ML20040D413
| ML20040D413 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1981 |
| From: | Maneatis G PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17083A976 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202010268 | |
| Download: ML20040D413 (31) | |
Text
.
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COfiMISSION 3
4 INVESTIGATION OF 5 DIABLO CANYON' UNITS-l & 2 6 INTERVIEW OF 7 . GEORGE A. liANEATIS 8
9 Pacific Gas and Electric IIeadquarters Offices 10 Law Department Conference Room 77.Beale Street 11 San Francisco, California 12 Monday, December 21st, 1981
( 14 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 15 pursuant to notice, at 10:28 a.m.
16 g
APPEARANCES:
3 17 On behalf of the NRC Staff:
- 18
! OWEN C. SIIACKLETON, JR., Moderator j gg B. II . FAULKENBERRY i
20 f
a y 21 2
22 23 24 25 8202010268 820127 -382-PDR ADOCK 05000275 .PDR.
- G L __ _
ERRATA SHEET Interview of George A. Maneatis, Jewmber 21, 1981 The following corrections should be made:
Page 385, Line 15 - Change questionning to questioning.
Page 386, Line 3 - Change was to were.
Page 386, Line 24 - Change Committee to Commission.
Page 387, Line 7 - Change is to was.
Page 389, Line 2 - Change it's to his.
Page 389, Line 4 - Insert oral after his.
Page 389, Line 13 - Insert I after so.
Page 390, Line 22 - Change how to what.
Page 390, Line 25 - Change furter to further.
Page 391, Line 7 - Delete because.
Page 391, Line 16 - Change bi-monthly to semi-monthly.
Page 391, Line 22 - Delete carefully, and insert carefully by.
Page 391, Line 25 - Change one to auditor.
Page 392, Line 10 - Change bi-monthly to semi-monthly.
tPage 392, Line 14 - Change reported to report.
Page 392, Line 19 - Change itself to attention.
Page 393, Line 3 - Change returned to turned in.
Page 393, Line 5 - Change be-monthly to semi-monthly.
Page 393, Line 14 - Delete they'and insert the rules.
Page 393, Line 16 - Insert'If at beginning of line and change The to the.
Page 393, Line 21 - Delete comenting on and insert editing.
Page.394, Line 4 - Change is to us.
Page 394, Line 16 - Change aas to as.
Page 395, Line 3 - Change it to them.
Page 395, Line 6 - Insert coma after I, delete ther, and insert this area.
Page 395, Line 17 - Insert on after drawing.
Page 395, Line 25 - Change -- to - and insert on before all.
Page 396, Line 4 - Change and to an.
Page 396, Line 24 - Change that to of.
Page 398, Line 17 - Change on, to over.
Page 398, Line 19 - Insert to after as.
Page 398, Line 21 - Delete it may be that this, and add that there may be a.
Page 398, Line 22 - Insert them, after influencing.
Page 399, Line 6 - Change they contain to that pertain.
The above corrections were identified by George A. Maneatis and Bobby H. Faulkenberry.
-383-
- J
PQQEggggggg 2
('h 10: 28 a.m.
3 MR. SHACKLETON: This is December 21st, 1981.
4 The time is 10: 23 a.m.
5 This is an interview of Mr. George A. Maneatis, 6
Senior .Vice President, Facilities Development for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 8
This interview is taking place in room 3101 9
of the corporate headquarters of Pacific Gas and Electric 10 Company, 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, California.
The purpose of this interview is part of the 12 investigation being conducted by the U.S. Nuclear 13 a Regulatory Commission to develop the facts and happenings
(
I4 surrounding the present reverification program of the 15 seismic design of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
16 Present for this interview in addition to 17 Mr. Maneatis, from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, g 18 Region 3, is Mr. Bobby II. Paulkenberry, Chief of Reactor j 19 Construction Projects Branch.
a
! 20 My name is Owen C. Shackleton, Jr. and I am the a
f 21 Senior Investigator, i
22 Mr. Maneatis, prior to going on record, I 23 discussed with you your right to have personal legal 24 counsel present. Do you desire to have a legal counsel k 25 present?
-384-
. . . . ..~. - _..
I MR. MANEATIS: No,.I do not.
2
(}g iR . SHACKLETON: Then you waive that right, 3
is that correct sir?
4 MR. MANEATIS: Yes, that is correct.
5 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you.
6 Would you please stand while I administer 7 the oath?
8 Whereupon, 9 GEORGE A. MANEATIS 10 having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness 11 herein anl was examined and testified as follows:
12 MR. SHACKLETO1: For the record, Mr. Maneatis 13 as been with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company for 1-4 28 years, 15 At this time, I'll turn the questionning 16 over to Mr. Faulkenberry.
