ML20040D364
| ML20040D364 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 12/16/1981 |
| From: | Cloud R ROBERT L. CLOUD ASSOCIATES, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17083A976 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202010222 | |
| Download: ML20040D364 (76) | |
Text
.
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
~.
h.I NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO!! MISSION 3
4 INVESTIGATION OF 5
^
^
6 INTERVIEW OF DR. ROBERT L. CLOUD 7
Pacific Gas & Electric 8
Headquarters Offices Law Department Conference g
Room 77 Beale Street to San Francisco, California Wednesday, December 16, 1981 13 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at 9:27 a.m.
APPEARANCES:
16
'I On behalf of the NRC Staff:
g--
17 B.
H.
FAULKENBERRY IO j
OWEN C.
SHACKLETOU, JR.,
Moderator j
19
$j 20 el 21
=
22 23 24 25 O202010222 820127 PDR ADOCK 05000 g
O ERRATA SHEET Interview of R. L. Cloud, December 16, 1981 The following corrections should be made:
Page 5. Line 1
- Change SCHACKLETON to SHACKLETON.
Page 7, Line 17 - Change to honest to to be honest.
Page 15, Line 9 - Change basiss to basis.
Page 20, Line 2 - Change what to that.
Page 32, Line 5 - Change pahses to phases.
Page 32, Line 11 - Change Roca to Rocca.
Page 36, Line 11 - Change Manianis to Man... tis.
Page 41, Line 20 - Change one Dr. to one of Dr.
Page 44, Line 13 - Change light to slight.
Pages 10,13,14,18, 21, 27, and 29 - Wherever McCraken appears, change to McCracken.
The above corrections have been identified by Owen C. Shackleton Jr.,
Bobby H. Faulkenberry, and Dr. R. L. Cloud.
I r __
I EEEEEEE1EEE 2
9:27 a.m.
3 MR. SHACKLETON:
On the record.
4 This is December 16, 1981.
The time is 9:27 5
a.m.
6 This is an interview of Robert L. Cloud and 7
it's taking place in Room 3101 of the corporate office 8
headquarters of Pacific Gas and Electric in San Francisco, 9
California, to The purpose of this interview of Dr. Cloud is part of the investigation being conducted by the U.S.
11 Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop the facts and 12 happenings surrounding the present reverification program 13 being conducted by Pacific Gas and Electric Company concern-14 15 ing the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
16 Present for this interview is Dr. Robert L.
Cloud who is a consultant for Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
17 j
18 Representing the United States Nuclear Regulatory 3
19 Commission, from Region Five is Mr. Bobby H.
Faulkenberry, c
j 20 who is chief of reactor construction, projects branch and f
21 the moderator, Owen C.
Shackleton, Jr.,
senior investigator.
f 22 Dr. Cloud, you have the privilege and right to 3
g 23 have present personal counsel.
Do you so desire to have 24 anyone -- of counsel present?
25 DR. CLOUD:
I don't think I need one..
1 MR. SHACKLETON:
All right.
That's your 2
privilege, sir.
3 Prior to the beginning of this interview, I 4
explained to Dr. Cloud that the interview would be conducted 5
under oath and that he had a right to refuse this and he 6
has agreed that he would accept an interview under oath.
7 So, at this time, Dr. Cloud, would you please 8
stand and raise your right hand?
9 Whereupon, 10 ROBERT L. CLOUD 11 was called as a witness and having been first duly sworn, 12 was examined and testified as follows:
13 MR. SHACKLETON:
Thank you.
Please be seated.
14 Some of the ground rules that I want to make 15 clear at this time, Dr. Cloud, is that we are requesting 16 that all interviewees not to discuss this testimony with 17 anyone else.
j 18 At this time, I would appreciate for the record 3
19 if you would please give your title of your company and j
20 just briefly your present contractural relationship with e
l 21 PG&E, f
22 DR. CLOUD:
The name of my company is Robert L.
k 23 Cloud Associates.
We are, at the moment, working on the 24 reverification of the seismic design of the plant insofar 25 as it relates to seismic service-related contractors.
_4
(hI 1
MR. SCHACKLETON:
Thank you.
2 And the location of your company, Dr. Cloud?
3 DR. CLOUD:
It's in Berkeley, California.
4 MR. SHACKLETON:
Thank you, sir.
5 Bobby, would you like to proceed with the 6
questions, please?
7 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Thank you, Owen.
8 Dr. Cloud, on what date were you first contracted g
to do work for PG&E as related to thq seismic diagram error?
DR. CLOUD:
Contacted?
10 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Contracted.
11 DR. CLOUD:
Contracted.
12 13 Let me answer that in the way it happened, f-14 In late September, and the date, I don't remember 15
-- but in late September at about the time the diagram 16 error was discovered, I was asked to come over to PG&E and 17 meet with them to talk with them about -- to find out 18 what had been discovered and what I was principally asked j
I y
39 to do was to think about what I or my firm may be able to a
4 20 do to determine whether or not there were additional errors i
a j
f of this kind in the design of the plant.
21 l
5 f
22 There was no formal -- I'm answering the 23 question in this way, because there was no formal contract r-24 at that time and I did begin -- I did respond to the request 25 that they made and with the program that was presented to i
l i -
r l.
e u_
_ _ - ~ _.
1 I
the NRC on October 9th.
2 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
So, if I understand' correctly, 3
it was late September of 1981 that you first became involved with PG&E in work efforts in relating to the diagram error.
4 5,,
DR. CLOUD:
That's right.
6 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Now, what type of contract i
7 did you have with PG&E at the beginning of this relation-8 ship?
Was it oral or written-type contract?
9 DR. CLOUD:
It was strictly oral.
10 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Strictly oral?
11 DR. CLOUD:
As I just mentioned to you.
12 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Now, have you since that 13.
time established a written contract with PG&E or is it still C,,
II4 an oral contract?
i 15 DR. CLOUD:
No.
As we began work, then I did 16 furnish a proposal to PG&E and there is a contract to J
perform this work in place at the moment.
1 17 i
18 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
A written contract?
i 19 DR. CLOUD:
Yes.
A formal contract.
j 20 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Can you tell me approximately a
l 21 what date that written contract was established?
8 f
22 (Pause) 23 Just a ballpark date, if you can?
24 DR. CLOUD:
It was in October.
Late in October, 25 I would say.
It may even have been in November.
It takes (c..
.~.
.1 (f
I a certain ' amount of time to process the paper work on these l
2
. kinds of things.
3 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Dr.-Cloud, in the beginning-when you were under an oral contract with PG&E, were there 4
5 any' instructions defined in this oral contract with 6
relation to how the results of your work would be handled 7
with regard to presentation to PG&E for either their 8
review and comment prior to submittal to the NRC?
-i 9
DR. CLOUD:
No.
+ -
10 MR.fFAULKENBERRY:
Now, with regard to the ij written contract that was established either in late 12 October or earl' November, 1981, is there anything contained I
13 within this written contract that defines how the results 14 of your work should be handled prior to submittal to the 15 NRC?
16 DR. CLOUD:
I don't think so.
I don't think so, 17 but to honest to you, I think I only read the last paragraph 18 of the written contract.
I'm almost certain that there is y
19 not,'though, i
G j
20 It's a factual matter.
We can read it, if it l
21 becomes important.
i J
22 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Dr. Cloud, can you tell us 23 when you actually started the performance of this work
-24 that we have described here?
The work that is related to 25 the seismic reverification -- related to the diagram error?
- - - _ _ _... =. _.
I DR. CLOUD:
I first began work on the phase that 2
we started out on in late September.
That had been the 3
last week in September.
4 (Pause) 5 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
When you started this work, 6
what was the scope of work to be performed as defined by 7
PG&E7 8
DR. CLOUD:
As I mentioned to you, PG&E. asked me 8
to consider what my company could do to gain some assurance j
10 that there would not be further errors of the diagram error i '
11 type.
I worked'out a program -- I worked out a program to i
12 address that issue.
l 13 The program.was presented to the NRC on October 14 9th.
In t2e October 9th meeting,'Mr. Denton requested that 15 a preliminary report of part of the program I presented be 16 prepared at the earliest time.
In particular that it be 17 j
prepared prior to the resumption of the fuel loading I
I 18 process.
18 l
This has been a long rambling answer, but the f
scope -- So, at that moment, we began -- That is to say, 20 f
immediately following the October 9th meeting, we began on 21 l
f 22 the task that had been requested by Mr. Denton.
t l
23 I believe, at least in my own mind, it was under-24 stood that we would go ahead and perform the program that
]
25 7 had proposed which was described in the October 9th a
4.
. i
.+
... v
..s.
n
-m-,,,-,
- - - - +,,
w -
-- ~- - -~~~
(v.)
1 meeting and the idea being that we would prepare the 2
interim report containing a review of the Blume interfaces 3
prior to the resumption of the fuel loading procesd and then 4
the other aspects of the program that I proposed at that 5
time would be completed subsequently and prior to the 6
power assension phase.
7 That was the work that I Lelieve that we were 8
asked to do.
Although, it wasn't, as I mentioned, --
9 there weren't formal:
"Please do this and yes, we'll do 10 this."
11 It wasn't a formal negotiation on the point 12 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
When you first started this 13 work that you described, who within PG&E did you report 14 to?
15 DR. CLOUD:
Okay.
The -- Our contract was 16 arranged through and by Mr. Jim Rocca who is die chief 17 j
mechanical engineer.
[
18 (Pause) i 19 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Now, was Mr. Rocca also your j
20 principal contact at PG&E for your day-to-day working.
i 2
21 purposes during this time?
3 d
22 DR. CLOUD:
No, he was not.
A 23 At the time we began this work, immediately g
24 following the October 9th meeting -- when I say began, we 25 began the main brunt of the effort -- I knew that it was
_g.
- .,, =
~
- p.
.. e
.N
- }-
y x
I going to;be an immense amount of work to be done in a 2
short time and I k ew that there would be a lot of pressure.
3 1 requested that one person be assigned exclusively to 4
work with our people. _
y 5
~
Jim'McC'$ ken under James Rocca was assigned Mr.
r j
6
.for this purpose and he's bcon very helpful to us and has 7
devoted his entire day and many evenings to this job.
