ML20205B777
| ML20205B777 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18019A372 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8509120237 | |
| Download: ML20205B777 (82) | |
Text
..~ -. .:.... . - . . - . . . - - . . - . . - . - . - . . _ . . . .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
('
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
In the matter of:
Meeting of NRR Staff in re:
Shearon Harris, Unit 1
/d 3 Docket No.
[ N [LooA.
b Location: Bethesda, Maryland
- Date: Thursday, September 5, 1985 Pages: 1 - 80 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES y; Court Reporters c 1625 I St., N.W.
jjj91$$$$k $o911000$go Suite 921 T Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 t . .. _ _- _ _ _ _.
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j ?)
2~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 -----------------x 4 Meeting of NRR Staff :
5 in re: :
, 6 Shearon Harris, Unit 1 :
7 -----------------x 8
9 Room P-422 7920 Norfolk Ave:,
10 Bethesda, MD.
11 Thursday, September 5, 1985 12
( ,l 2 The meeting in the above-entitled matter came on for -
14 discussion at 11:05 a.m.
2 BEFORE:
~
la For the Staff:
17 Bart Buckley T.M. Novak N Ted Sullivan R.L. Prevatte o 18 Roger D.' Walker Charles A. Barth 30 Janice Moore
= Bradley Jones 21 Ted Gilbert H. Denton 23 23 24 26 w ps % - e r*ew
- ru,* -
wp
__=we un em m a m - - -
2 l
1 APPEARANCES: (Cont.)
f%
+
S 3 Counsel for Carolina Power & Light:
4 l
John H. O'Neill, Jr., Esq. '
Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.
5 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge
. 8 7 For Carolina Power & Light:
a 8 Bill Hindman Roland Parsons 8
Harold R. Banks A.B. Cutter 10 Dale E. Hollar 11 12
/
14 18 14 17 18 19 2
23 23 94 t
e..... - . _ , _ . . . ._.
~_._ ,
I
3 1 P,R O C E E D I_ N G S 2 -
MR. BUCKLEY: The purpose of the meeting is for 3 you all to let us know how you're handling the allegations, 4 drug allegations.
5 I think if anybody is going to speak we ought to
. 6 speak one at a time since the transcriber can get a good 7 transcription. Other than that, I'll leave it up to Mr.
+
8 Denton or Mr. Novak.
8 MR. NOVAX: Well, let me just -- certainly I 10 wanted to make a few opening remarks. We have wanted to 11 meet with the applicant regarding this issue. We feel there's 12 a certain amount of information that can be provided to us
() 13 at this meeting. We've utilized the idea of having a 14 transcript so that we can go back and study it.
Mi Since the meeting was arranged in relatively .
le short order so this will be an opportunity for all parties 17 to study the material that is presented at this meeting.
Hi I view this meeting as an opportunity for you to 18 present information regarding the efforts you have done with 3D regard to the contention on drugs. And from that point of Il view we will want to better understand those efforts that as you have followed in developing your position.
23 I've read your motion for summary disposition.
se We have some members of the staff here that will probably as want to understand it and have you go through it in a little
v 4
1 more detail for us.
3 2 Harold, I think you had a few comments which I 3 think would be appropriate at this point in time.
4 MR. DENTON: I think the areas that we will be 5 especially interested in hearing about fall into several
, 8 categories. The first category is the extent and adequacy
+
7 of identification of potential drug use on site or any drug 8 use which has affected the quality of the plant.
8 And I think in this. area I want to be sure you 10 are will'ing and able to work with our Office of Investigation 11 to the extent necessary and with the responsible state and u local officials so that the extent of drug use by your
(} u construction staff or any of the other operating maintenance 14 staff is well understood.
2 It seems to be that's where we need to start from ,
18 is knowing have you really identified the extent of drug use 17 at the site. And maybe OI would like to talk at some time W about what role they'd like to play in this.
18
. Secondly, once the extent is known, there's the 88 issue of protecting confidential sources and working through 21 the justice channels to be sure we don't divulge the name of 8E people who shouldn't be divulged. But I want to understand as what activities these people were engaged in, and need to 24 understand how you plan to go about assuring that these 26 activit'as by these people did not affect the quality of the
. - . . .- _ .- ~ . . - . . .--- .~.. ---- -. _- -
5 ,
} -
1 R.lant. And I don't think blanket reliance on your QA program i 1 is going to satisfy the staff, because I don't think when ;
f, 3 we reviewed the QA program, I don't think we had in mind 4 widespread drug abuse going on.
< 5 Third, I'd like to hear what you're doing about 1
1 e
assuring us that drug abuse is not occurring today on the
- 7 site, and the extent to which you are complying with the l
- j 8 industry proposal for fitness for duty, and following the 1
l 9 EPRI program which spells out the industry proposal in
- f
- - to asasuring fitness for duty among the operating or maintenance
- 11 staff. -
j ut so I think there are the three broad areas that i !
la I'd like to be sure you cover today.
lv, s:
i 14 MR. NOVAK I think we ought to probably just go 4
2 1 i
around the table and introduce ourselses so that we do know .
18 the parties.
i And they have asked that when you do speak to k
17 identify yourself again so that the record is clear as to f
WB who is making what statements. i i W My name is Tom Novak.
1
- I'm the assistant director ,
1 3D [
! for licensing. ;
} .
St l MR. SULLIVAN: My name is Ted Sullivan, I'm the 88 technical assistant in the division of engineering. ;
a' 4 U ;
MR. HINDMAN: My name is Bill Hindman. I'm J
- se i
manager of the Harris project administration at the Shearon 88 t
Harris nuclear power plant. ,
I ,
i !
t i !
)
^
I _ _____ 1_r_ r :_n__1___n . _::--- --~ ~r :r- n r . .ww .
-- m,, m ..,-2
l 6 l l
l 1 MR. PARSONS: My name is Roland Parsons. I'm 2 the project general manager at the site.
3 MR. BANKS: Harold Banks, corporate quality 4 assurance manager.
6 MR. CUTTER: Al Cutter, vice president of 6 nuclear engineering and licensing.
7 MR. HOLLAR: Dale Hollar, associate general counsel O
8 with CP&L.
9 MR. O'NEILL: John O'Neill, Shaw, Pittman, Potts, 10 and Trowbridge.
11 MR. BAXTER: Tom Baxter with Shaw, Pittman.
12 MR. PREVATTE: Dick Prevatte, senior resident
() 13 inspector construction at Harris.
14 MR. WALKER: Roger Walker, director of division un projects in Atlanta.
16 MR. HAYES: Ben Hayes, director of the Office of 17 Investigations.
18 MR. CHRISTENBURY: Ed Christenbury, legal directors 19 office.
30 MR. DENTON: Harold Denton, director of NRR.
21 MR. DUCKLEY: Dart Buckley, licensing project 22 '
manager, Harris. project.
26 MR. BARTH: Charles Barth, ELD, NRC.
- t= ,y 2 , a pen.u s.--.m. - -
,_, p
7 1 MS. MOORE: Janice Moore, ELD.
2 MR. ROSANO: And Dick Rosano, Office of Inspection 3 Enforcement.
4 - MR. NOVAK: Before we turn the meeting over to 6 the applicant for some opening remarks are there any specific 6 points that either the staf f f rom the region or NRR wish 7 to bring up at this time? If not, Al would you be the senior 8 spokesman for the applicant on this point?
9 MR. CUTTER: Let me make the introductory remarks, 10 and I think Tom Baxter will be carrying the thrust of the 11 meeting.
12 MR. NOVAK Why don't we turn it over to you then.
([ } 13 MR. CUTTER: We appreciate the opportunity to 14 meet with you today to discuss the control of the site program 18 that we have developed. We have several concerns with 16 regard to communicating the information to you. We want it 17 to be communicated in a timely way.
18 We feel that the pressure of establishing our 19 licensing program and the timeliness of resolving this issue 30 in the hearing environment is one that says we should be 21 focusing on imparting to you the information that you need 2t to make the judgment that you might feel necessary to make 23 as to the adequacy of what we're doing.
24 It's our intent to ccoperate fully in giving you 26 the information that we have available today. And following
8
- 1 up as necessary with any additional material that you can i
t' "N
! 2 identify to us that you need to have.
I j 3 We have been cooperative in the past with our l i i 4 local civil authorities. We intend to be fully cooperative
] f 1
8 with OI to the extent that they're involved. I think that i
i 8 we need to make sure you understand our view of the seriousness) i 7 of drug use. But also, put in context the fact that we don't I i .
j !
8 believe that we have a situation of widespread drug abuse, I 8 or of major concern.
10 And par t of what we would hope to do is to l i
! 11 demonstrate to you that we have taken those steps necessary I
! 18 to understand the nature of the problem, and that that problem [
l l
} (; s-13 is in fact, not a major problen, but a problem of reasonable !
14 "
proportion that is amenable to responsible action to control,
{ Hn and that we've taken those actions. .
~ '!
18 MR. DENTON: One area, A1, that I think I would !
a 1 i 17 I
{ find useful if you could just give a little bit of historical J
l HB perspective on how this issue came to light and the extent .
I l
1 18 to which you think you have a full knowledge of information 30 that say the state may have available to act on. I 21 MR. BAXTER: Before we get too far into the meeting i as just some context remarks that I would like to get in before [
j , as too far into the substance.
$ # Just by way of background, the contention that !
i ss l w..re dealing with here goes to the quality of our construction
( ,
l
__ _ _ _[ [_'_ _h-_ _1__.____5_"_1-- - -- - - - -- I--I- '
-l------------- - - -~"" ~
9 1 effort. You may well have some concerns about operations 2 for licensing and for the commissioners and what the scope 3 of the hearing is, but so far at least the hearing is looking 4 at construction quality.
6 We filed our motion for summary disposition on 6 July 12th. We had six affidavits in support of that. Some 7 of the information I think you're looking for we have there, 8 but we'll be happy to go over them today. For instanco, we
! 9 have -- our security people have affidavits in there about to the various ways we go about identifying people on sito.
11 Just to forowarn you though, I hope that you can summarize 12 that for them today.
', 13 The staff's answer to our motion was due on the 14 27t). of August and at that time the staf f indicated that wo 16 would be rocciving a request for additional information in to the form of a letter from the regional administrators. It's 17 my undoratanding that the purpose of this mooting is in is lieu of that letter for the staff to ask us the additional 18 information that it socks in order to prepara for hearing.
80 Currently the licensing board has a schedule of 21 September 23 for testimony and September 30 to start hearing,
- although they recognize that might slip. So I'd like to koop
- that in our minds, too, as we're talking about the additional 24 work that noods to be dono if any.
26 I think Bill Itindman is probably in tho boat
10 1 position. He has been appointed by the VP of the project 2 as his project level coordinator of drug information. And 3 he's not the security person who signed the affidavit about 4 the means we have of identifying the drug users or the people 5 in drug activity, but I think he can probably best summarize 6 that for you.
7 I will say just from personal knowledge, we have 8 checked with the State Bureau of Investigation and the Wake 9 County sheriff's department, the two agencies involved in 10 that undercover operation since they filed their response, 11 and have confirmed that we have all the names that they have 12 of anybody that they have uncovered as suspected and involved 13 in drug activity.
14 In terms of the history, the way this came to 18 light was, in the fall of 1984 CP&L proposed to local law to enforcement that there be an undercover drug investigation 17 at Shearon !!arris because of some employees who we had 18 uncovered in possession of drugs, and some additional off-site 19 information the officers had. 'So they were invited in in the 20 fall, and after an eight-wook undercover operation they mado 21 arrests of eight people. -
22 And the shoriff had a news conferenco, and the 23 results of the undorcover operation woro reported in the 24 pross. And the day after the nownpaper articlo the 26 Conservation Council of North Carolina filo d their contention 7 _ . _.. . .
11 I with the licensing board. So that is the way the issue 2 has come to light.
3 We documented in our motion of July 12th though 4 all of -- the fact that we had uncovered to date 173 people 5 in the project out of 26,000 tha,t had been employed there 6 over the 8.ife of the project as having been terminated for 7 either confirmed or suspected involvement in drugs, and then 8 discussed in detail what we did the inspectors in particular.
