ML12188A163

Report of Investigation, OI Case No. 4-2011-013

ML12188A163
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	07/09/2012
From:	Holland C NRC Region 4
To:	Southern California Edison Co
References
FOIA/PA-2012-0202, RIV-2010-A-0044 4-2011-013
Download: ML12188A163 (18)

Text

-7C~- OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

Title:

SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 2:

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A FABRICATOR FOR RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS Licensee: Case No.: 4-2011-013 Southern California Edison Co. Report Date: November 28, 2011 P.O. Box 128 San Clemente, CA 92674-0128 Control Office: OI:RIV Docket No.: 50-361 Status: CLOSED Allegation No.: RIV-2010-A-0044 Reported by: Reviewed and Approved by:

CrystaID. Holland, Director Office of Investigations Office of Investigations Field Office, Region IV Field Office, Region IV WARNING DO NOT DISSEMINATE, PLACE INTHE PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM OR DISCUSS THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OUTSIDE NRC WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF THE APPROVING OFFICIAL OF THIS REPORT. UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE MAY RESULT IN ADVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND/OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - Of INVESTIGATION INFORMATION SYNOPSIS This investigation was initiated on December 3, 2010, by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Investigations, Region IV, to determine if a fabricator at Southern California Edison's San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), San Clemente, California, was the subject of discrimination for raising safety concerns.

Based on the evidence developed during this investigation, the allegation that a fabricator at SONGS 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, REGION IV Case No. 4-2011-013 1 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2011-013 2 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - Of INVESTIGATION INFORMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SYNOPSIS ................................................................................................................................... 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 ............................................................................................................. 12 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 16 LIST OF EXHIBITS .................................................................................................................... 17 NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2011-013 3 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2011-013 4 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY- 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

-7C, TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE Exhibit I(b)(7)(C) San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SO NG S), San Clem ente, California .................................................................... .4 (b)(7)(C) 1SO NGS ......................................................................................... 3 (b)(7)(C) SONGS ........................................................... 8 (b)(7)(C) OSONG S ........................................... 18 (b(7(CFSO NGS ..................................................................................... 17 SONGS .............................................................. 6 (b)(7)(C) SOSGS ................................................................. 7 (b)(7)(C) SONGS .................................................................... 5 NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2011-013 5 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2011-013 6 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY- 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Exhibit Email from (b)(7)(C) subject (b)(7)(c) dated January5, 2010 .............. 9 Email froml (b)(7)(c) subject 12/11/09 (b)(7)(C) dated December 15, 2010 .......... 10 SONGS SAP E-Recruiting, Job Posting 60225462, undated .............................................. 11 Email from (b)(7)(C) to(b)(7,(C) subject NB60224900 - SUP2, dated Decem be r 1, ............................................................................................. 12

- (b)(7)(C)

Interview Consensus Forml undated .......................................................... 13

- (b)(7)(C)

Interview Consensus Form, undated ................................................. 14 Interview Consensus Form, (b)(7)(C) -]dated December 7, 2009 ............................. 15 Email fro (b)(7)(c) to[(b)(7)(c) subject NB60691810 - SUP2, dated March 12, 20 10 .................................................................................................... . . 16 NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2011-013 7 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - OI INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY- 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2011-013 8 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Applicable Requlations 10 CFR 50.5: Deliberate misconduct (2008 Edition) (Allegation 1) 10 CFR 50.7: Employee protection (2008 Edition) (Allegation 1)

Purpose of Investigation This investigation was initiated on December 3, 2010, by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Investigations (01), Region IV (RIV), to determine ifF()7)c

-7& (b)(7)(C) Fabricator, Southern California Edison's San Onofre Nuclear Generating

• Staion (SONGS), San Clemente, California, was the subject of discrimination for raising safety concerns [Allegation No. RIV-201 0-A-0044] (Exhibit 1).

