ML20153B842
| ML20153B842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/26/1984 |
| From: | Gallagher E NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151D196 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-583 NUDOCS 8805060093 | |
| Download: ML20153B842 (112) | |
Text
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 -
t ,'
v 2 STATS OF l'ICHIG AM 3 IN T!!E CIRCUIT COURT FOR T!!E COUNTY OF !!IDLAUD 4 - ----------------
)
5 DOH Ci:EMICAL CO!!PANY, )
)
6 Plaintiff, )
) .
7 -vs- )
. .. , ) No. 83-0022325 8 CO!!OUllERS POWER CO!!PAMY, )
)
9 Defendant. )
)
10 ------------------
11 The Continued Deposition of EUGEME GALLAGI!ER, taPan bef ore me, Glenn G.. Miller, CSR-2596, Registered 12 Prof essional Reporter and Motary Public within and f or the County of Wayne, (acting in Washington D. C.) State of Ilichigan, 13 at 65515th Street, Washington, D. C., on Thursday, s
. July 26,1984. ,
)
- 14' t fi s
15 APPEARANCES:
- d(j,,; q - 4~ ,
. <y 16, KIRFLAND & ELLIS D' '
x s 200 East Randolph Drive 17_ Chicago, Illinoir 60601 (By James Goold, Esq.)
18
. Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff, ,
19 ,
BARRIS, SOTT, DEMU & DRIKER -
20 21st Floor First Federal Bldg.
Detroit, Michigan 48226 2$ (By Eugene Driker, Esq.
and Ellen M. Neering, Esq.)
22
.- Appearing on behalf of the Defendant.
s.
23 24 k
.n \
8005060093 880400 3 PDR Nexehl^583 fL'~ Luzod Reporting Service 39g4g ,y,,,,,,,,, g,,.
Suar MO 962 1176 Sute2x Detrut Vichigan 48226
^
- Farmnaton Hith, Michigan 48018
.. _ _ __ _ A
E .
1 APPEARANCES COliTINUED:
2 NEIL JENSEli, Esq.
Of fice of General Counsel 3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington u. C. 20555
' 4 Appearing on behalf / of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
5 NITNESS INDEX 6
7 , Witness Examined By ,
, Page 8 EUG ENE G ALLIG HER Mr. Goold 220 9
10 11 EXHIB IT I ti D E X 12 -
13 Exhibit No. Description Page 14 PX NRC 58 Summary of July 18, 1979 273 meeting on soil deficiencies 15 at.the Midland Plant Site 16 PX BEC 235 Letter of 10-30-79 from 297 S. S. Afifi to R. D. Peck, 17 Letter from Lester Rubenstein,
!!RC, to S. H. How ell, CPC, dated 18 10-19-79 and supplemental l ,
10 CFR 50.54 reque st s
- 19 PX 11RC 59 Letter of 12-6-79 from Victor 302 20 Stello, NRC, to Stephen Howell,
.CPC, with attached document 21 captioned Order Modifying Construction Permits two 22 appendices l . 23 l 24 l
l l
2
,, y Luzod Reporting Service yo 3., ,,, y Suito Am 962 1176 Suite zw Detroit. Mickyan 48226 Farmington Hills. Michisan MI8
. 1-
- 2. -
E X H I B I-'T I !! D E "
3
(' 4 Exhibit No. Deccription Page.
5 P" CPC 525 CPCO Discussion of 11RC 311 Inspection Facts Resulting from 6 the Investigation of the Diesel Generator Building Settlement, 7 dated 3-9-7 9 8 PX CPC 526 Consumerc Power Document from 321 J. L. Corley/R. G. Follney to 9 Bt U. !!arguglio, 3-3 0-79, subj ect :
Midland 'Proj ect-11RC Exit 1:ecting of 10 March 29,1979 11 PX CPC 527 Three-page Handwritten Document 322 12 PY !!RC 60 MRC Inspec, tion Report 79_-06, 324 dated April 9,1979
. 13 PX .nEC 236 . Interoffice memorandum to S. Afifi, 326 14 . dated 11-13-78,
Subject:
Job 7220 Midland Proj ect, Compaction Test 15 Section, Midland Units 1 and 2, Midland, Michigan 16 PX CPC 528 Oral Communication Record, dated 327 17 5-12-80 and 5-13-00 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Lu:od Reporting Service ,3 ,3 g Suite MO 962 11i6 Suite 220 Detroit,, Afichigan 482.% Farmington Hills, .\fichigan 48018
~
e o 1 ifashington-D. C.
2 Thursday, July 26, 1984 3 8:30 a. m.
e 4-5 : UGENE GALLAGHER
,6 was thereupon called as a witness herein and, after
'7 having been first duly sworn to tell the truth, the 8 whole truth and nothing but the-truth, was examined 9 and testified as follows: ,
10 MR. GOOLD: For the record, this is the 11 resumption of the depositiot; of !!r. Eugene Gallagher of 12 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. -
, 13 EXAMINATION 14 BY MR. GOOLD: .
15 0 Just by way of preliminary, Ec. Gallagher, since we've 16 adjourned for I guess nearly two weeks since the start of 17 your deposition, has there been anything that has come to 18 your mind since we adjourned your deposition that has just 19 occurred to you during the interim, something you care to 20 add 'to your deposition?
21 A Mo.
22 0 Over the course of your investigation cencerning the soils (k 23 problems at. Midland, can you estimate approximately how 24 many times you had conversations with !!r. Horn?
s Luzod Reporting Service 10
,y 3ag,g ,,g,,, ,m gwy.
Sdie rw 962 1176 . sue zw Farmingtm Hills, Michigan 48018 Devoit, Michigan 48226,
? .
1 A. Well, it's sort of a di!!icult question when you say .
2' conversations. I think f ecm September of 1978 through 3 March of 1979 it was one continuous conversation of sor,ts, C 4 that is, we were in contact routinely, perhaps even 5 weekly, in the.courst f gathering information.
6 0 And just by way of background, did you have greater or 7 -
lessor contact with Bechtel personnel?
8 A We had lessor contact; however, we did have substential 9 contact with them in the course of our investigation.
10 0 To help me get oriented in terms of how an investigation 11 such as yours is conducted, who is the primary conduit for 12 inf ormation to you, vhich person in which company?
13 A Primarily from Consumers Pow'er and primarily .through the 14 Quality Assurance organJ:ation, and in particular Mr.
15 Horn. On the Project Danagement side of the house it uns 16 primarily Mr. Cooke and his staff.
17 0 Is that Mr. Thomas Cooke?
. 18 A That's correct. .
19 0 Just so I'm clear, is ! t correct that the principle group 20 with which you had contact f rom the Consumers Power scople 21 were the QA group rather than the Project Management 22 group?
23 A That's correct.
24- 0 And apart f rom Mr. Hern who was the next most -- with whom Luzod Reporting Sers ice . ,g 3, [21 g Suae MO '962.Jl76 Suur 220 Detrue \fichigan 482:6 Farmuurton Hills. Stichigan 48018
~1 at Consumers Power did you have cont v t next most
. 2- frequently?
3 A At that time I. believe it was Mr. Corley, his supervisor.
. I 4 0 During the first day of your deposition we discussed a 5 list of the factors that you belle, caused the soils 6 problems, then we also discussed whether people f rom 7 Consumers Power had indicated that they had concern about 8 those factors prior to the disclosure of the Diesel 9 Generator Building settlement problem. Do you remember 10 that generally?
11 A Yes.
9 12 0 And in that connection one point you mentioned was that 13 Mr. Horn told you that he had tried to get the soils work 14 stopped. Dg. you remember that genecally?
15 A Yes.
16 0 And I just wanted to make sure that the record is clear as 17 to whether 1:r. Horn indicated to you that he had been 18 trying bef ore the disclosure of the Diesel Generator i
19 Building soils problem to get the soils work stopped? .
20 MR. DRIKER: I'll object to the question as 21 leading.
i 22 A That's correct. !!r. Horn had been the primary Quality Q" Assurance contact auditing soils work. He had, based on 23 24 my conversations with him and association with him, been
, y,,
Luzod Reporting Service 30840 Nonhu s een Huy Suur MO 962 1.176 Suur L'O t),trou, \fichigan 48LN) Farmu'Nton Hills, .\fichigan 48018
L .
' ~
1 aware of the long history of repetitive deficienci:s 2 throughout the installation' of the soils activity, and it 1 3 was' clear to me that he had made many efforts attempting
/' 4 to get upper level management's attention to do something 5 more than just accept ,as is the work, which was'the '
6- routine resolution to the identified problems.
7 0 Did Mr. Horn --
8 MR. DRIKER: Excuse me a second. I'm having 9 a hard- ti,me hearing the witness.
10 THE WITNESS t Am I not speaking clearly?
11 MR. DRIKER: You' re speaking clearly. It's 12 the size of the room and whatever. ,
e
, 13 DY MR. GdOLD:
14 0 Did Mr. Horn indicate anything further that you terall ;
'15 regarding what the reaction of Consumers Power upper 16 management had been to his efforts?
17 MR. DRIKER: ,
The question is leading.
18 Obj ection. '
19 A He was not getting very much cooperation f rom his upper 20 level management. I got the distinct understanding that 21 he was doing everything but j umping up and down and 22 screaming to look we have a problem, we've had a
\j 23 long-standing problem, we don't seem to be getting it :
24 corrected, and as a f airly low level employee in the L
h Lafayette Building Luzod Reporting Service 39,,oy,g,j,f)y,y
, Swse Am 962 1176 Suite zw I Detmt. Alichigan 482:6 Famington Hsib, Alichigan 48018 ,
. i 1 Consumers, management chain he j ust wasn' t- getting the '
2 cooperation.
3 BY UR. GOOLD:
,I 4 0 Did he indicate to you who were the people within 5 Consumers Power upper. management who had not been G responsive to his requests?
7 n Corporate OA people, Mr. Marguglio and his associates.
8 0 At the time you conducted your investigation for the 9 preparation of report 78-20, did you f orm any view ao to 10 whether people f rom ' Consumer s Pcwer were being cooperative ll _ with you in your efforts?
12 MR. JEMSEN: I wonder if*we could clarify 13 ' that to particular people f rom Consumers power.
14 BY MR. GOOLD: .
4 15 0 Let's start with Mr. Horn.
16 A Yes. .
- l'7 0 How about Mr. Co rley ? .-
18 A Yes. ,
19 0 How about Mr. Cooke?
1
- 20 A It appeared to be.
j 21 0 Uere those three people your primary contacts within
- 22 Consumers Power?
i/ '
l 23 A Yes, i .
24 O At the time you conducted your investigation for the l
ga,ay,,,, gu;,,;s, Lund Moning kia 30MO Norshu s e Hwy, Sur Nw 962 1176 Swe zw l-Detrpt. Michigan 48:26 Farmington Hdis. Michigan 43018
l' report 78-20 did you form any view as to whether they were 2- being truthf ul with you?
3 A Ucll, we er:pected them to be truthf ul given the
-( 4 seriousness of our investigation. It appeared that they l
5 -were being truthful to us, that is, producing documents as 6 we needed them. There were occasions when certain 7 documencs were e::tremely dif ficult to obtain and there did 8 seem to be a stonewalling in producing them.
In 9 particular certain quality records dealing with the 10 qualification of compaction equipment in particular, 11 that's one ca se that I remember very clearly.
12 There were other documents that we did not 13 know existed and theref ore were not "smart enough" to ask 14 specifically for and that prompted the URC to issue a 15 50.54 F letter which requested in total any and all 16 documents relating to the soils work activity and in 17 particular a long list of ' documents which we included as 18 an attachment.
19 -
MR. GOOLD: I'm not going to object or make 20 a big fuss, but I j ust want the record to reflect the 21 witness is being counseled by his counsel and I'm always 22 troubled by that. -
(" 23 A I e::pect my counsel to counsel me.
24 BY MR. GOOLD:
Luzod Reporting Service y33 225
,, , y Swo sw 962 1176 Sune :M iktroit. \fichigan 48:.% farmington Rdh. \fichigan 48018
1 lr) During the examination that's the only problem, at least 2' where I group up that's not supposed to be, but let's go 3 ahead.
/ 4 Based on the exhibits you've seen thus f ar 5 in the deposition, have your v'iews regarding the i
6 truthf ulness of the Consumers Power people with whom 7 you've dealt been attected in any way?
8 A Yes.
9 0 In what way, sir?
10 A In bringing the inf ormation to our attention while we were 11 conducting the investication that they were apparently 12 aware of based on the documents that you produced 13 pr eviously. .
~
I 1
14 C Can you explain what you mean by the information?
15 A Mell, in particul,ar the entire circumstances surrounding 16 the pre-1970 discovary of the Diesel Generator Building i 17 failure and the identification of the Administration 3 18 l Duilding soils settlement problem and other borings that l
l 19 I had obviously been taken prior to 1978 that obviously 1
l ,20 indicated poor material. That inf ormation was not brought l 21 forward to us during our investigation.
- 22 0 I noticed in reviewing report 78-20, which was marked as
!C 23 PX 11RC 56, that one of the conclusions in the report was i
i 24 that Consumers Power had reported the Diesel Generator i
Lused Reporting Service 220
, ,3 ,, y Suite hYJ 962,i176 Suite 2:0 Sams. %kigu 48:26 Fumven Hals. %kisu 48018
1 Building p. oblem on. a timely basis.- Do you remember that 2 conclusion generally?
3 A Yes.
( 4 0 If you had seen the information which was provided to you
.5 as exhibits in the course of the first session of your 6 deposition, would your conclusion be the came?
7 A. No.
8 0 During the cour'se of your interviews of witnesses for the 9 preparation of report 78-20, did ~you learn whether the 10 witnesses had been given any instructions by Dechtel or 11 Consumers Power counsel?
12 flR. DRIKER: Maybe you better carve it up 13 and ask him whether he's talking about Consumers Power s -
. 14 employecc or Bechtel employees. Your questions take in a 15 wide sweep when you ask the witnes,s about people and he 16 responds about organizations and so on, and I think it 17 would help the record il 7 .<lhed about individuals or at 18 least identified companies rather than simply talking 19 about a., amorphous voice out there some place.
20 !!R. GOOLD: I'm not sure you characterized 21 his testiniony correctly, but, anyway, I' ll f ollow up.
22 MR. DRIMER: Uculd you repeat the question?
23 (The requested portion of the 24 record was read back as follows:
, .gy,, Luzod Reporting Service ,g 3 2,27 g Suur hw 962 1176 Suur 2M Drooa. \fichisan 4C:6 farmington Hdh. \lichiess 4R018
i 1 *0., During the. course of your.
2 interviewc 'of witnesces for the 3 preparation of report' 78-20, did
! 4 you learn whether the witnccces had 5 been given any instruction by Dochtel j G or Concumers Power counsel?")
7 A Uell, regarding the Bechtel peop,le, we observed that they l
8' were being' briefed prior to our l'nterviews. Phat they '
9 were being brief ed we don' t know since we weren' t there.
10 And they were being debriefed af ter the interviewc and in 11 general were a little bit guarded. '.
l 12 BY MR. GOOLD: !
j 13 0 Uhen you say you learned that they had been brief ed before ,
14 the interviews, did you learn who was. doing the briefing?
, [
15 A It was a lav , firm representing Dechtel. The law firm, I l l
16 don' t remember its name, it was 'f rom Detroit, wanted to ,
I 17 actually be in the room when we interviewed them. That's la not our general practice of conducting investigation i
19 interviews and were actually held up for at least the j i
20 better part of one day and possibly bao days trying to !
r 21 iron out that they would not be because, at least ,
22 initially, Bechtel's position was they would not product
(' 23 these people unless counsel was present. After we ironed ;
24 that out then counsel was not present and we went on with !
l I
i i
i 2
Lused Reporting Service yo S.4, y a , ~, 9 2.izis s.u zw -
Drucit. .Vickieen a2;% ,
ferminutes Hith, Mickean nols
1 ,
, our interviews. .However, I recall Cerry Phillip,-the 2 chief investigator, -that he would ask whether or not they 3 had been counseled and the like.
(f 4 O Do you remember what the ancwors were?
5 A Yeah, they were brief ed basically as to what we were going 6 to be asking in terms of other people. They were 7 compiling the questions obviously because of the
- 8 seriousness of the findings that we were about to make.
9 0 You've mentioned that a Detroit law firm for'Bechtel was 10 involved in this connection. Uas that firm Clark, P.lein &
11 Beaumont?
12 A sourids f amiliar but it's not cicar in my mind. ,
r 13 0 How about !!r. Rob Brown?
14 A Again it sounds like a f amiliar narae but.it' c not clear in 15 my mind. ,
16 0 Did you ever learn whether any of the concumers Pcuer
- 17 people you interviewed had been brief ed by lawyers bef ore 18 you interviewed them?
I 19 A I didn' t know if they had.
! 20 Q Did you ever learn whether, or here of any instructions
- 21 given to Dechtel witnesses that they were to volunteer 22 nothing and if there was a problem it was up to the !
- RC to
' c
23 find it out?
l i
l 24 l'R . DRIKER: I think that quection is
. Luzod Reporting Service 399g 3,,,k,},f,,9,7uy.
Sutte MO 962 11?6 Saue 220 Detmt. \fichiaan st226 ,
Farminston Ihth, Michisan 48018
O 1 leading.,
2 BY !:R. GOOLD:
3 0 Try to find out in words or in substance that those 4 instructions had been given to the Bechtel witnesses?
5 MR. DRIKER: I think that questien is G leading as well.
7 A I recall that diccussion' being done by our chief 8 investigator and it was in general terms, ansuer the 9 questions, don' t volunteer any inf ormation.
10 DY MR. GOOLD:
11 0 Did Consumers Power people you interviewed take a similar 12 appr oa ch ?
13 A I don' t know if they did.
14 0 Okay. Let me direct your attentien for a moment back to 15 report 78-20, which is MRC Exhibit 56. Let me direct your 16 attention to pages f our through six concerning the 17 identification and reporting of the Diesel Generator 18 Building settlement, First let me ask: Did you 19 participate in an interview of the Bechtel Chi?f of Survey 20 Parties?
21 A Yes.
22 0 And is that what is summarized beginning at the bottom of 23 page f our and carrying over into the top of page five?
24 A Ye c.
Luzad Reporting Service 230
,,, g ,, '
y g ,,, y ._
Suar hw 962 1176 Sure 2x Detmt. \fichigan AC6 . Farmuncton Hdis. .\lakiaan #018
4
.1 0 And was your interview with that individual.the source for 2 the statement in the bottom paragraph of page four that 3
l "Surveys to establish a baseline elevation f or the DGB 4 were completed by Bechtel en May 9,1978"?
5 A Yes.
6 O And do you recall what that individual told you regarding 7 when unusual settlement at the Diesel Generator Building 8 was first noticed by him, first came to his knowledge ?