= 17 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Maneatis, for the record, t
g 18 would you please state your position *with the Pacific
! j 19 Gas and Electric Company.
i 20 MR. MANEATIS: I am the Senior Vice President l
l f 21 for Fdcilities Development at Pacific Gas and Electric i
22 Company.
23 MR. FAULKEMBERTY: Mr. Maneatis, did you l 24 atten1 both.the October 9th and November 3rd, 1981 meeting 25 with the NRC at Bethesda, Maryland?
-385-
I MR. MANEATIS: Yes.
2 MR. FAULKENBERRY: It has been determined
{-
3 that 4 separate draf t reports of Dr. Cloud's work was 4
submitted to PG&E .
5 These draf t reports were submitted to PG&E on 6 the approximate dates of October 21, October 26, November 6, 7 and November 12, 1981 8 The question is, prior to November 3, 1981, 9 were you aware that PG&E had receivel the October 21 10 and the october 26th draft reports from Dr. Cloud?
11 MR. MANEATIS: I was not.
12 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Could you tell us when 13 you were aware these draf ts had been submitted to PG&E?
14 MR. MANEATIS: Going back.on my recollection, 15 I believe the first time I was aware thak these draf ts 16 were in existence was when Jess Crews from the NRC called i
3 17 me -- I think it was December 10th, I uas in Oakland and g 18 he reached me to ask he for copies of these draf t j 19 reports which were characterized as having comments i
20 in the margin.
l
$ 21 I believe I told him at that time that we i
22 had already sent him the report and I was thinking 23 obviously of the November the lath transmittal of the 24 report Shst was sent to the Nuclear Regulatory Committee.
L 25 He then said no, he wasn't speaking of that report. He was
-386-
- . ~ . ~ . - - . - -
1 Eptcking of en -- I think he caid Octobtr 25th, 21ct draf t i
, 2 which had these marginal comments, 3 I told Jess I didn't know about them but I 4 would get on the phone right away because I happened to be, 5 at the time, I was at a motel in Oakland taking a course 6 and I called the company and I told them to be sure 7 to make available to Jess anything that he is looking 8 for with regard to these draf ts.
9 And that was the first tbne I heard about it.
10 MR. PAULKENBERRY: Mr. Maneatis, at the 33 November the 3rd, 1991 meeting with the NRC, as shown 12 here, starting on page 215 and for the record, I'm shouing 13 you the transcript of the November 3, 1981 meeting that 14 was held back in Bethesda, Maryland.
15 From pages 215 through 218, if you would please 16 o re(resh your memory, review these to refresh your memory j 37 of what was discussed.
I
- 18 It starts at the bottom of page 215.
j 19
- I
I. noted for the record that Mr. Maneatis is reviewing the j 20 f pages as described by Mr. Paulkenberry.
3
! i 22 MR. MANEATIS: How far do you want me to go on this?
MR. FAU LKE'! BERRY : Through page 218.
l ( MR. MhNEATIS: Oh, through 218.
-387- ,
r I
MR. MANEATIS: Excuse me. You want me to read .
2 from the top here where I am -- as I had earlier indicated,
("9d.
3
~
or the bottom.
4 MR. FAU LKENBERRY: Of 215?
5 MR. MANEATIS: Yes.
6 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Just the bottom.
7 MR. MANEATIS: Just the bottom.
8 MR. SHACKLETO'i Off the record.
9 (Discussion off the record. )
10 MR. SHACKLETON: On the record.
11 MR. PAULKENBERRY: Str. Maneatis, on pages 215 12 through 213.of the transcript which you've just reviewed, 13 you, Mr. Norton and Dr. Cloud either stated or implied that
(,'
14 as of November 3rd, 1991, no report of Dr. Cloud's work l
15 had been submitted to PG&E.
16 My question is, Mr. Maneatis, would you please k 17 explain why on page 215, in the transcript of the meeting 2
- 18 of November 3, 1981 with the NRC, you either stated or i
j 19 implied that the NRC was getting Dr. Cloud's findings i
20 at almost the same time as PGSE was getting their's?
l ,
l f 21 MR. MANEATIS: You want une to explain what 3
22 I meant by that?
23 MR. FAU LKENBERRY: If you would, sir.
24 MR. MANEATIS: Yes. As I had regarded that I
k 25 question in the context of all that had preceded it, just
-388-l
I prior to that, Dr. Cloud had made a report to the NRC of (g 2 it's findings in some detail and when they asked me that 3 question of the interim report, I was thinking that they 4 were talking. about his report. When I said they got it 5 just almost the smue tbne that I had, I was implying that 6 I had gotten it 'within the past f ew days.
7 Later on in the transcript, I just read it,3 8 Bruce Norton had clarified it.
9 I had first heard ' abou t it as an oral 10 report dhat Sunday night when we were preparing for our 11 presentation to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
12 And then we got on the plane the next day, 13 and Tuesday we gave our report so was in effect saying k, ,
14 that I practically got it the same time.as the Nuclear 15 Regulatory Commission.
16 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. lianeatis, if I understand 17 you correctly, did you say that the first time thatf oyou
- 18 had been provided any of the results of Dr. Cloud's work 5
j 19 was the Sunday preceding the meeting of November 3rd, is
> i i 20 that correct?
a f 21 MR. MANEATIS: That is correct.
I
- Mr. Maneatis, on November 22 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
23 3, 1981, were you aware that any other members of PG&E had 24 received any results of Dr. Cloud's findings?
25 MR. MANEATIS: I was not.
-389-
n 1 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Maneatis, w re you ever 2 made aware that possible mis-leading or erroneous information 3 may have been provided by you, Mr. Norton or Dr. Cloud 4 to the HRC at the November 3, 1991 meeting?
5 MR. MANEATIS: I was not aware that they were 6 giving me anything nis-leading whatsoever.
7 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Maneatis, does PG&E have 8 a policy, written or otherwise, of not volunteering 9 information to the NRC unless it is specifically asked for?
10 MR. MANEATIS: I am not aware of any such policy, n Clearly, I have not issued any such instructions.
12 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Could you explain to us i3 what the ground rules within PG&E are as you know them 14 to be with regards to the way Dr. Cloud's work should 15 be reviewed or handled by PG&E prior to submittal to the jg NRC?
i k 17 MR. MANEATIS: Are you talking about the
! 2
- 18 current time frame or the way we are now because a whole 5
j ig lot of things that have transpired since we've had all a
i 20 the publicity about the independence of Cloud's reviews.
a 5 We've also had the Nuclear Regulatory Commission g
l :
i issue the order, very specifically telling us how to report.
With all of that as background, I would say 23 24 that the way it is working right now and it's going to 25 be subject to some furter clarification because we certainly i -390-i
1 .would be willing to.do whatever the Nuclear Regulatory g 2 Commission would require, but af ter we lef t that November 3 3 meeting, sometime later when the question of really, 4 when it became apparent that the review, the reverification 5 . program was going to be substantially expanded, and 6 that we are going to have to do a lot more reporting 7 and we were made aware of the independence issue, because 8 because it was clearly indicated in the transcript.
9 I had decided that Dr. Cloud at best send 10 his report directly to me with a copy to Jim Rocca in 11 Mr. Brand's organization on the basis I could be absolutely 12 certain there would be no changing in the findings.
13 We have to get it because we have to respond 14 to the report. What we are doing by way of reporting 15 Procedures, the NRC has requested that we submit a report 16 every other Friday, every second Friday, I believe, bi-monthl t.
-s 17 What we are doing is we are sending the Cloud E
. is findings, whatever they are, as of a particular cut-off i
j ig date unadulterated with any comments that -- any reactions J
l 20 we can make separately plus our own findings to the NRC.
i Now, at the November 3 meeting as I recall,
{ 21 i
E 22 when Mr. Norton was questionned carefully, Mr. Denton 23 and others, he did volunteer any method that the NRC wished us to report by. If they wanted the report before f 24 i
( -(
l 25 we got it, that was all right. If they wanted another one l
l
- 391 -
l l
I walking around with Cloud, that-was all right. The NRC 2 did not give us any specific instructions as to how to
{'g 3 report.
4 So what we're~ going'to be doing, we're just 5 simply going to be submitting the Cloud report as it is:
6 submitted to us.every two weeks with our. comments separate.
7 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Let me explore that just
- 8 a little bit more, Mr. Maneatis, if you would.
9 If I understand you correctly you're saying to that in the bi-monthly progress reports, they will be 11 submitted to us at the same time they are submitted l
i 12 to PG&E?
- 13 MR. MANEATIS: When you say the same time, 14 we're going to hold it until it's a reported period. He 15 may send it in the Wednseday before but we'll just hold 16 it. It will be read and reacted to to the extent that
! I 17 you can.
g 18 Some'of the-recommendations will not be able 3
3 j 19 to-be reacted to in that time frame. It may call itself 20 to some investigation but the report will be held until f
e i 8 the- time that we are required to submit which is that 21 2
2 2
22 Friday.
I 23 It takes a little administrative time just to 24 put everything together and have it all signed off and 25 returned to'the URC.
4
-392-i l_
I There would be no changing of his findings.
2 g'ag As they are submitted, that's the way they are being 3
returned to the NRC.
4 MR. FAULKENBERRY: In addition to the progress 5
reports that are submitted bi-monthly, are you saying 6 the'same rules would apply then for any additional draft 7 reports or final reports that contain the results of 8 Dr. Cloud's findings?
9 MR. MANEATIS: My' plan at the moment is, that's 10 the way we're going to offer it inasmucn as there's been so 11 much attention focused on the commenting on rough drafts 12 but I would want to get this clarified in the context of 13 our phase 1, phase 2 programs in response to the order, k'
1-4 so that they are entirely in agreement with the NRC, and 15 myself as to precisely how we want the~ report submitted.
16 The NRC would want some other procedures, that's i
g 17 what we're going to go for. But in the interim, until g 18 we get this clarification because the NRC has to react j 19 to the programs we are submitting, phase 1 and phase 2,.
i l 20 we will be doing it the way they -- I indicated.
J l 21 We will not be commenting on his draft before i
, 22 it is submitted to the NRC.
23 Well, I'd better make myself clear. Picture 24 a report that would come to us from Cloud. It would stand 25 apart.
-393-
I 2.
1 It will remain apart. Separate and distinct f g;, 2 from that, we will react to it on another piece of paper, br 3 another memorandum and that also will be appended because 4 the NRC has asked is to react to the impacts of his findings.
5 But we will not in effect receive his report, comment on 6 his report, send it back to Cloud and then receive 7 his official report. Have I made myself clear?
8 MR. FAULKENBERRY: I think so, yes.
9 I just want to clarify one other point.
to If I understand you correctly, the procedures 11 ' that you just explained will be performed on all results -
12 received from Dr. Cloud subsequent to the November the 18th 13 draft that was submitted to the HRC?
{
MR. MANEATIS: With one exception. If I may 14 15 indicate that?
16 We are working, aas you know, on the prograra a
j.
j7 that we're supposed to submit.
, ja We submitted the phase 1 program, the verification 3
-; ig program.
J l MR. FAULKENBERRY: You're talking about the 20 a
d' 21 pr 9 ram plan?
2 2
E MR. MANEATIS: The program plan and we're 22 also going to be submitting the phase 2 program. That 23 24 may inv lv some review so that we understand what Dr. Cloud
( 25 is proposing. You might say there may be some agreement that
-394-
n- >
I thic is what wa're going to propone and then wa'ra going to
- 2 propose this to the NRC but that will not have.any findings.
3 It will'merely be the plans as we understand it so we may 4 go back and forth in that because we're developing the 5 plans.
6 I as the Senior Executive in there, have to 7 be certain that it is responsive to the Nuclear Regulatory-8 Commission order and I want to be sure that the plan 9 we do submit is comprehensive. We may go back and forth to on that plan while we're formulatir.g it but not the findings.
11 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Thank you.
12 Mr.- Maneatis, are you aware of any effort that 13 has been made by PG&E employees to revise the results of
( 14 Dr. Cloud's work such that it does not-reflect the true 15 and complete and accurate record of his findings?
16 MR. MANEATIS: Since all of-this has hit s
37 the news media and even drawing the theory.that this g
- 18 particular inquery is being developed -- I have had an E
- ig opportunity to look at that October 21st draft and I have a
j seen some comments in the margin. I have to say that 20 a
21 I have not meticulously compared those comments in the 1
- context of what was-ultimately reported, other than 22 very superficially.
23 I have people in the organization that are 24
~
doing this -- carefully looking at the comments -- all 25
-395-
I 1 of the drafts beginning with the October the 21st draft'
~
- n. 2 and moving forward up until the point the draft Oas actually D
3 submitted to the NRC.
4 I make precisely and observational judgement 5 on the question you just posed. I am not aware that the 6
rep rt was adversely' influenced.in any say.. In fact, 7
I am told that from a very ~ preliminary review of it, that 8 if anything the final draft is more severe in it's g criticism and longer than the earlier one.
10 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Maneatis, at this time 33 do you have any feeling for when the study that you described 12 within PG&E that is being conducted will be ready?
13 MR. 11ANEATIS : I can say that one phase of
(
it was completed. We had reviewed those drafts of g
the first draft of the October 21st draft, for comments,.
15 at was Teviewedybecause that's all we thought existed 16
, s ~
and as we looked into it further, we understood that there 37
- 18 have been subsequent drafts that you mentioned earlier.
3g The latter part is also being looked at and I don't have a
j 20 any date of when it sill be completed but I would say
'2 l d that within the next couple of weeks it osght to.be complete 2
- E and if it is, it will be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
24 It will at least be our perception that what
( -
' 25 that influence if any, was in the final copy.
- 396-L
1 i 1 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Maneatis, do you know of (fh, 2 any conscious or' pre-arranged plan written or otherwise for
\y 3 PG&E employees while attending meetings with the NRC, to 4 limit or otherwise constrain their-responses'to the NRC 5 questions?
6 MR. MANEATIS: The only thing that we ever said 7 in that regard was to be factual, to be accurate and 8 that has been our only instruction -- to never inhibit 9 anybody from being in the least bit constrained in their 10 . responses other than be accurate, and not be speculative-11 or inaccurate.
12 MR. FAULKENBERRY: .Okay, sir, if I understand 13 correctly, as far as you know, there's never been any 14 management directives given to any employees which would 15 inhibit the free flow of information between PG&E and NRC? ,
16 MR. MANEATIS: Not to my knowledge'.
! Mr. Maneatis, are you aware g 17 MR. FAULKENBERRY:
- - 18 of any discussions that took place with PG&E employees j 19 at the November the 3rd meeting or any time thereafter, i
,! 20- regarding the possibility thataerroneous or misleading information may have been provided by you, by Mr. Norton,.
f 21 I
22 or Dr. Cloud at the meeting?
23 MR. MAMEATIS: No, nobody indicated to me 24 during that November the 3rd meeting that we had made
'( 25 any misleading or incorrect statements.
-397-
E 1.
1 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Or anytime thereafter
- g , 2 until Mr. Crews gave you a telephone call?
(T) 3 MR. MANEATIS: I can't recall that anybody said 4 anything to me about anything inaccurate.until that. time.
5 Even at that point when Jess called, I still wasn't clear 6 what this was all about because I didn't have any knowledge 7 of the document so I'd have to answer I didn't knor of 8 any mis-leading statements, even at that point in time.
9 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Maneatis, that is the 10 extent of the questions that I have for you.
11 Owen, do you have anything to add?
12 MR. SHACKLETON: No, I don't, uBobby.
la Mr. Maneatis, is there anything you'd like k N to go back over to re-address at this time before we 1E terminate this interview?
y; MR. MANEATIS: The only thing I want to go back t
17 on, is to emphasize the-fact that I would hope that we
- ni would be able to reach a very clear agreement with the
- ig NRC as precisely how they want those reports transmitted a
! 20 because in view of the concerns expressed in the media a
21 j .and by everybody else, it may be that this possibility 22 that PG&E is commenting on recommendations and influencing 23 and I would welcome very clear instructions from the NRC 24 as to how they would like us to proceed.
b 25 One way or the other, we have to react. We
-398-j
-r , ,
- . i i y. .p 7
.= F I
.cannot possibly perform this comprehensive reveri11 cation i
2 program without having knowledge of what is being discovered ,
{g}-
3 and-the other thing.is, I wouldn't want to have any inter-1 4 ference between the revi~wers e and our people so that the
- 5. proper information can flow freely wl.th-regard,to N the facts 6 they contain.
7 MR. FAULKENBERRY: .Thank you.
e ,.g' 8 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you, Mr. Maneatis.
.,n 9 We will now go off record. The time is 10:57,a.m,# //
y .
10 (Whereupon, at 10:57 a.m.,
the((i.nterviewof 11 George A. Maneatis was concluded.) y 12 13 14 '..Q.
- s 1.
15 -
f 9
N 16 s
- .'s N . -
- 17 E
- 18 i !
e j 19 a
~
ro
~ a ~
i 21 i
s 22 l 23 24 -
i 25 i
I
-399-
f 3 s ;.
s, *
~.
e- -
- t. .* f,
_ r 3, -
~ \.
s t3- ,. ,. , * - _
s
,# , b , . ,
1.
- 4 1p # h' v-
,, 3 s,.
.t M.Ng, s , , ,. u p; . . .
. 3; U \ ' 1
- e UNITED STATi'G'OF AMERICA w
.- r
- n ,'s ., . 5 -
' s
~ '
q .~ NUCLEAR REGULA'I'ORY COMMISSION f,e - a~,,. . .
, + y~ +
> < " i ' INVESTI.GATION OF ,
,, . m> x,13.
~-
3-
+
,yw ,, ,s. s. ..s
. g 2 y "' 4,. DIABLO ~CANYOM UNITS l' & 2
. - - . / cct;JQ, g- s 'y < '- s-
.+ -~.,. ~ , < -
4 s.,
u . , . y A,, .
rg
.ca -
p.g;@. , h . ,,
3 f9 %- ,.+ INTygj;gpop 2
^ '
y,,
/,,9, >,
,- n ., -
- , _% . . c < . , ,
6
..; p ' ,., <r
,p s? GEORGC;A. -MMT.AT14' ,s '"
.. ., a ,
,h .# . * '
[w
- h.,\ g.
y .%<
.,, ,/ , ~ ' ~% s -
a, , ,_ y'V -*s
., % j _< -
-- " $s , e% - , g s'
1
\ *8 -
~e
,e t,
.# ^ = [ [e. .p.* -.
/3 '
Pacific Gas'& Electric
/ cE \J Headquarters Offices g 2- [ N0' Q ' *- i lidw Department 1 Conference Room
- c. ,
N- . M/ Beale Street-N
)s s
11 .' San Francisco, California 3; a .
.- ,s . .
hi- /; . r ., s
- 12 ,
q j Monday, 4
- December 28, 1981 F- s , 13 i,
?^ '
'^ f .