8 j
MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Who,-th'n, was actually giving e
9 you management direction from the PG&E cide at that time?
10 Was this Mr. Roccak 11 DR. CLOUD:
When you say management direction, 7
12 it presumes something. -Actually, we were going full --
13
(,.
this would be in the post October 9th period and we were 1.
i 14 going at our maximum capacity to complete.the work that 15 had been requested by'Mr. Denton in the October 9th meeting 16 and we knew what our job was and 2 would sa~y that we were.
~
17
.[
not' receiving any-direction.
I mean,(they weren't telling l
18 us whaE to do, if you follow me.
i j
19 4
> MR. FAULKENBEPRY:
Can we explore your relation-l 1
20 '
ship' Dith Mr. Jim.Rocca for dust a moment?
ts a'
h 21 I
3 DIN CLOUD:
Sure.
f 22 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
You stated'(he contract was j
~
T g
.g _
arranged tby nd through Mr. Rocca, yet youk day-to-day 23 s
24 contact'Was w'ith Mr. McCraken.
What was'your relationship 25 with Mr. Rocca during..the performance of these.early work N
4
$'S s
-l(J.,.i
-+
- = *
,x
~
w.
~
k I'-
S 4 -_y
[N,
h 4
s
.y y.
bj y,
k
% x,)
y 2
e
- 1 s
1 s'
3, 0# 11.
activities?
?
s i {f
~2
..DR.. CLOUD :
I'm not sure how to answer that.
I'm 4
'~
'3-not sure. what'our relationship was.
I would talk with him t^
.1 i
4 from time to tilme.
3 j
\\.
p 5
Keep him appraised of our progress, I guess.
It j
_6-was strictly informal conversations between he and I.
7 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Dr. Cloud, on what date was 8
.the first written report prepared covering the work that 9
you just described?
Written report or written document?
10 DR. CLOUD:
Sure.
11 I think that it would be helpful to understand a,
12 this if we had a calendar to put on the table..Because I i
.i 13 would like to take you through exactly the events that
(.
14 occurred.
15 (Pause) 16 This is October.9th.
This is the meeting with 17 the NRC that really launched the major part of the effort.
'j 18 We came back and began -- We took Saturday off.
i j
g 19 Everybody was exhausted in;;the preparations for the meeting j
j 20 and we came back and began work eight o' clock Sunday morning d
I j
21 We worked through this period.
I had to go to g
f.
22 get.a. paper completed in a week, because we were thinking n,
!vp -
23 in terms of resuming the fuel loading on the 31st.
So, 4
0
'24 wh yero working literally night and day during this period.
1.
,i..
.s g
3,,
4_
25 Sunday -- Sunday, by noon was our goal.
So, I
. l-
.s
'r said, by god, we're going to get a report by then live or O
N.:
- u i
(
s
. -[
a 'L.
-11 V
J(
- ( /
(l
1 die.
4 2
And so our first complete package -- our.first 3
paper -- our first working paper was completed Sunday at 4
noon.
In fact, my people stayed up all night long Saturday 5
night in order to get that done.
i 6
MR. FAULKENBERRY:
This was Sunday noon on 7
October the 18th?
1 8
DR. CLOUD:
The 18th, right.
9 9
Now, I spent Sunday afternoon reading through it to and I said, "This is entirely too rough to let outside 11 our company."
And it was.
It was quite rough, but we had 12 all of our elements in place.
-I thought if we could get to that point, it 13 14 would be a milestone and it would.give us a base -- a-15 framework to work to to get the damn report finished.
16 So, we revised it Sunday afternoon and evening, 17 all day Tuesday and -- let's see -- Monday and Tuesday.
i i-18 Then on Wednesday -- I believe it'was on Wednes-l g
day that we finally got a reasonable working paper and --
19 j
20 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Excuse me, Dr. Cloud, f
21 DR. CLOUD:
Sure.
I a
f 22 MR. FAULKLNBERRY:
What date is Wednesday?
Ij 23 DR. CLOUD:
The 21st.
24 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Thank you.
25 i
' i n-s-,-,-
n,-
w
,-.-n
1 DR. CLOUD:
So it was either late Tuesday night 2
or Wednesday afternoon.
I'm not sure at the moment-exactly 3
when, but we took it- -- At that moment, we made several 4
copies and I brought them over to Jim -- I didn't in fact --
5 I believe I brought those over.
I brought them over.
Gave-6 them to Jim McCraken and told him that I wanted any facts 7
in this report corrected.
8 Our people were continuing to work on the 9
Project during that period.
10 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Okay, Dr. Cloud can we stop 11 here for just a moment?
12 The' report or the second draft that you were 13 referring to that you gave to Mr. McCraken on October the
(.
14 21st, is this the draft that I show you here?
15 DR. CLOUD:
.Yes, I believe it.is.
16 MR. F~MLKENBERRY:
For.the record, this is the 17 draf t report that is dated October 1981' identified as a l
18 Preliminary' Report on the Design Interface Review of the g
19 Seismic Reverification Program prepared by Robert L.
Cloud' n
j 20 Associates, Incorporated and it was submitted to PG&E a
21 under a cover letter signed by R.L. Cloud to Mr. Jim f
22 Rocca dated October the 21st, 1981.
23 Now, Dr. Cloud, on this first paper that you 24 identified that you said was completed on Sunday October 25 the 18th, was this paper in anyway submitted to PG&E for
.(.
a I
a information or for review?
2 DR. CLOUD:
No.
It was not. It did not leave 3
l our office.
1 MR..FAULKENBERRY:
So, if my understanding is-4 5
correct,.the first document that was submitted to PG&E was 6
this report that we identified dated October the 21st.
Is
~
7 that correct?
8 DR. CLOUD:
Right.
9 (Pause) 10 j
MR. FAULKENBERR".
Now, Dr. Cloud,. prior to 11 preparation of October the 21st draft, were any of the 12 results of your work discussed with or e,ubmitted to PG&E 13 personnel for information, review or comment?
14 DR. CLOUD:
I cannot tell you for certain which 15 results or to what extent they were discussed.. However, 16 I know that at least to some degree I -- we had told people.
17 l
j that we were discovering glitches.
l.
18 We didn't have all that much time to be talking i
19 l
[
to people, but almost certainly we would have said something j
20 to someone.
I'm sure that we -- we probably. mentioned
'i!
21 it to McCraken.
3 f
It's not a good answer, because I'm not clear.
22 i
3 e
l j
23 I don't remember any specific formal discussions that I 24 held with anyone.
1 25 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Other than Mr. McCraken, who
k S'
I was your day-to-day contact with PG&E during that time 2
frame?
Do you recall having conversations regarding the 3
results of your work with anyone else, specifically 4
people -within the management chain.in PG&E?
5 DR. CLOUD:
I may or may not have mentioned 6
.some of our findings to Rocca.
I simply don't remember.
'7 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Do you recall'--
8 DR. CLOUD:
Excuse me.
If I did, it would have
?k 9 been en an 'in passing ba sis.
On an informal baEim.
10 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Based upon your recollection 11 of the contacts that you had within PG&E of information 12 discussing information with him at this time, do you recall 13 g
anyone within PG&E providing any feedback to you with 14 regard to these discussions that you would consider to be 15 evaluatiola of this information or a request or an input 16 of how this information should be handled?
17 DR. CLOUD:
Oh, no.
That wasn't done.
No one i
l
'18 ever-gave us any instructions on how our information should i
- 19 be handled.
a j
20 (pause) i!
21 Let me add something to that with respect to a
f 22 discussions of the findings.
I believe -- What I'm going i
23 to say occurred after the 21st, but in the period -- in this 24 week and early in the next week, it became clear that we 25 had discovered simply too many incorrect applications of.
(Jlk I did make-af 1
spectra to the conduit support and at that time, 2
a clear recommendation to someone--- someone in the civil 3
engineering department and I'm not sure which people were 4
involved at the' moment, but I did make a~ clear recommenda-5 tion that additional work should be performed and I speci -
6 fically suggested that some dynamic analysis of-the conduit 7
supports be done'and I suggested that it would be desirable 8
to perform tests in the field to discover the dynamic 9
characteristics of these.
to The program that I had in mind was for PG&E to 11 do this to consider several worst case -- by worst case, 12 I mean, most highly loaded of the conduit supports and 13 thereby by doing dynamic analysis on certain worst most
(.~
14 highly loaded supports, thereby requalify all of them 15 across the board.
16 I felt that they needed to be requalified and 17 basically told them that and suggested a way to do it. And
=
l 18 they did start out on that program.
g 19 (Pause)
-c j
. 20 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Dr. Cloud, to back up just 21 a step here and for'the record, was the draft report that 8
f 22 was prepared by you and dated October 1981 and submitted 2
l 23 to PG&E on October the 21st, 1981, was daat report -- draf t 24 report submitted to PG&E for their review and comment?
25 DR. CLOUD: It was submitted to them so that I
- k., _..
k:h 1
could obtain any corrections to factual errors'that we may
-2
.have made and.also to get some feedback from them on any 3
~ serious omissions that we may have let creep into our work.
4.
MR. SHACKLETON:
Dr. Cloud, to make it perfectly 5
-clear for the' record, what we're saying, then, is that this 6'
report dated October 21,-1981 -- up to that time, that is
~
.7 the first and only report that was given to PG&E.
8 Were there any memoranda that were given for 9
their review prior to that time?
10 DR. CLOUD:
No.
It' MR. SHACKLETON:
So, are we correct then in 12.
stating for the record that this was the-first document 13 and the only document concerning the work performed by your
(.
14 staff?
15 DR. CLOUD:
Right.
16 MR. SHACKLETON:
Thank you.
17 DR.-CLOUD:
Up to that time.
l 18 (Pause) g 19 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Dr.. Cloud, prior to your --
0 Lj 20 DR. CLOUD:
May_I interrupt a minute?
21 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Sure.
a y
22 DR. CLOUD:
Sorry, Bobby, but if you look at this g
23 report, it's a fantastic amount of work and it was done in 24 a very short time.
