A08645, Responds to Requesting Info in Connection with Complaints Filed with DOL Wage & Hour Div by Three NNECO Employees

Responds to Requesting Info in Connection with Complaints Filed with DOL Wage & Hour Div by Three NNECO Employees

ML20207F637
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	04/09/1990
From:	Mroczka E NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES
To:	Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML20207F629	List: A08645, Responds to Requesting Info in Connection with Complaints Filed with DOL Wage & Hour Div by Three NNECO Employees B13366, Informs That NNECO Has Provided Info to NRC Re Rosemount Transmitters at Plants ML20207F620 ML20207F630
References
FOIA-98-32 A08645, A8645, NUDOCS 9906090169
Download: ML20207F637 (45)

Text

,

e f '~" f

• . : : , n*, il l 3 A i *,

difices e Seicen Street. Sonen. Connecticut

,. j 5 LO'O',O",".,ll"."" .OP. !- 0 3LIG WC"""" eTo. sox 270

• • i=s~.aao=aca -

]y GM 2,PM HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 061410270

_ L t  ; =; "'4 ",C",,= (20:n esMooo April 9, 1990 CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Docket No. 50-336 RE: 10CFR50.7 A08645 Mr. Thomas T. Martin Regional Administrator, Region I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 RE: D0L Complaints Alleging Harassment for Raising Nuclear Safety Concerns Dear Mr. Martin \

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) hereby responds to your letter of March 8, 1990, requesting information in connection with complaints filed with the United States Department of Labor's Vage and Hour Division by three NNECO employees. As requested, this response (1)-provides the basis for the employment actions regard'ng i each of these employees, and (2) des-cribes the steps taken or planned to ensure that the actions in question vill not have a chilling effect in discouraging other licensee or contrac-tor employees from raising safety concerns. Pursuant to 10CFR2.790(a)(6),

this response and the attachments are being filed on a confidential basis because they contain personnel information as well as matters that may be subject to litigation. An affidavit suppot:ing this request is provided as Attachment 1.

Following its investigations, the Vage and Bour Division concluded, with regard to two of the employee's complaints, that the employee had engaged in activity protected by the Energy Reorganisation Act and that discrimi-nation prohibited by the Act had been a factor in actions comprising the complaints. As discussed belov, NNECO believes that the Department of Labor's initial ' determinations should not be sustained in view of the entirety of the evidence. It is NNEC0's fire belief that no violation of

1. For simplicity, reference in this letter to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) encompasses the service company Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCO), and the parent holding company, NU. NNECO is a licensee for the Millstone units. '

f

~

o"8 "'v

• h)f{0 j 000538 9906090169 990602 '

PDR FOIA  ! -

FERRARO98-32 PDR ' '

f7060170 /G ? -

Mr. Thsmas T. Martin vunr1DENTIAL -- NOT run

. 1 April 9, 1990 p c h avuusunz, A08645/Page 2 the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act or of 10CFR50.7 has occurred. Vith regard to the complaint of the third employee, NNECO and the employee have reached a conciliation of the matters comprising the complaint. The Vage and Bour Division accordingly has issued no findings with respect to that complaint. NNECO also firmly maintains that no violation of the Act or of Section 50.7 has occurred with respect to the third employee.

1. Complaint of Paul Blanch (October 31, 1989)

a. Status of the case Paul M. Blanch alleged in a complaint to the Department of Labor (dated October 27, 1989) and in a supplemental letter to the Depart-ment of Labor (dated November 21, 1989) that NNEC0 had subjected his  !

to harassment and intimidation is connection with his expressing I concerns to management and to the NRC regarding Rosemount transmitter l issues, specifically, by phasing his out of work on such issues, i criticizing activities.

his behavior, and auditing his outside consulting On December 8, 1989, the DO*, Vage and Bour Division

)I found, based upon its investigation, that NNECO had discriminated against Mr. Blanch for engaging in protected conduct. The Wage and Bour Division stated that it based its conclusion on the following factors: that Mr. Blanch has never received a response to an April senorandum to his supervisor asking for an explanation of perceived criticism of his behavior, that an " accurate" explanation had not been given to Mr. Blanch regarding an audit of his activities relating to consulting work he performed for EPRI; that an audit of Mr. Blanch and his subordinates had not been done in accordance with NNECO internal procedures and that a NNECO Vice President had contacted an EFRI executive to inquire as to Mr. Bir.nch's consulting activities.

NNECO believes that the Vage and Hour Division did not adequately gather and evaluate the facts, and that the bases stated, even if true, would not support DOL's finding. Accordingly, NNECO appealed this preliminary finding to the D0L Office of Administrative Law Judges and a trial date was set. The parties subsequently resolved this matter, however, by entering into a joint stipulation and settlement agreement which has been reviewed by the AIJ. The ALJ has reconsended that the Secretary of labor approve the settlement ,

agreement and dismiss the case with prejudice. The requast for i dismissal is pending before the Secretary.

b .- Basis for NNECO's actions NNECO explored Mr. Blanch's allegations, reviewing information  ;

developed from a variety of sources. Based on the totality of the information reviewed, including input from an outside consultant, NNECO concluded that many of the events described in Mr. Blanch's '

allegetions had occurred. Importantly, however, NNECO did not substantiate that any management actions had been activated by an intention to retaliate for the raising of safety concerns. NNECO's review revealed, rather, that there had been a history of personality conflicts between Mr. Blanch and his insediate management chain, a N

Mr. Thrmas T. Martin CC: X GIJ.:. -- = i n

.-  ; April 9, 1990 _

• L"20 MLusun A08645/Page 3 situation exacerbated by questions about his compliance with company policies regulating conflict of interest situations, and by differences ofopinionastgthemost appropriate way to address the Roseeount transmitter issue Underlying the events that took place was a concern about the close relationship between the work Mr. Blanch had been doing for Northeast Utilities, and the Rosemount verk he had been doing for EPRI including a concern that he might be doing vork for EPRI on NNECO time.

Further, Mr. Blanch's perception that he had been retaliated against must be viewed against a backdrop of miscommunications and differing expectations. Contrary to Mr. Blanch's apparent impression, it was not the intent of NNECO's management that Mr. Blanch would have total control of Rosemount work, to the exclusion of his management chain.

To be sure, he was and is to be involved in the Rosemount issue, and j has been and is responsible for developing the programmatic aspects of that issue. But it would not be prudent or responsible for NN8CO to bypass the chain of command, and the checks and balances it provides, ,

by assigning total responsibility for addressing the Rosemount issue i to one person or group. There was a concern, too, that Mr. Blanch had not been clearing certain aspects of the work in advance with his supervisors. Of course, such supervision must be handled with

-sensitivity to assure that even the appearance of discouragirg the free expression of viewpoints is avoided. Based upon our review of Mr. Blanch's case, we concluded that his supervisors did not exhibit good interpersonal communications and management skills in their dealings with him, apparently leaving his with the impression that his the facts expression of viewpoints was being discouraged. However, did not show that it was their intent to discourage Mr. Blanch in this manner.

Vith respect to the Company's purported failure to respond to Mr.

2. NNECO is confident that' it has properly addressed the relevant safety issues, although perhaps not always in the manner proposed by Mr.

Blanch, and that safety has not been compromised at its nuclear plants. ,

-The NRC (Region I) conducted a routine inspection at Millstone Unit 3 1 from April 5 to May 15, 1989, and during that inspection reviewed j Rosemount transmitter issues. In Inspection Report 50-423/89-04 the -

NRC concluded "[y]our inktiatives and leadership in evaluating transmitter failures and notifying the NRC of this safety issue are commendable." (Mr. Blanch's involvement in the Rosesount issue no doubt was a major contribution to the NNECO effort which the NRC complimented.) While additional information was requested, no violations were identified. As requested, NNECO subsequently provided

(

-its evaluation of the continued operability of installed transmitters at Unit 3, and concluded in its submittal to the NRC that sufficient '

information was available to support a determination that all Rosemount transmitters installed at Unit 3 are operable.

3. Mr. . Blanch had permission from management for his EPRI work. He was, l- in essence, performing this work using Company facilities, Company computers, and data compiled while working for NNECO.

4 -

Mr. Thoics T. Martin CONFIDENTIAL -- nGH4ML April 9, 1990 _

"Jan, mscLostas A08645/Page 4 ,

Blanch's April memorandum to his supervisor, Mr. Blanch did indeed receive feedback regarding the concerns expressed in this memorandum, albeit not in written form. Mr. Job Opeka, the Executive Vice President, Engineering and Operations, met with Mr. Blanch in early May, specifically to counter any impression by Mr. Blanch that he was being phased out of vork on the Rosemount transmitter issue. Mr.

Opeka communicated to Mr. Blanch during that meeting that he voul readily be given approval to participate in NU'sworkontheissue.g That expectation was also underscored in communications by the under-signed in my capacity as Senior.Vice President, Nuclear Engineerin and Operations, to Mr. Blanch's supervisors (see Attachment 2).g Beyond that, during the time frame that Mr. Blanch vrote his April memorandum, he had been expressly threatening to file a Section 210 complaint against the company. In light of the prospect of imminent litigation, a direct vritten re was viewed to be inappropriate.gponse to Mr. Blanch's April memorandus ,

4 Moreover, NNECO conducted internal audits of Mr. Blanch and two of his subordinatesasaresultofspecificallegat{onsofimproprietyraised in confidence by a non-management employee. Management was aware of nothing that vould suggest that the individual making the allegations was motivated by hostility arising out of Mr. Blanch's involvement i with safety issues or, indeed, by any other questionable motives. It is the company's practice, indeed obligation, to pursue allegations of impropriety whenever there appears to be a credible basis for the allegations, absent count m ailing considerations that vould make an inquiry inappropriate. Iedeed, the Company fully recognized the

4. Mr. Blanch has indeed received liberal approval by his management to further his involvement in the Rosemount matter. With permission from manngement, he has attended numerous industry meetings and conferences  ;

pertaining to the issue, including trips to Denver, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, San Francisco and Vashington, D.C.

5. The expectation that Mr. Blanch would be t.he point of contact within Generation Electrical Engineering for Rosemount issues was also consunicated to Mr. Blanch in mid-May (see Attachment 3).

6. It should be pointed out, however, that in the aftermath of a March 8, 1990, meeting between Mr. Blanch, Mr. Opeka and myself, Mr. Opeka and I provided Mr. Blanch with a comprehensive written response to Mr.

Blanch's concerns as expressed in a March 1, 1990, memorandus he wrote and in notes made by Mr. Blanch for the March 8, 1990, meeting (see Attachment 4).

7. The alleger raised the possibility that Mr. Blanch had a financial interest in working with or for a consulting firm, other than EPRI, which had technical expe tise in issues relatad to the Rosemount transmitter problems, and which was a contractor to NNECO at the time.

The alleger said that the consulting firm had been utilizing NNEC0 facilities and equipment without payment, and that Mr. Blanch had appeared to be working on Company time in s*:; 7 ort of the consulting vork for this fire.

~.

Mr. Th: mas T. Mnrtin _CC"T m I E -- nut run April 9, 1990 ILN M SI! CLOS'" P A08645/Page 5 regulatory risk to it that an audit of Mr. Blanch's activities at that time vould create, but decided to proceed in light of this important obligation.

The audit of Mr. Blanch's activities was conducted out of concern for a possible conflict with respect to his EPRI activities. It was conducted professionally and objectively. The audit totally cleared Mr. Blanch of any impropriety. In this light, we believe that neither the fact that the audit was conducted nor the result of the audit can fairly be viewed as creating a chilling effect on employees who might wish to raise safety concerns.

