well, I would say at some time or other everybody has raised i

the question. Some have answered it and others still may be

, questioning. The ones that still may be questioning it I i

,, think would be the management of NRC.

Q Who are you referring to when you say the management of NRC7 A I'd say Richard Volmer.

I'd say his technical assistant,

,3 Hal Levine,

: 3  :

.- **!*t. * ** . ** *

~

. KANE 65 Q You say Hal Levine is volmer's technical assistant?

, A That's correct.

t Q Anyone else?

l A He is questioning it in the sense that he is trying to come to t

a decision whether the borings should be required.

. Q To your knowledge is that -- strike that.

To your knowledge has that decision already been made? -

A To my knowledge I do not know the decision.

O Is there anyone else besides volmer and Levine who to your

.. knowledge at any time questioned the need for additional borings in Midland in either the Corps or the NRC7 A

To my knowledge I would say there would be others like Darl Hood, like William Olmstead.

Q What leads you to believe'that Darl Hood questioned it?

A As project manager the issues that we raise in our review go i

4 through the project manager and when he became aware of the i

request for additional borings he questioned the purpose of the 1

. borings and the safety significance that these borings had for 4

the structures and where we were requesting the borings.

Q Do you know whether he still antertains such questions? ,

A We are talking about Darl Hood now?

Q Darl Hood.

, A It is my understanding that he is satisfied there is a need for i

. :  ;  ; I  ? -

-'sr- *: st *4

.--,-- - m-- ---- - , - - - - - , , -

nan,--,----,n---- nye--, - . . . , - , - - - - , - - - + - - , ~ , - - - - , , - - - - , ,

~

KANE 66 the additional borings.

O What is it that led you to believe that Bill Olmstead

, questioned the need for additional borings?

, MR. PATON: I instruct the witness not to answer that question because Mr. Olmstead is counsel on this case.

MR. ZAMARIN: So? That is no objection.

What is the objection?

MR. PATON: The objection is that any advice or statements of Mr. Olmstead would come under the attorney-client privilege.

MR. ZAMARIN: Let's go off the record for a minute.

(Whereupon there was a discussion held off the record after which the deposition was recessed.)

l l

1 I

r

, *; , f . r 2 e

t v e -- - - - - -~=e----- - - - - ' - ' - - - - - - - - - . - - - - ~ - - - - ~ ' ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

a ,

67

, Detroit, Michigan Tuesday, October 14, 1980 About 1:55 O' clock P.M.

JOSEPH D. KANE, having previously been duly sworn testified further as follows:

CROSS EXAMINATION (CONTINUED)

BY MR. ZAMARIN:

Q Back on the record. Of course you realize that the mere fact

! that we have eaten lunch didn't change the fact that you are sworn and you are still under oath?

j A I understand.

Q Even though you ate downstairs.

i At some point 's hortly before the time we l

1 broke for lunch I was asking you about whether there was any-

, one within the staff for the Corps to your knowledge who

, questioned the need for additional borings, and I now want to go back and ask you whether or not, to your knowledge, there l ., was anyone within the Corps or the staff who disagreed with i

• the decision that there was a need for additional borings?

MR. PATON: Can we for the time being exclude l

l that question as it would apply to attorneys since I expect to l

::  : . i ens = * =r- . *  %

--.----....---_-n_-_.- ---

KANE 68 resolve that issue shortly?

MR. ZAMARIN: Sure.

Q Anyone other than attorneys, okay, I will rephrase the question. To your knowledge at the time of the request to Consumers for additional borings was there anyone within the Corps or NRC who disagreed with the conclusion that the additional borings were needed?

A To my knowledge there was no one in the Corps or within the NRC that disagreed with the need for additional borings.

Q You indicated, however, that there were certain people who questioned the need for additional borings and by that do you simply mean that they asked for more information as to why they were wanted or did they question it in terms of expressing some form of disagreement with issuing a request for the additional borings?

MR. PATON: Again, we agree that that is excluding attorneys?

MR. ZAMARIN: The records shows that we i

agreed that excludes attorneys.

A My statement that I do not know of anyone who disagreed is directed towards the understanding from a geotechnical engineering standpoint on the evaluation of stability. Okay, what I am saying is anyone who is looking at it from the

. standpoint of making a geotechnical engineering evaluation, I e b O 9 I

1

f e,-

KANE 69 do not.know of anyone who disagreed with it. From the stand-point of questioning there have been, I don't know of anyone within the Corps of Engineers who has questioned it but I know there are people within the NRC who are attempting to understand the safety significance of the cooling pond and on

- that basis have questioned whether borings should be requested or not.

Q Okay. At what point in time, to your knowledge, did they first question it?

A We are now talking about NRC?

Q Anyone who within your knowledge questioned it?

A I would say when they were made aware of the Corps request for the additional borings.

Q Okay. Now, I want you to take each individual of whom you are aware who questioned it, identify them and tell me when to your knowledge they first became aware of the request and therefore questioned it?

MR. PATON: Again,we understand that that excludes attorneys?

MR. ZAMARIN: Yes.

A Well, Darl Hood has questioned the borings, and I woul'd say it was back at the time the Corps submitted their letter for the additional borings, which is, I think, prior to or around June of 1980.

n ,...,; , - -

a n l

KANE 70 Q Is there anyone else?

A James Knight is seeking to understand the concern that the geotechnical engineer review had in his branch questioned the 1

3 purpose of the borings.

, Q How did you first become aware of James Knight's questioning of the need for the . borings?

A The Corps of Engineer's letter requesting additional borings went to Dr. Robert Jackson who had been identified as the Contract Officer that we have the Corps of Engineers. In the letter to Dr. Jackson I took the Corp's letter and directed

,, it, I think with some modifications, which I think you would have a record of the modifications in what I have given you, and with some modifications sent it to project management i

j ,

through Lyman Heller, George Lear, and it was signed by i

James Knight. The letter' requesting the additional borings before Mr. Knight signed the letter we had a meeting 1

. discussing the request for borings.

1 l

. O Do you recall the approximate date of that meeting?

l A No, I do not recall the date.

I l ,,

Q Do you recall whether anyone at that meeting stated an opinion

, to the effect that he or she didn't believe the borings were i -

l necessary?

( ,

A I think, again, a distinetion has to be made between the I

i 3 geotechnical engineering concern, and there was no question, 2, c ::  :,, . ,r> ,

KANE 71 the question came on whether the additional borings should be requested because of the safety significance of the involved structure.

Q pnd did anyone express an opinion that they felt that they should not be requested because of the concern for the safety

. significance?

MR. PATON: I believe the question should be

~

understood as excluding attorneys.

A Would you repeat the question, please?

MR. ZAMARIN: Could you read it back (to reporter) ?

(Whereupon the reporter read back the previous question.)

A I think opinions were expressed that the borings should not be initially but after a discussion on what was believed to be the safety concern the final' concensus was that we should go ahead and ask for the additional borings.

Q To the best of your recollection who was it that expressed

, those initial opinions?

A Darl Hood, James Knight.

Q Do you know why the borings were not asked for prior to the

, time the Corps became involved in this matter?

A To answer that I have to think of who the reviewer was at the p time prior to the Corps. I don't know his reasons. I do know

. t .

e

- . _ , - _ _ . . _ , , . , - ,.. _,y_.-- - - . ,._3._-_ _ _ - - ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . - , . - _ - - _ . - - - - _ _ _w ,-- .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - -

KANE 72 the OL review was going on at the time and if he wanted to he

! still had time to ask questions which could develop into those borings.

Q Was the reviewer at that time Dan Gillen?

A Yes, it was. It was under the supervision of Lyman Heller and Dan Gillen is a young engineer who was developing his experience in our division and was receiving supervision under, Lyman Heller at the time.

, O Is it your understanding that prior to the Corps requesting

! the borings that they were not requested because the NRC staff people involved didn't think the borings were needed?

A It was never a point of discussion so I cannot conclude what the reasons were.

O You are not aware of anyone prior to the Corps making the I

request in the NRC who even suggested that those borings be made, are you?

A Is my understanding of the question whether NRC had identified the need for additional borings before the Corps? No, I do not know of anyone in the NRC who identified that need.

O Do you know who it is within the Corps who first thought of i

, or came up with the idea of requesting additional borings?

A I do not know the person in the Corps who first thought of the borings. It is my understanding that there were several reviewers involved at the time whose initial feeling was that

(

l I

-.-----,----n-.

, y v.-, , - ---, ._ ,----,.-.mn,- -

,..---_ ,,, ,,.-,,..--,,--.,,,-.n_._----,.

KANE 73 there was a need for borings.

i Q In this document that has been marked Consumers Exhibit Number 2 for identification, and this is that June 18, 1980 paper of yours that was provided to us, there is a statement in paragraph number three that says: " Although stated to be Category II the applicant has presented a detailed stability

, analysis of the cooling pond dike system. Does NRC in our l

review ignore the information that is presented in the FSAR7" What do you mean by that question "Does the NRC in our review ignore the information that is presented in the PSAR7" A Well, the problem we are discussing is whether a part or all of the cooling pond dike are safety related. Okay, in the presentation of the FSAR there is a det.dled analysis of the entire dike. There are laboratory test results. There are slope stability analyses showin~g the dike to be, to have an i

adequate margin of safety, so my question is if it is

. Consumers Power Coupany's position that the dike is not Category I safety related then what was their intent in submitting all this information on the dike stability and later on it was pointed out to me that the SER stage the NRC reviewer concluded that the dike was designed to withstand the SSE.

i

. O Was it his conclusion that it was designed to withstand the I

-' ***t* ** *; * **

r, ---> , * , . -,- ---- r---e m--.- --.----c-. --

,, - - , - - - ..--~_...-..m - - -

KANE 74 SSE or that the design in fact would withstand the SSE7 A Would you say those two again?

O Yes.

Was it the NRC reviewer's conclusion that the dike was designed so that it would withstand the SSE or that as designed it would withstand the SSE. You see the distinction I am making?

A Yes. it is my understanding whoever the NRC reviewer was at the CP stage had asked questions with regard to the stability of the dike and work was done in providing addi+ % al stability studies for the dike which permitt .im to cone'lude that the dike was designed to be stable foz .e SSE.

O In other words, that it was the intent of the design to be able to withstand an SSE, is that what you are saying?

A Whose intent? Consumers or the one evaluating?

O I am saying the intent of the design. Somebody designed it and was the intent of the design to produce a dike that had l

l .

a stability sufficient to withstand the SSE7 .

l A I can't speak for the intent of the designer, but my evaluation of the intent of the comments in the SER was that l .

the reviewer in. the NRC felt it significant enough to indicate that he felt, that he had considered the design of the dike -

was safe against an SSE.

Q Are you saying then that because Consumers provided certain

.: information, including a detailed stability analysis that

, 3p.-:.

_ ,, -----r -- ' - ' " - ' ' ~'"

t

, KANE 75

therefore they were designing a Category I structure?

, A I am not talking about something that was done much longer i

before I became involved, but from what I can see from the documents questions were asked by the NRC reviewer which bore out that the dike had been designed for the SSE. Whether the designer had the intent to make it that way or whether NRC's -

questions brought it out that it was designed that way I don't know the ansvar to that.

O Would it be your opinion then that in any instance where there

, is a degree of conservatism in the design such that what

,, might be a Category II strubure would none the less with-stand Category I performance criteria that, therefore, it

, should be treated as a Category I structure by the NRC review?

A The fact that it can withstand Category I loading doesn't make it a Category I structure,' but there are safety aspects

. other than Category I seismic design. There are concerns for T4 , stability of the dike, for the uncontrolled release of flooding and flooding downstream interests and the question

. . that I was asking myself in the document was what was

,, Consumers intent in providing all this information to show that the dike was stable when on the other hand they are saying to us you are not to be concerned with stability of

.  : this dike. It seems to me the structure that was designed for

+: .

,...e_. .

, , ,-+ a

, -,y . e -n-,-----------e-- r--- - -,- - - -- - - -, - - - - - - - - + - . - - - . - - - - - , ~ . - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - -

KANE 76 the plant, that you would want to demonstrate it's stability and the Corps in reviewing your design is trying to assure t themselves that it is stable.

Q Are you familiar with what the requirements are in regard to provision of information about dikes for an FSAR?

A Yes, I am.

- 0 And are you aware that this type of information is required for a dike even though it be a Category II structure?

A I think you should explain what you mean by "this type". For designing a dike equivalent to withstand SSE loading? I don't

. think that is required.

O Providing a detailed stability analysis.

A For a structure that is not safety related?

Q Yes?

