ML20214H531
| ML20214H531 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1986 |
| From: | Schuster M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 86-ERA-27, NUDOCS 8705270407 | |
| Download: ML20214H531 (85) | |
Text
. . .
Q .-
1 U.S. DEPARTMENT-OF LABOR 2 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES C) 4 5
C) 6 IN THE MATTER OF:
7 BLAINE P. THOMPSON, 8 Complainant, O
9 vs. No. 86-ERA-27 10 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY / ARIZONA NUCLEAR 11 POWER PROJECT, 12 Respondent. .
/
13 0 14 15 16 O 17 DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW DOUGLAS SCHUSTER 18 19 October 10, 1986 O
20 21 !) ff 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 DROOKS 26 CSR No. 5223 B705270407 B61010
O 2 l' 'INDEX l
2 0 3 PAGE l 4 l
5 EXAMINATION BY MR. KOHN 8 O 6 EXAMINATION BY MR. HAYDEN 67 7 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. KOHN 76 8 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. HAYDEN 79 l
0 9
10 ---oOo---
11
- O 12 13 O 14 15 16 1
0 17 18 19 0
20 21 0 22 23 24 0 25 26 O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
_ _ _ - - _ - - _ _ - . . . _ . . _--._______--__.-____,--,a
1 F )
() 3 1 EXHIBITS ,
i 2
3 PAGE 0
4 5 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT NO. 1, .73 A' XEROX COPY OF A THREE-PAGE O 6 DOCUMENT, ENTITLED'"NRC SECURITY PROGRAM, NRC APPENDIX 7 2101, EXHIBIT 1."
8 O ---oCo---
9 10 11 0
12 13 0 14 15 16 17 18 19 O
20 21 22 0
23 24 O 25 l
26
!o PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O 4
'l BE IT REMEMBERED THAT, pursuant.to Subpoena,-
2 and on-Friday, October 10, 1986, commencing at the-3 hour of 9:15 o' clock a.m. of the said day, at the 0
4 office of the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY 5 COMMISSION, REGION V, 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210, O 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-O 9 MATTHEW DOUGLAS SCHUSTER, a witness in the 10 above-entitled court and cause, produced on behalf of 11 the complainant, who being by me first duly sworn, 12 was then and there examined and interrogated by 13 Attorney MICHAEL DAVID KOHN, 509 5th Street, North g 14 East, Washington, D.C., counsel for the complainant.-
15 16 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL O 17 18 FOR COMPLAINANT:
19 MICHAEL DAVID KOHN O Attorney at Law 20 509 Sth Street, North East Washington, D.C. 20002 21 22 FOR RESPONDENT:
0 23 SNELL & WILMER BY: WILLIAM R. HAYDEN, ESQ.
24 3000 Valley Bank Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 0 25 26 i
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES l
-}
O 5-1 FOR THE WITNESS:
l 2 CHARLES E.-MULLINS Attorney at Law l O 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D.C. 20555~
4 , ,
5 There also being present: MYRON SCOTT ,
BETH PAYNE O 6 BLAINE THOMPSON JAMES L. MONTGOMERY 7 ., ,?-
l \
8 The following proceedings were thereupon had, O
9 and the following testimony was thereupon given, to-wit:
y 10 11 ---ooo--- > >
12 13
() 14 15 16 O 17 18 s' 3 ,
19 0
20 21 22 0
23 1
24 i
O 25 26 i-0 PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES t :
4'
5- 7e
-}
O- s 6 1- MR. KOHN: Can.we go on the record, please?'
2 MR. .HAYDEN: While we're on the record, I O -_ 3 _ have a; preliminary matter I want to confirm.
4 Unlike yesterday's deposition of Mr. . Cook,- ,
5 which was apparently subpoenaed not only-by myself:on O' 6 behalf'of APS, but also by Mr. Kohn on behalf _of GAP, 7 and therefore, presumably, the court = reporting. costs 8 will be divided, I want it clear that I have not
.O 9 subpoenaed the depositions being taken today, and 10 that the cost to be incurred there is not mine.
11 And I would suggest that the court reporter 12 get it clear with Mr. Kohn who's paying for those 13 depositions before going forward.
O 14 MR. KOHN: Wait a minute. Let's go_off the 15 record.
16 MR. HAYDEN: We'd better be on the. record.
O 17 That's why I've raised this. I want this very clear, 18 because I'm advising the court reporter that I have 19 not subpoenaed these depositions, and I will not.be 20 responsible for the court reporting costs.
21 MR. KOHN: I think that your: questions should 22 be limited, then, to the scope of the questions I lO 23 ask, and I will so make the proper objections.
24 Should. questions exceed the scope, then I will l
O 25 request that you bear half the cost of this .
i 26 deposition.
i
$ l /' I O~ '
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
__ _ , _ - - - _ - _ . _ _ _ - . _ , _ . . _ _ _ _ .- _ - .. .__,._ ____.- _ , . . _ - , _ ~ _ _ _
. l O- .
. 7 1- MR. HAYDEN:' I want'to make'it very clear,-I
2- willEnot bear anyuof the-court. reporter. coats, O '3' unless, of course, I order a copy of-the transcript, 4 which obviously I'm. obligated to' pay for. But>I am 5 not responsible.for any of the costs of this -
O
~
6 deposition. I did not subpoena'it.
7 MR. KOHN: I think, more' importantly, is a 8 late breakingfitem which I was informed of at O
9 approximately 11:00 o' clock' last. night', iniwh'ich I 10 was told that Mr. van Brunt will not be produced as la 11 witnes8 pursuant to a September 17, 1986, O
12 stipulation, and that I believe-that such'an-action 13 on the part of respondent is unwarranted.
O 14 And this is to put- the / Court and: respondent 15 on notice that, should Mr. Van Brunt not be produced 16 during that week pursuant to the September 17, 1986, O 17 . stipulation, complainant will ask the Court for 18 appropriate sanctions.
~
19 MR. HAYDEN: I will only respond-that,: within.
20 the last five days, I've received from counsel for 4 21 GAP a schedule of depositions to take1 place during O 22 the next week. Mr. Van Brunt's'name is not on that 23 schedule.
24 We will comply-with the ~ schedule that we were O 25 provided.with within the last five days. A' revised 26 schedule on less than five days' notice for. people.in O'~
PATRICIA CALLAHAN'C ASSOCIATES- .
l O 8 1 those positions is unacceptable.
'2 MR. KOHN: In the rules, as I'm sure you're 3 aware, the Department of Labor regulations require O
4 five days' notice for a deposition. You were given 5 more than five days notice. Basically, we ask that O 6 Mr. Van Brunt be produced either 9:00 a.m. on 7 October 15th, or 9:00 a.m. on October 20th, which is 8 ten days from today. That is in compliance with the to Department of Labor rules.
9 4
10 second, you were initially put on notice of 11 the fact that Mr. Van Brunt may have to be deposed, 12 at this time, which is September 17th, which is 13 certainly more than the time necessary pursuant to
- O 14 Department of Labor rules.
15 At this time, I would like to begin the 16 deposition.
O 17 Could you swear in the witness, please?
18 19 MATTHEW DOUGLAS SCHUSTER
,O _
20 being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
21
- O 22 EXAMINATION BY MR. KOHN 23 MR. KOHN
- Q. Could you state your name 24 for the record, and spell it, please?
- O 25 A. Matthew with two "t's," Douglas Schuster, 26 S-c-h-u-s-t-e-r.
!O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
}o O. '9 l 1 Q. What in your titlo?
2 A. Chief, Safeguards.Section~for'the Region V g 3 office, United' States Nuclear-Regulatory Commission.
4 Q. And who do you directly. report to?
5 A. To Mr. James Montgomery.
O 6 Q. Have you ever been deposed before?
7 A. Yes. ;
8 Q. As you are aware or may not be aware, the O-9 Department of Labor proceeding is over 100 miles 10 away from your base operation;'and therefore, under 11 the rules, your deposit' ion will be used in evidence.
12 as your testimony during the hearing. i 13 Therefore, I ask that you answer the 14 questi ns as if.y u were before an1 administrative C) 15 proceeding and before an administrative law judge.
16 Do you understand that?
O 17 A. Yes, I do.
t 18 Q. Is there any reason why you cannot answer
- 19 questions truthfully today?
- O i
20 A. No, there is not.
21 Q. How long have you been employed with the NRC?-
22 Since December 9th, 1979.
) A.
23 Q. Have you been employed in the same-position
- 24 all those years?
iO 25 A. No, I have not.
!~
26 Q. Have1you always been in Safeguards?-
PATRICIA CALLAHAN &" ASSOCIATES
. , _ . . . _ . . _. . . - . ._. . . , . - . - , . _ . - -- .~._ _ . . , - - . . - . . -
)
O. 10 1 A. Yes, I have, with one exception. And that 2 was a two-year combination Safeguards and emergency o 3 preparedness.
4 Q. When did you-assume your most recent position-5 with the NRC?
O 6 A. When did I assume --
7 Q. How many years have you been in your current 8 classification?
O I have had a title change, but on and off for 9 A.
10 the last six years.
11 Q. Can you explain what your official duties 12 are?
13 A. Yes, I can.
O 14 Q. Could you tell me that, please?
15 A. In summary, my duties are to administer the 16 Safeguards program for physical security,-material I3 17 control, and accountability for nuclear power plants 18 licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the 19 Region V areas, and/or the fuel facilities, non-power iO 20 reactors, and critical facilities.
21 Q. Do you remember having any conversations with 22 Mr. Thompson on or about the pre-operational O
23 inspection of, I believe, Unit 27 24 A. I'm sure I must have had conversations with
- O 25 Mr. Thompson.
26 Q. Do you remember having conversations about t
lC t PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
l O: 11 l' concerns offunderstaffing at the Palo Verde plant?
2 A. In general, yes..
O 3 -Q. Do you remember Mr. Thompson rais'ing that 4 issue with you?
5 A. Yes.
O- 6 Q. Do you remember a specific conversation in 7 which Mr. Thompson asked if he could go to his troops 8 and say that, although theyJfailed the initial O '
9 pre-operational' inspection,-it was not due to his 10 troops?
11 A. Specifically, I_ don't recall that.
g
'12 Generally, that subject seems familiar.for both 13 Unit 1 and Unit 2 pre-operational inspections.
O 14 Q. Do you remember participating in a phone 15 conference on December 4, 1984,'with Mr. Shackleton, 16 Mr. Zimmerman, and Mr. Thompson?
O 17 A. The date was December 4th, 19847 18 Q. Right.
19 A. I can't recall-any such' conversation, without-
~20 additional information as to what it mayLhave been-21 about.
O 22 Q. Do you recall a conversation--discussing-the 23 Cox/Wylie incident?
24 A. I can recall conversations over that.
O 25 incident,-but not tied to_a specific date.
- 26. Q. Do you recall any phone conversations in O
PATRICIA CALLAHAN &' ASSOCIATES
lO 12 l'- which Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Zimmerman, and yourself, 2 and Mr. Thompson, participated: in a conf erence call lO 3 type-of situation?
4 A. I'm a little' confused by the question, tied
-5 .to the date. I don't think I have recall of specific 33 6 dates in 1984.
7 Q. Excuse me. It's 1985.
8 A. That would appear-to be the right time frame,
- O 9- yes. When we go to -- the date was December 19857 10 Q. Right.
11 A. Okay. I recall having conversations about-12 that time area, yes.
13 Q. Do you remember any parts of those
!O 14 conversations?
15 A. Specifically not. Generally, yes,1becauseaof 16 our involvement in the Cox/Wylie allegation.
O 17 Q. Is Mr. Thompson the first person who made the 18 NRC aware of that incident?
19 A. I believe so.-
50 20 Q. Did Mr. Thompson seem_genuinelyLconcerned 21 about it?
q)- 22 A. I believe so.
23 Q. Do you know if Mr. Thompson asked for
-24 confidentiality at that time?
- O 25' A. He did not request' confidentiality-from me.
26 Q. What did you do with the information that i
PATRICIA CALLAHAN'& ASSOCIATES r
l 13 1 Blaine Thompson gave you or gave to the NRC?
2 A. That information presently is part of an O 3 ongoing investigation. And accordingly, I decline to 4 answer.
5 MR. MULLINS: Was the question asking for O 6 specific information from that, or were you asking 7 what he did with that information?
