ML20195F616

Transcript of 841204 Investigative Interview of RP Barkhurst by D Driskill.Pp 1-61

ML20195F616
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	12/04/1984
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20195E886	List: ML20195E882 ML20195E909 ML20195E914 ML20195E919 ML20195E928 ML20195F124 ML20195F149 ML20195F188 ML20195F204 ML20195F220 ML20195F228 ML20195F241 ML20195F248 ML20195F300 ML20195F347 ML20195F402 ML20195F420 ML20195F455 ML20195F523 ML20195F561 ML20195F587 ML20195F616
References
FOIA-88-25 NUDOCS 8806270098
Download: ML20195F616 (62)

Text

. .-- - .-_ - .- . - -- - - - - _

4-84-043 1 l

L t

1 INDEX a .. , ,

• i WITNESS: ROSS P. EARKHURST Examination by: DON DRISXILL 4

E 2! E 1 B 1 I S , ,

5 NONE  :

6 APPEAPANCES: i USNRC, PEGION IV g 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Arlington, TX 76011

• I BY: DOF DPISKILL i 10 SHAU, PITTMAl', POTTS & TROMBRIDGE 11 1800 M Street, N.W. '

Pashington, D.C. '

12

EY

DEAN AULICK, Esauire '

13 4

14 15

~

f 16

! 5 l I 17 B

1

? 18 e

II k,

[ 20 t

)

• 21 I

j i 22 i

23 1

24

f i

25 EXHIBIT (10) 8806270090 000615 PDR FOIA BOLEYBB-25 PDR

2 MR. DRISKILL: For the record, this is an

.3 2

1. interview of Ross P. Barkhurst who is employed as the 1

3 Plant Manager-Nuclear at Waterford 3 by Louisiana Power 4

and Light Company.

5 The location of this interview is Vaterford 3,  ;

6

Taft, Louisiana. l 7 The date if December 4, 1964, and the time 8

I t

is 10:20 a.m.

9 Present at this interview are myself, Dean i

10 Aulick, an attorney for Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, j l

II Washington, D.C.

12 This interview is being transcribed by I3 Court Reporter, Goldie Kinchen. l 14

\.hereupon, 15 ROSS P. BARKHURST a

j 16 was eclied as a witness by the United States Nuclear i 17 Regulatory Commission, and af ter having been first duly i 18 sworn by Don Driskill, was examined and testified as 19 follows:  :

\

t 20 i MS. DRISKILL: Mr. Aulick, I would like to E

8 21 ask you who you represent in this matter?

I t 22 MR. AULICK: I represent Ross Barkhurst as

{'

23 an individual and I am also Counse. or our firm is Counsel

• }

24 for LP & L. ,

25 MR. DRISKILL: Okay. Thank you. Then you

l 3 1

do represent LP & L in other matters, is that correct?

2 MR. AULICK: Yes.

3 MR. DRISKILL: Do you represent any other 4  :

individuals that are employed by LP & L or associated 1

5 with this site?

6 MR. AULICK: Well, we represent individuals 7

as requested and as the need may arise.

8 For instance, we would represent Jim Cain 1

9 and Bill Nelson in this particular matter. j 10 MR. DRISKILL: Okay.

11 MR. AULICK: There may be others. These are 12 the ones that you and I have met with before.

13 MR. DRISKILL: Okay. Thank you. Are there 14 any objections to using first names? 1 s

15 MR. AULICK: No.

~.

m

16 MR. BARKHURST: No.

a 17 EXAMINATION BY MR. DRISKILL:

o e 18

> Q Okay. Ross, as you well know, we are here 19 to discuss an investigation that was conducted in 1983 by

20 Louisiana Power & Light Security Department investigators E

r 21 at the Waterford 3 site.

E,

22

!O And one of the things I would like to ask you 23 to do in the beginning is to describe the relationship you, 24 as the manager of this site,have with the Corporate Security 25 Department which I understand comes under a different group i _

4 1

of people in the corporation, j i

2 A Yeah, that relationship is basically one 3

of a line organization to an extent to a staff of corporate 4

support organization.

5 Obviously, as the Plant Manager, I am, you 6

know, running a } ine organization out here.

7 The Plant Security Department reports too, 8

in my chain of command although that was not the case at 9

the ti ae of the investigation you are referring to.

10 MR. AULICK: Why don't we take the two points 11 in time and just talk about the structure and maybe agreeing 12 that we can talk about it presently.

13 THE WITNESS: Yes, probably, that would be 14 talking past tense because it's not the same.

15 BY MR. DRISKILL: (Resuming)

~.

j 16 Q Okay.

8 17 A The relationship then was that Corporate S

j 18 Security -- As it is now, it is a corporate-staff-support 19 organization where security-type security is needed.

j 20 (Interview is interrupted by a very loud 2

8 21 speaker in the conference room.)

8 22 3 THE WITNESS: I don' t be' lieve this in going 5

23 to work too well .

., 24 MR. DRISKILL: Can we turn that down?

y 25 THE WITNESS: I don't know.

• 5 I ,

1l Who, at that time, reported to Joe Sleger  ; :

., 2  !

whose title was Adman Manager of Units 1 and 2 and parallel 8 3

with me to my boss who was the Vice-President of our 4

operations.

5 MR AULICK: Ross, I think with the interrup-6 tion, we didn't complete the Corporate Security Department.

7 THE WITNESS: I request that we get a better l

8 place to do this, 9

I can't maintain a train of thought or answer 10 in those kind of conditions (Referring to the loud speaker 11 in the room).

12 MR. DRISKILL: Okay, All right. Where do 13 s you want to go?

14 MR. AULICK: Let's go to his office.

15 (The interview was moved to Mr. Barkhurst's 16 8

office.) 10:35 a.m.

17 MR. DRISKILL: The time is 10:43. And we  !

v 18 have reconvened in the Waterford 3, LP & L Administrative 19 Building.

20

{ We have moved to a new location due to the 2

1 21 8

noise the speaker in the 'other conferer.ce room was making,

. 22 where we could have an atmosphere more conducive to discussing, 23 this matter in this location.

., 24 BY MR. DRISKILL: (Resuming) 25 Okay.

Q To go back again, pe-haps we can

6

= . _ . . . . . . . _ . _.

I reiterate. I would like for you to describe the relationship t '

l 2

with the Corporate Security Department in 1973. I l

3 MR. AULICK: Eighty-tbree ('83) .

4 (Resuming)

BY MR. DRISKILL:

5 Q I'm sorry. Nineteen eighty-three (1983) .

6 What I was saying was, that it A All right.

7 was a corporate staff function with respect to Waterford 3, 8 Plant Security reported to an Administrative Manager who 9

reported to the Vice-President, as I did, and performed 10 some of the same functions they do now in assisting Security 11 in carrying out its role with respect to Nuclear Security 12 requirements.

13 And of course, both organizations assist 14 the Plant Manager in carrying out his responsibilities with 15 respect to Security and badging, access of people to the l 16

[ Plant.

t* 1 17 Now, that was Plant Security in '837 Q

S j 18 A No, that was both. In other words , Corporate

! 19 Security assisted Plant Security. Both of them assisted me.

t 20 i For example, Corporate Security coordinates t

i 21 the background investigations which are an input into the I

j 22 badging process that's conducted by the Plant, one of the  !

t 23 inputs . They let them do that now.

24 Organizationally, in July of '83 and the Q

e4 25 present, Corporate Security was an entity that reported

7 I

to a Vice-President and then --

y.

c? 2 A (Interrupting) Off site. .

3 Off site?

Q 4 Correct.

A 5

Q And there was also Plant Security which 6 reported in 1983, to an individual who also reported to the 7 same Vice-President you reported to?

8 A Yes.  ;

9 And now, Plant Security reports directly to Q

10 you?

11 A They report to Frank Englebrecht who is my I 12 Administrative Services Manager. He reports to me.

~

13 So there has been a change in Plant Secutity Q

14 in the past year?

15 A Correct.

l. 16 Q And Corporate Security, organizationally, i 8

17 remains as it was in '83?

8

18 A They had a change, too. But the change e

I 19 really doesn't effect us up here, t

[ 20 In other words , they still report to a E

i 21 Vice-President off site.

I

! 22 Q Okay.

3 i

23 A It's a different one, I believe, you know.

24 At some point in time in there, it changed to Mr. Nelson.

e 25 Q Okay.

8 i _. _ _ .

I i A Originally, it was LP 6 L.

1 2

Q Were there any requirements that had to be 3

met for the Corporate Security Departrnent to come here and 4

conduct an investigation? f 5

In other words, did they have to come at i 6

your request or were they free to come out here at any time?

