ML20040D438
| ML20040D438 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1981 |
| From: | Chen P ROBERT L. CLOUD ASSOCIATES, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17083A976 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202010296 | |
| Download: ML20040D438 (9) | |
Text
13 h
I that you would like to make corment on now as a matter of 2
record for assistance-to the Commission?
3 MR. LOEY:
I don't believe so.
4 MR. SHACKLETON:
We thank you very much for your r,
being here and for the information you have provided.
The 6
time is now 2:59 p.m.
Going off record.
7 (End of interview) 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 l
18 3
19 j
20 ij 21 3
22 i
23 24 25 D
KO O
-591-s a
+
,,.~..,,.....,.....,n.._..-
h 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 INVESTIGATION OF 5
DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 & 2 6
7 INTERVIEW OF 8
PAO-CIIUNG CHEN 9
Robert L. Cloud Associates to 125 University Avenue 11 Berkeley, California 12 Thurs day December 31, 1981 13
(.-
14 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 15 pursuant to notice, at 3:41 p.m.
16 17 APPEARANCES:
,Ij 18 On behalf of the NRC Staff:
g 19 OWEN C. SH ACKLETON, JR., Moderator j
20 PIIILIP J. MORRILL i
E 21 i
23 24 25
-592-4
.\\
~ -'
l I.
I ERRATA SHEET c
-Interview of Pao-Chung Chen, December 31, 1981
~
1 The following correction should be made:
Page 6 Line 3 - Change auxilliary to auxiliary.
This transcript was reviewed by Pao-Chung Chen and Owen C. Shackleton, Jr.
-c^
i J.
r
)
4 I
i I
i l
i l
i l
t t
i f-
~
-593-i
1 P_ R O_ g E E D,I_ N,g S, 2
3:41 p.m.
);iR. SHACKLETON:~
The date is December 31, 1981.
3 4
The time'is now 3:41 p.m.
This is an interview of Mr.
..5 Pao-Chuing Chen.
Mr. Chen is an engineer employed by the
.Robdrt L. Cloud & Associates, Inc.
This interview is taking 6
7 place in the offices of Robert L. Cloud & Associates, Inc.
at 125 Universityz Avenue, Berkeley, California.
g The purpose of this interview of Mr. Chen is to 9
' ~
assist the'US Suclear Regulatory Commission ih its current 10
' investigation to develop the facts and happenings surrounding ji 12 '
the present reverification program of the seismic design of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.
To conduct this 13 interview from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 14,
V,is Mr. Philip J. Morrill, Reactor Inspector.
My name is 15, Owen C.
Shackleton, Jr.
I am a senior investigator.
16 17 Mr. Chen, prior to our going on record I advised
=
18 you that you have the right to have personal legal counsel
,~ 'l_
g 19 present.
Do you waive that right, sir?
j 20 MR. CHEN:
Yes, I do, f
21
,MR. SH ACKLETON:
Also I requested of you that 3
d 22 you were to please keep your' testimony confidential.
Is f
that understood?
23 24 MR. CHEN:
Yes.
25 MR, SHACKLETON:
Would you please rise for the
-594-w m
may
-r a
ms
t
/
4 1.
-cath.
2 Whereupon,,
3
~
O PAO-CHUNG CHEN was call'ed as a witness and, af ter being first duly sworn, 4
5 was examined and testified an follows:
6 MR. SHACKLETON:
Mr. Chen, would you please state 7
your complete name?.
8 MR. CliEN :
My name is Pao-Chung Chen, but I go 9
by Pao.
10 MR. SHACKLETON:
And would:you please state what ii is your present assignment at Robert L.
Cloud & Associates 12 as to your responsibility?
(.
13 MR. CHEN:
My present assignment is to be respon-14 sible for a technical aspect of the reverification program, 15 starting November 1.
16 MR. SHACKLETON:
And how long have you been
~
employed by R. L.
Cloud & Associates, Inc.?
17 j
~18 MR. CHEN:
I have been employed by the company
- 19 since Feb ruary 1, 19 81.
y j
20 MR. SHACKLETON:
Mr. Chen, when did you begin working on the contract your company presently has for the 21 i
d 22 seismic reverification study for the Diablo Canyon nuclear s
j 23 power plarit?
~
MR. CHEN:
The date was October 11, 1981.
24 25 MR. SHACKLETON:
Have you been involved in the
-595-
i
(
i preparation of the October 21, October 26, November 6 and November 12, 1981 draft reports?
