ML19224D368
| ML19224D368 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1979 |
| From: | Klomparens A AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907110641 | |
| Download: ML19224D368 (54) | |
Text
- - -- - -~~ ~
_ _ _.== :::--
NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM c, _, - - n T U
) '.
w a v.
2., _ _2 F
NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DEPOSITION OF ALDEN S.
KLOMPARENS Place.
Midland, Michigan Date.
Monday, 14 May 1979 1-53 pog,,
l Insecnone
- wc::
1 I
ACE - EDERAL REPORTER 5. INC.
l Of5culReconers rD.
h d \\)
l A.L. No n 00:itei 5+ree?
W snir gien. O.C. 20001 N ATIONWIDE COVERAGE - DAILY 790711 064/
WEL/wel UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+
l cs 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 4
DEPOSITION OF ALDEN S.
KLOMPARENS 5
Dew Center Patrick Road and Abbot Street 6
Building 2030 Executive Wing 7
Midland, Michigan Monday, 14 May 1979 8
Deposition of ALDEN S. KLOMPARENS, called for examina-3 tion at 2:15 p.m., pursuant to pren.'"inq conference order tol of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, before Helen M.
11 i
Rabbage, a notary public in and for the County of Midland, 12 l l
State of Michigan, when were present on behalf of the 13 respective parties:
14 WILLIAM J. OLMSTEAD, Esq., Office of Executive Legal 15
- Director, C.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.
C.,
on behalf of the NRC Regulatory 16 Staff.
i 17 WILLIAM C. POTTER, Jr.,
Esq., Fischer, Franklin, Ford, j
Simon & Hogg, 1700 Guardian Building, Detroit, 18 Michigan; R. L.
DAVIS, Esq., Michigan Division, Legal Department, 19 47 Building, Midland, :. ichigan 48640; and l
LESLIE F. NUTE, Esq., Dow Chemical Company, Midland, 20 "ichigan, 48640, on behalf of Dow Chemical Company, i
s 21 GERALD CHARNOFF, Esq., and ALLEN WEISBARD, Esq.,
I Shaw, Pittnan, Potts & Trowbridge, 1800 M.
- Street, 22 N.W., Washington, D.
C.
20036, on behalf of Consumers Pcwer Company, i
23 j RONALD G.
ZAMARIN, Esq., Isham, Lincoln & Ecale, q
24 !!
One First National Plasa, Chicago, Illinois 60603, on behalf of Consumers Power Compan2 25,
0 l
D if0 bd:$r f::.
G Ed*
C di 444 NORTH C APf TCL STREET W A SHIN GTO N.
O.C.
20C o l (202) 347-3700
I 1
_C_ O.N T _E _ti _T S_
I 2
WITNESS:
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSQ i
3 Alden S. Klemparens 4
16 50 52 43 4
5 EXNIUITS 6.
i 7
(None) 8 !
9 i
10 11 !
i 12 l l
1 l
15 ;
i I
16 17 j
I 18 l
20 t
21 li 22 l
f 23 2a 315 003 25 I
C,2C"$C:3, sC-CJdia C.
CC.
444 NCRTH C A PITO L STREET l
W ASHINGTO N. O.C.
20C01
P I!
3 1
PT OCEED INGS 2
MR. OLMSTEAD:
Before we begin this next depo-3 sition, I'd like to put on the record the fact that the i
4 l
parties in attendance at these depositions on May 14 placed t
5 :
I a conference call to Chairman Miller, Chairman of the 6
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for this proceeding, to l
discuss with him the presence of Mr. William Nute, cotinsel 8
i l
for Dow Chemical Company, at depositions of other Dow 9
personnel.
I 10 i As a result of that conference call, it was stipulated between NFP Staff and counsel for Dow Chemical i
12 i
Company that Mr. Nute wv.ld be excluded from depositions of i
I 13 !
Mr. Wessel and Mr. Durand, and that Mr. Durand would be w
14 excluded from Mr. Mcssel's and Mr. Nute's depositions, and 15 Mr. Uessel would be excluded from Mr. Durand's and Mr. Nute's I
16 depositions.
i I7 Since that resolved the matter in controversy l
18 i
between counsel for the parties present at the depositions, f
k 19 I
l the conference was terminated without the need for a Board l
ruling.
20 21 Is t5 're anything you would like to add, Mr.
22 Potter?
i 23 MR. PCTTER:
And as I understand, we also have l
24 l agreec, though, that Mr. Nute may sit in ca the depositicn 25 of ".r.
Temple and on the depositions to be taken of Consumers t
I Sat.
l cAce-9eje:al" cSepcite:3
{
f 444 NCRTH C A PITCL STREET W A S HIN G TC N. D.C.
20001
.)
(202) 347-3700
4 I '
Power Company people.
m 2
MR. OLMSTEAD; That is correct.
3 MR. POTTER:
I'm scrry -- in any other deposi-tions that may arise, that may come out of these things, l
provided they don't involve Mr. Wessel and Mr. Durand.
5 I
6 MR. OLMSTEAD:
Any other depositions which at 7
this time have been noticed by the Staff.
8 MR. POTTER:
Well, we'll resolve the issue of i
subsequent depositions as they arise.
9 10 MR. OLMSTEAD:
All right.
11 MR. CHAR'IOFF :
Off the record.
l (Discussion off the record.)
12 !
l N
13 !
MR. OLMSTEAD:
Let's go ahead and swear the 14 witness.
i I
i 15 Whereupon, 16 l ALDEN J.
KLOMPARENS 17 was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, 18 was examined and testified as follows:
19 MR. OLMSTEAD:
Mr. Charnoff, while you were out i
of the room, Mr. Klomparens was sworn by the notary public.
20 DIRECT EKAMINATION 21 i
22 BY MR. OLMSTEAD:
23 O
Please state your full name, address and I
24 employment for the record, j
9 l
i 25 A
I am Alden J.
Klcmparens.
I work for Dcw I
Onc c4:e-9edera[ cRepc:te:3,
)l 315 003
... ~c m c..irm
,7 m r
]
.., m ~ c rc ~. x. -
i7021 3 717C0
I atly business manager of styrene plastics.
1
- Chemical, o
~
2 My current address is 1205 Bayberry Lane, Midland, Michigan.
3 Q
Are you now employed in the same capacity as you 4
were during the period July 1, 1976 to June 1, 1977?
i 5
A No.
6 Q
In what capacity were you then employed?
l 7 l A
I was assistant director of sales in Dow, US.
8 Q
Throughout that year's period?
9 A
Yes.
to Q
Prior to September 6, 1976 did you have any role c
11 l on behalf of Dow Chemical Company concerning the Dow-12 Consumers nuclear steam contract?
12,
A No.
14 Q
When were you first assigned responsibilities i
i 15 ;
for Dow relating to that contract?
I 16 A
I think it was about September 14, something i
i 17 like that.
It 5:as about approximately that.
i 18 Q
At or about that time did you attend a presenta-19 tion by Joe Temple of the Michigan Division on that contract i
20 l
which was made to either Paul Oreffice or Dow USA board?
21 A
No.
I Q
Co you have any notes or menos of any meetings q
22 l
0 l
I with Mr. Temple concerning that contract?
23 l
?>
A No, not concerning the centract.
25 0
ilere you present when Mr. Oreffice ordered a c4ce- ]ed'e:a[ chew: ten, $cc.
- ^i;::P 315 006
6 1
corporate review of the contract?
2 A
Yes.
l I
3 Q
Would you relate in your own words what you understood the substance of his direction to be?
4 5
A Mr. Temple asked Mr. Oreffice to consider having i
i Paul a corporate review of the Michigan Division position.
6 1
7 suasequently elected to do that, elected to follow that suggestion, and named a review team, myself as chairman and 8
9 several other members.
Our express charter or objective was to review 10 l
11 the Michigan Division position, as Mr. Temple had stated.
l O
Were there any substantive aspects of that 12 i 13 position that you were to particularly review?
14 A~
I'm not sure I understand that cuestion.
15 Q
Was there anything of particular -- any special 1
16 i
instructions given to you, that you recall?
I i
17 A
Well, there was some guidance given us in terms i
I 18 l
of which areas to look at, from the safety aspects, nuclear 19 versus conventional fuel, some of the other alternate S
technologies of producing steam and power, the impact on 20 i
l the community, impact on future nuclear power -- these 21 22 kinds of things.
23 9 But we were also given free rein to look at 1
24 anythirg we felt had a bearing on the situation.
25 O
Did you request any legal review or analysis of i
i l
c4ce-9e.!c:a[ cRep":ters, Onc.
))) 00 1
444 NORTH C A PITC L STREET W A S HINGTO N, D.C.
2000t i
.....a,.
7 I
1 1
the Dow-Consumers steam contract at that time?
~
l 2
A Did I personally?
i 3
Q Yes.
4 A
No.
I Q
Prior to your review team's getting into the 5
6 substance of the review, and before the final action by 7
the Dow USA board, are you aware of any corporate board i
8 l position, officially or unofficially, endorsing the Michigan l
Division findings before the review that you thought would 9 '
to be necessary or undertaken?
