ML20113G075
| ML20113G075 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1995 |
| From: | James Fisicaro ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20113F955 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-155 NUDOCS 9609260133 | |
| Download: ML20113G075 (17) | |
Text
_. _ _
sl I
1 UNITED STATES OF M4 ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+++++
3 4
OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 5
INTERVIEW 6
x 7
IN THE MATTER OF:
8 INTERVIEW OF Case No. 4-95-016 9
JIM FISICARO 10 11
x I
d Thursday, October 26, 1995 l
12 I
13 14 Video Conference Room 15 River Bend Station 16 St. Francisville, Louisiana 17 i
18 The above-entitled interview was conducted at 19 20 12:40 a.m.
21 BEFORE:
22 DENNIS BOAL, Investigator 23 JONATHAN ARMENTA, Investigator EXHIBIT _ 5 5 n,;,
ugE0. 4-95-016 24 Page_
- e 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REe*ORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
7 3 960815 N
WASHINGTON. O C 20005
/ - (202) 234 4 33 h92 CARDE96-155 PDR e
6 l
1 APPEARANCES:
l 2
On behalf of the Witness:
3 DOUGLAS E.
LEVANWAY, ESO.
4 of:
Wise Carter Child & Caraway 5
P.O.
Box 651 l
~
6 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 l
7 8
9 10 11 1
12 13 14 15 1
16 17 18 4
19' 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W Oca 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234 4433
i 1
PPO CEK2I NG S 2
MR. BOAL:
We are back on the record now, and 3
this is in -- in order to clarify, this is in reference to 4
OI case number 4-95-016, a discrimination -- an alleged 5
discrimination violation of 10 CFR 50.7 by Mr. Roger 6
Backen.
7 And we were -- before we went off the record 8
in order to clarify this, we were laying out the 9
preliminaries of how -- what kind of information I wanted 10 to ask you.
And what we are saying is that what we 11 received was a flip chart that showed a breakout of exempt 12 employees, and then there was NSD supervisors, and then it 13 went up a little bit higher management and some other 14 titles that I am not real sure of.
15 But what I am trying to understand for our 16 record and for our investigation was:
To your recall, was 17 this memory -- was this meeting conducted that way, so 18 that at first the only people that you considered or had 19 on the board was the exempt employees, which would have 20 been the greater amount in perhaps 70 or so?
Is that your 21 recall of the meeting?
22 A
Yes.
I think that is right.
23 O
Specifically, my question revolves around Mr.
24 Backen at that time.
He was a supervisor, and in our 25 interviews, we had determined that Mr. Backen said that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202)2344433
I 1
when he went into that meeting, none of his employees were 2
ranked a category 9.
1 3
A I think that is true.
'/b 4
0 But during that meeting, of his 5
employees --
6 A
Let me think here.
I am trying to think of 7
who -- I think that is true.
And then during that meeting, h f his 8
0 9
employees, a and a were moved into f,
)Doyourecallthatmovementbyanychance?
10 categor 11 A
I don't remember for sure, but that sounds 12 like that -- I think that did happen, because I remember 13 he had, I believe it was, employees, an
,/
14 and I want to say
- I can't remember exactly what his 15 rating was, but he was rated very high.
And I think you 16 are right.
I don't know for sure if they were moved, but do believe they ended up in h I don't remember if they 17 I
18 were something before, something else.
But you could very 19 well be right.
20 0
would you be able to recall any of the rh 21 conversations involved with Mr. -- about 22 23 A
No.
No, other than it would be a similar f
process that we used with the supervisors of going down 24 25 through all the employees and seeing who is in those-NEAL R. GROSS f
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 234 4 433
I blocks and trying to match up the people in the blocks, to 2
make sure that it is appropriate.
3 So if I am not mistaken, we -- if you look at, 4
say, block 8, we reviewed who was in block 8, and compared 5
all those people and said, Do they fit there, and -- from the standpoint of performance, potential, et cetera.
6 7
And based on that, some people did get moved, and thesaggll>that you are talking about could have got 8
9 moved.
But I don't remember anything specific.
The only
'/
thingIrememberisthesehlhindividualswereindividuals 10 11 that do receipt inspection.
12 And I don't know that this all came out in the 13 meeting, but I am just giving you my understanding of what 14 the guys did.
We also look at potentials.
Can they move 15 from other departments back and forth within, say, the QA 16 group and do other things.
Thesehlhwerenot able to be
(
17 fit into other areas of the OA organization.