9 MR. BANKS: One point, of those 173 that were to suspected of drug use, that was not necessary use on site.
11 That could have been they were drug screened and used it 12 off-site.
13 MR. O'NEILL: Dut let me re-emphasize. We came 14 to this meeting in large degree because we had already 16 provided a notebook full of information to you about the to history of this whole problem, what we had done to date ,
17 how we had reinspected for QA, CI inspectors. We came to 18 this meeting hoping to find out what additional information 18 you might want. And we'd like to walk away from this meeting 30 knowing what additional information you think we need to 21 provide to you so that you can prepare your testimony on this
- contention.
We thought we were going to get that last week.
24 And counsel, Mr. Treby told the board that we would expect a 26 Ictter last week that would tell us what additional information
12 1 that you needed'. We understand that you were preparing an
. 2 affidavit to support our motion for summary disposition and 3 decided not to do that.
4 We'd like to know what additional information you 5 decided you needed so that you can go ahead with that effort
, e ao we can keep this hearing schedule.
l l
7 MR. DENTON: Well, maybe at the end of the meeting a we'll be able to give you some views. I think one of the 9 purposes of this meeting is to be sure all the players in 10 such an issue are fully knowledgeable about the facts. And 11 you shouldn't assume that we've all been active participants 12 in the proceedings so far.
13 MR. CUTTER: I think not to misunderstand what 14 John has said with regard to the schedule or what we had r
j is hoped we would accomplish, that we certainly want to take i c
- to advantage of the body of knowledge we have here to review ~
i 17 with you what we have already provided, as well as provide
. is whatever additional information we can, in the hopes that i
le that does in fact provide you the visibility you need of 20 information.
1 -
21 And if there is something which remains after that
- 22 discussion to be furnished, then we would hope to go away i 2 knowing that, rather than with the expectation that at some l
l 24 later time it would be identified. .
26 MR. DENTON: Maybe you could just summarize some 1
1
,~.-,,-.......%,.+m.- .,4-... + .. ,
_ _ _ . ,.m.,_, _,_ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
13 1 of the points you've already made because I don't think all 2 of us in the meeting have looked at all of it.
i l 3 For example, someone should start, I think, by 4 telling us the kind of program CP&L had in effect. Was that 5 same program in effect for your contractors or not? Had 6 you -- we need to understand some of the detailed mechanics 7 -of your program. Maybe that's already been provided, but a if you could just sort of resummarize it we'd appreciate it.
9 MR. HINDMAN: Can I start by giving you kind of 10 my view of how we came to this whole issue? There's a lot 11 of things there that kind of built up, and a lot of assumption s, 12 I think it would be wise if we at least brought out before 13 we got into other issues.
14 Basically I think that Tom indicated that in 1984 05 af ter the middle of the year there was some activity in the 16 vicinity of the Harris project in Wake County where the 17 sheriff's department had made some arrests. And our security 18 people for construction have almost daily contact with the 19 sheriff's department.
20 In other words, there are calls back and forth,
~
21 do you know this person, have you ever heard of him. ANd 22 when they have arrests for drug issues they would share that 23 information. Occasionally they would ask us for information.
24 So it was an ongoing relationship.
26 It one point they came to us and said, you know,
-. .-.n-.. . .. _ _ - .
14 1 it would probably be wise if we got into this a little bit 2 closer, because you've got the largest concentration of 3 population in this part of the county working on your project, 4 in excess of 6,000 people. So at that point in time we 5 talked about the fact that with the activity on the periphery
, 6 and the fact that we had had some indications of drug use 7 by the population at the site that we would work together.
8 So we requested their assistance in a formal 9 fashion. The Wake County sheriff supplied one person, and 10 the SBI supplied one person who would come to'the site and 11 work with us for a period to be described as about eight 12 weeks, to work undercover to look at the issue of drug use
- 13 on the site.
4
! 14 MR. DENTON: Now I don't want to divert you from
.i 15 that story too far, but what program did you have in place l 16 prior to that time?
l 17 MR. HINDMAN: Prior to that time we had a full-time i
i HB CP&L construction security agent on the site and he links 19 into some people back at headquarters. Plus he has an j 20 organization of people who actually control entrance access 21 to the site.
i 22 We also had -- in other words, that's the security 23 organization that knows what's coming in the gates and what's 24 going out of the gates.
25 MR. DENTON: Were you following at that time 1 . , , , . .
.. - .-,,...~.; _ ;; - _ _ ; ~7 .- ~. . .
15 1 anything close to the EPRI fitness for duty program 7 s
2 MR. HINDMAN: The EPRI fitness for duty program 3 I'm not completely familiar with those requirements in that 4 program. I think what we were following was the guidelines 5 for construction projects, whereby when people come onto the 8 project -- first of all, to be hired in there there's a 7 screening process for construction people which is not like 8 the operating plant. But basically a verification of who 8 the person is and some of his background.
10 We're talking about craft people coming in the 11 gate. They do have supervisory people, and they have had 12 for a number of years, supervisory people at the gate who
( ). 18 actually view the people as they enter the site. So that 14 coming into the site you don't have any people who are '
Hi obviously under the influence of drugs or alcohol or anything to else.
~
17 In addition to that process of viewing the people ul we also have such things as checks of the contents of their 18 lunch pails to make sure that drugs are not coming onto the 30 site or leaving. In addition to that we've had a system 21 whereby we use a metal detector and other things to check E the contents of people on a random basis.
23 Now those are some of the things that have been 24 occurring prior to this time at the gates themselves.
25 MR. DENTON: This was a CP&L program?
16 1 MR. HINDMAN: This was a program sponsored by the 2 utility at the site. ,
3 MR. BAXTER: But it applied to everyone coming 4 in and out.
5 MR. DENTON: Did the architect engineers have 6 their own programs for their employees. Because most of these 7 employees did not report directly to CP&L.
8 MR. HINDMAN: This applied to those people who 9 were involved in the building the plant, whether or not to they were CP&L. But basically all the craft people woro 11 Daniel Construction or Davis Electric. And it applied very 12 directly to those people, yes. And those are the majority j 13 of the people we're talking about.
14 So we had a lot of things that were going on at 15 the gates to check the people as they ontored the site and 16 as they left the sito, to control personal belongings coming 17 and going.
18 Now once in the sito, we had given training to le the supervisory level people, the foreman, general foreman 20 and superintendants above the lovels of thoso craft people, 21 for examplo, plus other supervisors on sito, training in 22 how to recognize illegal substancos, how to recognize the 23 offects of illegal substancos on,poopin.
24 So we had already gotton into the program of 26 making an awareness in the supervis. ion of the offects
- ~ '
____ r _. - ~~ ~- ~~
17 1 of drug in the work place. So that had gone on prior to 2 this time also.
3 Plus we had in effect a quality check program 4 which allowed anyone on the site to be able to make an 5
allegation, in an anonymous fashion about any concern, to 6 include the use of illegal drugs on the site.
More than 7
that, I think we had a management openness to accept calls 8
from anyone, or messages from anyone if they had a concern 9 about illegal drugs on the site.
10 So that had boon a mechanism that had been in 11 uso for some periud of time. So all those things --
12 MR. BUCKLEY: Are you talking about like 1984 i 13 or 19837 14 MR. IIIt3DMA?is Sinco the beginning of the sito l
16 we had had this ability for manr.,omont to receive thoso .
le anonymous calls and to follow up, yes.
IT MR. DANKS: . Quality check program's boon in offact 18 for 16 months.
18
, MR. IIINDMAN Dut thoso are some of the things that wo had going on prior to this timo. So in offect --
II HR. DENTON: Lot mo stop thero. Don, do you have 88 i
any questions regarding the programn that existed prior to 23 l the start of the cooporation with the stato? "
l 24 MR. IIAYED: Did you have any type of program liko 26 quality check prior to the institution of that program? In ,
l
. n __
. . _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . .__. _ ____._._ ___. _ _ _ _.___m. . _ ..
l 18 (
i 1
other words, did you have a means where your employees or #
2 subcontractors could bring to management's attention 3 anonymously, not only safety related concerno in terms of 4
hardware, but drugs or any other concern that they might 8 have?
f 6 MR. BANKS:
, I would say that within CP&L's (
i 7
organization it is designed that any employee can bring
- a forth information, and it's once again of how organized -- .
8 any employee can go to a personnel rep that has no line to responsibility and talk to him personally. And that employee 11 rep is not required, or will not divulge back to the supervisi on 12 l who the man was. That's always been -- it's just a company ?
/
) 18 policy and it's in writing for the employees.
I 14 MR. HAYES: How many instances did the employees l 18 take advantage of that program prior to quality check, say 14 on an annual basis approximately?
IT .
MR. HINDMAN: We had a lot of that. The Daniel 18 organisation which is the largest craft organization have !
18
, industrial engineering ropresentatives who really move around '
't
- among the craft people all the time. And prior to this they k 81 continued to have information flowing in occasionally about !
E drugs.
8 So that mechanism was working prior to the time !
M that we're talking about in '84. I MR. HAYES: What role did you play in the Daniel's i l
6
._ "' ** *4 & 8 C .w h a m . 2 = a
19 1, program in terms of oversight 2 2 MR. BANKS: I'll let Bill answer that. But let's 3 say Daniels -- well, Roland I guess could best ar.swer that 4
because he's general manager -- but everything that goes on 6 on-sito goes on under CP&L directions.
6 MR. IIAYES :
, So that you woro made aware then if 7
Daniels had a concern about a particular employee or a series 8
of employees that might be connected to drug abuso ongoing?
8 MR. PARSONS: The quality check was a formalized to program that came into existence. Prior to that it was i
11 somewhat informal so there was no statistics developed about 12 the exchange of information in dialogue that we had with 13 Daniel. I fool, as a personal opinion, that I was privy to 14 a lot of the things that woro serious.
to And thoto were a lot of items came up that way ,
to that related to the pay scale or why somebody couldn't bo 17 promoted or semothing like that. I was not always privy to 18 thoso. But the normal practico out there was to take anything 18
, that related to security or drugs and got the CP&L security 88 officar assigned to the oito as the one to do the investigatio n.
21 MR. IIAYES: As opposed to Daniola doing their 22 own invostigation?
23 MR. PARSONS: If it involved something that 24 1ordorod on 111ogality.
26 MR. IIAYLS : llow many instancos of that, let's say,
____3_-
20 1 during the 12-month period prior to the institution of 2 quality check approximately?
3 MR. PARSONS: I don't have any statistics.
4 MR. HINDMAN: We have those numbers, we didn't 5 bring them with us.
6 MR. HAYES: Do you have files on those particular 7 investigations?
8 MR. PARSONS : Yes, the 201 instances that we've 9 talked about goes back prior to the formal program and to includes some of those.
11 MR. WALKER: Break down thoso, the 201 before and 12 after, you know, in numbers. After implementing quality 13 check how many of them, of the 201 incidences that are 14 reported via the quality check and later data, versus before.
18 MR. PARSONS: Probably two-thirds after the quality ,
to check and the undercover. ~
17 MR. DENTON: Let's pick one caso that occurred 18 prior to your formal interraction with the stato. So thoro l ,
19 woro some poopio, some instances of drug abuse that came to 30 your attention during that porlod.
21 MR. PARSONS: Yes.
22 MR. DENTON: And what did you do typically in that 23 matter?
24 MR. PARSONS: Well, the first one that comes to 26 mind was an instanco in a parking lot whoro wo thought a
_ _: . - - .. . . . ~ - -
21 1 craftsman was stealing tools. And it turned out he was in 2 fact stealing tools. But in the process of checking inside 3
his van to see if he had some company tools, we also ran 4 across some controlled substance, which I believe was 6 marijuana. And in that instance we called the sheriff and l
6 they sent deputies out.
1 7
MR. BAXTER:
Just one thing I wanted to add to 8
Bill's description, CP&L does have a formal policy against 8
the use of controlled substances on their sites, and every 10 new employee of CP&L gets a special orientation on alcohol 11 and drug abuse, and a booklet which explains the policy and 12 the actions the company might take, including ordering 13 drug screens and doing investigation, personal searches.
l 14 l And the employee has to sign the last page and is turn it in as proof that he agrees that this is a condition
! 16 of his employment.
