ML20137Y993
| ML20137Y993 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1985 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#485-756 OL, NUDOCS 8510080134 | |
| Download: ML20137Y993 (400) | |
Text
-
ORIG NAL Uh ntu STA.t ES O NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO::v1 NESS::ON IN THE MA A t rR OF: DOCKET NO:
SHEAR 0ft HARRIS .
50-400-0L fiUCLEAR POWER PLANT EVIDENTIARY HEARING O
t.OCATION: APEX, fl0RTH CAROLINA PAGES: 8283-8540 DATE: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 O'
0(
o\ .
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
O 444. Cap I treet Washingen. D.C. 20001 n$1000ot34 050930 ("02)347 3K0
- > nn ApocK0500l,)4,ll0 NAtCNWIOR COV::nAC2 ,
e 8283 Sim 1-1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
( ', 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
5 In the Matter of:
0 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN : DOCKET NO. 50-400 OL 7
MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY :
0 (Shenron !!arris Nuclear Power :
9 Plant) :
. ________ .......X jj Ramada Inn Interstate 55 U. S. 1 South Apex, North Carolina n
() 13 1:onday, September 30, 1985 Id The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened, 15 pursuant to recess, at 10:55 a.m.
BEFORE:
JAMES L. HELLEY, ESO., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 18 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j9 Washington, D. C. 20555 GLENN O. BRIGi!T, Member 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 21 Mucicar Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 JAMES 11. CARPENTER, Member Atomic Safety Licensing Board 23 U. S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 4..; ..-... 24..
25
r 8284 APPEARANCES:
1 On Behalf of the Applicants:
THOMAS A. BAXTER, ESQ.
3 Shaw Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
4 Washington, D. C.
5 DALE HOLLAR, ESO.
RICHARD E. JONES, ESQ.
6 ANDREW H. McDANIEL, ESO.
Carolina Power and Light Ccmpany 7 P. O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
< 8 Appearing Pro Set 9
03LLS EDDLEMAN 10 806 Parker Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 11 On Behalf of the Conservation Council of North Carolina:
12 JOHN D. RUNKLE, ESQ.
307 Granville Road O 13 ,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 14 On Behalf of the State of North Carolina:
15 H. AL COLE, ESO.
16 STEVE BRYANT, ESO.
State of North Carolina 17 Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 18 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 19 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
20 CHARLES A. BARTH, ESO.
JANICE E. MOORE, ESO.
21 Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 22 Washington, D. C. 20555 23 BRADLEY W. JONES, ESO.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II 24 101 Marrietta Street gJ ""*"> '"'- Atlanta, Georgia 30303 25 I
8285 Sim 1-1 1 CONTENTS
( OPENING STATEMENTS PAGE 3
Mr. Baxter ........................................ 8298 4
Mr. Runkle ........................................ 8309?
. OIR 5
WITNESSES DIRECT ' CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS BOARD DIRE 6
PETER BENSINGER )
JOHN FERGUSON )
7 GARRY FLOWERS )
. EID PANNILL ) 8315 8336 8416 8421 8398 8
WILLIAM HINDMAN, JR.)
9 MICHAEL KING )
10 D. GLENN JOYNER )
MICHAEL PLUEDDEMANN )
jj PETER BENSINGER )8441 8468 8479 12 j3 LAY-IN DOCUMENTS 74 DOCUMENT. FOLLOWS PAGE Testimony of Messrs. Bensinger, Ferguson, 15 Flowers and Pannill ....................... 8326 16 Testimony of Messrs. Hindman, King, 17 0 YU*#' Plueddemann and Bensinger ......... 8471 18 19 EXyIgITS 20 EXHIBIT No. IDENTIFIED ADMITTED 21 Applicants' No. 30 thru 40 8320 '8326 22 23 ers) Report rs, n .
25
8286
- 1-1-SueW 1 P_ R O C_ E E_ D I_Il G_ S_
2 (10:55 a.m.)
(G~)
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentle-4 men. This is the commencement of a further session of 5 evidentiary hearing on Carolina Power and Light's applica-6 tion for an operating license for its Shearon Harris facility.
7 We will be focusing this week on the Conservation 8 Council of North Carolina's contention, which has been 9 labeled WB, Whistle Blower, 3. It's a drug use contention 10 essentially. I think we can refer to it for simplicity as 11 we go along just as the contention.
12 But that will be the focus in any case. Let me 13 first introduce myself. I'm James Kelley, the belated
}
14 Chairman of this Board. And on my left is Judge Jim 15 Carpenter. And on my right is Judge Glenn Bright.
16 And Donna Duer, our Law Clerk, is out in the 17 audience. And I will introduce her, too.
18 And why don't we then take it left to right for 19 the record starting with Mr. Cole on the left.
20 MR. COLE: I am Al Cole, Your Honor, with the 21 Attorney General's Office.
22 MR. BRYANT: Judge Kelly, I'm Steve Bryant, also 23 with the Attorney General's Office.
24 MR. RUNKLE: John Runkle, representing the A wJ Reporters, Inc.
25 Conservation Council of North Carolina.
8287
- 1-2-SueW 1 MR. BARTH: I'm Charles A. Barth, Your honor.
() 2 I represent the Executive Legal Director of the Staff.
3 With me this morning is Mrs. Janice Moore, also 4 of the Office of the Executive Legal Director; and, Mr.
5 Bradley Jones of the Regional Counsel, or the Region II 6 Office in Atlanta, Georgia.
7 The three of us together will represent the 8 Staff in this proceeding, sir.
9 MR. BAXTER: On behalf of the Applicants, I am 10 Thomas A. Baxter from the law firm of Shaw, Pittman, Potts 11 and Trowbridge.
12 I would like to introduce several other counsel 13 in the immediate vicinity. Behind me are, from the CP&L 14 Legal Department, Richard E. Jones and Andrew H. McDaniel.
15 MR. HOLLAR: My name is Dale Hollar. I am 16 Associate General Counsel for CP&L.
17 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you very much. Off the 18 record just for a minute.
19 (.A n off-the-record discussion ensues.)
20 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me first just acknowledge the 21 documents that were served last week, testimony and the 22 witness naraes principally, and make sure that we've got 23 everything ar,d everybody has been served with everybody 24 else's material.
Aherst R. porters, Inc.
25 The Applicants served a set of testimony. There
8288
- 1-3-SueW I are five pieces, Mr. Baxter?
2 MR. BAXTER: That's correct.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. And these are panels I d believe. They are all panels?
5 MR. BAXTER: All but one.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: All but one, okay. The Staff 7 served two separate pieces of testimony, one panel and one 8 individual witness, as I recall; is that right, Mr. Barth?
9 MR. BARTH: That is correct, Your Honor, except 10 that I think that we intend to put on Mr. Bush with the xxx Il panel with Mr. Long, Mr. Tobin and Mr. Prevatt all at the 12 same time.
-13 JUDGE KELLEY: So, one panel is the plan. Okay.
Id MR. BARTH : Yes, Your Honor.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: And then Mr. Runkle had testimony 16 from Ms . Miriello, I believe. And you, in addition, had xxx 17 subpoenaes for three witnesses, all from the Wake County 18 Department; is that right, Mr. Runkle?
I9 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir.
L, 20 JUDGE KELLEY: And I did sign those, we served 2I them. And have you been in touch with them, then?
22 MR. RUNKLE: We would like to set a time certain 23 for them, some time later in the week.
I l
24 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. As we get a little bit
.1 Reporters, Inc.
l-25 into it and perhaps when it becomes apparent how things l
i l
8289
- 1-4-SueW 1 are moving, if you want to confer informally with other
() 2 counsel and figure out a likely time, then we could set 3 one then I would think.
4 And, Mr. Cole, you had testimony for three 5 people I believe, and one subpoena for Mr. Williams, was 6 it, from DEA?
7 MR. COLE: Yes, Your Honor, 8 JUDGE KELLEY: And is Mr, Williams ready to 9 come?
10 MR. COLE: He is in the State, Your Honor. I 11 got a call from his morning.
12 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
13 MR. COLE: We intend to present those three as
(~~}
, v 14 a panel.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. So, I would think that 16 beyond that we would be ready very shortly here to move 17 into the first panel.
18 Are there other -- any sort of preliminary 19 issues, questions to be raised? I will just go left to 20 right.
21 Mr. Cole, do you have anything?
22 MR. COLE: Well, only I guess like everyone else, 23 if we could get together and get some idea of when our 24 witnesses would, you know, be expected to be called. Mr, erst Reporten, Inc.
25 Williams' supervisor, I'm sure, anticipated him being there
8290 l
- 1-5-SueW 1 early , being back in Pittsburg early. But it doesn't l 1
( )- 2 appear that that's going to be a possibility.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: I guess we could take a crack at 4 it just for a minute and see how far we get. We would 5 normally -- the Applicants would put on their direct case, 6 in this case five different panels. And I would guess that
- 7 would take some significant period of time.
8 It would be pretty much up to how long the cross-9 examination runs. Do you have any guess on that, Mr.
10 Baxter?
11 MR. BAXTER: No. I think Mr. Runkle would be 2
12 in the best position to give you some advice on that, as to 13 how long the cross-examination of our panels will run.
14 I really don't know.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Runkle, any thoughts?
16 MR. RUNKLE: Well, at this time we are certainly 17 expecting to get everything done this week. And we will be 9
18 willing to go to any hour of the night and even Saturday if 19 that's -- you know, if that is necessary.
20 I do have one constraint. I would like to be --
21 I need to leave Thursday about five o' clock. But, other than 22 that I would be willing to go as late as you-all desire.
23 otherwise, if we can finish up Thursday, okay.
24 But if we need to come back Friday I would like to leave a
.ui n. pore m ,Inc.
25 little early on Thursday.
8291 1-6-Su W j JUDGE KELLEY: I think the Board's availability on 2 Saturday may be in question, if I may put it that way. We v(^'i 3 are not actually ruling out that we wouldn't do something 4 Saturday, but we are not very much inclined to do that.
5 At the same time, we want to move along and pretty 6 much get this done.
7 MR. BAXTER: Judge Kelley, I should have added one 8 Pi ece of information. Mr. Eddleman called earlier and indicat-9 ed he would be here by about noon.
10 So, that will be an additional source of --
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
12 MR. BAXTER: -- cross-examination I would expect.
13 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, Mr. Barth, thoughts on 14 this?
15 MR. BARTH: Your Honor, we have a witness avail-16 ability problem. Mr. Bush from Washington will testify for 17 the Staff with regard to the Edison Electric guide and their 18 Program and simply cannot be here the rest of the week.
19 I had called Mr. Runkle and Mr. Cole to obtain 20 their approval to put on our panel the first thing Tuesday 21 morning regardless of where they are. The Applicants have 22 other considerations, and we haven't come to any kind of 23 agreement or disagreement yet.
24 But if we cannot put Mr. Bush on on Tuesday, he Aherzi n porters, Inc.
25 won' t be put on. He has to leave Tuesday night.
l 8292
- 1-7-SueW l JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Is he available all day )
() 2 Tuesday?
3 MR. BARTH: Yes, Your Honor. This is Mr. Bush 4 sitting at my right.
5 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Thank you.
6 Do the Applicants object to putting Mr. Bush on 7 tomorrow, at least some time tomorrow?
8 Or, at a break between panels I would assume 9 hopefully but --
10 MR. BAXTER: No. The only limitation I have over 11 the next two days is one of the members of my first panel 12 needs to be finished by the end of Tuesday. But I would 13 hope we are done with him today frankly.
)
14 JUDGE KELLEY: All right.
15 MR. BAXTER: So, it shouldn't be a problem for 16 us to let the Staff go on.
17 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I would think -- now, again 18 I made us late starting this morning but I think we are 19 prepared to go somewhat longer than just normal hours to 20 push ahead. We will try to make up today's loss.
21 Isn't it -- well, let's take the sequence first.
22 We were saying the Applicants would lead off and Mr. Cole 23 and Mr. Bryant are new to the case, but our batting order 24 has been, with maybe one or two exceptions, but generally it ers,1 Reporters, Inc.
25 has been the Applicants put on their case and then the
8293
- 1-8-SueW l Intervenor would put on their case, and the Staff would l 1
() 2, put on their case.
3 And if we have got any rebuttal we would take 4 care of that when we got to it. But that was the basic 5 outline of how we have been proceeding.
6 Now, we haven't had any discussion as to whether --
7 where you would fit in that particular sequence. I think 8 the Applicants in any case would start.
9 But, any thoughts as far as you are concerned 10 as to when you want to go?
11 MR. COLE: If you are talking to me, Your Honor, 12 no.
r'N 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Right.
-V 14 MR. COLE: We are willing to put ours on at any 15 time.
16 JUDGE KELLEY: Second, third or last?
17 MR. COLE: Yes, sir.
18 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
19 MR. COLE: First, even. It doesn't make any 20 difference.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Well, I think to get the 22 overview on the program I think quite apart from the fact 23 that it's sort of traditional to have the Applicants come 24 on first to get sort of an overview of what's going on, hre n. porters. Inc.
25 there is merit in that. So, we would go with them first.
8294
- 1-9-SueW 1 And then it's a question of who goes second, I 2 third and last. Any preference, Mr. Runkle?
, - END #1 3 Joa flws 4
., 5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 rsl Reporters, Inc.
25 I
2-1-Jo Wal 8295 1 MR. RUNKLE: Well, we would like to have time f certain for the Wake County Sheriff's Department witnesses.
) 2 3 Ms. Morella, we would like to have her early 4 in the day as opposed to later in the day. She has a 5 job that she works at now,'and I am sure we can arrange 6 that, calling her before the Wake County Sheriff's depart-7 ment or not.
8 Other than that, we can go any day in any 9 order.
10 JUDGE KELLEY: In asking for Ms. Morella being 11 early, do you mean early on some day, or early on some 12 particular day?
~
13 MR. RUNKLE: Early on --
14 JUDGE KELLEY: What ever day it is, early, 15 right? Ok'ay.
16 We will try to accommodate that. Mr. Barth --
17 I think some of the outlines are emerging here.
18 Do you have any further thoughts? Thoughts 19 about whether the State ought to go as opposed to yourself?
20 MR. BARTH: No, Your Honor. I thought of 21 this until I was reminded that we go Tuesday or we have 22 a very severe problem.
23 I am pretty well locked into asking the Board 24 to let the Staff go Tuesday with all of our witnesses.
hr.1 a.po,,ws, Inc.
I 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me make sure I understand.
I
2G2-JonUal 1 I understand that one witness is not available
() 2 after tomorrow, but you are only talking about one panel, 3 correct?
4 MR. BARTH: Yes,'Your Honor.
5 JUDGE KELLEY: So, it is your request that the 6 Staff panel go on tomorrow, let's say at a panel break, 7 and hopefully finish.
8 MR. BARTH: Yes, Your Honor.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Anybody object to that?
10 (No response.)
11 Why don't we just do that. The idea would be 12 to finish tomorrow with the Staff, and I say a panel 13 break, that seems like a logical place to do it.
14 It may not work out quite that neatly in order 15 to finish. It depends on the other lawyers more than 16 you, but having read your testimony, I would think that 17 the Staff panel could be heard from in less than a day.
18 MR. BARTH: We hope so. Thank you for your 19 consideration, Your Honor.
I 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Well, if the Applicant 21 starts today, and we are getting a late start, and the 22 Staff takes up a good chunk of tomorrow, I would think 23 that we wouldn't get to the Intervener or the State 24 before Thursday morning.
A er:A Reporters, Inc.
( 25 That is just a guess. Does anybody disagree l
2-3-JocWal 8297 1 with that?
() 2 (No response.)
3 I am only saying this for purpose of planning, 4 and you may have to fine tune in any event; call them up 5 and move them around a little bit, but I would think if 6 Ms. Morella wants to be early, from this vantage point 7 Thursday morning may not be a bad target, and it might be 8 just as well to not try very much more planning from this 9 standpoint.
10 I think you could tell the Wake County people 11 that it wouldn't be before Thursday, and come Wednesday 12 we should be able to give them a more specific time, and 13 then the same with your witnesses.
{~}
14 I don't know that we can do very much more right 15 now. Do we really need to? Does anybody see any other 16 thing that we really ought to resolve now?
17 (No response.)
18 Okay.
19 MR. BARTH: Your Honor, when can we have the 20 TV lights turned off so we can see our papers?
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, they are troublesome?
22 MR. BARTH: Yes, Your Honor.
23 JUDGE KELLEY: Could you move the -- doesn't that 24 do it?
'A ril Reporters, Inc.
25 .' IR . BARTH: Thank you, Your Honor, i
2-4-JosWal 8298 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
(~) 2 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, if I might, we don't U
3 normally ask for this opportunity, but because of the 4 volume of evidence that we are going to be putting on this 5 week in response to this contention, I would like to ask 6 the Board's indulgence to make an opening statement before 7 we put on our first panel, to provide a brief overview of 8 the case.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Runkle, are you going to want 10 to make one? That can be later, of course. It doesn't t 11 have to be now.
12 MR. RUNKLE: I have a very brief statement.
4 13 JUDGE KELLEY: You want to make a brief statement 14 this morning?
15 MR. RUNKLE: Yes.
16 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Baxter, do you want to -- does .
17 anybody else want to make an opening statement? Mr.
18 Barth?
19 MR. BARTH: The Staff does not intend to, Your 20 Honor.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Mr. Baxter, go ahead.
22 MR. BAXTER: This proceeding on Carolina Power 23 and Light Company's application to the NRC for a license 24 to operate the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant began A ertl Reporters, Inc.
25 in January of 1982.
4 2-5-JosWal 8299 1 Since that time, the Interveners opposing the 2 issuance of that license have advanced well over five hundred
{}
3 contentions or issues they propose for litigation.
4 The Licensing Board has agreed to decide sixty-5 one of~those contentions on the merits.
6 To date, 54 have been decided, all of them in 7 Applicant's favor on the' basis of Motions for Summary i
8 Disposition supported by expert affidavits, or on the 1
- 9 basis of the 28 days of evidentiary hearings held.
10 Five contentions in which hearings have been
]
11 held are pending before the Board, and only two remain to i
12 be heard, including the one which is the subject of this 13 hearing.
O 14 License issuance is required before fuel can 15 be loaded into the reactor in March 1986.
l 16 This hearing is being conducted to receive l
17 evidence on the contention by the conservation council 18 that drug use at the Harris plant is widespread, that
! 19 CP&L has failed to control drug use during construction 1
20 of the plant, and that we have failed to reinspect the 21 safety-related work done by known drug abusers.
22 The hearing on the contention is being vifurcated 23 into two phases; this phase will consider the allegation l, 24 that drug use at the site is widespread, and whether CP&L
- tl Reporters. Inc.
25 has failed to control it.
2-6-JonWal 8300 1 The second phase, which will be in November, 2 will address the possible effects of drug use on construction
. ()
3 and the adequacy of CP&L's corrective action.
4 In our view, it is the second phase which is 5 material to the NRC's finding that the plant, as built, 6 can be operated safety. While CCNC has not yet identified 7 a single construction deficiency, let alone one caused by 8 employee drug use, we will demonstrate in November ~that 9 the quality assurance program implemented during construction 10 of the Harris plant would have identified any safety-related 11 construction deficiency caused by an impaired employee, 12 and that we have confirmed the quality of the work by those rs 13 identified as possibly involved in drug activity.
4 b 14 This late contention by CCNC was filed in 15 January of this year, immediately after a newspaper article 16 appeared which reported on the results of the just completed 17 undercover narcotics investigation at the Harris plant.
18 The investigation requested by CP&L involved one 19 undercover agent each from the State Bureau of Investigation, 20 and the Wake County Sheriff's Department, and was under 21 the direction of the head of the Sheriff's Department drug 22 unit.
23 Rather than serving as the basis for a contention 24 that CP&L has failed to control drug use at the site, this A er-J Reporters, Inc.
25 investigation is one of the many positive steps CP&L has
2-7-JosWal 8301 r 1 undertaken to control drug activity.
() 2 The fact that eight arrests were made does not 3 discount the success of those efforts.
4 Illegal drugs are a problen in the United States, 5 and not just in Hollywood and in the cores of our major 6 cities.
7 Drugs are in our schools and universities, in 8 our jails, in our armed services, and in our athletic teams l 9 at all levels.
10 Drugs have invaded all of our places of work, l 11 including the Government and law enforcement agencies. The 4
12 Harris construction site reflects the problems of society, 13 and has employed over twenty-six thousand employees since 14 the the project began.
15 CCNC and the public have learned about drug 16 activity among those Harris employees, because CP&L has 17 chosen to confront rather than to turn its back on the 18 Problem.
19 Perhaps if CP&L had not requested the undercover i
20 investigation, then there would have been no publicity, i
21 no contention, and no hearing.
22 If you understand the extent of the drug abuse 23 threat in the American work place, and perhaps this hearing 4
24 will advance that understanding, then you will realize oral Reporters, Inc.
l 25 that the information we have come forward with on violations l
2-8-JonWal 8302 1 of CP&L drug abuse control policies, is not indicative of
() 2 a problem but rather is evidence of a successful solution 3 being achieved.
4 Applicants will present eleven witnesses this 5 week, in five separate evidentiary presentations.
6 'I will briefly describe the purpose of each 7 of the five presentations, and I ask the parties and the 8 Board to do their best during examination to respect this 9 division of our evidence by subject matter.
10 The first panel of witnesses describes the 11 drug abuse control policies and procedures which have been 12 in effect at Shearon Harris, and the training provided to
{} 13 site employees. The panel includes two witnesses from I4 Daniel, the construction contractor for the plant.
15 The policy is a firm one against the possession, 16 use, or sale of illegal drugs, and the consequence of 17 non-compliance is termination.
18 Those suspected of drug activity may be required 19 to submit to searches, and/or unarialis drug screen test.
20 These policies are communicated to new employees during 21 their orientation, and they are subsequently reminded of 22 those policies reguarly.
23 Supervisors and managers undergo drug awareness 24 training designed to prepare them to recognize drugs and 11 Reporters, Inc.
25 aberrant behavior symptomatic of drug use.and to understand
2-9-JosWal 8303 I
1 their responsibility in implementing the drug abuse control 2 Policies.
3 Substantial outside expertise has been used 4 in the development and implementation of these programs.
1 1 5 The second panel of witnesses describes the .
6 undercover investigation at the site last year, and 7 responds to the affidavit of S. L. Burch filed by the 8 Attorney General of North Carolina on July 31.
9 That affidavit asserts or implies in some 10 cases that actions taken by CP&L during the undercover ,
11 operation impeded its effectiveness, and endangered the 12 undercover officers, requiring premature termination of 4
13 the investigation.
14 Our panel includes the two site employees who 15 worked with the undercover officers and the inside informant
- 16 routinely.
17 The two CP&L construction security witnesses l
18 are commissioned law enforcement officers, with a combined 19 experience of sixteen years with the Raleigh Police 20 Department.
21 Our witnesses first hand description of the 22 facts as they occurred, supplemented by our recent discussions 23 with the undercover officers and of the Sheriff's Department 24 personnel convincingly demonstrate that CP&L wanted the ASeral Reporten, Inc.
25 investigation to be effective, and provided full support End 2 and cooperation toward that end.
MS f4
8304 l
' *- I The actions complained of where they actually i 1
O 2 occurred had been misunderstood. While perceived by some 3
as a hinderance to the investigation, the steps were taken 4
as a normal part of the overall security program or to prevent 5
the introduction of drugs onto the site.
6 The agents themselves have confirmed that their 7
safety was not threatened by CP&L's actions.
8 The Attorney General of North Carolina has entered this proceeding under provision of the Commission's 10 rules which permits the repreesntative of an interested
> stated to advise the Commission without being required to 12 take a position on the issues.
() We understand that the Attorney General's partici-14 pation is aimed at providing a more complete record to assist 15 the Board.
16 Now a great deal of the prefiled evidence is devoted 17 to this undercover operation. While the testimony is 18 lenghty owing to the number of factual incidents examined, 19 fairly read it reveals some disagreement on the wisdom of 20 actions taken by CP&L as well as by the law enforcement .
21 agencies, but absolutely no support for any argument the 22 CP&O purposely attempted to impeded the investigation.
'. 23 Consequently, while we recognize the level of
- g,,g %,,,,,, ,
interest in this aspect of the hearing, applicants sincerely 25
! urge the parties and the Board not to devote such
8305 1
'Sim 3-2 disproportionate time and attention to the is one investiga-1 1
() tion that other important evidence is not adequately 2
3 exPl ored.
4 The testimony of the third panel describes the 5 means employed to identify drug activity among site
.i i
I 6 employees and provides our assessment of the extent of
- 7 that activity. ,
s 8 The numerous and diverse means used to identify
! 9 violations of the drug abuse control policy includs security 1
10 measures, urine analysis drug screen testing and the
(
l 11 observations of management, supervisors and other employees.
- 12 The drug activity identified at Harris represents i
13 less than one-eighth of the national work force's percentage l
- 14 of drug abusers. A significant indirect indicator of the 15 excellent industrial safety record at the plant confirms 1
16 our conclusion that there is not widespread drug abuse 17 among workers at the Harris site.
! 18 This does not mean that the challenge is gone, for 19 it will always be there. It does mean that control efforts 20 have been effective.
21 This testimony also presents the results of 22 CP&L's inquiry into the allegations by CCNC witness, Patty i 23 Miriello, of drug activity among certain operations contractor 4
24 employees who conducted some in-service inspection baseline Irgl Reporters, Inc.
25 measurements at the plant approximately one year ago. ,
8306 Sim 3-3 1 The investigation did not substantiate any of
,) 2 her charges.
3 The fourth panel elaborates upon one of the 4 security measures employed to identify violations of the 5 drug abuse control policies, searches with a narcotic 6 detection dog.
7 The witnesses, one of whom is an officer with the 8 Raleigh Police Department, are the dog handlers who have 9 conducted the searches for CP&L. They both conclude from 10 their searches that there is not widespread drug use at II the Harris site.
12 At the conclusion of that panel's testimony
)
13 applicants intend to present.a rare and clever witness Id named Banner, who cannot be sworn and whose testimony could 15 not have been prefiled. Banner is one of the dogs used to 16 search at Harris. We propose to conduct a brief demonstration I7 here of Banner's capability to locate a drug sample which 18 to permit the handler is authorized to possess.
19 Applicant's final witness, who may have a tough 20 act to follow, supervised the contractor employees alleged 21 by CCNC witness Miriello to have been involved in drug 22 activity.
23 He describes his personal observations of these 24
- rrl Report. s, Inc.
employees, none of whom exhibited any signs of impairment A
25 on the job.
8307 Sim 3-4 j Further, he describes the review of a sample of
() 2 the contractor's work undertaken this month by the Electric 3 Power Research Institute's Nondestructive Examination Center
.i 4 in Charlotte.
a 5
This indeependent, third-party review has confirmed 6 the quality of the contractor's work, which in any event 7
is not utilized to confirm the quality of plant. construction. l 4
Before concluding I would like to say a special 8
9 word about one of our witnesses. I was pleased to discover after this contention was admitted that CP&L has for some 10 i
11 time been employing as consultants on substance abuse in the 12 work place the firm of Bensinger, Dupont and Associates, 13 which advises major corporations, community organizations Ox 14 and Government.
15 Peter Bensinger, president of the firm, served 16 for over five and one-half years under Presidents Ford and Carter as Administrator of the United States Drug 17 18 Enforcement Administration, the agency responsible for 19 enforcement of U.S. narcotic and dangerous drug laws.
'T 20 A nationally recognized expert on the steps needed i 21 to control drug abuse in the work place, Mr. Bensinger also c 22 brings to the witness stand his valuable experience with 23 narcotics law enforcement.
1 Since Mr. Bensinger's knowledge of CP&L's programs
, h.rewonm.24 ex.
and his experience cut across the subjects address by each 25 f
.,_.,n.,, , - - . - - . . - . . ,
8308 Sim 3-5 1 of or first three witness panels, we could have asked him
() 2 to comere here to testify just once after the three panels 3 are concluded.
4 Instead, we have prevailed upon his to testify 5 with each of the first three panels so that the record is 6 more self-contained and the Board may have the benefit 7 of his contempcraneous testimony.
8 Applicants anticipate that Mr. Bensinger's 9 contribution to the record will prove to be substantial.
10 Finally, I need to mention our interest in 11 maintaining the confidentiality of the identify of former 12 employees at the site. Because CP&L has erred on the side 13 of caution in implementing its drug abuse control policy, 14 some employees have been terminated on the basis of 15 information insufficient to support prosecution for viola-16 tions of the law. Others were removed from the site during 17 routine reductions in force without being told that 18 suspected drug activity served as a part of the basis for 19 their selection.
20 We have endeavored to provide the information 21 necessary for the NRC to resolve this contention without 22 unnecessarily revealing the identify of former employees.
23 The conservation counsel has cooperated fully 24 with this policy during the discovery process, and I hope ercl Repor*rs, Inc.
25 they will continue to do so.
t l
L
4 8309 sim 3-6 j I have instructed each of applicant's witnesses to 2 indicate prior to answering the question poses if the answer 3 w uld require revealing an employee's identity. Counsel and
~
4 the Board can then address whether an In Camera session or 5
ther action is necessary.
- Applicants urge counsel for the other parties to 6
7 instruct their witnesses similarly.
"" Y "*
8 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Your word of caution on ex-employees 10 is well taken, and we appreciate'Mr...Runkles cooperation ~in' '
i jj that regard in the past and I think we can all bear that in 12 mind as we proceed. There may be reasons to bring out names I
13 in some particular case, but by and large one would think that O ja that would not bne true.
i 15 I trust, Mr. Baxter, when you bring that dog out i
16 here you will be prepared to resond to a hearsay objection?
! 37 (Laughter.)
' How are we going to cross-examine it?
18 j9 (Laughter.)
20 MR. BAXTER: The handler will be available.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
22 Mr. Runkle, you wanted to make a statement.
23 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir, just a brief statement. Since t
24 January when we became aware of allegations by the Wake County
. h.rai n. porters. inc.
25 Sheriff's Department that drug abuse at the Harris plant was i
8310 Sim 3-7 j widespread while it was being constructed.
- i We have been involved in this and it is not really 2
v something that is within our expertise. We have had to reply 3
4 very much on the Attorney General's office and the State Bureau of Investigation and also the Wake County Sheriff's 5
6 Department.
7 We are not experts in drug abuse investigations, 8
but we think that these people are, the people that we are 9 relying on.
10 I think that since Janaury there have been substan ~
11 tial changes in Carolina Power and Light's drug detection 12 Program, and the recency of some of these changes have become rx 13 very crucial in determining just in the construction of the O plant, did they have a good program before, or is that just 14 15 a recent program.
16 Now in its initial response to the contention that 17 we proffered CP&L stated that we note that error-free 18 construction is not a precondition for an operating license, 19 and they further went on to say what is required and stated 20 it is a finding of reasonable assurance that the plant as 21 built can and will be operated without endangering the public 22 health and safety, and that is the basis of this contention.
23 Because of the widespared drug abuse on site during 24 construction, there can be no reasonable assurance that the deral Reporters, Inc.
25 Pl ant can be built and can and will be operated in a manner
8311 Sim 3-8 )
that can protect public health and safety.
2 As the, applicants put on their various panels we 3
will try to stay into the general areas that each panel is 4 testifying to. There is quite an overlap and we may need to 5
ask questions on how widespread the drug abuse is to the 6
first panel rather than leaving all those questions to the j third panel, but we can work around that.
7
' 8 We are ffering testimony by Ms. Miriello, an 9
engineer at the plant, who has some serious allegations of 10 drug abuse by those contract employees that were inspecting jj the steam generating tubes. We feel this is definitely safety related. The very integrity of the central core 12 13 cooling system depends on having steam generator tubes that J
ja don't break or crack under pressure and heat.
15 One thing I would like to put on the record at this time is that in the affidavit that Ms. Miriello signed that 16 37 we have made in response to the applicants' motion for 18 summary disposition, there was a transcription error and I tnink that we have corrected this in her testimony.
19 There is a father and son that worked for Con Am, 20 Mark Mathison and Mel Mathison. Mel Mathison, we don't want 21 to impinge his character at all. There are no allegations 22 23 of any drug use or drug trafficking with the father, Mel Mathison, and I think it was a transcription error. I was 24 herst a. pore.rs, inc.
confused in transcribing the thing which was which.
25 end Sim 4 Sue fols
8312 l #4-1-SueW l JUDGE KELLEY: Maybe when you call Ms. Miriello,
() 2 we can -- if there are any particular word changes to make, 3 we can do it then.
4 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, i 5 JUDGE KELLEY: We will be alerted to the fact 6 that there may be some problem there. Okay.
j 7 MR. RUNKLE: And also Mr. Brombach, one of the 8 Applicants' witnesses, addresses both. And I want them to
. 9 be clear at this point that Mel Mathison, there are no 10 allegations of drug use by him.
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Maybe for clarity, can we take a 12 minute -- have you got corrections ready, or changes on the 13 testimony?
{~ )
14 MR. RUNKLE: No. The testimony should be correct.
15 But in the Af fidavit that Mr. Brombach made his testimony 16 about.
17 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. But, if I understand this 18 correctly, let me put it to you, we had Affidavits being 19 exchanged on summary disposition and we ruled on that.
20 MR. RUNKLE: Yes. Right.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Once we get into this evidentiary 22 hearing, the operative document is the testimony, not the 23 Affidavit.
24 MR. RUNKLE: Right.
A eral Reporters. Inc.
25 JUDGE KELLEY: Now, the Affidavit, maybe somebody
i 8313
- 4-2-SueW l could pull it out for a prior inconsistent statement, that
() 2 sort of thing. But the evidentiary document, the operative 3 document, is the testimony.
4 So --
5 MR. RUNKLE: I bring it up at this time --
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
7 MR. RUNKLE: -- for two reasons. One is to clear 8 up -- we don't want to impinge Mr. Mel Mathison's character.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: I appreciate that. And I think 10 that's wise. Yeah.
Il MR. RUNKLE: And, secondly that will give 12 Applicants opportunity to look at Mr. Brombach's testimony 13 again if they weren't aware of that.
(SJ 14 He -- it's our reading that he looked at the 15 Affidavit rather than the testimony when he prepared his 16 testimony.
17 MR. BAXTER: He couldn't have looked at the 18 testimony when he prepared his, because --
19 MR. RUNKLE: Exactly.
20 MR. BAXTER: -- they were filed on the same day.
21 Mel Mathison was mentioned in the original Affidavit twice 22 though, not just once.
23 MR. RUNKLE: Yes.
24 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me make a suggestion. This er:I Reporters, Inc.
25 is something that would come up two or three days hence.
8314
- 4-3-SueW l Perhaps you could look at that again and see
( }) 2 if there are wording changes which in retrospect you would 3 have made in the Affidavit, discuss with Mr. Baxter if 4 you think that's appropriate.
5 I say again, unless and until somebody brings 6 in that Affidavit in some way in this hearing, I don't see 7 it as a problem except insofar as people may be under a mis-8 impression. But, why don't you at least discuss that?
9 And if we have to make some changes we can make 10 them, okay.
11 MR. RUNKLE: Okay. That is all we have for an 12 opening statement.
JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Well,
{ 13 Fine, thank you.
14 with that can we then go back to Mr. Baxter and have him 15 call his first panel?
16 Yes, I guess so. Go ahead, Mr. Baxter.
17 MR. BAXTER: Applicants call Peter B. Bensinger, 18 John D. Ferguson, Garry W. Flowers and A. Reid Pannill.
19 JUDGE KELLEY: Gentlemen, would you raise your 20 right hands, please? ,
21 (The panel of witnesses are sworn by Judge 22 Kelley.)
23 Whereupon, 24 PETER B. BENSINGER, A erst Reporters, Inc.
25 JOHN D. FERGUSON,
8315
- 4-4-SueW 1 GARRY W. FLOWERS
- and -
[]) 2 i 3 A. REID PANNILL 4 are called as witnesses by and on behalf of the Applicants 5 and, having first been duly sworn, testified as follows:
6 DIRECT EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. BAXTER:
INDEXX 8 Q Starting with my left, would you each please e
9 state your name for the record and identify your employer 10 and your position?
11 A (Mr. Bensinger) My name is Peter B. Bensinger.
12 I am currently President of Bensinger, DuPont & Associates, 13 a private consulting firm with principal offices in Chicago, 14 specializing in the problems of drug and alcohol abuse in 15 the workplace.
16 Our firm has provided consultation, management 17 briefings and supervisory training throughout the public 18 utility industry as well as other aspects of industry and 19 government in the United States. And we have also provided 20 such services to Carolina Power and Light.
21 Q Mr. Ferguson, would you identify yourself, please?
22 A .Ferguson)
( My name is John Ferguson. I am the 23 Director of Personnel Relations at the Harris Nuclear Project, 24 which covers the Harris Nuclear Project itself and the ert! Reporters, Inc.
25 Shearon Harris Energy and Environmental Center.
8316 l
- 4-5-SueW I Q Mr. Pannill?
O 2 A (, ann 111, My name is Re1e Pann111.
3 0 Gentlemen, I think you are going to have to use 4 the microphones I'm afraid.
5 A Sorry.
6 0 If you would, pull them up closer to you.
7 A My name is Reid Pannill. I am currently Group 8 Personnel Manager for Daniel International. From December 9 1982 until August of this year, I was employed as Personnel 10 Manager at the Harris. site.
II Q Mr. Flowers?
12 A (Flowers) My name is Garry Flowers. I am q 13 employed by Daniel International Corporation out of Green-V I4 ville, South Carolina.
15 I am Manager of Industrial Relations. My prime 16 responsibility is corporate security.
17 0 Thank you. Gentlemen, I call your attention 18 to a document which bears the caption of this proceeding, 19 dated September 23, 1985 and is entitled " Applicants' 20 Testimony of Peter B. Bensinger, John D. Ferguson, Garry W.
21 Flowers and A. Reid Pannill On Drug Abuse Control Policies 22 and Training, (CCNC Contention WB-3)" and consists of 23 twenty-two pages of questions and answers and four attach-24 ments.
Irtl Reporters, Inc.
25 Does the testimony associated with your initials, L
8317
- 4-6-SueW l including the attached statement of your qualifications represent your testimony prepared by you or under your (s) 2 3 supervision for presentation at this hearing, Mr. Bensinger?
4 A (Bensinger) It does.
5 Q Mr. Ferguson?
6 A (Ferguson) It does.
7 Q Mr. Pannill?
8 A (Pannill) Yes, it does.
9 Q Mr. Flowers?
10 A (Flowers) Yes, it does.
~
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Gentlemen, are the lights bother-12 ing you?
/~} 13 WITNESS PANNILL: No, sir.
u.)
14 WITNESS FLOWERS: No, sir.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. We like to give the press 16 a chance to get in. It won't go on all day, but for awhile 17 we like to provide them a photo opportunity, I think is the 18 term.
- 19 Okay.
20 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, in my letter of 21 September 23 transmitting the testimony to the Board and 22 parties, I indicated that there would be eleven exhibits
~
23 that would be offered, identified and offered, in connection 24 with this panel's testimony.
erd Reporters, Inc.
25 They are all documents which were attached to i i
I l
1
8318 i
- 4-7-SueW l Affidavits filed on July 12th with the Summary Disposition
() 2 Motion. What I have done is distributed to the Court Reporter ,
3 the Board and the parties this morning a typed list which 4 identifies those exhibits in the order I indicated in my 5 previous letter as Applicants' Exhibits 30 through 4 0, which 6 is where we are today.
7 I have asked the counsel for the other parties 8 to stipulate that this list could be placed into the trans-9 cript in lieu of me spending a lot of time reading the identit ?
1 10 of each exhibit, and it would thereby serve as the identifica-11 tion of Applicants' Exhibit 30 through 40.
12 So, I ask that they be marked for identification 13 as indicated on this list.
. (~)
%)
l 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Baxter, does the 30 run from 15 the days of the first safety? Or, why 30? Where does that
- 16 come from?
17 MR. BAXTER: We started with Number 1 at the very l 18 first hearing and we had Number 29 at the last emergency 19 planning hearing.
20 So, this is simply a consecutive continuation 21 from Day 1 of --
22 JUDGE KELLEY: From Day 1 you have only thirty --
23 twenty-nine exhibits?
24 MR. BAXTER: That's right, h.cri n. porters, Inc.
25 JUDGE KELLEY: That seems strange. Okay.
m 4 . _ . . , , . . . . , , , _ , _ _ . . _ . . _ . , - _ _ . , , _ , _ . . , . . _ . . , , . . . _ _ , _ . . , , , _ _ , , _ . , _ _ _ , . , . , _ , , . . _ , . . , , , , _ , _ _ , , , _ . . . . . . _ , , , _ . _ _ . ,
8319
- 4-8-SueW l (Laughter.)
m
( ) 2 JUDGE KELLEY: So, they are numbered. Did you 3 move admission?
4 MR. BAXTER: Not yet. I would like to go through 5 the testimony now and indicate where you should write into 6 the testimony the appropriate exhibit number which we didn't 7 do in advance.
8 If I'm going too fast for anybody, please stop 9 me. The first refemmoe is on Page 9, on Line 4 the blank 10 should be 30.
11 The reference on the next to the last line is 12 31.
13 And we move over to Page ll, the third line of
(^T
\_/
14 Answer 13 should be 32.
15 We move over to Page 13, the fourth line, the 16 entry should be 34.
17 MR. BARTH: Mr. Baxter, there is one on Page 12.
18 Halfway down Page 12.
19 MR. BAXTER: Thank you. That should be 33. 34 20 is the fourth line on Page 13.
21 At the end of the next paragraph, the reference 22 should be 35.
23 On Page 14, about a third of the way up from the 24 bottom, there the first reference should be 36; four lines ertl Reporters, Inc.
25 down should be 37; and, at the very end of the page the l
8320
- 4-9-SueW l reference should be 38.
() 2 Moving over to Page 17, in the eighth line the 3 reference should be 39. Two lines further down, the 4 reference should be 40.
5 On Page 18, in the seventh line of Answer 24 6 that should be 33.
7 On Page 19, the fourth line the reference should 8 be 34.
9 Those are all the references in the testimony.
10 (The above-mentioned exhibits are 11 marked as Applicants' Exhibits 12 Number 30 through 40 for identi-T*^7EXX 13 fication.)
V 14 BY MR. BAXTER: (Continuing) 15 Q Mr. Bensinger, do you have any changes or 16 corrections to make to the prefiled testimony?
17 A (Bensinger) I do not.
18 O Mr. Ferguson?
19 A (Ferguson) No, sir.
20 Q Mr. Pannill?
21 A (Pannill) No.
22 Q Mr. Flowers?
23 A (Flowers) No, sir.
24 Q Is the testimony true and correct to the best Aherel Reporters, Inc.
25 of your knowledge and belief, M r. Bensinger?
8321
-#4-10-SueW I A (Bensinger) It is.
2 Q Mr. Ferguson?
3 A (Ferguson) Yes, sir, it is .
4 Mr. Pannill?
Q 5 A (Pannill) Yes, it is.
0 Q Mr. Flowers?
7 A (Flowers) Yes, it is.
8 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, I then move that the 9 identified testimony be received into evidence and physically 10 incorporated into the transcript as if read.
II JUDGE KELLEY: You are not including exhibits at 12 this point?
13 MR. BAXTER: I will do both of them.
I4 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
15 MR. BAXTER: I also move the admission into 16 evidence of Applicants' Exhibits 30 through, and including I7 40.
18 JUDGE KELLEY: Do you want them in the transcript I9 also?
O MR. BAXTER: No.
2I JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Runkle?
22 MR. RUNKLE: Yes. I have a series of objections 23 if we could take them one at a time.
2 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah. I erti n.perten, Inc. l 25 MR. BUNKLE: First of all, along the joint testimony l
)
, , 8322
- 4-ll-SueW 1 at the bottom of Page 12, continuing into Page 13 --
( ) 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Right.
I 3 MR. RUNKLE: -- we would object'to Mr. Ferguson 4 stating that Mr. Bensinger is one of the foremost experts.
[ 5 We would urge the Board that -- this is something 6 that'the Board should make a ruling on and it should not be 7 incorporated into the testimony.
l
, 8 JUDGE KELLEY: I think we should hear Mr. Baxter 9 on each one so we have got things together in the transcript.
10 That's -- is daat the first objection?
11 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir.
j 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. Okay, Mr. Baxter?
13 MR. BAXTER: Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ferguson 14 is the CP&L representative on this panel who is describing 15 the' drug awareness training and the drug abuse policies at i
i
- - 16 Shearon Harris. Mr. Bensinger has been a consultant to the
! 17 Company, and all Mr. Ferguson is doing here is expressing
- 18 his personal opinion, j 19 And I think he is qualified to express that 20 opinion. This in no way preempts the Board's finding about 21 the credibility of Mr. Bensinger as a witness, which the 22 Board is free to judge on their own at the end of the case.
l 23 But, certainly Mr. Ferguson is entitled to have 24 his opinion, and he is qualified to make it.
- h z,cin. pore.ri,Inc.
25 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I will assume that with t
3 i
- ~,, r - - - - , --n-~-eme-e-e-,.- -,-,-e-.-. m , ~ . - ,. , - - - , - + ww , n nn,,n . -,- -r n ,,m-~~-,,--~----+ <--mn---,
8323
- 4-12-SueW j Mr. Runkle, he has a series of objections, Mr. Baxter can
{} g respond. If the Staff or the State wants to get in on this, 3 raise your hand. Otherwise, I will just hear from the two 4 of them on these points, okay.
- 5 Mr. Runkle? Mr. Barth?
6 MR. BARTH: Your Honor, in Point Beach the Appeal 7 Board, early in the matters of these hearings, held that an 8 expert can testify to other experts. And Mr. Ferguson is 9 certainly qualified to express his expert opinion as to 10 Bensinger's expertise.
11 And that's all it is. I would deny the objection.
12 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Mr. Runkle?
13 MR. RUNKLE: We certainly have not had any indica-
't, 14 tion by Applicants that they would proffer Mr. Ferguson as 15 an expert in drug control programs across the United States.
16 And if he was being proffered as an expert in that, 17 we would request a voir dire to ask him a series of questions 18 about his expertise in this area.
19 JUDGE KELLEY: Just a moment.
20 (Pause.)
21 Well, whatever the right or the wrong of this, it's 22 not a major issue I think. And as to Mr. Ferguson's background 23 to express his opinion, we've got his resume here and we will 24 go with that.
$.,51n.por,.rtinc.
25 MR. RUNKLE: We would also like to bring to your
- - - - - _ - , -- . . . . _ . . , __. _._,, ..._.,__,y_,_.,__.-_,.._,.___.,,______m.., - . - _ . _ . .-___.g.,. . . ., _m,._ ,.m...ym
o 8324 2
- 4-13-SueW j attention Applicants' Exhibit Number 35 --
2 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Just a minute.
)'
3 MR. RUNKLE: -- which is entitled " Videotape j 4 Session, Drug and Alcohol Abuse Refresher Training."
l 5 JUDGE KELLEY: I'm translating from A, B, C and j-6 D to these numbers.
7 MR. RUNKLE: It would be F under Mr. Ferguson.
i 8 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Thank you. Go ahead.
9 MR. RUNKLE: We would have no objections to this 10 document if the Applicants would limit it solely for the 11 purpose that such a videotape session had been given rather 12 than any matters in here that they -- that they would want 13 to go to the truth of any of the matters contained in this 14 document.
i 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me ask Mr. Baxter the sense 16 in which it's offered.
- 17 Are you offering it for anything more than the i
18 fact that Mr. Rutley in fact presented or made such a pre-
~
19 sentation?
t 20 MR. BAXTER: Not really. We are documenting and 21 describing through this exhibit the kind of training and 4 22 communication on drug awareness that is made to the employees.
23 MR. RUNKLE: Well, in that sense we --
3 24 JUDGE KELLEY: I think that's consistent with hij n. porters, Inc.
! 25 your point, Mr. Runkle, if I hear it correctly.
8325
- 4-14-SueW1 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir. That is why we --
() 2 JUDGE KELLEY: The session occurred, here it is 3 but not really what it says line by line.
4 MR. RUNKLE: Fine. Thank you.
5 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
6 MR. BAXTER: Well, we may use it line by line in 7 terms of what was communicated to the employees, what was 8 said, of course.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Isn't that within your -- you are 10 objecting to what is a hearsay sort of thing for truth of Il the matters asserted, are you not?
12 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir.
13 JUDGE KELLEY: I think again Mr. Baxter is saying - -
)
14 we are being asked by Mr. Baxter to accept that in fact this 15 presentation was made and that, therefore, an employee heard, 16 you know, whatever is said on Page 3, Line 4.
17 Whether it's true or not is another matter. But 18 I think he is just offering it for the fact that it was said.
19 And on that basis, I think --
20 MR. RUNKLE: Yeah, we would have no objections 21 to that.
22 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Fine.
23 MR. RUNKLE: We do not have any other objections 24 on the admissibility of these documents.
ASeral Reporters, Inc.
25 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. We will just defer on that
8326
- 4-15-SueW 1 first point, and the Board will come back after lunch and 2 rule on that.
f')T u
3 There is a motion to admit the testimony and the 4 exhibits. And we have pending the one objection on Page 12, 3 But subject to a ruling later, we will grant those two motions 6 and admit the testimony and the exhibits.
7 (Applicants' Exhibits Numbered 30 8 through 40 for identification are 9 admitted in evidence.)
10 (The testimony of the panel, Mr. Bensinger, 11 Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Pannill and Mr. Flowers INDEXXX 12 follows.)
() 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 h rzi n. porters, Inc.
25
LIST OF APPLICANTS' EXHIBITS i
CCNC CONTENTION WB-3 DOCKET NO. 50-400 Exhibit 30 Company Drug and Alcohol Statement of Practice and Drug and Alcohol Interdepartmental Procedure Exhibit 31 CP&L Drug and Alcohol Abuse Reference Manual Exhibit 32 CP&L Contract Amendment imposing Drug and Alcohol Abuse Policy upon Contractors Exhibit 33 CP&L Supervisor's Reference Manual: Drug and Alcohol Abuse Exhibit 34 CP&L Drug and Alcohol Awareness and Supervisory Training i
Program Exhibit 35 CP&L Videotape: Drug and Alcohol Abuse Refresher Training I
Exhibit 36 Daniel Procedure TSD-SH-207, Security Actions / Illegal Drugs and Other Contraband Materials Exhibit 37 Daniel Procedure DCC-PE-510, Security Actions / Illegal Drugs and Other Contraband Materials O Exhibit 38 Daniei Memerandum frem C. C. waeoner to aii Daniei/ Davis employees re Drug ard Alcohol Abuse Policy (December 26, 1984)
! Exhibit 39 Daniel Supervisory Drug Awareness Program General Outline Exhibit 40 " Controlled Substances: U!,e, Abuse and Effects" - U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (1981) 1 9
O e .
, -..,_.,.-_...-..-,.f.-. -+,.-,---x--_--- , -- _ - - _ - , - . _ _ , . . - - - .--v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant) )
)
O
! APPLICANTS' TESTIMONY OF PETER B. BENSINGER,
! JOHN D. FERGUSON, GARRY W. FLOWERS AND A. REID PANNILL ON DRUG ABUSE CONTROL POLICIES AND TRAINING (CCNC CONTENTION WB-3)
, O l
t t
Q1. Gentlemen, please state your names, present occupations, employers and l O business addresses for the record.
1 A1. (PBB) My name is Peter B. Bensinger. Currently I am President and Chief Executive Officer of the firm of Bensinger, DuPont & Associates, Inc.,20 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606, a professional consulting firm providing services to private industry, national and community organizations, and government, on the problems of drug and alcohol abuse, including its impact on the workplace.
I (JDF) My name is John D. Ferguson. My business address is P. O. Box 93, l
! New Hill, North Carolina 27562. I am employed by Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) as Director-Personnel Relations for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
(GWF) My name is Garry W. Flowers. My business address is Daniel Building, Greenville, South Carolina 29602. I am employed by Daniel international f* Corporation (DIC) as Manager of Corporate Security in the Industrial Relations O o P rt- t o #ieti taeco tr etererthePi at-(ARP) My name is A. Reid Pannill. My business address is Daniel Building, Greenville, South Carolina 29602. I am employed by Daniel Construction Company as Group Personnel Manager of the Process Group. Between December 1982 and August i
1985, I was Daniel Personnel Manager at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. ,
I Q2. Mr. Bensinger, please describe your professional and educational background.
i A2. (PBB) Prior to forming the consulting firm of Bensinger, DuPont &
! Associates with Dr. Robert L. DuPont, I served as Administrator of the United States i l
Drug Enforcement Administration, appointed to this position in January of 1976 by President Gerald R. Ford and confirmed by the United States Senate, serving over five and a half years under four different Attorneys General as director of this major federal investigative agency. The Drug Enforcement Administration is responsible for enforcement of U. S. narcotic and dangerous drug laws and has 4,000 employees in 160 t
.,-,-+-w- _ .- - . . . , ~ . , - . , , , , . . _ , _ , ,,,_.,,..,..-,--,,..n_..y_,,,--.,_ .,, ,- ,. ,,_ _ ny .n, ,,.,,,n,.,___e,.,_.-,.y. , , , ___
offices in the United States and 40 foreign countries. As Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, I was responsible for criminal investigations, laboratory services, intelligence, training for federal, state and local law enforcement, and regulation of the legal manufacture of controlled substances for legitimate medical use.
Prior to my appointment as Administrator, I served as Director of Corrections for the State of Illinois, Chairman of the Illinois Youth Commission, and Executive . Director of the Chicago Crime Commission. I have served as a principal delegate to INTERPOL for the United States in 1979, have served on the Executive Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and have been Chairman of this 12,000 member police organization's Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Committee. I have a bachelor's degree from Yale University. A vita is provided as Attachment A to this testimony.
Q3. Please describe the kinds of activities related to drug abuse in which your O co# #iti# rir m e=reses-A3. (PBB) Bensinger, DuPont & Associates is a national consulting firm which specializes in consultation services, training, audit and expert testimony dealing with the problems of substance abuse in the workplace. The firm has provided consultation and training services to major corporations in the public utility, pharmaceutical, energy, transportation, construction and computer fields. Our clients include American Airlines, Boise Cascade Corporation, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy, Edison Electric Institute, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Airport Security Council, American Gas Association, Times Mirror Companies, and national associations of parent groups, hospitals and health providers, and state and local government. The principals of the firm are Dr. DuPont and myself, with offices in Chicago and Rockville, Maryland. In addition, the firm has 16 associates who are retained on a contract basis for specific training and consultation assignments around the O eeeotrv- ^= eei t ' P ri #e oe =9 ei i =*iti i#eieee meaie i. 9a r- eetosie 2 laboratory counseling, employee assistance, and employee development and training.
Bensinger, DuPont & Associates has been one of the principal consulting resources for the public utility industry in general and the nuclear power industry in particular.
Clients have included Commonwealth Edison Co. of Chicago, Georgia Power, Boston Edison, Northeast Utilities, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Southern California Edison, Illinois Power, Public Service Electric & Gas, Virginia Electric & Power Company, Florida Power & Light, Union Electric, as well as Carolina Power & Light.
Bensinger, DuPont & Associates in addition has been retained by the Edison Electric Institute and has provided consultation services to the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. Among utilities, Bensinger, DuPont & Associates has conducted training sessions at over 20 different nuclear power plants in the United States, all of whom have received and are retaining licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
O As President of Bensinger, DuPont, I have provided expert testimony to Committees of the United States House and Senate, to the Federal Railway Administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and have been an expert witness at arbitration hearings and court proceedings involving the subjects of drug policy, drug testing, the health and safety hazards of drugs, and employer responsibilities. I have authored a monograph entitled " Drugs in the Workplace: Employers' Rights and Responsibilities," published by the Washington Legal Foundation in 1984, in addition to a number of articles published in the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune and Harvard Business Review on the subject of drug control and drugs in the workplace -
i issues. I have represented the nuclear power industry in discussions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in conjunction with the Edison Electric Institute on fitness-for-duty issues. I was retained by the Edison Electric Institute as a principal keynote speaker f
l during four regional conferences made available in 1984 to the utility industry in Los j !
1
)
Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta and New York City, and have visited personally and conducted O briefings and training sessions in over a dozen nuclear power plants in the United States, I
and for the largest nuclear utility companies with construction currently under way or recently completed.
Q4. Mr. Ferguson, please state your professional experience and educational background.
A4. (JDF) I have been employed by CP&L in various personnel administration positions since 1977. I have worked at the Shearon Harris site since August 1981, and have recruited for the Harris Project since I began my employment with CP&L. Prior to my employment with CP&L, I served as an officer in the United States Army, where I worked in supervisory roles and began working in the personnel field. I am a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point and a member of the American Society of Personnel Administrators. As part of my training in the Army, as well as with O
CP&L, I have participated in classes n drug awareness. While serving as the Personnel j Officer for an 800-man organization in the Army, I supervised the administration of the i drug screening program. Included in these responsibilities were drug sampling of Army personnel, chain of custody of urine specimens, processing results, the rehabilitation program and the amnesty program. A complete statement of my education, training and experience is provided as Attachment B to this testimony.
QS. What are your responsibilities in your present position, particularly with j
respect to the subject of this testimony?
AS. (JDF) My responsibilities as Director-Personnel Relations for the 1,200 CP&L employees at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant and the Energy and Environmental Center include, among other things, employment and orientation of new employees, training supervisors in Corporate policies and their interpretation, and i
supporting efforts to ensure compliance with Corporate employee policies and related l
I
l l
l government regulations at the plant site. With respect to CP&L's drug abuse policies, I have been responsible for and personally involved in the following: (a) compliance with the Interdepartmental Procedure in testing all applicants for employment with CP&L who require unescorted access to the site; (b) orientation of all new CP&L employees of the Company's policies on drug and alcohol abuse; (c) ensuring consistency in the administration of the Company's drug abuse program and advising management, on a case-by-case basis, on compliance with the Company's policies; and (d) administering the urinalysis drug screen examination program.
Q6. Mr. Flowers, what is your professional experience and educational background?
A6. (GWF) I have been employed by Daniel since 1978. My current responsibilities include assuring that Daniel projects have effective security programs, providing assistance to special investigations, and maintaining working relationships with O inw enforeement aseneies. i have a 8.A. de ree from Forman university and took various courses in Criminology and Criminal Justice from Greenville Technical College in association with the University of South Carolina Criminal Justice Program. I have three years of law enforcement experience, including work as an undercover operative for several narcotic investigations. I have also been responsible for drug training and the drug deterrent program for a county school system. As a part of my law enforcement training, I have attended seminars and workshops, presented by various law enforcement agencies, on drug abuse, drug identification and drug trafficking. A complete statement of my education, training and experience is provided as Attachment C to this testimony. With respect to drug use by Daniel employees, my personal role has included the preparation of a corporate drug polley that has been implemented throughout DIC, and the establishment of a drug awareness training program for Daniel supervisors. I have trained Daniel supervisors in both construction and in the Technical Services Division at the Shearon Harris site.
l i
l i
l Q7. Mr. Pannill, please describe your professional experience and educational background.
A7. (ARP) As Group Personnel Manager of the Process Group, I am responsible for supervising the personnel managers on a number of Daniel projects. I have been in this position since late August 1985. Previously I was Daniel Personnel Manager at the Harris Plant. Prior to coming to the Harris site in 1982, I worked for nearly seven years for Daniel at the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station. I have a B.A. degree from Lander College and extensive training in supervision and management, including drug awareness. While working as Personnel Manager at the Harris Plant, I was responsible for management of Daniel's Personnel Department at Harris, and for implementing and administering Daniel's personnel policies. In August 1984, I also assumed responsibility for managing Daniel's Industrial Relations Department at Harris. The Industrial Relations Department's responsibilities include administering and enforcing the O Dani 1/Shearen Harris dru Petier. My specific inveivement with that efferi has included recommendations on drug prevention measures, participation in active and confidential drug investigations, conducting searches, and determining whether or not probable cause exists to conduct searches or to perform urinalysis drug screen testing. A complete statement of my education, training and experience is provided as Attachment D to this j testimony.
Q8. Gentlemen, what is the purpose of your joint testimony?
A8. (PBB, JDF, GWF, ARP) The purpose of our testimony is to respond in part to the allegations in CCNC Contention WB-3 that Applicants' management has failed to control drug use during the construction of the Shearon Harris Plant.
Q9. How is the testimony organized?
A9. (PBB) Mr. Ferguson will describe the CP&L policy and procedure for drug abuse at the Shearon Harris site and the communication of this polley to employees. He O 1 I
will provide information on the urinalysis drug screen test used to identify drug use by j current and prospective employees. Mr. Ferguson will also describe the instruction on j drug abuse provided to all CP&L employees and the additional training provided to supervisors and managers. In addition, he will Identify the personnel policles followed once an employee is identified as or suspected of being involved in drug activity. Mr.
I Flowers and Mr. Pannill will discuss the pre-employment screening of applicants to work i
j for Daniel at the Harris site, Daniel's drug policy and its communication to the l employees, the drug awareness training provided to supervisors, and the means employed i
- to identify drug activity among employees. Finally, I will describe the role of Bensinger, I
DuPont & Associates in developing CP&L's program to control drug use at the Harris Project and will provide my evaluation of both CP&L's and Daniel's drug abuse policies, 4 procedures and programs.
1 l Q10. Mr. Ferguson, what is CP&L's policy with respect to drug use by employees O at the Shearon Harris nueiear Power Piante
! A10. (JDF) CP&L employees at the Shearon Harris site are subject to CP&L's I Drug and Alcohol Abuse Statement of Practice. The Statement, minus the provisions a
related to alcohol abuse, is as follows:
j The use, possession, or sale of narcotics, hallucinogens, depressants, stimulants, marijuana, or other controlled substances by an employee while
. on Company business or on Company property will result in disciplinary
] actions, including possible termination.
{ Any other use, possession, or sale of narcotics, hallucinogens, depressants, stimulants, marijuana, or controlled substances by an employee I that may adversely affect the employee's job performance, or that may j reflect unfavorably upon public or governmental confidence in the manner in -
which the Company carries out its responsibilities, may result in disciplinary j action, including possible termination.
This statement of practice does not apply to medication prescribed by j a licensed physician and taken in accordance with such prescription.
In order to provide guidance for assuring that Company practice on drug and alcohol abuse is adhered to at nuclear power plant sites, CP&L has adopted a Drug and Alcohol
.i
Interdepartmental Procedure. The Procedure prescribes the responsibilities of Department / Nuclear Project Managers, Manager-Employee Relations, and Department / Nuclear Project Section Managers. A copy of the procedure is provided as Applicants' Exhibit No. JO .
Q11. How are employees and applicants for employment made aware of this polley?
All. (JDF) Applicants for employment with CP&L at the Shearon Harris site are I
fully informed of the Company's Drug and Alcohol Abuse Statement of Practice and related Drug and Alcohol Interdepartmental Procedures. They are advised that a thorough five-year background investigation will be conducted, that drug screening procedures are a part of the required pre-employment physical examination, and that a professional evaluation using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is a part of the total preemployment procedure. Applicants are told that if the drug screen O
V Indicates the presence of drugs or controlled substances, not obtained and used according to a valid prescription, they will not be considered further for employment. Also, if the MMPI Indicates a background of or tendency toward drug or alcohol abuse or aberrant behavior in the opinion of professional advisors to the Company, they may not be considered further for employment.
Once employed, CP&L personnel assigned to the Harris site receive an instructional program entitled " Drug and Alechol Abuse Orientation for CP&L Employees," presented by Employee Relations and the Harris Training Unit. The instruction famillarizes employees with CP&L's Drug and Alcohol Abuse Practice and Procedures, the adverse impact of drug and alcohol abuse, and CP&L's Employee Assistance Program. Each employee is given the CP&L " Drug and Alcohol Abuse Reference Manual." A copy of the Manual is Applicants' Exhibit No.1. The Manual includes the Statement of Practice, a message from the Chairman / President of CP&L, O
_g.
and a summary of the Drug and Alcohol Interdepartmental Procedures. The Manual advises the employee that the Company may undertake announced or unannounced inspections, investigations and searches for illegal drugs and controlled substances. The Manual states that "the results of such actions may include a request that an employee have a Company-approved medical examination which will include a drug screen" and that "any employee who refuses to allow or cooperate with a properly authorized i
inspection, investigation or search may be subject to disciplinary action, including j possible termination." The last page of the Manual is detached and retained as the employee-signed record of participation in the orientation, of the employee's agreement to abide by the Statement of Practice and related Procedures, and of the employee's understanding that compliance with the Statement of Practice and related Procedures is required for continued employment with CP&L.
Q12. How do you screen employees and applicants to determine if they are drug O r=2 A12. (JDF) As I have indicated, a urinalysis drug screen test is used by CP&L for applicants for employment at the Harris site, and for site employees suspected of involvement in drug activity. Each employee consents to this examination as a condition of employment. I am the authorized CP&L agent for the Harris area who may order a drug screen urinalysis test. The urine specimen is collected by a local physician and, pursuant to an established written procedure designed to assure sample authenticity, is delivered to Compuchem Laboratories, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, with whom CP&L has a business agreement to perform urinalyses for the detection of drug use. The drug classes included in the CompuChem analysis are amphetamines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, cocaine, methadone, methaqualone, opiates, and phencyclidine. Each urine sample submitted to Compuchem first undergoes an Enzymen Multiplied Immunoassay Technique (EMIT) qualitative analysis. All positive
, EMIT analyses are confirmed by Gas Chromotography/ Mass Spectroscopy (GC/MS) quantitative analysis. This test program ensures that, if a drug is present, it will be detected by the EMIT test, and the quantity confirmed through the GC/MS analysis.
l (PBB) I would add that the testing techniques used at the CompuChem Laboratories are considered to be the most sophisticated and foolproof available.
