ML20040D402
| ML20040D402 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1981 |
| From: | Norton A, Ohlbach R PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17083A976 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202010257 | |
| Download: ML20040D402 (40) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
I UtIITED $TATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO!U1ISSION 5
3 4 Il3VESTIGATION OF 5 DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 & 2 6 INTERVIEW OF 7 ROBERT OllLBACli & A. BRUCE NORTON l 8
9 Pacific Gas & Electric IIeadquarters Offices 10 Law Department Conference Room 77 Beale Street 11 San Francisco, California l
l 12 Friday, j December 18, 1981 l 13
(
14 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 15 pursuant to notice, at 11:31 a.m.
16
. APPEARANCES:
=
17
! On behalf of the NRC Staff:
- 18 j OWEN C. SHACKLETON, JR., Moderator j 19 B. H. FAU M NBERRY j 20 l3 21 22 23 24 25 8202010257 820127 PDR ADOCK 05000275 -251-G PDR 11
ERRATA SHEET Interview of R. Ohlbach & A. B. Norton, December 18, 1981 The following correction should be made:
Page 258, Line 3 - Change To to Do.
The above correction has been identified by Bobby H. Faulkenberry.
-252-
1 P_ E Q g g g g I_ E g g 2 11:31 a.m.
3 MR. SHACKLETON: On the record.
4 This is December 18,.1981. The time is 11:29 5 a.m.
6 At this time, I'm going to swear in Mr. Robert 7 Ohlbach, vice president and general attorney for Pacific 8 Gas and Electric Company and Mr. A. Bruce Norton, counsel 9 for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
10 Gentlemen, please rise.
11 Whereupon, 12 ROBERT OHLBACH
, 13 A. BRUCE NORTON
( 14 having been called as witnesses, were first duly sworn and 15 examined and testified as follows:
16 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you. Please be seated.
17 At this time, I'm passing to the Court Reporter g
l 18 for marking as av Exhibit, five questions which I have g 19 prepared for Mr. Norton.
3
.j 20 Mr. Norton, would you please comment regarding a
l8 21 these five questions?
f 22 MR. NORTON: I have asked Pacific Gas and R
l 23 Electric Company as my client to review those. questions.
24 Hence, the purpose for Mr. Ohlbach's presence at this 25 proceeding. It is necessary that he review these questions k..
-253-I
I to make a determination on behalf of PG&E as to whether 2 they wish to invoke the attorney-client privilege.
3 So, I would ask that Mr. Olbach look at Exhibit 4 One and review the five questions and determine whether 5 or not he wishes to invoke or waive the privilege as to 6 those questions.
7 MR. SHACKLETON: Mr. Ohlbach?
8 MR. OHLDACH: Yes, I have reviewed the five 9 questions contained in Exhibit One and on behalf of 10 Pacific Gas ard Electric Company, as an officer of the 11 Company, waive the attorney-client privilege as to the 12 five questions contained in Exhibit One.
13 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you, Mr. Ohlbach.
14 Present in this room during the course of this 15 interview in addition to Mr. Norton and Mr. Ohlbach is 16 Mr. Richard Locke, also an attorney with the PG&E Company j 17 and Mr. William P. French, Attorney-at-Law, counsel l 18 representing Mr. Norton.
i c
19 And from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j 20 is Mr. Bobby H. Faulkenberry, chief of reactor construction a
j 21 projects branch.
f 22 My name is Owen C. Shackleton, Jr., senior 2
l 23 investigator from Region Five.
24 At this time, Mr. Ohlbach and Mr. Locke are 25 departing from the room. Thank you, gentlemen.
(s.
-254-
(W
\?' 1 The purpose of this interview is to help 2-develop the* facts and happenings surrounding the present 3
reverification program of the seismic design of the 14 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
5 Mr. Norton, at his choice, has his counsel 6 present, Mr. William P. French, as previously identified.
7 At this time, gentlemen, I would like to proceed 8 with the questions.
9 Mr. Norton, would you please state your occupa-10 tion and the name and location of your law firm?
11 MR. NORTON: I'm an attorney with the law firm 12 of Norton, Burke, Berry and French, located in Phoenix,
,. 13 Arizona.
(-
14 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you.
15 Would you explain, please, for the record, what 16 your relationship is with Pacific Gas and. Electric Company?
j 17 MR. NORTON: I have represented Pacific Gas and l 18 Electric Company as an attorney outside counsel in the g
19 Diablo Canyon licensing proceedings.
j 20 MR. SHACKLETON: And how.long have you represente d i
21 PG&E in this capacity?
a d 22 MR. NORTON:
I'm not sure of the exact date. I i: 23 believe it's sometime in 1976, approximately.
24 MR. SHACKLETON: Mr. Norton, did you attend the 25 meeting concerning the seismic reverification program for
(-
-255-
.o. . .
j s 4
i
() 1 Diablo Canyon between PG&E and the NRC Staff at Bethesda, 2 Maryland on November 3, 1981?
'3 MR. NORTON: Yes.
4 MR. SHACKLETON: We have established by testimony 5 from Dr. Robert L. Cloud of Cloud and Associates who was 6 under contract by PG&E to do reverification studies of 7 the seismic design of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear-Power Plant 8 and from senior members of the PG&E engineering staff that 9 Cloud and Associates prepared four draft reports. These 10 draft reports were submitted to PG&E on the approximate 11 dates of October 21, October 26, November 6, and November 12 12, 1981.
13 The draft reports dated October 21, October 26
.k and November 6, 1981 were all given to PG&E by Cloud 1-4 15 and Associates for review and comments.
1 16 I now refer to the transcript covering the meetin g g 17 between PG&E and the NRC on November 3rd, 1981 which is l 18 ^ntitled, Diablo Canyon Seismic Review. There is a discus-i g 19 sion on pages -- beginning on 216 on line five that I'm C
.j 20 making reference to.
a l
8 21 If I may, at this time, I would like to read 4
d 22 some of this text.
