ML20113G063
| ML20113G063 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1995 |
| From: | Mcgaha J ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20113F955 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-155 NUDOCS 9609260127 | |
| Download: ML20113G063 (31) | |
Text
_. _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ . -
i a
~
l UNZTED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,
i 3 ++ + ++
4 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 5 INTERVIEW .
6 ---------------------------------x >
a 4
7 IN THE MATTER OF: :
8 INTERVIEW OF :
9 JOHN McGAHA :
10 :
l 11 ---------------------------------x i
I 12 Thursday, July 27, 1995 13 i
i
!, 14 Riverbend Station l
- 15 Conference Room i 16 5485 U.S. Highway 61 17 St. Francisville, Louisiana l 1
b a 18 a
i 19 l
.. l 20 The above-entitled interview was conducted at 11:00 l
) 21 a.m., when where present:
22 [d ,
1 c;:: "^ B 5 - 016
- EXHIBlT
-P;985 23 '
py;e __ [ __ oi 1
24 25 l
! NEAL R GROSS
.! COUA7 AEPOATE AS AND TAANSCAIBE AS e323 AMODE ISLAND AVENUE N W fl '
9609260127 960815
I
- 1 ON BEHALF OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION:
- 2 JONATHAN ARMENTA, JR., Investigator 3l 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.
11 Wise Carter Child & Caraway 12 600 Heritage Building 13 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24!,
25 ll NEAL R. GROSS couAt AEpOATE AS AND T AANSCAiBE AS ji
- 323 AwoOE IStAND AVENUE N W 2c2, nus2s s as-,Nar oN O c 20aos ao2> nussa l
L PRQCEED1H9E
.i MR. BOAL: For the record, this is an
, 2ll 3N :nterview of Mr. John Mer ;aha, whose date of birth is o
4' he is employed by Entergy Operations, 5 Incorporated as vice president, nuclear operations for 6 Riverbend Station.
7 Today's date is July 27, 1995; the time is 8 11:00 a.m. Additionally present at this interview is Mr.
9 Jonathan Armenta, Jr., investigator, NRC, Office of 10 Investigations; Mr. Dennis Boal, investigator, NRC, Office 11 of Investigations, Region IV; and Mr. Douglas E. Levanway, 12 attorney, Wise Carter Child & Caraway, representing 13 Entergy Operations, Incorporated, and yourself, Mr.
14 McGaha.
15 Is that your understanding?
16 MR. McGAHA: Yes.
1 1
17 MR. BOAL: This interview is being tape (
18 recorded by court reporter Ms. Gayle Falgoust, and is a I
19 voluntary interview about alleged violations of 10 CFR l
20 50.7.
21 Mr. McGaha, at this time, would you please 22 stand and raise your right hand, so we can administer an 23 q oath to you.
l.
.i 2 4 '; Whe reupon ,
25b JOHN McGAHA I
o NEAL R. GROSS COUAT AEPOATERS AND T AANSCAiBE AS I '323 AHOOE ISLAND AVENUE N W j, 202 234 4433 A ASHINGTON D C 20005 _
(202) 234 4433
.r
- 1 having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness 2 herein, and was examined and testified as follows: ,
3 EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. BOAL:
5 Q Mr. McGaha, how long have you been vice ,
6 president for nuclear operations at Riverbend?
7 A Since September of 1993.
8 Q Prior to that, what was your job title? ,
i 9 A I was vice president of operations support for ;
I 10 Entergy Operations, which was a corporate --
l 11 O Was that in Jackson?
12 A That was in Jackson.
- 13 O Mr. McGaha, our investigations are about i
l 14 harassment or discrimination of employees at Riverbend i
) 15 Station. Do you recall in 1994 the ranking process that i
l 16 was instituted here at Riverbend Station?
17 A Yes. l 1
I 18 Q Could you tell us how you first heard about
- 19 that process.
l 20 A It was communicated from upper level l
l j 21 management down. It was a company, Entergy-wide program.
l 22 O Were you informed as to the purpose of the e
l 23 program?
24l . A Yes.
, 25 , Q And what was that?
I I{
t NEAL R. GROSS
!! COVAT AE AGATERS AND Y AANSCAiBERS l '323 AMODE ISLAND AVENUE N W i !I 202 234 4433 (202; 234 4433
- ASMiNGTON D C 20005 ll
1 4
, 1' A The purpose was to implement a methodology to l
, ,. determine who the high performance, high potential '
i^
3 employees were, as well as the low potential, ~. ow l
4 performance employees.
i
]
5 0 Was there equal emphasis put on high and low? ,
i I
- 6 A Yes, i l- 1 i
7 0 And was there a criteria established as to how '
i i 8 to identify these type employees? ,
j 9 A Yes.
i 10 0 Could you teil us what that criteria is or l 4 11 was? f 4
12 A It was a whole detailed approach. It was -- I 1
13 would have to go pull the actual process documentation to l 14 give you all the criteria, but it was laid out in kind of 1 i
i 15 a programmatic fashion. l
' I 16 0 In this process, did you rank individuals 1 i
I 17 under your supervision?
i
- 18 A Yes.