Q.13. Does CP&L's drug abuse policy apply to the employees of contractors at the Harris site?
A.13. (JDF) Yes. CP&L has imposed, by contract amendment, a drug and alcohol abuse policy upon contractors at the site. A copy of the article incorporated into these contracts is provided as Applicants' Exhibit No. A. It requires the contractor to communicate to its employees CP&L's drug abuse policy, CP&L's right to search on its property, and CP&L's discretion to remove from the site any employee who does not cooperate with or is found to be in violation of CP&L's drug abuse policy.
O 914. what tvPe or trai#ies has ce&t uaaertaxe# tor its s=9erviserr Perso==ei with respect to controlling drug use at the Harris site?
I A14. (JDF) CP&L has a drug awareness training program for CP&L managers and supervisors (including first-line supervisors,1.3, foremen) at the Harris site designed to prepare them to recognize drugs and drug-related behavior, and to understand their responsibilities when such substances or behaviors are observed or reported on the job.
The supervisor is responsible for reporting any information on suspected drug activity, for removing from the job any employee having possession of or under the influence of drugs, and for initiating disciplinary action in accordance with the provisions of the Company's Drug and Alcohol Abuse Statement of Practice. The drug awareness training program enables supervision to carry out these responsibilities effectively. In developing its drug and alcohol abuse education efforts, CP&L utilized the expertise and guidance of numerous individuals and organizations with valuable experience, including other utility companies, Federal and local law enforcement personnel, the academic community, and consulting firms with national experience in the prevention of drug and alcohol abuse.
CP&L supervisors and managers at the Harris Plant have attended a " Drug and Alcohol Workshop for Supervisors," initially presented by the Plant Manager or his designee, the plant personnel representative and/or a designated instructor from the Employee Relations Department. This program provides the participants with a comprehensive review of CP&L's Drug and Alcohol Abuse Practices and Procedures and of their supervisory responsibilities under those Practices and Procedures. Participants are then provided with the skills necessary to implement the Practices and Procedures.
Subsequently, this training was incorporated into a " Workshop in the Assessment of Aberrant Behavior," a 12 to 16-hour course presented by Management Consultants of Chapel Hill. That course includes 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of instruction devoted to drug and alcohol abuse problems, practices and procedures. Each manager and supervisor receives, as a O Part of the drue awar ness trainine Pre ram, the CP&t Supervisor's Referenee Manuai.
Drug and Alcohol Abuse. This manual, a copy of which is Applicants' Exhibit No. g, illustrates the scope and content of the training provided. In addition to the Practices and Procedures, the manual describes drugs of common abuse (including identification of the drug, methods of use and signs / symptoms of use), guidance on observing and documenting changes in employee behavior, guidelines for administering CP&L's policy on drug abuse, behavior and job performance warning signs, a check-list for observing employee behavior, and guidelines for conducting a disciplinary interview.
Q15. Have there been other special programs on drug abuse control? -
A15. (JDF) Yes. In addition to this on-going and repeated (for new supervisors / managers) training program, CP&L in 1984 gave special attention to drug abuse control. On August 1,1984, CP&L management gathered for a briefing on drug and alcohol abuse control, presented by Mr. Bensinger, who is one of the foremost O
experts on drug and alcohol abuse in the United States. Subsequently, refresher training on drug and alcohol abuse was conducted by Mr. Bensinger's associates and CP&L personnel at the Harris site in August 1984, for CP&L supervisors. A description of this refresher training is Applicants' Exhibit No. G4 .
In a further effort to remind personnel of the importance the Company attaches to its drug and alcohol abuse practices and procedures, CP&L employees at the Harris site, as well as contractor personnel who attend the routine safety meetings, recently received a videotape " Drug and Alcohol Abuse Refresher Training" session presented by Mr. Edward E. Utley, CP&L Executive Vice President. A transcript of the videotape is Applicants' Exhibit No. J5.
Q16. Does CP&L vigorously enforce this drug abuse policy?
A16. (JDF) In my position as Director-Personnel Relations for the Harris site, I can state unequivocally that CP&L vigorously enforces its drug abuse polley. Our O eensistent Practice has been to encourage emvierees to eeoperate with the implementation of that policy, but to terminate employees who violate it.
Q17. Mr. Flowers and Mr. Pannill, with respect to the Daniel drug abuse control prograim, what kind of background check do you do on prospective employees?
A17. (GWF, ARP) All prospective Daniel employees at the Harris site are subjected to pre-employment background verification, which includes, with respect to previous employment, confirmation of the dates of employment, job classification, performance rating and the reason (s) for termination. Any criminal records listed on the employment application are reviewed, and incidents involving drug-related activity in the applicant's background are' viewed as grounds for denial of employment.
Q.18. What proportion of the Harris contractor work force are Daniel or Daniel subcontractor employees?
A.18. (ARP) The employees of Daniel and of Daniel's subcontractors represent O
roughly 70 percent of the site work force.
Q19. Please describe the drug abuse policy that pertainc to Daniel employees at the Harris site.
A19. (GWF, ARP) Daniel's drug policy at the Shearon Harris site is governed by two procedures: one which applies to the Technical Services Division (employees involved in quality confirmation roles in Quality Control or Construction Inspection) and another for all other employees. Procedure TSD-SH-207, " Security Actions / Illegal Drugs and Other Contraband Materials," provides that employees are forbidden to use, sell, possess or be under the influence of illegal drugs while on Daniel or CP&L property and that violation of this prohibition is cause for immediate discharge. The procedure states that Daniel may take any of the following steps while employees are on Daniel /CP&L property: observe actions of employees; counsel emp:ayees; search employees' personal items, automobiles or persons; require searches with canines; requi e drug screen G
Q urinalysis testing. If the employee refuses a search, he/she is immediately discharged.
The procedure prescribes the steps to be taken, and the action responsibilities, to implement the policy. A copy of this Technical Services Division procedure is provided as Applicants' Exhibit No. 36. Procedure DCC-PE-510, " Security Actions / Illegal Drugs and Other Contraband Materials," governs other Daniel employees and has provisions similar to the TSD procedure just described. A copy of DCC-PE-510 is provided as Applicants' Exhibit No. 07 . In addition, by memorandum of December 26,1984 to all Daniel / Davis employees from C.C. Wagoner, Project General Manager, the drug policy was restated and supplemented to provide that "[e]ffective January 10,1985, the consent to search provisions will include urinalysis testing at the discretion of senior project management when probable cause has been established that an employee has violated the site drug and alcohol abuse policy." A copy of Mr. Wagoner's memorandum is provided as Applicants' Exhibit No. J6
(
4
(] Q20. How are Daniel employees informed of this policy?
A20. (GWF, ARP) Daniel employees are introduced to its drug policy for the Harris site in several ways. All new employees and all employees transferring from other Daniel worksites are introduced to the drug and alcohol policy through an employee orientation. During this orientation, the drug and alcohol policies are reinforced in the following ways:
The presentor reads and reviews the drug policy letter of the Daniel Construction Company and re-emphasizes the company's commitment to the enfc: cement 'of this policy, including searches, inspection of the employee and his/her property, and the right to require a urinalysis of an employee for " probable cause." The searches are re-emphasized and the employees are advised that dogs may be onsite which would be used to locate drugs.
(q/
During a video orientation, wh'ch includes a general discussion of the project itself and also acts as a visual orientation to the overall work
/ procedures at the site, there is a clear and specific discussion of the drug I
and alcohol policy. The video expressly notes that one can " lose one's job" for violating safety or security rules or possessing or using beer, liquor, or unlawful drugs, or performing unsafe acts because of the use of beer, liquor, or unlawful drugs. In addition, the video discusses the Quality Check program, wherein employees are encouraged to make any observations on the worisite regarding the safety of the worksite, the procedures at the worksite or anything else that might be identified as a problem which other programs may have missed.
1 O l
l Each employee is given an employee handbook to read during the orientation period and before he/she begins the job. The handbook states that incapacitation through alcohol, drugs or other substances, and the possession of dangerous weapons, alcohol or illegal substances on company property, are offenses which can lead to an immediate involuntary termination. After the employee has read the employee handbook, he/she is required to fill out an affidavit certifying that he/she has received a copy of the handbook, has read it, and will abide by all of its rules and regulations.
This certification become a part of the employees' personnel file at the site.
In addition, employees are reminded of the drug and alcohol policy through I posters and bulletin board items throughout the worksite. Supervisory emphasis is also given to this topic at weekly safety meetings or other meetings during which the f3 V supervisors may be meeting with their employees. Mr. Wagoner's memorandum, which we previously discussed, also served as an important reminder to employees of the drug policy.
Q21. What are the responsibilities of Daniel supervisors at the Harris site in the area of drug abuse control and how are they trained to fulfill those responsibilities?
A21. (GWF, ARP) Daniel supervisors are responsible for reporting suspected drug activity and for taking immediate action if drug activity is observed. The supervisors receive special training on drug awareness and Daniel's policy so that they can better fulfill those responsibilities. Supervisors are given the written drug policy which appears -
in a Personnel-prepared Supervisor's Handbook. The drug awareness training provided to supervisors familiarizes the participants with Daniel's drug policy and how to implement it. We also teach the supervisors how to recognize drugs with high abuse rates (e.g.,
marijuana, cocaine and different forms of speed), how to recognize the symptoms of drug
abuse in an employee, and the supervisor's role in carrying out the policy. This training program was developed from information provided by Federal and locallaw enforcement I
agencies, medical doctors and pathologists, and the training content has been reviewed for accuracy by law enforcement experts and medical doctors. The presentation is made by an instructor on-site using slides, static displays of drug paraphernalla, and a drug display kit which was commercially purchased. A general outline of the information presented in the Supervisory Drug Awareness Program is provided as Applicants' Exhibit No.1. In addition, a copy of " Controlled Substances: Use, Abuse and Effects,"
prepared by the U. S. Drug Enforcement Administration and provided to the supervisors, is Applicants' Exhibit No._'fp_.
Q22. What mechanisms exist for identifying drug use or activity among Daniel employees? !
A22. (GWF, ARP) The project-wide means for identifying d . use/ activity O deseribed in the testimony of the witness panel <=essrs. Hindman, xine, evner and
- Bensinger) on the assessment of employee drug activity apply as well to Daniel employees. In addition, Daniel site Industrial Relations representatives conduct active surveillance for visible drug activity and receive reports from employees on known or i
suspected drug activity. Daniel provides any information it receives or develops on i
known or suspected drug activity to Mr. Hindman of CP&L. Daniel employees may also use the project Quality Check program and the Daniel Open Door Policy to report drug information. Daniel employees have received instruction on the use and availability of the Quality Check program as an avenue for reporting any alleged problem on a confidential, or even an anonymous, basis. The employees are also encouraged to use the Daniel Open Door Policy, which is discussed with each new hire and is the subject of posters throughout the project, to raise problems with their supervision and, if not i
satisfied, to contact further levels of management.
4 Q23. Does Daniel use urinalysis testing on employees who are suspected of drug use?
A23. (GWF,ARP) Yes. Consistent with CP&L's practice for its employees involved in quality confirmation roles, Daniel personnel in such positions (Quality Control or Construction Inspection) undergo urinalysis drug screen testing whenever information on suspected drug use or other drug activity is provided to Daniel. Urinalysis testing is performed on other Daniel employees when probable cause, through other means of drug detection, has been established to suspect drug activity. Daniel utilizes CompuChem laboratories, as does CP&L, to perform the urinalysis drug screens. Mr. Ferguson has already described the testing process.
Q24. Mr. Bensinger, have you been involved in the development and review of CP&L's drug abuse policy at the Harris Plant?
A24. (PBB) Yes. Our firm, Bensinger, DuPont & Associates, has provided policy O
d consultation to CP&L and provided supervisory training to all CP&L management and supervisory personnel at their nuclear facilities and headquarters locations. The program included a meeting with top management; briefings to security, employee relations and nuclear power plant management personnel; development of a supervisory training manual and the CP&L Supervisor's Reference Manual, Drug and Alcohol Abuse which is Applicants' Exhibit No. J3; and on-site training by Bensinger, DuPont associates Mickey Glasco and Dr. Richard Bucher, who have had extensive experience in the substance abuse field and particular experience in providing training at nuclear power facilities, including those operated by the Georgia Power Company and Virginia Electric & Power Company. Training included a review of CP&L drug and alcohol policy by CP&L officials, an awareness presentation by Bensinger, DuPont experts and discussion of CP&L guidelines and resources available to assist management in implementing this program. The awareness portion of the presentation, which has been used by Edison O
l l
l
a Electric Institute as a model, included information about specific drugs which might be i
impairing an individual in the work place, as well as a segment on " signs and symptoms" designed to alert supervisors to possible drug-related work impairment. An outline of the ;
1 training material used for the supervisors is Applicants' Exhibit No.JJ.
i More recently, in response to the allegations made by CCNC, I met with CP&L Security and Harris Project management personnel to review the current status of efforts by CP&L and its contractors to control drug use at the site. I have also reviewed the information provided in the other affidavits and testimony filed by Applicants which respond to the CCNC contention. Finally, Dr. Bucher, Manager of our Rockville office, recently visited the site in order to advise me on the actual implementation by CP&L and Daniel of their drug abuse policies, procedures and programs.
Q25. What do you consider the basic elements of an effective program for controlling drug use in the workplace?
l O ^2 5. (gee > rirst, as 1 expiain in greater detati in my testimony on the identification of employees involved in drug use, it must be recognized that drug abuse is i a serious problem throughout American society and a threat to any work place.
Companies that have faced up to the reality of this threat have implemented multi-phased programs to deal with this issue, including:
(1) distribution to all employees of a clear company policy on drugs; (2) providing management with clear orientation and training on the issue i
of substance abuse in the work place and the need for management j intervention; l (3) provided training to supervisors on the recognition and warning signs of drugs and alcohol; (4) maintaining close liaison with locallaw enforcement, including requests i for undercover investigations; (5) deployment from time to time of canine units for searches of nuclear power and construction site facilities; O
l
(6) maintaining consistency of discipline and denial of access for employees
_) who appear to have violated company or construction site rules with respect to drugs and alcohol; (7) initiated preemployment and fitness-for-duty testing of employee body fluids for prohibited substances as a method of reinforcement of company policy; (8) notification of contractors' obligation to comply with CP&L drug and alcohol policy.
Q26. How does CP&L's program stack up in these areas?
A26. (PBB) In the case of Carolina Power & Light, all of these principal initiatives were undertaken: supervisors were trained by professionals with respect to warning signs and symptoms of drug abuse; all employees received the drug abuse policy and supervisors received guidelines with respect to the implementation of company policy; contractors were put on notice with respect to their own responsibilities regarding drug activity by contractor and the subcontractor employees; canine searches took place at Harris, as did undercover investigations, in concert with state and local law O enforcement; fitness for duty testing has been initiated; and a top laboratory (Mead CompuChem), utilizing the most sophisticated and foolproof testing techniques available, was selected to provide chemical testing for preemployment and fitness-for-duty purposes. All of these efforts, including a top commitment from management, conform to the Edison Electric Institute's guide for drug control.
Q27. Please elaborate on your assessment of the supervisor training program at Harris.
A27. (PBB) The effectiveness of CP&L's, Daniels' and other contractors' training and supervisory methods to address drug control at the Harris construction site have been reviewed by Dr. Bucher and myself. It is our judgment that the initiatives undertaken meet or exceed standards in other nuclear power plant locations and meet the need to address the threat of drug abuse at the construction site.
O
,_ . _ . __ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ . _ . - ~ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _
The training program for supervisors at Harris is comprehensive and has involved active participation from supervisory members with trainers on location. Such training program will continue with updated awareness programs. It is my judgment that the training provided to the supervisors on identification of the symptoms of drug abuse enables the supervisors to recognize unusual behavior and to initiate intervention prior to the worker becoming so impaired that he would compromise safety-related work.
Q28. Does the fact that instances of drug use among employees have been reported cast doubt on the effectiveness of the drug policy?
A28. (PBB) Not at all. The fact that ongoing abuse or use has been reported as a result of an undercover investigation and by other means does not discount the contractors' and CP&L efforts. On the contrary, it would be of far more concern if there were no initiatives undertaken by companies with local law enforcement or through i
intervention by management disclosing such use and abuse. In government, as well as in O industrv. vioiations of drue Peliev and the abuse end saie of drues have taken giace.
including within the last several months the arrest of FBI agents for the sale of cocaine, of DEA agents for the use of controlled substances, and of postal workers for drug distribution. Companies and government agencies should take a proactive stance, i providing education, training, and also employee assistance as well as security measures, drug testing, canine searches and undercover probes. In this regard, the CP&L Employee Assistance program has been established and a top professional is on staff who has visited principal nuclear power plant and construction site facilities to increase employee awareness about this program.
Q29. Mr. Bensinger, please summarize your assessment of the drug abuse policies i
in place at the Harris construction site.
A29. (PBB) My assessment of CP&L's drug abuse and control procedures in place at the Harris Project is that they meet the needs and standards of the industry; that the O
(
l l
I polleles are in keeping with the Edison Electric Institute, INPO and Nuclear Regulatory Commission objectives; and that CP&L has sought qualified expertise to assist in policy assessment and development, and has reached out for consultation and training expertise to assist in briefings to management, training for supervisors, communication programs to contractors, and testing for fitness for duty and preemployment purposes.
'CP&L's training program for supervisors to identify warning signs and symptoms of drug use and aberrant behavior, combined with the Supervisor's Reference Manual, the briefing to top management and Harris Plant supervisors, professional health and safety presentations with interaction and question and answer sessions with supervisory personnel by experts on substance abuse, preemployment and fitness-for-duty testing, and contractor notification and specific supervisor training are critical initiatives necessary to surface and arrest drug use and abuse in the work place.
Based on Bensinger, Dupont & Associates' input to and review of CP&L's O policy aee trainie, program, our en-site review of the contreetor training pregram, and our familiarity with practices within the nuclear power industry and at other utilities and construction sites specifically, I conclude that the Harris drug control efforts have met or exceed the industry standard and reflect the practices and experiences, as well as problems, found in other locations. CP&L and Daniel have taken specific and appropriate actions to control drug use and other drug activity at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
Q30. Does this conclude your direct testimony?
A30. (PBB, JDF, GWF, ARP) Yes. -
O
Attachment A BIOGRAPHY O of PETER B. BENSIICER Bensinger, DuPont & Associates Peter B. Bensinger is President of Bensirger, DuPont & Associates, a professional consulting firm providing services to private industry, national and comunity organizations, professional sports, and government on drug abuse policy.
Prior to forming this consultirg service with Dr. Robert DuPont, Bensinger served as Administrator of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration. He was appointed to this position in January of 1976 by President Gerald R. Ford and was confirmed by the Senate, serving over 5-1/2 years under four different Attorneys General as Director of this major federal investigative agency. The Drug Enforcement Administration is responsible for enforcement of U. S. narcotic ard dargerous drug laws and has 4,000 employees in 160 offices in the United States ard 40 foreign countries. 'The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is responsible for criminal investigations, laboratory services, intelligence, training for federal, state, and local law enforcement, and regulation of the legal manufacture of controlled substances for legitimate medical use.
During Bensinger's tenure, heroin overdose deaths decreased frm 2,000 Q a year in 1976 to 800 in 1980, while heroin imports fell frcm 7 tons to under 4 tons per year. Legislation enacted in 1978 provided for the l forfeiture of assets derived frm illegal drug trafficking to be seized by the government. ,
Prior to Bensinger's appointment in Washington, he served as Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections with direct responsibility for all penitentiaries, reformatories, training schools, ard parole supervision.
During this period he was elected by directors of other state prison systems as President of the Association of State Correctional Administra-tors. He has served as Chairman of the Illinois Youth Comtission, Chief of the Crime Victims Division of the Illinois Attorney General's Office, and as Executive Director of the Chicago Crime Ccmnission.
Bensinger held responsible psitions with- the Brunswick Corporation ,
frcxn 1958 to 1968, serving as General Sales Manager for Brunswick United Kingdom in Iondon, England, as General Sales ~ Manager 'for Europe in Frank-furt, Germany, and as General Merchandise Manager of Brunswick Interna-tional in Chicago.
He was a principal delegate to Interpol for the United States in 1978, was appointed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police to serve on the Executive Ccmmittee of this 12,000 menber police organization, and was Chairman of its Narcotic ard Dangerous Drug Ccumittee. He has been honored by the National Sheriffs Association with Honorary Life Mentership O #a a receivea ao=or rv ooctor or ' ~ aeerees er = s = a rcos oaiver ier in Lima, Peru, and Dankook University in Seoul, Korea, for outstardirg leadership in international drug control.
l l \
L __
Peter B. Bensinger page 2 Bensinger, DuPont and Associates have provided consultation and training services to American Airlines, Boise Cascade Corporation, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Cmpany, Ccmrenwealth Edison Co. , the F.B.I.
National Academy, Georgia Power, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Edison Electric Institute, Airport Security Council, American Gas Association, Times Mirror, national associations of parents groups, hospitals and
, health providers, and major companies in the pharmaceutical, energy, 1 transportation, construction ard ccmputer fields. Both the Senate ard !
House of Representatives have sought Mr. Bensinger's testinony, and he has j j lectured widely throughout the United States on the subject of drug control, l drugs in the workplace, and the need for consistency in corporate and goverreent policy. He has authored a nu:roer of articles published in the -
New York Times, he Washincton Post, Chicaco Tribune, and in other national l and international publications on law enforcenent and drug abuse, ard has appeared on network evening news programs, the 'Itday Show, Good Mornina America, Issues and Answers, the MacNeil-Lehrer Re:crt, and Nightline.
The November-December 1982 issue of the Harvard Business Review featured a Special Report by Bensinger on " Drugs in the Workplace," and he has been quoted on this subject in 1983 and 1984 cover stories in Time, Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report. Mr. Bensinger authored a nonograph published by the Washington Legal Foundation in 1984 entitled Drucs e the Workolace:
Dnoloyers' Rights and Responsibilities.
Mr. Bensinger has been awarded the Distinguished Service Medal frcm the Government of Peru. He has been the recipient of the U. S. Distin-guished Service Award frcm the Coast Guard, the highest award presented to a civilian, and has received special commendation for outstanding leadership in equal employment opportunity from the Department of Justice.
We John Howard Association awarded Bensirger its highest recognition for outstanding service in the field of corrections in 1971. He was Man-of-the-Year for the Spanish-American Congress of Chicago in 1975 and was awarded the Distirguished Alumni Service Award by the Chicago Latin School in 1978. Mr. Bensinger has served on the Board of Trustees of many civic ard professional organizations, includirg the Phillips Exeter Academy, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, the American Correctional Association, the Juvenile Protective Association, the Chicago Council for Comunity Services, the City Club of Chicago, and the American Bar Association's National Ccrrmission on Corrections. He has been a member of the Visiting Ccanittee on the Humanities of the University of Chicago and a member of the Illinois Law Enforcenent Commission. In 1981 he was General Chairman of the Boy Scouts of Anerica Explorer Scouts National Law Enforcement Conference. Prcm 1973 until 1985, Bensinger has represented the United States Attorney General on the six-member Board of Directors of Federal Prison Industries, Inc. , a SISO-million government corporation responsible for industry in the Federal Penitentiary System.
i O Mr. Bensinger, a graduate of Yale University, was born in 1936 and speaks French, Spanish, and Italian. He is married to a physician, Judith S. Bensinger. Wey have four children.
Attachment B JOHN DAVID FERGUSON 1809 SPINY RIDGE CT. *
)
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27612 ,
Homs Phone: 848-2287 (919) Work Phone: 362-2642 (919) 1 OBJECTIVE :
J A managerial position in personnel administration.
EDUCATION High' School - Burbank High School, Burbank, California. Concentration in pre-college curriculum with emphasis on math and science.
College - United States Military Academy, West Point, New York. Batchelor !
of Science degree in General Engineering with courses in managerial science.
Graduate - University of Kentucky, Fort Knox, Kentucky. Seven credits in psychology.
EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
Managerial - Over 12 years of management experience in the United States Army and industry.
Personnel Administration - Generalist experience (8 years) and recruitment of technical and administrative professionals (4 years).
Training - Experience in training employees and supervisors in labor relations EEO, recruitment, drug / alcohol seminars, and interviewing techniques.
Maintenance / Logistics - Preventive maintenance, program development, procurement, accounting, and planning.
Start-up - Support of plant start-up of a nuclear power plant in a personnel relations capacity.
WORK HISTORY September 1977 - Present: Carolina Power and Licht Company
- May '83 - Present: Director - Personnel Relations Harris Area Provide the personnel support in the start-up of a nuclear power plant and an environmental center. Population of the area is 1200 personnel. Duties include the management of a personnel office including personnel relations (generalist personnel duties), recruitment of all categories of people needed to build and support the plant, and safety which includes preventive as well as investigative respon-sibilities.
4
-. , r - - , . , _ _ . _ - _ . , _ . - _ - ,,.-,._,.m,., _ . , - , . _ _ - . . . ,__-,,,s .
.c.. --.y-,__, _ , . ,-, --- c-- - -
August '81 - May'83: Personnel Representative Provide personnel support to a nuclear and a fossil power plant as well as an environmental center. Total population of the area covered was approximately Os 625 personnel. The duties included policy interpretation, career counseling, wage and benefit administration, training, employment, and solving personnel related problems to support management.
June '80 - July '81: Coordinator - Professional Recruitment Managed the recruitment activities of all categories of professional personnel.
This included the recruitment scheduling, budget preparation and compli.ance, planning, and developing strong ties' with placement directors and faculty members at 32 different schools.
September '77 - May '80: Recruitment Representctive/Sr. Recruitment Rep.
Responsible for all engineering recruitment including advertising, campus interviewing, test administration, and scheduling. Involved in the implementation of a computerized applicant flow system.
July 1977 - September 1977 Seeking Employment June 1972 - July 1977: United States Army October '76 - July '77: Troop Commander Managed the basic and advanced training of new army recruits for the cavalry branch of the Army. Duties included the management of tactical training, supply, maintenance of equipment to support the training, development and implementation of performance measurements, and the health and welfare of 200 personnel on a
() 13 week rotating cycle.
! September '75 - October '76: Personnel Officer Managed the personnel function in military organizations. I was responsible for the administration of pay, judicial and non-judicial punishment, race relations and equal opportunity training, recruitment, safety, awards, transfers, and -
personnel utilization.
October '74 - September '75: Troop Executive Officer Responsible for the logistices in a 160 man unit. I managed the troop maintenance program to include the preventive maintenance activities as well as procurement and planning.
April '73 - October '74: Platoon Leader Responsible for the training and welfare of 40 personnel. I managed the mainten-ance of the platoon evapons systems and vehicles as well as tactical maneuvers.
Equipment worth was approximately $3 million. _
June '72 - April '73: Training .
PROFESSIONAL / COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS Professional - American Society of Personnel Administrators Community - Saint Francis United Methodist Church O REFERENCES - Furnished upon request i
1
Attachment c.
GARRY W. FLOWERS
. (}]) Senior Industrial Relations Representative September 20, 1951 EDUCATION New York State Regents High School - 1969 Ulster. County Community College, A. A.S. - 1971 Furman University, B.A. - 1973
SUMMARY
OF EXPERIENCE Three years related experience in law enforcement work including investigations of major crimes and preparing criminal cases for both grand jury and jury trials. Attended training for new officers at South Carolina Law Enforcement Division in Columbia. Received additional training and first hand experience in crowd control, relating to union activity. Assisted the IR function in setting up security pl an for Nissan Plant groundbreaking.
Involved in executing the Daniel IR plan at three major scenes of union i picketing against Daniel employees. Assisted in setting up three security subcontract jobs on Daniel construction sites and helped put together security manuals for all three sites. Assisted in setting up total self-perform n- security force on major Daniel jobs along with training manuals and course and security manuals. Assisted in setting up seminar for Union Camp security V
guards.
SPECIAL TRAINING Practical Law and The Security Manager - 1982 Drug Abuse and Drug Traffic Prevention - 1977 Drug Abuse and the Criminal Justice System - 1977 SLED School of Defensive Driving - 1976 TECHNICAL / PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES American Society For Industrial Security EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 11/80-Present Senior Industrial Relations Representative Daniel International Corporation Corporate Offices Greenville, SC O
i 7 , . , - , -3 _._%- g _,7 , -_ ,., - - . , _ . _ . , , _ _ _ , . , _ , , _ _ ,-,%, _ _ , .-..,--.___,__._._,____,.,y
I l
Specific Responsibilities: j Ensure that projects in sensitive areas have an effective security program. (
Provide assistance with special investigations as required. Assist in setting up security programs for new jobs and monitor jobs to ensure they meet IR standards. Responsible for establishing and maintaining criteria for security standards to be used in this company. Assist in handling any union related unrest on any Daniel project. Establish and maintain good working !
relationship with law enforcement agencies.
- ,.........***.****...,****,,,**,,,,***,,,,,*****,,,**,*,,,,,,,,............ l l
4/80-11/80 l Industrial Relations Representative Daniel International Company l Corporate Office Greenville, SC j Specific Responsibilities:
Responsible for doing area labor marketing analysis surveys. This consisted of visiting areas of the country that might be the site of Daniel work and gathering information to be used in determining the labor posture for that specific work. Information was gathered from such agencies as the Chamber of Commerce, Associated General . Contractors and various other construction support groups.
q (V **,************,,,*****************,,,,,,,,***,*********,..***,,,,,,,,..,*,,
11/78-4/80 Representative, Power Group
- Daniel Construction Company Corporate Office Greenville, SC Specific Responsibilities:
Assistant to the Power Group Division Personnel Manager. Responsible for recruiting for the eleven power group f acil i. tie s . Processed all salary changes ~ for the projects in the field. Liaison between corporate personnel and site personnel.
O
--r - , . .
i Attachment D O 04~ie' i"TeasAriosi' coaroRATioN PROFESSIONAL
SUMMARY
NAME: Reid Pannill POSITION: Group Personnel Manager EDUCATION: Bachelor of Science, Lander College, Greenwood, South Ca rolina,1982 SPECIAL TRAINING: 200 hou rs Seminar Training in Supervision and Management plus additional training in Labor Relations, Drug Awareness, and Employee Training Programs.
EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
.r ,
Seven years' supervision and records maintenance experience and five years' personnel administration including two years' training experience. -
i
- j
. 1985 - Present: Group Personnel Manager, Daniel Construction Company, Greenville, South Carolina . Responsibilities include but not limited to planning and administering a total personnel management program for projects within the Process Division, including wage and salary, benefits, lO employment, manpower planning, client Interfacing, staff development, proposals and employee relations activities. Responsibilities also include supervision of project personnel managers in the application and interpretation of personnel procedures and practices.
. 1982 - 1985: Personnel Manager 11, Daniel Construction Company, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (CPt,L), New Hill, North Carolina. Responsible for implementing and administering company personnel policies.
Responsible for management of personnel and industrial relations departments . Responsibilities also included all recruitment, employment practices, discharge, wage and salary administration, record maintenance, preventative labor relation activities, plus company insurance and benefit p rog rams . Responsible for assistance in EEO, AAP, and NLRB and preventative litigation matters. Responsible for reviewing site training programs. Also responsible for providing employee counseling, out-placement and career guidance. Responsible for the administration of company's craft certification program. Responsible for maintaining working ~
. relationship with site and corporate industrial relations representatives.
. 1981 - 1982: Personnel Manager I, Daniel Construction Company, V.C.
Summer Nuclear Station, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Responsible for administering personnel policies and procedures as approved by the Vice President Personnel Management. Responsible for managing Personnel
- Department. Responsibilities also included administering wage and salary l program, employment, terminations, preventative labor relation activities, EEO prog ram, monitoring and assisting managers in personnel policy O administration, placement of salaried and craft employees upon release, 09/85 161 l
- 1 Professional Summary :
O a ie e ##"'
Page Two i
company insurance and benefits programs, providing employee counseling and development, administering of Craft Certification Program and handled any complaints filed by appropriate State agencies.
. 1980 - 1981: Personnel Supervisor, Daniel Construction Company, V.C.
Summer Nuclear Station, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Responsible for ;
administering the personnel policies and procedures as approved by the Vice President Personnel Management. Includes, but is not limited to the recruitment, employment, benefits, wage and salary administration, preventative labor relations activities, personnel data maintenance and statistics, equal opportunity programs and other related employee / employer relations programs.
. 1979 - 1980: Personnel Representative I and ll, Dani'el Construction Company, V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Jenkinsville, South Carolina.
Interviewed salaried and hourly overhead applicants for employment,and process application forms . Assisted Personnel Manager in administ'e ring the personnel policies and procedures as approved by the Vice President.
Assisted in recruiting, employment, wage and salary administration, personnel records maintenance and statistics, group and Workmen's Compensation insurance programs, EEO and AAP program and employee
, relation programs.
. 1978 - 1979: Document Control Supervisor, Daniel Construction Company, V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Responsible for the distribution and control of all on-site design documents and procedu res . Administered a department comprised of twenty-three employees which include::' interviewing, training, and evaluating.
t Interacted with outside vendors regarding the use cost and sale of ,
reproduction equipment. Corresponded with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding procedural compliance.
. 1977 - 1978: Assistant Document Control Supervisor, Daniel Construction Company, V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Jenkinsville, South Carolina.
Assisted the Document Control Supervisor with the aforementioned.
Maintained supply inventories and interfaced with department managers l regarding distribution problems and the transfer of personnel.
! . 1977: Document Control Technician, Daniel Construction Company, V.C. ~
Summer Nuclear Station, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Responsible for the efficient operation of the site print room. Determined the daily work schedule for responsible personnel. Operated and occasionally repaired all reproduction equipment as needed. Maintained file of all safety and non-safety design documents. Performed field audits of documents.
1976 - 1977: Document Control Clerk, Daniel Construction Company, V.C.
Summer Nuclear Station, Jenkinsville, South Ca rolina. Operated all O reproduction equipment. Performed regular preventative maintenance of equipment. Ordered needed supplies. Took requests for drawings. Filed drawings.
09/S5 161 I
.-+---w ,---.y . m em ---,-----.m ------ww-w-
, -,,-,v-y- _.,,,-,-,,,--y m-,-- w-, -,w--, , - , - - , - - , , ,--<-1,- - - -
Professional Summary O Reid Pannill Page Three i
l 1975 - 1976: Laborer, Daniel Construction Company, V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Jenkinsville, South Ca rolina. Performed, under direct supervision, all the basic activities required for the labor crafts. -
M O
I O
4 09/85 161
---__,-,,.-._-.__-....-,.-,_,___,-__,,_______--_m...
l
' i.
, i t
O l
l i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant) ) l
) 1 O APPLICANTS' TESTIMONY OF PETER B. BENSINGER, JOHN D. FERGUSON, G ARRY W. FLOWERS AND A. REID PANNILL ON DRUG ABUSE CONTROL POLICIES AND TRAINING (CCNC CONTENTION WB-3) l l
l i
9-
p-y
,. Q1. Gentlemen, please state your names, present occupations, employers and business addresses for the record.,
A1. (PBB) My name is Peter B. Bensinger. Currently I am President and Chief Executive Officer of the firm of Bensinger, DuPont & Associates, Inc.,20 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606, a professional consulting firm providing services to private industry, national and community organizations, and government, on the problems of drug and alcohol abuse, including its impact on the workplace.
(JDF) My name is John D. Ferguson. My business address is P. O. Box 93, New Hill, North Carolina 27562. I am employed by Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) as Director-Personnel Relations for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
(GWF) My name is Garry W. Flowers. My business address is Daniel Building, Greenville, South Carolina 29602. I am employed by Daniel International Corporation (DIC) as Manager of Corporate Security in the Industrial Relations Department. Daniel is the constructor of the plant.
(ARP) My name is A. Reid Pannill. My business address is Daniel Building, Greenville, South Carolina 29602. I am employed by Daniel Construction Company as Group Personnel Manager of the Process Group. Between December 1982 and August 1985, I was Daniel Personnel Manager at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
Q2. Mr. Bensinger, please describe your professional and educational background.
A2. (PBB) Prior to forming the consulting firm of Bensinger, DuPont &
Associates with Dr. Robert L. DuPont, I served as Administrator of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, appointed to this position in January of 1976 by President Gerald R. Ford and confirmed by the United States Senate, serving over five and a half years under four different Attorneys General as director of this major federal investigative agency. The Drug Enforcement Administration is responsible for enforcement of U. S. narcotic and dangerous drug laws and has 4,000 employees in 160
offices in the United States and 40 foreign countries. As Administrator of the Drug O Enforcement Administration, I was responsible for criminal investigations, laboratory services, intelligence, training for federal, state and local law enforcement, and regulation of the legal manufacture of controlled substances for legitimate medical use.
Prior to my appointment as Administrator, I served as Director of Corrections 'for the State of Illinois, Chairman of the Illinois Youth Commission, and Executive Director of the Chicago Crime Commission. I have served as a principal delegate to INTERPOL for the United States in 1979, have served on the Executive Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and have been Chairman of this 12,000 member police organization's Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Committee. I have a bachelor's degree from Yale University. A vita is provided as Attachment A to this testimony.
Q3. Please describe the kinds of activities related to drug abuse in which your consulting firm engages.
A3. (PBB) Bensinger, DuPont & Associates is a national consulting firm which specializes in consultation services, training, audit and expert testimony dealing with the problems of substance abuse in the workplace. The firm has provided consultation and training services to major corporations in the public utility, pharmaceutical, energy, transportation, construction and computer fields. Our clients include American Airlines, Boise Cascade Corporation, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy, Edison Electric Institute, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Airport Security Council, American Gas Association, Times Mirror Companies, and national associations of parent groups, hospitals and health providers, and state and local government. The principals of the firm are Dr. DuPont and myself, with offices in Chicago and Rockville, Maryland. In addition, the firm has 16 associates who are retained on a contract basis for specific training and consultation assignments around the l
l l - - ._ - _ . . _- . -. _-- . _ .--
f, country. Associates' experience and special skills include medical, pharmacological, b laboratory counseling, employee assistance, and employee development and training.
Bensinger, DuPont & Associates has been one of the principal consulting resources for the public utility industry in general and the nuclear power industry in particular.
Clients have included Commonwealth Edison Co. of Chicago, Georgia Power, Boston Edison, Northeast Utilities, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Southern California Edison, Illinois Power, Public Service Electric & Gas, Virginia Electric & Power Company, Florida Power & Light, Union Electric, as well as Carolina Power & Light.
Bensinger, DuPont & Associates in addition has been retained by the Edison Electric Institute and has provided consultation services to the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. Among utilities, Bensinger, DuPont & Associates has conducted training sessions at over 20 different nuclear power plants in the United States, all of whom have received and are retaining licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
^= Prestee=t or 8e"=i"ser o=" "t t " eve 9rovidea expert testi= "v to O
Committees of the United States House and Senate, to the Federal Railway Administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and have been an expert witness at arbitration hearings and court proceedings involving the subjects of drug policy, drug testing, the health and safety hazards of drugs, and employer responsibilities. I have authored a monograph entitled " Drugs in the Workplace: Employers' Rights and Responsibilities," published by the Washington Legal Foundation in 1984, in addition to a number of articles published in the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune and Harvard Business Review on the subject of drug control and drugs in the workplace -
Issues. I have represented the nuclear power industry in discussions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in conjunction with the Edison Electric Institute on fitness-for-duty issues. I was retained by the Edison Electric Institute as a principal keynote speaker during four regional conferences made available in 1984 to the utility industry in Los t
Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta and New York City, and have visited personally and conducted O. briefings and training sessions in over a dozen nuclear power plants in the United States, and for tne largest nuclear utility companies with construction currently under way or recently completed.
Q4. Mr. Ferguson, please state your professional experience and educational background.
A4. (JDF) I have been employed by CP&L in various personnel administretion positions since 1977. I have worked at the Shearon Harris site since August 1981, and have recruited for the Harris Project since I began my employment with CP&L. Prior to my employment with CP&L, I served as an officer in the United States Army, where I worked in supervisory roles and began working in the personnel field. I am a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point and a member of the American Society of Personnel Administrators. As part of my training in the Army, as well as with CP&L, I have participated in classes on drug awareness. While serving as the Personnel Officer for an 800-man organization in the Army, I supervised the administration of the drug screening program. Included in these responsibilities were drug sampling of Army personnel, chain of custody of urine specimens, processing results, the rehabilitation program and the amnesty program. A complete statement of my education, training and experience is provided as Attachment B to this testimony.
QS. What are your responsibilities in your present position, particularly with respect to the subject of this testimony?
AS. (JDF) My responsibilities as Director-Personnel Relations for the 1,200 i
CP&L employees at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant and the Energy and '
Environmental Center include, among other things, employment and orientation of new employees, training supervisors in Corporate policies and their interpretation, and supporting efforts to ensure compliance with Corporate employee policies and related g government regulations at the plant site. With respect to CP&L's drug abuse policies, I V have been responsible for and personally involved in the following: (a) compliance with the Interdepartmental Procedure in testing all applicants for employment with CP&L who require unescorted access to the site; (b) orientation of all new CP&L employees of the Company's policies on drug and alcohol abuse; (c) ensuring consistency in the administration of the Company's drug abuse program and advising management, on a case-by-case basis, on compliance with the Company's policies; and (d) administering the urinalysis drug screen examination program. -
Q6. Mr. Flowers, what is your professional experience and educational background?
A6. (GWF) I have been employed by Daniel since 1978. My current responsibilities include assuring that Daniel projects have effective security programs, providing assistance to special investigations, and maintaining working relationships with
] law enforcement agencies. I have a B.A. degree from Furman University and took various courses in Criminology and Criminal Justice from Greenville Technical College in association with the University of South Carolina Criminal Justice Program. I have three years of law enforcement experience, including work as an undercover operative for several narcotic investigations. I have also been responsible for drug training and the drug deterrent program for a county school system. As a part of my law enforcement training, I have attended seminars and workshops, presented by various law enforcement agencies, on drug abuse, drug identification and drug trafficking. A complete statement of my education, training and experience is provided as Attachment C to this testimony. With respect to drug use by Daniel employees, my personal role has included l
the preparation of a corporate drug policy that has been implemented throughout DIC, j 1
and the establishment of a drug awareness training program for Daniel supervisors. I i have trained Daniel supervisors in both construction and in the Technical Services O Division at the Shearon Harris site.
Q7. Mr. Pannill, please describe your professional experience and educational background.
A7. (ARP) As Group Personnel Manager of the Process Group, I am responsible for supervising the personnel managers on a number of Daniel projects. I have been in this position since late August 1985. Previously I was Daniel Personnel Manager at the Harris Plant. Prior to coming to the Harris site in 1982, I worked for nearly seven years for Daniel at the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station. I have a B.A. degree from Lander College and extensive training in supervision and management, including drug awareness. While working as Personnel Manager at the Harris Plant, I was responsible for management of Daniel's Personnel Department at Harris, and for implementing and administering Daniel's personnel policies. In August 1984, I also assumed responsibility for managing Daniel's Industrial Relations Department at Harris. The Industrial Relations Department's responsibilities include administering and enforcing the l
O o aiei/sa ro n rris erus Potie r = v Peeirie i=voive - eat ita ta t errort a i=ciuaea l recommendations on drug prevention measures, participation in active and confidential drug investigations, conducting searches, and determining whether or not probable cause exists to conduct searches or to perform urinalysis drug screen testing. A complete statement of my education, training and experience is provided as Attachment D to this testimony.
l Q8. Gentlemen, what is the purpose of your joint testimony?
A8. (PBB, JDF, GWF, ARP) The purpose of our testimony is to respond in part to the allegations in CCNC Contention WB-3 that Applicants' mssnagement has failed to control drug use during the construction of the Shearon Harris Plant.
Q9. How is the testimony organized?
A9. (PBB) Mr. Ferguson will describe the CP&L policy and procedure for drug abuse at the Shearon Harris site and the communication of this policy to employees. He l
=
will provide information on the urinalysis drug screen test used to identify drug use by current and prospective employees. Mr. Ferguson will also describe the instruction on drug abuse provided to all CP&L employees and the additional training provided to
, supervisors and managers. In addition, he will identify the personnel policies followed once an employee is identified as or suspected of being involved in drug activity. Mr.
Flowers and Mr. Pannill will discuss the pre-employment screening of applicants to work i for Daniel at the Harris site, Daniel's drug policy and its communication to the employees, the drug awareness training provided to supervisors, and the means employed to identify drug activity among employees. Finally, I will describe the role of Bensinger, 4
DuPont & Associates in developing CP&L's program to control drug use at the Harris Project and will provide my evaluation of both CP&L's and Daniel's drug abuse policies, procedures snd programs.
l Q10. Mr. Ferguson, what is CP&L's policy with respect to drug use by employees i
O t** sa re= a rri "#ei r re- r ri #t?
A10. (JDF) CP&L employees at the Shearon Harris site are subject to CP&L's Drug and Alcohol Abuse Statement of Practice. The Statement, minus the provisions related to alcohol abuse, is as follows:
~
The use, possession, or sale of narcotics, hallucinogens, depressants, stimulants, marijuana, or other controlled substances by an employee while on Company business or on Company property will result in disciplinary i actions, including possible termination.
Any other use, possession, or sale of narcotics, hallucinogens, depressants, stimulants, marijuana, or controlled substances by an employee
, that may adversely affect the employee's job performance, or that may reflect unfavorably upon public or governmental confidence in the manner in which the Company carries out its responsibilities, may result in disciplinary action, including possible termination.
This statement of practice does not apply to medication prescribed by a licensed physician and taken in accordance with such prescription.
In order to provide guidance for assuring that Company practice on drug and alcohol O a# i aaer a te t ==ei r 9e - er 9 1 #t ite . c e * ' a ao9 tea o r=< "a ^ie a 1
g Interdepartmental Procedure. The Procedure prescribes the responsibilities of d Department / Nuclear Project Managers, Manager-Employee Relations, and Department / Nuclear Project Section Managers. A copy of the procedure is provided as Applicants' Exhibit No. Jo .
Q11. How are employees and applicants for employment made aware of this policy?
All. (JDF) Applicants for employment with CP&L at the Shearon Harris site are fully informed of the Company's Drug and Alcohol Abuse Statement of Practice and related Drug and Alcohol Interdepartmental Procedures. They are advised that a thorough five-year background investigation will be conducted, that drug screening procedures are a part of the required pre-employment physical examination, and that a professional evaluation using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is a part of the total preemployment procedure. Applicants are told that if the drug screen indicates the presence of drugs or controlled substances, not obtained and used according to a valid prescription, they will not be considered further for employment. Also, if the MMPI indicates a background of or tendency toward drug or alcohol abuse or aberrant behavior in the opinion of professional advisors to the Company, they may not be considered further for employment.
Once employed, CP&L personnel assigned to the Harris site receive an instructional program entitled " Drug and Alcohol Abuse Orientation for CP&L Employees," presented by Employee Relations and the Harris Training Unit. The instruction familiarizes employees with CP&L's Drug and Alcohol Abuse Practice and Procedures, the adverse impact of drug and alcohol abuse, and CP&L's Employee Assistance Program. Each employee is given the CP&L " Drug and Alcohol Abuse Reference Manual." A copy of the Manual is Applicants' Exhibit No. J1 . The Manual includes the Statement of Practice, a message from the Chairman / President of CP&L,
-g.
,-----,,, - -w--_ +----m-
, - - _ _ . , , , _ _ . . . . - , , ------ y-
and a summary of the Drug and Alcohol Interdepartmental Procedures. The Manual O advises the employee that the Company may undertake announced or unannounced inspections, investigations and searches for illegal drugs and controlled substances. The Manual states that "the results of such actions may include a request that an employee have a Company-approved medical examination which will include a drug screen" and that "any employee who refuses to allow or cooperate with a properly authorized inspection, investigation or search may be subject to disciplinary action, including possible termination." The last page of the Manual is detached and retained as the employee-signed record of participation in the orientation, of the employee's agreement to abide by the Statement of Practice and related Procedures, and of the employee's understanding that compliance with the Statement of Practice and related Procedures is required for continued employment with CP&L.
Q12. How do you screen employees and applicants to determine if they are drug O user ='
A12. (JDF) As I have indicated, a urinalysis drug screen test is used by CP&L for applicants for employment at the Harris site, and for site employees suspected of involvement in drug activity. Each employee consents to this examination as a condition of employment. I am the authorized CP&L agent for the Harris area who may order a drug screen urinalysis test. The urine specimen is collected by a local physician and, pursuant to an established written procedure designed to assure sample authenticity, is delivered to CompuChem Laboratories, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, with whom CP&L has a business agreement to perform urinalyses for the detection of drug use. The drug classes included in the CompuChem analysis are amphetamines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, cocaine, methadone, methaqualone, opiates, and phencyclidine. Each urine sample submitted to CompuChem first undergoes an Enzymen Multiplied Immunoassay Technique (EMIT) qualitative analysis. All positive
(/
i 1
EMIT analyses are confirmed by Gas Chromotography/ Mass Spectroscopy (GC/MS) quantitative analysis. This test program ensures that, if a drug is present, it will be detected by the EMIT test, and the quantity confirmed through the GC/MS analysis.
(PBB) I would add that the testing techniques used at the CompuChem Laboratories are considered to be the most sophisticated and foolproof available.
l Q.13. -Does CP&L's drug abuse policy apply to the employees of contractors at the Harris site?
A.13. (JDF) Yes. CP&L has imposed, by contract amendment, a drug and alcohol l
abuse policy upon contractors at the site. A copy of the article incorporated into these l 1
contracts is provided as Applicants' Exhibit No. J2 . It requires the contractor to 1
communicate to its employees CP&L's drug abuse policy, CP&L's right to search on its '
property, and CP&L's discretion to remove from the site any employee who does not cooperate with or is found to be in violation of CP&L's drug abuse policy. .
Q14. What type of training has CP&L undertaken for its supervisory personnel i with respect to controlling drug use at the Harris site?
A14. (JDF) CP&L has a drug awareness training program for CP&L managers and I
supervisors (including first-line supervisors, h, foremen) at the Harris site designed to prepare them to recognize Sugs and drug-related behavior, and to understand their responsibilities wher Ge. @ itances or behaviors are observed or reported on the job.
1 The supervisor is responsible for reporting any information on suspected drug activitsj, for removing from the job any employee having possession of or under the influence of drugs, and for initiating disciplinary action in accordance with the provisions of the -
Company's Drug and Alcohol Abuse Statement of Practice. The drug awareness training program enables supervision to carry out these responsibilities effectively. In developing its drug and alcohol abuse education efforts, CP&L utilized the expertise and guidance of numerous individuals and organizations with valuable experience, including other utility
%)
6 J
l l
l q companies, Federal and local law enforcement personnel, the academic community, and
\~/
consulting firms with national experience in the prevention of drug and alcohol abuse.
1 CP&L supervisors and managers ct the Harris Plant have attended a " Drug i and Alcohol Workshop for Supervisors," initially presented by the Plant Manager or his designee, the plant personnel representative and/or a designated instructor from the Employee Relations Department. This program provides the participants with a comprehensive review of CP&L's Drug and Alcohol Abuse Practices and Procedures and of their supervisory responsibilities under those Practices and Procedures. Participants are then provided with the skills necessary to implement the Practices and Procedures.
Subsequently, this training was incorporated into a " Workshop in the Assessment of Aberrant Behavior," a 12 to 16-hour course presented by Management Consultants of Chapel Hill. That course includes 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of instruction devoted to drug and alcohol abuse problems, practices and procedures. Each manager and supervisor receives, as a O 9 ert or the ar=s re=e== tr iai=s 9rogr = . the c r * ' s#9ervisor's a erere=c e x auei.
Drug and Alcohol Abuse. This manual, a copy of which is Applicants' Exhibit No. 33 ,
illustrates the scope and content of the training provided. In addition to the Practices and Procedures, the manual describes drugs of common abuse (including identification of the drug, methods of use and signs / symptoms of use), guidance on observing and documenting changes in employee behavior, guidelines for administering CP&L's policy on drug abuse, behavior and job performance warning signs, a check-list for observing employee behavior, and guidelines for conducting a disciplinary interview.
Q15. Have there been other special programs on drug abuse control? -
A15. (JDF) Yes. In addition to this on-going and repeated (for new supervisors / managers) training program, CP&L in 1984 gave special attention to drug abuse control. On August 1,1984, CP&L management gathered for a briefing on drug and alcohol abuse control, presented by Mr. Bensinger, who is one of the foremost t V s
i I l
experts on drug and alcohol abuse in the United States. Subsequently, refresher training on drug and alcohol abuse was conducted by Mr. Bensinger's associates and CP&L personnel at the Harris site in August 1984, for CP&L supervisors. A description of this refresher training is Applicants' Exhibit No. J4 .
In a further effort to remind personnel of the importance the Company attaches to its drug and alcohol abuse practices and procedures, CP&L employees at the Harris site, as well as contractor personnel who attend the routine safety meetings, recently received a videotape " Drug and Alcohol Abuse Refresher Training" session presented by Mr. Edward E. Utley, CP&L Executive Vice President. A transcript of the videotape is Applicants' Exhibit No. M.
Q16. Does CP&L vigorously enforce this drug abuse policy?
A16. (JDF) In my position as Director-Personnel Relations for the Harris site, I can state unequivocally that CP&L vigorously enforces .its drug abuse polley. Our O eo i teat Pr etiee a aeea to cour se empiovees to cooper te -ita the implementation of that policy, but to terminate employees who violate it.
Q17. Mr. Flowers and Mr. Pannill, with respect to the Daniel drug abuse control program, what kind of background check do you do on prospective employees?
A17. (GWF, ARP) All prospective Daniel employees at the Harris site are subjected to pre-employment background verification, which includes, with respect to previous employment, confirmation of the dates of employment, job classification, performance rating and the reason (s) for termination. Any criminal records listed on the employment application are reviewed, and incidents involving drug-related activity in the applicant's background are viewed as grounds for denial of employment.
Q.18. What proportion of the Harris contractor work force are Daniel or Daniel subcontractor employees?
A.18. (ARP) The employees of Daniel and of Daniel's subcontractors represent O
.~
roughly 70 percent of the site work force.
Q19. Please describe the drug abuse policy that pertains to Daniel employees at the Harris site.
A19. (GWF, ARP) Daniel's drug policy at the Shearon Harris site is governed by two procedures: one which applies to the Technical Services Division (employees involved in quality confirmation roles in Quality Control or Construction Inspection) and another for all other employees. Procedure TSD-SH-207, " Security Actions / Illegal Drugs and Other Contraband Materials," provides that employees are forbidden to use, sell, possess or be under the influence of illegal drugs while on Daniel or CP&L property and that violation of this prohibition is cause for immediate discharge. The procedure states that Daniel may take any of the following steps while employees.are on Daniel /CP&L property: observe actions of employees; counsel employees; search employees' personal items, automobiles or persons; require searches with canines; require drug screen l
O urinalysis testing. If the employee refuses a se reh, he/she is immediately discharged.
l The procedure prescribes the steps to be taken, and the action responsibilities, to implement the policy. A copy of this Technical Services Division procedure is provided as Applicants' Exhibit No. S. Procedure DCC-PE-510, " Security Actions / Illegal Drugs and Other Contraband Materials," governs other Daniel employees and has provisions similar to the TSD procedure just described. A copy of DCC-PE-510 is provided as Applicants' Exhibit No. J7 . In addition, by memorandum of December 26,1984 to all Daniel / Davis employees from C.C. Wagoner, Project General Manager, the drug policy was restated and supplemented to provide that "[e]ffective January 10,1985, the consent to search provisions will include urinalysis testing at the discretion of senior project management when probable cause has been established that an employee has violated the site drug and alcohol abuse policy." A copy of Mr. Wagoner's memorandum is provided as Applicants' Exhibit No. Je .
l l
Q20. How are Daniel employees informed of this policy?
(p/
A20. (GWF, ARP) Daniel employees are introduced to its drug policy for the Harris site in several ways. All new employees and all employees transferring from other Daniel worksites are introduced to the drug and alcohol policy through an employee orientation. During this orientation, tha drug and alcohol policies are reinforced in the following ways:
The presentor reads and reviews the drug policy letter of the Daniel Construction Company and re-emphasizes the company's commitment to the enforcement of this policy, including searches, inspection of the employee and his/her property, and the right to require a urinalysis of an employee for " probable cause." The searches are re-emphasized and the employees are advised that dogs may be onsite which would be used to locate drugs.
- O
- During a video orientation, which includes a general discussion of the project itself and also acts as a visual orientation to the overall work procedures at the site, there is a clear and specific discussion of the drug and alcohol policy. The video expressly notes that one can " lose one's job" for violating safety or security rules or possessing or using beer, liquor, or unlawful drugs, or performing unsafe acts because of the use of beer, liquor, or unlawful drugs. In addition, the video discusses the Quality Check program, wherein employees are encouraged to make any observations on the worksite regarding the safety of the worksite, the procedures at the worksite or anything else that might be identified as a problem which other programs may have missed.
Each employee is given an employee handbook to read during the orientation period and before he/she begins the job. The handbook states that incapacitation through alcohol, drugs or other substances, and the possession of dangerous weapons, alcohol or illegal substances on company property, are offenses which can lead to an immediate involuntary termination. Af ter the employee has read the employee handbook, he/she is required to fill out an affidavit certifying that he/she has received a copy of the handbook, has read it, and will abide by all of its rules and regulations.
This certification become a part of the employees' personnel file at the site.
In addition, employees are reminded of the drug and alcohol policy through posters and bulletin board items throughout the worksite. Supervisory emphasis is also given to this topic at weekly safety meetings or other meetings during which the O supervisors mar be meetine with their em9 ovees. 1 =r. Wagoner's memoraneum. which we previously discussed, also served as an important reminder to employees of the drug policy.
Q21. What are the responsibilities of Daniel supervisors at the Harris site in the area of drug abuse control and how are they trained to fulfill those responsibilities?
A21. (GWF, ARP) Daniel supervisors are responsible for reporting suspected drug activity and for taking immediate action if drug activity is observed. The supervisors receive special training on drug awareness and Daniel's policy so that they can better fulfill those responsibilities. Supervisors are given the written drug policy which appears -
in a Personnel-prepared Supervisor's Handbook. The drug awareness training provided to supervisors familiarizes the participants with Daniel's drug policy and how to implement it. We also teach the supervisors how to recognize drugs with high abuse rates (eg.,
marijuana, cocaine and different forms of speed), how to recognize the symptoms of drug b
abuse in an employee, and the supervisor's role in carrying out the policy. This training G
program was developed from information provided by Federal and locallaw enforcement agencies, medical doctors and pathologists, and the training content has been reviewed for accuracy by law enforcement experts and medical doctors. The presentation is made by an instructor on-site using slides, static displays of drug paraphernalia, and a drug display kit which was commercially purchased. A general outline of the information presented in the Supervisory Drug Awareness Program is provided as Applicants' Exhibit No.1 In addition, a copy of " Controlled Substances: Use, Abuse and Effects,"
prepared by the U. S. Drug Enforcement Administration and provided to the supervisors, is Applicants' Exhibit No.g.
Q22. What mechanisms exist for identifying drug use or activity among Daniel employees?
A22. (GWF, ARP) The project-wide means for identifying drug use/ activity O described in the testimonv of the witness panei <=essrs. aindman. xins. aovner end Bensinger) on the assessment of employee drug activity apply as well to Daniel employees. In addition, Daniel site Industrial Relations representatives conduct active surveillance for visible drug activity and receive reports from employees on known or suspected drug activity. Daniel provides any information it receives or develops on known or suspected drug activity to Mr. Hindman of CP&L. Daniel employees may also use the project Quality Check program and the Daniel Open Door Policy to report drug information. Daniel employees have received instruction on the use and availability of the Quality Check program as an avenue for reporting any alleged problem on a confidential, or even an anonymous, basis. The employees are also encouraged to use the Daniel Open Door Policy, which is discussed with each new hire and is the subject of posters throughout the project, to raise problems with their supervision and, if not satisfied, to contact further levels of management.
Q23. Does Daniel use urinalysis testing on employees who are suspected of drug use?
A23. (GWF,ARP) Yes. Consistent with CP&L's practice for its employees involved in quality confirmation roles, Daniel personnel in such positions (Quality Control or Construction Inspection) undergo urinalysis drug screen testing whenever information on suspected drug use or other drug activity is provided to Daniel. Urinalysis testing is performed on other Daniel employees when probable cause, through other means of drug detection, has been established to suspect drug activity. Daniel utilizes CompuChem laboratories, as does CP&L, to perform the urinalysis drug screens. Mr. Ferguson has already described the testing process.
Q24. Mr. Bensinger, have you been involved in the development and review of CP&L's drug abuse policy at the Harris Plant?
A24. (PBB) Yes. Our firm, Bensinger, DuPont & Associates, has provided policy consultation to CP&L and provided supervisory training to all CP&L management and supervisory personnel at their nuclear facilities and headquarters locations. The program 4 included a meeting with top management; briefings to security, employee relations and nuclear power plant management personnel; development of a supervisory training manual and the CP&L Supervisor's Reference Manual, Drug and Alcohol Abuse which is Applicants' Exhibit No. 33 ; and on-site training by Bensinger, DuPont associates Mickey Glasco and Dr. Richard Bucher, who have had extensive experience in the substance abuse field and particular experience in providing training at nuclear power facilities, including those operated by the Georgia Power Company and Virginia Electric & Power Company. Training included a review of CP&L drug and alcohol policy by CP&L officials, an awareness presentation by Bensinger, DuPont experts and discussion of CP&L guidelines and resources available to assist management in implementing this program. The awareness portion of the presentation, which has been used by Edison
)
J Electric Institute as a model, included information about specific drugs which might be impairing an individual in the work place, as well as a segment on " signs and symptoms" designed to alert supervisors to possible drug-related work impairment. An outline of the
- training material used for the supervisors is Applicants' Exhibit No.d.
! More recently, in response to the allegations made by CCNC, I met with
- CP&L Security and Harris Project management personnel to review the current status of efforts by CP&L and its contractors to control drug use at the site. I have also reviewed the information provided in the other affidavits and testimony filed by Applicants which respond to the CCNC contention. Finally, Dr. Bucher, Manager of our Rockville office,
! recently visited the site in order to advise me on the actual implementation by CP&L and i
Daniel of their drug abuse policies, procedures and programs.
Q25. What do you consider the basic elements of an effective program for j controlling drug use in the workplace? .
- O A25. (Paa) rirst, as i exP iain in ireater detaii in mv testimonv en the Identification of employees involved in drug use, it must be recognized that drug abuse is l a serious problem throughout American society and a threat to any work place.
Companies that have faced up to the reality of this threat have implemented multi-i phased programs to deal with this issue, including:
i
! (1) distribution to all employees of a clear company policy on drugs; i
(2) providing management with clear orientation and training on the issue of substance abuse in the work place and the need for management intervention; (3) provided training to supervisors on the recognition and warning signs of 4
drugs and alcohol; (4) maintaining close liaison with locallaw enforcement, including requests i for undercover investigations; I
(5) deployment from time to time of canine units for searches of nuclear power and construction site facilities; O
(6) maintaining consistency of discipline and denial of access for employees O ae 9Pe r to a v viet t a ee 9 v er ee tructio respect to drugs and alcohol; it rei ita (7) initiated preemployment and fitness-for-duty testing of employee body fluids for prohibited substances as a method of reinforcement of company policy; (8) notification of contractors' obligation to comply with CP&L drug and alcohol policy.
Q26. How does CP&L's program stack up in these areas?
A26. (PBB) In the case of Carolina Power & Light, all of these principal initiatives were undertaken: supervisors were trained by professionals with respect to warning signs and symptoms of drug abuse; all employees received the drug abuse policy and supervisors received guidelines with respect to the implementation of company policy; contractors were put on notice with respect to their own responsibilities regarding drug activity by contractor and the subcontractor employees; canine searches took place at Harris, as did undercover investigations, in concert with state and local law 0 enforcement; fitness for duty testing has been initiated; and a top laboratory (Mead Compuchem), utilizing the most sophisticated and foolproof testing techniques available, was selected to provide chemical testing for preemployment and fitness-for-duty purposes. All of these efforts, including a top commitment from management, conform to the Edison Electric Institute's guide for drug control.
Q27. Please elaborate on your assessment of the supervisor training program at Harris.
A27. (PBB) The effectiveness of CP&L's, Daniels' and other contractors' training and supervisory methods to address drug control at the Harris construction site have been reviewed by Dr. Bucher and myself. It is our judgment that the initiatives undertaken meet or exceed standards in other nuclear power plant locations and meet the need to address the threat of drug abuse at the construction site.
O l
The training program for supervisors at Harris is comprehensive and has
)O l
Involved active participation from supervisory members with trainers on location. Such training program will continue with updated awareness programs. It is my judgment that the training provided to the supervisors on identification of the symptoms of drug abuse enables the supervisors to recognize unusual behavior and to initiate intervention prior to the worker becoming so impaired that he would compromise safety-related work.