9 A Uell, according to the report, on page five, July 22nd, 10 data that the survey party had collected showed 11 differential settlement ranging f rom a quarter to one and 12 five-eighths inches. In that person's e::perience, as we 13 memorialized in that r e po r t, that was somewhat surprising 14 to him. ,
15 0 Did you learn whether anyone, and I'll ask it broadly at 16 first, working at the Diesel Generater Building had been 17 aware of settlement before the Ecchtel survey group? -
18 A Mot that I' m awarc of.
8 19 0 Okay. Das it your understanding that the chief of the 1
20 Dechtel survey function was the first to spot the 21 settlement?
22 A On'the Diesel Generator Building?
(
23 0 On the Diesel Generator Building.
24 A That's what our report reads and it's correct to our
- "? " "
(Afayrtte ikiding 3mt0 Northur en Huy Suste hw 9 6 2. l l '6 Suar KD Detrat, \fichigan 482:n Farmmeton Hills. \fschtsan 48018
s n
l
- 1. . . knowledge. ,
1 2 0 How was .it that-you came to interview the Bechtel Chief of ;
- . l
[ 3 Survey Parties? Can you remember the process by which you :
/ 4 came to discuss the question of when settlement at the l
-5 building was identified with him? .
6 A It was just a logical person to be speaking with to coe f
7 when they identified the initial settlement and to compare l i- 8 that to when they reported it to us, which was in August. [
9 Q ' Did anybody indicate to you whether or not settlement had 4, c j 10- been noticed at the Diesel Generator Puilding by other !
I 11 people Lafore it came to the attention of the Bechtel i 12 Chief o,f Survey Parties? I 1 i
!, 13 A 1:o one. !
14 0 Did you have an opportunity to determine whethqr ;
I 15 ,
settlement at the Diesel Generator Building had come to j i
i 16 the attention of anyone prior to the Bechtel Chief of ]
. i 17 Survey Parties?
i 18 A That was the whole object of this part of the i l .I 19 investigation, to determine whether or not -- to determine l
l 20 when dif f erent parties knew of the settlement.
[
i 21 '
l 0 Uhat I'm really trying to find out is whether you were 22 told the first person to know about the settlement was the ,
23 Bechtel Chief of Survey Parties?
i 24 A It appears to be reasonable to c::pect the survey party f j -
1 Lused Reporting Service 3o,49 y,g,, ,{ y,,.
Suse m 962'II?6 Suur 220 !
D,uus, vuhiaan c Fernmaton Hdis. Mkkwsn 4M18 ;
- . I I
. . 'l would identify;the . settlement optically dopng the survey, ;
.l, l F 2 collecting data and reporting it to other Dechtel people. (
l i
3 0 Did you ever learn whether workers involved in the !
4 construction of th: Diecel Generator Building had noticed
- 5 that something was wrong before then, bef ore, that is, the.
G Dechtel Chief of Survey Partiec became involved?
l
, 7 l'R . DRInCn: Objection. The question is 8 leading. [
i 9 That question kind of jogs my memory a littl,e bit. At lA 10- 1 cast coneone indicated to us that -- comeone indicated to 11 us, I don' t recall who, that a worker had, I guecs, felt '
) 12 $
some, or cettlement, or I guese using some cort of device, [
i 13 pounding it into the ground, had noticed some soft j
" I don't know if we recorded it in our report 14 materials. -
l 15 or not. There was a lot of stories going on at the site i 16 as to when and how people knew of the soils settlement. !
1
! 17 The only one that we recorded was the survey team's ,
i
- 18 results. i l -
l 19 l DY HR. GOOLD: l t
20 0 Do you recall approximately when you learned about this
]
i
- 21 experience of a worker? ;
l l' 22 A No, I don' t.
- 23 0 Has it in the course of your investigation?
E 24 A Yes. ,
l c
y, y YO $ Q4Q J'y ff , .
.%w edo ,
,962 11?6 Suar m ;
Dnrat, kkisu sm6 Famvwtm lidh, %kisu 48018 ?
3 ;
I
, e
., .l. O Do you recall who told you about that? , ,
2 A I' really don' t. f
- 3 0' Did you ever learn whether that worker had reported the j i 4 problem or his observations to higher-ups within either i I 5 Bechtal or Consumers Power? 7 i
G A Mo, I didn't.
l 7 0 I'm j ust trying to find out the cepth to which you pursued 8 this quection or elected not to pursue it. Did you make -
l l
9 any requests to talk to that individual? !
-; 10 A Mo, we didn't. ,
t 11 O Is there any other inf ormation you can give me as to how I !
E e
i 12 might identify that person? j 13 A Mot at thi's point. !
l
, 14 0 Did ycu learn'or become aware cf a settlement monitoring [
j 15 program being established in or about July 1978 at the ;
16 site? 1 1 !
7-17 A Yes. -
[
4 , .
18 0 And was it in connection with that settlement monitoring !
19 program, to your understanding, that the Diesel Generav.or [
20 Builcing problem was first observed?
1 l
21 A Actually, if I recall correctly, it was in the course of 22 setting elevations for the Diecci Generator Building that i 4 !
4 t, '
i 23 they actually first observed some dif f erential settlement. !
I
! 24 The curvey didn' t cloco properly to align certain I j .
1 0
0 Y '
}
swa hw 962 1176 sme 2.m ?
%s, whigan sst,% C'armington Hdis, Michigan 48018 l *
- - - _ _ . - , . . _ _ . , _ - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ , _ . _ . . , _ _ _ _ . . _ > _ _ . _ , - . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ , , _ . __.i
fl .. elevations in the building.. Then they did their survey 2- monitoring program to confirm that there was comething 3 -
that wasn' t closing properly. But it was in the context, '
4 I understood, of building the Diesel Generats Building 5 that they observci some misalignment.
6 0 I understand. 17ha t I'm trying to find out is something 7 slightly different and that is whether at about this same 8 time a program was put in place to monitor settlement at a 9 number of structures on the site?
10 A That's cor rect.
11 Q And did anyone indicate to you why that prograr was put in 12 place as of then?
, 13 A Mo. Although, from what I understand, there was 14 .
coamitments in the PS AR that consumers would establish a 15 survey prcgram on that site, when, I don' t know. I don' t 16 recall when that was supposed to be establinhed.
17 0 I' d like to go over briefly the compaction requirements 18 that were set f orth in the specifications in the PS AR and 19 so f orth,' briefly. . First let me j ust ask you what your 20 understanding as a result of your investigation was cs to 21 the compaction criterion for cohesive soils called for in 22 the PS AR. Let me invite you to take a look at page nine C.
23 and ten to ref resh your recollection, if I may, 24 ,A That point i s -- I believe I recall it very well. It was Luzod Reporting Service QS ,,
jggg, ga;tg;n, 3, ,
Suite MO 962 1176 Suite 2M Detroit. .\lichigan 48226 Farminpon Hills, .\fichigan 18018
s
- 1. :- 95 percent of the so-called. modi ~ied proctor standard.
~
2 0 And what proctor standard was actually used in the 3 construction or as a guide.in the compaction of the fill
'i 4 that was actually placed?
5 A Minety-five percent of the sc called Bechtel modified 6- proctor, uhich is of a lower standard than the criteria.
7 0 17e had covered in your previous session your background in 8 soils work and your experience at other nuclear plants as 9, well as at Ebasco. Had you ever heard of the Bechtel 10 modified proctor being used on any construction project?
11 A No.
12 0 Had you ever heard of a compaction standard lower than 95 I 13 percent'of modified proctor being used on any nuclear 1 -. - power. plant for cohesive soils?
15 A Mo. ,
16 0 Okay. And based on your e):perience in reviewing the so'ilm ,
17 problems et Midland, was the 95 percent of Bechtel i 18 modified proctor actually followed in the fill' that was 19 placed on the site?
20 MR. DRIKER: I would urge the witness to ,
l 21 speak of his own personal knowlecye. I think that's what 22 Mr. Goold is seeking to adduce, j 23 BY MR. GOOLD:
24 -Q That's right, from your observation of the records, boring I
Luzoa Reporting Service g,y,,,, gjg, 30sto %nhue tem Ilwy.
Suier MO 9 6 2 .'1 1 7 6 Suite 220 Detroit, Michigan 48226 Farmington l{ ills, Michigan 48018
D' .
w , ,1 ; , . records and all other. test-data.
~2 A Based on the, in retrospect at least, the quality records 3 and the results of the borings, 95 percent of.any standard
/~ 4 wasinot met. As Bechtel themselves concluded, they were 5 ' continuously erroneously ' selecting the wror.g scandard 6 thereby making all of the tests at .least suspect and, in-7 retrospect, worthless. .
8 0 You've mentioned the suspect nature of the soils tests.
9 Uas that a subject that f.m discussed with Dechtel 10 personnel in your interviews for the preparation of report 11 78-20?
12 A Yes.
. '13 0 And do you recall the nabes of the individuals with whcm 14 you raised that . subject?
15 A Mostly the Quality Control people, Mr. Richardson, the l
16 Proj ect Engi.neer, Boos, a couple of field engineers who {
l 17 ought to have been f amiliar with what the requirements 18 were.
i 19 Q Just for the record you mean Mr. Boos. Is that E-o-o-s?
20 A That's correct.
21 Q Did any of those individuals indicate to you whecher or 22 not they had had concerns about the accuracy of the soils l #
23 tests prior to the disclosure of the Diesel Generator 24 Building problem?
74ayer,, guit);,, Lutod Reporting Service , 3.,g7 ,, ,
Suise MO 962.I176 Suige gpo Detroit. Alichigan 48226 Formutaton flills, Alichigan 18018 '
il . ,
, _MR. DRIKER: Obj ection to the leading
'2 question. l 3 A :No, not that I~ recall.
/. DY IIR. GOOLD:
I 1
~
5 O Af ter the Adrainistration Building- situation was disclosed 6 to you, you received a report, a copy of a report that had 7 been done reviewing the soils compaction tests that had 8 ,
been done at the Administration Building, did you not?
9 A Thct's correct.
10 0 Do you recall what that report showed with respect to the 11 accuracy of the original tests that had been done c.t the 12 Administration Building?
13 A It concluded that they were erroneous.
14- 0 After you received that. report did you have any 15 conversations with Bechtel rcopie about the conclusions 16 you' ve j ust summarized?
17 A I don' t ' recall at this point whether we did or not.
18 Q How about with Consumers Power employeec?
19 A Yes. Ne basically confronted them with the conclusion of !
20 tha't report versus the extent of the problem. -
- 21 Q Did you confront Mr. Horn with it?
22 A Yes.
' (> 23 And what did he say?
go 24 A Well, as our report 78-20, you know, identifies, there was ,
i l-0 Luzod Reporting Serviie y,,_
.,,,.,g,,, 3999 3,,y,,, ,,,
Suite MO 962.I176 Suite 220 I Detroit. Alichigan 48226 Farmington Hills, Stichigan 48018
g., . _m_.-_ . -_ m, - - . x - . .
'l l
i
.l. .
- a. long. period of . time where the compaction criteria, the 2 ' standards used f or comparing the in-place compaction -
3 '. results, there was total conf usion for as long as almost a 7' 4 yec: and a.helf, two years. So it was a subject that was,
-5 you know, being dealt with f or a long period of time.
6 They were trying to figure out, trying to get the Bechtel 7 engineering decisior. as to what in fact the criteria was 8 and how can they achieve the results.
9 0 Do you recall whether l'r. Horn gave you any specific 10 information regarding his reaction to, if any, to the '
11 conclusions in the 1977 report regarding the specific 12 tests at the Administration Building?
13 A He agreed with them. .
-14 Q How about Mr. Cooke, did you discuss that with him?
15 A I don' t believe' so.
16 0 !!cw about Mr. l'a r gugl io?
17 A I don' t recall if we did or not. -
18 O Did you ever discuss the Administration Building situaticn :
19 with Mr. Keeley ? .
20 A Yes. ,
21 O And, first of all, did he indicate to you whether he had 22 ~ been aware of any settlement at the Administration -
23 Building?
24 A I recall that his first reaction was that he was not aware >
Luzod Reporting Service 39g,g g,,,h,},],n gwy, 9
gg,y,u, gagig;,,
Sui:e M O 962 1176 Suite 220 Ektroit, .1(ichipn 41226 Farmington Hills. .\fichigan 48018
y-
_. . 1 l -
of it. :
+ .
2 Q Did that surprise you?
3 A Yes.
4 0 Uhy?
5 A. He was the Proj ect Manager f or tho' Midland. Proj ect. There 6 was a major claim between Bechtel and their subcontractor, 7 U. S. Testing, there was a major rework activity on a 8 structure in tbc plant and it surprised me very much that 9 the Proj ect Manager for the owner would not be auare of 10 this sort of problem.
'11 Q You' ve mentioned Mr. Keeley's initial statement to you.
12 He had not been aware of the administration building 13 problem. Did he ever modify that?
14 A I recall during the licensing hearings that he had 15 testified that h,e was aware of it.
16 0 Did he ever expl ain, to your knowledge, the discrepancy?
17 A I don' t recall. e 18 0 Did you ever make an attempt to determine at what level 1.4 within Consumers Power the Administration Building problem 20 was reported?
21 A Mo, we didn' t. Keep in mind, I believe the highest level i 22 that we went to in Consumers Power was Mr. Keel ey , the
(>
23 Proj ect !!anager.
24 Q Did you discuss the subject with Mr. Cooke? I don' t l
Lu:od Reporting Service gg,,, g;;gy, 30%0 Northu s ern Hwy.
Sune fuo . 962.I176 Suite 2%
Detroit, .\fichigu 48226 Farmungton Ifills, fichigu .'do18
. r .
' reg 91' whether you indicated you had or not.
~
. .1} ; -
'2 A' I don' t recall we did.
'3 0 Did you ever learn that the problem, the Administration
" 4- Building problem, had come to the attention of the 5 C91 man of the Board of Consumers Power Company?
6 A 11 0 .
- 7. O Mould it surprise you if it had? ,
8 I;R. DRIKER: I don' t know hcw this witness 9 is competent to answer that question and what his level of 10 surprise would or would not be. I believe the questien 4
11 calls for rank speculation and is a leading question, as 12 are most of the question you' re asking, but I will object .
13 to it on the basis it calls for absolute speculation.
- 14 A I ro311y have no reaction if the Chairman would have.known 15 ,
about it or not.
16 DY liR. GOOLD:
17 0 if you learned that the Administration Duilding problem 18 had been reported to the chairman of the Board of , i 19 Consumers Power, would that have any ef f ect on your views 20 as to wcether the problem should have been reported to the !
4 21 11RC7 22 11R. DRIKER: I will objdct to the question
('/-
~~
as both leading and calling f or speculation.
23 24 A It would reenforce our views, as we had testified during i
- l. nod Reporting Service 39g,g 3,,,A,},f,} guy.
y,, fay,gg, g, gig;n, Suite fd0 962 1176 Suite 220 Ektroit, Michigan 48226 Farmintion HiIs Michigan 48018 ?
, - .. + , , . . _ . _ - . - _ - , _ - . - _ - . -
6 4
L the. licensing he ci.,c, that.it should have been and would 2 be consistent with that point.
3 BY MR._ GOOLD:
4 Q How about if the problem bad been reported to outside 5 director s of Co..sumer s Power ?
6 1. Same.
7 0 And I'm happy to represent the testimony in this case so 8 far has been te that effect. That's my under standing.
9 MR. DR II'.E R : Malt one second, Brother Goolf..
10 Since I have sat through the testinony of all of the 11 outside directors, you have grossly misstated the record.
12 If you are talking about whether there has,been testimony 13 at some point in the long history of.the Midland Plant the 14 soils problem was disclosed to the outside directors or to 15 the Director or to Chairman of the Board, indeed it was, l 16 long af ter the years which you are attempting to suggest 17 to the witness that this knowledge was known to the 18 Chairman or the outside directors.
19 I 'rery much resent and st rongly obj ect to 20 your wholly unf ounded suggestion to the witness. I think 21 it is unprof essional, it is belied by the record in this 22 case cad, frankly, it is beneath contempt to suggest to
(' 23 this witness that there's anything in the record that 24 shows that. And if you have a citation to something in I
Luzod Reporting Service 2A2 gg,y,gg, guitgin, ,g 3.,, , g Sate hw 962 1176 Suite Do Detroit, \fichigan 48226 - Farmington flills, .\fichigan 48018
.l s . .th.is big long. room.with all t!.cce. chairs and tables that
- 2. will support that statement, 1 suggest you put it in front 3 of witness. right now and show him. That's a ter rible
- 4 thing to say.
5 MR. GOOLD: Mt. Driker, I don' t think 6 there's any room f or personal insults of that kind in a.ny 7 l i ti ga't i on. The record speaks for itself. We may have 8 dif f erent views as to what the. testimony is, but I think 9 it is exceedingly out of- place for you speak in those 10 terms. Uo will have the record available to both of us 11 and it will say whatever it says.
12 MR. DRIKER: I agree but I think it's' 13 terrible for you to represent that there is something in 14 the record in this case that in absolutely not so. If you 15 have any support f or that, I'll be happy to retract my 16 words in the middle of Laf ayette Park at noon.
17 MR. GOOLD: I won' t hold you to a separate 18 trip to Washington but we'll see what the record.says. I 19 don' t think it'is at all appropriate for you to engage in 20 personal insults and 'I think that's very unf ortunate and 21 misguided.
22 BY MR. GOOLD:
9 23 0 Ue've talked about compaction equipment and the 24 qualification of that generally. First let me ask what Lu:od Reporting Service 39g,o g,,g,,},,,, 43 jg,, y,. ;;g4 y,,.
Suite hw 962 1176 Suite 23 Detroit, .tfichigan 48226 Farmington Hills. .\fichigan 48018
,. . . - - ,- . - .: . , ~ _ . . _ - - - .
. ~ _ . . _ - .
. 1 ,
was.your understanding. as to the lif t. thickness that was 2 being' used' that was used at the site in confined areas?
3 A I don' t recall .the specifics on that.
4 0 First to help clarify that let state by confined arca I 5 mean areas not accessible to heavy motori;sd equipment.
6 Do you recall whether a 12 inch lift thickness uas used in 7 , confined areas?
8 A That counds familiar.
9 0 How we' ve covered, I think, the cubject that at your 10 request an eff ort was made to qualify the compaction 11 equipment that. had been used at the site. What did you 12 learn, if anything, as to the results of that effort with 13 respect to compaction of 12 inch lifts in confined' areas?
14 A With the equipment they were using they wercn' t able to
, 15 achieve the desired results, they were unable to achieve 16 the desired results.
17 MR. DRIKER: I'm having a hard time hearing 18 . the witness with that chatter back there. I wondor if you 19 could ask your personnel to please be quiet.
20 BY MR. GCOLD:
21 0 You've mentioned the equipment that was being used. What ,
22 was your understanding as to whether that was the
( .
23 eq uipment that was used during the period f rom 1974 24 th rough - 1977 ? Was it the same equipment?
