ML023250270
| ML023250270 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  (NPF-037, NPF-066) |
| Issue date: | 03/26/2002 |
| From: | Paul R, Ulie J NRC/OI/RGN-III/FO |
| To: | Exelon Generation Co |
| References | |
| 3-2001-005, FOIA/PA-2003-0017 | |
| Download: ML023250270 (36) | |
Text
Title: BYRON NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DELIBERATE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ANF IFOR RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS RELATING TOAT RELATING TO AN, OF HARASSMENT IND INTIMIDATION Licensee:
Case No.: 3-2001-005 Exelon Generation 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 Docket No.: 50-454 Reported by:
Report Date:
March 26, 2002 Control Office: OhRIII Status: CLOSED Reviewed and Approved by:
JoAh M. Ulie, Senior Special Agent Office of Investigations Field Office, Region MI Richard C. Paul, Director Office of Investigations Field Office, Region III DO NOT DISSEMINATE, PLACE IN LIC DOCUMENT ROOM OR DISCUSS TIE CONTENTS OF T RE RT OF INVESTIGATION OUTSIDE NRC WITHOUT AUTHO OF THE APP VING OFFICIAL OF THIS REPORT. UNAUT ZED DISCLOSURE MARESULT IN ADVERSE ADMINIST ACTION AND/OR CRIMINAL OSECUTION.
-j
SYNOPSIS This investigation was initiated on January 29, 2001, by the U.S. Nuclear Ijegulatory Commission, Office of Investigations, Region III, to determine if a formner iat the Byron Nuclear Generating Station had been discriminated against for raising safety concerns.
Allevation 1: Deliberate Discrimination Against an Raising Safety Concerns Relating to a Based on the evidence developed, the investigation did substantiate the allegation of deliberate employment discrimination against the forine by a former Nuclear Oversight Vice President.
Allegation 2: Discrimin Concerns Relating to ari Intimidation Wfor Raising Safety arassment and Based on the evidence developed, the investigation did not substantiate the allegation of employment discrimination against the forme NOT FOR PUBLIC DIS WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO2, FF F INVESTIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-1.,-;
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK ]NTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBLIC DIS, FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR. I APPROVAL OF rATIONS. REGION III Case No. 3-2001-005
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SY N O PSIS..................................................................
1 LIST OF INTERVIEWEES.....................................................
5 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION................................................
7 Applicable Regulations..................................................
7 Purpose of Investigation..................................................
7 B ackground...........................................................
7 Interview of Alleger.....................................................
8 Coordination with NRC Staff.............................................
9 Coordination with the Regional Counsel.....................................
9 Document Review.......
9 Review ofssessment Reviews................................
9 7 Event Loga............................................................
10 N arrative Report.......................................................
10 11 -7E Comparison o
11 -7 Chilled Environment Concerns at Byron....................................
12 Review o CCndidate Summary Forms..........................
12 7 L.
U.S. Department of Labor Information.....................................
13 E vidence.............................................................
13 Analysis of Evidence...................................................
13 A llegation 1..........................................................
13 Protected Acti ity.....
13 Knowledge o,1,Protected Activi 13 7 c.
Unfavorable Action Taken Agains 15 -7 Did the Unfavorable Action Resul ngaging in a Protected Activity..........................................
15 Agent's Analysis......................................................
26 Conclusion...........................................................
27 NOT FOR PUBLI CLOS THOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-005 3
A llegation 2..........................................................
27 Protected Activity...............................................
27 Knowledge o f*
m ro tected Activity.....................
28 Agent's Analysis 28 Conclusionalysis......................................................
29 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION............................................
31 LIST OF EXHIBITS.........................................................
33 NOT FOR PUBLIC DIS WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECT OFFICE 0 STIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-005 4
LIST OF INTERVIEWEES Exhibit No.
Byron Nuclear Generating Station (Byron).......................................
2 BOOK, Raymond R., Jr., Corporate Employee Concerns Investigator, Exelon Generation (Exelon)...................................................................
26 BROCCOLO, Eugene A. (Tony), Jr., Director, Nuclear Oversight for the Midwest Regional Operating Group (ROG), Exelon........................................
19
... 9 DEPPI, Robert, former Manager, Nuclear Oversight, Byron..........................
18 HEFFLEY, J. Michael, Site Vice President, Clinton Nuclear Generating Station (former Vice President, Nuclear Oversight, Exelon)...........
14 HELWIG, David R., Executive Vice President of Operations for CornEd Energy Delivery, Exelon (former Vice President Nuclear Support and Services).................
28 LANDY, Richard J., Vice President, Human Resources, Exelon.......................
21 LAWSON, Steve, former BWR Outage Manager, Byron.............................
12 LEVIS, Bill, Vice President, Limerick Nuclear Generating Station, Exelon (former Plant Manager and Site Vice President, Byron)..............................
22 MARINI, Thomas R., Corporate Employee Concerns Investigator for Midwest ROG, E xelon....................................................................
25 MOSER, Karl, Manager, Chemistry Department, Quad Cities Nuclear Generating Station, (former Nuclear Oversight Supervisor, Exelon)....................................
29 SNOW, William M., Outage Management Consultant, Framatome (former Director of Outage Management and Services, Exelon).....................................
27 NOT FOR PUBLIC D SURE WVI UT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFF NVESTIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-0055
WINCHESTER, Dennis A., Director, Nuclear Oversight Programs, Exelon (former Executive Assistant to the Nuclear Oversight Vice President).........................
