ML052780316
| ML052780316 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/2005 |
| From: | Rzepka R, Duane White NRC/OI/RGN-II/FO |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 2-2004-049, FOIA/PA-2005-0335 | |
| Download: ML052780316 (25) | |
Text
-
Title:
SALEM/HOPE CREEK DISCRIMINATION AGAINST a
OO R
RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS Licensee:
Case No.: 2-2004-049 Salem/Hope Creek PO Box 509 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Report Date: February 28, 2005 Control Office: OI:RII Docket No(S).: 05000272, 05000311,05000354 Status: CLOSED Reported by:
Reviewed and Approved by:
I I Q :
I7 II
'Robert P. Rzepa,'Acting Director Office of Investigations Field Office, Region II t
Darrell B. White, Senior Special Agent Office of Investigations Field Office, Region II WARNING DO NOT DISSEMINATE, PLACE ITHE PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM, OR DIS THE CONTENTS OF S REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OUTSIDE N WITHOUT AUTHORI F THE APPROVING OFFICIAL OF TREPORT. UNAUTHO ED DISCLOSURE MAY RESULT IN ADVER DMINISTRATIVE AXN AND/OR Information inCi MecIP hras P3eX E CU in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, exemptions.Si dr (
64A*
J°8i
'3*
SYNOPSIS The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of-Investigations (OI), Region I(RII),
initiated this investigation on October 5, 2004, to determine i__
t the Public Service Electric and Gas's (PSE&G) Hope Creek Nuclear Plant (Hope Creek) was the subject of employment discrimination by his management for reporting safety concerns.
Based on the evidence developed during this investigation, the allegation that aMhhIHope Cre e_
a s
the subject of employment discrimination for reporting safety concerns was not substantiated.
NOT FO DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APNQVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC FFICE OF INVESTIGATIORThwGION II I C/
Case No. 2-2004-049 I
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR ISCLOSURE WITHOU VAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTORECE OF INVESTIGATIO GION II Case No. 2-2004-049 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SY N OPSIS I
LIST OF INTERVIEWEES........................
5 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION.......................
7 Allegation..............................................................
Applicable Regulation....................................................
Purpose of Investigation...................................................
Background............................................................
Coordination with Re o.
Interview of Allege Review of Documenta ion..............-
Analysis of Evidence....................................................
Conclusion.............................................................
7 7
7 7
8 8
10 18 21
.1uL LIST OF EXHIBITS.............
23 NOT FIC DISCLOSURE WITFAUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRE
,OFFICE OF INVESINN IONS<,
REGION II Case No. 2-2004-049 3
El l1. d
-7
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FO C~iI DISCLOSURE WITNLJT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIR OFFICE OF INVESTIOTTNS, REGION II
) 'IAA nAn A
-t
^ElQ-MT bab 1N.
4--UV5-rult It
LIST OF INTERVIEWEES Exhibit No.
ublic Service Enterprise CAMPBELL, William J., Maintenance Manager, PSEG..............................
14 KOPPEL, Peter J. Jr., Pump Engineer, PSEG.......................................
15 PRICE, Devon B., Refueling Outage Manager, PSEG................................
16 PYSHER, David, Facilities Manager, PSEG........................................
17 TOCCI, Peter, Maintenance Manager, PSEG......................................
19 HS -Iwtg PSEG...................................
18 NOT C DISCLOSURE WITHOUT AL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC1 QFFICE OF INVESTIGATIO REGION II Case No. 2-2004-049 5
Id1 A
a
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR P-FSCLOSURE WI ROVALOF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, FFICE OF IVESTIG RION II Case No. 2-2004-049 6
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Allegation:
Discrimination Against ror Raising j C-Safety Concerns Applicable Regulation (2003 Edition) 10 CFR §50.7: Employee protection 10 CFR §50.5: Deliberate misconduct Purpose of Investigation The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Invest;"tions (OI), Region II (RuI),
initiated this investigation on October 5 2004, to determine i A (
t the Public Service Electric and Gas' (PSEG) Hope CreeFucear lant(HopeCreek)wasthesubject of employment discrimination by his management for reporting safety concerns (Exhibit 1).
Backeround On August 30, 2003 l t the Hope Creek and lem Generating Stations, informed the NRC RI allegations coordinator that he was discriminated against for identifying a problem regarding high vibrations in the Hope Creek "B" re culatin pum that resulted in a Level 1 Root Cause Evaluation in 2001.
Specifical ndicated that during an outage preparation meeting sponsored by senior nt managemc t, hi was asked what should be done to correct the high vibrations in the "7 PUMP.
M l
Old the group that a complete makeover of the pump' rotating element was neded and would cost apprpximately 14 million dollars.
said that "loud discussions" then occurred, a id that he would sponsor a Level 1 Root Cause otification.
Sed hewa not on the team that conducted the Root Cause Analysi advise icu ated that a "business decision" had been made to not perform the overhaul.
tated that in August 22, 2003,e a ding the Tack of a quality Work Management Procedure o
M n
rsked hi to redraw the concern. According tc!
M par roPnately downgra 6d the notification to "incomplete".
ndicated that he began work at Salem/Hope Creek in August 200 l\\as the In spring 2002, departments were reorganized and NOT FORIQLIC DISCLOSURE WITHO APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DI O
FCE OF INVESTREGION II Case No. 2-2004-049 7
4,iS?
a>
Coordination with Regional Staff On September 16, 2004, aBI Allegation Feview Board (ARB) was held to discuss this issue.
The ARB determined tha ad articulated a prima facie showing of discrimination and that the Office of Inves1igations (OI) should initiate a high priority
'\\
investigation. Specifically, the ARB, including the NRC RI Regional Counsel, determined that On October 1,2004, because of higher priority cases and bec c
a u
this investigation was transferred from OI:RI to OI:RII for completion of fieldwork and subsequent investigation as necessary (Allegation No.
RI-2004-A-0128).
On October 19, 2004, OI:RII provided an Interview Report witito Karl FARRAR, Regional Counsel, RI, for review to determine i as engaged in protected activity. FARRAR advise L 7 oW Interview of Alleaer MW...Exhibit 2)
X-4 On October 7, 2004 OIRII intervie ein Decatur, AL. During the sworn, recorded intervie_
el the followi information in substance:
_eported that his first line supervisor at the-time of his termination was ope Creek, who in turn reported to aaed he began working as t i
n the Spring of 2002, and was not selected to retain the posi n after a company re-organization in November 2003 (Exhibit 2, p. 5) xplained that the re-organization was a result of PSE&G obtaining new senior managemhent, and not a direct attempt to eliminate him 7 (,
EinExhibit 2, p. 6).
iscloehse-did iifintia-eii r6ot cause aii-aIsS fr Ihie Hope Creek "B" e-circulation pump, but he ident ified the issue (Exhibit 2, pp. 9-10).
NOT FOR C DISCLOSURE WI UT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRE I
E OF INVONS, REGION II Case No. 2-2004-049 8
fLP~cJs 7O, R)
re orted he did not initiate the issue or participate on a root cause team xxhibit 2, p. 10). i eplai hat during a refuel outage preparation meeting he raised the pun)D issue resltig in t a root cause analysis be performed on the isse.ceived adverse action after participating in the root cause evaluation (Exhibit 2, pp. 13-1 5).
t atedpj t did not agree with the findings of the root cause evaluation.
ted that in August 20033iertaining to lack of a quality WMAP.
eported Hope Creek management including Dave CAMPBELL, Mechanical Mairtenance Manager Hope Creek did not agree with his issue (Exhibit 2, p. 20 ).
ICported CAMPBELL expressed a belief that the notification was written to preserveL job (Exhibit 2, pp. 20-22).
provided information that as a result of the 2003 re-organization he had to compete for his 'ob, but as the incumbent, he had priority (Exhibit 2, p. 23).
Aoted this priority was identified in the job announcement.
reported there was no inte iew pross for his former position, and subsequently Ie vas not
=-
-sgelectecd-selected for mer position. _d for Hope Creek, and TOCCI ws on the selection committee for the mechanical maintenance supervisor's position.
stated he was more qualified
= _ for the pos~ipigpha j8E hibitA pp. 7-2) 1 advised CAMPBELL, TOCCI, WAGNER, and David PYSH Manager, Hope Creek, were on the selection board for his forme explained that CAMPBELL and WAGNER reviewe (Exhibit 2,.3 31).
jd I trron cally, and he was able to view managers reviewing the documenttWI eported CRISAFULLI reviewed the document, and agreed with the content (Exhibit 2, p. 32). In addition, Kirk DOTEN, took the notific t nomlt pend onwt h II~.n.a,061 Exhibit 2, tated he met wtith i
.regardinge i;cthion andase eorted he was told by TOCCI and CAMPBELL that he was not selected for the position as hi
_oported CAMPBELL NOT FO IC DISCLOSURE WlTHOUIPPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRER, OFFICE OF INVESTIG
, REGION II Case No. 2-2004-049 9
(6 J;AI Q
though as warrantedbut t motivation for writin as an effort to keep his-.
i JOb xhibit 2, p. 40).
Advi he did not have job performance issues that would have kept him from being competitive for a job position with PSE&G.
Review of Documentation During the course of this investigation, documents provided to OI:RII were reviewed. The documents deemed pertinent to this investigation are delineated in this section.
0 0Q2 Performance Partnership, undated (Exhibit 3)
This document indicated tha
,Jperformance evaluation for the period reviewed by the selection team, 2002, was not complet by Donald CARPENTER, Jr., former Mechanical Maintenance Manager, Hope Creek.
Employee-Information of GA-RPENT-ER.-various-dates:(Exhibit:4)
This document identified that CARPENTER discontinued employment at P-SEG on Octb 6,
2002. CARPENTER's separation from PSEG was presented as the reaso 2002 performance evaluation was not completed. __
PSEG Manarers/Superintendents Ratings. dated Julv 17. 2003 (Exhibit 5)
This document provides an oq rall rating fQL anagerswerintendents for 2001-2003.
According to this document co e.Anis 2002 rating.
2003 Mid-Year Performance Evaluation, dated September 3. 2003 (Exhibit 6)
This document reveals that ored marginal on behavioral indicator. Althou the2003mid-year-evaluation was not prepared prior-to the selection process for th Che comments in the behavioral section of the evaluation identifies th anager, CAMPBELL, a selection team member, had concerns with oral values.
PSEG letter te dated November 8. 2002 (Exhibit 7)
This documents identifies tha
'vas R Although this ler inot specifically idei ttified by the members of the PSEG selection tea reviewin qualifications for retention, the letter documente interaction withassocia te s.
NOT NQR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUlkAPPROVAL OF FIELD OFFI IRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGI S, REGION II Case No. 2-2004-049 10 6 ialII' lo
Nuclear Re-orvanization Objectives, undated (Exhibit 8)
This document outlines the process and selection guidelines used by PSEG in hiring an employee for the I p l
.The outline identifies that the incumbent, in the casevas to be considered first.
rim.rndated (Exhibit 9)
This document identifies that the notification identified b
-s a portion of his protected activity did not pertain to the WMAP.
Cated Aueust 22. 2004 (Exhibit 10)
This document identifies the notification referred The date of the notification discloses the report was written arte on-selection occurred.
Root Cause Analysis. dated April 14. 2004 (Exhibit 1 1)
This document identifies the concern th entified as one of his protected activities. The corrective action for the concern calls for replacement of the "B" pump shaft in re-fueling cycle 12 (RF-12).
Selection Template. dated July 29 - July 3i. 2003 (Exhibit 12)
This document identifies the selection team members, the thr d tot, idelines for rating factors, and candidates's scores. The template disclosed th cores did not meet the threshold score to qualify for either The document identifies that _
I PSEG letter, dated September 18. 2003 (Exhibitl3)
This letter reports th I j
as not selected for a position following a re-organization at PS9G.
Testimonial /Evidence OI:RII interviewed the following individuals regarding the allegat i
e subject of employment discrimination for reporting safety concerns.
NOT FOR PUBLt6j<DISCLOSURE WITHOUT A OVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECT OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIO REGION II Case No. 2-2004-049 l l trvi-J-7 a
Interview of Willaim J. CAMIPBELL (Exhibit 14)
On January 11, 2005, CAMPBELL was interviewed by OI:RII in Salem, NJ. CAMPBELL provided the following information in substance.
CAMPBELL reported he was the Mechanical Maintenance Manager at Hope Creek from January 2003, until September 2003, and during that time he reported.o Mark SHIMAL, Director of Maintenance, Hope Creek. CAMPBELL noted he manag..vhile serving as the CAMPBELL disclosed he wrppPerformance evaluation for the first half of 2003. CAMPBELL reporte'cVed an overall satisfactory evaluation.
According to CAMPBELL, the evaluation co i§isted of two parts. The first part consists of core job performance objectives, and the s, ortion identified behaviors (Exhibit 14, p. 11).
CAMPBELL characterize s a lower than average performer because of behavioral issues (Exhibit
,j. 14).
CAMPBELL reporte e
as the incumbent for a position at Hope Creek during the re-organization in 2003, but he wasludged along with other managers at Hope Creek for a position (Exhibit 14, p. 28). CAMPBELL explained through the re-organization the best superintendents were being selected because some positions were being eliminated.
'-CAMK4PBELLI stated the selection process included looking at different dimensions of an employee, scoring the evaluation, and taking the best scores. CAMPBELL disclosed a minium score was required to be competitive for the available positions (Exhibit 14, p. 29).
CAMPBELL reported how the selection team was chosen (Exhibit 14, p. 30). According to CAMPBELL, the plant vice president selected the plant managers, the plant managers chose the plant superintendents, and the superintendents chose the supervisors. Therefore, the selection team for the position thad applied, for was made up of the newly selected supervisors, CAMPBELL, Pete TOCCI, Maintenance Manager, Hope Creek, and Dave PYSHER, Facilities Manager, Hope Creek. CAMPBELL disclosed that an outside company was hired to oversee the process, to ensure that none of the selection members held any bias against a candidate (Exhibit 14, pp. 31-33). CAMPBELL identified the outside company employee as Tony GONZALES.
CAMPBELL stated there were eleven candidates for six superintendent positions. In addition,
-two individuals of higher grade-were-deemed-out of scopeaind automaticallyr receive-d superintendent positions for electronic and control at Hope Creek and Salem Nuclear Plant (Salem). CAMPBELL reported each of the eleven candidates were eligible for any one of the six positions (Exhibit 14, pp. 36-37).
NOT FOR PUB SCLOSURE WITHOUT PPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO OFFICE OF INVESTIG IONS, REGION II Case No. 2-2004-049 12
CAMPBELL stated each of the employees' five dimensions were rated and given a number between one and five with five being the highest score. CAMPBELL explained the total score of the five dimensions had to total eighteen or more to reach the minimum requirement to be considered for a position (Exhibit 14, p. 40).
CAMPBELL reported the performance dimension was based on the employees' 2002 performance evaluation, and first hand knowledge of the candidate by the selection members.
(Exhibit 14, p. 47).
CAMPBELL pointed out that regardless of which candidate that was chosen, someone on the selection team would have had a former connection to the selected employee.
CAMPBELL advised the top score eac of the six available positions was selected for retention. CAMPBELL noted that WI not make the threshold of eighteen for any of the six positions (Exhibit 14, pp. 54-55). CAMPBELL explained the experience level for each candidate was determined by whether the employee had a Bachelor of Science degree or ten years experience in nuclear power, had five years supervisory experien,,*a a asenior reactor operator (SRO) license or certification. CAMPBELL reporte id not have'____
WM-each Tithe employees that met the threshold had at least five years supervisory experience.
CAMPBELL reported the leadership segment of the rating factors involved personal observations of the candidates by the selection members and review of past documentation.
CAMPBELL explained the behaviors rating factor again inoolvd ptshn c--didT-h'by -manae7rs.IMPBELL noted the selection team members had supervised each of the candidates at some point in time (Exhibit 14, p. 63).
CAMPBELL stated he was familiar with notifIcation involvin the NVIAP process at Hope Creek. According to C PBELL, he directe notification (Exhibit 14, pp. 69-71). CAMPBELL reported he was not aware that was upset over the notification. CAMPBELL explained the notification mayhave been taken to incomplete because all the required questions had not been provided. CAMPBELL opined the notification may have been downgraded to a level three notification because the report wvas consolidated into an pre-existing notification (Exhibit 14, pp. 75-76).
CAMPBELL reported the notification
-ewawas not discussed during the selection process for the superintendent positions. In fact, the notification was not written until after the selection process was completed (Exhibit 14, pp. 77-78).
CAMPBELL-stated he had knowledge th sa inv'led ith-e rie-bcirbculatjon pump issue. CAMPBELL reported he aske be involved in the Toot cause al sis for the re-circulation pump concern (hibit 14, p.