Background

On March 3, 2010 7( reported td (b)(7)(C) RIV, SONGS that he believed he was th s of employment discrimination for raising safety concerns at SONGS. According to (b)(7)(C) since September 2008, he had raised issues regarding work on spent fuel canisters suc as noncompliance with procedures and engineering drawings, clarifications regarding vague guidance and en'inerina drawinas- and identifvina jj,eand tools out o toleranc e t(b)(7)(C) (

(b)(7)(c) SONGS, and (b)(7)(c) SONGS. (b)(7)(C) said he raised the following specific issues: 1) in the Fall of 2008, he questioned the clarity of the guidance and drawings regarding the assembly for welding plugs into the siphon and vent block of the spent fuel canisters; 2) in the spring 2009, he questioned the location of engraving part numbers related to the siphon and vent block of the spent fuel canister (parts traceability) that were contrary to the associated procedure; and 3) in the spring 2009, he provided information regarding work +/-ifrming work outside the welding procedure guidelines, in particular the welding speed. (b)(7 )(C\Isaid that in the spring 2010, he also discussed his concerns regarding the interpretation on w ere the marks for welds should be on a particular spent fuel canister drawing with SONGS Nuclear Oversight [NFI].

b7 alleged that as a result of raising these concerns to management, he was not selected as an upgrade supervisor, he was denied training that was afforded to most individuals in the dry storage container fabrication shop, he received lower quality or lower profile jobs (hot and dirty jobs) in comparison to his coworkers  ; ebruary 8, 21 es denied a Supervisor II position (the position was canceled). (b)(7)(c) _d (b)(7)(C d tha (b)(7)(c) Iso failed to present him with his one year service plaque until -b)(7)(c) he specifically asked for it.

On March 30, 2010, the Allegation Review Board (ARB), RIV, convened to discuss '7)(c) allegation that he had been subjected to employment discrimination for raising safety concerns.

The ARB members requested that a prima facie worksheet be developed for review at a future ARB.

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2011-013 9 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION On July 26, 2010. the ARB reconvened to discuss the prima facie worksheet. The ARB determined that (b)(7)(C) 63resented a prima facie case that he was subjected to an adverse

-7c. .Mlent action as a result of his participation in protected activity. The ARB determined

)(7 )(C) should be offered an opportunity to participate in the NRC's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process in an attempt to resolve his dispute with the licensee.

On December 3, 2010, (b)(7)(C) 1Allegation 7r Coordination/Enforcement Staff, RIV, notified OI:RIVLthat ADR had failed and requested that OI:RIV initiate an investigation to determine if r)(7)(c) ,as subjected to employment discrimination for engaging in a protected activity (Exhibit 2).

Interview of Allee (b)(7)(c) Exhibit 3)

F lwas interviewed by OI:RIV on Ja 11, in Carlsbad, California.* ]stated he began his employment with SOP"S 1 'Jfl] j and had held the position of fabricator 1(.)(7)(C' lat SONGS. I 7 rstated that in the fall of 2008 [NFI], he raised a concern questioning the clarity of guidance and drawings r e assembly for welding plugs into the siphon and vent block of spent fuel canister (b)(7)(C) e concern

"/k, centered around plugs that were welded into the cross-drilled holes. stated he was told that maki ge on that particular concern would be costly to the compahy, so it was not changed.J(b)' )(") stated durinn rview however, '1 don't really believe it's a safety concern in that particular case.'(b)(7)(c) lalso added, "they are still doing dye penetrant (sic) and all the teStNaaft rward to make sure it worked. So, that one wasn't a big issue" (Exhibit 3, pp. 5 and 6). ib()C stated he initiallhm.rufhttht-baupJ as a co hp-use of the questioning C) attitud (1 grade .senri.o(b7)( 1when he (b)(7)(C) wanted to discuss that issue.b 7 )(C) istated made the comment th ()NC had been building the siphon and vent blocks for years, and wanted to know why o,,d suggest changing things (Exhibit 3, p. 6).