I Luzod Reporting Service 39g,g g,,,,, , guy.
g4ay.,,,, gggging Suite sw 962 1176 Suite 23 Detroit.1tichiein 48226 Farmington Hills. .\fichieu 48018
- j. -
,1 A,,. Some.of..it.was. ..In.particular,. in the confined areas thc. ,
2 'so-called pogo stick compaction device.
3 Q, Did you learn.what ef f ect, if any, did.the results of the 4 -qualification test program have on lif t thicknesses in 5 subsequent f111.~ work, if you knou?
6 A .They substantially reduced the lif t thicknecs to what was
~
/ previous 1y use'd. .
8 Q Let me direct- your attention to Page 22 of PX t!RC 56, and -
L' 9 to the second full paragraph which appears there. The
- 10. statement there appears, "According to U. S. Testing 11 personnel, it was observed during excavation of the fill t
12 material that there were voids of one-quarter inch to twe 13' inches or three inches within the fill, and these were [
14 associated with large lumps of unbroken clay measuring up 15 to three feet in diameter'."
16 First iust so the record is clear, was thic 17 information provided to you, in fact, by U. S. Testing 18 personnel? -
19 A Yes. .
20 Q And to what building at the site did this inf ormation !
21 relate?
22 A The Administraticn Building.
O' 23 Q Okay. And did this information relate to the fill th'at ;
24 was- examined there in 1977 as a result of the settlencnt Lafayette Buslding I'uod Reporting Service 3m40 Nonhu ihmHuy.
Suite MO 962.I176 . Suur 22G Detroit Alichigsn 48226 Farmington Hills Stichigan 48018
4.
a 1, O. Did anyone ev,er indicate to-you th.at he had concluded the 2 fill at the Diesel Generator Building had received little 3_ or no compaction?
Y' 4' MR. DRIKER: Obj ection, leading.
5 A That was not brought to our attention.
6 DY Mn. GOOLD:
7 0 riould such a conclusion be consistent with your own 8 observations of the quality of the fill at the-Diesel 9 Generator Building? ,
10 MR. DRIKER: Obj ection.
11 A Ye s.
12 BY MR. GOOLD:
~
13 0 Let me direct your attention to Page 20 of report 78-2,0, 14 well, the discussion that begins at Page 17 under the 15 hea:ing "noview of nonconformance neports Identified for
~
16 Plant Area Fill," then concludes at the very top of .Page 17 20. The last paragraph in that section states, "This 18 f ailure to assure that the cause of conditions adverse to 19 quality are ' identified and that adequate corrective action 20 be taken to preclude repetition is considered an item of 21 noncompliance with 10 CPR 50, Appendix D, criterion XVI as 22 identified in Appendix A." Was that in fact your
'O 23 conclusion?
24 A Yes.
t t
1 Lnod Repoeting Service 39g,g 3,,,k,},f,7, ,7,,.
l Lafayette Buildine 962 1176 r
Suur MO J . Suite 220 Iktroit, \fichiern 48226 Farmington flills, .\fichigan M018
}L ,
(, v- 1 -
Q .
_And then did that.concl.usion- suryivec the review process 2 - for this report within the NRC?
3 A Yes.
4 0 Let me show ycu briefly a copy of what I believe to be the 5 pertinent Federal, Register Section. Just to confirm-that 6 this is the section you had in mind, for the record I'll 7 state I'm hancing the witness a volume of 10 CPR, parts 0 8 to 199, page /.75, _ which appears to be title ten, part 50, 9 Appendix B and includes a section headed Corrective Action 10 XVI. Let me read into the record what it states there.
11 Under that heading it states: "IIea sur e s 17 shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to 13 q uality , such as f ailures, malfunctions, deficiencies, 14 deviations, defectivo material and equipment, and .
15 nonconformances are properly identified and corrected. In 16 the case of sicnificant conditions adverse to q.uality, the i
17.- measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is l
14 determined and correctiv.c action taken to preclude 19 repetition. The identification of the significant 20 condition adverse to quality, the cause of the condition,
_21 and the corrective action taken shall be documented and 22 reported to appropriate levels of management. " Is that the C) 23 portion of the Federal Register you had in mind, sir?
24 A Yes.
8 Luzod Reporting Service 3ag4g 3,,,g, , ,,, y,,_
Suiu MO 962 1176 '
Suite 220 Detroit. Stichigan 48226 Farmington Hills. 5fichigan 48018
r--- .
. . l l
y
..1 ; , Q. R.r.1 did .you..in f act : conclude, based. on your review of s the ;
2 - n<>nconf ormance cited-in pages 17,18 and 19 of PX' URC 56, 3 that a significant condition adverse to quality was I 4 indicated by those reports?
-5 A ' ?: s.
G Q I' m sorry. And to your understanding whnt was the duty to 7 comply with 10 CFR 50, Appendix 3, criterion ::VI?
8 HR. DRIKER: ?,.re you asking him to give you-9 a legal interpretation of this section?
10 1:R. GOOLD: An understanding as an URC 11 inspector with responsibility for civil engineering 12 matters. -
13 A The licensee, Consumers Power Company, and all of their 14 ,
contractors and subcontractorc.
15 BY UR. GOOLD:
16 0 To whom did the DRC look f or compliance?
17 A t.11 of the above.
18 Q Mould you turn to the section beginning on page 20 of your 19' report headed neview of Calculations of Settlement for 20 Plant Area, and lot me direct your att'ention to page 21, 21 in particular the second f ull paragraph on that page, the '
22 final sentence of which states, "This is considered an D 23 item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix D, 24' cri terion III as identified in Appendix A. " Can you tell 1
Lmd Reporting Service , y, 2,L9 y lafayette Building Suite 630 9 6 2. l l i6 Suite 23 Detroit. Alichigan 48226 Farmington Hills. Stichigan 48018
. . _ . . _ - .._4--, - ._, , _ . . _.- _ _ _ ., ._ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ - . . , _ , _
, 11 4.. a. eme. in. general ,t:tms with. what that. criterion is concerned, 2 and youi re welcoine to look?
- 3. A Design control measures.
4 0 And what does, in general terms, does that provision-4 5 require with respect to design control?
6 A That measures be established that the design is carried 7 out sy st ema ti cally , correct, verified, checked.
0 0 And who does the NRC hole responsible f or compliance with 9 that?
10 A The licensee and their subcontractors who are perf orming.
11 design activities.
12 O And in this care was Consumers Power the .1.icensco?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And to whom doe: the URC, to your knowledge, grant a 15 license, if any, for operation of a nuclear plant in the
-16 case of the Midland Proj ect, Bechtel or Consumers Pcwor?
1,7 A Consumer s Pcuer Company.
18 0 And who had tecponsibility, "to your knowledge, for 19 satisfying tha NRC that the plant was licensable? , ,
20 A Consumers Power Company. ,
21 Q Let me direct your attention to page 23 of the report 22 under the heading Review of Interf ace Detween Diesel l (
.23 Generator Building Foundation and Electrical Duct B'anks. .
! 24 MR. DRIKER: Before you get.into a new 0
Lssa d Reporting Service m3 ,, y,,,,
lafayette Building l s,ite ao 962 1176 Saite 220 1 Detroit, Michigan 48226 Farminton Hills. Micligan 2018
..g . 1- isubjectf, cap 'we j ust take r. break - f or --a minute, 2' 14R. GOOLD: Fine.
I 3 '(A brief recess was held during
- ( 4 the proceedings.)
~5' BY - !!R. GOOLD:
G G 'It's been pointed out to me I may have ref erred to the 7' regulations j.ust now as f rom the Federal Register. In 8 that case I misspoke and .I .uas ref erring to the Code of 9 Federal Regulations. Does that aff ect your answer in any 10 way, lir. Gallagher?
11 A' tio. .
12 0 Mo 'were looking at a disc'tsrion that begins on page 23. -
i 13 First,' sir,' could you summarize j ust in general terms what 14 . problem, if any, was f ound with the electrical duct banks 15 at the Diesel Generator Building? ,
16 A- Uell, there was an interaction between the electrica.1 . duct 17 banks and the foundation of the Diesel Generator Euilding ;
18 whereby it was providing support to the structure that did 19 not allcw it to move f reel /.
20 0 And did you determine whether that problem had any saf ety 21 implications f or the Diesel Generator Buil. ding? '
22 A '
- s. In terms of the design, the Diesel Generator b 23 Building was designed in a way and the f oundation material 24 was e::pected to have some settlement. That being the t
j ggy.,,g,gagy, .Luzod Reporting Service ,3 2,51 _
Suite MO 962 1176 Suite 2:0 ,
Detroit,' Alichigan 4R2:6 Farmkaton Hdis, 3fichigan 48018 [
. . . l. .:, case,cand t.he f act- that .the electrica1 >Suct banks were
-2 enlarged to the ~ point where they inhibited f ree ' movement 3 of the Diesel Generator Building they would have, and in 4 f act did in this case, induce a restraint that was not 5 accounted for in the design.
6 0 And what saf ety implica tion was there, .i f a ny , posed by 7 that restraint? .
8 A It would not allcw the building to behave as designed.
9 0 Did you conclude whether there was any saf ety implica ticn 10 posed by the quality of the fill beneath the Diesel 11 Generator Building?
12 A- Yes.
13 0 And what conclusion >id you reach in that regard?
7 14 A It was inadequate support for the building itself:
15 0 Uhat implication did that inadequate support have?
16 A Excessive settlement and dif ferential settlement 'o the t
17 point where 4.t would not permit the building struct.urally 18 to behave as intended.
19 0 Okay. And can you e:: plain how that translated into a 20 saf ety concern or implication?
21 A If the actual as-built f oundation, electrical duct banks 22 and/or the building behaved dif f erently at the actual
\J 23 design, you then have a breakdown in the design control 24 and construction process. In this case all three were not 4,,,,, g,;;gi,,
Luzod Reporting Service yo 3.l52 g Suite MO 962 1176 Suite 20 Detroit. .\fichigan 48226 .
Farmington Hith. .\fichigan 480!8
~ . - _ _ ._
S 1 . .insta11ed. properly as designed.and -did in f act create 2- structural' distress,-in terms'of foundation settlement and 3 in terms of structural cracking in the Diesel Generator F'
4' Building.
5 0 Your direct involvement with the Midland Project ended in 6 early~1981; is that correct?
7 A For the most part, e): cept that in liay of 1981 I did 8 participate in an on-site inspectibn.
9 0 Okay. By the time your direct involvement ceased, had you 10 received any inf ormation concerning the quality of the 11 fill beneath the Auxiliary Building?
12 A Yes.
13 0 And what in general terms did you learn about the fill 14 there? ,
15 A That it was inadequately compacted and did not provide 16 adequate support to the Auxiliary Building.
17 0 And did that have any caf ety implications f or the plant?
18 A Ye c.
19 0 And what were they?
20 , A ,
That, once again, the f oundation would not behave as 21 designed and that the structure itself would not be 22 adequately supported by the f oundation material.
O 23 And during the course of your involvement in the !!idland 0
i 24 Proj ect while you were with Region III, did you receive i
,, g. Luzod Reporting Service 39,4g 3,,,A,j,f,3 , ,7u,.
Suite hw 962 1176 Suite 2M Iktroit, .\fichigan 48226 Farmington flills...\fichigan 48018
1 . ,, any inf ormation concerning 'the quality of the fill at. the -
2 service water pump structure?
3 A Yes, same as Auxiliary Building and Diesel Generator 4 Building.
5 0 Same quality?
6 A Yes.
7 0 Same saf ety implications?
8 A That's correct.
9 Q Ilow about with respect to the borated water storage tanks?
10 A Same.
11 0 scme quality?
12 A Yes.
13 0 Same saf ety implications?
14 A Yes. ,
15 0 ,
Looking back at report 78-20, did you conclude that the 16 problem with the electrical duct bank was an item of 17 noncompliance with any portion of the Code of Federal 18 Regulations? Let me direct your attention to page 24 of 19 this report' in particular. ,
20 A Yes, we did.
21 Q And what portion?
22 , A 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, criterion 5, that being procedures,
() 23 instructions.
24 0 Can you explain what you mean by procedures and Lutod Reporting Service y 3. ,25A
. Suite Mo 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit, Michigan '48226 . Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018
. 1. . instruction in that. respect?-
2 A Our investigation led us to conclude that there were 3 inadequate procedures and instructions-.in regard to -
f '4 building the electrical duct banks which would allow the 5 building and electrical duct banks to perform as. intended.
6 n And to whom does the MRC look f or compliance with IC C"P, 7 .
Appendi: 3,-criterion 5? .
~
8 A Consumers Pufer and its contractors.
9 0 Let me. direct your attention to the bottcm of page 24, 10 b'ottom paragraph. It contains a quote, "Filling 11 operations should be perf ormed under the continuous 12 technical supervision of a qualified soils engineer who 13- would perf orm in-place density tests in the compacted fill 14 ,
to verify that all materials are placed and compacted in 15 accordance with the . recommended criteria. " Uas that 16 statement part of any of the specifications or 17, requirements f or the construction of the plant? .
l 18 UR. DRIKER: I think.had you read the full ;
19 sentence it would answer that question.
20 A Yes.
21 BY MR. GOOLD:
22 0 wa s that pa r t of 5.h e PS AR?
C. 23 A- And the Bechtel design criteria.
24 0 And to your knowledge was that requirement . complied with t-Luzad Reporting Service 5 74y,gg, guijg;,, 39g,g ,9,,;,,},fm },,y, Suite sw 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit. .\fichigan 48226 Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018
_.__..--__._,~,__,_.__m,_,__,_.-_.__. - , _ . , , , _ , _ . . _ , _ - _ - - -
r P
e t'
..,. 1, .. 10 the construction of- the nuclear plant. at Midland?
2 A tio.
3 Q Did you discuss with Mr. Horn whether~ there had been 4 continuous technical supetvision by a qualified soils 5 engineer of the placement and compaction of the fill?
6 A Ye s.
7 0 Uhat did he tell you about that?
8 A That it was not complied with.
9 0 Did he indicate whether he had been concerned about that? L 10 A Yes.
11 0 Uhat did he tell you?
12 A He was concerned there was not technical qualified 13 supervision of the. work activities.
7 14 0 Did he indicate to you over what period of time he had 15 been so concerned? -
16 A A long period of time, the entire work activity.
17 0 Uhen, to your knowledge, did the work activity with 18 renpect to soils begin?
19 A Some time in 197 5.
20 Q And did it continue up until at least June of 1978?
21 A And beyond.
l l
22 .0 Based on your investigation, did you come to any
.g.
23 understanding as to how failures, how compaction tests 24 indicating f ailures were handled? Did you come to any h
h Luzod Reporting Service 20 gy.,,,, ggggy, 39g,g 3,,,h ,n ,,, y,,.
Suite 6;w 962 1176 Suite 220 Detrat, Michigan 48226 Farmington Hills Michigan 48018
t-E -- V l
. 1 .understandir. regarding procedures that .were used where U.
2 S. Testing reported a f ailure to meet proper compaction?
3 MR. DRIKER: Are you asking him of his own
', 4 personal knowledge?
s p-5 MR. GOOLD: Uhat he came to understand f rom C the work. ;
'7 MR. DRIKER: I don' t know what came to 8 understand means. I think if you' re cching the witness 9 what his report concludes, that's one thing. If he's ,
10 asking. did he have some knowledge that's not in his report --
11 came to understand is an awfully vague statement.
12 BY MR. GOOLD:
, 13 0 Did you learn what procedure.s, if any, there were with 14
- respect to clearance of f ailing soils compaccion tests? .
15 A Yes.
13 ) 1.at did you learn in that regard?
17 A Uell, their procedure was to either accept the failfr,. ,
18 test as is or to simply take another test using a 10 different ctandard which would then clear the test. .
20 0 Can' you explain what you mean by dif ferent standard? !
21- A It's a little bit complicated to explain, but one compares 22 the in-place density on the site to the so-called i
23 laboratory. standard and according to the specification one ,
24 needs to get 95 percent of the maximum density per the f L
Luzod Reporting Service yg 3 2Q y (gay.,gg, giyi,,
Suiar hw 962.))76 . Suite 2M Detroit, Michigan 48226 Farmi. *on Hills, Michigan 48018
3 1 ,
. standard. , P.ercent compa cti on,7 the equation is ---
2 generally it 'is ' equal to the in-place density divided by 3 the maximum laboratory standard, J
4 So if one changes the denominctor, that 5 maximum laboratory standard, one can change the percent 6 compa cti on. If one icwers the maximum standard, they 7 . increase the percent compaction and f or the most part they 8 just manipulated changing the standard so that they would 0 clear the test. There were complicating f actors because 10 of _ the randomness and variability of the soil and of the 11 . laboratory standards, that one could choose any one of as
-12 many as one hundred different laboratory standards c'nd the 13 i selection of those standards was by visual selection and 14 was not very well controlled.
15 0 You've mentioned that in instances the standards were 16 changed to clear a failing compaction test. ' as a less 17 r.igorous standard substituted for a more 'rigorouc
. 13 standard, is that what the ef f ect of changing the 19 denominator is?
20 A That's what the effect is, but the procedure was selecting 21 a dif f erent laboratory standard that was not compatible 22 with the material that was in f act being placed. Thereby, e
23 as Bechtel themselves concluded, selecting erroneously the 24 laboratory standard.
0 y , yg; Luzod Reporting Service y3.),,y.,
s age m o 962 11'6 Suur 2x DetroiL Michigan 482:6 Farmington Hills. Michigan 48018
- s - -
I I
. , 1 , O Did.thaty practice take a failing test.:nd-turn it into'a
'2 passing test?
3 A That's cor rect.-
. 4 0 Did you consider that to be a proper practice?
5 A Mo.
6 0 Did you review any documents showing the substitution thar 7 you' ve described?
8 A I don' t recall.
9 0 Do you recall what your source of information for this 10 was?
11 A Specifically the individuals?
'12 0 That's righ t.
13 A I don' t recall.
14 0 Did this include the U. S. personnel?
15 A U. S. Testing, Dechtel field people, 16 0 Here you provided with copies of compacted fill density 17 reports that were generated as records of the U. S.
10 Testing tests at the time the work was going on?
19 A Yes, I believe so. -
20 0 I'm ref erring to a f orm that's almost a piece of graph 21 paper that was called, I believe, a weekly compacted fill 22 density test report?
q
23 A. I believe I recall that.
24 Q Did you learn of any procedure regarding clearance of Lafayette kildux Luz d Reporting Service y,g 3.),, 59 y, Suite MO 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit, Michigan 48226 Farmington Hills. Michigan 48018
4 cl.c , multiple .f ailing . tests by single . passing. tests?
2 A Yes.
- 3 0 Uhat did you learn in that regard?
O 4 A Just what you- said.
5 Q Did you learn whether tests f rom dif f erent locations were 6 used to-clear f ailing tects at other locations?
.7 A Yes.
8 0 Uhat did you learn in i: hat regard?
9 A That they did j ust that.
. 10 0 Did you see that on the compaction tect sheets?
