ML20040D426

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Transcript of Util Testimony by MR Tresler on 811230 in San Francisco,Ca.Pp 484-506
ML20040D426
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon  Pacific Gas & Electric icon.png
Issue date: 12/30/1981
From: Tresler M
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML17083A976 List:
References
NUDOCS 8202010284
Download: ML20040D426 (22)
v • d • e


Text

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COfiMISSION 3 INVESTIGATION OF 4 DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 & 2 5 INTERVIEW OF 6 MICi!AEL R. TRESLER 8

9 Pacific Gas & Electric Headquarters Offices 10 Law Department Conference Room 77 Beale Street 11 San Francisco, California 12 Wednesday, December 30, 1981 13

(. 14 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 15 pursuant to notice at 10:07 a.m.

16 APPEARANCES:

g 17 On behalf of the NRC Staff:

18 OWEN C. SHACKLETON, JR., Moderator l~

B.H. FAULKENBERRY 19 j 20 i

'E 21 i 3 l f- 22

s

!. l 23 24 25

-484-8202010204 820127 PDR ADOCK 050002{g G

Ac-

t ERRATA SHEET Interview of Michael R. Tressler, December 30, 1981 The following corrections should be made:

Page 496, Lines 18 Change entire sentence to read: The comment that I made on the draft I received was that before conclusions be drawn by Cloud, potentially based on incomplete data submitted by PG&E or an incomplete review by Dr. Cloud,-I requested the opportunity to provide the missing information.

The above corrections were identified by Michael R. Tressler and Bobby H. Faulkenberry.

4

-485- -

N 1

_P _R _O _C E_ _E _D _I.N __ G _E 2

10:07 a.m.

3 MR.'SHACKLETON: On the record.

4 This is December 30th, 1981. The time is j 5 now 10:07 a.m.

6 This is an interview of Mr. Michael R. Tresler, 7 add Mr. Tresler's position with PG&E is the Diablo Canyon 8 Supervising Piping Coordinator.

9 He has been with Pacific Gas and Electric l

to Company for 17- years.

11 The purpose of this interview is part of 12 the investigation presently being conducted by the 13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, concerning the 14 facts and happenings surrounding the present reverifica-15 tion program of the seismic design of the Diablo Canyon 16 Nuclear Power Plant that is being conducted by PG&E.

g 17 In addition to Mr. Tresler, present from the l 18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region 5, is 19 Mr. Bobby H. Faulkenberry, Chief of Reactor Construction g

j 20 Projects Branch and my name is Owen C. Shackleton, Jr.

a l 21 I am a Senior Investigator assigned to Region 5.

a f 22 This interview is being conducted in room 3101 i

g 23 of the corporate headquarters of PG&E at 77 Beale Street, 24 San Francisco, California.

25 Mr. Tresler, prior to going on record, I discussed i

1

-486-r . .

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

d I with you and you were also advised by your corporate i

2 legal counsel, that you have the right to have your 3 private legal counsel present during the course of this 4 interview. _

5 Do you waive that right?

6 MR. TRESLER: Yes, I do.

7 MR. SIIACKLETON : Thank you.

8 I would also ask of you, Mr. Tresler, that 9 you keep the testimony you are about to give to the 10 Commission confidential.

11 Is that understood?

1 12 MR. TRESLER: That's correct, yes, I understand.

13 MR. SHACKLETON: 'Thank'you. Would you please

k. '

14 rise for. the oath?

15 Whereupon, 16 MICIIAEL R. TRESLER l

g 17 having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness

, j 18 herein and was examined and testified as follows:

i 19 MR. SilACKLETON : Please be seated.

t j 20 Now, Mr. Paulkenberry will conduct the a

l' a

21 questionning.

f 22 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Tresler, for the 2

l 23 record, would you please state your position with 24 Pacific Gas and Electric Company?

25 MR. TRESLER: I am the Diablo Canyon Supervising

(.

> s

-487-l

i -

1 Piping Coordinator.

2 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Tresler, did you attend 3 both the October the 9th and November the 3rd meetings 4 that were held between PG&E and the NRC at Bethesda, 5 Maryland?-

l 6 MR. TRESLER: Yes, I did.  ;

7 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Tresler, it has been 8 determined that four separate draft reports of Dr. Cloud's 9 work were submitted to PG&E.