2 3
MR. CHEN :
Yes, I have.
4 MR. SHACKLETON:
Were you involved in thr. revision of the October 21, October 26 and November 6,1981 draft 5
6 reports?
7 MR. CHEN:
Yes.
I did.
MR. SHACKLETON:
Can you tell us, please, what 8
9 vere the original instructions provided to cloud employees performing the development of these reports and the handling to of the comments that were received?
ji MR. CHEN:
As I recall, there was no rigid guide-12 line.
I was the one to prepare the table of contents for 13 14 the report.
Each of us wrote a section to report what we f und.
As far as the guidelines are concerned, I don't 15 recall that there was a guideline.
16 17 MR. SHACKLETON:
Did you receive any verbal 18 comments from Pacific Gas & Electric, Westinghouse, or any j
y 19 other company personnel concerning recommended revisions to a
j 20 the October 21, October 26 and November 6 draft reports?
k MR. CHEN:
No.
As I recall, I did not receive 21 s
f 22 any verbal comments from PG&E.
MR. SHACKLETON:
During the course of your 23 24 responsibilities from October 11 through the work you 25 performed until the November 6 draft report, did you yoursel f k
-596-
k$
1 have to go over to PG&E headquarters to obtain information 2
and copies of any documents for your study?
3 MR. CHEN:
When you say infornation could.you 4
please clarify that?
5 MR. SHACKLETON:
Yes.
As I understand, in order 6
to perform your study it was, necessary in many cases for 7
engineers on your staff to go over and review documentation 8
and engineering records at PG&E.
I was wondering if you 9
were involved also in that activity.
to MR. CHEM:
Yes.
I was involved from the very 11 beginning.
12 MR. SHACKLETOM:
At the time that you were con-(.
13 ducting that work do you feel that you were given the 14 necessary assistance by PG&E that you required?
15 MR. CHEN:
I believe they provided adequate 16 assistance, although we had to ask for specific things.
17 MR. SHACKLETOM:
Mr. Chen, were you ever encour-g l
18 aged or directed by anyone to change any of your original i
19 findings?
j 20 MR. CHEN:
In the statements in the report?
21 MR. SHACKLETOM:
Yes, sir.
f 22 MR. CHEN:
No.
23 MR. SHACKLETON:
Could you tell us, Mr. Chen, 24 so the Commission will understand, your specific respon-25 sibilities and what part of the report you -- you said that Sa
-597-
(0 1
you wrote the table of contents.
Did you write any other 2
sections?
3 MR. CHEN:
Yes.
I wrote a section on auxilliary 4
building and intake structures and I guess sone paragraphs 5
on outdoor storage tanks and some paragraphs on cranes.
i 6
MR. SH ACKLETON:
On the draft reports that I have 7
identified like October 21 and October 26 and Movember 6, 8
were there any written comments made on the draf ts returned 9
to Cloud & Associates from PG&P in the sections that you u) authored?
11 MR. CHEN:
Yes, there were.
12 MR. SHACKLETON:
Can you tell the Commission 13 please what action was taken on the part of Cloud &
(,.
14 Associates concerning those comments?
15 MR. CHEN:
I believe perhaps it would be better 16 to speak for myself on that aspect.
For those sections I 17 was responsible when I received those comments I would g
j 18 determine.whether the comments were relevant or not.
When y
n)
I say relevant meaning -- well, I have to qualify this s
j 20 because the work was done within one week and we felt we f
21 may have overlooked some factual things because there are a
j f
22 many files.
We may not have searched all the files.
I 23 think that was one of the reasons -- I think it was the 24 reason we sent this draft report to PG&E.
The reason is 25 to get their comments to see whether we have missed anything l
-598-
I (o';f So when I received those comments on those 1
2 paragraphs I prepared I would determine whether those 3
comments are related to the things we were after, meaning 4
to provide more factual information.
Sono of the comments 5
I took, but some of their comments I simply neglected or 6
ignored because I did not feel those comments were good 7
in the sense we have enough factual information to substan-8 tiate my statements prepared in those paragraphs I wrote.
9 MR. SHACKLETON:
Mr. Chen, in the paragraphs that jo you authored in the study that you nade in those reports, 11 referring to October 21 and October 26 and November 6,1981, 12 as a result of the conments you received did you have any 13 reason or did you renove any adverse findings or downgrade
(.-
~
14 any findings?
15 MR. CIIEM:
No, I do not think so.
