ML20040D420

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Transcript of Util Testimony by JB Hoch on 811228 in San Francisco,Ca.Pp 456-471
ML20040D420
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon  Pacific Gas & Electric icon.png
Issue date: 12/28/1981
From: Hoch J
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML17083A976 List:
References
NUDOCS 8202010277
Download: ML20040D420 (15)
v • d • e


Text

~

C.? '

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO:1 MISSION 3 INVESTIGATION OF 4 DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 & 2 5 INTERVIEW OF 6 JOHN B. HOCH 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 13 k-14 15 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 16 pursuant to notice at 17 APPEARANCES:

g 3 18 On behalf of the NRC Staff:

3 19 OWEN C. SHACKLETON, JR., Moderator

B. H. PAULKENBERRY j 20 i

!; 21 d 22 3

@ 23 24 25 l.

s..

8202010277 820127 PDR ADOCK 05000275 456-G PDR

ERRATA SHEET Interview of John B. Hoch, December 28, 1981 The following corrections should be made:

Page 458, Line 4 - Change manager to Manager.

Page 458, Line 5 - Change nuclear projects to Nuclear Projects. _'

Page 459, Line 13 - Change manager, nuclear projects to Manager, Nuclear Projects.

Page 466, Line 4 - Change course speaking to read course be speaking.

Page 466, Line 9 - Change entire line to read: kind of to myself after the fact by saying, that -- well, that.

Page 470, Line 10 - Change teh to the.

The above corrections were identified by John B. Hoch and Bobby H. Faulkenberry.

-457-

E

.,l l EEEEEEE1EEE 2 MR. SHACKLETON: On the record. This is December 3 28, 1981. The time is now 6:03 p.m.

4 This is an interview of Mr. John B. Hoch, manager, 5 nuclear projects for the Pacific Gas & Electric Company. This 6 interview is taking place in Room 3101 of the corporate 7 headquarters of Pacific Gas & Electric Company at 77 Beale 8 Street, San Francisco, California.

9 The purpose of conducting this interview of Mr.

10 Hoch is part of the investigation being conducted by the 11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop the facts and 12 happenings surrounding the present reverification program 13 of the seismic design of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.

(,^

14 In addition to Mr. Hoch being present, from the U.S. Nuclear 15 Regulatory Commission, Region Five, Mr. Bobby H. Faulkenberry, n; chief of reactor construction, projects branch, will be con-s 17 ducting the questions. My name is Owen C. Shackleton, Jr., and

18 I am a senior investigator assigned to Region Five.

I j 19 Mr. Hoch, prior to our going on record, I advised you i

! 20 that you have the right to have your personal legal counsel a

21 present. Do you so waive that right?

i  :

a 22 MR. HOCH: I do.

MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you. Will you please stand 23 4

24 for the oath?

\

25 ///

-458-

i Whereupon, 2 JOHN B. HOCH

(:gs 3 having been first duly sworn,-was called as a witness herein, 4 and was examined and tertified as follows.-

5 MR. SHACKLETON: Mr. Hoch, I would ask of you please 6 to keep your testimony given here today confidential. Is.that 7 understood?

8 MR. HOCH: That's understood.

9 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you.. Mr. Faulkenberry?

10 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Hoch, for the record, would 11 you please state your position with the Pacific Gas and 12 Electric Company?

i 13 MR. HOCH: I'm manager, nuclear projects.

14 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Hoch, did you attend both 15 the October 9th and the November 3rd, 1981. meetings with the 16 NRC at Bethesda, Maryland?

17 MR. HOCH: I did.

g 18 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Hoch, it has been determined 5

j 19 that four separate draft reports of Dr. Cloud's work were i

20 submitted to PG&E. These draft reports were submitted to l

21 PG&E on the approximate dates of October the 21st, October i

22 the 26th, November the6th, and November the 12th, 1981. Now 23 my question is prior to the November the 3rd, 1981 meeting, 24 were you aware that PG&E had received the October 21st and 25 October 26th draft reports from Dr. Cloud?

4

-459-i i

~ -, ., , , , , - - - - - , - -

1 MR..HOCH: I was aware that Dr. Cloud had furnished 2 to PG&E a' draft report. I was not aware there had been more 3 than one version, but I knew he had furnished to PG&E a draft 4 interim report prior to the November 3rd meeting..

