ML12130A355
| ML12130A355 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 12/22/2010 |
| From: | Holland C NRC Region 4 |
| To: | Collins E Region 4 Administrator |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2011-0345 4-2010-044 | |
| Download: ML12130A355 (20) | |
Text
- 1
,'~t.A
~.
-~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE, REGION IV 612 EAST LAMAR BLVD, SUITE 400 ARLINGTON. TEXAS 76011-4125 December 22, 2010 MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Elmo E. Collins, Regional Administrator Region IV Crystal D. Holland, Director Office of Investigations Field Office, Region IV HUMBOLDT BAY -DISCRIMINATION AGAINST I(b)(7)(C)
OR REPORTING PROCEDURE VIOLATIONS AND TRAINING DEFICIENCIES (CASE NO. 4-2010-044/RIV-2009-A-0100)
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:
C. Scott. OGC C. Miller, FSME C. Haney. NMSS information in this record was deleted in accordance with do of Inforrato Act, exe tions
\\~fl?
December 22, 2010 MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Elmo E. Collins, Regional Administrator Region IV Crystal D. Holland, Director Office of Investigations Field Office, Region IV Ht11mR' I*T RAY - DISCRIMINATION AGAINST Ar)7 1(b)(f)(c)
IFOR REPORTING PROCEDURE VrOLATIONS AND TRAINING DEFICIENCIES (CASE NO. 4-2010-044/RIV-2009-A-0100)
SUBJECT:
h"/
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 C. Haney, NMSS Distribution:
s/f (4-2010-044) c/f I"b()()
_ OI'.HQ DOCUMENT: S:\\OI\\FY2010CASES\\Closed Cases OFFICE "OI:RIV OI:RIV' NAME
!I (b)(7)(C)
CHolland DATE
)0 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
6F)FCIAL USE ONýLY -61 INVES'GqA-T)ON IN*R*MAT-OI HUMBOLDT BAY DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A I(b)(7)(C)
FOR REPORTING PROCEDURE VIOLATIONS AND TRAINING DEFICIENCIES Case No.: 4-2010-044
Title:
-7(c, Licensee:
Pacific Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177-0001 Docket No.: 50-00133 Allegation No.: RIV-2009-A-0100 Report Date: December 22, 2010 Control Office: OI:RIV Status: CLOSED Reported by:
I(b)(7)(C)
-7c (b)(7)(c) pecial Agent Office of Investigations Field Office, Region IV Reviewed and Approved by:
Crysta D. Holland, Director Office of Investigations Field Office, Region IV YWARNING
/6O NOT DISSEMINATE, PLACE IN TIE, PUBLIC DOC L*ENT R70OM OR
/ DISCUS*,THE CONTENTS 6 F THIS REPqRT OF INVF STIGATIO OUTSIDE
/NRC WITH9UT AUTHORIT/ OF THE APPN9VING 9FFICIAL OF T IS I REPORT. '
iAUTHORIZ ID DISCLOSURE M)AY-RtSULT IN ADVERME ADMINISTRATIVE ACTI AND/OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
/
OFFICIAL USE o(L'Y-,01 INVEITIGATIONINFqRMATION..
.OFF'ICIAL/0S( ONLY -/I IN ST.
)R SYNOPSIS This investigation was initiated on March 31, 2010, by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Investigations, Region IV, to determine if a (b)(7)(c) at Pacific Gas "7C and Electric Company's Humboldt Bay Nuclear Plant (Humboldt), Lureka, Caifornia, was the subject of discrimination for raising safety concerns.
asec onn the evidence developed during this investigation, the allegation that al b)(7)(C)
Iat Humboldt was the subject of discrimination for raising safety concerns was not substantiated.
Case
OFFICIAL USE ONLY -01 IN 2 lTIGATIO/FO MTI THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY BLI
,CLOS~
WTI4QUT APP I0A O F Fl 1 CD (FFI
- OT F.uB,.,
scLoSuREW d.;,*',,*~v.o V)o*o REC OROFFIC OF INVES'¶GAT1ONS, REG" IV Case No. 4-2010-044
/
OFFICIA"LCSE ONLY -01 INVTIGATIO'4 F-ORMATION
- t
ýSE O
-ý-01 FO OFFICIA'LSE ONLY TION TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa_ e S Y N O P S IS...................................................................................................................................
1 TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE...................................................................................................
5 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE................................................................................................
7 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION..............................................................................................
9 Applicable Regulations..............................................................................................
9 Purpose of Investigation..................................................................................................
9 Background.............................................................................................................
9 Interview of Alleger....................................................................................................
10 Agent's Analysis........................................................................................................
11 C o n c lu s io n s..............................................................................................................
.. 1 5 LIST OF EXHIBITS...............................................................................................................
17 NOT FOR Pt\\B\\
"IC DISCL9URE WITHOU
/",
O--tDRECT.OR,3FICE OF IkV.!, IGATIONS,-tE'GION I, Case No. 4-2010-044 L
3
/
OFF/CIAV16*
LYO ON/jF6RMATON _...//
OFFICIAL USE
, ELY -,Of INV4TIGATION A2RU0
ýkJ THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
,7,
/-
/ ',,
)
NNOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIED OFFICE DIRkC.T.OR, OFFICE\\QFINVESTIGATIOkS,-REGION IV'--'/
Case No. 4-2010-044
.4 OFFIC1^AUSEýONLY\\-
IINV l
IGATI INFORMA, 10
S QFA1CIAL E
1NLYTIO TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE Exhibit
[(b)(7)(C)
Eureka, California................. 6 I(b)(7)(C)
Humboldt Bay Nuclear Plant (Humboldt), Eureka, California...............................................
5 1(b)(7)(C)
, Eureka, California........................................ 10
[(b)(7)(C)
Hum boldt............................................ 4 1(b )(7 )(C )
6...........................
1 (b)(7)(C)
Humboldt.................................
14 (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)(C)I Eureka, California 3
(b)(7)(C) um boldt.........................................
7 1
(b)(7)(C)
Hum boldt...................................... 8 (b)(7)(C)
H um boldt...............................................
15 (b)(7)(C)
Hum boldt............................................ 12 D}UCD LO UE W fo NOT FOp(PUBLI 5C L UR
)-HPR VAL OF OF e
DIR C.TO'R, OFFICE..OP NVESTIGATI NS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2010-044 5
OW.FIAL LSEENY -ON VE GATI "FOMATIION
I.-
OFFICIAL "JSE ONLY - OI"INVýSTIGATION INFORM TION THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR.PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL O, FIELD OFFICE" \\
'\\.DIRCTOR-,i'FFICE OF INVES'tIGA'TJONS, REGION IV 5
,,...../
-../
Case No. 4-2010 -044
-,\\ 6\\
OFFICIAL USE ONLY- 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATI6N
OF-F IC1AL*U S E*O NLY/i N
-- 7y
.."1 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
_7 Z.
Exhibit Humboldt Notificationi(b)(7)(c)
I............ I..............*.......................
...9 Em ail from ( (**c) to( 7) dated] (
7 C)
................................................. 11 Email from
°
)(7)(C) dated.........
13 NOT-FOR PUBLIC DISCL.OSURE WITHOLT APPROVAL O.FJELD O FFE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2010-044 7
..OFFICiAL. USE.ONLYz1011INVESTIG\\.TION.IN"FO MATiON\\.
~....-.-.-,.--..-...
~
-..--.~
~
2 CFfý'&AL USý ONY'Y -01 INVtSTIG\\TION.INFORMATINA
/
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBLICDISýCLOSURE OýARR.A 6FfD0M
- _/
DIREC-TOR, OFI=lCE.0F INVESTIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2010-044 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - O.INVESTIGATI0NNFORA-TIO N
O
of 2
OFIk]CIAL US\\ONLY ý. 06$,ESTIGA TI6 NF OReM TIO0 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Applicable Regulations 10 CFR 50.5: Deliberate misconduct (2009 Edition) (Allegation No. 1) 10 CFR 50.7: Employee protection (2009 Edition) (Allegation No. 1)
Purpose of Investigation This investigation was initiated on March 31, 2010, by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Investigations (0I), Reqion IV (RIV). to determine if 1(b)7)(C) or M()
Iat Pacif G
and Eliectric (PGL&E-) Company's mumboit bay uclear Plant (Humboldt), Eureka, California, was the subject of discrimination for raising safety concerns [Allegation No. RIV-2009-A-0100]
(Exhibit 1).
Background
On July 27, 2 0 0 9,1(b)(7)(c) 1 Senior Allegations Coordinator, Allegation Coordination and Enforcement Staff (ACES), NRC:RIV,, received an allegation fromF J
7 who reported that she had been subjected to discrimination for engaging in protected activity at Humboldt.
Accerdino tof)(7Xc)she rarised svera;l training concerns during May 2009 to (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)(C) and I(b)(7)(c)/
(b)(7)(C)
Humbodt, that the esson plans used by the training department for the scaffolding asses were inadequate and had not been approved by a subject matter expert as required by procedures. [(b)(7)(C) Ifurther reported that the scaffolding courses were conducted by
-7c r-
"inadequately qualified instructors" and that the training department did not use the approved lesson plans for nic Coastal Compact Disk course material, such as Confined Space and Scaffolding. (b)(7)(C) tated she also submitted a corrective action document on I(b)(7)(C) rb(7(C' Ito (b)(7)(C)
Humboldt, to document the traininq depamen ts failure to follow procedures and the use of unapproved lesson plans.
(b)(7)(C) advised that inadequate training impacted nuclear safety at the site, to include the radhologicaly controlled areas.
1 sC)tated t at subsequent to reporting her concerns to 1 and I(b)(7 )(C)
I he (b)(7)(C) urther r..
advised that because of her refusal to teach courses with unapproved lessbn plans, she received numerous threats during the period (b)(7)(C) 1(b)(7)(C)
On August 18, 2009, the Allegation Review Board (ARB), RIV, convened to discuss1(8)(7)(C)
-f allegation that she had been subjected to discrimination for reporting nuclear safety concerns related to training program deficiencies and violations.
NOT FOR PUBIC DISCLOS"UE WITHOUT,/APPROVAL OF-ELD)FFI9&//
JDIREC OR, OiFIICVE
.1 GATIO ON Case No. 4-2010-044 9
OFF[CtIL USt ONhý 0 RAIN44
~4AZ~4.
.wr ~
A:.
00,FICI, A"L\\USEP 61 Y-INVES ýGATIOWN IOFORAT.ON'..
F....j ONLY On August 25, 2009,1 rwas contacted by the NRC and offered an opportunity to participate in the NRC s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process in an attempt to resolve her dispute with the licensee.
On March 17, 2010, ACES:RIV notified Ol:RIV that the ADR offer extended to in August 2009 had been rescinded due t her lack of response and requested that OI:RIV initiate an investigation to determine if'(b)(7)(C)
"had been subjected to discrimination for reporting procedure violations and training e ficiencies at Humboldt (Exhibit 2).
Interview of Alleier (Exhibit 3) 1(b)(7)(C) 1was interviewed by OI:RIV on May 5, 2010 in Smyma, Georia. (b)(7)(C)
F staed she betaan her elmploymeft with Humboldt ine (t)(7)(C)
'1a-s anj(b)(7)(c) m o)tl re d
tw a t)e(rC) c g
pat H
bdvised she was a i(b)(7)(c) w whn n her employment wa3lstated that while she was a r(b)(7)(C) 7)C(b)(7)(C) pe
]she raised a concern about the training employees were receiving regarding scatiolding. According tosb77c1 the material presented during scaffolding training was not adequate, not reviewed and not approved by a subject matter expert. Additionally, ct w stated she did not feel adequately trained*
I*"
prior t ngsaem d ocntc 1 b()()
u oudno e u(Exhbigt3,hpp 3-5).
In particular, t(b)(o(C) stated (b)(7)(c) placed her in theaoitgo to have trjcedtx(t ms oum receiviq e proper training herself. r~)(7)(C)
Jsaid it was hezr understanding that subject matter experts in scaffolding
.should have been available durina thetraining sessions if employees taking the training had
.)7coo Ibut that did not happen. Regarding the training environment at Humboldt, Hub)o7)lsaid. it was just a bunch of people not foaIowina pro edures" (Exhibit 3, pp
).4-2 Accor (b)(7)(c)
JHumboldt, reportedly reviewed the material USor the scafolding training provided at Humboldt and said the material was not adequate (Exhibit 3, p. 11 ).
J(b)(7)(C) ]stated she sent an email toJF)7}(c)
Jafter she was asked t [")(7)(C)J J(b),7)(C) 7-Tcoraing tolb7))
Mlne action was viewed as her "'stopping worK", and costing the com - anv "tons of mon-e`(
iit 3, pp. 11 -13). I(b)(F)(C)
]stated she also raised the issue to 1(bT)(c)
I)
According to F(b)(7)(0) lafter raising that issue,,J(b)(7)(C Jand J(b)(7)(C) 1(b)(7)(C) r'b-egan to harass her. (b) )(C ai Ib()C began to ign, by not
-c, returning emails and refusing to answer her telephone calls. b)7()
dded '
ho was a!;;
"'(7(C a poiinsbriaet"es a "u ncag '
n()
()
'a not 9D)'hC (b(7 Cag a ha)()(
berating Pe~rand eing ver'y-'*o stile towards her. ( ()
stated she felt kreatment of her may have been at the direction of~b()C (b);(7)(C) sstated she had very little contact with 1(b)(7)(C)
[__prior tq(b)(7)(c)
I adding she attempted to contactFJ(7x)(c)
Jbut could not get through to him (Exhibit 3, pp. 15-19).
I(b)(7)(c) stated that inJ (b()()
she_
received a text_ message fromI requesting she
-7, come to his office for a meeting. kE(7(c stated she4-(-b)(7c Iduring that meeting, and was told by')((c Ithat Humboldt "decided to change business strategies", and she was
- NOT-FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPlY'OVAL OF'IELD OFFI~eE,"
DIRECTO..R, OFFl6E-OFINVESý4G NGATIOIEOIOClV7L/t_
Case No. 4-2010-044 z, _'-\\
-11,/
/
OFFICIAL, USE ONLY - o14NVýSTIGA'h/OýA INF(ORMATI11Nd1
kL*FCI U S E/ (
IN
\\Y AV `TI N,IN' M\\M']li (b),7T(C)
Juat that point (Exhibit 3, p 1. 20).
-W7(
being provided at Humboldt to its employees (Exhibit 3, pp. 20-25).
Agent's Analysis Protected Activity I b)(7)(c) claimed she raised concerns to xc Zand b)(C that the lesson plans used by Humboldt to provide scaffolding training to Humboldt employees were not reviewed and
'7c approved by subject matter experts as required by Humboldt procedures. Additionally, 1(b)(7)(C) claimed that as aF L)(c J she was not adequately trained in the material she was asked to teach in the scaffolding training classes (Exhibit 3).
Management Knowledge
[bTC stated she spoke withI(b)Z)(c) approximately two times a week while she was employed at Humboldt, both on a professional and personal basis. 1(b)(7)(C) tated (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)(C) sta e (b)(7)(C) id come to her on a professional level and tell er that she (b(7)C) felt she was bein2 asked to (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)(c) stated b)))told her that sne was being asked to I(bX7)(C)
-b
( 7 ( C
° o u d n 'o t r e c a l l,i '
(b)(7)(C) as reternng to scattolding training or training in general. l(b)(7)(c) stated she did not (eel what l(b)(7)(c) old her elevated to the level of a safety concern, and was not a are (b)(7)(C) raised a concern with anyone else. (b)(7)(c) ladded that becauseF c
7 vas a* )(7 (C) 1(b)(7C pnshe did not deal directly with her regarding any problems she may have a
stated that if a'b7)ad a concern, always directed them to their employer (E~xhibit 4, pp. 7-16).
(b)(7)(C)
- Humboldt, advised he knew (b)T)C) while she was employed as a contract employee at Humboldt on both a ersonal and rofessional level. ddingl(b)(7)(c)
[)))(b I Istate (b)(7)(c) id express concerns to him about the traini aspects-o-ther job but her concerns to im were m anly surrounding her qualifications for the job she was occupying. (b)(7)(C) stated C) issues were ener*
but (b)1)(C
- r'(b)(7)(C)
- n b
s u
-did recall h(b)(C) aving issues with the scaffolding training. I statedLZmfi....Issue with sca oldingwas whether or not the trainin rovided went into enoug detail. (b)(7)(c) stated it was a "professional" discussion, and 1(b)(7)(c)
Istated no one in the training department thought the substance of the training was out of line. I(b)(7)(c) tated he was unsure if L677c) had raised safety concerns to her supervisor o in the management chain at Humboldt, but did not feel his discussion with her rose to the level of a safety concern (Exhibit 5, pp. 7-15).
