ML20214H590
| ML20214H590 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1986 |
| From: | Schaefer D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 86-ERA-27, NUDOCS 8705270426 | |
| Download: ML20214H590 (89) | |
Text
,
i 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR D 2 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW-JUDGES O
4 5
0 .6 IN THE MATTER OP:
7 BLAINE P. THOMPSON, 8 Complainant, O 9 vs. No. 86-ERA-27 10 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY / ARIZONA NUCLEAR 11 POWER PROJECT, 0-12 Respondent.
/
13 g 14 15 16 O 17 DEPOSITION OF DENNIS WILSON SCHAEFER 18 19 October 10, 1986 O 20 21 22 PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES O Certified Shorthand Reporters 23 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 204 Oakland, California 94612 24 (415) 835-3993 0 25 Reported by:
DEBORAH WONG BROOKS 26 CSR No. 5223 8705270426 861010 0
PDR ADOCK 05000528 T PDR2
I.
1- INDEX 2
3 #^U' lO 4
5 EXAMINATION BY MR. KOHN 12
!O
---oOo---
9 10 11
- O 12 i
! 13 14 O
l 15 16
- O 17 .
18 19
!O 20 21 22 i
'O l 23 4
24
!O 25 26
!O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
.\
3 I) .
1 EXHIBITS 2
- 3 PAGE
- O 4
5 COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 1, 11 A XEROX COPY OF A ONE-PAGE O 6 DOCUMENT, WITH THE NOTATION AT THE TOP "(S-6)."
7 8 COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 2, 29 A XEROX COPY OF A ONE-PAGE
'O 9 DOCUMENT, BEGINING "ON DECEMBER 9, 1985."
10
, 11 COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 3, 52 10 A XEROX COPY OF AN ELEVEN-12 PAGE GROUP OF DOCUMENTS, THE FIRST DOCUMENT ENTITLED " LIMITED 13 DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE."
.g 14 15 COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 4, 52 A XEROX COPY OF A NINE-PAGE 16 GROUP OF DOCUMENTS, THE FIRST DOCUMENT BEING A MEMORANDUM
'O 17 FOR R. G. MARSH PROM M. D. j SCHUSTER.
t 18 19 COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 5,- 52 lC A XEROX COPY OF A TWELVE-PAGE 20 GROUP OF DOCUMENTS, THE FIRST DOCUMENT BEING A MEMORANDUM 21 FOR PALO VERDE FILE FROM D. SCHAEFER.
O 23 ---oOo---
24
- O 25 26
[3 PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
'l. BE.IT REMEMBERED THAT, pursuant to-_ Subpoena, 2 and on Friday, October-10, 1986, commencing:at the 3 hour of 1:05 o' clock p.m. of the said day, at the
- O
~
~
4 ' office of the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY ,
S' COMMISSION, REGION V, 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210, l() 6 Walnut Creek,-California, before me, DEBORAH WONG 7 BROOKS, a Notary Public in and for the County of- ,
! 8 Alameda, State of California, personally. appeared "
9 DENNIS WILSON SCHAEFER,'a witness in the 10 above-entitled court and cause, produced on behalf.of-11 the complainant, who being by me first duly sworn,
!O 4
12 was then and there examined and interrogated by:
, 13 Attorney MICHAEL DAVID KOHN, 509 5th Street, N' orth lg 14 East, Washington, D.C., counsel for the complainant.
15 16 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL ~
I
- O 17 i
18 FOR COMPLAINANT:
19 MICHAEL DAVID KOHN lQ Attorney at Law i
20 509 5th Street, North East Washington, D.C. 20002
! 21 e i 22 FOR RESPONDENT:
- O- ,
l 23 SNELL & WILMER j BY: WILLIAM R. HAYDEN, ESQ.
j 24 3000 Valley Bank Center i Phoenix, Arizona 85073 0 25 26 ,
.j s
! -[
) PATRICIA CALLAHAN'& ASSOCIATES 4
- > - - - . , , , - , - . ,,,e , . - - . , - - . . , ,,,,.,g ,a. , , ~, ,.,,,,q-,.,e - , - - . , , , _ - , , , , --q --g-,m--.- .,- gy
5 0
1 FOR THE WITNESS:
2 CHARLES E. MULLINS Attorney at Law 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~) Washington, D.C. 20555 4
5 .There also being present: MYRON SCOTT BETH PAYNE 10 6 BLAINE THOMPSON JAMES L. MONTGOMERY 7
i 8 The following proceedings were thereupon had, 40 9 and the following testimony was thereupon given, to-wit:
10 11 ---oOo---
70 12 13' 14 13 15 16 O 17 18 19
- O 20 21 22
- O 23 24 O 25 26 O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
. m. . ;o- -
- 3_,
' ?h.
' ~
fjj, .
6 1 MR .1 HAYDEN I want this on thelrecord.
l
-2 I'did contact my office over.the lunch break-4
'3 to attempt to'have them contact Mr. Van Brunt--to see
- O-4 when his first availability will be. I haven't- >
5 gotten' feedback on that yet. I've asked them to look m +
l(3 - 6 to the week.of~the 20th, including the-20th, and I 7 have been advised that there's a deposition scheduled 4
' ~
8 already-for the 20th.
01 9 So, I need to know ..if your intention is to 10 replace that deposition withLthe-deposition of '
11 Mr. Van Brunt, or to put Mr.' Van Brunt on in addition
'O 12 to that deposition -- because that deponent has already 13 been notified and has made his arrangements to be
!g 14 deposed on the day of the 20th -- if Van Brunt is 15 available that day, a#
s 7
16 MS. PAYNE: Haven't we made an arrangement OS 17 that Nelson would be kept on hold? I'm very sure i
18 that you and Steve talked about this. Steve told 19 me that Nelson would be kept sort.of on hold, and ,
- O 20 maybe he could be squeezed in during that week. I 21 think that was discussed.
1 22 MR. HAYDEN: You're absolutely correct. In 23 fact, it was more than discussed. In fact, I s
24 confirmed it in writing pursuant to his agreement,
!O 25 that Nelson would go the same day as Cox, whatever ,
26 day that is, and the day would be divided between Cox lO PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES'
.1 and Nelson.
i' ~
2 You guys ripped off your last schedule to me, 4
3' which I assume was the current operating' schedule,
,6 4 that changed that again, dropped Nelson off the day 5 that Cox was on,_ moved Nelson to the 20th.for the-
!O. 6 whole day. And I have advised everybody on my side 7 that.that was the last edict from you people.
8 And my irritation here is this~ constant
!O 9 changing back and forth. These people:.have.other 10 commitments. Mr. Thompson is not the only important 11 person in the world, other than this group, this cast
- O.
12 of characters.
I 13 So, if you want Van Brunt, I'll see if he can ,
g 14 fit it in on the 20th.
- 15 MR. KOHN
- 9:00 a.m. on the 20th.
1 16 MR. HAYDEN: So, you're canceling Nelson?-
!O 17 MR. KOHN: We will do Nelson that afternoon.
18 MR. dAYDEN: So, you would like to see if I 19 can have Van Brunt there at 9:00 and Nelson there at 20' 20 1:00?
, 21 MR. KOHN: If vice versa will be easier for j
22 you, Van Brunt at 1:00 and Nelson at-9:00, that's also
,O 23 acceptable.
24 MR. MULLINS: For the record, there was, in lg 25 the morning deposition, a question concerning Item 26 50-529/85-30-15, whether or not that item in the l
lO' PATRICIA CALLAHAN &. ASSOCIATES i
1 inspection was closed or not at the last inspection 2 report.
3 If you will refer to the schedule of
~
4 documents which I released last night, Document S-6, 5 Supplementary-6, is 8/21/86, Region V to ANPP O 6 Inspection Report, 3 pages released, 24 pages 7 withheld for redacting of SGI and later release.
8 In that inspection report, inspection Item O 9 No. 85-30-15 is addressed, and we have redacted a 10 page of the inspection report which will indicate 11 that that item is now closed.
O 12 And I am now distributing to you that 13 information, to both parties. This was the item g 14 which you asked Mr. Schuster whether or not the item 15 was open or closed, and this indicates that the item 16 is now closed. It is a follow-up~ item from that
- O 17 inspection which you have as BT-1001, I believe. It 18 was left open to inspection which is labeled 19 BT-1001, and is closed in the inspection report which
- O 20 is referred to as S-6 and of which you have three 21 pages.
22 MR. KOHN: For the record, if others of these
- O ,
23 investigations are closed, would that fall under 24 Safeguards Information, or should we be able to --
.g 25 MR. MULLINS: The fact that the investigation 26 item -- and Mr. Schaefer will correct me if I'm wrong --
- O -PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
J-
?O .
~
'9
.y 1 the fact that-it-is closed would'not ba7 safeguards. ;
2- For the'information which we release, we will" block 3 out ~any Safeguards-Inf'ormation which is contained in- -
-.O-4 that paragraph.
.In-this paragraph, there--is no.SAfeguar'ds 5- -
- O 6 Information. :And-it is my recollection, from'looking-
! 7- at the report over lunch,'that-this~is the entire 8- paragraph'in,this item, and no.information was-
'O 9 redacted from this paragraph.
10 MR. KOHN: -Could I request that the NRC ---
i^
j 11 MR. MULLINS: I am not:-under oath. I am not.
iO -
! 12 a witness here. But as an officer.of the' Court, I !
13 can make that statement.
J 14 MR. KOHN: Could I request that'the NRC lO I 15 review the documents submitted, and submit all closed 3 16 investigations -- such as this one'-- that were jO. 17 redacted?
. 18 MR. MULLINS: We will be redacting all'the i 19 documents on the supplemental inventory. list. And'at-
- O 20 some point in time, when -- we will attempt to-21 expedite the process. And we-will attempt tofrelease 22 all these documents as redacted.-
?O I
i i 23 MR. KOHN: Let me mark this, then, as l l
l' 24 Complainant's next exhibit, which I'm not sure what- l 25 number we're up to now.
- O 26 MR. HAYDEN
- I have no objection. But as an i
i) PATRICIA CALLAHAN'& ASSOCIATES i-
- . . - . . . , . ~ . _ . _ - , . , - . _ . . .
4 10
.(3 .
1 alternative suggestion, he's marked it S-6, and it
-2' really is a supplementuto S-6, and S-6 has.already 3 been marked as something.
',O 4 MR. MULLINS: You haven't. marked S-6, have-
, 5 you?
lC 6 MR. HAYDEN: You're right.
4 7 MR. MULLINS: We will betreleasing the entire-i 8- document, as redacted,-at a later date, and this O 9 paragraph will be in its-entirety in that item..
t 10 MR. KOHN: I'd like Mr. Hayden perhaps'to
-11 agree to stipulate that all the documents released iO 12 today or yesterday by the NRC,.in'each-of our. control I 13 right now, that these documents-be allowed to be 14 introduced during the hearing; that is, neither party lO 15 will contest the authenticity of these documents,-and 16 the sole objection would be to relevance and things-
- O- 17 of that nature.
18 MR. HAYDEN: If I understand what you're
.' 19 asking me to do -- I think we're in agreement -- I
!O
] 20 will not waive any objection that I have to the-21 admission of any of these documents into evidence, i
22 with the sole exception -- I think that's what you're 23 asking me for -- that they were produced to you by l 24 the NRC pursuant to your subpoena.
lO 25 I mean, I will stipulate that they have 26 produced them to you, they came'from the NRC, and I N) PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
11 0: -
~
1 assume they're authentic copics of NRC documents.
'l 2 I'll stipulate to that. i
! 3 MR. KOHN: Can we stipulate.that-these are
!O 4- ' authentic copies.of NRC' documents?
b 5 MR. HAYDEN: I'm'willing toLso stipulate.
!O 6 (WFEREUPON, A XEROX COPY OF.A ONE-PAGE DOCUMENT, WITH THE NOTATION
~
10 9
- 10 ---ooo---
11
- O.
12 13 4
] 15 1
16 LO 17
. 18 19 20 21 d
22 0
3 23 4 24 25 0
26
!O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
4 N
-1 DENNIS WILSON SCHAEFER 2 being first duly sworn, testified as-follows:
., 3
lO 6 name for the record?
7 A. Dennis Wilson Schaefer.
8 Q. How do you spell Schaefer?
33 9 A. S-c-h-a-e-f-e-r.
10 Q. Mr. Schaefer, have you ever been deposed 11 before?
.O 12 A. No.
13 Q. This deposition, as you're aware, is 14 resulting out of a Department of Labor hearing
.;g 15 regarding Mr. Thompson and APS. Are you aware of 16 that fact?
O 17 A. Yes.
18 Q. The rules of the Department of Labor state 19 that if a witness resides outside the 100 mile radius
'O 20 of where the alleged discriminatory act occurred, 21 then a witness may be deposed, and that deposition 22 can be-put into evidence just as-if it was testimony 23 during the hearing.
24 So, in effect, your deposition today is. going
.g 25 to constitute actual testimony or may constitute 26 actual testimony, if either myself or respondents ~
I) PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
g 13-1 choose to put that into the rocord as testimony.- Do-2 you understand that?
3 A. Yes, I understand.
4 Q. Therefore, it's important that you answer the 5- question just as if_you were in a court of law, as
- O 6 truthfully and to the best of your ability as you 7 can, at this time. Are you capable of doing_that?
8 A. Yes, I am.
O 9 Q. How long have you been employed by the NRC?
10 A. Since 1979.
11 Q. What is your official title?
'O 12 A. Since that time, I've been a security 13 inspector, Safeguards Section of Region V.
g 14 Q. You've maintained that title since 1979?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What are your official duties?
- O 17 A. I'm assigned as security inspector at 18 different power reactors, which include Palo Verde.
19 Q. How many power reactors are you assigned to?
I'O 20 A. All the reactors we have in the region.
21 Q. Do you recall receiving a telephone call on 22 or about February 10th, 1986, from Blaine Thompson?
O 23 A. Not specifically. Perhaps you could' refresh 24 my memory.
g 25 Q. Do you recall a phone conversation in which 26 Mr. Thompson told you that he believed he was being
- 4) PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
4 "g'- ~
14 1' retaliated agcinst as'a; whistle-blower?.
~
2 A.- To'the bestfof my' recollection',fI've talked i 3 with Mr. Thompson.on the telephone, , yes.
iO 4 Q. Do you. recall that:that conversation ~ occurred i.
{
5 before the exit interviewRof February 14th?
jg' 6 A. No, I'do not recall the' time frame.of the two I
- 7 events.
- 8 Q. - Do you recall
- stating to-Mr. . Thompson that' (O 9 what he was explaining to'you sounded like a i
i 10 whistle-blower scenario?- t
) 11. A. I believe he , interjected that term. I.did lO.
- 12 not disagree with-it.
13 Q. Did you tell Mr. Thompson.that1you were gl'ad 1
14 that he.used that term?
)
15 A. I specifically don't recall my comment. He 4
16 chose the term, and -- I don't recall. ,
1
!O 17 Q. Do you recall if, during the conversation --
i f l 18 I guess we won't hold you to.the date. - I'll.just-19 refer to it as the February 10th conversation, so'we .
104 20 can just have a point of-reference when I ask-these
- 1 21 questions. l A
l'
- 22 During this February 10th~ conversation,;do
- O 23 you recall if you told Mr. Thompson whether or not~ !
24 there were federal laws.that' protected I i i 25 whistle-blowers? I
!O
- 26 A. Personally, I'm not really familiar with the l 4
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES r==www -
P +=g*w't= e*-t-*s'--'et-,r86*we= ++ M n ' r e-- ---v w-M's-----*--==we-v-~m*~m***--***--m*ww-*~ev-4 w-**w "W**-'F--'b '~
~'s -+*-r-"tr-e?+~we*** *'F "*
li ~ federal laws on whistle-blowers. I've heard office 2 discussion,.but I've never personally encountered 3 these laws.
4 Q. Do you remember if Mr. Thompson, during his 5 February-10th conversation, indicated to you that1he l(i 6 believed the NRC was neglecting him,'and that after 7 he blew the whistle, he had sort of been ignored by
^
8 the NRC?