11 A
Mo.
12 O
What was your understanding of Dow's legal obligations under the contract at that time?
13 I
14 A-There was a clause in the contract that stated l
I something to the effect that Dow would support Consumers 15 !
16 Power i; its efforts to obtain the various licenses and 17 Construction permits, and so.on.
And this was a paragraph l
l I think that I read and the entire team had read, review 18 i
l 19 l
team.
20 That was the key thing, I understood, ot.ter than l
l 21 the dates and 22 )
Q What did you understand support" to mean?
d l
j A
Well, to provide testimony where necessary. to 23
- l provide statements in regard to Dow's position witn regard O
24 t
!l i
25 to its future power needs, and so on.
c4ce-]cde:a{ cRe c:te:s, Onc.
444 NORTH C A PITC L STREET W AS HIN GTO N, D.C.
20001 (2C2) 347-3700 g
8 Q
Did that understanding of that particular 1
I l
2 contract phrase affect in any way the review that you 3
undertook for Dow?
i l
4 i A
Well, it's a factor that we had to consider.
5 We have a contract with Consumers Power, and that's one of i
6 I the factors that we had to take into account, certainly, in the review, as opposed to not having a contract at all.
7 8
Q Do you think it weighed heavily, somewhat 9
heavily, not too heavily in the ultimate decision?
10 MR. POTTER:
By ultimate, you mean the one made l
by vow USA board?
11 l
12 MR. OLMSTEAD:
The one made by the review group 13 to recommend to the Dow USA board.
14 THE WITNESS:
Yes, I would say ic was a factor.
l I'll state those categories again, and maybe -- what did
~
15 16 you say?
Heavily --
17 BY MR. OLMSTEAD:
18 Q
Heavily, somewhat heavily or not too heavily.
I 19 l
A Somewhat heavily.
20.
O Maybe I should have said slightly, some and 21 heavily.
I d
22 What lawyer was assigned to you to provide legal l
23 advice?
l 3
24 A
Jim Hanes.
9 I
i 25 Q
Mas there any other lawyer that you consulted c : -]cde:a[ cSep::tcu, $nc A
,l
... ~ c,,1 ~ c.
rm sr,ter j;
.. m ~erc ~. o c. mm 315 00a
9 i
I 1
I during this period of time?
2 A
Well, we didn't consult directly, but Lee Nute 3
helped us in terms of getting us started in the study, providing us with where we should go to get facts, and so 4
i l
on.
And Jim Hancs was mainly legal counsel on the review 5
6 team.
I i
l Q
During the course of the review did the members 8
of the team exchange memoranda, notes, thoughts, or any
~
9 !
kind of written commu.-tcations?
i l
A Oh, yes.
Not a lot of written communication.
10 11 !
We met, divided up our task in a coordinated fashion, and 12 both.did our own thing -- or all of us did our own things.
13 l I did mainly the coordination and integration of these.
s I
14 l And we met frequently to discuss the progress, coordination l
15 of the things left to do.
I Q
Did someone develop meeting notes of those 16 i
i meetings that you had?
17 18 A
I don't recall we had any formal notes.
There i
I 19 may have been some written things.
If there were they 20 should be in the notes that I would have taken and others I
I 21 on the tean.
But there were no structured notes of those
]
meetings.
22 23 Q
When the review was cocpleted and you made your
.i 24 presentation to the Dow corporate board, did you prepare 9
I i
25 any written communications?
c Yce-S cec: $ C Sejw ite:1, Snr.
"LT,Ol"E '/o"o',"
i S U,\\ O (2C2) 347 3700
10 i
i l
I A
We had some slides that we used in the presenta-2 l tion.
Q Okay.
During the course of your presentation to 3
4 the Dow corporate board, did the board members ask questions?
5 A
Yes.
I th.nk there were some questions asked, 6
if I recall.
Not a lot.
But we went down through a logical 7
sequence of the various aspects that we reviewed and the 1
8 conclusion.
Maybe there were a few questions of clarifica-9 l tion along the way.
l 10 l Q
Do you remerber anyone in particular who may 11 have asked questions?
12 A
No.
13 O
Did you have contact with Consumers Power 14 personnel during your review?
15 A
Yes.
I i
16 !
Q One of those was a meeting cf September 21, I 17 l believe.
Were there other meetings?
18 A
There was one other meeting that I personally 19 had, which was, I believe, September 24, I believe it was.
20 i Q
That was when !!r. Aymond 21 A
Yes, Mr. Aynond and fr. Oreffice and Mr.
22 Youngdahl.
I believe the minutes are there.
I 23 0
Did you have any meetings with Consumers Power i
9' 2
personnel other than t >se two?
25 A
I did not, no.
Some of the task force did.
3
]
.0cc.
\\\\
8:e- ]c.!c: [ CScyc:te:1 444 NCHTH O APtTCL S T 8t C E T W A S rtl N GTO N. D.C.
20001 f702) 347.3700
I 11 l
Q Do you remember anyone in particular?
1 I
2 A
I think Jerry Decker had talked with Consumers 3
Power, relative to comparison of fuel costs versus--nuclear 4
fuel versus fossil fuel.
That's one in particular.
4 I
5 !
Q Do you remember specifically who was assigned to 6
your review group?
I l
A ves.
7 8
0 Uould you name those people and their responsi-9 bilities?
10 A
Jiu Hanes, from Legal, did the legal aspects.
11 Irv Schneider reviewed the technical or technol-12 ogies of other alternate steam power, alternatives to
)
nuclear.
13
}
14 Roger Gohrband did our work related to economics 15 l of the alternates.
I i
16 Jerry Decker looked at the long-term impacts and l
the future of nuclear power.
17 1
18 i Juli Johnson looked at the safety aspects of 19 nuclear with rega"d to our plant, our Michigan Division i.
plant.
20 I
21 !
Phil Schneider considered some of the impact of I
22 this nuclear plant on the community, il 23 Did I cover everybody?
j 1
24 !
I think that's everycne.
I may have missed 25 Somecne on that.
$nc.
bk5 012 Sce-]eIe:$ Seyc:t::1, 444 NORTH C APITC L STREET W A SHINGTO N, D.C.
20004
[
(202) 347 3700
12 l
Q Folloeing your report to the Dow USA board did I
I you subsequently have any occasion to deal with the Dow 2
3 nuclear steam contract negotiations or preparation of i
i testimony tor the Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearings?
4 5
g gg, f
6 '
Q Werc you ever asked to follow up on a Consumers l
Power statement by the chairman, Mr. Aymond, to the effect 7
i 8
that Consumers Power was willing to release Dow from the i
contract by 1985, during the course of your review?
I 9
10 believe that statement was ade at the September 24 meeting i
11 that you were at.
l A
Yes, I remember the statement.
I don't recall 12 i
13 that I was asked to follow up in any way.
t i
14 I'm not sure what you mean by follow up.
l Q
I just meant if somebody asked you to check that 15 16 out with Consumers, ask somebody about it --
17 I A
No.
18 i Q
-- or take any responsibility with regard to it?
I 19 A
No, I don't believe so.
Q Were you asked to prepare any testimony concerning 20 '
21 l
your role in the Dow review group for presentation to an
,1 4
22 h NRC Licensing Board?
23 A
Yes.
I
'l 24 Q
Who requested that?
25 A
This was, I think, Lee Mute, at one point.
1, $r::.
c$ce- ]edera[ cSeyc:te:
444 NORTH C A PITO L STREET j
W A S HIN GTON. D.C.
20001
]
(202) 3 4 7 -J 7 00
13 0
I I !
Milt Wessel.
i I
Excuse me.
Could I have the i
3 question read back?
4 (Uhe reupon, the Reporter read from the record, 5
as requested.)
6 BY MR. OLMSTEAD:
1 7
O As a result of that request, did you prepare any 8 :
draft testimony for presentation?
9 A
I'm not sure now what you mean by draft to '
testimony.
They reviewed the possibility that I might have to testify at the upcoming hearing.
We never did write 11 l 12 anything down, or it never got to that point.
Q All right.
13 I
14 ;
In discussing with you that possibility, were l
t 15 l there any suggestions tlat you might be a key witness in to the proceeding?
I 17 i A
There was a possibility that I might be.
l 18 Q
Was the nature of the testimony that you might i
19 I present discussed?
20 A
Well, yes, I think it was.
And I think ic i
related c.1most entirely -- it did relate entirely to our 21 22 study and our conclusions.
1 C
Was it suggested to you that you might be a 23 i 24 witness rather than Mr. Temple, for instance?
25 A
I can't recall that particularly.
There was c?ce-9c.le:a( cRepc:ters, Onc.
lI 444 N C H T 54 CAPITCL STREET l
l was cro~. o e 2cco,
14 discussion a time or two about who the Dow witness might be, I
and I can't reramber if it occurred at that time.
2 t
3 I don't believe it did at that time.
I believe that Mr. Inaple was going to be a witness, and Mr. Oreffice.