25 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Now, this report which we.
.c
.s a
h) 1 are discussing which was submitted to PG&E on October the 2
21st, 1981.
That was submitted to Jim Rocca.
Is that 3
correct or was it given to Jim McCraken and hand-carried?
4 DR. CLOUD:
It was hand-carried to Jim McCraken 5
and with the request that it be giver, to key engineers in 6
each of the disciplines.
7 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Do you know who these key 8
engineers would be that the report would have been given 9
to?
10 DR. CLOUD:
I could speculate, but I can't say 11 for sure.
12 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Dr. Cloud, prior to your 13 submittal of the draft report to PG&E on October the 21st, i
14 1981, were you ever advised by PG&E, by the NRC or anyone 15 that the results of your work should not be submitted to 16 PG&E prior to it being in final form for submittal to the 17 NRC?
l 18 DR. CLOUD:
Oh, no.
g 19 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Dr. Cloud, could you explain j
20 what your standard practice is for preparing and submitting a
l 21 reports to your clients?
d 22 DR. CLOUD:
Well, yes.
This topic, of course, 23 has been discussed at length during the last couple days.
24 But we regularly insist that a draft of any work -- drafts 25 of any reports that we're going to send to any of our b.
(ds l
Y 1
clients be sent-to them first on a draft basis primarily 2
-for the ---as I mentioned earlier:---for the correction of 3
any_ factual errors and for -- to correct any omissions that 4
may have been made. -We do' that.with all of-our-clients.
5 To my knowledge,.most, if not all consultants, 6
do that and frankly, I think that it's a practice that 7-is necessary when you're involved with heavily technical 8
work when.you're dealing with -- you know -- large numbers 9
of facts and when the reputation'of your company and in to fact your livelihood depends upon your reputation for 11 being able to do' correct and -- good and correct work.
12 13 h"
14 15 16 l
=
l 18 i9 3
j-20 i-j 21 I
f 22 f
23 24 25
(f tp2-1 MR. FAULKE!! BERRY:
Dr. Cloud, based upon what g
you 'said, would you consider what the procedure that you 2
used in submitting this draft report to PG&E, then, and 3
4 what you have just described as standard practice for engineering consulting firms?
5 DR. CLOUD:
Yes, I would, wi*h one qualification.
6 In this particular case our work was continuing to _ evolve.
7 We didn't really get finished with it clear up until the g
final report was issued.
So this particular transnittal g
to PG&E was done on a much more infornal basis than we 10 normally do.
And it was done with the understanding that 3,
we were continuing to find additional findings, we were g
continuing to clarify certain facts and continuing to 33
(-
clarify certain of the ways that the seisnic work was done 34 by John Blume & Associates -- sorry, U.R.S. Blume.
15 A
ay, o
ased upon 16 what you said, during the October timeframe, specifically 37
=
around the middle of October or the 21st of October, when l
18 the draft report was submitted to PG&E, do you consider 39 i
y ur client relationship with PG&E to be "a standard j
20 f
relationship" with regard ' to the providing of the results 21 a
f your w rk?
f 22 DR. CLOUD:
Essentially, yes.
I night point out 23
-- and the reason I qualified my previous answer is that 24 25 many, if not most, of our clients are not in the Bay Area.
b.. +rf
hh 2
1 So when we send them a draf t it is normally on a much more 2
finished and formal basis.
For example, just last week I 3
sent -- we finished a package of work for a client in the 4
Midwest.
We finished it essentially complete.
We sent it 5
to him with a latter and said, you know, hare is the report 6
that we basically intend to send you and could you review 7
it and let us have your comments.
8 So in the sense that the transmission of these 9
draf ts was perhaps more formal for other clients is the 30 only difference.
We made certain in this case, because 11 of the informality that -- primarily because of the informal--
12 ity that we discovered in the early design work of the plant 13
-- that we set a ground rule for ourselves that we were
('
going to be very strict in our documentation of our communi-14 3
cations with PG&E.
We did and everythina that has been 15 16 sent to them has either a transnission page -- an information 17 transmission form or a cover letter.
These are all filed l
18 and kept in business-like order.
g 19 But as I mentioned to you, the packages were a
j 20 carried over to McCraken and asked for an expeditious a
j i
21 review for the f actual content.
i i
f 22 MR. SII ACKLETON:
Dr. Cloud, have you performed l
a 23 consulting work for PG&E before?
24 DR. CLOUD:
Yes.
I 25 l tR. Sli ACKLETON :
And in your prior work for your
r,.,
(97 client what was the practice at that time of submitting i
reports?
2 DR. CLOUD:
The major work that I did for PG&E 3
4 before was on the systems interaction program.
That program was a pioneering venture at Diablo Canyon.
That program 5
had never -- a program of that type had never been con-6 ducted before.
We had to formulate all the concepts and 7
the ideas from scratch.
We did send PG&E program documents 8
on that work which were revised I would say many, many 9
times before it ever got into the kind of -- and revised 10 and it was discussed between us, between PG&E and between 33 the NRC, because we were all three parties working to come 12 up with a viable concept for the conduct of this work.
13 MR. SHACKLETO?f:
At that time, Doctor, did~you g
send interim reports in rough draft form, such as the 15 ah we are Mscussing, to M&E before you MnaHy came 16 with a final report?
37 DR. CLOUD:
Yes, we did.
In fact, on that
[
18 g
19 prograra, the final report has not yet been turned in.
f1R. SHACKLETON:
Relating to this report we j
20 f
refer to as October 21, 1981, the date of the transmittal 21 i
letter, was that report requested by PG&E personnel to be f
22 brought over or uas it your decision to bring that report 23 over to PG&E?
24 DR. CLOUD:
I do not recall it being formally 25 L - -
()
I requested; however, voth our organization and the PG&E 2
people were focusing on this effort because it was one 3
of the key documents that had been requested by the:NRC
~
4 at t he October 9 meeting.
Just to put the thing in per-5 spective, in the October 9 meeting the NRC requested three 6
specific things be done prior to the resumption of the fuel 7
loading process.
It was this report we are now discussing, 8
it was the description of the teverification program that g
would be proposed, and it was a technical report.
So 10 these three items were in the spotlight from day one and 33 everyone understood that we were trying to get it as soon 12 as we possibly could.
13 MR. SHACKLETON:
Thank you.
(.
14 MR. PAULKENBERRY:
Dr. Cloud, in a previous 15 question you stated that prior to the submittal of the October 21, 1981 draf t you had not been advised by the NRC 16 17 or PG&E or anyone else with regard to not submitting to
=
l 18 PG&E the results of your work prior to being in final form j
19 for submittal to the NRC.
The question is, when were-you 20 first informed by PG&E or the NRC regarding the concern for total independency and informed that the results of 21 i
f 22 your work should not be reviewed by PG&E prior to it being in final form for submittal to the NRC?
23 24 DR. CLOUD:
Okay.
Good question.
The issue of 25 independency, at least in my nind, really reached the degree b
(h of importance that it has now achieved in the nesting with 3
the NRC on November 3.
At that tine, the issue of independ-2 ency was discussed, you know, at some length; however, it 3
4 should be understood that no, even at this date, to my knowledge, there is no specific groundrule on what exactly 5
6 what and how the concept of independence is to be preserved.
You can be sure that because of the sensitivity 7
of the issue now that we will in the future be proceeding 8
with a great deal of caution on this issue.
9 MR. FAULKEMBERRY:
Okay, Dr. Cloud, have you 10 since the submittal of the October 21, 1981 draft, have 33 y u submitted any written documentation or reports in 12 draft form or otherwise to PG&E for their infornation, 13
(
review or comment?
14 nce he sdmhtal of & 21sM 15 A
a s co m ct.
16 DR. CLOUD:
Okay.
As I mentioned to you, we 37 considered this paper that we sent in a rough working paper.
l 18 We collected comments, which I believe you have seen, and 19 E
reissued the report to PG&E on the 26th.
Once again, we j
20 l
carried over -- I myself did not personally do that on the 21 i
26th, but we did bring over a second draft on the 26th of f
22 Oc Woer.
23 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Dr. Cloud, would this be the 24 second draft that you are referring to?
25 (hf i
DR. CLOUD:
I don't know, Bobby.
I believe that our second draft was dated -- continued to be dated October, 2
I mean it didn 't have the ~ November 12 date.
I believe this 3
was the draft -- this looks like the cover letter for the 4
draft that we sent in finally.
5 MR. FAULKENBE RRY:
Now if I understand you 6
correctly, considering the October 21, 1981 draft to be 7
"the first draft", there was a second draft submitted to 8
PG&E on or about the 26th of October, is that correct?
9 DR. CLOUD:
Yes, that's right.
Now I recognize 10 this particular sentence in this draft and this particular y
sentence we added in the final draft.
So the paper that 12 y u have now handed me is the draft that was sent formally 13
(
k to PG&E for their use and for subnitting to the NRC.
g MR. FAULKEN3ERRY:
Now is it fair to characterize 15 this draft which I am showing you as the " third draft"?
16 DR. CLOUD:
I'm not sure how we want to number 17
=
18 them.
I mentioned that we had a paper together on the l
ig 18th, we sent a paper on the 21st and we sent a paper on c
j 20 the 26th and we sent our final product on the 12th.
The f
paper we are now talkinc about is the paper that was sent 21 3
l J
22 on the 12th.
~
i l
!!R. SHACKLETON:
That's 12 November, Dr. Cloud?
23 r
DR. CLOUD:
Yes, 12 November.
24 25 MR. FAULKEN3RRRY:
Okay.
To try to avoid confu-l l,
Y 1
sion, with regard to what you said this morning, the 18th 2
paper was never sent to --
3 DR. CLOUD:
The 18th paper was never sent to 4
PG&E.
The 21st paper was --
5 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
The first draft submitted to 6
PG&E.
7 DR. CLOUD:
That's right.
Was sent to PG&E.
8 The paper of the 26th was sent to PG&E.
9 MR. FAULKENBE RRY:
Let us characterize the paper of the 26th as the second draf t that was submitted to PG&E.
jo Is that correct?