8 MR. KOHN: Q. Let's say, what you did with O
9 that information.
10 A. Okay. That has been made part of an ongoing 11 inquiry by the NRC -- or investigation.
12 Perhaps a point of clarification is, inquiry, 13 inspection, investigation, I use synonymously. So --
O 14 just as a point of reference.
15 Q. Was the Cox/Wylie incident ever reported from-16 APS to the NRC prior to Mr. Thompson's bringing O 17 that incident to your attention?
18 A. No, it was not.
19 Q. Has it ever been reported to the NRC from O
20 APS?
21 A. Yes, it has.
O 22 Q. Do you know-about what date that was 23 reported?
24 A. Without referring-to the investigation, no, I
. O 25 do not.
l 26 Q. Is there any Safeguards training that is l
!O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O 14 1 given to employees, particularly in the security 2 department at APS?
O 3 A. If I understand --
4 MR. MULLINS: Are you asking if the NRC 5 administers any training programs to the --
O 6 MR. KOHN: yes. .
7 MR. MULLINS: Okay.
8 THE WITNESS: The question, as I understand O
9 it, does the NRC afford Safeguards training to a 10 licensee? None to my knowledge.
11 MR. KOHN: Q. Are there any NRC 12 regulations governing Safeguards training for the 13 utility?
g 14 A. None to my knowledge.
15 Point of clarification: offered or given by 16 the NRC, again?
O 17 Q. Right.
18 A. None to my knowledge, no. We have rules, but 19 we don't have training.
O 20 Q. Does the NRC have rules governing licensee 21 training of security?
y 22 A. I believe you refer to Appendix B, Part 73, 23 of the 10-CFR. Let me refresh my recollection here.
24 We have -- Appendix B is general criteria for O 25 security personnel, which covers the subjech of 26 training and/or qualifications.
l PATRICIA CALLAHAN'& ASSOCIATES
!O 15 1 Q. Was APS ever fined or disciplined for not 2 training security in Safeguards effectively, to your 3 knowledge?
O.
4 A. Would you repeat that question, please?
5 Q. Was APS ever fined or disciplined or put on 0- 6 notice of a failure to properly train security in 7 Safeguards measures?
8 A. To the best of my knowledge, no.
JO 9 Q. Do you know if Blaine Thompson contacted-10 anyone at the NRC on or about February.10, 1986, 11 regarding what he believed to be discriminatory 12 action against him for brining the Cox/Wylie incident 13 to the NRC's attention?
- O 14 A. The date, again, is February 10th, 1986? No,.
15 I'm not aware of that on that date.
16 Q. Do you recall having a phone conversation
'O 17 with a Mr. Staggs on or about February 25th, 1986?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. Who else participated in that phone O
20 conversation?
21 A. Mr. Jim Montgomery, Mr. Greg Cook, and 22 myself.
- O 23 Q. Prior to that phone conversation, had you a
24 ever heard of Mr. Staggs?
.O 25 A. No.
26 Q. On February 24th, the day before that phone
.O PATRICIA CALLAHAN i ASSOCIATES
OL 16 1 conference occurred, did anyone tell you about-2 Mr. Staggs?
.t 3 A. I d n't recall.
O 4 Q. 'Before the February 25th phone conference 5 took place, did anyone~have any discussions about O 6 what was going to transpire during that February 25th 7- phone conversation?
8 A. Maybe I should back up to the question, did O
9 someone talk to me on the 24th prior to the phone 10 call. I seem to have some faint recollection-that 11 maybe there was a conversation with Greg Cook, 12 possibly, that a Mr. Staggs had called pertaining to 13 the last NRC inspection. I think that was the reason
.O 14 why we gathered together in Jim Montgomery's. office, 15 to talk to Mr. Staggs on the subsequent day.
16 That would be more responsive to your I) 17 question, I believe.
18 Q. What time did you gentlemen gather in 19 Mr. Montgomery's office on the 25th?
lO 20 A. I don't recall. I believe it was the i
21 morning, though.
g 22 Q. Do you know how long'you spoke before the 23 telephone call was placed?
24 A. With Mr. Staggs?
.iO 25 Q. No. With Montgomery.and --
26 A. Oh, the three of us talked -- before? I 0 PATRICIA.CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES.
0 17 1 don't recall.-
2 Q. Do you have any recollections of the 3 conversations that took place before the telephone O
4 call was placed?
5 A. No, I do not.
- O' 6 Q. Were you informed that there may have been a 7 possible release of Safeguards Information prior to 8' placing that telephone call?
!O-9 A. I don't know. I don't recall.
10 Q. To the best of your recollection, could you 11 tell us what happened during the February 25th phone
)
12 conversation?
13 A. Basically, I would refer here to a document 14 given to you as BT-1001. And looking at -- I guess O
15 it would probably be the fourth page, which describes 16 the results of --
- O 17 MR. HAYDEN
- What's the top of it look like, 18 if I may ask, so I could find it?
19 MR. KOHN: BT-1001 is the letter dated
- o 20 April 2nd, 1986.
21 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
22 MR. HAYDEN: Thank you.
!O 23 THE. WITNESS: As part of that which we i 24 commonly refer to as Part 2, is a description of the
- O 25 inspectior., which we refer to as the Inspection !
l 26 Summary. And on Page 2, which captures the results, PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES l
O la 1 _are basically che areas that we discussed with 2 Mr. Staggs (indicating).
3 MR. KOUN: Q.- These were the areas that O
4 were discussed with Mr. Staggs?
5 A. That's my recollection'.
O 6 Q. 1 is, " Failure to report security events to 7 the NRC." Would the Cox/Wylie incident be included 8 in those-incidents?
O No, it would not.
9 A.
10 Q. Do you recall what Mr. Staggs stated during 11 the February 25th phone conversation?-
12 A. Only in general terms, questions related to 13 what I have identified as the results of the O 14 inspection. Questions were oriented into these 15 subject areas.
16 Q. Did Mr. Staggs ask explicit questions?
O 17 A. He may have.
18 Q. Did he ask any questiens that you thought 19 constituted Safeguards Information?
'O 20 A. No.
21 Q. Yesterday, when Mr. Cook ~was being deposed, 22 he stated that, at some point, he warned Mr. Staggs z) 23 not to continue with the conversation; that there 24 might be a breach of Safeguards Information if he did
'O 25 so. Do you recall that incident?
26 A. Generally. But my recollection is, the PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
)
O ~
. 19 1 . answer to which may be Safeguards Information, as-opposed' to the question being Safeguards'Information.
~
2 O 3 o. So, Mr. Staggs was asking questions in which 4 Safeguards Information may be implied in the answers 5 to those questions. . Is that what you're saying?
O- 6 A. I would state that the questions asked the 7 answers to which, had I or a person there answered 8 the question,-would have been Safeguards, as opposed O
9 to the question being asked being Safeguards.
10 Q. Was there anything about the questions 11 Mr. Staggs was asking that raised suspicion, in your 12 mind, that he had possession of Safeguards 13 Information?
O 14 A. A suspicion? No.
15 Q. Was there anything in the February 26 article 16 that appeared in the " Arizona Republic" that led you O 17 to believe that safeguards'Information was possessed 18 by Mr. Staggs?
19 A. Not having that to look at, I need to ask,.
O 20 was that one of the newspaper articles that was 21 attached to the statement that I made that I said 22 that I had reviewed?
O 23 MR. MULLINS: I believe that was provided to 24 you in this Summer's discovery.
O 25 THE WITNESS: I have the same pile here. I 26 can see if I can --
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O- .
20 1 MR. MULLINS: I believe it would be_BT-901.
2 THE WITNESS: We have a whole stack of
- g- 3 articles here. Let's see. Could you identify which' 4 one?
5 MR. KOHN: Q. It's-the last. article.
- 0~ 6 A. And the question is?
.7' -0 Is there anything in that article-that you 8 believe -- or that indicated to you.-- that-lO 9 Mr. Staggs might be in possession of Safeguards
! 10 Information?
i 11 A. I would have to speculate that he did or did jO 12 not have Safeguards Information. I cannot determine,-
l 13 by reading this, that.he did or.did not have 14 Safeguards Information. But I can state,Iby.. review O
l 15 of these articles, as I did in my statement, that in 16 my opinion, they did not contain Safeguards i
- O 17 Information.
I 18 Q. So, in all the articles that were ever
- 19 brought to-your attention by Mr. Staggs, none of
- O 20 those articles, in your opinion, contained Safeguards 21 Information?
i 22 A. My statement is that those articles attached O
23 to my March 28, 1986, statement that I-reviewed, do
- 24 not contain Safeguards Information.
3 25 Q. Did anyone from the NRC or anyone from APS 26 ever present you with any1other articles"from PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES lO
'O 21
_ 1 P. Staggs?
2 A ,- .Not to my knowledge.
'o 3 Q. All yesterday and today, we've:been talking 4 about Safeguards.. And it seems to'beLan ethereal-5- . subject, but I don't think anyone's ever put their I). 6 hands _on it to figure out what it is.
7 I have Exhibit 1 to an NRC appendix;2101, 8 which seems to be a definition of. Safeguards. -I'd:
O' 9 like to show that to the witness.
10- Let the record reflect that I have presented 11 the witness with two pages entitled, "NRC Security 12 Program, NRC Appendix 2101, Exhibit 1," Pages XVII-ll 13 and XVII-12.
O 14 MR. MULLINS: For the record, this is part 15 of, I believe, an NRC manual which is available-in 16 the NRC public document room, which I-believe 1 O 17 provided you with :this Summer, ' correct?
18 M R .- KOHN: That's correct.
19 Q. In-your opinion, is that a satisfactory O
20 definition of Safeguards?
21 A. The definition of Safeguards _Information that~
22 we are currently'using is contained in 10-CFR 73.2, O
23 Subparagraphs JJ, and not the NRC appendix.-
24 Q. There are specific examples given.in the NRC
~
.O 25 appendix. Are those examples still considered valid?
26 A. It would appear to be, based on quick review.
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
~ , - - - - . - - . - . - -,.-,e ,-,,,..n., e- - e - - . , . - - _ ~ - , , - . , -
v
O 22
'l. (Whereupon, there was a discussion off the 2 record-between Mr. Mullins and the witness.)
3 THE WITNESS: If I may just have a minute O
4 here to look at 73.21 here.
5 It appears, on brief review, that this and O 6 10-CFR 73.21 are compatible here..
7 MR. KOHN: Q. Rather than burdening the 8 record with some more documents, we'll-just make note O'
9 of the proper Federal Regulation Code.
10 A. Okay.
11 Q. Do you recall when'you first learned that 12 John Staggs.was pursuing a story on the February 11 13 security exit interview?
O 14 A. I believe it was approximately the time the 15 phone conversations took place in February of 1986.
16 MR. HAYDEN: I'm going to use this in my O 17 cross. If you have another one, you can take it.
18 (Mr. Kohn handing document-to Mr. Hayden.)
19 MR. HAYDEN: I need the next page. This O~
20 doesn't have all the pages in it. I need 12 and 13.
21 MR. KOHN: Q. After you got off the phone 22 with Mr. Staggs on March 25th, did you have any O
23 conversations with either Mr. Montgomery or Mr. Cook 24 in which you discussed the possible release of O 25 Safeguards Information to Mr. Staggs, or Mr. Staggs' 26 possession of Safeguards Information?
O . PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
-l X'
'- 23 1 A. I may have.
2 Q.' Do you recall-if Mr. Cook asked.-you any 4
iO: 3 questions about Safeguards after that conversation?
4 A. He may have.
5 Q. Do you recall -- I know it's been a long
!O- 6 time,-and it's hard to' recall these things -- do you 7 have any recollection of anything you might have told a
l 8 ~ Mr. Cook or Mr. Montgomery at that time?
}O; 9 A. Only in general terms,-th'at'we may have had a 10 conversation pertaining to what we thought was'or was 11- not Safeguards Information, in general terms.
- O
[ 12 Q. Do you mean information-that you th'ought 13 should be given to the media, or information that the
- o 14 media was in possession of?-
15 A. I think more as to an understanding 16 collectively that we understood Safeguards O 17 Information, that it applied to the inspection at i
l 18 that time. I do not believe there was any question i 19 in anybody's mind what we_could or could not release.
