ML20040D438

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Transcript of Rl Cloud Associates Testimony by Pc Chen on 811231 in San Francisco,Ca.Pp 594-603
ML20040D438
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon  Pacific Gas & Electric icon.png
Issue date: 12/31/1981
From: Chen P
ROBERT L. CLOUD ASSOCIATES, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML17083A976 List:
References
NUDOCS 8202010296
Download: ML20040D438 (9)
v • d • e


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 i

j 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

to Robert L. Cloud Associates 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:

I j 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.

3

);iR. SHACKLETON:~ The date is December 31, 1981.

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 6 .Robdrt L. Cloud & Associates, Inc. This interview is taking 7 place in the offices of Robert L. Cloud & Associates, Inc.

g at 125 Universityz Avenue, Berkeley, California.

9 The purpose of this interview of Mr. Chen is to

' ~

10 assist the'US Suclear Regulatory Commission ih its current ji

' investigation to develop the facts and happenings surrounding 12 '

the present reverification program of the seismic design of 13 the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. To conduct this 14 , interview from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region V,is Mr. Philip J. Morrill, Reactor Inspector. My name is

, 15, 16 Owen C. Shackleton, Jr. I am a senior investigator.

17 Mr. Chen, prior to our going on record I advised

=

,~ 'l_ >

18 you that you have the right to have personal legal counsel g 19 present. Do you waive that right, sir?

j 20 MR. CHEN: Yes, I do,

,MR. SH ACKLETON: Also I requested of you that f3 21 d 22 you were to please keep your' testimony confidential. Is that understood?

f 23

. 24 MR. CHEN: Yes.

25 MR, SHACKLETON: Would you please rise for the

-594-w may

t

  • /

4 % -

1. -cath. -

2 Whereupon,, ,

3

~

. O PAO-CHUNG CHEN 4 was call'ed as a witness and, af ter being first duly sworn, 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

~

17 employed by R. L. Cloud & Associates, Inc.?

j ~18 MR. CHEN: I have been employed by the company y .

- 19 since Feb ruary 1, 19 81.

j 20 MR. SHACKLETON: Mr. Chen, when did you begin

! 21 working on the contract your company presently has for the i

d 22 seismic reverification study for the Diablo Canyon nuclear s

j 23 power plarit? ,

~

24 MR. CHEN: The date was October 11, 1981.

25 MR. SHACKLETON: Have you been involved in the

-595-

i

( i preparation of the October 21, October 26, November 6 and 2 November 12, 1981 draft reports?

3 MR. CHEN : Yes, I have.

4 MR. SHACKLETON: Were you involved in thr. revision 5

of the October 21, October 26 and November 6,1981 draft 6 reports?

7 MR. CHEN: Yes. I did.

8 MR. SHACKLETON: Can you tell us, please, what 9 vere the original instructions provided to cloud employees to performing the development of these reports and the handling ji of the comments that were received?

12 MR. CHEN: As I recall, there was no rigid guide-13 line. I was the one to prepare the table of contents for 14 the report. Each of us wrote a section to report what we 15 f und. As far as the guidelines are concerned, I don't 16 recall that there was a guideline.

- 17 MR. SHACKLETON: Did you receive any verbal j 18 comments from Pacific Gas & Electric, Westinghouse, or any y 19 other company personnel concerning recommended revisions to a

j 20 the October 21, October 26 and November 6 draft reports?

k 21 MR. CHEN: No. As I recall, I did not receive s

f 22 any verbal comments from PG&E.

23 MR. SHACKLETON: During the course of your 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.

g 17 MR. SHACKLETOM: Mr. Chen, were you ever encour-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 fa 21 may have overlooked some factual things because there are 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 1 So when I received those comments on those 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 21 in these drafts without substantiating documentation?

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 5 to look for additional information. As a result of that, a we did modify or change some statements because we found 7 additional information.

8 MR. MORRILL: Excuse me for interruoting.

9 MR. SHACKLETON: Go ahead, Mr. Morrill.

10 MR. MORRILL: So Mr. Chen, the changes that were ij made are based on information which is documented within 12 your offices or retained by your office? When you phrased

,. 13 that initially I thought you said that you -- I'm not too k i4 sure how you answered that.

15 MR. CHEN: Okay. Let me repeat. There were 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 facts I did modify the statements because, as I said earlier fa 21 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

(,; i that week that we are referring to from October 11 until 2 the time of the -- the period of time until the October 21 3 report, draft report was prepared -- can you give us an 4 idea of approximately how many hours each engineer must' 5 have worked?

6 MR. CHEN: I think, if I may, let me bring my 7 calendar so I can answer that question better. . We started 8

work on Sunday.

9 MR. SHACKLETON: Here is a calendar.

10 MR. CHEN: Thank you. Yes. We started work on 3j Sunday and continued, if I renember correctly, continued 12 t the next Saturday or Sunday. I myself worked at least 33 ten hours a day.

(,'

MR. SHACKLETON: And how many men and women were 14 15 involved in that effort?

16 MR. CHEN: Okay. I have to count, excuse me.

17 MR. SHACKLETON
Just approximately.

j '18 MR. CHEN: It was seven engineers.

g 19 MR. SHACKLETON: Seven engineers.

c j 20 MR. CHEN: Yes. And I think one only worked for j' 21 a couple days and another one worked I guess on a parttime i

basis because he was in and out.

f 22 23 MR. SHACKLETON: But I understand -- correct 24 me if I am wrong -- that many of the people put in well 25 over 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br />.

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

clarification of the record for your opinion. Mr. Chen, f 22 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-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20040D438&oldid=2584224"