ML20214H449
| ML20214H449 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1986 |
| From: | Cook G NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 86-ERA-27, NUDOCS 8705270389 | |
| Download: ML20214H449 (117) | |
Text
. . , _
i 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 2 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 3
4 5
6 IN THE MATTER OF:
7 BLAINE P. THOMPSON, 8 Complainant, 9 vs. No. 86-ERA-27 10 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY / ARIZONA NUCLEAR 11 POWER PROJECT, 12 Respondent.
/
13 14 15 16 DEPOSITION OF GREGORY NORMAN COOK 17 18 October 9, 1986 19
((
20 21 PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES Certified Shorthand Reporters 22 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 204 Oakland, California 94612 23 (415) 835-3993 24 25 Reported by:
DEBORAH WONG BROOKS 26 CSR No. 5223 8705270389 861009 PDR ADOCK 05000528 T PDR
O 2 1 INDEX 2
.3~ PAGE.
O'-
4 5 EXAMINATION BY MR. HAYDEN- 7 f
O 6 EXAMINATION BY MR. KOHN 38 7 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. HAYDEN 90 8
O i 9 ---oOo---
10 j 11 O
12 13 O 14 15 16 0
17 18 19 20 21
'O . 22 23 j 24 0 25 26 O
(
0 3 1 EXHIBITS 2
0 3 PAGE 4
5 COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 1, 36 A XEROX COPY OF A TWO-SIDED O- 6 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7 DOCUMENT, DATED DECEMBER 12, 1983.
8 0
9 COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 2, 36 A XEROX COPY OF A TWO-SIDED 10 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 11 DOCUMENT, DATED APRIL 3, 7)
' 1984.
12 13 COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 3, 36 A XEROX COPY OF A ONE-PAGE O 14 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 15 DOCUMENT, DATED FEBRUARY 7, 1985.
16 O
17 COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 4, 37 .
A XEROX COPY OF A ONE-PAGE 18 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 19 DOCUMENT, DATED OCTOBER 8, O 1985.
20 )
21 COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 5, 37 ;
A XEROX COPY OF A ONE-PAGE l O 22 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 23 DOCUMENT, DATED MAY 7, 1986.
24 COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 6, 37 A XEROX COPY OF A MEMORANDUM O 25 TO DAN HOLODY, ET AL., PROM JANE A. AXELRAD, DATED 26 FEBRUARY 28, 1985, AND AN EIGHT-PAGE ATTACHMENT.
~~
n PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
() 4 1 EXHIBITS 2
3 PAGE O-4 5 COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 7, 37 A XEROX COPY OF A ONE-PAGE O 6 DOCUMENT, ENTITLED " CIVIL PENALTY RECORD - REGION V 7 LICENSEES," DATED 8/27/86.
8 0 38 9 COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 8, A KPNX TV VIDEOTAPE, ENTITLED 10 " PRE-EMPLOYMENT LIE DETECTORS AT PALO VERDE MGS."
11 O
12 COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 9, 53 A XEROX COPY OF FOUR PAGES 13 FROM A DOCUMENT ENTITLED "U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY O 14 COMMISSION, REGION V, SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF 15 LICENSEE PERFORMANCE FOR PALO VERDE NUCLEAR 16 GENERATING STATION."
17 COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 10, 76 A XEROX COPY OF A NEWS 18 ARTICLE BY JOHN STAGGS, ENTITLED "PALO VERDE WORKERS BEING 19 GIVEN LIE TESTS TO LOCATE O NEWS LEAK."
20 i
21 COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 11, 77 A XEROX COPY OF A NEWS ARTICLE 22 BY FRANK TURCO, ENTITLED O " SECURITY FLAWS COST A-PLANT 23 $100,000."
24 COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 12, 77 A XEROX COPY OF A NEWS ARTICLE O 25 BY SAM STANTON, ENTITLED
" INTIMIDATION ' CHILLING' 26 PALO VERDE STAFF."
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O 5 l 1 BE IT REMEMBERED THAT, pursuant to Subpo@na, l 2 and on Thursday, October 9, 1986, commencing at the 3 h ur f 1:45 o' clock p.m. of the said day, at the
.O 4 office of the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY 5 COMMISSION, REGION V, 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 0 6 Walnut Creek, California, before me, DEBORAll WONG 7 BROOKS, a Notary Public in and for the County of 8 Alameda, State of California, personally appeared O 9 GREGORY NORMAN COOK, a witness in tie above-entitled 10 court and cause, produced on behalf of the 11 respondent, who being by me first duly sworn, was 12 then and there examined and interrogated by Attorney 13 WILLIAM R. HAYDEN, representing the law firm of SNELL i 14 & WILMER, 3000 Valley Bank Center, Phoenix, Arizona, lQ l 15 counsel for the respondent.
16 O 17 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 18 19 FOR COMPLAINANT:
O 20 MICIIAEL DAVID K0!!N Attorney at Law 21 509 Sth Street, North East Washington, D.C. 20002 22 0
23 FOR RESPONDENT:
l l
! 24 SNELL & WILMER BY: WILLIAM R. II A Y D E N , ESQ.
O 25 3000 valley Bank Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 26 l
PATRICI A CALLAllAN & ASSOCIATES
iD 6 1 FOR THE WITNESS:
2 CHARLES E. MULLINS Attorney at Law 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'() Washington, D.C. 20555 4
l 5 There also being present: MYRON SCOTT j, BET!! PAYNE
- d' 6 BLAINE THOMPSON JAMES L. MONTGOMERY 7
8 The following proceedings were thereupon had, O
9 and the following testimony was thereupon given, to-wit:
10 11 ---ooo---
12 13 0 14 15 16 0 17 18
, 19 LO 20 21 22 0
23 24 0 25 26 i
l 0 PATRICI A CALLA!!AN & ASSOCIATES
O 7 1 GREGORY NORMAN COOK 2 being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
3 O
4 EXAMINATION BY MR. HAYDEN 5 MR. HAYDEN: Q. Mr. Cook, have you ever O 6 had your deposition taken before?
7 A. No.
8 Q. I assume you've gotten ample guidance from O your counsel, but let me just repeat two key points, 9
10 at least, initially this afternoon. ,
11 I will be asking you a number of questions.
12 I will try to go slow and try to be as clear as I 13 can, and try to make it one question at a time.
O 14 If at any point in time, the question that 15 I've asked isn't clear, please feel free to stop me, 16 and make sure that you understand what the question 0 17 is before responding.
18 For the convenience of the court reporter, 19 please let me finish my question before you start O
20 your answer. She can only take down one of us at a 21 time. And, of courne, nho can't take down nods of 22 the head. So, we need a verbal response to each O
23 question I sak.
24 A. Fine.
O 25 Q. Por the record, could you give un your fuli 26 name and addrena, please?
O PATRICI A CALLAllAN & ASSOCIATES
O 8 1 A. Gregory Normen Cook, 240 Viewmont Avenuo, 2 V-i-e-w-m-o-n-t, Vallejo, California, 94590.
g 3 0 Mr. Cook, are you employed at the present 4 time?
5 A. Yes, I am.
O 6 Q. With who?
7 A. With the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
8 Q. For how long have you been employed with that O
9 agency?
10 A. For almost exactly two years.
11 Q. I think we'll dispense with going back in g
12 your employment history, as not being particularly 13 relevant for the purpose of being here today.
O 14 Can you tell me in what capacity you were 15 originally employed with the Nuclear Regulatory 16 Agency?
O 17 A. As public affairs officer, with duty 18 stationed in the Region V office in Walnut Creek, 19 California.
O 20 0 In that the position that you currently hold?
21 A. Yes, it is.
O 22 0. That maken tracking your history through the 23 agency easy, also.
24 Can you educate me somewhat as to the O 25 geographic area that Region V has responsibility for?
26 A. Region V has responsibility for inspection PATRICIA CALLAllAN & ASSOCIATES
O 9 1 and enforcement of NRC's regulations in Alaska, 2 Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, g 3 Hawaii, and the Trust Territories of the Pacific.
4 Q. Do you happen to know, off the top of your 5 head, approximately how many licensed nuclear 33 6 generating facilities there are within Region V?
7 A. There are six sites with eleven active 8 commercial power reactors.
- O 9 Q. Pretty much just for my education, do you 10 know how those six sites are broken down in the 11 geographic area that you've given me?
12 A. We have one site with one active reactor in
- 13 Washington; one site, one reactor in Oregon; three 14 sites, six active reactors in California; one site IO 15 with two active reactors and one with construction 16 completed and in preoperational testing in Arizona.
O 17 Q. Those, I'm maybe more familiar with than the 18 others.
19 with that background, what I'd like to do, T) '
20 Mr. Cook, is direct your attention, if I may, to the 21 week of February 24th, 1986. That was the Monday of g 22 that week. Do you have a recollection as to whether 23 you were contacted during that week by a reporter 24 from the " Arizona Republic"?
'O 25 A. Yes, I was.
26 Q. Do you recall the first -- either date or day PATRICI A CALLAllAN & ASSOCIATES
I) 10
.1 of that week -- that you were contacted?
2 A. I believe the initial contact was on Monday
!O 3 of that week.
4 Q. I think that, then, would be February 24th.
5 Do you recall the identity of the individual
$) 6 by whom you were contacted?
7 A. Yes. The reporter was John Staggs of.the
- 8 " Arizona Republic."
- O 9 Q. Do you recall just approximately what time of 10 the day on that Monday the first contact occurred?
11 A. I believe it was late morning.
)
12 Q. That's fine, i 13 To the best of your current recollection,
!O 14 will you please relay to me the content of that?
15 I assume that contact was by telephone --
16 excuse me -- is that correct?
]O 17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. To the best of your current recollection, i
19 will you please relay to me the content of that
'O 20 telephone conversation with Mr. Staggs?
21 A. Mr. Staggs told me that he had been Jg 22 contacted, by telephone, by an individual who 23 represented himself as being employed by either i
24 Arizona Public Service or Arizona Nuclear Power 50 25 Project in the security field.
26 The individual discussed, according to O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O- 11
'l Mr.'Staggs, an exit-interview conducted'by NRC at 2 Palo Verde:a little over a week before. I believe
- 9 3 the date was' February 14th. But it.was a Friday, mid 4 February.
5 Mr. Staggs requested confirmation from me of I 6 a number of specific points of information which'he 7 claimed were provided by this individual. He 8 especially was interested in confirmation regarding a O . .
9 comment made by -- allegedly made by one NRC 10 representative at the meeting, that the Utility had 11 the worst security record in the nation or Region V.
)
12 Q. Going back to your answer I believe two 13 sentences ago, if my note-taking was correct, you iO 14 said the reporter asked for some confirmation or 15 comment regarding specific information, I think, was 16 the term you used.
^O' 17 Now, perhaps this is the first juncture where 18 we get close to a sensitivity as to the possible 19 Safeguards nature of information discussed, and I lO 20 have no desire to have the witness discuss that 21 information. But let me see if I can get around it 22 and avoid the problem.
!O 23 What I'm probing here for, Mr. Cook, is, what 1
24 do you mean by " specific information"? Without you IO 25 trying to relay what it was, necessarily, was the i
26 information that the reporter had --
1
'O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
's, I) - 12 l' Let me start it this ways in your judgment, 2 at that time, did it potentially include Safeguards O 3 Inf rmation?
j 4 MR. KOHN: I'm going to' object to the 5 question. I'm really not following it.
C 6 MR. HAYDEN': Q. 'Does the witness 7 understand my question?
8 A. I believe so.
.O 9 MR. MULLINS: Perhaps you could rephrase it.
10 MR. HAYDEN: Q. Okay. What I'm trying to 11 do here, of course, is avoid asking you to relay to
)
12 me the specific content of the information that he 13 relayed to you.
O- 14 So, as a preliminary basis, I'm asking -- you 15 have already told me-that the reporter-in question 16 was in possession of specific information. Do I
$ 17 understand that to mean that he had detailed -- let's 18 start with that -- detailed information as to the 19 content of the February 14th exit interview?
- 0 20 A. Mr. Staggs' principal interest in the --
21 MR. KOHN: Object to that. I don't think iu s s j) -- -
22 this witness is capable of answering what Mr. Staggs' 23 interest was.
24 MR. HAYDEN: Well, I don't believe that he
,O 25 can object to the witness' answer. He can object to 26 my questions, but with the objections on the record,
,0 -
e PATRICIA-CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES L
1 O 13 1 if the witness wants to respond to the question --
2 MR. MULLINS: I think that he was trying to g 3 say that he interpreted Mr. Staggs' apparent 4 interest.
5 Is that what you're trying to say?
O 6 THE WITNESS: Yeah, that would be accurate.
7 MR. HAYDEN: I'll come another time, and see 8 if we can get around this.
O 9 Q. Mr. Cook, you've already provided me with the 10 information that he asked you, regarding the alleged 11 comment about Palo Verde having the worst security 12 record in the nation or region. I understand that 13 was one area, one piece of information, that he had O 14 been provided that he asked you to confirm or comment 15 on. That, I understand.
16 I'm moving beyond that, I guess. And let me O 17 start by saying, based on the conversation you had 18 with Mr. Staggs at this point in time that we're now 19 discussing, was he in possession of other O
20 information, other than what I've just referred to, 21 other information regarding the February 14th exit 22 interview?
O 23 MR. KOHN: I'll object to that question also.
24 I don't believe this witness can answer what O 25 Mr. Staggs had. He can only speculate. I think that 26 we should limit the questioning to what Mr. Staggs n" PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O 14 1 told this witness on the phone.
2 THE WITNESS: Mr. Staggs asked me about q) 3 various items which the caller had said were 4 discussed in the exit' interview.
5 The item which he expressed to me, the
'O 6 greatest desire to respond to, was the comment on the-7 quality of the security program overall.
8 MR. HAYDEN: Q. Let me try now to ask,
.O 9 again, a question I did earlier. We may'have to 10 probe more, but let me see if we're far enough along-11 to get a response to this question.
12 Based on the entirety of that conversation, 13 the one we're now discussing, did you develop, in O 14 your own mind, any impression or opinion as to 15 whether the information in the reporter's possession 16' was potentially Safeguards Information?
O 17 3, 30, 18 Q. Is that to say you had no opinion, or you did 19 not form that opinion?
- O 20 A. At that time, I did not have enough' 21 information from Mr. Staggs to draw any conclusion as g 22 to whether he had Safeguards Information or not.
23 Q. Before going to subsequent conversations, 24 perhaps let me pause here and get a feel for how many O 25 there are going to be.
26 During this week of February the 24th, how
'O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES-
(j 15 1 many separate. telephone conversations did you have 2 with Mr. Staggs?
3 A. At least three more. But I can't say for O
4 certain there weren't other conversations later in 5 the week, since Mr. Staggs and I frequently talk O 6 about issues related to Palo Verde, and there may.
7 have been conversations not relating to this matter 8 that I don't recall now.
'O 9 Q. -And again, I'm trying to determine, in my own 10 mind, how much I need to go back and detail in this 11 first conversation. Let me ask, again, a question.
12 relative to all of the conversations in the week, 13 regardless of their number.
O 14 Did there come a point in time, during this 15 week, that you did form an opinion that Mr. Staggs 16 might have been in possession of Safeguards 17 Information?
18 A. That is a concern which was first expressed 19 by other NRC personnel. And while I could certainly O
20 understand the basis of the concern, I did not feel, 21 on my own, that I was competent to judge whether or 22 not Mr. Staggs had actually reported any Safeguards O
i 23 Information to us.
24 Q. And I appreciate that, because that may' help !
O 25 you in terms of what kind of detail we need to get l l
26 into as to each conversation.
O' PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
- 61 16 .
~
1 Let-me try one;other general question.._And I
2 ~by " general," I'mean relative to all the-3 nyersation's that week, whatever their number.
O 4 In any of those conversations, did you state 4
5 to Mr. Staggs, in any manner, that he: shou'ld be-O -6 cautious or -- I, of course, don't know what words L
were used --_ regard'ing his use of that information he
~
7
- 8. was in possession of, because it-may be Safeguards d 9 Information, anything of that' nature, some form o,f ,
10 warning or advice? I don't want to' state it. Did 11 that occur in any of the conversations?
12 MR. KOHN: Is this limited-to-conversations-13 of the week of the 24th?
O 14 MR. HAYDEN: At the present time, yes.
15 THE WITNESS: That did occur in a 16 conversation I was party to. I was not the-O 17 individual that cautioned Mr. Staggs in that regard, 18 to my re< ,11ection.
19 MR. HAYDEN: Q. And that_is_ helpful with O
20 respect to the first conversation. Let's try to get
~
21 the first conversation out of the way.
gy 22 In fact, I guess on-the record, let me ask-23 counsel for the NRC, is there a_ concern if-I ask your 24 witness to relay to-me any other pieces of O. 25 information that the reporter was in possession of 26 and-that he_ spoke about during the first PATRICIA CALLAHAN'& ASSOCIATES
" 17 1 conversation, other than the one we've already 2 discussed? What I'd like to do is ask him that, with
- g 3 the understanding that if there's a concern about it 4 being Safeguards, that he will refrain from giving me 5 that, I guess.
I) 6 MR. MULLINS: I would suggest that you go 7 ahead and ask him. And at some point, if he is of 8 the professional opinion -- or at some point -- that O
9 there is Safeguards Information involved, I have 10 directed him and the other employees that they're 11 respectfully to decline to answer because, "The
. O,.
12 answer involves Safeguards Information, in my 13 opinion."
O 14 MR. HAYDEN: I understand that ground rule, 15 and I certainly intend to abide by it.
