ML12130A354
| ML12130A354 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 07/02/2010 |
| From: | Holland C NRC Region 4 |
| To: | Collins E Region 4 Administrator |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2011-0345 4-2010-002 | |
| Download: ML12130A354 (23) | |
Text
.f Uk:/~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C.06 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGION IV
- 40 612 FAST LAMAR BLVD,' SUITE 400 ARLINGTON. TEXAS 76011.4125 July 2, 2010 MEMORANDUM TO: Elmo E. Collins, Regional Administrator Region IV FROM: Crystal D. Holland, Directorý'
Office of Investigations Field Office, Region IV
SUBJECT:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY HUMBQi LT RAY pEr.L ANT - rIJ. CRIMINATION AGAINST AI(b)(7)(c)
API=
I(b)(7)(c) FOR REPORTING SECURI'rTCON'E"NS (CASE NO. 4-2010-002/RIV-2009-A-0009)
Enclosed, for whatever action you deem appropriate, is the Office of Investigations (01) Report of Investigation concerning the above matter.
Please note that documents may have been gathered during the course of the investigation that are not included in either the report or the exhibits. This additional documentation will be maintained in the 01 case file and available for the staff's review upon request.
Neither this memorandum nor the report may be released outside the NRC without the permission of the Director, 01. 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 - 01 Investigation Information."
Enclosure:
cc w/enclosure:
R. Zimmerman, OE cc w/o enclosure:
.Information i In1accordance
July 2, 2010 MEMORANDUM TO: Elmo E. Collins, Regional Administrator Region IV FROM: Crystal D. Holland, Director Office of Investigations Field Office, Region IV
SUBJECT:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY HUMBLT BAY POWER PLANT - DISCRIMINATION AGAINST Al(b)(7) c)
S(b)(7)(C) _=OR REPORTING SECURITY CONCERNS (CASE NO. 4-2010-00-2/RIV-2009-A-0009)
Enclosed, for whatever action you deem appropriate, is the Office of Investigations (01) Report of Investigation concerning the above matter.
Please note that documents may have been gathered during the course of the investigation that are not included in either the report or the exhibits. This additional documentation would be maintained in the 01 case file and available for the staff's review upon request.
Neither this memorandum nor the report may be released outside the NRC without the permission of the Director, 01, 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 - 01 Investigation Information."
Enclosure; cc w/enclosure:
R. Zimmerman, OE cc w/o enclosure:
C. Scott, OGC C. Miller, FSME Distribution:
s/f (4-2010-002)
.c/f
- . ~bFX' OIHQ DOCUMENT: S:\OI\FY2010CASES\Closed Cases FF O 1."I, p". 1:' .. ,"0 , .. .. .. ::RIV 7c, NAME b(7)(C) CHolland 6-DATE /'
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
CASE No. 4-2010-002 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report of Investigation PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT:
7)(C)
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST](b)(
)(7)(C) IFOR REPORTING SECURITY CONCERNS Office of Investigations Reported by OI:RIV
OFFICIAL..E ONLY - Or'INVESTIGATION INFORMATION
Title:
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT DISRCIMINATION AGAINST A
-AC SECURITY CONCERNS FOR REPORTING Licensee: Case No.: 4-2010-002 Pacific Gas & Electric Company 77 Beale Street Report Date: July 2, 2010 San Francisco, California 94106 Control Office: Oh:RIV Docket No.: 50-07200027 Status: CLOSED Allegation No.: RIV-2009-A-0009 Reported by: Reviewed and Approved by:
- 76. ]Special Agent Crystal I. Holland, Director
)t Investigations Office of Investigations Field 0 iffice, Region IV Field Office, Region IV DO NOT DISSEMINATE, PLACE IkNTHE PUBLIC DOPUMEý4T ROOM OR[
DISCUSS THE CONTENTS'OF THIS'RýEPORT OF II)IVESTIGATION OUTSID NRC WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF THE APPROVINGOFFICIAL\OF THIS; REPORT. UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE MAY RESULT IN A'ýVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND/OR CRIMINAL RROSECUTION.---.
OFFICIAL USE ONLY -01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION\
Mir OFFICIAL USE ONLY -.OI ,
INVESTIGATION
, Ixi"* --.....
INFORMATION\ ./
/ \
SYNOPSIS This investigation was initiated by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Investigations, Region IV, on October 07, 2009, to determine if a )(7)(c) assigned to Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Humboldt Bay Hower Hlant (HBP), ureka, California, was the subject of discrimination for raising safety concerns.
that al(b)(7)(c)
Based on the evidence developed during this investigation, the allegation
-7o(, b67)cat HBPP was the subject of discrimination for raising safety concerns was not substantiated.
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE
,,DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, RE LD6N IVOFF
\ 1 ,
Case No. 4-2010-002 -......
OFFtCIAL\USE-ONLY- 01 INVES-T'IGATON JNFORý.ATIN
I . 1 OFFlirIAL."USE ONLY.-ý'01 INVESTIGA1IQON INiF60RMXTIO*I ,/'\
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBLIC DISC.OSAE WITHOUT APROVALOF 6 IELD9 O^ýE
\ JDIRECTOR,..OFFICE OF\ INVESTIGATIONS,,REGIO ,iV-Case No, 4-2010-002 , 2.---. 7'-,
OFFICIAL
- .* USE
...- o ONLY -01
,,..* INýES*ATION"INFOMATloN
OFF4CIAL USE ONLY - O1NVESTIGATION INFQRMATIO N \
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page S Y NO P S IS .............................................................................................................................. 1 TESTIM ONIAL EVIDENCE ................................................................................................... 5 DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE .............................................................................................. 7 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................ 9 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................ 9 Purpose of Investigation ......................................................................................... 9 Background .......................................................................................................... 9 Interview of Alleger ................................................................................................ 10 Coordination with Regional Counsel ....................................................................... 11 Agent's Analysis ..................................................................................................... 12 Co n c lu s io n s ................................................................................................................ 17 LIST OF EXHIBITS ............................................................................................................ 19 NOT'FOR FU3BLI&DISCLOSURE\WITHOUT APPROVAL VA FIELD OFFfCt DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF"INVESTIGATION'S, REGION iV .
Case No. 4-2010-002 ........ -. 3 ,-- ,
OFFICIAL USE ONLY -NpI INVESTIGATI9N INFORMATION , \
OFFICIAL U*E ONLY - OPINVESTIGATIO.N'NFOAMATION\ /-
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBLICDISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPRqVALO OF'FIFE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF I)VEStIGATION ,-REGION IV-'-
Case No. 4-2010-002 . , 4 OFFICIAL USE ONL'I",1OIJNVESTIGATION INFORMAION .-
OFFICIAL USEONLY - VESTIGAT*N INFORMA.ON -/
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE Exhibit (b)(7)(C)
]Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E),
Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP), Eureka, California .............................................. 14 (b)(7)(C) PG&E, Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP), Avila Beach, California ....................................... 9 (b)(7)(C) 1H B PP ..................................................... ...3 (b)(7)(C) H B P P ................................................... . . . 19 (b)( c)(c) H BPP ................................................. 13 (b)(7T C)c H B P P ........................................................... 15 (b)(7)(C) H B P P ............................................... 16 , 18 (b)(7)(C ) D C P P ............................................ 21 (b)(7)(C) IEmployee Concerns Program, DCPP ................................ 8 (b)(7)(C) Louisiana Energy Services (LES),
National Enrichment Facility, Eunice, New Mexico ...................................................... 12 (b)(7)(C) LE S .................................................. . . 11 N~~ F#L.E DIOR ITHOUT'APPR6YA O'ELID, OfFICE\
P4, */'* /",T",
" -O-IRECTb.,_OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS,,REGION IV Case No. 4-2010-002., 5 OFFIOIAL USE ONLY -OtINVE, STIG .TON,,INFOR
10,ZfAUSE \oIIýýESTip td THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 114 ISCOSU TIGRPLC W OU APP VA OF FIE FCE Case No. 4-2010-002 6 O<FFI CIAL QNLY. OI1 NATION INF ~iTION
FICI SE ONL -01 VESTI TIO INFOR TI DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Exhibit Docum ent from Z dated[(b)(7)(C) 5 5.................................
Pacific Gas & Electric (b)(7)(C) :fo (b)(7)(c) ]signed by dated' c XcT I.... ........ I............................................................. . . .. 6 1(b)(7)(C) forb7) signed by....(b)(7)( c. ............... 7 Email fromlD c) dated. .)(c) ................................... 10 Email___
froF77 , ........................... 1 Perform ance History of-b)(7)(c) dateddI(b 7)(c) ....................................... 17 Perform ance Action Plan o1 b )c) datedi( b)(7 )(c) ........................................... 20 NOT FO DISCL OUT APP FIEL DIRECT ICE OF N TIGAT NS, REGI Case No. 4-2010-002 F S ONLY -\01 11CIA VE IGATIO F MATIO
4I b FICI L U ON -IN TA9 4 FR N THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 0OP C DISCLO R ITýHOU APPR VAL F LIDO 0
SDEC R, OFF CE OF VES GATION GION Case No. 4-2010-002 8
-OFFII E 7006-VSýA O F1X\yO ATII N
4I '
Flil SENY-IVEIAT IN A N..
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Applicable Regulations 10 CFR 50.7: Employee protection (2008 Edition) (Allegation No. 1) 10 CFR 50.5: Deliberate misconduct (2008 Edition) (Allegation No. 1)
Purpose of Investigation On October 7, 2009, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Region IV (RIV), received an allegation from (b)(c) at Pacific Gas and Electric 7 c, Company's (PG&EIL)Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP), Eureka, California, ?)(7)(c) lleged that he had been subjected to discrimination for raisingsecurity concerns at an as a result, his employment (b)(7)(C) ýAllegation No. RIV-2009-A-0009]
(Exhibit 1).
Background
On February 3, 2009 the Allegation Review Board (ARB), RIV, convened to review concerns reported by )7 i(c) Specifically, )(7)(c)0 lalleged that he had been subjected to
-i'C discrimination for reporting that a supervisor had falsified security logs and failed to report f procedures by security officers. The ARB concluded that further clarification of Lconcerns was required before the ARB would render a decision.
On March 2, 2009, the ARB reconvened to reuest assistance from the Office of
-7c. Investigations (01), RIV, with an interview of( 7 )7c)to obtain clarifying details of his concerns in order to evaluate his protected activity [01 Case No. 4-2009-026F1.
On April 2, 2009, b7)(C)as interviewed by 01 and, after a review ofl7)(C) interview transcript, the RIV staff determined that he had engaged in protected activity and may have been sub'ected to discrimination. Additional security concerns reported to the NRC by 10)(7)(C) 1were referred to 01 for investigation [01 Case No. 4-2009-048].
On June 18, 2009F7)ci was contacted by the NRC and offered an opportunity to
-7c. participate in the NRC's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process in an attempt to resolve his dispute with the licensee.
On September 22, 2009, (b)(7)(c) t Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, notified the NRC that the licensee had declined to participate in ADR.
On October 5, 2009, the RIV ARB requested that 01 initiate an investigation to determine if P)T)(C) Was subjected to discrimination for raising security concerns and reporting that a
-7c. supervisor had violated procedures. A Prima Facie Checklist was provided to 01 with the ARB documentation (Exhibit 2).
OTý OR FPU IC D CLOSURE ITHO T ýAPPRýOV IL D/ECTOR, FFIC F INVES ATI "-REG.
Case No. 4-2010-002 9
'OFF 151 EO tiAL 0NET NO TO
Interview of Allege r jb)(7C) J('Exh ib it 3)
On April 2, 2009, Ol:RIV conducted an interview with J(b)(7)(C) 'in Eureka, California. During his interview, I(b)(7TC) 'advise-.dthat his em loyment as ar (b)(7)(c)t HBPP was 1(b)(7)(C )elated that his troubles began in 2005 when his supervisor (b)()) misrepresente- ed reports .ertainin to (b)T)C)
HBPP, (b)(7)( se t ne an severa ode J[NFI] had filed a report with the Empl oyee oncerns Procwram (ECP) (Exhibit 3, pp. 7-10).
J(b)7)C) advised that he was placed on robationary status iný (b)(c)lbyJ(b)(7)(c) b due to alleged violations that hef(b) 7 )c) was not conducting a roving pair ue to an (b)(7)(C)I 1(b)(7)(C) Padvised that the security guards were allowed to stop for 'a short perio of time" ruring patrols and, according toJs))(7c!)Jthat meant approximately 5 minutes.((7)(c) related that while on patrol he sat down approximatel three separate times within the 5 minute time period, which had been established b (b)(7)(C) but was later questioned by LX)(C)j about his patrol stops. (b)(7)(C) -aid (b)(7cMnever told him during questioning that he had violated any guidelines or rules, but used those incidents[patrol stops] as one of the factors to
-7c, put him on probation for 6 months. J()(7)(C) Jrecalled that approximately 1 month before he
(*b)(7)(C) Ihe was involved in an incident with the door in the Secondary Alarm 5tation (6AS)not working properly and the door kept giving false alarms. 1(b)(7)(C) Jsaid that he may have missed an alarm because the door reset or did not reset, The incident was written up by another HBPP (b)(7)(C) land when Jb)(7)(C) found out about the missed alarm, he (b)(7)(c) escalated the incident due to the critical location of the door.
advised that (b)T)c) ýus~d(b)(7'C) thiincient 'for failure to follow policy and proce ure an im or a missed alarm in the SAS, even though the door had been malfunctioning foT eek (Exhibit 3, pp. 11-20).
S(b)(7)(
claimed protected activity back to (b)(7)(C) and he believed (b)7)(C) falsified records and covered up an incident when (b)(7)(C) failed to reactivate or a arm a refueling building door during a roving patrol. ()(7)C) Iprovided one unsigned and undated typed page pertaining to the incident involving s well as other incidents. OL:RIV asked I(b)(7)(C) Jto identify the document by hand writing the date ()(c) 'the word "summary" and by placing his signature on the document (Exhibit 5). 1(b)(7)(C) jadvised that he had also provided the document to r(b)(7)(C) I ECP, Diablo Canyon Power Plant.
-(b)(7)(C) Icould not provide the date ot the summary or when he ave it to the ECP but referenced the SAP # (b)(7)(c) ]and the date of the incident with (b)(7)(C) Iasl(b)(T)cJ (b)(7)(C) related that Re did not report the contents of the docur1en[ either to i is HBPP supervisors or to the NRC at that time. (b)(7)(C) advised that according to the SAP, I(b)(7)(c) -as coached and counseled for th According tol(b)(7)(c) because he reiportedthsin'ciden i volving nd his ( cover-ups it took (b)(7)(c) over (b)(7)(C) Ito build up enoug information fincidents with (b)(7)(C) not roving and a missen Domo ourng asecurity drill] to get him (b)(7)(C) Exhibit 3, pp. 22-30).
J(b)(7)(C) recalled yet another incident that contributed to him being placed on probation..which 7c, involved security keys that had been taken home byfb)(7)(C) :
HBPP. related that he when relieved (b)(7)(c) rom shift and asked if the "keys had iNOT FO UBLIC DI- LSURE WITH T PPROVAL IELD ýICE
Case No. 4-2010-002 10 FIC11 -INE GTON 1SE I MAT
. OFF -USE NLY "9IJ- I JNE I0 4ON TI been turned in,"I Iresponded that he had returned the keys. did not perform a verificationbchec wi (b)(7)(C) I and later learned that heJ (b)(7 )(C) shad taken the keys home. (Crecalled that this key incident was placed on his evaluation and was part of the reason why he was placed on probation. M7)( lwas asked to provide clarification of his protecte ativity, and advised that it was in late 205 or early 2006 when he provided Exhibit 5 to (b)(7)(C) I According t (t)(7)(c) HBPP conducted an investigation regarding)( ith no resul, and that (b)(7)(c) continued to conduct illegal activities and falsify documents.
(b)(7)( I J advised
. taa ecause he continued to (b)(7)(C) rpor ernsf tbth ECP, heb ýwas
'7c enied promotions and essentially harassed [by( 1confirmed Mat he felt as if 7)(C) as retaliating against him for repo o b7C and not because he (b)(7)(c) as involved with the patrol stop incidents. vised that the PG&E Human esources (HR) department operates under progressive iscipline, and no one incident
[minus a major event] will get you. fired. Therefore- accordin tob)(7)(C) *pent the next 3 years accumulatin "stuff'.rb)(7)(C) JhimH()b)( 7 )( )(7)(C) Ptated that a fellow co-worker, J comm)(c) ented to him, Wvell ... It tooK nm 3 years to build a case on you, and he minay i t(xhibit 3. p. 37), referring tb)(7)(c) Exhibit 3, pp. 31-38).
b)()c) recalled that = wrote his (b)(7)(C) valuations and submitte to (b)(7)(C) or review. He said that after (b)(7)(C) changee e evaluations to reflect Shante it to say;= c would then resubmit it to (b)(7)(c) for his signature.
I related that he requested access to his personnel' ie (b)(7)(c) but HR wrot ( informed him that there was nothing in his personnel file. (b)(c)( J Ac, claimed that b stated that part of the reason that he was being placed on probation was because of continued disciplinary actions and roblems within the last 3 years prior to him 1(b)( 7 )(c) lbeing placed on probation. )(bT(C) advised that all of his evaluations were completed by (b)(7)(C) and none "menione the rovin issues. I)7)(c) advised that his evaluations were not in his personnel record, and 1(b)(7c) t being placed on probation, he received his mid-year review, and everything was goo- wi no adverse actions noted on his mid-year review (Exhibit 3, pp. 39-43).
(b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) ,
[l stated that jactuallv told him that, "he was trvino to opt rid of me and fire 7c, me (Ex iit 3, p. 44). referring toJ(b)(7)(c) According toI(b)(7)(c) lasked him not to mention his comment to anyone (Exhibit 3 p. 43-45).
Coordination with Regional Counsel This investigation was initiated with the concurrence of F(7)(c) al Counsel, F7 /7 RIVJ(b)(7)(c) On October 7, 2009, 01:17y proviaea a copy ol (b)(7)(c) ranscript ot interview to (b) t) f or her review to determine if (b)(7)(C) ad enga ,P uLuuted activities and possib y e su ject of employment discrimination.
On May 29, 2 009,F(57T70 advised that, based on a review of (b7)(c) transcript, she believed I(b)(7)(C) Exhibit 4).
RET ýOFFSýEFIVTIG OSREEGI Case No. 4-2010-002 .,
O0F SEo & s ,FOR ATION 10
Aqent's Analysis
-7c This investigation was initiated to determine if was the subject of employment discrimination by HBPP management for raising safety concerns.
Protected Activity j(b)(7)(C) 1claimed that he raised a safety concernoni(b)(7)(c). _7 7 (b)(7)(C) when (b)(7)(C) Ifailed to re-activate the alarm on the re fue ling building door prior to compensatory
-7c, measure. Further, the document (Exhibit 5) indicated that (b)7)(C) 'was involved in covering up incidents and falsifying documents associated with (b)(7)(c) perly conducting roving patrols (Exhibit 3, pp. 22).
Knowledge of (b)(7)(c) Protected Activity (b)(7)(C) advised that he notified (b7)(C) (b)(7)(C) when he sent him a one page document ,Exhibti5) witdetails of the incident with J(b)7)(cF) and other related incidents involving bJ C4ould not Yrosdde)Ae exact date of the summary
-7c, or when he gave it to the . u re erence the SAPN I['Cj and the date of the incident with (b)(7)(C) I related that he did not report the contents of the document either to his HBPP supervisors or to the NRC (Exhibit 3, pp. 28 and 29).
(b)(7)(C) was interviewed and advised that he was not aware of the fact that ad areceived'a(b)(7)(C) nor that he was subsequently()7)(c)
F77Further, ((7)(c) was allowed to review the document that [b)(7)(cj alleged to have provided to him xExhit 5), and when questioned regarding receipt of the document (b)(7)(C) I "7c., advised that to the best of his knowledge, he had not received the document. I3 7)(c) [advised that had he received the document, it would have been placed into the ECP file for use during any investigation. (b)(7)(c) frecalled some of the cont nt of the document since he conducted an investigation into the 1(b)(7)(c) Iincident. I~)(C) advised that he would need to consult with (b)(7)(C) ECP, DCPP, regarding any additional details (Exhibit 8, pp, 10-18).
(b)(7)(C)
During an interview of he advised that he had been made aware of the incident involving (b)(7)(C) Jfrom NRC:RIV via an allegation referral dated September 28, 2005.
(b)(7)(C) ladvised o a number of issues and anonymous letters received involving the HBPP (b)(7)(C) advised that the allegations involved an extra marital affair between (b)(7)(C) land 1(b)(7)(C) J Louisiana Eneray Services, and that I(b)(7)(c) ubsequently was promoted (Exhibits 9, pp. 8-11).
-7 1(b)()((C) iwas able to re i and commented that he did not recall ever receivin this document from[(b)(7)(c) but was somewhat familiar with some of the issues. J(b)(7)(C) advised that every document that the ECP receives is either scanned, hand-typed or copied into their files. Therefore, 1)(7)(c) advised that he would conduct a word search using several points from Exhibit 5, on their S: drive, and would be able to validate his answer 100 percent as to whether or not ECP had received the (9)(7)(c) document. Further,f(b)(7C) Jadvised that heand1(b)()(c) -- erformed a physical search of the ECR File 05-02, and did not find the b)7( -document (Exhibit 9, pp. 12-17).
ýO OR BLI DISýCL RE WITHO PPROV 0 ýIELD EFIC IRECT FIC F INV T IONS Case No. 4-2010-002 2 PFkCI.ý/OSE LY - INV TG 10IF TION
On November 12, 2009,EbFc) provided an email (Exhibit 10 to QL:RIV confirming that a "7c, computer search failed to locate any pertinent documents. Ib)(7)(c) Jconcluded that the ECP does not have the document (Exhibit 5) allegedly generated from (b)(7)(c)
Unfavorable Action Taken AqainstF(b(77c)(
7 (b)(7)(C) (c.
On 77(FF 7 c committed another performance related error r(c 1 and
-7cr (b)(7)(C) Exhibit 7).
Did the Unfavorable Action Result from c Enqaqinq in a Protected Activity?
During interviews with (b)(7)(c) ]but for the ourposes of this re ort she will remain (b)T)(c) and (b)(7)(C)
P , advised that both he anl(b)(7)(c) were ma e aware o e incid ent with (b)(7)(c) r(b)(7)(C) mmediately after it happened, but (()) ever reported nt (b)(7)(C)t e incide b)(c)(C m.tthe
()7C advised that he was not aware of any problems betweenI lJandr)( J and did not believe that fas c after[b7)(c) bob for any reason (Exhibit 11, pp. 11-13, 34-35). I(b)(7)(C) JHBPP, confirmed that she failed to re-activate the alarm on the retueling building door pnor to compensatory measure, but it was not intentional. (b)(7)(C) Irecalled thatl(b)(7)(C) 1by both J(b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(C) could not recall if (b)(7)(c) Iwas on shift with her the
'niqn of tnie inciden or if he notified anybody about the incident. I(b)(7)(C) ladvised that 1(b)(7)(c) never communicated to her that he was out to get (b)(7)(C) I(Exhibit 12, pp. 110-21).
(b)(7)(c)
(b)(7)(C) (b-IBPP advised (7)C b)(7)(C) that he was jand worked with him for approximateL )(7)(c) I Was awareotL b 7 C hat (b)(7)(c) received fr m b and W(b)(7)(C) Ihelped work (b)(7)( hrough (b)(7)(C) advised the company uses the action plan as a disciplinary prbcess Tor an ividual who continues to make mistakes, to list those past mistakes, and to warn of termination if mistakes persist. F)7)C jrecalled that he
-7c, was totall surprised whenbc brought him into the office and gave m a file with I(b)(7)(C) nmistakes and had him I(b)(7)(C) read the letter (Exhibit 6) aloud.
mIII '~bc(stated that told him "Idid the work now it's our turn;..." and handed him le (Exhibit 13, p. 8-). 1(b)( 7 )(C) ladvised that (b)(7) C) ad been placed on pro ation for 6 months, and he was supposed to work with J(b)(7)(C)J According to (b)(7)(C) id well on probation, but had.,an inci en involving a malfunctionin opor. I(b)(7)(C) "Pid not t j"k it should have beer c (b)(7)(C) over the incident. bopined that he believed that RETO OF OINE IG *NS, REG NI Case No. 4-2010-00'I 1 0 F LU L -01I
-ONL ESTIATI IN R T..
.-=.~-. ~...~ ........ ,..~.
I ased on his uoted comments "Idid the worý. now it's your turn .'(b)7)(C) advised that their (b)(7)(c) land l(b)(7)(C) relationship was "rocky."
1(b)(7)(C) lsaid he felt as if (b)(7)(C) did not want J(b)(7)(C) -emplo-yedat HBPP and that he was working a process to eventually haye(b)(C However, when questioned regarding (b)(7)(C) _statement that he (b)(7)(C) Jmade to him, "he was trying to get rid of me and (b)(7)(C) r((Feferring to (b)(7)(c) le (b)(7)(C) - did not recall making that statement to "7
l(b)(7)(C) 13pined that b7c a 17 rown impatient with an no longer wanted i ) ed at HBPP. Therefore, J(b)()c) believed that aslb)¶?c I made mistakF ,,In~w fin ,nn thm ',istakes with an action plan, and used a small mistake] (b)(7)(C) advised that he also has been through this process of being placed on probation and having to reapply for his job (Exhibit 13, pp. 8-17, 26-32).
(b)(7)(C) JHBPP, advised that the relationship between and (b)(7)(c) Iwas nonexistent, full of problems and lacked of trust- however, 1)(7)(c) 7opined that he and most of the (b)7 )(C) elt the same way towards ()(7)(c) Wh'nl]b)( 7 icF7Iwas questioned regarding a statement that he made to~b)(7)c) "We-" "It to him three years to c-7 build a case on you. and he finally did it". he advised that nnt rp crntlr all making that statement to 1(b)(7)(C) recalled being told by (b)(F(c) about the incident when b)(7)(c) gave .him(b)(7)(c) Jolder(b)(7)(C ' and, according to (b)(7)(C) was told byl(b)(7)(C) to get him" (Exhibit 14, pp. 14, 28-30).
(b)(7)(C) BPP, advised that according to(b)(7)(C) Imay have been "targeted" or treated unfairly. However,
)advised that all of the incidents where (b)(7)(C) eceived a Ib7)(c lor were
-7c. valid, documented incidents, and further state( at e would have issued a 1(b)(7)(C) Ito pb7)(C) "for the roving incident.(b)7)(c) Jadvised that each employee had a personnel file, but he recaled (b7)(C) telling him that some files had been discarded IbS3(C NFI] of the files (Exhibit 15, pp. 23-31).
V 1(b)(7)(C) HP-aiietht= aablo average he(b)(7)(c) performer while assigned to "o"nthe (b)(f)(C) occasions regardingT n_ Ueqwavrg severai urther advised that performance.I(b)(7)(C) pavisea that he was aware of the incident with (b)(7)(c) on (b)(7)(C) I because e arned about it through the corrective action program under
-7c, dvised that he was not aware of any attempt to cover up the 7 was not aware of an incident whereI(b)(7)(C)I incident by )(C) Further,()M(c) communicated to him.(b)(7)c) Ithat he wanted (b)(7)(C) however, F(b)(c) fpined that -b)(7)(c) through his poor job performance an ai ure to o ow policy [documented by
,xhbet 171.was subsequently*7C by[ )said there was no truth to IJb)( 7 )(C),ssertions thatI(b)(7)(c) I was retaliatinq against him for the past 3 years.
advised thatJ(b)((c) Inot reflect the other "laundry list of things
[NFI] that never made it into his file (Exhibit 16, pp. 9-18, 23-28, 39).
AGENT'S NOTE: On January 22, 2010, (b)() PG&E, contacted
_01:RIV and advised th-at.0othil(b)(7)c) --Fnd (b)(7)(c) 1had been
"-7 C,.- (b)(7)(c)" "
J(b)(7)(C) JThose investigations were provided to OI:RIV as rNO VFO FPU LICD OSUR HOUT A R VAL OFF L OFFIC DIR T O ICE FIN ESTI TION REG NIV Case No. 4-2010-002 4 ICIA USE LY - IN ST A ON I OR TI
0FF.CIAL-U.SEONLY - I INVESJ A INFPRThO background information items and will remain in case file as they are unrelated to this investigation.
(b)(7)(C)
During the re-interview of py OL:RIV on March 9, 2010, he remained cons'sfan wbth his previous testimony that (b)(7)(c) had no conversations with him pertaininq to himl
-7c- "out to get" or 1(b)(7)(C) Ifor retaliation over the I(b)(7)(C)
(Exhibit 18, p. 16).
S(b)(7)(C)vas interviewed and advised that, due to work performance issue withl(b)(C) he Ke is personnel file active for some time after the normal one year period when the employee's personnel file would be emptied. [ rovided summary documentation (Exhibit 17 and 20) pertaining to the previous employme ssues of (b)(7)(C) hat had been previously taken from his personnel file. However. "')av dvised I )eo)
-7C, personnel file did not exist, because whoever his supervisor was at the time)(7)() "c would have probably emptied his personnel file when h landMeTanhe was no longer available. Ireferred to two notebooks tha provided to OI:RIV for review and advised that most of;(7 personnel file wouldTa~aeqbeen turned into three PDF files.
A review of these notebooks by Ol:RIV did not contain any ofl(b)(7)(C)F performance evaluations (Exhibit 19, pp. 10-16).
AGENT'S NOTE: Ol:RIV made an official request f) (b)(7)(c) personnel file and was informed that at present (b)T)C) ile could not be located, but "70.. additional searches woula e p ace. The two notebooks referred to in FUM())C testimony did not contain performance evaluations, but will be maint ined in the case file. No additional personnel information has been received by OL:RIV.
(b)(7)(c) I l ed that he did not destroy any ofl(b)(7)(C) personnel file, nor did he direct (b)(7)(C) to destroy any documents pertaining to (b)(7)(c) personnel file. ) .
advised that he was immediately aware of the SAPN (b)(7)(c) ncident withl(b)(7)(c)
(b)(7)(C) and he initiated a logable report on the incident,. (b)(7)(c) J sald 1(b)(7)(C)
-ic- received coaching and counseling from him. (b)(7)(C) advised that he never falsified any documents pertaining to the incident. (b)(7)(c) 1offered no excuses for the 4 month lag in writing the Eb)(c) *iclaiming that he probably had a huge backlog OT 57\17 S To write (IEXnlDI 19, pp. Il9.-Z 7).
(b)(7)(c) as advised thaF(b)(7)(c) made assertions that he 1(b)(7)(c) placed him on probation with 1(b)(7)(C) 7as retaliation tor reporting of the I(b)( 7)(c) lincident 3 years earlie ,(b)(7)(C) advised that was not the case, and that he keeps track of what his efnpIoyets UU wrog a iT it accumulates to a certain point, he reviews thrmatter with his managers and HR. 9. dvised that he was not aware that F~7)(c) reported the incident toFb()(i(Exhibit 19, pp. 34-36).
iree incidents contained Exhibit 20] and did not rE Case No. 4-2010-002 - 15 OFFICIAL/A ON - On,0YEST4GA'TI ýIF R"T ON¶
0FHL 'LUS OFFICIAIL'Uý E29.Y-1[~TIG19N O1' NVENL,6YT ~ ~ INFORMATIO,*m (b)(7)(C)
S (b)(7)(C) actor ] performance (Exhibit 19, pp. 40-45).
(b)(7)(C)
' remembered that he hadcald()7G it his officean gavehi the file o
[(D)T)C) [containing (b)(7)(C) . bu+/-did not recall making the statement to him, "Idid the work, now it's your turn .... referring to (b)(7)(C) kdvised that
-70 (b)(7)(C) Iclaim was entirely false, and he refers to the code [Code of Federal Regulations]
which determines how he interacts with his employees..J(b7)(C) proclaimed that if you did not abide by the code, then an employee would be punishe6 ar'equivalent job performance evaluation would be written for the employee (Exhibit 19, pp. 58-60).
I(D)(7(c) - as shown (b)(,)(c) I(Exhibits 6 and 7)and advised that he had not seen the d Bocuments.
(b)(7)(C) ladvised that the ECP typically collected documents (b)(7)(c) e iI Furtheri (b)(7)(c) Isai that he wapnot aware (f thb) events that occurred onj
. n wwoep o(b)(7)(C)
-7(_ Jadvised that at no time did he have any discussions withl(b)(7)(c) Iregarding (b)(7)(c) to)desire haven a(b)(7)(C) cr thai(b)(7)(c) had been afogsan7ic e the for at yes and was usinro e tp tree events listed ab vesFo get (C cestlyl (b)(7)(c) advised that with nvestigations of HBPP, and viewing S as part oh the f(b)a7)(c)rhad not been involved in inappropriate actions, reTasponded oriat y o nfirviolations heldid(Exhibit 9, pp. 27-34).
factor, HBPP, advised that he was familiar pteomwithn L())
S Fcissuestrldoen had not conwucter any dUt onvestigations ap into y ste d (b)(7)(C) a issues oC prto to fI tir (b)(7)(C)
E pi (b)(7)(C) that he discussed the forised isevent wath retalIati o pover(b)(7)(p d an expana ion tha ne (b)(7)(c)a not properly a tb)(7)(C) Accordingly, 'b)(7)(C) thenwaccomto nifv o(b)(7)(C b)((the computer
-logs
-7 and they ide~n ifie...that t he had not p*roperly responded and, as a re sult,helI b()C decided te)e(7i)(c) eelated that he was aware that the alarm on the door respon~ded appropriately. (ý)7()confirmed he did consider the malfun ctioning door as a Ihad SAS had been te malf tionin fcapproximately 3 weeks, but all the othel(b)(7)(C) that]))(7)(cansad thitpaat issuemplomenton aware~ (b)(7)(C) infvro raelivedo(b)(7)(c) twa Vo0,)c oi entted rnum oth anythim mary ngial avde n otbe n pr pelfd(b)(7)(c) l s d h tt iadf)(i)is ey were not poor issues y p acs himfonmane.XbutChwpeorac
-~N to W ha s eiom e d t a s h eo t employmentb aa[*)c oherti crnoidte t h at()( 7c
]iapertatb(7)(c) mhatt t d 'rleon(b)(7)(C) tro win eptierj iorpromnessues as reaiain T-a6~efb(c)nresponde a in the neatve (b)(7)(C) t o w it'h bfdorcpstelated
( Cthahews anisd perfrmangeme awaromne that = n ot o ip r noe t(b)(7)(c)soy wasov notheaoro (b)(7)(C) T'tmna etcc
..N*T o P', , DI$ 1* ,URE WTH*f"*'*#PP O F:* I
- ELg .I A, .,-
- \iyb T9R$C0. FFR 0E J!NVE ST GA*J!.NS, REGINwy '."/.-
Case No. 4-2010-0026..
OFFICIA'iŽusE y.O/ .S AGTONINO!RAT N*
, \ .... ... USE,.oNLY" OFFICIAL _ OiINVESTIGATION"INFORMATI0N
\ ......-... - -
evidence did not supportFLb-reaito i assertions thatI (b)(7)(C)Itook Irp 3 years to work a case 7c- against him in retaliation or reportinQ safety concerns. I(b)(7)(C) Ifailed to meet the requirement forl()(7)(C) land bI()c)
)(7)(c) Jwas based on a legitimate business reason and not on any retaliatory animus.
Conclusions Based on the evidence developed during this investigation, the allegation thatl7-c - was the
-
- subject of discrimination for raising safety concerns was not substantiated.
NOT FOR PUBLI(QDISCLOJ RE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFICE,/
DIkEC&OR, OFFIC 0OEJNVESTIGATIONS. EGION IV Case No. 4-2010-002- 17 DFFICC1*AL U§E'ONLNY 01 IN' ON NIFO ATI
.7\
- 436 ~ St - 2~3t~:t<~ --- '..~',-'"t.,~t - ... ilr OFFICIAl.'USE ONIQ- IYNVEST 9NGAT5 INF0RMAtloN,_i THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR F)UB1it DISCIOiSUREX\WITHOU/T APPROVAL OF/FIE'L\6OFFICE /
DIREC1QR,.O`PFICE OF\JNVEYIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2010-002-,., -0 1G-, iON IF r OFFIClA'LUSýE/ON.Y - 01 II*ES1t.GATIOUN INFORMATýN\ ,,
Q FFICIL ULONLY OII STIGAON W!ORM% O LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description 1 Investigation Status Record, dated October 7, 2009 (1 page).
2 Branch Evaluation, Plan & Recommendation, dated October 5, 2009 (8 pages).
3 Transcript of Interview with Jdated April 2,. 2009 (55 pages).
4 Prima Facie Checklist from (b)(7)(C) dated May 29, 2009 (2 pages).
5 Document from ýc ýated 1(b)(7)(C) 1 page).
(b)(7)(c) 6 Pacific Gas & Electri dated (b)(7)(C)ages).
7 (b)(7)(C) nbc igned by (b)(7)(c) datedi (bc) 1Cpage).
8 Transcript of Interview with[7)(c) dated November 12, 2009 (22 pages).
9 Transcript of Interview with (b)(7)(c dated November 12, 2009 (39 pages).
10 Email fromrGc dated[(b)(7)(C) ý1 page).
11 Transcript of Interview with (b)(7)(c) dated November 6, 2009 (38 pages).
12 Transcript of Interview withi (b)(7)(c) dated November, 6, 2009 (23 pages).
13 Transcript of Interview with r b)(7)(c) ýdated November 9, 2009 (41 pages).
14 Transcript of Interview withl(b)(7)(C) dated November 9, 2009 (40 pages).
15 Transcript of Interview withl(b)(7)(c) dated November 10, 2009 (33 pages).
16 Transcript of Interview with (b)(7)(c) dated November 10, 2009 (43 pages).
17 Performance History ofbc) dated (b)(7)(C)4 pages).
18 Transcript of Interview with (b)(7)(c) dated March 9, 2010 (31 pages).
19 Transcript of Interview with7 Jdated November 10, 2009 (70 pages).
20 Performance Action Plan of (b)(7)(c) datedl(b)(7)(C) -12 pages).
21 Transcript of Interview withF Idated November 12, 2009 (24 pages).
NOT"EOR PUBILIC DISCLOSURE Wr"rURT APPROVAL OF LD OFI DIR,,ER1tCTOR, OFFICEPF INVESTIGATION1, REGION L-Case No. 4-2010-002 19
,OFFMIALSEEONLY- N0