The audit also focused on a pattern of conduct by Mr. Blanch's subordinates suggestive of an attempted cover-up of unauthorized early departures from work on their part, as the alleger had indicated.

Plant logs and other evidence showed that these esployees repeatedly left the corporate office early, indicating that they were going to one of the nuclear plant sites, but failed to arrive at the plant sites. When presented with these data, the employees were unable to account in a credible manner for their whereabouts on many of these occasions. Consequently, disciplinary action (suspension without pay for one week) was taken against both employees.

This action had nothing whatever to do with retaliation against Mr.

Blanch. The clear and proper message to employees reasonably derived from an internal audit of this ' type is that the company vill not tolerate abuses of Company polices and procedures. To be sure, in one sense, it is unfortunate that this audit involved employees supervised by Mr. Blanch and was conducted at a time when emotions vere already running high. But in another sense, it is at such times that the ethics and principles of a nuclear operating company are truly tested.

To allow credible allegaticas of vrongdoing to pass without management action would compromise these ethics and principles. NNECO vas faced with this test, and determined to conduct the audit. Ve believed then and believe nov that this was the responsible course that our ethics and principles compelled, even in the face of anticipated criticism of the motive for the action.

Vith respect to the view that the audit of Mr. Blanch's EPRI activities was not conducted in accordance with internal procedures, the fact that one or more individuals mistakenly characterized the alleger's concern as a " nuclear safety concern" was entirely attributable to the manner ic which the concern was first communicated to' NNECO. Again, the internal audit was initiated solely in response to allegations that vere made by a non-management employee, who i happened first to bring his concerns to the individual in charge of  !

nuclear safety concerns. Allegations of the type made vould in any 1 event have been turned over to the Internal Audit Department for investigation, regardless of which procedure was used to report them initially. Purther, with respect to the " inaccurate" reason given to Mr. Blanch for the audit, any conflicting statements made to Mr.

Blanch regarding the impetus for the audit were the simple result of how close or distant the individual making the statement actually was to the investigation.

Mr. Thrmas T. M:rtin ca""!=IZ - "~" M April 9, 1990 mLTc "T?"' ar""

A08645/Page 6 Finally, it is true that a NNECO Vice President, Dr. C. Frederick Sears, asked an EPRI official to determine whether Mr. Blanch was under contract to EPRI either directly or through subcontract. Dr.

Sears was aware of the sensitivity of the contact, and handled it

' carefully 'and professionally. This contact was made at the direction of the undersigned in order to assist the Internal Audit Department in its inquiry into the alleged conflict of interest. The feedback provided to IAD by improprietyexisted.gr.Searscomported with IAD's conclusion that no

2. Complaint of Donald Del Core (September 22, 1989)

a. Status of the case Do:ald Del Core has filed numerous DOL complaints against Northeast Utilities. Regarding his first complaint (July 1988), the DOL ,

presiding jud 8e found on the basis of the evidentiary record developed l at trial that the only actionable clain -- that Mr. Del Core (and Mr. <

O'Sullivan)hagbeencalleda" troublemaker"forcontactingtheNRC--  !

had no merit. The case is pending before the Secretary of Labor.

His subsequent complaints alleged continuing retaliation in a variety of forms. The Vage and Bour Division has found that all of Mr.

8. In response to the NRC's request that we provide copies of any investigation reports NNECO has in its possession regarding the incidents in question, we have appended hereto the IAD reports resulting from the internal audits of Mr. Blanch and two of his ,

subordinates (Attachments 5 and 6 respectively). Also appended hereto, as Attachment 7, is a letter dated December 1, 1989, written by Edward '

Richters,. Esquire, to the Department of Labor, which is the only non-privileged internal investigation report into the Donald Del Cotc and Timothy O'Sullivan matters in our possession.

Finally, while not attached hereto, a report was prepared by LRS, Incorporated (LRS) in conjunction with an internal review of Mr.

Blanch's allegations conducted at the request of NNECO senior management from late May to early August 1989. NNECO respectfully submits that this report embodies a confidential critical self-analysis that is privileged, and that NNECO does not wish to disclose. In the spirit of full cooperation, however, NNECO has previously allowed ce;tain representatives of the NRC to review the report, and is villing to- let other representatives of the NRC do the same at their convenience.

9. In fact, the presiding judge found that there was no statement whatever made to the effect that Mr. Del Core (or Mr. O'Sullivan) was a troublemaker who should not be associated with, and also found, to the contrary, that the statement was made that it was perfectly proper for covorkers to associate with Mr. Del Core (and Mr. O'Sullivan). ee See Timothy O'Sullivan and Donald Del Core vs. Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, Case Nos. 88-ERA-37/38 (August 18, 1989) (Recommended Decision and Order Denying Complaints), slip op. at 8, 12-14.

N

y Mr. Thrmas T. Martin _

L u L w uac -- NOT run April 9, 1990. - mint g n ;;;;-- s 1- A08645/Page 7 l 4

Del Core's claims of retaliation, save one, were also without merit. I One of the allegations set forth in Mr. Del Core's con September 22, 1989, relatestoadisputeover"personaltime"gaintof charged to him. The Vage and Bour Division concluded that its inquiry indicated that Mr. Del Core had been "dissimilarly treated from other employees regarding the crediting of leave time" and that his participation in activity protected by the Energy Reorganization Act played a role in this allegedly disparate treatment. I l

It~ is NNECO's position that Mr. Del Core's September 22, 1989, )

complaint is also without merit. In accordance with this position, NNECO sought a hearing before the DOL presiding judge on this matter, which was held on Februafy 6-9, 1990. The parties have not yet submitted post-trial briefs, and thus the presiding judge has not i entered. findings or issued a decision on the merits of this matter. l Because litigation is pending, as well as for the reasons set forth in the attached affidavit (Attachment 1), NNECO requests that this 4 response be maintained in confidence.

b. Basis for NNECO's actions Contrary to Mr. Del Core's allegations in his September 22, 1989, complaint, the circumstances surrounding the " personal time" incident show that no discrimination occurred within the meaning of Section 210 or 10CFR50.7. Mr. Del Core alleged that he was treated differently from other employees when, on one occasion, he was one-half hour late for vork and this was recorded as " personal time". Bovever, NNEC0 believes that there was no disparate treatment, and in any event, Mr.

Del Core suffered no adverse consequences whatever as a result of the

" personal time" being charged to him.

Thus, at the hearing, NNECO offered credible evidence showing that  !

every nonexempt employee who arrives at work (or leaves work) one-half I hour or more late (or early), of whom manag;esent is aware, has this i time recorded as " personal time." On the day in question, Mr.

Del Core arrived for work 40 minutes late. The assistant supervisor )

and the temporary assistant / upgraded technician responsible dud ng thu  ;

day for maintaining the time sheets vitnessed his cesing in lu e, and i the latter followed the assistant supervisor's direction regarding how the time should be recorded.

The evidence also indicated that when on September 8, 1989, two other employees arrived late, their tardiness was not recorded as " personal time." However, NNECO offered credible evidence that the supervisor and. temporary assistant / upgraded technician on duty that day'(who were different from those on duty on August 24) were simply not aware that the- two other employees had arrived late, due to the flurry of activity in the II.C shop that morning.

10. " Personal time" is the consonly used ters for that time which an individual takes off from the job which the Company treats, for accounting purposes, as an excused absence, and for which an individual is entitled to full pay.

. y I' Mr. Th: mas T. Martin A=I:;hu, -- reur run April 9, 1990 -

m ia visGG E.--

/ A08645/Page 8 NNECO put on evidence at the hearing to the effect that the company uniformly treats employees who come in late or leave early by recording the time as " personal time" -- but of course this can only occur when supervisory personnel are actually aware of the late arrival or early departure. The evidence indicated that another employee had been charged " personal time" in between five and ten instances in the April-May 1989 time frame for arriving late. Several others who had departed early from the shop during that period were also charged with " personal time". Thus, the evidence indicates that Mr. Del Core did not suffer disparate treatment as he alleged.

What is more, as a practical matter, there are no adverse consequences to an individual resulting from the number of hours recorded as

" Personal time." The system for recording " personal time" is used merely as an accounting measure.

Moreover, the amount of " personal time" recorded was shown to have virtually no impact on an individual's performance evaluation. Thus, for calendar year 1988, one employee with only 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> of recorded

" personal time" received an 003 rating (" fully meets expectations") in the " dependability" section of the evaluation. Yet an individual with 31 hours3.587963e-4 days <br />0.00861 hours <br />5.125661e-5 weeks <br />1.17955e-5 months <br /> of " personal time" received an 005 rating (" exceptional" -

the highest rating) in the " dependability" section and yet another individual with 41 hours4.74537e-4 days <br />0.0114 hours <br />6.779101e-5 weeks <br />1.56005e-5 months <br /> of " personal time" received an 004 rating

(" exceeds expectations"). Mr. Del Core, with 27 hours3.125e-4 days <br />0.0075 hours <br />4.464286e-5 weeks <br />1.02735e-5 months <br /> of recorded '

" personal time" received an 003 rating in the dependability section, and an overall rating, which entitled him to a merit pay increase.gg4 .In short, Mr.. Del Core cannot reasonably be viewed as having suffered any adverse impact as a result of the one-half hour charged to him as " personal time". He admitted at the hearing that he has never even kept track of the amount of " personal time" he has taken.

~

3. Complaint of Timothy 0'Sullivan (November 17, 1989)

a. Status of the case Timothy O'Sullivan has filed several complaints against NNECO vith the Department of Labor. In his complaint dated November 17, 1989, Mr.

O'Sullivan alleged that NNECO continues to discriminate against him on account of his "vhistleblowing" activity, as evidenced by the fact that his former supervisor (H. J. Ferriell) had confronted him, in front of others, with the asserthn that Mr. O'Sullivan had mistakenly l signed off a surveillance sheet on an emergency lighting system and j later, in the presence of a General Electric technician, told Mr.

O'Sullivan that he should have checked the tagging while overhauling an electrical circuit breaker,

11. Although the "dependabilaty" section of Mr. Del Core's 1988 performance evaluation' contained a written comment to the effect that his sick and personal time "vas above shop average", it stated at the same time that

" Don is punctual, on time and ready to work."

N

4

• Mr. Th: mas T. M rtin r vunnumuAL -- NU A ivh April 9, 1990 - Pt fRf TC ""C'M" ,

A08645/Page 9 j After a full evidentiary hearing on Mr. O'Sullivan's first complaint, the DOL presiding judge determined that the complaint was timely only as to the allegation that Mr. O'Sullivan had been called a troublemaker by a supervisor, and on that matter ruled that NNECO had not violated Section 210 because the evidence showed that the supervisor never said anything adverse about Mr. O'Sullivan. (See l Note 9.) Vith regard to the second complaint, the DOL Vage and Hour i Division concluded that Mr. 0'Sullivan's allegation (that a coworker  ;

had told him that he "had no doubt" that Northeast Utilities vould I soon terminate his employment) could not be substantiated because the i person alleged to have stated that Mr. O'Sullivan vould be terminated l vas not a Northeast Utilities supervisor and had no authority to speak '

for Northeast Utilities. Vith regard to the third complaint, which is the subject of the NRC's March 8,1990, letter to NNECO, DOL issued a-letter on December 12, 1989, stating that conciliation efforts had resulted in "a remedy mutually acceptable to the parties." The

" remedy" referenced in DOL's letter was simply a confirmation by Northeast Utilities that Mr. Ferriell had previously sought and j received a transfer (for unrelated reasons) to other duties and would '

not henceforth be supervising Mr. O'Sullivan or evaluating his Performance. Thus, the D0L has issued no findings and has rendered no determinations regarding the allegations set forth in the November 17, 1989, complaint filed by Mr. O'Sulliven. Indeed, the D0L Compliance i

Officer's "Vhistleblower Narrative Report" (p. 2) states that "no determination has been made as to whether er not there have been any violations" of the Energy Reorganization Act (Attachment 8).