!O 20 Q. After or during the February 25th~ conference -
- 21 call with Mr. Staggs, did anyone at the NRC express 22 concerns that Mr. Staggs was in possession of.
O 23 Safeguards Information to you?.
f 24 A. "Did anyone," is the question? I could say, I lO 25 did not. But I don't know for a fact that anyone did 26 not.
j O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
~ . . . . _ _ . _ . .. _ _._ _ . . . , . . - . _ _ - , _
. . .O. 24 1 Q. Did Mr.' Montgomery?
2 A. Did'Mr. Montgomery? I don't recall.
.O 3 Q. Is it safe to say that, after the March 25th 4 conversation occurred, neither you, Mr. Montgomery, 5 or Mr. Cook. sat down and said anything to the effect O 6 of, "Well, it seems like-we have a breach of 7 Safeguards, a possible problem here with Mr. Staggs,"
8 or anything of that nature?
O 9 A. I don't recall those specific words. But I 10 think, in general terms, that one concluded from the 11 questions asked that there was information out there 12 that he may have had on which to base his questions.
13 Specifically, we had nothing to hang our hat O 14 on because of the questions asked.
15 That subsequently resulted in an 16 investigation into the matter.
C) 17 Is this an ongoing investigation?
Q.
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 Q. Is it an investigation that's centering on O
20 tne incident with Mr. Staggs on March 25th, or is it 21 based on other factors?
g- 22 A. I think we could categorize the investigation-23 as one inquiring into whether1the Safeguards 24 Information was or was not released to unauthorized 1
0 25 persons.
26 Q. At any time? ,
1 O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES 1
0 .
25 1 A. No. 'It centers primarily on this incident, 2 as gleaned from newspaper ~ articles.
- g. 3 Q. Who requested that investigation?
4 A. Mr. Martin did, Region V administrator.
-5 Q. How did Mr. Martin ~ learn about that t
d) 6 March 25th incident?
7 MR. MULLINS: Excuse me. What date?
8 MR. KOHN: March -- excuse me -- the
- O 9 February 25th incident.
I 10 MR. MULLINS: Thank you.
11 THE WITNESS: I don't point a finger at the
~
12 February date as being the incident of the possible 13 release of Safeguards Information, but rather, we jo 14- have taken the newspaper articles as a collection and 15 said, "Is this something the NRC,.being a regulatory 16 agency, should inquire into?"
I) 17 It's my understanding that, based on the 18 newspaper articles, the concern was raised by.the 19 region, in which it's a matter that we should inquire
- O .-
20 into.
21 MR. KOHN: Q. Does part of that l
22 investigation center around the possibility that
- O 23 APS's investigation of this incident may constitute j 24 retaliatory action against the workers?
O 25 A. That's correct.
26 Q. Would one of those workers in which PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
c . .,
0 26-1 'retaliddory actions may have taken place be 2 Mr. Thompson?
O 3 A. I can't answer that question.
4 Q. Do you know how Mr.t Martin became-involved in
'S ordering this investigation?- Who talked to him, what O 6 was the chain of command? It's my understanding --
7 I'm not that familiar with the'FRC -- but Mr. Martin 8 seems to be a fairly high ranking individual. Is O
9 that safe to say?
10 A. Mr. Martin is the regional administrator for 11 Region I.
12 MR. MULLINS: Region V.
13 THE WITNESS: Correction -- Region V -- which O 14 makes him the number one man here in the office.
15 MR. KOHN: Q. How many investigations does 16 Mr. Martin initiate?
O 17 A. I don't have any way of knowing that.
18 Q. Are you aware of any other investigations 19 that he has initiated?
O 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you have any conversations with ,
22 Mr. Van Brunt concerning the possible release of O
23 Safeguards Information to Mr. Staggs?
24 A. I may have.
O 25 Q. Did you have any similar conversations with 26 Mr. Andrews, Don Andrews?
'O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
I3 27 1 A. I'm not familiar with that name.
2 Q. How about a Mr. Canady, Dan Canady?
- g 3 A. Would you repeat that question, please, now, 4 with that name?
5 Q. Did you have any conversations regarding the O 6 possible release of Safeguards Information to-7 Mr. Staggs with Mr. Canady?
8 A. Not to the best of my. knowledge, no.
- O 9 Q. Did you have any conversations about the 10 possible release of Safeguards Information with 11 anyone at APS or ANPP?
12 A. I believe I did.
13 Q. Who do you believe you had those
!O 14 conversations with?
15 A. I believe with a Mr. Doidge Nelson, and 16 possibly with Mr. Thompson's immediate supervisor, O 17 whose name escapes me for the moment. Mike Deblo, I 18 believe, is his name.
19 Q. When did you have your conversation with
- O 20 Mr. Nelson?
21 A. I would say generally, February, March, 22 April, time frame.
O 23 Q. But you can't pin it down as to what date 24 that would be?
O 25 A. No. And these were general' type 26 conversations, as opposed to specific, because another
~O
- PATRICIA-CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
~
l I
O 28 l 1 office was investigating the matter. .
2 Q. For the record, who's Mr. Nelson?
-(3 3 A. Doidge Nelson is the manager of security at 4 Palo Verde.
5 Q. Is Mr. Deblo his supervisor? '
.d) 6 A. No. Mike Deblo was his subordinate. Mike 7 Deblo was Blaine Thompson's supervisor, and I believe 1
8 his title was operations supervisor, if I recall.
!O 9 Q. Can:you recall what the general gist of.those
, 10 conversations were? I'm assuming that the 11 conversations with Mr. Deblo and Mr. Nelson were of the 12 same character. Is that correct?
13 A. Yeah, the conversations were limited in (O 14 scope, and generally was more of an inquiring as to 15 the status of their investigation, or what was going 16 on within the company.
!O 17 Q. But you did not provide anyone at APS or ANPP 18 with the status of your investigation, or any 19 conclusions that the NRC may have drawn?
20 20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. What were you told about the status of APS's 22 or ANPP's investigation?
O 23 A. Well, the majority of the time, it was 24 ongoing and wasn't complete.
- O 25 Q. Did they simply state it was ongoing, and 26 give you no further information?
- O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
J 29 1 A. They may have given ma information et thct 2 point in time that I was inquiring into. But as I g 3 said, the purpose of this came up during other 4 conversations, as part of what one would talk about 5 on the scheme of security. It's the type of inquiry
() 6 or question I would ask, that I wouldn't bother to 7 keep notes on, but one to keep one up as to, "How are 8 you getting along? Is it getting done?"
O 9 Q. Are you aware of what procedures APS used to 10 pursue their investigation?
11 A. My understanding, quite a bit of it gleaned 12 from newspaper articles is that there were a group of 13 individuals that were requested to take polygraph
'O 14 examinations, in an effort to sort out who may or may 15 not have leaked information.
16 Q. Are you aware of any other procedures APS O 17 used in the furtherance of their investigation?
18 A. No, I am not; no.
19 Q. During your phone conversations, when you
- O 20 were asking for the general status of their ongoing 21 investigation, you were not apprised of any further 22 efforts APS was using to further that investigation?
LO 23 A. Oh, I'm sure I was. But trying to recall 24 what those details were, if any, I don't have a O 25 recollection. I'm sure that the answers were not 26 limited just to polygraphs, and I don't mean to give PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O 30 1 that impression.
2 Q. In a March 6 " Arizona Republic" article, 3 Mr. Cook is quoted as saying-that there.was no lO 4 Safeguards Information in Mr.- Staggs' March 26 5 article -- excuse me -- February 26 article.
O 6 Did Mr. Cook or anyone else from NRC, APS, or 7 ANPP, contact you regarding that assessment?
8 A. Is this the article you refer to, again?
'O 9 Q. The article would be a March 6 article.
10 A. Was that one of the articles I commented on?
11 Q. I believe so.
g 12 MR. MULLINS: What date?
13 MR. KOHN: March 6.
lO 14 MR. SCOTT: I think we may have the date 15 wrong.
16 MR. KOHN: Q. I underlined an area in
- O 17 which I'm going to direct this question.
18 A. Okay.
19 Q. The March 6th article quotes or states that 20 Mr. Cook believed that there was no release of 21 Safeguards Information. Did Mr. Cook or anyone else 22 contact you regarding that assessment prior to its LO 23 being printed in the news?
24 A. I don't recall.
- O 25 Q. You don't recall being contacted?
. 26 A. I don't recall anyone asking me that
'O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O 31 1 question.
2 Q. Are you aware that, on March 6, Mr. Cook g 3 informed Mr. Van Brunt that you had determined, in 4 your opinion, that Staggs possessed Safeguards 5 Information?
O 6 A. I'm aware he said that, yes.
7 Q. When did you learn of that?
8 A. After the fact.
O 9 Q. Do you know approximately what date?
10 A. It came up several days or maybe weeks later, 11 in a nversati n, that he had made that statement.
O 12 And I then proceeded to correct him, and we discussed 13 it further.
g 14 He then later said to me -- and has said on, 15 I think, numerous occasions -- that he misunderstood.
16 Q. But you're absolutely certain you never 17 stated that?
18 A. To the best of my belief, yes.
19 Q. When did you become aware that Mr. Cook 20 informed Mr. Van Brunt about that?
21 A. I believe I answered that. But several days 22 or several weeks later, it came up in a conversation.
9 23 Q. Do you know if APS was ever contacted to 24 correct that misunderstanding?
O 25 A. No, I do not.
26 Q. Did Mr. Van Brunt ever contact you to verify O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
0 32 1 your misstatement of Safeguards Information?
2 MR. MULLINS: Mr. Cook's statement.
O- 3 MR. KOHN: Q. Excuse me. Mr. Cook's 4 statement.
5 A. No, he did not.
O 6 Q. Did you, yourself, ever contact anyone at APS 7 to correct that statement?
8 A. No, I did not.
O 9 Q. Do you remember any discussions you had.with 10 either Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Schaefer, or any other 11 member of the NRC, in which you discussed that 12 Mr. Staggs might be in possession of Safeguards 13 Information, either before or after the investigation O 14 into Safeguards release was instituted?
15 A. Not specifically; no, I don't.
16 Q. Did you ever request specific actions by APS C) 17 or ANPP regarding the release of Safeguards 18 Information?
19 A. During conversations with ANPP, I had asked, O
20 on numerous occasions, were they inquiring into the 21 possibility of that. The answer given to me was g 22 "Yes." And these are typically of the general 23 conversations that I had had with Doidge Nelson or 24 Mike Deblo in that area.
O 25 Q. Are we talking about the same conversations 26 you referred to earlier?
O- PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
- r Cl i 33-1 A. Yes.
2' Q. Did you ever ask Mr. Cook or urge Mr. Cook.to O 3 contact anyone at APS or ANPP regarding the possible 4 leak of Safeguards Information?
5 A. I did not.
O 6 Q. Hypothetically, if you believe a serious or 7 any problem relating to the release of Saf eguards 8 Information to unauthorized persons occurred, would '-
O 9 you feel.it was appropriate for the NRC.to 10 communicate that concern to the licensee?
)
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Would you contact or adviseothers'in the NRC 13 about the possible unauthorized disclosure of
'() 14 Safeguards Information?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Are you required to report it to other O 17 members of the NRC?
18 A. I would say yes. As a routine histor'ical 19 method of doing business, violations of the code are 20 routinely reported to other members of'the NRC.
21 Q. After the February 25th. conversation with 22 Mr. Staggs, there was no such report prepared, was O
23 there?
24 A. Correct.
O 25 Q. Are you aware that, on several occasions, ,
.s 26 Mr. Cook read to Mr. Staggs the violation citation ,
!O FATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O 34 l_ portions of the Palo Verde security insp3ction report
~
~
2 that were withheld from public circulation for 0- 3 Safeguards Information reasons?
4 A. No, I'm not.
.5 Q. Has Mr. Cook ever sought your-. advice or O- 6 approval before releasing such information?
7 MR. HAYDEN: Objection, lack of foundation.
8 He just said he doesn't know whether that ever O There's no foundation for asking him that 9 occurred.
10 question.
11 MR. MULLINS: You can answer it, if you can.
12 THE WITNESS: I don't know.that I understand 13 the' question, because there's some doubt in my mind O 14 as to what Mr. Cook read. If you could explain what 15 he read, perhaps I could be responsive to the 16 question.