4 5
There was a possibility I might.
i 1
Was it ever suggested to you by Mr. Nute and 6 l Q
Mr. Wessel or any other Dc~.< attorney that you might be the 7
8 l
only Dow witness?
9 A
No.
i i
I 10 ;
Q At any time during the Dow review did you have occasion to consider the effect that the NRC hearings might 11 12 have on Dow's need for the steam?
13 A
I'm not sure I understand.
Would you enlarge I
l on that, or state it another way?
14 l
I'll describe a set of facts as I understand 15 l
Q I
them, and if you have any differences or disagreenent, 16 17 you're free to interrupt me and correct me.
i But following the Court of Appeals romand in 18 i
l July of 1976 there was some concern expressed about the 19 l
effect of a suspension of the construction activities at 20 the Midland site as a result of a ruling by the Licensing 21 i
22 Soard.
I'm asking whether or not you concidered that 23
{
f possibility during your review?
24 25 A
Yes.
That was a factor that was known and r
CC' Ca$C: : C crc N3, f]C.
444 NCRTH CAPfTCL STREET W A S HIN GTO N.
D.C.
20001 n...i
l 15 l
1 considered.
2 Q
Did you consider the fact that Dow was unhappy 3
with the current construction schedule for the Midland 4
plant?
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
Did it occur to anyone that a delay in i
construction, further delay in the construction of the 7
t 8
Midland plant, might be advantageous to Dow?
9 A
Advantageous?
i 10 Q
Right.
11 1 A
That further delay might be advantageous?
12 Q
From the standpoint that if the nuclear option I
13 became less and less advantageous, that that might be the 14 critical factor that led the corporate board to decide to i
15 take some other alternative as suggested by the Midland i
16 Division recommendations?
17 A
Well, further delay would be disadvantageous if we were obligated under the contract to contin"e to take 18
~
19 i steam and power from Consumers.
20 l Q
Did anyone --
I 21 A
I think maybe what you're getting at is if i
22 it got delayed far enough that Dow would no longer be 1
23 (bligated, which I don't think that's an advantage er i
9 24 disadvantage.
It could be a problem for both parties.
i 25 0
Was that considered during the review, that i
315 016 CC d Cia d,t'C"!:~f hf]C.
444 NORTH C A P9TCL STREET W ASHINGTC N.
D.C.
20001 (202) 347-3700
16 i
1 i particular scenario?
1 i
2 l A
I don't think so, not that I can recall, partic-i I
ularly.
We looked at further delay as being a -isk that 3
I was rather difficult to weigh, but in terms of the proba-4
(
t 5
bility of it happening, and that's how we treated delay.
I i
6 l Q
Did anyone consider what would happen if the construction permit were to be revoked altogether?
7 i
I Al Aymond outlined that in one meeting with 8 '
A i
Atlined the consequences of that.
9 i Consu:n s.
l 10 1 Q
So that was considered by the review,oard?
t I
11 A
It was known.
12 l Q
Are you aware of any other communications or 13 conversations or discussions attendant to what Dow's i
positions would be if the construction permit were to be 14 I
i 15j revoked?
l A
io.
16 i
17 l
MR. OLMSTEAD:
I have no further questions.
I MR. CHARNOFF:
I have a few.
18 CROSS-EXA'!INATION 19 i
20 l BY MR. CHARNOFF:
21 Q
Do you have any idea, Mr. Klomparens, why you k
22 4 were suggested by Mr. Temple and approved by Mr. Oreffice i
e 23 to be chairman of the Dow corecrate review crou l
- 4 A
'!o.
25 Q
Did you ask anybody why you were chosen as t
dce-9ede:a/ cRe c: ten. Soc.
444 NORTH CAP!T t.,
STREET l ~/
)
W ASHINGTO N. O C.
2000t
,...,,em
17 l
I Lucky Pierre for this job?
2 l A
No, I don't think I ever did.
3 '
Q You mentioned that you took -- that you attended I
two meetings with Consumers Power during the course of 4
5 your review.
One was September 21 and one was September l
247 6
l 7 j A
Yes.
8 1 Q
Did you take notes at those meetings?
I I
9 l A
Yes.
10 Q
I show you a four-page document which is i
11 :
captioned, " Meeting with Consumers Power Attorneys," dated i
9-21-76, listing as attendees for Consumers, Judd Bacon, 12 13 Jim Falahee, Rex Renfrow; and for Dow, Jim Hanes, Lee Nute 14 l and A.
Klomparens.
t 15 l A.e these a copy of your notes?
16
[
A Yes.
17
'Q Let me show you some notes dated 9-24-76 of I
a meeting with Consumers, showing people present as PFO, 18 LN, JT, MW, JH, and HAK.
I take it HAK are your initials?
19 20 A
Yes.
21 Q
Is that first line, these are the people from 22 li Dow Chemical?
l a
Yes.
23 1 a
1 1
- I Q
And on the second line, Al Aymond, Russ Y, and l
i 24 25 Jim Palahee, Judd Bacon and Steve Howe.
YC!*
L*J C:3 C./ C,5C !C:1, Yf C.
G v e V 444 NORTH C A PITC L STREET W ASHINGTON. O C.
20001 (202) 347 3700
18 ll l
l Are those the representatives of Dow?
1 2
A No, Consumers.
3 Q
Consumers, I'm sorry.
And this is a 3-page set 4
of notes of the September 24 meeting.
Are these your notes?
5 A
les.
l 6
Q I was going to show you another piece of paper l
7 i that appears to be in a different handwriting, which refers I
8 !
to the 9-24 notes.
t 9 I Are these yours?
10 (Document handed to the witness.)
i 11 A
No.
12 MR. CHARNOFF:
Do you have copies of 1:ose notes?
j MR. POTTER:
Of the first two, but I dicn't see 13
,_T (B) i l
14 l what you --
1 15 !
MR. CHARNOFF:
Just the first two.
I 16 l MR. POTTER:
Yes, I do.
17 MR. CHARNOFF:
Could you give Mr. Klomparens 18 copies of those notes?
19 (Documents handed to the witness.)
20 BY MR. CHARNOFF:
l 21 Q
I take it when you began the review work, Mr.
I 22 h :(lc=parens, you were made aware of the letters to Mr.
1 23 Oreffice by Mr. Temple dated September 3 and Septenber 15, 24 1976, with regard to his recccmendation that there be a l
9 25 Ocw review group, and the substance of what that review c0ce-]clera[ cRenc:teu, Onc.
315
- 0in,
.- ~c m c.-ra m eer W A S HIN GTO N, D. i'. 20001 l
(202) 3 7-3704
19 1
should consider?
2 A
Right.
3 Q
Do you have a copy of that document, Mr. Potter?
4 (Document handed to the witness.)
5 If I could just ask you to turn to the September 6
15 memorandum from Mr. Temple to Mr. Oreffice and the 7
attachment, which lists seven tasks, and ask you
..cok I
8 l at item 2 for the moment.
l 9 l MR. POTTER:
Could we just clarify for the record i
10 whether the vitness has ever seen this specific document 11 or not?
12 MR. CHARIIOFF :
I thought he said yes.
13 !
MR. POTTER:
I'm not certain.
He didn't have s
l 4
14 l the document in front of him, so --
l 15 l MR. CHAPSOFF:
I'm sorry, i
16 BY MR. CHAPSOFF; l
17 Q
Have you seen this document?
l 18 A
Yes.
19.
Q I take it you were made aware of this document l
at the beginning or during the course of your revieu 20 21 assignment.
l 22 A
Right.
- l
<1 23 Q
And I would assume that specifically you nrobablyi 24 had this early, if not at the inception of that review.
9 I
i 25 A
Yes.
i I
c4ce-9e.! era [ cRepc:ter.s. Dnc 315 0c,0 444 NORTH C4 PtTC L STREET weem~cTO~. o.c. 2000, i
(202) 347 3700
20
{
1 Q
So that you'd know what your responsibilities 2
were, is that right?
3 A
Right.
4 Q
What specifically were your personal responsibil-5 ities as the chairman or head of this review group?
6 A
Well, to pull the whole study together and
(
ccardinate these studies to a conclusion.
}
8 l
0 So you knew and discussed, I guess, with each 9
of the task members what they were going to be doing, so 10 that there was some understanding between you and them as Il to what they were going to cover, is that right?
12 A
(Nodding affirmatively.)
13 Q
Okay.
Looking at item 2 for a moment, which refers to the review of the legal aspects, past, present 15 and future outlook, for Jim Hanes.
What did you understand 16 Mr. Hanes' responsibilities with regard to the future 17 j
outicok of the legal aspects co be?
I 18 A
With regard to the future outlook?
i 19 1 Q
Yes.
20 A
Well, I think I recall Jin's responsibility was 21 to interpret the existing contract to us, and to project i
i future alternatives or consequences of where Cow was i
i 23 going with regard to renegotiation of future contracts, l
24 )
as well as the existing clauses in the contract.
