ML20040D410
| ML20040D410 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1981 |
| From: | Kahler E PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17083A976 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202010265 | |
| Download: ML20040D410 (13) | |
Text
r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 INVESTIGATION OF 5
DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 & 2 6
INTERVIEW OF 7
EDWIN R. KAHLER 8
9 10 11 Pacific Gan & Electric Headquarters Offices
'2 Law Departnent Conf erence Room 13 77 Beale Street
(
San Francisco, California 14
- Friday, 15 December 18, 1981 16 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 17 2
pursuant to notice, at 3:43 p.m.
18 g
3 APPEARANCES:
j 19 i
On behalf of the NRC Staff:
h 20
}
OWEN C. SHACKLETON, JR., Moderator 21 B. H. FAULKENBERRY 22 23 24 25
- J
- N l
-368-1%
f ERRATA SHEET Interview of Edwin R. Kahler, December 18, 1981 The following corrections should be made:
Page 372. Line 4 - Change met the to met ~with.
Page 372, Line 4 - Change Chin to Chen.
Page 375, Line 17 - Change the period following report to a question snark.
The above corrections were iden'tified by Owen C. Shackleton, Jr.
-369-
_l
EESSEES$EEE 1
2 (3:43 p.m. )
3 MR. SHACKLETON:
On the record.
This is December 4
18, 1931 and the time is 3:43 p.m.
5 This is an interview of !!r. Edwin R.
Kahler.
Mr.
6 Kahler is a senior quality engineer for the Pacific Gas and 7
Electric Company, a
This interview is taking place in Room 3101 of the 9
corporate headquarters of Pacific Gas and Electric Company 10 located at 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, California.
it The purpose of this interview with Mr. Kahler is 12 part of the investigation being conducted by the U. S. Nuclear 13 Regulatory Commission to develop the facts and happenings 14 surrounding the present reverification program of the seismic 15 design of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.
In addition 16 to Mr. Kahler being present, from the Nuclear Regulatory aj 37 Commission, Region Five, the questioning will be done by Mr.
18 Bobby II. Paulkenberry, chief of reactor construction, project gi branch.
My name is Owen C. Shackleton, Jr.
I am a senior j
19 investigator.
20 d
Mr. Kahler, prior to our going on transcription, 21 Ir I advised you of your right to have personal legal counsel 22 pr esent, Do you so waive that right?
23 24 MR. KAHLER:
I waive that right.
25 MR. SHACKLETON:
Thank you, sir.
At this time,
-370-
I would you plcOco rico for tha oath?
2 Whereupon, 3
EDWIN R. KAHLER 4
having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein,
~
5 and was examined and testified as follows.
6 MR. SIIACKLETON:
Mr. Kahler, I'd also like to advise 7
you on behalf of the commission we're asking that you please 8
keep your testimony confids.astial and to yourself.
9 MR. KAHLER:
Will do.
10 MR. SHACKLETON:
Thank you.
Now I'll turn the ii questioning over to Mr. Faulkenberry.
12 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Mr. Kahler, what 'is' your current 13 job title and a brief summary of your job responsibilities
(
14 for PG&E7 15 MR. KAHLER:
I'm a senior quality engineer with the 16 engineering quality control department.
It's a sub department a
h 17 of the engineering departNent.
We basically== or my group is u3 basically responsible for auditing the engineering depar tment l
l j
19 for compliance to the engineering manual which is the engineer Lng department implementation of the corporate quality assurance 20 d
manual.
21 j
2 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Mr. Kahler, from. September through 22 November of 1981, have you had any involvemegt with the work 23 that has been performed by Dr. Cloud regarding ~the seismic 24
(-
reverification of Diablo Canyon?
e' l
25
/
-371-e e
\\
n A
1 MR. KAHLER:
Involvement?
You mean --
j,,
2.
MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Yes --
3
'MR. KAllLER:
I have reviewed one draft report.
I I _have met the Pao Chin who is the project engineer.
That's i
4 5~ tt about all our involvement.
Well, there's more than that.
One of my personne}. is assigned to accompany the Reedy Q.A. group 6
x i
when they ^go tc consultants as the' PG&E interface between 7
Reedy and the cobsulMnt.
