ML20113G042
| ML20113G042 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1995 |
| From: | Lorfing D ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20113F955 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-155 NUDOCS 9609260110 | |
| Download: ML20113G042 (34) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. . . . . .. .- . .. -. . . - - - . . 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [ 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [ t 3 ++ + + +. [
-{
4 OFFICE OF. INVESTIGATIONS j i 5 . INTERVIEW 6 ---------------------------------x
- I 7 IN THE MATTER OF:
8 INTERVIEW OF : t 9 DAVID NEAL LORFING : j 10 : 11 ---------------------------------x ; 12 Thursday, July 20, 1995 ! 13 . 14 Riverbend Station i 15 Conference Room 16 5485 U.S. Highway 61 17 St. Francisville, Louisiana 18 19 20 The above-entitled interview was conducted at 10:55 1 21 a.m., when where present: 22 q~ P~m1T 77 , 23 CASEtt 4^l0 5. Mc*5 u ! 25 NEAL R. GROSS COVAT AEPOATE AS AND TAANSCAIBE AS
'323 ANODE tSLAND AVENUE. N W f
'~
" *
- S"'~ct N c2e 42 2:23 m 2a 96o9260110 95'5s'15 PDR FOIA _ . _
/
6ARDE96-155 _ PDR _ . _ _ . _ 4
l 1 ON BEHALF OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION: 2 JONATHAN ARMENTA, JR., Investigator 3 DENNIS BOAL, Investigator 4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5 Office of Investigations 6 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 7 Arlington, Texas 76011 8 9 ON BEHALF OF THE ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.: 10 DOUGLAS E. LEVANWAY, ESO. i 11 Wise Carter Child & Caraway j l 12 600 Heritage Building 13 Jackson, Mississippi 3920s 14 15 16 17 l 18 19 20 21 22 23
- . 4 2b NEAL R. GROSS COL A* AE AOATE A *, AND ' A ANSCRIBERS
' 323 AMODE ist AND A E NUE N W 202i 234 4433 .%ASMNGTON O C 20005 (202) 234 4433 I
1 EEOCEED1HQS 2 MR. BOAL: For the record, this is an 3 int = rvu w of Mr. David Lorfing. Is that correct? l l l 4 MR. LORFING: That is correct. l 5 MR. BOAL: And your middle name, sir? 1 6 MR. LORFING: It is Neal, N-E-A-L. 7 MR. BOAL: And your job title, sir? 8 MR. LORFING: Supervisor, licensing. 9 MR. BOAL: And you are employed by Entergy 10 Operations, Incorporated? 11 MR. LORFING: That is correct. 12 MR. BOAL- And what is your date of birth, ! l 13, sir? ; 14 MR. LORFING: ) 7' 15 MR. BOAL: Today's date is July 20, 1995, and 16 *h time is approximately 10:55 a.m. 17 In addition, present at this interview is Mr. 18 Jonathan Armenta, Jr., investigator, NRC, Office of 19 Investigations, Region IV; Mr. Dennis Boal, investigator, 20 NRC, Office of Investigations, Region IV; Mr. Douglas E. 21 Levanway, attorney, Wise Carter Child & Caraway. Mr. 22 Levanway represents Entergy Operations, Incorporated, and 23 in addition, he is here as counsel for you. Is that your 24 , understanding, Mr. Lorfing? 2Eb MR. LORFING: Yes, it is.
! NEAL R. GROSS I
court AEPCATE AS AND ' AANSCAiBE AS l '323 h00E ISLAND AVENUE N .v 202: 234 4433 W ASwiNGTON O C 20005 - [ i?o21234-A433
/-
il MR. BOAL: Very good. This interview is beingl 2 tape recorded by court reporter Ms. Sandra McCray and is a 3 l voluntary interview pertaining to allegations of i 4 violations of 10 CFR 50.7 at Riverbend Station. l 1 5 Mr. Lorfing, at this time, could I ask you to 6 please stand and raise your right hand, so I could 7 administer an oath to you. 8 Whereupon, 9 DAVID NEAL LORFING 10 having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness 11 herein and was examined and testified as follows: , 12 EXAMINATION 13 BY MR. BOAL: 14 O Mr. Lorfing, could you tell us your I 1 15 educational background, please. 16 A All right. I have a bachelor's and a master's 17 degree in nuclear engineering from Texas A&M University. 18 O And what is the date of your degrees, sir? 19 A 20 0 And when did you come to work for Riverbend 21 Station? 22 A I went to work for Gulf States Utilities 23 Company in 1977, October 1, 1977, and I was working on I _ 4 l, R:verbend at that time. 25l
^
So you have been here since '77. Is that NEAL R. GROSS l
)
COUA7 AE DOATE AS AND T A ANSCAIBE AS
'343 A-ODE 'SL AND AVENUE N W 202,.**.4 4433 A ASHrNGTON O C 20005 (202) 234-4433 l-
o
". correct?
df A Not on site. : was originally employed in
- t 2
9 Beaumont, Texas, and I have been on site for approximate]y, 4' ten years. 5 0 1985? 6 A That is correct February '85. 7 Q Since 1990, could you tell us what your job 8 titles and supervisors have been here at Riverbend 9 Station. 10 A Okay. In 1990, I was supervisor, licensing; 11 essentially held the same position I currently hold. And 12hyouaskedfor -- . :- ;) Supervisor .4,, a My supervisors?