11 DR. CLOUD:
Yes.
12 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
And then characterize the 13 k.
November 12 draft as the " third draft" submitted to PGSE.
14 DR. CLOUD:
Yes.
Third and final.
15 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Okay.
16 17 DR. CLOUD:
The draft of November 12 was not sent 18 for any further comment.
It was sent, here it is and you j
g 39 can send it to the NRC now.
3 j
20 MR. FAULKENBE RRY:
For the record, the third f
draft that is being discussed is the draft report that is 21 8
f 22 identified as the Preliminary Report Seisnic Reverification 23 Program.
It is dated November 12, 1981.
It is attached to a cover letter which was signed by Philip A. Crane and 24 25 addressed to Mr.
R.H.
Engelken and dated November 18, 1981..
()
Dr. Cloud, on the third draft that we hav? just identified, 1
2 you said this was submitted by you to PG&E.
Could yst give 3
us the approximate date you submitted this to PG&E?
4 DR. CLOUD:
I'm sure it was on the 12th.
I'll 5
say this, it was either on the 12th or the 13th.
6 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Now to your-knowledge, do 7
you know whether PG&E -- let me rephrase that question --
was the November 12 -- the third draf t submitted to PG&E, 8
9 was it revised before it was ever subnitted to the Commission?
DR. CLOUD:
You mean between the 12th and the 10 time it reached the Commission?
ij MR. FAULKENBERRY :
That's correct.
12 DR. CLOUD:
Our company did not revise it.
13 k,.
14 MR. FAULKENBE RRY:
Now I would like to go back to the October 26 draft, what we have characterized as the 15 second draft.
Could you explain how this draft was submitted 16 17 to PG&E?
18 DR. CLOUD:
Sure.
It was sent in the same way l
3 19 that the 21st was.
That is to say that. the transmission j
20 process was the same as the 21st.
k 21 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
It was given to Mr.'"cCraken i
f 22 for his distribution within PG&E?
A 23 DR. CLOUD:
Yes.
24 MR. FAULKEilBERRY:
!iow did PG&E personnel review 25 that draft and furnish you connents on that draft?
Y.
(h) i DR. CLOUD:
Yes, they did.
The conments were --
2 in preparation for this meeting I vent back and dug all 3
these papers out and looked through them -- the comments 4
were much fewer in number than on the draft of the 21st.
The 21st we got a whole lot of conments, as you yourself 5
6 have seen.
On the 26 th, the draf t o f the 26 th, ' we got 7
very few.
M. FAULi{E7 BERRY:
Now the. NRC, we have copies 8
o f the " firs t dra f t", the draft that van issued on October 9
21.
Do you havc in your office copies of the second draft 10 with the comments that PG&E provided you?
ij DR. CLOUD:
Yes, we do.
We saved everything.
12 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Okay.
Would you once again 13
(.
characterize the extent of comments that were provided on 1-4 the "second draft" with regard to nunber and content?
15 DR. CLOUD:
Yes.
As I said, they were much, much 16 fewer in number.
We have in our office I believe it is i7
=
true that we have tuo copies of the 26th submittal and l
18 4
there's probably fewer than -- I'd better not say it --
g jg c
what I started to say is there's probably fewer than a j
20 f
half dozen, but if wa count them up there'll be ten.
But 21 a
it's just a small nunbar.
f 22 (Pause) 23 MR. FAULKENBE RRY :
Now with regard to the October 24 25 21, 19 81 draf t report, can vou tell us how many -- let me Y.: -
(f) i rephrase that question.
How many copies of the October 21, 2
1981 draft report did you receive back fron PG&E with 3
comments either attached or incorporated?
4 DR. CLOUD:
Okay.
Our records at the moment show that we received three at 1sast.
I an uncertain as to 5
6 whether it was three or four.
7 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Now can you tell me how many 8
copies of the October 26 draft report, the one we character-ized as the second draft, that you received back f rom PG&E
'iith comments either attached or incorporated?
10 DR. CLOUD:
Yes.
I believe we have two.
ij MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Do you know who within PG&E 12 reviewed and commented on the October 21 draft report, or 13
(-
i4 the first draf t report?
DR. CLOUD:
Well, we discussed this before.
As 15 I mentioned, I brought them to Jim McCraken and I asked that 16 17 he give one copy to a senior level engineer in each of the j
18 disciplines.
As I said, I could speculate on who that g
19 might be, but I really don't know.
m j
20 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
So you do not know who within f
PG&E actually provided commsnts back to you on this first 21 i
i f
22 draft report?
2 DR. CLOUD:
No.
He have, you know, he initials l
23 24 of different people.
But the only -- but no, I don't have 25 it in ny mind at the noment and I'm sure, however, that if h
(J;*
you like we could get out the copies and see if we could 1
2 figure out whose initials are associated with the comments.
3 I am also sure that McCraken will know.
4 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Do' you know who within PG&E 5
reviewed and commented on the October 26 or the second 6
draft report?
7 DR. CLOUD:
No.
As I mentioned, ths process is 8
the same.
I would presume it would be the same oeople.
g MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Now in the first draft report to or the October 21 report the NRC has been provided copies n
numbered 1, 3,
4 and 5.
Do you know what happened to Copy 12 No. 2?
13 DR. CLOUD:
No, I don't.
I've wondered ab6ut that 14 myself.
MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Do you know who Copy No. 2 15 16 was addressed to?
17 DR. CLOUD:
No, I don't.
l 18 (Pause) g 19 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Dr. Cloud, did any of the j
20 comments you received fron PG&E on the -- regarding the f.
21 October 21 or first draf t report -- result in your reroving a
f 22 from this draf t report and as submitted to the NRC in the 23 November, 1981 report, did it renove any adverse findings that cannot be justified by retrievable documentation?
24 25 DR. CLOUD:
Ibsolutely not.
Other than any that L
(
1 our people may have changed as a result of their further 2
findings.
I'm sure that the documentation on that would 3
be retrievable.
In fact, I'm certain of it, because we 4
have it all in our logs.
5 MR. FAULKENBE RRY:
Now would you respond to that 6
same question as it relates to the second draft report, the 7
October 26 draft report?
8 DR. CLOUD:
Exactly the same process.
9 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
So I understand, any adverse findings that were contained in either the October 21, the to 11 first draft report, or the October 26, second draf t report, that were subsequently eliminated or not contained within 12 the third draf t report or the November draft report, you can k.
13 14 justify their omission with retrievable documentation?
DR. CLOUD:
Yes, I'm sure we can.
When you 15 16 visited our office, we pointed out to you that we kept a 17 very extensive set of log books on the information we 18 reviewed.
I'm sure that -- I know for sure that any nega-l g
19 tive findings or any negative statements that were changed c
j 20 would only be done on the basis of finding later information i
i 21 that corrected those adverse statenents.
i f
22 MR. FAULKENBERRY :
Dr. Cloud, as a result of the 23 comments you received from PG&E on both the first draft and 24 the second draft, did you changs any passages in the report 25 strictly for the purpose of placing PG&E or its contractors b,
-Wf
b.!*y 1
in a more favorable light?
2 DR. CLOUD:
No.
3 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Dr. Cloud, you have explained 4
to us who within PG&E you had a day-to-day working relation-5 ship with during the initial pahses of your work and also 6
who within PG&E I guess initiated the contract during the 7
early stages of your vork.
Now who within PG&E do you 8
currently report to?
9 DR. CLOUD:
George ?taneatis.
10 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Could you tell us then when 11 you stopped reporting to fir. Roca and started reporting to 12
?lr. Maneatis?
13 DR. CLOUD:
I can't say for sura, but it was at
("
14 the time of or immediately following the November 3 meeting 15 uith the NRC.
16 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Dr. Cloud, at the November 17 3,1981 meeting with the NRC -- and you were present at g
j 18 this meeting -- Mr. Norton stated that as of November 3, g
19 1981, no results of your work had been submitted to PG&E.
j 20 Yet you and other persons present at the meeting knew of i
ai 21 the submittal of the October 21 draft report and, possibly, i
i i
f 22 the October 26 draft report.
First of all, did you hear 23 the statements made by ?tr. 'Torton at that meetino?
24 DR. CLOUD:
I had to have heard the statements; 25 I was there.
But I don't recall him saying that no results Y
1; zw MA 1
had been submitted to.PG&E.
I certainly don't remember it j
2 in those terms.
3 MR. FAULKENBERRY :
Dr. Cloud, would it be helpful 4
for us to show you the transcript.of that particular meeting 5
and the statsmant nade by Dr. Norton?
6 DR. CLOUD:
We have nothing to lose by that.
7 MR. FAULKEMBERRY:
Okay.
8 (Pausa.
Mr. Paulkenberry presents the transcript 9
to Dr. Cloud. )
i 10 11 12 13
(-
14 15 16 17
+!
l 18 i
19 s
j 20 a
21 a
d 22 23 24 25
_ ~.,
1 (Pauco) 2 MR. SIIACKLETON:
Page 216, isn't it Bobby?
3 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
For the record, Dr. Cloud, 4
I'll read what Mr. Norton stated in the or what is 5
stated in the transcript of the meeting of November 3rd.
6 On page 216, Mr. Norton, and he was talking 7
with regard to the results of your work.
8 lie says, I might add we do not have it.
It's 9
not a question of us reviewing it.
We don't have it to either.
It just hasn't been done yet.
11 DR. CLOUD:
When this issu e came up, which 12 first came.up as far as I was concerned on Monday, of 13 this week, the day before yesterday, I went back into k'
14 ny memory.
I looked at this transcript and the context 15 of that discussion was focused on the report that I 16
'Would be giving to P.G. &E. that would subsequently i
17 be sent to the NRC.
That's what I had in my mind 1
18 at the time.
That's what, as far as I was concerned, g
j 19 Norton. was talking about and that report had not been ij 20 done.
f 21 I
was acutely conscious of the deficiency i*
22 that existed in this meeting by virtue of the fact that 23 our report on the Bluma review had not been completed.