10 These draft reports were submitted to PG&E 11 on the approximate dates of October 21st, October 26th, 12 November 6th and November 12, 1981.

13 My question is, prior to the November 3rd k,'

l-4 meeting at Bethesda, were you aware that PG&E had 15 received either the October 21st or October 26th draf t l 16 reports from Dr. Cloud?

g 17 MR. TRESLER: I believe I was aware of the l 18 receipt by the company of the first draft but as I sit g 19 here now, I can't recall if I looked at those drafts s

j 20 before or af ter the meetings in Bethesda.

i

! 21 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Tresler, to the best a

f 22 of your knowledge then, did you actually see either a

! 23 the October 21st or October 26th draf t prior to the 24 November 3rd meeting and if you did see either one, 25 did jou review or comment on either draf t?

-488-L' .

61 v- 1 MR. TRESLER: Again, I don't recall whether 2 or not I reviewed the draf t before or after the meeting 3 t hat we' re talking about.

4 I do know that I reviewed a portion of the 5 first Cloud draft.

6 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Do you know whether that 7 review was conducted prior to the meeting or after the 8 meeting?

9 MR. TRESLER: I don't recall.

10 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Did you make any comments 11 on the particular draft?

12 MR. TRESLER: Yes, I did.

13 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Did you send those comments

( 14 b ack to Mr. Rocca or Dr. Cloud through Mr. Rocca?

15 MR. TRESLER: I sent my comments to Mr. Rocca.

16 I don't know that they were forwarded to Dr. Cloud.

, 17 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Were you comments documented i

f j 18 on draft reports -- were they handwritten comments or 3 19 Provided under separate cover?

, =

j j 20 MR. TRESLER: Okay,'ruy comments were both

i la 21 written on a copy of the draft as well as oral comments f 22 directly to Mr. Rocca.

I MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Tresler, while at the j 23 24 b November 3rd, 1981 meeting, did you hear the statements 25 made by Mr. Maneatis, Mr. Norton and Dr. Cloud as regarding i

k.

l -489-t ,

t

4

('IN' i Dr. Cloud's draf t reports as identified on pages 215, to 2

218 of the transcript of the November the 3rd meeting?

3 MR. TRESLER: Yes, I did.

MR. FAULKENBERRY: While at the meeting on 5

November 3rd and hearing the statements made by Mr. Norton, 6

Mr. Maneatis and Dr. Cloud, in your own mind, at the time

! 7 you heard these statements, did you consider these statements i 8 to be possibly erroneous or misleading to the NRC?

9 MR. TRESLER: No. I did not.

10 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Could you explain why you 11 did not consider these statements to be misleading or 12 erroneous based upon the fact that you knew a draft report j

13 was-sithin PG&E at the time the meeting was being conducted?

4 k.. 14 i

MR. TRESLER: Again, I really don't recall 15 whether or not I had access to the Cloud draft prior to 16 the November 3rd meeting.

j 17 I do recall looking at it but again, I don't l 18 recall whether it was before or af ter the meeting and I 19 l

l don't remember being surprised or concerned about the

! j 20 s tatements made by Maneatis, Cloud or Norton during the i

j 21 meeting.

j f 22 MR. FAULKENb2RRY: Mr. Tresler, a few moments I

j 23 ago, you reviewed the conversations that took place at

24 the November 3rd' neeting as identified on pages 215 through 25 218 of the transcript.

b"

-490-6 4 D h .' # 4-M I I 'y q A 4 ., iO , ,,Kg % .I g *E .

g* g redo 4 4 af4 h.Mh hkY (h ,k dMMMM$W

, nn-..- - - o - ,. - g

-,---..'----,- ,e

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ = _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ - _ .

o hi, 1 Based upon what you just reviewed,-if you had 2 been aware of the draf t report being provided to PG&E 3 prior to the November 3rd meeting, do you think you 4 would have considered those to be erroneous statements?

5 MR. TRESLER: No, I think those statements 6 probably -- I would consider them to be reasonable statemento .

7 I do recall the document that I locked at which 8 was generated by Cloud and forwarded to the company .

9 The part of the report that I looked at was to that which pertained to the piping design and construction 11 which I have responsibility for.

12 I1 ked at that document which we' re calling 13 a draft report and maybe.that's what it was even called k_ on'.theahead sheet.

14 15 I didn't see the head sheet.

16 But I looked at it as essentially as findings

- 17 to date that were being documented by Cloud and I reviewed' j 18 th&Jdocument to make sure that we, the company, had provided g 19 h im with the necessary information in order to address the j 20 s'ubjects that he was addressing in that report.

21 The report was generated over a very short--

i based on a very short period of review of PG&E documentation f 22

!g 23 calculations and so on and I had a concern that it was 24 being done at such a rate that some items might be missed 25 which could allow for conclusions to be drawn which are in

(

-491-w, . + = .

k31 1 error and it was based on that philosophy or attitude that 2 I reviewed that portion of the report directed to piping.

3 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Tresler, prior to the 4 November 3rd meeting between PG&E and the NRC at Bethesda, 5 there were several meetings held by PG&E representatives 6 as " pre-conference meetings" and these meetings were 7 held, I believe on Saturday October 31st and Sunday, 8 November 1st and Monday, November 2nd.

9 Did you attend any or all of these meetings?

10 MR. TRESLER: I attended all of the meetings 11 intermittently, in and out.

12 MR. FAULKENBERRY: While at these meetings, 13 did you hear any conversations by anyone regarding the k

14 draft reports that Dr. Cloud had submitted to PG&E?

15 MR. TRESLER: I don't recall any comments 16 on the draft reports prepared by Cloud.

g 17 The comments I recall being made were instead l 18 directed towards his presentation of the information or g 19 p ractice, presentation, which was to be given November 3rd.

3 j 20 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Tresler, at any time fa 21 during the November the 3rd meeting at Bethesda, including f 22 the period during the lunch break, did you hear any l 23 conversations by anyone with regard to the draf t reports 24 that Dr. Cloud had submitted to t he NRC?

25 MR. TRESLER: You' re asking me during the J unch

-492-

' I break?

2 MR. FAULKENBERRY: At any time during the meeting 3 that day of November the 3rd, including the lunch breaks?

4 MR. TRESLER: No, I heard comments following.

5 the meeting but none prior to conclusion of the meeting.

6 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Could you relate to us 7 the comments that you heard following the meeting as 8 related to the draft reports?

9 MR. TRESLER
Jim Rocca and I discussed to the presentation made that day and Jim expressed some 11 concern over the comment that Mr. Norton made indicating 12 that we had not reviewed any draft reports from Cloud 13 or received draft reports from Cloud.

14 Jim seemed to be concerned about that comment 15 because he did recall that we had received such a report 16 or draft.

g 17 MR. FAULKENBERRY: MR. Tresler, based upon l 18 your conversation with Mr. Rocca and your being present i 19 at the November 3rd meeting, did you in,your own mind s

j 20 consider then that Mr. Norton or Mr. Maneatis may have i

21 made some misleading statements to the NRC?

a

, f 22 MR. TRESLER: I guess I and I told Jim Rocca l t .

l l 23 this when I talked with him. I really didn't consider-24 the statements to be misleading in that again, I considered 25 the work that Cloud was doing at that point in time to be

?

l

-493-

~.

(ih*' 1

. preliminary and anything that he was icoming up with that 2 we looked at were findings and I felt it was absolutely 3 n ecessary that the company participate in some limited 4 degree with Cloud in his review to assure that he had 5 access to the information that he required to perform 6 hbt review.

7 I feel that way today.

8 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Tresle r , did anytime 9 after conversations with Mr. Rocca, did you relay to 10 any of your management the conversation that you had or 11 the fact that'Mr. Rocca had concerns that possibly 12 i nformation provided to the NRC had been misleading?

13 MR. TRESLER: No, I did not discuss that with k.'

14 management other than Mr. Rocca.

15 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Tresler, do you have 16 any knowledge of whether or not Mr. Rocca relayed his 17 concerns to anyone else within PG&E other than yourself?

i l 18 MR. TRESLER: I believe he did but I can't i 19 be certain. I was not involved in the conversations

=

j 20 and have no first-hand knowledge of such conversations.

'i

! 21 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Okay, Mr. Tresler, that's a

f 22 t he extent of the questions I have.

g- 23 Owen do you have anything to add?

24 MR. SHACKLETON: Yes, thank you.

25 Mr. Tresler, you state that you recall that you

-494-

hh I did see_ ore of the drafts and that you did make comments 2 concerning the section that must have addressed the-3 piping at the Diablo plant.

4 Have you seen the final or the interim--it's 5 commonly referred to as the interim report from Dr. Cloud 6 t hat was issued after the November 3rd meeting?

7 MR. TRESLER: I believe there's been two 8 issued since November 3rd, although I'm not certain g because I've only seen one, n) 11R . SHACKLETON: Which report did you see?

11 Do you recall the date of it's issuance?

12 MR. TRESLER: No, I don't.

. 13 MR. SHACKLETON: Did you have an opportunity 14 to examine this report?

15 MR. TRESLER: Yes.

16 MR. SHACKLETON: Did you read the section

- 17 that addressed your area of responsibility?

! 18 MR. TRESLER: Yes.

g 19 MR. SHACKLETON: Do you recall whether or not s

-j 20 any of the comments or recommendations you made-to Mr. Rocca a

la 21 either in writing or orally were incorporated in that J 22 report?

23 MR. TRESLER: Now again, we're talkingabout 24 a report that was issued after November 3rd?

25 MR. SHACKLETON : Yes, sir.

I

-495- * . . . . -

w -1w y -

m y .-y-- , ,. - - - - ---

($- 1 MR. TRESLER: I made no comments on it.

2 I made no comments on the second or third draf t report.

3 The only comment that I made was on the first 4

draft report or summary of findings, whatever you want 5 to call it.

6 MR. SHACKLETON:

What I am getting to, Mr.

7 Tresler, is the report' that was dated, Bobby, November 6th?

8 MR. FAULKENBERRY: There we re two reports 9 af ter November 3rd. The fi rst af ter November 3rd was 10 dated November 6th. The second was dated November 12th.

l 11 The November the 12th report was the one that was actually l

12 s ubmitted to the NRC; 13 MR. SHACKLETON: That;s the report I'm talking

k. 14 - - .

~ bout, Mr. Tresler.

a I'm interested in knowing whether or 15 not you were able to decipher whether or not any of the 16 recommendation _s you made or comments made to Mr. Rocca j were incorporated in that report?

5 18 MR. TRESLER: Okay, the comment that I made

! on the draf t hhe draft that I reviewed was that before 20 k

conclusions be drawn by Cloud, the information was not 21 available in order to review some aspect of the plant 22 or information was not available -- as an example, assignments 23 of work to specific consultants to PG&E, that I be given 24 the opportunity to provide that information that was missing.

25 As a result of that . comment, Cloud's organization

-4 96-v .c3 :, .a. ,~ ~ u . . . . - ,. ...,.v., . . , . . . , . _ . , . . . _ _ _ , , ,

J

L:

( 1 did make a request for information on assignments to 2

a consultant. We made those files available to Cloud's 3

representative auditor and as a result of that, I believe 4

the words in the f.inal report were changed.

5 It was not -- I provided no change in wording 6 but instead distinctly asked for' the 3 opportunity to 7 provide documentation on an issue that Cloud was addressing.

8 He came in and reviewed that documentation and as a result, 9 modified the wording of one of the paragraphs in the report.

10 MR. SHACKLETON: Mr. Tresler, can you recall, 11 and I realize I'm putting you on the spot without 12 reference having a document to refer to, but can you

. 13 De specific as to the subject matter that was changed?

14 The paragraph you just referred to?

15 MR. TRESLER: There was a paragraph which 16 indicated that very little if any evidence existed of j 17 assignments of work or correspondence between -- it was l 18 either EES or EDS, both of which were piping group i

i 19 consultants.

! j 20 The files -- apparently the files that i

! 21 Cloud had reviewed didn't contain any of this correspondence

a f 22 he was looring for, although other files within our I

I j 23 organization did contain that information.

24 I made his organization aware of those files.

25 They came in, found evidence of a substantial amount of i

-497-

1 corresponden ce, and as a result, modified the statement 2

to indicate that there was a higher level of correspondence 3 available with t. hose consultants than with Blume.

4 MR. SHACKLETON: For the record, Mr. Tresler,

-5 you referred to thest companies which are common in 6 the . nuclear industry by their letters.

7 Would you please, if you know their full names, 8 @ive'.their full names?

9 l

l MR. TRES LER: EES is Earthquake Engineering 10 Services.

l 11 EDS is Engineering Design Services.

12 MR. SHACKLETON : And the last company you

,, 13 referred to was -- is that URS/Blume & Associates?

14 MR. TRESLER: That's correct.

15 MR. SHACKLETON: Mr. Tresler, in your testimony 16 i n addressing what transpired af ter the meeting or after 17 the lunch hour on November 3rd when you were talking l 18 with James Rocca concerning Mr. Rocca's concerns that i

a 19 Bruce Norton, the private counsel for the company j 20 had made reference that the company had not yet received i

21 t he report from Dr. Cloud, do you recall whether or

$ 22 not Mr. Rocca mentioned going and discussing this with t

l 23 Mr. Norton?

4 24 MR. TRESLER: Just for the record, the 25 conversation I had witn Rocca occurred af ter the meeting on 4

-498-

. l

(%

N s" 1 an_ airplane back to San Francisco.

1 j 2 MR. SHACKLETON: Okay, thank you.

3 MR. TRESLER: Secondly, I have no knowledge 4 of Mr. Rocca discussing this with Mr. Norton.

5 In fact, I doubt that he did. I believe 6 'we were on separate planes.

l 7 MR. SHACFLETON: Did he suggest or make i

8 comments that he should call or talk to Mr. Norton 9 concerning this matter?

10 MR. TRESLER: He made no such comment to 11 me.

12 MR. SHACKLETON : Fine, I thank you.

. 13 I have no further questions.

14 Bobby?

15 (Brief pause.)

i f 16 MR. SHACKLETON: Mr. Tresler, we thank'you 17 v ery much for your presence and we'll now go off record.

! l 18 The time is 10:29 a.m.

g 19 (Whereupon, at 10:29 a.m., the interview of a

j 20 Mr. Michael R. Tresler was concluded.)

i 2 21 i

f 22 t-j 23 24

-25 l

-499-t ' ,,

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 INVESTIGATION.OF 4 DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 ;& 2 5 INTERVIEW OF 6 MICHAEL R. TRESLER

^

7 8

9 Pacific Gas & Electric Headquarters Offices 10 Law Department Conference Room 77 Beale Street 11 San Francisco, California 12 Wednesday, December 30th, 1981

, 13 14 The above-entitled matter came on for further 15 hearing, pursuant to notice at 1:02 p.m.

16 APPEARANCES:

g 17 On behalf of the NRC Staff:

-l 18 OWEN C. SHACKLETON, Jr., Moderator g 19 B. H. FAULKENBERRY c

j 20 i

l 3

21 f 22 I

j 23 24 25

-500-

i r

A i' ERRATA SHEET Interview of Michael R. Tressler, December 30, 1981 The following corrections should be made:

1

! Page 503, Line 24 - Insert MR. FAULKENBERRY: _ at the beginning of the line i as the speaker.

l Page 505, Line 17 - Change itw to with.

1 4

! The above corrections were identified by Michael R. Tresler and Bobby H. Faulkenberry.

l 1

i I

! -501-l

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

( 1

_P _RiO _C _E _E _D _I _N _G _S 2

1:02 p.m.

3 MR. SHACKLETON: On the record.

4 This is December 30, 1981. The time is 1:01 p.m.

5 This is continuition of the interview of Mr. Michael R.

6 Trosler, Diablo Canyon Supervising Pipe Coordinator for 7 PG&E, 8 Presdnt: conducting the interview from the 9

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is Mr. Bobby H.

10 Faulkenberry and my name is Owen C. Shackleton, Jr.,.

11 Senior Investigator, both of us from the NRC are from 12 Region 5.

, 13 Mr. Tresler, do you understand sir, that you 14 are still under oath? "

15 MR. TRESLER: Yes, I do.

16 MR. SHACKLETON: And do you also understand j 17 sir, that you still have the right to have private ' counsel 18

~

-! p resent and do you waive that right?

19 MR. TRESLER: I waive that right.

j 20 MR. SHACKLETON : Thank you.

a 21 We will continue then, with the questionning, l f f 22 Mr. Paulkenberry.

I j 23 Whereupon, 24 MICHAEL R. TRESLER 25 having been previously duly sworn, was recalled as a witness k.~

-502-ew - w -.e . .-. + .-c,- p.--- -w#.-, ,,,,_-r

l

[

E I and was. examined and testified es follows:

2 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Tresler, in your 3 earlier testimony, you indicated that you rode back 4 on the airplane from the November the 3rd meeting with 5 the NRC with Mr. Rocca.

6 You also indicated that during the course of 7 the airplane flight, you had conversations with Mr. Rocca 8 with regard to some of Mr. Norton's statements at the 9 meeting.

10 Could you please explain to us as. accurately 11 and in as much detail as possible, the conversation that 12 took place between you and Mr. Rocca?

13 MR. TRESLER: Mr. Rocca. indicated to me

(.. 14 a concern for the accuracy for statements made by Mr.

15 Bruce Norton.

16 He indicated that he did have knowledge of 17 having received a draft or preliminary-report from Cloud l 18 which was contrary to the statements made by Mr. Norton g 19 in the meeting that day with the NRC.

j 20 He didn't really elaborate on it other than J

la 21 to say he felt that those statements were misleading.

f 22 Misleading is an interpretation on my part.

s j 23 I don't recall whether he used that specific word.

24 During the course of-that conversation, did 25 Mr. Rocca in anyway say that he was going to or he felt like h'

-503-

..az e w % i . A a...s % w , - . r ., ., .o .

, , m . _ m . . ., % _..,..__,,,_._mA

l t

(( "^ 1 he should make he should make his upper management aware 2 of possible misinformation?

3 MR. TRESLER: I don't believe he indicated a 4' feeling that he should or shouldn't, either way to me, 5 during the flight.

6 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Tresler, I will show 7 you a statement made by Mr. Norton.

8 It is contained on pages 216 and 217 of the S November the 3rd meeting transcript.

10 I would ask you .to read it and I would 11 like to ask you a few questions regarding that statement.

12 It starts on the bottom of page 216 and 13 continues on page 217.

14 (Pause) 15 MR. TRESLER: Okay, I have read the statement.

16 (Pause)

+ 17 .MR. SHACKLETON : Do you want to go off the j 18 record, Bobby. for this period of time?

g 19 Off the record.

j 20 (Discussion of f the record. )

! 21 MR. SHACKLETON: On the record.

I f 22 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Tresler, with regard 23 to the statement by Mr. Norton as contained on page 216 and 24 217 and -- I will read from the statement made by Mr.

25 Norton and I quote, "Any suggestions you have if you want

-504-

,s u n .a.: s w .,r .

.us. ~ , . ~ . . - ..w.--.. -,.- ...c.. ._.. _ _

as

( 1 the report before we see it, fine. I frankly resent the 2 -implication that Dr. Cloud is not an independent reviewer 3 because he is.

4 "As Mr. Maneatis just reported to you, we heard 5 this presentation to you yesterday. In fact, we heard it 6 Sunday for the first time. I assure you that's the case 7 and we came back last night or we came back yesterday af d 8 you heard it this morning.

9 "The report itself hasn't been prepsred. If you 10 want a copy of it before we get it, fine. Or simultaneously.

11 Mr. Tresler, do you recall Mr. Rocca discussing 12 with you his concerns with regard to Mr. Norton's statement

. 13 or offer that he made to the NRC that the NRC could have k' 14 Dr. Cloud's reports simultaneously or prior to thcir 15 r eceipt by PG&E?

16 MR. TRESLER: I don ? t think Jim discussed that

- 17 itta me.

I l 18 I think Jim's only concern was that he had g 19 k nowledge of the document that he considered to be a j 20 preliminary report and he felt that Mr. Norton's statements a

i 21 were not consistent with the fact that we did have that I

d 22 report.

i 23 He gave no indication of concern to me about 24 the commitment that we made to the NRC to provide reports 25 simultaneous with our receipt or any of that sort of thing.

-505-

a.. asnuc. w . u :m, . < ~ . z: . ,x. m a . u .w . . . m.~2a. a.m..ma.m~ ,,

.l

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20040D426&oldid=2584248"