AGENT'S NOTE: In the aforementioned paragraph (b)(7)(C) referred toI7)(C)as

-7 c.. an upgra p sor. An upgra e supervisor is a craft employee (same aslI(b(7(C Ithat fills-in during the supervisor's absence.

1(b)(7)(C) 1 I stated he raised a second concern in the Spring of 2009 [NFI], when he questioned the location of the engraved part numbers related to the siphon and-ve-nt block of the spent fuel cqere co e associated urocedure.{b¶f) [stated he raised the concern to(b)(7)(c) to which(b)( 7 )(C) claimed (b)(7)(C) _tated he would pass the information on to p(b)(7)(C) was (b)-n((g),*ao 1b)(7)(aC) a o approached him and asked him what the problem, was. ) ob aidog( approached him with an attitude, saying "we were "7c, making these ; e ore youpp got1 here." (b)(7)(C)

)(b)(7)(C) t (b)(7)(C) said trlsdcntn ed constant verbal eb lbberating rtn m

iit towards him (Exhibit 3, pp. 10-14) (b)(7)(C) stated that when he made sugaestions ton ake chanaes on s drawings, he was always met with resistance fro r(b)(7)(c) [and (b)(7)(C) )statedhe eventually went to higher management, and received support

.fromhismanager,b7)(C) ,SONGS (Exhibit 3, pp. 16-18).

(b)(7)(C) stated, "I'm ma ing safety suggestions to change prints that I believe are relative to saet, If you're not following the blueprint, you're not following the procedures, if you're not doing what you're saying you're going to do with the NRC, then you're violating everything. So, I NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No, 4-2011-013 10 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY- 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION would bring that u and I would get a lot p[o__ ition, and we did it before you were here, all that kind of stuff." (b)(7)(C) added, "Once (b)( 7 )(C)goved we started getting - m 7k. changes and stuff" (Exhibit 3, p. 9).(( 7 stated that once he gotM(b)(7)(c) 1 involved, [ Jbegan making derogatory comments towards him and using fou F language (Exhibit 3, pp. 21 and 22).

(b)(7 )(C) further stated that subsequent to raising the aforementioned concerns, te.NRC FI]

7 conducted interviews with individuals in the fabrication shop in which he worked. (b)( )(C) stated

--7c, the interviews were regarding the nuclear safety culture at SONGS, and whether wor ers were afraid to raise safety concerns. (b)(7)(C) aid he told the NRC at that interview, in front of co-workers, "Ihave raised concerns, and I'm getting flack from the lower level supervisors" (Exhibit 3, pp. 20 and 21).

b stated that after he raised the above-mentioned safety concerns, and after he made the comments to t Aout raising safety concerns, he applied for a Supervisor 11position within SONGS. stated he wen throuah he application process for the position, and was granted an interview. According ti(b)(7 )(c) lafter the interviews were comqleted, he was told that no ne of the candidates that arnie or e lob were qualified [(b)(7)(c) stated he approached (b)(7 )(C) SONGS, and told hthat's not correct. I am qualified, and something else is going on" (Exhibit 3, .n J)2¶)(c) Istated 7C, SONGS management subsequently pulled that job announcement.wn)(7) s that after pulling the job aent, SONGS reposted the vacancy for Supervisor II, and he reapplied for the position. P(b)(7)C) stated he was not granted a when he applied for the position the second time. Regarding the Supervisor II position7* (j2( ladded, "the reason I know I was treated unfairly is because I know I am qualified for tha jo , and I didn't get that job. I work with people all day long in San Onofre that have started their career as a tool room attendant...