Daniel has also an introductory 17 orientation for all employees of the Shearon liarris, about 18 their drug abuse policies and explaining also that termination 1
18 is the likely outcome of any use of suspected drug activity l
on the site. And that's been going on from the very 21 beginning. .
22 MR. IIINDMAll: That's 100 percent of the people 23 i
who work on the project.
24 l MR. DENTON: Let me follow up. When you found a l
28 case thun where they had drugs in theit vehicles and you
- * " ~ ~ ^ ~ '
_ _ '_ L _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ " ~
22 1
1 turned it over to the local sheriff, did you ask him if he X
l s usud it on-site or if he saw other people use it on-site?
3 I'm trying to get a feel for how did you pursue the nexus i
- 4 between whatever cases came to your attention and the impact 5 on quality of construction.
, , 8 MR. PARSONS: If we felt there was an implication i
l 7 on the job, the security officer would have been the one !
8 we looked to follow up. I can't answer in detail what he l l '
)
i 8 would have done on that particular case. l j 0 The man did lose his van though. It was i ;
j 11 confiscated by the sheriff. ;
1
- - 12 MR. DENTON
- But you don't think during that la period you asked him if he sold it on-site, or do you think 14 you did?
j M MR. HINDMAN: Can I respond to that? Typically ,l 1
~ i 18 when we have any kind of incident that comes up, say for '!
I !
i 17 example this craft person that we get allegation through 1
j W QCP or some other means that a craft person has used, or i
18 is using, or has possession of an illegal drug.
)
[
r 88 Normally we would have Daniel industrial. relations :
~
I 81 people made aware of that, and the supervision made aware of [
i
! se that, and we would begin to watch the person to see what ,
1 i i ,
l 8 .
hip habits are, se6 what's going on there. At the appropriate !
t 88 time we have a couple things. If the information is not reall r ,
8 solid and we can't act on it without more we would come up i
1 4
l l
j . . - . - ,,, . - , . ~ . ~ . + - . , .. ~ -._ - -- . --
23 l 1 with a search and search the person at an undefined, come
! I j 2 up and search him properly, and we have a regulation for that, 3 and see if we find anything.
4 There would be other things we could do. There 5 would be direct dialogue back and forth between the industrial o 8 relations people who have detailed knowledge of their people 7 within Daniel, the CP&L security agents, and if feel like 4 there might be a quantity that would be more than just a 9 user amount, then the sheriff's department would also have 10 knowledge of what's going on. So we have communication back 11 and forth.
12 Now if we did conduct a search and found some
, 13 quantity of an illegal substance, then there's an agreement 14 that if it's a small quantity we call the sheriff's department ;
18 and describe exactly what's occurred. If it's a larger
_ f 18 quantity, they get involved, come out directly and get ;
17 involved in the activity itself.
18 But as a part of that activity there is a question
(
18 and answer period between the person who's been accused and se the people in security, and they attempt to find out exactly 81 what that person would share with them about his activities se on the site. And all that is documented so that if there se is any information to be gained from a person that has been se involved we take the occasion to gain that.
88 And our security agent on the site is a commissioncil ,
t 9
4 y 3 nW4 .a r 4 . de q < pp ppe 0 499%4rs w 4 e an - M. w- A *we epusse rpe .es - ; es .w e 4 +a-*m w m po v_ e_ ga p _ _ , _ s- p_ .___gg
24 1
1 J
,I security agent who has the recognition by the state to be !
2 able to obtain and hold drugs until law enforcement people l
- 3 can come and destroy them. So he has been trained in how- !
I k 1
1 4 to discuss with someone and ask those sensitive questions i 1
] 5 where he's trying to get an answer that the person may not' -
j ,
6 want to give him. ;
i, (
j T MR. BAXTER: I should have mentioned earlier that l .
i 8 as part of that undercover investigation, in addition to I f
8
) the two law enforcement officers we had an inside confidential j 1
W informant who was a former employee at the site who had been j j 11 caught using drugs and then agreed to cooperate in identifying I 12 others through that investigation. '
la So I'm fairly -- I'm sorry we didn't bring the
{
t 14 l security people with us. I didn't know this was one of the I t
2 subjects we were going to talk about. But I'm fairly confiden t l
I
.i le that they do make efforts before they get rid of people to -
I j 11 find out as much as they can.
! e j 2 d
MR. DENTON: I don't want to stretch out discussion I 18 up to that point, but let's see if there are any other points e- 88 t
I anyone wants to raise abo'ut that period before we move into si the next period of time.
1 EE 1 MR. CHRISTENMURY: Let me just -- Bill, with l 88 i
regard to if the individual whose van was seized, if that !
I 84 person was a welder, what specifically would they do in as terms of, if anything, in terms of going back and reviewing
. i e
~ ^ " ^ " ~ ~ '
i _ ___ "11r"": ":JZ" 2*rE:""^"??r:1- Zr" ~ ~ * " " ~ ' ' " * " ~ " * ' ' ~ ' '
I0 i
i l 1 the work that he had done? '
1
, 3 MR. HINDMAN: In the case of a wolder there are '
i 3 procedures that take a look at what work that person had i 4 been doing. I can't describe the exact program. One of the 8 other gentlemen may be able to do that, but there is a e procedure to check to see what the person had been doing to I 7 see if in fact we need to go back and reinspect or rework. l 8 MR. CHRISTENBURY: So that was done in each case 1 9 where a peruon was found to have controlled substances, you '
W went back and you lookod at the work that they had performed?
11 l That was the practice? ;
12 MR. PARSONS: We're talking -- speaking now of the ;
l 13 time before. Back in that time frame we had a -- it was more ;
14 informal but management did evaluate what the man's work 2 activity was. We did not keep real records and we cannot le pull out back-up of it.
17 MR.LCHRISTENBURY: I understand. When you say W evaluate, how would you evaluate?
18
, MR. PAR 8ONS: We'd take the man's job classificatio )
se and a general word description from his supervision of what 81 kind of activity he's been engaged in. And in all cases [
st that i_can recall we have never found a situation where the 88 man was working totally by himself without supervision and 88 s
meaningful quality assurance checks that show and results of 88 the work that he was working on.
1
- * * * * f 3 *N ,
y, y.,
26 1 MR. CHRISTENBURY: Say he's a welder, what 2 specifically would this evaluation entail?
3 MR. PARSONS: A word description from his 4 s0pervision of what kind of work he'd been working on.
5 MR. CIRISTINBURY: . The areas where he had been?
6 MR. PARSONS : And our personal knowledge of the 7 QA process that controlled that work. And if it looked like 8 there was any holes in that, then we would go do something 9 over and above the program.
10 MR. CHRISTENBURY: Were there occasions when you 11 would go back and reinspect his work?
U MR. PARSONS: I can't recall one on a craftsman.
13 MR. BAXTER: We did -- as we discussed in our 14 motion, we did on five engineers.
2 MR. PARSONS: And we have done it on QA personnel. _
16 MR. .ANKS:
B Let me say, on a welder, I think if 17 he's doing:, safety work, in all cases you 've got a - c.
18 non-destructive examination of his work being done. So 18 you've got a final check of his work.
, He can't hide what 20 he did.
~
21 I would have more concern of other people than 22 I would a welder.
23 MR. DENTON:' Were there any hints during this time 24 period that there might'be more drug abuse than you were 25 suspecting? I take it CP&L up till that time you just
'-=*w M_ , "g j&- '
W'**
.0'*',' ,
'#"~~'"#' M*""*~"~'"* ~
- j'
27 1 described thought it was more sporadic and individual. ,
I 2 I'm just trying -- because it seems like you made '
3 a turning point in your program.
4 MR. BAXTER: I think that's a misimpression. I 5 don't think that the investigation showed anything that 6 we didn't know about.
7 MR. DENTON: I see.
8 MR. BAXTER: I think we invited the investigation 9
because of some information that we were developing. But I 10 don't think -- at least my impression from people that I have 11 talked to, that we were surprised or in fact, we provided H
a lot of the intelligence to these officers before they got
[) 13 started. In many cases they were confirming what we already 14 knew, or the areas of activity of involvement.
M MR. BANKS: I'll say for myself having some knowledge ,
16 before and what we found now, that in society where we stand 17 today, I would suspect we're low in comparison.
18 MR. HINDMAN: We were talking about basically what 19 we'd done prior to the investigation. At this point shall e
3D we move on into the investigation?
21 Okay, to get started, I already mentioned that 22 the sheriff was going to supply one person -- that's the 23 sheriff of Wake County -- and the SBI would supply one person.
24 And now to facilitate the operation, because these two new 25 people would not know anything about construction site,
. . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ - - _ ._....,__..,._J_.._ . . _ . _ . _ - .
28 l
1 probably never been on one of this size, and very little 2 experience in this arena, we developed a use of an undercover 3 person.
4 There was identified a person who had been working 5 for Davis Electric, one of our large contractors. He had 6
been arrested for some drug issue. And there was an 7 arrangement made by the sheriff's department to allow the 8 man to go free and come out and work for us provided he 9
would be the lead person for these two law enforcement people.
10 So we developed cooperation in that we were able 11 to figure out a way to employ the person, to get him back 12 on the project because he could not be re-employed by the
- 13 company that discharged him because he had this drug issue 14 on his record. So we went to that -- to bring the person is back and set him up because he already knew the area, he 16 knew his work crews, he knew how to get around to operate in 17 that area and he was a recognized comrade of many of the 18 people in that area.
18 o
So when the operation actually started the sheriff's 1 to person and the SBI person came out. We gave them all the 21 apparatus they would need in terms of hard hats and numbers 22 and company description to fit in with the rest of the work 23 force. And we gave them an office location and telephones 24 so they would have their freedom to come and go around the 25 clock at the site, complete access, so that they could have i
w ,n n _ ,n. e . - -.
L
29 i g,
1 the freedom to maneuver in this environment.
2 They began on-site by getting from our security 3 people a complete inventory of all the information we had 4 at that point in time on anybody that we suspicioned of 5 being involved in illegal drug activities.
, So we laid it 6 out, you know.
, All these people, this is what we've got.
! 7 Some of it's good, some of it's not, but it's a starting 8 point, plus you've got the informer who's worked here before 9
and had, in fact, been arrested for illegal drug activity 10 off-site.
11 So that started, and the investigation ran for ut about eight weeks before it was cut off. During that time i
63 Nap 13 they were able to make buys and get involved to the point 14 that they could bring arrest warrants'against a total of 2 eight people. That's in a period of eight weeks using the -
16 undercover person and using the advanced information that 17 we supplied to them and the complete freedom to come and 18 go to the project.
19
- In addition to that they gave back to us the 20 information that we had given them, plus they added some
~
Il additional names to it of people that they suspicioned of E
being involved with illegal drugs. However, they made it 23 very clear to us that they could not develop any evidence 24 that they could use in a legal arena against these people.
25 So we had the people that were arrested, or had i
1
.__.,..~._...w .,..--.,-..--.-n _. -
30 1 warrants drawn against them, those eight, and then we had s
2 another list of people that they suspicioned based on their 3 activities.
4 MR. DENTON: Now were these for use or for selling 5 drugs?
6 MR. HINDMAN: There might a combination on the 7 list. There might be people that they suspicioned of using
. i j 8 drugs, some on-site, some off-site, based on just hearsay 8 information. Some might be the fact that they had seen 10 somebody in possession, so it would be a long list of 11 reasons to actually get someone on the list.
12 So here again, they stated they could not bring 13 l .
actions against many of these people because the information 14 was not well developed enough to support action.
15
)
i MR. SULLIVAN: Was the person that was hired back 16
] on to wort, with the' security people, was he setting himself 17 up as a seller?
18 MR. HINDMAN: Well, he was setting himself up as 18
, a person who could come back into the work place. He had 8 been re-employed. He told all his friends that he had gotten 81 out of these rap that had been brought against him. And he 22 was actually leading the undercover people around, introducing ,
23 them, saying these are two guys that just moved in and they 8'
need some stuff, you know, can you help me out.
25 So he led them around to all the places he knew i
l .
._ . - , . . ~ . _ _ , _ . - - _ __ . . [
31 1 and att'empted to get them involved in the scene there. And 2 that was his role, to make sure that they could get involved 3 and that they had the proper introductions and the proper 4 cover to get involved in the project.
