ML20040D393

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Transcript of Util Testimony by EP Wollak on 811217 in San Francisco,Ca.Pp 217-234
ML20040D393
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon  Pacific Gas & Electric icon.png
Issue date: 12/17/1981
From: Wollak E
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML17083A976 List:
References
NUDOCS 8202010250
Download: ML20040D393 (17)
v • d • e


Text

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C::s.

3 4 .

INVESTIGATION OF 5 DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 & 2 6 INTERVIEW OF 7 ERWIN P. WOLLAK 8

9 Pacific Ga & Electric Headquarters Offices 10 Law Department Conference Room 77 Beale Street 11 San Francisco, California 12 Thursday, Dec ember 17, 1981 13

( 14 The above-entitled matter came on for further 15 hearing, pursuant to adjournment, at 4:06 p.m.

16 3

h 17 APPEARANCES:

. is On behalf of the NRC Staff:

i j 19 OWEN C. SHACKLETON, JR. , Moderator B.!!. FAULKENBERRY 20 l

O g

i i

22 23 24 25 8%g2ggregsgg G

U

-217-

1 1

ERRATA SHEET Interview of Mr. E. P. Wollak, December 17, 1981 The following corrections should be made:

.Page 225, Line 12 - Change was to were.

Page 225, Line 16 --Change McCraken to McCracken.

Page 226, Lines 10,16, 21, and 25 - Change FAULKENBERG to FAULKENBERRY.

Page 227, Line 2 - Change it's to its.

, Page 228, Line 4 - Change 8th to 18th.

Page 229, Lines 21, 22, and 23 - Change indescriminately to indiscriminately.

Page 231, Line 6 - Change second that to who.

The above corrections have been identified by Bobby H. Faulkenberry and E. P. Wollak.

i i

-218-i

EEEEEEEEEEE 2

(53 4:06 p.m.

3 MR. SHACKLETON: This is December 17, 1981 4

and the time is 4 : 06 p.m.

5 This is an interview of Mr. Erwin P. Wollak, 6 Supervising Civil Engineer with the- Pacific Gas and Electric l

7 Company.

8 The interview is taking place in room 3101 9 of the corporate headquarters of Pacific Gas and Electric 10 Company at 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, California.

11 The purpose of this interview is part of the 12 on-going investigation being conducted by the U.S. Nuclear 13 Regulatory Commission to develop the facts and happenings

(' 14 surrounding the present reverification program for 15 seismic design of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, .

16 being conducted by PG&E, and it's' consultants.

g 17 Present during this interview from PG&E is -

l g 18 Mr. Wollak who has been employed with the Pacific Gas and j 19 Electric Company for 29 years.

I  !

j 20 Present from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, l 21 Region 5, conducting the questionning period is Mr. Bobby 22 H. Paulkenberry, Chief of Reactor Construction, Projects 23 Branch and I am a senior invest $ gator assigned to Region 5.

24 Mr. Wollak, are you aware sir, that you have

( 25 the right to have your personal and legal counsel present?

i

-219-

' MR. WOLLAK Yes, I am.

2 And do you waive that right?

MR. SHACKLETON:

(/:

3 Yes, I waive that right.

MR. WOLLAK 4 Thank you. Would you please MR. SRACKLETON:

5 stand while I administer the oath?

6 Whereupon, 7 ERWIN P. WOLLAK 8 having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness 9 herein and was examined and testified as follows:

10 tiR. SHACKLETON: Please be seated.

11 Mr. Wollak, I want to advise you at the time 12 that the Commission would appreciate your keeping your 13 testimony confidential.

14 At this time, I'll turn the questionning 15 period over to Mr. Faulkenberry.

16 MR. FAULKENBERRY: fir. Wollak, would you

! 17 give us your current job title and current job responsi-g 18 bilities within PG&E?

a i 19 MR. WOLLAK My title is Supervising Engineer i

20 in the Civil Engineering Department, l

a

. 21 9[ head the section known as Nuclear Fossil i*

22 Section which has the responsibility for all civil 23 engineering that is done for nuclear and fossil plants 24 e

' xcluding geo-thermal.

25 MR. PAULKENBERRY: Mr. Wollak, from Sectember

-220-

I through November, 1981, have you had any involvement with l 2 the work that has been performed by Dr. Cloud regarding (Oh

.9 3 the seismic reverification regarding Diablo Canyon?

4 -

MR. WOLLAK: Yes, I have.

5 MR. FAU LKENBERRY: Could you explain for 6 us what your involvement has been?

7 MR. WOLLAK: The largest involvement was to 8 assist them by letting them look into our files in an 9 attempt to find what they were looking for, just to give 10 them access to our files and try to answer any questions 11 that they may have.

12 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Wollak, we've determined 13 that :four separate draft reports of Dr. Cloud's work k 14 were submitted to PG&E. These draf t reports were subnitted 15 to PG&E on approximately the dates .of October 21st, 16 October 26th, November 6th and November 12th, 1981.

I 17 First of all, did you receive any of these g 18 draft reports?

j 19 MR. WOLLAK: Yes, I did, i

20 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Which ones did you receive?

l Y 21 MR. WOLLAK: I am not sure of that.

i 22 There were so many drafts within such a short 23 period of time, I'm not positive which ones I looked at 24 at this time.

25 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Do you think that you could

-221-

i j

r 1 recagnize a particular draf t if I could show it to 2 you, Mr. Wollak?

kc 3 MR. WOLLAK That's hard to answer. Thev 4 all look somewhat alike.

5 MR. FA ULKENBERRY: Okay, in an attempt to 6 identify the reports you received, Mr. Wollak, I'm showing 1 l

7 you a copy of a draft report from Dr. Cloud dated I 8 October, 1981 and it was submitted to PG&E under a cover 9 letter dated October the 26th, 1981. . Do you recognize that to as one of Dr. Cloud's reports that you received?

11 MR. WOLLAK: Yes.

12 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Wollak, I show you 13 another report from Dr. Cloud and it is also dated October,

(- 34 1981.

15 It was submitted under a cover letter to PG&E 16 from Dr. Cloud dated October 21st, 1981 h 17 Do you recognize that as a draf t report that

- 18 you received?

39 MR. WOLLAK May I look through there?

20 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Yes, you may. Take your d time.

21

  • (Pause) 22 MR. WOLLAK Yes, I must have seen this one.

23 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Wollak, do you know 24

(- whether or not you have received the latter versions of this

, 25 l

l

-222-l

1 draft report, the ones that were dated Novaraber 6th and

,, 2 November 12th?

3 MR. WOLLAK: I don't recall ever seeing the 4 one dated . November the 6th but I do -- I know I have 5 received a copy of the one that was sent, the final, 6 which was November 13th, I believe.

7 MR. FAULKENBERRY: I'm showing you a copy of 8 the report from Dr. Cloud dated November 12th, 1981, which 9 was submitted to the NRC from Phillip Crane to R.H.

10 Engelken dated November 18th, 1981.

11 Is that the report you are referring to?

12 MR. WOLLAK: Yes, that's the one.

13 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Wollak, did you review

( 14 and comment on ele material contained within any of these 15 two reports?

16 MR. WOLLAK: I looked at some of the material h 17 in the first two reports but not in the final or the e

. is .one with the letter November 18th.

ig MR. PAULKENBERRY: Mr. Wollak, you stated that

)

20 you looked at the material contained in the October 21st 21 and October 26th reports.

I E

22 Did you review and subsequently comment on 23 the material contained within those two reports?

24 MR. WOLLAK: Some of it, yes, k 25 MR. FAULKENBERRY: In both reports?

-223-

d I

MR. WOLLAK: Yes.

2 MR. .FAULKENBERRY: Would you tell us who within eg 3 PG&E asked you to comment on that material? .

I 4 MR. WOLLAK Mr. Bettinger.

5 MR. FAULKENBERRY: For both reports? .

6 MR. WOLLAK This is difficult to say because 7 these came so close together that I'm not exactly sure 8 how the request came.

9 I'm sure I was asked at one time to review 10 a report and if I received a second report, I would assume 11 that I was supposed to review it also.

12 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Wollak, during the 13 time frane of October, November, 1981. Was it considered 14 to be standard practice within PG&E to review and comment 15 on the results of a contractor's work prior to it being 16 placed in a final report form?

g 17 MR. WOLLAK We always do that.

g 18 MR. FAULKENBERRY: How were the comments j 19 that you provided on the two reports identified of Dr.

i

! 20 Cloud's?

21 How were they actually provided to Dr. Cloud?

3 22 MR. WOLLAK: That I don't know.

23 I made comments on the drafts and then the 24 draf ts were titrned over to the interface between PG&E and 25 Cloud.

-224-l

I MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Wollak, were all of G 2 your comments that you provided in the form of handwritten CN ~

3 notes in the margins , of the report itself or did you 4 provide your comments under separate cover?

5 MR. WOLLAK: They are all on the report, no 6 separate pieces of paper.

7 MR. FAULKENBERRY: I believe you touched 8 on this in a previous question, but to make sure we're 9 clear on it, did you submit any of your comments directly 10 to Dr. Cloud or were they always submitted back through 11 an individual within PG&E?

12 MR. WOLLAK: As near as I can recall, all was 13 through the individual who was responsible to interface

(

14 with Dr. Cloud.

15 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Who was this individual?

16 MR. WOLLAK Jim McCraken.

5 17 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr..Wollak, at the, time you 2

18 reviewed and commented on these draft reports, had you ever

19 been made aware by people within PG&E by people within the i

20 NRC or any other persons that the results of Dr. Cloud's

{

f 21 work should not be reviewed by PG&E until it was placed i

r 22 in final form :for submittal to the NRC?

23 MR. WOLLAK: No.

24 MR. FA'JLKENBERRY : Have you since been made 25 aware of this?

l l

-225-l l .

l i 1 MR. WOLLAK I was not told directly, but w, 2 I gather that 'from what is going on.

(19 3 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Could you elaborate that

(

4 a little further with regard to what you mean by what's 5 going on?

6 MR. WOLLAK: Well, from what I read in the 7 newspaper and this investigation, it appears that many 8 feel that PG&E should not review reports of an independent 9 reviewer.

10 MR. FAULKENBERG: Okay, Mr. Wollak, it's 11 my understanding that it's your f eeling based upon 12 what you've read in the newspaper and based 'upon the fact 13 that we're having this investigation' but have any of

('- 34 your supervisors informed you of this fact? .

15 MR. WOLLAK: Not directly.

16 M . FAULKENBERG Kr. Wcllak, were any of the h 17 comments that you provided to Dr. Cloud intended by you e

18 to remove adverse information from .1 the reports?

a 3

j 19 MR. WOLLAK If I felt that the information i 20 was incorrect, yes.

j 21 MR. FAULKENBERG: Am I correct in saying then i

22 that you only advocated removing adverse information if 23 it was incorrect information?

24 MR. WOLIAK: That is correct.

25 MR. FAULKENBERG Were any of the comments you

-226-

provided to Dr. Clou,d intended by you to place PG&E or i

2 any of it's contractors in a more favorable light?

(9 3 MR. WOLLAK: I only checked the report for 4 accuracy.~

5 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Could you give us your e e p anation of your intent, what your total intent 6

7 was for the comments you provided to Dr. Cloud?

g MR. WOLLAK: The comments were intended to 9

make the report to suggest that the report reflect what actually I thought the case was, rather than what Dr. Cloud to had put in the report. In otherwords, to reflect accuracy again.

13 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Did you ever consider 14 that your review and commenting on the results of Dr.

15 Cloud's work, prior to it being submitted to the NRC, 16 could possibly j eopardize the independency of Dr. Cloud's I 1

[ 17 work?

l g 18 MR. WOLLAK I really never gave it much s

i 19 thought.

i 20 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Do you know whether or not l

21 that was ever a consideration, or did it ever enter your i

22 mind during the period of time that you were actually 23 reviewing and commenting on those reports?

24 MR. WOLLAK: It possibly could have entered k 25 my mind.

1

-227-

'~

\. . _ _ _ _ .. ._. -

1 But again, I didn't see anything wrong with .,

2 trying to suggest that a report reflect accuracy..

($4 3

MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Wollak, you have already 4

indicated that you have seen the November the 8th,1981 5

report which was submitted to the NRC.

6 Do you know based upon your past review of

(

7 that report, whether or not any or all of your comments 8 were incorporated into the final version of the report, .

9 the final draf t?

10 MR. WOLLAK: When I received the final report, 11 I did not have access to any of the reports that I had 12 made comments on, so I could only leaf through the 13 final report and see whether I thought my comments 14 were included and some of them were.

15 - L:cannot go comment by comment.

16 MR. FAULKENBERRY: I understand, but 8

. 17 can you give us a feel for it -- do you think that 50%

g 18 of them were included -- 10%, 90%?

1 19 MR. WOLLAK: I would say a high proportion, i

l 20 over 50%.

.e

$ 21 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Could you give us an i*

22 understanding of the nature of the types of comments that 23 you felt like were included in the final report?

24 MR. HOLLAK I felt in a couple of instances 25 they used a poor choide of words which they changed.

-228-

1 There were some places where when they 2 reviewed our files they could not find certain things

{-g 3 but which were actually there which was pointed out.

4 as part of my comments.

5 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Could you give us a better 6 understanding of what you mean, changes were made regarding 7 poor choice of words -- could you give us some examples?

8 MR. WOLLAK: Could I -- -

9 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Certainly. Look at the 10 reports if you like.

11 (Pause) 12 MR. WOLLAK: This is the October 21st report, 13 page 12, paragraph 3.3.1 -- I just felt that investigated

('

14 was not correct. It should have been analyzed.

15 Likewise, investigation should have been 16 analysis.

h 17 Re-evaluated should have been re-analyzed.

e

18 (Pause) i
ig The same report, page 55, first paragraph, i

a 20 it says, the supports for the electrical raceways are

~.

3 21 found indescriminately throughout the main building and i

22 I suggested that they remove indescriminately because 23 it really doesn't fit. Indescriminately means you know, 24 you don' t care much what you do. I just didn't think i

l k 25 that was appropriate.

! -229-l

1 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Did you rccommOnd a diff ercnt

, 2 phrasing of that section?

c' 3 MR. WOLLAK I just suggested to omit the

. )

4 word so that it reads .the supports for the electrical 5 raceways are found throughout the main building.

6 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Thank you, Mr. Wollak.

7 Do you then consider those to be typical a examples of the suggestions you made regarding word 9 changes?

10 MR. WOLLAK: Yes.

11 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Wollak, have you 12 received results of Dr. Cloud's work, other than that 13 contained within the two draf t . reports that you said

(,

you have received?

14 15 MR. WOLLAK No. .

16 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Wollak, does PG&E j j7 have a policy to the best of your knowledge, either

. ig written or otherwise, of not volunteering information j ig to NRC unless it is specifically asked ~for?

20 MR. WOLLAK: I have never heard of such a p licy.

{ 21 i

2 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Wollak, what are 22 23 the ground rules within PG&E as you know them today with regard to the way the results of Dr. Cloud's work 24 k- 25 or any other contractor's work involving Diablo Canyon

-230-

, . -2 1 rcycrifientien cctivitica chould ba handled prior to 2 submittal to the NRC?

3 MR. WOLLAK Normally, if civil engineering l

4 or specifically my section is involved, I would expect 5 to be able to see what is written so that I can verify 6 it or that people that work for me could verify that..the 7 statements made are accurate.

8 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Could you explain to us what 9 you consider to be the standard procedure within PG&E 10 regarding the review of the results of the contractor's 33 work prior to it being published in a final report form?

12 MR. WOLLAK Normally, we . receive a draf t 13 of a final report which we review and coment upon and 34 make corrections:if we think there are inaccuracies 15 and send it back to the consultant or contractor.

16 This may go through several iterations, beforc 3

j 37 the final report is published by the contractor, or e

. 18 submitted finally to us.

j 19 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Do you consider that the a

! 20 results of Dr. Cloud's work as you reviewed them in the 21 two October draf t reports to have been handled in i:

g accordance with standard PG&E procedures and practices 23 in eff ect during that time frame?

24 MR. WOLLAK: Yes. l k- 25 ///

-231-f

I i '. l (m?il 1 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Wollak, do you know of 2 any effort that has been made by any employee of PG&E, 3 including yourself, to revise the results of Dr. Cloud's 4 work such that it does not reflect a true, complete and  !

f 5 accurate record of his findings?

6 MR. WOLLAK: No, I do not.

7 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Do you know of any conscious 8 or pre-arranged plan, written or otherwise, for PG&E 9 employees while attending meetings with the NRC to limit to or otherwise constrain their responses to NRC questions?

11 , MR. WOLLAK : Our instructions are always to 12 tell the truth as to what' the actual situation is.

13. x MR. FAULKENBERRY: Okay. To the best of your

( - 34 knowledge, have you ever been instructed to limit your 15 responses to the very minimum that you think would be 16 acceptable?

g 17 MR. WOLLAK: Would you repeat so I don't answer I

l 18 it the wrong way?

g 19 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Have you ever been instructed, s

j 20 to the best of your knowledge, to limit the responses to a

! 21 NRC(questions to the ' extent. that they would be considered

=

f 22 to be the minimal response that would possibly be accepted l 23 .by the NRC?

4 MR. WOLLAK: We are told to answer the questions

- 25 but not to elaborate unnecessarily on the answer.

k;

, -232-4 .

- 1

, , (hh -

1 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Could you tell us who within

- 2 your organization has given you these types of instructions, s

3 either the name of a person or a particular department?

4 MR. WOLLAK: No, I can't tell you specifically

+

5 a n ame .

6 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Co,uld you give us the name of 7 the department within the organization that you recall has 8 provided this type of instruction?

9 MR. WOLLAK : You mean the instruction not to 10 elaborate on the --

gj MR. FAULKENBE RRY: That's correct.

12 MR. WOLLAK: I would say the legal department, 33 saying answer the question. When you are asked a question, q' answer the question.

14 15 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Okay, Mr. Wollak. That's 16 the extent of the questions that I have.

- 17 Owen, do you have anything to add?

MR. SHACKLETON : No, I have no additional l 18 j' 19 questions. Mr. Wollak, is there any closing comment you

, j 20 would like to make?

H

! 21 MR. WOLLAK: Well, the only comment I would have i

c.;f 22 is perhaps I'm not sure if an implication is being drawn on a

  • the fact that I said we're not supposed to elaborate on the

! 23 24 answers. I don't mean we're supposed to hide !information.

25 Nt is just like with any proceeding we are told not to go g

Y N

-233-

r

\

?

% 4 (b' 1 into extraneous detail about answering the question. I'm 2 just.trying to make that clear.

3 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you. No further comments.

4 We will now go off the record. The time is 4:34 p.m.

5 (End of interview.)

6 ,

7 8

9 l 10 11 1

12

. 13 14 15 16 17 5 <

l 18 g 19 3

j 20 i

l 5

21 d 22

$ 23 24 25

-234-e a .. ,4 . s c. . ._..,v.,.-. . . . . _ . . . . ._ , , . , .; ,, ,, _ , , ,,,, _ ,. _ , _ ,,, _ _ , , l

______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20040D393&oldid=2584305"