25 Q
Co you.<now whether it included looking into the l
c$ce-Sca'e:al" cNcyc:ters, $cc.
\\
l 444 NORTH C A PITC L STREET W A SHINGTO N. D.C.
20001 1202J 347-3700
21 1 I future to determine what the impact would be if Dow termin-i 2
ated or somewhat frustrated its performance?
That is, what 3 !
kind of damages Dow might have to face up to?
i l
4 I A
Well, I think Consumers outlined that to us.
5 j But I'm curious as to whether --
Q i
i6j A
And I think Jim may have made along the way an i
7 interpretation of that in terms of if Dow did not support 8 !
Consumers under certain conditions, would they have a breach 9
of contract claim or not, and so on.
10 Q
That was within his assignment to do?
A Well, I don't think it started that way.
I think II 12 it got to that after Consumers pointed out that it was.
I 13 You're referring here now to Consumers' O
14 I
discussion of the damages they would suffer if the contract l
15 '
were terminated?
16 A
Yes.
I 17 Q
And that they would have to sue to recover that?
I i
A Right.
19 i
Q There's a statement in the footnote to item 2 i
20 !
where it says that the emphasis insofar as the past aspects I
21 of the contract were concerned -- or past legal aspects 22 were concerned -- was to look specifically at the 1975 i
l decision to renegotiare, rather than to pursue any clain f
13 24 of breach of centract.
What does the "rather than to 25 c,ursue a clain of breach of contract" refer to, do you know?
t i
che-9ede:.:( cRepc:te:, LIr:c
[
444 NORTH C A PITC L STREET W ASHINGTON. O.C.
20001 i
(202) 34? 37CO
22 I
MR. POTTER:
Just as a caution, you understand 2
this witness did not prepare this document.
3 MR. CHARNOFF:
Understood, but he was also imple-menting the docume.t, so I'm getting at his understanding.
t 5 I; MR. POTTER:
All right.
I 6 i THE WITNESS:
I'm not sure what that meant.
I I
don't think I could answer that.
7 8
BY MR. CHARNOFF:
l 9 !
Now, Mr. Olmstead asked you whether the contract O
10 with Consuners ghed beavily, somewhat heavily or not 11 at all in your ultimate conclusions.
Do you recall that 12 l
question?
i 13 '
A Yes.
t 14 Q
And he gave you those three categories.
15 I'm curious as to whether if we added some i
16 '
categories to that, if that would help make some choices for 17 l
you that weren't given to you by Mr. Olmstead.
Suppose you l8 had five categories instead of three, where you had
~
19 heavily, somewhat heavily, moderately, slightly, or not at t
i 20 !
all.
How would you consider the impact of the Dow contract 1
21 -
on those --
i i
j A
Heavily, screwhat heavily, moderate, slightly and 22 i
1 i
23 t not at all?
.i 1
24 '
Q Yes.
j 25 33, pOTTEP:
Eefore you answer, I want tc interposg
\\ Cf C s'[ !,
00, CC*
d CIA 444 NORTH C A PITC L STREET L
W A SHIN GTO N, 34, 20008 I
(202) 347 3700
23 l
1 i an objection.
i 2
As I understand the facts, Mr. Klomparens served 3 I the chairman for this review team, and he received input as 4
from a number of members of the review team.
5 To the extent vou're asking him now as to what i
j 6
the inpact of something might be, you're in effect asking him not only to speak for the chairman, but for all the 7
\\
8 other members.
And that I know he cannot do, and I will object.
9 10 MR. CHARNOFF:
I'm willing to accept the answer i
in terms of -- I assume your objection is valid here, and 11 i I
i 12 that would apply as well to the answer that he gave to Mr.
1 13 i Olmstead earlier where he characterized the weight that l
that matter had in the ultimate decision.
14 15 MR. POTTER:
I understood ?W. Olmstead's question 16 to go specifically to Mr. Klomparens.
If I'm wrong, the 17 l question is objectionable in both cases.
He can speak for i
i 18 himself, but I don't think he can speak for the rest of the 19 ! review team.
I 20 But go ahead and answer.
21 BY MR. CHARNOFF:
1 22 Q
Taking it for yourself.
I'm really just interested I
I 23 l in your own percenal --
l i
t N
A Well, I guess if you brachet it that way, I'd 9
i 25 prchably put it in the middle again.
The middle cate"ory I c$ce-]cle:a[ cSeyc:teri. $nc.
444 NORTH C AP!TCL STMEET W A SHINGTO N, D.C.
20001 e
,g
]
g' I
(202) 34 7-a 7oo
24 I
believe was " moderate."
2 Q
Moderate.
Thank you.
3 Now, getting back to these meetings on September 4
21 and September 24, could you tell me how those meetings i
l 5 I came about?
6 A
Well, I think thc December 21 meeting came about 7 l as --
8 MR. OLMSTEAD:
Excuse me.
September 21.
9 THE WITNESS:
Did I say December?
September 21.
to That came about at the request of Consuners, to be sure i
11 that the Dow team working on this, the review team, had 12 an understanding, a good understanding, of the ramifications 13 or the situation with regard to the upcoming hearings.
14 I think the September 24 meeting was a result of 15 again Consuners desiring to be sure that we understori same 16 of the ramifications about some of their concerns relative 17 !
to this hearing.
l l
18 AR. OLMSTEAD:
Could I interpose a question here?
I i
l You're saying tnat Consumers requested this 19 20 second meeting?
l 21 l THE WITNESS:
I believe they did.
I can't f
22 ;
recall.
It wasn't,5.e who -- they didn't set the meeting up 23 with me, and I don't recall who they set it up with.
I i
24 thought it was at Consumers request primarily.
25 MR. OLMSTEAD:
Thank you.
44 NORT C A P TC, STRE T W A S HI N GTO N, D.C.
2 A01 (202) 347 3700
25 i
1 BY MR. CHARNOFF:
2 Q
Are you saying if Consumers hadn't asked for 3
those two meetings -: hat you, in the course of your review 4
activities, would r.ot have met with them before arri /ing S
l at a decision?
I l
6 A
I don't know whether we would have or not.
~
7 MR. OLMSTEAD:
I'm sorry. Again you're saying 8
l that both meetings were requested by Consumers?
I 9 i AHE WITNESS:
I thought they were, yes.
I was i
i not personally involved in setting then up.
i U !
BY MR. CHARNOFF:
i 12 i
Q So if there was a request fron Consumers, it was I,
13 l
not made to you, is that right?
9 I4 A
That's right.
15 O
Do you recall who set up the meeting?
16 A
From Dow's side you mean?
l 17 l
0 Well, who told you?
I 18 A
I believe well, let's see, I can't U
remember.
Well, it's obvious the first one was either 1
20 Lee Nute or Jim Har.as.
But I can't remember which one it i
21
- was, 22 And the later one, I'm not surc.
I l
23 0
Gkay.
Can I ask you to turn new to the minutes f
24 of -- or your notes of the September 21 meeting?
In the i
middle of page 1 under item 3 there's an item called f$ r n1 JlJ UCJ cSe-9e! :a( cRerc:ters, Occ.
l m Nearu capirk srarsr l
W A S HI N GTO N.
D.C.
20001
26
" changed circumstances in Dow contract."
And the first 2
subsection under that says:
l 3
" Going to have to talk about it in today's I
1 I
4 situation."
5 What did that refer to, do you recall?
Coing 6 l to have to talk about what?
What is "it?"
t i
7 A
I believe at this time, if I recall, Rex Renfrow I
8 was speaking, and these were some actes I took where he was 9
making reference to talk about any changed circumstances 10 with regard to the Dow position.
11 Q
And when he said he was going to have to talk 12 about it, did he mean talk s.
ut it in the hearings?
13 A
Yes, that would come up.
14 Q
And today's situation means what?
The current i
15 !
situation?
16 A
- yes, 17 Q
So he was saying that that should have to be 18 talked about at the hearing, is that right?
19 A
Yes.
That subject would come up.
20 O
And then the next subsection says:
i I
21 "Will have to have a Dcw witness state Dow's 22 positicn."
i 23 Again, is that a statement b" :fr. Renfreu' i
24 A
Um-hmm.
25 "R.
POTTER :
Excuse no.
Jim, say yes or no.
i dce-Tede:a( Seyc:te:.s, Sn=
'3)} Q 4.a 4 NORTH CAF I. 5T9EET W A SHIN GTO N, D.C. 20001 nomos ma ,,e
27 l 1 Um-hmm may or may not be audible. 2 ! THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Yes. 3 BY MR. CHARNOFF: 4 Q Did Dow Chemical at this point in the meeting 5 ! have any disagreement with Mr. Renfrow that ycu and Consuners 6 would have to talk about it in today's situation in the 7 hearing? 8 MR. FOTTERA Again, what does "it" refer to? l I 9 MR. CHARNOFF: I'm using his language there in i 10 l the notcs, which he has described before, i 11 THE WITNESS: liell, any changed -- what the "it" i 12 refers to is any changed circumstances with regard to Dow's 13 i position. i 14 LY MR. CHARNOFF: I 15 Q Was there any Dow statement that they would either i 16 ^ agree or disagree with Mr. Renfrov that indeed both Dow I i i 17 and Consumers would have to talk about it at the hearing? i 1
- 8 A
I don't think so. l i 19 l Q Okay. When it came time -- with regard to the 20 second item, you'll have to have a Dow witness state Dow's i 2: f position, was there any Cow disag:.eement that there would 22 !i have to be a Dow witness? ll 1 23 A No. i l
- j i
24 Q ilas there any Cow discussion as to who the j w 25 witness might be? q \\CfC:!C71, 'Y74*. CC* C C.: ~c,1~ c.,, m 21,. 1 i l we srucr0~. o.:. noo, (202) 3 7 3700
l 28 I l A No, I don't recall that we got into any Dow-led 2 discussion. There was some discussion about who, but it \\ 3 ! was -- Consumers made some comments. Dow responded only in terms of we'll provide whoever Consumers -- whoever the 1 5 l appropriate person is for Consumers needs. 6 O Consumers came into the meeting and said Mr. "X" 7 should be the Dow witness, or Mr. "X" should not be the 8 Dow witness? 9 i A I don't think they used those words, no. i l 0 Well, Mr. "X" or the other words? 10 11 A Well. t 12 l Q I recognize we're a few years later, but we're 13 i still trying to get your best recollection. i 14 You said there was some talk about a witness led i i 15 i by Consamers. I'm curious as to how Consumers would, after i 16 there was agreement that there would be a Dow witness, how 17 i Consumers would designate a witness. 18 l A I think' Consumers raised some question as to who 19 the Dow witness ought to be. i 20 0 By inquiring and saying who should the Dow i 21 witness be? g j I ) A Well, I think they had asked that question 22 .1 23 1 relative to "r. Tenple, as to whether he should be the D0h d 24 witness or not, and there was some question whether, because< 25 l of Jce's position and past incolvement and biases, feelings, l I Ae-9edeuf deepc:teu. Dnc. i "'.":" :^ = "":," 15 023
29 1 whether he would be the appropriate witness. l 2 i O Because perhaps he would not reflect the corporate r 1 3 position, whatever it may be? Is that the c.ojection? I 4 ' A No, I think Joe would reflect the corporate 5 i position. 6 I O Then what was the concern? l 7 A I think the concern might be that he was so 8 i involved and knew so much about it, and maybe someone else I 9 i wot$1d be a more appropriate appropriate witness who was J lees emotionally involved and maybe less knowledgeable about 10 i [ it. 11 12 O But somebody who, nevertheless, would know what 13 ! the corporate position would have been? i I 14 l A Well, I don't -- I can't recall if we got into i 15 i that part in the discussion, or it got into that. I would i 16 l find it hard to believe that anybody who was in Dow who r i 17 { was involved with this, either in the Michigan Division or on the review team or in Dow management, would not be aware 18 4 1 1 19 i of what the position was. 20 Q So then perhaps tney were mostly just worried l about Mr. Temple's personal prejudices, is that what you're 21 i 22 saying? They had agreed there should be a Dow witness, and t 9 l i 23 f everybody -- 1 l A I'm sure that was one of the things at least. 24 25 They T.ight have bcu.i worried about other things. I'm not l i 0 cAce-9ede:af crepe:teu. Dr:c. h\\N ] 444 NORTH C APf TCL S Trt E ET ] W A S HIN GTO N, D.C. 20001
- l (202) 347-3700 l
30 l i 1 But that certainly I would think might be one of the sure. i 2 l j concerns on their part, because of Joe's heavy involvement. I 3 Q What was your reaction to that suggestion or i 4 question that they raised as to the appropriateness of h. 5 Temple being a witness? A I don't recall that anyone in the meeting reacted 6 j! 7 I particularly, one way or the other. I think it was a very ~ i 8 mutual reaction. l 9 Q That was your reaction? 10 A That was certainly my reaction. I don't recall i 11 anyone -- 12 Q The othe.r two people were Mr. Nute and Mr. Hanes, I l 13 i is that right? I I4 A Right. l Q So, in effect, no decision was made that day as 15 16 to who the witness might be? 17 A That's right. i I 18 Q So the question was just left hanging as to 19 whether Mr. Temole would or wou]d not be the appropriate i 1 20 l witnes3? 21 A Right. 22 O At the botten of page 3 of the September 21 0 l meeting notes there is a deletion. Was tnere a deletion 23 24 because the;e.iere just too many words, or you just don't 25 recall exactly what you said? I'n looking at the third line -i l G [d* d [Ta 0 ?,%:t :3. CC. 7 444 NCRTH O A PI T O L. STREET W AS HIN GTO N. D C. 2000t I (202) 347 3700
31 1 l from the bottom. I 2 A The dash lines there? 3 Q Yes. 4 A Yes. That refers to the statement that Dow said 5 they -- let me finish the sentence that I recall that I l 6 wrote -- Dow said they want out of the contract because it is no longer advantageous to the Michigan Division position. 7 l l 8 Q I take it this paragraph and the one before it l 9 i and the one afterwards are simply statements of alternative 10 positions that Dow might take and that were set out by Consumers Power Company at the meeting. Is that what this 12 is? Just to give you information as to the consequences of 13 the decision by the Licensing Board if they had to take 14 l one position or another? Is that what this is? 15 MR. POTTER: Excuse me. I'd have to object to i I 16 the form of the question. He certainly could state whether 17 or not this is what Consumers said. He can't say what. I 18 Consumers intended to accomplish when they made the state-t 19 l ments, unless you wish to connect it up in your question. I 20 l MR. CHARMOFF: Let me state it another way. 21 BY MR. CHARMOFF: i 1 y n Was Consumers Power outlinina to you and the 1 23 ] other members of the Dow group there a number of alternative-- 1 l 24 ] potential alternative Dow positions and at the same time 2S l describing what the impact on the Licensing Board might be c0cc-9e.!c:a[ cRepc: ten, $nc. I i 444 NORTH C A PITOL STREET W A S HING TON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3 ?c0
32 i l l if Dow opted for one or the other of the alternatives? 1 2 A I think that was part of it. I think that was l 3 much more thoroughly done in the September 24 meeting wliere 4 Mr. Aymond outlined all these alternatives. I think some 1 l of them were quantified. This was just more general 5 6 comments that I believe Rex Renfrow made. i 7 0 Now, looking at page 4 on the second paragraph 8 there is a reference following the third alternative with ^ 9 a statement in brackets, on the left-hand side, that says: i 1 10 ' " Jim..." is that a reference to Jim Falahee? 11 A Yes. l i Q So he made the statement that's there? 12 I f 13 A Yes. l 14 Q And you have in quotes, that Mr. Falahee 15 apparently said if Dow ta'.es tha, 70sture Consumers and Dow 16 will have a hell of a legal problem? I 17 A Right. i, i 13 y indt wab d S ta taist:nt ihht Iir. Faluite:e ntade of l the consequences of what termination or loss of the plant 19 s 20 might be insofar as it might result in a legal action i 21 between the two companies? d d. 22 A Yes. ) 0 Was that information that you and the review 23 ] 24 j ccrr.ittee was interested in having? l I Were we '. erested in having that? l 25 a i >l c$ce-9ede:a[ cRe c-tcu, $nc. l g33 l
- c.,1c'c,1.e<1
~c.1~ y W ASHIN GTO N. 3 C. 2000' (202) 3 7 1700 ' ] l
33 1 l Q Yes, as to whether or not the prognosis would be 1 i I -L l that if you took alternative C or D that you might have a l 3 hell of a legal problem. Is that a factor you wanted to 4 know about? 5 A Well, I would have preferred that someone like G Jim Hancs would interpret that from what's his interpretation. i 7 of the contract. l 8 Q You mean you might have asked Mr. Hanes for his 9 l best judgment as to what might hcepen, as distinguished from 1 10 hearing it from an attorney for the other side, is that 11 l what you're saying? 12 A Yes. 13 Q But having heard it from the other side, is it 14 an important factor for your review committee to take into 15 account? 16 ! A Well, I'm not sure how important it was. I 17 j couldn't give you an answer to that question. It's something i is l we heard, and I don't know how important it was. 19 : l Q Now, after that meeting was concluded what did ~ n you do with your notes of that meeting? Did you give them 21 to anyone else? i i 22 i A I don't rencaber. 23 O Did you review 3ither Mr. IIane s ' notes or "" l; I l ';ute 's notes? l 24 l 25 IIR. POTTER: Are you referring to the r.ceting of c& lie. Jeh aI cRepc:teu, Sc 3 br. ol W A S HINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 3 7.J7CC
34 I i l September 21? 1 2 MR. CIIARNOFF : Yes. 3 TIIE WITNESS: I don't recall reviewing them. i 4 BY MR. CIIARNOFP : l 5. Q uid you -- 6 A You're talking about immediately afterwards? 7 O Well, let's say within a week or so. 8 A No, 1 don't recall. I 9 Q So you didn't participate even indirectly in the to drafting of Mr. Hanes' notes or Mr. Nute's notes? i 11 i A No. 12 Q okay. l 13 If I could ask you to turn briefly to the l Sept nber 24 notes. 14 1 In the middle of page 2 of those notes -- well, 15 let's turn back to the first page. In the first page, as 16 17 I understand it, there were discussions of different l potential suspension periods and different financial impacts 18 19 of such suspension periods, is that correct? l A Right. Yes. 20 21 Q Including the impact, perhaps, of loss of the 22 perdit? 'l 23 A Yes. j l 1 2' J Q And then in the middle of page 2, do I understand 9 i 4
- s i correctly there's a four-line single centence paragraph cN:e-9ea'e:a! cR::c:ters, S::.
\\ 444 NCRTH C A P'T
- t. STREET j
wa s wis cTo u. o.C. :cc u 7g l Jj , - - -,,.,., ~.
35 l l where it says, as I read it: I 2 "If Consumers has such a loss they would have to I stop building and could get no financing and would have 3 1 1 4 i to. \\ l could you help me with that? It's your handwriting. 5 A ... massive deterioration." "Would have massive 6 l I 7 l deterioration." b Q I see. Is this Mr. Aymend's characterization of
- what the impact of these large suspensions would be, or 9
l tol large consequences of the suspension would be? 11 A I can't recall if he said that, or if that's my I 12 ; notes interpreting what he mignt nave said. 13 Q Okay. But it was his -- he was making the I lpresentationordiscussion,andyouunderstoodthistobe 14 15, the consequence he was describing? 1 16 A Yes. t i 17 Q Then immediately thoreafter there is a statement 18. that reads: i 1 l "Would certainly seek to recover damages from ~ 19 20 ! that." 21 I take it that again is your understanding of 1:: what ".r. A p.ond was saying? 22 i 23 A Right. i 24 Q In effect he was saying that if Consumers suffers 25 such large losses uhich would put them in a pccition 0; j i cs:e-9:de=I c?cy:ncu, Dnc. 444 NCRTH C A PtTC L STREET W ASHINGTO N. D.C. 20C01 f ons) 147 1700 l
i 36 l mas .ve deterioration in earnings they would certainly seek 2 to recover damages from Dow, is that correct? 3 A Yes. l Q Is that an untenable business position, as you understand the circumstances to be if you were in Mr. Aymond's 6 l position? Would you arrive at about the same position? 7 Would I arrive at that conclusion, or would I A 8 say that, or -- 8 Q Both. 10 A Well, I would expect I would arrive at that t 11 l conclusion. I don't know if I would have said it. i 12 Q Would you have kept it a secret? 13 MR. POTTER: I think this is really not produc-14 tive. I mean if you're trying to find out whether Mr. ~ 15 Klomparens thinks the same way as Mr. Aymond, then maybe 16 that's legitimate inquiry. But I don't see how else it 17 i .1s. j-18 MR. CHARNOFF: I think if you're objecting we I can have the objection recorded, sua it does seem to me 20 that - - 21 f THE WITNESS: Would I keep it secret? Ii 22 l BY MR. CHAR':OFF : l l i 23 O Yes. i qggg 24 A I ecust if I d keep it cecret from Concur.ers. 25 ] Q Uould you 5cve advised the other party to the 1 ae. scs a,=,,<u. L. 315 037 ? W A S HIN GTO N. D.C. 20001
37 1 .ontract of the concern? 2 A I don'* ; cw. o "ow, on page 3 of the notes of September 24, would j' jou reaa the third pa ragraph for me? It says Al A. I take 1 1 5 i it that's a reference to Al Aynond? i 6 ' A Yes. 1 Q And there does he say that under certain circum-8 ; stances he would be willing to let Dow walk away from the 9 project if completion would occur after January, 1985? i 10 ; A January 1, 1985, yes, i } 11 l 0 And then in the next paragraph it says, "What 12 is current posture of Dow with regard to project, and what i 13 we should testify to." 14 Do I read that correctly? 15 A Yes. i 16 Q Now, is that statement by Mr. Aymond, in effect? 17 A I can't recall who made that statement. I don't 18 ! knou if I wrote that down, or whether one of the Dow people 19 nade that statement. I'm not sure. 20 ' O Let's go back through all the paragraphs on this 21 page. I b 22 ] The top paragraph, does that purport to be a a i 23 J statement by "r. Avmond? r
- i
] A ?.ight. l 2-9 25 Q How about the second paragraph, doer that purport i che 3ede:a! cRepc:te:s. Occ. l, 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET '[ h f \\ JY j wassiscTos. o c. 2cooi (202) 347 3700
36 1 to reflect what Mr. Aymond said? 2 A I don't know if he made that statement or whether I 3 ! someone else from Consumers made it. "The March '82 4 schedule is tight, but consumers feel they will meet the 5 schedule." 6 That may have been Howe who made that statement, 7 l because he was the -- I believe -- the construction man, l t 8 ' construction project leader. I'm not sure if that's his 9 right title. 10. O But it purports to be what a Consumers official l said? 11 I l A Right. 12 13 Q And the third paragraph purports to be what a 14 j Consumers official said? l 15 A Right. l l 16 ' O And the fifth paragraph, does that also purport i 17 l to be wnat a Consumers Power official said? 18 ' A Yes, I would think that's right. i 19 0 All right. 20 Let's turn back to page 2. The first four lines 21 ; deal with what a 12-month suspension would cost. Does that 22 purport to reflect what a Consumers Power official said? l 1 I A 12-month delay? Oh, yes. "A 12-nonth suspension 23 i 24 ':culd cause an 18-month delcv? " 9 i i 25 0 Right. l I c4:e-]cde:a[ cRepc:te:s. Onc b1b 0b i w a s m u crc u. a c. 2oco. I (zozi a.s7a7oc l
39 I, 1 l A Right. 2 Q And that reflects what a Consumers person said? 3 A Yes. Q Mr. Aymond or someone else, is that right? 4 5 A Yes. i l Q And again the next four lines, which says that 6 I 7 l now the Company has $350,000 of sunk costs in the plant, 8 i and the following three lines, does that again purport to i l be what a Consumers official said? 9 l 10 A Yes. I 11 ! O And then the next paragraph, if Consumers has i i 12 ' such a loss they've got to stop building., and so on, does i i 13 i that purport to be what a Consumers official said? l l A Yes. 14 l 15 j Q Okay. And the next sentence, that we discussed l 16 ; before, would certainly seek to recover damages from Dow, i i l 17 j does that purport to be what a Consumers official said? l 18 l A Yes. I 19 Q And the next two lines, if Dow were to repudiate 20 the contract that it will be breached, does that purport to i 21 ~ be what a Consumers Power official said? 22 A Yes. t 23 ; O And the ne::t three lines, if Dow were to make i 1 l thincs hard for Consuners, et cetera, does that again nurport 24 9 i I to be.that a Consumers official said? 25 Cf0TbCT f, [C' C$C Al 0 l. 444 NCRTH C A P9TC L STREET 'i W A S HIN GTO N, D-C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
40 il 9 t 1 l A Yes. l 2 l Q And the last two lines, if just one unit were 3 affected, and so on, does that again purport to be what a { i 4 Censumers official said? I. 5 A Yes. i l 6 Q Would it be reasonable, Mr. Klomparens, to assume, i 7 l then, that the next to the last paragraph on page 3, which t ~ B i says, "Uhat is current posture of Dow with regard to project l 9 and what we should testify to" also represents what some 10 ! Consumers official said, whether it's Mr. Aymond or someone I t 11 ; else. A Well, I guess so, if you line them all up like 12 c. 13 ! that. I ,can't recall whether that was an official -- 14 a Consumerr official's statement or whether that was a Dow 15 statement, or my own. notes.that I wrote down. I 16 Q Does it appear to be characteristic of your i 17 l notes that you were reflecting what Consumers officials I 18 said? 1 l 19 A Right. Yes. i 20 Q "onld it bo mcre than likely, then, that that i reoresents what some -- 21 i 22 "R. PCTTER: You're badgering the titness. I'm d 23 l sugcesting he shouldn't answer any further. "e said he j 24 l does not recall whether that's a Consumers statenent or hic 25 own. I think that's the best he can do. i, $$$?0 0 $,W ? s ? ? $, O$. 315 04i i ... ~c 1-c.,.,=- W.SH4NGTON. O C. 20C01 l f 70 21 3 7.3700
41 f BY MR. CHARHOFF: I i 2 l 0 Is it, Mr. Klomparens? { 3 A The best I can say is I cannot recall who made i that statement, or whether even I wrote it down as my own 5 ) conclusion. Q Let's go back to page 1 and just complete the 6 I 7 i pattern, just to be sure it's cicar. 8 Page 1, the first three lines refer to the fact i 9 I that there was a meeting on September 24, and the next two l 10 ! lines reflect who was there, is that correct? 11 A Yes. i 12 Q Then the fourth line, in handwriting, is a i. 13 statement by Mr. Aymond, is that correct? 14 A Yes. 15 l Q The fifth line, does that reflect what a Consumers i 16 ' official said? I i 17 i A Yes. l i 18 Q Is that also true with the three subsections under i 19 that? 20 ! A Yes. 21 Q Okay. Then that takes us down to the next 22 separate Section, and there's a lino there that says, 3) 23 ! " Suspension would be either four months or twelve months" i i U with a little note that the latter micht : more probable. 9 i Does that, again, re lect what scme Consumers i ,S i 1 i cSte-9e.!c:a[ cSepiters, $nc l l 315 049 m scars emict stater l c i wassiscros. o c. 2:co. (2 : 23 3.ir.3 7co I
42 il il F l ! official said? i 2 l A Yes. i 0 Then there's a group of about six lines in terms 3 I i of what an inpact of a 4-month suspension may be. Does 4 1 5 that reflect what a Consumers official said? i 6 A Yes. O And the final line on that page, 12 months -- it 7 8 says see page 2. I take it that's your own note? f 9 A Yes. I 10 0 Okay. So the entire three pages, with the 11 ! possible exception of the next to the last paragraph, you I agree reflects what a consumers official said? 12 l 13 l 3
- yes, l
1 14 Q Okay. l 15 ! A But you know throughout that meeting Al Aymond, I 16 after the introductions, basically outlined the Consumers I posiotion. I believe Al's notes are much more complete 17 l i 18 than these, or the outline he talked from. 19 ! But toward the end of the necting there was some t 20 discussion, and this note is at the end of my notes. So l'! 21 I an unsure uhether that was my statement or somebody l n 22 i else made that statenent in the meeting, or Consumers made l 23 ! it. 1 1 2' O Is there anything in your notes that clearly 25 reflects that the statement was obviously comethina that i l l che-Jejeuf.= Rep::e::, thc. I 444 NGRTH C A PITOL STRCCT W A S HINGTO N. O.C. 2COct I?n2t 347.3700 T1; 045
43 I a Dow person said at the meeting? I 2 3 go, 0 Incidentally, did Consumers Power Company, at 3 either of these meetings, ever state that Dow should not be 4 i { completely truthful? 5 t A No, not that I heard. 6 l 7 ! Q Now, we've just gone through the three pages of t i your notes. I didn't see, and I wonder whether you did see, 8 ' i any discussion in here on these three pages as to who the 9 i 10 ' witness, the Dow witness, might be? Am I correct in not seeing that anywhere in 11 l 12 l these notes? t ^ 13 A Right. 14 Q Now, Mr. Hanes testified this morning that he I 15 l did not recall the subject of a Dow witness coming up at 16 the Septenber 24 meeting. Do you recall it coming up at l the September 24 meeting? 17 l 18 ! A No. 19 MR. CHARNOFF: I have no other questions. 20 i BY MR. POTTER: 21 'i O Mr. Klcmparens, I believe it was Mr. Olmstead -- l i 22 1 it might have been Mr. Charnoff who asked it -- there ( apparently came a tr.e arter the corporate revieu had been 23 24 completed and the team's job done in that sence when vou i 9 i i 25 a c. c a r e n t i v. had some discussion with either Mr. Nute or Mr. I l c5ce-9e.!c:al Oc::c:ters. Snc. (- (I 444 NORTM C A Pf TOL STRCET l W A swiNGTO N D.C. 20001 e sasl %1AT ao
44 I Wessel, or possibly both, of the possibility that you might 2 l appear as a witness in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3 proceedings, is that correct? 4 A Yes. 1 5 0 Was it explained to you what you might have to t V 6 ; testify to at that hearing at that time, do you recall? 7 A Yes. And I can't recall exactly what it was. 8 ' But I think it related to some of the same things we're 9 talking about here. i i 10 ' Q Do you recall whether or not they told you you 11 might be called as a witness to explain what it is that the 12 corporate review did? l 13 A Yes. I l Q Was that the type of purpose you thought you were 14 i 15 going to be called for? I 16 i A
- yes, i
17 Q To explain what the corporate review team did l in preparing the study that was ultimately -- I mean that 18 19 ultimately wound up as a recommendation to the Dow USA i i 20 l board? i 21 A Yes. 22 it O Would you ta'<e a minute to take a look at the 23 exhibit attached to the Septenber 15, 1976 letter -- or i l 24 really a transmittal meno -- frc= 'tr. Temple to !!r. Oref fice l 25 that lists the seven areas. l 1 l c4ce- ]cde:a( c.Re:x:!e: Sn:. 1, 315 04Ia 444 NCRTH C A PIT L STREET W A SWNGTO N. D C. 20001 (2021 347-3700
45 t 1 1 i (Witness reviewing document.) 2 Now, are those the seven areas that were l 3 described to the team for their study and their report to 4 the Dow USA board? I i 5 A
- yes, 6
Q Did you formulate any of those seven issues, or 7 were they suggested by somebody else? i 8 i A They were suggested to us by 'tr. Temple and !!r. i ~ 9 ! Oreffice -- or to me, I guess, and then I believe Joe t to i did meet witn the review team to briefly cover these, but 11 also gave us or suggested that anything else that we might 12 feel was pertinent we should also put forth, i i 13 l Q All right. 3 l But the question was? From whom did those issues 14 i 15 come? They came from somebody other than yourself? A Yes. 16, t i 17 ! Q Now, your particular role for the team -- did you 18 cover any one of those specific issues in depth yourself? i 19 A No.
- o !
Q What did you conceive your function on that team i 21 to be? 'L MR. CHA';;OFF : Excuse me. Off the record. t 22 I 23 1 (Discussion ort the record.) I 1 2: l MR. FOTTCP: Back on the record. l 9 i
- s It's been pointed out issue number 6 actually has i
I YCC C.lC: C C.?C T!C:1, Yf:C. ... ~c m c., A ~ ' j p 5 0Id _, _.m _. ,j ico2) s.7 270o l
46 1 your name after it, does it not? 2 l THE UITNESS: Right. 3 BY MR. POTTER: l 4 i Q But you did not regard that as a specific issue 5 for investigation, but rather was the overall assignment l 6 given to the tean, is that correct? 7 l A That's right, l 8 j Q And as chairman it was your responsibility to i 9 l come up with the recommendation on that issue? I 10 A Right. And I don't think that me, as the chairman 11 l or anyone else on the team could have done any better than i 12 what Mr. Aymond outlined in the presentation that one day. 13 He very well outlined what the offect would be on Consumers I 14 Power of all of the resulting things. 15 0 Now, when the actual expositior -- if we could l l put that handle on it -- was made before the Dow USA board, 16 17 did the specific team members who were charged with specific 18 functions report to the Dow USA board, or did you report on t 19 the whole thing? i 20 { A No, each team member took hic part and reported 21 on it, and then I su.marized the conclusion. !I 22 ] Q Okay. 23 'Iow, agair., there was some question by -- I i 24 i believe it was Mr. Olmstead -- as to why the team -- by that, I i 25 I recognize that you can only speak for yourself as chairman c5c:- 9edera[ cRep:te:1, Snc. 444 NORTH C A *!?CL STREET g _j 7 4 l (}J ltl j w A s si N orc N. o.c. 2ccoi facz) J 4 7-a 7e o l 1
47 i l 1 of the team -- whether any consideration was given to the 2 possible delay due to suspension, or for whatever reason, l as a possible benefit to Dow as opposed to a detriment. 3 i My question to you is: 4 I 5 1 Did the factor of delay, if it was considered,-- 1 i I 6 first of all, was the factor of delay of the nuclear power 7 plant considered as an i.ssue in the course of the review B team's work? 9 A Further delay? 10 ; Q Yes, sir. i 11 ' A It was something that we treated as a potential 12
- risk, i
l 0 Not as a benefit, '.s that correct? 13 l A. Not as a benefit, but only as a problem that if 14 j l 15 l we ended up delaying this plant any further it's bound to i i 16 ; cause it to be more expensive and we would have more i 17 ; difficulties. 18 l Q Now, you attended the meeting on September 21, i 19 ! 1976, is that correct? 20 i A Yes. t 21 Q During the course of that meeting do you recall 2: any statement being made as to what type of witness should i 23 be put on the stand to talk about the Cow Chemical Company? 24 A Yes. There were scme co ments made. My 9-i 25 recollection was -- as I think I indicated earlier -- that t i l j c4ce-]ede l cRepc:!c:s,.Onc. 315 04.O .u sonra camcc sincer o wa sm saro s. ac. 2000, l (202) 34 7-J 70o
l c lI Consumers Power questioned whether Jce Temple would be the I 2 ! apprcpriate witness. I 3 I think Mr. Oreffice's name came up. I think the 4 suggestion -- the possibility of me. And Laggestions of 5 I can't recall, but maybe Mr. Decker's name came up as a { possibility. I think there was some discussion by Consumers 6 about having a witness who might not be as knowledgeable or 7 8 ! as involved as Mr. Temple. I 9 Q Now, you stated earlier, and I noted it, and I 10 ! don't know whether I got it down correctly or not, something 11 to the effect that a witness who is less emotionally f incolved and less knowledgeable. Do you recall making a 12 13 statement like that during your interrugation? 14 l A
- Yes, t
15 0 Were those two factors included, less emotionally 16 involved and less knowledgeable? Or do you remember? 17 A I'm paraphrasing it in my -- as I recollected it. I 18 : I don't recall those words were said, exactly. Those are I ~ 19 l my words. 20 0 Now, would you turn to page 2 of your notes of 21 September 24, 1976? I'm calling your attention specifically' i 22 I to the line beginning, "Would certainly seek to recover I, ? l I damages frcm Dow..." and then you've got three items 23 l i 24 annearing underneath thar. t 25 I just am asking you: Do the three items i 1 l &l:e-]e.le:.2[ c9epcz!:, !b2c. 444 NORTH C A PITC L. STRECT I ,1 W A S HIN GTO N. D.C. 20001 1202) 3 4 7.3 7CO
49 l' l appearing here appear to be like subparagraphs, explaining 1 2 the circumstances under which Consumers would sock damages 3 from Dow? I 4 l A Right. l Q So the paragraoh beginning, 'dould certainly seek 5 6 i to recover damages from Dow" is tied in with the paragraphn 7 that follow, is that correct? i 8. A Yes. 9 O Is it tied in any way with the paragraph that to precedes it,,to your knowledge? i 11 A Well, the paragraph that precedes it is certainly 12 a preamble to that point I think. It's a preamble to the 13 sentence, "Would certain'.y seek to recover damages from Dow." r Q Now, at the time that the statement was made 14 I 15 about the Dow witness, which I think again you said you i were paraphrasing, but something to the effect a witness who 16 17 was less emotionally involved than Joe Temple and less i i 18 ! knowledgeable, l 19 ML, CHARNOFF: This is back on the September 21 ~ 9 20 ' meeting? i 21 MR. POTTER: Yes. I'm sorry. That's a good 3 22 ) point, i 23 BY MR. POTTER: l 1 i f 'l 24 O We're back at the September 21 meeting. Did I ] jou or any of the Dow representatives have any reaction to 25 i I CYCyCT!CM, hl:C. l Y.,*C d C3 444 NORTH C APf TCL STREET W A SHIN GTO N, D C. 20001 i (202) J47 3 700
l 50 1 I i that? 2 i i A I don't recall any particular reaction, I think 3 l if Dow reacted it was a very neutral reaction. I can't i 4 l l recall a particular reaction. i 5 l l 0 Now, you were asked whether you helped prepare l 6 the notes of Mr. Nute or Mr. Hanes after either the l 7 ! l September 21 or the September 24 meeting, and I believe i 8 I your answer was no, is that correct? 9 i 1 A Yes. 10 0 Is it also a fair statement that neither Mr. II l Nute nor Mr. Hancs assisted you in preparing your notes of i 12 those meetings? i 13 l A Right. I 14 j Q You prepared them on your own? i 15 ! A Yes. I 16 Q During the meeting? 17 A Yes. 18 MR. POTTER: I don't have any further questions. i 10 i MR. OLMSTEAD: I havo follow-up question. 'O REDIRECT EXAMla,.IloN 21 ! BY MR. OLMSTEAD: 1 ] O If you would go back to your September 24 notes 22 l l i and the quotation that you attributed to Mr. Falahee -- I i .I i l believe it was en page 2 or 3 -- about the hell of a legal 9 i "A l p rob l er... ,ll } &cc-Dchd c%=tcu. nn:. 315 05; 444 NORTH C A P!TC L STREET W A S HINGTO N. P C. 2000t f ?nti 147.376o I
51 l 1 l MR. CHAR::OFF : That's the September 21 notes. 2 : BY MR. OLMSTEAD: l Q All right. Page 4 of the September 21 notes. 3 I When you were answering Mr. Charnoff's questions 4 I i concerning that quotation you indicated that that wa; the 5 type of thing you would have preferred to hear from Mr. Hanes? 6 7 A Well, what I meant is I would have preferred that Hanes would interpret for myself and the review 8 PJ. 9 committee what our legal position was with regard to i l 10 i Consumers contract. I 11 I Q Did you subsequently ask Mr. Hanes his opinion 12 ! of that matter? I 13 A I can't recall. -~ 14 Q At any time during the review did you ask Mr. l 15 Hanes about his opinion in that matter? 16. A Mr. Hanes reviewed the contract. I think the l l 17 ! nearest thing we came to that was Mr. Hanes reviewed the 18 contract and Dow's legal obligations, both with the review t 19 team and at the meeting with the U. S. Area board, where we 20 presented the conclusions. 21 Q And did he ask -- agree with Mr. Falahee's 1 22 analysis as vcu understood it? i i i A Well, I don't think he did c::actly, or would 3 i )i have stated it quite that strongly. I think ::r. Hanes' 24 9 l J 25 l position was there is a legal question here as to whether l 1 l l i i c~a Jede=i cRepciten. Onc. l 3 i 5 0 "a } W A S HIN GTC N, O.C. 20001 '232) 3 7 3700 g
52 i i l Dow would be in breach of the contract if something that 1 1, Dow said would have caused the construction to be suspended 2 9 3 and so on. 4 j Q Did he also raise the possibility that Consuners l 5 ; might be in breach of the contract? i i 6 A That's right. i, 7 i MR, OLMSTEAD: Thank you. 8 MR. CHAR:iOFF: I just have one questicn. RECROSS-EXAMINATION 9 ! 1 \\ 10 BY MR. CHARMOFF: i i 11 Q You mentioned that at the September 21 meeting hen there was some discussion of Mr. Temple's suitability i? 13 as a witness or selection as a witness, there was some 1 discussion of other names like Mr. Oreffice, yourself, Mr. 14 1 Klomparens, and Mr. Decker. 15 : i i Do you recall whether t' lose names were proposed 16 1 17 ! by representatives of Consumers or by representatives of I t 18 Dow? O ig A I think Consu~ers, if I recall, was suggesting most of the things with regard to the witnesses. I think 20 21 1 Dow's position was relatively neutral, as I said, as to 3 1 l which would be their appropriate witness. 22 l But I can't recall for sure whether Mr. Cecker's 23 i i name c:ne up. Scmplace along the line his name has come i 74 ; O I l un as a potential witness, and I dcn't recall whether it was; 25 j i Sr:c. b\\ l c $:e- ] c.l : I O cyc:!c:3, l 444 NORTH C A PITOL STREET l W AS HIN GTO N, 0.0. 20001 (202) 347 37CO
0 53 1 l in that meeting for sure. 7 2 I l 0 But the Oreffice and Klomparens names did come i 3 - l up? i 4 I i A I believe they did. 5 Q And de you recall whether they came from consumers? 6 j Do you recall whet.er it came from Mr. n.an f rew, or Bacon, t 7 'l or Falahee? ? i ld A No. ~ 9 MR. CHARNOFF: I have no other questions. 10 1 Thank you. 11 MR. OLMSTEAD: The end. 12 (Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the taking of the i f deposition was concluded.) 13 14 15 ! 16 l t 17 i i 18 I I 19 20 21 L 1 l 23 l 24 l 9 l 25 1 l l .I l cA:c-9ede:ai cRecc:te:1. Onc 7 C J } } {} J lr Jl cuird, srnct, m ~ cars w s m ~ oro n. o c. 2000, i l i f202) 347 37C0
I i. li l q 4 1] CERTIFICATE OF NOTaln PLDI,1C i! i 29 l l 3 I, f, [4sff', gd.c./,-u_,a notary public. do l i 4[ hereby certify that the witness whose testimony apg - i ea 5 ;j herein, appeared before me and was duly sworn by me. l I 6I I b H}AdA bN teL- _ 7 j'l Notary public in and tor the i i u l gi fhMLww W e.bA), 9, .\\lr commission expires 4 l 10; i I ji( HELEN M. RA33 ACE 'li E !x:7 Public. MISand Cxnry Mi;ht:m MI Cecuchsien Er; ires.i :: c 3.1 C .f 12, 1 13! i l i 14 jj CERTIFICATE OF COURT REl'ORTER n, i 15[ e I n 16l 1, William E. Landon Court Reporr-do
- i 1
i 17;l hereby certify that the testimony contained hereia is a true 18'. record of the testimony given by said witness, and I f' n' '. h e - 19" cer t i fy that I am neither attorney nor counsel for, rela ad 20 l to or employed by any of the partie- .o the action i n s.h t c', 21 ' this statement is taken: and, further that 1 an not a ( 22 re1ative or an empioyee of r'ny attorney or c o u n c,e ! ema ! t te 23 b;. the parties hereto, or financiall:, interected in 14 9 l 24, action.
- : - Fe2 nt ?mt :ers, l.ic.
a / ,p s /w _,, / '. / _ / Court Reporior 315 05,_ a}}