I Q28. Does the fact that instances of drug use among employees have been i
reported cast doubt on the effectiveness of the drug policy?
A28. (PBB) Not at all. The fact that ongoing abuse or use has been reported as a result of an undercover investigation and by other means does not discount the contractors' and CP&L efforts. On the contrary, it would be of far more concern if there were no initiatives undertaken by companies with local law enforcement or through intervention by management disclosing such use and abuse. In government, as well as in industry, violations of drug policy and the abuse and sale of drugs have taken place, including within the last several months the arrest of FBI agents for the sale of cocaine, of DEA agents for the use of controlled substances, and of postal workers for drug distribution. Companies and government agencies should take a proactive stance,
, providing education, training, and also employee assistance as well as security measures, drug testing, canine searches and undercover probes. In this regard, the CP&L Employee Assistance program has been established and a top professional is on staff who has visited principal nuclear power plant and construction site facilities to increase employee awareness about this program.
Q29. Mr. Bensinger, please summarize your assessment of the drug abuse policies
, in place at the Harris construction site.
A29. (PBB) My assessment of CP&L's drug abuse and control procedures in place at the Harris Project is that they meet the needs and standards of the industry; that the 1
! 21 -
l i
i
- ------___-- - ---_- _ _.-__-___ -___.__- .---_-_-_- -- -__ .-_ __ .~w--- . - -
- policies are in keeping with the Edison Electric Institute, INPO and Nuclear Regulatory J Commission objectives; and that CP&L has sought qualified expertise to assist in policy 1 assessment and development, and has reached out for consultation and training expertise to assist in briefings to management, training for supervisors, communication programs to contractors, and testing for fitness for duty and preemployment purposes.
'CP&L's training program for supervisors to identify warning signs and symptoms of drug use and aberrant behavior, combined with the Supervisor's Reference Manual, the briefing to top management and Harris Plant supervisors, professional health and safety presentations with interaction and question and answer sessions with supervisory personnel by experts on substance abuse, preemployment and fitness-for-duty testing, and contractor notification and specific supervisor training are critical initiatives necessary to surface and arrest drug use and abuse in the work place.
Based on Bensinger, Dupont & Associates' input to and review of GP&L's "a
O 9otier #8 tr i#i== 9eerr o=> o=- ite revie or the e atr et r tr i#i=< 9 torr our familiarity with practices within the nuclear power industry and at other utilities and construction sites specifically, I conclude that the Harris drug control efforts have met or exceed the industry standard and reflect the practices and experiences, as well as problems, found in other locations. CP&L and Daniel have taken specific and appropriate actions to control drug use and other drug activity at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 1 Plant.
Q30. Does this conclude your direct testimony?
l A30. (PBB, JDF, GWF, ARP) Yes. -
1 l
l
i 4
Attachment A 1
BIOGRAPHY O of l PETER B. BENSINGER Bensinger, DuPont & Associates Peter B. Bensinger is President of Bensinger, DuPont & Associates,
! a professional consulting firm providing services to private irriustry, national and ccanunity organizations, professional sports, and goverment on drug abuse policy.
Prior to forming this consulting service with Dr. Robert DuPont, Bensinger served as Administrator of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration. He was appointed to this position in January of 1976 by
- President Gerald R. Ford and was confirmed by the Senate, serving over i
5-1/2 years under four different Attorneys General as Direcror of this major federal investigative agency. The Drug Enforcement Administration
' is responsible for enforcement of U. S. narcotic and dangerous drug laws and has 4,000 employees in 160 offices in the United States and 40 foreign countries. The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is responsible for criminal investigations, laboratory services, intelligence, training for federal, state, and local law enforcement, and regulation of 1
the legal manufacture of controlled substances for legitimate medical use.
- During Bensinger's tenure, heroin overdose deaths decreased fr m 2,000 a year in 1976 to 800 in 1980, while heroin imparts fell frcm 7 tons to
, under 4 tons per year. Legislation enacted in 1978 provided for the i forfeiture of assets derived frcm illegal drug trafficking to be seized j by the government.
1 Prior to Bensinger's appointment in Washington, he served as Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections with direct responsibility for all penitentiaries, reformatories, training schools, and parole supervision.
During this period he was elected by directors of other state prison systems as President of the Association of State Correctional Administra-tors. He has served as Chairman of the Illinois Youth Ccrnmission, Chief of l the Crime Victims Division of the Illinois Attorney General's Office, and i
as Executive Director of the Chicago Crime Ccmnission.
! Bensinger held responsible positions with the Brunswick Corporation .
! from 1958 to 1968, serving as General Sales Manager for Brunswick United Kingdom in Iondon, England, as General Sales Manager 'for Europe in Frank-furt, Germany, and as General Merchandise Manager of Brunswick Interna-tional in Chicago.
l He was a principal delegate to Interpol for the United States in 1978, was appointed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police to serve l on the Executive Cczrmittee of this 12,000 ment >er police organization, and l was Chairman of its Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Committee. He has been honored by the National Sheriffs Association with Horcrary Life Merrt)ership O and has received honorary Doctor of Law degrees frcm San Marcos University in Lima, Peru, and Dankook University in Seoul, Korea, for outstanding leadership in international drug control.
1 Peter B. Bensinger page 2 i
, Bensinger, DuPont and Associates have provided consultation and training services to American Airlines, Boise Cascade Corporation, E. I. du Pont de Nenours & Cmpany, Caumonwealth Edison Co., the F.B.I.
National Academy, Georgia Power, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Edison Electric Institute, Airport Security Council, American Gas Association, '
Times . Mirror, national associations of parents groups, hospitals and health providers, and major companies in the pharmaceutical, energy, transportation, construction and ccruputer fields. Both the Senate and House of Representatives have sought Mr. Bensinger's testinony, and he has lectured widely throughout the United States on the subject of drug control, j drugs in the workplace, and the need for consistency in corporate and I government policy. He has authored a nunber of articles published in the
- New York Times, h e Washincton Post, Chicaoo Tribune, and in other national and international publications on law enforcement and drug abuse, and has appeared on network evening news prograns, the Today Show, Good Morning i America, Issues and Answers, the MacNeil-Iehrer Report, and Nightlin, e.
i The November-December 1982 issue of the Harvard Business Review featured a Special Report by Bensinger on " Drugs in the Workplace," and he has been quoted on this subject in 1983 and 1984 cover stories in Time, Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report. Mr. Bensinger authored a nonograph published
- by the Washirgton Legal Foundation in 1984 entitled Drucs ,i_n, n the Workolace
i Dnoloyers' Rights and Resconsibilities.
O Mr. Bensinger has been awarded the Distinguished Service Medal from i the Government of Peru. He has been the recipient of the U. S. Distin-guished Service Award frczn the Coast Guard, the highest award presented i to a civilian, and has received special commendation for outstanding .
- leadership in equal employment opportunity frcm the Department of Justice.
he John Howard Association awarded Bensinger its highest recognition for i outstanding service in the field of corrections in 1971. He was Man-of-the-Year for the Spanish-American Congress of Chicago in 1975 and was awarded the Distinguished Alumni Service Award by the Chicago Latin School l in 1978. Mr. Bensinger has served on the Board of Trustees of many civic
! and professional organizations, includirg the Phillips Exeter Academy, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, the American Correctional
! Association, the Juvenile Protective Association, the Chicago Council for Ccanunity Services, the City Club of Chicago, and the American Bar
! Association's National Ccmnission on Corrections. He has been a member of the visiting Ccmnittee on the Humanities of tihe University of Chicago and a member of the Illinois Iaw Enforcement Ccanission. In 1981 he was General Chairman of the Boy Scouts of America Explorer Scouts National Law Enforcenent Conference. Frcrn 1973 until 1985, Bensinger has represented the United States Attorney General on the six-member Board of Directors of Federal Prison Industries, Inc. , a S150-million government corporation ;
. responsible for industry in the Federal Penitentiary Systen. !
I i 1 l Mr. Bensinger, a graduate of Yale University, was born in 1936 and 1
! speaks French, Spanish, and Italian. He is married to a physician, 4
Judith S. Bensinger. @ey have four children.
- - - , _ . _ _ - - . - _ _ - - - _ . - , - _ _ _ - - _ , - -- - - ,.,,s - . . =
JOHN DAVID FERGUSON 1809 SPINY RIDGE CT.
- RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27612
() Home Phone: 848-2287 (919) Work Phone: 362-2642 (919)
OBJECTIVE A managerial position in personnel administration.
EDUCATION High ~ School - Burbank High School, Burbank, California. Concentration in pre-college curriculum with emphasis on math and science.
College - United States Military Academy, West Point, New York. Batchelor of Science degree in General Engineering with courses in managerial science.
Graduate - University of Kentucky, Fort Knox, Kentucky. Seven credits in psychology.
EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
Managerial - Over 12 years of management experience in the United States Army and industry.
Personnel Administration - Generalist experience (8 years) and recruitment of technical and administrative professionals (4 years).
O#
Training - Experience in training employees and supervisors in labor relations, EEO, recruitment, drug / alcohol seminars, and interviewing techniques.
Maintenance / Logistics - Preventive maintenance, program development, procurement, accounting, and planning.
Start-up - Support of plant start-up of a nuclear power plant in a personnel relations capacity.
WORK HISTORY Saptember 1977 - Present: Carolina Power and Light Company
- May '83 - Present: Director - Personnel Relations Harris Area Provide the personnel support in the start-up of a nuclear power plant and an environmental center. Population of the area is 1200 personnel. Duties include the management of a personnel office including personnel relations (generalist personnel duties),, recruitment of all categories of people needed to build and support the planc, and safety which includes preventive as well as investigative respon-sibilities.
O
August '81 - May'83: Personnel Representative Provide personnel support to a nuclear and a fossil power plant as well as an environmental center. Total population of the area covered was approximately I O 625 personnel. The duties included policy interpretation, career counseling, wage and benefit administration, training, employment, and solving personnel related problems to support management.
June '80 - July '81: Coordinator - Professional Recruitment Managed the recruitment activities of all categories of professional personnel.
This included the recruitment scheduling, budget preparation and compli.ance, planning, and developing strong ties ~ with placement directors and faculty members at 32 different schools.
September '77 - May '80: Recruitment Representative /Sr. Recruitment Rep.
Responsible for all ergineering recruitment including advertising, campus interviewing, test administration, and scheduling. Involved in the implementation of a computerized applicant flow system.
Julv 1977 - September 1977 Seeking Employment June 1972 - July 1977: United States Army October '76 - July '77: Troop Commander Managed the basic and advanced training of new army recruits for the cavalry branch of the Army. Duties included the management of tactical training, supply, maintenance of equipment to , support the training, development and implementation of performance measurements, and the health and welfare of 200 personnel on a
, 13 week rotating cycle.
t September '75 - October '76: Personnel Officer
! Managed the personnel function in military organizations. I was responsible for the administration of pay, judicial and non-judicial punishment, race relations and equal opportunity training, recruitment, safety, awards, transfers, and personnel utilization.
- October '74 - September '75
- Troop Executive Officer Responsible for the logistices in a 160 man unit. I managed the troop maintenance j program to include the preventive maintenance activities as well as procurement and planning.
April '73 - October '74: Platoon Leader Responsible for the training and welfare of 40 personnel. I managed the mainten-ance of the platoon evapons systems and vehicles as well as tactical maneuvers.
1 Equipment worth was approximately S3 million.
, June '72 - April '73: Training PROFESSIONAL / COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS Professional - American Society of Personnel Administrators l
Community - Saint Francis United Methodist Church l
( REFERENCES - Furnished upon request i
4 I
Attachment g p
V GARRY W. FLOWERS Senior Industrial Relations Representative September 20, 1951 EDUCATION New York State Regents High School - 1969 Ulster. County Community College, A.A.S. - 1971 Furman University, B.A. - 1973
SUMMARY
OF EXPERIENCE Three years related experience in law enforcement work including investigations of major crimes and preparing criminal cases for both grand jury and jury trials. Attended training for new officers at South Carolina Law Enforcement Division in Columbia. Received additional training and first hand experience in crowd control, relating to union activity. Assisted the IR function in setting up security plan for Nissan Plant groundbreaking.
Involved in executing the Daniel IR plan at three major scenes of union' picketing against Daniel employees. Assisted in setting up three security subcontract jobs on Daniel construction sites and helped put together security manuals for all three sites. Assisted in setting up total self-perform security force on major Daniel jobs along with training manuals and course and g security manuals. Assisted in setting up seminar for Union Camp security v guards.
SPECIAL TRAINING Practical Law and The Security Manager - 1982 Drug Abuse and Drug Traffic Prevention - 1977 Drug Abuse and the Criminal Justice System - 1977 SLED School of Defensive Driving - 1976 TECHNICAL / PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES American Society For Industrial Security EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 11/80-Present Senior Industrial Relations Representative Daniel International Corporation Corporate Offices
.Greenville, SC O
Specific Responsibilities:
('%v)
Ensure that projects in sensitive areas have an effective security program.
Provide assistance with special investigations as required. Assist in setting up security programs for new jobs and monitor jobs to ensure they meet IR standards. Responsible for establishing and maintaining criteria for security standards to be used in this company. Assist in handling any union related unrest on any Daniel project. Establish and maintain good working relationship with law enforcement agencies.
4/80-11/80 Industrial Relations Representative Daniel International Company Corporate Office Greenville, SC Specific Responsibilities:
Responsible for doing area labor marketing analysis surveys. This consisted
- of visiting areas of the country that might be the site of Daniel work and gathering information to be used in determining the labor posture for that specific work. Information was gathered from such agencies as the Chamber of Commerce, Associated General Contractors and various other construction support groups.
(,,)
11/78-4/80 Representative, Power Group Daniel Construction Company Corporate Office Greenville, SC Specific Responsibilities:
Assistant to the Power Group Division Personnel Manager. Responsible for recruiting for the eleven power group f acil i. ties . Processed all salary changes for the projects in the 'ielo. Liaison between corporate personnel and site" personnel.
t Attachmsnt D i .
r DANIEL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL
SUMMARY
4 NAME: Reid Pannill POSITION: Group Personnel Manager EDUCATION: Bachelor of Science, Lander College, Greenwood, South Carolina,1982 i .
J SPECIAL TRAINING: 200 hou rs Seminar Training in Supervision and
. Management plus additional training in Labor Relations,
- Drug Awareness, and Employee Training Programs.
EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
i Seven years' supervision and records maintenance experience and five years' personnel administration including two years' training experience.
4 l . 1985 - Present: Group Personnel Manager, Daniel Construction Company,
! Greenville, South Carolina. Responsibilities include but not limited to planning and administering a total personnel management program for projects within the Process Division, including wage and salary, benefits, i* employment, manpower planning, client interfacing, staff development,
- proposals and employee relations activities. Responsibilities also include l supervision of project personnel managers in the application and t j interpretation of personnel procedures and practices.
, . 1982 - 1985: Personnel Manager 11, Daniel Construction Company, Shearon i Harris Nuclear Power Plant (CPt,L), New Hill, North Carolina. Responsible
- for implementing and administering company personnel policies.
- Responsible for management of personnel and industrial relations
! departments . Responsibilities also included all recruitment, employment
! practices, discharge, wage and salary administration, record maintenance, preventative labor relation activities, plus company insurance and benefit i
p rog rams . Responsible for assistance in EEO, AAP, and NLRB and preventative litigation matters. Responsible for reviewing site training p rog rams . Also responsible for providing employee counseling, cut-placement and career guidance. Responsible for the administration of company's craft certification program. Responsible for maintaining working -
relationship with site and corporate industrial relations representatives.
i
! . 1981 -
1982: Personnel Manager I, Daniel Construction Company, V.C.
Summer Nuclear Station, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Responsible for i administering personnel policies and procedures as approved by the Vice
( President Personnel Management. Responsible for managing Personnel Depa rtment. Responsibilities also included administering wage and salary program, employment, terminations, preventative labor relation activities, EEO program, monitoring and assisting managers in personnel policy O administration, placement of salaried and craft employees upon release, 09/85 161 r--.-i- ~ , .. - ,.--,y,-,-,---.fw-,.-..,w..v,.~.wm2.,w_ y_ , -...w w, e ,-- .y e w w w m..m.
., i l
Professional Summary ;
pd Reid Pannill {
Page Two 1 company insurance and benefits programs, providing employee counseling and development, administering of Craft Certification Program and handled any complaints filed by appropriate State agencies.
. 1980 - 1981: Personnel Supervisor, Daniel Construction Company, V.C.
Summer Nuclear Station, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Responsible for administering the personnel policies and procedures as approved by the Vice President Personnel Management. includes, but is not limited to the recruitment, employment, benefits, wage and salary administration, preventative labor relations activities, personnel dita maintenance and statistics, equal opportunity programs and other relatei employee / employer relations programs.
. 1979 -
1980: Personnel Representative I and II, Daniel Construction Company, V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Jenkinsville, South Carolina.
Interviewed salaried and hourly overhead applicants for employment, and p rocess application forms. Assisted Personnel Manager in administ'ering the personnel policies and procedures as approved by the Vice President.
Assisted in recruiting, employment, wage and salary administration, personnel records maintenance and statistics, group and Workmen's Compensation insurance programs, EEO and AAP program and employee relation programs.
O . 1978 - 1979: Document Control Supervisor, Daniel Construction Company, V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Responsible for the distribution and control of all on-site design documents and procedu res . Administered a depa rtment comprised of twenty-three employees which included interviewing, training, and evaluating.
Interacted with outside vendors regarding the use cost and sale of reproduction equipment. Corresponded with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding procedural compliance.
. 1977 - 1978: Assistant Document Control Supervisor, Daniel Construction Company, V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Jenkinsville, South Carolina.
Assisted the Document Control Supervisor with the aforementioned.
Maintained supply inventories and interfaced with department managers regarding distribution problems and the transfer of personnel.
. 1977: Document Control Technician, Daniel Construction Company, V.C.
Summer Nuclear Station, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Responsible for the efficient operation of the site print room. Determined the daily work schedule for responsible personnel. Operated and occasionally repaired all reproduction equipment as needed. Maintained file of all safety and non-safety design documents. Performed field audits of documents.
1976 - 1977: Document Control Clerk, Daniel Construction Company, V.C.
Summer Nuclear Station, Jenkinsville, South Ca rolina. Operated all reproduction equipment. Performed regular preventative maintenance of O equipment. Ordered needed supplies. Took requests for drawings. Filed drawings.
09/E5 161
__ --- -w
m Professional Summary Reid Pannill O Page Three 1975 - 1976: Laborer, Daniel Construc:!on Company, V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Jenkinsville, South Ca rolina. Performed, under direct supervision, all the basic activities required for the labor crafts.
Y O
O 09/85 161
8327
-#4-16-SueW 1 BY MR. BAXTER: (Continuing) h 2 3
O Mr. Bensinger, would you provide a brief oral summary of your prefiled testimony, please?
4 4
END #4 4 Jo3 flws 5
6 7
1 8 9
4 10 11 12 13 14
\
! 15 16 4
! 17
- 18 i 19 1
20 21 4
22 23
{
! 24 d n. porters. Inc.
j j 25 i
i l
t.~....-.y.
5-1-Joa Wal 8328 1 A (Mr. Bensinger) Yes, I will, Mr. Baxter. Prior
[]) 2 to forming the consulting firm of Bensinger, Dupont and 3 Associates, I served as the administrator of the United 4 States Drug Enforcement Administration in Washington, D.C.,
5 hav'ing been appointed by President Ford, and serving in 6 that position from January 19, 1976, to and through July 10, 7 1981 under four different Attorney Generals and three 8 Presidents.
9 The U. S. Drug Enforcement Administration is 10 the principal agency in the United States for the enforcement 11 of-the Controlled Substances Act;for training of state and 12 local law enforcement officers in narcotic training; for rm, 13 matters of intelligence; for the administration of regional
( /
14 laboratories, which in fact analyze evidence gathered, 15 collected, and presented in Federal Court in trial.
16 Prior to that period of time, as administrator 17 I had held other positions in State Government including 18 the position of Director of Corrections for the State of 19 Illinois, and the Executive Directorship of the Chicago 20 Crime Commission, as well as being chief of the Crime 21 Victim's Division of the Illinois Attorney General's 22 Office.
23 In 1982, early in that year, I was contacted 24 by the Chairman of Commonwealth Edison Company in Chicago er;l Reporters, Inc.
25 to assist in an assessment of drug policy and possibly
- 5-2-Jo
- Wal 8329
}
- j. I drug problens at one of their nuclear facilities, nuclear i
2 plant, and I worked for Commonwealth Edison for six months '
[}
3 inean assessment of that; development of more comprehensive 4 training, education, intervention methods for that public i
5 utility.
6 During this period of time, I called on the
{
- 7 services of Bob Dupont, who was the Head of the National 8 Institute of Drug Abuse for the Federal Government when I 9 was head of DEA, and Bob made a presentation with me at i
l 10 Commonwealth Edison to their top offices, and we subse- f 11 quently discussed the advisability, since I have been
! 12 contacted by other utilities, of former consulting firm, i
13 dealing with this problem which has been widespread in the 14 United States industry for a number of years but has not 4
15 been sufficiently addressed in many specific instances 16 with firm policies, clarity of purpose, adequate supervisory 1
- 17 training, and other steps . '
18 Bensinger-Dupont and Associates does have sixteen *
]
1 19 different associates around the country who we call upon to l
l 20 provide supervisory training and employee education.
J j 21 In 1983, I was contacted by Carolina Power and l
l 22 Light, and provided them with a perspective on some of the 23 principal issues that I felt were important for the public 24 utility to address. !
n kponen. In<.
25 At the same time, I had been working closely with
5-3-Jo;Wal 8330 1 the Edison Electric Institute, the public utility -- investor-
) 2 owned public utility association in Washington, on developing 3 a guide for members on the issue of alcohol and drugs in the 4 workplace.
5 My firm was then r etained by Carolina Power and 6 Light in July of 1984, and I provided personally a management 7 briefing to the top officers, plant managers, department 8 heads of Carolina Power and Light on August 1, 1984.
9 This was followed by supervisory training at all 10 nuclear sites, including the Shearon Harris construction site, 11 in August and have maintained a consultative relationship 12 with Carolina Power and Light since that time, 1
r^ 13 The principal issues that a public utility, and 14 Carolina Power and Light did address, revolved around 15 establishing a clear written policy on drug and alcohol 16 abuse, communicating it effectively to the employees and 17 supervisors. Providing a management briefing in which there 18 is information which is shared with top managment, 19 supervision, divisional direction, on the health and safety 20 hazards of drug and alcohol abuse and importantly on the 21 need to take specific steps to address that threat.
22 These steps would include training for supervisors 23 in both aberrant behavior and the provision of guidelines.
24 of questions and answers to supervisors so they would know Agf.r:nportri,im.
25 what to do if they came into a situation in which somebody
5-4-Jo:Wal 8331 j may be, in fact, impaired, or perhaps not safe on the job.
2 This, in addition, involved the question of 3 drug testing. Body fluid testing. Urine testing for drugs, 4 which I recommended, and which the utility, in fact, since 5 April of '83 at the Shearon Harris plant had utilized. ,
6 My sense is -- my view is, my opinion is, that 7 drug testing is important. It is not a magic wand. It is 8
not a panacea, but it is an important initiative utilities, 9 private employers, public employers, for that matter, can 10 take both on a pre-employment, a fitness for duty basis, 11 or post-accident testing.
12 The utility has embarked upon, and has embarked 13 .upon, such drug testing and utilized, I might add, a top O ja laboratory, Compu-Chem to provide such drug screening and
! 15 also drug confirmation. And with a'n anagram level 16 considerably tighter than most used in the public utility 17 industry and in industry in general.
i l 18 The issue of notification of contractors is an 19 important one, and CP&L did just that. And notified in 20 writing, and ensured that Daniel Construction Company i
21 was conscious of their policy on drug and alcohol abuse, and 22 Provided such notification to their contractor employees.
23 The briefing to the contractors, the briefing to 24 supervisors, the briefing of management, body fluid testing p d n.po ws in.
25 for drugs, utilizing fitness for duty as a condition of I
I - - _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[
5-5-JonWal 8332 1 employment, written policy and supervisory guidelines and
' ') 2 questions and answers, are the type of key principal elements 3 that a company must use and address to provide for an 4 adequate level of drug control on the job site or at an 5 Operating station.
6 In addition, the utilization of undercover 7 investigations as an option and the deployment of K-9 8 dog searches again represent the type of initiatives that 9 tend to reaffirm the company's philosophy and policy on 10 drugs to provide a message to employees, contractor and 11 CP&L, both from a deterrent and from an apprehension 12 standpoint, but again, I think Mr. Chairman that these
-m 13 initiatives, too, are principally deterrent in nature.
)
14 That if you have a K-9 dog, an undercover operation, 15 a body fluid examination, these are effective means of 16 reconfirming the company's drug policy, but will not, in 17 and of themselves, necessarily stop in each and every case 18 the possibility of their being abused in one way or another 19 of the company's policy.
20 The initiatives that were taken by the Company 21 to provide in-depth training, to back it up with reinforcement 22 from management, to provide written materials, to provide 23 outside health experts on drug and alcohol abuse, one of the 24 top pharmacists in the country who has been retained, in jA ertl Reporters, Inc.
25 fact, by the National Association of Pharmacists to lead
5-6-Jonwal 8333 1 their program, Mickey Glasgow, did the testing at Shearon 2 Harris -- did the training at'Shearon Harris, and Compu-(])
3 Chem did the testing.
1
^
- 4 So, I am convinced that'the Company did, in fact, 5 address the issue of drug and alcohol abuse.
6 Took the appropriate steps to control it, and 7 in fact, exceeded the industry standard, and I was' involved 8 in helping to develop it.
t 9 I testified before the NRC Staff during the issue 10 of fitness for duty rules in 1982 an.d '83, and was a speaker 11 for the Edison Electric Institu'te when presentations were
- 12 made around the country on the issue of drugs in the work 13 place.
14 JUDGE KELLEY: When you say, ' industry standard' 15 I know you refer to that also. Is this the EEI standard --
16 WITNESS BENSINGER: The EEI guide, which is a 17 guideline. When I am talking about standards, I am also 18 talking about the practice in other utilities which have 19 embarked upon a program to address drug use within the 20 assignments and jobs within their company, and I have 21 been on those job sites.
22 I have been retained by numerous public utilities, i 23 and am familiar with what is going on in this industry in i
24 this field.
rti n. porters, Inc.
25 BY MR. BAXTER: (Continuing)
5-7-Jo:Wal 8334 1 0 Mr. Ferguson, will you summarize your testimony.
(} g please?
3 A (Witness Ferguson) My testimony is going to 4 basically describe the policies and the proceuares of the 5 Company's. drug and alcohol abuse program at Shearon Harris 6 nuclear plant.
7 Also, I am going to discuss the fact that my 8 feeling is that the Company has a firm policy against drug 9 and alcohol abuse, and has a vigorous program to enforce 10 any violators of the policy.
11 I will discuss the job applicant's instructional 12 Programs that are involved in the drug and alcohol abuse 13 program, both for employees as well as supervisors, and d(s 14 also discuss consistency of the policy and how it is carried 15 out to encourage the employees to be involved in the 16 implementation of the program, but also to describe what 17 actions the Company would take should a drug situation 18 occur, up to and including termination.
19 Q Mr. Flowers, will you summarize your testimony 20 next, please?
21 A (Witness Flowers) My testimony will describe 22 the drug policies and procedures of the Danial International 23 Corporation, which Daniel Construction Company is part of, 24 and Daniel being the constructor of the Shearon Harris plant.
ti it.po,,m, inc.
25 Our responsibility as corporative representative
,- ,, - , - - - . - - - . - , . , , ,- . ,----,----------,--n , , ,-- , , , . . , -
5-8-JonWal 8335 1 is to ensure that all of our sites -- and currently we are working in 42 states, and have some two hundred and some odd
('~ ) 2 3 jobs, all of our sites are implementing their procedures i 4 consistent with the overall corporate policy.
5 i I also assist site personnel with any security 6 related issues,'and specific on the Shearon Harris job, I 7 was responsible for conducting the training sessions for the 8 Daniel supervision on site, and the TSD, or Technical Services 9 Department, which is a part of Daniel, conducting training 10 sessions for those supervisors also.
11 Q Mr. Pannill, would you summarize your testimony, 12 please?
13 A (Witness Pannill) My testimony covers approximately 14 the same areas as does Mr. Flowers.
15 MR. RUNKLE: Excuse me, sir. I am having a hard 16 time hearing you.
17 WITNESS PANNILL: Okay. Is that any better?
18 MR. RUNKLE : The closer the better.
19 WITNESS PANNILL: Good. My testimony covers 20 approximately the same areas as does Mr. Flowers.
21 From December of '82 until approximately six weeks 22 ago I was the personnel manager for Daniel at the Harris 23 site.
24 My responsibilities included administering and hd a.pon.,s, Inc.
25 enforcing the Daniel personnel policies, which included the
8336 5-9-Jo;Wal i Daniel Shearon Harris drug problems.
() 2 I have been actively involved in recommending 3 drug prevention measures, participating in drug searches, 4 and drug investigations.
5 MR. BAXTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, the panel 6 is available for cross-examination.
7 JUDGE KELLEY: Just c minute.
8 (Board confers.)
l 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Off the record.
l 10 (Off the record discussion ensues.) l XXX INDEX 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION l
12 BY MR. RUNKLE:
13 Q Good morning, gentlemen. Can you hear me. Could 14 you tilt your table just a little bit back so I can see all 15 of you.
16 JUDGE KELLEY: It would be better, yes.
17 MR. RUNKLE: Just so I can see the people I 18 address.
19 BY MR. RUNKLE: (Continuing) 20 Q Let me start from left to right. Mr. Bensinger, 21 you have had a lot of experience at other industry and nuclear 22 power plants, have you not?
23 A (Witness Bensinger) It is pronounced Bensinger.
24 And we -- I personally have visited a number of construction het n.porem. Inc.
25 sites and nuclear power plants.
5-10-Jo Wal 8337 1 Our firm has been retained by a number of public
("') 2 utilities with nuclear power plants.
V 3 Q And you would be familiar with most of what your 4 company does at nuclear power plants? You would have at least 5 summaries of different investigations, and that kind of thing?
6 A I didn't hear the last part of your comment.
7 0 You would have at least awareness of some -- of what 8 was going on that your different associates were doing at the 9 different power plants?
10 A I am certainly familiar wi.th what Bensinger-Dupont 11 Associates do at power plants.
12 Q And'you are familiar with the contention in this 13 matter, are you not?
3
%)
14 A Yes.
15 Q I would like to have you help us define the word, 16 ' widespread' as it pertains to nuclear power plants.
17 Can you give us the percentage of -- in your 18 opinion,' what widespread drug use would be at a nuclear power 19 plant?
20 A Well, let me address that question, and it is 21 an important one. Perhaps the ' principal one of this hearing.
22 Let me start with giving you a perspective of 23 what is the current practice in the United States nationally.
24 Q No. From your testimony we can have an idea of
' h.ed n.ponen, inc.
25 what is going on nationally. Can we look at just nuclear L_
- 5-11-Jo;Wal 8338 1
power plants.
(~'i 2 MR. BAXTER: Objection, Mr. Chairman. If the U
3 witness feels he can only define -- he was asked an open-4 ended question. It was an open-ended invitation to define 5 the word, widespread.'
6 If he feels that he cannot' answer it limited to 7 nuclear power plants but has'to address a broader sector of 8 society, then he should be allowed to do that.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Do you want to respond, Mr. Runkle.
10 I think that the objection is a fair one. It seems to me 11 that you are putting your finger on a key issue.
12 I think we all recognize that.
13 You may have to ask a lot of questions to get b.<~
14 at this, but if he wants to begin by giving you a national 15 statistic, that is his perspective, and I think he should be 16 allowed to do it.
17 WITNESS BENSINGER: Fine, thank you. I will 18 proceed.
19 In the work place in America today, anywhere from 20 five to twelve percent of the working population may be using 21 drugs, illegal drugs, on and off the job.
22 My sense is that the nuclear power industry, 23 public utilities are in the forefront, forefront of American 24 industry in establishing specific programs to reduce this hot it.ponm, inc.
25 percentage, by a number of specific steps that they take to
F 1 5-12-JonWc1 I address the reality of this threat.
.[~') 2 In the nuclear power industry itself, the NRC
%/
3 and their Staff can comment on this subsequently, has done 4 surveys and our firm has also been- ret'ained by the Edison 5 Electric Institute to evaluate surveys done to determine just 6 how, quote, extensive use or abuse of drugs are at public 7 utilities and nuclear construction, or operating sites.
8 My sense is, and my response is, in reply to your 9 question, about what is widespread, that a finding of 10 approximately the same percentage or higher at a work location 11 than that which is available in the United States itself would 12 represent widespread use.
(')
v 13 What I am saying then is that a figure in the 14 upper -limits of ten percent of all employees .at a job site 15 would represent, to me, widespread use.
16 My finding in the case of Shearon Harris 17 information, my assessment of the affidavits of the law 18 enforcement officers and comment with Carolina Power and 19 Light, and counsel, and with the statistical information 20 submitted in subsequent panels testimony, identifying some 21 two hundred and one individuals that ndght have been 22 associated with drugs on or off the job, and in fact 23 associated with the Shearon Harris site as a proportion of 24 26,000 individuals who are employed at that location by het a. port.n. inc.
25 CP&L or by Daniel, is in fact, a fraction of the percentage
8340 5-13-Jo:Wal ,
1 that would be found at most work locations, and would not 1 0 2 he widesgreed.
3 I would go further. I would say that if you 4 had at a work' location a percentage that was one half of 5 what the national work percentage was, that would not reflect 6 to me widespread drug availability.
7 Now, granted in some countries, and I can name 8 Japan, and I can name other countries outside the United 9 States where the laws are more stringent and the procedures 10 for violations of the law more immediate, that in such 11 locations widespread would take a different perspective, 12 but in this country, no.
r'! 5. 13
[_s/fols.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 rti n. porters. Inc.
25
8341 JUDGE KELLEY: Do you mind if I just jump in with
'Sim 6-1 1
one question, Mr. Runkle right on this point?
MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE KELLEY: When you say 10 percent roughly, did you include earlier in your preambular comment that this
! 5 means people or includes people who only use it offsite?
WITNESS BENSINGER: Yes.
7
- JUDGE KELLEY
- The Saturday-night user?
8 i
WITNESS BENSINGER: The Saturday-night user, and 10 s is a,pr@lem#at 3 MMou are; gong;#o nn Mo j) regardless of where you hold hearings, because we..are 16cking at 22 million Americans that use marihuana at least once a
! month, where there are somewhere today maybe six to eight 13 million using cocain at that number and most of then when 14 the statistics come out of the National Institute of Drug Abuse saying the number of users, they use once a month as an outer limit. It is probably more often.
And drug use used off the job is something companies 18 have to be concerned with because it can have continuing j9 presence in the body system and that I don't accept as an 20
.a ceptable behavior.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you.
22 G ahead, Mr. Runkle.
23 BY MR. RUNKLE:
74 i Reporters, Inc.
0 Mr. Ferguson, you would agree with testimony that 25
, , , - , . - - - , ,~w ,,,n,...- ,-n,,-,,, ,, r . - - , - ,m ,-- c---,- ,, -nn,-,n,,,.. --vm,,-- , , -- - -
8342 m 6-2
) will be filed by the *nird panel that there have been 26,000 employees at the Harris plant during construction?
\/"
s
); 2 3 A (Witness Ferguson) I would agree with that.
4 O So that that 26,000 is a baseline that we can all 5 work with from this point; is that correct?
6 A I would think so.
7 Q Mr. Bensinger, now you stated that you looked at 8 the statistics provided to you by the applicants and had 9 a number of 201 employees since 1978 that had used drugs or 10 had been suspected of drugs; is that correct?
11 A (Witness Bensinger) Yes. One of the panel presen-12 tations that is not in evidence at this time, but it will 13 be, makes reference in its documentation, and I did read the 14 testimony that was submitted by all of the panels, to that 15 specific number, and it is broken down on page 12 of the 16 subsequent panel's presentation.
17 O And that would be the third panel, including 18 Hindman, King, Joyner and you, sir?
19 A That would be the panel of Hindman, King, Joyner 20 and myself. That is one data base that I made reference to.
21 0 Sir, in preparing your testimony did you review the 22 Conservation Council's request, discovery request and the 23 applicants' response to those discovery requests?
24 A I believe I did.
herst n.porem. Inc.
25 Q Now, sir, would you expect in comparing the
8343 m 6-3 Shearon Haris nuclear plant to other nuclear plants in this j
country, in your opinion, is the 201 out of some 26,000, 2
3 do you think that they have found all the people that used 4 drugs at the plant during that time?
A I w uld be surprised if any group would be able to 5
identify all users of drugs on or off the job site during any 6
7 Period of time.
0 So looking at all the different plants in the country ,
8 9
what percentage of drug users would you expect at the Shearon 10 Harris plant?
jj A I think it would be difficult to make any hypo-12 thetical expectation at the plant at a given time or over 13 a Period of time. I think you need to look at a number of ja indicators. You need to look at what drugs are found, the 15 quantities that are found, you need to look at what type of arrests have been made of those employees off duty, you need 16 j7 to look at information that would be available from accidents, 18 from injuries, from absenteeism, and you need to look at data 19 that relates to fitness for duty, testing on both a pre-20 employment and a fitness for duty in post-accident testing.
21 You would need to look at individuals who were identified at the plant having used drugs. You would need to look at the 22 23 results of a drug dog repetitive presence. You would need 24 to look at information that might have been developed out of
' herd Reporteri. inc.
25 an undercover investigation.
8344 Sim 6-4 And then you would get a sense as to whether there
)
are a 1 t of drugs available. I don't have that sense. I 2
have looked at the results of the specific actions, the 3
searches by the dogs, the reports that were available through 4
the undercover investigation and I have not seen large 5
quantities and I haven't seen kilo quantities of pot. I 6
haven't seen large half-ounce quantities of cocaine. I haven't 7
seen the undercover investigation lead to new names, except from those that were provided by the informant. I haven't 9
seen anecdotal information in Charlotte, Miami or other 10
)j locations where individuals employed at that plant have been part of a major drug network. I haven't seen large amounts 12 f und at the gate site. I haven't seen the dog turning up 13 jg stuff, ,
That gives me a sense that this is not a problem that is (a) widespread and (b) that the quantity does not 16 reflect a network of major drug sales, but individual use.
j7 And in comparison to other construction sites, the i 18 39 quantities are less, the networking outside and into the plant is less, and the impact, in my opinion, as a result therefrom 20 will be less.
21 22 O Let me return to these numbers. You have seen the 23 figure f 201 employees that will be presented and which you 24 have reviewed.
, herJ Reposts. Inc. Is it really necessary to go to the JUDGE KELLEY:
25
. ~, .- -- .
8345 Sim 6-5 1 201 at this point? I mean isn't that in the explicit j} 2 testimony of Panel 3?
3 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, I was about to object.
4 As stated on page 7 of this panel's testimony, its purpose 5 is to respond to the part of the allegation about whether we 6 have taken action to control drug abuse.
7 All of the questions so far have been directed at
- 8 the third piece of testimony, which is the quantitative 9 estimate.
10 Mr. Bensinger is going to be back to testify on that 11 panel, but he will have associated with him others who were 12 invovled in that identification process.
l
/ 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Any comment, Mr. Ruckle?
14 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir. I am laying the foundation 15 at this time primarily because Mr. Ferguson needs to answer 16 some questions I have later, and I need to lay some of the 17 groundwork for that. Mr. Ferguson, this will be the ohly 18 panel that he is on.. In:his position as being resopnsible-for 19 all personnel at the plant, he needs to answer some other 20 questions.
21 MR. BAXTER: I am not sure that Mr. Ferguson is 22 responsible for all the personnel at the site. He is in 23 employee relations. He is not the project vice president.
24 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I am sympathetic with your
, hma it.ponm. inc.
I, 25 concern that you get relevant questions asked, and if you L
8346 l
Sim 6-6 1 only get one bite at one apple, then maybe this is the time, 2 but I understood this panel to be speaking to policies,
{~}
3 if you will. And I think it is fair in that setting to 4 ask Dr. Bensinger about what he thinks widespread is in a 5 general way, but to get to the 201, we don't yet see the 6 need to do that, and it does seem to us that it might be 7 better to be putting those kinds of questions to the other 8 panel.
9 I suggest you go ahead and try to steer away from the 10 201, and if you run into problems and you want to ask 11 Mr. Ferguson something that he ought to respond to and you 12 have to have a foundation, then we will reconsider it.
~s 13 BY MR. RUNKEL:
(d Mr. Ferguson, you have been in personnel relations 14 Q 15 at the Harris plant since September of 1977; is that correct?
16 A (Witness Ferguson) No, I have been in personnel 17 relations at the Harris plant since '81, August of '81.
18 0 And since August of '81 part of your responsibility 19 has been in hiring at the Harris plant?
20 A Yes, sir, it has.
21 0 Returning to this 26,000 number of employees at 22 the Harris plant since 1978, can you tell us how many .
23 employees at the Harris plant there are at this time?
24 A There are approximately 6,000, h rd R.por$.ri. Inc.
25 0 And in 1978 how many employees were there?
8347 l
cim 6-7 1 A I am not sure that I know the answer to that O 2 euestion.
3 0 In 1981 how many employees were there at the Harris 4 plant?
5 A I don't know the answer.
6 0 Would it be fair to say that given seasonal varia-7 tions or what job was being done at the plant, that there 8 have been about 6,000 employees at the Harris plant since 9 1978?
10 A No, that is not a fair assumption. In the last --
11 I would say witnin the last year to two years there has 12 been the peak of the time, the peak of the numbers of people 13 at the Harris plant.
14 Q So would it be fair to assume then that since 15 '78 there has been an increase in the total number?
16 A I would say that would be a fair assumption. We 17 are probably in the process now of going back down as we 18 come closer to the operation of the plant.
19 O But at this time we have a peak of about 6,000?
20 A Yes, sir.
21 Q And of those, approximately 70 percent are 22 Daniel's Construction, are they not?
23 A That is correct.
24 Q How many other contractors, contract employees are erot Reporters, Inc.
25 there are the plant?
l I
l 8348 '
-. Sim 6-8 j A There would be of the 6,000 approximately 5,000
- - f them would be contractors. So another 10 percent. The 2
Carolina Power and Light Company has got approximately a 3
- thousand, and 70 percent of them would be Daniel and the 4
ther 10 percent would be the other contractors. Those are 5
app: ximate numbers.
6 Q And it changes over time, depending on the job 7
and what is needed; is that correct?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 0 Mr. Bensinger, what was the date that you were 10 jj called in by the company to start consulting with them?
A (Witness Bensinger) The first information that 12 J-was provided was in 1983, early '83, and I had communication
() jj with Ray Gemza, the training officer for Carolina Power and i
g , and shared with him and the company material and 15 i
16 Perspective -that had been utilized by the Georgia Power Company.
37 Subsequent to that, I had an opportunity to meet 18 j9 and to talk with Mr. Phil Stone at Edison Electric Institute conferences, and then was formally retained and employed 20 21 by the company in July of 1984 to provide in-depth management briefings and supervisory training throughout the nuclear 22 23 p wer division, at headquarters and at the job locations with our associates.
24 xd it portm. lac.
O So would it be fair to say that you have had a 25 a
6
, w--.,-,----y- -m,. _ -,._,,,m . _ _ _ . ,
8349 m 6-9 substantial influence on the present shape of the Carolina 1
, 2 Power and Light drug program, the drug detection program?
3 A I would say that it would be fair to say that I 4 was retained as a consultant and that my advice was offered 5 and given, and that that commenced early in '83, but was most 6 intensive in the summer of '84.
7 Q In the summer of '84 what recommendations did you 8 make to the applicants?
9 A I reaffirmed the advisability of supervisory 10 training that would be in addition to aberrant behavior 11 training which professionals out of Chapel Hill had already 12 provided at the work location, providing supervisory r1 13 guidelines, questions and answers to supervisors having
'w) 14 personalized face-to-face disenssions, both utilizing the 15 presence of Carolina Power and Light management to answer 16 policy questions and a health and safety expert, someone 17 with a good working a personal experience in the pharmacology 18 and the health and safety implications of drugs, and looked 19 at on behalf of the company the drug testing program and 20 procedures, which I found to be excellent, incidentally, 21 and discussed the advisability of providing perhaps additional 22 video tape and employee communication tools to reaffirm the 23 company's already stated policy.
24 We talked, in addition, about canine inspection, h.rol Reporters, Inc.
25 we talked about contractor notification and a variety of
8350 l Sim 6-10
- subjects that have been surfaced, as referenced earlier, in ,
l
/~T 2 the Edison Electric Institute guide.
V.
3 Q Thank yot.. Since the sumer of '84 -- in the 4 summer of '84 you came to Carolina Power and Light and gave 5 a management briefing, did you act?
6 A I did, on Augsut 1st.
7 Q But later supervisory training was handled by 8 the associates of your firm; is that correct?
9 A That is correct.
10 JUDGE KELLEY: Whenever you get to a good enough 11 spot to break, I suppose we could do that.
12 BY MR. RUNKLE:
i 13 0 Sir, in your opinion, is the program currently la in effect at the Shearon Harris plant better than the one 15 that was in place in the summer of 1984?
16 A (Witness Bensinger) I think additional steps have 17 been taken since 1984 that would provide for increased 18 intervention opportunity. So my sense would be yes, as 19 is the case in most of the public utilities. They have 20 added additional elements to a drug program and a drug policy.
21 It is not a fixed item. It is fluid and it has 22 to change and does.
23 Q And there would be really two main parts to the 24 drug program; is that correct? One would be prevention herei n.por,.ri, inc.
25 and the other would be detection?
d
8351 Sim 6-11 j A Well, I think there are maybe four or five different parts.
2 First, you have got to state your policy with 3
4 clarity and provide for consistent enforcement and provide f r education and prevention through detection.
. 5 Also, which I might add, which we haven't talked 6
about, employee assistance, the availability of some 7
counseling for individuals or dependents of their family 8
to seek help.
9 10 But you do have ongoing prevention and you have jj education and training and you have detection, bu* you have 12 g t something else, which the company has focused on, and I think is essential, and that is intervention. That is (q/ 13 ja probably what we have been lacking of as parents, as school 15 teachers, as employers and as sports teams, insufficient 16 intervention.
17 0 Can you briefly define what you mean by interven-18 tion? You have lost me on that.
A Okay. Intervention is where you find that someone 39 20 may not be fit for duty or refuses to take a urine test, 21 to have a physical, comes to the job site with contraband, 22 where the company is in a more proactive role and establishes 23 additional both preventative and detection steps so that the risk of having people on the job site with drugs or under here n.poren,24 inc.
25 the influence of drugs is reduced. And the intervention
8352 Sim'6-12 1 could take the form of a removal from the site site for
() 2 cause of request for a urine test and utilization of 3 detection through canine searches.
4 The intervention mode is an important one and 5 is probably in the United States still underused in almost 6 every industry.
7 MR. RUNKLE: This would be a good place to stop.
8 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Let's break until 1:30 for 9 lunch.
10 (Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the hearing recessed, 11 to reconvene at 1:30 p.m., the same day.)
end Sim 12 Sua fols 14 15 16 4
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 erzi Reporters, Inc.
25 l
8353
- 7-1-SueW 1 A_ F_ T E R N O O N, S E S S I_ Q N_
(1:31 p.m.)
(/
w
) 2 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. We can go back on the re-4 cord at this point. We will first welcome Mr. Eddleman to 5 our proceedings.
6 MR. EDDLEMAN: Good afternoon, Judge.
7 JUDGE KELLEY: Thanks. And acknowledge receipt 8 of what.Mr. Eddleman has served on us and presumably the 9 parties, a document entitled " Contentions Based on Emergency 10 planning Exercise."
11 And I'm just thinking about if we get hand-service 12 here what that does under the Rules as to responses. What T 13 is that, ten days, Mr. Baxter?
(G 14 MR. BAXTER: Yes. I was just trying to think 15 whether there is some basis for arguing that this isn't our 16 principal place of business, but --
17 (Laughter.)
18 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah, very good.
19 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, I haven't consulted with 20 the parties but if anybody thinks they will need more time 21 I will be glad to talk to them about it.
22 I don't propose to go into this. I --
23 JUDGE KELLEY: No, I didn't mean that either.
24 I just thought, you know, give them the service here, if h.rst it.perten, inc.
25 there is any question about a response date we might just l
8354 j
- 7-2-SueW l establish that.
('N The end of next week?
() 2 3 MR. BARTH: No, Your Honor.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: No? All right.
5 (Laughter.) -
6 MR. BAXTER: Overruled.
7 MR. BARTH: We won't have a chance to look at 8 this until we get back. And, like Mr. Runkle, I will be 9 absent from looking at this.
10 And I think the Rules provide fifteen days is my 11 recollection.
12 JUDGE KELLEY: For the Staff, yeah. Right.
/~T 13 Well, ten and fifteen; that's the rule, right?
V 14 Served today, the clock ticks. If you need more 15 time, you can ask for it I guess, 16 Okay. We will get right back to the panel. Mr.
17 Runkle can resume his cross-examination.
18 Whereupon, 19 PETER B. BENSINGER, 20 JOHN D. FERGUSON, 21 GARRY W. FLONERS 22 - and -
23 A. REID PANNILL 24 were recalled to the stand as witnesses by and on behalf of er:) Reporters, Inc.
25 the Applicants and, having previously been duly sworn,
i 8355
- 7-3-SueW l were further examined and testified further as follows:
() 2 CROSS-EXAMINATION 3 BY MR. RUNKLE: (Continuing) 4 O Let me address my questions to Mr. Perguson, if 5 I might.
6 Now, Mr. Ferguson, would it be fair to say that 7 you are the one responsible "or the drug program at the 8 Shearon Harris Plant?
9 A (Ferguson) I am the Personnel Director for the 10 Carolina Power and Light Company. I don't think it would 11 be fair to assume that I have total control over the entire 12 program.
13 Q But you are familiar with the entire program?
14 A I am familiar with the program.
15 0 n fact, one of your responsibilities is for that 16 program, is it not?
17 A I'm responsible for the program for Carolina 18 Power and Light' Company.
19 Q But you are not responsible for the drug program 20 for Daniels or any of the other contractor,s?
21 A I'm not responsible for those particular programs.
22 0 Are you familiar with those programs?
23 A I'm familiar with parts of them, yeah.
24 0 Now, if you will turn your attention to what has rol Reporters, Inc.
25 been identified as Applicants' Exhibit Number 30, which is
8356
- 7-4-SueW 1 the B document under Ferguson's Affidavit. Do you have
() 2 that in front of you?
3 A Yes, I do.
4 Q Could you -- and, are you familiar with this docu-5 ment?
6 A Yes, I am.
7 Q At the end of the document, it does say that it 8 was revised 04/01/85; is that correct?
9 A That's correct.
10 Q Did you work on the revisions at that time?
11 A I did not work on the revisions of the document.
12 O Are you aware of what revisions occurred at
(~N 13 April 1st, 1985?
,j 14 A Not exactly, other than the fact that they were 15 very minor revisions in terms of some of the wording that 16 went into each one of the paragraphs. But from the stand-17 point of the original form, it really did not change the 18 policy nor did it change any of the responsibilities.
19 Q So, before 4/1/85 you had substantially the 20 same drug program at Harris?
21 A Yes, sure did.
22 O Now, if you will turn to the second page of that 23 document, at the bottom of the page under " Manager / Employee 24 Relationships," Number 3, can you read that first sentence, ersJ Reporters, Inc.
25 please?
l
8357
- 7-5-SueW 1 A Number 3? l l
/~
(_)/ Q Yes.
A " Ensure that all employees who have less than 4
three years of continuous service as a regular full-time 5
employee with the Company and who are being considered 6
for responsibility or assignment changes which would require 7
access to nuclear power plant sites be required to undergo 8
drug screening procedures and be evaluated through the administration of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality 10 Inventory prior to being granted accesc to such sites."
11 O Now, if an employee had worked for the Company 12 over three years, does that person need to have a drug
,() screening or the MMPI administered?
14 A The program is set up so that although the policy 15 covers all of the employees no matter what the length of 16 service that they've got, it does not require the drug I
screen or the MMPI if they have more than three years of 18 continuous service with the Company.
19 Q Your answer to my question then was yes?
20 A The answer to the question was that all of the 21 employees under the Company have the responsibility of 22 complying with the program no matter what the length of 23 time that their service is, but that if they have in excess h.m a.pm,.n,24 inc.
f three years of service then they do not need to go through 25 the MMPI and drug screen if they are transferred into a job
8358
- 7-6-SueWI requiring unescorted access.
2 Q Thank you. And on the fourth page of that
([ )
3 document, under " Department / Nuclear Project Section Managers,*
4 paragraph 2, it describes briefly about the medical exam, 5 does it not?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Can you describe briefly for us what a Company-8 approved medical examination consists of in this context?
9 A Basically a drug screen.
10 0 And that would be primarily a urinalysis?-
II A Yes, it would.
12 O Any blood testing?
r3 13 A No.
LJ 14 Q Now, in setting up --
15 A Excuse me. Let me correct that by saying that 16 it could mean blood testing, although we have not used blood 17 tests.
18 Q So, primarily when you refer to a Company-approved 19 medical examination that's a urinalysis?
20 A That's where we normally use the term, yes.
21 Q Okay. Now, on Page 10 of your testimony, you 22 discuss this Company-approved medical examination, do you 23 not?
24 A Yes.
.czi n. porters. Inc.
25 Q Now, when it says in about the ninth line from l
i i
8359
- 7-7-SueW 1 the bottom, beginning "The urine specimen is collected by
() 2 a local physician. . .," are you with me?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q How is the urine specimen collected by a local 5 physician?
6 A Basically what happens is that the Company --
7 when an individual is found to have a reasonable belief 8 that there is -- that they are involved in utilizing drugs 9 either on or off-site, that we would set up an appointment 10 with the physician and at that time, from the point that 11 we tell the individual that they would be subject to a drug 12 screen, then they are escorted either by their supervisor
~'
13 or by somebody from Employee Relations to go with them to 14 the doctor's office, and they are escorted until such time 15 as they render the sample, which is in -- which is directly 16 involved in the chain of custody process so that we can 17 make sure that there is a viable sample that is given, 18 which is in difference to the contention that was made 19 by Ms. Miriello.
20 0 Would you repeat that last part? You sort of 21 faded out on me.
22 A Well, what I was saying is that underneath the --
23 under the provisions when an individual is asked to go to 24 a drug screen, from the time that they are told to the time A alReportm.IM.
25 that they render the sample they are being escorted by either i
8360 l l
I
- 7-8-SueW _1 their supervisor or somebody from Employee Relations, which l
() 2 is in difference to the testimony from Ms. Miriello.
3 0 Okay. And that would be somebody who is a worker 4 on site that, say, a supervisor noticed one of the symptoms 5 of drug abuse and say: You need to have a drug urinalysis 6 done; is that correct?
7 MR. BAXTER: I'm sorry, Mr. Runkle. You say a 8 worker off-site?
9 MR. RUNKLE: A worker on the site.
10 MR. BAXTER: On the site.
11 WITNESS FERGUSON: If somebody -- if there was 12 reason to believe -- if a person was under the influence of 13 drugs, then the -- then appropriate channels would be taken --
/}
14 ' appropriate actions would be taken which would include the 15 probability of taking a drug screen. And at that time, 16 that's the way in which it would occur.
17 The Company would then escort that individual 18 once they are told.
19 BY MR. RUNKLE: (Continuing) 20 Q Okay. But then that procedure would be slightly 21 different, would it not, to an employee who is now being 22 considered for responsibility or assignment change that 23 would require access to the site?
24 A No. The policy is no different. Understand hti n.pon.n. inc.
25 that the -- that each individual has the responsibility of
8361
- 7-9-SueW l complying with the Company Drug and Alcohol Abuse Policy.
( )' 2 And interdepartmental procedure covers those functions.
3 If an individual, no matter whether they have 4 three years of experience, under three years, or a hundred 5 years of experience the policy is exactly the same.
6 If they have reason to believe that they are 7 under the influence of drugs, then they would all go to do 8 a drug screen if it was necessary, if we felt it was neces-9 sary to do that.
10 0 But if, say, an employee that has been employed Il less than three years continuously is being transferred out I2 to the Harris site, that person has to have the urinalpsis
() 13 done; is that correct?
As -- it is in effect a mechanism, because, see,
' 14 A 15 we've been in a position for -- if an individual has less 16 than three years of experience or more than three years of 17 experience we would be in a better position to be able to 18 tell whether there were any performance factors that would 19 be included into that.
20 0 But my question deals with, with that person 21 that has less than three years of experience, that person 22 needs a urinalysis before they can be transferred out to 23 Harris; is that correct?
i 24 A That's correct.
A&ertl Reporters, Inc.
25 0 All right. Now, that person -- does a security
8362
- 7-10-SueWl person or somebody else with personnel relationships stay
() 2 with that person to ensure the same custody that would occur 3 for the individual described on Page 4 that would need a 4 medical exam?
5 A There are -- what we are in effect doing in this 6 case is, there is no reason to believe that the individual 7 is under the influence of drugs at the time so, therefore, 8 the criteria are somewhat different as they would be with 9 an applicant and/or an individual with less than three years 10 of service.
II If there was reason to believe that the iddividual 12 was involved in drugs, they would never have been transfer-13 red there in the first place.
14 Q Right. Thank you. On Page 10 of your testimony, 15 you list various classes of drugs that are included in a 16 Compuchem analysis, do you not?
17 A I do, 18 Q Are you familiar with the Compuchem analysis?
I9 A To some extent, yes, sir.
20 Q And that would be a urinalysis, would it not?
21 A Well, the urinalysis is the testing procedure, 22 that's right.
23 Q If an individual would take an amphetamine, 24 how long would it be present in their urine?
A4ertl Iteporters, Inc.
25 A Well, it depends on the metabolism of the O
8363
- 7-11-SueW1 individual, the length of time -- the extent of use of the
() 2 individual, what their blood level is, how long it would be.
3 It's normally I think from six to eighteen hours.
4 Q And why don't -- could we go down the list and 5 get those same figures for each one of these?
6 Barbiturates?
7 A It would be about the same.
8 Q Benzodiazepines?
9 A Benzodiazepines is valium. It's basically the 10 same thing. It's a six to eighteen hours.
11 Q And cannabinoids, which I assume is marijuana, 12 is it not?
13 A Well, yes. What you would be referring to would
}
14 probably be marijuana.
, >t, "15 0 And how long would that be present in urine?
16 A Much longer, up to thirty days.
17 Q How about cocaine?
18 A Six to eighteen hours.
19 Q Methadone?
20 A The opiates and the methadone would be approxi-
,w .>.)
J' 21 mately that time. I'm not exactly positive it's the length 22 on that.
23 Q So, under twenty-four hours; would that be safe?
24 A I don't --
,A ,1 Reporters, Inc.
L 25 O Methaqualone?
I l
l t
8364
- 7-12-SueWl (Mr. Ferguson is conferring with Mr Pannill
() 2 and-Mr. Flowers.)
3 A Forty-eight hours.
4 O And opiates?
5 A The opiates would be six to eighteen hours.
6 Q And then the last one is phencyclidine?
7 A Phencyclidine, I don't really know.
8 Q All right. And you were referring in part to 9 what --
10 A I need to correct what I said with the meth-11 aqualone. That was the effect. What I quoted was the 12 effect, the duration of the effects, not how long it was 13 within the body.
{}
14 To be' honest with you, I'm not sure that I 15 know the answer to that, how long it should be within the 16 body.
17 Q And that is just methaqualone?
18 A The other ones were my understanding as to what 19 the -- the length of time the drugs would be in the system.
20 Q Uh-huh. All right. Does any of the other panel y 8
21 have any corrections on that?
22 Does that seem reasonable in the reasonable 23 estimates?
24 A (Bensinger) It does seem reasonable. But the ersj Reporters, Inc.
25
l 8365
- 7-13-SueW 1 length of time for marijuana, the cannabinoids, Delta 9 2 THC and 11 Nord, Delta 9 THC, are unlikely, very unlikely, adlh 3 to stay up to thirty days, although the longest single cita-4 tion may be forty-two days.
5 Probably two to three weeks would be a more 6 reasonable estimate.
7 Q And in part in responding to that question, Mr.
8 Ferguson, you referred to what has been previously put into 9 evidence as Applicantd Exhibit Number 40, which is G under 10 .the panel on Flowers' previous Affidavit.
11 A (Ferguson)- Yes.
12 0 And that is entitled --
13 A Although the only referral that I made was on 14 methaqualone. And I subsequently withdrew that, because it 15 has got the duration of effects as opposed to the duration 16 in the body.
i 17 Q All right.
18 A So really there is no reference to it.
4 19 0 All right.
Thank you. Sir, can we turn your 20 attention to Applicants' Exhibit Number 31, which is C i
21 under Ferguson's Affidavit?
22 A Okay.
23 Q And that would be the Drug and Alcohol Abuse 24 Reference Manual; is that correct?
.i n.porten, Inc.
25 A That's correct. l
- , . - . . . , . - - - . , - - . . - , _ - ._,.- _-~.- -..__.-._- _ ..--,. .-..-..,-.- -.
8366
- 7-14-SueW1 Q Can you tell us when this manual was prepared?
) 2 A It was prepared in the first quarter of 1983. .
3 Q And has it undergone any revision since that 4 time?
5 A Not that I'm aware of, no.
END #7 6 1- Jon flws 4
7 4
- 8 1
9 10 11 12 O 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
,22 23 24 hti hporten, Inc.
25 i
'8-1-Jo:Wal 8367 1 O I would like to discuss with you briefly about
() 2 the program that Dr. Bensinger discussed earlier. The 3 employee assistance program?
4 A (Witness Ferguson) Okay.
5 Q Are you familiar with that program? .
6 A Yes, sir.
7 Q And basically, that is just somebody who is having 8 alcohol, drug abuse, or other problens can go and get help from 9 the Company, is that a fair summary?
10 A That is basically what it is. Anybody who was 11 having any personal' or family-type problems, the EAP program 12 is a mechanism for the Company to be to help them.
13 0 And one of those problems that an employee could 14 have would be drug abuse?
15 A It is possible.
16 Q Now, if an employee was having drug abuse, they 17 could voluntarily go to that program, could they not?
18 MR. BAXTER: Objection. Mr. Chairman, the 19 employee assistance program is recognized and recommended 20 by EEI and others as something companies should do, and 21 of course, it is included here because it is a program 22 that the Company had.
23 But we do have to keep in mind to some extent 24 here what the focus of the NRC's responsibilities are, and h.rti n.porem, Inc.
25 I think in terms of the potential safety consequences and i
- . , -.n,- - - . - - - --,n.,
- . . - n -- - - . . - - - - - - , - . - - - -
'8-2-JoeWal 8368 1 construction consequences, it is irrelevant whether we have
() 2 a good rehabilitation program for our employees who may choose 3 to use this program.
4 So, I think any kind of detailed examination into 5 this program is simply not germane to the matter before the 6 Board.
7 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Runkle?
8 MR. RUNKLE: I would be glad to strike any mention 9 of this program out of all the testimony that has happened
, 10 so far, and all the prefiled testimony.
11 If it is irrelevant, so be it.
12 JUDGE KELLEY: Do you so move?
13 MR. RUNKLE: Yeah, I so move that.
NJe~)
14 MR. KELLEY: Correct me again, gentlemen, exactly 15 where is this referred to?
16 MR. BAXTER: We were referring to an exhibit 17 which is not --
18 JUDGE KELLEY: 31, okay, what page.
19 VOICE: Last page.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: Last page, thank you.
21 MR. BAXTER: This is a pre-existing document, 22 Mr. Chairman. I am not denying that this program exists.
23 He didn't go through and excise and cut out from these 24 documents.
erzi Reporters, lac.
25 JUDGE KELLEY: No, we wouldn't expect you to
8-3-JosWal 8369 1 do that. Wouldn't you say, though, that the existence of
{} 2 the program may, in some way, alleviate drug problems at the 3 Harris site?
4 It isn' t purely benevolent, is it?
5 MR. BAXTERY - Well, we certainly haven't taken 6 credit for it in that vein, if it has that effect. I would 7 have to ask the witnesses myself.
8 JUDGE KELLEY: I think in the interest of moving 9 along, the subject seems to us to be sort of marginal and -
10 a question or two is okay, so we will overrule the objection 11 to the question that was put, but suggest to Mr. Runkle that 12 he move on to something else pretty soon.
es 13 BY MR. RUNKLE: (Continuing) b 14 Q Mr. Ferguson, if I can draw your attention to 15 Page 4 of Exhibit 31.
16 A (Witness Ferguson) Okay.
17 0 On the second full paragraph, the second full 18 Paragraph down on that page -- are you with me?
19 A Uh-ugh.
20 0 Okay. To sum u'; that paragraph, if an employee 21 participates in the employee assistance program, he or she 22 still can have -- be terminated, is that correct?
23 A That is correct.
24 Q Or have any other -- strike that last. Now, how erst Reporters, Inc.
25 does an employee -- how is an employee referred to the
8-4-Jo:Wal 8370 1 employee assistance program?
2 They can voluntarily go to the program, can they
(~}
3 not?
