ML20086P913
| ML20086P913 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1995 |
| From: | Gutterman A MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS |
| To: | Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| References | |
| EA-95-077, EA-95-078, EA-95-77, EA-95-78, NUDOCS 9507270206 | |
| Download: ML20086P913 (105) | |
Text
.
~
- .i,.
,L q
- c.t v,:1 r
, u c
- u. o,-
..~
+.
DC.ScMhd MORGAN, Lewis & BOCKlUS I
'PMiLADELPHI A '
COUNSELOms AT LAW WASHINGTON NEW YORM
'.18 0 0 M S T R E E T. N. W.
Los ANOELEs WAsHINGT ON,' D.C. 20036 HAmmassunO l
'. MI AMI LONDON l
PAINCCTON Tatsemons: 1202: 467 7000 FRANKFURT
.CaussELs y,,,,,,,,,,,,,.
TOKYO.
I r
.i July 21, 1995 Mr. James Lieberman Director, Office of Enforcement i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 l
i Re:
South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. STN-50-498; STN-50-499 j
EA 95-077 & 95-078 i
Dear Mr. Lieberman:
We have reviewed a letter to you from Mr. S. Tanner l
Garth dated June 20, 1995.
The letter comments on statements i
made by representatives Of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). and Houston. Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) at the enforcement conference on June 16, 1995.
It was written without.
the benefit ~of the NRC transcript of the enforcement conference, and consequently reflects some errors in its characterizations of j
some of the statements at the conference.
The letter also 3
includes.. disparaging comments about the NRC, HL&P and the conduct j
of the conference that are rhetorical rather than substantive and do not merit a' response.
However, we have identified ten i
comments on substantive issues that require' response.. The 1
attachment to this letter responds to each of these ten comments.
j l
Please call me if you have any questions about this l
letter or any other aspect of the issues related'to the j
enforcement' actions under consideration.
G, Sincerely,
&#A1R Alvin H. Gutterman
/faj Attachments cc(w/att):
William T.
Cottle Richard L. Balcom f
vl' lp, 9507270206 950721 PDR ADOCK 05000498 Q
i ATTACHMENT t
i i
i
i i
TABLE OF CONTENTS -
1 1
TAR f
Perceived Harassment and' Intimidation 1
l Improbability of a Broad Conspiracy 2
.j Compliance-with Reporting Requirements 3
-l Security System Improvements 4
Mr. Moore's Role in Completing the Special Performance Profiles (SPPs) 5 Certified Protection Professional (CPP)-
6 Mr. Moore's Knowledge of Protected Activities 7
.l Human Resources Review of the SPPs 8
The SPP Process...
9 Were Complainants "the most vigorous?"
10
-t
f 1.
. Perceived Harassaant and Intimidation Comment:
The letter (p. 2) asserts that Mr. Cottle stated that'the Recommended Decision and Order (RDO) "was l
l premised in large part on the theory that South Texas Project
.i i
management routinely retaliates against whistle-blowers," and l
l that this " premise was flawed because you simply cannot run a i
nuclear plant in that fashion."
The letter then argues that, l
1 notwithstanding Mr. Cottle's statements, evidence of " perceived j
harassment and intimidation was received from numerous witnesses l
l at the trial."
J Responses A.
Mr. Cottle's point was that the RDO appears to proceed from the erroneous assumption that managers at j
all facilities retaliate.
To the extent that Mr. Garth's comment I
can be read to argue that such a practice existed at South Texas, l
it is not supported by the hearing record.
The letter does not j
cite any part of the DOL record or any other evidence to support-l such a claim.
Although a few witnesses did testify'that in their opinion there have been instances of such retaliation, none provided a factual basis for his opinion. l' B.
Aside from the DOL hearing record, the NRC has independent knowledge that there was no practice of widespread discrimination at STP as alleged by Mr. Garth.
The NRC has had a 1
continuous presence at the South Texas Project since the first resident inspector was assigned in 1979 and has investigated sporadic charges of harassment or intimidation.
Most recently, j
1/
Such testimony is discussed in HL&P's January 31, 1994, Post Hearing Brief at 47-48.
the NRC. conducted a comprehensive review of allegations regarding the South Texas Project.
The review encompassed the allegations of Mr. Garth's clients and any other individuals they identified to the review team. The NRC Allegations Review Team "did not uncover widespread discriminatory practices," and noted t'aat "the previous NRC inspections and efforts by the licensee support" the conclusion that there were no such practices.
" Report of the South Texas Project Allegations Review Team" at 3-14.
C.
This NRC Allegation Review Team conclusion is further supported by a review HL&P conducted prior to the DOL hearing.
The review considered the employment status of non-anonymous HL&P Speakout concernees between January 1, 1990 and July 31, 1993 (approximately the tenure of Donald Hall as Group Vica President Nuclear).
The review found that 50 of the 53 HL&P employees who filed concerns during that period were still employed by HL&P, a retention rate that compared favorably with the rate for the entire project.
The review demonstrates that HL&P management did not terminate employees for raising Speakout concerns. 2r 2/
Testimony concerning this study was not permitted by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) because the complainants had not had access to the Speakout records to contest the review results. The reasons for excluding the testimony do not in any way diminish the review's validity.
-2 l
.]
2383 f.
INDEX VOIR WITNESSES:
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS DIRE r
l Ricky Wayne Cink 2391-2464 2586 2595 i
(resuming) 2526 Agapito Rodrique:
2597 2607 2616 EXHIBITS:
IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE Claimant's:
100 2535 101 2535 Respondent's:
26 2385 2386 27 2398 2399 52 2409 2410 79 2422 2423 80 2424 129 prev.
2384
?
i
. -._ -~
4 J
1.
L i
2430 t
f l'
it'for purposes of appeal.
2 MR. GARTH:
Yes, sir.
I think you have to do i
I 3
that, Judge. Just for the record, I would ask you to
}
4 instruct and admonish yourself to disregard as evidence f
I 5
anything that it says.
l 6
JUDGE MILLER: Thank you for your kind l
7 recommendation.
8-(Laughter.)
.l 9-BY MR. LEAVITT 1
l 10 Q
Mr. Cink, the Court has not allowed that document 11 to come into evidence, and without testifying from that 1
13 document, do you have any independent recollection of the 1
1 13 types of complaints that are registered in the various Speak
']
14 outs that were referenced on that document? Do you know j
15 whether or not they are serious-natured complaints, or are 16 they stealing ice cream from the vending machines?
17 A
Some of the complaints -- Because, naturally, I 18 reviewed the names versus the numbers, some of the 19 complaints were, in my opinion, significant complaints.
20 Some dealt with the mechanics of nuclear safety-related 21 system out in the plant.
22 What I also recognize is that a number of repeat 23 people that brought in concerns. There were.cencerns 24 dealing with health / physics-related problems, which directly i
25 relates to the public health and safety. Those of that' l
l l
I l
i
I i
'[
r i.
j r
i o
2431
{
1 nature.
3' l
2 Q
There has been testimony, and-I'll summarize it,
,y.
l
{
3-that goes something along the lines of those who go to Speak 1
4 Out have no future with this company.
Do you have an og 5
opinion on testimony like that, Mr. Cink?
6 A
I definitely have an opinion.
]
7 Q
What is your belief in that regard?
8 A
That tha't perception is totally unfounded.
I got 4.
9 proof of this, even though I can't present it, because I 10 would have to violate those people.
That is not a proper i
11 perception, in my opinion.
..pt
- l 12 I've-dealt with thousands of people over the eight
]
w 13 years that I've been out there.
I haven't recognized a l
14 trend of people who talked to me subsequently end their 15 employment with the plant.
I believe I would have heard 16 about it if there was a trend such as that.
l l
17 That particular program out there, in my opinion, 18 has benefitted everyone that works at the plant, because we 19 have fixed several things over the years.
20 Q
All right, sir. Now let me direct your attention JA 31 to the summer of 1991.
22 A
Yes, sir.
23 Q
Were you approached and quizzed by Mr. Tom Jordan, 24 who at that time was head of Nuclear Assurance, regarding a
'I
.25 particular Inspector General investigation that was pending?
i 1
l j
l I
i 2.
Improbability of a Broad Consoiracy j
Comments. Mr. Garth's letter (p. 2) asserts "Mr.
i Cottle's next. unwitting admission was, that to the extent the l
l wrongful terminations of Lamb and Dean were accomplished by a conspiracy, such could'not be the case because ' conspiracies do I
not succeed.'"
The letter argues that this alleged conspiracy did not succeed, because it was detected by the NRC Office of l
Inspector General, the DOL Investigator and the DOL ALJ.
Response
At the enforcement conference, Mr. Cottle
]
pointed out that acceptance of the RDO's conclusion requires that the decision-maker accept the notion that the entire l
restructuring of the Security Department was a sham involving a l
t conspiracy of.a number of high level managers to get-rid of-employees who raise concerns.
He stated that his own inquiries l) convinced him there was no such conspiracy.
He also made the observation that a conspiracy involving more than~two people will i
rarely go undetected.
Mr. Garth's letter also misconstrues Mr. Cottle's main point.
Mr. Cottle was emphasizing that, in the absence of any j
i direct evidence of a conspiracy of the sort suggested by the RDO l
it was highly improbable that one existed,l' Mr. Cottle's l
l central point was that the NRC cannot and should not infer the i
existence of a conspiracy on the basis of weak circumstantial evidence.
I i
i 1/
Mr. Garth's letter is incorrect about the NRC Inspector I
General and the DOL investigator; neither made any finding l
of a conspiracy.
i m.
4 i
i 3.
Compliance with Recortina Reauirements Comment:
Mr. Garth's letter (p. 2) claims that Mr.
j t
Balcom provided a." false or inaccurate response" to Dr.
Montgomery's question of whether there was a management attitude at South Texas that " reportable events should not be reported j
because they lead to inspections and the less inspections the l
higher the ratings."
The letter says that Mr. Balcom
" vehemently denied".that such an attitude existed, and then proceeds to assert that the DOL hearing transcript and Speakout i
Report 12204 show evidence of such an attitude.
Response
The enforcement conference transcript does l
not reflect any question about attitudes towards reporting l
reportable events.
It does contain a question from Mr. Beach l
about whether there was an attitude "that if you limit the number
]
of NRC inspections or focused NRC inspections, that there would be less violations; therefore better performance and higher staff
- t ratings."
Tr. 61.
Mr. Balcom's reply was~"I don't think that He then went on to add that that attitude was prevalent.
I the attitude at STP was to be open and honest with the NRC.
He particularly noted that, when he was in Quality Assurance (QA),
I NRC relied on the openness of the QA department and received QA's full support.
He added, "we were out there to identify problems,
{
and get them fixed."
Tr.62.
i The sections of the DOL transcript cited by Mr. Garth's letter as purporting to show there was a pre-disposition to avoid reporting, actually demonstrate the contrary.
Mr. Hall, for-example, testified that project management sought to reduce the
,e--
g e
number of inspections like the Tobin. inspection (i.e.,-reactive l
NRC team inspections) by self-identifying issues, analyzing them j
and solving them.
DOL Tr. 966.
There is nothing in his testimony to suggest that avoidance of reporting was an STP policy.
At the transcript page cited by Mr. Garth's letter, Mr.
Pomeroy states that management's attitude with regard to reportable events is "they go and try to respond to them in a timely manner."
DOL Tr. 2057.
Mr. Pomeroy denied that management had a policy of not reporting such events.
- Finally, Speakout Report 12204 does not find that there was any policy of not reporting reportable events.
Relevant portions of the DOL transcript are attached.
a l
1 J 1
[.
929 INDEX VOIR WITNESSES:
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RE-CROSS DIRE Donald P. Hall 951 1017 1059 1071 1038 i
i i
Warren Kinsey, Jr.
1080 1122 I
i l
t
,A.
2 i
954 i
1 A
Supervision, operation, maintenance, all of'it, 2
yes.
~f 3
Q okay.
Mr. Hall, I'd like to talk to you a minute 4
.about SALPs.
SALP, S-A-L-P, means Systematic-Appraisal'of 5
Licensee Performance, isn't that right?
'l 4
6 A
Yes.
1 7
Q And that's essentially a performance rating that 8
the NRC gives the various divisions of the South Texas
' t i
9 Project, isn't it?
i
.t
. y 10
.1 A
That's correct.
' I 11 Q
And those ratings are done every twelve to fifteen
-i I
12 months, approximately?
l 13.
A Yes.
i L
14 Q
And each division -- and I think you testified i
.i-15 there may have been at one time seven divisions that were i
16
. rated with SALPS -- each division had'a separate SALPi
{
17 rating, isn't that right?
l 18 A
That's correct.
}
.s 19 0
-With these SALP ratingsi it's my understanding j
t 20 there were four categories, is'that'right?
j 21 A
Yes.
.)
i The lowest category 22 Q
Is that your understanding?
23 is not even given'a number because it just means they're so I
f[
24 dissatisfied they're not even going to rate you, yet, isn't
.].
j 25 that right?
'I L
j i
I t
i 955 1
A Lyes, they don't rate that. ~ It's not' rated.
l r
2 0
.And then a Category Three.means:that performance l
3 is below' standard? Is that right?
]
4 A
-Yes.
5 Q
And, that would necessitate the NRC increasing its 6
inspection frequency, is that right?
7 A
That's correct.
ll 8
Q Okay.
The Category Two means that the performance f
l 9
is about average, standard, what the NRC has determined i's j
10 standard, is that-right?-
-(
4' 11 A
Yes.
'}
t j
12 Q
And in.a Category Two rating means that you will
~
13 just have the standard number of inspections from NRC, is l-14 that right?
+
1 15 A
standard' activity, yes.
]
16 Q
Okay. The Category One rating is the best rating.
17 isn't it?
t t
18 A
Yes.
i i
19 Q
And that means that your performance is above l
}
20 average, is that right?
f 21 A
It is, yes.
l I-22 Q
And'that also means that the NRC will conduct less J
l 23 inspections, isn't that right?
l 24 A
That's what they -- they are allowed to reduce the
'25 scope of their inspection activity, yes.
+
- t i
i 956 1
-Q Okay. Now as the VP, I assume"that you strove for.
2 Category One SALPs for'all the divisions at the South Texas I
,-4 I
3 Project?
{
4-A We strove for excellence, that's correct.
i l
5 Q
Okay..