From there, they go to a B&C mechanic from there they go to machinist, and they become supervisor. Well, my background is in (b)(7)(C)

[(b)(7)(C) ]prior to coming back out to San Onofre and applying for a job like that. So for them to tell me I'm not qualified, it's just ridiculous" (Exhibit 3, p. 56). 7)C r(b)(7)(C)(b U7also stated that as a result of raising safety concerns, he was denied training.

st that- although he repeatedly applied for training courses, he was continually turned down by (b)(7)(C) stated, "...the welding supervisor training, and the forklift training, and the ngging training, every single person that was in the office, or in the shop where I was 7C, working, including the new hire, not Fabricator I's, they were helpers, were getting to (o thr(u) all these classes, and I didn't go through one of them" (.Ehihit R n 97). Additionally (b)(7)(C) said he was never selected as the upgr_ isor inl(bj) 7 ) absence, althou he a 7

(b)(7)n many occasi (b)( )(C) furt Ce (b)(7)

[SONGS, that he (b)(7)(c) heard ( ay he (b)(7)(C) felt s(b)(7)(C) untrustworthy (Exhibit 3, p. 82

( l also stated he did not rece -a " one year anniversary certificate fromF 7 as he ad sen other employees receive. (b)(7)(c stated, "That is the single worst thing" (Exhibit 3,

-7 p. 78). Iwent on to say, "The reason that is the number one thing that bothers me is, one of the most powerful thinos a company can do is show their employees that they appreciate them" (Exhibit 3, p. 80). (b)()(C) Istated he .bh.s ,rwteintrer employees receive their anniversary certificates during morning meetings, where{(b)(7)(c) *vould present them with their NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2011-013 11 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION certificates in front of.the othe~r wnrkp S,1(b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C)

(b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) 1(b)(7)(C)

(b)(7)(C) b)(7)(C) tated that sinc E(b)(7)(C) ache J'- Ito ask him about it.

Orntý when he asked 7)(C) )(h)h i,A ,rafniversary certificate,

-AC- b)(7)led (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) nd handed it to him.

(Cb)(7)(C)

• i-ate 1C(b)(7)(c) I(b)(7)(c) I Acording to(b)(7)(C) e worst thing about it is that he Pidn't go looking for it. He didn't get out o is c air. He didn't go, "Oh man, what happened with it. Call the office and ask." He just reached down in the drawer (b)(7)(C) JHe knew it was there, he knew it was there from day one" (Exhibit 3, pp. 80-85).

(b)(7)(C) telt strongly that he suffered the above mention verse actions because of the

-7c, safety concerns he raised to(b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(c)

Agent's Analysis Protected Activity F[)Cclaimed he raised concerns tc and (b)(7)(C) regarding the clarity of the guidance and drawings regarding the assembly for welding plugs into e siphon and vent blocks of the spent fuel canisters. Although during an interv e stated he did not Cb)(7)()

"74 feel that w- -fety concern (Exhibit 3, pp. 5 and 6). (b)(7)(C) also claimed he raised a concern to( C regarding the location of the engraved pa numbers related to the siphon and vent b on the spent fuel canisters that were contrary to the associated procedures (Exhibit 3).

Manaqement Knowledge (b)(7)(C) ( S, stated he was employed at SONGSand (b)(7)(C) stated (b)(7) ( worked for him for approximatelyl' '- I (b)(7)(C) .said (b)(7)(C) was, "Outstanding. I mean he was very straightforward, very articulate, he sp (He was definit Ivour1Qq welder IC. without a doubt" (Exhibit 4, p. 6). According to (b(-()

17 srs(b)(i i..7)C) u the timel(u 7 )C worked in iould not recall any specific safety concerns( may have raised.

recalled having conversations with I(b)(7)(C) ou somJa f used for his projects, d he could not recall anyth ing specific. (b)(7)(C) added that some of the changes (b)(7)(C) sug ge-tfl were and and were institu e , u no ing rose to the level of a safety concern in is view. [*_)) I" ed none of the supervisors in his group ever brought any concerns to him raised b (b)(7)(C) (Exhibit 4, pp. 7-12).