O 17 MR. KoHN: Can we go off the record right 18 now?
19 (Whereupon, there was a discussion off the O
20 record.)
21 MR. KOHN: Back on the record.
O 22 o. I can't show you the actual citation, because 23 they're not provided to me, the Safeguards exclusion.
24 For instance, attached to this November 6 0 25 correspondence from the NRC would be a violation 26 citation attached.
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
Ot - as
~1 A. (Witness examining.)
2 Now, you refer to Appendix A.
O 3 Q. Right.
4 A.- Now the question'is?
5 Q. LDid Mr. Cook ever discuss with you the O' 6 appropriateness of reading the citations attached as 7 Appendix A to media personnel?
8 A. Yes.
O 9 Q. And what was the' conclusion of that 10 discussion?
11 A. The conclusion is that he would not discuss-
)
12 Appendix A, which is the notice of violation, with-13 news media.
l() 14 Q. Do you recall when that discussion took 15 place?
16 A. Several times over the last two or three O 17 years that Mr. Cook's been here.
18 Q. Do you remember the first time that 19 discussion took place?
l 20 A. No, I do not. We discussed both what he 21 could and what he could not release in the scope-of-i
- O 22 Safeguards Information.
23 Q. Do you remember how Mr. Staggs described his 24 informant during the February 25th phone conference O 25- call?
26 A. I don't know that he described his informant,
- O PATRICIA CALLAHAN-&. ASSOCIATES
(3- 36 1 other than saying that he had been provided 2 information. He did not identify him by voice, age, 3 characteristics, sex, et cetera.
O 4 Q. How about employment?
5 A. He may have, but I don't recall specifically.
'n 6 Q. Would you recall if he would-have said 7 something to the effect, "an individual employed in 8 security"?
- O 9 A. I think I would have.
10 Q. You have no such recollections?
- _ 11 A. I have no such recollection.
.U 12 Q. Did Mr. Staggs state whether or not his 13 unidentified informant discussed the March 14 exit.
O 14 interview?
15 MR. MULLINS: February 14?
16 MR. KOHN: February 14.
17 THE WITNESS: I don't recall specifically.
18 In general terms, information referred-to the 19 inspection, not necessarily the exit meeting,.to the
'O 20 best of my_ recollection.
21 MR. KOHN: Q. You don't recall anything in 22 his conversation which indicated to you that the
!O 23 informant participated in the February 14 exit 24 interview?
13 25 A. To the best of my recollection, he was not 26 that specific.
4 PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
CJ - 3 7. -
l' Q. Do you believe'that APS or ANPP ever released /
=2 Safeguards *Information to unauthorized personnel?
O 3 A.. w uld you,restateithatiquestion, please?
-4 -Q. Do you believe that : APS or : ANPP . management-
~
5 ever r'eleased Safeguards Information --
O 6. MR. HAYDEN: I'd like to--- not so much'for 7 an obje'ction, but get a clarification how we're-
~
'8 defining management here,-just so I know and'the O witness'knows what management.means.-- You'can define 9
10- .it, but I want to make sure~the witness and I 11 understand what you'mean.
12 MR. KOHN: Q. Any member -- specifically, 13 Mr. Van Brunt, Mr. Canady, Mr. Andrews, any member of.
O 14 management not associated with security. Let's say, 15 any member of APS who you consider-to be management, 16 other than Mr. Thompson.
O 17 A. If I understand the question, _do I believe 18 that any member of ANP management. released Safeguards-19 -Information? My answer is, I do not know. It is O-20 presently a member -- presently a subject'of the 21 ongoing investigation.
22 Q. Has the NRC investigated its own employees to O
23 determine if a leak of Safeguards _ occurred in 24 reference to the February 25th incident?
O 25 A. I have no knowledge of such an investigation.
26 Q. Are you aware if APS ever informed the NRC-O PATRICIA CALLAHAN &-ASSOCIATES
!Y .38-
~'
1: that it was' going to-use; polygraph' exams-in' reference 2 to the February 25th possible release of Safeguards CF 3 Information?.
4 A.. I am aware that.they:did use; polygraphs as:
- 5. ~ part of the-investigation.
O 6 Q. .Are you-aware if -- or do you know'if,-- any
-7 =other member 1of the_NRC.was. told that such polygraph 8- exams would transpire beforekin fact, they were O-9 .given?
10 A. No, not.to my knowledge.
11 MR. HAYDEN: I'm s try,-I missed the.
O 12 question. Can you-read it back?.
13 (Whereupon, _the rec'ord'was read by the 0 14 reporter.)
15 MR. HAYDEN: Thank you.
16 MR. MULLINS:. Point of clarification. Were O 17 you told before they were used or afterwards?
18 THE WITNESS: Afterwards. I thought- --
19 that's what my answer -
20 MR. KOHN: Q. Did anyone from APS ever 21 contact you regarding NRC guidelines for use of .j 0 --
22 . polygraph examinations?
23 A. No. l t
24 Q. Did you ever request APS to employLpolygraph..
O 25 examinations?
26 A. Yes.
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN'& ASSOCIATES
C) 39
~1. -Q.- And what^ incident was that?
2 A. The Cox/Wylie. incident.
O 3 0 . What was APS's response to your suggestion?
'4 A. .That they would'take11t under: advisement.
5 0 Do you know if APS ever- used a lie detector,~: .
O 6 polygraph-examination, regarding Ethat incident?;
7 A. To the best of my knowledge,'theyldidlnot'use' 8 -i t .
O . .
9 Q. Is a polygraph examination in and of itself' .
10 an effective way'to determine who leaked information?:
^* n,. based'on my past experience,-
O
'll I!' j ?m opini 12 that use of a. polygraph or the FEC physical and 13 psychological are effective tools.
O 14 Q. As a tool,Lis it merely a-tool, orican it-15 stand alone as an effective way of determining who-16 may have leaked.information?
O 17 1 01. MULLINS: For the' record,'you're asking 18 him his professional opinion?
19 MR. KOHN: Yes.
O 20 THE WITNESS: It's my opinion the' polygraph 21 cannot stand by itself; that there must be -- we'need O 22 to understand that the lie detector, as you refer to 23 it, is an investigative tool. It assists an 24 investigator and/or management, in this: case, at O 25 arriving at, I think, conclusions.-
26 But that by itself, it's my opinion that, . no, O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
~
O- 40 1 there must be something else.
2 MR. KOHN: Q. Are you aware of any adverse O 3 effects n APS employees associated with the use of 4 polygraph examinations?
5 A. No, I'm not.
O 6 Q. Would you say the use of a question such as, 7 "Is Mr. Staggs the kind of sneaky reporter often 8 portrayed in movies?", an appropriate investigative O
9 question to determine whether or not Mr. Staggs was 10 the source of a possible Safeguards Information leak?
11 MR. HAYDEN: I'd like to state an objection, 12 for the record, that it is a lack of foundation that 13 such a question was ever used during a polygraph o 14 examination. If this witness wants to speculate 15 if such a question was ever used in a polygraph, and 16 whether it achieves the goals that you've asked, I LO 17 don't care if he speculates, but there's a total lack 18 of foundation as to whether any such a question was 19 ever used during a polygraph examination.
10 20 THE WITNESS: Would you read the question 21 back, please?
22 (Whereupon, the record was read by the O
23 reporter.)
24 THE WITNESS: The question is so ambiguous, O 25 it's difficult for me to envision asking it. setter 26 stated, I could say I, as a professional, wouldn't
- O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
j
.O 41 1 ask that type of a question.
1-.
2 MR. KOHN: Q. Do:youLbelieve a question jO 3 such as, "Is Mr. Staggs the_ kind of sneaky. reporter 4 often portrayed in: movies?",.could possibly lead to 5 determine who may have been in possession of' jO 6 Safeguards Information?
~
7 A. I-can't relate the question to the subject 8 we're talking-about.- It's difficult to envision that
- O .
9 question being asked by a professional in an attempt 3
10 to elicit an answer that means anything. .
. 11 All I can say_is that I wouldn't ask that-
- O 12 type of a question.
13 Q. Do you believe the pre-test interview of.a-iO 14 polygraph examination to be an integral part'of that i
15 examination?
16 A. I do.
10 17 0 Do you know if the NRC received any l 18 complaints by employees concerning the-use of the i
! 19 polygraph examination?
lO-20 A. I do not.
21 Q. Do you know who would have such information 22 if such complaints were raised?
lO l 23 A. It could be almost anyone. I would imagine l
l 24 .that I would know that, if such a complaint had been
!O 25 raised.
26 Q. Are you aware of any newspaper reports lQ l PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
CL .
42 1- - concerning'that subject?. That is, complaints by APS-2 employees about polygraph examinations, or-the
{3 3 chilling effect on APS employees?'
- 4. A. I believe there were-newspaper articles that 5 described'such a chilling effect, as you've described I) 6 it, in the news media there...
L ~
L '7 Q. Do you know if the NRC ever did any follow-up i
L 8 . investigation-into the;possible chilling effect on O ~
L 9 .the use.of. polygraph examinations byl licensees?.
10 A. As stated before, that's part of1the ongoing-11 I""***19"*I "*
O 12 Q. To the best of your knowledge, has safeguards 13 Information ever been leaked to the press at Palo O 14 verde? '
15 A. Not to my knowledge.
16 Q. Are you aware of any APS. employees bringing O 17 to the NRC's attention drug use - more specifically, 18 illegal drug use -- at Palo Verde?
19 MR. MULLINS: Alleged?
20 MR. KOHN: Q. Alleged illegal drug use at 21 Palo Verde?
O 22 A. I'm sure, over the number of years, that that.
23 has occurred.
24 Q. Are you aware of any alleged. illegal drug use O 25 within the security department at Palo' Verde?
26 A. Yes.
O . .
PATRICIA'CALLAHAN &. ASSOCIATES
0 43 (1- _Q. How-did'you become_ aware'of that?
2: A. Over_the course of years,-through-routine 0 3- inspection-efforts, through background _ screening
-4 : records, there has been information developed on the 5 use of. illegal drugs'by members _of:Palo Verde, (b :6- employees.
- 7 ' O. Were polygraph. examinations ever:used to' 8 determine if any members of' security were using O
9 illegal drugs?
10 A._ I'believe there have been cases when 11 polygraph examinations have been used in drug-12- investigations.
13 Q. At Palo Verde?
O 14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. Could.you be a little more specific as to 16 when that may have taken place?.
O 17 A. only to say within the last two to three 18 years. This is a general recollection.
19 Q. Would you know if the NRC would have any O
20 records on the use of polygraph exam'inations at APS? 1 21 A. Pertaining to illegal drugs, again?
22 Q. Pertaining to illegal drugs.
O 23 JL. To the best of my knowledge, we have no 24 records.
O 25 Q. Does the NRC have records on the.use of 26 polygraph examinations at APS for other reasons?
O PATRICIA CALLAHANc& ASSOCIATES
T U 44 1 A. We have had, in the past. We have no records 2 at present.
O 3 Q. Those records were destroyed?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Did Mr. Thompson ever inform you or anyone at
' 6 the NRC regarding the illicit use of drugs within the 7 security department of Palo Verde?
8 A. He may have. The most recent example was O
9 contained, I believe, in a letter from him to Doidge 10 Nelson, in which he referred to past incidents, from 11 1983 through 1986, in the case of five people. I O
12 believe we were knowledgeable of those five cases 13 that he referred to in his memo.
O 14 Q. What was APS's response to the Cox/Wylie 15 incident when the NRC brought it to Palo Verde's 16 attention, the management of Palo Verde's attention?
n 17 A. If I understand the question correctly, it's:
18 what was Palo Verde's management reaction to our 19 inquiry into the Cox/Wylie --
U 20 Q. Yes.
21 A. I would say it was a positive reaction.
e 22 Q. What do you mean by " positive"?
23 A. In that there was -- they recognized a need 24 to inquire further into the circumstances surrounding I) 25 the concern that Mr. Thompson brought to us.
26 Q. What effect would the use of drugs such as O
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
205 43
.1 cocaine and. marijuana 7-- - _let's say off siteiuse of' 4
2 cocaine and marijuana -- have1on security? employees-
)O' -3 performance?