A Let's go over the question again, s

Q I am sorry?

A Would you repeat the question, please?

Q Okay. I Are you aware of the requirements for providing

{

l information on dikes, cooling pond dikes for an FSAR?

.. A Yes.

.: Q And in your opinion was the information to which you refer in l

(

this third paragraph, and that is the detailed stability analysis of the cooling pond dike information that is

.: required for the FSAR?

i

~

.: . n .:,1; ..<-- -

4

, m-. , - - , - - -- , - - - - - - - , - ~ - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - , -

KANE 77 A It -is my understanding questions raised by the NRC reviewer brought the level of the analysis to what is to the equivalent of what is required .for the PSAR. What I am saying is the NRC reviewer's questions on the stability of the dike requiring a different type of analysis to be conducted, including the SSE loading brought the dike at Midland equivalent to a safety related structure.

Q Did you say brought it to the equivalent of a safety related structure by vertue of asking questions abent it? I thfnk that is what you said?

A Yes, by asking questions an the significance of its safety 1

and having it determined that it could safely withstand the SSE.  :

Q And in your opinion then when a reviewer asking questions about the safety for the stability of a dike and information being provided in response to those which indicate that it could in fact withstand SSE results in that being a safety related structure. Is that your testimony?

A Not quite.

.. Q Okay, well, tell me where that is wrong?

- A The fact of questioning it doesn't make it Category I,but'if ,

fact or the end result of the question is to assure yourself and be able to conclude that it is safe against the SSE that fact to me would indicate that the reviewer wants that level e  :

. - . , , , , _ _ . _ _ . _ , , . , _ _ _ . , - _ - . . - . _ . , - - . _- -- --_.~ - __ _ _ - - -

~~

KANE 78 of assurance. Not the fact that the question was asked but the fact of what he was trying to establish by his question.

Q okay, and is there anywhere where this is documented, and by "this" I mean that this reviewer wanted assurance that this cooling pond dike would satisfy Category I criteria because in fact he believed. it to be a safety related structure?

MR. PATON: Would you hold up a second, the telephone is ringing.

Q Do you have the quostion in :nind?  !

A Would you repeat it, please?

MR. ::AMARIN: Would you read it back, please?

(Whereupon the reporter read back the previous. question.)

A The documentation that I know is ava .lable is the SER at .the CP stage and that documentation concludes that the dike is safe against the SSE. TIlere is no correspondence that I have come across, there may be, but I have not come across it that his purpose of questioning and making that conclusion was because he felt it should be safe against SSE.

O Do you know of anyone else within the NRC staff who shares your view that this information was provided which indicated a certain level of performance of a structure that, therefore ,

the structure is somehow elevated to that Category of structure?

9

.er ' -- '- - -'----w - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - -- +- - - - - - -

i KANE 79 3 MR. PATON: I object to that question unless 3 you ask the witness whether or not that is his opinion.

MR. ZAMARIN: He just testified to it for 3 the last twelve minutes.

MR. PATON

Why don't you give him a chance to see whether he agrees with your characterization of his

, testimony.

, MR. ZAMARIN: Can you read the question back (to reporter)?

, MR. PATON

I object to the question as I

,; indicated.

.: (Whereupon the reporter read back the

,4 previous question.)

,. A I think the question is backward in that it is implying that I feel once it becomes able to withstand the SSE it new

.- becomes a Catagory I. I don't believe that. What I believe

.3 is that the reviewer was trying to satisfy himself because he felt the cooling pond should, and these are my feelings , but I feel he was questioning and his conclusions in his S?.R were attempting to have hi:n be able to conclude that it was safe

- against the SSE.

. Q And do you know if there is anyone within the NRC staff who shares that view that you have just described?

25 A Lyman Heller I feel shares that view.

---

.  : s.  ::  :

...e. .s., .. 1 -- .

9

, - . , - - - - -- .--__.__-..-4. ___._,-r -__

1 KANE 80 2 Q Anyone else besides you and Lyman who share that view of whom 3 you are aware?

A I don't know of having discussed it with anyone other than 3 Lyman.

g Q How do you know what questions the reviewer asked about the c6oling pond dike at Midland?

. A By going back and Im*4ng at the questions that were asked

at the PSAR.

,s Q At the questions that were asked or the information that was provided?

.. A At the questions that were raked.

.: 0 Okay, and you have done that with regard to the cooling pond

., dike.at Midland?

.I A Yes.

Q And you looked at the answers also, didn't you?

'.' A Yes.

.: Q And based upon that you made the statament that the applicant

'i has presented a detailed stability analysis on the cooling

.: pond dike system and that, therefore, in that reviewer's mind it must have been a Category I structure, is that right?

A I don' t think I wrote that last, those last words about in the

.. reviewer's mind this must be a Category I structure.

. Q No, no, I'm taking that out of the last answer and tying it

'I in with this.

- - s ~ - s.- -:: '

. . ,.c,: .. ..:., .. - .-- .

.v- 9 1 :en

1 KANE 81

MR. PATON: The question was asked as if ha 3 had written that.

Q Can you answer the question now with that clarification?

3 A No.

Q Why not?

- A Because I don't understand the question.

MR. ZAMARIN: Oh, okay, could you read it back (to reporter) ?

(Whereupon the reporter read back the

,, previous question.)

A I have not used those words and, therefore, "in the reviewer's mind it was a Category I structure", are not my words.

,, O I think that is what you said in your earlier answer to some

,; questions I asked you. Now correct me if I am wrong.

A It seems we are talking about t ro reviews. The piece of paper

- you are reading from are discus' sions I am having with the

'. 3 Corps of Engineers.

12 O No, the Corps of Engineers is not in this yet.,

1

2. A The paper that you are reading from of mine was in discussions

. with the Corps of Engineers.

, .-. Q Okay, than in number three where it says "although stated to i

\. be category II, the applicant has presented a detailed

.- stability analysis of the cooling pond dike system. Does NRC in our review ignore the information that is presented in the 3 : -- _ - .  : = ; -

_-,_,-_y , . , .. .y. y --- - -

- - - , --_._.,, - ,, 7.-___-__m

KANE 82 3 FSAR? "

3 Are you saying that that is a comment from

, the Corps of Engineers?

.., A That is a comment of mine.

3 O All right.

. . A (Continuing) : In reviewing the work of tne Corps of Engineers, okay, then you were *=1bing about other questions that I had looked at with regard to the CP review.

,,- Q The way we got started cm this little path was that I asked l

you what you meant by "Does the NRC in our review ignore the information that is presented in the FSAR", and I understood you to say that the fact that there was a detailed stability

, 4 analysis of the dike in the FSAR and that the reviewer asked questions about the stability of the dike in terms of SSE, that, therefore, you concluded that in the reviewer's mind it i

was a safety related strr.cture. Now, am I wrong in that

., understanding?

. A Yes, I *hinic you are wrong.

i -

0 All right, point out where and correct it?

A In one discussion I am talking about my understanding of questions raised by the NRC reviewer at the CP stage and I am saying there were questions asked then about the stability

,, of the cooling pond dike which provided additional ,information 7 and included the loading of the SSE on the dike and that s--- .

.- =3 . :

,. ...... .s y e-9

4 KANE 83

reviewer at the CP stage concluded in his estimate, his

evaluation that the cooling pond dikes were safe against the

equivalent of the SSE.

2, The piece of paper that you have there i (indicating) is now talking about tb- .arps of Engineers in their review responding to the informa+-!an that you have presented in the FSAR, and the question I think is still a real question. You have presented a great deal of information in the FSAR on the stability of the dike. The Corps in rariewing that information wants to assure chamaelves that the

.: dike was built as designed and as precented in the FSAR and therefrom comes the request for the additional horings and laboratory testing.

. O But does that in your opinion up this from a Categorf II to a Category I structure?

~ ~

A Asking questions by persons from the Corps doesn't make it a 1

Category I.

t What has to be evaluated is the function of the structure and the complications that could develop should that structure not function properly.

Q okay, so if I understand your previous answers in this area to suggest that because the questions were asked by the .

reviewer and the esponses were given by Consumers that, therefore , the reviewer was viewing it as though it were Category I and it should hence be treated like a Categorf I

;-- -  : 2 . -

= - -

ar: :r-~ ..

..__n.,,...

anw,.-a,-- - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

KANE 84 0 structure, was I wrong?

3 A Well, I don't quite understand your question. The fact that he asked questions and concluded what he did doesn't make it Category I.

5 I have offered that information because I feel i

that even that back at the CP stage the reviewer recognized the safety significance of the cooling pond.

3 At this stage in our review we are again looking at the function of the dike and' concluding that a portion of it could jeopardize a Category I conduit and .

t rightfully that dike should be Category I in that portion,

. O So are you now saying that it should be treated as a Category

.: I structure?

., A I am saying there is a portion of the cooling pond, the

'. portion around the ultimate heat sink whose stability could jeopardize a Category I pipe.

. .' Q Would that then, in your opinion, make that portion of the dike a Category I structure?

.i A Yes.

O Do you know if that has even been formally connunicated to Consumers Power Company?

A I think it has been formally communicated to Consumers Power Company in the transmittal of the Corps report.

Q For the first time in the transmittal of the Corps report?

A Formally transmitted in the Corps report. I think it was s.,. . . _ . .

9 l __ _ _ _ _ _ - - - -=

KANE 85 2 discussed at the February,1980 meeting.

3 Q Can you tell me where in the Corps report that type of 4 information that that portion of the dike should be Category I -

5 is transmitted?

3 A You have a copy that I have given you.

Q Yes.

i 3 A In the transmittal of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's letter

. report --

Q (Interposing) : Yes. ,

. A (Continuing) : If you refer to page ten, cooling pond.

• Q Yes.

. A I will read you the words.

. Q Okay.

. 2 A "In recognition that the type of embankmant fill and the compaction control used to construct the retention dikes for the cooling pond were the same as for the problem plant fill we request reasonable assurance that the slopes of the a Category I emergency cooling pond baffle dike and the main

. dike are stable under both static and dynamic loadings."

I think that if you look at your drawings where you have designated the emergency cooling pond it would ,

tie down the part that we feel is Category I.

Q Did the FSAR identify that as Category I or Category II?

.i A I think the FSAR concluded that it was Category II, but

...v, t

l 1 KANE 86 l 2 analyzed it to Category I standing.

l

Q But it identified it as Category II, didn't it?

.; A Yes, it did.

5 Q Do you know if the PSAR identified it as Categorf I or 3 Category II2 A I think the same is.true.

. Okay. Do you know if anyone prior to this July 7,1980 letter from the Corps of Engineers which refers to it as a Category

'.' I emergency cooling pond referred to it as a Category I or

'. ; classified it as a Category I structure?

1 A I don' t know of anything formally. I know this topic was brought up in discussions in a February,1980 meeting.

i

, O Did anyone tell the Corps that this was a Category I emergency

. oooling pond?

I A The Corps questioned me on whether they can ask questions on

.~

i the stability of the cooling pond dikes. We had several l

l .

internal meetings within NRC attempting to determine what portions, if any,.was Category I.

Q And was it concluded at one or nere of those meetings that in fset at least a portion of the dike was Category I?-

.. A It was concluded by, I'm not sure whether it was all members, .

but the majority of members that the portion where the i

Category I pipe is at the base of the dike would be categorized Category I.

r , *

• r s

- - - . - - . _ - - . -_y, , , , _ _ . . , - , _ -

y- _-- _-r,

l

, KANE 87 )

l

Q When was that concluded? I l

A It was around the same time the Corps was requesting the I

, additional borings.

5 Q And do you recall who it was who disagreed with that 1

3 conclusion at that meeting or those meetings?

. A I think we have already talked about Jim Knight and Darl

• Hood's questioning of the reasons for and understanding the

. need for the borings.

Q So as I understand, you at an NRC meeting at about the time when the original Corps request for additional borings was transmitted to Consumers was when the NRC first concluded that at least a portion of the cooling dike was Category I, is that

_ right?

I ,

A Well, you're asking ne to speak for NRC?

Q Yes?

A I am saying in the review that was done and in the evaluation I

i of the cooling pond there was a request for borings and to forward that request for additional borings to Consumers there l

l were meetings with NRC to address which portions of the pond I

l were in fact Category I so the meeting that I am familiar l . . ,

with occurred after the request for the additional borings. ,

l Q For the eleven years since the PSAR until this meeting in 1980 i

at which it was concluded that it was Category I, didn't

.' anybody in the NRC know that there was that conduit at the

.:: .  : 5 * = -

I 1 KANE 88

base of the cooling pond dike?

3 A How can I answer for other people? How do I know which

people even had those thoughts? I am not even sure who did the CP review, Q okay, but as far as we can tell for 11 years the NRC was silent on this and then, in 1980 they decided that a portion 3 of that cooling pond dike ought to be Category I. That's what I understood you to be telling us.

A I don't feel what I have said would indicate that the NRC was

.; silent on it. I am saying questions raised at the CP stacje by the NRC reviewer requested additional stability studies, and that those studies gave him confidence to be able to

,, conclude that the dike was the safe . equivalent to SSE.

Q But he was looking at what was described in the documents' as

. r. a Category II structure.

~ A It may have been described to him as a Category II structure

. 5 but in his evaluation he may have felt that it should be

'. ?

equal to a higher level of safety.

Q You don' t see that statement documented anywhere, do you?

. A I will go back to the SER and that he 'is concluding that it is safe against the SSE, the equivalent of the SSE.

.: (Whereupon there was a short recess after which the deposition again continued.)

y - --

3 -- .  : s..v: =s. ':

, 4.g.g- t s ;ev e s .4 4t****T*f

KANE 89 2 Q (By Mr. Zapiarin, continuing) : Does the NRC staff today I consider this change in thinking or this think4ng of the 4 portion of the cooling pond dike as now Category I a Ratchet?

i A I have not heard anyone in the NRC express that feeling.

3 Q Do you consider it to be a Ratchet?

A Very definitely not'.

. Q Is it your opinion that this portion of the cooling pond dike should be a Q listed structure and that the Appendix BQ a criteria apply to it?

-- A Are we talking about Midland,?

Q Yes, that portion of the cooling pond dike?

A I don't think I can make a judgment now on something that is already completed and so I can' t say let's made Midland Q when the fact is it is build.

Q Why don't you consider the treatment of this portion of the

~

cooling pond dike now as a Category I structure or Ratchet?

MR. PATON: Could you clarify? You said "this portion". Now maybe you want to leave the question as it is.

I guess you want to leave it like it is.

Q Yes, this portion in the area of that conduit, Category I -

conduit.

MR. PATON: Fine, I really didn' t know what you meant.

== .

.: 4 .;- .. n.y .

- =<

KANE 90 2 A My understanding of your question is why don't I consider the

actions by NRC Ratcheting?

Q Yes.

j A The reason I don't consider it was Ratcheting was because what NRC is attempting to is to assure themselves that the dike was properly constructed and has properties which were

stated to be available in design and that we are attempting to assure ourselves that the dike as constructed has the

. needed properties.

'.. O Has the portion of the cooling pond dike 1.n the area of -

.: Category I conduit at it's base been classified by the NRC as

a Category I structure?

'. 4 A It is my understanding the' classification is done by the applicant and reviewed and concurred in by the staff. I think you will have to take each site specific ally and see its

.~

function and come to an agreement on wha t is Category I and what is not.

.: Q Okay. Si question is has the NRC deterained that a portion T-of the cooling pad dike that we are alking about is a Category I structure.'

- A The geotechnical engineering staff of the NRC in evaluating .

the safety of the involved structures has concluded that the dike in this area is Category I.

Q Has anyone outside of the geotechnical engineering staff, to

- r: ; - : 3 . . - t=s. .

,- ,1,5- ,, ,, .. .;. -- ,

'9"

'. KANE 91 your kriowledge, so concluded?

A outside the geotechnical engineering staff? Yes.

. O Who?

5 A George Lear, Chief of Hydrologic Engineering.

4 Q Anyone el.se?

A I would say indirectly James Knight in his support of the

- request for borings.

. Q You mean you base that conclusion upon the fact that he has concurred in the request for borings and on nothing else,

.: referring to Jim Knight? ,

.; A And discussions that we had with regard to the function of the emergency cooling water pond.

., Q Okay. In other words, there have been discussions that you

.3 have either been a party to or observed in which Jim Knight indicated that he believed to be a Categorf I structure?

~

1 A I have been at meetings where it was my understanding that

'i Jim Knight, after being told there was a potential for the dike sliding and affecting the Category I pipe concluded that that portion could be Category I.

l' Q Could be Category or was Category I?

. A The question was never directly asked of him. -

Q What do you mean when you say that he concluded that it could '

be Category I?

2:

4 A Well, in attempting to understand why we:Je asking for J.he

: - 4 . - -

s  :.

tsr ts r +;  ; . - r Ti-

i

)

i l

i

, KANE 92

additicnal borings in any possible way the dike could effect

, the Category I ccmduit, it is my understanding that he felt that if the dike were to fail in certain areas it could 5 jeopardize,the Category I pipe.

Q And it is based upon that statement that you understand him to have concluded that it could be a Category I structure,

, is that correct? .

. A That is corzuct.

O can you indicates on what I'm going to mark as Consumers Erhibit Number 3, for ident.ification as of today's date, which

.. is a trench section typical showing what I am lead to believe

• 2 is the cooling pond dike, the areas where in your opinion the

.. dike might fail and also for each of those areas tell us why

.. you believe it might fail?

MR. PATON: Let me ask .4r. Kane to bear in

'~

mind that if he says "here" or "there" it won' t mean much on the transcript unless he is careful to state what it is.

.- MR. ZAMARIN: Well, I'm going to ask him to mark that drawing.

MR. PATON: Okay.

MR. ZAMARIN: I'm going to ask him to mark it .

with a red pencil which I am going to provide for him or to him.

5 A Without the additionel borings and laboratory testing you 3

:  : s. ,:=s. .

.g s*r*c ==:* >! - ' * '"

.g u.

KANE 93

cannot say what area is most likely to fail. 'the borings

- and the laboratory testing will tell us those areas which would appear to have the highest chance for sliding. There 5 are portions on this dike by geometry, by geometry being the 3 highest portion of the emban1r==nt, and by geometry I would mean where the berm would be narrowest which would be places' -

3 where I would be concerned and most likely would analyze the

. building.

0 And would any of those areas be areas other than those in proximity to locations of requested borings?

.: A there would be other areas.

Q Yes?

, A Yes. .

. Why waren' t borings requested for those areas?

. A Look at the great deal of problems we had with these borings.

'.- Q Wait a minute, why weren' t borings requested in those areas l

l .:

along with the borings that are requested now?

A The concern is with the plant fill and that it was properly compacted. A judgment has been made that the borings that l

were requested would permit us to conclude reasonably that it

~

, .i was properly compacted. We could do a lot more additional .

2 borings and there may be a need for additional borings if the ones that we do complete show a problem area. If all the l

'I borings that we have asked for prove that you have properties 3 c-: .. : 3 .$ r=s - :

,,...:.-. .. m . . . .e 3

.s- .on

4 P t KANE 94 2 equal to what you said you would have in design then there 3 would be no likelihM for additional borings, but the 4

additional borings are the first stage to be able to make

., an analysis.

3 Q Didn't you just testify a few questions back though that you couldn't tell us in what areas you were concerned with regard 3 to the cooling dike with respect to failure unless you took g the borings?

1; A I said I would need that information to know where' to make

.-. the analysis, but I also indicated that there were geometric

.; conditions that would encourage me to make analysis at other

points.

14 Q All right, what other points?

..- A I think I indicated where the embankmant is highest.

.i Q Can you mark them on that Exhibit Number 37 1- A You do not have emb2nkw=nt elevations and bottom elevations

. ;- so I cannot know from looking at this plan what are the

.i highest. I can give you a good idea where.

Q Okay, if you would do that, please.

.. MR. PATON: Could I have the question that

. the witness is answering? ,

MR. ZAMARIN : Be my guest. The fact that

.- the witness wants to state what it is is all right with me.

3 MR. PATCN: Now, you are marking something,

-- . - 3 . v"r=s. . :

3-es:- a ;c; 3 . : ..e ;3, ge-,,.-m.--- -w- y , -, .-- -

e,-y-- - - - - - -- ,,

i KANE 95 2 what is it you ars ==*ing?

3 A I am marking a plan view of the emergency cooling water a reservoir at places where I feel the geometry of the dike i

5 would encourage us- to make a stability analysis. '

i MR. PATCN: Okay.

A And I'd say --

3 Q (By Mr. Zamarin interposing) : This view, by the way, has

been marked as Wrhihit 3 on the back.

'3

. MR. PATON: Okay. -

-. A (Continuing) : In those portions where the dike, where the

~;

conduit is closest to the toe of the dike which would be

'3 here (indicating) .

., O When you say "here" why don't you draw a circle and mark it

.2 as A?

Okay, you have drawn a line and marked it as

'~

A.

i Okay, where else if anywhere else?

l Okay, you have drawn a line and marked it 3, l

and you have drawn a line and marked it C, and now just so I l

understand what you are doing is that you are drawing that line through a cross section of the dike indicating that that .

is the area of concern? .

4 24 A I am drawing a line through the cross section of the dike l

2 where the geometry of the dike and the Category I pipe would l

r: .  : s =- . :

l l

s,j~ -r.  ; s--~,

e

- - ,,.,w-w ----.-y , . , - - , , , - _ -

4 8 I KANE 96

be most susceptible to and influenced by a slide.

O Are there any other areas other than what you have marked as

A, B and C7 r, A The other areas I would determine on the results of the

, borings.

Q Well, there are only the seven boring locations that I am aware of with regard to the dike area requested by the Corps.

3 Are you aware of any others?

A No. . '

.. Q So then taking what you have marked as A, B, C and each of those seven areas indicated by the requested borings did

that cover all of the areas of youf concern?

A I would not be held to the location of just the borings, but

. I would potentially extrapolate information from those borings to more critical sections.

Q More critical sections such as what sections?

A I can't give you those sections until I get the borings.

What is it about the borings that would provide you additional

. Q information which would enable you to locate them for me on

Exhibit 3?

A Well, the stability of a dike is very much dependent not only ,

on it's embankment but on the foundation conditions and so if I got information at one boring but knew of a location where the foundation was weaker perhaps from previous

(

_ _ _ , _ _ _ - - - -- -m- .w--- - -

I KANE 97 i

subsurface exploration information then I may want to combine f 3 what I know of the borings with other boring information and

{

4 make an analysis there.  ;

5 Q Are you aware of any areas that have indicated or in your 4 opinion indicated any weakness as a result of previous subsurface exploration?

i A No, but the basis for that conclusion is an understanding of what you have submitted in design and with those properties l '. that you have used in design there has been no indication of

-- a problem.

R MR. ZAMARIN: I'm sorry, would you read the last answer back, please (to reportar) :

13 (Whereupon the reporter read back the

- previous answer.)

Q If you were to obtain borings in each of the seven requested locations and all of those showed a good foundation properties would you still be of the opinion that a portion of the dike should be Category I?

A The information we anticipate receiving from the borings does not make the classification of a category.

k Q Has no impact upon it whatsoever,does it?

A It has an impact on whether it is going to be stable or not.

Q I am talking about whether it is Category I or Category II?.

2 A The category comes from the function of the cooling pond

= - - :  : s_ i : 2 1 w- -

, , - - - - , e,---- -

KANE 98 2 itself.

3 Q Okay. Are there any other areas based upon all of the

information known to you today other than the ones that you

. have marked A, B, and C and Exhibit 3 and on the basis of i geometry where you believe a failure may occur?

A I have not stated that I feel a failure could occur here.

i Q What did you state with regard to line B7 3 A I said that based on the geometry which is going to produce i

D, its marimum loading on the embankment that this would be an area which because of that loading would be a place to

.2 investigate stability.

-C Q I see. If there is a problem that is where you'd expect it

~

to be manifested, is that right?

{ ." A This is one of the places. I also indicated that other places would be investigated depending upon the results of the

~

borings .

T5 Q What is the safety significance of the failure at what you have marked line B7 2 A It is my understanding there is a Category I conduit here (indicating) .

.. Q "Here" meaning at --

. A (Interposing) : This line (indi cating) .

Q That heavy black line that is at right angles to the line you

.' have drawn on B?

3 . .

-_..-,p.--m g--_,w, - -

,,_,p.- . - _ . - - . . -

9_ ,,,.m - -,--__. _m_ . - -

. . j

KANE 99 2 A Essentially at right engles, yes.

Q What is the safety implications of a failure where you have

. marked line A?

5 A The same reason, being a slide of that dike embankment could 3 jeopardize the function of that Category I pipe.

Q And how does that - did you say a sliding failure?

A A sliding failure of the embankment.

Q How does a sliding failure of the embankment at point A

.- jeopardize the Category I conduit which you have identified

.. as being under the base of the dike at that point?