I g 23 "Mr. Norton: I might add, we do not have it."
24 This is in reference, now, to the discussion .
25 that had taken place concerning the first report that the rm T
. -256-1 . ,.
Ch Nuclear Regulatory Commission was looking for from Dr.
C2' 1 2 Cloud and I repeat again:
4 3 "Mr. Norton: I' might add, we do not have it. , l 4 It's not a question of us reviewing it. We don't have it 5 either. It just hasn't been done yet.
6 "Mr. Denton: Well, since this is a particularly 7 sensitive issue, I was wondering how you propose to handle 1
8 comments on this draft or are you going to send us the same 9 report that he sends you and add your cover letter to it 10 or how will you preserve independo.ce?
11 "Mr. Norton: Well, like any other matter, I'm '
i 12 a little bit concerned about suddenly there being questions 13 about the independence of the review. The NRC has l ,
(~ - 14 retained a consultant and the same question might be asked.
15 Well, gee, how do you know what review is independent? I i
' 16 mean there is no reason t6 believe this review isn't i
g 17 independent.
l 18 "Mr. Denton: I'm just asking'h'ow independent 3 19 is it?
E i
j 20 "Mr. Norton: Any suggestions you have, - if
- a
! 21 you want the report before we see it, fine. I frankly -
a
.f 22 resent the implication that Dr. Cloud is not an indepen-23 dent reviewer, because he is. As Mr. Maneatis just reported 24 to you, we heard this presentation to you yesterday. In 25 fact, we heard it Sunday for the first time. I assue you I
-257-
- ' " - - , . ~ . .
-+
g --- s v- e--p ~ - - . ~ . ---~-..-men-,-. -m. - , - - , , - - - - ,,,,e-----,-v--, ,---- ,.--,- , - - , - - -- . - - , -
(f?' 1 that's the case. We came back last night -- we came back 2 yesterday and you heard it this morning."
3 Now, departing from the text. To you know at 4 the time you made these comments, Mr. Norton, that during 5 the month of October 1981 that the two drafts had been 6 given by Cloud and Associates to PG&E for review and 7 comment?
1 8 MR. NORTON: Excuse me. I'm not sure how you 9 asked that question. You said, do you know?
10 MR. SHACKLETON: Did you know.
11 MR. NORTON: Okay. Is the question, did I know?
12 MR. SCHACKLETON: Let me repeat the question
. 13 for clarity here.
14 MR. NORTON: Okay.
15 MR. SHACKLETON: Did you know at the time you 16 made these comments that during the month of October 1981
. 17 that two draft reports had been given by Cloud and Associate s l 18 to PG&E for review and comment?
g 19 MR. NORTON: I did not know that.
t j 20 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank-you.
21 I have no further questions. Do you, Bobby?
1 f 22 MR. FAULKENBERRY: No.
1 23 MR. SHACKLETON: Gentlemen, we thank you very 24 much for your presence.
25 The time is now 11:38 a .m.
t.c
-258-
's.
... 1 MR. FRENCH: May'I ask a question?
2 MR. SHACKLETON: Yes, proceed, please.
3 MR. FRENCH: On procedure only. This has been 4 called a statement. It's been called a deposition. Which 5 is it?
6 If it's a deposition, then we would of course 7 would not waive signature and would like to even sign.
8 MR. SHACKLETON: Mr. French, my understanding of 9 this part of the proceeding by the CommissicT, it is just to an interview.
11 MR. FRENCH: Is.that pursuant to some'of your 12 rules and regulations?
13 MR. SHACKLETON: No. Pursuant by'the directiona (3 14 given to me durin'g the course of this investigation.
15 Any further comments?
16 MR. FRENCH: No. Thank you.
, 17 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you.
I l 18 Off the record.
g 19 j 20 a
l3 21
~
f- 22 ,
lr 23 24 25 i
-259-
. s. . . . . .
. Exninit' /
~
/24cemAry- /s, / 9E/
_ QUESTIONS FOR MR. BRUCE NORTON
- egehr- M7 Mgfd
- 1. Would you please state your occupation and the name and location of your firm? g a
- 3. R iR
- 2. What is your relationship with PG&E7 E N mo F. W ;*
.: 3 N. E E m -
~
- 3. How long have you represented PG&E in this capacity?
s~
s
- 4. Did you attend the meeting concerning the seismic reverification program for Diablo Canyon between PG&E and the NRC staff at Bethesda, Maryland on November 3, 1981?
- We have established by testimony from Dr. Robert L. Cloud of Cloud and Associates who is under contract by PG&E to do reverification studies of the seismic design of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and from senior members of the PG&E engineering staff that Cloud and Associates prepared four draft reports. These draft reports were submitted to PG&E on the approximate dates of 10/21; 10/26; 11/6; and 11/12/81.
- The draf t reports dated 10/21; 10/26 and 11/6/81 were all given to PG&E by Cloud and Associates for review and comments.
- I now refer to the transcript covering the meeting between PG&E and the NRC on November 3, 1981 where there is a discussion of when will
_ the first report concerning the seismic reverification program from
~~
~ Cloud and Associates be submitted to the NRC. (Refer to page 216 beginning on line 5).
-260-
l o
.i i .g
~
- 5. Did you know at the time ~you made-these coments that during the month
_ of October 1981 that two draft reports had been given by Cloud and
~ '
Associates to PG&E for review and coment?
- Please take this opportunity to give your coments on this matter.
ll W
4 I
t.
i
[-
i i
I
-26 1 -
s
' !!y#, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
INVESTIGATION OF 4
DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 & 2 5 INTERVIEW OF
.A. BRUCE NORTON 7
8 9 Pacific Gas & Electric Headquarters Offices 10 Law Department Conference Room 77 Beale Street 11 San Francisco, California 12 Monday, December 28, 1981 (I.
