ML20040D407
| ML20040D407 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1981 |
| From: | Brand D PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17083A976 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202010262 | |
| Download: ML20040D407 (60) | |
Text
,_ _ _ _ ___ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_____ - _____________ __
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 INVESTIGATION OF 5 DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 & 2 6 INTERVIEW OF 7 DONALD BRAND 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 further 15 hearing,, pursuant to adjournment at 1:37 p.m.
16 APPEARANCES:
3
= 17
! On behalf of the NRC Staff:
- 18
! OWEN C. SHACKLETON, JR., Moderator j i s B.H. FAULKENBERRY i
20 l 2i 22 23 24
- 25 8202010262 820127 PDR ADOCK 05000275 0 PDR
-291-
ERRATA SHEET Interview of D. Brand, December 18, 1981 The following corrections should be made:
Page 295','Line 1 - Change you to your.
Page 295, Line 17 - Change giving to given.
Page 295, Line 18 - Change a to the.
Page 295, Line 24 - Change correct to direct.
Page 296, Line 4 - Change Dr. to Mr.
Page 298, Line 7 - Change these to the.
Page 301, cine 24 - Change finding to findings.
Page 311, Line 6 - Change two to true, and delete or.
The above corrections have been identified by Bobby H. Faulkenberry and D. A. Brand.
-292-
1
_P R _O _C _E _E _D _I _N _G _S
- 2 1
- 37 p.m.
3 MR. SHACKLETON: This is December 18, 1981 and i
4 the time is.1:37 p.m.
5 This is an interview of Mr. Donald A. Brand, j
6 vice president of engineering for Pacific Gas and Electric 7 Company..
8 This interview is taking place in room 3101 9 of the corporate headquarters of Pacific Gas and Electric i
10 Company, 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, California.
ii The purpose of t ais interview is part of 12 an investigation conducted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 13 Commission to develop the facts and the happenings 14 surrounding the present reverification program of the 15 seismic design of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
16 Present for this interview from PG&E is Mr.
3
-h 17 Donald A. Brand and from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
, 18 Commission, Region 5, Mr. Bobby H. Paulkenberry, Chief a
19 of Reactor Construction Projects Branch.
3 .
l My name is Owen C. Shackleton, Jr. I am a 20 i a 5 senior investigator in Region 5.
21 I
22 Mr. Brand, have you been advised sir that you 23 have the right to have your personal legal counsel 24 present during the course of this interview?
25 MR. BRAND: Yes, I have.
-293-
. . , , , , -w - - - - , - - - - - - , . - - - - ,- n ,e - , - . ,,
1 MR. SHACKLETON: And, do you waive that right, sir?
- " - 2 MR. BRAND: Yes, I do.
kI 3 MR. SHACKLETON: Would you please stand and 4 I will now administer the oath?
5 Uhereupon, 6 DONALD A. BRAND 7 having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness 8 herein and was examined and testified as follows:
9 MR. SHACKLETON: Mr. Brand, I would ask you jo on behalf of the commission that the testimony that ij you are about to give, that you would please keep it 12 confidential.
13 MR. BRAND: Fine.
/*
(. 14 MR. SHACKLETON: For the record, Mr. Brand, 15 would you tell us please how long you've been with 16 Pacific Gas and Electric?
I 17 MR. BRAND: Approximately 20 years. 1 believe
{
g 18 19 years and something.
2 19 MR. SHACKLETON: That's fine, thank you.
j 20 At this time, I'll turn the questionning over J.
l 21 to Mr. Faulkenberry.
I 22 MR. FAULRENBERRY: Mr. Brand, for the record, 23 would you please state your current position with the 24 Pacific Gas and Electric: Company?
D 25 .MR. BRAND: Vice President, Engineering.
-294-
l 1 MR. FAULKENBERRY: What are you~ current job l
2 responsibilities as relating to Dr. Cloud's current 3 work on Diablo Canyon?
4 MR. BRAND: Dr. Cloud's program is one of 5 reverification of the engineering performed at various 6 times throughout the design of the project, the Diablo 7 Canyon project and as such, I am responsible for that 8 engineering and as such I have a direct interface with 9 Dr. Cloud in that he's in'or his people are in continually 10 talking with our engineers and reviewing our records.
11 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Brand, was this 12 responsibility as you've just described the same 13 responsibility that you had in this area during the
(. 14 period September through October, 1981?
15 MR. BRAND: Yes, it was.
16 MR. FAULKENBERRY: When this work was first
, g- 17 initiated with Dr. Cloud, were you giving or were you 8
L l - 18 assigned as a responsible management person within PG&E
- j 19 to direct Dr. Cloud's efforts?
20 MR. BRAND: Dr. Cloud was engaged by the f
8 Engineering Department and as such I would have to answer l
21 l-E 22 your question affirmatively.
l 23 At the same time I would want to point out 24 that we don't correct Dr. Cloud. Dr. Cloud has a program T
25 that we had outlined and the NRC has outlined in terms of
-295-l l
4 . .
I reverification and we are cooperating with Dr. Cloud in 2 this effort, but as such, our direction is not one that
{ig 3 whereby :Dr. Cloud takes orders from us.
4 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Yes, Dr. Brand, understanding 5 that, would it be more appropriate.'.to use the word reporting 6 to within PG&E for future . discussion--would that be the 7 better term to use?
8 MR. BRAND: As with all consultants retained by 9 the engineering department, I delegate that reporting 10 relationship to one of our departments and in this 11 instance, delegated that relationship to our mechanical 12 and nuclear engineering department.
~
13 l That was the original' constitution of the C' 14 arrangement between Dr. Cloud and ourselves and as the 15 record has undoubtedly shown, that relaticnship has 16 now changed in that Dr. Cloud now is reporting to I
g 17 Mr. Maneatis, who is my superior.
MR. FAULKENBERRY:
g 18 Mr. Brand, could you tell us when that reporting 4
j 19 relationship changed?
I j 20 MR. BRAND: I don't have the actual date here, d
j 21 before me, but it was -- several weeks ago -- I would 3
22 want to go back and if you'd care for a specific date --
23 MR. FAULKENDERRY: Could you give us an approximate 24 date? I think that would be good enough.
25 MR. BRAND: It would have been late October,'early
-296-m y- -
. - ,y - ,,- - -w-.,,e
1 November, somewhere in that time frame.
- 2. MR. PAULKENBERRY: 1981?
3 MR.-BRAND: Oh, yes.
[
4 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Brand, we have determined l 5 that four separate draf t reports of Dr. Cloud's work were 6 submitted to PG&E.
7 These draft reports were submitted to PG&E on 8 approximate dates of October 21st, October 26th, November 6th ,
9 and November the 12th, 1981.
10 The first question -- did you receive any of 11 these draft reports?
12 MR. BRAND: .Yes,.I received the first one 13 dated October --
C, ,
14 MR. FAULKENBERRY: 21?
15 MR. BRAND: 21. I do not have any recall of 16 the drafts of --
' 17 MR. FAULKENBERRY: October 26th?
- 18 MR. BRAND: That I do not remember.
j 39 MR. FAUbKENBERRY: November 6?
a j 20 MR. BRAND: I honestly don't know.
a d MR. FAULKENBERRY: And, of course, the November 21 i:
12th 1981 report was the one subsequently submitted to' 22 23 th Commission?
MR. BRAND: Yes.
24 h 25 MR. FAULKENBERRY: On the October 21 draft report,
-297-
I did you receive copy #2 of that draft?
2~ MR. BRAND:
{. I received a copy.
3 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Brand, I'm showing you here 4 now a copy of that draft report which is marked copy 5 number 1 in bold black ink.
6 Do you recall whether or not your copy had this 7 type of writing on it with the number 2 instead of number 8 17 9 MR. BRAND: I would like to think it did.
10 I believe I have the copy in my office if you would like 11 me to produce it for you.
12 I just cannot attest to number 1, number 2 or 13 number 3.
14 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Okay, yes, Mr. Brand, 15 we would like you to determine if you do have these 16 number 2 copy --- I think I would like to stop this i
17 proceeding at this point and give Mr. Brand an opportunity.
g g 18 to get this document and then we'll continue.
j 19 MR. SHACKLETON: We'll go off the record at this i
20 time at 1:46 p.m.
l 21 Off the record.
i*
22 (Whereupon, a 5 minute recess was taken.)
23 MR. SHACKLETON: On the record.
24 The time is now approximately 1:50 p.m. and 25 Mr. Brand,-the reason we went off the record, has been out
-298-
' of the roon going to his office to bring into the 2
interview room a document, report, thz i: was bsing described
-(Ifi) 3 before and I turn the meeting back over to Bob Faulkenberry.
4 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Brand, tne copy of the 5
draft report which is marked, do not duplicate, number 2, 6 is this the copy of the draft report from Dr. Cloud that 7 you received?
8 MR. BIWID: Yes.
9 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Brand, did you make any --
10 well, first of all, did you review this report?
11 Did you read it?
12 MR. BRAND: No, I did not.
I 13 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Did you make any comments b- 14 with regard to the material contained in the report and 15 supply these comments back to Dr. Cloud or anyone in 16 his office?
l 17 MR. BRAND: No. I did not.
g 18 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Let the record show that i have i
3 j 19 leafed through the number 2 copy of this draft report j 20 and there are no handwritten comments or any comments
. 21 of any kind contained within the report.
