ML20040D408

Transcript of Util Testimony by Bw Shackelford on 811218 in San Francisco,Ca.Pp 352-367

ML20040D408
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	12/18/1981
From:	Shackelford B PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML17083A976	List: ML20040D364 ML20040D370 ML20040D374 ML20040D378 ML20040D380 ML20040D388 ML20040D393 ML20040D397 ML20040D402 ML20040D407 ML20040D408 ML20040D410 ML20040D413 ML20040D414 ML20040D416 ML20040D418 ML20040D419 ML20040D420 ML20040D423 ML20040D426 ML20040D429 ML20040D432 ML20040D436 ML20040D438 ML20040D442
References
NUDOCS 8202010263
Download: ML20040D408 (15)

Text

r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (p 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

4 INVESTIGATION OF 5

DIABLO CANYON. UNITS 1 & 2 6 INTERVIEW OF 7 BARTON W. SIfACKELFORD 8

9 Pacific Gas & Electric Headquarters Offices 10 Law Department Conference Room 77 Beale Street 11 San Francisco, California 12 Friday, December 18, 1981 13

(,..

14 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing,

. 15 pursuant to notice, at 3:06 p.m.

16

! APPEARANCES:

g 17 j

On behalf of the NRC Staff:

18 3

OWEN C. SHACKLETON, JR., Moderator 19 B. H. FAULKENBERRY t U

j 20 r

i 21 i

22 23 24 d' 25 3

8202010263 820127 PDR ADOCK 05000275 O PDR -352-0

.c .

ERRATA SHEET Interview of B. W. Shackelford, December 18, 1981 The following correction should be made:

Page 363, Line 16 - Change is to of.

The above correction has been identified by Bobby H. Faulkenberry.and B. W. Shackelford.

-353-

. ,- . . .., . c. . . . . , -.. . ,- . . .. ..,n....-- _ _ _

O

Pgggggglggg 2

{ 3:06 p.m.

3 MR. SHACKLETON: This is December 18, 1981.

4 The time is 3:06 p.m.

5 This is the interview of Barton W. Shackelford, 6 president.and Chief Operating Officer of the Pacific 7 Gas and Electric Company.

8 The location of this interview is taking place 9 in room 3101, of the corporate headquarters of Pacific to Gas and Electric Company, 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, 11 California.

12 The purpose of this interview of Mr. Shackelford, 13 is part of the continuing investigation conducted by the

( 14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop the: facts 15- and happenings surrounding the present reverification 16 program 'of the seismic design of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear g 17 Power Plant.

18 Present for this interview in addition to

-;j 19. Mr. Shackelford is, from the United States Nuclear j 20 Regulatory Commission, Region 5, is Mr. Bobby H.

4

21 Paulkenberry, Chief of Reactor Construction Projects-Branch I

22 and my name is Owen C. Shackleton, Jr., Senior Investigator.

23 Mr. Shackelford, prior to going on tape, we 24 discussed with you your right to have a personal legal 25 counsel present. Do you waive that right, sir?

-354-

l 1

MR. SHACKELFORD: I do.

2 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you. And I would ask 3 of you on behalf of the Commission, sir, that you keep 4 your testimony here private.

5 At this time, I will turn the interview over 6 to Mr. Paulkenberry.

7 Pardon me.

8 At this time, Mr. Shackelford, we'll have you 9 stand and I'll-place you under oath.

to Whereupon, 11 BARTON W. SHACKELFORD i

i 12 having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness 13 herein and was examined and testified as follows:

14 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you sir. Please be

, 15 seated and now, I will turn the meeting over to Mr.

16 Faulkenberry.

• i  :

17 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Shackelford, please state

, la for the record your porltion with Pacific Gas and Electric i

g 19 Company.

a l

3 20 MR. SHACKELFORD: I'm president and chief operating d officer.