7 A I would say that they were free to come out i I

8 here at any time.

l 9 The only requirements would be those of t

10 common courtesy of anybody checking into a plant when they 11 come and explaining what their mission is.

12 Okay. With respect to the investigation that Q

13 we are discussing today and I believe that was the LP & L 14 Security Department Investigation No. 5-0001-83(966) which, 15 hereinafter, we will just refer to as the investigation.

1 j

I 16 Do you recall what occurred prior to the  !

t 17 initiation of that investigation?

b 18 l

[ A My first recollection is being informed that 19 there was some problem with an EBASCO person thinking about

[ 20 hiring an undercover person to investigate a potential I

i 21 problem with respect to Operations.

! 22 And the Plant Security was looking into 23 that. And that is the matter covered in the investigation  ;

24 that you're talking about, apparently.

25 The parts that refer to Lieutenant Dills and ,

9 I

the Ms . Nevels and Mr. Shea, I don't remember reading the '

2 details of that report until this year.

3 But I was told about the situation in 4

general and that's the first kncwledge I remember.

5 Q So basically, then did you have knowledge 6

of that investigation prior to its initiation at the site?

MR. AULICK: I'm sorry. That's unclear to 8

me. The investigation being Lieutenant Dills, that activity?

9 THE WITNESS: Yeah, basically. That was the 10 initial ctage of the investigation.

l 11 MR. AULICK: I see.

12 THE WITNESS: I thought Lieutenant Dills was l

13 on the site but I didn't have knowledge of that investi- l 14 gation until I was informed, as I said, that something was ,

i 15 in progress.

16 I'm not even sure whether I would even 17 characterize that as an investigation, somebody in an 18 unauthorized capacity was trying to conduct their own 19 investigation outside of our process, was the impression I 20 got.

21 BY MR. DRISKILL: (Resuming) 22 Q Okay. So somewhere in the early stages of 23 the investigation you were apprised of the fact that there 24 were some allegations relative to drug use and other thi.ngs, 25 the business with Ms. Nevels?

10 8

t I

A My impression was that I was finding out

, 2 about it in the early stages.

3 Not having had any control over how it got 4

started or whenever, I really can't say for sure how long 5

they were doing that.

6 Q Yeah.

7 A But the impression I got was that it was 8

fairly early.

9 Q Okay. To the best of your knowledge, for 10 the record, would you describe the investigation and what 11 took place?

12 A Okay. I would like to do it without giving 13 names of individuals .

1i Okay.

Q 15 A In some cases, if that's all right.

j 16 Q All right.

8 17 A In general, it was my understanding that 8

18 through a virtuous path, a relative of an operator on the 19 Plant staff, relative by marriage, whether it had been 20 h overheard or in some manner, had said that he used

?

r 21 marijuana and possibly, he had been seen preparing marijuana l I

22 cigarettes before he went to work.

l

& l 23 But really, the investigation is not clear i i

24 whether that turned out to be fabricated or not.

25 And there was some impression that a person j I

11 I that had been fired by Security was trying to cook up a j 2 pretty good case to get herself hired as an investigator.

3 But there was obviously -- it wasn't all 4 fabricated. There was something to it.

5 That operator was -- and I was'given the name 6 of that operator. That operator was a person whose name 7 I was very familiar with becauce he was a person who had 8 not made it through out Security screening process and was 9 one out of a group of individualc whom I was pursuing to --

10 I had to make a decision as to whether or not to allow them 11 to remain employed at Waterford in that regulated field.

12 MR. AULICK: Why hadn't he made it through

'. 13 the process?

14 THE WITNESS: He hadn't made it through the 15 process because he had shown some inconsistencies in his 16 MMPI exam and I had b'een informed that he showed a sensitiv-

! 17 ity in a response area concerning drugs.

8 18 So we were already looking into his situation

{

h 19 and we needed to make a decision as to whether or not to e

f 20 make his a control room operator or e reactor operator. ~

2 8

21 Another point I would like to make that I've

?

! 22 heard you and Mr. Herr and these investigations of Corporate 3

23 Securities continually refer to this individual and others g,

24 as control room operators or reactor operators when, in 25 fact, they are not. They are auxiliary operators whose job

12 I is not in the control room.

2 MR. AULICK: Just so I have it clear, with  !

3 regard to the individual that was the one identified in 4 the Dills process, prior to that identification of a 5 potential drug problem, that very individual had been 6 identified through the plant screening process as potential- 2 l

7 ly having a drug problem, is that correct? )

8 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't call it the plant 9 screening process.

10 I would call it the badging process. Differ-11 ent parts of that process are done by different organizations.

12 in support of the plant.

1 13 For example, Security coordinates the back-14 ground investigations, i 1

15 Corporate Personnel coordinates the MMPI l

! 16 examinations. And so, it was the MMPI examining portion l 8

17 of the process that had flagged this person as having a 8

j 18 potential drug problem, or a probably drug problem, actually

! 19 BY MR. DRISKILL: (Resuming) t

(

2 20 Q And so you were aware of that prior to this I

21 occuring?

! 22 A Yes. Yes , and he was not recommended for 3

5 23 access to the plant on a permanent basis which an individual 24 ultimately needs prior to fuel loading in order to hold any 25 job on the plant staff, any job that requires access inside

13 1'  !

of the fence right out there. l

'i: 2 So that's my early recollections that you 3

asked for in the situation. l 4

And my next recollection is that Corporate 5

Security requested to interview him by name so we set that 6

up. l 7

Q And, basically, to the best of your recall, what were the results of that interview?

9 A The results of that interview, they inter-10 viewed him at length and arrived at a point where - becaus e 11  :

I was informed he really had not admitted much of anytbing l 12 but Corporate Security fsit like he was on the verge of

~

13 changing his story.

I4 They felt confident that enough of the infor-5

, mation that we had, plus I had told them about the infor-5 16 5 mation we already had in the MMPI that he had a probable

! 17 drug problem.

18

{ They felt that they would be able to get IO f some place with him if they continued interviewing him.

20 They asked him to take a polygraph and he

?

I 21 asked to discuss that with his supervisor before he made 22 l up his mind.

8 23 And what I remember then, is his shift 24 1 supervisor was Wayne Smith.

25 We called them "NOS's" then for "Operation

14 1' Superivsors." They fulfilled the role of the shif t

.. 2 supervisor which is what we call them today.

3 And so we said certainly, you know, he can 4

have his supervisor, talk to his supervisor, he can have 5

his supervisor with him as far as the Plant is concerned.

6 You know, we want supervision to be involved 7 in these kinds of things. And he talked to his supervisor.

8 I remember his supervisor conferring with 9 his management, including rne, And our recommendation to 10 his supervisor was, that if he feels like he's innocent 11 and if he feels like he can prove what is really going on, 12 in his opinion, then he ought to use the polygraph to do 13 that.

14 And he agreed to take the polygraph af ter 15 talking to his supervisor. Which, I think, is an important 8 16 g point.

8

=

17 As you and Mr. Herr mentioned whi14 we 8

{

18 were talking to Mr. Cain a few days ago, apparently, there 19 has been an impression the the operators were instructed

! 20 not to cooperate in Security and I think that this is an I

r 21 example where it's obviously not the case.

j 22 In fact, he took the polygraph af ter confer-E 23 ring with his supervisors.

- 24 And the next thing I remember, generally, is 25 that the polygraph process put him in a position where he --

.15 I

helped put him in a position where he started changing his

~

2 story. And he admitted to using marijuana.

3 Q Based on what you've said, I get the l

4 impression then polograph examination is voluntary with l 5 respect to employees her'e, is that correct?

6 A Yes, that's my understanding of company 7

policy.

8 Okay. And then, essentially, then he did Q

i 9 admit the use of drugs on and off site, as I recall during 10 the t-11 A (Interrupting) As I recall, he admitted the 12 use of drugs off site, or marijuana, off site, on a -- like 13 two (2) or three (3) times-a-week basis and that he had 14 used it on site in the past but not since 1982, not in the 15 last six (6) to eight (8) months.

16 Okay. It was during this interview then f Q 8

17 that some several other individuals were indentified as S

18 being involved in off-site marijuana use, is that correct?

)

19 A He implicated the four (4) other operators, 20 f that's correct, as having used the marijuana off site, t

3 21 MR. AULICK: Do you want to clarify? You )

I I 22 said he implicated four (4) other operators.

23 THE WITNESS: Right. And as I said earlier, 24 they were all in the same job title as he was and that is 25 nuclear auxiliary operators , not the control room operators.