4' A. .The drug you mentioned was cocaine,~or was it 5 cocaine and/or marijuana?
.6- Q. . Let's do each one separately. Cocaine, and 7 then marijuana'.
- 8. MR.~HAYDEN: Just for the. record, if_I.may 10 9 interpose an objection, I; assume what you're doing 10 here is asking'Mr. Schuster to-express his y) 11- non-medical opinion.
12 MR. KOHN: His professional opinion, as far
. 13 as the NRC is concerned, what effects either1 cocaine 14 or' marijuana use'would have on' security employees.
lO' 1 '15 THE WITNESS: Well, with_the.use of cocaine,_
16 depending on the amounts and'when, on the assumption-t
- O
- 17 that there was a substantial amount of cocaine taken 1
- 18 within a period shortly before-the individual l 19 performed duty, that individual then could not meet 10-20 our requirements, nor perform his duty.
21 MR. KOHN: Q. How about-the ingestion of-O 22 marijuana before going on duty?
23 A. I would still say the same thing. It depends k- 24 on the amount, it depends on when. But naturally, I i
- O 25 think all illegal drugs have an adverse effect on 4
26 anybody performing safety-related security function.
I e
lOL PATRICIA'CALLAHAN.& ASSOCIATES.
1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - -e--.--e----,*--+-mm c.wrae e-e-,+,ew -r--+---.+-+- -w---r y>=n-vy- y a e e--- +-r +m,-,we,s-ema-p--r-s w yv-- e,e.c<w,..-mm-,-,.w-+,ws
C). I 46 1 Q.. Are-there_any NRC regulations regarding use 2 of illegal substances by security employees?
O 3L A. Not specifically, no.
4 Q. Have you ever.-- or has the NRC ever - . fined 5 or notified APS because security employees were using O 6 illegal drugs?
7 A. The question-is, have we ever fined --
8 Q. Or notified. Or we can do it separately.
O-9 A. The answer would be "No" to the " fined" part.
10 But if I understand the second part of the 11 questi n, has NRC ever notified Palo Verde of illegal O
12 drug use of their own employees?
13 Q. Correct.
O 14 A. I can say I have not.
15 Q. Are there any NRC regulations concerning the 16 legal use of drugs, legal prescription drugs, by O 17 security employees?
18 A. Not to my knowledge.
19 Q. Is there an official NRC definition of O
20 " fitness for duty"?
21 A. I believe there is.
O 22 Q. Do you know where that would be found?
23 A. No, I do not. Perhaps I should amplify that 24 last answer. We have a fitness for duty rule, either O 25 in the proposed stages or as a suggestion on an 26 industry proposed standard. It's generally in_that O
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
I) 47 1 realm.
2 Q. Is'there a proposed regulation?
A. It's my understanding that industry has
})- 3 4 proposed a standard which the NRC has endorsed. In 5 -essence, it causes the licensee to adopt a fitness O 6 for duty program, which the NRC will later inspect.
7 That becomes a commitment by the licensee, as opposed 8 to a rule imposed by the NRC.
- O 9 Q. When doing inspections, have you ever
(
10 inspected employees' medical files for use of 11 prescription drugs? Security employees?
12 A. I have not, no.
13 Q. Are you aware of any NRC inspector who has
!O 14 inspected medical files for use of prescription 15 drugs?
16 A. We inspect medical files. But I don't know 17 that specifically we are looking for prescription 18 drugs.
19 Q. Have you ever notified APS that security 20 employees should be transferred due to the use of 21 prescription drugs?
.t.O 22 A. I have net.
23 Q. I take it, then, you've never ordered APS to 24 transfer security employees for use of prescription lO 25 drugs.
26 A. That's correct.
lO PATRICIA ~CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
--- . - - - - - - - __ _ . _ __ ._..m._ . _ . _ , . ,. __.
.) 48 1 Q. Are you aware of any membar of the NRC cvor 2 notifying or ordering APS to transfer security employees for use of prescription drugs?
)
3 4 A. I am not.
5 Q. Are you aware of any NRC employee notifying C 6 any licensee to transfer a security employeo for use 7 of prescription drugs?
8 A. I am not.
O 9 Q. Are you aware of any fine or notice to any 10 licensee regarding the use of prescription drugs by 11 security personnel?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Are you aware of APS ever transferring an g 14 employee due to the use of prescription drugs?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Do you believe that APS suffers from a O 17 shortage of security personnel?
18 A. The answer to that would be Safeguards 19 Information.
O 20 Q. Has APS ever been cited for fatigue of 21 security guards?
22 A. No, they have not.
z) ;
23 Q. Are you concerned that APS may have an l l
24 inadequate amount of security guards? l l
O 25 A. Yes. l I
26 Q. In your professional opinion, do you believe i PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O: -49
- 1. that-transferring an employee for use of prescription 22 drugs, at a facility where there isca lack of the L() 3 amount of security personnel, to be proper action?
4 MR. HAYDEN: Objection.- There's no r
5 specificity as to what prescription' drugs. I would-6 assume the witness can't_ answer that question unless t
7 he has some information of what kind of prescription 1
i 8 we're talking about. That can go anywhere from
- O 9 _hayfever medicine to serious narcotics. How can he 10 answer that question?
11 MR. KOHN: Q. In your professional j) 12 opinion, if a security employee at a licensed nuclear 13 facility working in the security department was on a
!O 14 prescribed medication with a side effect of 15 dizziness, the name of the medication being Tranxene --
16 T-r-a-n-x-e-n-e -- I pronounced it wrong --
IO 17 First, are you familiar with the drug, 18 Tranxene?
19 A. Never heard of it.
'O 20 Q. In your professional opinion, if a licensee 21 was understaffed in the security department, and a i
!O 22 security personnel was given a prescription drug with 23 the only known side effect to be dizziness, do you 24 believe transferring that person out of the security
- O 25 area to be a proper decision on the part of
- 26 management?
I
.l lO PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES-
_ _ . _ _ _ _ ._ _-. - - _ . . _ , ~ . _ . . . _ - . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ ,_ - . .. _\
H ' q 0; 50 -
11 .A.- You're asking"me to speculate. And I' don't-l2 mind doing that.
O? 3- .Ilthink dizziness-is an-unacceptable,effect,
.4- to the-degree.that if-we don't_have'enough 5 information toLunderstand in what' circumstances this O. 6 is likely to' occur, and it-becomesian unknown when 7 the individual might be' dizzy _from-the effects of-the 8 medicine, then'that could:be1 unacceptable.-
O 9 And accordingly,.he should not be able to-10 continue those duties..
11 (Whereupon, there:was.a discussion off the O
12 record between Mr. Mullins and the witness.)
13 MR. KOHN: Q. Earlier, you; mentioned that O 14 you believe polygraph examinations may have been 15 employed at APS. Do you know.if that was-contract 16 security employees, such as Tate and Continental, or-O 17 was it non-security employees,-or was it.APS regular 18 security employees?
19 A. If I understand the question correctly,-in-20 applying the application of the polygraph, was it to~
21 security employees or others?
O 22 o. was it to security employees of. Tate and 23 Continental, and not APS?
24 A. To the best of my understanding,Lthe O 25 polygraph; examination was applied to'" security" 26 personnel.
O .
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O 51 1 Q. But you have no knowledge of whether or not 2 it was contract security employees versus employees (j 3 hired directly by the utility?
4 A. It's my recollection that it's all; it's 5 contract and ANPP security employees. And, 3 6 specifically, in the background screening. The 7 polygraph is used all the time.
8 Q. That's prior to an employee being hired?
O 9 A. As part of the background screening, yes.
10 Q. Other than background screening, are you
,, 11 aware of the use of polygraph examinations?
v 12 A. To my understanding, yes, in drug -- it has 13 been used in drug investigations.
g 14 Q. In the use, in drug investigations, of 15 polygraphs, do you know if that was done by Tate and 16 Continental?
O 17 A. Done by them? It's my understanding that --
18 yes, that a contract employee of ANPP does the actual 19 administering of the polygraph.
O 20 Q. Do you know if the polygraphs were 21 administered on contract security employees or ,
22 non-contract security employees?
O 23 A. I don't think I can sort which they were.
l 24 Q. Are you aware of any problems dealing with K) 25 the camera poles at APS, where someone could climb 26 the pole and jump over the detection equipment zones?
'q '
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
9 52' l' A. Yes, I am.
~
2 Q. Was that corrected?
- 3. A. Yes, it was.
O-4 .Q. -Do you know who brought that to your 5 attention -- or to the NRC's attention?
O 6 A. Dennis Schaefer, an inspector who works.for 7 me, I believe brought that to my attention. I'm not
.8 so certain that I'm aware of who specifically brought O 9 -it to his attention.
10 Q. Were you ever told of security system 11 computer failures?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did Mr. Thompson ever have any conversations o 14 with you or with anyone from the NRC regarding that 15 subject?
16 A. Yes.
O 17 Q. Is it, in fact, true that the NRC failed the 18 Palo Verde plant security department at the first 19 pre-operational inspection for Unit 2 in November O
20 '857 21 A. I'm not sure of the dates. But if you refer 22 to the first pre-operational, that is correct.
O 23 Q. Is it true that it failed due to the fact 24 that the security system was unable to protect the O 25 plant and the public?
26 A. That's correct.
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
0
- O- ~
53:
-1 Q. Would~one of-the reasons be the1 computer 3 2 system failure?
hji 3 A. ILwould have to refer back to-that inspection.
4 report to be specific. -I-ican't recallispecifically [
t
-1 5- whether that.was one of the reasons.or not.
O! .6 .Q. Did~Mr.: Thompson ever complain to you.or
- 7 anyone at the NRC regarding security department-i 8 personnel staffing? *
'~
O 9 A. Yes, he did.
l - 10 Q. Did you ever. discuss that.with anyone'at.APS?
4 i 11 A. I did.
10 i 12 Q. What was APS's reaction to your discussions?
i 1
i 13 A. Their reaction.was of a positive note.
14 Q. Are you aware of a staffing study conducted ~
}O 15 by APS in which it was determined that 56 additional r
l.
16 officers needed to come on line in preparation for 1'0 17 Unit 2 operation?
18 A. I believe I am.
{
19 Q. Do you have knowledge if the-plant manager 20 cut the number from 56 to 30?
I
< 21 A. I'm unsure. I know there was a proposed O 22 number. I know the number did not equal the i
j 23 proposed. The exact numbers, I'm unsure of.
i l 24 Q. Have any of these 56 or less people come on lO- 25 line yet, to your knowledge?
I
! 26 A.. I do not know.
I' 10
! PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES I
_,_._m. ...u......,_,....__... _ -.. .. .-..~.,~,..-...,--..._.,,m-._--,,,-,,-, . . - , . . - - , - , - , ,
O 54 1 Q. Do you'know if any officers have been 2 ' authorized for hire since that time?
3 A. I need to know the date that you refer to.
.O 4 Q. March'1986.
5 A. I do not know of any, no.
) 6 Q. Did Mr. Thompson complain about fatigue on 7 captains and other member of security due to the lack 8 of additional security personnel?
-O 9 A. I believe he has.
10 Q. Did Mr. Thompson ever complain to you about 11 hiring and promotional favoritism at APS?
)
12 A. Hiring and favoritism -- I believe he has.
13 Q. Are you aware of a burglary at Palo Verde on lO 14 or about January 9, 1980, in which files were stolen 15 out of the security department?
16 A. Not that I recollect.
i O 17 Q. I'm going to show the witness two newspaper 18 articles. One is entitled "APS's secret war on 19 protestors, court records, document spying." The 20 second is entitled "APS Part 2 files disappear in j 21 mysterious burglary." These might refresh your
'O 22 recollection.
23 A. (Witness examining.)
24 This was in 1980?
O 25 Q. I do believe.
26 A. It's a little tough to read. But no, it
'O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES v- -. - + - , , - _ . ,p-- ,.-,-,r
1 C) 55 j 1 doesn't refresh my recollection. H 2 Q. On January of 1980, were you employed by the 0: 3 NRC at that time?
'4 A. Yes, I was.
5 Q. If files were stolen out of the security C 6 department of APS, would you have or should you have 7 been notified of that?
8 A. I have to say, I don't know, and then qualify 0
.9 .it with having to think back as to when they did or 10 did not have an operating license.