20 NOT FOR PUBLIC DIS THOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC IC INVESTIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-005 6
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Applicable Regulations 10 CFR 50.7: Employee Protection 10 CFR 50.5: Deliberate Misconduct 42 U.S.C. 5851: Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 Purpose of Investigation This investigation was initiated on January 29, 2001, by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Investigations (OD), Region III (RIII), to determine if a former Employee Concerns Administrator at the Byron Nuclear Generating Station (Byron) had been discriminated against for raising safety concerns.
Backgound (Exhibit 1)
On June 26, 2000,L notified the NRC ihat he was of hisIk*
- . ]identificatio environment in the Byronw at Byron, MMa as' the result dingfthe safety conscious work rhis issue is identified as Allegation 1.
Agent's Note: Mike HEFFLEY, former Vice President of Nuclear Oversight, was subsequently determined to have been the selecting official for the
(ý
- positior*
applied for.
so felt David HELWIG, Senior Vice President, whomr Et I
may have been instrumental in I.not being selected for tn within the Commonwealth Edison Company (CornEd) (now Exelon) system. This issue is identified as Allegation 2.
On January 29, 2001, an Allegation Review Board (ARB) requested that 01 initiate an investigation to determine whethe r
k-was discriminated against for raising safety concerns by preventing his placem'ent in another employment position within ComEd, in violation of 10 CFR 50.7.
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCL WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR ICE 0 STIGATIONS, REGION III N
fv C.ase.No. 3*-2.00U1-UU I
Interview of Alleger (Exhibit 2)
Byron, held this position fron Regarding the first allegatior
- p. 1; Exhibit 4, p. 1; Exhibit 5, p. 1; Exhibit 6, p. 1).
'said he had known for about a year prior to the position being eliminated that this was going to occur (due to Exelon's merger with Philadel hia Electric Company (PECO) and their joint subsequent reorganization). As a result began to pursue other employment opportunities the company, inclydingtfo ly applying for one of the two positions on 6i the comranv was 2oin, to keed______
Exhibit 2, pp. 10-11, 39, 61-62; Exhibit 7, p. 1).
TLEY's comment referred to by",A iever reported to EEFFLEY,.but'tc Wappears out of place, whili Regarding the second allegation,*said oke with Steve LAWSON, Corporate Project Manager, Turbine Services, who asketo hav e
r asend in a resume, which-I d on
- Iad, howvever, there as no position posted at that particular time. As understood from LAWSON, HELWIG, Ted JENtfNGS, Vice President, Business Services, and LAWSON's supervisor, Bill SNOW, may have been involved in the job selection process. Subsequently/
said the last NOT FOR PUBLIC' FIELD OFFICE DIREC.
Case No. 3-2001-005 8
REGION III
` m 110Y1 7
time he spoke with LAWSON, he told in
, "you might want to just keep 1, area." What botheredlN E
about this was that he-_hadJMiMllM
ýo B-LWI IBt=ELWIG took any action against, (Exhibit 2, pp. 41, 44, 46, 48-51, 54; vidence to support that because of 1getting selected for a*
8, pp. 1-3).
in writing regarding either the1
,position (Exhibit 2, p. 65).
Coordination with NRC Staff On January 29, 2001, an ARB was held and requested that 01 investigate the employment discrimination complaint to determine if had been discriminated against.
Coordination with the Regional Counsel 5
Document Review Review oAssessment Reviews "7c
-;c.
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISC HOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DI*-*
FFICE STIGATIONS, REGION III Case I.NO. 3i-2.t-UU I
I 50
Event Log provided an "Event Log" that has a timp line from his perspective relevant to his employment discrimination com plaint.
as interviewed by EF Y for the
-,ositionoas contacted.by Dennis WINCHEST'ER, former Executive Assistant to -EFFLEY, on informinggwlh waMIFw h
a t selected for the position.
The reasons given wherelwas lacking included: (1) pagt or previous manager experience; (2) maturity and managerial experience to deal with executives; (3) interface with high level managers/officials of the NRC; and (4) willingness to move to the Mid-Atlantic ROG (Exhibit 10, pp. 1, 3, 8; Exhibit 30, pp. 1-3).
perience in working with three Site Vice Presidents; and has appraised senior and executive management of options to remedy programmatic weaknesses, including communicating significant issues and trends in a timely and thorough manner (Exhibit 7, pp. 1-3; Exhibit 16, pp. 1-3).
Narrative Report r
provided a "Narrative" report that included detailsabout the concerns he had
- regadn his employment discrimination complaint. B, letter date'*
S was reluctant to accept the-results based on the and_
discussion "EI a
oeusi~n d obtained more documentation to support earned that
_*s going t6 "look into the was asked to
'cooperate with and to meet Bob DEPPI and Karl MOS
, which he did on r about as questioned in great depth as to the number of people who would After about 2 to 21/2 hours of meeting with DEPPI and MOSER, elt tthis meeting waslike an in errogation" of him. Subsequently, WINCHESTER filled in for DEPPI and met witlalone with MO R. MOSER was new to this type of assessment and quality area. On was asked to provide a briefing on tht o Rich LANDY, Vice President of Human Resources and Administration, Rod KRICH, Regulatory Services Vice President, and Bob'HELFRICH, Attorney. At the end of NOT FOR PUB DIS PRO VAL OF FIELC OR, OFF F IN-VE*
IONS, REGION III Case No. 3-200 1
r, Comnarison of Resumes ol 1idatQe..scktdfothe land*
resumes indicates the following:
U position.
