ML20244A887
| ML20244A887 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/03/1984 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20097F079 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-487 NUDOCS 8906120181 | |
| Download: ML20244A887 (47) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:e,n g n, y y wmumenwgnene my, r I e ' '~ UNiiTED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COhGESSION ORIGINAL In the matter of: TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al Docket No. 50-445-2 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric station, Units 1 & 2) i 1 ? l 9 C so. As } -r ' ,.,,e f., 4. > s, i Deposition of: Kenneth L. Lukan. 4;, Q. c. .x o ..,k.,.t
- 5
'* ~ %, t 1 h, ' Glen Rose, Texas: J-Pages: 78.500 - 78,539 .,l ' Date: August 3, 1984 h
- n f'
i "s. r. ~ 7 leiggq en in this record was deleted g .,@; b in aqbrldamos with gfreed a+7 w.w + -- potA.-ed-V 7 7 j&e ,,.3 ,q A TAYLOE ASSOCIATES '"~ l i Q ARAA coun naponm +, / 1625 i sum. N.w. s inu E/M .T3 7 - w hnston.D.C. 2 cons a fc manknn l p md 0fLLL hk* 05O 8906120181 890607 i. PDR FOIA i HUGEB4-487 PDR 5
78,500 1 UNITED STATES'OF AMERICA ~ - ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION 2 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD 4 5 In.the Matter of: 6 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC 7 COMPANY, et al. Docket Nos. 50-445-50-446 8 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2) g 10 11 Glen Rose Motor Inn { Highway 67 & FM' Road 201 12 Glen Rose,. Texas 13 August "3., 1984 14 15 Deposition of: Kenneth L. Luken
- p..a 3.4 called for examination by counsel for Applicant 16 17 taken before Sandra Harden,.
Court Reporter,- 18 beginning at 11:53 a.m., pursuant to agreement. 19 l L 20 i g i 21 22 23 25 I i l I I ..___m
78,501' a 1 APPEARANCES: 2 For the Applicants,. Texas Utilities Elect'ric Company, et al.: 3 MARK.L. DAVIDSON, ESQUIRE .4 Bishop, Liberman', Cook, Purcell &.Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, Northwest 5 Washington, D.C. 20036-6 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff: 7 GEARY S. MIZUNO, ESQUIRE. ~ Office of the-Executive Legal' Director 8 U.S. Nuclear, Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 9 For the Intervenor, Citizens' Association'for Sound 10 Energy: 11 ANTHONY Z. ROISMAN,. ESQUIRE' Trial. Lawyers for Public Justice, P.C. 12 2000 P Street, Northwest, Suite ~ 611.' Washington, D.C. 20036 13 14 .j 15 5 l 16 0 17 i 18 ia g 19 i .j 21 s 22 l 23 24 25 ___..__._.______._.____._____.__.._______E_.__________._'.__
178s502L I .I E R.1 X, 2 WITNESS
- DIRECT CROSS ~' REDIRECT RECROSS 3
-Kenneth'L. Luken 78,503 : 78 =,517 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 E- _X _H _I _B _I _T _S 13 NUMBER FOR IDENTIFICATION.. 14 Luken Deposition Exhibit No. 1- -.78,504 5 15 [ 16 0 17 .l e 2 l 18 r i
- i i
19 1) { 2o 21 l 22' 23 24 25 { j
- l i
78,503 i I 1 _P _R _O _C _E _E.D _I _N _G _S { 2 11:53 a.m. 3 MR. DAVIDSON: My name is Mark L. Davidson.- 4 I'm a member of the firm of Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell 5 & Reynolds, counsel for the Applicant of these proceedings. 6 And I appear here today with Mr. Kenneth 7 L. Luken, a rebuttal witness. 8 I would like to ask the reporter to please 9 swear the witness. .10 Whereupon, 11 KENNETH L. LUKEN, 12 having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified-13 upon his oath as follows: 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION ,j 15 BY MR. DAVIDSON: I g 16 Q Mr. Luken, was it explained to you that the { 17 proceedings that are to be had here-today are subject to i l 18 a protective order?' r i 19 A Yes, it was, i { 20 Q And were you given a copy of a protective i 21 order for your review and signature? i [ 22 A Yes. i 23 Q And from reading that document, did you 24 understand that you were bound and obligated not to discuss l' these matters outside this hearing room and not to discuss 25 t
L78,504 1 anything you may learn here with anyone else?; 2-A Yes. 3 -Q This matter was;to be held completely"in' 4 conf'.dence? 5 A Lyes. 6 MR. DAVIDSON: lI'm going to ask the Reporter 7 lto mark the document that bears the caption'" United States ~ 8 of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission In~the Matter of-9 -Texas Utilities Electric Company" that is titled " Protective 10 Order". It contains four pages,-the last one of which" is a statement of nondisclosure,'which bears your name and 11 12 what appears to be your signature and the:date, July 31, 13 1984 14 Mark that as Luken Exhibit 1. 15 (The document referred Eto was I [ 16 . marked for-identification as o; 17 Luken Deposition' Exhibit No. ] I l 18 1.) r* g 19 MR. DAVIDSON: .Mr. Roisman, would:you-like I I l 20 to review that-document? i 21 MR. ROISMAN: No, that's fine. I 22 MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Mizuno? l 23 MR, MIZUNO:' No. I ,l 24 BY MR. DAVIDSON: =I 25 Q I'd like to ask you to review the document l
..q 78,505 1 .that has now been marked Luken Exhibit No. I and-ask you j 2 whether this is the protective order that'you referred to . 3 your testimony and that you've' read, reviewed, and signed? 4 A-It is'. 5 Q Is that your signature', sir, on' the.last ' 6 page? 7 A It is. 8 Q And you understand that.this is a document ~ 9 the terms of which you are bound by?. 10 A Yes. 11 MR. DAVIDSON: I move that this'be made a 1 12 part of the evidentiary record of this deposition. 13 MR, ROISMAN: No objection. 14 MR. MIZUNO:. No objection. ~M g 1J BY MR. ROISMAN: hl 16 Q Mr. Luken, would.you please state.your.-. full. O j 17 name, your current' employer, and the present position you i j 18 hold with that employer? j t 19 A My name is Kenneth L. Luken. I work for. K.j 2 Westinghouse Electric Corporation. And my Westinghouse-1 i [ 21 position is site startup manager. My position on this 1 a f M site in the organization here is Startup Section Leader. .1 i 23 Q When you refer to the organization here on j 24 .the site,.you refer to Comanche Peak? j 25 A Comanche Peak site. i i l l 1 i
70,506-1 .Q All right. 1Hr. Luken, would you briefly-l 2 relatesto us your educational background? 3-A I graduated 1from high school in 1961, went 4 into the United' States Nuclear Navy. For seven years, I-5 was the reactor operator and science l technician / react'or 6 technician on submarines. 7 Got out of the. Navy in 1968,'went to the 8 University of Wisconsin where I received a Bachelor'of 9 -Science in Nuclear Engineering Also while at the' University 10 of Wisconsin, I worked at ' the Research Reactor Lab there 11 for the full four years. 12 I got-- 13 Q' Excuse me, Mr.'Luken. In.what year were you 14 conferred the degree of Bachelor of Science.of:Nuclrar. 5 15 Engineering at the University of Wisconsin?. I l 16 A January or February of 1972. 0 17 Q okay. Continue with your recital. t 18 A February of 1972, I started work with A g 19 Westinghouse Electric Corporation. l 20 Q I'm sorry, Mr. Luken.. I don't think I asked 21 you for your work history. However, I do intend to. I 22 A Ch, okay. 23 o would you please relate briefly;your work. 24 history since your graduation from the University-of 25 Wisconsin?