11 A Yes.
12 0 Mas it obvious on the face of the sheets? :
13 Mn. DRIKEnt I' m going, to obj ect to the 14 question as leading. ,
15 A It was not so obviouc. If I remember correctly, the coordinates of the pascing tects did'not coincide nect the 16 17 failing tests. -
L 18 BY MR. GOOLD:
19 0 How could you determine whether the coordinates matched?
l 20- A On the record, on the test record it gave the coordinates 21 and they were dif f erent.
i l
- 22 0 so you could determine that j ust f rom the f ace of the
, C:
23 document, could you not?
24 MR. DRIKER: Obj ection, leading.
T Luzod Reporting Service 200 l , ,,, g;;g , , 3.,g,,,,, ,,,,
Suite MO 962 1176 St.ae 220 i Detroit. \fichisan 48226 Farminston flills, .\fichisan 48018
4 1 A .
.Yes. ,. ,., ,
2' BY MR. GOOLD: -
3 O Uhat would it take to determine whether the coordinates
'... 4 didn' t match?
5 A Comparison of the first test and the pascing tect, or the 6 first testc. ,
7 0 Did you need any inf ormation other than the shoets showing G the locations to. reach that conclucion?
4 9 A Quality records indicated that. ,
10 0 Did it require any specialized knowledge to deterrine that 11 the coordinates f or f ailing tests didn' t natch a passing !
12 test? ,
, 13 11R. DRIMER: Obj ecti on, leading.- i s
l 14 A I don' t know if it did require any special knowledge, E
15 It's j ust simple comparison. l
. 16 BY f1R. GOOLD:
'17 0, Let's go on. Uhen we broke last cecsion I believe ve had .
l 18 been discussing a December 4,197 8 meeting, in connection 9
with which I had shown you PX BEC 106, which I' d airo note ;
10 20 for the record that the copy I had included handwritten ,
21 notations which were mine, not any one of the parties. Do i
- 22 you recall that we had just begun or gotten into that 23 subject when we broke, just in general terms?
24 A Yes.
i Luiod Reporting Sertice , 2L1 y q,yer,, gagi,,, '
Suiar M O 962.I176 Suar 220 +
- Detroit, \fichigan 48226 '
Farminston H&, .\fichigan 48018
_?.__.____ -
.3 0 At that meeting a . presentation was made by or on behalf of 2 ;
Consumers Power regarding the preloading of the Diesel 3 Generator Building?
4 A I' m sor ry.
5 0 Do you recall that a presentation was made at the meeting G vith respect to the preloading of the Diesel Generator 7 Building?
G A Yes.
9 0 And what was the thrust of that presentation by the 10 Consumers Power people?
11 A It was really a status or a summary report by Consumers to 12 the MRC geotechnical group as to their proposal to remedy 13 the Diesel Generator Building settlement problem.
14 0 And the proposal at that time was to preload the building, 15 was it not?
16 A That's cor rect.
17 0 As of then had the preload been put on?
18 A I don' t believe so, no.
19 0 Do you recall who spoke with respect to the preload of theI 20 Diesel Generator Building? Let me invite you to lcok over 21 the attendee list on this document and see if that helps.
22 A Uell, certainly Mr. Afifi had things to say, their
\" consultants, Dr. Peck also spoke of that procedure.
23 24 O At the meeting was approval by the MRC staff present 4,,,, utgin, Luzod Reporting Servic* ,3 2),2 , .
Suar Mo 962 1176 Suite 20 Detmt, \fichisan 182:6 Farmmuta Hill:, Whigan 48018
^
s + r 1:: ,
' sought,with.. resp,ect 'to .the. preloading of the Diesel 2 s
' Generator Building? ,
3' -
A Yes. .
f 4- 0 And was apprveal . granted by .the URC staf f ?
5~ A Mo.
u 6 0 Ue may have covered this previously but let me, to the 7 record is clear, what position did the NRC staff take with 8 respect to any decision to proceed with the prelcad?
9 A That whatever they did was at their cwn risk.
10 0 And why did the NRC staf f -- did you concur in that ,
11 position?
t 12 A Mo. <i
~
13- 0 Uhat was your view? .,
14 A My view was that they shouldn' t proceed until they i 15 ,.
establish some agreement as to what in f act could be done j 16 to remedy the problem. -
17 0 Uho took the position on behalf of the !mC str.f f that '
18 Consumers' proceed?
19 1:R. JEUSEU: I would obj ect to this question 20 and I would object to this question as interf ering with i
i 21- the deliberative process privilege. If you' re asking 22 about the internal discussions among NRC personnel about j (h 23 that, I think that's dif f erent f r'om you' re askinc him what .
24 he saw and what he concluded on the basis of what he saw. ;
I i
igayegge guitg;,,
Luzod Reporting Service yo 3., 2[3, .,
l
. Suite MO 962 III6 Suite 23 Detroit. Afichiaan M2:6 Farminston Hilh, Alichigan 48018
- ( p- e
,- 1
, li _ BY- !!R. , GOOLD: . <
'2- 0 'I' m - sor ry. Let me focus on the discussion at the meeting, 3 b'ecause . I assume that gets around the problem.
[^ 4 ER. JEMSEM : Discuss' at the public-b 5 meeting? ,
G I;R. GOOLD: That's rich t. l i
'l P1' IIR. GOOLD: -
8- 0 At the public meeting do.you recall .ho spoke on behalf of I 1
9 URC with - the posi tion that Consumers could proceed at 'its .
10 own rish? l
. 11- A Two par ties, Proj ect llanager !:r. Darl Hood and the 12 geotechnical branch chief Lyman' Helle . L 13 0 And was the reason f or their position e::plained at the 14 meeting? -
15 A The reason for which, t,he position that they can procced 16 at the their ewn rick? ;
e
-17 0 That any prolcad would be at Consuners Foster cwn rish. I e
! nell, at that time they expresced concern that they did 18 A 19 not 1. ave ruf ficient data that t' tis would be a satisf actory i .
20 resolut3cn.
! 21 Q And did anyone f rom Consumers Power or Bechtel respond to
' that?
-) A They acknowledged it and proceeded on to do as they saw i fit.
T osa Luzod Reporting Service yo 34,,) y,.,.,
_ Su, 5y 962 1176 , Suite ZW Mt. Michigen M .
F*mi"4 on Hiik Michigan 43018
_ _ ~
w- ,
...,si' O Do. you. happen,to recall .sho spoke: in particular in -
2 acknowledging?
3 A If I remember correctly, Mr. Keeley as the Project Manager
[ 4 was the spokesperson for Consumers at that time.
5 0 Prom your participatien in the meeting did you develop any 6 view as to uhother Consumers Fewer was attempting to 7 persuade the :1RC ctaff to accept the preload?
8- MR. EnIKEn: Objection to the question as 9 leading and calls for speculation.
10 A Let n.o cor rect something. Looking at the attendoe's, Fr.
- 11. Keeley was not present. I believe it was Mr. Cooke, th e 12 site superintendent, who was chief spokesman at that time 13 for that particular meeting.
14 g BY MR. GOOLD: ,,
15 0 From your attendance at the meeting did you get the ,
16 impression they vere trying t'o persuade you, Mr. Gallagher 17 first, to accept the preload as a solution? ,
18 MR. DRTKER: Objection to the question.
19 Mn. J 7"r U : Uhac criteria would you be 20 thinking.of, in terms of his impressions he might have 21 gained f rom the meeting? The question seems rather vague.
22 UR. GOCLD: It's a difficult thing to G' 23 dev el op.
24 A They were not trying to persuade me. The meeting was Luwl Reportsng Service g y, ., 2,65 g lafayette Buildine Sate 6M 962.?176 kige zw Detroit, Wichigan 48226 ,
Formuwton Hilis. Michigan 4801A
4 n 1 directed :toward, the 11RRjpeople who b u.s . responsible f or -
2 deciding what criteria the pla'nt would proceed with.
3 BY. !4R. COOLD:
4 Q Could you identify who you mean by linn staf f ? ;
5 A fir. Heller and at that time Dan Gialan. t 5 0 Uell, let me ask it this way. At the meeting was approvcl 7 by the Unn people present requected by Concunars Power ?
G A Ye c.
9 0 And approval was not granted?
10 A That's ccrrect.
11 0 Do you recall whether you were advised that a follow-up .
I 12 meeting was planned by Dechtel and Censumers Pouer to , 1 13 .
discuss other saf ety structures to which the !!RC perconnel ,
14 present were not invited? .
[
15 A I don' t recall. .
16 h Ucs there any discucsion at the .;ee ti ng, if you roccll, 17 regarding a private meeting of Dechtel and Consumers Pouct ,
i i 18 people to be held af ter the December 4th session to
! 19 discuss problems at other buildings?
l' 20 A I don' t know. I i "
- . 21 Q You don' t recall either way?
22 A That's correct.
- . 23 p Gkay. Had you made any request by this time to be kept ;
h 24 informed regarding information as it was gathered i
i Luted Reporting Service 200
,, ,3 y ._
Suite MO 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit Michigen 48226 . Farmington Hills. \fichigan 48018 l . . - - _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ __
4 i !
. 'l . ,
concerning other buildings? ,
a 2 A Yes..
- 3 0 Uhat had you requested?
r 4 A Uo set the tone of our entire investigation as iust that. ,
f 5 From day one we e::plained what our purpose was und y 1 t G recogni::inJ that concemers and techtcl was proceeding with 7 their cwn study of the situation that there would be a 2: .2 cooperation in disclesing to us ao events were 'knoun, as 9 to the e>: tent and cauce of the settlement problemc. Pe 10 set that purpost in motion f rom day one.
11 Q If Bechtel and Consumers Power had decided to have a 12 meeting to discusc potential problems at other buildingo, 13 would you e::pect to have been . invited based on the 14 guidance you communicated to Consomerc Pcwor peopla? '
15 lin. DRIKER: Obj ection. The cuestion is 16 leading.
17 A Uhen you say c::pect, we c::pect a lot of things frem la licensees, you know, I mean generally, however, we don' t f 19 participate in eve,ry internal connany meeting on any 20 subj ect f or that matter. Ecwtver, tho' results of that i
21 meeting, if they were pertine..e to our investigation, yes, 22 w would have e):pected to have disclosure of relevant Q 23 inf ormation that would arf ect our own investigation.
r j
1 7 24 BY lIR. GOOLD:
l T
gg,, yggy, Lu:od Reporti,ng Service yo 3.jf7,, l l* Suite MO 962.I176 Suite 220 i
- Detroit. Michigu 482^6 Farminetm Hills, Michi,ua 4801e .
W_____ _
4 .
1 0 At the December _4. meeting. do- you recall whether you receive'd any inf or.aut. ion as to whether there was co'ncern
~
2 3 regarding other Category 1 structures at the site, with.
n
'~ l 4 reference-to soils problems in particular? ,
5 !!R. CRIKER: Objection, leading.
G Di' ::R. GOOLD:
7 0 At the December 4.,197 8 meeting.
S '!R . J/EUSEU : Ey "you" you' re ref erring to 9 !!r. Gallagher?
10 ( i:R. GOOLD: Right.
11 A . I ' don' t recall if there was any.other structures discussed 12 at that point other than the resultc of their soils 13 monitoring program, which included other structures other 14 than the Diocel Generator Building. ,
15 14R. DRIKER: Excuse me, Jim. !*r. Gallagher, 16 I don' t want to interrupt !!r. Goold when he's f rcming his l 17 ,
question. I don' t want to intrude on his question but F
18 you' re jumping into the ansser too quickly and you' re not 19 leaving me a window at the end of his question and the l 20 beginning of your answer if I have an objection. I' d like 21 ycu to let !4r. Goold finish his question so the reporter 22 ca'n get the objection then your f ull answer, if you don' t '
b 23 mtnd.
l 24 T!!E UITNESS: Okay. I r
l 9
Lusod Reporting Service 3ag4g 3,,g,)6
,,,,,0f y,,,
Suite m o 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroa, Vichigan 48226 fannington Hills Michigan 48018
r g
. .. :1. .. .MR. DRIKER: -Thank you, i
2 BY MR. G00LD:- - >
i 3 Q. Do you-recall whether there was any discussion at the
'. i 4 December 4 meeting concerning temperature correcticns for ;
- S settlement monitoring devices at the Diesel Generator ,
6 Building?
7 A I don' t - recall . i 0 0 Did you receive any information subsequently on that l
9 subj ect f rcm Consumero Power ?
10 A I don't recall.
i 11 0 When did you learn that a surcharge or pre) cad had been t
12 put on,the Diesel Generator Building?
13 A I would have to go back and look at some reports that I
. 14 believe I identifiod when that took place. I ,d o n ' t recall ;
15 , offhand. j 16 0 To your knowledge, had any approval by the 11RC, includinc !
17 Inn, been given f or the placing of the preload prior to 18 the time it was.actually put on? .
19 A My underctanding was that the 11RC nevar gave any approval 20 f or the actual prelcad.
21 0 Let me show you a docuraent, which has a) ready been marked 22 as PX PEC, that's f or Peck, 5. FirFt let me ask whether i C. 23 you recall attending a July 1979 meeting in Bethesda, 24 tiaryland at which a presentation was made concerning the, ;
r
,y lated Reporting Service 9 39,49 3,ng,},jm 77,y_
Suite MO 962.]}76 Swte 220 I Detroa, \fichiaan 482:6 Farmiaton lidis, .\fichigan 4801o i
- - . .. - - -_ - w. ,_ ,_-. .-
y .
F
.. t 1: .- l <among'other. things, the preload-at the Diesel Generator
. i
^ '
+
I
-2 Building?
.3 A Yes, I do.
'S 4 0 And do you recall wl.cther Dr. Peck made a presentation at f l
5 'the- ecting?
6 A Yes.
7 C Okay And what was the thrust of that procentation with !
8 respect to the surcharge?
9 A I don' t recall specifically. ,
10 0 Do you recall whether Dr. Peck cpoke in f avor of the 11 surcharge?
~12 A Based on my recollection he was a proponent of it and in l 6
13 fact reconnended it to Consumers.
14 C This PX Peck 5 has been identified by Dr. Peck as a ,
15 summary of his cer. conte delivered to the URC at the July 16 1979 meeting, and let me direct your attention to page 17 ,
tw o. Let me ask you to read it over generally fir;t, pcgo ,
= -
18 two in particular, and carrying over into page three.
10 A Yes. <
l 20 0 Okay. Is this exhibit consistent with your recollecticn 21 of the substance of Dr. Peck's presentation? :
- 22 !!R. DRIKER
- I'm going to object to the ,
G'i ,
23 , question, Mr. Goold. This exhibit is eight pages long.
i i
24 You've asked the witness to look at page two and now
' l I -
i l
, Luzod Reporting Sers: ice 3mw krthu een Fluy.
&s, Am *
. 962 1176 &ute 2M .
Detrue. Vichigen M.?26 Farmington flills Michigan 2018
- 1. ,
. .you' re ad;!ng him to characterize whether this is ,
2- consistent'with a meeting that took place five years ago.
3 I think at least you ought to invite the witnecc to read i 4 the dccument from'beginning to end before acking him to 5 characcreize.
G. A At least page tuo cnd part of page three that -I read ic 7 consistent with what Dr. Pech was proposing and ,
8 recommending to Consumer s. '
9 BY-MR. GOOLD:
10 Q Uas Dr. Peck, to your knowledge, also recommending the 11 curcharge to the MRC?
12 A Yes.
13 0 Uss approval of the surcharce requested at the July 1979 14 meeting? ,
15 A Yec. ;
16 Q Uas 12: granted?
t 17 A 1:o.
- 18 Q Do you recall any mention of a need f or t.emperature
- 19 corrections in the settlement measuring devices at tho l
' h 20 Diese] Generator Euilding?
21 A I don' t recall.
22 Q At this time?
4 ( 'i 23 A At that time either. That type of inf ormation would be ;
24 more important to the geotechnical reviewers of NRR than s
Lafsyte kidke Luzod Reporting Service 39,,g 3,,,,u},},} ,7wy. !
, Suite hw 962 1176 SWte :N L IWs, \fichigan 48226 Farmington Hills, \fichigan 49018
\ -
, : myself. . .
2 0 That would be Mr. Heller? -
3 A- And at that time I believe Mr. Kane.
/-
4- 0 Okay. Is Ur. Kane with URR?
5 A Yes.
G 0 Did you cay anything at thic meeting? -
7 A I don' t believe co.
8- 0 Did' there come a time when the scicnic criter,ia f or the. ?
9 Mi~dland Plant were changed with respect to any structures 10 there?
11 A That' c really out of my jurisdiction, 12 O Did you have any invcivement in the consideration or 13 reconsideration of scismic criteria?
14 . A Mo.
~
15 0 Did you receive any information concerning the f act that 1G consideration was boinc given to adjustment cf seismic 17 criteria at the URC? Here you in the flew of inf ormation 13 concerning that subject at all?
19 A Youknow[ peripherally, only hearing about discussions of 20 scienic criteria, but that was really beyond my scope of 21- work at that time.
22 Q Did you ever learn whether the changes in seismic criteria C) 23 were limited to any particular portions of the plant?
24 A I have to answer the came. It was beyond my scope of kue sw 9G2 1176 Suur 22 Mu. Wic% 48226 Farminaron Hith, Michigan 48018 '
4 1 ,
work..
2 MR. GOOLD: Off the record.
3 (A brief discussion was held 4 of f the record.)
5 DY Mn. GOOLD:
6 0 Let me shm' you a document, which I'll ack the reporter to 7 mark as P:: UnC 58.
3 (reposition E::hibit ro. PF. !'EC 5 3, 9, Summary of July 10, 1979 meeting on 10 soil deficiencies at the Midland Plant 11 Site, war marked f or identification.)
12 BY MR. GOOLD:
13 0 Take a 'r inute or as much time as you' 6 like to review it.
14 First,I'll focus on the first couple of pages, pages one 15 through three. Let's f ocus first on pages one thrcush 16 three and the attached onclosure of this document, sir.
17 A It's Cr. Darl Hood's, who was Proj ect Dancger, meeting 18 notes or a summary of a July 186h meeting.
19 0 D;d you receive a copy of this at or about the da te 20 indicated?
21 A Yes.
22 0 Uere you part of the regular circulation list for C 23 documents such as this?
24 A Yes.
Lafayette Buildia: 3a940 Torthu a rn Flucv Suite MO 962 liI6 Suite 2:0 Detroit. \fichigan l8226 Farmington Ildh. Whigan 48018
4
.l . 0- .And you've ref erred to this as fir. Hood's meeting notes.
-2 Of what meeting are these notes?
3 A huly 18th' meeting.on soil deficiencies.
4 0 Is it the same meeting that's reflected also in P : Pech 5 5 to which we just referred?
6 A Yes..
7 C Let me direct your attention to the top of page tuo, first 0 paragraph. Let me first asl. whether -- prior to the July 9 1979 meeting concerning the proload of the Diesel 10 Generator P.uilding, had the NRC staff attempted to secure-11 from Consumers Power information concerning the 12 suitability of that ' proposed action?
r *
- 13 A Yes.
l 14 0 And had Consumers Power responded to those reqbcsts?
j 15 A Ubich request 27 ,
I 16 Q Uell, first.lat me back up a second. By what mennn had 17 the I'nC staf f rcquacted informatien? .
