ML20040D378
| ML20040D378 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 12/16/1981 |
| From: | Rocca J PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17083A976 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202010236 | |
| Download: ML20040D378 (50) | |
Text
.._
~
1 UNITED. STATES OF AMERICA 2-
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
3 4
INVESTIGATION OF 5
DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 & 2 r
INTERVIEW OF 6
' JAMES V.
ROCCA 7
8 Pacific Gas & Electric 9
Headquarters Offices to Law Department Conference Room 77 Beale-Street San Francisco, California 11 Wednesday, 12 racember 16, 1981 13 4
I.
C The above-entitled matter came on for further 34 hearing, pursuant to adjournment, at 4:34 p.m.
15
^
^^
16 On behalf of the NRC Staff:
37 OWEN C. SHACKLETON, JR., Moderator 18 8
B.
H.
FAULKENBERRY
_)
19 ij 20 21 i
e 22 23 24 25 8202010236 820127 PDR ADOCK 050002 5 o
n
i ERRATA SHEET Interview of J. V. Rocca, December 16, 1981 The following corrections should be made:
Page 120, Line 2 - Change disorientation to misorientation.
Page 124, Line 4 - Change I remember to November.
Page 127, Line 10 - Change comment to commented.
Page 149, Line 17 - Change committee to committing.
Page 151, Line 16 - Change Red to Reg.
4 Page 153, Line 12-- Change something to someone.
Pages 126,127,133,134,135,136,138, and 140 - Wherever McCraken or McCraken's appears, replace with McCracken or McCracken's.
The above corrections have been identified by Bobby H. Faulkenberry and J. V. Rocca.
-116-
b/
PggCEEQIEgS (h
1 MR. SHACKLETON:
It's December 16th, 1981, 2
and the time is now 4:34 p.m. and this is an interview 3
of Mr. James V.
Rocca who is the chief mechanical and 4
nuclear engineer for the Pacific Gas and Electric-5 Company and this interview is taking place in room 3101 6
of the corporate headquarters of Pacific Gas and Electric 7
Company.at 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, California..
8 The purpose of this interview is part of 9
an investigattion presently being conducted by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.concerning the facts 10 and happenings concerning the pred nt reverification 11 Program being conducted by PG&E surrounding their 12 13 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
L,.
14 Present for this interview is Mr. James 15 V.
Rocca from PG&E and from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 16 Commission, Region 5, is Mr. Bobby H. Paulkenberry, 17 Chief of the Reactor Construction Projects Branch g
18 and my name is Owen C.
Shackleton, Jr. and I'm the 19 Senior Investigator.
j 20 Prior to going on the tape, I advised i!
21 Mr. Rocca that he had the right to have an attorney 3
f present.
22 23 Mr. Rocca, do you desire to have an attorney 24 l
present during the course of this interview?
25 MR. ROCCA:
I do not.
1
-117-l
w l
1 MR. SHACKLETON:
Thank you.
.v 2
At this time, would you please stand to be
.hs l
P aced under. oath?
3 4
Whereupon, 5
JAMES V.
ROCCA having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein j
6 and was examined and testified as follows:
7 8
MR. SHACKLETON: -At.this time I'll turn the' interview over'to Mr. Faulkenberry.
9 10 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Mr. Rocca, what are your 11 current job responsibilities regarding the seismic verifica-12 tion work being performed by Dr. Cloud'?
13
- MR. ROCCA:
I am delegated the responsibilities
(?
14 within my department to maintain the technical interface 15 with Dr. Cloud -- not only the technical interface but 16 also the administrative interface and control with a
g" 17 Dr. Cloud for the other departments that he wants to see or 18 talk to within engineering or PG&E during this investiga-g 19 tion or audit.
j 20 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
And that is your current Jj 21 responsibility, is that correct, regarding Dr. Cloud?
E 22 MR. ROCCA:
Yes.
23 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Can you tell me when you were 24 assigned these responsibilities?
25 MR. ROCCA:
We started, of course, back in
-118-1 e
r m
<e, w-
1 October or the end of September when the problem first 2
arose and the current job I guess had been assigned to me 3
early November.
4 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Early November?
5 MR. ROCCA:
Yes.
6 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Okay, the job responsibilities 7
that you've described that were assigned to you in early 8
November, were these the same job responsibilities that 9
you had during the early October -- well, the period of time 10 during the entire month of October and say the early 11 November time frame?
MR. ROCCA:
Basically yes.
I think the prime 12 s
13 difference was that in the early October, the contract k,
l 14 and the funds and everything and all liaison with Dr. Cloud 15 was directly with me.
In the early November tiue it became, 16 was escalated up to Mr. Maneatis.
1 I
g 17
.MR.
FAULKENBERRY:
Would you explain for us 18 then how the contractual relationships with Dr. Cloud and i
j 19 PG&E were initially established back in the late September, i
early October time frame and then what changes were made l
20 to these relationships as time progressed and what they 21 i
22 are as of today?
MR. ROCCA:
Okay, if I can remember all of that.
23 Our initial contact with Dr. Cloud on this was 24 kJ to invite him over to listen to a session of what the problem l
25 l
-119-
=
1 I
was that we were confronted with at Diablo Canyon and the 2
disorientation, drawing problem.
k I-3 He spent a day with us, it was a day,.with the 4
idea that if he could listen and felt it was an area within 5
his expertise and that he could contribute or help us solve 6
this problem.
7 At the end of that, Dr. Cloud felt that it was 8
an area which he was well-qualified to help us.in and that 9
he could help us and so at that time we asked him if he would to you know, take on the job.
11 Sometime thereafter, still in the month of 12 October we established a contract with Dr. Cloud.
13 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Was this'the written or n
(
14 verbal contract?
MR. ROCCA:
It was a written contract.
His initial 15 16 start-up work was on a verbal contract.
j We called him in on that day and then the work 37 2
he did after that.
n; MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Would you continue?
g3 aj MR. ROCCA:
We established a contract which 20 3
t covered what we expected to be the scope of work especially 21 i-t since we had you know, going back to the October meeting 22 23 with the NRC at that time and we set that up on that basis.
24 That contract has not been changed since then.
k$
25 He's still working under that original contract.
He has since
-120-
1 then submitted a change of scope and a change of price and
+.
2 that is in our house now and being processed.
($
3 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
During the early phases 4
of Dr. Cloud's work, late September and early October, who 5
was Dr. Cloud reporting to within the PG&E organization?
MR. ROCCA:
He was reporting to me.
6 MR. FAUL3ENBERRY:
When did that change?
7 8
MR. RCCCA:
Just about the time, I guess it was L
9 around just prior to the meeting, we were going back to 10 November 3rd, I guess -- just shortly prior.
I don't remember 11 the exact date, prior to that meeting where they felt that 12 they were going to move up and have him report on a direct 13 basis to Mr. Maneatis.
14 MR. FAULKENBEPRY:
Who does Dr. Cloud report 15 to in the PG&E organization now?
16 MR. ROCCA:
Today he reports to Mr. Maneatis, s
_g 17 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
And this reporting to 2
18 Mr. Maneatis started around the November 3rd time frame,
~
j 19 is that correct?
i l
MR. ROCCA:
Yes.
i 20 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Now, during the early phases 21 I
of Dr. Cloud's work and this is during the late September 22 and October time frame, were you considered to be the-23 principal contact for Dr. Cloud in PG&E?
24 MR. ROCCA:
Yes.
25
-121-
1 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Has Dr. Cloud ever submitted 3
2 to you copies of draft reports of his reverification work g$)
\\
3 on Diablo' Canyon?
4 MR. ROCCA:
Yes.
5 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Can you explain to us the 6
numbers or excuse me, the different draft copies that he 7
has submitted to you and try to identify these by the date 8
if possible?