78,507 1 A February 1972, I went to work for Westing-2 house Electric Corporation. I was assigned to the Zion, 3 Illinois Nuclear Training Center as a simulator instructor 4 and simulator program, i 5 I did about two simulator courses, which 6 were eight-week courses. And the classroom courses that 7 I specialized in were Reactor Theory, Transient Analysis, 8 and Accident Analysis Tech Specs. 9 In May of 1973, I went to Indian Point as ~ 10 an on-site training coordinator, where I trained the Indian Point Unit 3 engineers, all the plant basics and everything 11 12 required to get a license. 13 I took the licensing exam with those students, 14 received an SRO license on Indian Point Unit 3 2 15 In, I guess it was, May of '74, I went to l [ 16 the Japanese training center in Takayama, Japan-- Excuse O l 17 me. Tsuruga, Japan. As a consultant to a training center 3 l 18 where they were trying to start up their own training center. t: i 19 In November of '74, I went back to Indian I f 2 Point as a startup engineer, and took that plant Indian { 21 Point Unit 3 basically from cold hydril to about 90 percent f 3 { 22 power. l i 23 July of '76, I went from Indian Point to 24 Owi in Japan as startup engineer of the their twin unit l 1 25 1175 megawatt Westinghouse reactors. I went there as a l 4 I
l 78,508L ') ~1 lq 1 startup engineer and returned from there in' December '79. 2 And in January of 1980, I wast assigned to k 3 the Calloway Nuclear' Power' Plant,fand was there for about 4. . ten months in.startup. 5 I spent, afterLthat, late '80 early_'81', three 6 months Krishkof (phonetically) power plant in Yugoslavia 7 where I.was there to review all their operating and emergency 8 procedures. 9 In March of '81, ILeame to Comanche Peaki 10 Q And in March of.'81, what. position.were.you-11 assigned to at Comanche Peak? 12 A In March of - '81, I was.in the construction 13 completion group. I was in that group until-- I guess it 14 was about November of '82 when I was assigned to startup. R 5 15 0 And were you assigned in your present 5 l 16 capacity? O; .7 A I went.into startup-as the group leader for 1 i j' 18 the N-SSS group,'and it was'at the~end of HFT-- t f, 19 Q That's hot functional testing? 2 m A --hot functional' testing, which was.in May-r 21 June of '83 that I was assigned the job responsibilities ~ j t j 22 -of section leader.
- \\
l M Q. In the startup group. I 24 A In the startup group. - 25 -Q Thank you. a ___z_______
178,509 1 L Mr. Luken, are you acquainted with k( 2 3 A Yes, I am.- 4' Q How did you become-acquainted with 5 A When I became the'section leader in startup,- he was one of - the people that : reported-to me;throughj Art 6 7 London. 8 .Q. He did not report directly to you?. 9 'A He worked for Art London, who worked for me.- 10 0-Did you.have any differences of opinion or 11 disagreements with ss 12 A I did. 13 Q More than one? 14 A only one of any significance. 2 15 0 Would you tellius,when that difference of i [ 16 opinion or disagreement occurred? Ow 17 A It was after the 50.55(e)ihad been~ filed on 1 l the ferro-resonance transformers butjbefore'LI' knew'that~it 18 t l 19 had been filed. e s t 20 Q Do you know'when'the 50.55(e)-was filed? r A It iras filed on or about : February _2nd! of ij 22 this year. j a 23 Q How much time-after that February 2ndidate i 'k 24 do ou think that your difference of opinion or disagreement g with occurred? 1 l
78,51d 1 A I would' assume within a week. 2 Q. So, it could have been on February 8 cnr 3 February 9. 4 A Yes. 5 O Could you tell'us the circumstances under 6 which this incident occurred? gy, 7-A I went back to ask Ja' question 8 about some. issue,.I don't remember any more. 'And he was 9 sitting at his desk with'about fiv~e or six other people 10 sitting around. 11 0 Did you know those five.or six other people? 12 A I remember that there were a coup [e of startup 13 engineers and some electrical test craft people. I could 14 not give you the names of. the people that were there at-the Nj 15 time. l 16 Q Please go ahead and tell us about the' incident O P ^ l 17 -A
- Well,
.AfterzI had. asked my. question. 1 18 and received the answer, he had asked.me if.I knew what' r i i 19 the' latest status was on the ferro-resonant transformers. ij 2 Q When he asked you that question, did.he tell 21 you that he had been called on January'16 by Iven Vogelsang. 1 3 22 and told that Mr. Vogelsang had filed a deficiency review 23 report? 24 A He didinot. 25 Q When he asked you what the status of the i
t 1 78,511-J .d i i ferro-resonant transformers was, did he tell you he had.been 2 called on January 25th by Mr. Vogelsang and informed that 3 Mr. Vogelsang had been assigned the responsibility to 4 evaluate an.SDAR, that is,'a-Significant Deficiency Analysis 5 Report,~for purposes of determining.whether it was a 6 reportable. deficiency, that is, whether there should be a i 7 50.55(e) filed? 8 A He.did not. 9 Q Did he tell you at that tine.that he had 10 been. called on February 2nd by Iven Vogelsang and informed 11 that the evaluation of the SDAR had been complet'ed and that 12 a 50.55 (e) would be filed? 13 A He did not. 14 Q When he asked you what the status was, what h~ 15 did you reply? =. 8 16 A I told him that the last I heard. Westinghouse 17 and General Electric were still working on'the problem, 1 18 results were' expected soon, and that Westinghouse r General I i i g 19 Electric, and, as I understood it, electrical engineering i { .20 from the site were working on the problem. 21 O i What did he say when you said that?- { 22 A He made a remark thi,t he was going to force 23 Vogelsang, the Project Electrical Engineer,fto urit'e a i 24 50.55(e) on these transformers, i 25 O Did you subsequently learn that a 50.55(e). l .j q 1