14 The above-entitled matter came on for further 15 hearing, pursuant-to notice at 4:20 p.m.
16 APPEARANCES:
~
g 17 On bhhalf of the.NRC Staff:
l . 18 OWEN C. SHACKLETON, JR., Moderator B.H. FAULKENBERRY' 18
!* JAMES'LIEBERMAN,-ESQ.
ROGERT FORTUNA, ESQ.
2 20
(
l $ On behalf of Mr..A. Bruce Norton:
- j 21 -
WILLIAM P. FRENCH, ESQ.
22 l I.
23 i
24 25 l
t l
l
-262-
. . m 4. ,
,n.
ERRATA SHEET Interview of.A. B. Norton, December 28, 1981 The following corrections should be made:
Page 271, Line 5 Change know to now.
Page 281, Line 6 - Change bringint to bringing.
The above corrections were identified by Bobby H. Faulkenberry.
-263-
... . ...c - - n _ _
i
^
'4 1
_P _R _O C '_E,E _D _I N_ _G _S 2 4:20 p.m.
3 MR. SHACKLETON: This is December 28th, 1981.
1 4 The time is 4:20 p.m.
5 JLt this time, I'm going to swear in Mr.
6 Robert Ohlbach, Vice President and General Attorney for 7 t he Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
8 Whereupon, l
9 ROBERT OHLBACH 10 having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness 11 herein and was examined and testified as follows:
12 MR..SHACKLETON: Please be seated.
13 Mr. Ohlbach, I understand you have a statement
('.. 14 you'd like to make regarding questions that are 15 being submitted to Mr. Bruce-Norton - the private 16 counsel for Pacific Gas and Electric.
- 17 MR. OHLBACH
- Yes, I do.
j 18 I have read 10 written questions that i 19 will be asked of Mr. Norton and which I understand will a
j 20 be introduced as the exhibit next in order and as to i
- ! 21 those questions on behalf of Pacific Gas and Electric, 1 3 d 22 I waive the attorney-client privilege.
I
- i 23 MR. SHACKLETON
- Thank you, Mr. Ohlbach.
, 24 At this time, let it be-noted that Mr. Ohlbach 25 i s departing from the room.
l i
-264-m . . . . . , a ; . . .y -
m . ,,.....u.. .m, ._,.m,.
. ..m _ , . . . . . . _ _ _ . , _ -
1 1
j 1 At this time, I will swear in Mr. A. Bruce 2 Norton,. Counsel for Pacific Gas and Electric.
3 Whereupon, 4 A. BRUCE NORTON 5 .having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness 6 herein and was examined and testified as follows:
7 MR. SHACKLETON: -Thank you, Mr. Norton.
8 For the record ,this record is being conducted 9 at Pacific Gas and Electric Company headquarters, room to 3101 at 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, California.
11 Present during the course of this interview 12 representing Mr. Norton is his counsel, Mr. William
- . 13 French.
14 Present from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 15 Commission from Washington, D.C., from' Legal Counsel, 16 is Mr. James Lieberman and Mr. Roger Fortuna.
g 17 From Region 5 of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1 l 18 Commission, is Mr. Bobby H. Faulkenberry, Chief of
- g 19 Reactor Construction Projects Branch.
j 20 My name is Owen C. Shackleton, Jr. I am a a
l3 21 Senior Investigator.
i i f 22 At this time, the questionning will go over-i '! 23 to Mr. Lieberman.
- 24 MR. NORTON
- Mr. Lieberman, before you start, 25 do you have a copy of the transcript with you? I have one k"
-265-I
C.24 af 1 but I don't have it in the room with me.
2 MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes, I do Mr. Norton.
3 MR. NORTON: The pertinent pages --
4 MR. LIEBERMAN: You are free to refer to it 5 during your questionning. You're referring to the November 6 3rd transcript?
i 7 MR. NORTON: Yes, 216 and 217. This is on the 8 first question you're asking about what was said on those 9 pages.
10 I want to make sure I have that in front of me.
11 MR. LIEBERMAN: Very well. Are you ready, 12 Mr. Norton?
y
,. 13 MR. NORTON: Yes.
(
14 MR. LIEBERMAN: During your initial interview 15 of this investigation on December 18th, you were informed 16 thhttthe 'NRC had established by testimony from Dr. Cloud
- 17 and various other persons from PG&E, that Dr. Cloud l 18 had prepared four separate draft reports containing his g 19 findings as related to the design reverification work j 20 he performed on Diablo Canyon.
f 21 These drafts were submitted to PG&E on the a
f 22 approximate dateslof October 21, October 26, November 6 2
l 23 and November 12, 1981.
24 At the November 3rd, 1981 meeting of the NRC, 25 it is shown on page 215 through pages 218 of the transcript, kl
-266-
- ~ +D-T w'r
--TPT -f '7- W-wt'w 17wwr4TT - wrer-- 7M+ W-Tr
~ .
(fh 1- both'you and Mr. Maneatis stated that as of-November 3rd,
_2 1981, no report on'Dr. Cloud's work had been submitted 3 to' 'EGEE .
4 Would you please explain.why on page 216-of 5 the transcript of the meeting of November 3 with the NRC, 6 you stated that-PG&E did not have Dr. Cloud's short-term 7 r eport?
8 MR. NORTON: I simply believed that to be the 9 case.at the time.
10 MR. LIEBERMAN: Would you please explain 11 why on page 217 of the transcript of the meeting of 12 No e nter 3 of the NRC, you stated the report itself had 13 not been prepared?
(.~ 14 MR. NORTON: Again,.that was what I believed 15 to be the case at that time.