9 MR. ROCCA:
Okay -- I mean, our first report, 10 it wasn't even a report but the first time we would have 11 looked at the work Dr. Cloud was doing was, he reviewed 12 some of his findings in his initial contacts and then 13 when we went back to the October meeting of the NRC which C,
14 I think was -- I don't know the date of that now, the first 15 meeting in' October.
16 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
October 9th.
g 17 MR. ROCCA:
The 9th, about the 9th.
He'd done 18 some work and so in preparation for that he had given some g
j 19 of his initial findings to us and what his program was looking i
l 20 like at that point.
4 21 Then we established what the program was back i*
22 with the NRC on October 9th.
He exchanged with Dr. Cloud--
23 he gave us a plan of his program and we commented and changed.
24 that as to what we thought it should be or it's goals should 25 be and in the meantime he was continuing his research and then
-122-J
I this document here was the first' document we'd received for 2'
- (;',
comment, the October 21st transmittal from Dr. Cloud.- It's Ui1 3
-preliminary report of the -- whatever it says, on the 3
4 designs, Interface Review of the Seismic ~ Reverification 5
Program.
6 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
So the draft copy you are 7
referring to is dated October 21st.
Is that'the first 8
draft report of Dr. Cloud's result on his reverification 9
work on Diablo Canyon that you are aware of, _that was 10 submitted to PG&E?
11 MR. ROCCA:
To my recollection that was the 12 first draft that we did get.
13 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Can you identify the second C,.
14 draft report?
15 MR. ROCCA:
I believe we got one from Dr. Cloud 16 early the following week -- October 26th, 27th, in that 17 time frame, which I'm not sure was even labeled interim 18 draft.
- I j
19 I -- we -- I did not review it or make any comments; i
20 whether it was really dif ferent than the October 21st draft, I l
f 21 don't know.
I-22 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Was this a draft copy of the results of his work or was this a draft copy of the program 23 24 plan, the October 26th?
25 MR. ROCCA:
I might have to look at the transmittal
-123-
1 to verify it but I think it was the same thing as the report 2
on the work.
3 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Now, can you identify --
4 MR. ROCCA:
Now, we do have a-well, I remember 5
the 5th document that I gave-you is another report that 6
iwe received later on of the same report.
Another version 7
of the same report.
8 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Let's,.so we don't get 9
confused here, you've identified what you consider to 10 be the first draft copy that you are aware of, the copy 11 dated October 21st?
12 MR. ROCCA:
That's correct.
13 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
The'second draft that you've 14 identified is the draft copy of the results of his work 15 which you believe is dated October 26th?
16 MR. ROCCA:
I believe that's correct.
- j 17 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Could you identify the next e
18 draft copy that you are aware of that was submitted-to 3
l i
19 PG&E?
I MR. ROCCA:
We got that draft copy --- I don't 20 d
remember the date of the draft but out internal documentation 21 was a transmitted inside on November 5th for comment.
22 i
l I don't remember the date on Dr. Cloud's draft 23 but I assume it is the 4th or 5th of November.
24
(
MR. FAULKENBERRY: 'Okay, can you identify the next 25 l.
-124-
draft copy that you received?
i 2
(}p MR. ROCCA:
Our records show a November 6th 3-change of some sort and the very next day of another 4
~
document there that I--we just transmitted out and pulled 5
back the November 5th' document.
Obviously nobody had time 6
to comment on the November 5th document, the November 5th 7
transmittal.
8 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Was there anything after 9
November 5th and November 6th that you recall?-
10 MR. ROCCA:
I believe the next document we got 11 from Dr. Cloud was dated around the 12th or 13th which 12 was to be I believe the final document that was submitted 13 to the NRC.
C 14 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Mr. Rocca, for future discussion 15 in this interview, let's agree to identify the first draft 16 as October the 21st, the second draft as October 26th,
=
17 the third draft as November 5th and the fourth draft as e
18 November 12th.
5 j
19 Is that agreeable?
i l
20 MR. ROCCA:
I'm trying to get these straight d:
21 here on a piece of paper.
i.
22 The first ' draft is October 21st.
The second 23 draft is October 26th, the third is November --
24 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
5.
1 25 MR. ROCCA:
5 and the fourth is November 12th.
-125-
\\
^
1 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
With regard to the first
'2 draft, did you receive a copy.of this draft?
{.{vg 3
MR. ROCCA:
Yes, I did.
4 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Were you asked to comment on 5-this draft?
6 MR. ROCCA:
Well, yes.
It was given to us 7
for'our review.
8 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Did you comment on this draft?
9 MR. ROCCA:
Yes, I did.
i 10 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Did you submit these 11 comments back to Dr. Cloud?
12 MR. ROCCA:
Yes, they were.
4 13 MR. FAUKENBERRY:
And in what form or manner l
14 did you transmit these back to Dr. Cloud?
1 15 MR. ROCCA:
I handed them to Jim McCraken who 16 then transmitted it, I believe handed it to Dr. Cloud I
17 or one of Dr. Cloud's people, g
18 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
How were thece comments y
a j
19 made?
Were they contained within the report 20 a
I d
itself or was it just a memo or letter you sont uack to 21 3
2 i
E Dr. Cloud?
22 MR. ROCCA:
They were just handwritten notes 23 on the side'of the draft, on my copy of the draf t, that 24 b:
I reviewed.
25
--126-f y-9
1 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Do you recall which copy of 2
draft no. 1 was submitted to you for comment?
3 MR. ROCCA:
Yes, it would be numbered the copies 4
within our house and I had copy no. 4.
5 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Did anyone within PG&E other 6
than yourself comment or place their comments within draft 7
no. 4?
Within copy no. 4?
8 MR. ROCCA:
Yes.
9 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Who was this.
10 MR. ROCCA: Jim McCraken comment on them and 11 Dick Bettinger and people in his department -- civil department 12 commented on it.
13 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Excuse me, Mr. Rocca.
I'll 14 rephrase this.
I believe there may be some confusion.
15 With copy no. 4 of draft number 1 --
16 MR. ROCCA:
Oh, no.
I was the only one who k
17 commented on copy no. 4 of draft no.
1.
e 18 I'm sorry.
g j
19 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Now, with regard to draft no.
i 2 which we understand is dated October 26th, did you receive l
20 21 a copy of this dreft?
i-MR. ROCCA:
He received it within my department 22 and I believe I did receive a copy, yes.
23 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Were you asked to comment on 24 this draft?
25
-127-
1 MR..ROCCA:
I would' assume we'were asked to c,.
2 comment on it.
Let's say yes.
We were asked to comment on Oh!
3 it.
We did not comment on it.
I did.not comment.cn1 it.
4 MR. FAULXENBERRY:
So you did not comment on 5
draft no. 2?
6 MR. ROCCA:
No, I felt it was too close after
'7 draf t no. 1 which we just returned shortly before that 8
and I asked Dr. Cloud if there were any substantive changes 9
in it and he said no.
We didn't look at it.
10 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Do you know if anyone within your department or within PG&E commented on this second 11 12 draft?
13 MR. ROCCA:
Yes, it was commented on -- I believe it was the draft commented on by the civil engineers.
14 15 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Do you know if these comments a
were transmitted back to Dr. Cloud?
16 g
17 MR. ROCCA:
I don't believe they were.
2 I don't believe any comments from that second 18 a
draft were returned to Dr. Cloud, j.
19 i
i MR. FAULKENBERRY:
With regard to draft no. 3 which f
20
{
has been identified as having been dated November 5th,. did 21 e
y u receive a copy of that draft?
22 MR.'ROCCA:
Yes.
23 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Were you asked to comment 24 (i
on that draft?
25
-128-
~
1 MR. ROCCA:
Yes.
2 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Did you comment on the draft?
3 MR. ROCCA:
I believe I did and I think our 4
comments were so minor I'm not sure we -- I think we again 5
wrote notes on the draft, the copy and again gave them back 6
to Dr. Cloud; yes, I think they went back.
I don' t have them -- even on the October 21st 7
8 copy, I didn't keep my original, I just told.them to send 9
them all over to_Dr. Cloud.
to MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Do I understand you correctly, i
to the best of your knowledge, you believe that your 11 comments were transmitted back to Dr. Cloud?
12 13 MR. ROCCA:
I believe so.
I'm trying -- I really-14 can't remember -- if I commented on them they would have l
15 gone back to Dr. Cloud, on that.
16 I don't remember anything significant about
=
17 it on there.
2 18 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Mr. Rocca, with regard to g
i 19 draft no. 4 which has been identified by the date of 20 November 12th, did you receive a copy of this draft?
il 21 MR. ROCCA:
Yes.
i 22 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Were you asked to comment 23 on that draft?
l 24 MR. ROCCA:
No, this was considered a final l
25' version and I believe, if I have my dates straight, it is the l
-129-L.
1 one we transmitted to the NRC on November 18th.
j g.,
2 1R. FAULKENBERRY:
Mr. Rocca, I have'a copy of 37 3
the draft 4 which is dated November 12th.
Is that the 4
draf. you were referring to?'
5 MR. ROCCA:
Yes, right.
And there were no comments 6
made on this draft.
7 If you recall, this is one we discussed with j
8 you at that time -- sending a draft copy and not as a final 9
report.
10 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
With regard to my question, i
i when I asked you were you asked to comment on a particular 11 12 draft, how were you asked to comment or by whom were you asked to comment on these drafts?
13 MR. ROCCA:
I guess why I hesitate -- we were-14 n t really asked --- they were given to us for review.
15 16 If you look at the transmittal, nothing says comment on 3
[
17 it or anything like that and we just were commenting on g
them as to what we thought the content of the report was, 18 j
19 how accurate it was.
$j 20 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Mr. Rocca, outside of these dj 21 four draft reports which we've identified, have you received 2
e 22 any results of Dr. Cloud's work in any other form for-review 23 and comment?
24 MR. ROCCA:
No, I don't believe -- I mean, his I
bi-weekly reports-are sent over for tacking on at the end of l
25
-130-
J 1
our semi-monthly reports, for tacking on-to the back of 2
those.
(-g 3
MR. SHACKLETON:
Mr. Rocca, the bi-weekly reports.
4 Wasn't tha't the result of the November 9th meeting?
5 MR. ROCCA:
Yes.
It was the result of the 6
NRC memo and order.
7 MR. SIIACKLETON: Right, so there were no bi-weekly S.
reports, is this correct, prior to that time for November 9th?
9 MR. ROCCA:
That's correct.
10 MR. SHACKLETON:
And before the Novuaber 9th date, 11 you never received or did you receive anything such as 12 a memo or a handwritten draft or anything of that type 13 from Dr. Cloud for review?
14 MR, ROCCA:- Not other than these documents 15
'e've already talked about.
16 MR. SHACKLETON:
That we've already talked 17 about.
Drafts 1 through 4?
g 18 MR. ROCCA:
As I mentioned earlier, I think g
a j
19 the only thing we saw that_was indicating his work.wan i
20 his preparation for the presentation for the NRC meetings -
_l f
of which I think this draft is a basic copy of that November 21 I-22 3rd, of our November meeting.
(Pause) 23 24
///
b' 25
///
-1 31-
tp8-1 1
MR. FAULKENBERRY :
Mr. Rocca, am I correct in 2
assuming that during the tinefrane that these drafts were 3
submitted to PG&E -- and this spans a timeframe from October 4
21 to November 12 -- were you the principal contact within 5
PG&E for Dr. Cloud during this timeframe?
6 MR. ROCCA:
Yes.
We were coordinatinn any inform-7 ation -- we coordinated all of the infornation requests from 8
Dr. Cloud or if he vanted drawings they were coordinated 9
through my department to see that he got the drawings, they to were transmitted to him, or any requests lika that or any 11 information coming from Dr. Cloud, yes, came in through us.
12 ftR. FAULKENBERRY:
Okay.
Maybe we should 13 clarify this a little bit so there is no confusion.
This 14 gats back to when Dr. Cloud started reporting to Pir.
15 flane atis.
I think you stated previously that he started 16 reporting to Mr. Maneatis on around November 3.
17 MR. ROCCA:
Yes.
l 18 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Now since these reports that g
19 us have identified, reports one through four, cross over a
j 20 that particular date, were you still the principal contact 21 for Dr. Cloud during the October 21 through November 12 s
f 22 period?
3 l
23 IIR. ROCCA:
There was a change in the transnittal 24 in the primary issue.
I was sent copies so that we could 25 take care of the logistics within engineerinn department,
-132-
(6ek 1
for whatever action had to take place.
Although, if I recall 2
correctly, still sinple drawing requests came addressed to 3
me and were handled in ny department.
MR. FAULKENBERRY :
Okay.
So with that in 5
mind, it would be my understanding that the draft reports 6
that we have identified, were they~subnitted to you fron 1
7 Dr. Cloud?
8 MR. ROCCA:
The October 21 and -- probably we 9
hadn't changed enough of the gears I don't think even on 10 November 5 that yes, they were sant to me.
11 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Okay.
Here you the individual 12 responsible for identifying the people within PG&E that 13 copies of these drafts should be transmitted to?
(..
14 MR. ROCCA:
Yes.
15 MR. FAULKENBERRY :
Could you identify for ne 16 the persons that draft number one was submitted to?
17 MR. ROCCA:
Copy No. 1 was submitted to Jim g
j 18 McCraken.
He was the focal point in my department for the 3
19 Cloud contract.
j 20 MR. FAULKENBERRY :
You say copy number one?
21 MR. ROCCA:
Right.
Remained with hin.
y 22 MR. FAULKENBE RRY :
Remained with him.
Do you l
23 know the purpose for copy number one?
24 MR. ROCCA:
For his comments.
He was working 25 on the contract; he would comment on it.
I guess maybe
-133-
~.
(
i that would change an earlier statement, then.
In my depart-2 ment we had two comments, one and four, but-there was no 3
other comments on four othhr than myself, copy number four.
1 4
MR. PAULKENBERRY:
What about copy number two?
5 MR. ROCCA:
Copy number two was sent to tir. Brand, 6
fir. FAULKENBERRY :
How about copy number three?
7 MR. ROCCA:
Copy number three was sent to f tr.
8 Bettinger.
9 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
What about copy number four?
MR. ROCCA:
Number four was sent to me, given 10 to me.
11 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
What about copy number five?
12 13 MR. ROCCA:
Copy number five, okay.
I think I've 14 swapped numbers around.
Copy five also stayed with fir.
McCraken and I think in the package that we gave you you 15 16 will find that Mr. ?!cCraken's corments are on number five 17 rather than on number one, and copy number one was a blank l
18 copy kept in Mr. McCraken's file if we needed nore copies, l
g ig which we never did until recently.
j 20 MR. FAULKENBERRY :
Okay.
Were there more copies f
than number five that were transmitted within PG&E?
21 I
f 22 MR. ROCCA:
No.
Not to my knowledge.
5 l
23 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
To the best of your knowledge 24 do you know if persons other than those that you have 25 identified, Mr. Brand, Bettinger, yourself, and McCrakan,
(.
-134-
. ([k) were any other persons within PG&E, did they make corments on this particular draft?
2 3
MR. ROCCA:
In'thN Bettinger's department, Civil 4
Engineering, there were comments made by his engineers.
MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Could you identify these 5
6 engineers?
MR. ROCCA:
I can identify Mr. Ghio.
7 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Do you know of any other 8
individual within ?tr. Bettinger's department?
9 MR. ROCCA:
I believe !!r. Wollak may have made 10 a few comments on there, too.
But you would have to ask 11 him.
12 11R. FAULHENBERRY:
Could you spell that?
7.
13 MR. ROCCA:
W-o-1-1-a-k.
14 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Were there any other persons 15 within your departrent other than tir. McCraken and yourself 16 that comnented?
37 18 MR. ROCCA:
No.
l MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Do you know whether or not g
39 a
Mr. Brand commented on copy number two?
j 20 f
MR. ROCCA:
If he did, he didn't return the copy 21 3
to us.
To my knowledge, no, he did not conment on number f
22 f
two.
23 MR. FAULKENBE RRY :
Did all of these copies, were 24 they returned to you with these individual comments on them 25 N.'
-135-c
kih and then did you or persons within your departnent transmit 1
2 these back to Dr. Cloud?
3 MR. ROCCA:
Mr. Brand's copy was not returned to 4
us; the others, yes, they were returned to us and they were 5
-- Mr. McCraken then transmitted them to Dr. Cloud or had 6
them transmitted.
7 f fR. FAULKENBERRY:
Would all comments have been 8
channeled through you prior to goine to Dr. Cloud or would g
have persons within PG&E conmunicated directly with Dr.
Cloud?
10 MR. ROCCA:
All cornents were to be channeled ij through us and I believe they all vers.
12 MR. FAULXENBE RRY:
Okay, Mr. Rocca, with regard 13 34 to draft number two, could you explain to me how this draft was distributed within PG&E?
Basically what I'm after --
15 16 IIR. ROCCA:
I know.
I don't recall is my 17 problem.
I think it was handed -- it may have been handed l
18 out to people only as another draft without a formal trans-g 19 mittal saying that if you sau anything different, cornent c
j 20 on it.
f 21 MR. FAULKENBE RRY :
Did you use the same numbering i
f 22 system, same nunbar of conies?
23 MR. ROCCA:
It only went to the same people but 24 we didn't nunber the copies.
Us were kind of pushing, rushing 25 at that time, trying to get thinos done in preparation of k.
-136-
~
h3
' our November meeting.
1 tiR. FAULKENBERRY:
Were any cornents from, firstly,
2 within PG&E developed on this particular draft and returned 3
4 to you for submittal back to Dr. Cloud?
MR. ROCCA:
No.
Not to my knowledge, anyway.
5 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Okay.
With regard to draft 6
number three, could you enlain how this draft was handled?
7 IIR. DOCCA:
That was transmitted to departnents 8
for comments, other than the nachanical departnent -- the g
electrical engineering departnant and the civil engineering 10 dSpartment, to Mr. Bettinger and to ?1r. H'errera.
11 MR. FAULKENBERRY :
Mr. Herrera, which department 12 is he in?
13 MR. ROCCA:
Electrical.
He is the chief 14 elsctrical engineer.
15 11R. FAULKEN3ERRY:
Could yousuell that, please?
16 fir. ROCCA:
II s-r-r-e-r-a.
17 MR. FAULi(ENBERRY :
Okay.
Was this draft dis-l 18 tributed to any other persons besides Mr. Bettinger and g
39 Mr. Herrera?
j 20 f
MR. ROCCA:
I'm not sure whether any copies --
21 a
cc's -- were sent to people or not.
I don't recall.
I'd f
22 have to look at the transmittal.
23
!4R. FAULKENBERRY:
Were these copies numbered?
24 MR. ROCCA:
No.
25
-137-
hh i
MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Were these copies that were 2
sent to Mr. Dettinger and Mr. Herrera, were they commented 3
on and were these comments transmitted back to you for 4
transmittal to'Dr. Cloud?
5 MR. ROCCA:
All except the electrical comments.
6 Mr. Dettinger's comments and my own comments -- again, none 7
of which I really recall -- were given to Mr. McCraken 8
and handed to, just as this one was, handed to Dr. Cloud.
9 The electricals w?re late in returnina the comments, so they 10 phoned their comments back to Dr. Cloud.
11 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Were you made aware of what 12 the electrical department's comments were?
13 MR. ROCCA:
In content, no.
We were given a 14 copy of what they transmitted to Dr. Cloud.
Yes. I have 15 not reviewed them.
What is contained in them, I don't know.
16 what the details are.
17 MR. FAULKENBE RRY :
Do you have on file a copy of l
18 these comments that were communicated?-
g 19 MR. ROCCA:
I believe we do.
j 20 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Could us obtain a copy of a
l 21 these?
f 22 MR. ROCCA:
Yes.
i 2
l l
23 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Could you exnlain to ne why 24 a copy of draf t number ons uas not submitted to the electri-25 cal department?
i I
-138-l b
2-F
(
1 f1R. ROCCA:
All of the work was being done by 2
the civil engineering.
It was mostly all seismic related 3
and the electricals were only involved in a peripheral 4
manner of the work beina done.
So therefore they were not 5
included in this distribution.
Whereas in both the civil 6
and the mechanical we were deeply involved with the piping 7
support work and thincs like that.
So that was the only 8
tuo copies we asked for corments on.
9 21R. FAULKENBE RRY:
Excuse me.
There may be a 10 confusion here.
I am talking about draft number one.
11
!!R. ROCCA:
The October 21 one.
12
!1R. FAULKENBERRY:
October 21.
That's correct.
13 MR. ROCCA:
Yes.
k.
14
- 1R. FAULKEMBERRY :
So a copy of that draft uas 15 not submitted to the electrical department.
16 MR. ROCCA:
Right.
Just to the civils and the 17 mtchanicals received copies of that.
And Mr. Brand.
l 18 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
With regard to draft number g
19 four, can you explain to me how that was handled?
c j
20
?tR. ROCCA:
The electricals had by this time f
21 become more
-- oh, draf t number four.
I' n sorry.
I.was a
f 22 going back --
draft number four was brought into PG&E as tj 23 Dr. Cloud's finished product for this interim report and 24 we transmitted it to our licensinn peonle for submittal to 25 the NRC.
k
-139-
(h)
.i MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Do you know when -- what date 2
this was transmitted from your department to the licensing 3
P90PlG?
4 MR. ROCCA:
I'm sure we have it in our records.
I can ' t recall.
But knowing that we not it in around the 5
6 13th or sonething like that, I would guess it went over to them on the 14th or 15th.
I don' t recall right of f the 7
8 top of my head.
f1R. FAULKE'! BERRY:
Who was responsible for taking 9
that over to the licensing department?
to
!!R. ROCCA:
I was responsible for it.
11 f tR. FAULKEIIBERRY :
Who actually did?
12 I4R. ROCCA:
I would assume Jim did -- McCraken, k.
13 24R. FAULKE'IP.E RRY :
Do you have knowledge of 14 when this draft report was actually released by PG&E and 15 submitted to the MRC?
16 17 MR. ROCCA:
Other than looking at the date of the
=
18 transmittal I don't know, because that kind of leaves our l
i 19 department and makes its rounds.
j 20 MR. FAULKE:1 BERRY :
Okay.
Mr. Rocca, at the time f
that you received copies of draft reports one, two and 21 a
three from Dr. Cloud, had you ever been rade aware by people f
22 f
within PG&E, by people within the tiRC, or any other persons 23 that the results of Dr. Cloud's work should not be reviewed 24 25 by PG&E prior to submittal to the NRC?
k.
-140-
4 t%-
ygt 1
MR. ROCCA:
No.
I don't believa that was 2
ever specified.
As a natter of fact, I would -- because 3
We in the October meeting, the question was asked what was 4
meant by " independent" and I believe the answer by Mr. Dentoa 5
was that it just be by a person othar than the one who did 6
the original work.
That is also an accepted NRC connittal.
7 There ara no qualifications Jacut reviewing or connenting 8
or anything like that.
9 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Since the date that drafts to one, two and three were submittad to PG&E through you, have you since been made awar= by anyona within PGAE, the NRC, or n
other persons with regard to how the results of Dr. Cloud's I
12 work should be handled prior to submittal to the NRC?
13
\\
i4 MR. ROCCA:
Well, it was independent, that it was a highly sensitive issue, but that we vare still'-- we would 15 16 still be required to comment, to look at his renorts to 17 verify that they were accurate and that they were conplete.
l 18 So from that viewpoint we were still -- as a matter of fact y
19 I would still expect today to conment on Dr. Cloud's reports j
20 I'm not sure how -- I mean I'm not sure he would want to nake a
E 21 a statenant as to the conpleteness of his work without our i
f 22 looking at it and asking a question if we thought it was incomplete, that due to tha fact that he had overlooked a 23 24 file or talking or seeing someone who had infornation on 25 that and then directing him to see that file or person, or 4
I
-141-
h$3 that there was something -- not just sorething that we 3
2 thought was an error, to ask the question.
3 MR. FAULXEN3ErmY:
Okay.
As you have iust 4
explainsd, these are the ground rules that are in effect 5
as of today as far as you know?
6 MR. ROCCA:
Yes.
7 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
These ground rules as you have 8
explained them, have they been connunicated to you by sone-9 one higher in the management chain within PGrE?
MR. ROCCA:
I guess I hava discussed them with 10 Mr. Brand.
ij MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Okay.
So as far as you know, 12 what you have just stated would be the position of Mr.
13 34 Brand with regard to how the results of Dr. Cloud should be handled prior to submittal to the NRC?
15 MR. ROCCA:
Yes, to the best of ny knowledge.
16 17 MR. FAtiLKENBERRY:
Since November 3, management
=
l 18 direction with regard to Dr. Cloud's work is being performed g
19 by Mr. Maneatis.
Do you know whether or not this would be j
20 Mr. Maneatis' position?
f 21 MR. ROCCA:
I'd be making a supposition here.
I f
22 would assume so.
I don't know how else you can work a contract like this and have a valid result in an efficient 23 24 manner.
But I have not really -- I don't recall a direct 25 conversation with him on these groundrules, if that's what
-142-s
<v
hfi you want to call these, 1
2 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Okay.
But you do recall a 3
direct conversation with Mr. Brand?
4 MR. ROCCA:
It's a conversation that -- vell, it 5
predates, probably, November 3.
I' n not sure -- and I don ' t 6
think I did ask the question after the November 3 meeting.
7 It is a content of, I guess it is how we handle most all of 8
our -- not most, but all of our contracts with people.
MR. FAULKENBERRY :
Okay.
So you say this is an 9
understanding you had - fron Mr. Brand prior to November 3 to and you are not sure or are you sure whether or not that 33 you have had conversations with Mr. Brand post-November 3 12 in this respect?
13 f,..
MR. ROCCA:
I think so, yes.
None of our ground-34 rules were really changed.
We still had to nake sure that 15 the reports were really accurate.
16 MR. FAULKEU3ERRY:
Okay.
If as of today you woulil 17
=
18 expect to receive draft copies of Dr. Cloud's work prior-to l
g 19 their being submitted to the NRC, how would you expset to s
j 20 handle these draft copies prior to these drafts being submitted to the NRC?
21 MR. ROCCA:
Unless a specific order came from J
22 the NRC that we were not to comnent or anything on them, 23 I would still expect to comment on them as to their accuracy 24 25 and completeness.
-143-
(h i
MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Okay.
And submit these comments back to Dr. Cloud?
2 3
MR. DOCCA:
Yes.
4 MR. FAULKENBERRY :
Mr. Rocca, getting back to the comments that you nade on drafts number one and drafts 5
6 number three, vere any of the comments that you provided to Dr. Cloud intended by you to remove any adverse information 7
from the draf t report?
8 MR. ROCCA:
No.
9 MR. FAULKENBERRY :
Wern any comments you provided 10 to Dr. Cloud in drafts number one and drafts number three 11 intended by you to place PG&E or its. contractors in a more 12 favorable light?
13 MR. ROCCA:
No.
Other than completeness of the 14 report.
I nean, you would have a rore complete report.
15 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Could. you explain to us in 16 17 your own words what were the intent of your connents?
18 MR. ROCCA:
I think you can go through -- we are l
g 19 again speaking about the first draft, uhich is, again, the a
j 20 only one I think I have really comments on.
a MR. FAULKENBE RRY:
Excuse me.
Just for clarifica" 21 a
tion of the record, it is my understanding that you stated f
22 that you commented on both draft number ene and draft number j
23 three.
24 25 MR. ROCCA:
I believe so.
Like I eaid, I don't
(..
-144-
k 1
recall my comments on draft three.
I don't even have them 2
anynore.
As a matter of fact, we did not have any of my 3
comments on draf t four.
They had to be retrieved from 4
Dr. Cloud.
So I don't really recall those comments.
That's 5
why I was trying to qualify that.
But I don't think they 6
uould be any dif ferant than the type that were on the first 7
draft, in that we vere trying to indicate areas where we fel*
8 more work was needed, whether it was to be in this renort 9
or in the total program -- that was his choice.
But there 10 was an area where maybe we thought there was not a closure 11 on an iten or a disposition of it was not made.
We nicht 12 have -- other connents were juse that we believed there is
(.
13 more information and reference them to a responsible engin-14 eer, if he could go talk to that guy to find out if he had 15 really seen all the files.
16 These are the general gists.
The others were 17 maybe choice of word type of cormants.
Mostly innocuous g
l 18 in that sense.
g 19 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Mr. Rocca, draft number four, j
20 which us have identified as having been dated November 12, f
21 1931, it is my understandino this was first submitted to you a
f 22 from Dr. Cloud before it was submitted to the NRC on 2j 23 November 18, is that correct?
24 MR. ROCCA:
That is correct.
25 MR. FAULKENBERRY :
Do you know who actually sent i
l
-145-
(}f) this report to the NRC?
3 MR. ROCCA:
Well, all of our reports to the NRC 2
come from our legal department.
3 I-1R. FAULKE!! BERRY:
And I believe you previously 4
stated that you do not have first-hand information of when 5
this report was actually mailed out of the PG&E office.
6 ftR. ROCCA:
No, I don't.
7 "E*
^
"' "*#8 Y " E#*" "
8 at the November 3,1981 meetine at Bethesda wi'h the NRC?
9 10 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
At this meetina, fir. Morton g
stated that as of Novenber 3, 1981, PG&E had not received a report of Dr. Cloud's work.
First of all, did you hear
(
this statement made by fir. Norton?
34 Itn. ROCCA:
Yes.
15 (Off the record) 6 17 l
18 g
19 a
j 20 ij 21 8
f 22 i
23 g
24 25
-146-
=J
.. =.,..
~
h MR. FAULKENBERRY:
It's my understanding that j
y u said yes you heard Mr. Norton's statement that Z just 2
qu ted to you.
3 MR. ROCCA:
Yes.
1 4
MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Mr. Rocca, Gid you not 5
rrect Mr. Norton when he made the statement, since you 6
knew that drafts one, two and three had been submitted to 7
PG&E?
8 MR. ROCCA:
Only~ drafts one and two before that g
time.
10 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
That is correct, drafts one and two.
12 MR. ROCCA:
I guess I realized that there was 13 b,
an inaccuracy in his statement -- first of all, I was not 14 in that -- up at the table or in that area.
I was back in the audience during the hearing.
So, it just wasn't logistically reasonable at that time to jump up and down g
r anything.
18 I realize that there was an inaccuracy in his g
statement and I made the assumption in my mind that he was j
20 i
talking about a final document and of course Mr. Norton, j-21 i
himself, had not reviewed the document.
Although, we did have these in house, reviewing them on an engineering level.
23 MR.-FAULKENBERRY:
Did you make Mr. Norton aware f the f act that draf ts one and two had actually been re-25 1
-147-
i
. /!.1 MW 1
ceived within PG&E immediately after he made the statement 2
or anytime there after?
3 MR. ROCCA:
No, I did not.
I got upset by another 4
statement by Mr. Norton later on in the meeting. I believe 5
it was later after that, where he was talking about 6
I guess the independency issue was being discussed and he I
7 was talking about we would send copies of these reports to t
8 the NRC directly from Cloud without us seeing them to 9
comment on.
4 10 I was upset by that statement which in my mind 11 was impacting me more, because it was going to commit us 12 to what I thought was an unnatural way to work a contract 13 unreal way to work a contract and so that when we took the
\\'
14 lunch break, I was upset and -- the inaccuracy in my mind 15 just didn't bother me as much or didn't seem as significant, 16 I guess, to me at the time as this and I did mention to Mr.
l g
17 Brand that I was upset and I was upset mostly because I
~
1 l
18 thought if the Comission came or the staff came back after
'l g
19 lunch and accepted Mr. Norton's approach, that this would 3
-j 20 be a totally untenable way to work a contract and that we f
21 would have a -- just -- in my mind an unworkable contract.
a f
22 I think I even said something~about, if we have I
s E
23 to go that way, I would not like to work on this part of 24 the job anymore.
25 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Mr. Rocca, did you ever make 1
-148-c-
~1 Mr. Norton aware of the inaccuracy of his statement?
2 MR. ROCCA:
No.
3 MR.'FAULKENBERRY:
Mr. Rocca, would you explain 4
to us.once again your reason _for not informing Mr. Norton 5
at the particular time he made the statement? 'You explained 6
to us your being upset after he made another statement at i
7 the meeting, but I want to come back tothe time period that 8
he actually made the statement.
~
9 Would you explain to us again why you did not 10 correct him at that immediate time?
11' MR. ROCCA:
Well, I was not -- say, with the 12 PG&E contingent up in the side table.
I was in the back
~
13 audience, three or four rows back.
(,
4
\\
14; I guess I noted it.
Didn't attach too much y
^
q~
15 significance to it.
Making the assumption that he's talking s
s
,~
p c ',
M 16 about a final draft that is not in house yet.
As we were
^
E' N
- "s j
[ ' 17 committee,-- in conversations right around that time, s
~
- s l
18 I recall, to submitting a final draft -- a version to the t
i 19 NRC.
~~
3 \\{
l o j
,c 2G If I had noted in my mind to tell him at a lunch a 1..
h N
P j
21 break, the other conversation delegated it to a much lower a
w it 'A 22 priority and it just never surfaced after that.
lu,
1"O 23 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Mr. Rocca, did you ever inform i
'i f
24 any PG&E-management senior to you of the fact of your A
[ !a'
-25 kncwledge that M'r. Norton's statement was incorrect?
I.
1: -
%. ~
1 m
-149-s
~.
7 1
MR. ROCCA:
I don't recall doing that, no..
2 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Mr. Rocca, again, referring 3
back to the November the~3rd meeting and I'm referring to 4
the transcript, specifically lines 23 through 25 on.page 5
215 and lines 1 and 4 on page 216.
This was a response 6
to a question by Mr. Eisenhut and I'll quote:
7 "When will we be' expected to see that short term 8
report?
Bob Cloud said that it's essentially complete."
9 And Dr. Cloud was asked by Mr. Norton to answer to this question and Dr. Cloud responded:
9 11 "I believe it's -- we will' be turning it in 12 either this week or next.
So you should have it shortly 13 there after."
k2 14 Again, Mr. Rocca, why did you not mention at this 15 meeting after Dr. Cloud made this statement that the draft l
16 reports had been submitted to PG&E?
17 MR. ROCCA:
At that particular statement, I l
18 didn't see any inaccuracy,really.
At least in my mind, g
19 Dr. Cloud, in my mind, was talking about the final draft c
j 20 that we were going to submit and we did not have that in a
l 21 house.
Or the final copy that would be submitted.
And that a
f 22 was not in house at this particular time.
That was what 3
23 I assumed that he was referring to at that time.
24 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Mr. Rocca, does PG&E have 25 a policy written or otherwise of not volunteering informa-
)
k'
-150-i 1
p.
(?)
I tion unless -- information to the NRC unless it is specifi-2 cally asked for?
3 MR. ROCCA:
I never heard it stated.
I don't 4
believe so.
I don't believe there's a policy to that 5
effect.
I'm not sure why we would submit more than 6
requested.
7 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Okay.
Let me rephrase this 8
in another way.
9 Has any PG&E managament official senior to you.
10 directed you verbally or in writing to not volunteer in-11 formation to the NRC unless it is specifically asked for?
12 MR. ROCCA:
I don't know -- t'he question bothers 1
13 me.
I'm asking myself the converse of the question.
h.
14 Why would we -- I guess I don't understand.
Why would we 15 volunteer something.
I'm not sure what.
We have the 16 Red Guides and the things to tell us when we have to report 17 things and that's when we would be reporting things as we
=
l 18 go along or things that are a problem.
g 19 Things that we don't consider problems, we j
20 wouldn't be reporting, a
l 21 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Okay, recognizing that, Mr.
E f
22 Rocca, that the NRC has its regulations which specifies 2
[
23 certainly when certain types of information must be 24 communicated to the NRC, but again I come back to the 25 question:
Recognizing that and recognizing your question
-151-
[f[I) i of maybe why this should be done.
Again, I ask the 2
question:
Has any senior management official to you within 3
PG&E ever directed you in writing or verbally not to 4
volunteer information to the NRC unless it was specifically 5
asked for?
6 MR. ROCCA:
No, not to my knowledge.- Not-to i
I 7
my remembrance.
8 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Mr. Rocca, do you know of l
9 any conscience or pre-arranged plan written or otherwise i
10 for PG&E employees while attending meetings with the NRC
'11 to limit or otherwise constrain their responses to NRC r
3 12 questions?
13 MR. ROCCA:
Not specifically other then when we
(...
are in any type of proceedings, we are,just instructed to 14 15 answer the questions that are asked.
4 16 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Are you instructed to limit 17 responses to the questions or otherwise to constrain your 1
-t I'
l 18 responses to our questions?
g 19 MR. ROCCA:
We are given the normal instructions 3
\\
. j 20 that say answer the questions that you are asked and if i
l 21 there is something that goes beyond the question and you l
a i
f 22 feel that it really adds to the answer, _then that you can i
tj 23 contribute also.
l 24 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Can you explain t o me how
[
25 this policy is communicated?
Is it in writing?
Is it a
.J
^
1 l
l
-152-
hh-I verbal policy?
2' MR. ROCCA:
I believe it's just a -- It's handled l
'3
-- the only time that I -- I've never received it in a 4
massive -- we're talking like our lawyers and saying, you 5
know, that you handle these just as you do in other 6
proceedings and that you answer the question.
7 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
This policy that you described 8
Who has this been communicated by?
Either by an individual 9
person?
Could you name him or by a department?
Could you 10 name that?
11 MR. ROCCA:
Mostly by our legal department such 12 as Mr. Locke or something like t hat.
13 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Mr. Rocca this completes the 14 questions that I have for you.