16 Q. With that understanding among us, can you --
O 17 going back now to, I guess, a question I did ask 18 before -- relay to me, in as much detail as you can, 19 the content of your first conversation with O
20 Mr. Staggs? And what I'm particularly interested in 21 here is what information he shared with you that he g 22 was seeking confirmation or comment on.
23 MR. KOHN: I'm going to object, in that the 24 question calls for a narrative answer.
O 25 MR. HAYDEN: Q. You can answer.
26 A. I don't recall all of the items that
'O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O 18 1 Mr. Staggs discussed with me, either in the first 2 conversation or the conversation of Tuesday, the !
.g 3 25th. l 4 He did ask me whether it was true that NRC 5 had expressed concerns related to security-related O 6 lighting at the plant; vital area barriers; I believe 7 access control was another general area that he was 8 inquiring about.
O 9 There were one or two other specifics that 10 Mr.,Staggs raised with me. One of them may have been 11 firearms qualification for security personnel. I do u,
12 not recall the specifics beyond that.
13 When he raised these areas with me in the O 14 initial conversation of February 24th, they were-15 raised in terms of, "Are these the areas that were 16 discussed in the exit interview?"
O 17 They were not raised in terms of specific l
18 details, either of security findings or of the 19 facility's security plan.
'O 20 Q. Fine. Thank you. And for our current 21 purposes, I don't think we need to try to get into
- 22 the details any further of that conversation.
U 23 Let me just get a feel for how lengthy that 24 conversation was, to the best of your estimate.
O 25 A. I would say probably 15 to 20 minutes.
26 Q. Let's leave that conversation for a moment.
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O 19 1 And again, directing my comment, now, to counsel for 2 the NRC, it is again my understanding that -- and I g 3 intend to comply with the ground rule that I'm not 4 going to ask your witness the content of his 5 subsequent conversations, internal conversations, O 6 with other personnel staff within Region V.
7 But understanding that ground rule,~let me 8 ask you these general questions.
'O 9 Did you, after your conversation with 10 Mr.'Staggs, discuss its content with other personnel 11 within Region V?
)
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. HAYDEN: Can I ask-him to identify with
!O 14 whom?
15 MR. MULLINS: Yes.
16 MR. HAYDEN: Q. With whom?
I) 17 A. One individual was our section chief for 18 Palo Verde, Lou Miller, from whom I was seeking 19 confirmation of the " worst in the region" remark,
- O 20 since he had been at the exit interview.
21 Another was Mr. Montgomery. We discussed.
22 getting back to Mr. Staggs. But because of other O
, 23 commitments on both of our schedules, we were unable 24 to do that that afternoon.
.O 25 Q. Is that all of the personnel within Region V 26 that you currently recall discussing this matter with
' O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
1
.O '20 ,
-1 on Monday, the 24th?
2 A. Yes, it is.
O 3 Q. Let's, then, move to the following day, 4 Tuesday, the 25th. Do I. understand it correctly that 5 you did have'another conversation with Mr. Staggs I) 6. that day?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. Was this conversation instituted by you or by
- O 9 him?
10 A. This conversation was instituted by me ---or q) 11 by us, I should say. There were three of us that 12 were involved in that, on the NRC end, in response to 13 his inquiry of the day before.
10 14 Q. Will you please identify the other two-NRC 15 representatives who were party to that conversation?
16 A. Jim Montgomery and Doug Schuster.
~O 17 Q. To the best of your' current recollection, 18 would you please provide me with the. content of that 1
19 conversation?
O 20 A. As I recall, we began by getting Mr. Staggs 21 to reiterate his question. And he began by relating
}O 22 a description of the telephone call he said he had 1
23 received.
24 Q. I'm very sorry, my mind wandered for a 0 25 second. Could you say that again, or read it back? l i
26 A. Certainly. Mr. Staggs-began by reiterating, !
l i
- O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES' i
O 21 1 to some extent at least, the conversation that he 2 said he had had with the caller who had described the 9 3 content of the exit interview.
4 As Mr. Staggs -- I believe it was as 5 Mr. Staggs was relating the details of that call, O 6 that he was cautioned that he may be dealing with 7 Safeguards Information.
8 Q. By whom was he so cautioned?
O 9 A. I believe the caution came from Mr. Schuster.
10 I'm not certain.
,, 11 Q. That's fine. But you are certain.that that V
12 caution was given?
13 A. Yes.
O 14 Q. Mr. Cook, would I be correct in assuming 15 that, based on what you told me so far, that by the 16 time of this second conversation, that there was a '
O 17 concern that had developed within Region V that this 18 reporter may be in possession of Safeguards 19 Information?
O 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Can you tell me whether either yourself or I g 22 the other individuals that you have identified as 23 being involved, to date, considered this reporter to 24 be an unauthorized source for such information?
O 25 A. I don't think there was ever any doubt about 26 that.
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
. .. -= . - - _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ .
90 22 1 MR. KOHN: Doubt about-what?
2 THE WITNESS: That Mr. Staggs was not
,g- 3 authorized to have Safeguards Information.
4 MR. KOHN: But not that he had Safeguards 5 Information.
- O- 6 THE WITNESS
- That's correct. To the.best of 7 my knowledge, we were not able to conclude that he i
8 had Safeguards Information.
- O
- 9 MR. HAYDEN
- Generally, I don't care if we I
10 alternate questions. -However, I would perhaps 11 request counsel for. GAP to allow me to complete my ^
,O j_ 12 questioning of the witness. And, of course, you can l 13 have all the time you'd like for questioning him,'as
- O 14 opposed to interposing questions during my
! 15 questioning.
16 MR. KOHN: I apologize. . I only did that, in O 17 that I wasn't following the question, and I thought 18 it would be a lot easier-than objecting or asking i
19 that the question be read back. I'll try to refrain IO
- j. 20 from doing that.
21 MR. HAYDEN: Q. Mr.-Cook, did you -- and 22 I'm focusing, now, on the same day that we're
)
23 discussing, Tuesday, February 25th -- did you have a 24 conversation with any representative of the-
- O 25 Palo Verde Nuclear Plant?
26 A. Yes, I did.
': O-PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
n' '
' 23 1 Q. Why don't we start with, to the best of your 2 recollection, with whom did you speak at Palo Verde?
O 3 A. I believe that conversation was with Don 4 Andrews.
5 Q. Do you recall approximately what time of the O 6 day that conversation took place?
7 A. I would say it was probably late morning.
8 Q. Very good. The record shows 11:19 a.m. Very
.O 9 good. I didn't ask you -- let's go back.
10 At approximately what time did the 11 conversation take place between the three 12 representatives, including yourself, of the NRC and 13 Mr. Staggs on that day? I assume it's before 11:00 0 14 a.m. that morning.
15 A. Yes. I would say 9:00 or 9:30.
16 Q. Fine.
O 17 Do I assume correctly that, with respect to 18 the phone conversation with Mr. Andrews, that that 19 was initiated by you?
O 20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Do you recall whether you initially asked for 22 him, or you may have asked for someone else?
O 23 A. I would normally have asked for Dan Canady.
24 Q. Do you have a recollection, basically, that O 25 Mr. Canady wasn't available, so you spoke with 26 Mr. Andrews?
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
= _ . . _ .
O- 24-1 A. 'I believe that's correct. I believe that's 2 correct.
3 Q. Will y u, t the best of your present
- O 4 recollection, relay to me the content of that 5 conversation with Mr. Andrews?
O 6 A. Basically, I related to Mr. Andrews that we 7 had had an inquiry from Mr. Staggs, which raised the 8 concern that he may have been given Safeguards O
9 Information, since it was apparent that he had been ,
10 given quite a bit of information about the exit 11 interview of the 14th.
g 12 Q. Do you recall whether you further advised 13 Mr. Andrews that Mr. Staggs had been warned regarding
!()
14 his possible possession of Safeguards Information?
15 A. I believe I did.
16 Q. Do you recall whether, in that conversation, O 17 you related to Mr. Andrews if Mr. Staggs had 18 identified the purported source of his-information?
19 A. Mr.-Staggs told me from the outset that his 20 caller was anonymous; only that he identified himself
j) 22 in the security field.
23 Q. And was that information, to the best of your 4
24 knowledge, relayed by you to Mr. Andrews?
') 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. Mr. Cook, do you have.any knowledge of -- let O
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O- 25 1 me back up to lay.the-foundation.
2 Are you familiar with Mr. Zimmerman?
LO 3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Is he the site inspector for Region V at the 5 Palo Verde Nuclear Facility?
O 6 A. He is the senior resident inspector at 7 Palo Verde.
t 8 Q. Do you have any knowledge of whether
!O 9 dr. Zimmerman contacted Region V the same day that we 10 are now discussing, Tuesday, February 25th?
t 11 A. I can't recall.
)
I 12 Q. Let me just see if another question or two 13 helps jog memories. If not, we'll move on.
l() 14 Do you have any recollections of 15 Mr. Zimmerman contacting the Region that day as a 16 result of a communication he had had from a 40 17 Mr. Van Brunt?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. I had a feeling that might jog the l
'O .
20 recollection. By your smile,-I have a feeling you i 21 may have gotten the same version of this that I have.
2 22 Can you relay to me, to the best of your 0
23 knowledge, any information you have as to the content 24 of Mr. Zimmerman's communication to Region V that iO 25 day? !
l 26 A. I can now recall that Mr. Zimmerman, at one PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O. .
26 -
1 point'during the day -- and I believe-it was late in 2 the afternoon -- spoke to me regarding a conversation he had had with Mr. Van Brunt, in which Mr. Van Brunt-lg 3 4 expressed great concern that NRC was giving 1 5 information on the security exit interview to the lO 6 press; specifically, to Mr. Staggs.
. 7 :Q. To your-knowledge, was Mr. Zimmerman advised 8 by Region V personnel of what Mr. Staggs had provided'
'O as to his source, or where his source:had come from?
l 9-10 Was that information provided to Mr. Zimmerman, to-11 your knowledge?
.O
- 12 A. Yes, it was, such as we had.
! 13 Q. By whom, if you know?
O 14 A. I discussed that with Mr. Zimmerman. I'm not 15 sure if I was the first person in the region to do j
16 so, though. But I may have been the first person to
!O 17 do so.
18 Q. Let me make sure,.then, that I: understand
~
] 19 this. Do I understand correctly that you advised-iO l 20 Mr. Zimmernan that Mr. Staggs had clearly identified 1
- 21 his sources coming from within APS or ANPP~ security, .
l 22 as opposed to having coming from, say, NRC-personnel?
!O 4
23 A. I advised Mr. Zimmerman that Mr. Staggs had i 24 identitled his source as an anonymous individual J
lO 25 claiming to be from APS or ANPP security.
26 Q. Very good. Thank you.
!O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES 1
_ . . _ . . . . ~ . . _, . ~ - _ - . . - .._,_ -.._. ._ , . _ . - . _ _
- z Cr 27 Do you h' ave any' personal-knowledge whether
~
1 2 any NRC representative relayed that information to 3 Mr. Van Brunt that : day, Tuesday, the 25th?
O 4 A. I believe that occurred, but I don't have 5 personal knowledge of it.
O 6 o. Fine.
7 Let's clear up this week, before moving on.
8 Let me make sure I'm following your testimony.
O 9 Earlier, you have told me that you were a 10- party to a conversation, telephone conversation, with 11 Mr. Staggs, in which another representative of 12- Region V warned Mr. Staggs that he possibly-might be 13 in possession of Safeguards Information. Is that the O 14 conversation on Tuesday, the 25th, that we-have just 15 discussed?
16 A. Yes.
O 17 o. To the best of your recollection,E during this 18 week of February 24th -- and so I'm nowfmoving on j 19 beyond Tuesday, the 25th -- did you have any other O
20 conversations with Mr. Staggs?
21 A. I don't recall.
22 Q. That's fine. Let's now move to, if:I may O
23 direct your attention-to a period approximately.three 24 weeks after these events that'we now have finished i
O 25 discussing, on or about March.18th. j 26 Do you recall having a phone conversation PATRICIA CALLAHAN &~ ASSOCIATES
'O 28 l' with'Mr. Andrews and, I believe, Mr. Canady, on the 2 same' conversation, that was instituted by them in 3 resp nse t a CREE news release that had~been O
4 published, addressing NRC regulations and the use of 5 polygraphs? Do you. recall having such a 40 6 conversation?
7 A. I recall having such a conversation, but-I 8 don't recall when it occurred.
O 9 -Q. And that's fine.
10 I want to see if we can develop the content-11 of that conversation. Am I correct, or is it your 12 best recollection, that that phone call was
- 13 instituted by Mr. Andrews and Mr. Canady?
O 14 A. I believe so.
15 Q. Did they state why they were calling you?
16 A. I conclude they must have. .They initiated nv 17 the call. Yes.
18 Q. They initiated the call. Did they express to 19 you, or do you recall their telling you,-why they
.:D 20 were calling you?
21 A. Not with any specificity, no.
22 Q. Let's see if I can help refresh your
)
23 recollection. Do you have any recollection of them
' 24 bringing to your attention, mentioning to you, i
O 25 discussing with you -- do you know what I mean when I 26 say " CREE"?
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
,.a;O' ~
29 l' . 'A . Yes. I assume you'mean'the Committee for i
2 -Responsible Energy Education.
- g 3 Q. You're correct. Do you have any recollection 4 4 of them referring you to a CREE news. release that may-
- 5 have been released that day, that stated that it was
!O= 6 in violation of NRC regulations for a licensee to 7 utilize polygraph exams? .Do you recall that?
8 h. I recall having that ~ type of discussion with' O
9 Mr. Andrews and Mr. Canady, yes.
10 Q. Do you recall whether they1 asked you whether
~
11 that statement from th'e news release was correct or 10 12 accurate, or did they ask you whether you were aware 13 that there was such an NRC regulation prohibiting the O 14 use of polygraphs? ,
15 A. Yes, I recall them asking me that.
I 16 Q. Why don't you relay to me your best
- O 17 recollection, then, of the content of that ;
l 18 conversation.
19 A. As best I recollect, I told them that I was 10 20 not aware of any such regulation, but that I would 21 have to look into the matter and' call them back.
4 22 Q. To the best of your recollection, did you, in 0
4 23 fact, call them back? !
24
'A. Yes.
!O 25 Q. That same day? l 1
26 A. Probably. )
i l
i 40-PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES i l
l
- -- .- _ . . . . - . = . . . . . - . . . .- ..
O _ _
30:
1 ~
Q.. .Will you'please-relay?to me, to the-best.of I 2 your recollection, the-content.of that conversation- ,
fg> 3 in which you -- I take it,you were giving them the
[ 4 response torthe question they had' asked.
4 5 A. '
Right.
3} 6 As best I:can recall, what I' told them was-7 -that I had spoken with'various people in'NRC, and had-
- l_ 8 reviewed, in part at least, those sections of the-10 . .
9' Code of Federal Regulations that I thought might:
I >
10 apply. And I could find no evidence of.any.
I '
g 11. regulation, of'anything in NRC's regulations, which:
12 spoke to polygraphs at all. I believe I used-the 13 phrase that "our regulations are mute, in terms.of.
!() 14 polygraph."
15 Q. Do you recall, in this conversation, . advising j 16 the representatives of ANPP/APS that you were aware h 10 17 that other licensees within'the region utilized 3
i 18 polygraph investigations?
19 A. I said that to them on some occasion. It
- O 20 very probably was in the same conversation.
21 Q. Am I correct, that that is your knowledge or t
22 belief, that polygraph' exams--have been used by7other..
lO
! 23 nuclear licensees ~within this region?
I-24 A. Yes.
jo 25 Q. .Do you have any knowledge.as to -- just 26 generally here; I'm not.looking for specifics -- as i
!O 3
PATRICIA CALLAHAN'&. ASSOCIATES' l
'I
- O .
31
.l' to in what types of situations, what types of 2 investigations, they have been used by other 3 li '"8**8?
O 4 A. My understanding is that they've been used 5 .for both personnel screening, pre-employment I) 6 screening, and in certain types-of investigations' 7 conducted by licensees.
j 8 Q. Focusing on the second of those two iO 9 categories, the investigations -- and again, I'm just 10 looking for your knowledge or information -- would 11 they include, for example, invest'igations into
,o 12 alleged drug use at nuclear facilities,-illegal drug 13 use?
'O 14 A. To the best of my recollection, as I was 15 making inquiries, that was an example given to me of 16 the kind of investigation in which a utility-might O 17 choose to employ a polygraph.
18 Q. Would another example be suspected. sabotage?
19 A. I don't recall that specific example being-
-O 20 raised.
)
I 21 Q. And finally, do you recall discussing an '
22 example being a suspected release of Safeguards or
).
23 other confidential security information?
24 A. I can recall that example being raised in
.() 25 terms of release of classified information. I can't 26 recall whether there was a specific example 1
PATRICIA CALLAHAN.&. ASSOCIATES
O 32 1 referenced in terms of Safeguards material, or 2 whether the example was specific to classify the 3 Safeguards at this point.
)
4 Q. I appreciate that.
5 A final question relative to these two O 6 conversations that we're now discussing, that, to the 7 best of your recollection, occurred on the same day.
8 Do you recall making any comment along the lines that O
9 the NRC Region V expects licensees to investigate 10 suspected unauthorized disclosures of Safeguards 11 Information?
12 A. Yes, I did make that comment.
13 MR. HAYDEN: I have no further questions.
O 14 MR. MULLINS: Do you want to take a break?
15 MR. KOHN: Yes.
16 (Whereupon, there was a discussion off the n"
17 record.)
18 MR. KOHN: On the record a second.
I 19 MR. MULLINS: Go ahead and describe these and O 1 20 release these. l 21 MR. KOHN: Mr. Cook, it's my understanding l g 22 you're going to turn over documents now related to a 23 subpoena given to you by Complainant? I 24 THE WITNESSr That's correct.