(b)(7)(C) Stated he became (b)(7)(C) . ](,,,) pproxi ( (-)vl(b)(7)( . d (b)(7)(C)

(b)(7)(C) (b)( 7 )(C) sat (b)(7)(C) never worke fectbtjor hirm -.h, jtbsated he had weekly contact withhim wnhe visited the fabrication shop. _ . ystated b(7(

)(b)(7)(C) 7

=b)(

)(C) never raised any safety concep t,-,hin_,and said he was never notified by-(b)C) or any other supervisory employee tha ( had ever raised concerns (Exhibit 5, pp. 8-10).

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2011-013 12 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION Rb 7)(c)tated he rom SONGS in land tha ad worked in his roup poodP Pmylo a.a the d (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) (bh I(b)( 7 )(C) tated (b)(7)(C) rectly for (b)(7)(C) urng a time rame. (b)(7)(C) tated (b)(7)(C) 'had no prob ems coming forward wit t ings hat he felt were safety or nee e to be c7anred as far as personnel safety rtunities to improve things and make them safer."

7 1(b)( x)(C)stated he was not aware (b)( 7 )(C) 0ad raised the issues of the clarity of guidance and drawings regarding the assembly or we ing plugs into the siphon and vent block of spent fuel canisters and the location of the engraved part numbers related to the !inho an* vent block of the spent fuel canisters that were contrary to the associated procedure (b)(7)(c) ZI _statedl) 7 )(C) never raised those issues to him, nor did ever bring those issues to his attention (Exhibit 6, pp. 8-13).

(b)(7)(C)

IF(b)(7)(C) tated he ised ( C (b)(7)(C)

(b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) ne rbou h a y owever, he was neve supervisor. s ( never brought any "iC- issues, nr vrfAt concerns to him while he wasl(b)(7)(C) statedl(b)7)(C) did bring up issues such as how to make parts faster, and suggested different tooling designs, but he reiterated )(7'(C) ever raised any safety concerns to him (Exhibit 7, pp.

7-9).

tf

( 7 ) hp w (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) '(b)(7)(C)__ .. .. as one of the individuals (b)(7)(C) at SONGS. (I tae'(b)(7 s a very competent emp oyee, a goo machinist. (b)(7)(C) stated(b)(7)(c) never raised safety concerns to him, but he (b)(7)(C) ade sugges ions or streamlining some of their processes. Regarding the issu (b)(7)(c) raised concerning the clarity of guidance and drawings nodt e assembly for welding p ugs into the siphon and vent block of spent fuel canisters, 176)C irecalled (b)(7)(C) asked him about two Iaes h were put on the sides of the siphon vent block, and suggested a change in the design. (b)( 7 )(C) ýstated that was a .ood suggestion, and had since requested that change throug engineerin I(b)(7)(C) Istated that request was "still on the books" (Exhibit 8, pp. 9 and 10 (b)(7)(C. Ireiterated he tthouqht that was a good suggestion and did no( that to be any Kind of satety concern. (b)(7)(C) stated, however, he was not aware )(C) ad raised a concern regarding the location of the engraved part numbers related to the siphon and vent block of the spent fuel canisters that were contrary to the associated procedure (Exhibit 8, p. 11).

Adverse Act (b)(7)(C) claimed that as a result of raising concerns, he was denied training afforded to other employees ication shop, and not allowed the opportunity to serve as upgrade

_sJP.dr+I'j*' lalso claimed he was denied a Supervisor 11promotion. Additionnllv.

"C., i~)(7)(C) *.*i**d(b)(T)(C) i(b)(7)(,C) i(b)(7)7i (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) orIt(Mt[.) vt

• (b((-b)(7)(c) (b(7(C Acording toýý eeryone in his fabrication s-hop received their certificate in a timely manner, during office wide presentations (Exhibit 3).