15 Owen, do you have anything that you want to 16 add?
17 MR. SHACKLETON:
Yes, if I may, please.
l 18 Mr. Rocca, on the meeting of November 3rd, y
19 after the meeting was completed and the executive personnel a
j 20 from PG&E I assumed returned back to San Francisco --
21 MR. ROCCA:
Yes.
a f
22 MR. SHACKLETON:
Did Mr. Norton accompany the a
23 staff members back, do you recall?
24 MR. ROCCA: He was not on my -- we went back, 25 a number of us and we went back on different planes.
He j
-153-l L
I h' 1
was not on my plane.
e 2.
Let's see -- November 3rd.
I don't - -
3
. MR. SHACKLETON:
Allright.
Thank you.
4 MR. ROCCA:
He was not with.me.
5 MR. SHACKLETON:
After -- I don't know what 6
time of' day that'Mr. Norton made the comment that -- that 7
Mr. Faulkenberry referred to that at this iaeeting Mr. Norton 8
states that as of November'3rd, 1981, PG&E did not receive 9
a report of Dr. Cloud's work.
10 Did you hear any member of the staff after he U
made this comment discuss this comment?
12 MR. ROCCA:
Staff meaning NRC staff?
13 MR. SHACKLETON:
No.
Your PG&E personnel.
l 14 MR. ROCCA:
No, I did not.
15 MR. SHACKLETON:
I have no further quest' ions, 16 Bob.
'7 j
Would you like to make any additional-comments, l
18 Mr. Rocca, before we close.this transcription?
19 "j
MR. ROCCA:
I can't really think of any other d
20 than I think I've stated in here that I -- Independency.
2 l
has nothing to do with commenting as far as I'm concerned-21
_f and that it's a question of accuracy and completeness that 22 ai 23 I think we're looking at.
That in no way impacts or 24 compromises independency and that it's the only realistic 25 l
and efficient way to handle a program like this.
a i
-154-hE
- [
.s *A + +
.+
y
/ E 's
.is
.p i
w # -- %
9 ) j a &# cer,ma J 5vfhf'ee; * ** byemK4AJp.ter tataghD a
5 c
(0 I think we would be expecting to handle a program 1
2 like this whether-it be Dr. Cloud or whoever the consultant 3
is and that there would have to be interaction between us 4
and the consultant to accomplish this program and to really 5
meet the questions that we have to answer to you and his 6
points there.
7 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Are you directing this state-8 ment toward the way that you feel that draft reports and g
reports of work done by consultants should be handled prior to submittal to the NRC?
10 MR. ROCCA:
Yes.
11 MR. SHACKLETON:
All r ight.
Thank you Mr.
12 Rocca.
I would just like to repeat one time again.
We 13 k,
j4 would appreciate if you would keep your testimony given here confidential.
15 16 We have no further questions. At this time, 17 we williring the interview of Mr. Rocca to a close.
l 18 Thank you very much, Mr. Rocca, for being g
19 present and assisting us in this investigation and we j
20 will close this interview now at 5: 38 p.m.
f (The interview was closed at 5:38 p.m., this 21 i
f 22 day, Wednesday, November 16, 1981.)
I[
23 24 25
-155-
- 2.., i..
n...
.u
hh i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
3 4
INVESTIGATION OF DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1& 2 5
6 INTERVIEW OF 7
JAMES V. ROCCA 8
9 Room 3191 10 Pacific Gas & Electric Headquarters Building 33 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 12 Monday 13
{~
January 4, 1982 14 The above-entitled natter came on for hearing, 15 pursuant to notice, at 19:12 a.m.
16 17 APPEARANCES:
{.
18 On behalf of the NRC Staff:
ig OWEN C. SHACKLETON, JR.,
Senior Investigator 20 l
BOBBY H. FAULKENBERRY, Chief, Reactor Construction 21 i
Branch, Region 5 f
22 23 24 25
-156-
I ERRATA SHEET I
Interview of-James V. Rocca, January 4,1952 The following correction should be made:
1 1
Page 163, Line 8 - Change vein of to affect on.
1 The above correction was identified by James V. Rocca.and Owen C. Shackleton, Jr.
i 4
4 1
-157-k j
1 P. R E g E E Q I,_ E E S_
2 10:11 a.m.
3 MR. SHACKLETON:
This is January 4, 1982.
The 4
time is now 10:11 a.m.
This is a continuation of the 5
interview of Mr. James V. Rocca, Chief, Mechanical and 6
Nuclear Engineering, for Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
7 This interview is taking place in Roon 3101 in.the Law 8
Conference Room of the Pacific Gas & Electric Company 9
headquarters at 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, California.
10 Present conducting tha interview this morning 11 for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission from Region 5 is 12 Mr. Bobby H. Faulkenberry, Chief, Reactor Construction 13 Projects Branch.
My nans is Owen C. Shackleton, Jr. Senior 14 Investigator.
15 Whereupon, 16 JAMES V.
ROCCA 17 was recalled as a witness and, af ter being reminded he was I
18 still under oath, was examin=d and testified further as i
g 19 follows:
l I
E i
20 MR. SHACKLETON:
Do you also understand, Mr.
t
=
l 21 Rocca, that you do have the right to have private legal i
f 22 counsel present and do you waive that right?
l 3
23 MR. ROCCA:
I do.
t 24 MR. SHACKLETON:
Thank you.
At this time, Mr.
25 Faulkenberry will continue with the questioning.
l r
i
-158-i
h i
MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Mr. Rocca, I wish to refer you 2
to your earlier testimony on December 15, 1991, which starts 3
on page 38, line 17, and continues through page 39, line 14.
4 Will you please take a nonent and read your previous testi-5 mony?
6 (Pause while Mr. Rocca reads the transcript.)
7 MR. ROCCA:
Okay.
MR. FAULKENBERRY:
The question is, on the air-8 g
plane flight to San Francisco from the November 3 meeting at Bethesda do you recall havino a conversation with tir.
10 Tresler regarding statements made by fir. Norton at the 11 November 3 meeting?
12 MR. ROCCA:
Yes.
13
('
MR. FAULRENBERRY:
Would you please give us as 34 complete and as detailed a statement as possible of the 15 conversation that transpired betua.en you and Mr. Tresler 16 regarding the statements made by Mr. Norton?
j7 18 MR. ROCCA:
I guess maybe they were referring l
back to my earlier testimony, where I said I was upset with g
39 some of Mr. Norton's testimony regarding how the reverifica-j 20 f
tion program could be conducted.
I was still upset at that 21 a
point on that and I think nost of the conversation was nine, f
22 f
expressing that I didn't think we could work in that type of 23 a vain that Norton was proposing.
I was glad that it was 24 not accepted, at least not at that point, and that we would 25
-159-
,o ~. ~,..,.. -.
'h) have to wait and see if it were further acceoted.
And that i
2 there had to be an interplay between us and the auditor to 3
accomplish the desired results, both that wa were striving 4
for, which would be the starting of the plant, and what you, 5
the NRC, wanted out of the report, a verification of the 6
adequacy of the design.
7 I don't know how long but I think maybe we iterated that a couple of times around.
8 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Do you recall having a conver--
9 sation with Mr. Tresler regarding Mr. Norton's statement 10 that in essence PG&E did not have the interim report as of 13 the November 3 meeting?
12 MR. ROCCA:
I can't recall it explicitly, but it 13 probably did come up in the conversation.
I don't recall 14 addressing it over any prolonced discussion.on that particu-15 lar point.
I'm sure it was nentfoned, though.
In exact 16 17 terms of discussing that point I uon't really recall an
=
l 18 exact discussion on that.
g 19 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Okay.
Mr. Rocca, Mr. Tresler a
did testify that on the airplane trip back to San Francisco j
20 f
you had discussed with him possibly your concerns with 21 l
a regard to Mr. Norton's statement that PG&E did not have f
22 the short term reports and indicated that you felt like 23 that this may have been erroneous information.