Y> y
{g,( '
The above-entitled v inatter came on for further 7N .34' -
hearing,pursuantton6ticeh.hr09p.m.
- w. ~ , . . . - m &: ;-
s .s- ,
1
+ -
' 'N '
%y..' h,l. #
- APPEARANCESt'N,- 5 , 7.. ,
m s',V' , ./ . -.
6* ,- ,
IT On behhlf of x the NRd s Staff:
T,+ J -
p-s, ~. - ,, ,
x x ,.
,7 E" ',.
18 -' OWEN C'. - Moderator
. ' ,My-B.H. FAU'$11ACl!LT' Li'.ENBL.hRD., 'TON ," '7R'. ,
- 1. "19
.,~ .
- a, s 's- -
- s. ,+ p o ,=
i '.2 s~.0 -
s .
W **
\
+ .# *='*% ,, #%
+ 4.% # ,
l +
+ 21.- !, a g-g .
y ..
s,s. 2 ; ,,
f .
22 ~
s - $s
- Q , s ,
j 23 s
% x o
i . % ,, - \; *
, .e4 e'.
MF: _A~-
g e- , *
,, 25 "' v* . ' ^'N -
. \.
i
'/,
. f, A 't =
._, 'q V*. ^*- 'gh *y .
~
- % / '
% ,% * / s. g
,, , g y, e' ,
"j m ss 1
',n s y
- ,,,/# g < ;
y, A 3
-400 g\ '
1 r -
A 1.-
y.
4.
A
_f 4 'Q,. j S ..% - a
' - 1 -
M. y b+ f tk hay (fi . .g V . ,J y q ?d. ( ,. i. t q ,*'*e 3 g qs., 97, g 4 ,,, p_ g_ , _
~
u - . _ .
-t s t .
.s s
_y .;. : e .
I 1 . , . . , .
'+ s (
! ; /, 7 ,
E, + - ERRATA SHEET v c
- ,- . o. .
1
- i. .c -
- .1 Interview of. George A. Maneatis, December 28, 1981 No corrections we.e identified in the following pages.
7, =..
4 i
J 1
}
1 i
4 i
.5 h
4
.) '
l t
i e
i i
O i
i
-401- -
l 1
1 P,,R,Q q p E g 1 N,g S, 2 3:09 p.m.
3 MR. SHACKLETON: On the record.
4 This is December 28, 1981, at the time is 5 .now 3:09 p.m.
6 This is an interview of Mr. George A. Maneatis, 7 Senior Vice President, Faciliti~es Development for the 8 Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
9 This interview is taking place in room 3101 10 of the corporate headquarters of the Pacific Gas and 11 Electric Company at 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, 12 California.
13 This is a second interview of Mr. Maneatis k.. 14 who has requested this time to readdress some of the 15 questions that he answered on December 21, 1981.
16 In addition to Mr. Maneatis, present from the j 17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region 5, is Mr. Bobby l 18 H. Faulkenberry, Chief of Reactor Construction, Projects j 19 Branch and my name is Owen C. Shackleton, Jr., Senior j 20 Investigator.
i 21 Mr. Maneatis, we appreciate your coming f 22 forward to help clarify some of your responses from i
= 23 December 21 and I would remind you sir and I would ask 24 that you respond, do you understand that you are still 25 under oath as you were sworn on December 21, 19817
-402--
-(3):# '1 MR. MANEATIS: I do.
2 Whereupon, 3 GEORGE A. MANEATIS 4 having been previously duly sworn, was recalled as a 5 witness herein, and was examined and testified as follows:
.6 ,
MR. SHACKLETON: All right, sir. At this time, 7 Mr. Paulkenberry will readdress the questions.
8 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Maneatis, I'd like to 9 repeat two questions which I asked in the December 21st, to 1981 interview we conducted with you.
11 The first question I would like to repeat is 12 asif611ows:
, 13 On November 3rd, 1981, were you aware that
(' 14 any other members of PG&E had received any results of 15 Dr. Cloud's findings?
16 MR. MANEATIS: I was not, other than what
~
17 was heard by all present at the Sunday night meeting i
} 18 before we left for the November 3rd meeting with the NRC.
3 19 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Maneatis, the second s
j 20 question is, were you ever made aware that possible a
l 21 mis-leading or erroneous information may have been l 3 f 22 provided by you, Mr. Norton or Dr. Cloud to the NRC 23 at the November 3rd, 1981 meeting?
24- MR. MANEATIS: I was not.
25 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Thank you, Mr. Maneatis.
-403-L
b
-h 1 That's the extent of the questions I have, Owen.
2 MR. SHACKLETON: Anything.further, sir?
3 Mr. Maneatis?
I 4 MR. MANEATIS: No, I have nothing-further 1
5 to add.
s
., 6 MR.'SHACKLETON: All right, thank you sir.