O
~
9 A. I recall, in the conversation, he mentioned 10 that he had-had some discussion with Roy Zimmerman'at 11 the site.
jO 12 Q. Do you recall that Mr. Thompson stated that 13 he believed it was the NRC's responsibility to look 14 into the harassment and intimidation he was bringing L
O I
15 to the NRC's attention?
16 A. He stated that to me?
O 17 Q. Yes.
) 18 A. As I recall, he used those words.in reference 19 to his discussion with Roy Zimmerman.
10 i 20 This is over eight months ago.
21 Q. Do you remember, after Mr. Thompson i
22 explained to you the problems he believed he was.
- O 23 facing, saying that it sounds like APS was scraping.
24 off the bottom, a statement referring to-the harassment
- g 25 of Mr. Thompson, by bringing stale charges against 26 Mr. Thompson?
lO PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES-i
.. -.-....-,.-_.s.,
1 MR. .HAYDENt- Objection. I<think?that's a.
'2. compound question.. I want'to make sure.I understand 3 .the. quote, " scraping off the-bottom." Are you asking g
.4~ the witness if that's his: comment, or whether-5 Mr. Thompson made that comment? I'm unclear.
'() : 6 MR. KOHN: 'I'm asking if the witness made <
7 that comment.
^
8 THE WITNESS: -Best.of my recollection, I C) don't' recall too much about this. telephone call.- I 9
10 -did get'a-call several months ago'from Mr.: Thompson. ,
11 He discussed having-contacted.Roy.Zimmerman.
O 12 And I really can't-recall where specific 13 . pieces of information came from, whetheriit came from 14 Mr. zimmerman or Mr. Thompson. .
C) 15 MR. KOHN:- Q. During this'-- what we're 16 referring to as the February 10th conversation -- do O 17 you remember if you put Mr. Thompson-in touch with 18 Ron Meeks?
19 A. Yes, I did. .
O 20 Q. Were you present when Mr. Meeks spoke with ;
21 Mr. Thompson?
22 A. Pardon me?
23 Q. Were you present when Mr. Meeks spoke with 24 Mr. Thompson?
25 A. No, I was not.
()
26 Q. Did you have any conversations with Mr. Meeks O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O: 17 1 after completing your: conversation.with Mr.? Thompson?
2; A. No,.none at all.
3 Q. Who is Mr. Meeks?-
O' 4 A.- Mr.-Meeks works for.the -- what we call "OI ,"'
5 Office of Investigations ---
O 6! Q. Does he work out of this office?
7 JL. -- which supports Region V.
8 The OI field offices are assigned;to-Ci 9 headquarters NRC, and.they're detailad:for duty with-10 each of the' regions. .
11 Q. Is Mr. Meeks assigned out of1this office?
O 12 A. He's assigned to the OI field office which 13 supports Region V, located in the next building to-14 this building.
C) 15 Q. Is your office near by Mr. Meeks' office?
16 A. No. It's a completely'different building.
O 17 Q. old you talk to Mr. zimmerman about his 18 contact with Mr. Thompson?
19 A. I talk, normally on a weekly basis a few O
20 times, with Roy Zimmerman about all matters that 21 relate to security. And Mr. Thompson's name has been 22 discussed.
O 23 MR. MULLINS: As a matter of clarification on 24 the location of OI, if I am not mistaken - and O 25 again, I'm not on the record or sworn:in -- but the 26 normal practice-is for the Office of Investigations O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
,m - . __ . . . . .= . .- . - . - . . . . . . - _ . . _ - _ _
l' 'to-bo loca6ed physically in.the same area with the
. 2 regional offices, but.their control is out of-3 hesdquarters~in Washington..
- O b 4 So, ' I mean, there's'no' administrative control.
5- of the OI inspectors here by the regional" managers i
!() 6 here. Is that correct?
I l 7 THE WITNESS:- That's correct. ,
8 MR. MULLINS: I apologize for asserting 3' 9 myself, but=I believe, for a matter.of clarification, i-i 10 that might be helpful, i 11 MR. KOHN: I thank you.
!O j 12 Q. Do you remember, during the February 10th i
l 13 conversation with Mr. Thompson, telling Mr. Thompson ;
y 14 that APS's action towards Mr. Thompson wasia-bunch-j 15 of horse shit?
! 16 A. No. I don't use that-terminology'. Best of j !
!O 17 my recollection, I don't recall that.
I 18 Q. To the best of your recollection, can you i
19 describe the conversations you had with Mr..Zimmerman
!O
- 20 concerning Mr. Thompson?
l 21 A. I don't recall specific dates. Roy Zimmerman
! 22 has contacted both myself and my supervisor, Doug iO
- 23 schuster, on a few occasions, normally describing-a 24 conversation that Zimmerman had with Blaine Thompson.
O 25 Q. Are you aware of any of the complaints that
[ 26 Mr. Thompson raised to the NRC regarding security
!O PATRICIA CALLAHAN E. ASSOCIATES a
D 19 1 violations et APS, or_any other heclth or snfety 2 violations at APS?
-s 3 A. I don't understand the question.
.V 4 Q. Do you have personal knowledge of any 5 concerns Mr. Thompson raised to the NRC concerning O' 6 security, or health and safety violations?
7 A. I don't recall any. At the moment, I can't 8 recall any specific complaints concerning violations O'
9 that NRC would be interested in.
10 Q. Do you recall an incident concerning a camera 11 pole, made in the early part of 1985 -- let me give O
12 you a little more information -- regarding the 13 possibility of someone climbing a camera pole, and g 14 then jumping over the detection equipment zones?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you recall who brought that to your O 17 attention?
18 A. Not specifically. Throughout a normal 19 inspection, I make contact with quite a few people at O
20 all different levels, inside the security organization, 21 outside the security organization, reviewing records, 22 and interviewing people. That item was identified g
23 during a previous security inspection.
24 Q. I'll call the witness' attention to Document O 25 1401, and in particular, Page 6 of the enforcement 26 history.
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
20 0- .1 A. Page 6 of --
2 Q. The enforcement history. I call your 3 attention to the bottom entries, the fourth column, O
4 beginning, " Level 4 violations against Unit 1, infthat 5 after the licensee determined through testing that a O 6 portion of the parameter XI comments was in adequate, 7 no' measure to compensate for this deficiency was 8 taken," do you know if this comment is, in fact, O 9 referring to the camera pole incident?
10 A. Yes, it is. This is a closed issue.
11 At the time it was observed, it was a current O
12 issue. This has been corrected, so it's no longer a 13 deficiency. At the time, it met the criteria for 14 being the basis for two separate violations..
O 15 Q. It's stating here, " Level 4 violation and 16 Level 5 violation." Could you explain the different O 17 levels of violation?
18 A. NRC has established five levels, with Level-1 19 being the most severe, and Level 5 being-the least O
20 severe.
21 Q. Are there terms associated with each level, 22 such as Level 1 being extreme, Level 2 --
0 23 A. No, they normally lump Levels 1, 2, and 3 24 into what they call escalated enforcement actions.
25 Level 4 and 5 really don't have a term by themselves.
O 26 Q. Is it true that the escalated level O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
, . . ~. _
Ot -
. - 21 ,
- 1 violations usually11ncur a fino against the utility?
2 A. A fine is considered. It'doesn't necessarily 3 always hold true_that you have have to_have -- you O.
4 don't to have a fine,.but'it is considered.
5 It's also possible to have a fine associated O 6 with a Level 4, to the best_of my understanding,LifD.
, 7 it's a repeat or continued problem or violation, as I
j 8 documented.
!O 9 However, I might add, you very rarelyLsee any:
10 fine associated with Levels 4 and 5. Normally,
- 11 they're reserved for Levels 1, 2, and 3.
10 12 Q. Are you aware of security systems computer 13 failures at Palo Verde?
!O 14 A. Yes, as reported to us.
i 15 Q. Are you aware whether or not Mr. Thompson t
16 brought any of those concerns to the NRC's attention?
C) 17 A. We've received numerous security event 18 reports submitted by the Palo Verde -- what we call :
19 "the licensee," under the provisions of 20-CFR73.71C, ,
O 20 which is a requirement to submit.these reports.
21 -Q. Are you aware whether or not Mr. Thompson 22 complained about fatigue of security officers at Palo 23 Verde due to under staffing?
24 A. In the several trips I've had there, I've O 25 received a few complaints from different people.
26 Perhaps there could have been one from Mr. Thompson.
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
- 7) 22 1 It's very poccible. H3 wuc in a position to so 2 state. He seemed to know his personnel, and was not 3 hesitant to answer my questione.
4 Q. How many inspections, roughly, have you 5 performed at Palo Verde?
O 6 A. Approximately one dozen.
7 Q. Of the one dozen inspections you performed at 8 Palo Verde, on how many of those did you have a 9 chance to observe Mr. Thompson?
10 A. I encountered Blaine Thompson on several 11 inspections. I don't recall specifically.
O 12 Q. During your inspections, did anyone complain 13 to you about Mr. Thompson's performance?
O 14 A. I d n't recall ever having received any 15 complaints, no.
16 Q. Did anyone ever complain to you about any O 17 other captain's performance?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did anyone ever complain to you about O
20 Mr. Nelson's or Mr. Crowell's performance?
21 A. People would express their opinions. I would 22 li*t*"'
O 23 Q. Did people express negative opinions about 24 Mr. Nelson?
-(D 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. Did people other than Mr. Thompson express O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O 23 1 negativo opinions cbout Mr. Nelson?
2 A. Yes.
, 3 MR. HAYDEN: Just a slight clarification or x
4 an objection. There's no foundation there. The 5 witness never said they came from Mr. Thompson. I
.O 6 think it's a reasonable assumption, but there's no 7 foundation that he was the source of that.
8 THE WITNESS: My normal experience is, people 9 that are in a level of management can't please 10 everybody. And there's always somebody that's going 11 to complain about something that they do.
O 12 MR. KOHN: Q. Did you receive a complaint 13 about Mr. Nelson during all of your trips, your g 14 inspection trips?
15 A. No; no.
16 Q. During how many of the inspection trips did O 17 you receive complaints about Mr. Nelson? Just a 18 ballpark figure.
19 A. I've been there approximately one dozen times --
.O 20 perhaps 25 percent of the time; three trips, in that 21 random.
22 I think it's important to explain, we have 23 several different areas that we inspect, one of which 24 is titled " Security Organization." And in completing g 25 that inspection, modular procedure, we normally do 26 more interviews of people than we would at other O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
q 24- I
~
l timas. Any complainto, or pro or con stetcmante 2 about other people, normally only come out during
,, 3 these interviews.
U 4 Q. And how many such interviews did you conduct?
5 A. Numerous.
O 6 Q. More than three?
7 A. In one inspection, I met personally with the 8 entire security force that was available for duty, n
9 all six shifts, asked a couple of general questions 10 which, by show of hands, they would answer them.
11 They could be called an interview of sorts.
O 12 Q. Have you ever received any complaints about 13 Mr. Crowell?
g 14 A. No.
15 Q. Have you ever received any complaints from 16 Mr. Thompson regarding alleged use of illegal drugs O 17 by APS employees, security employees?
18 A. A few weeks ago, I had a need to call Blaine 19 at his office in Phoenix.
O 20 Q. And what was discussed during that 21 conversation?
22 A. I discussed a letter which he had sent to 23 Mr. Nelson. Somehow, this letter was interjected 24 into Region V, and it was passed to me to get some O 25 questions answered.
26 Mr. Thompson had used the words, " illegal, O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
13- .
25 1 . mind-altering-drugs," and rolcted thoca_to employees
~2 at:Palo Verde. When I talked to him, I was-concerned
.3 primarily~with'the time frame thatLhe had.related to, ;
)-
l
- 4 and the people by name he had'related to. q f
4 5 Q.- Iha you know 'whether or - not Mr.-Thompson ever jo 6 requested confidentiality from thefNRC?
7 A. Not from me, he didn't.
j 8' Q. Are there any NRC regulations regarding.
ig.
! 9 security employees' abilityLto take polygraph 1
j 10 ~ examinations?
l 11 A.- I'm sorry, any NRC regulations --
10 12 Q. That require security people to be capable of.
l
) 13 being administered a polygraph examination?
i
!O 14 A. No.
l 15 Q. Hypothetically, if an employee in the l 16 security department of a licensee was on medication-1 lO 17 that its sole effect was to affect the licensee's i
I i 18 ability to be polygraphed, would there be any grounds
]
19 under NRC regulation to transfer'or terminate that
- O l 20 employee?
- 21 A. To affect the licensee's ability to be
! 22 polygraphed? :
- O l
l 23 Q. No. Let me try the question over. l
- I I
j 24 If an individual is on a prescription
- () 25 medication, and that prescription has no adverse side-J l 26 effects regarding his abilities to perform his duty, l
l K) PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
-). 26 1 but the only advares sido effect would b3 tho 2 capability of producing valid polygraph exam results, 3 is there any NRC regulation requiring that-that 4 employee be transferred or taken out of the security 5 department?
O 6 A. I don't know of any.
7 Q. During your investigations, do you check 8 medical records of security employees?
O 9 A. I have, yes.
10 Q. On any occasion, have you ever checked to see 11 what legal medication, prescription medication,
- O 12 employees were on?
13 A. No. I have no need.
14 Q. y u know of any investigation of the NRC O
15 where prescription medication was ever checked by NRC 16 employees at a nuclear licensed facility?
- O 17 A. I personally don't have any knowledge.
18 If it hasn't already been brought out, the OI --
19 Office of Investigations -- conducts investigations.
'O 20 The remaining personnel in Region V, from a security 21 standpoint, conduct inspections.
22 Q. I'm showing the witness an item which is 23 marked in the right-hand corner, " Plaintiff's Exhibit 24 106." Could you read that, please?
- O 25 A. "On December 9, 1985, Dennis Schaeffer" --
26 spelled with two "f's" -- "of the NRC telephoned me
- O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
g 27.
1 and mada inquiries about the Wylie/Cox invostigotion.
-2 He said the NRC was concerned about this incident and
.3 wanted-to know if anything else had occurred. I told
)-
4 him" - "I" being Norm O'Connor -- "I told him of a 5 most recent event regarding Cox's arcadia door being
- () 6 shot out on December ~7, 1985. He indicated this 7 situation disturbed him very much and said the NRC j 8 would be taking a close look at it."
O 9 Q. Do you recall that conversation?
10 A. I recall talking to Norm O'Connor about this 11 event, and he related that fact to me, yes.
!O 12 Q. Is there anything in that statement that you 13 believe to be inaccurate?
1 14 A' Y'8*
0
! 15 Q. What would that be?
16 A. His interpretation of the fact that this I
!O 17 disturbed me very much. Best of my recollection, he 18 indicated, "Yes, this incident was under 19 investigation." That was the best I recall, the 20 reason why I was talking to him, to begin with.
21 And then he added that the most recent event
- 22 was as stated here.
'O 23 Q. Prior to --
24 A. I said words to the effect of, "Hmm, that's g 25 interesting."
26 Q. Prior to this December 9th, 1985, O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
1 convercation, do you rccc11 having cny prcviouc 2 conversations with any employee at Palo Verde
- 3 concerning the Wylie/Cox incident?
-O 4 A. I had talked, best-I can recall, to Roy 5 Zimmerman, resident inspector, NRC, stationed at Palo
?O 6 Verde, about this event.
7 Q. Did you speak to Mr. Thompson about this 8 event?
O 9 A. I don't believe I did. But I would not have 10 been-reluctant to speak to him about it. If I did, I 11 don't recall right now.
- O 12 Q. You stated that you believe this statement 13 that the situation disturbed you very much was 14 ina urate. Is that correct?
O 15 A. Yes.
i 16 Q. Do you have any reason or independent
- O 17 knowledge to understand why Mr. O'Connor would make l
18 such an inaccurate statement?
1 19 A. No. Evidently, he misinterpreted my reaction O
20 to what he had stated.
I 21 MR. HAYDEN: For clarification, I don't think
, 22 we've marked this; and yet, it's marked as 23 Plaintiff's Exhibit 106. What does that refer to?