And that's because a Category One rating t
6 would in fact decrease your work load out there, wouldn't 7
it?
i 8
A Yes.
9 Q
Okay. Anel because it decreases your work load, it l
10 decreases the cost associated with operating that plant, 11 isn't that right?
12 A
- Yes, t
13 Q
Okay.
When you arrived at the South Texas Project l
14 in 1989 -- actually your first SALP, and the one that would 15 have been applicable to the' time that you were there, came 16 in 1990, is that right?
1 1
17 A
That's correct, yes.
18 Q
Okay. And the SALP rating for the Nuclear i
l 19 Security Division in 1990 was a Category one, wasn't it?
g 20 A
Yes.
l 21 Q
Okay.
And that SALP rating in 1992 for'the 22 Nuclear Security Division was a Category Two decline, wasn't'
)
23 it?
24 A
Yes.
25 Q
Okay.
And you attribute that decline between 1990 l
i i
u, i
i
'l e
e 957 i
l-and 1992 to certain violations imposed on the South Texas'
'I 2
Project by the NRC, don't you?
3 A
Yes.
t
\\
4 Q
Okay.
t 5
(Pause.)
l 6
0
. Mr ~ Hall, have you seen the Tobin Report? You l
}
7 have seen the Tobin Report --
3 8
A Yes.
1 l
- f 9
Q
-- haven't you? And you know what we're talking
'I
. i 1
10' about, we don't hav3 to -- give an explanation?.
)
11 Judge, I'm referring to Exhibit 47.
Complainant's t
12-Exhibit 47.
Your Honor, could I ask you to hand him Exhibit j
l 13 477 1
14 JUDGE MILLER: All right. You want to' record to l
~!
15 reflect that he's looking at the one that's in here. Let
-j
}'
16
'the record reflect that I'm handing Claimant's Exhibit 47 to'
<l I
i 17 the witness.
~.
1-18 BY'MS. FENDIA:
l t.
,19 Q
Mr. Hall, you're looking atLthe Tobin Report _isn't I
i I -
20 that right?
q 21 A
I don't know whether I am or not.
The letter or i
22 promulgation is not here, so --
l l
\\
. Il 23 Q
Okay.
,j i
24 A
There's an awful lot blacked out and in the Tobin l
25 Report that I've seen, has not had it blacked out.
I'd have I
i l
k e:
F.
. I
'U
i 12
- ,3, i
k I
rh9 r
a.
l
'\\
i
.I 965 t
j 1
page.
I 2
. Laughter.)
(
- I
'I
.}
3 A
All right.
\\
4 Q
Let me refer you to page six of that report. The i
I 5
issue addressed at the top of'page six is that, certain - -
j 6
' concerned parties,' I beg your pardon -- ' speak out in NRC i
7 investigations, believe that on three occasions compensatory f
8 posting and functional testing were not correctly perforced q
f 9
following security system power-interruptions."
Is that --
1 10 A
That's what tha: said, yes.
11 Q
And-that's the power outage issue, isn't it?
l 12 A
Yes.
l l
13 Q
Now, Mr. Jordan refers to,'
in the.first issue that j
14 we discussed, several individuals..And in this second issue 15 he talks about concerned parties -- did you ever talk to him j
i
'16 about who these individuals were?
17 A
I did noc.
I 18 Q
You didn't have any interest iri who were f
19 expressing these kind of concerns?
20 A-
.I did not.
Not as' persons.
I wanted to resolve 1
21 the issue.
22 O
okay, but you didn't inquire about it at all?
~
23 A
No.
24 Q.
Mr. Hall, the Tobin inspection came about because i
p..
O!h 1
25 the NRC had developed some special concerns about what was
[g
(
ut j
i h
1 i
'l r
y i
i 966 l
1 going on at the South Texas Project, isn't that right?
t l
2 A
In the security area, yes.
3 Q
In the security area, that's right.
So, this 4
wasn't just a normal inspection that you would have from 5
NRC?
6 A
No, it was a special team inspection.
7 Q
Okay.
Now you would do everything you could to 8
avoid Tobin-type inspections, wouldn't you? At that point?
9 A
We'd do everything within a management propriety 10 to avoid it, yes.
11 Q
So you answer is yes? And if someone is making 12 allegations that would lead to a Tobin-type inspection, 13 that's something you would want to avoid? You don't want 14 that to happen, do you?
15 A
What we would want to do is identify the issue, 16 which is what we were trying to do with the Tom Jordan 17 report. Analyze it, break it down, defire it, and solve the 18 issue.
19 Q
I would object to the responsiveness for the 20 record. Would you answer, yes, that is something you want 21 to avoid?
22 A
It is not yes, because we were not trying to look 23 at the individuals who were generating the allegations.
24 What we were trying to do was look at the issue that was at 25 question.
{
b a
.I t
h 967 1
Q Well, Mr. Hall, let me clarify my question for 2
you.
My question was, do you want to avoid Tobin 3
inspections?
4 A
Yes.
s' 5
Q Okay.
Mr. Hall, let's talk a little bit about the 6
Speakout -- Program at South Texas.
It's my understanding 7
that it's HLP's position that that program is entirely 8
confidential -- that people making reports to Speakout are 9
anonymous and confidentiality is preserved.
Is that right?
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
Okay.
12 JUDGE MILLER: Confidentiality however is as to 13 the identity of the concerned individual of the complainant, 14 I assume. The nature of the complaint, presumably is not 15 confidential because it obviously has to be acted on.
Ia 16 that a fair perception?
17 THE WITNESS: That's exactly right, Your Honor.
18 JUDGE MILLER: All right. Resume --
1 19 MS. FENDIA ' Nothing further. And -- that's 4
20 exactly my understanding as well.
I'm talking about the 21 concernee, the person making the report.
22 THE WITNESS: Our intention is to protect the 23 identity of the individual, yes.
24 BY MS FENDIA:
25 0
And, you believe that that's important to do, 1
1818 INDEX VOIR WIT!IESSES:
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS DIRE Charles J. Williams 1822 1857 1871 1880 Ray Lala 1904 1970 2022 2032 Gary Pomaroy 2034 2091 2128 EXHIBITS:
IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE Administrative Law Judge:
2 1904 3
2091 Complainant's:
97 2077 2077 98 1939 1940 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
2056 1
Q That's a general feeling?
2 A
Well, through association with other employees at 3
the site that I have encountered.
And I can -- since my 4
name was in the paper on father's day where it identified 5
myself as being the person who gave a deposition and said, 6
that -- that has been reinforced by plant personnel coming 7
up to me and telling me that although they agreed with what I
8 I said, they certainly didn't admire the position I was in j
9 and would not want to be in my shoes.
If that's --
10 Q
What does that make you think?
11 A
Well, it's -- there is no --
+
12 Q
I apologize for Mr. Minton making light of what l
13 you feel --
14 MR. MINTON:
I am not making light of any of --
15 MR. GARTH: Well, quit laughing at him. Your 16 Honor, I really have a hard time.
7:
17 JUDGE MILLER: All right. You've made your 18 record. Go ahead and ask him the next question.
19 BY MR. GARTH:
20 Q
What is -- what -- other than Dave Lamb, sir, 21 what other supervisors have you had occasion to work under?
22 A
I have worked for Dave Sheesley, for Rex Moore 23 and currently I am working for Maude Ester Woodard-Hall.
t 24 Q
Did you have occasion to observe Dave Lamb's 25 ethics with regard to reporting regulatory violations while b
2057 1
you were working for him?
2 A
My observation of Dave Lamb, the way he conducted 3
business, he operated within the guidelines of the rules and 4
regulations set forth in 10 CFR. 5 Q
Have you had occasion to make that same 6
comparison or judgment of Dave Sheesley?
7 A
I would say he tries to operate within the 8
guidelines of 10 CFR.
]
9 Q
To your observation, sir, does he?
10 A
Well he has a different method of doing business.
11 Q
And what is that method, Mr. Pomeroy?
12 A
He does what he feels is the correct thing to do 13 at that time.
This is the correct way of doing things, then 14 it may be somebody else's responsibility, but if he feels he 15 can get it done sooner, he does it.
That doesn't mean that 16 he is violating 10 CFR or anything. With --
17 Q
Sir, you worked for a time -- let me ask you 18 this.
In the nuclear security department, to your 19 observation or have you had an opportunity to observe 20 management's attitude with regard to reportable events?
21 A
Usually my involvement with regards to reportable 1;
22 events, they go and try and respond to them in a timely
]!
23 manner.
1 24 0
It's been your observation, what did they, how 25 did they react to having reportable events? Something they l
i 1
t i
t 1
1 i
k
4 5
2058 1
liked, something they disliked? They get angry about it or 2
are they happy about it?
3 A
Well, you don't like to have reportable events.
4 That means that your security operation hasn't worked the 5
way it supposed to.
6 Q
Have you observed occasions when they tried to 7
avoid documenting reportable events in a proper fashion?
8 A
No, I --
9 Q
Sir, you worked for a time in the speak out 10 group, is that accurate?
11 A
Yes, sir.
12 Q
And you were doing investigations for them?
13 A
Yes, sir.
14 Q
You have been involved in investigations of 15 management retaliation in that capacity, have you not?
.,4 16 A
Management retaliation.
I had, there was an 17 occurrence --
18 Q
Yes, sir.
There was an occurrence?
19 A
We are talking about management retaliation. To 20 what degree, I have done several investigations. And --
21 JUDGE MILLER: Maybe the way to frame that is 22 where -- now these investigations where management 23 retaliation has been alleged.
24 Q
Have you been a party to that kind of 25 investigation?
4.
Security System Imorovements Comments:- Mr. Garth (pp. 2-3) refers to Mr. Balcom's statement that "it was not surprising that Mr. Lamb got the
' lowest ranking on the SPP (among supervisors) because he was in charge of the system which was experiencing poor performance,"
.and states that this is a disingenuous argument.
The letter does a
not appear to dispute Mr. Balcom's characterization of the system performance prior to the reorganization, but claims that it was
]
not Mr. Lamb's fault.
It states further that there were no real improvements after the reorganization.
The letter cites the
'l testimony of Mr. Lala, a maintenance foreman, and Mr. Williams, a l
maintenance technician, to the effect that Mr. Lamb " insisted on repairing the system by pulling new cable" while Mr. Balcom and
]
Mr..Sheesley (who took over responsibility for the system after the reorganization) accepted the system "back in a degraded condition," and "made the system appear better than it was by tearing up problem reports and ignoring problems."
Mr. Garth's letter also quotes from the letter transmitting Inspection Report 93-23, apparently to show there were no real improvements in system maintenance after the reorganization.
Response
A.
There can be no doubt that Mr. Balcom was correct in his statement that the security systems were not meeting l
expectations in 1991 and early 1992.
This point was made in the l
l
\\
l l
l t
h NRC SALP report in 1991, and the NRC's statements at the SALP j
[
meeting in October 1992.
B.
Mr. Garth's argument about acceptance of degraded equipment is founded on the mistaken assumption that. degraded i
equipment cannot be operable.
The cited testimony of Messrs.
f Lala and Williams suggests that Mr. Lamb was less willing than Mr. Sheesley to consider degraded equipment operable.
There is l
no dispute on this point.
Mr. Sheesley developed techniques for assessing whether degraded cameras met minimum acceptance i
criteria and initiated efforts to reduce the degree of degradation so that degraded cameras could be kept in service.
Sag DOL Tr. 3231-39 (attached).
f These actions were necessary and appropriate, since it l
would take considerable time to complete the security system upgrades.
As Mr. Balcom noted at the enforcement conference, f
while the system upgrades were still pending, Mr. Sheesley's efforts to improve system availability were effective.
The NRC recognized this improvement when it presented the SALP results on October 13, 1992.
On November 25, 1992, HL&P was able to report to the NRC a decline in Security compensatory post hours due to a/
Another reason the relative SPP ratings would not be a surprise is the professional backgrounds of the four supervisor candidates.
Mr. Moore had been a division manager for four years and performed well at this position.
Mr. Drymiller's annual performance appraisals had been consistently the best in the department.
Mr. Sheesley and Mr. Lamb had received comparable performance appraisals, but Mr. Sheesley had significantly more experience, both in nuclear security and as a manager / supervisor.
In addition, of the four, only Mr. Lamb was not a college graduate.
-2
i l
l equipment failure from an average of'600 hours0.00694 days <br />0.167 hours <br />9.920635e-4 weeks <br />2.283e-4 months <br /> po day in May 1992 to an average of less than 140 hours0.00162 days <br />0.0389 hours <br />2.314815e-4 weeks <br />5.327e-5 months <br /> per day in October 1992.
Letter to Mr. James L. Milhoan, Regional Administrator, Region IV dated November 25, 1992 (ST-HL-AE-4267), at Attachment, I
page'12.
C.
Contrary to Mr. Garth's assertions, Inspection Report 93-23 is consistent with significant improvement in the security system.
It notes that compensatory measures were being 1
l implemented for degraded security equipment as required by the NRC-approved Physical Security Plan and the inspection report does not identify any violations.
2' The claim that Mr. Sheesley tore up or voided a large l
l number of Service Requests to make the system look better was raised during pre-hearing discovery.
The claim is untrue and
)
l does not make sense because improperly voiding Service Requests would leave equipment unrepaired and result in increased compensatory posting, making system performance appear worse, not better.
Nevertheless, HL&P looked into the claim and found that it was not substantiated.
Witnesses at the DOL proceeding I
testified that Mr. Sheesley did not void an excessive number of service requests, and that there were valid reasons to void j
requests -- such as when there were duplicate requests.
No l
finding to the contrary is made by the DOL ALJ.
5/
Although Inspection Report 93-23 notes increased use of compensatory posts, this was due to discovery of an issue concerning the design of the tamper alarms, not maintenance problems.
Sgg DOL Tr. 3252-57. -
t t
Relevant portions from the DOL transcript are attached.
l t
i f
I l
i i
't t
- l t
i e
I w
i 4
I a
I' 4
i
(
i i
i i
i l
3 l
l 1
..i j
1 1
a
-4 1
1 1
i I
?
i
(
,3203 INDEX VOIR WITNESSES:
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS DIRE 7
' David L'.TSheesley 3207 3262 3378 3388 l
1 3310 l
Betty Brown 3390 3404 Jay Watt Henson 3410 a
i i
EXHIBITS:
IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE l
Claimants' t
108 prev.
