ML003694482

EA-99-234, Enclosure, ML003694482

ML003694482
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry, Watts Bar, Sequoyah
Issue date:	02/07/2000
From:	NRC/RGN-II/ORA/EICS
To:
BOLAND
Shared Package
ML012120388	List: ML003694482
References
+adjud/rulemjr200506, -RFPFR, 50-259-CIVP, 50-260-CIVP, 50-296-CIVP, 50-327-CIVP, 50-328-CIVP, 50-390-CIVP, ASLBP 01-791-01-CivP, EA-99-234, RAS 3210
Download: ML003694482 (49)

Text

PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE AGENDA TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY DECEMBER 10, 1999, 1:00 PM NRC REGION II OFFICE, ATLANTA, GEORGIA I OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS L. Reyes, Regional Administrator 11 NRC ENFORCEMENT POLICY A. Boland, Region II Enforcement Officer III

SUMMARY

OF THE ISSUE L. Reyes, Regional Administrator IV APPARENT VIOLATION L. Plisco, Director Division of Reactor Projects V TVA PRESENTATION VI BREAK / NRC CAUCUS VIl NRC FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS Vill PRESENTATION BY MR. FISER IX REBUTTAL PRESENTATION BY TVA X CLOSING REMARKS L. Reyes, Regional Administrator Enclosure 3 NOTE: The apparent violation discussed at this predecisional enforcement conference is subject to further review and subject to change prior to any resulting enforcement decision.

APPARENT VIOLATION 10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a Commission licensee against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities.

Discrimination includes discharge or other actions relating to the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The activities which are protected include, but are not limited to, testifying at any Federal proceeding regarding any provision related to the administration or enforcement of a requirement imposed under the Atomic Energy Act or the Energy Reorganization Act.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) discriminated against Mr.

Gary L. Fiser, a former corporate employee, for engaging in protected activities. Specifically, in July 1996, TVA eliminated Mr. Fiser's position of Chemistry and Environmental Protection Program Manager, Operations Support, as part of a reorganization and downsizing, and took subsequent actions to ensure that Mr. Fiser was not selected for the new positions within Operations Support. TVA took these actions, in part, in retaliation for Mr. Fiser's involvement in protected activity. Namely, his filing of a Department of Labor complaint in September 1993, in which Mr. Fiser claimed that TVA discriminated against him for raising safety concerns.

NOTE: The apparent violation discussed at this predecisional enforcement conference is subject to further review and subject to change prior to any resulting enforcement decision.

A. ... .. * .. .. ....-....

A'..-............. ............... ........ ..... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

X.......................................

m....................................................

~~~ ~ ~~~~......... .:..8. . .::. ... . . .:::::::::::::::: . .:::::: :

,s............. ... ..

5- .. ......... ' a. . .- . . . :" . :'

. . .... .:.  :: .1:. . . .

~~~~~~~~~~~. ... .. ............. .. ............................

~~ .:: .. .: . .::.:.:::::::::::::::::

F. . . . .. . . ..

. .l.:. . -.-.  ; . . . .: . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

^ *^. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .

3:.:.:...................

............... 6 : : ::  :  :: .....

.'.:F::.:.:.:...

+: . .: . . . . . .:.. ........... .:.

.......... ..  ::t .. .  ::  :: .

z...

.. .. . .... . -.. . .. -:r.

~~~~... ..... ....  :::

l t .,.,,.

e>..:::. ..).: ,::.:.:-...... O 4;.i.. -..............:::::e  ::::::-  ::::: f

.. :;. ~rz  :::::::t::..... ::...........  :

z. .:: ......  :: ..... ... .

............. .::::.m. ::::::

• 5 ^. .. . . ..... .

... .: .. .. ..... : .96. .:

i.'..' ' " "..'.'..i'. ':  :  :.._.

~~~......:.::.: :r. ,

~... .:::  :::  :.....

~~~.

.... . :::::::: .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I

~~~~. . . . . . ... . ... . . . .

• --:K  :::::::::::.

. . . .i

...... . . i . .. . . . . ..

. .. .....++6* bb*

F. :: ..............  :: : : ::..  ::

.. +::...-:::::::::::::::::::::

:::5..:.::::::::::::::::::::.............

X,. . . . : , ,'.. . . . . .... . . . . . . . . .

............. . . . ,,:::::::::::::4::::::::::

.. w.......... . ... .. . . . . . .. . . . . U. ..

~~~~. . ,. ., .,. . .. . . . . , , , , . . ..,

..... t..J .-.. :: .........

. . . . . .. .a.,._,

. . . .) . . . . . . . .

...-.. =.............

..'""'"" 2.'.-.... ...... '-m:. '

,,.,,.'. .. ...... . A".......

....va..

.............. ... !.,.. j

........ ...f... . ,'.=:

-.:::V::

A',,.'.,'

X,..... 0... .....

o., ..-...., ..': :........

..... ~ ~::::::::::::::::::::::::

~ .. . ... ...

~~~~~. . . . . . . . . . . ......

.......... .t....' . ."

rI0

,,.W

,,..,U i~~bS.. l-(- .-... : .

• ,;..S..X.:.....

......... . .-. :m

,.....,..'. .'i . ..:-E' ':

...... . . . ..F.. . . . .

m .:....... :.: ...

...... .. .0. ,,t'::s ....

'.',. ..... . . '.i... . '..,....,

.:' .'"' .'.'. . ....'.'.'.'.....I

~~~~~...... ...:.:

..: 0 (D

vi

'". t'.:,-, ",.-:::

"':: 1 ':::

0

- l:::::::: ...............................  :  :::::::

Vt m o:

• ++r............

VOt

~~....... . ..... 6 ....... ..... s* ..r..... ..~4-A

• .....::::... ....... ....:,,.:-. ,, : .........  ::::^<.:

.......U. .... ,..,...,...... ,,..,.......................

. ........ e. CI)

.... S..#. .. ~w ..... '.',..... 'e.. , , '..'i_.,'..........

o1 c/)

. s . 4.. .. ...6....  : :ct

~~~~~~~~~... ..... .._.......

~.,:...........:

4-

'Ht

..0.........w 00 4-0

ui ..-: . .: -:......  ;

~~~~~~...,,,, .. . , , .. .

.... ..... ........... . .... ..... ........... ............ C/)

..... \ . .. .......

........... ... .^.s.

......,. ... .. ....... 0 0 4-

... r.,.,,,, .,, . ....

1 ............ .

, ~........ .-,.. 74.............................. .... .-. v-) o

.. :...- t: .- . .' . . ..............

C) kZ

.............. ......... 00

, i .................

..: . . . . . . .:5. .: -..'...

• ': ... V... ..... ,,.., <

........j- 0

...... . .:::' .. . ...::::: ..'::-:....... (1

. . ..... .  :.:X  : . .:..; . . .:C

............ ..:.. .- .:: .H: .:s.: . . .

0t. ).. 3. ........SC. .. r

. . . . .. ..g . . .

.'.'...'.,.X. '.'.

-~~ ..... ~ . c.....

o.....

...  ::::::::::::::EE EE ... : iSS01j: .. j:S0 -ff:3 CI) . Ce 1.

• • ~~~~~ .:: : .... . . . . . .::.:-:::.'.  ::.

..... .. ::...j.:::.

.. .: ~~ ...rt. .:. . .

'...,,.'..'.',': C/.:. -- - "'" ":"

. , ,,,,,;ys, . .. . . ., ,,

i;.,'.,.,,., ... ' .. .......

i::.-:

jO ...  : ... . ....... . . .' A:::

i' X ..... .....

,,,.,.'b .:..': .. .. ...

........... Q):::X::

.... .r. . . .. . .

.:.:. ...< ::: ...... .:r.:..

>,,,,~. , . . . .. . . . . . .'

i.::;. . . : -.. . . . . . . .::::::::O::

~~~~~~. ............................ . . r. . . . r. t. .O.. .