24 MS. PAYNE: That's our own numbering system
- O 25 for our documents.
26 MR. HAYDEN: That's an internal designation?
4
- O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
__-. _ . _ . _ _ .. _ _ _ -~ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ - ---
o 29 1" MR. KOHN Yoc.
2 Why don't we mark this Complainant's 3 Exhibit 2 for this deposition.
g) u 4 (WHEREUPON, A XEROX COPY OF A ONE-PAGE DOCUMENT, BEGINNING "ON 5 DECEMBER 9, 1985," WAS MARKED AS COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 2 FOR O. 6 IDENTIFICATION.)
7 MR. KOHN: Q. Mr. Schaefer, did you read 8 the February 26th, 1986, article attached to, I lO 9 believe, BT-90l?
10 A. I'm looking for it.
11 Q. It should be the last attachment of that iO 12 exhibit.
13 Have you seen this article before?
14 A. Yes, I have.
z) 15 Q. Do you remember the first time you saw it?
16 A. Pardon me?
- O 17 Q. Do you remember the first time you saw it?
18 A. No. Well, not specifically. It was attached 19 to a routing slip in the Safeguards Section. It was
.10 20 an administrative routing slip to route it to all the 21 security inspectors.
22 Q. So, all the security inspectors were made 23 aware of this article?
i 24 A. Yes.
i 0 25 Q. Were there any comments attached to that 26 routing slip?
- O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
1 A. No. Juct -- our nemos were maroly checked 2 off, little check next to our name. That's all.
3 Q. Were you aware of a conversation that
.O 4 transpired on. February 25th between the reporter of 2
5 this article, Mr. Staggs, and Mr. Montgomery,
.O 6 Mr. Cook, and Mr. Schuster?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did anyone at NRC ever discuss with you the O 9 possible release of Safeguards Information at Palo 10 Verde?
11 A. No.
- O 12' O. Did anyone at APS ever discuss with you the 13 possible release of Safeguards Information at Palo 14 Vd*?
=O 15 A. I understand that corporate security had 16 possibly -- and still does have -- an ongoing
'O 17 investigation into this incident. I asked 18 Frank Crowell, at one time, the status. And he 19 indicated it was still open. This was several months
- O 20 ago.
21 But I haven't discussed anything more than 22 that on this issue.
.O 23 Q. Did you provide anyone at APS any opinion or
]
24 information of any sort concerning the truth or 25 veracity of the fact that Mr. Staggs may have been in
'O 26 possession of Safeguards Information?
I) PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
31 7)
.1 A. No. .Nothing. I've not baan involved in that 2 issue at all.
3 Q. Do you know who, at the NRC, has been 4 involved or is involved with that issue?
5 A. I haven't been with anybody when they were
_() 6 involved.
7 Q. Did this February 26 article disturb you, in 8 any way, when you read it?
.O 9 A. Well, let me review it real quick.
10 Q. Let me modify the question. Did it disturb
(
11 you, in any way, concerning the release of Safeguards
'O 12 Information?
13 (Witness examining.)
14 MR. KOHN: Off the record'for a second.
z) 15 (Whereupon, there was a discussion off the 16 record.)
O 17 MR. KoHN: Back on the record.
18 Q. Can you answer that question now?
1 19 A. Could you repeat the question? I'm sorry.
- 'O 20 MR. MULLINS: Would the reporter read back i
21 the question?
l 22 (Whereupon, the record was read by the 23 reporter.)
l 24 THE WITNESS: I cannot relate to this article 1
!g 25 at all. Personally, I was not involved in this I 26 allegation, and I'm still not personally involved in O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES 2 1
4 ~
O 32 1 the cliogation.
2 MR. KOHN: Q. Is there anything in this 3 article that would make you think, in any way, that
. O 4 Safeguards Information was released to Mr. Staggs?<
5 A. No. >
The article states that, "The Palo Verde
O 6 Q. l5 l 7 Nuclear Generating Station was branded 'the worst in 8 the region.'" Are you familiar with who made'that O 9 statement? Do you know anything about that 10 statement?
11 A. In the article here, it states that --
- Q 12 Q. In the first paragraph.
13 A. -- this may have been discussed at the exit 14 meeting on February 14.
)
15 Q. Do you believe, on February 14th, that this 16 statement was true?
lO 17 MR. HAYDEN: I'd like some clarification to I ,,
18 make sure I understand the question. Are you asking 19 him whether it's his recollection whether the
'O 20 statement was made, or asking him, in his opinion, 21 whether the statement is true?
22 MR. KOHN: I'm asking, in his opinion, is the l 0 l 23 statement true.
24 MR. HAYDEN: Very good.
l
- O 25 THE WITNESS
- I'm having trouble -- I didn't 26 make the statement. I don't make comparisons like )
- O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
Q 33 1 this. Not that I rem;mbsr.
2 MR. KOHN: Q. If you were asked to 3 determine which nuclear generating station in vn 4 Region V was the worst in the region, and you could 5 only give one, which one would you choose?
- O 6 MR. MULLINS:- In matters of security?
7 MR. KOHN: Q. In matters of security.
8 A. -There's so many factors that enter into it.
.O 9 Q. What are the factors that enter into a 10 determination of determining which generating station 11 would be the worst in the world?
- O 12 MR. HAYDEN: Is that, "in the world," now?
13 MR. KOHN: Excuse me --
!O 14 MR. HAYDEN: Can we agree on Chernobyl for 15 "the world"?
l 16 MR. itULLINS: We'll agree to that.
O 17 Let's stick to the region.
18 MR. HAYDEN: For the record, I'd like to make 19 an objection, that the witness has already said he
'O ,
20 doesn't make such comparisons. And I know you're 21 asking him to do it notwithstanding that. But I'll 22 object that the question has been asked and answered.
23 MR. MULLINS: If you'd care to make a 24 generalization, do so. If you don't care to make
- O 25 one, say you don't care to.
26 THE WITNESS: I don't care to. It's not O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES l
1 ecnething wo defin the normel course of.businssa.
2, MR. KOHN: Q. Does the statement branding 3 a nuclear generating station the worst in the. region 4 in any way impact on Safeguards Information? Can 5 that statement in'any way be' considered Safeguards O 6 Information? 4 7 A. No.
8 Q. Do you know who made "the worst in the O 9 region" comment?
10 A. If I recall correctly, it was Doug Schuster.
11 Q. Could'you turn to BT-1401, please? On Page 2 O
12 of this exhibit, it's entitled, " Shortage of security-13 officers." Would you read this entire page to 14 yourself, please?
g 15 A. Mm-hmm.
16 Q. The last paragraph states, "Since the last O 17 SALP rating, which did not include the results of the 18 Unit 2 pre-operational security inspection, the 19 licensee has definitely slipped from-a Level 2_to a.
O 20 current rating of Level 3."
21 The level ratings we are speaking of here, 22 are they different than the, level ratings we spoke'of-23 earlier? Violations?
24 A. There's no similarity.
25 Q. Is a slip from Level 2, to a current _ rating of O
26 Level 3, a slip for the worst?
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN sr ' ASSOCIATES'
l C 35 f i
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. How many levels are there?
3 A. Three.
- O 4 Q. Then --
5 A. With 1 being the highest, and 3 being the O 6 lowest.
7 Q. Then, according to this document, Palo Verde 8 has the worst security level rating of any -- or equal O 9 to any plant in Region V?
10 A. No. There are other plants that have 11 Levels 1, 2, and 3.
iO 4 12 Q. Do any plants have a lower rating than 13 Level 3?
14 A. No. 3 is the lowest rating, and 1 is the O
15 highest.
16 Q. This report is dated April 18, 1986. Is
.O 17 there anything that you have knowledge of_to consider 18 changing Palo Verde's rating from Level 37 19 MR. MULLINS: Are yau asking him if Palo
- O
. 20 verde's level has subsequently been changed?
21 MR. KOHN: Yes.
22 MR. MULLINS: To your knowledge.
-O 23 THE WITNESS: What this paragraph states is 24 that the last rating Palo Verde received was a g 25 Level 2. This paper was used for. settlement 26 information at the enforcement conference that was
[(3 PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
1- hold shortly thoroafter.
I 2 There's been'no official SALP report since- ,
- 3 the last level rating of 2, but I was indicating to
- O !
4 the reader -- in this case, the regional V
5 administrator -- that, as of'the date of this i t
lO 6 document, that the licensee had slipped from a 7 Level 2 to what I felt was a current rating of Level 3 at the time of the enforcement conference,. I
, 8 1
!O 9 understanding that the last official rating was 2, l: 10 and still is 2.
't j 11 Q. .Is there anything that'has' transpired at Palo , i
^
O ;
12 Verde, since the creation of'this document, which '
~!
13 would change your assessment that the power 14 9'"*ti"9 ***ti " 18 *till ** * """ '"" ****"9 f'
- O 15 Level 3?
16 A. No. Let me say, again, the last official.
lO 17 report shows Palo Verde at Level 2.- f i
18 Q. Your assessment, as of April 18,.1986, was '
l 19 that it, in fact, should it be rated again, would be -!
4
!O 20 rated at Level 3. Is that correct? j 21 A. Personally, if it had been rated as~of
~
22 April 18th, I felt that my recommendation would have lO 23 been Level 3, yes. :
24 Q. Is there anything that has happened since-1 O_ 25 April 18, 1986, to change your opinion about-that? ;
1 l 26 A. No.
4 O _
PA'2RICI A CALLAHAN _ & - ASSOCI ATES .
'O- 37 1 Q. You atate that the shortage of security 2 officers has been identified during four separate
- g 3 inspections, one in August of '84, one in October 4 '84, one in October ' 85, one in November '85.- Is 5 there anything that has happened subsequent to those iO 6 inspections to remedy this situation?
7 u A. During most of these inspection dates, the H
8 unit was in a -- what we call a " pre-operational
- O-9 inspection mode," where they were trying to get a 10 unit ready for inspection so they could demonstrate 11 to us that they could perform the required -- they 12 could meet ~ the commitments of'their security plan.
13 As in every unit that's going through these ,
lg 14 pre-operational inspections, it takes more people 15 initially to be able to demonstrate to NRC that they 16 can meet these commitments.
O 17 For example, a group of doors hasn't received 18 the appropriate hardware, it's been delayed somewhere 19 in the mailing system or the supply system, they're
.0-20 required to meet the commitments of the plan to post 21 a person or take some sort of compensatory measures 22 to ensure an equal degree of security. This normally
- O
- 3 has taken more people to do this.
24 Q. Are you aware of a staffing study conducted
- O- 25 by APS employees, including Mr. Thompson, Mr. Nelson, 26 and Mr. Deblo, to determine the number of additional O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES 9- T u-'~ --e- r" Ww g m **Cr 7 '
1 personnel needed to staff c security depcrtmant?
2 A. No. I've'not seen the study.
3 Q. Are you aware of any additional employees 4 being hired in the security department since December. ,
5 of 19847
!O 6 A. I'm sure they've had a turnover of people.
7 People have left, and new people have been hired.
8 Q. An increased number.of employees in the 9 security department?
10 A. No.
11 Q. If the' plan was pre-operational and fully O
12 operational, and the security computer was shut down, 13 would it require the same amount of staffing to_make 14 up for the loss of the computer, regardless of
)
15 whether the plan was pre-operational or fully 16 operational?
O 17 A. The difference between pre-operational and 18 fully operational -- it's one and the same for our-19 inspection purposes, because during' pre-operational 20 20 inspection, they're trying to demonstrate that they 21 can meet all the commitments in the security plan 22 which will be in effect totally, once the license is 4 40 i 23 issued. j l
24 MR. KOHN: Why don't we take a short break I 1
I
- g 25 right now..
.1 26 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) l l
- 0_' PATRICIA CALLAHAN &. ASSOCIATES q l
1 MR. KOHN: Back on the record.
2 Q. Mr. Schaefer, in your opinion, is 3 Mr. Thompson a qualified captain of security?
4 A. I have no reason to' feel that he's 5 unqualified.
- O' 6 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that 7 Mr. Thompson is now incapable, or would be anything 8 other than a good captain?
O 9 A. Again, no personal knowledge to indicate that 10 he would be incapable.
11 Q. When did you first learn that Mr. Thompson
- O 12 was being transferred from his position of captain of 13 security?
14 A. It was a few m nths back. I can't recall the
'O 15 specific date.
16 Q. Do you remember --
O 17 A. I believe it was Roy Zimmerman that had 18 mentioned it in some of our conversations.
19 Q. Do you remember what Roy Zimmerman stated
- O 20 about that?
21 A. No. Not specifically.
22 Q. Were you surprised to hear that Mr. Thompson 23 was being transferred? l 24 A. I wasn't aware of what was happening out g 25 there. Yeah, I was surprised.
26 Q. Do you believe that transferring Mr. Thompson
- O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES l
1 at a tims when Palo Verde was short of personnel 2 exacerbated the personnel situation?
3 A. I don't really have any opinion, either way.
4 It was an internal management decision.
5 Q. Do you know if Mr. Thompson has been replaced
-() 6 at APS?
7 A. I understand there's an acting captain. I 8 don't recall the name -- or acting supervisor. I O 9 don't know what rank he is.
10 Q. Are you aware of any_ polygraphs being 11 utilized by APS concerning drugs in the last two or
- O 12 three years?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you know what situations these polygraphs O
15 were used for?
16 A. I understand they were used for the O 17 pre-screening of employment applicants.
18 Q. Is that the only reason they were used?
19 A. That's the only knowledge I have; that they O
20 were used for the screening of applicants.
21 Q. After someone passed the initial polygraph 22 examination and they were hired by APS, are you aware 23 if any employees were administered polygraph examinations 24 after that fact?
O 25 A. No. Not personally.
26 Q. Are you aware of any breaches of Safeguards 33 PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES I
!O 41 1 Information to.the press at Palo Vordo?
2 A. No.
3 Q. I.take it you're not aware of any NRC actions g
4 concerning that; the possibility of leaked Safeguards 5 Information.
- O 6 A. No, I'm not aware of this issue that's being 7 raised here at all. I personally don't have any 8 knowledge. I've not been involved in any
=O 9 conversations.
10 Q. Are you aware of a burglary that occurred on 11 January 9, 1980, at Palo Verde?
"O 12 A. No.
13 Q. I'm going to show the witness two newspaper
- g 14 articles to see if this will refresh his 15 recollection. You can take your time and look 16 through that, and see if that in any way refreshes
- O 17 your recollection.
18 A. No, I don't -- I've never-seen these 19 articles. I've never even heard of this event.
'O 20 Q. Did you receive any complaints by any 21 employees at Palo Verde concerning the useoof lie 22 detector exams?
23 A. Any complaints?
24 Q. Yes, regarding_the chilling effect such jo 25 examinations might have?
26 A. No.
5)~ PATRICIA CALLAHAN'& ASSOCIATES
42
'O 1- Q. I will call your' attention back to your 2 ~ earlier testimony concerning the camera pole 3 incident. Do you recall if that was brought to your 4 attention by having a member of security climb up the 5 pole and jump over the security area?
'O 6 A. No.
7 MR. MULLINS: It wasn't true, or'you don't -
8 recall?
O 9 THE WITNESS: That was not brought to my 10 attention by that manner, by having a security 11 officer climb the pole and --
- O 12 MR. KOHN: Q. Are you aware of any written
- 13 memoranda placed in APS's files concerning this
!g 14 incident?
15 A. Yes.
1 16 Q. Should that incident have been_ brought to the.
- O 17 NRC's attention, rather than merely placing a memo in
- 18 the file?
19 A. Yes.
40 20 Q. Was it brought to the NRC's attention at-the 9
21 time the memo was placed_in the file?
22 A. No.
- O l
23 Q. How did you learn about the memo?
24 A. Through review of files, I-believe. There l() 25 was a memo which was -- which described the 26 deficiency.
- O PATRICIA CALLAHAN &' ASSOCIATES g :,,. e n - g -
, , nu , -v ee-r-, s . -,wat -, - - w - - , . ,
10'- 43
.1- Q. Was immediate . corrective : measures ordered 'lar
- l. 2- the NRC after. realizing.the violation of the camera 1
3 pole?
(3 -
4- A. No.
5 MR..HAYDEN: Objection. I don't'believe-the 1
- O -6 witness has testified that it was a violation. I
$ 7 think the word he used was-" deficiency." If I'm in 8 error, he can correct me. Maybe there's no i
'O 9 distinction between " violation" and " deficiency."
4 10 Do you recall his question?' It a'ssumed-that 11 the incident was a violation. And then you answered --
20 12 THE WITNESS: Well,'I previously testified
- 13 that this resulted in two separate violations.
14 MR. HAYDEN: Okay. .
l0 4
15 THE WITNESS: That'was pointed out in the d
16 inspection report. ,
PO 17 MR. HAYDEN: I think that-clarifies it.
i 18 MR. KOHN: Mr. Hayden, do you have some
, 19 questions? ,
!O
- 20 t 21 EXAMINATION BY MR. HAYDEN i
22 MR. HAYDEN: Q. Mr. Schaefer I misspoke-
- O 23 when we started out. I came in here andLsaid that--I'.
i 24- don't have any questions. It's of no significance,
~
!O 25 but-I'd like to correct the record. I'd like to draw 26 your attention to what we've now labeled as BT-1101.-
l i
jO PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES'
CI 44 y 3, 'Okay.
2 Q. That is an_ Internal Nuclear Regulatory 3 Commission document, dated April 3rd, 1986, and 0
4 references a meeting with the licensee APS, 5 apparently referring to a meeting that was held on O 6 April 10th -- or apparently, now that I look at those 7 dates, to be held on April 10th, 1986. Am I reading 8 that correctly?
O The meeting was, as I recall, held on 9 A. Yes.
10 April 10th at 11:00 a.m.
11 Q. I'm asking you this question because I 12 notice you're among the list of NRC attendees.
13 A. Right.
g 14 Q. That's correct?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. I also notice there, it would appear to list O 17 me as one of the licensee attendees.
18 And my question to you is, did I attend that 19 meeting? Have you ever seen me before? I assume I'm
'O 20 probably "W. Hayden, Project Counsel." Is that 21 correct?
22 A. I've never noticed that.
23 Q. I just want the record clear. Have you ever 24 seen me before today?
O 25 A. No.
26 Q. And to the best of your recollection, I O PATRICIA.CALLAHAN'& ASSOCIATES
O- 45
'l wasn't at_that meeting then.
2 A. That's' true.
g_ 3 Q. It came as a shocker last night when I hit-4 that one.
5 Hypothetical question of you, going back to O 6 an earlier question. Assume the following facts. It 7 doesn' t relate to an actual: event. It's a 8 hypothetical. That a licensee's site physician 9' advises management of the. licensee that a member of 10 the security force has had his fitness for duty 11' adversely affected as a result of being_under 12 prescribed medication.
13 In your judgment, would it.be appropriate for O 14. the licensee to take~some action as a resultfof being 15 so advised by the site physician, such as a temporary 16 re-assignment, while the security individual-is under O 17 that medical treatment?
18 Do you understand the question?
19 A. Yes. Based on a medical report? j O
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. I-'would see nothing wrong with that.
22 Q. W uld y u expe t a li ensee t d .s mething O
23 if it were advised by the site physician that a 24 member of the security force had his fitness for duty-0 25 adversely affected as a result of.some medication he 26 was under? Is that something you would expect?
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN'& ASSOCIATES
'O . _
46 1 A. It would be normal for a licensee to do that.
2 Q. Let me try to ask it another way. If the
- 3 licensee simply ignored that, totally disregarded the
- O 4 advice that the fitness for duty had been adversely 5 affected, would that.cause you some reason for 10 6 concern?
7 A. Yes. We would pursue that.
8 -Q. I now want to redirect your-attention to 9 what's been marked as Exhibit 21to your deposition.
10 Do you recall discussing that previously?
11 A. Yes, I do.
- O i
12 MR. HAYDEN: Off the record.
13 (Whereupon, there was a discussion off the 14 record.)
]O i 15 MR. HAYDEN: Back on the record.
i 16 I want to focus your attention on this O 17 exhibit.- To lay the foundation for my question, it 18 is after this discussion that you apparently had with 19 Mr. O'Connor on December 9th, 1985, which you've 10 20 already testified to is not accurately' portrayed by 21 this document.
, .22 Was there any follow-up information supplied
<O.
23 to you by anyone in the APS organization regarding s
24 this alleged event?
1 1
0 25 A. We received.a report of the investigation 26 from APS. l l
0 PATRICIA CALLAHAN 4 ASSOCIATES
~
47 ID.
i 1 Q. . Do I understand' correctly, from my own review 2 of that-report, that the: description here of'an 3 arcadia door being shot 1outL-- it turned out, as a
- O 4 - result of the investigation done by the local law 5- enforcement authorities, to be a B-B.or pellet? 'Do j(j 6 you have any-knowledge of that?
7 A. That's my understanding,_ right.-
8 Q. As a result of any and-all follow-up
!O 9 information that you were provided, do you know if 1-10 this. incident was resolved to your satisfaction?
11 A. Which incident?
- O 12 Q. Well, I guess the incident that is discussed 13 in this memorandum.
r 14 A. NRC still has an ongoing inquiryfinto this.-
Q) l 15 Q. Mr. Schaefer, I sort of hate to do this to 16 you -- we've avoided it over the last 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> -- but
- O 17 in these depositions, counsel for Mr. Thompra' has i
- 18 delicately avoided asking what the background facts i 19 are about what everyone just refers as to the (O
, 20 Cox/Wylie incident.
21 I'm afraid that you, being the:last-22 deposition scheduled for this week, I'm going to ask l0 23 you. And I recognize there's an ongoing-1
] 24 investigation, so I'm not asking the specifics of the.
lg 25 investigation.
26 I'm asking you, can you relay.for us, in
[
i
- O PATRICIA'CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES' w- D'-Wp=&*- W '- '
? ee- 1 v g g y um v -Mw p =,em,- >..-r4- g g g y p y t-----yta 9-w e y 7-7p *--*p*9+794
- J vt$3-
i 48 43
1 general terms, what the essential background facts 2- were that have given rise-'to what is apparently
'3 referred to as the-Cox/Wylie event or incident?
g 4 MR. MULLINS: Can we go off the. record for 30-5 seconds?
40 6 MR. HAYDEN: Sure.
7 (Whereupon, Mr. Mullins and the witness left 8 the rocm for a short period of time.)
9 MR. MULLINS: Back on the' record.
10 Mr. Schaefer and I have discussed this, and-I-11 have advised him.that the details of that, we are too
.0-12 inextricably bound up in an ongoing investigation 13 conducted not only by him, but I believe also by the z) 14 Office of Investigations, to where the information is 15 privileged information. And I recommended that he not 16 answer the question.
- O 17 MR. HAYDEN: Let me just understand -- and 18 that's fine with me. You don't want him to at all go 19 into what gave rise to what we're calling the JO 20 Cox/Wylie event or incident.
21 MR. MULLINS: That's correct.
22 MR. HAYDEN: There will be plenty of
,O 23 testimony next week on it. No problem.
24 MR. MULLINS: That's their problem. That's
- O 25 fine.
26 MR. HAYDEN: It's unfortunate for the court O PATRICIA CALLAHAN &' ASSOCIATES
16: :49 :
1 reporter.
2 MR. MULLINS: I. suspect-so,-yes.
4 3- MR. HAYDEN: Q. Mr..Schaefer, do I O.
- 4 understand your earlier testimony that, as a. unit-
^
~5 goes from the pre-operational stage into the full iO- 6 operational stage, that the licensee could actually 7 have fewer or a smaller security force, and yet still' 8 meet'its commitments under its security plan?-
10 What we've seen as units in a pre-operational 9 A.
[ 10 mode normally have additionalLsecurity posts, more ,
11 than they would have once they reach an operational
- O 12 method.
13 Q. Do I follow, then, that the answer to my jo- 14 question is "Yes," then?
15 I'll take his answer the way it is on the 1
- 16 record. That's what I wanted'to hear.
O 17 I've got no other questions.
I -1 18 MR. KOHN: I have.just a few more questions.
1
- 19 MR. MULLINS: One other thing as a way of
!O 20 additional explanation on my recommendation to my 21 client a moment ago. .
22 I'm sure everybody here is familiar with the lO l 23 Cox/Wylie incident. But as the record and the l~
f 24 transcript will be public record, I would prefer not
!O 25 to have any. compromise of-the ongoing investigation.
i 26 MR. HAYDEN: It's not a problem with me at-O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O. 50 1 all.
2 3- FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. KOHN g
4 MR. KOHN: Q. Mr. Schaefer, could you take 5 a look at BT-110l?
.O 6 A. Mm-hmm.
7 Q. Nowhere in this document does it indicate 8 that Mr. Schuster was an attendee at the exit.
9 interview. Is that correct?
10 A. This is a notice that's prepared in advance.
11 And I should have realized this before.
O 12 Your name was submitted as a possible 13 attendee. Mr. Schuster's name -- he was not-14 envisioned to attend the enforcement conference..
0 15 In actuality, one of these.other documents 16 will reflect the people that were actually in 0 17 attendance.
18 BT-1501 is a report of the enforcement 19 conference itself. This document reflects O
20 Mr. Schuster, from NRC, as being in attendance, 21 together with four other NRC employees.
22 MR. HAYDEN: And if I may note in the pause, 23 it also reflects my absence.
24 MR. KOHN: Well, we've solved that problem.
O 25 MR. HAYDEN: That' earth-shakingly important 26 matter.
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN &. ASSOCIATES 1
1 MR. KOHN Q. Would you be concerned if a 2 licensee failed to take action in a case where an 3 employee, particularly.an armed security employee, 4 was observed to engage in violent behavior, and the 5 licensee failed to take action on that incident?
(j 6 A. Armed security officer engaged in violent 7 behavior -- yes, that would be a matter of interest.
( 8 MR. KOHN: I think the only other thing I'm 1
lO 9 going to do now is introduce three documents into the 10 record. I think they were referred a lot during the 11 course of these proceedings.
O 12 I will ask the witness to identify these 13 documents, and whether or not he believes them to be g 14 authentic. They are, for the record, BT-801, BT-901, 15 and BT-1401.
l 16 Mr. Mullins, do you have extra copies of O 17 those three?
18 THE WITNESS: I don't see any problem with 19 801 or 901.
O 20 MR. MULLINS: Off the record for a second.
21 (Whereupon, there was a discussion off the 22 record.)
23 THE WITNESS: I don't see any problem with 24 .any of those three documents.
g 25 ///
26 ///
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O .
52 1 (WHEREUPON, A XEROX COPY OF AN ELEVEN-PAGE GROUP OF DOCUMENTS, 2 THE FIRST DOCUMENT ENTITLED
" LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT 3 FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE," WAS O MARKED AS COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT 4 NO. 3 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
5 (WHEREUPON, A XEROX COPY OF A NINE-PAGE GROUP OF DOCUMENTS, THE FIRST O 6 DOCUMENT BEING A MEMORANDUM FOR R. G. MARSH FROM M. D. SCHUSTER, WAS 7 MARKED AS COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 4 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
8 9 (WHEREUPON, A XEPOX COPY OF A TWELVE-PAGE GROUP OF DOCUMENTS, 10 THE FIRST DOCUMENT BEING A MEMORANDUM FOR PALO VERDE FILE 11 FROM D. SCHAEFER, WAS MARKED O AS COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT 12 NO. 5 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
13 (Whereupon, the deposition was concluded O 14 at 3:00 p.m.)
15 16 C) 17 1
18 SIGNATURE OF WITNESS l 19 o
20 ---oOo---
21 0
23 24 I O 25 26 O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
0: . 53 1 -STATE OF' CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
.2 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA _)
3 O
4 I, the undersigned, a' Notary Public of theLState.
S' of California, hereby certify that the witness in the O 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 14 and true record of said testimony;=and that the witness O
15 was given an opportunity to read and, if necessary, 16 correct said deposition and to subscribe the-same.
O 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-O -
1 interested in the outcome of the cause named in said 20
]
l 21 caption.
22 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand O
23 and affixed my seal this 17th day-of' October 1986.
24 3;;uo,,,,.,;,m;,;3,.c. ;,,a v , .a:m;micmi O 25 .,
.. wx I
C<5 [ '
-26 w@
Y' f / co u er u_A MDA [] NOTARY PUBL :C
! P6m>: E$a b.2.li38 fj STATE OF CALIFSRNIA imwmn: wm: m.nm :v . a::numdi O' PATRICIA CALLAHAN &' ASSOCIATES'
/ UNITED STATES
! 4't NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{0 ,$ REGION 'l 4 1450 MARM LANE ~,SulTE 210 4 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 4, * * * * * ,o#
NOV 101986 The following tabulates the corrections of the deposition I, Dennis Wilson Schaefer,
- made on October 10, 1986, at the office of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V,1450 Maria Iane, Walnut Creek, California 94596.
Page No. Line No. Incorrect Correction 5 7 JAMES L. MONTG0MERY delete 21 18 the delete 21 19 20-CFR73.71C, 10 CFR 73.71(c),
21 20 a the 23 20/21
,in that random. and that's random.
37 17 hasn't haven't i
q _ 'rp n4 l.! } }. %. 4)
I)ennis Wilson Schaefer
.e- .
3 O x .l 5 (s4)
O r
i h
p o l
\. >
I O
(Closed) Follow up Item (50-529/85-30-15). Protection of safeguards !
information. A previous security inspection identified certain instances !
s where unapproved storage containers were utilized for storage of i f safeguards information. As a result of this inspection, it was ;
determined that approved containers are utilized by the licensee for '
- g storage of safeguards information. Additionally, the licensee maintained i a computerized safeguards access list for employees possessing the required "need to know."
O lO O
.O I
O s
(
jo-D-%
I SGhaefer ,
9
(
0 .
~e ,.._. ,.
O .
O - --
. y :. . .
n, . ... . . . . : .r.. .
. . . . .. .; u ,. ,, . _ ' . -..- :. - .
. y .. .
g;--, .;;,q;. ; . .
_ , . , .. .;. ., ,. s , . . .a . . .. ... .. .. , g,,
. -- en.............,
. - .3gn:;,y; _
.- . 1, ..-.- . ..
O ... -
. ' ~
O - t On__Dec. 9, 1985,hnnis__Schaefferjofthe ; ,
NRC telephoned me and made inquiries about i* i the Wylie/Cox investigation. He said the ,
- 4. 6 . h .... .. . . . , .
NRC was concerned about this incident and
)
O - wanted to know 1: anve n' ng alse had m r-tirred. i:
I told him of the most recent event regarding Cox's arcadia door being shot out on Dec.
7, 1985. He indicated this situation .
disturbed him very much and said the NRC i I
would be taking a close look at it.
O Norm O'Connor .
a.m ,y . .,* ,
. s y g ID--ID4 O Isch e
(
1 i PLAllmFF's i a EXI1Off
}
O
.g .
.- \ Ols
O* s O . ; ' --
LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
. ' Request No. dl < M ~
- C #
(Region-year-No.)
O ' ..,,, .
TO: R. G. Marsh, Director, OI:RV
~
?.{ ,
FROM: John B. Martin Regional Administrator, RV O
REOUEST FOR INVESTIGATION Arizona Nuclear Power Project 50-528 , ,
Licensee /Vencor/ Applicant Docket No.
lO '
I Palo Verde, Unit 1 ., ,
facility or Site Location dohn B. Martin, RV AR 2 0 BBS Regional Acministrator/0ffice 3 Date
'O Director
( .-
A. Recuest O irnet is the matter that is being requested for investigation (be as specific as possible regarding the underlying incident).
Attached news paper articles indicate that polygraph tests were given to ANPP employees and were intended to intimidate employee whistle blowers.
d B. Purpose of Investication ffo_m_g O j, What wrongdoing is suspected; explain the basis for this view (be as specific as possible). Sq& I Determine if ANPP is intimidating employees in an attempt to prevent them identifying safety concerns.
O Determine if Safeguards information was released to unauthorized personnel.
C
/$/ . SO l O
LIMITFD DTSTRTRUTION .. NOT FOR PIIRLIC DISCf.0511RF u/n ne annone -hua s "N """ s d : -s
O . -
9 :. .-:.n .. .
., . .;c
.~ . .
. . . .- ...s..
i,5f.i.'l. '- . .
,v.. . ; ,
- b>;[bh:;.[,..,,.].W.~3
- . ;:::: : , .. ';s. .! . .-\.i 4..% . * .&: LIMITED'
'. ' t ;% '- .
DISTRIBUTION i if '... :
-- NOT :;jjf4N. FOR.PUBLIC!. g. ..; n. .37,4fg.
w DISC
- . % . . - - .v .e ..p :.w. s- .'.*
' h . ' '.p.'.'y4-=;;::.V.V.m.n.:,.'s:.
.:. n..- gn;; .. .s ..r . . ~.r.., .;a-? a..: . y .a Ml4v..~k.'.
.!xx,> s m.s. , .
a -
. .s ...s. . . . e -?. e- .*'.t-
, r qrg.gy
.: :<:ye. . . ? ;. : .a.. .w. g ..-
..rR.,.:,.m:p.;::.; ,;;c:p, r.. . 4.u
. z.
O t(;;% .: ./.s:.r;,;yq.4,@;,r:.. ) -
.Nhg.g:.;.. . i b .:*A, .* g,.s
- ; g.s.;..;n.p:/n g.&y:
- .rl. . q J';'2..? What are the po f ., :c q teittial regulatory i.g:,..!.gaif.;f.y?that requiremEn, s
~may.;ha
- t A.
M,i;v. 0; fR.
..>. s .... W :V.
'. e:. r violated?- -
4: . ~
2 .O. . 2 ?r:f.G.'. .~. .'3 LVR4,p.%. .%. ..2a .. , .: W. . . .
k
)6..
,id'10CFR_73.21i'# .. n. u lEi E '.. ' :. . m 9ht.;:i.h..i - .6.8? '
- . l ^
$f.?f2.'?) . .F' " Section 210, Energy'Reorganizatio. .
. nY ActM! I-[4.y??ff. ",r '.:dt(E2!;q.7
~ :.6 .,
P.r . M. .c.3.: - :'
- .s c.
- .
. k #, 2.2.. :.ir. ,.. .
O ;%s&?-!.H., .{.Y, ,. '~* e .' '
Tnc.g: 5. - -
c- , - . - -- -
> D*e.-
a $(b*i' .
I y wr;;;-s.:ts -
,YfN?
+. W .e3. u.'
[.:concern?
, ,M..3.I.$yIf :.
no violaf.fon is s'uspected, what is the'
. ';.). S.; n:::k '
O
.' N/A .
- /
y- .
s .
- 4. If allegations are involved, is there a view that the allegatica ' ~
occurred? likely occurred
, not sure xxx . If likely.
O explain the basis for that view. ~
l ..
a.
O ' -
C. Recuester's Priority
- 1. . I's the priority of the investigation high. normal, or low? normal
- 2. What is the estimated date when the results of the ~
O tr.'testi att n are needed? as soon as nossible
- 3. What is the basis for the date and the impact of not meeting this data? (For example. is there an imediate safety issue that must be addressed or are the results necessary to resolve any ongoing regulatory issue and if so, what actions are i O dependent on the outcome of the investigation?)
O O '
O LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE W/n nt annnanas
O .- .
4 '"$,(d . <!,h : LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PUBLIC. DISCLOSURE ' l '- ~
'.N'N ' ' E i
.a.
.. .. 5 ,. . . -
O.3 .....: .,
.-- . " . n"
'. .i,
-Mi. .
.-~ .
. .y. .,
';-l D. Contaet
' -' V .
/i
- .W .[,;? , 1. Staff members
- , ' '
., , ..'..?."';,1
.* : :(-
"l B..haulkenberry.
O *;a'J;}
.Dl. Schuster
' . "/- '2. A11egers identification with address and telephone number if
'- not confidential. (Indicate if any confidential sources arili involved and wno may be contacted for the identifying details.)
.O n/a F. Other Relevant Infomation O
9 O
( :
O fiv ohn . Martin nAO N gjugs O. Signature N j
cc: 0I (B. Hayes) */ -
l EDO (W.J. DircYs NRR/NMSS IE (T ylor) as appro)priate (Denton/ Davis) *f. **/
- , ***/
O OELD Cunni ham)
Regional Administrator **/, ***/
- / If generated by region.
- / If generated by IE.
O ,
U*/ If generated by NRR/NMSS
- t l
O LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PflRt TC DTSCL0ttrRF um n, . a aaa.. . .
O .
4
'h
~
Palo Verde employee .
g#. is.detnoted 2 weeks Z
.a ft er dt a a- lea k pro tie my information when ,it comes,' to O a JO.HNameseSTAGGS an.n secunty.
l An employee of b Pale Verde "If we enanot maintain the Stadon has appropriate escarity, then the[ safe.
Nuclear Genera been reassigned demoted two operation of the plant comen into weeks after the start of an investi. question. It's unfortunate that ap.
gation into " potential disclosure of parently seem of our employees classified security infar da ." a round themselves In the position of
,O 1
plantspokamen said Manday. 11-u 19 such informatim with Pol h tests were ordered in unauthermed Individuals. However, J
!ata Fe byplantmanagement any potential security problem that - -
'after a source told De Arisons we rney have cannot be discussed a RepublIe that one aspeet of b . the publisdomain." - - -
security operations at Palo Verde The NRC said it has determined
.O i
was labeled "the worst in b- that no classified informadori.han region"by the U.S. Nuclear Regula. been published as a result of.the tory f5==i aion, leak. .:.
"As a result of information .
Because of the polygraph testa, obtained during an ongoing investi- Myron Scott, rate interwner:with gation, one Arizona Nuclear Power the Tampe. based Coalition forN.
Project employee has been trare. spunsible Energy Education,*uid O ferred to non.Palo Verde activi. Monday that, his group plane toda'y I ties."
said. plant spokesman Dan Cansdy "to announce legal action that* we '
will be taking with the NRQ'to ;
He refused to comment as to penalize Arizona Public Servicir Co, I whether Palo Verde officials belim for its actions, which we believe '
the demoted employee le the person were intended to intimidate ~em-who told De Republic about b* ployee whistle blowers."
NRC's comment.
O Canady easd the transfer "do" Use of b tasta also wm ass' ailed involve a demotion mth loss of by two numbers of the Arfso'na pey." He refused to discloes the Corporation ('mmi-taa hfarua employee's identity, new duties or Weeks and Sharon Mesdalsald'ini'a how much pay la being lost. In March 5 letter to Van Brunt thd the testa not only might bean addition, Caimdy said, "The I,
- Invasion of '
but also mi quiry is ongoing for a while. We re about the #ght'
.O Just following up on some informa. inhibit can g u.omt has ban bainwi." . *P'"uan.
The NRC asseesnunt oeneerning addison.iheirlette,mif,e' g gx
~
a tthe slo orde uclear Doug Schuster, chid of ede. plant out of the public view is a conf m the an N off h) best on E N r dad r,eg,,et = '.
e
"* A".mmi~ ,,i w w ,
hon 5 is made up of Arizona, agency's meudw secretary "to California, Oregon and Washington. teview these latest developmenta" l
O theOfficials have area in questica. refused citing security to discuss .'in connectionF- with an audit of.h eeneiderations. I*** *** " "**
Unit 1 of the tripse**.'re*a*ctor plant Ed Van Brunt, the plant's vice la not operating to techniciano can pr'esident for nuclear operations, perform routine maintenance. It
- mid,"The most sensitive area in a will be restarted in about 'four nudear plant is security. There is weeks. Unit 2 is espected to begin
,aboa!utely no way we will tolerate fission in early April and Unit 3 in O .
the slighteet breech of classified mid isa7.
O ,
O
" ~
4
'O March 17, 1996 O
- 6 ANPP EMPLOYEE REASSIGNED DURING SPEC AL INVESTIGATION O A special security investigation was bagun over two weeks ago when Arizona Nuclear Power Project officials became aware of a potential unauthori=ed disclosure of classified security information. As a result of information octained during this ongoing investigation, one ANPP employee has been transferred to non-Palo Verde activities. .
O "The most sensitive area in a nuclear power plant is security," said Ed Van Brunt, sExecutive Vice President of ANPP. "There is absolutely no way we will tolerate the slightest security.
breach of classified information when it.comes to If we cannot maintain the appropriate security, then the saf e operation of the plant comes into question. "
.O "It's unfortunate that apparently some al our employees found thems=1ves in the position or discussing such information with unauthorized individuals. However, any potential
" security" problems that we may have, cannot be disc,ussed in the public domain it we are to provide the security necessary for an operating nuclear plant," Van Brunt concluded.
O e##
i
'O O
O .
- O .
AR ZONA REPUBLIC 3/11/86
!O
. =-
O s Lie. tests fall to find origin l o of Palo Verde news leak !
- .- I SyJOHN STAGGS tion C- 8aa. who said the testa i h aapuhet sees imidhit candor about the plant and '
. OfHeinta at tiu Palo Verde Nu. saay be aninmine of primy. ,
i e despita . g.,,
a h g d ee atm$ve not who Educab l leal.ed information to the media Arizona Attorney Gm b Cor. ,
about a ressat ase rity sealuation bia m to % of using !
of the plant by federalinspectors.
b "Then la nothing conclusive at On Monday, Corbin replied by O all," plant spokseman Dan Canady letter to Scott, saying he had no said. "We're still gathering in. authority in the matter and sug-formation." The tests were con. gestina that Scott contact federal cluded Friday,he said. officials or a private lawyer if he About 30 employees woes given wants to pursue the matter. Scott the taats after it was leaked thag . said he has not yet decided what to
- O '"' "P"* ** ""ci" 8" -d" murity operation we Meanwhile, Unit 2 at the triple.
("L'8,Se et in the regionby,la* reactor plant went into " Mode 4" an oM of the,U.S. Nuclear ' early Monday. In Mode 4, water la
%1 stay Commisasco. at 210 degrees Fahrenheit, allowing The testa sparked criticism from' Mercia Weeks and Shqron Magdal. plant operators to conduct certamtesta befo
.O two members or the sete corpore. ,pectedinlate March orwty April.
.O O ,
1 1
- O
Officials criticize lia t'sts at Pa o V+rde :
! on rate commission ! i irga frank admission -
l f situation at A-plant
~
- JOHN STAGGS Sf.5/n ,
===. assions men ---
and thraother states that regulele -~
' Two seesobe" of the A
- Pl ad ed of the public view is a theownereaf theplant. Proper diac6==e of this infenne -the NRc said a partion of 16 tien ce amission crieEa de lemleacy to 18 put It is aimed at Gading peesside b b a nGui ,ef Niaclear eaurity ejanden was rated tw.
1 [g g;e.detedor teste at Pole eye nde Ni.a,., ceneratias Station' 'h' f*** *" 8h* """ 388Pradent expenditures, which Hegulatory Comicussion regula- "W4 lied an esit interview wi.
ents. . would be disalle=cd feese the tioes. them,and tiny never said anythi. i d said de pddic ' wad We heliew the pubhc internet utilities rates. 'llie audit is espeded *~llbeerfere,when such disclosuse like Ihet." he said at the tiene.
' beuer servd by f M .d.; woehl be better served by freak go be completedin September. occurs W as t=..J.8a y that we take , Doug Schuster, chief of saa d thesituadon das plant
- 'g'*2 a Arw deemed to Ed Vm, admissions of the situation at Pole ra==h.ienChairmenReneJen leunedsete action, k is in this guards for Region 5, rehmed i Venle, or bed,just se in sayof sings is out of sitte and could not i contest and sa aessedence with our esastity sessoas to sweeal the are. i Brenthplast' vicepresidentfor the matters M be seached for =h=*nt. h wkh fly E that w in queadon, anying that speofyi.
,,de:r peeduction, comumenionere enom befen us. 'Da aa=@===== Van Brunt, in a seply to the f*Ik"'ed em eousesof action. the areas neight make theos vulne 14mcia Weeks med Sharon Megdal and ato puidic must hm an eommismienne.said: 14 m umfartunate that w low ableteenhotate.
"We have never utilized lie. Det documd such ma,ttess with yee However, tie areas of eence.
said.theylow duecid thecammis an *pPortunity en .ama9 sespeemens h . e of judge " Mand
- detecter tests se determine the P=viously. However,if the --=i reportedly iachwind fissanne qual !
- ,se.anecutin secutary"semview
- --- %" is con. eerder. identity of eenployees who may sma wishes, we wiB attesapt to fications. "----^W too muc -
esse
,.ctimIdest d, Jait a the pie t "Acardingly, w how directal km taked to Ene press or soyene arrange an ==ar=8've session witha overtime and pcody casopletc wie en m.t is m,, n.dw ay. etm agadias **y anth d Pase Nnc emeisk piment le disc.:a =puta to k Nac. .
.'ne we d liedesater tale by the es==uw esentary of-thi Vade, with ein acep6am of s==- tlw =dta furke. Den ca.edy, a speneuman f.
the A, gens Nuclear Paser Projed CrgareGen n===i=ian to seriew rity.
Hoewer, NRC W Fele Verde, said!"less then .%
es e sneens of stepping news leaksis thme lated dewt.g w. with the "The Impe at hand h solely a M said Madev Set eeer,C workas ase " 1. the test.
i
- e concern for the Arianne Corpora asianitants who wit inuiertate abs saatter of securky.The purpose of 8*u MPost "m eisen" and that He said the began late la.
tion Commissies."the twocasamie. eudit of the Arienne Nuclear Peser the lie detector tests le se del,r.
no ca -.isi.a ing,,megie ,ee gir- seek andwiBend is week.
l anine which employes er employees cloud.. Cansdy emid it hannit yet bee
! sis.nosaid in theirletter. i Panimet.
Van Nr. int asid tienday the decided what edian might he Gehe i They dded. "Ibene audite see far see eritical diacL=ad 'clensiGed' er 9seleguards tsche futasse of our state to tolersta infesnation' to individuals who de Geet was begun efter 7&eJri. against any eseployee founc.
l disciceed last week thnagh the tee 64, to how leaks.
"While mich teste smay be as lesades-enemplete d=e6==e ef the mot have the need te Amew each mone . that one aspect of security taminferonotion. .
cvalos of rights testaof"'
m 'soliste.andhe." facts we seguire. We will '"' acampt me infor ain.
1
<hile iis-detector 'd interemation le any ,eperaGens at the plant une tenned PaleVendeescurityissmedeup c.
l _
ieudy insecorde that they are The esmetasetion endit is being information which, threagh in- ,the want en the region" by thsee err ==i =*ia== Twoesecm.
! sedmissete in court, we find the comitsded by enneuttante hired by swerr diadoeure, eauM be used to .n m af eim ,UA Nedear trad sirme, c ei a.1 securia latory c======a= Ceards Inc. and 'Ilsta creepenit l esetice trouhing in == ash., n. the stility ma==i ia== ef Ansons threates the eecwity and esse j pect. esthmation came during an InternetinesL'Ine otheris operatt n ,~g g p g #9 ef the power plant. Is.. intenim with pleet elficiale mRet and directed by the Arisama No.
- c==paa3= ng dated by this a==i=== meet possess sie public tim NRC's surpene inspectiong een. clear Power Pnsed, a group ero i
- i rest, created by an d- - n in ductasi, Feb.10.H.Resumi 5consortinen.
enase Arienne, Cal .atd to siddi the ===iada= Eufthe that owns it.
Kwaia,Washingtes and Ongen. The total enet of the plant 6 whlic feel that mething is hidden.
fa fear that the une of lie-dd=e-- 3*st *eek,V*a Banat had densard 33.3t,an i esta to temporarily keep bad news host the Pale Verde nuclear power i'
e
4 J4 m. m. m .s.- a - + ~ + - _w A. w.+M4w4 l
l iO ' - .