5 MR. DENTON: I guess what's not clear to me in 6 this, our responsibility is not in the use or distribution 7 of drugs, per se, that's the state and local officials. But 8 what the implication of that activity is on safety.
9 So it still isn't clear, how did you take it from 10 - finding these eight or 11 or any number, to ascertaining 11 were they under the influence of drugs while they were M conducting important activities.
.m (g) 13 MR. HINDMAN: As far as ascertaining that they 14 were under the influence of drugs while they were doing these 2 activities, I don't think I can point out to you a case 16 where we've actually been able to point out someone that was 17 under the influence of drugs in terms of their behavior while 18 on the job.
19
. However, my perception is that what we were dealing 20 with at the time was not a big problem. We were dealing 21 with a problem that's hard to get at. It was low level enough 22 that experienced professionals who worked at this for eight 23 weeks and not be able to get more.than eight people out of 24 population of 6,000.
. And when you look at all the numbers 25 we've thrown out, this 173 number and some other numbers, i.
I
..-.._...,_3.~.m. . . . . _ , - , , , - . . . . - - - - . . ,
32 1 we have had more than 26,000 people work on this site during 2 the time frame that we've developed this 170-something number 3 of people that we have linked to this drug activity.
i 4 And many of those cases we didn't have concrete
! 5 information. We had a suspicion and at the appropriate we t
6 were able to act on that suspicion. But I guess we'll have 7 to link it back to quality as we move on.
8 But I think what we were attempting to do was to 9 make sure that our work site there was managed at a quality 10 level and that we didn't h' ave this as any kind of activity
{
11 going on that could detract from our main purpose there. So H I always felt that we had control of it and this was one 13
!(( of the mechanisms that we were using to maintain that control.
14 However, I think by using the mechanism we did, it 16 t
came out and became more of a public issue, and it began to -
16 be perceived as a problem,'even though I didn't think we ~
17 had a problem in terms of this number of people out of the 18 total category of people that we had working there.
i N
, I always felt that we had it at a very low level, 20 at a managed level, and we were on a daily basis aggressively
~
21 and assertively trying to maintain control of this problem.
22 ANd in each case where we had enough information to take any 23 action we did so.
24 MR. HOLLAR: Bill, could you explain what you di 1
as as far as dealing with the eight who were arrested, and with 4
- y -.m.... -__7-y-,.,.,, . , . . .
7
33 1 the larger group who were identified as being under suspicion 2 for drugs?
3 MR. HINDMAN: Okay, we had the eight who actually 4 had warrants drawn against them. Then we had a listing of 5 some 50-some -- I don't remember the exact number -- where a there were suspicions based on one reason or another that 7 could not be taken to court.
8 In that case we got a representative from 9 construction, we got Roland Parsons, we got our manager of 10 quality-assurance and quality control'for the site, and some 11 others who came into a meeting and we called for a listing 12 of the activities that these people had been involved with
[)
s_ ,
13 over a period of months to be put together, what they did.
14 Then they brought in the information at another 2 meeting and said, okay, these are the activities that this 16 guy has been involved with over a certain period of time.
17 And these activities were reviewed, basically to see if they 18 were quality related.
19 MR. DENTON:
. Now before we get to that point.
2D Maybe you know something that I don't know about your process.
21 You're saying that the investigation was sufficient in rigor at to establish that they weren't selling to other people, or 23 if they had been selling they would have gotten swept into 24 this net. And what I don't have a feel for, did any of these as people allege that they were selling out of their trailer,
.,.,--n. ..
.- - = __x. .__.-
34 1
or out of their toolbox to fellow workers inside containment?
2 Maybe you know the answers to those questions, 3
but I don't seem to know whether this group is -- are you 4 looking upon them just for their individual contributions, 1
5 or did you attempt to see if there was widespread use?
t 6 MR. HINDMAN:
I think that what we attempted to 7
do was to see exactly what the parameters of the problem 8 might be. In certain cases I think we identified that 9
people might have used drugs, especially those that we asked 10 to take the urine test and they came back positive.
11 However, by taking that test in many cases we 12 could not tell you if they used them on-site or if they i
13 used them at their home.
14 MR. DENTON: Well, let me ask, did anyone allege N on-site use?
16 MR. HINDMAN:
Did anyone at all?
17 MR. DENTON: Yes, did anyone say they were using 18 drugs on-site?
t N i MR. HINDMAN: We have had a small number -- and 88
! I can't give you the number, who said that they actually
^
21 brought drugs onto the site.
4 1 22 i
MR. DENTON: Did anyone say they were selling drugs f 23 on-site?
1^
4 84 MR. HINDMAN: I think one of the warrants that
- 26 was drawn alleged that the individual was selling drugs on nr
- _ r_i_" J ' - -m- m~ - - - -* "-~ ~--~
35 1 the site. Here again, personal quantities of drugs to a
\
2 other workers.
3 MR. DENTON: And so should I assume that this 4 program you had in mind did go -- run down all these leads 5 and find all the sellers and all the buyers, so that you
. 6 had a list of users on-site?
7 MR. HINDMAN: Yes, every shred of information that j 8 was of any usability at all has been maintained and followed I 1
i 9 up. We simply didn't back away from any information that ,
} 10 may have led us to something. And we actively pursued it, 1
11 even over time. If we didn't have enough information at the
.i
- 12 time, we've continued to build on it, so that if there is i i
la any cause that would lead us to believe that someone is j 14 either bringing drugs onto the site, using them personally, i
- 2 or having any involvement in illegal drugs, we take action -
16 as soon as we are aware of enough reasons to do that. l t
17 MR. SULLIVAN: Why did you terminate the undercover la operation after eight weeks?
18 l , MR. HINDMAN: Basically when we started we had 80 indicated by verbal agreement it would run about eight weeks i .
j .
81 and we would stop at that point in time. After the eight-week 1
at j period it was about the end of the year, the end of December,.
88 i
we were feeling that at that, point in time that based on 24 what was going'on that it was an appropriate time to go ahead SS and terminate it because the_ activity with respect to the l
I i _ , __.7._,__ m..,.;_,-._,.y.m..,,,,,_,,m.s.,-__c.._...._.
36 1 drug investigation there, in my opinion, was trending 2 downward.
3 They had had a lot of information they started 4 with. They had developed that. The new issues didn't seem 5 to be coming very rapidly. We had some people that we had 6 in effect put on the shelf that we were holding. We had 7 identified them. We wanted to take some action, but we were 8 doing nothing so that we could go ahead and complete the 9 program without causing any turbulence.
10 And so we felt like with the people on the shelf, 11 and the fact that we saw some adjustments in our work force 12 also coming at the beginning.of the year, we had the 13 impression that we were going to changing people around, and 14 we didn't feel like we could hold those people there who, that 15 we had some information on and not have them adjusted to 16 other jobs or to other things on the site.
17 So there were a variety of reasons that, point one, 18 the initial agreement to end it. Secondly, what I saw as 19 the activity at that point in time, and the need to go ahead 20 and clean up what we had. Plus, I did not see it as a 21
. termination of our relationship with the local law enforcement 22 people in this arena of searching out drugs on the site.
23 I felt we were going to have a continuing 24 relationship and there would be other opportunities to do 2
other things, more than just this one undercover operation 7 , , _ _ _ _ _ . . . . .
37 I
i L-t 1 we had.
.n .
- 4 r
l 2 And then there was a big issue of the undercover j
j 3 person himself. He was beginning to get very concerned that l i
4 he was over-extending his welcome by being seen so often in I a so many areas with these individuals. And we felt like with
, s his activity and his concern that it was to our benefit to [
I ,
7 go ahead and pull him out and terminate at that point in time
, i i s so that we would not present any further risk to him.
i
) 9 MR. BAXTER: As we explained in our August filing j j .
i
- l. XI in response to the North Carolina Attorney General, there 11 is some tension in our responsibilities for quality j 12 construction, our role there and the success of the undercover i
j la operation. Because, as you might appreciate, while the l
i 14 officers identified people, no arrests were made until the ,
I UB operation was terminated.
2 .t
! 16 And we could not take action against even suspects ;
}
17 that they were working with because that would have exposed r
l Hb the undercover operatives. So all th'e time the operation's Mi going on you've practically got to suspend, in some way, l
30 yoar vigorous drug policy about getting people off-site and 4 . ;
j 21 getting drugs off-site. So one of the things we had to i .
1 l 25 keep in mind was there was a limited period of time which we !
]
e 2B were willing to suffer through identified drug suspects !
f se being allowed to continue working out there.
l j 35 i
MR. DENTON: Well, if we wanted to go review I s
i 6
-:?rn:rr= = w r
. :r: = - - - - -- ~ = " ~ ~ ~ ~~~---
38 1
interviews, records, s.tatements and that sort of thing, 2 who has those? Which -- go to CP&L, go to the state?
3 MR. BAXTER: The state only has records of 4 their undercover operation, I believe. Our security people 5 have confidential files on every investigation they've ever 6 done out there with respect to the drug situation.
7 MR. HINDMAN: One of the things I'd like to follow 8
up on if you're concerned about level of activity. I think 9
we have an indicator there that I've been using recently and 10 that's the dog that's trained to sniff out illegal substances.
11 Based on my memory, and it may be a little. bit 12 fuzzy, but we b~rought the dog on-site something like 14 times 13 since February, just about two times a month. This dog is 14 trained and its tested. And the dog is rotated, a different 15 dog occasionally to make sure that it's competent to check 16 out these drugs.
17 In the time the dog has been brought.on the site 18 he's been brought to various buildings. In fact, all the 19 locations on the site. He's been in the custody of a trained 30 person. And with 14 visits he's only had four finds, except 21 for the tests. They've tested him occasionally and they'll 22 put something out there to see if he's still working and he'll 23 find that right away. But he's only had four finds, and this 24 is first shift, second shift, in the middle of the night, 25 whenever. We bring him out at different times unannounced --
39 I
1 MR. HOLLAR: Parking lots?
2 MR. HINDMAN: Yes. We take him inside the fence, 3 outside the fence. He checks vehicles. The dog, you know, 4 goes all over the place. And we've only been able to locate 5 four items in those 14 trips.
. 6 MR. HOLLAR: Does that include the parking lot?
7 MR. HINDMAN: That includes the parking lot in a terms of the finds, I believe, yes.
9 MR. DENTON: Do you take him through important 10 safety-related aieas?
11 MR. HINDMAN: Yes, the first trips, you know. We 12 take him through the power block areas, we take him to the
, 13 support buildings, we take him through the parking lots.
14 Nothing is exempt from the dog's travels there. And the only is person who knows his itinerary is the security agent on-site.
16 He'll just get a call from the handler and say, ;
17 okay, I can bring him tomorrow. He'll say, okay, here's the Mi time I want you to show up. I'll meet you at this location.
19 He may come in a different location each time, take a differen':
3D route, stay a different length of time, even rotate the '
21 handler, rotate the dog, and they still check him and he's at able to find the samples.
23 MR. HOLLAR: The dog is brought out on-site about 24 five hours each time and he goes to substantial sections of as the plan t on each occasion. And he goes to different
- _:: :r-_-_ =__ r :- _r _ :_ _- -
W 4
40 1 sections. And I believe at this point in time he has covered 2 at least all of the plant perhaps several times.
3 MR. HINDMAN: Yes, been to every building out 4 there, even the small sheds. -
5 MR. HOLLAR: I have been tol'd that this dog is 6 extremely good, as well.
That for example, in a car parked 7 in the parking lot there was some marijuana ash residue in 8 an ashtray inside the car and the dog picked that out.
9 MR. HINDMAN: The vehicle was locked.
L 10 MR. HOLLAR: He is apparently very sensitive.
11 MR. BARTH: How'd the dog get in the car?
U MR. HOLLAR: He didn't get in the car, he did it
- j. 13 from outside.
14 MR. HAYES:
With your experience in the undercover 1
15 operation in terms of usage or finds what controlled substance s 16 are we speaking of?
17 MR. HINDMAN: Basically the controlled substances 18 we're speaking of are marijuana or cocaine. Occasionally it 19 might be something else, but those are the two that seem to
! 80 be the majority.
21 MR. BAXTER: Speed.
22 MR. HINDMAN: Also I'd like to indicate that the 23 j finds were normally very small quantities. We have had 24 no large finds of any one substances at any one time.
25 MR. BAXTER: The officers estimated that the g . _ . . _ . . _ _ _ . - - . . . _ _ . . . - . . - . - - _ . - - _ . . - - . , . . _ _ _ . . - - ... . _ . _ -_
41 1 combined street value of the quantities they purchased for 2 those eight arrests was $3,000.
3 MR. HINDMAN: And that was over an eight-week 4 period.
5 MR. HOLLAR: And the majority of it has been
, 6 marijuana, has it not, Bill?
7 MR. HINDMAN: I would think so without being 8 precise.
9 MR. HAYES: One other thing. As Harold briefly 10 touched upon it in terms of where would we go to look at 11 the particular documentation for this exercise? Is there 12 any reservation whatsoever from you gentlemen about sharing
- 13 any information with the commission's representative 14 concerning the files, investigations, debriefing of informants ,
15 or anything of that nature?
18 What I'm asking you, are you going to allow us to 17 visibly inspect, read, and in some instances if we think it 18 appropriate, take copies of certain documents to substantiate
~
19 our programmatic review?
20 MR. BAXTER: I think we certainly have no problem 21 with your reviewing them. The question of copying documents 22 I'll have to look into.
23 We have made a very careful effort through our 24 litigation of this matter to protect the identity of employees 25 who have been terminated at that project, because in many
42 1 cases we have erred on the side of conservatism and have not
's '
2 felt we had adequate proof to undertake a criminal action, 3 and therefore it was inappropriate for us to publicly impugn 4 the reputation or character of someone who is going to move 6 on and find employment elsewhere. And so we have been very 6 careful not to allow traceability of any of our data and 7 information.
8- We would have to, of course, insist on that same 8 process by the NRC.
10 MR. HAYES: I wasn't sure I heard an answer.
11 You're saying --
12 MR. BAXTER: I said I had no problem with you
(.C); 13 inspecting documents. I would have to investigate further y
14 making copies of them.
16 MR. PARSONS : They're currently organized so that 16 there's numbers -- just a code number against the name.
17 MR. HAYES: And who has the name?
8 MR. PARSONS: I think Bill and the security man 18 is the only one in the company that's got the name, the actual 20 name.
21 MR. BANKS: Let's be sure, if it was an item that 22 j came through the quality check program, then there the name 23 would be, because he had asked for -- not to be identified.
24 The quality check program would not identify him. They use as the same type of system.
, u_._. . _ _ _ . , _ . . _ _ _ . , _ . . _ . . . . _ . _ _ , . _
43 s
, 1 So there's two places where you can find by a 2 code back to who the individuals were, depending on how it 3
came -- the sources that it first came in on.
4 MR. DENTON: You mentioned the tension between 5 the objectives maybe of the Attorney General and your need 6 for quality. Did the Attorney General want to run the program 7
longer, or did he think it had been cut off too quickly?
8 MR. BAXTER: Yes, the SBI agent, which SBI 9 reports to the Justice Department in North Carolina and 10 ultimately to the Attorney General -- there was frankly a 11 problem with his performance during this operation. During 3 the eight weeks we estimate he appeared at the site for 13 only ten to 15 times. And most of those occasions, only 14 worked three to five hours.
15 So the SBI agent simply didn't support the .
16 undercover operation adequately, and the deputy sheriff who 17 was the other undercover operative had to basically carry the 18 ball.
18
., In mid-December about six weeks into the operation 20 there was a proposal to replace that SBI agent and to extend 21 the operation into 1985.
22 MR. HAYES: A proposal by who?
23 MR. BAXTER: By the SBI and by the sheriff's 24 department. So they did want to essentially start over, if 25 you will. But for all the reasons Bill gave, they ultimately ,
- - - .-- --_. - e + e ..=.www .
===_ ;
..sm,,_
44 1 decided not to go ahead.
2 MR. HOLLAR: They were planning to replace the t 3 original SBI agent with somecae new who presumably would be 4 more reliable.
5 MR. HINDMAN: All the finds that resulted in
. 6 warrants being drawn were drawn by the deputy sherif f of the 7 Wake County sheriff's department.
8 MR. HAYES: So you're saying the termination 8 of the exercise was done with the blessing of the local 10 sheriff's office?
11 MR. HINDMAN: Well, the way I would describe it, 12 he actually asked or gave the directive that we would terminat a
~3 '
( j) 13 on a certain date. He had several reasons for making that 14 decision, but I think he was concerned about the fact that r
ui we were getting ready to introduce the use of the dog on the 16 ~
site. He was somewhat concerned about that.
17 So I think he directed that his portion or his Ul participation be terminated prior to us bringing the dog in.
18
. So I think we actually terminated on January 10th of '85, 88 the operation. And the termination was, here again, a very II cooperative effort between his people and our people who 22 actually came onto the site unannounced with any markings.
23 We helped them collect the people and then they took them 88 off-site and took them downtown.
35 MR. BAXTER: Don't misunderstand. The sheriff
--- .-_ .,. __-.n.- , _
,.~.L .
[ 45
~
1 wanted to go ahead to. '
i
<s i 2 MR. HAYES: I didn't think you answered my question .
3 Are you saying that they agreed with you that they wanted 4 to terminate the exercise, the sheriff's office, or not?
8 MR. HINDMAN: They agreed if we were going to 8 bring the dogs in it was time to terminate.
, But if we had 7 not had the issue of the wanting use the area search by the
's dogs they would have probably liked to have gone on longer 9 at that point in time.
j 10 MR. HAYES: Did they voice concern about your i,
11 l bringing the dogs on-site then, and you did so over their 12 objections; is that a correct assumption?
i s l [.}.._-
13 MR. HINDMAN: No. The operation was terminated 14 in early January. The dogs were actually not bring in until i
16 late February.
j 18 MR. HAYES: Excuse me, maybe I didn't make myself i
l 17 clear. You apparently indicated to the sheriff's office
- 18 you wanted to bring dogs on the site.
18
! , MR. HINDMAN: That's correct.
20 MR. HAYES: Did they agree with that?
II MR. HINDMAN: They agreed that the use of dogs j
8' l was good, I believe, but they didn't want to have their j 23 people there at the time the dogs were being used, and I 88 l think that was the issue.
1
- 26 MR. BAXTER
- This is well covered in the affidavits ,
t ._ . _ . . . _ , , _ . , - . . , . _ _ .
_ - ~ , . . , _ . _ - --
46 1 that were filed in response to the Attorney General. But 2 I think that the sheriff's department took the position that 3 the introduction of dogs would endanger the cover of their 4 undercover operatives.
5 Our security people who are experienced law 6 enforcement people didn't agree with that judgment. THey 7
agreed that the drugs might dry up drugs temporarily, which 8 is of course what we want the dog to do. But the sheriff's 9
department made its own decision that if you're going to 10 bring the dogs on, then we're going to stop the investigation.
11 MR. DENTON: Could you give me your view on 12 whether the activity that was conducted was directed more toward the criminality of the individuals involved, or whether
- 13 14 it was an attempt to discern the potential impact of those 15 actions on the quality of the plant? I still can't -- I 16 don't have a good feel of whether you dealt with it sort of 17 arms-length as though it were a criminal activity. Or 18 whether you were actively involved in attempting to determine 19 whether it had safety implications.
30 MR. PARSONS: Of course we're interested in both.
21 But the sheriff's office and the law enforcement people were 22 looking at the criminality. Our concern was, in fact, with 2
the implications for quality at the job, our primary concern.
24 And after we took -- after we terminated the 26 undercover operation and we had the names, we solicited for
47 1 all the craft personnel, we solicited from their supervision I the job classification of the people, the supervisory report 3 of where the person worked, and the general description of 4 what his duties were. You cannot in all cases trace a 5 craftsman to discrete pieces of hardware out in the plant.
6 We sat down between myself, Bill Hindman, the manager 7 of QA/QC, and a representative of the contractor and evaluated 4 that in light of the inspection process that covered the 9 activities that the man was doing. And we made a judgment.
10 And we concluded that in all cases that for 11 craftsmen thatt.the inspection process was strong enough to 12 pick up any problem that may have resulted from the man not la working in his best frame of mind or whatever.
):
14 MR. DENTON: So you didn't really have a cases, 2 I take it, where an employee said that he was using heavily Mi drugs on-site and was engaged at the same time in a critical 17 activity? You didn't have that kind of situation which we N have encountered?
. 2 MR. PARSONS: I don't recall that, no.
30 MR. MAYES: What about your engineers?
21 MR. PARSONS: We broke it into three categories.
It There was craft, then there was what we called other overhead, as And there was a number of those that were screened also N within this work group that we'd set up. And 11 of those had as what we called design related responsibilites. Something ,
L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________ __ ___.___ _ _ _
48 1 that could have -- where they could have had an effect on 2
quality or could be perceived to have an effect on quality.
3 And in that case, a different person did this, but 4
they evaluated the man's work assignment, how long he was 5 at the site, whether he or she was a designer or a checker
. 6 or an expediter, and did the person complete on-site training.
7 And they also looked at his past performance ratings, and 8
also verified that he went through quality check on the way 8 out.
10 If his worked had been checked by an independent
.11 checker -- we have double-checking where a designer will 12 perform calculations in a complete, independent check. If 13 the man's work was subjected to that complete, independent 14 check then he was. not looked at any further. We relied on 15 that check.
16 Five of them were not in a position where we could 17 rely on that check. In that case we went back on a sampling I8 rasis based on the Mil Standard. We have a procedure for I'
doing this at the site and rechecked some part of his work,
" and it all evaluated out as good work.
21 MR. NOVAK Could I ask a question about these
" craft. If a person was suspected of using one of theso 23 substances did you obtain any professional services as to 34 the kind of performance he might suggest? That is, were there any attributes in terms of his performance that you would l
--_6= , - . . _ . .--
49 1 look for to see if in fact your QA program would be 3
2 sensitive enough to pick it up?
8 You seem to make the judgment that you believe 4 your QA program would pick up " sloppy workmanship" or some 5 facet of his performance. But the question I'm asking is 8 would there be any attribute of his performance bec.ase of 7 a drug-related issue that you might have to look at more a carefully? And did you go back to see if, in fact, your 9 QA program was sensitive enough to identify that attribute?
10 MR. PARSON: That was the essence of the judgment 11 that the four of us were making when we were evaluating all 3 of the craftsmen. We did not go out seeking professional
( . 18 help.
N/
14 MR. DENTON: Did you look at absentee records, 2 for example, on these people to see if there were any patterns ,
18 like that, or looking at work logs?
17 MR. PARSONS: No.
M MR. BAXTER: I should say though that when we did
. 2 the reinspections of the inspectors on the Mil Standard basis se we found that a defect rate that was well within the acceptanc o 21 criteria approved in Byron. So we have not yet to date be 88 able to link any construction deficiency and any probips with se an employee as being under the influence of drugs. .
88 And I can testify a little bit upon the preliminary
! as research that I've done and I'm told that there should not 9
50 t 'be a difference in the kinds of errors and deficiencies that 2 the person under the influence of drugs would yield you then 3 would other people who are on antihistamines that day, or 4 tired, or dumb, or poorly trained. There may be a difference 5 in quantity but not in quality.
. 6 MR. BANKS: And let me say that the craftsmen 7 in most cases out there is working in a team. He's working 8 under a supervisor that is responsible for his work, and he's 9 the guy that submits it for inspection, the supervisor, not 10 the craft people. So he has to assure that it was done 11 correctly before it's ready to be even inspected.
12 MR. BAXTER: I commend to you our supervisor's 13 reference manual on drug and alcohol abuse which we provided, 14 and the documents, the training we give to our supervisors.
15 We use an outside consulting firm, Dupont and Associates, 16 who advise a lot of the industry on drug and alcohol abuse 17 problems and they helped developed that program and in fact 18 provided some of the training.
. 19 And we really think that our supervision out there 20 has a good handle on recognizing the symptoms and aberrant 21 behavior in general that might be caused by drug use.
M MR. NOVAK: Were there any occasions where 23 supervision levels were associated with drugs?