I) 25 MR. KOHN: Would you identify the documents l 26 you are turning over, please?
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
.O. 33 1 MR. HAYDEN: If'I may. interject, since I~
~
2 haven't seen the subpoena, maybe you can read the.
!O 3 request and the subpoena, and tell me what it is >
4 4- you're supplying.
- 5 THE WITNESS
- The subpoena dated October 1st lO 6 instructs'me to bring with me the following:
! 7 "All documents directly or' indirectly relating 8 to: the S100,000 fine issued to ANPP as.a1 result of
!O 9 the; February 11, 1986, NRC inspection; any
{'
] 10 unauthorized' disclosure of Safeguards Information at s
11 or about the Palo Verde Nuclear. Power Plant; the!NRC
. 0-3 f
- 12 inspection of Palo Verde on February 11,_1986; the j 13 NRC exit interview at Palo Verde'on Februaryll4,'
iO 14 1986; the use of polygraph. examinations by ANPP; the j
15 use of legal or illegal drugs by ANPP employees; and i
- 16 all safety violations at Palo Verde for the past-two.
j O 17 years."
4 18 MR. HAYDEN: -The forma certainly sounds
. 19 familiar to me.
10 20 THE WITNESS: In response-both to-documents 21 related to the $100,000 fine and all safety 22 violations at Palo Verde for the past two years, I O
i 23 have with me a list of civil penalties proposed.and 4
l 24 paid in Region V or for utilities in Region V, which 25 - I use for my own reference in response to public lO
- 26 inquiry and media inquiry,~and which I have shared O
' -~ PATRICIA CALLAHAN-& ASSOCIATES
O 34 1 with other members of the NRC staff.
2 I also have an internal memorandum from Jane 3 Axelrad, NRC's director, enforcement staff, O
4 inspection and enforcement, dated February 28th, 5 1985, entitled, " Reactor Licensee Escalated O 6 Enforcement Histories," which does include one of the 7 civil penalties listed on my own list.
8 I'm looking at the subpoena again. I have O
9 set aside one document that I now realize is not 10 responsive, in that it relates to a violation older 11 than two years. However, I'd be happy to provide it, O,
12 if you wish.
13 MR. KOHN: Sure.
O 14 THE WITNESS: Fine.
15 MR. MULLINS: I have no objection.
16 THE WITNESS: This is an NRC news release O 17 issued by NRC Region V, dated December 12, 1983, 18 which relates to one of the civil penalties listed.
19 Another NRC news release. All of these news O
20 releases that I'm going to cite will be from NRC 21 Public Affairs, Region V; this one dated April 3rd, n 22 1984; another dated February 7, 1985; another dated a
23 October 8th, 1985; and finally, one dated May 7th, 24 1986, all of which relate to proposals or following O 25 actions on civil penalties against Arizona Nuclear 26 Power Project.
O' PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O 35' 1 MR. MULLINS: These, of course, are in 2 addition to the documents which were released 3 responsive to the earlier subpoena this summer.
O 4 He has one more, I believe..
5 THE WITNESS: I also have with me a videotape O 6 which I believe is responsive to the item, "The use-7 of polygraph examinations by'ANPP." This videotape 8 contains two news segments broadcast by KPNX O
9 Television in Phoenix, in April of this year.
10 These news segments relate to pre-employment 11 lie detector tests at Palo Verde, and this tape was 12 provided to me by the reporter at KPNX who produced 13 the segments.
O 14 Since I only have one copy of this available, 15 if we need a second copy, we'll have to have one 16 produced.
C) 17 I believe that to be all of the documents 18 that I have responsive to the subpoena which have not 19 previously been provided.
0 20 MR. KOHN: Mr. Cook, one question on the 21 December 12, 1983, release. On the bottom, it 22 states, "More." Was there other information?
O 23 THE WITNESS: It's not on the reverse?
24 That's just an oversight, and I will correct that O 25 during the break.
26 MR. MULLINS: Do we need to make copies for 1
-l l
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
!O 36
- 1. counsel?
2 MR. HAYDEN: If those documents are going to i .
lg 3 be utilized -- I'm getting the' impression that they 4 are -- for the continuing examination of Mr. Cook, we
- 5 will need copies.
- O 6 MR. MULLINS
- Anything.else?
! 7 MR. KOHN: Why don't we mark these. We'll I
8 mark the December 12, 1983, Office of Public Affairs,
!O 9 Region V, release,.as Complainant's 1.
z 10 (WHEREUPON, A XEROX COPY.O'F A TWO-SIDED UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY 11 COMMISSION DOCUMENT, DATED DECEMBER 12, O 1983, WAS MARKED AS COMPLAINANT'S
.; 12 EXHIBIT NO. 1 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
13 MR. KOHN: The April 3, '84, release as IO 14 Complainant's 2.
15 (WHEREUPON,.A XEROX COPY-OF A TWO-i SIDED UNITED STATES NUCLEAR-REGULATORY l 16 COMMISSION DOCUMENT, DATED APRIL 3, jO 1984, WAS. MARKED AS COMPLAINANT'S
- 17 EXHIBIT NO. 2 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
i
! 18 MR. KOHN: The February 7, '85, release as
)
19 Complainant's 3.
- O
! 20 (WHEREUPON, A XEROX COPY OF A ONE-l PAGE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR. REGULATORY 21 COMMISSION DOCUMENT, DATED FEBRUARY 7, 1985, WAS MARKED AS COMPLAINANT'S l0 22 EXHIBIT NO. 3 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
i 23 MR. KOHN: The October 8, '85,-release as I
24 Complainant's 4.
O 25 ///
J 26 ///
{
i
- O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES t
. . .- .. - - . . - - - - = . . . . -
TJ 37 1 (WHEREUPON, A XEROX COPY _OF A_ONE-PAGE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR 2 REGULATORY COMMISSION ~ DOCUMENT, i DATED OCTOBER 8, 1986, WAS MARKED
-y) 3 AS COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 4.
FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
4 l 5 MR. KOHN: And the May 7, '86, release as IO 6 Complainant's 5. .
i 7 (WHEREUPON, A. XEROX COPY OF A~ONE-
- PAGE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY !
1 8 COMMISSION DOCUMENT, DATED MAY.7,
! 1985, WAS MARKED AS COMPLAINANT'S >
O i 9 EXHIBIT NO. 5 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
10 MR. KOHN: All the releases are one page,
! 11 except for the December 12, 1983, release, which a i
O 12 second page will be turned over after the break.-
l 13 As Complainant's 6, a February 28, 1985, lO 14 memorandum from Jane Axelrad,
Subject:
Reactor 15 Licensee Escalated Enforcement Histories.
4 I 16 (WHEREUPON, A XEROX COPY OF A
! MEMORANDUM TO DAN HOLODY, ET AL.,
20 17 FROM JANE A. AXELRAD, DATED ,
FEBRUARY 28, 1985, AND AN ;
- 18 EIGHT-PAGE ATTACHMENT, WAS MARKED AS COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 6 I
19 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
- O 20 MR. KOHN And as 7, a list of civil penalty 21 record, Region V licensees. I l l 22 (WHEREUPON, A XEROX COPY OF A ONE- l
.O PAGE DOCUMENT, ENTITLED " CIVIL l i
23 PENALTY RECORD - REGION V LICENSEES,"
DATED 8/27/86, WAS MARKED AS l 24 COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 7 FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 1
() 25 I
! 26 MR. KOHN: And last, as No. 8 -- well, we H 4
1 "o
- j1 4
'O L 38
- 1. will mark it for identification, but.we will not make
~
~2 it'part of this record -- a video from KPNX TV, O 3 entitled " Pre-employment Lie Detectors.at Palo-Verde g
~
4 MGS." That's a typo, instead of "NGS."
5 (WHEREUPON, A KPNX TV' VIDEOTAPE,.
ENTITLED " PRE-EMPLOYMENT ~ LIE O 6 DETECTORS AT PALO VERDE MGS/";WAS MARKED AS COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT.
7 NO. 8 FOR IDENTIFICATION. A COPY ~
WAS NOT PROVIDED TO .THE REPORTER. )
8 0 ~
9 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
10 11 '*^"I"^TI " "Y "** * ""
O 12 MR..KOHN: This is a resumption of the-13 deposition of Mr. Cook. !
O 14 o. Mr. Cook, you may not be aware that'the-rules 15 before these Department of Labor' proceedings are that 16 anyone living outside the'100 mile radius.cannot'be.
O 17 subpoenaed to testify. And, therefore, this~ deposition y 18 will constitute your testimony.during that proceeding.
19 Therefore, I ask that you answer'the- 1 20 questions as best as you can, realizing.that this,-.in 21 fact, will be your testimony, should any of the O 22 parties wish to introduce it at'that time.
23 A. Fine. g 24 Q. Mr. Cook, do you remember.your earliest O 25 conversation with Mr. Staggs since your two years at- .
1 26 the NRC? I-guess, to rephrase it, after you became O I PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES ,
O 39 1 an employee of the NRC, do you remember the-first' 2 time you had a conversation with Mr. Stag'gs?
O L3 A. No, I can't say that I do.
4 Q. How many conversations prior to the 5 February 24th conversation with Mr. Staggs do.you O' 6 recall'having? A ballpark figure.
~
7 A. I would say a minimur. of fifty, and probably 8 more.
O 9 MR. HAYDEN: " Fifteen" or " fifty"?
10 THE WITNESS: Fifty -- 5-0 -- and probably g 11 more. Generally speaking, Mr. Staggs and I speak to 12 each other several times a month.
13 MR. KOHN: Q. During any of those fifty O 14 conversations, do you have any reason to believe_that- ,
l 15 Mr. Staggs had Safeguards Information in his- !
i 16 possession? l C) g, 17 30, 18 Q. During any of these prior to February 24th 19 conversations, did you have any conversations with O-20 anyone from the NRC concerning the. release of 21 Safeguards Information to Mr. Staggs?
22 A. I've had conversations with people in NRC O
~
23 concerning the release of Safeguards Information'to q 24 members of the media and the public. I don't know-O 25 that those conversations would have been. specific to 26 Mr. Staggs.
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES i n
101 .40 piq% l1 - _Q. The_ conversations you-had with other members O2 'of the NRClregarding release of Safeguards
- (y 3 'Information;to the-press, can you give me a general
- 4. idea of what was discussed, and:what wastthe NRC's.
5 final ~ position regarding the release of Safeguards a Ol 6 Information?
. 7. A. Yes. Generally,-the discussions.I'm speaking -
^
8 of were in the nature _of1my. seeking 1 guidance from'our-io
. 9 Safeguards staff'regardinglhow I.should handle 4
i' .
10 discussions with'the press and the public'related to 11 security inspections and the findings of those
)
12 inspections, without raising the potential for i
13 releasing Safeguards Information.
i-
~
=O 14 Q. Was there any policy ever drafted concerning 15 the release of information to the press from'the-NRC, ,
16 that you're aware-of? ,
'O 17 A. Can you be a.little more-specific?.
4 18 Q. Obviously, you have a lot of conversations
- 19 with-newspaper reporters. Is there' any'wr'itten LO 20 guideline _that was ever given to'you or.shown to you 21 or referred to you by any member of the NRC regarding
!g. 22 1 how you s'aould be. conducting-your contacts with the 23' -press?
24 :
A. Yes. There is guidance in writing related to IO. 25 release'of information to.the-press in-connection 26 with' enforcement actions. The're is aLdocument which ,
i 10=
. PATRICIA CALLAHAN &' ASSOCIATES,
~
. i
. , - , , --~m- ...,,-__m. ,, _m . , . . , _ . . . - , _ . . . . . , , ~ . _ . . . . . , . - . , ,
^
4 41 1 discusses, in general, the functions of the Office of 2 Public Affairs. And --
3 I'm s try, I can't re all exa tly wh t that 0
4 document is, at the moment. But it was provided to 5 me when I first accepted employment with NRC as a
- O 6 guidance document.
7 There is some reference to contact with the 8 press and other NRC guidance, which is not written O
9 specifically for the purposes of writing that 10 guidance, but which includes mention of contact with 11 the media, and other general documents.
12 Q. Other than the press, I assume that you speak 13 regularly with management of different nuclear O 14 facilities. Is that true?
15 A. With some regularity, but not with great 16 frequency.
O 17 Q. Are there any regulations or guidance that 18 was given to you regarding conversations with 19 management?
O 20 A. Not specific to conversations with 21 management, no. I have been given guidance -- not g 22 all of it in writing -- regarding discussion of 23 predecisional information, proprietary information, 24 and Safeguards Information.
O 25 Probably the area in which we've had the most 26 discussion relating to general guidance has been in O'
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
) 42 1 the area of enforcement actions, given that we have 2 recently been through a major effort to clarify what 3 ur enforcement policy is, and at what point the O
4 information is releasable.
5 Q. Are there any differences regarding how and O 6 what information you're supposed to give to the 7 press, versus information -- or what you tell the 8 management of a nuclear facility, or are both given O
9 the same type of information from you, personally?
10 A. The only specific difference that I can think 11 of in that regard is in the timing of the release of 12 information on enforcement actions which involve 13 proposed civil penalties, in which case, the policy O 14 is that the utility will be given 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> with that 15 information in hand, before the information is 16 released to the press or the public, unless the 0 17 information is released by the utility; or the 18 utility and NRC agree that the information will be 19 released earlier; or the information, in some way,
'O 20 finds its way out, and it's apparent that the 21 information has become public, in which case, the g 22 information will be released to the press and the 23 public at that point.
24 There is a distinction -- also, an enforcement O 25 policy -- and I think a distinction that needs to be 26 made here, in terms of what we release, in the active O-PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O- 43 1 sense of putti,ngematerial in a press release and
-2 mailing.it out, as opposed to what we can discuss O_ 3 upon inquiry.
4 With the exception of the areas.that I've 5 already identified, Safeguards Informa' tion,.
Ol 6 proprietary information, and information that is 7 predecisional or that involves pending. enforcement, 8 our information is public, we are a public agency, O
9 and_the information is:available_to..anyone who 10 inquires.
g 11 Q. If you took the fifty previous conversations 12 you had with Mr. Staggs, and compared it "bo your 13 February 24th conversation, were there any striking 1 O 14 dissimilarities that you noticed?7 Were any' unusual 15 questions posed by Mr. Staggs, or information-16 Mr. Staggs gave you that he was..not normally in- -
O 17 possession of, or a-similar type.o,f_ situation?-
18 In other words, was this February 24th 19 conversation just one of the run-of-the-mill 0-20 conversations that you had with Mr.-Staggs?
21 A. No. That conversation was unusual, in that-22 the information which Mr. Staggs related to me 0
23 appeared to involve significantly more detail than is 24 normal for a reporter to have, related to a 0 25 Safeguards inspection.
26 Q. Can you be specific as to what details you O
. PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES'
O 44 1 'believe~ those were?-
2 A. When Mr..Staggs first phoned me on the 24th, z) 3 he related to me a number of areas of concern that 4 his anonymous source had related to him from-the 5 security exit meeting.
O
~
6 It is, in my opinion, unusual for a reporter 7 to have that kind of information from a security exit 8 meeting. However, I 'd i d n o t - -- I was notfable-to
!O 9 conclude from the first call whether the information 10 was accurate or not.
i 11 Q. Do you know if the exit interview occurred on O
12 February 14?
4 13 A. That's my understanding. ,
- O 14 Q. So, the phone call happened ten days after 15 the exit interview. Is that correct?
l 16 A. That would be correct, yes.
>O
- 17 Q. The citations during the February 14th exit I
18 interview that were given to APS, are you familiar 19 what they are or were?
20 A. Specific citations from the regulations or 21 the security plan, no.
22 Q. Are you familiar with the general areas that 7) 23 were covered?
24 A. I'm not personally familiar with the general
- O 25 areas that were covered in the exit interview, 26 although I am somewhat familiar with the areas in
- O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
LO _ 45 1 which we felt there woro probable violations, as ,
2 summarized in the. inspection report summary and as
- g_ 3 appeared in the eventual press release on the 4 proposed. civil penalty.
5 Q. Do you have any knowledge of whether or not II 6 the areas of concern of the NRC discussed in the l 7 February.14th exit interview had ever been cited to 8 APS prior to that? In other words, were they
- O 9 repeated violations?
10 A. I was told that some of the material 11 discussed in the exit interview did involve repeat 12 violations.
13 MR. KOHN: I'd like to show the witness a 50 14 document everyone might know as SALP -- S-A-L-P --
15 Systematic Assessment of Licensed Performance, 16 conducted on November 14th, 1985.
O 17 0 Mr. Cook, why don't you spend some time in j
18 reviewing this document.
19 Would you let me know when you're finished
- O 20 with your review?
21 A. Yes, I will.
- 22 MR. MULLINS
- May we presume that you're y
23 referring to the Securities and Safeguards section, i 24 specifically?
l() 25 MR. KOHN: Yes.
1 26 THE WITNESS: I've reviewed the material.
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN-& ASSOCIATES
O 46 1 MR. KOHN 'Q. Do you recall any 2 conversations you had with Mr. Staggs regarding this
- O 3 a cument?
4 A. I recall that I spoke with Mr. Staggs about 5 this document. But I don't, at the moment, recall
- 3) 6 the specifics of those conversations.
7 Q. Is there any information in Area 7, entitled, 8 " Security and Safeguards," that Mr. Staggs discussed
- O 9 with you-during the February 24th conversation?