16 I BY MR. DRISKILL: (Resuming) , l

' I

/ 2 What took place with regard to furthering  !

Q i .

3 the investigation relative to these four (4) individuals? i 4 A What took place then was coordination between 5 plant Staff and Security to gain interviews with these other l

6 individuals.

i 7 It was a little bit of a difficult situation j 8 because all of these individuals were in a training -- near-9 ing the end of a training class where they were going to 10 take a very long, difficult exam.

11 And also, I wanted to insure myself the we i

12 didn't turn anybody into a reactor operator through the i 13 process of certifying them, even though their job would 14 still be auxiliary operators, i f we were to proceed t6 15 certify them as reactor operators, then that would qualify l 16 them to become control room operators.

1* i 17 And it's always been our policy that we 8

y 18 don't want to ask the NRC to qualify anybody unless we a ,

E 19 feel certain that they should be qualified ourselves first.

t

[ 20 So we were anxious to insure that they all I

E 21 were talked to as early as possible to find out what 8

22 potential problems we might have that we might not already i 23 know about with respect to their training process and that

., 24 because they were all trainees at the time.

.- \

25 Q You were discussing the coordination, the l 1

l i

1

- . _ . . m .- . -.

17 1

next stage.

~}.

- 2 A Right. So Security would give us the name .

l 3 '

of somebody they wanted to talk to and we would coordinate 4

through the Training Department and the Operations Department 5

to set up a time for the interview with them and Security 6

on an individual basis.

7 Q So these four (4) other individuals were I b

interviewed?

l 0

A Yes, uh-huh.

10 Q And, generally speaking, do you recall the 11 results of those interviews?

12 A The results of those interviews were that 13

- two (2) of them admitted to casual use of marijuana off 14 site and two (2) of them did not.

15 The two (2) who admitted to use of marijuana

16 off site, we had a decision to make as to what we felt about v ,

8 l 17 their fitness for duty and what their future should be here. i 8

18 As an early part of that process, we sent 19 them to a counseling type of a situation similar to the one 20

_f we had sent the original individual to.

2 r 21 In the case of these two (2) individuals, the I 22 report came back that they did not have a fitness-for-duty 23 problem or did not have a drug habit or a marijuana habit that 24 would affect performance and did not need cuanseling or 25 rehabilitation.

l

18 I

So that meant that we had answered that  !

' ' 2 question but we still had a decision to make about what 3

about their future, would they stay reliable.

4 And we talked to both of those individuals, ,

5 had them -- they did understand that they would have to I

6 I not use marijuana on site or off site in order to remain 7

employees and to be licensed operators.

8 And that they needed to be willing to prove l 1

9 that to us, periodically, by granting an urinalysis.

l 10 And after a year, seeing a counselor again 11 who would talk to them and reevaluate their situation and 12 nake sure that it was still adequate.

, 13 They both agreed to do that. Both of them 14 were fully cooperative.

15 Q What was your judgment of them outside of 16 this particular event?

sa 17 A They were two (2) potentially very good 8

18 operators. We bed not had any disappointment or attitude

!; 19 problems with them and they were both very good students 20 who were near the top of their class and they were in line

[

P 8

21 to go up for an exam the first time around.

I

22 And as well as we could assure ourselves

!C 23 that they were fit for duty and that we could believe that

. 24 they would stay that way, then we wanted to keep them in 25 the process. And once we assured ourselves of that, we did

19 1

it. 1

.Q 2 Q Okay. So they underwent counseling?

3 A What they underwent was -- I don't know what 4

you'd call it -- but it's the step before counseling.

5 In other words, even now, when we have an 6

employee assistance program, the first thing is that a 7

professional person determines what need there is for 8

counseling.

9 And they were talked to by someone Q I see.

10 in your management chain relative to their admissions of 11 drug use and their willingness to participate in a random 12 urinalysis program for one year.

13 A Right.

14 And their willingness to refrain from using Q ,

15 marijuana, either on or off site in the future?

j 16 A Right.

8 17 To which they apparently agreed, is that Q

8

{ 18 correct?

e 19 A Yes, yes.

g 20 f Q Were the random urinalyses taken from them

?

E 21 during the following year?

I 1

22 A Yes.

23 Q On how many occasions?

.- 24 A At least four (4) to my knowledge.

25 Q And just those two (2) individuals?

20 1

A Yes.

2 Q Okay. To go back just a second, what happen ,

3 ed to our original operator who admitted both on and off 4

site use?

5 A As I mentioned earlier, he was already on 6 our list of people that we had to resolve a question about 7 before we went any further.

8 We sent him to the same kind of evaluation 9 about counseling session and it was determined that he 10 definitely was a candidate for rehabilitation but that drug 11 use was a problem for him personally and so he was put 12 into a drug rehabilitation program.

13 At the end of that program, we found ourselves 14 at a decision-making point with him. Is he or is he not 15 going to be reliable? Is he rehabilitated and is he 16 reliable in that state of rehabilitation, to stay there7 17 Ue did not get a strong positive recommenda-18 tion from the counseling session as to h,is reliability.

19 They felt that he was rehabilitated but that

. 20 he was -- I guess, a little bit on shakey ground -- in other i 21 words, that there was a possibility of him having a repeat i 22 problem.

I 23 And they recommended that he not be put in 24 a sensitive position.

25 And at that time, I Tnade the judgment which

l 21 I

my management agreed with, that any positions on my staff l'

• that required badging for access to a vital area, would meet 3

my definition of a sensitive position.

4 And so, we informed him and let it come 5

through the Personnel Department that we didn't have a job 6

for him on the Plant staff.

7 Since he had cooperated with the rehabilita-8 tion and had done his best to get himself rehabilitated, we 9

asked Corporate Personnel to check and see if there was a 10 less-sensitive position elsewhere available for him in the 11 Company and they indicated that there wasn't and so we fired 12 him.

13 Q Okay. So we've got the original person who II was eventually terminated. We've got two (2) others who 15 admitted an occasional off-site use of marijuana who were j 16 counseled and agreed to undergo a period of taking random 8

17 urinalysis and not to use marijuana in the future?

v I8 A Correct.  !

i 19 Are those individuals still employed?

[ Q 20 One of them is. One of them resigned within A

21 the last couple of months.

22 l Q Okay. And then we had two (2) other individ-E 23 uals who were identified by our initial person?

24 Righ t .

A 25 Q What were the results of the interviews and/

l

22 1 or polographs that are applicable with those individuals ? ,

2 A Security talked to both of them. One of 3

them was -- neither one of them admitted the use of 4 marij uana.

5 ,

One of them, in Security's opinion, expressed 6 or demonstrated a highly negative attitude towards Security 7 and that was not surprising to me.

8 That individual had a negative attitude in  ;

9 general and had been informed of that, by his supervisor, 10 in fact.

11 As I remember, he even brought that up in 1

12 one of the Security investigation reports. He said that

{1 13 Bud Peeler who was his Operational Superintendent earlier 14 had told him that he had a employment security problem if 15 he didn't clean up his attitude.

16 And so he was an individual who we were 17 watching and counseling for his behavior and had concerns 18 about if and when we would qualify him as a reactor operator, 19 independent of whether or not he used marijuana off site.

20 As I said, he didn't admit using marijuana 21 off site.

22 We had concerns about qualifying him as an 23 operator at that time although we didn't deter =ine whether 24 or not he used marijuana. We felt like it was not a good 25 time to be qualifying him as a reactor operator.

. l l

I It probably would not have been in any case I 4

and he really had been varned of that.

1 2

So we put him in the portion of the class that was scheduled to reprepare later and take a later 5l full licensing exam if he was qualified to take it at that 6

time.

~

And he was told of that situation. We did S

some pretty heavy supervisory counseling of him for the 9

next eight (8) months. .

i 10 We had our consulting administrative 11 i psychologist, Dr. Forrest Tate, talk to him.

lo I

-l Q Dr. Forrest Tate?  ;

13 A Tate, right. And ultimately, earlier this 14 year, used all of that imput to determine if he had made 15

, enough improvement in his performance and his behavior and j, 16

his ability to do the job, and determined that he was ready 17 f

for an exam.

18 And he was licensed early this' year and j '9

. considered him to be a much improved operator and individual 90

so far.

21 '

4 Although, through our employee appraisal j 22 program, we will continue to evaulate and keep an eye on I.

23 all people, him included.

24 So that's one of the two remaining individuals .

25 Q And the other?

24 1 A I can show you which one on there, if you i.) 2 want me to show you.  ;

i 3 I know which one it was.

Q 4 A 1 don't believe we want to put names on the 5 records.

6 Q So, basically, then the two that did not 7 admit using drugs, based on my recollection, they didn't 8 take polygraph examinations or declined to take the poly-9 graph examinations?

10 A Yes, I believe they did.

11 Q Those two particular individuals weren't 12 required to take urinalyses or they didn't go into any

~

13 follow up counseling program with respect to drug use?

14 A No.

15 Q Or any follow up coming as a result of j 16 the allegations that were made~about them?

17 A Well, there was plenty of follow up.

8 e 18 Q I mean, specifically, because of the fact 19 that they had been identified?

20 A The follow up -- there was follow up to f

?

8 21 insure that our supervisory responsibilities were being 8

i3 22 carried out, specifically, in their case.

23 In other words, to double check and insure

. 24 that they were, in fact, being supervised properly and 25 that their behavior was being observed properly with the i

25 I behavioral observation program that we have.

}T, 2 l And, in the case of the one who had '

3 demonstrated a bad attitude toward the employment, and 4 his general behavior was not acceptable, there was a lot 5 of follow up to insure that that either reached an acceptable 6 level or that he would have been out of a job.

7 Q Okay. So that investigation which begain in l l

8 the p6riod early May, 1983, had gone up to somewhere around )

i 9 the first of July of 19837 10 A The investigation has. The actions I've 11 described, being more on the scale of '82, end February of 12 this year.

13 Q Okay. I understand that. Okay. But with

]-)

14 respect to the investigation, can you tell me -- it's been 15 documented that around July the 7th, the decision was made l

? 1 16 to suspend -- I'm going to use that word since that the

'j I 17 word that was used in the report.

S e 18 A Right.

3 f 19 Q To suspend the investigation, is that correct?

a h 20 A Yes, I bead that document.

I r 21 Q Would you describe your knowledge of that 3 22 particular decision?

3 5

23 A My knowledge of that decision goes back to 24 what I said earlier about desiring to conduct investigation

.O 25 and to get the investigation of all the implicated individ-

26 l'

uals over early enough in the process so that the operators ,

')' 2 '

would have at least a couple of weeks to do their final '

scudies, take their exams, without wondering who was going 4

to be pulled out of the classroom next.

5 And so, I'm certain that I expressed that ,

desire to Corporate Security and to my boss, to not have '

7 an active investigation going on t.he last couple of weeks b

before their exams.

0 Q Okay, as I recall the exam was, the first 10 exam,was scheduled for July 12, 1983?

11 A That's right. So we had one week, I guess, 12 prior to that, that this decision was'being made.

. 13 Q Who was your boss at that time?

14 A William Cavanaugh.

15 Q And he was?

8 16 A He was a Senior Vice-President for Nuclear

! 17 Operations.

?

18

{ Q And so this was a desire that you expressed 19 to Mr. Cavanaugh?

20 f A I believe I did. I can't remember a specific f

r 21 occasion when I did, but I'm sure I did.

I 22 l Q With regard to the investigation, had Mr.

E 23 Cavanaugh been briefed prior to that time by you relative '

24

}t to this matter?

25 A Yes, he was being kept informed by me and

27

_ . _______.______ _ .___ .._.___. _ _ _ _ . _. _ l 1  !

.- by Corporate Security as to the progress of the investiga- l tion.  !

3  !

Q In other words, as people were interviewed, you were informed and then you, in turn, informed him of 5

the results of those interviews? I 6 i, A Right.  !

7 Q Were you being provided with their investi-8 gation reports or statements, the question and answer type 9

statements, that they were taking and so on, as they were 10 preparing those?

11 '

A I was provided with some of them.

12 Q Okay. So then you were kept informed of the 13 results of their interviews and what these individuals had 14 l been telling them? l

, A With respect to these five (.5) individuals, I h 16 a yes, I 17 Q Okay. And so you said that you talked with ,

e 18 1 1

a Mr. Cavanaugh and recommended that the investigation be i I

I9 f suspended at that time, prior to the up-coming NRC licensing E 20 i exams?

E r 21 A Right.

I '

22

! Q When you made that particular recommendation, 23 did you discuss with him pursuing the investigation further 24

e at a later date?

25 A No, I didn't. When we discussed that, it was

28 I

1 my feeling that Corporate Security would, in all probability,;

?'-

b,' 2 I want to do more investigating, although I didn't know any-  !

3 body at that time that they would want to talk to.

4 In other words, they had talked to everybody 5

whose name was on the list of potential p6ople the 'would want 6

to talk to.

I So, the words I would use dre that we asked or 8

we desired that the investigation not go on for the last 1

9 few weeks until the exam was over.

10 You said something about that decision being 11 made on July 5th or something, one (1) week before the ,

12 exams.

13 That may be when that was documented, but I 14 don' t believe that they interviewed anybody a week or two 15 before that either.

j 16 In other words , to my knowledge, they inter-17 viewed all of these people -- and I wouldn't have wanted it 8

18 to go that close to the exam because I had decisions to make 19 also.

5 20 Q Uh-huh.

I r 21 A And so, I got the information I needed a

! 22 week or two earlier than that.

23 MR. AULICK: 'By ndt wasting it to go that 24 cloge to thati exam arid you had your own decisions to make, 25 what do you mean by that?

29  !

1 THE WITNESS: Well, as I mentioned earlier, l

% 2 you know, I don't want to qualify anybody who isn't a 3

reactor operator as a reactor operator unless I have pursued 4

all avenues of potential problems.

5 i So if somebody was implicated as a potential  !

6 marijuana user a month or two before an exam, I really 7

wouldh't want to wait until the day before the exam to 8

find out what I could find out.

9 BY.MR. DRISKILL: (Resuming) 10 Q I understand.

1 11 1 A So we were able to conduct those investi-12 gations by -- as I remeinber, I think the last one was by

^

) 13

-. June 21st. j 14 At the same time, I should mention that in 15

. addition to keeping management informed and keeping myself i 16

$ informed, I was keeping the NRC Resident Inspector informed 17 about what we were doing. j V

18 Q Yeah, I saw a memo that he had written to II f his supervisors around the first part of June. And that 's 20 2

the only documentation that he has relative to any briefings 21 that you gave to him. I 22 l So obviously he wasn't -- at least based on s

23 the documentation that I have -- he wasn't aware of the n 24 entire investigation.

.2 25 Q No, what I specifically remember -- the

30 1

important points I specifically remember inforning him of 2.9 2 is the confirmation of that I had a problem with the first 3

individual.

4 Q Uh-huh.

5 A And also the confirmation of the problem 6

with the two (2) individuals who had used drugs off site, 7

causally, and who didn't appear to have a fitness-for-duty 8 type problem.

9 And I feel pretty sure that I discussed it 10 with him in general, you know, our approach toward checking 11 their -- having them have that precounseling session and 12 taking measures to insure that they didn't develop a problem.

~

13

Q Do you recall more than one (1) meetingl 14 A I believe so. On two (2) different occasions 15 because there was some time delay between the first individ-

~.

j 16 ual and the next four (4) .

I 17 It took some time to do that.

8 18 The reason I'm pretty sure I remember that is i: 19 1 remember I didn' t want to give names unless I had to. I

[ 20 remember that the name of the first individual was obvious I

r 21 because he disappeared from duty and I can remember discussing I

s 22 who that was.

23 And I think I can remember not discussing who

,. 24 the other two (2) were. They were still on site, still on ll, 25 training and I preferred not to.

31 1

I preferred not to spread names around if 1

2 I didn't have to. So there were two (2) different situa-3 tions.

4 Q Okay. So then, in reading through the 5 investigation report, there were statements made by one 6 (1) and I believe two (2) of the individuals who were 7 interviewed that there were other people using drugs, off 8 site, at least.

9 A Uh-huh (Witness nods his he- .o indicate 10 an affirmative answer).

11 Q When you made your decision to discontinue 12 the investigation or suspend the investigation --

13 A (Interrupting) I'd like to correct that.

14 I didn't make that decision.

15 Q I'm sorry. I meant to say when you decided 16 to recommend suspension of the investigation, did you take

?

17 that particular point into consideration, that there wet'e  ;

l l 18 allegations of other people using drugs?  ;

I believe that there were also allegatior.s j f 19 '

i

! 20 or inferences that some of the reactor operator supervisory I

E 21 staff was aware of it and may even possibly be involved in I

i 22 an occasional use. j i;

23 A l'm not aware of anything in these reports 24 that alleges that their supervisors were using drugs or 25 that the control operators were using drugs.

I

32 1

Q What about the fact that they were aware of

.b' 2 drug use?

3 MR. AULICK: Other than those two (2) 4 categories, in some other type generality, you mean?

5 BY MR. DRISKILL: (Resuming) 6 Q Yes, at least' one of these individuals, as ,

7 I remember, expressed the opinion to Security that he felt 8

that some supervisors condoned the use of drugs off site.

9 MR. AULICK: Are you talking about your 10 recollection at the time rather than a recent review of the 11' file 7 ,

12 BY MR. DRISKILL: (Resuming) 13 e

Q Both.

14 Okay.

A And I wasn't able to confirm that 15

~

supervisors condoned the use of drugs off site.

j 16 '

But in talking, we had discussions, Operations I 17 Superintendent, the Manager o'f Operations, Maintenance and '

3 l

,e 18 I ha r discussions with the Shift Supervisors and what I 19 was able to detect was some uncertainty or confusion as to ,

t 20

[ what is corporate policy or even_ what is legal on the out-2 r 21 8,

side in any corporation with respect to an individual's drug i i 22 use off site, specifically; something like marijuana, which i

& i 23 is, in a lot of people's minds and in some of their minds, ,

9 24 gee, it's almost decriminalized, you know, as a supervisor, 25 should I tell people not to do things at ho=e if it doesn't ,

33 1

affect their job performance. ,

7,4 2

/ So I was able to detect some question or i 3 confusion along those lines.

4 And so, we went to work to clear that up,  ;

5 to insure that people 6nderstood that it was not condoned 6

if they felt that way.

7 And explained to the supervisors that that 8 kind of a thing off site, even if it didn't affect fitness 9 for duty, that fitness for duty was not the only question.  ;

10 That it could have a bad impact on the cor.panyl 11' And that, as company employees, people need to be concerned i

12 about that, also. i i

{: ,

13 An d s o, it could hr.ve a negative impact on 14 an employees because it could have a negative impact on the 15 company and, therefore, we did not condone, even casual use, r

j 16 of any kind of a controlled substance off site.

'A l

I 17 And I made that clear, made sure the super- '

S i

g 18 visors understood that.

19 Q How did you do that?

! 20 A By talking to the shift supervisors. And Ir 21 then, after we arrived at an understanding there, we had I .

I 22 a meeting with all of the operators who were in training

& I 23 and orchestrated that very carefully so that 'they could see  !

p 24 that their whole chain of command, how we felt on that

./ ,

25 subject.

34 1

And the shift supervisors appointed spokes-men atungst themselves and he explained to the operators 3

that that kind of a thing, even off site, is not condoned 4

and why.

5 MR. AULICK: What time period are we talking 6

about here, roughly?

7 THE WITNESS: That was on June 21st.

8 Because there was some confusion there and 9

really it's not surprising that there is sorne confusion 10 there.

11' It's a subject that's still a question as 12 to how far can an employer go outside his own property

' 13 to control what people do on their own time.

14 And at least in our case, 'we came up with 15 an expression of our policy and described it to the

'g 16 operators and, ultimately, put it in writing, in a new, t

17 clear policy that did address even tnarijuana use off site.

U 18 BY FR, DRISKILL: (Resuming) 19 This was June 21, 19837 g Q h . . 20 A Yes.

E F

21 So it was immediately subsequent to or Q

22 during the course or the latter stages of the investigation'.

l 5

23 A Possibly even during the investigation.

24 Right. Uh-huh. .

25 Q The fact that LP & L management would not

35 1

condone the use of drugs, certainly on site or off site --

A (Interrupting) Or off site.

3 Q By their reactor operators?

4 A Right.

5 Q And that was discussed with the supervisors 6

and made clear to the supervisors and, ultimately, to the 7

reactor operators?

8 A Reactor operator candidates.

9 Q Yes.

10 A Correct. I 11' Q And that was done as -- l 12 A Some of them were supervisors. Some of them 13 were reactor operators. Some of them were auxiliary operatori 14 like these individuals. 1 15 Q That was made clear, did you say, by the shift 16 superviosrs? l I

17 A Right.

18 y Q Were you or other management personnel also j

19 there?

f, 20 A Yes, yes. It was made, like I said, real,1y.

f f

21 we wanted to orchestrate that such that they were hearing I 22 that from their first-line supervisor and such that manage-E 23 ment was there to back them up and answer questions.

24 But we wanted to -- if there was any possibil-25 ity that the felt like their first-line supervisor was fuzzy

36 I

on what they did at home, we wanted them to understand that

2 their first-line supervisor was not fuzzy on that question, 3

and that they could see that management agreed.

4 Q As a matter of curiosity, was there any 5

disagreement by reactor operators relative to the company 6

dictating to them what they did at home or off site? j 7 A There was no disagreement. There were ques-8 tions which we answered.

9 And I don't believe there was any disagreenent 10 af ter those questions were answered, 11' In other words, the question comes down to, 12 if an individual believes like he's fit for duty when he's

'. 13 being paid by the Company, then the impression is, why do 14 I have to be fit for duty when I'm not being paid by the 15 Company?

i j 16 And, you know, we explained that that wasn't j 8

17 just the question. l S

y 18 That as employees of the Company, your actions I

! 19 need to not damage your employer, t

[. . , 20 And that explanation, I felt, they understood.

I 8

21 So we did t'ak'e that action.

I 22

! Like I say, I couldn't confirm that any super- l E I 23 visor condoned it but I could see that that was a questions 24 and I'm sure it is st.ill a question many places other than 25 waterford today.

37 I

But I don't feel like it's a question at 9 2 Waterford because we've put that in writing and we even used 3

the shift supervisors to review that policy that Mr.

4 Cavanaugh and I put together, to comment on it and help 5

write the policy so that they would feel like a part of the 6

process.

7 And they had some good comments. And then 8

we put out the policy and had the people sign it.

9 I believe you have a copy of that.

10 Q You had people sign it?

l 11 A Yes. I i

12 '

Q That they had read it and understood it?

13 A Uh-huh, 14 Q Did each of the reactor operators sign it?

15 A Yes.

16 Q As a requirement?

8 17 A But all Plant staff did, really. It wasn't

?

. 18 just an operator policy.

I 19 Q Okay. Beyond that, beyond that June 21, 1983, 2

e j 20 meeting with these personnel regarding the site poiicy, yas

?

I 21 there any other follow up action relative to that policy?

E I 22 A Yes, there was. He instituted some programs t

5 23 which are recommended by organizations such as~ the Electric

__ 24 Institute, INPO, Institute for Nuclear Power Operations, 25 which are designed to keep people in a fit-for-duty condition

33  ;

._.)i 1

One of those is a behavioral observation .

b program. And we instituted a requir6 ment for that.

l 3 I We conducted training for all employees who 1 4

supervise anybody, which is the way that program works, that l 5

each supervisor reports any behavioral anomalies of any of ,

t 6

the people who work for him because he's the closest to them. i i

7 We did training on that. )

8 l We instituted an employee assistance program 9

which was applicable to all Nuclear Operations Department 10 personnel in LP & L to give people with any kind of a problem 1 11' which may affect their job performance an avenue to get that 12 problem out in the open wh'ere it can be worked on and resolv-13 ed in order to keep them fit for duty or, if they develop a 14 problem, in order to return them to a fit-for-duty condition.

15 I think those are important programs and they 16 track closely what the leaders in the industry are doing 8

17 now.

S i

e 18 I was a loaned employee to INPO before I care  !

\

! 19 here and --

1 i

20 h - .

MR. AULICK: That's loan, L-0-A-N, a loaned?

?

r 21

,8 THE WITNESS: Right. Loaned from a part of 22 l General Electric and so I was familiar with some of these 23 kinds of programs.

24 INPO had been looking.into them while I was 25 there.

39 1

So we instituted it. We also insured that 2

there were drug-awareness sessions and training conducted 3

so that people could recognize potential problems in their 4

fellow employees.

5 And they just teach all about drug parapher-6 nalia and behavior and how people act who have a problem 7

with any kind of a controlled substance.

8 And they don't teach people to anlayze 9

problems but they teach them to spot potential problems and 10 give them an avenue to get them resolved.

11' Since then, we have been active, LP & L has ,

12 in the NUMARK which is the Nuclear Utilities Management 13

. and Human Resources Committee.

14 NUMARK has gone to numerous Nuclear Regulatory 15 Commission hearings and testified'as to what the industry 16 feels is the best course of action to take in management.

17 areas, including fitness for duty, o

j 18 And the NRC has agreed to withhold rulemaking 19 on fitness for duty and to allow the utilit'y industry to i 1 l 20 continue to take its initiatives in that area.

• 2 .

I 21 In fact, there is a meeting coming up in a I

j 22 few days to go over some of those initiatives,16c16di6g 5

23 this one.

24 So far, we feel like w'e are taking that 4- 7 l

- t 25 action that I mentioned are well in accord with what is be-

40 1

ing recommended by NUMARK.

-dp 2 But obviously, we are committed to continue 3

following that and to maintain an acceptable program.

4 And we understand our program, everybody's program, will be 5

evaluated periodically by INPO, Institute for Nuclear Power 6

Operations in their operating plan and performance evalua-7 tions.

8 BY MR. DRISKILL: (Resuming) 9 Okay.

Q Going back to your recommendation to 10 Mr. Cavanaugh that the investigation be suspended, did he 11' have any problem with accepting your recommendation or did 12 he agree with that recommendation?

{- 13 A I don't. remember any problem with that.

14 Okay.

Q And what did he do or what did he and 15

~.

you do subsequent to your discussing that with him?

j 16 A I'm not certain.

4 I 17 Q He apparently talked to Mr. Nelson based on S

18 the documentation that I have seen that accompanied that ,

19 report because it was shortly af ter that, that Mr. Nelson i .. 20 told Mr. Friloux -- that 's F-R-I-L-0-U-X -- that the in-E I

21 vestigation would be discontinued. '

t 22 A I don't know that.

5

• i 23 Q- You probably have it in some of those docu-

)

l

p. 24 ments there. - I 25 A I do but they don't tell me exactly what i

41 1

you re saying. i

.a J*e 2 MR. AULICK: Anyway, you didn't have direct 3

involvement, is what you are saying, past talking with Mr.

4 Cavanaugh and recommending that they be suspended for --

5 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm sure I let those sane 6

things be known to Mr. Friloux, that we needed to get the 7

investigation of the individuals who were implicated over 8

and done as soon as we could and that we needed a time period 9

when they could study for their exam.

10 BY MR. DRISKILL: (Resuming) 11" Q Okay. Yeah, there are several notations in 12 these reports that document the fact that meetings occurred

13 between Friloux and on some occasions, Mr. Cauanaugh, and  ;

t 14 yourself regarding the progress of the investigation?

15 a.

A Yes.

e j 16 Q Was the matter of the suspension of the 8

17 3

investigation ever discussed at any of those meetings, to y 18 your recollection?

e 19 f A I don't remember.~

h 20 2

Q So, in your own mind, you decided early on -

8

,8 21 that you -- or at least -- I say early on -- the investi-I 22 gation, as we have said was started in May and probably E

23 finished somewhere in mid June, the investigation as it

p. 24 stands in this point? .

r 25 A Uh-huh (Witness nods his head to indicate

42 1

an affirmative answer). -

"* 2 Q So somewhere during that period of time then, 1 i'

3 you decided that you didn't want the thing to go right up  !

4 to the point of time that these individuals were going to 5

be taking these NRC licensing exams? I 6

A As I indicated earlier, there were two (2) 7 reasons why I needed it to not go right up to the exam.  !

, t 8

Number one was the disruptive effect on all 9

of the students. And the other was that I neec:ed to find i 10 out about these individuals who were implicated so that I l

1 11' could factor that into my decision as to what to do with  !

12 them.

l

~

13 Q I see.  !'

l 14 A So there were really two (2) reasons why I

{

15 needed to get done -- the identifiable portion of the l 3  !

j 16 investigation needed to get done as soon as possilbe and t1 I

17 not be drug out to the last minute.

5 l

,\

18 Okay.

{ Q I e

j 19 A And like I said earlier, as I remember; the 4

20

[ . . last interview of those five (5) operators was done about t

r 21 June 21st or June 22nd.

?

I 22 So that was about as close as you would want 23 it to go without keeping the class in a turmoil.

24 Now, in our meeting ,with the operators, they 25 were, I know, con'cerned'about the' disruptive"iOlueHee'thdre

43 1

might be on their studying the last few weeks.

'h 2

- And they questioned management as to whether 3

the investigation was definitely over or whether it might 4

be picked up later on and they were told that it could be 5

picked up later on.

G '

Q This was about the same tirne you were -

7 di. cussing the fact that the company would not condone the 8 use of drugs and so on?

9 Yes. I forget the date.

A 10 The same meeting?

Q 11 The 21st.

MR. AULICK:

12 BY MR. DRISKILL: (Resuming) i 13 Q You are referring to the same meeting?

14 A Uh-huh, yes.

15 Okay. Do you know if Mr. Cain was ever

, Q 3 16 appra'ised of this particular decision or appraised of'.the I 17 investigation being conducted?

8 l

[ 18 A I don't know. '

19 You have no knowledge relative to that?

Q

[ 20 A No. ,

E r 21 Q Are you aware of whether Mr. Cavanaugh ever I

22 discussed it with Mr. Cain? l l

5 ,!

23 A I don't know. ,

l 24 And I believe you said that you never dis-7' Q ,

l 25 cussed your reasons for recommending the suspension of the j I

44 investigation with Mr. Nelson?

T,

' 2 A I don't remember doing that. I could have, 3

even though I don't remember specifically discussing that 1 4

with him.

l 5 l Q Why wasn't the investigation reinitiated i 6

subsequent to the NRC licensing exams? l A I don'.t know.  ;

9 MR. AULICK: Did you have anything to do with 9

that, with this not being reinitiated?

10 THE WITNESS: No.

~

11 BY MR. DRISKILL: (Resuming) 12 Q There was never, to your knowledge, a 1

, 13 conscious decision not to reinitiate the investigation by 14 yourself, Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Nel on or anyone else?

15 A No, not to my knowledge. l

• I 16

} Q Whose responsibility would it have been to i l

n 5

17

_ reinitiate the investigation?

3 18 l A The person that suspended it. I t I l9 Which was?

Q f:

• 20 A I really don't know that. I would presume 21

}

that it would be between Mr. Friloux and Mr. Nelson.

j 22 Okay.

Q So you never asked that the investi-2 23 gation be reinitated?

24 A No. .

25 Q Did you ever give it any thought?

l i

45  !

1  !

A Not af ter the exams. I gave it thought, you !

4'# 2 know, before the exams. l 3

I really gave it my thought when I examined 4

what I thought I knew to make sure if I knew enouFh in 5

conjunction with all the other actions that we took to 6

insure that the people were fit for duty.

7 And if I had needed more information before 8

or after the exams, I would have asked for it, more infor-9 nation from the outside.

10 Q So in your own mind, when you made the 11' recommendation, you didn't feel a need for further investi-12 Eation?

13 I d.idn't see a need but I stood ready to

, A 14 accept anybody's suggestion.

15 There were no names that I knew of left of i

16 people who needed to be talked to.

I 17 Q But you were aware that other people had 8

g 18 been implicated, if not by name, by inference that other '

}

19 people were using drugs or using, particularly, marijuana?

\

g 20 A There were general statements about use off '

I t

8 1 21 site, yes.

l I l 1 22 Another important thing that I took into a

4 0

23 account was that there wem some' fairly specific corrobrative l 24 statements that any use by any operators on site had l 25 definitely come to a halt long before that time. 4

46 I

MR. AULICK: Was it your view that you were 2

taking any action on, let's say, the potential of use of 3

drugs or controlled substance off site?

4 THE WITNESS: Yes, and I think we went as 5

far as anybody has gone or can go to explain to people why outside use can be a problem, also.

~

G 7

MR. AULICK: So you would describe your 8

actions with the shift supervisors and, thereafter, the 9

operator candidates, as a reaction to the general potential 10 for off site use by others?

~

11 THE WITNESS: Well, the whole key to fitness 12 for duty which is affected by many things, including con-13 trolled substance use, is good supervision.

14 And if the supervisor is not going to help 15 insure that his people are fit for duty, that makes it more 16 difficult for people further removed to do that, '

17 And so my whole concern is safe, rcliable 18 operation of the plant and, with respect to this, to insure 19 that everybody is fit to do the job.

20 Good, aggressive supervision is the key to 21 that, i

22 BY MR. DRISKILL: (Resuming) 23 Q Based on what you said, you were aware that either inferences or allegations were made that other

, ,,, 24 1

25 individuals were usinF drugs. And when I say "individuals,"

l J

4/

1 I'm speaking of these recctor operators or auxiliery reactor operators, were or have been in the use of, 3

particularly marijuana, off site on one basis or another,

^

4 be it occasional or frequent and that statements were made 5

indicating that there may have been a time when some of 6

these individuals used marijuana on site?