. A If the loading from the dike because of poor fill properties

.: actually caused a slide of that dike the mass that would move

., in that slide could include that category I pipe and,

. therefore, disrupt that pipe.

~

Q What additional information, if any, other than verifying the

.' properties to be taken in these borings do you require in order to satisfy the level of safety you musider necessary in each of these critical areas that you consider critical to

. the dike?

. .. ; would conclude based on the additional borings and laboratory testing results that if I had soil properties equal to or better than what you have submitted in your

. design that there would be no problem.

Q Okay. Are you aware that borings were taken prior to filling

. ,. . g..

1 KANE 100

the cooling pond in which piezomatars were installed?

A I am aware by your document of September 14th.

Q Do you have any reason to doubt the information that was in 5 that document?

5 A ':he information that is in that document does not provide the information that we requested.

3 Q I didn't say or suggest that it did. I just asked you if you

have any reason to doubt the information that was contained

. in that document?

.. A I have no reason to suspect anything different.

.. Q Okay. Are you familiar with blow count data that was provided with regard to those borings?

.. A It is my understanding that your document of September 4th indicates additional information which would include blow counts will be submitted.

. Q Okay, and you are referring now to logs of the borings that will be provided in response to question 46. Was any information with regard to blow counts provided to you that you recall?

A As of this last submittal, that is September 4th, is it my understanding that no additional boring logs from the cooling ,

pond have been provided.

Q I didn' t say boring logs, I am talking about information with regard to blow counts?

9

_ _ _ . _ _ - _ - , - - - . _ , . . . -- __ ._..-_.._m_,_.__,_.,._r.,.. .

1 1 KANE 101

A Well, the boring logs normally have on them the blow count

{

l 3 information. '

l 4 Q That's right, I understand that but what I am saying is that 3 recognizing that you don't have the boring logs yet was thera l

3 any information with regard to blow count provided to you to your knowledge?

i A To my understanding there was a range of blow counts that was

indicated. .

Q Okay, and that range was between 10 and 60 with two exceptions

'.. at approximataly 70 and two exceptions near the surface at

.: three and seven, is that your recollection?

.: A I don' t remember exactly those numbers. One thing the additional borings and laboratory testing that we would require would do would attempt to duplicate the long term conditions that we could expect to de elop under full seepage under the pond and there I am talking about saturating soils that were not saturated at the time you took your borings and allow for that to be a consideration in establishing the design shear strength.

Q Would information provided to you with respect to blow counts that were obtained during those borings when the piezometers ,

were being installed showing counts between 10 and 60 with two exceptions at approximately 70 and two exceptions near the surface at three and seven be a factor in your determinatica l

1 KANE 102 ;

2 as to whether there is a likely problem with the material and

.3 its compaction in the dike?

A The blow counts of three and seven are low.

5 Q All right.

-; A (Continuing) : And there would be an attempt to understand the extent of that zone and its impact on stab'ility.

s Q What about the blow counts between 10 and 60 and two at 3 approximately 70, would that suggest anything to you?

. A ':he blow count as low as 10 in depth could be significant.

.. We would expect an increase in blow counts under higher confined pressures so if the 10 were at significant depths it

'." may be an area where we would want to further investigate.

Q

.. Beyond what depth would you have to go in order for blow counts of 10 to be of such concern to you?

i A Actually it depends on the material type, whether it is a sand or whether it is a clay, b'ut I would say blow counts found below 15 to 20 feet, below 10 could require a look as

.e to its effect on stability.

Q Do you know if there is any kind of a cost benefit analysis or consideration mncerning or related to the characteri-

.. zation of at least a portion of the cooling pond dike as Category I as opposed to Category II within the NRC?

A Within the NRC7 Q Yes.

l .:  : - -

l -

/

. KANE . 103 A I am not aware of any.

i Q Do you know if at least some cost benefit type consideratices

are a part of all decisions and are in inherent within the

decision inaking process within the NRC?

A I would have to say it is not a consideration in all NRC decisions. -

Q Did you attend a meeting on October 1,1980, the purpose of

, which, among other things was to brief Mr. Volmer and i

Mr. Knight on the results of additional borings and input provided by Consumers Power Company via volume eight of responses to NRC requests regarding plant fill?

A I did attend.

0 And do you recall Mr. Volmer indicating that he will think i further about the dike borings?

A Yes.

1 l 1 And do you. recall any other discussions with regard to l

O Mr. Volmer thinking further about the dike borings or which i

might shed some light on why be considered it necessary to think further about the dike borings?

MR. PATON: I object to that question in so far as it may call for a response that would reveal attorney .

advice. I object to it on the attercney-client privilege, but I will ask him to answer the question.

A Would you ask the question again?

. - 3

.z. .-. -- ,

1 l

l

1 KANG 104 2 MR. ZAMARIN: Could you read it back, please 3 (to reporter)?

4 (Whereupon the reporter read back the 3

previous question.)

g MR. PATON: And I have an objaction on the record based on the. grounds just stated and off the record. ,

3 MR. ZAMARIN: Off the record.

.: (Whereupon there was a discussion held off

the record.)

. MR. PATCH: The parties agree that if a

.; question is read back and there has been a previous objection

'.: to that question it will be understood that the objection

., stays for the question after it has been read back. Do you

. agree to that?

MR. ZAHARIN: I not only agree to that but

.' I recognize that as an accepted principal of law.

.: Would you read it back again, please (to

.: reporter) ?

(Whereupcn the reporter read back the

.. previous question.) ,

. A The question refers to the time of the October 1st meeting, and I correct?

Q Well, since you asked that it suggests there might be other

.~ times also. I will say at any time do you recall anything, 22~! -

2 - I.  ;

.t : 4 :rt- -- ,: . 3:s s--s e u-= * -

1 KANE 105 0 any communications, any statements, any documents that shed

some light as to the reason why Mr. volmer thought it 2 necessary to think further about the dike borings?

5 A There have been meetings in the past prior to the meeting we i had at Midland where you had an appeal before Mr. Volmer where I have heard Mr. Volmer indicate that he wants to think 3 more closely about the request for borings in the cooling

'- pond dike.

1: Q Did he. ever indicate or suggest why he wanted to think further?

A My understanding is because of the question on what category eact portion of the dike is.

IU Q Is it your understanding then that as of October 1st, 1980, b Mr. Volmer had not come to a conclusion as to what category

'I the dike was?

A I think up to that time Mr. Volmer had heard discussions en l'

it but had not concluded himself.

I

'(

Q Do you know whether he has as of October 14, 19807 l

A I am aware of a meeting that happened last Thursday, which I t ..

did not attend and because of the present climate of I'

depositions I have not questioned anybody about the results I'

of as to what was discussed, but it is my understanding that ,

the meeting was going to touch on the cooling pond dike.

Q Do you know who did attend that meeting?

A Darl Hood, Lyman Heller.

i 2I* $ ; 3 , *E: . N .*

TF1g*tsq* as-n;;j ., '{t . T* gag

.s * ' s .

KANE 106 2 Q okay, thet would be the 9 a.m. meeting or the one that was

, going on around 9 o' clock Thursday?

A It was in the morning.

Q And you don't have any idea what was discussed or what conclusions, if any, were arrived at during that meeting?

- A I do not.

. Q You weren' t curious enough to ask anybody?

A

I wasn't curious enough because I wanted to try and bide by

. what my understanding of a deposition is.

.. Q Is it your opinion that shear strength, under full shear strength test evaluations, under full seepage conditions , are required for evaluation of all dikes or embank-ats?

A For those portions of dikes and embankments that will

. experience full seepage, yes.

.- Q And to your knowledge have sucli tests been done in all dikes

.- or embank =nts of which you are aware, be it at Midland or

.. anywhere else?

A In all projects that I have been connected with I would hope

. that all projects would have anticipated full seepage if it were likely to develop and allowed for that in design of

stability.

Q That really didn' t answer my question though.

A I felt it did.

2 O My question was whether to your knowledge such evaluation has J

--- . .  : . =.  :

,n ,2... . . . . - . . , , r-

... . , .n

.~ - - - _ .

1 KANE 107

been done in all dikes or embankments with which you have had

experience or association or of which you know?

, A To my knowledge, yes.

Q Quite a bit ago, in fact it was before we broke for lunch, we

were talking about projects with which you have been involved or affiliated involving embankments or dikes and upon which

. borings have been made after completion of the structure.  !

In responding to those questions which asked for projects

,; where borings in fact had been made were you including in your

.- responses borings which had been made for the purpose of

installing piezameters?

A Yes.

5

. Q And would your answer have excluded certain of those projects if the borings had been made for something other than the

~

. installation of piezameters?

i- A I would have intended to include projects where additional

.i borings were made including piezometers and any other needs.

. :. Q Okay, if we exclude those situations where the borings were

.. made for the purposes of installing piezometers would that l

. increase the number of projects on which you were associated

and for which borings were not performed after completion of ,

.; the dike or embankment?

.. A Please repeat the question.

25 MR. ZAMARIN: Read it back (to reporter) .

s -- : s  : s. =+ '

,e ,:.1: 1. :,: , .. -- ,

. sr -

1 KANE 108 2 (Whereupon the reporter read back the 3 previous question.)

4 A My understanding of the question is if I exclude the 3 installation of piezameters as being the reason for additional 3 borings would it increase the number of projects which did not have additional borings?

i Q Yes.

g A Yes. .

i '.C Q Okay.

11 A Can I add something to that?

Il Q Sure.

l' A I don't understand why we are trying to single out piezometers

'i

. when I understand that the fact of the concern is drilling

.2 any borings in a structure that is retaining water.

O Well, let me tell you flat out why I am asking that, because

'~

to me there may be a difference in purpose and a differenes

'5 in necessity in aanducting a boring for the purpose of d installing a piezometer as opposed to conducting a boring in 20 order to satisfy ones curiosity.

I 21 A And then there are projects which don't need additional

'2 borings because they have taken record samples which give ,

you the information that the additional borings will give you.

'4 MR. PATON: Off the record.

i 25 (Whereupon there was a discussion held off 3 g: .  : , ir = s. .:

.;;,t'?- **:s .*- 'I':**T**

I l

1 KANE 109

the record.)

3 Q (By Mr. Samarin, continuing) : I have in front of me two

, documents , one is a latter to Mr. J. W. cbok, vice president

, of Consumers Power Company, dated August 4,1980, the subject 3

of which is stated as Corps of Engineers Report and request

- for additional information on plant fill.

I also have in front of me a document titled

. Memorandum for A. Schwenser through James P. Knight from George Laar, dated August 5,1980, one day after the latter to James Cook transmitting the Corps' report with request for

'._ additional borings, and in the August 5,1980, letter Gecrge

.: Lear, signing as Chief of the Hydrologic Geotechnical

., Engineering Branch of the division of engineering, requests that the contants of the Corps report be suomitted to Consumers Power Company, ~and I'm just wondering if you have I --

any idea why the Corps report and the letter transmitting it,

. dated August 4, went out before the date on which Lear

}

. requested be sent.

- Do you see these (indicating) ?

.. A If I remember correctly we had a meeting at the end of July 20 with Consumers where you first came in to discuss with us .

. our request for borings.

Q July 29th.

A At that time you pleaded with us to get to you the Corps s:-- a : s.- s- = = .

j 1<--,r- a s :.u s - 1 .- s -v ,

\ .

9

. . __,,__.___.__._,_,,_y _ _ _ , . . _ , , , , , _ _ , _ . _ _ , , ,

1 KANE 110 2 report as quickly as possible. It is my understanding the 3 reason the one going to you was dated August 4 is because

Darl Hood, who I was coordinating the Corps review efforts g with, having been given a copy of the Corps report, he had 3

been made aware of the other reviewer's efforts that I was attempting to coordinata and had recognized that the chain of ,

comments within NRC, and he concurred in the report and on

- that basis I think drafted this up. I think the only one who really knows is Darl, but he had the letter draf ted so that

.: you would receive it at the earliest possible date. I think

.  ; the dating of George Lear's letter, if I remember -- could ,

'3

. you tell me when August 4th is? Is it a Monday?

'i

. MR. ZAMARIN: I can't Mr. Farnell suggests

.2 that he can.

.: MR. FARNELL: Here it is.

'.- MR. ZAMARIN: August 4th was a Monday, yes.

.: A Well, the letter you have dated August 5th from George Lear

.- I think was signed by Lyman Heller, and I am sure that

Lyman Heller signed it before August 5th, so I ihink it has

. to do with when it cleared Jim Knight's office and when it

was dated within NRC, but I think your earlier date on your .

letter is the project manager's attempt to fulfill your request of getting it to them at the earliest possible date.