). CAMPBELL advised did not complain to him that took adverse action against him for raising safety concers.
NOT FOR PUBLI ISCLOSURE WITHOUTXPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO >FFICE OF INVESTIG TOSRGION II Case No. 2-2004-049 f3.
et) L~
I P
IC_..
Interview of Peter J. KOPPEL. Jr. (Exhibit 15)
On January 11, 2005, KOPPEL, Pump Engineer, Salem/Hope Creek, was interviewed by OI:RII at Salem, NJ. KOPPEL provided the following information in substance.
KOPPEL stated he was the initial root cause lead for the re-circulation pump issue. KOPPEL reported the problem with the re-circulation pump had been an issueat Hope Creek for years prior to the root cause analysis. KOPPEL advised he did not recal aising the issue of the re-circulation pump during management meetings on t pump (Exhibit l5, p. 8).
KOPPEL explained his root cause analysis recommended the pump be replaced during re-fueling 12 but the Engineering Review Board decided to wait until RF 13. KOPPEL recalled that tated the pump should have been replaced during RF 11.
KOPPEL reported that as a result of his work on the root cause analysis and subsequent determination that the um should be replaced during RF InR1 Exhibit 15, p. 14). In additionKOPPEL added that he had not beard thaid employment discrimination or that anyone was out to retali axsor-voicing-a-coriceacement ot te pump (Exhibit 15, p. 15).
1 Interview of Devon B. PRICE (Exhibit 16O On January 11, 2005, PRICE, Refueling Outage Manager, PSEG, was interviewed by OI:RII at Salem, NJ. PRICE provided the following information in substance.
PRICE reported he was a proponent of cond ctin a root case analysis on the re-circulation pump. PRICE recalled that prior to RF 11 vass inionated about replacing the recirculation pump as soon as possible. P Estated he a a differing opinion regarding the replacement of the pump (Exhibit 16, p. 8). PRICE explained he was a proponent of understanding the problem first, an anted to the problem fixed prematurely. PRICE explained the pump seal was replaced during"a forced outage prior to RF 11 and again in RF 12. According to PRICE, the pump will be replaced in RF 13.
PRICE stated he did not have input into the selection process regardi (Exhibit 16, p. 13). PRICE noted he did not receive feedback from r anyone else that they were upset wit wanting the pump replaced sooner. PRICE noted KOPPEL was also passionate about the mp issue and wanted the pump replaced prior to_
-RF but he (KOPPEL)-accepted the'decision to replace the pump in RF 13 (Exhibit 16, p. 21).
NOT FOR PUBLIC ISCLOSURE WITHOUT A1PROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC(OR, OFFICE OF INVESTIG$IONS, REGION II n_
IS
^^A fNANV 1 A tease NO. Z-2004-04Y9 1I4
& -I lor -7 C'
Interview of David PYSHER (Exhibit 17)
On January 11, 2005, PYSHER, Manager of Facilities, PSEG, was interviewed by OI:RII at Salem, NJ. PYSHER provided the following information in substance.
PYSHER stated the selection team for the superintendents was made up individuals that had previously been selected as managers. PYSHER identified the selection team as CAMPBELL, TOCCI, and himself PYSHER note lid not meet the threshold standard of eighteen for any of the available superintendent positions (Exhibit 17, p. 6). PYSHER reported a score was given to five different categories for each candidate. PYSHER identified the first category,-experience, was scored by review of the candidates' resume. PYSHER explained the selection team looked for ten years experience or a BS degree, whether the individual had five years of upervso experience, and/or if the individual had a.SRO certification. PYSHER recalle xhibit 17, p. 9). PYSHER pointe out nn the m canical rating, as high as any other candidate.
PYERstated-the~nextza egoryleadership i-nvled-ra cp Ieg -pncilnancies oina mnanagement (Exhibit 17, p. 13). PYSHER reported the behavioral category involved integrity, whole business, energy, competitive spirit, mutua
.ffand trust. PYSHER disclosed that prior to the selection process he only supervise r a couple of weeks.
PYSHER noted he felt he could judge some of te qualities that madeup the behavioral-category-i-houth supervising aindividual. PYSHER explained "seeing results" could provide a fair evaluation (Exhibit 17, p. 17). PYSHER maintained that the rating for the categories were determined through a team effort, and no one individual dominated the selection process.
PYSHER added that after the selection team completed the rating process, the results had to be justified to a senior leadership team (Exhibit 17, p. 18).
PYSHER stated the topisf the re-Circulation pump or the WMAP notification were never discussed in relation t u--ng the selection process (Exhibit 17, pp. 19-20).
PYSHER reorted he involved in the re-circulation pump issue because of h is job position.
PYSHER stated another category reviewed in the selection process was performance. PYSHER reported performance was judged by performance evaluations (Exhibit 17, p. 22). PYSHER revealed that a marginal performance received a two, a satisfactory evaluation received a three, and a highly competent performance received a four. PYSHER reported the 2002 performance evaluations-were used-in-the-process.----
PYSHER describe s being very close to the bargaining unit, and enjoyed being the problem sover for the, t (Exhibit 17, pp. 29-30).
NOT F IC DISCLOSURE WIT T APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIR OR, OFFICE OF INVEST IONS, REGION II Case No. 2-2004-049 15 dH&-7 cG
Interview o (Exhibit 18)
On January II, 2005 qw pqSEG, was interviewed by OI:RII at Salem, NJ.
rovided the following information in substance.
advised he was previously the M
Sa m Salem/Hope Creek.
stated he was aware
,e root cause analysis for the "B" re-circulation pump.
e porte_
F sked him to sponsor the concern with the re-circulation pump (Exhibit 18, p.
recalled the outcome of the root cause was to replace the pump in RF 13, an It the nmp needed replacing sooner (Exhibit 18, p. 12).
elxplaine e an d
h ad a difference of opinion on the root cause finding (Exhibit 18, p. 14).
e that he did not play a role i job selection (Exhibit 18,
- p. 15). -J _maintained the managers were selected first, and in turn selected the superintendents. In addition, all the superintendents for both Hope Creek and Salem were selectedatthezsame attim-tated he did not feel there were hard feelings between him an ver the finding of the root cause analysis.
Feported the selection process for the superintendents was conducted during July 29 -
'July 31, 2003 (Exhibit 18, pp, 22-23).
istated the release of non-selected personnel was done by September 15, 2003.
_ r viewe iN Notification on W IAP.
4pined the notification Was taken to an incompletOiecause it did not w an a Level I notification.
According to the WMAP notification was rolled into a r -existin notification (Exhibit 18, p. 29).
advised he did not recall askin.
to withdraw the notification, but he did not see the need for "piling on another notification."
(Exhibit 18, p. 30).
Interview of Peter TOCCI. Jr. (Exhibit 19)
On February 3, 2005, TOCCI, Maintenance Manager, Hope Creek, was interviewed by OI:RII at the NRC, RII, Atlanta, GA. TOCCI provided the following information in substance.
TOCCI reported the selection process for the 2003 re-organization defined that managers would make the selections for employees that would be reporting to them. TOCCI advised the criteria for the selection process was provided to the selection team by an outside firm that oversaw the selection process (Exhibit 19, p. 6). TOCCI identified the outside firm as Scott Madden, Inc.
NOT FOR P LIC DISCLOSURE WIT UT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRPSQOR, OFFICE OF INVETQATIONS, REGION II Case No. 2-2004-049 16 gei.,~ 'qz
According to TOCCI, a representative from Scott Mladden, Inc. was present during the entire selection process.
TOCCI reported eleven candidates competed for six positions under the Maintenance Superintendent. TOCCI stated the selection team evaluated the candidates' technical competencies, leadership, experience, performance, and behavior. TOCCI explained 18 was identified as a minimum threshold score for a candidate to be considered for a position (Exhibit 19, pp. 12-13). According to TOCCI, after the selections were made the scores had to be justified to a group of senior managers (Exhibit 19, p. 15).
TOCCI discILsSe scores as compared to other applicants (Exhibit 19, pp. 16 21). TOCCI idenified tha~
w@1ad lower scores compared to the ap ic.
t met the threshold level. TOCCI addressed the differences in scores by reportin -
had issues with leade d
iding factual information (Exhibit 18, p. 20). TOCCI reported his input o scores were through personal observations.
TOCCI reported that*
TC C
prior to the re-org zation and
=---ast-rthe-re organization.--TCe -;C(; -deme assisti
.~;
~(Exhibit 19, pp. 22-25). TOCCI explained of the six employees that met the threshold, only three scored high compete for the position. Furthermore, of the three, o
_Bhbit 19, DD. 25-26 TO CI recalled askin f he wanted to move offices prior to the re-organization, stated "I'm Fine.' (Exhibit 19, p. 27). TOCCI noted that after the re-asoe office space was available and employees that shared space with were able to relocate to other space.
TO CCI advised that he was facilities manager at the time o protected activity, and was not involved in the issue involving the re-circulation pump.(Exhibit I9, p. 30). TOCCI reported the pump issue was not discussed during the selection process with the selection team (Exhibit 19, p. 32).
TOCCI substantiated the seIc rcess occurred between July 29-July 31, 2003, (Exhibit 19, pp. 33-34). TOCCI opine ew the results of the selection process prior to TOCCI noted that CAMPBELL was on the selection team an ored for him (CAMPBELL) prior to the re-organization. TOCCI explained because of the selection process it would have been difficult for a candidate not to have worked for a selection team member at some time (Exhibit 19, p. 39).
NOT FOR PUB DISCLOSURE WITHOU? ROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC ICE OF NVESTIGA
, REGION II Case No. 2-2004-049 17
&.el S
Analvsis of Evidence OI:RII analyzed the above evidence to determine i Wvas the subject of employment discrimination by management for reporting nuclear safety concerns.
Protected Activitv eported he raised two safety concerns that resulted in his non-selection for the osition in the Fall of 2003.
stated that in early 2003, prior to an outag a,
Qn ki203, he raised an
- Issue concernig the Hope Creek "B" re-circulation pump.
~
=ported he asked that repair of the pump be conducted during the 2003 refueling outage.
Secondlystated he initiated a notification regarding the lack of a V/MAP.
otifiacation regarding the WMAP was identified as!
August 22-,<2003:
A114.
Pilty "Ml' I
update'd Review of the PSEG selection documentation disclose s not selected for a
.e osit a
Creek in July 2003, prior tLring initiated by fore, the notification cou not be regarde( as protected activity related to non-selection for positioni 93 Manaaement Knowledge disclosed he raised the concern regarding the "B" re-circuation ng a refuel outage prieparation meeting attended by Hope Creek management.
mtaa ra reed so root cause analysis regarding the repair olthe pump:.
substantiafed tha aised an issue re arding the repair of the "B" re-circulation pump during the 2003 outage. Hovever; the Lmp repair had been a long standin issue, one that had been known piior t lo ent at Hope Creek.
not part of the selection team tha evaluate or a job position jiring the 2003 reorganization at Salem/Hope Creek. However, CAMPBEL, a selection team member, reponduois tiOn as the mechanical maintenance manager for Hope Creek, he.
was aware ofnn.
Adverse Action On September 18, 2003, as notified by PSEG that he was not selected for the IThe notification did not explain the process or provide an explanation W1 Was not selected.
NOT F%6UBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOL APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE M1W*TOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGA% NS, REGION II Case No. 2-2004-049 18
Adverse Action Caused by Protected Activity This investigation was initiated to determine OHope Creek, was a victim of employment discrimination for reporting safety concerns rela ed to the "B" re-circulation pump at Hope Creek.
1 eported that during a re-organization at Salem/Hope Cleek in 2003, he was not lected for a position because of his rotected activity. According t as responsible for his non-selection.
ed vas upset becauses_
did not agree with the findings of a root cause analysis felated to the re-circu pump The testimonies of CAMPBELL, PYSHER and TOCCI all appear to offer aecurrin ratio ale that the selection process was not conducted in a manner discriminatory t Tle selection team members reported the selection criteria for superintendents was developed by an outside consulting firm and provided to the selection team. The selection team was made up of managers that had been identified through an ongoing process of having first line supervisors make-tne-selections-oft-here-subordinates.--lFe-selection-process-was-overseen-yuani independent contractor to ensure the process was fair. In addition, at the conclusion of the selection process, the selections had to be justified to a senior leadership team.
Interviews with the selection team members disclosed eleven superintendents at Salem/Hope Creek were competing for six positions (three at Hope Creek and Thre at Salem). Review of the selection template used to assess the candidates revealed id not meet the threshold requirement for any of the six positions. The selection template identified five areas of consideration that candidates were assessed in for each of the available jobs. The team assigned a number between one and five for each category with five being the highest. The total score had to meet or exceed eighteen.