24 I...went back deeper into my frame of mind and 25 way of thinking at the time and in the day or two preceding this meeting when I was rehearsing my -- the 2
- bny, presentation that I intended to give, I was asked 3
repeatedly when will your report be done and I always 4
replied it will be done'by the end of this week or the 5
and of next week, by the first of the week after.
6 And, that's what I had in my mind.
I 7
was constantly thinking about the three things that 8
were asked for by Denton on October 9.
The program, 9
the so-called interim report and the technical report.
10 It was my job to prepare the program and my job to 11 prepare the interim report.
12 Of the two things that I had to do, I had 13 completed one and did complete a description of the
\\'
14 program we intended to do and we brought it with '.us-l 15 and we gave it to the NRC on that very day.
In fact 16 we gave you a copy.
17 But I knew that we hadn't finished the so-called 18 interim report, the one that we're now discussing.
I g:
j 19 knew that we hadn't finished that and frankly, I felt i
l 20 bad about it.
s.
21 At that time the entire context of that i
22 discussion was focused on the report that we would 23 ultimately be turning into P.G.&E. for the release to the NRC.
So, the question is -- which I've been 24 25 asked in the last day or two, well, why didn't you say ---
1 something.
Why didn't you correct them?
Frankly, it 2
(
never occurred to me.
%gg 3
I knew that my work wasn't finished.
4 As far as, you can see from the lengthy 5
discussion that we've just held, that this report was 6
in a constant state of evolution.
7 It wasn't finished.
I hadn't even at that 8
time completed my own review of it in the details that 9
I wanted.
10 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Dr. Cloud, did either 11 Mr. Norton or Mr. Manianis -- had they ever seen or 12 were they aware of the fact that the first and second 13 draf t copies of your report were within P.G.&E. prior
\\~
14 to November 3rd?
15 DR. CLOUD:
Obviously, I can't reply.in a 16 factual way.
However, from the way that we handled it 17 and the people we 'sent it to, I can't imagine how 18 either of them would have ever seen it or known about it, i
j 19 I don't even now if Jim Rocca at.that time ij 20 had seen it.
I should say in the case of Norton that 21 it's inconceivable that he would have seen it or known i
E 22 about it because he had only just come to San Francisco 23 on the Sunday preceding the meeting.
24 Excuse me -- to continue with this.
You should
(
understand that the paper that we had sent to the P.G.&E.
25 --
I '
engineering staff -- it wasn't something that we were 2
g talking about.
It wasn't something I discussed with 3
any of the P.G. &E. management.
4 It was our working paper -- we sent it strictly 5
to the engineers involved to get their comments on matters 6
of a factual natur e.
7 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Dr. Cloud, going back to 8
the transcript that we just read a passage from, this is 9
the transcript of the November the 3rd,1981 meeting and 10 specifically lines 23 through 25 which I'll read to you 11 hero on page 215, and also lines 1 throygh 4 on page 216, 12 In response to a question by Mr. Eisenhut, "When will we be !
13 expected to see that short term report?
Bob Cloud said
('
14 it's essentially complete."
15 Now to which you were asked by Mr. Norton to to answer and you responded -- again, I'll quote, "I believe 17 it's -- we will be turning it in either this week or next 2
i t
18 so you thould have it shortly thereafter."
l g
j 19 Now the question is, Dr. Cloud, why did you i
20 not mention the draf t reports you had submitted to P.G.&E.
3 21 on October 21st and also October 26th, 1981?
j l
i*
22 DR. CLOUD:
It's exactly as I replied before.
3,-
23 The only thing in my mind at that tbne and at that meeting 24 and in that discussion, the only thing in my mind was
(
l b the report that we would ultimately be turning into P.G.&E.
25 l
, l 1
i s
.i i
.7
)
.l 4
O
~
i * !,
'Q
, ?
\\
,q 1
c.
3 11 MR. FAULKENDERRY:
You're talking about the
'j
\\.'
, Ir.- [
q
~'
( s
,12 Wfirsf.Idhaft and7second cyafti" that we have discussed.
e, O
'o
,\\
.o 13 m
[
DR. CLOUD:
That now characterized as s..
,w s.
14 auchy e t
y
,f 15l
\\g s %"But as far as I was concerned
^
_.s s
that was-a l
s
- .~
.., Working pap r'\\that, we 'had, sent to their engl.geering staff 16 4., x
~..
to make sure wyyther?or nottw3.had any facts -,to make 17 i
t t
s...
- \\ sure whether'ke had an[s of our facts wrong.
s, t 18 j.
d I9 And, my' reply to your question asI re' plied 3
3
.s 3
before is that the only thing I had in my mindiwas the 2l>
3-
\\
o l
}
21 report that we would be sending to P.G.&E. and the NRC
(
and that's the reason I replied in that vein'.
22
- \\
_s
~
l,7,
As you can pee, thtat's the only thing I was 23 s
l 24 thinking of.
3
,( 4 25 MR. FAULKENIJERRY:
Eld. Cloud, do you censider the g
n k
_ l t,
s-g?
,4 N
%)
w u
l 9
V } 'i Q,
fs
~
r 1/
't I
, third draft or the draft that was submitted to the NRC t
.i
.2 on November 19, 1981 to be a true and complete characteriza-1 M
' tion of the results of the work that you completed to that D
r
[\\ L, date as regards to your reverification work on Diablo 4
e i
f 5
Canyon?
6 DR. CLOUDS You mean as of the date of November
't 7
'12th?
8 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
That's correct.
i 9
i DR. CLOUDS Yes, it is true and it is complete 10 for the work that we had completed up to that time.
11 Now, I think in fact what made me realize 12 that this -- how I knew this was our final draft is that 13 we have a sentence in there saying, the cut-off date for
(
14 this information is October 28th, so it's a true and 15 correct statement of all our work up to October 28th.
16 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
And a complete statement
.=
17 of your work?
18 DR. CLOUDS And a complete statement of the g
19 work we did, but as you can see from the report itself, i
j 20 it does not cover the entirety of the review of the l
21 interface with John Blume.
There are still additional i*
22 things that need to be done, 23 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
I think it's important to s
}. 23 recognize your work and your findings from your work k
complete and a true statement of your findings as well as 25 s
A e
, i mm a
1/
1 your work.
2 D R.
CLOUDS At that time, yes e
,q 3
MR. PAULKENBERRY:
I think that concludes 4
the questions I have for Dr. Cloud.
5 Do you have any additional ones?
6 MR. S!!ACKLETON:
No, I have no additional 7
questions at this time.
8 Dr. Cloud, is there anything that you would 9
like to state at this time to clarify this inquiry?
10 Anything further?
11 DR. CLOUDS I don't think there's anything o
12 I could say that would clarify it.
I can tell you that I'm personally very much-13 14 concerned about this quer.tionning of our independence.
15 We do our work in a certain way.
We do our I
16 work in a certain way for P.G.&E.
We do our work in 3
k 17 the same way for any other clients that we do.
is We would never change any negative findings a
j 19 arbitrarily at the request of a client.
That would be strictly an unprofessional thing to do.
Even if I myself 20 wanted to, there's no way it could be done.
We have a 21 i
crew of dedicated and idealistic people working in my r
22 office.
23 Every.one of them are aware of the importance 24 of the safety of nuclear power.
They are all aware of
(
25
the provisions of
--- 21 and there's simply no practical 2
(y way that the business could be conducted in other than 3 a straightforward and business like manner. 4 And I'm very much concerned about the 5 inuendos and implications of these questions. 6 I feel that they're mis-leading and frankly 7 insulting. 8 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you. 9 Bobby, do you have anything further? 10 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Nothing, Owen. 11 MR. SIIACKLETON : Dr. Cloud, we thank you 12 very much for your being here and for your time and this 13 will be the close of the interview of Dr. Robert L. Cloud k.L 14 and the time is now 10:39 a.m. 15 (Whereupon, at 10:39 a.m, a one hour and 45 16 minute recess was taken.) 17 MR. SIIACKLETON: This is December 16, 1981. g The. time is 12:18 p.m. and this is a continuation of 18 j 19 the interview of Dr. Robert L. Cloud and we have Y 20 brought into.the intervieu one Dr. Cloud's members of his O' 21 engineering staff, Mr. Paul II. Anderson. 22 Also present in the interview room which is 23 room 3101 in the headquarters building of Pacific Gas 24 and Electric at 77 Beale Street in San Francisco, from 25 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Region 5 is
i 1 Mr. Bobby H. Fr.ulktnb0rry, Chief of Reactor Con 3tructiona 2 Projects Branch and my name is Owen C. Shackleton, Jr. a 3 and I'm Senior Investigator for Region 5. 4 de have called Dr. Cloud and Mr. Anderson 5 in for continuation of this interview inasmuch as 6 Mr. Anderson has some information that they feel may be 7 of Value in this investigation. 8 Mr. Anderson, I advised you prior to going on 9 the transcription that you have the right to have legal to connse1 present. 11 Do you so desire to hava an attorney present? 12 MP.. ANDERSON: No, I don't. 13 MR. SILACKLETON: hil right, fine. Would 14 you pleas e stand and I will place you under oath. 15 Whereupon, 16 PAUL H. ANDERSON h 17 having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness 18 herein and was examined and testified as follows: j g 1 7 19 MR. SHACKLETON: For the record, Dr. Cloud is $j 20 still under oath and also is present to give further J l ? 21 tes timony. 22 Dr. Cloud, would you please explain the 23 new information that you have brought forth for the commission? 24 DR. CLOUD: Yes. As I was leaving the interview, 25 I encountered Paul Anderson in the hallway. Paul Anderson
1 is an engineer in our company and he pointed out to me 2 ( the fact that several of the handwritten comments that 3 are in the margins of the copy that we have characterized 4 as draft 1 which was sent under a cover letter dated October 21st were in fact comments made by our own people 6 as an aid in the re-writing of tL e draf t. 7 This is something that we had talked about 8 yesterday and the day before and I had intended to bring 9 it out in the earlier discussion, however it had slipped l0 ny mind and Paul reminded me of this and I thought it M would be helpful as a relevant fact in the overall issue 12 bo have Paul come and discuss this with you. '3 The situation is that in the first place ( '4 we had been discussing two separate issues of our draf t 15 paper. The first was the one which we have ref erred to 16 as draft 1 of October 21 and the second was draf t 2 of ) 17 j October 26. 18 g The comments that Paul will be discussing j 19 are all those on draf t 1 and the various controlled i $j 20 copies of draft 1. a ? 21 After we leave this interview, we will i' 22 check the copies that we have of draft 2 and ascertain the 23 origin of any comments, in fact the few commenth that 24 are contained in those two papers. 25 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Okay, Mr. Anderson. As you.
1 1 provido un tho identification of the c:mmento that waro 2 .;g entered by Dr. Cloud or employees of Dr. Cloud's company's .. / 3 on copies of draft no. 1, would you identify which copy 4 of the draf t that you are ref erring to and also the page 5 and paragraph of each copy of the draf t, if you would 6 please do so. 7 MR. ANDERSON: The first copy, copy no. 3 of 8 draf t 1 I have in front of me, there is only one instance 9 that I can recall that is obviously remarks in the margin to made by engineers and Cloud Associaten while we were 11 constructing the second draf t. 12 On page 33, section no. 3.3.5.1.2 on the dome 13 crane, we had some additional re-write and somes light (" 14 dif ferences here. 15 I made a big note that just says Insert B and 16 it's pretty standard editorial, at least by me, to.have 17 the second copy that would be typed in it's place attached 18 with a B on it. That's the -- j 19 DR. CLOUDS The point is -- Bob Cloud here. The i 20 point is that the words Insert B are your handwriting? l f MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I did write Insert B. 21 i E MR. FAULK2NBERRY: Excuse me, Mr. Anderson. 22 You stated that you wrote Insert B.
- Now, 23 i
l did you or someone else within Dr. Cloud's company write 24 (- 25 the information that was contained with Insert B that was l I ' l l l
1; I cvsntu lly picced into tho next draft? 2 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that information that was (f ' 3 placed in the next draf t reflected any new information 4 we had had, reflected any factual corrections that 5 P.G. &.E. may have referenced which also appear in the 6 margin s. 7 That's the only comment in copy no. 3 of the 8 first draft. 9 I have before me now copy no. 4 of the first to draft and it also has one page where we made some it changes, the Cloud engineers made changes and that's 12 on page 61. 13 There's sections labeled conclusions. We have 14 given that a section number 5.0 and in.iddition, hatf-way 15 down the first paragraph we -- there's a statement that to says no additional explicit errors. k 17 We changed that to no additional seismic 18 input errors and then ersded the sentence there and started i 19 a new sentence. Above that, we also changed -- in the paragraph 20 above the conclusion section, we changed the word informa-21 i tion communications to informal communications. That was 22 also done internal to Cloud Associates. 23 That was the only instance in copy 4. 24 Now copy 5 -- 25.-
1 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Excuse me, Mr. Anderson, 2 before we go to copy 5, I'm going back to copy three. k. 3 On page 33, you stated that you wrote the words Insert B 4 and employees of the Cloud company wrote the material 5 that was contained in Insert B. 6 Now I'm referencing the handwritten coments ~ Miat were made in the lef t margin on page 33 -- were 7 8 tLrse handwritten coments made by employeec of Cloud 9 Company or were they made by employees of P.G.&E. Co.? 10 MR. ANDERSON: They were made by P.G.&E. to li the best of my knowledge. 12 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Thank you. 13 MR. ANDERSON: All right, I have in front of ( 14 me now copy 5 of the first draft and it contains a is higher number of our mark ups-as it appears, we used 16 this copy mostly for our working copy. h 17 Starting on page 2, we added under objective t is and scope, we initially had 3 separate items that we j 19 changed -- we added two items at the first,, insure that.... applied, that was number one and number two, chart the... 20 aj chain, and number three, review... the information 21 22 specifically, l 23 The next change is on page 46 where in the 1 24 third paragraph we state that the following procedure l i 25 will be followed and it was added by Cloud engineers on a ! <-..v,,.,.n.,
1 1 sampling basis. 2 g The next page is on page 55 where I wrote, 3 replace with attached text and circled three sections on 4 that and the following page, sections 3.3.7.6.1, .2 and 5 .3 and on the following page I also wrote replace with 6 attached text. 7 Now, I believe myself, I wrote the text to a replace this. This was just to facilitate the typing 9 of draft 2. 10 Now the next point is on page 57 where we have 11 a few comments here. The second paragraph, there are 12 couple of words that have been lined out -- sample checking 13 is lined and above it random sampling. That was performed, ( 14 that change was done by one of our enginears and also the 15 notes with the arrow stating not always the case, HBAC 16 and HBAC being underlined, that was also one of our h 17 engineer's marks. 18 The next change was on page 61 and we gave 19 the conclusion section, 5.0 again. Right above it, 20 we changed once again, we marked out information communica-21 tions and put information communications and we also had 22 a new section of text which we marked a star, insert here 23 and we clouded that little mark. 24 We also provided the text to be inserted there. (~ 25 That was written by Cloud engineers; oh, and the one little 1 ,, n s ~ Ar's m e w # s".'M v m a.
note here -- the conclusion -- under the word conclusion 2 ( we have a don't underline which is just so -- we were 3 trying to format it consistent with the rest of the 4 report and to my knowledge, taking a quick review of 5 these three copies of draf t 1, there are the only changes 6 that I see that I can be sure that we at Cloud Engineers 7 are responsible for. 8 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you very much, 9 Mr. Anderson. 10 Dr. Cloud, do you have anything further 11 you'd like to say? 12 DR. CLOUD No, thank you for the opportunity 13 to add this additional informational. (. ~ 14 MR. SHACKLETON: Speaking on behalf of the 15 Commission, I / greatly appreciate your waiting a couple 16 of hours here to come back to do this transcription and i g with -- just one last word of caution, Paul, which I 17 g didn't tell you at the beginning, we would appreciate that 18 j 19 all the testimony that you have knowledge of that you i ,5 20 keep to yourself and it not be discussed with persons a 21 outside this room. 22 With that, we'll bring this interview to 23 a conclusion. The time is now 12:32 p.m. 24 (Whereupon, at 12: 32 p.m., the hearing was (. 25 recessed, to reconvene later this same day, Wednesday, December 16, 1981.). . e.,,._. m.._..
'l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION {. ;g 3 4 INVESTIGATION OF 5 DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 & 2 6 INTERVIEW OF 7 ROBERT L. CLOUD 8 9 Pacific Gas & Electric Headquarters Offices 10 Law Department Conference Room 77 Beale Street 11 San Francisco, California 12
- Thursday, December 17, 1981 13
( The above-entitled matter came on for further 14 hearing, pursuant to adjournment, at 1:37 p.m. 15 APPEARANCES: 16 3 On behalf of the NRC Stafft g 17 OWEN C. SHACKLETON, JR., Moderator 18 B. H. FAULKENBERRY g Y I9 ,i 20 21 i l 22 23 24 25 i ! I.
.i e. ERRATA SHEET Interview of R. L. Cloud, December 17, 1981 I The following correction should be made: Page 52~, Line 21 - Change some to so. 4 i l t The'above corrections have been identified by Bobby H. Faulkenberry.and Dr. R. L. Cloud 4 4 i i i 4 I 1
,n 1 P,R,g g g g g f g g g 2 {'l) 1:37 p.m. 3 MR. SHACKLETON: This is December 17th, 1981. 4 The time is 1:36 p.m. 5 This is a continuance of the interview of 6 Dr. Robert L. Cloud arxl the interview is taking place 7 in room 3101 of the corporate headquarters of Pacific 8 Gas and Electric Company at 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, 9 California. 10 Dr. Cloud, af ter the interview of December 16, 11 1981, has some additional information that he wishes to 12 furnish to the commission to help clarify his testimony. 13 Dr. Cloud, you understand that you are still (' 14 under oath as it was administered to you yesterday? 15 DR. CLOUD Yes. 16 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you. 3 h 17 And you also understand that you are entitled 18 to have your personal legal counsel present if you so j 19 desire? DR. CLOUDS Yes. 20 I I 21 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you. I'll turn the i 22 questionning over now to Bobby H.,Faulkenberry, Chief of 23 Reactor Construction Projects Branch, from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region 5 and my name is 24 ( Owen C. Shackleton, Jr., and I am the Senior Investigator at 25. . - ~,. -~ _ -a-.
n.
,---~n.
I Region 5. 2 { Whereupon, 3 ROBERT L. CLOUD 4 having been previously duly sworn, was recalled as a witness 5 herein and was examined and testified as follows: 6 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Dr. Cloud, for the record, 7 please relate what transpired on December 16th, 1981 8 af ter your interviews with us when you returned to your 9 office and went through your files of the work you are 10 doing for PG&E on seismic reverification of Diablo Canyon., 11 DR. CLOUD: When I returned to my of fice, the 12 messenger from the NRC was waiting for me to pick up the 13 documentation that we had discussed earlier in the day. 14 IIe specifically came to get copies of our 15 contract with PG&E and two copies of the report which had 16 been sent on October 26th which I had ref erenced in my g 17 discussion Tuesday morning, so when I came in the office g and found him waiting there, we immediately went back to 18 j 19 the files and got out our information so that we could i l 20 make copies. 1 21 In some doing, I found out that one of the 5* 22 October 26th drafts was in fact dated November 6th so i 23 immediately I realized that something was wrong -- 7 realized 24 that'something that I had -- somehow had been in error in 25 the morning and my facts were diff erent than I had related - r
? them, so we went through all of our files and then through 2 (s the secretary's files and finally set the matter straight 3 and at that moment, I telephoned Jess Crews and explained 4 the situation to him and wrote a letter of transmittal 5 that explained all of the things that we had and all of 6 the things that we were giving your messenger and also 7 as best we could figure out, why, I had been misled when 8 I went through the files on Tuesday. 9 !!R. PAULKENBERRY: If I may interrupt for just 10 a moment, Dr.. Cloud, just for the record, Jess crews, I would 11 like to identify him as a member of the Nuclear Regulatory 12 Commission who is located in the Region 5 office. 13 If you would continue, please. (.. 14 DR. CLOUD Okay, what I found was this. 15 I found that instead of having two copies.of 16 the October 26th draft, in fact, I only had one copy of i 17 the October 26th draf t that contained comments. g 18 !!owever, I found that we had transmitted g j 19 with a cover letter dated November 5th, we had transnitted 20 a draft which was dated November 6th. I found that we had two copies of that draft, 21 i* 22 both of which contained comments. I also found that we 23 had transmitted four additional pages on November 6th. 24 We did not have in our files any of those returned to 25 those with comments, so in summary, the correction to the. ~ y_
',1 1 record should be that we sent drafts or gave drafts to 2 {Ty Jim McCraken on October 21st, of which we had three returned 3 to us with comments. 4 We gave draf ts on October 26th of which we 5 had one returned to us with comments and we gave drafts 6 on November 5th of which we had two returned to us with 7 comments and we gave four additional pages on November 8 6th which were not returned to us with comments and we sent 9 our final draf t on November 12th of which none have been 10 returned to us with comments. 11 MR. PAULKENBERRY: Dr. Cloud, were there any 12 oral directions given to you or members of your staff by 13 PG&E personnel to change the contents of your reports? 14 DR. CLOUDS No. 15 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Was-there any oral feedback Is that you received from PG&E in addition to a written caument [ h 17 that you just described on the draf t reports for other 18 information which you submitted to PG&E? j 19 DR. CLOUD: No oral comments were given to me ij 20 personally. f 21 However, I discussed this question with members 3 22 of our staff and oral comments were given to at least two 23 of our edgineers, l 24 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Can you generally describe l ki what these oral comments related to? 25 - -...
Did they relate to a specific draf t that you 2 7N::% identified and generally explain the extent of the oral p 3 comments involved? 4 DR. CLOUDS I cannot go into a lot of detail 5 on that but I know that oral comments were given to our 6 engineer who was working on the issue of qualification of 7 electrical equipment and these comments were related to that 8 area. 9 It's our understanding that -- it's my to understanding -- 11 MR. FAULKENBERRY. Would you stop? 12 Off the record. 13 (Playback of recording. ) (' 14 MR. FAULKENBERRY: On the record. 15 DR. CLOUDS It's my understanding that those 16 particular. comments were related to the November 5th 17 draft. e i 18 Comments were received on the electrical g j 19 mnduit supports on probably all three draf ts that we l ij 20 received comments on. 21 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Do you know whether or i* 22 not these verbal comments that were received by your l 23 people resulted in changes to the draf t reports? 24 DR. CLOUDS I can't say for sura at the moment 25 but I'm sure that insofar as new facts were revealed, that ,.. w; : w.,a .a
J 1 changes consistant with those facts would have been made. 2 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Dr. Cloud, that concludes 3 the questions that I have. Owen, do you have anything 4 to add? 5 MR. SHACKLETON: I have no further questions. 6 Dr. Cloud, I remind you again, please for your 7 cooperation in not to discuss this testimony outside of a this room. 9 That's the and c,f this interview other than if 10 you would have any other information you would like to 11 Movida? 12 DR. CLOUD I'll probably think of something 13 after I leave the room but I don' t '.now. k 14 MR. SHACKLETON: All right. Thank you, Dr. Cloud. We'll close this interview then at 1:48 p.m. 15 DP CLOUD This is your package. 16 k 17 MR. SHACKLETON: I appreciate your coming over. 18 DR. CLOUD I really feel bad about this. j 19 Mh. SHACKLETON: Well, you know, if we all have to recall -- you've been working under real pressure and 20 s then this adverse publicity, you know, we're all human 21 ,i-r beings and we understand. 77 23 If I had to go back a month and try and tell 24 people phone calls and what-not that went on, we'd all 25 have trouble.. . ~. -
- ~
It's even worse in your case where you're trying 2 (- to construct a technical report urxler pressure of tiise. 3 MR. FAULKENBERRY: What is Dick Bettinger's 4 title? 5 DR. CLOUD He's the Chief Civil Engineer. 6 MR. FAULKENBERRY: So he's the same level 7 as Rocca? Except on the civil engineering side? 8 DR. CLOUD Bettinger is the Chief Civil, 9 Rocca is Chief Mechanical, !!arrera is Chief Electrical. 10 MR. S!!ACKLETON: Okay, thanks Bob. Thank you ti very much, Doctor. 12 DR. CLOUDS Okay. 13 MR. SHACKLETON: If we don't see you before 14 Christmas, have a marry one. (Whereupon, at 1: 50 p.m., a short recess was 15 taken.) 16 17 2 18 g j 19 i 20 a 21 .i 22 23 24 25. .. ~. _ _..
l'").g 1 UNITED STATES 0" AMERICA 2 MUCLEAR REGULATORY CO'U!ISSION 3 4 INVESTIGATION OF 5 DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 & 2 6 INTERVIEW OF 7 RO3ERT L. CLOUD 8 9 Officas of Robert L. Cloud Assoc., Inc. 10 125 University Avenue 4 Berkeley, California 11 Tuesday 12 January 5, 1982 13 The above-entitled matter cane on for further ('.. 14 hearing, pursuant to adjournment, at 2:02 p.m. l 15 16 APPEARANCES: 17 On behalf of the t~hJ Staff: I 18 OWEN C. S!!ACKLETON, JR., Aoderator PHILIP V. JOUKOPF S 19 i 20 a l 21 b 22 3 23 24 25 (i 4
ERRATA SHEET Interview of R. L. Cloud, January 5,1982 The following corrections should be made: Page 65, Line 3 - Change shoud to should. Page 67, Line 8 - Change BEthesda to Bethesda. The above corrections have been identified by Owen C. Shackleton Jr. 3 _..___ - -
hh 1 P,R,Q { { { Q I_ N,{ S_ 2 2:02 p.m. 3 MR. SIIACKLETO'i: This is January 5, 1982. The time is now 2:02 p.m. 5 This is a continuation of the interview of 6 Dr. Robert L. Cloud / owner of R -- Robert L. Cloud Associates, 7 Incorporated, and this interview is taking place in the 8 offices of Robert L. Cloud Associates, Incorporated at 125 9 University Avenue, Berkeley, California. 10 This is part of the ongoing investigation being 11 conducted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to de-12 velop the facts and happenings surrounding the present 13 reverification program of the seismic design of the Diablo k 14 Canyon nuclear power plant. 15 Present to conduct this interview from the U.S. 16 Nuclear Regulatory Commission from Region Five is Mr. Philip 17 i V. Joukof f, Investigator, and my name is Owen C. Shackleton, l l 18 Jr., Senior Investigator. 19 l Dr. Cloud, you understand, sir, that your testi-d 20 =, mony is still under oath as was administered to you on l 21 December 16, 19817 f 22 DR. CLOUD: Yes. 3i 23 MR. SIIACKLETON: And you also understand, sir, 24 that you have the right to have personal legal counsel pre-25 sent? ) hh 1 DR. CLOUD: Yes. 2 MR. SHACKLEI'ON : Do you waive that right? 3 DR. CLOUD: Yes. 4 Whereupon, 5 ROBERT L. CLOUD 6 having been previously duly sworn, was recalled as a Vitness 7 herein and was examined and testified as follows: 8 MR. SHACKLEPON: Dr. Cloud, the first part of 9 this interview today I;am going to address some questions 10 concerning the contrach that you presently have with the 11 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and this specific contract 12 on the document is identified as " Units 1 and 2, Diablo 13 Canyon Site, Consultant Services for Hosgri Seismic Reverifi- ,( 14 cation Program, Request for Services No. 5-68-81." This 15 contract is dated December 1, 1981. 16 For the benefit of those persons who will be read-17 ing this transcript, by way of background, recalling from j 18 Dr. Cloud's prior testimony, and Dr. Cloud, please correct i 19 me anytime I am in error, as I am going by recollection, bitt l i j 20 initially Dr. Cloud's involvement with this reverification ij 21 program began from the discovery on September 27, 1981 by 22 one of the PG&E engineers of a seismic error design in the l 23 Diablo Canyon plant. Shortly thereafter, during the latter l 24 part of September of 1981, PG&E contacted Dr. Cloud and l 25 asked him to tell them what his firm might be able to do to b
( 1 determine whether or not there were any additional errors in 2 the seismic design of the plant. Dr. Cloud had done prior 3 l work for PG&E on the systems interaction program for the 4 Diablo Canyon plant and therefore he and his work were known 5 to the company. 6 After this request, Dr. Cloud proceeded to 7 analyze the situation and prepare a program for the reveri-8 fication study. Dr. Cloud attended on October 9, 1981 a l 9 meeting held in Bethesda,. Maryland; between PG&E, management to personnel of NRC concerning the seismic reverification study 11 to be done at the Diablo Canyon plant. At that time, Dr. 12 Cloud made a presentation of how he planned to approach the 13 reverification study. His program was accepted by PG&E and 14 upon return to his office in Berkeley, California, on Octo-15 ber lith,1981, he and his staff be'gan an intensive study 16 of the reverification of the design, seismic design of the 17 j plant. 's j 18 At this time, Dr. Cloud proceeded without a 19 l . written contract with PG&E. A written contract was not q drawn up until later in December, and Dr. Cloud and his 20 y j staff earnestly worked to get their program completed for 21 f at that time PG&E had hoped to reload the core on October 31, 22 i 23 1981. After getting into the reverification study and the 24 amcunt of work that wascinvolved, eventually-a written con-25 tract, as I have addressed before, was brought -- was brought l (.
a r b~y, 1 together and was signed by Dr. Cloud for his company and 2 for PG&E by Mr. Philip Crane, Legal Counsel for PG&E. 3 Dr. Cloud, is that correct in its chronology? 4 DR. CLOUD: Yes. 5 MR. SHACKLETON: At this time, having that back-6 ground, I am going to address some questions concerning the 7 written contract. 8 Under the section 1.0 with the caption "Miscel-8 laneous Requirements," subsection 1.1, which I will read 10 for the record: " Services performed by Consultant pursuant 11 to PG&E's authorization but before execution of this request 12 for services. shall be considered as having been performed 13 subject to the revisions of this request for services." k 14 Dr. Cloud, the question regarding that section 15 of the contract is: what does that paragraph 1.1 mean as it 16 relates to the work you performed prior to December 1, 1981? DR. CLOUD: Well, as far as I am concerned, this R 18 paragraph is a statement that the services we performed 19 -i prior to the date of the contract relative to this particula:: f effort would be reimbursed. [ MR. SHACKLETON: All right. Thank you. f Dr. Cloud, from prior contract that you had with 23 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, is this particular sub-24 section of the contract,as-if -- the same as you've had on 25 other contracts?