i ' i i 78,512 l 1 had, in fact, already been written by,Mr. Vogelsang? 'l 2 A I learned that later the same day, that it'. j 3 had been filed. ( 4-Q- Did you~ subsequently draw a conclusionJas h i 5 to what reason - made that statement that-he was i g _ 6 going to force Mr. Vogelsang to issue. a' 5 0.5 5 (e')' -if, in. 7 fact,' it had been filed and he' knew that?- 'I 8 A I believe it was to impress the other people 9 that were in the room that he could force Vogelsang to do ~ 10 something. 11 o .What did you say or how did you react to this 12 statement that he would force Mr. Vogelsang to issue a 13 50.55(e)?- 1 14 A I got a bit upset and told him that Westing-15 house-- reiterated that Westinghouse and GE'were working I 16 on the problem and that site electricaliengineering was o l 17 working on the probl'em, that it was within'their scope to i i j 18 solve this problem and determine. whether a 50.55 (e) was ,a 3 19 to be issues, i and that it was not within his scope to attempt j 2 to force Vogelsang to do that. 5 21 Q And did you say anything else?. j l 22 A I told him that I thought we had.enought 23 i people on the jobsite who had the assignment to find any 1 24 problems; we didn't have enough people on.the site, in my i 25 opinion, to solve problems. His job, as a startup engineer,
. _ _ = _ 78,513'
- 1_
was to be.to help solve the problems 's well'as-iind them. a I didn't feel 'he ~ did a very adequate' job of helping to:- 2 3 solve problems. 4 -Q Did you say, Mr.:Luken, that people who. find. 5 problems go to the gait? 6 A-I-did not. 7-Q Did'you say something like, "Well, people 8 who find problems have to-find jobs"?. 9 A I did not. 10 Q What did you say?. 11 A I told him that Westinghouse was working 12 on this problem. Site engineering was working-on the 13 problem. Again, that he.had to' let'that process take its 14
- course, i
15 Q I think there was.a remark.you made. earlier 8. l 16 about people solving problems. What'was'that: remark? 17 A That site had enough' people assigned the 1 l 18 responsibility of finding problems, that his job.as the j! I' 19 startup engineer-- l f 20 Q No, I think that's not the full.. statement. i I 21 3, A As I recall it, that he was to-- that we. l l 22 had enough people on.the site to--. you know, find the I 23 problem, did not have enough people.on the site to solve- .i 24 problems, and that his job as a startup engineer was to assist in solving problems as well as finding them. 25 i l
78,514 1 Q When you said that, Mr. Luken,'did you mean 2 to threaten his job? 3 A I did not. 4 Q Did you intend to imply that you were' 5 threatening his job? 6 A I did not. 7 Q What did he respond, or what did he say after 8 you said that? 9 A He, you know, in a manner that I'did not to appreciate, laughingly saying that this 50.55 (e), that he 11 was going to force Vogelsang to write, could and would 12 probably result in all Westinghouse plants'with these type 13 of transformers to be shut down. 14 Q When he made that statement, Mr. Luken, did e 15 he know that you were a Westinghouse employee? l 8. I g 16 A He did. J f 17 Q Now, you said he said it in a manner that i { 18 you did not appreciate. What do you mean by that? g 19 A He was laughing about it. He thought that f 20 this was humorous. He just had a mannerism. He was actually t ~ 21 laughing that this would have to take place. l 22 O How did you react to.that manner? 23 A I got quite angry. I told him that I thought 24 this was a very serious matter, not something to be taken 25
- lightly, and I though he was behaving in a very
- 1 78,515 8
1 unprofessional manner. 2 Q And what did he say to you? 3 A He said ' that 'it sounded as if I was trying to cover.up a~ safety issue. 'I 4 5 Q And how did you' react to.that? 6 A I got.more angry.; Knew that it was time 7 for me to leave the office'because this discussion would 8 just get worse if I stayed. 9 Q So, what did you do? 10 A I went back to my office. 11 Q So,-you.left the room. 12 A I did. 13 Q Was.that the end of this, incident? 14 A No. About four or_five minutes later, the . / A 5 15 door to my office was open, and iked-by. And I: 3 -J ' } 16 called out to him, and I said, "You will never accuse me I 17 of trying to cover up a safety issue again." l 18 Q I Did you say anything else? 19 A That was all I said.- E j 20 Q What did ~ say? 1 ?, 21 A He did not say anything. f i 22 i Q-Did he stop by your room? l 1 M i A No, he kept on going after that. 24 Q Was that the end of the. incident with j 25 W J i
78,516 1 A No. The only other thing that happened 2 after-- Excuse me. 3 Q I would appreciate it if you would just answer 4 the question that was asked. 5 A No, it wasn't. 6 Q All right. Did you take any action subsequent-7 ly after this incident? 8 A I told Art London, his immediate supervisor, 9 what had happened. I also talked with Camp and Miller. 10 Q When you say " Camp and Miller", whc do you 11 mean? 12 A Tom Miller and Dick Camp. 13 Q Who are they, sir? 14 A Lead Startup Engineer and Startup Manager, 15 my supervisors. } 16 O And what did you say to them? 17 A I told them that-- what had happened and i { 18 that I would not tolerate being accused of committing a t 19 Federal crime, i l K) Q When you say "being accused of a Federal 5 21 crime", do you mean covering up a safety-related matter? f 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q And that is an attack upon your job 24 responsibilities? 25 A It certainly is.