4 A In the context of the drug and alcohol abuse 5 Program, that would be about the only way that they would be 6 allowed to go. If they voluntarily requested to participate 7 into it prior to the time that they were found to have any 8 of the performance indicators regarding drug and alcohol 9 abuse, then we would, in fact, honor their ability to go to 10 the EAP program. Ilowever, they may be removed from the 11 site and attendance to this does not guarantee their 12 employment.
13 An individual is found to have performance 14 indicators that would lead us to believe that they were 15 involved in drugs at the time, then it is too late for them 16 to be in a position to take amnesty or to go to the EAP 17 program.
18 JUDGE KELLEY: What do you mean by, ' involved?'
19 If you are using drugs, you can go to the program and 20 get help, right? You mean involved by selling the stuff, 21 or what do you mean?
22 WITNESS FERGUSON: No, I am talking about in 23 terms of utilizing drugs. If they were involved in using 24 drugs at the time, and they felt like they needed some help
' Ajlh.ed a,orem, w.
25 and came to the EAP program prior to us determining that 1
d
8371 8-5-Jo&Wal.
1 there was some performance ' indicators, or some performance 4
problem that would lead us to believe that there was drug
{}- 2 3 abuse, then they could continue on with the program, but 4 be removed from the site.
5 But if it became after that, then we would be 6 in a position where we would just take action, and the EAP i
1 7 program would not be afforded to them.
8 JUDGE KELLEY: So it is just a sort of locus 9 penetentia for people that haven't gotten in too far.
10 WITNESS FERGUSON: I don't understand what you 11 mean.
12 ' JUDGE KELLEY : A place to stop before you 13 get in too deep. But if you are in deep, it is too late, 14 you are going to get fired, right?
f 15 WITNESS FERGUSON: That is correct. There is 16 no guarantee that even if they are in the program --
17 JUDGE KELLEY: I understand.
j 18 BY MR. RUNKLE: (Continuing)
) 19 0 This employee assistance program was initiated
- A l 20 early in 1982, was it not?
21 A (Witness Ferguson) I believe it was in April p 22 of '82.
23 0 And is it also not true that since that time 24 no CP&L employee at the Harris site has been involved in hti n. pore.ri, one. ,
25 rehabiliation efforts for drug abuse in this program?
8372 8-6-Jo;Wal s j A There have been two people that have utilized
/~T 2 the EAP program for drug abuse, but they were not in a G
3 rehabiliation program.
4 In other words, they had gone because of 5 Personal problems that involved drug and alcohol abuse 6 within the family, and the Company took action.
7 Q And when did these people utilize the employee 8 assistance program?
l 9 A I am not positive as to the exact dates, but 10 it was in early '83 for one of them, and I should say 11 probably the June through August time frame of '83, and
, 12 then he.re was one recently in June of '85.
,13 I am not exactly sure on the dates.
v' 14 0 But to your knowledge there have been two 15 employees that have used this for drug-related problems?
16 A That is correct.
17 O And that is from the Harris site?
18 A That is from the Harris site.
19 Q If you can turn, Mr. Ferguson, to page 11 of 20 your testimony. In that, you describe Applicants Exhibit 21 No. 32, which is also the B Exhibit to the Hyman affidavit, 22 and it is -- do you have that document in front of you?
23 A Yes, sir. Yes, I have got it.
I J
24 0 And can you just describe what this exhibit hd n.porem, Inc.
25 is?
l l
l
- - - . . . . .. . .-__,.,-,,.--,---.-,---,.--c_-
8373 8-7-JosWal 1 A It is basically an amendment to -- it is an i
(} 2 extract to the amendment to the contract. To the contract.
3 Q And who is that contract with?
4 A This would be an extract of an amendment. We 5 extracted this as an amendment for contractors to come under 6 all of the contractors.
7 JUDGE KELLEY: Excuse me. We are just trying 8 to catch up. I know it is 32, but is there a counterpart I 9 tab so we can --
10 MR. RUNKLE: Hyman Exhibit B in the affidavit.
11
- There is only an A and B in those two tabs there.
12 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Go ahead.
i 13 MR. RUNKLE: Are we ready to continue?
14 WITNESS FERGUSON: Ycs.
15 ,
BY MR. RUNKLE: (Continuing) 16 Q Now, you are saying that this is an extract
- 17 of a contract article?
i 18 A (Witness Ferguson) Let me clarify it. This 19 would be a requested amendment -- this is something the 20 Company requested. It is an amendment to the contracts, 21 the contractors on site, and for the rest of the Company.
22 O Nov, is this contract amendment part of the 23 contract you had with Daniel Construction Company?
24 A Yes, it ifs.
rat hporten, Inc.
l
! 25 Q Now, do all the other contractors have this i
i
8374 8-8-Jo Wal 1 same amendment to their contracts now?
(} 2 A All of the contractors have a comment that is
- 3 made in there regarding the use.of illicit drugs within their 4 contract.
4 5 Q But this that we have' in front of us is the i.
< 6 Daniel contract amendment, is it not?
7 A I believe it is.
8 O Mr. Pannill, Mr. Flowers, is this the contract 9 amendment that Daniels has with CP&L?
i 10 A (Mr. Pannill) Yes, it is.
II A (Witness Flowers) There were several terms and 12 conditions -- it would be one of them.
13 Q Now, Mr. Flowers, when did Daniel Construction
.p%J 14 and Carolina Power and Light enter into this contract 15 amendment?
16 A When did we add anything to the general contract 17 with CP&L?
18 Q No. This specific amendment, relating to drug P
19 abuse policy?
20 A (Witness Ferguson) I believe it was in early 2I '85.
22 O And do you have a better estimate of the date 23 rather than early '857 24 A I think it was in February. I think it is ;
l hd n.porem. inc.
I 25 important to point out here that they have -- each one of i
8375
<- 8-9-JonWal.
1 the contractors on site has a drug and alcohol provision j 2 within each one of the contracts. Early in '85, that was f 3 expanded to include a requirement to conduct drug screening 4 and notification -- or have the employee sign that they 5 have, in fact, received a briefing on the drug and +
1 6 alcohol.
4 7 That each one of the contractors did have a 8 responsibility for that.
} 9 The new provision, there is approximately forty-l 10 one percent of the contractor which have participated in 1
11 this, which encompasses approximately eighty percent to 12 ninet'y percent of the that are on site.
4
- 13 So there are a lot of contractors with a small O 14 number of people that just have a provision in there 15 describing drug and alcohol abase.
! 16 But it has been expanded under a new contract 17 requiring a. drug screen, which covers about eighty to 18 Percent of the people.
19 Q And the big one of that would be Daniels l' 20 Construction?
, 21 A That is correct.
22 0 All right. Now, did the ConAm Incorporated, j 23 -- did they have a similar provision in their contract?
l 24 A They would have at least something indicated ril Reporters, Inc.
t 25 in there about the requirement for drug and alcohol abuse.
9
8-10-Jo Wal 8376 l
1 But I am not sure whether or'not they had this particular
() 2 thing written in there, or whether there was something else 3 that was written in regarding the owners or our position 4 regarding drug and alcohol use on site.
5 0 And i.t would be one of the contractors at the 6 Harris site, would it not?
7 A I believe, if I am not mistaken, they are a 8 subcontractor of NES.
9 Q And NES would be a contractor at the Harris 10 site.
I II A Yes.
12 0 All right. So, would a subcontractor to a 13 contractor have this contract article?
14 A I don't know whether they would have the article, 15 but they would still be responsible for the compliance 16 -- the contractor would have the responsibility of ensuring 17 that they complied with the owner's wishes, which would be 18 ours.
19 Q Mr. Flowers, let me draw your attention to 4
20 Applicants' Exhibit No. 38, which is at the E Tab of the 21 panel, Flowers Affidavit. ,
22 A (Witness Flowers) Okay.
4 23 Q And this would be 'a Daniel Construction 24 Company memorandum, would it not? This is an official ertl Reporters, Inc 25 memorandum.
8-ll-Jo:Wal 8377 1
A For the Shearon Harris site?
{} 2 O Yes. And this describes changes in the 3 Daniel Construction Company drug program, would it not?
4 A There was a reiteration of our standing policy, 5 and also to include the change.
6 O And what are those change or changes?
7 A As it says in the document, really the only
- 8 change is covered in the last paragraph, and that is 9 effective January 10, 1985, conssnt'to ssarch provisions i
10 will include urinalysis testing at the discretion of 11 senior project management.
12 Q And prior to this memo, or prior to January 1, 13 1985, did Daniel Construction have a urinalysis program 14 for their employees at the Harris site?
15 A No, sir.
16 Q And if I can turn your attention to the two 17 prior exhibits, Exhibits 36 and 37, which are at Tabs C 18 and D under the panel Flowers' Affidavit, now these 19 would reflect the changes in the urinalysis program, 20 would they not?
i 21 A 37 wouldn't reflect the changes. 37, Applicants' 22 Exhibit 37 is the Daniel corporate policy regarding 23 security actions, illegal drugs, and other contraband 24 materials.
A ;rsl Reporters, Inc.
25 Q Excuse me. Let's just look at 36, then, i
8-12-JosWal 8378 1 A Okay.
Q And this is dated 2/20/85, is it not?
) 2 3 A That is correct.
4 O And then on page 2 of this document, which is 5 also known as Page No. 3 of 5, under Section 3.5, the.
, 6 urinalysis is also added into this document, is it not?
7 A (Pause) That is correct.
8 Q And that would reflect the changes made ,
9 between the relationship of Carolina Power and Light and 4
10 Daniel in the contract amendment, is that correct?
2 11 A Well --
12 0 Let me rephrase that question.
13 A Yes, if you please.
You changed your policy and added urinalysis, 4
14 0 15 and that is because the contract .between CP&L and Daniel 4
16 was changed, is that right?
17 A They required -- as Mr.-Ferguson stated --
4 18 they required their contractors according to that End 8 19 amendment.
MS fols.
20 21 i
22 i 23 24 hre hporteri, Inc.
25 ;
i I l
l
8379 Sim 9-1 j Q Mr. Ferguston, can I draw your attention to 2 Applicants' Exhibit 33, which'is under Tab D in the Ferguson
(-)T 3 affidavit?
4 A (Witness Ferguson) Okay.
5 Q And this is a Sneprvisor's Reference Manual; is 6 that correct?
7 A Yes, sir.
8 Q Again, this was revised April 1st, 1985; was it 9 not?
10 A Yes. It was originally put together in March of 11 '83 and subsequently has gone through two revisions.
12 O In fact, the second revision was February 15,
, 13 1985?
14 A That is correct.
15 Q What change', were made on February 15th, 1985?
16 A I don't know the answer to that.
17 Q Can you turn to the 3rd page of this document under 18 the tabel of contents.
19 A Okay.
20 0 There is an asterick at the bottom and it reads 21 " Sections added 2/15/85"?
22 A Right.
23 Q Would you assume that the asterisk up in the 24 table of contents would be those new sections?
prol n.pocri, Inc.
25 A Yes, that would be a good assumption.
8380 Sim 9-2 1 Q And before 2/15/85 did CP&L not have these 2 chapters in this manual, or these sections in this manual?
3 A The supervisory guidelines were included into 4 the course work, but to be honest with you, I am not sure 5 whether or not they were included into the actual manual 6 themselves. The interdepartmental procedures, or admin-
, 7 istering the company policy, which would be the inter-8 departmental procedures inclusion into that, the questions
- 9 and answers, those were part of the training subsequent i
10 to -- well, those were part of the trainig, and the behavior 11 and job performance warning signs were also part of the 12 training.
13 But I don't know for sure, it is a while back, 14 as to whether or not they were actually in writing at that 15 time. Those were topics of discussion within the course 16 work.I should say.
17 Q And this was also revised on April 1, 1985, wr.s 18 it not?
l
' 19 A That is right.
20 0 What revisions were made to this document on 21 April 1st, 1985?
22 A I don't really know. I don't remember.
23 A (Witness Bensinger) I have with me, if I might, 24 the type of folder that was distributed to all supervisors
, het n.porem. Inc.
25 at the Shearon Harris site at the time of supervisory
8381 Sim 9-3 training in 1984, and that included the questions and j
answers, supervisory guidelines and a behavior and job 2
3 Prformance warning signs and indicators, and that was distributed to all supervisors at that site during that 4
U#81" "9' 5
0 So that would be the training that your company 6
performed in August of '847 7
A es.
8 0 And prior to that time, to your knowledge, sir, 9
was there any such program at the Harris site?
10 jj MR.'BAXTER: Such program? Could you be more
! specific? .
12 WITNESS BENSINGER: The aberrant behavior ---
m 13
() MR. BAXTER: Excuse me, Mr. Bensinger.
34 MR. RUNKLE: He has a folder in front of him that 15 he described as what was handed out at the program. I was
! 16 j7 referring my question to that.
MR. BAXTER: Well, he described some material that 18 j9 was passed out during supervisory training that was conductec(
20 in 1984, and then you asked prior to that time was there 21 any such program, and I don't know what ythe question is.
It is too imprecise. I object.
22 JUDGE KELLEY: Could you clarify the question?
23
,y MR. RUNKLE: 'Yes, sir, e d Reponen, Inc.
25 BY MR. RUNKLE:
8382 sim 9-4 1 Q Prior to Augsut 1984 was there any program at 2 the Harris plant dealing with the material that your 3 company presented in August of 1984?
4 A (Witness Bensinger) I will answer from my 5 perspective and Mr. Ferguson perhaps can give further 6 specificity. But it is my understanding, and I would 7 answer yes, a training program in aberrant behavior that 8 deals with the warning signs and symptoms of drug and 9 alcohol abuse and a good deal of the information that was 10 covered also by our professionals had been provided at that 11 location by other professionals and prior to that time.
12 A (Witness Ferguson) Yes. After looking these
^
13 things over and the actual additions that are asterisked 14 there for the 2/15 of '85, those were not included in the 15 actual initial document. Those came subsequent to the 16 August of '84 updating from information that was provided 17 by Bensinger, DuPont and Associates.
18 But the information, as I said before, was 19 included into the initial supervisory training program 20 conducted in April of '83 and subsequently was also involved 21 in the aberrant behavior workshop. So the people were 22 obtaining that kind of inforamtion not in the format that 23 it is presented after 2/15 of '85.
24 Q Now, Mr. Bensinger, you testified that you have deral Reporters, Inc.
25 reviewed CP&L's and Daniel's drug detection and drug
8383
~Sim 9-5 1 control programs, have you not?
2 A (Witness Bensinger) T'. tat was submitted in my testi-3 mony and in an affidavit, yes.
4 O And you in fact made such an analysis of the 5 different programs?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Now there are differences between the programs, are 8 there not?
9 A There are.
10 0 All right. Now in making a comparison between the 11 Daniel construction and the CP&L's drug programs, shall we 12 go in there just to find out what the differences are. In the 13 first urinalysis is there any differences in the requirements O-14 for urinalysis?
15 I don't know exactly how you A (Witness Ferguson) 16 are ---
I7 I was asking Mr. Bensinger, just comparing the two Q
18 programs, are there differences in the need for urinalysis?
A (Witness Bensinger) The Daniel program provides O
that r. urinalysis will apply for anyone on site who is deemed 21 to be subject to question as to fitness for duty. The Carolina 22 Power and Light program applies to all employees prior to 23 their employment and it applies to fitness for duty as well.
24 And then also, as you heard previously in the panel discussion, t h.rd n.pocri, inc.
25 there is a provision for employees of the firm who have had L
8384 Sim 9-6 )
less than a three-year period of time working within the 2 company.
0 Is there a difference in the amount of training 3
4 that the supervisors of CP&L and of Daniel Construction'have 5
in identifying workers that may have drug-related problems 6
or be under the influence of drugs?
7 A Our associate, Dr. Beuker, provided me with information on his assessment, and while there was difference 8
9 in the individuals utilized in the training, the Daniel 10 program is clear with respect to behavior warning signs and symptoms. It is clear with respect to intervention. It is 11 12 clear with respect to health and safety hazards.
m 13 So while the format may be somewhat different, it 14 accomplished the same objective, and I would consider it to 15 be an effective communication mechanism for supervisors at 16 their construction locations.
17 0 In responding to my last question you said that there were several areas that it was clear. Are there any 18 19 areas that are not clear?
20 A No. I used the emphasis of clarity because in 21 supervisory training uyou have to I think do a couple of 22 things. One, clearly spell out that the supervisor is 23 responsible for the observation of the employees reporting to that individual. The behavior observation courses, the 24 der:l Reporters, Inc.
25 fitness for duty courses, and the training that emphasizes
8385
- I that responsibility is essential, and it was met for both O 2 co e #1e -
3 The provision of anecdotal information, health 4 and safety information on marihuana and what the harmful 5 effects of that substance are or cocaine, that is also 6 an important ingredient, and that is also characteristic.in 7 both training elements. And, third, what do I do as a 8 supervisor.
9 And Daniel clearly -- this was a clear element 10 of their program and make it clear that they had to intervene 11 and that if someone was judged to be unfit for duty, that 12 that wouldn't be acceptable and they would have to be denied 13 access to the construction location.
14 Q Now you said that Daniel Construction felt that 15 they had to become involved. Do you have any feel for when 16 this happened?
17 A I think Mr. Flowers could address that from the 18 perspective of their company in their own time frame.
19 O Can you respond to that question, sir?
20 MR. BAXTER: Could I have it again, Mr. Runkle?
21 BY MR. RUNKLE:
22 O Mr. Bensinger stated that in looking at your pro-23 gram he felt that your company had responded to -- okay.
24 The question is when did Daniel Construction Company til Reporters, Inc.
25 initiate their drug program?
8386 4
Sim 9-8 1 MR. BAXTER: Are we talking about supervisory I
j 2 training?
3 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir.
4 j 4 WITNESS FLOWERS: At the Shearon Harris site or 5 as a corporation? ,
I f 6 MR. RUNKLE: Well, at the Harris site.
1 i 7 WITNESS FLOWERS: Our supervisory training at the i
8 Harris site for the construction supervisors started in early .
' l l
9 February of 1985. However, let me point out that if you
! 10 look in Applicants' Exhibit 37, we have had a drug policy 11 in effect since 1981, and it has always been against any of I
! 12 our policies as far as anybodythat is under the influence l 13 of alcohol or drugs that it is grounds for termination.
! )
l 14 BY MR. RUNKLE:
\
I 15 Q Mr. Flowers, on page 17 of your testimony in the j 16 7th sentence from the bottom you state that Daniel employees i 17 may also use a project quality check program and Daniel open-l 18 door policy. Can you briefly describe the quality check 19 program? l
! 20 A (Witness Pannil) I might be a little bit more i
t 21 prepared to answer that since I was on the job site and Gary 4
{ 22 was not. i
?
23 MR. BARTH: Your Honor, I do object to the program.
l 24 We had testimony at great length in the management hearings l qllNwri ngemm, W. [
25 about the quality check program. That is already in the l l
! l l
l
8387
- '~' record and there is no reason to rehash it. It has been j
2 asked and it has been answered at great length by the 3 quality assurance people at the management hearing sessions.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: We do know a fair amount about it, 5 not just from the hearing, but from the recent dispute over 6 disclosure of certain materials under the Freedom of 7 Information Act, which I assume would stand as submitted.
8 Perhaps a response about how the quality check relates to drugs might be useful. Could we narrow it to that, 9
10 Mr. Runkle?
11 MR. RUNKLE: I would like to first establish this 12 is the same quality check program. It is under the Daniel.
13 I would like to make sure this is the same one.
14 JUDGE KELLEY: All right.
WITNESS PANNIL: Yes, it is.
15 16 BY MR. RUNKLE:
0 This is the overall Shearon Harris quality check 17 18 Program for the whole project?
19 A (Witness Pannil) For the entire project, that 20 is correct.
21 Q And what is the Daniel open-door policy?
22 A The Daniel open-door policy means that if an-23 employee has any type fo concern they can express it for 24 resolution to their first-level supervision and carry that h,tln.pem,Inc. on until the problem is resolved on up to the President of 25
4 8388 Sim 9-10 1 of Daniel Construction Company if necessary.
() 2 O And so the quality check program and the Daniel 3 open-door policy would be mechanisms for one worker to say 4 identify other workers that are using drugs?
5 A That is correct.
6 Q When was the Daniel open-door policy initiated?
7 A The Daniel open-door policy has existed since the 8 creation of Daniel Construction Company in 1945 I think.
9 Q All right. dnd how about the project quality 10 check program, when was that initiated?
11 A Sometime in 1984. I am not certain of the month.
12 Q And since that time how many Daniel employees have 13 used the quality check program to raise issues related to 14 drug use at the site?
l 15 A I think CP&L quality check people keep those 16 records, and since that is a confidential operation, we 17 don't have access as to whom or how many.
18 0 How many for the Daniel open-door policy, employeer 19 raising drug-related issues?
20 A We again have not kept exact records on that, but 21 a fair amount.
22 Q Mr. Ferguson, would you like to add to how many 23 employees have used the quality check program?
24 A (Witness Ferguson) I am not familiar with exactly
, $.dn.pon.n,Inc 25 how many people would have used the qualit'y check program.
8389 Sim 9-11 j I do know that it is used as a mechanism for an individual to
' bring f rth their concerns regarding this issue.
2 0 And just limiting it to drug-related issues, how 3
a many concerns came out of the quality check program?
MR. BAXTER: I don't understand the question. I 5
bject. A concern coming out of the program, I don't know 6
7 what that means.
JUDGE KELLEY: Would you restate the question, please .
8 BY MR. RUNKLE:
9 0 Have there been any safety-related problems relating 10 jj to drug abuse that have arisen out of the quality check 12 program?
A (Witness Ferguson) The only way that I can answer
/
13 that is that I am not privy to all of the information that 34 comes out of that due to the confidentiality of the program 15 on the individual's part. So, therefore, when it is related 16 to the drug and alcohol, and I have been involved in it from 37 18 the standpoint of becoming necessary to either do drug screens j9 or take appropriate action, which in all cases where that has 20 been regarding the drug screen, there haven't been any that I am aware f, any safety concerns that have been brought out 21 in relation to the fact that the individual was utilizing 22 drugs. Just the fact that they were bringing them forth, the 23 24 e mpany took the action based upon the fact that they would A feril Reporters, Inc have to be answering the question and becuase of the interest 25
8390 Sim 9-12 1 that the company has got in terms of limiting the drug abuse
/~') 2 onsite, it would take action whether or not a safety-related C/
3 issues was brought forth on the QCP or not.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me raise a question about 5 quality check while we are talking about it. Part of the 6 . thrust of Mr. Runkle's questions, as I understood them, was,,
7 and I will generalize a little bit, do you find out about 8 drug abuse ene the site through quality check?
9 WITNESS FERGUSON: Yes, sir, we do.
10 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. And I understand about the 11 confidentiality and I understand the reasons for that, the 12 personal circumstances pertaining to particular people and 13 names, but none of that would go, I would think, to our 73 LJ 14 knowing how many people have come into quality check and said 15 the guy next to me is high. Is that happening or not?
16 WITNESS FERGUSON: What is happening is that the 17 quality check program is being utilized as a source of infor-18 mation regarding drug abuse. My problem is I couldn't put an 19 exact number on that, and the company has taken the action 20 that has been necessary, you know, in terms of doing drug 21 screen urinalysis if that information came forward.
22 WITNESS BENSINGER: Your Honor, if I could, I 23 noticed on page 8 and 9 of Bill Hindman's testimony, whi'ch r 24 is another panel ---
. rot Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. RUNKLE: I would object to that.
8391
~
I MR. BAXTER: Object to what? He hasn't finished.
() 2 MR. RUNKLE: Well, any reference to Bill Hindman's 3 testimony. It hasn't been admitted yet.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I think the witness can make 5 a forward' reference. Mr. Hindman will be here. Beginning 6 this morning, Mr. Runkle, you were asking questions exactly 7 on those very materials, and the same witness was doing the 8 same thing and you didn't object. So it is all sitting here 9 on the table and let me just find out what he wants to refer 10 to.
II WITNESS BENSINGER: I guess what I am saying is 12 I think there may be some representatives, and Mr. Hindman 13
(} I4 I think would be in a position to address this far better than Mr. Ferguson, from my understanding of the flow of testimony, 15 and individual information available to each of these 16 professions.
end Sim I7 Sun fols 18 19 i
20 21 22 23 24 erzl Reporters, Inc.
25 l
l
1 8392 1
- 10-1-SueW l JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. And I understand about the
() 2 confidentiality. and I understand there are reasons for that.
3 But I guess I would just like to know if the Quality Check 4 Program, which we've heard a lot about, is effective in flush-5 ing out drug use on the site.
6 It would be of interest to know I think how many 7 people have come and complained and named names. And we 8 don't want to know what the names are. We just want to know 9 whether it happens.
i 10 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, I understand the ques-11 tion. I think, as Mr. Bensinger was indicating, the numbers 12 people are somewhat the third panel. And I'm not promising 13 you they've got those numbers, because I don't know.
14 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I might register my interest 15 at this point so when they come tomorrow or the next day 16 maybe they can bring them along.
17 MR. BAXTER: They are the right group to pose 18 the question to.
19 WITNESS BENSINGER: They are, and my sense is 20 that that has also been surfaced to them and action has been 21 taken as a result of it.
t 22 JUDGE KELLEY: But this might be a question for 23 you, Mr. Bensinger. I would just wonder about such a pro-l
< 24 gram. I don't really know what the ethic is on a work site ril Reporters, Inc.
l 25 like this, whether you don't want to rat fink on your buddy, l
8393
- 10-2-SueW 1 or whether people are generally not into drugs, whether they
() 2 are offended by this kind of thing, whether they think it's 3 unsafe and, therefore, they would go in and turn people in.
4 I just don't know.
5 WITNESS BINSINGER: A number of utilities have 6 done what I think this Company has, with its contractor, 7 done. And that's provide to the work force a means of 8 registering concern in an anonomous way.
9 Some have used hot lines at nuclear construction 10 sites, and some have had suggestion boxes open, and some 11 have had their quality check forms.
12 And in my discussions with the CP&L representa-13 tives, as is the case in other utilities, there have been 14 references made and action taken as a result of those surface 15 concerns. And I think it's probably a good thing.
16 And I think you can pick up some information in 17 that fashion.
18 JUDGE KELLEY: Some?
19 WITNESS BINSINGER: Some. And you are not going 20 to have everybody fill one of these blanks out, needless to 21 say.
22 But it's an opportunity for the Company to get 23 report of concerns that doesn't require going through the 24 chain of command, the person's name, possible perception hril Reporters, Inc.
25 and peer group pressures. And in that sense, it's helpful.
8394 ;
- 10-3-SueW I And it's probably an avenue that isn't normally O 2 ava11ab1e. 1 wou1e encourage it.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Go ahead.
4 BY MR. RUNKLE: (Continuing)
S Q Dr. Bensinger -- Mr. Bensinger, just a couple few 6 last questions here..
7 In your seat as having reviewed a lot of nuclear 8 power plants and their drug programs, in your unique per-9 spective as head of the Drug Enforcement Agency, would it 10 be fair to say that one of the overall problems of having II workers abusing drugs while they are working is the loss of I2 work; is that correct?
13 A (Bensinger) One of the problems of workers Id using drugs could be reduced productivity, if that's what :
15 you mean.
16 Yes, sir. Either through while they are at work, Q
17 not doing as much as they could do, or doing things wrong 18 that need to be corrected, or even not even showing up for I9 work?
20 Absenteeism is a factor of both drug and alcohol A
2I abuse.
22 And as a company, CP&L, like other utilities, Q
23 would want to have their workers be productive.
24 A I'm sure they do.
herti it. porters, Inc.
5 MR. RUNKLE: I have no other questions for this
. . . - , . . . - . . - - - . - . . . . - = _ . - - - - - . . . . - - - -.
8395 1 panel.
2 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Runkle.
()-4-SueW I guess 3 we -- I don't know if we established whether we would go 4 to the Staff or the State next.
5 The Staff next; do you want to be next, Mr.
6 Barth?
7 MR. BARTH: The Staff has always gone last, 8 Your Honor.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
10 MR. BARTH: And I prefer to do so now.
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Cole, do you have questions 12 for this panel?
(']
13 MR. COLE: Your Honor, or Mr. Chairman, if you
%J 14 have a-preference; I guess out of habit I'm going to call 15 you Judge.
16 JUDGE KELLEY: That's all right.
17 MR. COLE: Yes.
INDEXXX 18 CROSS EXAMINATION 19 BY MR. COLE:
20 0 I will address this to Mr. Flowers or either 21 Mr. Pannill.
22 I'm looking to Page 13 of your filed testimony, 23 Mr. Flowers, and you are talking about the prospective 24 Daniel employees, and you say that you check out the criminal il Reporters, Inc. ,
25 records listed on the employment application.
8396
- 10-5-SueW l Can I assume from that that you have no means to
() 2 attempt to find out if the applicants have any past criminal 3 history other than what they have put on the job application?
4 A (Pannill) Our initial checking, of course, is 5 based on information the applicant provides on the applica-6 tion, so that's correct.
7 0 All right, sir.
8 A Now, if we had any mason to believe, any sort of 9 sign, any sort of doubt in regards to the applicant where we 10 thought that sort of check was needed, we do have ability 11 to do that.
12 O What would arouse your curiosity as a for instance?
r~g 13 A We dealt with the local law enforcement agencies
.Q 14 on a periodic basis in regards to serving warrants and 15 things like that. If they were to say such and such is in 16 the area, you may want to look out for that. They may just 17 point out an individual we may want to be on the alert for.
18 Q Mr. Ferguson, if I put that same question to you, 19 what would be your answer, sir?
20 A (Ferguson) I would say that we do a five year 21 background investigation that includes the criminal check 22 of all of the locations that the individual has worked at 23 and lived at through those last five years, and that the --
24 and we do that basically because of the need as the program, her:f Reporters. Inc.
25 we come underneath the responsibilities as an operating
8397
- 10-6-SueW l facility for ease of administration having each one of the ih 2 nuclear facilities operate in the same way.
3 Anybody that requires unescorted access or, in 4 our case, will require unescorted access at the time the 5 plant goes operational. That's the main reason why we do 6 the background investigation now.
7 Q Might I assume -- well, don't let me -- let me 8 just ask the question.
9 If the five year background check reveals a 10 history, whether it's just simple possession or what,' any II use of drugs, does that in itself preclude employment?
12 A I would say ninety-nine times out of a hundred, 13 it would.
I4 Q Would the same be true with Daniels?
15 A (Flowers) Yes, sir.
16 MR. COLE: Mr. Chairman, I had some notes here 17 about the two hundred and one people that we talked about 18 earlier this morning I believe, and was it your direction 19 to hold those questions until some later panel?
20 JUDGE KELLEY: I think it we aid be preferable 21 for the third panel or whatever. There is a specific panel 22 that is going to address that point.
23 MR. COLE: All right, sir. I have no further 24 questions.
r:1 Reporters, he.
25 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Why don't we take a ten
8398 I
- 10-7-SueW minute break and come back and finish up with the panel.
I) (Whereupon, a recess is taken at 2:42 p.m.,
3 to reconvene at 2:57 p.m., this same day.)
4 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. We will go back on the
' 0 record and turn to Mr. Barth of the Staff.
e
< 6
,' MR. BARTH: We have no questions of the panel,
- Your Honor, JUDGE KELLEY
- Okay.
BOARD EXAMINATION
.INDEXX BY JUDGE BRIGHT:
11 Q Mr. Bensinger, your biography aroused just a bit 12 of curiosity, let's say, on my part, nothing of any great
() 14 substance, but you say you graduated from Yale.
What was your major?
15 A (Bensinger) My major was in English Literature.
16 And let me take this opportunity, although there has been a 17 few references to Doctors, I am not an M.D. nor have the de-18 grees that have been bestowed upen me earned through the 19 completion of advanced univerFity study but rather through 20 an honorary method.
21 I'm just a liberal arts major from a college up 22 in Connecticut, and my major was English.
23 0 I can sympathize with you on the honorary doctorates ,
24 I receive many of them on letters and that sort of thing.
h rci n.porem, Inc.
25 But then I noticed that from ' 58 to '68 you were
8399
- 10-8-SueW 1 General Sales Manager. And I don't know whether it's in one --
2 I guess it's all with Brunswick International.
{v~}
3 A Well, the positions that I had between 1958 and 4 1968 were with Brunswick Corporation. I was Merchandise 5 Manager and then General Sales Manager for the United Kingdom.
6 And then for a year up in Frankfort for Brunswick International 7 and then came back to Chicago in a marketing position for 8 that Company until I left private industry and took a job as 9 a temporary transition Task Force Representative with the 10 State government in Illinois in 1968 and '69.
11 Q I was just wondering why the~ change from being a 12 sales manager to the Illinois Department of Corrections.
13 A It's a question at times like this I ask myself.
g-)x 14 (Laughter.)
15 But I -- in 1968 I was in Chicago working for 16 Brunswick Corporation in market testing. And we were testing 17 a development of the automatic scorer. And in November of 18 that year, another 'iale graduate happened to be elected ,
19 Governor of the State of Illinois.
20 And he asked eighteen people in the State to take 21 off a month and a half or two months of their time to study 22 State government. And I studied the Illinois Youth Commission 23 and the Department of Public Safety and was both amazed and 24 a little bit shocked at what I found and turned in a report, A ml Reporters, Inc.
25 as did the other Task Force members, and the incoming Director
8400
- 10-9-SueW1 of Public Safety asked me to become his Administrative
( ; 2 Assistant. And I kind of asked myself, does public service
'J-3 and this field of criminal justice interest you enough to 4 leave this Company. And I answered that it did.
5 And I was one of about seven hundred Administra-6 tive Assistants during the early part of 1969 and then got 7 appointed to be Chairman of the Illinois Youth Commission 8 really by a series of accidents and stayed in public service 9 ever since.
10 JUDGE BRIGHT: That seems a legitimate progres-11 sion. Thank you. You've satisfied my curiosity.
12 BOARD EXAMINATION NDEXX 13 BY JUDGE KELLEY:
14 Q Mr. Binsir.ger, I'm looking at the CP&L policy 15 which is quoted in relevant part, Page 8. And if I can para-16 phrase it, it seems to say that you can't use or sell il-17 legal drugs on site, on the job.
18 Beyond that, it bars drugs if the use may adversely 19 effect performance. And then there is a rather vague phrase, 20 may reflect unfavorably on public or governmental confidence.
21 And what puzzles me is, if the Company really is 22 against illegal drug use why don't they have a much simpler 23 policy that just says you can't use drugs at all and we won't 24 hire you and if we catch you using them we will fire you, geral Reporters, Inc.
25 period?
c
8401 ,
110-10-SueW l A (Binsinger) I think that's a good question. I i
() 2 think the reason that they make reference to the impact, 3 even indirectly on job, and a nexus between the job and what 4 you do on your private life is just that. In private employ-5 ment, if you've used drugs off the job and it effects the 6 company's business it's subject to discipline up to discharge.
7 If you use just drugs and you don't have a re-8 lationship between its relationship to the business, I think 9 you have a harder time sustaining it in an arbitration hear-10 ing.
II And I think with companies, when they take action 12 against an employee who, let's say, has used or sold off-site, 13 and the person's job performance record has been great, it
{}
Id has been able to be sustained because the employer is able 15 to say this person's sale of drugs is of concern to us 16 because people that sell drugs generally sell it to people 17 they know, and they may be on the job site or it might have 18 an impact on the confidence that the public would have in I9 the company or the government for carrying out its own i 20 responsibilities.
21 And most, at least of the legal associates that 22 I've talked to, and my own analysis of arbitration hearings, 23 will give greater weight if you at least explain why you are
-24 linking the two.
hat it. porters, Inc.
25 Well, what if I don't want to, though? Is this a Q
4 v - g - - - -
,m
, , - , - , - - , , . , - -,,,n,, ,,y., .,. - , -, ,,n _ _ - . - _ . ,_.,.n_ ,. , . . , , . , , ,
8402
- 10-ll-SueW) union grievance? Is that what I'm into in an arbitration 2 hearing?
3 A I think that you are. Say that someone uses 4 drugs on a week-end, it's observed --
5 Q Right. Saturday night.
6 A Saturday night. It's observed, or maybe an arrest 7 goes down.
8 Q Okay.
9 A And it's not to a company employee, what does 10 the company do?
11 I don't think it has to wait for a court to find 12 that person guilty. I think it can assess the hformation at 13 hand, look at the nature of the charges, the employee's 14 record with the company, and the impact that arrest would 15 have on the conduct of company business, and make a determina-16 tion.
17 Q Well, I can understand that now. I gather you 18 are tying that to conduct unfavorably reflecting and so on.
19 A Yes.
20 0 But I'm still -- I still don't understand I guess 21 why I can't -- say I have a company and I can't just have a 22 hardnose policy saying: If you want to work for me, don't 23 use drugs.
24 A You can say that, and that's fine. And I buy l r Reporters, Inc.
25 that. How are you going to find out the person is using drugs?
8403
- 10-12-SueW I You are going to find out maybe by one of three or
() 2 four ways. One, if you test them you don't hire them.
3 0 Right.
4 A Or, if they are on the job and they act up and 5 you test them --
6 Q But you are doing that already. As I understand 7 it, you give an applicant a physical.
8 A Right.
9 Q And if a trace comes in, that's it.
10 A That's it.
II You are really not going to hire them anyway.
Q I2 So, the policy now on hires, I take it, unless somebody knows 13 about all this and they really go dry for sixty days and I4 then come in and apply or something like that, but that's 15 probably not what most people do.
- j. 16 Take the present employees, I guess I can under-17 stand some kind of civil liberties argument that says, you
! 18 know, off duty it's my own business, and I can read what l9 books I want and have more children than I can afford and 20 all the rest, I should be able to snort cocaine, too.
21 A I don't think anybody has a civil right to violate 22 the law.
23 It's illegal drugs.
0 Right.
1 24 A That's right. So, if you know that somebody is J Reporters, Inc.
25 using drugs illegally off the job and you and I are in r . . . ._---- _ . _ _ _ . - _ _ . _ _ , - . _ _ _ _ . , , . ~ y , , , , _ , , . , . _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . ...mm.,,..,_, ,
8404
- 10-13-SueW1 business together and I hear that information, I want to test l
/' 2 that person immediately as soon as I hear about it. I want C) 3 to document the fact that that is'likely to have happened 4 and say: You can't come to work for me with drugs in your 5 system.
6 WITNESS PANNILL: Judge Kelley, I think I might 7 could address --
8 BY JUDGE KELLEY: (Continuing) 9 Q But I keep going the further step: You can't 4
10 come to work for me if you use drugs at all. You are fired.
il A (Bensinger) You have to just prove that they 12 have done it.
13 0 Because you see, I'm in this position, the NRC --
r-(
14 I think I'm correct in this -- hasn't taken -- and I look to 15 the Staff on this to help me out, but I'm not aware of an 16 NRC clear, articulated policy on drugs. Apparently they 17 are just now starting to look at this, which is a little bit 18 odd.
I9 But, anyway that's the way it appears to be.
20 Is that fair?
21 Is there an NRC rule on drug use, Mr. Barth, 22 that I don't know about?
23 MR. BARTH: No, Your Honor.
24 BY JUDGE KELLEY: (Continuing) p.ra n.poners, Inc.
25 0 Thank you. So, we are sitting here and we have to
, , - - - - , - - --- - - - - . - . . . - - - , . - y - ,.m
I 8405
- 10-14-SueW 1 make a determination whether there is a reasonable assurance 2 and so on. And so I come in cold. I don't have an NRC rule
- \-
/~~)'s 3 to follow, 4 And so I just say: Why are they letting these 5 People use drugs at all?
6 A (Flowers) I think the thing that we need to 7 raise here is the fact that anybody that has been found to 8 be utilizing drugs on or off the site has been terminated.
9 (Pannill) Judge Kelley, if I could answer your 10 original --
11 (Flowers) So, you are in the policy business.
12 (Pannill) Excuse me. Your original question.
gs 13 You were wanting to know how come such a lengthy and wordy O
14 policy --
15 0 Well, why all this elaborate dance? Why not just 16 say no.
17 A I think because the trend in employee relations 18 recently has been for the terminated employee to contest 19 their termination, because they weren't told specifically l 20 that you cannot do this, you cannot do that, et cetera.
l 21 And so this is a protective means of identifying 22 all the you cannot do's.
END #10 23 Jos flws 24 heral Reporters, Inc.
25 l
l l
I
ll-1-Jo;Wal 8406 1 Q But isn't it simpler, I mean, instead of 2 going around and around the barn here, just say: Don't b(~5 3 use drugs.
4 And here we have got this business about 5 public confidence. Who knows what that means, and all -
6 the rest. Why not just say sorry, if you want to work 7 here, don't do it. You don't have to get into time or 8 anything else.
9 A (Witness Bensinger) Well, I think all we 10 can say is that the courts generally on this issue have 11 said just don't use isn't specific enough.
12 That is all I can tell you. And I have looked 13 at some of those arbitration readings in a couple of the bs 14 cases, and mayba I could refresh my memory in looking, and 15 give you some specific citations, but where the judges 16 were not convinced that there was a nexis between offsite 17 activity and onsite for the company's job, they would 18 refrain from sustaining, and I think the wording will be 19 sustained for Carolina Power and Light.
20 Now, they say they don 't want to keep them on 21 the payroll, but they go through a more formalized method 22 of explaining it.
23 O My point is that the wording that you have got 24 of Reporters. Inc.
raises more questions than a simple one sentence saying:
25 If you want to work here, don't use drugs.
1 I would think anybody would understand that.
2 A (Witness Ferguson) I think there needs to be a 3 point brought out here, though, that some of the drugs that 4 would be used can be used for medicinal purposes, so we 5 are talking about -- you make a' blanket statement that says 6 you cannot use drugs, what we are 'doing is we have to generalize I 7 it to the point where they are us'ed illicitly and/or misused 8 to the point where they are impairing the individual's 9 ability to do their job, and or create some public-governmental 10 confidence problems.
Il O Well, you have perscription drugs, and I think most 12 people understand!that. I think I do.
13 And some Valium is illegal, and some goes under V
14 a perscription, presumably. But nobody is using medicinal 15 cocaine, are they? Or pot for that matter.
16 A (Witness Bensinger) The only medicinal use of pot 17 would be under a special use permit for Glaucoma or for the 18 treatment of chemotherapy.
19 In the case of Glaucoma, it relieves the pressure 20 on the optic nerve, which is just the reason it is bad for 21 depth perception in industry.
22 And for chemotherapy, it relieves the urge to 23 vomit, nausia, but that is also something we need, normal 24 individuals, to expell toxic materials and excess of food or i n. porters, Inc.
25 drink that we may have consumed.
11-3-JosWal 8408 1 Q And I am sure you could think of qualifications
() 2 on the proposition if you thought long enough. I don't 3 pretend that I have, but as I read this, the more I think 4
about it, the more it seems to me, well, why not take the '
5 bull by the horns. ~
- 6 In fact, it seems to me that the statement as 7
written would suggest -- at least it would to me, and maybe 8 others, Saturday night is okay.
9 That is what it seems to say, to me.
10 A I think the practice is that it isn't. I think, 11 unfortunately, most employers will' use language very like 12 this, and that is true in the utility industry, and 13 probably in our own government.
dr' 14 MR. COLE: It was written by a lawyer most 15 probably.
16 BY JUDGE KELLE'l: (Continuing) 17 Q We could pursue this. We don't really have to.
, 18 Let me just ask you this. In your judgment and speaking 19 as a company panel, and subject to the various qualifications 20 one might have to make about chemotherapy and Valium and so 21 on, and assuming that the legal difficulty might be overcone, 22 is the Company opposed to the idea that drug use should 23 be barred, subject to some very narrow type of acceptance?
24 A (Witness Sensinger) No, I can't --
rol Reporters, Inc.
25 Q Then it is not your intent to encourage Saturday
ll-4-Jo:Wal 8409 1 night use, or at least say, it is okay fellows, we don't care .
~
2 That is not your intent? ,
3 A I am sure that would be , reflective of the industry 4 I would hope, too.
5 A (Witness Ferguson) The intent is actually the 6 Opposite.
7 A (Witness Bensinger) In fact, you reach that second 8 paragraph -- that second paragraph reaches for that, 9 suggesting that even if you use it on your own time, traces 10 are still left in your system that may impair your performance, 11 so watch out.
12 O I have just two or three small questions. I 13 have just two or three small questions. I have heard of the
,,-)s
\-
14 MMPI. I am not real sure what it does, and just since you 15 have cited it in your testimony, what is that used for.
16 Does it show if' people are drug prone or not?
17 A (Witness Ferguson) ,It has scales on there that 18 shows the propensity for drug and alcohol abuse, and it 19 also has scales on there for fitness for duty for psychological 20 reasons, which would be an impact in the other aspects of the 21 background investigation for security purposes.
22 O But it does signal a drug proneness, so to speak?
23 A Yes, it does. We utilize it for that.
24 erri Reporters, Inc.
MR, RUNKLE: Excuse me. I would like the re' cord 25 to reflect that not all the panel agreed with that last
8410 ll-5-Jo:Wal 1 statement.
2 There were shakes, nods, and various hand waving.
3 Q The question was whether MMPI reflects proneness 4
to drug use, and I thought we had an affirmative, but I 5 don't know i.f all the witnesses want to speak to it.
6 A (Witness Pannill) Daniel Construction Company 7 agrees.
s 8 A (Witness Bensinger) I think to a point -- I 9
would think it would be one indication, but it would be 10 less than guaranteed, and it depends on who is reading it.
Il Q Yes. This is some subset I take it. I think I 12 have taken that in the past. It shows whethere you are 13 f-compulsive, intuitive, rationale, and emotional and all the 14 rest, but there are some drug questions.
15 Th'ere was some testimony about supervisor 16 observation. The training I guess. The training of 17 supervisors so they can spot the symptoms of drug use.
18 Could you offer any judgment, and this really 19 is going maybe toward the widespread issue, and part of it 20 might go to the other panel, but how effective is that over 21 time, on the job?
- 22 Let me give you a hypothetical. If I have a well 23 trained foreman, and he is in daily contact with his welders 24 ergi Reporters, Inc.
or his cable pullers, or whatever they are.
25 If you had a fairly serious user, would he get I
8411
-ll-6-JoaWal 1 spotted or not, or what'would the chances be?
{~j 2 A (Witness Ferguson) We have had instances in 3 which that has, in fact, occurred where supervisors have 4
identified people who have ultimately been involved in drug 5 use.
6 So, as far as I am concerned it is a functional 7 way of obtaining information.
8 A (Witness Flowers) Mr. Chairman, if I can add.
9 11ot only supervisors, and I can only speak to Daniel, but 10 we would like to think that 98 to 99 percent of our people 11 out there are law abiding, hardworking individuals.
12 Now, if there is a craftsman -- as a matter of j g- 13 fact, we depend on this observation -- if there is a craftsman 14 out there working, a welder, next to another welder who is 15 unable to perform his duties for whatever reason, for his 16 own safety he is going to report that to his foreman, 17 , So, this observation and intervention is just not 18 limite'd, or this observation is just not limited to 19 just supervisors.
20 The intervention is limited. But we depend very 21 heavily on our workers, and that happens a lot. Because 22 their safety -- if you are an iron worker and you are up 23 on the steel hanging steel, you don't want a crane operator 24 who is having some problems, and you better believe the rsJ Reporters, Inc.
25 l
iron worker is going to get down off that steel pretty quick
,_ - , , - - . . _ _ _ . _ . _ . , . - __-________._y.. _
.w-.- , . ~ . . - - , - - , .
11-7-JonWal 8412 1 and let somebody know.
(~} 2 Q I can appreciate why employees -- the genuine
.v 3 concern about that kind of thing. I guess you can sort of 4 speculate about the ethic ~that says don't turn your buddy in 5 sort of thing, but I was rea11y trying to get at the 6 Supervisor's ability to spot abuse, because apart from 7 random sampling you may do -- you don't do random sampling 8 once you are working do you, you only do it an cause of 9 some sort.
10 I don't know how else you would spot this sort
, 11 of thing.
12 A (Witness Bensinger) Basically, I think the issue 13 really is a supervisor has to be able to do just what he is O,
! 14 supposed to do, and that is supervise.
15 He is a foreman. And look at what kind of work 16 is being done by the people. Knowing the people, knowing 17 what kind of work is required, and not trying to be a 18 psychologist or narcotic investigator, or a medical expert.
19 These supervisors are none of those things, they 20 are supervisors, and if they know the work that is to be done 21 and have a feeling for the employees, they will see failure 22 either in the work performance or the activity levels.
23 Drugs will affect different people differently.
24 Cocaine will produce a state 'of anxiety. Marijuana will quiet at n. port.n, Inc.
l 25 people down generally.
I
-ll-8-JonWal 8413 1 So, I don't think supervisors are given a
(} 2 message: Okay, now, go out and find all these people 3 based on the symptoms of marijuana use or the symptoms of 4 cocaine.
5 They are shared with them, and'they are told 6 some of the anecdotal information, ranging from a redness 7 of the eyes, and caughing, to mood swings, to weight loss, 8 and tremendous anxiety, but the real message for the 9 supervisory training is to make sure the job is getting 10 done , and done safely.
11 Now, if there is a question, pull the person 12 off the job and give them a drug test, and not try to be 13 a psychiatrist or a narcotic specialists. Leave that to 14 tha dogs, leave that to the security people.
4 15 If you see anything that looks like it is 16 illegal, absolutely intervene, but not make the supervisor 17 all of a sudden in a four hour or four day course become 18 an expert psychiatrist.
19 That is generally the thrust of the training 20 in this field.
21 A (Witness Flowers) Mr. Chairman, if I could 22 expand on what Mr. Bensinger said about as far as how 23 we apply it'to our people.
24 Our supervisors are experts in their craft.
h.rd R. porters, Inc.
25 Whether an iron worker, a welder, a carpenter, an electriciart,
11-9-Jo:Wal 8414 1
and we would expect them, or they would not be in
/7 2 supervisory field, to be able to identify someone.who is
()
3 not performing their assigned duty, and that foreman a would know what that assigned d.ity is, because he is the 5
one that assigned it.
6 We may give him some training along the lines 7 of something that Mr. Bensinger pointed out about the 8 different drugs.
9 But his key responsibility is safety and 10 productivity, and anything that is going on out there that Il effects either one of those, it is his responsibility to 12 address that situation.
13 0 But there are usually very obvious red flags 14 that somebody just went out behind the parking lot or 15 something or other.
16 A Right, and those are some of the things that we 17 would address. Those obvious red flags that any layman would 18 be able to understand.
I9 Q I thought there weren't, I guess that is what I 20 was getting at. I guess I am just trying to find out how 21 effective it is to say: The supervisors know about these 22 things, and they are watching for it, and they will pick it 23 up.
24 I am sure that is true to some extent, but I am ertl Reporters, Inc.
25 trying to figure out to what extent.
t 8415 ll-10-JonWal l
1 'A (Witness Bensinger) There is some scenario, and
() 2 it has been used by the Chapel Hill people long before our 3 PeoP l e arrived.
I 4 Used by Daniel Construction trainers, and used 3 by ours. You have some possible systems and some probable 6 symptoms. It is included in some of the exhibits, and they 7 arrange from -- nodding, eye movement, slurred speech, unsteady 8 gait, those are the obvious probable warning signs that relate 9 to somebody who is drunk or somebody who is stoned.
10 But often times those symptoms are less blatent, i 11 and not easily or readily noticed without relating specifically i 12 to the act or work that is being performed.
4 r- 13 Q Those, to me, would not be what I call red flags.
4
(.
14 They are things that taken together might indicate something.
15 The lawyers are smiling out here, and they thought your
- 16 symptoms pertain to being in hearing too long. .
17 That is true, too.
- 18 A You can get very tired from that.
- 19 Q But I may be wrong, but again, my impression was i
20 that the supervisor oversight part of this, once a guy has got I
21 the job and passed the test, and he is out there working, that 22 is kind of a key part of detection, is it not?
23 A That is the key part. The other would be observed 24 behavior, either by the supervisor or someone else that would i h e h porem ,Inc.
25 indicate a violation of the Company rules or the law, using l
i
8416 11-ll-JonWal 1 drugs that could affect the way they behave or what they may fg 2 be doing.
V 3 0 I don't know if it is even a fair hypothetical, 4 but if a person were beginning to use onsite, in the habit 5 so to speak, is it likely that person would be picked up in 6 a week, a month, six months, if he were using it every other 7 day, or something like that, cocaine?
8 A (Witness Ferguson) We think --
9 Q It is a pretty fuzzy question, I admit, but 10 that is just what I am trying to get at is how effective is 11 all this.
12 A (Witness Bensinger) An every other day user of
.O 13 cocaine would be picked up, in my opinion, very quickly.
V 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. I guess I don't have 15 anything else.
16 Mr. Baxter, do you have any redirect?
XX INDEX 17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 18 BY MR. BAXTER:
19 O This afternoon during Mr. Runkle's cross-examination 20 there was some discussion about Applicants' Exhibit 32, the 21 contract amendment article, and the-testimony was that this 22 amendment was formally incorporated into the Daniel contract 23 in February of 1985.
24 Mr. Pannill or Mr. Flowers, do'es the implementation ord Reporters, Inc.
25 of that formal contract amendment have any significance at all
.1-12-JoeWal 8417 I for the beginning of Daniel's drug abuse control policies at
(} 2 Shearon Harris?
3 A (Witness Pannill) Actually, no.
4 0 or for the implementation via the December 1984 5 memorandum of the urinalysis drug screening program for 6 Daniel?
7 A That was an effort that CP&L and Daniel had worked 8 on together, so it had some momentum to it, but it wasn't 9 totally responsible for it, no.
10 Q Do you feel that prior to the initiation of the 11 drug screen program for Daniel Construction employees that you 12 had a reasonably effective capability to identify violators 13 of your drug abuse policies at Shearon Harris?
14 A I feel so, yes, for several reasons. We had quite 15 an extensive orientation process, one that would last up to 16 six hours.
17 A large part of that orientation included education 18 an drugs and the policy how employees would be terminated for 19 violations of that policy.
20 It was communicated clearly to all existing employees 21 and all new employees.
22 Also, during that time we had supervision monitoring 23 in and out of employees as they entered the job site and 24 exited the job site.
erri Reporters, Inc.
25 . We were at that time conducting random searches.
ll-13-Jo;Wal 8418 i We implemented search booths near the clock alleys, and did
-) 2 random searches at that point also.
V 3 During the entire time as I mentioned before, we 4 had an open door policy. Employees could communicate any 5 type of problem to management, as I think Mr. Hyman references 6 in some of his earlier statements, that there was a management 7 openness to this type of concern.
8 We had a quality check program that was initiated 9 in 1984, and we have had supervisory orientation during 10 safety meetings for signs on how to spot, correct, and 11 address drug abuse.
12 I night add also in industrial relations department, 13 there was constantly routine checks in the field outside of supervision,-that we were looking for signs, and we acted 14 15 on those signs.
16 Q Mr. Bensinger, during earlier testimony you mentioned 17 that drug abuse control policies with respect to any given 18 corporation are fluid. They aren't cast in concrete.
19 Is it unusual in your e xperience for a corporation i
20 to change its policies over time, depending upon the circumstances 21 and the threat that they are facing?
22 A (Witness Bensinger) No, it wouldn't be unusual.
23 In fact, it would be necessary and appropriate.
24 MR. BAXTER: I have no further questions.
rol Reporters, Inc.
25 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Runkle, any recross?
I
11-14-Jo:Wal 8419 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, this is irregular. I was
('] 2 :ied up on the phone during the break, and I didn ' t know where x/
3 I was supposed to go in the order of this.
4 I have a few questions.
5 JUDGE'KELLEY: Okay. Mr. Eddleman is an intervener 6 in the case, as we all know, but for the record you are 7 invoking your right to cross under the Prairie Island rule, 8 if I may call it that?
9 MR. BARTH: Your Honor, we would object, because 10 he has not shown any relationship between the drug contention 11 and his contentions which he has previously submitted, and 12 prairie Island, the commission said that insofar as he has 13 an interest, he may cover other ground.
,f-)
%.i 14 He has certainly been pumping questions to Mr.
15 Runkle, ad infinitum, and I don't think that Prairie Island 16 would permit in the absence of a showing or relationship or 17 a nexus to his contentions of interest, that he has a 18 discernable right to cross-examine.
19 JUDGE KELLEY: I don't have Prairie Island with 20 me.
2l Mr. Baxter, do you want to comment.
22 MR. BAXTER: I may have a copy, but my memory of 23 the decision is that the Interveners are entitled to cross-24 examine on matters within the scope of their interest, and erd Reponers, Inc.
25 I have not seen that very narrowly construed subsequently.
8420 ll-15-Jo:Wal 1 I would have no objection to regulated cross-() 2 examination by Mr. Eddleman.
3 I am especially concerned about his absence during 4 the earlier examination today, and hope we can avoid repetition.
5 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Eddleman.
6 MR. RUNKLE: This is Mr. Runkle. I would take issue 7 at Mr. Barth's statement about being pumped questions. I 8 don' t see that occurring, and I would just take issue with that 9 statement.
10 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Do you have any comment, Mr.
11 Eddleman?
12 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, if anybody raises a question
(~x 13 about interest, I believe I raised control of drug abuse in my
\..)
14 original petition to intervene back in February was it, of 1982, 15 or about that time.
16 I guess I will, for once, agree with Mr. Baxter, and 17 go on on that basis if it is agreeable.
18 MR. KELLEY: I don't think anyone would accuse you 19 of having a narrowly focused interest in the case.
20 I think really it is a couple of issues, Mr.
21 Eddleman. One, it is an issue of time, and two, it is an issue 22 bhat Mr. Baxter referred to and I know I rejected an attempt by 23 1r. Riley to cross-examine in Catawba last year because we had 24 :>een at it all day, and he came in about eleven o' clock at night h rd it. porters. Inc.
25 and wanted to ask some questions.
8421 11-16-JogWal 1 And part of it was the fact that he didn't know what
(} 2w e had been doing all day, and you did, I guess, not hear all 3 that.we had been over, but that is a concern, I think, a generally as we go on that you be here so we don't hear 5 any repetitive stuff, so we are. going to overrule the S,taff's 6 objection to your questioning altogeth'er, and you have a few 7 questions, I think you indicated?
8 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, sir.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead.
XX INDEX 10 RE CROSS-EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
12 Q Mr. Bensinger made reference earlier to grievance 13 and arbitration procedures. The gentleman from Daniel, is O
's -
14 Daniel a union ~ contractor?
15 A (Witness Pannill) No, sir.
16 Q Mr. Ferguson, what percentage of CP&L work force 17 at Shearon Harris is unionized, if you know?
18 A (Witness Ferguson) None of it is union, but we 19 all fall underneath the labor laws, of course, whether they 20 are union or not.
21 Q You are referring to the National Labor Relations 22 Act?
23 A Right.
~
24 Q All right, sir. Let me refer you to Question and 1 Reporte,s, Inc.
25 Answer 20, gentlemen, on page 15 and 16? Describing how
ll-17-JoeWal 8422 1
Daniel employees are informed of the policy.
() 2 Would either of you gentlemen from Daniel be v
3 in a position to know whether anybody who has been fired or 4 demoted for use of alcohol or drugs at Shearton Harris, 5 that has been subsequently hired back by Daniel or a i
6 subcontractor of Daniel?
- 7 MR. BAXTER: Excuse me. Could I have a clari-8 fication. Are you speaking at rehired at Shearon Harris?
9 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes..
10 WITNESS PENNILL: We have not done that.
11 Negative.
12 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing)
! 13 0 Do you agree?
kJ End 11. ja MS fols.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 rtl Reporters, Inc.
25
.. _ . _ . _ _ _ ____. . _ _ . - _ _ _._ _-_. . . _ . - _ . . _ - , _ . _ . , - . ~ _.. .
8423 Sim 12-1 I Q Do you agree?
[]
2 A (Witness Pannil) What is your question?
3 Q The question is have any people who have been fired 4 or demoted for alcohol or drug use at Shearon Harris been 5 hired back by Daniel or a subcontractor of Daniel at Shearon 6 Harris?
7 A (Witness Flowers) If they have been demoted, they 8 haven't been fired.
9 Q I said fired or demoted. Okay. So you are talking-10 about hired back. Okay. Have any people been demoted for II drug or alcohol abuse at Harris and remained on the job?
12 A (Witness Pannil) If someone is found guilty of 13 drug or alcohol abuse, they are termiated and they are not I4 rehired.
15 Q Okay. Do you know whether anyone has been simply 16 demoted rather th'an terminated by Daniel at Shearon Harris 17 for drug or alcohol abuse?
18 MR. BAXTER: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I am going I9 to ask that the questions be limited to drug abuse, which is 20 the scope of the contention here.
2l MR. EDDLEMAN: I will take it as drug abuse.
22 JUDGE KELLEY: All right.
23 (Pause while the witnesses confer.)
24 JUDGE KELLEY: Gentlemen, just a cautionary word.
eral Reporters, Inc.
25 I probably should have said this at the beginning. When
8424 sim 12-2 )
you come in as a panel it is fine and we encourage you to
/7 2 speak to each other if youw ant to sort out what you know 1
3 about a question, but you should do it on the record and 4
go ahead and speak up so that we hear what is being said.
WITNESS PANNILL: I am just having difficulty 5
6 in understanding Mr. Eddleman's question.
JUDGE KELLEY: Well, he can restate it.
7 BY E. EDDLE N :
8 Q Have there been any persons demoted rather than 9
10 fired for drug abuse by Daniel at Shearon Harris who remained jj on the job at Shearon Harris?
12 A (Witness Pannil) Not to my knowledge, no.
Q Do you agree?
13
It was a yes or no question.
j4 A Q I am asking Mr. Flowers.
15 A (Witness Flowers) I am not on the site. This 16 37 morning, as I stated in my summary, which you missed, I jg am the corporate representative from Daniels. I am not on the site from day to day. But our corporate policy is 19 20 exactly what Mr. Pannill stated, those people would not be 21 kept on site.
1 In our personnel procedures as far as tracking 22 i
23 employees, we have termination codes. So if someone on another 24 site in one of the other states that we work in has a drug Ir:I Reporters, Inc.
related termination, that goes on his record and he will not 25
8425 Sim 12-3 1 be rehired on any other Daniel job where we work. So we have
(~S 2 methods of tracking those.
(_) i 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
4 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
5 0 If Part of the quality check program the drop boxes 6 on the site where people can put in a concern in a box?
7 A (Witness Pannil) Is that question for me?
8 Q Well, Mr. Flowers may know better.
9 A Mr. Flowers is not on the job site.
10 Q Oh, I am sorry. I meant Mr. Ferguson.
11 A (Witness Ferguson) The quality check does have 12 drop boxes throughout the plant site that an individual could s 13 utilize, and they are picked up periodically by the people lV )
14 from the quality check program.
15 O Do people have any tendency in your observation to 16 avoid those drop boxes?
17 A None whatsoever.
18 O Mr. Bensinger, I don't know for sure whether this 19 has been covered in previous questioning. Does your firm 20 conduct undercover operations to actually find drug abusers 21 and actually identify them for law enforcement for your 22 clients?
23 A (Witness Bensinger) No.
24 Q Did you undertake or your firm undertake any review
, perd n. porters, Inc.
25 of the SBI Wake County Sheriff's Department undercover L
8426 Sim 12-4 j operation at Shearon Harris? j MR.. BAXTER: Objection. It is outside the scope
("T 2 LJ 3
of the direct testimony and it is covered by the next panel.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: sustained.
5 MR. EDDLEMAN: I can ask the next pancl.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: All right.
7 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
8 0 Reference is made on page 22 in answer 29 I believe 9 from Mr. Bensinger to the industry standard. It is down about 4
10 four or five lines from the bottom of that answer on page 22, 11 if you have that.
12 A (Witness Bensinger) I do.
13 0 By the industry standard are you referring to the 14 EEI?
15 MR. BARTH: Objection, Your Honor. This was 16 asked and answered at length this morning.
JUDGE KELLEY: Sustained. It is in the transcript.
17 18 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, if it has already been covered.
, 19 All I was going to ask in addition was that no other standard 20 that you are referring to?
21 JUDGE KELLEY: I think you will find it in the 22 transcript.
23 MR. EDDLEMAN: All right, sir.
24 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
eral Reporters, Inc.
25 0 Mr. Pannill, your resume shows a change of jobs
8427 Sim 12-5 1 about every year or two over the past 10 years, does it not?
(~D 2 A (Witness Pannil) No, I don't think it does. I have 3 been employed on two separate projects for approximately 10 4 years with Daniel. My first project, I worked for approxi-5 mately seven years and did occupy various positions within 6 Daniel, but I have worked in a personnel capacity for the 7 past six years.
8 Q Well, if I phrased that question as a change of 9 position 10 times during the past 10 years, the answer would 10 be y~es, wouldn't it?
11 A That is correct.
12 MR. EDDLEMAN: All right. Thank you.
gg 13 That is all the questions I have.
'%)
14 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Well, it has been awhile, I 15 think that takes us through the cycle, does it not, counsel?
16 Have you got sometjhing else, Mr. Cole?
17 MR. COLE: Before Mr. Eddleman, I believe you asked 18 did anyone have any questions after we had some redirect, 19 and I had just one question.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead, sure.