18 I don't remember saying anything about these But I would guess we probably did have a l h in specific.
19 20 conversation if, in fact, they were moved from some other blocktoallkj 21 22 Are you saying that Mr. Backen did not agree 23 with -- assuming these people were moved, are you saying 24 he did not agree with that?
25 Q
No, sir.
I am not saying that.
What I am NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202)2344433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 2344433 i
o
1 saying -- well, it might ce an inference you could draw, t
l E
2 but what I was told was that Mr. Backen said when he went l
h
/(
3 into that meeting, he did not have them ranked 4
A Okay.
theywererankedlhso 5
0 And that when he left, 6
that is what I heard.
I have tried to --
7 A
Bottom line, that is the purpose of the meeting is to collectively look and make adjustments, 8
9 however the group saw fit.
And I think we -- and I can 10 remember specifically asking the group:
Is this the right 11 thing?
Is this right?
Is this what we need to do?
Does 12 everybody agree?
13 So it is -- you know, obviously it is not a popularthingiflllll5youremployeesaregoingtobe 14
/
moved from some category to a blockglf That is just not 15 16 going to be a popular thing; it is not going to be -- but 17 most -- I think the guys did it themselves.
It didn't 18 take much coaxing from their peers, so they pretty much 19 did it themselves.
20 And the direction was, if they don't agree, 21 they need to do something about it or say something, so --
22 0
Then just to make sure I understand:
After 23 those exempt employees were ranked and their supervisors 24 were asked to leave the room and then the supervisors were 25 ranked, does that mean then that the flip chart was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 2344433
i l
1 flipped, so that the people that you were then ranking as 2
NSD supervisors only had nine names?
3 A
I think that is true.
We was real careful to 4
make sure the supervisors didn't see their own ranking, 5
and they wouldn't be influenced by others, so I can't 6, remember exactly how we did it, but, I mean, we didn't 7
pass out documents and that kind of thing.
It was -- if I 8
remember right, it was done on a flip chart.
9 MR. LEVANWAY:
Do you understand his question, 10
. hough?
His question is:
Rather than adding the 11 supervisors to a list, to a big chart with everybody 12 already on it below them, did you then add the supervisors 13 to that same chart, or did you create a new one?
14 THE WITNESS:
I think it was a new one.
I 15 don't think it was the same one.
I don't remember that.
16 BY MR. BOAL:
17 0
One of the concerns that came up during the 18 investigation as to whether or not this ranking process --
19 you have explained it to us many times about the 20 performance and the potential, but from someone not with 21 the same education about it as we have had, if somebody 22 would look at these rankings and guess whether there 23 were -- or there were other reasons people were placed in 24 the different categories or tiers --
25 At one point today, you were telling Jonathan NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 I
that one of the directives besides the lo percent was to 2
maintain like a 33 percent in each of the tiers.
\\
3 A
Correct.
And that was an approximately.
I j
4 mean, that was just a goal set out.
If it was -- I think in tier 1 and 34 5
some people ended up with like 35 percent 6
percent here, so it was just kind of a generalized target 7
that we were looking at.
~
8 O
Part of -- you know, also one of the questions 9
we have is that from what Mr. Backen told me and what we have just discussed here is he had llll employees, and 10 11 M of them were ranke And I am kind of puzzled 12 then.
As I understand it, he should have had, you know, 13 one in each tier.
14 A
Well, I see what you are saying.
Yes.
The 15 only problem is he has only got a few numbers, so, I mean, 16 it is--Iguesswhatyouwouldsayisglllshouldbein 17 the top tier,gll> should be in the middle tier, and dllb 18 should be in the bottom tier.
19 O
Right.
20 A
And bottom line:
He ended up putting (gl5 in thetop--Ibelievehewasinthetoptierandlllllinthe 21 22 bottom tier, and then when he came to this ranking meeting, he was -- these @ apparently were moved fro 23 24 if that is the right number --
25 Q
I believe it is.
I am not positive.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
/
m
H hwhichis l
A
-- which is the bottom tier, to a s.
2 still in the bottom tier.
Some people came with 3
different -- I mean, it is really what they thought.
4 Where does a person belong?
I mean, that was -- the goal S
was to end up with 10 percent in the bottom, but some e
ii 6
departments had more; some had less.
But as we were to collectively come out of our departments was that was the 7
8 overall goal.
9 So everybody did not end up with
- when they 10 came to this meeting with 33 percent in tier one, 33 c
11 percent in tier two, 33 percent in tier three, one, two, l
12 and three, and 10 percent in 9.