11 If Pal verde did n t have an operating O
12 license at that time, there may not have been a 13 requirement to report, pursuant to security O 14 requirements. That's not to say that they wouldn't 15 report.
16 But in trying to be responsive to your O 17 question, were they required to respond, I don't 18 believe so, in 1980, if we think of when we took the 19 pre-operational inspections. But I have to say, I'm 20 unfamiliar -- seeing these, I'm just not familiar 21 with what transpired here.
O 22 Q. If, hypothetically, you learned that a 23 burglary occurred from a safe within a licensee's 24 security department, and that burglary was suspected O 25 to be internal, would you believe that such action 26 warrants significant investigation?
.o PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
J 56 1 A. I'll speculate that internally, any company 2 organization would investigate a burglary.
3 I need to go on and further amplify that. A O
4 reporting requirement, because it happens within a 5 security organization, is not necessarily reportable O 6 to the NRC.
7 If the loss of Safeguards Information or 8 something that pertained to the security organization O
9 that they had committed to was the subject of the 10 burglary, then perhaps there may be a reporting 11 requirement.
12 Q. The fact that a burglary occurred within the 13 security department, you do not feel, is a reportable O 14 incident?
15 A. I can't say "Yes" or "No" to that. A 16 burglary happening within APS should be internally O 17 investigated by themselves. Now, whether it would be 18 reported to the NRC, it depends on what the subject 19 of the burglary was.
20 Q. I'd like to call your attention back to the 21 February 26 article.
O 22 A. We're going back to 90l? This one?
23 Q. Correct.
I 24 Can I see the previously marked exhibits? I
(
O 25 I am referring to a previously marked l 26 exhibit, Complainant's Exhibit 11 in this proceeding, O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
57 1 which is, in. fact, the same -- I stand corrected.
2 The exhibit has not been previously marked for
() 3 identification. It is the Wednesday, February 26, 4 1986, " Arizona Republic" newspaper article entitled
~
5 "Palo Verde security section rated low."
() 6 A.
This one here.
7 MR. MULLINS: I believe, for the record, it 8 is the last page of Document BT-109 which we produced O .
9 yesterday.
10 THE WITNESS: 901.
11 MR. K HN: Q. In this article, there is a O
12 comment from a Captain John Smith. It states, on the 13 side bar -- looks like the second paragraph --
0 14 "However, Captain John Smith, a Tate representative 15 at the plant, said, 'The number fluctuates but 16 averages around 100, according to demands.'"
O 17 He's referring to 100 employees within the 18 security department. Is that. correct?
19 A. I don't know what he -- what he refers to.
O 20 Q. Assuming he's referring to 100 security 21 officers at the plant --
22 MR. HAYDEN: An objection here. Now, are we
()
23 into the area of hypothetical?
24 MR. KOHN: No. I think that's a fair reading O 25 as the article will indicate.
26 MR. HAYDEN: But are you asking this witness O
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
3 58 1 to concludo that, or cro you giving him c 2 hypothetical?
3 MR. KOHN: Q. Then, we'll read the paragraph O
4 beforehand. " Plant spokesman, Don Andrews, refused 5 to comment on the size of the security force.
O 6 However, Captain Jim Smith, a Tate representative at 7 the plant, said, 'The number fluctuates but averages 8 around 100, according to demand.'"
O 9 Would the release of information about the 10 size of the security staff -- that is, 100 people --
11 be a breach of Safeguards Information?
12 MR. HAYDEN: I'd like to interpose an 13 ob' action before he answers. For the record, reading g 14 that paragraph, I can make no conclusion as to what 15 "100" refers to. Is that the size of Tate's security 16 force at the plant, does that represent some other
- O 17 number? I find it completely ambiguous, and I don't 18 know what it's referring to.
19 MR. KOHN: Q. Well, then, we'll ask two
'O 20 questions; one, if it was referring to Tate's size, 21 would that be a breach of Safeguards Information, or 22 a possible breach?
O 23 A. In my opinion, that answer would not, unless 24 it was specifically applied to the Palo Verde O 25 security organization.
26 Q. Assume it stated that Tate security had an O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
i 1
$) 59 1 average of 100 security officers at the Palo Verde 2 security plant. Would that be a breach of Safeguards O 3 Information?
4 'A. If you're being very specific, the answer --
5 it'could be Safeguards Information.
O 6 In this case, you're asking me to comment on 7 this. This is not Safeguards Information.
8 Q. Why, in your opinion, is this not Safeguards O
9 Information?
10 A. Because it does not give the manning level of 11 the security organization.
O 12 Q. By " manning level," would you be more 13 specific?
O 14 A. The authorized strength of the' security 15 organization. This does not divulge that. It gives 16 an average or an approximate number.
O And then again, in looking at this, the 17 18 specific words here, it's unclear to me whether 19 they're talking about Palo Verde or whether they're 20 talking about the Tate Company.
21 Q. Well, let's read it from this perspective.
O 22 " Plant spokesman, Don Andrews" -- I take it Don 23 Andrews is from APS, correct?
24 A. Mm-hmm.
O 25 Q. -
" refused to comment on the size of the 26 security force. However, the number fluctuates but
.o PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
3 60 1 averages around 100, according to demand."
2 Okay? Just as I read that to you. Is that a O 3 possible breach of Safeguards Information?
4 A.- It is not.
5 MR. KOHN: Let's go off the record for a O 6 minute.
7 (Whereupon, there was a discussion off the 8 record.)
O 9 MR. KOHN: Back on the record.
10 I call the witness' attention to, I believe, 11 a document which is referred to as BT-1001, which I
.O 12 believe to be the seventh page of that document.
13 Q. About the third paragraph down, it states:
() 14 " Follow-up item 85-30-15, Safeguards Information.
15 The licensee policies / procedures for the protection 16 of Safeguards Information and practices at corporate O 17 offices and contracted facilities will be inspected 18 during subsequent security inspections."
19 Could you explain what is meant by that?
"O 20 A. We have an inspection procedure by which we 21 inspect the requirements of safeguarding Safeguards 22 Information. As a routine practice, we look into how lO 23 a licensee and/or their contractor safeguards or 24 protects Safeguards Information.
O 25 This particular item says that we are going 26 to do more of this. We had started it. If my
'0 PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
s.
13 61 1 recollection's correct, we.had started to inopset 2 that, had not completed it, and what we're saying to g- 3 the licensee in this case is that w 're going to look 4 more at his and his contractor's at a later date. ife 5 don't say when.
O 6 Is that responsive to your question?
-7 Q. Has this item been closed since this report?
8 A. I'd have to do some research,in order to O I think so, but.I'm guessing.
9 answer that question.
10 Q. Is it possible you could find that out later I
11 on today at some point?
12 A. Yes.
13 If I may take a minute, I may be able to do O 14 that by looking at the instruction inspection after --
15 is there an inspection after that, that's a matter of 16 record?
17 I don't have that information with me, so I 18 can't inquire into that.
19 Q. During your investigation of APS, have you 20 ever had the opportunity to observe Mr. Thompion?
I 21 A. Yes.
g 22 Q. Have you ever had the opportunity to review 23 Mr. Thompson's personnel files?
24 A. Yes.
O 25 Q. Have you had the opportunity to speak with 26 other members of APS security regarding C
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES '
-- O g
{} 62 cl' Mr. Thompson's performance?
2 A. Yes.
O '3 Q. Has anyone ever complained to you about 4 Mr.. Thompson's performance?
5 A. No.
O 6 Q. From your personal observation of 7 Mr. Thompson, how would you classify him as a 8 security enforcement personnel person?
- O 9 A. I would say he was a good worker.
10 Q. How would you qualify his~ professional 11 capabilities?
.: 0 12 A. Excellent. .
13 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that
'O 14 Mr. Thompson is unfit for duty?
15 A. I do not.
16 Q. In your inspections at APS, have you received lO 17 any complaints of any other captains in security?
^
18 A. No.
19 Q. Are you aware that Mr. Thompson has been
- O 20 transferred out of his position as captain of 21 security?
22 A. I am.
O 23 Q. Are you troubled by that transfer?
24 A. I am not.
- O 25 Q. when did you first learn that Mr. Thompson 26 was being transferred?
.O-PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
1 O- 63 1 A. I believe from Mr. Thompson himself.
2 Q. What date would that be? l O 3 A. I can't recall the date. But I think I ;
4 recall a conversation from Mr. Thompson telling me of 5 his subsequent administrative relief from his job for O 6 the purpose of an investigation. Later, his 7 restoration back to duty. And.then subsequently, his 0 transfer to another job having no connection with O
9 Palo Verde, if I have that sequence correctly.
10 Q. Are you aware that the Nuclear Regulatory 11 Commission promised Mr. Thompson that if any ,
12 retaliatory actions occurred against him, he would be 13 protected by federal statutes?
O 14 A. I'm unaware of anyone making that promise to 15 him. I can categorically say, I, nor no' member of my 16 staff, made any such statement.
O 17 Q. Is Mr. Zimmerman a member of your staff?
18 A. He is not.
19 Q. Are you aware of retaliatory actions against 20 APS employees for blowing the whistle?
' 21 A. No, I'm not.
22 Q. Those investigations are done by the O
i' 23 Department of Labor. Is that correct?
l 24 A. I have to'say, I'm not aware of APS taking (O 25 retaliatory actions, period. If we are discussing l 26 violation of what is referred to as "a whistle O
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
_ , _ . ,- , .~ .. --, - , . _ , , , , , , .-.m.-. .--
d) - 64 1 . blower's act," typically that is always performsd by 2 the Department of Labor if it's, to my understanding, 0- 3 within 30 days of the occurrence.
4 Q. So, if an employee came to you and complained
~5' of a' retaliatory act, or anyone at the NRC in O 6 Region V, is it true that they'd be told to bring 7 that to the Department of' Labor's attention? >
8 A. That's correct.
'O There is no mechanism for whistle blowing to 9 Q.
10 you, other than to the Department of-Labor.
11 A. That's my understanding, yes.
g 12 Q. And anyone who reports.such retaliatory 13 action to you is instructed to see -- to talk to the O 14 Department of Labor. Is that correct?
15 A. I have to say yes. I have little or no 16 experience in this area, with the exception of this
.O 17 case that we're now discussing withlMr. Thompson.
18- Q. So, basically, if an employee comes to the 19 NRC to divulge some information, and' states that'and 20 is told that, by doing so, he would be free from 21 retaliation due to federal statutes, what, in fact, g) 22 you're really telling:the employee is that, "If you 23 are retaliated against, the NRC will do nothing-for 24 your but instead, go to.the Department of Labor"?
O 25 MR. HAyDEN: objection, compound question.
r
- 26 Numerous portions of that question.-
O.
PATRICIA ~CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
fb 65
' l' MR.'KOHN: Q. We'll break it-down.
2 A. That would help.
O 3 Q. If an-employee went to you or a-member of the.
4 NRC in' Region V, and stated that they had some health
~
5 and' safety concerns at a nuclear facility, and asked O 6 .if they disclose those concerns and'they were 7' retaliated against,'would they receive protection, 8 what would yours or the NRC's response be?
O
.9 A. I think -- first of all, I think it-would be 10 unusual to have a complainant'come'to us and'say, "If 11 I give you this information, the' employer's going'to g
12 retaliate against me," if I have your-question-in.the 13 proper context.
O 14 But assuming that they did, I think we have 15 an obligation to explain to that individual-that he 16 does have certain protections under the law. I think O 17 that we would stop short of attempting to~ explain 18 that law, since we're relatively novices at trying to 19 explain what he can and cannot do.
20 But our understanding, specifically because 21 of Blaine Thompson, is that we have educated-o 22 ourselves to the certain extent- that we have a fair:
23 understanding of what' Department of Labor does-and 24 does not do, as opposed to what-the NRC does and does O 25 not do.
26 To be specific-in trying to say, "You will or O
PATRICIA ^CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES 1
'd . 66 1 will'not!get-this-.or.that," I don't th'i nk . - that twe
.2 would make that attempt. ,
O. 3 Q.- So,. prior to' Blaine Thompson, your ability to 4 deal with the protection of whistle blowers at Palo 5 Verde was not as entrenched as it is today?
O 6 A. Mine specifically, I think that's a fair 7 statement.
8- 0. Is it true for people within;your department?
!O 9 A. I would say yes. j 10 Q. To your knowledge, is it true with 11 Mr. Zimmerman?
12 A. I don't know. I could offer an educated 13 guess and say "Yes."
o 14 Q. You had an early conversation we discussed P
15 earlier -- I stated on December 4th, but you were-16 unaware of actually that date -- and you. stated that O 17 you.had a conversation with Mr. Thompson regarding 18 the Cox/Wylie incident. Is that correct?
19 A. I believe that took place in-December, yes.
l 20 Q. You pursued questioning Mr.' Thompson at that 21 time, without finding out whether or not?he wanted t
jy- 22 confidentiality?
23 A. I would assume so, yes._ I think that's a 24 correct statement.
i lO 25 Q. Is that normal procedure for the NRC?
l 26 A. 'That is.
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES l: ., -_ . . _ _ - _ _ . . _ . . . . , . _ . , - ..._ . . ._...._.,__,_,_..m__., . . _ _ . . _ . , , , . , . _ . . _
O' 67 1 Q. Would.you disclose the identity of an 2 individual who had not-formally requested O 3 confidentiality?
4 A. . Normally not.
5 Q. Has Region V ever been cited for disclosing O 6
~
.the identity of confidential informants to licensees?
7 A. 'If-I understand the question you've asked, 8' has the NRC been cited for-revealing a confidence?
AD .
'9 Q. Has the NRC done internal investigation and i
10 found itself to have possibly led identified
. 11 confidential sources to licensees?
-12 A. I don't know that. We have an office of 13 investigation, an auditor, and I'm unaware of their 14 investigations into matters like that.
lO
, 15 It's possible. I don't know. I doubt it.
16 Q. Are you aware of any such incidents at Diablo
'O 17 Canyon?
l 18 A. Not to the best of my recollection.
I 19 MR. KOHN: No further questions.
I 20 l
1.
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. HAYDEN 22 MR. HAYDEN: -Q. Mr. Schuster, I'd like to O
23 begin by making sure that I correctly understand some 24 portions of your earlier testimony today.
O 25 Did I understand correctly -- and this, of 26 course, is summarizing your-testimony; I can't repeat l
I PATRICIA CALLAHAN-& ASSOCIATES
I
'O' gg 1 it verbatim --'that, as a result of the information l 2 -that came to the attention of Region V in the IO 3 February / March 1986 time frame, I believe your 4 testimony was that information included newspaper 5 articles and direct communications by Mr. Staggs to O 6 various representatives to the region; that, based on 7 the totality of the information you had, that the 8 region concluded that it was appropriate to conduct
'O
- 9. its.own investigation into.the possible release of 10 Safeguards Information to an unauthorized source.
11 Is that correct?
)
12 A. That's' correct.
13 Q. In your opinion, is Mr. Staggs such an O 14 unauthorized source?
15 A. Yes, he is.
I 16 Q. Are you aware that representatives of the O 17 Palo verde --
18 MR. KOHN: Excuse me. I'm going to object to 19 the last question and answer on the basis of no 20 foundation. As to the possible release offan 21 unauthorized source, I'd like the witness to state 22 how they would come across that conclusion. I think lO 23 a conclusionary_ statement is objectionable.
'24 THE WITNESS: You want to understand the '
K) 25 basis for my answer?
26 MR. KOHN: Yes.
- O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES ,
O 69 1 THE WITNESS: Mr. Staggs, not being a 2 licensee, in my opinion, would not be' authorized to O 3 possess Safeguards Information, either purposely or 4 accidentally or whatever.
5 MR. HAYDEN: Q. Thank you.
O 6 Mr. Schuster, are you aware that 7 representatives of APS were advised by 8 representatives of Region V that the region had a O
9 concern that safeguards Information may have been 10 disclo' sed to an unauthorized source?
11 A. I am.
g 12 MR. KOHN: Would you repeat that question, 13 please?
O 14 (Whereupon, the record was read by the 15 reporter.)
16 MR. HAYDEN: Q. My next question is, are O 17 you aware that, upon representatives of the yegion so 18 advising APS, that they also advised APS that they 19 had reason to believe that that unauthorized
.O 20 disclosure came from within APS's own security 21 information?
O_ 22 MR. KOHN:- I object as_ compound. And I'm not 23 following the question, so I interpose an objection 24 as unintelligible.
O 25 MR. HAYDEN: Q. Do you understand the 26 question, Mr. Schuster?
O PATRICIA'CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES i
!O'
-7o 1 A. Yes.
-2 Q. Will you please answer it, then?
OL 3 A.- The' answer is no.
4- Q. Now, this is a hypothetical question. -Assume ,
5 that a licensee, .any licensee, has--been advised by-O~ -6 the site's' authorized licensed physician that a 7 . member of its' security force, as a-result of being_
under the treatment of prescribed-. drugs, has had his. -!
- l. 8 '
lO .
9 fitness for duty adversely.affected. Do you i 10 understand that hypothetical?-
jg 11 A. Yes.
12 -Q. In your opinion, would it be responsible
' ~
13 for that licensee to disregard that medical advice it
- O 14 receives?
15 A. No, it would not.
16 Q. Would it be, in your opinion, . appropriate for. ,
"O 17 that licensee to take some-appropriate. action? For- ,
18 example,-a re-assignment upon being so. advised by its i
19 physician?
- 0 1
20 A. 'Yes.
~ '
21 0.- We will also make the first part of'this-
!O 22 question a hypothetical. Assume that a ,
23 representative of Region V. advises-a' licensee that 24 the region has a concern that there has been a.
jO 25 possible disclosure of Safeguards Information to an i
26 unauthorized source.
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
C) 1 Do you understand that part of the 2 hypothetical?
- () 3 A. Yes.
- 4 Q. Would Region V or yourself -- let's just 5 speak of yourself -- expect that licensee to take-O 6 some action in response to being so advised?
7 A. Yes. ,
8 0 The second part of the question: if the
- O 9 licensee developed that same concern, not-from 10 Region V, but based on information it developed on 11 its own, under its obligations under its license, g
12 would it also be obligated to take some action to 13 investigate that possible unauthorized disclosure?
O 14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Do I understand your earlier testimony now, 16 with respect to the particular investigation into
.O 17 possible unauthorized disclosure of Safeguards-18 Information that we're discussing here today, that 19 you did inquire, on at least one occasion, with APS 20 officials as to what, in fact, they were doing to 21 investigate that matter?
22 A. Yes, sir.
to 23 Q. Did you make such inquiries on more than one 24 occasion?
O 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. Mr. Schuster, are you aware of whether there lO PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
Of 17 2
.1 are any-NRC regulations or guidelines that either 2 prohibit, or in any way restrict,Ja. licensee's use of-polygraph examinations ~as part;of an internalt
~
0 3-4 investigation? ,
5 A. I am not.
6 Q. Do.I understand your earlier testimony to be 7- that, on some prior occasions, you have -- I wrote- -
8 down -- asked APS to use. polygraph examinations as O-9 part-of an internal investigation?.
10 A. I have suggested --
O
^
11 0' 8"99'***d-12 A. -- that'they use a polygraph.
13 Q. This, you may have already answered. Let me IO 14 just ask it, in any event. Is there-any situation' j 15 that you can conceive of in'which a security officer.-
1 16 should be temporarily removed'from his or her duties l
iO 4 17 as a result of being under a program of prescribed-
- 18 drugs?
19 A. Yes.
!O 20 -Q. I want to clarify what I think may be an i
21 unclear portion of the record that exists at this 22 time. You were~ asked earlier the question of whether-
!O_
23 or not there had been something'in the nature of 24 earlier discussions with you regarding.:a shortage-of O 25 security personnel at Palo Verde, and you answered 26 "Yes."
- O: PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES-
_ .. _ _ _ . - - _ , . _ _ . _ . . . _-.;_.,-.,_.,.,. . _ , . . . . _ . . _ . . - c..
I) 73 1 Then you were asked the question, "Did you 2 have that type of conversation with Mr. Thompson?",
0- 3 to which you answered "Yes."
4 Then you were asked the question, "Did you 5 discuss that with APS?", and you answered "Yes."
6 Now I want to clarify, when you answered.
7 "Yes" to that third question, did you mean you had 8 discussions with APS regarding your opinion that
'O 9 there was a shortage of security pers7nnel, or "Yes,"
10 that you discussed with APS your discussions with.
11 Mr. Thompson on that subject?
g 12 A. It's the former, not the latter. We 13 discussed personnel manning, shortages, whatever,
- () 14 with APS management because of requirements, not.
15 because of Blaine Thompson's concern.
16 Q. Thank you.
- O I would like the witness to look, again, at 17
- 18 Exhibit --
19 Would you mark this Respondent l? I only 20 have this one.
4 21 (WHEREUPON, A XEROX COPY OF A THREE-PAGE DOCUMENT, ENTITLED "NRC SECURITY
- O 22 PROGRAM, NRC APPENDIX 2101, EXHIBIT 1,"
WAS MARKED AS RCSPONDENT'S EXHIBIT 23 NO. 1 FOR IDENT IFICATION. )
24 MR. HAYDEN: Q. Read Sub-paragraph No. 3, O 25 which commences on what appears ~to be Page 12, and
! 26 continues onto Page 13.
i O
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
- + ~ * #-
.O- -74 l' Do you mind if I also read-it?
2 A.. No.
O. 3 I've read this down to-(indicating) --
4- Q. -Correct, down to Paragraph 4.- ,
- 5. Mr. Schuster, were you present during the--
O 6- -February 14th exit interview that'was: conducted at 7 the Palo Verde site?-
8 A. I was.
O 9 Q. Would I be correct-in' assuming,.without.-
10 getting into the details, the specific details'of 11 that exit interview, that generally speaking, i t O
12- would be true that among the topics discussed were. -
13 portions of the Safeguards inspection report,-
O 14 evaluations, audits, or investigation containing_
15 details of the licensee's physical security 1 system, ,
16 and that you also discussed uncorrected defects, O weaknesses, or vulnerabilities within the system?
17 18 Would I be generally. correct to_think that _
19 subject matters that fall within that. description 20 were discussed during the February 14th exit-21 interview?-
0 22 A. Yes, they were.
23 Q. In your opinion,.if someone.had taken that 24 same information that was discussed,-and revealed it -
O 25 to an unauthorized source, would that be the~
26 disclosure of Safeguards Information?
!O l
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES'
. .-- ,,- = .-.- -
- , - - . e v -* ,ev - ,-+-,m----- -
www--.-- w- vt - -> m W9 '*%.4 t -w r~ w e rwet --?
I C) ~ 75 1 A. It would.
2 Q. This'may.be apparent, but it may go to O 3 foundation. My final qu'estion on this exhibit, in 4 your judgment, then, Paragraph No. 3 that I've asked 5 you to read -- and I'm not trying to corner you here, O 6 that this is the only conceivable definition of 7 Safeguards Information -- but I'm simply asking, in 8 your opinion, if this is an accurate definition of O
9 Safeguards Information, a. portion of Safeguards 10 Information?
11 A. Partially, yes.
12 Q. I now want to direct your attention, 13 Mr. Schuster, to the February _25th, 1986 -- what I O 14 will refer to as conference telephone call with 15 Mr. Staggs. I say so, because my understanding is,
~
16 Mr. Cook, Mr. Montgomery, and yourself, were parties O 17 to that conversation 18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Do you have any recollection currently that, 20 during that conversation, one-of the three of_you 21 advised Mr. Staggs that the publication of g 22 information he was discussing could possibly be the 23 release of Safeguards Information? Was he given any 24 kind of -- I don't want to use the word;" warning" --
0 25 but guidance, advice, or warning, in that area?
26 A. I think that would be accurate.
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
O. 76:
1 MR.- HAYDEN: I have no-further questions.
2 MR. KOHN:. I have a few' questions.- Something--
(j 3 that came to mind.
4 5 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. KOHN O 6 MR. KOHN: Q. ' Earlier, I had asked if you 7 were concerned with Mr. Thompson's transfer.' Is that
'8 to-say that that is not a concern of yours, because-O .
9 'that is under investigation by NRC's Office of 10 Investigations?
11 A. I d n't understand the question.
O 12 Q. Is.Mr. Thompson's transfer under 13 investigation by the'NRC's Office of Investigations?