Ehad been em. lo eciwit to CUnt positionbae ofetv thh beam ff'cie nhe had been beintnhi doher manager/supervisor positionsbeing1 S~(Exhibit 23, pp. 9-11; Exhibit 25, p. 7).
In coprsnbegan his employment wieildu the
,osition ot w
was assigned various NOT FOR PUBLIC DISC OUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OF I IGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-005 11 OI's
,review oI*
b
Chilled Environment Concerns at Byron By letter dated September 2, 1999, the NRC documented the results of a May 27, 1999, public meeting held between ComEd and the NRC. The NRC stated in the letter, "We agree that there was a chilled environment within the operations department that was not conducive to a safety conscious work environment." The NRC documented that ComEd staff stated there had been significant management personnel changes at Byron and the new management team was committed to maintaining a work environment conducive to raising nuclear safety issues.
Corrective actions included performing an additional assessment of the safety conscious work environment. In ComEd's letter dated January 24, 2000, CoinEd provided the results of their assessment, changes to the licensee Corrective Action program, and also provided an historical perspective of safety conscious work environment/chilled environment concerns that had been of issue to the NRC. By NRC letter dated March 31, 2000, Exelon was advised that the NRC continued to have concerns with Byron's safety conscious work environment and will continue to monitor this area (Exhibit 32, p. 3; Exhibit 33, pp. 1-9; Exhibit 34, p. 2).
Review oA*
Candidate Summary Forms Exelon interviewers of prospective job candidates complete a "Candidate Summary" form on each candidate interviewed. Exelon contracted with an outside fi to assist in evaluating and/or providing insight on prospective0 Candidate Summary forms filled out by the interviewers o osition, however, Exelon was unable to produce these records (Exhibit 30).
nwas interviewed by an outside contract representative Rebecca PIGOTT, International. PIGOTT comDleted a Candidate S nary form O.
dated"o i~recommending-for selection to the.
o ion.
For each Core Leadership Competency category, PIGOTT rate as having'a "Strengt'§een categories, and as "Competent" in eight other categories. PIGOTT did not rat as "Needs Development" in any category, which was the remaining and lowest rating (Exhibit 30, p. 3).
HEFFLEY's completeACandidateSummary form o dated shows he did not recommen for selection to th position.
NOT FOR PUB S-CLOSURE WI PPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR F INVESTIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-00 12
IHEFLEY markeddas "Competent" in seven categories; "Nee s Development" in seven categories; one category was not rated; and did not rateýks having any "Strengths" (Exhibit 30, pp. 1-2).
U.S. Department of Labor Information redid not file an employment discrimination complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor.
Evidence The individuals shown in the List of Interviewees section of this w
nerviewed concerning the employment discrimination complaint(s) filed b)to Q
Analysis of Evidence
.Alleaation 1: Deliberate Discrimination Against an Raising Safety Concerns Relating to R
n a
/
- 1.
Protected Activity pReports hibit 2, pp. 25, 27-30;
- 2.
Knowledge ofi e
rsProtected Activity i-MW In addition, HEFFLEY leame iring his (HEFFLEY's) interview with.
tioned it Exhibit 2, NOT FOR PUBLIC OUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFIC OR, OFFI NVESTIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. -20013 1-0
HEFFLEY said he personally read the4 HIEFFLEY said he spoke with LEVIS about the Wteport.
14, pp. 13, 17-19).
LANDY received a call from LEVI asking LANDY to go over thm questioning whether the facts and statistical information 1 supported the conclvsions. LANDY read the report and had trouble understanding it. LANDY though tdiid his best to do a good review. LANDY's recommendation was that a deeper, more comprehensive review was necessary, that th "was sort of superficial." LANDY wanted to bring in a team of really experienced people (Exhibit 21, pp. 21-25).
DEPPI worked wit for the first time at Byron when DEPPI was asked elieved be by HEFFLEY or LEVIS) to follow-up on thee, co ieted, maybe 6-8 weeks after DEPPI arrived on-site at Byron (approximatel
-1 DEPPI said he felt the report was superficial and needed to be more in depth to get to wheter it was a perception or a reality (Exhibit 18, pp. 14-16, 46-47).
Ito WINCHESTER received a phone call from HEFFLEY around the end of May to early July time frame. During this phone call, HEFFLEY told WINCHESTER that he (WINQHESTER) had been requested by LEVIS to follow-up on E,__*_t tyron.
WINCHESTER said when LEVIS looked at the report, there were still open questions in his mind (Exhibit 20, pp. 12-14).
'somewhere, midway throi Agent's Note:
ecrecollection of the meeting with MOSER and DEPPI was documented in a "Narrative Report," which indicated met with them on either
-as questioned in great depth as to the number stated, "After about 2-21/2 hours of what turned out to feel like an interrogation, I left the meeting at approximately 4:00 PM" (Exhibit 11, pp. 5-6).
NOT FOR PUBLIC OSURE ýgTPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DI INVESTIGATIONS, REGION III 14 Case No. 3-2001-005
0-BROCOL9 had no real involvement relating to the conducted, since this was not his area of responsibility until BROCCOLO took over the position of Director of Nuclear Oversightin September/October 2000. He then became aware of_*
_xhibit 19, pp. 9-11).
