ML20153B930
| ML20153B930 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/28/1985 |
| From: | James Keppler NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151D196 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-583 NUDOCS 8805060115 | |
| Download: ML20153B930 (125) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,
. ,?
o a +'
1 2 STATE OF MIQlIG At!
3 I!! THE CIRCUIT COURT POR Ti1E COUNTY OF MICL AND l
4
)
5 XXi QIEMICAL CE)!!PM1Y, )
)
G Plaintiff, )
)
7 - v a- )
) No. 83-0022325 8 X)NSUMERS pot /CR COMPA11Y, )
)
9 Def enda nt. )
)
10 .
11 The Continued Deposition of JA!!CS G. KEPPL ER,
- aken bef ore me, Glenn G. Miller, CSR-2596, Registered 12 l'rof essional Reporter and flotary Public within and f or the County of Wayne, (acting in Glen Ellyn), State of !!ichigan, (
13 pt 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinoic, on Monday, Sctober 28, 1985.
14 15 \PPEARMIC7.S . .
.- +
)
36 KIRELMID & ELLIS C' [
200 East Randolph Drivo 3- ,,
17 Chicago, Illinoic G0601 '
(By Milliam Jentes, Cog. , !
18 and Carol Rice, Coq.) <
1D Aprearing on behalf of the Plaintif f, 20 BARRIS, SOTT, DE!!!! & DRIKCR 2100 First Federal Building 21 Detroit, Michigan 40226 ,
(By Eugene Driker, Esq.) !
22 i Appearing on behalf of the Def endant. l 23
/
24 8805060115 080408 PDR D
\'I '
Lafsytte Buildsne Lutod Reporting Service 30003 Northurstern Huy, Sune ln 96g,jj7g Su;<r im Detroa, Michigan 43226 Farmington Hills, Whigan 48018
- 1. NPPCARNICES COMTIt!UED:
2 BPUCE BERSO!!, Csq.
Regional Councel-Region III 3 Glen Ellyn, .Illinoi s G0137 4 Appearing on behalf of the Nuclcar- Regulatory Commiscion.
5 G
-7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 '
17 18 19 20 21 1
22 23 24 )
I Lafarette Building Luzod Reporting Service 309a1 knhursteb Ilux.
Suite 1026 9gg,j;,g . Sune too Iktroit, .\lichigan 48226 farmington lidls. .\fichigan 48018
3 I '
2 ,.
W I T N E .S S INDEX ;
i r
3 4 Witness . Examined By Page i i
, 5 JAMES G. ECPPL En tir. Driker 158 6 tir. Jontes 235 7 Mr. Driker 271
- 8. ,
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 17 18 a 19 i-20 21 I
i 22 !
- 23 .
J l
.i l
l
=
La.fayette Building Luzod Reporting Service 300rn sorthurstern ilwy.
Suite 1026 962 1176 Suite !w
- Detrou, .\fichigan M226 Farminaton lidis. Nichigan 2018
1 Glen Ellyn,.Illinoia
'2 tionday, October 20, 1905 3 9:00 a.m.
4 5 JAMES G. KEPPLER 6 was thereupon called as a witness herein and, after 7 having been first duly cworn to tell the truth, the 8 whole tituth and nothing but the truth, was examined 9 and testified as folicwc:
10 EXAl1INATION 11 4Y liR. DRIKER:
12 '
) Good morning, !!r. Fleppler.
13 \ Good morning.
14 -
) We' re resuming the deposition which commenced a couple of 15 weeks ago and we understand that you have to, that your i
1G counsel has to leave at one o' clock today, and we' 11 do j 1
17 everything poccible to finish well bef ore that time. I I
18 tihen !!r, Jentes examined you a couple weeks 19 ago he asked you ab at a series of affidavita which you 20 filed in 1981,1902 and 1983 bef ore the ASLD concerning 21 the Midland Plant. And just as we broke on that Friday 22 aftornoon during the first neccion of your deponition I ;
23 was about to ask you come questions about Plaintif f's ,
24 Exhibit NRC 279, which is a package of material that was !
I Lafaytte Buddung Luzad Reporting Service 30%u sonhuhtE Huy.
Suue 1020 96g,j y 7g Suite wo Detmt. Michisan 48226 Farmington Hdis, Michigan.48018
1 presented to you by i:r. Jontos and it contains the first 2 of a ceries of your af fidavits concerning your views of i
3 the quality assuranco at itidland and your affidavit at 4 that time was dated April 13, 1981.
5 In Elling that first affidavit before the 6 ASLB you relied, did you not, on the reports of a number 7 Of inspectors assigned to the !!idland Plant?
8 li Yes.
l 9 0 And they in turn had conducted a rather thorough 10 inspection of !!idland in order to report to you on their 11 views of the OA progran at !!idland? :
12 N Are you speaking of the incroction that was conducted by 13 Mr. U1111ams and other s?
14 .,) There was an inspection that you ref erred to on page Bates 15 number 4206 of the materials you have in f ront of you.
16 Let me point out to you, if I nay, in this paragraph, the !
17 second to last paragraph on the page, beginning with 18 Consumers Power Company expanded their QA auditing. If 19 you take a moment and read that.
20 A Okay.
l 21 0 And then if you would look two pages f orward, at 200, 1 22 three pages f orward, the sumnary and conclusion 23 activities, if you would read the last paragraph on that 24 page.
La.fayette Budding Luzod Reporting Service 30mukrthuUSIlu_,.
Suite 1026 96g,jj7s Suur M Detrat, \1schigan 48226 Farmington lidis, .\fichigan 48018
Il I h Okay.
I 2 3- You'11 see in the last paragraph on Page 209 there is the f 3 statement, "Our incpection program has not identifiod j 4 significant problems overlookcd by the licencee - and this 5 inspection ef f ort has utilized many dif f erent inspectors. "
6 Was it that inspection effort which in large part guided 7 you in the filing of your prepared tootimony? i 3 T !!ot really. The inspection effort that guided me at that 9 time was the one that was -- that I had conducted of the 10 revised !!PGAD program to determine whether or not that 11 program gave the promise of being eff ective.
12 9 And was that the report that came.out in tuy? Let me show i ;
1 13 you in that connection what has been marked as Plaintiff's 14 Exhibit !!RC 461 ,
4 15 i Y,es. l ,
, i 16 0 This ref erences an inspection conducted by !!r. Williams ] l
\
17 and others on May 18 through 22, 1901. [
la N That's correct.
ID 0 Is that the Williams increction? 1 20 N Yes, that's the one I'm ref erring to.
21 0 You filed your af fidavit, imC 279, in April, that's the 4
22 first cet of documents I gave you. The Williamo )
23 inspection didn' t take place until tiay. ::y question 13, ,
h l 24 on what did you bace the April af fidavit? j ,
- L l l
Lafasette Buddme Luzod Reporting Service 3nn knhuh$k flur. >
Suier itC6 962 1176 S""' IO Detrus, .\fichigan 482:6 Farmington tidis. .\fichigan 48018 -
o 1 A Can I look at the affidavits again?
O 2 0 Yes, sir. And the af fidavit --
0 3 A I believe one of the affidavits was ained at deceribing 4 activities before the order and one was aimed at 5 doccribing them af ter the order.
G S I've placed in f ront of you your April affidavita, 7 beginning with Baten number 4190 8 Im. JS!TES: Do we want to go of f the record 9 for a moment?
10 f.:R. DRIKCRs S ur ely, 11 !!R. JDITES: So you got a chance to look 12 through the thing.
13 ( A brief discussion was hold 14 of f the record.)
15 IG . DRIKCR: Let's go back on the record.
16 pY 13. DRINCRI !
l l 17 0 ttr. Koppler, when you filed your April 13, 1981 affidavit l 18 there was attached to it a lengthy report that was 19 prepared by the Region III staff; in that correct?
20 \ Yes. 1 21 0 And as part of that report there was an analycis and a 22 review of the OA hictory at f:idland, was there not? l
- 23 \ Yes. ,
i 24 1 And that was broader than j unt the soils issues isn' t that Lafayene Buildute Luzod Reportine Serrice 30mu wihu!O ituy.
1 Suur 1026 9gg, j ; 76 State 100 Detrat, .\fidisan 48226 Farmington lials. .\fwhigan 48018
1 co?
2 \ That discussed all of the quality activitics at the cito. l 3 0 And in filing your April affidavit you relied upon thic 4 report that is attached to the af fidavit;. isn' t that 5 correct?
6 ( Let me tako just a minute.
7 <
> All right.
O MR. DRIKER: Let's go of f the record f or a 9 moment.
10 ( A brief discussion was hold 11 of f th~o record.)
12 Im. DRIKER: Let's go back on the record.
13 LY !!R. DRIKER:
14 -
) If you look at the bottom of Page 209 of the attachment, l
15 the summary and conclusion page, your staf f reported to 16 you, did it not, that baced upon their inopoction effort 17 they were then catiefled that thoro had not boon a 18 breakdown in the overall OA program at Midland?
19 A That's cor rect.
20 0 And you relied upon that in filing your af fidavit?
21 i Yoc. I also -- the reacon that report wac prepared, that ,
22 wa s pr epa red a t my req ue st because we were concerned l l ;
23 whether or not there might -- the Region might not have 24 the total, the be st perspective on whether or not the i
Lafayette Buddsne Luzod Reporting Service 30+u kruhuh0? Itur.
Suite 1026 9gg,;;7g Suite Jin ,
Detront, .\fichigan 482:6 Farminata lidis. .\fichiean 48018
1 1 problema st Midland were being dealt with properly and we 2 took this report and went in and brief ed the headquartern 1
3 1 staff, our headquarters staf f, to cee whether they chared ,
4 our view on this case. And that was done and the 5 positions taken by the Region were supported by the other G NRC offices.
7 Q So, is it correct to state that there was an inspection 8 effort by many dif f erent incpectors at Midland itself, 9 then there was a review by Region III, then there wac a 10 f urther review by the national of fice in t1ashington?
11 h Yeah. Again the thruct of thic review was aimed at taking --
, 12 there were a lot of problems at Midland and whether or not 13 we had the proper perspective of thoce problems, That was 14 what the report was aimed at determining.
15 q Do I correctly summari::e the f act that there were three 16 lev el s, an investigative icyc1, a review at the Region and 1
17 a review at the headquarterc? ,
10 \ I' m not sure I know what you mean by the investigative 19 lev el .
20 0 tiell, the inspection level.
21 T There were numerous inspections that went into this, yes.
22 O And those incpectiono were field inspectione, your people i 23 were actually looking at construction activiticc, and nA ,
4 24 documents and other activition at the field? <
1.afayette Buddsne Lutod Reportine Service 3tnu %nkuh$k fla.
Suite 1026 9sg,);7s Suite ild lHmt, \tdiean 48226 Faminuton lidh, khican 28018
D 1 A This reprocented a cummary of the hictory of all that -
2 offort.
3 D When you say thic, you' re talking about the exhibit in 4 front of you, tmc 27 9 ?
5 4 That's cor rect.
G Q And inspectors concluded baced upon their inspection 7 of fort that the QA problem, with the exceptions noted, was a satisf actory, the Region agreed with it?
9 T I wouldn' t call it the QA program was sati:f actory. I 10 would say that what we concluded was that there was not a 11 broad breakdown of the quality assurance program.
12 1 All right. ,
13 4 un didn' t indict the total program with our problemo.
1 1i n Doon the lact paragraph of the summary and conclusion page 15 on 209 capture the, in etw. mary fachion, the findings of 16 both the inspection team and Region III?
l 17 N Inspection teams.
18 0 pl ur al .
19 \ There were nultiple inopoetions over this period of time, 20 not juct one inspection. .
21 n With that modification, does that last paragraph capture 22 the findings of bot 4 the inopection teams and Reginn III?
23 % 7e s.
24 0 And then based upon a review at the national of fice the kI i Lafantte Buddung Lused Reporting Servier ynn Aorthhsfek fluy.
Suite 1026 S"* IW 962 Iii6 Detmt. kkiaan 48:26 Formu'Eton Ildls. Whitan 48018
1 national of fice concurreo in this finding?
l ;
l 2 p Yec.
3 0 Uhen the soils issues woro litigated before the taLn, one L l'
r 4 of the issuos raised by the interveners was uhother or not ;
5 Concumore and/or Dechtel should have known that thoce was t 6 a site-wide soils problem baced upon Q A reports that they 7 had ceen in the yeato the soils were being placod; is that 0 correct?
9 4 I believe so.
10 0 If you'll look at Page 4204 of the attachment to your 11 af fidav it, the paragraph in the middle of the page 12 beginning with the words Preliminary Review. ,
13 \ Okay. .
14 0 Doco that ref resh your reco11cetion that at least the 15 interveners and perhaps also the MRC Staff were contending 4 16 that Consumers should have known based upon OA reporte and '
17 nonconf ormance reports and audits and no on that there was 18 a serious soils problem?
19 1m. JENTES: Object to the form of the 20 question incef ar as it assumen there was any position on 1
21 the part of the MRC staf f about a cite-vido colla problem.
22 3Y UR. DRIKER: 4 '
l 23 0 Let me ask the question, was the incuo, regardless of who j}
24 rained it, was the issue of advanced knowledge of a coilo j i
i 1.afvrtte Buddaw Luzod Reporting Sersice 3w11 %shuhfnN tiuw Suar 1026 96g,jj7g State M iktrat, Aldips 48226 Farmvurton lidis, Whwas 49018
i 1 i problem litigated before the ASLD?
l 2 % I'm really not that f amiliar with what went on in the 3 AOLD' n part of thic. I do know that because of the 4 settlement problemo with the Administration Duilding there 5 was concern that this should have tipped off consumers and G Dechtel that there was a broader problem, but I really am 7 not into the detailo of that thinking.
8 0 All right. Did you ever hear personally f rom the 9 interveners, Mrs. Stamiris or GAP or Mrs. Sinclair, that 10 they believed that consumers should have known there won a 11 substantial colle problem baced upon these reporto that 12 were generated during the period 1973 through 1973?
13 4 I had numerous exchanges with !!ra. Stamiris and perhaps 14 lessor once with Mrs. Sinclair. I don' t recall ,
i 15 specifically whether thic point was made or not. i i
16 0 All right. Uould you agree, as a general proposition, !!r. I 17 Keppler, that utilities, which are owners of nucicar power '
18 plants under construction, tailor their QA programe in 19 part upon what they perceive the NRC wants of them?
20 \ I think so.
21 0 tihen you tectified a couple of weeko ago in response to a 22 quertion by Mr. Jentes earlier in your deposition you 23 indicated, I believe, that there was a dif f erence of , ;
24 opinions when the Diesel Generator nuilding problem aroce l {
Lajenne Buddata Lusod Reporting Serrice 3vwn %nhuhNN Iluy Suite IW6 9s; ;j7s Suur tw (Mroit, Stichien 49:26 Termington tidin, .\t.chieu A9018
.- l 1 as to whether the J job should be halted immediately or l
4 2 i allowed to continue. Do you recall that? _
3 A Yes.
4 h And as I understood your testimony the diff erence was 5 between the Region III view and the national of fico view?
6 $ Yoo, and there may even have been some differences within I 7 Region III on that.
8 Q Mr. Gallagher's report, the Gallagher/Phillips report on 3 the Diesel Generator Building, was issued approximately 10 !! arch of 1979 and the order modifying construction permita 11 was issued in December of that year, approximately nine 4
i 12 months later?
13 4 That's correct. ,
I 14 0 lian there debate and discussion within the tinc during that 15 approximately nine month 1'terval as to whether or not the ' ,
16 Midland job should be shut down?
17 . Yo c.
18 Q Did the f act that T!!I occurred in 14rch of that year have 19 something to do with the time interval between the 1
20 issuance of the Gallagher report and the issuance of the 21 order modifying the construction permits?
22 A I' m sure it did.
1 23 Q You can lay these documents acide. ;
24 I wonder if we could go back to the Uillioma 4 i
Lafa,ette Buddate Luzod Reporting Service 3tua .%nhubSn lluy.
kar lo qs:.;j7s Suur im liermt. \tkkig a # 226 Farmmetan Ildts. Afkhtuu 2018 ;
1 incpection, ac you ref erred to it and has been marked as 2 Plaintif f's Exhibit URC 4G1. Do I underntand your 3 toctimony to be that af ter you filed your April af fidavit 4 you inctructed tir. trilliamo to conduct yet another 5 inspection of !!idland to determine on an in-depth basis G the quality of the quality accurance program, if you will?
7 \ The quality of the revised MrQAD program were Consumers 8 Power Company and Dechtel, that's correct.
9 0 Did the NRC approve of the MPQAD program in concept?
10 T Ye a.
11 0 In the late noventies was the NRC generally encouraging 12 utilities who had nuclear power planta under construction 13 to become more intinately involved in the OA f unctions?
14 Ye s.
\
f 15 1 !!istorically utilities typically allowed much of that OA '
16 f unction to be undertaken by their contractors? {
j 17 \ It varied f rom alte to site. There wac an evointion of 18 the quality assurance concept over the late 1960s and 19 carly 1970s, but the NRC did promulgate regulations in the 1 -
20 carly 1970c outlining their quality assurance criteria, 21 and the implementation of thoce quality accurance criteria 22 varied f rera plant to plant. Some utilitica were more 23 involved than otherc.
24 0 171th out regard to individual utility puf ormance, it ic l b
[
Lafayette Buddas Lusod Reportine Servier 30+n .%nhubb Itu r. ,
Suar W26 962.IJl6 S"it' 10)
Detmt, .\lickiaan 48226 Farmsneton lidh, .\fschigan 48018
i :
1 ! true, hwever, that tha tinc, acrocs the board, was I
2 l oncouraging utilitico to becomo more intimatley involved 3 in the OA prograna?
4 4 h Ye c.
l t 5 l} tiow, with respect to !!ac 461, if we can call it the 6 trilliamo report, this was a rather comprehensive 7 inspection ef f or t, was it not?
0 h Yo c, it was. !
9 1 tfaa this somothing out of the ordinary?
10 4 Yes.
11 1 Did you agree with the conclusionc contained on page, the 12 last paragrarh of Page 1 of this document?
13 A Ye s.
1 14 g tras this inapection effort again based upon a hands-on at j ;
i
^
IS the alte examination of both work and QA recordu? l 16 h Yea, but I would have to say that it was a snapchot in l i
17 tino ao compared to any accessnont of ongoing activities. ,
18 They went up and ohmed -- they opent a week on site with i 19 ai x peopl e. They looked at the programs in place and to 20 what extent they could look at hardware and tie that in 21 they did that. But recognize it was a snapchot in time.
22 O ton' t that true of all incpectionc? j ,
I 23 A I think more and note inspectionc are taking on a l 24 character of watching activities over a period of time, f n ,
i i
La.fa>ette Budd<ng Lutod R orting S,rriee .una knhuhsh Itu,.
Suar 10:6 gs ,yy7g Suar llo Detrat. %kusan M:26 Farmssten Hdis, Whigan 20l8
i 1 becauce I felt in come respects that the problems that
.. 2 happened later with the !!idland Project reflected on the 3 way we did this inopection.
4 3 Are you saying that now your Region is conducting its 5 inspections diff erently?
6 ( I'm saying we took a cnapshot in time on this incpection 7 that gave me a f alce sence of cecurity on how good the --
O how adequato the 111dland Quality Asourance Dopartment 9 program was working and it led me to conclucions that 10 later I had to retract. ,
- 11 0 tfas the snapshot in time type of inspection conoictent
, i j 12 with the inspections which the !!nc was conducting at all 13 nuclear planto at that time?
14 4 It probably van even more in-depth, i 15 ) If you'll look at Page 2 of the memo f ron ! r. 111111an s, I 1 i
i 16 don' t see a Dates number on this copy, it's this paso that i 17 has the signatures.
18 A Yes.
19 <> night there, did you take particular comfort in the f act
, i 20 that among the people who signed this report wero !!ecors. l 21 Cook, Gallagher and Landsman, people who by that time had 22 a lot of fircthand experience with t?idland?
23 T Yo c. I perhaps even took more confort in the fact that i !
24 !!r. iiilliams, who had been inctrumental in detecting maj or ! l I J
) ;
Lafame Buiwa Luzod Reporting Senier 3nn knhuhle? Huy.