10 MR. MULLINS: Excuse me. Are you asking,him 11 about the general material, or about this report?
)
12 MR. KOHN: The general material covered in 13 the report.
- () 14 MR. MULLINS
- Thank you.
i 15 THE WITNESS: One area that Mr. Staggs 16 mentioned was the area of firearms qualification, O 17 which would fall under the area of training of 18 security officers, which is' mentioned at the top of <
19 Page 14 of this SALP report.
lO 20 Mr. Staggs was discussing, in that.
]
I 21 conversation of the exit interview, the 22 preoperational security inspection for Unit 2, in
- O 23 part. The preoperational security inspection for 24 Unit 2 was, if I recall correctly, part of the O 25 discussion in the exit interview on February 14th, 26 although it had been conducted earlier.
- O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O _
47 1 (Whereupon, there was a 6,scussion off the 2 record between Mr. Mullins and the witness.)
.g 3 MR. KOHN: Q. Having looked through the 4 area entitled, " Security and Safeguards," would you 5 say that therc's information in here that Mr. Staggs I) 6 may have used in order to put together a more than 7 usual detailed analysis of what was discussed during 8 the exit interview of February 14th?
O 9 MR. HAYDEN: Objection. If I understand the 10 question, I think the witness is being asked to delve 11 into the mind of Mr. Staggs, to speculate on what he 1
l 12 used to prepare a story, if I understand the 13 question. I object that the witness can't speak for O 14 what Mr. Staggs did use or may have used, if I l 15 understand the question correctly.
16 MR. KOHN: Well, I think the question is 10 17 hypothetical.
18 Q. Basically, it there information in this 19 report that a reporter could use in which to help
.O 20 build on figuring out what may or may not have been 21 discussed during the exit interview on February 14th?
22 MR. HAYDEN: Just for the record, I'll
)
23 object. The question, I guess -- if I understand 24 this one -- is, "Is that possible?" And other than O 25 it's purely speculative and hypothetical, I don't 26 care if the witness speculates on that. Other than 1
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O 48 1 that objection, I have no other objection.
2 THE WITNESS: It's possible that Mr. Staggs O 3 might have used any NRC document related to security 4 to speculate on what may have been discussed in a 5 later conversation. But I believe, had that been the C 6 case, that my check to determine whether the 7 information presented to me by Mr. Staggs appeared to 8 be accurate or not would have pointed that out rather O
9 readily.
10 MR. KOHN: Q. During your numerous 11 nyersati ns y u had with Mr. Staggs prior to O
12 February 14th, do you recall ever reading to 13 Mr. Staggs aloud, over the telephone, contents of O 14 violation citations? In particular,'one concerning a 15 failure to check all trunk spaces of cars leaving the 16 plant?
O 17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do you recall reading to Mr. Staggs other 19 violation citations over the telephone prior to 20 February 14th?
21 A. I've done that on a number of occasions with O 22 Mr. Staggs and a number of other reporters.
23 Q. How many of those prior citations that you 24 read over the telephone were enumerated by Mr. Staggs O 25 in his February 24th conversation with you?
26 A. I don't know.
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O 49 1 Q. Is it possible that all of the detailed 2 information, which led you to state earlier that the O 3 February 24th conversation was different than the 4 other fifty or so, may have been received by 5 information provided by you prior to February 24th?
O 6 A. Just to make sure I understand, can you 7 restate that?
8 Q. Okay. Let's assume that Mr. Staggs keeps 10 9 notes of his conversations he's had with you, and has i
10 available documents such as the one I've just shown 11 you. And in particular, took good notes during the g
12 times you read the violation citations to Mr. Staggs 13 over the telephone.
O 14 Are there areas of concern that were 15 discussed during the February 24th conversation which 16 Mr. Staggs could not have received either from you or
) 17 from other sources, public sources?
18 A. There were specifics of the conversation 19 between myself and Mr. Staggs on the 24th which were,
'O 20 I believe, unique to the exit interview of 21 February 14th.
g 22 The specific example which I can recall, 23 because I spent additional time and special effort on 24 the 24th trying to verify and clarify this comment, O 25 was the comment related to the statement that "a 26 portion of ANPP's security program was the worst we PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O' 50 1 had seen in the region."
2 That specific comment was a highly unusual 3 c mment f r an NRC inspector to make, in that it's O
4 comparative from one unit to another, and was a 5 comment which I was able to verify with clarification O 6 as having been made in the February 14th exit 7 interview.
8 Q. Do you know if that comment was made by 0
9 anyone else in the NRC prior to the February 24th 10 exit interview -- or -- prior to the February 14th 11 exit interview -- or -- excuse me -- prior to g
12 Mr. Staggs' publication of that comment, I believe, 13 on February 26th?
O 14 MR. HAYDEN: If the witness understands the 15 question -- I guess I'll see if I can figure it out 16 by his answer -- but I don't understand the question.
O 17 MR. KOHN: Are you aware of any other O.
18 NRC individual who has made a comment similar to 19 that, that the security at the Palo Verde Nuclear O
20 Generating Station was "the worst in the region"?
21 A. No, I am not. Not prior to February 14th.
22 Nor do I know of that comment being made at a later O
23 date by any NRC personnel, except in terms of 24 verifying or discussing the comment in the O 25 February 14th exit interview setting.
26 0 The comment, "the worst in the region," that O
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
10 51 1 is not Safeguards Information. Is that correct?
2 A. My understanding, it is not.
3 o.- So, other than the statement that the (O
4 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station was branded S 5 "the worst in the region," is there any other O 6 statement that.Mr. Staggs made to you which you 7 believe to have been different than the other fifty i
8 or so conversations you had with him prior to that?
!O l 9 A. There were some items of discussion ~from the 10 February 14th exit interview, which I have been told j 11 are from the February 14th exit interview, which 30
- 12 Mr. Staggs related to us, which I do not believe were-I j 13 items which had come up in prior security lO 14 inspections.
j 15 Not all of the items of concern were repeat i
16 items. Whether Mr. Staggs brought up those new items f l O 17 of concern in the conversation of February 24th or
! 18 February 25th, I could not, at this time, say.
- 19 Q. In response to questions by Mr. Hayden, you
- O.
l 20 indicated that it was "the worst in the region" l
i 21 comment that was primarily on your mind after that 22 conversation with Mr. Staggs; and that on
.O.
23 February 25th, you had another conversation with l 24 Mr. Staggs primarily related to that comment, "the i-O 25 worst in the region." Is that correct?
i j 26 A. That's correct.
!o
- PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
/ 52 1 I'm sorry, I think I formed my decision about 2 your question before you had actually finished the g 3 question. Can we run by that once more?
4 MR. KOHN: Can you read the question back, please?
5 (Whereupon, the record was read by the
'O 6 reporter.)
7 THE WITNESS: Let me -- no, 'that's not 8 correct. The reason that I focused on "the wotst in
'O 9 the region" comment was that Mr. Staggs, although he 10 definitely wanted a response from us related to all 11 of the topics that his anonymous source had discussed
)
12 with him, he focused, on the 24th, on "the worst in 13 the region" comment, as something he would like me to O 14 try to verify or clarify or respond to prior to the 15 end of the day, since he was working on a deadline, 16 and wanted to get that piece of information into that O 17 day's story.
18 MR. KOHN: Q. After your conversation with 19 Mr. Staggs on the 24th, who did you mention the 20 comment, "the worst in the region," to?
21 MR. MULLINS: Can we go off the record for 22 about 30 seconds?
-O 23 (Whereupon, Mr. Mullins left the room for j
, 24 a short period of time.)
O 25 MR. MULLINS: Back on the record.
26 MR. KOHN: I'll withdraw that last question.
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
z O 53 1 Why don't we mark for id:ntification the 2 document that we have been referring to as the SALP '
3 report, as Exhibit 9.
O 4 (WHEREUPON, A XEROX COPY OF FOUR PAGES FROM A DOCUMENT ENTITLED 5 "U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, REGION V, SYSTEMATIC O 6 ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE FOR PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING 7 STATION," WAS MARKED AS COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 9 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
8 0 When you got off the phone 9 MR. KOHN: Q.
10 with Mr. Staggs on February 24th, with the 11 understanding that you were going to try to verify g
12 who may have said that Palo Verde was "the worst in 13 the region" regarding security, can you trace back O 14 your steps, as best you can now, who you contacted to 15 verify that?
16 A. The first thing I did was to try to determine 0 17 who had been at that meeting, and who was then 18 available in the region.
19 As I recall, I went first to Lou Miller, our O
20 section chief for Palo Verde, who initially verified 21 for me that such a comment had been made.
22 I went to one other individual that day, I O
23 believe it was Jim Montgomery, who also verified that 24 such a comment had been made.
O 25 As I recall, the most I was able to do for 26 Mr. Staggs, at that point, was to narrow down the n
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
s,
- 54 1 comment. The original quection to mo wco, did wo say 2 "the worst in the nation" or "the worst in the region."
n 3 And I was able to get back to Mr. Staggs and tell him
%)
4 that the comment was, " worst in the region."
5 Q. So, Mr. Staggs first did not know if it was O 6 " worst in the nation" or " worst in the region." Was that 7 your understanding of his question as he posed it to 8 you?
O 9 A. That's my understanding of his question as he 10 posed it to me.
11 Q. Do you know who made that comment during the 12 exit interview?
13 A. The comment in question was, I understand,
- O 14 made by Doug Schuster, who was not available in the 15 office on the 24th.
16 I questioned Mr. Schuster about the comment O 17 on the 25th, and he informed me that his comment had 18 been that one specific segment of the security 19 program, which was a nonrecurring segment, a one-time 13 ,
20 segment, or a segment performed one time for each l
21 unit, was the worst that he had seen in Region V. I 22 I did call Mr. Staggs back with that O
23 clarification, but he'd already used the comment in 24 his s' tory.
O 25 Q. Did you have any conversations, or are you l
26 aware of any conversations, of any member or employee
~O' PATRICIA CALLAllAN & ASSOCIATES
sO' 55 1 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or anyone, for 2 that matter, who would have informed APS of the fact l() 3 that Mr. Staggs was going to be running a story in i
I 4 which the comment, " worst in the region," was going 5 to be published?
bO 6 MR. HAYDEN: Would you read the question back?
7 (Whereupon, the record was read by the 8 reporter.)
- O 9 MR. HAYDEN: Thank you.
10 THE WITNESS: It's possible that I may have 11 t ld an Canady or Don Andrews of ANPP, on the 24th,
- O 12 that that was going to occur. I cannot recall, at 13 this time, whether I did or not.
!() 14 But it is a particularly unusual kind of 15 comment for NRC to make, and I would not consider it 16 unusual for me to notify the utility's public affairs
- O 17 people if that unusual a comment were going to 18 appear.
19 MR. KOHN: Q. Would you say it's note 20 likely than not that you contacted either Mr. Andrews 21 or Canady about that conversation?
22 A. I know that I considered it, but I don't
- O 23 recall whether I did it or not, in that I wasn't --
24 well, I don't recall whether I did it or not.
O 25 o. Do you know if Mr. Miller or Mr. Montgomery 26 had any contact with APS?
'O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
C) 56 1 A. No, I don't.
2 Q. Do you recall the first contact you had~with
'O 3 any ne from APS regarding reading, in the paper, the 4 comment, " worst in the region"?
5 A. No, I don't.
- O 6 Q. Do you remember any conversations you had 7 with anyone from APS regarding that comment?
8 A. At one point, I did have a conversation with jQ 9 either Mr. Andrews or~Mr. Canady about~that comment.
10 I can't recall whether it was on the 24th or the 11 25th.
)
12 Q. Do you have any recollection of that 4
13 conversation?
() 14 A. Well, it was along the general lines that I 15 had verified that at Mr. Staggs' request, and, to a j 16 certain extent,' clarified that particular comment.
O 17 Beyond that, I don't recall what we discussed.
18 Q. My notes indicate that, on the 24th, 19 February 24th, during your conversation with iO 20 Mr. Staggs, Mr. Staggs indicated that he had an 21 anonymous source who informed him of the comments
- O_ 22 made during the exit interview.
23 And then later, on, I-believe, the 25th, 24 during a conversation you had with -- I believe it O 25 was Mr. Andrews -- excuse me, with Mr. Zimmerman --
26 you stated that Mr. Staggs' source was an anonymous i
l
'O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES.
e O 57 1 security employee.
2 Do-you know if it was, in fact, an anonymous 3- se urity employee, or just an anonymous employee?
O 4 A. I believe my description of Mr.-Staggs' 5 source, in all cases, included the description that O' 6 Mr. Staggs had been called by an individual who
-7 identified himself as an employee of ANPP'or APS, in 8 security.
O 9 But I made every effort to be careful not to 10 identify Mr. Staggs' source as actually being a 11 security employee of either ANPP or APS. All I had 12 to go on was Mr. Staggs' report to me that he had 13 received an anonymous phone call from a person who
() 14 claimed that affiliation.
15 And Mr. Staggs was quite specific with me in 16 the call of the 24th, in stating that the individual O 17 had not given Mr. Staggs his name, but had remained 18 anonymous.
19 Q. On February 25th, when you returned your call O
20 to Mr. Staggs, there was, I guess, a conference call 21 between yourself, Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Schuster, and 22 Mr. Staggs. Is it unusual to have a conference call?
O 23 A. No, it's not. I frequently will ask 24 specialists on the staff to join me on the telephone O 25 with a reporter, particularly if we're dealing with a 26 complex subject, or if we're dealing in great detail PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O 58 j 1 with the subject.
2 Q. Who knew that that conference call was going 3 e take place?
.O 4 A. Other than the participants, I'm not certain.
5 Q. Did anyone from APS ever tell you that they
'O 6 believed Safeguards Information had been released to 7 Mr. Staggs?
8 A. Not that I recall.
.O 9 Q. Did anyone.from the NRC ever tell you that 10 Safeguards Information had been released to Mr. Staggs?
11 A. At one point, I understood one of our 12 personnel to tell me that he believed that Safeguards 13 Information had been released to Mr. Staggs.
O 14 In later discussions, that employee has 15 stated very firmly and clearly that he did not say 16 that. And I believe this time, that I must have 0 17 misunderstood him.
18 Q. Who's that individual we're talking about?
19 A. The individual is Doug Schuster.
- O 20 Q. Your belief of your misunderstanding of what 21 Mr. Schuster told you, did you tell that to anyone at 22 APS?
O 23 A. If you're asking, did I relate to anyone that 24 an individual on the NRC staff believed that O 25 Mr. Staggs had Safeguards Information -- is that the 26 question?
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
4 CF 59
- 1) Q. Yes.
.2 A.- Yes, I did.
3 Q. And who was'that?
O
. 4' A. Ed-Van Brunt.
! 5 Q. Do you know the date?
- O 6 A. March 6th.
7 Q. Di'd you ever have a follow-up conversation 8 with~anyone at APS to' clarify that, what you now 9 believe to be a misstatement?
10 MR. HAYDEN: Objection. I don't.believe the i
! 11 witness ever testified that he now believes it to be
- O
(
12 a misstatement. That's not his terms.
j 13 With that, he can answer. I think.his-
!.() 14 testimony was that the individual.he thinks made the 15 statement to him now has said that he didn't. -I i
16 don't think he said that it's now a misstatement.
1 O 17 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
4 18 MR. MULLINS: Off the record for a moment.
19 (Whereupon, the witness left the room for 10 20 a short period of time.)
21 MR. HAYDEN: I may actually recall the 22 pending question. I believe it was, after O
23 Mr. Schuster told you that the comment --
24 MR. KOHN: Q. After you clarified that O 25 Mr. Schuster may not have made the comment that he 26 believed Safeguards Information was or may have been.
- q PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O 60 1 given to Mr. Staggs, did you call anyone at APS to 2 inform him of that change?
O_ 3 A. No. It's my understanding that that 4 communication was handled elsewhere in the region.
- 5 But I don't remember by who.
O 6 Q. To your understanding, some other member of 7 the NRC corrected that to Mr. Van Brunt?
8 A. I believe so. I'm not sure how far it went,
- O 9 or who.
10 0 So, prior to March 6th, 1986, it's your 11 understanding that no one from the NRC ever told IO 12 anyone at APS that Safeguards Information was leaked 13 or may have been leaked to Mr. Staggs?
!O 14 A. No, that is not my understanding.
1 15 MR. HAYDEN: I object. He's never said 16 anything even close to that; in fact, diametrically O 17 opposite. I object. That's not his testimony. The 18 record speaks for itself. There's no need to repeat ,
19 the witness' testimony.
.O 20 MR. KOHN: Q. Can you recall your 21 conversations on March 6 with Mr. Van Brunt? Do you 22 have a fairly good recollection of that at this time?
O.
23 A. Yes, I believe so. It was a fairly short 24 conversation.
O 25 o. First, who initiated that conversation?
26 A. Mr. Van Brunt did. I was at the Trojan
- O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O 1 Nuclear Power Plant on that date, and had left the 2 plant site without checking the residence office for
'O 3 messages, which is my normal procedure.
4 I got to a restaurant, I called back to the 5 residence office and was told that Mr. Van Brunt had O 6 called and asked to speak to me.
7 I returned his call from the restaurant. And 8 as best I can recall, his question to me was: "Did O
9 NRC believe that Mr. Staggs had been given or had 10 Safeguards Information?"
11 And my response to him was that we were 12 concerned that Mr. Staggs may have been given 13 Safeguards Information, and that one person on the O 14 region's staff had believed that Mr. Staggs had been 15 given Safeguards Information.
16 Q. Are you aware of any other inquiries by APS O 17 concerning Mr. Staggs' possession of Safeguards 18 Information?
19 A. There were discussions between a number of O
20 NRC and APS employees going on essentially 21 simultaneously, from at least the 25th on, on this 22 matter. I don't have personal knowledge of the O
23 majority of those.
24 Q. Do you know when these conversations between O 25 the NRC and APS began?
26 A. Certainly not before the 24th. On the 24th.
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
J 62 l Yes, on February 24th.
2 Q. Would the first of these conversations be the 3 conversation that you had with a member of APS, where 3
4 you informed them that Mr. Staggs was going -- I'm 5 not sure if I actually have your testimony down O 6 correct. It was a little hazy, as I recall.
7 You had a conversation, which you indicated 8 either on the 24th or the 25th, in which you told a lC 9 member of APS -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that 10 Mr. Staggs was going to run a story using the 11 comment, " worst in the region." Is that correct?
,O l
12 A. I'm not sure whether I had that conversation 13 or not. I considered making such a call to ANPP O 14 Public affairs, to Mr. Andrews and Mr. Canady.
15 Whether I actually did that, whether we actually 16 discussed that before that story appeared or not, I'm O 17 not certain at this point.
18 Q. Are there any records that would indicate all 19 the conversations or the individuals who had lO l
20 conversations with APS regarding release of 21 Safeguards to Mr. Staggs?
22 A. I don't believe so.
O l 23 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge as to who 24 may have engaged in these conversations?
.O 25 A. Conversations to which I was party included 26 myself, Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Schuster -- I'm sorry, I
'O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
) 63 1 have to back up again here. I've lost the thread of 2 the question. Are we speaking of conversations g 3 between APS and NRC personnel?
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. Okay. I have to back up.
O 6 I'm personally aware of the conversation that 7 I had with Mr. Andrews on, I believe, the 25th, in 8 which we discussed whether or not NRC thought O
9 Mr. Staggs had Safeguards Information, and which I 10 related that we were concerned that he may have 11 8"f"9""'d" I"f '**"I "*
O 12 I am personally aware of the conversation 13 that I had with Mr. Van Brunt on March 6th.
O 14 As I've said, I may have had a comment -- or 15 a conversation -- I may have had a conversation 16 related to "the worst in the region" comment, with O 17 either Mr. Andrews or Mr. Canady on the 24th. I do 18 not recall.
19 Beyond that, I do not have personal knowledge O
20 of conversations between NRC and APS on this matter, 21 although I believe that Mr. van Brunt did call our 22 resident inspector, Mr. zimmerman, on the 24th about O
23 the matter, and Mr. Zimmerman did talk to 1
24 Mr. van Brunt on the 25th about it.
O 25 And I believe there were other conversations, 26 although specifically who was involved, I couldn't O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
$) 64 l 1 say.
2 Q. If. Safeguards Information is believed toihave 3 been released improperly, do you know if the NRC has
'O 4 regulations which require an investigation into that l 5 matter?
l
$) 6 A. I believe that's true, although I would have 7 to go to the Code of Federal Regulations'and consult 8 with.a specialist to be certain as to what the 9 regulations state specifically.
10 Q. After your February 24th and February 25th 11 conversations with Mr. Staggs, did you inform any 12 member of the NRC that safeguards Information may ,
13 have been released to Mr. Staggs?
O 14 A. In the sense of my making that judgment, and 15 then informing numerous personnel of that, no.
16 In the sense of expressing to other NRC O 17 personnel who have involvement with the Palo Verde 18 plant that concern, once the concern had been ,
19 enunciated, I believe I did. Specifically, I believe O
20 I got back to Lou Miller, our section chief for '
21 Palo Verde, and told him, in general terms, of what 22 was going on after the conversation on the 25th, O ,
23 which is my normal procedure, to try to keep the 24 section chief here in the region apprised of what O 25 reporters are working on related to his facility.
26 I was party to a conversation with PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES .
.O 65 1 Mr. Scarano and the regional administrator, 2 Mr. Martin, on the 25th, in which Mr. Martin was z) 3 informed of the conversation of the 24th and 25th.
4 That's the only situations that fit that
! 5 description that I can recall specifically.
O 6 o. Are you aware of any NRC internal l 7 investigation regarding the release of Safeguards j 8 Information on or during the February 14th exit LO 9 interview?
10 MR. MULLINS: Excuse me. Are you saying an 11 internal NRC investigation, or are you saying NRC g
12 people investigating, whether NRC people had let out 13 Safeguards Information, or are you saying an NRC O 14 investigation to determine whether APS people had let l 15 out information?
! 16 MR. KOHN: The latter.
!O 17 MR. MULLINS: Thank you.
1 18 THE WITNESS: I hesitate to answer that, in l l
19 that I'm concerned that I may be treading into the LO 20 area of discussing an ongoing investigation. And I i
l 21 would --
l 22 MR. MULLINS: You may answer the question if O
23 you know if there was an investigation. The details l 24 of the investigation are privileged information. But O 25 the fact that there was an investigation is not 26 privileged.
l
- O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
l O 66 1 THE WITNESS: Fine.
2 I'm not aware of any investigation as to 8
0 3 whether NRC personnel released Safeguards 4 Information.
5 MR. MULLINS: I believe the question, though, O 6 was, was there an NRC investigation as to whether APS 7 people released Safeguards Information.
8 THE WITNESS: I believe there was an O
9 investigation requested from our Office of 10 Investigations as to whether Safeguards Information 11 had actually been released.
O 12 MR. KOHN: Q. Do you know if that's an 13 ongoing investigation?
O 14 A. I believe that is an ongoing investigation.
15 Q. Do you know who requested that investigation?
16 A. I'm not certain. I believe it was requested 0 17 by the regional administrator, Mr. Martin.
18 Q. Do you have any knowledge as to why 19 Mr. Martin requested that investigation?
O 20 A. Beyond the basic circumstances, no.
21 Q. Do you know if anyone at APS requested the 22 NRC or Mr. Martin, or spoke to Mr. Martin, regarding O
23 instituting an investigation on this?
24 A. Regarding APS instituting an investigation or O 25 NRC instituting an investigation?-
26 Q. Regarding the NRC instituting an O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
7.
'O 67 1- investigation.
2 A. No, I do not.
3 Q. Do you know if APS knew that the NRC was OL
',k ,
4 going to or was considering instituting an 5 investigation over the possible release of-Safeguards
!O- 6 Information during.the February 14th, 1986, exit 7 interview?
8 A. No, I do not.
tO 9 Q. You testified earlier that Mr. Van Brunt 4
10 called you up to find out whether or not the use of
. 11 polygraphs was allowed under NRC regulation.
iO 12 A. No. That's not correct. I did not testify j 13 to that. The question to me in that regard, I i
(3 14 believe, came from Mr. Andrews.
15 Q. c Excuse me. Mr. Andrews.
36 And do you have any recollection as to what O 17 month that conversation took place?
18 A. I believe that was in February. I believe it 19 was in the same week as the -- as Mr. Staggs' initial jO 20 call. No, I'm sorry. My recollection is faulty 21 there. No . . Mr. Andrews asked me about that later.
22 His question came to me in response to the release of
)
23 material by CREE, which stated that it was a l 24 violation of NRC policy to conduct polygraphs.
-() 25 I did get a question from Mr. Staggs in that 26 regard, the week after the week.of the 24th -- it O -PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES e- < --m--- ,- , + --
n - - , , , -- - - - - , ,
J 68 1 would havo to bo tho firct wock iri Merch -- in rcgard 2 to what NRC policy was on polygraphs.
3 Q. Do you remember what you told Mr. Staggs?
O 4 A. Essentially, it was the same thing as I told 5 Mr. Andrews; that our regulations did not speak to O 6 the use of polygraphs, one way or the other.
7 Q. Do you know if anyone at the NRC was informed 8 that polygraphs where going to be conducted regarding n
9 the possible release of information, during the 10 February 14th exit interview?
11 A. No, I do not.
12 Q. Hypothetically, if APS believed that a leak 13 of Safeguards Information occurred, do you know if O 14 the regulations require that APS report it to the 15 NRC?
16 A. To see specifically if the regulations O 17 require it, I would have to check. But I would 18 certainly believe that to be the case.
19 Q. Are you aware of anyone at APS informing -
0 20 anyone at NRC that they believe Safeguards 21 Information may have been released, officially l
n 22 informing NRC in writing that safeguards Information l v l 23 may have been released? ;
I 24 A. No, I'm not. Not specifically. )
i O 25 MR. HAYDEN: Pollowing up, if it'll make 26 sense to answer the question now, I'll use it only i n
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES l
i O 69 1- once.
2 I ask you in that regard, if the NRC advises 3 the licensee that there may be a release of O
4 Safeguards Information, are you aware of any 5 regulation that would require the licensee to turn O 6 around and tell the NRC what it had just told them?
7 THE WITNESS: No, I'm not.
8 MR. HAYDEN: Thank you.
O 9 THE WITNESS: I have a point of concern here 10 in regard to what the regulations require, because 11 most of my press work involves the operational 12 aspects of nuclear power plants. That's where most 13 of my inquiries come from. I'm most familiar with O 14 the operationally regulated regulations.
15 In an operational nuclear power plant, if.NRC 16 finds a situation which is, as an example, a C) 17 violation of the plant text specs,.the utility 18 remains obligated to report that to us under the 19 requirements of Part 50 of the regulations.
O 20 However, security matters are not dealt with 21 in Part 50, but in other parts of Volume 10 of the 22 Code. And the requirements are not identical.
O 23 I say that only for potential clarification.
24 MR. KOHN: Q. I thank you.
O 25 During your February 25th conversation with 26 Mr. Andrews, who first raised the subject matter of PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O 70
- 1. Safeguards?
2 A. _I did most of the talking in that-g '3 conversation. I believe I did.
4 Q. What did you tell>Mr. Andrews about-5 Safeguards or the release.of Safeguards?
O 6 A. Essentially, I told Mr. Andrews that we were
'7 concerned that Mr. Staggs may have been given
~8 Safeguards Information.
O . .
9 Q. What was your reason.for tellingHMr. Andrews 10 .that?
11 A. In a nutshell, I was keeping him apprised of O
12 what was rapidly developing as a rather' difficult 13 issue with a reporter, related to NRC's regulation, O 14 regulatory activities of Palo1 Verde.
15 I'm not trying to be unnecessarily-vague 16 here, but the interest is in making sure that the O 17 licensee understood what it'is we were sayingsto the 18 reporter, and what our concern was, particularly in 19 light of the apparent misunderstanding on the 24th, O
20 of who it was that was giving Mr.-Staggs his initial ,
21 information.
22 Q. You just said, after your conversations on O
23 February 24th and February 25th, Mr. Staggs never 24 gave-to you, over the_ phone,.anything that.would be O 25 considered Safeguards Information? $
26 MR. HAYDEN: Objection. The question's been O
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
- 0. .
71 1 asked and answered repeated times. It's boon 2 repeated that certain people believed it was, certain j) 3 people believed it wasn't. That question's been 4 asked and answered, now, at least a half a dozen 5 times.
- O 6 MR. KOHN
- Well, I don't believe it's ever 7 been asked whether.or not certain people believe what 8 Mr. Cook was told over the telephone by Mr. Staggs.
- O 9 Q. Let me ask the, question: did anyone at the i 10 NRC, or did you have any discuss' ions with anyone at 11 the NRC, that the conversations you had with 12 Mr. Staggs on February 24th and 25th touched on areas --
13 or -- excuse me -- demonstrated that Mr. Staggs was 10 14 in the possession of Safeguards Information?
15 A. It was the consensus opinion of those of us 16 who had-spoken to Mr. Staggs that there was a clear
- O 17 possibility that he may have been given Safeguards 18 Information. We could not conclude that he had 19 definitely been given Safeguards Information.
- O 20 Q. When you say, "given Safeguards Information,"
21 is this written Safeguards Information or oral 22 statements concerning Safeguards Information?
.O 23 A. Mr. Staggs told me, in our_ initial-24 conversation -- and I believe reiterated, again, in lO 25 the conference call with him on February 25th - .that 26 his information had come telephonically. That is the
.0 PATRICIA cALLAHAN-& ASSOCIATES
. - - - . . - J
d 72
-1 only information I have on the source'of Mr. Staggs' 2 material, jy 3 .Therefore, I have no reason to believe, at 4 this time, that Mr. Staggs had Safeguards Information 5 given to him'in a written-form.
O 6 Q. For the telephonically communicated 7 information to Mr. Staggs to constitute Safeguards, l E
8 is it true'that that - information would have to
- O; 9 concern specifics, such as, for example, "There 10 should have been three security guardsoat exit so and 4 11 so, but, in fact, there were only two security
- O 12 guards"? Specific instances such as that, that would 13 constitute Safeguards?
14 A. I understand quite clearly that if Mr. Staggs
{O i 15 had quoted specifically from any portion-of the plant 16 security plan, that information would have 17 constituted Safeguards Information.
.'O 18 As to what level of detail an individual can 19 go to in discussing a security matter at a nuclear
.O 20 power plant, and without crossing the threshold of
,i 21 revealing Safeguards Information, I do not believe 22 I'm qualified to make.that determination.
O 4 23 Q. Did you ever make that determination, or did 24 anyone else from the NRC ever.tell you what-their'
!O- 25 determination was concerning the February'24th and
- 26 February 25th conversations with Mr. Staggs?
J
'O PATRICIA CALLAHAN'& ASSOCIATES 1
w w -- , , , , c - - ~ ,
~ , . . -- ., , , . - . - - - - , - - , ,-e, .,n-- -,,. . , - - --- r.,
O 73 1 A. Yes. The consensus opinion was that 2 Mr. Staggs may have Safeguards Information. At no O 3 time, t my recollection, did anyone in NRC state 4 that any' specific thing that Mr. Staggs said to us'on 5 the phone, or published in his articles, was O 6 Safeguards Information.
7 Q. Who came to that consensus?
8 A. Doug Schuster, Jim Montgomery. They provided.
O 9 advice to Ross Scarano. Mr. Scarano reiterated that 10 judgment. I couldn't say to what extent. That is 11 his own judgment.
O 12 He did not quarrel with that judgment.. So, I 13 believe that he supports it.
O 14 For my own part, the initial conversation 15 which I had with Mr. Staggs on the 24th, while it 16 dealt with a number of areas of concern expressed in O 17 the exit interview, and with the specific comment 18 which we've discussed regarding " worst in the j 19 nation," " worst in the region," or what was the exact O
20 quote, Mr. Staggs went into greater detail in the 1
21 February 25th conference call than he did in the j g 22 February 24th conversation with me.
23 Primarily on that basis, I did not believe 24 that Mr. Staggs had given me any Safeguards, O 25 Information in the conversation on the 24th. And I 26 related, as best I could, the details of the PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O . _.
74 1 c'onversation on the 24th to Mr. Mongtomery on the 2 24th, to Mr. Schuster and to Mr.-Scarano on the,25th;.
- g 3 and their response to me indicated to me that they 4 .did not believe that what Mr. Staggs had said to me 5 on the 24th constituted Safeguards Information.
- O 6' MR. KOHN
- Let's take a five-minute break..
7 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
8 MR. KOHN: Back on the record.
!O You indicated that, after February 24th and 9 Q.
10 February 25th, that Mr. Staggs may have received 11 Safeguards Information. Was that based on the fact g
12 that Mr. Staggs' conversation that he had with you-13 seemed to be detailed?
- O 14 A. I think, if I may back up just a moment, what 15 I indicated is that we felt, on the 24th.and 25th, l 16 that Mr. Staggs may have received Safeguards
- O 17 Information.
18 According to Mr. Staggs, the call which 19 contained the information to him came in on-Sunday, lO 20 the 23rd.
21 Q. On Sunday, the 23rd?
22 A. That's correct. As I recall now. But I'm IO 23 fairly clear, in that recollection, that he told me 24 he had received the call on Sunday.
23 25 I'm sorry, now that I've done that --
i 26 MR. MULLINS: Was it based on the detail of
- o PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES i
_ . _ =
OT ~
75-1 the' conversation?
~2 THE WITNESS: Yes, it was based 4both1on.
3 d***il ""d "
- P in tha't Mr. Staggs.seemed to be 0-4 aware of, for' example, a concern over the quality of, 5 a particular aspect of. guard training. But.he had-O. 6- the. aspect.which-was discussed in the: exit interview.
7 Other areas which Mr. Staggs queried ~us about 8- were all, to my understanding, areas which were O 9 discussed'in that particular exit interview.
10 MR. KOHN:. Q. If someone was'not at that 11 exit interview, do-you think they could have provided 12 Mr. Staggs with detailed enough information-13 secondhand to constitute Safeguards 1 violations?'
O 14 A. That would depend on what:information from 15 the exit interview had been given.to that person..
16 And I don't have any way of' knowing.what that would O 17 be.
18 If you're asking me if I believe it's 19 possible-for a person in the exit interview to
.O .
20 discuss the exit interview with another person, and 21 in the process of doing~so, to relate Safeguards-22- Information, yes, I believe~that's possible.-
23 Q. Assuming that to be-the case, if that person
- 24. had just received information that constitutes _
O- 25 Safeguards, and that. person.now related it.to someone. l
~
26 else, do you think it would still be detailed enough 1
'j l
O ~ PATRICIA cALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES J
O 76 1 to be considered Safeguards?
2 A. The answer to that is dependent on the O 3 quality f the communication between the individuals.
4 If there's a consistently high quality of communication, 5 it doesn't change the character of the information.
O 6' Q. I'm going to show you three newspaper-7 articles. One is dated June 13, 1986, from the 8 " Arizona Republic," another is. dated May 7, 1986, O
9 from the " Arizona Republic," and the third is dated 10 March 4th, 1986, again, from the " Arizona Republic."
11 I believe all three --
O 12 MR. MULLINS: Off the record.