.a
.3 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Mr. itahler, it's been determined 10 that four separate draf t reports of Dr. Cloud's work were 11 submitted to PG&E, These draf t reportis were subnitted to 12 PG&E on the approximate dates of Odtober the 21st, October the 26th, November the 6th, and November;the 12th, 1981.
Did you
.13 14 receive any of these draft copies?
[
15 MR. KAHLER:
I commented on-the one that's dated,
~
16 I believe,' November 6th on the front, ;,it's crossed out and 8
g 17 marked.in 12
- s 18 MR. FAULKENBERRY.t. Okay. -for the record, Mr.
2 3
j 19 Kahler iy referencing our report, entitiled " Preliminary i
/.,
- ~,
yj
- o' Report,eSeismic Reverification Program" dated November the 6th, -1981, and it was transmitted.under a transmittal note 21
~i from,C.';E., RMlston to Jim Rocca da$ed November 10th,1981 22 1
' Did you. review and comment on the material contained within 1
,?
23 this tcport?
Yes, I did.
Y
%4 y
0 Y
- ~
s y
j l'
-372-
,~
~.
4' 6 pnf-
--- ld -
s 1
MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Would you toll us who within 2
PG&E asked _you to review and comment on this material?
3
' MR. KAHLER:
I believe the report was sent to us as e
I a copy for comment -- I'm not sure of the transmittal process, 4
1 5
but there was a cover letter on this and we were sent a copy 6
of the cover letter with the report.
The copy was actually 4
7 sent to Jack Kilian, who is my immediate supervisor, and he
,c-8 asked ne to comment on it.
9 MR. SIIACKLETON:
Excuse.me, but could you spell your 10 supervisor's name for the record?
l~
.i i MR. KAIILER:
Jack Kilian, K-i-1-i-a-n, c,,
- 12 MR. SilACKLETON
Thank you.
13 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Mr. Kahler, ref erencing this
.14 report that we are discussing, there is a sheet attached to the report with a handwritten note entitled " Cloud Report" and 15 there are some initials on it.
16 l
8 MR. KAHLER:
Those are my initials.
i j
17
(
(
18 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Is this.the comment that you made?
?.
MR. KAHLER:
Yes.
- l 19 MR. FAULKENBERRY
And submitted.
And for the 20 5
record :I read, the comment states, "The writing style was 21 i
K awkward and unpolished.
Statements are made that show PG&E
~
22 in the worst light when the same thing could be said without 23 the emphasis.
Some places statements are made with qualifica-24 h'
tions and then stated some place else without the qualificatio n
25 l
-373-i
~-
G 1
which out of context looks pretty bad."
Mr. Kahler, could 2
{ly you address that comment, and give us your intent and the basi ls 3
for that comment?
4 MR. KAHLER:
Well, if you go through the report, 5
you will see notes in the margin.
Some of them are my 6
comments.
The -- as I stated, I f eel the report is awkwardly 7
written and unpolished.
Could we stop for a moment and go 8
off the record?
I've got to collect my thoughts.
9 MR. S HACKLETON:
We'll go off the record at this 10 time to giv e Mr. Kahler time to go through the report.
The 11 time is nov 3 : 50 p.m.
12
( Whereupon, a brief recess was taken, and the 13 record was played back. )
14 MR. SHACKLETON:
We are now back on the record.
The 15 time is 3 : 5 8 p.m.
Please continue, Mr. Kahler, and provide 16 your comments concerning the subj ect ' report.
17 MR. KAHLER:
In a number of instances, for example 18 as far as the style of writing, the same exact sentences i
t j
19 are used in the introduction of the report, in the body of ii 20 the report, in the sumnary of the report and in the conclusion 3
f 21 of the report.
It's just an awkward style of writing.
As far i*
22 as showing the statements that show PG&E in the worst light, 23 I was looking at this, that the report should be neutral.
Some 24 of the statements that are made here, I believe could easily
(-
be-taken out of context.
For example, on page 23 of the 25 4
-374-
1 rcport, paragraph 3.3.2.3, they're discussing the intake 2
i) structure and they get into -- the title of the paragraph 3
is " Design information from PG&E to e ruipment suppliers and 4
qualifiers."