I % u lo2h 962.I176 Suur im i 1 (%t. .\fichiess 49:26 Faminston Hah, \fichigan +9018
1 quality problems at !!arble Hill during the name timo 2 ! f rame, or I guesa really a couple of years earlier, but r I :
t 3 i instrumental in defining those probicms, had hand-picked a 4 tean of his choosing to look at this program.
l 5 0 Uould you describe thin as a top quality inspection team <
G overall?
7 A I think so.
l 8 0 I note that you'.re listed as having participated in this, 9 at least for two days, !!ay 21 and 22. Nao that unusual 10 that you yourself became involved?
11 4 I went up there to get a firsthand review at the und of 12 the project and to stay for the exit interview. I would 13 not describe it as unusual. I've done that bef ore.
14 1 All right.
15 N nut it showed the inportance I attached to the inspection.
l l 16 6 If you'll look at internal Page 9, if you just keep 17 flipping through there till you get to the pole that haa 9 18 on it, I notice that there were a number of CP and Hechtel 19 personnel intervicwed. Did you participate in this 20 interview effort?
21 A tio.
22 0 If you'll Icok at the f ollowing page, Page 10, under !
23 Pocitive Comments it states "The perconnel interviewed in l l t 24 the Consumers Power and Dechtel organizations were :
i Lafayette kW Luzod Reporting Service ynn%rthblekHuv.
Suar lO) qgg,jj76 Suar im Farmington Hk khigan 48018
~
Detrat, hkigan 48226
_1 1 qualif ied, capable and accortive individuals with pooltive 2 attitudes. The licenueo's management controls were judged f l 3 to be effective. There's every indication that Consumers ,
4 Power perconnel are in control of the site providing 5 generally adequate direction and administration of Dechtel 6 and other construction organizations. " I notice that thic 7 section of the report was prepared by a !!r. Schwybins and 8 reviewed by Pr. Ifilliano. 11ho ic !!r. Schwybins? (ph) 9 ( He was an inspector in the regional of fice at that time.
10 Q An experienced incpector?
11 4 Yes.
12 @ Did anyone within the inspection team dicagree with the 13 section that I just read and quoted to you? ,
14 \ !!ot to my knowledge, i
15 1 Did you disagree with it? f i
16 A I had no basis to dicagree with it. t i
17 1 Could you turn to internal Page 157 10 \ Okay.
19 0 I wonder if you could read to yourself paragraphs 7 D, C 20 and D under the Conclusion section and then I want to ask 21 you a couple of questionc. ,
22 ,\ Okay.
I J 23 a 11 hat is the reference to diepecitioning an t:Cn as "use l l
24 ae-in"? tihat does that mean? !
l l
La_fasette Buddsne Lused Reporting Sersice .knoknku0e?Ilu,.
kar HC6 g 6 g , j j ,~ s h ar 100 Detna. Whigan 48:26 Farmneton lidh. Whusan 48018
1 A It means to accept the nonconf orming condition without any i :
2 ! modification baced upon a judgment that it to acceptabic q
3 j as it in. ,
! i 4 0 In that permitted in the construction of nucicar power I
5 plants? c G Yes.
7 0 The authors of this report took note of the reduction in
, 8 resolving IICns f rom eight months to two and a half months.
9 Of what significance is that?
10 h Well, I annume based upon the way it's stated that i
11 nonconf ormf.ng conditions were allowed to exict f or a l 12 rather extensive period of time without being resolved and 13 the time it was taking to recolve thece nonconf orming 14 condi tions wac inpreved. l 15 0 The various coctions of this report are, as indicated by <
16 the document itself, written by dif f erent people. Por j l
} '
17 example, Mr. Gallagher wrote Section 3 beginning on Page j 18 16 entitled Civil. Is this consistent with what you i
19 described earlier, that your incpectors were assigned to l 20 tacks based upon their education and training and .
21 experience and you wouldn' t anoign an electrical inspector i 22 to review civil construction, things of that nature? L
~
i 23 4 Ye c. !!r. till11ans described certain work activities to bo l f t
. l i
24 f ollowed by certain inspectors. '
j *
- ) [
, Lafayrete Budhne Luuod Repo, tine Senier .xnu%nhahlekfluy Suar HC6 962.lli6 S""' 00 Detms. %<kuran Lt::s Femuurte Udlu whican A9018 {
l
1 9 All righ t. For example, fir. Gallagher was a civil 2 engineer, he did not have as much training in geotechnical 3 matters as Mr. Landsman did; is that correct?
4 I\ I'm not sure I can say what fir. Gallagher's qualifications 5 were, but I have to assume that he was assigned this area 6 because that was his expertise.
7 q) Was Mr. Landsman assigned to the flidland Project because O of his knowledge of geotechnical matters?
9 L Yes.
10 '
) Uns he assigned based upon his knowledge of any other 11 discipline?
12 A No.
13 0 You can lay that down.
14 In July of 1901 you filed yet another i i
15 af fidavit, and it should be in the stack that your councel ;
i 16 hac, Imc 349. '
17 [IR. JCMTES : So the record is clear, this is 18 actually some prepared testimony.
l 19 MR. DRIKER: Prepared testimony, correct. i 20 3Y MR. DRIKER:
21 9 When you filed this prepared testimony --
22 "\ Can I skim this j ust a minute? '
23 0 Yes, sir.
24 A tiake sure I know which group we' re talking f rom here.
Lafarette Building
^
Luzod Reporting Sereiee 309m NorthuNeb Ilux.
Suite 1026 "i I*
962.I176 Farmington flills, .11ichigan 48018 Detroit. .\fichigan 48226
1 !!R. DRIKER: Why don' t we go of f the record 2 for a moment.
3 ( A brief discussion was held 4 off the record.)
5 IIR. DRIKER: Back on the record.
6 3Y !!R. . DRIKER:
7 ') 11r. Keppler, at your last deposition session fir. Jentes 8 identified this prepared testimony as having been dated 9 J uly 13, 1981. Do you recall preparing and filing this 10 testimony bef ore the ASLB7 11- \ Yes, I do.
12 0 In preparing and filing this testimony did you rely upon 13 the Williams inspection eff ort that we j ust described or 14 discussed a moment or two ago?
15 \ Yes, I did.
16 <
) You can lay that document aside, sir.
17 Could you pull out Plaintif f's Exhibit NRC l 18 352, the summary of the SN.P reports issued in August of 19 1981 A couple of preliminary questions with respect to ,
20 this document. This is the summary of the SALP 1 21 a sse ss .ient s7 22 A Ye s.
I 23 Q On page 27 07 in the forward pertion of the document it 24 states "Any rating procees that uses j udgmental elements Lafayette Building Luzod Reporting Sereice 309a3 Northublek fluy.
Suar 1026 962 1176 Suite 100 Detroit, Michigan 48226 Farmington Hills, Michiran 48018
1 is susceptible to challenge. " Do you agree with that i
2 statement?
3 \ Ye s.
4 1 And also later in that same paragrapis it states "A rating S of below average does not mean that a utility was unsaf e f
6 or that its operation or construction should be stopped. "
7 Do you also agree with that?
8 A Yes.
9 0 On the top of the second page of the forward in the 10 paragraph right at the top of the page it states "The 11 regulatory process has not historically made an effort to 12 highlight' good perf ormance. Imperf ections or perceived 13 weaknesces are emphasized and reported more than positive i 1
14 attributes. " Do you agree with that statement */
15 \ That's a true statement. -
16 Q And that would be consistent with what you testified to, 17 that the whole Imc inspection ef fort is an exception-tyr.e 18 of reporting; is that correct?
19 \ Yo c.
20 g You look f or problems and report problems? '
21 l\ Yes.
22 0 I'd like to ask you come questions concerning the plants 23 that were related -- that were rated average, and those 24 appear on 2721 and 2722. I don' t knov how f amiliar you l
I l
Lafayette Buildine Luzod Reporting Service 309tn knhuhlek Iluy.
Sutte 1026 9gg,j j 7g Suite im Detroit. Michigan 48226 Farmington flills. Michigan 48018 t
Y. ,
, 4 p.
1 aro with the plants outnide of your own region, !!r.
2 Ke ppl er, and if you want to take a moment to look at those 3 plants bef ore I ask you the question you tell me. I' d 4 like to ask you what you know about the construction 5 history of any of these plants, that is, whether they had 6 OA problems and construction problems of one sort or 7 another.
8
\ Outside my region?
9 0 Ye s, si r.
10 \ I don' t have a lot of detail but I'll do the best I ca n to 11 an sw er.
12 J All right. If you could j ust summarize f or us what you 13 know about the construction history of these plants.
14 h Any ?
15 a Can you take them f rom the top and run through them?
l 16 \ Beaver Valley 2, I'm not f amiliar with; Bellaf onte 1 and l 17 2, I'm f amiliar with the f act that they had a CAT Team j l
18 inspection and there were a number of problems identified 19 at nellaf onte. I l
l 20 0 Is that plant still under construction or is that one of l
21 the TVA nrojects that's recently been canceled?
22 h I b311 eve it's boon def erred. I don' t know about being
! 23 ca ncel ed.
24 Q Dut it's no longer under construction?
l Lafarette Build'ng Luzod Reporting Service 30903NonhuNe?Iluy.
1 Suae 1026 962 1176 Suste 100 Detroet, .\fichigan 48226 Farmington flills, .\f,'chigan 48018
1 N That's correct. Braidwood and Byron, do you uant me to 2 comment on those?
4-3 S Pl ea ce.
4 i\ Both of them had quality assurance problems. D roidwood 5 more so than Byron.
6 ) Those are both within your region?
7 i They' re within my region. Calloway was relativcly 8 trouble-f ree; Cherokee I don' t know anything about; 9 Clinton, which is in my region, had a number of quality 10 assurance problems; Comanche Peak, which is in Region 4, 11 and I'm only f amiliar with the publicity that dict plant 12 has received, but there have been a lot of allegations !
13 down there and apparently a f airly large number of 0A 14 concerns raised; Diablo Canyon had problems. One of my l 15 inspectors was involved out there. k 16 <
) What was the major OA problem at Diablo Canyon?
17 i I don' t know I can say what the major one was but one that 18 came up that involved a lot of issues towards the end was 19 the concern with the adcquacy of the coismic design and 20 installation of that design.
l 21 n Was the plant ultimately licensed?
22 \ Yes.
23 1) And is it now in operation?
24 \ Yes, it is.
l l
Lafayette Buildine Luzod Reporting Service 309a3 NorthuUek Huy.
Suur 1026 Suite 100 962.I176 Farmington Hith, Stichigan 2018 Detroit. Stichigan M226
ll 1 0 Was there not also a major question there about incorrect 2 drawings?
t 3 A Yes.
4 0 The architect / engineer f ailed to flip drawings over f or 5 Unit 2 versus Unit 17 6 4 That's correct.
7 0 All the drawings were wrong?
8 4 The drawings were wrong, yes.
9 0 Nobody picked that up f or some period of years?
10 i\ That went unnoticed.
11 -
) Dy both by the owner, the engineer and the NRC7 12 A Yes. Permi, Fermi had some problems but I would not call 13 them a lot of them. They had a drawing problem that was 14 iden.tified late in the stage, final stage of construction, 15 which delayed the plant a couple of months. !
16 0 Fermi has been under construction f or almost 20 years, has i 17 it not? l 18 .\ Fermi has been under construction a long time. I don' t l 19 know whether it's 20 years, but it has -- it's taking a 20 long time to complete that. I 21 Q That's j ust one unit?
l 22 h One unit.
23 The other day when I asked you about whether if Fermi had 24 been given a 1cw power licence and you said yes I I
Lafayette Buildin Luzad Reporting Service 30cm %rthuht?r? Hus.
Sutte 1026 96g.jj76 Suite ik Detroit. .\fichigan 48226 Fannington Hills Stichigan 18018
__, _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - , _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ ~ .
1 noglected to ask you whether Permi has gone into 2 commercial operation yet. .
3 11 The answer is no.
4 0 It's still got some shakedown problems?
5 \ Fermi received a low power license in July but the plant G has not gone above five percent power because of 7 perf ormance related concerns.
8 0 All right.
.9 \ Grand Gulf, my recollection is Grand Gulf had a number of 10 pr obl em s.
11 <
> construction and QA problems?
12 \ Yes.
13 .
) Did it have a soils problem associated with it?
14 \ I can' t anwer that. I don' t know.
f 15 !!artsville I'm not f amiliar with; Ilogo creek 16 I'm not f amiliar with; LaSalle I would describe as not a 17 lot of problems.
18 '
) Is LaSalle operational? .
19 4 Yes, both units.
20 Limerick I' m not f amiliar with ; Magui to I' m '
21 not f amiliar with; Millstone I'm not f amiliar with; Mine 22 Mile Point had major quality problems. In fact, a CAT 23 Team inspection up there raised a number of concerns and I 24 believe the utility was fined f or the problems.
Lafayette Buildete Luzod Reporting Sern. ice 309a3 krthuhsth Hwv.
Suite 1026 96g,j j 7g Suite Ito Detroit, .\fichigan 48226 Farmingtoe. stills, .\fichigan 48018
1 l
h i 1 9 Uhat is a CAT Team? :
2 A Construction Appraical Team inspection by the headquarters 3 staff.
4 D Can you relate that to something that was done at Midland?
l 5 A Cat Team inspection wasn' t done at Midland.
6 2 And who decides whether a CAT Team inspection should take 7 place?
8 i Generally the headquarters staf f.
l 9 0 Based upon inf ormation they receive f rom the region?
10 i Right. Sometimes one is done when -- they started out 11 doing a limited number of CAT Team inspections and this 12 was donc f or two purposest one, to get a better handle on 13 overall construction in general, trying to look at 14 different AEs, different utilities, and also to Fat some 15 perspective on how well the regional of fice was perf orming j 16 its j ob. Subscquent to the identification of the major 17 quality problems in early 1981, in which the NRC tectified i 18 bef ore a congressional committee --
19 Q Are you talking j ust about itidland?
20 A I' m talking in general.
21 0 Across the industry?
I 22 A Yes. There was a decision made to try to do a CAT 23 inspection at almost every remaining plant under t 24 construction. How this hasn' t always been done but more i l
l 309m %rthuh>0rn i liwy.
Lafayette Ru:Idine Luzod Reporting Service Suite 1026 Suite im 962 1176 iktroit, Michigan 18226 Farmington !! ills, Michigan 18018
1 and more CAT inspections have been done.
2 0 Is Nine Mile Point 2 operating?
3 A No.
4 n Is it still under construction?
5 i Still under construction. Want me to continue?
6 l
} Plea se.
7 .. Palo Verde, I'm not f amiliar with any big problems; Perry 8 had some problems back in late 1970s but since that time 9 has been reasonably goods Phipps Bend I'm not f amiliar 10 with; River Bond I'm not f amiliar with; San Onof re 2 and 3 11 I'm not f amiliar with; Seabrook I'm not f amiliar with; 12 Soquoia I'm not aware of problems; Sharon Harris I' m not 13 aware of problems; Shoreham, I don' t recall ' big quality L
14 related issues; St. Lucie -- St. Lucie was the plant I 1 15 think that was highlighted as being built in the shor test 1
16 span of time of recent plantc; Summer I'm not aware of 17 problems; Susquahannah I'm not avaro of problems; vedel !
18 I'm not aware of problems; Waterf ord had a number of 19 allegations raised. There were a number of quality !
i 20 related problems identified as a result of those 21 allegations, which were subsequently resolved, and that 22 plant has gone into operation. Nachington Nuclear, I' m 23 not really f amiliar with those; Wolf Creek had scme 24 problems, which were resolved, that plant has gone inte i
Lafayette Building Luzod Repoeting Sertice 30903 Methuh8k Huy.
Suite 1026 9 5 g , j j 7 r; Suite )<n Detroit, Michigan 48226 Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018
D - a 1 operation; and Yeller Creek I'm not f amiliar with.
2 O Uhat about the below average f acilities?
3 A Ca taw ba , they had some allegations raised on harassment 4 and intimidation but I'm not aware of any quality related 5 problems that surf aced out of that; Marble Hill had a very 6 bad start and the HRC took actions to have that project 7 shut down in 1979, I believe. Uhen that project was 8 restarted in 1980 that perf ormance improved considerably 9 and was proceeding along satisf actorily at the time the 10 proj ect was stopped in 1984 I believe diat was.
11 0 Has the stoppage, the cessation of construction of !!arble i
12 '11111 1 and 2, related to the NRC shutting the work down? h 13 \ When the project was halted at the end?
14 0 Yes, i
15 .
4 No.
16 n It was a financial problem, was it not? !
17 a Yes.
18 Midland we' ve talked about. South Texas had 19 major quality problems associated with that that are still 20 being litigated. l 1
21 0 What's happened to the construction there? '
l l
22 A I believe the construction has continued under a new AE
! 23 down there.
! 24 h Do you know who the AD is?
i Lafayette Building Luzod Reporting Service 309(n Northub0rn lluy.
Suite 1026 962.I176 Suite 100 (Mroit. .\lichigan 48226 Farmineton flilh. .\fichigan 48018
11 l 1 \ I don' t know righ t now. Washington 2 had some quality 2 c assurance problems. That project has since been licensed.
3 Wattsbar (ph) is under attack f rom a number of sources 4 right now and the proj ect has had perhaps more allegations 5 than any plant has had to date.
G Q That's owned by the TVA?
7 a That's the TVA proj ect, and I don' t know what the 8 resolution of those quality issues will be. Zimmer, 9 Zimmer did have major quality assurance problems and that 10 proj ect was subsequently termina ted.
11 0 In your view could Zimmer have been completed had the 12 financing been in place? ;
13 \ It's my view the proj ect could have been completed.
14 0 I want to turn to a time period -- l 15 \ Are you done with this?
}
16 [] Ye s, sir -- a time period later in 1981. Let me j ust ask )
17 a question. You talked about South Texas having a new AE.
18 Are you f amiliar with the f act that Bechtel has been 19 selected to work on some plants that have construction 20 problems or 0A problems, that is, to come in in the middle 21 of construction and seek to take over f rom another AB?
22 A Did they come in and help out Uhoops? (ph) 23 1 I don' t knew. I believe they did.
24 .\ It might be. If they' re in south Texas I guess I wacn' t Lafayette Buddin Ltuod ReporIing Sereiee 30am krthuUh Ilwy, Suite 1026 96g j j 76 Suite 100 Detroit, .\fichigan M226 Farmington Ilills, .\fichigan 48018
1 that close to it.
2 O Are you f amiliar with any other jobs that Bechtel has been 3 asked to --
4 'i They come in to try to help Zimmer.
5 0 Uhat's Bechtel, in the 12 years that you've been the head 6 of Region III, what is the view of Dechtel in terms of 7 experience in building nuclear power plants?
8 MR. JENTES: Object to the question unless 9 it's a little more specified as to experience and also 10 what we' re talking about as to Region III. I mean, I j ust 11 don' t know what the ancwcr f ron Mr. Keppler' will mean.
12 3Y MR. DRIKER:
13 i l Do you understand my question? What has the reputation of .
14 Dechtel been nationwide among the NRC in terms of their 15 experience and knowledge in building nuclear power plants? <
16 MR. JENTES: Object to the form of the f
17 question.
18 SY MR. DRIKER:
1 19 0 You can go ahead and answer, pl ea se.
20 .
\ I guess I' d answer this way, and let me try, first of all, ;
21 to take AEs in general then I'll come back to Bechtol. I 22 think the view of the NRC, and certainly my vief, is that
[
23 the perf ormance of architect / engineers varios within the 24 same com pa ny. Companies like 3basco and Stone & Uebstor I
i 5
Lafayette Budding Luzod ReporIing Sereice 309a3 krthuhst$rn Hay.
Sune 1026 94g.j j 76 Suite im Detrdt. .\fichigan 18226 Farmington Hdis. .\fichigan 48018
I and Dechtel and United Cngineers, all of thece have~ had 2 numerous projects around the country. Dechtel, of course, 3 is the largest AE, I believe, and they' ve had a number of 4 good proj ects and they have also had some proj ects that 5 haven' t been so good. And I think it has varied in our G view largely dependent upon the people who are involved.
7 I think it's f air to say to you that the reputation of 8 Dechtel Gaithersburg would be very good; the reputation of 9 Dechtel Ann Arbor is not so good.
10 1 Gaithersburg, you mean the Gaithersburg of fice of Dochtel?
11 ( Yes.
12 Q I want to ask you to look at a document that has been 13 marked NRC 602, and perhaps we ought to go off the record l
14 f or a moment so you can f amiliarize yourself with this '
15 document.
16 ( A brief discussion was held !
17 of f the record.)
18 'iY liR. DR IKER :
19 0 fir . Keppler, have you had a chance to look at NRC 602?
20 a Ye s. ;
21 0 Have you ever soon this document bef or e?
l 22 i I don' t believe so.
23 i Coos this document help you recall that in the fall of 24 1981 Consumers Power Company was urging the Imc to Lafayette Buildins Luzod Reporting Service 30w33 krthuhhh, fluy.
Suite 1026 9gg,jj7g Suite 100 Detroit. .\fichigan 48226 Farmingtm lidis. .\fichigan 48018
- r. .
1 expedite the approval of the remedial underpinning eff ort 2 so that the company would not be delayed in its 3 construction activities?
4 h That's what it seems to say.
5 0 Dut do you have firsthand knowledge of that? Do you 6 recall telephone calls and meetings with Mr. Cook and 7 other officials at consumers where they were exhorting 0 Region III to move forward in approving the remedial 9 underpinning design releases?
10 MR. JENTES : Object to the form of the 11 question.
12 4 Nothing stands out in my mind. I remenber throughout the 13 periods of having various meetings in which there was much 14 concern about the schedule and much concern about 15 completing it. I'm sure there were meetings. I just 16 6on' e specifically recall getting involved to any great f 17 degree.
i 10 Y MR. CRIKER: j 19 Q Do you recall specifically communications f rom James Cook 4 20 to you, of Consumers, both over the telephone and at i 21 meetings where he urged that Mr. Landsman, among others, l 22 be instructed to spend more time in the design release 23 effort?
24 h He wanted to have Mr. Landsman up at the site.
Lafayette Building Luzod Reporting Service 309a1 Nonhuh0r? Hur.
Suste 1026 96g,jj7g Suite 100 Iktrmt. \fichigan SC:6 Farmington Hdh, .\fschigan M1018
\\
1 0 And was that to onpedite the design release activity?
\ '
2 \ Yes.
, 3 Q And !!r. Landsman did not want to go to the site, did he?
I 4 l\ That's correct. !
S q You thought it was a good idea to go to the site?
6 L Yes.
7 0 But Mr. Landsman resisted?
8 A Yes. tlouldn' t use the word resisted.
9 q But he was not in f avor of it?
10 4 Tha t' s ri gh t.
11' Q Do you recall any other communications f rom CP of ficials 12 to you, whether it was Mr. Howell or Mr. Selby or others 1 13 aside from Mr. Cook, urging that there be greater eff ort i
14 by Region III to cove forward on the desicjn releasi.s of 1 15 the underpinning work?
16 A Ye s, and I think the Region tried to be responsive to 17 those requeste. n 18 0 Do you have anything specific in mind or was --
19 A No. I 20 0 Or do you j ust have a general recollection?
21 \ Just a general recollection.
22 0 You can lay that document aside.
23 Mr. Jentes asked you some quections about }
24 SALP 2 when we were here a couple of wooks ago. Did I Lxfayene Building Luzod Reporting Sersice 309m knhuh0k Ilwy.
Suae 1026 962 1176 Sw^u KC
[ktroit, Stichigan 48226 Farmington flills, Stichigan 48018
1 understand your testimony to be that the first time you 2 saw the preliminary SEP 2 report was as you were flying 3 over to either Jackson or liidland f or a meeting with the 4 Consumers Power Company?
5 is That's cor rect.
6 0 nad you had any advanced briefing by the SEP Board as to 7 what was in the report?
8 14 I don' t believe so.
9 0 tiow the SEP 2 report covered a period of time which 1
10 included the May 1981 Williams inspection ef fort, did it 11 not?
12 A I'll have to look at the report.
13 0 I' ve handed you PX 17RC 13, which is --
14 h Yes.
15 0 --
a copy of a letter trancmitting the SEP report, and l 16 you cee that the period was July 1r '80 through June 30, 17 '81? !
18 A That's correct.
l 19 Q I notice over on the second page of the covering letter i
1 20 copies of this report were sont to !!yron Cherry and 21 Barbara Stamitis, ftary Sinclair, tienda11 Marshall. Those 22 ,
were all interveners or representatives of interveners, 23 were they not?
I 24 A Yes.
Lafayette Buildine Lutod Reporting Service 30003 %orthuhU lluy.
Suite 1026 962 1176 Suite im Dettmt, .\fichigan 18226 Farmington flills, .\fichigan 48018
4 I
1 1 The enclosure to the SEP report on Dates number 11223 2 contains some general observations including a specific 3 ref erence in the first f ull paragraph to the in-depth team 4 inspection perf ormed in May of 1981. How did the -- how 5 did your view of the SEP report -- how did you reconcile 6 what the SEP report in preliminary fashion had said as 7 against what the liay 1981 inspection ef fort had disclosed?
8 i flow did I reconcile it?
D 0 Yes.
10 .
( I didn' t reconcile. I viewed it as an inconsistency.
' ll 0 Did the materials set forth in these general observations 12 on Page 11223, were they in your view consistent with what 13 the Williams group had reported in May 1931 in terms of 14 overall quality assuranco programs at Midland? ,
15 \ My recollecticn is that I reali::ed the SEP period was 1
16 going through a big transition period. The beginning of l 17 the SEP period, the perf ormance was, in my judgment, l la would have been expected to be lower than towards the end 19 of it. The problem I had was that the conclusions that 20 were being given out at that SEP meeting -- first of all, ,
21 I thought the report was more negative than I expected it 22 to be based upon where I thought we were in time, but then 4 23 the statements that were made during the meeting, that if ;
l l
24 we were rating the company today they would still be a I Lafarette Building Luzad Reporting Service 309m Nonhuh00 lluy.
Suite im
~
Suite 1026 962.))76 Detroit, tfichigan 48226 Farmington thih, .Uichigan 48018
I 1 Category 3 in the area of soils, that hit me very hard 2 because my immediate reaction to all that was that this is 3 not consistent with the message I lef t the Atenic Safety 4 and Licensing Doard.
5 2 Could you turn, Mr. Koppler, to Bates number 228 in this 6 document? You may want to j ust skim through that page for 7 a moment, and let's so off the record while you do so.
8 ( A brief discussion was held 9 off the record.)
10 BY 1m. DRIKER:
l 11 Q Mr. Keppler, looking at Page 11228, which you j ust had an 12 opportunity to road, was the activity described in the 13 second paragraph of that page, .that is Consumers Power 14 Company asst.~.aing responsibility for all on-cito OA and OC 15 f unctions f or installation of INAC systems, was that 16 conciatent with the NRC's vicv of what nhould be done? i 17 . Yc s, I think so.
18 0 tras the Zack company a subcontractor f or INAC on other 19 nuclear power plants within Region III?
20 A Ye s.
21 h 11 hat plants were those?
k 22 LaSalle, Cl int on.
23 0 And were there GA problems with respect to the INAC in 24 thoco plants?
l l.afarette Building Luzod Reporting Sertice 309m .YorthuYr Huy.
~
Suitr 1026 0""' I*
962 1i76 Farmington Hills. .\fichigan MJ18 Detroa, .\fichigan 48226
1 A Yec.
2 3 As a ronult of actions or inactions of Zack?
3 l\ Ye s.
4 L) Did you viw Consumers' response to the Zack problemo as 5 responsive and prudent owner activities?
6 a Yes. In fact, I believe we gave them a Category 1 rating 7 in that area.
8 i ) Did they do a better job thar. the other two utilities when 9 f aced with the came problems with an IIVAC contractor?
10 A I think so. ,
i 11 i
) If you would look down to the second to last paragraph on 12 that page, thoro's a review of a number of items of 13 noncompliance and it8 c noted that some of them are 14 severity levola 5 and 6 and then in the following 15 paragrapha thero's something that's a coverity level 4.
16 Could yo: explain to me what are the most serious coverity 17 levels and what are the least cerious? tlow do the numbera l 10 run? l y
19 T At that point in time there were 6 severity level 20 categories ranging f rom the most seriouc being severity 21 level 1 to the least serious being severity level 6 l 22 O And on the f ollowing page,11229, in the conclusion 23 section of the preliminary SALP report is the statement j 24 "The licencoe 10 rated Category 2 in his overall quality 1 92 Lafayette Buddine Luted Reporting Service 30wn krthurstern Huy.
Suur 1026 5"i I*
962.I176 Farmington Rdh, .\fichizan 2018 Detroit, .\fichigan $3226
1 assurance capability. !!otwithstanding weakresses 2 1.dentified in specific. areas the licensee has been 3 responsive in establishing an overall ef f ective 4 organization f or the management of construction and 5 implementation of quality assurance at the site. " was 6 that consistent with your views?
7 h Yes.
l 8 Q You mentioned that you were troubled as you read the i 9 preliminary SALP report that in soils the company was 10 rated 3. What soils activities were being conducted 11 during the SALP 2 period?
12 A I' d have to look. I don' t really know.
l 13 Q Are you aware of the f act that the major underpinning i
14 effort had not yet begun?
15 Yes. ' ,
16 o Mr. Cook, that in Ron Cook, and Mr. Landsman were the 17 principal authors of the SALP 2 report insof ar as soils l
10 was concerned, is that not so?
19 A I think so.
4 20 h You could lay that document aside, sir. l l
21 There's been a f air amount of testimony from i
22 Ron Cook and others about Consumer s' response to the SALP 1
23 2 repor t. Is it f air to cay that a number of people at 24 Regicn III, and particularly Ron Cook, were angered or lAfasette Budding Luzod Reporting Sereice 309ea Northuhbrn Huy.
l Sate IW6 962. ] J 76 hule UN Detmt. Michigan M226 Farmington Rdh, Michigan 2018
1 , of fended by Concumers' response to the SALP 2 repor t?
2 MR. JEUTES : Obj ection to the f orm of the 3 question.
4 IN Yes.
5 lY MR. DRIKER :
6 9 Were you aware that Ron Cook had prepared some rather 7 ctrongly worded remarks that he took with him to the 8 public SALP 2 meeting which he was prepared to deliver 9 that were in essence a blast at Consumers Power?
10 MR. JEUTES: Obj ection to the form of the 11 quection.
12 4 I recall seeing a document prepared by Mr. Cook that was 13 quite negative. I'm not sure that's the same document 14 you' re talking about, but it micht be.
15 3Y UR. CRIKE3:
16 q) Thece were some typt-written notes that he had prepared in 17 advance of the meeting?
18 \ Yes.
19 0 Did he show them to you?
20 A I believe he did. I' m not sure of what time he chosed 21 them to me but I was aware of documents.
22 0 Did you give him any guidance as to whether he chould or 23 chould not publicly articulate the views he cet forth in 24 those notes?
Lafayette Buuding Luzod Reporting Service em knhuh?k Hwy.
Suite KC6 962 1176 Suste M Detrost, hiichigan 48226 Farmington Hulls. Stichigan 48018
1 A It might help if I saw the notes.
0 2 3 Sorry, I don' t have them with me.
l 3 h I guess I can' t reca14, but it is my practice to try to 4 keep meetings very prof essional and not turn into 5 personality conflicts. If I gave him any guidance at all, 6 and I probably would have, it was to try to keep his 7 remarks prof essional and to the point and not to get -- to 8 make the issues personal.
9 Q Do you recall that he, in his prepared notes, wanted to 10 speak out personally against the competency of individual 11 people at Consumers and Bechtel?
12 A Again I' d have to look at the notes, but I was aware that 13 he had some very deep-seated f eelings.
14 Q Did Dr. Landeman also have those f eelings?
15 MR. J CNTCS : Obj ect to the f orm of the i 1G question. I don' t know hew he can know that Dr. Landsman ;
17 had f eelings the same as Mr. Cook's unless it uas i
18 something articulated at the meeting.
19 MR. DRIKER : Let me change the question.
20 Y !!R. DRIKER:
21 0 Did you ever counsel Dr. Landsman along the same lines i
22 that you counseled Mr. Cook, that is, not to engage in 23 personality attacks?
24 b I think so.
l Luzod Reporting Sernice 30mn krthuhsh liny.
Lafarette Budder Suste H Q6 962 1176 S" UN Detrat. .\fichigan 48226 Farminston flills. .\fichJan 48018
~ '
il 1 0 I've handed you a document numbered PX tinc 14, a response 2 by James Cook to the preliminary SEP report. I have only 3 a couple of questions to ask you about that. If you look 4 down to the bottom of page Dates number 11177, about three '
5 page s in, and if you could read to yourself the last three 6 sentences in that paragraph, and perhaps you ought to read 7 the whole paragraph to put it in context.
8 .
i Which paragraph?
9 0 The last paragraph on the page.
10 MR. DRIKER: Why don' t we go of f the record 11 for a moment.
12 ( A brief discussion was held 13 of f the record.) j 14 5Y !!R. DRIKEnt i
15 1 fir. Keppler, generally with respect to the SEP report, 16 . the whole concept of the SEP mechanism involvec responde l 17 and discuscion by the owner utility, isn't that so?
18 \ Yo c. '
19 Q It's not the view of the 11RC that when it publishec a SEP '
20 report the utility la to simply ait still and accept the 21 report and not respond, is it?
l 22 . \ The SEP proceca inviten two-way communications.
23 1 And I believe you tactifled a couple of weeko ago it is 24 not unusual generally for utilities to disagree with the
}
Lafayette Buitdine Lutod Reporting Service 30MD krthuNrn0 Huy.
Sune 1026 9gg,jj7g Swte 1m Detrou. Michigan 2226 Farminewe Hals, Michisan 2018
1 MRC on matters such as those contained in a SALP report; 2 is that correct?
3 h Yes.
4 ) Do you recall, as ref erenced ir. the bottom of page 11177 5 of 11RC 14, that Consumers Power had invited you to 6 participate in that May 1981 inapection?
7 A I believe they did.
8 0 Do you also recall, I believe you already testified, that 9 Consumers proposed to you, that the flRC inspector, that an 10 r2RC inspector be on site as much of the time as possible <
11 to assess the remedial soils work?
12 i Yes.
13 0 On the top of Page 2, the top of the next page of this 14 document, the first -- in the second f ull paragraph is a 15 reference to the flRC considering holding seminars and I 16 think if you'11 just tako a moment and raad that paragraph ' "
}
17 I just have a question or two to ask of you. l 18 Have you had a chance to look at that?
10 A Yec. I 20 i) Do you recall that Consumers requested of Region III that 21 it conduct these OA cominars a't Midland?
22 p I f rankly don' t recall this issue. It sounds like a good 23 iden right now.
24 0 But you don' t remember if that request was made?
1.afaytte RusWe Lusod Reporting Service 3cm3 %nhuhN Itur.
Suite 1026 96g.I176 Suar im (ktmt.1tichigan t8226 Farminston listh. .\1ochigan 48018
4
[ l 1 A Well, it obviously was made in the letter but I don' t l 2 recall how our Staf f dealt with it. Again it becomes a i 3 problem. The 11RC, going back, if I could digrenc, the NRC 4 going back in the early 1970s, did conduct a number of 5 ceminars for the industry on gus11ty assurance, all phasec 6 of quality assurance. ly recollection in looking at this 7 kind of thing and the workload that the 11RC was f acing at 8 that point in time, I'm sure it was viewed as comething 9 that we probably didn' t have time f or, and maybe that's a 10 mistake, but --
~
11 '
) Was there some particular workload activity that was 12 occupying the time of the !!RC at that time?
13 \ We were under enormous involvement with Zimmer at that 14 time.
15 a I see.
)
16 T In fact, other projectc were being -- we were alnoct ,
l 17 ctopping work on other projects to support Zinner and !
18 Midland. Wat's why we established that of fice of Special 19 Ca se s.
. 20 <> All right. You can lay that document asido, if you would, i 21 trould it be correct to say that your own 22 view of the preliminary SALP 2 report wac most heavily ,
23 based upon the Category 3 in the soils activity?
?
24 A Yeah, I think oo, i l
Lafayette Budding Luzod Reporting Service 30orn krthuh0011wy.
Suur 1026 962.I176 S""' I*
Detroit, Michigan 2226 Farmington Ilills Michisan 48018
p .
1 O And I take it that the filing --
b 2 p Mot so much the Category 3 but the f act that it did not 3 appear to be getting better.
4 D And the people who you -- who were principally responsible 5 for conveying that inf ormation to you were Ron Cook and 6 Ross Landsman?
7 A And the supervisory chain that dealt with that group.
l 8 Q And who would that be?
l 9 A I'd have to look at that time, but I think your statement 10 is correct, but I don' t want to imply that it wasn' t 11 getting any supervisory review.
12 0 Dut at least there's a first level thinking on that came 13 f rom Landsman and Cook?
14 3 Yes.
15 Q Based upon the SALP 2 activities that you've j ust 16 described, you then filed the supplemental testimony 17 bef ore the ASLB that Mr. Jentes asked you about a couple 18 of weeks ago, NRC 21. Your counsel has a copy. !!ay be I 19 can swipe mine back, 1
20 A That's correct.
21 0 Mr. Keppler, did the Midland Nuclear Plant have an 22 unusually high amount of intervention activity in the g 23 licensing process?
- 24 A It certainly had intervention and I -- I guess I would i
Lafayetu Buildine Luzod Reporting Sertice 30am%nhuhEEIluy.
s t io2s ,n2.,,,s s.t iw Detmt, .\fichigan M226 Fannington listh, \fichutan 2018 '
1 agree with that statement, yec.
2 ) For example, if you were to compare it with the 3 intervention activity in the case of the Fermi Plant, 4 would Uldland be considerably greater?
5 It Yes.
6 0 Does the presence of active intervention activity aff ect 7 how the NRC Staf f deals with the particular licensing 8 pr ocess?
9 A I think it's bound to have some offect.
10 0 Is the Staf f sensitive to the criticisms of nuch 11 interveners as GAP, that it is the handmaiden of the 12 industry or is too pro-nuclear?
13 s FY view on this subject is that interveners tend to make 14 the Staf f more conservative and more cautious in their j 15 a ppr oa ch.
16 0 Could you pull out, plea se, the supplemental testimony, 17 the third in the cet of prepared toctimony you gave. It's 18 NRC 54. You may want to take a moment and just skim 19 through that. It bea r s a da te of Ma r ch 25, 1983. I want <
I 20 to ask you just a couple of general questions. '
21 MR. DRIKER: Why don' t we go of f the record 22 for awhile.
23 ( A brief recess was held during 24 the proccodings.)
2 30ao3 % hur,1% Hu c.
Lafayette Buddag Luzod Reporting Service Suiu I W 6 qsg,jj7s Suiu im (ktroit, Michieu M226 Farmington Hals. Michigan 2018.
Il l hY !!R. DRIKER:
b 2 0 ftr. Keppler, have you had an opportunity to review liRC 547 i
3 A Ye s.
4 Q Uhat were the circumstancec currounding your filing of 5 thic supplemental testimony?
I 6 4 I'believe that this testimony was in response to the -- to 7 telling the Board of why we f elt that the proj ect -- how 8 we f elt the project could be ultimately completed in the 9 f ace of the quality assurance dif ficulties that were 10 scaring us in the face. It was really aimed at being an 11 answer to the Board of how I propoced to deal with the 12 pr obl em a. I presented that to them in October '02.
13 0 And could you sunmarize what it tas that you were 14 essentially telling the Board in P. arch of '837 15 \ Hell, my recollection -- the points we were trying to nahe 16 is that the Agency felt they could not rely totally upon i
17 Consumers Pafer Company and Bechtel at this point in time ;
18 to assure that quality-related activitica would be 19 completed without problems, without maj or problems, and 20 that in order to compensate f or this third party overview 21 activities were going to be conducted, both in the area of 22 soils and in the area of the rest of the plant. In 23 a ddi tion, to gain confidence that the earlier quality 24 accurance problema did not result in actual f aulty I.afayeter Buddus Luzod Reporting Settice 300m sorthu&b Huy.
Suar 1026 9s;,jj7g Saute 100 (ktroa, %higan 18226 Farmurton Rdh, Whigan 88018
1 construction therc would be a backward look at completed 2 work to provido confidence that that work was acceptable, s ,
3 0 And were you in escence telling the Board in this 4 supplemental testimony in (1 arch of '83 that you thought 5 that thoce procedures would-allow for successf ul 6 completion of the plant?
7 A Ye s.
8 0 And that to the extent that thoco procedures had already 9 been put in place they were operating satisf actorily?
g 10 4 Ye s.
11' 0 Have there boon any other nuclear power plants that have 12 had third parties brought in to monitor any part of the 13 construction or management or QA? i 14 4 Yes. !
l 15 0 Did the f act that the Government Accountability Proj ect j 16 entered the licensing hearings in !!idland in the year 1982 l 1
17 have anything to do with the negion III suggestion that 18 there be third party participation in the construction and 10 QA activition? l 20 T I don' t think so. That was a decision that Mr. Ei ce nh ut 21 and I reached together on the matter.
22 0 lias it raised af ter GAP entered in the licensing process?
23 A Yes, it was but it was -- you might recall that GAP wanted 1 24 the Staf f to go even f urther in terms of third party 30cKn %nhur,0? 2 Hu r Lafasette Buniduw
^ '
Lusod Re, porting Service Suite 1026 962 1176 Suite 100 Detmt. Alichigan 48226 Famington Hills, Alichigan 48018
4 1 involvement than we did. Really, I was driven by the f act 2 that I f elt that was the only way in which I could ,
3 l convince the hearing board that this project had a 4 reasonable chance of succeno.
S 1 Did the hearing board ultimately adopt your 6 recommenda ti on?
7 A I'm not sure I know what you mean by did they adopt i t. I 8 had implemented this and told the hearing board how I was 9 dealing with the issue. I guess my memory escapes me at 10 the moment. Did the hearing board issue a decision?
11 Q There was a decision issued by the hearing board in 1985 12 concerning the remedial soils activity. Are you f amiliar 13 with that decision?
14 l\ I gueen I'm drawing a blank right at the moment, but what 15 I did was to take a position, with staf f input f rom 15 Washington, to deal with the concerna that were in f ront j 17 of un on OA and we went and told the Board how we were 18 dealing with that. Now , certainly we were well aware that 19 we had people looking over our shoulders.
20 0 You mean interveners?
21 A Interveners, no question about that, but I bel iev e th a t -- l I l 22 I have to tell you candidly, my -- I was driven personally '
23 by what I felt it would take to convince the Doord that we l 1
24 had a program in place to deal with the issue.
1 Lafarette Baddme
~
f.uzod Reporting Service 3tna Nonku?>0rk Huy Suitr imM gsg,g;7s Suar IW IWnt, Whigan 48226 Farmmeton Hdis, Whiran 48018
p 1 0 All right.
2 T Short of that I didn' t know how I could provide that 3 reasonable assuranco.
4 0 Let me ask you another question about the OA issue that 5 deals with INAC and in that connection I'm handing you a 6 document marked NRC 31, a letter f rom Ifr. Spessard to 7 Consumers Power dated March 7,1604 and you are shown on 8 the third page of this document as having signed of f at 9 the bottom of the -- right in the right-hand corner. We 10 second page.
11 4 The second page. Yes.
12 .
) Are you f amiliar with this document or would you like a 13 moment of f the record?
14 i I'm f amiliar in general with it.
15 b All right. This ref era to a very extoncive special }
f 16 investigation of the !!VAC at Midland, is it not?
17 T Ye s, it does. ;
10 i
) And how did this investigation como to occur?
19 \ This investigation was carried out at my direction to deal 20 with allegations that had been raised by allegers to the l 21 Government Accountability Proj ect.
22 <
) They had -- these were confidential allegations made to 23 GAP about improper work in the !!vAC at Midland?
24 N Yes. l 30n NorthueN 2 lluy.
Lafayette Buildig Luzod Reporting Sertice Suite 1026 9gg,jj7g Suite 10)
Iktrou .\fichigan 482:6 Farmington flills, Whigan 18018
W l D And GAP in turn trancmitted these allegationc to you?
I 2 A To the NRC, yoc.
h 3 0 And that caused this investigation to take place?
l 4
h Right.
I 5 0 The document shows that the investigation involved several b
6 thousand hours of inspection time. I lost the place where 7 ) it makes that particular ref erence.
l 8 \ It's on Page 1 of the report. It's an unmarked page but 9 it's right af ter the notice of violation.
10 Q All righ t.
l 11 h No, you got. to keep going, next page. Tha t's i t.
l 12 Q 1,042 inspector hours by five NRC region inspectors and 13 throo NRR representativoa. Doeo that amount of inspection 14 time represent an unusually thorough innpection eff ort f or 15 something of this kind? i i
16 h Yes, it doco.
l 17 0 Can you summari=e, in general f achion, what the incpoctors '
la found with respect to those allegations?
19 N Uell, they found a f ew procedural problems, programatic -
l 20 probican, but in substance they concluded that they were l 1
21 not maj or quality problems.
22 And did you agree with that finding?
{
23 i Yes, I did.
24 Q In this the type of last minute intervener activity that I Lafasette Buildne Lu:od Reporting Service Mm Northubi$rk fluy.
Suite'1026 962 1i?6 Sune 100 Detroa, \fichigan 18226 Farmington Hsils, \fichigan 48018
s .
1 you talked about in the speech you gave lact year as
- 2 crea. ting probicms f or the 11RC?
3 \ Yes. There's no question that an enormous amount of 4 attention wac given to this problem in an area that I I 5 don' t think anybody in this of fice could agree warranted G that attention.
7 1 Why did you give it?
8 A Decause when you' re under attack by intervener groups, if 9 they pointed to deficiencies in our investigation this 10 likely would have resulted in revisiting a congressional 11 hearing and tying up even more time in the long haul. So, 12 our view was that we better do a very, very thorough 13 inspection even though we weren' t convinced that that 1
14 depth of eff ort was warranted f rom a public health and !
15 saf ety point of view. ,
16 And I guess if I could digress again, I' m }
17 of ten asked to comment on the role of interveners and I 18 have a great deal of respect f or interveners. I think 19 they keep the cyctem honest, they keep the regulatory i 20 bodies and the utilitics on their toes, but in some caces 21 they go overboard and in this particular case I felt that !
22 the amount of attention that was devoted to this resulted l 23 perhaps in something more important not being looked at 24 thoroughly.
Luzod Reporting Sertice 20 Huy.
300a3 knhuehern Lafsvette Bus!dme Suar 1 W o 963,;;74 Sune KU Detroit, Michien 48226 Farmington Hdis. Michieu 48018
p 1 0 17 hon an inspection effort like this is undertaken by the 2 NRC, does it also occupy the time, some of the tino of the 3 owner and the AS?
4 h Certainly, no question about it.
5 0 Time that they might otherwise spend on building the 6 proj ect?
7 h No question about it.
. l 8 a You can lay that document aside.
9 Did GAP make similar allegations at Zimmor?
- 10. I don' t mean involving specifically the same kinds of 11 allegations, but did they make theco --
12 \ GAP generated statements f rom people who mado allegations 13 about Midland, or about Zimmer.
14 0 Is the utility given copies of the af fidavits, three 15 anonymous af fidavits?
i 16 A Mo, they are not. !
17 0 So they have to respond to allegations where they don' t 18 know either the person making the allegation or the 19 cpecifics of the allegation? I 20 h The practico at that point in time, the time f rame that i
21 we' re talking about being the early 1980s, was that the i 22 URC did not share with the utility or its contractors
- 23 specific allegations that were mado. Only af ter the 24 investigation was done was -- were they brief ed on what 1
Lafayette Buildune Lutod Reporting Service 3nU krthu$0? Huy.
, Sate 1026 962 1176 5""' l0" Detrat. Uichigan 48226 Farmincton Hdis. Vickiean 48018
1 the specific allegations were and what the findings were.
2 I suspect, and I don' t think it's very dif ficult, that 3 utilities have a pretty strong f eel on the way the NRC is 4 going about the inf ormation t' hey' re necking of what the 5 nature of the allegations is, but they do not see the 6 specific charges.
7 1 You testified a couple of weeks ago that you set up the 0 Office of Special Cases in the summer of 1982 and you put 9 Mr. Warnick in charge?
10 4 That's correct.
11 0 That of fice was to deal with Midland and Zimmer?
12 i Yes.
13 0 Those were the two plants in Region III where CAP had 14 ontered the intervention process; is that correct? i 15 \ Yes. i 16 q GAP had intervened in the licensing process? 4 17 i Yeah. It actually would be more proper to state that we 18 formed the Office of Special Cases f or Zimmer and then we 19 decided later to add Midland into it.
I 20 0 Was the Of fice of Special cases eventually abolishod? j 21 A Yes. .
1 '.
22 1 Uhen? i t
23 \ I believe it was abolished af ter Midland stopped 24 construction.
6 Lafantte Busidine Luzod Reporting Service 30m Yorthub0k fluy.
Suste 10:6 962 11in S""' I*
l)etroit, Michigan 2226 Formuscton listis. Michigan 2018
y ,
1 3 There' c testimony by !!r. Warnick in the record that it was 2 abolished in ?!ay of 1984 3 MR. JENTESt' Object to the form of the 4 question. Thoro's no testimony in the record at all on 5 that.
6 BY MR. DRIKER:
l 7 1 We can leave that for another day.
, 0 4 It was abolished af ter Midland announced that it was going to be canceled.
9 10 0 Are you certain that it was not abolished prior to that 11 time? Do you know?
12 T I' m not sur e, no.. That would seem the reason to do that 13 at that time. Now maybe -- I guess now that you countered 14 my comment I think that -- I think I do recall that wo 15 made Midland a section under projects by itself and went 16 into a reorganization in the of fice consistent with a 17 reorganization that was being made in the other regionc la and with it j ust being !!idland lof t we kept it as a 19 special section but didn' t call it the of fice of special 20 Ca sc o.
21 0 I'd like to read you a statement made by Mr. Warnick i'n 22 !!ay of 1904 in recponse to some questions asked of him in i i l 23 a deposition taken by Dow in this cace. He said as I
24 f ollows: "I think the licensee has been very responsive
)
30wn krthun' tem09 fluy.
Lafasette Bu,ldty Luzad Reporting Sertice Suite' 1026 962.]I76 Sune M Detrat, Michigan 4R226 Farmingtca lhlh, Michigan 43018
1 to the problems we identified in our incpection in the 2 f all of 1982. Well in stopping work and in the 3 development of their conctruction completion program and 4 in their attempts to solve their problems and got on top 5 of things since then I think that they have made great 6 strides in their perf ormance since that time." Uould you 7 agree with !!r Warnick that that was the circumstance in 0 riay of 1984 ?
9 MR. JCtlTES : Object to the form of question 10 as you' re reading f rom testimony that has not been 11 received in evidence.
12 i I'm not sure I would have used the same words that !!r.
13 Warnick used but I think it's f air to say that people were 14 comfortable with the direction the project was taking. Uc 15 were happy with Stone & Webster's perf ormance overseeing 16 the project and we were catisfied that the construction 17 completion progran and soils related activities were being '
18 carried out properly.
19 3Y MR. DRIKER: !
20 0 Uhen you talked about the creation of the Office of t
21 special Case's at your last deposition session one of the l l
22 thingc you mentioned was public perception, and you may 23 want to look at the question and the ancwer at Page 109 of l 24 your deposition.
Lafayette Buddine Luzod Reporting Sersice 30903.%rth)shek fluy.
Suite 1026 962 1176 5""' IN Detmt. Michigan 48226 Farmington lidis. Whigan 48018
1 I don' t' recall this statement being given in terms of the 2 Office of Special Caces as much as it was a question about 3 Mr. Cook's perf ormance.
4 O All righ t. tihat did you mean then -- what was the public i
5 perception to which you ref erred in that pasacge?
6 A tihat I ref er to was that the perception of the 7 congressional oversight committees, the perceptien of the 8 intervener groups, the perception of the hearing board and 9 the perception of the general public in !!idland, th a t th ey --
10 that the only way to deal with concerns being raised about 11 the plant and about Consumer s' perf ormance and nechtel's 12 perf ormance was to have tough oversight.
13 0 All ri ght.
14 A I guess stating it another way would be we would j ust be 15 adding to the problem if we didn' t have tough overnight. ,
16 0 All right. Mr. Ke ppl er, do you know if Joseph Kane in 17 still with the ImC? i 18 A I don' t.
19 Q You c':on' t know? ,
1 20 A I don' t.
l 21 0 You don' t know if he's been discharged or not?
22 A I don' t.
23 0 I want to ask you a couple of more questions about Fermi. 1
?
24 It is true, 10 it not, that when Fermi was granted it' G I 30% krthuShern I llay.
Lafarette Buildinx Luzod Reporting Service Suite 10.ib 962 1i76 5"i I*
()etrat, \fuchigan 482:6 Farmintron fisils. .\fichigan 48018
1 full power liconao come months age ther o were a number of 2 activities in the licence that or which the license 3 allowed to be deferred until af ter fuel load and indeed 4 until af ter the first ro',ueling outage?
5 L Yes, I wouldn' t describe it as a lot.
6 Q tras fire protection one of them?
7 A Certain olements of fire protection were allowed to be 8 deferred, yen.
9 4 Mr. Jentes asked you a number of question a couple of 1
10 weeks ago based upon a newspaper story quoting nuas 11 Marabito and you indicated you had not seen that newspaper 12 story before. Pr. Marabito is not a policy maker f or the 13 NRC or for this region, is he?
14 ( He's a public off airs of ficer.
15 q lie doesn' t make policy?
16 A That's correct.
17 0 !!e talks to the media and trancmits policy that others l 18 have made?
19 A Ye s.
i 20 0 And, as I understood your tontimony, Region III had never 1 21 been asked about def erring any construction at Midland 22 until af ter fuel load and it had never made any decisiono '
23 on that incuo; is that correct?
24 A I can' t speak f or the Region but I hadn' t been and I have I
Lafa.sette Buildn Luzod Reporting Service .30mu krthulh? Itur.
Suar 1026 9sy, g j ~g Suite 1(o Detroa, .\fichigan 4&??26 Farmington lidis, .\fkhisan 48018
4
~*
1 1 a f eeling that considering the nature of the problems at
~
2 tiidland that any such request would have come to my 3 attention.
4 Q And as f ar as you know that incue was never procented to 5 you?
6 h That',s -- to the best of my knowledge that's true.
l 7 ) I' m corry. Did I cut you off ?
l 8 A I was j ust going to cay, it seems a strange time to bring 9 up such an issue that f ar in advance of f uel load.
i 10 Q Do I take it that had such an issue been presented to you 11 by the utility you would have con <3idered it on the merita 12 ac they existed at the time?
13 A Uc11, I think it's f air to oay that but I think it's alco 14 f air to say that in view of the -- well, I guess I don' t 15 know what to say. He have, over the last several years, 16 required the plants to be f airly well completed bef ore i 17 they started up. It would seem to me, and I' m j ust 18 of f ering a personal opinion here at this stage, but it 19 would have seemed to me that so a recult of the coils ,
20 settlement problem we probably would have wanted the plant 21 f airly well complete bef ore licensing. I'm j ust giving 22 you that as my view.
23 Q Do you know what activities in the overall umbrella term ,
24 of the remedial soils ef fort Consumers might have asked Lafarene lkidma Luzod Reporting Sertice 3na knhuSbk fluy i h ar 10:6 96g,j j 76 har M Detroa. Mschigan 48226 Farmsneton Hslis, %higan M18
I tahe place af tor fuel load?
2 i no, I don' t.
3 0 So you don' t know if they were cubstantive or cocmetic or 4 what?
5 ( That's correct.
6 0 And I suppose if they were more of the cosmetic nature 1 7 there would be a greater receptivity on the part of itegion 8 III to consider their def erral?
9 ( Yeah. Let me try to explain one of the reasons why we 10 look at a completed plant and I'm going to give you it in 11 terms of the context of another plant. When Grand Gulf 12 got its licence back in 1982 the plant went better than 13 one year bef ore it operated because of it had so much, co 14 many activities to ' complete. If you wind up where you 15 have to divert a lot of attention to completing the 16 ongoing projects, attention that should more properly bc
- 1 17 placed at running the plant or completing the test f 18 programs f or the plant, you really haven' t gained a lot.
19 So when the Agency locues the license, what 20 it expects to see and wanto to cee in a plant that starts 21 up with this minimal number of problems ac possible and 22 basically gets up and operates at f ull power in a 23 trouble- f
- ee mode. If you have cituations where the plant !
24 operators are preoccupied with activities to complete i
l Lajantre Buildung Luod Reporting Service 30n1 krthuShek liuy. l Sune 1026 962 1Ii6 Suite lin Detroit. Alichican 48226 Farmington flills .\lichigan 48018
e . ;
1 ongoing construction or or. going testing work, that takes 2 away f rom it. !
3 So when you use the word cosmetic I'm not 4
t 4 cure how you' re using it, but in terms of diatractions of l 5 the operators or things that have an impact on 6 caf ety-related systems, both construction and/or testing, 7 we don' t like to def er a lot of items.
O C trould that mean that activities, construction activities !
9 that are closer to the control room, for example, closer 10 to the operators, I don' t necessarily mean in physical ,
11 proximity but in termo of their activitica, would be 12 viewed as activities that are less likely to be deferred i 13 whereas activities that are more remote f rom them, and 1
14 again I'm not talking about physical distance but in termo
\
15 of impact, might have a lennor impact on that decision?
i 1
l 16 A That's a true statement. .
I 17 h flow is it that the r1RC is willing to give a license to a l
18 plant like Fermi if the fire protection is not completed, 19 if all aspects of it are not completed?
20 A That's a good question and I'm not sure I have a good i
21 a ncwer. The fire protection is an area that has had a lot 22 of difficulty in getting implemented. IIere we are almost l 23 ten years af ter the Drowns Ferry ff o an( ( , i degree of i 24 completion of fire protection modificationc in probably Lafayette Budding Luzod Reporting Service mukrthu$tNllur.
Suite 1026 9 6 g . ; j ,~ 6 Su& W '
Iktrat, Whigan 48:26 Farminton lidh %hitan 48018 ,
) .
1 not very atandard throughout the industry. A modification 2 that's lof t to be done at Fermi has to do with, I believe, 3 the saf e shutdown panels outside the control room. Thero 4 may be a couple of other minor inauen there, but in the 5 review process licensing people agreed that they would let 6 that issue be deterred until I believe it was some time in 7 1986 and that got subsequently got changed to !!ovember I I' believe of ' 85 And I'm not sure I could tell you that 9 decision was very consistent with what was done at other 10 plants but it was a decision that was made by the 11 licensing people in response to a request f rom the utility 12 and one that my staf f wacn' t totally in agreement with but 13 ultimately accepted.
14 0 Did you recommend against that? ,
15 i I f elt that it would be bettor to complete the fire 16 protection work bef ore a f ull power license was given. He :
17 explored that opportunity with the utility and concluded, in or they convinced us, that it would - it was a matter of 19 obtaining certain equipment. The schedules were cuch that 20 what it amounted to was the plant would set still if we i 21 waited f or that and collectively it was agreed upon that, 22 and I did not go against that decicion, that we would get j 23 all the work done in !!avember.
l 24 0 I'd like to ack you a f ew questions, Mr. Koppler, about l t
Lafa_,ette Buddine Luzod Reporting Service 30003 krthubbh fluy.
Suuta 1026 962 I1?6 S" I*
Detrat, Michigan 48:26 Farmington lidis, Michigan 48018
I some of the remedial soils activities. Do you recall that 2 in the spring of 1902 the NRC took the pocition that all 3 ! of the remedial soils activities at Midland would have to 4 be 0-listed?
5 I\ I don' t recall.
l 6 Q Do you recall that Dr. Landsman had been urging that the --
7 that all the remedial soil s activities be treated as 3 0-listed?
9 4 Yeah, I recall the subject. I don' t think I ever got 10 involved in the issue. If I did, it's not apparent to me.
11 Q There were a couple of episodes in the spring and early 12 summer of 1982 involving allegations that Consumers in one 13 case had excavated under this deep Q-duct bank in 14 violation of a Board order and in a second instance had .
15 misled the commincion staf f about the extent of the 16 underpinning instrumentation activities that had gone on.
17 Do you recall that?
18 A Ye s, I do.
19 Q It's tr ue, is it not, that in both of those instances Dr.
20 Landsman was taking the position that Consumers ought to 21 be strongly penalised f or both of those alleged ,
l 22 transgrescions?
23 MR. JEUTES: Object to the f orm of tho ,,
l 24 question. I don' t know what you mean by penalised.
4 Luzod Reporting Service 3oona .%nhuNe? Huy.
Lafasette Buildde Suur tw
" Suae I W6 9gg.);70 Derma, 3fichigan 482:6 Farminetm Hstis. Stichigan 2018
1 A Dr. Landsman felt that the utility oroceeded beyond the 2 approvals that he had given and he f elt that the company 3 knowinryly did it.
4 3Y llR. DRIKER:
5 0 Did he also urge that substantial penaltien be impocod on 6 the company for both of thoce alleged inf ractionc?
7 A There was no question that Dr. Landsman was hawkich in 8 terms of the NRC's response to this issue, but I don' t 9 know that I can recall him saying that we ought to take 10 any particular type of action. He may have, but it 11 doecn' t stand out in my mind.
12 '
) With respect to the first of those activities, that in the 13 allegation that Consumers and/or Dechtel misled the 14 commiccion staf f, that involved a question of when !!r.
15 Boos of Dochtel told the commincion otaf f that 16 instrumentation activition were underway that he had l 17 miuled the Staf f into believing that they were 18 cubstantially completed. Do you recall that?
19 \ Ye;3.
l 20 !!R. JCNTES : Obj ect to the characterination ,
i 21 of that.
22 3Y liR. DRIRCR 23 0 Was that the crux of the allegation, that !!r. Doos had 24 caid comething was underway and the Staf f believed ic to Lafayette Ldding Luzod Reporting Service 30w .%rthuShek Huy.
Suite 1026 962 1176 S""' IN Detmt. .\fichigan 18226 Farmineton Hdis. .\lichiean 48018
C 4 ,
1 mean that it was substantially completed and in a day or 2 , two they discovered that it had just begun; wasn't that 3 the nub of it?
4 h I believe it was that Mr. Doos had stated that activities 5 were well underway.
G 0 And you launched an invectigation at that time, that is 7 Region III launched an investigation, of whether or not 8 the Staf f had been m,ialed?
9 \ I'm sure we did. It might help if you could ref er me to 10 some documents. I knew we -- when you use the word 11 investigation I'm not sure whether the Of fice of 12 Investigation or we did that.
13 0 Let me hand you a letter over your signature dated January 14 la,1903, which has bcnn marked as Def endant's Exhibit 15 D-4745 It would be helpf ul if you took a minute t.o nkim 1G through that document, so let's go through of f the record. ,
17 ( A brief discuccion was hold j 1 18 of f the record.) .
19 3Y MR. DRIKER:
l 20 8 Mr. Keppler, looking at D-4745, does this ref rech your 21 recollection that the Region did conduct an investigation 22 of Dr. Landsman's allegations that the Staf f had been 23 misled?
24 \ Ye s. '
Lafa>ette Buildme Lu:od Reporeing Sereice 3mm Northur$.50 Huy.
D er 1026 962.I176 5"i!* M r Detmt. \fickitan 48226 Farmuncton Hsils, .\fichigan 48018
N 1 Q It is true, is it not, that at the time that the statement i
2 was made about. inctrumentation being "well underway" !
3 Region III had a full time inspector at the Midland cite c 4 in the namo of Ron Cook? !
5 N Ya c. ,
6 '
) And Dr. Landsman was also spending a good deal of time at i
7 .the itidland site in connection with the soils activitien?
8 A Yes, je 9 f) ' .Did the investigative report conclude that -- what did it 10 conclude ?
i 11 1 It was inconclusive.
12 Q tion Dr. Landsman satisfiod with the outcomo of this 13 investigative ef fort?
14 MR. JI21TES : Object to the f orm of the I 15 quention unless !!r. Keppler knows of something. -
i 1 .
16 !!R. DRIEDRt That's a good obj ection. Let 17 me rephrase the quection. ]
1S 3Y !!R. DRIKER 19 q Did Dr. Landsman requoct that you reopen the investigation 20 and continue it becauce he said he was discaticfied with ,
21 its conclusion?
i 22 A I'm drawing a blank. It looks to me f rem thic report that ;
23 we issued the report and, I don' t have the concurrence [
, \
24 pages on thic report, but Dr. Landsman I feel certain l I .
Luzod Reportin Sernier 3nn .% huh?e? nwy.
Lafamtr Buddma Suite HC6 9gg,jj7g %e un !
Detmt, %Aican M26 Femmpon HJh. Whigan 48018
9 1 l would have had to concur. A lot of people weren' t very i
2 catisficd with this invcatigation, it wasn' t j unt Dr.
3 Landsman.
4 b ifas he one of the people who was not saticfied?
5 A Ye s, he was.
, 6 Q Did he urge that it be reopened?
l 7 A I don' t recall.
1 0 Q ifas it reopened?
t-9 4 There was another irrientigation done by the Of fico of s
10 Investigations and I'm not sure whether that's the same 11 issue or not.
i 12 Q It is, and unf ortunately I do not have the paperwork on 13 that.
14 a Then that would have been done at my requent and perhaps
~
15 was well-influenced by people encouraging me to do co. ,
16 0 Including Landonan? I '
I 17 A Ye s. I wrote the statement in thic Paragraph 3 in this 18 cover letter and I think you can get at the conce of
- 19 f ructration I was having with the f act that we weren' t 20 able to conclude there was a matorial f alne statement, but 21 at the same time my staf f was bothered by it. ;
, 22 Fm. JD1TES Have you completod your answer? ; ,
[ L 23 DY !!R. DRII'ER : I i
i !
24 Q I' m sorry. j
.i l
Lafasette Buddag Luzod Reportine Servier 30mu %thuNin flu _,;
Suue 1026 962.]1?6 5""' 5
[letrat. Whigan 48:26 Farmmcton lidh, Michigan 48018
n .
1 A And I'm not cortain I can deceribe how we got into the 2 Office of Investigation doing thic, but it was done at my 3 urging.
4 0 Do you recall that tho office of Investisation concluded 5 that they could not confirm the allegation? ,
6 a Yes, I do.
7 i
) Was that true?
0 A Yes.
9 Q And did Dr. Landeman continue to protest the findings even 10 af ter the Office of Investigation concluded ito report?
11 ( I don' t think so.
12 0 Didn' t you agree to reopen the investigation yourself at 13 the Region af ter the Of fice of Investigation concluded its l
14 repor t?
15 ( What would I open it with? 1 1
15 0 I'm j ust asking the question. I 17 4 I don' t recall it. I havo no other group to invectigato !
18 it. The Office of Investigations is an indopendent group.
19 They do not work f or me.
20 0 I under stand that. l 21 A So -- you may know something, that it's not coning back to l 22 me here, but I don' t know who olco I could have look at 22 it. !
4 9
24 Q Did you participate in a mooting with your staf f, a )
i Lafantre BuWg Lutod Reporting Sersice 3nuknk?NIluy.
Seu itcs 9sg.g;7s swtr tw Iktmt. Whican 48226 Femington HJh. Wh::an 48018
9 1 j non-public meeting, to discuso what should be done with i
2 thin allegation where Dr. Landsman recommended that a
{
3 civil penalty be impocod?
l 4 h Ye c.
l 5 1 And did you agree with that recommendation?
6 i That a civil pnalty should be imposed?
7 ;) Yes.
8 ( 'ie s, I did.
9 9 And was such a penalty imposed?
10 4 No.
11 ) Did GAP participate in any aspect of this investigation?
12 '. No.
13 t) Did the requirement that Consumers have a management audit 14 of its -- an audit of its management activities come out 15 of thoce discuscione about whether or not to impoco a 1G civil. peralty ?
17 A Yea. l 18 Q Was that an alternate to the civil penalty?
l 19 A Ye o.
20 0 Did you ever cMak to Mr. Selby about the episode that 21 we've just been talking about?
22 h I believe so. I think you' re ref erring to a meeting that 23 we had over at the !!oliday Inn by O'!!are in which we 24 talked about this investigation and talked about -- that 3
Lafeette Butidsag Luzod Reporting Settice 30utu Aonkur bb Hur.
Sune 1026 96g,j;7s Suar M IMroa, %chwan RC26 Fanningem Ihlls Whigan 18018
lUq . . -
I was with Mr. DoYoung and myrcif and other people. 1
. 2 -D What did you tell Mr. Selby?
3 L I don' t know that we told him anything but reviewed the l
4 results of the investigation with him. I think we 5 expressed our concern about continued comnunication 6 problems. This was another example of it, but it icn' t --
7 I don't believe we talkod at that point in time about the 8 management consul tant. I believe that was a subsequent 9 meeting that we held in Washington in which we asked them 10 to come in and told them that we wanted them to hire a 11' third party management consultant to come in and look at 12 the -- why the oonpany was having these kinds of problema.
13 1 Did you ever tell Mr. Selby that you were letting him off 14 the hook on this episode?
15 i Lotting him of f the hook?
16 0 Yes. ;
1 17 T For what reason?
10 Q I'm j ust asking the question.
19 4 I don' t know. I don' t think the management consultant --
20 employing a management consultant is letting somebody of f 21 the hook. That study probably would have coct 22 considerably more than a civil penalty would have.
23 0 Did any of your staf f tell you that the management 24 con =ultation would cost more than the civil penalty and 2
Lafarette Buddine
~
Luod Reporting Servier 30+u knhue5ek liny Suite 1aM 5" I*
962.ll?6 Detwit, M chigan 4Rrs Farmbyrton lidis. Mwhgan 48018
1 1 theref ore you chould opt for the management audit?
l t
2 f tio.
3 0 flover heard flr. Landaman cay that?
I 4 h No. !!r. Landeman wanted a civil penalty in addition to 5 the management audit.
i .
6 Q Did you ever tell Mr. Selby that the next time you' d get '
7 him if a transaction like this occurred again?
8 h !!o. ,
l 9 0 Mr. Keppler, in 1982 did you have occasion, did you have 10 several occasions to discuss Dr. Landsman's ef fects on the 11 !!idland Project with 11r. Solby, Mr. !1owo11 or tir. Cook? ,
12 A Yes.
l 13 Q And were these in private scocions?
14 3 Ye s. f l
15 Q Did you tell them on a number of occasiona that Dr. !
16 Landsman was a thorn in the sido of the 11RC?
17 A I don' t recall ucing words like that. I don' t -- that 18 isn' t the way I f eel.
19 0 tibether you used that word or not, did you tell an*/ of 20 thoco three Concumera people on one or more occasions that 21 you recogni::e that you had probican with Ron Cook and Ross 22 Landsman? I 23 A Ye a, I did. ,
i I
i l
\
24 0 And that you had the responsibility to cure those j l
La.fsyrtte Buddine Lutod Reporting Sersice 3mn knhuSU Hur.
kar 10.% osg ;j7s Suur HD 1 Detmt. \fichisu 48 6 Farmussta Rdh, .\fwkwu #018 i
A m, -
1 problemo? .
2 h Yoc. _
3 1 And were those in private meetings that you had with them, 4 one at O'!!aro Airport and another hero at Glen Ellyn?
5 i I don' t recall where they were but I had discussions. I 6 was concerned about the f act that the relationship had 7 become rather unprof essional in certain waye.
O a Did you tell them that Mr. Landeman was creating internal 9 problems within the of fico by filing grievances?
10 A I don' t think so. I'm not aware of any grievance lit.
11 Landaman filed.
12 ' t He's never filed any internal complaints? l 13 A tiot that I'm aware of.
14 i
) Was it reported to you that Mr. Landsman had said that no j i
15 architect / engineers could do anything right in the j 1
1G conctruction of nuclear power plants?
17 !!n. JE 3TES : Obj ect to the form of the 18 quection. Reported by whom?
i 19 3Y tm. DRIKER:
20 <> Do you recall Howard Wahl of Dechtel reporting to you that 21 Dr. Landsman had stated that no architect / engineer could i j
22 do anything right? ;
l 23 lin. jct 3TCS : object to the f orm of the 24 question. ; l i
99 Lafarctie Ruske Luzod Reportine Servier 30cm knhuntn'r? Iluy.
Suite' Kc6 9s .ll 7s !uar KC Detrue, .\1schieu 48:26 Farmington Ildls. .\fschien 48018
. 6 p
1 h I don' t recall the specific ctatomont. I did have on '
i 2 j occasion discussions with ?!r. Uahl in which ho expressed a 3 l lot of concern to me about nocs Landsman. [
4 B Y !G. DRIntna !
l 5 Q Do you recall that in February of 1973 there was a public G meeting in !!idland concerning the construction completion 7 program ?
8 h 19737 l
9 0 '83, forgive me, in '03 10 A Yes.
l 11 ) And af ter the precentation did you tell Mr. Jim Cook of 12 Consumers that this was a very fine precontation by tho 13 company ?
?
14 . I ~ perhaps did. I don' t recall. ,
15 ? Do you recall following that meeting there was a private 1G discussion attended by !!r. Eisenhut and !!r. Snezack and '
17 !!r. Warnick and !!r. Selby and 11r. Cook and 11r. Reincch and 1 18 Mr. Wahl where one or more of the persons in attendance 19 old you that !!r. Landsman was neverely impeding the job?
20 MR. JC1TES: Object to the form of the 21 question. Incidentally, !!r Koppler, you shouldn' t accept l
22 junt because he' a reading f rem a bunch of noten here that l 23 those ever occurred or that anybody has over said anything
)
24 of thic, eccetera. You should attempt to give your best
] l l
i Lafavnte Bunidma Lutod Reporting Sersice ynn Nonhu st ? Hu.v. i Suur 10?6 9 6 2. I 1 b 3""' IW
[%t. Alvkizan 482:6 Farmincton Hdis. Alwhicas 48018
9 I recollection of what you do recall.
2 S I do recall this meeting and the thrunt of that menting 3 wou aimed at expressing the f act that the tildland Project 4 was on a tight achedule and urging my cooperation and 5 urging the Mnc's cooperation in terms of dealing with 6 that. I don' t recall at that meeting whether Dr. Landsman 7 was discussed or not. He may have boen.
0 3Y 1:R. DRIm:R:
9 4 You don' t deny that the conversation took place?
10 ( I don' t recall it.
11 Q Do you recall Dr. Landsman testifying at an ASLn hearing 12 in May of 1983 where he waa extremely negative about a 13 number of Consumers and Dechtel employees involved in the 14 soils efforta?
i I
15 ( Yes, I do.
i 1G tin. JC:1TES: Obj ect to the f orm of the f 17 question.
18 : 5Y MR. DRIKER:
19 0 Did any of your people within the !!RC, did anyone within 20 the 11RC report to you af ter that meeting that they thought ,
21 that Dr. Landsman had acted unprof ecsionally?
22 A I believe !!r. Uarnick mentioned it to me that the 1:RC was 23 quite negative in its testimony and that I probably would j 24 hear sonothing about i t. I don' t -- as !at as!!r.Warnickl Lafayette Buddine Lused Reporting Servier vm knhu$th Huy.
Suar W 6 g6g,jj76 Suar its)
Dntw. Mekkes 48:26 Farmneton HJh, Michiaan 48018
6 m
I folt, I think he gave me the improccien that he would not i
2 ! like to see Dr. Landeman be that negative personally, cc l ;
3 in his testimony, in that he had counocled him on 4 occa sionn.
5 Q Did you hear like comments f rom either Ilr. Speccard or fir.
G tiorelius?
7 A I don' t recall any.
8 Q Did you testify bef ore the ASLD Doard yourself that youi 9 tended to discount inf ormation given to you f rom Dr.
10 Landsman because of his very negative views of the !!idland 11 Proj ect?
L 12 A To the contrary, that's not what I said. If you read the 13 testimony I think you will find that I have a great deal
- 14 of respect for Dr. Landaman but that I said that I' m awaro 15 of how ho views cortain thinga and I put a J-f acter on t
16 what he tells me. !
i 17 0 tlhat do you mean a J-f actor? .
18 A I apply a f actor basically that realizes he tends to stato 19 things more negatively than perhaps they really are.
20 0 Did Dr. Landsman testify bef ore the Udall Committoo in the 21 cpring or summer of 1983 concerning the tiidland Project? ;
22 h !!c tactified with no at the Udall. '
I '
23 0 Among the other thingc he caid was that the CGn bailding l
24 was not structurally adequato? I e
y l,afayene lhildsng [U890 Reporting Senitt 39AD % nhur fluy Suite 10 6 q6g,jj7s Suite lw Iktmt, \lekiran 49226 Termington ((sils, Whigan 44018 1
4 y 1 Mn. JDITES : Again I object to the question.
2 I don' t think that's what he said.
1 3 ( You'll have to read the statement. I know a concern came '
4 up at that point as to whether or not all the appropriate 5 actions had been taken to determine that the Diesel I
6 Generator Building was sound and as a result of that there
~
7 was a number of follow-up actions taken by the Staff, 8 including Dr. Landsman's involvement, to make that 9 determination.
10 1 !Y tm. DRIKER:
11 0 Did any other staf f member join in Dr. Landsman's 12 statements concerning the structural adequacy of the DGB 13 building?
14 ,
1 At the hearing of the people who were there to testify, l 4
1 15 only Dr. Landsman expresced that view. J 16 0 Was he the senior person within this region having 17 expertise in civil conctruction?
18 A Yes.
! 19 0 And did he also testify about his views on the adequacy of i l !
20 the cantilevered structures at Midland? j i
21 MR. JDITES : On what occasion? l 22 1Y MR. DRIKCRs
( 23 0 Bef ore the Udall committee? !
d l
24 6 I don' t recall.
I 2
isfayette Building Luzod Reporting Sereice 309m krthu shek Huy.
Suite 1026 96g,jj7g Suite M Detroa, Michigan 48226 Farmingtx Hdis. .\lichigan J8018
O 1 Q You don' t recall him stating that the cantilever form of 2 cont,.:ruction was in his view inadequate?
3 A !!e may have. I don' t recall.
4 Q Uas that a position that anybody else within the Region 5 took?
6 A !!ot to my knowledge. The reason Dr. Landsman testified at 7 the Udall hearing, he was requested specifically to by the 8 committec.
9 Q And do you know for what reason?
l 10 A I believe that that was done in response to Dr. floy er s' 11 request and I have no doubt in my mind that was influenced 12 by GAP.
13 Q Who is Dr. !!eyors?
14 i Dr. Meyers is a staf f member of the Udall Committee.
15 0 And is he responcive to GAP's viewu of problems ct nuclent l 16 power plants?
17 fin. JE!!TES: Obj ect to the form of the I la q ue sti on.
19 A I don' t know that I would say he's responsive to their 20 view s. I think Dr. Meyers has a great distrust f or the I 21 IIRC and wants to make sure that all concerns raised by 22 outside groups are thoroughly looked at.
23 DY ?!R. DRIKER:
l l 24 0 As a result of Dr. Landsman's testimony, did there then - -
1 Lafayette Building Luzod Reporting Service 300m krthu shern fluy.
Suite 1026 g62,;}76 Suite im l Iktrat, .11ichigan 18226 Farmingtm flills, .\lichigan 48018
I was there then unc:ertaken a further study about the 2 structural integrity of the DGD? j 3 i\ Yes.
4 L) And did that involve a report by the Brookhaven S Institution?
6 .
4 Yes, it did.
7 ) Are you aware of any alteration in the Brookhaven report 8 made by the NRC?
9 i I'm aware of an alteration but I don' t recall the details 10 of it.
11 i
) Did you participate in it in any way?
12 \ No.
13 -
) How did you become aware of this?
14 A I believe Mr. Harnick told me about it.
15 0 When?
i 16 A I don' t recall. i 17 0 Dr. Landsman has suggested in his testimony that there was 10 something amiss in the NRC, by the NRC adding a sentence 19 or a paragraph to the Brookhaven report. Do you chare his i 20 views?
21 MR. JENTES : Obj ect to the f orm of the 22 question.
23 \ I wasn' t involved with it.
24 BY MR. DRIRCRt j Lafayette Building 1.uzod ReporIing Sereiee 300m Northu1sbSi Huy.
Suite 1026 96g,j j 7g Suite 100 Detrat. Michitan 18226 Farmington Hdis, Michizan 48018
. . - . - ~._ -
I 1 0 Han there been any investigation into who added the 2 sentence or why it was added?
3 A I' m not aware of one.
l 4 1 Has Mr. Landsman ever made any accusations to you that 5 there was some type of conspiracy within the NRC to doctor 6 the Brookhaven report?
7 Fs No.
l 8 0 Is Dr. Landsman still cmployed by the Commission?
9 4 Yes, he is.
10 0 Does he supervise others?
11 h No, he doesn' t.
12 0 Has he ever had a supervisor ~ job?
13 A In Region III?
14 0 Yes.
13 No.
16 $ And f or how long has he been employed by die Commission?
17 i I' m not certain but I would -- but he was I believe in 18 1980 , may be ' 7 9, '80, ' 81 time f rame.
19 0 thank you. ;
20 ifR. DRIKER: I have no f urther questions.
21 11R. JENTES : Earlier, !!r. Keppler, while we 22 Were off the record I indicated that we had been adviced 23 through Mr. Jensen, counsel for the NRC, that Mr. Driher's 24 testimony would take a maximum of an hour and a half and Lafarette Building
~
Luzod Reporting Sernce 309a1 %rthuS?eb Iluy.
Suar 1026 962 1176 Suite tw Detroit, .\fichien 48226 Farmington Hills. .\fichigan 48018
1 it was on that assunption that we had concented to go i
2 f orward today with what I understand is a commitment to 3 break by one o' clock. Also while we were off the record 4 Mr. Driker had indicated that while he couldn' t make the 5 hour and a half he'd finished by 11:00 and we' re now at 6 approximately 11:15. My suggestion is we go of f the 7 record now and I'll see if I can get mycolf organized to 8 finish, but we may have to discuss another session. I 9 a pol ogi= e.
10 MR. DRIKER: I don' t know what Mr. Jensen 11 told you, Mr. Jentes. He' called me on Thursday to say 12 that the witness, correction, counsel had to leave at one 13 o' clock and he didn' t ask f or any commitments and I 14 certainly didn' t give him any except that I was very 15 confident that we could finish this morning. I don' t j 16 recall making any statement at all about how much time 17 except only that I thought I had probably less than a 18 couple of hours and we've been going about two hours and 19 ten minutes I think.
20 UR. J EMTCS : I could only reiterate what I '
21 caid on the record as to what we were advised by Mr. j 22 Jensen. In any event, let's go of f the record.
23 ( A brief discussion was held ! ;
l i 24 of f the record.) l l
l' l Lafayette Building Luzod Reporting Service 30903 Northu slek truy.
l S'i l(C6 962 1176 SNr KO Detroit.11ichigan M226 Farmington Hills, .\fichigan 48018 l
\ .
1 BY lin. DRIKER:
l 2 0 ?!r. Keppler, just one more quantion. Did you ever receive 3 any reports f rom any 11RC personnel that Dr. Landsman was 4 taking positions in technical areas where he had no 5 exper tise ?
6 A tiot that I con recall.
7 EXAttIliATIOl1 8 3Y MR. jet 1TES :
9 Q !!r. Koppler, at the outset of !!r. Driker's examination ho 10 stated that he wanted to assure you, and I'm quoting, that 11 "contrary to the suggestion made by fir. Jentes there's 12 been neither a claim nor evidence that Consumers Power 13 viewed your regulation at flidland 1 and 2 as punitive." I 14 certainly welcome this concession by Consumers Pcwer 15 counsel though some of the later questioning I found i 16 somewhat inconsistent with that. But, in any event, let '
17 mo exploro in a general way the series of questions that 18 !!r. Driker asked about Dr. Landsman and fir. Ron Cook.
19 Did you ever have any doubts in your mind 20 that Consumers Power didn' t like Dr. Landaman and didn' t 21 like Mr. Cook?
22 A tio.
I 23 Q And Bochtel wasn' t very fond of either of those gentlemon 24 ei ther, wer e they ?
Lafayene Builhne Lutod Reporting Service 30 m krthuS N Huy.
Suite 1026 96g.;j7g Suae ICn lktrott, .\fichigan 48226 Farmington flills. .\fichigan 18018
0 1 A That's correct.
2 0 You testified early on in response to my examination that 3 you f elt that whatever might be the individual concerns or 4 f eelings of particular inspectors, whether they were Dr.
5 Landsman or Mr. Cook or other peopl e, that there were 6 institutional controls within Region III that ensured that 7 the overall enf orcement activities were on an even-handed 8 ba sis. Did I understand your general testimony to be 9 correct in that regard? Am I correct as to what you felt?
10 4 Yes. Let me elaborate. I f eel that the Agency, and in 11 particular the Region, strives very hard to apply 12 consictency in the application of enf orcement actions. We 13 tried to concern ourselves with unif ormity in other areas ,
14 as well, in terms of the inspections, in terms of the i i
15 scope and depth of the way wo look at things, but again l 16 you have to recognise that while unif ormity is important, 17 and I think it has its most importance in the application i 18 of enf orcement, you can' t really go at unif ormity in the ;
19 inspection program the same way because really, you know, 20 licensees aren' t equivalent. All licensees have their 21 strengths, their weaknesses and as I mentioned earlier the 22 f ocun of the attention of the inspection program is to try l
23 to identify the weaker areas, get those dealt with and '
24 hopef ully cor rected.
l Luzod Reporting Service 300a3.wrthuNern 0 Huy Lafayette Budding Suite 1026 962 1176 Suite f(2 Detrat, .\fichigan 48226 Farmington Hdis, .\fichigan 48018
1 So I'm going a little bit around in a circle 2 here, but in terms of the application of enf orcement I do 3 think we have internal mechanisms to encuro consistency 4 within the Region. In terms of the uniformity of 5 inopections, I think they' re tailored more to licensee 6 problems.
7 ) Even with regard to inspections, you ref erred on several 8 occasions to the role of the supervisor in going over 9 whatever the inspectors do. Could you explain what the 10 role of the supervisor is?
11 4 Well, the supervisor is to basically direct the activities ,
12 of the inspectors assigned underneath him, he reviews 13 their inspection reports, he reviews their identification 14 of items of noncompliance and he revi'ews the inspection 15 plans for the f acility and the handling of problems. i i
16 0 Is there in turn a level of review beyond the supervisor? ,
1 ,
17 \ Each supervisor -- a supervisor is titled a section chief 18 in this office. The section chief s report to a branch 19 chief who in turn reports to a division director who in 20 turn reports to me. Now, a slight dif f erence in the 21 of fice of special Cases where we had j ust two projects.
22 We had the section chief s reporting directly to tir.
I i i 23 Warnick who reported to me. i i
24 0 During your direct examination by me you reviewod a number I Lafayette Buildine Luzod Reporting Service 309m Nonhu$ Huy.
Sune 1026 962.I176 Suite 100 Detroit. Alichien 2226 Farmington Rdh Stichieu 48018
1 of the overall conclusions that you reached with regard to i
2 CP's breakdown of QA perf ormance, and I don' t want to go 3 over that again, but what I'm interested in is whether or 4 not you f eel saticfied in your own mind that the 5 conclusions that you f ormed and the opinions that you G expressed were predicated on cound f actual bases?
7 A I think so.
8 4 During Mr. Driker's examination he didn' t address one of 9 the cecond major themes of my direct examination, at least 10 in terms of any concessions, that is, he did not concede 11 that CP was no longer blaming the NRC f or delays in the 12 Midland Proj ect. I' d like to ask you --
13 HR. DRIKER: I think you misread and I
I 14 misstated my so-called concession, !!r. Jentes. What I 15 said was that CP made no claim or of fered any evidence 1
16 that Mr. Keppler acted in a punitive f achion.
17 MR. JO!TES4 I read the concession word for 18 word as it was stated on the record at transcript 114.
19 MR. DRIKER : Does it say anything about the 20 flRC7 21 MR. JENTES : It says exactly as I read, that 22 Consumers Power did not view "your regulation of Midland 1 23 and 2 as punitive".
24 IY MR. JC1TCS:
2 309m knhue]ek Huy.
Lafayeur Building Luzod Reporting Sereice Suae 1026 96g j j 76 Suite 100 Detroit, Stichigan M226 Farmington HJls, Stichigan 2018
l 1 O Let me turn to my second point, fir. Keppler, which was i
2 this whole question of whether or not Consumers Power has_
3 had a tendency or not to blame the URC or other people for 4 delays and other problems at the proj ect. Did you, in 5 your regulatory activities with regard to Region III, G observe any tendency one way or the other on the part of 7 Consumers Power management to put the blame on the NRC or 8 other groups f or their own problems at the project?
9 A Let me answer it this way: I found that in. general across 10 the industry utilities blame URC f or delays in completing 11 the projecca and there's no question that Consumers Power 12 Company used that argument on a number of occasions and 13 which I was asked to respond to that. I don' t know that I 14 would say that Consumers Power Company was different than l
15 any other utility in f actoring the NRC's role into things 16 of this type, but I guess my position on it was that I f 17 didn' t compact the soil, I didn' t create the problems that 18 existed up there and I think in some ways it's an unf air 19 charge to make the NRC the blame of problems which the -
20 utility and its contractors get involved in.
21 There's no question that the utilities have 22 a valid gripe that subsequent to Three Mile Island a ,
l 23 number of design changes were required in plants. "ore i 24 than design changes, procedural changes, operational 4
l Lafasette Buildust Luzod Reporting Service 30903 %rthuU q$g jj76 Suae M Detro t. .\lichiron 18226 Farmington Hdis.11ichigan 48018
1 changec, which I do think is a f air argument, that that i
2 certainly is impacted on schedules, but to blame the !!RC 3 for problems which resulted f rom deficiencies in the 4 licensee's controls of the job I think are unf air.
5 0 Well, with particular ref erence to Consumers Power, did 6 there come a time in 1983 when the Atomic Saf ety and 7 Licensing Board actually remarked in one of its orders on 8 the fact that there had been a tendency by 'CP management 9 to blame the ilRC and others?
10 Im. DRIKER: Obj ect to the f orm of the 11 q ue stion.
12 f1R . JENTES: What's the objection?
13 13. DRIKER: Leading question.
14 1m. JE!!TES : I'll stand on my question. I 15 A I recall there being some general admonition of this type 1
16 but I don' t recall the details of it. f 17 T,Y IG. JEliTES :
18 0 All right. In the stack in f roat of you I've put a number 19 of documents, many of which were used by fir. Driker. I i 20 apologize I don' t have an c:(tra copy of NRC 155. It's a ;
21 memorandum and order issued by the Atomic Saf ety and 22 Licensing naard on the 13 th of September 1983 nave you 23 seen that document bef ore?
24 h Yes, I do recall this document.
I Lafavette Buildine Luzod Reporting Service 30na3 Northu srb Huy Suite 1026 96g,jj g Suite 100 Detroit, Stichigan 48226 Farmington Hdis, Stichigan 48018
g 1 O can you identify it as an order that was in f act issued by 2 the ASLD ?
3 A Yes.
l 4 0 And directing your attention over to Paragraph 5 on the 5 second page, does that help ref resh your recollection that 6 the ASLB had specifically found that there was a "tendency 7 of management", ref erring to Consumers Power, prior to 8 October 1980 to expend an inordinate amount of ef f ort 9 attempting to blame either the MRC or interveners f or 10 delays in the project?
11 4 Yes, that's what it states.
12 Q Did this tendency of managemont to blame the MRC actually ,
13 come up during some tectimony that you gave in the npring-14 of 1983, to bo precice, during the testimony you gave in 15 May of 1983 that I ref erred to on my direct examination?
16 h I don' t recall.
l )'
17 Q Let me see if I can help ref resh your recollection. If 18 you turn to the second of the documents, which is MRC 266, 19 which I identified earlier as some excerpts of the 20 testimony that you gave on May 2nd and 3rd, and if you !
21 turn over to page 15135, it's about the third of the pages 22 into the document, Chairman Beckhoffer made a remark in 23 the middle of the page where he ref erred to a newspaper ,
24 article that had been discussed during the hearings and at i
4 Lafayette Building 1.uzod Reporting Service 30cm krthu AI sbrn fluy. .
Sune 1026 96g, j j 76 Sune tw Detrat. .\fichigan M226 Farmington Ihlls. Michiran 2018
1 least the chairman said there I coe, or I read, that
- 2 throughout that article there coemo to be an inclination 3 of Mr. Selby to place the blame on MRC f or many of the 4 delays and then chairman continues down at the bottom of 5 the page directing a question at you, 9thile my question 6 is do you think that Mr. Selby's statement as ref erenced 7 in that article represent a continuation of the practice 8 of trying to blame someone f or all the delays and all the 9 problems rather than f acing up of solving the problems 10 th emselvec. "
11 Then the record shown that you took time 12 during the break to read the article and then your answer 13 continues over on Page 15137 beginning at Line 7 and 14 running down through Line 3 at the top of 15138. You may 15 wish to take a moment to read doun through that tectimony, '
16 and we might go of f the record f or a moment. l 17 ( A brief discucnion was held 18 of f the record.)
19 3Y Im. JEMTES 20 0 Does having a chance to read the materials I've ref erred 21 you to help ref rech your recollection that you were in 22 fact asked some , questions during the course of your 23 testimony in May of 1983 on this subj ect of whether or not ;
j 24 Consumero Power management, in this cace in the person of !
1 Lafayette Buddine Luzod Reporting Service 3cm3 krthuhub Huy.
Suite 1026 96g j j 7g Suur M iktmt, .\fichigan 48226 Famington Hills. .\fichisan 2018
1 Mr. Selby, was continuing to lay blame on the NRC for its 2 own problems?
3 A Yes, I do recall this memo.
I i
4 0 And what was your view in terms of whether or not that was 5 something that Consumers was doing and what your view of 6 that was?
7 MR..DRIKER: You mean assuming the newspaper 8 story, which was the basis of the question, is accurate.
9 3Y MR. JEUTES:
l 10 Q Accept that assumption, yes.
11 A I had not read the newspaper article prior to the hearing 12 and when I was asked to comment on it I did remark that 13 the f act that the NRC was being required to look at every 14 bit of the soils work explained that that was being done 15 as a result of the company's f ailure to handle that work 16 the way it was expected and that that f ailure was not an 17 nnC doing, it was a licensco doing, and that I f elt it was l 18 unf air criticism of the NRC for that purpose.
19 Q Did the report here accurately reflect your statement and i 20 your view as of May of 1983 that the URC "didn' t commit 21 the quality assuranco errors, the company did and that was 22 the action that the Doord and the MRC put on them to 23 provido assurance that that kind of work could continuo"?
24 h Yes, that's my statement and I would make that same 30wn krthulc$rn 3 Ituy.
I.afayette Buildma Luzod Reporting Service Suite 1026 962.Iii6 5"d' IO0 Detrmt, .\fichigan 18226 Farmington Rdb. .\fichiean wi8
1 statement today.
2 0 And did you also, or woro you accurately quoted in the 3 transcript and was it your view, as is indicated at the 4 top of 15138, that the problems at the site were "caused ;
5 by the company's ineptness on the quality assuranco G pr ogr am"?
i 7 a That was my view.
8 0 Does that continue to be your view?
9 A Sure.
10 Q During the examination by fir. Driker he asked you some 11 questions about perceptions of the work that Consumers ;
1 12 Power had done at the plant and I was not altogether 13 certain what the ultimate perception was, but you spoke i
14 about the f act that you f elt there was a perception by the '
15 ASLD, you f elt there was a perception by interveners and
- l 16 you f elt there was a perception by the community, !
17 otcotora, and I wonder what was the perception of l 18 Consumers Power perf ormance at the !!idland Proj ect, at 19 least ac you understood it?
20 \ At what point in time? '
21 Hell, in the spring of 1983.
22 A Let me see. The spring of 1903 i s -- j 23 9 To help ref rech your recollection that was when you gave j l
24 your testimony that you f elt that there had to be j 2
Lafayette Budding Luzod Reporting Service 30003.yorthuest% lluy.
Suite 1026 96g, j j 7$ Suite 100 Detrmt. .\fichigan 2226 Farminston lidh, .\fichigan 2018
l' additional assurances beyond Consumers' own QA program to 2 ensure that there was an adequate construction of the 3 project in accord with the NRC regulations.
4 T I think it was the porception of the NRC that Consumers 5 Power Company and Bechtel in the course of the 6 implementation of their quality assurance activitico, that 7 that had -- that that program had been unsuccessf ul in s O eliminating the types, the continuing types of errors we 9 were seeing in quality assurance and that the only way the 10 staf f had comfort in the total proj ect being completed 11 properly was through the application of a third party 12 organi::ation to oversee that activity, either that or f or 13 the NRC to hundred porcent oversee it, and we didn' t have 14 the recources f or that. So my view, the view of my staff 15 and I as well as the Staf f back in Washington, was that j 16 this proj ect could only continue with a third party l
17 organi::ation in place.
18 0 New directing your attention back to this same excerpts of 19 your testimony, that's NRC 266, there you wore ref erring 20 in your answer to the CP Q A program and you' re quoted as 21 caying "I would be a fool today to trust that program 22 without f urther assurances. " Did you give that testimony ,
23 and wac that your view?
24 A Yo c, I did and I think thac' a concistent with what I j ust 045 Lafayette Building Luzod Repor ing Sertiee 300m Northuntern liwy.
Suite 1026 962 1176 Suite 100 Detront .\fichigan 48226 Farmington Ilills, .\fichigan 48018
5 1 told you.
2 O f!r. Driker asked you a number of questions about the 3 impact of T!1I and you j ust commented on it a moment ago.
4 You indicated that there were changes in the design 5 rcquirements as a restit of T!iI and some other changes.
6 Was there any change in the basic OA criteria as they' re 7 contained in Title 10 and Appendix B that I showed you 8 early on?
9 . ( No.
10 0 To be precise, I have included in the stack not only NRC 11 245, which was the earlier version of Title 10 Appendix D, 12 but I' ve also included !!RC 245.1. This in the most 13 recent, namely the January 1,1905 edition, of Appendix B. ,
14 Based on your understanding of the regulations, has there ,
i 15 been any change at all in the 18 criteria?
l I
l 16 A I can' t cay there hasn' t been any change but my j 17 recollection is that there has been no substantive j 18 changes. There may be some clarifications.
l 19 q And to be precise, have the la criteria remained the same l
20 since T!!I as they were for several years bef ore T!!I?
l l
21 A Yes.
22 0 And are these criteria applied equally to all utilities?
23 What I' m getting a t i s --
l 24 A The criteria are applied equally, now a utility goes l n4G Lafayette Building Luzod Reparting Sereiee 30mn %rthuhiern llwy.
Suite 1026 962.jj7g Suite im Detroit. .\fichigan M226 Farmington flills. .\fichigan M018
_ = . - - . - . . _ .
l 1 about satisfying those criteria can vary.
l I
2 O There's no special set of regulations for CP, for example, 3 as opposed to all the other applicants, there's government 4 regulations?
5 A Por a construction permit?
6 IIR. DERSOll For Consumers Power?
7 A Por Consumers Power?
8 3Y MR. JENTCS:
9 0 Yes.
I 10 A Ho.
11 Q And it l's a f actor, is it not, that the criterion had been 12 applied equally to all utilities both since TMI as well as 13 before TMI?
14 A Yes. Recognize, though, and I give you a yes, recognize 15 that as knowledge expands I'm sure that that's reflected 16 into the review process to that f acilities that come up I 17 later that review is done with the benefit of experience, 18 additional experience, but it's the intent that the same 19 rules apply to all utilities.
20 0 When you were asked some questions by Mr. Driker on his i
21 examination you responded to one line of questioning and j 22 it appears at transcript 133 and you said -- well, the 23 question was along the line as to whether the number of 24 noncompliance reports was greater or less than it was as i Lafayette Buildine Luzod Reporting Sereice 30mn Nonhubt? Iluy.
Suste 1026 962,] j 7s Suite 1(n Detrout, .\fichigan M226 Farmington lidis .\fichigan MOl8
1 some of the other reports and you said "I felt that the 2 problems at flidland were more serious. When they made 3 '. mistakes they made big mistakes in my view. " Uhat do you mean by that, that is, when they made mistakes they made 4
5 big mistakes?
6 4 I think what I was referring to was that if you totaled up 7 the number of violations or the number of nonconf ormances 8 that were identified, !!idland did not stand out compared 9 to other projects, just in terms of sheer numbers, but I 10 felt that the problems over the course of the years when 11 Consumers Power Company did have a problem they had a big 12 problem. They had a big problem with the CAD weld 13 installations back in 1973 that reculted in a stop work 14 order. They had problems with the -- a big problen with ,
15 the installation of the reenf orcement steel, come of it a
i 16 got lef t out or the spacing was wrong, and the problem 17 persisted. It became a big issue with us f or awhile.
18 My recollection is that we had a problem f 19 with the installation of an attendant sheathing and, of 20 cource, the soil settlement problem is a big problem and 21 there were about a half a do::en items that I recall and, 22 in fact, I believe they' re highlighted in my prepared 23 testimony, that seemed to stand out as bigger type of j i
24 issues. They hung around longer, they were harder to deal Lafayene Building Lutod Reporting Service 309nkrthulrWllwy.
Suite 1026 96g, j j 7g Suite lw Detrmt, Michigan 48226 Farmington flills, Michigan 48018
I with than what we would find in other typical sites.
2 O Did you alco find that as time progressed into 1981 and 3 1982 that the problems of OA at the plant, and I'm 4 ref erring to the !!idland Plant, became even bigger j 5 problems in the sense that they required more regulatory 6 activity on the part of Region III?
7 A Yes. It ceemed as though while Consumers Power company 0 had put together, certainly f rom an organizational 9 view poi nt , an adequate organization, had adequate i 10 procedures, they seemed to have trouble implementing the 11 i program and the !?ac would continue to find problems and 1
12 that created a proslem for everybody this way. With the l
l 13 amount cf visibili ni the proj ect was receiving, the lack 1
14 of confidence that b 9 being demonstrated by the 15 implementation of the quality assurance program was l l
16 creating overall probicas.
17 Q Could you turn through a couple of those documents. It'o l 18 tiR C 4 6 1 .
I 19 A Yes.
I 20 Q This was a document that t!r. Driker asked you about that 21 he ref erred to it as the co-called trilliamo report. Do 22 you remember that?
l 23 -
Ye s, I do.
24 0 In addressing that particular report, which came out in Lafayette Builduta Luzod Reporting Sertice 309n krthu?st$ Hacy.
Suite 1026 962 1176 Sune im Detroit, .\fuchigan 1M26 Formutaton Udis, .\fichigan 48018
f 1 the middle of 1981, you talked about it no being a l 2 unapshot in time. What did you mean by that?
3 A It was done over a one-week period by a lot of people L 4 looking at the programa and procedures in place and 5 looking at the ef fectiveness of that program over a very 6 short period of time. >
7 1 You said thac it gave you, I think I copied it down 8 correctly, "a f also sence of security. " What did you mean 9 by that?
10 a Nell, when I tectified at the ASLB hearings in 1981 I had 11 concluded that the revised organization, namely the MP) AD l
12 organi=ation, would be an adequate fix to the previouc 13 quality assurance problems and I did that based u.pon thio l
14 inspection ef f ort, to a large degree. It was the f eeling ;
15 of this group that Concumers Power Company had turned the 16 corner and that we had reasonable accurance that the 17 proj ect could continue without the previous kind of 18 problemo that it had experiencod.
19 Uhen that turned out not to be the case, and 20 as evidenced by the continuing problems, it was the view 21 of mycelf, and I think some of the team members who were 22 on thic, that they were not able to observe the 23 implementation of this program over any sustained period 24 of time, and that's why I sort of call it a snapshot in Lafasette Buildine Luzod Reparting Service 30w3krthuUer9tru,,
Suite 1026 962.I176 Suite its')
Detroa .\fichiran M226 Farmineton listh. .\1ichiran 2018
1 place, and that while the program was very cound in terms 2 of its organization and procedures and talents involved in 3 i t, for whatever reason the implementation of that program
. 4 was not successf ul and that ultimately led me to go back 5 and recant my position bef ore the Board.
6 Q Let me explore a little bit more what was f ound by Mr.
7 trilliams and his group. In Appendix A, which is about 8 three pages into the document, were there some, I guess 9 it's four and a half pages of violationc that were 10 actually found by tir. 171111ams and his group?
11 A Yes.
I 12 Q And did come of those ultimately lead to the reincrection 13 of, or the hundred percent reinspection of the pipe 14 hangers?
15 % Some of these particular violations?
16 0 Yes.
l 17 h I don' t think by themselves they did. I would - if I 18 could help you, help characterize this thing, to go in and 19 do the kind of inspection that was done involving a half a 20 dozen or so people over a period of a week, it' a not i 21 ancommon to find violations and I think it was the view 22 that while we had these violations they were not 23 cignifica nt in a big picture cense, they were either i
24 isolated problems or they were not viewed as significant l
Lafayette Buddine Luzod Rep, ting Sertice 3vm sorthUk Hwy.
Sune 1026 9$g,jj7g Suu* M Detroit Michigan 18226 Farmington Rdh, Michigan 48018
1 by the inspection team. So I guesc I' d have to say that 2 the finding of items of noncompliance was not a surprise 3 and the conclusion that we ultimately stated in my 4 testimony was not influenced by thece particular findings, 5 and it is more -- a much bigger picture of problems than 6 what those findings disclosed that led to the reinspection 7 program. 'Ihere may be some particular items of 3 noncompliance that turn out to be repeat items of 9 noncompliance, but I think they were -- I guess I never 10 went back to look at these to see if any of them directly 11 tied into the subsequent inspections that led to the 12 reinspection program.
13 0 Maybe I can try to capture what I think you' re saying but 14 I want to be clear on it. If you turn to the first page 15 of your letter down in the last paragraph it sayo 16 "Although eight itens of noncompliance were identifled 17 during this inst.cction, it is our j udgment that the scope la and depth of this NRC inspection was such that the 19 identified noncompliances do not contravene our conclusion 20 that Consumers Power Company has establiched an effective 21 organization f or the management of construction and 22 implementation of quality assurance at the site. " Is that 23 in sum what you' re saying?
24 A Yes.
2 Lafayette Building Lusod Reporting Sereice 3oomkrthu,1%tiuy, Suite 1026 962 1176 Suit' IW Iktroit, .\fichigan M226 Farminuson flills, .\fichigan 2018
B .
1 D And it's this belief that Consumers Power had established l
2 an ef fective organization f or the management of 3 construction and implementation of quality accurance of 4 the site that you later f ound was wrong?
5 i Ye s.
6 MR. J E21TTS : Let's go of f the record to 7 change the tape.
(A brief discussion was held 8
9 of f the record.)
10 MR. JD1TCS : Back on the record.
11 3Y !!R. Ja!TES :
12 9 Was the conclusion of Region III that Consumers Power had 13 entablished this of f ective organization for the management 14 of construction and impicmentation of OA at the site as of 15 July 1981, one that was predicated on what the Consumc73 16 Power management personnel had in f act told you?
17 A To come degree and it was also, of cource, what we 18 observed during that one week special inspection and I l 19 think it's f air to say that there were other inspections 20 that I'm sure were f actored in to account, but it was i 21 partially based upon observation by 21RC and reviews of j 22 available documentation as well as inf ormation told to us 23 by the utility.
24 0 And it was the sum total of that that created this f also 3
i Lafayette Butiding Luzod Reporting Service 30903 %nhubbrn fluy.
Sune l(C6 96g,jj76 Suite ich Detrat .\fichigan 18226 Farmington lisils, .11tchigan 48018
i 1 sence of security that you had indicated in your I
2 testimony ?
I 3 4 Yeah, I would have stated it a little dif ferent. I would 4 have said it was this combined activity that gave us the -- ;
5 that led us to believe that Consumers Power Company now 6 had a program in place that should work.
7 0 Let me ask you to turn to SALP 2, which you were also 8 asked about. It's hopef ully the next document in your 9 stack. It's flRC 13 Do you have that?
10 \ Ye s. >
11 0 You were asked a number of questions by ?!r. Driker about 12 this document and you indicated in response to his 13 questioning that you were particularly concerned about ;
14 coils and the f ailure of the soils situation to improve.
15 Do you remember that testimony?
l 16 S Yes. l l
17 0 I want to be clear while that was a concern of yours van 18 that the only concern about the report of SALP 2, that in 19 the soils situation? I l
20 A I think there were other areas of concern, too, but that l 21 was the maj or concern.
I 22 0 To be precise about the areas, if you turn over to Page 23 227, Bates number, there are actually five Category 3 i
24 items, l
l La.fayetu Budding Luzod Reporting Service 3orm ,yorthu&r$ Huy. ,
Suiu 1026 ggg,jj.g Suute 1m Detroit. Stichigan M226 Farmington HJh. Alichiean 2018 e
1 Yo c.
I
_2 O Is it unusual to have fivo Category 3 items in a SALP 3 report, f rom your experience?
I 4 h There haven' t boon many licencees that have had fivo S Category 3s co I would describe that as unusual. There 6 have been some. The Byron Plant had a SALP with five 7 Category 3 ratingo and more recently, f rom the operating 8 side of the house, Davis Bessey had five Category 3 SALP 9 r ati ngs.
10 Q Are thoce the only onen that you can recall?
l 11 A In my region, yes.
12 Q You also said that Mr. Landr 'an and Mr. Cook were 13 principally responsibic f or the soils aspect of the SALP 2 14 report and then Mr. Driker asked you about whether or not 15 there -- or I think you brought up the f act that there ,
16 were actually supervisors that reviewed this situation.
17 By looking at the cocond page of the document where the ;
18 various people sign off -- do you have that? It's way 19 back at the f ront. Yout ro going by. It's right below 20 your signature.
21 A Oh.
22 0 ,
When the SALP report issues do all of those people that 23 have their signature down here have to sign of f ?
24 A Yes. That's standard concurrence, i
Lafayette Buddmg Lusod Reporting Service 3wn krthuUer$ Iluy.
Suite 1026 96g j j 6 Suite W)
Detrat, Alichigan 48226 Farmington tidis. 31schigan 48018 1
il 1 3 And do they all have to review it and subscribe to the 2 fact that the SALP 3 is an accurate reflection of riegion 3 III's assessment of the Consumers Power perf ormance?
4 T Ye s. If I could elaborate.
5 0 Please do.
6 a The process of a SALP Doard is, the way we conduct our 7 .S AL P review s, is to have a board that's convened by the 8 three division directora, the three technical division 9 directors of the of fice, as well as branch chief s, se ction 10 chief s and inspectors who are deeply involved in the 11 proj ect. They hold an actual review of the past years or 12 whatever time f rame the appraisa18 s being conducted, they 13 review the activities over that period. A draf t report is 14 generally prepared by what we call the project inspector t 15 and that serves as a talking f orum for the Doard and the 16 Board votes on the SALP ratings and ultimately comes away .
17 with a product that they foci comf ortable with.
10 That report then is transmitted to the 19 utility under the signature of the SALP Board chai ;. nan, 20 then we meet and discuss the report and then ultimately I 21 incue a final report that reflects any changes that may be 22 made to the original report or reficcts my final views on 23 the matter. ;
r 24 0 And in this particular case, that is with regard to SALP i Lafayette Buddsne Luaod Reparting Sereice 30rxa .%rthu hfer(l, llwy.
Sune 10 6 962 1176 S"U' IW Detrou, Mkhigan 48226 Farmington Ihlh. Mkhican 48018
l i
1 2, did you in f act issue a report that subs ~cribed to the 2 conclusions of the SALP 2?
3 k Ye s. Now I guess I'm surprised that this report does not 4 chow, and was really the purpoco of my interjecting an 5 additional thought, that this repart does not show all the 6 SALP Board members f or this report, but the newer -- the 7 more recent SALP reports do show all the members who 8 participated in the Board. So without doing f urther work 1
9 I can' t tell you all they were, but they would have '
10 represented more than the concurrence chain at the botton 11 of this letter. j 12 Q !!r. Keppler, the reason I ask this is because there was, N
13 at least appeared to be, an undercurrent in !!r. Driher's 14 quectioning that somehow or another this was just the 15 viewo of !!r. Cook and Dr. Landsman. Hould you 16 characterize the ultimate results of SALP 2 ao being thoce l 17 of the nogion III top management or j ust thone blo ,
13 individuals?
19 A !!o, I would characteriue it as the management's views.
20 0 And as the cource of evento moved f orward during 1982 and i 1
21 in 1983 with regard to the actions that you took 22 concerning setting up the Office of special Caces and then 23 the actions of the DGD inopoction, etcotors, wore thocu 24 actione chat were on behalf of the entiro negion III and Lafayette Bui%e Luzod Reporting Service 3cnn %%hrk lluy.
Suar 1026 962 1Ii6 ?""' I(')
Detrat, Whigan W26 Farmnetm lidh afakiron 2018
,q.
1 reflect your own views or werc those just the viewo of Dr.
2 Landsman and !!r. Cook? l 3 l\ The establichment of the of fice of Special cases in the f
4 other action?
5 e Yes. ,
6 A Yes, the regional management's decision, floro precisely, 7 I guess -it would be my declaion.
8 4 Uith regard to the of fico of special Caces, at least 9 within Region III, except f or Zimmer and !!idland, was 10 t there ever any other coction of tho of fice of special 11 Cacon or were those the only two plants that were 12 subjected to that?
13 A Those were the only two plants.
14 0 You've testified on soveral occasions that you publicly 1
15 stated in 1982 that you had lost confidence in consumoro' j 16 ability to meet the OA standards. Did you ever make any l 1
17 publ.ic statements that you had lost confidence in any 18 other plants?
19 A I don' t recall any.
20 1 Directing your attention to the no::t document, hopef ully 21 in the stack, which is tmc 54, it's your toctimony in 22 !! arch of 1983. You may have gone too f ar. Back up a 23 little bit if you will, pleace, si r.
24 A Yes.
Lafayette Buildhu Luzod Reporting Service 300tu krthu2s U Huy.
Suur 1026 9gg.jj7g Suite im Detroit. Michigan 48226 Farmington Hills. Michigan 48018
l.
Y l 2 And asking you, if you would, to turn, once again, to the 2 last page of that testimony where you spoke about tho 3 three conditions that you f elt were nocoscary to give a 4 reasonable assurance that the Midland Plant could be S completed consistent with regulatory requirements. Do you 6 have that in f ront of you?
7 A Ye a, I do.
O Q Uithin Region III was there any other plant bo cido s the 9 Midland Plant that you over insisted on those three 10 conditions all being met?
11 \ No.
12 Q All right. During your direct examination you also 13 described the one hundred percent reinspection program 14 that was undertaken at Midland as part of the co-called 15 CCP program that Conaumors put into place in late 1982 or 16 during 1983 Mas there any other plant within Region III ;
17 that undertook such a one hundred percent reinspection 18 program?
19 3 The reinspection program that was planned f or 2immer was 20 equivalent to that type of program, namely one hundred 21 percent, with the -- allowing f or the poccibility that the i
22 utility may be able to demonotrato, either through partial '
23 findingc or f or whatever reason, arguments to do less than ,
24 one hundred percent. '
Lafayette Buswa Luzod Reporting Service 309a3 NathubU lluy.
Suite 1026 962 1176 5""' I*
Detmt. Whigan 48220 Fannington Hills. .\fichiran 48018
. o l' UR. DRIKER: You mean at Midland or at 2 Zinmor?
3 'I11E WITNESS : At both placon.
4 \ If I could j uct expand the discussion to say that both 5 clinton and Braidwood have had to do reinspection programo G because of deficiencies in quality assurance. These 7 inopection programs have been, reinspection programa, have 8 been quite compechensive but they were not a hundred 9 percent.
10 3Y MR. JENTES :
11' 0 If you put together the setting up of the Office of 12 Special Cases, the three conditions that you spelled out 13 that are contained in NRC 54, the one hundred percent 14 reinspection and your public statement that you had loct 15 confidence in Consumers Powor's ability, 10 there any 16 other plants within Region III where all thoco' f actor s 17 come in to play with regard to tho OA perf ormance of an 18 applicant?
19 4 No.
20 Q So f ar as you know, in there any plant anywhere in the 21 United Statoo subject to the NRC jurisdiction where all of ;
22 thoso conditions havn been imposed on one of the 23 appl icant s?
24 ,
\ Not to my knowledge.
i Lafarette Buildvur Luzod Reporting Set rice 300c0 knhubfek Huy.
Suite' IW6 Sun'te ICC 962 1ii6 Farmington flills, .\1ichigan 2018 f)etrost, .\fschigan 22:6
..I I
1 p}! I forgot a couplo questions with regard to !!r. Ron Cook 2 that I did want to ash about. You were asked by fir.
3 Driker about some I guess it was a lict or handwritten 4 list of items that tie. Cook wrote up in connection with 5 SEP 2, and he didn' t have a copy of that f or you. Do you 6 know whether or not fir. Cook ever made any public use of <
7 that document, the is, when he went to the SEP 2 meeting 0 did he actually une it?
9 4 I don' t believe so,, but my recollection is not good on 10 this. I believe that I ultimately had that document made 11 public.
12 0 That was long af ter the SALP 2?
13 \ Yes.
14 0 !4r. Cook incidentally, since !!r. Driker ref ers to it, 15 there is evidence in the record that he's testified he i
16 didn' t use it. i 17 A Uhat? I' m corry. l l l 18 Q That he did not use it.
19 A Oh, 20 0 In any event, you testified that you had given counsel to 21 ?!r. Cook not to use it, I take it, in connection with the 22 meeting? ,
23 A I think so. Again, I would go back to the point that I j i
24 felt it was very important f or the of fice and the Agency )
l 2
3exokrthues$blluy.
Lafanter Buntding Luzad Reporting Sersice 8" I*
~
Suite 1026 962.I1i6 Detroit, .\fichigan 48226 Farmington Hills .\fichisan 48018
p- .
1 ,4 1 to kosp things in a highly prof essional plain as much as 2 we could. -
3 f) And so f ar as you could observe, when Mr. Cook appeared 4 durireg the hearings on the SALP 2 issues did ho f ollow 5 your advice to keep it on a prof essional level?
6 A The hearings?
7 0 I' m corry. The meetings on SALP-2 8 a The SALP meetings?
9 Yes.
10 . L Yes, I would say so. I thought that it was handled with a 11 minimal display of emotion.
. 12 0 You said that you had also given counsel to Dr. Landsman 13 to not bring, I guess, per sonalities, if you will, into 14 the discuncion of these issues. Did you give counsel like 15 that to all of your inspectors and personnol?
16 A Ye s. At the tiidland hearing? ,
17 0 Ye c. l 18 T I was aware that the testimony that was given was rather
, 19 blunt and -- let me leave it that way -- and I f elt there 20 was perhaps a more prof essional way to state similar views ;
21 than the way they did it. And I -- if we had discuhsions, 22 it was not in a reprimand type way or anything strong. _I 23 just tried to tell them that there's a big credibility 24 matter f or the Agency, for them, for all of un and we Lafayette Buildme Lusod Reporting Serrice 30cxn Northu?>feb Huy.
Suiw I W 6 Suite 1(o 962 1176 Detroa. Michigan 48226 Farmingtm Hdis, Michigan 48018
.{
1 ought to try to conduct our bucinosa in as prof essional a 2 l way as poccible.
I i
3 0 I don' t want to put words in your mouth, but as I hear you 4 talk about thic issue on coveral occasions I coen to gain 5 the conse that your concern was not so much with the 6 f actual materials on which Dr. Landsman and Mr. Cook were 7 predicating their views but the tone that they used, if 8 you will?
9 A Yo u, that's correct. I was also -- I also was of the view 10 that they had lost confidence in the company and that I 11 thought that ontored into their diccussions more than it 12 sh oul d.
13 Q When we were here beforo I asked you when you had 14 ultinately transf erred Mr Ron Cook away f rom the plant 15 and you said you couldn' t recall and j ust to coe if I 16 could tio that down I put in your stack a document that's i
17 a clipping out of the Midland Daily News of May 4,1984, 18 it's MED 103, and it talks about Mr. Cook being 19 transf erred out in May of 1984 Does that help ret rosh 20 your recollection as to when that occurred? l 21 A Yes.
22 0 In the atach of documents you should have unc 602. Do y ou 23 have that?
24 A Yo s.
i I
3owakerhue,Olluy. 2 La.fayette Busidsne Luzod Reporting Service Suite W.% 96g jj7s Swte tw Detrat. .\fichigan m226 Farmington HJh, \fichiean 48018
.. y 1 0 You were shown that- document by Mr. Driker and there was a 2 series of questions about whether or not Mr. Landsman 3 would go to Midland on a f ull time bacio or not and you 4 indicated, as I recall, that Dr. Landsman ultimately did 5 not go f ull time to Midland. Did that fact, namely that 6 he didn' t go f ull time to Midland, adversely impact, in 7 your view, his ability to review the remedial sollo 8 activities at Midland?
9 A My recollection of the -- let me talk around it and I'll 10 come back and anower your question. My recollection was 11 that I think overybody felt it probably would be good to 12 have Landaman on site. Por personal rencons he did not 13 wish to move on site but he agreed to be at the site as 14 of ten as necessary to -- for periods of time to make sure j 15 that the NRC was responsive to issues that came up on the j
}
16 remedial soils work. (
17 And I think we took the position that okay, ,
18 we'll see how it works, and if you can operate that way 19 and be responsive that will be fine. I don' t think we 1
20 drew any hard line on the matter. In f act, we didn' t draw j 21 a hard line, but it was the understanding that Mr.
22 Landsman would be up there a large portion of the time ;
l 1
23 without moving up there. !!e didn' t mind the amount of 3 1
l 24 travel but he did not physically want to reloca te, and l~
l Lafantte Buddme Luzad Reporting Service 30003 %thuhek Hwy.
Sune 1026 gg3.jj7g Suite Hu) l Detroit. .\lichiran 48226 Farmmgton HJh. Whigan 48018
I that's the way it was conducted. I guess, getting back to 2 your question, am I aware that that resulted in --
i 3 D Uns there any holdup in the NRC review as a result of the 4 f act that Dr. Landsman commuted rather than lived on sito? i 5 T I wouldn' t call it any substantial holdup. If there was ,
6 any holdup, it was moving paperwork back and f orth down 7 here, but I don' t recall there being any delays that 8 provoked the utility or caused real problems. Mr. Driker 9 mentioned that there were instances, times when the 10 utility expressed the desire to be responsive to their I can' t ancwor whether 11 work requests and I think we did.
12 there was any nignificant delays. If there woro, th ey 13 were not brought to my attention.
14 0 They were not brought to your attention? ,
15 \ They were not brought to my attention. In fact, there 16 probably was more concern that when work requests were 17 brought to Dr. Landemr.n's attention that he was being too i
18 much of a stickler f or detail, requiring too much detail 19 than was nooded. Those complaints came up on occasion.
20 But I got involved in a couple of revimia myscif of the 21 incues and I was satisfied that the requests that Dr.
4 22 Landsman was putting on the company were reasonabic.
i 23 Overall, summing up Dr. Landsman's perf ormance incofar as j 4
24 Midland was concerned, was it your ascocement did he do a (
, 1 i
Lafayene Buildinz Luzod Reporting Sernice 30mn knh)herQ nwv.
Suar 1026 962.));'6 Su"* M Detroa, Michigan 48226 Farmington Rdh, Michigan 48018
1 good job or a bad job?
2 A I think Dr. Landsman did a good j ob. t:y view is that he' c 3 a capabic incroctor and did well. I f elt that personality 4 claches had resulted that probably were not healthy to go 5 on f or a long period of time, and that because of the very G unique area of work that Dr. Landsman had, and we don't 7 have a lot of those type of people around, I was 8 comfortable with him staying on that role although I guess 9 down deep I f elt it was going to be best for the proj ect 10 overall to get a different person in there. But ac far as 11 his technical work, I felt it was solid and I had no 12 probicma with it. I'm not a civil engineer but certainly 13 from-what I was hearing I think he was doing a good job.
14 n And in answer to !!r. Driker's question I think you took i
I 15 incue with him about hew you approached Dr. Landsman' o Did you, be ca use 16 recommendations and findingo, etcetera. )
1 17 of this deep down f eeling, take any special care to onnure 18 that the ultimato actions on the part of Region III were, 19 in your view, obj ectively taken?
20 A I think I had a great deal of cunfidence in !!r. Narnick, 21 which was one of reasons why I put him in charge of that l 22 Office of special Casec. I felt that he could address the 23 difficult issues, not only technical issues but dif ficult i 24 personality iccuco, that would come up as well as anybo6/
Lafayette Buddme Luzod Reporting Service 3 tun Northulhek Huy.
Suar 1026 5"i M 962.I176 Detroit, Michigan 48226 Farmmaton HJh. Michiran 48018 :
1 could and f eel he did so.
2 D Let me try to wind up rossonably rapidly on the final 3 major area that I wanted to cover with you, namely, the 4 licencability of the plant.
5 !!r. Driker asked you sono quontions about G whether or not you f elt the plant could still be licenced 7 and you said that you f elt it could ctill be licencod?
8 \ Ye c. .
9 9 I showed you earlier the testimony that you gave back in 10 March of 1983, it's one of the last documents that I 11 chowed you, it's imC 54, it's the document that has the 12 three conditions. It's on the last page. When you state 13 that you continue to believe that the plant could be 14 lice nsed, assuming it were to go f orward, do you f ool that 15 thoco three conditions otill have to be met? l 16 A Ye s.
l I 17 0 And I'm not altogether clear how the hundred percent 10 reinspection fit into your own thinking. You' ve indicated 19 that the -- that it was in f act comething that Conouacts 20 proposed and that you supported. Was this somothing that 21 you f elt needed to be done? !
i 22 & The hundred percent?
! l 23 0 Yes. !
l l 24 A I think you -- because of the many quality accurance i i l
l Lafayette Building Lusad Reporting Service 3wn knhuUel Ha buur 1026 962.]176 SUU' IN Derras, Alichigan 48226 Farmirtton HJls. Stichigan 48018
1 problems you have to approach it that way, that the 2 reverification la going to be on a hundred percent bacio, 3 but recogn'izing there may be arguments advanced ac to why 4 it doon not have to be that way. For examplo, let's 5 suppose that a rather detailed sampling was done that 6 covered all of the workmen involved and no problems were 7 found with the sampling less than a hundred percent. You 8 might bo persuaded by the approach used that you didn' t 9 nood to go any further, that that demonstrates with 10 reasonable confidence that that work was properly handled.
11 You may be able to show through past special inspections 12 that were done that those had been. looked at by a opacial 13 audit and you may say okay, that's a basis f or not going 14 ahead. But I thiak you have to start out saying the 15 burden is on the applicant to provide justification to 1G take it less than a hundred porcent, not on the llRC.
17 0 By the time that the plant was shut down in the middio of ;
la 1984, how much of this one hundred percent r einspection 19 had boon completed? l l
20 i Very little, l 21 0 Hith regard to your feeling that the plant could still be 22 licensed, do you have any accessment as to how long it 23 would take bef ore the plant could be licenced?
24 A Uell -- I Lafaytte Buddsne Lused Reporting Service 30m krthuhfe$ Hur.
Suste 1026 9sg,jj7g Suste un Detrut, Michigan 2226 Farmington Hdis, Whigan M018
1 1 ;) To save you time, have you made any acccccmont at all?
l 2 p tio. It would be a guess based upon the experiences I've 3 had in terms of seeing other jobs go through the 4 construction complet.on process, but I've not done any 5 detailed accessment.
J 6 Hell, let me ack you, if the plant were to recommence 7 , construction now, do you have an estimate as to how long i
8 ! you think it.would roughly take to complete the plant, i,
9 l meeting the conditions that you have spelled out?
I 10 A Uell, you got to assume that if it were to reconvene now 11 that it's going to take a lot longer than if it had 12 continued becauce it taken time to get the machinery in 13 gear. But I guesa my view in that had you got all of 14 these things up to speed where people were functioning 15 that it probably was going to take two more years.
16 2 And that would have been back in the middle of 1984, if 17 they kept; on going at that time? I' m j ust acking you in --<
18 A I believe 19 the beginning of '34 -- when was the project 19 halted?
20 fm. DRIKER: J uly ,
21 $Y HR. JENTES : :
l !
22 O July or Auguct of 1984.
l 23 h Yeah, I guess it was my vim that to -- of cour ce, a lot i 24 of it would hinge nn how much rework would have to be done i ,
l k
Lafasette Baddsu Luzod Reperting Service 30 w nthul U Huy.
Lite 1026 962.))7s k le 100 Detrut. Afschyan 482:6 Farmington Hdis, Sitchiean 48018
1 as a recult of the reinspection, but assuning it wasn' t a 2 major amount of rework I gucco it wac my view that the 3 project would have been. completed in 18 to 24 contha.
4 1 Uhen you made your anower to Mr. Driker with regard to the 5 annumption that the plant could atill be licensed, did you 6 make any assessment as to how much it would cost to carry 7 out that proj ect?
8 L No.
9 0 When you made that statement did you --
10 T Let me give you the basis of the statement that was usef ul 11 to you. The basis of the'atatement is that I was aware 12 that the Imc staf f, through a supplemental evaluation 13 r e por t, had accepted the remedial coils work, the fix, and 14 I was also aware that the -- while about 40 percent of it 15 had boon completed the more involved part of thnt fix had j 16 been done.
17 I was aware that the reinspection program, 13 based upon findings at Zimmer or conclusione at Zimmer and 19 based upon problems that we were experiencing in dealing 20 with other planta, my view is that there would likely have 21 to be como rework at Midland but it was not going to be 22 maj or, in terms of completing the job. With that 23 assumption and recognizing that that could be done, it was i 24 my feeling that the plant certainly was licencable. !
4 Lafayrne Buddu Lused Reporting Service 30m knhu?, lek fluy.
Suur IcC6 9s ,jj7n Suar M Detmt. Mdican 48:26 FarmUngton lidis, MAizan 48018
s l -
l O I'm not clear and I don' t want to take the tine. I take 2 it that in making that statement you didn' t take into 3 account how much it would coct to?
l 4 h Absolutoly not.
I 5 0 or whether or not it was financially feasible?
6 i I did not.
7 Q Did you take into account the condition imposed by the 8 !!ichigan Public Service Company on the recent rate relief 9 to Consumers Power, that the company could not spend any 10 money at. all on the plant?
11 4 tio, I did not take that into account.
12 im. JE!!TES: That's all the question I have.
13 Im. DRIKER: Juct a couple of more 14 quectione, !!r. Keppler.
15 EXA!!I!!ATI0t1 16 KY tm. DRII;Bn: -
17 C' Do I understand your testimony to be that it would have 10 been much easier to complete Midland had construction not 19 stopped in July of '84 than it would be now to gear up 20 again f or construction af ter it's been abated f or a year?
21 A Ch, ce r tainly.
I 22 Q ilhy was construction stopped in July of '84? j I
23 im. JC!!TES: If you know. ] 7 r
24 \ I was told it was for financial reasons, j i ,
I i
Lafayene Buildms Lutod Reporting Service 30wn xonhNeb Huy.
Suar 1026 qsg.]j7g Suar im l Detmt, \lahigan 482:6 Farmmtson Hdis, Whigan 48018
..- 1 1 DY 13. DRIKER:
I l
2 () The !!RC didn' t order the coscation of construction, did 3 it?
4 . No.
5 '
) Do you recall receiving complaints f rom Jim Cook and 6 others at Consumers Power Company that Mr. Landaman was 7 taking the design releases on the remedial soils work in 8 single file, that is, he would take one but not take them 9 in a group and that was delaying the progreco of the 10 release program?
11 t m . J Ct1T CS : Object to the question as 12 beyond the scopo of the redirect. I think that was a 13 proper quantion on your cross.
14 3Y tm. DRIKCRs 15 l
} You may answer. t i 1G a I don' t recall.
17 d
) The decision to trancfer Ron Cook, that wasn' t made 18 overnight, was it? I mean, it wasn' t one episode that 19 occurred in May 1984 where you called him and said you' re 20 tranaf oring him?
21 A !!o.
]
- l 22 tm . J CtlT CS : F:xcuse me. I make the cano 23 obj ection to that.
24 3Y tm. DRIKCR:
l Lafayette Buddme Lusod Repoeting Service 3nn sorthu$ lek flun.
Suier jiv Suste 1026 9gg,jj7g Detrosh Alichigan 48:26 Farmineton HJh. Stichigan 48018
.- li 1 O With respect to the Williano report, the !!ay 1981 report, 1
2 it wac not your belief, was it, that the Consumers Power
~
3 people who opoke to the inspectors told them things about 4 the QA problems which thoce people themselves did not S believe?
6 A tio.
l 7 Q You didn' t conclude that there was any falsity or f raud on 0 the part of Consumers Power, did you?
9 1 fio. I felt that it was the view of the team and 10 ultimately my view that the machinery had been put in 11 place to af fect a proper QA program but f or whatever 12 reason it didn' t work.
13 1 You' re talking about the team. You mean the CP/Dechtel 14 team?
15 3 Yes.
I 16 C !!r. Jentes asked you a number of questions about the SALP I 17 2 report and the f act that you hat' made public statements 18 about your lack of confidenco in CP's QA perf ormance and 19 you talked about the f act that the problems at !!idland 20 were, and I forgot the words tir. Jentes used, they were 21 major problems or significant problems.
22 !IR. JE!!TES : D ig.
23 3Y MR. DRIRER: l 24 Q Dig problems. All of those problems were well-publici::cd l Lafayette Buildsne Lutod Reporting Sersice 3cno knhulled Hwr.
Suar 10:6 96g,yj;6 Suite 100 Ektnut, Whitan 48226 Fannington Hills, Mvhigan 48018
F 3 1
} in the !!idland community, were they not?
II 2 . Yes.
3 0 And in the f ace of any of those problens did you ever 4 receive any inquiry f rom the Dow Chemical Company about v
5 their coverity or duration or implications on the project?
6 T Mot to my knowledge.
7 Q In giving you your toctimony of !!ay of 1983 you recognize, 8 do you not, that !!r. Jentes culled out of hundreds of 9 pages of testimony just a handtul that he wanted you to 10 look at?
11 T I remember there was a lot more than that, yes.
12 0 You were on the witness stand f or several days in Midland?
13 A I don' t recall how long it was but it was substantial.
14 0 Could you look at page 15137 of 1 RC 266, which Plaintif f ;
i 15 has labeled 11Cn 266? i I
16 h Uhat pago?
17 '
) In his zeal to make a nonconf ormance report out of it.
la It's 15137 First of all, your whole testimony here, 19 which fir. Jentes asked you about, was in response to a :
20 question of Chairman Beckhof f or of the ASLD?
21 4 Ye c.
22 0 And what he wac responding to was a newspaper ctory about j 23 what 11r. Selby allegedly saids is that correct?
24 \ Yo c. l l
Lafayette Buddsne Luzod Reporting Sertice 30mu knhuNek ituy.
Suste 1026 962 1i76 Suite 100 Detms. Michigan 482:6 Farmington lidh. Michiean 48018
W 1 0 Did you over call fir. Selby to ask him if he in f act caid 2 that?
l 3 A I don' t believe so.
4 0 !!ad you found f rom time to time, including most recently 5 the article that !!r. Jentes showed you two weeks ago about G lir. Itarabito stating who has to do what within the t1RC to 7 icaue a licence, that newspapers sometimes report thingo 8 inaccurately ? Did you ever find that was the case with 9 respect to any of your duties an Region III administrator?
10 ( tiewspaper reporters, like other people, make mistakes.
11 !!R. JE!1TUS : f!r Driker never makes a 12 mictake, incidentally.
13 !!R. DRIKER: Thank you, !!r. Jentes. In that 14 in the form of a stipulation or concession?
15 BY FIR. DRIKCR:
l !
16 0 The firct part of your answer to !!r. Dockhof f er's question !
17 about the newspaper story statec "The part about the 18 regulatory delays and plant specific conctruction 19 modifications and concern about how long it took the j 20 regulatory staf f to completo its technical review of the 21 coils problem, thoco issue I really can' t cay much about 22 because they' re handled by the licencing staf f back in 23 Washington." Did you give that tescimony at that time? ;
24 A Yes, i
Lafarette Buddsne Luzod Reporting Sersice 30+nkethNekHuy.
Suite' 1026 ?"I I*
962.))i6 Farmington Hdh, Whigan 48018 Iktmt. \fschigan 482:6
.. p 1 O And was that accurate tostimony?
l 2 h Yes, t
3 0 so you were not in a position in !!ay of '03 and you' re not f 4 in a position today to comment about the longth of time it 5 took the licensing staf f to approve any of these plant ;
i G specific construction modifications?
7 T That's correct.
O y !!r. Jentos asked you a number of questions about whether 9 Appendix n has changed since TitI. I take it that the 10 impact of TMI has been on technical structural changes and 11 operational changes and not on the legal requirements of 12 QA, isn' t that so?
13 I That's correct.
i 14 !!R. JE!!TES : Obj ect to the f orm. ;
a 15 lY !!R. CRI!:Cn: ;
IG Q In response to Mr. Jontos' quection about 11r. Landeman and 4 17 fir. Cook, you indicated that CP and ncchtel didn' t like ,
la them or didn' t care f or them. liss there any fact brought i
19 t o y ou -- j 20 A I didn' t mean that personally, I meant -- l l
21 0 Didn' t like thei r perf ormance, isn' t that so? j i
22 T Yos. ,
23 Q There was never any indication to you that they didn' t 24 like !!r. Landsman becauco he had a mustache or !!r. Cook i 1
1.afayette Buldsne Luzod Reportine Sertice 30w NorthuSlek Iluy.
Suar itT:6 962.]176 Suar tw Iktroa, Whigan 482:6 Fernsneton lidlu Michigan 48018
l
- e 1 becauce he woro a cowboy hat or things of that naturo?
i 2 A !!o.
P r
3 0 It was baced upon the dischargo of the job dutico that 4 : there wac an exprencion of concern to you, wasn' t there?
i 5 f. Ye c.
6 And you indicated on more than one occasion that you had O 7 9
an appreciation f or Consumoto' concern in that regard, did l
8 you not?
9 A Ye s, l
10 tm. DRIESn: I have no f ur ther questions.
11 11R. JD:TES: That' a all the quectionc.
12 Thank you very much, ltr. Keppler.
I 13 (The deposition was concluded 14 at 12:50 p.m.)
1 15 16 2 17 l 10 i i
19 20 21 1 22 :
I .
j 23 l ;
. e [
N ,,,, 3 l 4.
fNh ,' I i T5l4. . ';!cate hidine Lutod Reportsne Sernice s nu %nhu2?r?Iluw m v.
at m
, \tahizan 48:2b on,.;, , sua, u.>
Farmington lid!s, \fakiaan 480lR
.gj A- _-. - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ -
9 1
1 i
- 2 GTATC OP !!IQ1IGAtt )
4 I, Glenn G. ftiller, llotary Public 5 vithin and f or the County of Itayne, state of !!ichigan, do 6 tereby certify that the witneon whose attached deposition 7 vas taken before me in the abovt-entitled matect won by me 8 July sworn at the af orementioned time and place 1 that the 9 :estimony given by said witness was atenographically 10 recorded in the preconce of said witness and af terwards 11 :tanscribed by computer under my personal supervision, 12 and that the said deposition is a f ull, true and correct 13 :ranscript of the testimony given by the witness, 14 I further cortify that I am not connected ;
15 by blood or marriage with any of the parties or their 1G ittornoya, and that I am not an employee of either of them, i 17 aor financially interectea in the action.
18 Ili tf1TitCSS til!CREOP, I have hereunto set 19 my hand at the City of Detroit, County of 11ayne, State of 20 11 chiga n, this Yl day of -
, 1985 21 l ' ^
22 - - ! !i -
l G L C!!!1 G . !!ILL ER, flotary Public 23 ttayc.e County, !!ichigan j 24 tr/ Commiscion Expires: 4-22-G7 I ?
Lused Reporting Sershe 3cnu kni,5?ek nwy.
Lafawur Bwidu Suar itc6 gsy jj;6 Suar im Drena, Michigan 482:6 Fam=rwt Rah, Michkan 4M18
t 1 ,
2 l VCRIPICAT!O!! OF DCPO:1Ct1T y
3 i I, JAltCG G. ECPPLCa, do hereby 4 i attest to the correctnocc of the tranceript upon inclusion 1 5 j of the corrections and/or changoo I have listed on the i
G l attached errata sheet.
7 Signature of tiitncus 8
Subscribed and Kworn to bef ore me 9 this day of ,
1985, 10 11 12 tiotary Public, County t?y Commiccion expires: .
13 14 15 1G 17 18 19 i
20 21 l 22 i i
/ 23 24 ;
/ t i
1 i
)
Lath,rtte Buddsne Luzod Reportint Se rt ic e 3mn %rth]le? Hur Sutte l@ qsg,jj7s Swro 1m
[ktnxt, W hiran s c s Farmenaton Hain, Atschwas swa
/