78,517 1 Q And you resented it. 2 A I did. 3 Q And what did Mr. Camp or Mr. Miller say to I 4 i you when you told them? 5 A They were distressed to hear that it had i 6 happened. They said they'd take the matter up with 7 a and that was about the end of it, as far as I was concerned. 8 Q Did you have any further ' discussions with 9 l or any further differences of opinion or 10 disagreements? I 11 A I did not. t 1 12 Q Did you have any further meetings with either 13 i Mr. Camp or Mr. Miller with respect to this incident? 14 A I did not. j 15 Q 3 Did you talk to Mr. London about this i l 16 Jncident? i 4 Oj 17 A I did not. 5 l 18 i MR. DAVIDSON: That concludes my direct. l r i s 19 CROSS-EXAMINATION 8 j 20 BY MR. ROISMAN: 21 Q 1 i Mr. Luken, in what way did you express your l 22 rising anger during this meeting with in 23 February of 19847 24 A I'm not sure I understand the question. 2 Q Well,--
78,518 1 A When I get angry, I'typicall'y get. red..'My 2 voice rises a bit. 3 Q Would you say, as'you testified, there were Q-1. 4 several points in the conversation 'in which(( 5 said something and you~got angry, and then hefsaid something-6 else, and.I believe you said_you got more angry, and I think 7 that happened _two or three times. 8 Would it-be fair to say that_your voice = rose 9 two or three times in response to that? 10 A No, I don't think so. My voice doesn't-rise 11 very much from anger state one to anger state tan).. It's 12 pretty loud from one. 13 O So, you would say, would'it be fair to say, 14 that you were shouting? .j 15 A " Shouting" is a relative term. But, yes, l 16 it was loud. O /* l 17 Q Do you believe that your conduct in. ( l 18 office that day was professional? i 19 A Under the circumstances and what he was ij 20 saying, yes. { 21 Q Do you feel that you did anything improper i 22 in expressing your opinions 'o.him or' continuing the l 23 conversation with him in the presence of the other people 24 who were there? 25 A When I got very angry and was afraid that
i
- 78,519 1
I'd say something that shouldn't be'said, did leave his; i i 2 office because of that reason as much as anything else.- l 3 Q But, in your judgment, none of the things 1 4 that you had said prior to.that'and that you testified to 5 here today, as to none of = them;was it inappropriate.for : 1 6 you to say them.in the presence of other employees, either. 7 under ycur supervision or with whom.you worked. 8 A Not~really. 9 Q How long after the end of that conversation 8 m to in office did you'say he walked by.your office,. 11 roughly? 12 A About three, four minutes. Somewheres in 13 that area. 14 Q Were you still an' / at that time?- 5 15 A I had cooled down some,'but, yes, I was I l 16 still angry. 0 l 17 Q Would you say you yelled out at him or-- i 18 A I did not. I called out to him.- I-did.not t 19 yell from my office, i l 2 Q What did you mean when you said, "You will l { 21 never accuse me of covering up a safety problem again."? I 22 A I meant that I was not. going to. tolerate 23 that kind of accusation, especially made in front of 24 somebody who works for~me. 25 What my action would be if it' happened again,
-3 78,520 i 1 I don't know. 'But I don't think there was any doubt in my n n i 2 mind or that I took that very seriously and that j ~ 3 it would be better for him if it didn't happen again. j 4 0 What were.you in' tending to convey to him? 5 A That it wasn't to happen again. 6 Q And that'what would happen to him if it did? 7 A I don't know that I was intending to convey 8 what would happen, but I think that it would be obvious 9 that there would be some disciplinary action'taken. 10 0 Were you-- In the chain of command, you've 11 testified that you were a Westinghouse employee. I believe 12 he was an IMPELL employee. 13 A
- Yes, 14 0
What was your authority directly to discipline .i 15 him? I [ 16 A None. I would have to do it through Camp l 17 or Miller. i 18 Q So, is it fair to say that the statement i i 19 that you made out your office door was a statement to him I l N that you would go to the people who could discipline him { 21 and get him disciplined if he should do that again? I 22 A I'm not sure I understand. 23 0 I'm trying to understand what was the 24 necessary import of the statement, "You will never accuse 25 me of covering up a safety problem again." ________________m_-
l i 78,521 l 1 As I understand it, you wanted him to know 2 that there would be some consequence, that that was the 3 nature of your statement. 4 MR. DAVIDSON: Im going to object. I don't 5 think that he said or testified, that is, the witness, that 6 he meant to imply or intend that there would be any 7 necessary consequence. 8 MR. ROISMAN: All right. Well, let's-- 9 MR. DAVIDSON: What he testified to is, he 10 said: I don't want it to happen again. And the way 11 he phrased it was: It will not happen again. 12 MR. ROISMAN: All right. Let's go back 13 to it again. 14 BY MR. ROISMAN: ~ 15 Q When you said to him, "You will never accuse I g 16 me of covering up a safety problem again", what did you O y 17 intend by that statement? 18 A I intended that I did not expect and would g 19 not tolerate that happening again. I { 20 Q And what did you expect him to believe, if { 21 anything, would happen if it did happen again? I 22 A He would have to know that I was Wes*f.nghouse 23 and he was IMPELL and that if it happened again, I would I k 1 l 24 speak very strongly to Miller and Camp about it, i i i 3 About his job career, that's totally up to ) i