7 The time is now.3:12 p.m. Off the record.
8 Gihereupon, at 3:12 p.m., the interview of 9 Mr. George A. Maneatis was concluded.)
., 10 i'
11 12 t
i 13 i h, 14 15 16
- 17 l .I
'l 18 g 19 4
E a
l I- 21 i
f 22 I
g 23 e
+ 24 i
25 4
i:i f
-404-
(d) , 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO?t'4ISSION 3
4 INVESTIGATIO'i OF 5
DIABLO CANYON U'iITS 1 & 2 6
7 I?iTERVIEW OP 8
GEORGE A. ?@liEATIS 9
to Room 3101 Pacific Gas & Electric
!!aadquarters Building 33 77 Deale Street S n Francisco, California 12
,3 Monday, January 4, 1982
(' ,
14 The above-entitled natter came on for hearing, 15 16 pursuant to nodce, at 1:22 p.m.
17 j 18 APPEARNICES:
- 39 On behalf of the NRC Staff
a OWEN C. SIIACKLETO?! , JR., Senior Investigator j 20 i
l BOB 3Y !!. FAULKENBERRY , Chief, Reactor Construction j 21 Projects Branch, Region 5 d 22 Ig 23 9
24
! 25 l
l
-405-i
! . .- w
ERRATA SHEET l
l Interview of' George A. Maneatis, January 4,1982 1
No corrections were identified in the following pages.
-406-l
h 1 P. R. Q q E E D,I,N,g S, 2 1:22 p.m.
3 MR. SHACKLETON: This is January 4, 1982. The 4 time is now 1:22 p.m. This is a< continuation of the inter-5 view of Mr. George A. Maneatis, Senior.Vice President, 6 Facilities Development, Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
7 This interview is a continuation of the investigation being 8 conducted by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and is g being conducted in Room 3101 of the Corporate Headquarters to of Pacific Gas & Electric Company at 77 Beale Street, 11 San Francisco , California.
12 Present from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
_. 13 Region 5 to conduct this interview is Mr. Bobby H. Paulken-( 14 berry, Chief of RLactor Construction Projects Branch. My 15 name is Owen C. Shackleton, Jr. , Senior Investigator.
16 Whe reupon ,
- 17 GEORGE A. M1NEATIS l 18 was recalled as a witness herein and, after being reminded 19 he was still under oath, was examined and testified l
j 20 further as follows:
f 21 MR. SHACKLETON: Do you also understand, sir, E
l d 22 that you have the right to have personal legal counsel 23 present?
24 MR. MANEATIS: I do.
25 MR. SHACKLETON: Do you waive that right, sir?
k_
-407-
__ . .- _. _ _ _ . _ _ ~ _ _ -
MR. MANEATIS:
1 I waive that right.
2 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you. Please begin the a questioning.
4 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Maneatis, with respect to i 5 the contract which was submitted to Dr. Cloud from PG&E 6 on December 1, 1981, I have a number of questions. The
> first question is with regard to Item 1.1 under Miscellaneous a Requirements, and I will read this iten into the record.
g It states: " Services performed by consultant pursuant to i
10 PG&E's authorization but before execution of this request 11 for services shall be considered as having been performed 12 subject to the provisions of this request for services",
13 and of quote.
(- 14 My question is , Mr. Maneatis, could you explain 15 in your own words what that paragraph neans?
16 MR. MANEATIS: Yes. That particular paragraph 17 is a standard condition in all of our consulting contracts, g
I 18 I believe. The way I interpret it is to cover any work done g 19 . priou to the fornal execution of the contract, that that t
j 20 work would be covered by the provisions of the contract that a
! 21 was axecuted.
i f 22 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Okay, Mr. Maneatis. With 23 regard to Item 1.3 undar Miscellaneous Requirements -- and 24 again I will quote from bhe contract -- it states " Consultant, 25 shall disclose no information to third parties concerning i
l
-408- i
- y. p r. -p-- - - - .
- - , _ ,. .c , cr- -- -. - m.-
h$ i the services perforned under this request for services with-2 out written permission from PG&E", end of quote.
3 I would like to ask you again if you would tell 4 me in your own words what that paragraph means and respond 5
as to whether or not in any way it affects the disclosure 6 of information to the NRC from Dr. Cloud.
7 MR. MANEATIS: Again, that particular paragraph 8 is a standard term. I have seen it in a number of nur g contracts. What it doas is it merely precludes our con-10 tractors or consultants from disclosing information to 3, third parties without our authorization that night have 12 commercial value, that they may want to use as testimonials 13 without our consent, that they may want to write technical
(. g papers on without our consent. It in no way would preclude 15 the disclosure of information to the Nuclear Regulatory 16 Commission or to any other regulatory bodies.
I have never heard of this particular provision
- 17 a
j 18 precluding any disclosure of information to regulatory y ig bodies.