7 A Uh-huh (Witness nods his head to indicate 8

an affirmative answer).

9 MR. AULICK: You were aware of the latter, 10 also? I just didn't recall that myself.

11 THE WITNESS: Not other than individuals 12 who were named.

13 BY MR. DRISKILL: (Resuming) 14 Q We are talking about in ferences .

15 MR. AULICK: I didn't recall exactly.

a j 16 THE WITNESS: I don't recall any inferences f 17 that anybody other than individuals who were named had 18 I ever used it on the site.

19 BY MR. DRISKILL: (Resuming) 20 Okay. But at the time you recommended Q

t i

21 suspension of the investigation, you didn't feel the n'eed

?

I 22 to identify who these other -- and I'll quote from the I,

23 report, "307.," were who were supposedly using drugs?

24

{fj You didn't feel the need to know who they u- 20 were?

48 1 MR. AULICK: Excuse me. Just so we have

)- 2 clear what was the information, in what person's mind, l 3 did you have available or have in. hand a report that said 4 30*/. or a specific number?

5 I don't know the answer but I'm just trying 6 to make sure we have what was in the statement.

7 THE WITNESS: That was in one of the state-8 m ents.

9 MR. AULICK: That was not necessarily 10 .eubstantiated.

11 THE WITNESS: That was one statement made 12 by one individual, I believe.

. 13 MR AULICK: Okay. Ross had said earlier 14 some of the things he had been shown and I don't know which 15 he had been shown.

3 16 THE WITNESS: So you are assuming that I I

0 17 had drawn the conclusion that that was true which I had not.

5 18 And I took that information into account in 19 making my judgment.

?

[ .. 20 BY MR. DRISKILL: (Resuming) l

}

r 21 Q Did you come to any conclusion as to whether l i

j 22 it might be true or not?

23 A No.

, _. 24 Q And you didn' t believ,e or disbelieve it?

25 A Really, no, t

l 49 i

I '

Q Did you have any reason to disbelieve it?

,- 2 ,

A Yes. '

i 3

Q And what would that reason have been?  !

4 A Just by observing the performance of the 5

employees.

6 But I didn't come to the conclusion that that 7 I was really a rumor or hearsay by one individual and so, you l 8

know, based on something like that, I wouldn't decide to 9

believe it or to disbelieve it.

10 Q It's very difficult to determine whether an 11' individual might be using drugs based on even frequent 12 observations of that individual in a working relationship 13 maybe.

14 And we have already established by what you 15 i

have said earlier that two (2) of the individuals who adcited 16 g using drugs were some of the best operators you had and there I 17 S

had been no indication in the past that they ever used drugs ,

18 y based on their MMPI and --

e 19 f A Right. And we determined utilizing profession- l

[ 20 al counselors that they didn't have a drug problem. -

I .

r 21 Q That's right.

,8 t 22 A And you are implying that it is somehow our \

5 23 1 mission to determine who has ever smoked one marijuana '

l . 24 cigarette or two or three. And our -mission is to insure 25 that people are fit for their duty and can do their jobs

- . . . , . . - _ , . . ~ . . . _ _ _ . . _ - . _ _ . - _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ , . . . _ . . . . . _ . . . . _ . _ _ . , . - . - - , . . _ _

50 1

properly.

3 2 And nobody has ever been able to explain to 3

you or ne how to take that kind of information into account.

4 Q Well, my only problem with this thing as 5

it occurred, mine personally, and I'm not speaking as a 6

policy maker for the agency that I work for. I'm just 7

trying to gather as much information as I can with respect 8

to this particular investigation and the decision related to 9

that, is that this investigation started off with just some 10 cacual comments bei6g. overheard and it dcveloped into a 11' thing where one individual was identified as being a 12 frequent user and having, apparently, a real problem with 13 drugs and two others admitting having used drugs.

14 We had two other individuals who were not 15 cooperative, based on what the investigators wrote in their 16 report. They refused to take polygraph examinatbns and they I 17 8

refused to be -- one refused to be interviewed, I think, 18

{ and another was apparently uncooperative when he was inter-e l

19 viewed so we --

t r 20 MR. AULICK:

E We are not sure those are the r 21 facts.

I I 22 THE WITNESS : I don't agree with those l

• i 23 statements-l 24 'cK: Fut; in any event, the record 25 will speak t-i i

51 1

I BY MR. DRISRILL: (Resuming)  ;

2 Q But you weren't there when they were inter-3 viewed, were you?

4 MR. AULICK: I think he's responding to it's 5

not clear that these --

6 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't have to be to --

7 MR. AULICK: Y5ah, just a minute. It's not 8

clear that one refused to be interviewed, for instance.

9 THE WITNESS: No, it isn't.

10 MR. AULICK: But, in any event, the record 11 will speak for itself. Go ahead.

12 MR. DRISKILL: But,' looking at the investi-13 i gation, 6.nd I lo6k at it, I think, much like the average I4 i person would, it leaves itself open ended.

15 It is based on inferences and allegations 16 made by others, t

=

17 E

There were a number of other people working j 18 in a fairly sensitive capacity here that are involved in 19 drug use and, if this company doesn't condone the use of

! 20 drugs, I would assume then that they would want to find out-

[

t 21 I

what individuals they have who may, in fact, be using drugs. l i 22 You may have other people with a problem.  !

23 3p,,' AULICK: Don, just har in tr.ind one 24 thing. First of all, as you know, the Company is looking 25 into the very question you ask as to what's the appropriate  !

i J

52 1

I action to take then or now, r-

'M 2 But we are talking about off site use of 3

marijuana, not on site use of Hero'in or cocaine --

4 THE WITNESS: And so, it's not the "drugs,"

5 which you keep saying.

6 MR. AULICK: Excuse me, Ross. '

7 MR. DRISKILL: I'm sorry. I don't mean to 8

of fend anybody by saying "controlled substances ."

9 THE WITNESS: Well, controlled substances 10 is getting a little too general.

11* MR. AULICK: In any event, one could also 12 view the problem, as for instance, with the two individuals

]. 13 who identified themselves as having used marijuana off site ,

14 as perfectly willing to stop and subject themselves to randoc 15 urinalysis and so forth.

~.

16 One could view it as a pr'obism of not having I 17 clear understanding of the policy of the Company.

3 18 That is to say, one appropriate action.

I j 19 It's a separate issue whether it's all suffuci E 20 i ent or not, but one appropriate action is to make absolutely ,

r 21 clear to the personnel through the shif t supervisors and the I

I 22 staff personnel of what exactly is the Company policy on a i

23 matter that they may not be clear on and on a matter that is 24 not open and shut. .

s 25 If you know, should you bring a gun on site,

53 I'

you would probably have a pretty view.

Should you use marijuana of f site, you mir,h: i 3

not have as clear a view and Ross has explained that he took 4

agressive action to address that particular understanding, 5

that is to say, make sure that everybody understood just what, 6

in fact, was the policy of 'the Company.

7 And in that context, the past has imr>ortance, 8

but somewhat less importance than with the original individ-9 ual who said he'd used it on site and continued to have a 10 problem.

11' They are just different categories.

12 BY MR. DRISKILL: (Resuming) 13

{- Q Basically, what I was getting at. I was 14 trying to determine why the investigation was not reinitiated ~

15 and what philosophy you had that you would be confortable j 16 with relative to n'ot reinitiating that inve'stigation your-I 17 self.  !

8 18 A Right.

{

! 19 Q I've asked that of Mr. Nelson and he told ce 1

20 why he didn't reinitiate it and so, I would like to basi,cally E

i 21 know why you did not.

I i 5 22 A Well, I think I have told you that I had the 23 information that I needed in order to carry out my respon-  ;

. 24 sibilities. -

25 Q Okay.  !

-g I l,l

/.nd anytime I felt like I needed assistance  !

o I

o. 7d , formation, I would have asked for it in i 3

at y .

. ape or form that I could get it.

4 Q Okay. One question I wanted to ask you is 5

sometime in the late summer or early fall, Mr. Cavanaugh 6

lef t and Mr. Lettich (Phonetically spelled) came in, is 7

that not correct?

1 8

A Uh-huh (Nitness nods his head to indicate an 1

9 affirmative answer),

10 Q Did you ever apprised Mr. Lettick of this 11

. particular investigation?

12 A Certainly not in detail. I believe I

~

13 apprised him of the situation of the two operators who 14 were undergoing random uninalyses and, generally, why.

15

_ Q Uh-huh. That they had been identified as i j 16 having occasionally used marijuana off site.