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2011-013 13 OFFICIAL USE ONLY -01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION Nexus: Was(b)(7)(C)A Discriminated Aqainst as a Result of Encqaqinq in a Protected Activity?

stated he was currently the (b)(7)(c Regarding The selection of u rade supervisors, (b)(7)(C) advised the process used in the past was pretty loose.,(b)(7)(C) said he knew his employees and each of their work ethic so he made his selection based on who hb hiqht would re (b)(7)1(C)

• (b)(7)(C) nt him well i sence.FM)7 7 ) 'ýý -- ecame

-7 stated, however, that sincel ... the (b)(7)(C) St h have c they arwdwchanged their approach to selecting upgrade supervisors. 7 s a e once they narrow down candidates for the upgrade supervisor position, they must be interviewed bvtsperintendent and the general foreman (Exhibit 8, pp. 16 and 17). Reaardina (b)(7)(C) ted he had asked to serve -- de upervisor, but ho(b)(7)(C) never atoac upgrade supervisor. (b)(7)(c Isaid he observed-some "behavi r n (")(7)(C) eren't conducive" to the way SONGS conducts business. According to (b)(7)(c) did not follnw directions, he took shortcuts, and was not honest ne conducted his job.

(b)(7)(C) ir,,i,-,,

ir .,o examples of his assessment ofJ7(b 7) C) irst, during a rigging peratio saidb)(7)(C) refused t follow irec ions eing given by the rigging supervisor (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(c) tated (b)(7)(c) who was given clear direction, conducted

.h ,-,tinn in an unsafe manner, and did not follow directions (Exhibit 8, pp. 18-22).

(b)(7)(C) prepared an email regarding the details of the incident (Exhibit 9).

Secondly] .[stated that on December 11, 2000* ()(c) as given a job assignment to clean guide sleeves in preparation or-an installation. ( 7 )(C) aid there was an estab isbeiceaning process fý(ýb)(7)(C) o follow. (b)(7)(c) esd he wi-nt nwtr th. nmrocess with (b)( 7)(c)' hn ureb7e rhat he was familiar with the process. (b)(7c stated She observed(b)(7)(C) purposefully no erform the cleaning procedure correcti- (b)(7)(c)

,.irer'La emait, w ich was sent to (b)(7)(C) e o cident (Exhibit 10).

stated those two incide t (b')(7 )C) credibility with him and he considere untrustworthyb jal nose xperiences with (b)(7 )(C) led to him not asking Obe upgrade supervisor (Exhibit 8, pp. 23-26).

oi7j) I (b)(7)(C) stated he w 4nnth (b)(7)(C) at SONGS, for which (b)(7)(c)alied. (b)(7)(C) Istated he onl servedta-s a (b)(7)(C) and other management officia (b)(7)(C) stated he was there as the 7C technical representative because he was familiar with thn r s of the fabrication shop, the location where the new supervisor would be working (b)(7he pmvirf.d n zt-nrp sheet, as did the other members of the panel, subsequent (b)(7)(c)(b)(7)(c) stated he did not recall exactly hoe(b)(7 )(c) did, but added, (b)(7)(c) 8, 26 and 27).

pp.

(b)(7)(C) stated he ma e 'c'on as to his employees would attend different types of training classes (b)(fl(c) Irecalled requesed training classes and stated he could not recal everyone e reauested adding, "He (b)(7)(C) obably requested every possible thing that he ud hve (b)(7)() a t (b)(7)(C) did request to go to

-7c. welding supervisor's school.ib)7m(jstated he told (b)()(C) he could n t go to because other employewdy identified for that class. (b)(7)(c) (b)(7)(c) did not like that answer, b said three other em to ees senior to ere selected to go for that training, s(b)(7)(c) said that at the time, (b)(7)(C) as the junior person in the NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2011-013 14 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION fabrication shop. (7 stated he preferred to see employees h %,,-= s5 t years on before he sent them to the welding supervisor's training. Additionallyl ("b)(c) Isaid it 7C, ,k approximately 2 years to get an employee fully qualified in the fabrication shop.

.... " htatedhis ions to send employees to training were based on business needs.

b)(7C) s ai(b)(7)(C) lack of seniority prevented him from getting some of the training he wante x ibit, 'pp. 28- 2).