78,522 'l ' Miller and Camp. All I can do is complain strenuously to. 2 Mr. Miller and Mr. Camp. '3. Q 'At that time, in your mind, whatlwas your 4 ' thought as to whether,;if you h'd'to do that,fif he made a ~ 5 that accusation again,.wheth'er you would ask Miller.and 6 Camp or recommend to Miller. and Camp that job action be 7 taken against him? l 8 A-As angry as I was at the time, had he said: 9 that same statement again to me.iri front 'of. others, yes,- j 10 I believe I would have gone to Miller and Camp;and asked 6k 'l e. 11 them to get at least, out of my. organization,. 'l 12 preferably off site. I believe I would have in the state 'l 13 of mind I was in at the time. 14 Q Now, the statement that you made during the ] 1 2 15 course of the conversation in office, when l 3 [ 16 you said to him that there are enough people on- ' I don't o I l 17 remember your exact words, but something to that effect: i I 18 There are enough people finding problems and not enough
- l r
i i t 19 solving them. l 20 I'm not trying to characterize your statement. ~ 21 I'm trying to get you back to that statement. 2 I 22 Do you remember a statement'something like 23 that? 24 A .Yes. 25 0 Okay. So, that we've got it very clear,. ._.__.____.__._..--__--------_-------------------i
- 78,523:
I would you state it again,.as best.you can remember.in your 2 words? 3 A As'I recall, I-said that'there were enough 4 people on.the site.who.were responsible for finding problems) 5 there.were not enough people who tried to solve problems. 6 Q Now, in that comment, the second part of it, 7 that there were not enough people whojwere trying to solvo 8 problems, were.you commenting.upon the hiring practices at-9 the site, that is,-- 10 A No. 11 Q --that they weren't going out and hiring 12 problem solvers? 13 A No. 14 Q Were you commenting on what you perceived i 15 t3 be the attitudes of people who had been' hired to be Ij 16 problem solvers? O l 17 A (No response.) i i 18 MR. DAVIDSON: Are you having difficulty I h 19 with that question, Mr. Luken? j 1 i 3) THE WITNESS: Yeah. I'm not real sure what ~ 21 the answer is. You know, at any construction site- - i I l l 22 MR. DAVIDSON: Maybe M*. Roisman would11ike l 2 to ask you what you meant when you said that, rather than { trying to find out through the process of elimination. l 24 1 25 // l
78,524 1 BY MR. ROISMAN. 2 Q Did you believe that there were not enough 3 people on the site who were making an effort to solve 4 problems, in your judgment? 5 A I believed there were enough people so the 6 site who were assigned that responsibility. I, of course,-- 7 We had just been through a large amount of rework,'et c~ tera, 8 et cetera. And I thought that a better job could have been 9 done of solving the problems by various organizations on, the l 10 site, including our own. 11 Q Did you uean to indicate in that statement b 12 that you thought that himself was'a person who l 1 13 was not doing enough to solve problems? 14 A Yes. l ~i 15 Q And did you believe that he was doing too I [ 16 much trying to find problems? 17 A
- yes, iseemed to me, at that time, i
{ 18 to be the type of individual who would find the problem, t 19 make a big splash out of it, and once the big splash was ij 20 made, do nothing to help solve the problem, but would go { 21 see if he could find another problem to make a big splash 7 j 3 out of. 23 He did very little to solve problems from 24 what I could see. l 25 Q Were you familiar, in any way, with his ] l
'78,525c 1 involvement with'the event thatfeventually led to the: 2 issuance ' of _a ' 50.55 (e) cn1 the'ferro-resonant transformers? 3-A I was:-aware ~that he'was taking dataLthat. 4 was. requested by Westinghouse and General Electric. I-5 was aware-that-- I had beenl told by othersi'I never 6 personally saw it, that he:was' making phona calls to find-7 out what the status was and where they.were. 8 Q In yourqjudgment, an effort to' find out the; 1 9 status:of the ferro-resonant problem evidence of'someone 10 trying to find problems or trying to solve problems?' 11 A~ I-don't.think'he was trying to find.the 11 problem. I.think he was trying to' establish what-the 13 status was. 14 Q Did you think'that getting an early_ resolution i 15 of the matters that were ultimately the subject of.a 50.55(e) g g 16 would be classified as a problem-finding or a' problem-0 17 solving? I 18 A
- Neither, r
i g 19 Q If there-were' defective ferro-resonantL d f
- I 2
transformers in operating nuclear plants and.the 50.55 (e) .;~ 21 would bring that to the attention ofLthe' operators, would-i [ n you consider that to be helping 5 o solveia problem at-those a t 23 plant sites or to create one?' 24 A Bringing to the,attent' ion Ef.it would ber 25 helping _to solve a problem, yes. m-2 .m
78,526: 1 Q When you use the term "enough people on a job finding problems", what did you-mean to imply by that? 2 3 A We have a large QA organization." We have a large number of people on-the' site'who are responsible 4 5 for-- including ourselves. We are also responsible for - finding and identifying problems.and writing the. appropriate 6 7 deficiency reports. 8 Q Well, was there anybody in the room'to whom. 9 you were addressing your comments who did not-have, as their 10 job, problem finding? 11 A No. 12 Q So, why did you make the statement that there 13 were enough people on the job-- :there were enough people on the site who were trying to find problems to a group of 14 ~j 15 people, all of whom had that as part of their responsibility? 2* t g 16 A Fart of their responsibility. Ol 17 O So, it wasn't-- 1 l 18 A And the second part of the statement was: r i There weren't enough people trying to solve the problems. g 19 l 20 0 Well, did you mean that the total number of [ 21 people trying to do those things wasn't right'or you didn't j ) { Z2 think people were giving the right set of priorities to. 23 finding versus solving? 24 A I need that solving needs to be as~important 25 as finding. ' l l 1 a - j 4 ~:- _. _. - _ _ - _ - -j