[(b)(7)(C) stated he began working at
-7o Humboldt (0)V0-;
and was L(b)(7)(C
)
or appr°-imatelyq(b)(7)(G) cated he Was aware(b()c) e she wa
()(7)(C)
PUL TAPP O
'NOT, FOR PUBLIC DISC\\LOSURE/W THOUT RVA1Y OF, DIRECTOR, OFFIICE-OF INVETIGATIONS, REGION N-
\\7 Case No. 4-2010-044OICIAlU SE O A0 1
N A,
",,l
\\
/
./ 6 \\_-/
-k/ 'I,
OQFFICIAL USE\\ONL -L '
OlIN/V]ESTIG NI FO M T scaffolding class, but that she never approached him about that issue. According to l(b)(7)(c) contacted training officials [NFl] from PG&E's Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant who reportedly advised her that the scaffolding training class consisted of showing a DVD, and writinq down any questions an employee may have to be answ by qualified personnel.
-7c, j(b)(
7)(C) stated he was aware of no other issues or concerns,)(7)(C) had, and added F(b)(7)(c) did not approach him with any concerns regarding the scaffoling class or any other training issues (Exhibit 6, pp. 9-13).
(b)(7)(C)
Istated he was (b)(7)(C)
Irom(b)(7)(C)
I(b)(7)(c)
Iwhen she began reportin-g to1 ýb!,J)c)_
]F* e
ý*b was uncomfortable wit presentin the scaffolding training. 1(b)(7)(C) recalledb)(7)(C) g she dids Tee sh "rcld (b)(7)(C) she did not feel sh ecause of conflicting duties she had within the (b)(7)(C) a e
(b)(7)(C) ever gave him a well-defined reason why (b(7)(C) caffolding raining xhibit 7, pp. 13-18).
-7c. C 3r7)(c) recalle (b)(7)(C) submitt a con ition report about a training concern she had, but coulno recall the exact issuead.
1)(7)()
tated he did meet with (b)(7)(c) bout herconce and according tol(b)(7)(c ae it was not a "big deal" to her.
L(b)( 7 )(C
- said r j)ci tated, "I didn't think a condition report being written about my concern was a ig eal" (Exht, p. 30).
I)(7 c) aid he attempted to address her concern, but, according to (b)(7)(C)
"continued to basically back pedal and say, no, no, this is being all blown ou o propo ion (Exhibit 7, p. 31).
b)(7)(C (b)(7)(C) tated he worked in the same group as (
for a short time while he was in (b)(7)(C) l(b)(7)C Istated he took various traiing classes at Humboldt, but nv took the sca oldinq training- (0)(7)(G) lsaidll pproached him and stated she C, ýJb)(7)C) jand wanted him to help her write the problem into "Humboldt's corrective action program. ((7)(7)(C)
(e)(c) had was possibly with the environmental training, but he was not sure.
statedhe agreed to helpb)(7)(c) land drafted the document himself (Exhibit 8, pp. 4-14).
AGENT'S NOTE: The document (b)(7)(c) repared for)7)(c Jdid appear in the
-7C, Humboldt corrective action program, and did(b)(7)(c)j I(b)(7)(C)
IExhibit 9).
Adverse Act (b)(7)(C)
I(Exhibit 3).
Nexus: WasJ (b)(7)(c)
Discriminated Against as a Result of Enqaqing in a Protected Activity?
(b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)(C) l(b)(7)(C)
(b 7)
)
II7stated h--e only su pervisedpl,
,in thel.__
roml 7 (b_)(7)(C)
Fbý7 (b)(T)(C) jadv-is-ed e also supervised
,c*7)ý I*1ýn assigne o
eJ(b)(7)(c) jAccoraing TO (b)
)(C) e noticed no problems with the personnel within the (b)(7)(c) stating "e
,co a ongt great" (Exhibit 7, pp. 8 and 9).
1()' )C Jstated tha during the time fne-superie (b ()C he adrgular staff meetings and was very accessible to his staff. (b)(7)(c) tated tat w en e went on vacation, or was gone NOT FOR PUBLIC DISC OSURE WITH9UT AýPROy, OF FIELD OFFIC E
'\\.DIRECf OR, OF CE OF INVESTIGATIQNS, REGIQN"IV Case No. 4-2010-044 1-..O 12-.ATN O
~~OF.FI 14LUSE OI/LY_- *I V/2S"Ti.PATI~'lIIO.IiTIe/
p *.*..............
11,,..*.*.:;.
S c~.'t.rSflv~,n-s~ar',~.--,-
OFFIbJAL U NO QNLO 4 V
_T!9TIN
_lk for a short period of time, he would leave c s a point of contact for the (b)(7)(C) but never specifically stated that (b(7) a ýsupervisory responsibilities. (b)(7)(C) btated he was never approached b or an one else within the(b)(7)(C)
-and told they
-were mistreated in any way y (b)()
7)(c) recalled there were disagreements about who could perform different function here were never any reports of any incidents of mistreatment by anyone.
(b )(7 )(C )
Cp/)
7
( b )(7 6C)
I ktated he received complaints frornc " Ind other individualsr,
"()
Fl]
(b(7()%..
(b o
efr igth u ci[S a
,)(7)(C) stating ((
as not performng the functons a were assigned to h
")
Jalso stated he received complaints from individuals within Humboldt [NFI] that (bot properly(b)(c) stated the complaints he received "were that[(b)(7)(c) would come into class, have everybod there, but then she wouldn't want-(b)(7)(C)
[Exhibit 7, pp. 13 and 14). (b)(7)(c)
- statedl(b)(c)
Iwanted subject matter experts in the room with her, dbut she wassrb)(7)(C) was bein is iit (b)(X) stated thec (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)(C) stated he made a strategic decision that he needed to bring som~eone eise-rn'to thalb1(TAc1
- ýthat had more experienc in the decommissioning aspect of a nuc tear ower plant because than(bl7)(c)
[was behind in its training responsibilitien' pc) ted he cleared the decision throutah senio manhement, then brought (b)(7)(C) office and told her of hil her.
-7 (whiCh hat sin be fo imaatey()(7)(C) he was not rsir tb hm r (b()C Vade t
ec)
(
Io eue
'n todif) her, he couldhave contacted, her employerl aland tell.themoheu as c
ing e jb heJ~b( 7(~J (7)C)sad hatwhleb()C she and(C E~b)(7)(c)
(Exhibit 7, pp. 22-25. I(b)c7)(c) tasaid hL was-"" nevf. advers-ania7 With 1(b)(7)(C)..... I----
anwdrke d taw~anIyone mistreat her. (b)(7)(c) otted hed(b)(7)(c) tatd nothinf to dime, the a
her raising a concern,
ý
ý ad "H r()()
S(Exhibit 7, p. 32).
)dvised her role within thew.b)(7)(c)
- vas that s
al (b)(7)(c) 7 keeping accurate records and scheduling personneilb(c
]stated she was not a (Exhibi tate1 pp w-r aed with a
rom her (b(7)(c) initial employment (whicht stimrate-nsd-Fo be from putoaimately (b)(7)(
until shemb)(7)(c) tas moved to a different locatio n
plant.o Istated she a(
1(b(7)(c) tarted ou as co-workers doing otinhare job then b)(7)(C) was mjtertd ýb)(7)(c) qe isaid that while she and tCt dworked togetner, their redationshi av t
owd e(b)(7)(c) itatef that for a short time, she and l:b)(7)(C)
- N rk d forl~b)(7)(C)
Ian a iwas vc) ery supportive of thelFb)7 77)
(b)(7)(C)
(b(7 ha W (b)(7)(C),
(Exhibit 10, pp. 7-13).ttstated that whenl
ýVent on va-ca,onor was out of town for any reason, he would put an email out to the emplyeof Humboldt that if they had any questions regarding training to contact her (Exhibit 11) tated, however, she was not in charge of training; she was just there to answer questions (b)(7)(c>]added, I1 didn't tr orn that departmet. I know that I don't have the knowledge base fo i hibit 10, p. 14). 1)z)c 1 stated checked in on the ai777)c) uite often, and always addressed everyone in a group. f aid she never saw single anyone out or treat anyone differently.
O9T FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHUT.AF FIDROFI C\\
' -DlREC.~qR,,OFFICE"OF INVE S¶IGATINS, o
Case No. 4-2010-044 13 OFFICIAL USE' ONLY -.O1IINVESTIGATION INFORMATIPN "
"LY ~."
..F OFFI"JAL US'E OILYOIINV T2 NJNORA Nn IN
!IPATION,. NF lop (b)(7)(C) tated that
/(b)(E)(c)
(b)(7)(C) wh f d(b)(7)(C) whe.
I(b)(r)(C)_v moved to a different location at the plant (b)(7)(C) stat"ed
'noved from the l(b)(7)(C) o 1(b)(7)(C)
I which is where theb)(7)(C)
}ere housed (Exhibit 10, pp. 16-18).
(b)7)C) atrishe was not awardWb) 7 h()I ad any issues with any of thdb)7(C (b)(7)(C) hsaid the scaffolding training was an awareness level training, which included showing a DVD, getting attendees to sign an attendance sheet and bein able to capture questions and have them answered b subject matter experts.
)
said (b)(7)(c) evr asked her any q estions about*(b)( 7)(
jerformance or any other aspect vin(b)(7)(c) egarding (b)()(c)PoncerjsW?)(7)(c) tated, "From what I recall, she (b)(7)(C) never said anything to me, Ye a y, about sca'-
ing or having a concern. I do not no anything tn,(b)(7)(C)
- stated she was not iven any instructions fro (b)(7)(C) on how to treat(b)(7)(c) and re-iterated that when (b)(7)(C) became a (b)(7)(C) s e andbc) worked in dit erent locations (Exhibit 10, pp.
-'26).
(b)(7)(C)
I repd she worked in hel~b)(7)(C) an t(b)(7)(C) usaid that she got the position of c(b)(7)(c) n thel (b)(XC) i b
causeve put in ovedcto1.b)(7)(c) 1(b)(7)(C)
_stated tha dngyerie with (b7)(c) sfor aproximatelytre7at0d a (e((b)7)(c) was in transition fro in o fnsthe (.)()
tate that urin her tme asi(bdy)(C) feed 1ba()ck rmpatpronlsaigjb()c)wsnt'raigaut saut (b)(7)(C) so ishe reported to eb(
7)(c' sai at when to (b)(7)(c) not t(
was
()( ould send out an email stathn i there were any qnestions regarditgtrding to contactl I7*
eerb o
a hever put in b
hi
.r' f
7 h)bit 12, pp. 6-10).
Lb)J7)(c) tated that duming w
er thme wsaoing trainingshe never sate that jus treated angy t
(b)(7e).C) differently than anyone else ard ever heard (b)(7c ) "mention any prol ems or concerns she may have had withtraining orl(b)(7(C)
Exhibit 12, pp. 11-17).
referred) sp he became thea(b)(7)(c) si cand saidfe lthin t worked for h m as a rb)(7)(C)
,i
"]stated I*7)cJwa s 1(b)(7)(C) 1(b)(7)(C) a taed he had practically daily contact w
ither(e))
a nd staned ae was not aware sne raMsed safety concerns regarding any aspect of either training or thel(b)(7)(c) 1stated he d Id receive
-7(-
feedback from plant personnel statfingl(b)(T)(C)
Iwas not "treating adul ts as adults". 1(b)(7)(c)
I trainin fhr tale to her about "ntructor-ld"was hrih ftsomords improvtegasharing he klf~)7()tot
- that, acc nompli h
(Ehibi was her immedatendv or he))C added that Hublthdno policyC as hich referred
.speb)(7)al)yito scappened triigad said the aodeingtrioigfl ihn t
heb)7)c a~)7)warnss cl:nass wee DVJ are viewe and I()7U tattendac sheet h
ard no ignveros hwpripation wihrgringth class (Exhibit 13).
NOT FOR.PUBLIC DISCLOSUR~kWITHOU*t\\APPROVIAL O0,,"I *LDOF O¢CE/I1 O.....
IRECTORXQFFICE OFXNINVN~iESTI(AT(ONS, REGION!/-
C a s e N o. 4 -2 0 1 0 -f a milia r
/ ---,
trainingIICA' fritobmoe"nructor-led"
,whichfis mre.Ginothe o als hewas tryinto
,'z
.c2 g;*.:.*i.:*.,o,
- ``**`**
- ."**`**`:`*``**
T_-`_
` *t.
r*...
Atr:tJ~~z
.zz<,-r r..
.,r--.-
OFFkLA"A1S'QN 01SE N
96F"MTdN (b)(7)(C)
Humboldt; andi(b)(7)(c) 1 I(b)(7)(C) were also interviewed regarding the allegations raised byl
[Exhibits 14-16 respectively). None of the aforementioned individuals interviewed could offer any direct testimony regarding )re(c-)
- llegations.
In summary, although (b)(7)(C) laimed she wa,(b(7)(I (b)(7)(C)
I (b)(7)(C)
Itestimonial and.documentary evidence showedl(b)(_7S2ll (b)(7)(c).
tated he was aware- (b)(7)(C) raised
-7c ab)(7)(C) ut claimed ()(7)( )
as hesitant to discuss the issue with him so a resolution could be reacnea (Exhibit 7). Additionally, none of the other supervisors interviewed stated they were awarer(b)(7)(c) ven raised safety concems-regarding training. ()(7)(c) land not retaliatiorffor raising safety concerns.
Conclusions Based on the evidence developed during this investigation, the allegation that was the subject of discrimination for raising safety concerns was not substantiated.
NIoT FOR RUBLIC DISCLOSU6R, WITHOUT Aý,PROVAL *F FIEJý OFf(EA DI'RECTORF.QFFICE Og iN.VESTIGATI
\\=./ \\
Case No. 4-2010-044 15 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - O/1NVESTIGATiO*INFORMATION\\
OFFICIAL USE ON.LY - O INVESTIGATIONJNFORMýýfQN\\
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR'PUBLIC.DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF'FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION IV.
Case No. 4-2010-044
_A6 OFIF.CIALýYSE ONty -.OrNVES'TI6AtION INFOiRMA-TON
o,,v QI qfFtAL U 2eriQNý,Y\\OINC!I)fý N,6M1~1
-7*:
LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No.
Description 1
Investigation Status Record, dated March 31, 2010 (2 pages).
2 RIV ARB Summary and related documents, dated February 8, 2010 (11 pages).
3 Transcript of Interview with7 dated May 5, 2010 (35 pages).
4 Transcript of Interview with 7)(c) dated November 16, 2010 (25 pages).
5 Transcript of Interview withE (b)(Tc)
Idated November 16, 2010 (20 pages).
6 Transcript of Interview with7c J dated November 16, 2010 (23 pages).
7 Transcript of Interview withb=c dated November 22, 2010 (36 pages).
8 Transcript of Interview with (b)(7)(c) dated November 17, 2010 (25 pages).
9 Humboldt Notification (b)(7)(C)
(4 pages).
10 Transcript of Interview withm ated November 16, 2010 (28 pages).
11 Email fro _b
-7)( c 0
- 7) 1ated! b)(7)(c) 1 page).
fl1
~
IP (C
t d
j1 pg) 12 Transcript of Interview with
=
dated November 16, 2010 (19 pages).
13 Email from 0 1 o(b)(7)(c)
JdatedI c(
2 pages).
14 Transcript of Interview with dated November 16, 2010 (18 pages).
15 Transcript of Interview with dated November 16, 2010 (18 pages).
16 Transcript of Interview witd(b)(7)(C)
Idated November 16, 2010 (18 pages).
NOT FbR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF"Fj LD OFkIG"e,"
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGIONIV Case No. 4 -20 10 -04 4
- 9. I-17 Q/-lN.O*--
iO/,
OFFICIAL 1I.._.E '0-NLý,--01HNVk-=IdýT_._N-INF k:*AiIN