ML20151S096
| ML20151S096 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 09/17/1986 |
| From: | ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151N259 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-227 NUDOCS 8808150067 | |
| Download: ML20151S096 (40) | |
Text
. .
03 G"N AL
. 1. ' UN11ED STATES SUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:
INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW C
LOCATION: DETROIT, MICHIGAN PAGES:
p 1- 3g
. DATE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1986 i
i AG-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i.
o-Officwi Reporters ,
f 444 North Ca i i, 3 006 Whington, b.tol Street C.20001 EXHisF g -.
(202) 347 3700 gB1 7 080630 NATIONWIDE COVDACE MAXjlELLG8-227 PDR
, '1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
In the Matter of:
4 The Interview of:
5 JAMES PIANA 6
7
J 8 The Interview of JAMES PIANA, taken 9 pursuant to Notice by me, Deborah J. Nash, Certified Shorthand 10 Reporter and Notary Public, in and for the County of Wayne, 11 St' ate of Michigan, at 2000 Second Avenue, Detroit, Michigan, 12 on Wednesday, September 17, 1986.
13 APPEARANCES:
14 UNITED STATES REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Investigations 15 Field Office: Region III 799 Roosevelt Road i 16 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 6013/
3 (By Richard C. Kazmar, Esq. and 17 Terry J. Maceda, Esq.)
y i 18 Appearing on behalf of g Nuclear Regulatory Commission j 19 j SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE r 20 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washing ton, D.C. 20036 21 (By J. Patrick Hickey, Esq.)
2 22 l* Appearing on behalf of Detroit Edison )
and James Piana '
23 24 25 1
S 2
' 1 APPEARANCES: (Continued) 2 JOHN B. FLYNN, Esq.
Senior Attorney 3 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 4
Appearing on behalf of Detroit Edison 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 r
14 15 i 16 4
3 17 e
i 18 I 19 o
0 I 20 21 2
i 22 a
23 24 25
3 I I N D E X 2 PAGE WITNESS 3
JAMES PIANA d Examination by Mr. Kazmar 4 5 Examination by Mr. Hickey 32 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 i 16 I
17 r
V i 18 5
i 19 2
1 1
r 20 21 0
k 22 a
23 l 24 25 l l
l i
1
4
' 1
, Detroit, Michigan 2
Wednesaay, September 17, 1986 1
3 . . .
4 MR. KAZMAR: For the record, this is 5
the Interview of Mr. James Piana, who is employed by the 1
8 Detroit Edison Cornpany. The location of this interview )
is Detroit Edison Plaza, Detroit, Michigan.
l 8
Present at this interview is 1 9
Mr. James Piana. Also present is Mr. John Flynn; a
'O Detroit attorney. And Mr. Patrick Hickey, who represents j i
" Detroit Edison and is an attorney for Shaw, Pittman, Potts 12
& Trowbridge.
'3 Present for the NRC is Terry Madeda, l'
Safeguard Inspector. Ana Richard Kazmar, Investigator.
The subject metter of this interview I 16 l concerns the use of the CED system and handling safeguard f
information.
ij <
18 Mr. Piana, please stand and raise a
i 19 your right hand.
)
3 i
JAMES PIANA, 21 g having been first duly sworn as a witness herein, was a
x 22 i examined and testified as follows:
23 EXAMINATION BY MR. KAZMAR:
25 Q Mr. Piana, what is your current position with Detroit Edisot*,
l l
l
__._._..___..__....______._._.~.j
s 5 l
A I'm currently the general director of Administrative 2
Services, I work in downtown Detroit.
3 O And July through December 1985, what position did you hold 4
with Detroit Edison at that time?
5 A I was then the director of Nuclear Operations Services, 6
over at the Fermi II site.
7 Q What is your educational background?
- 8 A I have a Bachelor's Degree in English and Math 8
Communications.
'O Q Do you have any formal technical training of computers ,
l' electrical engineering? l I
A No, I do not.
Q Let me show you a document, it's on a Detroit Edison letterhead, it's dated July 1st, 1985, it's fran !
Mr. Stuart Leach, to yourself. Let me see this document 16 l here.
Have you seen that before?
Y I '8 i A Yes, I have, sir.
5 l i
19 i
1 Q Guoting from this document, which was as I said written
' 20 by Mr. Leach , it s ays , "Preliminary research by myf 21 staff has uncovered certain f acts which may reflect the 22 s efficiency in adequately protecting material of this 23 nature referring to safeguards information."
l 24 It goes on to say, "Please contact I 25 me as I appreciate your assistance in researching this l
l I
6 ,
I
, , matter more extensively.
2 Mr. Piana, did you ever talk to 3 Mr. Leach in regards to this memo?
4 A Yes , I did.
5 0 And can you to me the substance of your conversation?
6 A As I recollect the situation upon receipt of that memo, ,
1 7
I talked with Stu relative to the concern. Abd my 8
primary issue was one of -- well, secondary issue was 8
one in installing the new comprehensive electronic office
'O equipment and we were removing typewriters fra all of
" the various areas that were using them, and sending them 12 back for corporate use, or for salvage.
13 At that time, Stu did say he was 1
14 1 concerned about sending back all the typewriters, because l 15 he thought he would have to have one for safeguard l
'8 l information. I was of the belief that the GTOC system f could be made secure it wasn't. I really' thought it i
E '8 was with the past protection, it could be used and I saic 5
'8 l fine. So, keep your typewriter, do the research, go back i
r 20 to the emputer services organization if there are concerns 21
, to identify what kind of equi p ent we can use, stand 2
22 l alone equipent whatever, I'm not that technically good 23 in the field. But, we had a group that dic that.
24 So, we coulo provide it without 25 having to maintain a typewriter, if you will. So, it would
. T l
' ' l be part of our system.
2 So, I asked Stu to do that. It was 3
not done before he left. And probably I didn't do a i
4 real good job.of following it up. But, I put it back in 5
his lap, because I didn't pretend at the time to know the 6
regulations or what the requirements were. And said if l 7
you were concerned, let's see if we can address them to 8
Stu ano still use what we want to use at Fermi which was 9
the general equipment.
10 0 Did Mr. Leach ever get back to you in regards to his
" inquiry?
A No, Mr. Leach was there for one more month. It seems he
'3 was just probably happy enough to still have his typewriter, Q Okay.
15 Dia you ever talk to Mr. Hastings I l
16 f in regard to this? I see that he was cc on the bottom l
! of the letter?
i .
18 A No, I don't think Way ne and I ever discussed it. I E
f would not have khown why.
MR. MADEDA: Why would Wayne have 21
.- been ec'd?
7 8
22 i THE WITNESS: I can only guess but 23 it was probably because of the previous year when he was 24 in the computer area he got an ancillary assignment. to go 25 out and help start up this security system, because they
1 8
l
- 1 were having a lot of security dif ficulties. Wayne didn't 2
have any responsibility July 1 for CEO.
3 MR. MADEDA: Was prior to Wayne being 4
assigned to security, was he one of your subordinates? i l
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, he was, 6 i MR. MADEDA: So, what you're saying 1 7
is that Wayne had no tim'e when he was one of your a
subordinates was assigned any responsibility desling with l
9 the installation design or operation of the CEO system? l 10 THE WITNESS: No, he was, but not 11 at that time. It woulc have been in '84. I'm afraid I 12 don't know the exact. dates. But, he was the director of 13 computer services and information systems. No, that was 14 in July. He never held that job. We had a significant 15 number of subordinates.
16 l At one time the computer group anc f the CEO was under Wayne. I pegged that as '84, when i
I 18 5
we were first starting. Then he went out into security 18 to help with some computer concerns out there.
r 20 1
When he returned from that assignment, I 21
' the best as I can remember. he went to the Material 22 l Management, Fiscal Management, part of my organisation, 23 prior to going to security.
24 So, in July, he was not connected.
25 July 1, he was not connected with that. But, he had
l
. 9 I
- 'I had an association prior to that before we, for instance, 2
installed GTOC.
3 MR. MADEDA: As being one of your 4
subordinates, do you have any idea of that level of 5
association he hac with the CEO system, his level of 1
6 knowledge of the system?
7 THE WITNESS: I don't -- I presume 8
he was a little better understanding the system than I was.
9 Frcun real technical hardware considerations, I don't think
'O Wayne's that good either. Managing the installation
' functions, and dealing with the primary vendor Data 12 General was where his bag was when he was in that area.
13 Initiating the contracts, and getting it going, but most people were more technic &1.
15 MR. MADEDA: Would part of that --
'8 l do you feel, that part of their responsibility would have
'7 been general knowledge of the capabilities of this system V
I '8 from a general security viewpoint?
a
'8 f Not perseying the NRC viewpoint, 1
- 20 but the level of security that the CEO system normally I
, would have come with?
2 22 g MR. HICKEY : When are you talking 23 about?
24 MR. MADEDA: This is when he was 25 associated with the CEO system, back in '84.
l l l
10 1 t
THE WITNESS: Again, from a system 2
standpoint for sure, he would have known as much as 3 any of the users, as far as how the passwords worked anc 4
how -- I 5
MR. MADEDA: He would have known 6 that there was a certain level of security? !
7 THE WITNESS: Sure.
8 MR. MADEDA: What that level is?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 MR. MADEDA: He would have realized 11 if frcun a strictly security viewpoint, if the system was 12 "secure" from a computer viewpoint, it may not have been 13 from a NRC viewpoint?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe that. !
15 MR. MADEDA: Okay.
18 l Q (By Mr. Kazmar, continuing) : When did you leave your !
I
'7 f position as Director of Administrations?
Y
' '8 A Between July 1st and August ist.
" 0 Okay 20 In June of 1986, this year, Detroit 21 e
Edison responded to an inspection report ano a notice of 22 f violation. And I want to show you this report and direct l 23 your attention to page three.
24 Let me show you the document first 25 of all. It's identified document further dated June 19,1980 l
l
, , - - - , . - - , . . , . . . . , - , . . ---.n-. ,n ,-,-w. -,. ..e--- ~ - - - . - - - > ,
i 11
, on a Detroit Edison letterhead, and it's signed by l
2 Mr. Agosti.
3 MR. HICKEY: Have you seen this before?
5 I THE WITNESS: Yes. l 6
MR. MADEDA: I thinx that was our next question.
8 Q (By Mr. Kazmar, continuing) : The question is, dic you have 8
any input in the preparation of that document? !
10 A I dia review this document during the course of it t
being drafted. I cannot say I made any significant '
contribution, other than perhaps Syntex, but I did review 13 l it, yes.
j Q Let me direct your attention to page three of an attachment. It would be under the heading, "Reasons 16
! for the violation", and I just want to direct your I
17 cttention to the last sentence, and I'll quote it, "It i
- 18 was determined that it is possible to access the system",
! 19 j and it's referred to the CEO system, "From off site j i 20 locations."
g What I'm asking you, is who to your l k~ 22 k knowledge would be responsible for that statement from 23 Detroit Edison?
24 A Can I read it?
25 Q Sure, go right ahead.
l
l l .
l 12
'1 l MR. HICKEY:
When you say responsible, I l
2 l who was the author? )
3 MR. KAZMAR: Well, not necessari.Ly the 1
4 author.
5 MR. HICKEY: What are you asking?
6 MR. KAEMAR: I'm asking who's
~
7 responsible, who is the one that would issue --
8 MR. MADEDA: What individual, what l 9
organization made the cetermination that it was not secure 10 for an off site release from Detroit Edison. Somebody 11 had to make that decision. 1 12 MR. HICKEY: If you know who made it,
'3 that's what they're asking, Mr. Piana.
THE WITNESS: We 3L, as best I can
'S remember when we addressed this particular violation, 16 l even back at the enforcement conference, it had been
'7 f called to our attention that there was a terminal on the 5 18 a
24th floor in' Mr. Heicel's office, potentially ccanprising
'8 f the system.
i r 20 I guess that's the best I can say, I
g just to say it was determined it was possible to accesa
$ 22
- a system.
23 In my mind, that's --
24 0 (By Mr. Kazmar, continuing) : They're referring to the 25 24th --
13 A The CEO system and that was the only line that I could 2
think that you were addressing and our response at the 3
enforcement conference. So, I think it was identified 4
in December when we actually got the violation. I presume 5
it was identified during the course of the inspection.
6 MR. MADEDA: Maybe you don't understand 7
my question.
8 After you had received the . notice 9
of violation that being number -- whatever number it is,
'O 13 or 14.
I' THE WITNESS: Yes.
12 MR. MADEDA: The licensee at that
'3 point in time, had to determine a response which
'd basically goes for the reason, for the violation corrective
'S actions , and previous corrective actions.
16 l I think what Jim is asking is
'7 f who or what individual, what organization woulc have made r
i 18 the determination to put the statement in here?
E l Would that have been the security i
r 20 group? Would that have been your group that you're in, 21 2
would it have been computer services, somebody made that 22 h determination that that was going to be the answer.
23 MR. HICKEY: Maybe more than one 24 somebody.
MR. MADEDA: It may be a group, or u
14
- '1 individual, or a group of individuals.
2 THE COURT: I don't thinx any one 3
individual was responsible for that. I believe again d
we were foxusing on the facts that Mr. Heidel in late 5
'85 did receive the terminal, we thought that was the 6
violation. And certainly frm his office, any one of the 7
people whether it was licensing or security or myself,
. 8 who were associated with the viewing of this document, 9
were aware that Mr. Beidel was on the system.
to That wasn't probably true in October.
11 That all the people in the rom with Mr. Heidel was on the 12 system. It was true iben we did this document, which 13 is in response.
14 Q (By Mr. Kazmar, continuing) : In the preparation of 15 this document, there were informal meetings, I take. it, 16 f do you recall who was present at those meetings?
'7 f A I can recall sme of the people, probably not all of them.
i E '8 Q As many as you can recall.
5
'8 f A I was present, Mr. Hastings was present, Mr. 'Ihompson, 20 Joe conen from licensing, perhaps Mr. Willie (ph) from 21
, licensing.
e 22 f 0 Was Mr. Agosti present?
23 A I con't remember him for sure being present. But I don't 24 remember any of these for sure reasonably confident.
25 MR. MADEDA: When the notice of the A
15
' I violation would have come in, would they have routinely 2
have gone to -- I assume they would have either gone to )
3 the Chairman of the Board or the president, or they would have been addressed to them?
5 What I'm saying is at s ee point in 6
time during the passage of the original t'iolation, it would 7
have gone through your desk? '
8 THE WITNESS: Very definitely.
9 MR. MADEDA Okay.
'O You would have then assigned the responsibility for responding to these probably to Wayne 12 Hastings? Being Director of Security?
'3 THE WITNESS: Well, Wayne was the key player in all of that. Also, George Trahay was involved.
15 You have to understand this was our first opportunity to 16 l respond to a civil penalty fine, anc we involved a lot of I 17 e people-I i
1 18 Certainly Wayne and Sam probably f
carried the bulk of the technical fr a a security r 20 standpoint what was best. But, we had a licensing and 21
- I believe that maybe Pete Markquardt was also at one. i 22 i of the meetings.
2 You know, we wanted to do it as best as we could the first time, so there was no singular 25 attention that Wayne it was your job to do it. I would l
l
16
. t
. say that he had the brunt of the responsibility to getting 2
all of the information together. But we reviewed it with ;
3 a significani group, because we wanted to do it that way.
4 MR. HICKEY: Mr. Madeda's E
question assumes that you assigned the task of preparing 6
the response for that, and you didn't really answer that.
7 Did you, was it your 3ob and did s 8
you assign someone to the . task of preparing the responsW7 8
9 THE WITNESS : As best as I can r -all 10 is that in conversations with Mr. Agosti, we agreea that 11 it would be significant input from security, dicensing, 12 QA and legal. ...
13 So, I don't think it was ever intendec 14 that any one organization run the risk of not doing the 15 best he could for the first time we had the opportunity i 16 to respond. That's the way I remember it.
U
[ Q (By Mr. Kazmar, continuing) : Have you had any conversation i
E 18 5
with Mr. Hastings regarding the reasons why you're here, 19 l
O and that being the use of the CEO regarcing a five-day {
k E l letter to the NRC.
21 l 2
Have you had any conversations with l 22 l
{ him in that matter? {
23 A Yes, I have. It was an issue of a three-day federal 24 hearing. Where part of this, I presume part of the samer i 25 i concerns were addressed. I don't know specifically -- l l
l
I
. 17 !
1 O Did you testify at the hearing?
2 A Yes, I did, sir.
3 At the tir.e of the preparation of the five-day letter, 0
d which was at the beginning of November 1985, were you j 1
5 involved at all in that five-day letter preparation?
6 I don't remember playing the part in being involved in the A
7 I do remember re' viewing it before it was preparation.
8 sent out.
9 How did that review process take part, did you see a Q
10 hard copy, did you use the CEO system?
'I A No. I did not have access to that report immediately.
12 I did review a hard copy of the draf t.
'3 I believe I did it in Mr. Hastings'
'4 office, it could have been in my office, but we sat 15 together and reviewed the words.
16
! Q Were you knowledgeable at that time that the information contained in that leti.ex was safeguard information? 1 5 '8 A Yes, sir.
5 E 19 i Q Did you note that Mr. Hastinge had used the CEO in heading i
E of that letter?
g A I'm not sure.
$ 22 l i
Q Well, the hard copy, was it typewritten, or was it CEO?
23 A It was typed.
24 Q Was it from the printer?
25 A I don't know that I lookea at it with that kind of detail.
l l
l l ,
{
l l 1
l
. 18
' I could recognize it tocay, yes, because of what we 2 experienced, and the detailec focus of my intention of that 3
document at that time. ;
d Q During your review process,did it ever come up in the !
5 conversation with Mr. Hastings if the CEO system was 6 used in the preparation of this?
7 A I believe it did ccme up, anc Ibelieve the response to 8
my own inquiry was that it was deleted line by line.
8 And we felt that the system was as protected as the i I
'O typewriter is with people looking over your shoulder, !
,' 1
" and the one through ribbon application. ;
12 We didn't put the same kind of
'3 importance on it, because we thought it was a secured {
t system with the protective password, and the changing
'S of the passwords immediately 2s I understand it before ;
16 l it was sent. l
'7 We were not uncomfortable with that I Y
i 18 decision at the time.
19 i Q But, referring to the letter of July 'v5, there were i
r 20 indications that the system might not adequately 21 i
- protect the safeguard material.
i i 22 i So, then you're saying that at the i
23 time of the preparation of the letter, there was some 24 conversation regarding the use of the CEO.
25 Did you bring it up to Mr. Hastings l l
1
__.,1
l 19
- I
, to say, wait a minute, this is safeguard and you use the 2
CEO?
3 A No, I believe in July part of the concern was really directed to whether or not we could complete the security plan and other doctanents that were immediately reviewed.
8 I don't think we were addressing it to a five-day report, 7
which in Jbly, I am very limited, as to what a five-day 8
report was and I hadn't had security reporting to me yet. l 8
But, even beyond that, my position 10 had been telling what we had to do to make it secured, not don't use it.
12 Q Did anyone ever report to you what happened?
A No.
14 Q You never followed up on it?
15 A No, I did not.
! Q can you give me a reason why?
! 17
- A It seemed we had other more important issues at the time r*
' 18 5
in the last quarter of that year in particular that i
19 i was taking up a significant amount of our time. i i I r 20 Plus, we through our ignorance, if ;
- that's what it was, we thought it would be perfectly '
k 22
- safe in the amount of security to get something like that. l 23 MR. MADEDA: Did you base that level 24 of security on others than just your belief?
25 THE WITNESS: Well, we had had and l
. . _ _ _ _ _ ,- _- . __._._-_--__.----.--------------U
20 1
. I don't remember the specifics, I assume it was before 2
the September, October time frame. We had an audit 3
by corporate audit of security standards for computer d
systems and how it applies to Data General.
5 I Now, I'm sure they2werian'-t concerned 6
with highly sensitive safeguard information, just from 7
a general knowledge, how easy it would be for somebody 8
sitting in their home with a hcne computer and a mocem 8
to get to the system. ,
'O From a standpoint of what we could or coulan't do in and around the site and local area 12 network itself, at the time we were of the opinion that
'3 in the GToc installation, the person would have to visit that console, and get into that console to 15 violate any of these accounts.
'8 l MR. MADEDA: Were you aware at that point in time that there were NRC regulations dictated Y
18 safeguard information and regul tions thereof?
E l'
f THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I wasn't 20 particularly familiar with any restrictions from EDP, 21 2
or ADP process application. No one had called those to 22
! my attention other than Stu's memo which specifically 2
cited nothing. And, you know, Stu and I were on the same I
24 I staff and I, you know, in conversations said, I got your 25 memo, tell me what you need. I didn't feel it was my l
-.- - ey.
l 21
. 1 job to find out what he needed, but to provide what he 2
needed.
3 MR. BICKEY: I understand your 4
question. I want to clear it up in case I miss something.
5 I thought you were asking Mr. Piana 6
whether or not he was aware that there were NRC
'7 regulations and, fine, you're free to ask that. And 8
you're free to ask if he was familiar with the content.
9 MR. MADEDA: Well, one obviously to if he was'not aware of it, he can't be familiar with the 11 content.
12 THE WITNESS: No.
13 l MR. MADEDA: Wait a minute.
t 14 THE WITNESS: I guess the question i 15 .
I answered to Terry is that yes, I know there is safeguard 16 provisions in the NRC and certain information associated 17 with security safeguard.
t i 18 I didn't know any level of detail i
j 19 associhted with the preparation and/or restrictions 3
I 20 associated with using either electronic or automatic 21
, data processing equipment. Ididn't know that level of I
ld 22 detail.
I 1
23 I knew the -- I knew what the 24 safeguard was as a user.
25 MR. HICKEY: If I can interject just 1
l
-._ . _ _ _ . ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . , , . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . , . . _
22 l .
l one more question while we 're talking about Mr. Imach, 2
because I know you said this earlier or maybe you didn't.
3 When Mr. Leach and you had the 4
discussion af ter this July 1 memo, did Mr. Leach say 5
that he had concluded :that you could not use the CEO 6
for safeguard information, or that he didn't know whether 7
you c'uld o or coulan't?
8 THE WITNESS: I don't remember if it 9
was being a firmed conclusion. I remember my encouragement
'O that we should identify what it was we would have to do
'l to utilize it. Ana in the laterin, he could keep tne 12 typewriter that I wasn't going to take it away and he could
'3 use that if he had to.
t
'd But, no, there was no conclucion 15 that I absolutely can, not to my recollection any way.
'O
! Q (By Mr. Kazmar, continuing) : During your review process, dia anybocy approach you and say that the CEO had been t
E '8 used for editing a letter and advise you that, you know, a
f it contains safeguard information?
I r 20 A I don't recall that having happened.
g O Mr. Thompson?
k 22 g A I don ' t know.
23 MR. MADEDA: Mr. Korte?
24 THE WITNESS: I believe Mr. Hastings 25 and I did _have one discussion, but by then it was already
,-<2 -. m . - . - -
-.-....r-,-,--,._-..-~,. ,_, ,,-,--,--.,-,---,,,w-.c,e,-,,,.,.--r,,,, .-,, -,-- , , _ , , - , , - -
23
- 1 deleted but, I don't believe anybody else, and I spoke 2
about it.
3 0 (By Mr. Kazmar, continuing) : Anct that discussion reflected 4
the fact that he did delete it and he felt that --
5 A It was protected all the while it was there. And certainly, 6
I want to make that perfectly clear, I did not see that 7
electronic display on my terminal. I know I have never 8
seen that.
9 MR. MADEDA: And you're also telling 10 us that you were not aware of the incident until after it 11 had been removed from the CEO?
12 MR. HICKEY: That's not what he said.
13 He said he reviewed the draft.
14 THE WITNESS: Well, I was aware of 15 the report, the incident being the fact that it had been 16 l on CEO. .And there was a concerzt associated with it.
I 17 I did not get full information of V
i 18 E
that until af ter it had been deleted, corrected. I 19 i MR. MADEDA: You were aware that it l t 20 was put on a CEO, you did not know the affect of the i
21 results until af ter it was deleted from the CEO?
22 h THE WITNESS: That's correct, sir, 23 yes, sir.
24 MR. HICKEY: If you had been informed 25 before the letter was printed, that it had been draf ted l
l
24
'. on the CEO, would you thought based on what you knew 2
on November 7th, that that was a violation of the NRC 3
regulations?
4 THE WITNESS: No, I would not have.
5 And as I recall the real concerns seem to be associated 6
with the particular term on the 24th floor in the building.
7 And that installation was late September as I remember it, '
8 it was not publically known. In fact, like other CEO 8
accounts that were added when the president was put on, 10 and Mr. Agosti made the determination that we're not --
that Mr. Heidel was available and was so conveniently 12 via the electronic too.
'3 So, we didn't go throughthe normal
'4 announcement that all users get to say, we weleme 15 Mr. Heidel to the account. Very few people knew about
'8 l that account. We really did it to support the emergency i exercise Fermax '85, which I believe is the first week i* '8 in October, or the second.
t 3
19
} Now, I knew it was there, because i
r 20 my secretary Charlene Anderson Mr. Heidel on the use. Ana !
21 g basically to receive the emergency information at that
$ 22 i point in time from the exercise that was going to take .
2 place.
24 I certainly would have felt it would have been impossible for Mr. Heidel, given his limited
-- , - , - - - - - - - - , . - - , _ , - - - - - ,.--,.-.---,,.-,-,,.a - . - - , . - , , -
l 25
+
' skill and association for this instance to come in on the 2
24th floor and gotten anybody else'se password. He may l
3 be a great computer user, and I don't know that. j l
4 But, based on the training, it !
5 was explained to me, I doubt that anybody on the 24th 6 It would not have floor would have that kind of skill.
7
- been an issue.
8 Would you have expected MR. MADEDA:
8 anyone from your Nuclear Security Organization to realize 10 that by putting @ -derm ent on the CEO, they could have ;
1
" been in violation of the regulation? j 12 THE WITNESS: I don't believe so,
'3 because to this day nobody has specifically identified
'd it to my knowledge. 'Itose portions of the regulations 15 that are obviously clear.
'8 l MR. MADEDA: You're not aware that
" certain individuals in the security organization made
[
1 I 18 it known to Mr. Hastings that these individuals just felt i
j 18 that this was safeguard information, and should not have i
r 20 been put on the CEO?
, ' HIE WITNESS: I'm aware that they 2
22
! felt that way. I was not aware that they had concrete 23 evidence to suggest that it could have been comprised.
24 I don't believe they are any more technical than I am.
25 And (b), that they could specifically
,26 l l
- 1 cite the regulation to my knowledge, you know, expressly !
2 prohibiting the application as Wayne did.
3 Now, they may have known a hell l
4 of a lot more, but they certainly never canmunicated it 5 to myself.
6 MR. MADEDA: Would they have 7
j communicated it to Wayne?
8 THE WITNESS: I don't know if they l 1
9 did. There's been a lot of controversy about what.was l
10 cammunicated to Wayne in the form of some electronic ,
l 11 messages, wherein there were concerns expressed. But, l l
12 I believe those specifically identified chapter and verse l I
13 and violation of all of those kinds of things, which l 14 I would say Mr. Hastings is a very progressive man. He 15 would say, if you can put a man on the moon, we can do 16 anything.
I 17 And I believe Stu supported th at ,
e i
i 18 if he had stayed there from the standpoint of, "Stu, E l j 19 tell me what we have to give you but let's use the state I 20 of the art equipment to get the job done."
21 There was never any intent to try to
?
3 22 skirt the regulations by anybody, I wouldn't have allowed e l 23 it had I known that.
24 hR. MADEDA: When would you or 25 Mr. -- when yould you have become aware that NRC had a
. 27 problem with what happened?
2 THE WITNESS: I presume at the 3
exit associated with the inspection where it's identified.
i d
NR. MADEDA: At the on site exit?
5 THE WITNSS: Yes, sir.
6 MR. MADEDA: Were there any discussions subsequent to that axit that you would have 8
been involved in discussing that specific item, prior to l the , you know, let's a day or two over a day or two af ter
'O the exit.
'I It's not unusual that Detroit Edison prior to our exit af ter we leave sit down and discuss
'3 items. Was that item specifically discussed?
THE WITNESS: I would have to say in a normal course of business, we did it that way and
,! it probably was, Terry.
I 17 MR MADEDA: You don't remember any V
i 18 details?
E
! 19
] THE WITNESS: No, sir.
I MR. MADEDA: Okay.
THE WITNESS: Well, it would seem k 22 normal. I would assume so.
23 MR. MADEDA: Okay.
24 MR. HICKEY: Can I ask a question?
25 MR. MADEDA: Sure.
. 28 4
1 MR. HICKEY: You talked about 1
2 Mr. Heidel, what his capability was to get into the system 3
from the executive offices here downtown. I 4
In November 1985, what was your 5 belief about the ability of users to get into the CEO l 6 sy3 tem terminals that was within the security department 7
offices in the GTOC' building?
8 Did you believe;h could be done 9
from outside the security offices?
10 THE WITNESS: No, I thought that
' the security system as configured would require 12 somebocy to go to their command console in GTOC to 13 get into that system, which was located in the office 14 area.
l 16 MR. HICKEY: So, it was your belief l 16 l that Mr. Heidel could. not have seen the data that was U
[ pui on Mr. Hastings ' CEO terminal in the security i
i 18 department, unless he came physically over to the 1
19 l security department, and looked at the terminal there?
20 THE WITNESS: Or unlesr it was 21 l
, transmitted to him. '
2 l 22
[ MR. HICKEY: Unless it was sent to 23 him?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that would have 25 been my belief at the time.
- - - - , . , , --,,4- ,-, ,e n~-- v- ' - - ~ ' *
- 29 1
MR. MADEDA: Concerning this specific allegation, or this specific violation on the June 19th 1etter, that's dealing with the safeguard information.
4 Do you agree with the company's position that the licensee was in violation?
6 WE WITNESS: I'm not convinced of 7
that entirely. Nobody has shown me hard evidence to 8
convince me that that information could have been ccenpromised .
10 MR. MADEDA: So, you feel that item
" as far as your personal belief, it still is 'n dispute?
12 TFE WITNESS: Absolutely not in dispute, we thought it --
MR. MADEDA: As far as being --
excuse me. As far as being a violation.
! THE WITNESS: In my.. mind, it is still I 17 g a dispute, yes, sir. It is not a dispute between the I 18 company and regulatory conmission.
I 19 i MR. MADEDA: Okay.
f WE WITNESS: We didn't perhaps 21 ploce the' same significance on it back then as we would 22
% today. No, I'm not convinced in my own mind that that 23 equipment -- well, I'm convinced that that equipment can 24 be used. Now, there is the question whether it was well 25 enough to take it back, but nobody has convinced me that
l l
1 30
- ' ' it wasn't.
2 I haven't gone into it and browbeat 3
any technical experts. We thought we were putting it 4
behind us ard the better part of valor was to accept it 5
as wrong and did not do it again until such time that we 6
were sure that the system -- well, I wouldn't say do it 7
again.