The first category, experience, required a Bachelor of Science degree or 10 yea rience five years supervisory experience. Additionally, a RSO certification was preferred_
~~
_T~CJt _~'~.
nder~~ ~--
t ical competency for eq=a eceived as high as an
_other candidate. Likewise
_deived tnder the category for performance.
Hamnascore as competitive as any of the employees selected for a position. However, eceived ror s Ana f leader th scores were much lower than the scores of his
_countrparts.
003 mid-year performance evaluation was onsistent With the low score forVehavior.
d that prior to thenthe person selected fo I was managed by C
,.riemechanical -
maintenance manager after the re-organization. According t he selection NOT FOR PU C DISCLOSURE WITHO APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC OFFICE OF INVESTIO NS, REGION II Case No. 2-2004:049 p'11a11r C_-,
ocess was unfair in that after TOCCI was on the selection team that chos e_
ointed to the fact that after the selection process till working for TOCCI. Interview of TOCCI revealed that due to the procedure used to identify the selection team it was difficult for a candidate not.to have worked for one of the selection team members prior to the reorganization. After all ad reported ts prior to the selection process.
I The most convincing argument that leads one tQ believ that the selection team's actions were not a deliberate attempt to discriminate aRains as the absence of from the selection process.d_
- did not relate that CAMPBELL PYSHER or TOCCI were responsible fofemployment discrimination against him gn lated th ssistance in initiating a root cause anal is for the re-circulation pu problemobviously felt comfortable going tA for help in raising the issue on the re-circul tion pump, and sonsoredth reootcause' It is unreasonable to believ ha retaliate aga inst r raising an issue that h w
was willing to help haveinvestigat Lastl rored the idea tht d adverse action as proof management discriminated against him Interview disclosed he felt the pump should be replaced in ste he dbut nsuffegement felt the pimp replacement could wait until RF 13 stated he did not suffer employment discrimination as a result of his findings.
NOT LIC DISCLOSURE WINQ APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DR, OFFICE OF INVE NS, REGION II Case No. 2-2004-049 20 (ptsali qc-
Conclusion Based on the evidence developed during this investigation, the allegation th
-i 3
was the subject of employment discrimination for reporting safety concerns was not substantiated.
r, NOT FOR PUB SURE WITHOU PPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OF fOF INVESTIGANS, REGION II 1
Ifnlr'A IVAA 1 I.
A T-ease IN(. L-ZUU4-U§y LI 6 o/l Jr/
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUSCLOSURE WITHO APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOROtRCkE OF INVESTI ONS, REGION II Case No. 2-2004-049 22
LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No.
Description I
Investigation Status Record, dated October 5, 2004 (1 page).
2 Transcript Interview Oi dated October 7, 2004 (51 pages).
3 002 Performance Partnership, undated (18 pages).
4 Employee Information of CARPENTER, various dates (2 pages).
5 PSEG Managers/Superintendents Ratings, dated July 17, 2003 (3 pages).
6 003 Mid - Year Evaluation, dated September 3, 2003 (16
'ges.
A 7
PSEG Letter t dated November 8, 2002 (I page).
8 Nuclear Re-Organization Objectives, undated (5 pages).
9 Notification Sunma indated (2 pages).
10 Notification Summa ated August 22, 2003 (4 pages).
11 Root Cause Analysis, dated April 14, 2003 (20 pages).
12 Selection Template, dated July 29-31, 2003 ( 1 page).
13 PSEG Letter, dated September 18, 2003 (1 page).
14 Transcript Interview of CAMPBELL, dated January 11, 2004 (87 pages).
15 Transcript Interview of KOPPEL, dated January 11, 2004 (17 pages).
16 Transcript Interview of PRICE, dated January 11, 2004 (23 pages).
NOT FOR P SCLOSURE WITHONPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO VIESTIG STREGION II Case No. 2-2004-049 23 7.
Ir 17 18 19 Transcript Interview of PYSHER, dated January 11, 2004 (33 pages).
Transcript Interview o dated January 11, 2004 (36 pages).
Transcript Interview of TOCCI, dated February 3, 2005 ( 40 pages).
NOT FOR PUBLIC URE WITHOUT A
L OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFF STIGATIONN Case No. 2-2004-049 24 v