It is NNECO's belief that the mere allegation by an employee that he has been discriminated against in violation of the Act -- where that allegation has been promptly conciliated and where the DOL neither has issued nor intends to issue any determination with respect to the allegation - should not be deemed to give rise to a presumption that any violation has occurred, or that a chilling effect. has been produced.

In the interest of allaying whatever concerns NRC may have regarding this particular matter, however, NNECO hereby provides the requested information regarding Mr. 0'Sullivan's co.nplaint.

b. Basis for NNECO's actions Contrary to Mr. 0'Sullivan's allegations, Mr. Ferriell did not engage in any conduct on either of the two occasions cited in the complaint that could reasonably be considered to amount to discrimination within the meaning of Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act or 10CFR50.7. We discuss each of the two occasions in turn.

. November 1, 1989 Incident: On or before November 1, 1989, Mr.

Ferriell- had been assigned to determine the power supplies for emergency lighting and to make any necessary changes on the appropriate drawings. As part of that assignment, it became necessary for Mr. Ferriell to review the most recent caergency lighting surveillance. He accordingly obtained a copy of the Automated Vork N

A

\ Mr. Thnmas T. Martin - dieNPf9 0'"!!.: -- n G TOE

. J April 9, 1990  ?"='20-916Gh0GURE-

! A08645/Page 10 Order (AVO) related to the surveillance, which indicated that both a monthly surveillance and a more detailed annual surveillance had been completed for the emergency lighting. Mr. 0'Sullivan's signature on the AVO amounted to a certification that both surveillances had been completed. .

Mr. Ferriell noted, however, that there was no supporting doeunentation relating to the annual survey accompanying the AVO.

Accordingly, before his shift expired.early on the morning of November i 1, 1989, Mr. Ferriell vent to the Maintenance Shop to inquire of Mr.

O'Sullivan as to whether the annual survey had been completed and, if a so, where the supporting documentation could be found. Mr. O'Sullivan l first stated that he believed someone else had performed the annual surveillance, and asked Mr. Rove, a maintenance foreman and Mr. i 0'Sullivan's supervisor, if another employee had discussed the '

surveillance. Mr. Rove indicated that he did not recall. Whe Mr.

Ferriell recounted that Mr. O'Sullivan had signed off on the AVO, Mr.

O'Sullivan stated "I guess I missed it." Mr. Ferriell then indicated that it was important that the annual survey be completed as soon as ,

possible.

This was the full extent of their conversation. Mr. Ferriell at no time raised his voice, but rather talked in a low-key conversational tone. Mr. Ferriell's conduct and demeanor were appropriate in all respects. Moreover, Mr. Ferriell could not have completed the task to which he had been assigned without discussing the surveillance with Mr. O'Sullivan. And, Mr. O'Sullivan himself conceded that he had mistakenly failed to ensure that the survey had been completed.

Nothing in this incident suggests that any discriminatory action was either intended or taken against Mr. O'Sullivan. Had Mr. Ferriell failed to question Mr. O'Sullivan under the circumstances, he would have been guilty of an abdication of his own job responsibilities.

November 11. 1989 Incident: On November 11, 1989, Mr. O'Sullivan was working with a General Electric Technical Representative on an electrical breaker in the maintenance shop. Mr. Ferriell noted that the " tagging verified" block on the AVO for that project had not been checked off, raising a question as to whether the relevant tagging procedures had been followed. When Mr. Ferriell inquired as to ,

whether Mr. O'Sullivan had checked the tagging, Mr. O'Sullivan replied '

that he had not, because he felt that Mr. Rove, as the job supervisor, had the responsibility to do so. Mr. Ferriell reminded Mr. O'Sullivan that he, as the lead person on the project, was considered the job supervisor for procedure purposes, and Mr. O'Sullivan then checked the tagging.

That was the end of the conversation between Mr. Ferriell and Mr.

O'Sullivan. As with the November 1 occurrence, Mr. Ferriell conducted himself in an entirely appropriate manner. He was not rude,. bel-ligerent, intialdating, or harassing. He did not speak in anything other than normal conversational tones. Neither his statements nor his conduct indicate that Mr. O'Sullivan was the subject of discrimi-nation violative of the Energy Reorganisation Act or 10CFR50.7.

Mr. Ferriell's conduct was motivated tf his commitment to fulfill his i

'N

J d'

,\ Mr. Thtmas T. Martin 0 5!P=If.L -- 6-- "0".

. k April 9, 1990 ~

Pimc 0:00LO """

1 A08645/Page 11 job responsibilities. Indeed, Mr. 0'Sullivan's allegation of harassment based on this incident seems, at best, difficult to reconcile with the fact that Mr. O'Sullivan has himself raised questions about whether others had properly complied with tagging procedures.

4. Actions taken or planned to avert a chilling effect NNECO does not believe that any of the allegations in question sh'ould reasonably give rise to a chilling effect because NNECO firmly believes that the employment actions at issue were not the result of retaliation for the expression of safety concerns. NNECO recognizes that the filing of claims alleging unfair treatment can attract the attention of the work force. The Company is very sensitive to its obligation to treat all employees in a fair and objective manner.- It I goes to great lengths to assure that all employees are encouraged to express themselves freely, as discussed below. I Having said this, however, ve must also add that the NRC should consider the source of these allegations in the cases of Messrs.

O'Sullivan and Del Core in assessing their regulatory significance.

The record of these two individuals in filing complaints with D0L alleging violations of Section 210 suggests that their expectations are not reasonable. Ve welcome their contributions to improving our nuclear operations, but feel they could advance this cause in a more constructive manner. Their record reflects that they resort to litigation over routine exchanges and interpersonal encounters which in the workaday world would pass by other people without note. Ve believe that the general work force has been or is becoming aware of this as well, and thus there should be no chilling effect on the work i force by virtue of these allegations. At botton, however, 'NNECO values these two employees, and is working to normalize relations with them. This vill take additional time and effort, both of which NNECO is villing to expend, and re hope that we vill be successful. ,.

Further, NNECO has taken measures that should eliminate the possibility of any reasonable doubt in the' minds of employees who are aware of these situations about their freedom - indeed, obligation - l to ventilate safety issues, as vs11 as measures that should grutly reduce 'the likelihood of a repetition of the events leading up to these allegations. As you are aware, NNECO, prior to the filing of the complaints at issue here, had implemented a number of significant concepts designed to avert any chilling effects that such complaints might create. These measures are set out in detail in our letters of June 15, September 2, ar.d December 15, 1988, and were also discussed in the meeting between NRC Region I and NNECO in King of Prussia on March 22, 1990. (See transcript of that meeting, including attachments thereto.) Accordingly, the remainder of this letter focuses on measures that have been implemented or proposed subsequent to the  ;

steps discussed in those previous letters.

First, NNEC0 recently enhanced the methods by which employee safety concerns may be raised and resolved by enhancing our Nuclear Safety Concerns Program (NSCP). The enhancements, effective January 1,1990,

Mr. Thtmas T. Martin - a,miLeilaL -- nut Fea

. April 9, 1990 ,  ?=L:C C :CLa:""2 -

A08645/Page 12 reflect NNECO's strong commitment to the objective of maintaining an environment in which all employees are encouraged to contribute information bearing on any aspect of nuclear safety. This precise i message was underscored in a memorandum sent to all Nuclear Engineering and' Operations personnel by NNECO Chairman V. B. Ellis, in which he emphasized that the expansion of the Nuclear Safety Concerns Program had his full support, as well as that of NNECO's senior management.  ;

I The primary advantage to the enhanced program, NNECO believes, is the j creation of the position of " Director of Nuclear Safety Concerns Program." Under the enhanced NSCP, the Director acts as a single ooint of contact who handles all nuclear safety concerns raised outsic; the normal chain of command. The Director reports directly to the undarsigned, in my espacity as Senior Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Operations, ensuring that nuclear safety concerns communicated to the Director receive the prompt attention of senior management -- indeed, providing the shortest link to date between any NNECO or contractor employee and senior management.

The enhanced NSCP expands the methods by which NNECO and contractor esployees may raise their concerns. NNECO has placed an emphasis on maximizing the visibility and accessibility of the NSCP. All NNECO Engineering and Operations personnel, for example, have been informed by memorandum of this expansion of the Program and of the various ways in which they may contact the Director or his staff (e.g., mail, toll- ,

free telephone call, personal interview with the Director). In addition, an awareness campaign designed to heighten the program's profile is now underway. The credibility of the NSCP is enhanced by ,

the procedures implemented by the Director to permit employees to express concerns anonymously and to ensure that concerns can be expressed and resolved in a confidential manner. The NSCP operates independently of functional line management. And, the fact that the Program Office is located at a convenient, but off-site location vill contribute to employees' villingness to make use of the Program and to express their concerns candidly.

The enhanced NSCP also ensures timely and complete resolution of concerns s W ed with the Program. The Director has implemented internal op a ting procedures designed to secure prompt investigation by, and responses from, those organizations that can most appropriately address a particular concern. These procedures can assure that, where possible, employees who have shared a concern may review and comment upon NNECO's suggested resolution. NNECO believes that this focus on prompt and complete resolution of concerns, as well as on employee involvement in final concern resolution, can only enhance the Program's credibility and success.

NNECO further believes that implementation of the enhanced NSCP vill

' help ensure that safety concerns are addressed and resolved within our organization to the greatest extent possible. While ve continue to believe that the most effective way to address such concerns is to

. utilize established line management mechanisms, the enhanced NSCP provides a practical and effective intracorporate alternative for v

Mr. Themas T. Martin 00 "'I p e m ra- = <

April 9, 1990 Pttat Ti- 9:rcLegi=5 A08645/Page 13 7 concern resolution.

Additionally, the company has recently implemented a number of awareness programs focusing on employee rights and obligations with respect to the disclosure of safety concerns. For example, since last fall, every supervisor, through the Senior Vice President level, has been _ required to participate in ongoing special training sessions designed to improve interpersonal skills and sensitivities to the legal and policy aspects of dealing with employees who raise safety concerns. These training sessions vill have been completed by the end of April 1990.

Moreover, beyond the measures described above, senior management has attempted in less formal ways to send the message to all employees that they are encouraged to raise safety concerns. As one example of this, Mr. Bernard Fox, the President of the Company, chose to sit with Mr. Blanch during a crowded lunch hour in the Company cafeteria and to initiate . friendly conversation with him. This occurred after it was videly known that Mr. Blanch had taken his concerns with respect to

'Rosemount transmitters to the NRC. During the course of their conversation, Mr. Fox told Mr. Blanch that he had uuquestionably done the right thing by following the dictates of his professional ethics in this regard. By his actions, Mr. Fox intended to convey the signal.

to Mr. Blanch, and to all employees, that the Company is deeply committed to encouraging the open airing of safety-related concerns.