5 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Had you seen that draft report?

6 MR. HOCH: No, I hadn't reviewed it. I don't think 7 I had seen it at all. In other words, I hadn't read through 8 it. I don't think I had physically seen it.

9' MR. FAULKENBERRY: Okay. So you had not seen the 10 draft report that you're referring to prior to the November 11 3rd meeting?

12 MR. HOCII: That's right.

13 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Do you recall how you were aware

(" 14 of the fact that it was in house?

15 MR. HOCH: My recollection is that we were asked 16

-- I believe by Jim Rocca about -- I believe I was asked j ..

17 whether I wanted to be on the distribution list to comment on g

- 18 such a report. I'm not sure that's the way_I was aware of it,

ig or whether I was aware of it just by someone saying we had a a

I 20 report from Dr. Cloud in house. I didn't review the report-a

$ and I didn't comment on the report. It's hard to recall the 21 e

22 ex ct way I became aware of it, but I was aware that we had in house a draft interim report from Dr. Cloud.

23 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Hoch, while at the November 24

(. 25 the 3rd, 1981 meeting, did you hear the statements made by

-460-

.1 Mr. Maneatis, Mr. Norton, and Dr. Cloud regarding Dr.~ Cloud's 2 draft reports as identified on pages 215 through 218 of the 3 transcript of the November the 3rd meeting?

4 MR. HOCH: Yes. I heard those statements.

5 MR. FAULKENBERRY: While at.the meeting-when you 6

heard these statements, did you consider these s tatements to 7 either be possibly misleading.or erroneous statements to the 8 NRC?

9 MR. HOCH: Yes, I did.

10 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Did you make any of your manage-11 ment aware of the fact that these statements'could possibly 12 have been misleading or erroneous? Either at the meeting or 13 any time thereafter?

{ ! 14 MR. HOCH: No.

15 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Could you explain to us why you 16 did not?

g 17 MR. HOCH: At the -- during the meeting, at the

- 18 October 3rd meeting, Iwas a -- I guess I would call it a i

j 19 peripheral participant. I wasn't at the table with the rest i

20 of the speakers and didn't have a microphone. I guess my --

l r 21 I'm trying to reconstruct my thoughts at the time. And I i

8 22 gu ss my thoughts at the time were either I was mistaken about 23 the context, the meaning of what ~was being referred to as the 24

-- I think in a couple of instances, this was called -- I

- (.; 25- think by Mr. Denton -- the interim report. Either I was mistaken

-461-

I about what was being referred to when_everybody else under-2 stood, but I didn't, and they'were talking about the report --

3 a report or a version of the report that was in final form to 4 go to the NRC. Either that was the case or I expected someone 5 else to correct Mr. Norton, Mr. Maneatis as to the status of 6 the report. Because .at the time -- Iwas aware at the ' time 7 that quite probably neither of them, and in particular I was 8 quite certain that Mr. Norton didn't know of the existence of 9 the report and -- it's hard to reconstruct.

I 10 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Well, Mr. Hoch, while you were at 11 the meeting, and when you heard the statements made by Mr.

12 Maneatis, Mr. Norton and Dr. Cloud, could you explain to us 13 why you did not inform them at the. time that they had possibly j4 made erroneous statements?

15 MR. HOCH: Well, I really can't other than what I've 16 said about. being a peripheral participant rather than being i

17 at the table. So really not feeling that I had the opportunity g

j 18 as this dialogue was going on. To speak up and say, hey, g

a j 19 there is a report in house you gentlemen may or may not be i

20 aware of that certainly could be interpreted as being the i

l.

interim report that's being discussed here. And it's being f 21 3

'

  • discussed as if it doesn't exist as yet when in fact it's my 22 23 impression that it is in hou: e and it is being reviewed by 24 PG&E. I guess I'm trying to explain that because of my role t
k. 25 or lack of it in the meeting, I didn't speak up in the meeting.

l

-462-I

. . ~ . _ . - - - - . . _ . . - - , - - -

- ~ _

i 1 At the conclusion of the meeting,-people broke up'and went 2 their. separate ways, and I -- I guess the only excuse I have 3 is that didn't enter my mind again to make any comments to 4 anybody about the potential confusion or misleading nature of 5 the statements that were made.

9 j HR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Hoch, did you receive a copy b

7 of the transcript of the November the 3rd meeting after the 8 I meeting?

9 MR. HOCH: Yes, yes.

10 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Could you tell us approximately 11 when you did receive a copy of that?

12 MR. HOCH: If I could look at -- I guess'if I could 13 look at the transmittal from the law department, I could tell 34 you exactly, but my guess is that it was oh a week or more foll wing the meeting. I'm not certain. It was distributed 15

! 16 o us by the law department.

g 17 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Did you_ review the transcript

- 18 after you received it?

3 j 19 MR. HOCH: Not formally, no. I didn't' review it for r

i i

a 20 errors or give it any formal review. It was. furnished to me

! 21 and I had occasion to look at it and read it but I didn't 22 review it for -- didn't do any formal review of it.

23 sir. FAULKENBERRY: Okay. Did you perchance during 24 that period say two to three weeks after the meeting when you 25 had the transcript, did you perchance see or review pages

-463-

1 215 through 218 and see the statements.made?

2 MR..HOCH
No, not until the controversy came up

.g

.?

3 concerning comments made by_PG&E did I then goi.to the.transcrip :

4 and look at those pages.

5 MR. FAULKENBERY: And when -- what time frame would 6 that have been?

7 MR. HOCH: I can't pin down a date, but it was the 8 -- there was a newspaper story published -- I can't even come 9 close to giving you a date. It's been three weeks ago now, 10 I guess, something like that.

11 MR._FAULKENBERRY: Okay. You're saying in the 12 December time frame.

13 MR. HOCH: Yes, when it became common knowledge 34 that there was -- that a controversy had developed over the comments. I think the first -- my first knowledge of that 15 16 controversy was when the newspaper article was published, a nd 1  :

37 at that time because of the concern.about both the subject of 8

! 18 commenting and whether we'd -- whether there was something i

said in the November 3rd meeting that was in conflict with

! i 19 a

l l fa ts, I got the transcript down and it only took me a couple 20 a

of minutes to find the pages. I remembered the statements

( { g i: being made. But there hadn't been anything in the meantime, g

between the meeting and the controversy that developed over 23 I

the comments on the Cloud interim report that provided any g

1 reason to review the transcript. That was the first thing 25 i

-464-I

1 that triggered the review of the transcript on my part.

gy.s 2 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Hoch, I want to get back to 67 3 a previous question that I'd asked, and I'd like to explore-it 4 a little bit further. But with regard to-the. statements that 5 Mr. Norton and Mr. Maneatis, and Dr. Cloud made regarding 6 Dr. Cloud's report, at any time during the meeting or duking 7 the lunch break at the meeting, did you at'any time have 8 conversation with Mr. Norton or Mr. Mancatis or Dr. Cloud 9 and mention --

in MR. HOCH: Only with Bruce. I did speak with Mr.

11 Norton about a statement he had made earlier about Cloud's 12 - previous involvement with PG&E. Ana Bruce had made a statement 13 in the transcript that Dr. Cloud hadn't worked.for PG&E 3'- 14 before. And at a break, I mentioned to Bruce, " Bruce, Dr.

15 Cloud has been employed by PG&E on work'related to our 16 seismic system interaction program and you ought to be aware of that." And Bruce did correct that. Mr. Norton corrected

{ j7

?

, -~ 18 that item in the transcript. But I didn't talk to him.at that i  !

j ig time about this other matter. And I guess I really don't a

j i 20 have a good reason why. Except that in trying to reconstruct a

d g it, particularly when I read Dr. Cloud's statement about the

!E g report, after Bruce -- afterMr. Norton -- I think there was

+

23 qu stion from Mr. Denton, Bruce referred the question to Dr. Cloud and said, well, let's let Dr. Cloud answer that.

g

(! And Dr. Cloud said sor.uthing .like he expected to have. the 25

-465-

1- report ready in a week or two, something.like that. In looking

.2 back over that, and trying to reconstruct what I was thinking 3 at the time, I guess as close as I can come to my thinking is, 4 oh, they must be of course speaking about a report that's 5 ready to submit to the NRC. Ready to submit in final form, 6 and that was my understanding of the kind-of timing that 7 people were talking about, about being ready to submit-that 8 interim report to the NRC, and -- I can explain this away 9 kind of in myself after the fact of saying, that -- well, that 10 might have allayed any concern I had about a potential mis-11 understanding or misrepresentation. Obviously, everybody else in the meeting but me was talkingabout the same thing. They 12 13 were talking about a final report and any concern I had f

h. g earlier about misinterpretation must have just been-my concern.