24 MR. HINDMAN: If you define supervision as foreman 2 or general foreman, I think we've had a case or two of that.
_ , . . . .,_...s .- _ . _ _ _ _ . -
_ _ m, 51 1 I can't give you the numbers.
I 2 MR. NOVAK: What would have been the review that 3 took place once somebody in some level of supervision have i
4 been identified, where you were relying on these kind of 5 people to pick up a craftsman's error. Suppose that level, l t
. 4 the next level associated with it. ;
7 MR. BAXTER: I'm sorry, not that the supervisors 8 are what we rely on for the quality of the construction.
9 That's the independent inspection organizations. I was i 10 talking about how they have been trained to recognize 11 aberrant behavior within the crew working for them and to ,
12 diagnose and identify if there is a drug problem among those 18 people.
l 14 MR. NOVAK: I must have misunderstood his response I l
Hi to the decision regarding craf ts persons. Because what I le understand is, and that's what we want to get on to later 17 in this discussion, that with regard to the crafts personnel i
MB decision was made that the in place QA program is sufficient i !
18 to identify any problems created from this issue.
l .
And that [
1 . :
I 88 there was nothing more done in any regard. L i .
1
! 21 MR. PARSONS: In the context of the way I was !
l
] 88 speaking, the foreman and the general foreman were evaluated !
j 88 along with.the craftsmen where we made the analysis of the j De duties and made a judgment about whether or not they were 1
as in a position to do work that would not be picked up with I i i
' r
. -- ,. . . .- -~~,,,,.~_ -..,----..,--.---. ~.,,- ---- .- -
.. - .. - . - _ _ . - - . . - - . - . _ _ - . ..- - ._._. - ~ _ . - - .
l 52 L i
j 1 the program. .
i
- 2 That covers the -- getting back to where we were j
l 3 -- that covers the craft personnel and the other overhead.
i 4 And with inspectors I think we covered that quite a bit in I
6 the affidavit that we submitted. But basically we looked
]
l l . 8 at all employees of the QA/QC inspector units at the site. ;
i l 7 And some of them are not inspectors, they're clerks, and of 8 course you can't reinspect what they're doing.
8 And the ones that were in fact inspectors, in all j 10 cases -- well, there's one other exception. The RT people j
\
j 11 worked in two-man teams and there was always a double reading ;
El of the radiograms.
So we did not reinspect all their work.
1 la MR. BANKS: Let me add to that, the particular
}
)
14 ones involved were a level two, RT limited that only allowed i 2
18 them to take the RT shots. They were not qualified to do 18 the interpretations of the results. l
! i
! 17 MR. PARSONS: The mag particle and liquid penetrant
\
4 M
inspectors, their work was reinspected on a Mil Standard l N basis, as were all of the other inspectors for normal 3D construction out there. And there was two that had to be 81 l.
I dispositioned by evaluation. They were -- all the work that' .
E they had previously done could not be found and we have.an f
33 evaluation and'a write-up on that. It can be looked at if 88
! you want.
I i 35 MR. NOVAX: Can you give me the reference to the '
i i <
. - - . . - + .
...._m. _ , m_,_,,,___,,_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _
53 1 specific affidavit that gives the details of the QC follow 2 'up inspection? I read Chiangi, but I didn't see any numbers 3 specifically. For example, all I know is, in fact, that 4 there was a reinspection in performance with the Mil Standard.
5 MR. BAXTER: There were three NDE inspectors.
. 6 MR. NOVAK: But there was no discussion about how 7 many inspections these people did over the life of -- while 4 they were employed there.
9 MR. BAXTER: Well, we didn't have numbers.
10 MR. NOVAK: You didn't give us, in effect, some 11 history of the magnitude of the number of inspections and 12 what sample size you selected, what varieties of kinds of 13 inspections.
14 MR. BAXTER: Well, the sample size is based on the N Mil Standard.
le MR. NOVAK: Well, I would like to spend some time 17 later in this meeting, because I_think those are the kinds
- s of things that we would like to know, and I think that's 18
. what prompted our position with regard to how much information we needed to know to be able to respond to the summary 81 disposition.
88 I've read it but I think we would like to -- not 23 at this point in time, but at some point in time, get some
" of these --
80 MR. BANKS: But the procedure gave the levels that y -
=
- g- mie A -
._ _ _ .. _ . - - . . _ . . - . . .. z.u 54
, I we were using in the Mil Standard.
2 MR. NOVAK:
I'd like you to sort of just refresh 3 my memory on what some of the numbers would have turned out 4 to be. -
l 5 MR. BAXTER: And of course also this documentation
. 6 on these reinspections is available at the site for any of 7 your IAD people.
8 MR. DENTON: How many of your craftspeople total 8 did you look at roughly?
t Just a ballpark figure, 10 MR. PARSONS: About 130 to 140.
11 MR. DENTON: And were they concentrated in one l
, 12 discipline or were they spread over all activities?
() 18 MR. PARSONS: They were spread over all activities, 14 and probably had a few more electricians than the rest of them .
', M MR. DENTON: And if I pick one of them to examine 18
! the adequacy of, can you tell me what jobs he did during this 17 whole time of employment?
18 MR. PARSONS: No, sir.
1 18
. MR. DENTON: And where he was in the control room 20 or in the containment, and what you did specifically on those 21 activities?
l 22 MR. PARSONS: No, sir. Our records don't keep trach 23 of a man's activity day-by-day so that you can go back and
. 24
, have traceability.
5
.MR. DENTON: Don't they keep-their own logbooks? .
i m__
t
__ _y , - . _ . _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . , _ . . . . _ . - _ . . . . -- -
55 1 MR. PARSONS: We could -- I was answering in an d '
2 absolute sense. We could construct a pretty good picture 3 based on what logbooks and maybe some records and on what 4 supervisors say, but you cannot get to the point where you 5 know exactly what the man did for the last four or five years.
. 6 MR. DENTON: Many craftsmen, I understand, do 7 carry their own activity log with them from day-to-day.
8 MR. PARSONS : Yes, and they do that there 8 primarily for time sheets. And sometimes it's a little bit to too generalized -- it's adequate to keep track of time, but-1' 1 it's not necessarily-specific enough to tell you what piece 12 of hardware they might have been working on.
() 13 MR. DENTON: No doubt a lot of craftsmen a lot 14 of time are not occupied in critical activities,.they're Hi bringing equipment or supplies in, or waiting for other .
18 test to be done and so forth. But I was just wondering how 17 you establish whether or not there was some really critical 18 activity they might have done during the time in which you'd 18 suspect them of being under the influence of drugs.
30 MR. PARSONS: Just strictly based on their job 21 classification and the familiarity of their supervision with 88 what they've been assigned to.
23 MR. DENTON: So their supervi'sor would say the s
84 most important thing he did was on that day, and you'd think
[ 26 t
about that activity, is that how you worked?
w 4 g = .#.
56 1 MR. PARSONS: Well, I think the most you could
'~
2 expect from a supervisor is that he generally worked on 3 conduit end such-and-such a building for the first three 4 or four months of the year last year.
8 Now specifically which conduit and that sort of
{ ,
6 thing would be awful hard to establish.
7 MR. DENTON: I guess if some of these people were I a chief engineers or chief welders they would be engaged in 9 more critical activity than someone who was at a lesser
' 10 grade or apprentice sort of job.
11 MR. PARSONS : Yes, the pecking order within the 12 welding-profession, there's a certain breed of real good
/~ ~ , 13 welders out there that we call the RT welders.
! And then
! (_
14 there's ones that are qualified to less exotic welding 18 techniques, and there's kind of a pecking order coming down.
l -
-16 MR. DENTON: And you took those factors into 17 account?
18 MR. PARSONS : Yes, f, 19 MR. NOVAK: Did you in looking at these individuals
! 20 did you do any review of their performance, I mean other than 21 looking at how they have been rated. I've heard that comment te that as part of this evaluation you would look at previous j.
f 23 supervisor performance ratings.
..., 24 But specifically did you look for any trend that
- t as would suggest any higher or lower failure rates because of I
i
, _ _ _ _ . _ -_. _ ..-. ,___ -,_m __ -_ -
57 1 these individua.ls compared to others? Or how they behaved i
2 over a period of time?
3 MR. PARSONS: Well, I want to make sure we don't 4 have a misconception here. We looked at the performance 5 rating on designers. They were readily available. But all 6 of the rest we did not.
7 MR. NOVAK: Well, let's stick with crafts for the 8 moment.
9 MR. PARSONS: In terms of looking at trends, no 10 we did not, because basically we were developing the confidenc e 11 to make the judgment that the work -- you've got to have a l 12 bunch of failures attributed to drugs before you can start
()
wj 13 making trends, and we hadn't been able to get to the point 14 where we convinced ourselves that we had problems that could 2 be directly related to drugs. So we weren't able to really le make a trending program. .-
17 MR. NOVAK: I was wondering if you looked to see 18 if that individual's performance resulted in higher failures.
i 19 In other words, his performance was inspected. There's 20 no question about that. But did it suggest th'at he was --
21 his failure rate was higher than the average, no different 22 than the average? Did you look at that to just say, if this 3 23 fellow did indicate a higher failure rate, than perhaps an i l
24 additional sampling of the QA program over his performance 26 might be prudent.
--,--..-.g_ . . ,. _ ... ,,,_ _ ,__ ,. . , _ . , _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _
58 1 MR. PARSONS: No, our trending program doesn't 2 trend to an individual's performance with the exception of 3 some of the welders. ANd the reason we don't trend to an 4 individual as because we feel like it's a supervisory 5 responsibility. And if we start taking QA data to trend, 6 so to speak, finger a craftsman out there, then pretty soon, 7 you might develop some animosity between the craftsman who 8 thinks that the QA people are fingering him or something.
9 So we really don't set up to trend individuals.
10 We don't give them a report card based on what the inspectors 11 say about them.
Ut MR. DENTON: Ben has a few questions he wants to
, 7, f( ) 13 get on the table maybe before lunch. And I recommend we 14 deal with those and then maybe take a lunch break and allow is the staff to cogitate on what we've heard and decide how 16 to go from there.
17 MR. KAYES: New top'ic, if I may, somewhat new.
18 How many employees so far have gone through your QCP?
18
, MR. BANKS: What do you mean, going through the 3D QCP? Everybody's indoctrinated on the program.
21 MR. HAYES: I mean, as he exits the site, I believe 22 one of you gentlemen said that they are run through that 23 particular program. How many employees, ballpark to this
- 24 point?
36 MR. BANKS: Over 2500, i
i g . . , _ . _ . . . _ . , _ . . r -_ .e___,
59 1 MR. BAXTER: If you don't know, say you don't know.
2 MR. BANKS: I've got the number if you want it.
3 MR. HAYES: Approximately 25007 4 MR. BANKS: That's ballpark.
5 MR. HAYES: Out of the 2500 employees that have
. 8 gone through the ballpark, how many allegations of any matter 7 has surfaced through that program?
8 MR. BAXTER: No, we're not going to answer that 8 question.
O MR. HAYES: Why not?
11 MR. BAXTER: This is a meeting that I was told to 12 get the information that the staff feels it needs to respond la to this drug contention. Your question is not, that I can
[)
14 tell, aimed at that.
2 And we're really being put to some extent in an 18 unfair posture here to, I think, respond to any conceivable 17 question in a transcribed meeting that's going to be 2 distributed to the entire public. These are contested issues 18 under which we're going to be going to hearing shortly.
30- Normally if we're in a deposition I have an 23 opportunity to prepare witnesses, object to questions, that 8E kind of thing. And some of these questions we're just going as to have to take them under advisement and get back to you 84 if we can. We're not going to be prepared to commit and l
85 give answers here that our company's going to have to live j
I l
, . . _ . , - ~ . , . . - . , . . . , , , , , . . - , . _ .. - .- .-
. . . . - - . - -- . . _ _ . - - - . - _ . .~ . . . . - . - . . -.-
60 4
1 with the rest of our --
4 2 MR. DENTON: Well, we intended this to be a 1
3 normal meeting of staff and CP&L, but since there are other 4 parties involved in this particular matter we decided to i
5 take a transcript for their benefit. So it was not' intended
. 4 to change the nature of the normal staff / company interaction 7 on things. And we could go next door and ask the same kind l 4 of questions again, but I think there are meetings that our i
8 Office of Investigation is interested in and would lik e to
?