As a result 24 l
of this conversation which, if I understand you correctly, 25 l
l
-160-
u (o$1 you feel like you may have had with Mr. Tresler, my question i
2 is in your earlier testimony you stated that you heard Mr.
3 Norton's statement that PG&E had not received Dr. Cloud:'s 4
short term report.
You said you recognized there was an 5
inaccuracy in the statement but you became upset about a 6
second statement Mr. Norton made and this tended to reduce 7
in your own mind the significance of Mr. Norto.n's first 8
statement.
9 My question is can you give us an explanation of 10 what happened that reactivated in your own mind the signifi-ji cance of Mr. Norton's first statement to the level that motivated you to discuss it with Mr. Tresler?
12 13 MR. ROCCA:
Just that we were -- it just came
(._
34 up in the conversation en the plane.
I hadn't really 15 remembered it even until kind of we were talking about it 16 here, that we were discussing about it and I was -- I guess 17 it was again reiterating a viewnoint that if we had to work
=
under this type hf a condition that I would rather see some-l 18 g
19 body else be responsible for the contract or working with j
20 it.
Since Mike was involved with me and working for me on l
this we just discussed that. aspect and I guess Mike was 21 i
J 22 coming from a vieupoint that. he didn't feel that that would 2
23 be imposed upon us that way.
l 24 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Okay.
I'd like to try to 25 shif t our thinking over more to the other aspect of the
-161-
(,
discussion that you had with Mr. Tresler, and that would be i
the discussion with regard to Mr. Norton's statement that 2
PG&E did not have the short term report as of November 3
4 the 3rd.
Can you recall what reactivated in your own mind the significance of that aspect of Mr. Norton's discussion 5
at the November the 3rd meeting that would have you discuss 6
it with Mr. Tresler on the plane back?
7 MR. ROCCA:
I can ' t at this -- I don ' t at this 8
point because, as I say, I don't recall in any great detail 9
discussing that aspect of it in too great a detail.
I don't 10
-- nothing 1Ln my mind seemed to trigger that part of it.
33 Well, let me try :nd remember a little more here.
12 (Pause) 13 k,..
MR. ROCCA:
I can't recall, you' know, much 14 detail on that item of Mr. Norton's testimony.
15 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Just leading a little bit 16 further into that, did your discussion with Mr. Tresler on 17 g
that particular aspect of Mr. Morton's statements at the l
18 November the 3rd meeting lead you into discussing that g
19 a
aspect of Mr. Norton's discussion at the meeting with j
20 f
anyone else beside Mr. Tresler?
21 a
MR. ROCCA:
Well, sitting on the same plane with d
22 us going back was Dr. Cloud.
He was -- whether partaking 23 or not in this discussion, I don't know, because we had 24 discussed more from the viewpoint of, you know, developing 25 l
l
/
~
-162-
hh the plan had been more of a joint configuration which we 1
2 even had discussions with you people in the office on that 3
and I said, you know, that in my mind had no effect on 4
independency at all.
It's just something that you've got 5
to develop as the overall plan and the goal and which we 6
have to be a participant with Dr. Cloud in this audit, since 7
he was auditing us, and that independency does not have any vein of this.
I felt we had maybe overreacted a little to 8
g the independency aspect of the Commission at this meeting in saying, you know -- well, there was some statement that to I can 't recall even that was in the transcript about it --
11 not in the transcript, but in the nesting -- about independ-12 13 ency.
I felt that that didn't have any really direct l'
14 bearing on independency of the audit since it was a plan that had to be accepted and proposed to the NRC anyway.
15 It was a joint project to develop a plan.
16 So we did get into that kind of an area of dis-i7
,I
/
18 cussion which is, in my mind, different from the other.
l g
19 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Okay.
Do you recall whether c
or not Dr. Cloud became involved in your and Mr. Tresler's j
20 I
discussion with regard to Mr. Norton's statement that PG&E 21 i
did not have an interim report?
f 22 MR. ROCCA:
I don't believe he did, at this point.
23 l
I don't recall him doing that anyway.
24 l
25 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Specifically, Mr. Rocca, after
\\..
l 1
-163-
($)
1 your discussion -- well, let me say even prior to your dis-2 cussion with Mr. Tresler on the airplane or anytime after 3
your discussion with Mr. Tresler, did you discuss with anyone 4
else your concerns with regard to Mr. Norton's statement 5
that PG&E did not have the interim report?
Specifically, 6
did you discuss that with Mr. Brand?
7 MR. ROCCA:
I believe I -- I think I mentioned --
8 I'm not sure; I'd have to look in my transcript -- I think 9
I mentioned I discussed probably both itens with Mr. Brand at the lunch break between the two meetings, mostly on the to second area where Mr. Norton had talked about independency ij more than on the report itself, not having seen the report.
12 13 I,
again, probably mentioned it to Mr. Brand though at that k'
34 time that, you know, there was a report in-house.without any sort of significance or imparting any significance to it, 15 more concern with the other area.
16 17 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
So you are saying at the 4
18 lunchtime break?
j g
19 MR. ROCCA:
Yes.
j 20 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Just to refresh your memory a l
21 little bit, in your previous testimony I believe you stated a
f 22 that you had discussed with Mr. Brand your concerns about t
Mr. Norton's statement that PG&E would allow Dr. Cloud's 23 24 report to come to the NRC prior to PG&E.
25 MR. ROCCA:
The independency aspect.
d a
-164-
h 1
MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Right.
But in your previous 2
testimony you indicated that you had not discussed with him 3
Mr. Norton's other statement.
4 MR. ROCCA:
Well, as I -- and I think I just 5
said it earlier here -- it might have been included but I 6
don't think I included that.
I mean I was not emphasizing 7
it or stressing it in any way.
I think I mentioned it.
I a
may have.
I'm not really sure about that even in that 9
conversation, because I was stressina the other area at to that time.
11 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Okay.
But specifically, after 12 your airplane flight or after your discussion with Mr. Tresle r 13 on the airplane flight, did you have any discussions with 14 anyone else, including Mr. Brand, about Mr. Norton's state-15 ment about PG&E not having the report?
16 MR. ROCCA:
No.
17 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
Mr. Rocca, I believe'that is 18 the extent of the questions that I have, g
19 Owen, do you have anything?
j 20 MR. SHACKLETON:
Yss.
21 Mr. Rocca, just so that the record will be com-3 f
22 plate, on the return flight after the Novenber 3 meeting a
23 coming back f rom Washington, D.C., you just recently 24 commented that Dr. Cloud and Mr. Tresler and yourself were 25 on the aircraft.
Were you sitting together on the plane?
I l
1
-165-
. -. r ++...am m
..a
1^
(2) i MR. ROCCA:
No.
I was sitting with I believa 2
Mr. Herrera in the front part of that section and Mr. Tresler 3
and Dr. Cloud were sitting in the back part of that section.
4 MR. SHACKLETON:
Did you on this flight discuss your concerns with Mr. Herrera concerning the comments made 5
6 by Mr. Norton in tha-November 3 meeting with NRC that PG&E 7
did not have a copy of the report or he made sone comment or any document yet from Dr. Cloud?
8 MR. ROCCA:
No, I don't believe I did.
9 MR. SHACKLETON:
I have no further questions, 10 Mr. Paulkenberry.
33 Do you have any additional conments you would like 12 to make, Mr. Rocca, before we go off record?
13 c
MR. ROCCA:
Not that I can think of.
j4 MR. SHACKLETON:
All right.
At this time we will 15 terminate this interview.
The tire is now 10:26 a.m. going 16 off record.
17 18 (End of interview) l g
19 3
j 20 i
y 21 f
22
!j 23 24 25
-166-
.s.
u
.