21 2

2 22 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Shackelford, did you attend 23 both the October the 9th and the November 3rd, 1981 meetings 24 at the NRC in Bethesda, Maryland?

( 25 MR. SHACKELFORD: Yes.

-355-

1 MR. PAULKENBERRY: Now we have determined that fn3 2 four separate draft reports of Dr. Cloud's work were Ql/

3 submitted to PG&E and these draft reports were submitted to 4 PG&E on the approximate. dates of October 12th, October 26th, 5 November 6th, and November 12th, 1981.

1' 6 The question is, prior to November 3rd, 1981, 7 at the time the meeting was held in Bethesda, were you 8 aware that PG&E had received the October 21 and October 9 26th draft reports?

10 MR. SHACKELFORD: I guess I'd like to ask which 11 specific report you're referring to, Mr. Paulkenberry.

12 I'd say the reason I asked the question is 4

13 that Dr. Cloud's report characterizes the interim report 14 I think was sent to you on the 18th of November.

. 15 MR. FAULKENBERRY: That is correct.

16 MR. SHACKELFORD: It still characterizes a h 17 draft report.

2

- 18 MR. FAULKENBERRY: That is correct.

j 19 MR. SHACKELFORD: I did receive that one and I also a

2 I 20 received a copy of a draft of his proposed reverification s

d 21 plan at some time prior to the November 3rd meeting but i i r

22 I don't remember when'it was.

MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Shackelford, that is 23 24 correct. What we are calling the final draft report I

([ 25 was the report dated November 12th and that was submitted

-356-

I to the NRC approximately November the 18th.

2 Now the other three draft reports were referenced

{.

3 October 21st, October 22ndt and November 6th, were previous 4

drafts of the November l'8 report.

5~

There was another document submitted to the NRC 6

from PG&E and from Dr. Cloud dated October 26th and that 7

was a program plan for the total reverification effort 8 that was being discussed at that time.

9 Now, I'll show you here, draft reports -- that H1 particular one is dated October, .-1981,- with a cover letter 11 showing that it was submitted to PG&E on October the 21st.

12 That is the report I am referring to.

13 MR. SHACKELFORD: And your question is?

14 MR. FAULKENBERRY: The question is,.Mr. Shackelford, 15 did you see that report or were you aware that that' report 10 had been submitted to PG&E prior to the November 3rd, 1981 g 17 , meeting at Bethesda?

l l

g 18 MR. SHACKELFORD: No, no.

l j 19 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Have you ever been made Y

l _j 20 aware that these draft reports and I'm referring to l 4 j 21 draft reports October 21, October 26, and now November 6th, 22 were you aware that any of these draft reports were l

l 23 ever submitted to PG&E for review and comment? And I'm l

24 talking about as of today have you ever been made aware

! 25 of that?

f

-357-l l

l l

l

I- MR. SHACKELFORD: As of today, I'm aware that 2 there were draft reports submitted to us -- I'm not

((.

3 aware of the specific dates that you've assigned them.

4- I've talked to some of our people about the fact 5 that draft reports were submitted but I'm not aware of the 6 dates.

7 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Could you give us an idea 8 of when you were made aware of the fact that draft 9 reports were submitted to PG&E from Dr. Cloud?

10 The approximate dates.

11 MR. SHACKELFORD: I'm not sure of the exact date 12 butCitt. ties back.to, as I recall, from a call from Mr..

13 Crews of your office. It was reported to me that he had s.

.14 called our attention to the fact that the staff had copies

, 15 of this report and was inquiring about it. As I recall, 16 it was within the last week or ten days.

y g 17 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Yes, I was present, or I'm y 18 aware of when Mr. Crews called you and I believe that j 19 was last week. That would have put it back somewhere i

! 20 around before the llth of December.

a J .

la 21 MR. SHACKELFORD: I think that's right, although-22 I think Mr. Maneatis mentioned to me he had been in touch 23 with Mr. Crews about the same time and I don't know just 24 when the dates were but it was about that time.