16 MR. LIEBERMAN: Were you made-aware at any' time 17
[ a f ter the November 3 meeting with the NRC .by PG&E personnel l 18 or anyone else, that you or Mr. Maneatis may have provided j 19 possible mis-leading or erroneous information to the NRC j 20 at the November 3 meeting because of the existence of a
l a
21 drafts or working papers of the Cloud report?
f 22 MR. NORTON: Yes.
I
- 23 MR. LIEBERMAN: If so, when did you first learn 24 of the existence of. draft reports or working papers?
25 MR. NORTON: December 14, 1981.
-267-t
- _ _ . . , ~ -,
1 MR. LIEBERMAN: Who informed you of the existence 2
of the draft reports?
3 MR. NORTON: Well, that's a little bit complicated.
4 4
I was taking depositions in Washington, D.C. that day and
- 5 returned to my hotel room that evening and I had several 6 . messages . .
7 As a matter of fact, the telephone operator 8 h ad told people who had called that I had checked out and 9
she had made a mistake and somehow had me off-her board, 10 so when I asked for any messages they said a lot of people 11 called but I told them you weren't here so I had no 12 messages and I was trying to find out who called and I 13 called Phil Crane here at PG&E and he informed'me that 14 a news person had called about some Cloud reports and 15 Mr. Crane at that time knew very little about it. Not 16 enough for he and I to communicate that there were indeed
- g 17 draft reports dated October 21st or anything like that.
l 18 He told me what little he knew and I said g 19 well, they must be talking about something else because j 20 th'ererweren't any reports.
i
[ g a
21
!!e told me at that time Mr. Furbush was trying d 22 t o get ahold of me and I tried to contact Mr. Furbush I
g 23 at that time but he was in a meeting and was not available.
24 I then called this, I think it wasn't a 25 newspaper but a radio reporter in Washington. He asked me I
-268-
I what I knew about it and he quoted my testimony and said i
2 w ere you aware of. these reports of October 21st? And 3 I said, no, and I'm still not aware of it.
4 HSo in a sense, the newspaper reporter was the 4
5 first guy who said, well, I've got in front of me this J
6 d raf t report #1, #3, #4, end #5 so'that was really the 7 first person and I'm afraid I can't remember his name.
i Shortly thereafter I did, based on information 8
g he.gave me, I called Furbush and was able to get ahold to o f him. Of course, there was a three hour tire change and 4
11 it was about 4:00 o' clock California time and 7:00 o' clock 12 Washington time and of course, Mr. Furbush knew the 13 details and explained to me that indeed there had been k,
14 a draft report dated October 21st.
15 So, as far as your -- question talks about
- 16 other reports, at that-point in time, all's I knew about ,
i
- j 17 t hen was that there were, there was an October 21st l l 18 draft report.
I j 19 I believe the next day at the NRC, I actually j 20 saw for the first time those draf t#1, #2 --anotr: number # 2, d
i a
21 e xcuse me. Number 1, #3, #4, and 45.
i f 22 To this day, I haven't read them page by
! 23 page but I did actually see them and the cover letters 24 j that went with them.
25 MR. LIEBERMAN: So on December 15th, it was the e.
-269-
(C "Us I first day you actually saw the various draft reports 2 submitted by Dr. Cloud?
3 MR. NORTON: Yes, and that was at.the NRC.
4 MR. LIEBERMAN: When you becare aware of, 5 saw these-reports, did you have any questions concerning 6 the possibility that you may have provided nds-leading 7 infdrmation to the Commission on November 3rd?
8 MR. NORTON: Well, obviously when you take 9 the statement I made on page 216 and 217. It's factually
- 10 incorrect.
11 Indeed, PG&E had received a report, so, yes.
12 MR. LIEBERMAN: Had you made any inquiry during g 13 the November 3rd meeting or before the November 3rd meeting 4
( 14 as to the existence of any drafts or working papers or 15 any other materials concerning the status or progress 16 or the- results of Dr. Cloud?
- j 17 MR. NORTON
- You mean of Cloud's efforts or 4
l 18 Dr. Cloud specifically?
19 MR..LIEBERMAN: The Cloud effort concerning j 20 the reverification program.
a
! 21 MR. NORTON: Yes.
a f 22 MR. LIEBERMAN: If so,.who did you inquire of?
2
_l 23 MR. NORTON: Well, that -- it's not singular 24 in answer to that.
25 Fi rst of all, I assume you're talking about
-270-x o .- .4 .n - n- , . _ . , . . . . . _ ....._._,_s.,___
(b e 1 prior to the November 3rd meeting. As you will recall, 2 there'was7an earlier meeting in early October and I frankly 3 don't remember although I'm sure I discussed that with 4 different people -- that meeting in early October and 5 I couldn' t tell you know who I discussed it with or what 6 I said.
7 I just don't remember.
8 As far as the November 3rd meeting goes, we 9 met in San Francisco prior to that meeting on Saturday 10 and Sunday. I'm not sure of the dates. But the meeting 11 I believe, the 3rd, was a Tuesday, so Saturday and Sunday 12 we met in San Francisco, not just on that but on Quality 13 Assurance and other areas.
(-
14 Monday, we flew back to Washington and then 15 we had a meeting Monday evening.
16 It's very difficult for me to remember even
- = 17 who all was at that meeting or those meetings, I should l 18 say.
g 19 There were people there Saturday that weren't c
j 20 there Sunday. There were people that were there Sunduy a
la 21 and weren't there Saturday.
f 22 There were people in Washington on~ Monday..that l 23 weren't there either Saturday or Sunday and during the 24 meetings on those days, people were in and out of the 25 room continually, so there's no way I can begin to tell you N:.
-271.
L
1 h1 1 of who I made inquiries of regarding the status, but 2 I do have a specific memory of asking a question and I'm 3 not sure that question was directed at Dr. Cloud and 4 I'm not sure that he answered it but I believe it was 5 directed at Dr. Cloud'and I believe'he' answered it,'but 6 I speci#icallv remember asking the question here in 7 San "rancisco on either Saturday or Sunday and the questidn 8 was, where is the interim report, because my understanding 9 of the schedule was that that interim report was to be 10 done tha end o# October.
11 I specifically asked the question, is the report 12 done or do we have the report yet meaning the report 13 that was going to the NRC.
(,, '
14 I did not say, do we have a preliminary report, 15 do we have a draft report but I said it the same way 16 I said it on panes 216 and 217 without any modifiers.
17 vou know do ye have a report yet and the answer was no l 18 and then my question was well,.when will the report be g 19 readv and the answer was, you know, in the next week C
j 20 or two.
a l 21 Againi I cannot specifically say that that '
i f 22 was Dr. Cloud that answered that question. I don't t
l 23 remember but I do remember asking the question and I 24 believe it was to Dr. Cloud.
25 MR. LIEBERMAN: To clarify that response,
-272-
ye I
Mr. Norton, other than referring to the actual document 2
\(;.-q that might be sent, you did not make any inquiries as to 3 whether employees of the conpany, PG&E had reviewed 4 various draf ts of the submittal to be made?
5 MR. NORTON: Absolutely not.
G (Pause) 7 MR. LIEBERMAN: Did you have any suspicion 8 prior to the November 3rd meeting or prior to the 9 December 14th when you just previously stated that was
)
10 when you first became aware of the actual existence 11 of various drafts, of at least one draft report on 12 November 5th, strike that, on December 15th when you 13 became aware, saw the other draft reports, did you have 14 any suspicion as to whether the company may have seen 15 earlier reports?
16 MR. NORTON: No.
- 17 MR. LIEBERMAN: After the lunch break' on 2
, g3 November 3rd following your discussions with Mr, Denton l
- ig and Mr. Eisenhut, the question of the independence of the 20 preparation report, in possible or at least one way the t
transmitting the interim or short term report once it
! 21 i
r 22 was finally completed, did you hava any conversations in 23 which you participated during that lunch break as to 24 any matters related to employees having reviewed the (J 25 previous report?
-273-l
). '.,
1 MR. NORTOII: No.
2 MR. LIEBERMAN: Were you aware that Mr. Rocca k..
3 spoke to Mr. Drand during the lunch break concerning your 4 statement as to how NRC might be able to receive the 5 report directly from the company once it was prepared?
6 MR. NORTON: I certainly wasn' t then and I'm 7 not now.
8 Your question implies that I am now aware 9 and I'm not aware of that nor was I.
10 21R. LIEBERMAN: Were you aware that Mr. Rocca 33 had some concerns as to the need for PG&E to have some 12 f rm f pri r review f the accuracy of statements of 13 Dr. Cloud's report prior to it's being submitted to 34 NRC?
15 MR. NORTON: I'm going to have to ask you 16 to repeat that question.
j I'm not sure I followed it, 37 e
- 18 MR. LIEBERMAN: Were you aware that Mr. Rocca had a concern that the company should provide the suployees
} 3g l an opportunity to review the report for accuracy and g 20 f completeness prior to the report being ' submitted to NRC?
. 21
! MR. NORTON: I'm going to have to answer that 22 no, but that's not to say Mr. Rocca might not have said that 24 sometime in some meeting over the last several months.
25 I have no specific recollection of that, but I'm
-274-
'I not denying he -- I just don't recall anything but he gag 2 certainly may have said that at some meeting sometime, but qp 3 I certainly have no recollection.
4 MR. PRENCil: Excuse me just a moment, please.
5 You might be mis-understanding the question 6 because as I understood the question, you were asking if 7 he knew if this gentleman had a concern and I wonder how 8 he would know a subj ective thing like that.
9 MR. LIEBERMAN: He would. only know if Mr. Rocca 10 had told hbn of that concern or if he overheard the 11 concern.
12 MR..NORTON: Again, I have no recollection of 13 that but that does not mean that in some meeting he
(,
14 didn't say gee, shouldn't we look at these or something.
15 I have.no recollection of it.
is (Pause)-
g 17 MR. LIEBERMAN . In,your experience of
- 18 representing PG&E, since approximately 1976, has any
- 19 member of PG&E ever told you of their practice of 20 reviewing consultant reports and rough draf ts prior to the issuance of'completel reports?
f 21 22 MR. NORTON: Well, not per se no, but having 23 represented them for five years, I know that that's a 24 common practice but I don't know that anyone has ever 25 sat down and told me. Just by observation I know that.
-275-
1 Again, that's not to say that somebody didn't
-n 2 five years ago, too, but again I have no specific
(#
3 recollection. I just know that is the case.
4 .yR . LIEBERiAN: You attended both' the October 9th, 5 1981 meeting and the November 3rd meeting.
6 Did you ever counsel PG&E and management and 7 their employees as to how they might maintain their inde-8 pendency from Cloud and his associates.??
9 MR. NORTON: Certainly not specifically.
10 Again, that's not to say that I might not have li made a comment here or there but no one ever asked me 12 to advise them in that regard, 13 I certainly have never done so in a letter form
('" 14 but I may have made an innocuous statement to somebody 15 at one time or another but I would have to say no. .
16
- tR. LIEBERMA'I: So the subject of independency j 17 was not an issue which you were involved in prior to the 18 g November 3rd meetirg?
19
{ 11R. NORTON: I think that's absolutely correct.
3 j 20 Prior to the November 3rd meeting, it was not 6
21 something that -- well, that is a problem because it depends E
22 on what you mean by independence.