Arizona Nuclear Power Project h
P.O. 80s S2034 e PHOENIX. AAl2ONA 88072 20s4 9 .. . , . . .
March 4, 1986 86-ANPP-35386 The Honorable Sharon Megdal -
,O
- The Honorable Marcia Weeks The Arizona Corporation Commission 1210 West Washington Phoenix AZ 85007
Dear Commiissioners Megdal and Weeks:
!O. In response to your letter dated March 6, 1986, I wish to advise you that we have never utilized lie detector tests to determine the identity of employees who , may have talked to the press or anyone else security.
regarding any matters at Palo Verde, with the excepticin of The issue at hand is solelv a matter of security. The purpose
of 'the41**1"'
- Pl*Y" lie-detector tests is . to determine which employee O "*l***ifi'd" or safeguards information to individuals who do not have the need to know such information.
Safeguards information is any information which, through improper
- disclosure, could be used to threaten the security and safe operstion of the power plant. Improper disclosure of this information is a violation of Nuclear. Regulatory Connission regulations. Therefore, 1 0 when such disclosure o
- curs, it ,is mandatory that we take immediate action. It is in this context and in accordance . with our license with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that we have followed this course of action.
It is unfortunate that we have not discussed'such matters with you O previously. Howe /er, if the Commission wishes, we will attempt to arrange an executive session with NRC officials present to di:: cuss .
this matter further. l Very truly rs 1 8
n ?S a.u- mi I
\
E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.
Executive Vice President EEVB:ssd
.O I -
j cc: J.B. Martin, NRC Region 5 O
i O
l
i
-L,, AMk M W r37 aw=
sumouo.useona. .
"""" ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION .
O -
March 6,-1986 -
!O Mr. Ed vanBrunt Exocutive Vice President Arizona Nuclear Power Project 11226 N. 23rd Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85029
- O cear Mr. vansrunti The use of lie detector tests by the Arizona Nuclear Power .
Project as a means of stopping news leaks is a concern for the Arizona Corporation Commission. While such testa may be an invasion of the rights of employees, and while lie detector testa are so notoriously inaccurato that they are inadmissible in
,O court, we find the practice troubling in another respect.
Companies regulated by this Commission must posecos the public trust, created by an atmosphere in which the Commission and the public feel that nothing is hidden. We fear that the use of lie detector tests to temporarily keep bad news about the Palo Verde
,O
- nuclear power -plant out of public view is a symptom of a tendency to try to put the best f ace on the worst developments.
We believe the public interest would be better served by frank admissions of the situation at Palo Verde, good or bad, just as in any of the other matters that regularly come before ua. The 20 Commission and the public must have an opportunity to judge developments in an atmosphere of openness and candor.
Accordingly,,we have directed the Executive Secretary of the Corporation Commission to review those latest developments with the consultants who will undertake the audit of the Arizona
,0 Nuclear Power Project. These audits are far too critical to the future of our state to tolerate less than complete disclosure of the facts that we require. We will accept no less.
Since oly, O , die W Marcia Weeks Sharon Megdal l
Convoissioner Commicsioner mr ,
lO t-
,se west wase==even, n==w, assoma a==r s == west cemenmus enerr.vumeen, massema em A02400 *
'O .
e i PdoVen@ workers g /r4 '
.beang given Ole tests ,
!o toMcai:e
,,_.uw :
newe -m.ntme ge.
Heak . pd !
aseseasasseterness' :,. ' '
' A source said of the order to take
' lim top official et Palo Verde tho polygraphs,"! was told it wasto Nuclear Generating Station said find the leak to the press" by a Monday that employees at the plant of0cial.
iO plant' are II*d*888 tor Palo Verde security comprises i testa because .t officials are concerned that " safeguards infor . three organisations. Two are con-
, mationis beingleshed." tract firms, Continental Security
' Guards Inc. and Tatt Companies Ed Van Brunt, the plant's vice International. The third is operated president for nuclear operations, and directed by the Arisona Nu-said the taste were ordered after a cieer Power Protect, a group cre- ,
,O asurce told De Arianos Republic isted to oversee the project by the inst week that one aspect of plant eon.ortiuse that owns it. Arizona security received a poor retag after Crocent federat inopection. Public Service Co. is the project manager.
The tLS. Noelear Regula'.orY Greg Cook. a spokesenen for the Commission confirened last week that it conducted a surprise inspec- NRC, said of the testa, "It doesn't tion on the security operations at resily surprise me. I know this has
'O the nuclear power plant from Feb. occurred at other plants where-10 to 14 end determined that one safeguardslaformation is anissue.
tof thesecurityapparatuswas "We don't have a problem with ,
worst in the region." people expressing their views about i One source said last week that management. We do have a prob.
lem with people who disclose safe.
hearm
- areas of concern include fire. 'guardsinformationtothepress."
- O 5.s cavalifications, much overtime and undermann,inL fat su* Concerning the inspection, Doug ..
4 renong security personnel, 'and schuster, chief of safeguards for the 91beRy completed reports to th* NRC's Region 5, said that although "Palo Verde has an acceptable
. G C. .
Pir.nt officials refused at the time asafeguards program... it has a long -
way to go."
. todiscuss the specificproblems. .
Region 5 comprises Arizona. Cal-Van Brunt would not reveal h ttumber of employees being told to ifornia, Washington and Oregon.
.O Schusterrefused todiscuss which tain the polygraph enminations, area of securityis % worstin the but a source said the figure is region" because of security consid.
"between 30 and 35," and includes erstions and the fact that the those present at an exit interview -NRC's report is not complete. Palo with h NRC after its inspectors Verde officials are espected to conducted the surprise inspection. . receive the report by March 30.
!O Reportedly among those present . But it was reported at the time were shift captams and security,
_ Test,,s 7 i
TeSE=3 b Myron Scott, rate intervenor for the Coalition (or !ksponsab:e En.
continur f trom B6 - ergy Education in Tamos, caid the -
,O that concerns centered on adequate testing "will have a chillinc effect" staffing overtime er.d related is- on workers who want to teamrt sues. perceived problems with the plant.
' "Obymuely, this information wa-
. One source said,"We're strongly obtained from a worker concernee!
committed to doing a good job,"but about security at Palo Verde. Cris.
! "we haven't been given the person- ice of the nuclear industry have nel and resources" to do a proper jobin thesecuritydepartment, worried that secrecy cad 'securit)
- O conssderationa'" would be used v Of employee the reaction pource to the -escuses to conceal proolems er l
i polygraphe,
- I "They're damned angry about it."said. nuclear.powerinstallatsona.
The project le owned by e Another charseterised use of the consortiwo of seven Southwestern testa as "Gestape tactics."
utilities.
- O . -
w w t 4----- ;r --y
.s.-..,,,m , .,.,,,7 - * . . _.,,,,,,4m%_ , - , , -.,e,,,,,isey. 4,,, _.,,__ w.a.,_.w-ei--e w -P---h-.i.em-m-.*'-tW%-N
/ -
I t
T18 ARIZONA Rarustic E
- d"*sd*F 8~'6i*'F 26. 3904 l'elsure 8 Arts l h! '
I l .
{ f M, 1 We Ase Ene Workt, me samcum ty art se s fJetcEA cfor that IfYSE tatWee D4 j l j l l a scac,f. wara #y" N b, u i 1 g as.
- rsed anore ,, ar.mers m $30s.setore
.am. = ,--foe c<f.ams,ae . ,e.e. w few Gammys ,
,l J ,,
- ua, s,,,,,e .,
Avsf cast As Srstaaprus star PhiCasras Aar staan of he year. D 8 8. se .,e e so ?
oi Palo Verde security.section rated low..'
'Ilegion's worst,' U.S. agencya!saYs*
- RCL"C N a="F P"somad Pmly maphied uprkb b program."be - la gnud, *l imal say we's not happy with h mwRy addecL
- OveraH performSOCO Caned adequale 'We don't muetty mie composinens* of securay EJ Van Brunt, da paddent for mudeer epuedone et e, sostu svaces operations emesnieg & to operaung murtoe nacters in Pa!a Wrde, said, "We dont agrw asth same of Wir aa a e.,.nac ss. m region, but "it's cartainly not one of W better e:amples," eencksiens I really can't refete se where (Schuster)is comieg One pset of security operations et Falo Verde Nuclear Schutusaa e frei.
Centrating Sution was branded b worst in the region' b Region 5 cons,sta of Asisana, CdJornia, Oregon end "We had en esit isterview wich tbem (after the inspectio 4, officiels of the US Nucleer Regafstory Commission duria8 a Washington. and they newer said anything like that " La Bruns added in strent su prise inspection, NRC ofroats said Tuesday Schuster streued.
- Pale Verde het en screptable segned to the corepa bon with ocher nucless power pfants, Ilut everall security was rated adequate to preiact the . safeguards pre: rare. It can protect the hulth and safety" of diwuss,ever, How health and safety of worters end the public. emptcpes and the puistic. be uid,"We're going to set up sonne needrrgs to er:ss of disagieernent regard 8aC sectruy issues.
fbug Schuster. chief of ureguards for the NItC's Region 5, He added,* bei Brunt said be coutJ ces docuu specerc arue of Schuster u,itut.d he enldis lias a long spuk way to m general ga- only becauae semitr -for the same rea son (Schusteil can1."
terms 2
safeguards for the agion, refused for ucwily nasons toand Jim htontgornery, chief of rainmucJear Verde securityenesesials n nade vp e4 three safety and Tee ergenizations of secuelty c resed the areas in quenties, u eng ht P" fg I S. I't '0'oplete.
are centract rarms. Coctr entat Security Cunds tae. end Tatt ot* lie said the c ncera *is related t one part of theie Cornpanies International. The other is epeasted and directed would o- sou,- nahe-id ~them e.e.a vulnerable,to s r,.,.C'.nged fro a-~ -- -- at -a < s-ura, r,es,o,s e r. m r. et - n m . - r.uc,.. ,,t;,.ee df,o,ue .p~ -c ~~ ~ ~a
$r * - u *r r - re - -aied a
--ra1. ve,s or Y - W S s g
- c: w, *. u. *u ..a ., u"$ m a i ~3 l -
ed e *S $!
ol L 433 1i 332.s 'r.] g ts t j j', p sg,g m! E .nld2. E #Y .
z!
O w$
- -== }
e r m sr.,,a
" Sd ; S T !!
s s
,1 %exe-Bsu m r[
~t = m u u G "4' glQ g.,,3 -l 4g j;g { 7 "g Es.T g ] e ,;, fi 3 ti,pe j l hg eg pom s -
gase y @g = -%,;
I
- E i kd =$a ji! .jh .
5
- b O O O _
e _
O O O e
- _ _ _ _ _
l l
'O- - --- '- -' -
~ - - - - --- - ' ' e- - '
%Qig? 'M '0 h h MAR 2 81986
- O
~
l
- I O MEMORANDUM FOR: R. C. Marsh, Director, OI:RV.
FROM: M. D. Schuster, Chief, Safeguards Section
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION, DATED MARCH 20, 1986 ARIZONA NUCI. EAR POWER PROJECT, DOCKET NO. 50-528 At the request of B. Faulkenberry, Deputy Regional Administrator, I have reviewed the newspaper articles furnished you with the above request, and in my opinion they do not contain Safeguards Information (SGI).
- O I have also reviewed the record of telephone conversation between myself, Jim Montgomery, Greg Cook and John Staggs during February 1986, in which Mr. Staggs attempted to confirm information he had as related to the security inspection
" conducted at Palo Verde on February 10-14, 1986. To the best of cy recollection no specific Safeguards Information that would involve a violation of NRC regulations was discussed during this telephone conversation by either Mr. Staggs
.O or by Montgomery, Cook or myself.
This telephone conversation was my only contact with Mr. Staggs regarding this matter.
'O /$/
M. D. Schuster, Chief Safeguards Section ,
l
'O cc: B. Faulkenberry 1
- 1. Scarano l J. Montgomery l G. Cook 4
- O g
llo-iog I%
O f)f)y; l
~> ... n M ......... .. . .. . . .. .. .. . ..t:.:
-> M&....... ..................... ..................... .....................
L.'......d.....
raun=dem .schus.t. ....... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..........
.O
' " > 3/..M.186... . 3/.2.1....<8.s.. ..................... ..................... ..................... ........2s.4 a,<. & . 3 % . 5 o== ne no,.oi wacw ouo OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- u.stono mese-
- 0^. ,
~
l Palo Verde employee .
- o is. demoted 2 weeks' ~
Z pp#'. -.
.a ft er dtl a a-ea k pro tie
, eyboHee svaoes leformation whop ,lt asmes to amansseessasasen seewity.
O An of the Pale Verde "If we enamot maintaia[the Nucieer Station has appropriate securi then the safe, been rossaigned demoted two opwation of the somen.isto weeks after the start of an investi- clusstion. It's unfortunate that ap-
-- gedon into " potential disclosure of parently some of our employen aIn.airiad escurity information," a found themselvesin the position ci plantspokesman said Manday. ' discussing such information with
.O P
!ste tests som udend in unauthensed Individuals. However.
byplantmenessment any potentialsecurity that -
J.-
'aner a seuros told The Arisons we may how cannot dissunsed a Jtepam that one aspect at the , thepubliedomain." - -
operations at Palo Verde The NRC amid it has determined was "the worst la the that no classified informatiosi.has region"by the U.S. Nuclear Regula-
- O tory Commission.
been 1 k. published as a result. :.: of.the "As a result of information Because of the ph testa, obtained during an investi- Myron Scott, rate servonor:with 6
tion, on Arizona Power the Tempe based Coalition forSi-employee has baea trans- sponsible Energy Education,*edid ferred to non Palo Verde activi- Monday that his plans toda'r ties,"
- O amid. plantspokesman Den Canady "to announce action that we t will be taking with the NRQ*'to He refused to comment as to penaliza Arizona Public Servicir Co i whether Palo Verde officials believe for its aedons, which we believe, '
the demotad e I le the person were intended to intimidate.'em.
who told The about the
- ployee whistle blowers." **
- I' NRC's awamant.
Canedy amid the transfer "does Use db tests also was asEifed 0 Involve a demotion with loss of by two membas of the Arfsona Psy" He refused to disclose the r u i : g .,gi, employee's identi W ka and5haron M soldid*a how much pay new dutise or March 5 letter to V Brunt that bein addition, Canady said,g "Thelost. la* In the testa not only bkan is ongoing for a whila. We'" Inveelen of but al up ao some informe- ininbit about the
- '"'- pg,,, -
" crc amem .t a.es.ing I"'g;ag;a*p--@--- te a
security was made sitar a eurynse N *"
shoutthe al Verde unlear rg%.,e,, e,de, o, e,e. pi-t out d * ,um *w is a
!O '"
coar$ n I h fan h N h h I '" '
'#I '
wwtath The commissioners direM!M bcmJ is made up d Arizona, agency's esecutive secretary "to review these latast developmenta" California,Oregonand W "^Geuss ,plantestisnerundewa Officials how refused to d the area la quotion, citing security in connation wie an audit of.the y.
- O e.a.ideratisan. Unit 1 *f the triple rene Ed Van Bnsat, the plant's vice le not operating so '""ierr ytent can pMent for nuclear operations, perforia routine maintenases. It
- asid,"The snost sensitive area la a will be retarted in about 'four suelear at is escurity. Thwe is weeks. Unit 2 is es to begia
- absol y no way we will tolerate fission in early A and Unit 3 la
! the slightaat breech of classified mid.t967.
!O
- l
9 .
j ..
i g -
I i
- O March 17, 1986
!O . .
ANPP EMPLOYEE REASSIGNED DURING SPECIAL INVESTIGATION A special security investigation was begun over two weeks
'g ago when Arizona Nuclear Power Project of ficials became aware of a potential unauthorized disclosure of classified security information. As a result of information octained during this ongoing investigation, one ANPP employee has been transferred to non-Pale Verde activities. .