!l 15 0 Yes, sir.
16 A Let me think. Originally it was Les England, 17 who was the director of licensing, and -- I am trying to 18 think; when did that change? I am trying to think when -- 19 Otto Bulich is my current supervisor. He is the manager 20 of licensing now. I think he took that position in Cl, December of '93. i 1 22!. Do you supervise employees?
- A Nct at the current time.
4 : And once aga;r your current job title.
- A sucervis:: cf 1: censing. Do you want me to NEAL R. GROSS C w A' QE DC A?E AS A*.C ' A ANSCALBE AS 323 A**CCE 'S6AND AiENUE N w 2:2 2M 40 .a. A SM'NC' ON O ~ 2'005 i2021 234 4433
1 explain that? t 2 Q Would you explain the job duties of that, 3 please. 4 A Okay. In 1994, we hired several new -- or at 5 least one supervisor who took over several of the duties 6 that I had previously, primarily involving writing of NRC f 1 1 7 reports, like LERs, dealing with inspections, and at the l
)
8 time, I was assigned to report directly to the manager of l l 9 licensing and basically perform the function of 10 coordinating resident inspection activities and team 11 inspection activities. And so I have been doing t hat 12 since that time. Q :n summer to fall of 1994, Entergy Operations, 13h I ll 14 Incorporated instituted the management planning and review l 15 ranking process here at Riverbend Station. Could you -- l 16 A The date again? When did you say it was? 17 O Summer to fall of 1994, I believe. 18 A Okay. 19 Q Maybe -- we have different information as to 20 when different individuals were informed of this, and that 21 is our question. Do you recall when you were first 22 :nformed about this ranking process?
<i 2- A : don't recall the specific date. I know it 4 es somewr.ere : r. t he '.atter part of '94, but even what LE, T:r.tr would be /ery han'. to me.,
- NEAL R. GROSS COL A' af POPTE AS ANO 'nANSCRIBE AS
'323 AMODE '5 LAND -VENUE N A 202 234 4433 AAS-NGTON O C 20005 (202) 234 4433
1 Q Do you recall what the purpose of this ranking 2 process was, as explained to you. 3 A Yes. From my memory, it was explained that 4 our previous -- the system that we had used or at least 5 that Entergy had used for performance appraisals did 6 not -- was not actually identifying high performers and 7 low performers, and they wanted to institute a -- the 8 company wanted to institute a new process for 9 performing -- essentially performing a performance 10 evaluation system that would evaluate actual performance 11 and potential for each employee in a process that would 12 definitely identify the lower as well as the high-12
! perf orming individuals in the company.
i L 0 In your understanding of this process, was 14l 15 it -- were classes of employees targeted to be placed in ' 16 the lower categories? 17 A Classes of people? 18 0 Yes, sir. 19 A No. I wouldn't think that there would be any 20 type cf class of -- you mean, like a position, certain 21 pos:tions or anything like that? 22 O Right. A position, personality, age -- 23 A No.
;41 ; -- Characteristics, sex?
ZE: A No. It was based on two things. You were NEAL R. GROSS COLA' ef PCATE AS ANO ' A ANSCAiBE AS
- ' 323 A-ODE 5L ANC A.ENUE N A 20.'- 234 44:3 A AssiNG? ON : 2000$ (20262344433
1 supposed to evaluate the individual's performance, their 2 actual performance, their level of performance, the job ifthat they did; and the other thing that you were supposed F 4 to determine would be their potential for advancement, 5 essentially for performing the next -- either the next job 6 or position above them, or some other position at a higher 7 level, or even their potential could be performing at a 8 higher level. 9 In other words, I guess I could give an 10 example where an engineer maybe could do, you know, one 11 level of work today; he would be capable of doing a 12 greater level of work in a future time. So there would be .3fpotential for improvement, l 14 MR. ARMENTA: Dennis, if I could ask a 15 question -- 16 BY MR. ARMENTA: 17 O Mr. Lorfing, are you saying then that the 18 ranking process is relative to the appraisal system? 19 A It was a supplement to it, from what I -- 20 0 It was? You don't categorize it as a separate 21 1ssue. 22 A It was a separate process, because we ~
! ccntinued to do perfermance appraisals.
4 . The reascn I ask is because I don't see how _5 ,u _nterpret it. E;ther it was relative to the appraisal , 1 NEAL R. GROSS COtA? aE POATE AS AND T AANSCRIBE AS
'323 AMODE iSL AND A VE NUE N W C2< 23d 44 33 A A SweNGTON D C 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 or it was not, and we have been hearing different stories.! 2 So what do you -- 31 A Well, I -- l 4 Q How do you perceive it? 5 A The way I would perceive it is they have to go 6 hand in hand. Performance appraisal is an appraisal of -- 7 you know, the ability of an individual to perform, and one 8 aspect of the ranking process was performance. So there 9 has to be some link between the two. 10 0 I understand that. It is that it has been my 11 understanding also that the ranking process was not for 12 performance, but rather how they compare with their peers. 13p A Well, right. And -- 1 I:t So that is where this separation comes in. 15 A The way I would do performance appraisals in 16 the past, when I do a performance appraisal, it is not 17 ranking; I compare an individual, what I ask an individual 18 to do, what his job is, to how he performs in that job. 19 And I - his relative ranking to another individual, such 20 as -- let's say I had two people performing similar 21 Jobs -- would not be the major player in what the actual
- performance appraisal was.
- I I am going to base an appraisal on what his
;4? :r -- P.: s compariscn to what his job was, what I asked l
;E', .
- t: 50, how well ne performed that job. Okay. In the NEAL R. GROSS Coup' AE DCD'E DS aND ' AANSCAiBE AS
'323 AaODE ISLAND AsENUE N W
?"; 234 4433 A A5- NGtCN D C 20005 (2021 234-4433 1+
i ranking process, how well you perform the job is one I l 1 2 aspect of it, but then you have to - you are forced to I i compare it to other individuals, because there was a 3{li 4 definite process where you had to list the top performer l 5 and the low performers and now you have to take -- 6 He is performing in a certain job- now how 1 7 does that compare to another individual in a different 1 1 8 job? 9 Q The ranking process came after the appraisal. l 10 Is that correct' l 11 A Well, the appraisals were done in the spring 12 of the year The ranking was done after that, kind of -- , 1 13 O Fall? 14 A Right. In the fall -- 15 0 Are we talking about spring '94 for the PP&R. 1 16 A Right 17 C And then we are talking about September, 18 October for the ranking. 19 A Right. 20 0 So they were separate. 21 A Right. They were separate, although, you 22 know, our performance appraisal process is a continuous Zi pr:ress You have the initial development of the 24 pertermance appraisal wnich basically identifies your job i 25 an; what is expected of you. You have certain objectives l NEAL R. GROSS
'; COvA* AEPOA't AS ANO ' ALNSCA'BE AS
' 323 AwCDE .56AND A ENUE N W If I
I 202 234 4432 A A5w(NGTON O C 2000$ (202) 234 4433 i
. to perform, that sort of thing.
2 0 Well, that is why I wanted to clear up, as to i 3 now you interpreted that process, that entire program, 4 because of different variations. Okay. 5 BY MR. BOAL: 6 0 Did you rank employees in this process? 7 A I didn't actually -- since there were none 8 reporting to me at the time, I didn't actually turn in ar. 9 initial ranking. Okay. What I did do was the individuals 10 in the licensing department who had people reporting to 11 them all developed their -- let's say their initial 12 ranking, and then turned it in to our manager, Otto 13h Bu;1ch, who then called a meeting of all the supervisors, h 14l and I did participate in that meeting, okay, where we 15 basically gave our input to Otto Bulich, so that he could 16 take all the input and create a ranking for licensing 17 department. 18 C And was that meeting referred to as a roll-up 19 meeting? Do you recall that terminology? 20 A I recall the terminology. Whether we called 21 :t that initially -- because, see, this was really the 22 first level of roll-up, if you will. It was the I: _ 31 ' supe: visors ccming in. It was really the initial ranking .4- ::: '.;;ensing department. Okay But -- so you could call 25t .: r e ' '. - u p . : don't know that we actually called it that. NEAL R. GROSS CCun' nrocu*p as AND
- AANSCArBE AS
- 323 aMODE iSL ANC A
- E NUE N N
?C2 M4 44 U .s a s-.NG T ON D 20005 (202)234 4433
5 1 I felt that roll-up came after the licensing department 2 put our ranking together, the supervisors and the manager,
- , and then we gave that -- we moved that up one level. j
)
( 4 Then that would be roll-up where licensing would be matched against, say -- in our case, it would be : 5 e
- r i the QA department and emergency planning, everyone who
- 6 j 7 reported to Jim Fisicaro, all those departments. !
l ' 8 O Did you participate in that meeting with Mr. 1 i 9 Fisicaro? - 4 10 A No, I didn't. 1 a 11 O The meeting you did participate in with the d l 12 supervisors, could you identify the supervisors or all of 1 ! 13 the people that were present in that meeting. t i d I 14 A This would be from memory, and I may not be i 1 1' 15 completely accurate, because some individuals may not have i 16 been in at that time, but I believe the people who were j 17 there was Otto Bulich, myself, Guy Davant, Tim Gates, and 1 ! 18 Don Wells, all of who are.either supervisors; in the case l 19 of Guy Davant who is a senior staff engineer who was S l! 20 acting as a supervisor at that time. i 21 And one of those -- those are the individuals 22 tnat should have been there, because they all reported to i
^3; 'n:.
Dne may have been missing, but I can't remember. _4 ! : ; And -- 25he b A They all provided input, let's say, to that i i d NEAL R. GROSS Otp* GEPOATE RS 4ND T AANSCAiBE AS l J '323 ANODE tSLANC AVENUE N W i
.. ASN,NGTON O C 20005
' (202) 234 4433
{ , 2C2i 234 d4 33
,- - _ . _ _ _ _ __ _ m ._ , _ _ _ _
li meeting. 2 2 They provided input. How was their input
}
3!;I provided to the meeting? 4 A 'de l l , first of all, by providing a ranking. 5 0 Okay. 6 A And then second of all, by discussing the 7 ranking that -- where Otto had took their input and 8 developed a ranking for licensing,. discussing that 9 ranking, where all the individuals were ranked. 10 0 So as I understand what you said, you and Mr. 11 Bulich did not rank -- did not go into that meeting with 12f employees ranked, but the other three supervisors had I.
.3 'I ranked employees. Is that correct?
'4d . A Yes. And -- right. The only people that Otto 15 would have been ranked would have been the supervisors, 16 ourselves, and I believe that was done separately. I 17 don't remember. He must have done that separately and 18 then -- I 19, O Would you tell us how that meeting worked. l 1 .. ,das it in this room? I heard some of the meetings were in 21 this room. 22 A Nc. It wasn't in this room. It was in Otto's ii t'
- _re, Otto Bulich's ef:1:e.
4 1 ould /cu tei. us Pcw that meeting went or how JE' -- a:rked. NEAL R. GROSS
- u m:a E as 4.c =>Nsca, seas 3;: La OOE .sL ANC A.ENUE NA
.;2 in 4433 r.At.e.G?ON O : ??oC5 (202 234 4433
1 A Cpen discussion on each individua), especially 2- where the supervisors felt that any particular individual il snculd have been ranked higher or lower, and basically They gave their 4 their basis for why they believed that. 5 basis for -- and, you know, whether somebody was ranked 6 too high or too low, relative to the other individuals. 7 And it was not an easy process. But we had guidelines to 1 8 use, and we used them. 9 Q About how long did that meeting take? 10 A I don't recall. i l 11 0 Do you recall discussions about individuals 12 placed in the block 9 ranking? . ;!i A well, at that time, we didn't consider block 9 14i really, because -- I mean, we knew that individuals were 15 ranked at the top of the list or the bottom of the list, 16 but they were not being placed in any block at that 17 particular time. You could say that, that the individuals . i 18 at the bottom of the list had a higher probability of 19! being block 9, but yet we knew that there was going to be 20 a roll-up within Jim Fisicaro's department, and so we 21 really didn't know where the individuals would fall, after 22 the roll-up, because we have a relatively small group of o
' re: Ele that were on our list, Just the technical 4 ~a:.sgement personnel w:tnin the licensing department.
E : Mcw many people was that, would you say? NEAL R. GROSS Dem* Af oC ATEDS AND ' AANSCAiBERS
'323u-CCE'56AND A.ENUE N A 2C2 D444)) . as *NG'ON 0 ; poc5 (2021234 4433
i
". A At that time -- let's see. Approximately, I i
2 would say, on the order of 10 to 12 people. l 0 What do you rc:"11 was your input to that i l 4 meeting? 5 A I had been, you know, working with most of the 6 individuals for some period of time and had been the 7 supervisor of the -- you know, some of them prior to the 8 change in the organization, so I gave my input based on 9 what I -- you know, for each individual that we discussed, 10 what I felt their past performance was and current 11 performance from what I saw. 12 o- was the ranking suggested with that, or were l I 1.: your opinions pretty much in line with the way the ! I 14 supervisors had placed those people? j i 15 A Oh, there definitely were some changes as a 1 16 result of that input, not necessarily just mine, because 17 like I said, it was open discussion. Everybody gave their l 18 input to Otto. He basically made the decisions on where i 19 everybody would be ranked. I think there was fairly good 1
- agreement amongst tne supervisors. Complete agreement, I 21 you would have to talk to all them and see whether they 22 were in agreement.
- , From what : remember, I didn't have any
_4i specific -- 'et's say : celleve I was in agreement with
.. E ' wnat became out of that eeting, as far as I was i i i
NEAL R. GROSS U i-
- OJ A' LE PC A'E AS AND T A ANSCPiBERS 323 maCDE 'SL AND A.ENUE N A 202 23A4433 AAS-NGTCN OC 2J00$ 1202) 234 4433
9 concerned, the people I knew their performance and had 2 reported to me, I felt that they were ranked properly i i 3l coming out of that meeting, , 4 o In that meeting, do you recall if there was 5 any reference made to personnel who may have had a 6 labeling as a whistleblower? 7 A No. I don't believe that was ever -- that 8 term was not used in any way, shape or form that I 9 remember. 10 0 In your opinion, did that meeting serve as a 11 check and balance to prevent someone from being placed in 12 the lower tier because of a personality problem with the _ jil supervisor more than versus performance and potential
;4h measurement?
15 A I guess I don't understand quite what the 16 question means.
;7 O All right. I will try not to -- in your 18 opinion, do you believe that that meeting served as a 19 check and balance in the ranking process to ensure that 20 employees were ranked objectively by performance and 21 potential, rather than subjectively as to whether or not a i
;j supervisor disliked someone or --
l-
;31: A : think it did serve as that, because now you .4 .rce ::ur :: f;ve individuals discussing -- supervisors
- i and zur boss discussing individuals within the department, NEAL R. GROSS cot n' AE pon'E AS AND T AANSCAiBE AS 323 RwCCE 5#.0 A VE NUE. N W
?r; 234 A433 A A S-NGT ON O C 2000t (202) 23A4433
1 and we discussed their performance and their potential. ~ 2 We talked about things, you know. 4 i 3 Can this senior engineer, can he perform at a 4 higher level? Does he have potential to be a supervisor f 5 or move up in management or perform another job in a t' 4 6 different department? That sort of -- that was the focus 7 of our discussions. And that was the basis of the 1 4 ! 8 decisions. I don't remember any discussion of, you know, 1 i 4 9 whether -- you know, of the other side, whether an 10 individual liked a person or not or some type of opinion ! 11 like that. i l.1 12 O In your opinion, did this process employ an l 13 ob]ective measurement of employees, or was it a subjective 4 l 14 measure? I A I believe it was partly both. I can't say any 15 . i j , 16 performance appraisal would be completely objective. I 17 would like to think that they could be, but I 18 especially in licensing where, you know, the relative q j 19 merits of a product that we might produce, like an LER, a 1 1 20 violation response or activities in coordinating ) 4 21 inspections and all the different activities that we have, > 22 the level of performance is somewhat subjective, baseo on
! 2' daedback from our customers, one of them being the NRC.
I i 24ho We have tc take all that information into ' 29jf to make a determination on the level of 4 account
- l' NEAL R. GROSS CouAt AEPCAtE AS AND T AANSCAiSERS i'
' '373 AwODE ISL AND AVENUE N W i{
*AS iNctON o c rocos iro2: 234-4433
! 2cri n4 44n i
l 1 performance. So it can be subjective in -- I mean, 2 ob]ective in some cases, because we do have -- we try to ! i 3 Identify objective criteria, specific tasks that have to .
)
4 be completed, whether or not those tasks are completed on 5 time, in an adequate manner, but then, you know, the l 6 adequacy of the completed task is sometimes subjective. ;
\
7 So I think it is really both. ] 8 0 Would there be a weight to one side or the ) 9 other, in your opinion, that was employed in this process? 10 A I think they work hand in hand. I don't ; l 11 really see in the case of licensing how we can separate l 1 12 the two. We do -- you know, there is some objectivity, l 13 because in some cases, specific tasks, major tasks that 14 individuals were assigned were more than likely discussed, 15 examples of where a task was performed inadequately. We 16 did discuss that sort of thing. How do you weigh those 17 against -- that is where the subjectiveness comes in, in 18 an individual's performance in licensing. 19 Q Did you -- do you feel that you were well 20 informed about how this process worked and how it was 21 carried out here at Riverbend Station? 22 A I think we were well informed at the 23 beginning. It wasn't real clear exactly how especially t'
- 4 the retential side cf the equation was to be included. I t!
25 gr2e you -- for example, hew do you weigh the potential of I [ NEAL R. GROSS COv at aE POA'E AS AND T A ANSOAiBE AS I '323 a* ODE iSL AND AVENJE N W
'r 202 234 4433 A A5a:NGTON O C 20005 (202)2344433 i1
a I
'. an engineer to a senior enginecr, like a new hire engineer l 2 to someone who has been here for five, six years? They 1
2, have different jobs; they perform at different levels 1 4 right now. Their jobs are different. A 5 And how their potential -- obviously an 6 engineer has high potential, because he has along ways to 7 go, and the next step on the ladder is not that high for 8 him. How to balance potential was -- to me was not real 9 clear, because in a classical performance appraisal, I was 10 comparing an individual to a job, what I asked him to do, J 11 how well did he do that job. Now I am trying to compare
- 12. the individuals in not only the performance end, but 3bpotential. And so how you weigh that to me was not
- t. !.
14q completely clear h 15 It was discussed in the meetings, and I did go 16 to one of the meetings where I am sure this book here, 17 that you have laying here was used and explained to us. , 1 18 But we knew the purpose of it, and we knew the basic 19 process framework that we were to use to come up with our 20 rankings and what they were supposed to be based on. 24 O And you were saying well informed at the
- beginning. Were you referring to management staff, or i
23b were you referring to all employees involved in the 1 4 II ;;ng process? ZE A : was -- wna: : was specifically thinking NEAL R. GROSS CO A' DE DCa?E AS ANO ' A ANSCAiBERS
' 323 AMODE SL AND A < ENUE **
- 202' 234 4d33 A A$aa,NG'QN O [ pg (202) 234 4433
1 about was the meeting with human resources, where they 2 explained the process to us, and it was to the supervisory 3; staf' 4 O And one of the final phases of the ranking 5 process was to in form employees that they were ranked as 6 a category 9. Were you involved in that phase of the 7 process? 8 A I didn't actually inform any individual that 9 he was ranked 9, because I didn't have any reporting to 10 me, but -- I am trying to think before I answer, if I was 11 actually involved in that. I don't think I was involved 12 in the actual informing of the individual. In fact, I was i
. 3i. nc: :n site, I think, when any individuals were informed.
14 I was off-site during the two-week period where that 15 actually took place. 16 0 In summary, would you say this ranking process 17 was a fair process? l 18 A Ch, I think it was fair, once we determined 19 that we were going to implement it. 20 0 Did -- _. n I was just going to say that I think it was 1
- l ia;r.y implemented. Could have the whole process possibly 23 b reer cetter, some of the other aspects of it? Possibly.
- 14. 1 2;d an empityee nave an appeal right or a
;~
rerutta_ right as :: n.s ranking? NEAL R. GROSS
;;vn* rF ac.nTE RS A'.D T A ANSCRBE AS r3 L~CCE Ss AND A ENUE N W 202 234 a4D '
.. AS*NGT ON : C 20005 ,?O2) 234 AA33
~ ^-
. n -. - ..<. .
2-. . : = a . . ^,-^ a.. 1 2 employees can talk -- ask questions, discuss it with their I 3 supervisor. I don't know that there was an appeal 4 process. To me, there always is an appeal process. You i 5 can alway's go to your boss or to your boss's boss and
~
f i 6 question that. 7 BY MR. ARMENTA: - 8 0 Were you told of an appeal process? , l ! 9 A I can't really remember. I may have, but -- I ( 10 am trying to think. I don't know of one offhand -- you 11 know, from my memory, so -- 12 BY MR. BOAL: 13 0 Were you ranked in this process, Mr. Lorfing? 14 A Yes, I was. 15 O Do you know what your rank was? i l 16 A You mean the specific -- f 1 17 0 Yes, sir 18 A -- number? No, I don't. I know my level. 19 Q That information was provided to you by your 20 supervisor? l 21 A Righv. j 22 BY MR. ARMENTA: 23 _ Q What is your level? I
^4 A ,
li O If you were perhaps in the II
- NEAL R. GROSS CouAT AEPOATE AS AND TAANSCAiBE AS 323 AHODE iSL AND AVENUE N W
, 202i 234 4433 **S"'NGTON D C 20005 (202) 234 4433
'6 -
l
; , would you want to know where you would stand? I mean, David Lorfing, would he want to know?
~
3 A You know, from my knowledge of what the , 5 or 6, or 4 process was, knowing that you were in block 4, 5 7, 8, or 9, I don't think that would -- well, the 9s did know. Okay. But whether you were in 7 or 8, I don't 6 7 think that would matter to me. 1, 2, or 3 doesn't really 8 matter to me that much. 9 BY MR. BOAL: 10 Q Realizing that you were not formally informed i of other employees that were -- what their rankings were, 11 12 but also realizing that that kind of information can be 13 l transmitted in any organization, are you aware of some 14 employees who were ranked 9 at this site? 15 A I know of one at least, at least one. l 16 0 What we would like to do is run a few names by 17 you and ask you if you are aware of their ranking, and if 18 you had work experience with them, with those employees, 19 and whether or not you would agree with the ranking. 20 A Okay. 21 O A Mr. Roger Backen, do you have work . 22 experience with him here at site? A Some; not a whole lot. 23h
;4
^
Are you aware of his' ranking? i::: A No. o, e NEAL R. GROSS Coun' DEPOATE AS AND TRANSCAiBE AS
'323 AmOOi :SLAND AVENUE N W ll A ASM!NGTON O C 20005 (2021 234 4433
!l 202 234 4433 Ii
i l 1 Q Would you have been surprised to hear that he l l was ranked a 1? l l 3 A one? Probably would be. ! 4 0 In your -- you didn't have work experience 5 with him. Is that correct? 6 A He was in the QA department, and in the past, !
)
1 7 not his current position -- I haven't worked with him for 8 a number of years, but, you know, in the past when he was 9 in the QA department, I did work with him some in my 10 dealings with the NRC. But, you know, just from the 11 knowledge that I have, I would -- 12 O How would you rank Mr. Backen? 13 A Ch, I would -- I don't think I would be ; l 14 qualified at all to rank him. 15 0 Okay. How about a fellow named Mr. Mike 16 Malik? Are you aware of his ranking here? 17 A No, I am not 18 Q Have you had work experience with Mr. Malik? 19 A Yes. 20 0 What kind of work experience did you have with 21 Mr. Malik? 22 A He is a supervirar of -- oh, I forget the name _; i -f the group. It is HEA is the acronym, and his group i
; 4 ! ', 4nd . cens:ng worked fairly close together. We are
- Ejj .:cated :n the offices ad:r:ning each cther. He is
!' NEAL R. GROSS COLA' AEDO ATE 45 ANO ' A ANSCA$E AS
' 323 AMODE ISLANO A.{ NUE N W 202, 234 4433 A a SwiNGTON O C 20005 (202)2344433
1 located just a few feet from my office, and his group 2 deals with condition reports and licensing, works hand in 3 hand with them in doing reportability evaluations, and ) 4 some of our individuals in licensing work on condition 5 report root causes, that sort of thing, which his 6 department coordinates. Also during NRC inspections, I 7 get involved with his department because they do the same 8 thing: provide condition reports and that sort of thing. 9 0 would you feel qualified to formulate an l l 10 opinion about his ranking? 1 11 A No. l 12 O The information you have received about this 13 l ranking process, how would you characterize the employees'
, j l
14 attitude about this process? l l 15 A characterize the attitude? l 16 0 Yes, sir. 17 A Attitude is a difficult word to characterize, 18 first of all. I am trying to think of the right word 19 here. Wary maybe of it, somewhat -- it was, you know, a 20 new process, an unknown process to the individuals, to the 21 worker The actual impact on them was -- gosh, what kind 22 of word can I put on it? I don't know. 23 l Gee, I have a hard time characterizing If 41 *t.tude, 'CeCauCe -- 25 0 All right. Well -- j NEAL R. GROSS COURT AE DOATE AS AND TRANSCAiBE AS j' '32) AMODE est tND AVENUE N W 222,234-4433 A ASw'NGTON O C 2000: (202) 2344433
!i
~
1p A And especially poor, you know, good. You l 2 know, it is something ! feel that most of the employees t 3! wished they didn't hav$ c go through. 4 Q The ranking process? i 1 5 A Right. I 6 O Do you feel comfortable with the process? 7 A Not completely, no. e O Do you have a particular reasoning as to why 9 you don't feel comfortable with the process? 10 A The reason, I guess, is that I ask an 11 individual to do a job, a specific job, if they are an 12 employee here at Riverbend, and if they perform that job I 13: well, then they should have good performance, and that is 14;{what I ask of them. 15 Now, in ranking, you know, you are basical)y 16 forced to determine which individuals performed better 17 than others, and I see the goal. I think the goal was 18 good, to determine which -- you know, we want to have le high-performing individuals at Riverbend, so the goal was 20 good, of trying to identify the high performers, those i 21 people who would naturally be the pool of people that i g would be considered for promotions, for high level of 22, : rs, if you will, and the lower performers would not be. 4 Their perfcreance would be questioned; they 25 w:u d ce placed on performance improvement plans, to try NEAL R. GROSS COv A* AE DOME RS A%O
- AANSCA1BE AS
- m A~CCE $5ANDA.ENUE N A 202 23J 44)3 Aass NGTON O C 20005 202) 234-4433
.I
1 to get their performance up. And when we initiated this 2 process, that was the goal, was to identify the lower 3 performers so that we could place them on improvement 4 plans, so that they could improve their performance. That 5 was what the process entailed. Okay. 6 So from that standpoint, I felt that it was a 7 good process. It is the difference in the normal 8 performance appraisal system that I somehow have a -- you 9 know, that I am more concerned with. I see the goal, 10 though. And the only individual I know that was ranked 9 11 was pl. aced on a performance improvement program. 1 12 So in the case I know of specifically, he was ! 13 placed on one, and I don't know his current -- I mean, he 14 is still employed here; I don't know how he is doing on 15 his performance improvement plan currently, because I am 16 not his supervisor, but hopefully he will perform well. 17 Q Did this ranking process result in a reduction 18 in staff here at Riverbend Station? 19 A I know some individuals left following the 20 ranking -- you know, issuance of the ranking ranks. I do 21 not know how it affected the total number of positions. I 22 don't know that when the individuals left, whether the ! 23 positions were left open or cancelled. I don't know that. l' ~. 4 i j MR. BOAL: It we may, I would like to take a
- 5[ shcrt break here,
- f we can, and get something to drink; I
NEAL R. GROSS
'a COLA
- DEDORTE AS AND T A ANSCA$E AS j
- 323 A"OCE iSL AND A v ENUE N W I 202' 234 4433 ^ A5wNGTON O C 20005 (202) 234 4433 I
I 1 ;ust back off for a minute if we can. It is approximately 2 1;:35 a.m. We would like to take a short break. (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
-]
4 MR. BOAL: Let's go on the record here. It is 5 approximately 11:48 a.m. After a short break, we are back 6 on the record with Mr. Lorfing. 7 BY MR. BOAL: 8 O Mr. Lorfing, another question we would like to 9 ask you once again in reference to certain individuals, 10 just, one, whether or not you have any work experience 11 with him and then whether or not you would care to offer 12 lanopinionastotheirranking: a fellow named Mr. 1 ' 3 erhardt Dinda. Have you ever had any work relationship 14,'. witn him?
,l 15 A Not that I remember. I don't even know that I 16 know him.
17 O How about a fellow named Mr. Frank Richter? 18 have you ever had work experience with him? 19 A Yes. 20 0 Do you know what his ranking is? A No, : don't 21li 1
~I 2;j Q Would you be surprised to be informed that j
.;e ranking was a 1?
_4- A Be surp: 12 + d ? : might be. Yes. i ; :r your Op;r.;;r. of Mr Richter, what would you NEAL R. GROSS COv A' AE L OA'E RS AND T A ANSCRiBER$
'323 A-COE '56 ANC aw ENUE N A s;2 234 44 U AA5*'NG?CN C C 20005 i202) 234 4433
1 rank him? 2 A have never seen his work before; I don't 3l think I would be qualified to rank him. 4 g We have one other individual, a person named 5 Pat Hughes. Have you had working experience with him? 6 A Yes, I have. 7 O Do you know what his ranking is? 8 A No, I don't. 9 Q Would you have been surprised to be informed 10 that his ranking was in the mid-level? 11 A In the mid-level? 12 O Yes, sir. .;e n I don't know that I would be completely l
- 4' surpr
- sed. Somewhat.
15 O Do you have an opinion as to what his ranking 16 should be? 17 A He was one of the individuals that we 18 discussed, since he was part of the licensing group at 19 that time, and my -- I would say either in the mid-level 20 or at the top of the lower level. But, again, in ranking 21 you have to rank against other individuals, so it depends 22 on who you are ranking, you know. 23 l MR. BOAL: Jonathan? i l 4!{ BY MR. ARMENTA:
- . 5 ll '.- : am going t; show, Mr. Lorfing, a chart. I h NEAL R. GROSS Coup' AE POA?E 5's AND T A ANSC AiBE RS ll ' 323 AwCDE ISLAND A VENUE N W ll IC2 234 4433 A ASmNGTON D C 20005 (202) 234 4433 Il
1l be'; eve : " ave heen corrected in that this is not the way 1 this chart reads as of February '95. These people do not 2l i dl answer to you. Is that correct? 4 A Now? You are talking today, or - - 5 0 February '95 they did? 6 A Oh, February '95. No , they didn't. That is 7 incorrect. 8 0 Could we have -- is this wrong? Is your name 9 supposed to be here and his name -- Mr. Gates? 10 A That org chart is not correct. That is all I 11 can tell you. i 0 Back in February '95? 12lll t o 13' A Yes. 14 ; ; t wasn't? 15 A That is this year, four or five months ago. 16 0 Uh-huh. 17 A That is incorrect. 18 0 Who reports to you? 19 A No one reports to me -- let me think. None of 20 those individuals reported to me. 21 Q As of now? 22 A As of now, none of them report -- 1: '.' Neither. _4 A Net any ;;me since February '95.
, : u d n't na ce any direct reports.
NEAL R. GROSS COLA' AE PC ATE AS AND T AANSCAIBERS 3M A-OOE Si NO A AVENUE N W 2'2 D4 Jan AAs- M'ON O 20005 (2021 234 4433
d A No direct reports right now. 2 O Did you supervise people before? I aj;l 7. Yes, I did. 4 0 What happened? 5 A What happened? I believe management in the 6 licensing department felt that they needed an individual 7 with experience, my experience, in dealing with NRC 8 inspections quite frankly, and we didn't have any other 9 individuals they felt comfortable in performing that job, 10 so that is the task I was primarily assigned to, is 11 coordinating NRC inspections, specifically with the 12 resident -- the senior resident inspector and any 13! s;gnificant team inspections, which we have had three in i 14 less than a year. 15 And so that was -- I was assigned primarily 16 that responsibility, although I deal very closely with 17 quite a few of the individuals in performing my job and in 18 their performing their job. We work very closely 19 together. In fact, the whole department does. 20 0 Was this a promotion for you? 21, A No. It is no promotion. It is -- 22 O Just a different assignment? I, 2 31' A Just a different assignment. We had just - 24 - se : sa;d, we had 5; red a new supervisor; that was Tim
- ! Jn es . This was the f;rst time he was being a supervisor.
NEAL R. GROSS Coup' AE PO ATE us aso nANSC AiBERS
' 373 a-CCE ;55A*.O A S E NUE N ^
;I 207 234 4433 A ASM.NGTON O C 2000$ <202) 2344433
. He took over responsibilities for reporting and some t
- inspections, response to violations, that sort of thing.
l l: nad done that in the past, and one of my tasks was to 4 help Tim in that capacity, since he was a new supervisor, 5 to help him come up to speed, if you will, with his job 6 responsibilities, and help the individuals out in the 7 department that worked for him. 8 Q At any one time, did Pat Hughes report to you? 9 A Yes, he did. 10 C About what time frame? 11 A Oh, boy. Let me think. He reported to me 12 from sometime in 1990, I would think, is when he started 13 e report ng to me, and I am not sure of the exact month in 14 1990, but up until about approximately the middle of 1994, 15 when Tim Gates took over as -- you know came to Riverbend 16 and became supervisor. And one of the responsibilities 17 that Tim group had was commitment tracking, and Pat Hughes 18 was the engineer that was in charge of that program. .9 Was Tim Gates part of the new change of EOI 20 management? 21 A New change of EOI -- I mean, he was an EOI 22 employee before he came to Riverbend. He came from 23 Waterford. I t l 14F . He wasn't here at Riverbend.
;Ej! A No. He was at Waterford.
i l it NEAL R. GROSS COva' PED:G'E AS AND 'nANSCAiBE AS 323 A-COE Staa.D Aw E NUE N W
'^
2 234 443. A AS*NG'ON O C 20005 (202) 234-4433 l
f l 1 l 4 l l 1 l l i l l EXHIBIT 78 t l i I
. l l
l 4 l
}
Information in this record was deleted I b ; in actordance with the freedom of Informat% Act, exemptions 7L ~~ EXHIBIT 78 l F01A 9 6-/S S ,f 1l}}