e 78,527 1 Q. Did.you believe that there was anybody in 2 the room who was not making solving ~ as important as finding? 3 A Yes, the electrical-test group do not. solve 4 problems. The startup engineers do-- The startup engineers 5 that were there, and'again,'I. don't remember who they were, 6 but I would have to assume that they did do some' problem 7 solving. 8 0 Was your state-- 9 MR. DAVIDSON: Excuse me, Mr..Roisman. I 10 don't think he was responsive to your question. 11 MR. ROISMAN: I thought he.was very responsive 12 thank you. 13 MR. DAVIDSON: No, you asked him-if there 14 was anyone in that room who he felt'did not assign the .i 15 proper priority to solving problems as to finding them. l 16 Any one of them. And he did-not identify anyone. f 17 MR. ROISMAN: I didn't ask him to identify 1 18 him. I~ asked him if there was. r i g 19 MR. DAVIDSON: Well,-that's a yes-or-no r Rj 20 question. 5 21 MR. ROISMAN: He gave me more tnan ILasked a 22 for, but he gave me a "yes". 23 MR. DAVIDSON: Your' answer was "yes" to 24 what question, sir? There was someone in the room? 25 THE WITNESS: There was someone in the room. t
- 1 I
'l 78,528 I' i 'I 1 that did not have the job assignment' of solving problems. 2 BY MR. ROISMAN: 3 Q . And that was the electrical engineers; is 4 that correct? 5 A Electrical test group. 6 Q I'm sorry. Electrical test group. Excuse me. 7 And were your comments, in'any way, directed 8 to them? 9 A No. 10 0 To whom was this comment directed, if anyone? 3 e. n. 11 A Mainly to g 12 Q Was it your intent that the other people in. V A 13 the room believe that was spending'too much time \\ 14 finding problems and not enough: time solving problems? 5 15 A No. 3, [ 16 Q Why did you say it with 'them there? O l 17 A At the time, as angry as I had'gotten because. I j 18 of his attitude, I was' talking: pretty much to alone. I h v 19 Q So, what you're saying is that in your E-1 l 20 present state of mind the. presence of the~other people in { 21-the room had kind of dropped substantially in your. conscious- } 22 ness. 23 MR. DAVIDSON: I just want to make a. statement. l l l 24 When you - say "in your: present state of mind", you don't ~ 25 mean his state of mind today. __a____ _____--a__--.-_____--_______m
1 -l 78,529 i l 1 You mean-- j 2 MR. ROISMAN: No, I mean in his state of 3 mind at that time. 4 MR. DAVIDSON: --in his-state of mind at 5 that time. 6 MR. ROISMAN: Yes. 7 MR. DAVIDSON: Would you repeat your question 8 as rephrased?; 9 BY MR. ROISMAN: 10 0 In your state of mind at the time that you 11 were making this statement, the level of your anger was 12 such that you weren't really focusing on whether there Lb were people in the room other than( ss 13 is thbt correct? e 4-14 A I was paying more attention to . Ahan 7 a 15 to the others; that's correct. 5 l 16 Q Do you feel that anything that.you.said to ]in your anger during the course of.that conver-o; 17 1 Y { 18 sation had the potential for being as provocative as what i 19 he said to you in the course of that conversation?- .j j 20 A. No, sir. ~ 21 Q When you spoke to Mr. London and then, I ) l I 22 believe, later you said and Mr. Camp and Mr. Miller about these events, did you make.any statement to them regarding 23 / 3 l 24 whether{ should be retained either under your N 25 supervision or_on the jobsite or with the company? u
78,530. 1 A No, sir, I did not. 2 -Q Did thSy ask you? 3 A No, sir. 4 Q Did you recommento them or suggest to them d 5 anything. that you wanted them to do in light of what you 6 were telling them? 7 A No, sir. 8 Q Did they ask you? 9 A No, sir. 10 0 What was.your purpose in going'to see them? 11 A My purpose in seeing Mr. London was that' 12 he was the man's immediate supervisor.and should know. 13 0 I'm sorry. Should know?. 14 A What had happened between Danny and myself. .i 15 Q Why don't you stop with Mr. London,~and then. 3 g 16 we'll do Camp and Miller separately. { 17 A okay. 1 IB Q Why did you think he should know what had r g 19 happened? f 20 A Because he is the man's supervisor,' and when 21 a man gets into a disagreement with his supervisor, I felt-22 Art should know about it. 23 Q And would that be your-normal practice ~ if ' you had a disagreement with an employee who worked under 24 25 Mr. London, that you would advise Mr; London of-the _.___1_ __.__a __ _.._ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. __i_ __ _ _ _ -m___ _w
~ ,w 178k531: 1 -disagreement? 2 A Most certainly. 3 Q .What if, in those- 'in such an event, you and that other. person had subse'quently: reconciled ' that-4 difference before you had occasion to see Mr. London,?would-5 6 you - still mention the event to him? ! 7-A I would, in most probability, still mention' 8 it to him. 9 Q All right. 'And what was-- 10 Now, let's' turn to Mr.-Camp and'Mr.EMiller.. ~ Did you see each of.them individually, or-did=you see them 11 12 together?. 13. A ,It was individually. 14 0 LA11z right. And'why,did youisee Mr.HCamp? Mj 15 A i I saw Nt. Camp because,sas.a startup managerL l and the lead IMPELL. person on site, IIthought he-should 16 f 17 know what had happened. 1 18 0 b Why.did you think you needed. tofdo more than what you had alreadyldone in advising Mr. London?' g 19 K-{ N A Because I felt,-due'to.the nature of this, .j 21 that Mr. Camp'and'Mr. Miller should be,awaretof it.
- j n.
Q What was it about.the nature of'it that i c - 23 .made you-feel that way? 24 A That-in front'of these;otherlpeople he had-u accused me of committing a Federal crime. And I did not L y e __, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - ^ ^ - ^
o 78,532' I take that at all lightly. 2 O so, it wasithat piece that made you. feel:you 3 should-also speak to Mr. Camp. 4-A
- Yes, sir.