O -14 A. No, not to the best of my knowledge.
15 Q. Did Region V' approve the use of' polygraph -
16 examinations concerning the release or supposed; -
O 17 release or possible release of Safeguards-Information 18 to Mr. Staggs?
~
19 A. To the best of my knowledge, we weren't-20 asked.
21 Q. That is to say, that you were neither asked,-
22 nor approved the use of. polygraph exams?
0 23 A. I can say that, to the best of.my knowledge, 24 we were not asked. It's difficult to approve O 25 something that you're not asked.
26 Q. Would Region V of the NRC approve an l
10 l
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
0: 77 1 investigation into unauthorized disclosure of 2 Safeguards material if that investigation was simply.
O 3 a pretext to. harass employees?
4 MR. HAYDEN: I'm sorry, I didn't understand 5 the question. I was writ'ing. Can I hear it back?
O- 6 MR. MULLINS: Go ahead and read the question 7 back.
8 (Whereupon, the record was read by the O
9 reporter.)
10 MR. MULLINS: Are you asking if Region V 11 would approve an NRC investigation which would harass 12 an employee, or Region V would approve a licensee.
13 investigation?
O 14 MR. KOHN: A licensee investigation.
15 MR. MULLINS: Do we approve licensee 16 investigations?
- O 17 THE WITNESS
- Difficult question to answer.
18 My judgment tells me that we would not approve of a licensee's tactics that were to harass the employees, 19 20 the results of which would be a wet blanket effect to.
21 have employees come forward to the NRC and bring O 22 their concerns.
23 MR. KOHN: Q. Would the NRC --
24 MR. MULLINS: Let me ask for a clarification.
O 25 Does the NRC officially pass upon a licensee's i l
26 ability to investigate matters in house?
10 PATRICIA CALLAHAN &_ ASSOCIATES 1 1
4
~
781
]O 1 THELWITNESS:: Normally we'do not.
2, MR. KOHN: Q. If1the Region V of=the:NRC iO 3 w'as aware that an investigation _concerning the' i
4 supposed release of Safeguards'Information was I '5 conducted
- purely as a means of harassment and.
O. 6; intimidation of employees, would the NRC intervene, 4
7 or would the NRC approveoof_thatiinvestigation?.
8 A. You're asking me to speculate-in-an areaLthat-O- . .
9 I am not familiar with, whether.we would approve or i
10 disapprove that' type of investigation.; My judgment 11 says that we would certainly discuss it with the
).
i 12 licensee to see what facts we had that'wouldfindicate
- 13 that.
I j3 14 Q. So basically, according to Mr. :Hayden's I
15 hypothetical, his hypothetical was that you would 16 expect the licensee to-investigate the release of' ,
!O
+
17 Safeguards Information, correct?
i
+
18 A. Correct.
i 19 Q. And it's also true', then, thatsyou would,not
- 0-20 expect the licensee to use the possible disclosure of l 21 Safeguards Information as a pretext to perform an
~
!O 22 investigation, that the real basis of investigation 23 was to harass and intimidate the employee.
- ?
24 A.. I guess that would be correct.also.-
0 25 Q. when you inquired about APS's investigation j .
l 26 of the possibilities of Safeguards-- Information, did i
!O
- PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES ,
O 79 1l you encourage APS to continue its investigation?
2 A. I can't recall doing that, encouraging them O 3 to continue their investigation per se. ,
4 Keep in mind, as I've stated before, in 5 discussing the status, it was truly that; to find out O 6 what-is the status.
7 Q. Other than Mr. Cook, do you know of any NRC 8 representative who informed APS of a concern that O
9 Mr. Staggs might have Safeguards Information?
10 A. No, I do not.
11 Q. Regarding guidance to Mr. Staggs during the O
12 February 25th telephone conference call, is it your 13 testimony that Mr. Staggs was warned that the O 14 questions he asked would violate Safeguards rules, or 15 that the possible answers to his questions, if 16 printed, would violate Safeguards rules?-
O 17 A. The answers to those questions.would be 18 Safeguards Information.
19 MR. KOHN: 1 don't think we have.any further 20 questions.
21 MR. HAYDEN: I've only got two.
() 22 23 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. HAYDEN 24 MR. HAYDEN: Q. Mr. Schuster, do you have O 25 any reason to believe that APS's investigation into 26 the possible disclosure of Safeguards Information to ;
)
O PATRICIA CALLAHAN.& ASSOCIATES
O 80 .
1 any unauthorized source has any purpose-other than 2 that?
O 3 A. I do not.
4 MR. HAYDEN: I have no further questions.
5 MR. MULLINS: Thank you.
O _6 MR. KOHN: One last thing.. Did we determine 7 whether or not that particular investigation was open 8 or closed?
O 9 THE WITNESS: Well, it's not an 10 investigation. .It's merely a routine follow-up 11 inspection item. I can find out,
.o t
12 And maybe, if it would be acceptable -- why 13 don't I give that answer to Dennis Schaefer, who'll
- () 14 come this' afternoon.
15 MR. MULLINS: Will you be able to-determine 16 that in the next hour?
O 17 THE WITNESS: Yeah. It's his item.
18 MR. KOHN: That's mora than acceptable.
19 (Whereupon, the deposition was concluded
'O .
20 at 11:55 a.m.)
21 22 0
23 24 SIGNATURE OF' WITNESS M3 25 26 ---oOo---
1' O
PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES 1
. r -- . - , - - , -
1 J
- 0. 81 1 STATE-;OF CALIFORNIA _)
) ss.
2 . COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ')
i 10 3' 4 I, the undersigned, a Notary P'ublic of theLState 5 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 1was
- O 9 taken at the time and place therein stated; that the j 10 testimony of said witness was reported by me, a 11 Certified Shorthand Reporter and a disinterested person,
})
! 12 and was thereafter translated under my direction'into 13 typewriting; that the foregoing-is a full, complete O 14 and true record of said testimony; and that the witness 4 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 i
19 foregoing deposition and caption named, nor in any way
,O i
20 interested in the outcome of the cause named in said 21 caption.
22 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
! O.
23 and affixed my seal this 17th day of October 1986.
- 24 .. n ,. , ,.,,,.. m,w,,u,
- O 25 27 c '
- ' ' I:: oKS U k" >,,.$Yo.f$ NOTARY PUBkC'
'# STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
26 f: -1 a ru.?.m3$
m= mmm
)
!O-PATRICIA CALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES
_ _ . _ - - _ .._. . _ _ - _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . ..a,._-_,,...
UNITE 3 STATES
[(pp Ltroq'q p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,
g ;j REGION V
%, g 1450 MARIA LANE, SUITE 210 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFoRNI A 94596
'+,*****o, N CV,,7 1986 -
The following tabulates the corrections of the depositf or. I, Matthew D. Schuster
- made on October 10, 1986, at the Region V Office in Walnut Creek, California.
Page No. Line No. Incorrect Correction 27 15 Doidge Doeg 32 23 Doidge Doeg 39 11 I' It's 39 12 FEC physical PSE physical stress 39 12 psychological evaluator 44 9 Doidge Doeg 46 11 has NRC has the NRC me o4/ht Matthew D. Schuster
J NRC SECURITY PROGRAM NRC Accendix 2101
'd
( /
O /O-lQ-[q, EXHIBIT 1 f
EM%&
INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO PART XVil CONTROLS n
A. Safeguards information is limited to information regarding the physical protection of:
All activities involving formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material, both irradiated and unirradiated (most of the physical protection information for activities involving a formula g>
quantity of unirradiated strategic special nuclear material would be classified as National Security Information under 10 C F R Part 95).
Operating power reactors.
Spent fuel shipments (but not routes and quantities).
O The railowing items snati be considered Sareguards in formation :
- 1. Physical Protection at Fixed Sites Unclassified information relating to the protection of facil-ities that possess formula quantities of strategic nuclear mate-l O rial, and power reactors. S pecificail y :
(a) The composite physical securit y plan for the nuclear facil-ity or site.
(b) Site specific drawings, diag rams , sketches, or maps that s substantially represent the final design features of the physical protection sistem.
(c) Details of alarm system layouts showing location of intru-sion detection devices, alarm assessment equipment, alarm sy stem wiring, emergency power sources, and duress O aiarms.
(d) Written physical security orders and procedures for mem-bers of the security organization, duress codes, and patrol schedules.
O (e) Detaiis of tne on-site and off-site communications systems that are used for security purposes.
(f) Lock combinations and mechanical key design.
(g) Documents and other matter that contain lists or locations O of certain sarety-reiated equipment expiicitiy in the docu-g ments as vital for purposes of physical protection, as con-tained in physical security plans, safeguards contingency Approved: July 26, 1982
~O xvli-11
1
+
!O-NRC Appencix 2101 Part ' X Vi t . Exhibit 1 NRC SECURITY PROGR AM
~ plans, or . plant ' . specific safeguards ' analyses for -
<( production.or utilization facilities. =
v (h) The composite -safeguards contingency plan for the facility or site.
(i) Those portions of the facility . guard qualification and training plan which disclose features of the physical secu-O .- city system or response procedures.
(j) Response plans to specific threats detailing size, aisposi-tion, response time s . and armament of ' responding forces, (k) Size, armament, and disposition of on-site reserve' forces.
(l) Size, identity, armament _ and. arrival times of off-site forces committed to respond to safeguarcs emergencies .
- 2. Physical Protection in Transit O unciassified information relative to the protection of sniements-of formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material and spent fuel. S pecifically :
(a) The composite transportation pnysical security plan.
O (b) Seneduies and itineraries - for saecific sniements. t acutes and quantities for snipments or spent fuel are not witnneid from public disclosure. Schedules for spent fuel shipments may be released 10 days after tne last snipment of a cur-rent series. )
O (c) Details of vehicle immobilization features, . intrusicn aiarm devices and communications sy stems.
(d) Arrangements with and ' CapaDilities of local colice ~ response forces, and locations of saf e havens.
O (e) oetails regarding simitations or- radio-teiepnene communications.
(f) Procedures for response to safeguards emergencies.
- 3. Insoections, Audits and Evaluations O
Unclassified information relating to safeguards inspections and reports. Specifically:
Portions of safeguards inspection reports, evaluations, audits, or investigations that contain details of a O licensee's or applicant's physical security system or that Approved: July 26, 1982 XVII-12 O -
,N
Q
- NRC Appendix 2101 Part XVII, Exhibit 1 NRC SECURITY PROGRAM disclose uncorrected defects , weaknesses, or vulnerabil-m f ities in the system. Information regarding defects, weak-U nesses or vulnerabilities may be released after corrections have been made, unless such revelation would identify possible future weaknesses or present failure to comp!y with - requirements. Reposte of investigations may be released after the investigation has been completed, unless
,O withheid pursuant to other autnorities, e.g., the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
- 4. Correspondence Portions of correspondence insofar as they' contain Safeguards Information specifically defined in paragraphs 1 through 3 O
above.
B. Information and Documents Not Subject 'to Part XVil Controls Certain types of information , even though possibly. regarded as Safe-O guards information, are not within the_ scope of Part XVil. Most notably are studies, reports or analyses conducted by or on behalf of the NRC, licensees, or applicants which concern the safeguarding of nuclear _ mate-rials or f acilities . Information not subject to Part XVil controls includes:
D cuments, drawings, or reports submitted by applicants or 1.
O licensees, or produced by the _ staff, in response to the environ-
~
(
mental and safety requirements contained in Parts 50, 51, 70, and 71.
- 2. Generic safeguards studies, reports or analysis whether or not pro-duced by r f r the NRC or a licensee.
O *
- 3. Routes and quantities for spent fuel shipments.
- 4. Information concerning licensee control and accounting procedures or inventory differences for special nuclear material, or source mate-riai and bype uct materiai.
O
- 5. A_n y information already in the public domain' including commercial
\ safeguards. equipment specificationf,~ catalogues and 'hquipmerit bu -
ing data.
- 6. Portions of guard qualification and training plans that .do not g' disclose facility safeguards features or response procedures.
Activities other than power reactors involving less than a formula quan-strategic special material (except for spent fuel tity of nuclear elements) are not subject to Part XVil controls.
O XVil-13 Approved: July 26,1982 (O
i
. . ._ -