S'..-...' . ....... ...

~~~~~..-...e.

... , .,, ......i . .... ..:.t.:.......: .

E.

~~~~~. . . .. .... ... ... ...

-. :.. ..-  :::.......: -Ac::::::::::::

.-. .-.-.-. . . . . t

w

.. . 4 ,

-. , -.. :...,.-..... . 0..,:::,,: . . .

X....... :::::::  :::...:

.'..k.:::::::: . ........:::::::

, ~~ . .J... ~ ~:::::-::::: . ........... .. .

c . . .. . .. ..

o. . .......3.. . .

DC

).

.. 0.

~~~~~: ~~~  ::::::::::::::::::::

.l..'........ ..

~~...

J . . . .. ::

3:

s

. . . .Q. .. .  :  :. . . . :::::::::::.

. .Q.. . .

~~~. .. ~,s,.. .. ....

F; 0 ' ~ ~.

s

_.t-

. . .. :..z.. e)a

• ,.3-.'.................. .. ':::.::x.......

i. .:.......................::'  : ..

L): -..-. ,

.~~~~~~~~~~

,.. .: ., .Q: .:: .:::::::::::

~~~ *... . . . . . ......

,.. .,:::G:::::::::::;::L

^......-.

ff~~~~~~~. .: .... . .::.::::.:::.:::. ,::.

.,............,. ,. ..,...  ; j, . ..- :::-::..... ,

5 . ':-' . .... '. .......... C;:.. , .'.'  : . ;

'~ ~ .,~ '.,.' ~~~.' ......

r.....:..::.. :::: ,...'.,

...0... ..

.s:::::::.  :.:.  :

............. . ::::::::: .w .:-::

l:,,...:.:.:.:.:.: i.......'

, t,.............................. ,,r

.z.:::j  :.:..:.::....:::  :::

... ....  : 1 :--

......... 0. . . ..

- ( .... ......  :

• Q:. ..... m. . .. , " m,

....::..... ...::::::::::::::::::: ....... ... .. .. . . 0.

... I ... ... ...... . . .... . . .... . . . .. . . .

-~ 1 ........

A............. ........... ..............

V.-;.................

....................... .......................... t-J-i

. .......................... ................ ............ ct ct

........... ................. ....................... .... . ct

. .......................... ............. ........ 0 ...............

UD

.............. rz

...................... crj

...... c ) ct

............... ..... -4 .

........... ................ .......... . ...... ct

.......... ............. ........... ... ...................... ":accept,

. .............. ....... a..... ................ lz

.............. ;L

Cy

+..*...........:::::::::::::

U . ..7ir ci:t

-....  ::: 4-5..:. .:.:..

i,,:, -) .g.r

o.......  :: ::.......:::

. *1 U a

... :: ..........  : -£ j;

_ :j ni .. ,  :::t  :

r~ ..............

C:::::::::::::v

--.4.....

......- i........ , .. ...  : .% .

cH .. ¢.w-.......

-4 r->, 0 ) -- W

. ..L.4 :-4 H... W #, (  : .i

-4 .:...:~-  : 0. -:-: Cl)

-4,:::'3::

.:...::::4>: r:

• -F~.s . .

... S: -.........  :-:-::::':::

Pi)

. 0......

r , .,.-... . 7r ,

a. ........... >. ,

0.....

0iimce:.

......... U

.. .. .0.. .. . . . . . . .

2-.

' -- F-O: _ -- -~

.M70

'11s Xet.hn septQ~ber 23, 1993

.: P.ar

.. ?sr.Trnse~V~~ ~hr Depart~en~t df Labor P,0CM #123 710Loc sttreet

- ~ Tennessee 37/902

.a rs.

7WaS hired. by the Tennessee Vall.ey Aut-ho-rity (TVA) lin .A-uqust of

&97s an X6 Prcgram-anaer in the cor-oralte chemis`try group.

11982, 1 was pronot~ed to tLhe pos4t-ion of Suparintendent Che~srvand E2-r-irc-nmentaJ1, secuovah 2NuClear Plant,- a FG-9 Dosition vhzh 1 he,16 until Ar. 2, 1993, whez", in viclaticn or Z2de-ral P ~iat~icns pertai4ning to redtuctions i;n force., 1 --as Derscnal ly sup2.usad but :zy job contizuad on-. Si_:-,= tltaZ dey, h.gbeen in a~tatuts non-work in TVA1 s 2ployee Trans itrcn (thas nw become apzent-tha-t 7vAs reason for lY_4z~ about= "51 nz~us4-xamoe, B'1 Joche= and I determined that Secuoyah chemistry perSOnnel could not ._6eet I: ZC's three-hour r mer for conducting post-accident spl analyses (Exhibit C) It was our 1ieW tat NIRC had established a thr:ee-hour i-ecuirement while cthers in higher positions at sQN, includin: Site vice

?rsideWi Jac~k W1.lson, disagreed. Y. :oche_ reuested p iss from h4s in perviscr, Dr. ct, to contact NRC through corporate li:cersin5g fc- claprificatio. on the three-hour-

.oonstain .. Rc conifirmed the th.ree-hour liait, and we conducted ecises to 6eteine the training level of the che=+/-stry staff.

Sevenrty-f ive percent of the chemistry tec.1inicians failed to perfo=2 their post accident srapling/analysis activities Within the tbre-e-hour recq~irement, and soe of tfhd= were -not able to co=pllee t hese cr tical &ctiV.ies at. all. ThesE test results

,Were anticipated and predctable In that management ad e-4>-Iusly sulSed all decreed chemis t-y Instructors and converted the tr mining lab into a s-torage r-oc in an ill-advised

. a.tpt to cut Cost Without reCir~rcn .rainini to reinrorce fi_9n danental concepts, pos-: acciat ml 7p'-oc'ency as well

.1s. Carol Merchant

• ptemrber 23, 2993 adage 4 as other *jcB-ciaz3 gjd2.ls detrittoratedi to: alar~nc 1levels .

Subssuent =easurents bv ttbe. lnstitute of NUclea- Vower opeaiOns (INpo) a5 well as Corporate Chemist coan+Lmed -his cond4t ion at considerable cost to TVA Nuclear ProTra head Y.r. O. D .i rs ley, who had previoilsly advised the l'A Board of D-4 -ectors to thle oOntr*ry..

cr= test restiltt; revealed the-baza~krptcy of =m sg~enl'tS efforts at Ccst cuttizia, and tbe fin6ings were =eported. Such revelations are not well c-suived at TVA.

. -was constantly in the position o- being undezstaffed a2-ndnder-hudgeted. My point.inc thisout at var o1us times to =y slperiors ret witth rebuke, notwithstanding Mr. Xingslev s pz;omse5s to TVA Chairlz Yzr.- John Water.z that certain aqupmant deficiencies noted by IhrO would be corrected. Including these itens in the budget t2e aster time only to have tho;n delated or deferred by higler nanag~e:merat bzought about a recurrant 6inding condition by various audit grouzs that .Xept opening and Closing this particulax itzmn -'3inging up the sorry gtate of TVA's

, e aintenance repaim

=ent .r-graoa m's -1 l-4ays r.et With d savo Contrbuted o.d to my curzan-- situat.ion.

Denial o_' ny jcP at Seguoyah and :ay being ur-pu~ed wez-r actiofls "a)snn bV the ighest lQvels in the 7VA nuclear ,nanag__e-st-uczuf-e. 7n earlV Julv 1993, _ w,.s o=perd the :osition cf Che;istrye Hanager at 42 .obn thist zacon Managcer, na~les Xe'nt, a-ezI had znter-~iewe~ft wit h the new -clant anager, Hr. -- n Powers. 1 tas given a start date, a salazy, azn tte procee~d4ics were crd nated through -the apzror2.atte Z7 anagers. A ew days 1atzEr, I. was tcld that I aiDazent ly had a t aretrl o ry back beaz1:se pezsons hl-h u: in tha nuLclear organzzationi had protesied ',y job o£- d4rectlv to the new Seuoyaph Site Vice President, Mr. nnecht. I be2. eve -- that TVA 's d6-i s on to not cOnsurnate ny job offer as Mheni5tr zanager at Sa4OYa-h in July iwas o_ U. SC. 5 5851.

4nthevioti2 42 lSC), at One point in the personrel evaliuzatiAon Drocessf ny

=n-M-ger, Dr. Mc,5thi, .d Ie rated Vey high in comparison to his other direct reports,. only to ha-vze Mr. Dan autemr, tihsw.

Prezident of Operations Ser--ces, personalJy intervene and andate that I be given no pay inc:rease. In spite cf the rpos~itisn raised b.y ny direct supev-4sor, and in the presence Of`

M' Htan -Resmu=CE Q er( M-2r. 3en Basley, Keutter crered Dr- 2-th utr' place +/-n a posit-on which -would result in no ie incease, i.uray anid -,ade it c ear tha't -ItaS his (Keuter I s)

isi on ¢Two other si;7or cteeistz y =anagers fromntwo di;fferant A were '4ct4.ized. by similar retaliatory ac cons on I.

,_ s, Carol Merchant

~p~bie 23, 1992

_ige 5 the part of WVA manageent fcr reporting and dont.n5 safs`y-ra1ated issues. Act-ions of tthis typa apea^r to be the no= as csntrasted to the exception and receire their impetus frcm the hbighest levQ1s of TVA nuclear management. This is indlcati'te of a systemic problem within the agency versuS an izol- ted oc izranca. Intere'Btingly, While was the Cemiss Xy and. nvironmen;tal superiitendent at Sequovah, the p-rogram recaivod outstanding grades as - resllt of _ach IPH0 evaluation.

";ve'_.ess, the types of events ecoraed above were deened by uppzr =enagezent as either brassing to them. or of greater s ifianca than running a good o-verall chamistr-y program.

As an 1ployee in TVA's nuclear pawrpz;ogram., i am required bv federal law'*o rzort and documen. issues relatdi to the safe ozerat ion -of the facility. To do go at TVA's Secuoyah Nuclea-launt- s to) .invite reprisals in the for. off unexplained demoi-4snm

(_hibfi D), pay Cuts in spite 0-& cne Is performance and 7es ecl-le off the direct inp~ut fro one 's super-visor, and evetually the Ios .rIL emp0yment.* TVA has histor+/-.;l2y t'aken ac 'on acainst cployes for recrtiqg safsty issues with apptrent itunity fzcm N~c, an agency for whcm they have patent isregard.

-  : ;men,"oned

s G~azlie=/ the facs and iss-es ars extr-me1l vell dzce,-ted, and 1 look forward -o shaarin-g this wi:_ th you, as wQiZ esw in5 c-the insights into this case to you and/or nenbers or. cur staff.

Since-rely yours, J/i 7.

Gary UJ1 Fse_ -

_herebY desi4natE Xr. Chatles tW. Van Beke, Wag-ier, ayer-s, and Sanrger, PC,, 13280 Plaza Tower, ZOO S. Gay Streetr, Xnox-vi'e, Te9see, 3929, as my attorney in this mattp Datr L.e:ser Date ;r 0

.N ,'- ,

. r

Bulletin from WA Nuclear October 19, 1999 All TVA Nuclear Employees and Contractors REINFORCING -TVANUCLEAR'S (TVAN) POLICY AGAINST DISCRIMINATION The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently announced the results of an Office of Investigations report which found discrimination against a former corporate manager in 1996. This event provides an opportunity for me to reinforce TVAN's policy against discrimination in the workplace.

For TVAN to remain an industry leader we must continue to place a high level of emphasis on resolving all problems, especially those related to the safe and reliable operation of our nuclear units. For that reason, we must take whatever action is appropriate to protect each of our employees and the lines of communication which have been developed to raise and resolve problems. TVAN management works every day to maintain a safety-conscious work environment in which employees are encouraged to raise concerns and where such concerns are promptly reviewed, given the proper priority based on their safety significance, and are appropriately resolved with timely feedback to employees. Open lines of communication are a significant priority to me and to TVAN management. Violations of TVAN's discrimination policy are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

I encourage each employee to continue to resolve problems or concerns with super-vision, up to and including me, if necessary. I personally hold supervisors responsible for listening, objectively evaluating, and taking prompt action to resolve problems and concerns. In addition, TVAN maintains a Concerns Resolution Staff and contractor Employee Concern Programs as alternate avenues for reporting concerns. As always, employees may report concerns directly to the TVA Office of the Inspector General and the NRC. It is essential, however, that you continue to assume responsibility for actively participating in TVAN's problem identification and resolution process. In doing so, you play a very important role in the success of our nuclear program.

John A. Scalice Chief Nuclear Officer and Executive Vice President, TVA Nuclear LP 6A-C

Decision "To Post" or "Not to Post" Management Determines Functions to be Performed and Proposes Organization Structure Line Management Responsibility i Position Descriptions (PDs) are Developed for New Organization Based on Functions to be Performed Ir OPM Regulations As Defined In 5CFR351 Existing Employees' Competitive Level Determined Based on Review of Existing PDs Human Resources Responsibility New PD Compared to Existing PD (Official PD of Record)

Inerchangeability n by X

\ Comparison of PDs /

\(Competitive Leve, NO POST - Employee Attached to Interchangeable PD has NO POST - Job in New Rights to Job in New Organization Competitive Bid Organization

Decision "To Post" or "Not to Post" FISER SCENARIO Management  ;;

Determines Functions (McGrath) to be Performed and - Operations Support Reorganization. Decision Proposes Organization to reorganize in 1996 Structure II (Grover/McArthur/Input from Others)

Position Descriptions - Developed new Chemistry Program Manager (PDs) are Developed (PWR & BWR) (Two PDs) for New Organization - Eliminated Environmental Function Based on Functions to - Specific to Plant Design (PWR or BWR) be Performed - Added Technical Contract Manager a 0. a . . .

OPM Regulations As Defined In 5CFR351 Existing Employees' (Easley)

Competitive Level - Fiser, Harvey & Chandrasekaran determined in Determined Based on same competitive level (Chemistry & Environmental Review of Existing PDs Protection, PM)

(Easley)

New PD Compared to - New Chemistry Prograrni Manager and Existing Existing PD Chemical & Environmental Protection PDs were (Official PD of Record) compared.

Determine (Easley/Boyles)

Interchangeability by - Decision was that they were NOT interchangeable Comparison of PDs Post (Cm~petitiveL

-~ NO POST - Employee Attached to Interchangeable PD has * - Job iNO New Rights to Job in New Right to ob i NewOrganization Competitive Bid

< ~~~Organization ><

Decision "To Post" or "Not to Post" MCARTHUR SCENARIO MeIER SCENARIO Management; Determines Functions (McGrath) to be Performed and (McGrath)

- Operations Support Reorganization Proposes Organization - Operations Support Reorganization. Decision Structure to reorganize in 1996 (McGrath) (Grover/McArthur/lnput from Others)

- Used existing PD Radiological Control and Position Descriptions - Developed new Chemistry Program Manager Chemistry Control Manager position (Sorrell (PDs) are Developed (PWR & BWR) (Two PDs)

Retirement) for New Organization - Eliminated Environmental Function

- RadCon Based on Functions to - Specific to Plant Design (PWR or BWR)

- Chemistry be Performed - Added Technical Contract Manager

- Environmental/Radwaste

- ERMI OPM Regulations As Defined In 5CFR351 (Easley/Boyles) (Easley)

- PD of record was Technical Programs Existing Employees' - Fiser, Harvey & Chandrasekaran determined in Manager (1990) - Competitive Level same competitive level (Chemistry & Environmental

- RadCon Determined Based on Protection, PM)

- Chemistry/Environmental Review of Existing PDs'

- EP

- Industrial Safety

- ERMI (Easely/Boyles) New PD Compared to (Easley)

- Compared 1990 PD to Radiological Control and Existing PD - New Chemistry Program Manager and Existing Chemistry Control PD (Official PD of Record) Chemical & Environmental Protection PDs were compared.

(Boyles) Determine (Easley/Boyles)

- Decision was that they WERE interchangeable. Interchangeability by - Decision was that they were NOT interchangeable McArthur had rights to job Comparison of PDs Post

\(Copetitive Levely NO POST - Employee Attached e Ito lntrrchaannhl PflI hs.

- NJ Organization Competitive bid Rights to Job in New

< ~Organization

JULY 18, 1996 SELECTION REVIEW BOARD RESULTS PWR CHEMISTRY PROGRAM MANAGER (VPA 10703)

John Corey Charles Kent H.R. (Rick) Rogers Question Candidate Candidate Fiser Candidate Candidate Fiser Candidate Candidate No. B A B A. B A 1 10 8.5 7 8 9 7.5 8 9 b 2 9 8.7 7 8 9 7 9 9 5 7 10 8.5 7.5 8.5 9 7 9 8 5 9 9.5 9 7.8 8 9 7 8 8 7 11 9.5 9 7 8.5 8.5 7 8 9 6 12 9 9 7.5 9 9.5 7.5 8 9 6 15 10 8.5 7 8.5 9 6 8 8 5 16 8.5 8 7 8.5 8 7 8 8 5 17 9 9 8 9 9.5 8 9 9 Subtotal: 84.5 78.2 65.8 76 80.5 64 75 77 51 Total Score: Candidate A Candidate B Gary L. Fiser 235.7 235.5 180.8

31-11 1 0 I - .~W0.ili.JJ.J - 0>i0C.1I Q UJ JJ IZ10O --

i4i fol ijau;;; j/ J BEFORE THlE UNITEDA STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COAMNISION RZEGION 1U 1A 99-043 DECLARATION OF SAM IL.HlAR VEY-Sam L. Harvey declares and says:

1. I am making this declaration to document the facts surrounding the Gary Fiser case and my involvement. First let me state that the conclusion that TVA was at faul was already made by the Department of Labor (DOL) prior to its investigation. The DOL investigator was biased and never could get my statement con-ect. From the first time I met with him, he couched the questions in such a way as to slant them toward a conclusion that Ga~ry Fiser was treated badly. Every time the investigator brought my, statement back to me for review and approval, the sentences were reworded to support this conclusion. At no time was the investigator ever objective in wanting 'just thr, facts," I finally marked up the last draft copy of my statement in red and signed it since it was patently obvious that he was not going to state it the way I gave it to Huin

2. 1 was never interviewed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about the Gary Fiser case and/or my involvement in ihe case.

3. Regarding the events in question, I was, from the very beginning (199 1), told that the Corporate Chemistry staff would continue~ to shrink as improvemnents were mnode and the redesign of programns were brought up to indnstry standards. This was obvious also from the fact that Gary Fiser and E. S.

Chandrasekaran were told to rewrite the job descriptions for only a P WR Program Manager and a 1BWR Program Manager just prior to the announcem~ent of areorgaani~zation. When the new'job descriptions were se-nt to me for review aI was on assignment at Sequoyah for steam generator chemical cleaning), I protested to Ron Grover (my manager at the time) that the job descriptions were intentionally written to exclude me because the responsibilities that I had were divided between the two positions and were written strongly io fayor of Gary Fiser and E. S. Chandrasekaran. It should have come as no surprise to anyone when it was announced that the Corporate Radiation Protection and Chemistry staff would be merged into a single group and that thiere would only be two chemistry positions.

N'11:;U-19-15C9 14: 1S S:93 -9 1219 P.011

.1

SEAT BY: 11-19-93  ; 3:16R {; 609 339 1218- 423 751 73504 2/ 3 Page 2

4. Several very interesting things were occurring at this time that need to be brought to light. First, prior to the announcement of the new Corporate Radiation Protection and Chemistry organization, Ron Grover came to me and stated that I needed to talk to Wilson McArthur about "wasn't he ready to retire," and, secondly, Sequoyah wanted me to move to the site. Ron Grover thought this was a good idea so everyone would have a job. After the announcement, Gary Fiser came up to me and stated that the jobs were predetermined and, further, that Tom McGrath was out to get him because of a previous incident between therm. Gary Fiser made no mention of any problems he had with Wilson McArthur. Gary Fisar also stated that "he did not care because he knew how the system worked and he was going to get his licks i-"

I informed Gary that I knew no such thing about the job being predetennined (because I had been on assignment at Sequoyah for the last six months) except that it seemed to me he was the one being pre-selected because he wrote the job description. Crary Fiser stated, 'that was right because Ron Grover told him to because I was not supposed to come back from-Sequoyah." I believe this statement, that I was not supposed to come back from Sequoyah, makes it clear that there were some maneuverings going on here and that the problems for Gary Fiser started to arise when it was discovered my staying at Sequoyah was not going to be the case.

5. Gary Fiser then proceeded to tell me and others around him that he did not want to work for TVA, and that he was going to take the year's salary and leave. I believe that Gary Fiser took the action of filing a DOL complaint prior to the jobs being posted in order to obtain financial gain and to manipulate the system for this cad, as hc had originally statcd.

6. 1believe that Gary Fiser had to post on the job, and then not get the job, in order to support his DOL complaint. I believe that Gary Fiser purposely did not prepare for and address the review board with his best effort. I believe his intention all along was to put on a show to get what he wanted, which was to get out of TVA with as much money as possible.

7. Finally, the statement by Dave Voeller, who was at that rime the Chemistry Manager at Watts Bar, and who stated that prior to the interviews I told hin the job was mine, was simply not true. My statement was, "Twill be seeing more of you or not at all and I believe it will be more." I do not believe that statement translates to the act that I was promised the job. Arrogance on my part, maybe. But remember that Gary Fiser was making it ktowon at this point that he docs not want to work for TVA anymore. I was assuming that I would not have much competition for Lhe PWR position because Gary Fiser was saying he did not want the job. The week after Tmade this statement to Dave Voeller I was informed that he was saying that 1told him I was promised the job. I made a point of contacting Voeller again and explained it in Do uncertain terms that I was not promised anything by anybody, and I repeated my

_ I_

S EN7 8 Y: 8Y:11-13-933 SELNT 3:17~FM 503 333 1218-' 423 5 7350:a 2 751 30~33/ 3 Page 3 statement to hinm "I wiI1 be seeing more of you or not at. all"

8. The sad part of all this is that this type of behavior at TVA is one of the main reasons Tsought employment elsewhere. It was a miockery to meh that this type of behavior could go on year after yea, to make ajoke out of the truth and to abuse a system put in place to deal with real injustices. During my tenure at TVA, there were only a few people I met with high moral standards arnd dealt with me with integrity. One of these people was Wilson McArthur. He was always straight with me and never pulled his punches. Because of my respect for him, I listened - even when it was not what I wanted to hear - because I knew be truly cared for the people who worked for him and wanted to heip make them better employees and better people. Throughout this whole Gary Fiser matter, Wilson M'cArthur was the only manage~r that took the time to sit medown and look me in the eye-,ard ask me if these allegations and Statements we-re true. I will forever respect him for that.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1746 (1994), 1 declare under-penalty of perjury tha~t to the best of my knowledge and belief the fbregoing is true and correct.

This 0davof Noveiber, 1 99.

Sa L. Harvey

TVA Nuclear Management/Specialist Selection Process Business Practice 102 BUSINESS PRACTICE ACTIONS TAKEN Advertise Positions VPA 10703 posted 6/13/96 Process Applications VPA 10703 closed 6/25/96 HR Screening (Late/Minimum Qualifications) Six applications screened by HR 6/96 Supervisor Selects Candidates for Interview McArthur identifies candidates (Experience/Education/Performance in for interviews 6/96 Identified Competencies)

Structured Interviews Using Job-Related Selection Review Board meets to Selection Criteria developed by the Selecting conduct interviews 7/18/96 Supervisor Selection Board Feedback to Selecting Selection Review Board rates Supervisor candidates. Results forwarded to McArthur Selecting Supervisor Makes Selection Based McArthur selects Harvey for VPA on information in Personnel History Record - 10703 consistent with Feedback, Etc. Selection Review Board results Job Offer Offer made by Human Resources.

Harvey accepts position of Chemistry Program Manager (PWR). Effective 8/5/96

TVA Nuclear Staffing Levels 1988 - Current 12,OOa 11,571 10,312 9,91 a.ooo -

4000-

_ as9 c39

_3Th 3a95 zooo -

04- j --

1988 198 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 11/24/99

Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 December 15, 1999 Ms. Anne T. Boland, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Enforcement & Investigations Coordination Staff Region II 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 23T85 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8931

Dear Ms. Boland:

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH CLOSED ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE (OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS REPORT NO. 2-98-013)

This responds to NRC's request that TVA provide additional information in connection with the subject enforcement conference held in the NRC Region II office in Atlanta on December 10, 1999. Specifically, the NRC asked that TVA provide additional information on three matters. First, NRC asked that TVA address, and provide applicable case law in support of, TVA's process of arriving at competitive level determinations as well as its practice of declaring positions to be surplus. Secondly, NRC asked that TVA describe the impacts on headcount that the 1996 TVA Nuclear reorganization had on its corporate staff, especially those associated with the Operations Support organization.

Thirdly, NRC asked that TVA describe the reporting relationship of the Nuclear Safety Review Board Chairman.

Enclosures 1, 2, and 3 address each of these topics, respectively. Because this information is provided in connection with a closed enforcement conference not subject to public observation, we ask that you protect the information contained in this letter in accordance with the closed enforcement policy process.

0 o recycled pap

Ms. Anne T. Boland Page 2 December 15, 1999 If there is any further information that would be of help to you, or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (423) 751-2508.

Sincerely, Mrk urzynski Manager Nuclear Licensing Enclosures

Enclosure 1 TVA's Practice of Declaring Positions to Be Surplus As discussed at the December 10 conference, TVA has adopted measures to ameliorate the difficulties encountered by employees who may lose their TVA employment when their services are no longer needed. OPM's regulations authorize an agency to conduct a reduction in force (RIP) when there is a surplus of employees, lack of work, or shortage of funds. When an agency conducts a RIP it must follow the regulations in 5 CFR part 351. However, an agency is not required to conduct a RIF simply because there is a surplus of employees, lack of work, or shortage of funds. Further, unless an employee's TVA employment is terminated in a RIF, the OPM regulations in 5 CFR part 351 are inapplicable to TVA's determination that a position is surplus.

In the past, rather than conducting a RIF, TVA chose to declare positions surplus and reassign the employees to its Services organization (also known at other times as the Employee Transition Program and Career Transition Services). Because employees who are assigned to Services are kept in their previous position, grade, and salary, the MSPB and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have ruled that TVA's action in declaring a position surplus and assignment of the employee to Services is not appealable under the RIF regulations in 5 CFR pt. 351 (1999). Crain v. Merit Sys. ProtectionBd-No. 98-3015, 178 F.3d 1308 (Table) (Nov. 13, 1998), affg No. AT-3443-96-0939-I-l (Mar. 12, 1997) (A copy of this unreported decision is enclosed); Tankesley v. TVA, 54 M.S.P.R. 147, 150-51 (1992) ("Although the agency announced that the appellant's position was surplus as a result of a reorganization and he was assigned to the ETP for a period to last 6 months, there is no evidence to show that these actions on the agency's part constituted a RIP.").

As held in both the Crain and Tankesley cases, TVA's decisions on selections are not appealable to MSPB. Thus, in a reorganization such as the 1996 reorganization of the corporate Chemistry and Environmental Protection organization, where existing positions were declared surplus and new positions were created and advertised, the selections for the new positions are not subject to OPMs regulations governing RIFs or selections.

Even though TVA's decision to surplus an employee's position and to assign the employee to Services is not appealable to the MSPB, TVA does attempt to make such decisions based on the employee's retention standing as determined by 5 CFR part 351.

When TVA assigns employees to Services it is aware that the assignment will not last forever and that if the employee is unsuccessful in finding another position, either inside or outside of TVA, a RIF may eventually occur. Because retention standing in a RIF is determined as of the effective date of a RIF (5 CFR § 351. 506 (1999)), assignments to Services are made based on an assumed RIP at some point in the future. Thus, when

conducting a reorganization which involves the establishment of new positions, TVA must first determine whether any such new position should or should not be placed in the same competitive level as existing positions. If a new position is in the same competitive level as an existing position, an incumbent could have retention standing with respect to the new position, in which case TVA would not assign the individual to Services. -

Conversely, if a new position is not in the same competitive level as an existing position, an incumbent would not have retention standing for the new position and would be subject to being assigned to Services. An individual whose position is declared to be surplus, but who successfully competes for a different position would not remain in the same competitive level. An individual who is unsuccessful in finding another position, would remain on the retention register and could be subject to a RIF at some later date.

TVA Makes Competitive Level Determinations by Using the Most Recent Position Description of Record.

TVA Nuclear Human Resources (ER) decided that the position of Chemistry and Environmental Protection Program Manager was not mutually interchangeable with the new positions of Chemistry Program Manager (PWR) and Chemistry Program Manager (BWR) so as to require the positions to be placed in the same competitive level in accordance with 5 CFR § 351.403 (1999). The consequence of that decision was that incumbents of the first position did not have a right by virtue of their retention standing to the new positions which were advertised for competition.

HR likewise decided that Wilson McArthur's position description of record was sufficiently similar to the position description for Manager, Radiological Control, Chemistry and Environmental that the two positions would be on the same competitive level in accordance with 5 CFR § 351.403(a). In making both determinations, NHR utilized the most recent position descriptions without regard to the personal qualifications of the incumbent employees or the duties or details to which they had been assigned from time to time.

The Office of Personnel Managment (OPM) established the standard which TVA follows to determine which positions should be included in a competitive level (5 CFR

§ 351.403). The test for inclusion involves whether the positions are mutually interchangeableand the focus is on the position descriptions -- not the qualifications of the incumbents. Kline v. TVA, 805 F.Supp. 545, 548 (E.D.Tenn. 1992), affg 46 MSPR 193 (1990) ("Whether two jobs are similar enough, in the respects specified by the regulation, to be in the same competitive level is determined by the position descriptions (PDs) which state the qualifications and duties required by those jobs."); Estrin v. Social Security Admin., 24 M.S.P.R. 303, 307 (1984) ("[A]ppellant's ability to perform the duties of a specific position does not establish that the position is interchangeable, since it is the qualifications set forth in the official position description, not the qualifications of an employee, which determine the composition of the competitive level."); Holliday v.

2

Departmentof Army, 12 M.S.P.R. 358, 362 (1982) ("The fact that appellant may have been able to perform the duties of both positions adequately does not establish their mutual interchangeability for it is the qualifications required by the duties of the position.

as set forth in the official position description, and not the personal qualifications possessed by a specific incumbent, that determine the composition of a competitive level.

See PPM Chapter 351, subchapter 2-3a(2). Therefore, as noted by the presiding official, while the two positions may function almost identically, the fact that one of them requires different and greater skills and training justifies separate competitive levels.").

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) cases support TVA's use of the last position description of record in determining an employee's competitive level. In Townsel v. TVA, 36 M.S.P.R. 356, 360, (1988), the employee, who had been reduced in force as an M-3 General Foreman, argued that he was actually "performing the duties of a Planner, M-3, a position not affected by the reduction in force, and that his competitive level should have been determined by his actual duties rather than his official position description." The MSPB upheld his RIF, stating:

The Board has long held that it is the official position occupied by an individual which determines the competitive level in which he is properly placed [36 M.S.P.R. at 360].

See generally PETER BROIDA, A GUIDE TO MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD LAW AND PRACTICE at 1928-33 (1999).

The question was asked at the December 10, 1999, predecisional enforcement conference whether the Chemistry Program Manager (PWR) position should not be in the same competitive level as the previous Chemistry and Environmental Program Manager position since the qualifications and responsibilities of the new position appeared to be a subset of the previous position. TVA pointed out that in order to be on the same competitive level the two positions must be mutually interchangeable. The fact that one position may include fewer responsibilities but more specialized qualifications defeats that interchangeability. For example in Trahan v. TVA, 31 M.S.P.R. 391 (1986), an employee with the position description of Civil Engineer, SC-4, argued that his position should have been placed in the same competitive level as the position of Civil Engineer (Hanger), SC-4. The MSPB noted that the two positions were similar but that the latter position required additional specialized training. Based on its review of the position descriptions, the MSPB held that TVA had properly established the employee's competitive level (id. at 393). See also Holliday v. Departmentof Army, 12 M.S.P.R. at 362 holding that "mutual interchangeability" is required for positions to occupy the same competitive level.

During the December 10 conference, TVA pointed out that although Wilson McArthur was assigned as the Manager of Radiological Control, he was not issued a position description for that job. The question was raised as to the appropriateness of using his most recent positionpdescription of record to establish his competitive level. TVA's 3

practice of using the most recent position description of record is consistent with TVA's reading of MSPB precedent. Bjerke v. Department of Educ., 25 M.S.P.R. 310 (1994), is on point. In that case, the appellant Bjerke was reduced from a GS-15 to a GS-14 in a RIF. He argued that Kermoian, who had more seniority, was improperly placed in his GS-15 competitive level. Prior to the RIF, a classification survey determined that Kermoian should have been classified at the GS-14 level. Before he could be reclassified, a moratorium was placed on downgrades. Both Kermoian and Bjerke "were detailed to various positions with unclassified duties while remaining in their official position descriptions of record at the GS-15 grade level" (25 M.S.P.R. at 311-12). The MSPB found both employees were properly placed in the same competitive level since

"[In the absence of some positive action by the proper authority to change his official assignment of record, Kermoian's position remained at the GS-15 level" (id. at 313; emphasis added unless otherwise noted). The MSPB also held that his assignment to other duties did not affect his competitive level since "an employee, while detailed, as here, remains the official incumbent of his most recent position of record" (id.).

Griffin v. Departmentof Navy, 64 M.S.P.R. 561 (1994), is also directly on point. In that case the agency RIFed an employee it had placed in a competitive level based on the duties being performed by the employee while on a temporary promotion, rather than the duties of his permanent position. The MSPB held the RIF improper:

An employee's competitive level in a RIF is based on his official position of record. [citation omitted] When an employee is detailed to or acting in a position, his competitive level is determined by his permanent position and not the one to which he detailed or in which he is acting [64 M.S.P.R.

at 563].

See also Jicha v. Department of Navy, 65 M.S.P.R. 73, 77 (1994) ("Where an employee is detailed to or acting in a position, his competitive level is not determined by the position to which he is detailed or in which he is acting. . . . The competitive level in which an employee is placed is determined by the duties and qualifications required of the incumbent, as set forth in the official position description.").

4

Enclosure 2 TVA Nuclear Corporate 1996 Re-Organization Impact on Ileadcount TVAN Headcount Headcount Corporate Organization Before After Nuclear Operations 71 58 (Acting GM... T. McGrath) ~~~~~~..... ...... -- --- -...... _

Nuclear Training

_ ~~~~~~~~~~~._..... _.............. .............. . _._.....

7 6 Maintenance & Tech Support 20 16' Chem.istry & Environmental 5 3 Radiation ~~~~~~.._._ Control . . .__

.. . . ...... ___...__...... ...........4.. _.... .... . ........... __

. 5_._.__ 5 ERMI

_~~~.. . .. . . ...... ... . ...... ... . .. . __ .

19 . 16 rations Outag Fire Protection 4 1 PerformanceAssessment 11 11

~~~~~~.. _.................. .. . _.__.3.__ .........3--

Human Resources . 42 31 OWCP 34 21 Tech Services 107 63 ISO 88 -48

.9 6 Nuclear Assurance . 44 34 Business Services 22 22 156 194 Nuclear Projects Nuclear Fuels 22 19 Co 117 1672 Contracts 7 0 Materials 10 8 "After Headcount" includes five (5) positions for the newly formed Steam Generator Support organization.

2 Headcount in Corporate Engineering increased in Chattanooga due to the centralization of Engineering Design from the nuclear sites.

Enclosure 3 NSRB Job Responsibilities and Reporting Relationships

. .n Thomas J. McGrath was NSRB Chairman from 1989 until 1997. Within this time frame, the Chairman of the NSRB reported to the Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services (previously Vice President, Nuclear Assurance & Licensing). The Chairman of the NSRB also had a dotted line reporting relationship to the Chief Nuclear Officer.

During the time of his tenure as NSRB Chairman, Mr. McGrath also held positions with other responsibilities within the TVA Nuclear corporate organization. Up until July 1995, these functions included Corporate Contracts, Materials, Administrative Support, Nuclear Fuels, and Support Staffs. He had no direct management responsibilities over the nuclear plant sites, including any site Chemistry organization.

In July 1995 Mr. McGrath's duties were limited to that of NSRB Chairman. However, in October 1995 he was assigned to support the General Manager, Operations Support in the Corporate organization because of the illness of the incumbent, Donald Moody. After the death of Mr. Moody in March 1996, Mr. McGrath was made Acting General Manager, Operations Support.

December 10, 1999 NRC Region H's Closed Predecisional Enforcement Conference With TVA: Atlanta, Georgia Presentation by:

Gary L. Fiser Enclosure 5

December 10, 1999 Gary L. Fiser About 12 years ago I received a call from TVA's Corporate Chemistry Manager. He wanted me to come to TVA and help out in the restart and recovery efforts in their Nuclear Power Chemistry Program. They had been shut down for some time due to safety concerns. I resisted, and he continued to pitch the company finally asking that my wife and I fly out to see the area. I told him that I would, but that I felt bad about it because there was no reason for me to leave Arkansas, and I felt that I was taking their money for nothing. Following months of persuasion, I decided to leave Arkansas and the 14 years I spent there, and joined TVA's Nuclear Power Program recovery effort in September of 1987.

Over the past 7 years, I have been performing in my mind a root cause determination. This root cause was to determine exactly where, when and why my professional career began to unravel right before my eyes. In the beginning I was unconcerned, believing that honesty, truthfulness, and hard work would exonerate me. I had always been told that sooner or later the truth would surface and truth would win. I still believe that, "but not necessarily in this fife".

Several years ago, I was asked to perform a pre-INPO assessment of the Chemistry Program at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. This was in anticipation of a site INPO evaluation scheduled to be performed in 1992. My instructions from Bill Lagergren, the Operations Manager at Sequoyah, were as follows: 'I want you to do the assessment using the INPO criteria, and I want you to be very critical. If the INPO documents and guidelines tell you to do something, and you don't do it for whatever reason, I want that documented. If the INPO guidelines say for you to do something a particular way and your program accomplishes the same thing a different way, document it. In the same manner, even if they say to do something, and you accomplish it in what you feel is a superior manner, document that as well."

What he was looking for was a list of discrepancies. Then after the list was compiled, Bill sat down with us and participate in the review process. He wanted to provide detached and objective input as to what really needed to be fixed prior to the INPO visit. He made it very plain that the list was for our internal use only; it would not be going any further, baring the discovery of some condition(s) adverse to quality.

2

I followed his instructions to the letter, and the resulting list was some 120 or 130 items. Mr.

Lagregren was delighted with my effort, remarking several times how pleased he was that I had provided exactly what he wanted. Out of the long list of items only about a half dozen actually resulted in some tweaking of the Chemistry Program prior to INPO's arrival.

Unfortunately, what to one man was a job well done, was to another a job undone. Shortly after I submitted the results of the pre-assessment to Mr. Lagergren, Mr. John LaPointe, Sequoyah's Vice President, called Dr. Don Adams and me into his office on a Saturday, and lit into us for four hours. He was livid, yelling, cursing, swearing and levied all kinds of accusations against the chemistry program and me. The end result (and this is critical) was that he instructed me to enter every one of the items in TROI, Sequoyah's computerized system for Trackina and Reporting of Open Items. As we walked away from his office, I heard him reporting in to his supervisor, Mr. Joe Bynum, that he felt Sequoyah was ready for the upcoming INPO assessment, with the exception of the Chemistry section. Note: Remember that name, Joe Bvnum. it will be comin upg lot.

Note: Well, LaPoint was wrong. My review was a resounding success, and at the conclusion of the INPO assessment for the first time ever INPO said there were no findings and no concerns with Sequoyah's Chemistry's Program.

I told you that entering this information into TROI was a critical step. Once this huge list of open items appeared in TROI, every auditing and oversight group in TVA was unleashed on Sequoyah Chemistry, and me in particular, with a vengeance. What for Mr. Lagergren was a source for giving me a performance bonus became a festering tumor for others that ultimately lead to the loss of my position, THREE TIMES. I can state with certainty, that using the corrective action process at TVA is tantamount to professional suicide. NRC. TAKE NOTE: I can assure you beyond reasonable doubt that the chilling effect flourishes in TVA's Nuclear Program.

The FIRST TIME I lost my position was back in 1993 when Mr. Joe Bynum placed me in TVA's Employee Transition Program (ETP). In a letterfrom Joe Bynum I was told that they no longer needed a Chemistry Superintendent, and therefore my job had been eliminated. Shortly after being placed in ETP, another letter from Mr. Joe Bynum was circulated stating that the Chemistry Superintendent position at Sequoyah was being reinstated. He had lied when he said the job had been eliminated, this was only pretext used to get rid of me! Not only was it being reinstated, but the position was being upgraded from a PG 9 to a PG 10.

Let me hasten to point out that this is the same Joe Bynum that TVA removed from their Nuclear Program after losing Mr. Bill Jocher's DOL and NRC cases. NRC's investigation of Bill Jocher's 3

case revealed that Bynum had lied under oath. TVA however chose to retain Mr. Bynum's services, simply moving him into the non-nuclear program. Today Mr. Bynum continues to be handsomely rewarded by TVA; he continues to enjoy the benefits of employment, retirement, salary increases and annual incentive bonuses since that time.

The fact of the matter is that even if you get caught doing the wrong thing, as long as it benefits TVA in the process, you get to keep your job and even get a raise. If however you do the right thing, like use the Corrective Action Process to document problems, you will find yourself harassed right out of a job.

At first I was delighted to hear about my position being upgraded, thinking that they would follow the rules, bring me out of ETP, place me in my job, and give me a raise! It did not happen. I was interviewed for the 'new" position and offered the job on the spot by Mr. Charles Kent the department head and the new Sequoyah Plant Manager. I was given a raise commensurate with a PG 10 position. Charles Kent told me that he knew all that had gone on before. He knew I had been unjustly treated, that it was wrong, and that he had already brought the new Sequoyah Plant Manager up to speed on my case. They were both in agreement that I should be reinstated.

Charles told me to lay low, stay quiet, and he would get this thing done quietly and quickly before those who masterminded the previous shenanigans had a chance to find out what was going on.

This is all documented.

Shortly thereafter, Charles Kent called me back out to Sequoyah, and told me that K was not going to work out. He said that others had found out about his plan, and it was like he had kicked a homet's nest. He said it would be unfair for him to subject me tothe kind of treatment that was in store for me. I was summarily discharged back to TVA's Employee Transition Program. The same guys that targeted me before, guys that still today enjoy the benefits of a TVA employment, Joe Bynum and Wilson McArthur and Tom McGrath got another chance to teach me a lesson, and for the SECOND TIME I lost my position.

Wilson McArthur found out about Kent's plan to reinstate me, and he personally informed Joe Bynum of Sequoyah's intentions. Bewildered and dejected, I went to McArthur's office (thinking he was my friend) and told him what had happened and that I was going to find out who had been hiding in the bushes and shooting me in the back. McArthur confessed that he was the one who told Bynum. Shocked, I asked him why he would do that, and he simply stated that Joe had to know. The truth is that Bynum, McArthur and McGrath were all three responsible for having me removed in the first place.

4

Following these developments I filed a complaint with the Department of Labor, which was settled in 1993. In order to keep from being terminated, I reluctantly agreed to a settlement offer. I was not only denied the PG 10, but also was removed from the Sequoyah Chemistry program, and busted from a PG 9 to a PG 8. I was very much reluctant to take this offer until a chance face to face meeting with the Director of Human Resources, Mr. Phil Reynolds. Mr. Reynolds reassured me that all those responsible for my demise had been reassigned or in some way moved out of my chain of command, and I could come back without fear of reprisals. He personally encouraged me to "put all this behind me" and get back to work.

Note: For the record, NRC never performed a thorough investigation of this first complaint. Mr. Vorse was assigned the case, but following the initial meeting never once contacted me, never answered a single phone call, never returned a phone call, or acknowledged a fax, letters, anything! For years I have wondered if I would have been spared further misery if he had done his job. I call on NRC's IG to investigate the disposition of this former case.

After approximately a year in this lower job, following the death of my General Manager Mr. Don Moody, Mr. Tom McGrath, Chairman of the Nuclear Safety Review Board and Wilson McArthur a long standing member of the Nuclear Safety Review Board were directly in my chain of command. These two underlings of Joe Bynum, professional thugs, dusted off their old bag of dirty tricks, and you guessed it, I was for the THIRD TIME surreptitiously reorganized out of another position. I was in line for my third and final lesson from these guys.

Older and wiser now, I recognized what was going on early in the development stages, and hoping to avoid trouble, went to Human Resources to discuss my concerns directly to the Personnel Department, specifically Mr. Ed Boyles and Mr. Phil Reynolds. I told them plainly, in advance, what McGrath and McArthur were scheming. I also told them what I would be forced to do if this course of action was not turned around. The Human Resource Department, specifically Mr. Phil Reynolds and Mr. Ed Boyles, chose to stand aside and abide by the dictates of McGrath and McArthur. with Mr. Oliver Kingsley in full knowledae and support. Therefore, I submitted a second DOL complaint.

Phil Reynolds met with me and told me that he would allow me to keep my job, working for McArthur and McGrath, if I would drop the DOL complaint. I refused, knowing that short of having in my hand hard and fast DOL and NRC rulings on this case, I would be in for the same treatment again.

As a matter of routine with the filing the DOL complaint, I met with TVA's IG. I carefully went over the evidence that I had to date, and the inspector documented the conversation and said he 5

would look into it. The report he submitted was a farce. It was filled with remarks like, 'He said one thing, and they said something different. Therefore, I could not decide who was telling the truth." It was laughable. Notice that this "investigative" body, having command of the same set of facts as DOL and NRC, was incapable of dealing with those facts. NRC and DOL had no problem understanding what went on, and got to the bottom of the matter, at least preliminarily.

Never, never, never, trust what you hear from TVA's Inspector General.

Thanks to Ms. Benson, NRC in concert with DOL has successfully and correctly arrived at the preliminary conclusion that IVA has once again discriminated against an employee engaging in protected activities. I find it incomprehensible that I am standing before this group. Do you realize that TVA has discriminated against and removed three Chemistry Managers for engaging in protected activities?

I can remember not too long ago when Dr. Ralph Matthews, Chemistry Superintendent at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, was removed from his position for refusing to be pressured into signing off on a start up plan he knew did not meet commitments made by TVA to NRC. He filed a complaint, you investigated and sure enough, Dr. Matthews was right, but he never again served another day as the Chemistry Superintendent at Watts Bar. TVA sent out a form letter stating that they would not tolerate this type of discrimination, and that people should feel free to voice concerns without fear of reprisals, etc.

Shortly thereafter we see Mr. Bill Jocher, TVA's Corporate Chemistry Manager, being removed from his position, and he too filed a complaint. This also resulted in DOL and NRC rulings against TVA, and here comes that forrn letter again stating that WVA will not tolerate discrimination. I can remember reading it again, and saying to myself, 'I'll bet WVA learned their lesson this time. Surely the intimidation and harassment of employees for raising safety concems will stop now."

Well here we are again. I wonder if TVA has already circulated that stupid little letter around, and lied again after this case? TVA lies when they state that they will not tolerate discrimination. WVA lies when they say that people should feel free to submit concerns, and use the corrective action process. TVA lies when they say that they will deal seriously with those who discriminate against employees. Check it out, McArthur, McGrath and Bynum are still gainfully employed by WVA!

NRC and WVA, you have no credibility when it comes to the protection of those who raise concerns using the Corrective Action Process. Indeed, it is now to the point that it appears there is collusion between your agencies. How could NRC allow the systematic destruction of people 6

like me to continue? TVA, have you hired an independent consulting firm to come in and interview your employees to verify that everyone has a warm feeling about submitting safety concerns? Ifyou did, please tell me that it is not the same one that verified everythin was OK in the past! Bye the way, strangely enough, the consulting firm never asked for my opinion!

How many times is it going to take? Let me state this as plainly as I know how. FIRST, TVA should be assessed the maximum fine possible for this case. SECOND, TVA has no business holding a license to operate a nuclear power facility until they can prove with reasonable assurance that the intimidation, harassment, and ruin of individuals raising legitimate safety issues is no longer tolerated. THIRD, NRC should insist that I be made whole again and force TVA to reinstate me at or above a PG 10 level which they denied me, with no loss of pay, no loss in benefits, and no break in service. This, and only this, would send them a resounding message that there are consequences to illegal behavior.

THE ISSUANCE OF LETTERS AND INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION BY CONSULTING FIRMS FUNCTIONING AT TVA's DIRECTION IS NOT SUFFICIENT PROOF! IT IS ALL LIES, AND SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED BY YOU, NRC, UNLESS YOU TOO ARE WILLING TO STAND ASIDE AND ALLOW THE CHILLING EFFECT TO RUN ITS COURSE.

Well NRC, what are you going to do this time? Anything short of the maximum enforcement possible with my reinstatement means TVA has beat the system again. Nothing else will result in a change to TVA's heart of hearts? History has repeated itself three times for me personally and for three chemistry managers. You call us down here years after the fact with a 'preliminarily' ruling in my favor. Now they can once again repeat their old fine, These problems happened years ago, the people responsible have been reassigned to the non-nuclear program, or left TVA.

We are better now; we take discrimination very seriously, and we will not tolerate it any more". It is all lies I know it and so do you! Are you going to let them get away with it again?

Well, what about me? What about the guy that thinks right will win, the cream will rise to the top, truth triumphs, and on and on and on? Let me tell you about me. I signed a settlement, and after paying taxes, and attorney's fees, etc, I had enough money to last about . You would think this would be sufficient time to find replacement employment. My first try was at INPO, I filled out an application, and did the telephone interview thing. Everything was going so well, and then I hit a brick wall. While I was in the process of being scheduled for an interview, the INPO person handling my application went to the people in their own chemistry department asking for verbal references from anyone who knew me. Dr. Jim Corbin, one of the chemistry evaluators, said something like this, 'Well, I don't really know the facts, but I do know that TVA 7

has been trying for years to get rid of him." Needless to say, I never got the interview, and every attempt since then is met with rejection. This blackballing is rl tangible, purposeful, and undeniable.

Other interesting facts:

• My wife is not insurable due to a congenital heart defect. We were not allowed to purchase health insurance using TVA's group retirement plan.

• I cannot find work in the Chattanooga area that will pay me what I was making.

I am faced with the fact that I must sell my home in the very near future.

• My son has been indelibly scared by the fact that someone can do the right thing and suffer so long and so markedly.

• Retirement for me is now out of the question.

This is what happens to someone who does the right thing at TVA. On the other hand, the person who lies under oath gets a new job, gets a raise and bonuses every year; all the benefits an agency the size of TVA can afford. To TVA I must say that my hat is off to you. You won! It may appear from the proceedings here that I may be winning, but I will not. I cannot provide for my family, I cannot provide for retirement, I cannot even hold on to my house. Your goal was to silence and get rid of me, and you met your objective. You may have to pay a fine, but what is that to you? When you compare TVA's net worth to mine the maximum fine for them would be like fanin me a penny. No wonder there is no real change!

I am most concerned with the fact that many people had to stand up on my behalf and tell the truth, not counting the costs, in order for TVA to have been found guilty, at least preliminarily. I fear for their future in TVA's Nuclear Program, for they will face the same intimidation and harassment as I was subjected to if this preliminary ruling does not stand. I was going to mention their names in this presentation, but I do not feel that TVA can be trusted with that information. I know TVA has already made life miserable for some. I was going to give the list to NRC, but I fear it would end up in TVA's hands, so TVA could "make sure they were proped treated." I have decided to keep it confidential, and should TVA make further attempts to ruin their lives, as they have mine, I will make it public at that time. It probably will not matter, for as we have already seen once TVA decides to harass and intimidate someone with clear resolve to run him or her off, they will be dauntless on their mission.

8

I HAVE TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING HOW IT IS THAT TVA CONTINUES TO GET AWAY WITH THE SYSTEMATIC ASSASSINATION OF THE CAREERS OF THEIR EMPLOYEES.

NRC has been ineffective at preventing this. NRC's IG should investigate why you have not taken stronger enforcement before now. It is your Lob to see to it that this does not happen. How is it that you allow them to continue to get away with it? Again, there is the appearance of collusion. Three chemistry managers, and all three times TVA sends the same form letter around saying the same thing, make the same promises, and issue the same hollow threats to managers who may contemplate discriminating against those who raise concerns. Do you believe them this time?

Let's face the facts! A fine for TVA is exactly what they would like to settle for at this juncture. It not only means nothing to them monetarily, but they can say all this happened years ago, and they are therefore absolved culpability. What TVA does not want is for you to insist that they reinstate me. This would encourage their employees, showing them that the system works, and that NRC has credibility and clout. It could be proved that the little guy could win. This must be a terrifying thought for TVA.

What was My , nmy crime? I was tried and found guilty by members of the Nuclear Safty Review Board of all things, Tom McGrath and Wilson McArthur. I was found guilty of performing the letter and spirit of Bill Lagergren's wishes. I did not create the problems, I simply discovered them. Since taking the Sequoyah Chemistry Superintendent back in 1988, I had found a thousand problems, probably more. Never once do I recall receiving the third degree for finding and fixing problems. But when I placed the list in TROI, and the problems entered the public domain, all hell broke loose. That remains the root cause of the unraveling of my professional career.

I left a secure position at Arkansas Nuclear One; to go to TVA and I contributed to their recovery effort. I also brought every aspect of Sequoyah's Chemistry Program solidly into INPO's 'Best Plant' category. I never had even one INPO finding while I was in charge of the program. (The first INPO evaluation came 6 weeks after I was placed in charge of Sequoyah's chemistry group.

The data had already been sent to INPO and so the six findings in that evaluation were, or should have been, charged to the previous chemistry administration). I succeeded, but it has cost me my career and a future in Nuclear Power, and my family has paid an unspeakable price.

In TVA's employ, doing the wrong thing is a vehicle for continued prosperous employment:

• Lying under oath 9

• Making life miserable for and participating in the ruin of those who uncover problems

• Protecting the TVA's at any cost

• Standing aside when you know Federal Law is being violated What was my sin? I did the right thing! I conclude with this quote, 'For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God." I Peter 2:20.

10