.13 A Formally through a 50.54 F mechanicm in the requiations.
19 7 And to your knowledge had satisf actory replier been 20 received?
i 21 A There was a lot of 50.54 F questions. With regaca to 22 which one in particular?
lD 23 Q Let's talk about suitability of the, or information needed 24 for acceptance of the Diesel Generator Building surcharge.
,,, y Lutod Reporting Service 30840 Nonkuntern Hwy.
Sur Aw l 962 1176 Sate 231
.Farmincton Hdis, Michigan 48018 Detroit,. Wichigan 48226
l !!R. : JEMS EN : I'd like to ask for a little 2 clarification about the word satisf actory. You' re asking 3 note than j ust were replies received.
4 BY I:R. GCOLD:
I 5 0 Satisf actory for purge ses of resulting in approval of that 5 sction.
7 !!R. CRIKER: Could you naybe root-te the 3 question?
9 I?R. GOOLD: That's probably a good idea.
10 EY l'R. GCOLD:
11 1 Had you participated in the framing of and submissien of 12 l 10 CPR 50.54
- requests to Consumerc Power?
13 A Sone of them.
I 14 0 Did you participate in the preparation of any of the ,
15 requests concerned with the curcharging of the Diccel 16 Generator Euilding?
17 A Mot the surcharge, no.
13 0 Uhat area of involvement did you have in particular?
19 A :: ore in t:4e Quality Ascurance acpects of it, of the cauceq 20 an'd corrective ecticn that Consumers would take oc a l
l 21. result of their and URR findings.
l 1 22 IIR. DRIKER: Did you say more?
! C.i TH E 1,'ITN ES S :
23 !! ore in the.
l l
l 24 BY f:R. GCOLD:
l l
l l
4,,,, ygg;,,
Lu:od Reportine Service 3,,9 ,,ku),],,} guy.
S ite M O 962 1176 Suae zm Detras, \fichigan &% Fannmeton Rdh, .\fkkiaan 48018 t
r .- '
- 1. -
Q) Looking at _the: first paragraph on page two, does that summarize in substance the position the NRC communicated -
~
2
.3 to Consuners Power at the .7uly 1979 meeting with respect 4 to acceptance of the surcharge f or the Diesel Generctor 5 Building?
6 A Yes.
7 C Do you recall what reaction, if any, ccme from the 8 Consuraers Power people at the meeting to.those corm'ents?
i 9 A well, the Mnn geotechnical reviewers were attempting to 10 securo como criteria that Consumers and Bechtel would use 11 in establishing an acceptable surcharge program, if that's 12 what they were going to use and in fact did use, prior to 13 then doing the surcharge rather than, as Bechtel and their 14 consultants and Consumers were proposing, a criteria to bc ,
15 establic,h.,d at'come later point in time based on the 16 results of the experiment, if you will.
17 0 You've used the term experiment. Uhat are you ref erring ,
18 to in particular?
19 A The preload or surcharge program.
20 0 And what react, ion, if any, was communicated to that 21 position, was communicated by Dr. Peck at the meeting if 22 you recall?
(3 i 23 A Well, as his meeting notes state, that he was prepared to 24 evaluate the results and was confident that they would Luzod Repo,tirag Se,vice 26 4y,,,, ggjg;,, 3,,o ,,gk,l,ers Hwy Suse MO 962 1176 Sdte gx Detroit, \fichigen 4RL% Farmington Hills, Michigan tsui:
_r . -. - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
+
i
'I [
l 15 provige satisf actory results to him..
2 gG Uas any - proof supplied oth'er than in support of that [
~3 proposition, to your knowledge, other than Dr. Pe ch' s 4
4 l cay-co? j l
i 5 A 1:o. '
6 0 I may have covered thic the other day but I'll be brief.
7- Did you make any reconmendations, yourcelf, to Concemers l 0 Power to the decircblility as to proceeding with the 9 surcharge?
10 A Uell, I recall an e::it meeting or debriefing meeting at j 11 the liidlanr: cito during one of my early visits that I at i 12 , least voiced my opirvion at that point in time that it wac 13 going to be extremely dif ficult to sell to the 11RC that 14 thic preload concept would be acceptable. And at that
[
15 carly point in time, given the stage of construction on i
i 16 the Diecol Generator Building at some 25 percent compl e tt:,
- l. .17 actually at least gave my own prof eccional suggestion, l
10 perhaps not the 11RC's, that it would be nore prudent to 4
19 j remove the building and recompact the soil satisf actorily
(
l -
l 20 and get on with building the building correctly.
21 10 Do you recall who was present f or Consumers Power at this l
l 22 meeting, at this discussion?
( 23 A Pretty much the routine site management people that 24 Concumers would have at an !!RC exit meeting, Pr oj ect 9
I
' Lusod Repareing Serviee 39g,o y,g,[Q gw,.
la(aprte laaldine Saa. @) 962.I176 Suue 20 Detroit, Sfichigan 48Uh - Farmunaton Hills, Alichigan 48018
t- .
1 Ma na gt . , nuality Assurance people, field people.
2 MR. DRIKER: Excuse me f or interrupting at 3 this point, but I want to be Euro I understand. Is your 4 testimony f actual ac to who was there or are you j ust kind 5 of aucaming baced on a course of conduct who micht have ,
1 6 been thare, as to what your ancuer is?
7 .TH E "ITM PS S : At to ac far as uho is there, 3 that's corr ect.
9 MR. ERIMER: Are you just kind of saying I 10 don' t know but generally thic croup of people vac ucually 11 there and . don' t remember who?
12 A CertM nly I recall Mr. Miller being there, Mr. Cooke, Mr.
13 Keeley, Mr. Marquglio, Mr. Horn being there and ot:: ors of 14 their sta(f.
15 GY ! R. GCOLD:
15 n Did you make any commente conce.-ning uhr ther any lica . .
17 problame might recult f rcm t,he uce of a surcharge? l 18 A Yes. .
19 C Uhat fid you cay?
20 A I enpressed my opinion at that time that knc. ting hou che 21 URC licensing activity is conducted that it would be 22 extremely difficult to get an af firmative response f ecm 23 those individuals on this course of action, especially 24 prior to actually startina the activity.
1
- ' 7 "n Luted Reportine Service 3m40 %thuntun Huy isfkyette Buddma S mte M O 962 !Ii6 Suite 2:0 Farmmeton Hdis, Alwhican 2018 l Detross. \fkhissn M226
9 1 0 .Just so the-record 1. clear, then you refer to individuals 2 to whom are you referring? -
3 A In the HRC?
4 0 In the tinC. Are you referring to the Atomic safety 5 Licensing Board Gtcup or to the NnC?
G t. To Unc, in particular !!nn cnd more in particular tne 7 geotechnical enginecting branch or strectural engineering branch.
G 9 O Did you also discucc whether there would be any potential 10 problems with respect to lic?ncing proceedings concerning 11 the plant such as ASLD proceedings?
12 f.R . C?.I"En: Objection, laading, i 13 A Fell, in general terms I e::prected my opinion that it 14 ,
would be, as I believe. I stated there, a licensing 15 nightmare f or them. I didn't realize I would be such c I 16 [ profit in that r e c re ct .
I 17 ! CY 1:n. CCCLD:
la O :n your eA perienen did it in fact prove to be a licencing 19 nightnaro? l 20 A ?.nd co:c.
21 11R. DRlRER: Obj ection.
22 BY MR. GOOLD:
b 23 0 Did any of the people f rom Consumers Power who were 24 precent give any reaction to your concents?
- 4ayng, g;tg,,
- Luzod Reporting Service 3,,g nk),]j ,,,,y_
Suar hw 062.))?6 %,gg 39 Detrat, \fichigan m::n Farmmaton li.lls, \fichigan m018 u ._
1 A; :None, nor-did I-ask forea reactien.
l 2 0 In your view, was it prudent for Consumers Power under the j 3 circumstances that existed in late 1970 to have proceeded l f with the surcharge?
4 5 !!R. DRIKEnt I will obj ect to the quection'. l There' c no f oundation laid that this witnecc is an e:: pert I 5
7 in the area. I' n - not sure what area you clain hic ;
O e::pertice to cock ea ancwor to that question, but whatev sc 3 i 9 it is,-with all due recrect to Mr. Gallagher, I don' t 10 think his expertice in giving that opinion has been 11 established. There's no f oundation laid and it' c a ;
e 12 I
- leading question i 13 MR. Jrt
- SE1:: Also with regard to Cencumerc :
- .. [
14 Pow er , I think it would be better to specify an individual !
t
,' 15 if you' re talking in terms of prudence. l i 6 l
16 MR. 000LD:
I'm trying to find out what :'r. :
l 17 Gallagher' o view was as to whether it wcc prudent under ;
13 the circumstances f or Consumers Pcwcr to have proceeded l i
19 w
,ith the surch'arge as it did. !?e have the obj ecticn f i -
i i 20 stated f or the record and new I'm just trying to find out l
. t l 21 l
what Mr. Gallagher's answer is, i 22 A It was my opinion then and it remains my opinion now it !
L
- O 23 was not prudent, as I expressed to them on various i 24 occasions during site visits.
1 r
[
t Lusoi Reputting Service ,3.g[0 2 b kite MO 962 11I& Me m +
Dnut. Michym sc2s . Farminaton HJh. \fichieu 48018 I
_____.________.______.____________________1______
T i
1 ,
BY UR. GOOLD:.
2 0 Subseq uent to the initial discuss' ion at which you raised 3 the subj ect to which you j uct referred, do you recall any 4 later inctances in which a reaction was conveyed to you by 5 the Consumers Power people?
G A neaction to uhat?
7 0 To your cornento concerning the curcharge. How 6id they S respond, if at all?
9 A I don' t believe they responded at all.
10 0 How did they deal with those commente, was it a 11 stonevalling?-
12 -
l'.R . DRInER: I obj ect to that q"ection, r.r .
13 Goold.
14 EY UR. GOOLD: ,
15 0 Uhat was the sense you got how they dealt with your 16 comments?
1 17 "R. IRInnn:
. I obj ect to that! If the 18 . witness testified somebody did not recpond, I don't know i 10 he.e he can get a sense of what somebody believes other 20 than by that person telling him or wricing to him. You
[ 21 haven' t asked him if they had written to him. l'aybe if 22 you want to ask that question, okay, but I don' t know hcw
(
l 23 he can j udge a sense f rom anything other than 24 communication.
l lafayette kidote h ate M O f.uzod Reporting Service 962.))?6 yo 3 [1 y Sgge g;m Detrat, Vichicas 482:6 Farmuneton thus, %chiuan 43018
[
l' I
. BY,MR. GOOLD:. , i 2 0 . I tnink'if Consumers Power personnel made a practice of l 3 ,
remaining. absolutely ' silent during such a discussion, that A. - would tell uc one thing, for e:: ample. I'm trying to' find 5 out if it was your sense they were evading your comment.
5 or purposely not' responding to your ' connents.
t
'i l'n. J"MS EU : Speaking in terms of Consumers ,
3 Power I think that's, too vague. I think we need to t:1k ;
I
,- 9 in terms of individuals. ;
10 t'n. DnI"ER: Yeah.
11 DY Mn. GOOLD: ;
t 12 O Ue've established there wer'e discussions at which you rads ;
13 thoce comments and I'm trying to find out anything that 14' you recall about the responses you received. I',11 be j f 15 happy to follow up with the individualc, but first let's 16 find out what the witness recalls regarding the vorde tha:
17 were used or any other clues you received ac to the 13 reaction you were getting. ,
13 A There were absolutely no responses. They ac'hnowledged l 20 hearing me. They were sitting there, I was speaking, they (
~
t 21 heard. There was no response positively or negatively.
22 0 Uho do you recall as present during these discussionci ,
t
(' 23 A I mentioned those names before.
l
{
24 0 Same people as bef ore, in general?
i 20'~ !
Luzod Reporting Servic' 30840 knhustem Huy ss, aw 962 1176 - stae zm ;
Dnr4 %chiess 482.% Farmington Hills, Michigan 4M18
1 A, Yes.
2 0 Let's go back to PX NRC 58. Ue've discussed pages one 3 through three and the enclocure list.. Can you identify 4 th: attachment which bearc pages cerial numbers 91201904, 5 which is a blank page, then the ten't resumes on 91201905 G and ecc.ninues thrcuch page 91201941.
7 A You want ce charccteri:e what thic is?
8 0 Ye c.
9 A Thic, on the page 23-1, is the reframing of a quecticn 10 that the UnC asked via 50.54 F. It's question number 23.
11 Uc had previously asked question number one, which I had 12 participated in developing, which in general terms, I 13 don' t have it in front of me but I recall 'it requected 14 Consumers to respond with the identification of the 15 causes, their identification of the causec and what 16 corrective actions they propoced to take to preclude 17 Quality Accurance f ailures te occur in the f uture in thi 18 and other activities.
19 Ouestion number one -- and Consumer s' 20 response to question number one I recall was not 21 acceptable. It did not provide us with the answer that we 22 had requested and as a result we were necessitated asking
(~ 23 questien numb,er 23, and subparagraph one being more 24 succinct in what exactly we were looking f or. And Lnfayette Buddene 30940 %rthur tem Ilwy.
Swte hw .
962 1176 Suar 2M Detrat, Whigan tr:6 Farmmeron Ildis, whean 48018
+
1 starting on page 23-2. is Consumers' response to that 2 quection number 23, 3 0. Uhat in general terms were you looking f or in pocing f
4 question 237
- A Ue were 1 coking to have Consumers themselves identify for 5 their ewn benefit the actual causec of Quality Asterance 7 deficiencies with regard to the soilc work and other 9 cctivitiec so that we would accure ourceivec that they had 9 taken -- they had identified and would be inplementing 10 corrective actions to preclude similar deficienciec from 11 occurring.
22 0 And are the pages attached to this letter copier of the' 13 responsec Consumers Power cave to the Unc with recpect to 14 question 23?
15 A Yes.
16 0 And did you receive thece at or about the danc e indica ted?
17 A "hat date? .
18 0 Unf or tunately they have. da tes cuch as --
10 A It icok like November 197 9.
20 MR. DRI:En: "hy do you say unf or tunately?
21 MR. GOOLD: Ucll, they're different dates 22 because they were updated over time. I'll get to it in a C 23 moment, Mr. Driker.
24 3 Y !*.R . GOOLD:
- f. nod Reporting Service gg 2),0 y lafayette Buddtne Su.te edo 962 I1*6 Suste 2:0 Detmt,1(ichigan 482:6 Farmmaton Hdis, Whigan 48018
.~
.- a i
1
,- 0 .. Did "ou receive copies, of Consumers Power responsec ag; j 2 they were' submitted, to question 23, as they were 3 submitted to the linC? -I 4 A 'Yec. l 5 0' A.v' over the course, over the period of time f rcm .I'cVember :
1 6 1979 through February 1901 were revisionc ndde frca time 7 to time in Consumers Pcwor recponses to quection 237 ,
i 0 A Um-ha. .
t 9 0 Did you also receive those as they came to the UnC? !
10 A Ye s. l t
11 0 Okay. Uith that in mind, can you identify the document j 12 which is attached to Pr. !!nc 58 running f rem -- it' c marked f 13 in the bottom middle of the page as number as 23-1 thrcush ;
14 23-M? !
i 15 A Yes.
4 16' O And what is it? ;
I 17 A Identify the document?
13 0 Yec. .
'- 19 A Rer:ponses to question 23. ;
20 0 And does this include updeces or revisionc ac cubmit:cd by 21 Consumers Power over the course of the period I've 22 mentioned? l O 23 A Yes.
i I
i 24 0 Uhat was the practice with respect to situations where a j i t l- i y,jp, g;gy, Luzod Reporting Service m 3.,,,C2 5 y
%te 630 962.i6 Suae :.m l lkmt. Wichieu 482.'% Ferminam Hills, Michigan 48018 ! I m, .
. . . . _ _ . , , _ ~ _ _ _-
.I
t p r i 1 ,
. ,particular. page _ wa.1 -supplemented.or revised? -
2 A I'm not sure I understand the question. 3 0 Uhat. I'm. trying to find out is whether a running copy was 4 kept in which upda ted pages would be inset ted? . 5 A There were pericJic. updates to many of the questions that
.G vere being asked via 50.54 P and they vould-identify thoco ~t 7 pagcc that they had mado revisionc to and cubmit them. ;
3 0 Uns it practics to substituto the reviced pages f or 9 previously submitted pages? i 10- MR. DRIKEnt At the 11RC? ' l 11 DY MR. GCOLD: 12 0 At the 11RC. 13 A I don' t recall how we administered the revisions. 14 0 Uhat I'm just trying to get at is, it's just a 15 housekeeping kind of detail,- is that you look at tho : r 16 numbering at the bottom of the page and you'll cne the 17 first page of this document is 23-1 and that sequence of 18 numbers continues all the way up to, without breax, up to 19 23-35. Then you'll also see a little further cver en the 20 right of the bottom of the page various rev.isien numbers e 21 and dates beneath those. Can you explain what those 22 represent? () 23 A Revisions to their responses, or part of their responses, 24 and they were inserted into the package.
,g Luzod Reporting Sersice y,g 3, 28{
, y Sase hw ' 962.))T6 Sue zw Femburton Hah Michigan 48018 Dnmi. Michinen 482M -
0 1 0 okay. Eow who submitted the rc.,ponses to question 23 to 2 the MRC? 3 A Consumer s Power. 4 0 To your knowledge, were those submiscions made under ar.y 5 kind of octh or requirement oc to the certification, as to 6 their truth? 7 A Ac I remember correctly, 50.54 P is submitted under 0 certification by a company of ficial. 0 0 Let me direct your cttentien to page 23-3. There are 10 subparagraphc A through B in the bottor of that page above 11 which says, "Ecsentially, thic documentation pointed out 12 th'at the most probable caucoc of the settlement verc au-13 f olless:" then there' c tuo subparagraph: beneath that, ro 14 you see that portion of the ducument? 15 A "o. Uhere is that? . . 16 0 23-3. There's a paragraph which begins, "The 13 17 deficiencies" then the Sinal centence of that ;cr:gr:ph 13 refers to "the noct probable causec of the settler.ent were 19 as f ollmes:" then beneath the t subparagrcph A statec, "In 20 some cases, lift thickness c::ceed the capability of the 21 equipment being used. " Do you cee that sentence? 22 A Yes. ( 23 0 In our discussion for the first part of your deposition I I 24 believe you indicated that lack of control over lif t Luzod Reporting Service 3 ,, C7, y ,,,,,, gag,, ,g Sdie edo 962 1176 Suur :3) v Detrou. %chiren LC6 farmmaton Udis, nichieve 4R018 l
1 : thickness was, in your j udgment, also one f the f ,. 2- contributino causes to the soils settlement problem? 3 A That's cor rect. 4 0 And j ust so the record is clear, did you discuss that 5 factor with 1:r. Horn in the course of youc conversaticas 6 with hin? 7 A Yes. . S 0 And was this one of the f acters that he indicated to you 9 had been of concern to him prior to the disclosure of the 10 Diesel Generator Building problem? 11 A Yes. 12 O Let's look doun at the no::t subparagraph, rubparagraph n, 13 where another of the "most probable causes of the 14 settlement" is ref erred to as "Reliance on soil test 15 results, or on the the evalust. ion of the test results." 16 And j ust so the record is clear, wcs thi-J a cubject you i 17 airo discussed with I:r. Horn? l 18 A Yes. 19 n And did he indicate to you that this had been a source of 20 concern to him during the time the soils work was being 21 placed prior to the disclosure of the Diesel Generator 22 Buildis, problem? 23 I-n. DRIKCR: Obj ection, leading. 24 A Yes. Lusod Reportine Sernce 28
, ,,,, y, , 39,,9 ,, h , n ,m ,,,, .