" Conclusion is no information was found to be 5
giv en to equipment. suppliers."
However, on the next page 6
they state that the only structure in the containment that 7
is Class 1 is the, auxiliary saltwater pump and it was qualified 8
by PG&E.
Therefo re, there wouldn't have been any transmittals.
9 That's the type of thing that I was talking about, something to that could be easily taken out of context just as a paragraph.
11 There's a paragraph from the report.
It looks very damaging 12 when in fact it's supported some place else as being of no 13 valu e.
k" 14 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Okay, thank you, Mr. Kahler.
15 Mr. Kahler, did -- have you seen the final draf t report of 16 Dr. CloJd's which we identify as the November the 12th, _1981 17 report.
This is the report that was submitted to the NRC.
18 11 ave you seen a copy of that?
g j
19 MR. KAIILER:
I don't believe I have.
MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Do you have knowledge of whether 20 S
or not the comments that you made on the November the 6th 21 i*
draft were ever incorporated into the November the 12th draf t?
22 MR. KAHLER:
No, I do not.
My connents were made 23 n this report for Mr. Rocca as benefit as what I felt was in 24
~
the report.
And that's -- my comments were not intended to 25
-375-
I go to Cloud.
They, were intended for Mr. Rocca to review.
2 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
So you submittei your comments
(-
3 to Mr. Rocca?
4 MR. KAIILER:
Yes.
5 MR. PAULKENBERRY:
Do you know if Mr. Rocca in turn 6
submitted them to Dr. Cloud or not?
7 MR. KAHLER:
No, I don't.
8 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
From your standpoint, during the 9
time frame from October through November of 1981, was-it to considered by you to be standard practice or standard proce-dure within PG&E co review and comment on results of a con-11 12 tractor's work prior to the results being placed in a final 13 report?
14 MR. KAHLER:
During that time frame?
MR. FAULKENBERRY:
That time; frame.
Let's address 15 that time frame first.
Yes.
16
{
MR. KAHLER:
I believe normally when we let out a 37 e
18 contract for them to provide a report that we review prelimi-i-
nary reports before they're published as f!.nal.
39
- i MR. FAULKENBERRY
Are you saying that is consistent 20 with your understanding with regard to Dr. Cloud's work as well 21 i
i r
as any other consultant's work?
22 MR. KAHLER:
I'm not sure about Dr. Cloud's work.
23 I was only aware o f the one draf t on it.
24
.(
11R. FAULKENBERRY:
So you're primarily addressing 25 1
-376-
1 other consultants?
2 MR. KAHLER:
Yes.
Not necessarily Dr. Cloud's 3
report.
4 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Now, is this policy and pro-5 cedure that you've just described, was that standard policy 6
and procedure in effect prior to October of 19817 7
MR. KAHLER:
I'm not certain.
The only thing I a
can give you an example is our specifications.
We generally 9
ask for preliminary drawings and data before they're finalized to for our review.
I really can't address reports from design 11 type consultants.
12 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Maybe to rephrase the question 13 in a little bit different way, Mr. Kahler, did that seem to 14 be out of the ordinary to you when this result of Dr. Cloud's 15 work was submitted to you for review and comment?
16 MR. KAHLER:
No.
=
17 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Did you submit any of your e
18 comments directly to Dr. Cloud or did all of them go back g
j 19 to Mr. Rocca?
i 20 MR. KAHLER:
All of our comments went to Mr. Rocca.
21 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
At the time you reviewed and i*
22 commented on this draf t report, had you ever been made aware 23 by people within PG&E, by people within the NRC, or others 24 that the results of Dr. Cloud's work should not be reviewed b
25 by PG&E prior to it being submitted to,the NRC?
-377-O*
I
- 84J
%#h ' $/* $ U 94O S
mod
,M
J 1
I'm not aware of any requirement as of 2
.g the time frame that this report was out.
That we made these 3
comments.
I know there was some comment -- or 'some concern 4
as to what did independent really mean.
But at that point I 5
don't believe there was any formal -- anything formal from the 6
NRC or internally that really described how Dr. Cloud was 7
going to be -- in what capacity he was really going to be 8
acting in, and I'm not sure we had direction at that time as 9
to how to treat that.