I 19 0 How many individuals did you rank? j
- i i
20 A About seven.
) 21 O Were any of those individuals ranked a block 1
22 9?
j 23 A No. !
24lj Q As we understand the process, first-line 25 supervisors generally would assign the initial ranking; .
- .I
- p' NEAL R. GROSS i COUAT AEPOATERS AND TAANSCAiBERS
< !' '323 AMODE iSL AND AVENUE N W 202, 234-4433
- ASwiNGTON D C 20005 (202)2344433 e - , , - -we-- w -- , ~ - , - , ,r--- - , . -, -
r - , - . . , , a w -. ,
. 1 then it would be rolled up to their supervision, and ,
4
. 2 : continue on up the management chain.
3 A Yes.
4 O And as we also understand it, you would take 5 the ranking compiled here at Riverbend Station would be 6 involved in a roll-up process where -- at corporate where i i
7 employees at Riverbend Station would be ranked against 8 employees at other nuclear stations. Is that correct?
[ 9 A Yes.
1
! 10 0 Was there a certain percentage or targeted 11 amount of individuals that were designated to be in 12 certain blocks or --
', 13 A Yes.
2 14 O Do you recall what that number was?
15 A It was essentially a nominal target of 30 ,
16 percent in the top three categories, 30 percent in the 17 middle three categories, and 30 percent in the bottom
- 18 three categories, with a nominal targe" of 10 percent in j 19 the block 9 category. Actually -- I say 30; 33-1/3.
! 20 0 Is there any other numeric target?
j 21 A No.
i 22 O Was there any discussion about whistleblowers, 1
. 23 as far as this ranking process went?
24 : A No.
1 i is 25hl O In your experience with this process, did the j
.! NEAL R. GROSS
'l 1323 AMODE ISL AND A' VENUE N W ll 202, 234 4433 A ASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 234 4433
}l
- 1 first-line supervisors have primary input into the '
t
- 2, ranking?
l f
+
3ll A Yes. '
o '
4 0 In.your personal experience with the ranking 5 process and the roll-up process, were people changed into ,
6 the block 9 category from discussions with you? t 7 A Yes.
+
8 Q Could you expand upon that?
9 A Well, throughout the whole roll-up process at ,
10 each level, to be as fair as we could, to make sure one 11 department wasn't ranking any more -- any harder or more 12 lenient than another department, we asked everybody to 13 compare notes, discuss the criteria, and look real hard to make sure that we were ranking people the best we could, 14 15 based on the criteria, and that was up to and including 16 me.
17 When we went through the roll-up process for 18 the whole site, the last round of discussions was with me, 19 to convince me that the ranking had been done fairly and 20 allowed me to ask questions to make sure that we had done 21 it as fairly as we could.
22 And then the same thing happened when we 23 rolled it up at the corporate level in Jackson.
S 240 0 Do you recall approximately how many people o
l 251! were in the block 9 at Riverbend Station?
NEAL R. GROSS COVAT AEPOATE AS AND T AANSCAtBE AS
'323 AMODE ISLAND AVENUE N W W ASmiNGTON O C 20005 (202) 234 4433 202f2344433
. . , . . - ~, . . _ , __ . - - . . ~ ,
_ _ . . . . . - _ . - . . _ _ _ . . _ . - . _ - . . . . _ . . - - . . _ - _ ~ . ~
it A I think it was in the neighborhood of 60. ;
}-
b
. 2l 0 Did that change when you went to corporate?
j 3h a It changed slightly, but I can't tell you the i i' 4' truth if it went up or went down. I know we did a lot of 5 comparisons there. There were some cases where I was on 6 .the phone back at the plant, asking certain questions 7 about how we did certain thir.gs, as we compared notes
- 8 there.
3 9 Some people went up in the rankings -- at all
- 10 ends of the spectrum, some people went up; some people 2
11 went down, as we compared notes among all of the sites and
- 12 with the corporate portion of the organization.
13 0 In your analysis of this process, did it
! 14 ! contain checks and balances to ensure that the ranking was 4
i 15 based upon individual work performance?
f i
! 16 A Yes.
17 MR. BOAL: Do you have some questions? i i
18 MR. ARMENTA: Yes.
! 19 BY MR. ARMENTA:
l 4
20 Q Mr. McGaha, to the best of your recollection, j
21 what is the source of this ranking 9 process?
22 l A Could you explain what you mean by " source"?
) 1 0 n Where did -- did this idea originate at 2 31-o 241 Entergy, Incorporated? Did it originate at your level 1.
e 25. here at Riverbend?
l NEAL R. GROSS COVA' AE ADATE AS ANC ' AANSCAiBE AS
'323 AaOOL ISLAND AVENUE N W 202 234 4433 ..* AS*NGTON 0 0 20005 (202) 234-4433
!- 1 A. It originated at Entergy, the highest levels 2 , of management at Entergy. l t
$ 3,Il 0 Were they the creators of this ranking N
4 process?
o 5 A Yes. -
6 0 Did they develop this process with nuclear 7 power plants in mind, or generally speaking, America's j 8 work force?
- i 9 A It was developed with the work force in _;
- 10 general in mind.
)
11 Q Were there any adaptations to the nuclear <
12 power plant force or working force?
r -
1 13 A No.
l 14 0 In your opinion, what was the decisive factor j l
15 to implement the ranking process here at Riverbend? It is i
l
- 16 my understanding this ranking system has been in existence l
17 at other EOI nuclear power plants. What was the decisive '
4 18 factor to implement this program here?
19 A I am not sure I understand that question.
i ,
f 20 There are really -- l 1
l 21 Q Why did you start ranking employees?
22 .
A Because it was the Entergy policy and 2d direction, to implement it across the board at all of our 24' work locations.
- 4 25;; O Would that have been still the case if -- I 4
NEAL R. GROSS 1 4
COUAT AEPOATE AS AND T AANSCAiBE AS f l '323 AMODE ISLAND AVENUE N W l 202 n4-4433 6 ASwiNGT ON o C pocos (202) 23u433 o
- . . .r.,_. ,,.-. _
w - - - .-
1 don't know for a fact, but let's suppose if Riverbend 1 4 I
2 productivity was not meeting its goal or expectations, 3 would that have been an important factor to -- in other
, 4 words, the plant is not producing what we think it is, so 5 we need to implement, versus, it is doing great; why ,
6 change something that is working.
i i
! 7 A We were not on the road to design a ranking i
8 process specifically for Riverbend synonymous with this 9 ranking process. But the ranking process is really 10 nothing more than what you normally do with a performance !
11 measurement and monitoring system, like most compar.ies 12 have. And some companies, some plants, do do some form of
- 13 ranking as part of that. ;
j 14 So I don't know if that is answering your i 1 1
15 question.
i l
16 0 Well, I think initially your answer was l I
- 17 because other EOI plants had the ranking system. But my 1 18 original question was if there was something that was very 19 decisive, other than your answer.
4 1 20 A The ranking process that we implemented was 21 not designed specifically for Riverbend.
22 0 Okay. I am having problems, and maybe it is I
23 Just I am a little bit harder to get cleared up in my l h
mind, but from what I heard -- we have interviewed over 40 24l 2
25 pecple here, and there is a lot of common denominators, l
~
i NEAL R. GROSS COvAY AEPOATE AS AND T AANSCRIBE AS ll '323 MODE ISLAND AVENUE N W 202i 234 4433 W ASMiNGT ON O C 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 yes. But there is also disparity in the way of thinking '
i a 2 that this is the way it was intended. Some people have i
i 3 various, different interpretations of it.
4 But how do you separate the ranking from the ;
- 5 performance appraisal? I still don't understand fully.
I 6 How can they be separated? I have heard both. You '
i l 7 can't --
some, it is linked together; some, it is 8 separated.
9 How can you rank employee without not looking 10 at the performance appraisal?
11 A They were linked, j l
12 0 They were? Was that the intention?
13 A The intention was that the ranking process l 14 should not be considered as a totally separate process 15 from the performance evaluation process. By definition, 16 it can't be. You have to take performance into 17 consideration strongly in both ca :e 18 Q See, that was my point. You couldn't separate 19 it, but why were they introduced and implemented almost 20 six months apart? Why would you want to do that?
21 A You would have to talk to the higher powers 22 in the organization. What I can tell you is that at 23 Riverbend when we did it, we instructed and directed i
24;l people to consider this to be done in conjunction with the 25l performance planning and review process, which, yes, was
}.
U NEAL R. GROSS I
COvAT AE AOATE AS AND T AANSCRIBERS
'323 AMODE ISLAND AVENUE N W
-?C2. 234 44 33 WASHINGTON O C 20005 (202) 234 4433
- - - - .- . ~ . . . - . _ . . . - . - . _ . - . - . - - . . _ _ - - - - - _ - - -
1 going to occur a little later on, but they needed to be 2 reflective of each other. Otherwise, there would be an l
j 3 ot/ tour disparity between the two.
4 0 I understand that. What is your idea, your l i
I
- 5 understanding how long this ranking process is going.to j i
6 continue?
^
7 A I don't know how long in the future it will 4
8 continue, but the company does intend to rank again this :
9 year.
10 Q okay. In your opinion, do you foresee that 11 this is probably the last year they are going to rank? l 12 A I don't really know the answer to that. There 13 has been talk at various levels of management above me J about reconsidering it every year and the initial goal --
1 14 15 see, the goal is to get Entergy into a mode of operation 16 where it is a high-performing company, as we enter into 1 17 L'.e
- competitive market, which is foreseen to be coming 18 down the road here shortly.
19 And so this is just one of the approaches to 20 get people to identify who are high performers, who are 21 the medium level performers, who are the low performers, 22 to make sure that the end result is a high performance h
23t! Organization. And potential was taken into consideration 240 too, so that -- the high potential people, people who have 2 51 the obvious talents to become true leaders in the company, 1
NEAL R. GROSS CouAT AEpoATE AS AND T AANSCAtBF AS
'323 AMODE .5L AND AVENUE. N
- 202> 234 4433 A A$MWGTON D C 20005 (202) 234 4433
{
l 1 to make sure that they are getting the right kind of ,
i 2 coaching and training and development to bloom into the ;
I
-3 type of leadership that we need, to make us a competitive ;
i 4 operation.
5 And likewise if somebody is consistently in a 6 low-performance mode and there is not enough potential for t
7 them to develop into the high-performance employee that ,
i 8 the company is looking for, then' eventually those 9 employees might get displaced.
10 0 At the risk of sounding not confused but want 11 to confirm, let me see if I understand what you said. Is j 12 it correct to assess then that what you are saying is )
13 Riverbend's ultimate goal is to make Riverbend marketable l
14 for the future, because you want to do -- you want RBS to 15 be more productive with less people.
16 I think that an example that was given to us 17 earlier is that'even Grand Gulf produces more lighting i
18 power than Riverbend with less people. So what we are l
19 saying is, we are downsizing, economizing, and therefore, 20 we can be competitive with nuclear power plants in the i
21 West, and the East, and North, and hope to get Riverbend ;
22 up to par to that level. l 23y Is that what you were trying to tell me?
24l , A Yes. We have three sets of goals that relate 25! to that. ,
n NEAL R. GROSS
- cu ' nAE ACATERS ANO 'AANSCAiBER$
'323 AuODE ISLAND AsENUE N W 2^2 2314433 6 A$mNGTON D C 2000$ (202) 234 4433 it
, -, --. . . , - . . , , . .n ., . , - ,
1 Q Okay.
2 A one deals with high plant performance, 3 capacity factor; one deals with having a high capacity 4 factor with as low a production cost as possible, and the 5 last goal is twofold, and that is to have a high safety 6 performance as measured both by the Nuclear Regulatory 7 Commission's SALP [ phonetic] process, as well as the INPO's process of evaluations.
8 9 With all that said, ranking was designed from f I
10 a human resource standpoint to help us try to realize 11 those goals. Downsizing might be in the cards and ,
12 probably will be, but downsizing is not directly tied to l 1
1 13 ranking. The purpose of ranking was not to downsize. I l 14 kind of understood you to imply that just now.
15 0 Well, I mean, this is why I am stuck, Mr.
16 McGaha. If I am a 9 employee, initially what was said was 17 that if I am ranked 9 again, I am going out the window. I 18 mean, I am terminated from employment.
19 If you continue this process for five years.
20 you are going to have 50 percent of your work force cut 21 -
down in half. So that is why I asked you: How long is I 22 this going to go? Is there a goal -- I want to be frank 23 w:th you. I have heard that Riverbend is trying to get i
- 4. down to 600 employees. That is the goal, ultimate goal.
$ 25 :s that true?
- f NEAL R. GROSS COvA' AE POATE AS AND ? A ANSCAiBERS
'323 AwCOE iSL AND A /ENUE N W 2;? 234 4433 A A5mNGTON D C 20005 62021 234.4433 I
?
i
, l' A No. {
. 2 O Is that -- go ahead. l 3 A We are going through iterations on a daily, l 4 weekly, monthly basis, looking at our production costs, f
5 breaking all of our costs down, looking at where we need l
i 6 to be, so that the plant can survive in a competitive !
i 7 market, and part of that is looking at the size of the ;
8 staff.
9 We have studies going on as we speak where IO, i
10 our corporate management, our recommendations and <
i 11 proposals on size of the organization, span of control, t
12 all the things that deal with the organization size, and 13 there have been some people that think that we have to go 14 down to 600 employees. That number has been thrown 15 around, but that number is not a specific goal, cast --
16 0 It is not a diehard number.
17 A No.
18 0 I notice that you mentioned in the three goals 19 that you mentioned right now, and you listed them in 20 priority, one, two, and three. You got production over 21 safety, and --
22 A That was not a sequence of priority. In fact, 23h if you look at the way we present the goals, the safety 24II gcal is always -- I won't say it is always, but it is !
t i 25;! normally shown as the top goal. ];
i n NEAL R. GROSS '
COvAT DEDOntE AS AND T A ANSCAiBE AS
'323 A-CDE ISLAND A.ENUE N W
, 202 234 4433 A ASHtNGTON D C 20005 (202) 234 4433
)
t
. . If Q So your intention was not to put safety --
i.
. 2 A We treat all three of those with, I will say, i i
i 3 equal respect. They are all of the highest priority, and j 4 you can't have -- in our opinion, you cannot have a high- j 5 performing plant and low-productivity costs and -- I mean, j
{
6 it is a prerequisite to have good safety performance or )
i I
7 else --
8 O Something is wrong. !
r 9 A -- something is wrong, !
i t
10 0 Something is terribly wrong.
l 11 A Now, if you look at the high performing l 12 plants, they normally have good safety performance, so it i
131 is sort of a prerequisite to the other two.
i l
14 Q Do you believe that this type of thinking with 15 RBS employees, it has to be instilled in their minds, so 16 that they kind of --
17 A Yes.
18 o -- know exactly, this is kind of like a walk 19 of life here at Riverbend.
20 A Yes.
21 Q How long do you project before -- how long do i
22 you think this ranking system -- how long do you project !
l 23h before it starts yielding results? I mean, what is the l l
And let me just qualify my
- 4 Scal.here for Riverbend?
25; question, because I think I have read some articles where NEAL R. GROSS l CCLA' QEPOATE AS AND T AANSCRIBERS ]
4 '323 AMOOf ISL AND AVENUE N W
- 202 234 4433 A ASM'NGTON D C 20005 (2Ch 234-4433 i
.= a w .-r,
, , .,w --
i- , , e -. . -- -~,er. 1 e. ,. , ,s m . -
- 1", it has been applied -- this process has been applied, but
- 2 it really has not yielded the productive results as 3 they -- as management, top management, hoped for.
4 How long before Riverbend keeps on doing this, 5 to really see whether it is working or not?
6 A Well, I am not sure what you mean by the 7 productive results. The results that we are looking from 8 a Riverbend, from my perspective is that we want all the 9 employees to improve their performance across the board, 10 the high-ranked people as well as the low ranked people.
11 So after you go through a couple of iterations 12 of this, you will either see improvement in performance --
1 31' C I see what you are saying.
14 A -- or some of those -- you know, if there is 15 not ar. Improvement in performance, then some of those 16 people will get displaced by people who will perform.
1 17 Now -- well, that is it.
18 O I guess my question could have been l 19 interpreted: Well, if after year you can see performance f
\
20 upgrade, then that would be true. I meant long-term, and ,
1 J 1' I think you sort of answered the question, because if you ;
1 22 go through this ranking process three to five years, l l
23; somewhere in there and your 9s jump up to a 7, then you )
^4 " ave acccmplished quite a task.
2 5!! However, if your 6 goes to an 8 and your 8 NEAL R. GROSS COLA
- AEpDATE AS ANC T A ANSCAtBERS 2 3 AwCOE iSL AND AVENUE N W
/, A $ M:NGTON O C 20005 <202) 234 4433
,l 700 234 443?
1
. 1 goes to a 9,.are you just spinning your wheels around, or
. 2 have you really done what you set out to do which is just l
3 a different way of thinking about work?
4 Do you follow what I am saying? In other 5 words, my question -- ;
6 A Yes. If you just play musical chairs and 4
7 every year some people move up and some people move 8 down --
9 Q Right.
10 A -- I guess if you look at it just on a pure i
11 basis, you would say, well, all you are really 4
i 12 accomplishing -- but in theory, if the benchmark moved up 1
1 i 13 five notches for the whole organization and now this A
3 14 person who used to be a 6 -- maybe the way it was
]
15 evaluated two years ago, they would still be a 6, but if l 16 the whole performance of the whole organization has gone 4
17 up, and now they are a 9 only because they were treading 1
4 18 water and everybody left them in the dust, then you have i
1 19 attained something.
- i
- 20 I mean, industry statistics, not just nuclear 1
21 industry, but industry U.S. statistics, at least the ones i
, 22 I saw recently, say that the average employee in the j 23 i United States, for example, is only 15 to 25 percent 24f productive, and I don't know how true that is, but I am
! 4 2 5l sure it is not 100 percent.
!! I ti NEAL R. GROSS 4
COva? AEPOATE AS AND T AANSCRIBE AS
.l '323 4CDE ISL AND AVENUE N W l
???> D4 4433 W A swing TON D C 20005 (202) 234 4433 ]
l
-- - _ - - , . . . -- ._ _. . _ , - . , _ , _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I 1 And so if you move the whole organization up some notches, the guy who used to be 25 percent productive 2h'!
34 and doing fairly well suddenly might find himself not o
4 measuring up to the company's standards.
5 0 And you mentioned five years. Is that pretty 6 much what you are aiming at? If you waited five years, 7 you should be able to assess?
8 A I am not aiming at any particular number of 9 years with respect to the ranking process or whatever 10 process we use. I know upper management at times has 11 talked about this as a two- to three-year process, but 12N that is not part of the program, or it hasn't been ll n
13li ascertained that that is where the goals are set. I think 14 they are taking it on a year-by-year basis right now.
15 I O At the very beginning, I asked you what was 1
16 the -- if you knew if -- to your knowledge, do you know 17 the original source of this ranking process. You said it
]
18 was created at corporate. I will give you an opportunity l l
19 to pass the buck here.
20 Who would I talk to in your corporate 21 cffice, so I can get to see who was the designer of this ,
I i
22 ranking process?
l 23 A There was a senior executive-level committee l 24 rnartered; in fact, cur - - the Entergy Operations chief 25 executive efficer, Den Hintz, was on that committee. They NEAL R. GROSS cot A? AEPOATE AS AND TRANSCAiBEAS
'3M AMODE ISL AND AwENUE N W 202. DJ 4833 AASM NGTON D C 20005 (202) 234-A433 l
I I
I were chartered, I guess, by Ed Lewberger, but in any 2 event, they were chartered to go out and look at processes 3 like this across the country, evaluate and make a 4 recommendation on what we should do.
5 O So in put from what I saw at General Electric, 6 what I saw at Westinghouse, what I saw IBM. Let's see 7 what we can fit for EOI.
8 A Correct.
9 MR. ARMENTA: That is fine. I don't have any 10 more questions on this.
11 BY MR. BOAL:
12 O Mr. McGaha, have you seen a change in 1
13 Riverbend's performance that you would ascribe to the 14l ranking process?
15 A No. Not specifically to the ranking process; 16 specifically to -- I have seen a change in Ri'rerbend 17 performance that I would ascribe to all the processes that 18 we have in place, and a lot of those have to do with 19 holding people accountable to measure up to acceptable !
l 20 performance standards. As ranking relates to that, I am 21 sure it contributed to the improvement in performance.
I 0 As we have proceeded with our interviews, we 22ll 1
231 have been informed about a meeting here called 2-C 24 U meetings. Are you familiar with those meetings?
2 51 4 A Yes.
U NEAL R GROSS COLA' AEGORTE AS AND T AANSCAIBE AS
'323 AHODE ISLAND AWENUE N W
- MJ 234 4413 A ASHINGTON O C 20005 (202
- 23*dA33 ll
1 1 O In those meetings, we understand it is rather
.. i.
2 a free forum for employees to discuss with higher 3 management their concerns.
4 A Yes.
l 5 O Do you recall -- did you attend those kind of !
l 6 meetings?
7 A I normally attend those meetings for l 8 Riverbend.
9 O Do you recall from those meetings a summary of 10 the opinions expressed by the employees about the ranking l 11 system?
t 12 A Yes. I remember the ranking process being I 13 discussed at times during those meetings. ;
14 O And how would you charac terize the employees' 15 perception of this process?
16 A I think I have heard both sides of the coin, 17 if you will, in those meetings. The two Cs stands for 18 compliments and concerns. There have been some employees i
19 who compliment the process; probably a greater percentage 1
1 20 of the time, though, we have heard concerns about how 4
1 21 ranking is done and is it fair and that kind of thing, 22 just as much as we hear the same kinds of feedback on 23 other types of rating systems such as on performance ,
- 11
{ 24 planning and review process.
25 It is a forum to get that kind of feedback.
H 4
4 NEAL R. GROSS Cou n t AEPOATERS AND T AANSCRIBE AS '323 AMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W
! 2 2,234 4433
- ASH'NGTON D C 20005 (202) 234-'433
?I
_ . . - . . _ , , , . _ . . m __ _ . , , _ ., , .
I , 1 Q In your experience with the ranking process i - 2 and understanding a lot is going on outside of just that [ 3 process, would you have knowledge or have you been j 4 informed that some of the employees consider the ranking l 5 process to work to inhibit their ability to inform ; 6 management of problems they identified? 7 A No. 'In fact, if you look at the general, 8 overall performance of the organization and the way we ; 9 have communicated with them and the emphasis we place on i 10 bringing problems forward and look at the statistics such 11 as our condition report generation rate and that kind of , 12 thing over the last couple of years, you will see that I 13 feel the whole organization is more critical and brings 14 problems forward better now, and I think it improves every l 15 day, so I haven't seen any data to even suggest that. 16 BY MR. ARMENTA: 17 Q Do you recall, Mr. McGaha, back in early '94, 18 perhaps the early part of '93, there was a group here that 19 made a survey of human performance? 20 MR. ARMENTA: Dennis, do you recall the name 21 that we talked about the other day? 22 MR. BOAL: Not --
- 23. BY MR. ARMENTA:
24 4 : There was a survey that was conducted of the 25tj employees here about the morale versus GSU versus new I
~
NEAL R. GROSS
;OuR' AEPCATE AS AND TRANSCAIBERS
'323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W
;; ??? D4 4423 *
- Sa rNG TON D C 2W (2021 234-4433 ii
. - . . . = - - . . . - - - . .- . .- .-. . . . -.- . - - - - . 1 management, the outlook; do you recall that survey that 8 . 2 was done, a research study? j 3 A We did a - - I don't recall the survey. ,
4 Q Maybe that is the wrong word. , 5 A We did a survey -- we had an independent 6 consultant come in and do a survey on the -- what is the ! t t 7 right term? -- the safety consciousness of the plant. 8 Yes, I do remember that. 9 Q Have you -- do you have plans to conduct : 10 another one like that, to compare where you are at from 11 two years ago? 12 A Well, as a result of that study and an overall 13 Entergy-Operations-wide effort to look at that topic, we 14 upgraded ou; employee concerns program, for example, at l 1 1 15 all of our sites, and we have done a lot of communications ' 16 on that topic, both in our all-hands meeting which we do 17 quarterly, as well as in the supervisory training that we 18 have been putting all of our supervisors through over the lI 19 last year. 20 So with that said, the company is doing 21 another check-and-adjust, and I don't know -- I don't j i 22 recall if that is going to include a survey where we bring i 23 in another independent consultant, bu' we are looking at ! 24!{that again, Just to see if our programs and our approach 2 51)i are up to the acceptable standards.
' i d
't NEAL R. GROSS COL A* AEPOATE AS AND T AANSCRIBERS
'323 AMODE IS$AND AVENUE N W l 9
- Asm,NGT ON O C 20005 (202) 2344433 ;
l1 2:2i234 4433 r!
. 1 0 To the best of your recollection, what . 2 percentage do you feel that frca first-line supervisors up 3 to your position,
- hat is the percentage of the changeover 4 in management personnel?
5 A I can't give you an exact percentage. I can 6 tell you that the level below me and the level below that, 7 which doesn't go down to the first-line supervisor level, 8 we have had pretty health turnover, of either bringing in 9 Entergy employees from other locations; in some cases, we 10 have rotated people, put them in jobs that we felt were 11 more suited for their talents and capabilities. 12 0 So is it correct to assess that the level that 13 you spoke of, I think, was managers, and right below 14 managers -- 15 A Manager and director level. 16 0 -- director levels, that there is a complete 17 overhaul Riverbend? 18 A Yes. 19 0 Mr. McGaha, approximately how much experience 20 do you have in the nuclear industry? 21 A Well, I have been working in the nuclear 22 industry since 1970 when I entered the Navy nuclear 2 3l' program, and I have been in it ever since with the 24 exception of about two and a half years, which was 1975
5fthrough'78, when I worked for an architect-engineer and NEAL R. GROSS CouAT AEPOATE AS AND T AANSCRIBE AS
'l '323 AMODE iSL AND AVENUE N W 202 334 4433 A ASMiNGTON O C 20005 (202)2344433
- . - - - ~ .
t
'l 1 l designing fossil-fired plants. ;
2 Q During that -- during your experience that you ! i 3 nave had over the years, have you had experience with , 4 whistleblowers? l 5 A Yes. i 6 O' When you were assigned to Riverbend Station, , 7 was whistleblowers one of the concerns you felt you needed 8 to address here? 9 A Well, when I first reported here, 1 didn't ! 10 have that. concern. After I was here a short period of ; 11 time, there were some whistleblower claim or issues, and ) 12 naturally I became concerned about that. 13 0 As we understand it, we have been informed 14 that EOI's management at Riverbend Station, compared to 15 GSU's management, is emphasizing to the employees the need 16 to report concerns more than GSU. Is that your 17 expectation or is that your impression of EOI's stance? 18 A That is my impression and my expectation. 19 0 Do you convey that to your employees? I 20 A Yes. l 21 O In your experience, what kind of 22 accommodations should be afforded to a person that is 23kidentified_asawhistleblower? 24'- A Explain to me what you mean by accommodations. 25j O_ Well, basically should a person identified as ; I 1
; NEAL R. GROSS COuA? AE ADATERS AND ? AANSCRIBE AS j
'323 AMODE ISLAND AVENVE N W
, 202. D4 4433 v, ASwtNGTON C 0 20005 a
(202) 234 4433
, 1 a whistleblower be treated differently than any other . 2 employee?
l 3lf A No. They shouldn't be treated any il 4 differently. The only thing that is done differently is 5 whatever needs to be treated as confidential, we want to 6 make sure that that is treated as confidential. If 7 someone makes a whistleblower claim -- what I am talking 8 about really is the employee concerns program. 9 If a safety concern is brought up through the 10 employee concerns program, that is designed as a method 11 and alternate path for an employee to make a concern or to 12 communicate a concern, and there is a confidentiality that 13 goes along with that. 14 And the reason for that is because the first 15 line defense is to expect employees to bring up safety 16 concerns to the management staff and we fully expect our 17 management staff to comprehensively and objectively 18 address those concerns.. 19 If someone is using the alternate path, then t 20 here has got to be a reason for it, and so we want to 21 maintain confidentiality so that the employee feels free 22 to use that path. That is about the only difference. 23 O A rather simplistic question we would like to 24b ask you: As you were -- probably you have been informed 25 ~ cr can gather from our questioning, the concerns or the
! NEAL R. GROSS COUAT AEDOATE AS AND T AANSCR$EAS
* '3:3 AMODE ISL AND AVENUE N W 102 234 4433 W A$MINGTON D C 20005 (202) 2344433
y
.i allegations we are looking at is five separate individuals' t I . 2l1 have alleged that they have been discriminated against in n
3hviolationofthewhistleblo.e* provisions here at 4 Riverbend Station for raising safety concerns. 5 And this ranking process is one of the methods 6 that they are alleging was designed in order to effectuate 7 a discrimination against them. Would you have a comment 8 on that rather lengthy statement? 9 A My only comment is that the ranking process in 10 no way or form was used for that purpose. 11 0 Do you recall any kind of discussion that if a 12 whistleblower -- we well know that some people are li i ish identified or labeled as whistleblowers in an ' 14q organization. If a whistleblower was identified as a rank ll 15 9, whether or not, you know, Entergy made accommodations 16 to ensure that that was performance-based, or was that 17 Just -- if that was where .t fell, that is where it fell? 4 i la' ' A That was really one of the purposes for the i 19 whole roll-up process, and that was one of the things -- 20 one of my main involvements in the roll-up process. I I, 21{askedlotsofquestionstomakesurethat we were ranking 22 people based on performance and potential. And we didn't 2:- nave anybody in the lower blocks because of any kind of 24 rrevious whistleblower or any other kind of claim that 25 somebody -- or :ssue that somebody might use to NEAL R. GROSS Coca' AE COATE AS ANC ' AANSCAtBERS
'323 A*0CE tSL AND AVENUE N W
- 2 234 aan A A$w'NGTON O C 20005 .202) 234 4433
1 discriminate against that particular employee.
. 2! O And you were satisfied that that was the case.
i t, < A Yes. 3tl 4 MR. BOAL: Mr. McGaha, have I, Jonathan, or 5 any other NRC employee threatened you in any manner or 6 offered you a reward in return for this statement? 7 THE WITNESS: No. 8 MR. BOAL: Have you provided this information 9 freely and voluntarily? 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. 11 MR. BOAL: We are preparing to close our 12 9 interview, but before we do, we would like to offer you an 12d opportunity to add any information you may feel would 14l' assist us in our investigation at this time. 15 THE WITNESS: I don't have anything else to l 16 add. I think the questions you asked covered any issues 17 or comments that I might have brought up. 18 MR. BOAL: Mr. Levanway? 19 MR. LEVANWAY: I think this is clear, but I 20 just want to make sure. 21} . EXAMINATION 22l BY MR. LEVANWAY: 22 0 Mr. Armenta was asking you a question about _4 wnv :ne decisien was made te implement the ranking process 25 here at Riverbend at a particular time. It is my NEAL R. GROSS CouA' AE DOATE AS ANO ? AANSCRIBEAS 323 AMOCE iSL AND AwENUE N W 20.' 2344433 WAS-NGTON 0 0 20005 (202) 234.4433
1' undelstehding that the ranking process was enacted system-2 wide at the same time. 3 A That is correct. Entergy-wide, the ranking 4 process was implemented, and every plant and every 5 organia. tion did it.in concert with each other in 6 accordance with a specific time table. 7 O There weren't'other Entergy companies or 8 Entergy plants that had enacted the ranking process as we 9 know it at some other time. 10 A No. 11 MR. LEVANWAY: That is all. 12 MR. BOAL: It is approximately 11:45, and this 13 interview is concluded. l l 14 (Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the interview in 15 the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 16 17 18 19 l 20 ; 21 22 l 23 i a! NEAL R. GROSS ! Coup? AEPCATE AS AND T AANSCRIBERS
'323 AMODE ISLAND AVENUE N W I
;f 2C2 234 4433 A ASHINGTON O C 20005 (202) 234-8433
' This is to certify that the attached !
I proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory O. ! llCommissioninthematterof: Name of Proceeding: JOHN McGAHA ; Docket Number (s) : Place of Proceeding: St. Francisville, LA were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the , court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings. I
;l u( >r f ,
j mfg _ j%ptd i Gayle Falgoust i Orficial Reporter Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc. 1 l l l l l l I I l NEAL R. GROSS COua? AEDOATE AS AND TA ANSCAIBEAS
'323 AMODE ISL AND A.ENUE N W 202 23d 44)3 A ASwiNGTON O C 2000' (202) 234-4433
EXHIBIT 82 I l I l l i information in thi: reccro was deicted l in accordance with the freedom of information EXHIBIT 82 Act, cxemptions ?C f0!A, - 94 /IS_ _ _ _ _ _}}