G j 20 !!R. FAULKENBERRY: Okay. Would it in any way l 21 inhibit the trans fer of Dr. Cloud's findings to the NRC?
I MR. MANEATIS: No, it would not.
f 22 23 MR. FAULKENBERRY : Again, I would refer you to 24 Item 1.9 under Miscellaneous Requirements, and I will quote 25 from the contract. It states " Consultant is an independent l
l
.l l
l
! -409-
([i i contractor and n6t an enployee of PG&E in any respect what-2 ever", end of quote. Would you explain to us what that 3 paragraph means and also give us your interpretation of 4 independent contractor as it relates to Dr. Cloud and his 5
work?
6 MR. MANEATIS: I'll try to do that. I, again, 7 have seen this particular paragraph or provision in other 8
contracts. It really is I think an attempt to define the g consultant as a non-PG&E employes for purposes of workmen's jg compensation or things like that. It has no other purpose 11 than to say he is not an employee of the company and would 12 not be treated as an employee of the company. So he is 13 defined as an independent contractor in that very narrow
(. legal sense. It has no other significance.
34 15 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Maneatis, outside of this 16 particular paragraph in the contract then, could you tell
- 37 us in your own words what you consider to be the require-ments that have to be met by Dr. Cloud or any other consult-l 18 .
g jg ant that may be chosen to do the reverification program to i
! i 20 mest the independency requirements for the NRC?
I 9 l 21 MR. MANEATIS: First, I would expect that he
- i would be thoroughly conpetent and experienced to do the l
i f
22 j b. Secondly, I would expect that he would have profes-
! 23 24 s.ional integrity and deal with all of his findings in a l 25 professional way. Third, I would expect that he would not b
l l
-410-1
($1 i ever knowingly review any work performed by himself or his 2 firm. And fourth, I would expect that he would .not' have 3 any conflicts of interest, like any stock ownership in the 4 company, any relatives working for the conpany, or any of 5 those normal conflicts of interest.
6 I would not preclude his having done some pre-7 vious work for the conpany because I think that, if anything, 8
would be a plus. It would have enabled us to have assessed 9
his competency to do work.
MR. FAULKE!!BE RRY: Thank you. One last question, 10 jj Mr. Maneatis. It deals with Itam 1.12 of Miscellaneous Requirements. This particular paragraph refers to an 12 13 appendix to the contract entitled Specifications for Consult-7 14 ants Quality Assurance Program, and specifically refers to Item 3.3 of this specification. For the record, Item 3.3 15 states -- and I quote - "Significant conditions requiring 16 corrective action shall be reported to PG&E for concurrence"
- 17
-- end of quote.
l 18 ig Could you tell us what that particular paragraph j 20 means to you?
f 21 MR. MRIEATIS: Again, I will try to give it my i
interpretation, because I recall this particular addendum f 22 to the contract. It is entitled, this whole paragraph is 23 24 part of a section entitled Specifications for Consultants 25 Quality Assurance Program. So all of these provisions
-411-
(h) 1 partain to the consultant's quality assurance program. The 2 way I interpret 3. 3, which is a subsection of 3.0, Documents 3 for Submission, is that if the consultant should have 4 submitted any quality assurance procedures or there are any 5 flaws in the program that required corrective action and 6 we noted it, anything that wasn't in accordance with the 7 Appendix B of 10CFR50, we would expect to have the option a to tell them that this corrective action was either adequate 9 or inadequate, one way or another, if it affected quality.
to We would want to have concurrence that he indeed corrected 33 the discrepancy in the procedure or any aspect of the 12 quality assurance program. So it all pertains to the
- 13 quality assurance program.
(-- MR. FAULKENBERRY: Thank you. Now would that 34 15 paragraph in any way inhibit the free flow of information 16 or findings of Dr. Cloud's to the NRC?
- 17 MR. MANEATIS: No.
l 18 MR. FAULKEMBERRY: That's the extent of the g 19 questions I have, Mr. Maneatis.
c j 20 Owen, do you have anything to add?
21 MR. SHACKLETON: No, I have no additional questior.s .
i f 22 Mr. Maneatis, do you have any additional conments you would n
like to make at this time?
l 23 24 MR. MANEATIS: I have not.
25 MR, SHACKLETON: Thank you very much.- This
-412-
(~ i will'be the termination of this interview. The time is now 2 1: 33 p.m. going off record.
3 (End of interview) 4 5
6 7
8
.9 10 11 12
, 13 14 15
-16
~ -17 l
18 j 19 3
j 20 i
!: 21
~
$ 22 t
E . 23 24 25 k
-413-u a., .::<: .u a ;cw :,e ,w,n , . , , . . , . , , . . . . . . , , , , , _ , _ , , , _ _ _ _ ,
, _m-- ~,