13 (Whereupon, there was a telephone interruption.)
O 14 MR. MULLINS: Let's go back on.
15 MR. KOHN: Q. I indicated that I had three 16 newspaper articles which contain comments, :I believe, O 17 made by you to Mr. John Staggs or other members of 18 the " Arizona Republic" staff. I ask that you look 19 through these articles and indicate any comments O
20 attributed to you that you believe are. inaccurate.
21 Maybe it's best to go one at a time. We will 22 mark the March 4, 1986, as Exhibit 10.
O 23 (WHEREUPON, A XEROX COPY OF A NEWS ARTICLE BY JOHN STAGGS, ENTITLED 24 "PALO VERDE WORKERS BEING GIVEN LIE TESTS TO LOCATE NEWS LEAK,"
O 25 WAS MARKED AS COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 10 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
26 O
C)' 77 1 MR. MULLINS: Why don't you go ahead and 2 mark them all, and then we can take a look at O 3 them.
4 MR. KOHN: The May 7th as Exhibit 11, and 5 the June 13th as Exhibit 12.
O 6 (WHEREUPON, A XEROX COPY.0F A NEWS i ARTICLE BY FRANK TURCO, ENTITLED 7 " SECURITY FLAWS COST A-PLANT
$100,000," WAS MARKED AS 8 COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 11 FOR O IDENTIFICATION.)
9 10 (WHEREUPON,'A XEROX COPY OF A NEWS ARTICLE BY SAM STANTON, 11 ENTITLED " INTIMIDATION ' CHILLING' O PALO VERDE STAFF," WAS MARKED AS 12 COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO.-12 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
13 O 14 MR. KOHN: For the record, we have marked 15 the three prospective articles sequentially, 10 being l
l 16 the March 4th article, 11 being the May 7th article, 17 and the third, No. 12, being the June 13th l
18 article.
19 MR. HAYDEN: While we're clarifying the O
20 record, I'll just put an objection in, that the 21 articles have the dates handwritten in. The exhibits g 22 contain no indication that those are the correct 23 dates.
24 I can't see the dates currently being of any O 25 significance, but I just want the record to note _that 26 those dates are simply handwritten on these O
. . ~ . - -. - -. . . . .
i
!(I 78-
.1 . documents. Unless'someone wants to testify who wrote
'2 them and.on-what' basis,-the dates are irrelevant,:and' Q 3 there's no record that they're-correct.
4 'But with that,.we'll.see ifLthe datestbecome 5 significant.
O 6 MR. MULLINS: Did you ask Mr. Cook to check 7 his statements? Is.that correct?
I 8 MR. KOHN: Yes.
10-
- 9 MR..MULLINS
- Thank'you.
10 THE WITNESS: I do not find anything that I 11 can identify as an inaccuracy of quotes or-statements
)
12 attributed to me in the March 4th article, 13 Exhibit 10.
[O 14 (Whereupon, there was a discussion off the ,
15 record between Mr. Mullins and the witness.)
),
16 THE WITNESS: Although I do not find any-
~O 17 statements or quotations that I can identify as-18 erroneous or inaccurate in the.May 7th article,
! 19 Exhibit 11, I would state that one could easily. draw
- O 20 the conclusion from the quote that is attributed to 4
21 me here, "'They received! Prior notice of the f($ 22 violations, and did not act to correct all of them,'
s 23 Cook said," as stating that.ANPP had received prior i 24 notice 'of'all of the violations, or.that.all of'the 10' 25 violations were repeat.
26 I do not believe that to be the case. Some IO PATRICIA ~CALLAHAN:& ASSOCIATES i .,
o r-, . _ , . , ,- . . .- -,_ , -,_-.y,, v_,_,-~,-,,.... .~.,y,..., ,-eg, ,,_m,.,,-,m--, . - , - ,
O. _
79 1 of the violations, it'sJmy. understanding, are repeat, 2- and some were not.
O 3 In Exhibit 12, the_ article dated June 13th,
,4 1986, there is the statement-that Mr. Staggs wrote a 5- story " based on'information received from a worker at O 6 the plant and (that information) was confirmed by NRC-
'7 spokesman Greg Cook."
8 I don't know that I'd be willing to go so far O
9 as to say I confirmed'all ofLthe information in-10 Mr.'Staggs' story.
11 MR. KOHN: Q. Did you confirm all the O
12 information that the unidentified source stated, or-13 that Mr. Staggs attributed to an unidentified source?
O 14 (Whereupon, there was a discussion off the-15 record between Mr. Mullins and the witness.)
16 THE WITNESS: I confirmed, with later O 17 verification, that quote, "the worst in the region."
18 What was done in the. conference call with 19 Mr. Staggs was that Mr. Staggs began to elaborate on O
20 the information he had received from his' source. He.
21 was cautioned that he may have Safeguards-g 22 Information. And we took the approach, ourselves, 23 of informing _Mr. Staggs, Hat that. point, of the areas-24 of' discussion.
O 25 He had essentially touched on all of them 26 already. However, he was going on_into' detail.
And O
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O , .
80
- 1. -we did, essentially, cut him off, and went beckLto 2 general' areas, rather than confirming' detail's which' g' 3 he' claimed to have received from his source.
4 I think that's an.important clarification'at 5 this point.
O '6 Later in this article, there is an extended-7 quote --
8 MR. KOHN: Q. Back to what you just said.
O 9 Is it my understanding that you cut Mr. Staggs off from 10 giving you more detailed information?
11 A. That's' essentially correct. Mr. Staggs was 12 proceeding to give us information, which caused us to 13 be concerned that-he may have Safeguards:Information.
O 14 And the concern and the possible criminal penalties 15 related to release of such'information was expressed 16 to Mr. Staggs.
I) 17 And rather than be in the situation of him 18 relating great detail, and us having to decide 19 whether or not we could confirm it piece byl piece, we O
20 went back to the basic areas of discussion from the 21 exit interview, which were essentially.the same areas 22 identified-in the inspection report summaryJand in-O 23 the subsequent news release when the civil penalty-24 was. proposed. 1 0 25 o. So, if I understand correctly, you're-stating 26 that, during the FebruaryJ25th~ conversation with O ' PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
IO 81 1 Mr. Staggs in which'you and Mr. Montgomery and 2 Mr. Schuster were present, you cut Mr. Staggs off.
g 3 'from giving you more detailed information, even 4 though you were concerned that Mr.-Staggs may have, 5 in fact, had Safeguards Information?
O 6 A. In a sense, yes. Mr. Staggs was taking the 7 approach of going into detail, and of trying to get 8 us to confirm points, detail by' detail.
O 9 And we did, essentially, cut that off, and 10 cautioned him --
11 Q. If Mr. Staggs told you something that was, in 12 fact, classified as Safeguards, isn't it true that 13 you and the other members on the telephone O 14 conversation were authorized to hear that 15 information?
16 A. That is true.
O 17 Q. So, if Mr. Staggs told you comething that was <
18 Safeguards, that would not constitute a violation.
19 A. I don't know that I can answer that one O
20 definitively. That's probably a question for NRC 21 counsel.
22- I should also say that we had no way of O
23 knowing who else might be a party to the.
1 24 conversation, who else might be within earshot of ,
1 0 25 Mr. Staggs, and no interest in permitting him to 26 inadvertently reveal Safeguards Information to anyone PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
'O 82-1 else.wh'o might-not be authorized to have it.
2 Q. When did the-NRC institute its investigation 9 -3 into the possible release of Safeguards ~Information-4 to Mr. Staggs?
5- A. I do not specifically recall. But I believe O- 6 it was in March, rather than in February.
7 -Q. Prior to the formal investigation, are you 8 aware of anyone from NRC calling up Mr.1Staggs to ask O-9 him whether or not-he'had Safeguards Information?
10 A. Specifically,-no.
g 11 Q. Prior to instituting the formal 12 investigation, did you or anyone else from the NRC 13 call up Mr. Staggs to try to solicit from him a more-O 14 detailed understanding of the.information Mr. Staggs 15 had?
16 A. Not to my knowledge.
O 17 MR. KOHN: I assume, should I ask any 18 questions about what occurred after the investigation 19 concerning measures done in furtherance of the:
O 20 investigation, you would object?
21 MR. MULLINS: I would suggest not.
22 MR. KOHN:' Q. Why don't you finish looking-O 23 at the rest of the articles or comments.
24 A. To continue with my comments on Exhibit 12, O 25 the article of June 13th, there is an extended quote 26 attributed to me in.this article,.which apparently O
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASS'OCIATES
O :83 1 appears in what was-the jump page of the continuation 2 page of.the article. This quote rings true to me, in g 3 that it does -- I do believe it to be precise.
This 4 is the quote which would appear in the left column of 5 the portion of the article which appeared on Page H6 0 6 of the paper.
7 That appears to be the last of the statements --
8 no, there's another statement attributed to me at the O
9 end of the quote that goes over to the final column, 10 in which I am attributed to saying that Staggs said, 11 "in a later conversation...he had been careful not to 12 publish any classified information on the plant's 13 security problems."
O 14 Actually, what I said to the reporter was 15 that John Staggs had told me he'd been careful not to 16 publish Safeguards Information.
O 17 I see farther-in the article, Mr. Staggs 18 denied that he withheld any information from the 19 story. But my recollection is that he did say to me O
20 that he had been careful not to publish Safeguards 21 Information, g 22 Q. When did Mr. Staggs say that to you? l 1
23 A. I believe it was in the following week, first 24 week of March. As I recall, it was in the same O 25 conversation in which he discussed with me whether ,
l 26 polygraphs could be used in a circumstance in which l l
1 PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES i
0- :84
'1 Safeguards-Information may have1been released.
2 0.- I have a hypotheti~ cal question fo'r~you:
g 3 assuming that Safeguards Information.was released ~to-
~
4 Mr. Staggs, and it was reported:1n the media, do you:
5 .think that-would cause the NRC -- or would put more
() 6- heat on the NRC -- to correct those problems that-7 were, in fact, reported in the media?
8 MR. HAYDEN: If I may interject an . objection, O .
9 .I don't think the NRC corrects. problems.- I believe 10 the licensees do.
11 But is the question, "more heat to get the 12 NRC to get the licensee to correct it"?'
13 MR. KOHN: Q. With that clarification,1So-
- () 14 you-believe that the NRC would putimore-pressure on --
15 let's rephrase the whole question.
16 Is the NRC responsive to pressure put on it -
O 17 by the media?
18 MR. MULLINS: For the record, I'll enter an 19 objection that it calls for a conclusion on-the part
.O 20 of the witness.
21 Go ahead and answer. ;
22 THE WITNESS: NRC is an independent agency-of_
O. l 23 the Federal Government. We are responsive most 24 directly to the concerns of Congress, and
'O 25 particularly to their direction through legislation.
26 ~To the extent that public. opinion influences O
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O. 85 1- the concerns of Congress'and their_-direction'to us in 2 that legislation, NRC is responsive to pressure from.
g- 3 the media.
4 MR. KOHN: Q. How many conversations with
-5 Mr. Staggs did'you have after the February 25th O is. conversation, till present?
7 A. As a rough estimate, I would say' 8 approximately'30 to 35.
O . .
9 Q. From all of the conversations you've had with-10 Mr. Staggs, would it be your opinion that Mr. Staggs-11 was the kind of sneaky reporter often portrayed'in 12 movies?
13 A. That seems to me to be a characterization O 14 which is inherently stereotypical.
15 Mr. Staggs is a very capable reporter. He is 16 a reporter who can be very aggressive. .He'is a O 17 reporter who is very dedicated to'his sources, to 18 protecting his sources.
19 I don't always agree with what he writes, or 20 the conclusion he draws from his material. However, 21 he has very rarely misquoted me.
22 There have been times.I have felt that his O: -
23 juxtaposition of material, particularly from articles 24- written at one~ time with information gathered at O- 25 another time, has been something lessfthan fair. But 26 very, very rarely false.
O' PATS.ICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O 86-1 I have respect for Mr. Staggs, as a 2 professional.
g 3 Q. It's my understanding that information of a 4 classified nature, as far as.the NRC is concerned, is 5 placed in an order where the most classified O 6 information is considered " Top Secret," and the next 7 would be " Secret," followed by the term " Classified,"
8 and I believe last, a separate area called
'O 9 " Safeguards." Do you happen to know if that's 10 correct?
g 11 A. The third category you referred to, I 12 believe, should be " Confidential."
13 Q. Excuse me. You're correct. " Confidential."
O 14 A. Safeguards is, indeed, a separate category.
15 Q. Of any of these areas that I've just 16 mentioned, are you aware of any possible leaks of any O 17 documents, either Top Secret, Secret, confidential, 18 or Safeguards, that took place at the Palo_ Verde g 19 plant at any time?
O \
20 A. Your question is specific in this instance to '
21 documents?
g 22 Q. Documents or information contained in 23 documents that, itself, would be considered Top 24 Secret, Secret, Confidential, or Safeguards?
O 25 A. Other than in this instance, in which I 26 believe that there's a possibility that information O
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
0- 87
'l' Which was Safeguards ~Information, including 2 information which would be. contained-in'certain (j 3 documents, such as the site security plan, may.have 4 been given out.
-5 Other than this instance in question, I am O 6
~
not aware, personally, of any other instances of this 7 nature related to the Palo Verde plant. And I am 8 specifically unaware of any instances:which would O .
9 involve Confidential Information.
10 My understanding of. Secret and' Top Secret 11 information is that such information could not.
12 possibly relate to the Palo Verde plant.
13 Q. Are you aware of any Confidential, Top O 14 Secret, Secret, or Safeguards Information, that the 15 NRC suspected was breached by any nuclear facility? !
16 MR. MULLINS: Excuse me. Are you referring.
17 to Region V, or the nation?
18 MR. KOHN: In the nation.
19 MR. MULLINS:
If you have --
0 20 THE WITNESS: Specifically, I am not. No, 21 I'm not aware, personally, of any instances of 22 release of Safeguards Information.
O 23 MR. KOHN: Q. Are you aware of any 24 investigation into the release of any Safeguards or-O 25 Confidential Information at any nuclear site, other 26 than the ongoing investigation you just mentioned?
' O PATRICIA CALLAHAN.& ASSOCIATES
,J
~
88 l A.. It's my understanding that there have been 2 such investigations, but I'm not personally aware'of O .3 any at this time.
4 Q. Do you have any knowledge if the NRC uses 5 polygraphs during those investigations?
O 6 A. T6 the best of my knowledge, and to the 7 extent that I was able to make such a. determination 8 through inquiries within NRC, I know of no time which O
9 NRC has used a polygraph.
10 Q. During your employment with the NRC, were you 11 ever made aware of the fact that a burglary occurred g
12 at the Palo Verde plant in, I believe, 1980?. More 13 precisely,- a burglary that concerned the theft of O 14 fifty inter-office security memoranda out of a safe 15 within the security department?
16 A. No, I was not aware of that incident.
O 17 Q. Are you aware if that incident was ever 18 reported to the NRC7 19 A. No, I'm not.
O 20 Q. Prior to this deposition, who did you speak 21 to regarding your testimony today?
22 A. I spoke to Mr. Mullins, who's counsel for O
23 NRC, regarding the subject matter. I, of course, 24 spoke with Mr. Schuster. And obviously, with the O 25 other persons who are party to these conversations, 26 but not specifically about the-deposition today.
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
5 0 89 1 Mr.'Zimmerman and I?have had-discussions 2 about the--deposition scheduling.
3 MR._MULLINS: Have you spoken to:
4 'Mr. Sho'llenberger?
5 THE WITNESS: I.did speak to~
O.' 6 Mr. Shollenberger, yes. Thank you.
7 MR. MULLINS: For the record, 8 Mr. Shollenberger.is.the regional attorney who is O 9 assigned here, who is very sick at this time,.and-has 10 been on sick leave for some time now. 'And before I 11 became active-in the case, Mr. Shollenberger was 0-12 handling the arrangements.
13 THE WITNESS: And I did. speak to Mr. Johnson, O 14 who is our enforcement director, with whom I-spoke 15 about the general nature of depositions.
16 MR. KOHN: Q. Did you speak with anyone at O 17 APS?
18 A. No.
l-19 Q. What documents did you look at to prepare lO-20 yourself for this deposition?
21 A. Basically,-the documents which have been 22 provided today, press clippings which were provided
,0-1 23 earlier, Mr. Schuster's-memo of March 28th. I did 24 review my own notes to see if there was material in o 25 there which would be pertinent, and did not find any.
26 I did review a number of other~ documents which did-O PATRICIA cALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES r .
____ ___.__m___ a
O .
90 1' 1 not appear to be'responsivo or to be related to this 2 incident.
I 0: 3 Q. Do you have any notes concerning any 4 conversation you had with Mr. Staggs?
-5 A. No, I do not.
O 6 Q. Do you have any notes or.do you know of any 7 notes concerning your conversations with any member 8 of APS on February 24th or February 25th?
O .
9 A. No. My normal practice is that I spend mos.t 10 of my day on the telephone in conversation with 11 people, and I take only very short notes when I need g
12 those notes to remember a commitment, or something of 13 that-nature.
O 14 Having taken care of the matter, my normal 15 practice is to dispose of the note.
16 MR. KOHN: No further questions.
O 17 MR. HAYDEN: Briefly, I would like, on the 18 record, to thank Mr. Kohn for raising the March 6th 19 conversation with Mr. Van Brunt.
O 20 21 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. HAYDEN 22 MR. HAYDEN: Q. Two quickies: Mr.-Cook, O
23 you testified earlier that you subsequently advised 24 Mr. Staggs, after speaking with Mr. Schuster, that O 25 the comment regarding "the worst in the region" was 26 relative to one specific element, non-recurring, as PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
l O 91 1 you testified.
2 My question to you is simply, since you're in g 3 the press area, are you aware of whether Mr. Staggs 4 ever published any kind of a correction to correct 5 what Mr. Schuster's statement was relative to?
O 6 A. To the best of my knowledge, no. And I did 7 specifically watch for such an item.
8 However, since Mr. Staggs had already used O
9 the quote, I quite honestly did not expect him to 10 correct it.
ll Q. You've testified that it came to your u_
12 knowledge that CREE had issued a press release 13 stating that it was NRC regulation that licensees O 14 could not use polygraphs. You later were asked 15 questions regarding that.
16 Are you aware whether CREE ever issued a O 17 press release correcting that inaccuracy?
18 A. No, I'm not.
. 19 Q. What I'd like to do -- I think the record has O
20 some confusion, now, as to your conversations on the 21 24th and 25th. Let me see if I can correct that. If O 22 I can't, we'll let the record speak for itself.
23 If my memory serves me correctly, the 24 scenario is that, on Monday the 24th, you were O 25 contacted by Mr. Staggs, and asked to comment or l 26 confirm a number of items; and I believe your PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
I .
- O
~
92 l' . testimony was that, at that. time, you.had no' ability 2 to'do so on the spur of the moment, because you 3 didn't have-personal knowl' edge of th'e information he f0
- 4 .was relating lto you..
1 5 So, my understanding'is, you then set:about
]
10 6 to contact those available within the regional office-7 to gain information regarding those matters.
8 And then, if I recall correctly, your 40 .
'9 testimony was.that you called-back the next day, the i
, 10 25th -- and this is the conference conversation with'- ,
11 three people on your side -- in which Staggs then
)
12 repeats the information more detailed, and you
! 13 collectively respond to him. That's the morning of
'i i
iO 14 the 25th.
J 15 MR. KOHN: I will object to the question on 16 the grounds that it's compound, to say the least.
i
'O 17 MR. MULLINS: Answer if you can. .
l' I l
l 18 THE WITNESS: That.is essentially correct, j
.: 19 except that_I did call Mr. Staggs back regarding-the 10 j 20 comment, "the worst in the region," on the 24th, with i
j 21 what I believed to be complete information at that l-22 time.
0 l 23 To the effect that that statement was made on ,
! 24 the 25th, I received some clarification from-
!~
jO- 25 Mr. Schuster regarding the scope of the statement'.
i 26 MR. HAYDEN: Q. What I'm trying to recall --
3 iO PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES 4
,,,,.,._.,---,e .. ,,, ,- ,, -., ,..-,-,. .. ~- - r,,-, , .m .,._,___,,__,_.,,_,__.._m,,,. ..,__,,..s, ,,, , ~ ,..... ,,...-_,.m,--
O 93 1 and I think we even had some testimony as to the 2 specific times -- your best recollection was that 3 this conversation with Staggs -- and again, I'll O
4 refer to it as the conference calling with a number 5 of parties -- was in the early part of that day, on O 6 the 25th of February. I think you testified 7 9:00-ish, in that area, 9:30 or 10:00, in that area.
8 And I believe you've testified, then, that O
9 your recollection is that your first conversation 10 with Mr. Andrews was thereafter; you earlier 11 testified you think late morning.
12 A. Yes. However, it is possible, as I stated 13 before, that I may have had a conversation with
.O 14 Mr. Canady or Mr. Andrews briefly on the 24th, which 15 primarily would have dealt with "the worst in the 16 region" comment. I'm not --
O 17 Do you have any recollection whether that 0
18 conversation took place?
19 A. I am simply not clear on that at this point.
O 20 Q. But do I understand your testimony to be that 21 you are clear that on the conversation of the late 22 morning on the 25th, that it was a more extended O
23 conversation with Andrews in which, in essence, you 24 related all of the events that had occurred to that O 25 date? That is, the concern that the Region had that 26 Staggs was in possession of Safeguards Information, O'
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
.p . _ _ _ _
i Ch 94 l- eticetera?
~
2- MR. KOHN: I will object'to the question as 9 -3 compound, and there are a lot'of specifics in:that" l
4 question that I would prefer?to have answered. l l
5 separately, than a simple blanket "Yes."
O 6 THE WITNESS: Basically, that was a longer-
-7 conversation with Mr. Andrews on the 25th.- 'I did, in
.F 8 essence, review the situation with him in that O S 9 conversation.
10 MR. HAYDEN: Q. That's fine.
11 A. That answers the whole question, I hope.
O 12 MR. HAYDEN: I have nothing further.
13 (Whereupon, there was a-discussion-off the O 14 record.)
15 MR. KULLINS: Back on-the record.
16 I am now submitting documents which'we've' O ~
17 used in the depositions, which.are relevant and 18 responsive to the subpoena to Mr.ESchaefer and 19 Mr. Schuster, and the earlier subpoena to'the !
20 Custodian of Records, Region V. ;
I 21 We have, first of . all, - a menu f or: both .
O 22 counsel. The menu,-first page, refers to Encl'osure 23 5, which is the second and third pages, which is-24 Enclosure 5 to Mr. .Schuster's response to the O 25 subpoena this summer. It was an inventory for 26 responding to FOIA 86-363, which I believe.is.one of ,
i
- t ',
- l 0
PATRICIA CALLAHAN &LASSOCIATES
1 l
O "
95
-l r 1 Mr.-Thompson's FOIA requests.
2 If you will notice, down the right-hand side O 3 of Enclosure 5, the two pages, there are numberings 4 of'BT-101, BT-201,'et cetera. -Those are for Blaine
~
5 Thompson, and-then the document numbering.
CI 6 The first page, then, refers to the second
- 7. and. third pages. You have the document on the-
~
8 left-hand side, with the corresponding-. action on the
.O.
9 right-hand side. BT-101, for example, we are 10 ' withholding - "W/H" means " withholding" --
11 government information privilege. BT-201, we're g
12 withholding as a confidential document,- part of'an ,
13 ongoing investigation. BT-301, we~are releasing.
O 14 And that will be the first document in each 15 pile. You will get one pile and APS will get the
-16 second pile.
17 MR. HAYDEN: May I ask -- I'm following you-18 so far, except, for example, what.would 301 refer.to, 19 again?
O 20 MR. MULLINS: 'That is the third document on 21 the next page, the right-hand column. You will see
- g. 22 BT-101, BT-201, BT-301. BT-301 is an ANPP memo from 23 M. Deblo to B. Thompson,
Subject:
Performance-24 observation, dated 11/29/85, ANPP Confidential, one-O 125 page, B. Thompson directed to monitor performance of 26 D. Cox_for 90 days. That's BT-301.
0 PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
0: 96
- 'l . - BT-401 --
. R 2 MR. HAYDEN: Would simply reflect another-l
- g. 3 request.
l 4 Then the 401 -- +
q 5 MR..MULLINS: -The'401 was a numbering system
!O. 6 Hwe used;for processing the FOIA reque'st. I used this 7- simply to simplify matters for. processing-this-8 : discovery. request. There were 18 documents in.this
- O 9- FOIA request, and they' correspond to 18 documents on-10 the first ~ page.
4 11 You will-notice that certain -- five of these --
to 1 . .
12 have been released as' redacted. That is, they.have 13 -contained Safeguards Information'which has been taken O 14 'from-the document. They've eitherJbeen' taped over, 15 or blacked out and reproduced.
16 ' As I said, there are'six.of them which we j 0- 17 have withheld, and we have stated the privilege under i l 18 .which we have withheld them. ]
19 And you may react accordinM y to the-
,O 20 Administrative Law-Judge es you see fit.
- 21. The fourth 7% e $ ; a supplemental inventory
~
.g 22 for Region V deposicion. These'are documents'which. j
~
F 23 'had been produced.in-the Region since the-FOIA day l A
24' Ind since the responding date of thetsubpoenasithis
!Q ..~ ,. 25 summer. '
26 There are ten documents referenced. They'are
~ _
'O: LPATRICIA CALLAHAN &-ASSOCIATE 3
-h- r - , . , , ,# , . , , _ , , , , _ , - . , -.,m. m ., ,,% , e . , . - , , , y y , , . - - ,---., , ,.,
O 97 1 referenced by numbers, S-1 through S-10. The next 2 column has a-date, the next column has the number of-
- 3 pages, the next column has authorship, the next
()
4 column has comments.
5 .For example, S-1 is dated 6/4/86, 70 pages, O 6 van Brunt to Taylor, and comments are that we are 7 releasing 4 pages and we are. withholding 66 pages for 8 redacting of SGI -- which is Safeguards Information ---
9 and later release. And that continues through all 10 ten documents.
11 Does anybody have a question?
12 And the final page, the part of the subpoena 13 that requested reports for safety violations for the O 14 past two years, Mr. zimmerman, I assume, to whom this 15 is primarily responsive, will be signing a copy of 16 this, and that will notify the parties that all O 17 notices of violations will be found in the public 18 document room in Phoenix in the docket files 19 indicated. Docket files are there for the Notice of O-20 Violations, NOV's.
21 I'm producing these tonight, since you-22 requested an opportunity to study them tonight for
)-
23 the preparation of the depositions of Mr. Schuster 24 and Mr. Schaefer tomorrow.
O 25 MR. KOHN: I have some questions. One, it 26 says that these documents are being -- it's my PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
f0 L .
_ . f98' -
~11 - understanding --- released . pursuant 1to: Mr.-Thompson's. ,
I i
2 FOIA.
1 3~ MR. MULLINS: -~I'mL.using the'FOIA' numbering-as 9
a guide forJ escribing the documents.
~
4' d The FOIA will' 5 be released _ separately in Washington by mail-to-0: '6 Mr.JThompson-a't some point. Thes FOIA branch is
'7 processing _that' response.-
8 MR. KOHN: Are you saying that the-list-of'
- O .
-9 documents here are responsive to Mr. Thompson's FOIA 10 r equest? :
1 -
11 MR. MULLINS: That's correct. :You were O.
- 12 provided with that this summer,_I believe. Is that
!. 13 correct, Ms. Payne?.
O -14 MS. PAYNE: Yes; the list, not-the documents.
! 15 Just the list.
16 MR. MULLINS: Correct.
20 17 MR. KOHN: Which of these documents'are being i
- 18 submitted pursuant to Mr. Thompson's FOIA request,-
19 and which are being submitted. pursuant to the
- 0 4
.20 subpoena?
21 MR. MULLINS: All of these that you will be 22 getting today.are submitted pursuant to the subpoena.
O
.. 23 The subpoena is being~ processed separately from-thel 1
24 FOIA.
l,
!O. 25 .In other words, at'some point, you're very-
~
26 likely to get two copies; 'a copy which-is-in response
!O-i PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES' f
(
0- 99 1 to the subpoena,'andla copy which will- be in response 2- to the FOIA request. I would be. moderately surprised O 3 if they were different.
4 MR. KOHN: My question is, if an individual 5' makes an FOIA request to the NRC, is that request n
v 6 kept confidential?
7 MR. MULLINS: I do not know. You would have 8 to discuss that with the FOIA branch.
O 9 MR. KOHN: I would like to. interpose-an 10 objection, at this time, that I believe information 11 pursuant to Mr. Thompson's FOIA request is being O
12 released to other parties; namely, APS. And I 13 believe that to be a breach of Mr. Thompson's rights O 14 to confidentiality.
15 MR. MULLINS: Which document are you 16 referring to?
O 17 MR. HAYDEN: If I may respond, if I 18 understand what counsel for the NRC has said, i
19 everything that is being produced this evening is j O
20 being produced in response to GAP's subpoena duces 21 tecum for the depositions of Mr. Schuster and
'O 22 Schaefer. And certainly you're not suggesting that 23 such a production of documents pursuant to subpoena 24 duces tecum shouldn't be shown to the other parties O 25 in the litigation, are you?
26 MR. KOHN: No. I would be perfectly frank.
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
- O: 100 1 I am not sure whether'or not that is the case.
2 In my past experience of litigation,
- O 3 documents have been subpoenaed which we were never 4 supplied with.
5 MR. MULLINS: Not from us, iO 6 MR. KOHN: No, this is other Department of 7 Labor litigation.
8 MR. HAYDEN: I have_become familiar with your
- O 9 past practices that you can subpoena, in your mind, 10 documents from third-party witnesses, and keep them
- g 11 secret from the other parties in litigation.
12 But I would like to suggest to you that the 13 rest of the country doesn't operate that way. If you 1
- O 14 subpoena documents from a third-party witness, all 15 parties to the litigation have the absolute right to 16 those documents.
17 MS. PAYNE: To clarify, he's just numbering 18 the documents that he's giving-us tonight'-- he's 19 cross-numbering them to the FOIA request.
20 MR. MULLINS: That's correct.
21 MS. PAYNE: And the only documents that are
!O 22 being submitted tonight are in response to a 23 subpoena. Is that correct?
1 24 MR. MULLINS: That's correct. For example, I LO 25 am not releasing -- the NRC is not releasing Document 26 BT-201. Document BT-201 is described on the second O
PATRICIA'CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O 101 1 page thoro. That_mcy or may not be released -- or 2 part of it may or may not be released to Mr. Thompson 3 at a future date under his FOIA request.
O 4 MR. THOMPSON: If that.is released, will I 5 get it prior to the hearing?
I) 6 MR. MULLINS: That's between you and the FOIA 7 branch. I would anticipate the answer is yes.
8 For the record, I have requested the FOIA O
9 branch to expedite this.
10 MR. THOMPSON: I appreciate it.
11 MR. MULLINS: I would anticipate sometime 12 ,
within the next couple of weeks, that the process 13 would be complete.
O 14 MR. KOHN: I would also like, for the record, 15 at some point, if you could indicate to me which of 16 these, if any, of the documents not being-presented 0 17 in their entirety, or not being released by the NRC, 18 are in the possession of APS.
19 MR. MULLINS: I would assume, to some extent, O
20 some of them are. For example, I believe that 21 BT-1001 is Region V security inspection report, dated g 22 4/2/86. That is an inspection report which obviously 23 contains Safeguards Information that has been removed 24 from this document.
O 25 Obviously, the licensee has it, because it is 26 an inspection of their plant, and they're obviously PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
!O .
102-1 . entitled to it'.
2 The documents which we are releasing-today' jg 3 have been. cleaned up or censored, however way you 4 wish to put it, so that they are available for public i.
5 .use. That's the whole purpose of this.
!O 6 In othe'r words, the NRC, the FOIA branch, and ,
! 7 -the Safeguards people in Washington, have reviewed 8 this, and determined that these are clean of
- O
- 9 Safeguards Information.
10 MR. KOHN: I ask that we, at some point, just 11 be supplied with a list of which of the documents g
12 that have not been released are in the possession of 13 APS. I doubt there's anything we are going to do O 14 with that. And we're certainly not going to be i
15 requesting specific Safeguards Information. I j ust --
)
16 MR. MULLINS: I would assume that all those 40 17 documents which have been pointed out as " Release as j
18 redacted" -- and there are five of them -- are in.the H l
i 19 possession of APS. 'I l
O 20 I would also assume that, on'the next)to the 21 last page, where it says-that those. documents which 22 will be withheld for redacting of SGI and later
!O 23 release, will also be in the possession of APS.
L i 24 MR. KOHN: In particular,.how about documents jO 25 " withheld / government information privilege," and 26 " withheld / confidential, ongoing. investigation"?
lO 2 PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES 1
i
< l i 1 L l
O 103
.l_ .MR. MULLINS: Those would not necessarily be 2 in the possession of APS. And we, to some extent,. .,
3 w uld have no knowledge of whether or not they were lO 4 in the possession of APS.
T
.- S' There is one. document, S-7, on the 4
0 6 -supplemental page, which'is a letter from Mr. Hayden 7 'to Mr. Shollenberger. If.Mr. Hayden wishes to. object 8 to that --
-O
- 9 MR. HAYDEN
- No, I have no objection. . We 1
10 have nothing.to hide.
11 MR. KOHN: I have no further comments at this lO 12 time.
1 13 MR. MULLINS: Okay.
iO 14 (Whereupon, the deposition was concluded 4 15 at 6:20 p.m.)
16
- O 17 l
18 l 19 SIGNATURE OF WITNESS i O
20 21 ---oOo---
22 0
23 24 0 25 26 ,
1 1
1 PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
.,0 -
104 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
2 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA )
3-4 I, the undersigned, a Notary Public of the State 5 of California, hereby certify that the witness in-the
() 6 foregoing deposition was by me duly sworn to testify to 7 the truth, the whole truth, and-nothing but the truth 8 in the within-entitled cause; that said deposition was
'O' 9 taken at the time and place therein stated; that the 10 testimony of said witness was reported by me, a
! 11 Certified Shorthand Reporter and a disinterested person,
- O ~
12 and was thereafter translated under my direction into 13 typewriting; that the foregoing is a full, complete g 14 and true record of said testimony; and that the witness 15 was given an opportunity to read and, if necessary, 16 correct said deposition and to subscribe the same.
13 17 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 18 attorney for either or any of the parties in the 19 ' foregoing deposition and caption named, nor in any way iO 20 interested in the outcome of the cause named in said 21 caption.
22 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
-O 23 and affixed my seal this 13th day of October 1986.
24 .y... ,, ... . .,
.O 25 -
!^ P ,
- n m-4 -
b, G 1, a .rn U NOTARY PUB IC 26 t 1 tc.. 2 ls!3 i; STATE OF CALI ORNIA
.'.,..,,,.,,c '
. muurmi.'
I O. PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES '
1 The following tabulates the corrections of the deposition I made on October 9,1986, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V Office, Walnut Creek, California.
page No. Line No. Incorrect - Correction 8 18 stationed station 19 6 personnel staff personnel or staff 19 18 Lou Lew 29 6 in violation a violation 32 2-3 specific to classify the specific as to classified Safeguards at this point or Safeguards at this point 33 18 forma format 41 8 and in 42 24 an in 45 6 of concern of the of concern the 43 5 identified, identified--
43 7 enforcement, enforcement--
43 8 public, we publ ic. We 45 15 Licensed Licensee 23 Securities Security 53 19 Lou Lew 58 16 I believe this time, I believe, at this time, 61 2 residence residents' 4 I got When I got 5 residence residents' 14 staff had believed staff believed 63 9 ...and which... ...and in which...
69 14 regulated related 69 17 text tech 72 20 and delete 73 10 ex tent. That extent that 79 17 verification clarification 83 1-2 page of the continuation page, or the continuation page of page, of 10 saying say 23 week, first week, the first 86 1 , delete 92 22 time. To time, to 23 made on made. On 93 4 calling call 102 17 Release Released NW R { ltif egory N. Cook
o f* "*%, UNITED STATES s, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l' o, OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION V O %,,,,,,/ 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 NRC:V-6883 TELEPHONED TO WIRE SERVICES O CONTACT: JIM HANCHETT 11 A.M. MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1983 BUS: (415) 943-3809 HOME: (415) 820-3840 -
NRC STAFF PROPOSES $80,000 FINE AGAINST ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE FOR ALLEGED QUALITY, DOCUMENTATION VIOLATIONS AT PALO VERDE O
WALNUT CREEK, CA -- The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff today notified the Arizona Public Service Company that it is proposing an $80,000 fine against the company for violations of NRC requirements identified during a recent construction apparisal inspection at Palo O verde Nuclear Generating Station unit 1.
In a December 12 letter to APS, John B. Martin, administrator of the NRC Region V office in Walnut Creek, CA, cited the company for two alleged significant violations, one resulting from a breakdown in the quality assurance program at Palo Verde Unit i and the other for O impreperly signed electrical installation records. Each carries a proposed $40,000 civil penalty. The NRC's inspection report also cited the company for several minor violations for which no civil penalties are proposed.
In a Notice of Violation accompanying Martin's letter, the NRC O staff cited four examples where the quality assurance program failed:
(1) caps had been installed on pressure sensing lines in the reactor containment building, and no administrative requirement existed to assure that they would have been removed prior to operation of the reactori (2) there was no record of a disconnected manual operator on a valve, a missing nut and a leaking flange in part of the High Pressure O Safety Injection (HPSI) System, although the system has been completed, turned over to the licensee and was undergoing preoperational testing; (3) there was no record of a mispositioned valve indicator in a similar system also undergoing preoperational testing; and (4) 87 small bolts were missing from.the frames for sin motor control centers.
() "Although further opportunities existed to detect these deficiencies prior to plant operations, our concern is that they had already evaded several management and quality assurance controls,"
Martin's letter said. "This raises a question of the effectiveness of those controls."
O -- MORE MORE --
( ~.
lo-9.gG O Arizona g l
l
O
_ ""%g UNITED STATES c j g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O '
., ! OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION V
\ , , , . +# 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 NRC:V-0984 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE O
Contact:
Jim Hanchett (Mailed - April 3, 1984)
Bus: 415/943-3809 Home: 415/820-3840 ,
NRC STAFF REDUCES PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE FOR PREVIOUSLY CITED QUALITY ASSURANCE VIOLATION AT PALO VERDE O
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has reduced by 50 percent a proposed civil penalty against the Arizona Public Service Company (APS) for violations at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station that were identified during a special NRC construction assessment insPecti n at the plant last fall.
O In an April 3 letter to APS, the NRC staff said it is imposing a
$20,000 fine for the violation, instead of the $40,000 proposed in December, because of the company's " prompt and extensive corrective action."
O / Based on the results of a special team inspection conducted at Palo Verde Unit 1 between September 6 and November 1, 1983, the NRC Region V office proposed a $40,000 civil penalty against the company on December 12 for a breakdown in its quality assurance program.
Under NRC procedures, APS was given 30 days to either pay the fine or formally submit a protest. The utility filed its repsonse on l O January 31, after receiving an extension of time.
Richard C. DeYoung, Director of the NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement in Bethesda, MD, today notified the company of his !
finding that the violations did occur as cited by the staff, but that l the proposed fine had been reduced by 50 percent because of the prompt I
'O and extensive corrective actions identified in the company's January 31 response. As examples of the corrective actions, DeYoung ,
cited the company's independent assessment following the NRC findings, l suspension of startup work at the company's initiative, a manage-ment reorganization and the " unusually prompt and extensive" direct involvement by senior corporate management. The company now has 30 O days to either pay the $20,000 fine or request a hearing before an NRC administrative law judge. ,
l The violation resulted from four examples of a breakdown in the quality assurance program: (1) caps had been installed on pressure sensing lines in the containment building with no procedure to assure O , that they would have been removed prior to operation of the reactor;
(' "more" i g Arizona f /o-9 g {
' I O iNL
O f* "*% UNITED STATES 2
, *s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION V
- O
%,,,,,} 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 NRC:V-0485 , FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Greg Cook Mailed - Thursday, February 7,1985 O Bus: 415/943-3809 Home: 707/644-2428 NRC STAFF IMPOSES CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE FOR PREVIOUSLY CITED FALSIFICATION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE RECORDS O
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has imposed a $40,000 civil penalty against the Arizona Public Service Company (APS) for falsification prior to July 12, 1982 of records which are part of the licensee's quality assurance program.
O This civil Penalty was originally proposed December 12, 1983. The penalty was not imposed at that time at the request of APS, pending availability of a report by NRC's Office of Investigation. The Office of Investigation report was released to the licensee on November 21, 1984, and APS responded on December 26, 1984.
Procedures require that a temination card be prepared for each electrical O termination which includes the number of the tool used to crimp the termination and the signature of the electrician actually doing the work. If, at a later time, a crimping tool is found to need adjustment, the records can be used to trace terminations made with that tool and to replace the terminations. NRC in-vestigators estimated that in 50 to 100 cases, out of a total of 7,000 to 8,000 cards examined, the tool number or signature were other than those of the actual tool used or person doing the work.
APS revised its procedures on July 12, 1982, to require that lost termination cards be replaced with cards marked " DUPLICATE" and that all terminations on such cards be reperformed by the electrician signing the card. Electrical terminations on all cards in question were reperformed. NRC considers the corrective action satisfactory.
James M. Taylor, Director of NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement in Bethesda, MD, notified the company today of his finding that the violation did occur as cited by the staff, and that there is no adequate basis for mitigation or remission of the penalty. Under NRC's enforcement policy, APS now has 30 days to pay the penalty or request a hearing.
O O
- g Arizona / O y(,
C $ 0 c0 IG.
1 O
p""%, "
UNITED STATES f"
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- [
o ! OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION V O '%,,,,.+8 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 i
'l NRC:V-4885 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE I
Contact:
Greg Cook (Mailed: Tuesday, October 8, 198E n
U Bus: 415/943-3809 Home: 707/644-2428 NRC STAFF PROPOSES $50,000 FI!iE AGAINST ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY O The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is proposing to fine Arizona Public Service Company $50,000 for an alleged violation of a NRC safety requirement involving the operation of Unit 1 at the Palo Verde nuclear power plant.
The technical specifications governing the operation of Unit I required, in part, that, before operation above five percent of full power, a program be 0 established, implemented and maintained to ensure the capability to obtain and analyze samples of the containment building atmosphere under accident conditions.
However, as the result of an inspection conducted in June and July this year, the staff alleges that Unit I was operated at power levels above five percent from June 6 to July 5 this year without an adequate program being established.
Specifically, the staff alleges that the sampling location for the contain-ment building was subject to high radiation levels which, under certain accident conditions, would have severely limited or even precluded personnel entry to collect the samples. This sampling station has since been relocated.
O The alleged violation has been categorized as Severity Level III with Level l characterizing the most serious violations and Level V the least serious ones.
Arizona Public Service now has 30 days to submit a written statement which admits or denies the violation; the reasons for it, if admitted; corrective steps O that have been taken and results achieved; the corrective steps that will be taken to prevent future violatiens; and the date when full compliance will be achieved.
The company also has 30 days to pay the proposed fine or to protest it, in whole or in part. If the fine is protested and later imposed, the company may O request a public hearing.
O ,
(
s 4
g /o-9-%
O I C ce k_
- O f"% UNITED STATES
["
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION V O ,,,g + 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 NRC:V-2686 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Greg Cook (Mailed: Wedriesday, May 7,1986)
Bus: 415/943-3809 O Home: 707/644-2428 NRC STAFF PROPOSES $100,000 FINE AGAINST ARIZONA NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT O The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is proposing to fine the Arizona Nuclear Power Project (ANPP) $100,000 for alleged violations of NRC require-ments involving security at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, located 36 miles west of Phoenix, Arizona. NRC Regional Administrator John B. Martin notified ANPP by letter on May 5 of the alleged violations. The company was provided the details of the alleged violations on May 6.
During an inspection conducted February 11 through March 13, 1986, NRC ;
inspectors found that ANPP was not in compliance with NRC requirements in-volving: failure to limit vital area access to only authorized individuals; failure to respond to vital area alarms; failure to maintain adequate vital area barriers; failure to account for identification badges on a daily basis, O failure to maintain minimum illumination levels inside the protected area; and :
failure to report security events to the NRC. These alleged violations have !
been categorized in the aggregate as Severity Level III, with Level I being the most serioJs and Level V the least serious.
The base civil penalty for Severity Level III is $50,000. The proposed
'O civil penalty has been increased to $100,000 because NRC has given the company prior notice of similar problems and because several of the violations involve multipie examples.
ANPP now has 30 days to submit a written statement to the NRC admitting or denying the alleged violations, explaining the reasons for them if admitted, stating the corrective actions which have been or will be taken and the date
'O when full compliance will be achieved.
The company also has 30 days to pay the proposed fine or to protest it, in whole or in part. If the fine is protested and later imposed, ANPP may request a public hearing.
'O ,
L 's 5 i
g DA-tL J doc /c_
O' j.......,
UNITED STATES f ?,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y ; ..t g
,t+
l
/g) '" ', /: 2 W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 FEB 2 81985 g,*s. f
- O MEMORANDUM FOR: Dan Holody, RI Mike Puckett, RII .
Bill Schultz, RIII Tom Westerman, RIV Al Johnson, RV O FROM: Jane A. Axelrad, Director Enforcement Staff, IE
SUBJECT:
REACTOR LICENSEE ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT HISTORIES O Enclosed is a sumary of " Licensee Escalated Enforcement Histories" that has been prepared by the Enforcement Staff. I plan to issue this sumary on a routine basis (either monthly or quarterly). Please check the enforcement history for licensees in your region and fill in the missing dates for NOV's and return your marked up summary to me along with any coments you have on the format by March 15, 1985.
g Thank you for your help.
U'. '
0 Jane A. Axelra , Director Enforcement Staff, IE
Enclosure:
As stated
- O _
O
.O d G I /O-9-pt O
i
! O_cc (C- 2
k .
~\
ADDENDUM TO THE DEPOSITION OF GREG COOK
ACTION'0N FOIA-86-363-INVENTORY UNDER DOL SUBPOENA I
Document - Action BT-101 -
W/H Government information privilege.
BT-201 - W/H Confidential.. ongoing investigation.
BT-301 -
Release.
BT-401 -
Release.
BT-501 -
W/H Ongoing investigation.
BT-601 -
W/H Ongoing investigation.
BT-701 -
W/H Ongoing investigation.
BT-801 -
Release.
BT-901 -
Release.
BT-1001 -
Release as redacted.
BT-1101 -
Release.
BT-1201 -
Release.
BT-1301 -
W/H Government information privilege.
BT-1401 -
Release as redacted.
BT-1501 -
Release as redacted.
BT-1601 -
Release as redacted.
BT-1701 -
Release as redacted.
BT-1801 -
Release.
INVENTORY FOR RESPONDING TO FOIA-86-363 l
No. of Loc. of Ser. No.
Description of Documents pages . Comments document for FOIA Region V meno: Allegation 1 Memo is in draft, not RV BT-101 Board Action. (undated) dated and not finalized.
ANPP memo subj: Fact 34 Includes statements RV BT-201 Finding Investigation from from B. Thompson, M. Deblo, N. O'Connor to D. Kelley M. Carnes, and B. Hamilton.
dated 11/27/85. Interviews with D. Cox, (ANPP Confidential) B. Hamilton, L. Wylie, D. Martin, and M. Lawlor.
Personnel Security Masks on D. Cox, B. Hamilton and' L. Wylie.
ANPP seno from M. Deblo to 1 B. Thompson directed to RV BT-301 B. Thompson, subj: Performance monitor performance of observation dated 11/29/85. D. Cox for 90 days.
(ANPP Confidential)
ANPP meno from M. Deblo to 1 B. Henry directed to RV BT-401 L. Henry, subj: Performance monitor performance of observation dated 11/29/85. L. Wylie for 90 days.
(ANPP Confidential)
Region V memo from 22 Reviews concerns of RV BT-501 H. Schuster to R. Scarano B. Thompson as presented subj: Review board action on to Palo Verde Resident concern pertaining to possible Inspector. Includes harassment dated 1/30/86. documents furnished by B. Thompson re performance appraisals.
NRC Office of Investigation 2 OI referred B. Thompson RV BT-601 meno to file subj: B. Thompson to Dept. of Labor for application of the whistle- protection under whfsele-blower statute dated 2/20/86. blower statute.
Region V memo from 3 Indicates that RV BT-701 l M. Schuster to R. Scarano subj: B. Thompson has returned Concern of possible harassment to work. Recommends no dated 2/25/86. further action.
Region V meno from J. Martin 11 Forwarded request of RV BT-801 to R. Marsh, Dir. OI:RV investigation to 01:RV.
dated 3/20/86.
l Enclosure 5
- s. , .
No. of loc. of Ser. No.
Description of Documents pages Comments document for POIA Region V meno from 1 Discusses results of RV BT-901 M. Schuster to 1. Marsh, review of newspaper Director, OI:RV dated 3/28/86. articles.
NRC Region V security 20 -
Inspection report .
RV BT-1001 inspection report' dated to ANPP (Report Nos.
4/2/86. (Safeguards Information) 50-528/86-07; 50-529/86-06).
, Region V meno to NRC Eqs. 1 Establishes the date, RV BT-1101 subj: Notice of significant time and location for meeting, dated 4/3/86. the enforcement conference.
Region V letter to ANPP, 1 Establishes the date, RV BT-1201 subj: NRC Enforcement time and location for conference dated 4/4/86. the enforcement conference.
Region V meno to NRC Eqs. 14 Forwarded to NRC Eqs. RV BT-1301 subj: Palo Verde Nuclear the notice of violation Generating Station - and proposed imposition proposed civil peanalty of civil penalty.
dated 4/17/86.
(Safeguards Information)
Region V meno to NRC Hqs. 12 Summarises the safe- RV BT-1401 subj: Palo Verde inspection guards enforcement history - August 1983 to history for PVNGS.
March 1986, dated 4/18/86.
(Safeguards Information)
Region V letter to ANPP, 8 Forwarded to the RV BT-1501 subj: NRC enforcement conference, licensee the written Palo Verde, Units 1 and 2, results of the enforce-dated 4/30/86. ment conference.
(Safeguards Information)
ANPP letter to NRC, subj: 19 ANPP's reply to the RV BT-1601 Palo Verde Nuclear safeguards inspection Generating Station, report detailing licensee's Units 1 and 2, dated response to each reported 4/22/86. violation.
(Safeguards Information)
Region V letter to ANPP, 6 Forwarded to the RV BT-1701 subj: Notice of violation licensee the final notice
- and proposed imposition of of violation and proposed civil penalities, dated imposition of civil penalty.
5/5/86.
(Safeguards Information)
Region V news release titled: 1 News release concerning RV BT-1801 "NRC Staff Proposed $100,000 the final disposition of Fine Against Arizona Nuclear the inspection results for Power Project." the 2/11-3/13, 1986 security inspection.
. SUPPLEMENTAL INVENTORY POR REGION V DEPOSITION Document Document Reference *# Date Pages Author Comments S-1~ 6-4-86 70 -Van Brunt to Taylor Release 4 pages, withhold 66 pages for redacting of SGI and later release.
S-2 7-29-86 4 Johnson to Axelrad Release 1 page letter; withhold j 3 page enclosure as predecisional.
S-3 Undated 7 Robinson to Johnson Withhold as predecisional.
S-4 Undated 7 Johnson to Robinson Withhold as predecisional.
S-5 6-13-86 22 RV to ANPP Inspection report; 4 pages released; 18 pages withheld for redacting of SGI and later
! release.
S-6 8-21-86 27 RV to ANPP Inspection report. 3 pages' released; 24 pages withheld for redacting of SGI and later release.
S-7 8-11-86 6 Haydon to Sho11enberger Release. s S-8 10-7-86 2 Schaefer to files. Withheld under ongoing investigation of Wylie/Cox incident.
S-9 10-8-86 2 Schaefer to files Withheld under ongoing investigation of drug use.
S-10 10-8-86 2 Draft of S-9 Withhold as above.
L
'l 1
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Pursuant to the* request for all reports of " safety violations for the past two years," this will notify the parties that all Notices of Violations l
("NOV's") may be found in the NRC local Public Document Room located at the Phoenix Public Library, Science and Industry Section, 12 E. McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona, 85004, in Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529, and 50-530.
Roy Zimmerman i
. ..