.I Q Okay. I note that the report that accompanied the let*ar to

:: :. .- s. - > -:  :

• ~r=a;- se-- ,

s -

- a

,.------~,,---,f

, . _ . , , , , - , - . . - - - _ _ - - - . - - , . - - - - - -.m. , . , , , . . -- ,,_ ,-.- -,,_ ,, _m y ,.m.,my.m-rm,w-m.. ,,w__.-,,,m_ , , , , , , . . ,

KANE 111

Mr. Cook is somewhat different and there's some revisions 3

or some interlineations which when compared to the report as 4

transmitted to Schwenser from Knight to Lear, signed by

Lyman. Do you know why those changes appear on the copy that

+ was given to Consumers?

A Are we talking about the hand written notes on the copy that'

. you received?

Q Yes, 'and on one there is a paragraph lined out and there are t

'.- also some hand written notes on that copy.

'. ; A Those notes were an attempt by the project manager to best

.. inform Consumers what was expected of them in response and I

.; think a lot of the notes have to do with a new numbering 1

.4 sequence to which you are ' to respond, to.

.: Q Some of them did. Does Lyman Heller agree with the information

.. that we were submitted along with that August 4, 1980 letter

- to Jim Cook that was signed by Schwenser?

, A It is my understanding the modifications of the Corps report I

made by the project manager was for Consumer's benefit to ,

- permit them to better respond. I know of no objection by i

.. Lyman Heller to those modifications. -

' .. O Do you know of any concerns by Lyman Heller with those ,

- modifications?

- A I do not know of any concerns or problems.

2. Q Do you recall when the need for additional borings was first 3 -- : - : . i: 4  :

,, -,.~ ,. ,.m.-_.7,a,.,, m,,-,,- n,n,,,,

. s I

l KANE 112 0 consnunicated in any fashion by NRC to Censumers?

? A Would you repeat the question, please (to reporter)?

4 (Whereupon the reporter read back the

previous question.)

. A It is my understanding the first transmittal of that request was when you offici' ally received the document that asked you to do the additional borings. I don't know of any prior communicatica.

. O okay. Was there any consnunication to Consumers, however, indicating that the Corps had requested additional borings.

and the staff was ccasidering that request?

• 2

. A Not that I recall.

.. Q I have here what is marked Consumers Exhibit 4 for identifi-cation and I'd like you to tr.ke a look at that document and tell me if that is the doci==nt that you produced for us from

~

. your files?

A Yes, it is a document that I produced from my files.

O Do you recall how that found its way into your files?

A As contract monitor for NRC the Corps reques t that was directed to Robert Jackson was given to me to process.

O What hrs been marked as Exhibit Number 4 is a letter from .

P. McCallister to Dr. Robert E. Jackson bearing sone date in April of 1980, which is difficult to read, transmitting an enclosure to a letter of 27 March,1980, which has been

-- .  : s  : -

e

- _ . - - . _ . - . , _ , . , _ - - _ . _ _ _ _ , . , . _ - . , . - ___-..,----.-_,,,,m,-,.,,. .,.---,_,,,,,-.._y .--,w,_ ,,,,,,,,,--., - ,,.- - - - - - - .,- - -

t' a a

KANE 113 2 revised and attached and which includes two maps providing 3 indicated boring locations, and the first enclosure, 1

, Enclosure 1, consists of three pages plus two maps, and the 2

second map which appears to be of the cooling pond dike i showing the location of the requested borings, is that correct?

A That is correct.

? Q And then the final enclosure, being a letter dated Mardt 27,

1980, to Dr. Jackson from McCallister,the subject of which

.. are the requested borings and related soil test data by the Detroit District, Corps of Engineers, is that right?

Z A Could I have your first statement on that last? It seems to

.. me that the March 27th, th's one you,j.ust later referred to

.: came before the one that's in front of that, the one in August?

0 Well, yes, but it was resubmitted. It is Enclosure 1 to the

> letter of March 27, 1980 which has been revised and attached i and I think what they did was that they attached the March 27, 1980 letter and wrote at the bottom that this letter super-seded the letter of 16 April,1980.

% A I think that is my comment. .

Q Oh, I see.

A That is my comment. They had a change in the March 27th

letter and I was trying to keep my records straight by t--

. . . 't e

r -- - - - , -----,----w--- ._-awe,,,, ,.- --,,-e--, ,-----,,n,-w,- ,m.,wr,,,me--,- y- , , g, e w,y w,,m -1.----- - - - - - - - , --mm.,,w we-w

1 KANE 114 2 indicating that that how April letter superseded the March 3 27th letter.

4 Q What was the change in the letter?

5 A I think the nature of the changes were more of typographical i type corrections than contents.

~

Q Okay. Referring back to what has been marked Consumers

Exhibit Number 2, which is that June 18th,1990 piece of 3 paper from your files, under number four you have listed *

" concern of public and intervenors conception of NRC in restricting review efforts of independant reviewers and consultants work. Indicata NRC nodifications, and all I

~ see is the letters "BO" can you tell me one, what the statement there means and also what that final sentence that stops with the letters "BO" was going to say?

i -

A I would have to say the reason it was not finished is because l

1 .

I got called to do other things.

O Do you know what you were going to say?

A Probably indicata NRC modifications of boring requests.

A Q All right. Can you tell me what that means?

A Which one?

Q Number four on that Exhibit Number 2, the first sentence and .

the second sentence?

A Well, while I am attempting to point out is we have entrusted the Corps of Engineers with making the evaluation of safety

_ _ , - - - - _ , - - , . - - - - - _ , . , _ - , _ _ , - _ . , . - - , , , , , , _ y , . , . , . - - - , , , , , -------.__,,-,,,.,_--,-.e,, , , . , _ _ _ - - . - - - . - - - , - - , , - _ , -

.~

1 KANE 115 2 and they in their judgment have indicated the need for borings.

1

If we have entrusted this work with them but overrule their 4 judgment we run the risk of creating an image, rightly or

! wrongly that we are not accepting the work of our consultants.

Q And in your mind is that a legitimate concern for you as a geotechnical engineer in reviewing information or requests for material?

- A As a geotechnical engineer, no, but as someone concerned with public safety and assuring the public that we are doing a thorough job, yes.

Q And was that in fact a concern of yours in the work that you ham done with regard to the Midland soil issues?

{ - A Would you repeat the question, please?

MR. ZAMARIN: Read it back (to reporter)'.

(Whereupon the reporter read back the previous question.)

A The concern that the public has with regard +w nuclear power safety is a concern of mine.

0 And did you consider that in making decisions and reacning conclusions with regard to your activities on the Midland plant fill issues 2 ,

A On all of the efforts of my coordination with the Corps the judgments on what is being required have been based on the technical basis and not on that reason.

1 KANE 116

Q Why in the world did you include it on what has been marked as Exhihit Number 27 A

4 Because it is, to me, a fact that we must face in dealing 5 with the public.

5 Q Okay. I hear you say that but I also think I just heard you say though that you didn't take that into account in any of i

the decisions or activities that you conducted with regard -

to the Midland fill issue?

ic A I don't have any problem with that. I think you can recognize that assuring the public that we are doing a thorough job is one consideration and on the other hand that in matters of exosrising technical judgment, taaking a judgment to the besf

. . of your technical ability. I don't +hink they are incom-

.. patible.

t '

O okay, in a general sense perhaps they are not, but you did

~ ~

when we started out this conversation was testify that it really wouldn't be very reassuring in your mind to the public if the NRC were to overrule the advice that was given to them by the Corps who had been hired as an expert for them. Now, is that a factor that you considered in evaluating or reaching conclusions about the information on the request for ,

information that came from the Corps?

MR. PATON: I object because he already answered that exact question, but you can go ahead and answer 4

.w,. -- .-- ,. . - , . - - - -- --- - .. --,,,,-------w--..~._,,--.w,.-

& 4 i KANE 117

^

it.

A I state the same answer. I think I have already answered

. that.

O Well, I don' t recall you having answered it, so please indulge me and answer it again.

A It was not. a factor in any ter-hnical evaluation that I mada.-

I gave careful note to every request from,the Corps and on occasions had the Corps think more closely to be sure what they were asking for, specifically identify the infor: nation and what the Corps is asking now I feel is a reasonable

. request from strictly a technical standpoint.

Z Q Are you aware of anyone within the NRC staff who takes the

.- position or constunicates the belief that when you are dealing with an issue such as, well, the plant issue of Midland or some other issue with regard to a nuclear power plant that there are political concerns which might require a higher standard than the technical concerns might actually require?

A Would you repeat the question, please?

MR. ZAMARIN : Could read it back?

l (Whereupon the reporter read back the previous question.)

i A The standards that are being required for Midland I think are equally high for all nuclear power projects, the standards.

i What may be more extensive is the scrutiny that we are giving 9

-.y - - - , - _ ~ - - . , .

. -- -- ,-.-____.__..m.

1 KANE 118 2 to the Midland review because of the plant fill problem that 3 was experienced.

. Q okay, that really wasn' t my question though. What my question 5 was is are you aware of anyone either being of the belief or 5 commaunicating the belief within the NRC that with regard to any nuclear project.that to be politically safe implies a greater than nomssary safety factor than to be technically safe?

MR. PATON: Politically safe? I am going to

.. object to the question as being incomprehensible, but tell

.: the witness to answer the question if he can.

Z A Will you repeat the question?

.. MR. ZAMARIN: Would you read it back, please

. (to reporter) ?

i (Whereupon the reporter read back the i

previous question.)

l MR. PATON: I also object to it on the l

grounds of being irrelevent, but you may go ahead and answer the question.

A I am not aware of anyone within NRC that has made statements l ..

that the dacisions that affect Midland have to be politically safe.

Q Okay, you have stuck Midland in there again so I am going to ask the question again without Midland. I am talking about e O 9

I KANE 119 2 any nuclee.r facility, keep that in mind as you listen to my 3 question.

4 Are you aware of anyone within the NRC being 5 of the belief or communicating the belief that in reviewing 3 some nuclear facility that the results of the review may have

~

to be politically safe which implies a greater than necessary.

5 safety factor than that for it to be technically safe?

? MR. PATON: You don't want to tell him what O you mean by " politically safe" do you?

'l

- MR. ZAMARIN: Huh-uh.

12 MR. PATON: The answar was "no".

'U A And my answer is "no". I don't know of anyone within NRC.

'4 0 Do you know of anyone within the Corps of Engineers that has d ever expressed such an opinion or position or belief?

A I'm trying to clarify again the question. Do I know of

~

anyone within the Corps who feels decisions being made en Midland, and as far as I know the Corps is only involved in

'O Midland. The Corps does not do a lot of reviews for NRC.

0 But they were involved in Bailly also, weren't they?

A Yes, but so are other consultants.

O All right.

A So I am not aware of anyone within the Corps who feels the N need to require higher standards because vf political reasons.

• 0 Q Okay. I have here a document which is marked consumers' 1: -- r  : s. s: s : -

, 11 ..t- ,a1 . v ~

KANE 120

, Exhibit Number 5 for identifcation. I will show this to you.

It is faced with a form headed " Disposition form from Kubinski to the NRC file," dated 1-February 1980, and ask you

- if there is a notation in the upper right-hand corner that

- says "J. Kane received 2-22-80 from L. Heller"?

- (Whereupon the document was handed to the

~

witness.)

3 Q (Before you review the whole docmnant is that a document that came from your files?

.-. A Yes, it is.

O Okay, and can you tell me what that document is?

. A It is a memo to the NRC file from Joseph Kubinski of the Detroit District.

O And to what does it relate?

A The subject is geotechnical engineering assistance to NRC

~

orientation meeting on the 7th and 8th of November, 1979.

".1 Q And attached to it are several, in fact four pages, continuing

'. :- on, and the items are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 on the first page l

7 and then centinuing on to 5, and 5 indicates the items discussed are listed below, and those were items that were discussed at the NRC orientation meeting at Bethesda,

.: Maryland the 7th and 8th of November, 1979, is that right?

.- A Yes.

.: Q And in Roman Numeral IV under paragraph 5, small "a", it is 1

p

\

l KANE 121 talking about a containment facility and it says that a 2 containment facility cannot fail, it ny havia to be 4 politically safe, which implies a greater than necessary i safety factor to be technically safe, does it not?

A It does state that. I think what should be pointed out that

~

this was from the people that attended these meetings. I was-not one of them.

Q Okay.

1' A Okay,.so I was not present at the meeting and it is a memo that

-1 I inherited when I took the responsibility for the review of "2 the Midland project.

Q Did you read that document before you gave it to us?

A Before? I may have read this document,back when I was 2 assimilating all the many documents.

Q But based upon this refreshment of your recollection of this document would you say then that it is a concern within the NRC that in some instances they may have to be politically i

j safe which implies a greater than necessary safety factor than

~~

l would be technically safe with regard to an issue?

l i

MR. PATON: I object to that document also because althcugn counsel is allowed wide latitude in cross ,

examination in a deposition there is not even a hint of an inference in that piece of paper that that is a concern of the NRC.

t: - :  : s.  :=

= ,- 4;; - t eggg ,4; ***

- t 8

_ - . -- ,,.m_.. - .e.___,.,._ _ _ . __ _ _ ,. ___m., __ _ , . -

KANE 122 2 A O would. agree. That document was not prepared by the NRC.

1 0 Can you answer the question?

+ MR. PATON: He just did.

5 MR. ZAMARIN: I don't think so. Would you

read the question back, please, and listen carefully to the

. question.

(Whereupon the reporter read back the

? previous question.) -

. A I repeat my answer. The question says within NRC and my answer is, to my knowledge, within NRC no one feels or has expressed an opinion to me that it is necessary to make a politically safe decision on an issue.

.- Q I didn't say Midland, I said on any issue?

A On any issue?

MR. PATON: He first said Midland.

Q Do you have any idea why Mr. Kubinski came up with such a statement?

A Perhaps it is because of his more closeness to Midland and the newspaper reports that he would see more than we would because of his proximity to the Midland project.

O Do you read then that statement within this report of the meeting as being something that came out of Mr. Kubinski's head rather than something that wac told to him as part of his orientaticr. by the NRC staff ?

1 KANE 123 2 A I, not being present at that meeting, I don't feel I would 3 want to say whether it was Mr. Kubinski's statement or 4

whether it was a subject of discussion at the meeting.

5 Q Okay, but that came from your files though. Did you have any 3 understanding or any impression as to whether that statement was made 'by the NRC staff as part of their orientation of 3 Mr. Kubinski?

) A The first time I have been faced with understanding that c;

statement is now, so I have no recollection of any discussion

.~.

with NRC of that statement ever having been made.

Z Q That is a different question, I sn not asking for recollection.

A It seems to me you are.

~. 4 Q I am asking for your understanding of what is centained in

! this document that came out of your files?

'i A Does the significance of my files mean that everything that

• 7 is in there I completely understand?

I Q No, no. If that is not the case, tell us.

! '}-

A Okay, I would say that is not the case in that I have assumed after Midland was well along in review many documents that I may have read but have not fully retained.

O And is it further a correct statement that as you sit here now -

you have no impression as to whether someone on the NRC staff made that statement during those meetings of November 8th and n:

9th -- November 7th and 8th of 19797

- + -

6

~

4 KANE 124 MR. PATON: I object to the repeated question-2 3

ing which the witness has already answered in several different

ways. If he wants to try it again certainly it is all right

, 3 with me.

3 A I think I have answered that question twice.

Q I don't think you have answered it once yet because you keep 4

going back to your recollection or your unders*=ad4=g and I am asking you what your impression is from reading this

- document row as to whether that was a statement made by all

.- NRC staff to the attendees at the orientation meeting in

.: Bethesda, Maryland, on the 7th and 8th of October, 1979.

.: A Not being present at that meeting I do not wish to say whether l ..

it was Mr. Kubinski's thoughts or the NRC staff.

0 Does that mean you have no impression as to who said it?

A I would rather not speak on impressions.

i

. Q Well, I know that. I think that's fair.

MR. PATON: No, I don't think it is. You

.: have been asking him to speculate and you have been asking him that now for almost ten minutes and he has given you the best answer he can.

. MR. ZAMARIN: He is saying that he would rather not speculate, but what I am asking him is for his impressions. If you have none, that's fine.

A I have none.

~ ~ ~

l KANE 125 2 Q That's even better. All right, I have here what has been 3 marked Consumers' Exhibit Number 6 for identification, which is a photocopy of a sheet of paper bearing the date 7-25-80 4 and headed " Midland - understanding of NRC position (in 4 anticipation of report".

7 Are you familiar with the document of which i this purports to be a. copy?

- A Could I look at it, please?

M Q , Yes.

A This document was written by me.

T6 2 Q Okay. Bill, could I have it back?

'U MR. PATON: Could you give me a second,

~4

- please?

MR. ZAMARIN: Yes, take all the time you-r need.

~

Q (By Mr. Zamarin, continuing) : Why was this document that has been marked Exhibit Number 6 prepared?

A In my reviews of Midland and in coordinating the efforts of the Corps I have noticed an attitude and a position by consumers being reluctant to furnish what I think is normal i

design information, and I wrote that note prior to one of the ,

meetings with consumers trying to give our reasons why we are I

asking for certain information and trying to encourage Consumers to be : ore willing to give the information needed 1 .  : . --,

_ , , _ _ . , , , ,-._.-_r-.~,__..,-7,__ _ _ .

1 KANE 126 2 to come.to a conclusion on the safety of the plant.

3 Q What do you mean by the statement that the problems which have 4 developed in the Midland site were not caused by NRC actions?

3 A I hear a great deal of complaints from consumers about "We have 6- given you all the information. .You have everything", and when we specifically look at the items, we don't have it, and I have 3 the impression from consumers that what you are saying is

? "Stop asking for additional information and make your evalua-

tion", and the point I am trying to make is that the close 11 scrutiny that we now are having to go with on Midland, because 12 of the fill settlement problem, that close scrutiny is not of 2 our doing but is a fact of the settlement problem and I would

.i hope that you would recognize what is being expected of us,

O and rightly so, to closely scrutinize it and come to a

~

! conclusion that the plant can eventually operate safely.

'~

Q You start out this note by noting " Establish the following".

l l

" Who is it that you had in mind who should establish those l

three points that you list on Exhibit 67 A I wanted to establish at an upccming meeting with Consumers j

those feelings and that notice to myself.

Q When you say " established," you mean you wanted to communicate '

j

! i those feelings?

A That's correct.

O You also note on here that -- strike that.

: .  : 1 ,

l .. . , . . .

l-_. .-_

1 KANE 127 2

Do you recall a mecting on site in February 3

of 1980 in which Darl Hood directed that the staff had to 4 furnish consumers with the specific information that was 5 required rather than simply give them an open-ended request 5 for data?

A Well, I recall a discussion with Darl, but I also recall a i discussion that I had with some of the same people with Consumers, pretty much saying those same things that are being said there and that the information that we are now seeking and.

which is coming to us very reluctantly, and I can give an 1' example of that which is the additional borings that you submitted after we had requested them. That information should

'+

ccme freely to convince us that the remedial fixes that you

~

are proposing will do the job, and I would say the information we are looking for is that information any geotechnical

~

engineer would have to develop and make a decision on to be able to conclude that it is safe.

'f Q In your opinion has Consumers dragged their feet with regard to providing certain information to ycu?

A I would say once identified that information would become available. I think Censumers has been less than cooperative ,

in providing that information without being identified.

Q Didn't Darl Hood direct in February of 1980 that the staff ought to identify the information rather than expecting an s.-  : ,

s, .-

, t J

1 KANE 128

open-ended response or anything that the staff might think up 3 under the sun?

.; A I think -- well, I don't think we are thinking of anything 5 under the sun. We are thinking of the very fundamental 5 information that you must address to conclude that it is safe.

- Darl instructed us if we wanted-specific information to request B

3 it, which we have, but does that take away the responsibility 3 of Consumers Power to freely provide that information to us?

. O I should think that it would, wouldn't you?

.: A No, no, I would think Consumers wou d willingly submit the

'. information they are using to design to convince us that it Z has been properly designed.

.. O I see. What significance at all do you attach to Darl Hood's instructions to you to provide specific requests?

A The significance I am interpreting is that he is saying if you want that information you have to ask for it, but I don't 3 interpret Darl's instruction to say that you, Consumers,

- should not freely submit it. Maybe he is saying to us the t only way we are going to get it is specifically identify it.

Q What hasn't Consumers freely submittedtional borings?

A When did you decide to submit the additional borings? .

Q All right, you are saying that one item of information is additional borings that they didn't freely submit, is that what you are saying?

=t  :: r, * -

B

, , , _ , _ , _ _ , . -. . . . , _ . _ . - , . . _ _ _ -.m,.,--,_--,-----,,-e.,..--. . _ _ . ,., . , _ - . . ,v--.. -. _ _ - _ _ - ,

1 i

KANE 129 0 A It was only submitted after we identified in our letter to you 3 to submit all borings completed in 1979 and '80, I would have 4 thought that you would have freely submitted that information.

5 Q Notwithstanding Darl Hood's direction to you to request 3 specific information rather than expect Consumers to anticipate what you might want?

3 A Are you saying the borings that you completed in 1979 and '90

) which are telling you you need a remedial fix at certain of the structures is not pertinent information that you feel we ,

'. should have?

". C Q I am asking the questions here, not you, sir, so I would ask

'3 you to answer my question.

MR. PATON:' I believe he was trying.

! Q Well, I don't think so.

A What I was attempting to indicate was that information is very I important and very critical to understanding the problem and your remedial fix, and I would have thought without being

'J identified that you would have freely submitted that informa-tion and I am puzzled that it was not.

Q Okay. Are you puzzled that it wasn't earlier identified by the staff? ,

1 A Am I puzzled that it wasn't? I don't think it is normal review l practice for the staff to ask what. additional borings have you

! done. It is normal practice for the applicant to submit that I

t : .  : i. .

.. . , , , . .t .

9

/

KANE 130 2 information to us so that we could evaluate it.

3 Q And you are providing these responses mindful of the direction 4 and the instruction given by Darl Hood in February of 1980, 5 is that right?

6 A I an aware of Darl Hood's recommendation, but I don't think 7 Darl Hood's recousmandations are taking away from the fact that i in the case of review plans the regulatory guides specifically 3 identify what information you should be submitting to us.

Q Is that simply a recommendation that Darl Hood made or was'that

1. an instruction?

Z A What is the distinction?

'3 Q Well, a recommendation to me connotes really would be nice if you did something and an instruction says, do something.

'I A Well, that seems to be a very weak recommendation rather than a strong recommendation which would be an instruction.

I Q Was it an instruction that he gave in February of 1980?

'5 A Carl Hood is not the supervisor of Geotechnical Engineering.

'- I' O Was it an instruction that Darl Hood gave in February of 1980?

l' A I would interpret it as being a ree - ndation.

O Do you recall Darl Hood's statement being to the effect that l-the staff has a responsibility to provide to Consumers the ,

particular items which they wanted?

l A I don't think I need Darl Hood to tell me what responsibility we have in identifying specific information.

j -. . .  : : 1.

, . . . n ,- , -

n.

e

~

1 KANE 131 0 Q Do you have my question in mind?

l 3 A Would you repeat it?

4 MR. ZAMARIN: Would you read it back, please 5 (to reporter)?

3 (Whereupon the reporter read back the

- ~

previous question.)

A I recognize Darl Hood's statement as a reminder of our r responsibility.

• Q So is your answer then to that question *yes? ,

- A Repeat the question.

I MR. ZAMARIN: Could you read it back again

'2 (to reporter) ?

(Whereupon the reportee read back the previous question.)

A Yes.

~

Q okay. Are you familiar with an individual named Ralph Peck?

A Yes.

Q And in your opinion is he recogni=ed authority in the field of 1

geotechnical engineeeing?

A Yes.

Q Would you consider him to be a qualified geotechnical engineer? -

A Yes.

Q Do you have any idea why it took from March of 1980 until sometime around July of 1980 to inform the staff to communicate r  : .

4

. _ ~ . _ _ _ - _ . _ _ __ _

1 EANE 132 2 to consumers the Corps request for edditional borings?

3 A My understanding of the question is do I have any understand-4 ing why it took frca March, 1980 to June of 1980 to convey 5 to Consumers the need for borings?

8 Q Yes?

7 A I have an understand.;

3 Q What is it?

) A The understanding of why it took so long is because of the M importance of those. borings, my attempts to have the Corps M fully understand the significance'of the request, and to get 12 the needed information in addition to the borings to convey to U consumers what tests had to be done after those borings were U taken and so I would say it 3.s a combination of coordinating if the work from a consultant and trying to get it into a

condition where it was clear for the applicant.

• ~

I -

Q Well, certainly the Corps had something in mind, didn't they, U as to what they wanted to do with the results of those l

borings or what tests they wanted performed?

