ML20040D397

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Transcript of Util Testimony by Ow Steinhardt on 811217 in San Francisco,Ca.Pp 235-250
ML20040D397
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon  Pacific Gas & Electric icon.png
Issue date: 12/17/1981
From: Steinhardt O
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML17083A976 List:
References
NUDOCS 8202010253
Download: ML20040D397 (15)
v • d • e


Text

_ _

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

4 INVESTIGATION OF 5 DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 & 2 o INTERVIEW OF 7 OTTO W. STEINHARDT 8

9 Pacific Gas & Electric to IIeadquarters Offices Law Department Conference Roon 11 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 12 Thursday, 13 December 17, 1981 k, ..

14 15 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 16 Pursuant to notice, at 4:51 p.m.

3 17 APPEARANCES:

L

- 18 E On behalf of the NRC Staff:

j 19

OWEN C. SilACKLETON, JR., Moderator

! 20 B. II . FAULKENBERRY 3

4 21 i

e 22 23 24

- 25 8202010253 820127 PDR 0 ADOCK 05000275

,, PDR

ERRATA SHEET Interview of 0. W. Steinhardt, December 17, 1981 The following correction should be made:

  • Page 241, Line 20 - After unfavorable, add impression.

The above correction has been identified by Bobby H. Faulkenberry and

- 0. W. Steinhardt, d

-236-

1 PROCEEDINGS 2 4:51 p.m.

(Th ?'

3 MR. SHACKLETON: This is December the 17tn, 1981, and 4 the time is 4:51 p.m.

5 This is an interview of Mr. Otto W. Steinhardt. Mr.

6 Steinhardt is a senior civil engineer with the Pacific Gas and 7 Electric Company. This interview is taking place in Room 3101 8 of the Corporate Headquarters of the Pacific Gas and Electric 9 Company located at 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, California, io The purpose of this interview is part of the investi-ij gation being conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 12 develop the facts and happenings surrounding the present 13 reverification program being conducted by the Pacific Gas and

\ Electric Company of the seismic design of the Diablo Canyon j4 15 nuclear power plant.

16 Present during this interview from PG&E is Mr.

t j j7 Steinhardt who has been with PG&E for thirteen years.

- 18 From the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region Five, a

3 j ig conducting the questioning for this interview is Mr. Bobby H.

a l 20 Paulkenberry, chief of reactor construction, projects branch.

a d :1y name is Owen C, Shackleton, Jr., and I am tne senior inves-21 3

$ tigator for Region Five.

22 Mr. Steinhardt, have you been advised, sir, that you 23 have the~right to have your own personal legal counsel present 24

(' 25 during the course of this interview?

-237-

1 MR. STEINHARDT: Yes.

2 MR. SHACKLETON: And do you waive that right, sir?

< 3 MR. STEINHARDT: Yes.

4 MR. SHACKLETON: At this time we will stand and I 1 5 will administer the affirmation rather than the oath at the 6

request of Mr. Steinhardt due to his religious beliefs.

7 Whereupon, 8 OTTO W. STEINHARDT 9 having first duly affirmed, was called as a witness herein, 10 and was examined and testifed as follows.

11 MR. SHACKLETON: Mr. Steinhardt, the Commission i 12 would greatly appreciate it if you would keep your personal

! 13 testimony here confidential.

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

s 1

16 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Steinhardt, could you tell us

37 what your current job title is and give us a very brief

, n3 summary of your job responsibilities.

j jg MR.-STEINHARDT: I am a senior civil engineer in the 1  ;

i 20 ge technical and seismic and substation section of the civil a

engineering department. Most of my responsibility involves 21 E' consideration of seismic related problems and solutions to 22 r

seismic problems. In that connection, I have been involved 23 with Diablo Canyon power plant for ten years.

J 24 (i 25 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Okay, Mr. Steinhardt, then I

-238-

_ _ . . . - _ . . ___ _, _ - _ _ . _ _ _ - ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ . _ - _ _ --__.

3 1 assume based upon the response to that question, that from 2 September through November 1981, you did have involvement 3 with the work that was being performed by Dr. Cloud regarding 4 the reverification design effort on Diablo Canyon, is that 5 correct?

6 MR. STEINHARDT: Yes.

7 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Could you describe your involvement 8 during tnat time period?

9 MR. STEINHARDT: Providing information to Dr. Cloud' s 10 personnel on the matter of the seismic resistance of the n electric raceway supports at Diablo Canyon, and reviewing a 12 portion of the draft report to comment on it for its apparent 13 accuracy.

(.'

14 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Steinhardt, it has been 15 determined that four separate draft reports of Dr. Cloud's 16 work were submitted to PG&E. These draft reports were sub-h 17 mitted to PG&E on approximately the dates of October 21st,

- 18 October 26th, November 6th, and November 12th, 1981. Did you j ig receive any of these draft reports?

i

20 MR. STEINHARDT: I received a few pages from one a

e s f the earlier versions, and I don't know whether it was the 21 s

X

first or the second. It was late in October, approximately three pages. I believe three pages were handed to me for 23 comment, dealing exclusively with the electric raceways. I 24

( 25 don't remember specifically seeing other pages of the drafts.

-239-

e 1 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Am I correct in understanding 7 2 then that those few pages that you received constituted all CG:

3 of the material from these four draft reports of Dr. Cloud's 4 that were submitted to you for review?

5 MR. STEINHARDT: To.the best of my knowledge that's 6

correct with the understanding that it was not from all four 7

drafts, it was from one draft.

8 MR. FAULKENBERRY: One of the earlier drafts?

9 MR. STEINHARDT: Yes.

10 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Do you know for sure or would ij you assume tnat it was either th e October 21 or October 26 12 draft?

13 MR. STEINHARDT: I'm sure it was from one of those.

~

14 I am quite sure that since that time I have not seen any 15 version of the report.

16 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Did you provide comments on the 17 material from those earlier draft reports that you identified?

- 18 MR. STEINHARDT: Yes.

I j ig MR. FAULKENBERRY: Could you tell me who within 20 PG&E asked you to comment on this material?

MR. STEINHARDT: I believe it was Vince Ghio.

f 21 i

22 MR. FAULKENBERRY: During the time frame of 23 October through November of 1981, was it considered to_be 24 standard procedure within PG&E to review and comment on the 25 results of a contractor's work prior to these results being l

-240-I

.J i placed in a final report form?

2 MR. STEINHARDT: Yes.

{:

3 (Pause.)

4 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Steinhardt, how were your 5 comments that you provided to Dr. Cloud on the material 6 that you reviewed, how were these actually provided? Were '

7 they handwritten comments on the pages of material that were J 8 given to you or were they contained on other material and 9 given to Dr. Cloud under separate cover?

10 MR. STEINHARDT: The method that I used to transmit 11 the comments to Mr. Ghio was by handwriting in red ink on 12 xeroxed pages.of that portion dealing with electric raceways.

13 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Did you ever submit any of your

~

14 comments directly to Dr. Cloud or were they,always submitted.

15 back through Mr. Ghio?

16 MR. STEINHARDT: On one occasion after I wrote out 2  !

. 17 the comments, a few days after, I believe, I met Dr. Cloud 4

I 18 accidentally probably here in the building, and in conversa-i j 19 tion remarked that I had been disappointed, surprised, dis-i

? 20 mayed at the unfavorable that they had obtained by looking at

.a d

21 our records on the electric raceways. That was the only type 22 f comment that I gave directly to Dr. Cloud or his people, 23 well, to Dr.-Cloud other than the written comments. Except 24 f r the followup to that which will come out in later questions, 25 I believe. I can volunteer it now if you wish.

-241.-

+

.n - - , - - - - - . , , - , , n- --

1 MR.'. PAULKENBERRY: Why don't you go ahead and 2 explain what you --

3 MR. STEINHARDT: A few days after this remark that 4 'I just cited, one of Dr. Cloud's associates, Mr. Dennison, 5 appeared. I think he telephoned thirty minutes in advance 6 and asked if he could come in. I forget exactly. And he 7 wanted to discuss what it was that I had in mind when I said 8 to Dr. Cloud that I was surprised and disappointed. And he 9 had with him sample calculations from our files which he had u) used as the basis, apparently had used as the basis for the ji comments which I had found so surprising and disappointing.

12 And we talked about the validity of his comnents based on 13 what he had to show me.

['-

34 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Were you able to show him actual 15 documentation or solid evidence that that information that 16 was contained in the reports was misleading or inaccurate?

/

{ 37 MR. STEINHARDT: Yes and no. It was a mixed bag.

e

g. uj There were some ways in which my interpretation of what he 3

a j n) had been looking at seemed to improve his understanding and a

! 20 may have changed his mind. But in other ways he was able to-a d convince me that his adverse comments were in fact justified.

21 3

C 22 There was -- it was by no means a one way communication.

23 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Steinhardt, at the time you 24 reviewed and commented on these or this draft report, had you k- 25 ever been made aware by people within PG&E, within the NRC, or

-242-

I any others that the results of .Dr. Cloud's work should not-f 2 be reviewed by PG&E prior to it being placed in final form

(.;:F; A

j' 3 for submittal'to the NRC?

l 4 MR. STEINHARDT:- No.

5 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Could you speak.out on that?

6 MR. STEINHARDT: No. The answer was no.

7 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Have you since,been made aware of

. 8 this?

i 4'

9 MR. STEINHARDT: No. Excuse me, I would like to add 10 a remark to clarify.

11 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Certainly.

12 MR. STEINHARDT: I was definitely aware tnat Dr. -

13 Cloud was to perform an independent review, and I was just 4

('"~ 14 as anxious as I believe many others at PG&E were not to 15 compromise the independence of that review. But on the other-16 hand, it just makes conse that we should cooperate with Dr.

17 Cloud and his associates to be sure that the review presented I

.- 18 accurate findings.

3 3

i j 19 (Pause.)

a.

! 20 MR. FAULKENBERRY: You mentioned that you were aware 1

.f 21 of the concern for the independency of Dr. Cloud and his work.

i 22 Could you tell me when you were first made aware of the con-23 cern for independency and who within PG&E informed you of this l- 24 concern?

l

(~ 25- MR. STEINHARDT: I was in the group of engineers 4

-243-

I and management personnel who went to the NRC hearing early 2 in October, and I was sitting in the audience when the staff

)

3 director was discussing the need for an independent review 4 and Dr. Cloud was, of course, participating in that hearing, 5 and I heard tne remarks that were made. And no one had to 6 tell me that Dr. Cloud was going to perform as an independent 7 consultant. I heard what the instruction was.

8 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Steinhardt, in your review 9 and commenting on Dr. Cloud's material, did you ever consider 10 that your review and commenting on the results of Dr. Cloud's 11 work prior to it being submitted to the NRC could possibly 12 jeopardize the independency of Dr. Cloud's work?

13 MR. STEINHARDT: No. No. Would you restate the 14 question?

n3 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Okay, Mr. Steinhardt. Based upon 16 the responses to the previous few questions, I'm asking, in a

h 17 the review and in your commenting on the results of Dr.

2

H3 Cloud's work, during that time, did it occur to you that your 5

j 19 action prior to this submittal of Dr. Cloud's work to the NRC, 20 could possibly jeopardize the independency of Dr. Cloud's work?

d 21 MR. STEINHARDT: The thought may have occurred to i

E 22 me, but I was convinced that what I was doing would not in 23 any way jeopardize that independence or contribute to 24 j pardizing that independence.

k" 25 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Steinhardt, were any of the

-244-i

.I comments that you provided to Dr. Cloud as a result of 2 your review of his material, were these comments ever intended 3 by you to remove adverse information from the report?

4 MR. STEINHARDT : - No, provided I was sure that the 5 adverse comments were justified, insofar as they related to 6 my area of responsibility. I was concerned that the comments, 7 whether adverse or not, be based on a correct interpretation 8 of the record.

9 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Relating back to your comment 10 a few moments ago to Dr. Cloud when you met him in the hallway 11 here in the PG&E building when he was over on a visit, and 12 you expressed a concern about the way he presented some of the 13 material, how do you relate that to the question I-just asked

(,,

14 you about your intention -- about the intent of your comment 15 to remove any adverse information from Dr. Cloud's reports?

16 MR. STEINHARDT: I feel that the remark I made to g 17 Dr. Cloud was at the time a factual statement. I was expressing

- 18 my feelings about the way the report had been drafted in that E

j 19 section, and I said just a moment ago, I was interested not in a

! 20 removing adverse comments, but in removing inaccurate comments ,

3 f 21 and if they happened to be inaccurate adverse comments, of 3

  • course I was interested in having them removed from the record 22 ,

23 Merely because of the inaccuracy, not because of the adverseness.

24 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Steinhardt, in the same 25 light, were any of your comments that you provided to Dr. Cloud

-245-

1 ever intended by you to place PG&E or any of its contractors 2 in a'more favorable light?

C.

3 MR. STEINHARDT: No, not beyond that of achieving 4 accuracy of their criticism.

5 MR. FAULKENBERRY: In your own words, could you l

6 tell us what the overall or prinary intent of the -- I'd say-7 the exclusive intent of your comments were.

8 MR. STEINHARDT: To improve the accuracy of-the l

9 interpretation that Dr. Cloud and his associates gave to the 10 w rk of ours which they were reviewing.

jj MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Steinhardt, have you seen 12 Dr. Cloud's final draft report that was forwarded to the NRC under a cover letter dated November the 18th, 1981?

13 14 MR. STEINHARDT: No.

15 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Steinhardt, if you have not 16 seen a copy of that report, and I'm showing you a copy of it 17 now, would you be in a position to determine whether any of g

18 the comments that you forwarded to Dr. Cloud were actually a

j 19 incorporated into the final draft report?

i 20 (A copy of the report was shown to Mr. Steinhardt.)

f3 21 MR. STEINHARDT: If-I can find the pages that I 22 commented on, I might be able to remember whether I seemed to 23 have influenced the comments or not. Should I now take the 24 time to look for those pages?

25 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Why don't you take a couple of

-246-

I moments and look at the report?

2 (Mr. Steinhardt looked through the report.)

3 MR. STEINHARDT: I. feel that the remarks tnat appear 4 on pages 60, 61 and 62 concerning the electrical raceways 5 represent the outcome, the edited outcome of the discussion 6 that I had with Mr. Dennison which I described earlier. At 7 the end of that interview, I was satisfied.and'I am now satis-8 fied that he had correctly interpreted our work. And I find 9 that it is still just as critical of our work as it seemed to 10 me at the end of our discussion he was warranted in being, in n writing such criticism. I am still somewhat dismayed that he I was able to criticize us that much but I'm satisfied that his 12 13 criticism was based on an accurate interpretation of what he f

i 14 found.

15 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Steinhardt, have you ever 16 received the results of Dr. Cloud's work other than those g 17 few pages of the initial draft reports that you've identified?

18 MR. STEINHARDT: No.

I j 19 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Steinhardt, does PG&E have 20 a policy, either written or conveyed to you verbally or any 21 other manner of not volunteering information to the NRC unless i

22 it's specifically asked for?

23 MR. STEINHARDT: Would you restate the question?

24 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Okay. What I'm asking, Mr.

25 Steinhardt, to the best of your knowledge, has any member of i

-247-

j PG&E management ever conveyed to you in a written form or 2 a verbal form to not volunteer information to NRC representa-

?!

3 tives unless they specifically saked for it?

4 MR. STEINHARDT: No.

5 MR. FAULKENBERRY: What are the groundrules within 6 PG&E as you know them today with regard to the way the results 7 of Dr. Cloud's work or any other contractor's work involving 8 a reverification of Diablo Canyon design should be handled 9 prior to its submittal to the NRC?

10 MR. STEINHARDT: Whenever such material is to be 11 reviewed and commented on, the only legitimate purpose, and 12 the only purpose I have in mind when I do it, is to achieve 13 accuracy and completeness.

(

14 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Now those groundrules as you

, 15 have just stated them, have they been conveyed to you by some-16 ne in Particular, by your supervisor, or any other member 3

37 of management within PG&E?

~ 18 MR. STEINHARDT: Not explicitly. Nothing to the 3

3 j 39 contrary has been stated or conveyed to me. What I have just stated is my opinion of good practice.

20 i

l: 21 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr..Steinhardt, what are the 22 standard procedures within PG&E regarding the review of the 23 results of ~any contractor's work prior to it being published 24 in the final form?

MR. STEINHARDT: In general, as I stated earlier,

~

25

-248-

I to review for accuracy and completeness. Now it's conceivable 2

- g. to me that in a non-nuclear, non-safety related matter, material 3 that might possibly be adverse to PG&E might initiate discus-4 sions before proceeding further. But-the intent is never to

.5 -- merely to cover up, The intent in non-nuclear, non-safety 6 matters might be to try to rectify something wrong rather than 7 simply let it go into the report. But I don't know of any 8 specific instances of that sort. I'm now speaking merely as 9 a general feeling that I have of what might be proper practice 10 in such a non-nuclear matter.

11 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Steinhardt, do you considerE 12 your review and your commenting on the result of Dr. Cloud's 13 work to have been handled in accordance with standard PG&E 14 practices, procedures in effect at that time?

15 MR. STEINHARDT: Yes.

16 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Do you know of any effort that s

, 17 has been made by any employee of PG&E including yourself to

- 18 revise the results of Dr. Cloud's work such that it does not

5
; 19 reflect a true, complete and accurate finding of his work?

i

! 20 MR. STEINHARDT: No.

1

, f 21 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Do you know of any conscious or

i '

22 prearranged plan written or otherwise for PG&E employees while 4

23 attending meetings with the NRC to limit or otherwise constrair t 24 their responses to NRC questions?

i 25 MR. STEIUHARDT: No.

s

-249-

1 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Steinhardt, that. concludes 2 the questions that I have. Owen, do you have anything to add?

}l 3 MR. SilACKLETON : I have no further questions.

4 Ifowever, Mr. Steinhardt, if there's any questions that you 5 addressed, and you feel uncomfortable with your answer and 6 you would like to come back to that subject and give further 7 explanation, this is your opportunity.

8 MR. STEINilARDT: I do not have any further things 9 to say.

10 MR. SilACKLETON : All right, sir, we thank you very 33 much.for your assistance in this interview, and we'll now go 12 off the record. The time is 5:18 p.m.

L 13 (End of interview.)

14 15 16

! 17 2

g 18 j 19 i

20 a

l 21 t

i 22 23 24

-250-

., s ,a - ..., ~ ~ . .

_ _ _ _ _ . . .

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20040D397&oldid=2584302"