1 8
MR. KAEMAR: To your knowledge, is 9
Detroit Edison still examining that question?
10 MR. HICKEY: What question?
11 MR. KAzMAR: AS to with regara if 12 the system is secured now?
'3 MR . HICKEY : I think you have a procedure that says the CEO wouldn't be used for safeguard 15 7' information.
16 l MR. KAEMAR: Well, aside from that.
17 Is there any inquiries going on 1
18 to that fact?
1 f THE WITNESS: I'm having some 20 difficulty. We are always concerned with fra a corporate 21
, standpoint whether it's the system at Fermi or elsewhere, I
22 f what.the security.on the computer system is.
23 MR. HICKEY : I think you asked h!.m whether he plans to try to make the CEO safeguard.
25 MR. KAEMAR: Not only plans, but to your
l 1
31 I '
knowledge, is anybody looking into it?
2 THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge.
3 It's one itam that when things settle down and a new director, if he is interested, would like to talk about 5
it, I certainly believe that would be a significant I
opportunity to give him better equipment to get the job ;
done, so long as he is confident that the protective 8
security requirements are met. l 8
I believe that Mr. Kim, it is his
'O responsibility now and from interviewing him, I think he will probably over time look at that potential. But I 12 know of no specific directions to co that, no, sir.
13 MR. HICKEY: Well, you're aware, );
' )
14 aren't you that there are other nuclear plants that 15 have safeguarc information on systems that are comparable ,
with the CEO?
I 17 l r THE WITNESS: I am aware that there I i
j 18 are some similar. And the only significant difference
$ 19 j would be for instance if they have a security plan on
! 20 ATP equipment probably on diestorage, kept in a safeguard vault, those kinds of things. -
k 22
) But, when you're on the machine, 23 I assume that there is wire on the machine that can also 24 transmit, I don't know that for a fact. That's for what 25 I understand from some. applications.
I 32 l
I
-- MR. HICKEY: I've got two things l 2
that came up this morning.
1 3
EXAMINATION BY MR. HICKEY:
8 Q Are you aware of an incident in early 1985, when there 6
,,,. a proposal and some work performed leading to try 7
to put a CEO'. terminal in executive offices on the 24th 8
floor?
8 A Yeah, I put it in the first quarter of '85, and at the I
'8 time to the best of my recollection, they were talking about Mr. McCarthy's office. We got into a political 12 situation where MacPac., which is a computer system
'3 utilized by Mr. McCarthy versus CEO, probably not a good choice when you're putting in the CEO office system 15
. were not easily compatible.
And Mr. McCarthy suggested that I 17
. he would stay with MacPac. And at that time, and until r
I '8 such time as it became obvious Mr. Heidel wanted to
! 19 l 1 have the ease associated with the emergency exercise !
I l
- 20 information flowing directly not through the dictation l 21 g over the p;ione kinds of things, there was no additional
$ 22 i effort to install anything from Data General, or CEO 23 type of equipnent down there.
24 0 Well, was their decision by the top executives of the 25 Detroit Edison when this earlier venture was terminated, i
33
' that they would not install CEO on the 24th floor?
2 That was certainly true at the time, like January or A
3 February of '85.
4 Q Okay.
5 I want to ask you one other question.
6 How long have you known Mr. Hastings?
7 A I have known Mr. Hastings for approximately 20 years, 8 18 to 20 years.
8 Have you worked closely with him, or could you describe Q
10 what your connection with him has been during that time 11 period?
12 A Sure. I knew Wayne initially when I was employed in the 13 Dnployee Relations Organization in this capany, and he l'
worked in the Fossil Plant. I eventually transferred out 15 of Employee Relations, into the Fossil Plant.
16 l Also, we were working in similar 17 f positions at different power plants in the administrative y
I 18 Fossil Power Plant business. .
5 18
$ We also moved into Central Staf f I 20 Functions for administrative and financial emputer 21
, management information for all of the power plants at 2
22
{ the Warren Service Center, some five or six years later.
23 And I had a continuing professional 24 relationship with Wayne. I guess through all that period 25 of time, I have known him to make mistakes and be quickly
34 4
' able to admit them, and take the appropriate corrective 2 actions and get on with it.
3 I believe the man's career is 4 dotted with nothing exemplary performance and certainly )
5 a high moral character.
l 6 To get away from the professional end of it, personally we don't socialize except for 7 I 8 cmpany functions together. But,- I do know Wayne that l 8 Wayne over the years has been written up a nmber of times
'O in the company paper, and I think that speaks to the kind i
' of person that he is.
12 He has been active in the Boy Scouts l 13 of America, which is unique in the fact that he doesn't
And he was a silver Beaver, and I think even have a son.
'S that's the correct word.
l 16 And he has been in the International !
'7 business..in associatten with..the yopng: men.of.~ this l
[ c..-
i I '8 country. And I'll be more than happy to allow him to 5
'8 help form my son any time he cared to.
f I
r 20 Do you have any opinion about his honesty and integrity?
Q 21
, A I would never have a question on the issue with Wayne.
2 22
{ Ano I don't believe there's many who could if any.
23 MR. MADEDA: Did you have any 24 discussion with Mr. Hastings either subsequent to our 25 exit to the inspection identified, the non-compliance,
- -- , . - - - . ~ , - , _ - - - . . , _ -,__--.-_,,,.--.-y,- - . , - - . - - - - , - - , - . , , , . _ . _ _ , ,
r 35 .
' ' and prior to the response being sent out owncerning the 2
specific items?
3 THE WITNESSt I believe I did, yes, 4
sir.
5 MR. MADEDA: Could you recall what 6
was discussed at that time?
THE WITNESS: I believo at'the 8
time he would have shared the opinion I have already ;
8 voiced that we were not convinced that what we did 1
'O compromised the information, or could have compromised the information.
I We were confident that it didn't.
We weren't even confident it could have. And in recollection, probably I don't know and passing, we might
" have said to do it over again we woulcn't have. I don't 16 f know. It would seem obvious that it was -- it was not I
17
, an issue with us to try and carry across, or blow it V
I '8 up any bigger than it was. '
8 i 19 j It was unfortunate that somewhere I 20 on staff obviously we didn't carry the confidence that
- information was not compromised, or could not have been.
$ 22 i I don't know specifically to what technical degree they 23 could make those kinds of concerne valid either.
24 MR. MADED, * 'once s in t'..!a 25 item, didn't really relate to -
that were nade
. 36
,#' not really by a member of the staff, but comments that were 2
made fra the director of the security at that time to 3
the inspection?
THE WITNESS: Yes, okay.
5 MR. HICKEY: Say that again?
6 MR. MADEDA: I think that 'our primary concern in this is not so muci the comments made 8
by the Wayne staff at that point in time, but what 8
actions or comments Wayne may have told an NRC inspector.
'O THE WITNESS: I would expect
' that it would be comparable to anything he may have told 12 me in which I think voiced. We were not convinced we had a real violation. But, by the same token, we were confident that it had not been empromised, never electronically transmitted. Those were the things that
'8 f we talked about.
I 17
, Now we did not at that point in time, V
I
- Terry, tie immediate significance either to the fact that i
f the 24th floor was on the system.
I r 20 Wayne certainly when he did it, I am 21 g
of the belief that he did not know Mr. Heidel had it too.
I 22 i There would be no reason ~for'it. If he had been in the EOF with me, what we using it in the exercise, that would 24 have probably been the first time he would have knowledge 25 of it. But, he did not in f act, play in that exercise.
I
- 37 r
' He was too new to security, and we used, I think, Sam.
2 MR. MADEDA: Why would Wayne use the CEO for this? Why would he not use another communicaticn to him?
5 Well, knowing Wayne j THE WITNESS:
6 the way I do, I would expect that it would be because he wanted to take advantage' of the state of the art j technology, the ease a.f word processing, to make it easier 8
on he and his staff to revies it. I can't think of no I l
'O other reason.
I beleive that that would have been 12 the thrust. He anc I had done an awful. lot of dictating directly into the machine. Well, to an operator, secretary, And we were very ceafortable in doing it.
15 And we found at that point in time -
l 16 that it was very convenient to utilize the capabilities I 17 g
of that equipnent, particularly if we were going to be I la
', doing a number of drafts and editing as you go.
19 1 Ana these kinds of transmittals,
. f r 20 I guess, the experience was that they did get revised g and stroked, and that sort of thing by members of the 5 22 i security staff. I believe that would have been the I 23 only reason.
24 MR. KAZMAR: Any more, Mr. Hickey?
25 MR. HICKEY: No.
0 38 1
MR. KAZMAR: Mr. Piana, have I or 2
any other NRC representative here threatened you in any 3
manner, or offered you any award in return for your statement? l 1
5 THE WITNESS: Absolutely not. i 6 Have you given this MR. KAEMAR:
7 statement freely and voluntarily?
8 Yes, I have.
THE WITNESS:
9 MR. KAZMAR: Is thane anything to further you care to add for the record?
Il THE WITNESS: No, sir.
12 (Interview concluded at
'3 1:55 p.m.)
I4 - - -
15 i: 16
)
I 17 e
1
- 18
. i f 19 l 1
r 20 i l
21 0
k 22 a
23 24 25 l
I
39 J 4
t*
STATE OF MICHIGAN )
I 88 2
COUNTY OF WAYNE )
CERTIFICATE 4
I do hereby certify that the witness 5
whose attached interview was taken before me, in the above-6 entitled matter, was by me first duly cautioned and sworn to 7
- I * " ' ** * " *" " I " * "
8 l
in the cause aforesaid; that the testimony contained in said ;
3g interview was by me reduced to weriting in the presence of upon a typewriter. The said interview is a true and correct 33 I
transcript of the whole of the testimony given by the said 12 witness aforesaid.
33 I do further certify that I am not
( 3, connected by blood or marriage with any of the parties or their 15 agetns, and that I am not an employee of either of them, nor i
16 i
37 interested, directly or indirectly in the matter of ,
e ntroversy, either as counsel, attorney, agent or otherwise.
f 18 l 39 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,-I have hereunto I l j g set my hand affixed my notarial seal at Detroit, Michigan, 21 County of Wayne, State of Michigan, this 18th day of C ,
22 September, 19u6. {
24 ~
hpborah J. Nr.sh, CSR-2993, Notary j 25 Public, Wayne County, Michigan I i
My commission expires: 9-4-87 l
,