They did not do that, i
13 because partly the department wasn't big enough.
14 But as we rolled it together -- and that was i
15 why we had these roll-up meetings, was to do that very 16 thing, is match up against peers and then look at the 17 collective number, 18 0
Okay.
But then there was not someone taking a 19 statistical reading of the charts as the names were 20 placed, to see whether or not the goals were met or --
21 A
No.
I do know we looked at it at the end.
22 okay.
What have we got here, in terms of what our goals 23 originally were?
And we did look at it at th end, but I 24 don't remember, you know,' keeping numbers, and that 25 wasn't -- I don't think -- what we really had to do was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 2344433
/
i'ei feel good about where the people were placed in terms of 1
i 2
performance and potential.
3 If the numbers worked out in terms of this 10 4
percent, fine.
If not, then we would have to rethink what 5
we did.
That is what we would have done in that meeting.
6 As it turned out, I think all the targets that we needed 7
to meet, we met, so -- but I don't know that anybody was 8
keeping stats.
I don't remember that.
Maybe mentally 9
they were doing it, but I don't remember keeping a tally.
10 BY MR. ARMENTA:
11 O
Mr. Fisicaro, it has been discussed today that 12 if you are a 7, 8,
9, you are in the bottom tier, the low 13 performing level.
i 14 MR. LEVANWAY:
Wait just a minute, Jonathan.
15 That is not true.
See, an eight would be a middle 16 performer, but a -- middle tier performance but the lowest 17 tier in potential.
Do you see what I am saying?
So --
18 THE WITNESS:
He is right.
Let me show you.
19 MR. LEVANWAY:
Anyway, I --
20 THE WITNESS:
I just need to help him here, I 21 think.
When we talk about tier one, this is tier one.
22 When we talk about two, tier two, this is tier two, and 23 this is tier three.
24 MR. LEVANWAY:
I understand.
I think what he 25 is saying was they would all be in the lower one in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSOAIBERS 1323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 234-4433
i!
11 performance.
2 THE WITNESS:
Oh, okay.
I am with you.
Maybe 3
we should try it again.
4 MR. LEVANWAY:
Maybe I misunderstood you, but 5
I understand that what you are saying is 7,
8, and 9 are 6
all in the bottom third or the bottom tier, but that 7
doesn't mean the bottom third, bottom tier on performance 8
necessarily.
7s and 9s are the bottom performers; 8s 9
would be middle performers, bottom potential.
So that 10 bottom tier would be 7, 8,
and 9, but not for the same 11 reasons.
Does that make sense?
12 Okay.
And if I misunderstood your question, I 13 just --
14 MR. ARMENTA:
I think that you may have 15 misunderstood me.
16 MR. LEVANWAY:
Okay.
I may have.
17 MR. ARMENTA:
And perhaps I am just thinking 18 in general, that if you are 7, 8,
and 9, you are in the --
19 you are not in the upper tier; you are in the middle 1
20 tier -- not in the middle, but you are in the lower tier.
l 21 MR. LEVANWAY:
That is true.
22 BY MR. ARMENTA:
23 Q
But is it true that if you are an 8, are you j
i 24 one step from being a 9?
If you are a 7, you are one step 25 from being an 8, and then your next step would be a 9?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRtBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 234-4433
)
I 1
And if we go in the other direction, if you are a 9,
you 2
are one step from being terminated?
At least that is the i
l 3
impression that we got when we first heard about the i
4 ranking process.
Is this correct?
j 5
A Yes.
I would say that is probably not exactly 6
right.
One step, to me --
7 O
Mathematically from a 7 to an 8, there is a 8
two-point difference.
9 A
Yes.
But it is hard -- you are implying that 10 because of the sequential number, that 8 is worse than 9, i
11 and 7 -- no, excuse me -- 9 is worse than 8, and that if i
12 you are a 7, you are actually moving up on the scale.
l 13 And I am not sure that is exactly right.
I 14 would look at it -- anybody in these three categories, not 15 good, because it is the bottom third of the organization.
16 That is capturing everything, potential and performance.
17 It is not good.
18 I was going to share with you what we are 19 doing now with ranking, but it is probably not appropriate 20 to do that, at least at this point until we get everything 21 finalized.
But today's time frame, it is worse to be a 7 22 than it is an 8.
23 So that is why I couldn't make the discussion, l
24 in fact, because what we are trying to do is focus on 25 performance, and that is what this has all been about is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 234 4433
I performance.
What is the person's performance.
Wne:re do 2
they fit?
And in my opinion, anybody that is in this 3
bottom tier has to seriously look at their -- what they are doing with the company here and make their own choice, 4
5 whatever that is.
6 So, I mean, that is about the best I can do, I no.
That is 7
think.
But to say sequentially numbered, 8
probably --
9 0
I think that that was the consensus of the 10 information that we got from your staff and the majority 11 of the working force here at River Bend.
12 A
I think if I was to make my own choice, if I 13 was looking at my own performance, where would I want to 14 be?
If I was to choose one of these three blocks, I would 15 choose an 8.
I would rather be an 8 than be a 7 or a 9.
16 That is what I would personally do.
17 0
When the initial rankings went out, was it 18 true that people were one step from being terminated if 19 they did not meet their corrective action plan or their 20 action plan?
21 A
One step --
22 MR. LEVANWAY:
Talking about the 9s, Jonathan?
23 MR. ARMENTA:
Yes.
24 BY MR. ARMENTA:
25 o
I am talking about rank 9 persons.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 2344433
li 1
A 1 don't think there was a tnreat c:
2 termination exactly the way you said it.
The way -- the 3
first time we published the information, we told people:
4 Should they be in block 9 two times in a row, that we 5
would terminate them.
That was just a company aecision; 6
that is what the company wanted to do.
j l
7 In terms of somebody being in block 9 first 8
time, choosing to go on a performance improvement plan and 9
not take the severance package offer, I don't think that 10 we ever said that you would be terminated necessarily 11 related to that improvement plan, because what we told 12 people is:
If you are a low performer, theoretically what 13 you have to do is you have got to move out of that block 14 9, so you are competing with your peers; you are competing 15 with yourself and with your peers.
16 We used these action plans to show people some 17 ways to improve.
We also told people that even if you, in 18 fact, do that, you still may not be able to displace 19 people.
You had to perform better than somebody else.
20 That is what the issue was.
21 So I think what we told people was, First j
22 time, you had a choice of being on an improvement plan or 23 here is a severance package.
Some -- and it is almost 50-24 50.
Fifty people -- 50 percent chose severance package; i
25 50 percent says, No, I want to be on this improvement l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C 2000$
(202)2344433
.I 1
plan.
Those that were on r mprovement p.a:. -- 1 think 2
those were the numbers.
3 Those that are on the improvement plan, I 4
believe, were told that there was no positive guarantee, 5
even, in fact, if you do well on the improvement plan.
6 You had to displace people.
I mean, somehow you had to 7
move out of block 9.
That meant somebody else had to be 8
in block 9, so it is almost -- there is a certain number 9
there that we would be looking for.
10 So I don't know that there was any threats of 11 fire or that kind of thing.
I don't know that.
I don't 12 think -- I know I didn't make those kinds of statements.
13 I don't know anybody -- and I sat through most of the 14 discussions where the supervisors and/or managers gave the 15 employees the information on ranking, the block 9s, and 16 don't remember that being said at all.
17 So that is my memory.
18 MR. BOAL:
Well, we appreciate you answering 19 our questions. That is the only questions we had in 20 reference to this investigation.
21 Is there anything that you might want to add 22 that we didn't cover at this time?
23 THE WITNESS:
I don't believe so.
24 MR. BOAL:
Mr. Levanway?
25 MR. LEVANWAY:
No, thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 2000$
(202) 234-4433
i 1
MR. BOAL:
Well. we nav-three stanuara things 2
we would like to close us out with.
And one is:
Has Mr.
3 Armenta or Mr. Boal or any other NRC employee threatened 4
you in any manner or offered you a reward in return for 5
this statement?
6 THE WITNESS:
No, sir.
7 MR. BOAL:
Have you provided this statement 8
freely and voluntarily?
9 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
10 MR. BOAL:
And is there anything further you 11 would care to add at this time?
12 THE WITNESS:
Not at this time.
13 MR. BOAL:
It is now approximately 2;00 p.m.,
14 and this interview is concluded.)
15 (Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m.,
the interview in the 16 above-entitled matter was concluded.)
17 18 19 i
20 l
21 j
i 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPOATERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 2344433 l
=:
l This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory l
i Commission in the matter of:
Name of Proceeding:
JIM FISICARO Docket Number (s)-
4-95-016 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.
l.
t u
u Sandra McCray official Reporter Neal R.
Gross and Co.,
Inc.
l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPOATERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 234-4433 J