Regardin (lb*7c)( , (b)(7)(C) . b)(7)(C) -]initially state-d th t wh n he received *(7 (b)(7)(C) he thought wa (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(C)  !!tj he really did not recal wh h (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) ised of what (b)(7)(C)

-/n rding the (b)(7)(C) b (b)(7)(C) where, according to She asked b)(7)'C) or hIS(b)(7)(C) an (b)(7)(C)_ pulled it-from a desk drawer and gayve it tohim(b)(7)(c) said he cou eall the incident_ statino "ifI did that. tat was inappropriate." (b)(7)(C) said he enjoyedl (b)(7)(C) and reiterated that he could not recall what happened regarding Exhibit 8, pp. 40-44).

(b)(7)(C) dvised the upra suervisor recommendations fMm eah dernrtment crme from the first line supervisors.' (b)(7)(c) said that since he becamC(b)(7 )(C) when upgrade supervisor candidates were leffbr the first line supervisors, the candidates went through an interview process with him (b)(7)(c) *e-d the interview was good for 6 weeks for "7 journeymen, and 6 months for management. stated ployees wishing to act as upgrade supervisors had to keep their interviews currentl ()( 7)(C) I id not-recall conducting an inte .vew)withF)(b)() at anytime for an upgrade supervisor position.J(b)(7)MC)could not recall if

• line()supervisor ever mentioned anything about him wanting to be an upgrade supervisor.

(b)(7)(C) stated he was the (b)(7)(C) inth brication shop which was r intern al candidates, the su ervisory posiion for whic (b)(7)(C) applied (Exhibit 11).1¶b stated alid for the position. According (b)(7)(C) to (b)(7)(C) none of the L__JSONGS Iand foremployee, candidates qualified the position.

I(b)(7)(C)~ explained that Southern California Edison's (SCE) Human Resources (HR) Department reviews he applications that are submitted for all jobs at SONGS. (b)(7)(C) said HR then ranks

'I.. the a licants according to the experience each one has in correlation to the iob requirements.

I(b)(7)(c) said, according to the rankings conducted by HRnb)(7)(C)(b)(7)(c ailed to meet the minimum qualifications to be granted interviews (Exhibit 12). (b)(7)(c) stated that deste the recommendation fromnHRihdeci iew all of theman a (b)(7)(C) stated [lii27c 0 Jdid fairly well, but( )()) and (b)(7)( did not do too well.

stated score sheets w, 4kept during the interviews to record how the interviewees V i (Exhibits 13-15). (b)(7)(C) stated that in the end, no one was hired to fill the Supervisor II position on the initial job announcement (Exhibit 5, pp. 16-23).

AGENT'S NOTE: The score sheets mentioned above were calculated by adding the two total scores together, dividing by two, and matchinc that answer against the Consensus Rating scale.](b)(7)(C) ndl(b)(7)(c) scored low, while (b)(7)(C) scored medium (Exhibits 13-15).

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2011-013 15 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION (b)(7)(C) stated a second job announcement was releastointernal and external candidates Tor the Supervisor IIposition in the fabrication shop, and (b)(7)(C) applied for the position again.

(b)(7)(c) Istated he received another certification isting from with a recommendation that he Thterview the top four candidates. According to[(b)(7)(c) -- ]as number six on the list,

ý hprtf, he was not granted an interview for the second job announcement (Exhibit 16).

n , dvised the Supervisor IIposition was ultimately filled by an external candidate (Exhibit 5, pp. 23-26).

b)(7 )(C)stated he was not aware of any safety concerns raised bP 7ic but stated he (b)(7(C) did recommen to some of the procedures in attempts to make thin s easier.