- 3.
Unfavorable Action Taken Againsa m he was retaliated against and not selected position (Exhibit 2, pp. 5, 48-51, 103;
- 4.
Did the Unfavorable Action Result from_ *
§
- Enj ga2ing in a Protected Activity vhich was a result of the PECO/Exelon merger reorganization.
?was not involved in the decision-making process (Exhibit 9, pp. 11-12, 31-32).
HEFFLEY held the Nuclear Oversight position for about a year, from about January 2000 until January 2001. HEFFLEY put the Nuclear Oversight organizato
- ljjreported to Human
'Resources, so HEFFLEY had a couple of discussions with LANDY (Vice President, Human Resources), but he (LANDY) was not involved in making the selection. HEFFLEY was the selecting official with recommendations from BROCCOLO (former Independent Assessment Manager), who was his direct assistant in that ROG, and the Nuclear Oversight Managers, including specifically DEPPI (former Manager, INuclear Oversight, Byron). BROCCOLO denied providing any performance input on to any of his supervisors, including HEFFLEY.
BROCCOLO was not involved in the decision making or interviewing process for selecting the
___but indicated that HEFFLEY was the selecting official. BROCCOLO dnotI ok through the candidates' resumes to determine if he would have also selected c!"
HEFFLEY said DEPPI gave him feedback on what he saw, even though it was poor timing and DEPPI hadn't been at Byron long. DEPPI reported directly to BROCCOLO and indirectly to the Site Vice President, Station Manager (LEVIS). DEPPI came to the Byron site around April 2000, and had no involvement in the selection process or of bein involved in any conversations that discussed the candidates' attributes for the
. DEPPI denied providing any NOT FOR PUBLIC DIS URE WIT UT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE 7DIRE:CTOR, OFF STIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-005 1
input to HEFFLEY relating to the selection to fill these positions, but said he d have a couple of discussions with HEFFLEY and/or BROCCOLO about-,_DDEPPI said he felt the*vas superficial and needed to be more in depth to get to whether it was a pereption or a reality, and needed recommendations. According to DEPPI, in June 2000, A
11 hmitted not seeing or of having any discussions with on overseeing liis DEPPI said he was not aware of any other Nuclear Oversight Managers who had input into the selection process. The selection crtrafordthe to HEFFLEY. tEEFFLEY said input on th se-lection of themt U~was also obtained from an outside contractor looking for promotability and" "concerns about people being employed in those different positions" (Exhibit 14, pp. 3-13, 25; Exhibit 18, pp. 10-11, 38-41, 47-48, 52; Exhibit 19, pp. 9, 14, 16-19).
Agent's Note: Contrab to DEPPrso est y
s t
hato b
seeing r of havin an discussionswion overseeing the LEVIS wanted to lknow what the specific issues in thet
_.*?
LEVIS felt there were perceptions tha~g had, but he was trying to get to the so thea d
and taken. LEVIS dintt ink.-contained what LEVIS called "actionable items" that could be fixed, soI g I was; interested n I'eLEVIS discussed this hwit more nformation to figure a
action to take. LEVIS received three or foudic corrective actions to take, LEVIS did not disagree with the data thatinpas presented in but wanted to find out what it meant. LEVIS didn't understand how the cbonclusion,asreached without more information. ~
LEVIS stated, 'in he fxes lie in understanding the issuesak i
(Exhibit 22, pp. 21-22, 25, 28-30, 32, 37).
According to LEVI, ra not was" "would be fEVIS so asked the difference between using the terminology of undesirable d'ecursors (used in LEVIS' NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCOUT APPROVAL OF FaISe so FFICE DRCO fTGIs ln e
d ti CaExii No
- p.
3 201-00, 5, 2830 3,7)
September 18, 2000, letter to the NRC) versus saying a.
LEVIS stated, "we found in a follow-up look by
" that there were some specific communication issues in the department that needed to be addressed. Given where we were at that time, we felt that those issues were unchecked. In fact, some issues could result ir
' LEVIS noted that past
)
periodic'
,didn't agree directly with iso it was another piece of conflicting data that LEVIS had to resolve.
LEVIS was asked if there was a concern that the actions that the gbmpany hadbeen taking to
'W.ere not effective if conclusion -were to stand. LEVIS responded,...
I mean, would I be at all surprised if someone could draw that conclusion? I don't think so, but you know, from where I sit and my responsibilities, I've got to go fix this" (Exhibit 22, pp. 25, 28-30, 32, 37).
LEVIS and WINCHESTER were not involved at all in the process of selecting the(
'positions. LEVIS did not provide any input to anyone on this matter or on.
performance. LEVIS did not make any recommendation to HEFFLEY not to sefecti for arT position (Exhibit 20, pp. 39-40; Exhibit 22, pp. 33-36, 38).
I4 LANDY said he received a phone call from LEVIS questioning whetherd had sufficient facts to support his conclusions and asked LANDY to look th4 over.
According to LANDY, this was not unusual since
,to 1him.
LANDY said he had trouble understandingj and met with(
and
-. to discuss the-LANDY said
)brought more data, which was helpful, and they met for about 1-2 hours to discuss the!-
LANDY said it was hard to get comfortable wvith some of the conclusions with certain of the data that was used.
"In the end, iANDY concluded a "deeper... and more counprehensiv'e" review was necessary, LANDY wanted experienced people front' "to sort Qf take this data and then' add to that by getting some more data, it's a,
.'toIelp us find out what's going on and what we should do to sort of get-this thing turned around" (Exhibit 21, pp. 21-24).
Agent's Note: Rather than review the with a "more comprehensive" overall review and "add to that..,
data"' the%
I and of most significance, changed I conclusion that a
)o the I
N a inoArvw of
'1hef questions asked versus the questions asked bM in the ak ddid not appear all thatdifferent. The' questions asked do not appeary more ip-depth in comparison to the questions asked by NOT FOR PUBLIC DIS CLOS HOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 0; S
OF INVE U]GAg REGION III
- I Case No. 3-2001-005 17
WINCHESTER was contacted by HEFFLEY, his boss, at the request of LEVIS, requesting that
- Uleeternine what specific actions need to occur involving a Sissue.
WINCHESTER, in about the end of May to early July (2000), worked with DEPPI and *vIOSER "to really mentor them through this and help them determine the focus, get the scope, point them in the right direction." The message WINCHESTER received was LEVIS "didn't know what to go after to fix. It was just this grandiose statement thae.e's MOSER and WINCHESTER met wi to understand hothwthet statement thatCHEST did not question o nedt srd WINCHESTER state "e
questioning, "Where do we need to focus this assessment at?
e don't want to have to go back in there and do eve bod i training." MOSER's understanding was that LEVIS "had... great concern (with
=
rbecause it talked about a, MOSER was asked to go out and add more detail, "validate that the conclus'ion s
had was accurate or not."
WINCHESTER was given a out the findings of faq section (summary and recommendations were also n included) that he thought was from th that had presented to LEVIS. According to WINCHES TEWae to "get t numbers to substantiate the population and the percentage that showed how he reached those kinds of conclusions (Exhibit 20, pp. 7, 12-25, 27-28, 44; Exhibit 29, pp. 12-13).
VJINflT-'RT:PP rniid n-P it was decided to focus on the MOSER was tasked with ER identified a Iresults of the
- MOSER inclicated that thie'
"-operations grouip4 was tocusea on Decause mnat was mnap 0-WINCHESTER indicated MOSER and assessment and wrote theowand he (WINCHESTER MOSER felt his auestionrs went deeper than those ofm NOT FOR FIELD OFFICE APPROVAL OF YATIONS. REGION III 18 I
?tAoe
(Exhibit 20, pp. 18-25, 27-28, 44; Exhibit 24, p. 1; Exhibit 29, pp. 10, 12-13, 33).
Agent's Note: A review of the recommendations and conc shows similarities to three of the fivq 1 hillt~r1 (*e n follows:
MOSER thought "the conclusions he *arrived at and the conclusions I (MOSER) arrived at were not that different, so I thought he did a fairly good job." MOSER characterized htgent" issues, whereas MOSER characterized MOSER**lenied the wasome to a differenkconclusion in the
=
than the_
- r(Exhibit 29, pp. 17-19, 34).
WINCHESTER denied the questioned any of the data that was in them mhen WINCHESTER was asked if he took exception to any portion of the (he reviewed), WINCHESTER stated, "No. Our charter was not to challenge or question the was like where do we go focus... We were not there under any pretense to challenge results or conclusions. It was merely find out what we can bring back to Byron Management to fix this issue" (Exhibit 20, pp. 26, 30).
Ray BOOK, Corporate Employee Concerns Investigator, Exelon, was interviewed on his last-day with Exelonafter 21 yqars of employment. BOOK said he was being terminated. BOOK said he n
for20 years, from when BOOK started to work at Dresden and fBOOK denied reviewing any of from m
e at Byron or of any rP,* tq
-,ltn thp.
that was done at Byron during the BOOK said he was ir NOT FOR PUBLIC ýD PROOVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECT.
CF.
STIGATIONS, REGION Case No. 3-2001-005 19 7i
done at Byron that cut across all the disciplines at the site, beyond just the4ko Thet was geared toward the safety conscious work environment to look at what the culture was across the site. BOOK said MOSER was the leader of the*
team and the team reported to WINCHESTER at that time, who reported to HEFFLEY. The
"*oonclusion basically was that there wasn't a problem with the safety conscious work environment (Exhibit 26, pp. 5-6, 9-14).
BOOK indicated interviewing was the only method used to gather data for this assessment.
BOOK said he was the one who did the analysis and prepared the report. BOOK denied having any concerns about the data for that report being manipulatedjin any way, especially since he was the individual who completed the data analysis. BOOK said this was the only*_
e had compiled the data fort BOOK denied being aware of anyone manipulating data on an Exhibit 26, pp. 15, 22-24).
Agent's Note.
Phad claimedjhe learned that BOOK was of' -----
-that occurred to ssured and knew hat came to a about the licensee's; ranAsumian Resourbe management detc NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCL HOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO O
TIATONREGION III Case No. 3-2001-005 20 ic
WINCHESTER informed that he wasn't selected for either of the
". ositions and Why he wapIslected, asedon the reasons HEFFLEY told WINCHESTER. WCHESTER alsuad Ciais and
-(,raidwood),
two other applicants for the M
positions. WINCHESTER identified the criteria that HEFFLEY was looking for was recent managerial experience, because thes
. ositions were going to be like self-directed ositions; another criteria was diverypand the fast was the willingness to go to the east coast.
did not have the recent requisite managerial experience, II ~ lllto STEy saidngNC E S E nor were ey willing o relocate, according to W NCHESTERsaid, had recently held the manager
" I man ge Agent's Note:
time of time (Exhibit 2, p. 1i1 testified he told HEFFLEY that due to family concerns at the interview, he wasn't able to relocate, but would like to at some WINCHESTER believed everyone in In June 2000, DEPPI was asked to look i rep sreviewe th the statistics, however, in his opinio%
with his questioning and methodology to NOT FOR PUBLIC DIS W
T APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO F
IGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-0 21"
!j I)
DEPPI said th hcoUcluded that there were communication issues that could be i had been determined to exist, it would have been necessary to replace the responsible individu Is and perform a reorganization.
When DEPPI was asked w n
ncudied' whereas
-* DEPPI stated inlooked at teir basically,,,
We looked at wtee w le vIe, based o.
problem may lie, and wanteao get specific and get deeper into, say, is it a perception or is it a reality, and would people raise issues, not raise issues, that kind of thing. So there was a specific part of the organization that we went anld looked a DEPPI esti ratd took up tothat to perform, maybe a littl (Exhibit 18,-pp. 14-15, 27-29, 32-33, 35-36).
HEFFLEY, without prom ting, stated, "There was aabout that time period...
There was**'*l'
- oing on at Byron specifically on some issues associated, I think, with However. HEFFLEY denied th aas not selected for the position because of When TFFLEY was asked what input he received from PI specifically, HEFFLEY stated, "Would have been like I said, mostly feedback oh imself, again I'm, you're trying to go through, you know you hi a tng in these roles right now," -EFFLEY said DEPPI was very negative abou rformance associated with the way that he handled and eommunicated When HEFFLEY was asked to articulate what s ecifically was negative, HY stated, "Yes, I think the S I didn't think ist HFFLEY said he personally ei er rea a t or one of tn HEFFEY spoke to LEVIS, who "made them (not further identified) go back and look at some of the evidence and information again be oucoumla't get there from "HEFFLEY offered to have anR which WINCHESTER cmne from the Mid-Atlantic ROG to do. HEFFLEY said WINCHESTER was an experienced manager and had been in quality assuranceqfr years. HEFFLEY said WINCHESTER disagreed with the concept of wha ha--
ldU done and "seemed to have a lot of problems with the inability to understanidWcomrnunicate." HEFIFLEY said WINCHESTER gave him information about how poorly he thou th,
'had been done. HEFFLEY said he thought CALFA was givin¢
'poor advice" (Exhibit 14' pp. 13, 15-20, 43,49).
Agent's Note: Contrary to HEFFLEY's tesm mony that WINCHESTER gave him informati6n. about how poqol investigation was done, WINCHESTER denied th uestioned any of the data that was in the NOT FOR PUBLIC DIS ITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC FICE 0 STIGATIONS, REGION Il Case No. 3-2001-005 22
'lk
_When.WINCHESTER was asked if he took ex eption to any p o ftio oWNCHESTER stated, "Noi" was not to challenge oIt was like where do we go focus... We were not there under any pretense to challenge that results or conclusions. It was merely find out what we can bring back to Byron Management to fix this issue" (Exhibit 20, p. 30).
7 EFFLEY saidecided to leeExelon, End he thought he inte iniidul fh I iositions, includind Iindividuals from Braidwood and Quad Cities. HEFFLEY went through the interview process like they all did, includi g
A
,ed several HEFFLEY thought there were about three individuals who wisned to stay in osition. HEFFLEY s "d PAVEY was selected rt heX osition, and as sforhe s'electedb "he'd been the so his experience showed up a whole lot more than when you compared him to the o er individuals. He had a big QA (Quality Assurance) background, good safety background," and also due to his broad experience having worked at
-HEFFLEY said had worked for him indirectly for about a year in xhibit 14, pp. 16-17, 29-32, 34).
MARINI, Corporate Employee Concerns Investigator, Exelon Midwest ROG, has held this position since August 2000 and has been with the comp for about 26 years. MARINI's former position was Nuclear Oversight Manager.
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLO HOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE D, OFFICE OF STIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-005 23
\\
/
Agent's Note: In reviewing ent Log, i oted that remarked to him that he did not really have an interview for the MEMposition, but was hand picked. 01 requested the "Candidate Summary' forms filled out by the interviewers L
_Yand
,EFFLEY "osition, however, Exelon was unabe to produce
/ these records (Exhibit 10, p. 11).
HEFFLEY said he thought he told]"
poor notoriety because of that he'd done, well, he'd done a Idusy job I thought, poor j, and that thing just showed up" (Exhibit 14, p. 43).
tI
- gotten himself into real he didn't need. And
,inappropriate job, those kind of things une 2000 time frame, Y told*
hat based gn the Byron IEFFLEY remarked td1Wthat he was the right individual for the permanenl W ad it waas fairly benign, just an off-handed com aent an-t-at was it.
ied, well, he (HEFFLEY) tied it with the Byrono no issue which was theissue that we had just completed. It was still ts" (Exhibit 9, pp. 33-35).
said'
.scussions with the other r reerences t e
" f o to 0 involvint facts to support that because of th able to find a new position within the company FFLEYindicated a key reason he intosition was because ofI on me evidence he presented. Th, Case/I r.s, there were never any negative fndings hemade.
sal had no made at he was not hibif 9, pp. 64-66).
~forr performance, including poor communication his conclusi was not upported by the V is dated-and was issued
/
NOT FOR PUBLIC S
Ou APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR NVESTIGATIONS, REGION IlI qo. 3-2001-005 2
again on( e)
Consequeny, any j
. who were selected torthet
)
positions, were selected on,
/respectively (Exhibit D, p. i; Exhibit 6, p. 1; Exhibit 13, p. 7; Exhibit 14, pp. 17-18; Exhibit 17, p. 1; Exhibit 23, pp. 20, 26).
Agent's Note: With regard to the concern or said as a result of I rnformingt that DEPPI had corpmnnted negatively tot about himl
)not being visible and proactive,('_ jalled some individuals to gain more fe"edback and determine the validity of DEPPI's alleged comments (Rick ROTONAssistant Nuclear Oversight Manager, Byron, was the only name she could recall). /
said the individuals that L 4po e to told I something completely different, that was more visible than the prioA, saidf never heard anything negative from anybody else, including LEVIS.
saidk quesioned DEPPI as to who the individuals were that felt performafice was lacking and asked DEPPI to givd
- specific examples on where he was getting his feedback, but DEPPI wasn't able to provide any and apologized for not first discussing these issues with
) '(Exhibit 9, pp. 58-60, 62-63).
said'
' and,,
discussed the/-
and got a clear understanding of whkt the investigation should encompass.,
)received a writwn memo, dated f
)documentinz what the scope would b1:
saidL. _
was to
/and it was discussed who should be interviewed, so it was decided that a hundred percent of the population of b~th supervisors and employees in thel a
-t A
felt (C
"Idid a "good job" on this (as documentec inN
(.
)In additionf said during the about the time HEFFLEY was interviewing'personnel for the, positions
)7
,was interviewed onr
)was having a conversation with NOT FOR PUB LDISC APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECT'C 0
STIGATIONS, REGION III~~
ase No.3-2-001-005 I.J
HEFFLEY about whether~m!_should provide another copy ofn
,resume for HEFFLEY to review, and he (HEFFLEY) stated, "that no he had it and just made an off-hand comment... that based on the Byron issue and feedback from Rich LANDY and Bob DEPPI he wasn't so sure... and that was it" (Exhibit 4, p. 1; Exhibit 9, pp. 33-34, 37-39; Exhibit 10, p. 3).
HEFFLEY indicated his training in the employment discrimination area has included required reading, which he believed was done annually. He also recalled on-the-job training he's received from his different former jobs as a manager (Exhibit 15).
Agent's Analysis 3ninterview with the.Exelon co tract representative, PIGOTT, shows PIGOTT
,ecked the box reco endinM for selectiop to the'A position on PIGOTT marked as having a -trenth or "Competent" raing, "Ie two highest of three ratings, in each of the category areas rated during his interview wite. xelon was unable to provide any of.he Candidate Summary forms completed for, m
y the individuals who interviewed
-'**position.
HEFFLEY receives annual refresher training in the employment discrimination area.
The evidence indicates that was arguat HEFFLEY's own testimony that he did not selec
-Ionclusion, and because or review assessmeN.
n ci-year zuuu when the_,
occurred. HEFFLEY's testimony is co V
.2 performance abilities.
multiple supervisors, corroborating the overall of the 1997 t-year 2000 performance testimony and written appraisals of pr ante reviews were completed by uracy of the performance review information.
Therefore, sinc
- inid-year 2000 performanc je contradicts the deficiencies proffered, and and his immediate supervisor,,
had never been advised of these so-called pe -orinmance deficiencies, an inference can be drawn coupled with the temporal NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLO, HOUT APPROVAL OF hz FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 0 OF I ATIONS, REGION Case No. 3-2001-005 2
(HEFFLEY recommended not selecti may not have been the true reason fo "immediatesupe sor since about 1998, said she ever hear anything negative from anybody about including from LEVIS, w.
ad regular contact with, as LEVIS was the Byron Site Vice President.
When the evidence is reviewed in it's entirety, there is an inference that it is more likely than not that becauseI within thel wand that this information was learned by HEFFLEY, it was considered, at least in part, as a contributing factor in his decision on or aboto not select or ositione reports issued
- chalenga the actions Exelon had been taking in this regard at the time. As a resu t o ot, etting selected for a new position within e merged Exelon/PECO company, was separated from the company after nearl ears of employment.
Conclusion Based on the evidence developed, the investigation did substantiate the allegation of deliberate employment discrimination agains by HEFFLEY.
- f. I Alleeation 2: Discrimination Against Concerns Relating to ar Harassment and Intimic SSafety
- 1.
Protected Activity on HELWIG at*
'C NOT FOR PUBLIC L
WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE D OR, OFFICE TESTIGATIONS, REGION Ill uase No. 3-2UU1-U05
/
I
ý, 0*0 27
- 2.
Knowledge ofMP rotected Aii may have been involved in the selectiQn process of the
,rovided a resume for, and
- th ought HELWIG C(Exhibit 2, pp. 46, 51-52, 60-61; Exhibit 10, KIicw p.3).
was aware of Directorof Outage Managemene and Services (Cor direct or specific knowledge o QN1Ialdi~mpression was that Ithi~
discussions were ongoing to create a cou'le op Exhibit 27, pp. 9-10).
,f HELW I
'SNOW, former "porate position), Exelon, denied having amy osition was not posted at the time, but '
- positions (Exhibit 9, pp. 24, 28-29, 40; LAWSON, Senior Outage Specialist, Exelon, denied knowing of any specific*
ad been involved in (Exhibit 12, pp. 5, 8-9).
HELWIG recalled an ut did not recall HELWIC3 kneI name, but ce t Byrn any W______
laimned that was it (Exhibit 28, pp. 9-12).
Agent's Analysis Since the element of knowledge protected activity was not established, no further analysis of the other elemenits was necessary.
Regardless,,
said there was no position posted a he time he se this resume, rather LAWS ON'was canvassin for who would be interested
- n.
SNOW IAWSON'was 1!nvassm se SNOWs indicated the position o elevant to
, was never filled due to not being able to find a qualified candidate for the position. SNOW testified that due to the merger between PECO and ComEd, that position was not included in the merger organization. SNOW saidj w
as not qualified for th osition.
SNOW denied HELWIG mentioned anything aboutrwork to him. H-LWIG denied being' v
Ihe interviewing, evaluation or selection process for any of the positions applicable tinKtELWIG rationalized his lack of involvement would have been because thd position would have reported to SNOW. HELWIG stated his only input to S14OW and JENNfGS was to seek outside experience from the companies that actually performed the work, believing that they were the most knowledgeable indiviquals. There was a lack of evidence to indicate HELWIG was involved in affecting*/
chances for a position (Exhibit 27, pp. 6, 8, 11-13; Exhibit 28, pp. 6, 13-16, 20-21).
Case 1' NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCL HOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, CE INVESTIGATIONS, REGION III 4o. 3-2001-005 28 "01,
'z"7 V/
Conclusion Based on the evidence developed, the investigation did not substantiate the allegation of employment discrimination againsA NOT FOR PUB LI THHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFIC CTTOR, 0 E OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-005 29
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY APPROVAL OF YATIONS. REGION III FIELD OFFICE Case No. 3-2001-005 30
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION On March 8, 2002, William P. SELLERS, Senior Litigation Counsel, Criminal Division, Fraud Section, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., 20005, advised that in his view the case did not warrant prosecution and rendered an oral declination.
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLO
-W T APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFIC TIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-005 31
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY "NOT FOR PUBLIC DIS WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO, OFFICE 0 VESTIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-005 C52
LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No.
Description 1
Investigation Status Record, 01 Case No. 3-2001-005, dated January 29, 2001.
2 Transcript of Interview of m
dated February 15, 2001.
-7 3
Letter froemd ated January 9, 2001.
7C 4
Memo from B. ADAMS, Regulatory Assurance Manager, Byron, to1 dated 5
Memo from to LEVIS, dated7C>
6 Memo from to LEVIS,
.ated_
7 Letter from o H-FFLEY, dated'
-7 8
E-mails between4 and LAWSON, dated June 29, 2000, including an enclosure.
9 Transcript of Interview of dated March 20,2001.
10 Event Log from to J. HELLER, RIll, dated 11 Narrative report written b
/dated.
12 Transcript of Interview of LAWSON, dated June 26,2001.
13 14 Transcript of Interview of HEFFLEY, dated July 2, 2001.
15 Interview Report with HEFFLEY, dated July 3, 2001.
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCL W UT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 0 7ESTIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2001-005 33
16 v
overall results rating sheets from his annual performance reviews "Tor the years 1997-1999, dated October 28, 1997, February 16, 1999, and March 26, 2000, and his mid-year performance review for the year 2000, dated August 23, 2000.
17 18 Transcript of Interview of DEPPI, dated August 22, 2001..
19 Transcript of Interview of BROCCOLO, dated August 30,2001.
20 Transcript of Interview of WINCHESTER, dated August 28, 2001.
21 Transcript of Interview of LANDY, dated August 30, 2001.
22 Transcript of Interview of LEVIS, dated August 28, 2001.
- 23 Exelon response to OI:RIII request for information, dated.
including internal job description for t
)
Aosition, dated May 15, 2000" 5t and resume;
")separation letter, dated profile, dated
/
24 Memo from MOSER to HEFFLEY, date 25 Transcript of Interview of MARINI, dated December 14, 2001.
26 Transcript of Interview of BOOK, dated December 14, 209Q.
27 Transcript of Interview of SNOW, dated December 19, 2001.
28 Transcript of Interview of HELWIG, dated December 17, 2001.
29 Transcript of Interview of MOSER, dated January 25, 2002.
30 TWo Candidate Summary forms.fr completed by HEFFLEY, dated and completed by PIGOTT, dated 31 Letter from LEVIS to H. Brent CLAYTON, NRC:RIII Enforcement Officer, dated September 18, 2000.
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISC WITH APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFI SSTIGATIONS, REGION W Case No. 3-2001-005 34
32 Letter from J. E. DYER, NRC:RIII, to 0. KINGSLEY, CornEd, dated September 2, 1999.
33 Letter from KRICH to DYER, dated March 1, 2000.
34 Letter from M. JORDAN, NRC:RfU, to KINGSLEY, dated March 31, 2000.
35 Letter from HEFFLEY to MARINI, dated August 15, 2000.
- Due to the voluminous size of the submittal, the full documentation is not included in the Report of Investigation, but will be maintained in the OI:RIII files.
OF Case No. 3-2001-005 35