ML20040D374
| ML20040D374 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1981 |
| From: | Patricia Anderson ROBERT L. CLOUD ASSOCIATES, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17083A976 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202010232 | |
| Download: ML20040D374 (10) | |
Text
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO?dISSION 3
4 INVESTIGATION OF 5
DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 5 2 6
7 INTERVIEW OF 8
PAUL H. ANDE RSO'I 9
10 Robert L.
Cloud Associates 125 University Avenue 11 Berkeley, California 12 Thursday December 31,1981 13 C'
14 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 15 Pursuant-to notice, at 3:0 8 p.m.
16 17 APPEARANCES:
,I j
18 On behalf of the NRC Staff:
i OWEN C. SHACKLETON, JR., Moderator g
19 j
20 PHILIP J.
MO RRILL a
l 21 f
22 23 s
24 25 i
(
8202010232 820127 j
hDRADOCK 05000275
-104-PDR
t I
r ERRATA SHEET Interview of Paul H. Anderson, December 31, 1981 The following correction should be made:
Page 5, Line 21 - Change til to until.
i 1
The above correction was identified by Paul H. Anderson and Owen C. Shackleton, Jr.
i i
i i
j 4.
i t
?
i 5
9 i
P 4
-105-
hh 1
P_ R Q q E_ E, D, I,1 g E 2
3:08 p.m.
3 MR. SHACKLETON:
The date is December 31, 1981.
4 The time is 3:08 p.m.
This is an interview of Mr. Paul H.
Anderson.
Mr. Anderson is an engineer employed by Robert 5
6 L.
Cloud & Associates, Inc.
This interview is taking place 7
in the offices of Robert L. Cloud & Associates, Inc., at 8
125 University Avenue, Berkeley, California.
9 This is the second interview of Mr. Anderson and 10 he has already been sworn in.
33 Whe reupon,
12 PAUL H. ANDERSON 13 was recalled as a witness and, after being reminded he was 14 still under oath, was examined and testified further as follows :
15 16 MR. SHACKLETON:
Do you also understand, Mr.
17 Anderson, that you have the right to have personal legal l
18 counsel necessary?
g 19 MR. ANDERSON :
Yes, I do.
That won't be j
20 necessary.
f MR. SHACKLETON:
Thank you.
And again, I request 21 i
f 22 and ask that you understand that we are asking that you keep t
23 your testimony confidential.
j 24 MR. ANDERSON:
I understand.
25 MR. SHACKLETON:
Very fine.
Mr. Anderson, how
-106-
1 h
1 long have you been employed with Robert L. Cloud & Asso-2 ciates, Inc.?
3 MR. ANDERSON:
I joined Dr. Cloud's company 4
around November, 1980.
5 MR. SHACKLETON:
And are you presently working 6
on the contract on the reverification program for the 7
Pacific Gas & Electric Company concerning their Diablo a
Canyon nuclear power plant?
9 MR. NIDERSON:
Yes.
I've been involved with this contract since it first came about, around October 11.
10 11 MR. SII ACKLETON :
Were you involved in the prepar-ation of the October ~21, October 26, November 6 and November 12 13 12, 1981 draft reports which you people refer to as the 14 preliminary report?
MR. ANDERSON :
Yes, I was.
15 16 MR. SHACKLETON:
Were you involved in the revi-17 sion of the October 21, October -26, November 6 draf t aj 18 reports?
g 19 MR. ANDERSON:
Yes, I was.
O j
20 MR. SHACKLETON:
What were the original instruc-f 21 tions provided to Cloud employees by Dr. Cloud or by PG&E a
f 22 to perform the development of the report and the handling 3
g 23 of its commnts?
24 MR. ANDERSON:
We received our instructions from 25 Dr. Cloud.
Our basic instructions broke down various
(
-107-
i
([h i
responsibilities to examine the chain of design for various 2
aspects of the plant, breaking it dawn into different types 3
of buildings and et cetera.
We formed a little internal 4
task team where each engineer or groups of engineers were 5
assigned the responsibility of developing the flow of 6
information and examining the existing qualification for 7
a number of these areas.
We first started out with the intent of searching 8
i 9
thercorrespondence between PG&E and URS/Blume to determine i
what controls and what documentation existed.
This would p) directly relate to the engineering correctness of the y
analyses that took place.
Our interface with PG&E was they 12 were to provids us with documentation as we required it.
13 k
14 Now in the preliminary stages, from October 11 to October 21, we essentially set up office inside PG&E 15 in one of their conference roons and went through volunes 16 17 of file information, trying to document the things we were l
18 setting out to examine, to document exactly what had g
19 transpired in the design flow.
One of the problens we had j
20 as far as information available is that this project is of l
a magnitude that there is obviously too much material to 21 i
f 22 completely. assimilate in a short time.
We utilized PG&E's 23 cognizant engineers to help us locate the specific documents 24 we were looking for at times.
25 Maybe I am saying too much.
I don't want to sit 108-4 x.
r_
-_y y
x,.
7 (h
I here and ramble on.
2 MR. SHACKLETON:
No.
This is very helpful for 3
the Commission to understand exactly what the responsibil-4 ities were for your company and the procedures that you had 5
to follow and the interface that was required in order to 6
obtain the necessary information for your study.
So please 7
continue.
8 MR. ANDERSON:
Okay.
Basically I am talking g
about the research done in preparation for the first draft, which is the draf t prepared on October 21.
The 10 results of that draft showed there were several areas n
which we had either found conflicting information docu-12 mentation or had not found sufficient information docu-13 C-mentation.
In our first preliminary draft of the 21st 34 15 we tried to stay away fron any personal conclusions or 16 conclusions as told to us by PG&E engineers.
17 What we did try to do is state the information
+!
j 18 we had received thus far, which sonetimes was incomplete.
g 19 From my own personal standpoint, the effect that seemed j
20 to have was to create a priority withi PG&E to supply us with the information we needed.
Up til then I could say 21 i
f 22 that perhaps we hadn' t been given a real priority treatment 2
in all of the information we needed.
When the October 21 l
23 24 draf t was given to PG&E a lot of these areas which we had 25 just been unable to find sufficient information, these (J
-109-
6
(
1 areas were commented on by the cognizant PGLE engineers.
2 Now the engineers made several types of comments.
3 They either made comments to the effect of "there:is ~more 4
information and I will help you find this information" or 5
perhaps that is not my understanding of it".
Now when 6
they made the comment that there is additional information, 7
we searched the information and, if we found it,,we utilized 8
it and documented it.
9 On the other hand, if someone were to say this to particular area :is just not true, our response was fine, 11 show me the documentation, such that the report of the 12 26th in affect reflected our gathering of a little more 13 info rmation.
That is basically the only difference, to my k.
14 recollection.
15 MR. SHACKLETON:
Were all the verbal comments 16 that you received, were they documented?
When I say verbal 17 Oomments I am referring to directions or requests or comments l'
l 18 that related to requests for revisions.
g 19 MR. ANDERSON :
Basically we had a surprisingly i
l j
20 little amount of verbal interface with PG&E.
In the
\\
a l
21 initial stage, from the October 11 to October 11, we were a
f 22 functioning as our own little self-contained task group Ii 23 and no one seemed to pay much attention to us.
Indeed, that
(
24 was part of the problem.
From the October 21 and subsequent-l 25 work, we performed all of that work in our own office and i
j
-110-
+w---
-m g-.-p--
-e3
i 1
primarily formally interfaced through PG&E or interfaced 2
through Dr. Cloud.
We had some level of informal communica-3 tion merely following up researching some of the areas"that 4
we had already identified in the first draft.
5 In the first dreft and I believe the subsequent 6
drafts we fairly across the board address all of the holes, 7
all of the areas of concern, either by providing substan-8 tiating documentation, which we should have on file, or 9
in the cases that we don't have enough information we have to stated either that this will have to be addressed in a more 11 detailed scope, such as the ser ;nd phase of the reverifica-12 tion program.
13 MR. SHACKLETON:
What you are stating then, if I 14 understand you correctly, Mr. Anderson, these were made 15 open items.
16 MR. ANDERSON:
Yes.
17 MR. SHACKLETON:
Within your draft report.
g l
18 MR. ANDERSON:
And well defined as open items.
3 19 MR. SHACKLETON:
Mr. Anderson, were you encour-j 20 aged at any tine or directed by anyone to change any of your a
l 21 original findings?
a f
22 MR. ANDERSON: If you define a finding as somethina aj 23 that is wrong, certainly not.
24 MR. SHACKLETON:
That's the main point that we 25 are looking towards, b
-111-
h) 1 MR. AMDERSON:
The only thing I micht add is 2
there were holes where we did not have information and, 3
in this case, PG&E encineers did make comments and did 4
request that we find the additional information and examine 5
it.
6 MR. SHACKLETON:
In the course of writing your 7
sections of the drafts that we are discussing here, did c
you ever make any changes without substantiating documenta-9 tion?
I'm talking about substantive changes, not just in 10 grammar or punctuation.
11 MR. ANDERSON :
I either had substantiative 12 documentation or I explicitly qualified the change, such 13 as pending all subsequent investigation.
The qualification
(-
14 would be in the report.
15 MR. SHACKLETON:
I understand from testimony we 16 have received that this has been a very intensive effort 17 on the part of yourself and the other engineers here at
=
l 18 Robert L. Cloud & Associates, Inc.
Do you feel, Mr. Anderson, g
19 that your staff that you are associated with on this reverif--
j 20 ication study for the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, f
~
21 that you have been able to work with a free hand and to f
22 freely express your true findings without any interference?
23 MR. ANDERSON:
Within my own company certainly.
24 As a professional, I feel I would have to insist on freedom.
25 I wouldn' t be here if I didn't have the freedom.
a-
-112-
4.
(o j
MR. SHACKLETON:
Are you satisfied.then, Mr.
2 Anderson, with the contents of the preliminary report dated 3
November 12, 1981?
4 MR. ANDERSON:
I am satisfied as to the validity of the facts stated in the report.
There are certain open 5
6 items which are qualified in the report as requiring to be addressed later.
There are itens which we did not get 7
enough information on that a subsequent program has been 8
g developed to address.
With that exception -- that has some bearing on my overall impression of the first program, if to you can understand my point.
33 MR. SHACKLETON:
Yes.
12 Mr. Morrill, do you have any questions?
33 MR. MORRILL:
Yes.
Mr. Anderson, did you receive g
any verbal comments fron people other than PG&E, such as 15 from Blume or Westinghouse or any of the other contractors'.
16 17 that you might have interfaced with?
l 18 MR. ANDERSON:
We certainly had some level of interface with both Westinghouse and URS/Blume.
As far as g
39 a
j 20 the type of interface where they cormented on the contents l
of our report or the things that we had found, I wouldn't 21 say I had any of that type of interface.
f 22 MR. MORRILL:
Thank you.
23 MR. SHACKLETON:
Mr. Anderson, going back in 24 25 review of the questions that wa have asked and the resnonses k.
-113-
- .. u -.
>. u s.
..)
(
i that you have made, are there any comments that you would 2
like to add to your testimony?
3 MR. ANDERSON:
Merely I would like to emphasize 4
or restate that I feel both personally and as a company 5
to have performed a conscientious job in ' preparing all the 6
reports, all the drafts of the preliminary report, and that 7
I feel upon scrutiny of the various drafts it should be 8
an obvious conclusion that the type of development occurring g
through the drafts was an actual accumulation of information, accumulationsof knowledge, and that is all.
10 MR. SHACKLETON:
Mr. Anderson, is there any ij additional information relating to this seismic reverifica-12 tion study that you would like to make a matter of record 13 at this time?
14 MR. ANDERSON :
I don't believe so.
15 MR. SHACKLETON:
Mr. Anderson, on behalf of the 16 37 Commission, we thank you very much for your testimony here.
18 and the time that you have given to us.
The time is now l
g 19 3:27 p.m.,
going off record.
n j
20 (End of interview) ij 21 i
8 22 ij 23 24 25
(;
- 1 14.-