Finally, with regard to the complaint filed by Mr. Blanch, and as indicated in our letter to the NRC dated November 13, 1989, letters of reprimand were sent to all of Mr. Blanch's supervisors stating that their handling of the personality conflicts and differences of opinion on certain aspects of the technical issues showed insensitivity a shortcomings in the people. skills required of managersatNNECO.g Those letters also outlined constructive steps for these managers to take to reinforce with their employees that they are free to disagree with management and to raise safety concerns. Since receiving those letters, each of these supervisors has participated in special remedial training ses:%ns and, additionally, has attended the training sessions demeribed above.

5. Conclusion

-NNECO's management, from the highest levels on down, is committed to reinforcing the message with all empkyees that they are required, and ind.eed, encouraged to raise nuclear safety concerns. NNECO's emphasis on the importance of this safety ethic, and on management sensitivity to employees who raise safety concerns, is producing the desired results. A recent example of this concerns an issue forwarded as a Corrective Action Request via NEO procedure 2.16. In resolving this matter, I issued a memorandum to all NEO personnel dated February 20, 1990, (Attachment 9), commending an employee for identifying a safety

12. After receiving these letters of reprinand, three of these supervisors filed grievances against the Coopany, which are pending.

~

! Mr. Thrmas T. H:rtin wmtsbu;AL - PM

{ April 9, 1990 rL LIC 0:00 LOC'.*2 -

A03645/Page 14 concern. The message contained therein, that nuclear safety is paramount, and that safety concerns are to be raised without regard to negative regulatory consequences, is currently being reinforced at all management levels in our organization.

A second recent example of this philosophy at work concerns an incident at Millstone Unit 2 in which one of our employees question theseismicqutlificationofastrainerintheservicewatersystem.g ,

l A memorandum was sent from Station management to the employee involved thanking him for his contribution. Such an action may not have been taken vere it not for our increased corporate emphasis on encouraging the raising and ventilation of safety concerns.

In closing, the message has recently been reiterated to all employees, by Northeast Utilities' Chairman himself, that they are encouraged to raise safety concerns either through their normal chain of command, or to the new Director of thie Nuclear Safety Concerns Program. In light of the developments discussed above, NNECO does not believe that the allegations of discrimination in the cases discussed herein should I reasonably produce a chilling effect that vould discourage employees  !

from raising safety concerns.

We trust that this adequately responds to your request. Should you have any further questions, please contact us.

Very truly yours, 1

NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGT COMPANY N 8 E. J./Hroczka #

Seni6r Vice President cct V. J. Raymond 4

13. You may recall that this matter was the subject of a request for enforcement discretion, which was subsequently granted.

=

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Affidavit Suceertine Recuest from Public Disclosure j I, E. J. .Mroczka, being duly sworn, depose and state as follows:

1. I am Senior Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Operations, and as such I am responsible for the preparation and review of the information referenced herein sought to be

.vithheld from public disclosure. I am submitting this affidavit in connection with the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations.

2. The information sought to be withheld constitutes information contained in the personnel files of Northeast Nuclear Energy Company ("NNECO") and utilized'by NNECO in making personnel determinations.

3. This information is of a type customarily held in strict confidenca by NNECO and, other than its disclosure to the Commission, is intended to be held in confidence and not disclosed to the public. 1

4. NNECO considers the records and data contained in personnel files to be confidential when the records and/or data 1 contain evaluations of individual NNECO empJoyees or other I employee-specific information, public disclosure of which would infringe upon the employee's privacy.

5. The information sought to be withheld makes specific reference to named individuals. Under NEECO policy, this information remains confidential, and public disclosure of this information would violate named employees' expectations that personnel information will remain confidential. In NNECO's view, disclosure of this information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.  !

6. Additionally, the information sought to be withheld constitutes information that, due to the nature of the l dispute and potential for litigation, should remain l confidential in order to protect the interests of NNECO and 1 to ensure fair and impartial resolutien of all claims should j litigation ensue. l

7. The information sought to be withheld is being transmitted to the commission in confidence-pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.790 with the understanding that it is to be received in confidence and withheld from public disclosure by'the Commission.

. \

\ 8. The information sought to be withheld, to the best of my knowledge, is not available in public sources, and any disclosure to third parties has been and will be made pursuant only to regulatory requirements that provide for the maintenance of the information in confidence.

The above eight paragraphs are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Executed this 7z4 day of p /1 , 1990.

t i

E. J. Mpczka #

State of Connecticut )

) ss. Berlin County of Hartford )

Sworn and subscribed to before me this M day of /*# / L.- ,

1990. /

W :_ - _

p.t. , n .

My commissi n expires:

3-/w f3

/

I

~ I l

l NottTnHAliT IITIIJTIIIS M

=

. 1 . - wwm iue= - May 3, *989

. ===".u".*."""

., m NEO-89-G-I90 o k ' J w .uan= .u TO: R. F. Werner n }'-

FROM: E. J. Mroccka (Ext. 5217)

SUBJECT:

Recent Actions Regarding Paul Blanch's Involvement In Rosemount Transmitter Issue I have discussed the recent actions regarding Paul Blanch's involvement in the Rosemount transmitter issue with a number of involved personnel within NE&O. This memo provides my direction for the future with respect Oc NE&O's handling of the Rosemount transmitter issue and related icsues raised by Paul Blanen. j

1. It is my understanding that it was not the intent of Generation Electrical Engineering management to remove Mr.

Blanch.from further participation in work on the Rosemount transmitter issue. This intent appears to have not been clearly communicated, however, because Mr. Blanch has indicated that he was left with the impression that he was being removed from future Rosemount transmitter work altogether. In my view, it would not be appropriate-for Mr.

Blanch to be removed from work on this issue. I would expect l that Mr. Blanch will be responsible for developing programmatic aspects of the Rosemount transmitter issue while others would continue to be responsibic for implementatien of ,

the program. '

2. Mr. Blanch has raised a concern about whether his activities in raising safety concerns regarding.the Rosemount transmitters might cause him to be the subject of some sort of retaliation in connection with his job. I am certain that given our strong safety ethic in this company, that no such conduct would occur. Yet to ensure that there is no misunderstanding about NU's policy and my own position with respect to such matters, I want to reiterate to those in Mr.

Blanch's management chain that any such actions would be inappropriate.

3. We must insist of those involved with the Rosemount transmitter issue, as with any other issue with potential safety significance, that they adhere to both the letter and the spirit of governing NE&O policies and procedures. Most importantly, NE&O's safety ethic must remain the dominant decision-making theme.

I

i

! . :I at any p nt in the future there is significant evidence calling :nto question the operability of any Rosemount transmitters, our operability and reportability determinatiens must be made expeditiously.

4 I

As you are aware, I have arranged for LRs to look further into this matter and related issues, including a review of jurisdict enal' responsibilities of all project assignments and level of effort work related to I&c, during their visit here in late May. The results of their review will be evaluated to determine'whether further direction from me is indicated.

A copy of-this memc'Will-become part of Paul Blanch's personnel file.

EJM/ mew cc: P. M. Blanch G. L. Johnson -

A. R. Roby 0

1 f

1 1

[..

r 1 [. T % % = ~--- ~

= = -

1 May 15, 1989 GEE-89-169 TO: J. S. Keenan/C. Clement M

FROM: A. R. Rob 13157

SUBJECT:

Millstone Unit 2 - Millstone Unit 3 Rosemount Transmitters - Engineering Support Now that we have issued our recommandations for the Rosemount Transmitter Program, it would be ' appropriate "to look ahead and plan our engineering support role for issues that arise subsequent to program taplementation.

Ve can expect that the spectrum of plant concerns vill range from fine tuning our program as new information becomes available, to evaluating calibration data or monitoring information obtained during the next operating cycle. Also, as further developments occur on transmitter issues, it vill be necessary to factor these into the plant programs.

Vith these concerns in mind we have decided to establish a single point of contact within Generation Electrical Engineering (GEE), so that the plant staff have readily available and timely responses to their concerns. This responsibility vill be assigned to the I&C Special' Studies Group, and P. M. Blanch will be responsible for responding to plant concerns and evaluating changes or , modifications to the plant program. I&C Special Studies vill continue to use discipline support from the I&C unit groups, where their knowledge and understanding provide important input on issue resolution.

Industry activities and/or responses vill continue to be followed by the Special Studies Group, who vill ensure that the information is appro- -

priately disseminated until this issue is dispo.sitioned.

Ve should keep in sind that as the final resolution of this issue evolves, the long term program should allow the plants to be self sufficiere: in monitoring and correcting Rosemount issues.

ec: P. M. Blanch G. L. Johnson E. J. Mrocska

• V. D. Romberg

5. E. Scace T. A. Shaffer R. P. Verner ARR/ pen 1b/78889 C570 REV.7 SP91

1

- ua=== ~ nen u y 1999 NORTHEAST M  : M n l

! E s 1 r__

. .r= . 1 y ii

.-_. .. _ \ ,

L ' 2 - .. l :l I

l CONFIDENTIAL March 28, 1990 EO-90-C-044 j l

TO: P. M. Blanch A

,FROM: F. aka Ext. 5323

SUBJECT:

Response to your March 1, 1990 memo and March 8, 1990 notes l

During our meeting of March 8, 1990 with E. J. Mroczka, I stated that I would, in approximately two weeks, provide you with a written response to (1) comments described in your March 1, 1990 l memo to me and (2) to comments described in your " Notes for Meeting with John Opeka March 8, 1990." The purpose of this meno is to provide my responses to your comments. 4 This memo has been prepared by Ed Mroczka and myself in response ,

to your request, but because of some of the employee related '

comments it should not be shared with other employees, directly or indirectly. You may, however, share this memo with NRC or other regulatory bodies if you so desire.

Each of my responses is listed separately following the relevant  !

comment extracted from your March 1, 1990 memo or March 8,1990 l notes. .

March 1, 1990 Memo - P. M. Blanch to J. F. Opeka Q

l Comment (A) Contradictory to the agreements and understanding, l Roby was given the- responsibility, along with  !

Mario Bonaca, to coordinate the reportability 1 evaluation with Westinghouse. See attached letter dated November 2, 1989 from Werner to Roby.

Shortly after ceceiving a copy of this letter. I i expressed my concerns to Ed Mroczka via a j handwritten note on a copy of the Werner letter. -

While not dated, this note was sent within five days of the original letter. I have never received either a written or oral response to my note.

s

y

, r. n. a.enen nacen .c, . =w

f. PCgD 2 EO-90-C-044 Response (A) I believe you have misunderstood the intent of E.

J. Mroczka's May 3, 1989 meno to R. P. Werner (NEO-89-G-290) and the intent of A. R. Roby's May 15, 1989 meno to J. S. Keenan and C. Clement (GEE-89-169).

It is my understa'nding that Ed Mroczka never intended that the normal chain-of-command would be by-passed. The issue he was addressing in his May 3, 1989 meno was yc$k eencern that Rosemount work that normally was performed by your group was being diverted to Tom Shaffer's groups. This concern was expressed by you to Ed Mroczka during a meeting on April 19, 1989 and was the specific basis for Item 1 of the May 3, 1989 meno. Ed Mroczka never intended that you would have total control of Rosemount work, to the exclusion of your managemont chain. While you were to be involved, and responsible for developing the " programmatic aspects of the Rosemount transmitter issue," no one person nor any one group should ever hold total responsibility for any issue and be isolated from the chain-of-command, " checks and balances" or NEGO "self assessmant." Appropriate " checks and balances" and NE&O "self assessment" functions are significant positive ingredients of our NE&O safety ethic and cannot be ignored.

In your March 1, 1990 meno to me, you stated that

" Contradictory to the agreements and understanding, Roby was given the responsibility, along with Mario Bonaca, to coordinate the reportability evaluation with Westinghouse."

You must understand that Arnold Roby always had that particular responsibility. It is an inherent part of his management responsibilities. Each supervisor makes decisions on what to delegate and what to retain. Ed Mroczka does not believe that Arnold Roby violated any agreements or normal protocol by bringing other relevant groups of NE&O into the evaluation process or by agreeing to involve a vendor to provide an independent evaluation, particularly since NE&O employees were allowed to provide input to the evaluation process.

I believe a brief summary of events would be helpful to place things in their proper perspective.

N

P. M. Blanen Maren 28, 1990 PCg3 3 _

EO-90-C-044 You initiated Reportability Evaluation 89-29 (MP-3) on June 27, 1989, citing a conflict with 10CTR50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria (GDC) 21. The evaluation was completed on or about July 28, 1989 with a "Not Reportable" determination.

On August 2, 1989, you met with Ed Mroczka to express your concern that Reportability Evaluation 89-29 was not fully accurate.

Ed requested a uesting to discuss this evaluation.

The meeting took place on August 3, 1989 with you, Ed, Dick Werner, Jeff Mahannah, Arnold Roby, Tom shaffer and Rick Kacich, plus one other person in attendance. After a discussion that allowed all parties to provide their viewpoints, Ed agreed that no additional reportability was required.

Arnold Roby acknowledged your continued disagreement with Reportability Evaluation 89-29 in his memo to you dated August 14, 1989 (GEE-89-296).

Ed became aware that you disagreed with Roby's August 14, 1989 meno and that a meeting was held on or about october 20,1989, where disagreement continued to be expressed on reportability, and GDC's other than GDC 21 were discussed. Since disagreement on reportability was still evident, Ed asked Licensing to prepare another "Reportability Evaluation Form" (89-57) for his signature. This evaluation addressed GDC 21, 22, 23 and 29 and was signed on October 24, 1989.

1 On October 30, 1989, you requested a meeting with Ed to discuss several topics and he informed you that he had initiated a reportability evaluation addressing GDCs 21, 22, 23 and 29. You informed Ed that additional criteria needed to be evaluated such as 10CrR55a, IEEE 279, IEEE 379 and IEEE 603.

Ed advised you that these additions would be made.

It is my understanding that you did not advise Ed at that time that you believed the reportability evaluation was unnecessary. Ed signed a memo on November 6, 1989 adding the above four items to the reportability evaluation and a copy of this memo was sent to you.

Subsequently, Ed reviewed your memo (GSP-89-384) dated November 1, 1989, in which you stated "with the possible exception of two transmitters, I believe that we are now in compliance with our design basis as related to the Rosemount issues,"

and also stated "It appears that the only remaining question is, 'Are we required to evaluate our i

Pa[3 4 b d-C b4k

• • ~ '

compliance with design basis, as it existed, prior to September 15, 1989'- You have agreed to have-the - - -

answer to this question pursued." Your memo also suggested that the issue could be resolved by sending a letter to the NRC with wording that would "then turn the responsibility over to the NRC, which is where I believe it belongs."

Ed issued an assignment to Dick Werner expressing his concern that the issue with the two transmitters needed to be resolved immediately and immediate reportability needed to be evaluated. Ed also observed that it is not our policy to turn any pnrtions of our responsibility over to the NRC.

A copy of Ed's assignment was sent to you.

On November 6, 1989, Ed received your handwritten note on Dick Werner's memo RFw-89-157 dated November 1, 1989, in which you took issue with Arnold Roby's being put in charge of coordinating the Westinghouse review. Wnen Ed read your note he understood the comments as a further expression of your continued disagreement with how the Rosemount issue was being handled. I have been advised that Ed did not interpret the note as a request for a response. Specifically, Ed did not understand your use of the phrase " burying this issue" as being a claim.that you had information suggesting that anyone had been involved with Rosemount in a " cover-up" but that the comment was another reference to the technical disagreement existing between you and Arnold on the Rosemount issue. After Ed and I met with you on March 8, 1990, and specificall concerns of a " cover yup,"

asked you to describe Ed advisad me that your this allegation needed to be brought to the attention of NRC Region I. Ed has since informed Region I management and the NRC's Office of Investigation of this allegation.

Your December 5, 1989 memo (GSP-89-436) to R. C.

Enoch, received by Ed on December 8, 1989, states "I further believe that we are now in total compliance with all applicable General Design Criteria, Standards and Regulations." At that time Ed believed the Westinghouse effort was scheduled to be completed by December 15, 1989 and felt that this effort should' continue until completion.

Based on the above, I believe that the delegation of various Rosemount related responsibilities was 3

c. ... s.ouca Maren c, .::v

, Pego 5 ,.

Eo-90-C-044 f

consistent with both the Ed Mroczka May 3, 1989 meno and general management practices.

I have, however, taken the opportunity to confirm with NE&O management my expectation that, consistent with such practices, you and your group will continue to be accorded appropriate opportunities to provide input on all Rosemount transmitter issues that are within the scope of your job respnsibilities.

Comment (B) Since the issuance of the Werner meno, I have continued to express my concerns that the entire reportability evaluation was academic. This statement is based on the fact that everyone in the NU Organization, including myself, believe that we are now in compliance with all licensing requirements.

Response (B)- At our March 8 meeting, you stated that you felt a response to your meno GSP-89-378 would be required if we decided the Rosemount issue at Millstone 3 was a reportable event. It remains unclear as to why a response to your memo GSP-89-378 would not be required if we decided that the Rosemount issue at Millstone 3 was not a reportable event, and why you feel a response would be necessary if the event is reportable. It is Ed Mroczka's understanding that we took the conservative approach. Although we have no data suggesting that the Rosemount RCS flow transmitters installed during.the first cycle of operation at Millstone Unit 3 had been inoperable simultaneously before being detected, thereby affecting the ability of the RPS to perform a safety function, we decided to err on the conservative side and reported that such a situation may have occurred.

Your suggestion that we we're not subject to reportability requirements in this instance may well be technically correct, but I would hope that you could see merit in an approach that removes any question that the NRC could raise about the propriety of our actions.

If you feel that any of your comments in your meno GSP-88-378 have not been addressed properly, or are ,

technically incorrect, please provide me with the j specifics and I will provide an appropriate J response. i I l

~~~s l l

1

P. M. Blonen fPags6 March 28, 1990 EO-90-C-044 '

I m.

Comment (C) To evaluate historic compliance, in my opinion, will raise more questions related to our comprehension of our licensing criteria. Further, the NRC is fully aware of all aspects of the situation and has provided their reporting requirements in the draft bulletin dated January 29, 1990.

There are no requirements to report historic situations contained either via the draft or final bulletin which will be issued this week.

Contracting with Westinghouse for this effort, in my personal opinion was an inordinate waste of NU's manpower and resources.

Response (C)

I believe this issue is addressed fully in Response A and B of this meno.

Comment (D) During the period when Westinghouse and Roby were developing their reportability evaluation, I had made significant technical comments which have never been answered.

Response (D) It would be helpful for you to evaluate the matters that were of concern to you in connection with the Westinghouse report in light of our decision to treat the matter as reportable, and identify specific concerns that you feel could still affect nuclear safety so that they can be evaluated. I will subsequently provide an appropriate response. .

Comment (E) While at Millstone on February 27, 1990, I was presented with a copy of the attached NRC ENS event

' Notificat' ion and asked about its purpose and technical content. I also received a call from NRC/NRR asking the reason for the ENS report. This was an informal call from the technical branch coordinating the bulletin. My only response to both inquires was that I was not' aware of anything contained within the notification. This presents obvious mystification to the plant as they have been officially informed that I was responsible coordinating the issue.

Response (E) Licensing coordinated the NRC ENS Event Notification. Arnold and Mario Bonaca were asked to provide input. Arnold reviewed the report and signed it. Arnold has advised Ed that he did not purposely exclude you from the review and Arnold believed your comments were considered in the Westinghouse report. In hindsight, I agree that the communications between NUSCO and the plant might have been more effective if all the appropriate technical personnel in NUSCO, and.the plant staff, N

l

. , P. n. bAanen acrcn -o, .::v Pago 7 ,

Eo-90-C-044 had been kept better informed of the reportability and NRC notification process. Ed has asked those - -

concerned to work towards better communication in future matters of this sort.

Comment (r) Contained in the attached reportability evaluation, are false, untrue, misleading and inaccurate statements. I was never given any opportunity to review this document. While this is not a signed document, I an aware that it is in the possession of the NRC.

Response (r) Ed Mroczka has issued an assignment to supervision, to address comments made by you on the reportability evaluation.

Comment 'G) As I mentioned in my note to Ed Mroczka, there is {'

now evidence that Roby, Johnson, and Shaffer may be involved in a " cover-up" of this entire Rosemount transmitter issue. To allow them to continue in this role may impact the upcoming investigation.

1 Response (G) As I have already noted, Ed Mroczka discussed {

this allegation with Region I and OI on March 12 l and March 15, 1990.

l Comment (H) I have expressed.a willingness to discuss mediation of the entire situation with Nick Reynolds and also with an industrial physiologist at Werner's suggestion. Before this can occur, the issue on overall technical responsibility must be resolved.

Response (H) I belie.ve this comment is addressed in Response I (A) and (E).

I am pleased that you have indicated a willingness j to participate in good faith in this effort to ease i tensions and improve working relationships for all l concerned.' l Comment (I) Further, the issue related to the grievance filed as a result of the internal audit and suspension of two of my employees needs to be resolved as soon as possible. As you may be aware, NUP-23 requires a decision within five working days. This process has been continuing for over nine weeks with no end in sight.

Response (I) According to Barry Ilberman, the employees involved in the grievance were told that significant time, much more than that specified in NUP-23, would be required to properly evaluate this grievance. The

e

. c. M. 'cAanen Maren 28, 1990

)

),Pogo 8 ,

EO-90-C-044 employees were also told that they could call J. R. Organek any time for a status on the grievance. Except for the two week period prior to Me.rch 8, 1990, neither of the involved employees had called J. R. Organek for a status. A decision on the grievance was completed and issued on March 8, 1990.

Comment (J) I also believe that there is a potential. conflict of interest with one of the participants of the panel hearing the grievance.

Response (J) You stated during our March 8 meeting that Barry 11berman, who is one of the two people hearing the grievance, may have a conflict of int'erest because he may have.been involved in approving the reduction of MPPR ratings for the two employees on a related matter. Barry has advised me that he was not directly involved in approving the MPPR rating reduction and, therefore, it does not appear that a conflict of-interest existed with Barry being on the panel hearing the grievance.

Notes for Meetino with John Opeka - March 8, 1990 Comment (1) over the past year my responsibilities, authority, and personnel have been diminished.

Response (1) This allegation is still being pursued. You will receive a further response in the next few weeks. ,

Comment (2) As a result of the reportability issue, total confusion has been generated at the plant. They do l not know who is in charge at NUSCO.

Response (2) I believe this comment is addressed in Response (E).

• Comment (3) Why have I been removed from the Rosemount issue again even after written direction from opeka and Mroczka?

Response (3) It is my understanding that you have not been

~ removed from the Rosemount issue now or in the past. I have been advised that during your meeting with Ed Mroczka on April 19, 1989, you told Ed that Arnold Roby had removed you from all Rosemount work. When Ed asked how this was done and whether Arnold had ever told you that you were no longer to work on the Rosemount issue, you said that Arnold ,

never told you that you could not work on the {

N

i P. M.'Bicncn Maren 28, 1990 Pago 9 ,

EO-90-C-044 Rosemount issue. At that time, you indicated that Arnold's questions about the time spent on the Rosemount issue put pressure on you not to work on Rosemount. Ed advised you that his recent discussion with Arnold indicated that Arnold believed you were responsible for Rosemount issues of a programmatic nature and Tom Shaffer's groups were responsible for the implementation portions of the Rosemount issue.

1 Comment (4) Why has my technical input been disregarded with ]

respect to the recent reportability evaluation?

Response (4)- I believe this comment is addressed in Response (E).

Comment (S) How can NU management continue to ignore their own internal procedures (NUP-23).

Response (5) I believe this comment is addressed in Response (I).

Comment (6) When are we going.to obtain the results of the grievance?

Response (6) The decision was issued on March 8, 1990.

Comment (7) If the result is not in support of the employees, do we have to wait another 10 weeks for the appeal?

I Response (7) If the Appeals Panel feels that more time than that specified in NUP-23 is needed to properly disposition the appeal, I would hope that you would support the decision to take.the extra time. Also see Response (I).

Comment (8) Is there any possible way to salvage this situation? .

Response (8) It is unclear what you mean by this comment. If you are referring to the grievance filed by your subordinates, their continued use of NUP-23 procedures if they are not already satisfied is, in my view, the best approach to resolving the

, problem.

Comment (9) Werner has stated that I have actually " hindered and adversely impacted the resolution of the safety issue" and that I " ignored" and " misrepresented relevant information." .

I Response'(9) Ed Mroczka discussed this allegation with the NRC j on March 23, 1990.  ;  !

l

~~_)  !

i

f

i. ,

, P. M. Blanen March 28, 1990 l

Pogo' 10 Eo-90-C-044

i. _.

L

Comment (10) Roby has stated that I "only wanted to belittle and frustrate their (Rosemount) endeavors."

Response (10) Ed Mroczka discussed this allegation with the NRC )

on March 23, 1990.

Comment (11) Moral, productivity, and perception of any true l

safety ethic are non existent in sections of GEE.

Response (11) Ed Mroczka discussed this allegation with the NRC I L on March 23, 1990.

' I do not agree with your observation in that regard.

To Get Headed in the Correct Direction the Pollowing Actions must be implemented as soon as possible:

Comment (a) Return the total responsibility for the resolution I of the Rosemount issues to my group uithout the involvement of Roby, Shaffer or Johnson.

Response (a)

I'believe this comment is addressed in Response (A).

I comment (b) Return all I&C Special Studies assignments to my group.

Response (b)

A written response will be prepared in the next few weeks Comment (c) Initially authorize the return of all PVR's to the i original level.

Response (c) A written response will be prepared in the ne'xt few weeks.

Comment (d) Reinstate me to the EPRI Task Force.

Response 4d) A written response will be prepared in the next few weeks.

Comment (e) Reinstate me as manager of technical support for the emergency response organizaticn.

Respons,e (e) A written response will be prepared in the next few weeks.

Comment (f) Allow me to support Instrument Calibration Reduction Program (ICRP) for Millstone Units #3 and

#2.

l j Response (f) A written response will be prepared in the next few  ;

weeks, ,

h w E

r

. P. M. Blanen March 28, 19)0

-*I Pago 11 EO-90-C-044 l Comment (g) Take appropriate action with Roby and Johnson j related to my letter of April 4, 1989.

Response (g) It would not be appropriate for me to respond to this comment.

Comment (h) Take appropriate action with Roby and Johnson for fabrications relaned to my poor supervisory capabilities and a ccusations related to my handling of the Rosemount issues.

RMaponse (h) It would not be appropriate for me to respond to this comment.

Comment (i) Reimeurse me for lost dollars related to my consulting work with EPRI. (April 13, 1989 l proposal to work for EPRI via Performance Associates).

Response (i) I am not aware of any actions taken by NU that have resulted in your losing opportunities for l consulting work with EPRI.

j comment (j) Reinstate the original MPPR ratings to my l personnel.

Response (j) I have_no reason to believe that any current MPPR ratings of personnel to whom you refer were inappropriate.

l l

Comment (k) Make restitution to the two effected employees to avoid any. potential legal action.

Response (k) NUP 23 provides the appropriate vehicle to handle employee grievances.

l Comment (1) Investigate internal auditing and determine if the l

manager meets his stated qualifications (CPA).

. (Does A. Pollock have CPA certification in Connecticut and Massachusetts as implied on the business card.)

Response (1) There is no requirement for Al Pollock in his i

position to be certified.or licensed as a CPA in l '

, performing his work for the company. He is,

! however, certified (not licensed) as a CPA in i

connecticut by the State Board of Accountancy and he is a member of the American Institute of CPA's.

He is also a Certified Fraud Examiner.

In addition'to the above items, during the March 8 meeting, Ed reminded you of another situation some 4

W t

Maren 25, .590

, Page 12 EO-90-C-044 time age when you advised Ed that you believed'some personnel in Generation Electrical Engineering w'ere leaving work to engage in non-work activities, taking extended lunch breaks and returning from lunch with liquor on their breath. At that time you stated that you did not wish to provide specific details becauso you were involved in enough things and didn't want to get involved further.

During the March 8, 1990 meeting, Ed asked if you still felt the same or would you be willing to provide details. You told Ed that he had misunderstood you, that you said you would have provided details for the people who left early for non-work activities but not for the instances of people returning to work with liquor on their breath. Ed asked if you would provide details at this time for an investigation and you stated that an investigation was not necessary.

Subsequently, on March 23, 1990, you provided me with a copy (enclosed) of a " Statement to U.S..

Department of Labor by Paul M. Blanch, dated December 5, 1989" concerning the same issue. It appears that there may have been a misunderstanding about your willingness to provide details on potential abuses within the company, the details of which are necessary to perform a satisfactory investigation. If you are willing to provide such details, I will make arrangements for you to meet with Internal Auditing on this matter.

While you can always call me or Ed at any time on any matter, you may have received a quicker response to some of the above comments if you had called your supervisor, Barry I1berman and/or Al Pollocx.

cc: E. J. Mroczka E. M. Richters N. S. Reynoldsw/

7 ~ '-

CONFIDENTIAL i g r A"~ 1 Internal Audit Report t tL 9 --

October 19,1989 TO: E.J.Mroczka I bi . . _

~

FROM:

M.D.Marinaccio(X4565)(

A.L.Fouock(4522)

Internal AuditD.y i M  %

SUBJECT:

Blanch /EPRI Project investigation A7 allegation being investigated as pan of our Generation Electrical Engineering (GEE Review centers around P. M. Blanch, S@h, and his inolvement with an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) project.De allegation is that Blanch and others who di;g work on the work for him-NU employees who work in his deparunent--are perf side for a consultant invoMag an EPRI project. Funber, this work is being done on Company time, with Company resources- computer time, data, etc--and they have even been paid by the consultant, at work, in the presence of other co workers.

Conclusion Based on our review of this allegation,we feel that no impropriety existed on the pan of P M. Blanch. Blanch's consulting involvement with the EPRI project was known and authorized by his management. Blanch received permission to use NU resources (rystems facilities. staff) in suppon of this project as long as it did not interfere with NU work. The was no indication that the work interfered. Blanch also provided documentation to substantiate that he was separating the EPRI work and expenses from NU work. ne was primarily accomplished after hours, weekends, and during vacation time. 1 It is understandable that other GEE workers would view the EPRI work by Blanch an others as a conDict of interest. The circumstances had not been - ...... . ested throug the Department in order to passify concerm arising from differing interpretatio was going on.

De following provides added information with regards to our investigation of this suegation and the paniculars supporting our conclusion that no i y.-riiety exists.

f-

i

,'-Y w khvW u W "L E M

l. b. E "b ?1 bl. t\4 Q La investigation In foHowing up on this ausgation we gathered p.La ce , =y daa m* marian (Conflict ofImerest disclosure =====*=*= time sheets, espense spm), conducted interviews with selectedindividuals(thepersonimakingtheausganons,PaniBlanch,JefIMah=aaah Mike Meehan), compared and analysed au saurons of evidenas for naa=i=*ag and accuracy. We aho commcied and requesied information from EPRI G ., h C. F. 5 ears.

Results On November 30,1988, in a a.u-d.1 memo to A.R.Roby (Blanch's inanadiate supervisor), P. M. Blanch requessed permi-inn to provide seasahing services to EPRI with respea to smdying the Ban *=a== tansastier issue. In the memo be sustes that he discussed the ein=rinn with Cheryl Orise (then of the lagal Deperunent) and that whDe she did not see an apparent conflia ofinterest,she raaa==== dad Blanch consult with Roby.

Again on November 30. Roby r**paad*d to Blanch in a maan=a.1 memo sisting, 'I have reviewed your request to provide independent onesulting servions to EPRI, associated with Rosemount transmitter probicas. With certain wnder===di=5 it would be appropriate for you to proceed". He then set forth three conditions: make sure you do this on your own time and don't let it affact your present duties;if you intend to use other NU employees, obtain approval; and disclose this sination on the upcoadng Conflict ofImerest an'*=*at.

Roby closes by stating. "My evpace='ians are that your activities will not place NU st risk on this issue and that NU's only comunitment is to nuow you to use OFIS records for time history data *. The memo was copied to G. I. Johnson (Roby's inanediate supervisor) and C. Gris6.

In early January 1989, Blanch met with EPRI to iron out the particulars and formmHu a consulting agreement with them. In our interviews with him. Blanch stated that it was at this point EPRI r-~2-~~d him to perform the work under an open purchase order they had with a Bob Lord of Performance Associates. His same ana-l' eat was under contrac NU. In essence, Blanch would invoice EPRI under Performanos Associate's P.O. EPRI, in turn, would pay Performance Associates who would then pay Blanch and others on the project.

The contract period went from January I, to Apr030,1989. Blanch's last day of work and last day billed to EPRI is April 12,1989.De following summarizes the monthly hours charged to the comract and bHied to EPRI: i 1/1M 14:15 Manch 152.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> Mahannah 38.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> aftm Sf2/89 Manch 114.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> Mahannah 22.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> Meehan 12.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />  !

StatW.#tt/W Wanch El.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> l TeestProtestHours Same dg& -

l l

.7 ./

p?n CONFIDENTIAL

$g.. .

greaMann af hasam by Parann-ano.5 manon k+- nauhuresh s1.c new.a .sr.n Talma essese 3834 annal annannt period amanded for 15 weeka ruther than the 26 weeks originally a and the 441.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> were seasiderably under the original proposal of 1300 8 h***

During the sentram period, Emma traveled to a member ofloestions:EnoxviBa, Tennesses;St. Pant,uh andPalo Aho,Ostifornia. AB of thans tripswere taken at his own espones and biBed to EPRI for reimbursessant. His NU sapenas repons show no NU reimtsrummam for air travel or lodging during the sentract period and likswise, for the dates when be did travel to these locatism, our review st his monthly time sheets show he d /. '%cmaion" or "no psy" time accus. Blanch abo told as when he worked in the of5cs on this, he either worked after hours sivi weekends or charged his. time to Nacanon " While we have no way of conchisively L"/.r this, given the total time he spent on the contract during tids period, his story is plausitde and we have no basis to doubt his statements.

/

Observations e BlanchproperlyfoHowede~- ypolicyandv. J eindisclosinghisinvolvement with EPRL After consulo'ngwith the Mr r.; and obtaining the .yy,.w.1 of his supervisor, A. R. Roby, he disclosed simation in the annual Conniet at Interest program.

e Blanch was meticulous in ==i==ining daa==*=='ian of his involvement in the EPRI conuset. All of his trips and time are supponed by damune==tian He has dotted all of the 'i's" and crossed all the "t's" to ensure there would be no shadow cast on the Propriety of the arrangement.

e NU computer resources (OFIS) were used in support of the EPRI contract;in fact, they were the basis of the comract. NU had ====il='*d significam data conceram the performance of Rosemount transmitters. Pennission to use this data is grantec . in Roby's November 1988 memo to Blanch.

e While Blanch disclosed in his Conflict ofInterest statement involvement in the EPRI comract, Mahannah and Meehan did not. Their involvement was, however, marginal and Blanch is their supervisor. In fact, au that the I.agal m , would have requiredhadtheydiscionedtheirinvolvement,isthatthere m r eks.ri nowledgeof k

the situation;there obviouslywas.

e Given the simation.we can understand how others,without W knowledge of the arrangemast, aonid perceive an L r..,y.;esi. In fact, the purpose of the Confh'et of Interest y.7.s. is to disclose, among other things, situanons that "might give the appearance that a conflict esists.

e R.V. Ahlstrand F.M. Blanch C.F.Somes _'m /

/

am=mt.

CONriucN i Ai 1

l E'""g = Intemal Audit Report t < L ::::::=----

November 14,1989 1

TO: E.J. Mrocr.ka FROM:

• h~~

M.D.Marinaccio fx4565) %

A. L Pollock (x4522)

Internal Audit Department

Subject:

Investigation of Alleged Time and Expense Abuse -

Generation Electrical Engineering As part of our Generation Electrical Engineering (GEE) Review, we have investigated alleged time and expense abuses ster mia from the original alkgations made by an employee within the Generation h-iaaermg and Construction Deparunent. The allegation states, that whenever their supervisor was away from the office, two employees-N. R. Bhatt and G. Caccavale-leave the office indicating that they are going to the Millstone Plant or Conn. Yankee sites; but, in fact, are going elsewhere-home or conducung personal business. Allegedly, this practice is frequent and known about by P.M. Blanch, their supervisor.

While our investigation stemmed from allegations made by an employee about two other employees, we reviewed time and expense reporung,in general, within the Special Projects section of GEE. Our investigation was thorough, objective, and followed our standard internal audit practice under the circumstances.  ;

Conclusion Based on our review of this allegation, we have surfaced many discrepancies regarding the whereabouts of both Bhatt and Caccavale during working hours."Iteir inability to sufficiently explain these discrepancies combined with other audit data, raises numerous questions about the likelihood that both of them have, quite often, abused their positions with NU.

It should be noted that Blanch himself was often out of the office on business when many of the abuses occurred and there is no evidence that he had knowledge of them.

~

i CONFIDENTIAL During the period of May through September 1989,we conclude the following:

e N. R. Bhatt on up to 20 occasions,left the planu before 2:30 p.m. We believe that he did not return to work, even though his regular workday concludes at 4.30 p.m.

Additionally, on up to 11 occasions he signed-out of the Berlin Office to go to one of the plams, but did not go, Le. quit early.

e G. Caccavale on up to 14 occasions, signed-out of the Berlin Office to go to Millstone Station, but did not 30, i.e. quit early.

Investigation our review indimad that Bhan and Caccavale had many '. . . . .. J. , . J < with respect to the h we reviewed. 9A:g= follow up with them and others failed to resolve these ' -.. ' . J - All of the other employees we looked at had minor inconsistencies which we were able to resolve through additional follow-up work or interviewswith the employee.

The noted problem areas for Bhan and Caccavale were:

- Signed.out to the plant sites on the d wat log; not appearmg on the plant security logs.

- Not on plant security logs; mileage taken.

- When appesring on security logs--short periods at plant and early deparmres. ]

- Activity concentrated when their supervisor is away/out of office. l In an effort to resolve these discrepancies, we arranged to personally meet with Bhatt and Caccavale to clarify our information and discuss specifics.*Ibey were instructed to bring their Monthly Minders (calendars) and any other documentation which would help establish, more precisely, their whereabouts on a given date. Initial contact was arranged through Blanch wl.o we also interviewed concerning his review of employee's time and expense reporu.

The results of the initial meetings with Bhatt and Caccavale were unsatisfactory. In general, their responses to our questions did not help to resolve the inconsistencies we noted. We dimie=d his t with Blanch who stated that our approach-asking questions about specific, past evenu and dates--was very de==adia: and intimidating for his employees. 'Ibey found it difficult to recall information under those circumstances. IIe expressed his full support for his people and requested that if we wanted to pursue it any further, to provide specific dates and evems in writing and they would respond.

As requested, on October 6,1989 we provided this information and we received their responses on October 11,1989. After further investigation, we conducted individual follow-up interviews with Caccavale, Bhatt, and Blanch on October 20,1989 in the presence of M. E. Brown, Director - Employee Relations, who they requested be present.

w 2 .-

L

CONFIDESTIAL Observations The following observations profile and summanze the allegations as they reiste to each individual. They are based on the information we have obtained in all of our discussions including those with the individuals involved, and our review and analysis of data and information obtained throughout the course of this review.

N. R. Bhat and G. Caoosva6s e Both have ansepted to discredit the nomracy of the d.p i sign out log. Day comend it is not an "omcial" company daan= ant with an menaci='*d piJ w therefore implying we should not be using it to conduct our audit.

e Here were 9 individuals in our audit sample which included Bhan and Caccavale.

Both Bhatt and Caccavale had numerous in='=ne*< of appearing on the department signeut log as being at the plant when,in fact,in most cases they were not. We analyzed the log's accuracy for the remaining employees in our audit sample, that is, were they at the plant when the log said they were? De results show that the log is enremely accurate for others (96%127 sign outs,122 on plant security logs) and not so accurate for Bhatt (65&31 sign-outs,20 on plant security logs) and Caccavale (59%37 sign-outs,22 on plant security logs).

e Both claim we are auditing them because their supervisor raised nuclear safety concerns.Dey feel they are being harassed and victimized.

e Both told us they prepared their wrinen response independently. We, however, found out that others in the department observed them working together.

N. R. Bhatt e In a Sve month period (May - September 1989), he signed out in the ' department log to MP and CY a total of 31 times. Of these site visits, only 20 appear on plant ,

security logs and on all of these visits he left the plant protected area before 2:30 p.m. Vehicle mileage is charged for all of these visits. j e Of the 11 remaining department log sign out visits, he does not appear on the plant security logs. Vehicle mileage is charged on 8 of these 11 trips. No mileage was charged in the 3 re==i=% instances where he had signed.out of the office. All 3 occurred when his supervisor was out of the office.

e in all 31 h====t he does not appear on the Berlin security log as having returned.

He would have had to gain access to the building without using his card key, m all instatuses e Through interviews with the alleger and others, we teamed that whenever he signs-out to a plant, he is never observed returning to the Berlin Office; however, ,

most of the workers in his general area are in the of5ce only until 3:30 p.m. Bhatt is

=ehadaladto work until 4:30 pm There is a possibility he could have returned after 3:30 pa lf, in fact, he does remrn to work as he has stated to us, it couldn't have N

3

CONFIDENTIAL been later than 3:30 pa on very many occasions, given that he has never left either plant site later than A30 p.m. and it takes about an hour to return from either plant.

l (In 16 of these 20 recorded plant visits he left before 2:00 pm) e There are inconsistencies between statemems Bhan made to us in our initial interview with him concermng his whereabouts and his written response to us.

Further, many of his written responses do not check out when followed up.

For example: When we asked him about his business on Tuesday, August 22.

1989 (plant visit appears in d.i.e.wt sign <mt log, but not on MP security log),

he told us-reading from his " Monthly Minder"-that he met Colonial Valve, a vendor, outside of the plant protected area. In his written response to us concerning that same data, he stated," Don Assy of MP3 I&C needed calibrazion data for the Venturi (s) ASAP. I took a trip to the plant with the calibranon package and at the Security Gate met John Oark. Since John was going to the 1&C shop, he took the package and gave it to Don Assy. I returned to the Berlin ,

of5ce the same afternoon." Our follow up to his written statement shows that on that day, John Clark never appears on the MP security log; however, he does appear on the CY log and his expense report is charged only for the CY trip.

Further, John Cark contends he did not meet Bhan on this day, but does recall ,

the particular incident taking place back in June.

Summary - N. R. Bhatt ,

In our opinion, we feel that on his 20 visits, Bhatt routinely left the plant sites early and generally did not return to the ofEce. In addition,we feel that on most of the 11 occasions when he signed out to the plant and did not appear on their security logs, he was not conducting any company business. Many of his responses to us were contradictory and were not supported by the evidence we reviewed.

t S

l 4 / .

j >

CONFIDENTIAL G. Caccavale o In a five month period (May - September 1989), he siped-out in the department log to MP and CY a total of 37 times. Of these site visits, only 22 appear on plant securitylogs.