Accordin* t*(b),,)(c,,,Id! (7 )(0/ Ifelt management tried to im lement some o (b)(7)(C)

-7c, recommenda ions bas aware of an incident where (b.)(7)(C) efused tos-sen-(b)(7)(c) to rainin specifically the weldi isor training cours (b)(7)(c) stated he heard J~(7 )(c) *tate he di notfeel!(b)(7 )(c) was trustworthy because o jo0S (b)7)(C conducted in the past. [b()(c)[satedihe had no direct knowledge of what(b)(7 )(C) was a to, but stated that was the reasoni (b)(7 )(c) Igave for not providing !he training to b)(7,(C, rExhibit 17, pp. 8-29).

NGS, was interviwed eaarding the allegations raised b ]Accqordin (b)(7)(c) dd not kno(, 7 ) and was unaware 7C.re of any conce- d by b)(7)(c) therefore (b)(7)(C could offer no direct testimony regarding ) allegations (Exhibit 18).

In summary, although (b)(7)(c) claimed he suffered adverse actinnsas, a result of raising safety concerns, there was no direct evidence to support his claims. (b)(7)(C) not being offered training and not being offered the upgrade supervisor position as he claimed was based in part, on his lack of seniority in the fabrication sho- along with a lac of trust felt by(7)() ue to past performance issues exhibited bytt)) Additionally,I(b)( 7 )(c) as not selected tor the 7T. Supervisor IIposition based on not meeting the standards setortt hv SE's HR Department, not as a result of actions by his management cin as he alleged .[t)(*7 was ranted an interview for the Supervisor IIposition b (b)(7)(C) even after HR suggested heb 7 )(C) not be interviewed 1(b)(7)(C) for the J(b)(7)(C)

I(b)(7)(C) ihnnhonneltinn 1(b)(7)(C) oob.

of Iin the circumstance itiallv thouah *(b)(7)(c) surrH(b)(7)(C) b)(7)(C-)- id afterDA'u) was areaY  !(b)(7)(C)

After hearing;',,

account of the issue, lb)(7)(C) Jstill claimed to have no recollection of receiving or providing (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) ýo him.

Conclusions 7c, Based on the evidence developed during this investigation, the allegation (b)(7)(c) !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, REGION IV Case No. 4-2011-013 16 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

-;c, OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description 1 Investigation Status Record, dated December 3, 2010 (2 pages).

2 RIV ARB Summary and related documents, dated July 10, 2010 (4 pages).

3 Transcript of Interview with (b)(7)(C) dated January 5, 2011 (91 pages).

4 Transcript of Interview withl (b)(7)(C) dated August 23, 2011 (30 pages).

5 Transcript of Interview with (b)(7)(c) dated August 24, 2011 (53 pages).

65dated Transcript of Interview with September 7, 2011(39 pages).

7 Transcript of Interview withl(b)(7)(C) ] dated August 24, 2011 (29 pages).

8 Transcript of Interview witd (b)(7)(c) ]dated August 24, 2011 (46 pages).

9 Email fro (b)(7)(c) subject[¶b(7Gc dated January 5, 2010 (1 page).

10 Email from (b)(7)(C) subject 1 2 / 1 1 /0 9 (b)(7)(C) dated December 15, 2010 (2 pages).I 11 SONGS SAP E-Recruiting, Job Posting 60225462, undated (2 pages).

12 Email f I 7] subject NB60224900 - SUP2, dated December 1, 2009 (2 pages).

13 Interview Consensus Form,rbI(7)(c) ýI undated (2 pages).

14 Interview Consensus Form (b)(7)(C) undated (2 pages).

15 Interview Consensus FoI-rn'b)(77(c) jdated December 7, 2010 (2 pages).

16 Email from (b)(7)(C) 1O(b)(7)(c) -Zubject NB60691810 - SUP2, dated March 12, 2010 (2 pages).

17 Transcript of Interview with[(b)(7)(c) dated August 24, 2011 (48 pages).

18 Transcript of Interview wit (b)(7)(C) Idated August 24, 2011 (12 pages).

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2011-013 17 OFFICIAL USE ONLY -01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION