ML052440327
| ML052440327 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/2003 |
| From: | Elizabeth Wilson NRC/OI/RGN-I/FO |
| To: | Miller H NRC Region 1 |
| References | |
| 1-2003-010, FOIA/PA-2004-0191 | |
| Download: ML052440327 (29) | |
Text
UNITED STATES H8NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGION I 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415 July 30, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO:
Hubert J. Miller, Regional Administrator Region I FROM:
Ernest P. Wilson, Director Office of Investigations Id Office, Region I
SUBJECT:
SALEM/HOPE CREEK: DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A SENIOR ENGINEER FOR RAISING CONCERNS THROUGH THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM (CASE NO. 1-2003-010)
Attached, for whatever action you deem appropriate, is the Office of Investigations (OI)
Report of Investigation concerning the above matter. Neither this memorandum nor the report may be released outside the NRC without the permission of the Director, 0!. Please ensure that any internal office distribution of this report is controlled and limited only to those with a need to know and that they are aware of the sensitivity of its contents. Treat as "Official Use Only."
Attachment:
Report w/exhibits cc w/attach:
F. Congel, OE cc w/report:
L. Chandler, OGC R. W. Borchardt, NRR (Attn: G. Cwalina)
Information in this record was deleted In accordance wit24te Freedom of Inforniatlo Act, exemptions
((_
FOIA.
°<
a on$n
Title:
SALEM/HOPE CREEK DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A SENIOR ENGINEER FOR RAISING CONCERNS THROUGH THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM Licensee:
Case No.: 1-2003-010 Public Service Electric & Gas Company Report Date: July 25, 2003 P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Control Office: OI:RI Docket Nos.: 50-272/311/354 Status: CLOSED Reported by:
Reviewed and Approved by:
Kristin L. Monroe, Special Agent t P. Wilson, Director Office of Investigations Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I Field Office, Region I Participating Personnel:
William Davis, Special Agent Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I DO NOT DISSEMINATE, PLACE PUBL OCUMENT ROOM OR DISCUSS THE CONTENTS OF THIS OF INVESTIGATION OUTSIDE NRC WITHOUT AUTHO RI APPROVING OFFICIAL OF THIS REPORT. UNAUTHO DISCLOS MAY RESULT IN ADVERSE ADMINISTRATI ACTION AND/OR COAL PROSECUTION.
- q'L
I.1 I
rI
Title:
SALEM/HOPE CREEK DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A SENIOR ENGINEER FOR RAISING CONCERNS THROUGH THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM Licensee:
Case No.: 1-2003-010 Public Service Electric & Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Docket Nos.: 50-272/311/354 Reported by:
Report Date: July 25,2003 Control Office: OI:RI Status: CLOSED Reviewed and Approved by:
Kristin L. Monroe, Special Agent Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I Ernest P. Wilson, Director Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I Participating Personnel:
William Davis, Special Agent Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I
\\
~WARNING/
DO NOT DISSEMINATE, PLA THE P IC DOCUMENT ROOM OR DISCUSS THE CONTENTS OF T I
RT OF INVESTIGATION OUTSIDE NRC WITHOUT AUTH F THE APPROVING OFFICIAL OF THIS REPORT. UNA ZED DIS SURE MAY RESULT IN ADVERSE ADMINIS IVE ACTION AND/O CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
SYNOPSIS This investigation was initiated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Investigations (OI), Region I Field Office, on January 9, 2003, to determine if a senior engineer, PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG), working at Salem/Hope Creek Generating Stations, was discriminated against for engaging in a protected activity. Specifically, the senior engineer believes that he/she was suspended, removed from plant access, and threatened with receiving a poor performance appraisal and termination in August 2002 because he/she raised a concern through PSEG's Corrective Action Program in July 2002.
Based upon the evidence developed during this investigation, 01 did not substantiate that the senior engineer was discriminated against for having engaged in a protected activity.
NOT FOR:]
FIELD OFFICE APPROVAL OF QATIONS, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010 I
U 0
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBLIC DISC WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECT OFFICE S, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010.
2
t
.J TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SYNOPSIS.1.................................
LIST OF INTERVIEWEES.5......................
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION......................
7 Applicable Regulations.................
7 Purpose of Investigation................................
7 Background...............................
7 Interview of Alleger...............................
8 Allegation: (Discrimination Against a Senior Engineer for Raising Concerns Through the Corrective Action Program)................................
11 Evidence................................
11 Agent's Analysis................................
20 Conclusion.................................
21 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORmATION................................
23 LIST OF EXHIBITS................................
25 NOT FOR PUBLIC DI 0
ITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC R, OFFICE OF 1 V
U ONS, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010 3
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUB OUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO FFICE OF TIGATIONS, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010 4
LIST OF INTERVIEWEES Exhibit 7Seniior Engineer, PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG), working at Sal r
Creek Generating Stations (Salem/Hope Creek)......................
6 Principal Engineer, PSEG, Salem/Hope Creek
_PSEG, Salem/Hope Creek).....
......... 15 FISHER, Ronald F., Access Authorization Supervisor, PSEG, Salem/Hope Creek.....
..... 19 Engin ee ring Supervisor, PSEG, Salem/Hope Creek.................
16 MANNON, Steven, Project Manager, PSEG, Salem/Hope Creek.......................
14 e n io r Engineer, PSEG; Salem/Hope Creek.................
18 MOORE, Kenneth F., Technical Manager, PSEG, Salem/Hope Creek.......
............. 13 SETTLE, Robert, Engineering Supervisor, PSEG, Salem/Hope Creek...................
17 NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCL WITH APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC ICE GATIONS, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010 5
U U
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSURE WI APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFTIGATIONS, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010 6
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Applicable Regulations 10 CFR 50.5: Deliberate misconduct (2002 Edition) 10 CFR 50.7: Employee protection (2002 Edition)
Purpose of Investigation This investigation was initiated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of veti Region I Field Office, on January 9, 2003, to determine if Senior Engineer, PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG), working at Salem/Hope Creek Generating St tions (Salem/Hope Creek) was discriminated against for engaging in a protected activity. Specificallybelieves thafmwas suspended, removed from plant access, and threatened with receiving a poor performance appraisal and termination, in August 2002 becaus(aised a concern via PSEG's Corrective Action Program (CAP) in July 2002 (Exhibit 1).
Background
On August 23, 2002_first alleged to the NRC thathad been discriminated against for raising a concern via PSEG's CAP in July 2002 (Exhibit 2).
AGENT'S NOTE ssafety concern and discriminatory acts were the same as those detailed in the Purpose Section of this Report of Investigation, supra.
On September 4, 2002, a Region I Allegation Review Board (ARB) was held wherein it was determined tha had articulated a prima facie showing of discrimination which resulted in the iniiationon 01 investigation intooliscrimination concern [OI Case No.
1-2002-033]. When 01 contacte d
for an interview on September 5, 2002dgdeclined to be interviewed at that time becad takel~concern to PSEG's Employee Concerns Program (ECP). That 01 case was closed as unsubstantiated on September 27, 2002 (Exhibit 2).
Exhibit 3 is a copy of a memorandum to from Tom LAKE, Employee Concerns Investigator, PSEG, Salem/Hope Creek, date mber 18, 2002, concernin ECP issue which involved alleged retaliation due tq _
ising a concern t iupv sor about the appropriateness ot TARP (Transient Assessment Response Plan) team. ECP did not find tha t
upervisor had retaliated againsti NOT FOR PUBLIC DIS OUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO FICESTIGATIONS, REGION I CaseNo. 1-2003-0 7
Pk Ps Q-
On December 20 2002, gain alleged to the NRC thafthad been discriminated against because* had s eaconcern via PSEG's CAP, citing the same discriminatory acts as initial allegation to the NRC in August 2002 (Exhibit 4).
On January 8, 2003, a second Region I ARB was convened to review_
allegation, wherein it was determined that OI would initiate an investigation discrimination concern (Exhibit 5).
cat l.a.
Interview of Alleger (Exhibit 6) s assigned to the TARP team on July 2, 2002, via an email. did TP until.received the erail notifyingfthat TARP Team was Dwas the Engineering representative for the team, a positionjdid Once found out thatwas on the team, the figsting5lid was read the [TARP]
.procede (see Exhibit 9). After reading the procedure, did not feel that~was qualified to be on TARP becausep had no emergency plan qualification or event guide classification training (pp. 10 and 11).
Exhibit 10 is a copy of an email to i
frnin dated July 8, 2002.
wrote that it appeared thatJ
~d been put on TARP Ieam D without~knowledge or consent.
The "Engineering Core Value of Openness. Trust. and Resnect" was violated by the "backdoor tactic."_
equested an immediate meeting w ith o resolve the issue in a
"... fair, safe and equitable manner."
fFe lt th the assignent was an "extremely inappropriate action" on managements p also wrote tha(Whad read the TARP procedure and believed tha did [not] have the approp te "rank" or background and training for the assignment.
During the mieeting wion July 8, 2002, tc abouttuafalification to do what the procedure reqi not been qualified on the Emergency Event Classification Guide n
[TARP] procedural requirements. According tol NOT FOR PUBLIC DIS FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO Case No. 1-2003-0 10 8
[thawwas concerned do becauselohad qualifications meet reply was not to worry kPPROVAL OF IATIONS, REGION I
Gl TFUN 1_qL--,
v_ ?r about it. Because downplayed the procedural requirem en tsc oncluded thatIdid not understand what the [TARP] procedure actually stated (Exhibit 6, p 13).
dvised that on July 12 2002, after a robabiistic safety assessment (PSA) meeting, l
ve atoldat erformance partnershi performance ap raisal] would be impacted i did not accept the'assignment.
told ih iakthvould not violate a procedure (Exhibit 6, p. 15 and Exhibit 11).
When and could not come to an eme went to
[July 16,2002] who also tol not to worry about i went through the TARP procedure wit ine by line. According t
_ e n
they got to bullet three which indicated, "The TARP team reviews all after event emergency guide classifications,"
_vas surprised and commented that was not done (Exhibit 6, p. 17).
AGENT'S NOTE: The procedure discloses, "Review all 'after-the Fact' ECG classifications to ensure that the station is not in an emergency situation as well as the circumstances concerning why an 'after-the Fact' classification was made" (Exhibit 9,
- p. 10).
)ddvised thati Suggested that
'te a notification about the part of the E
that was not being followed, which did.
alo suggested that drevise the to reflect what was actually being defused to revise the procedu re s point was that the procedure should olwe as it was written (Exhibit 6, pp. f6T)3f During the meetin from the TARP team, and replaed with another en r
said that was ".. sensitive to the drive and aid you are off." W hile concern was about
,qualificati remove.
om TARP which resolvedtersonal issue. When asked by OI if it w oal to get off TARP,_ _
rsponded Absolutely not would have stayed on TARP if they had been patient and waited fojio get training
~
(Exhibit 6, pp. 19-21).
On er the meeting with erated Notification No.
see Exhibit 12). After writing theni sent an email to inicating that a new volunteer had bep foud for TARP and, according to off TARP. A draft of ECP statement discloses thatWUelt that it was a on eal" because the notification was in the process andawas no longer on TARP (Exhibit 7).'
NOT FOR PUBLT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFIC R, OFFICE STIGATIONS, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010 9
AGENT'S NOTE: O's copy of the notification response does not have signatures. The original was eventually processed with signatures as required.
Ont"0 pprac
_aro d9:
am. and gav5 a
hard copy of the disposition otification oldthat they needed to aneeded decision by 12:00 p.m. that'da According t 3
'9 "4vague";s t know what decisio lookingofor.
ass umed thlookin for agree with the disposition of the noticon, however id not as be more specific (Exhibit 6, pp. 22-24).
,P 0
wrg on a project that had a noon deadline.
,had finished the project whe asked fofdecision.
askedw what decision Kiwas looking for aid TARP. Whe ed If ad spoken t id[diae d
h a was surpnsed becaase they were babk to "... square one basically." Wheri t
eeded time to read the disposition,, old noneeded an answer now, tol that based upon the response t otification, there ase af aned to make a decision immediately. Whe i :
again tol eede to read the notification "extremely agitated and started accusin of being insubordinate for not answerinuestion.'
_l h en tol relieved of duty and thatohad to leave the site.
ccompane out of the rotected area, througjh security.
_told eand to mee#Mffsite [outside the protected area
].
believes thattvas effectively suspended or administratively removed from the site (Exlibit 6, pp. 24-33 and Exhibit 8).
0o calledt homebecaus wasconfused
- about, rea what wa o
on," because it was a situatio a never been in before. According t tol d
okay and to come i on and they would talk.v thaave someone from Quality Assurance A) present for the meetid 0 that wanted QA present because felt that revious conversations wi a d been 'threatening" (Exhibit 6, pp. 30-39).
0jftfa message wi ndivas not!
coming to work for staying out of work w was out of work lie((Exhibit 6, pp. 33 and 3 On Monday, August 19"' whe ineturned to the sitelcould not t into the facility.
$was told by Security tha a ge was on administrative hold and thacould not get on NOT FOR PUBLIC DS WiTHU APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE OFFICE 0GI ONS, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010 10 J
sitipoke to his supervisor.f caaledj
\\vho said thatlwould meet tTB2 training building at 10:00 a.m. (Exhibit 6, pp.36 and 37).
met with August 19'. Also present was Bob SETTLE, another supervisor, who was there [a~
request] to witness the meeting. During the meeting
'c'clearly stated" tha aces about being on TARP.
so mentione a safety conscious work enonmentot'spiel out," which acknowledged.
thatW as on TARP an eed to agree to the assignment.
wivould be on TARP and do whatever,4'anted. Fc "whatever reason,'
old_ thativas suspended and neede to leave the bding. Wheo u and asked ht*W as talking about, aid
' "okay," but could not "rail" about performance indicators ani could not complain about management (Exhibit 6, pp. 37-5 1).
d or Circa November 18, 2002 received a me dum from ECP's Tom LAKE (see Exhibit 3) indicating that ECP had not found th ad retaliated again W3 said that the memorandum indicated thaJad been on "decision making leave" the of
_ed that th mmorandum was the first time tharad heard that terminology. It m ad
_ "little concerned" that they were "backfittig" their decisions to their explanations.
aid that ever tol decision making leave. Furthe disagreed with ECP's conclusion th at_
had not retaliated agains46 (Exhibit 6, pp. 51-55).
Allegation:
Discrimination Against a Senior Engineer for Raising Concerns Through the Corrective Action Program Evidence Protected Activity On initiated PSEG non-compliance with the TARP pro qualifications to be on TARP wit garding procedural oncerns abouf Management Knowledee Advised that haw.ad a safety. concern with the TARP procedure and had a concern about the implementation of that procedure (Exhibit 15, pp. 24-28).
FIELD OFFICE REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010 11
?0)Lc3Y~ Q 0-,
(
_flst became aware tha a d a conceI ARP qualifications in a July 8, 2002 email (see Exhibit 10).
knew that ad initiated a notification
[about the TARP procedure] becas iews notifications daily (Exhibit 16, p. 44).
Adverse Actions as Perceived be
(_was suspended, removed from plant access, and received threats of a poor performance appraisal and termination, in August 2002 (Exhibits I and 8).
Wall
?
Discriminated Aainst for Raising an Issue Through the Corrective Action ProgoMr?
Interview of MOORE (Exhibit 13)
Kenneth F. MOORE, Technical Manager, Operations Department, PSEG, has worked at Salem/Hope Creek for approximately 22 years.
MOORE recalled that ila one of the pe selected for the TARP team. Valid not know howJW'yas selected. MOORE learned fro ad sme issues about being on TARP and was somewhat "miffed"'!about the assignment.
MOORE became involved with th _intiated notification when asked him perfo n independent review o rsponse.
The noification documented
_concerns with the TARP procedure. MOtRE recalled that_
issues were that there were not enough emergency response qualified people to validate if an event classification was correct, and that there was non-compliance with the TARP procedure.
Regarding the procedural non-compliance aspect, MOORE thought that it related to being emergency response qualified. MOORE advised OI that TARP members [per the TARP procedure] do not need to be emergency response qualified.
MOORE reviewe disposition of the notification and tol bthat it looked good.,
.He did not modifyi and vewedi as almost a non-issu.M REOuil Interview of MANNON (Exhibit 14)
Steve MANNON, is a Project Manager at Salem/Hope Creek. In the July to August 2002 time frame, he was the Manager, Reliability Engineering (p. 10).
MANNON recalled attending a meeting [June 4, 2002] where a discussion was held about identifying the next group of people to be on the TARP team. The people who were on TARP NOT FOR PUBIŽDC T
iOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECT ONS, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010 12
?DWXB5 Ob
had been there for c
_becaus; plants a well (pp. 15-18 and 24).
MANNON was supposed to notify tha had been selected for TARP.
MANNON advised that the meeting had been late in the day and hefo t to leave a voice fo
_on way home. By the time he remembered to tell already knew thawas on TARP (pp. 25-27).
Interview it 15 tis currently d4 202 tamwasM PSEG since March 1996 the July to August has been employed by
_explained that if an individual was qualified to be a s ervisor or a senior engineer, they would be [quaifiedlo be on TARP.A characterizedfunction on T a
point of contact.1 would collect data and assist the TARP team leader.
I felt that a specific iscipline from within the Engineering organization was needed,R uld ask for someone from that discipline.
scribed the TARP assignment as a god for growth and devilopment and at the same time, a help to the organization.
_~aid that a TARP assignment is like any other assignment, in that it had to be done (pp. 13-19).
ed tha as ece for the TARP team from eithe or could no re which.
some "checking"and fodnd that l MANNON, Who had attended the meting fo uggest e
elt it was a good opportunity fomM ANNON was supposed to tell thtad been selected, however, bS e
as not timely in getting back ta TA meeting notice reached fore management could tel about the assignment (pp. 22-24).
Sometime later told that ad some concerns about g
T lLA there was some resistance as far as taking the assignment.
tol Work wi find out wha c
erns were, and resolve t als]
tol hat i _iwanted to speak ould do so (p. 24).~
Fet date )
d tol d tha1 ad a safety concern with the ocedure and tha not qualified to do the tasks that were in the procedure.
also had a concern about the implementation of the procedure.
otold NOT FOR PUBLICtDSs OWlIIOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE R, OFONS, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010 13 awns
\\ -
o write a notification because that was the process. When at due to a lack of trainingtould not make operational decisio ns_
to do was collect data and, 'ifeeded help,'_Wcould all in oth
/also told at ifgneeded additional training it would be provided to' opined thaumisunderstood the TARP procedure (pp. 24-28).
MMMMM ak so raised an issue aboulUhards Whe no iiad discussed the bards p wi tha 1jol dshould discuss it wi In the mean time wo ssign someone r rarily to TARP until uld resolv person situation (pp. 24-26).
Sometime lat e
received a voice mail fromf akn for being sensitive Situation and for assigning someone else to TARPresponded via voice mail telig
,that the replacement was temporary unt could work it out with.
30).
Following the meeting wi spoke to d tolca that3 wanted to assign a temporary replacement to TARP because of personal situation.
When the situation was resolvedcwould be back on TARP.
selected A
_eemporary replacement (pp. 26 and 29).
Re ardin the events betand August 19, 2002i ecalled that told him that continued to resist accepting the assignment.
be sure to get ECP and Human Resources involved kept_
informed about the issue. The outcome was wwould still not accept the TARP assignment. l c
could not recall wh continued to refuse the assignment (pp. 36 and 37).
advised that id not return to work until Augusaccepted the TARP assignment that day, however,,ltold adhat a
d some medical issues and tha not respond to ihe TARP assignment (p.37).
Interview xhibit 6) s a supervisor in where ve u, roups. Mas been employed by PSEG since January 1992. In Ju yAugust 20 reporte t He currently reports to teports to
>pp.6 and 7).
advised that prior to this issue had a good, professional relationship with While they were never friends, they effectively worked together on issues. While NOT FOR PUBLICDWITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD TOR, OFFICE 0A N, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010 14
. p7flw q
there were no da to day issues, e
ied Was sometimes being stubborn.
_none to ECP and the NRC has become "noncommunicative" with r ssponds to direct questionrs, but rarely initiates a iscussion (pp. 8-10).
D
_ vas on TARP from 1999 until early 2001 where as the engineering leacs_
explained that while a TARP assignment was not punitive, it was not a pleasant assignment either. No one wanted an assignment that could result in being called late at night (pp. 11-13).
AGENT'S NOTE: During the course of the'OI interview eferred to notes had taken during or followingfliscussions w ibit 6A).
During a meeting wi on July II or 2"'j apologized for the way that I-was notified abo ARP s
toldhat tWould not accept the assigment and cut sho discussion aboitii
=ppoftiunity that TARP offered.
e s
a belligerent and not open to discussion, someone who could not appreciate the need to support department jobs
_n aid that was generally upset, saying thafWdid not think that it was fairquld not accept
!the assignment until a procedure was written about how we e assignedto TARP and until flhought that'Riad been assigned via a fair process did not see that mahagement had the right to giv n assignmeniw as "declarative" inslefusal to accept the assignment until itions were met (pp. 17-20).
d Human Resources informed aboutrogress wi
'Befor w eetmig wi i
n July 8 *in et with Debbie STROMILLER, Client Consultant, Human Reources, becaus cit that there could be a potential insubordination issue. S1RO MWR recommend that the e ormance partnership and salary readjustment be part of discussion w ith
_ M to the consequences of not accepting the TARP assignment (p. 30).
During the meeting bn told at the TARP procedure required.
technical skills. Whe o identify th s in the procedure that required those skillswas to do so.
explained to that it was a leaders positon and thatlearly demonstrated leadership skills.
also tried to explain that TARP was a developmental opportunity and that the exposure and training could giv~the opportunity to demonstrate those skills.
as kin ifA c
'zed that there could be consequences to not taking the assi nment anything fom a letter inflle to an impact onialary. The meeting ended wireitera refusal of the assignment becau'se it was a procedural violation.
offere the use of the professional differing opinion process (pp. 23-32).
NOT FOR PUB IGISCL9,SkAE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DOF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010 15 at C-)Y,
_i poke to ECP on July 1 1"' because o belief that there was a procedural ai1 En possible safety issues. As such, ought it was in ECP's realm (p. 34).
On July 12h, following a PSA meeting, asked stay back.
told tha did not see any issues ifications bas ediupo procedure and the duties in the proedure restateda osition and refused to take the assignment.
at y beleved that there was no problem or violation. At poin ot very ang anand accuse f retaliation and was screaming atup and left the meeting7
_J told 01 thawdisagreed withasassertion that advised about the
- consequences of not taking the TARP assirn ent was a threat.as informed about the conseq nces of not taking the assignment after all oUsues had been addressed cs aid that there was a point when aftito negotiate wid_
indcating thuld take an o assinet i ould not assigro TARP.
eeieves that w as trying to see what the worst consequence of not accepting the'assi
'ent would be.
thatineard fro as one sided input about w h wrong about the procedure an w
as more qualified to interpre aracterized the exchanges w itli very difficult" (pp. 35-39).'
When asked by 01 tout into context a comment otes about ulling bbadge (see Exhibit 1 6A) acknowled d that blisd pdemneanor and behavior dunn the Jul 12" discussion, uestioned if Ed remain on site.
Ultimately ecided not to lace an administrative hold o n9_
badge at that time because o asic trust in integi with respect to Iplant security. Further, ger was focused at not the nuclear industry (pp. 3941).
earned aboJul meeting in a voice mail from understood that toldwould temo
- beoff,
'TAR-attd raised personal concerns about taking the assignment.
learned a couple of day_'later front tha ould write a notificatio till had a concern with the procedure (p. 43).
masked odraft the response to not ification. After doing so, Ps ke do review it to see ifgreed because MO RE was the technical sponsor for the procedure and seemed to be the most knowledgeable.
a "little uncomfortable" drafting the response becausvfwas the reason why W ti ated it (pp. 44-46).
NOT FOR PUBLIC O
ITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010 16
Mid-morning on avethe notificationd sition (see Exhibit 12, P. 10) ad o
review It so they could get together by noon.n was hoping to ge acceptance that there was no safety concern with the procedure.
notaa geenl impression was they would meet at noon.
as not aware tha a project with a noon deadline (pp. 53 and 54).
said that noon came and went withou
- talkin, round 1:00 p.m.
asked discuss the issue wi W hil may not have been specific as to the suented that i wasmost sigmat ssue tha and
_ had.Whee_
toldthatwwanted tom
- efused, teling~ihat not ave enough time to prepare a defense.
hi_
asked fther could move to a conference room for a private discussion,_
fD.
told that the organization had answered wonc ad found no issues with the TA ci e dure.
e ol
_ that they were wrong, that ad agreed with an would not discuss it wi said was arg entative am offeredfthe use o opinion p
d ad read the procedure and accuse fnot fol cWh11
_caracterized the discussion w ide_
as confrontational.
Because MIRo nresponsive to his directio askeW to leave the site (pp. 54-S
=1 aasked'to leave the site beca abouwdecision concerning the TARP assignmnent. As they left, atoldthatwvanted to think abo sion and come back to work on Monday wh ey would continue the discussion.
m a id that it was very likely that~kid not use the term decision making leave, but it 7
at
_w as leaving the site to think aboutimecision with respect toparticipation on TARP. The recommendation to have _jeave the site to think about this decision came from Human Resources. If the discussion wi bw as nonproductivetould use the option of decision making leave f think aboutilecision. Decision making leave is not punitive and it was not a suspension from employment (pp. 56, 57, and 72).
With respect tcieeing embarrassed about being escorted from the site said that to any observer it looked like twpeople walking to the gateas not in "handcuffs." For some reason o
uld not walk with stead lagging behind. There was nothing that would have made anyone tnthathas being escorted from the site (pp. 57 and 58).
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCL ET APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC STIGATIONS, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010 17
'z~~~L i6
th as shocked and silent afteitwas aske leave the site.
jrnderstood why_
'did not remember that the reasonVwas leaving the site was to think about "ecision because was "truly upset" (p. 58).
_adadbadge put on administrative bol lanned fr to return to work rght after the meeting o n
_d id not tell aadge would be on administrative hold because it did not occur 4o do so (pp. 59-61).
Ronald FISHER, Access Authorization Supervisor, Salem/Hope Creek, PSEG, confirmed that f
a badge was placed on management [administrative] hold by due to
"... conflict with some work assignments." He advised that the deactivation of the badge would only include the ability to access the protected area. FISHER said that' access was neither a denial or suspension (Exhibit 19, pp. 14-16).
I Around 9:30 p.m. on ll at home withfirst question'being aboutststatus.
tol still employed. When wanted A at the meeting, ol that another supervisor would be there, notold 01 that the point of themeeting was to resolve and reconcil 7eptance of the TARP assignment.Mdid not see a QA part in a discussion problems with the TARP assignment (Exhibit 16, pp. 61-66).
was out on sick leave the Scas tol\\
tiWdid not want to meet with alone and because wanted someone present to take notes and make sure tha t
as being reasonable, SETTLE sat in on the August 19t" meeting.
ak o
reconsiderf positionin gain asserted=multiple reasons for not wanting to e the assignment and asked about the consequences of not taking it. Scold 01 that this was the second time tha was negotiating or trying to understand the consequences of not taking the assignment versus raising explicit safety issues. When asked by O icaccepted the assignment during the meeting.
responded that the closes't he got to an answer was "whatever," "what ever you want," or words to that effect. Becaus interIr t
e i
response as a nowtold that was suspended eedsp e to be no because oft stressful situation. Wh enrealized that actually accepted the assignment rescinded uickly" the suspension and apologized to for jumping to that conclusion characterized the meeting as "high anxiety" (Exhibt 16, pp. 69 and 75-78).
asaid that<
ended up not being a TARP member because of a medical disability (Exhibit 16, pp. 81 and 82; and Exhibit 20).
NOT FOR PUBLIC WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC FFICE STIGATIONS, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010 18
AGENT'S NOTE: It should be noted that medical reasons were never proffered to as an excuse for not being able to participate on the TARP team.
Interview of SETTLE (Exhibit 17)
SETTLE is an Engineering Supervisor who has been employed by PSEG for 21 years (pp. 8-10).
SETTLE has been on TARP since June or July 2002. When asked how TARP impacted his personal life, SETTLE responded that, "It's a pain in the backside." Every four weeks he is on call and sometimes there is a need to respond to the site on a weekend or a weeknight after work (p.13).
SETTLE advised tha ked him to be the second supervisor for a personnel meeting
[on August 19f]. Until _
am e to the meeting, SETTLE did not know the nature of the issue. During the meeting SETTLE took handwritten notes which he later transcribed (Exhibit 17A). He advised that those [contemporaneous] notes are his best recollection of the meeting (pp. 18-21).
Exhibit 17A is a copy of SETTLE's notes which depict tha
_i terpreted_
response about accepting the assignment as a refusal and tha t
told-thawas suspended. Whio d
thatccepted the assignm eni rescinded the suspension.
is a senior engineer who has been employed by PSEG for approximately eleven years (pp. 1 md).
has been a TARP member for about one yearItold
_tha he was looking for another member of the TARP team and told him that it would be goo his future with the coan to take the assignment. When asked b OI if he was replacing anyone on the team, responded that he knew th was having difficulty accepting t assignrent. He was also aware that here was d p
the position filled and that was why he was asked to fill itwas under the impression that his participation on TARP was voluntary and that he could have refused the position without any adverse consequences (pp. 8-12).
AGENT'S NOI esified that nanagement style was to ask someone to take an assignien.
oes not tento be directive unless necessary (Exhibit 16, p. 88).
NOT FOR PUBL DIOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE D OR, OFFIC TIGATIONS, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010 19 9t ptiuo
Agent's Analysis L
has worked at Salem/Hoe Creek for approximately twelve years alleges thaU was discriminated against becauss raised a safety concern about the TARP procedure and qualifications to be on TARP via PSEG's CAP in July 2002.
a sserts thaCVwas relieved of duty on i
, administratively removed from plant access on August 19Ib, and threatened with receiving a poor performance appraisal and termination in August 2002 because 63aised the concern.
Because MANNON forgot to info
_j3ha 3
ad been selected for TARP, learned about the assignment in a July 2, 2002, email not froanagement as would be expected, establishingfeeling that Engineering core values of opermess, trust and respect had been violated by the "backdoor tactic," and thatfthe TARP assignment was an "extremely inappropriate action" on management's part.
While the TARP assi ent may be viewed as a good opportunity and a developmental assignment, d SETTLE indicated that it was not a pleasant assignment and was one that coud impact an individual's home life because there could be a need to report to the site during off duty hours.
Althoug v
ould not admit it, it is clear that, for whatever reason4 did not want the TARP assignment and raised both personal and safety related concerns to avoid takin the assignment. Unti couldr s
onal concern, too offethe TARP team tempo To satisfy rofessional co certol to write a notification whicb id. Not satisfied with the company's response to the notificati continued to resist taking the assignment which culminated with t
O o
leave the site on to considedwecision about the TARP.
assignment.
Whil sent home and was put on administrative hold on_
either action was punitive and was not the result o raising a safety concerri via the CAP. After several meetha reached an impasse with resect to the TARP assigmnt ent hometo conside cision and put pcess on administrative hold with the intent uing the discussion onra paid during this time of decision making leave.
Contrary to belief that vas threatened with a poor performance appraisal and termination efused the TARP assignment, estified thatf3vas explaining the possible consequences oIefusing tuhe assignment, which OI deems to be credible.
The possible consequences of not taking the assignment were a fact, not a threat.
NOT FOR PUBLICID SIW T APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC STIGATIONS, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010 20
(
m w as on sick leave the and did not return to the site until Monday August 19t, at which timedfound that he could not gain access to the si e a and
_ m et on August 19k with SETTLE present as a witness, whertinued to resist taking the assignent. When asked foW ecisio b
elicved t t
refused it sd ol tha was suspended. OncW 2
qF h
ad apparently ajjjjjjd the assig nent 1 )ln ediately rescinded the suspension and apologized to After apparently accepting the assignmen ontinued to pursue the TARP issue with Salem/Hope Creek's ECP meeting with T6m LAKE on August 27,2002. In a November 18, 2002, memorandum u
_was informed that ECP did not conclude tlh had retaliated or discriminated in any way against In an interview with 01 on FeCruaqy 5, 200340 jadvised 1aWisagreed with ECP's finding. Ultimately did not have'to participate on the TARP team due to a medical condition which arose aftelbad raised S
afety concerns.
Conclusion Baepon the evidence developed during this investigation, OI did not substantiate that
'was discriminated against for having engaged in a protected activity.
NOT FOR PUBLIC 0
ITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE D TOR, OFFICE OF ATIONS, REGION I CaseNo. 1-2003-010 21 p(t 1yJ~m5
u THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010 22
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Regardin assertion that there was a "chilling effect" at Salem/Hope Creek, all those interview exception of did not have any concerns about raising issues or safety concerns.
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLO WHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREJ FFICE OF GATIONS, REGION I CaseNo. 1-2003-010 23 9LFt AS>
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010 24
LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No.
Description 1
Investigation Status Record, dated January 9, 2003 (I page).
2 Investigation Status Record, dated September 5, 2002, with attachment (3 pages).
3 Memorandum t from PSEG's LAKE, dated November 18, 2002 (1 page).
4 Letter to VITO, frog dated December 20,2002 (2 pages).
5 Allegation Disposition Record, Allegation No. RI-2002-A-01 13, dated January 8, 2003 (1 page).
6 Transcript of Interview with dated February 5, 2003 (69 pages).
7 Draft copy o k
statement to the ECP (7 pages).
8 Copy o i
n e Line of Events (1 page).
9 Copy of PSEG Procedure SH.OP-AP.ZZ-0101(Q) - Rev. 6, "Post-Transient Response Requirements," effective date May 13, 2002 (36 pages).
10 Copy of an email fronr t
dated July 8, 2002 (1 page).
11 Copy of an email dated July 12, 2002, documenting the PSA meeting (1 page).
12 Copy of PSEG Notification Numbe 13 Interview Report of MOORE, dated May 5,2003 (2 pages).
14 Transcript of Interview with MANNON, dated April 29,2003 (32 pages).
15 Transcript of Interview wi ated April29, 2003 (54 pages).
16 Transcript of Interview dated May 5, 2003 (93 pages).
NOT FOR PUBLIC DlE~ 370OUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRE TO iOFFICk
,STIGATIONS, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010 25 At1>
16A 17 17A 18 19 20 Copy of excerpts fro Daily Record of Events (8 pages).
Transcript of Interview with SETTLE, dated April 29, 2003 (32 pages).
popy ofSETTLE's typed notes from the Ineeting betwee and on Agust19,2002 (I page).
Transcript of Interview dated May 5, 2003 (21 pages).
Transcript of Interview with FISHER, dated May 5, 2003 (20 pages).
Copy of an email t from ATKINSON, dated August 26,2002 (1 page).
NOT FOR PUBL D
iSSUE OUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFI INESTIGATIONS, REGION I Case No. 1-2003-010 26 Q L r [