10 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
All right.
Has any direction 11 been provided since that time, and I'm ref erencing the time 12 you actually received that report and commented on it'.
Has 13 any direction been given to you with regard to how you should
('
14 handle Dr. Cloud's results of his work?
15 MR. KAHLER:
Well, since the November 19th order of 16 suspension, I believe at that point everybody pretty much 17 considered that he was completely independent, and that we 18 would not comment on any of his work.,yust assist.-himlin g
j is whatever way we can.
i l
20 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Uere any of the comments tha.t l
21 you provided to Mr. Rocca for submittal to Dr. Cloud, were i*
22 they intended by you only for the purpose of removing adverse 23 information?
24 MR. KAHLER:
I wouldn't say it was to remove
(-
adverse information.
I think we are aware that a writing 25
-378-
22 1
style can convey an attitude or emotion.
At best, I would 2
g like to see at least a neutral type of emotion.
The way I read 3
the report it would -- it was more of an adverse -- to PG&E.
4 MR. PAULKENBERRY:
Were any of the c' mments that o
5 you provided to Mr. Rocca intended by you to place PG&E and 6
its contractors in a more favorable light?
7 MR. KAHLER:
I would probably have to answer yes to 8
that.
I would -- at least in a neutral light,. rather than an 9
adverse one.
10 MR. PAULKENBERRY:
Maybe it would help to clarify 11 your statements to those previous questions if I asked you, 12 could you tell us in your own words, what was the intent of 13 the comments that you provided to Mr. Rocca?
k-14 MR. KAHLER:
The intent was to try to get a more 15 concise, better written report that aimed at best at neutrality.
16 To try to get out what I thought were some statements like 17 the one I pointed out previously, the type of thing that could l
18 be easily taken out of context and appears to be a complete g
l 3
[
j 19 statement in itself when it fact it isn't.
That was the main i
l 20 emphasis of my comments.
l 21 MR. PAULKENBERRY:
Mr. Kahler, to the best of your i*
knowledge, does PG&E have a policy, written or otherwise, 22 23 of not volunteering information to the NRC unless it's 24 specifically asked for by members of the NRC?
(-
I don' t believe so.
At least I'm not 25
-379-
37 1
aware of any policy.
I think we have tried to demonstrate 2
in the past, and for example, when you were here in October,
_a 3
that we tried every way we could to find the information that 4
you requested.
5 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Mr. Kahler, do you know of any 6
effort that has been made by any employee of PG&E,
- including 7
Yo urself, to revise the results of Dr. Cloud's work such that 8
it is not a true reflection, and a complete reflection and 9
an accurate reflection of Dr. Cloud's findings?
10 MR. KAIILER:
Could you repeat -- I missed the first 11 of that.
Could you repeat it?
12 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Okay, I'll repeat the question.
13 Do you know of any effort that has been made by any
("
14 employee of PG&E, including yourself, to revise the results 15 of Dr. Cloud's work such that it does not reflect a true, a 16 complete and an accurate record of his findings?
17 MR. KAHLER:
No, I'm not aware of any effort at all-2 18 to try to revise Dr. Cloud's findings.
As a matter of' fact, j
19 I think the department has been trying to do their best to get a true and accurate picture of our work.
20 MR. FAULKENDERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Kahler.
Tha t's 21 I
E all the questions that I have for you.
Owen, do you have 22 anything to add?
23 MR. SHACKLETON:
Thank you, Mr. Kahler.
For the 24
(-
record purposes, how long have you been employed by Pacific 25
-380-
1 Gac cnd Electric?
Juct roughly.
2 MR. KAHLER:
I've been employed -- eight years.
3 M R. S,HACKLETON :
Is there anything further you would 4
like to say regarding the questions that have been asked this 5
afternoon.
MR. KAHLER:
I can't think of anything, no.
6 MR. SHACKLETON:
All right.
We thank you very much 7
g for sitting down and going over this subject with us and 9
helping us in this investigation, We'll now go off the record.
The time is 4:10 p.m.
io (End of interview. )
11 12 13 14 15 IG 8
g 17 E
j 19
$j 20 Jl 21 5
22 23 24 t'
25
-381 -
i ru umismmis