16 MR. SHACKLETON:
Mr. Chen, do you feel that 17 you have had complete freedom to express your findings as g
l 18 honestly as you know how?
g 19 MR. CIIEN:
Yes.
j 20 MR. SHACKLETON:
Have you ever made any changes l
in these drafts without substantiating documentation?
21 i
f 22 MR. CHEU:
Meaning to modify the statements?
l 23 MR. SHACKLETON:
Yes.
Any changes you made, do 24 you have somewhere within your company's records the reason 25 for the changes?
I'm talking about substantive changes, not l
-599-
\\
hj i
grammar or punctuation.
2 MR. CHEN:
I do not think so, because when there 3
was a change we had to know the basis for the change.
I 4
think in some cases, as I remember, we did go back to PG&E to look for additional information.
As a result of that, 5
a we did modify or change some statements because we found 7
additional information.
MR. MORRILL:
Excuse me for interruoting.
8 9
MR. SHACKLETON:
Go ahead, Mr. Morrill.
MR. MORRILL:
So Mr. Chen, the changes that were 10 made are based on information which is documented within ij your offices or retained by your office?
When you phrased 12 that initially I thought you said that you -- I'm not too 13 k
i4 sure how you answered that.
MR. CHEN:
Okay.
Let me repeat.
There were 15 16 some comments on those paragraphs I prepared and, as a 17 result of seeing those comments, I went back to PG&E to g
18 find more information.
For some cases I did find that i
19 information and, as a result of that, I modified the state-c 20 ments.
This is what I said.
When I found some additional f
21 facts I did modify the statements because, as I said earlier a
f 22 I felt the work was done in only one week and I might have 23 overlooked some of the things I was responsible for.
j 24 MR. SHACKLETON:
Mr. Chen, so that our Commis-25 sioners and other readers of the report can better understand hi j
-600-
~
/
'5
(,;
that week that we are referring to from October 11 until i
the time of the -- the period of time until the October 21 2
3 report, draft report was prepared -- can you give us an 4
idea of approximately how many hours each engineer must' have worked?
5 6
MR. CHEN:
I think, if I may, let me bring my 7
calendar so I can answer that question better.. We started work on Sunday.
8 MR. SHACKLETON:
Here is a calendar.
9 MR. CHEN:
Thank you.
Yes.
We started work on 10 Sunday and continued, if I renember correctly, continued 3j t
the next Saturday or Sunday.
I myself worked at least 12 ten hours a day.
33
(,
MR. SHACKLETON:
And how many men and women were 14 involved in that effort?
15 MR. CHEN:
Okay.
I have to count, excuse me.
16 MR. SHACKLETON:
Just approximately.
17 j
'18 MR. CHEN:
It was seven engineers.
MR. SHACKLETON:
Seven engineers.
g 19 c
MR. CHEN:
Yes.
And I think one only worked for j
20 j'
a couple days and another one worked I guess on a parttime 21 i
basis because he was in and out.
f 22 MR. SHACKLETON:
But I understand -- correct 23 me if I am wrong -- that many of the people put in well 24 over 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br />.
25 MR. CHEN:
Yes.
Others worked more hours.
-601-
T S c,
- ,r i.*
1 MR. SHACKLETON :
It was a very extensive effort, 2
I understand.
3 MR. CHEN:
Yes.
4 MR. SHACKLETON:
Do you have any further comments, 5
Mr. Morrill, or any questions?
6 MR. MORRILL:
Yes.
Mr. Chen, you mentioned that 7
other people.. worked on this during that timeframe on this a
preliminary report.
I imagine -- correct me if I am wrong 9
-- one of those was Dr. Tom Slot.
10 MR. CHEN:
That's right.
11 MR. MORRILL:
Could you name the other people 12 who worked on this during that time?
We have Mr. Denison, 13 Mr. Loey, Mr. Anderson.
(-
14 MR. CHEN:
Myself and also Dr. Cloud and also 15 Mr. Shafi Motiwalla.
These are the engineers that actually 16 went to PG&E.
17 MR. MORRILL :
Okay.
And that's it.
l 18 MR. CHEN:
That's it.
Yes.
g 19 MR. MORRILL:
Thank you.
I have no more ques-t j
20 tions.
21 MR. SHACKLETON:
I would like to ask again for a
f 22 clarification of the record for your opinion.
Mr. Chen, 23 do you feel -- because this is a big concern of the Commis-24 sion, as we discussed before we went on record -- do you 25 feel that your company, Cloud & Associates, had the L
-602-