E A They had something in mind. In my estimation what they U officially submitted to us left some doubts which Consumers 2 would have when they had the request for borings and my efforts .

!- were to further cla,rify that and identify for Consumers specifically what studies were to be conducted based on the 2 results.

I : - .  : 3 . v

, ,,- s,:s ;3 - - -

• f*

e

- - - - - n - , . , _ , , . , - - - . . . - - - , - - , - , _ - - - - ,-

1 KANE 133 2 O What doubts was it that would have been left on the basis of 3 the initial Corps request as of say April 16, 19807 ,

i A Well, I don't recall the exact doubts as of that date. What

-- I do recall is the Corps' initial request identified the i borings but was not specific enough to indicate the type of

~

sampling and the studies to be conducted on the samples that -

) were recovered, which I felt were necessary for Consumers to 2

• go and complete the borings.

P Q And then it was a resolution of that matter that accounted for 11 the delay from March until around 1980 in conveying that to' C Consumers, is that right?

A I thought the request for additional borings was in June.

Q Well, I'm not sure whether it was the end of June, June 29th or the beginning of July, and that is why.I said around l '

July of 1980.

A It is my understanding June 30th was the date the letter went to Consumers with the request for borings.

Q Okay, we will use June 30th. To me that is around July since 2

it is one day away, but, okay, I was unaware of the specific date.

Is that then -- I mean, this problem of 1 refining the requests insofar as they were to specify the

~

studies that were to be done, is that what accounted for the delay from March, 1980 to June 30th, 19807 3 --- - -

• r s t

i I

I I KANE 134 2

A I would'say it was both in the refining and for me in my work-load be able to look at what the Corps has requested and coming to a conclusion that what'they had requested was reasonable.

Q I asked you earlier about whether anyone within the NRC had, or, Corps, had disagreed with the need for the request for 2

additional borings and there was an objection based upon the

~

attorney-client privilege, and we deferred those questions until that could be resolved.

I now understand that these can be answered subject to that objection, so I want to ask you some questions, acknowledging they are subject to the objection based upon attorney-client privilege.

~

Do you have those lines of questions in :r.ind so I can bring you back and ask you a question about it?

A Yes.

~

Q okay. Was there anyone other than individuals whom you

~~

previously identified in specific response to this question l that disagreed or expressed disagreement with the sending of the request for additional borings to Consumers?

A I'd like to respond in talking first about the Corps and then -

NRC.

To the best of my knowledge I do not know of any objection within the Corps to the sending of the request st-- . x -

12 e

• O

KANE 135 2 for the additional borings.

3 With regard to NRC I think I have pointed out 4 that from the geotechnical engineering standpoint there was no question about tile additional borings, there were questions of the borings from the standpoint of whether they should be

~

required until the safety categorization issue was resolved.

! Q Who expressed those reservations or concerns?

4 A I feel I have answered that before and I have said that Darl .

'3

- Hood was questioning the borings because of the safety

categorization and I think I have indicated James Knight also

'2 questioned it.

3 Q That's it?

M A And I think it has been ind3.cated that. Richard Volmer also is looking at that issue.

Q Do any of those identified individuals act as legal counsel to the staff?

A No.

.. s MR. PATON: You didn't ask him that, you just I- asked him generally, you didn't ask him about attorneys.

MR. ZAMARIN: And then you objected on the

!2 basis of the attorney-client prf.vilege. .

~

MR. PATON: I know, but your questions are .

not clear to him that you are now asking for what the attorney )

"I said. It is a simple matter, it is just the way you asked 3z: ..: : >: =3.  :

,,.v:,-- . .

1 KANE 136 2 the question sounds like you are asking is just exactly the 3 way you did before.

4 MR. ZAMARIN: I was, and it was objected to 5 before because it would include attorneys. Now I am asking it i again, okay, and I would expect him to include everybody including attorneys in his response. ..

5 MR. PATON: Well, maybe he is telling you that the attorneys, you know, it is not appropriate to talk U about it. In other words, that they didn't raise these

'I ~

questions or whatever. ,

MR. ZAMARIN: That is what I am asking him.

a Well, to my recollection the question about the objection and the relationship between attorney and client came about not 2 because of the request for additional borings, it came about because of the safety significance of the cooling pond dikes.

Q Oh, okay, it was so long ago I don't remember and I appreciate thitt clarification.

o

! MR. PATON: In the. event that you are about M

~~

to start embarking on this line of questior.s we do have an agreement that is subject to my objection to the attorney-client privilege and I will not object to each question based ,

on our understanding.

MR. ZAMARIN: All right, absolutely. Off

't the record.

:  : a  : 3 _ v: = s.  :

: ; .4 ? . t - 2 s r t .:4 ,s. 3. s ; s -t

• 4

- , . . ~ , , . , - - - - . - , . . . , - , ,,,,g.,- . - , , , e-,

\

KANE 137 2- (whereupon there was a short discussion held 3 off the record.)

4 C (By Mr. Zamarin, continuing) : Back on the record. Identify 3 the people within the NRC who disagreed or continued to 5 disagree on requiring borings on the pond and dike?

A It seems to me when that question was asked before I attempted i to clarify the word " disagree".

i Q That's right. ,

A (Continuing)

And indicate that there were people that were questioning the need for borings on structures whose safety categorization was being questioned.

'2 O okay.

+ A So I have attempted to indicate that from the geotechnical

'2 engineering standpoint I don't know of anyone who has J

questioned the need for the additional borings, and what I have l'

attempted to indicate is r. hat because the cooling pond has a 13 portion whose decision on whether it was category 1 or not has

'?

not been actually resolved, people continued to question the

!! necessity for borings in those areas. It is my understanding l that the decision to be =ade by Volmer.will address that.

2 Q Did William Olmstead every question the need for additional borings?

D A I have never spoken to William Olmstead about the additional U borings. What I think the point was that I brought up as to s--- - .: s.v r-  :

=<. : r: -mu .. : = :u w ,- -

c , .

1 KANE 138

.: William Olmstead before was it was to my knowledge fross talking 3 to others that he was attempting to address either the safety 4 significance of the dike or the environmental considerations

, of the dike and his gtudance in this matter was if you feel it 3 is safety related, then that is one issue, but he was not giving guidance on whether the borings should or should not 3 be completed. As far as I knew he never addressed that question.

. Q Do you , recall anything else that he said about whether it was i

.: safety related or how that weuld impact upon the request for

.- additional borings?

A I think he was questioning the people whether in fact in their

opinion it was safety related. I don't think he was making a

, judgment. He was questioning the reviewers who were present

. at the various meetings with him.

Q Do you know of any reviewer who said he didn't believe it was

'.' safety related or safety significant?

'. 3 A To answer your question there were people questioning whether

~?

. the entire dike was safety related. They were questioning it M and it is my understanding after several meetings the safety significance was accepted for at least the portion of the

emergency cooling water reservoir and the other part, I don't .

.: think the final decision has been made yet on that portion.

.e Q A decision has been made, you don't think a decision has been 25 made yet on what portion? Can you .apecify the portion?

r  : . -

3. -- .  :

- ., .s-,-. .- s--

o

1 KANE 139

A That portion of the operating pond whose stability would,not

influence the Category 1 title.

4 MR. PATON: Let me ask you was that the sum 2

and substance of the information with respect to -- let's go 3 off the record.

MR. ZAMARIN: No, let's put it on the record.

3 MR. PATON: Okay -- well, let's go off the

? record first and then we can go on the record if you want to 1: because I am not sure of this.

MR. ZAMARIN: Okay, let's go off the record.

2 (Whereupon there was a short recess after II which the deposition again continued.)

'i Q (By Mr. Zamarin, continuing) : In your note of July 25, 1980,

'3 that has been marked Exhibit Number 6, it appears that the-U statement these problems now require a more intense scrutiny

~

by the NRC staff than is normally involved in our reviews, li what problems are you referring to that as of July, 1980, 1' required a more intense scrutiny than is normally covered in M your reviews?

!- A These aspects of plant design that are affected by the plant 20 fill.

2 O Why does this then require a more intense scrutiny than that 24 which is normally involved in your reviews?

3 A Normally you would not have this problem, this fill settlement i:: 2 .  : 3 . .i 2 s. .:.  ;

,- 4 ..t- ..:,e,, .. u. ,1..

-~ . - > - -

1 KANE l'40 0 problem.

3 Q By intense scrutiny then do you mean to say simply scrut'iny 4 of those items as opposed to perhaps a more thorough review 5 than you would otherwise do?

5 A Both.

7 Q Why would you 'do a more thorough review than you would normally -

5 do?

9 A In recognition of the problems that have developed.

10 Q You are going to have to explain that one a little further.

11 A Well, if the plant fill had been placed as committed to in the 12 PSAR it is unlikely, and I think most all geotechnical engineers would agree that it would not be experiencing the 14 settlement or the cracking of the structures that we have

'3 experienced, and so that behavior, I think, is an indication of a problem in construction which makes you then question not only that aspect but all aspects of construction.

l 0 So then their more intense scrutiny wouldn't have anything l 3 l to do with that statement in 3.xhibit Number 5 about being l ,

~n~

politically safe, which implies a greater scrutiny than would be necessary to be technically safe?

A That has nothing to do with it. I was not aware of that ,

[ ..

statement.

O And it doesn't have anything to do with any kind of a feeling l or any kind of a concern for being politically safe either, 1

a-: ss : 3 . v: =s. '. : .

,o.r.-- .m,,.....c

. .n.

34-*: -

4

• 4

KANE 141 does it?

A That is correct.

Q Who was it that made the decision to require more intense scrutiny than is normally required in NRC reviews if in fact

such a decision has been made?

A I think each individual. reviewer makes that judgment. .

3 Q In your opinion does the Midland plant fill require more 4

. intense scrutiny than the NRC staff would normally do in their

. review of some remedial action at some other site for example?

A It depends on the remedial action.

. Q Can you give me an example of remedial action which would

.: require the same type of more intense scrutiny?

.. A Yes. A structure which has' experienced settlement and has

. need for a change in foundation design.

Q So you would then give this more intense scrutiny to any building which was going to be underpinned, for example, as

. a remedial measure, is that right?

i

~

A Normally the original design would not include underpinning, i . Underpinning is generally a treatment that you do after a l

'. problem has been exposed. t A Right, that is why I described it as a remedial measure. ,

! O Well, I thought your question -- would you repeat it, please?

MR. ZAMARIN: Read it back (to the reporter).

j .3

:  : s I -3  :.

.- -: t- ..: 3 e :s,

KANE 142

(Whereupon the reporter read back the

previous question,)

. A My understanding of the question is would we give Midland more intense scrutiny than other structures at another project that

, is requiring underpinning?

Q Yes.

. A And I'd say they probably would be comparable.

O Would.the same be true with regard to a building that is

.. surcharged on another project as opposed to at Midland?

, .: A We would give it -- well, it would depend on the time the i .

'. ; surcharge was placed.

.? Q In what way would the time the surcharge being placed affect the intensity of the scrutiny?

A Surcharging is normally performed before you build the structure to squeeze out the settlement that could induce r

.- stresses into the structure and at Midland the surcharging was performed after the structure was constructed and so I am saying a project that performed surcharging before the structure l

was built would probably not receive the same amount of scrutiny.as a structure that has been surcharged after it has l

l . been constructed. ,

Q Then is it your opinion that there is nothing peculiar about I.

Consumer Power ccmpany or the Midland site that is requiring this more intense scrutiny but rather it is the nature of the

.;:  : - .=: .

1 KANE 143

! work that is being done that requires the more intense 3 scrutiny?

4 A What is requiring the intense scrutiny is the evidence of a 5 problem and the fact that the method to correct thir problem, 6 surcharging, is now being performed after the structure is ccsapleted.

~

7 3 Q Is it perceived requirement for more intense scrutiny by the 9 NRC than is normally covered in NRC reviews the reason for the-10 number of questions that Consumers has been asked with regard II to the olant fill issue?

U A In my opinion the intense scrutiny would generate more questions.

I-Q You mentioned earlier cracking of structures. Is cracking of structures a ::encern to the NRC today with regard to the Midland plant?

A Yes.

Q Has any evaluation or analysis been done with respect to information provided by Consumers with regard to cracking mapping and crack stress analysis?

A Has it been done?

~'

Q Has it been done?

• A It is my understanding that an evaluation is being or will be

~~

done by our structural engineering branch.

Q Is iti your understanding that your structural engineering s::  : s. -=

A-

. a

ICANE 144

branch now has all of the information that they require in

order to perform that evaluation?