- k.
L
- 9 1
DR. CLOUD: A --
- r 2
MR. SHACKLETON: Can you recall? 3 DR. CLOUD: No. It -- the previous contract that 4 we had with PG&E, we do not find a specific list -- oh, just 5 a minuta. I have, I have the specific list of miscellaneous requirements and the first paragraph reads essentially iden-6 7 tical to the paragraph that we just read. 8 MR. JOUKOFF: Is this the same contract or a 9 different, contract, Doctor? 10 DR. CLOUD: Now, this is a contract that we had 11 for the system interaction study. 12 MR. SHACKLETON: When was that contract dated, 13 Dr. Cloud? ,..( 14 DR. CLOUD: January 25, 1980. 15 MR. SHACKLETON: All right. Going on to the 16 second question, Dr. Cloud, this relates to the same section g 17 of the contract,1.0, " Miscellaneous Requirements," sub-j l 18 section 1.3: " Consultant shall disclose no information to i 19 third parties concerning the services performed under this a j 20 request for services without written permission from PG&E." i l 21 The question, Dr Cloud, is what does paragraph l s 22 1.3 mean to you? ej 23 DR. CLOUD: Well, it means exactly what it says. 24 On this particular effort, however, it was necessary for us 25 to disclose information to the NRC, which we did, and which 1 l v r_ .__m ,,m,.w,
t l C? ? n I we did under verbal authorization. And the -- this clause 2 was essentially waived to permit us to, to discuss our work 3 with the NRC. I shoud add also, however, tht.t it's not 4 unconmon for -- when consulting work is' done on d nuclear 5 power plant and particularly if it's of,a advanced scientific 6 nature, that the consultant would wish to write a. paper, a 7 technical paper on the work that he did. And, as a general a rule, these clauses are included to permit the sponsor, that 9 is to say, PG&E, to approve any papers that subsequently 10 result from the work. That -- that's the main reason for 11 these kind of clauses. 12 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you, Dr. Cloud. 13 MR. JOUKOFF: And just a clarification, that would (' 14 be a paper put out 'to publication to the industry or is it 15 a report to the company? 16 DR. CLOUD: There'll always be a re -- or nearlyi 17 j always, there 's a report to the company. But if the work 18 that was done carries specific scientific interestr.a paper, 19 j you know, of the nature of this -- j 20 MR. JOUKOFF: Something that would go in "Trans-i
- 7 i 21 actions of ASME," like.
3 \\ f 22 DR. CLOUD: Or something like that. And the, and I k 23 the sponsor would like to approve those kinds of papers.' 24 MR. JOUKOFF: Thank you, Dr. Cloud. 25 MR. SHACKLETON: Going on to the third question, (. 2
m 7 a r s. r s ) 't l* p# ) e y 1 under the same 1.0 "Miscel'laneous Requirements" heading, 2 subsection 1.9: " Consultant fs an independent contractor and not an employee of th1E 2n.any respect whntever." 3 The question gdNchrni$g this' subsection is: 4 what 5 does paragraph' l.9 ppan to you? 6I CLOUD \\: Fell,onceagain,thisstatementis,* .DR. 7 is not ambiguous. It tesans to me what it says, that I am an ...s. 8 independent contractor and that I am not an employee'of PG&E, ~ 1 9 which is a true statement. 9. l 10 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you, Dr. Cloud. i 11 The next q eation relates under the heading " Specification for Consultanha Quality Assurance Program" 12 s s and under the subheading 3.0', " Documents for Subm1ssion' (- 13 14 subsection 3.3, which reads as follows: "Significant condi-s 15 tions requiring corrective action snall be reporte'd to PG&E 5 # 16 for concurrence." 17 j The question, Dr. Cloud, ist what does this j ~ 18 paragraph teen as related -- what does.this paragraph mean ' 19 i as related to your findings from your. reverification effort? N U 20 DR. CLOUD: Well, this paragraph says that if I i l believe that some physical change within the plant is re-21 j 22 quired or some change to the way the plant is operated is 23 required, -that PG&E must concur with this recommendation. 24 It dawns on me that to a certain degree th's statement is \\ unnece'ss,ary in this contract becauso 'PG&E holds the license 25 ( r I \\ i *, 3'. e ,,.y-p,,, -..y-
-1. for the plant and they would have to agree with and support .2 any changes made at the plant in any event. 3 MR. SHACKLETON: Dr. Cloud, thank you for you comments 4 on the contract. Now I wish to address another subject matter 5 and this concerns from the testimony that.you_and others have given to the Commission relating back to the meeting that you 6 and members of the Pacific Gas & Electric's raanagement staff 7 attended in B3thesda, Maryland on November 3rd, 1981 with the 8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And the question revolves arour.d 9 your return trip by air from Washington, D.C. to San Francisco. to When you returned by plane, do you recall who was present on 33 the aircraft that accompanied you or that you flew with from 12 PG&E? 13 DR. CLOUD: I can't say all of the PG&E people that 1-4 15 were on the plane with me. As I recall, we divided into two 16 groups for the return flight. My memory is that both on the 17 flight out and on the flight back, you know, half the people 18 went on United and half the people went on TWA. And I.just g _j 19 don't remember all of the people that were on t he flight a with me. 20 MR. SHACKLETON: Dr. Cloud, on the return flight, 21 were you seated with someone from PG&E? 22 L DR. CLOUD: Yes, I rode back Side by side with Mike i 23 24 Tresler. i 25 MR. SHACKLETON: And for the record, Mr. Tresler _
u 1 is.the Diablo Canyon supervising pipe coordinator, an engineer 2-on.the staff of Pacific Gas & Electric. Dr. Cloud, do you 3 recall that Mr. James V. Rocca was also present on that flight? 4 DR. CLOUD: Yes, he was. 5 MR. SHACKLETON: ~And for the record, Mr. Rocca is the 6 chief for mechanical and nuclear engineering forfPacific Gas 7 and Electric. Do you recall, Dr. Cloud, any conversation that 8 took place when Mr. Rocca left his seat and came back to where g you and Mr. Tresler were sitting, and in the area there where io you were sitting on the plane, engaged in conversation with Mr. Tresler? 11 DR. CLOUD: Jim Rocca did come back and talk with us. 12 We were talking about irrelevant subjects. Then I left -- my 13 { 34 memory is that I left and Jim Rocca took my seat. I talked to someone else, did some other things, and then I came back, and 15 basically sat on the edge of the table. And Jim and Mike 16 a h Tresler were in conversation, a fairly heated conversation, as 17 I recall, and I don't remember all the details of the conversa-jg 3:- tion -- in fact, I don't even remember the main thrust of it. j gg But I do believe that it revolved around the fact that Rocca 20 d was upset with the attorney, Bruce Norton, related to some of 21 4 5 the things that he said either in the meeting or after che meeting. MR. SHACKLETON: Dr. Cloud, can you recall specifically 24 (- what comments that Mr. Norton made that Mr. Rocca was discussing 5 25 68- .a .w~ ~- ,,e...- ea, ,-.gv... ,-...w
1 with Mr. Tresler?. 2 DR. CLOUD: No, I really can't go beyond that. You (gq.., -3 must remember that we were in a reasonably. relaxed frame of 4 mind at the time and I certainly wasn't interested in rehashing 5 the events of the two or three days preceding. 6 MR. SHACKLETON: Dr. Cloud, do you recall were there 7 any other PG&E members of their engineering staff present 8 during this discussion between Mr. Rocca and Mr. Tresler? 9 DR. CLOUD: I do not believe so. My memory is that 10 Mike and Jim were seated side by side, with Rocca in my chair ij and I was sitting on the edge of the table, and I don't believe there were others around. 12 13 MR. SHACKLETON: All right. Thank you. The next e.k 14 subject that I would like to approach, Dr. Cloud, concerns the issuance by your company of. draft reports of what has been 15 referred to during the course of this investigation as Cloud's 16 s preliminary report or interim report. The final preliminary k 17 i ~* l 18 rep rt, I believe, was issued on UcVember the 12th of 19 -- 3 s October -- pardon me, November 12th, 1981. The question I j gg i wish to address to you, sir, is why did you provide Pacific 20 j d Gas & Electric Company draft reports during the month of 21 s i 5 October 1981? 22 DR. CLOUD: Well, we discussed this before, of coursa 23-And I mentioned that as a matter of course we always furnish 24 '(.. ' a draft report on any significant piece of work that we do for 25 I 1 any and all of our clients. 2 MR. SHACKLETON: Dr. Cloud, was it your decision to 3 provide these draft reports or was it upon request by PG&E? 4 DR. CLOUD: It was definitely my. decision, and it 5 wasn't even a decision. It's a matter'of-policy in our company. 6 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you. Phil, do you-have any 7 further questions for Dr. Cloud? 8 MR. JOUKOFF: No, I don't. Thank you. MR. SHACKLETON: Dr. Cloud, do you have any additiona 9 10 comments you would like to make regarding the questions that have taken place here this afternoon? 11 DR. CLOUD: Nothing of any real relevance. I mainly 12 remember our discussion on the plane on the way back with Mike i3 (~ Tresler and that we were talking about at that time my primary g interest was his-salmon fishing trips, and I was a little upse: 15 when Rocca came back and tried to talk business with him. 16 s MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you very much, Dr. Cloud. I 37 have no additional questions at this time. And we will ul 3 c terminate this interview at 2:27 p.m. Going off record. j 19 a 1 (End of intervieu.) 20 = 21 i = 22 23 s 24 25 . }}