25 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Thank you. Mr. Shackelford, since

-358-

1

. September 1981 when Dr. Cloud first began his work on 2 Diablo Canyon as related to the reverification efforts there,

{ g, 3 have you issued any directives with regard to how the results 4 of Dr. Cloud's work should be handled within PG&E, prior to 5 it being submitted to the NRC?

6 MR. SHACKELFORD: No, we issued no explicit 7 directives. I talked to Mr. Maneatis, Senior Vice President 8 of Facility Development who is in general charge of this 9 program and we talked about how this program would proceed, 10 with the general understanding that it would be in a way 11 that would preserve Dr. Cloud's professional integrity and 12 independence but exactly how information was passed, we-did 13 not discuss it.

(' 14 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Shackelford, had you ever

. 15 been made aware that possible mis-leading or erroneous 16 information may have been provided to the NRC on November 3, i

17 1981 at the meeting at Bethesda, Maryland in regards to g 18 whether or not reports of Dr. Cloud's findings may possibly a

j 19 have been submitted to PG&E prior to the NRC?

i

! 20 MR. SHACKELFORD: That's a long and complicated a

21 question. I'd like to hear it again.

i 22 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Okay, fine.

What I'll do is I'll rephrase that. Of course, 23 24 the question of course relates to the November 3rd meeting, 25 1981. It relates to discussions at that particular meeting

-359-

I and you were present, I believe?

2~ MR. SHACKELFORD: Yes.

py 3 MR. FAULKENBERRY:

To discussions between 4 Mr. Maneatis, Mr. Norton, Mr. Denton and I believe 5 Mr. Eisenhut. Dr. Cloud was involved in the discussions 6 also.

7 These discussions surrounded the independency 8 question as it relates to Dr. Cloud's work and it also 9 related to how the results of Dr. Cloud's work would be 10 handled and specifically, they were discussing when the r

11 NRC would receive a report of Dr. Cloud's work and I 12 believe that in this discussion it was even stated, a

13 Mr. Denton asked, I believe would the NRC receive the t 1-4 results at the same time PG&E received them.

15 I'll be happy to show you and let you review 16 these particular discussions in the transcript of the 17 November 3rd meeting, if you like before we continue.

g 18 If you don't, 1.'.ll go ahead with my question.

j 19 MR. SHACKELFORD

Go ahead, i

! 20 MR. FAULKENBERRY: The question is, as related a

'f 21 the conversations at this meeting, it was certainly implied 3

22 in these conversations by Mr. Maneatis and Mr. Norton, 23 that PG&E had not received any reports of Dr. Cloud's 24 work.

J. 25 Now, the question I'm asking you, is have you ever ,

9

-360-

1 been made aware that possible mis-lcading or erron- -

2 eous ir. formation may have been provided to the NRC at 3 the November 3rd, 1981 meeting?

4 MR. SIIACKELFORD: The answer is no.

, 5 Maybe I ought to go on. My understanding of the a ,

6 situation there was and I know from my own experience, that 7 we were unaware at the time and by we, that's Mr. Maneatis i 8 and Mr. Norton and I, that these draft work papers, whatever 9 you call them were in our, had been in PG&E's staff for 10 review prior to that time and we had heard an oral presenta-11 tion of Dr. Cloud's report so when the question was 12 asked whether a report was available or had been submitted, 13 the answer was no,' a report had not been submitted.because k,J  !

, n, of. the f act that Dr. Cloud had not submitted a report 15 to PG&E. Ile was still putting it together.

16 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Now, are you referring to 17 a final draft report or --

g 18 MR. SIIACKELFORD: I'm referring to what I think i

j 19 at that time was characterized as his interim report.

i

! 20 I guess, you know, part of the problem here is I think a

f 21 that on November 3rd, we presented some material including I

22 Dr. Cloud's interim report orally and the result of the 23 November 3rd report, the scope of the investigation 24 was expanded --

k 25 MR. FAULKENBERRY: That's-correct.