21 RECROSS-EXAMINATION INDEX 22 BY MR. COLE:
23 Q Let me direct this to Mr. Pannill and Mr. Flowers.
24 If I recall the testimony I believe on redirect hertl Reporters, Inc.
25 by Mr. Baxter, you were talking about a policy that was in
8428 Sim'12-6 1 effect prior to 1984, and I believe you said that you thought
() 2 you had effective policy prior to 1984. Was that a fair 3 statement of what you said?
4 A (Witness Flowers) Yes.
5 Q Mr. Pannill, would you state, if you know, sir, 6 how many people were arrested or how many employees were 7 terminated between 1978 and 1984 because of this effective 8 drug policy?
9 A (Witness Pannil) I think we have got numbers of 10 terminations listed in the Hindman affidavit, but for actuals 11 between those years, I couldn't give you an accurate number.
12 O Is that part of the 201 number that we were talking 13 about?
r^3 k~J 14' A That is part of it, yes, sir.
15 0 All right, sir. Would the majority of them be 16 prior to 1984 or 1984 and prior?
17 A I am really not certain.
18 JUDGE KELLEY: Is that also what I might call the 19 matrix? That is the 201, is it not?
20 MR. BAXTER: Well, both the matrix that have been 21 filed with the staff and the parties and the third panel's 22 testimony talk about the same 201 employees. They are 23 divided up and analyzed in different ways.
24 JUDGE KELLEY: I wonder whether in any place they
! erti Repe ters, Inc.
25 were analyzed by time along the lines of this question?
8429
-Sim 12-7 1 MR. COLE: I could not find it, Your Honor.
(~N 2 l.
JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. And the matrix I gather hasn't s
3 been offered by anybody? The parties have it and the Board 4 has it, but ---
5 MR. BAXTER: That was filed in response to a request 6 by the staff for additional information for Phase II.
7 JUDGE KELLEY: It is not an exhibit at least at this 8 Point, right?
9 MR. BAXTER: No.
10 JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead.
11 MR. COLE: A breakdown by date would have been 12 very helpful.
f3 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, it might be. I don't mean U
14 to cut you off, but I just thought they might have had one.
15 MR. COLE: I think Mr. Pannill said he did not know.
16 MR. WITNESS PANNILL: No, I don't.
17 BY MR. COLE:
18 Q And I assume, Mr. Flowers, do you know, sir?
19 A (Witness Flowers) No, sir, I don't.
20 Q Mr. Ferguson?
21 A (Witness Ferguson) No, sir.
22 MR. COLE: All right, sir.
23 That is all.
24 JUDGE KELLEY: Is there a way that by panel three ertl Reporters, Inc.
25 that maybe you could have a number or at least a rough one
8430 Sim 12-8 1 of time, Mr. Baxter?
2 MR. BAXTER: I would have to check, Mr. Chairman.
{}
3 JUDGE KELLEY: You might just check into that and 4 let us know.
5 MR. BAXTER: All right.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. That puts us through o'tr ---
7 MR. RUNKLE: Wait a minute. I still have questions 8 en recross. We haven't gotten that far yet. We are still 9 doing that round.
10 JUDGE KELLEY: I thought I asked you earlier.
11 Do you have recross?
12 MR. RUNKLE: Yes.
gg 13 JUDGE KELLEY:. Go ahead.
O 14 RECROSS-EXAMINATION INDEX 15 BY MR. RUNKLE:
16 0 Gentlemen, in response to Judge Kelley's question 17 on how the supervisor program works, the supervisor's involve-18 ment in assessing drugs, you basically summed that up by 19 saing that the supervisor knows their people; is that 20 correct?
21 A (Witness Flowers) Their people and their skills.
22 O Now what happens to this when the supervisor, 23 him or herself is on drugs?
24 MR. BAXTER: I am sorry, I don't understand the
.rti n porem, Inc.
25 question. What happens to this?
8431 Sim 12-9 1 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, the supervisor's involvement in 2 the drug assessment program.
3 MR. BAXTER: If the supervisor himself is using 4 drugs?
5 Do you understand the question, witnesses?
6 WITNESS FLOWERS: It is rather vague.
7 MR. BARTH: I don't understand the question, Your 8 Honor, and it would really be helpful if you rephrase it in 9 a coherent fashion.
10 JUDGE KELLEY: I thought it was what effect does 11 the supervisor's being on drugs have on your antidrug program.
12 Is that what it is?
13 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir.
14 JUDGE KELLEY: Good.
15 WITNESS FERGUSON: The way that I understood it 16 was that if the supervisor was on drugs how could he effectively 17 operate the program?
18 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, that is part of the question.
19 WITNESS FERGUSON: I am unaware of supervisors 20 from CP&L that have been involved in it. So we haven't run 21 into the problem.
22 BY MR. RUNKEL:
23 Q Mr. Ferguson, are you saying that no supervisor 24 of CP&L, to your knowledge, is involved in drugs on site?
$.rti n. porters, Inc.
25 A (Witness Ferguson) That is what I am saying.
- - - - - . - - ~ ,
.- e.. -- -.,--,n, , . . , - , , , , - . .n_, - - ,, - - - - , . - . ._
8432 aim 12-10 JUDGE KELLEY: Could we be clear on the term there, I
supervisory? Do you mean first-line foreman on up, or who do we mean by supervisor? What would you say, Mr. Ferguson?
3 WITNESS FERGUSON: Any of them. All of them from 4
the bottom to the top, I am not aware of any supervisor that 5
has been involved in ---
6 JUDGE KELLEY: What is the bottom?
- 7 WITNESS FERGUSON
- Thge first-line foreman.
8 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you.
9 WITNESS BENSINGER: I would say just generically that 10 the management orientation, that one of the purposes of the management briefing that was provided and the involvement with second and third-line supervision and not just first-line (El supervision was to provide basic health and safety information 14 on drugs and also the responsibility for intervention.
BY MR. RUNKLE:
16 0 To Mr. Panroll and Mr. Flowers, in answering the 17 same question I just posed to Mr. Ferguson, are there any Daniel supervisors that are on drugs or involved in drug abuse, or have been?
A (Witness Pannil) As far as your original question what happens to that supervisor, if I might, I think every supervisor has at least one or two. As far as your second part of your question, anyone who is known to be abusing or 24 rd Reporters, Inc.
UFing drugs has either been removed or terminated from the 25 l
l l
l
. , - . _ _ . - - _ - - - - - , _ _ _ ~ _ _ . ~ . _ . . . _ ~ _ . _ _ _ _ _ , _ - , _ . - - - - _ - _ _ . . _ - - -
8433 Sim 12 Job site. We are not aware of any additionally.
1 Q Also in the part of the drug program of both
(-)
'v 2
CP&L and Daniel in the supervisor monitoring the employees, 3
4 that deals mainly with employees that are using the drugs, 5
does it not?
MR. BAXTER: Objection. Supervisors monitoring the 6
7 employees is mainly in connection with employees using drugs?
Is that the question?
8 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir.
9 10 MR. BAXTER: People not using drugs are unsupervised; 11 is that what you are asking?
MR. RUNKLE: No, that is not what I am asking.
12 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Runkle, maybe you could just 13 ir'~'
w) ja restate the whole thing for our benefit, too.
MR. RUNKLE: Would be using drugs as opposed to 15 16 Possessing drugs or selling drugs.
j7 JUDGE KELLEY: What I want is a restatement of the 18 whole thing in question form so we can get a handle on it.
j9 BY MR. RUNKLE:
0 In the CP&L and Daniel Construction program where 20 21 supervisors monitor their employees, that relates to the 22 emP l oyees using drugs, does it not?
A (Witness Ferguson) I don't understand the question.
23 24 Q Do the supervisors monitor their employees selling A ord Reportm, Inc.
25 drugs or possessing drugs?
8434 Sim.12-12 MR. BARTH: I don't understand the question, Your Honor. I really don't.
2 JUDGE KELLEY: We have objections to the question, 3
and I think it is not clear. The Board doesn't understand 4
it either.
MR. RUNKLE: I would then move to strike Mr. Pannill' s 6
statement where he said that was part of their program. He 7
said that part of their program was that the supervisors 8
monitored their employees.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: I recall the-testimony to the effect 10 jj that the supervisors, among other things, monitor employees and were alert to drug use, words to that effect. ,,
12 Now having said that, and that was in response at 13 j4 least to a question by me, among others, I am still not g clear what your question is.
MR. RUNKLE: There is a difference between dru'g,use 16 j7 and drug possession and drug sales.
JUDGE KELLEY- Yes, 18 MR. RUNKLE: So I have been trying to ask do the j9 20 supervisors monitor the employees for drug possession or drug 21 sales?
JUDGE KELLEY: As well as use.
22 MR. RUNKLE: Well, they have already said use. I 23 24 think we have clarified that.
h:1 n. porters, tu. Well, it is " monitor" that is causing 25 JUDGE KELLEY:
8435 Sin 12-13 1 me a problem. Do you mean look for it; is that the notion?
2 MR. RUNKLE: I am just using their term.
{}
3 MR. BAXTER: Well, but you are not using it as they 4 used it, Mr. Runkle. You are trying to expand it, and that 5 is where we are all getting lost.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, let me try this and see if 7 it is a fair paraphrase.
8 Do the supervisors at' Daniel and CP&L look out for j- 9 not merely use, but the possession and sale as well?
10 WITNESS PANNILL: Yes.
11 WITNESS FERGUSON: Yes, they do.
12 JUDGE KELLEY: Does that capture it?
- p. 13 MR. RUNKLE: Okay.
\--
14 BY MR. RUNKEL:
15 Q Now what happens to your program when the supervisoro 16 are involved in the possession or sale of drugs?
17 A (Witness Ferguson) As I stated before, I am aware f
18 of nobody that is involved in it. So I have never run into 19 the issue.
20 A (Witness Bensinger) A couple of options are avail-21 able. No. 1, if that i,s happening, the employees and other 22 supervisors could avail themselves of the quality check 23 program and alert management that such use or abuse is 24 occurring if the supervisor himself may be involved.
his n.pon.n, Inc.
25 Secondly, the next level of supervision has
l l
8436 )
I
.Sim 12-14 i
i j accountability.for conformity with company policy and the ,
/~T 2 law.
V 3 MR. RUNKLE: I have no other questions.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me ask counsel. I referred a 5 little while ago to a document that came to be known as the 6 matrix, but more fully it is a document about a half inch 7 thick that was served on the Board and parties on September 8 19th,^ a letter to Mr. Harold Denton of the NRC from p Mr. Zimmerman, Manager, Nuclear Licensing-Section, and the 10 attachment to that bears this title, "Information Relating 11 to the Contention Concerning Alleged Drug Use on the Shearon 12 Harris Nuclear power Project," and then it goes on in many gg 13 sections to give that information.
O t 14 The Board has reviewed this to some extent and it 15 seems pertinent. My question is does any party object to the 16 introduction of this document into evidence?
I 17 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, the reason we didn't 18 file it or identify it as an exhibit is that we view it to be 19 relevant for the second portion of the proceedings, testimony 20 and exhibits due October 25 for the hearing on the effects 21 on construction, if any, and the corrective action, which is 22 what this written' document is.
23 JUDGE KELLEY: Do you contemplate introducing it 24 later then; is that the idea?
ertl Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BAXTER: I haven't contemplated it too much,
8437 Sim 12-15 1 but I imagine we will.
(")
2 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. If we raise it now, 3 for one thing, the 201 are listed in here and they get 4 analyzed in various ways. Some of them are referred to as 5 foremen and general foremen. So we had a question come up 6 here about have you ever heard of a supervisor getting involved, 7 and the answer was not that I recall. So this seems to suggest 8 that this may have happened, and in the interest of getting that 9 straight, I would just call it to your attention.
10 I don't know whether it is better handled by a 11 later or whether this panel wants to take a look at the 12 document or what. But we at least want to raise it.
-~ 13 MR. BAXTER: I don't want to testify. I think
/ T U
14 Mr. Ferguson said no CP&L supervisor, and I think Mr. Pannill 15 said if any had, they would have been terminated or removed, and 16 he didn't know of any there now. So I don't think ---
17 JUDGE KELLEY: On the basis of counsel, is it your 18 impression these are all Daniel, too?
19 MR. BAXTER: You are testing me past my knowledge.
20 I am just putting that out as a possible basis for consistency.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I just think we want to clear 22 that up if we can, and it may be perfectly consistent. I am 23 not trying to be critical. It just seems to us that in seeing ,
24 this that there is a possible inconsistency that we would rather
, grot n. porters, w.
25 just clear up, and you might want to consult about that over-4
8438 aim 12-16 1 night.
() 2 MR. BAXTER: Everyone does have that document 3 available if they want to use it. They are divided up in 4 different ways in that document because of its bearing upon 5 analyzing the safety implications of the wor:.. -
6 JUDGE KELLEY: It does bear more on corrective 7 action than it does on what we are talking about now, that is 8 .true.
9 JUDGE CARPENTER: Mr. Baxter, agreeing with your 10 characterization of this document, the 201 individuals listed 11 only by occupation are listed, and I can't help but ask the 12 question that perhaps they are listed chronologically. ..I 13 Personally have an interest -- they are not listed 14 chronologically?
15 MR. BAXTER: They are not. There was a specisl; 16 effort made to randomly scramble names so they would not be 17 traceable under any theory such as chronology.
18 JUDGE CARPENTER: I thought perhaps you could 19 identify for us which years what actions were taken simply 20 by saying the first 40 were for 1980 or something.
21 MR. BAXTER: No. Out of a deliberate effort to 22 Protect employee identity, that listing in there is not i
23 in any meaningful order. I am talking about where it lists 24 all 201 ir. the computer printout.
r:I Reporters, Inc.
cnd Sim 25 Sua folls
. . _ . . _ . - _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ . . . . _ . . . _ . ~ - ._ _ _ . , . . . . _ . _ . . _ - . _ , . . _ . _ _ . . . . . _ . . . , _ . . - . _ _ - . _ .
8439
- 13-1-SueW l JUDGE CARPENTER: Thank you for helping me
( 2 understand that character.
3 MR. BAXTER: I hope you don't stay up any more 4 trying to figure out the chronology.
^
5 (Laughter.)
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, that was a point that Mr.
7 Cole raised a little bit ago. And I would just like to 8 ask whether it wouldn't be possible for the Applicant to 9 come up with gross numbers along those lines?
10 I don't know that the Board cares about names and 11 so on, but just to have some notion of levels of apprehension, 12 termination and the like, how many were fired in 1981 as p
v 13 opposed to '84, that kind of a thing.
14 Maybe you couldn't say right offhand, but could 15 you let us know tomorrow morning whether you can run that 16 down?
17 MR. BAXTER: I've already written that on my list, 18 Mr. Chairman.
' 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Fine. Thank you.
20 Okay. Now, anymore questions from counsel?
21 (No response.)
22 So that then concludes it, gentlemen. Thank you 23 very much. We appreciate your attendance and attention and 24 responsiveness.
, h.rti n. porters, Inc.
25 You are excused. We will be seeing Mr. Bensinger 1
8440
- 13-2-SueW j again I guess. Are you in the very next one, or do you get O
v 2
a break?
WITNESS BENSINGER: No, I think I'm right here.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Straight through? Well, should we 4
5 take a short break?
6 Let's keep it short, ten minutes or less.
7 (Whereupon, the hearing is recessed at 3:54 p.m.,
8 to reconvene at 4:06 p.m., this same date.)
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I guess we can go back on 10 the record, and Mr..Baxter can present Panel 2 for the 11 Applicants.
12 MR. BAXTER: Applicants recall Peter B. Bensinger, and call to the witness stand William J. Hindman, Jr. ,
r 13 C] Michael W. King, D. Glenn Joyner and Michael L. Plueddemann.
ja 15 Whereupon, 16 WILLIAM J. HINDMAN, JR ,
j7 MICHAEL W. KING, 18 D. GLENN JOYNER, j9 MICHAEL L. PLUEDDEMANN 20 - and -
21 PETER B. BENSINGER 22 were called as witnesses by and on behalf of the Applicants 23 and were examined and testified as follows:
24 DIRECT EXAMINATION
.ed n. port.ri. Inc.
DEXX 25 BY MR. BAXTER:
- . . .= . . --
i 8441
- 13-3-SueW l Q Beginning with you, Mr. Hindman, and moving to
^
() 2 my right, would you state your full name and your employer 3 and your position, please?
4 JUDGE KELLEY: Maybe I should swear them first.
5 MR. BAXTER: Yes, please. I'm sorry.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Raise your right hands, please,
. 7 gentlemen, all but Mr. Bensinger.
! 8 (The witnesses are sworn by Judge Kelley.)
9 WITNESS HINDMAN: My name is William J. Hindman, 10 Jr.
11 BY MR. BAXTER: (Continuing) 12 O Would you turn the mike on, please?
13 A (Witness Hindman) My name is William J. Hindman, 14 Jr. I am employed by Carolina Power and Light Comoany, 15 currently employed as the Manager of Harris Project Administr. t-16 tion at the Harris Plant.
17 (Witness King) My name is Michael W. King. I 18 am employed by Carolina Power and Light Company.
19 My position is that of Senior Commissioned 20 Construction Security Agent. I'm assigned to the Support
' 21 Services Section of the Nuclear Plant Construction Depart-22 ment. As such, I am responsible for supervising the 23 Construction Security Unit which includes security responsi-24 bilities at Harris, hti n.po,tm, Inc.
25 (Witness Joyner) My name is Donald Glenn 1
_-_.__--___--_.__x_
8442 l
- 13-4-SueW 1 Joyner. I am employed by Carolina Power and Light Company
(~) 2 as the on-site Commissioned Construction Security Agent.
%/
3 (Witness Plueddemann) Michael L. Plueddemann, 4 employed by Daniel Construction Company. My position is 5 Senior Industrial Relations Representative.
6 Q Thank you. Gentlemen, I call your attention 7 to a document which bears the caption of the proceedings, 8 dated September 23rd, 1985, and it's entitled " Applicants' 9 Testimony of William J. Hindman, Jr., Michael W. King, 10 D. Glenn Joyner, Michael L. Plueddemann and Peter B.
11 Bensinger on the Undercover Drug Investigation (CCNC 12 Contention WB-3)" and it consists of forty-five pages of 13 quest 5cns and answers and five attachments,
(~
v 14 Does the material associated with your initials, 15 including your attached statement of qualifications for 16 everyone except Mr. Bensinger, represent testimony prepared 17 by you or under your supervision for presentation at this 18 hearing?
19 Mr. Bensinger?
20 A (Witness Bensinger) Yes.
21 Q Mr. Hindman?
22 A (Witness Hindman) Yes.
23 Q Mr. King?
24 A (Witness King) Yes, it does.
Ah.rti a, porters, Inc.
25 Q Mr. Joyner?
8443
- 13-5-SueW 1 A (Witness Joyner) Yes.
I~T 2 Q Mr. Plueddemann?
(J-3 A (Witness Plueddemann) Yes.
4 Q Do any of you have any corrections or changes 5 to make to the prefiled testimony?
6 A (Witness Bensinger) No changes.
7 (Witness Hindman) None.
8 (Witness King) No changes. ,
1 9 (Witness Joyner) None.
10 (Witness Plueddemann) None.
Il Q Is the testimony true and correct to the best 12 of your knowledge and belief, Mr. Bensinger?
13 A (Witness Bensinger) It is.
14 O Mr. Hindman?
15 A (Witness Hindman) It is.
16 Q Mr. King?
17 A (Witness King) Yes, it is.
18 Q Mr. Joyner?
19 A (Witness Joyner) Yes, it is.
20 Q Mr. Plueddemann?
21 A (Witness Plueddemann) Yes, sir.
22 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, I move that the 23 testimony be received into evidence and physically 24 incorporated into the transcript as if read.
d it.porem, Inc.
25 MR. RUNKLE: Yes. I have a series of objections J
m _
8444
- 13-6-SueW 1 to this testimony.
/~' 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Let's handle it the same x
3 way as before.
4 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, I just -- before I 5 forget, there wasn't a ruling on the last --
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. There is a pending ruling 7 and there is a pending objection to the sentence on Page 12 8 I believe where one of the witnesses expressed his view 9 about the expertise of Mr. Bensinger.
10 And we are going to overrule that objection.
11 It seems to uc that he is stating his own opinion about 12 Mr. Bensinger's place in the world of drug experts and the 13 witness is a personnel person and is supposed to know who 7-U 14 the experts are to get them to work for his Company.
15 And so that's his opinion. And we think it is 16 relevant.
17 And so we are overruling the objection on that 18 basis.
19 Let's go ahead, Mr. Runkle, and you can state 20 an objection citing us to the section and so on, and then 21 we will have a response from Mr. Baxter, then any other 22 counsel that wants to speak on the particular point. If 23 we can rule right off the bat we will do so. If not, we 24 will just have to rule later.
ol Reportws, Inc.
25 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir. I have a series of hearsay
8445
- 13-7-SueW l objections. There are nine of them. We can take each one 2 individually or all nine at one time, whatever you prefer.
)
3 JUDGE KELLEY: I guess we had better look at 4 them one at a time.
5 MR. BAXTER: Well, for expedition, Mr. Chairman, 6 I would anticipate they deal with the witness' reporting 7 of statements by the Sheriff's Department and SBI personnel 8 at two meetings, or maybe a third meeting, held in July, 9 August and September of this year, basically about the Burch 10 Affidavit.
- 'II JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. But don't we have to I2 identify just what it is that is objected to by line and 13 q word?
U I4 Well, I will go back to Mr. Runkle. Is that a 15 fair characterization? Is that what we are going to be 16 speaking to?
I7 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir, on the July, August and 18 September meetings.
I9 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Well, maybe we can try 20 a little preliminary discussion. We have all read the 21 testimony, and we know in general what you are referrinc to.
22 Why don't you have a go at a general statment 23 about all.nine pieces, and maybe we will have a response 24 and we will see whether we have to go to each one piece by proi n.porem, inc.
25 piece?
s
8446
- 13-8-SueW 1 MR. RUNKLE: Well, I will just read into the 2 record each one, the objection, and then we can take them (v')
3 all together.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Do that.
. 5 MR. RUNKLE: On Page 11 of the testimony, at the 6 end of the first paragraph to Answer 17, a statement starting 7 "At the July 16, 1985 meeting..." and then it reports what 8 Sheriff Baker observed.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Now, as we go through 10 this I think that we do have to treat these a little bit 11 individually.
12 Is Sheriff Baker one of those subpoenaed from the rx 13 Sheriff's Department?
(_)
14 MR. RUNKLE: No, sir.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: Hensley and Self are, and one other 16 I believe.
17 MR. RUNKLE: Major Lanier.
18 JUDGE KELLEY: But not Baker?
19 MR. RUNKLE: No, sir.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. So, he is not a prospective 21 witness. Okay. Go ahead.
22 MR. RUNKLE: On Page 16, the second and third 23 paragraphs on that page, reporting a statement by Deputy 24 Hensley at an August 12th meeting, and the statement by Mr.
of Reporters, Inc.
25 Williams at a September lith meeting.
8447
- 13-9-SueW I JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Now, Hensley and Williams n
U 2 are both under subpoena, correct?
3 MR. RUNKLE: Hensley is, as far as I know. I'm 4 not sure about Mr. Williams. .
5 JUDGE KELLEY: I understand he is, 6 MR. COLE: Mr. Williams is under subpoena, Your ;
7 Honor.
8 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. So, on the supposition 9 that both are going to be here later on in the week, what 10 is your objection to these statements?
II MR. RUNKLE: Well, they are -- in terms of this 12 testimony, they'are hearsay.
13 Q
V JUDGE KELLEY: Well, isn't the vice of hearsay Id that the declarant is not available for cross-examination; 15 so if you produce the declarant the vice goes away, right?
16 Why can't you ask Hensley come Thursday, or 17 whenever he is on the stand, about that question? Whether 18 it's true or not, or accurate or complete.
19 MR. RUNKLE: The procedure should be to have 20 them ask those questions to Hensley at that time, did he 2l make that statement.
22 MR. BAXTER: If I might comment, Mr. Chairman.
23 Before we get too far, in terms of the first item identified 24 on Page 11 it refers to Sheriff Baker but Major Lanier was rol Reporters, Inc.
25 in attendance at that meeting as well, and he is one of the
8448
- 13-10-SueW l three subpoenaed witnesses.
() 2 JUDGE KELLEY: I understand.
3 MR. BAXTER: Hearsay is generally admissible 4 in administrative proceedings where Boards are considered 5 expert enough to be able to give the testimony the weight 6 it deserves. The testimony instead is admissible if it is 7 reliable.
8 And what we were responding to in this testimony 9 is an Affidavit by Ms. Burch of the SBI, which the Conserva-10 tion Council adopted in their Answer to the Summary Disposi-II tion Motion. And Ms. Burch's Affidavit in turn is based 12 almost exclusively on conversations she had with Lieutenant 13 Self and Deputy Hensley of the Sheriff's Department, and I4 with Agent Williams of the SBI.
15 So, Mr. Runkle cannot have it both ways. He has 16 asked for the Sheriff's Department people to come here. And, I7 as you say, they will be available to verify or deny these.
18 But our testimony is at least that same degree l9 of reliability as Ms. Burch's, maybe batter because in most 20 of these cases the witnesses who attended the meeting also 21 have first-hand knowledge of the facts about which they are 22 discussing with the two undercover officers.
23 JUDGE KELLEY: Maybe we can shortcircuit this 24 to some extent. You don't have to -- the Board knows that er:I Reporters, Inc.
25 under general principals of NRC law, hearsay is often
8449
- 13-11-SueWI admissible. We are not a common law court. We are not (v; 2 trying this to a jury.
3 And for all of those reasons, lots and lots of 4 hearsay get in. Indeed, we've got an awful lot in this case 5 already. -
6 The situation here arguably may be a little bit 7 different, because exactly who said what to whom is a little 8 more important perhaps than it might be in another context.
9 The Board on the other hand has some discretion to keep out 10 hearsay if we feel under the circumstances it's justified.
Il That's why I fixed on the fact that Hensley is 12 going to be here in a day or two, so why worry about what g-) 13 he is saying in this testimony. Mr. Baxter is pointing out
%.)
Id I think correctly, Mr. Runkle, that your testimony from Ms.
15 Burch is based largely on hearsay.
16 And I assume you are not going to object to that.
17 MR. RUNKLE: Well, certainly we will address that 18 when it comes up.
19 At this point, we are discussing this testimony 20 in front of us.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: It's true that her testimony is 22 not before the house. I'm simply pointing out that I think 23 Mr. Baxter's point is legitimate, that there is hearsay on 24 all sides here, so to speak.
pral n.por,.n, Inc.
25 And we are going to have to thread our way through
8450
- 13-12-SueW1 it. And, you know, if counsel don't object, if you think on
- 2 the whole it's reasonable, the Board isn't going to jump 3 in and throw it out because it's hearsay.
4 We will only rule on objections. So, let's go 5 ahead. Your point has been made, and your points have been 6 made. And we will just have to look at each piece I guess.
7 MR. BARTH: Your Honor, may the Staff make a 8 comment at this juncture on the last two items on Page 16?
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Hold on just a minute. I don't 10 think there is any escape from just going through these 11 nine pieces and seeing what's going to be said about them.
12 The.first one, the comment has been made, it's 7 13 a Sheriff Baker statement, that he is not coming but someone 4
14 else was here. Okay.
15 Now, when you get over to 16 you are talking about 16 a Hensley statement and Burch; is that correct?
17 MR. BAXTER: Williams.
18 JUDGE KELLEY: Where is Williams? I can't find 19 it.
20 MR. BAXTER: Third paragraph.
21 MR. RUNKLE: It's the third paragraph.
22 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. What's the objection to those 23 two? or, are you through?
24 MR. RUNKLE: No. Those are still hearsay. These eral Reporters, Inc.
25 are all hearsay objections.
8451
- 13-13-SueW I JUDGE KELLEY: All right. What is your answer
() 2 to the Board's point that since these people are coming, 3 allowing it in is harmless?
4 Is there something that I'm missing?
5 MR. RUNKLE: I was not aware that the -- that 6 the Board in its hearings was as casual as the treatment 7 of hearsay as, say, a Federal Court would be. Now, I would 8 defer to you and to the --
9 JUDGE KELLEY: As casual as the Federal Court?
10 MR. RUNKLE: Or, more casual.
II JUDGE KELLEY: Well, go ahead, Mr. Runkle. That 12 is just an editorial comment.
13 g Why don't you get to the merits? Why shouldn't U
I4 we let this in?
15 MR. RUNKLE: Well, because it is hearsay and you 16 can't put hearsay in.
I7 JUDGE KELLEY: Objection overruled. Let's move 18 to the next one.
I9 MR. RUNKLE: All right. The same on Page 19, 20 the first two paragraphs of Answer 22, reports statements made 21 by Lieutenant Self and Deputy Hensley in an August 12th meet-22 ing and Agent Williams on a September lith, 1985.
23 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. All three are under 24 subpoena expected to arrive later.
rol Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BARTH: Your Honor, I would like one comment
8452
- 13-14-SueV before you rule, Your Honor, in spite of the last comment 2 you made.
("/)
3 Under Rule 801 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, 4 801.D: The statement is not hearsay if the declarant 5 testifies in the trial and is subject to cross-examination.
6 Hensley, Self, Williams and Burch are going to be 7 here and subject to cross-examination; therefore, these are 8 not hearsay at all.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: They aren't under the Federal --
10 I gather the Federal Rules took the enlightened view that 11 if a person is going to show up later and be subject to 12 cross it's not hearsay, and they just defined it out of the s 13 definition.
14 The old definition that we all learned in law 15 school, if you are old enough, says it is hearsay but finds 16 another way to let it in, at least in the cases that I'm 17 aware of.
18 MR. BARTH: From our viewpoint, Your Honor, 19 these are not hearsay.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Point well taken, Mr.
21 Barth. So, under the Federal Rules, which we are not bound 22 by but which we look to for guidance, it's not hearsay.
23 The same would be true on Page 19.
24 MR. BARTH: The Federal Rules also, Your Honor, of Reporters, Inc.
25 have been adopted by the State of North Carolina in the
i 8453 1 l
l
- 13-15-SueW civil courts hsre. So c it's not hearsay in the State of l
() 2 North Carolina courts where Mr. Runkle practices either.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Further support for the Board's 4 ruling.
5 So, the Self, Hensley and Williams' statemente 6 on 19 are not objectionable merely because under classical 7 hearsay doctrines they were hearsay.
8 Okay.
9 MR. RUNKLE: It would probably facilitate things 10 if I just noticed the rest of them, you could make your
~
11 ruling and we could proceed from this point.
12 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah, if it's all by people who r~s 13 are going to be here later we can make it short. Yeah.
- d. 14 MR. RUNKLE: Page 27, the first paragraph of the 15 page, a statement by Deputy Hensley in an August 12th 16 meeting.
17 The first full paragraph on the page, Agent 18 Williams at a September lith meeting.
19 Page 28, first paragraph, statements made by 20 Deputy Hensley at an August 12th meeting.
21 Page 30, the first and second sentences, state-22 ments that Deputy Hensley made on August 12th meeting.
23 ~The last full paragraph of Page 30, the second 24 and third sentences, statements made by Deputy Hensley and d R. porters, Inc.
25 an informant presumably at one of these meetings,
8454
- 13-16-SueM MR. BAXTER: I'm sorry, Mr. Runkle. Where is
(~N 2 the reference to the informant?
, \-)
3 MR. RUNKLE: During the first day Deputy Hensley 4 was on site, he --
5 MR. BAXTER: What page?
6 MR. RUNKLE: Page 30, Answer Number 34 7 .MR. BAXTER: The informant is not going to be
.8 here.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Is it -- are we looking at Line 10 8 or 9 where the informant felt that he had participated 11 long enough?
12 Is that what we are focusing on?
13 MR. BAXTER: No, that's --
14 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Runkle, is that the focus 15 here?
16 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, on Page 30 --
17 JUDGE KELLEY: I'm sorry, I'm on 34.
18 MR. RUNKLE: At the Answer 34 on Page 30.
19 JUDGE KELLEY: Just a moment. The objection then, 20 if I understand it, is about eight lines from the bottom 21 where it says "He and the informant told us?"
22 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir.
. 23 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. And the objection is to, I 24 gather, both Hensley and the informant. But, as you know, we
, eril Reporters, lac.
25 'see those two a little differently.
,- , - - - - . - - , - , - - , ,.-.,.rm,-3 , -- -,, , - . . . _ - - - . . .~,-y--,, . - . , , ,
8455
- 13-17-SueW1 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir.
- 'f'}
ss 2 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. The objection as to 3 Hensley, in this case "he", is overruled. The informant 4 part of the objection, we can hear a little more on at 5 the conclusion of this.
6 That's on Page 30. Now, what's your next one?
7 MR. RUNKLE: Page 31, in the Answer 35, statements 8 that Deputy Hensley made at -- and I quote "At our meeting."
l 9 And under Answer 36, testimony provided by Deputy 10 Hensley which includes Attachment 5 attached to the testimony.
II And then lastly on Page --
12 JUDGE KELLEY: Wait a minute. Now, excuse me.
13 Now, earlier the statement by Hensley, and we are overruling
- 14 that objection for reasons previously explained.
15 Now, at the bottom of the page, Attachment 5 is 16 a table reflecting information provided by Hensley. Is it 17 the attachment that the objection goes to?
18 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir, as a hearsay statement.
19 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. I understand the 20 objection, but it's overruled for the same reason.
21 MR. RUNKLE: And then lastly on Page 43 on the 22 first full paragraph, statements made by Mr. Williams at 23 a September lith meeting.
24 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Overruled for the same ertl Reporters, Inc.
25 reaons. Now, I get two points that do not involve people
8456
- 13-18-SueW l who are coming subsequently to testify. That's the Sheriff
/~ 2 reference which I think was your first one, or close to it.
(_)T 3 And a reference on Page 30 to an informant.
4 And in neither of those cases would these people 5 be expected to appear. So, let's just focus on those two for 6 a moment.
7 Anything further you want to say about them, Mr.
8 Runkle?
9 MR. RUNKLE: Mr. Eddleman just brought to my 10 attention that on Page 34 the informant, there is also a 11 statement of the informant, on the third sentence of Answer 12 Number 40.
- 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. I see it. The informant 14 felt that he had participated long enough?
15 Is that the one?
16 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir.
17 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. So, that's three points 18 where we have statements by out-of-court declarants who we 19 don't expect to be here.
20 Do you want to address that any further? I can 21 hear from everybody a little further and then we will probably 22 take it under advisement.
23 MR. RUNKLE: No, sir. Those are the objections 24 we had with it. And you understand our objections to them.
rol Reporters, Inc.
25 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Mr. Baxter, we are talking l
8457
- 13-19-SueW 1 here about declarants who aren't expected to appear as witnesses ,
~
2 so it's hearsay and isn't subject to cross, (d'
3 Do you believe we should let it in anyway and, if 4 so,-why? -
f 5 MR. BAXTER: Well, the first one in connection with 6 Sheriff Baker's remark on Page 11, as I indicated earlier, 7 Major Lanier was in the room at the time et that meeting, and 8 he is one of the subpoenaed witnesses and can attest to whether 9 or not Sheriff Baker made that statement as well.
10 And I think if you've got two people swearing that 11 they heard the same statement, I think that's a degree of 12 reliability which is adequate to overcome the hearsay.
73 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Lanier would be here and who else?
Q,I 14 Who else in addition to Baker?
15 MR. BAXTER: No. Baker will not be here.
16 JUDGE KELLEY: Baker won't be here. But Lanier 17 will be here. And who else? Is it Hindman speaking here?
18 MR. BAXTER: This is Eindman, yes. M r. Hindman 19 as in the same meeting along with Sheriff Baker and Major 20 Lanier.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
22 MR. BAXTER: And the lawyers.
23 JUDGE KELLEY: So, you would cite that as corroborative 24 and a reason for letting it in?
rol Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BAXTER: That's right. In connection with the
, g - - - . , , - - - - - - - - , - - , , -
, _ _ , . . -. ---.n , -
8458 il3-20-SueW l informant, understand that there was one confidential in-2 side informant utilized in this investigation by both f[;)
3 Deputy Hensley and by SBI Agent Williams.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: In each case, the two places in 5 the testimony, is that the same informant?
6 MR. BAXTER: That's correct.
7 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
8 MR. BAXTER: All throughout this testimony as 9 well --
10 JUDGE KELLEY: All right.
Il MR. BAXTER: -- as in the testimony of Ms. Burch, 12 Agent Williams, Supervisor Overton. This person is not f- 13 going to be here because he was promised confidentiality, C
14 of course, as a part of his services in that undercover 15 operation.
16 I think you are going to find, if you have read 17 Agent Williams' testimony, a great deal of reliance on the 18 inside informant's services. And we cannot attempt to 19 duplicate an undercover investigation conducted over almost 20 a year ago in terms of bringing in firsthand everybody and 21 every conversation that was held back then.
22 And I think that if our reports of what the 23 informant's views were on terms of, for example, the one 24 item that was cited here about his being ready to leave the at Reporters, Inc.
25 job at the end of the investigation are going to be corroborat ed
8459 T
413-21-Sue $ by SBI Agent Williams and Deputy Hensley.
2 So I think at worst it's premature to exclude 3 those parts of the testimony now. If they are corroborated 4 later, I would think they have overcome any reliability END #13 5 concerns.
Jon flws 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 o
,4 15 16 17 18 2
19 20 21 i 22 23
- 24 erst n. porters, Inc.
25 i
--e -- - . . . - - ,,,_ . - - - - - - - - . . - - - , -.,-,- ----. .. - . -_- ._..-,.----,_ _ -- ......m., .m.-
14-1-JonWal 8460 1 I would say we are not quoting. We don't 2 have the informant so stated'in quote words. These
(~ )
3 gentlemen over here on the panel at the far right end, Mr.
4 Joyner and Mr. Plueddemann worked with the inside informant 5 all the time during the entire undercover operation, and 6 I think they are competent to express judgments about 7 what his views were at various courses during the 8 investigation.
9 And frankly, Mr. Chairman,-I really don't think 10 we have a controversy in this case if hearsay is not going 11 to be allowed.
12 Mr. Runkle's witness prefiled testimony relies 13 on it, as does the Attorney General's.
14 JUDGE KELLEY: I didn't mean to suggest any 15 sweeping anti-hearsay rule.
16 MR. BAXTER: I know you didn' t. I find it a 17 little disengenuous that we are being put through this 18 process at this point, when clearly the rest of their 19 case is nothing, absolutely nothing, without relying on 20 hearsay reports of other people's conversations.
21 MR. RUNKLE: I will take strong issue with that.
22 JUDGE KELLEY: Just a minute, Mr. Runkle. I 23 will be right back to you. I just want to finish a couple 24 of points.
of Reporters, Inc.
25 So, you are saying -- one thing you are saying
14-2-JonWal 8461 1
is that we should wait and see how things shape up with 2 regard to whether there is a need for this witness.
3 Now, you say he has been promised confidentiality.
4 I take it that means he was promised confidentiality by- l 5 CP&L, correct? f 6 MR. BAXTER: No, by the District Attorney.
7 JUDGE KELLEY: Wake County?
8 MR. BAXTER: Is that correct, Mr. King? Is'it 9 Wake County?
10 WITNESS KING: Yes, we work with the Lake County 11 District Attorney's Office, and the informer was sponsored 12 .by the Wake County Sheriff's Department. They promised him 13 the confidentiality.
fs
( 1 km/
14 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. In exchange for non-15 Prosecution?
16 WITNESS KING: Yes, that is correct.
17 JUDGE KELLEY: At least theoretically, that 18 doesn't keep the Board from calling him. I don't know 19 whether he would come if we felt we needed him.
20 MR. BAXTER: And if you could find out who he 21 was.
22 JUDGE KELLEY: That is the other problem. One 23 other problem.
24 MR. COLE: I think hi s name will come out, Your l Li Reporters, Inc.
25 Honor.
i f
8462 14-3-JonWal 1 MR. BAXTER: It shouldn't.
} 2 JUDGE KELLEY: At this point, in any event, 3 we have an unnamed informant promised confidentiality as 4 we have been told. No party at this point has attempted 5 to call him, and -- okay, I suppose one thing we can do is 6 let it sit for a while.
7 Mr. Runkle?
8 MR. RUNKLE: I would take st.rong issue with 9 Mr. Baxter's characterization of our witnesses testimony 10 being hearsay, and we will get to that when we get to that.
11 And I want the record to reflect chat we feel-12 it is clearly not.
13 And as to testimony proffered by the Attorney g-)
14 General from various SBI agents, I see a substantial 15 difference between the reliance on certain statements by 16 professionals doing an undercover drug investigation, and 17 the mentioning of different statements by this panel, and 18 I think we should address that when we get to Ms. Burch's 19 testimony.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: I am sorry, let me make sure I 21 am straight.
22 The distinction you are suggesting between 23 members of this panel and the Attorney General's witnesses?
24 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir. They -- when they report erst Reporters, Inc.
l l 25 on a statement made by somebody else, that is part of their
14-4-Jo Wal 8463 r
j on-going investigation, and they can rely on t, hose statements .
MR. BAXTER: Mr. King and Mr. Joyner are
] 2 3
commissioned law enforcement officers also, as their 4 testimony makes clear. They are just as able to report 5
statements as the SBI' agents and the Sheriff's Department 6 PeoP le.
7 JUDGE KELLEY: I think we are anticipating a i
- 8 little bit, gentlemen. What is pending before us is a 9 statement ascribed to Sheriff Baker and a couple of state-10 ments by the informant, whose name we do not know, and 11 that is all, and Mr. Barth, any comment on this legal 12 dispute, as to those three statements?
MR. BARTH: Yes, Your Honor. As I understand it, 13
!fC-we are discussing the informant and Mr. Baker, the Sheriff.
14 4
15 In regard to the Sheriff, you have other 16 testimony of people who attended the meeting and the 17 law of this agency very clearly is you may accept hearsay 18 and under these-circumstances I suggest that you do so, 19 and that you weigh the credibility of the people testifying 20 which will give you a feeling for what they are saying. ,
21 ,
The hearsay here goes to the weight of the 22 Baker representations, not to its admissibility, in my 23 view.
24 In regard to the informant, I am not an expert of nepo,,ers, Inc.
25 on the informant law of North Carolina, and I think that
14-5-Jo:Wal 8464 1 all of the parties except the Staff have relied upon the 2 hearsay as to what happened with the undercover op? ration,
(]
v 3 much of which is hearsay.
4 I think it is not proper at this time to raise 5 the hearsay exception to this. I would like to point out, 6 Your Honor, the original contention filed by CCNC was 7 Premised upon the newspaper article reporting eight 8 arrests. You cannot get more hearsay than that.
9 There absolutely is nothing more hearsay than 10 that, which was the entire premise of Mr. Runkle's case.
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Of course, he wasn't in a hearing 12 at the ...me. Well, anyway.
> -~ 13 MR. BARTH: I think the sauce for the goose has 14 got to be sauce for the gander, Your Honor. Fair is fair.
15 Let's not cut the State being one part, the power company 16 another, the federal government some other part.
17 You are quite capable, because we are not in 18 Missouri, and you people have all been well trained to 19 understand and look at witnesses, and I think a hearsay 20 objection just has no foundation here at all.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Cole, any comment?
22 MR. COLE: Mr. Chairman, I would take the 23 position to embrace Mr. Baxter's arguments about the 24 confidential informant, if I understood his position gertl Reporters, Inc.
25 correctly.
-w w- m ---- e ---- , - -
14-6-JosWal 8465 I I believe he was saying let it in. What is fair
(} 2 is fair.
3 If that is not his position, then I don't embrace 4 .it, obviously. By the the nature of the testimony we have 5 filed it would be obvious we would favor the admission of 6 that. As another reason, of course, this body is sitting 7 without a jury, and we think we can all assume that you three 8 gentlemen can certainly sift through testimony.
9 I would assume that if someone got up and said 10 we had ten thousand people who told us there was no wide-11 spread drug abuse, that you would look at that with care 12 and caution and scan it, I suppose.
. 13 our position is that we think that the informant's 14 testimony should be -- hearsay or not, obviously it is --
15 should be allowed in.
16 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Any final comment, Mr.
17 Runkle?
18 MR. RUNKLE: Yes.- I would withdraw the hearsay 19 objection as it pertains to the informant.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: So it stands as to Baker, but 21 not as to-the informant?
22 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir.
23 JUDGE KELLEY: So that reduces the dispute to the 24 Baker statement which -- okay, fine, we can take that one er:I Reporters, Inc.
25 home with us and tell you tomorrow morning the ruling on
~ ,
8466 14-7-Jo:Wal 1 that.
2 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, I would like to also (V'l 3 at this time object to another statement quoted from
- 4 Sheriff Baker on page 38 . The last sentence of the 5 paragraph that is in progress at the top.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: What line is that?
l 7 MR. BARTH: Your Honor, there is no statement 8 by Mr. Baker.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah, toward the bottom of tne l 10 first paragraph. Sheriff Baker stated at the meeting, howeve r, 11 he does not believe CP&L and so on --
12 MR..EDDLEMAN: That is right. I believe that fs 13 starts in the 9th line, Judge.
(.) All right. On the same 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Right.
15 ground, I assume, as the earlier.
16 MR. EDDLEMAN: He is not going to be here.
17 MR. BAXTER: This statement was made, however, 18 Mr. Chairman, at a different meeti g. It was made at a 19 meeting in which Lt. Self and Deputy Hensley were present.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: So you would say there is 21 additional, or more corroboration here than on the other .
22 one?
23 MR. BAXTER: That is right.
24 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, eral Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. COLE: Mr. Chairman, I believe we even have m
8467 14-8-JoeWal I a witness that was present at that meeting also.
[v ') 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Which one would that be.
3 MR. COLE: Mr. Overton.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: Overton. Okay. We will bear 5 that in mind.
6 MR. COLE: In fact, I think his filed testimony 7 is mainly about that meeting.
8 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I think that is enough 9 on these points. We will make the ruling tomorrow morning 10 on the two statements by Sheriff Baker.
II I will just add that we overrule the hearsay 12 objections, on the basis we expected the people to be here r- 13 later to testify where they could be questioned about the
',]s I4 statements, that are '. subject to dispute .now.
15 If that turns out for any reason not to be the 16 case, then Mr. Runkle or another party wants to raise the 17 objection again, they can do so.
IO We had a motion, I think, to admit the testimony, I9 and with those objections -- are there other points?
20 MR. RUNKLE: Yes , there are other objections .
21 I would like to conduct voir dire on Mr~. Bensinger about 22 his qualifications as it pertains to undercover drug 23 investigations.
24 JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead, rol Reporters, Inc.
XX INDEX 25 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION i
. . ~ , . , - . _ - . . . - . . - . . , . , . . - . , - - - - . . - - ,
84 0 14-9-JosWal 1 BY MR. RUNKLE:
Mr. Bensinger, in your position as ndministrator
/~]
G 2 Q 3 of the Drung Enforcement Agency, did you conduct -- were 4 you ever an undercover investigator yourself?
5 A (Witness Bensinger) No, sir.
6 Q Did you supervise those agents that were under-7 cover investigators?
8 A I'have never been a first line supervisor of 9 undercover narcotic investigations, although I authorized 10 thousands of them, and was ultimately responsib le for them 11 in a number of different positions which I have held over 12 the last decade.
13 I would further add that as 'the chief law v
14 - enforcement officer in the United States, to take the 15 position that I wasn't somewhat familiar with how under-16 cover investigation would operate would question the 17 credibility of four Attorney Generals and several 18 Presidents.
l 19 Q I would move to strike that last sentence 20 as not responsive to the question posed to the witness.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: I think it is within the pail, 22 Mr. Runkle. Why don't you just proceed. I will deny 23 the motion.
24 MR. RUNKLE: I am finished with the voir dire, erri Reporters, Inc.
25 and would object to all of Mr. Bensinger's testimony
. - - - - - - . . . , - , _ ~ -
7,- , . , _ , , . , , - . . . . . . . . , , , , e. - ,, - , . - , - . . -
14-10-Josh al 8469 1 as it relates to panel two on the undercover drug investiga-2 tion.
[}
3 MR. BAXTER: May I examine before the Board's 4 ruling?
5 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.
6 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION j 7 BY MR. BAXTER:
8 Q Mr. Bensinger, would you describe the extent to 9 which you becane -knowledgeable of, and played some role in 10 the management of investigations conducted by the DEA during 11 your tenure as administrator?
12 A (Witness Bensinger) As administrator of DEA, es 13 I was responsible for the policy direction of the criminal b 14 investigations undertaken by some 2,000 special agents.
15 I swore them in when they were appointed.
16 Provided work direction, prioritization of cases, 17 listened to extensive briefings, traveled to our principal 18 regional and district offices, authorized levels of flash 19 roles, made policy determinations on whether drugs could 20 enter or not enter the traffic.
21 Provided reallocation of agent resources, and I 22 in fact, started and stopped a number of investigations 23 based on what I consider to be successful levels of 24 initiative and initial feedback from them from the standpoint al Reporters, Inc.
25 of what was ultimately going to be achieved by those
14-ll-JocWal 8470 1 investigations.
(} 2 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, I guess I am not 3 quite sure what the objection is. I think that clearly 4 Mr. Bensinger's position itself reveals some experience 5 and association with drug investigations.
6 If the objection is that he was so high up in 7 the organization he never saw the bottom, I think we have 8 established here that he actually was involved in some 9 investigations, at least sufficiently to provide the Board 10 with a valuable perspective on this one.
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Do you want to say anything 12 further, Mr. Runkle?
MR. RUNKLE: I don' t think his testimony or
-)
%J 13 14 the Appl'icants' voir dire has established that Mr. Bensinger 15 is an expert about undercover drug investigations, and thus, 16 any of his various opinions contained in this testimony, 17 he is really not qualified to make.
18 JUDGE KELLEY: Excuse me a moment.
19 (Board confers.)
20 JUDGE KELLEY: The Board has conferred on this 21 objection, and we are going to overrule it. As we see it, 22 we have read the testimony before and reviewed it again.
23 Mr. Bensinger's testimony in this section is by and large 24 fairly general in nature. I don't think there is any rtl Reporters, Inc.
25 serious question about his being an expert in drug use and
14-12-Jo;Wal 8471 1 control, at a sort of policy level.
{} 2 Whether his top position at the DEA would have 3 given him expertise in sort of the nuts and bolts of 4 undercover operations, not as much one would assume as a 5 .first line supervisor at the DEA.
6 But on the other hand, we think he, by virtue 7 of his employment, must be knowledgeable about such matters 8 and the objection that really rests on lack of nuts and 9 bolts, it seems, if you will, goes in our view to weight 10 and not to admissibility.
11 So, we can take that into account in assessing 12 testimony, but we are not going to exclude it.
13 Any other points?
14 MR. RUNKLE: No, I don't feel that lucky.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: Therefore, the motion to move 16 this testimony into evidence is granted.
17 (Previously mentioned' document follows.)
18 19 i
! 20 lI 21 22 23 24 rol it. porters, lac.
25 l
l l
c- , _ . -, . . _ . - . . . . , _ , _ _ . , . . . . ,,,e..,_ ,,,-,y . , , - . , ,,, , . -.-.- _ - , ._,-,,_y_. ,.
\
September 23, 1985 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearor. Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant) )
O ,
APPLICANTS' TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM J. HINDMAN, JR., MICHAEL W. KING, D. GLENN JOYNER, MICHAEL L. PLUEDDEMANN AND PETER B. BENSINGER ON THE UNDERCOVER DRUG INVESTIGATION (CCNC CONTENTION WB-3)
O
, b
Q.1 Please state your names.
'l' A.1 William J. Hindman, Jr., Michael W. King, D. Glenn Joyner, Michael L. Plueddemann and Peter B. Bensinger.
~
Q.2 Mr. Hindman, by whom are you employed, and what is your position?
A.2 (WJH): I am employed by Carolina Power & Light Com-pany as Manager, Harris. Project Administration, at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
Q.3 Please summarize your professional qualifications and describe your responsibilities which are relevant to this con-tention on drug abuse during construction.
A.3 (WJH): I recelyed a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Clemson University. I began full-time employment at the Harris site on February 17, 1979, as a Senior O Engineer in-the Project Analysis element of the Harris site Management organization. Prior to that time I was on site pett-time as Senior Engineer-Staff reporting to the Vice Presi-dent for Power Plant Construction. I served as Director-Project Analysis beginning in May, 1980, and as Manager-Harris Project Administration beginning in December, 1983. A complete statement of my professional qualifications is appended as Attachment 1 to this testimony.
My responsibilities include service as the on site manager s
designated to-interface with the CP&L construction security representatives who are responsible for construction security for the Harris Project. With respect to drug' activity among i
employees at the Harris site, I have been designated by the
Vice President, Harris Nuclear Project Department, as the project level coJrdinator of infor$ation pertaining to illegal drug use on the Harris Project.
Q.4 Mr. King, by whom are you employe'd, and what is your position?
A.4 (MWK): I am employed by Carolina Power & Light Com-pany as Senior Commissioned Construction Security Agent, in the Support Services Section of the Nuclear Plant Construction De-partment. As my job classification implies, I am a commis-sioned law enforcement officer. Functionally, I am Supervisor of the Construction Security Unit.
Q.5 Please summarize your professional qualifications and describe your responsibilities which are relevant to the con-
- tantion.
A.5 (MWK): I have been employed by CP&L in various secu-rity positions since February, 1978. Previously, I spent over seven years on the Raleigh Police Department, where my assign-ments included narcotics investigations. My experience as a narcotics investigator has included work as an undercover offi-cer while on active duty with the military, and undercover operations while in civilian law enforcement. The last under-cover operation that I participated in as an undercover officer lasted for seven months. This operation resulted in the arrest of more than 100 suspects on over 300 felony indictments. In addition, I have received classroom training in college and law enforcement schools on Narcotics and Drug Abuse, Drug O
G a
, - _ , , . - . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ , . , - . . - , . - - ,.,,,,,.--.-m.. , - ~ ~ , . . . . . ,_
l 4 Identification, Drug Analysis, and all applicable laws of ar-O rest, search and seizure. I have been a member of the armed services of the United States since February, 1967. My most recent tour has been 'with the United States Army Reserves, serving in law enforcement positions and as a Military Police instructor among other duties. I have completed Military Po-lice Officers' Basic and Advance Courses, and I earned a B.S.
degree in Police Science in 1976 from North Carolina Wesleyan i
College. I am a member of the North Carolina Law Enforcement Officers Association, and have been awarded an Advanced Law En-i forcement Certificate from the North Carolina Criminal Justice Training and Standards Commission. A complete statement of my education, training and experience is appended as Attachment 2 to this testimony.
G My responsibilities as Supervisor of the Construction Se-curity Unit currently include review of construction activities and formulation of recommendations to management on security plans and procedures designed to protect Company facilities, material, equipment and personnel; supervision of contractor security organizations' performance; conduct of periodic project security reviews; conduct of confidential security in-vestigations; and coordination with and assistance to all lev-els of law enforcement in matters concerning Company-owned ma-terials and equipment or Company personnel. Since construction
! of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant has been by far the most significant construction activity within CP&L for the past I
l l
seven years, security at that site has dominated my responsi-O bilities. With respect to the identification and control of drug use and activity within the work force at the Shearon Harris construction site, I have been responsible for and per-sonally involved in the following: preparation and imple-mentation of the Site Security Plan and Procedure; from February, 1978, to September, 1979, onsite supervision of the security program a minimum of three days per week; since September, 1979, supervision of a CP&L on-site Construction Se-curity Agent (Mr. Joyner) who reports to me; the conduct and supervision of two undercover operatiens and one investigation with members of the Wake County Sheriff's Department (WCSD) and the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI); primary interface be-tween the site and all law enforcement agencies; and review of O all security incident and investigative reports.
Q.6 Mr. Joyner, by whom are you employed, and what is your position?
A.6 (DGJ): I am employed by Carolina Power & Light Com-pany as Commissioned Construction Security Agent at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. I report to Mr. King, and I am also a commissioned law enforcement officer.
Q.7 Please summarize your professional qualifications and describe your responsibilities which are relevant to this con-tention. ,
A.7 (DGJ): I have been employed by CP&L in security posi-tions at the Harris site since September, 1979. Previously, I
/'T
! (/
! l l
l
spent over nine years as an Investigator with the Raleigh Po-Ns lice Department. In addition to my other training as an inves-tigator, I received narcotics investigation training with the Raleigh Police Academy and refresher training for my position with CP&L. I earned a B.S. degree in Police Science in 1977 from North Carolina Wesleyan College. My studies there includ-ed Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. A complete statement of my professional qualifications is appended as Attachment 3 to this testimony.
My responsibilities at the Harris site include review of Harris construction activities and formulation of recommenda-tions to Harris management on security plans and procedures de-signed to protect Company facilities, mate r'ial, equipment and I personnel; supervision of Harris contractor security organiza-O' tion's performance; conduct of periodic Harris Project security reviews; conduct of confidential security investigations at Harris; and coordination with and assistance to law enforcement agencies on Harris matters.
Q.8 Mr. Plueddemann, by whom are you employed, and what is your position?
. A.8 (MLP): I am employed by Daniel Construction Company as Senior Industrial Relations Representative at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
Q.9 Please summarize your professional qualifications and describe your responsibilities which are relevant to this con-tention.
. . ~ , >,, , . . , _ , . - . . , . . . - - . , , ., , 7..~,..--,.,v ,,,,en, .
A.9 (MLP): I have been employed at the Harris site since
% 1978. Among my responsibilities are the administration of Daniel drug policies and search / seizure procedures, and the in-vestigation of alleged narcotic violations by Daniel employees.
I have a bachelor's degree from East Carolina University. A complete statement of my professional qualifications is appended as Attachment 4 to this testimony.
Q.10 Mr. Bensinger, by whom are you employed, and what is your position?
A.10 (PBB): I am President of Bensinger, Dupont and Asso-ciates, Inc., a professional consulting firm providing services to private industry, national and community organizations and government, on the problems of drug and alcohol abuse, includ-ing its impact on the work place. I have described my
(>)
' training, experience and qualifications in my previous testi-mony on the drug abuse control policies and training at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
Q.11 What is the purpose of this testimony?
A.11 (WJH): The purpose of this testimony is to respond in part to the allegations in CCNC Contention WB-3 that " drug use at the Harris Plant is widespread" and that " Applicants' management has failed to control drug use during the construc-
' ~
tion." In particular, this testimony provides information on
~ the undercover drug investigation conducted at the Harris site last year, and responds to the Affidavit of S. L. Burch, dated July 31, 1985, on the same subject. Our testimony demonstrates O 1
that CP&L was fully supportive of and cooperative with the in-( vestigation, that CP&L took no actions which endangered the lives of the undercover operatives, and that CP&L did not thwart the investigation or purposely impede its operation. i i
Q.12 How is your testimony organized?
A.12 (WJH): We will first describe the facts surrounding the proposed initiation of the undercover operation and CP&L's motivation for undertaking it. Second, we will describe the basic mode of operation established at the outset of the inves-tigation, and CP&L's role in supporting it. Third, we will re-spend to the assertions in the Burch Affidavit that particular actions taken by CP&L endangered the safety of the undercover oparatives and hampered their effectiveness. Fourth, we will describe the circumstances surrounding the decision to termi-nate the investigaticn. Finally, we assess what the undercover operation reveals about the extent of drug activity amon's Harris site employees.
Q.13 Have each of you read the July 31, 1985 Affidavit of S. L. Burch filed with the Response by the Attorney General of North Carolina to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of CCNC Co.ntention WB-3 (Drug Abuse During Construction)?
A.13 (WJH, MWK, DGJ, MLP, PEB): Yer Q.14 Before ve begin discussing the __2crcover investiga-tion in some detail, would each of you please describe your personal role in that operation and in the recent inquiry into the Burch Affidavit?
l -
-- , - , - - - ,,,- -,g,.y.., ,,, -,-,.w.-,, y-e,-a--w--n.y, --w-~ --r--,vn . r---- , - - , , , , w,-~~- -e,.,,-,-, pee,,n,-.-,~ewn -.c,-v,-- ,-- - - , - - -
A.14 (WJH): I was involved in the decision to initiate O
\/
the investigation and essentially represented Harris Project management in the initial planning for the undercover investi-gation. CP&L Security (Mr. Joyner or Mr. King) kept me in-
' formed of the progress of the investigation while it was being conducted. The investigation involved two undercover opera-tives -- Deputy Hensley of the WCSD and Agent Williams of the SBI -- as well as an inside informant. I assisted CP&L Securi-ty in making necessary arrangements for the officers and the informant to work on site, and I personally met with the two operatives to invite them to contact me in the event they needed any assistance.
On' July 18, 1985, I attended a meeting with Wake County
~g Sheriff Eaker, Major Lanier and counsel to review our summary disposition motion which had just been filed. After the Burch Affidavit was filed, I attended another meeting with WCSD per-sonnel (including Sheriff Baker, Major Lanier, Lt. Self and Deputy Hensley) on August 12, 1985, at which we discussed the assertions made by Ms. Burch and the reply CP&L was preparing to file with the NRC.
(MWK): I was involved in the decision to initiate the in-vestigation and attended the planning meeting with the law en-forcement agencias prior to initiation of the investigation, and the meeting at which the decision was reached to terminate the aperation. During the operation, I was in routine contact with Mr. Joyner, my on-site agent, on the daily progress of the O
U l
1
. investigation. On the few occasions when Mr. Joyner was away,
I I was on site to coordinate with the officers. I also attended the August 12, 1985 rueeting with the WCSD which Mr. Hindman just described.
(DGJ): I was involved in the decisions to initiate the undercover investigation, the planning of the operation, CP&L support for the operation, and the regular contact and coordination with the undercover agents. I provided the agents with the intelligence on drug activity available to CP&L Secu-e rity, advised the agents on the evaluation and pursuit of information being obtained, and generally assisted them in any way I could. I attended the August 12, 1985 meeting with WCSD perso'nnel, along with Mr. King and Mr. Hindman. In addition, I attended a meeting with former SBI Agent Williams and counsel on September 11, 1985, to discuss the contents of the Burch Af-fidavit.
(MLP): During the undercover investigation I acted as an on-site contact with the two law enforcement undercover opera-tives. I met with both operatives on a regular basis during the operation -- almost every day that they were on the site.
I also attended the September 11, 1985 meeting with former SBI Agent Williams, which Mr. Joyner just described.
(PBB): I was not involved in the undercover investiga-tion. I have reviewed the Burch Affidavit and the re' ply affi-
' davits filed by Applicants, however, and I have discussed the investigation with CP&L Security personnel sufficiently to
_9 9
y-- ,.._,,,en.----,. .- -,- e,~.. ,- ~ ,...,y.-.,,--..e--my ---e e-. ,,eman., -- . , - - -, - - - , , - - - - -a-m -,- , ,
f understand what occurred. My purpose here is to assess the propriety of several actions taken by CP&L, from the standpoint of my role as a Company advisor on the control of drug activity in the work place. Based upon my law enforcement experience with narcotics investigations, I will also evaluate the conduct of this operation and what legitimately can be concluded from its results.
Q.15 Mr. King, Ms. Burch states in paragraph 4 of her af-fidavit, that in a planning meeting of October 17, 1984, which you and Mr. Joyner attended, you advised that the NRC was putting pressure on CP&L to look into the drug problem at the
- Harris site. Did you make such a statement?
A.15 (MWK): I did not state that the NRC or anyone else was putting pressure on CP&L to conduct an unde'rcover operation at the Harris site. In fact, the CP&L proposal to conduct the operation arose from our own desire to curb drug activity at the project.
Q.16 Mr. Joyner, you also attended the meeting. Did Mr.
King make the statement attributed to him by Ms. Burch?
.~$.16.(DGJ): I do not recall any statement made by Mr.
King indicating that pressure from any source was our motivation for requesting the drug operation. In fact, the operation came about because of a weekly report I wrote on a4 August 16, 1984,, which advised of drug information we were receiving about employees at the site. Mr. M. A. McDuffie, CP&L Senior Vice President, Nuclear Generation Group, read the ,
l l
k
report and telephoned me to discuss it. I suggested to Mr.
O McDuffie that we should proceed with an undercover operation utilizing members of the law enforcement community as opera-tives. He then contacted Mr. Watson, Vice-President, Harris Nuclear Project Department, and, after further discussion, a 4
letter was sent on August 30, 1984 from Mr. Watson to the WCSD requesting a meeting to discuss the drug activity. I am not aware of any external pressure by anyone on anyone to conduct the undercover operation.
Q.17 Does the Burch Affidavit, then, unfairly import to CP&L a reluctance to initiate this investigation?
A.17 (WJH): In my opinion, yes. By implying that CP&L did not really want to undertake this investigation but was
, forced to do so, Ms. Burch attempts to apply to later CP&L ac-U tions a motive of intent to thwart the investigation. In con-trast, CP&L proposed the investigation on its own and wanted it to be effective. ,The many steps CP&L took in support of the operation, which we will describe, demonstrate that commitment.
At the July 16, 1985 meeting I mentioned earlier, Sheriff Baker observed that CP&L deserved great credit for taking the initia-tive to propose this investigation at the Harris Plant.
(PBB): I would like to add my concurrence to Sheriff Baker's reported observation. Cooperation with law enforcement agencies in undercover investigations is a very positive ele-j ment of a corporation's arsenal of tools to combat drugs in the i i
workplace. Such operations not only serve to identify O ~ _ - , _ - - _ _ - - _ . , _ - - _ - . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _.._. _ _ ._ _ _ __ _ ___. _ _.__
violators of the company's drug abuse policies, but also to i O deter future drug activity among the employee population con-4 templating the use of drugs on the job. However, as I discuss later, the cooperation must come frem the law enforcement side as well, and,overriging corporate responsibilities cannot be ignored or suspended indefinitely in the interest of pursuing criminal prosecutions.
Q.18 In paragraph 4 of her affidavit, Ms. Burch states that at the October 17, 1984 planning meeting, Sheriff Baker indicated he was limited in experienced manpower, but that he would assign an individual to act as an undercover operative.
Is this true?
A.18 (DGJ): Yes. To my knowledge, Lt. Self at that time was the only member of the WCSD drug unit. Lt. Self was placed O in overall charge of the investigation. Deputy K. G. Hensley, who was assigned to be the WCSD undercover operative, did not have previous narcotics investigation experience, and had been working with and teaching computer systems for the WCSD.
, Q.19 Ms. Burch continues that at the same meeting Sheriff Baker requested that the SBI furnish an experienced undercover operative to work with the WCSD, and that the SBI assured Sher-iff Baker it would assist in whatever way possible. Is this also true? *
, A.15 (DGJ): Yes. The SBI assigned an experienced under-cover operative, Special Agent Williams, who is now employed by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in Pittsburgh. During
, . - , - - - . , . . - . . - - . . - - - , . _ _ - _ - . _ - . . - - . - . ~ . . - , - . - -
our meeting of September 11, 1985, Mr. Williams indicated that
$e left the employ of the SBI on February 22, 1985, and that he learned of his acceptance by DEA in December, 1984, during the undercover operation.
Q.20 What did CP&L do in support of the investigation?
A.20 (DGJ): An important initial contribution was to re-spond to the request for a confidential informant. During the 9 planning stage for the operation, Lt. Self of the WCSD stated that in order to help the undercover operatives gain access to the drug dealers, he wanted the assistance, as an informant, of a particular employee who had been terminated and turned over to the WCSD for possession of cocaine. The individual agreed l to perform this role in exchange for the anticipated dropping i
, of criminal charges against him after successful completion of
' \- the operation, and with the understanding that he would not i
testify in any subsequent criminal proceedings. Consequently, only purchases by the law enforcement officers could be the basis for arrests. The informant had been an employee of Davis Electric Company, a sub-contractor of Daniel Construction Com-pany. Because this individual had been terminated for vi-clating site drug abuse policies, Davis personnel (unaware of 1
the investigation) could not be persuaded to re-hire him. We then arranged to have the former employee hired through a tem-l porary agency with his salary paid by CP&L, and gave him total access to the site. It was understood by the WCSD and others involved in the investigation that co-workers of this former 13-i
-e v-- .e w e =r- . ,~,,-yew,-r,-------.---.,wn-,e,--%,--,----c----. ----+,--w-m--,--c. -we--e.~--wy--w.-m-,,,, ,,,----c--- 4.-e,-----~-,,-e,--.-,-,.<
i
)
1 employee knew he had been fired and knew the reasons for his 1
' (1) termination. I personally cautioned against the selection of ,
this informant because his co-workers would be suspicious about ;
his re-employment. Nevertheless, the WCSD proceeded with this informant and a cover story was developed to the effect that the charges could not be proven against him.
I gave badges to both operatives (Hensley and Williams) under a fictitious company (Management Consultants). In the case of Deputy Hensley, his assigned consultant work involved terminals for computer systems -- a role which utilized his e.tpartise at the WCSD. Agent Williams posed as a management t analyst. The agents were both told that they had access to the plant site on any shift ant at any time they needed it, and were provided with securitj g3sses so hey could enter and de-O part the site at their own discret 'n at cny time and without escort. Given the nature of their con.* titan ~ roles, the opera-1 tives were not tied to a single shift or w rk a.ea. In other words, other employees would not necessarily e:mec': their work
~
to require strict adherence to a given shift schettle. The op-err.tives were provided with private office space in u.e etsin construction building, a telephone and a sign on the dear lisn-tifying thair fictitious company. I took hard hats home and painted them for the operatives' use, adding their names and company. I also provided Agent Williams with a pair of boots for use on the site.
O -
f i
Mr. Plueddemann and I were available to the operatives on a daily basis, and did all follow-up work to make positive identification of each person reported to have used, possessed or sold drugs. In addition to the assistance provided by the confidential informant, we provided the agents, at the outset of the. operation, with a list of employees we suspected of drug l
activity, and shared intelligence on likely locations of drug f
activity.
(WJH): In my opinion, CP&L cooperated fully with the law enforcement officers curing the investigation. I would like to echo Mr. Joyner's statement and emphasize that we went to con-siderable effort-to acco'modate m the Sheriff's Department re-quest for this particular confidential informant. In addition, I personally told the operatives that they should contact me if I
(/ I could be of any assistance during the operation or if prob-lems arose. On only one occasion did I receive a request for assistance. Deputy Hensley requested my assistance in finding a legitimate reason to allow him to get into a particular work area. I gave him a letter of authorization that he coulc carry which provided him with a reason to be in that area. Neither 3 the undercover operatives nor any of their supervisors in the Wake County Sheriff's Department or SBI ever came to me or called me to indicate that they had concerns about CP&L's coop-eration during the investigation or concern that CP&L's actions were endangering the operatives.
i 4
y .my ,- , ,e r- -,,.-v-.m_,--.
(DGJ): During the undercover operation, Deputy Hensley and I worked well together and developed a relationship of mu-tual trust. It was my impression that Deputy Hensley was satisfied with and appreciative of the assistance I provided.
(WJE, MWK, DGJ): During our meeting of August 12, 1985, Deputy Hensley stated that we were totally supportive of his efforts on site, and cooperated with him in every way that we 4 .
could.
(DGJ, MLP): During our meeting of September 11, 1985, Mr.
Williams stated that he received cooperation and everything that he needed from CP&L during the undercover operation. He also stated that he never felt that we or others involved in the operation did not want it to succeed.
Q.21 Let us turn next to the specific assertions by Ms.
I Burch about CP&L's conduct during the investigation. In para-l graph 6 of her affidavit, Ms. Burch states that the initiation two to three weeks into the operation of a gate search using metal detectors slowed the progress of the undercover opera-tion, and implies that it caused employees to suspect the pres-I ence of a " snitch" on site. Please respond to this assertion.
A.21 (DGJ): CP&L did initiate a gate exit search with i
hand-held metal detectors on November 12, 1984, on a random se-l lection of employees. If the undercover operation began on l
November 6, 1984 (the date of the first buy), then the metal '
l detector search was not initiated two to three weeks into the operation as Ms. Burch states, and could not have slowed its
- (
\-
i i
. _ - _ . . _ = . - , . _ . . . - _ , , _ . . ~ . . , _ . . . , , _ _ - - . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ . - , _ _ _ - - , - , _ _ . . - , _ _ _ _ . _ , . _ . . - - - - - . . , , - . _ _ , _ -
" progress," since it had barely begun. All of the remaining
() drug purchases were made after initiation of the metal detector l
searches. The purpose of this search was to curb tool theft at the site, and not to detect drugs. The metal detectors would only detect metal -- not drugs. They had been requested by the new construction manager well before the undercover operation had been conceived. Deputy Hensley did express concern about those searches, in that he felt the availability of drugs might be affected. I advised him that the detectors had been used for one week, and that to stop their use abruptly would arouse suspicion as well as require additional personnel to be in-formed of the undercover operation. The agents expressed no concern as to their safety. Further, there was no perceived retrenchment in drug activity in the circle of employees with which ths operatives were involved.
(MWK): The use of metal detectors has little impact on the possession of drugs when used in the manner employed at the Harris site. The searches are performed at the end of the shift, not at the beginning, on a random basis to supplement the visual inspection of containers. The detectors will only 4
identify metal objects concealed on a person. The individual is allowed to empty his or her pockets before the search, and is not subject to further searches unless the unit alarms. The metal detectors are used to detect tool and material thefts.
Their use was requested prior to the u: dercover operation by Daniel management personnel who were not aware of the
, CE)
.. . , . - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _, _ _ . , _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ , - ~ . _ . _ .
i investigation. While CP&L could have stopped this search pro-O cedure, such action would have caused suspicion and would have required informing more personnel about the investigation.
(WJH): I would like to confirm that the metal detectors were requested well before the beginnin'g of the undercover operation by the new Daniel construction manager. There was never any consideration that the metal detectors might affect the operation. Initiating use of the metal detectors was not considered an unusual or even a particularly significant event.
A c.onstruction project is not like a manufacturing operation where routine procedures remain in effect for extended periods, and where even minor changes may attract attention. Ir. a large construction project like Harris, workers expect procedures to be changed and new procedures to be initiated regularly. That O is just part of the work environment at a construction site.
The use of metal detectors is common in the nuclear construc-tion industry; workers with experience on other sites would probably already have been familiar with their use. I do not believe the use of the metal detectors would have generated concern among drug users about a " snitch" on site.
(PBB): I have several comments about the metal detector issue. First, I confirm Mr. Hindman's testimony that use of such metal detectors is common in the nuclear construction in-dustry, and should not have aroused the suspicion of those in-volved in drugs or disrupted the investigation. Second, an ex-perienced undercover agent could have used this development to bind his contacts with suspects by sharing intelligence about ID
the use of the detectors and discussing, from a confident posi-tion of superior knowledge, that the suspects should not have any problems with them.
Q.22 Have you recently discussed this aspect of the Burch Affidavit with the agents actually involved?
A.22 (WJH, MWK, DGJ): Yes. During our meeting with the WCSD on August 12, Lt. Self and Deputy Hensley stated that their concern with initiation of the metal detector searches was simply that any changes at the site were detrimental since they might arouse the paranoid suspicions of those inv'olved in drug activity. They agreed, however, that there was no appar-ent diminishment in drug activity by those under investigation. ,
i 3
(DGJ, MLP): During our meeting with Agent Williams on
\_] September 11, 1985, he also stated that he did not like any l
changes at the site to be made during the investigation, but that he had no particular problem with the metal detectors and did not even raise a concern at the time with CP&L.
(WJH): I can understand why changes in site procedures made agents unfamiliar with power plant construction to be un-l comfortable, but as I indicated earlier, it is unrealistic to l
expect to freeze activities in a huge and evolving construction l project. In order to preserve the secrecy of the operation, as i
well as to proceed 'to build the plant, CP&L could not back-l pedal on safety and security for possible perceptual problems involving the investigation.
(O /
, Q.23 Ms. Burch states, in paragraph 7 of her affidavit, k
that Lt. Self of the WCSD reported that he was advised by the informant that Mr. King and Mr. Joyner were searching stash areas on site after they were informed of the stash areas by Deputy Hensley, and that Lt. Self instructed Hensley to cease reparting stash area locations to CP&L Security in order to in-sure Deputy Hensley's safety. Mr. King and Mr. Joyner, did you search stash areas during the investigation?
A.23 (MWK): I am not assigned to the Harris site full time, and I did not conduct any search of stash areas (loca-tions to store drugs) based on information provided by Deputy Hensley. During the course of the undercover operation, only two drug investigations were conducted by CP&L Security person-nel. The first involved a plastic bag of marijuana found on O the ground. The second involved a second-shift employee who was reported by industrial safety personnel as being in posses-sion of marijuana. All other drug-relt.ted information received was given to Deputy Hensley for use in his investigation.
(DGJ): No, we did not search stash areas. In fact, we were not informed of any stash area locar. ions by Deputy Hensley or Agent Williams.
(MWK, DGJ): During our meeting of August 12, 1985, Deputy Hensley confirmed that he did not advise us of any stash area locations -- which he also stated were constantly changing.
Q.24 Ms. Burch states, in paragraph 7 of her affidavit, that on one occasion Deputy Hensley received information that two employees were to bring a large amount of marijuana inside
' ( the plant, and that Deputy Hensley asked CP&L Security to allow the two individuals to pass through the gate. Instead, ac-cording to Ms. Burch, CP&L personnel stopped the employees at the gate, searched them and confiscated the marijuana, causing further talk to a " snitch" operating inside the plant. Is this correct?
A.24 (DGJ, MLP): No. It should also be noted that the SBI was not involved in these events.
(DGJ): I was present on December 20, 1984, when the in-formant told Deputy Hensley about the two employees who were to bring a large quantity of marijuana on site the next morning.
Mr. Plueddemann then joined the discussion.
(DGJ, MLP): Deputy Hensley had tried on numerous occa-c) sions to purchase drugs from these two suspected employees.
Deputy Hensley and the informant told us that these employees would sell to'the informant, but not to Deputy Hensley, who i advised that he would not be able to make a case against these employees. There was never a request to let these individuals j pass through the gate. To the contrary, it was discussed and agreed that we should proceed to search these employees since they would not sell to Deputy Hensley and because they could be bringing a large amount of marijuana on site for distribution to other employees. The plan was to have a sheriff's de'puty with a search warrant at the site the following morning to search the two individuals as they attempted to enter. Deputy
Hensley agreed with the plan, and everyone agreed that it would not compromise the cover of either Deputy Hensley or the'infor-mant. Deputy Hensley telephoned Lt. Self, in our presence, to explain the plan.
(DGJ): During the same call, I discussed the plan with d" i Lt. Self. I later telephoned Lt. Self in the evening to go over the plan and his suggestion of getting a search warrant.
I arrived on site on the morning of December 21, 1984, ex-pecting to meet Lt. Self or someone else from the WCSD.
(MLP): On the morning of December 21, 1984, I arrived at the plant site at approximately 6:00 a.m. and met Mr. Joyner in his office. He told me that he talked to Lt. Self again at home the previous night and discussed the plan to stop these two individuals. Mr. Joyner stated that Lt. Self had agreed with the plan and would have a deputy with a search warrant to support us.
(DGJ, MLP): When no officers arrived, we decided that we had no choice but to proceed to search these two employees, rather than knowingly to allow a potentially large quantity of drugs to be brought on site. The two suspects were found to have drugs. One had two packages of marijuana in his pants; the other had a package of marijuana in his pants and a small-amount of cocaine in a pocket. The marijuana was packaged in individual glassine bags and clearly was for distirbution to other persons. While a search by CP&L Security had not previ-ously been discussed (in view of the plan to arrest the O .
i 1
employees), we felt we had WCSD agreement that the employees l should be stopped and searched. We reported the results of the search to Deputy Hensley later that morning. He seemed quite pleased and reiterated that this was the only way to have han-died these two suspects since they would not sell to the agents.
Q.25 Have you discussed your recollection of these events with Lt. Self and Deputy Hensley?
A.25 (DGJ): Yes, at the meeting of August 12, 1985. Dep-uty Hensley agreed that he did not request that CP&L Security allow the two individuals to pass through the gate. Rather, he was interested principally in arresting the two employees in some manner. Deputy Hensley also recalls hearing me discuss with Lt. Self the possibility of getting a search warrant.
A kl When the arrangements for conducting a WCSD search with a war-rant prior to entry on site did not work out, Deputy Hensley agreed in retrospect that CP&L Security took an understandable and appropriate action in preventing the drugs from coming on site. Lt. Self could not recall precisely why the WCSD did not appear to arrest the workers, but expressed the belief that they were dist/a'eted by a priority drug ir.estigation.
Q.26 Did this discussion change your recall about what
~
occurred?
A.26 (DGJ, MLP): No. We are convinced that our recol-lection of the events is correct. It simply is not true that we went against WCSD instructions or requests when we stopped these two employees.
Q.27 Mr. Bensinger, in your view did Mr . Joyner and Mr.
O Plueddemann do the right thing or the wrong thing?
1 I A.27 (PBB): Unquestionably they did the right thing.
CP&L has a drug abuse policy which is founded on its obliga-tions to its. customers, employees, and regulatory authorities.
Exceptions to the implementation of this policy must be based on very good reasons. In my view, it would have been irrespon-sible to allo- anyone to bring quantities of drugs onto the site. The law enforcement agent had no reasonable prospect of building a case against them and indicated that they should be stopped. It is unreasonable to expect to stretch a company's cooperation with an undercover operation to the point where drug activity is being facilitated rather than eliminated, and
, where the company's commitment to safety and security is know-7_
\') ingly compromised.
i Q.28 In paragraph 9 of her affidavit, Ms. Burch states ,
i that employees dealing in drugs included a QA person whose du-ties included inspecting electrial pulls. It is also stated that he was dismissed after Deputy Hensley identified him to CP&L Security. At leart a possible inference from these state-ments is that the di=r.1ssal somehow was adverse to the investi-gation. Is that correct?
~
A.28 (DGJ): No. In fact, this employee worked in Con-
)
struction Inspection (CI), and was the subject of a search war-rant served on him on January 10, 1985, with negative results.
The employee was terminated that day after the search on the i
l r
[
, - . . -----,,,,.~.--._-,,n,---. ,, -- - ,, - ,,,n ,-, _ ,,.,,.n,,._~,,_n,.-- ..,,.,,,..n ,,n,-,-. -
basis of previously acquired information. In our meeting Depu-ty Hensley agreed that this in no way interfered with the in-vestigation.
Q.29 Ms. Burch continues that employees dealing in drugs included " safety personnel." Do you know what she means by safety personnel?
A.29 (DGJ): I believe this refers to a single clerical employee working in industrial safety. In our meeting Deputy Hensley confirred that he did not distinguish between personnel doing nuclear safety-related work and personnel engaged in non-nuclear safety work (for example, construction personnel safety).
Q.30 The Burch Affidavit has several references to rumors of a " snitch" or a possible leak regarding the presence of un-dercover agents on site. Again, Ms. Burch does not openly attribute these developments to CP&L, but the implication is there. What is your response?
A.30 (WJH): In planning and executing the operation, all those directly involved were very much concerned about the pos-sibility of a leak. We took extraordinary precautions to pre-vent any les.k. The number of persons who were made aware of the operatien was kept to an absolute minimum, and those per-sons took precautions to make sure that their communications were not overheard. Neither Agent Williams nor any other per-son provided me with information during the operation that a leak had in fact occurred.
O .
4 1
(MWK, DGJ): As experienced law enforcement officers, we were conscientiously concerned with the safety of the agents
, and the secrecy of the operation. It was for this reason that we could not afford to create a major fuss in order to have Davis re-hire the informant. Our concern for secrecy also pre-vented.us from altering routine site operations and procedures, or planned changes to those operations and procedures, in a way which would attract attention or suspicion. In our view, any rumors of a " snitch" were more likely caused by the participa-tion of the WCSD selected informant, who had been previously
) fired for drug use. For example, during our August 12 meeting, Deputy Hensley cited an incident in which an unidentified fe-male employee approached the informant and accused him of work-ing with law enforcement.
(DGJ, MLP): During our meeting with Agent Williams on September 11, he cited this same encounter between a female and the informant as the basis for the assertion, in paragraph 13 of the Burch Affidavit, about a possible leak.
(PBB): I should add that rumors of a snitch are common to circles of people involved in drug activity, and therefore are
.not unexpected during an undercover narcotics investigation.
Q.31 Perhaps the most serious charge in the Burch Affida-vit is the statement in paragraph 13 that " actions by CP&L en-dangered the lives of the undercover officers." Is this true?
A.31 (WJH, MWK, DGJ): No. Neither Deputy Hensley nor Agent Williams ever expressed concern about their personal
safety during the operation. At the August 12, 1985 meeting, O Deputy Hensley stated that he did not think anything done by CP&L during the operation endangered his life. WCSD personnel did confirm, however, that they terminated the operatica be-cause of their concern that narcotic detection dogs would be used on site immediately, and that such searches would endanger the officers. While we discuss this concern in more detail below, it is undisputed that the dog searches started some six weeks after the investigation was over.
(DGJ, MLP): At our meeting with Agent Williams on September 11, 1985, he stated that he never had the feeling that his life was endangered during the investigation. Mr.
Williams also stated that in his view CP&L did not attempt to inhibit the effectiveness of the operation.
O Q.32 Were there problems with the conduct of the opera-tion that are not discussed in the Burch Affidavit?
A.32 (DGJ, MLP): Yes. While Sheriff Baker expressed prior to the investigation the need for an experienced SBI agent to support the operation, SBI Agent Williams came to the site only irregularly during the eight-week investigation.
While we did not keep a log or record of his activities, we es-timate that Mr. Williams appeared for work at the Harris site on only 10 to 15 occasions, and frequently for only 3 to 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> at a time. To our knowledge, Agent Williams made only one drug purchase.
(WJE, MWK, DGJ): During our August 12, 1985 meeting, Dep-uty Hensley of the WCSD confirmed this description of Agent Williams' attendance and of the results he achieved.
(DGJ, MLP): During our September 11, 1985 meeting with Agent Williams, he indicated that our estimate of his atten-dance was "in the right neighborhood."
(DGJ): During the investigation, I telephoned Ms. Burch to seek her assistance in locating Agent Williams. Ms. Burch explained that she would have to contact his SBI supervisor in Greensboro to inquire about Agent Williams' whereabouts and ir-regular attendance at the job site. 'At the September 11, 1985 meeting with Agent Williams, he stated, in contrast, that he had been directed to report to Ms. Burch during the operation.
3 Q.33 In paragraph 8 of her affidavit, Ms. Burch states
%.) that Lt. Self stated that Deputy Hensley was obtaining informa-tion that a supervisor with either Daniel or CP&L was allegedly making trips to Florida and pick'ing up pound quantities of pure '
cocaine which was being distributed by an identified suspect.
She further states that attempts to make a cocaine purchase from the identified suspect were made, but that the termination of the undercover operation precluded any possible results.
Are any of you familiar with this situation?
A.33 (MLP): Yet. I have direct knowledge of the facts concerning this allegation. Several weeks before the end of the undercover operation, Deputy Hensley told me about some information that the informant assisting in the operation had O
told him. Hensley told me there was allegedly an electrical O supervisor who was making trips to Florida and picking up large quantities of drugs. Hensley stated that the supervisor was supposedly working somewhere "on the hill", a reference to the main construction building at the Harris Plant. Hensley did not have a name or other identifying information about this person. Deputy Hensley asked me if I could trace the person
, down if he gave me the dates when the individual was making his trips. Using information provided by Deputy Hensley on the dates that this person was allegedly making his trips, I re-searched time cards for Daniel and Davis Electric Company per-sonnel to try to determine whether anyone had been absent from work during those time periods. Given the small amount of 1
information available and the large number of time records, O this was a time-consuming process. After completing my re-search, I reported back to Deputy Hensley and told him I was not able to identify anyone who was not working during the com-l bination of times he furnished me. I told Hensley if he could provide me a name (either a first name, last name or nickname),
I could probably trace the individual down for him. Hensley told me that he would work on obtaining more information, but I never heard back from him about this individual. After talking to Deputy Hensley, I went back and double-checked our records in case I had overlooked anyone. This second check confirmed the results of my initial research. In none of my conversa-r tions with Hensley did he state that an identified suspect
, distributing the cocaine existed.
(WJE, MWK, DGJ): At our August 12 meeting, Deputy Hensley 7_s b reported that he still does not know who the alleged distribu-tor was. Rather, Deputy Hensley stated that he was still
- exploring, when the investigation ended, two possible suspects
-- neither of whom had yet been willing to make a sale to the Deputy. Information on these two employees, however, had been provided to CP&L by the WCSD, and they are no longer employed at Harris. Deputy Hensley also rejected any implication that the undercover operation was terminated because of his pursuit of this information.
Q.34 In paragraphs 5 and 9 of her affidavit, Ms. Burch reports that Deputy Hensley made his first buy after being on site for only one and one-half hours. One inference from this i
,( might be that drugs were so plentiful any newcomer could readi-ly obtain them in short order. What are the facts?
A.34 (DGJ, MLP): The statement is not correct. During the first day ~ Deputy Hensley was on the site, he and the infor-mant told us about a drug buy made shortly after the officer arrived. They both reported, however, that the informant, not Hensley, made the purchase. The informant, of course, had worked on site, been terminated for drug activity, and was fa-miliar with sources from whom to buy drugs. In short, this purchase was not significant or surprising. It could not be used, however, to draw warrants since the officer did not make a hand-to-hand purchase.
1 I
4
(WJH, MWK, DGJ): During our meeting of August 12, 1985, Ok/ Deputy Hensley confirmed that the informant made this first buy. l (DGJ, MLP): During our meeting of September 11, 1985, Agent Williams also confirmed that the informant, and not Depu-ty Hensley, made this first buy.
Q.35 In paragraph 8 of her affidavit, Ms. Burch states that Lt. Self advised her that Deputy Hensley began to develop intelligence indicating that there were several cliques dealing drugs at the Harris Plant, and that the dealings were taking
- place for the most part inside the plant, outside in the park-ing lots and in a nearby grocery store. Is this significant?
A.35 (DGJ): Only if the " intelligence" consisted of new information. We advised the agents, before the operation began, about suspected drug activity in the parking lots and at the grocery store. At our meeting, Deputy Hensley confirmed that he was so advised. Yet, the agents made no purchases in the parking lots.
Q.36 What did the investigation ultimately produce?
A 36 (MWK): As reported by Ms. Burch in paragraph 12 of her affidavit, the operation resulted in charging eight indi-viduals, on January 10, 1985, who made sales of drugs to the officers. Attachment 5 to this testimony is a table reflecting
- information, provided to me by Deputy Hensley, which lists for 1 seven of the employees arrested and who sold drugs, the date of each purchase, the drug involved and the dollar amount of the i
purchase. While there are eight employee entries on the table, one (G) represents a sale to the informant, and not to Deputy Hensley. In addition, the investigation provided us with valu-able intelligence on other suspected em'ployees, which enabled us to implement site drug abuse policies with respect to them.
Q.37 I am going to turn now to the circumstances sur-rounding the termination of the investigation. Did you have an understanding prior to the beginning of the operation as to how long it would last?
A.37 (WJH): It was my understanding from the outset of the undercover operation that it was expected to last about eight weeks. I received this information from Mr. Joyner who had talked with Lt. Self of the Sheriff's Department about the expected duration of the operation. The suggestion from law O enforcement agencies that the operation be extended beyond that time frame did not occur until mid-December, 1984.
(DCJ): Lt. Self of the WCSD stated to me before the oper-ation began that January 2, 1985 would be the termination date for the investigation. In our meeting of August 12, Lt. Self agreed that he made this statement, but added that he intended the operation would also be reviewed and its status re-assessed at that time. That qualification was not communicated at the
~
time.
(MWK, DGJ): In addition, we viewed eight weeks to be a sufficient period of time for this operation, given the assis-tance of the informant and the leads we provided, and the geographically concentrated area to be investigated.
n (PBB): I agree that in the circumstances of this case 7-U where an insider was available to help and the officers had valuable intelligence at the outset, and in a construction project where new faces are common, eight weeks was an adequate period for the operation.
Q.38 In paragraphs 10 and 11 of her affidavit, Ms. Burch states that in mid-December, 1984, a plan was formulated, ap-parently by the SBI and WCSD, to replace SBI Special Agent Williams with another SBI agent, and to move the operation to the second shift. She indicates that this proposal was dis-cussed between Lt. Self and Mr. King, and in a subsequent meet-ing called by Sheriff Baker. Is this correct?
A.38 (MWK): Yes, except for any implication that the in-vestigation had been limited to the first shift. The agents O were always free to investigate on the second or any shift.
They only had worked the first shift, I believe, because the informant had not worked the second shift and did not have con-tacts among those employees.
In addition, Ms. Burch does not make clear that the pro-posed extended operation would not have included the services of the informant, and that neither the SBI nor the WCSD had un-dertaken to develop a new informant. So the proposed in-vestigative team would have consisted of Deputy Hensley and a new SBI agent -- essentially starting over with a different group of employees (on the second shift), but without the use of an informant to introduce them or to lead them to sources, and to assist in making purchases.
.. _- __ ___ . _ . . - = .~_ - _ _ _ .-___
1 i
Q.39 Mr. Hindman, did Mr. King discuss this proposal with A.39 (WJH): Yes, he did. I was not involved in the dis-cussions with the law' enforcement agencies on the proposal, however.
l Q.40 What was your reaction?
i
! A.40 (WJH): I did not support extending the operation for l l
l several reasons. First, the confidential informant who was being used during the operation had been expressing concern about his personal safety. The informant felt that he had par- ,
ticipated long enough to work off his charges and that he was 2
ready to move on. I also viewed the activities of both under-cover officers as trending downward during the month of
- December. This view was based on several fa.ctors, including my
- knowledge that SBI Agent Williams was not appearing at the site !
i on a regular basis and the lack of new information to be pur- i a
sued about drug activities on site. I also believed that there would be reductions in the work force shortly after the begin- ;
i ning of 1985 and that some of these reductions would involve !
l persons who had already been identified as drug users or sell-ers. I felt that we would have difficulty in managing the re-ductions in force if we had to keep all these identified per- .
l sons in place for a longer period of time and that releasing them would make their arrest more difficult. From CP&L's per- l spective, keeping known drug users and sellers on the site for
! an extended period of time was a matter of concern. Since the i
(:) :
) .
i ,
1 i i I
continuation of the operation temporarily inhibited our taking O vigorous action to execute some elements of our drug control program, I was concerned that a misperception might be created among employees that we were not doing enough. With the expec-tation that the undercover operation would be over by January, we had.also made arrangements to begin using a drug detection dog onsite in February. It was my understanding from talking to our security personnel that it would be better to wrap up the undercover operation before bringing the dog onsite not be-cause use of the dog would endanger the undercover operatives, but because use of the dog would discourage persons from bring-ing drugs onto the site. Finally, I wish to point out that I did not view the close-out of this particular undercover opera-t tion as a termination of the joint efforts among CP&L, the Wake I
O County Sheriff's Department and the SBI to control drugs at the
! Harris Project. I felt that after an assessment of what had been accomplished during this particular operation, there would be the potential for future cooperation with the law enforce-ment agencies. .
r Q.41 Mr. Joyner, you vorked with the informant regularly. i Is Mr. Hindman correct that the informant was ready to leave?
i t A.41 (DGJ): Yes. Near the end of the operation the in-formant was concerned with his personal safety because of the
. suspicious situation, where for eight weeks he was constantly talking about drugs and trying to arrange purchases for these j two consultants (the undercover agents). I should also I
l emphasize that in our September 11, 1985 meeting, former SBI
(
Agent Williams expressed the view that the informant's contacts and usefulness to the investigation had been exhausted.
- Q.42 Mr. King, how did you respond to Lt. Self when he proposed the extensions to you?
A.42 (MWK): When Lt. Self of the WCSD contacted me in mid-December about the possibility of extending the undercover operation beyond the and of 1984, I advised him of our plan to begin the use of narcotic detection dogs on site and of an upcoming reduction in force which could result in the departure of suspects. I also had in mind the fact that the confidential informant could not safely and effectively continue in his role for an extended period and that he said that he could not help
_ with the second shift. Once a person has a circle of drug con-r
\#
tacts and his current friends know him to be well supplied, it becomes highly suspicious if he attempts to associate with a different group in order to make purchases. I was also con-carned about the potential continued and extended presence on site of employees already identified by the investigation as being known drug users.
Q.43 In paragraph 11 of her affidavit, Ms. Burch states that Sheriff Baker and SBI Supervisor overton made the decision to cease the undercover operation. In paragraph 14, she states that "the sole and exclusive reason for the termination by the SBI was CP&L's insistance on bringing in drug dogs prematurely; thus, creating a substantial and too high a risk to the O ,
0
l l
t personal safety of the law enforcement officers if they re-l O mained in the undercover operation with drug dogs on-site."
l Did CP&L initiate narcotic detection searches with a dog in f order to terminate the undercover operation?
l No. I did not encourage the SBI and WCSD to A.43 (MWK):
continue the operation. However, the narcotic detection dog was not introduced in order to thwart the investigation. Plans for using drug dogs had been under consideration for some time.
The CP&L Drug and Alcohol Interdepartmental Procedure adopted in 1982 states that trained animals may be used to conduct searches for illegal drugs. In August, 1984, Mr. McDuffie .
(CP&L Senior Vice President, Nuclear Generation Group) re-quested additional information on the use of dogs. At that i
! time, we began talks with local dog handlers and started making
! plans to bring dogs on after the undercover operation was com-plated. We then expected the operation to be concluded by the end of the year. We understood that it would be undesirable to initiate searches with dogs in the midst of the investigation
-- not because of concern with the agents' cover, but because the drug activity under investigation might dry up at least temporarily.
When I was approached in mid-December and during a subse-quant meeting about extending the operation, we ha1 already contacted a dog handler and were beginning contract negotia-I tions. I did advise the WCSD and SBI personnel that Harris Project management wanted the dog detection searches. The O .
first visit with the dog was in fact on February 25, 1985 --
i some six weeks after the undercover operation ended. I do not recall stating that CP&L was going to use, or insisted upon using, the drug dogs "immediately". However, it is clear from our discussion at the meeting of August 12, 1985 with WCSD per-sonnel, that I did not succeed back in December in commu-nicating that the dog would not actually be on site until late l February, and that they were lef t with the impression that use of the drug dog was imminent. Sheriff Baker stated at this meeting, however, that he did not believe CP&L was attempting to stop the investigation, but rather that we had a conflict of goals and objectives.
(MWK, DGJ): Based on our professional experience and training,yne do not agree that the presence of a dog to conduct random searches at the site would have endangered the lives of the undercover agents -- if the operation had been extended, j We do not see why suspects would have associated those activi-ties with the two agents posing as consultants.
(DGJ, MLP): During our meeting of September 11, 1985, former SBI Agent Williams was asked for his opinion, and stated that he did not believe the dog searches would have posed a threat to his personal safety. ;
(PBB): As former Administrator of the DEA, I can readily sympathize with the concern and responsibility Sheriff Baker
! and SBI Supervisor overton felt for the personal safety of their undercover agents. However, I have to agree with my O ,
I l
colleagues here. I cannot imagine why the dog searches would
() have constituted a danger to the officers. In my view, they i would not have been a threat to the agents' safety. Rather, the initiation of such searches could well have served as an [
instrument to bind the agents' contacts with their suspects ;
, through open discussions about how to mutually cope with the !
! t j intrusion.
l Q.44 Ms. Burch advances her opinion, in paragraph 14 of l 1
her affidavit, that the termination of the undercover operation i
! was premature, that the operation was not complete, and that it l I
was not terminated because the law enforcement agencies recom- i mended it or because of a lack of suspects. In paragraph 15, 4
she expresses the opinion that if the investigation ha4 contin-ued, more arrests would have been made. Do you agree with j O these views? i
! A.44 (DCJ, ML;'): It is difficult to conclude objectively
, when such an investigation is complete. To some extent, it is always possible to argue that more could be accomplished with 1 i m9re time. Our first-hand observation of the operation re-i l vealed that the agents relied heavily on the informant to ar- !
I I range the purchases which were made. Agent Williams' state- I ments in our meeting of September 11 made it clear that he i considered it to be the informant's job to arrange all of the f sales for the officers. Mr. Williams also confirmed our view i t
that the informant had apparently done all he could do with his l contacts.
1 j
( i i
l '
I i !
t
! [
Given SBI Agent Williams' irregular attendance, the burden fell mostly upon Deputy Hensley to obtain cases against sus-pects. Yet, employees willing to sell drugs to the informant often would not sell to Deputy Hensley. Attachment 5, the record of drug buys by Deputy Hensley, illustrates what we con-cluded was a contracting rather than an expanding investiga-tion. Except for one employee, the individuals who soid drugs to Deputy Hensley in December, 1984, were the same employees who made sales to him in November. After November 29, it was not until December 20 that an employee who had not earlier sold to the Deputy made a sale. In short, if there were many sus-pects, it does not appear that the officers were having success in cultivating them.
(MLP): At the outset of the undercover operation, Deputy 0-- Hensley stated to me that the WCSD had allocated $7,000 for drug purchases during this operation. According to Attach-ment 5, $1,725 was actually spent.
(PBB): My assessment of this information is that the in-vestigation appeared to be winding down in December, 1984, and that there was little prospect that extending it would have yielded significantly different results. There are several different ways of using a confidential, inside informant in an undercover investigation. SB! Agent Williams appears to have used the informant as a lead, rather than just as a source of intelligence and a means of gaining initial access to employees. If this is representative of the approach to the 4
r u_
investigation, then the operation for all practical purposes was over when the informant had exhausted his circle of ac-i quaintances involved in drug activity. As pointed out by my colleagues, the data on the drug purchases would indicate that new suspects were not being developed during the second month of the investigation to any meaningful extent.
Finally, I would note that only small quantities of drugs were purchased by Deputy Hensley. These are personal consump-tion quantities, not indicative of wholesale distribution oper- j ations. In sum, I see no reason to conclude that there were significant sources of drug activity yet to be investigated.
(DGJ, MLP): During our meeting with Mr. Williams, he ex-pressed the view that an extended operation with Deputy Hensley and a new SBI agent, but with no inside informant, would not be successful. Yet, this is the very proposal Ms. Durch suggests CP&L should have endorsed.
Q.45 In paragraph 15 of her affidavit, Ms. Burch states that personal observations and intelligence gathered by the of-ficers indicated that drug dealings and drug use were wide-spread at the Harris Plant. She does not further elaborate or
- quantify this opinion, except in paragraph 9 where she reports that Deputy Hensley stated that he observed at least one hun-dred employees using drugs while on the job. Applicants' <
assessment of the extent of drug activity among site employees is addressed in a separate piece of testimony, but could you comment briefly on these observations?
O i
l' i i
I t j A.45 (MWK, DGJ): First, we want to make it clear that the l O
I SBI and the WCSD shared intelligence with us on suspects'which i they identified during the investigation. Since the Burch Af-l l fidavit was filed, CP&L has inquired of the SBI and the WCSD, and has been assured by them that CP&L was provided all the i
(
t names of suspects identified through the investigation. Conse- !
I l j quently, we assume that Deputy Hensley was referring to j i
I j employees he did not identify. We also assume that Deputy l 4
Hensley would have identified employees possibly consuming
]
drugs if he was physically close enough to them to do so. l I l Hard hats are required to be worn at the site. Each !
4 f l worker's hard hat has on it his last name, employee number and I i !
i
- crew identification. If Deputy Hensley was not close enough to
- read any of these marks of identification, then we question the '
j () basis for his statement that he observed employees using drugs.
} As experienced law enforcement officers, we know that what might appear to be suspicious group activity from a distance, i t j can on closer inspection be found to be quite innocent. Fur- L i
l ther, it is quite possible, if no identifications were made, !
i !
l that over time Deputy Hensley saw the same employees a number l l
of different times, rather than one hundred separate employees, i I !
l It is somewhat understandable if the undercover agents be- l 8 .
f lieve there wan more drug use at the Harris site than they l could confirm. First, we know from our communications with the !
i local law enforcement community that there are pre-conceived j expectations of a high level of drug activity at the site.
'O I i i I 4
d
I I
Second, the informant was an experienced drug user who intro- ,
O duced Deputy Hensley immediately into a circle of drug dealers i
l and users. It was the agent's job to infiltrate whatever drug community existed. It does not follow, however, that these t
employees are representative of the site population as a whole.
It is also to be expected that rumors would exist, among those k involved, of the extent of drug activity. People who are in- ,
volved in drugs tend to try to convince themselves that eve-ryone else is doing it as well.
(DCJ, MLP): The word " intelligence" also needs to be given a second look. It sounds sophisticated and confident. ,
But at our meeting with Mr. Williams on September 11, 1985, he used the word "in,telligence" to describe what the informant had i told him and what Mr. Williams had taken no steps to confirm or O to substantiate on his own. Consequently, intelligence should [
not be viewed to be corroborated or substantiated information. !
We also asked Mr. Williams if he believes he ever person-ally observed employees consuming drugs on site. He stated that on one occasion he observed a group of five or six people he believed were consuming a drug.
(PSB): As a former law enforcement professional, I must i
express some degree of skepticism about Deputy Hensley's report ;
of his personal observations. ! find it difficult to believe that if he observed what he thought were employees using drugs, j that he would not have taken some steps to' identify them. Law enforcement officers would find it difficult to resist the {
O !
[
f l
[
l
1 impulse to get close enough somehow to get some kind of identi-l l
I (J
w i
fying information.
j Second, if these law enforcement agencies seriously be-l lieve there is widespread drug activity in the parking lots or in a nearby grocery store, or in the form of pounds of pure co-caine being flown in from Florida, then active steps would have been taken to enforce the law. CP&L's cooperation is not l
1 needed in this effort.
Q.46 Do you have any concluding remarks?
A.46 (WJH): Yes, I do. Mr. Joyner and Mr. Pleuddemann l
worked particularly hard to try to make this undercover opera-tion succeed. I personally regret that anyone has questioned their motives or CP&L's actions in the conduct of this investi-i gation. We have enjoyed and appreciated the cooperation of the l
l \ WCSD and the SBI in the past, and look forward to their future assistance in the implementation of our drug abuse policies.
1 (PBB): I would also like to add some perspective on this controversy, because I am concerned that law enforcement agen-cies and utilities with nuclear power plants need each other and must cooperate for the public interest. In an undercover investigation at a nuclear power plant construction site, there is some inherent tension between the goals and responsibilities of the utility and the law enforcement agencies. This probably l
l was not appreciated sufficiently by either side when this oper-t ation was planned.
V 44
. _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ = _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ . - . _ _ . _ . - -
4 l
j l 1
l The utility, concerned with the quality of power plant
{
) construction and the potential need to prove it, has the re- ;
\
j sponsibility and goal of removing from the site promptly any i i
{ contraband, drugs and those involved in drugs. Law enforcement i agencies, concerned with building the maximum number of crimi-nal cases, want suspects and the flow of drugs left undisturbed ;
i until they are ready to terminate the investigation, declare a
its existence and make arrests. These somewhat conflicting j goals can be accommodated, but it requires cooperation and un-i l derstanding by both sides. In a nuclear power plant setting, !
1 j law enforcement must be prepared to move aggressively and ;
l swif tly so that implementation of corporate drug abuse policies l 1 {
, are not suspended for in extended period.
I In this case, CP&L went as far as it should have for as l
( long as it should have. I believe the operation was terminated at the appropriate time, and that it confirms the other evi-i dance which indicates that there is not widespread drug abuse l l
at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. !
i l
l i .
I t
l 4 s 1 l 1 i i C:) l
! l
! l
- . _ . =
l Attcchmtnt 1' i RESLHE 4 ,
! WILLIAM J. HINDMAN. JR.
LO 1
MANAGER - PROJECT ADMINISTRATION j Birthdate: April 22, 1943 {
Education and Trainina ,
l 35 Degree'in Civil Engineering from Clemson University - 1965 i
l Engineer Branch Officer Basic Course (400 classroom hours) at U. S. Army j Engineer School - 1966 -
4 i Conversational Spanish Course (480 classroom hours) at Defense Language :
i Institute - 1966 i i i
, Military Police officer Course (350 classroom hours) by extension from U. S. ;
j Army Military Police School - 1971 l Engineer Branch officer Advanced Ccurse (475 classroom hours) at U. S. Army !
Engineer School - 1974 !
< U. S. Army Command and General Staff College through'U. S. Army Reserve f j School Program - 1978 '
lO Professional Affiliations and Achievements:
I j Member of American Society of Civil Engineers
. Member of American Nuclear Society t
Member of Reserve Officers Association J Pegistered Professional Engineer in North Carolina f
, l Registered Land Surveyor in North Carolina
- ) }
i i Registered Professional Engineer in South Carolina f l !
1 j Experience Prior to Joinina CP&L t
j 1965 - 1968: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers f 8th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Tort Culick, Canal Zone - l l Captain l
j U. S. Embassy. Ecuador - Member of Mobile Training Team l
1O1 u = 5 6 Team x> - t ca* ' ' ' ch"* t ^4 i r ;
I e I
Resume William J. Hindman, Jr.
] Pego Two
() 1968 - 1974: N. C. State Highway Commission, Raleigh, NC Traffic Engineering Department - Assistant Traf fic Research Engineer i N. C. Department of Transportation. Traffic Engineering Branch - Traffic Research Engineer l Experience with CP&L: ;
i 03/25/74: Employed as a Senior Engineer - Staff reporting to the Vice :
President of the Power Plant Construction Department, located '
in the General Office, Raleigh, North Carolina. ;
02/17/79: Reclassified as Senior Engineer and transferred to the Project l
- Analysis Subunit of the Harris Site Management Unit, Nuclear Construction Section. Power Plant Construction Department. :
Located at the Harris site New Hill, NC.
1 05/03/80: Promoted to Director - Project Analysis in the Harris Site l Hanagement Section of the Power Plant Construction Department. '
. Located at the Harris site, New Hill, NC.
[
l 01/31/81: Reorganization - Department renamed to Nuclear Plant Construction. ;
'( 09/03/83: Reorganization - Department renamed to Harris Nuclear Project 12/01/83: Promoted to Manager - Harris Project Administration in the Harris I Nuclear Project Department. '
07/05/85 1
i e
f 4
. i
, l l
f()
i i .
l
WILLIAM J. HINDMAN, JR.
ADDITIONAL MILITARY EXPERIENCE (U. S. ARMY RESERVE)
O r. 7 1969 - ootosar. 1969 Assistant S-3 (Captain) - 171st Support Group - Staff responsibility for training planning and implementation of training by a command group headquarters and subordinate units.
t II. October, 1969 - January 1973 Coennander - 805 Military Police Company (Physical Security) -
Supervisory responsibility for two full-clae U. S. Government staff assistants and management responsibility for approximately one hundred twenty-five Army Reservists who met four drills per month.
III. January, 1973 - October, 1978 Training Officer - Headquarters 120th U. S. Army Reserve Command -
Staff responsibility for review inspection, and reporting of class-room instruction presented by U. S. Army Reserve Schools in North and South Carolina. -
IV. October, 1978 - September 1980 I
Director. Military occupational Specialty Training (Major) - 3286th USAR School. Responsible for managing a staff and faculty of approx-instely fifty senior grade personnel involved in conducting instruc-tional training for approximately five hundred military personnel in O eastern North Carolina. .
V. September, 1980 - December, 1981 l Director. Enlisted Courses (Lieutenant Colonel) - 3286th USAR l School. Responsible for approximately one hundred staff and faculty
- personnel involved in training one thouwnd enlisted personnel in l skill and leadership subjects.
I VI. January, 1982 - March, 1984 1
Battalion Commander (Lieutenant Colonel) - Second Battalion 108th Division. Responsible for five infantry companies and a battalion staff comprised of reserve personnel plus several full-time U. 5.
Covernment employees.
l VII. April. 1984 - January 1985 l
Brigade Executive Office (Lieutenant Colonel) - Third Brigade. 108th Division. Served as chief of staff and second in command for infantry ,
j organization consisting of four battalions of reserve personnel and
! fourteen full-time U. S. Government employees. l VIII. February 1983 - Present i
Brigade Commander (Colonel Position) - Third Brigade. 108th Division.
Reports directly to the Commanding General of the 108th Division.
Responsible for command and overall performance of the 3rd Brigade including four assigned battalions.
07/05/85
Attachm3nt RESUME MICHAEL W. KINC SENIOR COMMISSIONED CONSTRUCTION SECURITY ACENT Birthdate: May 25, 1949
, Education and Traininz Civilian AAS Degree in Police Science Technology from W. W. Holding Technical Institute, Raleigh, N. C. - 1974 BS Degree in Police Science from N. C. Wesleyan College, Rocky Mount, N. C. -
1976 Military:
Officers Basic Course Military Police, Officers Advance Course: Military Police, Officers Advance Course: Infantry Professional Affiliations and Achievements:
Veterans of Foreign Wars N. C. Law Enforcement Officers Association Raleigh Police Club Experience Prior to Joininz CP&L:
01/66 - 06/67: Corning Class Works - Process Engineering Technician.
01/67 - 03/73: United States Marine Corps - (a) Infantry (b). Intelligence; (c) Interpreter.
03/76-Present United States Army Reserves - (a) Law Enforcemenet (b) Instructor, Military Police s (c) Company Commander 04/70 - 08/70: Tast rare - Assistant Manager.
08/70 - 01/78: Raleigh Police Department -
Uniform Consnunity Relations Personnel Organized Crime / Consumer Protection Narcotics Investigstor (Undercover & Investigations)
Experience with CP&L 02/20/78: Employed as Construction Security Agent in the Administrative Section. Construction Security Unit of the E&C Support Services Department. Located in the General Office.
Michael W. King Senior Commissioned Construction Security Agent 02/23/80:
Reclassified as Commissioned Construction Security Agent in the Construction Security Unit of the Administrative Section, E&C Support Services Department.
Located in the General Office.
09/18/82:
Promoted to Senior Commissioned Construction Security Agent in the Construction Security Unit of the Administrative Section, E&C Support Services Department.
Located in the General Office.
03/11/85:
Reorganization - Lateral transfer to Nuclear Plant Construction Department, Support Services Section.
Office. Located in the Ceneral 6/6/85 O
e 8 e
O
. - . . .- . = .. - __ . -. . .- _-_-- .--,- . .
Attachment 3
. RESUME :
1 t
1 .
DONALD GLENN JOYNER Cot 91ISSIONED CONSTRUCTION SECURITY AGEhi-SHNPP Birthdate: January 24, 1947 Education and Traininn: ,
BS Degree in Police Science from N. C. Wesleyan College, Rocky Mount, N. C.
, Graduated 1977 Professional Affiliations and Achievements:
i Experience Prior to Joinian CP&l:
i 05/64 - 12/65: Donald G. Joyner Steel contractor - Iron Worker.
12/65 - 05/66: N.C.S.U. Print Shop - Photolithographer.
05/66 - 03/70: U. S. Air Force - Photolithographer. ;
l 03/70 - 07/70: Donald G. Joyner Steel Contractor - Iron Worker.
i 07/70 - 09/79: Raleigh Police Department - Investigator.
Experience with CP&L: ,
! 09/24/79: Employs.d as Construction Security Agent - SMNPP in the Construction Security Unit of the E4C Support Services Department. Located at the Harris site.
06/25/83: Promoted to Commissioned Construction Security Agent - SHNPP in ,
the Construction Security Unit of the E&C Support Services Depart- ;
ment. Located at the Harris site.
03/11/85r Reorganization - Lateral transfer to Nuclear Plant Construction ,
i Department, Support Services Section. Located in the General l I office.
t i 3/21/85 i
- O
)
i
Attachm nt 4 MICHAEL L. PLUIDDEMANN f-s SSf: 284-46-9778
( 7900 Senter Farm Road (919) 779-4430 (home)
Apex, North Carolina 27502 (919) 362-2569 (work)
EDUCATION: East Carolina University - Greenville, North Carolina B.S.P. in Parks, Recreation, and Conservation - 1978 ,
OBJECTIVE: To obtain a career oriented position within the Human Resource field where my experience and education will provide an opportunity for professional advancement.
EXPERIENCE
- SUMKARY: - Experienced in administering federal regulations and corporate policies for hourly and salaried personnel.
- Skilled in resolving employee grievances.
- Developed and administered preventive unfair labor practices.
- Administered company drug policy and search / seizure procedures.
- Experienced in monitoring and assuring EEOC compliance, as well as, investigating complaints.
- Experienced in public relations. ,
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY: Daniel Construction Company .
Greenville, South Carolina
() June 1973 to Present SENIOR INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REPRESENTATIVE Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hill, North Carolina November 1980 to Present Responsible for administering corporate Industrial Relations program at a nuclear power plant under construction with work force of up to 6,000 employees. This experience included, but was not limited to employee relations, affirmative action, equal employment opportunity and security. Investigated and resolved cases dealing with the National Labor Relations Board,
, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the North Carolina Human Relations Council and the Local District Courts. Security experience also includes investigations for theft and narcotics violations. Developed and administered project urinanalysis pro-
. gram for Daniel employees. I have conducted seminars in Preventive Labor Practice and Equal Employment Opprotunity. Public relations experience consisted of coordination and participation in local newspaper interviews. Edit on-site newspaper.
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hill, North Carolina August 1978 to November 1980
, O' Monitored service departments to ensure compliance with company j procedures. Analyzed systems and procedures and developed more {
cost effective methods. Supervised field auditors and assisted in ,
project work sampling. Established project toolroom and wrote i procedures for ordering, warehousing, and distributing tools.
}
1 MICHAEL L. PLUIDDEMANN Page 2 TIMEKEEPER Pampers Project, Greenville, North Carolina February 1978 to July 1978 Duties included timekeeping, insurance, and personnel functions.
ADMINISTRATIVE TROUBLE SHOOTER Procter and Gamble Project, Greenville, North Carolina October 1977 to February 1978 Reconciled authorized expenditure account records of Daniel with Procter and Gamble. Interpreted computer records and readouts.
PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS Greenville, North Carolina and Albany, Georgia June 1973 to May 1977 During this period, while attending school, I held twelve positions.
Experience varied from shop situations as a carpenter apprentice to an office function as Accounts Payable Clerk. My work background enabled me to later relate to the hourly employee.
l ACTIVITIES: Halif ax Court Child Care and Family Service Center, Board Chairman l Eagle Scout, Boy Scouts of America - 1970
REFERENCES:
Available upon request.
4 O 4 e
ATTACHMENT 5 O
HENSLEY DRUG BUYS AS OF 12-28-84 NAME DATE DRUG AMOUNT PAID A 12-20-84 MARIJUANA S 100.00 12-21-84 MARIJUANA 90.00 B 11-21-84 COCAINE 200.00 11-27-84 MARIJUANA 30.00 12-06-84 COCAINE 120.00 C 11-26-84 COCAINE 200.00 11-29-84 COCAINE 50.00 D 11-29-84 COCAINE 100.00 t 11-21-84 COCAINE 300.00 12-11-84 HASHISH 120.00 F 11-20-84 MARIJUANA 60.00 12-03-84 COCAINE 100.00 G 11-06-84 CRYSTAL 70.00 H 12-19-84 CRYSTAL 45.00 11-13-84 CRYSTAL 45.00 11-27-84 CRYSTAL, CRANK 45.00 12-05-84 CRYSTAL 50.00
$1,725.00 9
O
.14-13-Jo:Wal 8472 1 MR. BAXTER: Before we begin the cross-examination, 2 Mr. Hindman, would you provide a short oral summary of your
}
3 Prefiled written direct, please?
4 WITNESS HINDMAN: Yes; the purpose of this 5 Panel is to describe the undercover operation which took 6 P l ace at the Harris project in late 1984.
7 The undercover operation involved representatives 8 of the Wake County Sheriff's Department and the State Bureau 9 of Investigation.
10 My testimony describes my role during that 11 undercover operation.
12 I am the onsite manager designated to interface with CP&L construction security representatives. I have p 13
%.)
14 also been designated as the project level coordinator of 15 information pertaining to illegal drug use at the Harris 16 project.
17 I essentially represented the Harris project 18 management in the initial planning for the undercover 19 operation. In my opinion, CP&L cooperated fully with law 20 enforcement officers during the operation.
21 I personally told the undercover operatives 22 they should contact me if I can be of assistance, or if 23 problems arose. We took no action during the operation that 24 endangered the lives of the operatives.
, p:s n.p.nm. w.
25 When the law enforcement agencies first raised
14-14-JonWal 8473 1 the possibility of extending the operation in mid-December, 1 2 CP&L did not ask them to terminate the operation, but I did
}
3 not support such an extension for a number of reasons, 4
4 including the f act that the informant was becoming concerned 5 about his personal safety, and'our concern about keeping 4 6 individuals already identified as drug users and sellers on 7 the Harris project.
8 I personally regret that anyone has questioned
- 9 our motives, or the motives of cur construction security
- 10 personnel, and CP&L's actions in the conduct of this 11 investigation.
12 We have enjoyed and appreciated the cooperation 13 of the Wake County Sheriff's Department and the State Bureau O. 14 of Investigation, and we look forward to their future 15 assistance in the implementation of our drug abuse policies 4
16 at the Harris project.
- 17 Thank you.
18 BY MR. BAXTER: (Continuing) 19 Q Mr. King, would you summarize your testimony, 20 please?
t 21 'A (Witness King) My testimony describes my role i 22 in the undercover operation as it relates to its initiation, 23 conduct, and its final termination.
i.
24 I also discussed at the meeting with the members il Reporten, Inc.
25 of the Wake County Sheriff's Department that was held after
'N
\ j I
.t' l
- _ . - _ . - _ . . _ _ . - . _ . _ _ _ . _ . ~ ._ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ . . - . _.- .. a
- - . . _ . . _ ~ _ . . _ . _ . _ . ._ , -__
14-15-JonWal 8474 l 1 the Burch affidavit was filed. I will also go into the fact that CP&L proposed the operation, based on our desire
([) 2 3 to curb drug activity at the site, not because of any pressure 4 from any outside agency, including the NRC. i i
j 5 The CP&L security personnel operated fully with 6 the Wake County Sheriff's Department and the State Bureau 1
7 of Investigation during the operation.
i 8 As the operation neared an end, and the recommen-9 dation was made to extend the operation, we did not support
- 10 nor encourage the continuation of this operation.
11 We, however, did nothing to cause its termination.
12 At this point in time, we began discussion and advised the 13 Sheriff's Department and State Bureau of Investigation of 14 Carolina Power and Light Company's intent to begin using y
V t y; 15 drug dogs at the Shearon Harris project.
m,
- L, i 1 . 16 , Our intent with these drug dogs was to continue i-3
.g, , 17 to get drug abusers off of the drug site, and in no way was t -
18 meant to, thwart the investigation.
9- 19 In fact, the use of drug dogs at Shearon Harris l$p 20 did not begin for at least six weeks after the operation 1, m
+ .21 ended.
'{.. 22 lPi'nally, Mr. Joyner and I discussed the results i.
23 of[heoperationwhywebelieveitdidnotsupporttheidea 1
1 24 that drug abuse'at Shearton Harris is widespread.
hit hpon.n, inc.
25 Q Mr. Joyner, would you summarize your testimony,
+4
-]
. - , , . , . ..._m ,.,---..-__-m.-_.-.-----.-------.-...,--,_..--m -
8475 14-16-Jo;Wal 1 please?
2 A (Witness Joyner) Yes. I was involved in the 3 initial decision to initiate this undercover investigation.
4 The plan of the operation, and to seek CP&L support for it.
5 I can say that CP&L did propose this operation 6 on its own accord, and was under no pressure from anyone 7 to do it.
8 We responded to the Sheriff's Department request 9 to bring a confidential informant back on the job site, and 10 also to provide the undercover operative with all of the 11 information and the necessary office and office supplies and 12 equipment they needed to blend in with the environment.
nd 14. 13 fols.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ger;l Reporters, Inc.
25
8476 8477 Sim 15-1 ) We also provided the operatives with a list of 2 suspected drug users that we had already compiled a list of.
3 I will also testify involving the incidence that 4 Ms. Birch alleges in her affidavit that CP&L interfered with 5 the operation to include the installation of the metal 6 detectors and the gate search of employees.
7 We did not interfere with this operation in any way 8 or take any actions that endangered the lives of the operatives .
9 Neither of the operatives ever expressed any concerns about 10 their personal safety to me.
11 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Plueddemann, would you summarize 12 your testimony.
13 WITNESS PLUEDDEMANN: During the undercover operation
.O ja I acted as onsite contact with the two law enforcement agents.
15 My testimony addresses the events surrounding the investigation 16 which I have personal knowledge of.
37 Mr. Joyner and I also discussed this at a recent 18 meeting with former SBI Agent Williams, who was the undercover 19 agent. During the meeting we discussed his and our recollec-20 tions of the investigation.
21 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Bensinger, would you summarize 22 your testimony, please?
23 WITNESS BENSINGER: I wac not involved in the 24 undercover operation. However, I did review the affidavits.
. n.pon.n, w.
25 I reviewed Ms. Birch's testimony, the information and
8478 Sim 15-2 1 transcripts of the meetings, talked with the CP&L managers
- 2 and had a chance to assess what I think were sometimes, if 3 not conflicting objectives, at least tension between a law 4 enforcement investigation, which would like as free an 5 atmosphere as possible, and a nuclear construction site.and 6 public utility which has as its first commitment safety and 7 the regualtion of the job site.
8 My testimony comments about the length of the 9 investigation, its impact, its results and there is testimony 10 that I offer that would indicate that the utilization of 11 certain acknowledgements of items like metal detectors on the 12 part of undercover agents can in fact work not as a detriment, 13 but as a reinforcing agent for such an investigation. And s
14 I draw my assessment of that from personal experience at DEA 15 when we had a number of our agents undercover offloading 16 tonnage quantities of marihuana and hundreds of pounds of 17 cocaine and in which we took the position that we couldn't 18 allow those drugs to get into the traffic. So apprehensions 19 did take place. The Coast Guard would intercept a mother 20 ship, the state police would make an arrest of a truck and 21 our undercover agent was able to still maintain their bona fide 3 P2 with our targeted offenders.
23 My sense is the investigation went as long as it 24 needed to go and that Carolina Power and Light's cooperation g.,J n. porters. Inc.
25 was clear and unquestioned, and that the results did not
8479 Sim 15-3 .
reflect widespread drug use sale on the property.
1
('T 2 MR. BAXTER: Thank you.
U 3 The panel is available for cross-examination.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: Just a word about timing. Why don't i i
5 we go ahead for 15 or 20 minutes, take maybe a short break 6 and then we would like to make up a little time from this 7 morning by going until well, 6:15 or 6:30, something like that.
8 Is that agreeable?
9 MR. BARTH: It is agreeable with the staff, Your 10 Honor.
11 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, it is agreeable.
12 MR. BAXTER: Yes.
I 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION INDEX 14 BY MR. RUNKLE:
15 Q Mr. King, was it you that made the decision to bring 16 the drug dogs onto the site?
17 A (Witness King) No, I did not make that decision on 18 my own.
19 Q Who made that decision?
20 A That decision was made by senior management, includinc 21 the senior vice president in charge of nuclear generation and 22 the vice president in charge of the Harris project.
23 Q And who are those, the senior vice president -- could 24 you put names with those titles, please?
si Reporters, Inc.
25 A The Senior Vice President is Mr. M. A. McDuffy, and
. - - . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ - . ~ , - _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ .____ _ -
8480 gim 15-4 1
the Vice President in charge of the Harris project is Mr.
2 Al Watson.
3 Q so that would be Mr. McDuffy and Mr. Watson?
_4 A That is correct.
5 0 And when did they make the decision to bring drug 6 dogs onto the site?
7 A The discussion to bring the drug dogs on the site 8 began in August of 1984. The final decision to bring the drug 9 dogs on the job site was made during the course of the under-10 cover operation with it clearly understood that the dogs would 11 not be there until the operation was complete.
12 Q Now who supervises the use of the drug dogs on the 13 site?
O 14 A The drug dogs as they come on the site at this time 15 are supervised by the construction security unit, to be 16 specific, myself and Mr. Joyner.
17 O So you would be the ones that would schedule the 18 arrival of the drug dogs; is that correct? You are responsible 19 for scheduling the drug dogs on the site?
20 A That is correct.
21 Q And the fourth panel will be those people, those 22 contractors that operate the dogs; is that correct?
23 A As I understand it.
24 Q Mr. King, who made the final decision to terminate pts n. pore.ri, lac.
25 the undercover investigation at the Harris site?
8481 Sim15-5 1 A The decision to terminate the undercover operation 2 was made by Mr. Overton with the SBI and Sheriff Baker with
( }-
j 3 the Wake County Sheriff's Department.
4 4 Q And did they make that decision at your urging?
I was not urging them'.to.make the' decision"to end I
- 5 A 6 the operation, and,-I::was:;not encouraging them to continue the 7 operation.
I 8 Q So you were the one working most closely with the p undercover operation; is that correct?
l 10 A Not on a day-to-day basis.
11 Q Mr. Hindman, in your testimony on pages 34 and 35, i 12 you present a series of reasons why you determined that the i
13 drug investigation should be terminated; is that correct?
!-()
i 14 A (Witness Hindman) .That is correct.
- 15 Q And then you brought this to your discussions with 16 the Sheriff's Department and the SBI, did you not, these 17 same reasons for termination?
18 A You mean did I attend a meeting and bring these l 19 Points up? i l t i
20 Q Yes. ,
i 21 A No, I.did not. I r
22 Q In your opinion, was the Sheriff's Department and l 23 the SBI aware of these different reasons for terminating the !
undercover investigation? I 24 Mllbwdn,wwn.ine.
25 MR. BAXTER: Excuse me, a clarification. Were they l I
f
8482 Sim 15-6 j aware of the reasons or were they aware of Mr. Hindman's 2 pini n?
3 MR. RUNKLE: I would think they were the same thing.
4 MR. BAXTER: Well, not necessarily.
5 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, if you can just clarify which.
6 MR. RUNKLE: The reasons that are on pages 34 and 7 35 8 MR. BAXTER: The question is twas' the:, Sherif f's 9 Department aware of those reasons?
10 MR. RUNKLE: Yes.
11 JUDGE KELLEY: All right.
12 MR. RUNKLE: For terminating the drug investigation.
13 WITNESS HINDMAN: I personally don't know if they O 14 were aware of these reasons.
15 BY MR. RUNKLE:
16 Q Mr. King, in your testimony you stated that you 17 were a commissioned' law enforcement officer.s'What does.it 18 entail to be a commissioned law enforcement officer?
19 A (Witness Hindman) The State of North Carolina has 20 a general statute that allows railroad companies, public 21 utilities, certain hospitals and educational institutions to 22 maintain what are called company police. Those individuals 23 are authorized through the Attorney General's Office and have 24 to meet the same training and standards as all other law por n.pomi, in.
25 enforcement officers in the State.
\
. . . - . - ~_ _._ .- -- - . . _ _
8483 Sim 15-7 j Q So that is what you referred to, and also, Mr.
2 Joyner,ryou referred.'~to the same . thing?
3 A (Witness Joyner) Yes.
4 Q And as commissioned law enforcement officers, that 5
w uld entail your work with Carolina Power and Light, would 6 it not? You are not off-duty policemen otherwise?
7 A No, I am not.
8 A (Witness King) Our total employment is with 9
Carolina Power and Light.
10 MR. RUNKLE: I have no other questions for this i
11 Panel.
12 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
13 Mr. Cole? Well, it might make more sense to go ja next to Mr. Eddleman. Does anybody disagree with that 15 Proposition?
16 (No response.)
37 Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Eddleman.
18 CROSS-EXAMINATION jp BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
- INDEX 20 0 Mr. King, referring to your answer 5 on page 2 of 21 y ur prefiled, if you have that ---
22 A (Witness King) I have it.
23 0 You describe there in the next to the last sentence 24 or rather the last full sentence an undercover operation you ertl Reporters, Inc.
25 participated in lasting for seven months and arresting more
I 8484 cim 15-8 100 suspects. How many suspects were there when you started 3
that operation?
(_s; 2 A There were no suspects when we started the operation.
3 4
4 Q All right. And you carried on for seven months in rder to arrest the more than 100 suspects; is that correct?
5 A The total operation lasted for a period of seven
, 6 7
months. The actual undercover work involving purchases and identification of suspects was 143 days.
8 Q All right, sir. Now, Mr. King, did you have any-9 10 thing to do with the preparation of the matrix that has been ij referred to here? Do you know what we are talking about as 12 the matrix?
A Yes, I do.
) Did you participate in preparing that in any way?
4 j4 Q 1
15 MR. BAXTER: Objection.
i 16 MR. BARTH: Objection, Your Honor.
j7 MR. BAXTER: I would like to hear counsel attempt 18 to link that to the undercover drug investigation. ;
19 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, all I want to do is get a 20 number out of it. Will counsel stipulate that there were 21 201 persons identified as having been terminated because of
- 22 drug use or suspicion of drug use at Shearon Harris in that i
23 matrix?
24 MR. BARTH: We object, Your Honor. We have been
, at n.por,.n, Inc.
25 through this a number of times this morning, and Mr. Eddleman's i
- - -. . . , . . , _ . , . _ , _ - _ . ..y.._ . _ - _ _ _ . . . _ . - - _ . . - . . , _ , , , _ _ _ , _ _ . . . _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ - , _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , - _
8485 Sim 15-9 1 absence does not excuse this repetition.
2 MR. BAXTER: Yes.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: It is panel three, and we will get 4 to that. This panel isn't addressing that, unless you can 5 Point me to something here where that is encompassed.
6 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, this panel talks about when 7 this operation should have been terminated.
8 JUDGE KELLEY: Right.
9 MR. EDDLEMAN: That is what I want to get at.
10 JUDGE KELLEY: How does that link to the 20l?
11 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, I believe that the undercover 12 operatives identified some 53 persons in their participation.
13 JUDGE KELLEY: Is there some testimony to that O 14 effect or are you testifying?
15 MR. EDDLEMAN: I belive there is prefiled testimony 16 to that effect, but I am just saying that is the link that 17 I want to go through here.
18 JUDGE KELLEY: It could be. Do your witnesses 19 testify about 53?
20 MR. BAXTER: There is testimony in here that the 21 undercover investigation produced information beyond the eight 22 arrested in the terms of an additional list of personn.el. It 23 does not identify the quantity.
24 JUDGE KELLEY: But again, this is a group of people o mi it. porters, Inc.
25 that were in the January 1985 universe, right? And that list
8486 Sim 15-10 j of 201 is a totally different time frame.
rD 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, that is exactly the point O
3 I am trying to get at.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, go ahead and try and subject to objection. Go ahead and try.
5 6
MR. EDDLEMAN: All right.
7 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
8 0 Mr. King, do you recall how many suspects or persons 9
the undercover operatives identified to CP&L or passed along 10 to CP&L for drug use at Harris?
11 A (Witness King) To the best of my recollection, the 12 total number, including those arrested, was 61.
13 0 Sixty-one, and there were eight arrested, were there O ja not?
15 A There were eight that had charges filed against them.
16 I am aware of six arrests.
j7 Q All right, sir. So are you including the six in 18 there or the eight in there?
19 A I am including the eight that were charged. There 20 were two people that were not picked up on the morning of the 21 10th, and I do not know what their status is.
22 0 All right, sir. This operation therefore identified 23 61 persons in a period of about two months; is that correct, 24 Mr. King?
h.i n. pows, inc.
25 A That is correct.
8487 Sim 15-11 Q And if the evidence should show that CP&L has only j
and the identification of 201 persons in total since construc-2 3
tion begain on the Harris project through early September 4
of this year, that would be about 30 percent of the persons identified and picked up by this undercover operation, would S
it not, sir?
6 A I haven't done that math.
7 0 Well, if 61 is approximately 30 percent of 201, then 8
the answer is yes, isn't it?
9 A As I have stated, I have not done that math.
10 jj Q Mr. King, are you capable of figuring out what 30 12 p rcent of 200 is?
A Yes, I am.
x 13
~
ja O Can you tell me what it is?
A Not off the top of my head. It would be somewhere 15 16 in the neighborhood of 60 to 70 people.
j7 Q All right, sir, I will accept that.
Let me ask you this. Your answer 43 on -- wait 18 39 a second. I think I have the wrong page here.
20 (P use.)
Let me refer you instead to your answer 40, which 21 actually is Mr. Hindman's answer. That is on page 34 of the 22 23 profiled.
Now, Mr . !!indman, in question and answer 39 you 24 4$,oin.penni.inc say that you discussed the proposal to extend the undercover 25
8488 <
Sim 15-12 1 operation with'Mr. King, do you not?
2 A (Witness Hindman) Yes.
(]}
3 o All right. Now your first reason in answer 40 4 is the inforamtion expressed to you by the confidential 5 informant; is that correct?
6 MR. BARTH: Your Honor, I object to this. We have i
7 been through this with Mr. Eddleman in every single session 8 where we read this testimony back and forth like a pair I
9 of puppets. The testimony stand for itself and it says what l 10 it says. As you have previously said, Your Honor, I have <
11 no objection nor has the Board objected to the past two l
12 questions in trying to elicit some sort of bit of wisdom out !
13 of a conclusion. But to read this thing back and forth, line 14 12 says this and line 13 says this, we object to that, and 15 we will strongly object to it from now on.
16 MR. EDDLEMAN: Mr. Barth's objections are probably 17 taking up more time than the question and answer. He gives 18 a first and I can't see any second in that whole answer. So 19 that is why I asking him what his first is. [
4 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Barth's general principle we ,
i 21 have applied from time to time to restrict quotations from 22 a sentence, and I think that is fair enough.
23 Go ahead.
24 MR. EDDLEMAN: Do you want me to ask that again?
] A lpwei n,=ws. ke.
25 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes, would you. l 1
1
{
8489 MR. BAXTER: The question is where is the second?
Sim 15-13 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: No. Let me ask the question.
2 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
3 0 Mr. Hindman, in your answer 40, the first reason 4
5 that you say you did not support extending this undercover 6
p ration was the information expressed to you by the con-fidential informant; is that correct?
7 8
A (Witness Hindman) That is correct.
0 All right. Now then is the second reason expressed 9
in the sentence where you say you also viewed the activities 10 of both undercover officers as trending downward during the 11 12 month of December?
A That is correct.
13 ja O All right. Would you identify for yourself if there are any other reasons in that answer?
15 MR. BAXTER: I don't understand, Mr. Chairman, why 16 we are numbering.
37 JUDGE KELLEY: What point are you driving at? Does 18 39 it matter whether he has five reasons or three?
MR. EDDLEMAN: No, it doesn't, but I just want to 20 21 know which ones are which.
MR. BAXTER: Well, I think the testimony speaks 22 f r itself if he can't figure it out.
23 MR. EDDLEMAN: All right. Well, lot me ask this.
24 Agteral Reporters. Inc. BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
25
8490 Sim 15-14 0 Is it your testimony, Mr. Hindman, that drug a tivity on the site was trending downward toward late 2
December 19847 3
A That is not my testimony.
4 0 All right. Do you know how it was trending in 5
late December 19847 A What I said is I viewed the activities of the 7
undercover officers as trending downward.
8 0 Well, I asked you a different question then. Do 9
10 y u know whether drug activity on the site was trending jj downward coming into late December of 19847 A At that point in time, the indicators that I was 12 13 r ceiving with regard to this undercover operation was that ja they were finding less and less new ground to deal with.
0 That is still not an answer to the question I asked.
15 Let me try again, 16 j7 Drug activity by employees on the site, was that trending downward, to your knowledge, in late December 19847 18 A I don't know how to answer that without talking about 39 20 the indicators available to me.
O Well, I don't want to compromise your confidential 21 sources, Mr. Hindman, but ---
22 MR. BAXTER: That is not what he means, Mr.
23 Eddleman. He means that there is not published dai'.y the 24 geral n poneri, inc. leading index of drug activity. He is talking about what he 25
8491 Sim15-15 1 has as evidence to deal with, and he is addressing the 2 undercover investigation as his major piece of information 3 at that point in time to assess the trending of drug 4 activity.
5 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, let me go on, please.
6 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
7 0 Mr. Hindman, have you ever heard of any partying 8 activity involving drugs in the holiday season at the 9 construction site of the Shearon Harris plant?
10 A (Witness Hindman) No, I have not.
11 0 Not ever?
12 A Not to my knowledge.
13 0 Do any of you other gentlemen on the panel, have 14 any of you ever heard of such activity at the Shearon. Harris 15 plant construction site?
16 A (Witness Joyncr) No, I have not.
17 A (Witness Plueddemann) No, sir.
18 A (Witness Hindman) No.
19 A (Witness King) No.
20 A (Witness Densinger) No.
21 0 Referring to the decision to bring the drua dogs 22 on site, can any of you gentlemen tell me exactly when CP&L 23 made the decision to actually bring the drug dogs on site?
cnd Sim 24
.'r0 k.8 ponm. ix.
25
8492
- 16-1-SueWl A (Witness King) Are you looking for a specific l
'Q 2 date the decision was made, or the date of the contract?
3 Q I believe you give the date -- somebody gives 4 the date of their contract in testimony.
5 What I'm talking about is, I believe you testified l
l 6 earlier that there were some discussions and a decision was 7 made by a Mr. McDuffie and Mr. Watson to go ahead with this 8 drug dog idea with the condition that the drug dog would not 9 be brought on site while the undercover investigation was 10 ongoing; is that correct?
II A That's correct.
12 Q All right. Now, at some point a decision was 13 made to go ahead and make a contract.
l
- 14 What I'm talking about is not the signing of 15 the contract but the decision on CP&L's part to actually ;
16 take the steps to bring the drug dogs in, or to bring a 17 drug dog in. When was that decision made?
18 A I don't have an exact date that that decision 19 was made. As I stated earlier, we began looking into the 20 use of drug dogs in August of 1984.
21 And during the course of the operation we were
- 22 continuing that research and interviewing handlers.
23 Q All right. Can you tell us when you first 24 interviewed the handler that you ended up using, Ms. McConnis?
l poi n.p.e ., w.
25 A I'm not sure of the first date we interviewed l
i
8493
- 16-2-Suew I her. She first came on the job site in February of 1985 4 2 for an initial visit.
3 0 All right. Did you make -- pardon me. To your 4 knowledge, did CP&L have a verbal contract with her before 5 their written contract was entered into?
6 A Ms. McConnis was not our contractor of first 7 choice. The contractor of first choice could not be 8 available, and we started talking with Ms. McConnis in 9 February of 1985. I believe it was February 19th we entered 10 into a memorandum of understanding with her to conduct six II visits at the job site, two each month in order to determine 12 the effectiveness of the dog.
13 When did you first make the decision 3 0 All right.
Id to contract with Ms. McConnis, do you know?
15 A The definite decision to go with Ms. McConnis 16 as the dog handler came after her visit to the job site.
17 0 In February?
18 A In February.
l9 0 After her first visit?
20 A After her first visit.
21 0 All right, sir. Other than Ms. McConnis and 22 her subcontractor who is identified in the prefiled testimony, 23 were any other drug dogs brought onto the site to "our 24 hnowledge prior to February 19857 9..s ..-....25-A None to my knowledge.
8494
- 16-3-SueW1 Q Do any of you other gentlemen have any knowledge '
2
,(} that would contradict that?
3 A (Witness Joyner) No, sir.
4 (Witness Hindman) I don't.
5 (Witness Plueddemann) No, sir.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me ask you, Mr. Eddleman, 7 about how rauch time do you need?
l 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: I've got less than five minutes to 9 go.
! 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead.
11 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) I 12 O Mr. Bensinger, did CP&L seek advice from you i l
13 or your firm about the decision to request an undercover ;
( !
14 operation at the Shearon Harris site?
i 15 A (Witness Bensinger) No, i 16 0 would that include during the operation before !
17 its termination? !
18 A That would include during and before. ;
i.
l 19 Q Did you or your firm have knowledge that this f 20 operation was going on before it was concluded? j l 21 A Our firm and I personally had discussed with CP&L [
22 management the advisability of close liason with State and f
i 23 local law enforcement, utilization of canine dog handlers 24 and searches and from time to time utilizing undercover [
I qllp. i n w+*n,1=.
25 investigations as an additional investigative tool and i f L
1
8495
- 16-4-SueW 1 deterrent.
2 I don't recall specific a discussion with CP&L 3 management during the end of 1984 during the time this 4 investigation underway with respect to the specifics of 5 the operation, when it started and when it stopped.
6 But I know that we had discussed, from a' policy 7 standpoint, the value of such an investigation prior to the 8 time it started. And also prior to the time canine searches 9 had started. And so had the whole public utility industry.
10 Q Mr. Bensinger, when did you first review informa-Il tion related to this undercover investigation?
12 A In 1985.
13 Q Can you be more specific, a month or a date?
14 A I couldn't give you a date. I would say probably 15 Spring of '85.
16 Q March?
17 A That would be my sense, but I would have to check 18 my notes, Mr. Eddleman.
19 I would be happy to see if I could verify 20 exactly when that was. It wouldn't affect my opinions on 21 the value of the investigation.
22 0 Okay. But you don't recall specifically when 23 but it was after the investigation had terminated?
24 A After the investigation had terminated and after, pd n.p.nm. i=.
25 I might add, the dogs -- first dog handler had come to the
8496
- 16-5-SueW l site. j
.{} 2 Q Mr. King, may I refer you to your Answer 43 which 3 is going over from Page 37 to Page 38 of the prefiled 4 testimony?
5 In the bottom paragraph on Page 37, in the dog
- 6 handler that you had already contacted there Ms. McConnis 7 or someone else?
1 8 A (Witness King) As I recall, in mid-December we 1
9 had not contacted Ms. McConnis.
10 0 So, it would have been someone else? j 11 A Yes.
12 All right. At either of the meetings that you
) Q
- 7s 13 refer to in that first sentence of that paragraph, do you 14 recall any personnel from the SBI or the Sheriff's Department 15 saying that if drug dogs were brought on site they would 16 terminate the undercover investigation? !
F 17 A I don't see where you are referring to meetings 18 here, Mr. Eddleman.
19 O In the last paragraph down towards the bottom of .
20 Page 37, maybe there is only one meeting, but you say "When 21 I was approached in mid-December and during a subsequent I i
22 meeting about extending the operation. . ." l 23 A Okay. When I was approached, it was not in the l 24 form of a meeting. i lqlghwein,wwtW. l 25 0 All right. When you were anproached about i
i
8497
-#16-6-SueW 1 extending the operation, did you mention the drug dogs OJ 2 when you were approached?
3 A Yes, we did.
4 0 And did anyone who was approaching you or involved 5 in that conversation say that if drug dogs were brought on 6 site that they would terminate the investigation, the 7 undercover investigation?
8 A I don't re:all that phraseology. It was discussed 9 that we were going to use the dogs, and I assured those 10 individuals that the dogs would not be coming on until 11 after the operation was complete.
12 0 Well, did anyone say anything to the effect that 13 if the dogs were brought on site then the operation would 14 have to be terminated? -
15 A That came out in the later meeting with Mr.
16 overton, Sheriff Baker and other persons were present, that 17 if CP&L were going to bring the dogs on they were going to 18 terminate the operation.
19 0 So, now who said that at that meeting?
20 A Sheriff Baker and Mr. Overton concurred.
21 0 They both said that? ,
22 A Sheriff Baker said it. fir. Overton concurred.
23 0 All right, sir. Now, that's the meeting, the 24 subsequent meeting, that you are referring to in this p . n.,.r n is.
25 sentence down towards the bottom of Page 37 is that correct?
8498
- 16-7-SueW 1 A Yes, sir.
(} 2 O So, then you certainly knew at that point that 3 they were going to terminate the investigation if CP&L 4 brought drug dogs on site. That's something you knew from 5 them at that meeting, isn't it?
) 6 A I understood during that meeting that if we ,
4 7 brought drug dogs on they would terminate the investigation.
8 I was also at that meeting advising them that the drug dog 9 would not be on the job site until late February 1985.
10 They, in fact, made the decision with that 11 knowledge and terminated the operation the first week of 12 January of 1985, six weeks prematurely.
t 13 O Did they begin discussions with you at that 7-s I
O 14 meeting for preparation to terminate the operation with 15 you or with CP&L?
I
^
16 A Yes, they did.
l 17 O Did you understand why they were going to i
18 terminate it?
. 19 A I understood Sheriff Baker to say that he was t 20 going to terminate the undercover operation because we were 21 going to bring dogs on. He did not understand the fact >
22 that the dogs were not ccming on the site immediately, that 23 he had another six weeks.
, 24 0 Well, if he didn't understand that, why didn't i i
mllhwei n,4mm. inc.
25 you tell him?
8499
- 16-8-SueW l A I did.
i
{] 2 O You told him that you weren't going to bring the 3 dogs on for six more weeks?
4 A That's correct.
5 MR. EDDLEMAN: I have no further questions.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Let's take about five minutes and 7 come back and hopefully we can finish the panel.
8 (Whereupon, a recess is taken at 5:24 p.m. , to 9 reconvene at 5:35 p.m., this same date.)
10 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. We will go back on the record Il at this point.
12 We've had the cross and questioning by Mr. Eddleman .
13 I believe we go next to the State, Mr. Cole.
Id MR. COLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
15 CROSS EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. COLE:
17 Mr. King, just one clarification about your --
Q 18 I believe you said you were a Commissioned Law Enforcement I9 Officer, is that the way you characterized that, sir?
20 A (Witness King) That's the classification that 21 Carolina Power and Light Company uses for our positions. We 22 are classified as Commissioned Construction Security Agents.
23 0 Well, is that the designation you were using a 24 little while ago in characterizing yourself?
g.i n. pore.n. inc.
25 A In describing my position --
8500
.#16-9-SueW I O Yes, 2 A -- with the Company, that's correct.
j }
3 0 Yes, sir. What is the difference between that 4 and a sworn law enforcement officer?
5 A Okay. The Commissioned Construction Security 6 Agent is a CP&L term. Its our position within the 7
organizational structuye';of Carolina Power and Light. We 8 are sworn law enforcement officers with the same powers of 9 arrest within our jurisdiction, as other law enforcement 10 officers in the State.
Il The Attorney General's Office and the general 12 statutues refer to it as company police.
13 0 All right, sir. So, you do enjoy the sworn 14 status --
15 A Yes.
16 0 -- just as an SBI agent or any police officer 17 or whatever would, sir?
/
18 A That's correct.
19 0 All right, sir. And is diat cor.crolled through 20 the Justice Standards Division, do you know?
21 A Yes. The Criminal Justice Training and Standards 22 Division controls the training requirements and does. the 23 applications and so forth.
24 0 All right, sir. Thank you.
Ajgh-.i nw.mn. ine. ;
25 Mr. King, you testified a little while ago about - ;
t m -- -- __- --
8501
- 16-10-SueW I the -- it was on Page 2 of your testimony about the operation, rn g
(_) that it lasted some seven months and resulted in some one 3
hundred arrests.
4 Was that a Raleigh PD undercover operation, or 5
was that a military operation?
6 A That was Raleigh Police Department.
7 Q Do you recall when that occurred, sir?
8 A The operation began its planning stages and 9
selection of the operatives in June of 1977, and the actual 10 arrest of those individuals took place in January of 1978.
11 Q All right. Was that a drug operation also?
12 A Yes, it was.,
/~ Q It was? How many undercover drug operations would
( -}
j you say you have been involved in, Mr. King?
15 A As the undercover operative or supervising and 16 the operative?
17 Q Either one, sir.
18 A I have been involved in three operations with 19 the Raleigh Police Department, only one of those as the 20 operative.
21 0 Only one as the operative? The others supervisory?
22 A That's correct.
23 When were those, Mr. King?
i' '
Q All right, sir.
24 erot n.ponen, Inc.
A All those would have been prior to this June 25 1977 time frame.
1 3502 416-ll-SueW l Q All right, sir. Did they involve drugs also?
2 A Yes. They were all drug operations.
(')T
\_ l 3 Q Did any of them involve undercover operations at 4 a construction site?
5 A The undercover operation that is referred to in 6 June of '77 to January of '78 in which I was the operative.
7 did involve activity at some construction sites.
> 8 0 Yes, sir. Do you recall the duration of those 9 particular undercover drug operations?
10 A The two that I was helping to supervise and make 11 pickups on, I do not.
12 O Were they greater than eight weeks?
13 A I can't honestly answer that, sir.
_ <-)
J 14 Q You don't have a best guess, an opinion?
i 15 A No, sir. I was not totally involved in those 16 operations from their inception.
I 17 Q The one that you were the operative'in, did it 18 last longer than eight weeks?
19 A Yes. The overall planning, the actual undercover 20 portion where we were making buys was one hundred and forty-21 three days. -
22 Q This i s the seven months that you referred to 23 earlier?
24 A Yes, sir.
. rot R porters, Inc.
25 Q Now, on Page 4 of your filed testimony, Mr. King,
8503
, < r: l A
- 16-12-SueW 1 you state that you supervised two undercover operations and
(} 2 one investigation with the Wake Sheriff and SBI. ,
3 .When were these other two undercover operations?
< 1
'F 4 Or, again are we referring to -- these are different than
'5 those you just referred to, are they not?
6 A The first undercover operation referred to here 7 was an operation with the Wake County Sheriff's Department "nf
. 8 in 1982 to help identify the level of drug involvement at-
, 9 the iob site.
10 It was strictly an intelligence operation and 11 no arrests were made.
12 The second undercover operation is the one that 13 we are discussing at this time.
.O Nes, sir.
i 14 0 15 A And the investigation with the Wake County 16 Sheriff's Department and State Bureau of Investigation is a f 17 situation where we developed information on a site employee 18 and worked with those two agencies to finally make an arrest 19 which occurred off-site.
20 Q The 1982 operation was purely an intelligence 21 operation?
4 22 A 'That's correct.
23 0 What was the purpose in running that operation?
1 24 A The Sheriff's Department had an informant that i 5.p =i, w.
~
25 was able to gain access to the job site and we, from the 2
s a .I 3
8504
- 16-13-SuewI security standpoint, at CP&L felt like we needed some
() 2 intelligence into the level of the drug situation at the 3 job site.
4 Q What was your intent for using that information 5 or intelligence that you received?
6 What did you intend to do with it?
7 A Those persons, if any, that were identified 8 during that operation as being actively involved in drugs 9 would have appropriate disciplinary action taken according 10 to our corporate policies and the policies of our contractors.
Il O What did your intelligence reveal during that 12 operation?
,- 13 A We identified several individuals in approximately
. (_-
14 forty-two instances. Those individuals were removed from 15 the job site.
16 The Sheriff's Department developed some information 17 off of the job site and pursued that on their own.
18 0 And how long did that intelligence operation last?
19 A I believe that lasted five to six weeks.
20 O Five to six weeks?
21 A That's correct.
22 Q And no arrests were as a result of that operation?
23 A That's correct.
24 0 The forty-two instances to which you referred, pd n. port n. inc.
25 what category of employee did these involve?
8505
- 16-14-SueW A The forty-two instances in some cases would
() 2 involve the same employee more than once. I don't have the 3 data in front of me on what categories of employees. They 4 were basically craft employees to the best of my recollection.
5 0 Well, would it be fair to say then that you 6 realized that you had a drug problem in 1982 out at the 7 Shearon Harris Plant?
8 A I realized that we had drug activity at the 9 project at that time, yes, sir.
10 Q You wouldn't characterize that as a problem?
11 A We did not see the number of people involved as 12 being significant or warranting a great deal of extra 13 action at that time.
14 We took what we felt was appropriate on those 15 individuals. ,
16 0 When did you, Mr. King, first realize that maybe 17 there was a drug problem at the Shearon Harris Plant?
18 A Not until --
19 MR. BAXTER: I'm sorry. The question is when 20 did he first realize there was a drug problem?
21 MR. COLE: Correct.
22 MR. BAXTER: I think that we haven't established 23 that he ever has been of the opinion that there is a drug 24 problem.
l $ .rten. port m inc.
25 JUDGE KELLEY: Is there an objection?
.- ,v.-- - - , . - . - -,n , -- - - , , , - -,---,--n , - . ,v. -~,w -
r-- ,- ----~s ----
e* -
- 16-15-Suew1 ' MR . BAXTER: Yes. It assumes a fact not in
. 2 evidence.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Overruled. Go ahead. I think 4 in' context, it's clear what the question is driving at..
5 WITNESS KING: Restate the question. -
6 BY MR. COLE: (Continuing) 7 0 When did you first realize there was a drug 8 problem at the Shearon Harris Plant, Mr. King?
5 9 A We have had instances of drug activity at the 10 plant since I first went to the project. The first incident 11 reported was in 1979.
12 The level of drug activity is what we have p 13 looked at as far as our enforcement of those problems. And d 14 we had not felt that the activity had gotten to a point 15 that we needed an undercover operation until this incident 16 in 1984.
END #16 17 Jos flws 18 19 20 21 22 r
23 24 11 n. pore.rs, Inc.
25 J
17-1-JoeW31 8507 1 0 All right, sir. Now, you just referred to a 2 1979 incident. What was that?
3 A There was one incident, to my recollection, in 4 1979, one individual was possessing a small quantity of 5 marijuana, and was arrested by the Wake County ABC Board.
6 0 Did you undertake any kind of an investigation 7 at the site at that time?
8 A Yes, I did.
9 0 How large an inquiry did you have at that time?
10 A I investigated the circumstances around that 11 arrest, and that individual.
12 0 The investigation only went to that particular 13 purchase --
f 14 A That is correct.
I 15 0 Did that incident not maybe put you on notice i 16 that there could be other drug problens on the site itself? t i
17 A That incident, as well as any incident involving !
18 drug activity would put me on notice anywhere that there was :
19 drug activity, but I did not see widespread drug abuse.
I 20 0 Well, when you said you did not see, I thought 21 you said you only investigated that one specific incident?
I 22 A To clarify, by investigation I mean detailed 23 investigation of that particular individual, and how he came 24 to be on the job site in possession of that quantity of drugs. i i
Mer:l Resmrters, lnc.
25 0 I see. Did you ascertain where that quantity of l I
.Q JoeWol 8508 1 drugs came from?
) 2 A I did not.
3 Q Did you inquire of the employee?
4 A I did.
5 Q Did he not tell you?
6 A He did not.
7 Q Did you have reason to believe it came from some 8 other employees on site?
9 A Not based on what I could find out at that time, i
10 0 Once he -told you -- or wouldn't tell you anything, 11 did you make any independent inquiry or investigation as to 12 where he may have obtained the drug?
() 13 A Yes, I did.
14 0 What did.that investigation consist of, Mr. King?
15 A I interviewed the contract security ptrsonnel 16 involved in that incident. The individual that turned this I
, 17 person in, and they were only aware of his condition, and 18 the f act that he had it in his possession when they saw 19 him and they did not know where he got it from. !
l 20 Q How long would you estimate your inquiry into this l 21 incident lasted?
22 A This incident occurred after normal working hours.
23 It was a second shift employee. I went to the job site l 24 at the time it was reported to me, and followed it up the e n.cor=,,, inc.
l 25 next day and pursued it with the Wake County ABC officers
17-3-J: W21 8509 1 that made the arrest.
s 2 As far as time, I don't know exactly how many 3 manhours were put into it.
4 O How many people would you estimate you talked 5 to?
6 A In addition to the two on site, just the Wake 7 County ABC officer.
8 REPORTER: Could you repeat that.
9 WITNESS KING: In addition to the two onsite 10 employees, just the Wake County ABC of ficer.
11 REPORTER: Thank you.
12 BY MR. COLE: (Continuing)
> 13 Q Now, between 1979 and the 1982 incident that you 14 referred to a few moments ago, did you have any other 15 incidents at the Shearon Harris plant involving drug usage?
16 Buting, selling, possession? !
17 A In preparing for this hearing, I recollect that I
18 we did have instances. I don't know the magnitude or the 19 breakdown of those instances.
I 20 0 Did you have any more in 1979? l 21 A I don't recall. That incident is most vivid l
22 because it was the first incident. I 23 0 Was it early, mid, or late '797 ,
24 A It was early 1979. i ec: neponen, inc.
25 0 And did you complete the rest of 1979 without any l
17-4-JoeWal 8510 I further incidents?
() 2 A I can't honestly answer that. I don't have the --
3 Q It could have been some?
4 A It is possible, yes, sir.
5 -Q What about in 1980?
6 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, I object at this point.
a 7 We are going way outside the' scope of this testimony.
4 s This is about an undercover drug investigation 1 9 that took place in late 1984. The only reference we have-p 10 had to the testimony in the last fifteen minutes is in the 11 description of Mr. King's experience, where he indicates that 12 he was involved in a previous undercover investigation at
(} 13 Shearon Harris. .
4 14 JUDGE KELLEY: So your objection is it is outside 15
- the scope?
I
. 16 MR. BAXTER: Yes. !
l 17 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Cole? l l
i 18 MR. COLE: I have made the point, Your Honor, I am !
19 ready to move on.
I 20 JUDGE KELLEY: All right.
21 BY MR. COLE: (Continuing) ,
22 Q Mr. King, so this brings us up to the 1984 incident 23 that we talk about in the testimony here.
24 Were you involved -- I believe you said you were, ei nooners, inc.
25 on page 8, that you were involved in the decision to initiate
8511 17 5-JoeWol 1 the investigation, or the request for the investigation,
() 2 is that correct, sir?
,p 3 A (Witness King) Yes, that is correct.
4 0 Who else was involved in that decision?
5 A As I recall, the decision to make this request,
.6 Mr. Joyner was involved in that, in that he had brought this 7 to the attention of management. Mr. Hyman was involved in 8 it, and Mr. Watson at the Harris site.
9 Q And when do you think that was?
10 A The first discussion concerning the possibility 11 of an operation was in August of 1984.
12 O In August. I believe you have already stated
(} 13 that. I am sorry.
14 Who made the final decision to pursue the matter?
15 MR. BARTH: Objection, Your Honor, this has been I
16 asked and answered .a number of times. Mr. McDuff, Mr.
l 17 Utley -- !
18 MR. 4 COLE: Iwillwithdrawthequestion,YourHonor,f 19 it probably has. !
'l 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Very well, go ahead.
-21 MR. COLE: I have been advised that he has not 22 answered it, Your Honor, previously. I will have to --
23 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, we can put up with a little 24 repetition just for the sake of context, so --
a meserwes. Inc.
25 BY MR. COLE: (Continuing)
17-6-JoeW21 8512 1 Q Who made the final decision to pursue the 2 investigation, Mr. King?
3 A (Witness King) My instructions were coming from 4 Mr. Watson at the site.
5 Q Mr. Watson?
6 A Yes. The Vice President in charge of the Harris 7 project.
8 0 Vice President in charge of what, sir?
9 A The Harris project. l 10 0 Oh. Okay. What discussions took place between 11 you and Mr. Joyner and Mr. Hindman concerning the need to !
12 ask for an investigation?
13 A The first conversations took place with Mr. Joyner, ,
1 14 and he would have to respond to those conversations, because I i
15 I was out of state at the time. I 16 When I returned to North Carolina, the basic :
17 substance of my conversations were the information that 18 Mr. Joyner had been receiving, and then we led into the 19 conversation over at the Sheriff's Department themselves, 20 when they had the informer that was available to do the work. ,
21 Q Let me get off of you a minute, and ask Mr. Joyner,.
i 22 then.
23 Mr. Joyner, were you -- did you talk to Mr. Hindman:
24 about the problems that arose in August of 1984 leading to the
$,r3 ne m rier .ine.
25 request for an investigation? !
l
17-7-Jo:W:::1 8513 1 A (Witness Joyner) Yes, I did.
2 0 What discussions did you and Mr. Hindman have?
3 A I guess previously I should say that I had this 4 discussion with Mr. King by telephone, and advised him of 5 a weekly report that I had written which ultimately went to 6 Mr. McDuffy.
7 Mr. McDuffy telephoned me to discuss this weekly 8 report that I wrote.
9 0 For the record, who is Mr. McDuffy?
10 A He is the Senior Vice President in charge of our 11 group.
12 0 All right, sir.
~"
13 A Mr. McDuffy called and inquired as to the reasons 14 that I put in that weekly indicating that I had started I
15 receiving information about alleged drug activity on the 16 site, and I felt that an undercover operation should be done !
i 17 utilizing members of the law enforcement community. !
18 0 What information did you receive about drug usage 19 on the site?
20 A I was gaining information from various sources.
21 Some of those sources included CP&L supervisors, Daniel craf t ,
22 supervisors, Iwasreceivingqualitycheckinfprmationthroughl 23 our quality check program. ,
24 I was notified on each and every incident that ;
AterJ Reporters,1N.
l 25 alleged drug activity was given in one of the quality check l
~.
t 17-8-gpo Wal 8514 i r
I reports. l D)
(_ 2 O Well, were you getting a lot of information from 3 these various sources about drug problems?
4 A I felt that after being on the job site since 5 1979, that the level of information had increased, as had the 6 number of employees increased, and I felt obligated as a l 6
7 law enforcement officer, and with a law enforcement background i 8 that something should be done to eliminate any talk of any I 9 drug activity on the job site, and I felt that was one of the ;
10 ways to do it. I 11 Well, the sources that were reporting back gave you O L 12 cause for alarm about the drug problem, is that correct?
(} 13 A Not independently of each one. I think over a Id period of time, yes. Collectively, I felt that something ,
15 should be done. l f
I !
16 0 Collectively, you felt like you might have had a <L i
17 widespread drug problem, is that correct?
18 A No, sir, 'that is not correct.
19 What did you think you had?
Q i 20 A At the time, we had approximately six thousand j IL 21 employees on the job site, and my total information would j 22 cover approximately twenty employees.
L 23 24 O Do these employees range all through the site li out there, or were they all kind of collected in one small ;
a n g e n m . ire j 25 group?
17-9-JoLW31 8515 1 A They were not collected in one small group.
() 2 Q Kind of disbursed throughout the plant, different 3 jobs, different level of jobs?
4 A That is correct.
5 0 You mentioned some twenty employees. Did you have 6 any reason to think that this was all that was involved?
7 A This was all the information I had available.
8 Any information we get, if I had knowledge of, we would take 9 action on.
10 Q Well, was this knowledge as to selling, using, 11 possession, or all three?
12 A Basically, all three.
(} 13 Q So you did have some information about selling?
14 A Yes, sir.
15 Q What kind of drugs were you told were being 16 involved?
17 A Primarily in the information I was getting i
18 concerned marijuana.
19 Q In what particular area was it being used? l 20 A There was no area. I might add also that this 21 information did not include just onsite.
22 O Parking lot?
23 A It included other areas outside the CP&L owned 4
24 property.
en n.n,inc.
2$ Q Grocery store?
i W
8516 17-10-JoeW21 1 A Yes, that is a part of it.
x 2 Q And the parking lot?
3 A Yes.
4 Q If I might go back to Mr. King for a moment, 5 then.
6 Mr. King, now we were talking I believe about 7 the August '84 incident.
8 Would you say it was at that time that you became 9 aware there was a drug problem on the site was in August of 10 ' 84, or was it prior to that?
I 11 A (Witness King) As Mr. Joyner stated, in August of j 12 1984, with the increase of personnel, we were receiving 13 increased number of reports, and as he stated, he has x ,
14 identified approximately twenty possible drug suspects at f i
15 that time, i 16 We did not feel that twenty was representative 17 of widespread drug abuse on the job site, but being professional 18 and sworn law enforcement officers, and with the best interesti 19 of the Company in mind, we felt like something should oc done 20 to climinate at least those twenty if they werc the twenty 21 that were on the job site.
22 Q I believe you stated that you attended the planning !
23 meeting with law enforcement agencies, is that correct, sir?
24 f A That is correct.
. . n .n , i.... U c .
25 Q All right, sir. Who requested that meeting, do you' l
l i
17-ll-JoeW21 8517 1 recall, Mr. King?
2 A Mr. Watson, as I recall, in a letter to the 3 Sheriff's Department requested a meeting.
4 0 Were you aware that the SBI would be in attendance 5 at that meeting?
6 A I had received indication that if there were 7 to be an undercover operation, the Sheriff's Department would a be requesting the assistance of the Stato Bureau of 9 Investigation.
I 10 0 Did yoa do any speaking at that particular mooting?i i
11 A Yes, I did.
12 0 What did you inform the Sheriff's Department, or
^
13 the SDI, for that matter, as to the drug prob 1cm at tho sito?
14 A I don't recall the details of the conversations. l 15 We basically alluded to the same things that Mr. Joyner and 16 I have discussed here.
17 That we woro receiving information. We felt liko 18 there woro some people on the job site that needed to be 19 investigated, and if possible, apprehended.
20 0 Did you over mention the NRC during that mooting, 21 Mr. King?
22 A I do not recall having mentioned the NRC at all 23 during that mooting.
24 0 Do you recall the name or intials being mentioned
.i.o n.noner . inc.
25 by anyone at that meeting? ;
i
17-12-JocWnl 8518 1 A Yes, there were.
f 2 Q Do you remember who they were mentioned by?
3 A They were mentioned by Mr. Joyner.
4 0 What did Mr. Joyner say about it?
5 A (Witness Joyner) I can answer that, if I may.
6 0 Well, let's see what he says, and we will find 7 out if that is true?
8 A Well, now, sir, the only statement that I can 9 recall --
l 10 0 What did Mr. Joyner say about it, Mr. King?
11 A (Witness King) As I recall, Mr. Joyner was making 12 reference to the quality check program which had been 13 implemented in May of 1984, and the f act that those reports, 14 since they were primarily there to help ensure the safe ;
15 construction and safe operation of the power plant, would 16 possibly at some point in time be reviewed or available to 17 NRC personnel.
So, the import was that the drug problem and I
18 0 19 the NRC, there was some reporting and you all were concerned 20 about that, is that correct, sir?
21 A We were concerned that quality check was rocciving
, 22 reports and forwarding this information to us, and if and when i 23 those reports were viewed by anybody else, we wanted satisfactory 24 answers to what they had revealed.
A,,,.i nenon.,i, w 25 0 Now, Mr. Joyner, do you agree that that is what you '
i
8519 17-13-JoeW21 1 said?
2 A (Witness Joyner) That is correct.
3 0 All right, sir. One question before I get off 4 of that subject, Mr. King.
5 Why was the request made to the Sheriff's 6 Department as opposed to the, say, Bureau of Investigation?
7 A (Witness King) We had boon working with the 8 Wake County Sheriff's Department on other matters, and we 9 felt that the Wake County Sherif f's Department was the agency 10 of primary jurisdication, sinco the plant is in Wako County.
11 0 Did you ask the Sheriff to call in the SDI? ,
12 A I did not. I was advised of his intent to do
~
3 13 that if there were an investigation, because of his shortage 14 of manpower and need for experienced operativos in this matter.
l 15 0 Without going into a lot of conversation about 16 what is in the testimony, Mr. King, as a shorthand reference, I i
17 lot me talk about gato scarches and the metal detectors.
18 You are aware of what is in the filed testimony from all partion 19 on that, do you not, sir?
20 A Yes, sir.
21 0 All right, sir. Who made the decision to -- let's ;
22 talk about metal detectors for a moment. Who modo the i i
23 l decision to utilize those?
24 A The metal detectors had been requested prior to l
, i,a nemne... ine. !
25 the inception of this undercover operation .by Mr. Shop Wagnor, i
17-14-J :W31 8520 1 who is the manager onsite for Daniel Construction Company.
2 Mr. Wagner had used these at other facilities, 3 and wanted to see them used at the Harris project for tha 4 purpose of deterring and detectint tool thef t, both company 5 tools and personal tools.
6 And when he requested this, we ordered the metal 7 detectors, and were waiting for their arrival to put them 8 into use.
9 0 How much prior to August of '84 that you started 10 talking about using metal detectors?
11 A I can't respond to that. Mr. Joyner is onsite !
12 on a daily basis and would have that knowledge.
~
13 0 Let me jump back to Mr. Joyner a minute.
t 14 A (Witness Joyner) How old are those metal detectors?
l 15 And it was pre- August, 1984. I 16 0 The month before; two months before?
17 A It was pretty close to the beginning of August.
18 0 Was this fact told to the participants at that 19 meeting from the Sheriff's Department?
20 A No, they were not. They were there to do an 21 undercover drug operation, and we were trying to curb tool j 22 thefts.
23 0 Did you not feel -- well, you were at the meeting 24 were you not, Mr. Joyner?
iera nepoei.e.. inc.
25 A Which meeting? !
l
17-15-JoeWal 8521 1 Q At the Sherif f's Department.
2 A The initial meeting?
3 0 Yes.
4 A Yes , I was.
5 Q Well, during the discussions that went on there, 6 did you not. feel it was important to bring up the fact that 7 you would be having metal detectors at the gate?
8 A No, I did not.
9 Q You did not?
10 A I did not.
11 O Why not? f 12 A As I stated previously, the metal detectors are
~~
- IL there to detect metal. They don't detect drugs.
14 Q You have training in law enforcement I believe I i
15 you testified to?
16 A That is correct. ,
17 O And are you also a sworn officer?
18 A Yes, I am.
19 O And you have roccived the same training Mr. King 20 has received?
21 A Yus, I have.
22 0 And do you have any background in undercover l 23 operations?
24 A I have never worked in narcotics undercover l ucunemnwes. w. {
25 operations. .
i
17-16-JocW21 8522 1 O Never have?
! 2 A No, I haven't.
3 0 Well, let me go back to Mr. King then; Mr. King, 4 at that meeting, you were aware, I assume, that the metal 5 detectors were forthcoming at some later date?
6 A (Witness King) That is correct.
7 0 Why did you feel -- well, did you tell anyono 8 at the meeting that they were going to be coming into uso?
9 A I did not.
10 0 And why not, sir?
I 11 A I didn't fool that the metal detectors would 12 have any impact on this type of operation based on the plans 13 wo bad for them, and the way they would be used.
i 14 0 Mr. King, recalling back your background in I
'5 undorcover work and in law enforcement, would you not agreo --
16 or would you agree or disagree that any overt activity -- you 17 know, out of the norm, that takes place during an undercover 18 operation creates some problem in the undercover operation 19 itself.
20 Would you agree or disagree with that statement?
21 A It would be dif ficult for me to either agree or i
22 disagree without more detail in that conducting an operation i 23 in the civilian populaco, you would have to identify what 24 was going to be an overt act, Aacuimumi.w. ,
25 In this particular controlled environment, s uch '
17-17-Jo:Wal 8523 1 as a construction site, which has continually changing-O 2 features on a dai1r hasis due eo its nature, the introduction 3 of something such as metal detectors is not viewed with the !
l 4 same magnitude that it would be in other instances.
3 The people on construction sites have, for the i 6 most part, been on other facilities. They are used to and
{
7 have always experienced the use of metal detectors. ;
l.
1 End 17. O i MS fois. ,
9 ,
10 l 11 ;
12 f i
13 l 14 i i
15 i l
16 17 l 10 :
i ,
19 20 ;
21 23 i An-, .. ?b.
25 i i
w.--____-_-___-_-__-_______________
8524
, Sin 18-1 1 EVENING SESSION (6:00 p.m.)
2 3 0 Well, in your experience in undercover operations, d both as a supervisor and as an operative, wouldn't you agree 5 that everyone, and the word "skiddish" comes to mind, but 6 the people, including yourscif, and also the people you are 7 dealing with are somewhat skiddish about it? They are a 8 little paranoid about who they deal with. Would you not 9 agree with that? Or is everybody very open and frank about 10 these things?
II A (Witness King) During the course of an undercover 12 narcotics operation it is commonplace for peoplo to bo 13 paranoid.
Id O And to be a littic skiddich about things, would 15 you not say? I am not trying to put words in your mouth, 16 and if that is not true, just say no.
17 A They are skiddish to the point of wanting to know 18 where they are making their donis and who they are dealing 19 with. Something such as metal detectors, if you fully 20 understand how those were used and exactly what they are 21 would not, in my opinion, causo people to be that skiddish.
22 O Well, if I recall, they wore handhold metal 23 detectors is that correct?
24 A That is correct. There was one typc.
$#.,oi n.peo.,.. w.
25 0 And is it sort of like the security guard at the
8525 Sim 18-2 ;
airport where ho rubs it up and down your body, or how did
^
y u do thoso?
2 A In the initial beginning when we first started 3
a using the metal detectors, they were used in the open with 5
suPorintendents from Danici construction Company randomly 6
oclocting pornonnel to be checked with the metal detector.
7 0 Well, was the metal detector run up and down 8
o Person's body?
A The metal detector was run and up and down the 9
10 p rnon's body. They did not havo to empty the.ir pockets or j; anything olco unions ho got an alarm.
0 If someone were to noo that, do you think ovarybody 12
^
13 w uld know that wan a metal detector?
34 A On a job sito of this typo and with the background 33 of those workorn, I would pronumo that mont of thom would 16 know that.
0 S then, Mr. King, it is your statomont that if you 17 18 woro running an undercover an an operativo and with an onvironment nuch as thin, that the uno of a metal datoctor 19 20 would not givo you any concern at all woro you in thoro in an undercover capacity?
21 22 A That in correct.
23 0 Mr. King, I am not picking on you, but you aro just 24 repronantative of the group up there I guonn. Mr. King,
$,,oi n ,,m,,,.. w on pago 32 of your filed tontimony you atato that you viewed 25
8336 Sir 18-3 1 that eight weeks was a sufficient amount of time for the 2 operation; is that correct?
3 A Are you at the bottom of page 327 4 0 I don't know. I am looking at a note. So I 5 didn't writo top or bottom or left or right. It is at tho i
6 bottom I am informed, F2. King.
7 A yes, that is correct.
8 Q Was this your opinion at the outsot?
9 A Yes, it was. As stated on pago 32 of our testi-10 mony, wo were making the plans for the operation to bo 11 approximately cight wooks given the fact that we had an 12 informer that know his way around the job cito and was 13 going to be able to introduce the operativos, and duo to the 14 clononens of the aron. The people were not going to be out 15 trying to work an entire city or antire county. They woro 16 going to be working primarily a small geographical area.
17 0 Using statomonts that have boon produced or 18 made by other witnessos that the work-a-day force out thoro 19 would be on the average of 6,000 people a day, is that 20 por shift or would that be a day?
21 A That is a total of 6,000 employcos. They would 22 have boon on various shifts, not all at one time.
23 0 Would they have boon equally split, or in that 24 hard to say?
$t..n.p.,,.,.sa.
25 A I don't have the knowledge to make that ---
8527 f
l Sic 18-4 Q Was it three shifts, two shifts or four shifts?
l ;
A (Witness Joyner) I can answer that. I am out 2
there every day. At the time this operation was going on, 3
4 there were approximately 800 people on second shift. We did n t have a third shift per se. We had an extended shift that 5
6 lasted until around 4 a.m. The first shift contained most 7
of the people.
g Q So roughly maybe 5,000 people on first shift?
A Yes, that is correct.
9 10 0 And isn't the first shift where the undercover I
! 11 operation was directed?
l A Yes, it was. Let me also add, they were not told 12 13 at the time that this operation begain that it was limited O ja to any one shift. They were given free access to the site.
Q The informant that was furnished them, what shift 15 16 did he work?
A He could work any time he wanted also. I badged j7 ja him in as I would anyone else and he had free access at any 19 time.
! 20 0 If he worked both shifts, do you think that would 21 raise any question?
22 A No, it wouldn't.
23 0 Would you informant want to work two shifts?
24 A I can't speak for him.
+.. .....
25 0 Wouldn't it make more sense to put in the large
8528 cio 18-5 1 shift, the 5,000 man shift and work that ene?
(} 2 A If I were doing it, I would put him in the mass 3 of the people.
4 A (Witness King) Mr. Cole, it should be noted that 5 we did not provide the informer. I believe that term has 6 been used. The informer was selected and was the choice 7 of the Wake County Sheriff's Department. He was not provided 8 by Carolina Power and Light Company.
9 Q You all had not input into that, Mr. King?
10 A We had a discussion on that, and we did not support 11 the use of that informant.
12 Q Did you have another one picked out?
13 A We did not.
14 A (Witness Joyner) I might add that we did not i 15 feel liko it was our responsibility to provide an informer.
16 0 Well, both of you gentlemen being undercover 17 people, and specifically Mr. King, I guess if you don't have ,
18 an informant, that you call that, what, a code operation?
19 A That is correct.
20 0 Do you feel like a code operation would have 21 been successful at the Shearon liarris plant?
22 A I do not.
23 0 Do you think an informant would have boon needed?
l 24 A Yes, I do.
Ajlhwei n,**ri. w.
25 0 Well, Mr. Joynor and Mr. King, inasmuch as you two
i 8529 91m 18-6 1 gentlemen of course related incidences carrying from '79 forward and are aware of other problems, don't you think that
_(] 2 3 you all would be in a better position to find an informant I- 4 than the Sheriff's Department?
5 A I don't feel that. The selection.of this particu1&r:
6 informant I objected to highly.
7 Q But you gave them no other alternative?
I
, 8 A I was given no other alternative by the Sheriff's 9 Department.
! 10 0 or you gave them no other alternative. *When you 11 objected to him, you didn't say well, listen, we have got 12 another one?
! i3 A But we didn't give him that one.
O 14 Q Well, we can split hairs for a while I guess, but 15 yuou didn't tell the Sheriff's Department I don't like that l
l 16 one and we can get you a better one?
?
l 17 A l I never told them that, no, sir.
i 18 A (Witness King) Mr. Cole, we, although we are
'19 law enforcement officers, do not have the availability of 20 dealing with the District Attorney's Office on a frequent 21 basis and having the opportunity to turn people, so to speak.
22 The Sheriff's Department had charged this individual as a i 23 result of him having been apprehended in possession of a l
24 quantity of controlled substances, and because of the circum-l hot n.p.*i, t=.
25, stances under which he was caught and removed from the job
8530
. 18-7 81" 1 site, all the people on the job site that had worked with 2 him knew he had been terminated and knew he had been terminated (v~)
3 for drug invovlement and we did not feel he had an adequate 4 cover story to be back on the job site.
5 We would have done whatever the Sheriff's Department l
6 requested, and did so what the Sheriff's Department requested 7 in this particular instance by going out of our way and l
8 creating a job on the job site and getting this man back 9 against our own desires.
10 0 All right. Is it, Mr. King and Mr. Joyner, is it 11 both of your beliefs that an eight-week undercover operation 12 for a plant the size of the Shearon Harris plant with as many employees in places as they are out there, would it be i fs 13 j l (_) 'l 14 sufficient to ferret out the problem? Is that your testimony?
15 A Yes,- Icfeel'like that.would be fufficient. '
16 .Q 'And you, Mr. Joyner?
l i
l 17 A (Witness Joyner) Yes, I agree.
l 1 ,
18 O Mr. King, is it your testimony that at the end of 19 the eight-week period you people that the operation'was 20 complete?
21 A (Witness King) Are you referring to a specific 22 point in the testimony?
23 0 Well, you have testified that the eight-week 24 period you thought initially was sufficient. At some point hat it.p *i. inc.
25 it terminated after approximately eight weeks; is that not
8531 cim'18-8 j correct, siE?
2 A That is correct.
3 Q Do you feel that the operation was complete at the 4 time it was terminated?
5 A Based on the circumstances existing at that time, 6 I feel like the operation was complete, yes.
7 Q Do you concur in that, Mr. Joyner?
8 A (Witness Joyner) Yes, I do. I would also like to 9 add that we did not pick that termination date. It was picked 10 by the Sheriff's Department prior to the beginning of this I ,'
Ce 11 Operation.
e ,
12 O Well, I believe it was, if I recall, and maybe I 13 am knowing more than I am hearing today, but was it going O 14 to be a look and see, we will do it in eight weeks and look 15 and see how it is doing?
16 A That was not my understanding at the time I heard 17 that from Lt. Self.
' 18 0 What was your understanding then?
,.19 A Lt.' Self stated to me the absolute last day of this 20 Operation would be January the 2nd.
21 Q And you don't recall any conversation of let's run 22 it eight weeks and take a look at it then?
23 A No, I do not.
24 Q All right, sir. Do you, Mr. King?
of Reporters, Inc, 25 A (Witness King) I was not a party to that
8532 Sim 18-9 j conversation.
2 O What conversation was that, Mr. Joyner?
bN 3 A (Witness Joyner) That was a conversation that took 4 place in Lt. Self's office at the Wake County Sheriff's 5 Department between Lt. Self and myself.
6 O Just the two of you?
7 A That is correct.
g Q When was that conversation?
9 A I don't recall the exact date of it, but I had 10 several conversations with Lt. Self. I knew him prior to, or 11 while I was with the Raleigh Police Department, and it was 12 just a talk situation, 13 0 Was this after the meeting with the SBI and es ja Sheriff Baker and everybody?
15 A That is correct.
16 0 And you were at that meeting?
17 A Yes, I was.
18 Q And was there any talk about the length of the 19 investigation there?
20 A I heard no time limit placed on it at that meeting.
21 Q All right. And no one asked any questions about how 22 long it should run?
23 A No, they didn't.
24 0 So it was at a private meeting with you and Lt. Self qllWwat a.pomn. ine.
25 that they eight weeks was talked about or the Janaury 2 date, i
. _ .. . . . _ . . ~___,.1
8533 Sim 19-10 l or whatever it was?
2 A When I say a private meeting ---
-( ) Yes.
3 MR. BAXTER: Excuse me. I would like that word 4 defined for the question, please. The previous meeting wasn't 5 public either, as far as I know.
6 MR. COLE: Well, private in the sense of just two 7 of you, Mr. Joyner.
8 WITNESS JOYNER: I might add that the conversation 9 took place when there were only two of us there. There were 10 other people that were present that had left the room at 11 that time.
12 BY MR. COLE:
f- 13 Q So just the two of you at the time that statement C
14 was made?
15 A (Witness Joyner) That is correct.
16 0 It was just a private meeting between you and 17 Lt. Self at that time?
18 A It was not a private meeting. It was just a. private 19 conversation.
20 Q I guess it is just semantics again I suppose.
21 (Pause.) ,
22 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me make a status inquiry, Mr. Cole .
23 I would assume that you will be going on for a while, and 24 perhaps we will be going over to the morning with you. Is that pren.por,.rs,inc.
25 a correct assumption if we quit fairly soon?
8534 Sim 18-11 MR. COLE: What time is it now, Your Honor?
)
gD JUDGE KELLEY: Oh, it is just a quarter after six, 2
V and I am not rushing you. I just want to know where you 3
stand roughly.
4 MR. COLE: Well, any lawyer who isn't given overnight 5
before he can come back at a witness is crazy. I will tell 6
you that I can drown on and on, Judge.
7
""9 *#*
8 JUDGE KELLEY: Wha'c is your ball-park guess, 9
10
- h. Cole?
jj MR. COLE: Judge, looking here, I probably have five ther pages over and two here, and some of them I 12 see are repetitive to the questions that have been asked. But O' j4 I would say we are probably talking at least another 30 minutes .
(B ard conferring.)
15 This panel will be back in the morning in any case.
16 j7 Is anybody leaving on a plane tonight if they could?
MR. B M ER: No.
18 j9 JUDGE KELLEY: So you could come again and start in the morning?
20 MR. BAXTER: Yes.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, let me put a proposition to 22 y u then. We could stop at this point and we could finish 23 up here in the morning. Mr. Cole's estimate and my estimate 24 ti Reporters, Inc.
of the Board and the others is that we would probably be done 25
~
8535
. -dim 18-12 1 with this panel by mid-morning I would just guess. Then would e' 2 we go to Mr. Barth's panel per our earlier discussion?
)
3 MR. COLE: That is fine.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: Is that the game plan?
5 MR. COLE: Yes, sir.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, it is 6:15. Why don't we stop 7 and come back here tomorrow morning.
8 Hold on here just a minute.
9 (Board conferring.)
10 9 o' clock?
- 11 MR. BARTH: Your Honor, we would like certainly to 12 either continue or start earlier. Mr. Bush is going to leave 13 this room at 3:30. He outweighs me and I can't stop him. He 14 is going to Texas, the agency.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, can we go on for another 15 16 minutes and then we will still expect to hear from you a 17 little in the morning, Mr. Cole, and we can start at 8:30.
18 Would that do you any good?
19 MR. BARTH: I sincerely appreciate your consideration ,
, 20 Your Honor.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Will that assist the situation, do 22 you think, Mr. Barth?
23 MR. BARTH: Yes.
24 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Let's go another 15 al Reporters, Inc.
25 . minutes and start at 8:30 in the morning.
8536 Sim 18-13 1 BY MR COLE:
2 O Mr. King, I know we have already talked about
}
3 the sniff dogs, the drug dogs. So I won't go inot that. But 4 at the meeting in which the drug dogs were talked about, you 5 were present there; is that correct?
6 A (Witness King) The meeting with the Sheriff's 7 Department?
8 0 Yes.
9 A Yes.
10 Q And Mr. Joyner was there?
11 A No, Mr. Joyner was not at that meeting I don't 12 believe.
13 0 Who was present there then?
g3 O A I believe in attendance at that meeting were 14 15 Mr. Overton, Sheriff Baker, myself and possibly some of 16 Sheriff Baker's people.
17 Q Mr. King, did you ever have an, discussions with 18 any of the undercover operatives or their supervisory 19 personnel concerning moving the undercover operation to another 20 shift?
21 A The conversations involving that occurred mid to 22 late December, and the only thing I recall was a telephone 23 conversation with Lt. Self that that is what he was going to 24 Propose.
h iit. pore ri,Inc.
25 O Did you have any comment or feeling about that
8537 Sim 18-14 'l request?
2 A I was basically trying to feel him out for what
(
3 he thought he was going to gain by going to the second shift.
4 I did not know at that time of any intention of wanting to I
5 extend the operation, and he offered no real support for his 6 request to go to the second shift. He knew that the informer 7 and the two undercover operatives had full freedom of the job 8 site to go anywhere at any time they wanted to, and it was 9 not a matter that he needed to discuss with us. If he wanted 10 to work on second shift, he as the supervisor of the operation Il could have done that at any point in time.
12 Q Well, again, I guess we get back to the fact that 13 we had two undercover operatives and we had one informer and I4 he was the informant for both; is that correct?
15 A That is correct.
16 Q Well, wouldn't it be true that inasmuch as we 17 weren't running a code operation but were running an operation 18 with an. informant that the scope of the operation itself would I9 be severely limited by how many people the informant knew?
20 A In the beginning I would expect that to be true.
2I Q And then afterwards?
22 A If the officers got in and started making contacts 23 and moving out on their own, I would expect them to be able 24 to move in any number of different directions with the
$mi n.porem, inc.
25 operation.
8538 Sim 18-15 j Q Such as what, Mr. King?
A To move out of the circle in which they were D 2
[V 3
making the buys and even move from one shift to another shift 4
with the freedom that they had been given.
0 With or without an informant?
5 A They should not have to continue to rely on the 6
7 inf rmant throughout the entire operation to make their buys.
If they are doing that, they are not using him as an informer 8
9 but they are using him as a lead man.
10 Q All right. So you are saying when informant "A" 11 leads you to purchaser "B" or seller "B", whichever the case 12 migfht be, that you ought to branch out and see if you can't 13 utilize him? Is that your philosophy in the thing?
ja A You should use your continuing contact with new 15 Persons as you make buys to further your operation.
0 Is that the way you worked when you were working 16 j7 under cover?
A Yes. to an extent. I also did not use just one 18 j9 informer.
20 A (Witness Bensinger) I would just add as an observation that that is essentially the responsibility of 21 22 the undercover agent, and that the Drug Enforcement Administra-23 tion where our agents work under very threatening situations, 24 and I can tell you myself that that reaches the Administrator, het a. port.n, Inc.
25 having been the subject of a number of death threats
~ . . .. . .
8539 Sim 18-16 1 personally and involved specifically with the approval of investigation of targets of investigation, that the agent
'( ) 2 3 must move from the informant based individuals up the ladder 4 to other individuals, and that a DE agent that just worked 5 with individuals that the informant brought to them was not 6 successfully discharging their duties.
7 And when we would have our group supervisors in 8 and would get involved in detailed investigation, if the 9 only people that we were actually arresting were individuals 10 who had already been identified by the informant, the agent 11 wasn't accomplishing really the objective of the investigation .
.12 MR. COLE: Thank you, Mr. Bensinger. You have
-)
J.
13 successfully cut off debate again with polish I might add.
14 ' WITNESS BENSINGER: I don't know. I have stayed 15 as Administrator longer than anybody else at DEA, and if 16 didn't have some basis of understanding of what the princip&1 17 investigative technique of our agency was, which is under-18 cover investigations, then I don't know why.
19 MR. COLE: Mr. Chairman, I have two other areas, 20 and if you would allow us to break now, I promise that they 21 will not last more than 14 minutes or 20 minutes in the 22 morning.
23 JUDGE KELLEY: That is fine. Let's stop right 24 now and come back at 8:30 tomorrow morning.
, hol it pers.n. inc.
25 Anything else that anybody has to raise?
8540
-Sim 18-17 (No response.)
1 Thank you.
O Mr. Runkel?
l 3
MR. RUNKLE: I will raise it later.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
5 (Whereupon, at 6:25 p.m., the hearing recessed, 6
to reconvene at 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, October 1 1985.)
7 8
i 9
10 11 12
.. 13 )
m 14 15 16 17 ,
. 18 19 20 .
21 d
22 23 24 11 Reporters, Inc.
25 1-
n NO PAGE NUMBER CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
(^
d This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSISON in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT EVIDENTIARY HEARING DOCKET NO.: 50-400-OL PLACE: APEX, NORTH CAROLINA DATE: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 were held herein appears, and that this is the official C transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt) M .
(TYPED) Garrett J.61fialsh 9
(sigt) Ih j (TYPED)' Sue Walsh ,
(sigt) W (TYPED) Mary S(mons MN Official Reporters Reporter's Affiliation G
O September 23, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant) )
O APPLICANTS' TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM J. HINDMAN, JR., MICHAEL W. KING, D. GLENN JOYNER, MICHAEL L. PLUEDDEMANN AND PETER B. BENSINGER ON THE UNDERCOVER DRUG INVESTIGATION (CCNC CONTEN* ION WB-3)
O 1
. - - , . - - , - - - - . , _ . - . _ , - - - - - - - . - _ - , - - . , - - - ~ ~ . . - - - ,-,---..,,r.,, -- ,an.--.
Q.1 Please state your names.
O A.1 William J. Hindman, Jr., Michael W. King, D. Glenn Joyner, Michael L. Plueddemann and Peter B. Bensinger.
Mr. Hindman, by whom are you' employed, and what is Q.2 your position? l A.2 (WJH): I am employed by Carolina Power & Light Com-pany as Manager, Harris Project Administration, at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
Q.3 Please summarize your professional qualifications and describe your responsibilities which are relevant to this con-f tantion on drug abuse during construction.
A.3 (WJH): I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Clemson University. I began full-time employment at the Harris site on February 17, 1979, as a Senior O Engineer in the Project Analysis element of the Harris site Management organization. Prior to that time I was on site part-time as Senior Engineer-Staff reporting to the Vice Presi-dent for Power Plant Construction. I served as Director-Project Analysis beginning in May, 1980, and as Manager-Harris Project Administration beginning in December, 1983. A complete statement of my professional qualifications is appended as Attachment 1 to this testimony.
w l My responsibilities include service as the on site manager designated to interface with the CP&L construction security representatives who are responsible for construction security for the Harris Project. With respect to drug' activity among employees at the Harris site, I have been designated by the F
e
,-- - w- .,,e - --,.me-.c ----,-.<yw---r ~,,--ee.,...-.;w. ,,,,,,_,~,---e -- ---,--.y g-- n- ,.,,---n -+-,,-r ---,g-,-,.-- y m.g-, ,- -, -. ---
Vice President, Harris Nuclear Project Department, as the O project level- coordinator of information pertaining to illegal drug use on the Harris Project.