I 17 A Off site, right.  !

8 18 4

i Q And that you had a program in place and i 19 so on and so forth?

t 20 A I gave him some of the background as to hoe i I .

t 21 we arrived at that arrangement with those individuals.

I t 22 Q You said you were briefed with regard to 1

23 this investigation and shown some of the staternents and

, 24 so on.

25 But I believe you said that you were never

55 1

given a copy of this particular report until just recently, is that correct?

3 A No, not the report as such, all put together. .

4 So there are things in there that I haven't seen. Right.

5 Q I would hope that that would be something 6

that would be rer.edied in the future and that things like 7

that would be brought to your attention.

8 I think somebody dropped the ball, probably 9

Security, on that particular thing.

10 One other area that I wanted to touch on, 11' and that was you mentioned the statements made in the report 12 about the uncooperative attitude of several of the people 13

').

who were interviewed by the investigators.

14 MR. AULICK: I recall the discussion of 15 one. I don't know what Ross recalls.

j 16 THE 171TNESS: Yeah.

! II

, MR. AULICK: There may be more. I'm just t u

! 18 saying, just for the record, I only recall the discussion I9 of one individual. I just mean only what we discussed.

f 20 MR. DRISKILL: Okay. There were inferen.ces P

F 21 or statements made by one on these people at least, at least I I

22 one of these people, that their supervisors were telling them 23 that they didn't have to cooperate with the investigators l W- -

24 nor did they have to take polygraph examinations.

25 Were you aware of that at the time the l

56 investigation of that allegation?

I

+

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, if it's an allegation.  ;

3 Now, Mr. Nelson uas aware of it.

4 .If.you would give me a minute, I would like .

5 to look at the report that talks about that.  ;

I 6 MR. DRISKILL: I have some notes here you t

7 can look at that will identify the date of the report and

' 8 it should be in there.

9 THE WITNESS: Okay.

10 MR. DRISKILL: It should be June 15th,16th.

11' THE WITNESS: The thing I'm aware of is in ll 12 this June 17th report here. <

!i i

Person noted that supervisory personnel --

}' 13 l I

14 this is one individual - had advised the class not to 15 come to speak to Security personnel when requested if they lv 16 did not want to do so and that cooperation was strictly I 17 voluntary.

• u That's what I am aware of. And I think you i 18 j 19 phrased it a little bit differently.

r I think you phrased that they were told not r

20 E

8 21 to cooperate or it was , you know, implied that they shouldn'-

I I 22 cooperate and I don't see thpt in these reports.

23 MR. DRISKILL: Okay. What we'll do is the l l

24 time is right at 12:00.

4. .

Let's st6p for a couple minutes and let ce  !

25  !

57 1 ii refresh my memory with respect to that particular thing. '

2 l (Short break in interview.)

3 l MR. DRISKILL: Okay. The time is 12:08 and ,

4 l we have taken a brief recess in order that I could review l 5

the LP & L investigation report, 6 l I'll concede at this point, without taking ,'

l I

i any more time to review it that we only have the one infer-E ence that the individuals were being advised not to cooper-O ate.

I 10 7.m not sure that that's exactly what that i<

11*

statercent meant. Although, we did did have the one individ-12 ual, uho, in looking at the report, was uncooperative with 13

, the investigators.

14 Ubich is not necessarily that uncommon a 15

, thing.

16 THE WITNESS: Nor with him, specifically.

I 17 '

S 14R. DRISKILL: That's correct. And there are 18 a couple of other places with one other individual where I

18 f they allude to the fact that he may have been less than t

20 l8 perfectly cooperative which, again, is not that difficult -

21 to believe would happen in a situation like this. l I

I 22 BY MR. DRISKILL: (Resuming) 23 Q But to your knowledge, were any of the 24 supervisors of these individuals giving them advise not to l 25 cooperate and that they don't have to take polygraph

58 l

examinations and basically --

o J.-

A You have a couple of questions there.

3 To my knowledge, nobody was telling them not to cooperate.

4 I believe that they were told, not by me --

5 but, I believe, when asked by supervisors and what may well  !

6 have been told.was that they couldn't be forced to take a

~

polygraph and, to my knowledge, that's true.

8 Q Yes, I believe we have already estelished l 9

i that. That as a condition of employment, individuals do not 10 have to take a polygraph.

11 A

They probably were told that if anyone asked 12 because it was the case.

13

,, liR. AULICK: Now, the one that you specifical-14 ly recalled, was the first individual identified, and if I 15 remember correctly, you said you encouraged him through the j 16 supervisor to take the polygraph?

I 17 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, I did. I think it 5

j 18 is an important point to make that everybody who was asked

{ 19 to go over there and be interviewed, went over there.

20

) .

Nobody refused to go over there. In our I 1

1 a

21 I meeting with the operators , operators asked if they had to I 22 cooperate and they asked, you know, well, do we have the 23 choice just not to talk to Security and then we can sit here 24 and study and not be bothered.

25 I And the answer we gave them was that they wera l 1 ___ j I

l

59 1

1 expected to cooperate and that we wanted them to go over i n

j 2 there and answer questions to the best of their ability.

3 We expected them to.

4 You know, I think that the happenings hear 5 that out, that people did.

l 6

And as you said, certainly, they didn't 7 answer every single question they were asked. If they i

8 didn't feel like answering a question, apparently, that was l 9 their own personal decision. l 10 But I think, overall, they were cooperative l 11' and I think their supervisors were.

12 BY MR. DRISKILL: (Resuming)  !

] 13 Q Do you have any other information you would  !

14 like to discuss or bring out during the course of the inter-15 view?

" l 3

0 16 A There was a late report in here that I would I 17 just like to just give you a little different characteriza-S 13 tion, I'm not sure that the person writing the report knew 19 who was who.

$ 20 It's not a major point but there is a lat,e .

r 21 report in here and it'.s in the report where they talk about 8

j 22 you should redirect or do some invectigation in the mainte-23 nance area and there are people named that it'was suggested

- 24 that Securtiy talk to.

3 25 They are characterized in the investigation

60 1

report as maintenance peopic. They are not all maintenance En 2 3'

people. They just aren't.

3 Just like these operators who are character-4 ized as control operators, they are not control operators 5

so I just wanted to tell you that so you wouldn't believe 6

something that was not exactly right.

7 Q Oh, that's is the last portion of the investi-8 gation, 9

A Yes.

10 Q Where the investigators were asked to go into 11' another area and conduct some investigation there?

12 A Right. There really weren't four (4) mainte-13 nance people, you know, in fact.

14 Q What were they?

15 A Oh, one was in Physics. One, I believe was 16 in RAD Waste and one was a supervisor in maintenance and s'o I 17 they were not all -- it wasn't just purely a maintenance '

B i 18 thing.

19 Q I asked you this question a little earlier h..

P 20 but we'll just go ahead and ask it for the record.

r 21 Has this investigation been reinitiated today?

I 5 22 A Not to my knowledge. 4 5

23 And is consideration being given to conduc-Q 4 24 ting further investigations relative to this?

M 25 A Consideration is being given as to whether itis

6) 1

.% productive or benificial to do more investigation in this y~ 2 area, yes.

3 MR. AULICK:

When do you or when does the 4

Company expect to have a view on that, in the next several 5

days or the next several weeks or the next several months?

6 THE WITNESS: I would expect in the next 7

several days.

8 BY MR. DRISKILL: I don't have any further 9

questions.

10 Q Mr. Barkhurst, have I or any other NRC 11' Representative her threatened you in any manner or offered 12 you any rewards in return for this statement?

],. 13 A No.

14 Q Have you given this statement freely and 15 voluntarily?

o 16 A Yes, 8

17 q

3 Is there anything further you care to add for

18 the record?

E 19 E

A No.

{ 20 P

MR. DRISKILL: Okay. The time is 12:20 and' l r 21 8

the interview is concluded. I

, 22 (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the taking of the E

23 witness' testimony was concluded.)

s. 24 25

l NRC THA'ISMITTAL lil:CM1 PT 4 84-043 WORK ORDER NO.: NRC LB ACE-FEDERAL CONTROL NO.: 21294.0 NAME OF PROCEEDING: INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW (CLCSED)

Ows)

DOCKET NO.: NONE HEARING DATE: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1984 l

l LOCATION:

PAGES: 1 TO 61 l

EXBIBITS FORWARDED Fone I

l 1

1 Go RECEIVED BY:

- - EXHIBIT (10)

. .- . .. . . _-. . - . _ . - . , _ _ - _ - _ .-. . - .