5 Q And what about Mr. Miller?' 6 A Since.Mr.;Millerfis my immediate supervisor,- 7 if I'd said something to Mr. Camp, I'd have.to tell Mr. 8 Miller. 9 Q And what'was your intent in telling:this-10 ~information to Mr. Camp? 11 A My intent was.that. Camp know what'would 12 happen. 13 Q I'm sorry. ' Could: you - say. thati again? 14 A My intent was that Camp knew what happened' 5 15 and that if-he deemed any-corrective action was necessary, I g 16 could'take it. And also, so that Mr. Camp would know if 0 l 17 it happened again that-he would.have known about the first. 1 l 18 time. tt ,r 19 Q Did you anticipate thatLMr. Camp would take-ij A) any corrective action? ~ 21 A " Corrective action"~is kind of'a tough ~ word. I I 22 ~But he would take to~
- 1. - '
e or would.somebody talk to{ l a n yes, I thought he-would. 1 1 24 Further words and further'real actions,'I 2 don't'know. 4 . 4
-~ 78,533 1 Q But you didn't specifically ask Mr. Camp to 2 do that. 3 A No, sir, I did not. 4 Q And with regard 'to lir. Miller, was.the 5 conversation with Mr. Miller also designed to simply advise 6 him in case the event should happen again? 7 A To advise him what had happened between myself 8 and Danny, yes. 9 Q What-- Strike that. -10 If, in fact, the issuance of the 50.55 (e) 11 would-- or could result in the shutting down of all of the 12 Westinghouse reactors, what do you think would have been 13 the appropriate attitude off for him to express 14 that thought to you? 1 15 A It would have been appropriate that he had' Ij 16 taken it seriously. That was a serious matter, f 17 He did not have-- i He appeared to be gloating l 18 i over the fact that he had some role or some partial role l 19 in, perhaps, shutting down these other plants. .i 1 4 j M His professional mannerism would have been 21 i concern that there was this problem and the effect that j 22 it would have on the nuclear industry. 23 And not just from a safet.y view. Because 24 that's important. Obviously, if we have a safety issue, 25 we have to do something about it. S
78,534 1 But I don't believe that that was what he 2 was concerned about. He appeared to be gloating over the 3 fact that he had some role to play in, perhaps,. causing: 4 all these plants to shut down. e~ -+ 5 Q Were you' aware at the time that J 6 had had some' involvement with the ferro-resonance problem 7 for about eleven months at that time? 8 A I was aware he was assigned to thatl system 8 and had been involved with it somewhat in the past.. I 10 couldn't say eleven months, but in the past,.yes. 11 Q Were you aware that he had been spending 12 solae time at pursuing the matter through both on-site and 13 cff-site channels? 14 A Yeah, I was aware of his-- 'some of his on- .j is site and off-site channels, yes. 3 [ 16 Q And did it occur to you at the time that he Ol 17 mentioned this to you that-- that is, that he made-the i 18 statemcnt about the shutdown of the Westinghouse reactors, j r 1 i f 19 that he might, in fact, have been, rather than gloating, ij 20 simply very pleased that a long project'that he'd been 21 ?, vorking on had come to a fruitful resolution? l 22 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm going to object, Mr. 1 .i t 23 Roisman. i n 24 Luken has no way of knowing what[- Mr. 25 thought or what.his reasons were for behaving in l sj I t
78,535 1 the manner he did. He has told you what he thought he was 2 doing. He told you he thought he was gloating. 3 MR. ROISMAN: And I-- 4 MR. DAVIDSON: He has no way of knowing if 5 it was anything else. 6 MR. ROISMAN: Well, and I'm asking him whether 7 he thought-- whether he gave any thought to this possibility. 8 A (By the witness) Did I give any thought to 8 it? 'Til you asked the question, no. 10 0 (By Mr. Roisman) When you called out your 11 door and said-- and made the statement about "You'll never 12 accuse me of covering up a safety problem again", do you e 13 know if an'yo'ne overheard you say that, other than ^ 14 N i 15 A I do not believe so. 3 [ 16 Q Did you make any effort to look around to li see if there might be someone who ild overhear you say i l 18 that? r i T 19 A No. N Q Would you have been at all reluctant to say ~ 21 that to him if he had been walking with a number of people 1 g 22 at the time? 23 A Yes. I 24 Q Why? 2 j A Because I felt a statement like that would i
78,536 1 -have been best made between:the two people.whoiwere involvedi 2. in-the argument and didn't need to -be spread all overc the 1 3 site.- I felt 11t would have.been inappropriate.- 4 'Q-When you told;Mr'. London about the event, 5' did you recount-to.him this;.same information which you've-6' testified to)today? 7 In f act,' let 'me ' narrow (that down. Didlyou tell himf that you made the comment 8 8 that there.were enough people'on the jobsite trying to find 10 problems an'd-not enough:trying-to' solve' problems? 11 A I' don'tl think so. 12 O Did you tell him1that you had' told ~ 13 "You will never accuse me of covering up a safety 14 problem again"?, c 15 A I don't know ifL I quoted myself when I talked [ 16 to him, but, yes, I told him that I had said something C l 17 similar to that.- I 18 Q And what about when you spoke to Mr. Camp? ( i { 19 Did you tell him about.the' statement "enough--people on the } } 20 job finding problems"? 21 A I don't think so. i l-M .Q And how about, did you'tell him'about what. ~ \\ashewalkedbyyouroffice?' l!3 you said to 24 A Yes. 2 Q I'm'sorry? j i .i
78,S37 1 A' Yes,-I believe-I, again, probably not the 2 same words I used, but I did mention that I-had made the 3 statement. 4 Q When you psoke~to Mr. Miller, was.the same-1 5 true that you did not say anything about enough people on 6 the jobsite looking for problems? 7 A I believe I would not have1 said that. 8 Q But that you'did.probably say something 9 about the comment you made out'the-door. 10 A Yes. 11 Q Now, do you have a recollection of what it 12 wasyoutoldMr.'Londonyou.saidoutyourdoor.tc( _ ^ 13 as he waled by? You saidlyou didn't.use~your, exact w 14 words. i 15 A I would have- 'I'm speculating, but ILthink-j 3 g 16 f I would have said something similar to that I told him-I ol 17 wasn't going to tolerate that again. i 18 Q Did Mr. London ask you what you. meant by that? t 19 A No. t ) j 20 0 What about Mr. Camp?.Did you tell him? j ( { 21 What did you tell him about that statement? l l' 22 A I. don't smember,;but it would'probibly -) ,i 23 have been along the same lines. l ' 24 Q And did he have any comment 'on that? 4 25 - A Mr. Camp was-- 'I, aga'in, don.'t remember h'is i j )
78,538 1 words, but he was upset'that the incident had taken place 2 and what had happened. 3 'But, no,.we.didn't?go into it very much.: f.y 4 'O And how about Mr'. Miller? 5 A Pretty much the same. 6 -Q So, that, ncne of these'three people ~actually asked you what you meant 'by, however you paraphrased the. 7 8 statement, thatyoumadefout'yourofficedoorto( 9 Did any of them appear to react in a'way that looked like they.were surprised.that such'a statement-10 11 had been made by you?- 12 A No. 13 Q Or that they were concerned.that such a 14 statement had been made by you? .i 15 A No. ] 16 Q Were you, at any-time before you spokesto O; 17 them, concerned that you had made that statement? '3 l 18 A No. r i g 19 Q Are you-now? Ej 20 A No. 21 MR. ROISMAN: I have no'further questions; i l 22 I MR. MIZUNO: .I have no questions. 2 MR. DAVIDSON: I have no-redirect. i 24 Mr. Luken,.I think thefthree of us lawyers' f here would like.to. express our appreciation for your 25
w e o. 78,539 1 attendance here.today.and-.your. responsive? answers.h 2 And with : that expression of ' gratitude for 3 - your participation here, I'd like to remind you that:your 4 ' testimony' is subject to.a' protective order and that you - 5 .must keep it in confidence.. 6 And with that admonition,.I will now close 7 these proceedings. 8 (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m.,rthe testimony in; 8 the above-entitled deposition was concluued.). 10 11 12 enneth L..Luken,LDeponent- - 13 14 mi 15 I l 16 O 17 e l 18 r 19 5 20 { 21 j 3 l l 22 l .n 1 l 24 ' i 5 'i i i i -=- -
C:?.T!? : ATE CT ? ?Ocr:. :: ::3 ,3 l. t l 2 3 8 1 I i l This is to certify that the attached procee:'.ings :ef ore the j 3
- RC CC:'.M:53 ION 1
i-j In the matter of: Texas' Utilities Electric Company, et al.! 1 3 Date of Proceeding: August 3, 198~4 -Place of Proceedi g: Glen Rose, Texas were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript for the file of the Cc.=.ission. io si Sandra Harden Official Reporter - Typed 2 ) -w Of ficiaC Reporter - Signature i is se 17 is . 19 20 2: 22 i l 22 i 1 24 i I I 2, TAYLCE ASSOCIATES meetsneto reortssioNAL mtponTt=s NomroLK. VIRGINIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-445-2 COMPANY, et al. ) and 50-446-2 ) (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Station, Units 1 and 2) PROTECTIVE ORDER It has come to the attention of the Board that several potential witnesses and other individuals who may have knowledge of issues in this proceeding have been granted pledges of confidentiality by the Applicants and the Intervenor. Applicants have interviewed or otherwise requested information from their employees regarding certain matters and in doing so have made pledges of confidentiality to them not to release their identity. Intervenor has advised Applicants of various witnesses, the identities of whom it feels bound not to disclose because it has obtained information from them on a confidential basis. Both-parties feel bound by their pledges of confidentiality even though release of the identities of these individuals may be necessary for the development of a full record. In view of the foregoing and at the request of the Parties, it is hereby ORDERED that:
- EXHIBIT space A/p. /
%h./ h
-~2L-1. The party who nsdeia' pledge of confidentiality shall reveal'to the other parties in<this proceeding the' identity' of an individual to:whom the pledge was made, provided:those parties' sign-the Statement of.Non-disclosures. attached to thislOrder, or is an'NRC employee' subject-to the' internal requirements of NRC' Manual Appendix 2101, concerning the treatment of protected information; 2. Ttue party' on whose behalf a Statement of Non-disclosure is' executed shall, prior to the execution of that Statement,: notify the party that pledged confidentiality of its-intention:to execute such a' Statement,4 including in this notice =the id ntity of' e the individual intending to execute the Statement. The party so notified shall have the opportunityEto object to the. execution of the Statement.of'Non-disclosure, provided such objection is made as quickly as possible, but in any event, no later than148 hours after receipt'of such notice; 3. The parties to whom-disclosure is made ~ shall not disclose the! identity of:the. t individual, unless required by law, except for purposes of preparing their case in' this proceeding and then only when the 'l person to whom disclosure is-made. ? acknowledges his obligation to be bound by. the terms of this Protective Order by executing the attached Statement of:Non - disclosure; 4. The parties shall maintain a separate service list identifying the individuals who receive documents subject to this. Protective Order. These documents shal1~ be identified as subject to this Protective Order; 5. Persons who receive ~information subject torthis i i Protective Order shall use it solely in connection: with this proceeding; a i O ~ 4 i
3<- 7 J 6. Any pers.on who has reason to believe that' documents including protected information have been lost or misplaced or any person who.has reason to believe that the terms and conditions'of:this Protective Order have been violated shall notify the Board. It is so ORDERED. PETER BLOCH j .1 i ( i, O O 2
STATEMENT OF NON-DISCLOSURE I, [e,,J A L. l vher have been informed of a Protective Order issued by the Licensing Board in the Comanche Peak operating license proceeding (Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446). I understand that this Order guarantees confidentiality to potential witnesses and others who have disclosed information on a confidential basis to Intervenor or Applicants. I agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of that Protective Order once the identity of any such individual is revealed to me. A copy of the Order has been provivled to me. %f ! h 7/mly" DATE i D e 4
i i i h; b / 0),udbe.L JLJa y@bDk(f t 7 b ( q 5k' l' TAB I Test Sun: man Report i TAB II Test Procedure TAB III - Test Procedure Deviations TAB IV - Test Deficiency Reports TAB V Supporting Documentation TAB VI Chronological Test Log TAB VII - Outstanding Items l 1 i (3 G I i }nformation in thiS tecord was ggggggg 1 ct e e
- IIO*AM OfIt!formatl0D ru tnw n~r w
~ -}}