15

^ ' Y' ' * * *** *"U ' * *# Y *** * '

  • i reason that I didn't see fit to bring this up to Mr. Norton 16 when I obviously sought him out to tell him, hey you made this 37 statement that Dr. Cloud hasn't employed by PG&E before, and

- 18 you -- I'm sure you weren't aware of this, but he was. He has

) jg a

j 20 been employed, and we have a current -- an active contract g

s with him on our seismic system interaction program.

. 21 3

2 22 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Okay, Mr. Hoch, there were several 23 meetings held by PG&E representatives prior to the November 3rd 24 meeting at Bethesda. Specifically, I think they were held on c 25 Saturday, October the 31st, Sunday on November the 1st and

-466-

1 possibly even on Monday,. November the 2nd. Did you attend-

, (y-2 any of these meetings?

T. s ~

3 MR. HOCH: November 3rd was what day, Tuesday?

l 4 4 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Tuesday.

5 MR. HOCH: Yeah, we met Saturday and Sunday here at i- 6 PG&E. We flew on Monday. We met Monday. night in Bethesda

7 and we worked on the presentation for~ Tuesday well into the 8 night on Monday night. I was at all those meetings.-

9 MR. FAULKENBERRY: All three meetings?

10 MR. HOCH: Yes, i, -

l ij MR. FAULKENBERRY: Now at any time during your 12 attendance at these meetings, did you hear any conversations 13 by anyone in attendance at'the meetings with regard to draft 14 reports that Dr. Cloud had prepared and submitted to PG&E?

~

' MR. HOCH: I don't recall any conversation about that 15 i 16 at all. During the presentation or during the preparation on s

37 Monday night, Dr. Cloud did go through the material.that ne

/ 8

, - 18 subsequently presented on Tuesday during the Tuesday meeting, i  !

and he went through that presentation at the Monday night h 9 i a j meeting. But that's -- that's the only time I recall a dis-

.i - 20 j $

21 cussion of any findings, preliminary or otherwise by Dr. Cloud i it in relati n to the meeting preparation for the November 3rd j 22 i 23 m ting. Incidentally, that's another little bit of potential source of confusion about what is meant by an interim report and 24 what -- whether PG&E had an interim report. In looking at the l (- 25

-467-

1 transcript, it might -- well, it both confuses and

.-. 2 clarifies the issue. But it's very easy to.think..of the-

-('4?

3 report that Dr. Cloud made tnere at the meeting to the NRC as 4 being an interim report by. Cloud. And in rereading the tran-5 script and seeing particularly Mr. Maneatis' remarks, it's 6 apparent to.me that that's what he was. referring to when he 7

talked about Cloud's interim repott. He was talking about 8 the report which he was making there that day to the staff.

9 That's really obvious to me that that's what he meant.

u) But, to answer your question directly, I don't recall in any of 11 that preparation the subject of a draft or an interim report 12 being mentioned.

13 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Okay. Now, Mr. Hoch, any time 34 during the November the 3rd meeting, including the lunch break, 15 did you hear any conversations by any members from PG&E, anj 16 PG&E representatives, or anyone else, regarding the draft 17 reports that Dr. Cloud had submitted to PG&E?

h.

. p3 MR. HOCH: No, no. I'm sure if there had been such j p) conversations that it would have been -- it surely would have a

! 20 been made known to Mr. Norton that they existed, and he would 3

5 have corrected the transcript, but I'm sure there were none.

, 21 3

E MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Hoch, that's the extent of the 22 23 questions that I have. Owen, do you have anything to add?