10 pursue. '
t f 11 MR. BAXTER: Well, this is a confidential program i 12 that the company has initiated on'its own. And we do not
-; 13 discuss the results of that program publicly. ;
14 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Denton, let me give you why l l
2 we're so concerned about this. We are in the middle of a I l
~
to little dispute with the agency over whether or not-information i
17 that was supplied to the board on a confidential basis so j 18 they could get some information is discoverable under the 18 Freedom of Information Act, so that the intervenor's whose 1
80 sole purpose is to take that information and try to come up I .
21 with new contentions. ,
88 That's why we don't want to just in casual comments 23
- in a* transcribed meeting give information, that the intervenort i
8' will then go out and say we've got some new allegations, new ,
4 35 j contentions and we have to spend an awful lot of time and .
t.
1 i
_":^~.2_r_ J __ D TT:_~:_T_^ v_: m ~ ~' =-~ - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * * ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
61 1 money tracking down and working out, and that's our concern j 2 here. I hope you can appreciate that. It's because of i
!. 3 the litigation that we're involved in, not because we aren't 4 interested in being forthcoming.
5 I
i I think that if Mr. Hayes wants to ask some r
o questions as part of an investigation or something, he 7 certainly will get that kind of information.
l i
i 8 MR. DENTON: Well, you're entitled to a position
[
8 in this matter unless -- Ed, do you want to comment? I'd ,
10 recommend we go on in the interest of getting it on.
]
11 i MR. CHRISTENBURY: We'll have to determine the 12 l context of what he needs and we'll pursue it further.
1 13
! MR. BANKS: The data he's asking for is available.
14 The resident inspector at that site has that data available I8 to him and he --
16 i MR. WALKER: That means if you know what you 17 want, Ben, you can ask me and I can ask Dick, and Dick can I8 get it to me.
l i
4-18 MR. PREVATTE: They provide me --
8 MR. WALKER: But the applicant won't.
II MR. PREVATTE: On a monthly basis they provide E
me with the information about the number of --
8 HR. BAXTER: This is not a transcribed investigatie rt .
l
" MR. HAYES: Well, my purpose in asking the question j " wasto try to get a sense of whether or not your program i
--= *r unt r w r" *+w** + e e . e =+whe+ +;3 e en,g.r ._ pg ,,gy , g g, ,,ww
62 1 that has been in existence for 16 months as you so stated a has been beneficial in identifying the level of narcotics 3 activities on your site, and was it instrumental in moving 4 you to the undercover program.
8 In other words, trying to get a sense is this
. 8 a part of your overall pregram to identify safety related 7 concerns, narcotics coacerns or whatever other concerns that 8 you might have. So that was why I wanted to ask the question, 8 to see if in your view, the program was working in terms 10 of identifying these issues. And if not, what you would 11 suspect would be the problem.
12 MR. BAXTER: It does have that role. It's listed 13 in our affidavit again as one of the major elements of our 14 program to identify employees who are using drugs. And so 18 we used it in that context and identified it in that context.
14 MR.-DENTON: ' Ben, why don't you ask the.other 17 questions, if you like, and see if they are similarly sensitiv e is to the applicant or not and decide how to proceed.
18 MR. IIAYES:
. Does your program have unannounced 30 urinalysis'on selected employees? Do you just do it when 21 you suspect an individual, or do you have a program that 88 might include a group of individuals where you may not have 23 sufficient suspicion to raggest that that particular individua L S4 was involved in drugs?
35 MR. HINDMAN: At this point in time with our
63 1 program which is here again on the construction is one e
2 whereby we can ask someone to take the urine test when we 3 believe there is cause. We're not using the random selection 4 at this point, but we are using it anytime we believe we 5 have cause.
6 MR. BAXTER: In addition, new CP&L applicants 7 for employment at the site receive the drug urinalysis as 8 part of their physical.
9 MR. HAYES: Prior to being admitted on-site?
10 MR. HINDMAN: Yes.
11 MR. HAYES: One last question. Is your current 12 policy now broad enough to include oversight of off-site 13 use, of recreational use as it's commonly called? In other 14 words, do you have a plan to deal with employees who may 16 be suspected of not on-site use, but over the weekend, or 16 during their vacation, or what have you? Do you understand 17 my question?
18 MR. BAXTER: Well, you have to be sensitive as 18
, to whether in revealing such information publicly is going 30 to destroy its effectiveness. I don't know whether you have 21 such a program or not.
22 MR. DENTON( Is there another way to state that?
23 Are they following the EPRI program for operations and 24 maintenance personnel?
26 MR. BAXTER: For construction?
i
-_.,---..-3_ ..~,e . . ~ . .
.,,,;e,,, e,.,_, ,_
64 1 MR. HINDMAN: What I would say is this. In the 2 information we've given you in the past on the numbers of i
3 people that had suspicion of drug use, many times we could 4 not tell if that was on-site or off-site use by the 8 information made available to us.
i
. 4 So I would say yes, some of the numbers that I 7 we've talked about would have included use off-site by people.
1 8 I would suspect, you know, we would have a hard time, even i
! 8 with urine test and other things in determining if someone i
j i HI had used it, where they would have used it.
j 11 So in many cases I would think if they came up J
12 positive, it was probably off-site use would be my view.
i l ; 13 MR. BAXTER: As you know the urinalysis will 14 detect cannabinoids especially in the body for long periods l
f i 18 of time. So it may well be recreational use outsido.
le MR. - BANKS : I'll add to that. Through the check 17 program a lot -- some of those that come through are off-site XI use, and we treat them the same way.
l 18 MR. DENTON:
. Let me ask mine -- not the topic of i
j 80 a contention, but what are you doing with regard to operations i .
21 and maintenance personnel who you intend to operate the plant?
i 22 MR. BANKS: We have the program that is in general i
23 what NUREG I believe has said. And we've got the same 88 program for operation and raintenance at Harris we have at SS Robinson, we have at Brunswick. It's a company program.
i . . .
65 1 Md. DENTON: Is that program in effect already 2 at Shearon Herris?
4 MR. WALKER: I would assume that's part of what 5 you just said a moment ago when you said all know employees
. 6 are -- CP&L -- they were very specific about saying CP&L 7 about being giving the urinalysis.
8 MR. BANKS: Yes, that's right. And it has been 9 in effect -- I don't remember the exact time -- it's probably 10 been two years.
11 MR. DENTON: I think it's been valuable to hear 12 what we've managed to cover so far. And it is an unusual 13 situation to have contentions pending and parties all 14 interested in the result, but we're just trying to get in is a position to decide wha,t view we want to take on this 16 contention. And I'd recommend we take a break for lunch 17 and allow the staff to reflect on what we've heard and 18 decide where to go from here. Unless someone wants to make 19 a closing remark, I'll recommend we close for the morning.
20 (Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the meeting was 21 recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m., this same day.)
22 23 24 25
lbl 66 1
AFTERNOON SESSION (1:44 p.m.)
2 MR. NOVAK: Are we ready?
3 Why don't we pick up. I think we would like to 4 go forward. I think this morning's discussion has been 5 helpful in giving us certainly the appropriate backaround for
. 6 recognizing what your program has been. I think we'd like to 7
focus'now on the basis for which you draw your conclusions 8
that the construction at the liarris facility continues to meet 8
your quality control requirements and will, in fact, meet to the regulations.
11 I think it would be helpful if we could, in a sense ,
12 characterize the activities that you went through.
13 One of the ideas that we have is to have you 14 identify, just by numbers, those individuals who have been is " suspected" of drug use. Obviously, the name of the person 16 is not important at this point. It's the fact of what 17 activity did they perform.
16 So we'd like to talk a little bit more about the 18 kind of information that we could review to assist us in 80 making a finding before the board. And I think we can have 21 a discussion to kind of focus on those particular disciplines 22 where, first of all, you did go back and do something in 23 terms of either additional inspections or something else, 24 and those for which you reviewed the type of job it was and 26 the decision that your nupervision involved, or the OA
67 lb2 1 program gave you the confide ce that it continued to meet all 3 of the requirements that yot set forth for yourself.
3 Suppose we were 4 propose that you provide us 4 with a matrix which would it atify, just numerically, the 6 number of individuals that 1 a suspected, for one reason or
, 4 another, to be involved wit! .trugs, and to give a general 7 classification of what theil job was at the site.
8 We recognize tha* you'd want to keep it general 9 enough, but yet informative nough that we could understand to the kind of occupation that ndividual had.
11 I think it would o useful for us also to know it what records are available, hat would permit you to identify 13 the work that he performed. In other words, if he'was a l
14 welder, fine, there are somc records. If he was a craft la where there is no specific d entification of what work he 18 performed, then I think we ould know that. And that would 17 help us to identify to what egree there is any traceability 18 of his specific performance. -
19 Then I'd like foi those people who certainly are se not quality control personn< themselves, let's just suggest 21 for example that they are ci ftspersons. What level of El supervision and other qualit control measures would follow 38 their activities? And your asis, then, for agreeing -- for Se deciding whether or not that was sufficient and no other se additional insnections or re lows of their performance was m -
_ _ _ _ __ s . _ _ _
68 lb3 1 necessary.
a 2 I think it's important also to identify those 3 specific individuals who did perform " safety related" work, 4 where it's clear they did safety related work and any 5 special considerations you gave as to what you could do, in
. 6 terms of identifying their work product.
7 Now, from reading your affidavit, we do know where 8 those individuals who did hold quality control positions, that 9 you did go back and perform reinspection sufficient to give 10 you a high confidence that their work product was acceptable.
11 I assume when you refer to the mil standards that you're 12 talking about a sampling technique.
^.
(
13 MR. BANKS: 105-D.
14 MR. NOVAK: And based on that, you were able to 15 conclude that their work product was consistent with what 16 you would have expected of any individual doing that iob.
17 I think if you can refer us to the affidavit where the 18 actual ranges of inspections -- for example, if in fact there
. 19 were ten -- for example, I think we should have a little 20 dialogue. If there were ten OC inspectors, the numbers of 21 inspections they may have performed could vary by as much as 22 1,000, depending on how long they were there.
23 Did you group all of them together, or did you 24 look at each individually and pick a nample size appropriate 2 to each individual, or the average. .
69 lb4 1
If that's been identified, I think just a summary 2
of that would assist us in knowing how you proceeded. And 3
of course, you would identify then the results of these 4
reexaminations.
5 Now to the extent you can identify the level
. 6 that you believe that they were users of drugs, I mean they 7
may have been known, they may have been suspect. It does 8
give us some indication, perhaps if you can do that, I think 8
that would also be useful.
10 That may be difficult.
But if it's possible to at least categorize them, 12 in some way, that would be a benefit to us to get a feeling 13 for the likelihood, in fact. that these individuals were 14 drug users would be helpful.
15 MR. BUCKLEY: Is this just in OA or for everybody? ,
16 MR. NOVAK: For everyone.
I Now we think that with this kind of a matrix, it 18 would permit us to clearly focus on those personnel that we 18 would consider to be sensitive to a good OA program and 20 sensitive to good quality of construction.
I It's difficult, at this time, to say exactly what 22 we would want to do in, in terms of any additional information .
23 I think if this is informative and if it identifies, in fact, 24 what you have done and your basis for going forward with the 25 program that you've outlined, and that you've proposed in your
lb5 1 summary disposition, I think we'd want to look at it from that.
, -m 2 point of view. Do we agree?
3 We would also, of course, be looking to discuss 4 this basis with the region to see if there is any audits that 5 we would want to perform, if we haven't already done them, on
. 6 some of your reexaminations, and anything specific that we 7 would look at.
8 I think this would be very helpful in summarizing 9 what the activity has been at the site, with regard to this 10 issue.
11 I don't have any more comments on this, in that u framework. I think this would be very helpful to us, and I N ;S 13 think having this would permit us to move forward in preparing 14 a re ,onse, with regard to summary disposition.
U5 MR. BAXTER: That's gone. You're talking about 16 testimony.
17 MR. CHRISTENBURY: I guess Ben Hayes would also 18 be continuing his effort, in tandem with this?
19 MR. NOVAK: Yes, e
20 Mr. Hayes has some activities that he would 21 pursue. I would suspect that they would give us a better 22 feeling for what you perceive to be the magnitude of what the 28 drug issue has been over the period of construction. And, in
, 24 fa ct , if you do have what I'll consider to be the complete 2 listing of suspected individuals, it was my understanding that
~ - m vom mmmn - , , - , ._
71 lb6 1 you believe you have a complete set but the state or any s 2 2 other local agency does not have lists of individuals that 3 you are not aware of. But we might check to see if, in 4 fact, this list is complete. We would do that. 1 5 That would be one of our efforts in this area.
. 6 MR. .BUCKLEY: Tom, can I mention something?
7 When do you think you could come back with that 8 sort of information? Because with the hearing on the 30th, 9 we need to get a rapid turnaround.
10 Do you want to let me know later tomorrow?
11 MR. NOVAK: I think they can come back to us by M phone. I think you'll have to look at your records and see 13 how quickly this can be assembled.
( 14 Also, I think you know the areas that we're most 2 concerned about. If clearly the job descriptions of the 18 individuals would clearly show that they'did not perform 17 safety related activities, the rest of the charges aren't 1 2 very important. What we're focusing on are those specific 18 craftspersons for which you are, in f act, relying on 30 management and your quality assurance programs to detect 21 flaws in their performance that were not caught by the l l 28 quality control program that you have in place. 28 We clearly will be looking at those reexaminations l 24 of qua'lity control inspectors to be sure that, in fact, the 2 sample and your confidence that, in fact *,' these individuals
.-.--,_ -.._ ..=.-- -
. _ _ _ - _ _ - - - ._.- - . ...~.- - -. . .
c--.- : u.. 72 l lb7
- ~
1 did perform acceptably was verified by the reexamination. 2 MR. BAXTER: On that latter point, we have l 3 documentation, of course, available now. i 4 MR. NOVAK: And we will be looking at it through 6 the region. I think if we can get this information we can
. 8 begin to focus on our position.
t I think this has been very , 7 helpful in providing an overview of what your program has 8 been, the efforts that you've taken to identify the situation i 9 in terms of quality of construction, and that it would permit i 10 us to evaluate it. l 11 I think this would be a very good summary document i
; ut for us to work with. You probably have given this to us in 4
f ') v;/ 18 pieces. It's probably at the site. It's probably in your l 14 filings, but I think here will put it all together, and I l 2 think then we can go forward. 18 ! Is there anything more that wants to be added i 17 to this? i l N MR. TREBY: Except what kind of reaction.- We- . l 4
. N ought to give CP&L an opportunity to respond.
SD 1 MR. CUTTER: Tom, just in the side discussion here, 1 l 21 I believe that most of what you're asking for is available i 28 and is already laid out in a way that we can access it fairly as quickly. 54 We have a couple of concerns. One is that we need 26 to be sure that in the specification of work tasks and in the
73 lb8 1 breakdown of information, that we respect the confidentiality 8 that we have established with regard to the people who have 3 been affected. And I think we may need to work with you 4 on some groupings, if it turns out that certain 9 8 characteristics would be so totally distinguishable, that a we might need to merge characteristics or something like that. 7 , But I th. ink we could resolve that in a way that a would give you the data that you need, without causing a 8 concern. MR. NOVAK: I do think that it's important that 11 you focus on those critical craf t occupations for which you II were relying on supervision of other individuals in the ((j! 18 area, performing similar tasks, or something, and the quality 14 control. I think it's clear to us that's really the most
# difficult point. Can we agree with you that you're following .
18 a controlled program, your OA program, DC program, in fact, 17 was working and did pick up things regardless of why they is may have occurred.
- 8 And I think that's what we want to establish, do 80
. we have that same confidence? at You have it, and we would be looking for that. 88 And I think that's -- from our earlier discussion, I think sa that's probably one of the tougher issues that we're trying 8' to deal with today, as ' In effect, while it's unfortunate that a OC
74 l 1 lb9 ! 1 inspector is involved, you can idantify his work product. ! 8 You can go back and you can check it and you can establish, l i i 3 in fact, has he been performing acceptable. It's black and I ] 4 white, so to speak. i 8 And I think where you have a craft and you're l i j . 6 relying on a program to pick up his mistakes, to perform 1 ; 7 acceptably, the question is is that program that good and [ i< s that tight that it would pick them up to the degree you have ) 8 to? l 10 MR. CUTTER: I think, Tom, one of the things I 11 we have to get across and characterize is that in our i . I 18 opinion this is not a widespread, pervasive problem. The ; 1 18 other indicators that go along with widespread drug use are ) 1 14 not present. The industrial safety record at the. plant is as c 18 good or better than any other similar sized project in the f i 1 18 country. -! l 17 I our consultants tell us that you can't have a 18 widespread drug abuse problem and not also have associated
- f 8
- l. indications that come out in all of 'the ways that impaired !
# function come through.
81 I so I think that the characteristic that we need i 8 to try and get across is we're not looking at something i 8 different in kind for the OA program to perform in assuring 1 . l 8 . that the OA program covers the problems, the kinds of problemn 8 and the frequency of problems that the QA program was installe 1 ; i i l l
l i lbl0 W5 l 1 to catch, as part of the total, overall project completion, 2 which takes us on through the startup testing, and overything 3 olso, all of which is part of the total quality program isn't 4 being challenged by the experience that we see at the 6 Itarris sito becauso we don't have, as wo view it, a widespread
. 6 baselino difference betwoon what wo set the program up to 7 do and the environment program it's working in.
8 So one of the things that we need to try and got 8 across in this matrix is that it's not a difference in kind. 10 It should be something that you can look at and detotmino, 11 confirm in your own mind, that the pronram that is not up is
; 12 not being asked to do something that it wasn't not up to do.
13 MR. NOVAF: Okay. 14 Are there any other points? 16 MR. PARCONS: Could you clarify what we wanted in le the matrix 7 I've oot job classification, how thoso tasks did 17 in the OA program, and some classification of the incident. l 18 MR. NOVAK Well, lot me just sunmarizo it ono 18 more timo for you.
. We cortainly would want a matrix whore 2 the individuals, 1 through 150 for examolo, and you would 21 break them out. The job doncription is the firnt column that 22 would como un. To the extont that you could identify the D work performed, now you could nut it into cortain 24 clansificationn.
28 Now I don't know, it just doponda on how good your
_ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . > m - 76 lbil 1 recordkeeping is of individuals. It depends -- the question 2 is do we want time or dates there. It docends on what you 3 know about, what your answer is downstream. If thoro's 4 no answer other than we rely on the OC/0A program, it really 8 probably does not do a wholo lot, right now, to help. , . 6 We would like to know -- 7 MR. BANKS: No would like to -- lot me clarify that . i 8 If I say that I dopond on the program because this function 9 that this individual particular craftsman in doing has to 10 be inspected 100 percent, then would that not be accoptable? 11 MR. DAXTER: Two of the columns, as I understand 12 it, are a description of what the OA program does on that 13 craf t activity and then any basis, .from our position, that 14 tha t is suf ficient. So I think that allows us the to opportunity to try and make that caso. le MR. NOVAKt I think that is what I'm asking you 17 to make, because you are rolying on that caso. 18 HR. BANKS: If we are, we'll explain why wo are. o 19 MR. NOVAK: Right. 2 And to the extent that you have any renults of tho 21 inspections, now I've boon told that there is an individual et accountability for cortain craf ts, so you can't say M specifically that that craft -- that that person's porformanco 24 can be reflected in the rosults of those inspections. Somo
# they may, if they're woldors or specific -- I think thoro
__ _ . _ . . _ . _ . c.; - - - -
. 2. . . .; .
77 lb12 1 we would want to know that to the degr,co it's available. 2 We also ask that -- I assumo that the actions 3 taken in dismissal and, of course, that would be a simple 4 column, if they've all boon dismissed. Where they're no 6 longer at the sito, I think we'd like to know that, as well. 6 You don't have to, if that's an across the board 7
, statomont, just so stato it.
8 Also, we wanted to know, to the degroo that you 8 could be cpocific, to what level were they suspected of being to a user of drugs? Woro they a known user or a sunpocted 11 because of -- you may just want to characterize it in some 12 general way. 13 That was the matrix that we woro looking for. 14 Now you're not limited to that. I think you know 18 where we're going and if you think there is some arguments , le ~ that would support or provide information that would help us 17 to reach a decision on this, certainly you're permitted to le add to it.
- 18 MR. DAXTEP: Although we wou,1d not.like it to 80
, provido too much information, out of foar that it might not 21 got absorbod in the timo framo.
22 MR. NOVAK Wo're quick readers. 23 Arc there any other nuestions? 24 MP. BAXTCP I have one comment, if I minht. 26 Wo will try to got this information to you as
l 78 lbl3 l 1 quickly as we can. I would observe that this is ossentially l 2 a follow up on our July 12 motion, the Chiangi affidavit, 3 which set forth the construction confirmation part of our 4 motion. And it is not really, I don't think, inspired by 6 anything in the ?! orth Carolina attorney general file because
. 6 they didn't hevo anything to say about construction quality 7 because they didn't have any information'about that.
8 I want to mako overybody aware, of courso, that 8 our motion did includo, in addition to talking about I 10 construction ouality, we did address soveral other subiocts l 11 including the company's policy and our contractor's policios 12 on drug abuse, how they're communicated to sito onployoon, 13 the training that we do of our supervision, and the various 14 security measures that we have available and implomont to 16 detect and identify the orploycos. 18 The licensing board has scheduled a tolophono 17 conference for a week from tomorrow, in which wo're going 18 to discuss what issuon are going to be tried and the schedulo 18 for trying them.
. This additional infornation only goon --
so I don't maan to minimize its importanco -- but it goes to 21 the construction part of it, and there are all of thono 22 other clomonts of the caso that are on the tablo. 23 And if the staff intends to testify in any of 24 those things, I hoco you are prepared on Friday the 13th to 26 say that and on what schedulo, because the licensing board
79 lbl4 , I has already asked us to considor going to the hearing at 2 the end of this month on some issues, but not all of thoso. 3 So that you're not ready on the construction part, we still 4 might go to hearing on the adcouacy of our employeo 8 program kind of thing and on the security. And if the 6 board wants to have a hearing on the undercover operation, 7 the conflict of fact that remains with the Stato nurosu of 8 investigation, that may go forward. 8 So I hopo you are prepared and can support a 10 hearing going forward on at 1 cast some issues if the 11 licensing board says its appropriato. 12 MR. NOVAK Ok r,y , thank you. 13 If that's it, the mooting is adjourned. 14 Well, we have one more comront and it was IO requested it be on the record. 16 MR. PUCKLEY: We got a call f rom GAP about 10: 30 or 17 11:00. And on behalf of the Intervonors they stated that is they could not attend the mooting because of lato notification 18
. of the mooting. If they had more timo, they would havo boon e
a
# here.
II MR. DAXTER: They woro notified yesterday? 22 MR. BUCKLEY: They were notified yesterday. 23 MR. NOVAK: For the record, CAP -- an I understand 24 it -- on behalf of the intervonors, could not make this 26 mooting becauno of the short notice that they woro provided.
. _ -- : ; , _ - - - - - - - w ;-;;;;;-;;
0 lbl5 1 They just wanted that read into the record.
' 2 Thank you very much.
3 (Whe reupon, at 2 : 09 p.m. , the mooting was adjourned.) 4 8 8 7 o 8 10 11 12 1 i 13 (,/ 14 18 16 17 14
. 19 20 t
21 22 23 24 26 i
1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REDORTER 2 , 3 4 , 5 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 6 before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the 7 matter of' e 9 Name of proceeding' Meeting Of NRR Staff in re: Shearon Itarris, Unit I to 11 Docket No.t
, 13 piace' Bethonda, Muryland \.
13 Dat*' Thursday, September 5, 1985 14 15 were held as herein appears and that this is the original to transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission is (signature) d (TypedNameofReporter,)s.(/PanelaBriggle-30 21 Et 23 Ann M l l ey 4 ma soco l a t es . Ltd, 24 tS 2}}