-361 -

1 MR. SIIACKELFORD: And Dr. Cloud then submitted

2 .I recall, I've seen it, a draft report which I think 3 has been characterized as the interim report. I guess 3

4 that was what, November 18th?

5 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Yes, but previous -- i 6 MR. SHACKELFORD: Before that, none of the three 7 of us, Mr. Maneatis, Mr. Norton, nor I, as far as I know 8 were aware that some draft material had been sent by l

9 Dr. Cloud to PG&E for review.

i 10 None of us see that as particularly significant l 11 as we see the submittal of material for review to PG&E for 12 factual correctness being the normal procedure of a q 13- consultant who is making an audit of an engineering operation.

C' 14 MR. FAULKENBERRY: You just previously stated, 15 Mr. Shackelford, that approximately the first that you 16 were aware of the fact that there were draft reports l g 17 submitted to PG&E, prior to the " November 18th" report g 18 and I'm referring to the October 21st and October 26th c

j- 19 reports, was either with your discussions with Mr. Crews j 20 or shortly prior to that with Mr. Maneatis as a result of

.$. 21 Mr. Crews telephone conversation with him. Now, after .

k '

i 22 being made aware of the fact that draft reports were i

I 23 in the possession by PG&E people prior to November'3rd, 24 were you ever knowledgeable that because of the statements-25 made at the meeting by Mr. Norton and Mr. Maneatis, it may

-362-

.,,,,.__.,,___m_ . , - - _ , . - - . . - . - ~ _ , _ , . . .r-

1 have been a misunderstanding or min-leading statements

,3 2 may have been made in regard to whether or not PG&E had p

3 this information prior to it's submittal to the NRC 4 on November the 18th?

5 MR. SHACKELFORD: Well, I think I can see what 6 may have happened. From what I know, Mr. Maneatis and 7 Mr. Norton did not know of the draft reports and therefore 8 they were talking in terms that there had been no final 9 report submitted.

to I suppose someone might have concluded that ji there was a mis-leading statement made but I don't think 12 those gentlemen made a mis-leading statement in light 13 of the knowledge they had.

i4 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Shackelford, does PG&E 15 to the best of your knowledge, have a policy, written 16 or otherwise that is not volunteering information to the 3 .

p NRC unless it is specifically asked for or specifically i I

+

- 18 required by the NRC regulations?

j ig The thrust of this question is, is there anything a

! 20 in effect at P.G&E .that you are knowledgeable of that would a

d 21 inhibit the free flow of information between PG&E employees I

e 77 and NRC employees?

23 MR. SHACKELFORD: No. We ask our people to be y factual. They ought to be sure of what they're talking

( 25 about. Certainly we are not in any way telling them to

-363-

I restrict information they pass onto the NRC.

2'

(.p MR. FAULKENBERRY: Thank you.

3 Could you tell us what the ground rules are within 4

PG&E as you know them as'of today, with regard to the way 5

the results of Dr. Cloud's work should be handled within 6 PG&E prior to submittal to the NRC?

7 Have'there1been.any specific directions given 8 as far as you know that Dr. Cloud's work should be handled 9 -differently than any other consultant's work?

10 MR. SHACKELFORD: No. I think our general 11 direction is that Dr. Cloud's work would be handled as any 12 professional consultant's work would be handled.

13 I believe at the November 3rd meeting we 14 indicated to the NRC staff that if they had special 15 requirements they would like to impose on-the. handling 16 of information, we would be happy to comply with those 17 requirements. As far as I know, we received nothing back l

g 18 from the NRC in that. regard.

j 19 So we're treating Dr. Cloud's contract pretty much j 20 as we would handle a contract with a knowledgeable consultant I J" 21 and we would expect that before he renders a final report 22 he'd have his material reviewed by us for factual correctness.

23 But he has to stand on his own professional integrity in i

24 terms of the conclusions he draws.