3 r
22 MR. SIIACKLETON : Bobby, now that is the report J
23 with the letter of transmittal dated October 21, 1981, l 24 is that correct?
L (U
25 MR. FAULKENBERRY: That is correct.
-299-
1 (Pause) 3 2 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr.' Brand, when this copy 3 of the renort was submitted to you from Mr. Rocca, was 4 it either stated in the cover meno attached, signed 5 by Mr. Rocca, or was.it implied that you should review 6 and comment on this document?
7 MR. BRAND: He is asking for my comments in 8 the cover memo.
9 I did not supply such.
10 I did not feel compelled to supply such.
11 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Okay, Mr. Brand. During the 12 time frame of October through November, 1981, was it 13 considered to be standard practice or standard procedure
(
14 within PG&E to review and comment on the results of 15 a contractor's work prior to this work being placed in 1
16 a final report form?
g 17 MR. BRAND: Yes. This is standard practice g 18 and I would say it is practice within thb industry as a
j 19 far as my experience -- is that there is an exchange, a 20 continuing exchange throught the course of a consultant's
$ 21 retention and simply in terms of communication back and
.i 22 forth and it is customary standard practice and professional 23 courtesy that we do ask and receive preliminary drafts 24 of reports of virtually any type prepared by a consultant.
U 25 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Could you give us an indication o f
-300-II
- .- . s.- - 4..,.,,...,_.i< %
I how long this has been standard practice within PG&E7
? 2 MR. BRAND: Well, it's been standard practice 3 throughout my career with the company.
4 Yes.
5 MR. FAULKENBERRY : Mr. Brand, at the time you 6 received this draft copy of this report for review and 7 comment, had you ever been made aware of--by people within 8 PG&E, by people within the NRC or any others that the g results of Dr. Cloud's work should not be reviewed by PG&E 10 prior to these results being placed in a final draft ij form for submittal to the NRC?
12 MR. BRAND: No.
i3 Well, I'm presuming you have-a number of
( i4 questions.
15 I may want to come back and elaborate on that 16 but let us 90 further. .
j 37 MR. FAULKENBERRY: I really don't have other 2
- 18 questions touching on that necessarily. If you want to 3
j 39 elaborate moref why don't you go ahead and do it at a
l a
20 this time?
$ MR. BRAND: Again. it is through the consultant's 21 i
E furnishing of the preliminary draft of a report or 22 23 findings 1that we understand rather clearly what the consultant is determining in the way of finding.
24
( 25 We've reviewed-these in a preliminary fashion to
- 301-
~
1 see if there are errors or omissions to comment on the 2 format of the report, to comment on whether the report
-(y.p 3 goes far enough or in meeting the charge that the consultant 4 luid been given, this exchange, this communication, this 5 comment on the draft does not relieve the' consultant ,
6 of his responsibility to come to his own conclusions 7 regarding the work that he is performing, but he 8 certainly is able to receive from PG&E their view as
-g to the work that he has performed.
10 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Brand, to explore in this 33 area a little bit further, were you aware when you 12 received this draft copy from Dr. Cloud, on October 21st, 13 f the concern within the NRC and other areas with regard 34 to the independency of Dr. Cloud's work?
i 15 MR. BRAND: Yes, yes, I was. I want to remember that that came out in our original meeting with the commissio n 16 a
j7 in Washington, early in October.
, - 18 At the same time, I was not overtly concerned E
j 19 about it because frankly, we view our consultants as independent and that such interchange as this does 20 g not compromise that independence.
I Dr. Brand, I think you've E MR. FAULKENBERRY:
22 stated this and I would like to ask another guestion to.
23 make it more clear, but during the time or at the time that (j 25 y u received the draft copy of Dr._ Cloud's work on
-302-
, . , . m , .-- , , , . , - . , -- ,,-,.v v .--r - - - . e- -
4 1 October 21st, being aware of the concern for.independency,
^
r3 2. did you feel like Dr. Cloud's submittal'of this draft Q:!
3 report and the subsequent review and commenting on it's 4 contents by PG&E employees would in any way compromise 5 the independency of this work?
6 MR. BRAND: I understand the direction of your 7 question. I'm not sure if I -- how to answer. Would you 8 restate it again?
j 9 MR. FAULKENBERRY: All right. Basically, what 10 I'm after is, you are aware of the concern for independency.
ii Did, upon receipt of' this draf t copy, was there any i 12 concern on your part that by receiving it and by commenting 13 on this draft copy, it would jeopardize or possibly
~
14 jeopardize the independency of Dr. Cloud's work?
i 15 MR. BRAND: It was and still is my view that is such commenting does not jeopardize the independency 17 of his work.
- 18 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Brand, have you ever j 19 issued any directives as to how the results of Dr. Cloud's a
! 20 work should be handled prior to the submittal to the i a d NRC?
21 22 MR. BRAND: Yes, I did.
23 I cannot recall the date. It was early in 24 this overall activity, meaning this fall, since the kf- 25 riginal discovery. It was simply a restatement that we are
-303-L
1 not editing or going to be wordsmithing this consultant 2 or any consultant's work, and as such, that we ought to 3 be. commenting on what the consultant or what Dr. Cloud 4 has drawn in terms of findinge or conclusions; if it 5 in our judgement is incorrect or wrong to have the 6 exchange -- well perhaps we have additional information 7 and additional file records that this consultant should 8 see.to have him reconsider that finding or simply we 9 may just have been communicating unclearly to him 10 about something where he was able to draw the wrong ij conclusion. We would just call that to his attention.
12 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Brand, do you recall ja how this directive was communicated to the employees
~
14 within PG&E?
15 MR. BRAND: I remember giving this directive, 16 I believe verbally over the phone to Mr. Rocca.
t j
i7 Any transmittal of the Cloud information or
- H3 reports ought to be viewed as just a comment and not a
s j n) a wordsmith.
l MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Brand, at the November 3, 20 a
5 1981 meeting, with the NRC in which you were present, 21 2
E Mr. Norton implied that as of November 3, 1981, no 22 23 report on Dr. Cloud's work had been-sub6itted to PG&E, i g yet you and other persons present at the meeting knew of the submittal of the October 21, 1981 draft.-
(- 25
' -304-
= - - . . _. , _ , _ . . _ , - . . . - _ . _ . . - . _ _ _ . - . _ ~ . , . . _ . _ . . _ . , . _ , , , . __ , , - . m_,
~ .
1 First'of all, did you hear what Mr. Morton, r 2 or did you hear Mr. Morton make a statement at this-3 meeting?
4 MR. BRAND: Yes, I remember that statement.
-5 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Could you tell us why 6 you did not correct Mr. Norton's statement during the 7 course of the meeting?
8 MR. BRAND: I did not think that the earlier 9 draft report was significant with regard to the discussion 10 going on at that particular time.
11 Perhaps I should have thought contrary simply 12 because it would have minimized the current controversy 13 on this, but at the time,-I simply did not think.the
(,'
14 earlier. draft report was at all important several 15 weeks later. It was virtually a snapshot of something 16 at that particular time.
t 17 I don't recall when Dr. Cloud prepared the
- 18 report but if he gave it to us on the 21st of October, j ig I would have thought that he would have prepared that 20 report or begin preparing the report itself perhaps
$ during the preceding weekend so it was perhaps in my
. 21 i
E 22 mind a snapshot as of perhaps, for instance, October 16th 23 and I thought that was a different snapshot than what 24 we were talking about and what Mr. Norton and Dr. Cloud 25 were talking about in the meeting for the NRC on
-305-
1 November 3rd, was it?
2 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Yes.
{"
3 MR. BRAND: It was something in the distant past 4 that occurred.
5 It didn't have any particular bearing at that 6 time. It was just a much earlier effort and I had not 7 given it a great deal of significance. I had not even 8 read the report.
9 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Brand, also at the 10 November 3, 1981 meeting, other statements were made by 11 Mr. Norton and by Mr. Maneatis. These statements 12 certainly inferred that PG&E had not received any reports 13 on Dr. Cloud's work.
14 I would like to ask you to glance at the 15 statements nade at the meeting as contained in the 16 transcript of the meeting which I'm giving you here.
17 They start at the bottom of page 215 and g
g 18 continue through#page"218 so I would like to ask you to a
j Ig just take your time and refresh your memory on what i
E 20 transpired during that portion of the .Teeting.
a 21 (Pause) iE 22 MR. BRAND: How far would you like my review to 23 907 24 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Just through page 218.
' 25 (Pause)
-306-11
? !.
vcl 1 MR. BRAND: Okay. I've reviewed the pages.
2 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Brand, I'd also like, with
({.
3 regard to t his portion of the meeting as you've just reviewed, 4
ask you, do you recall hearing those discussions?
5 MR. BRAND: Yes, I do.
6 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Again I would like to ask you, 7 being aware of thC October the 21st report that you had a received, I would like to ask again could you inform us why 9 you did not correct the implication contained in that parti-10 cular portion of the meeting?
11 MR. BRAND: Well, again I did not think the earlier 12 draft report was that significant. I thought it had occurred 13 several weeks before. There had been much that had transpirsd C
14 since. Tha t we were in essence, in my mind at least, talking 15 about a totally new report. It was a progress report as of 16 that new point in time. And as such, the earlier effort I h 17 didn't think to have any particular bearing on the later l
, 18 interim report. We had not aven established at that time when l
is that interim report ought to be supplied. It was just midway a
i 20 through dhe verification program that th ere ought to be a 3
$ 21 status report given. And that was my view, that rea!11 the i
22 Commission had received a status report from Dr. Cloud during 23 the meeting of -- November 3rd?
24 MR. FAULKENBERRY: That's correct.
25 MR. BRAND: And that the interim report, shall I say,
-307-
vc2 1 would be nothing other than a restatement of the report given 2 verbally daat day. I just did not think the earlier work was
, (.7. ,G.