3350 l
110 prev.
3389 i
Respondent's l
59 prev.
3338
)
i 155 prev.
3388 156 prev.
3401 i
157 prev.
3410 l
'l 4
l 1
1
)
)
I
i r
i 3231 1
performed?
i 2
A Well, there isn't.
There isn't a reason to leave
[
?
3 it in there because we have one work order that indicates 1
4 that the entire system will be replaced and we'll be pulling 5
all new video. We had originally looked at the system and 6
determined for a number of reasons, not only the 7
degradations that we've seen but some of the technology.
8 issues that have been surpassed, that we were due for a 9
major system upgrade. So we had planned for, at least r
10 during my most recent tenure in systems, a major upgrade
'),
11 within a year or two.
j t
12 Q
Tell us about circles, squares and triangles.
13 A
How does an alarm station operator determine the 14 clarity of a particular picture, okay? When does it become f
15 acceptable and non-acceptable?
16 We've got several different people during a day
~i 17 and several different people during a shift that will be 18 making a judgment based on that.
What tool can you give 19 those folks so that it's.a little more subjective, so that 20 you can actually define a standard?
a 21 And I looked through some of the literature and i,
i 22 came up with one of the more simple tests, a non-engineering l
.23 test, one that they could do very easily on their own.
It's 24 a test that was -- I wouldn't say recommended but that is 25 known in the nuclear industry and it's a series of test l
l l
J t
I i
3232 f
1 targets.
It's a square approximately 12 by 12, a circle i
2 approximately the same size and a triangle. They're painted i
3 flat black on a small stand.
4 The security officer out in the field takes these
~
5 test targets and positions them at the end of the field of 6
view for the camera in question. The alarm station operator l
7 an then view those test targets, square, circle and 8
triangle, and will be able to distinguish the shapes and 9
confirm that they have the correct shapes in the correct 10 order with the officer that's standing by in the field.
11 If the alarm station operator can distinguish 12 those shapes, again, a foot square, at the end of the field l
13 of view, we wrote the procedure such that that meets our L
14 minimum specification, that's our minimum requirement for
^
15 resolution.
t 16 Q
What literature did you look to, Mr. Sheesley, and 17 how did you come up with this kind of a test?
18 A
Well, there is an Institute of Nuclear Matetials j
19 Management organization and they have an annual meeting i
20 where they put together papers presented by their members 21 throughout the organization, okay? Not just security 22 issues, not just computer issues, not just materials 23 management issues.
24 And I came across some references to that series i
25 of test targets being used in an NRC inspector's test kit i
i i
1 1
t i
i I
i l
i 3233 i
1 for security systems.
I got the name of the manufacturer of 2
the entire test kit, including the test targets, and I gave t
3 him a call.
4 Q
And you wound up using that system, is that j
5 correct?
i 6
A Yes, sir.
l 7
Q Now, let's go back to where the central alarm
{
8 station is.
It's housed there inside the perimeter, is that 9
correct?
j 10 A
It's inside the perimeter, yes, sir.
11 Q
As a matter of fact, I gu9ss the secondary alarm l
12 station is somewhere inside the perimeter, is that correct?
13 A
Yes, sir.
l i
14 Q
Let's talk about the central alarm station.
It's t
i 15 a room about -- I guess a fourth the size, a third the size l
1 16 of this room.
Is that correct?
17 A
Approximately, yes, sir.
18 Q
on one end, it has an apparatus which includes a 19 whole bunch of monitors.
Is that correct?
f 20 A
Yes, sir.
21 Q
And you have operators that are sitting in front 22 of those monitors.
23 A
Yes, sir.
l 24 Q
They're looking at screens -- and you guys stop me i
t 25 if I get into any -- we've got all our safeguard people 1
)
I a
b l
3234 l
1 here -- you've got screens that are in front of, let's say, 2
two different operators and these are going off in sequence.
f 3
As I recall, there are -- how many?
l 4
A Several.
5 Q
Several. That's what we'll say.
Several. Quite 6
a few.
And they are so big, nine inches by what?
7 A
It's a nine-inch monitor.
f 8
Q And the clarity on each of those will be different 9
from time to time, depending on what particular area that 10 that monitor is at that moment monitoring.
Is that correct?
11 A
Yes, sir.
i 12 Q
And to test those, let's go back again. To test 13 those, when the operator has any concern about the clarity, 14 you do what?
15 A
The alarm station operator contacts one of the 16 patrol officers that's doing random patrols around the 17 protected area.
He picks up a set of test targets and we 4
18 have them located in various places throughout the I
19_
perimeter. They go to the camera in question, set the test r
20 targets up in random order. They radio contact the alarm 21 station and indicate the targets are set.
I i
22 The alarm station operator simulates an alarm 23 through a keyboard comnand such that the cameras responsible i
24 for that zone that they are adjacent to, that intrusion 25 detection zone that they are adjacent to, displays an alarm.
j
O-i i
3235 1
And the operator in both CAR and SAS view that k
2:
video signal and come to an agreement whether it is 3
acceptable video or non-acceptable video by calling out to 4
the officer in the field I see a circle, square, triangle or 5
the appropriate placement. And the officer in'the field
((
6 confirms that, yes, that is in fact the order in which I 3
7 have the targets placed.
8 Q
In your judgment, is that a satisfactory system to i
9 use to determine whether the clarity is acceptable or not?
'10 A
I believe it is.
It's simple, it's 1-,
11 straightforward.
It is critical. Again, we're dealing with-12 being able not just to distinguish an object 12 inches but 13 being able to distinguish between a square and a circle 14 that's approximately the same size.
gj 15 JUDGE MILLER: What color are these?
16 THE WITNESS: These are painted black. Flat 17 black.
18 JUDGE MILLER: All three of them.
I 19 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
i 20 JUDGE MILLER: Just flat black.
21 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
22 JUDGE MILLER: Are they solid or do they have a 23 hole in'them?
t 24 THE WITNESS:
No, sir.
They are metal, punched I
i 25 metal, approximately 20 gauge. And they are solid.
[
t L
I
3236 1
BY MR. MINTON:
2 Q
I have asked you if in your judgment this is 3
satisfactory. Has this kind of testing been done by Nuclear 4
Regulatory Commission?
5 A
I can't answer that.
I've never seen our 6
inspectors use this type of a test.
I know that a test like 7
this or a test similar to this is being used at other 8
facilities for the licensees' use.
9 Q
All right.
Now, let's go back to talking about
,j 10 these service requests. We were talking in that connection 11 of having a monitor that was insufficient-insofar as clarity 12 is concerned and then the example I gave of where it just 13 turned back into being better and you explained what you did 14 in that case.
15 If it stays there, if it stays degraded but you go 16 down and void the service request, this is a silly question, 17 does that cure the problem with the monitor?
18 A
No, sir, it doesn't.
Voiding a service request 19 doesn't have any effect on the equipment in the field.
20 Q
So tearing up the estimate on how much it's going 21 to cost to repair the engine, does tearing that estimate 22 repair the engine?
23 A
Ie doesn't repair the engine.
M 24 JUDGE MILLER:
Do I understand correctly that if 25 the monitor is (.egraded, determined to be degraded, can't be t
t i
3237 1
repaired and doesn't for whatever reason restore itself, 2
presumably there's a service request for a repair when it 3
initially goes down.
4 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
5 JUDGE MILLER: Would there be an occasion when if 6
it's determined the monitor'is going to stay degraded that 7
you would void that service request?
8 THE WITNESS:
No, we normally leave those type of 9
service requests open because we still have an identified or 10 identifiable problem with that component and we use the 11 service request to continue the work effort.
I 12 There may be things other than the cable involved, 13 as I indicated, okay? There may be some additional 14 engineering that can be done in lieu of that particular 15 cable.
16 JUDGE MILLER: But would you void the original 17 service request and substitute a different one as the 18 diagnosis changed, as the possibilities changed?
19 THE WITNESS:
It depends.
I've done both.
I have 20 added to the existing service request as we go through a 21 troubleshooting regime, added to the existing service 22 request, the same piece of paper.
23 or many times we have a generic work req"est that 24 lists this type of problem, for maybe other components, 25 similar components, and we'll void this one and add that
i i
l 3238 1
service request number or that component number to the 2
generic service request of a similar type of problem.
3 BY MR. MI! TION:
4 Q
Have you ever gone in and voided a service request 5
on a piece of equipment or part of a system where it's clear 6
to you that the service request had been made because it 7
didn't work and where it still didn't work and you have 8
simply voided that in order to make the availability of the 9
system better?
i i
10 Do you understand my question?
11 A
Yes, sir, I do.
The answer is no, I haven't done 12 that.
And furthermore, a service request doesn't affect 1
13 availability at all. Availability is is the component 14 available for use by the security force. Any number of 15 pieces of paper may be against that component. The l
16 availability of that component is determined by the alarm 17 station operators using their procedure, whether it's 18 compensatorily posted or not compensatorily posted.
19 I have a number of service requests against a 20 component that is still usable.
It still meets our 21 acceptance standards. So voiding or not voiding a service 22 request or writing or not writing a service request does not
'l 23 affect the availability of that component.
24 Q
I understand.
Now, then, let's take another l
25 hypothetical.
There is a monitor in the central alarm l
l
i 3239 1
station that an operator believes is degraded but that 2
operator has had it tested and it comes back that the 3
circles, squares and triangles are identifiable. Do you 4
understand me?
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
But that operator nonetheless has sat in front of 7
that monitor off and off for a few years and knows that that 8
clarity is degraded from what it should be.
Do you 9'
understand me?
10 A
Yes, sir.
11 Q
And that operator files a service request.
Do you 12 understand?
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
What are you going to do with the availability of 15 that monitor?
16 A
Again, the availability stays the same, okay?
It 17 meets our minimum standards even though it may not be 18 performing at its optimum, its absolute best.
The 19 availability -- that component would still be available.
20 The security officer in the alarm station determines the 21 availability and it's appropriate and I encourage them to 22 write those service requests when they see a degradation.
23 They in fact do sit in there hour after hour.
24 What I would like them to do is be able to 25 generate the service request before the problem gets so bad
3 3252 j
1 security department?
2 A
Well, those judgment calls are made by the alarm
?
3 station operators. Again, they control the availability of 4
equipment. Many times I don't see those individual alarms.
f 5
I may see a summary report of particular -- a growing 6
problem on a particular component but procedurally they're 7
allowed to do a physical examination.
8 If the physical. examination reveals.that it's 9
physically secure and the alarm station operators indicate 10 that it's electronically secure, no alarm condition, they j
11 would conclude that alarm response and proceed to their next 12 duty.
13 MR. MINTON: May I have.just a minute?
14 (Pause.)
15 JUDGE MILLER:
Is this a good time to take a 16 break?
17 MR. MINTON: That's fine.
18 JUDGE MILLER: A 15-minute recess.
19 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
20 JUDGE MILLER: The hearing is called to order.
I 21 You may inquire, sir.
22 BY MR. MINTON:
23 Q
Mr. Sheesley, has there been a determination made 24 as to the cause of the tamper alarms, alarms going off when l
25 it's clear that the box is not being opened?
u I
I l
l j
i
r 3253 1
A We've done some work on trying to figure out what 2
the problem is and we've seen a number of different things.
3 We track the alaron by time of day and we've seen that they 4
sometimes occur or a group will occur at a specific time.
4 5
And we've found that it's related to the amount of heat 6
build up in the box, where the sun is beaming directly down 7
on the box.
And I think it's just some mechanical 8
expansion, that it perturbs that switch just a little bit.
p 9
We've seen security officere actually cause the 10 alarm when they do their routine checks of that padlock to 11 make sure it's physically secure.
If the rnitch is right on i.
12 the edge of the alarm point, it's slightly misadjusted, even 13 just a quick tug on the padlock will sometimes cause an 14 alarm.
15 And we've seen switches that because they are o
16 mounted on a bracket inside the box that sometimes they have 17 a tendency to slide, the body of the switch has a tendency g
18 to slide into the open position because, after all, it is 19 under spring pressure, pushing the body of the switch back.
r g
20 Q
Mr. Williams in his testimony used the term 21 active, that the tamper alarm would go into active alarm.
22 Is that anything different than what you've testified about?
23 A
Yes, sir.
What I've spoken about so far is alarms 24 that are of very short duration and they clear immediately, I
25 return to their normal condition. An active alarm we define i
l
1 1
r t
f 3254 1
as an alarm that stays active maybe over ten minutes. The 2
alarm station operators can tell on their screen whether it 3
was a momentary alarm or whether that alarm signal is still 4
being received.
They can determine that it's active.
5 Q
All right. And if it is active, let's take a 6
hypothetical where it goes into active and stays in active 7
alarm for a period of time and the guard checks it and 8
determines that the box has not been tampered with.
9 A
Yes, sir.
10 Q
And then it goes off after the alarm. Would there 11 be a functional test made as to the intrusion detection 12 system?
13 A
What we would do for our procedure is we would go 14 back out and perform an operability test of that component 15 and we would test --
16 Q
What component are you talking about?
17 A
An operability test of the camera, for example.
18 Q
All right.
19 A
We would ensure that we still'had video coverage 20 as I've described earlier. We would actually cause an 21 intrusion alarm for a microwave or an E field. What we 22 actually do, while we don't directly test the tamper, if the 23 alarm is cleared, we go and test and ensure that the box is 24 still physically secure, we go test the portion of the alarm 25 that is actually being protected by the tamper alarm, okay?
L
[
3255 1
So we're assuring that the intrusion alarm is still working.
2
.O All right. That is specifically, I believe the 3
record will show when the Court examines it, that is 4
complete with what Mr. Williams has, is that you are not 5
functionally testing the tamper alarm itself, do you 6
understand?
7 A
Yes, sir.
8 Q
And that is correct, that you are handling that 9
procedure that way.
Is that correct?
j 10 A
That's correct.
j 11 Q
And it is your judgment that you are doing it I
12 correctly?
l 13 A
It's per all of our procedures.
I 14 Q
All right, sir.
Has a judgment been made about 15 whether or not to replace these tamper alarms?
16 A
Yes, sir. We've recognized that this is an 17 inexpensive switch and it is prone to spurious alarms.
It's 18 not that reliable.
So we embarked on a process of changing 19 out this type of a switch for a higher quality, balanced J. -
20 magnetic switch.