(d' 25 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Shackelford, are you aware of l

-364-

1 any effort that has been mada ay PG&E employees to revise

{} 2 the results of Dr. Cloud's work such that it does not 3 reflect a true and complete and an accurate record of 4 his findings?

5 MR. SHACKELFORD: I'm not aware of any such.

6 Mr. Maneatis and I discussed the thrust of some of the 7 comments that were made about the' draft report, marginal 8 comments and so on and he and I have agreed that the company 9 should proceed and have a review made of those comments 10 and the identification of whether any of those comments re-11 ~sulted in any change in Dr. Cloud's report -- that review, 12 as far as I know is still going on. I have no conclusions t

13 from it. I'd be very surprised if there would.bemany change

(" 14 in Dr. Cloud's report resulting from anythin'g but a. change

. 15 in-the factual basis that he reported.

16 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Do you have any idea when

, g 17 the completion of this study you just referenced may be l

, 18 completed?

.j 19 MR. SHACKELFORD: Not today, no.

i

! MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Shackelford, do you know 20 a

f d 21 f any conscious pre-arranged plan written or otherwise, t

i E

22 for PG&E employees and this is while attending meetings 23 with the NRC employees, to limit or otherwise constrain 24 their-responses to NRC questions?

k 25 MR. SHACKELFORD: No.

365-

- - - ,-w,,. - - - - -

-w - - w- m.- -e *- +-- m

I MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Shackelford, if you'll 2 bear with me, I want to go back again to the November 3rd

{n 3 meeting.

4 This question may sound somewhat like a repetition 5 of a question I asked previously, but I think we want to 6 see if we can get the total picture here and on record.

7 At that November 3rd, 1981 meeting, both Mr.

8 Norton and Mr. Maneatis implied that PG&E had not received 1 9 any reports on Dr. Cloud's work. These comments, 1

i 10 like I said previously, are contained in pages 215 through 11 218 of the transcript.of that meeting.

12 Now, do you recall hearing that discussion, 13 Mr. Shackelford?

(~,

14 MR. SHACKELFORD: Yes, I do. It went by very

, 15 fast I must say.

16 MR. FAULKENBERRY: At the time that you heard g 17 this discussion, were you aware that possible erroneous i

g 18 information was being provided to the NRC?

a j 19 MR. SHACKELFORD: No., I believe I stated that a

2 j 20 I was unaware that any material had been at PG&E. I i  :

$ 21 would suggest also that even had I been aware that that

! 22 material-had. been here, I'm not sure in the context 23 of that meeting I would have construed the answers as 24 being incorrect. What we had was not a report. What

- 25 we had was work papers of the engineer we were checking for

-366-

[

I factual accuracy.

~

g 2 MR. FAULKENBERRY: So you would have construed 1

~~

3 the conversation to be directed toward the final draft.

I 4 report versus any intermediate draft reports?

I 5 MR. SHACKELFORD: As I recall the discussion 6 at the meeting, Dr. Cloud had completed an' oral presentation i

7 of the conclusions he had reached at that point.

8 At that point it was basically new information 9 to me.

i 10 As I recall, the question was then, how soon, 11 Dr. Cloud, will you have your report. I recall he said i

i 12 in a week or two weeks he expected to have it completed.

13 The~ discussion went'on from there.

t k Mr. Shackelford, that's the

! 14 MR. FAULKENBERRY:

15 extent of the questions that-I have.

16 Owen, do you have anything you want to add?

17 MR. SHACKLETON: No, I have no further questions.

- 18 Mr. Shackelford, do you have any additional j is remarks you'd like e make?

! 20 MR. SHACKELFORD: No, not at this time.

1 8

4 t

3 21 MR. SHACKLETON

Thank you very much, sir, 2 ,

2 22 for being present and assisting us in this investigation.

We will now go off the record. The time is 3:29 p.m.

23 24 Off the record.

1 ,

D '25 ///

- 367-

. . _ .