3 significant.
4 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Brand, does PG&E have a 5 policy, to the best of your knowledge, written or otherwise, 6 of not volunteering information to the NRC unless it is 7 specifically asked for?
8 MR. BRAND: I'm pausing in responding because I work 9 -- I believe we are forthright and honest and open in our 10 discussion with the NRC at all times. I don 't think we.'re 11 withholding anything or that there is any intent to withhold 12 a ny thing. In terms of a corporate policy, I don' t believe --
13 at least I do not recall our having any diff erent policy with
(- 14 regard to our dealings with the NRC than with any other 15 governmental body. It's just part of our professional per-
- 16 formance, being candid and open in our statements.
! h 17 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Okay, Mr. Brand, if I understand
- 18 you correctly, you're saying that you are no' aware of any i
j 19 policy, written or otherwise, in existence at PG&E which- would 20 inhibit the free flow of information between PG&E employees and d NRC employees, is that correct?
g i
r 22 MR. BRAND: That's correct.
23 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Brand, what are the groundrules 24 within PG&E as you know them today with regard to the way the 25 results of Dr. Cloud's work should be handled and this is the
-308-
-.-- - - m - - ,,--.,_c., . ..-_.-%.
1 :.
I work that he's doing involving Diablo Canyon reverification
' 2 activities prior to submittal to the NRC?
((3 3 MR. BRAND: I think those ground rules are 4 virtually the same ground rules that we have established 5 previously here during our discussion and that is that 6 We may see a draf t of a report and it is given a limited 7 scrutiny in terms of again errors or omissions, something C that perhaps Dr. Cloud had nissed or that we had overlooked I
9 giving that he ought to see.
10 I think that would be my answer.
11 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Brand, what you' re saying 12 as far as you know, the ground rules in existance with 13 regard to handling Dr. Cloud's work are the same today 14 as they were back during the October November time frame, 15 is that correct?
16 MR. BRAND: Yes, the one difference is that, g 17 well, originally Dr. Cloud was contractually at least e
- 18 reporting to Mr. Rocca. That has since changed whereby i
j 19 he is now reporting contracturally to Mr. Maneatis.
i i 20 I don't think that has caused any difference a
1 21 in the way that we would work or review the consultant's 3 .
22 efforts.
23 - MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Brand, do you know of 24 any effort that has been made by PG&E or any of it's 25 employees to revise the results of Dr. Cloud's work such that
-309-
,a 1 it does not reflect the true, complete and accurate record 2 of his findings?
3 . MR. BRAND: Have we -- excuse me. I didn't listen 4 to your question because I was not totally satisfied with 5 my answer to the preceding question.
6 MR. FAULKENBERY: Would you like to expand on 7 your preceding question or --
8 MR. BRAND: Yes, I think so as long as we're here.
9 There is a degree of difference, shall I say 10 in the manner in which we are working with Mr. Cloud 11 presently, simply because he is reporting to Mr. Maneatis 12 and that is that there may very well be additional communica-13 tion between Dr. Cloud and Mr. Maneatis that I may not be 14 aware of.
is In answering that earlier question, was really 16 looking towards the intent of our review of any product h 17 that Dr. Cloud performs, e
- 18 I believe that we are approaching the -- cur i
i ; 19 relationship with Dr. Cloud, just as we are approaching I i ur relationship with other consultants.
I 1
i 20 21 MR. FAULKENBERRY Hould you like me to repeat --
i 22 excuse me. Were you completed with that?
23 MR. BRAND: I think so.
l 24 Go ahead.
(- 25 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Would you like for me to repeat l
l - 31 0-
1 the question so that it's more clear on the record?
2 MR. BRAND: Please.
{} ,
3 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Do you know of any effort 4 that has been made by PG&E employees to revise the 5 results of Dr. Cloud's work such that it does not reflect i
6 the two or complete and accurate record of his findings?
7 MR. BRAND: No, I do not.
8 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Do you know of any conscious 9 or pre-arranged plan, written or otherwise, for PG&E 10 employees while attending meetings with the NRC to limit 11 or otherwise constrain their responses to NRC employees?
12 MR. BRAND: No.
13 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Thank you Mr. Brand, that 14 concludes the questions I have.
15 Owen, do you have anything you want to
- 16 add?
?
17 MR. SHACKLETON: No, I have no further questions.
l g 18 Is there anything you'd like to back up and j 19 address, Mr. Brand, if you have any questions on your
!= 20 mind regarding your testimony?
i
' d 21 MR. BRAND: I am not confident I was clear i
22 enough in one of my answers in how if the -- if anything 23 has changed with regard to the Dr. Cloud, PG&E relationship 24 as a result of our moving the reporting relationship from
- k. 25 Mr. Rocca, to Mr. Maneatis.
- 311-I .- . . _ - - - .
1 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Let me rephrase that question, 2
gg 7 ,,y,
([)
3 Maybe it would help us, help you somewhat here.
4 What my main point is, I was just anxious to 5
determine if with regard to the receipt of any of 6 Dr. Cloud's findings for possible review or comment prior 7
to his findings being submitted to the NRC, have any 8
ground rules in that area changed from the October, 9
November time frame to now?
10 MR. BRAND: Not as far as I'm concerned and 11 perhaps I'm re-gathering some confidence now in my 12 earlier statements.
13 I do not think that our dealings with 14 Dr. Cloud have changed at'all.
15 I guess I would say even more emphatically 16 I think Dr. Cloud's independence would have been preserved 17 regardless of who he reported to within PG&E.
l 18 Whether he reports to our Senior Vice President I
s d 19 or whether he reports to our Chief Mechanical and Nuclear l j 20 Engineer, does not concern me at all.
l .4 y 21 It's simply that the difference I might be making
! ! 22 here is'that there may be discussions that I am not privvy 3
23 to between Dr. Cloud and Mr. Maneatis but with regard to 24 the competence and the honesty and the sheer independence 25 of the effort I would, I believe that Dr. Cloud's work would
- 31 2-
1 not be affected at all even if he Lreported to our most 2 senior engineer in the department.
3 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Brand, to continue in 4 this area, recognizing what you've said with regard to 5 the difference or the change that has been made with 6 regard to the level in management or the . change in 7 level of management that Dr. Cloud reports to, with a regard to, as of today, would you still expect that 9 Dr. Cloud's findings would be submitted to PG&E for 10 their review and comment as it was done in October or 11 November before it is subsequently submitted to the NRC 12 for review?
13 MR. BRAND: Yes, I would.
-o 14 Simply in terms of the communication so that 15 again, I don't think his providing or any consultant's 10 Providing preliminary drafts of an effort at all jeopardizes j7 or weakens or compromises the final product of that
{
- 18 consultant.
5 j 19 The consultant draws his own conclusions, irrespec-a
! 20 tive of what we tell him.
3 d
21 It's to the consultant's best interest and i
t 22 to our own that he draws his conslusions on the broadest 23 review of the record that is available.
If we have not provided that or have mis-communicated 24 (I 25 something to the consultant, to Dr. Cloud, that we ought to
- 31 3-
I have the ability for this additional communication that
.: 2 if you came to this finding, well, did you consider this 3 document and if he did, fino and if he didn't, if it' 4 ~ wasn't made available, if he didn't think of it, I 5 don't think there's anything wrong whatsoever in our 6 suggesting that go and review this additional record, 7 in light of this earlier :'. finding.
8 It simply does not impugn his integrity.
9 It might be -- no, I was going to offer another statement to but I won't.
11 The net result of this reverification program 12 is to establish how well we perform our earlier engineering 13 efforts on the Diablo Canyon plant.
(J 14 Now, Dr. Cloud was not involved in this earlier 15 effort in the original design of the Diablo Canyon plant 16 and this record has transpired many, many years and
[ 17 one would not expect any consultant to come in and g 18 very easily and quickly review this entire record and 4
'E l 1
d 19 to do so to perfection.
j 20 You need to have continuing dialog. One means J
[ 21 of this continuing dialog is to see an earlier draft, t
e 22 an early draft of what conclusions he has drawn.
23 It's.! the same thing that I may be telling you 24 one thing and you may be hearing it differently and that (f 25 doesn't mean that I'm wrong in that delivery or that you are
- 31 4 -
l 1
wrong in your perception, but wc L0th have understandings 2 based on our own experience and that the only way to
(.g) 3 ensure or assure that full communication han taken place 4 is to complete the loop and this is why in much of our 5 managenent activity, you always achieve the receiver 6 playing bacn that that he has been told so that there 7 is an understanding as to what has been communicated and 8 that's what is achieved by this preliminary draft.
9 It does not mean that in any means or in any 10 form or in any fashion attempting to modify, to distill 11 the consultant's work. It just simply aids in the communica-12 tion process.
13 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Thank you, Mr. Brand.
(,
14 Do you have anything else or any other area that 15 you want to touch on before you conclude this interview?
16 (Pause) 17 MR. BRAND: I -- one earlier -- one other thought.
g
- la That comes back to the transcript. Let me review the j 19 transcript here.
i 20 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Certainly. Take your time.
f 21 (Pause) 9 22 MR. BRAND: We were talking earlier about my 23 view during the November 3rd meeting of the statements 24 made with regard to the interim report at that time and kJ 25 that having to do with the earlier draft.
- 31 5-
. + :'
' Perhaps this is simply' restating my earlier (g. 2 thought but-let me do so.
3 I really' viewed the interim report itself to i
4 be that coming out of that meeting in Washington and
. 5 that it was a snapshot at that particular time.
6 And, that much of the discussion and my review 7 of the written record here is talking about the short term 8 report and that it will -- it was characterized and I 9 ' remember it being characterized much differently than f
to that of, the earlier preliminary draf t. .
i 11 I don't remember the discussion, being that i
this dratt talked about i$ this meeting had any real t
12
~
13 bearing with work that had been done several weeks 14 preceding.
i 15 It was rather that this was.a snapshot that 1 c> was to be taken at the time of the meeting and it was --
i g 17 -I haven't talked.to Dr. Cloud as to what he was meaning l g 18 at that particular time with regard to the record, other-
- i 10 than we were talking about it. And -he says, I believe
=j 20 we will be turning it over this week or next. And believe
[-
4 21 me, I remember my reaction when I heard that was, it's I -
22 ~a different report reflecting different body of knowledge --
j 23 .two, three weeks later in the reverification effort and 24 mind you that these wer, difficult times for us I.
. {. 25 then because while we had thought originally that was simply i .
e
- 316-f- _
?
's ' '
l' a single error, we found later that it was more broad than-2 that. And, we were having difficulty comprehending what' 3 the errors.truly were. They happened several years 4
. preceding. Different people were involved.
5 .Many of us in our present responsibilities were 6 not present and were not involved in that particular 7 time period and the written record was.not enough.for.us 8 to come to all the conclusions that we were having to come 9 to and that we were being assailed and I would characterize 10 it-as unfair sailment, if there's such a word, in the written media at that time, grossly distorting what we 1(
. 12' E- were-discovering.within the. company.
s
. 13 I would just want to conclude by saying that 14 my view is that the interim report that we were talking 15 about at that time was totally a separate effort from 16 the earlier work.
g, 17 I want to remember.the earlier work just being n.
g 18 e very preliminary effort, something to get the ball rolling c
p ,
19 with regard to how one prepares an interim report.
a.
! 20 And, I want to remember that I didn't give the a
f 21 earlier report any significance at all, otherwise, I certainly
. I 22 would have read, and would have read it thoroughly.
23 - I think that's the end of my comment.
24 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Thank you, Mr. Brand.
7 25 This concludes the interview, unless, Owen, you have
- 31 7-
I something else.
2
( MR. SHACKLETON: No, I have no further comments.
3 We'll go off the record now and the time is r 4
2:34 p.m.
5 Off the record.
6 7
8 9
- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 E
g 17 g
18 C
j 19 j 20 s
. 21 3
22 23 24 25
- 31 8-
, , . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . _ .
4
- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'
".s. 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
3 INVESTIGATION OF 4 DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 & 2 5 INTERVIEW OF 6 DONALD A. BRAND 7
8 g Pacific Gas'& Electric Headquarters Offices 10 Law Department Conference Room 77 Deale Street ij San Francisco, California I-12 Monday, December 21st, 1981 13
(,
34 The above-entitled matter came on for further-15 hearing, pursuant-to notice at 3:20 p.m.
16 APPEARANCES:
t
, ; j7 On behalf of the NRC Staff:
< ~ 18 OWEN C. SIIACKLETON, JR. , Moderator l B. H. FAULKENBERRY 4 j 19 i
20 l
f
. 21
. 3 I $
- 22 l
23 24 i.
- 31 9-1-
ERRATA SHEET Interview of B. A. Brand, December 21, 1981 Review was made by Owen C. Shackleton, Jr., and no changes or corrections were found necessary to clarify the testimony.
-320-
J:
1i P_ R_ Q Q E_ E Q I N,Q S_
- 3
- 20 p.m.
2 3
MR. SHACKLETON: On the record.
The date is' December 21, 1981, and the time 4
5 is 3:20 p.m.
This is a continuance of the interview of 6
Mr. Donald A. Brand, Vice President, Engineering.from 7
acific Gas and Electric Company.
8 r
g Present for this interview is from the.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region 5, is Mr.
O Bobby H. Faulkenberry, Chief of Reactor Construction, Projects Branch and my name is Owen C. Shackleton, Jr.,
i' Senior Investigator.
13 Mr. Brand, sir, you understand that you are-14 still under oath as it was ' administered on December 18, 15 19817
., 16 I MR. BRAND: Yes, I do.
3 17 2
Whereupon,
- 18 DONALD A. BRAND
~j 19 I $ having been previously duly sworn, was. recalled as a witness j 20 f 21 herein and was examined and testified as follows:
3 v E
.MR. SHACKLETON: Mr. Brand, I understand that 22 23 you have some additional comments that you would like i to make for the record, after reviewing the transcript 24 of your testimony given on December 18th, 1981. Would you 25
-32 1 -
~ , -,,-1 - r n-- ,et- +-+m"- --s -, - - - - * - n v * - ' -,-y ~ .
z 1 proceed please?
2' 'MR. BRAND: Yes, on page 6 o f the transcript, 3 Mr. Faulkenberry.had asked me the question, did I receive 4 any of these draft reports, meaning 4 separate draft 5 reports of Dr. Cloud's work.
6 I responded that I responded that I received 7 the first one dated and then the dialog continued.
8 On review of the transcript, I feel that 9 I did not adquately explain whether or not I had received 10 copies of the~other draft reports and feel I ought to 11 clarify this.
12 I did receive a copy of the first draft report 13 dated October 21st.
14 As I stated in my prior testimony, I did not 15 review that draft.
16 I understand now there were other drafts.
3 .
! 17 I have no recall of reviewing the October 26th draft.
2
- 18 I may or-may not have received and reviewed the November 6 i
j ig draft and certainly I received the November 12th draft since i
! 20 it was the draft reported to the commission.
a
'f 3
21 I'm making this point of. difference because e
' I may have received earlier draf ts. I simply do not 22 23 recall whether I did or did not.
Much material is sent to my office. Some 24
. k- of that material I read, other portions of that material.
25
-322-
I are either screened by my secretary'or I make the personal 2 -decision not to review that material.
}.
- 3. _I routinely do not review preliminary drafts 4 .of documents feeling that these are' basically a preliminary 5 document that is beginning the communication between the 6 consultant, the written communication between the consultant 7 and ourselves and simply is a means of shaking out early 8 information, early format for_the report.
9 I routinely de rot review such drafts.
10 That would complete my comment on this page.
11 On page 9, line 24 I completed a statement 12 saying that it was customary standard practice and profession 11 '
13 courtesy that we receive and review preliminary drafts 14 of virtually any type of report preparcd by a consultant.
15 I would like to add other examples of that.
16 This last year, PG&E had a management consultant g 17 prepare an audit of our corporate activities, g 18 This consultant was retained by the California j 19 Public Utilities Commission to review the operations of
~i our company and I remember distinctly that that consultant, l 20 J
j 21 McKesson, Cormick and Pagent provided us with preliminary I
22 drafts of their findings for our review and comment as 23 to their technical adequacy, whether there were errors or 24 ommissions or the like.
k[ 25 Since I gave previous testimony, I have been
-323-
i 1 given other samples that I would wish to read into.the record, 2 The-first is exhibit one that I will be handing
()p, 3 to our C0 art reporter.
4 4 It is.a publication by the Comptroller General 5 of the United States, the 1981' revision, entitled standards J
6- for audit of governmental organizations, programs, activities 7 aad functions.
0 (The above-entitled. document 9 was marked for identification 4
10 as Exhibit No. 1 and incorporated 11 into the record.)
4 j 12- MR. BRAND: The lead'off-paragraph of the
, 13 standard synopsis begins and I quote, One of the most
(,
14 effective ways to ensure 'that a report is fair, complete-15 and objective is to obtain advance review and comment by 16 officials of the audited entity."
s k 17 The paragraph and the description goes on 2
18 but that was the essence of-the opening-statement that
.3 3
j 19 I thought would be pertinent for our record here today.
i 4 E 20 Another example, entitled Exhibit 2 is-another s
=*
report by the Comptroller General, dated July 9, 1981,
- 21
]. '
, 22 and this is a report to congress entitled, Improvements 23 Needed in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office 24 of Inspector and Auditor and I would only read a paragraph 25 on page 24. This is part of Chapter 3 entitled OIA's
-324- 3 i.
4 v.,, .ev g e - - - , - , . - . - - - . - + -.w .
p - - . - - -~ . ->y---# . - -- -w-- e _m* .
I
~ Independent needs to be Strengthened. The second paragraph
() 2 entitled OIA's Method of Processing Audit Reports Compromises 3 The First paragraph is as follows:
It's Independence.
4 Before an OIA' report is issued, it is normally 5 forwarded to the affected NRC program office for review 6 and comment.
7 This and our review is a legitimate process 8 for ensuring that draft reports are factually correct and 9 based on. sound and logical analysis.
10 More importantly, it offers responsible 11 program officials the opportunity to either agree or 12 disagree with the findings, conclusions and recommendations 13 of the draft report and to identify corrective actions, 14 if any, they plan to take.
15 The description goes on, but this exhibit 16 and the prior exhibit and my earlier example are all g 17 instances that I would like to cite where it has been g 18 the standard of the industry and I would even broaden j 19 that from my view to include business, that there is j 20 an exchange in communication through a preliminary J
j 21 draft document that a consultant and auditor may do for 22 a firm or a business.
23 That completes this item of my testimony.
24 ///
25 ///
-325- 1 1
1 .
(The above-entitled document
(}f was marked for identification 3
as Exhibit No. 2 and incorpora-4 ted into the record.)
5 '
MR. BRAND: I would like to continue further 6-now to page ll line no. 8 and 9, because I feel my statement
'7-here may be taken somewhat out of context.
8 I am completing a description whereby I am 9
saying that this comment on the draft does not relieve 10 the consultant of his responsibility to come to his own U conclusions regarding the work he is performing.
12 He certainly is able to receive from 13 PG&E their vicws as to the work he has performed and k-14 certainly when I am meaning "their", certainly what I 15 am meaning "their" to review and comment by this company H3 as to the technical adequacy of the report and the findings 17 that this' consultant is making and that the consultant l
j D3 is indeed . fulfilling his charge with regard to the scope H3 d of the work he has been asked to perform.
I, j 20 I would now like to continue down that same d
21 page to another statement I made; the statement ends on 1
x 22 line 21 where I was indicating that I was not overtly 23 concerned -- about the earlier draft document simpiy because 24 I viewed our consultants as independent and that such k 25 interchange would not compromise that independence.
-326-
1 (Pause) 2 The question Mr. Faulkenberry had asked was a:
y 3 question regarding whetherLI was aware of the concern 4 1within the NRC and other areas with regard to the independency 5' of Dr. : Cloud's work.
- 6. My answer was that that I was and at the same
'7 time I_was not' overtly concerned because I had viewed 8 our consultants'as independent.
9 I would like to add though, that because of 10 the Commission's concern about independence, we did 11 take additional steps to assert that indeed our consultants' 12 work ought to be independent and that our review would be one 13 simply of errors and omissions and technical adequacy and
( 14 that our review of these preliminary drafts would be limited 15 with regard to their distribution and to whom the review 16 was to be done simply in recognition of.the concern g 17 regarding independence.
g 18 We might not, in our normal course of j 19 business limit distribution'of preliminary reports because
-i E 20 of our less concern regarding independence,-however, in
-a t
$ 21 this instance, we were more specific with regard to who i
22 preliminary drafts should be given to, both in 23 terms-of numbers and in terns of the management reponsibility 24 of that person, whereby we could be more assured that 25 their review would indeed be simply one of technical adequacy.
-327-
1 My final addition would be on page 22, the second 24 2 line where I had been making a comparison and I had made p
3 that comparison to the most senior engineer in the company 4 and the comparison I was intending to make was to the most 5 junior engineer.in the department.
6 In otherwords, I would be asking that-the 7 record be modified so that the word senior be changed to 8 the word junior. That would add my addition to the record.
9 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you very much, Mr. Brand.
10 We'll go off the record at this-time. The 11 time is now 3:35 p.m.
12 (Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the interview of 13 Donald A. Brand was concluded.) ,
l 14 15 16 3 17 g 18 19 i
j 20 e
l 21 i
t 22 23 24 k- 25
-328-
,{<ll) j 1j Il l! . ll l .
llllllIjllll 0 k?
m 0 r d h
s e
t d n ai r n o m.
t.
n e l.
b 1
e s tnd ea e ei r r n n o
- l. e t.
i t
n or Ac #
" e a a hi i i 3
""h.h t
t nn n a n et l a l
o n
mr pmr i
e h cl. n el
' n *i t 1
m,t m r a gs h h
s a t
imlrh ci e t r s inf s 1 npa r in. s li h nt u nr e r e
' a r e ab e, a ab a imra e r
t e
n t<i h.
i onim.
pt toirl u - e n pni e
pi t
t w bf gm
't I. a j lmio s o on I
e d"""h lmmi s i3 ut nr en n t
1 f mkn o pe n n. ui
,n ej t.
o r n at a r ri l
i ni h e r i.r b n 3
in o 9
o mih ,
is o o e mprta ar i
b s l. y a ro l
ni o n
, i'la =
s I n is n ,c a luf c ht t o hi a s m l a
mlu a i i d t
c s e nt c n 'sr to3 r r imtma g ,5 "'"'fih awn.
h o i gf nd u a e r i c e nh c n nge oa t o s
ae nh h ip c
. n osd c
ot a
i n rd r
ub i afo ns g r o
oih t l li mte e
gi t o r r me n ay' r" blyewp y h e r
aTacn
- a. .i at a c o ci r e in o rf r d
dSfu oe inn n t
maees a mn o onw a
fri ot n
r,*
i
" tnnls d te mm ah ,b me ei ei si y ge e s
i f
e i e olr u
- s. s is m n h et e hl
.b fr oa fl s
tnh e
' inhh d ny e t a l.
t c r tncit e ndi sn i
t eos i py t t
" mt n ht a ei h tom d
nt ef i n
e e t s ie ey teib ib mfo o o v z n ,o i dh d e
"' mnp ei n m i a n f
m d e u iic a ng imut n b r hi ui c r e r yg nid o ts y iuu
" co s ts o
- s h tsi o oSi.ro s e n eh ihiore l l o eauorce f e i
- t wr rl t s s eh i r . a m o,.
- 9 " d oe ie ci v tohi no s l i
ed t d t
rb o w t
n psh c r n aed e ohsde p nt
" anhh t
s t i r i op d
uhsi m mh nd o t d s cl n m hit e o ua h e ch
" iih wht c r a ;l , u ,mblua t t a s e r
c o hs it ioa y i wt nb a f a u oso r
o ya s al ut s c l
s '
aop r e e rh c lpgut I e rh a es e r f. n mgo un yi o " es
' r h w w o e h ye b s i, d
a ht itot y A mni t.cn r y h e I nre sre b a t i
i c ' et rl s .
iana si tor edf s y rr los o
a e oa pm d
u tov eh e !
n ior p I.
scl s
o r no c t o a udi e ri t o b oai ht at ,ht r ro t i fj "
' n pt t ee t p o S' oled t t
a s o i n o av erbuou ui os b bi n pem oh r
o r
tn o t ef r e penh r it b n n e m w y t h o i
hh h u adl po e r e "d b s lci s t,d t mr e s t e
p d ya ue s d ol al o s
" na ati ht c i l t i f s a s n ut u e fn r y et r eo s tnd ah t r e pe inlac o et o oh on r t
i s
- ai uc oud i
- n. ch a el i o o gi pte dve u e t o s eht n
o
't o
mis s
ic mvah s N ad n uyc o F h sr ta t C g n i.
inirb a r
a t, p " bdb mn nfn n ,y fo a a lr nr g f te m
" ooa t
r s r ma "io i s r n o c
ne mehfial a p n
ot ah d n
t a o,w r o op e
- topk nl a ohn'a tcis g ioh abim pmcu e r e
n n n pt e o i
c t t
's si p e n ,
o tnt o de ons i re fo
'i ih dvTs e h t y
e e
n a iodev ga t
hi ypl t
n oes i
t a nt teo .
ici ya t t
r e ci s a t de o ta k. n d ue
. rh at si n
i n fd r id r ap o N er o t r
g n S. ot ial ah s
w " icy tot "jteib t
t a
v n itvci ae e p r p h ir r e
e e v g
o inde as rpe ig u se ol e r s e
h e p .
t c er ty l i
e tr r c al h n t i et e a s r o n c Sl cc epa e y u f o e i e e e e "cd'" o r t
i v b nmh r Wht n o e n s I t i r Cd en f
i ta oe a w p" iC R inapmh t I s
inht tus P fa la eu o .
u3 i AnC S 3
S n S O R I E hg Oi D - I E. L T A p
y-n-
,r nO E C
I.
E I l ORl S AE T y% J d#u j
t e-S ni i i
. i TRET D - . .
r ta$
7 , o g-
,G C S n T N.F E :".(
4
- l. " h T C ..
S WPiOT ((f j
r Vi z Q{ ,C U I I t ;(
\.
O
)" ,. i g
ej a O n {3 , C ,3P I C NI U
d Vj n T
'o'6
- DI O
C O 3 QCn
~
R X {] lr '
)j A .i r{'lll!ll ! l
j'uwisor #2, Al20 12aNo &<ps,[S y.
- Dec. .9/, /W' Eeryr/er : //atpHpU$Y/'oi-r 3Y ~-E COV T70__E7 GEN E7A_
Report To The Congress O: ~- E U\ ~ED SXES Improvements Needed in The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office Of Inspector And Auditor To help the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (N RC) carry out its responsibilities, a special office of Inspector and Auditor was created in April 1975 to independently review and appraise all NRC opera-tions. This office, in essence, was to provide the Commissioners with oversight over NRC programs and activities and recommend corrective actions.
k GAO found that the Office of Inspector and Audi-tor has not been using proven maaagement tech-niques in scheduling and carrying out its work.
These techniques range from systematic planning and prioritization to timely and consistent followup on work. If such techniques were used, it would result ii) a more orderly management approach and lead to higher quality reports and a better use of staff resources.
The independence of the Office of Inspector and Auditor needs to be strengthened. In G AO's view, this only may be possible if N RC accepts and imple-ments the recommendations contained in this re-port. GAO also suggests that Congress consider establishing a statutory inspector General office at the NRC. Such an office could help ensure that the Congress and the Commissioners receive objective information on problems within the Commission and enhance public trust in the regulation of com-mercial nuclear power.
fv.DS73 -
o tu
( $lI M N fp 9f
.O EMD 8172 fcCOUM -330-
4 CHAPTER 3 OIA'S INDEPENDENCE NEEDS TO BE STRENGTHENED If Government agencies are to receive the full benefits of internal audits and investigations, these functions must be located at a sufficiently high organizational level to ensure that they are insulated from internal agency pressures. This permits the cuditors and investigators to independently report their conclusions without fear of censure or reprisal.
OIA reports directly to the Commission and is thus organiza-tionally independent. We noted, however, that-the method OIA uses to develop and process reports on its work could be improved to better assure OIA independence. Specifically, we found several instances where findings, conclusions, and/or recommendations were revised or deleted primarily because NRC program officials disagreed. We also discovered that OIA routinely allows program officials to exceed deadlines in commenting on OIA reports, particularly if a disagreement or misunderstanding exists. Fur-ther, we found certain instances where OIA reviewed and apparently approved program office comments before accepting them and in-cluding them in its reports. Lastly, we noted certain instances where OIA undertook joint investigations with other program of-fices. These points, collectively, indicate that OIA's inde-pendence needs to be strengthened.
h The following sections discuss these points in more detail.
OI A 'S METHOD OF PROCESSING AUDIT REPORTS COMPROMISES ITS INDEPENDENCE
,,Before_an_OIA_ report is issued, it is,normally forwarded to the affected NRC_ program office for review'a6d comment. This, iD our vi ew,_is _a_ legitimate _p_r.oc.ess_ f_or_ ensuring _ that_dra f t__
r_eports_are factually _ correct and based on sound and. logical _ g g n a_1 n i.s . Fore importantly,__it offers responsible program 6f ficials the oppor_tuni_ty to either agree or disagree with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the draft report k
~ d to fdentify corrective actions, if any2_they_ plan to take.
an )
Incumbent in such a process, however, is a need to ensure that program of ficials do not unnecessarily delay issuance of the report by providing untimely comments, or exert such influence that the objectivity or factual accuracy of the report can be questioned. To do this, it is imperative that the process be conducted openly and that changes to the draf t report be well documented. During our review, however, we found that OIA's process to obtain comments on draft reports could be improved to better assure independence and objectivity.
- 331 -
i k
For instance, when OIA first sends a oraft report to program officials for comment, it has not yet been reviewed or approved by OIA's top management. Tnus, it is called a " pre-(3a liminary" draft report and has no officia] standing within the OIA office. On the surface, there is nothing particularly wrong with this. However, the OIA staff has been instructed not to maintain an official file of tnese " preliminary" drafts or. the informal comments 'they might receive from program of-ficials. Thus, there is no official record at OIA of the
" negotiations" with program officials or changes made to the
" preliminary" draft report as a result of their comments. This is particularily important because OIA management will generally not permit a " preliminary" draf t report to proceed until the responsible program office has agreed with the facts, conclu-sions, and recommendations. We believe this process is not conducive to ootaining and incorporating program office com-ments in a timely and responsible fashion while still assuring
- total independence by OIA.
To illustrate this point, one NRC program official told us that because his of fice did not agree with a preliminary draf t, OIA intentionally removed information and cast his office in a better light than it deserved. This official said he had brought this to our attention realizing that he was indirectly criticizing his own office. However, his concern was that if OI A had diluted this report, then it may also be doing so on mnre significant
( projects such as tne review of the Three Mile Island accident.
The present OIA director acknowledged that certain com-promises and/or negotiations may have occurred in tne past, but stressed that is not the case today. Based on our review of preliminary draf ts that hao been informally maintained by the OIA staff and NRC program officials, however, we Delieve
- that certain enanges are still being made which detract from OIA's independence. The following two examples illustrate l
situations in which compromises have apparently occurred under the past and present directors.
t
' 1. Intermittently from December 1977, to April 1978, OIA per formed a review of NRC's pub} ic document room activities.
The purpose of the review was to determine whetner the puolic document room was efficiently and effectively managing its document systems and its microfiche ef forts, and whetner l the recommendations of a special task force to consolidate 1
NRC document' management into one office had been carried l
out.
1 As early as May 1978, a " preliminary" draft of the OIA report had been completed whien listed a total of 23 recommendations di-
, rected to the Office of tne Secretary of the Commission. Twelve
(
[ of tne recommendations were cased on findings that (1) the i
document control and file control systems were not adequate l to prevent an individual from introoucing, altering, or l
-332-l
i removing documents located in the public document room files and (2) the public document room needed to establish a system to reduce and control the size of its holdings. These 12 recommendations, along with 9 others--for a total of 21--
were delated from the official draft report given to the
( Office of the Secretary for formal comment .
From our discussion with a member of OIA management, these recommendations were deleted because the Secretary strongly objected to the preliminary draft report and put pressure on OIA to make changes. Because of this, the official draft report, according to the OIA manage-ment member, was " watered down to nothing. "
Our review showed that the period of time from the preliminary draft (which we obtained from one OIA staff member's personal file) to the official draft was a total of 5 months and 1 week. We found no evidence to explain the lengthly OIA management review. However, we noted that when the official draf t waa issued--on October 25, 1976--it mentioned that its reason for not making recommendations in certain areas was because the Office of the Secretary had initiated corrective action during the preparation and processing of the report.
In commenting on this example, OIA said the time between May and September 1978 was taken up by management review
( and additional audit work. The reason for this was that the May 1978 draf t was unacceptable to OIA management and required extensive review and a complete rewrite.
Also, OI A said the member of OIA management--alluded to in our example--now insists he did not make and in fact, does not agree with the statements attributed to him.
During our review, we found no evidence to explain the lengthy management review of this report. Consequently, we talked with those who directly participated in the audit work and in preparing the draf t. Our discussion of this report clearly reflects the views of more than one OI A sta f f member.
- 2. In its report of August 10, 1979, OIA found that the NRC official entertainment fund was operating in accord-ance with its intended purpose. However, it noted a lack of adherence to NRC guidelines and administrative deficiencies in preparing and submitting vouchers for official entertainment functions. Also, according to the OIA report, better controls were needed over the NRC liquor inventory.
-333-
4 e
Still, neither the final report nor the official draft sent to the Executive Director for Operations for agency comment included a finding and a recommendation that was a part of the preliminary draf t.
(*' explained that an excessive number of NRC employees The finding had been in attendance at many entertainment functions which was not in accordance with NRC guidance. Based on this guidance, excessive NRC employees were at enter-tainment functions about 50 percent (39 out of 80 cases) of the time.
I During our review, we spoke with program officials about the finding and recommendation that was in the preliminary draft but deleted from the official draft and the final report. According to the officials, they con-vinced OIA that the NRC guidr7ce was hard to enforce all the time . When we questioned the OIA branch chief about this matter he said he did not know why the finding and recommendation were deleted.
OIA management said the distribution of preliminary draft reports to agency officials was intended to serve as an exit con-ference. The preliminary drafts, OIA contends, sought to determine if the officials agreed with the facts as presented and if the of-ficials had new information to be reflected in the report.
In our view,
(,toreachagreementonreports. preliminary drafts This is have been further used primarily supported by a 1977 internal OIA memo which discusses OIA's report on NRC sole source contracts. In the memo, the then deputy director of OIA f said the audit staf f should take the report to the responsible officials involved, clear it with them, and then take it to the Executive Director for Operations, all informally. When all the kinks are worked out and the Executive Director is willing to give OIA the two paragraphs saying "we generally concur,"
the memo states, then the audit staff should submit the report to OIA management for official concurrence. If the Executive Director is willing to generally concur, the deputy director is quoted anything.
in the memo as saying, then he probably would not change The memo indicates that the audit staff asked if this was going to be the standard policy or procedure for handling reports from now on, and the deputy director stated that it would.
During our review, we found no evidence that the policy established by this memo had been discontinued.
OIA allows program officials to exceed deadlines After the " preliminary" draft report is agreed to by NRC program officials, it is reviewed and revised, as necessary, by OIA management and officially sent back to the program office L
-334-
hb i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM'4ISSION 3
4 INVESTIGATION OP g DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 & 2 6
7 INTERVIEW OP 8
DONALD A. BRA'ID 9
10 Room 3101 Pacific Gas & Electric 11 Headquarters Buildiner 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 12 13 Monday
(,.' January 4, 1982 14 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 15 16 pursuant to notice, at 11:15 a.m.
17 i , , +
j 18 APPEARANCES:
g 19 On behalf of the NRC Staff:
a OW".N C. SHACKLETON, JR., Senior Investigator i j 20 i
l l 21 BOBBY H. PAULKENBERRY , Chief, Reactor Construction i Projects Branch, Region 5 f 22 i 23 24 l
l 25 4m 1
1
! -335-l
..m-t <-- # o. s f. - x .,..o ..s.,. .. +m . , s, m,__ .o . . . . ..u.-.*,.o--.
ERRATA SHEET Interview of B. A. Brand, January 4,1982
~
- The following corrections should be made:
' Page 338, Line 24 - Change Mr. . to Dr.
Page 344, Line 23 - Change cont-racts to contracts.
4 The above corrections were identified by Owen C. Shackleton, Jr.
I i '
6 a
i I
I i
I
-336-
. . . . . . . , . ., . . . . . , . . . ~ . - . . . . - . . . . . - _ . _ _. _ - . . ..
. ,- ,-- , - - . . - , - , ~ . - . - - .. -,.,-.c - - . , - . - -,. . . , . . . +-,
s h 1 P_ E E E E E E I., N_ q Q 2 11:15 a.m.
-3 MR. SHACKLETON: This is January 4, 1982. The 4 time is now 11:15 a.m. This is a continuation of the 5
interview of Mr. Donald A. Brand, Vice President of 6
Engineering for Pacific Gas & Electric Company. This inter-7 view is taking place in Room 3101 of the Corporate Head-8 @a ers o e acMc Gas & Flectdc Company at M Beale g S tree t , San Francisco, California.
The interview is being conducted by Mr. Bobby 10 3,
11 . Faulkenberry, Chief of Reactor Construction Branch.
My name is Owen C. Shackleton, Jr. , Senior Investigator.
2 ereup n,
. 13 DON,E A. BWD 14 was recalled as a witness and, after being reminded that he 15 was still under oath, was examined and testified further 16
. j7 as follows:
MR. SHACKLETON: Do you waive the right to have l 18 g 19 private legal counsel present?
j 20 MR. BRAND: Yes, I do, f 21 MR. SHACKLETON: Thank you. Mr. Paulkenberry, l i
' please .begin the questioning.
f 22 MR. FAULKEMBERRY: Mr. Brand, you testified 23 24 earlier you heard Mr. Norton make a statement at the November 25 3 meeting at Bethesda indicating that PG&E did not or had l
1
-337-
h 1 not received Dr. Cloud's short tern report. You also testi-2 fled earlier that you did not correct Mr. Norton's statement 3 because you did not consider the draft reports that PG&E had 4 received to be that significant.
5 My question is, at any time during the lunchbreak 6 at the November 3 meeting did Mr. Rocca or anyone else dis-7 cuss with you their concern that the statenent nade by Mr.
8 Norton could be erroneous or misleading?
g MR. BRAND: Excuse me. Would you ask the last 10 part of that question again? I understood everything up gj to it.
MR. FAULKENBERRY: Okay. At the time during the 12 13 lunchbreak at the November 3 nesting --
[.
j4 MR. BRAND: Yes.
. A N : --
Mr. occa or anyone 15 16 else discuss with you their concern that the statement nade by Mr. Norton could be erroneous or nisleading? I'm talking
- 17
=
about the statenent that Mr. Norton made that PG&E did not l 18 g 19 have the interim report as of November 3.
j 20 MR. BRAND: I do not recall -- Well, let me turn l 21 it around and state it the other way. I recall Mr. Rocca i
J 22 and I having a discussion during the lunch break. I do not 23 recall this subject coming up in that discussion. Mr. Rocca was,-- shall I characterize it -- upset with Mr. Cloud's 24 25 earlier statenant -- and this is all fron memory now -- that g.
-338-
(h i the verification program had been his idea and his idea alone ,
2 because Mr. Rocca related to me during that luncheon that 3 there had been substantial interaction between PG&E and 4 Dr. Cloud and even involving the NRC in what ought to be 5
included in the reverification program. Dr. Cloud's state-6 ment was excessive in that it said that it was solely his 7 product.
8 I remembered Jim and I talking about that. I g related to Jim that I understood his point of view. I was to not concerned with correctina the record I guess at that ij time simply because I was confident that the NPC knew as well that there had been interaction between PG&E, the NRC 12 13 and Cloud regarding the definition of the reverification
(. g program to be performed.
I don't recall Mr. Rocca and I talking about 15 16 anything other than that. I don't recall Mr. Rocca and I talking about Norton's statement about not seeing the
- 17 program. I come back to my earlier testimony where I l 18 j g ig considered the earlier draft reports to be purely something
( :
j 20 preliminary, of an earlier timeframe, and that they did not f 21 in my mind reflect what Dr. Cloud was giving in his status i
f 22 report at the November 3 meeting.
23 I want to remember that I was keying on Cloud's 24 words that he had not given it to PG&E yet., he was still 25 preparing it. In my term, in my sense, that meant this was l k..
-339-l
e h5 i still something that Bob was doing -- Bob Cloud, that is.
2 It may well have been a totally separate report from the 3 earlier draft. I would not want to speculate on that, 4 other than I was keying on Dr. Cloud's earlier statement 5
and remembering that the preliminary drafts, which again, 6 I had not looked at, but that I did know we had received, 7 were simply reflecting an earlier point in time, 8
MR. FAULKENBERRY: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Brand, 9 at any time after your return to San Francisco from the jg November 3 meeting, did Mr. Rocca or anyone aise discuss jj with you their concern that the statement made by Mr. Norton regarding PG&E not having the interim report as of November 12 3 could be erroneous or misleading?
13 C IIR. BRAND: I do not recall any discussion about 14 at.
15 16
. : . and, W. Rocca has
- 17 testified that he became uoset with Mr. Norton at the
=
November 3 meeting when Mr. Norton stated that if the NRC l 18 g jg wants the short term interim report before PG&E gets it, c
j 20 fine. Mr. Rocca testified he felt this was an unnatural l 21 way to work a contract and he discussed these concerns with i
you at the lunch break on November 3. Do you parchance f 22 23 recall this conversation with Mr. Rocca?
24 (Pause)~~
25 MR. FAULKENBERRY: To try to clarify that a
-340-
( i little bit, Mr. Rocca indicated he was very upset that Mr.
2 Norton had stated that if the NRC wanted, PG&E would allow 3 Dr. Cloud's findings to come directly to the NRC prior to 4 going to PG&E. Mr. Rocca felt like this was an unworkable 5 system because it would not give PG&E an opportunity to 6 review and comment from the standpoint of completeness and 7 accuracy. Do you recall Mr. Rocca's conversation with you 8 at lunch on that day?
9 MR. BRAND: Mr. Rocca and I had talked about that.
10 I can't recall us talking about it during that luncheon, but 11 we have talked about that subject, yes.
12 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Were these conversations that 13 you have had with Mr. Rocca on this subject either say k,
14 during the lunch or after the lunch on November 3, can you 15 explain why the conversation on this topic did not trigger 16 you to believe that Mr. Norton's statement with regard to ,
= 17 PG&E not having the draft reports -~ is that clear what I
)
j 18 said or would you like for me to repeat it?
g 19 MR. BRAND : You'd better repeat that.
c j 20 MR. FAULKENBE RRY : Okay. Based upon this
! 21 conversation or conversations that you possibly had with i
Mr. Rocca during lunch or after lunch on the November 3 f 22 23 meeting regarding Mr. Rocca's concern about not allowing 24 PG&E to review reports prior to being submitted to the NRC, 25 could you explain why that conversation didn't possibly b
-341-
~
h[I i trigger you to have more concern about Mr. Norton's statement 2 that PG&E had not received the interim report as of November 3 3?
4 (Pause) 5 MR. FAULKENBERRY : Maybe a little bit more 6 clarification.
7 MR. BRAND: Yes.
8 MR. FAULKENBERRY : It's kind of an awkward 9 question and I apologize.
10 MR. B RAND : I'm grappling a bit with --
11 MR. FAULKENBERRY: I'm apologizing for the 12 awkwardness of the question, but what.I'm trying to get at
, 13 is that in your own mind would that topic, as you discussed
(~ with Mr. Rocca, in any way have triggered you to become 14 15 more concerned with regard to Mr. Norton's other statement, 16 to the extent that you possibly could have or should have
- 17 corrected the record?
l 18 MR. BRNID: My inclination is no. I'm hesitant y ig in replying because I'm having some difficulty tying the j 20 two together where one would have precipitated or caused me f 21 to think to go back to the earlier statement. I, like Mr.
i J 22 Rocca, contend that it is, if not unworkable, it is certainly 23 very difficult for us to have a situation where we have a 24 consultant reviewing our records and that he comes to his 25 conclusions from those without any prior review as to their k..
-342-
h) i factual accuracy. Simply in terms of I want to think that 2 earlier I called this review a communication between the 3 consultant and ourselves and I think this communication is 4 very important and ought to be sustained in any consultant-5 client relationship.
6 With regard to Mr. Norton's statement, I renenber 7
Mr. Norton's statement as saying he doesn't have it coming 8
right after Dr. Cloud's statenent that he hadn't given it 9 to us yet and that, in my nind,that meant that this was a 10 different report or could well have been a different report n than those earlier drafts that we had reviewed and commented on. So I would not have tied the two together at all.
12 MR. FAULKEMBERRY: Thank you, Mr. Brand.
,, 13
' Now, Mr. Brand, I'd like to discuss with you the 34 15 contract that was submitted to Dr. Cloud from PG&E on 16 December 1, 1981. With respect to this contract I have a
- 17 number of questions. First of all, I would like to ask you what Item 1.1 under Miscellaneous Requirements means to you l 18 g ig as related to the work performed by Dr. Cloud prior to December 1. For the record, I will quote what Item 1.1 says, j 20 f 21 and I quote, " Services performed by consultant pursuant to i
PG&E's authorization but before execution of this request f 22 23 for services shall be considered as having been performed 24 subject to the provisions of this request for services",
25 end of quote.
- 343-
3
( i Could you explain to me the best you can what 2 this means~ with regard to services performed by Dr. Cloud 3 prior to December l?
4 MR. BRAND: ~ Well, this term is in recognition that 5 in many instances and as was the case in this instance the 6 consultant,- Dr. Cloud, began his work on the basis of a 7 verbal agreement with PG&E well in advance of the formal g contract. The paperwork presumably always lags the initial 9 agreement to retain a consultant. This is just a catch-all go that we say and I would expect this to be in most if not 11 all of our contracts in the vernacular tern of boilerplate, 12 meaning that simplytthat work done before formal consumnation
-13 of the contract for the scope of work that would be k,
y covered by the contract provisions .
15 MR. FAULKENBERRY: The second question regards 16 Item 1. 3. I will read from the contract, I quote, " Consult-
- 17 ant shall disclose no information to third parties concerning
~j 18 the services performedt under this. request for services without g 39 Vritten permission from PG&E~." Now does this in any way a
j 20 affect the disclosure of information to the NRC from Dr.
~
21 . Cloud?
i f 22 MR. BPidD : No. This is another boilerplate 23 phrase that we include in'our cont-racts so that a consultant 24 would not' he usinh the mategial he derived under our contract 25 for anothe'r purpose clearly outside the scope of work that
- k. .
-344-N.
v4 _ . - , T
.([ 1 he has without our expressed approval in advance. Although 2 you may remember at the November 3 meeting we said that we 3 would make Cloud's material available to the NRC before, 4 during or after it being made available to PG&E. This is, 5 again, simply a boilerplate phrase that we use to protect 6 the company from inovert disclosures.
7 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Was this statement in any way 8 intended to inhibit or restrict the free flow of Dr. Cloud's 0 findings with the NRC?
, 10 MR. BRAND: None whatsoever.
11 MR. FAULKEMBERRY: The next question deals with 12 Item 1.9, Mr. Brand. Again I will quote from the contract.
13 It says " Consultant is an independent contractor and not
.( .(J.
,,an employee of PG&E in any respect whatever."
~
14 Could you f li15 explain to me what that staterent means?
t 16 MR. DRAND: This is another boilerplats phrase
' 17 we include in our contracts, simply saying that in this j 18 instance Dr. Cloud is separate, independent and distinct g 19 from PG&E and has no employee relationship with PG&E whereby s
j 20 we would be having to cover such things as workmen's comp
/f 3 21 for an employee or what have you.
!f ' '22 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Okay. Is it in any way Ty-
/gE a s 23 supposed to address the " question of independency" that 24 has been raised between 'PG&E and the NEC on Dr. Cloud's i 25 work?
.c
\.
l ,
A / -345-q: .
t f'
e . .i - --
l' hh 1 MR. BRAND : The phrase was not included for that 2 purpose; however, as saying that he is an independant 3 contractor, he is indeed that and that he is not under any 4 obligation, shall we say, that a PG&E employee would be.
5 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Mr. Brand, tha last question 6 I have deals with Item 1.12. Item 1.12 refers you to the 7 specification which is an attachment to the contract and '
s specifically Iten 3.3 of the attachnent. I will read:
9 "Significant conditions requiring corrective action shall to be reported to PG&E for concurrence", end of quote. Could 11 you explain what that means with regard to any possible 12 restriction or impediment of free flow of Dr. Cloud's
, 13 findings to the NRC?
b' 34 MR. BRAND : May I see that~ paragraph?
15 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Sure.
16 (Pause while Mr. Brand exanines the contract.)
- 17 MR. BRAND: This paragraph is intended to address E
l 18 quality assurance procedures and that, as such, it means l ig that if there is any change in conditions whereby the 5
j 20 procedures need to be modified that they are done so with f 21 PG&E's concurrence. This in no means reflects at all any-
. a f 22 thing having to do with Dr. Cloud's findings being or 23 suggesting PG&E's concurrence in advance.
24 . Again, this is more or less a boilerplate phrase 25 that is included in specifications. Does that answer your l
L i
l
- 346-l
( 1 question?
2 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Yes, I think so. Mr. Brand, 3 one last question getting back to the independency issue 4 somewhat triggered from a statement in the contract. Could 5 you give us your understanding of what an independent 6 contractor is or what your understanding is that would be 7 necessary for Dr. Cloud to be independent for the work that 8 he is doing on the reverification program?
9 This indeper.dency question has been raised several 10 times.and we are just interested in understanding in your 13 own mind what is necessary for Dr. Cloud to fulfill this 12 independency criteria.
13 MR. B RAND : Independency, in my mind, comes down k,.
14 to Dr. Cloud's being free and able, separate from the company 15 or from any client, to cone to his own conclusions and 16 findings without the express approval in advance of PG&E.
- 17 We may have discussions with Dr. Cloud as to how he might j 18 go about his work, as to what he ought to be looking at, g 19 has he seen all of our files, has he talked to our people c
j 20 so as to understand what is written in the file information.
a ls 21 Again , coming back to this item of clear communication i f 22 between Dr. Cloud and ourselves.
23 The independency, then, is that after this 24 exchange that he is unrestricted whatsoever in how he
! 25 interprets this information and draws his conclusions. We e
y
-347-
):
() 3 have had a past exchange. after he draws his conclusions 2
as to their factual accuracy, but after we have had that 3 exchange he is still free and needs to remain free to come 4 to his own conclusions as to what he finds in -his reverifica-5 tion program. That is ultimately I think the test of 6 independency.
7 MR. PAULKENBERRY: Thank you, Mr. Brand. That 8
is the extent of the questions that I have.
9 Owen, do you have anything to add?
3g MR. SIIACKLETON: Yes. Mr. Brand, just to clarify g a little bit further, I would like to return your recollec-Di " if I ""Y' Please, to the testimony given by Bruce 12 Norton relating to the pages that have been discussed quite
, 33 g a bit, beginning 215 I think roughly through 218. In your testimony today you stated that you do not recall Mr. Rocca 15 commenting on Mr. Norton's statenent on November 3,1981 16 17 that PG&E did not have at that time the interim report from i
Dr. Cloud. You also stated you do remember that you and l 18 g 39 Mr. Rocca talked about Mr. Norton's comments made on November 3, 1981 to the NRC as it relates to the existence of the j 20 interin report from Dr. Cloud at a later tine.
- l. 21 I
Do you recall when that conversation took place f 22 j ,, with Mr. Rocca2 24 MR. BRAND: Now you have me even nore confused.
25 MR. SIIACKLETON : Okay. Let ne try and, if I can,
- 34 E-
I l
h* i make it clearer for your mind. What I'm trying to determine 2 is you stated that you don't recall talking to Rocca during 3 the luncheon on November 3 about the conments made by Mr.
4 Norton concerning the existence of the interim report from l 5 Dr. Cloud. Is that clear?
6 MR. B RNID : That's -- yes. I don' t recall that.
7 MR. SilACKLETON: All right. Then you also stated 8 that you talked with Jim Rocca later concerning those comments 9 that had been made by Mr. Norton. My question is at what
- 10 time, if you can recall, did you and Mr. Rocca discuss the 11 comments made by !!r. Norton concerning his comments con-12 cerning the interin report fron Dr. Cloud?
13 MR. BRNID: My discussions -- let me first try
(, ' to I think clarify the question in my mind.
i4 15 MR. SilACKLETOti: All right.
I 16 MR. BRNID : That is, when did Mr. Rocca and I
- 17 discuss the dif ficulty of working under the proposal that j 18 Mr. Norton would have made or had made as to transmitting g 19 the interim report before our review. Is that again asking j 20 in another sense your question?
! 21 MR. SIIACKLETO?i: Well, it's part of it, Mr.
i My main concern was whether or not at any time d 22 Brand.
23 after that meeting on November 3 that you can recall that
! 24 Jim Rocca and you discussed the concern about Norton saying i 25 that there was no report yet given to PG&E, when in fact b
4
-349-
(' i. Jim Rocca was' aware that there was the preliminary drafts 2 dated October 21 and 26 in-house.
3 MR. BRAND : Okay. We're getting a bit more 4 pointed in our question then. I don't renember talking 5 with Mr. Rocca about that specific question as to Mr.
6 Norton's earlier statement that we don' t have it, when indeed 7 in ?!r. Rocca's mind we did have it. If I gave that impres-8 sion be fore, I misspoke.
9 MR. S!!ACKLETON: Okay. I just wanted to clarify jo that point. If I understand correctly then, what you said ij in an earlier response, as we try to straighten out what 12 I'm getting to here, your recollection of your discussions 13 concerning those comments made by Mr. Norton were primarily 14 over Jim Rocca's concern of giving -- of not being able to 15 receive from Cloud preliminary drafts.
16 MR. BRAND : That's right.
- 17 !!R. SHACKLETON: Fine.
MR. BRAND : That's right. Again, sinply because l 18 it tends to stifle the communication between the two parties
- 19
=
j 20 in advance of an ultimate finding. That's all.
MR. SHACKLETON: Fine. That clarifies what I was fa 21 getting to. I have no further questions. Mr. Brand, do you f 22 23 have any further comments you would like to make at this '
24 time?
25 MR. BRAND: No.
k..
-350-
h3 i MR. S!!ACKLETON: At this tire we will conclude 2 this interview. The time is now 11:47 a.m. going off 3 record.
J 4 (End of interview) 5 6
7 8
9
) 10
. 11 12
. 13
(
14 15 4
16 a 17 i
! 18 i
19 2
j 20 i
! 21
$ 22 i
g 23 l
24 25
, e f -
I f
-351-l