21 Q
Is that presently being done?
22 A
Yes, sir.
23 Q
Is the perimeter posted?
24 A
Yes, sir, it is.
25 Q
Is the perimeter posted because of any
3256 1
non-function or malfunction of the intrusion detection t
2 system?
{,
3 A
Today we would probably have some compensatory I
i 4
posting of intrusion detection maybe due to a high false 5
nuisance alarm rate.
We may have some compensatory posting y
6 due to other problems. All the perimeter is posted until we 7
resolve the issue concerning the tamper alarms.
8 Q
All right, sir.
There has been testimony from 9
Mr. Lala --
-10 JUDGE MILLER: Excuse me for a second.
11 You say until you resolve the issue concerning the 12 tamper alarms. You mean until all the tamper alarm switches 13 are replaced?
14 THE WITNESS: Until we upgrade to the better 15 quality of switch.
Yes, sir.
16 JUDGE MILLER: That is in progress now.
17 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir, it is.
18 JUDGE MILLER:
Projected to take how long?
~
19 THE WITNESS: We believe that we'll be done by j
i 20 this year.
l 21 JUDGE MILLER: How many switches are involved?
22 Roughly.
23 THE WITNESS: We bought 250.
1 24 MR. MINTON:
I think the judge's question is the 25 same as mine. Why in the world.does it take that long?
l i
l
i 2623 INDEX VOIR WITNESSES:
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS DIRE TJames Boone'i 2625 2662 2693 2686 f
~
-)
2687 Pete Morales 2701 2713 RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS VOIR i
WITNESSES:
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS DIRE Vince VanValkenburg 2724 2736 1
Roger Paul Garris 2738 2758 2762 Lawrence J. Rainosek 2766 2794 2805 2810 Jim Drymiller 2819 P
EXHIBITS:-
IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE Claimant's:
102 2677 2686 4
103 2799 2801 Respondent's:
113 2785 2787 114 2792 2793 115 2834 2838 116 2843 117 2774 2774 i
I i
l
i t
i L
i 2650 i
1 Q
okay.
Let me just'think and see if I can do this i
2 point by point.
F 3
Are you familiar with a practice out there we call n
i 4
-- somebody called bug busting?
1 r
5 A
Spider busting, i
6 0
Spider busting. Tell us about what that is.
7 A
The E-fields is a hard-wired system.
It consists 8
of a number of wires at different positions. These wires
-l 9
are suspended off of metal poles that's grounded, and it's-m t
10 got an insulator cup attached to the pole. The wire passes i
11 through the insulator.
12 These cups are like a condo for spiders.
They i
13 love these things because they're protected.
14 Q
okay.
15 A
Birds feed on spiders.
Food chain. A lot of e'
l s
16 spiders in the zone, an E-field zone, creates a lot of birds
[j 17 which thus gives us a lot of false alarms. By going out and 18 physically cleaning out the cups, sealing up with silicon I
19 the penetration holes that are from the factory, and stuff 20 of this nature has greatly -- and it's proven that it's 21 greatly reduced the FAR/NAR reports on IDSs.
22 Q
FAR/NAR,' F-A-R-N-A-R?
h 23 A
Right. False and nuisance alarm rate.
i 24
-Q Okay. And who instituted bug busting / spider A
?
25 busting?
i 1
- i i
P 2651 1
A Dave Sheesley.did.
["9 '
t ' <.yk 2
Q And do you personally take any part in doing it?
3 A
Yes, I have.
4
.Q Even though you're the lock and key speci.ist and l
5 these gentlemen would have us believe you don't do anything 6
but lock and key.
7 A
Yes, I have.
l N
i 8
Q Are you familiar with the practice of pumping M
l 9
manways?
9 10 A
Yes.
h 11 Q
Okay.
Again, explain to the Court what that's b
y 12 about.
/
7 13 A
The whole plan is --
14 JUDGE MILLER:
It's called pumping manways?
15 THE WITNESS:
Pumping manholes, yes, sir.
16 Manways.
17 JUDGE MILLER: Manholes /manways.
18 THE WITNESS: The whole plant has got a very 19 integrated, underground cabling system.
It's all types of 20 different cables, electric, communications, just about 4
21 everything else running under ground.
22 BY MR. COCKBURN:
23 0
Is the security system cabling --
24 A
Yes.
l 25 Q
-- also in there?
l I
i l
J t
i
l:
2652 1
A That's a large portion of it.
2 We're located just about on C level; thus, we have 3
a lot of ground seepage and a lot of fairly high annual A
4 rainfall.' These manholes /manways and cable trays all fill 5
up with water. The CC TV cable started deteriorating, and 6
it was suggested that, if we pumped the manholes, it would 7
dry out the cable, thus eliminating any chance of a short-8 out.
And, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Sheesley was the 9
one that made that original suggestion, and we're still b
10 incorporating that practice today.
11 Q
Okay. Thank you.
12 Let's move on here. There's been some testimony 13 in this case that goes something to the effect that Mr.
14 Sheesley either personally or was responsible for voiding 15 approximately 200 service requests when he took over the 16 section.
17 Do you have knowledge about the service requests 18 in your Systems group out there?
19 A
Yes, I do.
I --
20 JUDGE MILLER:
I think you have to pin down a time 21 frame.
22 MR. COCKBURN: Okay.
23 BY MR. COCKBURN 24
-)
This would have been in May 1992 -- Oh, I'm 25 sorry. When did Mr. Sheesley take over the Systems group?
b i
2653 1
A This second time, I'm not real sure.
I 2
Q Try to get close for us.
3 A
Yes.
Okay.
It would have been in May.
It would 4
have been after the -- Mr. Lamb and Mr. Dean 5
was --
or, Mr. Lamb was laid off, yes.
6 Q
okay. So there has been testimony.that in that
[
6 i
7 time frame, from May when he took over to some period 0
8 thereafter, he voided approxinately 200 SRs.
I think you
[>i 9
were going to tell us about what your knowledge of the
- s 10 service requests of the Systems group out there is.
i 11 A
Right. At present, I'm first-line responsible for 12 the -- all service requests that's written on'the system.
13 JUDGE MILLER: You are responsible for these?
14 THE WITNESS:
Initially.
15 BY MR. COCKBURN:
M 16 Q
When you say --
17 A
Locale --
O 18 Q
Let me stop you there just one second to clarify t
19 something. When you say " system", we've heard about the i
20 electronic system and we've heard about the IDS, the 21 intrusion detection system.
I think you've referred to the i
22 lock and key being the door system. Which system are you j
I 23-responsible for?
24 A
As far as paperwork, for the security system.
25 Q
okay. All right.
I'm sorry to interrupt you.
Go 1
i
i i
f 2654 f
1 ahead.
2 A
The locales, my office is located inside of the
{
3 east gate.
All'of our service request paperwork is t
4
. generated in the east gatehouse.
It is my responsibility 5
and my first job duty in the morning when I come in to 6
receive all the paperwork that's been written, review it,-
7 and now input it into the work management system and 8
actually schedule the job, track the job, track the 9
paperwork after completion.
_g
' l 10 Q
All right. Keeping in mind we're talking about 11 the May '92 and for some time thereafter time frame. Have 12 you seen evidence of 200 service requests being voided?
13 A
Oh, no.
+
14 Q
I'm sorry, you'll have to speak up.
5 15 A
No, I have not.
Not of that number.
4 16 Q
Have you personally voided service requests?
+ ;5 17 A
Yes.
i 7
18 Q
Why would you void a service request?
19 A
There's two or three different reasons.
If a 20 service request or a work order already exists for the 21 problem, then there's no reason in writing a second one.
It The individual writing the service request does not 22 23 always have access to know what is already outstanding; 24 thus, they nay write another one.
It's part of my job to 25 verify that there is not one and either input it or void it
~
,u i
t
[
t I
e
2655 1
if it is.
If we void it, we document on the form why; such
_s.
2 as,'" Service request" by number "already exists", the status 3
of that and the schedule date of that particular service 4
report.
And that's daily.
5 Q
Likewise, there's been some testimony that Mr.
s~e 6
Dean here may or may not have a temper of sorts.
7 JUDGE MILLER: May or may not have what?
8 MR. COCKBURN: A temper of sorts.
9 BY MR. COCKBURN:
10 Q
(Continuing)
Have you ever observed what you 11 thought was a display of temper by Mr. Dean?
12 A
Yes.
One time in particular that I can recall.
13 Q
Tell us about that time.
14 A
This was a long time ago, and I'm trying 15 to....
16 It had to be probably late summer of '87.
17 Q
Okay.
18 A
Maybe a little later.
It may have been thw 19 winter.
I remember it was raining a lot.
It --
Mr. Dean 20 had recently acquired what we called our Safeguards program 21 in the sense that he was responsible for changing the 22 padlocks combinations and safe combinations that have L
23 Safeguards information.
r 24 Up to that point, Andrew Woods had dove that, and 25 I had assisted Andrew.
During that time -- same time h
.I l
4 4
e
.,.. u c,
^
w
.-J 4
.J4f i
i J
2623' INDEX VOIR WITNESSES:-
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS DIRE James-Boone:
2625 2662 2693 2686 j
+
- 2687, CPAteLMorAfes*4 1
'2701 2713' RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS VOIR.
WITNESSES:-
DIRECT. CROSS REDIRECT ~ RECROSS DIRE i
Vince Vanvalkenburg 2724 2736-i Roger Paul carris 2738 2758 2762
.?
Lawrence J. Rainosek 2766 2794 2805 2810 l
Jim Drymiller 2819 EXHIBITS:
IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE Claimant's:
102 2677 2686 l
103 2799 2801 2
Respondent's:
113 2785 2787 l
114 2792 2793-l l
115 2834 2838 116 2843 i
117 2774 2774
.i l
l 4
l
)
i e
a 4
a w y-w.
~
r
.c w
4w
.u.
t.m.
--4.%
s r
w
+
7; Q"
4 i
1 2707
.1-as your supervisor out there.
2 A
.Okay.
Dave Lamb would.be a; type of person that'.
i 3
would work. form behind the' desk.
He would not get.out in l
s-4 the field very much. He did a lot of work from the office.
e
~5-and asked us to go out and do all the footwork.and 1
i
'6 everything'else.
7 Q
Okay.
Let's contrast'that with how Mr. Sheesley
$g' a
?
4@'
8 supervises you.
9 A
Mr. Sheesley, he gets out.there and he physically-ij Yi 1
10 goes and sees what is happening out there. One incidentLto tO l
M 11 mind is that-~we went out and.do E-field rework,'he.would go.
. 9
,]
. d
'i 12 there and put his hands'on the actual components, getiout
- O@A 13 there and clean the actual E-fields. He'll get'out there.
- l{
.l 14 and see what is. happening with the CC TV.
You know, he's N
~
'I d-l 15 just out there. Very rarely do you find him in his: office.
Mw-4 16
-Q Did you ever -- Excuse me for a moment.
3 17 Have you ever heard out there that Mr.-Lamb or Mr.
]
- 18 Dean went to Speak out and initiated a concern?
19 A
No, sir.
l 20 Q
Do you know --
21 JUDGE MILLER: The answer is no?
j r
F~
22 THE WITNESS:
No, sir.
No.
23-BY MR. COCKBURN:
~
You never heard that out.there as' discussion? Did-24 0
25 Mr. Lamb ever tell you he did?
I
-.,,, +,,. -
, ~,..... -
-we
s 1
i b
2712 1
A Yes, sir.
2 Q
Did you attend a Nuclear Security Department 3
meeting on or about September 10th?
4 A
Yes, sir.
.5 0
What was the subject matter of that meeting?
6 A
To explain to us that we are not to speak or bring 7
up any, you know, allegations or anything about the 8
testimonies that we have -- you know, general talk to i
9 everybody about the bulletin.
10 Q
And have you abided by those directives since that 11 time?
12 A
Yes, sir.
13 Q
I think you testified, if I understood your 14 description of your current job duties, that you have some 15 responsibility for the service requests?
16 A
Yes, sir.
17 Q
As a coordinator, I think you said?
18 A
Yes, sir.
19 Q
There's been testimony that Mr. Sheesley voids --
4 20 And I'm not going to use a specific number.
-- a lot of 21 service requests out there. Actually, I think there was a 22 number of around 200 mentioned once.
Have you ever seen any i
-g 23 evidence to suggest that that occurred?
3 24 A
No, sir, not that many. You know, there have been 25 some voided, and the voids that are voided, they are 1
i 5
i s
2713 1
explained in the comments section and they have not been to l
2 the number that was brought up.
!J!
3 Q
That being about 200; is that what you're saying?
1 i
4 A
Yes, sir.
E
{
5 MR. Cc KBURN:
I'll pass the witness, Your Honor.
l 6
JUDGE MILLER: Cross examine?
l 7
MR. GARTH:
Yes, sir.
E 8
CROSS EXAMINATION 9
BY MR. GARTH:
10 Q
Mr. Morales, how do you know how many work 11 requests have been voided? That's not part of your job, is 12 it?
r 13 A
Y,.,
sir, it is.
U 14 Q
Hov u..e you related to the work requests?
ILy 15 A
The work requests that we currently have right now 16 and have had.
l 1
17 Q
For how long?
l 18 A
Since I came over there, since Dave Lamb worked i
19 under -- I mean, he was over us then.
l 20 Q
All right.
1-e 21 A
And then now, when Mr. Sheesley came on.
22 Q
okay. Go on.
23 A
Okay.
The service requests under Dave Lamb's
.s supervision, he had asked me to look over these and help 23 Debbie. And it continued -- Debbie Neal, when she used to l
1 i
i i
r; 1
i
+
2714 1
work with us.
And we continued the process of keeping on i
i 2
working with them.
l 3
BuJ the service requests, I had to look at all of 4
them because we keep up with the service requests that are 5
closed, and we currently do a service request analysis on 6
the numbers and all voids, all close-outs and so forth.
l l
7 Q
That analysis, that service request analysis 8
system that you're using now, who started that?
9 (Indicating.)
10 A
That started --
No, sir.
l 11 Q
Who started it?
f I don't know anything about the l
12 A
Well, he might 13 point at_which we were doing it before Dave Lamb.
l 14 Q
okay.
15 MR. COCKBURN: Can the record reflect that counsel l
16 was pointing to his client, Dave Lamb, when he asked that 17 question?
{
18 THE WITNESS:
I -- We started this analysis per 19 the direction of Mr. Balcom because of an NRC concern of a 20 backlog of maintenance requests.
]
21 BY MR. GARTH:
22 Q
The NRC was concerned about a backlog of your j
l 23 requests?
24 A
Not of my requests. Of the --
25 Q
of the requests?
i 4
m,m e,
,,.-~.
i i
i 5.
Mr. Moore's Role in Completing the Special Performance Profiles (SPPs)
Comment:
Mr. Garth's letter (p. 3) states that in I
response to a question, Mr. Balcom " claimed that Mr. Moore did l
t not know what the SPP forms would be used for and that Mr. Moore did not realize he was in competition for the job at the time he i
filled out the forms."
The letter then argues that this j
.t statement was contrary to the evidence at trial.
i
Response
A.
Mr. Garth distorts Mr. Balcom's testimony.
Mr.
Balcom stated that when he asked Mr. Moore and Mr. Hinson to fill out the SPPs he had not told them about the new organization.
l (Tr. 72)
While Mr. Balcom did not tell Mr. Moore the purpose of the SPPs, he has never claimed that Mr. Moore did not or could l
not infer that they would be used to make personnel decisions for a revised security organization.
B.
Mr. Garth's letter provides a generally correct but incomplete summary of Mr. Moore's DOL testimony.
That summary, however, does not support the. conclusion urged in the letter.
As Mr. Garth's letter notes, Mr. Moore testified that he i
inferred that the SPPs would be used for personnel decisions, and l
l that he recognized terminations were a possibility.
- However, l
this testimony does not conflict with the evidence that Mr. Moore l
did not know he was in direct competition with Mr. Lamb for a supervisor position.
In fact, Mr. Moore testified that he was unaware of that.
s f
d e
i The relevant pages of Mr. Moore's DOL testimony'are attached.
This issue is discussed at greater length in HL&P's Post-Hearing brief to the ALJ at 53-54.
L P
f l
t h
5 e
l 1
i f
i I
l l
l
' i 2
-j 1
l
.f 1500 INDEX VOIR WITNESSES:
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RE-CROSS DIRE IJohn Rex Moore.
1501 1580 1692 Patricia Jones 1698 1745 1763 1766 Charles J. Williams 1768 EXHIBITS:
IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE ALJ:
1 1771 1774 Complainants's 15 Prev.
1651 16 Prev.
1651 69C Prev.
1721 75B Prev.
1577 Respondent's:
2 Prev.
1751 4
Prev.
1650 5
Prev.
1650 75 Prev.
1633 109 Prev.
1618 110 Prev.
1618
l r
s 1528 1
Q You are not familiar with any company procedures i
2 or anything like that that pertain to SPPs, are you?
3 A
No, I am not.
4 Q
Now, before you began that process, you knew that 5
Mr. Balcom intended to shrink the nuclear security 6
department, didn't you?
7 A
I knew that there were functions that were at the 8
time being performed within nuclear security that were going 9
to be reassigned to others.
That was his intent.
10 Q
My question, sir, is before you began the SPP 11 process, you knew that Mr. Balcom was going to shrink the 12 department, didn't you?
13 A
No.
14 Q
Have you ever said anything to the contrary, 15 Mr. Moore?
I 16 A
I don't believe so.
t 17 MR. GARTH:
Page 27, Counsel.
I 18 BY MR. GARTH:
19 Q
Here is my question. Line 10 --
20 A
May I refer to this?
21 Q
Please. Feel free.
22 Maybe you didn't understand this question because l
23 it is convoluted.
"You knew they were going to shrink the 24 department under Mr. Balcom, didn't you?" Your answer, sir:
25 "I assumed that it would be."
it '
.r-k 1529 1
Which is it, Mr. Moore? Did you know, or did you 4
2 now know?
3 A
Well, again, no, I did not know.
I was provided 4
no information by Mr. Balcom that indicated okay, we're going to reduce the department by X number of people.
5 l
6 In performing this, once I saw the SPPs and f.
7 looking at reduction of responsibilities, it was a function l
8 on ny part that, yes, it could result in downsizing the f
9 department.
Mr. Moore, you assumed that the department was I
10 Q
j l
11 going to be shrunk, didn't you?
i 12 A
Yes.
I assumed that, yes.
And that assumption was based on what you had 13 Q
14 learned from Mr. Balcom, right?
It was based on information provided to 15 A
16 Mr. Balcom.
17 Q
Now, also prior to beginning this SPP process, Mr. Balcom had had you rank the employees under you from top 18 19 to bottom, right?
20 A
Yes, sir.
He had you put them on a list and show who was at 21 Q
22 the top and who was at the bottom, right?
23 A
Yes, sir.
24 Q
Do you remember doing that?
25 A
I remember doing that.
/
Q(
i l
t i
i 1
1530 0:
1 Q
Do you remember doing that well?
1-l
't 2
A No.
1 3
Q Where is your list, Mr.~ Moore?
7
,[-
1 4
A I gave it to Mr. Balcom.
- )
5 Q
You didn't make a copy of that list for yourself?
l l
6 A
No, I did not.
l 3..
'I i
t-t, Q
Why not?
i I
'7 4
3 8
A I chose not to.
3 i
i I guess it would be too much to ask you who was at 9
Q i
j' it?
the top or the bottom of your list, wouldn't 10 I do not remember just what the ranking was.
11 A
Q You can't remember.
l 12
'i 13 A
That's true.
l Sir, you knew that the reorganization that
-~}
}
14 Q
4 Mr.'Balcom was having you participate'in was going to result 15
'}
l j
e 16 in terminations, didn't you?
6 17 A
I assumed that.
Again, I was not told that.
yf. f 4
w sir.
I (N
I didn't ask you if you were told that, 18 Q
s-19 asked you if you knew it.
And your assumption had been was e
t v -,
,1 20 that it was going to, right?
?
t 3
21 A
I assumed that it could. yes.
of i
And that assumption was framed on what Mr. Balcom
- i I
22 Q
1 23 told you, right?
That responsibilities would be reassigned 24 A
Right.
t 25 outside the depart. ment.
=,
,j i
1 4
l: >;
1 k
1531 1
Q You assumed that there were going to be 2
terminations as a result of the reorganization, didn't you?
3 A
No.
4 Q
Turn to Page 30, Mr. Moore, line 21.
"And you 2
5 knew that.
You had assumed that it might result in some 6
terminations, didn't you?" Your answer:
"I assumed that it 7
could possibly."
"And you made that assumption prior to i
8 ever engaging in the SPp process, didn't you?"
9 A
That's correct.
}
a 10 Q
And your answer was yes.
11 A
You asked the question that it might result, and 12 that's true.
I assumed that it could.
I believed that it 13 would reduce the size of the staff in the department.
14 Whether there would be reassignment outside the department, 15 whether there would be terminations, I did not know.
16 Q
Your assumption was that it was going to, wasn't 17 it?
18 A
That it could.
R 19 Q
There has never been a reorganization that 20 resulted in a termination before, right?
21 A
That's correct. The previous years --
22 Q
But your assumption based on the conversations 23 with this man was that it could this time, right?
24 A
Yes, it possibly could, that it possibly could.
i 25 Q
And that is an assumption that you got from l
l l
i, f
f 1532 1
1 talking with Mr. Balcom, right?
2 A
From the information provided
- rom Mr. Balcom, 3
that is true.
4 Q
You assumed from talking to Mr. Balcom that b
5 something that had never happened before might happen --
6 A
Might happen.
7 Q
-- people were going to be terminated, right?
8 A
That's true.
9 Q
And you had made that assumption based on what 10 Mr. Balcom told you before you ever filled out SPP-1, right?
11 A
That's true, t
12 Q
And you knew that in the restructuring that i
Mr. Balcom envisioned that you were one of only four people 13 14 to be left in the management level category, correct?
15 A
I did not know what the organization would be.
16 Q
The question, Mr. Moore, is whether or not you 17 knew that in the restructuring that Mr. Balcom and you discussed that you were one of only four people to be left 18 e
19 in the management level category. You understood that,
{'
t f
20 didn't you?
I 21 A
No.
1 t
i 22 Q
Turn to Page 37, Mr. Moore.
23 A
Yes, sir.
24 Q
Line 1.
- 0kay.
And you knew that in the restructuring of the department there were four people in 25 l
i i
f I
,s' s
l1 a
'l li
.J 1
c i-
'.i I
l
, L;-
1533-1.
1
.the management level category?' Answer:
"Yes;"
Question:
Ufi[
flb d
2 "And you were one of those four people?* Answer:
"Yes,'
[i
. p. >
3.
Did you misunderstand my questions there again?
Il b
l 4
A I thought.you were talking about more folks after I?
S the reorganization. At the time that I completed.the SPPs I l
- 11 -
?
6 did not know what the organization was going to look like.
(g3 7
Q-The time you were asked to do these SPPs, you had, 8
read a memo from Norm Tasker where Dave Lamb had been
=!
9-critical of your management technique, hadn't-you?
10 A
I do not recall reading a memo to that effect.
j 11 Q
Now, let's be real clear about this, Mr.. Moore.
12 You are not saying that it didn't happen. You are just 13 saying you can't, remember it? Is.it one of those things?
14-A-
What I'm saying is'I believe-'that I would remember i
~
- t 15 if I-had read such a memo.
IJdon't remember reading it I
- I 3
16 do not believe I read it. -Whether there was such a memo or
.I
},
17 not, I don't know.
18 Q
You don't remember an occasion where you were in:
19 Mr. Randlett's office and Bill Worth was in there and he 20 pulled out that memo and said read this, this is what Dave--
f 21 Lamb says about you, you've got to watch out for this guy?'
r 22 You don't remember that, Mr. Moore?
23 A
No, I do not.
)
24 Q
In conducting or performing your function on the 25 SPPs, you were given the special profile instructions, were I
I L
r'n+
l-3459 INDEX VOIR WITNESSES:
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS DIRE J.. Watt Hinson 3470 3510 3578 3589 EXHIBITS:
IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE Complainants' No. 69E 3548 3549 No. 69F 3548 3549 No. 102 Prev.
Removed, p. 3612 Defendant's HL&P No. 81 Prev.
Removed, p. 3612 HL&P No. 158 3617 3620 l
i i
a t
~
i t
3550 1
professional-industry related development, Mr. Randlett, and 2.
you agreed with him, suggested that you take the ASIS 1
6 3-courses and the.CPP course, right?
l 4
A May I see it?
5 JUDGE MILLER: ASIS?
6 MR. GARTH:
Yes, sir.
i 7
JUDGE MILLER:
It's an acronym?
8 MR. GARTH: Right. American Society of Industrial 9
Security, and CPP is Certified Protection Profession.
10 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir, i
11 BY MR. GARTH:
12 Q
And both of those would have been applicable to 13
.your work at the Nuclear Security Department obviously or it 14 wouldn't have been suggested that you take them, right?
15 A
Yes, sir.
16 Q
And, again,~in'1991, it's again listed as a goal, 17 something to be achieved to further your -- I guess your 18 value to the department, right?
19 A
Yes, sir.
i 20 Q
Mt. Moore testified that -- you understand that 21 Mr. Moore and you were the people that filled out the SPPs 22 on the people that were evaluated within the N clear u
23 Security Department.
e 24 A
.Ye s, sir.
25 Q
And Mr. Moore testified that he was called in, I l
I i
e
3551 1
presume to talk with Mr. Balcom about the process?
2 A
I believe that's correct, yes.
3 Q
And Mr. Moore testified that he knew the 4
reorganization that Mr. Balcom was having him participate in s
5 was going to result in terminations.
You also had that 6
opinion?
7 MR. MINTON: That's not exactly what he testified 8
to.
But I don't mean to make a point of it, but counsel 9
knows that that's making it very black and white, a long 10 series of testimony that Mr. Moore gave in which he said 11 that it was a possibility. But he did not testify to that.
12 Just so the Court is not misled by stating emphatically what 13
- vmeone testified te when it covered, you know, several 14 minutes of testimony and wound up with him saying it could 15 have been possible.
16 MR. GARTH:
I'll read it exactly verbatim into the 17 record.
18 MR. MINTON: Read all of it.
19 MR. GARTH:
' Sir, you knew that the reorganization 20 that Mr. Balcom was having you participate in was going to 21 result in terminations, didn't you?"
'I assumed that."
22 That's at page 1530.
23 BY MR. GARTH:
24 Q
You didn't come up with that same assumption?
25 A
I'm not sure what your question is.
3552 1
Q Did you come up with the assumption, based on your
}#\\
2 conversations with Mr. Balcom, that there would be i
3 terminations as a result of this evaluetion process?
4 A
No, sir, I did not.
5 Q
Now, Mr. Balcom had Mr. Moore prepare him a list 6
ranking everybody from the top to bottom in the department.
7 Did he ask you to prepare him one of those lists?
8 A
We talked about that, and I don't recollect having 9
done that.
10 Q
You don't remember having done it at all?
11 A
I don't believe Mr. Balcom asked me to do that.
12 O
okay.
Do you remember him asking you to give him 13 your proposed structure of a Nuclear Security Department as 14 you would have it?
15 A
Yes, sir.
16 Q
You do recall that?
17 A
Yes, sir.
1B Q
Do you have a copy of that document?
19 A
No, sir.
I don't.
1 20 Q
Do you know what happened to it?
21 A
I gave it to Mr. Balcom.
22 Q
At the time that Mr. Balcom asked you to come and 23 do this evaluation process, you had already told him that i
24 you thought that Mr. Worth was the lowest on the totem pole 1
25 in your eyes, right?
l I
i 6.
Certified Protection Professional (CPP) l f
Comment:
Mr. Garth's letter (p. 3) states that "Mr.
.Balcom stated that the CPP certification held by Lamb was of no j
i benefit or import to the nuclear security department."
It then j
argues that this statement was contradicted by Mr. Hinson's DOL j
i testimony.
Response
t i
A.
Mr.Balcom made no such statement; what he actually said was that whether the certification helped the department ~"is
)
a clearly subjective decision.
The individual who rated Mr.~ Lamb didn't think that that merited a point."
(Tr. 75).
Mr. Balcom j
also stated that in his own view the certification was mainly focused on industrial security, and was not of great importance
)
to the Security Department.
Tr. 83.
Mr. Hinson apparently believed that the certification might be of some value but he did not testify'that he would have awarded any points for the. certification if he had completed Mr.
_ ab's SPP.
Mr.Hinson's testimony does not contradict j
Mr.Balcom's on critical issues of whether points'should be awarded for this certification.
As discussed in HL&P's response to the Demand for I
Information (at 29-31), there were other employees who also did i
not receive any SPP points for relevant certifications.
1
l 3459 INDEX VOIR WITNESSES:
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS DIRE J, Watt Hinson 3470 2510 3578 3589 EXHIBITS:
IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE Complainants' No. 69E 3548 3549 No. 69F 3548 3549 No. 102 Prev.
Removed, p. 3612 Defendant's HL&P No. 81 Prev.
Removed, p.
3612 HL&P No. 158 3617 3620 i
l l
1 I
h
l s
I t
3549.
1 69F.)
2 BY MR. GARTH:
r 1
3 Q
Okay. And let me hand you F and ask you if you' 4
would identify that.
t 5
A This would be my performance appraisal for 1990.
'6 MR. GARTH: Your Honor, I would admit 69E and F 7
into evidence.
8 MR. MINTON:
I don't have a copy of E and F.
I I
.i 9
have copies but I'd like to look at them if I may.
i 10 JUDGE MILLER: Show them please to Mr. Minton to r
11 see if he might have a possible objection.
1 i
12 MR. MINTON:
No',-I do not.
I have no objection to 13 69E and 69F.
I
-1 14 JUDGE MILLER: Very well. C-69E and F would be t
15 admitted without objection.
16 (The documents referred to,
-t i
17 having been previously marked
'I 18 for identification as 19 Complainants' Exhibit No. 69E-20 and 69F,'were received in l
21 evidence.)
l 22 MR. GARTH:
Don't let me bother you, but I don't i
23 have an extra copy of this.
I'll make one at the break.
I 24 BY MR. GARTH:
)
25 Q
Back in 1990, in order to further this i
I I
1
(l; i
?
i
't 3550
.' l -
. professional-industry related development, Mr. Randlett, and i
a t
2-you agreed with him, suggested that you take the ASIS
[$
3 courses and the CPP course, right?-
if 4
A May I see it?
5 JUDGE MILLER: ASIS?
6 MR. GARTH:
Yes, sir.
7 JUDGE MILLER:
It's an acronym?
I 8
MR. CARTH: Right. American Society of Industrial 9
Security, and CPP is Certified Protection Profession.
I Q
10 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
11 BY MR. GARTH:
)
.i 12 Q
And both of those would have been applicable to 13 your work at the Nuclear Security Department obviously or it 14 wouldn't have been suggested that you take them,.right?
?
15 A
Yes, sir, d'
16 Q
And, again, in 1991, it's again listed as a goal, 17 something to be achieved to further your -- I guess your i
18 value to the department, right?
19 A
Yes, sir, j
20 Q
Mr. Moore testified that -- you understand that 21 Mr. Moore and you were the people that filled out the SPPs 22 on the people that were evaluated within the Nuclear
'l l
23 Security Department.
24 A
Yes, sir.
25 0
And Mr. Moore testified that he was called in, I i
. - ~
.~
!1 J7.
Mr. Moore's Enowledae of Protected Activities i
Comment:
Mr. Garth's ~ 1etter (pp. 3-4) asserts that f
i
'Mr. Balcom stated unequivocally that Mr.' Moore did not know" of I
the protected activities of Messrs. Lamb and Dean, and then i
argues that Mr. Moore testified he kmew they had gone to Speakout, and'that he told the DOL investigator that he also knew I
they had gone to the NRC.
j
Response
A.
Mr. Balcom's statement.was:
"I believe that the record shows that neither [ Moore nor Hinson] knew of any protected activity or anybody going to the NRC with anything."
i i
Tr. 85-86.
This is not an unequivocal statement, as-asserted by 1
Mr. Garth but merely is a reflection of Mr. Balcom's recollection f
of the record on matters about which he had no personal knowledge.
j B.
The DOL investigator's notes cited in Mr. Garth's letter were addressed in Mr. Moore's DOL testimony.
He testified that the investigator's notes.are not correct.
The basis for Mr.
l Moore's knowledge of Complainants' interactions with Speakout was a conversation in November.1991.
Mr. Moore's contemporaneous notes of that conversation show that there was no mention of any l
communications between Complainants and the NRC.
The relevant portion of Mr. Moore's DOL testimony is attached.
'--N-W%-
1500 INDEX VOIR WITNESSES:
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RE-CROSS DIRE John Rex Moore 1501 1580 1692 Patricia Jones 1698 1745 1763 1766 Charles J. Williams 1768 EXHIBITS:
IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE ALJ:
1 1771 1774 Complainants':
15 Prev.
1651 16 Prev.
1651 69C Prev.
1721 75B Prev.
1577 Respondent's:
2 Prev.
1751 4
Prev.
1650 5
Prev.
1650 75 Prev.
1633 109 Prev.
1618 110 Prev.
1618
l' i
A'
~
- 9 -
F
.' ('; ' y:3 1
,c.
- j a
i vy.
l I
jQ i
.]
1560:
?
1 And when you-say " management," who we are talking
-Q:
-t 2'
about is you.
.i i
'3 A
I was management within the department, no doubt.
.i 4
Q-And their; concerns were that the'NRC regulations
)
1 5
were being violated, right?'
i 6
A Yes, sir.
i I
7 Q
And you knew that Mr. Lamb and Mr. Dean had been -
'i 8
to speak-out.and the NRC with those concerns, did you not?
{
9 A
No, sir.
vi 10 Q
You did not know that.
11 JUDGE MILLER:
Counsel, let me ask you this.
You-
-12 have asked that question in the double, and Mr. Moore has-l 13 denied it; You are: referring to both Mr. Lamb'and Mr.' Dean.
14 You may have done so advisingly, but another possibility'is 15 that-the question could be phrased with respect to each'.of
{
16 them.
- n 17 MR. GARTH:
I will do that, Your' Honor.
<j i
')
18 BY MR. GARTH:
19 Q
Mr. Moore, you knew at the time you filled out 20 these forms that Mr. Dean had been to both speak-out'and the i
21 NRC, correct, with his concerns?
l l
22 A
No, sir.
23 Q
You knew that Mr. Lamb had been to speak-out and 24 the NRC with these concerns, correct?-
25 A
No, sir.
H
.I V
.'isw W
r-
& +=
4 wt'
i r
i i
i i
1561
~l 1
MR. MINTON: As to each NRC and speak-out?
l 2
JUDGE MILLER:
Yes.
The question is phrased as f
3 you have done it with respect to both NRC and speak-out, and l
4 I would perceive the answer is correctly answered in'the 5
negative that Mr. Moore had believed that they had been to 6
one but not the other.
7 MR. GARTH:
Okay. Well, let me break it down even 8
further.
l 9
JUDGE MILLER:
I think you better.
n 10 BY MR. GARTH-t 11 Q
You knew that Mr. Lamb had been to speak-out, 12 didn't you?
13 A
Yes, sir.
o 14 Q
You knew that Mr. Lamb had been to the NRC, didn't
{
t I
15 you?
V 16 A
No.
17 Q
You knew Mr. Dean had been to speak-out, didn't i
18 you?
19 A
Yes, sir.
20 Q
Because he had told you, right?
?
21 A
Yes, sir.
4 22 Q
He had also told you he had been to the NRC,
[
23 didn't he?
24 A
No, sir.
c3 25 JUDGE MILLER:
Now, that question refers to the
1 4W y
- g 4-4 q
, no J-i i;L i
i
+
i i
1562 e
'l Mr. Lamb;lis that correct?'
.f 2
MR. GARTH:
No.
That was Mr Dean.
3 He was positive as to speak-out on Lamb -- let's' 4
make sure we're right.
g;;
t@Mi
- E 5
- BY MR. GARTH:
i i
R;Laf vm.
6 Q.
You knew Mr. Lamb had been to speak-out, _right?.
7 A
Yes, sir.
5?Tf.
i x
$e
{
8 Q
You deny that you knew that Mr. Lamb had been to 9
the.NRC.
j e gy 10 A
That is correct.
hw
'j ug '
.j
' k.-,t; 11 0
. Now, Mr. Dean, you knew that he had been to' speak-
- pp'
!l 12 out --
@h.
j 13 A
Yes, sir.
14' Q
- -- and you' deny that you knew. tihat he had been to ' h e; 4 15 the NRC.
J$
I 16 A
That'is correct.
.El1
$0i]
w i;.
' eg{ 3;g"3 '
1
.h -
~17 Q
okay.
N.w 18 Do you remember talking to a Department of Labor p;
(
p 19 investigator on.this case?
7(
l
~ ' '
20 A-Yes.
J wa i
21 MR. GARTH: Your Honor, would you hand the witness 22 Exhibit 13, please, sir.
d
[%.
?
)
23 JUDGE MILLER:
I am handing the witness 4
24 Complainants' Exhibit 13.
i i;;
.p k'.
25 i
l
.i l
t 6
w
,., -,.. -, + -,. - -
rer 1--
O T1
~ v
- 7 4'
t 0
1565 1~
about' material in.that evaluative report. And it's'a1 2
report, ^ and its contents and_ whatnot speak for itself'at 3
this point.
4 MR. GARTH:
I know of nothing else.
5 JUDGE MILLER: That's all we need.
6 MR. GARTH For the record, I1 requested everything 7
they had.
This is what they gave me.
8 BY MR. GARTH:
9 Q
on the back page of your statement the first' thing 10' I want-to draw your attention'to is the second paragraph 11-down.
It starts "I feel Lamb supported me and'the-12
' Department'for'the most part. Lamb was very knowledgeable.
13 The same for Dean. Actually, Lamb was more knowledgeable 14 because'he worked in several areas."
15 It sounds to me.like that would indicate'that he.
~
~
- 16 had a pretty good ability to transfer departmen'ts.
17 A
.Yes, sir.
He had exhibited that'in the past.
18 Q
.But you didn't'give,him credit for it on his SPP, 19 right?
20I A
That's correct.
21 Q
And then you say " Dean handled more safeguard
[Y$}.
Ji
- pi)-j.
22 information than others in the department.
I assumed that
' f" gJ g
23 Lamb's duties'and responsibilities have been assumed by Eg Gi 24 others without loss of quality.
I was aware that Lamb and'
-ub((.
25 others have brought allegations to the HL and P speak-out gf 4.
- 4 Uk!
~
.I ii
~
3
,e
(,
'1566
- i
' l group'and the NRC.
I had such information.during the' fall.
t i'
. fM hk
'l 2
of 1991.*
v ti m.%
r E
And you remember talking to Mr. Perez about tha' t,. jff..
3 s
1 4
don't you?-
i I L
6) 5 A
I remember' talking to Mr. Perez.
1 R
6
'Q Do you have any reason in the world to believe, b4 j
p i
7 that Mr. Perez would put down something there that you
. y/,
mg.
8 didn't tell him?
ps g' 8 '
}; '
9 A
I have no explanation for that, pn 10 Q
.My question to you, sir, is whether you have any-P "
.j 11 reason in the world to believe that Mr. Perez would put h4 l
m 12 something:down here that you didn't tell him.
-l 4
13 A
No.
I have not reason to do -- no reason to 4
.j
- 1 14 explain that.
1 W.
15 Q
So now, when we are talking about Lamb, isitfair{
.l l
16 to say, Mr. Moore, that you knew back in the fall of 1991~.
m' i
17 that he had been to both speak-out and the NRC?
[.9 18 A
No, I did not.know that.
I've answered the k
p, 19 questions truthfully a few minutes ago.
Did you answer the questions truthfully when you [ptjf 20 0
- w. J.
t 21 were talking to Mr. Perez?
If(
y 22 A
I sure did.
I don't know if'he misunderstood wha'tD g.q 23 I said, if I expressed myself incorrectly.
If I' can explaisig 24 why I knew that they had gone to speak-out --
l h
25 JUDGE MILLER: There's no question pending, ff 4
~
% < gjy;
? :,
to.
e
+ " :
s, i
t ll i
5 f
a L.
1567' f
1 Mr. Moore.
2 THE WITNESS: Okay.
I'm sorry, sir.
l 3
BY MR. GARTH:
.g
$D@3 lb 4
Q To a,nticipate what you are wanting to talk about p
f-5 now, you knew that Mr. Lamb and Dean had both' been to speak-y' i
Ph.
6-out because Mr. Dean told you that, didn't he?-
7'
'l
.y 7
A That's correct.
l" L!
a 8
Q You knew that before you filled out the SPP. forms, ' h i
b@t" n 1
I 9
right?
't ik,gj -
10 A
Yes, sir, that's correct.
y:
11 MR. GARTH: This whole package, this investigative 12 report on Mr. Dean,' Exhibit 9, Your' Honor, would,you hand ij 13
.that to the witness, please. sir,. complainants' 9.
M.
14 JUDGE MILLER:
I am handing the witness-
. ((
l d
15 Complainants' Exhibit 9.
16 MR. GARTH: Thank you Your Honor.
.[
17 Your Honor, could we take a.real quick break,.and j
18 then I'll finish with him afterwards?
19 JUDGE MILLER:
I'just did not want to destroy the 20 line of questioning at this point.
21 MR. GARTH:
No.
.I think I can pick it back up.
- i 22 JUDGE MILLER: Very well. We'll take a 15-minute
[
23-recess.
24 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
25
(,y
~.
- -.~
Y W"3,,,
3
+
'Y~
i j
3 l
-l i
-i r
'I 1568.
4
~
c 1-
.BY MR. GARTH:
,, a
+
- 2 Q
Mr. Moore, I want.you to,_if you would, please, jhhL
'l q
a 3.
sir, turn to the page that's Bates stamped on Exhibit.9 in 9
1 4-the far.right-hand bottom corner, Page 132. That's the a
5 second page of,'I guess, your transcription of what-you~
$f rw 1
6-remember that took place in the meeting'between yourself, 4
M,
. 7.-
Mr. Taylor,.and Jim Dean; is that correct?
,j-j ps 8
A Yes, sir, it is.
. eQ ~
fa t
g 9.
Q Now, the purpose of that meeting '-- this is-in'theMa t
?jp'.
10 investigation of'the event between Mr. Sheesley and i
e4 l
^
11 Mr. Dean, correct?
M.
[0.
12 A'
iThat's correct.
- M fi
'13'
'Q And that investigation of that event was li v4 a
14 undertaken by human resources, right?
'h l
tg 15-A' That's correct.
q ij 4
16 Q
Now, Page 132 I'believe'is where you learned that.;$
i a
17 Mr. Dean had been to speak-out before because he told you.
]
u i
-18 I'll read it.
" Dean responded.that'he could see now that-l 19 the purpose of the meeting was to get rid of him. Deansaidsj 20 that the station had no interest in maintaining procedures.I 1 l
z; 21 He said that two and a half years ago'he had gone to' speak ; }-
22 out" -- that was on the key issue,-right --
jl l
- e 23 A
I-don't know what the issue is.
.?
I Lm w
24 Q
- "with his concerns about events that were in-p r
i 25 violation of federal law."
And it goes on to say that "He-ki l
1
!q
- f l
N
)
'i i
i O~
l 1569 1
believes that there has been an effort to chase out both
- m 2
himself and Lamb."
3 That is the impression that you got from listening 4
to what he said at that meeting, right?
5 A
That's correct.
6 Q
Go on down, if you would, to the fourth full 7
paragraph from the bottom. You note in your transcription 8
of this that Taylor asked Dean about the problems he had
(
9 experienced in the handling e.nd processing of safeguards P
1%'
information. What did that have to do with the-11 investigation of the situation between Sheesley and Dean?
12 A
I believed that Larry Taylor was trying to get at 13 what caused that situation that morning. Jim had talked
[
14 about stress, medical problems that he was having. And I 15 believe that Larry was pursuing, you know, Jim's job, his 16 previous relationship with Dave Sheesisy, and previous 17 problems that Jim had had.
18 Q
Mr. Dean said in response to Mr. Taylor's question 19 thst he had three problems in approximately 15,000 handlings 20 involving safeguards information. Do you agree with that?
f 21 Is that approvimately accurate to your observation?
22 A
I would go back to the same answer I gave a while
[
23 ago regarding his file documents, three disciplinary actions
[
24 for saf?muards mishandlings.
I believe there were others, 25 but I'n going to say that to make a point of the fact that t
9
8.
Human _. Resources Review of the SPPs Comments:
Mr. Garth's letter (p. 4) states that Mr.
Balcom cited, as proof of his innocence, his submission of the completed SPP forms to Human Resources for their review.
It then argues that the Human Resources representative, Ms. Jones, testified that-she told Mr. Balcom the forms were not filled out right and that Mr. Balcom and Mr. Moore "did just the opposite of what the instructions told-them to do."
Response
The record is clear that Mr. Balcom did request and obtain a review of the SPPs by Human Resources.
The sections the letter quotes from Ms. Jones' testimony concern limited aspects of'her evaluation regarding whether more comments should have been included on the SPP forms to explain the ratings, and whet 1.er a point should have been awarded for a-college degree if the degree was not useful in the person's job.
Ms. Jones testified that a college degree is valuable for supervisors.
She also testified that based on her review of the personnel files Mr. Lamb-was properly the lowest rated supervisor and Mr. Dean the lowest rated professional.
The relevant portions of Ms. Jones' DOL. testimony are' attached.
1
,{
^
1500 INDEX
)
VOIR WITNESSES:
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RE-CROSS DIRE John Rex Moore 1501 1580 1692
-Pat'icia Jen'es' 1698 1745 1763 1766 r
Charles J. Williams 1768 4
, d EXHIBITS:
IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE
' 8 4
ALJ I
e 1
1771 1774 Complainants *:
15 Prev.
1651 16 Prev.
1651 69C Prev.
1721 75B Prev.
1577 Respondent's:
2 Prev.
1751 4
Prev.
1650 5
Prev.
1650 75 Prev.
1633 109 Prev.
1618 i
110 Prev.
1618 i
J k
i J
1741 1
0 At that point in time, ma'am, did it appear to you 2
that they were mattipulating the numbers to dictate the 3
outcome?
4 A
No.
5 Q
Let's look on Dave Lamb's again, category two.
6 When you graded him you gave him -- based on his performance 7
appraisal we had just gone through, you gave him a four 8
considering all of these categories, which are many of the 9
same categories that we went through on his performance 10 appraisals, and they gave him a three. There's no comment 11 to justify that.
That's not appropriate, is it?
12 A
I had asked them to put comments on there.
13 Q
You told them that it really wasn't right without 14 the comments to justify it, didn't you?
15 A
Yes.
16 Q
Did they give you any comments to justify to 17 you -- did they tell you why they wanted to give him a three 18 there as opposed to a four despite the fact on all of those 19 categories in his performance appraisals he was way above 20 average?
21 A
Is this Dave Lamb, or who are we talking about?
22 Q
Dave Lamb, the second category.
l 23 When you graded him, you gave him a four.
They 24 gave him a three.
They have no comment. Did they give you 25 any explanation for that?
I M
1742 1
A I don't recall the information on this one.
2 Q
Category three, the special skills category, I 3
want you to look at what the managers there -- the 4
instructions tell us the evidence has shown that in this 5
category they are supposed to give credit only for skills, 6
education that is of critical or special value to the work 7
of the organization.
8 Now, a college degree, the evidence has shown us, 9
is not critical to this position. You're only supposed to 10 give credit if it's a unique skill, a skill that is not 11 possessed by the majority or most of the people in the 12 group.
Do you agree with that?
13 A
Where are you reading from?
14 Q
From the instructions, the second page of the 15 instructions, under evaluation of special skills.
16 A
All right.
17 Q
And what they did on all four of the managers 18 people, they gave three of them one point of credit for 19 going to college and gave Dave Lamb a zero.
20 It's clear if they had gone to college, it isn't 21 critical for that position, isn't it?
22 A
I don't know what the job description is.
It 23 depends on the job description.
24 Q
Well, the testimony has been that a college degree A
25 is not required for that position, okay?
i <
M I.
f.
1743 1
A All right.
2 Q
And it's also clear because three of the four have 3
a college degree, that that's not a unique skill, isn't it?
4 A
In my discussion I recall that Mr. Balcom said 5
that if they had a degree -- they did go ahead and give him 6
at least a one if they had a degree or some type of 7
specialized skill.
8 So they dis -- they did probably just the opposite 9
from what's on here, but that's what -- that's how they 10 rated it.
11 Q
They did just the opposite of what tne 12 instructions told them to do, right?
13 A
Yes.
a 14 Q
You noted on your performance appraisal when you 4
15 did this that Mr. Lamb had military intelligence schooling, "1
16 job-related. Shouldn't he have gotten credit for that?
17 A
I don't know because I'm confused on which is what 18 now.
19 On this top copy it says on degree, he has a zero 20 on here, but on the first one he gave me he has -- I'm 21 looking at two different people.
I'm sorry.
22 Q
If there's a scratch-out, that's the first draft.
4 l
23 A
The first one they give him credit for having a 24 degree, for having --
25 0
And then they took it away, right?
a b
t i
1752
.7 1
evaluation of the NSD SPP.
Could you tell us exactly what 2
you looked at in those files?
3 A
I looked at the performance appraisals for the 4
previous two-years at least or whatever.
I wanted to review 5
last year's, but 1992 was not available.
6 I also looked at employment information, 7
application, any progress or classes that were taken since 8
the time of hire, any discipline that was in the file.
I 9
reviewed basically the whole file.
10 0
Mr. Carth has taken you through it piecemeal.
11 Just so the Court clearly. understands how you accomplished y-12 this evaluation, would you just kind of briefly walk us
[
^
13 through exactly what you did once you left that April 10 l
1: 1 14 meeting?
,..y. "
15 A
After the meeting with them on April 10 I did my 3
16 processes for reviewing the files.
I also -- for my sake I 17 wrote out the information as far as the evaluations on a I
18 scale so I would have that information.
I wrote down some i
19 notes so I had some ideas when I came up with my own 20 evaluations how I would do it.
]
21 I reviewed each one individually. And then after
{
22 that I got back with Mr. Balcom.
I gave him the information t
23 that I had.
I kind of briefed John odom and Betty on the f
24 information of what I had been doing, told them where I was l
25 with it.
I i
i l
f
i 1753 1
Afterwards Mr. Balcom came back and gave me the 2
revised revisions. He expressed to me the reasons why those 3
ratings were as they were.
Of course, I don't remember all l
4 the specifics on some of them.
After that the decision was 5
made what it was going to be.
6 Also in the midst of that I discussed the 7
information about alt placement with Rickey Papp, who was 8
the manager over employment and recruiting, possibilities of 9
placement elsewhere in the company or on site.
At the time 10 there weren't any openings.
11 And we were looking at more or less mirroring or a 12 facsimile of staff. So what we were doing as far as the 13 severance was different from what had been done in the past.
14 Q
Different in what respect?
15 A
Well, in the past normally with reorganizations 16 our history was that they would give individuals at least 30 17 days to try to find positions elsewhere within the company 18 or on site.
After that they were terminated.
There was 19 severance.
20 This was the first time there was a severance t
21 involved, and the reason being because 1992 was an unusual 22 year in which the staff process was being done.
It had 23 impacted other STP employees through the retirement process, 24 So as a result of that a decision was made prior 25 to me being involved that we would use that process.
So
{
l f
n k
1754 1
these employees would also benefit from the severance I
2 packages, as well.
3 Q
The severance package is now -- I'm not sure I 4
understood everything you just said, but I appreciate you 5
sharing it all with us.
6 You said that you were trying to do a mirror image 7
of the step, right?
8 A
Yes.
9' Q
And in that step do you know if employees, when r
10 they were selected for severance, were given an opportunity 11 to look for other positions?
12 A
No.
The decisions were already made. Usually 13 they were offered a position that the management had already 14 looked into.
If they did not take that position, then they i
15 were severed.
16 Q
And it was then they received the severance l
r 17 package --
18 A
Yeah.
19 Q
-- that you mentioned?
20 A
well, I don't remember the date.
It wasn't right l
21
'away.
It was like sometime in April of last year.
22 Q
so I think.you said it's not normal practice at 23 STP to give a severance package.
24 A
History, as I understand it, that is correct.
'25 Q
You mentioned in your list of job duties that you i
r i
?
~
L 7:
?
1755
'l provide supervisory training. What subjects do you train 2
in?
3 A-At the time I was training four classes. We L
4 alternated teaching.
Performance appraisal, affirmative 5
action, policy training -- I'm missing one.
There's four 6
classes that we teach.
Oh, constructive discipline.
7 Q
Let's go back a little bit into the process that 8
you described to us that you used in reviewing the NSD 9
reorganization and the evaluations.
Mr. Garth phrased them 10 as problems.
I think you used the term problems yourself 11 once or twice.
12 Did you have a concern or problem with Mr. Worth's t
13 evaluation?
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
Would you tell us what that concern was?
16 A
Well, looking at his reviews and his appraisals 17 from the last two years, the comments on there, I was 18 concerned that it seemed that there was such a significant 19 change in his -- or demise in his performance versus the 20 appraisals. And that was my main concern. His probably 21 stood out more so.than anyone.
22 Q
Did you discuss that concern with anyone?
23' A
Yes.
Mr. Balcom.
s 24 Q
And what happened after you discussed that concern 25 with Mr. Balcom?
j
EU l
l t
)
l t
1756 1
A He explained to me that there were some serious 2
problems there that had erupted within the last 12 months, 3
and Mr. Worth was not supportive of management. He had also 4
been negative in his interactions with other departments as 5
a security supervisor to the' point, as far as I looked at 6
it, that it was causing an image with the department. So he l
7 had some serious concerns with him.
8 Q
With all that new information Mr. Balcom provided 9
you, was that information properly reflected on Mr. Worth's 10 SPP as they gave it to you initially?
l 11 A
No.
12 Q
And so what happenod?
13 A
What he did was he took the information that I 14 gave him about his performance within the past 12 months and 15 the negative information. He listened to me.
He put it in 16 the proper place where it should have been, which would have 17 been at the bottom of the form.
18 Q
And did that satisfy your concerns about i
19 Mr. Worth's evaluation?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
Did you have any concerns or questions about 22 Mr. Dave Lamb's special performance profile?
{
S 23 A
No.
gf E
1 24 Q
Can you tell us where Mr. Lamb finished in your l
25 evaluation of the supervisors?
1.
L?
t L+X J
I h
g;
.h; A
h t
h m
i i
1
-i
[i I
1757:.
$2 i
1-A When.I did my. evaluation and looked at their ig 1
.d.
--l
'2-evaluation, there was a difference within about'three points' Ti.
- )
p, 3
between he and the last supervisor which was rated, which
- by f
kM i
4 was Dave Sheesley. And I.didn't see where that difference hdj Q
.5 was going to make that big of a difference,. one point ; or ' so, -
.. bl 6
and that's why I didn't see a problem with it.
~@-
.i fic y
7 Q
But where did they end up relatively in your g--.
,j R
8 evaluation?- It was on the bottom of your evaluation,-.right?
- l jg
{
,c-9 A
Are you talking about -- who are you-talking b-3 i
ta h;M
-j 10 about?
g#
4 11 Q'
of the supervisors.
I'm sorry, f;) }
e>
12-A Mr. Lamb was at the bottom.
k,7
.i kM 13 Q
And who was next above him?
P a-l y,
l 14 A
.Mr. Sheesley.
p, i
- $d 15 Q
And who was next above'.him?.
- iq 16 A
(No verbal response.)
i 17 Q
If you'll;just tell us what you're looking at-i 18 there, Ms. Jones.
19 A
I'm looking at Exhibit C10.-
- i 20 Q
Now, of the professionals, when you did your-21 evaluation of-the professionals, can you tell us how that
.l
. pyt 22 list came out relatively' speaking, who was on the bottom?
%g
'l ku 23 A
Mr. Lamb.
M
+
y 24 Q
of the professionals?
O7 j
{=~
J 25 A
Ch, I'm sorry.
~j i
u
_,_I
I 19 i.
s
- m >
.[
^
il I
~
I I
-i 1758~
~l tt,
1 The professionals was'Mr. Dean.
DN$'
'l 2
Q When you looked at Mr. Dean's SPP,1did you have 14 N-l 3
any questions about that evaluation?
EQ i
d.
n:q 4
A No.
$,q 5-
'Q:
Did you have any concerns with Mr.~ Brick's' Q
i Ada 6
evaluation?
?
t 7
A Yes.
It appears that they had' rated him higher-8 than his performance appraisals indicated, and I questioned 9
that.
.It seemed that he had made some significant changes
' 10 within the last 12 months, which-is why he was rated higher' f
11 than I would have rated him' 12'
_q Q
Did you address those concerns
'with anyone?
j J
13 A
Yes.
Mr. Balcom.
14 Q
And what happened after you spoke with Mr. Balcom 15 about these concerns?
. 16 A
If he took that in consideration, I' don't. remember 17 offhand. But as it turned out,.when he brought it back,
- 18:
there was a tie between he and Mr. Dean.
19 Q
Do you know how they broke that' tie?.
20 A
They decidedithat basically because Mr. Dean hadc 21-discipline problems, that he would be the one.
22-
-Q Mr. Garth asked.you a lot of questions today. Let
' 23 me see if;I can find anything that he. talked about -- I know 24 there was one thing.
25 He talked to you at some length about the special s :-
w ww,
e r.
.c
..m-
>-mr P -*- - m*?
-'--'rf7 m
- e
i 1759 1
skill category on the SPPs.
I know he talked to you about 2
Mr. Lamb's special skills. Did you give Dave Lamb any 3
points on your SPP -- I think you said that was q
4 Complainants' 10.
Did you give Mr. Lamb any points in that 5
category for special skills?
6 A
No.
7 Q
So even though there's a comment on there that 8
Mr. Garth talked to you about, you still didn't award him 9
any points.
10 A
No.
Because there's a certain statement in the 11 instructions that applies.
12 Q
Tell us again what you're looking at,.Ms. Jones.
1 13 A
I'm looking at Exhibit C45, Page 2.
" Skills to be 14 considered should be limited to special skills, education 15 that are critical or of special value."
16 Being in security I wasn't aware of how that 17 special training that is indicated on there, if that was 18 special or not.
I really wasn't -- I couldn't really give a 19 rating there, but I didn't give him any credit there.
I 20 guess that's really where I got caught up.
_e.
21 Q
When you were questioned earlier in that same i
22 category, I believe it was, about the value of a college i
23 degree --
24 A
Yes.
25 0
-- I think your testimony was that you are not t
$ 1-.
~
p f
r t
I
. t i
-l i
9 I
1760-
.1 familiar with the specific job requirements $n the security.
. Eqs i
~
p g -S ;
.i 2
department.
i 3
A Not all the particulars on it.
lhD 4~
4 Q
- Are you familiar generally with the job L3 gj 5
requirements for STP positions such as supervisor?
[f K,
.?
6 A
Yes.
Er Ih 7'
Q Would it be of value to a supervisor to have a' Ste 8
college degree?
[j.
. 91 '
9 A
Yes,'it would.
k; i
h hi 10 Q
And what value would that be?
UM
$EOl 11 A
Because the person would be transferable or thei 12 skills'could be transferable to another organization.
- @R...
v 13 Q
Mr. Garth took.you through at length -- and I 14 probably contributed somewhat:to that' length -.about.the 15 relationship between.the performance appraisal.overall 16 rating and the rating in the top block of the special 17 performance profile for,.I believe,.it's present job:
18 performance. One of the things he did when he talked to you 19 about that was take you block through block with Mr. Lamb 20
.and Mr. Sheesley's performance appraisals.
21 A
Right.
22 Q
Are HL and P's annual performance appraisals, that 23 system and those forms, are they' designed for employee-to-24 employee comparison?
25 A
No.
It's an individual type thing. Each employee
7 9.-
The SPP Process Comments-Mr. Garth's letter (p. 4) makes three-arguments about Ms. Culmer's presentation regarding the SPP
_ process.
First, it claims that her statement that the SPP process was appropriate for use in a department the size of the Nuclear Security Department is contradicted by testimony from Mr.
Balcom.
Second, it argues that Ms. Culmer's statement that the written instructions were adequate for Nuclear Security to utilize the SPP process without training, is contradicted by evidence at the trial that the instructions were not followed.
Third, Mr. Garth's letter disputes Ms. Culmer's statements related to the decision not to allow Mr. Lamb to " bump" a professional; it argues that " bumping is a regular occurrence in HL&P and STP reorganizations, that Mr. Moore bumped Mr. Lamb.
Responses a.
Department Size:
It was not Mr. Balcom's testimony that the SPP was inappropriate for an organization the size of the Security Department.
What Mr. Garth may be referring to is Mr. Balcom's testimony that he did not ask Messrs.
Moore and Hinson to add more comments to the SPP forms to justify their ratings because he viewed such comments as necessary only where the SPPs would be reviewed by upper level managers in large organizations who would not be familiar with the personnel rated j
by lower level managers.
Since Mr. Balcom was familiar with all of the Security personnel, he found the number of comments to be
~
adequate.
Mr. Balcom's explanation has nothing whatsoever to do
with the suitability of the SPP process for ranking in a small organization.
b.
Training:
Ms. Culmer's statement concerning training was addressing the argument that the absence of training was evidence of discrimination.
Ms. Culmer's statement shows this argument is wrong.
Neither does Mr. Garth's criticism of how the instructions were implemented show there was any discrimination.
As Ms. Culmer explained, these criticisms of the Security Department SPPs are equally applicable to SPPs completed in the HL&P corporate offices, by Managers who were trained, and are not evidence of discrimination.
Tr. 115-16.
c.
Bumping:
Ms. Culmer explained that in the SPP process, managers and supervisors were considered a single occupational category.
Mr. Moore and Mr. Lamb were in the same category and there was no bumping involved in Mr. Moore's selection.
She also explained that " bumping" was not HL&P's practice. Idm
. 2 -
10.
Were Complainants "the most viaorous?"
Comments:
Mr. Garth's letter (p. 4) claims that "Mr.
I Balcom next attempted to convince your staff that Messrs. Lamb l
and Dean were not'in fact the most vigorous in pursuing these H
claims [re security deficiencies]."
He argues that the evidence established that they were the "most vigorous."
Response
The claim in the letter is false; Mr. Balcom' did not make statements about the relative vigor with which security personnel pursued issues.
To the contrary, Mr. Balcom explained that the issues raised by Messrs. Lamb and Dean,.as s
identified in the DOL hearing record, arose before Mr. Balcom.was l
designated as the Security Manager.
The DOL hearing record does not lend itself to any assessment of the relative outspokenness or " vigor" of individuals in the department.
However, it should be noted that Mr. Lamb testified that, after he brought concerns to NRC in j
early 1989, he raised no concerns at all to anyone until 1991.
The same is essentially true of Mr. Dean.
DOL Tr. 542-44.
The hearing record shows that most of the issues Messrs.
Lamb and Dean raised to SAFETEAM and the NRC were not first identified or analyzed by Messrs. Lamb and Dean ~but.were actually repetitions of issues previously reported and documented by 1
others in the Security Department.
Relevant portions of the DOL transcript are attached.
l 293 INDEX VOIR WITNESSES:
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS DIRE David.R.'; Lamb 295 399 367 EXHIBITS:
IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE Complainant's:
35 301 301 88 303 303 46 304 304 47 304 304 a
51 315 315 3 through 8 323 323 59 341 341 j
60 343 343 i
s' 61 344 344 62 345 346 63
.348 348 64 349 349 65 350 350 66 352 352 37 354
-354 j
89 355 355 j
68 360 360
542 1
MR. MINTON:
Yes, that's plenty.
2 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
3 JUDGE MILLER: We will reconvene.
Mr. Minton, you 4
may inquire.
5 BY MR. MINTON:
'(
6 Q
When we recessed I was getting to the power 7
outage. As I understood your testianony yesterday af ternoon, l1.:
8 Mr. Lamb, and correct me if I'm mistaken, for events that we $.
9 have now gone over in detail with Mr. Garth questioning you,
,,li 10 and now any going over it again, and perhaps bring out other if f
i I
11 aspects, it was at this time in '89, af ter your detennining s
12 that Mr. Earnest had come down, from whatever source, and I
13 that you decided that you were just going to, I believe you l
14 said, lay low -- do you recall that testimony?
15 A
Yes, sir, I do.
16 Q
And that you did that, made no observations of any 17 problems until the power outage matter came about, is that i
18 correct, sir?
s 19 A
That's correct, sir.
20 Q
Well, was there anything that came up that you had 21 concerns about that you now feel that you could have, or 22 should have brought to the attention of management?
{
l l
23 A
This is what time franne?
24 Q
The time fraane that you were talking about when 25 you said you decide 6 you were going to lay low, and did so s
I i
I
l 543 1
until the power outage, and I assumed that you're talking 2
about early to mid '89.
Remember that in January, Mr. Dean 3
files 11881, and then after that's acted on, you take 11881, 4
and I think add something to it, and send it to Region 4.
5 And then after that period of time, you called back, and 6
subsequently, Mr. Earnest shows up, but nothing more occurs.
7 and if I'm repeating this incorrectly, but my impression was 8
that as that played down, you just said, well, I'm going to 9
lay low and not do anything. Am I correct?
j 10 A
That's correct, sir.
11 Q
My only question is did anything come to your 12 attention that you, at that time, or even now believe that 13 you should have brought to the attention of management?
14 A
I don't believe so, sir.
15 Q
All right, sir.
So whether it was a decision to 16 lay low that happily nothing else happened, in any event, 17 there wasn't anything that needed to be reported in your 18 judgment that you can recall now, is that correct?
19 A
That I can recall now, yes, sir.
20 Q
All right, sir. And that would have been -- those 21 things that you had brought to their attention were all 22 items that had occurred, I believe, in 1988, '87 or '88, is 23 that correct?
24 A
Yes, sir.
25 Q
So nothing went on in 1989 in the security
I i
544 1
department that you had any complaint about then, or have 2
any complaint about now, is that correct, sir?
1--
[
i 3
A No, sir, there were some things that were 4
bothering me.
.5 Q
okay. Older things, things that you felt had not i.:
G 6
been -- and I've grown to know you well enough to know that 7
until you get it a certain way, that you're not going to 8
forget about it.
But aside from those things, was there 9
anything new that came up that you can tell us about now, r
10 until we get to power outage?
11 A
Yes, sir, b6 12 Q
Tell me.
13 A
Mr. Randlett directed one of my testing officers t
14 to not check for lighting underneath vehicles.
15 Q
And when wu: that?
i 16 A
The time frame wa sometime in '89, I believe.
17 Q
And who was that officer?
[
18 A
It was The Davis.
19 Q
Was that a Wackenhunt officer?
)
20 A
Yes, sir, it was.
21 Q
And tell me what occurred?
22 A
Mr. Davis came in and said that he had been 23 directed by Mr. Randlett not to check for lighting during 24 our weekly lighting checks underneath vehicles.
25 Q
Underneath vehicles?
t i
l
)
f 596 1
A Yes, sir, I did.
2 Q
What other things do you specifically recall 3
having mentioned to them that was still'on your mind as 4
concerns?
5 A
As you have already stated, the concerns from 1988 6
and '89, the new concerns of the power failure and the 7
doorknob, et cetera.
8 o
By this time, when you were meeting with them, had 9
you read the SIR and the results of that SIR 7 i
10 A
on the doorknob, yes, sir.
I 11 Q
Were you generally aware of what speak out had 12 detenmined on each of those things?
13 A
Yes, sir.
14 Q
And you were dissatisfied with that as the reason i
15 that you were at the NRC7 16 A
with that specific item, no, sir.
[
17 Q
I'm sorry.
I'm talking about all the items, 18 whatever you've got down.
19 A
Yes, sir.
20,
Q I'm interested in you telling The court now what
[
21 it was that you have done that -- that is, that you had n
l 22 initiated that you felt had called to the attention of t
23 management and had irritated yous had you gone to speak out
~ is 24 on any of these matters that we have discussed?
25 A
Bave I gone to speak out?
l 6
>A i
b b
i t
597 j '.
1 Q
Yes, sir.
Have you gone to Speak Out on any of
+
i n 2
these things that we've talked about the last two days?
P '
3 A
I felt that I went to Speak out on the 1988 and I
4 1989 issues of the lock and key and the -- only because of t
5 the input that I had into it, and the enount of attention 6
that I had drawn to myself with my. objections to it.
4 7
Q Well, let's kind of separate here your objections.
O to it and going to speak Out.
We've got it nailed down that 9
you were never the concerneo, that is corrects it was Mr.
10 Dean that did that?
11 A
(Witness nods head affirmatively.)
12 Q
You're nodding your head, but you need to --
l
.i 13 A
Yes, sir, I'm sorry.
i 14 Q
All right, I understand.
I do the same thing.
15 Had you ever filed an SIR?
i 16 A
Yes, sir.
17 Q
I'm. talking about on any of these matters?
18 A.
No,* sir.
5' 19 Q
Had you ever filed a --
p s
20 _
MR. MINTON: And I'm sorry, Judge --
21 BY MR. MINTON:
22 0
-- a security incident report?
23 JUDGE MILLER:
I understand.
24 BY MR. MINTON:
l 25 Q
Had you ever filed a station problem report?
l'
l 1
a I
I 598 i
- q 1
A No, sir.
i 2
Q And on everyone of these matters that we've talked 3
about, somebody had gone to speak Out, or somebody had filed 4
an SIR, or somebody had filed an SPR, isn't that correct, 5
every one?
c 6
A I don't know if everyone, but it appears that
~,
7 someone had.
8 Q
And in no case was it you?
g 9
JUDGE MII&ER: No case was it?
s.
10 MR. MINTON: Was it Mr. Lamb.
d j
11 TNE WITNESS: Was it me that filed it?
3 12 BY MR. MINTON:
1 13 Q
That's right, e
14 A
No, sir, but I was the cause of probably most of 7
15 them being filed.
"O 16 Q
Well, I'm interested in that.
Are you -- but for 17 you, are you saying that Mr. Dean -- I've gotten to know Jim 18 Dean. Are you suggesting that he didn't have a mine of his 19 own and was just doing what you told him?
20 A
No, sir.
21 Q
That's not true, is it?
22 A
No, sir.
23 Q
As a matter of fact, he composed, sat down and 24 wrote out in his own handwriting all of 11881 before it was 25 over reduced to whatever final form that it was in, 9
5
-