Swer hw 962 1176 Sune :x Detroa. \fichigan 48:26 Farmsneton l{ dis. .\fichigan Ml8
o ,
.4 -
, 41 , BY MR. COOLD - ,
.. 8 '
s s 2- 0 Then a statement appears at the bottom of this page,
-3' "Theref ore, deficienciec most clocely ascociated with 4 thoce tuo probable causes would bear the most significant 5 . contribution to settlement." Did you agree with that: f 6 A Can you point out uhore e::actly that i ? l 7 0 The very bottem. Uhat I'm asking is whether you agreed 3 0 that reliance on soil test recultb or lif t thicknocc, cs ,
c 0 referred to in more detail in paragrz.ph A and n on this 10 page, constituted the most significant contribution to 11 settlement? 12 A The question is? i i I 13 0 Uhether you agreed with that. 14 A I agree that they were contributing f actors. I diragree.*3 f
. 15 being the most significant contribution.
I I 1G G Uhat did you believe wa: the most sienificant contributicn - 17 to the e::istence of the soils problem? : l 18 A That they did not have a qualified geotechnical enginaer E l t j 19 supervising the work activity. 20, 0, Looking back at subparagraph A where the statement 21 appears, "In some ca ses, lift thickness exceed the c 22 capability of the equipment being used", based on "our ! C/ 23 i investigation of the 1:idland Proj ect do you agree with ;
. 24 that statement?
,, y, Luzod Reporting bereice 89
,. y Suite Mo 962.I176 Suite na Detroit, Alichigan 48226 Farmington Hill,s. \fichigan 48018
h ^ g- , li A (Yes.- . 2- O' llow about the statement in paragraph n that, "Reliance onl 3- soil . test results, or on the evaluation of' the test 4 results, provided concon modo f ailure mechanism", did you 5 agree with that? I G A 'Je s . t
- 7. O Let me direct 1your attention no::t to page' 23-23. Under O the heading "Deficlency Descripcien: Inadequate soil ;
9 moisture testing" there's a paragrcph labeled Discussion.. i 10 Do you see that paragraph? 11 A Yes. 12 0 It states in the first two sentences, "Prior to 107 0, i t 1 13 moisture control content was controlled by tests performed i 14 after compaction. Few or no tests were performed on the j
, 15 fill during compaction, as required by specification
_t 16 77220-C-210, Section 12.6." Is that statement consistent j 17 with your min observaticns regarding how the fill was la placed at Midland and tested? 19 A The second seni?nce is. , i 20 0 How about the first sentence? 21 A Well, the first sentonce really doesn't make too much 22 sense to me. One does not contr ol moisture content after i (.* ' 23 compaction. . 24 Mn, CRIKCR: I think it says by tests f l f Luzod Reporting Se,vice 900 $ q ,,,, g; 3,,o 3,,,y;,,,, ,7,,.
. &dge sw 962 1176 Suur 2.% L Detroit, Michigad 48226 . Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018
1 perf ormed -af ter compaction. 2 BY I4R. GOOLD: 3 0 That's true, but doer that change your answer? 4 A It doecn't mal.e sence to me. 5 0 Can you e:: plain why? G A One doec not control moicture content by tectc. 7 Q. !icw does one control moisture content? - 9 /. You -- vell, you do tects but you control the moicture -- 0 you ccnnot control the moisture af ter compacticn. I nean, 1C it's compacted' with a certain moisture content and it 11 gives ycu the results per that content. One takes tects 12 before or during the compaction effort. - 13 0 Is it too late af ter compaction? 14 , A' Yec, academic. 15 0 Let's go back to page two of the first portien of this 15 c::hibi t, the recting notec. Let me direct your actr:nticn 17 to the ne::t to lacc paragraph, which the first tuo 18 sentences ctate, "Dechtel reported (item 7 of the 10 precentationc) the results of its invectigaticns into the j 20 cause of incufficient compaction of the plant area fill, l 21 and identified five causes to be considered to be the moct The app 11 cant noted its agreement with the
~
! 22 probable. r - 1 (J Bechtel findings." Do you remember such a discuccion 23 24 taking place in substance at the July 1979 meeting? Infayette Buildvec Lessod Reporting Service m \. , [ 1 ,7 suur Mo 962.}}76 Sua, 20 l Ik troa, \fishiza, 4836 FarmutEl0N $$L555 \Iichilan 48058
o 1 A: -Y : : , , 2 0 Do you remember who at Consumer s Pouer indicated agreement 3 with the Bechtel findings? 4 A I don' t know. 5 0 to you recall whether t'r. I*eeley was present? Ilong on 6 just a second, ro you recall whether l'r. neeley checP.ed 7 uith I'r, !!cen before giving any discuccion on thic 3 subj ect ? 9 I'n. DRIZER: What kind of c'ucction ic that? 10 i, If I remember correctly, I'r. Forn gave the precentatier of 11 the most probable causes, if I remember correctly. There 12 were view graphs that identified the possible cauces anc'. 13 then the most probable cauces. I believe tir. Porn gave 14 the. presentation, if I' m not mistaken. 15 ," ,Y !!R. GOCLD: , 16 0 Okay. According to this document five causes were 17 indicated to be considered the most probable. I rcccgnize 18 this is a dif ficult questien, but do you recall what thoce 10 "ere? 20 A t couple of them. As they character 1::ed them, lift 21 thickness, moisture control, qualification of equipment 22 and two others, which I don' t remember what they l b 23 determined. There is a meeting notes or view graphs that l 24 laid all that out. ono
~ ~
Luzod Reporting Service ymos,thu;temnur fxfasrtte Buddme 9gg,j;7s Suur 630 Sun 220 \
&troa. Michigan M226 Farmmeton Hk Michigan M18
c. 1 0 I' m sorry. I j ust don' t have it in the f orm it was 2 produced, at least in this one. Let me direct your 3 attention ne::t to page. 23-25. Under the heading Incorrect 4 Soils Tect Results there's a Discussion parcgraph there 5 which commenece, "A review of soilc tect reporte indicates G that conc tcc: reporte contained errorc and 7 inconsictonciec in data." Ic that concictent with your 8 own investigatien of the coils problem: at the I:idland 0 Plant? . 10 A I don' t recall. I would have to go bach and 1cok if it's 11 concistent or not. 12 0 Are you f amilirr with a term :ero air voir:s curve? 13 A Yoc. 14 0 I realize this may be a dif ficult technical questien, but - 15 can you e:: plain what it = cans? 16 T. rell, it's j uct a curve that is basically above the 17 optimum moisture and ma::imum density curve, which . 18 identifies thrcush tests what moisture and density one 19 needs in order to have zero air voids. 20 0 ' lou worked as a coils tecting technician, did you not, at 21 one point in your career? 22 A One summer I believe, yes. (.
~
23 0 Do you recall whether you did any work with zero air voids 24 curves during that empl oyment ? l g,,,, y79, Lu:od Reportine Sersice , [3, buar hw 962.))?6 , Sua, x
&trat. \fichisan 48226 Farmneton Ihlis, mchigan 2018
- 1 A .We plotted moisture density curves and those other curves. ,
2 0 Okay. You referred to the other curves. Are you 3 referring to neto air voide curves? Uc-ha. 4 A 5 0 Did you have any occacion la your we'.x as an inspector at 3 nogion III to 1cok at cenpacticn test recordc frer other 7 - nuclear proj ectc? 3 A Yes. 9 0 Did you have an occacion to e::amir.o proctor cut vec and 10 coro air voide curves f rom other nuclear projectc? 11 A. Ye c. 12 !!R. CnIKER: 2 :cuce me. I think it's 13 helpf ul bef ore you answer the quection to let hin get the 14 whole question out., 15 THE t'IT:IESS : Uhen he pauces I precume he 15 finichec to I antwor the questien. 17 ::n. DR I"2.". : ' There's then a nodilicctica cf l . 13 his question by the 3 ast phrese and the way it's going to 19 come out in the tranceript, usually the reporter ic going 20 to report the whole quesrien then your ancuer, even though 21 your answer may have come in the middle of the quecticn. 22 So I urge you to wait until the whole question is out 23 until you begin your answer. , 24 LY ::R. GOOLD: l one Lusod Reporting Service 3,g,o y,,gl;,; y,,_ y, go 962 1176 Suser 220
%t, \fschigan M226 Farmsneton {iilk, \fschigan 48018
. I
- 1. O Did you observe whether .:ero air . voids uccves were being 2 plotted in connection with compaction tests at other 3 nuclear pcwor plants?
4 A I don' t recall at this point in time without s oing bach 5 and looking. It's a routine item that's plotted on 5 aci:ture density carve:. 7 0 Did you ever learn whether cero air voids curves ucre
? plotted on !!idland acinture density tecting during the ,
9 period f rcm 1974 through 19777 10 7- ve c. 11 0 Uhat did you learn in that respect? 12 A That they' were plotted. 13 0 I'll have to find the document. Oc you recall whether 14 Bechtel prepared a repo.it in 197 9 concerr.ing U. S. 15 Testing"s, the accurccy of U. S. Tecting's coilt tects? 15 A I don' t recall that document. 17 0 Do you t ecall seeing any pict done in 1979 of where U. O. la Testing coils terts f ell. on zero air voids curve? 19 A Yes. 20 0 And what did that indicate with respect, if you recall, to 21 where the soils tests results f ell on the zero air voids 22 curve? C~, 23 A They were above the zero air voids curve. 24 0 Let me direct your attention to page 23-32 of this
,, gggy, Luzod Reporting Service \. ,5 g Suite MO 962 11?6 Suar gav Detrost, Whico 4C26 Farminston flills. Whiean 48018
1 - document,'and under the heading Deficienciec Descriptica, 2 "Inadequate corrective cetion for repetitive nonconforming 3 conditiens", there.'s a Discussion paragraph which states, 4 . "There were nonconf ormances reported which are considered 1
. I 5 l to be repetitive." Then it lists a number of G nonconformance reports. Did Mr. "orn indicate to you 7 uhether he believed that the nonconformance reporte quoted 5 here were in fact repetitive?
9 MR. DRIMER: Obj ecticn, leading. 10 A Yec. 11 EY UR. GCOLD: 12 -0 Do you recall whether Consumers Pcwor disputed this 13 conclusion, the conclusi'on that there were incdecuate 14 corrective action f or topetitive nonconf ormine condittenc? 15 A At one point in time they did, 15 0 De vou recall appro::imately when that was in the precocc 17 of your inv olvement at I,:idland? 13 A It was a meet.no in Glen Ellyn where we first identifica 19 our findingc at which tire Mr. Howell was chairing that 20 meeting. I dcn' t recall the date. Some time in March of 21 1979 perhaps. 22 2 And did you have any discussion on the subject (~; 23 , subsequently with Mr. Horn? 24 A Sure. Lu2od Reporeine Seetice 705 3mto knh niem 11wy. S,iir eo 962 1176 Swe :.m Dnat \fichhan 22 6 Farminetm lidis, \fichigan 48018
1 0 And what did he tell. you regarding whether he believed 2 thad 'the nonconf ormances were repetitive? 3 A He agreed with our findings. 4 0 Let me chow you a document, which I'll ack the reporter to 5 mark as PX Bechtel 235. G (Depocition 0::hibit !?c. ?:* ".C C 2 3 5, 7 Letter of 10-3 0- 7 0 f rca S. S. 7fifi 9 to E. E. ?cck, Letter frcr Lector C Rubenstein, PEC, to S. F. *! cu ell , 10 CPC, dated 10-10-79 and supplemental 11 10 Crn 50.54 requests, was marked 12 f or identifica ticn'. ) 13 3Y UR. GOCLD: 14 0 The first page of this document is a letter f rca a Mr. 15 Afifi of Bechtcl to Dr. Peck. I'm going to ask you about 16 the subsequent pages of this e::hibit, which begin uith c 17 , letter f rcm I;r. Lecter Rubenctein of the SEC to :'r. la Howell, apparently dated in november of 1979, f olicw ing 10 which there are a cerice of cupplemental 10 Crn 50.54 20 r eq ue st s. 21 Let me ask you to direct your attention in 22 particular to the supplemental 10 CFR 50.54 pages 917 01037 23 thtough 091. Did you participate in the preparation of 24 thoce requests? I Luzod Reporting Service 3,,o y;,,h,},f,7, ,7,). gg,y,, yigin, Sute sw 962 1176 Suae zw Detroa. (lichigan 48226 Farmington Hslis, \fuhstan 48018
1 A Mot these. 2 0 Let me let me f ocus you in particular on paragraph 35, or 3 request 3 5. Did you participate in the preparation of 4 thic request? 5 A I don' t recall. I don' t believe I did. 5 0 Do you recall whether you cau thic bef ore it went cut? 7 A I really don' t. 8 0 Ch y. Dip you ever learn whether Concemere Power uce 9 objecting to taking additional borings in the fill at the 10 Diesel Generator Building? 11 A Yec. 12 0 Do you recall approximately when that came up? 13 A It was the meeting which I ref erred to last, which was in 14 Glen Ellyn, some time in I: arch. 15 0 19797 15 A 1979, where baced on our findince it was the UnC's 17 position that certainly the balance of the plant needed te 18 be investigated f urther to see to what extent in fact poor 19 material had been placed and what the effect was on the 20 structures. 21 0 Uhat was the response at this meeting? 22 That it was generally localiced to the Diesel Generator f C Building and that there was no need to go beyond that. 23 24 0 And did the NRC staf f take any action subsequently to i non lofvette Buildme Luzod Reportine Service ,g 3g,,,; y Sutto MO 962.I176 Suite ::o Detmt, \fichigan 48226 Farmmzion Hills. \fichizan 48018
Y 1 require testing of the fill at other portions of the
'2 -plant?
l 3 A Ye s. 4 0 And what vac that? 3 . Le rcquired them to take additional borings in the 6 Au::iliary Guilding, borated water storsqe tank cnd 7 sctually drill thrcugh f cundation mats. C O Did you ever learn that Ccncumer Pcuer vac op';oced to th^ 9 taking of nny additional coils borings in the fill that 10 had been preloaded at the Diocel Generater Cuilding? 11 1:n. EnIECn: Obj ection, leading, it's also 12 . ague as to time. 13 A I don't recall c::actly when but they did obj ect to taking 14 cdditional boringc on the basic that the surcharge and the 15 soils settlement monitoring progran in conjunction with 16 t5:st curcharge ucc adequate, and I believe they c:r:cd 17 that it vould be of no relevant informaticn. la SY "R. GOOLD: 19 O Did you consider the coils boringc to be taken in the fill 20 at the Diesel Generator B,uilding that had been preloaded, 21 been preloaded, to have been relevant information? 22 !!R. DRIRCR Obj e ction, leading, no (~' 23 foundation. 24 A Yes.
,,, y Luzod Reportsne Service , 2,,99
, y
&Etr hw 962 Ilib hate 25 Detmt. \fichigan 48:26 Famington Hills, \fuktaan 48018
1 DY MR. GOOLD - 2 0 Uhy is that? 3 A Seemc reasonable to see what changes of characteristico 4 the soils hcd undergone via the surchocso. 5 0 You've mer.Lioned in your ane,?er that tnere wac discucsicn, 5 in your previouc ancuerc, that there uac liccuccica 7 - regarding whether boringt should be :ahen at other 3 portienc of th'e plant and I believe ycu nontioned 9 Concuners Power's position was the problem vac 1ccaliced? 10 7. At that particular point, in
- arch of 197 9 uhen we had a 11 ceeting with then on our findings, that that was it, yeah.
i 12 ;0 Do you recal' whether there wac any diccussion in the
'13 :' arch 1979 meeting regarding the Auniliary Duilding in 14 particulari 15 A Yoc. ,
15 1 And uhat was Concuners Fever's pocition with req ect to 17 uhether boringc chould be taken at th e Au::iliary ruildinc;? 13 A I recall they were not receptive to going tuch beyond the 19 Diesel Gensector Duilding at that point in tine. 20 -0 Do you have any recollection as to what j uctif ica tion, if 21 any, for that pocition was provided at the meeting? 22 A ::o. b 23 -0 Subcequent to the :: arch 1979 meeting did you ever learn 24 that the surcharge at the Diesel Generator Cuilding had gg,u, ygg,, Luted Reporting Service ,g 3f ,, 9.6 2 . ! ! ? 6 Suar zy> Slar MO Devoa. \fschigan k'C.% Farmututon flills \fichigan 4%I8
4 1 , been removed? 2 A Prior to the !! arch 197 07 3 0 tio. Subsequent to the !! arch 1979 meeting was the l 4 surcharge at the Diocci Generator Building removed? l 5 A Subsequent to? 5 0 Ye c. 7 A At come point in time it was. . 3 0 To your knowledge, vac any 'nc approval given f or the
? removal of the curcharge?
10 A l'o . 11 0 Mere you consulted by Concemers Pcwor before the curcharge 12 was rencved? 13 A !!o. 14 0 Do you know if anyone at (g o 1: n C w a c ? 15 A I' m not awar.e of any. 15 C "ac there any licencing crobica that reculted f rem the 17 rencval of the surcharge? , 13 A Yes. 19 0 Uhat uns that? 20 A From what I understand, the !!nP. reviewers did not celieve 21 that it was lef t on long enough. 22 0 Just co the record is clear, th e 11Rn r ev iew e r s a r e l'r . V 23 Heller and :r. Kane; is that correct? 24 A Primarily Joe Kane. Lutod Reporting Service 74,y,,,, m, nw M 3kl Hn
%te AR) 962 1J*6 Suste 3)
IMroa. \fickitan 492:6 Farmanaton Rdh, \ischigan 59018
1 0 Now, did you evec learn _how much time " . Kane was 2 spending on the Midland Project during this period? 3 MR. JEUSEU: I think we' re gettine very 4 elece to the prococc of Unc personnel uith the quection. 5 If the witnocs can give an answer, I .en't object to it. 5 CR. COCLD: I's j ust trying to find out out 7 if he was cpending a lot of time on the project. 9 A I don' t knew uhat perconcage but it ucc f airly cubr.tantial 9 ciact it consumed a lot of UnC stcff time. - 10 DY MR. GOOLD: 11 0 Did you over learn why Concemers Pv,ver did not consult the 12 URC bef ore removing the surcharge?