Q.4 Mr. King, by whom are you employe'd, and what is your position?
A.4 (MWK): I am employed by Carolina Power & Light Com-pany as Senior Commissioned Construction Security Agent, in the Support Services Section of the Nuclear Plant Construction De-partment. As my job classification implies, I am a commis-sioned law enforcement officer. Functionally, I am Supervisor of the Construction Security Unit.
Q.5 Please summarize your professional qualifications and describe your responsibilities which are relevant to the con-tention.
U,s A.5 (MWK): I have been employed by CP&L in various secu-rity positions since February, 1978. Previously, I spent over seven years on the Raleigh Police Department, where my assign-ments included narcotics investigations. My experience as a narcotics investigator has included work as an undercover offi-cer while on active duty with the military, and undercover operations while in civilian law enforcement. The last under-cover operation that I participated in as an undercover officer lasted for seven months. This operation resulted in the arrest of more than 100 suspects on over 300 felony indictments. In addition, I have received classroom training in college and law enforcement schools on Narcotics and Drug Abuse, Drug O
V 2
Identification, Drug Analysis, and all applicable laws of ar-rest, search and seizure. I have been a member of the armed services of the United States since February, 1967. My most w
recent tour has been *ith the United States Army Reserves, serving in law enforcement positions and as a Military Police instructor among other duties. I have completed Military Po-lice Officers' Basic and Advance Courses, and I earned a B.S.
degree in. Police Science in 1976 from North Carolina Wesleyan College. I am a member of the North Carolina Law Enforcement Officers Association, and have been awarded an Advanced Law En-forcement Certificate from the North Carolina Criminal Justice Training and Standards Commission. A complete statement of my education, training and experience is appended as Attachment 2 to this testimony.
My responsibilities as Supervisor of the Construction Se-curity Unit currently include review of construction activities and formulation of recommendations to management on security plans and procedures designed to protect Company facilities, material, equipment and personnel; supervision of contractor security organizations' performance; conduct of periodic project security reviews; conduct of confidential security in-vestigations; and coordination with and assistance to all lev-els of law enforcement in matters concerning Company-owned ma-terials and equipment or Company personnel. Since construction of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant has been by far the 1
most significant construction activity within CP&L for the past '
O ,
seven years, security at that site has dominated my responsi-4 bilities. With respect to the identification and control of drug use and activity within the work force at the Shearon Harris construction site, I have been responsible for and per-sonally involved in the following: preparation and inple-4 mentation of the Site Security Plan and Procedure; from February, 1978, to September, 1979, onsite supervision of the security program a minimum of three days per week; since September, 1979, supervision of a CP&L on-site Construction Se-curity Agent (Mr. Joyner) who reports to me; the conduct and supervision of two undercover operations and one investigation with members of the Wake County Sheriff's Department (WCSD) and the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI); primary interface be-tween the site and all law enforcement agencies; and review of 4
all security incident and investigative reports.
Q.6 Mr. Joyner, by whom are you employed, and what is your position?
A.6 (DGJ): I am employed by Carolina Power & Light Com-pany as Commissioned Construction Security Agent at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. I report to Mr. King, and I am also a commissioned law enforcement officer.
Q.7 Please summarize your professional qualifications and
- describe your respcnsibilities which are relevant to this con-tantion. .
A.7 (DGJ): I have been employed by CP&L in security posi-tions at the Harris site since September, 1979. Previously, I O. -4_
spent over nine years as an Investigator with the Raleigh Po-lice Department. In addition to my other training as an inves- ;
tigator, I received narcotics investigation training with the l l
Raldigh Police Academy and refresher training for my position with CP&L. I earned a B.S. degree in Police Science in 1977 from North Carolina Wesleyan College. My studies there includ-ed Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. A complete statement of my professional qualifications is appended as Attachment 3 to this testimony.
My responsibilities at the Harris site include review of Harris construction activities and formulation of recommenda-tions to Harris management on security plans and procedures de-signed to protect Company facilities, material, equipment and
_ personnel; supervision of Harris contractor security organiza-tion's performance; conduct of periodic Harris Project security reviews; conduct of confidential security investigations at Harris; and coordination with and assistance to law enforcement agencies on Harris matters.
Q.8 Mr. Plueddemann, by whom are you employed, and what is your position?
A.8 (MLP): I am employed by Daniel Construction Company as Senior Industrial Relations Representative at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
Q.9 Please summarize your professional qualifications and describe your responsibilities which are relevant to this con-tention.
A
(~) -
- e
--. . . _ . - - - - - , . . . ..---,..v-.. . . - - - - - - . - - - - - - - , --,
A.9 (MLP): I have been employed at the Harris site since O. 1978. Among my responsibilities are the administration of Daniel drug policies and search / seizure procedures, and the in-vestigation of alleged narcotic violations by Daniel employees.
- I have a bachelor's degree from East Carolina University. A complete statement of my professional qualifications is 4
appended as Attachment 4 to this testimony.
Q.10 Mr. Bensinger, by whom are you employed, and what is your position?
A.10 (PBB): I am President of Bensinger, Dupont and Asso-ciates, Inc., a professional consulting firm providing services to private industry, national and community organizations and 2
government, on the problems of drug and alcohol abuse, includ-ing its impact on the work place. I have described my training, experience and qualifications in my previous testi-mony on the drug abuse control policies and training at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
Q.11 What_is the purpose of this-testimony?
A.11 (WJH): The purpose of this testimony is to respond in part to the allegations in CCNC Contention WB-3 that " drug use at the Harris Plant is widespread" and that " Applicants' a
management has failed to control drug use during the construc-
~
tion." In particular, this testimony provides information on
- the undercover drug investigation conducted at the Harris site last year, and responds to the Affidavit of S. L. Burch, dated July 31, 1985, on the same subject. Our testimony demonstrates
...r,, . -- . .- -.,_ ,_ . . - ~ . . , , , . , - - . - , _ , - --c.._, m.. p . - . - , , , - ---w,.-- -r -.
y
1 that CP&L was fully supportive of and cooperative with the in- l vestigation, that CP&L took no actions which endangered the I l
lives of the undercover operatives, and that CP&L did not l 1
-thwart the investigation or purposely impede its operation.
Q.12 How is your testimony organized?
A.12 (WJH): We will first describe the facts surrounding l the proposed initiation of the undercover operation and CP&L's motivation for undertaking it. Second, we will describe the basic mode of operation established at the outset of the inves-tigation, and CP&L's role in supporting it. Third, we will re-spend to the assertions in the Burch Affidavit that particular actions taken by CP&L endangered the safety of the undercover operatives and hampered their effectiveness. Fourth, we will describe the circumstances surrounding the decision to termi-O nate the investigation. Finally, we assess what the undercover
~
operation reveals about the extent of drug activity among Harris site employees.
Q.13 Have each of you read the July 31, 1985 Affidavit of S. L. Burch filed with the Response by the Attorney General of North Carolina to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of CCNC Contention WB-3 (Drug Abuse During Construction)?
A.13 (WJH, MWK, DGJ, MLP, PBB); Yes.
Q.14 Before ve begin discussing the undercover investiga-tion in some detail, would each of you please describe your personal role in that operation and in the recent inquiry into the Burch Affidavit?
O ,
l i i
A.14 (WJH): I was involved in the decision to initiate O the investigation and essentially represented Harris Project management in the initial planning for the undercover investi-gation. CP&L Security (Mr. Joyner or Mr. King) kept me in-formed of the progress of the investigation while it was being conducted. The investigation involved two undercover opera-tives -- Deputy Hensley of the WCSD and Agent Williams of the SBI -- as well as an inside informant. I assisted CP&L Securi-ty in making necessary arrangements for the officers and the 1 informant to work on site, and I personally met with the two operatives to invite them to contact me in the event they needed any assistance.
On July 18, 1985, I attended a meeting with Wake County a
Sheriff Baker, Major Lanier and counsel to review our summary O disposition motion which had just been filed. After the Burch Affidavit was filed, I attended another meeting with WCSD per-sonnel (including Sheriff Baker, Major Lanier, Lt. Self and Deputy Hensley) on August 12, 1985, at which we discussed the assertions made by Ms. Burch and the reply CP&L was preparing to file with the NRC.
(MWK): I was involved in the decision to initiate the in-vestigation and attended the planning meeting with the law en-forcement agencies prior to initiation of the investigation, and the meeting at which the decision was reached to terminate the operation. During the operation, I was in routine contact with Mr. Joyner, my on-site agent, on the daily progress of the O - . . - _ . _ - . - - . . , - - . _ . . . . . . . - , . . . - . - . . . . . . . - - . _ , .
investigation. On the few occasions when Mr. Joyner was away, k-) I was on site to coordinate with the officers. I also attended the August 12, 1985 meeting with the WCSD which Mr. Hindman just described.
(DGJ): I was involved in the decisions to initiate the undercover investigation, the planning of the operation, CP&L support for the operation, and the regular contact and coordination with the undercover agents. I provided the agents with the intelligence on drug activity available to CP&L Secu-rity, advised the agents on the evaluation and pursuit of information being obtained, and generally assisted them in any way I could. I attended the August 12, 1985 meeting with WCSD personnel, along with Mr. King and Mr. Hindman. In addition, I attended a meeting with former SBI Agent Williams and counsel on September 11, 1985, to discuss the contents of the Burch Af-fidavit.
(MLP): During the undercover investigation I acted as an on-site contact with the two law enforcement undercover opera-tives. I met with both operatives on a regular basis during the operation -- almost every day that they were on the site.
I also attended the September 11, 1985 meeting with former SBI Agent Williams, which Mr. Joyner just described.
(PBB): I was not involved in the undercever investiga-tion. I have reviewed the Burch Affidavit and the reply affi-davits filed by Applicants, however, and I have discussed the investigation with CP&L Security personnel sufficiently to
_g.
. ~~~
d I.
understand what occurred. My purpose here is to assess the propriety of several actions taken by CP&L, from the standpoint of my role as a Company advisor on the control of drug activity in the work place. Based upon my law enforcement experience with narcotics investigations, I will also evaluate the conduct
.,E of this operation and what legitimately can be concluded from its results.
Q.15 Mr. King, Ms. Burch states in paragraph 4 of her af-i l fidavit, that in a planning meeting of October 17, 1984, which
- you and Mr. Joyner attended, you advised that the NRC was 4
- putting pressure on CP&L to look into the drug problem at the Harris site. Did you make such a statement?
f A.15 (MWK): I did not state that the NRC or anyone else i was putting pressure on CP&L to conduct an unde'rcover operation at the Harris site. In fact, the CP&L proposal to conduct the operation arose from our own desire to curb drug activity at the project.
I Q.16 Mr. Joyner, you also attended the meeting. Did Mr.
King make the statement attributed to him by Ms. Burch? l A.16.(DGJ): I do not recall any statement made by Mr.
King indicating that pressure from any source was our motivation for requesting the drug operation. In fact, the operation came about because of a weekly report I wrote on August 16, 1984,, which advised of drug information we were j receiving about employees at the site. Mr. M. A. McDuffie, CP&L Senior Vice President, Nuclear Generation Group, read the O
i
l report and telephoned me to discuss it. I suggested to Mr.
f-s McDuffie that we should proceed with an undercover operation utilizing members of the law enforcement community as opera-tives. He then contacted Mr. Watson, Vice-President, Harris Nuclear Project Department, and,.after further discussion, a letter was sent on August 30, 1984 from Mr. Watson to the WCSD requesting a meeting to discuss the drug activity. I am not aware of any external pressure by anyone on anyone to conduct the undercover operation.
Q.17 Does the Burch Affidavit, then, unfairly import to CP&L a reluctance to initiate this investigation?
A.17 (WJH): In my opinion, yes. By implying that CP&L did not really want to undertake this investigation but was forced to do so, Ms. Burch attempts to apply to later CP&L ac-tions a motive of intent to thwart the investigation. In con-trast, CP&L proposed the investigation on its own and wanted it to be effective. The many steps CP&L took in support of the operation, which we will describe, demonstrate that commitment.
At the July 16, 1985 meeting I mentioned earlier, Sheriff Baker observed that CP&L deserved great credit for taking the initia-tive to propose this investigation at the Harris Plant.
(PBB): I would like to add my concurrence to Sheriff Baker's reported observation. Cooperation with law enforcement agencies in undercover investigations is a very positive ele-ment of a corporation's arsenal of tools to combat drugs in the workplace. Such operations not only serve to identify
(
violators of the company's drug abuse policies, but also to deter future drug activity among the employee population con-templating the use of drugs on the job. However, as I discuss later, the cooperation must come from the law enforcement side as well, and overriding corporate responsibilities cannot be ignored or suspended indefinitely in the interest of pursuing criminal prosecutions.
Q.18 In paragraph 4 of her affidavit, Ms. Burch states that at the October 17, 1984 planning meeting, Sheriff Baker indicated he was limited in experienced manpower, but that he would assign an individual to act as an undercover operative.
Is this true?
A.18 (DGJ): Yes. To my knowledge, Lt. Self at that time was the only member of the WCSD drug unit. Lt. Self was placed in overall charge of the investigation. Deputy K. G. Hensley, who was assigned to be the WCSD undercover operative, did not have previous narcotics investigation experience, and had been working with and teaching computer systems for the WCSD.
Q.19 Ms. Burch continues that at the same meeting Sheriff Baker requested that the SBI furnish an experienced undercover operative to work with the WCSD, and that the SBI assured Sher-iff Baker it would assist in whatever way possible. Is this also true?
, A.15 (DGJ): Yes. The SBI assigned an experienced under-cover operative, Special Agent Williams, who is now employed by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in Pittsburgh. During our meeting of September 11, 1985, Mr. Williams indicated that k/ he left the employ of the SBI on February 22, 1985, and that he learned of his acceptance by DEA in December, 1984, during the undercover operation.
Q.20 What did CP&L do in support of the investigation?
A.20 (DGJ): An important initial contribution was to re-spond to the request for a confidential informant. During the planning stage for the operation, Lt. Self of the WCSD stated that in order to help the undercover operatives gain access to the drug dealers, he wanted the assistance, as an informant, of a particular employee who had been terminated and turned over to the WCSD for possession of cocaine. The individual agreed to perform this role in exchange for the anticipated dropping of criminal charges against him after successful completion of the operation, and with the understanding that he would not testify in any subsequent criminal proceedings. Consequently, only purchases by the law enforcement officers could be the basis for arrests. The informant had been an employee of Davis Electric Company, a sub-contractor of Daniel Construction Com-pany. Because this individual had been terminated for vi-olating site drug abuse policies, Davis personnel (unaware of the investigation) could not be persuaded to re-hire him. We then arranged to have the former employee hired through a tem-porary agency with his salary paid by CP&L, and gave him total access to the site. It was understood by the WCSD and others ;
involved in the investigation that co-workers of this former G
i
4 employee knew he had been fired and knew the reasons for his termination. I personally cautioned against the selection of this informant because his co-workers would be suspicious about
- his re-employment. Nevertheless, the WCSD proceeded with this informant and a cover story was developed to the effect that 4
the charges could not be proven against him.
I gave badges to both operatives (Hensley and Williams) under a fictitious company (Management Consultants). In the case of Deputy Hensley, his assigned consultant work involved terminals for computer systems -- a role which utilized his expertise at the WCSD. Agent Williams posed as a management analyst. The agents were both told that they had access to the plant site on any shift and at any time they needed it, and.'
were provided with security passes so they could enter and de-part the site at their own discretion at any time and without escort. Given the nature of their consultant roles, the opera-I tives were not tied to a single shift or work area. In other words, other employees would not necessarily expect their work to require strict adherence to a given shift schedule. The op- !
eratives were provided with private office space in the main construction building, a telephone and a sign en the door iden-tifying their fictitious company. I took hard hats home and l J
painted them for the operatives' use, adding their names and I company. I also provided Agent Williams with a pair of boots for use on the site.
i
, . _ , , , , _ - - , ..- - . , - . -.,m .-m, , - _ . - . , , . -- ,..,..- -- m..,, ,_.,-,..-r,w., -..-.b
i
\
l Mr. Plueddemann and I were available to the operatives on
) a daily basic, and did all follow-up work to make positive identification of each person reported to have used, possessed or sold drugs. In addition to the assistance provided by the confidential informant, we provided the agents, at the outset of the. operation, with a list of employees we suspected of drug activity, and shared intelligence on likely locations of drug activity.
(WJH): In my opinion, CP&L cooperated fully with the law enforcement officers during the investigation. I would like to echo Mr. Joyner's statement and emphasize that we went to con-siderable effort to acco'modate m the Sheriff's Department re-quest for this particular confidential informant. In addition, I personally told the operatives that they should contact me if I could be of any assistance during the operation or if prob-lems arose. On only one occasion did I receive a request for assistance. Deputy Hensley requested my assistance in finding a legitimate reason to allow him to get into a particular work area. I gave him a letter of authorization that he could carry which provided him with a reason to be in that area. Neither the undercover operatives nor any of their supervisors in the Wake County Sheriff's Department or SBI ever came to me or called me to indicate that they had concerns about CP&L's coop-eration during the investigation or concern that CP&L's actions were endangering the operatives.
. (DGJ): During the undercover operation, Deputy Hensley and I worked well together and developed a relationship of mu-tual trust. It was my impression that Deputy Hensley was satisfied with and appreciative of the assistance I provided.
l (WJH, MWK, DGJ): During our meeting of August 12, 1985, Deputy Hensley stated that we were' totally supportive of his efforts on site, and cooperated with him in every way that,we could.
(DGJ, MLP): During our meeting of September 11, 1985, Mr.
Williams stated that he received cooperation and everything that he needed from CP&L during the undercover operation. He ,
1 also stated that he never felt that we or others involved in j the operation did not want it to succeed.
Q.21 Let us turn next to the specific assertions by Ms.
Burch about CP&L's conduct during the investigation. I para-graph-6 of her affidavit, Ms. Burch states that the initiation 'l two to.three weeks into the operation of a gate search using metal detectors slowed the progress of the undercover opera-tion,_and implies that it caused employees to suspect the pres-ence of a " snitch" on site. Please respond to this assertion.
A.21 (DGJ): CP&L did initiate a gate exit search with hand-held metal detectors on November 12, 1984, on a random se-lection of employees. If the undercover operation began on November 6, 1984 (the date of the first buy),,then the metal
-detector search was not initiated two to three weeks into the operation as Ms. Burch states, and could not have slowed its
-(
_ " progress," since it had barely begun. All of the remaining drug purchases were made after initiation of the metal detector searches. The purpose of this search was to curb tool theft at the site, and not to detect drugs. The metal detectors would only detect metal -- not drugs. They had been requested by the new construction manager well before the undercover operation had been conceived. Deputy Hensley did express concern about those searches, in that he felt the availability of drugs might-i be affected. I advised him that the detectors had been used for one week, and that to stop their use abruptly would arouse 4
suspicion as well as require additional personnel to be in-formed of the undercover operation. The agents expressed no concern as to their safety. Further, there was no perceived retrenchment in drug activity in the circle of employees with which the operatives were involved.
i ,
(MWK): The use of metal detectors has little impact on the possession of drugs when used in the manner employed at the 4'i Harris site. The searches are performed at the end of the
~ l'
- shift, not at the beginning, on a random basis to supplement the visual inspection of containers. The detectors will only identify metal objects concealed on a person. The individual is allowed to empty his or her pockets before the search, and is not subject to further searches unless the unit alarms. The metal detectors are used to detect tool and material thefts.
Their use was requested prior to the undercover operation by Daniel management personnel who were not aware of the
(
t l
investigation. While CP&L could have stopped this search pro-cedure, such action would have caused suspicion and would have required informing more personnel about the investigation.
(WJH): I would like to confirm that the metal detectors were requested well before the beginning of the undercover operation by the new Daniel construction manager. There was never any consideration that the metal detectors might affect the operation. Initiating use of the metal detectors was not considered an unusual or even a particularly significant event.
ALconstruction project is not like a manufacturing operation where routine procedures remain in effect for extended periods, and where even minor changes may attract attention. In a large construction project like Harris, workers expect procedures to
. be changed and new procedures to be initiated regularly. That
\
is just part of the work environment at a construction site.
The use of metal detectors is common in the nuclear construc-tion industry; workers with experience on other sites would probably already have been familiar with their use. I do not believe the use of the metal detectors would have generated concern among drug users about a " snitch" on site.
(PBB): I have several comments about the metal detector issue. First, I confirm Mr. Hindman's testimony that use of such metal detectors is common in the nuclear construction in-
, dustry, and should not have aroused the suspicion of those in-volved in drugs or disrupted the investigation. Second, an ex-perienced undercover agent could have used this development to
bind his contacts with suspects by sharing intelligence about O
k# the use of the detectors and discussing, from a confident posi-tion of superior knowledge, that the suspects should not have any problems with them.
Q.22 Have you recently discussed this aspect of the Burch Affidavit with the agents actually involved?
A.22 (WJE, MWK, DGJ): Yes. During our meeting with the WCSD on August 12, Lt. Self and Deputy Hensley stated that their concern with initiation of the metal detector searches was simply that any changes at the site were detrimental since they might arouse the paranoid suspicions of those inv'olved in drug activity. They agreed, however, that there was no appar-ent diminishment in drug activity by those under investigation.
(DGJ, MLP): During our meeting with Agent Williams on (h
'- September 11, 1985, he also stated that he did not like any changes at the site to be made during the investigation, but that he had no particular problem with the metal detectors and did not even raise a concern at the time with CP&L.
(WJH): I can understand why changes in site procedures made agents unfamiliar with power plant construction to be un-comfortable, but as I indicated earlier, it is unrealistic to expect to freeze activities in a huge and evolving construction project. In order to preserve the secrecy of the operation, as well as to proceed 'to build the plant, CP&L could not back-pedal on safety and security for possible perceptual problems involving the investigation.
O . . , - -- _ _. . , -
Q.23 Ms. Burch states, in paragraph 7 of her affidavit,
(~%
that Lt. Self of the WCSD reported that he was advised by the informant that Mr. King and Mr. Joyner were searching stash areas on site after they were informed of the stash areas by Deputy Hensley, and that Lt. Self instructed Hensley to cease reporting stash area locations to CP&L Security in order to in-sure Deputy Hensley's safety. Mr. King and Mr. Joyner, did you search stash areas during the investigation?
A.23 (MWK): I am not assigned to the Harris site full time, and I did not conduct any search of stash areas (loca-tions to store drugs) based on information provided by Deputy Hensley. During the course of the undercover operation, only two' drug investigations were conducted by CP&L Security person-nel. The first involved a plastic bag of marijuana found on O the ground. The sec.ond involved a second-shift employee who was reported by industrial safety personnel as being in posses-sion of marijuana. All other drug-related information received was given to Deputy Hensley for use in his investigation.
(DGJ): No , we did not search stash areas. In fact, we were not informed of any stash area locations by Deputy Hensley or Agent Williams.
(MWK, DGJ): During our meeting of August 12, 1985, Deputy Hensley confirmed that he did not advise us of any stash area locations -- which he also stated were constantly changing. ,
l Q.24 Ms. Burch states, in paragraph 7 of her affidavit, j l
that on one occasion Deputy Hensley received information that ;
I O
V _ _. _. __ _ _
two employees were to bring a large amount of marijuana inside the plant, and that Deputy Hensley asked CP&L Security to allow the two individuals to pass through the gate. Instead, ac-cording to Ms. Burch, CP&L personnel stopped the employees at the gate, searched them and confiscated the marijuana, causing further talk to a " snitch" operating inside the plant. Is this correct?
A.24 (DGJ, MLP): Do. It should also be noted that the SBI was not involved in these events.
(DGJ): I was present on December 20, 1984, when the in-formant told Deputy Hensley about the two employees who were to bring a large quantity of marijuana on site the next morning.
Mr. Plueddemann then joined the discussion.
(DGJ, MLP): Deputy Hensley had tried on numerous occa-sions to purchase drugs from these two suspected employees.
Deputy Hensley and the informant told us that these employees would sell to 'tdue informant, but not to Deputy Hensley, who advised that he would not be able to make a case against these employees. There was never a request to let these individuals pass through the gate. To the contrary, it was discussed and agreed that we should proceed to search these employees since they would not sell to Deputy Hensley and because they could be bringing a large amount of marijuana on site for distribution to other employees. The plan was to have a sheriff's deputy with a search warrant at the site the following morning to search the two individuals as they attempted to enter. Deputy O __,
Hensley agreed with the plan, and everyone agreed that it would
>O not compromise the cover of either Deputy Hensley or the"infor-mant. Deputy Hensley telephoned Lt. Self, in our presence, to explain the plan.
(DGJ): During the same call, I discussed the plan with Lt. Self. I later telephoned Lt. Self in the evening to go over the plan and his suggestion of getting a search warrant.
I arrived on site on the morning of December 21, 1984, ex-pecting to meet Lt. Self or someone else from the WCSD.
(MLP): On the morning of December 21, 1984, I arrived at the plant site at approximately 6:00 a.m. and met Mr. Joyner in his office. He told me that he talked to Lt. Self again at
- home the previous night and discussed the plan to stop these two individuals. Mr. Joyner stated that Lt. Self had agreed with the plan and would have a deputy with a search warrant to support us.
(DGJ, MLP): ,
When no officers arrived, we decided that we had no choice but to proceed to search these two employees, rather than knowingly to allow a potentially large quantity of drugs to be brought on site. The two suspects were found to ;
1 have drugs. One had two packages of marijuana in his pants; the other had a package of marijuana in his pants and a small-amount of cocaine in a pocket. ,
The marijuana was packaged in individual glassine bags and clearly was for distirbution to other persons. While a search by CP&L Security had not previ-ously been discussed (in view of the plan to arrest the O _ .__ _
~ _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ . - . _ . _ __- _ _. .__. _ __._ _ - _ . _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ -
employees), we felt we had WCSD agreement that the employees
\ should be stopped and searched. We reported the results of the search to Deputy Hensley later that morning. He seemed quite pleased and reiterated that this was the only way to have han-died these two suspects since they would not sell to the agents.
Q.25 Have you discussed your recollection of these events with Lt. Self and Deputy Hensley?
A.25 (DGJ): Yes, at the meeting of August 12, 1985. Dep-uty Hensley agreed that he did not request that CP&L Security allow the two individuals to pass through the gate. Rather, he was interested principally in arresting the two employees in some manner. Deputy Hensley also recalls hearing me discuss with Lt. Self the possibility of getting a search warrant.
O
\# When the arrangements for conducting a WCSD search with a war-rant prior to entry on site did not work out, Deputy Hensley agreed in retrospect that CP&L Security took an understandable and appropriate action in preventing the drugs from coming on site. Lt. Self could not recall precisely why the WCSD did not appear to arrest the workers, but expressed the belief that they were distracted by a priority drug investigation.
Q.26 Did this discussion change your recall about what occurred?
A.26 (DGJ, MLP): No. We are convinced that our recol-lection of the events is correct. It simply is not true that we went against WCSD instructions or requests when we stopped these two employees.
l l
l
Q.27 Mr. Bensinger, in your view did Mr. Joyner and Mr.
.(8I 4
x/ Plueddemann do the right thing or the wrong thing?
A.27 (PBB): Unquestionably they did the right thing.
CP&L has a drug abuse policy which is founded on its obliga-tions to its customers, employees, and regulatory authorities.
Exceptions to the implementation of this policy must be based on very good reasons. In my view, it would have been irrespon-sible to allow anyone to bring quantities of drugs onto the site. The law enforcement agent had no reasonable prospect cf building a case against them and indicated that they should be stopped. It is unreasonable to expect to stretch a company's cooperation with an undercover operation to the point where drug activity is being facilitated rather than eliminated, and where the company's commitment to safety and security is know-kl ingly compromised.
Q.28 In paragraph 9 of her affidavit, Ms. Burc states that employees dealing in drugs included a QA person whose du-ties included inspecting electrial pulls. It is also stated that he was dismissed after Deputy Hensley identified him to CP&L Security. At least a possible inference from these state- ,
l ments is that the dismissal somehow was adverse to the investi- I l
gation. Is that correct?
A.28 (DGJ): No. In fact, this employee worked in Con-struction Inspection (CI), and was the subject of a search war-4 rant served on him on January 10, 1985, with negative results.
The employee was terminated that day after the search on the
basis of previously acquired information. In our meeting Depu-ty Hensley agreed that this in no way interfered with the in-vestigation.
Q.29 Ms. Burch continues that employees dealing in drugs included " safety personnel." Do you know what she means by safety personnel?
A.29 (DGJ): I believe this refers to a single clerical employee working in industrial safety. In our meeting Deputy Hensley confirmed that he did not distinguish between personnel doing nuclear safety-related work and personnel engaged in non-nuclear safety work (for example, construction personnel safety).
Q.30 The Burch Affidavit has several references to rumors of a " snitch" or a possible leak regarding the presence of un-O dercover agents on site. Again, Ms. Burch does not openly attribute these developments to CP&L, but the implication is there. What is your response?
A.30 (WJH): In planning and executing the operation, all those directly involved were very much concerned about the pos-sibility of a leak. We took extraordinary precautions to pre-vent any leak. The number of persons who were made aware of the operation was kept to an absolute minimum, and those per-sons took precautions to make sure that their communications were not overheard. Neither Agent Williams nor any other per-son provided me with information during the operation that a leak had in fact occurred.
s l
l
(MWK, DGJ): As experienced law enforcement officers, we were conscientiously concerned with the safety of the agents and the secrecy of the operation. It was for this reason that we could not afford to create a major fuss in order to have Davis re-hire the informant. Our concern for secrecy also pre-vented us from altering routine site operations and procedures, or planned changes to those operations and procedures, in a way which would attract attention or suspicion. In our view, any 4
rumors of a " snitch" were more likely caused by the participa-tion of the WCSD selected informant, who had been previously fired for drug use. For example, during our August 12 meeting, Deputy Hensley cited an incident in which an unidentified fe-male employee approached the informant and accused him of work-ing with law enforcement.
G E/ (DGJ, MLP): During our meeting with Agent Williams on September 11, he cited this same encounter between a female and the informant as the basis for the assertion, in paragraph 13 of the Burch Affidavit, about a possible leak.
(PBB): I should add that rumors of a snitch are common to circles of people involved in drug activity, and therefore are
.not unexpected during an undercover narcotics investigation.
Q.31 Perhaps the most serious charge in the Burch Affida-vit is the statement in paragraph 13 that " actions by CP&L en-dangered the lives of the undercover officers." Is this true?
4 A.31 (WJH, MWK, DGJ): No. Neither Deputy Hensley nor Agent Williams ever expressed concern about their personal
~
safety during the operation. At the August 12, 1985 meeting, O Deputy Hensley stated that he did not think anything done by CP&L during the operation endangered his life. WCSD personnel did confirm, however, that they terminated the operation be-cause of their concern that narcotic detection dogs would be used on site immediately, and that such searches would endanger the officers. While we discuss this concern in more detail below, it is undisputed that the dog searches started some six weeks after the investigation was over.
(DGJ, MLP): At our meeting with Agent Williams on September 11, 1985, he stated that he never had the feeling that his life was endangered during the investigation. Mr.
Williams also stated that in his view CP&L did not attempt to inhibit the effectiveness of the operation.
O. Q.32 Were there problems with the conduct of the opera-tion that are not discussed in the Burch Affidavit?
A.32 (DGJ, MLP): Yes. While Sheriff Baker expressed prior to the investigation the need for an experienced SBI agent to support the operation, SBI Agent Williams came to the site only irregularly during the eight-week investigation.
While we did not keep a log or record of his activities, we es-timate that Mr. Williams appeared for work at the Harris site on only 10 to 15 occasions, and frequently for only 3 to 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> at a time. To our knowledge, Agent Williams made only one drug purchase.
O .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ .
(WJH, MWK, DGJ): During our August 12, 1985 meeting, Dep-uty Hensley of the WCSD confirmed this description of Agent Williams' attendance and of the results he achieved.
-(DGJ, MLP): During our September 11, 1985 meeting with Agent Williams, he indicated that our estimate of his atten-dance was "in the right neighborhood."
j (DGJ): During the investigation, I telephoned Ms. Burch 1
to seek her assistance in locating Agent Williams. Ms. Burch I explained that she would have to contact his SBI supervisor in Greensboro to inquire about Agent Williams' whereabouts and ir-regular attendance at the job site. 'At the September 11, 1985 l meeting with Agent Williams, he stated, in contrast, that he had been directed to report to Ms. Burch during the operation. ,
Q.33 In paragraph 8 of her affidavit, Ms. Burch states 1 dust Lt. Self stated that Deputy Hensley was obtaining informa-tion that a supervisor with either Daniel or CP&L was allegedly making trips to Florida and pick'ing up pound quantities of pure cocaine which was being distributed by an identified suspect.
She further states that attempts to make a cocaine purchase from the identified suspect were made, but that the termination of the undercover operation precluded any possible results.
i Are any of you familiar with this situation?
, A.33 (MLP): Yes. I have direct knowledge of the facts concerning this allegation. Several weeks before the end of f
tdue undercover operation, Deputy Hensley told me about some information that the informant assisting in the operation had O i
. . _ . - . . - . . _ . _ _ _ . . , _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . . ~ ~ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _
told him. Hensley told me there was allegedly an electrical supervisor who was making trips to Florida and picking up large quantities of drugs. Hensley stated that the supervisor was supposedly working somewhere "on the hill", a reference to the main construction building at the Harris Plant. Hensley did not have a name or other identifying information about this person. Deputy Hensley asked me if I could trace the person down if he gave me the dates when the individual was making his trips. Using information provided by Deputy Hensley on the dates that this person was allegedly making his trips, I re-searched time cards for Daniel and Davis Electric Company per-sonnel to try to determine whether anyone had been absent from work during those time" periods. Given the small amount of information available and the large number of time records, this was a time-consuming process. After completing my re-search, I reported back to Deputy Hensley and told him I was not able to identify anyone who was not working during the com-bination of times he furnished me. I told Hensley if he could provide me a name (either a first name, last name or nickname),
I could probably trace the individual down for him. Hensley told me that he would work on obtaining more information, but I never heard back from him about this individual. After talking to Deputy Hensley, I went back and double-checked our records in case I had overlooked anyone. This second check confirmed the results of my initial research. In none of my conversa-tions with Hensley did he state that an identified suspect distributing the cocaine existed.
(WJH, MWK, DGJ): At our August 12 meeting, Deputy Hensley O reported that he still does not know who the alleged distribu-tor was. Rather, Deputy Hensley stated that he was still exploring, when the investigation ended, two possible suspects
-- neither of whom had yet been willing to make a sale to the
- Deputy. Information on these two employees, however, had been I
. provided to CP&L by the WCSD, and they are no longer employed at Harris. Deputy Hensley also rejected any implication that the undercover operation was terminated because of his pursuit of this information.
- Q.34 In paragraphs 5 and 9 of her affidavit, Ms. Burch I
reports that Deputy Hensley made his first buy after being on i
site for only one and one-half hours. One inference from this might be that drugs were so plentiful any newcomer could readi-O ly obtain them in short order. What are the facts?
A.34 (DGJ, MLP): The statement is not correct. During the first day' Deputy Hensley was on the site, he and the infor-mant told us about a drug buy made shortly after the officer 1
arrived. They both reported, however, that the informant, not Hensley, made the purchase. The informant, of course, had worked on site, been terminated for drug activity, and was fa-miliar with sources from whom to buy drugs. In short, this purchase was not significant or surprising. It could not be used, however, to draw warrants since the officer did not make a hand-to-hand purchase.
!C:) - - , . . . _ . - . . - _ - . - _ . . . . - . _-. . - - . - - - _ - - . . - _ _ .
(WJH, MWK, DGJ): During our meeting of August 12, 1985, Deputy Hensley confirmed that the informant made this first buy.
(DGJ, MLP): During our meeting of September 11, 1985, I Agent Williams also confirmed that the informant, and not Depu-
, ty Hensley, made this first buy.
Q.35 In paragraph 8 of her affidavit, Ms. Burch states that Lt. Self advised her that Deputy Hensley began to develop intelligence indicating that there were several cliques dealing drugs at the Harris Plant, and that the dealings were taking 3
place for the most part inside the plant, outside in the park-ing lots and in a nearby grocery store. Is this significant?
A.35 (DGJ): Only if the " intelligence" consisted of new information. We advised the agents, before the operation began, about suspected drug activity in the parking lots and at
- the grocery store. At our meeting, Deputy Hensley confirmed that he was so advised. Yet, the agents made no purchases in the parking lots.
Q.36 What did the investigation ultimately produce?
, A.36 (MWK): As reported by Ms. Burch in paragraph 12 of her affidavit, the operation resulted in charging eight indi-viduals, on January 10, 1985, who made sales of drugs to the officers. Attachment 5 to this testimony is a table reflecting information, provided to me by Deputy Hensley, which lists for seven of the employees arrested and who sold drugs, the date of each purchase, the drug involved and the dollar amount of the
() I 4
. . _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _. _ _ . D
i purchase. While there are eight employee entries on the table, one (G) represents a sale to the informant, and not to Deputy Hensley. In addition, the investigation provided us with valu-able intelligence on other suspected em'ployees, which enabled us to implement site drug abuse policies with respect to them.
Q.37 I am going to turn now to the circumstances sur-rounding the termination of the investigation. Did you have an understanding prior to the beginning of the operation as to how long it would last?
A.37 (WJH): It was my understanding from the outset of the undercover operation that it was expected to last about eight weeks. I received this information from Mr. Joyner who had talked with Lt. Self of the Sheriff's Department about the expected duration of the operation. The suggestion from law b N- enforcement agencies that the operation be extended beyond that time frame did not occur until mid-December, 1984.
(DGJ): Lt. Self of the WCSD stated to me before the oper-ation began that January 2, 1985 would be the termination date for the investigation. In our meeting of August 12, Lt. Self agreed that he made this statement, but added that he intended the operation would also be reviewed and its status re-assessed at that time. That qualification was not communicated at the time.
(MWK, DGJ): In addition, we viewed'eight weeks to be a sufficient period of time for this operation, given the assis-tance of the informant and the leads we provided, and the geographically concentrated area to be investigated.
t
(PBB): I agree that in the circumstances of this case where an insider was available to help and the officers had valuable intelligence at the outset, and in a construction project where new faces are common, eight weeks was an adequate period for the operation.
Q.38 In paragraphs 10 and 11 of her affidavit, Ms. Burch states that in mid-December, 1984, a plan was formulated, ap-parently by the SBI and WCSD, to replace SBI Special Agent Williams with another SBI agent, and to move the operation to the second shift. She indicates that this proposal was dis-cussed between Lt. Self and Mr. King, and in a subsequent meet-ing called by Sheriff Baker. Is this correct?
A.38 (MWK): Yes, except for any implication that the in-vestigation had been limited to the first shift. The agents were always free to investigate on the second or any shift.
They only had worked the first shift, I believe, because the informant had n.ot worked the second shift and did not have con-tacts among those employees.
In addition, Ms. Burch does not make clear that the pro-posed extended operation would not have included the services of the informant, and that neither the SBI nor the WCSD had un-dertaken to develop a new informant. So the proposed in-vestigative team would have consisted of Deputy Hensley and a new SBI agent -- essentially starting over with a different group of employees (on the second shift), but without the use of an informant to introduce them or to lead them to sources, and to assist in making purchases.
N_)
Q.39 Mr. Hindman, did Mr. King discuss this proposal with A.39 (WJH): Yes, he did. I was not involved in the dis-
~
cussions with the law enforcement agencies on the proposal, however.
Q.40 What was your reaction?
A.40 (WJH): I did not support extending the operation for several reasons. First, the confidential informant who was being used during the operation had been expressing concern about his personal safety. The informant felt that he had par-ticipated long enough to work off his charges and that he was ready to move on. I also viewed the activities of both under-cover officers as trending downward during the month of December. This view was based on several factors, including my knowledge that SBI Agent Williams was not appearing at the site on a regular basis and the lack of new information to be pur-sued about drug activities on site. I also believed that there would be reductions in the work force shortly after the begin-ning of 1985 and that some of these reductions would involve persons who had already been identified as drug users or sell-ers. I felt that we would have difficulty in managing the re-ductions in force if we had to keep all these identified per-sons in place for a longer period of time and that releasing them would make their arrest more difficult. From CP&L's per-spective, keeping known drug users and sellers on the site for an extended period of time was a matter of concern. Since the O .
O
continuation of the operation temporarily inhibited our taking b
x/ vigorous action to execute some elements of our drug control program, I was concerned that a misperception might be created among employees that we were not doing enough. With the expec-tation that the undercover operation would be over by January, we had also made arrangements to begin using a drug detection dog onsite in February. It was my understanding from talking to our security personnel that it would be better to wrap up the undercover operation before bringing the dog onsite not be-cause use of the dog would endanger the undercover operatives, but'because use of the dog would discourage persons from bring-ing drugs onto the site. Finally, I wish to point out that I did not view the close-out of this particular undercover opera-tion as a termination of the joint efforts among CP&L, the Wake County Sheriff's Department and the SBI to control drugs at the Harris Project. I felt that after an assessment of what had been accomplished during this particular operation, there would be the potential for future cooperation with the law enforce-ment agencies.
Q.41 Mr. Joyner, you worked with the informant regularly.
l Is Mr. Hindman correct that the informant was ready to leave? l l
A.41 (DGJ): Yes. Near the end of the operation the in-formant was concerned with his personal safety because of the suspicious situation, where for eight weeks he was constantly talking about drugs and trying to arrange purchases for these two consultants (the undercover agents). I should also O' l
4 emphasize that in our September 11, 1985 meeting, former SBI Agent Williams expressed the view that the informant's contacts and.usefulness to the investigation had been exhausted.
- Q . 42 Mr. King, how did you respond to Lt. Self when he proposed the extensions to you?
A.42 (MWK): When Lt. Self of the WCSD contacted me in mid-December about the possibility of extending the undercover operation beyond the end of 1984, I advised him of our plan to begin the use of narcotic detection dogs on site and of an l upcoming reduction in force which could result in the departure i
of suspects. I also had in mind the fact that the confidential
! informant could not safely and effectively continue in his role for an extended period and that he said that he could not help with the second shift. Once a person has a circle of drug con-tacts and his current friends know him to be well supplied, it I
becomes highly suspicious if he attempts to associate with a 4
different group in order to make purchases. I was also con-carned about the potential continued and extended presence on site of employees already identified by the investigation as being known drug users.
Q.43 In paragraph 11 of her affidavit, Ms. Burch states that Sheriff Baker and SBI Supervisor Overton made the decision
- to cease the undercover operation. In paragraph 14, she states that "the sole and exclusive reason for the termination by the SBI was CP&L's insistance on bringing in drug dogs prematurely; thus, creating a substantial and too high a risk to the lO ,
--vm-. - - - - ~ - - - , - - , . .--.m.-7 ,n-, .m,,.,,.m, - . , - - _vm,,,,,, ,,-w.--,.eegwJ w,, . , _ ,wny..y,--,,c-.w,-n~.,--.-v+v+-,,+
- - - _ _ . _ . _ =- . - - . _ ~ -- - - . - . --.
personal safety of the law enforcement officers if they re-mained in the undercover operation with drug dogs on-site."
Did CP&L initiate narcotic detection searches with a dog in order to terminate the undercover operation?
A.43 (MWK): No. I did not encourage the SBI and WCSD to continue the operation. However, the narcotic detection dog was not introduced in order to thwart the investigation. Plans for using drug dogs had been under consideration for some time.
The CP&L Drug and Alcohol Interdepartmental Procedure adopted in 1982 states that trained animals may be used to conduct searches for illegal drugs. In August, 1984, Mr. McDuffie (CP&L Senior Vice President, Nuclear Generation Group) re-quested additional information on the use of dogs. At that time, we began talks with local dog handlers and started making plans to bring dogs on after the undercover operation was com-plated. We then expected the operation to be concluded by the end of the year. We understood that it would be undesirable to initiate searches with dogs in the midst of the investigation-
-- not-because of concern with the agents' cover, but because the drug activity under investigation might dry up at least temporarily.
When I was approached in mid-December and during a subse-i quant meeting about extending the operation, we had already contacted a dog handler and were beginning contract negotia- !
a tions. I did advise the WCSD and SBI personnel that Harris Project management wanted the dog detection searches. The O
first visit with the dog was in fact on February 25, 1985 --
some six weeks after the undercover operation ended. I do not recall stating that CP&L was going to use, or insisted upon using, the drug dogs "immediately". However, it is clear from our discussion at the meeting of August 12, 1985 with WCSD per-sonnel, that I did not succeed back in December in commu-nicating that the dog would not actually be on site until late February, and that they were left with the impression that use of the drug dog was imminent. Sheriff Baker stated at this meeting, however, that he did not believe CP&L was attempting to stop the investigation, but rather that we had a conflict of goals and objectives.
(MWK, DGJ): Based on our professional experience,and training, we do not agree that the presence of a dog to conduct random searches at the site would have endangered the lives of the undercover agents -- if the operation had been extended.
We do not see why suspects would have associated those activi-ties with the two agents posing as consultants.
(DGJ, MLP): During our meeting of September 11, 1985, former SBI Agent Williams was asked for his opinion, and stated that he did not believe the dog searches would have posed a threat to his personal safety.
(PBB): As former Administrator of the DEA, I can readily sympathize with the concern and responsibility Sheriff Baker and SBI Supervisor Overton felt for the personal safety of their undercover agents. However, I have to agree with my
.4 O
colleagues here. I cannot imagine why the dog searches would O have constituted a danger to the officers. In my view, they would not have been a threat to the agents' safety. Rather, the initiation of such searches could well have served as an instrument to bind the agents' contacts with their suspects through open discussions about how to mutually cope with the intrusion.
Q.44 Ms. Burch advances her opinion, in paragraph 14 of her affidavit, that the termination of the undercover operation was premature, that the operation was not complete, and that it was not terminated because the law enforcement agencies recom-mended it or because of a lack of suspects. In paragraph 15, she expresses the opinion that if the investigation had contin- ,
und, more arrests would have been made. Do you agree with f-)
these views?
A.44 (DGJ, MLP): It is difficult to conclude objectively when such an investigation is complete. To some extent, it is always possible to argue that more could be accomplished with more time. Our first-hand observation of the operation re-vealed that the agents relied heavily on the informant to-ar-range the purchases which were made. Agent Williams' state-ments in our meeting of September 11 made it clear that he considered it to be the informant's job to arrange all of the sales for the officers. Mr. Williams also confirmed our view that the informant had apparently done all he could do with his contacts.
Given SBI Agent Williams' irregular attendance, the burden fell mostly upon Deputy Hensley to obtain cases against sus-
- pects. Yet, employees willing to sell drugs to the informant often would not sell to Deputy Hensley. Attachment 5, the
! record of drug. buys by Deputy Hensley, illustrates what we con-cluded.was a contracting rather than an expanding investiga-tion. Except for one employee, the individuals who sold drugs to Deputy Hensley in December, 1984, were the same employees who made sales to him in November. After November 29, it was not until December 20 that an employee who had not earlier sold to the Deputy made a sale. In short, if there were many sus-pects, it does not appear that the officers were having success i in cultivating them.
(MLP): At the outset of the undercover operation, Deputy O' . Hensley stated to me that the WCSD had allocated $7,000 for drug purchases during this operation. According to Attach- ,
ment 5, $1,725 was actually spent. r
^
t
+
(PBB): My assessment of this information is that the in-
! vestigation appeared to be winding down in December, 1984, and j that there was little prospect that extending it would have
- yielded significantly different results. There are several different ways of using a confidential, inside informant in an ;
undercover investigation. SBI Agent Williams appears to have
+
used the informant as a lead, rather than just as a source of l
^
intelligence and a means of gaining initial access to l employees. If this is representative of the approach to the
!, i .
A.
t i
1 investigation, then the operation for all practical purposes was over when the informant had exhausted his circle of ac-quaintances involved in drug activity. As pointed out by my colleagues, the data on the drug purchases would indicate that new suspects were not being developed during the second month of the investigation to any meaningful extent.
f Finally, I would note that only small quantities of drugs i
4 were purchased by Deputy Hensley. These are personal consump-
. tion quantities, not indicative of wholesale distribution oper-ations. In sum, I see no reason to conclude that there were significant sources of drug activity yet to be investigated.
(DGJ, MLP): During our meeting with Mr. Williams, he ex-pressed the view that an extended operation with Deputy Hensley and a new SBI agent, but with no inside informant, would not be O/ successful. Yet, this is the very proposal Ms. Burch suggests l CP&L should have endorsed.
Q.45 In paragraph 15 of her affidavit, Ms. Burch states
, that personal observations and intelligence gathered by the of-1 ficers indicated that drug dealings and drug use were wide-spread at the Harris Plant. She does not further elaborate or quantify this opinion, except in paragraph 9 where she reports
, that Deputy Hensley stated that he observed at least one hun-dred employees using drugs while on the job. Applicants' assessment of the extent of drug activity among site employees is addressed in a separate piece of testimony, but could you comment briefly on these observations?
' ~
4
} ,
i A.45 (MWK, DGJ): First, we want to make it clear that the O
s- SBI and the WCSD shared intelligence with us on suspects'which they identified during the investigation. Since the Burch Af-fidavit was filed, CP&L has inquired of the SBI and the WCSD, '
+
and has been assured by them that CP&L was provided all the names of suspects identified through the investigation. Conse-quently, we assume that Deputy Hensley was referring to f employees he did not identify. We also assume that Deputy i
- j. Hensley would have identified employees possibly consuming drugs if he was physically close enough to them to do so.
Hard hats are required to be worn at the site. Each worker's hard hat has on it his last name, employee number and crew identification. ,
If Deputy Hensley was not close enough to read any of these marks of identification, then we question the l
4 basis for his statement that he observed employees using drugs.
As experienced law enf~orcement officers, we know that what might appear to be suspicious group activity from a distance, 1 can on closer inspection be found to be quite innocent. Fur-t j ther, it is quite possible, if no identifications were made, that over time Deputy Hensley saw the same employees a number of different times, rather than one hundred separate employees.
1 It is somewhat understandable if the undercover agents be-
~
- lieve there was more drug use at the Harris site than they l could' confirm. First, we know from our communications with the
! local law enforcement community that there are pre-conceived
- expectations of a high level of drug activity at the site.
'O ..
i 1 ,
Second, the informant was an experienced drug user who intro-O duced Deputy Hensley immediately into a circle of drug dealers and users. It was the agent's job to infiltrate whatever drug community existed. It does not follow, however, that these employees.are representative of the site population as a whole.
It is also to be expected that rumors would exist, among those involved, of the extent of drug activity. People who are in-volved in drugs tend to try to convince themselves that eve-ryone else is doing it as well.
(DGJ, MLP): The word " intelligence" also needs to be given a second look. It sounds sophisticated and confident.
But at our meeting with Mr. Williams on September 11, 1985, he used the word " intelligence",to describe what the informant had told him and what Mr. Williams had taken no steps to confirm or to substantiate on his own. Consequently, intelligence should not be viewed to be corroborated or substantiated information.
We also asked Mr. Williams if he believes he ever person-ally observed employees consuming drugs on site. He stated that on one occasion he observed a group of five or six people he believed were consuming a drug.
(PBB): As a former law enforcement professional, I must express some degree of skepticism about Deputy Hensley's report of his personal observations. I find it difficult to believe that if he observed what he thought were employees using drugs, that he would not have taken some steps to identify them. Law enforcement officers would find it difficult to resist the O f
impulse to get close enough somehow to get some kind of identi-fying information.
.; Second, if these law enforcement agencies seriously be-lieve there is widespread drug activity in the parking lots or in a nearby grocery store, or in the form of pounds of pure co-caine being flown in from Florida, then active steps would have been taken to enforce the law. CP&L's cooperation is not needed in this effort.
Q.46 Do you have any concluding remarks?
A.46 (WJH): Yes, I do. Mr. Joyner and Mr. Pleuddemann worked particularly hard to try to make this undercover opera-tion succeed. I personally regret that anyone has questioned their motives or CP&L's actions in the conduct of this : nvesti-gation. We have enjoyed and appreciated the cooperation of the WCSD and the SBI in the past, and look forward to their future assistance in the implementation of our drug abuse policies.
(PBB): I would also like to add some perspective on this controversy, because I am concerned that law enforcement agen-cies and utilities with nuclear power plants need each other and must cooperate for the public interest. In an undercover investigation at a nuclear power plant construction site, there is some inherent tension between the goals and responsibilities of the utility and the law enforcement agencies. This probably was not appreciated sufficiently by either side when this oper-ation was planned.
The utility, concerned with the quality of power plant O construction and the potential need to prove it, has the re-sponsibility and goal of removing from the site promptly any contraband, drugs and those involved in drugs. Law enforcement agencies, concerned with building the maximum number of crimi-nal cases, want suspects and the flow of drugs left undisturbed until they are ready to terminate the investigation, declare its existence and make arrests. These somewhat conflicting goals can be accommodated, but it requires cooperation and un-derstanding by both sides. In a nuclear power plant setting, law enforcement must be prepared to move aggressively and swiftly so that implementation of corporate drug abuse policies are not suspended for an extended period.
In this case, CP&L went as far as it should have for as long as it should have. I believe the operation was terminated at the appropriate time, and that it confirms the other evi-s dance which indicates that there is not widespread drug abuse at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
h s r 4
O .
cto
Attaciunant 1 RESUME WILLIAM J. HINDMAN, JR.
MANAGER - PROJECT ADMINISTRATION Birthdate: April 22, 1943 Education and Training:
BS Degree in Civil Engineering from Clemson University - 1965 Engineer Branch Officer Basic Course (400 classroom hours) at U. S. Army Engineer School - 1966 Conversational Spanish Course (480 classroom hours) at Defense Language Institute - 1966 Military Police Officer Course (350 classroom hours) by extension from U. S.
Army Military Police School - 1971
~
Engineer Branch Officer Advanced Course (475 classroom hours) at U. S. Army Engineer School - 1974 U. S. Army Command and General Staff College through U. S. Army Reserve School Program - 1978 Professional Affiliations and Achievements:
Member of American Society of Civil Engineers Member of American Nuclear Society Member of Reserve Officers Association Registered Professional Engineer in North Carolina Registered Land Surveyor in North Carolina Registered Professional Engineer in South Carolina l
Experience Prior to Joining CP&L:
]
1965 - 1968: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers I
8th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Gulick, Canal Zone - !
Captain U. S. Embassy, Ecuador - Member of Mobile Training Team i() U. S. Embassy, Peru - Team Chief for Technical Advisory l Team
, , - - .. , ,a - - - , . . , ,., -- - - - - . , , _ , . , - - , , , - - , - - - - . .----..-,.,,,.n ., . - . . _ , , , . , , -
Rerume William J. Hindman, Jr.
Peg 2 Two r~%
N. C. State Highway Commission Raleigh, NC G 1968 - 1974:
Traffic Engineering Department - Assistant Traffic Research ,
Engineer N. C. Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Branch - Traffic Research Engineer Experien'e c with CP&L:
03/25/74: Employed as a Senior Engineer - Staff reporting to the Vice President of the Power Plant Construction Department, located in the General Office, Raleigh, North Carolina.
02/17/79: Reclassified as Senior Engineer and transferred to the Project Analysis Subunit of the Harris Site Management Unit, Nuclear Construction Section, Power Plant Construction Department.
Located at the Harris site, New Hill, NC.
05/03/80: Promoted to Director - Project Analysis in the Harris Site
~
Management Section of the Power Plant Construction Department.
Located at the Harris site, New Hill, NC.
01/31/81: Reorganization - Department renamed to Nuclear' Plant Construction.
09/03/83: Reorganization - Department renamed to Harris Nuclear Project 12/01/83: Promoted to Manager - Harris Project Administration in the Harris Nuclear Project Department.
07/05/85 1 O r e m - -m -
,re -,. - - - - - - - --m ~~- m -, . - - - -m. -
re,------ m - --
WILLIAM J. HINDMAN, JR.
ADDITIONAL MILITARY EXPERIENCE (U. S. ARMY RESERVE)
I. May, 1969 - October, 1969 Assistant S-3 (Captain) - 171st Support Group - Staff responsibility for training planning and implementation of training by a command group headquarters and subordinate units.
II. October, 1969 - January, 1973 Commander - 805 Military Police Company (Physical Security) -
Supervisory responsibility for two full-time U. S. Government staff assistants and management responsibility for approximately one hundred twenty-five Army Reservists who met four drills per month.
III. January, 1973 - October, 1978 Training Officer - Headquarters, 120th U. S. Army Reserve Command -
Staff responsibility for review, inspection, and reporting of class-room instruction presented by U. S. Army Reserve Schools in North and South Carolina.
IV. October, 1978 - September, 1980 "
Director, Military Occupational Specialty Training (Major) - 3286th USAR School. Responsible for managing a staff and faculty of approx- -
imately fifty senior grade personnel involved in conducting instruc-tional training for approximately five hundred military personnel in eastern North Carolina. .
V. September, 1980 - December, 1981 Director. Enlisted Courses (Lieutenant Colonel) - 3286th USAR School. Responsible for approximately one hundred staff and faculty personnel involved in training one thousand enlisted personnel in skill and leadership subjects.
VI. January, 1982 - March, 1984 Battalion Commander (Lieutenant Colonel) - Second Battalion, 108th Division. Responsible for five infantry companies and a battalion staff comprised of reserve personnel plus several full-time U. S.
Government employees.
VII. April, 1984 - January, 1985 Brigade Executive Office (Lieutenant Colonel) - Third Brigade, 108th Division. Served as chief of staff and second in command for infantry organization consisting of four battalions of reserve personnel and fourteen full-time U. S. Government employees.
VIII. February, 1985 - Present ;
Brigade Commander (Colonel Position) - Third Brigade, 108th Division, s Reports directly to the Commanding General of the 108th Division.
Responsible for command and overall performance of the 3rd Brigade j including four assigned battalions. i
)
07/05/85 )
i
Attcclunnnt 8 RESUME MIrHAEL W. KING A
V SENIOR COMMISSIONED CONSTRUCTION SECURITY AGENT Birthdate: May 25, 1949 Education and Training:
Civilian:
AAS Degree in Police Science Technology from W. W. Holding Technical Institute,
~
Raleigh, N. C. - 1974 BS Degree in Police Science from N. C. Wesleyan College, Rocky Mount, N. C. -
1976 Militarv:
Officers Basic Course: Military Police, Officers Advance Course: Military Police, Officers Advance Course: Infantry Professional Affiliations and Achievements:
Veterans of Foreign Wars
/~' N. C. Law Enforcement Officers Association V)
Raleigh Police Club Exoerience Prior to Joining CP&L:
01/66 - 06/67: Corning Glass Works - Process Engineering Technician.
01/67 - 03/73: United States Marine Corps - (a) Infantry; (b). Intelligence; (c) Interpreter.
03/76-Present: United States Army Reserves - (a) Law Enforcement; (b) Instructor, Military Police; (c) Company Commander 04/70 - 08/70: Fast Fare - Assistant Manager.
08/70 - 01/78: Raleigh Police Department - -
Unifors Community Relations Personnel l Organized Crime / Consumer Protection l
Narcotics Investigator (Undercover & Investigations) 1 Experience with CP&L: <
( 02/20/78: Employed as Construction Security Agent in the Administrative Section, Construction Security Unit of the E&C Support Services 2 Department. Located in the General Office.
)
l i
Michael W. King Senior Commissioned Construction Security Agent 02/23/80:
Reclassified as Commissioned Construction Security Agent in the Construction Security Unit of the Administrative Section, E&C Support Services Department.
Located in the General Office.
09/18/82:
Promoted to Senior Commissioned Construction Security Agent in the Construction Security Unit of'the Administrative Section, E&C Support Services Department.
Located in the General Office.
03/11/85:
Reorganization - Lateral transfer to Nuclear Plant Construction Department, Office. Support Services Section. Located in the General 6/6/85 O
e "
i
, , ____ . . _ . . . , , - - . , , - - ~ , - - - ~ - ~ ' ' ' ' ^ ^ ~ ~ ' ' ' " ~ ~ ^ ^ ~ ~ ' ^ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~
Attachm2nt 3 RESUME DONALD GLENN JOYNER CO MISSIONED CONSTRUCTION SECURIIT AGENT-SENPP Birthdate: January 24, 1947 Education and Training: .
BS Degree in Police Science from N. C. Wesleyan College, Rocky Mount, N. C. '
Graduated 1977 Professional Affiliations and Achievements:
None Exoerience Prior to Joining CP&L:
05/64 - 12/65: Donald G. Joyner Steel Contractor - Iron Worker.
12/65 - 05/66: N.C.S.U. Print Shop - Photolithographer.
05/66 - 03/70: U. S. Air Force - Photolithographer.
03/70 - 07/70: Donald G. Joyner Steel Contractor - Iron Worker.
07/70 - 09/79: Raleigh Police Department - Investigator.
Experience with CP&L:
09/24/79: Employed as Construction Security Agent - SENPP in the Construction Security Unit of the E&C Support Services Department. Located at the Harris site.
06/25/83: Promoted to Commissioned Construction Security Agent - SENPP in the Construction Security Unit of the E&C Support Services Depart-ment. Located at the Harris site, 03/11/85: Reorganization - Lateral transfer to Nuclear Plant Construction Department, Support Services Section. Located in the General Office.
3/21/85 O
- .,,a v-, , . - . . , , . - , - - - , . , , ,-,,.,,.,a , .m, , , _ - - . . , w,, . , . , , , , _ - - , .,----,.,.,,-.n. , . - . . . , - . , _ , . - - - ,
Attachmsnt 4 MICHAEL L. PLUEDDEMANN SS#: 284-46-9778 v 7900 Senter Farm Road (919) 779-4430 (home)
Apex, North Carolina 27502 (919) 362-2569 (work)
EDUCATION: East Carolina University - Greenville, North Carolina B.S.P. in Parks, Recreation, and Conservation - 1978 OBJECTIVE: To obtain a career oriented position within the Human Resource field where my experience and education will provide an opportunity for professional advancement.
EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
- - Experienced in administering federal regulations and corporate t
policies for hourly and salaried personnel.
- Skilled in resolving employee grievances.
- Developed and administered preventive unfair labor practices.
- Administered company drug policy and search / seizure procedures.
- Experienced in monitoring and assuring EEOC compliance, as well as, investigating complaints.
- Experienced in public relations.
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY: Daniel Construction Company .
Greenville, South Carolina
() June 1973 to Present SENIOR INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REPRESENTATIVE Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hill, North Carolina November 1980 to Present Responsible for administering corporate Industrial Relations program at a nuclear power plant under construction with work force of up to 6,000 employees. This experience included, but was not limited to employee relations, affirmative action, equal employment opportunity and security. Investigated and resolved cases dealing with the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the North Carolina Human Relations Council and the Local District Courts. Security experience also includes investigations for theft and narcotics violations. Developed and administered project urinanalysis pro-
~
gram for Daniel employees. I have conducted seminars in Preventive Labor Practice and Equal Employment Opprotunity. Public relations experience consisted of coordination and participation in local newspaper interviews. Edit on-site newspaper.
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hill, North Carolina August 1978 to November 1980 s_/ Monitored service departments to ensure compliance with company procedures. Analyzed systems and procedures and developed more cost effective methods. Supervised field auditors and assisted in project work sampling. Established project toolroom and wrote procedures for ordering, warehousing, and distributing tools.
MICHAEL L. PLUEDDEMANN Page 2 TIMEKEEPER Pampers Project, Greenville, North Carolina February 1978 to July 1978 j Duties included timekeeping, insurance, and personnel functions.
ADMINISTRATIVE TROUBLE SHOOTER Procter and Gamble Project, Greenville, North Carolina October 1977 to February 1978 Reconciled authorized expenditure account records of Daniel with Procter and Gamble. Interpreted computer records and readouts.
PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS Greenville, North Carolina and Albany, Georgia June 1973 to May 1977 During this period, while attending school, I held twelve positions.
Experience varied from shop situations as a carpenter apprentice to an office function as Accounts Payable Clerk. My work background enabled me to later relate to the hourly employee.
ACTIVITIES: Halifax Court Child Care and Family Service Center, Board Chairman Eagle Scout, Boy Scouts of America - 1970 0
REFERENCES:
Available upon request.
8 O
l ATTACHMENT 5 HENSLEY DRUG BUYS AS OF 12-28-84 NAME DATE DRUG AMOUNT PAID A 12-20-84 MARIJUANA $ 100.00 12-21-84 MARIJUANA 90.00 B 11-21-84 COCAINE 200.00 11-27-84 MARIJUANA 30.00 12-06-84 COCAINE 120.00 C 11-26-84 COCAINE 200.00 11-29-84 COCAINE 50.00 D 11-29-84 COCAINE 100.00 E 11-21-84 COCAINE 300.00 12-11-84 HASHISH 120.00 O
\/ F 11-20-84 MARIJUANA 60.00 12-03-84 COCAINE 100.00 G 11-06-84 CRYSTAL 70.00 H 12-19-84 CRYSTAL 45.00 11-13-84 CRYSTAL 45.00 11-27-84 CRYSTAL, CRANK 45.00 12-05-84 CRYSTAL 50.00
$1,725.00 O
- _ _ _ _