ML20153B820
| ML20153B820 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/18/1985 |
| From: | Landsman R NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151D196 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-583 NUDOCS 8805060088 | |
| Download: ML20153B820 (130) | |
Text
r
?
1 2 STATE OP !!IQIIGAt1 3 IN T!!C CIRCUIT COURT FOR TIIE COUNTY OP !!ICLA!!D 4 .------... -___.__
)
5 DGI OICIIICAL COMPA!!Y, )
)
6 Plaintiff, )
)
7 -va- )
) !!o . 03-0022325 0 CO!!SUMERS IUiER CO!! pally, )
)
9 Def enda nt. )
)
10 ------------------
11 The Continued Deposition of Ross B. Landsman,
- aken bef ore me, Glenn G. Miller, CSR-2596, Registered 12 frof essional B.eporter and !!otary Public within and f or the County of Wayne, (acting in Chicago), State of !!ichigan, 13 pt 200 East Randolph Drive, 59th Floor, Chicago, Illinoic, en Tuesday, J"no 18, 1985.
16 RIRKL A!!D & CLLIS I 200 East Randolph Drive j 17 Chicago, Illinois 60501 :
(By James Goold, Ccq.)
18 Appearing on behalf of the Plaintif f, 19 0ARRIS, SOTT, DC!l!! & DRIICR 20 10 th Floor First Federal Building Detroit, l'ichi ga n 48224 21 (Dy John Libby, Esq. and James Brunner, E sq . ) i 22 l l Appearing on behalf of the Defendant.
23 ,
i !
24 88050600B0 000400 !
'*0 P 'U"# E""
14netir ILddene .3 twin %rthuntern Hu w Swtr h30 962'EIIh har :he
[htrmt. \fwktgan AC2h farmenttrue lislls, \fwktran 44n1R
r . _ _ _ _ _ - . _
9 1 APPCARNICES CONTINUED 1
i 2
l 21EIL JCISDI, Cog. i Office of General Counsel 3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Uashington D. C. 20555 Appearing on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
5 l -
l 6 I 7
l 8 hLSO PRESRIT Karen Laundroche John Ricci 9
10 ,
11 ,
12 i
. 13 14 15
)
l '
1G ,
t .
17 i 18 19 20 !
21 22 ,
1 23 l
24 .
i f
2 Luzod Reportine Servier _,mg .
gg,y,, g,gg,,, '
hur hyl 962 liI6 Ssar ap) l>tra t. \fschtsan 4M.% Farmsnuton listis % sutan 6801R
. _ - _ . _ . . _ _ . - - _ _ - - . . . ~ _ _ _ . ,__-.. . . - . _ _ . _ . -.--_ - _ . -.
1 1
2 11 I T N E S S INDCX ,
3 4 Witnoss Dramined By Page 5 h0SS D. LMIDailAN Hr. Libby 5 6 Mr. Coold 111 i 7
8 f
I l
10 ,
11 r
12 :
13 2XHIBIT INDEX ,
14 i 15 .
I Exhibit No. Description Page i
15 D-4950 Transcript entitled Evidentiary 19 Hearing, dated 12-10-82 17 I D-4945 Memorandum f rom Pao-Tsin Kuo 25 i
18 to James P. Knight, dated 10-21-83 19 I> 4 951 Letter from James Keppler to 45 r James Cook, de ted 1-18-83 (
20 D-4952 Copy of Investigation report 59 21 concerning alleged violation of Licensing Doord order of 4-30-82 l i 22 , ,
[
D-4953 Report of Investigation, Titles 62 l 23 !!idland Nuclear Power Plant Alleged -
Violation of Atomic Saf ety and ;
) 24 Licensing Doard order !
l i i i !
lajneste (k!d.nz MAIO %rthurn re fin Sune MO 962 Ii?6 Suite 50 h iktrat. \lahizan M:3 Farminetm lidh, \faharan Molh .
l :
1 i '
2 i E X 11 I D I T INDEX 3 l i
4 cxhibit No. Description Page 5 D-4 94 8 Februa ry 27, 1981 Telecon Regarding 67 changes in remedial actions for 6 Midland soil settlement 7 D-4932 Letter f rom James Keppler to James 78 Cook, dated 1-12-81 8
D-4933 Letter f rom James Keppler to James 82 9 ,
Cook, dated 2-2-81 10 D-4934 Letter f rom James Keppler to James 84 Cook, dated 5-21-81 11 l i D-4955 Letter f rom James Keppler to James 84 12 i Cook, dated 7-10-81 13 D-4930 Letter f rom CE Norelius to James 96 Cook, 7-2-82 14 D-4936 Letter f rom CE Norelius to James 96 15 Cook, 4-26-82 16 D-4937 Letter f rom CE Norelius to James 96 Cook, 4-26-82 17 D-4939 Letter f rom WS Little to James Cook, 96 18 8-9-82 19 D-4940 Letter f rom RF Harnick to James Cook, 9G 9-22-82 20 NRC 262 Letter f ron RP Warnick to James Cook, 96 21 11-8-82 -
22 D-4943 Letter f ren James Keppler to James 96 Cook, 4-7-83 23 i nce 848 Document entitled Memorandum, 12-13-78 121 l 24 w ,,,,
Lund Reportine Service , y n a.as,a ,,,
sier nw 962 1176 %ve LM ;
introa, \twhite +9:2n Famington Hdlu \fickreen MH8
.. . 1 l
4 1 Chicago, Illinois 2 Tuesday, June 10, 1985 3 9:00 a.m.
4 .
5 ROSS LANDSHAN 6 was thereupon called as a witness herein and, after 7 having been first duly sworn to tell the truth, the i
~
8 n . a truth and nothing but the truth, was examined i.
I i
5 D testified as foll w s:
i 10 !!R. RICCI: It's June 18 and it's continuing .
I 11 the deposition. Star
- with tape number f our. l 12 EX.. T TION I i
13 $Y !!R. LIDDY:
14 Q Dr. Landsman, just as sort of a preambio to my
[
15 cr oss-examina tion, I have a terrible habit of talking too ;
i 16 quickly and also mumbling my words. So if there's any j 17 time you don' t understand the question, plence stor me and i 18 ask me to repeat the question please.
19 Dr. Landsman, I believe you testified 20 yesterday that you joined the NRC in December of 1979; is 21 that correct?
22 A Yoc.
I 23 2 And am I correct that the Nuc1 car Regulatory Commission is 24 composed of several branches?
g ,,,,, gas,, Lused Repo, tine Se,rier , . ,k su,. a u: ms s.,, w De, rat. \lekiesn 4 C.% Fermntton lidh \fakisan WMM
1 A Yes.
2 O And is one of those branches known as the of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation?
4 A I think so.
5 2 And it goes by the acronym NRR?
6 4 If that's the one.
7 Q Okay. Is that particular branch headquartered in 8 Washington D.C.?
9 A Yes.
10 2 And what's the scope of the activities of that branch?
11 \ I think they review SAR's for compliance with the URC ac.
12 requirements.
13 2 And do they also have some responsibility in the area of 14 approving design of nuclear plancs as submitted by the 15 licensee?
)
16 \ That's in the SAR, right. !
I 17 1 okay. And when you were involved in Midland did you 4 18 become f amiliar with the persons f rom the NRR who were i l
19 involved in the review of the Midland FS AR?
20 i Yes, I did.
21 0 And in particular did you come to know a man named Darl i
22 Hood? l 23 l\ Yes.
i 24 O And am I correct that Mr. Hood was the coordinator of the 0
L d ReporIing Serviee y ,g 3.,,g,, ,, ._
(gayettc Building Suite MO 962 I176 Suite 2b0 Farmington flith .\lichigan 18018 Detroit. \h[chigan M226. --- - - -- - - . - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - __ _
l' URR review of the FSAR?
2 A I don' t know if he's the coordinator. He's the proj ect
'3 manager in NRR.
4- 0 Do you know what his responsibilities would be within that 5 posi tion?
6 o Not exactly.
7 O And beneath Mr. Hood were there a series of reviewers who 8 would be responsibic for reviewing particular portions of 9 design of the Midland Project?
10 a Yes.
l 11- 6 And in the geotechnical area was the primary reviewer a 12 man named Joe Kane?
13 A Yes.
14 0 And did you believe that Mr. Kane was qualified to fill l
15 that position? l 16 A Yes. i l
17 And did you become aware also that ifr. Kane was aided in 18 his eff orts to review the geotechnical design at Midlar.d 19 by a consultant that was hired by the NRC7 20 'i There was a couple consultants, yes.
21 0 And was the consultant that was involved in the 22 l geotechnical area the Corps of Engineers?
l 23 A In one area. i l
24 Okay. And what area were they involved in? ;
1 l
Luizod Reporting Service y ,g 3.,,,w,,,7 ,,
lxfayette Risilding Suite MO 962.I176 Suite 2:0 IMroit, \fichigan R1226 Farmoneton flills 11ichiean 18018
,-_ - ~ _ -- --._ _._., . _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ .- - - _ - - - - - _ - - _ _ . .s
1 A They were involved in the Diesel Generator Building.
2 0 And are you f amiliar with a man _ named Harry Singh?
3 n Yes.
4 Q And is he an employee of the Corps of Engineers?
5 N Yes.
6 2 And was he involved in the review of the Di.esel Generator 7 Building?
8 N Yes.
9 9 And did you believe that Mr. Singh was qualified to 10 fulfill his role?
11 ; Yes.
12 Q And during your involvement in the Midland Project did you 13 also become f amiliar with the persons who were employed in 14 the structural branch of the review of the MRR?
15 4 Yes.
16 ) In particular did you come in contact with a name named l
17 Frank Rinaldi?
18 4 Yes.
19 0 And was Mr. Rinaldi the primary reviewer of the structural 20 design components?
21 '\ I' m not sure on the structural branch.
22 Q Did you believe that Mr. Rinaldi was qualif.ied to f ulfill 23 his position?
]
24 Probably. !
8 Lutod Reporting Service ,g 3,,g ,,, ,,
g4ay,,g, giggu, kite hw 962 1176 suite 220 Detroit, \fichigan 48226 Farmington flills, Alichigan M1018
1 0 And did you come- to learn that the structural review that 2 was taking place by the Nnn was also supported by the 3 activities of the consultant?
4 j i Yes.
5 U And was that consultant the Naval Surf ace Weaponc Research 6 Laboratory?
7 a That was one of them. I 8 4 Do you know what their involvement in the review of the 9 PSAR was?
10 < L I can' t recall right now.
11 0 Do you know whether or not they were involved in the 12 review of the DGB?
13 A Part of it I thhnk.
14 Q And did you come to know a man named John Matra?
15 i Yes.
16 0 And is he an employee of the NSURL'! Is that the acronym 17 they go by? .
I 18 \ I think so.
19 0 And is he an employee of that agency?
20 \ I think so.
21 ? And was he involved in the review of the structural 22 integrity of the Diesel Generator Building? i l
23 A I think so. ;
24 0 Now, another branch of the NRC, as I understand it, is !
l i
7, fay,gg, guitging Luzod Reporting Service 3 9 3., ,,9,, ,,
Suite hw 962 1176 Suite 220 Iktroit. \fichigan 48226 Farmington Ihlis. .\fichigan 48018 ,
1 known as the Office of Inspection and Enforcement; is that 2 correct?
3 h Yes.
l, 4 Q And that goes by the acronym I & E?
5 A Right.
I 6 2 One question j ust to back up. Did you believe that Mr.
7 Matra was qualifieo to fulfill that position?
8 N Probably was.
9 2 And am I correct that you've been employed by the of fice 10 of Inspection and Enforcement since you've been involved 11 with the NRC?
12 A That's correct.
13 1 And could you briefly deceribe what the responsibilities 14 of I & E are?
15 A Just what it says, we' re the inspection arm of thr: Unc. I 16 We' re in the field and we make sure that the licensees 17 construct the plants according to the PSAR req u: :ements. I 18 1 Okay. So they would be -- your responsibility would be to 19 assure that the licensee is constructing the plant in 20 accordance with the design that was approved by URR?
21 A Yes.
22 O And am I correct that the primary means for fulfilling 23 this function is to conduct inspections of the site?
24 A Yes. ,
Luzod Reporting Service 10 infayette Building yo 3., , y Suite Aw 962 1176 Suite 220 Ik troit, \fichigan 18226 Farmineton Hith, \fichigan 18018
1 1 And let me back up. I believe you said you became 1 2 involved in the !!idland Plant some time in 1980 or 1981:
3 is that correct?
4 A Somewhere around there.
5 Q And prior to your first inspection of the site what did 6 you do in order to familiari::e yourself with the status of 7 construction at flidland?
8 a I don' t think I did. I j ust think I went out there.
9 0 Okay. And did you go out there in the company of another 10 inspe ctor ?
11 a I think so.
l 12 Q And who was that inspector or inspectors?
l 13 A Gene Gallagher I think.
I 1.
14 Q And when you conduct an inspection at a site do you use 15 any kind of a checklist or any kind of written procedure i
16 in order to conduct your inspection?
17 A No, I do not.
18 q could you briefly describe then f or me how you go about 19 conducting an inspection?
l 20 p I just usually go out on site. I knew enough about soil 21 mechanics or structural to j ust -- I know what's wrong and i 1 22 l I know what's right.
i 23 0 Okay. When you go to a site visit do you f ocus on a !
l' l 24 particular activity or just look at the activities going l
1.afayette Buildme Lumd Reporting Service y ,n .,,,9 1) ,,
~
Suite Mo 962 11<*6 Suit,2;o Iktroit. \fichigan 18226 Farmineton lidh. .\fichigan 18018
1 on at the site in general?
2 ) A I usually focus on the areas that I know best, namely soil 3
3 mechanics or the structural end of it.
4 Q And is it your general practice to notify the licensee of . 4 5 the particular area that you' re going to be inspecting?
6 A Usually we have an entrance meeting on site and most of 7 our inspections are unannounced, but we have an entrance 8 meeting on site and we usually. inf orm the plant 9 superintendent or manager of what we' re going to look at.
10 But that doesn' t limit us to what we' re going to look at.
11 1 And you say that you start out with an entrance meeting.
12 Following the entrance meeting, and I'm j ust talking say 13 that you' re going to look at a particular aspect of the 14 soils work say at Midland, would you normally go and look 15 at the design documents that related to that activity? l l
.6 ) Sometimes, i 17 And other times you would not? j l'
10 k That's right.
19 ) And you would just go out and look at the activity as it 20 was going f orward?
21 ( Right.
22 ) And then am I correct that when the inspection is over you 23 hold an exit meeting?
24 h Yes.
Infayette Buddine Luzod Reporting Service ,,g ., 12, , , ,
kite Mo 962 1176 Suit, 2:0 Dettmt, \fichigan 18226 Farmington lidh, \fschigan IR018
1 And what's the purpose of the exit meeting?
2., A To inform the licensee what my findings were, whether they 3 be bad or good.
L 4 t) Okay. And"then is it your normal practice to subsequently 5 incorporate your findings into a written document?
6 i t .Yes.
7 0 And ~are those known as inspection reports?
8 A Correct. ,
9 0 And those inspection reports are then -- I assume you 10 draft them; is that correct?
11 A Yes.
12 0 Does anyone within the I & E branch review those?
13 A Usually your section chief.
14 0 And is he reviewing it for accuracy or what's the purpose 15 of his review? d 16 A I don' t know.
17 '
) Then af ter he reviews it does he then discuss comments 18 with you, is that the normal practice?
19 4 Yes. ,
20 ) And you resolve those comments? l 21 A That's correct.
I 22 And then the report is finali::ed; is that correct? l 23 A That's correct, j i
24 Q And then the report is transmitted to the licensee?
i imod Reporting Service l.afayette Budding Snito rao 962 1II6 y m 3.,,),,3,, Suite 2
,, 50 Detroit. \fichigan M22fs Farmington liilh, \lichigan an1R
1 .
1 h Yes.
2 0 And is it also transmitted to those individuals that are 3 on the distribution list?
4 h Ye s.
5 Q Do you know how individuals or corporations get upon the 6 distribution list?
7 4 . No.
8 ) Is it also true that the inspection reports are filed in 9 what's known as public document rooms?
10 4 Yes.
11 2 And there's a public document room, is there not, in D.C.?
12 A Yes.
13 ) And there's one here in Chicago, right?
14 4 Yes.
15 2 And j ust so I' m clear, is the I & E for the Midland site i 16 sometimes referred to as Region III?
i 17 A Yes. !
I 18 0 Am I correct that the I & E branch is divided up into 19 various regions throughout the country?
, 20 '\ Yes.
21 0 And Region III, or Midland, happens just to f all within 22 the geographical domain of Region III; is that correct?
23 h I' m sorry.
I 24 0 I' m sorry, maybe I misphrased it. And Midland j uct >
i I
u3 'PorHng Seraee 39g ,o 3,,,5 w,,,f,, y;,,_
lafayette Building Suite 630 902*lli6 Suite 220 Detrost. \fichigan 18226 Farminutoa lhlis. Alichigan 18018
t 1 happens to fall within the geographic domain of Region 2 III; is'that correct?
3 A That's correct.
4 O Region III is located in Glen Ellyn, Illinois?
5 A That's correct.
6 0 Is that where the public document room is located also?
7 a 2es.
8 0 And is there also a public document room in Midland, 9 Michigan?
10 A Yes, there is.
11 Q And is that public document room limited solely to the 12 Midland Nuclear Plant?
13 A I don' t know. I' ve never been there.
1 14 0 Okay. I believe you said yesterday that at some point in ,
i 15 1980 or 1981 you became the f ull time inspector for the i
16 Midland site; is that correct? i 17 ( For soils work, that's correct.
18 ) Were thero other full time inspectors in other areas of 19 the plant during this time period?
20 ji We had a resident inspector by the name of Ron Cook on ;
21 site who was also f ull time, i 22 ) Is -- by on site you mean he lived in Midland; is that 23 correct? j 24 A That's cor rect. I i
l I lafayette Building Lmd Reporting Service y w 34),,5, ,,
sclite MO 962 1176 Suite gao Detrmt. \fichigan 18226 Farmington Ilills, \lichigan 18018
4 O
1 Q Uhat were !!r. Cook's responsibilities, if you know?
2 A !!c was the resident inspector. He was on site all the 3 time.
4 0 Okay.
5 4 To monitor construction activities in a general way.
6 0 Okay. And then you were responsible for monitoring the 7 construction activities related to the soils work?
8 A That's correct.
9 ) And also the remedial soils work?
10 A That's correct.
11 2 And approximately how many other inspectors were involved 12 in conducting inspections at the Midland site during this 13 time period when you were a full time inspector?
14 \ I have no idea.
l 15 D Do you know any of the names of the other inspectors that ;
16 were at t!idland?
17 A During '80? !
l
.18 Q '80, ' 01, whenever you became f ull time.
19 \ You'd have to look through the reports. That would be the 20 ea sy way. You j ust pick the names of f the f ront, 21 Q Okay. And were these other inspectors, would they be 22 looking at particular aspects of construction? ;
23 A Yes. 4 ;
24 f) Other than the soils work?
Lmd Reporting Service gg . ,,
Infayette Bustdine 962.I176 Suite MO Suite 220 Iktroit. \fichigan 49226 Farmington Ifills Alichican I8018
I t
'1 A Yes.
2 0 And you don' t have any knowledge as to how f requent their 3 inspections were during this time period?
-4 A I have no idea.
5 Q How frequent were your inspections?
6 a As often as I needed to know.
7 <! Uas it on a regular basis or sort of ad hoc?
8 a Ad hoc.
9 Q Did the number of your visits increase during 1982?
10 a I think so, as the work got more.
11 0 And 1982 is when the remedial soils work in the area of 12 the Auxiliary Building began to pick up; is that correct?
13 A I think so.
I i
14 0 Dr. Landsman, yesterday you made several ref erences to 15 your opinions concerning the structural integrity of the l
16 DGB. Do you recall that generally?
17 A Okay.
18 0 In the first instance isn't it true that the initial 19 determination of the structural integrity of the DGB was 20 to be made by the stz:uctural section of the 11RR?
21 ;\ That's correct.