4 A I do not know.

Q The Notir:e of Deposition and the request to produce which was

modified by agreement of counsel, called for you to bring with you or to provide to us copies of all documents in your file

. other than those which are found in the public document room or other than those which are merely unmarked copies'of documents which have been transmitted to or from Consumers Power Company. Did you, in fact, provide all of those

documents to us?

MR. PATON: That was not the understanding.

. Off the record.

Q (By Mr. ::amarin, continuing) : To your knowledge are there any documents that were in'your files which would come within 7

the purview of that request which were not provided to us or which would be held for some reason?

A I have given you r.11 documents that I have.

l Q Do you have a title or position with respect to the Midland project today?

l A I am the contract technical monitor for the Midland plant ,

project.

Q What are your responsibilities as contract technical monitor 1

for the Midland project?

e y e -.,-..--_._-_,,ms__. w_-- - ., ,y. ,_..,._,w ..+.,--__,-,w , . . ,.- . , -m,-.,-.,.----- -

_-e--. ~. _m _e--.- -----.

~

i 1 KANE 145 2 A To assist the Corps in their safety evaluations of the Midland 3 project; to provide them with NRC regulatory guides and 4 standard review plans and to assist them in completing the 5 review, the safety review for the Midland project.

5 0 Is the Corps working on an all SER for the Midland project?

? A one'of the assignment's, one of the tasks the Corps has been -

5 given for the Midland project is to write the SER.

) Q And do you know if they are in the process of writing the SER? .

M'A To my knowledge they are not, but all the work they are doing P. now on the plant fill settlement will be incorporated into the

'0 SER, so to that extent they are working on the SER.

U Q Do you know when they intend to one, commence work on the SER

'. 4 and two, complete their work on the SER?

i A The way the contract is established with them,.it is broken into subtasks, and the first subtask is to complete their

~

evaluation of the plant fill settlement problem first.

Q I see, so then they will not begin any subsequent tasks or

'3 any other subtasks until they have completed subtask one, is that your understanding of the contract?

A' There is nothing to prevent them from working on other sub-tasks, it is just that the time required to evaluate the plant -

fill settlement problem up to this time has essentially taken all their time.

5 Q Is anyone else within the NRC working on the SER or any part

-:  : +  : e. -

. ._... .. ,n ....,

. a.

I 1 KANE 146

of it right now or is it figuratively sitting dead in the water?

3 A I can only speak to the SER that would come out of the 4 geotechnical enginering section. I have not had discussions 5 with other sections.

d MR. PATON: Off the record.

(Whereupon there was a short discussion held '

- off the record.)

.  ; Q (By Mr. Zamarin, continuing) : Did you understand my questions

c to be restricted to an SER solely regarding the plant fill, and

'. possible CP modifications related'thereto?

A I did not understand your question in that regard. The Corps 1

has been given the task of writing an evaluation of the plant

., fill settlement problem and evaluation of the CP amendment and the final OL.

3 O Okay, and then your answer to my previous questions was that

~

was in their framework, is that correct?

3 A That is correct.

's Q What are your specific responsibilities with r3 gard to T evaluation of the soil sediment issues?

A I don't think I can point to any document to where I can clearly define it. It is just that as contract technical -

monitor I would be expected to bring to the review the l -

experience I have with other nuclear power plants as well as to assist the Corps and give input into the Corps review as e . .

...am o = ,eP

, _ _ . - - _ - _ . . - _ _ _ , . . - _ - . - , _ _ _ __ .__ . _.. .._.._._e ._ ._ _ _ _ -_ _ . _ _ _

1 KANE 147

• 3 I see fit in any technical judgment.

7 Q What experience with other nuclear power plants have you

brought in or do you intend to bring into this review?

., A All of it.

5 Q There is no particular project or item on which you worked with respect to some other plant which qualifies you in some .

. narticuar way with respect to the soil settlement issues?

3

'A I would hope what qualifies me is the level of review I have

,- done with other projects.

, O Is your responsibility as contract technical monitor for the

.. Midland project a full-time assignment for you?

', ; A No.

,, Q What are your other present' responsibilities?

,- A It varies with time. At this particular time it is pretty-close to being full time in preparation for the upcoming

.- hearing, but I am involved in other nuclear power projects

.: and other tailings retention systems.

. Q Have your responsibilities other than as contract technical

, monitor for the Midland project remained about the same from

, the time you came on board the Midland project to today?

A No, it has increased. My involvement has increased. At the ,

time I first came on board the NRC geotechnical engineering

. staff was essentially four people, and one of the reasons for

.' going to the Corps was because we were understaffed and needed

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ .__ _ m______ .__._

. KANE 148

assistance in our reviews. Since that time in November of

1979, we have had additional people join our staff which is

freeing me to give more input into the Midland review.

5 Q Prior to November of 1979 what percentage of your time was 5 devoted to the Midland project?

A To the best of my recollection prior to October, 1979, I had .

i no involvement between October and November. I think the i extent of.my involvement was preparing the contract for the

. Corps of Engineers to perform the Midland review. ,

Q Do you have a direct liaison within the Corps with whom you

.2 communicate?

2 A I communicate directly with several people.

Q Who are they in the Corps?

A William Otto, Hari Singh, Leo Geary and on occasion Ron Erickson.

Q What is your definition of acceptance criteria?

l A Acceptance is an understanding of what is being performed, and I

criteria is some standard to which you measure, so acceptance criteria to me is understanding what is to be required to some standard.

l 0 In your opinion is it the NRC's responsibility to develop .

l l acceptance criteeia with regard to the proposed fixes related to the Midland plant fill?

A The question is should NRC develop acceptance criteria with

-m,... _ . , , _

KANE 149

regard to the remedial treatment for the --

3 Q (Interposing) : Is it their responsibility?

2 A Ultimately to be able to conclude that a structure is safe and

. acceptable NRC would have to, yes, g Q Has the NRC provided acceptance criteria with regard to the diesel generator building fix? ,

. A Originally the acceptance criteria for the diesel generator building was an understanding that a compaction criteria would

, .; be met. That was the acceptance criteria.

n Q My question was with regard to the diesel generator building

.; fix?

A I'm sorry, I didn't hear the word "fix". It is my understand-

, ing that the criteria we wotild now require is to assure

.I curselves that the fix produces the equivalent of the original

.: criteria. -

. Q By the equivalent of the original crite0ia do you mean the l

. intent of the original criteria?

l .. A Yes.

i

! . Q And would the same be true with regard to the service water l

i j . . pump structure?

I

. A Yes.

l

.. Q And the suxiliary building as well?

i A The portions that are on plan four, yes.

.i O And with regard to all of the areas of concern with regard to

, , , , - . c- - -,.- -,--.-n ,r-, -

..-,e, - ,-e- ., -r---- - - - -- ~- ~ - - - - - - - - ' - - -

. 4 KANE 150 the plant fill issues at Midland, is that correct?

3 A Yes.

l 4 Q I have what has been marked as consumers Exhibit Number 7 for '

5 identification. It is an exhibit consisting of four pages 3 numbered two through five and purports to be a portion cf a contract between the NRC and the Corps.

Would you take a look at that and tell me if in fact my characteri=ation of that document is correct?

- A The document thst I have a portion of is the contract that, ,

, NRC has with the Corps. ,

l .; O Let me ask you another question before I go on to this. On

.: Exhibit Number 5 there is a' listing of people who were involved in the meetings on the 7th and the 8th of November, 1979, and after the names of Kubinski and Erickson there is the notation, some initials "NCE". Do you know what those initials stand

. for?

.. A Could I see it?

I think it is a Corps of Engineers notation

. for identifying an office. I think it stands for North Central Engineering, but I am not positive.

. O okay. Do you have a copy of the entire contract between the -

NRC and the Corps of Engineers?

. A You mean in addition to the pages that are missing there?

O Yes, do you have the full contract?

I

9 1 KANE 151 2 A Yes.

3Q Do you recall when that contract was executed?

4 A I'd like to refer to a history of events.

3Q That looks yummy, let me take a look at thatt

A I will give it to you, I'm just trying to get the date. I was

hopeful I would have that date. .It is my understanding the 3

contract with'the Corps was finalized in October of 1979.

0 And do you know when the Corps actually began work with respect

.] to the Midland plant fill pursuant to that contract?

A Following acceptance of the contract by the Corps there was a j

.. period within the Corps of attempting to identify the manpower 12 to complete this study and I think it took several months to

4 where any meaningful review got under.way.

. 0 Several months, that would take it then up to sometime around 1

.- February of 19807

. A My guess would be January or February.

O Okay.

.- A could I have my chronology of events back?

0 Yes, I don't believe that we have a copy that is clean because

". this has all of the writings on here.and I would just ask perhaps you can get us a copy that has all the writing on it?

.. MR. PATON: Yes, we will have to try to

.- arrange for copies of all of these things as we did before.

l

O (By Mr. Zamarin, continuing) : To the best of your recollection i

e r - : .  : 7  : .

S .

_ - - _ . _ _ . - . _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ , -_--,---..m- - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . - - - - - - . - - - - -

KANE 152 wasn't Consumers requested to provide information to the Corps prior to January of 1980?

A 4 I would say they were requested to provide information, but I understood your question to mean when did a meaningful review T7 -

again.

Q No, I am not going back and picking at your previous answer, I am simply leading up to asking you why information was requested to be sent to the Corps as early as October 16th, 1979 when in fact the Corps wasn't prepared or able at that time to conduct any meaningful review of that information?

.: A Well, there was work -- I think I have indicated that the Corps 1:

contract was signed in Cetober and there was preparation before that in trying to first of all identify whether the Detroit District could or would do the work, and I think long before tie contract was signed a lot of work had been done trying to

) resolve which office of the Corps had the capability and the time to do the review, and so before the contract was signed it was pretty well established that the Detroit District would do the review and on the basis of that understanding we had asked that documents be submitted to the Detroit District.

O Did the contract with the Corps cover anything in addition to -

geotechnical issues related to the plant fill problems at Midland?

l

- A The contract that was signed with the Corps iccluded Bailly.

i ,

_ _ = _ . . - ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1 KANE 153

Q With regard.to the Midland plant and other than the work that

the Corps was to do on the SER for the OL, was the Corps to 4 do anything in addition to geotechnical issues related to the 3 plant fill problems at the Midland site?

3A To the best of my knowledge the Corps was only asked for geotechnical engineering aspects.

3Q They weren't asked to do any structural engineering aspects of

. y the Midland site?

., A Structural evaluation, no. I think you must recognize that cur field of engineering has an overlap with structural,

.. mechanical and hydrologic and, therefore, it sometimes is very

'.' hard to distinguish where structure starts and where it ends.

.. Q Why then has the Corps submitted requests to Con'sumers that

\

'. ! include dynamic response of structures and actual stresses'

~

induced by settlement against allowable stresses permitted by 9

approved codes in structures?

~. : A In both those areas geotechnical engineering has input into, those type of structures.

Q Do you know if the work at the Corps has been doing, and in

particular the request for information'is being coordinated

-- by the Corps with the structural engineering consultant that .

. the staff has engaged?

- A To the best of my knowledge there has been no contact between 22 the Corps and the consultant hired by the structural 3 -  : - 4 -

r.

.r- . . . .

b

.,---. ,..n .,., _. , . . - - _ . --

_ - . . _. . - _. _= . _.- . = _ _ . .~ _ ,._ , .- .

h

. K;WE 154

engineering branch. There has been contact from the Corps to

me to the structural engineering branch.

O And is there any mechanism for coordinating the requests for information so as to avoid redundancy or duplication or overlapping requests for information from Consumers?

A The systiem that would attempt to reduce that redundancy and

, overlapping would be the responsibility of the contract -

technical monitor.

Q In this case being Joe Kane?

A For the Corps and the oth3r for th'eir consultants.

.. Q When the Corps or when the Naval Surface Weapons Center calls up with a request for information does Joe Kane sit down with the other contract technical' monitors and review that request to determine whether there is any overlapping or redundancy?

A I would hope we would. In doing my own coordination I have attempted to keep them apprised of the efforts of the Corps and make them aware of the areas where we are everlapping in and the consequences of that overlapping.

MR. ZAMARIN: I think this would be a goed 1

point for us to break. It will give us a chance to take 15 or 20 minutes on those documents and we will adjourn until 9 a.m. tomorrow morning at which time we will resume the deposition.

( (Whereupon the deposition was recessed

-- - _ . . - . - _ . .~. - -

l 0 8 KANE 154a 2 at 6:00 p.m. to again be continued at 9:00

^; a.m., Wednesday, October 15, 1930.)

i O

o i

(

1 l

l l

O l

l l

l

_