Portions of Dr. Landsmanís Testimony

On 1/17/2003 with DOLALJ

Q (by Shiraniís Attorney, Mr. Michael McDermott). Based upon your skill, and training, and experience, did you find any issues that were significant and troublesome in the audit? (i.e. UST&D June/July 2000 NUPIC Audit Report led by Exelonís Oscar Shirani, issued on August 4, 2000).

A. Yes, I thought the, most of the issues were very troublesome, and I tried to get the Regional people, which I am in the NRC, we don't do, what's called vendor audits. Holtec would be a vendor, they're supplying --. So I had to call my associates in, out of

the Washington D.C. office. They're the ones who do the vendor audits and I tried to get them to go out here to see what was going on. Because they never were out there while Holtec was fabricating any casks. They were just out there to do a paper audit earlier and make sure they had a Quality Assurance program. So not if they were under, they were building some. And it appeared from this audit that they were out of control, I wanted the NRC to go there and do an inspection.

Q. And when you say they were out of control, who do you mean?

A. Holtec is an engineering company, they don't do any fabrication. They subcontracted to U.S. Tool and Die to build a cask. That should be on the record, so somebody, it was U.S. Tool and Die has the jargon in the industry as a Ma and Pa Kettle organization and they don't have a Quality Assurance program. So Holtec had an approved QA program from the NRC. They were, they were supposed to watch U.S. Tool and Die to make sure they made the cask according to the specs that the NRC approved.

And according to this audit, they were not. They were not following the drawings like they were supposed to.

Q. And in your opinion, those were serious issues?

A. I thought so, in my opinion.

Q. Would you, when you read this audit did it appear that the audit was still open?

A. Yes it was open. Not the audit, the audit findings were still open.

Q. Findings were still open, the audit was completed?

A. Correct, but the issues were still out there and I thought that's what Oscar was asking at this meeting about, was the resolution to the issue.

Q. Did you have occasion to, to call Mr. Shirani subsequently?

A. I don't know if he called me, or I called him, I'm not sure.

Q. Did you have an opportunity to talk to him on the telephone after meeting with him and after receiving the audit report?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What, if anything, did you say to him, and what, if anything did he say to you?

A. I'm not sure which phone call. I talked to him a few times after I got this. That's when I found out there was another audit done. Holtec hired another fabricator called

Omni, and they were also building part of the cask, so, for Dresden. So I found out there was another audit, so I had to get back to the licensing people. And he said there was a lot of problems at Omni. So I wanted to read that audit since that's, the equipment they were fabricating was also getting shipped to Dresden. So I had to get back to the licensing, whoever, at Edison, to get a copy of that audit. Which I got a copy of also.

Q. Did you have a chance to read that audit?

A. Yeah, those findings I thought were worse than the U.S. Tool and Die audit. They were so bad that Holtec no longer uses Omni as a fabricator. Now I don't if it was because of this audit, or their own audit. But they don't use them anymore to build anything. They finished building what they were building for them, and then they don't use them anymore.

Q. Did Oscar participate in that audit as well?

A. Yes. Well, you asked me if I asked him anything, I don't know if it was for that audit or the U.S. Tool and Die audit, I think it was, I don't know which audit came first. But it was the second audit I think, that, I don't know if it was Omni, or that one. I remember asking him on the phone, Oscar why don't you stop the job? They were so bad, the audit findings, I thought, I asked Oscar on the phone why didn't you stop the job?

Q. And what did he say to you?

A. He said I was afraid of my job, that's why he didn't stop the work. I remember that one, okay. And I think, I don't know if it was after that phone call or one of the other phone calls that I went to my, we have an Allegations Coordinator at work. And I said, gee, I just talked to a gentleman who said there were some bad findings, and he didn't stop the work. Is that considered, I think I might have got my, attorney involved just to make sure that we weren't, you know, in the middle of an allegation, and somebody was saying, no, as long as he didn't actually come to you and say, you know, that there was an allegation. It's really not an allegation. So, but I remember bringing it up at work that, you know, this guy found all, or this audit, Oscar wasn't the only one on that audit, either.