MR. SHACKLETON: Just a couple. Mr. Hoch, to 24 is 25 refresh my memory, when Jim Rocca asked if you'd like to be --

-468-

1 or something to_the best of your recollection -- and I realize 2 it's not clear to you, explain that, but you thought possibly 3 one way you may have learned of the report, and I'm referring 4 to the October 21 draft, by Mr. Rocca asking if you wanted to 5 be on the distribution list. Did he ever speak to you again 6

concerning that report?

7 MR. HOCH: No, no. Nothing -- we had no comments 8

about any substance or any content of the report.

g MR. SHACKLETON: All right. Thank-you. Mr. Hoch, 10 is there anything you'd like to readdress or any additional 11 comments you'd like to make for the record.

]

MR. HOCH: I don't think so, except for the fact 12 that I -- you mentioned a number of different dates of draft 13 g reports from Dr. Cloud, a nd I guess - this was the first time 15 that I was aware that there was more than the October 21st draft interim report.

16 t

Yes, we mentioned the October j 97 MR. FAULKENBERRY:

i  :

the 21st, October 26th, November the 6th and November the 12th.

- 18 l $

,g The November 12th report was the one that was subsequently i a l

submitted to the NRC.

j 20 MR. HOCH: Was submitted, that's right. Yes, I was 5

21

! not aware -- until you mentioned it -- of the reports or ver-l sions that fell in between October 21st and the one that was

! 23 l I was, of course, involved with

' submitted on November 21st.

24 l -

the one that was submitted on the 21st because my people

(- 25 i

1 -469-l l

t l-L

1 were responsible for preparing a letter of transmittal s bmitting pg 2 that to the NRC.

3.7 3 MR. FAULKENBERRY: You mean the 21st or the 12th?

4 MR. HOCH: Excuse me, the 12th or the 18th? I wonder

)

4 5 why I have the 18th stuck in my mind.

6 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Okay. The report itself, the 7 draft report was dated November 12th. It was submitted under 8 a cover letter dated the 18th.

9 MR. HOCH: Okay. So the Hovember 12th version was n) submitted with the letter dated te' 18th is the other one that 11 I am familiar with besides the fact that there was a version 12 going back to October 21st. I wasn't aware that there were 13 any versions in between. .

U g MR. SHACKLETON: Okay. Mr. Hoch, in round numbers, 15 how many years have you been with Pacific Gas and Electric?

MK, HOCH: This will be my twentieth, this coming 16 year.

37 MR. SHACKLETON: Has it been a practice in the twenty

- 18 3

l j 39 years, approximately twenty years you've been with the company a

, i and particularly in your present position, in working with a

I $ consultants, to have draft reports submitted before a final

. 21 3

  • report?

MR. HOCH: Yes, certainly. I think that's the rule g

rather than the exception in all work I'm familiar with. One

(. w ul n t expect a consultant's report as furnished to be the 25

! -470-4

u. ~ - , , , , , s - - - - --- ,,-mer .-.,m -

,a ,-w.. -

- - - - ,e ,, ,y -. , - ,- --

i I final -- as originally furnished, to be the final version.

2 Simply because, for one thing, it would be unusual if there g

3 weren't factual or -- factual inaccuracies in the first version

~

- 4 of a report. Particularly one done by an outside agency 5 looking-at -- something similar to Dr. Cloud's report --

6 looking into the operations of PG&E and examining -- drawing i 7 conclusions from records they looked at. It would be an 8 exception, I P.thi nk , to the rule if you hadn't asked for a 9 draft report or a preliminary report with the express intent 10 to make comments, to indicate corrections that should be 11 made to it before it's made final.

12 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you. I have no additional 13 questions. Mr. Hoch, do you have anything additional, sir?

k" 14' MR. HOCH: No.

15 MR. SHACKLETON: All right. At this time, we'll go 16 off record, and the time is 6:27 p.m.

17 (Whereupon, at 6:27 p.m., the interview with Mr.

g Hoch was concluded.)

~

18 John B.

I i

l j 20 o'

, j 21 i i 22 i

23 24 25

-471-o < - -- . . . . . ~ . . e.~.,,,. .. _ _ n

-+ - - -- , - - - - - p +, --- - . - - --

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20040D420&oldid=2584252"