23 To me, and I think if you rea d the transcript, 24 to Dr. Denton, independent meant that someone qualified
(- 25 reviewel work thst he had not done. It did not mean
-276-
i l
I as Governor Brown would argue, totally independent, n ever 2
{ having had any affiliation of the NRC or with the company.
3 or anything else.
4 I mean, there's, to me, independent meant that 5
they had not done the work in question that was being 0 reviewed and in that sense, for sure we had discussed it 7
that Dr. Cloud would be the independent reviewer of the 8
seismic reverification program with the Blume interface 9
because he hadn't been involved, hadn't done anything 10 with -- and it wasn' t .until the November 3rd meeting 11 that that really became more of a focal concern so you 12 have to have the right frame.of mind.
13 When we went into the meeting of November 3rd,
(~. 14 that was not a primary concern.
15 That's something that came up during that meetingm 16 MR. .LIEBER!!AN: So up to the November 3rd g 17 meeting, the definition of independence as you viewei g 18 that tern was the same definition Mr. Denton used during 1 19 that meeting?
Y j 20 MR. NORTON: Yes. I think he responded to
$ 21 some questions by Governor Brown's counsel perhaps at i
22 the end of that meeting and it might have been earlier.
23 I just don' t recall.
24 But that's how I view independence and didn't 25 see, you know, for example, draft reports had never really
- ? 7 7--
I been. discussed. I mean, no one -- I had never discussed 2
(pg
.:s it with anyone how you would handle draf t reports, but 3
that has never been an area of concern or question. It 4
just had never come up.in that sense.
5 Independent of the f act that he had never 6
been involved in that kind of work or that work on 7
Diablo Canyon before, we had discust.ed it, sure.
8 MR. LIEBERMAN: Prior to the pre-meeting-9 that was a few days prior to the November 3rd meeting, 10 had you discussed the interim report with Dr. Cloud 11 or any member of his staff?
12 MR. NORTO?!: Again, you have to be very careful 13 by what you mean by the interim report.
(
14 And let me explain my answer.
15 We did ;have a meeting in October, on October 9th, 16 1981 and on October 9th, the NRC more or less, if you 8
17 look at that transcript, gave us marching orders -
g 18 as we left that meeting.
j 19 I am not sure but I believe and I'm probably ^
i l 20 certain that Dr. Cloud hnd myself were at the airport a
$ 21 terminal together after that meeting with some other 22 people. I'm not even sure I could tell you who they were.
23 And briefly,' we discussed well, you've got work 24 to do and let's get this thing done and get moving and 25 things like that, so in that sense, yes, I had discussions
-278-
- 1 with him about it and certainly not about results or (y 2 anything because we had just walked out of the meeting.
3 Prior to Saturday before the November 3rd 4
meeting which would be approximately 3 or 4 weeks later, 5
I don' t believe I had any conversations with Dr. Cloud.
6 I don't believe I saw htm, met with him or talked with 7
him even on the phone.
8 MR. LIEBERMAN: So you had no conversations 9
with Dr. Cloud or his staff that led you to have a belief
")
or suspicion that there nay have been draf ts, working 11 papers circulated within the PG&E organization?
12 MR. NORTON: I don't believe I've ever had a 13 discussion with anybody on Dr. Cloud's staff, period, ever
(' 14 to this day.
15 If I hav e, I didn't know they were on his staff 16 and I don't believe I've had any discussions with Dr. Cloud
[ 17 at all between October 9th at '.the airport and the 18 g
Saturday preceding the November 3rd meeting, about anything.
i 19 MR. LIEBERMAN: In the smme question in ~ regard i
j 20 to PG&E employees, you had no conversation or did you have l
, ; 21 any conversations with any employee at PG&E that up to i 3 i
22 December 14th that caused you to have any suspicion that 23 they may have reviewed or commented on any working paper l
l 24 or draft prepared by Dr. Cloud and his associates?
l 25 MR. NORTON: No, I did not.
I -279-t
.c I I
MR. LIEBERMAN Do you have any comments ;
fg 2 to add concerning the various questions I've raised here?
qv 3 MR. NORTON: Yes. It has concerned me 4 obviously since the 14th of December when I first heard 5
about this and then af ter the first examination on 6 December 18th, I've been thinking about it even more, 7 in reading over' the transcript and so on, I think it's 8 important for whoever the so-called finder of fact in 9 this investigation is to understand what was happening 10 prior to the meeting of November 3rd and what happened 11 during the meeting of November 3rd, _ ,
12 All along, it has been my understanding and k 13 I believe the understanding of Pacific Gas & Electric 14 that independence means that you go out and you find someone 15 who is. qualified and who has . not done the work in question.
16 For example, under that definition, Dr. Blume S
$ 17 would be an independent consultant to verify something that
- 18 Dr. Blume hadn' t done, that somebody else had done that has j ig to do with Diablo. I would consider him an independent 20 consultant. These are professional engineering people.
21 They work as consultants .to whoever ' hires . them, i
22 That's their livelihood. They must be reputable in order 23 to maintain that position and their; occupation, so inde-24 pendence wasn' t something -- certainly the broad term --
(. 25 wasn't something of concern to us going into the meeting of
-280-
.? - l
' November 3rd. I did not say what I said on page 215, 216, 2
{; 217 and 218 because we had anticipated a challenge to the 3 independence of Dr. Cloud and had discussed it and decided :
4 what we would do.
5 I frankly, I;believe, said it more out of-6 frustration that people were bringint up a red herring 7 about Dr. Cloud's independence as opposed to dealing with 8 the problem at hand which was the seismic reverification 9 program.'
10 When I used the word report, I honestly was 11 not thinking of a preliminary report, a final report,,
12 a draf t report or an interim report or a short-term 13 report.