, "The most sensitive area in a nuclear power plant is
- security," said Ed Van Brunt,sExecutive Vice President of
]g ANPP. "There is absolutely no way we will tolerate the slightest breach of classified information when it comes to 1 security. If we cannot maintain the appropriate security, than the safe operation of the plant comes into question."
"It's unfortunate that apparenLly some of our emplaisynes JO found themselves in the position of discussing such information with unauthorized individuals. However, any potential
" security" problems that we may have, cannot be discussed in the public domain'if we are to provide the security ,necessary for an operating nuclear plant," Van Brunt consluded.
\ -
O L
\
!O .
l 4
O i
,e., , - , , ,- --c.,,,. --- - ,, v . - - - - . - . . . , . , . , ,,,,.,,,,..n......, -,~,,,,._.-n., , . , - . , , , , - , . , - ,,,,,,,,--,en,,.n ., ,
O - -
ARIZONA REPUBLIC 3/11/86 iO f
!O
! ~~ Lle, tests fall to find origin ,
io of Palo Verde news leak ,
. m. l
, -m. c_< midthe . ,
8ammaspoem eess inhibit conder shout the plant and
. Of5clele at the Palo Veede No. may be saisvesiometprivacy.
O T pebend Ari= ^ttorney GeneMCa.
haked infa maten to in. modi.
about a meset assurity welustion hhmm the practim of using attheplantbyfederniinspanna.
4 "hre is nothing esadusive at on meday, cabin ed by iO all," plant spekseman Den Canedy beter to Scott, saying had no
! said. "We're still gathering in. authori in the matter and su .
forination." h tests were son- gesting Scott contact fede
- ciudad Friday,he esid. officials or a private lawyer if he About as were given wants to rursue the matter. Scott the tests after een leaked that emid he has notpt decided what to 888 esput d the audaar-m A -
.O Meanwhile, Unit 1 at the triple.
% 's 4 Spersties e u ,la.
r28"3"88'FA E $. b st"'a""* 4 ,::C"ut,.T'u%"d.'r!
210 d;grees Fahrenheit, allowing
'The tote aparked critseism 6em' plant retors to esaduct certain Marcia Wks and Esdal, tate beginning (melon, n.
two manbasetthe to Corpore ,pectedislate March e:wly April.
- 0 ,
)
I lO
!O
,i
, _- l lO
i il ij d~l,ild!fvll)!!!du!
- . ;i;9111m1 i
1Ilffif v it! 1ilig j ji!i i l$ i!!11iglhii4jl{ll Lo lilj!!jJ!!11eM!
lijn l 1 {l 'il(( ~Q % iil?!!Q,
$:n:!)
w .j !pE . !c , .
1,0
! 6 5] !!lla
- j. 11 ioO !H liC! D$.~j'b.'Il.t'1!]! i .
4 l~
- O --
Arizona Nuclear Power Project P.o. non saase e mosmx. AmizoNA $8073 3034 iO *' - -
March 4 1986 86-ANPP-35386
. 1 The Honorable Sharon Megdal
!O The Honorable Marcia Weeks The Arizona Corporation Commission 1210 West Washington Phoenix. AZ 45007 .
Dear Commissioners Negdal and weeks:
jO -
In response to your letter dated March 6 Iss6 I wish to sayise you th.t we have sever utilized lie detector tests to determine the- ,
identi ,' of employees who say have talked to the press or anyone 1
else n garding any matters at Palo Verde, with the excepticin of security.
The issue at hand is solely a matter of security. The 40 purpose of the lie detector tests is to detemine which employee or ==ployees Laciosed " classified" or safeguards info mation to individuals who do not have the need to know such information.
i Safeguards information is any information which, through improper disclosure. could be used to threaten the ~ security and safe operation of the power plant. Improper disclosure of this inforcation is a violation of Nuclear Regulatory Cosmission regulations. Therefore, iO when such disclosure occurs, it ,is mandatory that we take immediate action. It is in . this context and in accordance with our license
- with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that we have followed this course of action. .
It is unfortunate that we have not discussed'such matters with you
- g previously. Howev'er, if the Commission wishes. we will attenyt to arrange an executive session with NRC officials present to discuss this matter further.
t Very truly rs I s n O Y 'E G LA
- u t.L.i %
E. E. Van Brunt. Jr.
Executive Vice President O ,
EZYB:asd cc: J.B. Martin. NRC Region 5 4O 1
O
- O i
O . ause.
" kRWs3 2"J"."'.".
amacawans t,g messou s.useon 8""**" ARIZONA CORPORAilON COMMISSICM .
March 6, 1996 ,,
!g
~
- l
- O Nr. Ed VanBrunt ~
l anocutive Vice President i Arizona Nuclear Power Project 11226 N. 23rd Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85029 i . Dear Mr.'vanBrun$a '
10 The use of lie detector tests by the Arizona Nucioar Power ,
Project as a means of stopping news leaks is a concern for the ,
l Arizona Corporation Commission. While such tests may be ar.
- invasion of the rights of employees, and while lie detector testa l
! are so notoriously inaccurato that they are inadmissible in l IO court, we find the practice troubling in another respect. )
! Companies regulated by this commission must possens ti.a public 1 trust, created by en atmosphere in which the Commission and the !
! public feel that nothing is hidden. bad We fear that the use of lio l detector tests to temporarily keep news about the Palo Verds nuclear power plant out of public view. is a symptom of a tendency
'O i to try to put the best face on 'the worst developments.
l We believe the public interest would be better served by frank l
admissions of the situation at Palo Verde, good or bad, just as 1 in any of the other satters that regularly come before us. The Commission and the public must have an opportunity to judge
- O developments in an atmosphere of openness and candor.
we inve directed the F.xecutive Secretary of the
' Accordingly,dommission Corporation to review these latest developments with i the consultants who will undertake the audit of the Arizona i Nuclear Power Project. These audits are far too critical to the I O. future of our state to tolerate less than complete disclosure of i the facts that we require. We wil,1 accept no less.
Since oly, 489444#
p Sharon Megdal
, pl da Marcia Weeks
! Cosuaissioner Cosmicsioner l M ~
O l-
- ,e-,-.-
j A02400
- e f
'o PaDoverde workere . n/ j4 -
beang;given lie tests ~
Otd.iente te news Beak .p.rta t -
.pd !
i assessemisemareess' .i * *
- A seems sold of the orde.r to take t 1he' '."I was told it was to Nuclear efGesel at Pale Statism said Verds Sad"th .the" fle'ak to the press" by a i
Monday that at the plant olScial.
iO t 8 '""""" Pole Verde escurity comprince i i beesume emciais are. three organisations. Two are con.
! emmeermed thes lef0f* tract Arme, Contmental Security motionisbeing Geords Inc. and Tatt Companies I
- Bd Ves Brust th6 plant % vlos InternationalThethirdis operated -
president.for. nuclear operations, and directed by the Arisena No.
sold the teste were ordend after esures told De Asienne Jtepuhlsa steer Power Project, a group cre.
- O last week that see espect et plante isted to creasse eeneertium theit.project ihat owns Arizoneby the escurity rossived a poor ^ reting efta' Poldie Servies Co. la the project present federal ~
meanser.
1he U.S. Nuclear Itagulator Greg Cook, a Tah==== for the
-3 dam eenfirmed last ***$' NRC, said of the tants, "It doesn't that it conducted a surprise leapec* really surprise me. I know this has tion en the seanrety operations at occurred at other plants where'
- O th' ***l**r 8'"*r plant from Feb. esfeguards information is an issue.
10 to 14 and determined that one "We don't have e problem with oftheesaurityapparatuswas people espressing their views about weretin the region "
One soures said lost week that management. We do have a prob.
Ahs areas of eencarn include Gre* .leen with people who disclose safe.
guardsinforeission to the press."
a ..
hrms iguelificatione, underniann,ing, Concernias W inspection. Doug
.much beertum and fatague Schuster, chief of safeguards for the
- O r security personnel. and completed reports to the .NRC's Region 5, said that although l 9 Palo Verde has an acceptable i .O -
safeguards Plant officials refused at b time way to go." program . . . it has a long .
! .to discuss the specific problems. .
Region 5 comprises Arizone, Cal.
Van Brunt would not reveal the afernia,Wealdngtan and Orego.s number of employees being told to Schusterrefused todiscuenwhich 0 take the polygraph esammations, esse of escurity is "the worst in the but a source send the figure is region" because of escurity consid.
"between 30 and 35," and includes erosione and the fact that the those present at an esit interview NRC's report is not eomplete. Palo
! with the NRC sitar its inspectore Verde edicials are espected ts conducted the surprise inspectaan. - socerve the report by March 30.
! Reportedly anneng those present . But it was reported at the time
', O **.'hi't **ptalas and escuritF#
- Tests,87 M Scott, rate intervenor for TOSES h Ciuon for am,onsa,:. sn.
Gentinent(rune #6 ergy Edumtion in Tornos, said the
' lasting "wii! have a chilling effect" that concerne centered on odoquete en werkers who went to regers iO staffing. overtsme and reisted is. peeesived problems with the pt at.
i suaa. "Obvisuely, this information wa.
One eserce said,"We're etsensly obtained frein a worker concerel committed todoinga goodjob,"but about escurity at Pole Verde. Crit.
"we haven't been given the person. Ise of the naciser industry haw i
nel and resseroes" to de a proper worried that escrecy arid 'securis>
jobin theescuritydeperiment. esseulerotions'" would be used a4
!O Of employee reaction to the escusse to sonesel problems as pairgraphs, the seurse id, ancieer.penerinetaliations. -
"Dey're damned angry abeet it." The project le ows.ed by =
Another charseterised use of the sensortium of seven South *estera testa as"Gestape tacties." utilsties.
I iO * *
~ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ , , _ . , _
l l t !
I ' '
i Tile ARITONA REPU8t.IC .
s Wed der.Fw as, g e
L'elsu,e & Asie !
0( 0h
- w. Ase ei.w.tt. sw eim.e,y.,es st.rs.ca ctios, aw .tys ..** e4
, nemo.m sar a ws ,e su % *=.t. s.wi . ** l
', s. raesdsrs.pnf,dictdngscswours cordersieres ai,4 hot ad m ai nm .f.,7W C.ew ar ea .r ev ye, r. o s t. Q'**%
- y o-Palo Verde security.section rated low..'
' Region's worst,' U.S, agency,'SaYs8- NItc ""8 "*"r *"""d ' P"3r""*3dd ar="'" **
p,.3*
gn= 8""d "h..dd ~8d ".='8 "r '"'" ** h'wr "h' * "="r
- OVerall perfOrlH80C8 CSE0d adequale 'W. do.1 .n, .une e -
d weier Ed V B,.et, d.e ymide.t tw .whe, .,wmien d er Jos c ese,3aw m e.
<.% the, is apagp : enkm n en in .t their
- . .ses s.u e.s. . * ,,,; h .f
- h .
- Fa. Vade. , id -We sbm1 gne sth z=- a , s,a .h .cs.h n. i. ,
- i. A a. Cdif.'.i., 0,,gm ed '. nd a uit iMuvee. .ie Ge. Idtn
- inspoi l.
au.i.a c2",'JA",;",',""J'
- m. us n
.. c . c, .
,o ,
r n,,,.y";t,",f,,d il.",J' ,8'"
.,i.i.,,
Sui., c
- a. , s.
i.;;.d*
= -r d-* "-!r'
=
v.a. a - -,w.
wa",'m;"Ne ad *, , - e4 a * -, w-q< . d A,i
- .*,hi .=.
- . v s,-i adai.
ie-- ,i .
Flut n. = h == ,.te :'" 8' P' '* b id ~" ' *** i
.im ..,d .y ,,=,..r. . d .d, ,de.qu.w **'.',8.",d*
- i. p. int sh. e.
,. i
.e."d ib. 6iic.'
'h' h*" **d "F' d d ".-.".'.' '."d f .e.'." ' .- ,."r****P'*'"'.'.'.'"8"'
8..'.*d.
2 Daug Schuste tidef.f fego. d.fw the NitC. Ret o. 5,i d Jim hf tgo,.e,y* chi f.t S,'h.ste,V"'he J
' ** *8" ** '"" ** * * * "
.ouhi .p.k 'g e.'.! su ly bn.us. ."=nty *fw the une ,ea s (Sch.ste,] ca.1 **" W' *'"
f,g
,,,,,. , ,d. ek.,
- d. gw m.eni.l. .d.fsi.e g .f .en.ity con.eder.li d ab. fact th.t th. ng t i. t
, . . s.,
, th,e s.gi-, ,g .
..r.l. Yesde
-ir secu c m. ity i.mis
.de .p 4, thsee c .d. i.rg.nis.
.a r.tie.s. h.
u . . .,".' , , '.",."I, ,'"a'>**= , ,i. .
(>~ .-- ade, . <';, ".tk,,,,,u,c,,,;i, , n. a * - - i. ,* ia u - t <
- i, ..i.d a d.-<.d
,.. n-* -- . *i-=- *5 - -e=' d ==ds c-g^i hr i-,.. ra"
'= 2.~t n. raaa h., i.
sa* -**
- t
,: s.r. cati ,, . a r.,.
,s .,,.,a,;.f, ,,;,,, rn=.==d i. ne n % 5= =id. _pa s w as-e.-
$ 8 6 % g g . -
.n es o m u"g os .4e p2 i i1 p N g y ,i g 4 t;s m, g.r v>8g i e p,g*4 ! n.. m- em*,
= -
- e'l np il 313 .! 13 n s*1
> s iib an . ., g b iIyi3,=4 - 5 q !!
h.:gAtegN.g']
lE oI l 1 l * '
dlibMi%jd.ihlrh@Is.}hh}biNNN f llih -
O -
9 #9
- ~
9- :y.**k * .
- .j ~ - '
. Y, 3
n Lt%t
, o UNITED STATES
! g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.. ; ; - REGION V "
1450 MARIA LANE, sulTE 210 WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA 94596 0 - *"**
APR 181o85 ,
MEMORANDUM FOR: Palo Verde File I s
FROM: D. Schaefer, Physical Security Inspector O
SUBJECT:
PALO VERDE INSPECTION HISTORY - AUGUST 1983 TO MARCH 1986 The attached 8 pages list the Security History for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) from the initial Unit-1 " Fuel Storage" Security 0 InaPection in Augast, 1983 to the most recent routine security inspection of Units 1 and 2 fromJebruary 11 - March 13,1986. During this 2 year period, five pre-operational security inspections and five routine security inspections have been conducted.
During these security inspections numerous deficiencies / violations and follow-up items have been identified. (Note: Prior to issuance of OL, O
" deficiencies" were identified; upon issuance of OL, " violations" were identified). The following licensee " common denominators" are present amongst these deficiencies and violations.
- 1. The~ld'censeesecuritymanagementdoesnotalwaysproperlyevaluate problems and events that arise in the day-to-day operation, as follows:
A. Failure to correct or compensate for previously identified problems.
'..(1) In May 1985, the inspector noted that the licensee had failed to close and secure an " extra" vehicle gate at Unit-1 which was O "not approved in the Security Plan. This violation had been
' previously identified by the licensee's QA Department in an audit report. ' '
(2) In September 1985, the licensee determined that some of their '
perimeter alarm zones could be Even arter toentizying tnis l O Problem, the licensee failed to take compensatory measures - l until prompted to do so by the inspector. Later, in October 1985, during the Unit-2 pre-operational security inspection, Region V again identified this same exact Violation. Overall these alarm zones have costed the licensee two separate Violations.
- O .
B. Failure to Properly Report Security Events to NRC. The initial example in 1.A.(2) above was not reported to NRC. Additionally, the most recent security inspection report identified 8 examples of )
events (documented by licensee's Security Incident Reports) that were not reported to the NRC.
O
, g ,
u l fo_m.g ;
i is%
p r- ns .
- O
O : ,
APR 18 YR5
. n .
- 2. Shortage of Security Officers. The licensee Security Department was
< () supporting a 2-Unit reactor with '
, as a result, security officers were often workJng between 6-/ days per week. (Note: Security Officers work .
at other reactors. This shortage of Security Officers' has been
- g) identified during the following inspections
- a. August 1984 f nitial pre-operational security inspection. ~
- b. October 1984 during the 2nd Unit-1 pre-operational security
, inspection.
- c. October 1985 during the 1st Unit-2 pre-operational security
. - inspection.
iC) d. November 1985 during the 2nd Unit-2 pre-operational security i inspection'.
i C)
- C)
In preparation for the April 10, 1986 Enforcement Conference at PVNGS, the inspectors determined through interviews with selected Security Officers that the utiliration of overtime for security officers had been reduEed. The number of compensatory security posts had been reduced, thereby providing some relief to the shortage of security officers. For 1C) this reason, the subject of " Shortage of Security Officers" was not i addressed with licensee management; personnel on April 10, 1986. ,
Since the last SALP rating (which did not include the results of the Unit-2 pre-operational security inspection),. the licensee has definitely slipped from a level-2 to a current rating of level-3.
- C)
! Q .
Pennis W. Schaefer/
Physical Security' Inspector
~
- C)
Attachment:
As Stated O
a<3 .
, APR 181986 ENFORCEMENT HISTORY-
- Units Involvzd: .;
- Paga 1 of Docket Nos. 'l Type of Dates of -
Total Description of Violations Follow-Up Items and Observations Inspection Inspection Inspection and Severity Level
& Names of Hours
' Inspectors
- Routine August 22-24, 38 No violations identified (OL not (1) Concern over the lack of isolation zone inspection 1983 issued) -
PA barrier -
(Fuel D. Schaefer (2) Concern over the expandeTbullet-resist Storage) L. Norderhaug '
barrier in Unit-1 (BR barrief is'for CAS)~
(3) Encouraged licensee to turn over all completed security systems as soon-as
' systems are installed and tested.
(4) Observed that fence barrier was affixed
~
(5) ' Observed inadequate illumination at sev.
areas of PA.
(6) Observed that nighttime was inadequate. -
i (7), Support ~ed finding of recent audit: some electrical wiring enclosures - not equipped with tamper switches.
Pre- August 20-24 32 No violations identified (OL not Operational 1984 (1) Exit meeting identified critical shortag issued) -
Inspection D. Schaefer (Initial) (2) Identified that IN 83-36 discourages the Unit-1 use of key pads on vital area doors.
(3) Identified design deficiency in
,- at vital arm doors I *
(4) Observed that only 62% of were operational.
(5) ~
EAnill!G: SATEGUARDS INFUIYATION 5 SECTI0li147 AIGIC KGROY ACI 1954.
V101.ATIC:15 CF 11ill.M;IICTION (6) .I.dentified that licensee does not have
, hEQUIRE;Z113 0F 10 CI:t 73.21 SUBJECT 10 CIVIIs t'.1 C41Ti3AL SANCTIO*!S. _
- a. '
e .
O e e e e e e e e e e
~ ~ .
~ ~ ~ ~
ENF0RCEMENT HISTORY' Units Involved: '
Peg 2 2 of Docket Nos.
s Type of Dates of Total Description of Violations follow-Up Items and Observations Inspection Insore* ion Inspection and Severity Level
& N. of Hours *
' Ins,. . ors Pre- October 1-10, 364 Exit meeting identified that (1) Excessive work hours for security offic Operational 1984 liceaeee was not able to demonstrate caused partially by shortate of securit Inspection D. Schaefer their ability to protect the public's officers I
2nd Inspection L. Norderhaug health and safety - Recommended to (2) Extremely high slare rate.
of 3 total A. McQueen licensee that OL not be issued (3) Ie. complete records being maintained for Unit-1 R. Bradley until appropriate corrective action response to security alarms.
(LLNL) is taken (on open follow-up items).(4) Mair.tenance procedures supporting secur
, (Note: No violations were department, not availatte, identified as OL was not issued). (5) Elements of testing and maintenance pro, not available for inspection due to equipment just having been released.
(6) Security Plan Change needed:
(7) Several unsecured in protected area.
(8) VA Barrier adjacent to substandard material.
(9) VA Openings allows undetected access to VA.
(10) VA Barrier -
(11) VA Barrier -
, (12) Several VA doors (13) VA Vent Openings' .
~
~~(14)VAOpeningi- ,_
l
~
(15) VA harrier -
s (16) 5 vital'a'eas r - utilize chain link as barrier. This material is sub standard g and not authorized for use as VA barrie: '
(17) Locking assembly on missile doors -
. 1
~~~~
(18) Security HQ Buildin,e -
O 4 9 8 O _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4 S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
9 9 9
_ ENF0kt.t.ttt.NT HISTORT .
Units Involv::d:
' Pega 3 ' af.
Dschet Nos.
i Type of Dates of
- Total Description of Violations Follow-Up Items and Observations inspection {
Inspection Inspection and Severity Le el
& Names of Hours
" Inspectors
- October 1-10, ; (19) Security HQ Building -
1984 (cont.) .
(2 ) Search Equipme$t 3 ~ ~ not inspected. -
(21) Numerous areas illuminated at less than footcandles.
- (22) Several experienced white-a in afternoon sun (glare).
(23) 4 perimeter zones could not be viewed b 3 not protected by (24) _. tamper circuitry.
6
' are partly ' masked. -
(26) Search equipment not stable enough to warrant only being tested on a (27) Search Train modifications to prevent unsearched persons from entering protect area.
(28', installed on
- 'as required in'
~ Security Plan. .
~
(29)
- receivers are not eqitipped with adequate
, (30) __
(31) Ability E __ ._ at vital area doors, and
' ~
.:, (32) Excessiveuse of throughout Unit-1. .
(33) Training needed for alarm station operat
, , - use pf ,_ d O e e e e e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
e e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
e e e
1 ENFORCEMENT HISTORP .
Units Involved:
- Pega 4 ef Docket Nos.
l Type of Dates of Total Description of Violations Follow-Up Items and Observations Inspection Inspection Inspection and Severity Level
. & Names of Hours l Inspectors October 1-10, l (34 at alarm station -
1984 (cont.)
~ ~
~
- (35) All alarms at alarm stations .
l (36) Physical' examinations for Security Offit
- no glaucoma test.
(37) Two security officers had expired medict
] , examinations.
(38) Trainina for security " Captains" - lacki j CAS/SAS Training.
(39) Trainina for security officers - lacking "
CAS/SAS Training.
1 3
Pre- December 10-14 74 Exit meeting identified 8 Alare Rate: In December 14, 1984 letter,
- Operational 1984 deficiencies which could not be licensee committed to further reduce their.al i
Inspection D. Schaefer corrected prior to ccipletion of rate.
j
~
3rd Inspection L. Norderhaug the preoperational inspection. In Glaucoma Tests: In December 14, 1984 letter, of 3 total December 14, 1984 letter, licensee licensee committed to complete glaucoma tests committed to complete correction for all security personnel by 4/30/85.
j of each deficiency. Lishtina: In December 14, 1984 letter, licen j No violations were identified as committed to correcting two areas that had
, OL was not issued. deficient lighting.
Additional Commitments in December 14, 1984 Letter: (1) Install a security lock on the i
. (2) Revis security lock procedure; (3) Reduce security alarm rate; (4) Revise a security test i procedure; (5) Correct 2 lighting deficiencie
, noted above; (6) Complete glaucoma tests for 1 security officers; (7) 1 (8) i i
. '.O
_ . . . - . m__. -. _-. .
- - ENFORCEMENT HISTORY- .
Uaits Involved: Paga 5 si Docket Nos.
Type of -Dates of Total Description of Violations Follow-Up Items and Observations Inspection Inspection Inspection and Severity Level
& Names of Hours
- Inspectors
- Routine Hay 6-10, 40 Level.IV Violat(on against Unit-1. (1). Noted that approximately 8' section of Safeguards 1985 (Licensee'was operating a separate protected area fence was missing - neva (Security) D. Schaefer vehicle craft gate which was not in installed. This area was under constar Inspection the approved Security Plan, surveillance b'y posted security ~ office Note: This deficiency was previously however, the missing fence was not observed and documented by a QA identified by the licensee.
inspection and the licensee failed (2) Noted that licensee had recently' submit
, to take corrective actions. a design change request for correcting area with deficient liahtina.
(3) Noted that licensee was taking actions improve (4) Inspector noleiiThid~iiingle entry into alarm zone caused multiple alarms. The multiple alarms (cascading alarms) slow
. the operation of the alarm station.
Licensee indicated they were in process-of correcting this problem.
(5) -Licensee continued to receive of fire alarms in' security alarm stations.
(6). Inspector noted that licensee did not h (7) Inspector' observed that several securit doors were equipped with to be used during situation in which th lock failed. were
, removed during this inspection'. :
e .
! o * *
- _
ENFORCEMENT HISTORY' Units Involved:
Pega 6 of Docket Nos.
Type of Dates of -
Total Description of Violations Follow-Up Items and Observations Inspection Inspection Inspection and Severity Level
& Names of Hours
- Inspectors Routine July 22-26, 39 No violations identified during (1) Observed that the written contract with Safeguards 1985 the course of this inspection within Guard Service Company did not include t (Security) D. Schaefer the areas examined. 4-part provisions of 10 CFR 73.55(b)(1)
Inspection (2) In 1983, in response to IN 83-15, the Unit-1 only , licensee committed to implementing a Verification System where (for security-
, background ~ investigation) would be !
recontacted to verify that the investigative agency had previously contacted them. Licensee was unable to provide documentation to support the implementation of this Verification Sys (3) Inspector observed that procedures allo the Security Badge, for terminated employees, to reamin in badge rack unti
, days following termination. Situation corrected.
(4) Corporate Security conducted an investigation regarding the unauthorize operation / manipulation of equipment at Unit-2. No subjects were identified.
Routine September 41 Level IV Violation against This inspection did not identify any r.ew fol Safeguards 23-27, 1985 -
Unit-1 in that after the licensee up items. ,
(Security) D. Schaefer determined through testing that a Inspection a portion of the perimeter Unit-1 plus was inadequate, no Storage of measure to compensate for this Fuel deficiency was taken (until noted Inspection by the inspector).
et Unit-2 .
Level V Violation against Unit-1 in that upon identifying the deficiency -
, in the perimeter alarm system,.,the '
. licensee failed to telephonically l nqt(fy NRC within 2) hoyrs.
O O O O _-
O O _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
O O O O O
'~~
- e ENFORCEMENT HISTORY' -
Units Involved:
Docket Nos.
- P:st 7.cf l l
Type of Dates of '
Total Description of Violations Follow-Up Items and Observations Inspection Inspection Inspection and Severity Level
,& Names of Hours Inspectors
- I Pre- October 3-10, 225 This Un'i t- 2 preoperational (1) One Security Procedure was being rewriti Operational 1985 security' inspection identified four and needed to be reviewed upon being Security October 11-25, violations against Unit-1. published.
Inspection 1985 (1) Screening records for (2) Observed by ins,pectors that increased for Unit-2 contract employee did not reflect security requirements because of Unit-2 that he had been evaluated in requirement =, caused numerous security accordance with the licensee's officers to work on two or three of the Personnel Reliability Program. (Note: .three scheduled days off. -Continued Screening records documented 2 felony convictions for theft, plus serving time in prison for 3rd felony theft conviction.) of the' uniformed security officers (2) Security screening records (3) Noted an excessive alare rate which seve for 4 contract employees did not ly challenged the security organization:
have documentation to response capability. Measures to reduce
_ the alarm rate will be reviewed in the
. . future.
(3) Inspectors observed licensee (4) Some portals were open and unable to be designated vehicle parked outside closed. They were identified for the protected area in lieu of being inspection in the future, e parked inside the protected area. (5) Noted in two areas that a (4) As a result of inspectors _
testing,
~
e
. . (5) Lighting survey identified two areas wit
- insufficient lighting.
. (6) Observed that the overtime for Contract '
Based upon the results of this pre- Security Officers exceeded the licensee' operational security inspection the limitations.
licensee was advised that a (7) Observed that were determination as to their compliance ineffective.-
with NRC Security requirements and (8) Noted that the passbering for their ability to protect publi.c's was confusing, and often caused health and safety could not be made misinformation between security and at this time.. maintenance organization.
e e O . ..
ENFDRCEMENT'HISTORi- ---
- Units Involv2d: ,
Pran 8 el Docket Nos.
Type of Dates of Total Description of Violations Follow-Up Items and Observations Inspection Inspection Inspection and Severity Level
& Names of Hours Inspectors
, (9) Unit-2 Secondary Access Point
- was not operating - inspect at later date.
(10) for 15 doors was working. These' doors'were posted with security officers. Equipment was inspe at a later date.
(11) 2 were inoperativ and inspected later.
(12) 4 vital areas will be inspected at a la date.
(13) High activity and noise level inside ,
Central Alarm Station. ,
(14) Numerous were identifi l l
Pre- November 11- 79 No violations were identified at (1) Inspectors identified that as a result Operational 14, 1985 Unit-2 as OL had not been issued. increased security commitments at Unit-Security D. Schaefer that numerous uniformed security person Inspection L. Norderhaug had for Unit-2 with very little time s~~~
t e
D
- 6 e
+
y e e e.
e .
O _
e e e e _
e e _ _ _ _ _
O O e e
'El#0RCEMENT* !!T51DHW Units Involved: .
Pagn 9 of-Docket Nos.
Type of Dates of -
Total Description of Violations Follow-Up Items and Observations inspection Inspection Inspection and Severity Level
& Names of Hours Inspectors
- November 11-15 -
1985 (cont.) (2) Observed that:~ ~
between vital islands were not adequate protected.
I (3) Observed that the_ '
were nc
' properly secured.
(4) Noted three that did not provide an adequate (5) As a result of this pre-operational sec ity inspection, the major deficiency wa in the area of communications.
As a i
result the licensee provided a 11/14/85 letter which stated specific actions they would be taking to correct this deficiency. Commitments in this letter were made part of the license, conditions for the operating license. (
written report with a final plan of act is due to Region V prior to initial criticality of Unit-2, due o/a April 10
, 1986, i
4 5
i
! . .s 4 ,
. . i
] ,* .
^
O __
~
ENFORCEMENT HISTORY .
Units Involved: ,
Peg 2 10 c Docket Nos.
Type of Dates of '
Total Description of Violations Follow-Up Items and Observations Inspection Inspection Inspection and Severity Level
& Names of Hours Inspectors Routine February 11- Level III Violation against Unit-1 (1) Identified an-inconsistency in the Seci Safeguards March 13, 1986 and Unit-2. Three instances in Plan concerning locked and alarmed open (Security) D. Schaefer which vital area doors were assigned in vital areas.
Inspection L. Norderhaug a protected-area H. Schuster . (2) Identified a portion of a security prot (exit only) Level IV Violation against Unit I which was inconsistent with the securit l and Unit 2. Inadequate VA Barriers plan. The procedure incorrectly allowt-
, Note: During (required barrier coverine any l exit meeting, H. Schuster --
4 expressed his concern that 2 Level III Violatibn against Unit-2 the demonstrated contract employee entered a vital area for which he had no authorization.
~ " ~ --' ~
overall performance of Security failed to respond to 5 alarms the licensee's caused by this emloyee. The sixth .
j , security alarm was responded to by security organization personnel.
was " marginal"
- at best. Level IV Violation against Unit-1 and Unit-2. Inadequate vital area barriers in that barriers
, were not welded in place.
i Level IV Violation. Failure.to report ,
l security events to NRC. These 8
] events were all properly compensated
] for, however, not reported to NRC
- Operations Center.
1 I.
. s -
)
- i
_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ A_.__-..__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - __ _ _ _ _ _ - -
20 May, 1987 NOTE TO: Rick Smith, DCS FROM: Charles E. Mullins, OGC -
RE: Depositions As I informed you in my telephone call earlier today, I am enclosing the depositions of four (4) NRC employees which were taken in a Department of Labor (DOL) "whistleblower" proceeding under Section 210. The parties and the NRC agreed to file the depositions in the Public Document Room t
in Phoenix, Arizona. All four NRC employees and.I have reviewed the depositions and agreed that they contain no -
information which cannot be made oublic. Please process the four depositions individually in the normal fashion. Please do not process this note.
l l
_