, 13 . A ro.
14 0 Let me shou you'll a document, which I',11 $ch the reporter ' 15 to mark oc PM PRC 59?
- 16 (Cepocition C::hibi "o. ?: M P.C 50 ,
17 Lotter cf 12-C-70 frce Victor Ctc11c, 18 URC, to Stephen Powell, CPC, with 19 attached document captiened Order 20 Modifying Construction Permite and 21 two appendices, was niarked f or 22 identif ica tion. )
.23 BY "R. GOOLD:
24 0 ror the record, I'll state that thic is a copy of a Lusad Reporting Servier ,g 3},2 g Lafayette Buddone Swsr hw 962.))'6 Suar 2N Detrat, \fichigan 4.8 26 . ferMMKlon Hdis, \fAican tROI8
c --o 1 document produced by Consumers Power f rom its file;, as 2 indicated by the receipt stamp and various initisls marked 3 on it as apparent recipients. But it also purporte to be 4 a letter dated December G,1979 f rem Mr. Victor Stello to 5 Dr. Stephen Howell of Concumerc ?cuer and attachc ' te it G ic a document captiened Order !*odifying Conctruction 7 Permits and two appendicec. 3 Can you identify thic document, I*r . 9 Gallagher? 10 A It's the December 5,1979 Order Modifying Constructicn 11 Permits at the Midland Plant. 12 0 Uhy was this Order iscued? 13 A It was part of the URC enforcement acticn th t vac beinc; 14 taken ac a result of the invectigatien into the coil: 15 settlement problems. 15 0 "c've covered the December 4, ir73 meeting at which ! 17 comments were nado concerning accept:nec criteria for the 13 Diesel Generator Duilding sc uell as 10 C"n 50.54 rcquet:c 10 iscued in the inc,tance of M: 3rc 235 in Dovember, 20 apparently of 1979 Did Concumerc rcQor recponces to ':PC 21 requests f or inf ormation play any role in the iscuance, in 22 the decision to issue this Order? (; 23 MR. DRIKER: Mould you repeat the quecticn, 24 please? k ffhh &h ff , -k N , SuIar hk) 962 lIo'b Suar 2;m Tarmaston Hdis, %kitan 48018 Detut, %kisan 43:26
1 . MR. JEUSEM: I don' t know whether we 2 ostablished any basis f or how Gene Gallagher would' know 3 about a document authored by Victor Stello. 4 CY MR. GOOLD: 5 0 Let ec focus on the Order itself, whether you played any G role in the incuance of this order, :'r. Callaghor ? 7 A Yec. . 9 0 "hat was that? 9 I, I was primarily the author in a major part. 10 0 of which documents in particular, cir? 11 A The onclosure, starting on pagn five of the enciccure, the 12 firct enclosure identifying those activitiec which nhould
, 13 be ctopped and the Appendi:: A entirely.
14 0 Let no make cure I understand what you' re ref erring to 15 b.ef ore Appendi:: A. The Order Modifying conctructica 15 Formits itself? 17 A That's correct. - 13 0 The te::t of that Order? 19 A Separate from the legal citations. 20 0 Did you believe it wa: necescary for the URC to issue such 21 an Order? l 22 A Definitely. C- 23 0 Uhy? 24 1. To stop them fecm doing any further work until the issue I.afayette Busldme
- f. u d Reportine Servier go g),j, ,y 3 she sw 962 ))?6 & ate 2,%
()etmu. \fichica 492:s Farminston Ihlis .\fschieu 48018
.o
.l. was completely , resolved.
-2 O That's what I'm trying to got at, is what issue?
3 A The iscue of proceeding and doing work, remedial work 4 prior to really resolving entirely the caucec, what 5 corrective actions need to be taken to preclude further G deficiencice f ren eccuring and aloc the cuitability of the 7 remediec enat they were propocing. !!y rccommenda tion had C been to iscue an order sinilar to this uell in advance of 0 December, back in !! arch of 1979 10 0 t' hat precipitated the decicion to iccue thic Order in 11 Decc=ber 11/79, what brought the issue to a head? 12 A I don',t recall. I think i: wac just the len's proccan that 13 .it took to getting all cf the partice in the :'nc to be in 1.5 agreement with iccuing the Order, the enf orec: pent peopic, 15 , the r.anagement, the regional partiec. 16 0 "ac therr> any problem with unavailability of Ur.C rer connc 1 17 concerned with I:idland at this time, anc that is 1C70, 18 leadinc to the incuance of this Order becauce of Threc 19 !!ile Island? 20 A e
. s.
21 0 17 hat problem, if any, was there? 22 A 1: ell, our findingc were published in early !! arch of 197 9. f', V 23 Very chortly thereaf ter the Threc tille Island accident 24 occurred and diverted considerable recources within the L"t*'l R* Porting Service gg 3[5 Isfortto ikldat
.%to hk) 962 11?6 Smte :20
[ktmt. \fichiesn 49:26 Fammaton Hstis, \fschsea A9018
1 URC f rom other plant issues. 2 O How about with respect to gootechnical issucc? 3 A 1:o. 4 0 Mo problem? 5 A F. ore the management and enforcement staff. 5 0 Let me direct your attention to the firct page of the 7 Order l'odifying Conctruction Permite, botton paragr ph. 3 The statement there appears, cecond centence, "Thic 9 invectigatien revealed a bror.kdoun in quality accurance" 10 and goes on with ct.ecificc. ::as that your conclucien? 11 A Yes. 12 0 Did you ever di'scusc with !!r. Horn whether he agreed that 13 there had been a breakdown in quality assurance? 9 14 A Yes. - 15 0 that did he cay? l 16 A Ee agreed. 17 o to you recall when you had cuch diccuccienc? 10 A Mot cpecifically. 19 -Q I'm trying to find out if you ca'n put a crecific timef race 20 on this. 21 A tio, I can' t. 22 !!R. CRIRCRs For purpoccc of the record, ! *. r . C. 23 G ool d, this copy of the letter, an Order f rom the UEC, I b 24 do not believe is f rcm Consumers Pever's files because all 3 06
, u, m, Lut0d R*Po!! ink Sersice m, y,,,,, yy gg, ny; . 962 1i?6 Suar 2:0 fanntnete lidh, \fwk can WIR Detroa. \lvkitan M:6
- 1. of our de:>:1ents have the prefix nine. I don' t know if .
2 this is f rom the nechtel file since it has a Dechtel 3 receipt stamp on it. 4 I:n. GOOLD: I think you' re richt. This 5 would be f eca ! r. Peck's files, I believe, becauce of the G ?. 7 PY *:n. GCOLD: 8 0 Let e direct your attentien to page tuo of the Order. 9 There's a ref erence there to, in the first f ull paragraph, 10 a statement beginc, second sentence, "In addition, as 11 described in Appendi:: B to this Order, a material false 27 statement "as made in the FS An in that the FSAn faltely i e 9 13 stated that ' All fill and backfill were placeo accordirg 14 t,o Tabl e 1. 5 -0. ' This statement is material in that thit 15 portion of the PS An ucule have been f ound unaccepta bic 15 without f urther Staf f analytic and cuestient if the Senff 17 had knoun that Category 1 structure had be.:n placed in 13 fact on random fill rather than controllgd compacted 10 cohocive fill as stated in the PS An. " Mas that your 20 concl u si on, si r ? 21 A In part. 22 0 Can you e:: plain what was meant by the term random fill? ' () 23 A 1 can only give you the definition that Consumers and 24 3echtel themselves defined it ac. i i
, ,,y,y, Lusod Reportine Service ygo [1,,
$$te MO 9b2 Ii?6 Suur :.m iktreet. \lakisu 482.% Tomsutn fisits, \takten vsols ,
- 1. .0 Okay.
2 A "Any fill free of organic motorial." 3 0 And you've used the term, the Order uces the term 4 controlled compacted cohesive fill in the final linc of 5 that paragraph. Uhat nac your understanding ac to what 6 that meant? 7 A Just what it really stetes. It's colf-c:: plana tory. 8 Controlled in that there vac centrole in pla,cing and 0 compacting the fill and tocting the fill; cohecive in the: 10 it was a clay material. 11 C You've mentioned that you were given a definiticn cf 12 ' random fill by Ecchtel 3.nd Concemer c Fcwcr peopic. Forc 13 you alco told by anyone f rom Ecchtel or Consumerc Pcuer 14 , that random fill was in fact uced in piece of centrolled 15 compacted cohocive fill? 13 A It vac chcun on the dravingc. 17 0 i: hat do you mean by the drawings? 13 A The drawings that idantify the caterial that vac to be 10 placed. ' It wac identified ac random fill. 20 9 Chay. And you considered the dif f erence between 21 controlled compacted cohesive fill and random fill to be a 22 material false statement? r~.
'v 23 A :yself and the people f rem the !!Rn geotechnical 24 engineering branch.
74,, g,,s, Luzad Reportine Service , y),, 6 y s;a, sw 962 1976 sato zm Detroa, nakiras m.% Farminate Hills, \takisan 4801R
d 1 O Let.mo ask why you reached that conclunion, why -- did you 2 conclude there was a mat'erial dif f erence between 3 controlled -- 4 UR. DnIntn: The quection bef ore thic 5 question, would you read it back, .. hat Mr. Goold cald? I 5 thought he raic that you considered the dif f erence between 7 random fill and cohesive conpacted fill as c material 9 falce statement. I don' t think that' c the vituerc' 9 tectimeny. 10 (The requected portien of the 11 record was read back as foe.lmes: 12 "O. Chay. Aad yo" considered the 13 dif f erence between controlled 14 , compacted fill a:id random fill to 15 be a material falce 3 tument?"), 10 E '1 "_". . CCCLD: 17 0 f:hy di,6 you chare that conclucion? 18 A The reasons were as f ollcws: One, it uns not co nt r oll e t', 19 tw o , it usc not adequately compacted to the requirenente 20 that uore ctated in the FSAn and, three, it uac no't , 21 cohecive material. There were many other typec of 22 materials, as the word random suggests, used. 23 0 Did you believe that the f ailure to control the content of 24 the fill had any contributing role in the coils probicac? i ggay,,,, gyg,, Lutod Reportsng Service , 30;y Suur MO 962 1!;*6 Suu, zy) Mut. \fwkissa AC6 Farmington HJh. \fwktean Rull8
1 A .Ye s ., 2 0 Uhy? What I'm trying to find out is, what is bad about 3 f ailing to control the content of the fill in your 4 judgment? 5 A If one docon' t know at overy point in tire the t..atcrial 5 that one ic ucing, then you' re li!:ely to get irto the 7 problem thct we neu have at !'idland uithout the centro 1n 9 that they bcd in place or that they did not have 'in place. 9 n Let ce direct your attention to page four of the Order. ' 10 contence there appearc, "He have concluded that the 11 cuality accurance deficiencicc involving the ccttlement of 12 the Diocel Generato~r Building and coils activiticc at the 12 Midland cite, the falce ctatement in th e .'S An a nd th e 14 unrecolved caf ety iscue concerning the adequ cy of tha 15 remedial action to correct the deficiencicc in the coil , 1G construction under and arounG caf et',r-related structurec 17 and cystenc are adequate bare: to rcfucc tc gr;nt c 13 construction permit and that, therefore, cucpension of 19 certain activities under Construction Permitc l'c. Cr??- 01 20 and Co. C??R-82 is warranted until the related caf ety 21 iscuec are resolved." Do you see that language, sir? 22 A Yec. (s 23 0 Did you agree with that? 24 A Absolutely. I 310 1.us d Reportsng Service my ,,,, y lajhyettr ikdding Sua, rw 962 11i6 Suar .4 Detrat, \fwkiaan 482:6 Ferminston Hdis. \lvkitan M018
" 0~
.1 0 .If you had known that the fill at the site was-being 2 placed -- if you had como to the site and done the camo 3 investigatien in substanco in 1977 that you did beginning 4 in Auguct of 1970, woulo you have ecme tc the cane 5 conclusion?
5 ::n. DnI"On Obj ection, lecding, c lle for 7 speculation. 0 O!! C U I T!:E S S : Can I ancuor thac? 9 l'n. JEUSE": If you feel you can give on 10 ansucr to that. 11 A Yes. 12 - 17. . GOOLD: Uhy don' t uc t ke a break here. 13 (A brief reccca uss hele during 14 the. pr oceedings. ) . 15 EY ::n. GCOLD: , 15 0 Let me show you a document, which I'll ach the repor ter tc 17 mark ac C?C 525. 13 (Deposition Exhibit Do. CFC 52 5, 19 CPCO Discuccion of UnC Increction 20 Factc neculting f rca the Invectigatic: 21 of the Discel Generator Duilding 22 settlement, dated 3-9-79, use marked C* 23 for Identifica tion.) 24 DY l'n. GOOLD: l Suier hw Luzod Reporting Service 962 11I6 m [1 y
' Suite :M Detmt. \fichsten 48 :6 Fermarm HJls. %htaan 48018
1 .0 Tahe .as.much time as you' d like to look through it. . I 2 first want to ash if you can identify this as a copy of a 3 document submitted by Consumers Pcwer to the !!nc and 4 receivcd by you at or about the dates indica ted. It's a 5 thick one. G A Yeah, I recall it. 7 o C?n you identify fer the record uhat it ucc, to ycur 3 understanding, what thic c7.ocument rcprecented te your 9 understanding? 10 7. It's consumers Pcwor Company's recponte to the firdingu 11 that s c ecde at a 1: arch 5th,1979 meeting. 12 0 Pir t of all, vere those in the nature of a responce tc 13 report 78-207 . 14 1. I don' t believe 70-20 wac i::ced a: of yet at this r,oint 15 in tinc.' It ua: a recponce to what vould generally be 16 included in 73-20 but it wat merc a responte to wha: ue 1 17 called our prelininary finding: as of 1::rch !:h. 18 n Let me direct your attention to attachment number enc on 19 this document, which begins on page 91701133, 20 A t.11 right. , 21 0 And continuing through to page, the last three digit are 22 148. And that comprises attachment one to this e::hibit, 23 does it not? shat is attachment one? 24 7. At ta chment one is the, as entitled, Precentation of Lafayetto ILdlag Lutod Reporting Service , s.g ,~; 31, kwr hw 962 1176 Swr, >h , Detrat. \t.chigu 48%% Fermartm HJh. thchw 4s018
e O 1 Investigation. Findings of the.Sottlement of the Diccol 2 Generator Building and Plant Area Fill, dated February 23, 3 1979. 4 0 Did you prepare thosc invectigatten findingc? 5 1 Entirely. : G 0 t.nd what relatien did the invectigation finding: have to 7 report 73-207 G A' They are -- they par: 11ci, in many reapects, the l 9 diccussicn that's centoined in 73-20, 10 0 And were your invectisccion findings prepared unGor the 11 same ground rules as report 70-20? By that I mean, di d 12 you prepare those in the perf ormance of your duties ac en 13 Unc employeo? 14 A Yoc. 15 O Did you prepare those ac an official "nC docunent? 15 A Yoc. 17 n "crc thoce iccued as a pealic doce:nont to Consumcrc Tcuer? 13 A Yoc. i 1 19 'n And in preparing the invec igation findingc what vac,thr: q > 20 purpoce, uhat wcn ycur purpoco in preparing these 21 invectigations findings? 22 IA To expeditiously precent to Consumer s and Occhtel the i \~/ results of our inve tigation at that point in time rather 23 1 l 24 than wait f or the f ormal report, which ended up being , s-. nw c - ~ . .. - s., ~ . 9s:.si.s _ _w s-,:n ,,, - l Dnrat, \f.ekiaan av.% Farmneton lidh. \fwkwan swia ; 1
t 1 :78-20, t: be incued later on dcwn tho- road. 2 0 And when you prepared the investigation findingc did you 3 have any understanding as to whether Concumers Pcuer vonld
; be given an opportunity to recpond to thoco findingc?
5 A These 'r this document? S n Yes. 7 ?. Yec. "o ence,uraged that they recpond. C ( l And did Concumor o Pouer do co? 9 A Yec. , 10 0 Did they prepara eny documente embodying a recpontse? 11 A Yes. 12 'O t? hat is that? - 13 A Attachment number tuo to this document. 14 O And was attiennent number tuo submitted to the "T.C on or 15 about l' arch 9,197 97 15 1. Yec. 17 C And what ucc ycur ur.derstandir.g ac to uh:: Conc.urert 13 Pow e r ' s -- wha t role did Consumer: Pcuer' c recponce, plcy L 19 in the regulatory process? 20 A !?ith regard to what? 21 C First let'c focus on report 78-20. I'm trying to find out 22 what the f r=cwork it. You've iscuca a cummarsi cf your C. 23 findings as attachment one to this document; ic that 24 correct? i n,. a Luzod Reportssc Servier 9s:. m s
, . 3f s.c. :2, ,
Decrea. %Meu 48:.% Farmsneton Hdin. Whiru 4MI8 ;
1 A . Yes. 2 0 You encouraged Concuuers Power to recpondi is that 3 correct? I 4 7. That's cor rect. 5 l0 1 Uhy did you do that? J C li Peceuce ! think it' c j uct a natter of conducting our 7 l bucinocc. "e make findingc, we look f or a recponce to n - those fi - 9 0 And that ponto is attachment tuo to the docunent ? 10 7. That's correct. 11 0 Did you ever learn uho vaa tnr incipio draf ter..un, if 12 there vac :uch a percon, of ths icumerc rcuct r e t te n :,e ? ' 13 A I don' t recall. It was trancmitted under the cubmittal cf 14 Concumere rever. 15 C Let =c direct your attentien to,page, ucil, the lect three 16 digits in the serial nu-ber arc 155. Pe cu c ci ne: on tha 17 cecond paragr:.ph up frcn the botto:.., which beginc, "T r cr. 13 August 1,1977 to the ceccatien of fill operction with the 10 onset of the winter 1977-1973 ceason, there was a chance." 20 ::n. DnIREn: Defore you go further, may I 21 acsume the margin hanb ritten notaticn is yours? ; i 22 i'n. GOOLD: Ooet it cay proper engineering? 23 I'R. DR I.",E n : That'c what it cays. 24 "n.. GOCLD: Okay, that's mine. 7 Luted Reporting Sernice 315 fathyette B.alda: M 40 %.rthuruem fluy
% e 6%) 902 Il?6 Suar 23) ikrost, \ltktan 412:n ,
ferussatus fislls \fwhaten 4%)18
s.. >c -
.;1. - BY MR. .GOOLD: : , ,
2 # Uhat -I.'d like to know is whether you ever learned why such 3; 'a change was made? f 4- A Uo. , 5 0 Let me direct your attention to the page where the last 6 three digits are 161. That page and the previous one beer
- 7. the l$cading !!RC Preliminary Pinding Dumber 8. Did you go o.