On all this stuff, and he was afraid to stop them, because he was afraid he'd lose his job.

Q. Now, you know that Oscar did subsequently lose his job?

A. Correct.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to why he lost his job?

MR. GROSS (i.e. Exelonís attorney): I'll object, calls for a legal conclusion, and fact conclusions, and there's no foundation whatsoever that this gentleman has any knowledge as to how Mr. Shirani lost his job.

JUDGE LESNICK: Do you want to respond, Mr. McDermott?



Q. You deal with people who are similarly situated to Oscar in various utilities, am I correct?

A That's correct.

MR. GROSS: I'll object as -- Your Honor.

JUDGE LESNICK: Well, I'll sustain the earlier objection but let him proceed on this track.

MR. McDERMOTT: Thank you, Judge.


Q. And you're a Ph.D. engineer, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you know what engineers do when they do auditing work within utilities, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you know the ponds within which they have to swim, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you know fear when you hear it, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Is it common for an engineer to feel pressure from management when they're doing

Quality Assurance audits?

MR. GROSS: I'll object, lack of foundation, vague, and irrelevant.

JUDGE LESNICK: I think it is, Mr. McDermott. You can try another approach, but

not that one.

MR. McDERMOTT: All right.


  1. Did you ask anybody else at Commonwealth Edison or at Dresden specifically to follow up on what you saw as troublesome in, troublesome in this Holtec, in this Omni, I'm sorry, U.S. Tool and Die and Omni, Holtec audits?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what, if anything, did you learn?

A. It was the people at Dresden who were in charge of the dry cast work on the, after

I read this Omni audit, I remember going to them and asking them, why don't you

Do something about it? This is, you know, it's your company. The equipment's

coming in here, and it's defective. And there was a, I hate to throw another term

on the stand, but they were writing numerous condition reports on-site of the

equipment showing up, that it was defective. It's just the way they document it

when it comes on-site. It's like writing tickets. On everything that was coming in

from Omni was not right. And they had to send stuff back, and it was being

rebuilt. And even the stuff from Holtec, they had to ship a lot of things back. It

was being rebuilt, they had to machine it on site. I said, why are you putting up

this? This is crazy. And they said because the Purchasing Department is

controlling this, and the stuff's coming. We can't stop it, and we'll go to the

bottom of the list, and we won't get our equipment when we need it. So they were

just putting up with it. This is when also called my people in Washington and

tried to get them to do something, but they didn't do anything, either.

  1. Did the site people, the Exelon and/or ComEd site people tell you that they were the ones who went to Oscar Shirani and asked him to conduct the audits?

A. No.

Q. In your own professional opinion should the public know about this kind of

conduct as it applies to nuclear safety? I mean, you've just, you've just

given testimony with respect to the people at Dresden telling you that they

can't do anything about these defective products that are coming in. You've

told us what dry cast storage is. I take it that's an issue of public safety, am I


A. That's correct.

Q. Does the public have a right to know about these things?

A. I try to make them aware.

Q. Is that part of your job?

A. Yes.

Q. And I take it from your testimony because you do not do vendor audits the

people in the NRC who do vendor audits were not interested in the issues you

brought to them, is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. I have no other questions.

By Mr. Gross:

Q. And the people in Washington were your superiors or a different part of the NRC, or?

A. No, it's a different, it's the Spent Fuel Project Office at the, at headquarters, and they do the vendor audits.

Q. And they decided to take no action on your concerns?

A. I couldn't get them excited. They went later on though, a year later, or a year and-a-half later.

Q. Mr. Landsman, in your position as, position with the NRC, do you have an understanding as to what employees in the nuclear till of these obligations are to report safety concerns?