.~
14 All those tenus floating in and out of your 15 questions and the transcipt -- I used the term report.
16 I honestly did not have any meaning .to that.
g 17 If 3 had known the report of October 21st had been g 18 received by PG&E, I would not have said what I said because j 19 when I used-the term report, I was encompassing any report i
20 whether it be preliminary, interim, final, whatever and l
! 21 it was -- because I'd asked the questions where is
! i 22 the report on the previous day or two and was told it 23 would be prepared in a week or two, I guess I assumed l 24 whoever was answering my questions was using the same k 25 definition of report I was. .In all probability, they weren't.
l l
-281-t
1 What they were thinking of was ths final 2 report going to the NRC and what they were doing was kcs 3 operating in the same fashion that consultants as I 4 understand it always operate.
5 They do come in and look at things and 6 do a report and they always give the party that they're 7 auditing if you will, in this case .it was an audit.
8 In some other case, it might be something else, the 9 courtesy of looking at .the report to see if it was 10 factually correct, p For example, they might say that We could find 12 no paper that covered point A and PG&E might say, well,
.3 gee, don' t you remember looking at file B because that's
( 14 where point A is covered and the consultant says, oh, 15 you're right, I forgot, and make the report factually 10 correct.
h 17 So, there was no attempt at mis-leading at all.
. is If one reads on in the transcript, what I'm volunteering is
- 19 that if there's any real concern, then send an auditor 20 along with this or receive the report abnultaneously,
!. 21 and I guess the thing that really bugs me about this is i
22 that we never had received any direction from the Commission 23 or the NRC that we' re to do it any dif f erently than we 24 did .it on October 21st. In otherwords, even after we
- x. 25 made the offer on November 3rd, the NRC did not come back
-282-
l P-and say well, Mr. Norton's offer was a @cd one. We would 2
{ig like the reports subnitted simultaneously or we'd like 3 !
to have an auditor with Dr. Cloud.
4 In otherwords, basically what I offered was 5
rejected and now we're being ' callel to task for somehow 6
trying to mislead somebody, which clearly was not the 7
case. '
8 For example, I had said earlier in the transcript 9
that Dr. Cloud had not ever been associated with PG&E 10 in Diablo Canyon pri,or to that. .
11 In fact, Mr. Hoch, the project manager, during 12 the noon hour, I believe while it was walking back -to 13 our hotel, where we met, said Bruce, did you know that
(' . 14 Dr. Cloud indeed did work on te reverification program that 15 the ACRS wanted done a year or two ago and I said no, I 16 didn't and he said well, you ought to know that .and. correct i
17 the record and I said thanks a lot.
g 18 And when I got back, if you 'll look, I did j 19 correct the record.
l i l 20 Had somebody told me that hey, we got a draf t 3 21 report in-house, October 21st, I'd hav e done the same i
22 thing with that.
23 No one was attempting to mislead. We were 24 offering to put to rest any fears that anybody had about 25 indepen;lence and that offer thas never been withdrawn. It
-283-
l i.
1 still exists but we've never received any direction along
,,7 , 2 those lines.
%$E 3
MR. LIEBERMAN: If I could ask two questions 4
concerning what you just said.
5 Since you believe it is the practice of 6 consultants of when they are auditing an organization 7
to provide a copy of a document to the organization being 8
sudited to assure completeness or accuracy, when you made 9 your statement and Dr. Cloud nade his statenent that 10 the short-term report would be available shortly, did you 11 believe that the company at the time you made that 12 statement did not have a copy of this report for pre-review 13 if you would?
(
14 MR. NORTON: The answer to that is -- I'm not 15 sure I answered your question so I have to answer it us length-wise instead of saying yes or no.
g 17 I never thought about it. ,In otherwords,
. is I didn't think at the time that gee, it's going to be j n) ready in a week or two and it's the standard practice a
l a
20 for people to do this so therefore, gee, we must have f 21 a preliminary report.
i E
22 I mean, I never went through that thought process 23 at all. I had asked in the day or two prior to that if 24 we had had a report and I was told you know, I didn' t say I 25 do we have a report? I did not ask that question. I said,
-284-
1 is- the report ready to be submitted to the NRC and I was j 2 told no, it won't be ready for a couple of weeks and I 3 didn't go into any mental gymnastics about a preliminary, 4
because that was of no moment to anybody and I never thought 5 about and I didn't think about it on the third of November, 6 so your question implies that I should have thought about 7 it but I think when you're having conversations with 8 people ns we were obviously doing on.the record on the 9 3rd of November, you don't stop and think for 90 seconds to between a question and answer, of all the possible 11 ramifications of the answer and I certainly didn't think 12 anything about a preliminary report.
13 MR. LIEBERMAN: Did you review the transcript
\~
14 of the November 3rd meeting, following the November 3rd 15 mee ting?
16 MR. NORTON: I did :not review that transcript k 17 until sometime af ter December 14th. When I got back to
. is Phoenix on either the 15th, 16th,17th, whenever it was, i
- 39 I got back I went to it in a hurry and revi'ewed it.
a MR. LIEBERMAN:
20 You also indicated that if you had known about f 21 these draf t reports or working papers, you might have 3
22 answered the various questions diff erently?
23 MR. UORTON: Well, yes. When you r.ead-24 Mr. Denton's response to my statement, starting on line 8 25 at page 216, it becomes pretty clear of what he's thinking
-285-
1 of when he says, "I was wondering how you proposed to 2
( handle comments on this draft or are you going to send us 3
the same report he sends you and add your cover letter to 4
it?"
5 Well, clearly, had I known we had a draf t 6 report in-house that people had made comments on, I would 7
have said something. I would have said no, I was talking 8
about the final report.
9 Gee, we have an in-house draf t or something.
10 I wouldn' t have lef t it sitting there like that.
11 You've got to remember -- this was something 12 we were volunteering. This was not. something that had-13 been imposed on us or we had any reason to hide or k,'
14 anything else.
15 That's frankly what disturbs me about this 16 whole investigation. It was if we were try!.ng to hide; i
j 17 something and we had nothing .to hide. We were simply 18 making an offer to the NRC at that time. I wa s doing it.
g j 19 Inpromptu, as it were.
Y j 20 At that moment, that was totally impromptu --
d
- 21 the proposition I made af ter lunch was af ter discussion 22 with people during the lunch hour with management, but 23 this of fer I was making, page 215, the comments I was 24 making on page 215, 216, were impromptu. They hadn't i 25 been discussed specifically with anybody. I was basing them
-286-
. , a . . . - . . . . . . - .
I on the knowledge I had at that time.
2 MR. LIEBERMAN: Thank you. May we go off
(.:w~
3 the record for one moment?
4 (Discussion off the record.)
5 MR. LIEBERMAN: On the record.
6 I have no further questions. If you have 7 no further comments to make, then this questionning 8 is completed. The time is 4:55 p.m.
9 (A document was marked as 10 Exhibit 2 in this proceeding, 11 and was incorporated into 12 the record.)
13 .
(Whereupon, at 4: 55 p.m., the interview of k,~
14 Mr. A. Bruce Norton was concluded. )
15 16
- 17 g
18 j 19 a
20 l
l 21 i
r 22
! 23 24
'E 25 l
-287-l
AJl'&- pkj/c let Myc.e Urrits
/
Cyni6or p Le q
. .; frws/iye 6 ce n .
[br. 2 S,19E/
, :QUES'5 IONS FOR MR. BRUCE NORTON, ATTORNEY AT LAW
' kat7nteg/Mr Y
( l. Mr. Norton,.during your' initial interview of this investigation l _
on December 18, 1981, you were informed that the NRC had established by testimony from Dr. Cloud and various persons from PG&E that Dr. Cloud had prepared four separate draft reports containing his findings as related to the design reverification work he performed on Diablo Canyon. These draft reports were submitted to PG&E on the approximate dates of October 21, October 26, November 6, and November 12, 1981.
At the November 3, 1981, meeting witn the NRC, as shown on pages 215 through 218 of the transcript of this meeting, both you and Mr. Maneatis stated that as of November 3, 1981, no
. report on Dr. Cloud's work had been submitted to PG&E.
- Would you please explain why on page 216 of the transcript of the meeting of November 3, 1981 with the NRC you stated that PG&E did not have Dr. Cloud's short term report?
- Would you please explain why on page 217 of the transcript of the meeting of November 3, 1981 with the NRC, you stated the report itself hasn't been prepared?
- 2. Were you made aware at anytime during the November 3 meeting with the NRC, by PG&E personnel or anyone else, that because of the existence of drafts or working papers relating to the
( Cloud report possible misleading or erroneous information may have been provided by you or Mr. Maneatis to the NRC at the November 3, 1981, meeting?
If so - when and by whom?
"2A. Did you participate in any discussion, after the November 3, 1981 meeting, and prior to December 14, concerning the October 1981 drafts or working papers of the Cloud report?
If so, when and with whom?
"2B. Did you review the Transcript of the November 3, 1981 meeting? If so, when?
"2C. When did you first suspect or become aware of the existence of the October 21 draft report or working paper? The October 26 report or working paper?
Who informed you of the existence of such reports?
What were the circumstances of such disclosure?
Had you prior to that time suspected that drafts were reviewed by employees of PG&E?
(.
-288-
"2D. When did you first become aware that PG&E's employees reviewed or commented on the October 21 document?
Who informed you of this?
What were the circumstances of such disclosure?
- 3. Were you made aware, at any time after the November 3 meeting
. with the NRC, by PG&E personnel or anyone else, that you or Mr. Maneatis may have provided possible misleading or erroneous information to the NRC at the November 3, 1981 meeting?
- If so - when and by whom?
~
2A When you were finally made aware of the existence of
, the October 21 and October 26 draft reports, why did you not inform the NRC and correct the statements you made at the November 3, 1981 meeting?
3B. Did you make any inquiries during this session or any other time before the November 3, 1981 meeting as to the existence of any draft, working paper or other material concerning the status, progress or rescits of the Cloud efforts? If so, to whom did you inquire of?
When were these inquiries made?
What was the response of the inquiries?
- 4. Have you ever seen copies of the October 21 and October 26 reports that Dr. Cloud submitted to PG&E7
- If so - when?
- 5. We understand that PG&E personnel held a work session during the evening of November 2 that extended into the early hours of November 3, for purposes of preparing for the November 3 meeting with the NRC?
- Did you attend this work session?
a
- At any time during this work session did you hear anyone mention or discuss the fact that draf t reports of Dr. Cloud's work had been received within PG&E?
- 6. In your experience or representing PG&E since approximately 1976, has any member of PG&E ever told you of their practice of having consultants submit rough draft reports to PG&E fcr review and comment prior to the issuance of a completed report?
\
-289-L
(O 7. After you attended either of the meetings between PG&E and NRC in Bethesda, MD on October 9, 1981 and November 3, 1981, did you counsel PG&E management on how to maintain their independency from Cloud and Associates?
- 8. To your knowledge was the independency issue discussed by anyone in PG&E management after these meetings?
- 9. Did you ever prior to the November 3, 1981 meeting, discuss the interim report with Dr. Cloud or any member of his staff?
- 10. After the lunch break you again addressed the issue of independence (TR 249). Were there any discussions in which you participated during the lunch break concerning independence in regard to seeing prior drafts of the Cloud report?
- Who were they with?
- What did they involve?
- Was the subject of previous drafts raised?
- Did you raise any questions or inquire about the correctness of your statement?
( - Did Rocca speak to him during the break?
- Did he overhear Rocca's conversation with Brand on Rocca's concern about Norton's statement concerning direct submittals of draft to NRC?
-290-
,