8 cver this submiscion by Constocrs Pcuer at or about the 9 time it came in? 10 A 'Yec. 11 Q. Under the heading URC Preliminary Finding 8 there's the . 12 discussion which appears on page 91701160 and the 'ne::t 13 page and the statement then appears, just before the 14 heading Conclusions on page tuo o: ao, page 917 01161, , l 15 that "Each uce-as-is disposition was evaluated by CPCo to 16 insure - that the dispositioning van concietent with quality 17 assurance program requi rementc. " to you see that? 18 A Um-ha. 19 0 , Did you have any reaction to thst uhen you read it? ~ 20 A I don' t recall that'I did. 21 Q Look under the heading Conclusion, subparagraph B. 22 There's a statement, "Except for UCR 199, the corrective Q 23 action process was implemented." Do you know what that 24 ref erence to MCR 199 was about? 30 Luzod Reporting Service 39g,n 3,,,,,n ,,, ,7wy_
,,,, g, Suite f20 962 1176 Sune 220
.Dn,oit. Alichigan 48226 Farmington Hilli Stichigan 48018
,,. - .. _ _ _ _~ -. - . . . . . .- . _-
- 1
- ; O f ,
..,1..
A Mo,; no.t offhand.
, .2 0 Uas -a: meeting held with anyone f' em-Bechtel r or Consumers
~ ~
3- Power to go over this in which you participated? O 4 A- . I' don' t' recall at this point whether there was. 5 Q. Let ~me direct your attentien to page 91701190. First let
~ 6- me ' ash .you to turn to the previous page, which ' identifies
~
7 , the question responded to there. Do.you see the reference S to URC question "tihat is the condition of tho coils under-9 all other plant arecc of the site"? 10 A- "here is that?
- 11 C Very top of. the page.
12 A Okay<
.13 0 Did you revieu this portion of the document -- I' m corry.
14 Let me state this is attachment three to the e.:hibit? 15 I. That's correct. 16 MR. DRIKER: 17 hat is the Catec tiunber? , 17 E Y :C . GCOLD: - 13 0 . Let's go back to page 91701180, which is a document marked 19 as attachment three, "Preliminary March 5, 1979 Connumers 20 Power Company response to URC question on the condition of 9 21 soils under all other plant areas". 17ha t I' d like to know
- 22 is whether you received a copy of attachment three to this 23 exhibit at or about the same time?
24 A Yes. 9 Luzad Reporting Service 39g,g 3,,,,,,},},] ,7w,. gg,y,gge g,;;gi,,, , Suite MO 962.]176 Suae g2o , Detroit. Alichigan 48226 Farmington Ihlis. Alichigan 18018 c
. (Wh , .
,l1 , Q , And did you . review it.?
~
2 A-. I don' t recall' specifically. It was submitted to us-and
'3- we were pursuing all submittals.
"/
, 4 O Let me direc't your attention finally to.page 91701190, I
'5 bottom paragraph, the discussion of the Au::iliary
'd 6 Duilding. Take a moment to read that if you will. 7 A U m- ha . 3 0 Did you find that response saticfactory? 9 A I don' t think we made a determination whether it. uar 10 satisfactory or unsaticfactc/y at that time. 11 9 This document uns issued in March, is dated March 5, 1979.
,12 l Subs 6quently a request was' made for Consumerc Pouer to 13 take borings at the Auxiliary Building'; is that correct?
1 14- A That's correct. , l i 15 0 Did you participate in any deliberations regarding whether 16 - th e r eq ue st should be made_ f or .additienc1 borince at the 17 Auxiliary Building? ! e i 13 A Yes. 19 Q Did you believe those borings were needed? ' .
-20 A I believe I convinced the people that they ucre needed.
21 Q Did you ever discuss with anyone f rom Conseners Pmier this 22 response, that is the response on page 91701190, C 23 concerning the Auxiliary Building? 24 A Co. l i 0 Luzod Repor:ing Service 39y9 3,,,,, ,,, y,,. Lafayette BWiding SWie 630 962 1176 - Suite 220 Detroit. Sfichigan 48226 Farmington Hills, Aiichiran 2018
e 1; 0. . :Did 'you ever ask; why. borings:.were Ibeing taken on Category - 2' -l' structures elsewhere on the site but not. at the - 3- toxiliary Building?- 4 A ' I. don' t . r ocall.. 5 0: .Having looked at this I'm trying to find out if you can 6 recall . any justifica tion given, to your -knowledge, by 7 Consumers Power regarding why borings had not been tchen 8 or at least disclosed to the UnC through ricrch 1979 at the 9 Auxiliary Building? , 10- IIR . DRIKER: You've asked quite a f eu 11 different questions in there. First you asked if they had 12- been taken, then you asked if they had been disc 1cced. 13 UR. GOOL D: Road the questi'en back. 14 (The requested portio,n of the 15 record uns rer.d back as f ollows: 15 "O. Having locked at this I'm trying 17 to find out if you can recall any 18 justifica tion given, to your knowledge,
~19 by Consumers Power regarding why 20 borings had not been taken or at least 21 disclosed to the NRC through March 1979 22 at the Auxiliary Building?")
b' 23 !!R. DRIKER: Just bef ore you answer the 24 question, Mr. Gallagher, I again urge you to speak on Lafayette Building I'uz d Reporting Service 30640 Nonhue then fluy. Suite MO , 962.I176 . Suite 220 Detroit,'.\fichigan 48226 . Farminston lidis. Michigan 48018
- l. .h ,
perso.nal knowledge and no,t to. surmise or guess.; And i t's
~2' g
not clear to me f rom 'Mr. Goold' c question when br. ic 3 ' talking about, what period of time'he's asking you to
- ' 4 respond as of, and ;if .you want an opportunity - t'o review 5 this document to.refrcsh your recollection, which is about 5- 30 pagcc 1cng, I uoulc urge you to do that rcther than 7 just hazard a guess en something like that.
8 A Up to this point in tir.e? 9- BY MR. GOOLD: 10 0 That's right, up to this point in tice. 11 A Consumers was of the contention that the colle settlecent 12 problem was localized, confined to the Diccol Generator I 13' Suilding, and even whet we conducted the meeting of tiarch' 9 S th the MRC's -- ba sed on the concent 14 i that Concupers vas. 15 making to the URC we, I certainly, didn' t even believe 16 that they thought there wac any problem. tre hept j l? scrasching our heads almoct in ject to the poi.it uhare, la you know, ue haven' t convinced Consumers there's a problem i 19 at all as of yet. And that was what triggered our ITC's , 20 investigating f or the borings to be taken beyond the l 21 Diesel Generator Building and them responding to 50.54 F t 22 questions, like the one, question number one and number
%d 23 23. Until they recognized and acknowledged that they had l 24 problema,' identified those problems and recommended i
h Luzod Reporting Service 30 y .,,,, g,,g 3gg,g g,,5,,, ,,, ,7,,. Sur sw 962 1176 ' Suite no Detroit, Michigan 48226 Farminston flills, Alichigan 48018 .
a
, ..,, _- .1- . correz;1ve actions not much more.was going to be done.
~
2' 0- And- subsequently ~ the borings you requested were in f act
~
3 taken at the Auxiliary Building, were they not? l , 4 A Th roughout the site.
.5 0 And .2at did the borings show with respect-to the-fill at 6 the Auxiliary Building?
'7 A The came material that's underneath the Diecel Generctor C- Duilding. .
9 0 Let me show ycu a document, which I'll ask the reporter to 10 mark as PX CPC 526. 11 (Deposition Enhibit No. PX CPC 526, 12 Consumers Power Document f rura J. L. 13- Corley/n. G. Uollney to D. U. 14 , Marguglio, 3-30-79, Subj ect : 15 Midland Proj ect-NRC C::it Geoting of 16 Ma r ch 2 9, 197 9, was marked for 17 identif ica ti on. ) 18 BY "R. - GCOLD: 19' O .This is a Consumers Pcwor document and I' d first like to 20 know if you recall having an enit meeting at the Midland 21 site on or about March 28-29, 19797 22- A Yes. C' 23 0 Uhat is an enit meeting by the way? 24 A Just a departure meeting that the Nnc personnel brief or Lafayrtte Building Lu:od Reporting Sereice 3,,,g 3,,,,,,},),,1 ,7,,,
. Suur Am 962 1176 Saue 220 Detroit. \fichigan 48226 Farmington Hills, Afichigan 18018
e t,' 1- Ldebrief with the li:.insee as to what. our findings were. 2 0 At the' March 28-29 exit meeting, tiarch -29 exit meeting. 3 rather, do you recall making;a statement in subctance as 4^ '4 indicated in the .botten paragraph off this pcge? ' 5 A . Ye c . 6 0 Uhy did you suggest a "joint venture" to determinc 7 possible causes of the cettlement problem? 8 A Decause up to that point in time it was my un6erstanding 9 that they ucrc not working j ointly touarde the conmon 10 objective of finding out what the problems were and how 11 they would identify corrective actions if neeccd. 12 0 You' ve used' the tern "them" in that answer.
'13 A . Consumer s and Dechtel .
, 14 0 Uhat was the problem, if you know?
15 A The problem uas the coils cettlem.ent problem which wac 16 straining relations between the tuo companicc.
,17 0 That's all on that.
18 Let me show ou a document, which I'll ach 19 the reporter to acek as PX CPC 527. 20 (Cepocition E::hibit tio. , PX CPC 5 27, 21 Three-page handwritten document, 22 was marked f or identification.) 23 BY MR. GOOLD: 24 Q This is a handwritten document, which I'll represent at g.,gg, gjgy, Luzod Reporting Service gn 3 32',y .
~
Sar hy 962 1176 Suite 2M , Detroit. Michigan 48226 Farmkaton Hills, Michigan 48018
3 s 1, _ [least;.to; be Mr. Horn's handwriti..], I believe. I' m 2 interested in particular_on the final page of this
.3 document. First'let me ask this: . Did you i.nterview a Mr.
f 4 Dettc frca Bechtel? J 5 A- I__ believe we did. 6 O Do vou recc11 what his position wac? 7 A Dot at this, point. 8 O Do you rocc11 whether he l'ac a ' civil engineer? 9 A Yec, he was. 10 Q- Uas he involved in the solle work? 11 A. Ho_was a field engineer. 12 0 Did you ask Mr. Betts about the difference between the-13 modified proctor and the sechtel codified proctor 14 . compaction standardc? 15 A Yes. , 16 O Did Mr. Detts give you any explanation oc to, first, which
.l 17 standard ucs actuc11y used in the placement of the fill?
18 A It's not clear at this time. 19 0 Did Mr. Betts confirm that the Dechtel modified proctor 20 was used by- the field engineering staff at the site? 21 A I believe that was his position at that time. 22 0 Let me direct your attentien to about halfuay down the
- R 23 page where the notation appears, "Strange, D1557 -vc- BMP" 24 and the ne::t line states, "Money-more costly." First let Luzad Reporting Service 30840 sonhubtSrn Hwy.
Lafayette Building Suite MO 962 1176 Suste 220 Detioit. Stichigan 48226
- Farmington flills,3fichigan 48018
'l
- mef ask whether .you.-recall at :least having lech: d at this 2' document- that's the subject of the D1557 compaction 3 . standard versus Bechtel modified proctor that came up in
" 4' your' interview of !:r. Betts? -
4 5 A -Yes. 6 0 f.nd do you recall uhat c::planation, if any, he gcve es to 7 why the Ecchtel modifiod proctor vac used? . 8 A I really don' t. 9 0- Do you recall being told in substance that a decicicn had 10 been made to use a less costly compactica ctandcrd? 11 A I really don' t recall.- 12 -
!!n. DRI*ER: Obj ection, leading quecticn.
7 13 BY l'R. GOCLD: 14 0 Let me chou you a document, which I'll ask the r'oporter to ga *e 15 ' ma r k a s P". !!RC G O . , 16 (Deposition E::hibi t tic. PY. tin'C 6 0, 17 I;nC Inspection Report 79-00, dated l , 18 April 9,197 9, was marked f or 19 identification.) t 20 DY !!R. GOOLD: 21 4 Can you identify this document? 22 A It's an 11RC Inspection Report 79-06. 23 Q Did you play any role in the preparation of this e::hibit? L 24 A I wrote it. Luzod Reporting Service
,,,, g,,q 30640 Nonkurs e llwy.
Suite MO 962'1I76 Suite 220 a Detrost. .tfichigan 48226 . Farminkton Hills .\fichigan 48018
l 6 C l 1.; G- Did: you. write .in _particular . the Inspection Repor t .which i 2' -appears beginning on page 905177607 - l 3 A Yes. ?? -4 0 And' di.d you1also prepare this report like the others 'in 5 the perf ormance of your of ficial duties as an UnC 6 employee? ,
'? A Yes.
9 0 Let me direct your attention to page si:: of the Innpection 9 Report, under the heading CPCo Investigaticn of Pcesible 10 Causes of the Plant Area Fill Settlement. Doncath that 11 there's a series of subparagraphs, A through M. Do you 12 see those? 13 A Yes. . 14 0 Do you recall what your source w'as for the information , 15 stated in those subparagraphn? 15 A Con Ecrn. 17 0 How did he communicate it to you? 13 A I believe- he gave me a sheet with that list on it. 19 0 Let me direct your attention to subparagraph L, the l l 2,0 , reference there to inspection procedures after l' arch 1977. 21 Do you see chat, sir? I l 22 A Yes. 23 0 Do you recall what that was all about? 24 A Uc, I don' t. I was merely reporting what Consumers had 1.afayette Buildine
'usod Reporting Service , 3,,g5 g .,
Suite hw 962 1176 Swie 220 Detroit. \fichigan 48226 Farmington Hills, \fichigan 48018 4 m
.'_9- ,
;3,
;. 1 given me as a' list of.possible causes.
2 0 Let me show you a document, which I'll ask the reporter tb
! 3 mark as PX DEC 236.
I 4 (Deposition E::hibit No. PZ nEC 235, 5 Interoffice Hemorandum to S. Afifi, 6 da te d 11-13-7 8, subj ect : Jcb 7220 7 "idland Proj ect, Comp' action Tert 0 hection, :'idland Units 1 and - 2, 9 Midland, Dich iga n, voc marked 10 for identification.) 11 EY HR. GOOLD: 12 0- Let me first ask this. You've deccribed your rcqucct for 13 compaction equipment qualification reportc. Do you rccall 14 when you first, appro::imately when you first made n
, 15 ,
request f or that inf ormaticn? 16 A Some time in 1973 . 17 q Okay. Can you take a 1cok at thic document, T Z " ".C T35, 18 and tell me if you received a copy of this on or e. bout the 19 date indicated, UcVember 1970? , 20 A I don' t recall. It does not look f amiliar. 21 0 Okay. Did you ever learn that tests of compaction 22 equipment had been done in Movember 1070 which indicated -
'('
23 that, "Dased on the results of this test,- heavier 24 equipment would help increase the percent compaction and i Luzod Reporting Service 30 74,y,,,, giggy, 39Hg y,hl,,,, ,7w,. l
. Suste MD 962 1176 Suite 220 -
-__ u __.
' ** # # * **#'**"' '#"" ? '
, v ,
'1 1
- JL- l '. that the -clays should be compacted in lif ts less than 2- eight inches in ' loose thickness".7 3 A Yes. T 4 Q 'Ucre you ever informed in substance that a compaction test S- had been done in liovember 1970 with the conclusion as I've 6 . indicated? r i 7 A, I don' t recall. ,
'8' O ~ Let me shou you a document, which I'will ask the rcrorter 9 to mark as PM CPC 528. ,
10 (Deposition E::hibit no. CPC 528, 1 11 Oral Communications Record, 12 dated 5-12-00 and 5-13-00, was ; i g '13 marked f or identification.) l 14 Ei* !4R. GCOLD: i f 15 Q This is a document. produced by Consumers Pcver and appearc 1G to be -- is headed an Oral Communications necord, dated f 17 5-12-00 and 5-13-00. And I' d like to see if this
'1
[ 18 refreshes your recollection as to during what times you 19 were requesting reports on compaction equipment f rom h
~
20 Consumers Pouer. 21 A For about a year and a half, i i l 22 Q Let me direct your' attention to page tuo of this document. ;
\;
23 A statement there appears, "!:r. Gallagher wondered how we . 24 could have been placing soils since last summer if a f l i f I
,y Luzod Reporting Service ,og,g y,g,),Q y,,.
%arhw 962 1176 Suite 2%
Detroit, Michigan 48226 Farmington Hills. Michigan Mol8
e
. 1- aut.lification report had no.t been reviewed and approved by 2 Q ual i ty . " Did you make a statement in substance as 3 indicated there?
4 A Yes. 5 Q Did you ever get a response f ron Consumers Pcwer? 5 A I don' t believe so. . 7 o "ell, it's j ust about noon, according to my uatch anyum. l 3 I' d suggest this ir a convenient time to adj ourn f or the 9 day, given I'r. 'Gallagher's ccnnitment, and ve'll resume 10 t om o r r as' morning. 11 (At 12:00 noon, the deposition 12 wac adj ourned.) 13 14 15 , lG 17 13 19 20 21 22 b 23 24 323 Luzod Reporting Service gg 3.g,,,, y lxfayette Buildine Suite MO 962.I176 Suae 220 Detrat, \fichigan 2226 FarmL4 ton Hills, \fkhigan Mil 8
r-a 1 2 - STATE OF !-!ICHIG AM )
) SS 3 COUUTY OF UAYMC )
I 4 I, Glenn G. I*ill e r , : Tota ry Pul'lic 5 within and f or the Cc.'nty of Uayne, State of I:ichigan, do 5 hereby certify thct tne witnccc uhoce attached deposition 7 ucs taken bef ore ao in the above-entitled matter wac by me 2 duly cuorn r.: the cforenonticned tine and place; that tho 9 tecticony civen by said witnecc ,ac ctenogry.hically 10 recorded in the presence of said uitnesc and afterucrdc 11 tranceribed by computer under my personal supervision, 5 f } 12 and that the said depori tion ic a f ull, true and correct 13 tranceript of the testimony given by the witnesc. 14 - I further certify that I an not ccnnected . 15 b'f b1 cod or marriage with any of the partiec or their 16 ctterneyc, and that I an not an empicyee of ei ther of th e ., l 17 nor finc.ncially interet.ted in the acticn. 10 IU UITUCSS UI: REOP, I have hercunto ca l 19 cy hand at the City of Detroit, County of Hayne, State of 20 j !:i chiga d, thic MVM day of , 1904. V . , 21 22 / } y GT.EU:: G. I:ILL CR, !?otary Public 23 Uayne County, l'ichiga n 24 I:y Commiccion 3;:pires: 4-22-07 Luzod Reporting Service 329 Isfayette Buddine 3a9y) %,thu ,rern ((u y. Suntorao 9h2.I176 , Su,g,220 Detrost, \fichigan -49226 Fa,.ntneton tidls. \fichigan 69018
. . . ,}}