o Of the 15 remaining department log sign-out visits, he does not appear on the plant security logs. Vehicle mileage is not charged on these 15 occasions.14 of the 15 occurred when Blanch was out of the oEce. In the one instance where Blanch was in the oEce, he was notified of and aware of Caccavale's change in plans not to go to the plant.

e The primary inconsistency between the information obtamed in interviews with Caccavale and our review of company source daat===rian is his signing out for plant sites and not appearms on the plant security logs. He stated to us that his plans had been ^= aged therefore the trip was not taken and be forgot to change the sip-out log. As his proof he offers up the fact that he did not charge for mileage on these occasions.

e He normally comes into the asce in the morning, prior to leavmg for the plant. Of the 22 recorded plant visits, only 2 were directly from home.

Summary - G. Caccavale In our opinion, we feel that Caccavale used the sip-out log to leave the office for the day. His responses to the discrepancies did not provide us with verifiable information ,

supporting his contention that he was in the oEce. He states he initially siped-out, changed his plans, and then didn't bother to co:Tect the sip-out log to reflect his change in plans. We struggle to believe this scenario. Based on interviews with him and others, we feel that he is a very bright and entremely meticulous individual. We also believe that, in general, when someone comes into the office first, as he does, and then leaves for the plant the same morning, the actual sip. cut occurs in the prw of " walking out of the office." Most people would err by leaving the office and forgetting to sip-out. It is difficult for us to conceive that on 14 occasions his plans are changed at some point between the " office door" and his car. And even if this were the case, upon re-enterms the office it would seem logical that the log would be changed to reflect the change in plans.

With respect to not charging mileage on these occasions, we feel it was all a part of his plan.That is, he knew if there ever was an audit, there could be a comparison of expense reports with plant security logs; therefore, if he never chrrged the mileage, a discrepancy would never be brought to light.

\l 5 SN

~

f' CONFIDENTIAL Approach In Eg = 4'== to this allegation, we performed the follomng:

e Gathered perunent Company documentation 4partment sign-out logs, employee time sheets and expense ieyvrts, security computer reports from MP, CY, and Berlin, and obtained the South Broad St. sign-in log.

e Chose audit sample: three GEE supervisors'and six of their staff (including Bhau )

andCascavale) I e Analyzedandcompared datanotingagreememor * -  ? > 2-e Performed detailed tests of the Special LM's Group e Conducted interviews with the alleger and selected employees to obtain additional ,

information and resolve any dis--yh arising out of our initial review of the source daa==*=

c: R.V. Ahlstrand P.M. Blanch G.LJohnson A. R. Roby R. P. Werner I

J i

O e

fi 6

w/{

ey , Attachment 7 .

',f IWORTDIEAST UTILITIES c n.,.i on.e.. seio.a su i. senin conn.ei cui L

<Ta

== -

= ;r,=,=,

~

O" mNo*mo CONNECTICUT o61 non ees sooo December 1, 1989 Ms. Virginia Hemingway U.S. Department of Labor Employment standards Administration Wage and Hour Division 135 High Street 3 Hartford, CT 06103 RE:

Timothy O'Sullivan vs. Northeast Nuclear Energy Co.

File # 90-107-05491

Dear Ms. Hemingway:

Pursuant to your request, this is to provide you with a brief statement of the Company's position with respect to Timothy o'sullivan's claims in the above matter.

Contrary to Mr. O'Sullivan's allegations, James rerriell did not engage in any form'of conduct on either November 1 or November 11, 1989 that might reasonably be perceived as a

" confrontation" with Mr. O'Sullivan. Nor did Mr. Terriell engage in any form of harassment or intimidation of Mr. O'Sullivan on those dates or at any other time.

As an initial matter, I should point.out that Mr. Terriell is currently performing non-supervisory work for the Engineering Department and is currently in the process of obtaining a formal Since the paperwork necessary to transfer to that Department. '

effect that transfer has not yet been completed, he has retained the formal title and pay status of Maintenance Foreman. Yet, all of his maintenance responsibilities, including the supervision of Timothy o'sullivan, were assigned to an " upgraded" maintenance foreman', Robert Rowe, prior to November 1, 1989. On or prior to November 1, 1989, Mr. Terriell received from the assistant electrical engineering supervisor an assignment to determine the power supplies for emergency lighting and to make any necessary print (drawing) changes in that respect. To accomplish that assignment, Mr. Ferriell needed to review the most recent emergency lighting surveillance (review). He did so by obtaining a copy of the Automated Work Order (AWO) relating to the surveillance. The AWo indicated that both a monthly surveillance and more detailed annual surveillance had been completed for the s

emergency lighting. Although supporting documentatinn pertaining to the monthly surveillance was included with the AWo, no such documentation had been included for the annual surveillance.

Since Mr. O'Sullivan had " signed-off" on the AWo, indicating that both surveillances had been completed, Mr. Terriell went to the Maintenance Shop to inquire of Mr. O'Sullivan as to whether the annual surveillance hhd been completed and, if so, where the associated documentation might be found. At approximately 6:30 a.m. on November 1 (Mr. O'Sullivan's starting time, but I hour before Mr. Terriell's 11:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. shift was to end)

Mr. Terriell went to the Maintenance Shop to make the inquiry.

At that time, Mr. Ferriell indicated that he had to talk to Mr.

O'Sullivan about the emergency lighting data and that although he had found documentation concerning the monthly surveillance, he had found none pertaining to the annual surveillance. Mr.

O'Sullivan replied that he believed that someone else had performed the annual surveillance. At that point, Mr. O'Sullivan asked Mr. Rowe, who was close by, whether a co-worker, Jack Heisler, had mentioned something about the surveillance. When Mr. Rowe indicated that he couldn't recall, and Mr. Terriell reminded Mr. O'sullivan that he had signed-off on the Awo, Mr.

O'Sullivan stated words to the effect that "I guess I missed it."

At that time, Mr. Terriell simply indicated that it was important that the' annual surveillance be completed as soon as possible.

.That was the extent of the conversation. Mr. Ferriell's tone of voice was low key and conversational. He was not belligerent, rude or argumentative. Additionally, Mr. Terriell's assignment required that he obtain the surveillance data which, in turn required that he discuss the matter with Mr. O'Sullivan. His conduct and demeanor were appropriate in all respects. It should not be overlooked that Mr. o'sullivan, in his complaint, has admitted that he signed-off on the AWo without having performed the required annual surveillance.

The conversation between Mr. Terriell and Mr. O'Sullivan on ,

November 11 was similarly low key and non-confrontational. On  !

that date, Mr. O'Sullivan and a General Electric Techniccl l Representative were working together in the Maintenance Shop on an electrical breaker. One part of that procedure requires that the circuit be " tagged out" so that others will know that that part of the electrical system is being worked on and to prevent

. potential electrocution of an individual. Mr. Ferriell noticed  ;

that the " tagging verified" block on the AWo for that project was not checked off, indicating that the tagging out procedure may not have been followed. When Mr. Terriell asked Mr. O'Sullivan if he had checked the tagging, Mr. o'sullivan replied that he had not checked them, since-he felt that it was Mr. Rowe's responsibility as the job supervisor. Mr. Terriell reminded Mr.

o'sullivan that the lead person on a project (Mr. O'Sullivan in this case) was considered the job supervisor for purposes of the procedure and Mr. O'Sullivan then checked the tagging. That was the end of the conversation. Again, Mr. Terriell was not belligerent, rude, intimidating or harassing. Rather, Mr.

1

_3_

Terriell identified a potential safety hazard, as was his responsibility and the responsibility of any employee as a matter of standard company policy.

Just as he has admitted that he failed to conduct the annual surveillance of the electrical lighting, Mr. O'Sullivan has admitted in his complaint that the tagging procedure had not been complied with. Contrary to the allegation in his complaint, it was his responsibility to ensure the tagging had been accomplished.

-In neither instance did Mr. Ferriell address Mr. O'Sullivan differently than he would have addressed another co-employee under similar circumstances.

Since there was no act of retaliation or harassment in this matter, and given the fact that Mr. Terriell's formal transfer is almost complete and he will not be in general contact with Mr.

O'Sullivan on a day to day basis, it appears that each of your ideas concerning conciliation have been put into motion already.

Although I believe you have more than sufficient information upon which to determine that there is no merit to Mr.

O'Su111 van's claim of retaliation, I will make immediate arrangements for you to interview any individuals that you may feel are necessary to complete your investigation. In any event, however, we request that the Department issue a formal letter of determination, together with all statutorily required information pertaining to requesting a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. Such a letter is necessary to provide a final disposition of the claim.

If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, Edward M. Richters .

Counsel EMR/alc 1

I i

i 1

I I

r

~'

d Atta= ment 8 Whistleblower Narrative Report NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENER8Y C0 Div. Northeast Utilities .

Ropd; ferry Ad., Waterford, Ct 06385 mailing Address: P.O. Box 27C, Hartford, Ct 06141-0270 Mr. ett. case file was initiated as a result of s ~ signed, written complaint filed by Waterford Ct.O'Sullivan.of mothy The 31aston5uty, employed as an electrician at Millstone Unit 2, in compliant was filed under the Energy Reorganization Act (EAA) of 1974 specifica11 Sec 210, commonly referred to as the 'Whistlebloser Provtsions'. W. O'Sullivan has fi. led ior compliants with the Hartford Ct. Wage / Hour office including CFMS-10y-04467 and CF MS- 07-05005. See prior case files for further details.

The comelaint filed by Mr. O'Sullivan'was dated Noveeer 15, 1909 and received at the M4rtford'.91 strict office and dated on Novener ly,1989. Subject canelaint was filed within the 30-44y time limit under the statute: alleging events and actions by his former Supervisor 11,'1989 were harassment, intimidation and discrimination.

on Novenbar 1,)1989 and November (See. complaint . Mr. O'Su111 v sattsfy the regulatory criteria under Part 24.3(c).

Subject firm is covered under ERA as Northeast titilities and is a Nuclear RegGlatory Count.

ssion Licensee Units 1,2,3. which sperSts; three Walear facilities in Waterford CT, known as Millstone

.. . .. . ~,

Mr. O'Sullivan is subject to ERA as he is an employee of a Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensee.. He came under the protection of the Section 210, when as an employee whose duties involve safety-affecting responsibilities., he filed a complaint with the NRC concerning matters pertaining to nuclear safety.

CONCILIAT10h In accorsance the with F0H 52:03(b) procedures, a conciliation action was attempted to settle subject complaint. After severdi telephone conversations and background research into prior case files, conciliation proceeded as follows: - '"

On November 30,1989 C0 Hemingway set with Mr. O'Sullivan in Vernon, Ct during which a detailed review was conducted of the allegations contained in W. O'Su111 van's Complaint.,

as well as his recommended actions. On the basis of this discussion and W. O'Su11han's recommendations, an interview followed in which Mr. O'Sullivan agreed in writing that he ,

would consider Mr. Ferriel's transfer from the Unit as a conciliatory action enthe part.

of Northeast Nuclear Energy Co.

(See tahibit 5-1)

On December 01,1989 C0 Meningway met with Edward M. Richters, counsel for Northeast utilities, at Northeast's Corporate Headquarters in. Berlin Ct. At this meeting r. Richters detailed and reviewed the events as seen by the subject firm and confirmed that although Mr. Ferriel's transfer was in progress. it had not and that he else felt that *siven the fact that W. Ferris yet officially beentransfer 11's formal carriedisout..

almost complete it appearsand thathe will of each not be In general contact with W. O'Sullivan en a day to day basis, put into sotton already.gour

• C0(W. O'Su111 van's)

Hemingway ideas requested concerning that conciliatien W. Richters have been put this into writing *if possible. Mr. Richters imu6diately provided a typed letter summarizing . ,

the above. (See tahibit S-8).

3, -

~

L______ _ __

i

. ~.,, , *

- i l

• l 1

.Whistleblower Narrative Report i

Northeast Nucisar (norgy Co. (continued) i Div Northeast Utilities . 1 Rope Ferry Ad, Waterford, Ct 06388 M (continued) i l

4 As a result of negotiations with both Mr. O'Sullivan, complaintant and Mr. Edward Richters.

Coonsel for Northeast Utilities in an attempt to settle this matter in the most tiesty and '

cost effective way possible., it appears that.sthet Mr. O'Su111 van's agreement to accoot Mr. Ferriel's transfer as a conciliation has been testamented by Northeast Nucitar Co.

efficials as stated in their letter of December 01,1989., 'that no further actica need

- taken in response to Mr. O'Su111 van's complaint dated November 15. 1989.. and that the nattar tie considered conciliated, pursuant to F0M52s20(3)

FETFIBIMt Pursuant to P0H52:20(3) procedures., since conciliation action appears successful, ne further feet. finding was censucted.. other than that as outlined in the ' Conciliation

• Section above C0!ELUSIONS AND _ttCDP9EMATION5f IAesauch as Mr. O'Sullivan's, receanendations have been im as indicated in Mr. O'Su11tvan's statement (Exhibit 51) plemented by Northeast Utilities, and statement of Northeast.

Utilities dated 12/01/8g-(Exhibit 8.I) and 'an apparent conciliation has been reached at this in accordantime.,ts with prevtsiens of the ' Conciliation" pre i iin accorda has been mad 6 as to whether or not there have been violations., but that In the effert a timely band' satisfiet test effective g pa,rties settlement, a conciliation has been reached that appa at this time.

It is tMeT.. recousanded that the subject case file be closed et this time on the basis of corifiliation.:

Northeast Utilities as well as other relevant parties.that appropriate notificatio Subject necessary. case' file is accordingly submitted for review and any follow up acti

$',=1s '

= - ~

Virginia M. Hemingway

• Compliance Officer 12/07/89 ,

i RECEIVED .

i MC111989 M H f0 -

1

2. ,

j