22 Q And that would have been Ur, Rinaldi's group? ;
I 23 A I think so.
l 24 0 And when the NRR completes their review of th e FS AR, am I i l !
lui d R' Porting Service gg 5 1,7 ,,
Lafvette &ddine '
suite mo 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit, \fichigan m226 Farminston Ildh.11ichigan mole
.~
1 correct there's a document created known as the saf ety
- 2. evaluation report? -
3 A Yes.
4 Q It's also known as the SER I guess?
5 i Yes.
6 ? The SER and any supplements to that set forth the opinions 7 of the reviewers; is that correct?
8 A That's correct.
9 p And are you aware that in October of 1982 a supplement was 10 issued to the SER in which Mr. Rinaldi's group concluded 11 that the structural integrity of the DGB was saticf actory?
12 h Yes.
l 13 D And are you also aware that subsequent to that Mr. Rinaldi 14 testified in the ASLB coils hearings concerning that same 15 topic?
16 6 Yes.
l 17 0 And let me show you a document -- and did Mr. Rinaldi l
18 continue to hold to his position that he believed that the ;
19 DGB was structurally sound?
J 20 Yes, he did.
21 D Let me show you an exhibit which I've previously marked as 22 , Def endant Exhibit D-4950 and ask if you can identify this 23 as the testimony of Messrs. Rinaldi, Matra and Harstead j l
24 f rom the ASLB hearings held on December 10, 1982 0
I'usod Reporting Service m 3.,, , ,, .
Infayette Building suiar Mo 962 11i6 suite 2:a Detroit,1fichUm QM __ __ _ _ _ _ . Farminetm IliUy\ficQitan m018_ _
"~
l t
1 concerning the structural intogrity of the DGB. And why 2 don' t we go of f the record while he reviews that.
3 (Deposition Exhibit No. D-4 95 0 ,
4 Transcript entitled Evidentiary 5' Hearing, dated 12-10-82, was 6 marked f or identification.)
7 A You don' t want me to read this whole thing.?
8 BY MR. LIBBY:
9 0 No. All I want you to do is see if you can identify this 10 a s the --
- 11. A You can stay on the record.
12 Q Okay, stay on the record.
13 A Yes.
1 14 ,Q And who was Mr. Harstead?
15 A lie was also a consultant hired by URR.
1 16 Q Uas he also an employee of the Nuclear Heapons Recearch 17 Group?
- 18 A I don' t think so. I think he's got his own consulting 19 company, I think.
20 0 And do you recall that Mr. !!arstead had also concluded 21 that the DGB was structurally sound?
22 A Yes.
23 0 And he testified to that f act bef ore the soils hearing? !
I 24 A Yes.
lofayette Building Luzod heporting Service yo 3.Q,,9 ,, .
suite sw 962 1176 suar 220 (ktemt \f;chigan 18226 Farmington flills. \fichigan $8018 c
m 1
1 Q And for Mr. Matra, who 1 think was a member of the Weapons 2- Research Group; is that correct?
3 A I think so.
4 Q And 'did you know at this time that Mr. Matra also believed 5 the DGD was structurally sound?
6 A At that time, yes.
7 2 And that he testified ~to that f act in the ASLB hearings?
8 4 That's correct.
9 0 Dr. Landsman, these hearings were held in the Midland 10 County Courthouse; is that correct?
11 4 Either -- it usually says where, ies.
12 2 Okay.
13 4 This set of hearings was.
14 D This set of hearings. In the more general sense, where 15 were the locations of the various hearings?
16 h Either in the Midland County Courthouse or in the Quality 17 Inn.
]
18 Q Quality Inn in Midland?
19 4 Yes.
20 i) And were these hearings open to the public? t i
i 21 3 Yes, they were.
22 O And I believe also during the ASLB soils hearings that you 23 testified that you did not believe that the DGB was 24 structurally sound; is that correct? i I"U200 N' Porting Service 20
,,9 5.,,, ,, ,, ,,
ggay,u, gu,ggi,,
kite MO 962*III6 Suite 220 I Iktroit. \lichigan M226 Farmington lidh. Alichigan 18018 "
1 A That's correct.
2 Q And did you make those statements during the ASLB hearing?
3 .A Yes, I did.
4 Q In !!idland, Michigan?
5 i t Yes, I did.
.6 Q Subsequent to your making those statements, did anyone 7 f rom the Dow Chemical Company ever contact you concerning 8 your opinions? ,
9 A Not that I can recall.
10 tiR. GOOLD: Apart f rom the deposition today .
11 I assume?
12 BY MR. LIBBY:
l 13 Q Mell, apart f rom the deposition today. l 14 A That's correct.
15 Q Subsequent to your testifying at the ASLB hearing !
16 concerning the structural integrity of the DGB, were you l 17 called to appear as a witness before a congressional 18 committee?
i 19 4 Yes, I was. !
20 0 Is that committee known as the Udall Committee?
21 N Yes, it was. ,
22 Q And at the time that you were called to testify bef ore the 23 Udall Committee was the quantion as to the structural ,
24 integrity of the DGB pending before the ASLB?
i 1.afayrtre Buildins Luod Reporting Service gg \.g,2,1,, 9 , ,
S wtr M O 962 1II6 Suite 220 Detrout, \fichigan 48226 Farmington Ilith. \fichigan 23018
l l
1 A Yes.
2 O And as I understand it, Dr. Landsman, from your testimony 3 yesterday the dispute between yourself and the structural 4 branches related to the measurements of settlement at the 5 DGD; is that correct?
6 4 First, I wouldn' t call it a dispute.
7 2 Okay, 8 \ No, it's not only the measurement it's the wholo 9 structural adequacy of the building.
10 ) Okay. Am I correct that you held the position it wasn' t 11 structurally adequate because of the number of cracks in 12 the DGB? .
13 \ It's not only I; it's fir. Kane and Mr. Singh also.
14 ) Okay. And then am I correct that !!r. f!atra and 11r.
15 Harstead and tir. Rinaldi held the opinion that it was ,
16 structurally sound despite the cracks?
17 A Yes, and then the Drookhaven report agreed with me also, 18 that. it was not sound.
1 19 0 Oksy. We'11 get to that in j ust a second.
1 20 '\ I want to make sure.
21 Q And the Udall report, and bef ore the Udall Committee you I
22 l again, did you not, testify that you did not believe that ,
l 23 the DGB was structurally sound; is that correct?
24 A That's cor rect.
GM Repomng kice ,og,g9,,h,,,f,,,7,,,
pgy,gg, ymtg;n, Suite Mo 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit. \fichisan t8226 , - - _ - _ _ --- _ . -_ _ ._ _.. _-_ _ _
___Farmincron
,. . 'lhlis. \fichigan 18018. _ _ _
3 1 0 And as a result of these concerns that you expressed 2 before a congressional committee, am I correct that a 3 special task f orce was f ormed within the NRC to review 4 your concerns?
5 A That's correct.
6 0 And was this something of a blue ribbon task f orce?
7 n I wouldn' t go that f ar.
l 8 0 okay. Well, was the task force headed by a man named 9 Pac-Tsin Kuo, is it?
10 A Kuo I think.
l 11 Q Kuo?
l 12 4 I think so.
I i 13 0 Okay. And he was employed by the of fice of the NRR?
l 14 A He was Frank Rinaldi's boss.
I 15 0 Okay. And was this special task force aided by a 16 consultant team from the Brookhaven National Laboratory?
I 17 A ty understanding was the Brookhaven group was supposed to 18 do the independent analysis, not this blue ribbon panel.
19 0 okay, well, did they in f act review your concerns? l l l 20 T Ye s, they did.
21 0 And do you recall what they concluded?
l 22 A They agreed with me. ;
23 0 It's your recollection that they agreed that the DGB was 24 not structurally sound? l l
I Lnod Reporting Sersice go. 3,,3 ,,
lafayette Buildung Su'ite fa0 962 ]176 Su,1,gho Decemt, \firhican m226 Farmington titlh. \fschigan S8als
t I .
1 A In view of the records that they examined that's correct.
2 Q And that was their final conclusion?
3 A That's correct.
l 4 0 And it's your recollection that the Brookhaven Institute 5 also reached that conclusion?
6 h Are you making a distinction between the Brookhaven 7 Institute and the Brookhaven report?
8 1 Hell, I'm making a distinction between the task f orce 9 that's created by the URC plus the Brookhaven Institut e as 10 you seem to make a distinction. Is there a distinction 11 between the two?
12 A I think so.
l l 13 0 So there would be two separate opinions reached, one by I j
14 the task force and one by the Brookhaven Institute?
15 4 I think so.
16 0 And j ust so we' re clear, it's your testimony that your 17 recollection is is that the task force as separate from 18 the Brookhaven Institute concluded that DGB was 19 structurally unsound?
20 4 No. The Brookhaven report agreed with me.
21 0 What about the task force? '
22 6 I don' t think they did. I think they said it's okay.
l 23 p okay. And it's your testimony or that your recollection is 7 24 that the Brookhaven Instituto concluded that the DGB is I i lafayetto Buildmx
'us d Reporting Sersiee ,,o S.g,,,f, 2
,7,,_ l Sm, aw 962 1176 sm, 2.m l Detmt. \fichien 48226 Farmington listin, \lichien 18018 ;
. ~ = - - - -
l 1 not structurally sound? '
2' A Dased on the documents and the results that they looked 3 at.
4 Q okay. Let me show you a document which I previously 5 marked as Def endant's Exhibit D-4945 and ask if you can 6 identify this as an internal memorandum between Mr. Kuo is 7 it?
8 a Kuo.- Good ahead. It's close enough l
9 Q Kuo, and Mr. Knight, dated October 21st, 1983 transmitting 10 the results of the review of your concerns about the DGD.
11 (Deposition Exhibit No. D-4945, 12 Memorandum f rom Pao-Tsin Kuo to 13 James P. Knight, dated 10-21-83, 14 was marked f or identification.)
15 A That's correct.
I 4 16 Y UR. LIDDY: i 17 O Dr. Landsman, just to run through this quickly, am I ;
18 correct that the first 20 pages of this report consists of 19 the findings of the task f orce?
1 20 '\ Yes.
21 0 And that subsection 7 of the report includes the 12 conclusions and recommendation portions? And if you' d i
23 like to turn over it's Dates numbers 4614 and 4615.
i 24 A 46 -- 1 l
(Afayette Butiding 3(6$0 Northur tren ((uy.
ss;ste mo 962.lli6 suite 2x Iktrat. \fichlewn M226 Farmington Hills. Afichienn molR
~.
U
-1 0 14.
2 A This is the conclusions of the what? I' m sorry.
3 0 The task force..
4 A It appears so.
l 5 0 okay. I' d j ust like to review this quickly. T'ieir first 6 finding dealt with the attempt to analyze the integrity of 7 the DGB by, and I may butcher this word as well, 8 linearizing the settlements or by applying the settlements 9 as measured?
10 A Let me read it.
11 D Sure.
l 12 h I'm sorry. Reask your question.
l 13 D Okay. The first section of this conclusions and 14 recommendations deals with their attempts to do an 15 analytical analysis of the integrity of the DGD; is that 16 correct?
17 \ Uith the original group.
, 18 0 Yes, with the task f orce, right.
1 19 \ I think they' re commenting on what Mr. Rinaldi and his 20 group did, i
21 q Okay.
22 i\ Initially.
23 h And their conclusion was they came out with unrealistic 24 results?
26 Lused Reporting Service ,go3 ,, ,,
- 1.afayette Rus! ding Suar Mo 962 1176 Suite LM Farminston lislls, Vichigan mol8 1 Buc%_ k%6UD C3$h _ __ ____ _
~.
l' A Tha't's cor rect. That's what it says here.
2 0- And then their f urther conclusion at the bottom is: For 3 this reason, the task f orce believes the rigorous analysis 4 to compute rebar stresses is unattainable?
5 a That's their conclusion, that's correct.
6 0 Okay. And turning to the second conclusion 7 recommendation, this recommendation deals with measuring 8 the cracks as a method of determining the stresses on the 9 structurer is that correct?
10 A That's correct.
l 11 0 And am I correct that overall their position was is that i 12 they could nFc determine the integrity of the structure by 13 doing analysis based on settlement readings but they felt 14 that you could monitor the integrity of the building by 15 monitoring the width of the cracks?
16 A You have to remember this is -- both of these items are 17 what Mr. Rinaldi and his group already said, if you read 18 the SER is what they did. They said they did a computer 19 run and said they got some results that are okay and now 20 this task f orce is saying you can' t do that, and then the 21 second item is what Mr. Rinaldi and his group based his j i
22 .
whole estimate of the stresses on in the building. ,
l i 23 0 okay. ]
I 24 A And now they' re saying it's an approximation, the {
l l
1 l Luzod Reporting Service yo yQ,L ,,
,44,,,, wagy, ~
stair M o 962 1176 sraire ::o (ktmt. \fichigan 222f, Faminaron lidts \fichiran 18018
1 estimated stresses appear to be reasonable, however, we 2 should document this instead of on the back of an anthem.'
3 p Okay.
4 !k I through in on back of an anthem.
1 5 Q Okay. And the way they were going to monitor the G situation was to monitor the number and width of the 7 cracks in the DGB structure itself; is that correct?
8 A That's what the task f orce says.
9 D Okay. And am I correct that the task f orce concluded that 10 the crack monitoring system that was in place at the time 11 this was written would be adequate for that purpose?
12 Turning to number four.
13 T I' m sorry. What did you j ust say?
14 0 And am I correct that the task f orce concluded that the 15 crack mapping system that was in place at the time this 16 report was written was adequate for their purposes?
17 i That's not what it says on f our. :
'1 18 Q Okay. What does it say then?
19 \ It says the current monitoring program is inadequate.
20 0 Oh, I' m sorry.
l 21 a To deduce future stress.
22 0 Uasn' t an adequate crack mapping program subsequently 23 added?
24 A I don' t think so. I think we were still working on i
Lutod Reportirsg Service 28 i
74 ,,,, gigg;,, m3 ,,
Suite ran 962 1Ii6 Swtr.2 Detmit \fichieu M226 Farminetm lidis, \fichieu VDIR
.~
1- resolving this report. This report is still open.
2 0 Okay. Then turning to number five am I correct that the 3 conclusion of the task f orce was "On the basis the overall 4 evaluation, it is nevertheless f elt that DGB in its 5 current state can f ulfill it's f unctional requirement. "?
6, n That's their conclusion.
7 4 And that's based on the status of the cracking at the DGB 8 .
as of the time this report is written?
9 a You' d have to ask the guy who wrote this.
10 0 Okay.
11 a I don' t agree with that statement.
12 Q Okay. One other thing, Dr. Landsman. I think if you turn 13 back to section five, which is f ound on Bates number 4604,.
14 do you have that in f ront of 'you? ,
15 A I sure do.
I 16 0 Am I correct that th'e subsequent pages, f rom page 46 04 17 through 4611, contains a list of concerns that you had 18 concerning the DGB as expressed to the Udall Committee and 19 the task f orce comments on those concerns?
l 20 A It's not the exact concerns I expressed to the Udall l
21 Committee. It's af ter the committee I had to document my 1 22 concerns so I'd be able to work on them I think. These j 23 are my concerns I wrote in a memo to tir. Warnick af ter the 24 Udall Committee. I didn' t say all this in f ront of the i
Lmd Reporting Service 2D lafayette Building a m A' A ntem li n kiir tao 962 11I6 kite 220 (ktr<nt. \fichigan #226 Farminutus flills. \fichigan mol8
1 committee.
2 0 Okay. With that qualification, does this section deal 3 with a description of your concerns concerning the 4 integrity of the DGB and the task f orce comments on those 5 concerns?
6 4 It's their j ustification of the structural branch's 7 acceptance of the building, yes.
8 ? Is it f air to say that they reviewed your concerns and 9 maintained their position that the DGB was structurally 10 so und?
11 \ No. It's not really an independent section here. Like I 12 said, !!r. Kuo is fir. Rinaldi's boss and agreed with him 13 initially so I expected him to agree with him again when 14 he wrote this.
15 1 okay. Did you think that Mr. Kuo was qualified to f ulfill 16 his position with this task f orce?
17 \ I have no idea what his technical ability is.
18 0 Okay. And if you turn over to page 4643, which is listed 19 as appendix three to this report, is this the Brookhaven 20 Institute report that you made previous ref erence?
21 3 Yes, it is.
22 p And if you turn over to section 5.0 is that the section --
23 well, let's do this in a little bit more order. If you i 24 turn over to the next page, 46 44, do you see the table of <
Lutod Reporting Service 30 hfyrne BuildM ,o 3 ,,
Suar MO 962 ))I6 Sune 2:0
1- contents?
2 HR. GOOLD: Excuse me, John. 4644?.
3 MR. LIBBY: Ye s. ,
4 A Yes.
5 $Y MR. LIBBY:
6 Q And I believe on the table of contents on section 4.0, it 7 starts on page 13 of the report, there's a response to the 8 concerns that you c:: pressed in your letter to Mr. Warnick; 9 is that correct?
10 A That's correct.
l 11 0 And they would be the same concerns that were discussed by 12 the NRR in the earlier portion of the report?
13 A I assume so.
l ,
14 0 Then turning over to section 5.0, that's the conclusion i L
15 section of the report; is that right?
16 A That's correct.
l l
17 O And if you'll turn over to item number 6 in that >
9 18 conclusion am I correct that the conclusion of the 19 Brookhaven Institute was "While significant cracking has -
1 20 occurred in the DGB it is our opinion that the structure i
21 will continue to fill its f unction requirement. This 1 22 l conclusion is based on f act that stresses induced in the , ,
23 structure by all other extreme loadings are small. "?
24 A No.
i Luzod Reporting Sereice 3osso n,thubern i Itwy.
Infayette Ratiding Suur MO 9sg,;y7$ Suite 23 >
[ktrat, afi<hitan 18226 Farminston flills, \fichigan 88018
> l 1 Q That's not the conclusion?
2 A I don' t think so.
I 3 Q Is this not the Brookhaven Institute report?
l 4 A Yes, it is.
5 0- 11ow do you interpret that section?
l 6 \ Section 6 was typed on the Brookhaven report af ter it 7 reached the liRC office on a diff erent typewriter. It was ;
8 added by the 11RR branch.
I 9 9 By who was it, added?
10 -\ That's a good question. We were just going to find out 11 when the plant got --
. 12 p And that would be the structural branch of the 11RR?
~
I ,
t 13 \ I take that back. Somebody in Washington, the Commission, ' ,
14 added number 6. If 15 0 Do you know whether the members of the Drookhaven 16 Institute that served as consultants agreed with that 17 conclusion?
10 N I asked them that question. ,
19 0 Uhat did they respond?
20 \ They said in a way.
21 0 They did what?
i !
22 j\ In a way.
23 h In a way. Did they say why they didn' t agree with that !
! ! l j 24 statement or in a way agreed with that statement?
j i
lafayette Buildsne Lused Reporting Service yo y, 3 2, ,, j suite ao 962 1i?6 suar 2:a Farminuton Ilith,11whigan utola
_ _ _ ___- _ _ ______- Iktroth _\fickban 48226
1 h It was a sticky meeting. They said the way it should have 2 been worded had they written it -- they didn' t say that.
3 It should have been if you do one through five the 4 building will probably be adequate, but one through five 5 were my concerns, that nothing was documented. And if you 6 read one through five were things that have to be done to '
7 show' the building's okay and if you do one through five 8 and the results of one through five show numbers that are 9 structurally acceptable then and only then can the 10 building be, 11 f1R. GOOLD: So the record is clear, could 12 the witness identify what he's ref erring to as items one 13 through five. s i
14 MR. LIBBY: Well, that's fine. '
15 SY MR. LIBBY:
l 16 0 Ubat I was going to do is, could you paraphrase f or mc 17 what one through five involved?
- 18 A It's the conclusions f rom the Brookhaven report that we 19 were just discussing on page 17 of their report, your 20 numbe r 4661.
21 ) What I was really asking is this You said there's five l
22 steps that have to be followed and if the results of those 23 five steps revealed acceptable data I guess, that then you
- 24 would conclude that the DGD is structurally sound; is that I .
I l
t Lafayette Buildues
~
Lutod Reporting Service , y,w ,L ,, 3
, Suige r n 962 fli6 Saite ty)
Detroit \fichigan 48:26 Farmeneton Ildis \fichigan m018
.~
1 correct?-
2 A That's what Brookhaven said.
3 p Do you agree with that?
4 A I haven' t read this f or awhile. I would have to re-road l
5 it to agree with that.
6 0 Please do.
l 7 4 I agree if you do what it says here and the numbers come B up okay, the building is acceptable.
9 } And could you j ust, in laymen's tern, briefly describe to 10 me what those steps involve?
11 A You have to do a documented analysis of the building to 12 prove that those cracks in the building are acceptable.
13 To this date there is no such analysis done.
14 ) Okay. And what else?
15 4 What that involves is going over the original inf ormation 16 that I had on the building. The cracks and the numbers i
17 appear to show that the building is overstressed and I l 18 think if you go through number one and number two and 19 document it rigorously it will show that the building is 20 overstressed. That's why it's not documented right now.
21 Then you could not say that the building is okay. If you 22 had some calculations that showed the building is 23 overstressed, it would be hard on SER to say that the 24 building is okay.
Luzod Reporting Sersice 3A lafayette Buildine , . ,, ,,
suite Mo 962 1176 Suite ::m
\ Detmit, \takigan M26 Farmington flills \fichigan 1801R
1 Okay. You mentioned earlier that item number 6 was added 2 on to this Drookhaven Institute report af ter received by 3 the NRC; is that correct?
4 n That's correct.
5 0 Did you ever tell CPCo that number 6 was not part of the 6 brookhaven Institute report?
7 !1R. GOOLD: I'm going to object because it's 8 obvious j ust f rom looking at the page Consumers Power 9 counsel is ref erring to that a diff erent type f ace was 10 used for nunber 6. Subj ect to that the witness can go 11 ahead and answer.
12 3Y l~iR. LIBBY:
l 13 Q I don' t know if Brookhaven Institute has more than one 14 typewriter or not, but did you personally ever convey that 15 information to CPCo, that item 6 was added by the !!RC? i 16 A GAP, Billie Guard in f ront of a commission hearing we had 17 right bef ore the plant was closed. The reason I f ound out la that this was -- she got ahold of the original report that 19 came in to the Commission office under an POIA request and 20 she presented this to the commissioners. She had that i
21 report which just had items one through five on here and 22 then one week later this one got issued with one through l 23 6. So if anyone f ecm Consumers was listening to 111ss 24 Guard at that commission briefing she said j ust what I l t
74,,,,,,ggg4 Lu:od Reporting Service y ,o \.,,g ,3,,5,, y Swir sw 962 1176 Suite 231 IktrmL \fichigan Mt:26 Farmington Hdis, \fichican 180!8
I said right now to the commissioners.
2 g But am I correct that you yourself never conveyed that I
3 inf ormation to the Consumers Power Company?
4 A I didn't find out exactly until that commission briefing 5 and I think Mr. Selby was there on Dow and if they would 6 have listened I think they would have heard what she had 7 to say.
8 0 Okay. Dr. Landsman, I believe that you testified 9 yesterday that concerning a misrepresentation that was 10 made to you concerning the status of the construction of 11 the settlement monitoring installation or instrumentation 12 in the spring of 1982. Do you generally recall that 13 testimony?
14 h I'm not sure the spring of '82, but okay.
l 15 7 Okay. Now just to set a little background, am I correct 16 in the latter part of 1981 Consumers Pmeer Company and the 17 NRC entered into an agreement which allowed Consumers to 18 proceed on a piecemeal basis with the remedial fix f or the 19 Auxiliary Building?
, 20 \ That was af ter the Board order I chink, yes, the ASLB 3 21 order.
22 Q Okay. Is it possible it occurrec ; aarly as December i
23 1981?
l 24 I You' re talking about an agreement with the NRC meaning I
0 Luzad Reporting Service ,. 3 77 l.afayette Butiding 962 1176
%Le hw Suite lm (ktroit, 1fah>_48226__ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ Farmineton Ilills Alichigan MOIR
1 NRR?
2 Q Yeah. Let me rephrase it because there seems to be dio 3 agreements. Are you f amiliar with concept that the -
4 underpinning was going to be constructed in three phases?
5 A I seem to recall -- I'm not sure three phaces or two 6 phases. There was always conf usion on that.
7 0 Okay. And am I correct that phase one was to drop two 8 access shaf ts on either end of the EPA?
9 a I think Consumers always wanted us to believe that.
l 10 0 Okay. And then phase two was to place the drif ts .
11 underneath the Turbine Building?
12 A The way .that Consumers looked at it, yes.
M E
13 0 And then phase three would have been to go f rca underneath 14 the Turbine Building to underneath the Auxiliary Building 15 to underpin it?
16 A I'll go along with that.
1 17 Q And do you know whether or not the NRR and CPCo entered 18 into an agreement to proceed with phase one on er about l
19 December 1981, as I've described it? j i i i
20 $ Shaf ts were going down, the access shaf ts were going down 21 then but I -- that's what prompted a March the'10th i
22 n.oeting in Washington I called to get rid of this phase i i
23 one, two and three steps cince it was conf using overybody. l
?
24 D Okay. And am I correct that your concern was that what l
Luod Reporting Service 3,,o y,,,,},J,, ,,g
!afayise Buddme '
suste rao 962 1176 suste 220 1%, \fichigan 182:n Farmmeton lidh, \fichtean m018
' .o ,
,.Pt-
~,
1
' ' I' ll call, I think you phrased it at various times, the 2 f ragmented 0-lj ating of various activities?
3 h I don' t think I used those words but okay, I agree with 4 them.
5 0 Okay. And could you describe what your concern was 6 concerning the 0-listing of the various remedial soils 7 activities during this access shaf t phase?
8 4 Some pieces were considered 0, that is they had to have a 9 OA program, and some pieces were not, they did not have to 10 have a OA program, and it's in the pieces that were not on 11 the OA list they were getting in trouble with.
12 a Okay. And am I correct that you f elt that it all should 13 be 0-listed?
14 \ No, I j ust wanted them to build the plant right, but in 15 order to get Consumers to do that I assumed that all had j 16 to be under the quality assurance umbrella.
17 3 Okay. And am I correct that you were the initiator of a 18 meeting of March 10, 1982 to discuss the 0-listing of 19 various portions of the remedial soils work?
20 i That's correct. j 21 1 And am I correct that CPCo's position during that meeting 22 was that not all of the remedial coils work needed to be l
- ~ 23 0-listed?
24 k Yes.
l 38 Luzod Reporting Service 3ag;o y,,,,,, pyg.,
S,g,, a 962 1i76 Suste 2:0 m g ty g m Farmington flills, \fichizan 48018
1 Q And in particular, and I realice I'm generalizing here, am ,
i 2 I-correct that CPCo's position in this meeting was that 3 they wanted to 0-list those portions that were going to be 4 permanent, that is, in place while the plant was 5 operating, but to treat those items that were construction 6 aids as non-07 7 A I can' t recall that. If you' re saying that's what it is, 8 that's fine.
9 0 Let me be more specific. Do you recall that there was a 10 discussion concerning instrumentation during the May 10, 11 1982 meeting?
12 A I sure do.
l 13 Was CPCo's position that the purchase of the 14 instrumentation would be 0, the checkout of the :
15 instrumentation would be 0, the monitoring of the j
16 instrumentation would be 0 but that the installation of' 17 the monitoring system including placing of brackets and 18 raceways and pulling of cable would be non-07 19 \ I don' t think that's the way it came out. I seem to 20 remember Mr. Ilood inf orming them af ter we had a caucus 4
21 that f rom this day forward everything to do with remedial 22 ,
coils will be O so we make sure it gets constructed 23 properly. And somebody f rom Consumer s -- Bechtel, !!r .
24 Boos, Al Boos, who was the Proj ect llanager or something, IAfyrtle Buildine Luzod Reporting Service ,g .
39 ,,
Suar Mo 962 1]?6 Suig,gga c
Iktrm t. \lichien k9226 Farmineron Ihth. Vichieu 49018
1 j umped up and said wait, I got to make a phone call, and 2 we said f or what and he said to stop construction. I' ll 3
l have to stop all the work on site. He said come on back, 4 what are you talking about? And one of the things that we 5 discussed during that meeting was, subsequent meeting, was 6 the instrumentation to monitor the underpinning work.
7 And I had the understanding during that 8 meeting that the NRC said, not wanting to be hardnosed 9 about it, what's ever in place or well along or whatever 10 you can continue that not under the QA umbrella because. we 11 didn' t want to be hardnosed about it. I had the 12 impression at that meeting and during a subsequent phone 13 call, which Consumers documented, that the instrumentation 14 was almost complete. It was essentially done.
15 1 Okay. Let's f ocus on that conversation. Am I correct l
16 that about two days later, lurch 12, 1982, that you, Mr. i i
17' Boyd and I think Mr. Cook was on the site, were contacted 18 to clarify what was going to be considered Q and non-Q 19 under this new arrangement?
i 20 4 That's correct.
21 0 And am I correct that this phone conversation was 22 tr anscribed?
23 A That's correct. l 24 Q And am I correct that it was transcribed at the insistence t i
Lu:od Reporting Service A0 gy,,,, g,gg;,, yo. ,, g Suite Mo 962 1ii6 Susie :h)
Iktroit, \fichigan 18226 Farmington flius 11ichigan 48018
r .:
l 1 of Consumers Power QA?
2 A You'll have to ask them. I don' t know why it was i
3 transcribed. It was not on our end. '
4 Okay. And I believe that there was a statement made ,
5 during this conversation by !!r. Boos that you interpreted '
6 as meaning that the instrumentation f or the settlement 7 monitoring system was either complete or well underway; is 8 that correct?
9 a- That's correct.
10 0 And j ust so I'm clear, this instrumentation would monitor 11 the movement of the -- or of what structures while the 12 underpinning process was going f orward?
13 A !!ostly the Auxiliary Building and the service water pump ,
14 structure.
15 0 okay. And did this monitoring system have to be in place 16 bef ore any of the drif ts were placed beneath the Turbine 17 Building?
18 A Yes, it did.
l 19 Q And were you aware that CPCo at lcast considered that it '
20 wasn' t clear whether this was phase one or phase two work?
21 'N That's why during the meeting on March the 10th we got rid 22 of phase one, phace two and phase three so there would be 23 no phases, I thought. I l t 24 D Okay. And then subsequently when you visited the site in l lofayette Ruise d Morarm wu ,og ,g y,,,,],},, y, y.
suate rao 962 1Ii6 suite :20 (Mroit %chigan -t8:26 Farmington Hdis. %<hican 18018 i
1 March am I correct that you discovered that the cable 2 pulling f or the instrumentation cyctem was only about ten 3 to 20 percent complete?
4 h There was around ten cables pulled, which is not as high a 5 percentage as you just said.
6 0 O kay.. And I believe you also talked to Mr. Schaef er 7 during that time period; is that correct? -
8 No. I don' t think Mr. Schaef er was involved back then, 9 not in March of '82. I don' t think he came on the scene 10 until the summer of ' 82.
11 0 Okay. In any event, when you discovered that the cable L
I 12 pulling was only ten cables had been pulled, you f elt that 13 you had been misled by the statements of Mr. Does during 14 the phone conversation?
15 A It wasn' t the f act that there were only ten cables pulled.
- 16 None of the instruments had been purchased or were on 17 site, none of the computer apparatus was in place, most of 18 the conduit that houses the cable were not installed, none ,
19 of the deep seated benchmarks were in place. Ten cables 20 out of a couple hundred is a small f raction of cables, but 21 out of the whole job it is a very small fraction out of I l
22 the total job that was even started. As matter of fsct, 23 the phone call was made March the 12th, we subsequently i
24 found out on site, I think we were en site the 17th, we j l
a o o ng Smm 3ag,g yo,,,,f,,},, ,7,,.
Labyette Bu;ldine Suite MO 962 1 iib Suite :o Iktroit.11schigan M226 Farmmern listis. \fichigan m018 \
7
1 subsequently found out that cable pulling had-begun turch 2 th e 11 th , the day of ter our meeting in Washington on the 3 10th.
4 a Just so I'm clear, cable pulling is where you pull cable 5 either through conduits or trays in order to, you know, 6 have them in position so they'll be usef ul for the 7 monitoring system?
8 A Cable pulling is a small portion of installing the cable.
9 You have to terminate both ends on to the instruments and i
10 since these were sensitive instruments there was maybe 11 eight to ten wires on the end of each cable which had to 12 be soldered on to connectors and then screwed in to 13 something. Well, on one end it was going into the 14 ,
computer setup, which was not on site, so they weren' t 15 going to terminate it. The other end had to go to l
16 inst r ument, which was not even on site yet. ,
17 D Okay. And as a result of -- well, let's do it this way.
18 What did you do when you learned about the status of the 19 instrumentation work?
20 N It's hard to remember. I think I called the office.
21 Q And do you recall that an investigation was conducted into 22 the possibility that the statements of Ilr. Boos 23 constituted a material false statement?
24 That's correct.
h -
l ,
\ lafay.tr Building 3mla krthur tern lluy. '
Sdito Mn 962 1Ii6 Suite 2:0
- Iktrmt. \lichio.n 182:6 Farmington flills. \fichigan 18018
4 g 1 O And was that investigation conducted by tir. CIf, is it 2 Ueil?
3 A That's cor rect.
4 0 In !!r. Weil associated with another branch of the imC t 5 known as the Of fice of Investigations? ;
6 4 !!e was back then.
7 ) And did he work out of Chicago?
8 N Yes, he did.
9 3- Do you recall what the results of tir. Weil's investigation 10 revealed?
11 li Back then the OI reports I'll call them, which is the 1
12 Of fice of Investigations, never made any conclusions.
13 They just stated f acts. So I think you j ust stated the 14 f acts he found and lef t it up to tir. Keppler to decide.
I 15 Since then, the last few years, the Office of 16 Investigations at least started making conclusions in 17 reports.
18 0 Do you remember what lir. Keppler concluded based upon the 19 results of the investigation of tir. Weil?
. 20 4 I remember him talking to for. Selby, I think it was, and i
- 21 saying it was a close call and this time he was going to 22 leave them off the hook.
23 h Do you recall him using the phrase that -- I' m sorry.
- l I i 24 A And the next time he' d get him.
I AA Luzod Reporting Service ,o 3 ,, ,,
Lafay,,, ygg,,, Suis, g;o Suite MO 962 1176
. lktroit, \lichigan M226 Farmington Ihlis, thchiran 48018
0 1 Okay. And the next time he' d get them, whatever that 2 meanc.- Could you explain that?
3 A Meaning the next time we had one of these incidenses he 4 wouldn' t let him of f the f ence.
5 0 Okay . Do you recall Mr. Keppler telling Mr. Selby in a 6 letter that there was no conclusive evidence to establish 7 the material false statement had been made?
~
8 $ If you say so. I can' t recall exactly.
9 Q Okay. Let me show you a document, I'm being a little bit !
10 unf air with you, which I've marked as Def endant's Exhibit 11 D-4951 and ask if you can identify this as a cover 12 memorandum f rom Mr. Koppler to I guess it's Mr. James Cook 13 of Consumers, which transmits a copy of Mr. Weil's 14 investigation concerning this incident.
15 (Deposition Exhibit No. D-4951, 16 Letter f rom James Keppler to i
17 James Cook, da ted 1-18-83, was 18 marked for identification.)
19 4 That's cor rect.
20 BY MR. LIDBY: ,
I I
21 D And am I correct that this report was dated January lath j 22 of 1983?
23 A That appears what it's dated.
I 24 Q And if you would turn over to the third page of this ,
lafayette Building I'n d Reporting Se,vice ,. 4,,5 ,, .
Suite hw 962 lii6 Swge g m r I)etmit, \fidigan 482:6 Farmington liilh. \lwhiran 48018
c 1 documtnt, is that the beginning of Mr. Ucil's reports?
2 A Yes, it is.
3 0 And do you see the section marked Results?
i 4 A Yes.
5 0 Am I correct that the results of Mr. Neil's investigation, G taking into consideration your prior disclaimer about 7 inspectors reaching conclusions at this period of time, 8 was "!!RC Region III inspectors were told" and then again 9 ' instrumentation is essentially well under way. Wire has 10 been pulled / raceway has been installed,' which meant to 11' the inspectors all wiring had been installed. The 12 instrumentation system was reviewed and 32 of 159 cables 13 had been pulled. The person making the statement said, he 14 had 'no intent to mislead anyone. !!o reason to lie. '
15 Pive !!RR and 19 licensee representatives were interviewed, 1G and f elt the statement meant work had begun without giving 17 a report on the status of completion. " Does that 18 correctly summarize what he's concluded?
l 19 i I made a mistake about the cables. I guess it was, 32 20 instead of ten. Sorry about that.
21 0 Dut did I correctly read what the results of his 22 conclusion report w's a or investigation was?
i 1 23 A That's what he says. That's correct. l 24 Q Okay. Dr. Landsman -- l l
l.afnette Buildma Lsszod Reporting Service ma y,f, y Sunte MO 962 1176 Suar 2:0 Detrat \fichigan t8226 Farminston thlls, \hchiran 480!R
.-3 1 h Now that's the results, that's not a conclusion.
2 0 Okay. The results of his investigation as reported in his 3 repor t ?
4 A Right. That's Dot a conclusion.
5 0 The conclusion was reached by Mr. Keppler?
6 A In the cover memo af ter we rewrote it five times.
7 Q Okay. And Mr. Keppler was -- what position did he hold at 8 the time this was written?
9 a The first time the cover letter came up for me to sign off 10 on the cc copy, which you don' t have here, said something 11 like what you're reading here in the results section and I l
12 refused to sign it, so did Mr. Cook, Ron Cook, who was 13 intimately involved with this. It took us numercus draf ts 14 of this letter to get everyone to agree to it. As a 15 matter of fact, you can see when the report was finished 16 in September 1902. It seems strange that it didn' t get 17 dated until January 1983. He went through a lot of 18 meetings and discussions on this cover letter. Mr. Cook 19 and I wanted it to be worded a little rtronger and the 20 Region and other peopic wanted it to be worded a little 21 less strong. I think we finally sort of agreed on this.
i 22 O At the time that the cover letter is dated and cent 23 underneath Mr. Keppler's signature, what pocition did he 24 hold within Region III? l l
l
!afaytte Rwidme I'uod Reporting Sersice ,g 47 ,
Swte h w 962 llI6 Swtrgb>
IMrmt, \fwhicas 482.% Farmneton Ihllr \fwkseen 43018
P 1 A I' m sorry.
i 2 O At the time that cover letter is actually cent, January of !
3 1983, what position did !!r. Keppler hold within Region '
4 '
- III?
i 5 A When the letter was sent?
l :
6 ) Yeah. !
7 'i You don' t want me to read the letter, do you?
l !
8 0 No. I'm just trying to figure out what his position is ;
9 within the NRC Region III at che time this letter was sent ,
10 by himself.
11 A You'll have to ask him.
I '
12 D Okay.
13 This letter is just a compilation of everybody who had i 14 anything to do with it.
15 0 okay. Dr. Landsman, I believe subsequent to this event l
16 you also became involved in an incident that you believed 17 was a breach of the ASLB April 1982 order; is that f 18 correct?
i 19 4 Thr.t's cor rect. t 20 1 And j ust so I'm clear, in April of 1982 the ASLB issued an
- 21 order which essentially required CPCo to get prior
- 22 permission to not only complete the remedial work but also 23 to do any kind of earthwork including excavations; is that }
4 24 correct? l l
! l l
t 48 l.uzod Reporting Servier , , ,,
Suar Mo 962.I176 suar :;\;
Ntrost. \fschicas m:26 Farmsnuten tidis. \1schiran 18018
i
- 1 A That's correct.
2 Q And who was supposed to give that prior authorization? l l '
3 A I think the order said NRC. I'm not sure they were very '
i 4 explicit on who. '
5 0 And within the NRC who ultimately came to give those typea l 4
6 of authorizations?
7 a It came down to me.
8 0 Is that true when there is a significant design change
{
, 9 involved in the authorization process? .
10 A Ye s.
t 11 Q Did Mr. Kane have any involvement in the authori:ation
! 12 process?
i '
13 A If I thought there was a major -- I never lot them do any 14 work on site unless NRR approved the design first. So if I 15 I was on site and saw what I considered a major design ;
16 change f rom with URR originally approved, I would bring it '
f
, 17 back up to Mr. Kane to have it re-reviewed or to make suro
}
! la that he agreed with it. i l ;
] 19 0 And where you didn' t feel there was a significant design i !
1 20 changt then you would give the authorization?
i !
j 21 A Yeah, I would review it and I might oven talk to Mr. Iane I J l 22 on the phone, but I could have -- I approved it on site a ;
\
l '3 lot of times. k i
i i 24 0 And f or CPCo who was involved in the authori=ation i !
\
i
{A[Q) rite Ikeldsnt 3f680 Yorthur trrn l{n), ;
&as, nw 962 1176 s,,,, ;3 ;
iktrat. \fekiaan 4823 Farmington lisils. \lirknean WIR l
I process, if you recal17 2 A I don' t know if there was j ust one individual. Tho '
! t 3
l 1etters used to come f rom !!r. !!ooney, I think, req uecting
. l ,
5 4 authorization.
5 0 okay. And I believe that -- well, following the issuance 6 of the April 1982 order, was there a series of letters 7 exchanged between CPCo and NRC concerning which work would 8 f all underneath the April 1982 order?
9 4 I' m not sure. There was a lot of lotters floating around 10 back then.
11 D Okay. Let me see if I can rephrase it. When the April
- 12. 1982 letter came down certain of the romedial soils work
~
13 and certain of the carthwork was already ongoing; is that f i
14 correct? l 15 That is correct. !
16 Q And am I correct that the April 1982 order did not apply 17 to work that had been donc prior to the issuance of that 13 order? ;
19 'N I' m not sure.
20 0 okay. Do you have any recollection one way or the other '
21 concerning a series of letters between CPCo and the NRC l
l .
4 22 concerning whether certain work would be excluded f rom t 23 underneath the order? ! !
1 l ;
l l t
{ <
j 24 h I can' t recall. j I
l t
Lut00 R* Porting Sernice 00 (4pyars, uts,,, ya. , y Sense hw 962 1176 Saa, ;9 l
- -- -___ _RM3h V%n;D Q9_ _ _______ _ ___ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ farmington HJh. Whican 48018
o
., l l !
1 6 I belicvn thGn that some time in the summer of 1982 you -
2 made a site visit and you observed the digging of the l
3 excavation that you f elt was in violation of the orders is !
4 that correct?
5 A That's cor rect. !
l 6 Q Just so I can get a little background on this, am I l
7 correct that the excavation in question aroce because of :
8 the placement of the f reeze wall around the Auxiliary ;
9 Building underpinning werk? l l
10 A The excavation had to do with the f reeze wall.
l 11 Q Why don' t we go back a bit f urther. When they' re going to -
7 12 underpin underneath the Auxiliary Duilding they obviously l
13 had to dig holes underneath those buildings, right?
l i
14 A That's correct.
I 15 0 And was the plan to place a f reeze wall around the area to i ,
16 stop the flow of water into thoce excavations?
17 A That's correct.
l 10 Q And by f reeze wall that's just merely pumping some type of l t
19 chemical into the ground that f reezes the ground around s 20 there; is that correct? !
21 A Antif reeze that you have in your car, yes, that's correct. !
1 22 0 And when they came up with this plan to put a f reeze wall j j i ;
23 around this area they became aware at come point in time 24 that there were underground pipes and conduits that would !
l lafayette kidung Luod Reporting Sersier , 5,,1 ,,, ,__ i Suste MO 962 l1I6 Suite 2:0 t Detmst, \fwhigan pt2:6 Farminetan flills, \fwhigan 18018
(
1
1 ; be coming. in contact with this f reeze walls 10 that i i
2 correct? i 3 That's correct.
, j 4 0 And if an electrical duct for example comes in contact t
5 with this f reezing, there's a risk that it will be l 6 damaged; is thac correct?
7 h There's a risk that it will heavo up because of the f ro=en 8 ground and crack it.
f 9 0 And that will damage the duct bank?
l 10 4 That's correct.
11 0 And the plan of action in order to -- well, and the duct i 12 bank in question, am I correct that's j ust to the east of 13 the Turbine Building?
14 I don' t know the directions anymore but go ahead.
15 p okay. l 1
1G It's the one leading to the service water pump structure.
17 0 Between the service water pump structure and the Turbine ;
i 18 Duilding? You have to say yes or no for the --
19 i Yes. !
) 20 g Okay. Why don' t we take a break right now then.
21 !!R. RICCI: This is the end of tape number i 22 four. This concludes tape number four. ;
4 .
l 23 ( A brief recess was hold during
- I 24 the proceedings.) ; ,
l \
s t I
q
- 0 *"5"# 5 3mIO %nkur t5rn fluy.
isfayette Basiden Suin Ma 962 1)i6 Susiv z>a l
[Mroit. %kigan kC.% farmington Hith, Whigan WUM \
j r
1 !!R. RICCI: Beginning of tape number 5 7 1
2 BY I:R. LIDDY: !
l [
3 Q Dr. Landsman, I think when we broke we were discussing the i 4 deep 0 duct bank incident and I believe we had j ust ;
5 described the impact of f reezing on the O duct bank, and 6 am I correct that the way that designers were going to f
7 resolve this problem was to excavate down around the duct f 1
i 8 bank and separate that f rom the f rozen soil? i 3 A !!cc the duct bank in question.
l 10 Q What was the solution to this problem? !
l l 11 A The original design vao to dig down to the duct bank to 12 around one f oot or below and remove the dirt.
13 0 Okay. So it would be about one foot below the duct bank i 14 would be removed under the original plan?
15 6 That's correct. i l l 16 0 And that would separate the duct bank f rom the f ro::en !
. 17 soil?
18 A That's correct. l I j i >
19 Q And that would relieve any problems with this upheaval?
20 \ That's correct. l
, 21 O Okay. And subsequent to that did the plan change? l 4
g
- 22 A Y ta, it did. l i 23 0 And did that involve digging eight f eet deeper, or eight ;
) I' t
) 24 feet belcv, or eight to ten f eet belcw the deep 0 duct }
i i
1.ss t d Reporting Servier ,gg 5 ,3 ,,
IA)h)ette ikdding
%:e @) 962*Ii?6 Suit, an Detrat, \takiesa tRL% Farminuton lidh, thchigan m018 (
4 1 bank?
2 A Twelve feet below I think was the number, yes, _that's 3 correct.
4 4 Q And why was the plan changed, if you know?
l 5 4 Oh, the f reeze wall was almost in place and they 6 determined through borings or whatever that beneath the
! 7 deep Q duct bank there was around 12 feet of sand and as 8 you just got through explaining the f reeze wall was a wall 9 to keep water out of the excavation and since they I 10 couldn't get f reezing elements below the duct bank, since 11 it was so deep, their original plan was to drill angle i
12 f reeze pipes beneath the duct bank to f reeze the ground 13 underneath it but to keep the water from getting through.
1 14 But when they diacovered the duct bank was around ten f eet
! 15 lower than they originally thought it was they could not
} 16 get the angle pipes underneath the duct bank to f ree:o it i i
4 17 and they had now a roughly 12 foot high by 20 foot wide 18 window in the wall that was going to allow a lot of ground 19 water into the main excavation and they had to seal that 20 off.
21 <) And the first step in sealing that off I take it was to j 22 .
excavate the sand beneath the duct bank under the reviced 23 plan?
8
}
) 24 A That was the Concuners plan or the Bechtel plan, p I
i Luzoo Reporting Sersier 04 lAfayetto Ludme m s.s ,, 17
, s , n,, 9s2.i>rs s , zw Iktmt, \fschtpn ms Feminston lidh, \fschiean 3018
.. ] ,
1 Q And then they were going to place some kind of plug in '
l t 2 there? !
i 3 a I think so, yes. ;
I 4 Q Okay. And do you recall right now what that plog was i 5 going to be made of ?
6 h The initial plan I heard was to make it out of concreto.
7 That's what I had the problem with.
8 Q And could you describe to me what problem was? ,
(
9 A The problem s. a if you replace that 12 foot of soil with L 10 concrete down to the hard glacial till, you have a very l
11 hard spot on the duct some day when you went in and 12 backfilled the hole. You got to remember this duct bank ;
l 13 was around 35 feet in the ground, so now you got this l
L 14 concrete knif e blade sitting under the duct bank and now l 15 you place all this fill on top of it, it would have i i l
16 cracked the duct bank right at that spot. ; :
T l 17 0 Okay. And am I correct that at the time that you 18 discovered that they were doing this revised fix, the l
1 19 natus of the revised fix was they had dug the hale or I 20 sunk the hole beneath the duct bank this eight to 12 feet 21 or whatever it was; is that correct? !
22 A !!o, that's not corroct. i l
23 0 Uhat is the status when you discovered it? j l ,
24 A They status was they were planning to do this work. l [
{ I i
74,,,, gjg,g Luted Reporting Service , ,5,5 g Swtr MO 962-)i*6 sair :.m Detmt, Whi tes #C:6 Formatton Rdh. Whican WIR ,
,- j p- ,
1 You didn' t go out there and actually see the guy down in 2 hole beneath the duct bank digging the hole? l 3 A They were not digging the hole. They were only -- tho l l ! :
, 4 hole was down to one foot below the duct bank, which I was 5 actually down and verified the hole was only one foot !
3 6 below. '
I i 7 p And that was authori=ed I take it? l' 8 N Yes, that was.
9 2 Subsequent to that time did you learn that the hole had i
i 10 been dug 12 feet deeper?
- 11 % Yes. j t
12 D How did you learn that f act? j l l 13 A I think I said bef ore, f rom my recall, I was walking l
i 14 around the site and I noticed men working at the bottom of [
i 15 the hole. !
4 ;
i ; i 16 p okay. And that would have been a later visit? !
- 17 A Yes. I i I 18 0 Do you recall approximately the length of time that
] 19 transpired between the two visits? ;
i
! 20 4 I don' t recall the dates. !
l 21 0 Okay. And when you discovered that they had gone ahead :
22 and dug this hole without your authori=ation what did you :
- l 23 do?
I 24 A I think I had an exit meeting that week, and I want to ;
l t
r 4
f 00 l
Lused Reporting Service m g,, 97 1,ppe,, nu,,,
se,,, sw 962 1276 Suur .*N ,
m m cygs_ Famvwon tidis. Whigan 48018 ?
+. j 1 say, and my -- it was right at the time the of fice of
[
i 2
Special - Cases was f ormed, and I had a now, two new bosses, !
i 3 !!r. trayne Schaef or and Mr. Bob Warnick, and I think they !
j 4 came to the exit meeting on site to see how I was l i S conducting business or to meet the people or something, l i
6 I'm not sure why they were they, but it was first time f
7 that they were on site, and I informcd the licensee at i 8 that meeting that they violated the ASLB order. , f i
{ 9 Q And did you recommend to either your two new bosses that [
10 they take any action with respect to this violation?
11 a Yes, I did.
l l t 12 Q And what did you recommend?
' l t
l ,
13 I secommend they do something.
. i 14 And did they in f act do anything? !
l i 15 A Mot until I wrote my memo. ,
4 l 16 Q And that memo you' re ref erring to is a memo to Mr. Paten? : j l
- 17 A Mo. That was the memo -- I was going to write it to Mr. i I 18 Paton. I wanted to get it at least -- since my two new i
{ 19 bosses at the time didn' t appear to be as concerned as I 4
l 20 was I at least wanted to get it -- since the ASLB hearing ;
i 21 was going on at that time I had a lot of leverage in the r g
22 region. Since I couldn' t get anyona in the region to do 23 anything, I always had the Board to do comett.ing about it. j 24 So I wanted to at least get it in f ront of the ASLB Board. [
1 1
i lafayne ki!Jme Luod Reporting Service m 4 ,L 5 ,, j
, sua, q; 962.Il76 suuta 2:0 t (Mrmt. \fwhigsn M2.% Farmatte ihlis. \tahican ents
l .
1 Q Just so I'm clear is that you recommended to your 2 superiors at this time, either this exit meeting or around 3 about that time, that they do something as a result of 4 this violation of the ASLB order; is that correct?
5 A I think the exact chronology of events was that I told at --
6 they heard it at this exit meeting but I don' t think they 7 knew the severity of what I had said at the exit meeting.
8 And I got back' to the of fice the next Monday, like I said~
9 I think that was a Friday, I lost track of time, and I 10 talked to Mr. Paton the week that I discovered this and he
- 11 told me why don' t I at least write it down, write him a 12 memo and he'll get it to the Board. So as I was writing j 13 the memo in the of fice on Monday or Tuesday I think Mr.
~
14 Warnick or Mr. Schaefer, I informed them what I was going .
i 15 to do and they said bef oro I do that we better have a 16 meeting with Mr. Keppler, which is what we did.
! 17 3 And as result of that meeting with Mr. Keppler was an 1
18 investigation conducted by again Mr. Weil?
i 19 4 Yes. When Mr. Keppler read what my concerns were he was l
20 very concerned and he ordered an investigation, or I I
21 r eq ue sted. I shouldn' t say ordered.
j 22 0 Okay. And this was again by the Office of Investigation .
i I i
23 and in particular Mr. Neil? j 24 A Uell, he was the main investigator there, right.
I ,
Luted Reporting Service 50 Is/nette k% 962'Il ?6
% te M O Sune :.0 ,
. _ -________________ W % & m EQM Formqyon Ihlls. % horn mala ;
t l [
1 @ Okay. Dr. Landsman, let me chow you a document -- before -!
2 we do that, was there in fbnt two investigations of this i
3 incident conducted by Mr. Weil? ,
4 a Ye s, there was. ;
I I 5 0 Okay. !
6 A Well, it wasn' t two. There was the first one and then
! 7 there was a -- j 8 0 Re-opening of the investigation?
l t
- 9 A Yeah, there was a subsequent one, whatever you want to i
10 call it.
11 Q Let me show you a document which I've marked as 4
i 12 Defendant's Exhibit D-4952 and ask if you can identify l 13 this as a copy of Mr. Weil's what I'll call the initial '
14 report on the duct bank incident. I 15 (Deposition Exhibit No. D-4952, f 3
16 Copy of Of fice of Investigation l 17 report concerning alleged violation ,
J 18 of Licensing Board order of 4-30-82, l 19 was marked f or identification.) ;
20 A This appears to be the first one.
]
21 hY MR. LIDBY: i l i 22 0 Okay. And am I correct that Mr. Ucil issued this report 1
23 in either June or July of 19037 g 24 N That's what the date is on top.
l !
i t
(,fy, gjf,,
Lused Reporting Sersice ,y 5,,9 ,
suar hw 962.!!?$ swie am o IMmit, \fschiess W.% Ferminton lidis Whiren 48018
. , i 1 h Okay. And am I correct that based on this initial t
2 investigation by Mr. Weil' that he concluded that "The ;
3 investigation" -- and I'm reading f rom the third page of I i
4 this document now, which is entabled enclosed is the 5 office report, I think you might have passed it. Yeah. I 6 And I'm reading the second sentence in that line, and did I 7 he conclude that "The investigation established a cicar !
O difference of opinion between the licensee and the NRC j
- 9 . staff concerning whether certain excavation work was done 10 with NRC approval. Unf ortunately, we were not able to t
j 11 developed suf ficient obj ective evidence to support the ;
j f l 12 contention of either party. " And as a result he closed [
13 the investigation un that basis, or the initial [
14 investigation? j l :
15 k That's not his conclusion, that's his report of results. I i 16 That's what he f ound.
17 3 That's the results that he reported in this report? l i,
l i
] 18 4 That's correct.
l j t 19 Q If you turn back to the next page, on the cc page, one
{
20 page back, and about halfway down in the first column I l 21 see the name TJ Crecswell. Do you see that nsme? l 1
I 22 A I sure do. t l [
23 0 Are you f amiliar with a Mr. TJ Crenewell? !
24 A I am not. !
I ;
l l c Luzod Reporting Sers ser 60 g , g, ,g w,,, gy Sy,, sy> 962,i1i6 .Suar :;m 7
[m mt, \ta gsn g :s femmere lidis, \fdiran L&W1 l
1 Do you know whether or not he works f or the Dow Chemical 2 Company ?
3 A I have no idea who he is. ;
, 4 0 .Do you know how people get on this ec list?
5 n You asked me that once bef ore. I think that's black magic 6 in the office.
7 Q Oh, okay. To your knowledge, has anybody over been '
8 ref used to be placed on the distribution list?
9 n No.
l !
10 Q subsequent to this initial investigation, Dr. Landeman, am l
11 I correct that there were certain people within Region III 12 l who were not satisfied with the results of this ,
l 13 investigation?
l !
14 A one person in particular, yes. .
l I
- 15 0 And who was that? .
f' 16 A Mycolf. !
17 0 And as a result of that dissatisf action, did you believe ;
i 18 that a further investigation was necessary?
- 19 4 I don' t know if a f urther investigation. I j ust couldn' t 20 believe what the results of the investigation were. ;
) 21 0 And did you take any steps to reopen this investigation? l t-22 h !!o. I think we had a meeting with !!r. Reppler once he 23 received this, tic didn' t receive -- the Region did not j i l 24 receive this report until we got it f rom a !!r Ucyes, ;
j $Afe) tite flull] Lng N00 hollhkt trin ((M),
%'arhM 962*ll?b h ar 2.M l Detml. \fwkwon 482.'n famsnesqlidl}lakitan 4Rolk }
I who's the director of office investigations, which is in 2 June, as you stated bef ore. We must have had a meeting 3 about.it and I voiced my concern.
4 0 And do you know if anybody within Region III took any 5 steps to reopen the investigation?
6 4 Yes.
7 ) And what steps were taken?
8 i\ They reopened the investigation.
9 p And th e --
1 10 -A Based on my concerns.
l 11 D And a second report was issued by Mr. Weil?
12 4 That's correct.
I 13 i And ir, me show you a document which I previously marked 14 as Def endant's Exhibit D-4953 and ask if you can identify ;
i 15 this as Mr. Weil's second report on the deep duct bank 16 incident?
i 17 (Deposition Exhibit No. D-4953, 18 Report of Investigation,
Title:
19 Midland Nuclear Power Plant l
20 Alleged Violation of Atomic Saf ety i 21 and Licensing Board Order, was i
22 i marked f or identification.) ;
i 23 A Yes.
l 24 BY MR. LIDBY:
Lnod Reparting Sertice 3, ,9 3,,,5,, ,f,, ,,w,.
1.afayette Buildme suite Mo 962 1II6 Suar 2:0 Detroit, \fichigan M226 Farmington Ilills .\fichiean 18018
l 1 O And' this report was dated September 12, 1983?
2 A That is correct, b
3 Q And do you recall what the results of the second 4 investigation were?
5 h I think they agreed with me.
6 0 Okay. And they agreed the digging of this 12 foot holo 7 was in violation of the ASLB order?
8 a Yes. 4 9 O Dr. Landsman, I' d like to move on to another subject at 10 this point. I believe yesterday you testified concerning 11 your attendance at a meeting where a request for the Corps 12 of Engineers to take additional borings was discussed. Do 13 you recall that testimony generally?
14 A Yes. ,
l 15 0 And in particular I believe you were shown an exhibit 16 : which fir. Goold identified as Plaintif f's Exhibit PX URC <
17 -
271, which purports to be a copy of the NRC's meeting 18 notes from that meeting; is that correct? l l
19 i Which meeting now? I' m sorry.
20 0 !!aybe it will help if you glance through this. Can you !
I 21 identify this document as a cop'; of the NRC's meeting l 22 i notes from a meeting held on August 29, 1980, regarding a ;
23 request for additional borings by the NRC?
24 A That's cor rect.
Lu:od Repareing Sereice ,,o 3,,,g, 6,,3,,, 77,,
Lafayette Budding Suite Mo 962.I176 suite 2:a Tktroit. \lichigan M26 Farmington tidls. .\lichigan 18018
1 -0 And you were an attendee at this meeting; is that correct?
l 2 A If I'm on the list somewhere. Yes.
3 Q Dr. Landsman, prior to your attending this meeting were 4 you involved in any way in the decision to request 5 additional borings?
6 '\ No, I was not.
7 9 Are you aware that that request generated f rom the Corps 8 of Engineers?
9 % I think I recall.
10 2 And that request was transmitted to the Consumers Power 11 Company by the of fice of NRR?
l 12 h That's correct.
l 13 p And am I correct that the purpose of this meeting was to 14 appeal f rom a prior decisicn where CPCo opposed taking 1S those boringst is that correct? i 16 A My understanding is, without reading this, that we asked 17 for additional borings, Consumers said no, and what l
, 18 happened when you reach a point like that you have to 19 raise it to another level of management. I think that's 20 what happened.
21 O And that's management within the NRC? .
l 22 A Ye s.
I 23 0 And if you turn to the second page of these meeting notes.
l 24 h Te s. ,
a 64 Luzod Reporting Service 3mo m,,,,, f;g.,
f4,y,,,, gigging Suj,, gw 962 1176 Suite 2m wmm Farmington flills, Alichigan 18018
l' .
i And to the second paragraph.
2 A Yes.
3 0 Do you recall that Mr. Wanzack of the Dechtel organization 4 made a presentation concerning the status of the boring 5 activity in the site to date during this meeting?
6 L That's what it says here. I cannot recall that, no.
7 0 Do you recall that at that time that over 250 borings had 8 been taken in the plant area fill?
9 a t If you say so.
l 10 0 Doec that generally jibe with your recollection f rom this 11 time period?
12 A I cannot re. call.
l 13 Q Okay. And if you go down to the next three paragraphs I i
14 see descriptions of what I believe to be presentations of 15 three gentlemen. Do you see those paragraphs?
16 A That's cor rect.
l 17 0 The first one is by Dr. Ralph Peck?
a l
18 Correct.
19 0 And he was a consultant hired by Bechtel to advise on the 20 remedial fixes; is that correct?
21 Correct.
22 Q And the nexst one is Dr. A7 liendron, and he also was a ,
23 consultant hired by Bechtel to advise on the remedial l i i 24 fixes?
l t
Igfayette Railding ePomng Senice 3ag,g ,,A w,f,,5,n ,,uy.
Suite MO 962.))76 Suite 220 iktroit. \fichigan t8226 Farmington flills.11ichigan M018
1 l
1 k That's correct.
I 2 p And the final one was a Dr. lit Davisson, and he was also 3 hired by Bechtel organization to advise on the remedial 4 fixes?
5 A That's cor rect.
6 0 And did you learn during this meeting that they had 7 recommended to Consumers Power Company that these borings 8 not be taken?
9 A I can' t say I learned that at this meeting.
10 ) You have no recollection one way or the other?
11 h No.
12 2 Subsequent -- and finally if you'll turn over to the last 13 page, or page f our of the textural part of this meeting?
14 p Yes.
~
15 ) Do you have that in f ront of you, under the part Decision? '
16 Do you recall that as a result of this meeting the -- Mr. .
i 17 Vollmer -- and who is Mr. Vollmer first of all? l l
18 '\ At that time? I 19 0 Yes. l l
20 I think he was in charge of the -- I think he was in 21 charge of engineering within NRR at the time.
22 0 okay. Do you recall that Mr. Vollmer indicated to 23 Consumers Power Company that he was not going to rule on 24 the appeal at this particular time to allow CPCo to file Lu:od Reporting Service 3og,o 3,,,s,,f,f,,17,,,
lafayette Building Suite MO 962.Ii76 Suite 220 Detroit. Alichigan 2226 Farmington flills, Alichigan 18018 n _ ___ , - - _ - ,____ _. _ ____ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
~.
I additional information?
2 A No, I cannot recall that. - -
3 Q Okay. Subsequent to this meeting did you learn that the 4 NRC in fact directed CPCo to conduct these borings?
5 j 6 Do I recall that? I do not.
6 0 Were you involved in that decision to require CPCo to take 7 these borings?
8 A No, I was not.
9 O Did you subsequently learn borings were in f act taken?
10 n I think I was there when they started to drill them, yes.
11 Q And did that occur in the summer of 1981?
12 A I' m not sure of the date.
13 Q Let me show you a document, which I don' t think you' ve 14 seen bef ore, which I've marked as Def endant's Exhibit 15 D-4948, which purports to be a copy of an NRC document 16 recording a phone call f rom February 27, 1981 and ask if 17 this ref reshes your recollection that borings in f act were 18 conducted during the summer of 1981? And in particular I 19 call your attention to the first paragraph on the first !
20 page. '
21 (Deposition Exhibit No. D-4948, 22 February 27, 1981 Telecon Regarding ; .
23 , changes in remedial actions f or i i 24 Midland soil settlement, 3-13-81, lofayene Buddine und Reporting Service go \.)],, y
~
suite rao 962 1176 suite 220 Detroit. \fichigan 49226 Farminu to,, Hills, \lichigan 2018
1 was marked f or identification.)
2 A Hould you please reask your question?
3 DY !!R. LIBBY:
4 ) Sure. Let me rephrase it in a shorter f ashion. Does 5 reviewing this document ref resh your recollection that the 6 borings that were requested by the NRC and ultimately 7 conducted by Consumers Power Company were conducted during .
8 the summer of 1981?
9 4 It appears by the date of this letter they' re going to do 10 it some time after tarch '81.
11 3) And --
12 1 It doesn' t say when they' re going to do it.
13 3 Okay.. And again I'm j ust asking f or your independent l
14 recollection. Do you recall approximately how many
?
15 borings were in fact taken? l 16 A Do, I do not, i
17 Q Do you recall whether the borings were in both the plant i 10 area and the dikes?
19 A I think they were. l l
20 0 And do you recall, or do you know, when the results of 21 1 those borings were transmitted to the NRC? ,
l l 22 h Mo, I do not.
23 h And j ust to back up, do you recall which company was 24 responsible for conducting this boring program?
Luzod Reporting Service 00 lafayette Buildine yo 3.,,,9 , .,
Suite 630 962.I176 Suige ggo Detroit, \fichigan 18226 Farmington Hith, .11ichigan 18018
t e
1 ') , Yes, I do.
l 2 0 What was the name of that company?
3 A Woodward Clyde.
- 4 O And they're a recognized gootechnical firm?
5 j i Yes.
6 Q Do you consider them to be competent?
7 A Yes.'
8 0 And do you know when the Woodward Clyde organization 9 transmitted the results of the borings to Consumers Power?
10 a No, I do not.
l 11 Q Let me show you two others exhibits, which I believe Mr.
12 Goold questioned you about yesterday, and they' re 13
- identified as Plaintiff's Exhibit CPC 1643 and Plaintiff's 14 Exhibit NRC 314 -- 317, I' m sorry. And do you recall that ,
15 these were identified to you by Mr. Goold as being notes 16 f rom meetings held between CPCo and the NRC at which 17 dif ferent proposals f or fixing the Auxiliary suilding were i 18 discussed?
19 T Yes.
l l 20 0 And I believe you testified yesterday the first meeting 21 which is, or meeting notes appear to be on Plaintif f's 22 Exhibit CPC 1643, occurred on May 5th, 6, and 7th of 1981; ;
23 is that correct? l 24 A It appears so. I 1.afayette Building Luod Reporting Service mm A' ora 6,,9 ,, ,
~
Suite hy) 962.!l76 Suite 220
()etrmt. \fichigan 18226 Farmineton lidh, .\fichiean 18018
I 1 Q And at this meeting am I correct that the IIRC was informed 2
that CPCo was expanding the caisson approach to what's 3 known as the big pier approach?
4 A I'll have to go on what you j ust said, okay.
5 0 Do you recall?
6 \ I don' t recall.
7 ) Do you recall generally that you were inf ormed of that at 8 some meeting? ,
9 A Yes.
10 ') And subsequently in the later part of 1981 do you recall 11 that the piers were extended underneath the entire length 12 of the control tower and the Auxiliary Building?
13 4 I don' t know if it was '81 but they were extended.
14 Q Okay. Dr. Landsman, do you know whether or not the 15 recults of the borings were transmitted to Consumers Power <
16 Company prior to the decisions as staced to the !!RC to j 17 modify the underpinning approach to the Auxiliary 18 Building? .
19 No, I do not recall.
20 Q Do you know whether or not the results of those borings 21 had any impact on the decision to modify the underpinning i
22 of the Auxiliary Building?
23 h flo, I do not.
l 24 Q Dr. Af if i -- I' m sor ry , Dr . Landsman. One too many I0 I'u: d Reporting Service yo 3.,,,g ,, ,, ._
lafayette Building suite Mo 962 1ii6 Suue 220 (ktroit, \fichigan 18226 Farmington Ilills,11ichigan 48018
1 depositions lately.
2 A That's an insult.
3 Q Okay. I called him Dr. Peck. Dr. Landsman --
l 4 ) , That I wouldn' t mind.
5 0 Okay. I'll call you Dr. Peck f rom now on. Dr. Landsman, 6 what I'd next like to do is show you a series of documents 7 and ask if you can identify them f or me please. The first 8 document I'd like to show you is a document I believe you 9 identified yesterday and it's identified as PX NRC 13, 10 which is a SALP report f or the time period April 26, 11 through June 21, 1982.
12 a That's correct.
l 13 Q And j ust as a preliminary matter, am I correct that this i i
14 SALP report was transmitted to CPCo on or about July 19, 15 1982?
16 A That's correct.
i 17 0 And that the period of the evaluation is -- was f or July 18 lut,1980 through June 30th,1981; is that correct? !
19 A That's cor rect.
I ,
20 0 Do you know why this report was transmitted almost a year l 21 af ter the assessrent period?
I 22 A Do. j l i 23 O During the assessment period f rom July 1st, 1980 through l 24 !
June 3 0th,1981, am I correct that the quality assurance !
lafayette Building Luzod Repor ing Sereiee , \.,, 7,,1,, ,,
Suite MO 962 1176 Sutte 220 Iktroit, \fichigan 48226 Farmington llulls, .\fichigan Mt018
1 activities at the site were under the control of cons'umers 2 Power Company?
3 4 .I' m not sure when they took over. .
4 0 How about quality control, do you recall whether Bechtel 5 was in charge of quality control during this time period?
6 4 I think they were.
7 0 And f or this time period again, do you recall if any 8 remedial soils work was taking place?
9 '4 During the SALP period?
10 ') Yeah.
11 '\ I think it had j ust begun.
12 2 Okay.
13 h They started to take the soil borings. I think that was 14 l the firrt remedial soils work.
- 4 l
15 0 Okay. And that's in July of 1981 was the rend of the i i
16 period? '
17 it Yes. ,
18 .) And turning over to the second page I notice what appears 19 to be a standard ctatement on most of these reports 20 concerning a public document room. Do you see that? It's 21 on the top of page two in accordance with section 2.790.
22 .i Yes, yes.
23 h And to your knowledge was this document placed within the 24 public document rooms?
Luod Reporting Service 12 lafayette Building ,g 3., , ,7 Suite M O 962.I176 Suite 220 Detroit. \fichigan 2226 Fannington Ilith, \fichlean min 8
1 ) ,
It should have been. -
2 Q Dr. Landsman, turning over to Bates number 11225 it's a 3 section labeled Introduction?
4 A Yes.
5 0 Do you have that in f ront of you?
6 L Yes.
7 0 I notice that there's a f ollowing description of SALP and 8 it's as f ollows: "SALP is intended f rom a historical 9 point to be suf ficiently diagnostic to provide a rational 10 ba sis f or, one, for allocating f uture NRC regulatory 11 resources and, tw o, to provide meaningf ul guidance to 12 licensee management to promote quality and saf ety of plant 13 construction and operation. " Do you see that section?
14 y Yes, I do.
1 IS Q And does that accurately describe what the SALP procedure 16 was intended to do?
I 17 A This I think was the first SALP so I think back then 18 that's probably what they intended ic for.
19 Q Okay.
l I' 20 A I still think it's a report card on the licensee.
l '
21 O Okay. Just so we' re clear, do you recall that in f act ;
l l 22 ! another SALP report had been issued prior to this one? ;
23 A Prior to this one? .
I I 24 0 Yes. !
l lafayette Building 30810 Northwest en Hwy.
Suite MO 962.I176 Sune 231 Detroit, \fachigan .48226 Farmington Hills,11ichigan 18018
i 1 A I don' t think so. I think this was the first.
2 Q Let me ask you to turn over to Bates number 11223, and if 3 you'll turn down to under enclosure one, the third full 4 paragraph beginning with the licensee's perf ormance?
5 4 Yes.
6 0 It states as follows: "The licensee's perf ormance in mose 7 other areas has been satisfactory and significant 8 improvement has been achieved in the licensee's resolution 9 of heating, ventilating, and air conditioning problems 10 identified in the previous evaluation period (SALP 1) ."
11 Does that ref resh your recollection that in f act there was 12 a previous SALP report at Midland?
i 13 \ It appears there was.
b I 14 0 Dr. Landsman, if you would turn over new to Bates number N l ,
15 11226, the section labeled Criteria. I see down at the 16 ( bottom there's a list of three categories?
l E 17 A That's correct. I h
1 18 0 And are those the three ratings that are generally used in 19 a SALP report to grade various activities of a licensee?
i 20 A That's correct.
21 Q And Category 1, am I correct, is that in general j 22 colloquial terms things are going so well that you may be 23 able to reduce NRC attention in that area?
14 k That's correct.
1A Lmd Reporting Service ,3 ,,, y 1.nfayette Buildh:g suite t,w 962 ))T6 .%te :3>
c-- Dernit Yichhan M6 Farmington Udh, Alichiean 18018
1 ' Category 2 is that things are going okay and the level of 2 MRC involvement should r emain the same?
3 A . Okay.
l 4 0 And the final category, Category 3, is that things are 5 just, as it says here, minimally acceptable and that more 6 resources of both the NRC and the licensee should be 7 applied in that area?
8 A That's correct.
1 9 0 I believe you testified that you prepared the portion of 10 this report related to the soils sections; is that 11 ~ correct?
12 A I had input into it.
l 13 0 okay.
14 A Mr. Ron Cook and I prepared it.
I i
15 Q Okay.
I 16 A Ron Cook is the resident by the way.
I 17 0 Could you j ust briefly describe f or me your role in 18 preparing that section?
19 \ As in all SALP's, the individuals inspectors prepare the i
20 sections and they hand it to the coordinator who back then 21 used to be the resident inspector. And he would place it 22 j in his words or whatever he wanted, but those are all my 23 items in here. f 24 Q Okay. And could you j ust f or the record state on which j l
- l Luzod Reporting Service , ,o \., 1,5,, ,,
lafayetw Building suite Mo 962 III6 Suite 2.%
Iktroit. \fichigan 18:26 Farminuton Ildh. \fachigan 18018
E 1 pages your section appears?
l 2 A of the report its page or by this number?
3 0 Bates number please.
l 4 A It's on 229, 230 and 231.
5 Q And, Dr. Landsman, were you also aware that in addition to 6 the ratings that were given to specific areas that there 7 was also a general rating given to the company in the SALP 8 repor t?
9 N No, I didn' t know that.
10 Q Let me ask you to turn over to Dates number 229, and you 11 may want to ref er back to 228 where the section begins, 12 and ask you to turn to section B, and if you want to read 13 the entire section please f eel free to do so.
14 p No, that's okay. ,
j I 15 7 Were you aware that the following conclusion was reached i i
16 as set f orth in this report: "The licenceo is rated 17 Category 2 in its overall quality assurance capability.
10 Notwithstanding weaknesses identified in specific areas, 19 the licensee has been responsive in establishing an i
20 overall eff ective organization f or the management of 21 construction and the implementation of quality assurance 1
22 i at the si te. "
23 A What was your question? ,
I '
24 0 Were you aware that that conclusion was set forth in this a l 0
Luzod Reporting Service yw3 , , _,
Infayene BuiWe '
kite hw 962.))i6 Suar ggo Detmit, \fichipt M226 Farmington Ihlh, Sfichigan MOIR
1 report?
2 A In regards to quality assurance, yes.
3 0 And who reached that conclusion, if you know?
4 A I have no idea.
5 Q And I believe that in this -- turning over to your portion 6 of the report -- that you rated CPCo Category 3 for the 7 assessment period set f orth in this SALP report; is that 8 correct?
9 n I' m sorry?
l 10 0 That your rating of the soils work during this assessment 11 period was Category 3; is that correct?
12 a That's correct.
1 13 Q And Category 3 again is minimally acceptable and needs 14 more ef f ort f rom both the licensee and the 11RC?
15
} That's correct.
'l 16 Q Turning over to the final section of the soils and s I
i 1
l 17 foundation section, which is labeled C, Board 18 Recommenda tion.
19 A Yos.
20 0 Could you explain to me -- well, let's go back f or a l
21 second and try this. Am I correct that your soils l 22 ! section, or your and Mr. Cook's soil section was divided 23 into three parts? j 24 A That's correct. !
l
'Poning % ice 3,,o y,,g ,,],],n ,,,,_
lxfn> rue Buddin, Suite hw 962 1176 Sust,220 (kttmt. \fichigan 48226 Farmington lidts. \lichien t8nis
4 I
1 Q The first part is entitled Analysis and sets forth various 2 findings that you made during the assessment period; is 3 that correct?
4 A That's correct.
5 0 And I notice the numbers on there like 50-329/80-32, are 6 those ref erences to inspections that you conducted during 7 the assessment period?
8 i Yes, those are ref erence to my inspection report numbers.
9 1 Dr. Landsman, let me show you a copy of a document which 10 I've previously identified as Def endant's Exhibit D-4932 11 and ask if you can identify this as inspection report 12 50-329/80-32 continuing that's ref erenced on page 5 of 13 your report? l 14 (Deposition Exhibit No. D-4932, ,
15 Letter f rom James Keppler to 16 James Cook, dated 1-12-81, was 17 marked f or identification.)
18 i\ Yes.
19 Y MR. LIBDY:
20 0 And am I correct that diis inspection report was at least l
21 trancmitted to Consumers Power Company on or about January 22 12, 1981?
23 A That's correct. ,
I 24 Q And it covered an inspection that you conducted in La d Reporting Service 18 lafayene fladdine y ,g 3 ,,, ,7 ._
Suite hw 962.l]76 Suite 2:0 Iktrat. \lichigan 68226 Farmineron lidh. \fichigan 48018 c
1 conj unction with Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Gilray?
2 E That's correct.
3 0 And the inspection occurred on December 8-11, 1980 at the 4 Midland site?
5 A I don' t think it was at the Midland site, but that's 6 Correct.
7 O Okay. Do you recall where this audit was taken at or 8 conducted at?
9 n I think it was the Ann Arbor of fices of Bechtel Power.
10 0 Okay. Thank you.
. 11 A Yes, it was.
12 0 okay. And then turning to the final paragraph of the 13 first page I again notice that ref erence to the storage of 14 ,
this document in the public document room. To your ;
15 knowledge, has this inspection report been maintained in 16 the public document rooms of the MRC?
17 A That's cor rect. l 18 And, Dr. Landsman, if you would take in f ront of you the 19 SALP report dealing with this particular audit -- is audit 20 a correct term or do you pref er inspection?
21 n Whatever you like.
22 O Okay. I notice that listed beneath that are one and two, ;
23 which appear to be items of noncompliance that you f ound 24 during this inspection; is that correct? !
g4y,,y g;wtgy, Luzod Reporting Service 3 ,,9 ,,k ,],,9,, ,,, y_
S wtr M O 962 1176 Sm v 220 (ktrott, \fichigan 48226 Farmington flills \fichigan #101R
p 1 A That is correct.
l 2 0 Could you just identify it for the record where thoso
~
l 3 items are described within your inspection report?
4 A Yeah, they' re in Appendix A, the notico of violation.
5 0 Okay. And would those same events also be described in 6 the body of your report?
7 i Yes, they are.
8 0 And could you quickly identify for me which portions of 9 your report deal with those incidents?
R 10 A somebody flagged it here for me very conveniently, I 11 think.
12 ItR. GOOLD: I notice that there are a number 13 of handwritten markings in the margins of D-4932, can you 14 tell us, John, if those are markings f rom the files of 15 Conctzners Power or stuf f that camo about during the 16 litigation?
17 im. LIDBY: All I can tell you is that this i 18 is as they appeared in Consumers Power's files. From the 19 notations and the way they were written I would assume 20 that it's somebody's attempt to monitor the various 21 l noncompliancos and to determine whether they' re closed 22 out. So I' d assume it's Consumers Power.
23 A okay. No, I don' t know which one's which on here but it's 4 24 all throughout the report, of the reports that we' to Lu:od Reporting Service 80 lafayette Buildung 3,y ,o 3,,,s , ,,,,,, y, ,,
S,;,, ggy 962.]176 Suite 231
, Detrmt, \fichigan 48226 Farmington Hdis. \fichigan satHR
1 discussing. Page 4 it starts out Item A and continuing on 2 page 5 at the top, that's one of the items of 3 noncompliance. Then Item B is another item of 4 noncompliance. Item C on page 5 continuing to the top of 5 page 6 is another item of noncompliance.
6 Q Is a final item of noncompliance the PSAR review found in 7 Section 47 8 n Yes, it is, on page 9.
9 0 To speed this up --
10 a Starting on page 7, 8 and ending on 9.
l 11 0 okay. I've got several of these reporto I'd like to go 12 th rough. To speed this is up, is there any way that you
.13 can identiff just by reading the document which finding 14 you were making or you were concluding is an iten of l 15 nonccmpliance? Am I making myself clear in the quoction?
16 A Well, the one that says this is considered contrary to.
l 17 That's the way I just f cund -- I was looking up at the j 18 numbers at the end.
19 0 okay. So j ust so I'm clear, the way these are set up is !
i 20 that the inspection reports usually contain a memorandum 21 transmitting that to the licenneo and who's ever on the 22 i distribution list and then there's an appendix which sets 23 forth the notice of violationo which identifica the items 24 of noncompliance? !
l 1 l
l lafayette Building Las:od Repor:ing Service ,3 ,8,,1 ,,
Suite hw 962 1176 Sunge :s
- _ymt, l Ukhie$n g:Q_ _ - - Famington flulls, Mkhienn WIR
1 k That's correct.
2 O And then there's a textural portion that describes in 3 greater detail or summarizes your inspection report and 4 within that will be findings that you identify as being S considered items of noncompliance which appear in the 6 appendix?
7 A That's correct.
8 Q Dr. Landsman, going again to this SALP report on page 9 Dates number ending in 11230, the next ref erence to an 10 inspection report I see begins with the numbers 11 50-329/81-01. Do you have that?
12 h That's correct.
l 13 D Let me show you a document which I previously marked ,
. I 14 Defendant's Exhibit D-4933 and ask if you can identify l 15 this az your inspection report as ref erenced in that SALP !
16 report?
17 (Deposition Exhibit No. D-4933, ,
18 Letter f rom James Keppler to 19 James Cook, dated 2-2-81, was 20 marked f or identification.) ; ,
j 21 A Yes.
22 BY tm. LIBDY:
l 23 0 And am I correct that this inspection report was l l
24 I transmitted to Concumers Power on er about February 2nd, d ,
l Lafvette Rmiding Luzod Reporting Service yo ., 02 , y ,
l 962 1176 Suite 220 suite tao Iktroit. \fichigan M226 Farmington Ihlis \fichigan Mols
I 19017 2 A That's correct.
ll 3 Q And that it contains the resulte of inspection chat was 4 conducted on January 7th through 9th,1981 by yourcelf, 5 Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Sutphin. Is that pronounced 6 correctly?
7 A That's correct.
8 And again, to your knowledge, has this document been 9 retained in the public document rooms of the NRC7 10 A That's correct.
11 9 Dr. Landsman, next let me show you a document, which --
12 A Just for your inf ormation, to keep the record straight, 13 g there appears to be the Appendix A missing f rom here.
l.
14 0 Okay.
l 15 A Just so you know.
l 16 0 And I apologize to you if these are incomplete. They ' r e i
17 the ones we got f rom CPCo's files so I assume they were, 18 but normally there would be an Appendix A that would cet 19 forth the items of noncompliance which you've alco 20 recorded here?
21 i 8 That s correct. i 22 b Dr. Landsman, next let ne show you a document which I've f 23 marked as Def endant's Exhibit D-4934 and ask if you can 24 identify this as the third inspection report identified in i 1
lAfa)ttle flutiding
"' *E " '
3h880 %rthur I in fluy suite h30 962 1176 Snae 2:a Iktron. \fichigan Mt226 Farmsneton listh. \fichican m018
1 the SALP report, which I believe starts with the numbers 2 50-329/81-09?
3 (Deposition Exhibit No. D-4934, 4 Letter f rom James Koppler to 5 James Cook, dated 5-21-81, was 6 marked f or identification.)
7 A That is correct.
8 BY MR. LIBBY:
l 9 D And was this inspection report tranamitted to CPCo on our 10 about May 21st,19817 11 h That' e correct.
l 12 Q And this covered an inspection which you conducted on two 13 separate site visits; is that correct?
14 4 That's correct.
15 I And, to your knowledge, has this document been maintained e 16 in the public docutaent rooms of the NRC?
17 A That's correct. [
l
! 18 Q Dr. Landsman, next let me show you a document which I'vo 19 previously marked as Def endant's Exhibit Ih4955, and ask 20 if you can identify this as a copy of the inspection 21 report, the last inspection report that you listed in your 22 section of the SALP report, which begins with the numbers 23 50-329/81-127 24 (Deposition Exhibit No. D-4955, I
warais, auusia, Lu:od Reponing Sen.in 3,m y 8, f,,, y,,_
suur Mo 962 1176 Suite 2:0 Ikerwu \iic%as;nt:6 __
Faminst<* Udh. Uirhiran 48018
1 Letter from James Keppler to 2 James Cook, 7-10-81, was marked 3 for identifica. tion.) ,
( . 4 A Ye s, f
5 BY MR. LIBBY:
6 4 And am I correct that this report was sent to Consumers 7 Power Company on or about July 10th,1981?
8 A That's correct.
l 9 0 And am I correct that this covered a rather extensive 10 inspection that was conducted by nine inspectors including 11 your self ?
12 A That's correct.
l 13 0 And that inspection was at the Midland sito on the dates 14 May 18-22nd,19817 15 A That's correct. I t l
16 Q And just so I'm clear, this increction report would have
- 17 been conducted j ust about at the end of the SALP 18 assessment period, is that correct, as reported in this 19 SALP report?
20 That's correct, f
1 i
21 0 And, to your knowledge, has this inspection report been 22 maintained in public document rooms of the NRC?
23 A Yes, it has.
l 24 0 Referring to the cover letters, which I believe was i !
l 1 1
I Infayrtte Thlding Luzod Reporting Service yo \. 8L ,,
Suite Ak? 962 1176 Suin 23)
[ktro.t. \fichigan 48226 Farminston lidis, \fichigan 48018
. . - - . - - _ , . . . . . _ . - . ~ - - . - _ _ . _ . - _ . - _ - _ . -. , ._ _ _ _ - - - , . . . ._
1 ! prepared by Mr. Koppler; is that correct?
2 A It was signed by !!r. Keppler.
h 3 0 It would have been prepared f or his signature then?
}
4 A That's correct.
}
5 0 I notice in the bottom paragraph the following statement:
6 "Although eight items of noncompliance were identified 7 during this inspection it is our judgment that the scope 8 and depth of this 11RC inspection was such that the 9 identified noncompliances do not contravene our conclusion 10 that Consumers Power Company has established an effective 11 organization f or the management of construction and 12 implementation of quality assurance at the site. " Were 13 you aware that that inf ormation was transmitted to 14 Consumers Pcwer on or about July 10th,1981?
15 A Yes.
l !
16 0 Did you express any disagreement with that opinion to 17 anybody f rom Concumero Power on or about that date?
18 A To Consumers Power Company? I l '
19 Q Yeah.
I 20 A No. During the inspection though I did express some 1 21 concern to the soils people on site.
22 0 Right.
l 23 A About the coils work.
I 2 24 0 And that's the inspection reports we've j ust looked at?
i 0
Luzod Reporting Service y ,9 , ,
y,g ,,,, ymtgi,, \.,,,
Sate Am 962 1176 Ssste zy)
Iktront. \fichigan 48226 Farmington listis. \fichigan 18018
1 A Ho. There's sene stuf f in here on this report in the 2 soils area I think.
3 0 Okay. And j ust so I'm clear, could you quickly look 4 through and identify the portions of the report dealing 5 with soils? Uhy don't you turn over to Datos number 755 6 A Yes.
l 7 0 And this is section three dealing with the entire civil 8 area, right?
9 Q That's correct, l
10 0 And it would deal with soils, concrete, rebar?
l 11 A That's correct.
12 Q And this section was prepared by yourself and Mr.
13 Gallagher?
i 14 A That's correct. j l
15 0 And that extends over to page 77621 is that correct? 1 16 A That's correct. l l l 17 0 And to the best of your recollection does this report '
18 accurately reflect the results of your inspection 19 including the findings of items of noncomplianco?
20 h That's correct. i i
21 0 Okay. Why don' t we take a quick break right here. I' d 22 like to -- I'm going to do the cano thing with SALP 2 but 23 I'm trying to figure out if there's a quickor way because l 24 there's more inspection reports than thic one. j i
IMod R* Porting Service , y,,g ,8,7,, ,,
infayette (kdding suite ao 962 1176 suute :20 (ktemt, \fichigan M2:6 Farminetun Ildh. \fichican 43018
l l
1 MR. RICCI Going off the record. l 2 ( A brief discussion was held l l
. 3 of f the record.) l 4 MR. RICCI: Back on the record at 43 minutes 5 and f our seconds. ,
l 6 BY MR. LIBBY:
l 7 0 Dr. Landsman, we've just run through Part A of your soils 8 section of this SALP report that's been identified as 9 Plaintif f's Exhibit Nnc 13. The next section I notice in 10 your report, which appears on Bates number 1123, is a 11 category entitled Conclusion. Do you see that section?
12 A That's correct.
13 0 And does that section set forth the rating tnat's given to 14 the licensee in the particular area?
15 T That's correct.
l 16 0 And the rating f or this particular assessment period f or 17 the Midland site was 3; is that correct?
18 3 That's correct.
19 0 Then turning over to the next section is a section
, I 20 entitled Board Recommendations. Do you see that?
21 A That's correct.
22 Q And what purpose is served by this section?
l 23 7. To give the SALP Board a chance to give their
- 24 recommendations in a report. It's actually written by the '
l l
00 Luzod Reporting Service g w y,,,, 17g.,
lAf4ffil!OUS$ ding S,,,, sw 962 1176 Suar 2:0 Farminston litils. \lichigan -mOIR 1 % ss. \fsch W m226 _. - . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
9 1 in pectors who write the report and they just change the 2 words around.
3 Q okay. Do you have any role in writing this section?
O 4 A I think I did, the first draf t that goes to the Board.
l 5 0 And then they modify it?
6 A Yes.
l 7 Q And do they communicate with you during this modification 8 process to get your approval of this language?
9 A They usually try to sof ten it up.
l 10 Q Okay. And I notice in this section the following -- well, 11 first of all, do you know who wrote this particular 12 section or modified this particular section?
l 13 A The Board.
l 14 0 Who was the Board on this SALP report?
l -
15 A somewhere in here it says. I' m not sure.
l l 16 0 I'm not sure I've seen it in here either.
I 17 A It's usually the people on the cc in the f ront, second 18 page.
19 Q Okay, second page. And who are those gentlemen? 1 l
20 A Region III managers. That's the Doard I think.
I 21 O And that's the names down here at the bottom, the l l 22 i initials? !,
23 A That's correct.
I 24 O And I notice in the neard Recommendation section on antes i
I ist;syrtte Ruolding Lutzod Reporting Sertice 8 y g, y,,g ,,9,, ,,
% rr M n 962.])in %g, g;rj f)etemt. \fichigan #2:f> Farmington lidh. \lichican 18n18
l 1 number 11231 the following in the second paragraph: "The 2 issues identified during this evaluation period woro 3 addressed with die licensee and were thought to be 4 resolved. However following this evaluation period there 5 was a period when very little physical work in the soil 6 settlement and underpinning area was initiated on site.
7 When actual physical work was resumed it was f ound that 8 adequate QA/QC attention was not given to these work
\
9 activities. These areas have again been addressed and are 10 believed to be resolved. Continuing attention is required 11 by both the NRC and the licenseo." Do you cee that 12 se ction?
13 A That's correct.
l
. 14 Q And did you agree with those statements at the time this ,
15 report was written? i 16 h I wasn't asked to sign the report. i l l 17 Q Do you recall whether you agreed with those commentc? !
I 18 h I'm trying to get my f rame of -- time f rame down. I don' t i
19 think in July '82 I f elt that way.
20 Q Do you recall expressing your disagreemenc with those 21 feelings to CPCo during this time period?
22 A Every time I was on site.
23 Q Did that include expressing them to Steve Howell? ;
24 Steve Howell I never saw on site. l l
0 Lmd Reporting Service 3x ,o y,,9,,, ,, jf,,,
1.afayette lhilding gg,, sw 962 1176 Sate rn katcciL%hvystfl0%k _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.FarmiMeon lidis. \fichigan 18018
j 1 C John selby?
2 A Never saw him on alto.
ll 3 0 Jim Cook?
- I 4 A Sometimes I saw him on site.
l 5 0 Do you recall specifically indicating your disagreement 5 with this statement at any time with any one of those 7 gentlemen?
8 A Not that I can say exactly.
l 9 0 Okay. Dr. Landaman, over the break I handed you a bundle 10 of documents and the first document I believe you 11 identified yesterday as a second SALP report covering the 12 assessment period July 1st,1901 through March 31st, 1903; 13 is that correct?
l 14 -A It appears to be the third SALP.
I 15 0 Okay. And that's been identified as Plaintif f's Exhibit 16 NRC 40?
17 A Yes. <
l l
18 Q And this was transmitted to Consumers Power Company on or 19 about January 21st,19037 l
l 20 A July 21st, that's correct.
l l 21 O Okay. And to your knowled9e has thin document been l
l 22 maintained in the public document rooms of the NRC7 ,
l l ,
23 A That's correct. i 1
24 0 And I know I'm repeating. Thic covered the assessment f i
l Lafayette Buildine 1.nmd Repar ing Sereiee , w 3. , 9,k ,,
suite sw 962 1176 suste 2a)
Detroit \lichigan M226 Farmington Ihlis, \fichigan Mola
1 period f rom July lot,1981, which is when the prior 2 assessment period was over, to March 31st, 1983; is that 3 correct?
i 4 A That's correct.
l 5 0 During this time period do you recall whether consumers 6 Power Company was in charge of quality assurance?
7 T I cannot recall.
8 2 Do you recall whether Dechtel Power Company was in charge 9 of quality control?
10 A During the initial part of this period I think they were.
11 p Do you recall that some time in 1982 Consumers Power took 12 over responsibility for the quality control inspections at 13 the Midland site?
14 ftR. GOOLD: I'm going to object insof ar as l
15 that question assunes something which I believe in 16 contrary to the law, and that is Consumers Power was 17 always responsible for construction including quality 18 control and quality assurance at Midland.
n 19 BY MR. LIBBY:
1 20 0 Do you understand my question, Dr. Landsman? ,
i I
21 A No. Would you repeat it please?
I 22 O At some point -- I believe you j ust testified that Bechtel 23 Power Company was doing the quality control inspections, 24 or employees of Bochtel Power Company were doing the i
Lafayette Buuldme Lsmd Reporting Service y,o3.),77 3
Suar MO 962.76 Suae ro
& trout. \lickhan 48r6 Fannmeron liilh. \fich::an 18018
n 4 1 quality control inspections for a portion of thia 2 - assessment period; is that correct? 3 A That's correct. O 4 Q And at some point the quality control inspectors became S employees of Consumers Power Company; is that correct? 6 A They became employees of Consumers Power company? I don' t 7 tnink they ever became employees of Consumero Power 8 Com p q. i 9 0 At some point in this assessment period did consumoro 10 Power Company take over direct control of the quality 11 control program? 12 A They took over the management of it. l 13 0 Okay. l . 14 A I think during this time period. Some time they did. I' m 15 not sure of the time f rame. 16 0 Do you happen to recall whether the quality control for 17 the, or the manageme' if the quality control for the ~ 18 soils was first taken over by CPCo bef ore the balance of 19 the project? 20 A I'm sorry. Would you repeat that? 21 O What I'm trying to determine is this: At some point in 22 this time period, assuming at the beginning of the time 23 period, Bechtel was managing the quality control' l 24 inspections at the site; in that correct? i l i 1.n d Reporting Service 93 Infayette Buddine
~
yg ,, suite ma 962 1Ii6 suite ::o Detroit, \fichigan t82:6 Farmungton Ildh \fichigan 43018
, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ , _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ - ~ .
1- k Yes. 2 O And at como point did you come to learn that the quality 3 control inspections for the remedial soils work were going 4 to be managed by CPCo? 5 4 At some time, yes. I don t know if it was during this 6 BALP or not. 7 D And did you subsequently learn af ter CPCo would tako over 8 . the management. of the quality control organization for 9 soils that they also took over the management of the 10 quality control organization f or the balance of the plant? 11 A Yes. l 12 O So, a*a I correct then that Consumers PoWor took over the 13 quality control inspections for the soils prior to taking 14 over the quality control inspections f or the balance of 15 the plant? 16 A I think that's correct. i l i 17 0 okay. And again I'm just asking for your boot 18 recollection. Dr. Landsman, during the break I handed you -- 19 well, let's do it this way. I believe you testified i i 20 yesterday that you wrote a portien of this SALP report; is 21 that correct? 22 A That's correct. l
'3 0 And just for record ceuld you identify that section?
l ! 24 A The soils section, wherever that is. 1 Luzod Reporting Sersice yma g, , y ._ 74 ,,,, gag , Sw,, nw 962 1176 Swte 2m (Mroa, \$ichigan Mc2b fGrMinflon Ud5A. \$ichiRNn Ul050
R 1 Q Okay. And does that begin on Dates number 91906101 and 2 extend through 919061847 3 A That's correct. l 4 Q And I notice in this soils section you begin with a 5 description of the remedial soils work that took place 6 during the assessment period; is that correct? 7 A That's correct. l 8 g And did you try to completely describe the remodial work 9 that was transpiring during this period? 10 A I tried to. I 11 Q And that's set forth in the first paragraph of this 12 section? 13 A That's correct. l 14 0 And then below that you again set f orth the items of 15 noncompliance that you relied upon in arriving at the 16 rating of Consumers Power for this acaecament period? 17 A That's correct. l 10 Q And do those again involve inspections that you conducted 19 during the assessment period? i 20 h That's correct. l 21 0 Dr. Landaman, I've handed you a series of exhibits, which j 22 I' ve previously marked, and I would ack if you could go l 23 , down those exhibits and identify them ao the inspection i 24 reports that are set forth in your SALP report? I I4(ayette kildine Listod Reporting Service ,w ,9,5 ,,,, l Sutte MO 962.]}*6 p,uge ggo Detrmt, \lichigan m:26 Farmington listis, \fichuean mais
1 By Exhibit number? 1 2 0 Ye s, plea se. 3 (Deposition Exhibit Hos. D-4 93 8, 4 Letter f rom CE Norolius to James 5 Cook, 7-2-82; D-4936, Letter f rom 6 CE Norelius to James Cook, 4-26-82; 7 D-4937, Letter f rom CE Norelius to 8 James Cook, 4-26-82 ; D-493 9, Letter 9 from WS Little to James Cook, 10 8-9-82; D-4940, Letter f rom RF 11 Warnick to James Cook', 9-22-82 ; 12 NRC 262, Letter f rom RF Warnick to 13 James Cook,11-S-82; D-4943, Letter 14 from James Keppler to James Cook, 15 4-7-83, were marked f or identification. ) 1G A Def endant's Exhibit D-4930, Def endant's Exhibit D-4936; f 17 Def endant's Exhibit D-4937 ; Def endant's Exhibit D-4939; i 18 Def endant's Exhibit D-4940; Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC 262; 19 Plaintiff's Exhibit NRC 22; and the last one is 20 Def endant's Exhibit D-4943 All these are the reporta 21 which I used to write this section in the SALP one. 22 MR. GOOLD: Dr. Landaman, could you 1 23 double-check the nunbers you have at the very bottom of l l l 24 the stack? Did you also have a D-4942? ! l I
# 'E "5"5 "'5" 308m Northur t rn lluy.
l.afayette Buildtne Suur hw 962.))76 Suite rm introit \fichigan M26 Farmington lidis, \fichiran mola
1 TilS liITNESS: Mo, I did not. 2 HR. LIDBY: I believe D-4942 is a copy of 3 the DGD inspection report, which I'm not sure is 4 ref erenced in the section on soils in the SALP 3 report. 5 a It was. That was the duplicate of the same report. It'a 6 also Plaintif f's Exhibit NRC number 22 in the one us just 7 mentioned there. They' re the same ones. So I just 8 removed them. 9 MR. GOOLD: Thank you. 10 BY MR. LIBBY: l 11 Q And are these the inspection reports that you relied upon 12 in reaching your evaluation of the soils work during this 13 assessment period? 14 A That is correct. i l 15 0 And, to your knowledge, have these documents all been 16 retained in the public document rooms of the NRC7 17 A That's correct. i l 18 Q Dr. Landsman, if you next turn over to your conclusion 19 section, which is set forth on Bates number 91906184. 20 A Yes. i l i 21 0 And am I correct that based on your review of the, or
! l 22 i CPCo's performance during this time period that you ;
i 23 ; ultimately decided to give them a rating of 3; is that 24 correct? i i l lafayette Building
- f*"5"N "'5
.nIO %rthur t rn llu).
Suite MO 962 1Ji6 Su,,, 2:0 Iktrat. \lichigan 4822n Farmineton lidh, \lichican ut018 ( _ _ . _ . _ - - . - _
1 A That's correct. l 0 2 Q And as it also sets forth in here that you conoidered , I 3 i giving them a lower rating, right? N 4 A Nell, when I initially write the section or the innpector 5 does you give them a rating. Ratings are actually given 6 by the Board and finally by Mr. Keppler. i Okay. 7 Q 8 4 The Board changes some ratings and then Mr. Keppler has 9 the final say on what the rating will be. 10 0 Did you initially recommend that a rating of less than 3 11 be given? 12 A Yes. l 13 0 And what would have been the impact of giving a rating of l 14 less than 37 15 4 Ne couldn' t. If you don't give a rating 3, the work , 16 should be shut down. i 17 0 So that in effect it would have shut down work at the ' 18 Midland site in the soils area? 19 4 No. You can' t give a rating below 3 if the work is 20 ongoing. So the Board told me, or somebody, that we can' t 1 21 give a lower rating than 3 otherwise the NRC should shut l 22 the work down. Since the work was going on that's why we , 23 have this little caveat here on the bottom of the . 1 24 Conclusion section to take care of what happened at the i i i Luzod Reporting Service yo \. , ,7 lafayette Buildme Solite hw 962 1176 Suite 2N [ktrat, \fichtmn M226 Farmington flills, \fichigan 2018
P 1 Board meeting. 2 Q Okay. And did you disagree with the conclusion of the ' 3 Doard, to give a rating 3 to Consumers Power Company? 4 A I was concerned that Consumers Power Company wouldn' t be 5 able to carry on other remedial soil work adequately at 6 the time. So that's why I wanted the work shut down until 7 such time as the NRC thought that they were capable of 8 completing the remedial soils work adequately. 9 0 And the Board decided to give a rating of 3 to allow them 10 to continue work with the caveat as set forth down at the 11 bottom of the page that the NRC would continue to monitor 12 the program through 'the work authorization procedure and 13 work excavation permit systems, that an independent third l 14 party overview would take place and that there would be 15 continuous scrutiny by the URC staf f ? 16 That's correct. 17 Q And this independent third party overview, could you i 18 explain that for me please? 19 A Yeah. Consumers Power Company I think hired Stone and l ! 20 Webster to be the independent third party reviewer on site 1 21 over the remedial soils work. l 22 0 And j ust so I'm cicar, so in addition to the ordinary QC 23 and QA programs that would be implemented for the soils 24 work there would oe an independent revier of that program I , 1.afayrtte Rwidine Luod Reporting Service ,o 3., 9,9 ,7 Suite Mo 962 1176 Suite 2;m Detroit, \lichigan M2.% Farmington Ilills \fichigan motR
I cs well; is that estrect? 2 A And the soils work since I determined the regular QA/QC 3 program was not functioning in the remedial soils area. 4- 0 And then you would conduct your inspections of all thar, 5 both the independent verification and the OA/0C and the 6 actual soils works is that correct? 7 A That's correct. 8 0 Dr. Landsman, following the issuance of this SALP 3 9 report, soils work continued at the Midland sites is that 10 correct? 11 A That's correct. I 12 D And by soils work I mean remedial soila work continued in 13 the Auxiliary Building? 14 A That's correct. I 15 0 And that continued until the plant shut down in 1984; is 16 that correct? I , 1 17 A That's correct. l 18 Q Did you have any opinion during that time period regarding j 19 any improvements in the performance of Consumers Power 20 Company in the area of the soils work? 21 k I think f rom the time the SALP 3, or whatever thio last 22 one we were discussing was icaued, Consumoro Power Company j 23 seemed to pay more attention to detail in their remedial 24 soils area and were not getting into such much trouble as l
}
I } Luod Reporting Service 3m,o 9,,5f, ,f,, pg,,. lafayette Building s,, nw 962 1176 Suar 220 Iktrat. \fwhigan 48226 Farmington Ihlls, \fichienn 48018
l I they were bef ore. 2 Q Following the chut down of the plant in 1984, do you 3 recall attending a meeting between CPCo and the NRC in 4 Glen Ellyn in which consumers Power precented its QA 5 program for the shutdown phase of the project? 6 . MR. GOOLD: I'm going to object on rolevance 7 with respect to QA programs implemented f or shutdown 8 activities or questioning concerning some purported reform 9 of the plant QA problems that occurred af ter the Dow -- 10 termination of the Dow contract in the institution of this 11 litiga tion. It doesn't seem to me it has any bearing on 12 the issues in this case. 13 MR. LIBDY: ITell, if we' re going to get into. s 1 14 an argument about relevancy, I'm cure that I would have a 15 f ew relevancy objections about this whole line of 16 interrogation, but since relevancy objections are 17 precerved under the Michigan Court Rules you' re f ree to 18 make them if you want to but I don't see any need to make 19 them at this time. 20 MR. GOOLD: Will you permit me a standing , i 21 i obj ection? l i l 22 ! MR. LIDDY: Cer tai nly. ; 23 MR. GOOLD: Thank you, i 24 DY MR. LIBBY: Lss:od Reporting Sersice ,, w \. 1,0[ ,, lathyrtte Buuldine Suar MO 962 11?6 Su,g, : o Detmt, \fich.ean Mt2:n Famsneton linth, \lichican mol8 (
1 b Dr. Landaman, do you recall that af ter the shutdown of the 2 plant there was a meeting in Glen Ellyn between CPCo and I 3 the NRC concerning the QA program that was to be 4 implemented for the shutdown phase? 5 h Yes. l 6 0 And did you attend that meeting? l 7 h Yes. i l l 8 3 Was the meeting also attended by Mr. Keppler, Mr. Harrison 9 and Mr. Pap? 10 1 I think so. 11 0 Do you recall if the meeting was also attended by Mr. Jim 12 Cook of CPCo? 13 A I think so. I 14 -D Jim Mooney? l 15 I think so. 16 0 Mr. Leonard? ; I ! 17 A If you say so. I 18 Q How about Jim Brunner, who's sitting down here at the end 19 of the table? 20 A If you say so. If there was a meeting report written, it 21 would be easier f or me to answer. 22 f tR. LIBBY: Let's end the tape right now. 23 We've only got five seconds. 24 MR. RICCI: End of tape number 5, and of I Luted Reporting Service 102
,o , ,,
isfapur Buildung Smre hw 962 1176 suiu gam (ktet. \fichigan M:n Farmnton Ilsils \fschigan 48018
4 I tape number 5. 2 Bosinning of tape number 6, numb c 6. 3 SY MR. LIBBY: l 4 Q Dr. Landsman, we were discussing a meeting which occurred 5 subsequent to the shutdown of the project. Do you recall 6 that Mr. Harrison made certain statements concerning the 7 quality of the soils work since the SALP 3 assosoment 8 period during that meeting? 9 A No, I do not. l 10 0 By the way, who was Mr. tiarrison at that point in time? 11 a !!e took over for trayne Schaefer. lie was the new he,id of 12 the Midland section. p 13 0 So you would have been reporting to him at that particular 14 time? l 15 A That's correct. l 16 0 Okay. Dr. Landeman, if you would take in f ront of you i 17 Plaintiff's Exhible NRC 22, which I think in the next to 18 last inspection report. Do you have that in f rent of you? 19 A Yes, I do. I 20 Q And am I correct that this report describes an inspection 1 4 21 that was made of the Diecel Generator Duilding during ' 22 i October and November of 19827 ; I 23 A That's correct. ' I ! 24 0 And I believe yesterday you testified that prior to i 1.afayene Rwidine Luzad Reporting Service 1 3, ,, m, 9,,g ,0 Saar 630 962 III6 Swor 2?> , Ntrat. W h wan 69226 Farmineton lidh. \lahican 6401R
1 taking, or prior to conducting this inspection, there wac l i 2 a vote taken amongst six inopectors concerning the quality { 3 j of the QC work f or the balance of the project; is that t 4 correct? { 5 N Pive of us, yea, that's correct. 6 0 And by balance of the project I mean in areas other than 7 soils; is that correct? 8 A That's correct. 9 0 And I believe that you testified that you voted to shut 4 10 down the project; is that correct? 11 A That's correct. I 12 Q And the reason that you voted to shut down the project was 13 because you were unsure about the certification of the QC 14 inspectors in these other arean? 15 A 11 o . I was sure that the balance of plant looked as bad or i 16 worse than the soils area. 17 0 Okay. And the other inspectors who were involved in this 18 vote decided that shutting down the plant was premature at 19 the time of the vote; in that correct? 20 h They decided they needed some basis instead of a gut l 21 feeling that I had. l 22 0 Okay. And as a result of this vote they decided to ; i
- 23 conduct this inopection; is that correct?
24 k The inspectora did not; the management of Region III had Luzod Reportung Sernice 10 ' l.afayette Building ,,, . , ,, Suito hy) 962.Ii76 Suite :p) 1 Iktrott, \bchigan 48:26 Farmuneton lidis, \hchigan 18018
f .. . 1 decided to do that. 2 Q Okay. Uere they involved in the voto? i 3 A Who? l 4 Q The management. l 5 A No, they were not. l 6 0 How did this problem come to their attention? 7 h They were at the caucus af ter the meeting. l 8 Q In the meetings where the vote was taken? l 9 A Yes. l 10 0 And what was told to management at that caucus? 11 a By whom? l 12 Q Just in general concerning the vote. l 13 A We just had a vote, that's all. I 14 0 And did you convoy to then your gut feeling concerning the 15 quality of the work in the balance of the project? 16 A I sure did. l i 17 0 And did you recommend to them that they shut down work? I 18 A Yes, I did. l 19 Q And in response to that recommendation did they take any 20 action? I 21 h We had this special inspection they decided to do to see 1 22 if there was a basis to shut down the plant or not. 23 0 Okay. Am I correct that -- j l 24 A Shut down of construction of the plant I chould say. ! I Luzod Reporting Service 105 l.afyrtte kidan, MO Yorthuntan fluy Swtr h30 gg g,, ,7 g Suite 2:0 (ktrmt, \fichigan AC:6 fntmington lidh, \fschigan 18018
r 1 0 Okay. And am I correct that the scope of this inspection i 2 was non-soils related areas? l i 3 A Yes. We tried to j ust look at the balance of plant, 4 although I found come problems in the soils area ao S indicated in the report. 6 Q And you participated in this inspections in that correct? l 7 h Yes, I did. I 8 Q And did your areas of inspection include non-soils areas? l 9 A Yes, it did. I 10 0 And I believe you testified that the results of this 11 inspection was -- I'm trying to paraphrase what you said 12 yesterday -- was that you discovered that nothing within 13 the DGB building was designed, was constructed in 14 accordance with design drawings? i i 15 h That is correct. l 16 0 And that's your testimony here today as well? l i 17 A Hothing I looked at in the building was as shown on the 18 design drawings. 19 0 What about the other areas that were inspected? l 20 a I don' t think there was anything any inspector looked at 21 that was right. t 22 0 Let me ask you to turn to the f ourth page of this j 23 inspection report, which appears on 1192. ' 24 A Yes. 106 lofhyette Basiding w o %thurunn lluy Sy,, gy 962 1)?6 Suar :3 _ , (Mmit, \fickban 48226 Farmington iltil.s \fichigan mol8
p 1 Q Do you have that in f ront of you? N 2 A Um-ha. l 3 Q And I notice there's a paragraph at the top entitled 4 Results and the following statement appears -- do you havo 5 that in f cont of you? 6 A Page four or two? 7 0 It's the fourth page of the exhibit and it's 1192. l i 8 A Yes. l 9 0 I notice the following statement: "Of the areas inspected 10 no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were 11 identified in four areas." Do you know what that 12 reference is to? 13 A Yeah. There must have been f our areas that were inspected 14 that we didn' t find anything wrong, i 15 0 And I take it that that part of the plant would have been 16 constructed in accordance with the donign drawings? 17 A It says no apparent items of noncompliance were 18 identified. I think we had numerous unresolved items that 19 since had been made into items of noncompliance. ; 20 0 Okay. And then listed bef ore that is a chart that shows i 21 noncompliance and a report section. Do you ace that? 22 A That's correct. ; 23 0 And am I correct that you would have underneath the 24 ! noncompliance a criterion level which in set forth in the a labyrne (kiding im d Reporting Sersice ,n y),07 , Suar Ma 962 ii?6 Sun, gy; iktrat, \fichigan 48226 Farminetm flith, \fuchigan mots
I 11RC regulations? 2 That's correct. lp l 3 0 And a description of the deviation f rom the regulations? 4 h That's correct. l 5 Q And then under Report section is the references to the 6 various deviations that f all within that category? 7 4 That's correct. 8 0 Looking down this list, do you know how many or what 9 percentage of the nonconf ormances were identified by 10 your self ? 11 4 No. I cannot recall. 12 O At the time that this inspection occurred, do you recall i 13 whether or not consumers Power had taken over the 14 management of the quality control organization at Itidland? 15 4 I don' t think they did. 16 0 Do you know whether or not -- well, do you recall whether 17 the areas that you inspected were thoce arcan which had 18 been previously inspected by the quality control 19 organization when it was being managed by nechtel? 20 A Yes. A lot of the areas were previously inspected by the 21 quality control organization on site. 22 Q And do you recall what percentage of the -- and I don' t 13 mean to limit you by the word systems -- but the arcac 24 that you inspected or systems were constructed prior to f l 0 Lu:od Reporting Service 3ag;o y,,s ,gf, f7,,_ fafayene Ikaldmz g,;,, m o 962 1176 sate 2.n t (Mrmt, \fid&2an 18226 Farmmaton listis. \fvkiean IMIR
1 1980? 2 A I don' t think there were any. I don' t think the Diecel 3 Generator Duilding was constructed then. 4 0 Okay. 5 h That's why we choose that the Diesel Generator Duilding 6 was the last building to be built, so we knew all the work 7 in there had to be within the last f ew years. 8 d Dr. Landsman, earlier today you made a ref erence to Ms. 9 Billie Garde, is that what she pref ers? 10 A Yes. l 11 0 And Ms. Garde is an intervener; is that correct? 12 a She's not an of ficial intervener at the Midland site. l 13 0 Is she associated with a public interest group known as 14 the Government Accountability Project? 15 h Yes, she is. I 16 0 And are they active in the review of nuclear construction 17 in the United Staten? 18 A Yes, they are. l 19 Q And you ref erenced that she made certain statements l 20 concerning the Drookhaven report at a meeting or i 21 conference; is that correct? 22 A It was a commissioner briefing right before the plant was 23 abandoned. 24 0 And was that a public meeting? 1.afhyrtto Ikaldinz Lsased Reporting Sertice gm 1 0,,9 ,,
, Suite sw 962 ll?6 huge :;m
I"'"#* II'I' "' * ##
'O'Y -. ,. - -.
1 1 'A It sure was. l l 2 0 And were the members of the prosa present? O 3 Yes, they were. ! 4 0 And do you know whether Ms. Garde' r, statements received l 5 press coverage? 6 h The statements that I ref erred to about the Brookhaven 7 report? 8 0 Yes. l 9 4 I'm not sure since I was the only one that the Brookhaven 10 report was important to. I might have been the only one 11 that heard them, but I know she said them. 12 0 During your involvement with the -- during the time that 13 you were involved win the Midland Project you've already 14 testified that you appeared before the ASLB soils hearingo 15 on a number of occasions; is that correct? 16 h That's correct. I 17 0 And could you estimate for me approxiuately hcw many days 4 18 you testified bef ore that Board? 19 A Twenty-eight days I think I was on the stand. < I 20 Q And are the issues of the items that we've discussed 21 today, both in your direct and cross-examination, were ! 22 they iscues that were raised before the ASLB hearingo? i 23 A I think everything except the Brookhaven report was. l I 24 Q And your testimony was given in Midland; is that correct? l l l l 14 netir1%IJm, I Mod RtPorting Servier go y,{1[ ,, Site Mo 962 1 iib Suar :0 (ktrat, \fdhigan M226 Farmington lidt \fkhaean 68018
s s 1 A That's correct. 2 And they were public hearings; is that correct? 3 A That's correct. l 4 Q Now any of these topics, did anyone f rom the Dow Chemical . i 5 Company ever contact you? 6 A Not that I know of. l 7 Q And I assume that there were press at these hearings as S well; is that correct? 9 A That's correct. l 10 0 And were you contacted by menbers of the press over this 11 ' period? 12 A I sure -- yes. l 13 0 And did you give your opinions on these topics to members 14 of the press? 15 A If they' d ack me. l 16 0 To your knowledge, were they printed in publications in l 17 tho Midland area? 18 A Some of them were. I 19 Q I have no further questions. Thank you, Dr. Landsman. 20 ( A brief discussion was held 21 of f the record.) 22 l Im. RICCI: Back on the record beginning at j i 23 1026 on the running clock and 1149 at the f rame. t . I 24 i EXAMI!!ATIO!! I lajhyrtte Raiding 31s9IO %rthur i rn flu s har MO 962 lI:'6 har :bs (Mrmt, % kiaan Pt::6 Farmneton Ihlh. Whican w018
1 kY MR. GOOLD: i i 2 Q Dr. Landsman, this in Jim Goold again. I have a 3 ! relatively brief redirect examination. Pi rat I' d liko to i 4 focus on the Diesel Generator Building and the controversy 5 over the condition of the structure that was discessed 6 with you in your croos-examination. 7 First, would you take a look acLin at the 8 exhibit D-4945 that was covered on your croe> examination. 9 The first two pages of this exhibit, specifically the 10 memorandum by ftr. K-u-o, I take it he was with tho group 11 in the llRC that took a more positive view about the 12 condition of the Diesel Generator Building; in that 13 , correct? I 14 Yes. 15 b I notice on page two, item number 4 statea "There in 16 evidence that the number of cracks in the DGn is i 17 continuir49 to grow. It is eccential that a more accurato I 18 and reliable crack monitoring program be established." Do l 19 you see that? 20 h Yes. l 21 Q Was that observation that the number of cracks was 22 continuing to grow consistent with the inf ormation that 23 you had? 24 MR. LIBBY: Obj ection. I think that's a l l 112 isfsprur Buddme MO Y*h"'"'"' II" h g,, g, 962.]l76 %te LM m use mzm Farw.:uton tidls. Whitan #1018
1 mischaracterization of what's written there. 2 BY Im. GOOLD: l l 3 Q Was the inf ormation in that paragraph f amiliar to you as 4 well? 5 A Yes. l l 6 Q Did any of the analyses that were attempted to be ' 7 performed with respect to the Diesel Generator Building 8 reach any conclusion as to what potential there won for 9 f urther cracking in the structure; did anyone cloce-out 10 that question? 11 HR. LIDDY: Is this limited to his opinion? 12 MR. GOOLD: That Dr. Landsman became aware 13 of. 14 MR. LIDDY: Okay. 15 A No, there was not, that's why we needed a monitoring 16 program. 17 BY tm. GOOLD: I 18 Q Now you mentioned that there was a dispute within the NRC 19 about the analynca that had been perf ormed. Had consumers 20 Power submitted analyses of its own about the condition of 21 the Diesel Generator Building? l 22 $ I think that's what Mr. Rinaldi was basing his original 1 23 analysis on, was all the Consumer and Dochtel analyses of ; i 24 : the building. l (Afyrtw Rwiding Lmd Reporting Sersice yo . 1,1Z,, ; Sdar Mn 962.!]76 kue 2;o Iktrat. \fichigan 49:26 Farmneton lidin. \fwhican 44018
1 'O And when a closer look was taken at the analyces submitted i 2 j by consumers Power and Dechtel, was any conciunion 3 l reached, for exanple, by the Brookhaven group as to the 1 4 { adequacy of those analyses? I 5 4 Yes. They said some of them cannot be used. G D Now, the Diesel Generator Building was part of the 7 emergency shutdown system for the nucicar plant, was it 8 not? 9 h That's correct. l 10 0 Did you reach any view as to whether it was reasonable or 11 prudent to arrive at a definitive answer concerning 12 whether the structure was sound? 13 k I thought it should have been decided before the plant 14 went operational. I 15 0 And was it determined that there waen' t adequate i 16 information available to reach that judgment on that l 17 question, at least in your experience? i 18 (1R. LIBBY: In his opinion? 19 A Yes, in my opinion there wacn't enough documented evidence l l 20 to make that statement. 21 BY !!R. GOOLD: 1 22 0 Now, was there any way this controversy with respect to g i 23 the impact of the surcharge on the building could havo l i 24 been avoided? ; I Luted Reporting Service 114 Isfa)ene ILaldme g y, w e,ier,, it n S*!'
- ggy,;y7g Swer 1.'o Detmt, \fwkisen M 2'% yarmmeron 1 11111, \1xhigan 3)18
. r 1 I:R. LIDDY Obj ection. 'Ihe quention calic 2 for speculation.
3 A I think had the original structural review by the t1RC been J 4 adeq ua te. 5 Y MR. COOLD , 6 Q Did you learn whether there was any need for the building 7 to have been surcharged rather than torn down and started 8 again? 9 HR. LIDDY: Same obj ection. 10 A I think the decision was inade to surcharge and I wacn' t ll 11 involved back then. 12 SY MR. GOOLD: I 13 Q Did you ever learn who made the decision to try the 14 , surcharge; was that a consumers Power decision or an llRC 15 decision? 16 k I think it was a Dr. Peck decision. I 17 0 And did he werk for the flRC? I 18 h No. !!e was a consultant for Consumers or for Bechtel 19 Pow er. j 20 Q I'd like to turn next to the controversy concerning the 21 status of the Auxiliary Building underpinning 22 instrtenentation in turch of 1982. You had mentioned that l 23 there were a couple of discussions with Consumero Power I 24 cnd Dechtel people concerning this. In a nutshell, Dr.
. I 1 i.ap,,,,, a.u,,
""' "'?"""<s~"" nw u,2k'a,.
s... nw 9s .n s s.,,, :s Iktros,, \tangan LC.'% Farmsneton lidis, \fditan W18 {
1 I Landsman, were you led to believe that the work at the 2 ; Auxiliary Building was f arther along than it actually was? i 3 A In regards to the instrumentation, yes. I 4 0 You had mentioned that there van a March 10 meeting at I 5 which the subject first came up. At that time were you 6 led to believe that the work was in progress? 7 h Mr. Ron Cook, who' e the resident who was at the meeting 8 with me, and I believed that the instrumentation to 9 monitor the movement of the Auxiliary Building was 10 installed already. 11 Q And did you subsequently learn whether any work had been 12 done on that instrumentation as of March 10th? 13 N I think subsequent to March the 10th we learned that some I 14 I of the electrical conduits were in place prior to March 15 the loth but cable pulling had not begun until March the 16 lith, i 17 Q And f rom the meeting on March 10 what had you been led to E 18 believe regarding the status of cable pulling? 19 A I had the impression that "it was essentially well 20 underway", which to myself meant it was almost done, not t 21 only the cable pulling, the whole thing. f 22 0 Consumers Power counsel examined you concerning the 23 i investigation that was subsequently done with respect to ! 24 this question, and if you take a look f or a monent at the ;
) .
_4 4fIff8 l $[
,ss.,,.o s.~, n>
sa, ,, ; Farmungfon &lls %higan WIIR _j
1 ; first page of D-4951, this is the NRC report on the ; 2 investigations is that correct? 3 A That is correct. l 4 0 I notice that the first page of thin exhibit, the letter 5 f rom Mr. Keppler of the NRC to Mr. Cook, states in part, 6 in the second paragraph, third paragraph rather, 9then I 7 look at' the f act that cable pulling did not commence until 8 March 11,1982, the day before the phone call, and our 9 inspectors were told that ' instrumentation is well 10 underway' I can appreciate why our incpectors believe they 11 were micled." What was Mr. Keppler's responsibility with 12 respect to the Midland nuclear Plant at this time? . l 13 A He was in charge in regards to the NRC directives. I , 14 0 I'd like to chif t to another subject now, the deep 0 duct 15 bank. During ycur examination by Mr. Libby the subject ' h 1 1G cane up of a proposal to install I believe you called it a 17 concreto plug to take the place of a deposit of sand in I 18 the vicinity of the deep 0 duct bank. Do you recall that l 19 generally? 20 A That's correct. 21 Q In connection with the work being done at the Auxiliary 22 Duilding, did you learn whether there were deposits of 23 concrete in the fill there? 24 MR. LIDDY: Obj ection. This examination is I l l L Lusod Reporting Service ,9 11,1 , lafayette t1.ddar suar hw 962 11.'6 suar an IHmt. Wk t ru #Ch Farmaatan Udh. %hien OHit F
1 outside the scope of cross. 2 A Yes, there are -- were pockets of concrete throughout the 3 fill. 4 DY MR. GOOLD: 5 0 And did you ever learn whether those pockets were placed 6 according to any construction plan or design? 7 MR. LIDDY: Same objection. 0 4 They were randomly placed. 9 BY MR. GOOLD: i 10 2 And did the presence of that concrete in the fill in the 11 Auxiliary Building area have any impact on the f easibility 12 of propping up the structure? 13 MR. LIBBY Same objection, also lack of 14 f ounda tion. 15 \ I don' t understand your question. 16 DY MR. GOOLD: : l l 17 Q Did the presence of lean concrete in the fill beneath the l 18 Auxiliary Building have any -- present any problem for the 19 eff ort to prop up the structure? l 20 a Yes. It's much harder to remove concrete than it is i 21 uncompacted soil. l 22 Q Did you consider it a prudent engineering practice to i i 23 ( place pockets of concrete in fill? I 9 24 !!R. LIBBY: Same obj ections. i Luzod Reporting Service 110 ig,q,u, g,iggin, , 3, ,, Suite Mo 962 1176 suite 2:a i Iktroit. \fichban 48226 Farmington Hilh.11ichigan Moln
1 A No. As a matter of fact, a lot of the cettlement, a lot 2 of the differential settlemen.; was being caused by some of 3 the randomly placed concrete in the fill. 4 HY !!R. GOOLD: 5 0 You' re referring now to the Auxiliary Building? 6 A I'm referring to the whole site. 7 Q And when was the proposal advanced to place another pocket 8 , of concrete in the vicinity of the diesel-~ deep Q duct 9 bank rather? , i 10 A It was bef ore May, late May, I think it was '82, bef oro we 11 had that meeting on it. 12 0 You advised against the use of concrete as a substitute 13 for fill in the deep 0 duct bank areat is that correct? 14 A Yes. l 15 0 when the work later went forward at the Auxiliary 16 Building, did you become f amiliar with what impact the 17 precence of concrete in the fill there was having on the 13 remedial work? l 19 $ It was slowing down the removal of the dire underneath the 20 building since a lot of it was concrete. i
)
21 Q I'd like to shif t now to an overview of the problema at ' 1 22 : the sito for a moment, if I may. Mr. Libby asked you to j 23 go through a number of inspection reports that were 24 l prepared in part by you during 1981, 1982 I' d like to ; l lafayette Building Lu:od Reporting Service y ,g 3.,,),1,,9 ,, Suite 630 962 1176 Suite 220 Detrat, \lichigan #1226 Farmington flills, \fichican 18018
1 show you a document we looked at briefly previously, and 2 that's PX NRC 15, the June 1982 memorandum f rom Mr. 3 Norelius and Mr. Spessard to Mr. Keppler. And I' d like to 4 direct your attention to page 3, paragraph 3, under the 5 heading Staff Obser' rations. A statement was made there 6 "The Midland Project is one of the most complex and 7 complicated ever undertaken within Region III. The reason 0 is that they are building two units of the site 9 cimultaneously and additionally have an underpinning 10 construction effort which in itself is probably the 11 equivalent of building a third reactor site." Uns the 12 underpinning effort because of the Midland soils problem 13 generally regarded as the equivalent of building a third 14 unit at the Midland site? 15 MR. JUNSEU: Dy whom? 16 MR. GOOLD: Within the Mac. 17 A It was generally regarded as a major effort and as stated l 18 here the equivalent amount of work to another unit. 19 BY MR. GOOLD: l 20 Q And did the magnitude of the soils problem play any role . I 21 in the NRC decision making process with respect to the 22 l amount of inspection effort needed to keep an eye on the 23 work? 24 A That's why they put me f ull time on the soils problem. i Luzod Reporting Service 3,,o 9,,,{,},},, ,,,,_ y,ap,,,,,, gu,igin, suite mo 962 1176 suite 220 (ktroit. \fichigan 2226 Farminuton flills.11ichigan 43018
1 In performing your inspection function, one of the things I 2 you need is access to documents and information f rem the 3 licensee, in the cace of Midland Consumora Power; is that
' 4 correct?
5 A That's correct. 6 0 And in the case of Midland, do you recall making a l 7 statement that obtaining documents f rom consumers was Like , 8 pulling teeth as part of your testimony in the URC i 9 hearings? ' 10 HR. LIDBY: Obj ection. It's outside the 11 scope of cross. 12 & Yes, I do. l 13 BY t1R. GOOLD: l 14 0 And was that in f act a f air characterization of the 15 problem you had encountered with Consumers Power? 16 MR. LIBBY Same obj ection. 17 A That was my characterization. l 18 BY HR. GOOLD: 1 19 0 I'd like to show you a focument that was previously i 20 introduced in evidence as PX DEC 848 l 21 (Deposition Exhibit No. DEC 848, f t j 22 Document entitled Memorandum, 23 dated 12-13-7 8, was marked f or l 24 for identification.) i I Luzod Reporting Service ,mg 3,4 1f1,, ,., lafayette Building ' kite MO 962.))i6 Suite 220 Detroit, \fichigan 18226 Farmington lidh, \lichigan 48018
1 bY !m. GOOLD: I 2 9 Bef ore I examine you on it, were you also dependent on 3 obtaining inf ormation f rom Consumers Power people through 4 oral meetings, oral discussions? 5 A Yes. 6 0 If you take a look f or a moment at PX BEC 848 you'll see 7 that this is a document in Mr. Horn's handwriting and he 8 identified it previously at trial as nqtes pertaining to 9 the investigation of the Diesel Generator Building problem 10 and were prepared in 1978 bef ore your direct involvement 11 with the proj ect began. But if you look about halfway 12 down the page you'll see some notations under the heading 13 General Comments and among the things noted by Mr. Horn 14 there are, answer only what is asked, don' t volunteer i 15 information, avoid opinions. Do you see those notations? 16 A Yes. I 17 0 Are those notations consistent with the experience you had 18 in later years in getting inf ormation f rom Consumers 19 Power? 20 MR. LIBBY: I'm going to object. It's 21 outside the scope of cross, there's a lack of foundation 1 22 l for using this document. It's a mischaracterization of 23 Mr. Horn's testimony as to what those notes mean. a 24 A To the majority of the people I dealt with on site that I 1.afayette Raildine Luod Reporting Service yo 3,,,f,22,, 17 ._ Suite MO 962 1176 Suite 220 Detroit \fichigan 18226 Farmington l{tils. \fichiean 18018
1 was their operating way. 2 3Y MR. GCOLD: 3 Q Did you come to learn that instructions had been given or 4 circulated among Consumers Power and/or Bechtel people 5 about how inf ormation was to be made available to you or 6 not made available to you in connection with inspections
. 7 auch as the ones that !!r. Libby introduced during your 8 cr oss-examination?
9 MR. LIBDY: Same obj ections. 10 a What was the first part of your question? I' m sorry. I I 11 BY MR. GOOLD: 12 Q Did you come to learn whether instructions had been 13 circulated among the site or within the site about how 14 information was to be made available or not made available 15 to you? 16 MR. LIBBY: same obj ections. 17 A I wouldn't have made the comment it was like pulling teeth 18 if I didn' t have that f eeling. I don' t know if I ever 19 really had any evidence that no one was going to give me 20 anything, but I had to continue to ask f or things on site. 21 BY MR. GOOLD: 1 22 0 And over what period of time did you experience this 23 problem; was it a one-time thing or did it continue over ; i 24 , time? l l l l l lafayette Building Lmd Reporting Service y ,o .,,,g12,3 ,,,, Suite MO 962 1II6 Sutte 220 th troit. \fichigan 21226 Farmington flills, \lichigan 18018
l 1 lA It was a continuous, h 2 0 over approximately how long? l 3 A Years. 4 0 on the croso-examination you were asked about a series of 5 inspection reports such as D-4933, 4934, 4935 and so forth ' 6 over the period, let's focus first, on 1981. During that 7 period did you become f amiliar with how soils work was 8 being done on the site? 9 4 Yes, I did. 10 Q And did you find that it was being done in a saticf actory 11 manner? 12 h No, I did not. l 13 3 This was af ter the disclosure of the Diesel Generator 14 Duilding settlement and the NRC investigation, ic it not, i 15 concerning the causes of the Diesel Generator Duilding l 16 problem? 17 A Yes, it was. O 10 0 Did it surprise you at all to find that there were still 19 problems? l 20 A Yes, it did. 21 Q By 1982 was the completion of the Midland Plant in 22 j question in your mind? Let me restate the question. 23 During 1982 did there become an increasing 24 amount of uncertainty, at least in your mind, as to I Luod Repoeting Sereiee 3x,o 3,,,s , ,f,, y7,,. lxfayette Buildute Sugg, m o 962 1176 Suite 220 m farminaton flith, \fichigan M018
I whether the Midland Plant would ever be finished by 2 Consumers Power? 3 4 No. l 4 0 11 hat was your view with respect to whether the plant was, 5 the completion of the plant was in question? 6 A It wasn' t whether they were going to finish it, it was 7 when they were going to finish it. i 8 Did you develop any view as to when completion of the ({ 9 plant was likely to occur? 10 A In '82, no, I can' t say that I did. 11 Q From your f amiliarity with the plant, did you have any 12 view as to whether there was any substantial chance the 13 plant would be put in operation by mid 1984? l 14 MR. LIBBY: Talking still about the 1982 l 15 time period and you' re asking whether he had an opinion? 16 MR. GOOLD: That's righ t. 17 A I'm trying to recall. I think in '82 it seemed very 18 unlikely that the plant would be operational in '84 i 19 BY MR. GOOLD: l l l 20 0 In the latter part of 1982 the vote you tectified about on l 21 cross-examination took place and you were the only person i 22 then out of the five persons voting to f avor shutdown of 23 the construction; is that correct? I 24 A That's correct. Lafayette Building Lmd Reporting Service y,g 3. ,,f2,5,, y Suite MO 962 11I6 Suite 220 Detroit. \fichigan 48226 Farmington Hith. Stichigan 18018
=0 1 b And the decision as a result of that debate was to go 2 forward with the Diesel Generator Duilding inspection, 3 correct?
4 A 'Ihat's correct. 5 0 Af ter the DGn inspection results were in, what was the 6 vote? 7 A 5-0 unanimously to stop construction until they got their a act together. 9 Q And by the time the plant was shut down in 1984, had you 10 reached any view as to whether Consumers Power had gotten 11 its act together? 12 A I think they were in the process of getting their act 13 toge ther. 14 p Do you know when they were going to complete that process? l 15 h No. l 16 0 I'd like to read you an excerpt f rom the opening statement i 17 of Consumers Power counsel in this litigation. 18 MR. LIBDY: I'm going to object to -- this 19 isn' t evidence in any case. It' a argument of counsel and 20 just for the record these arguments by both sides were 21 over a day long and this is hardly representativo of the
- 22. argument.
l i l 23 bY MR. GOOLD: I n 24 0 On page 216, Dr. Landsman, in a discussion about MRC l Lu:od Reporting Service ,g ,, , . 14,y,gg, guitgin, Suite MO 962.I176 Suite 220 Detroit, \fichigan 48226 Farmington flills, \fichigan I8018 t
1 regulation of the tiidland Plant Mr. Driker made the 2 statement "The plants built in the '60's and even in the 3 early '70's were f ree of this pervasive, almost smothering
. 4 regulation by the NRC which grew up in the early '70's, 5 accelerated in the mid '70's, and j ust became so 6 impossible in the late '70's and early 1980's. " What I' d 7 like to do, Dr. Landsman, is ask you first was there a 8 unusual degree of attention given by the NRC to the 9 Midland Plant?
10 MR. LIBBY: Same objections. 11 A During what -- l 12 BY MR. GOOLD: l 13 Q During the time you were involved with the plant and then i 14 I'll ask you why, but first let's find out how you would , i 15 characteri::e the amount of attention given by the 11RC to 16 Midland as compared to other plants during the time of 17 your involvement. 18 A During the time of my involvement it got more and more 19 attention. i 20 0 What was the problem at Midland thinking back over your i l 21 experiences there? l , i 22 & The problem I think as I stated in many reports is the l 23 lack of attention to detail but more in effect I think it 1 24 was the management on site wacn' t capable of controlling l l 1 Lafayette Building Lu:od Reporting Service ,o .,,,y7 y _ Suite Mo 962 1176 Suite 220 Detrat, \fichigan 48226 Farmington Hills, \fichigan 18018
, l
. l 1 such a large proj ect.
2 0 Is that consumers Power management? l 3 A All management. 4 tm. GOOLDs tio f urther questions. 5 MR. LIBBY I have no questions. 6 (The deposition was concluded 7 at 12:35 p.m.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ,l 15 16 17 I 18 19 20 l 21 22 , 23 24 l 1 74,y.,,,, y,jg4 Luzod Reporting Service y,o 3.,,,f,2, ,, ,_ Smte MO 962 1176 Suite 2:0
&;nenJYbovrr;tfMG Farmimton Ilith, \fichigan 18018
s. 1 2 STATE OF MICHIG AN ) l ) SS 3 COUNTY OF WAYNE ) 4 I, Glenn G. Miller, Notary Public 5 within and f or the County of Wayne, state of Michigan, do G hereby certify that the witness whose attached deposition 7 was taken before me in the above-entitled matter was by me 8 duly sworn at the aforementioned time and place; that tho l 9 <
- estimony given by said witness was stenographically 10 xecorded in the presence of said witness and af terwards l
11 1:ranscribed by computer under my personal supervision, l 12 and that the said deposition is a full, true and correct l 13 transcript of the testimony given by the witness. 14 I further certify that I am not connected 15 by blood or marriage with any of the parties or their l l 16 attorneys, and that I am not an employee of either of them, I l 17 nor financially interested in the action. 18 IN WITNESS WilEREOF, I have hereunto set l 19 :ny hand at the City of Detroit, County of Wayne, State of 20 Michigan, this MA day of '
, 1985. I V
21 22 ) - G'LENN G. !!ILL ER, Notary Public l 23 Wayne County, Michigan i 24 !!y Commission Expires: 4-22-87 l Las:od Reporting Service yo 3 12,,9 ,, lafayette Budding ' Suite MO 962 1176 Suite 250 Detrat. \fichigan 18226 Farmington Udh, \fichigan tants
. 4 l 1 l 2 VERIFICATIOli OF DEPONENT I 3 I, ROSS D. LA!!DSMA!!, do hereby 4 attest to the correctness of the tranocript upon inclusion 5 of the corrections and/or changes I have listed on the 6 attached errata sheet.
7 Signature of Witnoco 8 Subscribed and sworn to before me 9 this day of , 1985. 10 11 ~~ 12 Notary Public, County My Commission expires: . 13 14 15 1 16 17 - 18 i 19 20 21 1 22 j. 23 24 Luzod Reporting Service 130 lefayette Building _,mg 3.,,,g ,,,,, jf,.,, S,,,,$3g 962.Iii6 Susie 220 (ktroit. \fichigan 48226 Farmington Hills, \fichigan 18018
. _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . __--.___ _ _ _- __ .}}