A. I think I do.

Q. And what do you understand an obligation to be?

A. They're supposed to report.

Q. To who?

A. To their supervisors, or to, or if they're not paying attention, or if they're not listening or doing anything, they have, they can go to the NRC then.

Q. And do you believe the individuals who are employees in the nuclear industry who have a safety concern should go to the NRC?

A. If they're not getting satisfaction from their management.

Q. Are you familiar with the requirements of the regulations that relate to employees' obligations to report safety concerns?

A. Can I quote them? No.

Q. I'm not asking if you can quote them. I'm just asking if you're familiar with them, generally?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it your understanding that an employee in the nuclear industry's obligations arise in part from those regulations?

A. Okay.

Q. I asked you, sir, yes or no?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. And if an employee feels that they raised a safety concern to a

supervisor, and they're not getting satisfaction, do you believe an employee has an

obligation to go to a higher level to report that concern?

A. An obligation?

Q. Yes.

A. Or a, I wouldn't call it an obligation.

Q. What would you call it?

A. Depends how much trouble he wants to raise in his organization. Or if he comes

to the, we have resident inspectors at the site, or he can go talk to the NRC.

  1. Or if an employer has an Employee Concerns Program, an employee would have an obligation to raise a concern there, as well?

A. In my experience, those are usually useless.

Q. Usually useless?

A. Yes.

Q I have no further questions.


MR. McDERMOTT: Yes, Judge.


Q. Would the audit that you identified as our Exhibit 14 (i.e. US Tool & Die August 14, 2000 NUPIC Audit Report) , marked as CX 14 will be admitted. Proceed. And now we get to how the best laid plans of mice and men. I'm going to ask you, Mr. Landsman, to look at what is tendered and is now finally numbered today, as I see for the first time, as Respondent's Exhibit Number 46.

And it would be, I would, you know, I guess it's Respondent's Exhibit 46.

THE WITNESS: Do you want me to read it?


Q. Yes, please.

A. The whole thing?

Q. Well, let me direct you, page, have you ever seen this document before, or a document like this before?

A. No.

Q. From Commonwealth Edison or from Exelon?

A. Not that I can recall.

Q All right. I'll direct your attention to page two. I'm sorry, let me bring you back to page one. This has to do with the Holtec DSQG audit of U.S. Tool and Die, am I correct? As best as we can see?

A. That's what it appears to be.

Q. Directing your attention to page two, the second full paragraph, would you, it's

entitled 'Corrective Actions to be Taken.' Could you take a moment and read that


A. Okay.

Q. Specifically, and for the record, one sentence in that paragraph is, 'the subject findings were thoroughly evaluated and all issues were resolved satisfactorily during

the audit by the team not to have any impact on the Dresden Station Unit 1 Dry Storage Cask loading.' Can that be true?

A. That depends on the date of this.

Q. The date of this is 8/4/00. I'll ask you to look at page number four, the very last paragraph, the bottom paragraph, above the, the insignia supervisor, Russell Bastyr, date 8/4/2000. And it's proposed, it's kind of a proposed solution, and that is the subject

findings were thoroughly evaluated and all the issues resolved satisfactorily during the audit by the team not to have any impact on the Dresden Station Unit 1 Dry Storage Cask loading. And it is followed by, again, the supervisor, Mr. Bastyr, 8/4/2000 Department SES. Can that statement possibly be true on 8/4/2000, in light of your reading the audit report of Mr. Shirani's?

A. No, it cannot be true.

Q. Thank you. I have no other questions.

MR. GROSS: No objection.

JUDGE LESNICK: I will admit that document.

MR. GROSS: I have no follow-up questions, Your Honor.

MR. McDERMOTT: Thank you, Mr. Landsman.

JUDGE LESNICK: Mr. Landsman, you're excused.

12 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.

13 JUDGE LESNICK: You may step down.

This document was posted online December, 2003 by Russell D. Hoffman. For a complete guide to Oscar Shirani's allegations please visit: